What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to clarify how evidence-based policy making (EBPM) is implemented in local-government sports departments and to assess support measures based on municipal population size.

April 16, 2026Open Access

Exploring the Implementation of EBPM in Local Government Sports Policies:

Key Points

This research aims to clarify how evidence-based policy making (EBPM) is implemented in local-government sports departments and to assess support measures based on municipal population size.
Administered a questionnaire survey to 912 organizations in the Japan Sport Network in January 2025.
Categorized responses from 544 municipalities into eight size categories utilizing cross-tabulations.
Conducted chi-square tests for expected distributions and used Fisher-Freeman-Halton test for comparisons between sizes.
Performed exploratory factor analysis to identify perceived benefits of EBPM implementation.
Only 10% of surveyed municipalities reported implementing EBPM.
Smaller municipalities showed higher rates of non-implementation due to insufficient data and personnel.
High-rated perceived benefits included greater accountability and improved public service quality.
Identified barriers were limited data/evidence and staffing issues.
Summary of benefits into two factors: Governance/Process Improvement and Programme Efficiency & Outcome Orientation.

Abstract

This study aims to clarify the implementation of Evidence-Based Policy Making (EBPM)in local-government sports departments and to consider support measures according to municipal population size.A questionnaire survey was administered in January 2025(web + postal) to 912 organizations participating in the JAPAN SPORT NETWORK(JSN), and 544 responses were obtained (response rate = 60%).Respondents were classified into eight municipality-size categories, and cross-tabulations were conducted.Chi-square goodnessof-fit tests were used to examine deviations from expected distributions, and the Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test was applied to compare municipality-size categories.Differences across items were examined using the Friedman test, followed by post hoc Wilcoxon signedrank tests with Bonferroni correction when significant.To identify the factor structure of perceived benefits of implementing EBPM, an exploratory factor analysis (maximum likelihood extraction with promax rotation) was conducted.The results showed that 53 municipalities (10%) reported "implementing EBPM," and non-implementation was more common among smaller municipalities.Frequently cited facilitators included organizationwide promotion frameworks and collaboration with internal data-related units.Among perceived benefits, "greater accountability to residents" and "improved public service quality" received high ratings.Factor analysis summarized the nine benefit items into two factors: "Governance/Process Improvement" and "Programme Efficiency &Outcome Orientation."The main barriers to non-implementation were "insufficient data/evidence" and "shortage of specialized personnel," and smaller municipalities tended to rely on experiential or casebased approaches when promoting projects.These findings indicate that EBPM in the sportpolicy domain remains in a developing stage, highlighting the need for organizational support and capacity building tailored to municipal population size.This study proposes municipality-size-appropriate strategies for embedding EBPM and provides insights for building sustainable community sport policies.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper