4.6 Article

Implementing a Sustainability Legacy Strategy: A Case Study of PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympic Games

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13095141

Keywords

Olympic legacy; sustainable development; triple bottom line; sports mega-event; Olympic Game impact; soft power

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to analyze the implementation of the sustainability legacy plan for the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics, revealing the challenges faced in achieving the planned sustainable legacy, including a lack of clear post-Games venue use plan and conflicts of interest among stakeholders of the PyeongChang Winter Games.
Given the growing need for hosts of sports mega-events to provide concrete plans for a sustainable sports mega-event at the bidding stage, it is perhaps surprising that there has not been more research on the actual implementation of the legacy plan in terms of sustainability. The main aim of this paper is to do just that: to analyse an empirical example of the implementation of the sustainability legacy plan for the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympic Games. Through an empirical analysis, the research methods used to collect the data are document analysis and semi-structured interviews with stakeholder sampling (16 documents and 10 interviewees). The paper uncovers the difficulties the PyeongChang Games encountered in achieving the sustainable legacy planned in the bid files through an evaluation of the implementation of PyeongChang's legacy strategy in the context of South Korea. Part of the findings reveal that Gangwon Province and South Korea achieved their strategic goals set out in advance of the PyeongChang Olympics as an effective tool for promoting regional development. One of the main obstacles to the sustainability of the PyeongChang Olympics was the lack of a clear plan for the post-Games use of Olympics venues and conflicts of interest among stakeholders of the PyeongChang Winter Games.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available