2010 Thomson, Leopkey, Schlenker and Schulenkorf Event Legacies - SMAANZ Presentation


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Note that preliminary findings were presented in 2009 at SMAANZ, decision was then made to bring in another context and compare, then Canadian context was chosen... Something like that...
  • FYI – World Police and Fire Games 1995 and one of Becca’s soccer tournaments did not
  • FYI – World Police and Fire Games 1995 and one of Becca’s soccer tournaments did not
  • Critical outline of stakeholder and legacy management process and evaluation – needs to include what worked well and what did not, providing an opportunity to learn for future events
  • 2010 Thomson, Leopkey, Schlenker and Schulenkorf Event Legacies - SMAANZ Presentation

    1. 1. Empirical Investigation of Sport Event Legacy in Australian and Canadian Contexts<br />Alana Thomson, PhD Candidate, University of Technology, Sydney*<br />Becca Leopkey, PhD Candidate, University of Ottawa<br />Dr. Katie Schlenker, University of Technology, Sydney<br />Dr. Nico Schulenkorf, Auckland University of Technology <br />Sport Management Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ) Conference, Wellington, New Zealand<br />25th – 26th November, 2010<br /> Correspondence: Alana.Thomson@student.uts.edu.au<br />
    2. 2. Research Background & Aim<br /><ul><li>Legacy as a justification for government involvement in special events
    3. 3. Increasing need to plan for long-term outcomes for a host city from staging an event (Hiller, 2003; Preuss, 2007)
    4. 4. maximise positive outcomes and limit negatives (Chalip; 2004; Preuss, 2007; Gratton & Preuss, 2008)
    5. 5. A need to clarify understanding of legacy in the sport event context (Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2009)
    6. 6. Aim: To empirically test five key considerations of legacy identified by Thomson et al. (2009)</li></li></ul><li>Framework for Analysis:5 key considerations for Legacy<br />(Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2009)<br />
    7. 7. Method<br />Sample<br /><ul><li>Document Analysis for 13 sport events held in Australia (7) & Canada (6) between 1988 and 2007
    8. 8. Sport events justified by specific selection criteria</li></ul>Data Collection<br /><ul><li>Post-event reporting documents</li></ul>Analysis<br /><ul><li>Qualitative and Interpretive
    9. 9. Coding Frame - 5 key considerations (Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2009)
    10. 10. Qualitative analysis software Nvivo 8 & Atlas TI (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
    11. 11. Coder Checking (Miles & Huberman, 1994)</li></li></ul><li>Method:Selection Criteria<br /><ul><li>Staged after the mid 1980’s (term legacy began to be used by event organisers);
    12. 12. Formal bid process required
    13. 13. Evidence of government involvement (Bid and/or Event staging process);
    14. 14. The event had to demonstrate the notion of an ‘Urban Project’ through:
    15. 15. Economic impact for the State economy; and/or
    16. 16. Opportunities for refocusing the city (capital investments, duration of 5 days); and/or
    17. 17. Place marketing (media coverage, 1000 participants).
    18. 18. Access to post-event documentation at the time of analysis</li></li></ul><li>Method:Sample of Sport Events<br />
    19. 19. Findings:1. Terminology<br /><ul><li>Most reports referred to ‘legacy’
    20. 20. Over time, documents increased reference to legacy
    21. 21. However, terminology varies, making comparisons difficult:
    22. 22. legacy outcomes;
    23. 23. legacy assets;
    24. 24. legacy contributions;
    25. 25. legacy obligations; and
    26. 26. legacy aspects.</li></li></ul><li>Findings: 2. Planned or bestowed<br /><ul><li>Both ideas of planned and bestowed were evident
    27. 27. Australia
    28. 28. Ideas of bestowal
    29. 29. Legislation in place to avoid negative legacies
    30. 30. Canada
    31. 31. Planning for legacy more evident
    32. 32. Specific organisations to coordinate legacy from sport events
    33. 33. Ideas of maximising legacy
    34. 34. Major contextual difference
    35. 35. Montreal Olympics negative legacy
    36. 36. Canadian Sport Event Hosting Policy</li></li></ul><li>Findings:3. Temporal nature of legacy<br /><ul><li>Legacies exist in time
    37. 37. Long-term, permanent, enduring, transferable
    38. 38. Reference to legacies evolving from the time of the event to reflect community needs and interests
    39. 39. “reconfigured to ensure its long-term usage”</li></ul> (Sydney Olympics 2000)<br /><ul><li>Looking back and looking forward
    40. 40. “Venues previously built for the 1978 Commonwealth Games, 1983 University Games, 2001 , World Athletic Championships and 2001 World Triathlon Championships were utilized” </li></ul>(Edmonton World Masters Games 2005)<br />
    41. 41. Findings:4. Legacy as positive and negative<br /><ul><li>Legacy largely positive
    42. 42. celebratory reporting and limited critical reflection
    43. 43. Canada connection between success and legacy
    44. 44. Legacy only negative when previous events are discussed for legacy comparison
    45. 45. “Several previous Olympic Games have left host cities and underwriters with an unwelcome legacy in the form of large public debt. NSW Government legislators sought to avoid this outcome” </li></ul>(Sydney Olympics 2000)<br />
    46. 46. Findings: 5. Legacy as local and global <br /><ul><li>Legacies are available to everyone, everywhere
    47. 47. “a fantastic legacy for Melbourne and all Victorians”</li></ul>(Melbourne FINA World Swimming Championships 2007)<br /><ul><li>“a targeted set of benefits to Edmontonians, Albertans, Canadians, and international visitors” </li></ul> (Edmonton World Masters Games 2005)<br /><ul><li>Post-event reports are celebratory and vague with limited demonstration of strategies for legacy planning</li></li></ul><li>Context<br /><ul><li>Australia
    48. 48. 1956 Melbourne Olympics
    49. 49. 1980s – potential of events realised
    50. 50. Policy landscape adhoc and driven by States
    51. 51. Federal Strategy 2000 - Draft
    52. 52. State legislation
    53. 53. focuses on event delivery
    54. 54. no requirements to consult or coordinate delivery of event obligations
    55. 55. Canada
    56. 56. 1930 British Empire Games
    57. 57. 1976 Montreal Olympics (debts paid 2006, lessons learned)
    58. 58. Federal Policy:
    59. 59. sets blueprint for benefits from hosting events
    60. 60. government funding to be spent on legacy
    61. 61. enforces cooperation with event hosts and other levels of government</li></li></ul><li>Conclusions & Implications<br /><ul><li>Findings illustrate a lack of transparency and accountability for legacy conceptualisation and practical management applications
    62. 62. Policy landscape has had some influence on sport event legacy
    63. 63. Over 2 decades of event reporting shows a limited increase in sophistication of legacy planning, implementation and evaluation
    64. 64. Celebratory claims
    65. 65. Limited accountability to stakeholders
    66. 66. Limited ability to compare events</li></li></ul><li>Conclusions & Implications<br /><ul><li>Management Implications – what is needed?
    67. 67. Clarification of terminology - clear conceptualisations of legacy, starting at the event bid stage
    68. 68. Clear identification of stakeholders
    69. 69. Critical outline of stakeholder and legacy management process and evaluation
    70. 70. Future Research
    71. 71. More international sport event contexts
    72. 72. Influences of varying policy contexts
    73. 73. Towards best practice in legacy planning and reporting</li></li></ul><li>References<br /><ul><li>Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond Impact: A General Model for Sport Event Leverage. In B. Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues (pp. 226-252). on-line e-book: Channelview Publications.
    74. 74. Gratton, C., & Preuss, H. (2008). Maximizing Olympic Impacts by Building up Legacies. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), 1922-1938.
    75. 75. Hiller, H. (2003). Toward a Science of Olympic Outcomes: The Urban Legacy. Paper presented at the Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984-2000, International Symposium.
    76. 76. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. California: Sage Publications.
    77. 77. Preuss, H. (2007). The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Mega Sport Tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), 207-227.
    78. 78. Thomson, A., Schlenker, K., & Schulenkorf, N. (2009, 6-8 July). The Legacy-Factor: Towards conceptual clarification in the sport event context. Paper presented at the International Event Management Research Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia , pp.360-374</li></li></ul><li>Policy Documents<br />Australia - Commonwealth Department of Industry Science and Resources. (2000). Towards a National Sports Tourism Strategy (Draft): Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/feddep/SportTourismStrategy.pdf<br />Canada - Canadian Heritage. (2008). Sport Canada policy for hosting international sport events. Available from: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/sc/pol/acc/2008/doc-eng.cfm.<br />
    79. 79. Related Publications<br />Thomson, A., Leopkey, B., Schlenker, K., & Schulenkorf, N. (2010). Sport Event Legacies: Implications for Meaningful Legacy Outcomes. Paper presented at the Global Events Congress IV, UK Centre for Events Management, Leeds University, UK, 14-16 July 2010, presentation available: http://www.slideshare.net/alanathomson/2010-thomson-leopkey-schlenker-and-schulenkorf-event-legacies<br />Thomson, A., Schlenker, K., & Schulenkorf, N. (2009). Event legacies: An Empirical Testing of the Legacy Concept. Paper presented at the 15th Annual SMAANZ Conference, Facilitating Sustainable Sport Management Practices, 26-29 November 2009, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia, p.102, presentation available: http://www.slideshare.net/alanathomson/thomson-schlenker-schulenkorf-smaanz-2009-event-legacies<br />Thomson, A., Schlenker, K., & Schulenkorf, N. (2009, 6-8 July). The Legacy-Factor: Towards conceptual clarification in the sport event context. Paper presented at the International Event Management Research Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia , pp.360-374, presentation available: http://www.slideshare.net/alanathomson/2009-07-07-the-legacy-factor-emrc-final-share-copy<br />