“Tweet Support Our Local Team” – Crowd sourced football team fan base locations

The location of the football team that you support is often a cause for debate, with chants like “we support our local team” being heard on the terrace week in week out. And now with the influx of football fans taking to twitter to support their teams this provides another way of measuring this metric.

As a group the idea of using twitter to crowd source the location of events is not a new one. Previously we have used it to record flood events across the north east allowing for a real time map to be produced. An idea which will be used heavily in the forthcoming iTURF project (integrating Twitter with Realtime Flood modelling).

So for me to develop a football script it was simply a matter of applying our previously developed scripts to record the locations of tweets related to football teams. For this I used the official hashtag for each team and then simply recorded the club, location and time, the actual body of the tweet is not stored.

Once this script was in place and I had the data feeding into a database I was able to develop a webpage displaying the tweets in real-time.

which is available here

 

As well as this by using the google maps api I was also able to produce heat maps for each club. Showing the hotspots for the support of each team, predictably some show more spread than others.

Analysing a section of tweets also revealed some interesting statistics the club with the lowest average distance from tweet (uk based only) to their home ground was Fulham and Newcastle who pride themselves in their local support were the second furthest away.

club Average distance in km
Fulham FC

81.64537729

West Ham United FC

82.46339901

West Brom Fc

82.78354779

Wigan Athletic

109.7845034

Tottenham Hotspur

112.3828775

Southampton FC

121.436554

Stoke City

123.7468635

Manchester City

128.4830384

Chelsea

134.4779064

Reading Football Club

141.2626039

Arsenal FC

147.5236349

Aston Villa Football Club

148.2891941

QPR

157.5900255

Swansea

162.7745008

Norwich City

164.774284

Sunderland

172.5479224

Everton

176.5113378

Manchester United

184.157026

Newcastle United

203.0311727

Liverpool

209.1425266

 

However analysing the proportion of tweets by county about team in their county, it revealed that almost 85% of the recorded football tweets in the Tyne and Wear region were about either Sunderland or Newcastle. Whilst Norfolk, which is said to be a one team county, had only 47% of the recorded tweet mentioning Norwich City.

County Teams Proportion about teams
Tyne and Wear Sunderland & Newcastle

84.54%

Haringey Tottenham Hotspur

74.83%

Manchester Machester United & Manchester City

64.44%

Merseyside Liverpool & Everton

63.86%

Hammersmith and Fulham QPR & Chelsea

62.79%

Southampton Southampton

61.80%

Stoke-on-Trent Stoke

48.25%

Norfolk Norwich

46.99%

West Midlands West Brom & Aston Villa

36.12%

Islington Arsenal

30.00%

Newham West Ham

18.52%

Berkshire Reading

18.35%

Swansea** Swansea

11.11%

Richmond upon Thames Fulham

8.51%

 

**Note the low proportion for Swansea is suspected to be due to the clash with Stoke City. Whilst Stoke City hashtag is #scfc and Swansea City’s is #swansfc are large number of #scfc are still recorded in south wales.

The hope is for this work whilst relatively simple and rather unscientific it demonstrates what can be achieved by using twitter as a source of information. It also provides a good way of load testing our code and backend database that we will use in the iTURF project

 

Adaptation Training School – Bilbao

From the 18-22 February 2013 the Adaptation Training School (COST Action TU-0902) was held in Bilbao, Spain. The main objective of the training school was to generate basic knowledge for adaptation management in beginner cities. It also aimed to provide an opportunity to identify key policy needs to overcome difficulties for adaptation implementation at local level, helping scientific agents to scope and align their research with those needs.

Each day was split into to three main sections; firstly a group of presentations in the morning, with secondly a practical exercise in the afternoon (outlined before).

On the Monday sessions were led by Efrén Feliu, and some of his colleagues from Tecnalia in which an overview of the week’s timetable, as well as to an introduction to vulnerability assessment. Tuesday consisted of presentation & a practical exercise from Astrid Westerlind Wigström on the Adaptation Management cycle. In addition Birgit Georgi discussed policies, initiatives, tools and upcoming EU Adaptation Strategy. Wednesday Juergen Kropp introduced uncertainty management and Alistair Ford discussing integrated assessment of urban sustainability, including a practical exercise.  Thursday Johannes Flacke outlined co-benefits and trade- and Peter Bosch provided information and a practical on integrating adaptation in land use and urban planning. Friday’s presentations were: green Infrastructures and ecosystem services role in adaptation measures (Kari Oinonen); regeneration of Bilbao; Urban metabolism and industrial ecology (Rolf Bohne); and Economics of adaptation (Graham Floater).

Finally a discussion focusing on both; the key take home messages from the day’s work, and how the scientific community can aid local authorities in initiating such programs. These discussions had familiar themes, such as: practitioners being unaware of the tools that exist; language differences; a lack of expertise to produce maps, etc., required for decision making purposes; a “gap” between scientists and local authorities.

Various ideas to counter these issues were also discussed, with the idea of knowledge mapping of tools and research seen as an important step to allow for beginner cities to start on the road of climate change adaptation, as well as the age old need for science to be presented in a useful form for those who are to apply it. A further suggestion was to address a funding gap which may exist been when a research project is completed and the dissemination of methods to local authorities. It was proposed that funding applications in the future could be adapted to include the resources to allow academics to spend time with practitioners at the end of a project to increase the likelihood of ideas to be implemented.

The training school, in my opinion, was an initial success as it brought representatives of sixteen European cities together (with four early career researchers) to discuss how cities could begin to adapt to climate change. Although, if it is to be seen as a long term success these cities must assimilate what they have learnt and implement it within planning and policy to allow for adaptation to take place.

Shaun Brown