Sustainable Mega-Events: Beyond the Myth of Balanced Approaches to Mega-Event Sustainability

Event Management, Vol. 16, pp. 119–131 1525-9951/12 $60.00 + .00 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599512X13343565268294 Copyright © 2012 Cognizant Comm. Corp. www.cognizantcommunication.com

SUSTAINABLE MEGA-EVENTS: BEYOND THE MYTH OF BALANCED APPROACHES TO MEGA-EVENT SUSTAINABILITY

C. MICHAEL HALL

Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Australia

The concept of sustainability is now integral to the lexicon of tourism and is increasingly becoming part of the discourse of mega-events. Yet despite the success of the concept of sustainable development in being adopted in tourism policy making and research, tourism is less sustainable then ever if environmental measures are adopted. Similarly, substantial questions have been raised as to the sustainability of mega-events. Three frames of sustainability are used with reference to tourism and mega-events: economic sustainability, balanced sustainability, and steady-state sustainability. Each of these has implications for the paradigm under which mega-events are developed and attracted. Only steady-state sustainability is regarded as sufficient to maintain or enhance natural capital. However, the likelihood of the required policy learning to occur for this paradigm to be adopted are slim given the role of political and corporate interests in promoting mega-events as a solution to problems of place competitiveness rather than as a symptom of the problems of contemporary neoliberal thinking with respect to events, places, and sustainability.

Key words: Steady-state tourism; Hallmark events; Political economy; Neoliberalism

Introduction since the mid-1980s and, although coming to the study of events a little later, has now become estab- Business as usual within the events industry can’t continue. Our industry can’t keep producing lished as an idea that is increasingly incorporated mountain ranges of rubbish, or leave clouds of into event management and planning. C. M. Hall CO2 in legacy. No matter the type of event, every (2011), for example, notes that in the tourism litera- coming together of people for a purpose can be ture, the number of articles published on sustain- done so with consideration for sustainability. able tourism has grown from two in 1989 to over 60 (Jones, 2011, p. 12) in 2009. Sustainable tourism now has a dedicated The concept of sustainability is one of the most journal, numerous dedicated texts and courses, and successful ideas in tourism and event studies. It is is a feature of many academic conferences and one that has expanded rapidly in tourism studies meetings. Yet sustainable tourism is not just an

Address correspondence to C. Michael Hall, Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] 119 120 HALL academic concept. It has become widely adopted in contributes to social, economic and infrastructure policy terminology by government at all scales, development,” that South Africa intended “Utiliz- industry organizations, individual firms, and non- ing the 2010 Soccer World Cup to be hosted by government organization policies and statements. South Africa to benefit the region” (South Africa, It has also becoming a part of the lexicon of events, 2008, p. 54). An indication of how far the concept especially with respect to the policy context within of sustainability has come is also reflected by the which they operate and how events contribute Olympic Movement with the Olympic Charter towards sustainability. However, in objective envi- being amended in 1996 to include a paragraph on ronmental terms, tourism is less sustainable than the role of the International Olympic Committee ever (C. M. Hall, 2011). (IOC) in the promotion of sustainable development This article outlines three different interpreta- according to the provisions of Agenda 21: tions of sustainability and their implications for the notion of sustainable mega-events. It argues that The IOC sees that the Olympic Games are held in conditions which demonstrate a responsible con- mega-events focused on economic or balanced sus- cern for environmental issues and encourages the tainability are actually not sustainable at all and Olympic Movement to demonstrate a responsible continue to run-down environmental capital. Instead, concern for environmental issues, takes measures a steady-state approach to sustainability is required to reflect such concern in its activities, and educates that maintains or enhances natural capital. However, all those connected with the Olympic Movement as to the importance of sustainable development. before reviewing the three approaches and their implications for hallmark or mega-events, a brief According to the Greek Ministry for the Envi- outline is provided of some of the more prominent ron ment, Planning and Public Works: utilizations of the concept of sustainable development in mega-events. The Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21 is an instrument setting out the general actions needed in the fields in which the Olympic Movement can bring Sustainable Mega-Events an effective contribution to sustainable development. All the members of the Olympic Movement Sustainable development has become increas- should be urged to integrate sustainable develop- ingly integrated into the objectives of hosting ment into their policies and activities based on mega-events. For example, an explicit connection above Agenda 21; they should also encourage all was made between sustainable development and individuals that are linked to them to behave in the hosting of the 2010 Football World Cup in such a way as to ensure that their sporting activities and their lifestyles play a part in sustain- South Africa. The FIFA “Football for Hope” pro- able development. (UN Department of Economic gram “was created as a unique and global move- and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable ment that uses the power of football to achieve Development, 2003) sustainable social development” (Fédération Inter- na tionale de Football Association [FIFA], 2010a). However, it is perhaps relevant to note that sus- Twenty Football for Hope Centers were planned to tainable development in this case was primarily be opened in Africa post the 2010 Cup “with each defined in terms of the physical environmental center representing a key contribution to the legacy legacy of the Olympic Games rather than any of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Long after the final social legacy. whistle is blown, the centers will continue to serve Another sign of the adoption of sustainability in their local communities through sustainable the events community is the development of an Development Through Football Programs that use International Standards Organization (ISO) sus- the beautiful game to inspire positive social change” tainable event standard in the run-up to the 2012 (FIFA, 2010b). The World Cup was also part of Olympics. At the time of writing the draft standard South Africa’s contribution to meeting the targets is under review. The standard was produced by a of Chapter VIII of the Johannesburg Plan of new ISO project committee, ISO/PC 250, Sustain- Implementation (JPOI), stating under Target 70: ability in Event Management. There were 25 par- “Support efforts to attain sustainable tourism that ticipating countries and 10 observer countries SUSTAINABILITY AND MEGA-EVENTS 121 involved as well as several associations. The stan- Paralympic Games (LOCOG), who will host the dard was developed off the back of the BS8901 London 2012 Olympic Games, and the International standard in the UK. The standard (ISO, 20121) Olympic Committee (IOC) (GRI, 2011). Develop- takes a management systems approach requiring ment of the GRI supplement was undertaken in identification of key sustainability issues including conjunction with Sustainable Events Ltd., part of a venue selection, operating procedures, supply chain group of companies of which Fiona Pelham, a management, procurement, communications, trans- panel member and chair of BS8901 Specification port, and others (Jones, 2011). According to Fiona for a Sustainability Management System standard, Pelham, Committee Chair, “The future ISO stan- as well as committee chair of the ISO events standard will make a great difference to the event dard, is a managing director. industry. . . . Just imagine the change in thinking Standards are also being established at the that could follow as the international event industry national level. For example, in addition to the starts to systematically address their negative British standard, the Canadian Standards Associa- social, economic and environmental impacts.” The tion (CSA Standards), announced in December ISO developments also received support from 2010 a new CSA Z2010-10 Requirements and Elizabeth Henderson, Director of Corporate Social Guidance for Organizers of Sustainable Events Responsibility at MPI: “As sustainability is becom- standard for use by event organizers seeking to plan ing increasingly important for the event industry, and execute sustainable events. The standard was individuals, companies and countries are setting built on the work of The Vancouver Organizing multiple and differing standards. ISO 20121 will be Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic developed with extensive stakeholder engagement Winter Games (VANOC) and the VANOC Sustain- so the industry can have one internationally rec- ability Management and Reporting System (SMRS) ognized framework to implement sustainability” and the International Academy of Sports Science (ISO, 2010). and Technology’s (AISTS) Sustainable Sport and At the same time that the ISO have been devel- Event Toolkit, which was itself developed in col- oping event standards, the Global Reporting laboration with VANOC (CSA, 2010). According Initiative (GRI) have also been developing sustain- to Bonnie Rose, President, CSA Standards: ability reporting guidelines for the event organizers sector. The G3 Guidelines are to be used by organi- Implementing this standard will help to make an zations for measuring and reporting on the eco- event more environmentally, socially, and econom- nomic, environmental, social, and governance ically sustainable in an ethical and transparent dimensions of their activities, products, and ser- manner . . . . CSA is committed to helping preserve the environment and building on the important vices and set out reporting principles and perfor- work of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for mance indicators for economic, environmental, and the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. social disclosures. In addition, the Supplement By using those events as an example for others to includes specific commentary on content and addi- emulate when organizing events with the health of tional performance indicators. The Supplement the environment and society in mind, CSA is helping to ensure the legacy of the Games lives on covers the following key issues for the sector, through this standard. (CSA Standards, 2010) expanded from the G3 Guidelines: economic impacts of events, environmental impacts by attendees, knowledge transfer, legacy, sourcing, commissions The principles of a sustainable event according and gifting, site selection and bidding process, par- to CSA Standards (2010) include: ticipant and attendee management, food and bever- age, accessibility, inclusivity and external partners ethical behavior, accountability, and transparency; (GRI, 2011). engagement of the community and local stake- The GRI events project is funded by the Austrian holders; positive benefits for the environment and society; accessible and inclusive setting; safe and and Swiss governments, who jointly hosted secure atmosphere and facilities for spectators, the 2008 European Soccer Championships, The participants, and workers; excellent customer/cli- London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and ent experience; and a positive legacy. 122 HALL

