1. Empirical Investigation of Sport Event Legacy in Australian and Canadian Contexts Alana Thomson, PhD Candidate, University of Technology, Sydney* Becca Leopkey, PhD Candidate, University of Ottawa Dr. Katie Schlenker, University of Technology, Sydney Dr. Nico Schulenkorf, Auckland University of Technology Sport Management Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ) Conference, Wellington, New Zealand 25th – 26th November, 2010 Correspondence: Alana.Thomson@student.uts.edu.au

3. Increasing need to plan for long-term outcomes for a host city from staging an event (Hiller, 2003; Preuss, 2007)

4. maximise positive outcomes and limit negatives (Chalip; 2004; Preuss, 2007; Gratton & Preuss, 2008)

5. A need to clarify understanding of legacy in the sport event context (Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2009)

9. Coding Frame - 5 key considerations (Thomson, Schlenker & Schulenkorf, 2009)

10. Qualitative analysis software Nvivo 8 & Atlas TI (Miles & Huberman, 1994)

12. Formal bid process required

13. Evidence of government involvement (Bid and/or Event staging process);

14. The event had to demonstrate the notion of an ‘Urban Project’ through:

15. Economic impact for the State economy; and/or

16. Opportunities for refocusing the city (capital investments, duration of 5 days); and/or

17. Place marketing (media coverage, 1000 participants).

20. Over time, documents increased reference to legacy

21. However, terminology varies, making comparisons difficult:

22. legacy outcomes;

23. legacy assets;

24. legacy contributions;

25. legacy obligations; and

27. Australia

28. Ideas of bestowal

29. Legislation in place to avoid negative legacies

30. Canada

31. Planning for legacy more evident

32. Specific organisations to coordinate legacy from sport events

33. Ideas of maximising legacy

34. Major contextual difference

35. Montreal Olympics negative legacy

37. Long-term, permanent, enduring, transferable

38. Reference to legacies evolving from the time of the event to reflect community needs and interests

40. “Venues previously built for the 1978 Commonwealth Games, 1983 University Games, 2001 , World Athletic Championships and 2001 World Triathlon Championships were utilized” (Edmonton World Masters Games 2005)

42. celebratory reporting and limited critical reflection

43. Canada connection between success and legacy

44. Legacy only negative when previous events are discussed for legacy comparison

45. “Several previous Olympic Games have left host cities and underwriters with an unwelcome legacy in the form of large public debt. NSW Government legislators sought to avoid this outcome” (Sydney Olympics 2000)

48. 1956 Melbourne Olympics

49. 1980s – potential of events realised

50. Policy landscape adhoc and driven by States

51. Federal Strategy 2000 - Draft

52. State legislation

53. focuses on event delivery

54. no requirements to consult or coordinate delivery of event obligations

55. Canada

56. 1930 British Empire Games

57. 1976 Montreal Olympics (debts paid 2006, lessons learned)

58. Federal Policy:

59. sets blueprint for benefits from hosting events

60. government funding to be spent on legacy

62. Policy landscape has had some influence on sport event legacy

63. Over 2 decades of event reporting shows a limited increase in sophistication of legacy planning, implementation and evaluation

64. Celebratory claims

65. Limited accountability to stakeholders

67. Clarification of terminology - clear conceptualisations of legacy, starting at the event bid stage

68. Clear identification of stakeholders

69. Critical outline of stakeholder and legacy management process and evaluation

70. Future Research

71. More international sport event contexts

72. Influences of varying policy contexts

74. Gratton, C., & Preuss, H. (2008). Maximizing Olympic Impacts by Building up Legacies. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), 1922-1938.

75. Hiller, H. (2003). Toward a Science of Olympic Outcomes: The Urban Legacy. Paper presented at the Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984-2000, International Symposium.

76. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. California: Sage Publications.

77. Preuss, H. (2007). The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Mega Sport Tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), 207-227.

79. Related Publications Thomson, A., Leopkey, B., Schlenker, K., & Schulenkorf, N. (2010). Sport Event Legacies: Implications for Meaningful Legacy Outcomes. Paper presented at the Global Events Congress IV, UK Centre for Events Management, Leeds University, UK, 14-16 July 2010, presentation available: http://www.slideshare.net/alanathomson/2010-thomson-leopkey-schlenker-and-schulenkorf-event-legacies Thomson, A., Schlenker, K., & Schulenkorf, N. (2009). Event legacies: An Empirical Testing of the Legacy Concept. Paper presented at the 15th Annual SMAANZ Conference, Facilitating Sustainable Sport Management Practices, 26-29 November 2009, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia, p.102, presentation available: http://www.slideshare.net/alanathomson/thomson-schlenker-schulenkorf-smaanz-2009-event-legacies Thomson, A., Schlenker, K., & Schulenkorf, N. (2009, 6-8 July). The Legacy-Factor: Towards conceptual clarification in the sport event context. Paper presented at the International Event Management Research Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia , pp.360-374, presentation available: http://www.slideshare.net/alanathomson/2009-07-07-the-legacy-factor-emrc-final-share-copy