Mega-events and the Preservation of Urban Heritage: Literature Gaps, Potential Overlaps, and a Call for Further Research

Abstract

Despite mega-events being long perceived as great opportunities by urban policy makers, several cities have recently withdrawn bids for the Olympic games. The disconnect between the planning of mega-events and the urban environment is a reoccurring argument in public debate, but missing in research. In this article, we consider how the relationship between mega-events and urban heritage has been discussed in literature, examining the gaps and potential overlaps, why they exist, and further argue the need to bridge disciplines. In conclusion, we outline new perspectives for studying and learning from the crossroad of the two policy fields, namely, cultural mega-events.

Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture legacy narrative: a selective heritage?

“…This also has impacts on the built environment, with new structures or changes to existing sites. As Jones and Ponzini (2018) assert, mega-events can often lead to the bypassing of usual procedures in terms of changes to the built environment or the management of heritage sites (434), highlighting a gap in both literature and policy which might examine the often delicate balance between heritage preservation and mega-event planning.…”

“…This is not singular to Liverpool, of course. As Jones and Ponzini (2018) suggest, there is too great a distance in both research and policy between mega-event studies and heritage, despite an increased overlap across the two and urgency for discussion and action. The use of mega-events as an economic and touristic intervention is also not singular to Liverpool.…”

Understanding the impact and value of temporary public art sculpture trails

“…(2015); Hansen (2016); McAuliffe (2012); Ross et al. (2017). Theme Four: Benefits flowing over time either from initiatives such as ‘city of culture’ or from the built environment: Campbell (2011); Gomes and Librero-Cano (2018); Jones and Ponzini (2018); Lazarević et al. (2016); Liu (2019); McCarthy (2006); McManus and Carruthers (2014); Pollock and Paddison (2014); Srakar and Vecco (2017). Theme Five: Economic benefits from events: Aharon-Gutman (2018); Arnegger and Herz (2016); Babu and Munjal (2015); Comunian (2017); Dzupká and Sebova (2016); Gibson et al.…”

“…Theme Four: Benefits flowing over time either from initiatives such as ‘city of culture’ or from the built environment: Campbell (2011); Gomes and Librero-Cano (2018); Jones and Ponzini (2018); Lazarević et al. (2016); Liu (2019); McCarthy (2006); McManus and Carruthers (2014); Pollock and Paddison (2014); Srakar and Vecco (2017).…”

Smart governance for heritage tourism destinations: Contextual factors and destination management organization perspectives

“…Kurz et al (2014) described these as 'vertical' governance arrangements that involve the top-down imposition of values, with implications for local decision-making. Jones & Ponzini (2018) explain that although this may not involve, for example, UNESCO exercising direct control, that they are still able to influence governance. For example, Burgos-Vigna (2017) highlights that the process of attaining UNESCO World Heritage City status for Quito, Peru, led to the emergence of 'highly specialised players' in the city's governance who were effective in working within these new international institutional arrangements.…”