Sport Facilities VIII
Event Leveraging in a Nonhost Region: Challenges and Opportunities
Shushu Chen University of Birmingham
Laura Misener Western University
Interest in how local communities can positively benefit from the hosting of large-scale events has grown exponentially. Where most research has focused on the host city, nonhost regions have the potential to benefit greatly, yet little research has examined how these communities can achieve these benefits. This study examined the leverage process in a nonhost area for the London 2012 Olympics to consider the opportunities and challenges of such a task. Theoretically informed by the event leverage model, this case study used document analysis and semistructured interviews with 10 key stakeholders involved in the leveraging process. Findings reveal that effective event leverage in a nonhost area requires the establishment of early leadership and strategic alliances and highlights a significant role the specific leveraging team played. Partners found it difficult to continue with committing to event leverage due to conflicts of interests and goal misalignment. Theoretical contributions are also discussed.
Keywords: event leverage, local community, stakeholders, the London 2012 Olympic Games
When cities and nations bid to host a mega sporting event, it is claimed that staging the event will generate various benefits not only for the host city but also for the country as a whole (Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games Bid Committee, 2014; British Olympic Committee, 2005). However, events’ benefits and positive outcomes seem to be inadequately distributed within the host nations, which is problematic given that public funds are often used for the hosting of events (Gratton, Shibli, & Coleman, 2005; Mules, 1998; Smith, 2009, 2014). What has emerged is the rhetoric around impacts and legacies of Olympic Games, to offset the negative commentary regarding the lack of positive outcomes for the host region (MacAloon, 2008; Preuss, 2015). However, typically, this approach examines only outcomes of an event with no regard for strategic intent to create opportunities that will benefit the region. As a result, there has been an increasing interest in the concept of event leverage (e.g., Chalip, 2004; Chalip, Green, Taks, & Misener, 2017; Misener, McGillivray, McPherson, & Legg, 2015; O’Brien, 2006; Smith, 2009). The core argument underlying this concept is that through strategic planning in advance of an event, desired outcomes could be achieved for local communities. Yet, little is known, empirically, about the actual processes necessary for leveraging planning and delivery for successful outcomes.
Mega events have unique qualities that pose special problems and opportunities that impact not only host communities but also peripheral communities because of the size and scope of the phenomena (Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Liu, Broom, & Wilson, 2014). This presents distinctive challenges for a host city seeking to
benefit from the hosting of an event such as the Olympic Games. Furthermore, with the idea that regions outside of the host city will also benefit from the Games, understanding the challenges and opportunities to event leveraging for nonhost regions will be beneficial for stakeholders in a broader territory. Scholars in mega sporting events research have examined nonhost cities/regions’ experiences during the events in terms of economic effects (Daniels, 2007; Jones, 2005) and of management and social impacts in general (Beesley & Chalip, 2011; Bell & Gallimore, 2015; Chien, Kelly, & Gill, 2017; Kellett, Hede, & Chalip, 2008; O’Brien & Gardiner, 2006). More recently, scholars have also suggested that there is a potential for nonhost cities to maximize the positive impacts (albeit short term) of the host country. Chien et al. (2017) have argued that nonhost regions might be in a position to take advantage of the event through enhancing destination brand equity, augmenting an existing event portfolio, and strengthening corporate- and community-based networks. Fairley and Kelly (2017) demonstrated that hosting pre-Games training camps in the nonhost region can offer tourism benefits and educational and sport programming opportunities. What is not yet well understood is how cities/regions outside of the host city develop and deliver these types of opportunities for the benefit of local community. Furthermore, the recent works on nonhost cities demonstrate a need to consider which leveraging mechanisms might be most appro- priate for a nonhost region and what constraints or opportunities are presented by adopting such leveraging tactics.
In order to address these gaps, we focused on a nonhost area of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games to explore the strategic planning and leveraging processes in the nonhost area, Leicestershire (∼100 miles north of London). The focus of this research was not placed on identifying the exact kinds of impacts leveraged successfully (or unsuccessfully); rather, we focused on considering the strategic planning and leveraging process in Lei- cestershire to offer insights for future regions that might seek to
Chen is with the School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. Misener is with the School of Kinesiology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. Chen (s.chen.5@bham. ac.uk) is corresponding author.
275
Journal of Sport Management, 2019, 33, 275-288 https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0210 © 2019 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE
capitalize on the opportunity of an event being hosted in a nearby major center. In addition, we sought to consider how the theoretical model of event leveraging set forth by Chalip et al. (2017) for leveraging sport participation could be adapted and constructed for a nonhost region.
Literature Review
Olympic and Paralympic Games’ research studies considering nonhost regions have been rather limited in number, with some notable exceptions that have helped inform the current study. Deccio and Baloglu (2002); Liu et al. (2014); and Ritchie, Ship- way, and Cleeve (2009) are examples of studies that have focused on nonhost legacies. These scholars focused primarily on commu- nity residents’ perceptions of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic and Paralympic Games, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Paralympic Games, and the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, respectively. Other scholars have also examined nonhost cities’ efforts toward offering pre-Olympic training campus services (Gardiner & Chalip, 2006; Jago, Chalip, Brown, Mules, & Ali, 2003; Kellett et al., 2008; O’Brien & Gardiner, 2006).
Focusing on exploring potential legacies of the Olympic Games for nonhost regions, Bondonio and Mela (2008) drew attention to broad-based impacts of the Torino Olympic Games and concluded that as a result of the staging of the Games, there had been an overall improvement in the sociocultural image and an increase in the economic competitiveness—within European and international markets—of the entire northwestern Italian region. In a longitudinal study of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Para- lympic Games, Karadakis and Kaplanidou (2012) indicated that residents experienced positive sociocultural and psychological legacies (e.g., improved cultural, education experience, renewed community spirit) more than positive economic legacies (e.g., increased employment/business opportunities, avoidance of debt/ rising property costs). Furthermore, one of the first analyses of Olympic sport participation impacts in a nonhost region carried out by Chen and Henry (2016) demonstrated that awareness and motivational factors associated with the London 2012 Olympic Games were linked (albeit weakly) to an increase in sport and physical activity participation among the participants taking part in a legacy program. Although the previous studies have provided some sporadic evidence associated with nonhost regions’ impacts, few studies have examined in much detail whether—or indeed how and why—nonhost regions have strategically engaged with event leveraging activities.
Although the outcomes of Olympic and Paralympic Games vary between different cases, it is only recently that the importance of strategically leveraging the event for broader social outcomes has been recognized through pioneering works by Chalip (2004, 2006) and O’Brien (2006). Essentially, the aim of event leverage is that, in order to generate positive impact from the hosting of an event, strategic management processes and tactics must be formed and implemented (Chalip, 2004; Gardiner & Chalip, 2006; O’Brien, 2006; Smith & Fox, 2007). Studies have linked leverag- ing effects with infrastructure development (Jones, 2001; Solberg & Preuss, 2007; Terret, 2008), economic growth (Chalip, 2002; Whitson & Horne, 2006), heritage restoration (Smith, 2014), volunteer development (Fairley, Cardillo, & Filo, 2016), enhanced quality of life for local residents (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006), the development of national soft power (Brannagan & Giulianotti, 2015; Grix & Houlihan, 2014; Grix & Lee, 2013), and community sport participation (Misener et al., 2015; Taks, Misener, Chalip, &
Green, 2013). These studies outline howmultidimensional positive impacts for host communities can be generated by adopting a strategic approach to event planning and management.
The literature suggests several key points for event leverage that are prominent in this study. The first relates to the core concept within event leverage—strategically planning to obtain the desired outcomes (Bramwell, 1997; Chalip, 2004, 2006; Ritchie, 2000). Since Chalip’s (2006) call for ex ante focus on events, the general consensus in the literature is that event’s social and economic impacts do not happen automatically (Smith, 2009) and that the events themselves are not the intervention (O’Brien, 2006); instead, mega events and the opportunities that they offer are merely the “seed capital” (O’Brien, 2006, p. 258). These require that more actions be undertaken in order to fully maximize opportunities stimulated by an event. As Schulenkorf (2010, p. 120) has put it, we should think about “making things happen” by developing an ex ante strategy that considers positive impacts beyond event borders, rather than take it for granted that they will do so automatically. Smith and Fox (2007) have gone further to suggest the adoption of a more event-themed—as opposed to event-led—approach to bottom-up legacy planning, where nonhost regions can use the event to augment existing programs and resources.
The second key point for event leverage relates to the formulation of collective community and the building of alliances in event leverage. As emphasized by Chalip et al. (2017), event leverage should start with tightening of the linkages between different agencies that are responsible for various elements of event development (e.g., sport, tourism, and economy). An effective coordination network between an array of public and private organizations, such as local agencies, business, commu- nities, and various levels of government, is needed to ensure that a positive legacy is leveraged. This suggestion is consistent with findings in other contexts (Bell & Gallimore, 2015; Brown, 2000; Kellett et al., 2008). O’Brien (2006) added that local stakeholders can get access to multiple networks if some medium can be established. In addition, as suggested by Girginov, Peshin, and Belousov (2017, p. 2087), leveraging is “a system phenomenon and a collective” activity, which requires the contribution from more than one individual or one organization. In their study of voluntary sport organizations’ engagement with leveraging the London 2012 and the Sochi 2014 Olympics, Girginov et al. (2017) identified the existence of three different types of leverag- ing, that is, aligning organizational objectives with the Olympic Games’ strategic visions, leveraging nationwide Olympic pro- grams, and engaging with strategic partners nationally and internationally.
Furthermore, for event leverage to be effective, there is a need to consider existing local strategies, resources, sociocultural, and political conditions more broadly (Beesley & Chalip, 2011; Kellett et al., 2008). Chalip (2006) has argued for contextualized event planning, meaning the strategic leveraging of events with reference to destination product and service mix, as opposed to treating events in isolation. In the same vein, Kellett et al. (2008, p. 103) advocated identifying “leverageable event assets, and then to formulate the necessary means to capitalise on those assets” . In this way, event-related activities should be carefully planned according to existing resources in order to develop community- based outcomes. These notions of developing community-based outcomes and adopting a community-based strategy (Misener & Mason, 2010) are important to nonhost regions (Beesley & Chalip, 2011). However, it is not clear how this might be done.
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
276 Chen and Misener
In summary, the previously mentioned research has indicated the existence of some positive leveraging opportunities from regions outside of a host city. They highlight the importance of clearly understanding the contextual factors within the community studied in order for local stakeholders to capitalize on opportunities provided by the events. Future studies are advised to explore further in-depth factors that are pertinent to effectively leverage these opportunities through the event (Chalip et al., 2017; Kellett et al., 2008; O’Brien & Gardiner, 2006; Sparvero & Chalip, 2007). Thus, by closely examining a nonhost area of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, this study aims to make a contribution to mega sporting event strategic leveraging literature by examining the processes of a nonhost region that endeavored to maximize the benefits of London hosting the 2012 Games.
Model for Leveraging Sport Events
For leveraging sporting events, we draw upon the conceptual model proposed by Chalip et al. (2017) to unpack the leveraging process in a nonhost region. This model (Chalip et al., 2017) was developed from previous work on leveraging events economically (Chalip, 2004) and socially (Chalip, 2006). The credibility and applicability of this leveraging focus view, rather than an impact focus view when studying events, have been further testified in other studies (Girginov et al., 2017; Mhanna, Blake, & Jones, 2017; O’Brien, 2007; Pereira, Mascarenhas, Flores, & Pires, 2015). Although the values of the event leverage concept have been well received in the field, some argued that it is still difficult for event stakeholders to identify such strategies and tactics for leveraging opportunities given that mega sporting events are unique in their nature (Mhanna et al., 2017); the resources element proposed in the model is rather abstract and requires a process of resource devel- opment in order to be utilized (Girginov et al., 2017), and there is a need for exploring underlying leveraging assumptions for obtain- ing long-term impacts (Smith, 2014).
Nevertheless, the model (Chalip et al., 2017) offers a holistic approach to identify challenges, opportunities, and prospects asso- ciated with leveraging sporting events for local communities; the key principles underpinning the model therefore help to frame our discussion on Leicestershire’s leveraging planning and delivery, and in turn, we propose a revised model for event leverage in nonhost regions (see the “Revised Model for Leveraging Sport Events in Nonhost Regions” section for detailed discussion).
Chalip et al.’s (2017) event leverage model incorporates three elements: (a) relevant entities, (b) the nature of the context in question, and (c) the resources needed to enable leverage. These core concepts were interpreted for current study in the context of a nonhost subregion. Specifically, the relevant entities include three interested parties: the macro- and meso-levels’ event-related stakeholders (such as the event organizer, London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games [LOCOG], the government, and the Regional Development Agencies [RDAs], i.e., East Midlands Development Agency [EMDA]); the leveraging team (which was responsible for facilitating London 2012 activities in Leicestershire and for network coordination); and different agencies and partners that sat in the Leicestershire 2012 Legacy Leveraging Steering Group. Each entity possesses certain resources (including physical, human, and knowledge-based ones). Although these resources can be mobilized and are central to the implementation of the event leveraging strategies and tactics, they are also restricted by the developed, accepted, and sustained systems and structures of the three entities. Here, another layer of the context
refers to stakeholders and key players’ own attitudes and opinions toward the event and of the geographic location (i.e., being a nonhost subregion in this case). More broadly, we also recognized stake- holders and key players’ beliefs and values about sport and sporting events. These perceptions are often shaped by the broader cultural values (referring to general features embedded in the community). Together, culture, attitudes, and opinions, as well as systems and structures constitute the contextual factors. It is important to note that these contextual factors and the resources interact: on the one hand, the allocation of resources and goal setting are influenced by how stakeholders and key players have valued sport and sporting events; on the other hand, having a strong sporting infrastructure in the subregion may boost local stakeholders’ interest in further pursuing the development of sport-related agenda. Essentially, the model outlines the complex array of matters to be addressed for event leverage; it also provides detailed guidelines for formula- tion and implementation of the necessary strategies and tactics that can be used to explore Leicestershire’s leveraging process.
Research Context
Following the success of the bid to host the 2012 Games, the U.K. government and the LOCOG embarked upon the formulation of legacy action plan (Department for Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport, 2008) and an evaluation framework (Department for Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport, 2009) for the systematic and scientific pursuit of successful events. To ensure that the whole country was involved in and benefited from the Games, the Nations and Regions Group (NRG) was set up to work closely with LOCOG and with local government stakeholders. Activities at the regional level were organized and led largely by the RDAs, which were responsible for developing their own plans based on local needs and priorities.
In the East Midlands, the regional management board was established following the successful London 2012 bid, including representatives from the Government Office for the East Midlands, East Midlands Tourism, Culture East Midlands, and the Learning and Skills Council. The board also included a local authority representative (i.e., the chief executive of Leicestershire County Council) and a representative from Loughborough University. The East Midlands regional strategy of the London 2012 Olympics emerged during 2006/2007, after the appointments of a regional coordinator (with the post being jointly funded by the EMDA and Sport England and based at the RDA) and of a creative programmer (recruited by and hosted at Culture East Midlands) to work predominantly with the Cultural Olympiad. The areas focused on by the region included economic, sporting, and social legacies. The EMDA acted as the hosting and funding organization for NRG coordinators and gave a small grant to each county sports partner- ship1 within the region to assist with their 2012 activities. Two subregions, Leicestershire and Derbyshire, realized that in order to fully maximize the opportunity, they needed to dedicate resources to the agenda.
For Leicestershire, the 2012 Olympics hosted in London was seen as a unique opportunity for using the power and spirit of the Games to inspire local people and to create lasting benefits for the communities. Since early 2009, a group of Leicester and Leicester- shire local authorities and stakeholders actively formulated a leverag- ing delivery strategy and recruited staff to the coordinating agency and partners. Subsequently, a Leicestershire Steering Group for the London 2012 Games, consisting of multiple agencies, was formed to provide the strategic leveraging direction and coordinated action for Leicestershire on matters relating to 2012 Games-inspired activity.
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
Event Leverage in a Nonhost Region 277
Different to previous nonhost event leverage cases, where the leveraging focus often lies in one or two impact areas, for example, sport and economic impacts (Gardiner & Chalip, 2006), sociocultural and psychological impacts (Karadakis & Kaplanidou, 2012), Lei- cestershire’s leveraging ambition was much bigger including seven visions encompassed the foci of interest-related activities: business, sport and physical activity, health and well-being, children and young people, culture, volunteering, and visitors economy (see Table 1). The seven local agencies responsible for leading each leveraging vision were also presented in Table 1. One senior member of staff from each of those seven agencies was selected to act as a theme lead, sitting on the Leicestershire London 2012 Legacy Steering Group.
Methods
As we sought to explore the strategic planning and leveraging process of the London 2012Games in a nonhost area, Leicestershire, we examined the formulation and implementation of a leveraging plan. The key was to consider the actors of the subregion and the factors that fostered and/or inhibited the leveraging process. To explore this nonhost area’s event leveraging process, an exploratory case study approach to data collection was used. This was important because little is known about how mega sporting events’ leveraging was conducted in nonhost regions. Both document analysis and semistructured interviews were adopted for the study. Specifically, semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 key stakeholders between November 2010 and December 2012 (see Table 2 for details of interviewees’ profiles). To complement semistructured interviews, the document analysis was used to review information (e.g., see Table 3) retrieved from the official London 2012 website; from key strategic documents at national, regional, and subregional levels; from marketing and promotion materials; and from relevant reports published at both national and local levels as well as from group leaders’ monthly updates. The selection of materials was refined by relevance to the context of the research. It was also imperative to access documents, published by the groups that were responsible for each legacy theme, revealing indications of strategic planning and leverage management. This range of documents enabled the researchers to familiarize themselves with the context of the research (Yin, 2014) and to review the salience of the London 2012 Games–related documents at national, regional, and subre- gional levels. The documents were also used to assist with the development of an interview guide. It was, thus, ensured that key points, which emerged from document analysis associated with event leverage, were discussed during the interviews.
Procedures
Multiple strategies were employed to gather data for this project including document analysis, direct observations, and strategic interviews. Documents produced by Department for Digital, Cul- ture, Media and Sport groups. A purposive sampling approach was adopted for the selection of 10 interviewees. This approach was based on their direct involvement in and knowledge of the Lei- cestershire London 2012 leveraging process and/or in maintenance of the leveraging partnerships. Specifically, the pool of intervie- wees included all seven London 2012 theme leads previously mentioned, one regional senior executive for the London 2012 Games, one subregional senior executive for the London 2012 Games, and the director of Inspire Leicestershire (see Table 2). A series of consultations were conducted—before, during, and after the London 2012 Games—with the Director of Inspire
Leicestershire, who played a key role in coordinating Leicester- shire’s London 2012 legacy leverage process.
An interview guide with semistructured questions was pre- pared and was peer reviewed by two experienced qualitative researchers to ensure clarity and connection to the research topic. The interview guide included the following topics: (a) roles and responsibilities, (b) leveraging activities and implementation strategies, (c) challenges and opportunities of leveraging, and (d) lessons for nonhost regions. The lead researcher conducted all interviews face-to-face, except in the case of one telephone interview requested by the respondent. The interviews lasted from 50 to 90min. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. In accordance with the ethical approval was obtained from Loughborough University, UK, extra care has been taken to protect the anonymity of the respondents for the duration of the project and in any subsequent publications.
Data Analysis
Documents and interview transcripts were subjected to repeated readings and thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic content analysis has commonly been used as a method for analysis to identify, report on, and analyze data for the meanings produced in and by people and events (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Patton, 2002). Here, a theme refers to a “patterned response or meaning within the dataset” (Braun&Clarke, 2006, p. 82). As suggested by Patton (2002, p. 467), the significance of a theme is determined not by its frequency but by its substantive consequence—meaning the consistency of themes across and within study participants . One of the most noticeable strengths of thematic content analysis is its flexibility for the analysis of data and ability to represent large data sets in a succinct way.
Drawing on Braun and Clarke (2006), the following five phases for theory-driven data coding were carried out: (a) the first phase of immersion involved the first author reading repeatedly in order to ensure familiarity with the data; (b) an initial list of ideas about what was in the data and what was interesting about them were generated and gathered; (c) different codes were searched for and identified according to possible themes (the focus of the third phase was on the analysis at the broader level of the themes, rather than on codes); (d) the respective themes were reviewed by cross- checking them with the coded extracts and with the entire data set; and (e) in the phase of defining and naming themes, the essence of each theme was captured and labeled accordingly.
This process led to the construction of four main themes and 12 subthemes in total. Themes have been checked against each other and back to the original data set to ensure that they are internally coherent, consistent, and distinctive (Braun, Clarke, & Weate, 2016). We acknowledge the potential for reliability concerns associated with thematic content analysis (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2011) but have tried to ensure trustworthi- ness of our data representation by using a criteriological approach (Tracy, 2010). Hence, the development process of themes was not only closely in accordance with the research questions and with the event leverage model (Chalip et al., 2017) but also followed by a return to the literature on event leverage and Olympic studies to ensure that the nuances and contradictions in the data were not “ironed out” (Sparkes & Smith, 2014, p. 126).
Findings and Discussion
The four central areas of focus of the event leverage model (Chalip et al., 2017) frame the presentation of our findings and
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
278 Chen and Misener
T ab
le 1
L ei ce
st er sh
ir e’ s V is io n , A ct io n s,
R es
p o n si b le
G ro u p s,
an d R es
o u rc es
M o b ili za
ti o n fo r L ev
er ag
in g th e L o n d o n 20
12 O ly m p ic
an d P ar al ym
p ic
G am
es L eg
ac ie s
L ei ce
st er sh
ir e’ s vi si o n s fo r
le ve
ra g in g th e L o n d o n 20
12 le g ac
y L ev
er ag
ed b y
L ei ce
st er sh
ir e’ s le ve
ra g in g ac
ti o n s fo r ac
h ie vi n g
ea ch
le g ac
y g o al
R es
o u rc es
P ri m ar y ty p e
o f re so
u rc es
m o b ili za
ti o n
(1 ) Sp
or t &
P hy
si ca l ac ti vi ty :
• In sp ir e in cr ea se d pa rt ic ip at io n in
sp or t
an d ph ys ic al
ac tiv
ity an d co m m itm
en t
to su pp or tin
g ex ce lle nc e in
sp or t
• In sp ir e m or e op tio
ns an d ch oi ce
fo r lo ca l
pe op le
to th in k ab ou t ph ys ic al
ac tiv
ity ,
im pr ov in g th ei r fi tn es s
L ei ce st er -S hi re
an d R ut la nd
S po rt
• D el iv er
na tio
nw id e O ly m pi c pr og ra m s
• D ev el op
a pr og ra m
of qu al ity
sp or tin
g ev en ts an d pr og ra m s in
L ei ce st er sh ir e th at
pr om
ot e th e 20 12
G am
es an d its
le ga cy
• U se
th e 20 12
G am
es , T ea m
G B
ba se
at L ou gh bo ro ug h U ni ve rs ity
an d In sp ir e L ei ce st er sh ir e br an di ng
to su pp or t th e de ve lo pm
en t
of lo ca l cl ub s, qu al ifi ed
co ac he s, of fi ci al s; as
w el l as
to su pp or t
bi ds
fo r in cr ea se d ca pi ta l in ve st m en t in
sp or t an d le is ur e fa ci lit ie s
• N at io na l L on do n 20 12
pr og ra m
so ur ce s
• E xi st in g bu dg et s
• E xi st in g pa rt ne rs hi p co nt ri bu tio
n
R es ou rc e
de ve lo pm
en t
(2 ) C hi ld re n an
d yo un
g pe op
le :
• In sp ir e ch ild
re n an d yo
un g pe op le
to en ga ge
in sp or t, ar ts an d cu ltu
re ,
le ar ni ng
an d vo lu nt ee ri ng
C hi ld re n an d
Y ou ng
P eo pl e
W or ki ng
G ro up
• In cr ea se
th e nu m be r of
sc ho ol s re gi st er ed
on th e G et
S et
P ro gr am
an d th os e th at
ar e ac tiv
e m em
be rs
of th e G et
S et
N et w or k
• E ng ag e lo ca l sc ho ol s in
L on do n 20 12
le ga cy -r el at ed
ev en ts /p ro gr am
s
• F re e re so ur ce s th ro ug h L O C O G
• N at io na l L on do n 20 12
pr og ra m
so ur ce s
• In sp ir e L ei ce st er sh ir e fu nd in g
• E M D A
fu nd in g
R es ou rc e
ut ili za tio
n
(3 ) C ul tu re :
• In sp ir e in di vi du al s an d co m m un iti es
to pl ay
an ac tiv
e ro le
in th e C ul tu ra l
O ly m pi ad , ce le br at in g th ei r cu ltu
ra l
id en tit y,
co he si ve ne ss , cr ea tiv
ity , an d
he ri ta ge
L ei ce st er
an d
L ei ce st er sh ir e
C ul tu re
B oa rd
• D ev el op
a pr og ra m
of 20 12 -r el at ed
ac tiv
iti es
an d ev en ts
• S up po rt th e C ul tu ra l O ly m pi ad
pr og ra m
an d T he
T or ch
R el ay
• N at io na l L on do n 20 12
pr og ra m
so ur ce s
• In sp ir e L ei ce st er sh ir e fu nd in g
• E xi st in g bu dg et s
R es ou rc e
ut ili za tio
n
(4 ) V ol un
te er in g:
• In sp ir e m or e lo ca l pe op le
to be co m e
vo lu nt ee rs
cr ea tin
g a st ro ng
le ga cy
th at
w ill
re su lt in
la st in g be ne fi ts to
lo ca l
co m m un iti es
V ol un ta ry
A ct io n
L ei ce st er sh ir e
• In cr ea se
vo lu nt ee ri ng
op po rt un iti es
to bu ild
ca pa ci ty
w ith
in th e
vo lu nt ar y se ct or
• Id en tif y an d pr om
ot e al l 20 12 -r el at ed
vo lu nt ee ri ng
op po rt un iti es
• S po ns or
L ei ce st er sh ir e G am
es M ak er s fo r vo lu nt ee ri ng
at L on do n 20 12
• In cr ea se
th e nu m be rv
ol un te er in g pr oj ec ts th at ar e gi ve n th e In sp ir e M ar k
• D el iv er
na tio
nw id e vo lu nt ee ri ng -r el at ed
O ly m pi c pr og ra m s
• N at io na l L on do n 20 12
pr og ra m
so ur ce s
• In sp ir e L ei ce st er sh ir e fu nd in g
• E xi st in g bu dg et s
• E xi st in g pa rt ne rs hi p co nt ri bu tio
n
R es ou rc e
de ve lo pm
en t
(5 ) B us in es s:
• In sp ir e lo ca l bu si ne ss es
to co m pe te
fo r an d w in
co nt ra ct s an d su bc on tr ac ts
to su pp ly
go od s an d se rv ic es
to th e 20 12
G am
es
B us in es s an d
E nt er pr is e
G ro up
• In cr ea se
th e nu m be r of
bu si ne ss es
th at
ar e re gi st er ed
an d pu bl is he d
on C om
pe te F or
• D is se m in at e an d pr om
ot e L on do n 20 12 – re la te d bu si ne ss
op po rt un iti es
• R ai se
pr ofi
le an d m ax im
iz e lo ca l be ne fi ts fr om
L ei ce st er sh ir e
ho st in g pr e- ga m es
tr ai ni ng
ca m ps
• N at io na l L on do n 20 12
pr og ra m
so ur ce s
• In sp ir e L ei ce st er sh ir e fu nd in g
• E xi st in g bu dg et s
R es ou rc e
ut ili za tio
n
(6 ) V is it or
ec on
om y:
• In sp ir e te am
s an d vi si to rs
fr om
ac ro ss
th e w or ld
to co m e to
L ei ce st er sh ir e
L ei ce st er -S hi re
P ro m ot io ns
• D ev el op
an d un de rt ak e aw
ar en es s ca m pa ig n
• O rg an iz e a pr og ra m
of w or ks ho p an d co nf er en ce
ev en ts to
pu bl ic iz e
L ei ce st er sh ir e’ s su cc es se s in
re la tio
n to
th e 20 12
G am
es an d
en co ur ag e bu si ne ss
to ur is m
• S up po rt th e at tr ac tio
n of
ov er se as
te am
s to
us e pr e- tr ai ni ng
ca m p
fa ci lit ie s w ith
in L ei ce st er sh ir e an d se ek
to m ax im
iz e th e be ne fi ts
fo r th e w id er
co m m un ity
• E xi tin
g re so ur ce s
• In sp ir e L ei ce st er sh ir e hu m an
ca pa ci ty
R es ou rc e
ut ili za tio
n
(7 ) H ea lt h
• In sp ir e m or e op tio
ns an d ch oi ce
fo r
lo ca l pe op le
to th in k ab ou t di et
an d
nu tr iti on , im
pr ov in g th ei r he al th
an d
re du ci ng
he al th
in eq ua lit ie s
H ea lth
an d
W el lb ei ng
P ar tn er sh ip
• S up po rt na tio
nw id e L on do n 20 12 – re la te d he al th
ac tiv
iti es
• D ev el op
m ar ke tin
g ca m pa ig n
• P ar tn er sh ip
w or ki ng
on pr om
ot in g sp or t an d ph ys ic al
ac tiv
ity – re la te d pr og ra m s
• E xi st in g bu dg et s
R es ou rc e
ut ili za tio
n
N ot e.
E M D A = E as t M id la nd s D ev el op m en t A ge nc y;
L O C O G = L on do n O rg an iz in g C om
m itt ee
of th e O ly m pi c an d P ar al ym
pi c G am
es ; G B = G re at
B ri ta in .
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019 279
discussion. We highlight the findings from the analysis of inter- views and documents around the four themes: (a) local culture and features; (b) resources mobilization; (c) structure and system; and (d) attitudes and opinions, which map onto the Chalip et al. (2017) model of event leverage as they proved central to the process of event leveraging in this nonhost community. Furthermore, the heuristic value of the Chalip et al. (2017) model for work (beyond the context for which it was developed) is reflected in the next section for this nonhost leverage case. It is important to note that while we focus on leverage, the discourse of legacy is so pervasive in the event space that host regions are often conflating the terminology (Chalip et al., 2017). Thus, we use the term inter- changeably in the findings as needed based on the host community, but ultimately, our focus is on leveraging.
Local Culture and Features
The starting point was to consider why Leicestershire actively engaged with London 2012 event leverage. Although obvious answers usually concentrate on local authorities’ and key stake- holders’ opportunism concerning leverage (Kellett et al., 2008; Schulenkorf, 2010), our interviewees’ feedback suggests that cultural beliefs about sport and sporting events were particularly striking, despite the dramatic funding cuts to public sectors across England in 2010/2011 (Taylor-Gooby, 2012). There existed a climate of proactivity and an attitude of “can do” toward sports- related activities, reflected both in communications with agencies outside of the Leicestershire London 2012 Steering Group and its internal dealings. A plan to have a key stakeholder group for maximizing the benefits for Leicestershire of the London 2012 Games was forged right after the bid announcement in 2005, demonstrating a clear strategic connection from the local supporters.
As a key stakeholder who worked in the local government community commented, the linkage between sport and people’s lives in Leicestershire was valued in general by most local authori- ties (Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group). Particu- larly, the value of sport and sporting events was long appreciated within Leicestershire’s local government and community. London’s hosting of the Olympic Games was “too big an opportu- nity for us [Leicestershire] not to want to capture it” (Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group). As explained by several key stakeholders in Leicestershire, the event provided a unique “strategic opportunity” for Leicestershire to raise its profile and to drive further economic, sporting, and social development. This view of considering the staging of the Olympics as an opportunity to create awareness for nonhost regions is consistent with Gardiner and Chalip’s (2006) findings. This situation in turn provided “a fantastic platform” to get “buy-in from leaders across the East Midlands” for the London 2012 leverage agenda, which was especially helpful during a time of austerity:
Sport and culture is a discretionary service, it isn’t the top priority for most, particularly we’re in times of austerity you know, it becomes probably one of the lower priorities. So the opportunity to ensure the profile both among the politicians and the key Chief Execs and leaders of these organisations is raised and also how it connects with delivering other agendas,
Table 3 Examples of Documentation and Physical Artefacts
Type of evidence Author(s)/organization Document example
Websites London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
www.london2012.com
Inspire Leicestershire www.inspireleics.org.uk/
Policy and strategic documents
Department for Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport (2008)
Before, during, and after: Making the most of the London 2012 Games
Department for Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport (2010)
Plans for the legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games
Inspire Leicestershire (2009) Inspire Leicestershire: Leicestershire strategy for the 2012 Games
Promotions materials Inspire Leicestershire (2010–2012) Quarterly newsletters
Event reports Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2011–2012) London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games quarterly reports (May/July/December 2011 and February/June/October 2012)
London 2012 Nations and Regions Group—East Midlands (2012)
End of Games report
Inspire Leicestershire (2012) The legacy journey for Leicester & Leicestershire
Table 2 Overview of Interviewees Profiles
Number Roles/positions Interview dates
1 East Midlands Coordinator for the 2012 Games
May 15, 2012
2 Vice Chair for the Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group
September 07, 2012
3 Visitor Economy Theme Lead August 12, 2012
4 Business Theme Lead April 20, 2011
5 Voluntary Theme Lead September 10, 2012
6 Sport and physical activities Theme Lead
August 17, 2012
7 Cultural Theme Lead/East Midlands Creative Programmer for the 2012 Games
May 31, 2012
8 Director of Inspire Leicestershire
A series of consultation between 2010 and 2012 December
9 Health & Well-Being Theme Lead
September 25, 2012
10 Children and Young People Theme Lead
March 13, 2012
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
280 Chen and Misener
for instance on the economy, on safety and on health and well-being, that was, that was really probably some of the underlying principles of why, you know, we felt the opportu- nity has got to be taken. (Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group)
Subsequently, various actions to increase local interest in London 2012 were undertaken: lobbying local authorities for funding support, motivating potential partners, and then, actively bringing these partners together.
Another key contextual feature, which adds some cultural explanations to the leveraging of the case of Leicestershire at a more nuanced level, is the fact that a top-ranking sporting institution (QS World University Rankings, 2018), Loughbor- ough University, is located within the Leicestershire region. Loughborough University’s sporting reputation as well as its active engagement with the London 2012 Games became increasingly prominent in understanding the cultural and con- textual background of the region (Gluck, 1981; Pettigrew, Ferlie, & McKee, 1992). Being one of the main Leicestershire organi- zations, which provided facilities to and facilitated university– student–volunteers’ participation in several local London 2012 Inspire Programs (such as Flames-Lighting the Way, Musubi, and Medal Maker programs), Loughborough University helped to draw media attention and made the Games seem less removed from Leicestershire’s residents (East Midlands London 2012 Coordinator, Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group, and Director of Inspire Leicestershire). The hosting of the pre- Games training camps for Team Great Britain (GB) and the Japanese Olympic team at Loughborough University further stimulated local excitement for London 2012. Strategically, local council members viewed pre-Games training opportunities as a key means to realize regional and subregional benefits, in terms of raising profile (East Midlands London 2012 Coordina- tor), and as further elaborated by the Director of Inspire Leicestershire:
We’re very lucky that we’ve got Loughborough in our area and, through Loughborough, the Team GB headquarters and the Japanese team . . . . So that’s an obvious draw and an obvious advantage that we’ve got over other parts of the country. So yeah . . . . it [pre-Games training campus] is a big, a big draw to the area and it also raises our profile incredibly whereas other parts of the region have struggled to raise their profile.
This idea of a sporting culture being pervasive and training camps being a means to leverage Games architecture has been seen elsewhere (Kellett et al., 2008; Fairley & Kelly, 2017). The culture appears to play a critical role herein.
