Despite legacy becoming the critical part of a bid candidature, a precise and consistent definition remains elusive (Agha et al., 2012, Gold and Gold, 2009, Leopkey and Parent, 2012a, Matheson, 2010, Preuss, 2007). Cashman (2006) observed that ‘legacy is often assumed to be self-evident, so that there is no need to define precisely what it is’ (p.15).
Remarkably, the IOC Symposium, convened in 2002 to discuss legacy specifically, made no attempt to pin the term down, arguing instead that legacy is essentially a fluid concept, the result of a unique convergence of social and spatial contingencies:
‘The Symposium has recognised the importance of the concept of legacy in the organization and in the final evaluation of the Olympic Games, but when attempting to define legacy, we have found that there are several meanings of the concept..(..). In general, the Olympic legacy referred to at the Symposium is multidisciplinary and dynamic - changing over time - and is affected by a variety of local and global factors. Therefore, whilst being difficult to define, it is a local and global concept, existing within cities, regions and nations, as well as internationally’ (Centre for Olympic Studies, 2002 p.1).
However, there are several problems associated with such conceptual ambiguity. First, the absence of theoretical integrity and coherence means that in effect the concept is akin to a depository or, in the words of Gold and Gold (2009), a ‘convenient omnium gatherum’
(p.182), into which diverse legacy goods can be thrown arbitrarily by way of strategic justification for hosting mega events. The second issue is that no valid attempt can be made to measure legacy or evaluate its success until the conceptual groundwork has been prepared and agreed (Cashman, 2003). Finally, an ontological perspective requires that the concept is interrogated in order to reveal the social reality it represents. This dictate heeds Bourdieu’s warning to researchers to ‘beware of words’, especially those which hide their social
construction behind assumed meanings in order to further vested interests. Not surprisingly, linguistic complexities were revealed at the 2002 IOC Legacy Symposium with some academics (Hiller 2002) arguing in favour of substituting the word legacy for more neutral and precise terms such as ‘outcome’ or ‘impact’; whilst others advocated its retention because of its current dominance within Olympic discourse.
Despite IOC reluctance to define this ‘slippery term’(Vigor et al., 2004 p.8), the search in the academic literature for an unambiguous understanding of legacy continues unabated.
Several critics have sought inspiration by returning to the etymological or literal definition of legacy (Agha et al., 2012, Gold and Gold, 2009, Leopkey and Parent, 2012b, Mangan, 2008, Preuss, 2007). The Oxford English Dictionary (2011), for example, defines legacy as
‘something handed down by a predecessor’ (p.813). The inference within this statement is that legacy is something tangible which can be bestowed from one generation to the next;
that it is the property of someone who has the authority to bestow a legacy; and that it can be left ‘by will’. Despite found wanting on several counts, this line of inquiry does nevertheless raise some fundamental questions with regard to legacy, such as: what should be included within legacy, and what should not; who ‘controls’ legacy; is legacy always intentional, or might unforeseen consequences arise; should legacy be construed retrospectively without any regard for its future planning; and, not least, who might be considered the primary legatees or beneficiaries? With the latter point in mind, and once again drawing on its etymological origins, should legacy be judged primarily in the light of outcomes pertaining to the future generation of young people, a group considered by the general public as a legacy ‘priority’ (DCMS, 2007)?
A useful first step in the analysis of legacy is to disaggregate the concept into its different types. Several academics have veered towards a ‘catch-all’ categorisation or typology of different legacy domains. Cashman (2003) proposed six overlapping fields: economic legacy; legacy of the built and physical environment; information and education legacy;
legacy of public life, politics and culture; legacy of sport; and legacy of symbols, memory and history; while Chappelet (cited in Preuss, 2007) classified legacy into the five different types (sporting, social, environmental, urban, and economic), a categorisation adopted wholesale by the IOC in their first ever Olympic guidance on legacy (IOC, 2012). In a similar vein, Preuss (2007) identified six ‘event-structures’, namely infrastructure, knowledge, image, emotions, networks, and culture. More recently, Chappelet (2012) argues that proposing further legacy typologies is a ‘futile exercise’ (p.78) on the basis that, given the conceptual elasticity of the term, the segmentation process could continue ad infinitum.
Notwithstanding this observation, there are two major shortcomings with a classification approach. Firstly, it provides a one-dimensional view of legacy and is therefore unable to capture adequately the complexities, uncertainties, and tensions associated with legacy generation. Secondly, it implies that all legacy outcomes hold equal value. As will be shown later, economic impacts have received by far the most attention, while social impacts have had much less attention in the literature (Kemlo and Owe, 2014, Kornblatt, 2006, McCartney, 2010, Smith, 2009).
A reading of the literature reveals six legacy dimensions worthy of note. The first distinction commonly made (Chappelet 2012) is between outcomes which are ‘hard’ (tangible, subject to measurement) and those which are ‘soft’ (intangible, less measureable). Some scholars (Cashman, 2003, Kornblatt, 2006) oppose the use of the qualitative descriptors, hard and soft, because of the implicit connotation of superiority of the former over the latter. Indeed, the privileging of the measureable is evident both in the selection of indicators within the OGI Project (IOC, 2009) and in the bid documentation analysed by Leopkey and Parent (2012b), this despite the IOC’s protestations of their equal significance (IOC, 2012).
Secondly, legacies can be intended (e.g. the construction of sporting venues) or unintended (e.g. security incidents; budget overruns; greater social inequity). Thirdly, experience from past games suggests that a legacy can be positive or negative, depending on the perspective of the assessor (Dixon and Gibbons, 2014, Hiller and Wanner, 2011, Preuss, 2015, Silk, 2011). For example, new transport infrastructure might result in greater congestion for local residents whilst simultaneously improving the overall traffic flow for city planners and business (Mangan, 2008, Preuss, 2007). Fourthly, a distinction can be made between territorial and personal legacies (Chappelet 2012) insofar as there are legacies which accrue to the host territory and remain there (e.g. image; reputation); and others (e.g. skills development through volunteering) which belong to individuals who take these gains with them on leaving the said territory.
Fifthly, there are temporal dimensions which serve to augment the complexity of legacy (Preuss, 2007, Preuss, 2015). Legacy includes effects which are indeterminate or vary in their duration; some being long e.g. infrastructure, while others are more transitory e.g.
cultural events. This aspect was highlighted by the IOC (2012): ‘some benefits can be experienced well before the Games even take place, while others may not be seen until years after the Games have ended’ (p.9). Preuss (2015) introduces the notion of a legacy which remains latent until such time as an opportunity arises to activate it. By way of example, he cites the knowledge that city leaders acquire in bidding and preparing for a mega event,
which has value only if the same city bids for another mega event. The activation process is thereby conceptualised as a shift from ‘value in exchange’ to ‘value in use’ (p.2).
Cashman (2002) identifies four distinctive temporal phases associated with legacy. Whilst bidding for the event is characterised by hyperbole and over-claiming of legacy benefits, the event preparation or ‘pregnancy’ phase (Preuss, 2015, Weed et al., 2015) entails some curtailment of legacy claims due to the reality of operational challenges. New actors are introduced during this phase, as the bid committee hands over responsibility for the staging of the event to a local Organising Committee (OC), an independent limited company.
Ultimately, the latter has no vested interest in legacy, as evidenced by its early dissolution soon after the event (Agha et al. 2012). Staging the event represents the culmination of planning efforts and is intrinsically inclined towards short-term, ‘feel-good’ celebration, as evidenced in the case of London 2012 (Greenslade 2012). Finally, the post-Games stage requires careful stewardship and continuity of vision. The evaluation of the adjunctive Manchester 2002 Legacy Programme testified to policy and institutional drift post-Games (Smith and Fox, 2007). In the case of London 2012, legacy governance arrangements had been strategically planned from the bidding stage. These have been criticised however for being unduly complex and fragmented (Girginov, 2012), involving a ‘constantly evolving
“alphabet soup” of agencies, QUANGOS, boards, partnerships, forums and units’ (Smith, 2013 p.1935) intended to develop different aspects of legacy. Examples include the Olympic Delivery Authority charged with the delivery of the infrastructural legacy and the Legacy Trust, which continued to fund sporting and cultural activities post-2012, albeit at a much reduced scale.
Finally, a critical examination of the spatial dimension of legacy is required. Preuss (2007) claims that the city centre of the host city often stands to benefit more from image and re-urbanisation than other locations in the city or country; whilst Smith (2013), in a study of governance and planning arrangements in the twelve years leading up to London 2012, found a privileging of city-wide and national stakeholders over local community interests because of the tight deadlines involved. Although Kornblatt (2006) claimed that most jobs created as a result of London 2012 would most probably be taken up by those living outside the host boroughs, she was adamant that this should not deter local training and employment strategies from maintaining a steady focus on longer term opportunities within East London itself.
For the purpose of this study, the definition of legacy proposed by Chappelet (2012) - ‘all that remains and may be considered as consequences of the event in its environment’ (p.77) - is considered most useful. However, it is worth adding to this the proviso of intention suggested by Smith (2013) to convey the fact that legacy is also ‘something that is purposefully delivered’ (p.1921). Having settled on a satisfactory definition of legacy, the next logical step is to examine the literature to gauge the reality of achieving a positive legacy from hosting sporting mega events and to explore the potentiality for unintended or negative consequences.