Present environmental guidelines and standards may only provide event planners with partial information for the implementation of certain actions. Therefore, there is a need for a framework that can be used to measure various environmental criteria in numerical terms which allow a comparison between mega-events or against any notional ‘best case’ scenario (Collins et al., 2009). Although such a uniform
Chapter 3
65
quantitative framework has not yet been introduced into a mega-event planning procedure, a number of tools which can quantify environmental impacts have been developed and applied in practice.
Environmental evaluation has received an increasing interest within the field of event studies in the last two decades (e.g. Dolles and Södermann, 2010; Ponsford, 2011; Collins et al., 2009). Ecological footprint analysis is one of the most frequently used tools for measuring environmental impacts of mega-events (Collins et al., 2007; Gössling et al., 2002; Gössling et al., 2005; Hunter, 2002; Hunter and Shaw, 2005). In such studies, the ecological footprint of the event is normally calculated based on a component approach including travel of visitors to and from the event, food and drink consumed at the event, materials and energy used during the construction and operation of the infrastructure of the event venues, waste generated at the event and so on. The total footprint is estimated as the area of bioproductive land required to support the demands of a reference area that can be compared to a global average of approximately 1.8 global hectares per capita. It is argued, however, that the ecological footprint reveals a more global estimate of impacts and, therefore, it should be combined with other tools to permit an evaluation of the within-nation environmental impacts (Collins et al., 2009).
Another method of assessing the environmental impacts is the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) caused by different activities during the construction and staging of a mega-event. The total amount of all (GHG) emissions resulting from a process, event or service is called ‘carbon footprint’. Carbon footprint is calculated as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) using the relevant 100-
year global warming potential (GWP) of different types of greenhouse gases. GWP is a relative measure of how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere (Porteous, 2008).
A number of studies have been published which provide the results of carbon footprint calculations of different mega-events. One of them is an independent carbon footprint study for the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games which was published by the United Nations Environmental Programme in 2009. This study provides a summary of the GHG emissions from the construction and operation of
66
the venues, travel of the international spectators, media, athletes and Olympic family, operation of the Organising Committee, visitors’ accommodation, waste treatment and torch relay. The study also shows the breakdown of avoided emissions resulting from using clean fuels, solar energy power and hot water generation, green lighting system and geo-thermal heat pump during the Games period (UNEP, 2009).
Another study was published in 2007 by the LOCOG for the 2012 London Olympic Games which estimated potential carbon footprint of the Games (London2012, 2007b). This comprehensive study provides the estimated GHG emissions from the construction and operation of the venues, transportation of visitors, waste and materials, merchandising, catering, accommodation, torch relay and other activities. After the event, the carbon footprint of the Games was calculated again based on the real data. The results were published by the LOCOG in December 2012 in the post- Games sustainability report ‘A legacy of change’ (London2012, 2012). The outcome of the report show that the total actual measured carbon footprint of the Games (including construction of the Olympic Park and staging the event) was 3.3 million tonnes of CO2-eq against the original estimated reference value of 3.4 million tonnes
of CO2-eq. The report also provides a breakdown of the total emissions to
demonstrate those areas where the most emission savings were achieved.
The outcomes of the recent studies and publications on the evaluation of environmental impacts of mega-events demonstrate that significant progress has been made in the last decades and a number of tools such as ecological and carbon footprints are now widely used for environmental assessment of mega-events. It is also recognised that environmental impacts of the Games should not only include those associated with the activities during a short period of the actual event staging, but also those resulting from a much longer preparation and construction phase. It was estimated that more than 60% of the total GHG emissions for the London 2012 Olympics are attributed to the construction of the venues and transport infrastructure (London2012, 2012).
Almost all of the reviewed studies accentuate the importance of integrating the impacts from both construction and event phases for a holistic impact assessment. However, the majority of them do not mention the other phase of a mega-event
Chapter 3
67
project, which is the longest and, perhaps, the most important one – the post-event legacy. For many years, mega-event legacies were associated with specific sport- related activities in the post-event period or with a tourism legacy (Kasimati, 2003; Cornelissen, 2004; Li and McCabe, 2013). Lately, however, the importance of more wide-ranging post-event legacy types has been strongly emphasised by the organisers of mega-events and authorities of the host cities (Frey et al., 2008).