Literature review
Central to legacy is appropriate planning prior to event hosting (Matheson, 2010; Cornelissen, Bob, Swart, 2011). Despite the many studies on the topic, there is still little consensus within the research community on what âlegacyâ actually means. Furthermore, the lack of agreement on the concept and various facets of legacy makes it very hard to measure the concept accurately with any degree of confidence. Despite the recognition of the need for a multidimensional approach to legacy (Cashman, 2005; Preuss, 2007; Chappelet, 2012), in practice most of the focus has been on physical infrastructure or the economic dimension. Instead, the measurement of legacy has had to encompass all changes caused by an event over time. With reference to the Olympic Games, Gratton and Preuss (2008, p. 1933) argue:
The scientific evidence needed to evaluate the economic importance of the legacy of hosting major sports events ⌠simply does not exist ⌠Nobody has been prepared to commit the research resources required to carry out a scientific study of net legacy benefits. There is also the political position that host governments may not welcome a truly scientific assessment of the true legacy benefits of hosting the Olympic Games.
This means that in the past bidding countries often invested vast resources in order to host major events, all the impacts of which, both positive and negative, they did not fully understand (Preuss, 2007).
In recent years, researchers have contributed significantly to identifying different possible forms of legacy. In Cashmanâs study (2005), the fields to be analysed are sport, economics, infrastructure, information and education, public life, politics and culture, symbols, memory, and history. Instead, according to Chappelet (2006), the optimal list is sport legacy, economic legacy, infrastructural legacy, urban legacy, and social legacy.
Parent (2008) further expands the agenda of issues an organizing committee must cope with. In addition to the common elements identified by major sector specialists (sport, economy, politics, human resources, and infrastructure), she suggests a long list of further aspects such as visibility (reputation, image, public/corporate support), organization (planning, decision-making, structure, management activities, team composition, deadlines, effectiveness), relationships (negotiation, discussion with stakeholders, expectation management, establishment and maintenance of relationships, responsibility, and authority), media (media coverage and broadcasting rights), interdependencies (coordination, communication, divisional and hierarchical connections, information management), and participation (involvement, acknowledgement, experience, fun, ticket availability).
When focusing on hallmark events, Ritchie (1984), whose classification was later used by Getz (1997), highlights the fact that analysis-relevant impacts are substantially referable to six categories, whose positive and negative effects are as follows:
- Economic effects: increase in expenditure, new jobs (+); rise in prices during the event, land speculation, post-event underuse of structures (â).
- Tourist/commercial effects: increase in the regionâs visibility as a tourist destination (+); negative reputation following possible inadequacies of structures (â).
- Physical/environmental effects: new or improved structures and infrastructures (+); environmental damage, noise, car accidents, traffic, and overcrowding (â).
- Social/cultural effects: permanent increase in the local interest and in the attendance at event-related activities, strengthening of local traditions and values (+); marketing of personal/ private activities, excessive alcohol consumption by tourists, increase in thefts and robberies, modification of the event/activity to meet tourist needs (â).
- Psychological effects: enhancement of local/national pride and a sense of belonging to the community, increase in awareness of external perceptions (+); tendency to defensive behaviours concerning the host territory, probable incomprehension resulting in mutual hostility (â).
- Political effects: improvement in the international reputation of the territory as a resort or investment destination, diffusion of political values peculiar to local authorities and/or citizens (+); exploitation of the local population to satisfy the ambitions of the political leaders, distortion of the nature of events simply to bring it in line with the contingent political vision (â).
Looking at Ernst & Youngâs publication relating to the FIFA World Cup 2014 (Ernst & Young and FGV, 2010), the event-related aspects that generate legacies are:
- tangible capital (stadiums or other entertainment and sports facilities);
- human capital (professionals trained in the event implementation and management);
- technological capital (telecommunications and security instruments);
- brand capital (international exposure of Brazil as a tourist destination).
In light of the emergence of diverse forms of legacy, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has also responded to the urgent and intriguing need to identify and measure the impact of the Games in terms of their sustainability by introducing the Olympic Games Global Impact (OGGI) project. This consists of a framework of analysis and a set of indicators that serve to quantify the sustainable impact of the Olympics using a methodology with a broader perspective, encompassing social, environmental, and economic dimensions (Tziralis, Tolis, Tatsiopoulos, Aravossis, 2006).
OGGI was not developed to compare the Games in any given year, but to analyse one yearâs Games in relation to subsequent ones using a consistent approach. Two clusters of indicators were introduced, one for evaluating the event and another for depicting its context. The methodological framework ultimately resulted in a proposed set of 159 sustainable indicators and 1,726 operational variables, compiled to make an integrated assessment of the Olympic impact.
In summary, to measure legacy, experts apply specific methodologies and analyse impact by macro categories, which provide useful parameters for more accurate assessment. Economic, social, and environmental considerations are strongly accentuated, whereas only a few studies underscore the critical nature of the political and human aspects. For example, an important aspect that is sometimes overlooked is the perception of the local residents, on whose behalf the government claims to act.
This aspect was investigated by Bull and Lovell (2007) in their research on Canterbury residentsâ perception of the Tour de France, which was routed through the city in 2007. They found that the overall view of the Tour was very positive. Most people wanted to participate, and nearly all of them considered the event to be a good thing for Canterbury as a city. Most residents derived this opinion from the promotional activities of the council, underscoring the importance of these initiatives, which included managing the media and creating âTour de Funâ events (Bull and Lovell, 2007).
Methodology
Preuss (2007) highlights the two international approaches that authors use the most: the âbenchmarkâ approach and the âtop-downâ approach. The benchmark approach uses case studies to compare the management of specific mega events (e.g. the holding of the Olympic Games). The âtop-downâ approach considers assessments of legacy in terms of a comparison of legacy when a mega event is hosted (the âevent caseâ); when it is not (the âwithout caseâ); and by trying to assess future development without the event having taken place (control case). This latter approach, however, is inherently speculative and therefore lacking empirical data. For this reason Preuss proposes the âbottom-upâ approach as the best tool; it takes into consideration all the changes generated by an event based on the long-term town development plan. Attention must be focused on six event structures: infrastructures, knowledge, image, emotion, networks, and culture, which are preserved after the event and contribute to transforming location factors. The aim of this chapter is to develop this bottom-up approach to investigating legacy through a strategic and pluralistic approach. It is strategic because the focus is on analysing the characteristics of the location and the type of event, and possible impacts that can arise from a combination of the two. This in turn is integrated with an economic and sociological development plan, which outlines the general goals for the area. Pluralistic refers instead to the series of potential non-economic impacts that underpin this approach: environmental, social, cultural, political, touristic, and so forth. This methodology allows us to take a managerial view of legacy, substantiated by the vast body of managerial and sociological literature on the impacts of sport events. The aim here is to promote a more precise impact-planning model that centres on the objectives of the host community and myriad stakeholders, while avoiding situations in which the sport event becomes an end in and of itself, and falls short of exploiting all the opportunities that sport offers.
To apply this strategic and pluralistic approach to sport events, I conducted research measuring the impact of the Giro dâItalia on different types of host community. A traditional approach would have called for one of the existing classifications in the literature. Instead, by following the pluralistic approach, I selected the most appropriate kinds of impact (Phase 1); moreover the strategic approach led us to view the Giro as a heterogeneous event based on the characteristics of the stages, that is, the cities and towns along the route (Phase 2). These observations make it possible to draw up a strategic plan for each location, with the sport event as the focal point (Phase 3). In adopting this perspective, I evaluate the perceptions of local residents to understand how impacts can differ from stage to stage, even though they are all part of the Giro dâItalia.