With all this sustainable tourism discourse and tourism. C. M. Hall (2011) argues that this repre- sustainable mega-event activity, one might expect sents a case of policy failure, while Dovers (1995, tourism itself to have become more sustainable. 1996) regards sustainable development as a signifi- However, in environmental terms tourism is less cant policy problem, a suite of issues that are per- sustainable than ever. There are more emissions in ceived to require resolution in some way. Indeed, absolute terms, greater resource use (energy, land some of the identified difficulties in achieving sus- use), and contribution to biodiversity loss (C. M. tainability are very similar to the issues associated Hall, 2011). However, we also keep being told with assessing the impacts of mega-events: that tourism is one of the world’s largest indus- tries, as of 2011 “supporting more than 258 mil- Temporality: Time scales that are often signifi- lion jobs worldwide and generating some 9.1% of cantly greater than those of political and policy global GDP” (World Travel & Tourism Council cycles, especially in democratic nations. [WTTC], 2011). Spatiality: Sustainability and impact problems are The growing contribution of tourism to environ- cross-boundary in nature and determination of mental change while simultaneously being pro- boundaries is highly significant in impact assess- moted as a means of economic growth suggests that ment and management processes. sustainable tourism development is a significant Limits: The concept of sustainability suggests that policy problem. Maybe even a policy failure (C. M. there are limits to resource exploitation because Hall, 2011)? In the case of sustainable mega-events of its capacity for renewal as well as opportu- perhaps even more so (Dredge & Whitford, 2010; nity costs. C. M. Hall, 2006). Yet, of course, it could be argued Cumulative: Most human impacts on natural and why would governments and interest groups con- social capital are cumulative rather than discrete. tinue to bid and seek to attract mega-events if they Because of its size and the time span over which were not regarded as sustainable—why indeed? dedicated infrastructure is developed and then in use, the effects of mega-events should be regarded as cumulative. Sustainability as a Policy Problem Irreversibility: Some natural, economic, and Sustainable development is usually defined in social capital cannot be renewed once it has terms of the report of the World Commission on gone, (i.e., the timescale for renewal is well out- Environment and Development (WCED), com- side the normal parameters of policy cycles). monly known as the Brundtland Report, where This has substantial implications for the opportu- “sustainable development is development that nity costs associated with development. meets the needs of the present without compromis- Complexity and connectivity: Sustainability prob- ing the ability of future generations to meet their lems are interconnected, meaning that issues own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 49). Five basic prin- cannot be easily separated in scientific terms ciples of sustainability were identified in the report: although they often are in policy-making and the holistic planning and strategy-making that links design of institutional arrangements. economic, environmental, and social concerns; Uncertainty: Some aspects of sustainability are importance of preserving essential ecological pro- characterized by “pervasive uncertainty” mak- cesses; protection of both biodiversity and human ing it difficult to judge the efficacy, implica- heritage; the need for development to occur in such tions, and socio-economic impacts of policy a way that productivity can be sustained over the measures. long term for future generations (the concept of Ethical issues: Although ethical questions are inte- intergenerational equity); and the goal of achiev- gral to all policy choices, sustainability is coming a better balance of fairness and opportunity plicated by the centrality of generational and between nations. intergenerational equity to the concept. Despite the wide adoption of the term and its rec- Responsiveness of political systems: Because of ognized importance, sustainable development has the complex cross-boundary nature of sustain- not been achieved at a global level in general or in ability, many political systems are unable to SUSTAINABILITY AND MEGA-EVENTS 123

