Life Subjective Expectations from Hosting Mega-Events: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Beatrix Zheng and Version 1 by Chulwon Kim.

Mega-events can bring significant changes to local communities, such as infrastructure improvement, which brings the host country economic benefits, and international publicity and voluntary participation, which change the consciousness of residents and promote consensus-building. 

  • quality of life
  • mega-event
  • qualitative research

1. Introduction

It is impossible to persuade residents of the economic impact of mega-events [1,2][1][2]. The success of mega-events suggests that it is not enough to activate the regional economy, such as by increasing employment and residents’ income [3,4][3][4]. Residents may be strong supporters of a mega-event; however, most locals do not feel a benefit, so they are increasingly indifferent to the mega-event [5]. Thus, if the economic effects are short-lived and limited, the socio-cultural impact can be long-term [6,7,8,9,10,11][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Socio-cultural factors can be the soft power of a mega-event [12]. Soft power includes enhancing the host destination image [13,14[13][14][15],15], raising residents’ consciousness, fostering solidarity, and improving residents’ quality of life [16,17,18,19,20,21][16][17][18][19][20][21].
Although there is a wide range of studies on mega-events and their effects, there is little empirical research on the quality of life of the local host residents [19,20,21][19][20][21]. Moreover, studies on residents’ perceptions of mega-events have tended to focus on superficial and cross-sectional research that depends on an empirical survey of statistics analysis [19]. In mega-events research, there has been a gradual increase in experience-related studies, reflecting a challenge to the dominance of positivist, quantitative-based studies [4,5,6][4][5][6]. However, little naturalistic inquiry research exists exploring the phenomenon of mega-events and residents’ quality of life. Naturalistic inquiry is highly appropriate to the context of mega-event environments and could give a deeper understanding of residents’ quality of life. Surveys can interrupt the flow of residents’ perceptions of mega-event or be made impossible by the structure of the mega-event [22,23,24,25,26][22][23][24][25][26].

2. Mega Event and Quality of Life

Various studies have reviewed the relationship between mega-events and the residents of the host region. Recent research has focused more on residents’ quality of life rather than overall satisfaction. As for previous the study on factors influencing the quality of life effects of mega-events and tourism, Siegfried et al. [29][27] argued that the correlation between the hosting of mega-events such as the Olympics and positive economic effects on the residents and the local community is not clear. Pfitzner et al. [23] reviewed the 2014 FIFA World Cup and residents’ quality of life. Kaplanidou et al. [30][28] studied the 2010 South Africa World Cup and residents’ quality of life. Chabra et al. [31][29] reviewed socio-cultural effects and tourism. They explored social exchange from tourism and how it plays a critical role in enhancing residents’ personal quality of life and satisfaction. In particular, they emphasized that psychological legacies were significant in determining the mega-event host residents’ quality of life [32,33][30][31]. Here, the mega-event legacy refers to the structures and impacts created by hosting the mega-event that remain after its conclusion, which can be either planned or unplanned, positive or negative, and intangible or tangible [30,32,33,34][28][30][31][32].
However, to examine the effects of mega-events on residents’ quality of life, it is essential to include relevant factors such as economy, tourism, politics, psychology, infrastructure, life opportunities, and social benefits [17]. The development of the sociopolitical system in the local community is an intangible soft infrastructure effect promoting unification and pride(intangible legacy) combined with hardware infrastructure development effects (tangible impact) [29][27]. Further socio-cultural effects [30[28][29][32],31,34], and the impact of tourism, such as social exchange with tourists through hosting the mega-event, play a significant role in improving the quality of life and satisfaction of the local community and individual residents. In particular, psychological legacies become an essential factor that determines the quality of life among residents [32,33][30][31]. Some have argued that the expected effects of mega-events such as the Olympics and Formula 1 Grand Prix are ambiguous and they do not contribute to regional economic vitalization [35,36,37,38][33][34][35][36] and that mega-events may induce adverse effects such as political controversy between supporters and opponents within the local community [34,39][32][37]. However, it is imperative to explore the significant relationship between mega-events and residents’ quality of life as there is very little empirical research on the quality of life of the local host residents [22,30][22][28].

