|
by Mike Morellato, B.A., M.Sc. (April 9, 2007) Well, it seems fitting that the first topic I am opening for discussion on this website is related to mass tourism, sustainability and the Olympics, since this was the focus of my thesis research. My interest in researching and promoting sustainability principles within the Olympic realm came naturally following July 2, 2003 when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the XXI Winter Games to Vancouver, BC - my home city. When I first began to explore Olympic Games sustainability, I came across an interesting article which was published in its final form in Italian but is also available in English, written in 2002 by a spokesman and project manager of the IOC. The article is titled "Sustainable Olympic Games, A dream or a reality?1 " and it caught my attention for two main reasons: (1) It was written by a member the IOC (whether or not this introduces bias is another issue) and (2) it took a diametric approach to a lot of other literature I had come across to that point in time. It acknowledges the relatively new efforts to make the Olympics part of the sustainability debate and it explores contradictions between the nature of the Games and principles surrounding sustainable development. Early in this article, a simple but relevant argument is made - that the Games are in direct contradiction to the main tenets surrounding sustainability. The high concentration in time, space and investment are obvious. A two to three week event, a single host city and billions of dollars in investment - are not in line (Furrer argues) with the common goals of sustainable development: balanced dispersion of environmental, social and economic impacts for everyone's benefit. While this may be true, can an inevitable mega-event such as the Olympic Games be managed in a way that can create a sustainable legacy? I agree with the statement in Furrer's article: "Hosting the Games can never be said to be exclusively positive or negative. There is a mixture of both in all cases." (pg.3). While this is the 'easy' answer, it definitely has merit since every host city experience is quite different and it is difficult to anticipate all changes (positive and negative) both in the short and long term. The table below summarizes Furrer's perspective on the many potential positive effects of the Olympic Games on a host city and its population. POTENTIAL POSITIVE EFFECTS OF HOSTING THE GAMES
| ECONOMIC | Significant domestic & international tourism boost; investment increase from the public and private sectors; improved mobility of goods and people through improved transport infrastructure - which in turn promotes economic efficiency. |
URBAN CHANGE
| New multi-functional facilities; modernisation of transport systems; upgrading of other infrastructure (i.e. Utilities, water treatment, power supply); new accommodation; mega convention facilities; adaptation to international visitor standards. |
SOCIAL
| Improvement of building skills; experience with new built environment standards (e.g. Green building); showcasing of creativity, talent, technology, and organizational skills of local business; enhancement of innovation; promoting the practice of sport; gains in Olympic education and values (i.e. Fair play, respect, balance between body and mind). | PSYCHOLOGICAL | Enhancing sense of pride, enthusiasm, community and unity in host population (which can often transcend ideological and social division). |
ENVIRONMENTAL
| New building standards (e.g. Increase in LEED certified structures); expansion of renewable energy sources (e.g. Public transit system improvements), stimulating new environmentally friendly technologies; upgrading of sewage and water treatment; waste management systems; environmental education programs. | | POLITICAL | May help to launch the country on the international scene (e.g. South Korea - 1998)2 and introduce internationally-accepted practices (e.g. Project tendering processes), enforcement of laws and regulations, intellectual property protection and new environmental management and assessment systems; newfound cooperation between public authorities and the private sector (e.g. Athens Summer Games). |
These benefits tend to vary greatly from one Olympic experience to the next, and the urgency to maximize these benefits and keep them consistent seems to be taking some shape with recent Olympic endeavours, such as Vancouver's inclusion of various sustainability principles during planning. Nonetheless, there are obvious and often amplified negative effects inherent in any Olympic Games. These are also summarized well by Furrer, and are discussed in the table below with additional concerns noted. POTENTIAL NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF HOSTING THE GAMES
| ECONOMIC | Public debt increase can be a burden with mega-projects, particularly in the short term; economic benefits may be spatially concentrated to the urban core, with little attention paid to areas in need of a economic boost. The entrepreneurial concept of the Games may take precedence over the public services and welfare attention needed in the host city, serving the interests of the private capital alone. | URBAN CHANGE
| White elephants: Over-sized venues, facilities and accommodation; planned with enormous crowds in mind, showcasing the economy and engineering feats rather than focussing on long-term planning strategy or the public's needs regarding cultural or leisure facilities. |
SOCIAL
| Increased marginalisation of social groups; inequalities between different geographic regions of the host city; gentrification issues; lack of local community consultation; aboriginal land issues; relaxation of normal planning requirements3 is also common. |
PSYCHOLOGICAL
