Impacts of Mega Event free essay sample

The outcomes discussed deal with the positive and negative side; with effect to the tourism in United Kingdom (UK). The scope of this paper first covers the description of London Olympics; followed by the event experiences, outcomes, sustainability and lastly recommendation. 2. Description of Event 2. 1 History The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is formed in 1894, which sets the Olympic as an international four-yearly sports game to be hosted by different countries each time (Savic, 2007). In 2012, the summer Olympics returns to London for the third time (wheeler, 2012). London won the bid by taking almost half of the total votes, overcoming other strong competitors such as Paris, Moscow, Madrid and New York (wheeler, 2012). As a result, London gained its right to be chosen as the host city for XXX Olympiad 2012. 2. 2 Characteristics 2. 2. 1 Form In every event, there is a beginning and an end to it. Form is the primary concern for event’s planners and designers; as it has the ability to formed professionalism and has resulted in many successful businesses (Getz, 2012). Every type of event has its own element of style and culture. What makes it unique depends on the nature of the event. For instance, London Olympics evolve around the matters of athletic competitions and conferences for the sport committees. The Olympic Games are strictly obeyed by specific rules for the games that must be respected (Savic, 2007). 2. 2. 2 Theme and Design A theme comes in the form of an idea that combines the meaning to the event (Getz, 2012). The London Olympics vision is to strive to provide athletes with an environment of friendship, excellence and enjoyment (The Gregorian House, 2012). The whole idea of the London’s Olympics is to establish a world-class design. The use of world-class facilities, Olympic Park and other famous historical locations are seen, such as World Heritage sites of Greenwich, the Palace of Westminster and the Tower of London; Wembley Stadium; Lord’s Cricket Ground; Wimbledon; Horse Guards Parade; the Royal Parks and Eton Dorney (The Gregorian House, 2012). 3. Event Experiences 3. 1 Target Market Target market refers to the audiences of the events, even the sponsors and attendees. Olympic tourism tends to derive from the global audiences who tuned in to watch and the spectators who bought the tickets to watch live respectively (Kaplanidou, 2009). These people constitutes to the sport tourist markets with a common interests and cultural background. However, sport tourists who travel to London to attend the event can differ on their impression on the destination itself based on their prospections, political views and ethnical differences (Kaplanidou, 2009). 3. 2 Stakeholders In the London Olympics, there are some major key stakeholders who directly or indirectly contributed to the event. These key personnel include the mayor, the city council, the local economic development board, local and regional convention and tourism bureaus, the state government and the national government (Ahga, Fairley amp; Gibson, 2011). The organising committee for the Olympic Games plays a huge role in producing the Olympics; others include the volunteers, facilitators, suppliers, regulators, collaborators, co-producers and the audience. Refer to appendix A for stakeholder model of London Olympics). 3. 3 Meanings Mega event such as London Olympics has the impact to gain acceptability and respect, great influence to its achievements, promote tourism and businesses, and to expose its country to international recognition (Getz, 2012). Furthermore, the hosting of an Olympics enables the locals to have a sense of community and place in a secure environment (Getz, 2012). The meaning of a sporting event incorporates cultural aspects too, so as to widen social relationships. Cultural values are being displayed in London Olympics through sportsmanship with minimum signs of hostile acts, supremacy and corruption (Oxford Economics, 2012). 3. 4 Motivations Motivations of the attendees and athletes are being contrast between intrinsic and extrinsic (Ritchie, Shipway amp; Cleeve, 2009). The extrinsic part refers to the common impact that affects the whole community while the intrinsic may differ in terms of the individualities of the people involved in the event. The explanation for the intrinsically motivated people is largely due to the differences in perceptions to the event (Ritchie et al. , 2009). For instance, in the London Olympics, survey has shown that residents and tourists have evidences of satisfaction and contentment from attending the event itself (Oxford Economics, 2012). Furthermore, they felt happy being involved as a volunteer, enjoyment arises from the proximity to the event, the cultural showcases and sense of pride (Oxford Economics, 2012). 4. Outcomes of Event 4. 1 Social and Cultural outcomes 4. 