Resource Mobilization
Finance resources. The area of Leicestershire was in a fortunate position to have resource capacity to enable the development of a leveraging strategy. In the lead up to London 2012, the EMDA made a financial commitment to support the delivery of a broader legacy leveraging plan. In early 2010, a total of £416,000 in funding from the EMDA and local authorities was gathered to support a specific Leicestershire London 2012 leveraging program called Inspire Leicestershire, which was to operate over 3 years. Twomembers of full-time staff were contracted for 3 years to act as the face of the program. These individuals were to act as a conduit
for supporting and encouraging all partners to communicate, share information, and deliver related activities.
Although Leicestershire had clear financial input that resulted in some human resource support at the beginning of the event leverage process, increased resources do not necessarily lead tomore effective leveraging. The source of central government financial support (facilitated by the EMDA) for local authorities was, in fact, made available to each subregion within the East Midlands to assist with their 2012 leveraging activities; however, only two subregions within the region realized the importance of dedicated human capacity to commit to delivering 2012-related activities (East Mid- lands London 2012Coordinator). Leicestershire was one, appointing a full-time Legacy Director and a full-time Legacy Coordinator, while Derbyshire managed to recruit only a part-time Coordinator. Yet, the small grant provided by the EMDAwas not enough to cover two full-time Leicestershire staff salaries dedicated to the leverage process. The Leicestershire key stakeholder group actively led the bid for “getting the county council to match up with the city council and getting the districts to put their money on the table and all of that money being matched up against what was the then EMDA funding pot” (Sport and Physical Activity Theme Lead) to enable the appointment of two staff members for Leicestershire. This suggests that although the availability of necessary resources might be important, how the financial resources were perceived and managed was even more critical for enabling nonhost subregions’ key sta- keholders to creatively use resources in mobilizing and orchestrating more local input.
Human resources. The acquisition of human capital to support the leveraging efforts was critical to the process. With such a human capacity, several “home-grown” 2012 programs and cam- paigns (e.g., My Games My Legacy) were then developed, and this range of Leicestershire’s own London 2012 programs provided added value to legacy outcomes. The Director of Inspire Leicester- shire reflected upon that:
The whole point of Inspire Leicestershire was making sure we added value through the Games really. So, adding value to what is essentially normal mainstream activity, because we can’t really forget that there was never any extra capacity and there was never any extra funding, so whatever we did we had to do based on existing work streams and the existing work capacity. (Director of Inspire Leicestershire)
Furthermore, to identify the uniqueness of Leicestershire in comparison with other regions in England, as far as the leveraging of London 2012, a review of each region’s End-of-Games’ report revealed that the East Midlands was one of only two regions (the other being the Yorkshire and Humberside regions) that did not have any London 2012 Olympic or Paralympic venues. In particu- lar, the Inspire Leicestershire program was distinctive in its own right, in terms of the development of operational structure that included dedicated human and financial resources to support the leveraging efforts. Although some other areas had planned and delivered London 2012 activities (e.g., South West, East of England, West Midlands, and North West) to various extents, this proved to be either a single manager’s role or a team’s capacity in support of running the Olympic events. This is reflected by the founding members of the Leicestershire London 2012 Steer- ing Group:
So we took that early decision to put together a dedicated resource and one to help us develop this strategy and then to
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
Event Leverage in a Nonhost Region 281
deliver it and so that was really important and I think without that, we wouldn’t have . . . we wouldn’t have delivered half the initiatives locally that we have done and with the kind of profile that we’ve done as well for Leicestershire. (Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group)
As argued by Misener et al. (2015), it is necessary to have a specific group responsible for developing plans and ensuring that leveraging is embedded in a local community. The group in Leicestershire demonstrated considerable astuteness in accessing and enabling available resources to support the leveraging efforts. Only after the appointment of the event leverage team dedicated to London 2012, progress was noted; this included bidding to host the torch relay, hosting landmark showcase events, and providing public relations management. Inspire Leicestershire also had the explicit role of cultivating a relationship with partners, identifying the connectivity between London 2012–related activities and other partners’ programs in order to create, lead, and deliver integrated physical, economic, and social event–related activities in the subregion. More than that, the overall shape of the opera- tional strategy and its ultimate preparation remained largely the responsibility of Inspire Leicestershire. As appraised by the Regional London 2012 Coordinator, who has overseen all the delivery of London 2012–related activities in the East Midlands region,
I don’t think there can be anybody in Leicestershire who hasn’t had a chance to hear about the Games on Radio Leicester, read about it in The Mercury . . . I think it’s that . . . I think the more you put into something the more you get out and to have people who is full-time job, two people whose full-time job is to work on delivering a legacy for a county area is really very powerful. (East Midlands London 2012 Coordinator)
Intangible resources. Apart from financial and human resources, the development and exchanging of intangible resources (e.g., knowledge and experience) were also evidenced. One form of intangible resources development resided with those individuals who were involved in the strategic leveraging and managing process. Their experience, knowledge, and skills learned from Leicestershire’s leveraging process, in relation to, for exam- ple, communication and partnership working, can be regarded as a kind of leveraging impact. It was intended that the London 2012 leveraging process would be used to promote Leicestershire’s and to demonstrate Leicestershire’s potential for hosting major sporting events in the future. As commented by Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group:
Our experience [of leveraging the London 2012 Games] can be seen a strength, not only for this Olympics but for future major sporting events . . . . The fact that we’re able to demonstrate that we can coordinate and host major, major showcase events, i.e., like the torch relay . . . you can probably transpose those skills into hosting other big, big events. I know there’s talk about [potentially Leicestershire to host] the British cycling championship and stuff like that, so that’ll be good. (Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group)
In addition, knowledge-sharing routines (Dyer & Singh, 1998) were developed to enable free flow of and sharing of London 2012–related information between legacy leveraging partners, par- ticularly so for the promotion of those local Inspire Programs.2
Specifically, the following three mechanisms were put into place to permit transfer, recombination, exchange of knowledge: (a) the
development of partnership working principles for the Leicestershire 2012 leveraging program; (b) the implementation of quarterly steer- ing group meetings during the 3-year period of the program; and (c) the adoption of an open-plan working environment to accommo- date three legacy leveraging groups: Inspire Leicestershire team, the Children andYoung People Legacy theme lead, and the Sport and Physical Activity Legacy theme group. These methods enabled regular interactions (face-to-face interactions in many occasions) to be established among individuals. The information sharing net- work was mainly facilitated by Inspire Leicestershire, which worked across various sectors (Gardiner & Chalip, 2006) and also coordi- nated decision making among partners (Smith & Fox, 2007). Inspire Leicestershire was viewed as critical for creating some kinds of “joining up” and a sense of “cohesion” (Sport and Physical Activity Theme Lead) across the seven legacy themes:
. . . I always described it[the Inspire Leicestershire pro- gramme] as . . . between those seven . . . seven bar stools of leadership - business, culture, sport, physical activity, health, etc., etc., because what we wanted to do was the stuff that could be falling between the stools, or working across the stools, that was the work that we should be doing and concentrating on, linking things together. (Sport and Physical Activity Theme Lead)
Systems and Structures
The need for alliances and partnership coordination has been demonstrated for event leverage in host communities (Bell & Gallimore, 2015; Chalip, 2006; O’Brien, 2006); it also appeared to be necessary for a nonhost area (Gardiner & Chalip, 2006), as well as for this case. The operational structure at the local level was based on each partner’s buy-in to the Leicestershire leveraging initiative at the early stage, with minimal additional resources provided (in particular no resources for some strands, e.g., the health theme). The establishment of the Leicestershire 2012 Steer- ing Group, therefore, marked the beginning of the event leverage process for Leicestershire, with their own leveraging medium— Inspire Leicestershire—supporting the strategic planning and delivery of all London 2012–related activities.
So we launched that [Leicestershire Steering Group] about, I’d say, just four years ago. It was certainly around the time of the announcement of the success of London being the venue for London and the Paralympics, and so we set about then agreeing the government structure for the steering group and to identify the key work themes and also the membership to ensuring that it, it was representative of those sectors that we wanted to, to develop. And one of the, the early things that we committed to was to ensure we could get two things in place: a resource to help us progress this work to gain the best from the Olympic Games, both for Leicestershire both in terms of the lead up of the Olympic Games but also kind of the legacy of the Olympic Games. And secondly was to ensure that we had a strategy in place to guide and provide a framework for that work we did. (Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group)
The event leverage structure reflected a close interdepen- dency between partners in the community. Individual partners facilitated event leverage through their ability to stimulate local interests and provided a catalyst for London 2012 engagement. Under such a partnership work setting, it was a real challenge for
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
282 Chen and Misener
senior staff members in the Steering Group to oversee the leverage process and to take a leadership position “without having line management responsibility over the individuals as such” (Vice Chair for the Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group). The actual management focus was therefore placed on “building relationships and managing those relationships and those partner- ships so that people [did] deliver on your behalf and deliver effectively” (Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group). Assuming a model of collaborative leadership, as different to traditional forms of leadership (Alexander, Comfort, Weiner, & Bogue, 2001), building trust and strengthening the partners’ relationships have been identified as being critical to partnership working elsewhere (e.g., Parent & Harvey, 2009); this has been reflected here. Particularly, partnership maintenance became more salient during the mid and later leveraging stages, which was critical for the delivery of initiatives over the duration of the partnership.
