An Olympic Games that is successfully staged and financially managed leaves a positive legacy for the host city in terms of new and upgraded sporting facilities and venues; new and improved infrastructure; enhanced international recognition;
enhanced international reputation; increased tourism; new trade, investment and marketing opportunities; and increased participation in sport.
(Chalip, 2002: 3)
In acknowledgement of the potential legacies for cities that host the Olympic Games and within the broader principles of the Olympic Movement in the modern day, the above quote serves to re-emphasise the importance of achieving positive legacies, underpinned by the planning, development and execution of every aspect of the event (Chalip, 2002).
Within the context of tourism and events research, early work by Bramwell (1997) suggests that the lack of planning during and after mega-events with the view to maximising host community benefits. Cashman (1998; 2002) shares Bramwell’s sentiments when he argues that too little attention has been paid to planning for post mega-event legacies. He reasons that destinations that host mega-events are rather focused on winning the mega-event bid and on planning for the staging of the event, whereas the post-event period tends to be neglected.
In their study, from ‘event-led’ to ‘event-themed’, Smith and Fox (2007) argue that the lack of strategic planning in regard to mega-events has resulted in missed opportunities for event regeneration strategies. Where such planning has been attempted, Smith and Fox (2007: 1130) suggest that “when a more strategic approach has been undertaken by host cities, it has tended to be characterised by top-down planning and there have been few instances where communities have actively participated in planning large event projects”. Owing to the increased scrutiny of mega-event bids to see whether they include key aspects of securing legacies for the destinations that host mega-events, as is required by such event owners as FIFA and the IOC (Jago et al., 2010), and in the light of the increased sense of loss that is experienced by community members as a result of hosting a mega-event (Gursoy et al., 2011), legacy planning has recently become a buzzword in the hosting of mega-events (Bohlmann and van Heerden, 2005; Kirkup and Major, 2006; Girginov, 2012). Despite the emphasis that has been placed on the future hosts of mega-events including legacy plans in their bids, Jago et al. (2010) argue that the challenge of time and budget constraints has meant that such a requirement might not be properly crafted and executed. This is emphasised by Smith and Fox (2007: 1130) who state that “the frailties of event planning are perhaps explained, although
not excused, by the apparent incompatibility of short-lived events with long-term planning.
The deadlines and timetables associated with staging events often result in established planning procedures being compromised”.
In terms of good practice, it has been widely acknowledged that the planning for mega-events should be done during all phases of the event (that is, prior to, during and post-event) if the sustainable legacies are to be maximised (Bramwell, 1997; Bramwell, 2011; Cashman, 1998;
Girginov, 2011; Gratton and Preuss, 2008; Smith, 2013; Smith and Fox, 2007). According to Matheson (2010), the planning for mega-events should involve all stakeholder groups concerned, including local residents. Matheson (2010: 11) posits that at the city level, legacy plans may focus “upon prosperity, physical activity, community inclusion, accessibility of the city, environmental improvements and image building. Pre-event evaluations can be employed in legacy planning to outline the state of play and identify potential implementation challenges”. Andranovich et al. (2001) recommend that such plans should reflect the long- term development agenda for the national government concerned. This was successfully done for the 1992 Olympic Games that were organised in Barcelona. Bohlmann and van Heerden (2008: 384 citing Bunet, 2005) state:
Barcelona’s use of resources and planning was exceptional and their minimising of organisational costs and careful planning with regard to the required investment and funding thereof had led to tremendous gains for the city after the event. As a result of its triumph on all levels, the Barcelona Games have become a model from a sporting, organisational, economic, social and urban planning perspective.
However, as Andranovich et al. (2001: 121) observe, organising a mega-event is more than a complex logistical task, as it requires concrete decisions regarding “the physical development and use of the urban landscape, which opens the development process to contestation”.
Cashman (2002) categorised Olympic legacies as comprising of the following: economics; the built and physical environment; information and education; public life, politics and culture;
sport; and symbols, memory and history. If such legacies are to be obtained, a more systematic approach to planning is required (Ma et al., 2011), rather than relying on optimistic forecasts of benefits and the underestimating of costs, as is emphasised by Whitson and Horne (2006).
Figure 3.6 was developed by Preuss (2007) and modified by Gratton and Preuss (2008) to explain the process of building up planned legacies for mega-event host destinations. The figure depicts that the strategy of building up event legacy starts with the decision to bid for a
specific mega-event (1). Each event differs in the structures required, with each city or country differing in the structures that are available. For example, if a strong tourism legacy is identified as being the reason for hosting an event, then the city or country concerned should pick an event with high media coverage in its tourism target group. Preuss (2007) and Gratton and Preuss (2008) further explain that strategic consideration requires focusing on the additional structures that a mega-event requires and on how the structures concerned can satisfy the city’s long-term needs. During the candidature process (2), some required structure (that is, ‘obligate measures’), as well as some ‘optional measures’, are developed. By means of the latter measures, the bidding committee tries strategically to establish the best possible position for itself in the bid competition. Therefore, some of the measures involved might indicate the presence of a valuable legacy for the sport federation, although it might not be sustainable for the city or the country involved. During the preparation stages for the event (3), the obligate infrastructure has to be completed. However, to build up a strong legacy,
‘optional measures’ should be embedded within the infrastructure so as to improve the location factors that are required for the city concerned in the long-term. In terms of tourism, such measures might focus on the building up of the tourism infrastructure on the fabrication of cultural goods and on extending the tourism service industry. During the event (4), the whole event structure is present. Additionally, the momentum of the mega-event creates emotions and affects the image of the host country/city. Post-event (5), some of the event structure vanishes, while most of the structures will exist, for a relatively long or short time (Preuss, 2007).
Idea and feasibility
Candidature-process Construction and
organisation of the event Event Event legacy
Figure 3.6: Process of building up planned event legacy Source: Gratton and Preuss (2008)
In the above figure, Preuss (2007) and Preuss and Gratton (2008) assume that there are six types of event structures that are usually preserved after a mega-event. Four of these – infrastructure, know-how, networks, and culture – are developed, almost as a matter of course though the preparation of the event, the emotions and the image, are dependent on the momentum that the event develops. According to Preuss (2006), the pre-event brings with it investments in a number of programmes and, in the event itself, local demand is boosted.
While all of this boosts the local economy in the short-term, the key to any long-term effects lies in whether and in how they leave a permanent legacy in terms of the infrastructure or in terms of industry competencies (Preuss, 2006). However, to ensure success, Gratton and Preuss (2008) emphasise the need for international sport federations, the media and political elites to cooperate, in order to stage an event successfully, with their interaction creating networks. In general, the hosting of mega-events tends to improve political networks such as the close partnerships that can be formed between the central government and the other stakeholders. Matheson (2010: 12) recommends that the “identification of stakeholders responsible for legacy planning, the funding of legacy, the constitution of legacy within the host community and ensuring legacy plans are timely and incorporate plans following the event” be done from the onset. This view is echoed by Jago et al. (2010: 232) when they state that, “[i]f legacies are to be realised, there needs to be a separate group to the event organising body responsible for legacies and this group must have a separate budget that cannot be transferred back into the event operations budget when funds become tight”.
Decision to bid for an
event
Compulsory measures Structure……
1. Infrastructure 2. Knowledge 3. Image 4. Emotions 5. Networks 6. Culture
Site for……..
1. Living 2. Tourists 3. Trade fairs 4. Industry 5. Congresses 6. Events Optional measures
Event Post-event Pre-event
According to Matheson (2010), when legacy planning is untimely and when no evaluations are performed at key stages of the mega-event (that is, from pre-event to post-event), problems are likely to occur. Bob and Swart (2010) rearticulate that the legacy concerns that have given rise to the debates in the academic literature surrounding mega-events are the massive financial investments that are required by the host countries, especially those in the developing world. Furthermore, van der Merwe (2007:68) states:
Mega-events which are hosted in the developing countries can be termed a ‘mixed blessing’ since, although they may bring promise of numerous economic benefits and the hope of uplifting the host nation in a number of ways, these events also tend to be the ‘source of much controversy’, and if not carefully planned, can lead to enormous financial losses.
Ritchie and Adair (2002) emphasise the importance of legacy planning for host destinations.
They state that, without careful strategic planning that keeps the destination and community development in mind, it might be difficult to justify the large investments that are required to host the event. Bohlmann and van Heerden (2005: 393) advocate the need for comprehensive legacy planning, which could ensure that “hosting a mega-event would contribute to the development of the community, and thereby benefit residents for a long period of time”.