BEST EN Think Tank XII

Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Residents’ Perceptions on Event Impacts and Relocation Intentions – The Case of

the 2012 London Olympic Games

Girish Prayag* & Talia Alders^

*SKEMA Business School, France, girish.prayag@skema.edu

^National Trust, UK, taila23@hotmail.com

Abstract
Social exchange theory and the mobility paradigm are used to understand residents’
perceptions on the impacts of the 2012 Olympic Games and their relocation intentions.
Confirmatory factor analysis on a sample of 212 residents of London city, surveyed in four
major parks, revealed that they mostly associated the event with positive economic
impacts, negative environmental impacts, and positive socio-cultural impacts. Residents did
not associate the Games with any of the negative socio-cultural impacts, negative economic
impacts, and positive environmental impacts. Residents are unlikely to relocate if they
perceive the event to contribute many positive economic impacts but are more likely to
move away if they associate the event with many negative environmental impacts.
Implications for event organizers and event impact studies are offered.

Keywords: resident perceptions, mega-event impacts, relocation, social exchange theory,

individual mobility, Olympic Games, London

Introduction

Hosting events has become an important tool in stimulating tourism development (Fredline
et al., 2003). Mega events in particular, are often prestigious and large scale, generating
significant global media attention, and can impact the host economy meaningfully (Allen et
al., 2005).The Olympics have attracted much attention as an important area of research due
to its magnitude, political, social, and economic significance (Getz, 2008). Yet, existing
studies favor the measurement of economic impacts of mega events mostly (Crompton et
al., 2001; Lee & Taylor, 2005; Fourie & Santa-Gallego, 2011). The non-economic impacts of
such events have been sporadically assessed (Kasimati, 2003; Kim & Petrick, 2005; Waitt,
2003; Collins et al., 2009; Weed, 2009). While, the tourism literature abound of studies
assessing the triple bottom line impacts (economic, socio-cultural, and environmental) of
tourism development (Ap, 1992; Ryan et al., 1998; Gursoy et al., 2002; Nunkoo &

256
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Ramkissoon, 2010), this approach has only recently been employed in the event literature
(see Kim & Petrick, 2005; Ritchie et al., 2009; Zhou & Ap, 2009). An event economic gain
often occurs at the expense of the environment and society (Getz, 1997). Accordingly, there
has been increased pressure from government, residents, and event organizers such as the
International Olympics Committee (IOC) for more sustainable events. Hence, the triple
bottom line impacts, more simply the ‘event footprint’, should be used to understand the
sustainability of an event (Fredline et al., 2005).

Social exchange theory (SET) remains the most popular theoretical framework for
understanding residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts (Ap, 1992; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006;
Waitt, 2003; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011a). We utilize this framework to understand not
only residents’ perceptions of event impacts, but also their relocation intentions during the
event. An important negative social impact of mega-events is displacement or dislocation
(Bull & Lovell, 2007; Preuss, 2009). In the last 20 years, the Olympic Games have displaced
more than two million people, leaving a negative housing legacy for local populations (du
Plessis, 2008). While we do not per se investigate displacement, which is often associated
with forced eviction and violation of housing rights (du Plessis, 2008) or dislocation of less
affluent groups of residents due to increasing housing values (Hall, 2001), in this study we
consider voluntary displacement during the event, called relocation. SET is used to
understand whether residents are likely to go away due to costs incurred for staying in
London during the event exceeding the benefits, thereby affecting patterns of interaction
with the place and behavior of residents (Molm, 1991). Within the mobility literature, this
behavior is tied with quality-of-life concerns and a sense of attachment to place of residence
(Williams & McIntyre, 2012).

Accordingly, the two main objectives of this study are to: (i) empirically assess residents’
perceptions of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of the 2012 London
Olympics, and (ii) evaluate residents’ intentions to relocate during the event. The study
contributes to the event literature in two main ways. First, by adopting an event ‘footprint’
approach to measure impacts, and using a confirmatory factor analytical (CFA) method, the
study provides a more holistic and psychometrically sound assessment of event impacts.
Existing studies rely mostly on Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify positive and
negative dimensions (Ritchie et al., 2009; Zhou & Ap, 2009). When CFA was used to
ascertain event impact dimensions (e.g. Lorde et al., 2011), the influence on residents’
intentions to relocate was not assessed. This is the second contribution of the study, where
we empirically confirm whether high positive impacts decrease the propensity for residents
to relocate and vice-versa.

257
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Literature review

Social Exchange Theory

SET assumes that individuals are likely to participate in an exchange, based on perceptions
(Ap, 1992), if they believe they will gain benefits without incurring unacceptable costs
(Homans, 1974). SET has been particularly successful in explaining residents’ perceptions of
tourism impacts on host communities by accounting for divergent resident perceptions
based on experiential and psychological outcomes (Waitt, 2003; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006;
Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011a). A positive perception occurs when both actors have high
levels of social power within the exchange relationship. Power derives from the ability to
control or influence the resources that another actor needs or values. Negative perceptions
are related to low social power levels among actors, since they perceive little gain from the
exchange (Waitt, 2003). Thus, when residents perceive benefits accruing to them are likely
to increase, their support for an event escalates (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006). Likewise, if they
perceive an event will contribute many negative externalities to them, they are less likely to
support it, and arguably, more likely to relocate during the event.