adequately respond and are constantly reactive for people is limited. This may contrast strongly rather than proactive. with perspectives that suggest that there are no or few limits to both economic growth and natural That the various elements of sustainability affect capital. The potentially different ways in which sus- the capacity of public policy-making to provide tainability may be framed, and its implications for effective sustainable tourism outcomes have long institutional arrangements, policy practice and pol- been recognized (e.g., B. Wheeler, 1993). Yet there icy definition, is discussed in the next section. has been little advance in making the sustainability of tourism, including events, more tractable to solu- Three Frames of Sustainability tion. Several reasons as to why this has occurred C. M. Hall (2011) has argued that there are three can be advanced. First, the relationship between main formulations of sustainable tourism develop- tourism and sustainable development is often ment: economic sustainability; balanced sustain- treated in an overly simplistic fashion that while ability; and a third approach that is grounded in perhaps appealing to some academics, practitioners ecological economics and is often termed a degrowth and policy makers fails to manage policy complex- or steady-state perspective. These approaches can ity (Dredge & Whitford, 2010; C. M. Hall, 2008, be imagined as occurring on a continuum that 2011). Second, policy making may be continually stresses the significance of natural capital as the playing “catch up” with the issue of sustainability economic foundation of human society. The three because environmental change, along with associ- approaches to sustainability and their application to ated economic, social, and political change, is mega-events is outlined in Table 1. occurring faster than the policy system can respond. Although the concept of sustainable development Indeed, the sheer complexity of sustainability has been described as “the central challenge of our issues potentially requires a “whole of govern- times” (S. M. Wheeler, 2002, p. 110), its impact on ment” response that lies outside of the usual juris- policy and governance has arguably been one of diction of tourism or event specific governance incremental rather than paradigmatic change. The (C. M. Hall, 2008). This may be an issue of spatial different orders of change represented in different scale, in that a government body may have limited approaches to sustainability are also significant with spatial jurisdiction over a policy problem, or it may respect to the capability for shifts in paradigmatic be an issue of means in terms of operational policy thinking with respect to sustainable development. processes, technologies, and/or institutional arrangements. Or, the policy capacity to respond to issues Economic Sustainability of sustainable tourism is constrained by the political acceptability of any solution (i.e., increases in An economic sustainability approach is one in tax, greater regulation) (C. M. Hall, 2011). A third, which sustainability is primarily seen as being and potentially all-encompassing, reason to the “environmental” and development as “economic” lack of tractability of sustainable tourism is related (and to a lesser extent “social”) and the concept of to the way in which the policy problem of sustain- sustainable tourism or sustainable mega-events able tourism is framed. The widely used WCED aims to mitigate the paradox between them (C. M. (1987) definition is based on the intergenerational Hall, 2011). Baeten (2000) argues that as portrayed equity principle, which stipulates that no avoidable via government and supranational institutions the environmental burdens should be inherited by sustainable development concept suggests that con- future generations. However, it is also strongly temporary economic development paradigms are anthropocentric. In contrast, sustainable develop- able to cope with environmental crisis without fun- ment can be defined from a more ecocentric per- damentally affecting existing economic relation- spective: “Improving the quality of human life, ships. This approach is perhaps most widely while living within the carrying capacity of sup- identifiable in the work of extremely influential porting ecosystems” (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991, p. supranational organizations in international tour- 10). This latter approach recognizes that the capac- ism policy networks such as the World Economic ity of the environment to improve living conditions Forum (2009a, 2009b) and the WTTC (2009), 124 HALL

Table 1 Three Approaches to Sustainability

Approach to Sustainability Policy Characteristics

Economic: Seeks to portray the 6XVWDLQDELOLW\LVSRUWUD\HGLQUHODWLYHO\FUXGHHFRQRPLFWHUPVWKRXJKPD\LQFOXGH sustainability of hosting mega-events mid to long-term perspectives on ROI of economic capital. primarily in terms of a single type of )RFXVRQFRQWULEXWLRQWRHFRQRPLFJURZWK*'3DVZHOODVRQYLVLWRUQXPEHUVDQG impact, usually economic impact expenditure. (though may have a long-term $³WULFNOHGRZQ´RUH[HPSODUDSSURDFKWRSURPRWLQJWKHEHQHILWVRIWKHHYHQWIRU economic growth perspective). The host communities. event system is defined in primarily ,QVXIILFLHQWDWWHQWLRQJLYHQWRRSSRUWXQLW\FRVWVRUORQJWHUPHIIHFWV7KHORVVRI economic terms. natural capital is not costed and is usually regarded as a public good. 6XEVWDQWLDOHPSKDVLVJLYHQWRWKHXVHRIWKHHYHQWWRHQKDQFHLQWHUQDWLRQDODQG domestic profile and image. $OVRDVWURQJIRFXVRQVHOIUHJXODWLRQDQGGHVWLQDWLRQFRPSHWLYHQHVV )LUVWRUGHUSROLF\OHDUQLQJ Balanced: Seeks to “balance: $WWHQWLRQWRDQGSURPRWLRQRI³WULSOHERWWRPOLQH´RIHFRQRPLFHQYLURQPHQWDODQG economic impacts of mega-events social dimensions of the event. Although economic impacts and visitor numbers with environmental and social ones remain as core indicators of development. (also historically referred to as 0XOWLSOHHYDOXDWLRQDQGDVVHVVPHQW8VXDOO\DFFRPSDQLHGE\GHFLVLRQWRJRDKHDG economic conservation). The event anyway because of perceived economic benefits. Although in theory all three system does include economic, social dimensions are considered. and environmental elements but )RFXVRQHIILFLHQF\DQGWHFKQRORJLFDOVROXWLRQVWRWKHVXVWDLQDELOLW\SUREOHP these are supposedly given equal 8VHRIVWDQGDUGVDQGPDQDJHPHQWV\VWHPVDSSURDFKHV weight in system management. 3URPRWLRQRIWKHUHODWLYHSHUFDSLWDLPSURYHPHQWVZLWKUHVSHFWWRVXVWDLQDELOLW\ rather than absolute contribution. 5HODWLYHO\OLWWOHFRPPHQWRQHTXLW\GLPHQVLRQRIVXVWDLQDELOLW\ &RQFXUUHQWZLWKHFRQRPLFVXVWDLQDELOLW\DSSURDFK 6HFRQGRUGHUSROLF\OHDUQLQJ Steady-state: Sustainability is *URXQGHGLQHFRORJLFDOHFRQRPLFV understood as being grounded in the /RRNVWRGHYHORSDVWHDG\VWDWHDSSURDFKUHODWHGWRVXVWDLQDEOHFRQVXPSWLRQWKDW constraints of natural capital/natural pays attention to systemic effects of hosting event. systems. It includes some aspects of ([DPLQHVRSSRUWXQLW\FRVWVDQGGRHVQRWUHJDUGHFRQRPLFJURZWKRULPSDFWVDVD sustained yield together with a more good indicator of development. fundamental notion of environmental 8VHRIDEURDGHUVHWRIHFRQRPLFVRFLDODQGHQYLURQPHQWDOLQGLFDWRUVDVSDUWRID conservation (also referred to as quality of life approach. degrowth). Event system is 5HGXFHUHXVHUHF\FOHDQGUHJXODWH DOVRLQFOXGLQJWD[DQGFKDUJHIRUUXQQLQJ recognized as being dependent on down and damage to natural capital). natural capital. (QYLURQPHQWDODQGVXVWDLQDELOLW\GLPHQVLRQVDUHHYDOXDWHGEHIRUHELGVWRKRVW proceed. 6WURQJIRFXVRQRSSRUWXQLW\FRVWV ,QVRPHFDVHVKRVWLQJDPHJDHYHQWPLJKWQRWHYHQEHFRQVLGHUHGDVDGHYHORS- ment option. 7KLUGRUGHUSROLF\OHDUQLQJ