| Division of city residents between those that are pro- and anti-Olympics; feelings of overcrowding and intrusion in previously sacred and local destinations. | ENVIRONMENTAL | Mega-project impact (e.g. Eagle Ridge bluffs 2010 controversy); drastic short term increase in international flights to host destination; air quality and other effects during intense construction and demolition activities; increase of road transport - for materials and waste; soil and groundwater contamination; disruption of local species and biodiversity. |
POLITICAL
| The host city government may fail in setting the correct political goals to optimize the use of the 2-3 week period for positive change and improvement. This includes the presence of 'white elephants' as described earlier, and having some run-down areas simply forgotten in policy during a time of great potential for turnaround. |
With the challenges of planning for and hosting a sustainable Olympic Games now receiving more attention, do the tools exist to manage these issues to an acceptable level? I would argue that there are many tools present, but there is a lack of concrete standards and benchmarking practices undertaken with governance from a central figure such as the IOC. While the IOC certainly promotes knowledge transfer between host cities, sustainable Olympic legacies, the Olympic Movement's Agenda 21 along with other programs, the strictness of these principles and the measure of accountability should be questioned. Perhaps a good example of weaknesses in the implementation of sustainability principles is that of the Athens 2004 Summer Games. Greenpeace was very critical of the environmental performance of Athens prior to and during the Games, even after discrete promises by Greek authorities from the beginning4. With the Sydney 2000 Summer Games acting as a decent example of what constitutes a "Green Games" up to that point in time, Athens fell short of any significant praise on this front. My feelings were that there was a lack of governance and implementation of strict requirements (with follow-up) to keep the organizing committee and developers accountable. Following Athens, the use of sustainable development indicators applied within the Olympic realm has begun to increase and evolve. In 2003, The Olympic Games Global Impact (OGGI) study was introduced by the IOC and was put into use for the first time by the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (BOCOG). The OGGI study spans 11 years and uses ~150 indicators of social, economic and environmental well-being to track the progress of the Games from pre- to post-Olympics5 . The OGGI study will now be a common requirement for any Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG), which is also being implemented for Vancouver. Nonetheless, the individual efforts of OCOGs to go above and beyond the sometimes vague requirements of the IOC seems to be very important at present. Examples of this include Vancouver's efforts to work with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators, or London's use of third-party sustainability assessments6 to ensure an unbiased approach. The evolution of measurement and reporting schemes for sustainable Olympic Games is happening at a rapid pace, and will continue in Beijing, Vancouver and London. The varying nature of each host city and Olympic event makes standardization of techniques difficult, but I believe knowledge transfer will remain a very important step in the road to host city sustainability. Is there any "silver bullet" method to measure and account for a sustainable Olympic Games? Probably not. Has there been successes in the realms of energy, waste management, construction, water conservation, public participation and other issues on the Olympic front? Yes. It is from these successes that we can begin to build a solid framework to apply to every host city, and with more efficient and strict governance (avoiding internal agendas), I believe that future Games can become less of a "split vote" among host city residents. Would you like to comment on this article? Please voice your opinion below in the comment box - your input is welcome. Note: There is no need to fill in all boxes - but if you would like to be notified when someone replies to your comment, type in your email and choose "Notify" from the drop-down box |
Related links: Impact of the Olympics on Community Coalition (IOCC) - http://www.olympicsforall.ca/
The Global Reporting Initiative - http://www.globalreporting.org/Home
Vancouver 2010 and sustainability - http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/Sustainability
References
1 Furrer, P. (2002). Sustainable Olympic Games, Dream or Reality? Final copy published in Italian in the Bollettino della Societa Geografica Italiana, Serie XII, Volume VII, 4. Available at: http://www.omero.unito.it/web/Furrer%20(eng.).PDF 2 Metropolis (2002). The Impact of Major Events on the Development of Large Cities, Commission 1 Report, Barcelona, World Association of Major Metropoloses. http://www.metropolis.org 3 Owen, K.A. (2001). The Local Impacts of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games: Processes and Politics of Venue Preparation, Sydney, Centre for Olympic Studies, University of South Wales. 4 Greenpeace (2004). "Athens 2002 disqualified from Green Olympics." Retrieved on March 13, 2007 from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/athens-disqualified-from-green 5 International Olympic Committee (2006). What is the Olympic Games Global Impact Study? Olympic Review, June 2006. Official Publication of the Olympic Movement. Available at: http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1077.pdf 6 Price Waterhouse Coopers (2005). Olympic Games Impact Study - Final Report. Government and Public Sector, December. London. Available at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E88F2684-F49E-4F45-B826-2F19F21374F8/0/OlympicGamesImpactStudy.pdf
|
like you stated..not sure 25 years or so later how much it impacts.