Master's Degree Thesis

Sustainable Physical Legacy Development via Large-Scale International Sport Events

Elin Olsson Elizabeth Moore Marvin Lannefeld S. Solaleh Abedi

Blekinge Institute of Technology Karlskrona, Sweden 2020

Examiner: Henrik Ny Ph.D. Primary advisor: Pierre Johnson M.Sc. Secondary advisor: Giles Thomson Ph.D.

Sustainable Physical Legacy Development via Large-Scale International Sport Events

.+0
.4410
.+;#$'5*
113'
#37+0
#00'('.&

1.#.'*
$'&+

Blekinge Institute of Technology Karlskrona, Sweden 2020

Thesis submitted for completion of Master of Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.

$453#%5 In an increasingly urban society, cities pose both challenges and opportunities to move towards a more sustainable society. This study examines the role of large-scale international sport events in sustainable development within host cities, with a focus on the physical legacies that they leave behind. The research seeks to offer guidance to enhance sustainable physical legacy development, informed by Games’ strategy documents, impacts on host cities and professional opinions. The research was conducted using three key methods: an examination of key strategy documents, a literature review of academic and grey literature to record infrastructure projects and interviews with professionals who had worked with four specific Games (Vancouver 2010, London 2012, Gold Coast 2018 and Birmingham 2022). The findings implied that social infrastructure and transport projects were most commonly recorded and that the sport event industry operates with a Triple Bottom Line understanding of sustainability. Based on the findings, a design thinking framework was used to design and propose guidelines. The guidelines recommend a shift to the 3-nested dependencies model and propose the development of key skills (leadership for sustainability and flexibility) and key actions (sustainability education/communication and audit).

':813&4: Sustainability, Infrastructure, Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Legacy

i

Statement of Contribution

Back in December 2019, four master’s students found each other over a shared interest in how sports events could become more sustainable. They were: Solaleh, who holds a medical degree and lived in many different cultures, originally from Iran; Elin, a Swedish water-engineer with a heart for social actions; Lizzie, who is an Oxford graduate with academic training in French and Russian plus experience in sports events; and lastly, Marvin, who has a background in urban planning and sustainable mobility from Germany. An exceptional thesis process of five months enabled these master students, with diverse backgrounds, to form a highly efficient thesis team. The diversity in their backgrounds and character were great strengths, while dealing with the uncertainty and complexity of writing a degree project.

Elin was a committed, thoughtful, and hard-working member of the thesis team. She led several group meetings very effectively. Elin always played an active role in group discussion and found balance between critical reflection and encouragement. She always stayed positive and upbeat and lived up to her can-do attitude. Elin took the leading role for the assessment of Games sustainability definitions and descriptions – this involved leading group discussion and analysis for this section, as well as writing up the methodology, results, and discussion section for this part. To achieve results for this part, Elin designed a framework that could be used as an adaptation of the FSSD.

Solaleh was an honest, hard-working, and thoughtful member of the thesis team. She completed the tasks that she took on in an excellent manner. Solaleh also played an active role in reaching out to interviewees, but more specifically, she took the leading role for the Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities – this involved leading group discussion and analysis for this section, as well as writing up the methodology, results and discussion section for those chapters. As part of this section, Solaleh designed a table to improve our analysis of the results. Memorably, Solaleh hosted a team social event, which was great for team morale during a challenging time in which had significantly altered our ways of working.

Elizabeth was a committed, enthusiastic, and honest member of the thesis team and encouraged the group to learn while doing. She took the lead in the analysis of interviews, using coding to make sense of all the information found in the interviews. She developed a framework for categorising infrastructure projects for the purpose of assessing Games’ impacts on host cities. She initiated and led a huge number of interviews, and as a native English speaker, Elizabeth has provided guidance in wording and phrasing which has been greatly appreciated. Elizabeth created a project plan and led a key planning meeting to ensure that the team stayed on track. She took the lead in the identification of reasons for Games' impacts on host cities. It is impressive how much she gets done in a short time.

Marvin has been focused on setting the scene for the thesis. He did a great job of structuring all information found in literature and writing it all up into the introduction. He pulled out the stops when it came to securing interviewees and ended up being the lead contact for ten out of sixteen interviewees, additionally, he took the lead in the design of the interview questions for the semi- guided interviews. Marvin was also responsible for design – both by giving our documents a nice overall structure and lovely graphics and by proposing and guiding the creation of the resulting guidelines with the design thinking framework. All done in a very open, and efficient manner. Memorably, he took the role of the tech master and came up with effective and fun designs for skype meetings.

ii

There is no need to say that all members contributed to all parts of the thesis. Everyone researched information that is presented in the introduction and has led and transcribed interviews. Additionally, everyone assessed information that led to the outcome of all result chapters and the guidelines. All members of the thesis team were active in discussions and results and contributed to the write-up and presentation of the thesis.

iii

Acknowledgements

We, Elin Olsson, Elizabeth Moore, Marvin Lannefeld and S. Solaleh Abedi would like to express our gratitude and appreciation to the wonderful network of advisors, learning facilitators, sport- and sustainability professionals, designers and everyone else who supported us throughout this learning and writing journey, especially in these challenging times of a global pandemic.

First, we would like to thank our primary advisor Pierre Johnson M.Sc. for his excellent guidance and recommendations throughout the whole thesis process. His sharp eye and supportive comments helped us throughout the whole process. We are also grateful for the encouragement of our secondary advisor Giles Thomson Ph.D., who took the time to give us valuable insights and contacts from his professional background, in urban planning and his experience in working with the London 2012 Olympics.

We are sending a special ‘thank you’ to the professionals who took time out of their busy schedules to participate in video interviews with us. Because of the European GDPR-law, you will stay the unnamed heroes of our thesis. Please know that we will be forever appreciative of the time we spent together and that without your input this thesis would not be the same, and probably would not have been possible at all.

We would also like to thank Karl-Henrik Robèrt, Dave Waldron and Göran Broman for establishing the MSLS program, enabling us to experience this unique learning journey. Our gratitude also goes to Merlina Missimer who as the program director of MSLS had to deal with an unprecedented situation and still supported us during those challenging times. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize how grateful we are for all the guidance and support we have been given by all the MSLS-staff.

Lastly, we would also like to thank the MSLS class of 2020 for sharing this experience with us, your support and friendship were invaluable.

iv

Executive Summary

0531&6%5+10

Human activities are systematically undermining the ecological and social systems. The longer society waits to transition to a sustainable state, the more harm will have been done, making it even harder to sustain human society and causing the transition and the situation to be even more severe (Broman and Robèrt 2017). Cities have the potential to play a key role in this transition. Urban areas produce large proportions of global emissions (United Nations 2015), but also provide space and opportunity for innovation (United Nations Development Programme 2016). Infrastructure could play an important role in cities' potential for a transition towards a sustainable society. All sport events bring negative impacts on the environment (Meurer and Lins 2017; Zouain et al. 2019), however, there is also potential to create lasting impacts for the host cities and support the movement towards sustainability. There are many examples of how sport events are occasions for wide-ranging city redevelopment (VanWynsberghe, Derom, and Maurer 2012). Both the Olympics and Commonwealth Games are large-scale international multi-sport events which for each instalment move to another location and bring significant infrastructure development to their host cities. If sport events overall contribute or counteract a move towards a more sustainable society has been a controversial topic (Boykoff and Mascerenhas 2016; VanWynsberghe, Derom, and Maurer 2012) and cannot be answered with certainty. All planning choices are a series of delicate balances and trade-offs, as it is with all projects that are assessed regarding sustainability. But because they represent some of the largest global events with the highest budgets in the world, the Olympic and Commonwealth Games both bring transformative potential for their host cities.

The term sustainability is ambiguous. If a common understanding of sustainability could be found perhaps sport events would be able to achieve more positive outcomes. The Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) offers a unifying way of working when it comes to sustainability (Broman and Robèrt 2017). The Framework is based on a principled, science based and fully comprehensive definition of sustainability: “In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing …1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust. ...2. concentrations of substances produced by society. ...3. degradation by physical means. And people are not subject to structural obstacles [to:] ...4. health. ...5. influence. ...6. competence. ...7. impartiality. ... 8. meaning-making.” (Broman and Robèrt 2017, 23). The 3-nested-dependencies model that describes the economic system as nested within the social system which is nested within the ecological system is aligned with the FSSD (Senge et al. 2008).

The purpose of this report is to explore how sport events are affecting the global sustainability challenge and if there is potential for sport events to enhance the movement towards sustainability. Infrastructure built for the event and intended to last longer than the Game's duration shall be addressed as physical legacy throughout this thesis. The methodology for the research was built up by two phases. The results of Phase 1: Research fed into Phase 2: Design – Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development. The target audience for the guidelines are members of Organising Committees (OCs) for the sport events and the research is scoped to physical legacy development that occurred for the staging of the Olympic and Commonwealth Games from 2010 to 2022. The main Research Question (RQ) was: How could

v

the potential for sustainable physical legacy development via large-scale international sport events be enhanced? A set of sub-questions (SQ) have aided the researchers to answer the RQ: 1. How have the Olympic and Commonwealth Games described and defined sustainability? 2. What physical legacy development patterns can be seen for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games? 3. What could block or enable more sustainable physical legacy development?

'5*1&4
–
*#4'

'4'#3%*

*#4'

'4+)0

Phase 1: Research was designed to answer SQ1, SQ2 and SQ3. Phase 2: Design used the results from Phase 1: Research for Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development.

To answer SQ1: How have the Olympic and Commonwealth Games described and defined sustainability? Definitions and descriptions of sustainability used by planning authorities of the Games were assessed to determine if they were holistic. A structured content analysis was conducted, of official strategy and/or policy documents from the specific Games and of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF). A template was created to guide the content analysis.

To answer SQ2: What physical legacy development patterns can be seen for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games? data from official documents of the Games and academic publications were collected and categorized based on a framework for infrastructure proposed by Weber, Alfen and Staub-Bislang (2016).

To answer SQ3: What could block or enable more sustainable physical legacy development? semi-structured interviews were conducted, in relation to the following Games: Vancouver 2010, London 2012, Gold Coast 2018 and Birmingham 2022. The analysis method used was thematic coding. Each of the interviews was transcribed, and a coding framework was created. Quotes were categorised into codes that emerged within these overarching themes.

Phase 2: Design used an adapted Design Thinking Approach with five stages to create Guidelines (Interaction Design Foundation 2018). These Guidelines offer one potential answer to the RQ. The goal of the 1. Step was to understand the audience. The 2. Step consisted of defining the potential underlying problems of sustainable physical legacy development and also included the creation of a formulation of a vision to move towards sustainability. The 3. Step was the ideation phase to generate a range of ideas. In the 4. Step a prototype for guidelines was developed and the 5. Step would be to test out those guidelines with the audience. The 5. Step was not conducted because of time constraints.

*#4'

'4'#3%*
–
'46.54

The Assessment of Games Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions was conducted for the IOC and CGF as well as for all Games within scope. The IOC provided more open and accessible documentation and guidance in relation to sustainability than the CGF. Both were found to have sustainability as a core concept, but adopted the Triple Bottom Line Model for sustainability as opposed to an understanding that aligned with the 3-nested-dependencies model, which would be aligned with the FSSD.

For the analysed Games, there was a large variety in documentation availability regarding sustainability. Five out of eleven Games were found to have a clearly stated definition of

vi

sustainability, but none of the stated definitions were found to be usable as a unifying and operational definition. The Games were found to approach sustainability either as themes or focus areas, as sustainability projects or embedded into the planning and decision processes. However, all Games were found to adopt the Triple Bottom Line Model for sustainability. A majority of the Games were found to highlight the connection between human activities and a decrease in ecological and/or social capital as well as having a balanced sustainability focus – both addressing social and ecological aspects. Finally, all Games highlighted the importance of legacy in relation to sustainability.

Overall, 300 projects from the Games were accounted for in the Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. Social Infrastructure and Transport had the highest number of documented projects. 168 projects were related to Social Infrastructure and 60 to Transport. The results indicated that Social infrastructure and Transport were likely to be the topics that have been documented more than others.

For the Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities four coding categories emerged: 1. Potential barriers to sustainability 2. Potential enablers for sustainability 3. Observations about physical legacy 4. Mindset recommendations to increase the likelihood of a sustainable outcome. The most significant themes found for the overarching category Potential barriers to sustainability were: Games-time/post-Games-time agenda clash, Inadequate sustainability definition, Money/business as the main driver, Legacy/sustainability ambiguity, Budget and Party politics, e.g. climate unfriendly government leadership. The most significant themes found for the overarching category Potential enablers for sustainability were: Definition or vision for sustainability, Long-term planning, Sustainability as high on the agenda, Audit, and Municipal sustainability work.

*#4'

'4'#3%*
–
+4%644+10

The IOC provided a large amount of guidance through documentation and support materials, whilst the CGF had mainly overarching documentation. However, looking at the documentation provided by the Games OCs in relation to the documentation provided by the Games, no clear correlation was seen – all Games themselves provided documentation about sustainability. Both the IOC and the CGF were touching upon the responsibility for sport events to be used as leverage towards sustainability, conveying the impression that there was will to be part of the transition towards a more sustainable society. However, in order to be part of that transition words need to be put into action. The potential coverage of the eight Sustainability Principles from Broman and Robèrt (2017) was assessed to be higher for the IOC than the CGF. However, the assessment was only based on the available documentation.

For the Games, a variance was seen in type and availability of documentation regarding sustainability. Open accessible documentation adds transparency to processes however, it is important to keep in mind that documentation and guidance need to be tailored to purpose being open, flexible, and adjustable to specific situations when needed and specific enough for practical use when needed. Only about half of the Games had a clearly stated definition of sustainability and none showed to be suitable for use as a unifying and operational definition of sustainability – which could be expected due to the comprehensiveness and science basis of the FSSD and its principled definition of sustainability. Furthermore, all assessed Games adopted the Triple Bottom Line as a frame for their sustainability work. This is reasonable since

vii

the Triple Bottom Line is the most commonly used approach. However, adopting the 3-nested- dependencies model would strengthen the systemic approach and align with the FSSD.

Sport events have a significant impact on host city infrastructure. The results implied that infrastructure which is closely related to the event has been the focus of what could have been identified, rather than infrastructure that serves the larger population. In the documentation of the impacts, social and transport infrastructure seem to be more effectively communicated, than other kinds of infrastructure. This may be due to authors of research papers being more interested in those topics, rather than into others. Some inconsistencies were noticed in data collected by an official Games source, compared to other freestanding sources. Due to time constraints and travel restrictions applied because of COVID-19 the researchers were unable to analyse physical legacies in person. Thereby further cross-validation was not possible.

Given the timeframe of the research and challenges posed by COVID-19, 17 was a satisfactory number of interviews to have achieved. The results of the interviews also clearly echoed what was found in the other stages of Phase 1: Research. Yet, factors which limited confidence in results were a potential lack of interviewee trust as a barrier to honesty and selection of interviewees via a snowball approach, where several interviewees were closely interlinked and shared the same narrative. The themes that emerged from the coding process resulted in four overarching categories: 1. Potential barriers to sustainability 2. Potential enablers for sustainability 3. Observations about physical legacy 4. Mindset recommendations to increase the likelihood of a sustainable outcome. In total 33 themes emerged and represent 33 aspects to the answer to SQ3: What could block or enable more sustainable physical legacy development? However, the degree of confidence in the results was compromised by the fact that in some instances themes emerged because a lot was said by only one or two interviewees as opposed to a larger percentage of interviewees. The themes for enablers were more significant than the themes for barriers.

*#4'

6+&'.+0'
'4+)0
–
'46.54

Members of the Games’ OCs have to translate guidance from the IOC and CGF and the needs of host cities and other stakeholders into the delivery of the Games, therefore they were targeted as the main audience for the designed guidelines. The research illustrated several issues that OCs face. For example, that the agenda during the games-time and post-games time seemingly had different priorities and were subject to party politics, like climate unfriendly governmental leadership and short-term planning. This led to the following problem statement vision of success:

Problem statement: I am a member of the Games Organising Committee and I experience a lack of sustainability education, communication, the 3-nested-dependencies model approach to sustainability, leadership, and flexibility to drive more sustainable legacy development.

Vision: Physical legacies left by the Olympic and Commonwealth Games are making a positive contribution in moving their host cities towards sustainability.

29 unique ideas were the outcome of a brainstorming session and a three-level framework was crafted to categorise the ideas. The first level is a mental model, which holds the other two levels. This is based on the assumption that an underlying value system is driving both the development of the skills and actions of individuals. The second level represents the skills that

viii

members of the Games OCs have to foster and develop to lead towards sustainability. The last level is actions, which are translating the mindset and skills of the user to concrete activities, which are having a direct impact on the bigger system.

The Guideline Prototype covers the following topics:

x Building a sustainability mindset and adopting the 3-nested-dependencies model instead of the triple bottom line. x Developing skills: Developing leadership towards sustainability and encouraging flexibility of actions and ideas. x Incorporating actions: Applying sustainability education and communication and using a sustainability audit for all physical legacy development.

The topics were deepened with concrete examples, to guide the audience towards more sustainable physical legacy development.

*#4'

6+&'.+0'
'4+)0
–
+4%644+10

The outcome of the design process included high-level guidance regarding the mindset of the user as well as concrete actions in the audit. Yet, the guidelines were by no means exhaustive. The goal was to present a one-page guideline document based on the Design Thinking process that would enable the right audience to enhance the sustainability of physical legacies. Yet, understanding the guidelines required further research, depending on the understanding of the referenced concepts. Testing and alteration of the prototype could not be conducted because of the time constraints. The researchers assessed the design thinking approach as an appropriate method to craft guidelines and found it useful to add visioning as part of the process. The guidelines proposed one possible answer to the RQ. Yet, the desire would be to conduct appropriate testing, to actually have confidence in the outcome. In the current untested state, the guidelines may offer a gateway to enhance the potential for sustainable physical legacy development via large-scale international sport events, but this cannot be said with certainty.

10%.64+10

The research revealed a lack of clarity around how sustainability should be defined in a sports context, that the Triple Bottom Line Model was clearly favoured over the 3-nested- dependencies model and that physical legacy projects are usually framed within two themes: transport and ‘arenas for sport and leisure’. Results also revealed important areas to focus on in the pursuit of adopting a more sustainable development of physical legacies in relation to sport events. Based on the research presented in this thesis, it is concluded that the potential for sustainable physical legacy development via large-scale international sport events can be enhanced and that sports events even have the potential to improve society's movement towards sustainability. One possible way to achieve this could be for OCs of the Games to follow the guidelines proposed in this research. Thereby the Guidelines are offering one potential answer to the RQ. The research suggests that following the guidelines could lead to an increase in system thinking and the potential to incorporate sustainability into core practices. Large-scale international sport events would then have an increased potential to generate sustainable physical legacy development and in doing so contribute positively to the global sustainability challenge and the global strive towards a sustainable future society.

ix

Glossary

Infrastructure For the scope of this thesis the word infrastructure has been defined by an adaptation of the framework proposed by Weber, Alfen and Staub-Bislang (2016) which includes the following categories: Transport, Energy, Water, Waste, Communication, and Social.

Large-scale international multi-sport events Occasions that involve a variety of sporting events (e.g. athletics, swimming, and hockey, not just football), and competitors from around the world who are competing for their country at the event. The event is large enough to require additional infrastructure in the location where it will be hosted and attracts significant tourism to the area. The event is broadcasted around the globe. The examples that will be studied in this thesis are: Summer and Winter Olympics and Paralympics, and Commonwealth Games.

Legacy Sport event legacies are planned or unplanned, positive or negative, tangible or intangible structures created for and by sport events, which remain longer than the timeframe of the events (Thomson et al. 2019).

Lighthouse project A lighthouse project is a short-term, well defined, measurable project that serves as a model or a “lighthouse” — for other similar projects within the broader digital transformation initiative (Williams 2017).

Physical Legacy Physical infrastructure and cultural artefacts, that last longer than the Games’ duration, is an example for a tangible legacy of sport events (Leopkey and Parent 2012) and shall be addressed as a physical legacy throughout this report. The definition for what can be described as a physical legacy was based on an expansion of the framework for infrastructure proposed by Weber, Alfen and Staub-Bislang (2016). This can be viewed in Appendix B.

Sustainability Sustainability will be reached, once there are no misalignments with all eight sustainability principles as defined by Broman and Robèrt (2017).

Sustainability Principles The term Sustainability Principles refers to the eight sustainability principles as defined by Broman and Robèrt (2017). See Section 1.4.1 – Definition of Sustainability.

x

Table of Contents
Statement of Contribution ...... ii
Acknowledgements ...... iv
Executive Summary ...... v
Introduction ...... v
Methods – Phase 1: Research & Phase 2: Design ...... vi
Phase 1: Research – Results ...... vi
Phase 1: Research – Discussion ...... vii
Phase 2: Guideline Design – Results ...... viii
Phase 2: Guideline Design – Discussion ...... ix
Conclusion ...... ix
Glossary ...... x
Table of Contents ...... xi
List of Figure and Tables ...... xiii
List of Figures ...... xiii
List of Tables ...... xiii
List of Abbreviations ...... xiv
1 Introduction ...... 1
1.1
The Sustainability Challenge ...... 1
1.1.1
The Sustainability Challenge and Cities ...... 1
1.1.2
Sustainability Challenge and Sport Events ...... 2
1.2
Sport Events and Host Cities ...... 3
1.3
The Olympic and the Commonwealth Games ...... 4
1.3.1
The Olympic and Commonwealth Games and Sustainability ...... 5
1.3.2
The Olympic and Commonwealth Games and Cities ...... 5
1.4
Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development ...... 6
1.4.1
Definition of Sustainability ...... 6
1.5
Research Purpose ...... 7
1.6
Research Scope ...... 8
1.7
Research Questions ...... 9
1.7.1
Sub-Questions ...... 9
2
Methodology – Phase 1: Research & Phase 2: Design ...... 10
2.1
Methods – Phase 1: Research ...... 11
2.1.1
Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions ...... 11
2.1.2
Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities ...... 13
2.1.3
Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities ...... 14
2.2
Methods – Phase 2: Design ...... 16
2.2.1
Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development .. 16
3
Results – Phase 1: Research ...... 19
3.1
Results – Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions ...... 19
3.1.1
IOC and CGF ...... 19
3.1.2
Staged Games ...... 21
3.2
Results – Assessment of Games’ Impact on Host Cities ...... 24
3.2.1
Games Impact Record ...... 24
3.3
Results – Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities ...... 26
3.3.1
Interviewee Details/Breakdown ...... 26
3.3.2
Transcription ...... 27
3.3.3
Interview Coding Results ...... 28
4
Discussion – Phase 1: Research ...... 32

xi

4.1
Discussion – Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions . 32
4.1.1
IOC and CGF ...... 32
4.1.2
Staged Games ...... 33
4.1.3
Validation and Method Improvements ...... 35
4.2
Discussion – Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities ...... 35
4.2.1
Games’ Project Impact Record ...... 35
4.2.2
Validation and Method Improvements ...... 36
4.3
Discussion – Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities ...... 36
4.3.1
Interviewee Details/Breakdown ...... 36
4.3.2
Coding ...... 37
4.3.3
Validation and Method Improvements ...... 38
4.4
Concluding Discussion ...... 39
4.4.1
Vision ...... 39
4.4.2
Ambiguity between Legacy and Sustainability ...... 40
4.4.3
Sustainability Documentation and Guidance ...... 40
4.4.4
Physical Legacy ...... 41
4.5
Further Research ...... 41
5
Results – Phase 2: Design ...... 43
5.1
Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development ...... 43
5.1.1
Step 1 Empathise ...... 43
5.1.2
Step 2 Problem Definition ...... 43
5.1.3
Step 3 Ideation ...... 44
5.1.4
Step 4 Prototyping ...... 44
6
Discussion – Phase 2: Design ...... 46
6.1
Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development ...... 46
6.1.1
Prototype ...... 46
6.1.2
Validation and Method Improvements ...... 46
6.1.3
Further Research ...... 47
7
Conclusion ...... 48
References ...... 50
Cited References ...... 50
Sustainability strategies and policies for assessment of Games’ sustainability descriptions and definitions ...... 56
Official documents and academic publications for Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities ...... 59
Appendices ...... 66
Appendix A – Questions guiding the Assessment of Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions ...... 66
Appendix B – Physical Legacy Categorisation Table ...... 68
Appendix C – Interview Questions ...... 69
Appendix D – Sample of Coded Quotes ...... 70
Appendix E – Informed Consent Form ...... 73
Appendix F – Questions: Design Thinking Workshops ...... 75
Appendix G – Transcription Sample ...... 76
Appendix H – Full Table of Coding Results ...... 77
Appendix I – Problem Statement Explanation ...... 79
Appendix J – Harvest of Ideas Step 3 Ideation ...... 80
Appendix K – Guidelines in Design ...... 81

xii

List of Figure and Tables

+45
1(
+)63'4

Figure 1.1. The Olympic Framework...... 4
Figure 1.2. The Commonwealth Games Framework...... 5
Figure 1.3. Definition of sustainability. Based on Broman and Robèrt (2017, 23)...... 7
Figure 1.4. 3-nested-dependencies model vs. Triple Bottom Line ...... 7
Figure 2.1. Research Design (adapted from Maxwell 2013)...... 10
Figure 2.2. Design Thinking Framework with informative sub-chapters ...... 17
Figure 3.1. Representation of number of Games with balanced, ecological or social sustainability focus in the official documentation, the potential for coverage of SPs. Low – Putting obvious focus to either ecological or social sustainability aspects. Moderate – Potential to cover several of the SPs. High – Potential to cover all of the SPs...... 22
Figure 5.1. Three-level framework for guidelines...... 44

+45
1(
#$.'4

Table 1.1. Games included in the scope of the research...... 8
Table 2.1. Template for assessment of sustainability definitions and descriptions found in official strategy and/or policy documents from the specific Games and their OCs and the IOC and CGF...... 12
Table 3.1. Representation of number of Games with a nested approach to sustainability, a contribution to the understanding of the sustainability challenge and implied system boundaries...... 21
Table 3.2. Summary of project impact record – showing examples of projects within each infrastructure project for each Games...... 24
Table 3.3. Summary table of interviewee breakdown by role vs. Games...... 27
Table 3.4. Summary table of interviewee breakdown by Games and role focus...... 27
Table 3.5. Table of codes for themes Potential barriers to sustainability, Potential enablers for sustainability and Mindset recommendations to increase likelihood of sustainable outcome...... 28
Table 3.6. Table for theme: Observations about physical legacy...... 30

xiii

List of Abbreviations

Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) International Olympic Committee (IOC) Large-scale international multi-sport event (sport events) National Olympic Committee (NOC) Organising Committee (OC) Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) Research Question (RQ) Sub-Question (SQ) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Sustainability Principles (SPs) United Nations (UN)

xiv

1 Introduction

This chapter opens the general topic of large-scale international sports events and sustainability; sets out the topic relevance in relation to the global movement towards a more sustainable society, gives an overview of the current state of research and states the scope and goals of the research.

