Along with defining legacies, understanding how they can be leveraged, there is a need to investigated what outcomes or legacies have been achieved. There are many ways in which this can and has been investigated. A review undertaken by Malfas, Theodoraki and Houlihan (2004) considered the impacts of SMEs and the Olympic and Paralympic Games specifically. The study reviewed previous literature and looked at the impact the SMEs had on the host city, both positively and negatively. They investigated impacts such as cultural, political, economic and physical and findings highlighted that the prospect of economic growth in the host country is the main reason for the bid to host a SMEs (Malfas, Theodoraki and Houlihan, 2004). Furthermore, the legacies that are suggested to be the lasting reminders of SMEs, are multifaceted, prone to political interpretation and are difficult to quantify.
There are many types of legacies and Preuss (2014) argues that predominately research establishes a typology of legacy. This is understandable when you look at the many types of legacy such as: economic (Preuss, 2004), health (McCartney et al., 2010), sports participation (Hayday, Pappous and Koutrou, 2016; Veal, Toohey and Frawley, 2012; Pappous, 2011), political and soft power (Grix and Houlihan, 2014; Grix and Kramareva, 2017; Grix, 2013), tourism (Giampiccoli, Lee and Nauright, 2015) and security (Giulianotti and Klauser, 2010). These emphasise the numerous component parts through which legacy can be analysed. Due to the nature of this research the primary focus of the literature review is to highlight the sports participation and physical activity outcomes from SMEs.
With regards to previous Olympic Games (1996-2008) and the non- infrastructural outcomes Minnaert (2012) undertook an exploratory study across 7 Olympic cities, and analysed the outcomes for socially excluded groups. The research
followed a semi-longitudinal and comparative design and results indicated that Sydney was the only Games that incorporated social aims and initiatives into their programme, but this was mainly unsuccessful (Minnaert, 2012). Yet, the Homelessness Protocol, which provided legal protection, through a code of practice for how street homeless people should be treated and assisted by security and police, was found to be a lasting legacy from the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games (Minnaert, 2012). This highlights a successful initiative as not only did Sydney include Social Sustainability (SS) aims into its bid, they also effectively tried to implement three main programmes: ticketing policy, employment and training opportunities and the Homeless Protocol, with one providing a social legacy. This research highlighted a key global problem, as there are cultural differences in the terminology of SS. This successful legacy achievement highlights the need for the IOC to recognise the importance of making SS significant within the Olympic bidding process, similar to factors such as environmental sustainability. Rio 2016 highlights clear, explicit SS goals compared to most other Olympic and Paralympic cities, by suggesting youth orientated programmes and this will hopefully develop and heighten the profile of SS (Minnaert, 2012).
Research undertaken by Reis, de Sousa-Mast and Gurgel (2014) started to analyse the proposed sports participation legacies of Rio 2016, by interviewing 24 PE professionals (12 males and 12 females), investigating their perceptions of the 2016 Games. This study supported the complexity of quantifying intangible legacies, as due to their complexity, they are difficult to plan, measure and evaluate (Reis, de Sousa- Mast and Gurgel, 2014). Results advised that currently subjects had no knowledge of strategies or implementation processes at a local level, highlighting a lack of leveraging prior to the event. Reis, de Sousa-Mast and Gurgel (2014) suggested the cultural phenomenon was a source of optimism for the Rio 2016 legacy, this possibly
relates to the ‘festival effect’ outlined by McCartney et al. (2010) and Weed et al.
(2009). These findings suggest that the government needs long term (leveraging) strategies that are clearly outlined, to ensure legacy is positive and sustainable (Reis, de Sousa-Mast and Gurgel, 2014).
Weed, et al., (2012) highlights that for positively engaged individuals it is easier to increases PA levels, however sedentary individuals are most likely beyond the reach of these initiatives, meaning a different strategy is needed. Ramchandani, Davies, Coleman, Shibli and Bingham (2015) investigated this objective to use events
to increase sports participation, within the context of a non-mega sports event, and this supports Weed et al. (2012) suggestions about positively engaged and inactive respondents. Ramchandani et al. (2015) found that post non-mega events, different types of participation behaviour such as initial, sustained and lagged effects were seen by active and inactive respondents. They highlighted the need for future organisers to consider how they can attract and inspire inactive individuals. Yet, attributing causality is problematic due to additional factors that can lead to or limit participation. It was evident that the event alone will not increase participation and that other factors such as leveraging strategies must be considered (Ramchandani et al., 2015).
Atkinson, Mourato, Szymanski, and Ozdemiroglu (2008) researched the
intangible impacts of London’s bid; a contingent valuation survey was undertaken,
providing the first empirical investigation with the objective to evaluate whether intangible impacts might justify hosting SMEs on cost–benefit grounds. Respondents were from three main cities London (558), Manchester (138) and Glasgow (146) and
the survey evaluated the individual’s Willingness to Pay (WTP) with regards to
hosting 2012 for the specific, possible intangible impacts (Atkinson, et al., 2008). Findings suggested the annual mean WTP is £22, £12 and £11 per annum, for 10 years, in 3 UK corresponding cities. Scaling those figures up to a UK wide based WTP, the intangible impacts equal to approximately £2 billion. Statistical analysis examined the specific WTP determinants, which generated a range of plausible, explanatory factors
such as respondents’ degree of support for the bid (Atkinson, et al., 2008). In the top
7 determinants, national pride and inspiring children scored the highest with disability awareness, legacy facilities, environmental, promoting healthy living and cultural events also featuring (Atkinson et al., 2008).
As Malfas et al., (2004) suggested, the legacies are multifaceted and other factors must be considered such as the economic climate, weather, time of year, access and sample size; rather than just taking the singular measurement of either an increase or decrease in participation and deciding on success or failure solely on that basis. Many academics and experts alike have stated the difficulties of quantifying and accurately measuring the legacies of SMEs. Yet, Preuss (2007, p.207) knowing this problem, started to conceptualise a “bottom-up approach, which identifies the event
legacy by evaluation of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ event related changes in the host city”. The modifications that occur during this period are known as ‘event structures’
(infrastructure and image of the city, knowledge, networks, emotions and culture).
Even though Preuss’ (2007) focus was on tourism legacy, before he conceptualised
the bottom up method he considered two main methods that are currently used to determine legacy. First, benchmarking which is centred on past experiences from former SMEs and is often utilised as a forecasting method relating to legacy during
the planning stage. Second, the ‘top-down’ approach or macro-economic indicators,
such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are utilised post event to find evidence to justify the hosting of the SMEs and the impact that it had.
Preuss (2007) suggested benchmarking was believed to be flawed, as much of the literature reviewed only focused on a singular legacy or occasionally two legacies (Cashman, 2006). Thus, due to SMEs distinctiveness and intricacies the case studies that only focus on a single legacy type are devalued. This is due to complex differences in culture, location, resources and infrastructure between host cities, meaning the replication of an individual legacy is extremely questionable (Preuss, 2007, p.213). Similarly, when the top-down approach was reviewed limitations were found. Preuss
(2007, p.215) suggests that “undoubtedly, mega events create a strong economic impact, but they do not necessarily create an economic legacy”. This problem arises
as the two main methods used are trying to separate the event-based economic variations from the changes that would have occurred in general city development, regardless of the event which is a challenging distinction. The method would be to
create a control case to consider the “alternative development the city would have without the event taking place” (Preuss, 2007, p.216), but control data is not
obtainable, as the host nation’s future economy without the SMEs, is unknown.