Do Mega-Events Really Benefit the Host Nation

Sustainability within tourism is a growing issue in what is an increasingly environmental conscious world. An article by Moscardo and Murphy (2014) even claims that there is no such thing as sustainable tourism. A direct quote from this article reads “Hawaiian town of Kailua asks state to stop recommending it as a tourist destination” (2014 p2539). This raises the question ‘how important is trust within a community in creating a sustainable destination?’. It is important to look from a community’s point of view as they are what keeps the heart of a destination beating.  One way of analysing this issue is through looking at ‘mega-events’ and whether communities should trust and support their validity. Both Gursoy et al. (2016) and Lee et al. (2012) have focused on this area, conducting studies on mega-events such as the Olympics and 2014 World Cup. The main argument raised is whether large scale events provide purely short-term economic gain, or whether they can lead to the long-term sustainability tour

Tourism is a driving force behind the economic growth and development of many countries (Webster and Ivanov, 2014). Many countries yearn for tourism development which few can afford to overlook (Nunkoo, 2012). The major benefits of tourism to destinations is through generated income and jobs (Zaei and Esmaeil, 2013). With event tourism communities also benefit from investments, exports and being able to advertise local products on an international scale (Lee et al. 2012). It was estimated that the London 2012 Olympics brought in around 590,000 tourists (Office for National Statistics, 2012). This undoubtedly had a positive effect on the local economy. In addition, local residents also benefit from investment infrastructure in their area such as leisure and entertainment facilities. The main problem associated with tourism is achieving the correct balance, in order to achieve sustainability.

Sustainability is referred to by Wickens et al. (2015 p.1 cited WCED 1987) as being “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. In other words, benefitting from today without stealing from tomorrow. Commonly governments focus primarily on economic growth but there is increasing emphasis being placed on social and environmental costs (Ross, 1992). Wickens (2014) provides a more updated explanation feeling that sustainable tourism enhances local lives and tourist experiences whilst preserving the environment which they both rely upon. Benefits of sustainable tourism include the preservation of heritage and enhanced quality of local lifestyles (Poudel,2014).  Lack of consideration towards sustainability can result in ‘over-tourism’ which causes repercussions. These include pollution, traffic congestion and damages to the environment such as corrosion (National Parks UK). Over-tourism and over-development can be enough to destroy a destination.

Tourism is listed as a human right (Universal declaration of human rights). However, communities – such as Kailua – are taking an opposing stance due to the unwanted baggage it bears. Negative aspects in this community included “inflation, increases in housing prices, loss of social networks” (Moscardo and Murphy, 2014, p 2539). Tourism relies upon everyone within a location pushing in the same direction. The local community can ‘bring a destination to life’, being the difference between tourism success and failure. Therefore, active opposition from residents towards tourism is very concerning to local authorities and businesses (Garau-Vadell et al. 2013). It is understandable that locals want to protect their area, which is why many communities are ‘fighting back’. McCabe & Diekmann (2015) suggests that tourism could be seen as either a “human right” or a “privilege”. Without taking actions towards increasing sustainability there is a possibility that future tourism –especially in perishable areas – could become a major privilege rather than necessity. In order to achieve sustainability there has to be trust and cooperation from the community.

In order to create sustainability there has to be mutual trust between individuals and organisations that both will operate in the interest of the community. LuJun Su (2017 p.184 cited Moorman et al. 2003) find trust to be “a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence”. Trust in the context of tourism affects all stakeholders –especially between residents and the government. Trust could be the difference between whether these stakeholders choose to support or oppose a project.  (Nunkoo and Gursoy, 2015). If there is no trust in tourism within a community, it can be hard to create a welcoming destination. Gursoy et al. (2016) believe that like any other form of tourism mega-events rely on the support of the community residents. Studies show that contact between residents and tourists influence perceptions (Gursoy, Chi, and Dyer 2010). Gursoy et al. (2016) also feel where the support of residents can create an “urban festival”, lack of support can fuel a “highly charged political and social exercise”. The power of residents is backed up by Mugandaet al. (2013, p.55) who state “To achieve long lasting outcome, communities need to be active participants rather than passive observers”. Essentially, engaged communities are of major importance to sustainability. This is largely due to the image of the destination which they create. Mega sporting events are screened all over the world which allows the host country to display themselves as in a positive manner. This in return increasing image and recognition.

Tourism in return can also benefit communities themselves. Gursoy et al. (2016) present the idea that incoming tourists allow locals to experience other cultures and raising pride within the community. Likewise, Lee et al. (2012 cited Hall,1989) explains how tourism increases awareness of other cultures whilst communities enhance their own traditions and values. However, they also express how ‘cultural conflict’ may occur due to differences between the two groups. It is agreed that destination locals have the ability to display a location as being welcoming. It is dependable on whether they ‘buy into’ the events themselves. Resultantly, their trust and support towards them is unique to whether they are beneficial.