1. Expenditure and investment in events The economy of a host city such as the London Olympics is closely related to its investments and expenditures spent (Getz, 2012). The amount of money invested solely for the Olympics, could be otherwise spent on social and cultural expenditures. Conversely, the revenue earned back from the tourism industry can largely generate new capital for the improvisation of social and cultural progra mmes (Getz, 2012). London will be benefited directly in terms of the new money flows from the tourists to its residents and local corporations. Social Exchange theory’ implies that although some groups will benefit from the event, there are other groups that will be affected negatively in terms of drawback, unhappiness and potential governmental issues (Getz, 2012). Furthermore, social exchange theory is an essential tool to study the resident’s perceptions of tourism impacts, as exchange theory suggests that those who benefit will support the event and others are at a disadvantaged (Ritchie, Shipway amp; Cleeve, 2009). For instance, residents of London may looks at the brighter side of bringing tourism to its country for the purpose of individual advantages. However, the negative views of tourism will results in the offset of benefits by charges. 4. 1. 2 Community participation Social capital refers to investments made by the citizens, corporations, organsiations and government in creating safer and conducive communities (Schulenkorf, 2009). For instance, the hosting of London Olympics gives opportunities for creating social capital and community development through the building of networks, faith and acceptance regarding the notion of sporting (Schulenkorf, 2009). Ultimately, it’s the celebration and gatherings among the athletes and spectators that foster social capital through cohesiveness, supports, cooperation and sincerity (Schulenkorf, 2009). Furthermore, participation and volunteerism enables people to understand each other better, and active commitment results in a wider social circle and a sense of belonging (Schulenkorf, 2009). To stage the London Olympics, the success largely comes from the initiative and effort put in by the communities and a leader who motivates and monitors the contents of event closely (Schulenkorf, 2009). . 1. 3 Event-related development, activities and traffic The hosting of Olympics in London was gererally supported by the local resident in the usage of their land and resources (Konstantaki amp; Wickens, 2010). However, the UK residents’ quality of life will be deteriorated due to issues of queuing, overcrowding, sharing of venues and facilities, road blocks, route disturbance and parking proble m (Konstantaki amp; Wickens, 2010). Thus the UK government has tried to resolve the problem by compensating with incentives and to extend greater hospitality and politeness to both the tourists and locals (Konstantaki amp; Wickens, 2010). All these problems arise during the construction of infrastructures for the Olympics and during the event itself when there is an influx of visitors. Also, more tourists and migrants’ arrival will likely to attract the act of misconduct such as theft, molestation, vandalism, drunken-fight and other security concerns (Taylor amp; Toohey, 2007). Traffic accidents will also rise due to heavy traffic and lost goat on the street. In order to mitigate these negative concerns, UK officials have employed a substantial security force consisting of police and armed personnel; the extensive investment in transport facilities and several projects were drafted to keep the population motivated by participating and volunteering for the sports activities in regards to the event (Konstantaki amp; Wickens, 2010). 4. 1. 4 Media Coverage Mega- event such as the London Olympics generates a massive publicity through media coverage and international broadcast through the television. Due to the high public viewing and representative’s demonstration, it leads to an easy target for terrorist movement (Taylor amp; Toohey, 2007). In regards to the safety issue for the UK population, London is well-known to be under the bombing threat of the Irish Republican Army for a long time (Taylor amp; Toohey, 2007). Hence, in lieu to the hosting of London Olympics, there is a massive import of surveillance network devices planted throughout the city (Cohn, 2005 cited in Taylor amp; Toohey, 2007). 4. 2 Economic Outcomes 4. 2. 1 New money and investment London was awarded to host the XXX summer Olympics, which leads to the generating of a huge sum of new money being distributed to the UK’s economy, Statistics has shown that London 2012 Games will generates extra tourist expenditure of ? 2 billion contribution between 2005 and 2017 (Oxford Economics, 2012). The inflow of funds to the economy sector will not be derived without the Olympics. This sum of new money generated largely contributed from the sponsors, organisers, broadcasters, athletes, attendees, notables VIPs and the local residents (Kasimati, 2003). Refer to appendix C) To get a broader view of the economic impact of the London Olympics, the concept of multiplier is used (Kasimati, 2003). The multiplier effect refers to the increase in final income arising from any new injection of spending (Kasimati, 2003). The total amount of new money injected is classified in three major segments: the direct effect, indirect effect and the induced effect (Kasimati, 2003). Direct effect refers to money spent at front-line tourism-related establishments. Indirect effect refers to those subsequent effects as a result of the direct economic effects. The induced effects refers to the direct and indirect levels of economic impact, income will accrue to residents of the local economy. Therefore, the multiplier concept is an invaluable tool that creates economic impacts of changes in the distribution of tourism spending across all sectors of the local economy. According to Oxford economics (2012), â€Å"the construction activity for London 2012 and its legacy will support an estimated ? 13. 5 billion contribution to UK’s GDP† (p. 0). 4. 2. 2 Displacement effect and time-switching There are several models and framework to determine and calculates the economic impacts of events. Input-Output model is one of the frequent use method (Kirkup amp; Mayor, 2006). However, the down side of this method was being critised for its limitations in modelling out the negative impacts and obligations (Kirkup amp; Mayor, 2006). As a result, an other suitable method is the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) framework that controls many of the displacement consequences (Kirkup amp; Mayor, 2006). It is a result in which tourists choose to avoid the city due to the concerns of the event-related jam-packing, while the locals are driven to leave town or stay at home (Getz, 2012). According to Oxford Economics (2012), it has predicted London will lose ? 375 million from tourism as visitors delay plans to come to the city until the London Olympics (p. 5). Furthermore, displacement of global tourists due to the time switching of visits in colliding with the London Olympics, or simply to flock away the city due to fear of infrastructure construction activity that might affect their enjoyable moods (Oxford Economics, 2012). In addition, there is also expenditure switching, whereby time-switching occurs for the international visitors, while the government switch public expenditure from the construction of infrastructures to other communal works (Mules amp; Faulkner, 1996). 4. 3 Environmental Outcomes 4. 3. 1 Ecological footprint The environmental impacts of sport event can be measured by the technique of ecological footprint (Getz, 2012). It determines the amount of land to supply the resources usage by the population during the event and the waste accumulated in post event (Colins, Jones amp; Munday, 2009). Largely, this technique focuses more on the depletion of resources at a global scale rather than only the local. For instance, in the UK Olympics, the study of ecological footprint has alerted the officials that the per capital footprints of several cities of UK were significantly higher than the world’s average. This has resulted in the serious depletion in the Earth’s resources in terms of biological volume (Colins, Jones amp; Munday, 2009). (Refer to appendix E) 4. 3. 2 Pollutions Mega events such as the London Olympics are highly prone to their alleged negativity on its environment, and more specifically the impact to climate change (Colins, Jones amp; Munday, 2009). Air quality is significantly affected by exhaust gas and steam emission from the vehicles and airplanes (David, 2009). Noise pollution produced from the cheering in the tournament and entertainment facilities. Land pollution due to littering in the stadium, resulted in decomposition toxicity (David, 2009). Additionally, untreated leakage from sewages affects vegetation and inhabitation (David, 2009). Moreover, it also indirectly affected the wild and resident’s living conditions through eutrofisation. Having said, London Olympics has made a significant effort in mitigating these negative environmental impact. The London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games are planning to construct Olympic Village which achieves an ‘excellent’ eco-rating, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in replacement with petroleum cars and shorter distance between venues (Colins, Jones amp; Munday, 2009). In addition, London launched a Sustainable Development Strategy to minimise carbon emissions, waste and water use, whilst maximising the use of environmental friendly transport and material. One of the recognizable efforts done was on fuel-cell propulsion for event vehicles and renewable energy generation for athletes’ accommodation (Colins, Jones amp; Munday, 2009). (Refer to appendix D) 5. Evaluation of sustainability According to Hall (2012), â€Å"sustainability constitute of ethical behaviour, accountability, and transparency; engagement of the community and local stakeholders; positive benefits for the environment and society; accessible and inclusive setting; safe and secure atmosphere and facilities for spectators, participants, and workers; excellent customer/client experience; and a positive legacy (p. 121). There are three types of approach to sustainability of a mega event. Firstly, the economic sustainability which seeks to evaluate the short and long terms impact on the economic growth of the host city (Hall, 2012). This approach seeks to focus on the event’s contribution to the economic growth in terms of GDP, tourism rate and expenditure incurred. The economic capital can also be measured by using the return on investment (ROI) evaluation whereby it calculates the efficiency of investment on an event (Getz, 2012). The second approach is the balanced sustainability where it focuses to equalize the triple-bottom line approach laid out in an event’s system (Hall, 2012). Primarily, it evaluates the sustainability of an event through productivity and industrial problems. Additionally, this approach establishes the comparative per- capita enhancement in regards to sustainability rather than just purely input and no output (Hall, 2012). Lastly, the steady-state approach refers to the conservation aspects of an event. For instance, London’s Olympic Park sets to reform the area to an urban green land, which acts as a catalyst for neighborhood renewal (Hall, 2012). (Refer to appendix F) 6. Recommendations Some of the areas of improvement were made to further ensure that the London Games are effective, and that residents have a positive perception and a unique experience after the event. These recommendations focus on areas such as the transportation, celebration of victories, emergency evacuation planning and the legacy of the Games (Konstantaki amp; Wickens, 2010). Firstly, community groups should be assisted in planning the celebration of the Games; by providing guidelines, supports and backup with road closures for street parties; and organizing more promoting events across the country. Secondly, security level must be raised as bomb threats and terrorist attacks from jihadi groups and al-Qaida are highly likely (Konstantaki amp; Wickens, 2010). 7. Conclusion From the discussions and arguments collated, London Olympics is considered to be a sustainable one. Based on the study of several frameworks and models, the assessment for the impacts of London Olympics was reviewed and supported with relevant evidences from the event itself. Besides that, the paper also discusses on description of London Olympics; followed by the event experiences, outcomes, sustainability and lastly recommendation. Word Count: 2699 8. References I. Agha, N. , Fairley, S. , amp; Gibson, H. (2011). Considering legacy as a multi-dimensional construct: The legacy of the Olympic Games. Sport Management Review, 15, 125-139. II. Collins, A. , Jones, C. , amp; Munday, M. (2009). Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options?. Tourism Management, 30, 828-837. III. David, L. (2009). Events and Tourism: An Environmental Approach and Impact Assessment. Journal of Tourism Challenges and Trends, 2(2), 101-114. IV. Getz, D. (2012). Event Studies- Theory, Research and Policy for planned Events, 2nd Edition. New York, Canada: Routledge. V. Hall, C. (2012). Sustainable Mega-events: Beyond the myth of balanced approaches to Mega-event sustainability. Event Management, 16, 119-131. VI. Kaplanidou, K. (2009). Relationships among Behavioral Intentions, Cognitive Event and Destination Images among Different Geographic Regions of Olympic Games Spectators. Journal of Sport amp; Tourism, 14(4), 249-272. VII. Kasimati, E. (2003). Economic Aspects and the Summer Olympics: a Review of Related Research. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 433-444. VIII. Kirkup, N. , amp; Major, B. (2006). Doctoral Foundation Paper: The Reliability of Economic Impact Studies of the Olympic Games: A Post-Games Study of Sydney 2000 and Considerations for London 2012. Journal of Sport amp; Tourism, 11(3), 275-296. IX. Konstantaki, M. , amp; Wickens, E. (2010). Residents’ Perceptions of Environmental and Security Issues at the 2012 London Olympic Games. Journal of Sport amp; Tourism, 15(4), 337-357. X. Mules, T. , amp; Faulkner, B. (1996). A Economic perspective on special events. Tourism Economics, 2(2), 107-117. XI. Oxford Economics. (2012). London 2012: what is the economic impact on the UK?. Retrieved from http://www. lloydsbankinggroup. com /media /pdfs/lbg/2012/ Eco_impact_report. pdf XII. Ritchie, B. , Shipway, R. , amp; Cleeve, B. (2009). Resident Perceptions of Mega-Sporting Events: A Non-Host City Perspective of the 2012 London Olympic Games. Journal of Sport amp; Tourism, 14(2), 143-167. XIII. Savic, Z. (2007). The Olympic Games as a Cultural Event. Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc. , Gymn, 37(3), 7-13. XIV. Schulenkorf, N. (2009). An ex ante framework for the strategic study of social utility of sport events. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 120-131. XV. Taylor, T. , amp; Toohey, K. (2007). Perceptions of Terrorism Threats at the 2004 Olympic Games: Implications for Sport Events. Journal of Sport amp; Tourism, 12(2), 99-114. XVI. The Gregorian House. (2012). London Olympics 2012. Retrieved from http://www. georgianhousehotel. co. uk/london-events/london-olympics-2012. asp XVII. Wheelers,H. (2012). Olympic Games Timeline. Retrieved from http://www. historyonthenet. com/Olympics/olympics_timeline. htm 9. Appendices A. Source: Getz Event Studies Textbook 2010 B. Source: Li,S. , amp; Blakes,A. (2009). Estimating Olympic-related Investment and Expenditure. International Journal of Tourism Research,11, 337-356. C. Source: Kasimati, E. (2003). Economic Aspects and the Summer Olympics: a Review of Related Research. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 433-444. D. Source: David, L. (2009). Events and Tourism: An Environmental Approach and Impact Assessment. Journal of Tourism Challenges and Trends, 2(2), 101-114. E. Source: Collins, A. , Jones, C. , amp; Munday, M. (2009). Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options?. Tourism Management, 30, 828-837. F. Source: Hall, C. (2012). Sustainable Mega-events: Beyond the myth of balanced approaches to Mega-event sustainability. Event Management, 16, 119-131. G. Source: www. geography. org. uk