IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rppexx/v31y2016i2p157-179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planning mega-event legacies: uncomfortable knowledge for host cities

Author

Listed:
  • Allison Stewart
  • Steve Rayner

Abstract

The rhetoric employed when cities bid for the right to host mega-events like the Olympic Games suggests that benefits will include improved infrastructure, investment in city infrastructure, and regeneration of neglected urban areas. However, the legacy of mega-events has historically been mixed; while some cities have been recognized for their development efforts, many others have been vilified for their subsequent actions, or lack thereof. The term legacy itself is, however, problematic; it presents a one-sided view of positive effects, without adequate consideration of downside risk in bidding. This research draws on interviews from people involved in six different mega-events and illustrates the challenges of addressing legacy with a variety of examples, including a detailed look at the London 2012 Olympic Games’ legacy negotiations regarding the use of the Olympic Stadium to gain insight into how legacy opportunities are developed. Drawing on the concept of uncomfortable knowledge, the dispute over the legacy use of the Olympic Stadium is used to examine the mixed perspectives of the different parties involved in decisions over mega-event legacies. We conclude by suggesting that unacknowledged interests, which remain constructively ambiguous during the bidding phase, create the opportunity for uncomfortable knowledge to arise in the planning process. The use of uncomfortable knowledge as a theoretical lens provides a useful construct to focus on the boundaries and limitations of knowledge in planning mega-events.

Suggested Citation

  • Allison Stewart & Steve Rayner, 2016. "Planning mega-event legacies: uncomfortable knowledge for host cities," Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 157-179, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rppexx:v:31:y:2016:i:2:p:157-179
    DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2015.1043933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02665433.2015.1043933
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02665433.2015.1043933?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holger Preuss, 2004. "The Economics of Staging the Olympics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3473, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Byers, Terri & Hayday, Emily & Pappous, Athanasios (Sakis), 2020. "A new conceptualization of mega sports event legacy delivery: Wicked problems and critical realist solution," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 171-182.
    2. Bogacz-Wojtanowska Ewa & Góral Anna & Jałocha Beata, 2019. "‘Catholic Coachella’, ‘Papal Rock Concert’? Case Study of the World Youth Day in Cracow as an Example of a Successful Religious Project," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(2), pages 47-71, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo & Maria Rita Pierleoni, 2018. "Assessing The Olympic Games: The Economic Impact And Beyond," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 649-682, July.
    2. Bent Flyvbjerg & Allison Stewart & Alexander Budzier, 2016. "The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games," Papers 1607.04484, arXiv.org.
    3. Fourie, Johan & Santana-Gallego, María, 2011. "The impact of mega-sport events on tourist arrivals," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1364-1370.
    4. Yawei Chen & Lei Qu & Marjolein Spaans, 2013. "Framing the Long-Term Impact of Mega-Event Strategies on the Development of Olympic Host Cities," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 340-359, June.
    5. M.R. van den Berg & M. de Nooij, 2013. "The bidding paradox: why economists, consultants and politicians disagree on the economic effects of mega sports events but might agree on their attractiveness," Working Papers 13-08, Utrecht School of Economics.
    6. Luša Đana, 2017. "Olympic Diplomacy and the Emerging States: Striving for Influence in the Multipolar World," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 23(79), pages 73-102, September.
    7. Andrea Collins & Andrew Flynn & Max Munday & Annette Roberts, 2007. "Assessing the Environmental Consequences of Major Sporting Events: The 2003/04 FA Cup Final," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(3), pages 457-476, March.
    8. Huei-Fu Lu, 2021. "Hallmark Sporting Events as a Vehicle for Promoting the Sustainable Development of Regional Tourism: Strategic Perspectives from Stakeholders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Daniel Lunn, 2021. "Regression to the tail: Why the Olympics blow up," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(2), pages 233-260, March.
    10. Tobias Streicher & Sascha L. Schmidt & Dominik Schreyer, 2019. "Referenda on Hosting the Olympics: What Drives Voter Turnout?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(5), pages 627-653, June.
    11. John Lauermann, 2016. "Temporary projects, durable outcomes: Urban development through failed Olympic bids?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(9), pages 1885-1901, July.
    12. Olmos, Lorena & Bellido, Héctor & Román-Aso, Juan A., 2020. "The effects of mega-events on perceived corruption," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    13. Eva Kassens-Noor & John Lauermann, 2017. "How to Bid Better for the Olympics: A Participatory Mega-Event Planning Strategy for Local Legacies," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(4), pages 335-345, October.
    14. Kasimati, Evangelia & Dawson, Peter, 2009. "Assessing the impact of the 2004 Olympic Games on the Greek economy: A small macroeconometric model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 139-146, January.
    15. Sanela Škorić & Josip Mikulić & Petra Barišić, 2021. "The Mediating Role of Major Sport Events in Visitors’ Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Intention to Revisit a Destination," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Wladimir Andreff, 2006. "New Perspectives in Sports Economics: A European View," Working Papers 0605, International Association of Sports Economists;North American Association of Sports Economists.
    17. Stephanie Jasmand & Wolfgang Maennig, 2008. "Regional Income and Employment Effects of the 1972 Munich Summer Olympic Games," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(7), pages 991-1002.
    18. Markus Brückner & Evi Pappa, 2015. "News Shocks in the Data: Olympic Games and Their Macroeconomic Effects," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 47(7), pages 1339-1367, October.
    19. Byers, Terri & Hayday, Emily & Pappous, Athanasios (Sakis), 2020. "A new conceptualization of mega sports event legacy delivery: Wicked problems and critical realist solution," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 171-182.
    20. Stephanie Jasmand & Wolfgang Maennig, 2007. "Regional Income and Employment Effects of the 1972 Munich Olympic Summer Games," Working Papers 0712, International Association of Sports Economists;North American Association of Sports Economists.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rppexx:v:31:y:2016:i:2:p:157-179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rppe20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.