Source: Hall (2010a). along with mega-event bodies such as the means of legitimizing neoliberalism rather than a International Olympic Committee and FIFA. material focus on the actual improvements of eco- Significantly, a center point of an economic sus- nomic welfare” (Bristow, 2005, p. 300). Many poli- tainability approach is its focus on the contribution cies at different levels of the state, as well as policy of mega-events to place competitiveness and imag- documents from industry present the concept of ing. Competition, whether it be as a tourism destina- competitiveness in an unproblematic manner as an tion or in a wider sense of regional competitiveness, unambiguously beneficial attribute of a regional is usually portrayed as a “given” and what places economy or of a destination. As Bristow (2005) “must” do. In relation to meta-political narratives, observes, “Competitiveness is portrayed as the competitiveness is also seen as a discourse that means by which regional economies are externally “provides some shared sense of meaning and a validated in an era of globalization, such that there SUSTAINABILITY AND MEGA-EVENTS 125 can be no principled objection to policies and strat- large tax exemptions may be provided helps bids to egies deemed to be competitiveness enhancing, host mega-events. Indeed, in many cases they may whatever their indirect consequences” (p. 285). be essential to win such bids. For example, in the The identification of competitiveness as a sig- case of the FIFA World Cup: “Any host country nificant policy goal has led to the development of a requires a comprehensive tax exemption to be range of indicators that model and measure com- given to FIFA and further parties involved in the petitiveness, thereby identifying which places are hosting and staging of an event.” Guarantee No. 3 winning in the annual “Premier League” of place requires “Full tax exemption of FIFA and FIFA competition (e.g., various reports of the World subsidiaries” and “is not limited to the events and is Economic Forum). Nevertheless, while all this is not limited time-wise.” “The exemption stated in being done there is still substantial confusion “as to this section shall encompass all revenues, profits, what the concept actually means and how it can be income, expenses, costs, investments and any and effectively operationalized . . . policy acceptance all kind of payments, in cash or otherwise, includ- of the existence of regional competitiveness and its ing through (i) the delivery of goods or services, (ii) measurement appears to have run ahead of a num- accounting credits, (iii) other deliveries, (iv) appli- ber of fundamental theoretical and empirical ques- cations, or (v) remittances, made by or to FIFA tions” (Bristow, 2005, p. 286). It is, as Markusen and/or FIFA subsidiaries” (Pollock, 2010). This (1999) would say, a relatively “fuzzy concept”: means that to be successful in its bid, a government “characterizations lacking conceptual clarity and must agree to forgo tens of millions of pounds in difficult to operationalize. In some cases, no tax for the benefit of FIFA, which, a charitable attempt is made to offer evidence at all. Elsewhere, organization pays little tax in its home country evidence marshaled is highly selective. Method ol- Switzerland. In the 2010 competition in South ogy is little discussed” (p. 870). Nevertheless, more Africa, a “tax-free bubble” was established around often than not, it is accepted. the tournament at FIFA’s request, relieving FIFA, Within regional studies, the hosting of mega- its subsidiaries, and foreign football associations events is primarily seen as part of an imitative “low that are taking part, of income tax, customs duties, road” policy in contrast to “high road” knowledge- and value-added tax (VAT). This also applied to based policies, with Malecki (2004) noting that the various organizations designated as FIFA’s “The disadvantages of competition mainly concern commercial affiliates, licensees, host broadcasters, the perils that low road strategies build so that no broadcast rights agencies, merchandise partners, strengths can prevail over the long term, which service providers, concession operators, and pro- presents particular difficulties for regions trying to viders of hospitality. It also means that the tourna- catch up in the context of territorial competition ment income of the players, some of whom are based on knowledge” (p. 1103). Low road strate- among the highest paid earners in the world, were gies are regarded as being focused on traditional exempt from tax for World Cup related activities in location factors such as land, labor, capital, infra- South Africa. According to Moray Wilson, who is structure, and location, more intangible factors from the professional advisory firm Deloitte in such as intellectual capital and institutional capacity Cape Town, “The host government has given are secondary. Low road strategies are bound up with away almost the entire tax-take to FIFA” (cited in the property-oriented growth machines that focus on Pollock, 2010). the packaging of place product, reimaging, and the The desire to host sport mega-events and the gaining of media attention. Investment in infrastruc- requirements of having to constantly develop new ture is “similar from city to city” with respect to and upgrade existing sports and visitor infrastruc- meetings and conventions, sports, events, and enter- ture has meant that cities and countries have been tainment because they are aimed at the same markets “caught in a vicious cycle of having to provide with few cities being able to “forgo competition in larger subsidies to finance projects that deliver each of these sectors” (Judd, 2003, p. 14). even fewer public benefits” (Leitner & Garner, In the case of mega-events, many normal policy 1993, p. 72) (e.g., the escalating cost of the London and planning practices are abandoned. For example, Olympic Games or the poor returns on the 2010 126 HALL