Table 1 summarizes how this partnership worked in the case of Leicestershire, regarding what the overall leveraging visions were, who leveraged, what legacy activities were led or carried out by each leveraging team, and what and how resources were used and managed. Particularly in understanding of leverageable resources, as suggested by Girginov et al. (2017), most resources cannot be utilized in their original forms but require some kind of development. This is important in viewing the complexity of leverage here. Based on the analysis of document and interview data, we specified the core leverage forms of resources for each theme, that is, whether resources were utilized with a minimum adaption, or any significant resource development has happened (regarding proactively attracting and absorbing nonallocated resources).
Working within a partnership-based structure has its own challenges, particularly so when each partner approaches the relationship with different motives and is resource constrained (Babiak, 2007). Thus, it is critical to achieve some agreement on the goals of the partnership (Babiak, 2009; Gardiner & Chalip, 2006). In the case of Leicestershire, the leveraging goals were loosely defined at the beginning. According to one of the sport and physical activities leaders,
The priority was to work out how we can create a legacy from 2012 locally. It was as simple and as broad as that, to my recollection. How do we bring London 2012 to Leicestershire? How do we feel its impact? How do we take it to the communities [in Leicestershire] and to the doorsteps of the Leicestershire community?
It was then proposed to identify specific strategic themes for Leicestershire, eventually resulting in the publication of Leicester- shire’s London 2012 strategy document and notably including the seven visions presented in Table 1. Hence, there was some evidence of “bottom-up” approach for event leverage strategic planning (Smith & Fox, 2007), whereby this Inspiring Leicester- shire program was planned and implemented at the local level, matching with the needs and characteristics of the population of Leicestershire.
However, feedback from some stakeholders on the strategic document suggested that it was ambiguous and irrelevant to some stakeholders’ interests. Some leveraging partners also shared their frustration about not being consulted as the key operational leaders for identifying the key linkages between the nature of the event and their own agencies’ policy priorities. Several theme leads noted that
they were not fully engaged with event leverage planning from an early stage and pointed out that much of the content in the strategy book was not operational. They even felt confused in terms of “leveraging for whom” and failed to envision potential benefits for doing “extra” work on leveraging. This issue matches those observed in earlier event leverage studies (Chalip, 2004; O’Brien, 2006; Gardiner & Chalip, 2006), which call for careful and early identification and integration of individual parties’ own benefits within event leverage plans.
Unsurprisingly, this lack of consultation and follow-up sup- port with theme leaders led to stagnant development and frag- mented responses (Gardiner & Chalip, 2006) in some areas. Tensions between partners and the Steering Group grew through- out the process. Some, particularly, partners who agreed to lend support to the core values and who had additional resources felt that they managed to implement extra London 2012 programs and initiatives despite the partnership tensions. For example, the Sport and Physical Activity strand was quite strong (resource-wise) and had been committed to the whole leveraging plan from the very beginning, which stands as an example that the agenda of London 2012 was effectively integrated with the organizational agenda of their own. Many of the other areas were modified in scale, scope, or timing in order to cater for London 2012. For instance, the Workplace Challenge program was built on existing activity in terms of funding (Chen &Henry, 2016), producing more output in relation to the number of program participants as partners worked together (e.g., Inspire Leicestershire promoted the program among their business networks). This proved to be a more effective strategy for this strand to use an event-themed approach (Smith & Fox, 2007). Yet, others felt that difficult internal dynamics within their own sector and different methods of operation meant that they could not agree on some of the strategic goals or necessarily go the extra mile to “cooperate.” As warned by Gardiner and Chalip (2006), asymmetry indeed was inherent in stakeholders, who came from different backgrounds, and had their own personal interests and objectives (Hardin, 1982), when acting collectively for event leverage. With existing capacity and fund- ing resources, it also proved difficult to align the work undertaken on a daily basis with the new London 2012 initiatives. Due to the resource-demanding nature of event leverage, scholars (e.g., Misener et al., 2015) have already emphasized the impor- tance of strategically embedding event leverage activities within existing programs. Our findings suggest that some partners strug- gled to do this. The health and well-Being theme was a notable example:
I think they . . . the strategy had been written, hoping that we would be able to achieve a much wider health improvement legacy. Our local priorities were around reducing levels of obesity, increasing levels of physical activity. So, I think the ambition from Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland point of view was how we could use the inspiration and the legacy to help behaviour change around lifestyle behaviour change. That caused . . . whilst on one level you wouldn’t dispute that and who could, who would disagree with that, on a very practical level this wasn’t my top priority within my remit or within the department for thatmatter . . . .We hadn’t got the capacitywithin the team to look at the much broader health improvement, the objectives. (Health & Wellbeing Theme Lead)
It became difficult to leverage collectively when some stake- holders did not share a similar understanding regarding key
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
Event Leverage in a Nonhost Region 283
priorities and objectives from the beginning. Partners from differ- ent sectors highlighted the dynamic environment within their own organizations with issues such as lack of capacity and funding, or challenges of restructuring and reviews; these inevitably inhibited their engagement with event leverage.
In addition, the “change of [political and operational] land- scape” at the regional level (East Midlands London 2012 Coordina- tor) posed further challenges. The life cycle of Inspire Leicestershire took place across a particularly turbulent period in economic; political; and social terms (recession, change of central government, and London riots). The RDAs—as the regional hosting and funding organizations for NRG coordinators—were abolished several months before the Games as part of the then Government’s plan to “give local governments the power on economic development” (House of Commons Library, 2013, p. 3). This resulted in reduced levels of funding support and fewer London 2012–related activities being delivered, which also affected NRG activities (Grant Thornton, Ecorys, & Centre for Olympic Studies & Research, Loughborough University, 2011). Such a change in the political, economic, and sociocultural environment is likely to impact on the success of partnership (Parent & Harvey, 2009). The Steering Group thus adjusted strategic priorities to reflect a changing context and the previously mentioned tensions, with the seven original leverage themes being reduced to five (sport and physical activities and health, with business and visitor economy also being merged) several months before the London 2012 Olympic Games. Such an evolutionary decision was necessary (Vice Chair for the Leices- tershire 2012 Steering Group) so that more attention could be placed on areas/themes with sufficient resources and led by committed partners who demonstrated more buy-in to the plan (East Midlands London 2012 Coordinator and Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group).
Attitudes and Opinion
Being a nonhost subregion was perceived as a negative factor that constrained Leicestershire’s event leveraging capacity. As shared by some key event leverage partners, local authorities did not have the legitimacy to maximize the leveraging strategy because (a) there was no sports venue for the Olympic or Paralympic Games in the region and (b) there was a general feeling toward the 2012 Games among Leicestershire citizens that the event was associated only with London, as opposed to with the United Kingdom or with the regions of Leicestershire. The nonhost nature of the geographic location in question thus posed some challenges. This was reflected on by the Vice Chair of the Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group:
So, for me some of the big challenges at the start, going into this, was a, you know, geographically we’re dislocated from the main Olympic venues, the Olympics and Paralympics, so that was always going to be a challenge for us in terms of how do we . . . how do we connect with it (Vice Chair for Leicestershire 2012 Steering Group).
Hence, in terms of communicating London 2012–related messages to local citizens, focus was placed on “making the community aware of what was happening” and “making the community aware that actually London isn’t that far away and that [London 2012] – that’s a benefit [to us]” (Sport and Physical Activity Theme Lead) as well as on “finding a hook” (Director of Inspire Leicestershire) for Leicestershire to link with the event.
Subsequently, efforts were made to host major showcase events (e.g., Torch Relay Celebration event, 100 Days to Go) as well as introducing tailored cultural programs (e.g., Patchwork Pledge) to engage local residents. These cultural programs were made as simple and accessible as possible, with London 2012–related messages embedded to allow people to easily take part and to create a general mood of excitement around the Games. This stimulated a carnival atmosphere which, as highlighted by Chalip (1992) and Chalip et al. (2017), is vital for event leverage. This is the case in using an event to shape local citizens’ attitudes and opinions in ways that can establish favorable conditions from which to leverage the event for intended outcomes (e.g., tourism development; Chien et al., 2017).
Furthermore, it is worth noting that policy planning and decision making could be positively or negatively influenced by the nature and development of the event. The success of the London 2012 Games, in terms of Team GB’s excellent perfor- mance, had positively stimulated the country and increased peo- ple’s enthusiasm about the event. This provided a potential boost for engagement with London 2012–related programs/initiatives across the subregion (reference name deleted to maintain the integrity of the review process). Thus, with the same quantities and inputs, the overall impact and leverage effect of London 2012 in Leicestershire (relating in particular to intangible effects) might have exceeded original targets.
Revised Model for Leveraging Sport Events in Nonhost Regions
While the event leverage model put forth by Chalip et al. (2017) offered a valuable holistic approach for synthesizing our under- standing of the leverage process as well as for identifying the key factors, we acknowledged that the model pivots on leveraging sport event for the context of host community (with a focus on develop- ing sport participation benefits) and therefore prompted our further reflection on the value of the model for considering the nonhost perspective of event leverage.