📷

The 2016 study by Gursoy et al. evaluates the effect of resident trust in the government. The study also aims to find a link between trust in the government and event support. In this study Brazilian locals in host cities of the 2014 World cup were used as the subjects. The study is relevant as it finds that locals tend to associate these type of events with the government. A limitation of the study is that it only considered one event. At the time of the study there was ongoing conflict between Brazilian residents and the government. This means that results were more likely to be manipulated by negative outside sources such as the media. Despite this there was no connection found between trust in the government and event support. This suggests that support is determined by whether locals feel the event will bring themselves more benefits than flaws. This means that factors such as the economy, communities and the development of destinations play a more important role in encouraging trust than government authorities. Therefore, these areas have to be considered.

Gursoy et al. (2016) believe that mega events very often have little direct benefits for local communities and that economic income is the main reason there is so much competition for hosting them. Lee et al. (2012) shares this opinion stating that the “economic impact tends to be the most important criterion for hosting the mega-event and is a measuring stick as to whether the event has been successful”. The economy is a major concern of governments, not necessarily a concern of the population. It was established that the main concern of the Brazilian public in the lead up to the World Cup were social and environmental rather than economic (Fédération Internationale de Football Association, 2014). As the general feeling was that economic gain was the main objective of governments, it is no surprise that conflict occurred. Lee et al. (2012) add reason to this by explaining that the decisions to compete for these events are ‘politically charged’. From this we can deduce that often decisions are made by those concerned about improving the economy rather than destinations. However, mega events are not always guaranteed money spinners as shown by Montreal 1976.  The Olympic games caused a direct decline on the City’s economy and unemployment rates soared (Whitson, 2004). This gives reason to those who feel large scale events can be harmful. The costs of creating infrastructure such as stadiums can cost billions. Some feel the generated tourism will never be enough to pay back the initial costs. This gives reason to those who may feel that the economic income generated may not really benefit.

However, there are success stories such as Barcelona and Beijing which are not primarily focused on short term income. Barcelona 1992 is an example of how the Olympics projected a deteriorating City into a thriving destination. The city used the games to build lasting infrastructure such as a new airport. This enabled sustainable tourism in future years whilst projecting Barcelona’s new image globally. Passengers through Barcelona’s new airport rose from 2.9 million (pre Olympics) to 21 million in 2002 (post Olympics) (Daly and Fickling, 2002). Without the international recognition the city would likely not have been able to turn itself into the tourist hotspot it is today. However, Mills (2014) feels Barcelona has become a victim of its own success and residents are paying the price (Rizzo, 2017). Lee et al’s. (2012) study to an extent supports this. The 2008 Olympics in Beijing marked several high scale changes within the city. This included the creation of subways and improvements towards air pollution and water shortages. In return, this brought the city into more modern times creating a healthier more sustainable environment for both residents and tourists. Although many purpose built facilities now lie empty (DeLislie, 2009).

Despite much criticism of the Brazil World Cup it is evident that actions were taken to create sustainability. These are outlined within the event’s sustainability report (Fédération Internationale de Football Association, 2014). The event brought with it partners who provided jobs and education. The provision of jobs being very beneficial to many living in poor economic states. Education on health and the environment was provided through programmes such as ‘football for hope’. This providing locals the knowledge on how to maintain and use their environment. Consequentially, allowing for sustainability to be achieved for years later. Specific rules and education were provided to save the environment from C02 emissions during the event. This shows that Gursoy et al. (2016) are naïve in thinking there is little to benefit the community.

📷

It could be argued that the importance of facilities and infrastructure is overvalued as communities really create a sustainable destination. Studies by authors such as Barros et al. (2014) show there can be long term consequences to communities, making them unsustainable. This is relevant to Beijing where 1.5 million residents were evicted to build more modern infrastructure (Beck, 2007). Locals are essential in creating history and culture rather than infrastructure such as stadiums. This is due to increases in demand by culture seeking tourists.  As stated by Korez-Vide (2013 cited Dru 1996) the world has entered an “all cultural age”, where travellers want to become locals rather than tourists. Income from one-off mega events is not sustainable. However, the legacy they leave behind such as history and international recognition could aid sustainability. Tourists do not return specifically to see new infrastructure. This was the case in Rio where the Maracanã stadium which received $370 million of renovations but was left neglected just six months later. (Dinjaski, 2017). Tourists will not travel to Rio to see where the event was held but instead to experience the image it left behind. This shows that no matter how much is spent on infrastructure; visitors return for the culture.

In light of this, it appears actions are being taken to increase sustainability after events as seen in Barcelona. This is also shown by London 2012 which boasted itself upon being an event which left a legacy. This was achieved through revamping a neglected part of the city and turning it into a thriving area still in constant use (Daothong and Stubbs, 2014). Although, initially created for Olympic facilities are now open for the public and generating enough income to stand alone. Although not necessarily drawing tourism a sustainable part of the City once unattended is now benefitting local communities. Without the 2012 Olympics it is likely that this area may have been left to perish.

To reflect, it is believed by Gursoy et al. (2016) and Lee et al. (2012) that mega-events encourage an influx of tourism during events. However, there are differing opinions by many about whether they are beneficial in creating steady tourism. The example Barcelona shows that mega events can be influential in developing a desirable destination if approached correctly. In other cases, it is visible that sustainability had only been considered for the short time period of the event. What is not opposed is that sustainability within a destination relies upon the support and co-operation of the community. Creating sustainability within these destinations relies upon creating communities which welcome tourism with open arms. In return authorities must provide a balance between creating a destination and maintaining a home.