FIFA World Cup in South Africa). Yet even in such sustainable event, the overarching goal for an orga- situations where corporate interests clearly benefit nization is to maximize the value and experience of more than the public, such is the strength of the dis- the event while striving to support a high quality of course of competitiveness and the “necessity” to life, environmental health, and economic prosperity.” become a place in which capital supposedly The balanced sustainability approach to mega- “sticks” that the desirability to host mega-events by events emphasizes: urban growth coalitions seems likely to remain unconstrained. The discourse of mega-event sus- $WWHQWLRQWRSURPRWLRQRI³WULSOHERWWRPOLQH´RI tainability in this context is an example of first economic, environmental, and social dimensions order change which is characterized by incremen- of hosting mega-events. tal, routinized, satisficing behavior that leads to 0XOWLSOH HYDOXDWLRQ DQG DVVHVVPHQW 8VXDOO\ change in the levels (or settings) of the basic instru- accompanied by decision to go ahead anyway ments of policy but no fundamental change in because of perceived economic benefits. approach (P. A. Hall, 1993). )RFXVRQ³EDODQFHG´HFRQRPLFJURZWKDQGFRQ- tribution to national competitiveness. Balanced Sustainability Measures to achieve sustainability within the Balanced sustainability is an extension of the balanced sustainability approach often focus on economic anthropocentrism of the economic sus- new sets of indicators, objectives, or systems. tainability approach. This is also the approach that Examples, of such measures include the adoption is most visible in terms of the justifications associ- of quality systems (usually with a focus on environ- ated with event public policy making in Western mental dimensions) and triple-bottom line countries and is also arguably the dominant approaches (Canadian Standards Association, 2010; approach in academic discourse on sustainable Dolles & Söderman, 2010; Getz, 2009; Hayes, tourism. In the case of UNWTO policy recommen- 2007; Jones, 2010; Ponsford, 2011; Raj & Musgrave, dations, as well as those of many other suprana- 2009), improved education and training (Dickson tional, national, and destination governance bodies, & Arcodia, 2010; O’Brien & Gardiner, 2006), and one of the cornerstones of the sustainable tourism greater efficiency (Jones, 2010; Smith, 2009). The policy paradigm is that of “balance.” According to incorporation of environmental goals by the Olym- the then UNWTO Secretary-General Francesco pic Movement without also embracing community Frangialli, the UNWTO (2007) is “committed to and social impact concerns also fits into this cate- seek balanced and equitable policies to encourage gory (C. M. Hall, 2001, 2006; Vanwynsberghe, both responsible energy related consumption as Kwan, & van Luijk, 2011). Such approaches are well as antipoverty operational patterns. This can symptomatic of second-order change that is change and must lead to truly sustainable growth within the characterized by the selection of new policy instru- framework of the Millennium Development ments, techniques, and policy settings due to previ- Goals.” Getz (2009) argued that the supposedly ous policy experience but the overarching policy “new paradigm [of sustainable and responsible goals remain the same. According to Greener events] is generating increasing pressure for the (2001) this order of change is extremely significant application of a [Triple-Bottom Line] approach in for policy learning given that a change in an indica- which both the worth and impacts of planned events tor or a policy instrument may also be a “symptom are evaluated with balanced measures reflecting of possible future paradigm change, or at least pres- economic, social/cultural and environmental con- ent paradigm dissatisfaction” (p. 139). Indeed, the siderations” (p. 64). Similarly, the UNEP and selection of policy indicators is not a neutral device. UNWTO (2005) stated: “Delivering sustainable Callone (1998) stated that “Imposing the rules of development means striking a balance between the game, that is to say, the rules used to calculate [economic, social and environmental sustainabil- decisions, by imposing the tools in which these ity]” (p. 9). While the Canadian Standards Asso- rules are incorporated, is the starting point of rela- ciation (2010) comments: “When organizing a tionships of domination” (p. 46), not only between SUSTAINABILITY AND MEGA-EVENTS 127 institutions, but also of one policy paradigm over socioeconomic benefits for the population of the another. Similarly, Majone (1989) stressed that host country.” In line with other more critical stud- “policy instruments are seldom ideologically neu- ies of the hosting of mega-events, they also sug- tral . . . distributionally neutral . . . [and] . . . cannot gested that until decision-makers include robust, be neatly separated from goals” (pp. 116–117) and long-term evaluations as part of their design and instead tend to reflect the values of the policy para- implementation of events, it is unclear how the digms within which they are selected. “The perfor- costs of major multisport events can be justified in mance of instruments depends less on their formal terms of benefits to the host population. Going on properties than on the political and administrative to conclude, “Both the commissioning of studies context in which they operate” (Majone, 1989, p. and their publication could well be biased towards 118). Majone (1989) states that: positive results. . . . The available evidence does not refute expectations of a legacy, positive or neg- The choice of policy instruments is not a technical ative, but it does establish that very little is known problem that can be safely left to experts. It raises about the impacts of previous large multisport institutional, social, and moral issues that must be events and, therefore, the possible impacts of future clarified. . . . The naive faith of some analysts in events. This contrasts with official documentation the fail-safe properties of certain instruments allegedly capable of lifting the entire regulatory used recently to promote such events.” process out of the morass of public debate and One articulation of an alternative paradigm for compromise can only be explained by the sustainable tourism relevant to mega-events is that constraining hold on their minds of a model of of a steady-state approach towards sustainability. policymaking in which decisions are, in James From this perspective, sustainable tourism is under- Buchanan’s words, “handed down from on high by omniscient beings who cannot err.” (p. 143) stood from a steady-state economic position that explicitly recognizes the extent to which economic development, including tourism, is dependent on Steady-State Sustainability the stock of natural capital. Such an approach is Third-order change, or a policy paradigm shift, therefore grounded in ecological economics rather takes place when a new goal hierarchy is adopted than neoclassical economics. Steady-state tourism by policy makers because the coherence of existing is a tourism system that encourages qualitative policy paradigm(s) has been undermined in light of development but not aggregate quantitative growth actual results or experiences (Greener, 2001). One to the detriment of natural capital. A steady-state potential driver for a change in policy paradigms is economy, including at the destination level, can the influence of exogenous shocks or “crises” on therefore be defined in terms of “a constant flow of wider public opinion (P. A. Hall, 1993; C. M. Hall, throughput at a sustainable (low) level, with popu- 2010a). In the case of mega-events this is most lation and capital stock free to adjust to whatever likely associated with the realization that their costs size can be maintained by the constant throughput far exceed their benefits (Andranovich, Burbank, & beginning with depletion and ending with pollu- Heying, 2002; Crompton 1995; C. M. Hall, 1992, tion” (Daly, 2008, p. 3). From a steady-state 2004, 2006; C. M. Hall & Wilson, 2011; Horne & approach the sustainability of mega-events is Manzenreiter, 2006; Schimmel, 2006; Whitson & grounded in: Horne, 2006; Whitson & Macintosh, 2003). With specific reference to the Olympics, Minnaert (2011) $QHPSKDVLVRQVXVWDLQDEOHFRQVXPSWLRQZKLFK found that “as opposed to the rhetoric sometimes pays attention to the systemic effects of host- used in the bidding stages, the Olympic Games do ing events. not automatically bring non-infrastructural benefits ([DPLQHVRSSRUWXQLW\FRVWVDQGGRHVQRWUHJDUG for all” (p. 9). McCartney et al. (2010) note in their economic growth or economic impact as a good systematic literature review of the health and socio- indicator of development and instead focuses on economic benefits of major sporting events, “There a broader understanding of costs and benefits. is little evidence that major multisport events )RFXVHVRQWKHIRXU5VRIVWHDG\VWDWHVXVWDLQDELOLW\ held between 1978 and 2008 delivered health, or reduce, reuse, recycle, and regulate (including tax). 128 HALL