Hence, with particular reference to a nonhost community, Leicestershire, several important insights have emerged. First, local culture and resource challenges are not necessarily re- flected differently in a nonhost region but are certainly overlaid with a different policy imperative and present difference con- textual factors that need to be carefully considered from a strategic management perspective for the nonhost. However, the capacity of the current model to indicate the unique features of a nonhost region was limited. For example, one of the key players in the event leverage model (Chalip et al., 2017)—event organizers—had minimum interaction, if any, with the leverag- ing team in the nonhost area. As such, their experiences of, for example, facilitating the event or cross-leveraging were not identified and were less relevant in the context of a nonhost region.
Second, the dynamic nature of policy and politics during the leveraging process was not recognized explicitly in the model. We argue that the leveraging partnership in this nonhost region has been influenced by the general political and economic environment. As previously discussed , influenced by the change of national and regional political landscape and the significant public funding cut, key partners’ engagement with event leverage was confined; from the Leicestershire Steering Group’s point of view, the very nature of the Leicestershire partnership’s
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
284 Chen and Misener
strategic focus was inevitably changed, and the number of strategic priorities was scaled down. Thus, being aware of the change of political and economic environment remains critical for future nonhost regions in strategically adapting leveraging objectives and skillfully mobilizing existing resources.
Third, although the importance of the establishment of strate- gic alliances and a specific committee responsible for effective leveraging has been mentioned (rather than being made explicit in the model) in Chalip et al.’s (2017) discussion for host cities leverage, our study has revealed that they were indispensable in the nonhost region’s leveraging process. Leveraging together with strategic partners is reinforced by several authors (Bell & Gallimore, 2015; Girginov et al., 2017; Kellett et al., 2008). Particularly, we argue that the centrality of the Leicestershire London 2012 leveraging partnerships is significant in the process of leverage planning, in terms of defining a strategic vision, formulating objectives and lobbying for local support. The value of having a specific committee to leverage in a nonhost region cannot be understated. Inspire Leicestershire played a significant role in shaping the operational strategy and partnershipmaintenance. Such a dedicated event-legacy-leverage team deserves a distinctive position in the leverage model.
Subsequently, a modified model of event leverage for the nonhost region is proposed here to reflect these nuanced factors (see Figure 1): Specifically, a policy, politics, and economic environment factor have been incorporated at a broad level; the factor of a specific committee is inserted, replacing event orga- nizer; the factor of strategic partnership is also highlighted in this adapted model. By doing so, we argue that such under- standing of the operation of event leverage in a nonhost area can be useful for informing partnership thinking for local authorities regarding the leveraging of other major events for the region.
Conclusion
Although the concept of event leverage is not new, detailed empirical investigation of the leverage process, particularly so in a nonhost region, is still lacking. Our study sought to provide rich insights into how a nonhost community made efforts to maximize the opportunity of mega event in proximity. The study tracked the evolution of the event leveraging strategy, throughout 3 years, from the formulation of the vision through to the development of strategies and priorities in the later stage of the event leveraging process demonstrating some valuable opportunities and key chal- lenges. The region was strategic in capitalizing on a policy agenda to impact by attracting financial and human resources to support the leveraging efforts based around a strong sporting culture. However, with different sectors involved, there were challenges in working with the Steering Group due to conflicts of interests. This was underscored by a changing political climate that left the region with much uncertainty.
Of key importance is that this leveraging effort was supported by a broader culture in Leicestershire, where sport and sports events have a high profile. A core of key actors with shared values and enthusiasm for sports and with strong links to local councils constituted part of Leicestershire’s event leverage character. There was an important history, reaching back to immediately after the bid for the Olympic Games was won in 2005; the key stakeholders in Leicestershire played an important role in securing sufficient investment for hiring the dedicated event-legacy-leverage team and in many of the key decisions regarding strategic planning and partnership building that were developed locally rather than region- ally or nationally. All of these have made Leicestershire stand as one of few examples where, as a nonhost region, a much more sophisticated and detailed leveraging strategic plan for achieving event impacts across seven sectors took place years in advance of the event, in contrast to previous cases where, for example, there was a lack of careful leveraging planning in general (Chien, Kelly, & Gill, 2017) or opportunities to leverage or obtain beneficial outcomes were only derived from the mean of hosting pre-Games training campus (Fairley & Kelly, 2017; Gardiner & Chalip, 2006).
The impact of a small event team dedicated to event leverage in Leicestershire was perceived by the Steering Group as being significant in terms of how the quantity and quality of London 2012–related activities delivered in the subregion compared with other subregions. The message is that any financial or resource environments can be skillfully managed to create a team dedicated to event leverage, and lack of available resources does not simply mean that event leverage for nonhost regions is impossible. Geographically, the impact of being dislocated from London seemed to also be mitigated by the offering of a tailor-made, home-grown London 2012 program.
There are a number of implications for future nonhost regions. First, as echoed by Gardiner and Chalip’s study (2006), a partner- ship-based event-leverage plan, a shared understanding of the possible potential benefits and actions between the department and delivery partners at the early inception stage is required. In addition, a dedicated leverage group is recommended for opera- tional planning and alliance coordination. It is also important to take a more proactive stakeholder management approach (Ackermann & Eden, 2011) to set up detailed plans on partnership working for future projects and to capitalize upon the experience and skills gained from one-off event leverage. The present study offers transferable lessons for effective event leveraging in non-host areas, informing relevant stakeholder/organizational
Figure 1 — A revised model for event leverage in the context of nonhost regions.
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
Event Leverage in a Nonhost Region 285
committees' strategic thinking regarding the planning and organi- zation of event leverage for a broader region. It also seeks to enable us to explore the impact of event leverage in specific nonhost contexts. The study calls for more research on advancing the practice of event leverage in nonhost regions.
Notes 1In the East Midlands, these were formed in five of the region’s six counties: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, and Nottinghamshire—with the exception being Rutland, which was incorpo- rated in a joint County Sports Partnership, that is, Leicester-Shire & Rutland Sport with Leicestershire. 2Inspire Program was a nationwide licensing program to promote noncommercial projects developed at the community levels. A total of 44 projects across Leicestershire were awarded the London 2012 Inspire Mark, for example, the Patchwork Pledge and Personal Choices programs.
Acknowledgment
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 44, 179–196. doi:10. 1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001
Alexander, J.A., Comfort, M.E., Weiner, B.J., & Bogue, R. (2001). Leadership in collaborative community health partnerships.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(2), 159–175. doi:10.1002/nml. 12203
Babiak, K. (2007). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: The case of a Canadian nonprofit sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 338–376. doi:10.1123/jsm.21.3.338
Babiak, K. (2009). Criteria of effectiveness in multiple cross-sectoral inter- organizational relationships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(1), 1–12. PubMed ID: 19026446 doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.09.004
Beesley, L.G., & Chalip, L. (2011). Seeking (and not seeking) to leverage mega-sport events in non-host destinations: The case of Shanghai and the Beijing Olympics. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 16, 323–344. doi:10.1080/14775085.2011.635016
Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games Bid Committee. (2014). Candida- ture file for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games. Beijing, China: Author.
Bell, B., & Gallimore, K. (2015). Embracing the games? Leverage and legacy of London 2012 Olympics at the sub-regional level by means of strategic partnerships. Leisure Studies, 34, 720–741. doi:10.1080/ 02614367.2014.994553
Bondonio, P., & Mela, A. (2008). Which legacies of Torino 2006 OWGs for the Olympic movement and the local society? In J. Kennell, C.R. Bladen, & E. Booth (Eds.),Olympic legacy: People, place, enterprise (pp. 31–44). London, UK: The University of Greenwich.
Bramwell, B. (1997). Strategic planning before and after a mega-event. Tourism Management, 18, 167–176. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(96) 00118-5
Brannagan, P.M., & Giulianotti, R. (2015). Soft power and soft disempow- erment: Qatar, global sport and football’s 2022 World Cup finals. Leisure Studies, 34, 703–719. doi:10.1080/02614367.2014.964291
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., Clarke, V., &Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research? In B. Smith& A.C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 191–205). London, UK: Routledge.
British Olympic Committee. (2005). London 2012 Candidate File (Vol. 1). London, UK: Author.
Brown, G. (2000). Emerging issues in Olympic sponsorship: Implications for host cities. Sport Management Review, 3, 71–92. doi:10.1016/ S1441-3523(00)70080-5
Chalip, L. (1992). The construction and use of polysemic structures: Olympic lessons for sport marketing. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 87–98. doi:10.1123/jsm.6.2.87
Chalip, L. (2002). Using the Olympics to optimise tourism benefits: University lecture on the Olympics. Barcelona, Spain: International Chair in Olympism (IOC-UAB), Centre d’Estudis Olimpics (UAB).
Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model for sport event leverage. In B.W. Ritchie& D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Inter- relationships, impacts and issues (pp. 226–252). Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Chalip, L. (2006). Towards social leverage of sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11, 109–127. doi:10.1080/14775080601155126
Chalip, L., Green, B.C., Taks, M., & Misener, L. (2017). Creating sport participation from sport events: Making it happen. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9, 257–276. doi:10.1080/ 19406940.2016.1257496
Chen, S., & Henry, I. (2016). Evaluating the London 2012 Games’ impact on sport participation in a non-hosting region: A practical application of realist evaluation. Leisure Studies, 35, 685–707. doi:10.1080/ 02614367.2015.1040827
Chien, P.M., Kelly, S.J., & Gill, C. (2017). Identifying objectives for mega-event leveraging: A non-host city case. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(2), 168–184. doi:10.1108/MIP-05-2017-0085
Daniels, M.J. (2007). Central place theory and sport tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 332–347. doi:10.1016/j.annals. 2006.09.004
Deccio, C., & Baloglu, S. (2002). Nonhost community resident reactions to the 2002 Winter Olympics: The spillover impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 46–56. doi:10.1177/0047287502041001006
Department for Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport. (2008). Before, during and after: Making the most of the London 2012 Games. London, UK: Author.
Department for Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport. (2009). London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games impacts and legacy evaluation framework: Final report. London, UK: Author.
Dyer, J.H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Man- agement Review, 23(4), 660–679. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.1255632
Fairley, S., Cardillo, M.L., & Filo, K. (2016). Engaging volunteers from regional communities: Non-host city resident perceptions towards a mega-event and the opportunity to volunteer. Event Management, 20, 433–447. doi:10.3727/152599516X14682561070836
Fairley, S., & Kelly, D. (2017). Developing leveraging strategies for pre-games training for mega-events in non-host cities. Marketing Intel- ligence & Planning, 35(6), 740–755. doi:10.1108/MIP-01-2017-0011
Gardiner, S., & Chalip, L.H. (2006). Leveraging a mega-event when not the host city: Lessons from pre-Olympic training. Gold Coast, Australia: Sustainable Tourism.
Girginov, V., Peshin, N., & Belousov, L. (2017). Leveraging mega events for capacity building in voluntary sport organisations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(5), 2081–2102. doi:10.1007/s11266-016-9825-x
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
286 Chen and Misener
Gluck, F.W. (1981). Vision and leadership in corporate strategy. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 13–27.
Grant Thornton, Ecorys, & Centre for Olympic Studies & Research, Loughborough University. (2011). Meta-evaluation of the impacts and legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games—Report 1: Scope, research questions and data strategy. London, UK: Department for Culture Media and Sport.
Gratton, C., Shibli, S., & Coleman, R. (2005). Sport and economic regeneration in cities. Urban Studies, 42, 985–999. doi:10.1080/ 00420980500107045
Grix, J., & Houlihan, B. (2014). Sports mega-events as part of a nation’s soft power strategy: The cases of Germany (2006) and the UK (2012). The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16, 572–596. doi:10.1111/1467-856X.12017
Grix, J., & Lee, D. (2013). Soft power, sports mega-events and emerging states: The lure of the politics of attraction. Global Society, 27, 521–536. doi:10.1080/13600826.2013.827632
Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M., & Namey, E.E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gursoy, D., & Kendall, K.W. (2006). Hosting mega events: Modeling locals’ support. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 603–623. doi:10. 1016/j.annals.2006.01.005
Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
House of Commons Library. (2013). The abolition of regional government. Retrieved from House of Commons Library, Parliamentary Business website: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/ Summary/SN05842#fullreport
Inspire Leicestershire. (2009). Inspire Leicestershire: Leicestershire strategy for the 2012 Games. Leicester, UK: Author.
Jago, L.E.O., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T., & Ali, S. (2003). Building events into destination branding: Insights from experts. Event Management, 8, 3–14. doi:10.3727/152599503108751658
Jones, C. (2001). Mega-events and host-region impacts: Determining the true worth of the 1999 Rugby World Cup. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 241–251. doi:10.1002/jtr.326
Jones, C. (2005). Major events, networks and regional development. Regional Studies, 39, 185–195. doi:10.1080/003434005200059975
Karadakis, K., & Kaplanidou, K. (2012). Legacy perceptions among host and non-host Olympic Games residents: A longitudinal study of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12, 243–264. doi:10.1080/16184742.2012.680067
Kellett, P., Hede, A.-M., & Chalip, L. (2008). Social policy for sport events: Leveraging (relationships with) teams from other nations for community benefit. European Sport Management Quarterly, 8, 101–121. doi:10.1080/16184740802024344
Liu, D., Broom, D., & Wilson, R. (2014). Legacy of the Beijing Olympic games: A non-host city perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14, 485–502. doi:10.1080/16184742.2014.947301
MacAloon, J.J. (2008). ‘Legacy’ as managerial/magical discourse in contemporary Olympic affairs. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), 2060–2071. doi:10.1080/ 09523360802439221
Mhanna, R., Blake, A., & Jones, I. (2017). Challenges facing immediate tourism leveraging: Evidence from the London 2012 Olympic games. Managing Sport and Leisure, 22(2), 147–165. doi:10.1080/ 23750472.2017.1412269
Misener, L., &Mason, D. (2010). Towards a community centred approach to corporate community involvement in the sporting events agenda. Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 495–514. doi:10.1017/ S1833367200001899
Misener, L., McGillivray, D., McPherson, G., & Legg, D. (2015). Leveraging parasport events for sustainable community participation: The Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games. Annals of Leisure Research, 18, 450–469. doi:10.1080/11745398.2015.1045913
Mules, T. (1998). Taxpayer subsidies for major sporting events. Sport Management Review, 1, 25–43. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(98)70098-1
O’Brien, D. (2006). Event business leveraging the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 240–261. doi:10.1016/j. annals.2005.10.011
O’Brien, D. (2007). Points of leverage: Maximizing host community benefit from a regional surfing festival. European Sport Manage- ment Quarterly, 7(2), 141–165. doi:10.1080/161847407013 53315
O’Brien, D., & Gardiner, S. (2006). Creating sustainable mega event impacts: Networking and relationship development through pre-event training. Sport Management Review, 9, 25–47. doi:10.1016/S1441- 3523(06)70018-3
Parent, M.M., & Harvey, J. (2009). Towards a management model for sport and physical activity community-based partnerships. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9(1), 23–45. doi:10.1080/ 16184740802461694
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pereira, E.C.S., Mascarenhas, M.V.M., Flores, A.J.G., & Pires, G.M.V.S. (2015). Nautical small-scale sports events portfolio: A strategic leveraging approach. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(1), 27–47. doi:10.1080/16184742.2015.1007883
Pettigrew, A.M., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change: Making change in large organizations: The case of the national health service. London, UK: Sage.
Preuss, H. (2015). A framework for identifying the legacies of a mega sport event. Leisure Studies, 34(6), 643–664. doi:10.1080/02614367.2014. 994552
QS World University Rankings. (2018, February 23). Sports-related subjects. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university- rankings/university-subject-rankings/2018/sports-related-subjects
Ritchie, B.W., Shipway, R., & Cleeve, B. (2009). Resident perceptions of mega-sporting events: A non-host city perspective of the 2012 London Olympic Games. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14, 143–167. doi:10.1080/14775080902965108
Ritchie, J.R.B. (2000). Turning 16 days into 16 years through Olympic legacies. Event Management, 6, 155–165. doi:10.0000/0960201973 90239
Schulenkorf, N. (2010). The roles and responsibilities of a change agent in sport event development projects. Sport Management Review, 13, 118–128. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.05.001
Smith, A. (2009). Spreading the positive effects of major events to peripheral areas. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1, 231–246. doi:10.1080/19407960903204372
Smith, A. (2014). Leveraging sport mega-events: New model or convenient justification? Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 6, 15–30. doi:10.1080/19407963.2013. 823976
Smith, A., & Fox, T. (2007). From ‘event-led’ to ‘event-themed’ regener- ation: The 2002 Commonwealth games legacy programme. Urban Studies, 44, 1125–1143. doi:10.1080/00420980701256039
Solberg, H.A., & Preuss, H. (2007). Major sport events and long-term tourism impacts. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 213–234. doi:10. 1123/jsm.21.2.213
Sparkes, A.C., & Smith, B. (2014). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From process to product. London, UK: Routledge.
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
Event Leverage in a Nonhost Region 287
Sparvero, E., & Chalip, L. (2007). Professional teams as leverageable assets: Strategic creation of community value. Sport Management Review, 10, 1–30. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(07)70001-3
Taks, M., Misener, L., Chalip, L., & Green, B.C. (2013). Leveraging sport events for participation.Canadian Journal for Social Research, 3, 12–23.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2012). Root and branch restructuring to achieve major cuts: The social policy programme of the 2010 UK coalition government. Social Policy & Administration, 46(1), 61–82. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00797.x
Terret, T. (2008). The Albertville Winter Olympics: Unexpected legacies– Failed expectations for regional economic development. The
International Journal of the History of Sport, 25, 1903–1921. doi:10.1080/09523360802439262
Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excel- lent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851. doi:10. 1177/1077800410383121
Whitson, D., & Horne, J. (2006). Underestimated costs and overestimated benefits? Comparing the outcomes of sports mega-events in Canada and Japan. Sociological Review, 54(Suppl 2), 71–89. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-954X.2006.00654.x
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
JSM Vol. 33, No. 4, 2019
288 Chen and Misener
Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.