Evaluating the London 2012 Games’ impact on sport participation in a non-hosting region: a practical application of realist evaluation

Abstract

In the literature on Olympic legacies and impacts there is a dearth of materials that specifically address the issue of Olympic impact for non-hosting regions. The literature tends to deal with impacts at a national level, or at a hosting-city region level, neglecting in large part the degree to which benefits can be leveraged by non-hosting regions. A further limitation identified in the literature is a failure to engage in detailed formal evaluation of policy implementation where assertions of potential policy impact are based on untested assumptions. This study is intended to address both of these concerns. It presents an empirical, 'bottom-up' application of a Realist Evaluation framework to assess the impact of a policy initiative -Workplace Challenge -aimed at leveraging enhanced sports participation in a non-hosting 'region' 1 -Leicestershire -in the period leading up to the 2012 Games. In doing so it seeks, to identify which causal mechanisms worked within this particular context to produce the observed outcomes. The evaluation 2 results demonstrate that the programme represented a positive approach to fostering regular engagement with sport and physical activities for some groups in some types of organisations; and that awareness and motivational factors associated with the London 2012 Games are, in this case, linked (albeit weakly) to an increase in sport and physical activity participation for specific groups taking part in the programme in particular organisational contexts.

Event Leveraging in a Nonhost Region: Challenges and Opportunities

“…increased employment/business opportunities, avoidance of debt/rising property costs). Furthermore, one of the first analyses of Olympic-sport-participation impacts in a non-host 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 programme. Although the above studies have provided some sporadic evidence associated with non-host regions' impacts, few studies have examined in much detail whetheror indeed how and whynon-host regions have strategically engaged with event leveraging activities.…”

“…Many of the other areas were modified in scale, scope, or timing in order to cater for London 2012. For instance, the Workplace Challenge programme was built on existing activity in terms of funding (Chen & Henry, 2016), producing more output in relation to the number of programme participants as partners worked together (e.g., Inspire Leicestershire promoted the programme among their business networks). This proved to be a more effective strategy for this strand to use an event-themed approach (Smith & Fox, 2007).…”

Event satisfaction and behavioural intentions: examining the impact of the London 2012 Olympic Games on participation in sport

“…Evidence of an Olympic effect was found in studies which examined the impact of the London Games in a non-hosting region (Leicestershire) and on non-traditional sports (fencing and judo). A study of an inter-business sporting competition in Leicestershire found that, in the period leading up to the 2012 Games, a large number of participants were interested in the Games (71%) and their decision to join the programme was influenced by the Games; making them more interested in sport (33%) and more aware of participation benefits (30%) (Chen & Henry, 2015). A study by Papous and Hayday (2015) of participation in fencing and judo found that grass-roots community programmes which took advantage of "unprecedented media coverage" (p. 1) associated with the Games were responsible for increases in club membership between 2007 and 2013.…”

The Effect of Sport Involvement on Support for Mega Sport Events: Why Does It Matter

“…Event impacts feature tangible and intangible dimensions, including economic (e.g., increase in employment, increase in tourist attraction), environmental (e.g., promotion of environmental issues, improvement of the local environment), and sociocultural (e.g., improvement in cultural identity, community cohesion) components [39,40]. In addition, knowledge development and sport development have been discussed within the area of sociocultural impacts [41][42][43].…”