A review of the main mega-event impact studies from 1990 to 2011 (see Table 1) reveals
that SET has been used in many instances to explain event impacts and residents’ support.
However, the use of SET is not without limitations given that resident knowledge and
attitudes are also socially formed within societal and historical contexts (Pearce et al., 1996)
and other theories such as social representation theory can also be used to explain the
relationship between tourism impacts and resident support of an event (Zhou & Ap, 2009).
The continued use of SET to explain social exchange relationships relies on researchers using
both power and trust in theorizing resident support for tourism. Unfortunately, existing
studies fail to consider the role of trust between actors in the exchange relationship
(Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011b). Trust has a fundamental role in social exchanges given that
exchange of benefits is a voluntary action and entails no future obligations (Konovsky &
Pugh, 1994). It is a psychological state, a positive attitude toward the exchange partner, and
confidence that the latter will perform (Nguyne & Rose, 2009). Hence, according to SET
residents’ trust in the organizing committee for the Olympics will stimulate cooperation,
reduce risks in the transaction, enhance satisfaction, and increase the residents’ support for
the mega event (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Arguably, higher trust should also reduce relocation
intentions during the event.

258
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Authors/Y Mega event City/Count Theoretical Research Types of Impacts

ear ry Framework Design Measured

Ritchie & 1988 Olympic Calagary, Not specified During and Economic and
Lyons Winter Games Canada post-event social
(1990)
Soutar & America’s Cup Fremantle, Tourism Pre, during Economic and
McLeod Yatch Australia Impacts and Post social
(1993) event
May (1995)1992 Winter Albertville, Tourism Post-event Environmental
Olympics France Impacts
Jones 1999 Rugby Wales, UK Tourism Post event Economic and
(2001) World Cup Impacts social
Mihalik & 1996 Summer Georgia, US SET/Tourism Pre-event Support for the
Simonetta Olympics Impacts/Futur game
(1999) e Optimism
Theory
Deccio & 2002 Winter Salt Lake SET Pre-event Economic, social,
Baloglu Olympics city, US and environmental
(2002)
Waitt 2000 Sydney Sydney, SET Pre and Social and
(2003) Olympics Australia post event economic
Lee & FIFA 2002 World Seoul, Korea Input-Output On-site Economic
Taylor Cup & Japan Model surveys
(2005) during
event
Kim & FIFA 2002 World Seoul, Korea Tourism On-site Economic, socio-
Petrick Cup & Japan Impacts surveys cultural, and
(2005) during environmental
event and
post event
Gursoy & 2002 Winter Salt Lake SET During the Economic, social
Kendall Olympics city, US event and cultural
(2006)
Kim, FIFA 2002 World Seoul, Korea SET Pre and Economic, social
Gursoy & Cup & Japan post event and cultural
Lee (2006) comparison
Collins, Football Great Britain Environmental Post event Environmental
Jones, & Association (FA) Performance
Munday Cup Final & Measurement
(2009) World Rally

259
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Championship
(2004)
Ritchie, London Olympics London, UK Tourism Pre-event Economic, socio-
Shipway & 2012 Impacts/ SET/ cultural and
Cleeve Social environmental
(2009) Representatio
n Theory
Zhou & Ap 2008 Beijing Beijing, Social Pre-event Economic, social
(2009) Olympics China Representatio and cultural
ns Theory
Lorde, ICC Cricket Barbados SET, prospect Pre and Economic, social
Greenidge World Cup theory post event and cultural
& Devonish (2007) comparison
(2011)
Table 1: Major studies in tourism journals on the impacts of mega-events

Measuring Event Impacts

The reviewed mega-event impact studies (Table 1) reveal mainly three approaches in
assessing impacts. The first approach, on-site or post-event studies, remain the most
popular (e.g. May, 1995; Kim & Petrick, 2005; Collins et al., 2009), whereby researchers have
mainly assessed economic, environmental and social impacts after the event. The second
approach, which has become popular in the last few years, is the comparison of residents’
perceptions of impacts (e.g. Waitt, 2003; Kim et al., 2006; Lorde et al., 2011) prior to and
post event. In most cases, these studies suggest that residents change their perceptions
after the event. The last approach, an emerging research strand, has been looking at pre-
event impacts (e.g. Deccio & Baloglu 2002; Mihalik & Simonetta, 1999; Ritchie et al., 2009;
Zhou & Ap, 2009) in order to understand residents’ attitudes and support for the event.
Favorable and supportive feelings are indispensable to create a welcoming environment,
enhance the tourist experience, and increase the attractiveness of the host destination
(Zhou & Ap, 2009). Such support is critical for the event’s success and long-term economic
viability (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Zhou & Ap, 2009). The theoretical base for such studies
tends to be either SET or the tourism impacts literature (see Table 1).

Economic Impacts of Mega Events

The most measured impacts of mega-events are economic (see Table 1). This is not
surprising given that events are hosted primarily for economic benefits accruing to the host
nation. Among the main long term economic effects of the Olympics are the increased
economic activity, and enhanced international awareness of the host nation/city. These may

260
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

in turn have other positive spinoffs such as tourism growth after the event, improved
international image, creation of new opportunities to attract potential investors, and
increased commercial activity (Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Kim et al., 2006; Theodoraki, 2009;
Zhou & Ap, 2009). Increased long-term and short-term employment opportunities are also
significant positive economic impacts of such events (Ritchie & Lyons, 1990; Deccio &
Baloglu, 2002). Others have also suggested that such events improve the quality of life of
residents and often offer them an additional source of income (Hall, 1992; Deccio & Baloglu,
2002). Yet, many host nations such as Athens and Calgary have also realized that mega
events have undesirable economic impacts such as price inflation, tax burdens for residents
prior to the event, increased living costs, and sometimes mis-management of public funds
by event organizers (Ritchie & Aitken, 1984; Waitt, 2003). If the mega event compete for
local man power and requires substantial government assistance, existing local enterprises
can have unsupportive reactions (Ritchie & Aitken, 1984). Preuss (2009) also highlights that
the infrastructure built for the Olympics such as stadiums is often oversized and/or not
sustainable for the host city in the long-term, as was the case for the Athens Olympics.
These undesirable outcomes of the Olympics have led to the IOC emphasizing the need for
sustainable Olympics, whereby bids are not solely evaluated on economic terms, but
increasingly on social and environmental terms.

Environmental Impacts of Mega Events

In addition to the social impacts, mega events can also produce various environmental ones.
The environmental impacts of mega sporting events have received more attention in recent
years (Collins et al., 2009). Specifically, sponsoring organizations, sport institutions, and
event organizers recognize the need to better understand the environmental impacts of the
activities they sponsor, regulate and host. Mega events have both positive and negative
impacts on the natural and built environment (May, 1995; Collins et al., 2009; Ritchie et al.,
2009). On the positive side, mega events such as the Olympics can lead to regeneration
and/or redevelopment of the host city where sustainable procedures and actions can be
pilot tested and their efficacy assessed for wider implementation (Collins et al., 2009). The
London Games have received an ‘excellent’ eco-rating for its Olympic Village, and is planning
to use hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles as transport between the venues (London, 2012). The IOC
has stressed the importance of environmental considerations in planning and staging of the
games. The Olympic charter was modified in 1996 to specifically address Agenda 21 and
sustainable development issues (IOC, 1996). The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games were used as
a vehicle to promote environmental awareness among residents, with the organizing
committee emphasizing a ‘Green’ Olympics and committing to ‘zero-net emissions’ (Collins
et al., 2009). The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) has followed a similar approach for the
London Olympics, with a sustainable development strategy that aims at minimizing carbon

261
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

emissions, waste and water use, whilst maximizing the use of environmentally friendly
building materials and transport (Weaver, 2007). Mega sporting events can also help in
preserving physical landscape and local heritage that would have otherwise been ignored
(Deccio & Baloglu, 2002).

However, such events can negatively impact local eco-systems, utilize reserves of
irreplaceable natural capital, and contribute to carbon emissions related to climate change
(Jones, 2008; Collins et al., 2009). They can also change land use patterns, deteriorate
cultural and historical resources (Kim et al., 2006), while causing architectural pollution,
overcrowding and the development of non-sustainable event facilities (Preuss, 2009). For
the London Games, media has been skeptical about the ability of the games to be
environmentally sustainable. For example the Games will produce 3.4 million tons of CO2,
while the total annual UK emissions are estimated at 550 million tons (Davis, 2009).
Quantifying the contribution of a mega event to specific environmental issues such as
climate change or change in use of non-renewable resources remains problematic. Existing
assessments are mainly qualitative with their own limitations. Nonetheless, they can serve
as important indicators of priority areas and local environmental concerns (Collins et al.,
2009). Sustainable procedures associated with mega event planning cannot always provide
organizers with a clear action plan to limit resource use and change developer or visitor
behaviors connected to intensive patterns of resource use (Collins et al., 2009). This was
observed for the Athens Olympic Games in 2004, where the bidding documents showed no
quantifiable commitments or targets, focusing mainly on anticipated positive economic
impacts (Theodoraki, 2009). Hence, measuring environmental impacts quantitatively
remains problematic.

Socio-Cultural Impacts of Mega Events

The Olympics have been transformed into a social and sporting event in the last decade. The
lavish opening ceremonies (e.g. Sydney and Beijing) often showcase the nation’s cultural
heritage and history. The Olympic Games can contribute to positive social impacts such as
increased community pride, improved cultural identity and nationhood, and international
recognition of the host city (Ritchie & Lyons, 1990; Mihalik & Simonetta, 1998; Waitt, 2003;
Kim et al., 2006; Bull & Lovell, 2007; Zhou & Ap, 2009). Mega events can also facilitate
improvements in infrastructure that are used by locals after the event. It can result in more
cultural exchange between tourists and residents (Preuss, 2009) while improving cultural
understanding between them, and also may have the power to strengthen regional values
and traditions (Hall, 1992). These may just be more important than economic benefits
(Mihalik & Simonetta, 1998). The Olympics have been also criticized for generating negative
social impacts. Among the most notable are traffic congestion, law enforcement strain, and

262
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

increased crime that were experienced during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics (Mihalik &
Simonetta, 1999). Mega events can also increase cultural commercialization, conflicts
between visitors and residents due to different living standards, economic welfare, and
purchasing power gaps (Tosun, 2002). They may also damage the image and reputation of
the host community if the event is not properly organized, lack of adequate facilities, and
participants and/or visitors felt unsafe. Mega events can also lead to increase in vandalism
when residents are not supportive and prostitution (Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Kim et al.,
2006). Often, the issue of social dislocation or displacement is silenced in light of the
expected positive economic benefits (Bull & Lovell, 2007; Preuss, 2009). It has been
reported that 720,000 people were forcibly displaced in Seoul in preparation for the 1988
Summer Olympic Games. For Beijing, this figure rose to 1.25 million people (du Plessis,
2008). Hence, displacement remains an important negative social impact of mega events.
Although event organizers of the London Games and government claim that the event will
be sustainable, the host community may perceive this differently as they are the
destination’s main stakeholders. For example, residents of Weymouth and Portland expect
the Games to contribute to traffic congestion and increase property prices (Ritchie et al.,
2009).

Relocation of Residents

Relocation can be considered as a slightly different form of displacement (Mules & Dwyer,
2005). It involves the idea that residents may feel less inclined to frequent local facilities
and amenities due to anticipated crowdedness (Ohmann et al., 2006) or simply decide to
move away from the area during the event (Preuss, 2005; Bull & Lovell, 2007). These
behaviors epitomize Walzer’s (1990) notion of individual mobility represented by an
enactment of liberty (e.g. I have the right to go away), but also the very pursuit of happiness
and quality of life (e.g. I don’t have to endure traffic congestion and feel unhappy using daily
amenities such as public transport during the event). From event organizer perspective, this
mobility is desirable as it lessens pressure on existing facilities and amenities in the city
while ‘freeing up’ space for visitors to use. From residents’ perspective, mobile individuals
are less likely to develop or maintain strong attachments to places and therefore more
eager to relocate (Fried, 2000). McCool and Martin (1994) hypothesized that residents with
strong feelings of attachment would have negative attitudes towards tourism development
but found that highly attached residents rated more positively dimensions of tourism than
residents who were less attached. Residents tend to evaluate economic and social impacts
of tourism positively while evaluating environmental impacts negatively when they have
high attachment levels (Jurowski et al., 1997). By extension, the issue of relocating during
an event may be related to feelings of place attachment, whereby residents with strong

263
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

attachments to their community will be less eager to relocate during the event (Fried, 2000;
Williams & McIntyre, 2012).

Mobility also imply more than the movement of people. It also includes movement of
capital, information and imagination, and skills and knowledge of the tourist, migrant or
multiple dwellers (Urry, 2000). A key way in which mobility is manifested is through sense of
place or place attachment, which is mobilized through processes of imagination (Williams &
McIntyre, 2012). In this regard, the desire to maintain or enhance quality of life is a key
driver of relocation influencing the ability to move and the conditions under which any such
movement will take place (Williams & McIntyre, 2012). Residents who move often attribute
this movement to their imagined place not preserving or conserving their former lifestyle,
traditions, natural, and cultural heritage. Residents who stay may attribute this behavior to
their imagined world providing opportunities for employment and developing business
ventures (George et al., 2009; Dredge, 2010). Within the logic of the mobility paradigm,
these behaviors can be related to attitudes toward positive and negative impacts of events,
whereby residents will stay if the perceived benefits from the event exceed the costs.
During the event, some residents may feel that they are receiving less economic
opportunities and a relatively poorer quality of life. The city may also become a magnet for
crime and social dysfunction (Imbroscio, 2011). Therefore, according to SET residents are
likely to be less supportive of the event while residents would want to escape from this
situation according to the mobility paradigm (Imbroscio, 2011).

Also, in the residential mobility literature, temporary and cyclical forms of mobility such as
relocation during an event are typically characterized as positive and fulfilling (Williams &
McIntyre, 2012). This is because during the time the resident is away, he/she can potentially
be engaging in higher valued activities such as tourism and visiting friends and relatives,
making the relocation a pleasurable experience. For others, who describe their home as a
place of escape from civilization, relocation can be an excruciating experience given feelings
of placelessness during the time away from home (McIntyre et al., 2006). For example,
congestion is now accepted as a major constraint on individual’s quality of life and the
efficiency of business (Banister, 2008). This problem is exacerbated during mega-events,
driving people away from the city but not all residents can escape this situation (Preuss,
2005). For personal or social reasons, some residents have to stay. It has been suggested
that sustainable mobility provides an alternative paradigm within which to investigate the
complexities of cities and the interactions between residents and the place (Banister, 2008).
The city is the most sustainable urban form and has to allow for proximity of everyday
facilities and high levels of accessibility to daily activities (e.g. urban transport) even when
unexpected or planned events happen (Hall & Pain, 2006; Banister, 2008). Hence, various

264
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

explanations have been offered by the mobility paradigm and SET as to the reasons why
residents would stay or move away during a mega event.

Research Methods

The Research Site

London city will host the 2012 Summer Olympics and the Paralympics Games. These mega
events are funded by two organizations: 1) one private, the London Organizing Committee
of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG); and 2) one public, the Olympic
Delivery Authority (ODA). LOCOG is in charge of organizing, staging and hosting the 2012
London Games and is funded by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), ticket sales,
merchandising and sponsors. On the other hand, the ODA is responsible for the delivery of
the event’s venues and facilities and is funded by numerous bodies in the public sector such
as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the London Development
Agency (LDA) (www.london2012.com). It is estimated that to date London has invested £9
billion on the 2012 Olympic Games and many believe that this amount cannot be justified
(Holloway, 2009). However the Games are expected to generate numerous economic and
social benefits, with the creation of an estimated 200,000 jobs (Pitcher, 2008) and £5 million
spent on developing local skills by training sports coaches, construction workers and staff
(Merrick, 2007). The forthcoming Games have also led to infrastructural developments that
will, for example, improve the existing transport links in London and within the UK.
Improvements include extending the Docklands Light Railway and increasing the capacity on
certain tube lines such as the Jubilee Line. Given, that some of the positive and negative
impacts are already being experienced by organizers and residents, we chose London city as
the main location for our research.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument was developed for a broader study looking at event impacts, resident
support and place attachment. This paper primarily concentrates on perceived impacts and
relocation intentions. The items of the survey were adapted from the existing literature on
residents’ perceptions of tourism and events impacts. The survey instrument measured, for
example, general resident support for the forthcoming games using the item ‘I support the
2012 Olympic Games as a resident’ measured on a five-point rating scale (1=Strongly
Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree) adapted from Zhou and Ap’s (2009) study. Event impacts
were measured using 30 items. Of these, 10 measured positive and negative socio-cultural,
impacts adapted from these studies (Soutar & McLeod, 1993; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003;
Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Zhou & Ap, 2009); 9 items measured
positive and negative environmental impacts, borrowed from Andriotis and Vaughan (2003),

265
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Choi and Sirakaya (2005), Lorde, Greenidge and Devonish (2011), and Ritchie, Shipway, and
Cleeve (2009); and 11 items measured economic impacts adapted from these studies (Dyer
et al., 2007; Gursoy et al., 2004; Kim & Petrick, 2005). These items were also measured on a
five-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree). Relocation was measured using
one item ‘How likely are you to move away from London for the duration of the 2012
Olympic Games?’, using a five point likert scale anchored on 1=Very unlikely and 5=Very
likely, borrowed from the study of Ohmann et al. (2006) and Preuss (2005). Residents’
demographics such as gender, age group, education level, average annual household
income, occupation as well as the number of years living in London and place of residence
were also measured. The survey instrument was pre-tested on-site with 10 London
residents, revealing only minor problems in wording of some statements, and amended
accordingly.