 *'
645#+0#$+.+5:
*#..'0)'

Humans have always had an impact on the immediate environment in which they live. The scale of this impact and the rate at which it has increased has grown exponentially since the latter half of the 1800s. The industrial revolution accelerated the changes of technology that society could use to produce a wider range of goods in a more efficient way than before (Kagermann 2015). Sharp increases of atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, deforestation and ocean acidification followed an exponential increase in resource usage and waste creation (Steffen et al. 2015). The exponential increase in resource usage can be traced back to an increase in productivity that has been accelerated by population growth (Rockström et al. 2009). Currently the human society is producing damage and exploiting resources globally, at a far higher rate than the biosphere can process (Broman and Robèrt 2017). The biosphere must process everything that is extracted from its crust and cannot export to an outside system. For example CO2 is emitted constantly and disbands in the air, but 20 % to 35 % of CO2 will stay centuries in the atmosphere (Archer et al. 2009), leading to the fact that the concentration in the air is constantly increasing since the gas is being emitted at a higher rate than it is disbanded, in turn causing an increase in the global average of temperature (Allen et al. 2009). This is only one of many examples illustrating how unsustainable interactions within our current systems are leading to unforeseen effects. Due to the exponential nature of those impacts, the longer we wait until we transition to a state where society is not systematically undermining the system in which we live; the worse the effects will be and consequently the more extensive adaptations will need to be to stop and reverse the effects on the biosphere. This illustrates the urgency for a fast transition to a sustainable society and has become known as the sustainability challenge (Broman and Robèrt 2017).

This thesis examines the potential for large-scale sport events to move society towards sustainability, using the example of the Olympic and the Commonwealth Games. The scope is to analyse if and in what way those Games could potentially enable sustainable physical legacy development and if it would be possible to leverage the Games’ momentum to move society towards sustainability.


*'
645#+0#$+.+5:
*#..'0)'
#0&
+5+'4

As of 2008 more people live in cities than in rural areas (United Nations 2019a). The United Nations (UN) has predicted that global population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050, with higher population growth in emerging countries and flattening population growth in developed countries (United Nations 2019b). Additionally, it has been predicted that 68% of the future population will live in urban areas (United Nations 2018), meaning that cities will not just grow, but they will grow on average faster than the rural areas around them. In 2016, greenhouse gas emissions from cities constituted 70% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, and 80% of

1

world's energy was used in cities (United Nations Development Programme 2016), rendering urban areas main contributors to many environmental problems. The link between sustainability and cities has been acknowledged by the inclusion of ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities’ as number eleven of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations 2015). Urbanization often comes with inequality: urban poverty is growing; the risk of violence increases, and a high proportion of people affected by extreme weather events due to climate change are found in urban areas. Although negative effects of urbanisation are extensive, there are also many positive effects. Urban areas have a high density of people allowing for high levels of interaction, turning them into hubs for talent, knowledge exchange, entrepreneurship, and capital creation. These constitute excellent conditions for innovation which is required to move towards sustainability (ibid.) and on average urban areas have a lower ecological footprint than their rural counterparts (Long, Ji, and Ulgiati 2017). That is why urbanization can be understood as a chance to accelerate sustainable development.

Infrastructure is the essential network that knits an urban community together and provides residents with key services like water, energy, ecosystem services like leisure areas or biodiversity, and the ability to travel. Adequate and sustainable infrastructure in cities could be a key component in solving the sustainability challenge. Implementing more sustainable infrastructure in urban areas makes it accessible for a high amount of the population. If a shift towards a more sustainable infrastructure is not achieved, then the consequences are severe. Fast urbanization rates and quick growth of cities are causing a struggle for cities to keep up with providing needed infrastructure, services, and governance systems (United Nations Development Programme 2016). It is essential for infrastructure planners to factor sustainability considerations into the design of infrastructure as well as to make it robust enough to cope with the climate change that the world is already experiencing (Weber, Alfen, and Staub-Bisang 2016). In sum, climate change and the sustainability challenge are making infrastructure an even more expensive business, which is putting additional pressure on a system that is already stretched.


645#+0#$+.+5:
*#..'0)'
#0&
2135
7'054

The colour green is often associated with sustainability and particularly environmental sustainability (Jänicke 2012; Loiseau et al. 2016). Terms like “Green Olympics”, “green legacies” and “green Games” are frequently discussed in academia and in the Games’ advertising (Samuel and Stubbs 2013; Mead and Brajer 2008). It seems to be an attractive association for Organising Committees (OC) and host cities to adopt when it comes to their marketing and brand strategy. A term like ‘Green Olympics’ might suggest that the Olympics are environmentally sustainable.

Yet, none of all sport events can be labelled “fully sustainable”, since all have triggered undesirable effects that have negative outcomes for the environment and society. Sport events are triggering athletes and visitors to travel by air globally (Meurer and Lins 2017), resulting in greenhouse gas emissions. Sport events can also bring negative impacts that range from gentrification to the construction of oversized infrastructure (Zouain et al. 2019). Examples range from the irreversible river damage caused by construction for Sochi 2014 (Müller 2014), to the unfulfilled promises of the Rio 2016 bid where it was planned to plant 24 million trees (Boykoff and Mascarenhas 2016) and the deaths of workers on the Qatar World Cup stadium (Pattisson 2019). In light of these negative impacts, there is clearly a need for improvement when it comes to sport events and sustainability. Although events aim to be an operational success in themselves, in the light of the global sustainability challenge they could also offer a

2

moment in time that has enormous potential to bring about multiple opportunities to create lasting sustainable impact for host city development. The assumption is, that sport events have the potential to inspire the local and global community to become more sustainable and spread change. Furthermore, sport events could have the potential to bring social benefits to individuals and communities beyond physical changes to the city and thereby influencing the social part of sustainability. Examples on how sport events affect cities are provided in 3.2. Results – Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities.


2135
7'054
#0&
145
+5+'4

As examined in 1.1.1 The Sustainability Challenge and Cities there is a strong link between sustainability and urban areas. This subchapter examines the possible effects of generating physical legacies in host cities of Games.

Sport events bring opportunities for wide ranging city redevelopment (VanWynsberghe, Derom, and Maurer 2012), increased tourism (Zouain et al. 2019; International Olympic Committee 2018), development of the local community and even promotion of a political agenda (VanWynsberghe, Derom, and Maurer 2012). Inevitably, sport event planning and hosting involves a complex system of stakeholders with different aims. However, this complexity brings opportunity; The utilisation of events as a chance for city redevelopment is referred to as festivalisation of urban planning (Häußermann and Siebel 1993). Since the development sparked by festivalisation is often not bound to standard city-planning tools like participation procedures (ibid.), proceedings can happen faster than under ordinary circumstances. But with those increases in speed social inclusion put at risk. Since the city's inhabitants have not been included in the planning process, this can lead to development projects that are undesirable for many citizens and can lead to for example large-scale gentrification. Yet, there could be potential for sport events to be an important factor in the transition towards a sustainable future. Past events have shown that there is the potential for positive outcomes, such as rehabilitated and revitalized sites, greater environmental awareness and better environmental policies and practices (Preuss 2013). In particular, the large investments into diverse infrastructure can be seen as an opportunity to have a long-lasting impact on the host city (Baumann and Matheson 2013).

Physical infrastructure and cultural artefacts, that last longer than the Games' duration, are examples of sport events’ tangible legacies (Leopkey and Parent 2012). Infrastructure that has been developed because of the Games and is meant to last longer than the Games duration shall be addressed as a physical legacy throughout this report. The large financial potential of sport events can be leveraged since they tend to generate substantial flows of financial capital and pressures for infrastructure development. For example, the city needs to provide enough accommodation for a huge influx of athletes and a lot of other infrastructure is required to receive delegations. This includes infrastructure for transport, safety, technology, medical care, accessibility (Zouain et al. 2019) and often the development of green-infrastructure, for example the park for London 2012 (Davis and Thornley 2010). There is a potential for the Games to act as a catalyst for infrastructure development that leaves behind physical legacies and has the potential to help move the city and community towards sustainability. It also needs to be addressed, that although physical legacy, like a bridge, can have an impact on the ecosystem of a city, it can also influence the social system (Zimmerman 2009). A new bridge can connect a former excluded neighbourhood to the city centre and on the other hand, lead to

3

rising rent prices. Every addition of infrastructure has the potential to contribute to a more sustainable society or to make the host city less sustainable.


*'
.:/2+%
#0&
5*'
1//108'#.5*
#/'4

Large-scale international sport events are occasions that involve a variety of sporting events where competitors from around the world are competing for their country at the event. The event is large enough to require additional infrastructure in the location where it will be hosted and attracts significant tourism to the area and is broadcasted around the globe. The examples that will be studied in this report are: Summer and Winter Olympics and Paralympics, and Commonwealth Games. The Games have been chosen, based on their outreach and investment capital. The Olympics and Commonwealth Games are both large-scale international multi-sport events and move from one location to another for each instalment. They both carry significant infrastructure development for the host cities, and it can even be argued that the Olympics are the biggest sports event happening in a reoccurring manner.

Although the Olympics originate from Games that have been held by the ancient Greeks, the first modern instalment happened in 1896 (Young 2008). Since then, the influence and size of the Games has increased significantly and rapidly. One example of the development of the Games is the development of the number of visitors during the Games time. While in 1964, the Games attracted 70,000 spectators, more than 1,1 million people attended Rio 2016. It was estimated that in 2020 more than 2 million visitors would travel to Tokyo to see the Games (Delaplace and Schut 2019). However, this number was based on predictions made before the COVID-19 pandemic started and at the time of writing, the Games have been moved to 2021. In a similar fashion, the Commonwealth Games have increased over time in influence and impact. While the Commonwealth Games have not been running as long as the Olympics, they also have a long history. The first British Games were held in 1930 with 400 participants from 11 teams (Polley 2014). Today more than 6600 athletes and officials attend the Games representing 71 nations (Jones 2018). Yet, in comparison the Commonwealth Games is still significantly smaller than the Olympics (The International Olympic Committee 2019a; 2018; Team England n.d.)

Both Games have an overarching committee that works permanently on the organisation of the Games and then the Games work with different stakeholders. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) commissions the National Olympic Committee (NOC) with members from the country and from the host city to organize the Games. The NOC forms an Organization Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) which communicates directly with the IOC. The OCOG must comply with the Olympic Charter, the contract entered into between the IOC, the National Olympic Committee and the host city (Host City Contract) and the instructions of the IOC Executive Board (International Olympic Committee 2018b).

Figure 1.1. The Olympic Framework.

4

For the Commonwealth Games the process is similar, however there are some differences. The Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) is the equivalent of the IOC and it also manages the host city bidding process as well as awarding of the Games. It also issues and monitors host city contract compliance while the Organising Committee (OC) plans and delivers the Games. While the IOC has 500 staff members, which are housed in its own purpose-built Olympic House in Lausanne (International Olympic Committee 2019a), the CGF has 13 staff members that are housed within a UK Government building in London, called Commonwealth House (Commonwealth Games Federation 2020; Commonwealth Games Federation. n.d.a). Since 2017, an established commercial arrangement means that the OC of the Commonwealth Games is now being advised by consultants from the Commonwealth Games Federation Partnership (CGFP), a subsidiary a sports and entertainment agency (Jones 2019).

Figure 1.2. The Commonwealth Games Framework.


*'
.:/2+%
#0&
1//108'#.5*
#/'4
#0&
645#+0#$+.+5:

Some authors argue that sport events are incompatible with sustainability and that hosting Games would never lead to environmentally minded policies (Boykoff and Mascarenhas 2016). However other voices say, that sport events and especially the Olympic Games have the potential to be a catalyst for positive social change in the host region and around the world since they seem to be a powerful opportunity for government funding, corporate investment, and international attention (VanWynsberghe, Derom, and Maurer 2012). If sport events ultimately can contribute to a more sustainable society cannot be answered with certainty. Games can either contribute or counteract sustainability in specific areas or projects and the assessment of whether Games contributed to sustainability or not is often based on the focus of the assessor. All planning choices made for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games are a series of delicate balances and trade-offs, as it is with all projects that are assessed regarding sustainability.


*'
.:/2+%
#0&
1//108'#.5*
#/'4
#0&
+5+'4

Since the Olympic and Commonwealth Games represent some of the largest events with the highest budgets in the world, both Games have huge transformative potential for their host cities. While the IOC is the overarching body overseeing the Games, the implementation happens within a wide range of institutions in the city. The following list illustrates the diversity among the actors by naming the bodies involved in the planning of the London Olympic Games: Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), London Organising Committee, UK Government Olympic Executive, London Development Agency, and Transport for London. The ODA was in charge for transport and planning decisions and had compulsory purchase powers, it was funding venues and infrastructure. Yet, this Authority was supported by other Olympic and municipal bodies (Brown, Cox, and Owens 2012). In the example of London, a wide-ranging Masterplan was developed with the goal to leave wide-ranging city redevelopment (Davies 2011). The diversity and number of stakeholders and actors demonstrate clearly, how complex the planning of sports events normally is. While the Games site, which has been formerly the

5

most socially excluded area of London, was definitely revitalized; critical voices claim that it was largely gentrified, meaning that the former inhabitants got pushed away from by increasing living cost and left to find a new, often more expensive, place to live (Davis and Thornley 2010; Duignan, Pappalepore, and Everett 2019; Duignan 2019). The impact of many Games on their host cities has been discussed in the academic discourse.

Like the Olympics in London, the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow were very effectively utilized as a catalyst for the physical, social, and economic redevelopment of an underdeveloped urban area (Clark and Kearns 2016). However, the redevelopment of the area required compulsory purchasing of residential homes, the same way, as it was the case for London 2012, civil liberties of local residents were compromised. This was a highly controversial case that received negative press when some residents staged a protest, refusing to leave their homes. (ibid.; Gray and Porter 2015). It cannot be concluded if in a positive or negative way, but it is clear that the Olympic and the Commonwealth Games sparked a redevelopment that had wide- ranging effects on the city (Duignan 2019; Davis and Thornley 2010; Brown, Cox, and Owens 2012; Brown, Smith, and Assaker 2016; Duignan, Pappalepore, and Everett 2019; Raco and Tunney 2010; Raco 2012; Gray and Porter 2015; Clark and Kearns 2016).


3#/'813-
(13
53#5')+%
645#+0#$.'
'7'.12/'05

Sustainability as a term is ambiguous. Some definitions set a clear focus on one aspect and others highlight other elements (Santillo 2007). How can sport events leave sustainable physical legacies in the host city if there is no common understanding between stakeholders of what they want to move towards? If a common understanding of sustainability could be found, perhaps sport events would be able to achieve better outcomes. In that sense finding a unifying definition can be compared to building a shared mental model of task and challenge. There is empirical evidence that shared mental models are directly correlating with more desirable results (Dao et al. 2017; Cassidy and Stanley 2019). One framework that offers a unifying way of working with sustainability is the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) by Broman and Robèrt (2017).

In this context, this thesis proposes an assessment of the impacts of sport events through the lens of the FSSD to aid the design of unifying guidelines that could help to provide a common and clear approach. The goal is to develop guidelines that would help to unify stakeholders towards a vision of leaving sustainable physical legacies in the host city and ultimately leaving the host city in a more sustainable state that it had been before the Games had been hosted there.

 
'(+0+5+10
1(
645#+0#$+.+5:

A clear definition of sustainability is fundamental since it creates a shared understanding on what is the overarching goal or boundary of a project and event. The FSSD offers a principled definition of sustainability by supplying eight necessary, sufficient, general, concrete and non- overlapping principles as boundaries for what can be considered sustainable (Broman and Robèrt 2017). The framework is seen as appropriate to analyse impacts and other definitions of sustainability, since the principles are formulated in the direction of what not to do, rather than what to do to reach sustainability. These eight Sustainability Principles (SPs) are illustrated in Figure 1.3. When the term sustainability has been used in this report, it will refer directly to the definition by Broman and Robèrt (2017, 23).

6

Figure 1.3. Definition of sustainability. Based on Broman and Robèrt (2017, 23).

Furthermore, since the framework has already been applied to the planning of a city that has hosted one sports event (The Natural Step Canada 2012), the application of this framework has been tested in comparable circumstances before, which underlines that the framework is appropriate for this approach. On the other hand, to our knowledge the Whistler Case (ibid.) has been the only time the FSSD has been applied in relation to a sports event, meaning that there is a gap in a further application, which leads to a gap of research objects.

Sustainability models

The widespread Triple Bottom Line sustainability model (Norman and MacDonald 2004), would not be in line with the definition of sustainability, proposed by Broman and Robèrt (2017). While the Triple Bottom Line sees economy, society and environment as spheres existing next to each other and sustainability, as the space where they are overlapping; the 3- nested-dependencies model sees the economy as existing in society and society existing in the environment (Senge et al. 2008) and thereby as interlinked systems. Based on the definition of Broman and Robèrt (2017) it can be assumed that the 3-nested-dependencies model would be an appropriate illustration for their definition of sustainability.

Figure 1.4. 3-nested-dependencies model vs. Triple Bottom Line.


'4'#3%*
63214'

Frameworks and guidelines on how to bring sustainable practices into the events and operations for hosting sport events are fairly well studied (Saito, 2016; Preuss 2015). Nevertheless, when it comes to sustainability, the sports industry has a bad reputation for being behind other industries (Orr 2019). It seems like sustainable event management literature is heavy on principles, policy, goals, and metrics, but there is a lack of research and guidance on the actual delivery process of physical legacies (Ponsford 2011). Lee (2019) even makes the following statement: “Environmental costs for hosting sport[s] mega-event can be high and there are not always environmental guidelines for events in place.” (Lee 2019, 746). Therefore, it is substantial that sport events focus on sustainability, not only to contribute to addressing the

7

global sustainability challenge, but for their own future and prosperity. “Although the IOC has taken steps to institutionalize environmentally friendly practices and promote more sustainable methods of Games procurement from its position of authority, these measures fail to operate beyond the level of rhetoric and rulemaking, providing guidance, yet lacking enforcement.” (Pentifallo and VanWynsberghe 2012, 443). The integration of sustainability is too often top- down and not detail-oriented enough, to have a real impact (Ponsford 2011).

The purpose of this research is to explore how sport events are interacting the global sustainability challenge and the possibility for these impacts to be harnessed towards a positive direction. This has been carried out by researching the cases of the Olympic and Commonwealth Games during the years 2010 and 2022 with the FSSD as a lens. This research has fed into the creation of a set of guidelines for members of organizing committees to deliver the Games, on how the potential of large-scale international multi-sport events to make physical legacy more sustainable could be enhanced. After the initial analysis of how cities are affected by sports events (see 1.2 Sport Events and Host Cities and 1.3.2 The Olympic and Commonwealth Games and Cities), a need to offer guidance for enabling more sustainable impacts on cities has been identified. The goal is to limit the content of the guidelines to one A4 page, so that they can be read fast by a potential user and inspire further research.


'4'#3%*
%12'

The presented research is scoped to physical legacy development that happened for the staging of the analysed Games. Thereby only physical legacies that were intended to last beyond the Games time have been assessed. The data collection was limited to the staging of the Olympic and Commonwealth Games from 2010 to 2022. This includes the following Games:

Table 1.1. Games included in the scope of the research.

Olympic and Paralympic Games Commonwealth Games Summer Games Winter Games

Delhi 2010 Vancouver 2010 London 2012 Glasgow 2014 Sochi 2014 Rio 2016 Gold Coast 2018 PyeongChang 2018 Tokyo 2020 Birmingham 2022 Beijing 2022

The timeframe was chosen based on time limitations of this research process and the actuality of the data. The chosen Games provided a data amount which was reasonable to assess during the set time frame and significant enough to allow to answer the Research Question (RQ). Analysing Games that were held further back in time would have generated data linked to planning and implementation processes further from the current planning processes. Older data would have been less relevant since the Games changed significantly in size (Polley 2014; Jones 2018; Delaplace and Schut 2019) and in the planning process during the last decades.

8


'4'#3%*
6'45+104

The main question, that has been analysed is the following:

RQ: How could the potential for sustainable physical legacy development via large-scale international sport events be enhanced?

 
6$6'45+104

A set of Sub-Questions (SQ) have been created to aid the research carried out to answer the overarching RQ.

Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions – SQ1: How have the Olympic and Commonwealth Games described and defined sustainability?

Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities – SQ2: What physical legacy development patterns can be seen for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games?

Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities – SQ3: What could block or enable more sustainable physical legacy development?

9

 Methodology – Phase 1:
Research & Phase 2: Design

This chapter illustrates the methods for Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions to answer SQ1, Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities to answer SQ2, and Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities to answer SQ3. These three research stages form Phase 1: Research and helped to develop the Phase 2: Design – Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development. The four methods are designed to answer the overarching RQ: How could the potential for sustainable physical legacy development via large-scale international sport events be enhanced?

For development of the methodological approach for this study an “interactive” design, based on the Maxwell Model for Qualitative Research Design was used, shown in Figure 2.1. Maxwell (2013) claims that a qualitative research design should be open to changes and reassessment of research components. The adaptability of this method helped to trace changes during the research and continuously evaluate the five different components of the research: goals, conceptual framework, research questions, methods, and validity. These components are different parts of an interrelated whole, where each concurrently affects all the others.

Figure 2.1. Research Design (adapted from Maxwell 2013).

10


'5*1&4
–
*#4'

'4'#3%*

This sub-chapter presents the overarching research design for Phase 1: Research, which is built up by three separate methods, with an aim to answer a separate SQs, and consists of three components: Method description, Analysis, Limitations and Ethical Considerations. The methods for Phase 2: Design is found in 2.2 Methods – Phase 2: Design.


Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and '4%3+25+104

The following section is a description of the methods for Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions. The section describes the method for data collection, the method for analysis and discusses the limitations and ethical considerations in relation to these methods.

Method description

This part of the research aimed to identify how planning authorities of the different Games have understood and defined sustainability, and if the used definitions (if present at all) and descriptions of sustainability are holistic. This is based on the assumption that a holistic approach in combination with descriptions and definitions that align with the FSSD would aid a move towards a more sustainable society. SQ1 guiding the assessment of Games sustainability definitions and descriptions was phrased as follows: How have the Olympic and Commonwealth Games described and defined sustainability?

The approach used for the assessment was a structured content analysis. Content analysis allows for an objective and systematic assessment of documents and texts. This is done by running all the raw material through a predetermined set of rules, in a consistent manner, to categorise the data. The systematic and objective manner of assessing the data suppresses the impacts of the assessor’s biases (Bryman 2012). Another advantage of document analysis is the strong face validity of documents that have been produced prior to research in a natural setting, generally without the attention of serving as data (Savin-Baden and Major 2002). All together this made content analysis an appropriate approach for answering SQ1.

Official strategy and/or policy documents from the specific Games and their OCs and official sustainability strategies and policies of the IOC and the CGF were used for the content analysis. The documents were retrieved from the Games’ official webpages, via document search in the search engine SUMMON through BTH library service (bth.se/eng/library), Google Scholar and on the online Olympic World Library (library.olympic.org) or via personal contacts. All documents were to be official documents i.e. documents with the logo of the specific Games or of the IOC and the CGF.

Analysis

The template seen below in Table 2.1 (a full description of the template is seen in Appendix A) was used to carry out the content analysis. A clearly stated definition of sustainability was searched for within each document. In addition, the documents were analysed to see how they described sustainability and if the description was aligned with the FSSD.

11

Table 2.1. Template for assessment of sustainability definitions and descriptions found in official strategy and/or policy documents from the specific Games and their OCs and the IOC and CGF.

Clear definition of Sustainability Alignment with the FSSD

x Contribution to understanding of the Contribution to sustainability challenge understanding of the Is there a clearly stated definition of sustainability? x System boundaries system as defined by the FSSD x 3-nested-dependencies model vs. Triple Bottom Line approach

Potential coverage

Balanced, ecological or SPs social focus x Necessary x Sufficient Blindspots Is the definition x Concrete principled? Time, legacy x General Aim for impact and restorative measures x Non-overlapping beyond staging of the Games Space (local/regional, national or global)

Embedded assumptions

Questions for each category aided the assessment of alignment with the FSSD and the clearly stated definition of sustainability (see Appendix A). Extra caution was given to the qualitative assessment of coverage of the SPs – the FSSD definition of sustainability described in 1.4.1 Definition of Sustainability. Since the SPs are negatively phrased to act as boundary conditions for a sustainable society, the scope of the SPs is huge. A total coverage of all SPs, or even all different aspects of only one of the SPs, would therefore be inherently very challenging to achieve. Taking this into consideration the assessment was designed to analyse the potential coverage of SPs instead of full coverage in a qualitative manner. The potential coverage was to be assessed high if documents were encompassing many aspects allowing for coverage of SPs and low if the focus was skewed (only focusing on social respectively ecological aspects) or several SPs were obviously not covered. The assessment was carried out via a double-blind process where the documentation for each Games was assessed independently by two different researchers both without knowledge of which other researcher was assessing the same Game. The two assessments were then compared by a third researcher, who did not know whom the two initial assessors were, with the aim to assess alignments and misalignments between the two assessments. If any misalignments were found, they were assessed again and discussed in the bigger research-group.

Limitations and ethical considerations

Two factors were expected to be main limitations to this part of the research. First and foremost a limitation in access to appropriate documentation was anticipated. This was a potential lack of openly available documentation online and the lack of personal contacts and access to appropriately informed professionals, representing all of the studied Games, who would be able

12

to hand over documentation in case the documents were not available online. Secondly, the potential varying interpretations of the studied concepts by the different researchers was a limitation. However, with the latter in mind, the method for this part of the research was designed to limit the impact of the human factor (by the double-blind assessment).

Furthermore, the method was limited by not looking fully into all aspects of for example the sustainability challenge. A contribution to the understanding of the sustainability challenge was sought for by looking for an answer to the question ‘Is it implied that human activities are undermining the ecological and/or social systems?’ but the urgency for a fast transition to a sustainable society as described in sub-chapter 1.1 The Sustainability Challenge was not analysed. Documents were assessed to contribute to an understanding of the specific topic if at least one of several aspects of the topic was covered.

This part of the research only considered documentation of sustainability definitions and descriptions. There was no involvement of individuals (with exception to potential document delivery). Therefore, this part of the research did not cover any ethical considerations on a personal level. However, it is worth considering how to address lack of documentation from a specific Games with the reputation of each organisation kept in mind. Is it fair to claim that an organisation has not considered something based on the lack of documentation or lack of access to documentation when this potentially could affect the reputation of the organisation? To limit this potential risk the results were kept anonymised to a large degree. A potential bias of the researchers could be judgment regarding the Games prior to the assessment which could possibly affect how the researcher would look upon and judge the statements in the analysed documents.


Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host +5+'4

The following section is a description of the methods for Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. The section describes the method for data collection, the method for analysis and discusses the limitations and ethical considerations in relation to these methods.

Method description

To answer SQ2: What physical legacy development patterns can be seen for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games? data was collected from academic publications and official documents from the Games (post-Games reports). The aforementioned data sources were used to collect data to assess and to find any patterns if present.

Analysis

For the assessment, all eleven Games within the scope were studied separately through official documents including academic publications and post-Games reports. The collected data was summarized systematically in a table, which recorded the physical legacies. To assess and identify patterns among the recorded physical legacies, a modified version of the infrastructure framework proposed by Weber, Alfen and Staub-Bislang (2016) was used. The modified framework can be viewed in Appendix B and includes infrastructure categories: Transport, Water, Energy, Waste and Social Infrastructure. The overarching economic infrastructure category in this framework was renamed Physical Legacy. One extra sub-category was added into the Social Infrastructure category. This was called Amenities and recorded impacts in relation to residential, commercial and hospitality projects.

13

Limitations and ethical consideration

Expected limitations for this assessment were access to appropriate amounts of data to record a sufficient number of impacts for the Games to deliver an effective evaluation. It was predicted that this would be particularly challenging for the Games that had not yet happened. Furthermore, it was assumed that there might be a discrepancy of data between official reports issued by the Games and case studies regarding sustainability impacts of the projects. In this assessment, only documents were reviewed, and no individuals were involved (with the exception of potential document delivery). Due to the timeframe of the research it would not be possible to give further assessment surrounding the sustainability of the projects. Specifically this could have involved an analysis of alignments and misalignments with the SPs in relation to the recorded impacts.


Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts 10
145
+5+'4

The following section is a description of the methods for Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. The section describes the method for data collection, the method for analysis and discusses the limitations and ethical considerations in relation to these methods. SQ3 guiding the identification of reasons for Games impacts on host cities was: What could block or enable more sustainable physical legacy development?

Method description

Interviews are a common method in qualitative research, especially when it is less about finding a specific answer to a specific question, but more about exploring and deepening understanding and interpretation of situations and people (Tierney and Dilley 2002). Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities used interviews to explore and deepen understanding and interpretation of themes uncovered in Assessments of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions and Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. More specifically, the semi- guided interview approach was used to conduct this part of the research. A set of pre-scripted interview questions were crafted, from which the researcher was able to choose questions that related to the professional background of the interviewee. The researcher could also adapt the order in which the questions were asked to aid the flow of conversation, and ask follow-up questions where they felt it would lead to useful data. This approach balanced the need for comparable data with the ability to allow interviewees space to express opinions and further detail more freely. Two researchers were present at each interview – one took notes and recorded the interview while the other focused on asking questions and engaging fully with the interviewee. This had the added benefit that the second researcher could also listen to what the interviewee was saying and ask any additional questions they felt might help to expand the data. The pre-prepared interview questions were divided into three categories: background information questions, project-related questions, and sustainability questions. A full list of these pre-prepared questions can be found in Appendix C.

Whilst eleven Games were in scope for the previous stages of the research, for the purpose of the interviews, the scope was narrowed to four specific events (Vancouver 2010, London 2012, Gold Coast 2018 and Birmingham 2022). This was done to fit the timeframe of the research. These specific Games were chosen due to a higher number of personal contacts associated with them, giving more access to interviewees, because they offered a good spread timewise over the ten-year period in scope and because they were all conducted in English-speaking countries which removed a potential language barrier.

14

Analysis

Thematic coding is a form of qualitative analysis that involves categorising elements of a text or recorded interview (Gibbs 2007). This approach was used to code interviews, as a way of condensing a lot of text into a format that allowed for comparison and for themes to emerge. All 16 interviews were transcribed using the transcription software, Otter.ai. Transcription was verbatim but did not record ‘ums’ and ‘errs’, pauses or reactions (e.g. laughter). This software helped to ensure that interviews were transcribed in a consistent style. Transcription was the first step in the seven-step method of thematic coding (Clarke and Braun 2013) that the researchers employed. The seven steps used were: transcription, reading and familiarization, coding, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining, and naming themes, and finalizing the analysis.

Initially, one researcher read all transcripts and made notes about what common themes they could see emerging. Based on their notes, in combination with the RQ, the researcher created a draft code framework, read back through the eight transcripts and in an iterative process inserted quotes into the appropriate cell on a spreadsheet, depending on which theme and code the text was identified as belonging to. This was an iterative process in that new codes were added, removed, and adjusted from the initial draft code framework as the transcripts were analysed in greater detail. A second researcher read through the same eight transcripts and performed the same coding process. The researchers’ results, both in terms of codes and where the quotes were coded to, were discussed by the research group for similarities and differences. Once the two sets of results had been discussed, the research group agreed on a coding framework and coding outcome for the first eight transcripts. A sample of this coding framework with quotes can be viewed in Appendix D. The same process was performed with the second eight transcripts by a second researcher, to counterbalance bias. The two sets of results and the overarching results of the coding table for all 16 interview transcripts were discussed and finalised by the group. The initial researcher performed the same process for the second eight transcripts, using the same coding framework that had been designed by the first round. This produced the results that are presented in 3.3 Results – Identification of Reasons for Games Impacts on Host Cities.

Limitations and ethical considerations

One limitation of the interview method is that the data is inherently subjective because for the most part it is an account of the interviewee’s personal experience and opinions. On the other hand, this is a strength of the interview method, because it allows collection of a subject experience from individuals who are experts of their own story. However, with larger data sample, e.g. more interviewees, greater confidence in results can emerge if patterns are seen. Conducting interviews, transcription and coding is a time-intensive process, however, and given the short timeframe of the research project, it was possible to interview a maximum of twenty-five interviewees. Another limitation of the interview process is the risk that despite being assured of their anonymity, the interviewee does not fully trust the researcher and therefore limits the honesty of their answers. This was particularly challenging in this project because there was not ample time to build trust to a desired extent. Another limitation of the analysis method was the fact that both researchers had experienced the same sustainability education and each had their own world view which may have biased their judgement. In addition, one of the researchers who performed the coding had worked in the sport events industry previously, so may have had their own preconceptions.

15

In comparison to medical research where bodily harm can be caused, ethical questions in qualitative research are more nuanced (Orb, Eisenhauer and Wynaden 2001). The researchers were conscious of the ethical consequences around asking interviewees for great nuance and detail around a personal narrative. For the purposes of this research, participants were asked about their professional life and had the potential to inadvertently reveal some information that might damage their professional reputation. Participants were informed of this risk prior to the interview and were asked to sign an informed consent form, which can be seen in Appendix E. Participants were made aware that informed consent was an ongoing process and that they had the opportunity to withdraw from the research at any point. The researchers were also aware that in line with the General Data Protection Regulation 2016, participants have a right to privacy and confidentiality and the right to access any personal data being processed. As a result, the researchers anonymised all data as soon as possible. The researchers also ensured that all personal data was deleted as soon as it was no longer needed to complete the research. Informed consent forms and any other personal details and contact information were stored in a secure online folder with password protection.

Another ethical aspect that is particularly relevant to sustainability science is transparency of process, or what has been referred to as ’honesties’ (Savin-Baden and Fisher 2002). This relates to the fact that particularly in research fields like sustainability that have a normative aspect, researchers should make this normative position clear. In the case of this research project, the epistemological position, or adopted normative set of values was that the research aims to further sustainable development. It was appropriate, therefore, to ensure participants were aware of the values-based aim to this research.


'5*1&4
–
*#4'

'4+)0

This sub-chapter presents the overarching research design for Phase 2: Design, which describes the process for Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development. The description consists of three components: Method description, Analysis, Limitations and ethical considerations.


3'#5+10
1(
6+&'.+0'4
(13
645#+0#$.'
*:4+%#.
')#%:
'7'.12/'05

The following section is a description of the methods for Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development. The section describes the method for the design of the guidelines, the method for analysis and discusses the limitations and ethical considerations in relation to these methods.

Method description

To create guidelines that aid the development of more sustainable physical legacies, a five stage Design Thinking approach was applied. The general approach is based on an urban design concept and offers stages of activities that are applicable for different design processes (Rowe 1987). Since the 1980s the concept of Design Thinking has been adapted to different needs and design objectives (Brown and Wyatt 2010). The process was used, because the Design Thinking approach is a proven and repeatable problem-solving tool and suitable for the complex issue that has been studied.

16

Figure 2.2. Design Thinking Framework with informative sub-chapters.

A five-stage model from Interaction Design Foundation (2018) was used as an inspiration for this process. In Step 1 – Empathize the potential user of the to be created guidelines was analysed, which was informed by the Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. Step 2 – Problem Definition consists of defining the problem which was informed by the Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions and the Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. This stage was altered, and included a definition of a vision that has been used as a basis for backcasting. In backcasting the desired future conditions are envisioned and steps are defined to attain those conditions, rather than to take steps that are continuing current trends, the steps taken through the backcasting approach are not attached to what is happening in the present but lead to the desired conditions (Dreborg 1996; Holmberg and Robèrt 2000). The methodology can be applied when issues are complex and based on present trends (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000), which makes it appropriate to tackle issues related to sustainability (Dreborg 1996). Step 3 – Ideation was the ideation phase, in which similar activities as proposed for the C-Step of the ABCD procedure defined by Broman and Robèrt (2017) were used to generate a range of ideas. This four step process is assembled out of the A- Step, which is the definition of a vision to work towards to, via a backcasting approach; the B- Step, which means to analyse the current situation; the C-Step in which creative solutions are developed; and the D-Step to prioritize in relation to moving towards the set vision (ibid.). This backcasting based procedure can be applied to develop solutions for complex issues, which makes it a suitable choice for the development of guidelines dealing with sustainable development. In Step 4 – Prototyping, a prototype for guidelines was developed and Step 5 – Testing would consist of testing the created guidelines with the audience.

Analysis

Since the guideline design process was conducted after the results were finalized, internal workshops were held to address Step 1 and Step 2 the workshops were conducted in open discussions with six guiding questions that can be found in Appendix F. The answers to those questions fed the definition of the users for Step 1 and the problem statement for Step 2. To clearly craft the problem statement more questions were discussed. Those questions that can be found in Appendix F. Based on those questions a point of view problem statement was formed and vision framed within the 8 SPs was defined. For Step 3 a one and half hour-long workshop was conducted with the following activities:

17

x Firstly, reverse brainstorming was conducted. The participants (the researchers) had to come up with ideas to make sure that sport events could not leave sustainable physical legacies. x Secondly, the negative ideas were reversed to develop positive ideas. x Additionally, one more activity was conducted in which the participants built on each other's ideas, with an “yes, and..” approach. x Lastly, the ideas were clustered around topics from the participants and a three-stage framework emerged.

In Step 4 the outcome of the workshop was qualitatively assessed and a prototype of the guidelines was developed. The ideas were clustered and simple ideas were connected and formulated to sentences within the guideline framework.

Limitations and ethical considerations

In Step 5 it would have been desirable to apply a rigorous testing method to find the weak spots and strengths of the prototype. Depending on the amount of research objects either a quantitative or qualitative approach would have been appropriate. But during the conduction of the Design Thinking approach, it became clear that only a small number of participants would be appropriate for a testing method. Since this would require a qualitative approach and since the audience also informed the assessment in Step 1 and Step 2 there would have been a risk of a circular validation; based on that the decision was made to not conduct Step 5. This decision was informed by the time constraints for this research. Since this process did not deal with participants apart from the researchers, there were less ethical considerations to be made.

18

 Results – Phase 1: Research

In this chapter the results from Phase 1: Research will be presented. This includes the Assessments of the Games Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions, the Assessments of Games Impacts on Host Cities and the Identification of Reasons for Games Impacts on Host Cities (methods found in sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3). Results for Phase 2: Design are presented separately in 5. Results – Phase 2: Design.


'46.54
–
Assessment of Games’ Sustainability '(+0+5+104
#0&
'4%3+25+104

In this section the results from the Assessment of Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions are presented. The findings identified by assessing the IOC and CGF documents are presented first and are followed by the findings identified through assessing Games’ specific documents. This section is guided by SQ1: How have the Olympic and Commonwealth Games described and defined sustainability? The method for assessment is described in 2.1.1.



#0&


Definition and description of sustainability

The CGF was found not to have a clearly stated definition of sustainability as opposed to the IOC. The IOC definition of sustainability is seen below.

“The IOC’s official definition of sustainability is that, when making decisions, we ensure feasibility, and we seek to maximise positive impact and minimise negative impact in the social, economic and environmental spheres.”(International Olympic Committee n.d., 8)

The IOC was found to have sustainability as one of three key elements in their strategic roadmap together with credibility and youth (International Olympic Committee 2017). The IOC sustainability strategy was found to focus on five areas – infrastructure and natural sites, sourcing and resource management, mobility, workforce, and climate change. The focus areas were described to reflect aspects for which the IOC’s activities have the most significant interactions in relation to sustainability and to have been selected with present sustainability challenges in mind and with the assumption that these areas would be the ones for which the IOC could contribute most effectively. The focus areas were described in connection to the SDGs (ibid.). Additionally, sustainability was described as one of four working principles for the IOC alongside universality and solidarity, unity and diversity and autonomy and good governance (ibid.).

The CGF was found to have sustainability as one of three layers in their established impact framework. The framework was described to aim at defining, assessing, communicating, and driving the positive impacts from the Games and associated campaigns and development programs (Commonwealth Games Federation n.d.b). The impact framework was found to be built up by three layers: peace, sustainability and prosperity. The sustainability layer was described as threefold – economic, social, and environmental – and with an aim for contribution to the UN SDGs via infrastructure development, employability schemes, accessibility

19

enhancements and major event strategy development (ibid). It was implied that focus should be given to peace before there would be a possibility to move on to sustainability and prosperity. In addition, and in line with the IOC working principles the CGF core values were found to be humanity, equality, and destiny (ibid).

Document availability

The CGF was found to describe their take on sustainability within the overarching strategic plan for 2019-2022, whilst the IOC was found to have a range of documents in relation to sustainability such as a sustainability strategy including the IOC sustainability policy, a series of practical sustainability guides, a carbon footprint methodology and sustainability reports. I.e. the IOC guidance was found to be significantly more extensive and detailed than the guidance provided by the CGF. However, this trend did not follow through to the OC level. Even though the CGF did not have a sustainability plan, strategy or guidance on sustainability the OCs themselves created such plans for each of the Games - the created documentation in relation to sustainability was more similar between the Commonwealth Games and Olympics’ OCs than between the IOC and the CGF.

Contribution to understanding of the system as defined by the FSSD

Both the CGF and the IOC were found approaching sustainability by means of the Triple Bottom Line which is described in 1.4.1 Definition of Sustainability. They were both also found to contribute to the understanding of the sustainability challenge. By the CGF specifically through addressing salient and systemic issues and by the IOC specifically through addressing the connection between human activities and the sustainability challenge. In addition, the IOC was found to imply system boundaries.

Relation to Sustainability Principles

The CGF documentation was found to have a skewed focus clearly highlighting social aspects of sustainability to a greater extent than ecological aspects. The IOC on the other hand had a more balanced focus where both social and environmental aspects were highlighted. Building on this the IOC documentation was found to have a greater potential to drive impacts and actions that would not contribute to any misalignments with the SPs.

Time and scale

The IOC was found to state a clear connection between legacy and sustainability and had a clear focus to reach beyond the Games in both time and scale – this partly by declaring both opportunity and duty to contribute to global sustainability. In a similar manner the CGF was found to imply reach beyond the Games in time and scale through their impact framework. For the IOC and the CGF a great difference was found between what type and number of documents were available regarding sustainability.

General

The documentation provided by the IOC was observed to have a strongly strategic approach and to a great extent be aligned with the FSSD. The importance of creating visions for Games within a sustainable future was described as well as how to create strategic action plans in a manner very similar to the ABCD-procedure (Broman and Robèrt 2017) (reversed order of

20

creation of vision and baseline assessment). Described was also the importance of prioritisation and to incorporate sustainability practices into decision-making procedures and day-to-day practises.


5#)'&
#/'4

Definition and description of sustainability

First, the documents were scrutinised to see whether they had stated a clear definition of sustainability. Five out of eleven Games were identified to have a clear definition of sustainability published in the documents found for each Game. The five Games with a clearly stated definition of sustainability were assessed using the framework that had been developed based on the FSSD. The definitions were assessed to see how well they held up as a principled definition i.e. whether they were necessary, sufficient, concrete, non-overlapping and general. The assessment was carried out via double blind assessment. Inconsistency was observed among the results – the researchers for a majority of the cases drew conclusions that were not aligned. However, no definition of sustainability showed to be principled i.e. being necessary, sufficient, concrete, non-overlapping and general.

A great variation was also found, regarding how the sustainability topic was approached and described in the respective Games documents. Many of the Games described their sustainability aims with themes and focus areas including many various topics spanning from climate change and low carbon management to Fair-Trade, human rights practices and inclusion. There were also Games focusing on sustainability through specific sustainability projects, and others where sustainability was rather embedded into the planning process of the Game.

Contribution to understanding of the system as defined by the FSSD

The assessment of contribution to the understanding of the system as defined by the FSSD was done by looking at whether or not the Games adopted a nested approach to sustainability or a triple bottom line, if they contributed to the understanding of the sustainability challenge and if any system boundaries were implied. Table 3.1 shows that all the assessed Games used a Triple Bottom Line approach to sustainability – no Games were found to have a nested approach.

Table 3.1. Representation of number of Games with a nested approach to sustainability, a contribution to the understanding of the sustainability challenge and implied system boundaries.

Contribution to the understanding of the Yes No system as defined by the FSSD (number of Games) (number of Games)

Nested approach 0 11

Contribution to the understanding of the 9 2 sustainability challenge

Implied system boundaries 3 8

Contribution to an understanding of the sustainability challenge – referring to a connection between human activities and a decrease of environmental and/or social capital – was observed for a majority of the Games (nine out of eleven).

21

Three of eleven Games were found to imply system boundaries. Two of these described boundaries referring to the IOC “Towards a One Planet Living” and the fact that humanity now is living on resources worth more than one planet (see quote below). The last described how human activities are depleting environmental resources – also implying that there are existing system boundaries.

“One Planet Living’, which encapsulates the challenges facing us in stark and compelling terms: if everybody in the world lived the same lifestyle as we do in the UK, we would need three planets’ worth of resources to support us.”(London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games 2007, 5)

Relation to Sustainability Principles

Through the assessment of sustainability focus of the analysed documents it was observed that seven of the eleven Games had a balanced sustainability focus (see Figure 3.1). This meant that both social and ecological aspects were equally highlighted. Three of eleven had a clear focus on ecological aspects and one of the Games had a clear social focus. All assessed documents were found to hold blind spots – not addressing all the SPs or narrowed down to only cover some aspects of each SP. If the documents encompassed many aspects allowing for coverage of the SPs the potential coverage was assessed to be high. If there were blind spots and some SPs were not covered the potential coverage was assessed to be moderate. Finally, if there was a clearly skewed focus – only focus on social or ecological aspects – or several SPs were obviously not covered, the potential coverage was assessed to be low. In Figure 3.1 it is seen that for four of the Games the potential coverage was assessed to be low (of which three were categorised to be low due to skewed focus), for an additional four the potential coverage was assessed to be moderate and for the final three Games the potential coverage was assessed to be high.

Sustainability Focus Potential to cover all SPs   44 8  3     2  1    Balanced Ecological Social High Moderate Low

Figure 3.1. Representation of number of Games with balanced, ecological or social sustainability focus in the official documentation, the potential for coverage of SPs. Low – Putting obvious focus to either ecological or social sustainability aspects. Moderate – Potential to cover several of the SPs. High – Potential to cover all of the SPs.

Time, scale and restorative measures

All the Games were found to aim for impacts to reach beyond the staging of the Games in both time and scale. A majority of the Games were observed aiming for global impact (seven out of eleven), whilst two of the Games reached for national impact and two for local/regional impact.

22

All Games documents were found to discuss or describe legacy and leaving positive impacts as either their mission or in close relation to sustainability.

None of the Games were assessed to imply any restorative measures in the sense to bring the socio ecological system back to pre-industrial state. However one of the Games stated that they were to “...seek opportunities that will enhance the environment…” (Glasgow 2014 XX Commonwealth Games 2013b, 2), and this was interpreted as restorative, however restorative as in comparing to the present state and not as in aiming for pre-industrial levels – although this may be debatable.

Document availability

For each analysed Game, official strategy-, policy- and/or plan documents regarding sustainability were collected. There was a great variation found in what type of documents that were presented for the different Games. Some Games only had vision and mission statements presented on their websites whilst others had a great range of presented documents e.g. Sustainability Management Plans, Carbon footprint assessments, Sustainability Reports, Sustainability policies and Legacy plans. The Games with least accessible documentation were the ones which have not yet been staged.

General

In the assessed documentation all Games were found to carry assumptions. As an example, all Games had a Triple Bottom Line approach to sustainability (see Table 3.1) – as described in 1.4.1 Definition of Sustainability. Adding on this general assumption were assumptions found to be bound more specifically to a national context or to the Games themselves, two of these examples are seen below.

“The guiding principles for this legacy plan are: x Xi Jinping’s, the President of the People’s Republic of China, thoughts on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era; x Olympic Agenda 2020/New Norm; x IOC Legacy Strategic Approach; x [...]” (Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games 2019, 2)

In the above quote it is seen how the agenda of the Chinese president was emphasised as an top prioritised standard to conform to - which could imply the assumption that the best results will be achieved by prioritising the Chineses agenda.

“In order to achieve our sustainability targets, the OC will adopt the following practices during the procurement process: To consider sustainability from the outset using cross-functional teams in order to determine the best solutions and the development of sustainably aware specifications.[...]” (Glasgow 2014 XX Commonwealth Games 2013b, 8)

Here it could be seen as implied how cross-functional collaboration was assumed to be the best approach to move towards sustainability.

23


'46.54
–
44'44/'05
of Games’ Impact on Host +5+'4

In this section the results from the assessment of physical legacy development patterns which have occurred in the host cities are presented. The findings were identified by assessing academic publications and IOC and CGF documentation. This section is guided by SQ2: What physical legacy development patterns can be seen for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games? The method for assessment is described in 2.1.2 Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities.


#/'4
/2#%5
'%13&

Overall, 300 projects were recorded by the researchers for the eleven Games within scope. A summary of the impacts recorded is shown in Table 3.2 along with a few examples of the impacts which few of them will be discussed later in the discussion chapter 4.2 Discussion - Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities.

Table 3.2. Summary of project impact record – showing examples of projects within each infrastructure project for each Games.

Social Game Transport Energy Water Waste Communication Infrastructure

- Road- - Large power -Augment water - Privatisation - All metro stations - Building a new widening production supply of waste are Wi-Fi enabled Games Village projects initiative -New water management - Compensatory - New metro treatment plant - Independent plantations Examples line initiatives - Twenty new - CNG electric under the hospitals buses banner of - Low-floor buses - Solar power “Green - Nine new rickshaws Games” automated car parks Delhi 2010 Delhi 2010

Total number of 10 1 2 2 1 7 impacts recorded

- Whistler - Hydrogen - UBC Winter - Expansion - State-of the-art - Whistler Olympic Excavation: bus fleet Sports Centre: of Recycling weather stations and Paralympic Sea to Sky - New natural Plumbing Opportunities - 286 kilometres of Athletes Village corridor gas pipeline - Whistler fibre-optic cable - Whistler centre for - The Canada - New Creekside: from Vancouver to sustainability Line substation Water pipeline Whistler - Celebration Plaza Examples - The Olympic (electricity) installation, - Whistler Creekside Line pumping - Pacific Coliseum at - Whistler stations, Hastings Park Athlete centre drainage - Three accessible Vancouver 2010 2010 Vancouver playgrounds in Vancouver, Whistler and Richmond

# 7 9 6 1 2 34

- Extension of - Energy - Drainage in - - - Olympic park the Subway centre Olympic Park - Athlete's Village - Channel - Biogas farm - Housing Examples

2012 2012 Tunnel Rail - Velodrome

London - Roads, - Demolition of bridges, housing

24

waterways in - Olympic Stadium Olympic Park - Europe’s biggest urban mall

# 5 2 1 0 0 11

- Combined - New power - Water supply - - - Olympic stadium rail-road link stations - Sewer system - Olympic park - Cargo port - Natural gas - Snowboard and Examples - Cycling and lines freestyle park other means of - Hotels slow transport Sochi 2014 2014 Sochi

# 7 2 2 0 0 17

- New train------Demolishing station next to tenement housing in the main event Dalmarnock zone - Athlete's Village - Refurbished - The Emirates Arena Examples railway station - New business - Improvements premises to streets - Construction and

Glasgow 2014 - Clyde refurbishment of Gateway route cultural venues

# 8 0 0 0 0 10

- Bus Rapid - Energy - Regeneration - New waste - - New Olympic park Transit (BRT) efficient and of banks and treatment - Maria Lenk routes low-carbon drainage centre Aquatics Centre - New metro technologies - Sanitation - Waste - International Examples line infrastructure recycling Broadcasting Centre - Light rail (IBC)

Rio 2016 network has - New Atlantica been expanded Forest park

# 3 1 2 2 0 27

- Wonju- - Wind power - - - 5G-tests during - Olympic Park Gangneung plants Olympics - Ski slopes Express - Solar panels - Alpensia ski jump Railroad on sport stadium - Highway infrastructure - New Olympic Examples - Geothermal stadium energy - Bokwang Phoenix - Energy Park reclamation

PyeongChang 2018 2018 PyeongChang installations

# 2 4 0 0 1 13

- Light rail - - - - - Athlete's Village project - Health and - New traffic knowledge research management and development centre facilities Examples - Upgrades to - Broad water major roads Parklands Project and - Mall improvements intersections - Advanced Gold 2018 Coast within the city manufacturing centre

# 6 0 0 0 0 17

- Biofueled - Increased - - - Facial- - Athlete's Village flights for solar and heat recognition - Green space/"sea Games power technology in forest project" Examples - Driverless infrastructure every stadium - Introduction of taxis at Games - 8K UHD personal mobility Tokyo 2020 2020 Tokyo infrastructure technology

25

- Pavement that - Improved - Improved Wi-Fi - Ariake Gymnastics suppresses a energy infrastructure centre rise in surface infrastructure temperatures - Low head - Intelligent hydro power Transport Systems

# 5 3 0 0 3 14

------Olympic Village - 39 new ski areas in china Examples - Ski slopes - Producing artificial snow - Press Centre Beijing 2022 2022 Beijing

# 0 0 0 0 0 15

- Sprint rapid - - - - - Athletes' Village bus services - Alexander Stadium - Cycling and redevelopment walking routes - Sandwell Aquatics Examples - University Centre Station upgrade - Perry Barr - Reopening of redevelopment Camp Hill train line Birmingham 2022 2022 Birmingham

# 7 0 0 0 0 4

Sum of all projects 60 22 14 5 7 168 recorded

Based on the total number of projects recorded, social infrastructure and transport projects were the most commonly recorded. 168 projects in the social infrastructure- and 60 projects were in the transport-category.


'46.54
–
&'05+(+%#5+10
1(
'#4104
(13
#/'4’
/2#%54
10
145
+5+'4

In this section the results from the identification of reasons for Games impacts on host cities are presented. Details about the background of anonymised interviewees are presented first and the results for the interview coding are presented second. This section is guided by SQ3: What could block or enable more sustainable physical legacy development? The method for assessment is described in section 2.1.3 Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities.


05'37+'8''
'5#+.43'#-&180

In total, 17 experts were interviewed. 16 were interviewed via video conference call and one interviewee submitted written answers by email. Except for one outlier, each interviewee was interviewed for their association with one specific Games. However, they were not prevented from disclosing relevant information about other Games in scope. The 17 interviewees were split across the four Games. The interviewees had a range of professional experience in relation to the type of organisation they had been working for in relation to that Games. Table 3.3. illustrates this breakdown.

26

Table 3.3. Summary table of interviewee breakdown by role vs. Games.

No specific Gold Vancouver London Birmingham association Games association / Organisation Coast 2010 2012 2022 with one 2018 event

Games organising committee 1 2 1

Sustainability consultancy 1 1 1

Architect (External to Games organising 1 2 committee)

Bid Committee 1

Local government /city council 1 3 1

Organising committee arms-length body 1

Total number of interviewees 4 8 3 1 1

The interviewees also had different focuses to their roles. The following table illustrates the number of interviewees that had or did not have:

a) An infrastructure planning focus b) A sustainability focus to their work, and the Games that they were interviewed in association with.

Table 3.4. Summary table of interviewee breakdown by Games and role focus.

Gold No specific Vancouver London Birmingham Games association / Organisation Coast association with 2010 2012 2022 2018 one event

Directly involved e.g. architect, urban 3 2 1 planner, city planner Infrastructure Not directly 4 5 1 1 involved

Directly involved 4 4 1 1 Sustainability Not directly 4 2 1 involved



3#04%3+25+10

Prior to coding, all interviews were transcribed. A section of transcription can be viewed in Appendix G.

27


05'37+'8
1&+0)
'46.54

The codes that emerged from the interviews could be categorised into four key themes:

x Potential barriers to sustainability x Potential enablers for sustainability x Mindset recommendations for increased likelihood of a sustainable outcome x Observations about physical legacy

Codes relating to themes 1, 2 and 3 have been summarised in Table 3.5. Codes relating to theme 4 have been summarised in Table 3.6. For the first two themes: Potential barriers to sustainability and Potential leverage points for sustainability, codes that were present in a minimum of four out of 17 interviews have been included. For the themes: Mind-set recommendations for increased sustainability and Observations about physical legacy, all codes have been included. The codes for Observations about physical legacy were based on the infrastructure categorisation table used in Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. However, three additional themes were also observed and added as codes: Increased social sustainability, Sustainable building practices and Instances where infrastructure would not have been built without the Games. Appendix D is a table that illustrates a sample of quotes that were coded to the most statistically significant themes. The full table with all codes for the first three themes can be viewed in Appendix H.

Table 3.5. Table of codes for themes Potential barriers to sustainability, Potential enablers for sustainability and Mindset recommendations to increase likelihood of sustainable outcome.

Mindset recommendations to Potential barriers to Potential enablers for sustainability increase likelihood of sustainability sustainable outcome

Number of Number of Number of Codes Codes Codes interviewees interviewees interviewees

Games-time and Definition or vision for Make guidance post-Games time sustainability context/department 8/17 10/17 3/17 agenda clash specific and keep it concise

Inadequate Long-term planning Integrate sustainability sustainability into definition overarching 6/17 9/17 2/17 strategy and ways of working at an early stage

Money/business as Sustainability as high Award Games to main driver on the agenda cities who are 6/17 9/17 2/17 already moving in the right direction

Legacy/sustainability Audit Take a business ambiguity focussed attitude 6/17 9/17 2/17 towards sustainability

28

Budget Municipal sustainability Get the politics 5/17 work 8/17 right/use 1/17 politicians

Party politics, e.g. Engagement: staff, Build a climate unfriendly community, business sustainability government strategy that can 5/17 7/17 1/17 leadership be built on and developed by next Games

Short-term planning IOC/CGF Seek to act as a pressure/encouragement catalyst for further 4/17 6/17 1/17 sustainability in local region

Events as a catalyst Create a wider 6/17 purpose than the 1/17 Games itself

Presence of Focus on people, 6/17 1/17 sustainability advocates not organisations

Cross-functional Involve diverse working 5/17 stakeholders early 1/17 on

Making use of existing Take an infrastructure 4/17 empathetic 1/17 approach

Harness youth motivation for 1/17 sustainability

Increase legislation 1/17

29

Table 3.6. Table for theme: Observations about physical legacy.

Observations about physical legacy

Codes Number of Interviewees

Sustainable building practices 10/17

Increased social sustainability 7/17

Social infrastructure 6/17

Energy 5/17

Transport 3/17

Instances where infrastructure would not 3/17 have been built without the Games

Water 1/17

Waste 1/17

Communication 1/17

Other than those included in Appendix D, the following quotes were particularly noteworthy and have been included because they will be the subject of further discussion. "There is a knowledge transfer process that the IOC facilitate, which is lip service, if I'm quite honest." (Interviewee H, London 2012, Arms-length body) “we [were] embedding sustainability in the DNA of the Games” (Interviewee D, Vancouver 2010, Bid Committee) "Well sustainability was embedded in the mission of the Vancouver Games….You know everything that was sustainability was about for our Games, was a big deal." (Interviewee K, Vancouver 2010, Organising Committee) "The policy is there for a specific purpose but it’s got to be made practically realistic for the people actually delivering. And we won’t read a policy especially if it’s that thick [mimes thick book with hands]. But give me the summary of the points, give me the practical application, happy days." (Interviewee A, London 2012, Organising Committee) “It was always nick-named the cheap Games ...realistically you are spending less than anybody else has ever done in Commonwealth Games history.... Mmm so yeah, they were willing to cut corners.” (Interviewee C, Gold Coast 2018, Architects – external) “How my memory of it is, is more around legacy rather than sustainability. That’s just the underlying thing I’ve got in my head is making a Games sustainable by leaving it as a legacy? ...How do I define sustainability? I guess for me it’s creating something or delivering something that will carry

30

on beyond its original purpose?” (Interviewee A, London 2012, Organising Committee)

Relating to sustainability guidance: “It’s context dependent, you need to be very concise, and you need to figure out where the leverage points. And, and, and you need to find out a way to do it in an interactive way so that they're actually picking it up and running with it.” (Interviewee D, Vancouver 2010, Bid Committee)

Relating to carbon offsetting: "We just did not have the support to do that work. And we lost a lot of our budget for that work." (Interviewee F, Gold Coast 2018, Organising Committee)

Cross-functional working: “ ‘cause Great British Garden kind of fell under the infrastructure team, so all my other projects sat with Education, Ceremonies and Live Sites, and then Great British Garden, basically sprang out of nowhere, because the Infrastructure team goes: ‘We’ve got this space, it would be ideal to do something with it, here you go Education, make it happen.’” (Interviewee A, London 2012, Organising Committee) “So we had sort of a few teams at VANOC – we had sustainability, which had a major portfolio and then environmental management, which was focused more on an operational side of things. So with both teams I engaged with every one of the 54 functional areas or functional business units of the organization so literally logged in every single project from procurement to transportation to a new construction operations sponsorship, everything.” (Interviewee K, Vancouver 2010, Organising Committee)

Sustainable building practices: “Arup were commissioned to deliver a report identifying the general ESD opportunities that could form part of the capital venue program. These were assessed a high level for each venue. The City and State factored these opportunities into venue design where appropriate. For example, passive design and solar were incorporated across a number of new venues and major upgrades. However, many of these initiatives were designed to benefit the venue in legacy mode, for example, the solar installations were enough to significantly reduce the ongoing operational cost of the venues in BAU mode, but were very small in the GC2018 context.” (Interviewee F, Gold Coast 2018, Organising Committee) “Parts of the site that they had chosen had been derelict, polluted and abandoned for decades, so required a massive clean-up before they could start.” (Interviewee A, London 2012, Organising Committee)

31

Discussion – Phase 1: Research

In this chapter the results of Phase 1: Research will be discussed. Results and discussion of Phase 2: Design build upon the results and discussions of Phase 1: Research and will be presented separately in 5. Results – Phase 2: Design and 6. Discussion – Phase 2: Design.


+4%644+10
–
Assessment of Games’ Sustainability '(+0+5+104
#0&
'4%3+25+104

In the following section results presented in 3.1 Results – Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions are discussed. The IOC and CGF findings will be discussed first and will be followed by a discussion of the results found in relation to the staged Games and how they connect to the IOC and CGF documents. The SQ for this section is How have the Olympic and Commonwealth Games described and defined sustainability?



#0&


Description and definition of sustainability

Both the CGF and the IOC described sustainability as one of their core principles and they both contributed to conveying the sustainability challenge. They also showed an aim for sport events to contribute positively towards a more sustainable future society. They both touched upon a responsibility for sport events to act as leverage towards sustainability and clearly stated connections to the SDGs. This gave the impression that the Olympics and Commonwealth Games wish to be part of the transition towards a more sustainable society. To be part of that transition, however, words need to be put into actions. Otherwise these strategies could be perceived as marketing tools and means to gain positive publicity.

Studied through the lens of the FSSD, the definition of sustainability used by the IOC could be understood as strategic guidelines on how to make decisions to move towards a more sustainable future, as opposed to a definition of sustainability. However, the IOC definition was considered insufficient in relation to the FSSD definition since it clearly stated how the aim is to minimise negative impacts not avoiding negative impacts by all means. Even though a total avoidance may be challenging due to the complexity of operational procedures and decision- making structures within the organisation and among stakeholders, the aim should be systemic avoidance.

Through the lens of the FSSD definition of sustainability and the SPs, the potential coverage was assessed to be higher for the IOC than the CGF. This was only assessed based on the available documentation, however. As previously stated, there was no available CGF documentation that clearly focused on sustainability. That aside, the available CGF documentation implied that focus had not yet moved from the core of the impact framework – focusing on peace to then move on to sustainability and prosperity – with the justification that sustainability cannot be achieved if peace is not first obtained. This is a reasonable justification and if compared to the FSSD the discrepancy is rather in the fact that peace is not seen as a part of sustainability than that there is a first focus on peace.

32

The IOC documentation described a strategic approach to sustainability that to a large extent aligned with FSSD procedures. However, there were some discrepancies. For example, the IOC documentation suggested a thorough baseline assessment of the organisation before creating a vision for the future. The FSSD suggests to do this in the reversed order to make sure that visions are not bound to the current situation or spring out of forecasting but are fully open for all future scenarios that are bound by the eight SPs (Broman and Robèrt 2017).

Document availability

One possible reason for the imbalance seen in the amount and type of available sustainability documentation, from the IOC and the CGF, could be the difference in size and structure of the organisations. The IOC is several times bigger than the CGF and may therefore have a higher resource potential and a greater possibility to produce an extensive amount of documentation and supportive material. Another possible reason could be an internal vs. external communication approach. There is a possibility that sustainability documentation and guidance is provided internally within the CGF (for use of the OCs for each staging) but not found externally.


5#)'&
#/'4

Definition and description of sustainability

A clearly stated definition of sustainability was found for about half of the analysed Games and all Games described or referred to sustainability to some extent. However, there was ambiguity and room for interpretation of wording and phrasing (further discussed in 4.1.3 Validation and Method Improvements) when trying to distinguish between the definition, vision, missions, and goals for each Games. This opened the question ‘What is the importance of the Games having a clearly stated definition of sustainability?’ One could argue that it would be more important to have a vision including goals which are bound by conditions for a sustainable society. This could be done without stating a clear definition of sustainability. However, need for a shared mental model and a commonly known goal within an organisation in order to be strategic and ensure the whole organisation moves in the same direction. This could be aided by a commonly known and clearly stated definition of sustainability.

Where sustainability definitions were given, they were assessed to see if they were necessary, sufficient, concrete, general and non-overlapping. There was great inconsistency in the results from this assessment. This could be a result of a flawed analysis method which is further discussed in section 4.1.3 Validation and Method Improvements. However, none of the found definitions of sustainability held up against all the criteria i.e. being both necessary, sufficient, concrete, non-overlapping, and general meaning that the definitions were not ideal to use as unifying operational definitions of sustainability. This result was however expected since the FSSD is unique due to its principled definition of sustainability. Perhaps there is no need for a principled “working definition” of sustainability for each Games but for a working definition that is bound by the principled definition of the FSSD.

All Games were assessed to use the Triple Bottom Line as the frame for their sustainability work. This is reasonable since the Triple Bottom Line is the most used approach. However, this implies an assumption that the Triple Bottom Line Model is the preferred model when approaching sustainability. Even though this model states the need to consider both ecological, social and economic aspects when approaching sustainability, the systems are not seen as

33

nested. Dependencies are not made clear enough to encourage change which favours the current status quo. To align with the FSSD, adopt further systems thinking and advocate a more holistic approach, the Triple Bottom Line needs to be replaced by the 3-nested-dependencies model. Even though all Games adopted the triple bottom line, some documentation implied a greater understanding of the interconnectedness and dependence between the ecological, social and economic systems and interpretation of wording and phrasing was again shown to be a challenge – which is further discussed in section 4.1.3 Validation and Method Improvements.

The importance of interpretation of wording and phrasing also shone through in the assessment of potential coverage of SPs and when assessing aspects in relation to the FSSD definition of sustainability. The FSSD definition of sustainability covers both social and environmental aspects. Some of the Games documentation clearly covered both aspects, however at the same time placed sustainability under the topic environment. This implied a discrepancy in use and understanding of specific words but may not necessarily influence the outcome if all aspects were still covered. One could argue that the later approach, where social and environmental aspects are shown less clearly connected to each other and not covered under the overarching umbrella topic sustainability, would be less systemic and strategic. Due to the phrasing of the SPs and the manner of assessment there will always be blind spots within the documentation. Blind spots could be interpreted as lack of consideration to certain aspects in relation to the SPs. These blind spots could either have arisen from prioritisation processes and therefore have been deliberately left out of scope but could also be the result of unintended consequences of actions or considerations which are in scope. The latter is with all probability harder to deal with as it cannot be anticipated and adjusted for in the same manner as the former.

Worth highlighting in relation to sport events and different aspects of sustainability is the inherent social focus of sport events. Participation in sports is at base promoting physical health through an active lifestyle and inclusion through participation in events both individually and as a team. Although the sport event itself has an inherent social focus, the planning, staging and legacy stages of the Games all include both ecological and social aspects which need to be considered.

The connection between sustainability and legacy (and the will to leave a positive impact from the Games) was clearly seen for all the Games. This was a general theme seen throughout the research and is discussed further in 4.4.2 Ambiguity between Legacy and Sustainability. It was also seen how the OCs aimed for reach beyond the Games in scale, and several of the Games even aimed for global reach. If the Games are used as a catalyst to move society towards sustainability and as a leverage to promote a sustainable future, the aim to have global outreach could be positive. However, if an overarching goal is not based on an informed understanding of sustainability then the global reach might be counteractive.

Document availability

Type and amount of documentation for each of the Games varied. Effects of lack of data and document availability is further discussed in 4.4.3 Sustainability Documentation and Guidance. However, in general the documentation on sustainability, provided by the Games, was overall regarded to have potential to act as positive guidance for Games to become a positive stepping stone in moving society towards a sustainable future. Although, as discussed in 4.1.1 IOC and CGF, there is a need to put words into action to make progress and not only use sustainability documentation as positive public relations.

34


!#.++10
#0&
'5*1&
/2317'/'054

With more available data the assessment of the descriptions and definitions was less limited for the IOC case in comparison to the CGF and for some specific Games in comparison to others. The assessment would have been more robust if the amount and type of data were equivalent between all the studied Games and organisations.

In relation to document availability it is also important to bear in mind the fact that documents, especially public strategy, and policy documents are often written in such a way as to show the organisation in its best light. Therefore, a content analysis only reveals what the organisation communicates, and this does not necessarily correspond to what they do. Furthermore, the importance of wording, phrasing and interpretation was revealed in the assessment. Phrasing and wording can be ‘fluffy’ in order to allow for wider interpretation, but this also adds ambiguity and unclarity regarding what is actually contained. Due to this, a statement might need to be backed up on several occasions in the same text in order to be interpreted as a factual statement. Furthermore, one could question the correctness of assessing documents by looking for alignment in wording and phrasing to a specific framework – since no documents were written with the FSSD in mind then the alignment will only be more or less vague. It would be interesting to look further into the method of content analysis and see how these issues could be accounted for. Adding to the above reasoning is the fact that anything stated in official documentation provided by an organisation is something which the organisation can be held accountable for. Following this wording and phrasing becomes key. What is the difference between putting a statement into words on a very detailed level or keeping the same on a higher superficial level? Which gives most accountability and credibility? This could of course be debated, and it was seen in the Games’ documentation how the approach and level of detail varied – the importance of level of detail and connection to actions, accountability and credibility could be interesting to study further.

There was an ambition to assess whether the found definitions of sustainability held up as unifying and operational definitions of sustainability – i.e. being principled definitions. However, the results of the assessment revealed great inconsistency which could imply that the method by some means was flawed. Clearer guiding questions for assessment might have improved consistency among the results. Although, it might also be the case that the principled characteristics are not prone to be used for assessment but rather as guiding characteristics if creating a new definition.


+4%644+10
–
44'44/'05
1(
ames’ Impacts on Host +5+'4

This section discusses the results presented in 3.2 Results – Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. The following topics are discussed: Games’ impacts record and the methods.


Games’ 31,'%5
/2#%5
'%13&

Access to find academic literature was challenging for the Games that happened more recently or were yet to happen. For example, finding academic papers for PyeongChang 2018, Gold Coast 2018, Beijing 2022 and Birmingham 2022 was challenging, that is why researchers were more reliant on sources like the Games website and newspaper articles. Because of time limitations as well as travel constraints imposed as a result of COVID-19 the research team was

35

unable to travel to the areas and analyse the physical legacies in person. This means that it was not possible to cross-validate the data. The discrepancy of data provided by official sources and freestanding researchers was seen in a few Games. For example: in Rio 2016 in an official document it is mentioned that the Rio’s Olympic Aquatics Centre were intended as temporary facilities which were disassembled and repurposed, but two local newspapers report that the centre is now seen as abandoned structures (Race 2017).

Furthermore, it was hard to determine if an impact was fully sustainable or not, for example: In Delhi 2010, compensatory plantations and afforestation was delivered in southwest Delhi where saplings were planted by the forest department as part of compensatory afforestation. But later the same area was handed over to give place to a power substation (Rao et al. 2010).

The recorded data revealed that physical legacies tend to be described in relation to the elements that are most related to the Games event, e.g. sport venues, as opposed to the energy and tech infrastructure that may have been built to serve it and the wider community around it. At last, it was hard to determine whether articles recorded all the physical legacies or just the 'hot topics' in physical legacies that everyone is keen to talk about.

 !#.++10
#0&
'5*1&
/2317'/'054

It was originally an intention of all research stages and particularly the Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities, to give greater clarity on how sustainable or unsustainable a project was by conducting assessments in relation to the SPs. However, due to lack of data, and the challenge in providing an overall classification where one aspect of a physical legacy may have left a more sustainable impact while another left a more unsustainable impact, this aspect of the research could not be undertaken with confidence.

Additionally, for the Games’ impacts record there was a vagueness regarding documentation of all impacts by the Games. Considering that the available data contains mostly ‘hot topics’ that were reported, these were not the entire impacts brought by the Games. In accordance with insufficient amounts of data presented, the assessment would have been more persistent if the amount and type of data were analogous between all the studied Games. Another challenge was to categorize the documented impacts under the right category. Therefore, the physical legacy categorization table was edited by adding one more extra sub-category to be able to record all anticipated impacts in the right category. In some cases, it was difficult to categorize an impact, so they were categorized under two categories to make sure they were assessed appropriately.


+4%644+10
–
&'05+(+%#5+10
1(
'#4104
(13
#/'4’
/2#%54
10
145
+5+'4

The following section is a discussion of the results presented in 3.3 Results – Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. Three main topics are discussed: Interviewee details/breakdown, the results of the interview coding and the method.


05'37+'8''
'5#+.43'#-&180

In relation to the length of the project and the additional difficulty in securing interviewees caused by the COVID-19 situation, 17 was a satisfactory number of interviews to have

36

achieved. 17 hours of interviews to transcribe and code allowed for a good balance between large enough dataset and having the time to record and code each transcription with due care. Interviewees were found for each of the four Games that had been selected as a focus of Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. This provided a good range of data across the full-time span of the research scope, from 2010 to 2022. The interviewee range is slightly skewed towards the two earlier selected Games (Vancouver 2010 (4) and London 2012 (8) as opposed to Gold Coast 2018 (3) and Birmingham 2022 (1)). Potentially this is because interviewees were more willing to share their story in confidence now that significant time had passed since the event. In many ways this was advantageous because for Games where a longer amount of time had passed since them ending, interviewees were able to comment more accurately on the state of physical legacy many years on, which was particularly relevant for this topic. However, it would have been preferable to have held more than one interview with an individual working on Birmingham 2022, to allow for greater data comparison. As discussed in the limitations of section 2.1.3 Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities trust and interviewee perspective/subjectivity may have been a barrier to the full scope of the story. If the research project were to be extended it would be preferable to have multiple conversations and interviews with each interviewee to build trust and allow for a more iterative approach to data collection.

The interviewee spread contained one anomaly in that one individual did not identify as strongly with one specific Games but had been more of a roaming consultant. With hindsight, this was an advantage because it provided a narrative from an individual who was not potentially biased towards one specific event. One method that proved particularly effective in finding interviewees was a ‘snowball effect’ where the researchers found that one interview often led to another via contacts from the previous interviewee. While this increased the number of interviews, there is a risk that some of the interviewees were closely interlinked and shared the same narrative, which had the potential to influence results in a specific direction. If the researchers had more contacts, it might have been prudent to exclude interviewees who had worked closely together on a specific Games.


1&+0)

The codes that resulted from coding the transcripts gave a wide range of themes across the three main topics: potential barriers and enablers for sustainability and recommendations. In this sense the codes effectively proposed answers to SQ3: What could block or enable more sustainable physical legacy development? and provided helpful parts of the answer to the overarching RQ.

Interestingly, interviewees referenced events/ideas that were coded as enablers more frequently than barriers. For example, there were eleven enabler themes that were mentioned by four interviewees or more and only seven barrier themes that were mentioned by four interviewees or more (see Table 3.5.). The most commonly occurring theme overall was also an enabler: Definition or vision for sustainability. This could relate to several things. Firstly, potentially even though interviewees knew that their answers would remain anonymous, they preferred to speak about their professional environments in more a positive than negative light, particularly when speaking with unfamiliar researchers. People may prefer to talk about aspects that could enable as opposed to block sustainability. Interviewees might have sub-consciously felt that this is what the researchers were looking for. Alternatively, perhaps participants were afraid to give a negative review of a professional experience for the sake of reputation or were afraid to acknowledge the severity of the sustainability challenge and prefer to focus on the positives.

37

On the other hand, the researchers may have sub-consciously sought themes that would help lead to the next part of the research, creation of guidelines. The double-checking of coding helped to mitigate against this bias.

The theme, Mindset recommendations to increase likelihood of sustainable outcome also emerged in the interviewees, particularly in those with very experienced sustainability professionals. Due to their level of experience, some sustainability professionals offered recommendations that sounded like guidelines in themselves. For example, one interviewee suggested that all sustainability guidance needed to be: context dependent, concise and interactive (Interviewee D, Vancouver 2010, Bid Committee). It was also interesting that three of four interviewees who had worked for an OC made a comment that was coded to the theme: Sustainable building practices or Cross-functional working. Even though each theme did not achieve a high relevance (each theme was mentioned by between one and three interviewees), it seemed appropriate for them to be taken into account so that they could inform the creation of guidelines in 5. Results – Phase 2: Design, particularly given that they had been described by potential users of these guidelines.


!#.++10
#0&
'5*1&
/2317'/'054

In many instances, a code was created because a lot was said about the topic, but in some instances a lot was said by only one or two interviewees as opposed to there having been a lot said about a topic by a large percentage of interviewees. For example, Helpful politics was one of the codes found within the theme Potential enablers for sustainability and this theme was raised on four occasions, but by only two participants, one of whom raised the theme three times. Had the theme been raised four times by four different participants it would have been included in Table 3.5, as one of the most statistically significant themes. Because this was raised four times by only two participants however, this was not included in Table 3.5. This suggests that most interviewees had ‘hot topics’ that they kept returning to, but that these ‘hot topics’ were not universally shared. Subsequently, the results show a wide range of topics, but some of these topics have only been brought up by one or two interviewees. Therefore, it is not certain that this topic is experienced universally by professionals working in the field. If the research were to be repeated, it would be necessary to conduct a larger number of interviews to establish if the confidence/reliability of these results could be strengthened.

Another limitation of the way in which the thematic coding approach was applied in this research, is that codes emerged for what was said, but there was no measurement for the strength of feeling behind what was being said, or non-verbal factors like pauses or differences in tone of voice. For example, the following quotes were coded to the same theme (budget as a potential barrier to sustainability), but the first is a more factual account of what happened, while the second is a more emotional account of an overall feeling in relation to the event.

"We just did not have the support to do that work. And we lost a lot of our budget for that work." (Interviewee F, Gold Coast 2018, Organising Committee) “It was always nick-named the cheap Games ...realistically you are spending less than anybody else has ever done in Commonwealth Games history.... Mmm so yeah, they were willing to cut corners.” (Interviewee C, Gold Coast 2018, Architects – external)

38

If the research were repeated, it would be interesting to create more nuanced measurements that might account for these types of differences and allow the research to classify whether each theme was a topic that interviewees had a knowledge of, or something that they felt very passionately about. This would also allow for further comparison between interviewees, who might tend to on average speak in a more or less emotional way. However, this would require a subjective assessment on factors that are challenging to classify, e.g. tone of voice or amount of hesitation.


10%.6&+0)
+4%644+10

This section discusses the links between the results and discussions seen for Phase 1: Research, with the aim to highlight where the results from one section support or add further detail to the results from another section.

 
!+4+10

In Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities, interviewees described a need for a joint approach, a shared mental model, collective goals and clear definitions and descriptions of sustainability. In spite of this need, the results from Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions illustrated this was not always fully supported from the highest level, e.g. the sustainability strategies and policies. The strategy assessment also illustrated that no Games had adopted a nested dependency approach to sustainability. This was also suggested by interviewees in Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. For example, the sustainable building practices mentioned by interviewees appeared to be lighthouse projects, rather than an aspect that was contained at the core of all infrastructure / physical legacy development.

An underlying context of Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions was the FSSD premise that having a clear vision for all stakeholders to work towards is fundamental when addressing the sustainability challenge. Importance of vision was also mentioned by several interviewees in the Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities, which increased confidence in the fact that a clear vision was a key aspect. In fact, definition or vision for sustainability, was the most commonly raised theme in interviews as a potential enabler for sustainability. For example:

"Sustainability only works if you started at the beginning. Build it up as part of the foundations of the project. So it is got to be something that is hardwired into the foundation strategy. That is where most previous Games other Games that haven't got it right or failed. They did not connect the big vision into what they've started out afterwards." (Interviewee G, London 2012, Organising Committee)

There was also a slight correlation between the extent to which Games’ strategies covered the 8 SPs and the extent to which interviewees described sustainability and a strong vision for sustainability as fundamental to that specific Games. For example, two interviewees commenting on one of the Games which had shown high potential for alignments with both the ecological and social SPs in Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions, made the following statements:

39

“We [were] embedding sustainability in the DNA of the Games.” (Interviewee D, Vancouver 2010, Bid Committee) "Well sustainability was embedded in the mission of the Vancouver Games….You know everything that was sustainability was about for our Games, was a big deal." (Interviewee K, Vancouver 2010, Organising Committee)

 
/$+)6+5:
$'58''0
')#%:
#0&
645#+0#$+.+5:

A widespread ambiguity around legacy and sustainability and whether they were the same thing emerged in both Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions and Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. In the assessment of sustainability documentation, all documents were shown to illustrate that each Games wanted to leave an impact that went beyond the Games in time. All Games strategy documents were found to discuss or describe legacy and leaving positive impacts as either their mission or in close relation to sustainability. The connection between sustainability and legacy also emerged strongly in interviews. For example:

“How my memory of it is, is more around legacy rather than sustainability. That’s just the underlying thing I’ve got in my head is making a Games sustainable by leaving it as a legacy?...How do I define sustainability? I guess for me it’s creating something or delivering something that will carry on beyond its original purpose?” (Interviewee A, London 2012, Organising Committee)

This theme was considered significant because it illustrated that there is a widespread concept within the sport event industry that as long as infrastructure is used post-event, it can be deemed sustainable. While this scenario might be considered more sustainable than if the building were left to go derelict, it does not account for the sustainability of the project and infrastructure in itself. In some situations, for example, the building might be so operationally unsustainable that it would be more sustainable to allow it to go derelict than be in use. In other scenarios there may have been so much damage caused during the build in relation to sustainability that the infrastructure could never have a net positive impact on the sustainability challenge, no matter how operationally sustainable the building might become.

 
645#+0#$+.+5:
1%6/'05#5+10
#0&
6+�%'

In 3.3 Results – Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities, many interviewees made comments around document usability. For example: "the policy is there for a specific purpose but it’s got to be made practically realistic for the people actually delivering. And we won’t read a policy especially if it’s that thick [mimes thick book with hands]. But give me the summary of the points, give me the practical application, happy days." (Interviewee A, London 2012 Organising Committee). Interviewee D, Vancouver 2010, Bid Committee commented on the importance of context, being concise and interactive for the end user: “It’s context dependent, you need to be very concise, and you need to figure out where the leverage points. And, and, and you need to find out a way to do it in an interactive way so that they're actually picking it up and running with it.” The results of the content analysis of sustainability strategies and policies showed that these strategies were largely not context dependent, concise and interactive. However, there might have been more context dependent documentation that was

40

not accessible. With hindsight it could have further strengthened this conclusion or theme if interviewees had also been asked for their comments on the usability of the strategies that were studied, as this would have allowed for further cross-validation on this point, which in turn would have made the research stronger.

Since many large-scale international sport events face the same challenges there is also a great gain in knowledge transfer - both from Games to Games and from Games to other sectors - learning from previous events and not needing to invent the wheel for every occasion. Documentation and guidance needs to be tailored to purpose - being open, flexible and adjustable to specific situations when needed and specific enough for practical use when needed. Although challenges around accessing data affected confidence in results, the lack of readily available data felt in Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions and potential shortcomings of the current transfer of knowledge scheme were also raised by an interviewee:

"There is a knowledge transfer process that the IOC facilitate, which is lip service, if I'm quite honest." (Interviewee H, London 2012, Arms-length body)

 
*:4+%#.
')#%:

The results from Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities and Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities imply similar findings, which increased confidence in these results. In both sections, physical legacies relating to transport and social infrastructure were the most commonly recorded. In addition, this theme was also recorded in the Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions, where transport and infrastructure were a key IOC sustainability focus. It is unclear where cause and effect lies, e.g. whether the fact that transport and venues is a key part of central federation strategy meant that this was also a focus of physical legacy, or whether transport and venues were already the focus of physical legacy and therefore the central federation has picked this up. The CGF strategy did not mention these aspects, so this parallel can only be drawn between the IOC and the Olympics.


635*'3
'4'#3%*

There were a couple of themes that frequently arose in the results and discussions which would be interesting to highlight for further research, despite being out of scope for this thesis. Further research would be an addition to the nuanced method improvements and additions which have been described throughout 4. Discussion – Phase 1: Research. The first theme that arose was politics as a potential blocker for sustainability. It would be interesting to repeat the research with a greater focus on interviewing political figures and studying local political documents, to understand better how this barrier to sustainability could be broken down. Another political aspect which would be interesting to study further is the assigning of host cities and how sustainability does or does not affect bid process. The second theme that frequently arose in results were the non-physical legacies of sport events, that might also help cities to move towards sustainability. The social inclusion aspect of Games frequently emerged in relation to both participation in sports and in relation to physical legacy design. In line with this it would be interesting to interview residents of host cities, to see what impact the Games have had on them and the social systems around them. This in order to gain further insight into the social effects of the Games and to see how these aspects could possibly act as leverage towards

41

sustainability making the Games a stronger contributor in the strive towards a sustainable future.

Moreover, it would also be interesting to go further into assessing how Games’ impacts on host cities differ in relation to host cities and nations. Some practices within the Games will be inherited from national common practice or cultural norms, and all Games will need to adjust to the national legislation of the hosting countries – which will affect the outcome of the Games positively or negatively. Also, this touches upon the political aspect of the Games – which has been deliberately left out of scope, but nonetheless interesting to research further. One could question how to take misalignments to SPs on a national level into consideration when assigning the Games to a certain host city. In addition, it would be interesting to assess how the physical legacy development and sustainability practices in relation to Games differ between for example developed and developing countries. Finally, it would also be interesting to investigate similarities and differences between the Games studied in this research and other events. Points of particular interest could be: Paralympics and Commonwealth Games for athletes with disabilities – a deeper analysis on social SPs and physical legacy development in comparison to the Olympic and Commonwealth Games, single sport events i.e. FIFA World Cup – how does the physical legacy development and sustainability aspects differ from multi-sport events and events in general – how does physical legacy development and sustainability aspects differ between sport events and events in the fashion, music or film industry.

42

Results – Phase 2: Design

As outlined in 2.2.1 Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development, the guidelines were designed aided by an adapted design thinking approach. Knowledge from Phase 1: Research informed the development of the guidelines. This chapter provides a summary of the process and presents the guidelines that have been developed to enhance the potential for sustainable physical legacy development via sport events. The guidelines will serve as a potential to the RQ: How could the potential for sustainable physical legacy development via large-scale international sport events be enhanced?

 3'#5+10
1(
6+&'.+0'4
(13
645#+0#$.'
*:4+%#.
')#%:
'7'.12/'05


5'2

/2#5*+4'

This step was informed by the findings of Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities. Distilling the information collected in the interviews supported the understanding of the target audience. Since members of Games OCs have the duty to translate guidance of the IOC and CGF and the needs of host cities and other stakeholders into the delivery of the Games, this group was defined as the main audience for the to be designed guidelines. Four out of 17 interviewees belonged to that group. A range of desires and suggestions to make the process of the development more sustainable, illustrated that the interviewees were driven to work towards sustainable Games. Furthermore, most interviewees that were associated with the organizing committees showed interest in sustainable building practices and cross-organisational working.


5'2

31$.'/
'(+0+5+10

This step was informed by the findings of Assessment of Games’ Sustainability Definitions and Descriptions and Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities, analysing the information collected in the interviews supported the understanding of our target audience.

It was found that relevant issues seem to have been that the agenda during the Games-time and post-Games time had different priorities and were subject to party politics, like climate unfriendly governmental leadership and short-term planning. Those were raised as issues, to deliver more sustainable Games. Furthermore, some Games seem to have had an inadequate sustainability definition or did not define the term sustainability at all. All Games seem to have favoured the Triple Bottom Line over the 3-nested-dependencies model and Games show to be financially driven, making the budget a priority. The budget was raised as a blocker for sustainability on multiple occasions. Lastly, there seems to be a discrepancy of data provided by official sources and freestanding researchers, the communication of what the goals of the sustainability of the Games efforts were, is way clearer documented than what actually happened with those goals. Especially those documents are often difficult to access, and it seems like the Games do not build on each other’s strategies. On the other hand, most Games seem to have found a balanced approach between social and ecological sustainability and all assed sports Games have a focus on long term effects that reach beyond the host city. Most Games even want to reach globally in their effects and all Games build a connection between sustainability and physical legacy. The activities described in the methods chapter lead to the following definition of the problem statement formulated in the point of view style:

43

I am a member of the Games organizing committee and I experience a lack of sustainability education, communication, the 3-nested-dependencies model approach to sustainability, leadership, and flexibility to drive more sustainable legacy development.

An explanation of how the research fed into the problem statement can be found in Appendix I. Based on the ABCD process (Broman and Robèrt 2017) a vision of success was defined, additionally to the problem statement. The following statement should be what the guidelines lead towards:

Physical legacies left by the Olympic and Commonwealth Games are making a positive contribution in moving their host cities towards sustainability.


5'2

&'#5+10

During the ideation workshop multiple rounds of brainstorming and discussion led to the development of 29 unique ideas (Appendix J) that are leading towards the vision. Based on those ideas a three-level framework emerged, which is described in 5.1.4 Step 4 Prototyping.


5'2

31515:2+0)

This sub-chapter outlines the framework, which emerged during the ideation process and was more refined to explain the different elements of the guidelines. After that, the prototype of the guidelines is being presented.

Framework

To categorize the ideas, a three-level framework was developed based on Step 3. The first level is a mental model, which holds the other two levels. This is based on the assumption that an underlying value system is driving both the development of our skills and of our actions. The second level represents the skills that members of the Games organizing committees need to foster and develop to lead towards sustainability. The last level includes actions, which are translating the mindset and skills of the user to concrete activities, which are having a direct impact on the bigger system.

Figure 5.1. Three-level framework for guidelines.

Prototype

In this part the prototype of the created guidelines based on the three-level framework is being presented. A designed version of the guidelines can be viewed in Appendix K.

44

Members of the organising committee can enable more sustainable physical legacies by…

Building a sustainability mindset

Adopting the 3-nested-dependencies model, instead of the triple bottom line.

Understanding that the economy is thriving within the boundaries of society and that society lives within the boundaries of the biosphere. Internalizing that sport can only happen within the boundaries of the bigger systems and being sustainable needs to be the absolute priority of sport events. The long-term effects of the Games need to be more highly valued than the short-term financial success, because sport events will only be able to happen within a long- term sustainable society.

Developing Skills

Developing leadership towards sustainability.

Encouraging ideas for sustainability from everyone that has contact with the Games. Forming transdisciplinary teams and encouraging knowledge exchange between departments. Enhancing sustainability budgets and making sustainability a priority for the team. Building a shared vision and understanding of sustainable sport events, working towards the vision.

Encouraging flexibility of actions and ideas.

Building a platform with stakeholders from different departments, skills, disciplines, levels of involvement and backgrounds to develop ideas regarding sustainability and questioning how ideas could be adapted for the next Games. Looking beyond the borders of the department and trying to develop future proof concepts.

Incorporating Actions

Appling sustainability education and communication.

Making training in sustainability, based on the FSSD, a mandatory part of the on-boarding process for the team. Incorporating participatory practices in the onboarding, and in public communication. Declaring a movement towards sustainability the main outcome of the Games and letting people from all ages and backgrounds participate in the communication.

Using a sustainability audit for all physical legacy developments.

Auditing the usage of as much sustainable material as possible, also assessing the supply chain of all material in use. Taking all measures against gentrification through the Games, checking if any infrastructure could be used or renovated before developing something new and if new development is not needed by the city. Enabling more sustainable practices like public transport over individual car usage. Assessing if all stakeholders have been involved in the development of new infrastructure and if all labour laws according to highest standards are being followed.

45

Discussion – Phase 2: Design

In this chapter the outcome of the Design Thinking process, the appropriateness of the method underlying the process, the need for further research and the ethical implications are discussed.


3'#5+10
1(
6+&'.+0'4
(13
645#+0#$.'
*:4+%#.
')#%:
'7'.12/'05


31515:2'

The outcome of the design process included high-level guidance regarding the mindset of the user as well as concrete actions in the audit. Yet, the guidelines were by no means exhaustive. The goal was to present a one-page guideline document based on the Design Thinking process that would enable the right audience to enhance the sustainability of physical legacies. Yet, understanding the guidelines required further research, depending on the understanding of the referenced concepts. Not all readers will understand the sustainability models or FSSD. In that sense the guidelines did not completely fulfil the goal.

Furthermore, it needs to be highlighted that Phase 2: Design has been conducted as a design process that proposes one of many potential answers to a complex question. Phase 2: Design did not follow the same research approach as Phase 1: Research. Elements of the problem statement have been chosen not based on the data, but because of the qualitative assessment by the researchers. The assumption is, that the assessment of the research has been informed by the process of conducting Phase 1: Research as well as the collected data. Furthermore, the prototype of the guidelines was based on the outcome of a brainstorming session that has been conducted in Step 3. Since the prototype has not been tested, there is no confidence in the prototype from an academic perspective.


!#.++10
#0&
'5*1&
/2317'/'054

The Design Thinking process was adapted to the needs of the guideline’s creation process. It was fitting to use semi-guided interviews to get to know the potential audience of the guidelines. Yet, the motivation to work towards sustainability, which has been identified in Step 1 possibly could only be found because people that have the drive to work towards sustainability are more likely to answer an invitation to take part in an interview about sustainability. Using triangulation with different data sources to develop a problem statement was suitable and the addition of a vision-statement in Step 2 showed to be appropriate to guide the creation of ideas in Step 3. Clustering ideas within a three-level framework has been another addition to Design Thinking and emerged naturally during the process. The development of a framework based on the ideas was useful to discover underlying similarities. It was unfortunate that the process could not include Step 5 because of time restrictions and thereby the outcome is not robust, but only a prototype. Even though missing a testing and alteration phase makes the outcome of the process less robust, this was a conscious decision. From an ethical perspective, it was better to leave out a part of the research than to conduct an assessment that would not have been appropriate. Using an inappropriate method would have wasted the time of the interviewees and could lead to wrong conclusions. Since the content that informed this chapter is based on interviews already discussed, the ethical implications of working with interviewees shall not be repeated in this section.

46


635*'3
'4'#3%*

The Design Thinking process did not include Step 5, the desire would be to conduct an appropriate testing of the prototype for the guidelines. Only four out of 17 interviewees represented the targeted audience, so only a qualitative assessment of the outcome would be appropriate since the amount of data generated would be so low. One appropriate testing solution could be a focus group, allowing the interviewees to discuss the pros and cons of the provided guidelines with each other, while being observed by the researchers. Yet, the time restriction of this research process would have only allowed a short quantitative data collection via short check-ins or an online tool. This method would not have been appropriate since it would collect an insufficient amount of data, to be representative. The amount of data collected was not appropriate for a quantitative research approach and additionally the guidelines have been developed according to the suggestions and insights from the same interviewees. An assessment from them could lead to a circular justification of the guidelines. To reach out to other interviewees is regarding the time restrictions not possible. Ideally this testing should have been done with a group of potential users that have not been part of the design process, to eliminate circular conclusions. Based on that feedback, it would have been possible to adjust the guidelines either in Step 3 or Step 4 and repeat the testing process to develop a robust set of guidelines that could be given to the members of OCs to enable them to move sport events towards sustainability.

47

Conclusion

Human society is currently causing damage and exploiting resources at a far higher rate than the biosphere is able to process (Broman and Robèrt 2017). In order to reverse this issue, it is necessary to transition to a state where society is not systematically undermining the social and ecological systems. Due to the exponential nature of this damage, this problem is becoming rapidly worse, urgent to solve, and requires commitment from all areas of society. In the strife towards a sustainable future, cities become increasingly important actors since the world is becoming increasingly urbanised. Inevitably the role of infrastructure also becomes increasingly important seeing as it constitutes the essential fabric of urban areas and aims to meet the long-term needs of society – as does sustainability.

Large-scale sport events attract huge investments and focus from the rest of the world, which could constitute a significant potential to drive sustainable physical legacy development. This thesis aimed to further investigate this potential by answering the RQ:

How could the potential for sustainable physical legacy development via large-scale international sport events be enhanced?

The methodology of the thesis was built up by two phases – Phase 1: Research and Phase 2: Design – with the aim to answer the overarching RQ. Phase 1: Research was carried out in three stages. First, the current approach to sustainability adopted by the Olympic and Commonwealth Games OCs and the Games’ federation organisations CGF and IOC was assessed, via content analysis of sustainability plans and policies. The content analysis was designed so that the approach to sustainability was assessed in relation to the FSSD. Secondly, an Assessment of Games’ Impacts on Host Cities was carried out by creating a categorised record of impacts from the Games based on an infrastructure categorisation framework proposed by Weber, Alfen and Staub-Bislang (2016). Finally, enablers and barriers for sustainable physical legacy development were identified via semi-structured interviews with professionals who had been or were (at the time) involved in the planning, staging and/or legacy phase of four of eleven Games within scope (Vancouver 2010, London 2012, Gold Coast 2018 and Birmingham 2022). Phase 1: Research fed into Phase 2: Design where an adopted Design Thinking approach was used to create a set of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development based on the research findings. The target audience for the guidelines were professionals within the OCs who were identified as the group with the highest potential to influence the working approach of both the OCs’ and the many stakeholders with which it interacts.

The results revealed a lack of clarity around how sustainability should be defined in a sports context – in particular, there was a perceived ambiguity between legacy and sustainability. Leaving a positive and lasting impact may be more sustainable than leaving a negative impact or leaving no impact at all, but, if pre-legacy phases are excluded, consequences on the ecological and social systems imposed by activities in those phases will not be considered. The Triple Bottom Line Model was clearly favoured over the 3-nested-dependencies model for both Games OCs and overarching organisations. Since the Triple Bottom Line does not encourage the change needed to reach a sustainable society the sports industry consequently will not contribute fully to this change as long as the triple bottom line is still favoured. Furthermore, the results showed that physical legacy projects are usually framed within two themes: transport and ‘arenas for sport and leisure’. The results also showed that barriers for sustainability

48

included: Games-time vs. post-Games-time agenda clash, money or business as main drivers of the Games and legacy/sustainability ambiguity, and that enablers for sustainability included: having a vision for sustainability, adopting long-term planning, having sustainability high on the Games agenda and within the municipal working structure. These themes revealed important areas to focus on in the pursuit of adopting a more sustainable development of physical legacies in relation to sport events. However, it should be stressed that the research only represents the Games within scope along with the overarching documentation from the IOC and CGF, and that there is no clear implication that these results are representative for the whole sports industry or the event industry as a whole. Many large-scale international sport events show similar features, and similar results could be expected for similar events – however, this would need further research to confirm.

The results illustrated that there is a need to adopt systems thinking and incorporate a rigorous, unifying and operational definition of sustainability as one of the main goals of sport events – this in order to enhance the potential for sport events to act as a catalyst for sustainable physical legacy development. To aid this process, a set of guidelines was created. The guidelines were created as a three-level framework. The first level consists of a mental model based on the 3- nested dependencies model, acting as an underlying value system that drives the development of skills and actions, and inherently determines how sustainable any sport event can be. The second level consists of the skills flexibility and leadership towards sustainability. The third level consists of actions which translate the mindset and skills into concrete activities that in turn have a direct impact on the bigger system. Due to time constraints and limitations of the research, the guidelines were not tested. Further iterations of prototyping, testing and refining of the guidelines would be needed before the guidelines could be validated and the usability could be assessed.

Based on the research presented in this thesis, it is concluded that large-scale international sport events can enhance the potential for sustainable physical legacy development. One possible way to achieve this could be for OCs’ of the Games to follow the guidelines proposed in this research – thereby the Guidelines are offering one potential answer to the overarching RQ. The research suggests that following the guidelines could lead to an increase in system thinking and the potential to incorporate sustainability into core practices. Large-scale international sport events could then have an increased potential to generate sustainable physical legacy development and in doing so contribute positively to the global sustainability challenge and the global strive towards a sustainable future society.

49

References

+5'&
'('3'0%'4

Aljoufie, Mohammed, and Alok Tiwari. 2015. “Valuing ‘Green Infrastructure’ in Jeddah: A City Lost in ‘Grey’ Infrastructure.” Journal of Architecture and Urbanism 39, no.4: 248–259. https://doi.org/10.3846/20297955.2015.1113901. Allen, Myles, David Frame, Chris Huntingford, Chris Jones, Jason Lowe, Malte Meinshausen, and Nicolai Meinshausen. 2009. “Warming Caused by Cumulative Carbon Emissions Towards the Trillionth Tonne.” Nature 458: 1163–1166. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08019. Archer, Dan, Michael Eby, Victor Brovkin, Andy Ridgwell, Long Cao, Uwe Mikolajewicz, Ken Caldeira, et al. 2009. “Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide.” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 37: 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206. Baumann, Robert, and Victor Matheson. 2013. “Infrastructure Investments and Mega-Sports Events: Comparing the Experience of Developing and Industrialized Countries.” Economics Department Working Papers 147. http://crossworks.holycross.edu/econ_working_papers/147. Boykoff, Jules, and Gilmar Mascarenhas. 2016. “The Olympics, Sustainability, and Greenwashing: The Rio 2016 Summer Games.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 27, no.2: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1179473. Broman, Göran Ingvar, and Karl-Henrik Robèrt. 2017. “A framework for strategic sustainable development.” Journal of Cleaner Production 140: 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121. Brown, Graham, Andrew Smith, and Guy Assaker. 2016. “Revisiting the Host City: An Empirical Examination of Sport Involvement, Place Attachment, Event Satisfaction and Spectator Intentions at the London Olympics.” Tourism Management 55: 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.010. Brown, Richard, Gary Cox, and Michael Owens. 2012. “Bid, Delivery, Legacy – Creating the Governance Architecture of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Legacy.” Australian Planner 49, no.3: 226–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2012.706964. Brown, Tim, and Jocelyn Wyatt. 2010. “Design Thinking for Social Innovation IDEO,” Accessed May 20, 2020. https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1020- 797X_12_1_29. Bryman, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press. Cassidy, Scott A., and David J. Stanley. 2019. “Getting From ‘Me’ to ‘We’: Role Clarity, Team Process, and the Transition From Individual Knowledge to Shared Mental Models in Employee Dyads.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 36, no. 2: 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1493. Clark, Julie, and Ade Kearns. 2016. “Going for Gold: A Prospective Assessment of the Economic Impacts of the Commonwealth Games 2014 on the East End of Glasgow.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34, no. 8: 1474–1500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15624923. Clarke, Victoria, and Virginia Braun. 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London: SAGE.

50

Commonwealth Games Federation. 2020. “Our Games,” Accessed May 19, 2020. https://thecgf.com/games. Commonwealth Games Federation. n.d.a “CGF Management Team | Commonwealth Games Federation.” Accessed May 7, 2020. https://thecgf.com/about/management- team. Commonwealth Games Federation. n.d.b “Transformation 2022 Refresh Strategic Plan (2019- 2022)”. Accessed May 18, 2020. https://thecgf.com/sites/default/files/2019- 10/CGF_TRANSFORMATION%2022_BROCHURE_FINAL_16-08- 19_LOW%20RES.pdf. Dao, Mai Anh, Andreas Strobl, Florian Bauer, and Shlomo Y. Tarba. 2017. “Triggering Innovation Through Mergers and Acquisitions: The Role of Shared Mental Models.” Group & Organization Management 42, no. 2: 195–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601117696573. Davies, Larissa E. 2011. “Using Sports Infrastructure to Deliver Economic and Social Change: Lessons for London beyond 2012.” Local Economy 26, no. 4: 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094211404638. Davis, Juliet, and Andy Thornley. 2010. “Urban Regeneration for the London 2012 Olympics: Issues of Land Acquisition and Legacy.” City, Culture and Society, The London Plan 2000–2010: A Decade of Transformation 1, no. 2: 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2010.08.002. Delaplace, Marie, and Pierre-Olaf Schut. 2019. “Hosting the Olympic Games: Uncertainty, Debates and Controversy.” Abingdon: Routledge. Dreborg, Karl H. 1996. “Essence of Backcasting.” Futures 28, no. 9: 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00044-4. Duignan, Michael B., Ilaria Pappalepore, and Sally Everett. 2019. “The ‘Summer of Discontent’: Exclusion and Communal Resistance at the London 2012 Olympics.” Tourism Management 70: 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.029.EPIQ. Duignan, Michael. 2019. “London’s Local Olympic Legacy: Small Business Displacement, ‘Clone Town’ Effect and the Production of ‘Urban Landscapes.’” Journal of Place Management and Development 12, no. 2: 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-05-2018-0033. Gibbs, Graham. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications. Glasgow 2014 XX Commonwealth Games. 2013b. “Procurement Sustainability Policy”. Accessed May 18, 2020. http://www.glasgow2014.com/sites/default/files/documents/G2014- Procurement-Sustainability-Policy-FINAL-V2-070213_0.pdf. Gold, John R., and Margaret M. Gold. 2013. “‘Bring It under the Legacy Umbrella’: Olympic Host Cities and the Changing Fortunes of the Sustainability Agenda.” Sustainability, Sustainable Mega Events 5 (8): 3526–3542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083526. Gray, Neil, and Libby Porter. 2015. “By Any Means Necessary: Urban Regeneration and the ‘State of Exception’ in Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games 2014.” Antipode 47, no.2: 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12114. Häußermann, Hartmut, and Walter Siebel. 1993. “Die Politik der Festivalisierung und die Festivalisierung der Politik.” In Festivalisierung der Stadtpolitik: Stadtentwicklung durch große Projekte, edited by Hartmut Häußermann and Walter Siebel, 7–31. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-10065-2_1.

51

Holmberg, John, and Karl-Henrik Robèrt. 2000. “Backcasting — a Framework for Strategic Planning.” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 7, no. 4: 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500009470049. Interaction Design Foundation. 2018. “What Is Design Thinking?” The Interaction Design Foundation. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.interaction- design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking. International Olympic Committee. 2017. "Olympic Games Rio 2016: The Legacy." Accessed April 09, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/News/20 17/03/2017-03-16-Rio-2016-Legacy-March-2017-English.pdf. International Olympic Committee. 2018a. “Olympic Games Rio 2016 – Economic Legacy.” Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.olympic.org/news/olympic-games-rio- 2016-economic-legacy. International Olympic Committee. 2018b. “Rio 2016 Summer Olympics – Results and Video Highlights.” Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.olympic.org/rio-2016. International Olympic Committee. 2018c. “Organising Committees for the Olympic Games.” Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.olympic.org/ioc-governance-organising- committees. International Olympic Committee. 2019a. “All the IOC Staff under One Roof. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.olympic.org/olympic-house/all-the-ioc-staff-under-one- roof. International Olympic Committee. 2019b. “Tokyo’s Olympic Stadium Unveiled and Ready for the Games – Olympic News.” Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.olympic.org/news/tokyo-s-olympic-stadium-unveiled-and-ready- for-the-games. International Olympic Committee. 2019c. “PyeongChang Olympics | Next Winter Games in Korea.” Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.olympic.org/pyeongchang-2018. International Olympic Committee. n.d. “Sustainability Essentials, A series of practical guides for the Olympic movement – Introduction to Sustainability”. Accessed May 18, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/Wh at-We-Do/celebrate-olympic-games/Sustainability/sustainability-essentials/IOC- Sustain-Essentials_v7.pdf#_ga=2.187413420.54376230.1589786738- 1365736890.1580909914. Jänicke, Martin. 2012. “‘Green Growth’: From a Growing Eco-Industry to Economic Sustainability.” Energy Policy 48 (September): 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.045. Jones, Brigid. 2019. “Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games.” LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport Conference. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Planning%20for%20the %20Commonwealth%20Games%20- %20Cllr%20Brigid%20Jones%20WEB_1.pdf. Jones, Kate. 2018. “Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games by Numbers.” The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory. Accessed May 19 2020. http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/5/1/gold-coast-2018- commonwealth-games-by-numbers. Kagermann, Henning. 2015. “Change Through Digitization—Value Creation in the Age of Industry 4.0.” In Management of Permanent Change, edited by Horst Albach,

52

Heribert Meffert, Andreas Pinkwart, and Ralf Reichwald, 23–45. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-05014-6_2. Lee, Jung Woo. 2019. “A Winter Sport Mega-Event and Its Aftermath: A Critical Review of Post-Olympic PyeongChang.” Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit 34 (7): 745–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094219889608. Leopkey, Becca, and Milena M. Parent. 2012. “Olympic Games Legacy: From General Benefits to Sustainable Long-Term Legacy.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 29, no. 6: 924–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2011.623006. Loiseau, Eleonore, Laura Saikku, Riina Antikainen, Nils Droste, Bernd Hansjürgens, Kati Pitkänen, Pekka Leskinen, Peter Kuikman, and Marianne Thomsen. 2016. “Green Economy and Related Concepts: An Overview.” Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (December): 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.024. London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games – LOCOG. 2007. “Towards a one planet 2012 – Sustainability Plan”. Accessed May 19, 2020. http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2007- 0171/DEP2007-0171.pdf. Long, X., Xi Ji, and S. Ulgiati. 2017. “Is Urbanization Eco-Friendly? An Energy and Land Use Cross-Country Analysis.” Energy Policy 100 (January): 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.024. Maxwell, Joseph. 2013. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Mead, Robert, and Victor Brajer. 2008. “Environmental Cleanup and Health Gains from Beijing’s Green Olympics.” The China Quarterly 194 (June): 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741008000374. Meurer, Roberto, and Hoyêdo Nunes Lins. 2017. “The Effects of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games on Brazilian International Travel Receipts:” Tourism Economics, 24 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816617746261. Norman, Wayne, and Chris MacDonald. 2004. “Getting to the Bottom of ‘Triple Bottom Line.’” Business Ethics Quarterly 14, no. 2: 243–262. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200414211. Orb, Angelica, Lauren Eisenhauer, and Dianne Wynaden. 2001. “Ethics in qualitative research.” Journal of Nursing Scholarship 33, no. 1: 93 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j1547-5069.2001.00093.x. Orr, Madeleine. 2019. “Where’s the Climate Leadership? – Sustainability Report.” Accessed May 15, 2020. https://sustainabilityreport.com/2019/10/03/wheres-the-climate- leadership/. Pattisson, Pete. 2019. “Qatar Stadium Deaths: The Dark Side of the Glittering Venue Hosting Liverpool.” The Guardian (London), December 10, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/10/qatar-stadium- deaths-the-dark-side-of-liverpools-glittering-world-cup-venue. Pentifallo, Caitlin, and Rob VanWynsberghe. 2012. “Blame It on Rio: Isomorphism, Environmental Protection and Sustainability in the Olympic Movement.” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4 (3): 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.694115.

53

Polley, Martin. 2014. “Introduction: The Empire and Commonwealth Games and the Challenge of History.” Sport in History 34 (3): 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460263.2014.934047. Ponsford, Ian. 2011. “Actualizing Environmental Sustainability at Vancouver 2010 Venues.” International Journal of Event and Festival Management 2 (June): 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/17582951111136595. Preuss, Holger. 2013. “The Contribution of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games to Green Economy.” Sustainability 5 (8): 3581–3600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083581. Preuss, Holger. 2015. “A Framework for Identifying the Legacies of a Mega Sport Event.” Leisure Studies 34 (6): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2014.994552. Race, Retta. 2017. “Rio’s Legacy Plans In Doubt as Olympic Aquatics Stadium Left To Rot.” SwimSwam. Accessed May 27, 2020. https://swimswam.com/rios-legacy-plans- doubt-olympic-aquatics-stadium-left-rot. Raco, Mike, and Emma Tunney. 2010. “Visibilities and Invisibilities in Urban Development: Small Business Communities and the London Olympics 2012.” Urban Studies 47(10): 2069–2091. Raco, Mike. 2012. “The Privatisation of Urban Development and the London Olympics 2012.” City 16 (4): 452–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.696903. Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, et al. 2009. “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology and Society 14 (2). https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a. Rogerson, Robert J. 2016. “Re-Defining Temporal Notions of Event Legacy: Lessons from Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games” Annals of Leisure Research 19, no 4. Accessed May 15, 2020. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/11745398.2016.1151367?scroll=t op&needAccess=true&journalCode=ranz20. Rowe, Peter G. 1987. Design Thinking. MIT Press. Saito, Carlos H. 2016. “An Integrative Systemic Framework for Sustainability When Environment and Tourism Are Connected: Capacitation of the Volunteers to the FIFA Football World Cup in Brazil.” Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 10, no. 2 (September): 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408216651944. Samuel, Shalini, and Wendy Stubbs. 2013. “Green Olympics, Green Legacies? An Exploration of the Environmental Legacies of the Olympic Games.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 48, no. 4 (August): 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212444576. Santillo, David. 2007. “Reclaiming the Definition of Sustainability (7 Pp).” Environmental Science and Pollution Research – International 14, no. 1 (January): 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375. Savin-Baden, Maggi and Angela Fisher. 2002. “Negotiating ‘honesties’ in the research process.” British Journal of Occupational Therapy 65, no.4 (April): 191 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260206500407. Senge, Peter M., Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur, and Sara Schley. 2008. “The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals And Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World.” New York: Doubleday. https://books.google.se/books?id=xdeihHam61MC&printsec=frontcover&hl=sv &source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.

54

Steffen, Will, Wendy Broadgate, Lisa Deutsch, Owen Gaffney, and Cornelia Ludwig. 2015. “The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration.” The Anthropocene Review 2 (1): 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785. Team England. n.d. “Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games.” Accessed April 23, 2020. https://teamengland.org/commonwealth-games-history/gold-coast-2018. The Natural Step Canada. 2012. “Resort Municipality of Whistler.” The Natural Step Canada. Accessed May 27, 2020. https://naturalstep.ca/resort-municipality-of-whistler. Thomson, Alana, Graham Cuskelly, Kristine Toohey, Millicent Kennelly, Paul Burton, and Liz Fredline. 2019. “Sport Event Legacy: A Systematic Quantitative Review of Literature.” Sport Management Review 22 (3): 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.011. Tierney, William G, and Patrick Dilley. 2002. “Interviewing in Education.” Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, edited by Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein, 453–472. California: SAGE. United Nations. 2015. “Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform.” Accessed May 19, 2020. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300. United Nations. 2018. “68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN.” United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of- world-urbanization-prospects.html. United Nations. 2019a. “World Economic Situation & Prospects for 2019.” Economic Analysis & Policy Division | Dept of Economic & Social Affairs | United Nations. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/world-economic- situation-and-prospects-2019/. United Nations. 2019b. “World Population Prospects Highlights, 2019 Revision Highlights, 2019 Revision.” Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and Population Division. Accessed May 19, 2020. https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf. United Nations Development Programme. 2016. “Sustainable Urbanization Strategy.” Accessed May 19, 2020. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Sustainable%20Development/Ur banization/UNDP_Urban-Strategy.pdf. VanWynsberghe, Robert, Inge Derom, and Elizabeth Maurer. 2012. “Social Leveraging of the 2010 Olympic Games: ‘Sustainability’ in a City of Vancouver Initiative.” Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 4, no. 2 (March): 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2012.662618. Weber, Barbara, Hans Wilhelm Alfen, and Mirjam Staub-Bisang. 2016. “Infrastructure as an Asset Class: Investment Strategy, Sustainability, Project Finance and PPP.” New York, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bthbib- ebooks/detail.action?docID=4526802. Williams, Dan. 2017. “Why Lighthouse Projects, Not PowerPoints, Will Unlock Your Transformation Value.” Contino. Accessed May 10, 2020. https://www.contino.io/insights/why-lighthouse-projects-not-powerpoints-will- unlock-your-transformation-value.

55

Young, David C. 2004. “A Brief History of the Olympic Games.” Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470774823. Yu, Chuck W. F. 2012. “Olympics 2012 – A Sustainable Legacy?” Indoor and Built Environment 21, no. 6 (December): 737–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X12466355. Zimmerman, Rae. 2009. “Making Infrastructure Competitive in an Urban World.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 626, no.1 (October): 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209344842. Zirin, Dave. 2019. "Edge of Sports: Dreading the Tokyo 2020 Olympics." The Progressive. Accessed May 27, 2020. https://progressive.org/magazine/edge-of-sports- dreading-tokyo-olympics-zirin-190801/. Zouain, Deborah, Paola Lohmann, Gabriela Cardoso, Kaarina Virkki, and Marcela Cohen. 2019. “Residents’ Perceptions of the Impacts of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Before, During and After the Mega-Event.” Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa Em Turismo 13, no.2 (May): 93–112. https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v13i2.1554.

645#+0#$+.+5:
453#5')+'4
#0&
21.+%+'4
(13
#44'44/'05
1(
Games’ sustainability descriptions and definitions

Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. 2019. “The Legacy Plan of the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Beijing 2022”. Accessed May 18, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/News/20 19/02/Beijing2022-Legacy-Plan.pdf. Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d. “Vision”. Accessed May 18, 2020. https://www.beijing2022.cn/en/about_us/vision.htm. Birmingham Organising Committee for the 2022 Commonwealth Games Limited. n.d. “Our Purpose and Brand – Vision and Mission.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://www.birmingham2022.com/about-us/our-purpose/. Commonwealth Games Federation. 2015. “Transformation 2022. The Commonwealth Games Federation Strategic Plan 2015-2022 – Updated draft.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://thecgf.com/sites/default/files/2018-03/Transformation- 2022_updateJul15.pdf. Commonwealth Games Federation. n.d. “Transformation 2022 Refresh Strategic Plan (2019- 2022).” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://thecgf.com/sites/default/files/2019- 10/CGF_TRANSFORMATION%2022_BROCHURE_FINAL_16-08- 19_LOW%20RES.pdf. Glasgow 2014 XX Commonwealth Games. 2013a. “Approach to Human Rights.” Accessed May 18, 2020. http://www.glasgow2014.com/sites/default/files/documents/Glasgow%202014% 20-%20approach%20to%20human%20rights%20-%20December%202013.pdf. Glasgow 2014 XX Commonwealth Games. 2013b. “Procurement Sustainability Policy.” Accessed May 18, 2020. http://www.glasgow2014.com/sites/default/files/documents/G2014- Procurement-Sustainability-Policy-FINAL-V2-070213_0.pdf. Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games. 2016. “Sustainability Policy.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://gc2018.com/sites/default/files/2017-

56

09/Sustainability%20Policy%20v4%20-%20Accessible%20version%20- %20April%202016.pdf. Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games. 2017. “Towards a Sustainable GC2018.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://gc2018.com/sites/default/files/2017- 09/Sustainability%20Framework%20v2%20accessible%20version.pdf. Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games. n.d. “GC2018 Sustainability.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://gc2018.com/sites/default/files/2018- 08/GC2018%20Sustainability%20Overview%20(Final).pdf. Indian Olympic Association. n.d. “Delhi 2010 Commonwealth Games – Bid Document.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://thecgf.com/sites/default/files/2018- 03/Delhi%202010%20Games%20Bid.pdf. International Olympic Committee. 2015. “Factsheet Sochi 2014 Facts & Figures.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Games/ Winter-Games/Games-Sochi-2014-Winter-Olympic-Games/Facts-and- Figures/Factsheet-Facts-and-Figures-Sochi-2014.pdf. International Olympic Committee. 2017. “IOC Sustainability Strategy.” Accessed May 18, 2020. http://extrassets.olympic.org/sustainability- strategy/_content/download.pdf. International Olympic Committee. 2018a. “Factsheet the Olympic Winter Games.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Factshee ts-Reference-Documents/Games/OWG/Factsheet-The-Olympic-Winter- Games.pdf. International Olympic Committee. 2018b. “IOC Sustainability Report – Sharing progress on our 2020 objectives.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://www.olympic.org/- /media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/What-We-Do/celebrate- olympic- games/Sustainability/IOC%20Sustainability%20Report_Final%20Rev1.pdf?la= en&hash=6D79625806503870C73D7218AB52936BC9DDB756. International Olympic Committee. n.d. “Sustainability Essentials, A series of practical guides for the olympic movement – Introduction to Sustainability.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/Wh at-We-Do/celebrate-olympic-games/Sustainability/sustainability-essentials/IOC- Sustain-Essentials_v7.pdf#_ga=2.187413420.54376230.1589786738- 1365736890.1580909914. London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games – LOCOG. 2011. “A blueprint for change – Sustainability Report.” Accessed May 18, 2020. http://wk.ixueshu.com/file/910c9d835850f192.html. London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games – LOCOG. 2007. “Towards a one planet 2012 – Sustainability Plan.” Accessed May 19, 2020. http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2007- 0171/DEP2007-0171.pdf. Organising Committee Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi. n.d.a “Striving towards Consumption – Carbon Neutrality, The XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi Ecological Code.” Accessed May 18, 2020. http://d2010.thecgf.com/sites/default/files/eco-code%20page%202.pdf.

57

Organising Committee Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi. n.d.b “Vision, Mission & Values.” Accessed May 18, 2020. http://d2010.thecgf.com/vision_mission_and_values. Rio 2016 Bid Committee. 2008. “Rio 2016 candidate city – Live your passion.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/77684. Rio 2016 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2016. “Pre-Games Integrated Report Rio 2016.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/167185/pre-games- integrated-report-rio-2016-rio-2016-organising-committee-for-the-olympic-and- paralympic-ga?_lg=en-GB. Rio 2016 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2013. “Sustainability Management Plan: Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games.” Accessed May 18, 2020. http://www.climateaction.org/images/uploads/documents/sustainability_manage ment_plan_aug2013.pdf. The Organizing Committee of the XXII Olympic Winter Games and XI Paralympic Winter Games of 2014 in Sochi. 2010. “2007–2008 Environment and Sustainability Report.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/48498/2007-2008- environment-and-sustainability-report-the-organizing-committee-of-the-xxii- olympic-winter-?_lg=en-GB. The Organizing Committee of the XXII Olympic Winter Games and XI Paralympic Winter Games of 2014 in Sochi. 2009. “Gateway to the Future! Sustainability Report 2009-2010.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/59795/sustainability- report-organizing-committee-of-xxii-olympic-winter-games-and-xi-paralympic- winter-gam?_lg=en-GB. The Organizing Committee of the XXII Olympic Winter Games and XI Paralympic Winter Games of 2014 in Sochi. 2014. “Sochi 2014: Legacy Sochi 2014 Legacy Report.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/37836/sochi-2014-legacy- report-january-2014-soci-2014-nasledie-otcet-o-nasledii-soci-2014-janvar-2014- orga?_lg=en-GB. The PyeongChang Organizing Committee for the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d. “CSR Guideline for 2018 PyeongChang Games.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/166309/csr- guideline-for-2018-pyeongchang-games-the-pyeongchang-organizing- committee-for-the-2018-olympic-p?_lg=en-GB. The PyeongChang Organizing Committee for the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. 2017. “PyeongChang 2018, Furthering benefits to People and Nature, Pre-Games Sustainability Report.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/172121/furthering- benefits-to-people-and-nature-pyeongchang-2018-pre-games-sustainability- report-the-pyeong?_lg=fr-FR. The PyeongChang Organizing Committee for the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. 2017. “PyeongChang 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games – Sustainability Interim Report.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/167519/sustainability-

58

interim-report-pyeongchang-2018-olympic-and-winter-games-the-pyeongchang- organizing-c?_lg=fr-FR. The Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2016. “Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games High-level Sustainability Plan.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://gtimg.tokyo2020.org/image/upload/production/rzdmgz3rk0emozgk9ac6. pdf. The Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2018a. “Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games Sustainability Policy.”Accessed May 18, 2020. https://gtimg.tokyo2020.org/image/upload/production/kl5xezmkpzud3llncc9i.pd f. The Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2018b. “Overview of the Tokyo 2020 Games Sustainability Plan.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://gtimg.tokyo2020.org/image/upload/production/uiwrmekevpl4zcow9eza.p df. The Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2019. “Overview of the Tokyo 2020 Games Sustainability Progress Report.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://gtimg.tokyo2020.org/image/upload/production/zhpoigjcvb0gru7j1tbf.pdf. The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d. “Vancouver 2010 Sustainability Report 2009-10.” Accessed May 18, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Games_Vancouver_2010/VANOC_Sus tainability_Report-EN.pdf. XXI Commonwealth Games. 2016. “Snapshot Report – Embracing 2018 Legacy Program.” Accessed My 18, 2020. https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/e1ecae01- 2ceb-4c0f-96d4-209df63675b8/resource/55f7c328-de7f-4748-a75b- dc9ee754533e/fs_download/snapshot-report-embracing-2018.pdf. XXI Commonwealth Games. 2018. “Embracing 2018 Legacy program.” Accessed May 18, 2020. destq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1279201/embracing-2018- legacy-program.pdf.

((+%+#.
&1%6/'054
#0&
#%#&'/+%
26$.+%#5+104
(13
44'44/'05
1(
#mes’ Impacts on Host Cities

Ainsworth, Ian, Alistair Hall and Mitchell Mulvey. 2018. "Anna Meares Velodrome." Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 18, no.4 (May): 288-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2018.1449279. Architecture of the Games. n.d. “Beijing 2022,” Accessed May 20, 2020. https://architectureofthegames.net/beijing-2022/. Arnold, Richard and Andrew Foxall. 2014. "Lord of the (Five) Rings Issues.” Problems of Post-Communism 61, no.1 (December): 3-12. https://doi.org/10.2753/PPC1075- 8216610100. ARUP. n.d. “Infrastructure Design for London 2012.” Accessed March 13, 2020. https://www.arup.com/en/projects/london-2012-overview. Badami Rao, D., A. Chanchani, A. Dasgupta, and R. Viswanath. 2010. "Humanity-Equality- Destiny?" Implicating Tourism In The Commonwealth Games 2010. Bengaluru: Equations.

59

BBC. 2019. "Birmingham Railway Station Project receives £15m funding." Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49196527. Bega, Dario, Marco Gramaglia, Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano, Albert Banchs, and Xavier CostaǦPerez. 2017. “Toward the Network of the Future: From Enabling Technologies to 5G Concepts.” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies 28, no. 8 (August): e3205. https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.3205. Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d.a. “Alpine Skiing.” Accessed March 19, 2020. https://www.beijing2022.cn/en/olympics_/alphine_skiing.htm. Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d.b. “Biathlon.” Accessed March 19, 2020. https://www.beijing2022.cn/en/olympics_/biathlon.htm. Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d.c. “Cross-Country.” Accessed March 19, 2020. https://www.beijing2022.cn/en/olympics_/cross_country_skiing.htm. Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d.d. “Freestyle Skiing.” Accessed March 19, 2020. https://www.beijing2022.cn/en/olympics_/freestyle_skiing.htm. Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d.e. “Ski Jumping.” Accessed March 19, 2020. https://www.beijing2022.cn/en/olympics_/ski_jumping.htm. Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. n.d.f. “Speed Skating.” Accessed March 19, 2020. https://www.beijing2022.cn/en/olympics_/speed_skating.htm. Birmingham 2022. n.d.a. "Exciting Developments at Alexander Stadium as Revamp Plans Receive Approval." Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.birmingham2022.com/news/blog/developments-at-alexander- stadium/. Birmingham 2022. n.d.b. "Major Construction Work at the Sandwell Aquatics Centre Site." Accessed March 30, 2020. https://www.birmingham2022.com/news/blog/major- construction-work-at-the-sandwell-aquatics-site/. Birmingham 2022. n.d.c. "Work officially starts on construction of Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games Village." Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.birmingham2022.com/news/blog/work-officially-starts-on-village/. Birmingham City Council. n.d.a. "A34 Perry Barr Highway Improvement Scheme." Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/50082/transport_improvement_schemes/1 930/a34_perry_barr_highway_improvement_scheme. Birmingham City Council. n.d.b. "Sprint Routes." Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/50082/transport_improvement_schemes/1 785/sprint_public_transport/2. Birmingham Mail. 2018. "£170m for Birmingham 20220 Games Transport Improvements." Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local- news/170m-birmingham-2022-games-transport-15138128. Brown, Richard, Gary Cox, and Michael Owens. 2012. “Bid, Delivery, Legacy – Creating the Governance Architecture of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Legacy.” Australian Planner 49, no. 3 (September): 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2012.706964.

60

Clark, Julie and Ade Kearns. 2016. “Going for Gold: A Prospective Assessment of the Economic Impacts of the Commonwealth Games 2014 on the East End of Glasgow.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 34, no. 8 (December): 1474–1500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15624923. Davis, Juliet, and Andy Thornley. 2010. “Urban Regeneration for the London 2012 Olympics: Issues of Land Acquisition and Legacy.” City, Culture and Society, The London Plan 2000–2010: A Decade of Transformation 1, no. 2 (June): 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2010.08.002. Dendura, Bartosz. 2019. “Olympic Infrastructure—Global Problems of Local Communities on the Example of Rio 2016, PyeongChang 2018, and Krakow 2023.” Sustainability 12, no. 1 (January): 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010141. Deng, Jie, Tao Che, Cunde Xiao, Shijin Wang, Liyun Dai and Akynbekkyzy Meerzhan. 2019. “Suitability Analysis of Ski Areas in China: An Integrated Study Based on Natural and Socioeconomic Conditions.” The Cryosphere 13, no. 8 (August): 2149–2167. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2149-2019. Design build network. 2016. “In Pictures: Triumph and Tribulation at Rio’s New Olympic Park.”. Accessed May 5, 2020. https://www.designbuild- network.com/features/featurein-pictures-triumph-and-tribulation-at-rios-new- olympic-park-4955063/. Design build network. n.d.a. “London 2012 Olympic Park Master Plan.” Accessed March 13, 2020. https://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/2012olympic-park/. Design build network. n.d.b. “Rio 2016 Olympic Park Master Plan, Barra de Tijuca.” Accessed April 09, 2020. https://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/rio- 2016-olympic-park-plan-brazil/. Design build network. n.d.c. “Rio 2016 Olympic Park Master Plan, Barra de Tijuca.” Accessed April 09, 2020. https://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/rio- 2016-olympic-park-plan-brazil/. Fardon, David and Paul Burton. 2019. "Avoiding the white elephants: A new approach to infrastructure planning at the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games." Queensland Review 26, no. 1: 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/q. Ferro, Alex. 2017. "Olympic Games Rio 2016: The Legacy." Accessed April 09, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/News/20 17/03/2017-03-16-Rio-2016-Legacy-March-2017-English.pdf. Giulianotti, Richard, Gary Armstrong, Gavin Hales, and Dick Hobbs. 2015. “Global Sport Mega-Events and the Politics of Mobility: The Case of the London 2012 Olympics.” The British Journal of Sociology 66, no. 1 (March): 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12103. Giulianotti, Richard, Gary Armstrong, Gavin Hales, and Dick Hobbs. 2015. “Sport Mega- Events and Public Opposition: A Sociological Study of the London 2012 Olympics.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 39 (2): 107–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723514530565. Grant, Tony. 2010. “The Power of the Pavillion”. Canadian Architect 55, no. 3: 29-30. http://miman.bib.bth.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=afh&AN=48969665&site=ehost-live. Gray, Neil, and Libby Porter. 2014. “By Any Means Necessary: Urban Regeneration and the ‘State of Exception’ in Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games 2014.” Antipode 47, no. 2 (August): 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12114. Hansman, Heather and Matt Giles. 2016. "The Olympic Village of the Future – Tokyo 2020 will be the best ever for society." Popular Science 288, no. 4 (July/August): 38–

61

39. https://web-b-ebscohost- com.miman.bib.bth.se/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=e29865a0-924e-4832- 955c- aaf217021b3e%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d% 3d#AN=116138908&db=afh. Hiller, Harry H., and Richard A. Wanner. 2011. “Public Opinion in Host Olympic Cities: The Case of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Games:” Sociology 45, no. 5 (October): 883-899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511413414. Hong, J., D.P. McArthur and M. Livingston. 2019. “The evaluation of large cycling infrastructure investments in Glasgow using crowdsourced cycle data.” Transportation (March). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-09988-4. Ichii, Yoshifusa. 2019. “‘Creative Reconstruction’ and the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games: How Does the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games Influence Japan’s Neoliberal Social Reform?” International Journal of Japanese Sociology 28, no. 1 (March): 96– 109. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijjs.12102. Infrastructure Association of Queensland. 2018. “The Legacy of Commonwealth Games Infrastructure – Minimising the Effects of ‘White Elephant’ Infrastructure Post Gold Coast 2018.” Accessed March 20, 2020. http://www.iaq.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/EPIQ_Legacy-of-Comm-Games-Inf_WP_Final-1.pdf khube. International Olympic Committee. 2017."Olympic Games Rio 2016: The Legacy." Accessed April 09, 2020. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/News/20 17/03/2017-03-16-Rio-2016-Legacy-March-2017-English.pdf. Kalra, Sunil Yash. 2010. Road to Commonwealth Games, 2010. New Delhi: Penguin Enterprise. https://books.google.se/books/about/Road_to_Commonwealth_Games_2010.ht ml?id=jkrgcN8XBIwC&redir_esc=y. Kassens-Noor, Eva and Tatsuya Fukushige. 2016. "Olympic Technologies. Tokyo 2020 and Beyond: The Urban Technology Metropolis." Journal of Urban Technology 25, no. 3: 83 –104. https://doi.org.10.1080/10630732.2016.1157949. Kiki Kaplanidou and Kostas Karadakis. 2010. “Understanding the Legacies of a Host Olympic City: The Case of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games.” Sport Marketing Quarterly 19, no. 2: 110-117. https://www.cre.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/37_2_3_Vancouver_Olympics. pdf. Laura Misener, David McGillivray, Gayle McPherson & David Legg. 2015. “Leveraging parasport events for sustainable community participation: The Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.” Annals of Leisure Research, 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2015.1045913. Lee, Jung Woo. 2019. “A Winter Sport Mega-Event and Its Aftermath: A Critical Review of Post-Olympic PyeongChang.” Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit 34, no. 7: 745–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094219889608. Littlefield, David. 2010. “Winter Olympic Buildings, Vancouver 2010.” Journal of Architectural design 80 (2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1054. McCarthy, William P.J. 2012."The failed experiment of Vancouver's 2010 Olympic Village." The Counselors of Real Estate 37, no. 2–3 (Winter): 60–76.

62

https://www.cre.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/37_2_3_Vancouver_Olympics.pdf. McCartney, Gerry, Phil Hanlon, and Lyndal Bond. 2013. “How Will the 2014 Commonwealth Games Impact on Glasgow’s Health, and How Will We Know?” Evaluation 19, no. 1 (January): 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389012471885. McGillivray, David, Gayle McPherson, and Laura Misener. 2017. “Major Sporting Events and Geographies of Disability.” Urban Geography 39, no. 3 (May): 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1328577. Mooney, Gerry, Vikki McCall, and Kirsteen Paton. 2015. “Exploring the Use of Large Sporting Events in the Post-Crash, Post-Welfare City: A ‘Legacy’ of Increasing Insecurity?” Local Economy 30, no. 8 (September): 910–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094215602201. Müller, Martin. 2014. “After Sochi 2014: Costs and Impacts of Russia’s Olympic Games.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 55, no. 6 (November): 628–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2015.1040432. O. M. Christine. 2009. “‘No Olympics on Stolen Native Land’: Contesting Olympic Narratives and Asserting Indigenous Rights within the Discourse of the 2010 Vancouver Games” Sport in Society 13, no. 1 (December): 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430903377987. Oh, Jinhwan. 2016. “South Korea’s Regional Disparities and the 2018 Winter Olympics for Regional Development: Big Push Revisited:” International Area Studies Review 20, no. 2 (December): 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/2233865916682389. Olympic Winter Games Organising Committee. 2010. “Vancouver 2010 Venue Construction Program”. Accessed May 21, 2020. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/27086/venue-construction- program-vancouver-2010-vancouver-organizing-committee-for-the-2010- olympic-and-pa?_lg=en-GB. Orrtung, Robert W and Sufian Zhemukhov. 2013. “The 2014 Sochi Olympic mega-project and Russia's political economy” East European Politics 30 (2): 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2013.853662. Pankhurst, Ned. 2019. "Commentary: The Gold Coast Health and Knowledge Precinct – a special type of Games legacy?" Queensland Review 26, no. 1: 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/qre.2019.9. Powell, Michael. 2019a. "Commentary: Gold Coast 2018 – the innovative and inclusive games." Queensland Review 22, no. 1: 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1017/qre.2019.11. Powell, Michael. 2019b. "Reflecting on the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games: Interview with Mark Peters, former Chief Executive of the Gold Coast Organising Committee." Queensland Review 26, no. 1: 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/qre.2019.10. Powell, Michael. 2019c. "The Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games: An Introduction." Queensland Review 26, no. 1: 107–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/qre.2019.12. Rogers, David and Elizabeth Hopkirk. 2013. "UK firms on blocks for Tokyo 2020." Building Design, September 13, 2013. https://www.bdonline.co.uk/13-sep- 2013/20558.issue. Rogerson, Robert J. 2016. “Re-defining temporal notions of event legacy: lessons from Glasgow's Commonwealth Games”. Annals of Leisure Research 19: 497–518. https://doi-org.miman.bib.bth.se/10.1080/11745398.2016.1151367.

63

Ronalds, Pepi. 2019. "The Ruptures of Rhetoric: Cool Japan, Tokyo 2020 and Post-3.11 Tohoku." New Voices in Japanese Studies 11: 26–46. https://doi.org/10.21159/nvjs.11.02. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. n.d. "Sandwell Aquatics Centre." Accessed March 30, 2020. http://www.sandwell.gov.uk/aquaticscentre. Sharma, Maina. 2009. “Commonwealth Games 2010 And Use Of The Facilities After The Games.” Summer Research Internship submitted to the Center For Civil Society, Working Paper 214. Accessed May 24, 2020. https://ccs.in/internship_papers/2009/cwg-and-use-of-the-facilities-214.pdf. The Resort Municipality of Whistler. 2008. “Delivering the dream, Whistler Host Mountain Resort 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.” Accessed February 28, 2020. https://www.whistler.ca/sites/default/files/6.2.220delivering20the20dream.pdf. Thornley, Andy. 2012. “The 2012 London Olympics. What Legacy?” Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 4, no. 2: 206–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2012.662617. Tokyo 2020. n.d.a "Ariake Arena" Accessed March 17, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/venues/ariake-arena. Tokyo 2020. n.d.b "Ariake Urban Sports Park." Accessed March 19 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/venues/ariake-urban-sports-park. Tokyo 2020. n.d.c "First look at the Village Plaza." Accessed March 19, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/news/first-look-at-the-village-plaza. Tokyo 2020. n.d.d "Kasai Canoe Slalom Centre." Accessed March 19, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/venues/kasai-canoe-slalom-centre. Tokyo 2020. n.d.e "Musashino Forest Sport Plaza." Accessed March 19, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/venues/musashino-forest-sp-plaza. Tokyo 2020. n.d.f "Official opening of the Ariake Arena." Accessed March 19, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/news/official-opening-of-the-ariake-arena. Tokyo 2020. n.d.g "Oi Hockey Stadium." Accessed March 19, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/venues/oi-hockey-stadium. Tokyo 2020. n.d.h "Sea Forest Waterway" Accessed March 17, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/venues/sea-forest-waterway. Tokyo 2020. n.d.i "Tokyo 2020 unveils Village Plaza." Accessed March 19, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/news/tokyo-2020-unveils-village-plaza. Tokyo 2020. n.d.j. “Tokyo Aquatics Centre.” Accessed May 20, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/venues/tokyo-aquatics-centre. Tokyo 2020. n.d.k. "Tokyo Delivers Unique Gymnastics Venue." Accessed March 19, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/news/tokyo-2020-delivers-unique-gymnastics-venue. Tokyo 2020. n.d.l. "Yumenoshima Park Archery Field." Accessed March 19, 2020. https://tokyo2020.org/en/venues/yumenoshima-archery-field. VanWynsberghe, Robert, Inge Derom, and Elizabeth Maurer. 2012. “Social Leveraging of the 2010 Olympic Games: ‘Sustainability’ in a City of Vancouver Initiative.” Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 4, no. 2 (March): 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2012.662618. VanWynsberghe, Robert. 2014. “Applying Event Leveraging Using OGI Data: A Case Study of Vancouver 2010” Leisure Studies 35, No 5: 583–599. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02614367.2014.986508.

64

Webb, Janette, David Hawkey, and Margaret Tingey. 2016. “Governing Cities for Sustainable Energy: The UK Case.” Cities, Energy and Climate Change Mitigation 54, (May): 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.014. West Midlands Combined Authority. 2019. "Capital Projects Aligned to 2022 Commonwealth Games – Update." Transport Delivery Committee. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://governance.wmca.org.uk/documents/s2883/TDC%20CWG%20Capital% 20Projects%20Update%20-%20May%202019.pdf. Yang, Hong, Julian R. Thompson, and Roger J. Flower. 2015. “Beijing 2022: Olympics Will Make Water Scarcity Worse.” Nature 525, no. 7570 (September): 455–455. https://doi.org/10.1038/525455e. Yash Kalra, Sunil. 2010. Road To Commonwealth Games 2010. New Delhi: Penguin enterprise. Yu, Chuck W. F. 2012. “Olympics 2012 – A Sustainable Legacy?” Indoor and Built Environment 21, no. 6: 737–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X12466355. Zirin, Dave. 2019. "Edge of Sports: Dreading the Tokyo 2020 Olympics." The Progressive. Accessed May 24, 2020. https://progressive.org/magazine/edge-of-sports- dreading-tokyo-olympics-zirin-190801/.

65

Appendices

22'0&+9

–
6'45+104
)6+&+0)
5*'
44'44/'05
1(
645#+0#$+.+5:
'(+0+5+104
#0&
'4%3+25+104

Framework for assessing sustainability descriptions and definitions based on the FSSD (Broman and Robèrt 2017).

Clear definition of Sustainability

Is there a clearly stated definition of sustainability?

x Necessary – but not more to avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions and to avoid confusion over elements that may be debatable

x Sufficient – to avoid gaps in the thinking, i.e., to allow elaboration into second and higher orders of principles from a complete base

Is the definition x Concrete – to actually guide problem solving and principled? innovation, i.e., redesign through step-by-step approaches in real life

x General – Applicable on any arena, at any scale, by any member in a team and all stakeholders

x Non-overlapping – to enable comprehension and facilitate development of indicators for monitoring of progress

Alignment with the FSSD

x Contribution to understanding of the sustainability challenge – Is it implied that human activities are undermining the ecological and/or social systems?

Contribution to x System boundaries – Are system boundaries implied? I.e. understanding of the Are resources implied to be finite? system as defined by the FSSD x Nested vs. Triple Bottom approach – Is the economic system seen as a system nested within the socio-ecological system or as a standalone system on the same level as the social and ecological?

SPs Potential coverage – To what degree are the SPs addressed?

66

Balanced, ecological or social focus – Is there a skewed or balanced focus between the ecological and social system?

Blindspots – Are there any unintended consequences of assumptions and are any aspects in relation to the SPs not covered?

x Time – Is an aim for impact beyond the staging of the Games implied?

x Legacy – Is legacy mentioned? Is legacy mentioned in Aim for impact beyond relation to sustainability? staging of the Games x Restorative measures – Are any restorative measures mentioned?

x Space (local/regional, national or global) – Is an aim for impact beyond the staging of the Games implied?

Embedded assumptions

67

22'0&+9

–
*:4+%#.
')#%:
#5')13+4#5+10
#$.'

Framework for categorisation of physical legacies. Based on the framework proposed by Weber, Alfen and Staub-Bislang (2016).
Physical Legacy categories *

Transport Energy Water Waste Communication Social **

Land Generation Supply Domestic Telecommunication Health - Roads conventional - Domestic - Fixed networks - Diagnostic - Rail networks - Coal - Industrial - Mobile networks - Therapy/treatment - Public local - Oil/gas - High-speed internet - Care transport - Nuclear Towers (cell and - Rehabilitation broadcast) - Elderly housing

Water Renewable Sewerage Industrial Space Education/culture - Inland: - Solar - Rainwater - Satellite network - Schools waterways - Wind - Domestic - Observation - Student housing - Sea: - Water wastewater (campus) Canals - Biomass - Industrial - Libraries Ports - Geothermal wastewater - Community building (e.g. community center, Church) - Theatres - Museums

Air Transmission Leisure - Airport /distribution - Sport (e.g. tennis services - Electricity court) - Airline - Gas - Recreational (e.g. services - Oil/fuels park) - Air traffic control

Multi-modal Storage Public - Inland - Electricity administration terminals (road, - Gas - Offices rail-freight) - Oil/fuels - E-government - Cruise terminals

District Security Heating - Prisons - Police - Defence

Amenities *** - Residential - Commercial - Hospitality

Adaptations to original framework: * Previously Economic infrastructure including transport, energy, water, waste and communication ** Social infrastructure previously on same level as economic infrastructure *** Added category

68

22'0&+9

–
05'37+'8
6'45+104

Pre-defined interview questions used for 2.1.3 Identification of Reasons for Games’ Impacts on Host Cities.

Background questions:

x What was your role during the Games planning or the designing process of infrastructure for the Games? x What projects were you involved in during the Games planning or designing processes?

Project-related questions:

x What is your assessment of whether the projects you worked on were developed because of the Games or would they have been developed even without the staging of the Games? x How would you define the overarching goal of all your projects, if there was one? x How aligned were all of the stakeholders towards one overarching goal and what was that goal? x How much was sustainability a priority for the design and or implementation of the projects that you were involved in? x Did the implementation of the projects happen according to the plan, and if not why did the plan change? x Is there anything else that affected the outcome of the projects?

Sustainability-related questions:

x To what extent was sustainability a main goal for projects you were involved in? If there was a sustainability agenda, who led it? x How did, in your opinion, the understanding of what sustainability means differ between different stakeholders? x Did you read Games documents regarding "sustainability" and if yes, did they change your understanding of the term? x How do you think the Games defined the term sustainability?

x How do you define sustainability?

69

22'0&+9

–
#/2.'
1(
1&'&
615'4

Sample of coded quotes collected from transcribed interviews.

Potential barriers to sustainability

Codes Sample quote

Games-time and post-Games "So, the actual venue had a different design brief to the government. So, the time agenda clash government was purely just interested in the Commonwealth Games but the venue didn’t give a damn about the government, they cared about after the games. So, we had two different, you know, briefs. One caring about you know, two years in the future and one caring about five years in the future.” (Interviewee C, Gold Coast 2018, Architects – external)

Inadequate sustainability "I was in a sustainability meeting last year actually with about 40 or 50 definition people. And actually, the phrase sustainability meant quite a different thing to a number of people that all sat in the room. So, I think, I don't think I've managed to find a clear definition on what sustainability actually means. It means lots of different things to lots of different audiences." (Interviewee L, Birmingham 2022, City Council)

Money/business as main "It's about power and money...so of course sustainability was on the driver sidebar... Because the, the Olympic movement is primarily the, you know, the wealthy, political and business elites, throwing a party for them and their friends, getting the best ...sporting entertainment in the world...it's important I think to kind of peel back and understand, you know the enterprise that is the Olympics.” (Interviewee D, Vancouver 2010, Bid Committee)

Legacy/sustainability “My impression of the Gold Coast around their commitment to sustainability ambiguity was a bit thin. They sort of wanted to do some stuff, but their main objective was for the Gold Coast to be a destination for events in the future. And that was their main focus – legacy." (Interviewee H, London 2012, Arms-length body)

Budget “So the idea was, you might pick up the basketball venue, and you might rebuild it in Rio de Janeiro. But in fact, that never happened. Because the procurement in Rio de Janeiro said: well we can.. all the costs of transporting and we can just build something much more cheaply here and knock it out afterwards." (Interviewee I, London 2012, Architects – external)

Party politics, e.g. climate "..there was a lot of political change at state, local and federal levels. A unfriendly government couple of years into planning. So we went from sort of the labour, leadership progressive government that was very supportive of the sustainability agenda to an extremely conservative Liberal government in Queensland, that really, you know, at the state level, they capped all the climate change programs. And for a good, you know, four years, you could not talk about climate change in the context of GC2018. The carbon program for example, we just got on and did it, but it was not a topic for discussion with the state or local government unfortunately." (Interviewee F, Gold Coast 2018, Organising Committee)

Short-termist planning "Typically focus on capital expenditure minimising that in the short term now, rather than taking the pain to introduce other elements that might reduce running costs..." (Interviewee C, Gold Coast 2018, Architects – external)

70

Potential enablers for sustainability

Definition or vision for “It was a comprehensive definition. I remember that, and I was impressed." sustainability (Interviewee M, London 2012, Sustainability consultancy)

Long-term planning “The closed circuit TV installations that we did for a security program, for example, that could have all been temporary, but we did a lot of planning with the city to make sure that anywhere they wanted CCTV moving forward, we were leaving in and changing the way we were actually delivering that part, doing permanent installs." (Interviewee F, Gold Coast 2018, Organising Committee)

Sustainability as high on the “...we are embedding sustainability in the DNA of the Games. That was one agenda of our mantras... It was institutionalized from the beginning." (Interviewee D, Vancouver 2010, Organising Committee)

Audit "But it is the benchmark, you know, that and the the sourcing guide, the sustainable sourcing guide is still very much the benchmark. If you look at the IOC guidance on sustainability for for Olympics, it's all London is, is pretty much take everything London did and do that and you'll be okay." (Interviewee H, London 2012, Arms-length body)

Municipal sustainability “So if you want to bring your games to our community. You need to do it in a work way that's consistent with what our community wants." (Interviewee D, Vancouver 2010, Bid Committee)

Engagement: staff, "We certainly took every opportunity we could to present to staff, those community, business induction meetings, we had these massive big team meetings. So once a month for all GOLDLOC staff and we had a standing agenda item again for sustainability and legacy. And we also had as part of our program, we had an annual stakeholder event where we basically just opened the doors to everyone. Once a year for half a day to do an update on our program and get stakeholder feedback back, and all staff were invited to attend that as well....So we just did our very best to make sure that the agenda was as visible as possible. And that the narrative was as refined as possible. So, sustainability, as you know, can be a little bit fuzzy for people, unless you put it into context." (Interviewee F, Gold Coast 2018, Organising Committee)

IOC/CGF “So one thing that has evolved a lot, has been the quality of the evaluation pressure/encouragement criteria and the content of the whole city contract with respect to sustainability. So now there's quite a chapter, or requirements that are embedded into the contract. So anyone bidding into the Games has to go through this. It's not just oh, we better tick the green chapter.” (Interviewee G, London 2012, Organising Committee)

Events as a catalyst "It is fair to say that without the games, and without using the, the, what will be the residential scheme for the finishing Games so we wouldn't have attracted that level of investment from the government. So, is it fair to say that the games have been a significant catalyst" (Interviewee L, Birmingham 2022, City Council)

Presence of sustainability “[Xx] was his name, he was involved from the start... he had worked in advocates Australia before and he's an expert on sustainability in sport events and he was involved in the process from the start. Now, the way that sustainability got included in the Games in London I think is mainly down to his efforts from the start." (Interviewee J, London 2012, Local Government)

Cross-functional working "...‘cause Great British Garden kind of fell under the infrastructure team, so all my other projects sat with Education, Ceremonies and Live Sites, and then

71

Great British Garden, basically sprang out of nowhere, because the Infrastructure team goes: “We’ve got this space, it would be ideal to do something with it, here you go Education, make it happen.” (Interviewee A, London 2012, Organising Committee)

Making use of existing “They thought really carefully about: “Ok so what already exists and what infrastructure can we use?”” (Interviewee A, London 2012, Organising Committee)

Mindset recommendations to increase likelihood of sustainable outcome

Codes Sample quote

Make guidance "The policy is there for a specific purpose but it’s got to be made practically context/department specific realistic for the people actually delivering. And we won’t read a policy and keep it concise especially if it’s that thick [mimes thick book with hands]. But give me the summary of the points, give me the practical application, happy days." (Interviewee A, London 2012, Organising Committee)

Integrate sustainability into "Sustainability only works if you started at the beginning. Build it up as part overarching strategy and ways of the foundations of the project. So it has got to be something that is of working at an early stage hardwired into the foundation strategy.” (Interviewee G, London 2012, Organising Committee)

Award Games to cities who “It’s got to be something that works and fits with where the city is going are already moving in the anyway. So it can be an accelerator, not a sort of imposer of change." right direction (Interviewee G, London 2012, Organising Committee)

Take a business focussed "Yes. It's not something to be idealistic about...I'll help them to understand attitude towards sustainability why it's a good idea for their business. I'm not gonna run around making you feel guilty or telling you what to do. But I'll help you to think about your business in a different way, in the way that then you can decide whether it's a good idea to be sustainable." (Interviewee H, London 2012, Arms-length body)

72

22'0&+9

–
0(13/'&
104'05
13/

Informed consent form including details regarding the proposed research. Signed by all interviewees. (Text only, not signature section).

Information Sheet and Consent Form For the study: The potential for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games to make host city infrastructure more sustainable.

Aims of the Research Large international multi-sport events like the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games attract huge investment and focus from around the world, offering significant potential for host cities to increase the sustainability of their infrastructure. This thesis will explore the potential for the Olympic and the Commonwealth Games to make host city infrastructure more sustainable.

Invitation You are being invited to consider taking part in the research study “The potential for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games to make host city infrastructure more sustainable”*. This project is being undertaken by Elin Olsson, Elizabeth Moore, Marvin Lannefeld and S. Solaleh Abedi from Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Before you decide whether or not you wish to take part, it is important for you to understand why this research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read this information carefully and discuss it with friends and relatives if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is unclear or if you would like more information.

Why have I been chosen? You have been chosen to participate in this research because of your vast knowledge regarding the Games’ processes and planning, this will help the research group to identify and analyse impacts and potential of the Games to move towards sustainability.

Do I have to take part? You are free to decide whether you wish to take part or not. If you do decide to take part you will be asked to sign two consent forms, one is for you to keep and the other is for our records. You are free to withdraw from this study at any time and without giving reasons.

What will happen if I take part and what I have to do? You will participate in a semi structured interview for approximately 45 minutes. Instructions about the format of the interview will be given at the beginning, and then a series of questions will be asked and it’s your choice if you want to answer and contribute. The interview will be recorded and notes may be taken during the discussion if there are any interesting or complex topics brought up in discussion.

What are the benefits of taking part? By taking part you can contribute to research regarding the understanding of sustainability by professionals involved in Games. In addition, you can contribute to a better understanding of the reasons behind the negative and positive impacts large-scale sport events have on host city communities and how we can use these Games as a potential to move towards sustainability.

73

What are the risks (if any) of taking part? The only risks of taking part are 1. That there could be disclosure of information about unethical or poor practice in your projects and/or supervision/administration of projects, and 2. Confrontation between participants about different perceptions of a common project. Because of this you are asked to make sure you: x Don’t disclose sensitive or personally damaging information about yourself or others, including that which could damage yours or others careers. x Don’t reveal the identity of others if disclosing sensitive or damaging information. x Refrain from disclosing sensitive or damaging information if the identities of individuals cannot be anonymised. Please bear in mind that you are accountable for what you say in the discussion, including if what you say affects yours or other participants’ careers or working relationships.

How will information about me be used? All of the information you provide may be analysed and written into publication(s). In publication(s) your personal information (name, identifying characteristics) will be anonymised. However, because of your role it may be possible that you could be identified by people who know you. While there are no firm plans for the information you provide to be used in future research studies, it will be retained for future research opportunities. Future ethics approval will not be sought in these cases.

Who will have access to information about me? The information collected will be seen by the thesis group, Lizzie, Solaleh, Elin and Marvin, and that will contribute to analysing data. It will be stored in a locked office and/or on a password protected computer and retained for maximum one year. When it is disposed of, it will be done securely. Your personal information (name, identifying characteristics) will be anonymised. However because of your role it may be possible that you could be identified by people who know you in publications.

Who is funding and organising the research? The research is self-funded.

What if there is a problem? If you have a concern about any aspect of this study, you may wish to speak to the researchers who will do their best to answer your questions. You should contact Elizabeth Moore (removed for data protection), Elin Olsson on (removed for data protection) S. Solaleh Abedi on (removed for data protection) and Marvin Lannefeld on (removed for data protection). Alternatively, if you do not wish to contact the researchers you may contact our primary supervisor Pierre Johnson on (removed for data protection).

* Working title at the time of interview invitation. Title of thesis changed during the process.

74

22'0&+9

–
6'45+104
'4+)0
*+0-+0)
"13-4*124

The workshops for Step 1 and Step 2 were conducted in open discussions about the following questions:

x Who are our interviewees professionally? x What mindset did our interviewees show regarding
a) their jobs
b) sustainability? x What potential barriers were prominent in the interviews? x What potential enablers were prominent in the interviews? x What negative patterns have surfaced in the analysis regarding
a) the visions and definitions
b) the impacts? x What positive patterns have surfaced in the analysis regarding
a) the visions and definitions
b) the impacts?

To clearly craft the problem statement the following questions were answered:

x What is the problem? x What are the gaps between the current situation and more sustainable physical legacies from sport events? x Who is experiencing the problem? x Why does it matter?

75

22'0&+9

–
3#04%3+25+10
#/2.'

A sample of a transcribed and anonymised interview.

Interview details

Interviewee Anonymised

Position Head of [anonymous]

Date April 4, 2020

Time 2pm

Location Skype

Researcher 0:57 Shall we start with just pure basics to understand a little bit more? What was your role during like the design of the infrastructure as head of [anonymised].

Interviewee 1:56 So we were one of the teams bidding for a number of temporary venues. We have a track record in designing sports venues. And so we designed the Athletic Center. This was the training base for Team GB, which is just near to Stratford for the London Olympics. And we got put onto the framework for delivering temporary structures. And we were successful in bidding for the water polo venue, which was the first time ever that water polo for the Olympic Games have been put into a purpose designed venue. So at Athens it was in a converted swimming pool complex and Beijing also. But an ordinary three fold is not ideal for water polo and I think this was sort of setting new standards for for that because the pool size is different you need a warm up pool and the configuration of spectators is it's different so we won a competition for water polo venue and we then put together a team of consultants that then deliver that with the with the supply chain so that at that stage the master plan. Are you talking to populace only or the masterplan architects?

Researcher 3:41 We try to talk to as many different stakeholders as possible from municipalities to designers to sustainability consultants..

Interviewee 3:52 Okay, well, I think the aspiration of the master plan, I think was very, very clear concept that you would design a small number of permanent venues, which would be, have a robust forward legacy use. And everything else would be designed with the legacy as the main priority and the Olympic Games as the second priority. And so for that to work, it meant that we shouldn't build too many venues that will be permanent. And so I think on the Olympic Park, there are only three permanent venues. These were the main stadium, the handball and the aquatic Center and the velodrome. Everything else – the basketball, hockey, water polo, were all, and the shooting venues were all designed so that they could be taken away afterwards that was the philosophy...

76

22'0&+9

–
6..
#$.'
1(
1&+0)
'46.54

Table including all coding results from the Identification of Reasons for Games' Impacts on Host Cities.

Mindset recommendations to Potential barriers to Potential enablers for sustainability increase likelihood of sustainability sustainable outcome

Number of Number of Number of Codes Codes Codes interviewees interviewees interviewees

Make guidance Games-time and Definition or vision for context/department post-Games time 8/17 10/17 3/17 sustainability specific and keep it agenda clash concise

Integrate sustainability into Inadequate overarching sustainability 6/17 Long-term planning 9/17 2/17 strategy and ways definition of working at an early stage

Award Games to Money/business as Sustainability as high cities who are 6/17 9/17 2/17 main driver on the agenda already moving in the right direction

Take a business Legacy/sustainability focussed attitude 6/17 Audit 9/17 2/17 ambiguity towards sustainability

Get the politics Municipal sustainability Budget 5/17 8/17 right/use 1/17 work politicians

Build a Party politics, e.g. sustainability climate unfriendly Engagement: staff, strategy that can 5/17 7/17 1/17 government community, business be built on and leadership developed by next Games

Seek to act as a IOC/CGF catalyst for further Short-term planning 4/17 6/17 1/17 pressure/encouragement sustainability in local region

Lack of support for Create a wider individual 3/17 Events as a catalyst 6/17 purpose than the 1/17 departments Games itself

Shallow sustainability as a Presence of Focus on people, 3/17 6/17 1/17 mechanism to win sustainability advocates not organisations bid

Involve diverse Cross-functional Force Majeure 2/17 5/17 stakeholders early 1/17 working on

77

Take an Divided local Making use of existing 2/17 4/17 empathetic 1/17 communities infrastructure approach

Transfer of The human touch – Harness youth knowledge 2/17 using personal 2/17 motivation for 1/17 challenges connection sustainability

Lack of senior buy- Increase 1/17 Helpful politics 2/17 1/17 in/knowledge legislation

Encouraging Environment that 1/17 2/17 material lifestyle enables learning

Listening to the local Corruption 1/17 2/17 community

Flexibility/agility to change plans to help 1/17 sustainability

Sustainability as a cost 1/17 saver

78

22'0&+9

–
31$.'/
5#5'/'05
92.#0#5+10

Explanation of the problem statement.

Problem Statement

I am a member of the Games organizing committee and I experience a lack of sustainability education, communication, the 3-nested-dependencies model approach to sustainability, leadership, and flexibility to drive more sustainable legacy development.

Explanation

Part of the problem statement Explanation

I am a member of the games Potential user organizing committee

I experience a lack of Issue statement

Singular games seem to have had an inadequate sustainability education, sustainability definition or did not define the term sustainability at all.

There seems to be a discrepancy of data provided by communication, official sources and freestanding researchers.

the 3-nested-dependencies model All games seem to have favoured the Triple Bottom approach to sustainability, Line over the 3-nested-dependencies model.

leadership, Games seem to have issues with climate unfriendly governmental leadership and short-term planning.

and flexibility, Games show to be financially driven, making the budget a priority.

to drive more sustainable legacy Goal Statement development.

79

22'0&+9

–
#37'45
1(
&'#4
5'2

&'#5+10

Full list of ideas generated in the ideation step of the Creation of Guidelines for Sustainable Physical Legacy Development.

Mental Model x Nested approach instead of Triple Bottom Line x Do not prioritize Games mode, but after Games time x Sustainability effect on host city is the first priority x Sustainability practices and achievement first priority x Sport comes within in boundaries of sustainability x Adopt the FSSD

Skills x Sustainability budgets come first x Listen to all ideas regarding sustainability, check and implicate it x Government and municipality agenda for sustainability x Engagement and collaboration between all departments x Very strong vision shared by all stakeholders x Declare sustainability the main outcome of the game x Specific platform for sustainability department x Trans-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder approach at all levels

Actions

x Make all processes participatory x Compulsory sustainability education as on-boarding x The IOC/CGF are responsible for delivering compulsory sustainability education for all professionals involved in Games x Communicate for sustainability understanding x Younger generation are involved with their ideas x PR key message should be based on sustainability x Only use sustainable material x Use sustainability assessment throughout the whole supply chain x Built only social housing – do not remove residents when Decontamination and clean-up of areas x Take existing infrastructure, regenerate area / Central location, accessible by public transport x Legacy mode provides affordable facilities for public use x Use temp structure when it is more sustainable choice x Follow labour law and human rights practices x Try to reuse and adopt a recycling scheme x Do not stop participatory processes because of the Games

80

22'0&+9

–
6+&'.+0'4
+0
'4+)0

81

Master’s Programme in Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability Telephone: +46 455-38 50 00 Blekinge Institute of Technology, Campus Gräsvik Fax: +46 455-38 55 07 SE-371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden E-mail: [email protected]