*LYHVJUHDWHUHTXLW\LQGHFLVLRQPDNLQJE\SUR- such as gross domestic product (GDP) would not viding an opportunity for communities to say no be utilized because they are a poor indicator of the to the hosting of mega-events. overall effects of mega-events. Indeed, “much tourism growth, as with much economic growth in gen- A steady-state approach focuses on sufficiency eral, is already uneconomic at the present margin as as well as the efficiency focus which is a hallmark we currently measure it given that it is leading to a of the balanced sustainability perspective. An effi- clear running down of natural capital” (C. M. Hall, ciency or “green growth” approach focuses on 2010b, p. 137). Of course, an interesting question reducing throughput on a per capita/per unit basis. raised by the application of a steady-state approach This is usually accomplished via technological to mega-events is: Would they even be hosted? In innovations and/or improved environmental sys- some cases they certainly would if there were tems. However, such an approach by itself is greater adaptive reuse of infrastructure and stron- regarded as insufficient to reduce a run-down in ger attention given to equity and emissions reduc- natural capital. Indeed, improved efficiencies may tion. But if full consideration of the opportunity also reduce costs therefore actually increasing con- costs of mega-events were assessed many would sumption overall. For example, larger event facili- not go ahead in their current form. Instead, by ties may have lower per capita emissions but the placing mega-event policy in a wider context overall extent of emissions remains high. rather than seeing them in isolation it is likely that A sufficiency approach aims to slow the rate and investment decisions of scarce resources will be amount of consumption overall via a mix of market better considered. and regulatory mechanisms. Elements of such an approach in tourism policy terms include (C. M. Conclusion: And the Winner Is . . . Hall, 2010b): the Sustainability of Mega-Events 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI YROXQWDU\ DQG PDQ Mega-events are symbolic of an unsophisticated dated environmental standards at various scales approach towards sustainable development. They of governance. provide substantial corporate benefits with the 7KHDGRSWLRQRIFUDGOHWRFUDGOHOLIHF\FOHDQDO\- costs accommodated by the wider public. The sis in determining tourism infrastructure and problems of understanding the factors of sustain- product life spans. ability are very similar to those faced in evaluating 5HORFDOL]DWLRQVFKHPHVWKDWUHLQIRUFHWKHSRWHQ- the impacts of events. Most mega-event policy has tial economic, social, and environmental benefits a simplistic growth focus and even the triple- of consuming, producing, and traveling locally. bottom line approach is geared towards maintain- (WKLFDOFRQVXPSWLRQPHDVXUHVWKDWIRFXVRQOLY- ing a growth focus. Such an approach is not a ing better by consuming less and the satisfaction paradigm shift (Getz, 2009) at all, and should of nonmaterial needs. instead be understood as a shift in indicators and 7D[DWLRQ DQG RWKHU PHDVXUHV WKDW UHIOHFW WKH objectives rather than reflecting a more fundamen- full environmental cost of travel and tour- tal reassessment of the policy paradigm within ism development. which events are promoted as being sustainable (Dredge & Whitford, 2010). Significantly, the key indicators for such a The small and slow is a beautiful approach steady-state approach to mega-events would be embedded in steady-state sustainability does not grounded in indicators that reflect the maintenance apply to mega-events. By definition they are grand or enhancement of natural capital, such as emis- statements of belief in the discourse of place com- sions. Social considerations, such as health and petitiveness. A steady-state approach would not well-being, would also be given greater promi- regard most, if any, mega-events as sustainable in nence, with events such as the Olympics requiring their current form, at least those that move from site a social charter as well as an environmental one to site seeking to maximize returns to the “non- (C. M. Hall, 2001, 2006). Economic indicators profit” associations that grant places the right to SUSTAINABILITY AND MEGA-EVENTS 129 host such events. However, the steady-state approach even care, so long as the real estate and financial presents a major challenge to those that claim that a deals are made and the reimaging opportunities balanced triple-bottom line approach is what is keep on coming? required for sustainable events (Getz, 2009) by Perhaps the neoliberal paradigm that marks con- emphasizing that if natural capital is drawn down temporary mega-events has become so all perva- then by definition it cannot be sustainable; and, per- sive that it is difficult to think other. Many of the haps more profoundly, questioning what is being people who support mega-events probably genu- balanced for whom? The paradigm therefore pre- inely believe that they make a great contribution to sents a real need to challenge/change thinking on the economy and society. However, as with most events and on sustainability by seeking answers to contemporary tourism, they are not sustainable in the questions of who wins from hosting such events their current form. Instead, sustainable events are and how does that fit in with our understanding more likely to be found in the smaller localized of sustainability? community based events that run over the longer- Even Kotler, Haidar, and Rein (1993), who pro- term or at least help maximize the use of existing vide the standard case text for place marketing, infrastructure. Trouble is, those events are not as acknowledged that the continued competition to appealing for the self-promotion of political and host mega-events may not be an appropriate route corporate interests, as well as profit driven consult- to creating better places, as “the escalating compe- ing firms and academics, that thrive off large-scale tition . . . for business attraction has the marks of events. Indeed, the increasing dependence of uni- a zero-sum game or worse, a negative-sum game, versities on third-stream funding may well decrease in that the winner ultimately becomes the loser” (p. the likelihood of encouragement for paradigm 15). Instead, places should be seeking to innovate change coming from the university sector. Instead, as opposed to duplicating other place strategies that the combined external pressures of biodiversity utilize events (Malecki, 2004). Indeed, C. M. Hall loss, climate change and peak oil as well as finan- (2010c) suggests that the investment by the Greek cial and economic crisis and lack of equity might and Spanish government in mega-event infrastruc- be the most significant contributors to a policy par- ture that is relative unproductive over the long term adigm change with respect to sustainable tourism/ has been a significant contributor to those coun- events. Trouble is, for far too many people and tries’ debt crises. places, hosting a mega-event so as to remain com- The use of gross economic impact or contribu- petitive in a declining global economy and environ- tion to GDP measures by those who seek to justify ment has become the solution rather than a symptom events also serves to disguise the overall impacts of of the problem. events. Arguably, it is not economic analysis but political economy that is required (C. M. Hall, References 2012), given the extensive body of critical literature that highlights the poor contribution of mega- Andranovich, G., Burbank, M. J., & Heying, C. H. (2002). Olympic cities: Lessons learned from mega-event poli- events to economic and social equity and the tics. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(2), 113–131. maintenance and enhancement of natural capital. Baeten, G. (2000). The tragedy of the highway: Empow- Although much of this literature is ironically found erment, disempowerment and the politics of sustainabil- outside of what could be categorized as the main- ity discourses and practices. European Planning Studies, stream events literature where there does not appear 8, 69-86. Bristow, G. (2005). Everyone’s a “winner”: Problematizing to be a desire to “bite the hand that feeds.” Indeed, the discourse of regional competitiveness. Journal of given the long-term promotion of events as being Economic Geography, 5, 285–304. good for places and their prosperity despite evi- Callon, M. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of eco- dence to the contrary, policy makers may also “well nomic markets in economics. In M. Callon (Ed.), The realize that existing policy is not working, but be laws of the markets (pp. 1–57). Oxford: Blackwell. Canadian Standards Association. (2010). CSA Standards afraid of the political implications of appearing to announces new standard for managing sustainable learn from the error” (Greener, 2001, p. 140). Of events based on Vancouver Olympic Guidelines. course, do political and event growth coalitions Retrieved December 15, 2010 from http://www.csa.ca/ 130 HALL

cm/ca/en/search/article/csa-announces-new-standard- competitiveness within the hard outcomes of neoliberal- for-managing-sustainable-events ism. The Sociological Review, 54(s2), 59–70. Crompton, J. L. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sports Hall. C. M. (2007). Tourism and regional competitiveness. facilities and events: Eleven sources of misapplication. In J. Tribe & D. Airey (Eds.), Advances in tourism Journal of Sport Management, 9, 14–35. research (pp. 217–230). Oxford: Elsevier. Crompton, J., & McKay, S. (1994). Measuring the economic Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). Harlow: impact of festivals and events: Some myths, misapplica- Pearson. tions and ethical dilemmas. Festival Management & Hall, C. M. (2010a). How sustainable are mega-events Event Tourism, 2(1), 33–43. really? Paper presented at the Global Events Congress Daly, H. E. (2008). A steady-state economy. London: IV, Leeds, July 14. Sustainable Development Commission. Hall, C. M. (2010b). Changing paradigms and global Dickson, C., & Arcodia, C. (2010). Promoting sustainable change: From sustainable to steady-state tourism. event practice: The role of professional associations. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 131–145. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, Hall, C. M. (2010c). Crisis events in tourism: Subjects of 236–244. crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(5), Dredge, D., & Whitford, M. (2010). Policy for sustainable 401–417. and responsible festivals and events: Institutionalization Hall, C. M. (2011). Policy learning and policy failure in sus- of a new paradigm—a response. Journal of Policy tainable tourism governance: From first and second to Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 2(1), 1–13. third order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Dolles, H., & Söderman, S. (2010). Addressing ecology and 19(4–5), 649–671. sustainability in mega-sporting events: The 2006 Hall, C. M. (2012). The political analysis and political econ- Football World Cup in Germany. Journal of Management omy of events. In S. Page & J. Connell (Eds.), A hand- & Organization, 16, 587–600. book of events (pp. 186–201). London: Routledge. Dovers, S. (1995). A framework for scaling and framing Hall, C. M. & Wilson, S. (2011). Neoliberal urban entrepre- policy problems in sustainability. Ecological Economics, neurial agendas, Dunedin Stadium and the Rugby World 12, 93–106. Cup: Or “if you don’t have a stadium, you don’t have a Dovers, S. (1996). Sustainability: Demands on policy. future.” In D. Dredge & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Stories of Journal of Public Policy, 16, 303–318. practice: Tourism policy and planning. Ashgate: Farnham. Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (2010a). Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the Football for Hope, mission. Retrieved from http://www. state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. fifa.com/aboutfifa/worldwideprograms/footballforhope/ Comparative Politics, 25, 275–296. mission.html Hayes, A. (2007). Setting a standard for green events. Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (2010b). Environment Business, 133, 4–5. Football for Hope, news. Retrieved from http://www. Horne, J., & Manzenreiter, W. (2006). An introduction to fifa.com/aboutfifa/worldwideprograms/footballforhope/ the sociology of sports mega-events. The Sociological news/newsid=641386.html Review, 54(s2), 1–24. Getz, D. (2009). Policy for sustainable and responsible festi- IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1991). Caring for the earth: A strat- vals and events: Institutionalization of a new paradigm. egy for sustainable living. Gland: IUCN. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, International Standards Organization. (2010). ISO to develop 1, 61–78. sustainable event standard in run-up to 2012 Olympics. Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Event organizers. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://www.iso.org/iso/ Retrieved from http://www.globalreporting.org/Reporting pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1281 Framework/SectorSupplements/Events/ Jones, M. (2010). Sustainable event management: A practi- Greener, I. (2001). Social learning and macroeconomic pol- cal guide. London: Earthscan. icy in Britain. Journal of Public Policy, 21, 133–152. Jones, M. (2011). Sustainable event management. IFEA’s Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark tourist events: Impacts, man- ie: The business of international events, Spring, 12. agement, and planning. London: Belhaven Press. Judd, D. R. (2003). Building the tourist city: Editor’s intro- Hall, C. M. (2001). Imaging, tourism and sports event fever: duction. In D. R. Judd (Ed.), The infrastructure of play: The Sydney Olympics and the need for a social charter Building the tourist city (pp. 3–16). Armonk: M. E. for mega-events. In C. Gratton & I. P. Henry (Eds.), Sharpe. Sport in the city: The role of sport in economic and social Kotler, P., Haider, D., & Rein, I. (1993). Marketing places: regeneration (pp. 166–183). London: Routledge. Attracting investment, industry, and tourism to cities, Hall, C. M. (2004). Sports tourism and urban regeneration. states, and nations. New York: Free Press. In B. Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sports tourism: Leitner, H., & Garner, M. (1993). The limits of local initia- Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 192–206). tives: A reassessment of urban entrepreneurialism for Clevedon: Channelview Publications. urban development. Urban Geography, 14, 57–77. Hall, C. M. (2006). Urban entrepreneurship, corporate inter- Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in ests and sports mega-events: The thin policies of the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press. SUSTAINABILITY AND MEGA-EVENTS 131

Malecki, E. J. (2004). Jockeying for position: What it means United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and why it matters to regional development policy when Division for Sustainable Development. (2003). Greece: places compete. Regional Studies, 38, 1101–1120. A case study on commitments–related best practice or Markusen, A. (1999). Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, pol- lessons learned in either water or human settlements. icy distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in New York: Division of Sustainable Development. critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 33, 869–884. Retrieved from http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/caseStudy/ McCartney, G., Thomas, S., Thomson, H., Scott, J., public/displayDetailsAction.do;jsessionid=062E225EE Hamilton, V., Hanlon, P., Morrison, D. S., & Bond, L. FF279835EECB371005EB850?code=371 (2010). The health and socioeconomic impacts of major United Nations Environmental Program and the World multisport events: Systematic review (1978–2008). Tourism Organization. (2005). Making tourism more British Medical Journal, 340. Retrieved from http:// sustainable: A guide for policy makers. Paris: UNEP. www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2369.full United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2007). Minnaert, L. (2011). An Olympic legacy for all? The non- Tourism will contribute to solutions for global climate infrastructural outcomes of the Olympic Games for change and poverty challenges. Press release, UNWTO socially excluded groups (Atlanta 1996–Beijing 2008). Press and Communications Department, March 8, Tourism Management, 33(2), 361–370. Berlin/Madrid. O’Brien, D., & Gardiner, S. (2006). Creating sustainable Vanwynsberghe, R., Kwan, B., & van Luijk, N. (2011). mega-event impacts: Networking and relationship devel- Community capacity and the 2010 Winter Olympic opment through pre-event training. Sport Management Games. Sport in Society, 14(3), 370–385. Review, 9, 25–47. Wheeler, B. (1993). Sustaining the ego. Journal of Pollock, I. (2010). World Cup: To tax or not to tax? BBC Sustainable Tourism, 1, 121–129. News Business. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http:// Wheeler, S. M. (2002). Constructing sustainable develop- www.bbc.co.uk/news/10091277 ment/safeguarding our common future: Rethinking sus- Ponsford, I. F. (2011). Actualizing environmental sustain- tainable development. Journal of the American Planning ability at Vancouver 2010 venues. International Journal Association, 68(1), 110-111. of Event and Festival Management, 2(2), 184–196. Whitson, D., & Horne, J. (2006). Underestimated costs and Raj, R., & Musgrave, J. (2009). Introduction to a conceptual overestimated benefits? Comparing the outcomes of framework for sustainable events. In R. Raj & J. sports mega-events in Canada and Japan. Sociological Musgrave (Eds.), Event management and sustainability Review, 54(s2), 71–89. (pp. 1–13). Wallingford: CABI. Whitson, D., & Macintosh, D. (1993). Becoming a world Schimmel, K. S. (2006). Deep play: Sports mega-events and class city. Sociology of Sports, 10, 221–240. urban social conditions in the USA. Sociological Review, World Commission on Environment and Development. 54(s2), 160–174. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Smith, L. (2009). Sustainability of an industry: Green build- Press. ings and green events. Journal of Green Building, 4(2), World Economic Forum. (2009a). Towards a low carbon 63–89. travel & tourism sector. Davos: Author. South Africa. (2008). South Africa’s review report for the World Economic Forum. (2009b). The travel & tourism sixteenth session of the United Nations Commission on competitiveness report 2009: Managing in a time of tur- sustainable sevelopment (CSD-16). Pretoria: Department bulence. Davos: Author. of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Retrieved from World Travel & Tourism Council. (2011). Retrieved August http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/safrica/ 1, 2011, from http://www.wttc.org/ africa.pdf