Sample Design, Data Collection & Analysis

The target population for this study was defined as residents living in London for at least
one year, thereby ensuring that respondents would have sufficient experience of the place
to enable them to assess the potential impacts of the event and may also already have
experienced some initial positive and negative impacts of the games. A purposive sampling
method was used at four major London parks during different days and times of the week as
well as weekends. The selected parks (Regents Park, Hyde Park, Battersea Park, and Victoria
Park) are located in different areas of London, and included two venues for the Olympic
Games. Hyde Park will host the Triathlon and Open Water Swimming competition while
Regents Park will host the Road Cycling event. These parks were chosen because they are
regularly frequented by residents and offered an environment facilitating data collection.
The sample size was determined using Hair et al.’s (2005) recommendation of a minimum of
200 respondents for using CFA. Hence of the 363 residents approached, a total of 212
completed the questionnaire face-to-face, leading to an overall response rate of 58.4%. Of
the completed surveys, 47 were from Regents Park, 143 from Hyde Park, 14 from Battersea
Park, and 8 from Victoria Park. The data were analyzed using CFA initially to confirm the
reliability and validity of the dimensions measured. Thereafter, an OLS regression model
was specified to identify the influence of positive and negative impacts on relocation
intentions.

Findings

Socio-Demographic Profile of Sample

Table 2 shows that the sample had an equal representation of gender. The sample is
relatively younger with almost half of respondents aged between 26 and 35 years old

266
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

(48.6%). Over half of the sample (54.3%) had an undergraduate degree and 31.9% of
respondents had a post graduate degree suggesting that the sample is well educated. The
sample represents a wide range of household income levels and different occupation.
Respondents’ place of residence is varied, providing a good representation of London
residents as a whole with at least 10.85% of the sample representing each area in London. It
is worth noting that the 2012 Olympic Games will be held in East London and 11.3% of
respondents reside in this area.

Socio-demographics Frequency (%)

Gender
Female 106 50.0
Male 106 50.0
Age
25 years old and under 62 29.25
26 - 35 years old 103 48.58
36 - 45 years old 28 13.21
46 - 55 years old 11 5.19
56 - 65 years old 5 2.36
Over 66 years old 3 1.42
Education
GCSE/‘O’ level or below 7 3.33
‘A’ Levels 15 7.14
Undergraduate degree 114 54.29
Postgraduate degree 67 31.9
Other 7 3.33
Income
Less than £20,000 42 20.39
£20,000 - £29,999 31 15.05
£30,000 - £39,999 41 19.9
£40,000 - £49,999 23 11.17
£50,000 - £59,999 15 7.28
£60,000 - £69,999 11 5.34
£70,000 - £79,999 7 3.4
£80,000 and above 36 17.48
Length of Residence
1 – 3 years 75 35.38
4 – 6 years 42 19.81
7 - 9 years 17 8.02
10 - 12 years 17 8.02
More than 12 years 61 28.77

267
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Residence Location
North 38 17.92
East 24 11.32
South East 23 10.85
South West 38 17.92
West 25 11.79
North West 26 12.26
Central London 38 17.92
Occupation
Housewife 3 1.42
Professional 77 36.32
Retired 2 0.94
Student 35 16.51
Civil servant 7 3.3
Self employed 23 10.85
Administrative 42 19.81
Other 23 10.85
Table 2: Socio-demographic profile of respondents

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFA was used to test a measurement model for the three dimensions of event impacts,
substantiating that the survey instrument resulted in a summated scale that reliably and
validly measured the three separate dimensions of event sustainability. The results
indicated that of the ten social impacts measured, three had to be deleted (the Games will
disrupt residents quality of life; the Games will lead to overcrowding of local facilities (e.g.
transportation); the Games will increase crime). These items represented the negative social
impacts of events. This result suggests that London residents do not currently associate
these negative impacts with the event yet. Likewise, of the nine environmental impacts
measured, the three positive environmental impacts (the Games will improve
environmental conservation and protectionism; the Games will raise environmental
awareness; the Games will stimulate planning and administrative controls such as recycling
policies and pollution controls) had to be deleted. This implies that London residents do not
necessarily associate positive environmental impacts with the event. Of the eleven
economic impacts measured, four had to be deleted (the Games will increase prices of local
products and services; the Games will lead to substantial construction of infrastructural
facilities that will be underutilized after the Games; the large investment required to host
the Games cannot be justified in terms of the economic benefits that will be generated for
residents; the Games has led to increased tax rates for London residents). These impacts
represent negative economic impacts of the Games and clearly suggest that residents do
not currently perceive such impacts.

268
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Critical
Ratios
Completely Average
Standardized (t- Composite Variance
Event Impacts Loadings values) Reliability Extracted

Socio-cultural Impacts 0.82 0.53

The Games will strengthen local
0,854 14,710*
community bonds and cohesion
The Games will provide residents
0,701 9,088*
relaxation and entertainment
The Games will promote London as a
0,677 8,831*
multi-cultural destination
The Games will foster pride among
0,713 8,346*
London residents and British people
The Games will provide Londoners
the opportunity to attend an 0,619 6,378*
international event
The Games will provide residents a
0,648 8,702*
chance to meet new people
The Games will bring the London
0,754 10,934*
community closer together
Environmental Impacts 0.77 0.52
The Games will increase air pollution 0,729 8,661*
The Games will increase littering 0,684 6,845*
The Games will increase visual
pollution (unattractive and man-
made visual elements which impair 0,802 7,482*
one’s ability to enjoy a view e.g. high
rise buildings)
The Games will increase traffic
0,617 5,857*
congestion
The Games will increase noise
0,763 7,763*
pollution
The Games will damage the natural
environment (e.g. loss of habitats
0,841 7,033*
and natural drainage, soil erosion
etc)
Economic Impacts 0.78 0.51
The Games has led to the
regeneration and redevelopment of 0,713 3,399*
towns and cities
The Games will improve London’s
0,574 3,218**
image worldwide
The Games will enhance London’s
international reputation through 0,745 3,361*
world media exposure

269
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

The Games will promote London as a

0,796 3,382*
tourist destination
The Games will increase business
0,782 3,420*
opportunities
The Games will improve the
provision of public services and 0,755 3,373*
infrastructure
The Games will provide locals
0,723 3,405*
employment opportunities
*p<0.001, **p<0.01
Table 3: Results of CFA

The resulting measurement model exhibited a good fit: χ2/d.f. =1.143, GFI=0.926,
RMSEA=0.026, CFI=0.986, NFI=0.904, and IFI=0.987. Internal consistency of the scale’s
dimensionality was established through tests of reliability and validity (content, convergent
and discriminant). Table 3 shows that the standardized coefficients are significant and
exceed 0.5, verifying the convergent validity of the scale (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1991).
The t-value associated with each of the completely standardized loadings exceeds the
critical value (2.58) at p<0.01 significance level and the composite reliability of all three
constructs measured exceeds the recommended level of 0.7. Thus, the content and
discriminant validity of the proposed factor structure are demonstrated (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988).

Relocation Intentions

Based on the CFA results, summated scales were created for the three factors of social,
environmental and economic impacts. These factors were then regressed on the dependent
variable relocation intentions, using an OLS regression model with a forward stepwise
procedure to identify the most important predictor. The results indicated that only two
factors, economic and environmental impacts could significantly predict relocation
intentions. The model (F=25.33, p<0.001, Adj R2=0.187) only explained 18.7% of the
variance in the dependent variable. The standardized beta coefficients showed that the
strongest predictor is positive economic impacts (β=0.360), indicative of residents less likely
to move away when they perceive that the event will bring positive economic impacts.
However, they are more likely to move away when they perceive the event to have many
negative environmental impacts (β=-0.194). A significant problem with regression models is
multi-collinearity. This was assessed using the Durbin–Watson statistic, where a value close
to two indicates low levels of multi-collinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). For this model,
the statistic was equal to 1.7 indicative of low levels of multi-collinearity.

270
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Discussion, implications and conclusion

The objective of this research was to identity the event footprint for the forthcoming 2012
London Olympic Games and residents’ relocation intentions. The findings confirm the need
to use a triple bottom line approach in assessing event impacts as suggested by others (e.g.
Fredline et al., 2005; Ritchie et al., 2009; Zhou & Ap, 2009). Yet, residents may not always
perceive all the associated negative or positive impacts of a mega event. Our findings show
that they do not associate the event with any negative socio-cultural impacts, thereby
supporting Zhou and Ap’s (2009) finding that Beijing residents did not expect crime, for
example, to be a concern prior to the Games. This was also supported by Kim et al.’s (2006)
study of the FIFA 2002 World Cup where negative socio-cultural impacts were unimportant
to residents but perceptions changed after the event, whereby such impacts were actually
perceived of a lesser extent than originally expected. The strong association with positive
socio-cultural impacts displayed by London residents is consistent with the event impact
literature (Zhou & Ap, 2009; Lorde et al. 2011). To achieve socio-cultural sustainability local
community empowerment, involvement, and participation is crucial (Cole, 2006; Dodds,
2007). The London Games should seek high level of involvement and participation from the
local community. When this is lacking, as was the case with the FIFA 2002 World Cup,
residents can become unsupportive thereby affecting visitor experience of the event (Kim et
al., 2006).

Destinations attempting to win community’s support for the Games might find the
information provided by this research useful. Expectations that the Games will bring the
London community together provide an opportunity for event organizers and local
government to build nation hood. Event organizers should emphasize and market the
positive socio-cultural impacts to the host community as this is the best way to gain their
support (Gursoy et al., 2004). Although the Games have a very good and informative
website (www.london2012.com), it does not specifically address issues that residents are
concerned about. The website could be developed further with news, discussion forums,
and updates on the event planning process. This could be aligned with the current social
media campaign to support the Games. A similar approach was adopted in Beijing to
support the Olympic Games. Otherwise, promotional campaigns such as Celebrate
Humanity launched by the IOC with the aim of informing and explaining the general
population about the significance of the Games and promotion of the Olympic values can be
used to further encourage support for both host and non-host communities. This campaign
was successfully adopted for the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games, Sydney 2000 Olympic
Games, Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Games and Athens 2004 Olympic Games
(www.olympic.org).

271
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

The negative environmental impacts perceived by residents of London prior to the Games
conform to previous studies (Kim & Petrick, 2005; Kim et al., 2006; Zhou & Ap, 2009; Ritchie
et al., 2009; Lorde et al., 2011). Often, post-game perceptions show that actual congestion
and pollution levels can be lower than initially anticipated by residents (Lorde et al., 2011).
Would this be replicated for the London Olympics? While the 2012 Game aim at becoming
the most sustainable and many measures have been implemented to reduce negative
environmental impacts and enhancing positive ones, residents still are associating only
negative impacts with the event. This may be due to poor knowledge and information about
the measures being put into place to alleviate negative impacts, which could also explain
why residents do not expect the Games to lead to positive environmental impacts. A
stronger internal marketing campaign is required to inform residents about current
environmental sustainability measures for the Games. Encouraging volunteering activities
by residents for the various environmental projects associated with the event, can also
increase awareness about environmental issues and generate positive word-of-mouth in the
local community about implemented measures.

It is not surprising that London residents expect mostly positive economic impacts as
suggested in other studies (Ritchie et al., 2009). However, as is often the case, after the
mega event residents tend to perceive that the positive economic impacts are lower than
initially thought (Kim et al., 2006; Lorde et al., 2011). Our findings contradict Zhou and Ap’s
(2009) study which identified that Beijing residents were concerned with possible price
increases prior to the 2008 Olympic Games. In our study, residents do not associate any
negative economic impacts with the Games. Even though the Olympic Games can be very
profitable, it can also lead to major losses for the host destination, as experienced by
Montreal when hosting the 1976 Olympic Games (Bull & Lovell, 2007).

From a theoretical perspective, when using a pre-event approach in measuring impacts,

residents seem to recognize mostly positive economic benefits, negative environmental
impacts, and positive social impacts. While the literature tend to emphasize the lasting
negative social legacies of the Olympics (e.g. Waitt, 2003), this has so far not been of
concern to London residents. Often the negative costs or impacts (economic and social) are
not evaluated by host destinations (Ritchie et al., 2009). The results tend to suggest a high
level of support for the Games given that residents are unlikely to relocate during the event
mainly due to its economic benefits. So far, it seems that local residents are convinced that
expected benefits would exceed expected cost, thereby displaying high levels of support, as
has been the case for other mega events in Seoul (Kim et al., 2006), Atlanta (Mihalik &
Simonetta, 1999) and Beijing (Zhou & Ap, 2009). This occurrence conforms to the
predictions of SET. Certainly, SET can offer insights into residents’ perceptions of event
impacts and explain current attitudes and behaviors as suggested by others (Deccio &

272
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Baloglu, 2002; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011a,b). By not associating any negative socio-
cultural and economic impacts with the event, implicitly residents are suggesting that they
trust event organizers, thereby giving credence to the argument that power and trust must
be considered in using SET (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011b).

Likewise, the findings can also be interpreted using the predictions of the mobility
paradigm. Although, London residents expect greater positive than negative impacts, it is
important to manage these perceptions as they may change as the event gets closer.
Residents expect high positive and low negative impacts indicative of a supportive behavior.
This in turn reduces their likelihood of relocating during the event, thereby indicating some
level of attachment to the Games. In fact, this behavior can be attributed to a high level
attachment based on the work of Jurowski et al. (1997) and Williams and McIntyre (2012).
Given that our results are based on expectations of impacts, the processes of place
imagination are mostly fulfilling and outcomes of the event mostly positive for this sample
of residents, thereby indicating that they expect quality of life to improve as a result of the
event. So far, SET (see Table 1) has been the dominating theory used for understanding
resident perceptions of event impacts, it seems that integrating the mobility paradigm in
such assessments may offer a more holistic understanding of attitudes and behaviors of
residents.

In conclusion, this study shows that residents associate mostly positive economic and socio-
cultural impacts while being concerned about the negative environmental impacts of the
forthcoming London Olympic Games. Although the methodology utilized tried to control
possible bias and error, limitations in this study still exist. The relatively small sample size
and the parks selected for data collection do not allow generalizability of findings to the
entire host community but offer valuable insights into resident perceptions of the event
impacts. Further research should include an assessment of residents’ perceptions after the
Games. Such a longitudinal study would enable to identify if residents’ perceptions of
impacts vary over time. Additionally, tourists’ expectations of impacts on London as a host
city can also be measured to determine differences between residents and tourists’
expectations. Moreover, a comparative analysis between the host community and non-host
community could be carried out to identify any common and/or contrasting trends. The
issue of place attachment, displacement, and quality-of-life would enrich the event
literature if these concepts are integrated in future studies.

273
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

References

Allen, J., O’Toole, W., McDonnell, I. & Harris, R. (2005). Festival and Special Event
Management (3rd Ed.). Milton: John Wiley & Sons Australia.

Andriotis, K. & Vaughan, R.D. (2003). Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism
development: the case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 172-185.

Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4),
665-690.

Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15, 73-80.

Choi, H.S. & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism:
development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43,
380-394.

Bull, C. & Lovell, J. (2007). The impact of hosting major sporting events on local residents: an
analysis of the views and perceptions of Canterbury residents in relation to the Tour
de France 2007. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(4), 229-248.

Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: the keys to achieving sustainable tourism.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629-644.

Collins, A., Jones, C., & Munday, M. (2009). Assessing the environmental impacts of mega
sporting events: two options? Tourism Management, 30, 828-837.

Crompton, J.L., Lee, S. & Shuster, T.S. (2001). A guide for undertaking economic impact
studies: the Springfest example. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 79-87.

Davis, J. (2009). A mixed record so far on environmental issues. Financial Times, July 27, p4.

Deccio, C. & Baloglu, S. (2002). Non-host community resident reactions to the 2002 Winter
Olympics: the spillover impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 46-56.

Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable tourism and policy implementation: lessons from the case of
Calvia, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(4), 296-322.

274
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Dredge, D. (2010). Place change and tourism development conflict: evaluating public
interest. Tourism Management, 31, 104-112.

du Plessis, J. (2008). Olympic scale of sport-induced displacement. URL:

http://www.cohre.org/mega-events. Accessed on 27 February 2012.

Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B. & Carter J. (2007). Structural modeling of resident
perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast,
Australia. Tourism Management, 28, 409-422.

Fourie, J. & Santana-Gallego, M. (2011). The impact of mega-sport events on tourist arrivals.
Tourism Management, (in press).

Fredline, L., Jago, L. & Deery, M. (2003). The development of a generic scale to measure the
social impacts of events. Event Management, 8, 23-37.

Fredline, E., Raybould, M., Jago, L. & Deery, M. (2005). Triple bottom line event evaluation:
A proposed framework for holistic event evaluation. Paper Presented at the Third
International Event Management Research Conference, University of Technology,
Sydney: Australia.

Fried, M. (2000). Continuities and discontinuities of place. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 20(3), 193-205.

George, W., Mair, H., & Reid, D.G. (2009). Rural Tourism Development: Localism & Cultural
Change. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Getz, D. (1997). Event Management and Event Tourism. NY: Cognizant Communication
Corporation.

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management,
29, 403-428.

Gursoy, D. & Kendall, K.W. (2006). Hosting mega events: modeling locals’ support. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(3), 603-623.

Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C. & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling
approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79-105.

Gursoy, D., Kim, K. & Uysal, M. (2004). Perceived impacts of festivals and special events by
organizers: an extension and validation. Tourism Management, 25, 171-181.

275
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Hair, J.F., Black, B.J., Babin, R., Anderson, E. & Tatham, R.L. (2005). Multivariate Data
Analysis (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hall, C.M. (1992). Hallmark Tourist Events, Impact Management and Planning. London, UK:
Belhaven Press.

Hall, C. (2001). Imaging, tourism and sports event fever: the Sydney Olympics and the need
for a social charter for mega events. In C. Gratton & I. Henry (Eds.), Sport in the City:
the Role of Sport in Economic and Social Regeneration. London: Routledge.

Hall, P. & Pain, K. (2006). The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-City Regions in
Europe. London: Earthscan.

Holloway, J. C. (2009). The Business of Tourism (8th Ed.). UK: Prentice Hall/ Financial Times.

Homans, G. (1974). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Imbroscio, D. (2011). Beyond mobility: the limits of liberal urban policy. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 34(1), 1-20.

International Olympic Committee. (1996). Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21: Sport for
Sustainable Development. Lausanne: IOC Sport & Environment Commission.

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(3), 241-251.

Jones, C. (2008). Assessing the environmental impact of a major sporting event. Tourism
Economics, 14, 343-360.

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. & Williams, D.R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community
resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3-11.

Kasimati, E. (2003). Economic aspects and the Summer Olympics: a review of related
research. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 433-444.

Kim, S.S. & Petrick, J.F. (2005). Residents’ perceptions on impacts of the FIFA 2002 World
Cup: the case of Seoul as a host city. Tourism Management, 26, 25-38.

Kim, H.J., Gursoy, D. & Lee, S.B. (2006). The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South Korea:
comparison of pre-and post-games. Tourism Management, 27, 86-96.

Konovsky, M.A. & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. The Academic
of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.

276
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Lee, C.K. & Taylor, T. (2005). Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a
mega event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management, 26, 595-603.

London (2012). Transport. URL:www.london2012.com/making-it-happen/transport/

index.php Accessed 28 January 2010

Lorde, T., Greenidge, D. & Devonish, D. (2011). Local residents’ perceptions of the impacts
of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 on Barbados: comparisons of pre and post games.
Tourism Management, 32, 349-356.

May, V. (1995). Environmental implications of the 1992 Winter Olympic Games. Tourism
Management, 16(4), 269-275.

McCool, S.F. & Martin, S.R. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism
development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 29-34.

Merrick, N. (2007). £5m Games fund will boost local skills. Public Finance, October 5-11, p9.

McIntyre, N., Williams, D.R. & McHugh, K.E. (Eds). (2006). Multiple Dwelling and Tourism:
Negotiating Place, Home & Identity. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Mihalik, B.J. & Simonetta, L. (1998). Resident perceptions of the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games-Year II. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 5(1/2), 9-20.

Mihalik, B.J. & Simonetta, L. (1999). A midterm assessment of the host population’s
perceptions of the 1996 Summer Olympics: support, attendance, benefits and
liabilities. Journal of Travel Research, 37(Feb), 244-248.

Molm, L.D. (1991). Social exchange: satisfaction in power-dependence relations. American

Sociological Review, 56(4), 475-493.

Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.

Mules, T. & Dwyer, L. (2005). Public sector support for sport tourism events: the role of cost
benefit analysis. Sport & Society, 8(2), 338-355.

Nguyne, T.V. & Rose, J. (2009). Building trust- evidence from Vietnamese entrepreneurs.
Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 165-182.

Nunkoo, R. & Ramkissoon, H. (2010). Small island urban tourism: a residents’ perspective.
Current Issues in Tourism, 13(1), 37-60.

277
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Nunkoo, R. & Ramkissoon, H. (2011a). Developing a community support model for tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 964-988.

Nunkoo, R. & Ramkissoon, H. (2011b). Power, trust, social exchange and community
support. Annals of Tourism Research,(in press).

Ohmann, S., Jones, I. & Wilkes, K. (2006). The perceived social impacts of the 2006 Football
World Cup on Munich residents. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 129-152.

Pearce, P., Moscardo, G. & Ross, G. (1996). Tourism Community Relationships. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.

Pitcher, G. (2008). London Olympics to reserve up to 200,000 jobs for Brits.” Personnel
Today, 26 Feb, p3.

Preuss, H. (2005). The economic impact of visitors at major multi-sport events. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 5(3), 283-303.

Preuss, H. (2009). Opportunity costs and efficiency of investments in mega sport events.
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 1(2), 131-140.

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(2/3), 143-167.

Ritchie, J.B.R. & Aitken, E.C. (1984). Assessing the impacts of the 1988 Olympic Winter
Games: the research program and initial results. