Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
2010 Thomson, Leopkey, Schlenker and Schulenkorf Event Legacies - SMAANZ Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

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

735
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
735
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
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
  • Transcript

    • 1. Empirical Investigation of Sport Event Legacy in Australian and Canadian Contexts
      Alana Thomson, PhD Candidate, University of Technology, Sydney*
      Becca Leopkey, PhD Candidate, University of Ottawa
      Dr. Katie Schlenker, University of Technology, Sydney
      Dr. Nico Schulenkorf, Auckland University of Technology
      Sport Management Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ) Conference, Wellington, New Zealand
      25th – 26th November, 2010
      Correspondence: Alana.Thomson@student.uts.edu.au
    • 2. Research Background & Aim
      • Legacy as a justification for government involvement in special events
      • 3. Increasing need to plan for long-term outcomes for a host city from staging an event (Hiller, 2003; Preuss, 2007)
      • 4. maximise positive outcomes and limit negatives (Chalip; 2004; Preuss, 2007; Gratton & Preuss, 2008)
      • 5. A need to clarify understanding of legacy in the sport event context (Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2009)
      • 6. Aim: To empirically test five key considerations of legacy identified by Thomson et al. (2009)
    • Framework for Analysis:5 key considerations for Legacy
      (Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2009)
    • 7. Method
      Sample
      • Document Analysis for 13 sport events held in Australia (7) & Canada (6) between 1988 and 2007
      • 8. Sport events justified by specific selection criteria
      Data Collection
      • Post-event reporting documents
      Analysis
      • Qualitative and Interpretive
      • 9. Coding Frame - 5 key considerations (Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2009)
      • 10. Qualitative analysis software Nvivo 8 & Atlas TI (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
      • 11. Coder Checking (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
    • Method:Selection Criteria
      • Staged after the mid 1980’s (term legacy began to be used by event organisers);
      • 12. Formal bid process required
      • 13. Evidence of government involvement (Bid and/or Event staging process);
      • 14. The event had to demonstrate the notion of an ‘Urban Project’ through:
      • 15. Economic impact for the State economy; and/or
      • 16. Opportunities for refocusing the city (capital investments, duration of 5 days); and/or
      • 17. Place marketing (media coverage, 1000 participants).
      • 18. Access to post-event documentation at the time of analysis
    • Method:Sample of Sport Events
    • 19. Findings:1. Terminology
      • Most reports referred to ‘legacy’
      • 20. Over time, documents increased reference to legacy
      • 21. However, terminology varies, making comparisons difficult:
      • 22. legacy outcomes;
      • 23. legacy assets;
      • 24. legacy contributions;
      • 25. legacy obligations; and
      • 26. legacy aspects.
    • Findings: 2. Planned or bestowed
      • Both ideas of planned and bestowed were evident
      • 27. Australia
      • 28. Ideas of bestowal
      • 29. Legislation in place to avoid negative legacies
      • 30. Canada
      • 31. Planning for legacy more evident
      • 32. Specific organisations to coordinate legacy from sport events
      • 33. Ideas of maximising legacy
      • 34. Major contextual difference
      • 35. Montreal Olympics negative legacy
      • 36. Canadian Sport Event Hosting Policy
    • Findings:3. Temporal nature of legacy
      • Legacies exist in time
      • 37. Long-term, permanent, enduring, transferable
      • 38. Reference to legacies evolving from the time of the event to reflect community needs and interests
      • 39. “reconfigured to ensure its long-term usage”
      (Sydney Olympics 2000)
      • Looking back and looking forward
      • 40. “Venues previously built for the 1978 Commonwealth Games, 1983 University Games, 2001 , World Athletic Championships and 2001 World Triathlon Championships were utilized”
      (Edmonton World Masters Games 2005)
    • 41. Findings:4. Legacy as positive and negative
      • Legacy largely positive
      • 42. celebratory reporting and limited critical reflection
      • 43. Canada connection between success and legacy
      • 44. Legacy only negative when previous events are discussed for legacy comparison
      • 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”
      (Sydney Olympics 2000)
    • 46. Findings: 5. Legacy as local and global
      • Legacies are available to everyone, everywhere
      • 47. “a fantastic legacy for Melbourne and all Victorians”
      (Melbourne FINA World Swimming Championships 2007)
      • “a targeted set of benefits to Edmontonians, Albertans, Canadians, and international visitors”
      (Edmonton World Masters Games 2005)
      • Post-event reports are celebratory and vague with limited demonstration of strategies for legacy planning
    • Context
      • Australia
      • 48. 1956 Melbourne Olympics
      • 49. 1980s – potential of events realised
      • 50. Policy landscape adhoc and driven by States
      • 51. Federal Strategy 2000 - Draft
      • 52. State legislation
      • 53. focuses on event delivery
      • 54. no requirements to consult or coordinate delivery of event obligations
      • 55. Canada
      • 56. 1930 British Empire Games
      • 57. 1976 Montreal Olympics (debts paid 2006, lessons learned)
      • 58. Federal Policy:
      • 59. sets blueprint for benefits from hosting events
      • 60. government funding to be spent on legacy
      • 61. enforces cooperation with event hosts and other levels of government
    • Conclusions & Implications
      • Findings illustrate a lack of transparency and accountability for legacy conceptualisation and practical management applications
      • 62. Policy landscape has had some influence on sport event legacy
      • 63. Over 2 decades of event reporting shows a limited increase in sophistication of legacy planning, implementation and evaluation
      • 64. Celebratory claims
      • 65. Limited accountability to stakeholders
      • 66. Limited ability to compare events
    • Conclusions & Implications
      • Management Implications – what is needed?
      • 67. Clarification of terminology - clear conceptualisations of legacy, starting at the event bid stage
      • 68. Clear identification of stakeholders
      • 69. Critical outline of stakeholder and legacy management process and evaluation
      • 70. Future Research
      • 71. More international sport event contexts
      • 72. Influences of varying policy contexts
      • 73. Towards best practice in legacy planning and reporting
    • References
      • 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. 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. 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. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. California: Sage Publications.
      • 77. Preuss, H. (2007). The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Mega Sport Tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), 207-227.
      • 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
    • Policy Documents
      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
      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.
    • 79. Related Publications
      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
      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
      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

    ×