3. F1 Korea Grand Prix and 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics as Mega Events

A mega-event is the optimal instrument to effectively promote the local image as a tourism destination [14]. In addition to this, many studies have pointed out the positive side of the mega-event invitation and hosting, mainly focusing on the effect of positive image building of the host community and affinity enhancement. Mega-events such as the World Cup and the Olympics are considered significant catalysts for the host community’s development. They not only create infrastructure development effects for the host community and the nation [1,35,36][1][33][34] but also contribute to developing the socio-political mechanisms of the host community through harmonization, unity, and national pride [20,22][20][22].
The Formula 1 Grand Prix is one of the world’s top three major sports events, along with the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics. Moreover, the F1 Grand Prix is the most significant global sports business. It boasts an average number of viewers of 0.2 million in a single game, an annual average of 4 million in-stadium viewers, and 0.6 billion worldwide viewers a year through broadcasting in 188 countries. The effects of international media exposure are estimated to be approximately KRW 2.9 trillion. With expectations of its tremendous impact, Jeollanam-do, the southern part of Korea, launched the Formula 1 Korean Grand Prix in 2010 with seven years-long contracts. However, it lasted only two years and was forced to terminate the contract due to the local government’s fiscal deficit.
The 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics was held mainly for skiing competitions in Pyeongchang, and indoor events such as skating and curling were mainly held in Gangneung, Gangwon-do. The Pyeongchang Winter Olympics Organizing Committee announced that the total cost of preparing for the Olympics is 14.2 trillion won (112 million dollars). In fact, what the host country really wants to achieve from the Olympics is indirect economic effects, not direct profits. The Blue House analyzed that the indirect effects, such as the development of the tourism industry and enhancement of the national image, were significant in this Olympic Games. Among the indirect returns, one that deserves more attention is the investment in social overhead capital (SOC).
Regarding Post-Olympic Utilization Issues, however, there is still work to be done. Infrastructure facilities such as the ice rink invested in for the Winter Olympics require further maintenance and the problem of future use is the most typical. The economic burden after the Olympics is ultimately caused by poor follow-up management. After the Olympics in Pyeongchang, unlike the KTX (Bullet train) and highways, there was no clear plan for utilizing the ice rink and ski resort infrastructure and who would secure the budget for post-use.

References

  1. He, B.; Zhu, L.; Cai, X.; Li, J.J.; Zhu, H. Examining the Impacts of Mega-Events on Urban Development Using Coupling Analysis: A Case Study of the Boao Forum for Asia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 730.
  2. Kaplanidou, K.; Karadakis, K. A Study. Sport Mark. Q. 2010, 19, 110–117.
  3. Graeff, B. Capitalism, Sport Mega Events and the Global South; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
  4. Matheson, V.A. Economic multiples and mega-event analysis. Int. J. Sport Financ. 2009, 4, 63–70.
  5. Brown, G. Sponsor Hospitality at the Olympic Games: An Analysis of the Implications for Tourism. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2007, 9, 315–327.
  6. Müller, M.; Gaffney, C. Comparing the urban impacts of the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games from 2010 to 2016. J. Sport Soc. Issues 2018, 42, 247–269.
  7. Fredline, L.; Jago, L.; Deery, M. The development of a generic scale to measure the social impacts of events. Event Manag. 2003, 8, 23–37.
  8. Pappas, N. Hosting megaevents: Londoners’ support of the 2012 Olympics. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2014, 21, 10–17.
  9. Toohey, K.; Taylor, T.; Lee, C.K. The FIFA world cup 2002: The effects of terrorism of sport tourists. J. Sport Tour. 2003, 8, 167–185.
  10. Gogishvili, D.; Harris-Brandts, S. Coinciding practices of exception in urban development: Mega-events and special economic zones in Tbilisi, Georgia. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2020, 28, 1999–2019.
  11. Gray, N.; Porter, L. By any means necessary: Urban regeneration and the “state of exception” in Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games 2014. Antipode 2015, 47, 380–400.
  12. Grix, J.; Brannagan, P.M. Of mechanisms and myths: Conceptualising states’ “soft power” strategies through sports mega-events. Dipl. Statecraft 2016, 27, 251–272.
  13. Hsu, B.C.Y.; Wu, Y.F.; Chen, H.W.; Cheung, M.L. How sport tourism event image fit enhances residents’ perceptions of place image and their quality of Life. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8227.
  14. Erfurt, R.A.; Johnsen, J. Influence of an event on a Destination’s image—The case of the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum(WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. Tour. Rev. 2003, 58, 21–27.
  15. Morgan, A.; Wilk, V.; Sibson, R.; Willson, G. Sport event and destination co-branding: Analysis of social media sentiment in an international, professional sport event crisis. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 39, 100848.
  16. Lee Ludvigsen, J.A.; Rookwood, J.; Parnell, D. The sport mega-events of the 2020s: Governance, impacts and controversies. Sport Soc. 2022, 25, 705–711.
  17. Ouyang, Z.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, K.C. It’s all about life: Exploring the role of residents’ quality of life perceptions on attitudes toward a recurring hallmark event over time. Tour. Manag. 2019, 75, 99–111.
  18. Gursoy, D.; Yolal, M.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Panosso Netto, A. Impact of trust on local residents’ mega-event perceptions and their support. J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 393–406.
  19. Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Vogt, C.A.; Knopf, R.C. CrossCultural analysis of tourism and quality of life perceptions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 483–502.
  20. Lamberti, L.; Noci, G.; Guo, J.; Zhu, S. Mega-events as drivers of community participation in developing countries: The case of Shanghai World Expo. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1474–1483.
  21. Zhou, Y.; Ap, J.; Bauer, T. Government motivations for hosting the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2012, 10, 185–201.
  22. Holloway, I.; Brown, L.; Shipway, R. Meaning not measurement: Using ethnography to bring a deeper understanding to the participant experience of festivals and events. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag. 2010, 1, 74–85.
  23. Pfitzner, R.; Koenigstorfer, J. Quality of life of residents living in a city hosting mega-sport events: A longitudinal study. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 1102.
  24. Wolcott, H.F. Transforming Qualitative Data: Description Analysis, and Interpretation; Sage: Thousands Oaks, CA, USA, 1994.
  25. Hammersley, M.; Atkinson, P. Ethnography; Routledge: London, UK, 1995.
  26. Bowen, G.A. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual. Res. J. 2009, 9, 27–40.
  27. Siegfried, J.; Zimbalist, A. The economic impact of sports facilities, teams, and mega-events. Aust. Econ. Rev. 2006, 39, 420–427.
  28. Kaplanidou, K.; Karadakis, K.; Gibson, H.; Thapa, B.; Walker, M.; Geldenhuys, S.; Coetzee, W. Quality of life, event impacts, and mega-event support among South African residents before and after the 2010 FIFA World Cup. J. Travel Res. 2013, 52, 631–645.
  29. Chhabra, D.; Gursoy, D. Life dynamism explorations on perceived quality of life and social exchange paradigms in casino settings. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 136–157.
  30. Sato, S.; Kinoshita, K.; Kim, M.; Oshimi, D.; Harada, M. The effect of Rugby World Cup 2019 on residents’ psychological well-being: A mediating role of psychological capital. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 692–706.
  31. Gratton, C.; Preuss, H. Maximizing Olympic Impacts by Building up Legacies. Int. J. Hist. Sport 2008, 25, 1922–1938.
  32. Roche, M. Mega-events and social change: Spectacle, legacy and public culture. In Mega-Events and Social Change; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 2017.
  33. Rose, A.K.; Spiegel, M.M. The Olympic effect. Econ. J. 2011, 121, 652–677.
  34. Preuß, H.; Andreff, W.; Weitzmann, M. Cost and Revenue Overruns of the Olympic Games 2000–2018; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; p. 184.
  35. Gogishvili, D. Urban infrastructure in the framework of mega-event exceptionalism: Glasgow and the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Urban Geogr. 2022, 43, 589–612.
  36. Gratton, C.; Shibli, S.; Coleman, R. The economic impact of major sports events: A review of ten events in the UK. Sociol. Rev. 2006, 54, 41–58.
  37. Johnson, M.W. Mega-events, urban space, and social protest: The Olympia 2000 bid in reunified Berlin, 1990–1993. Cent. Eur. Hist. 2019, 52, 689–712.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback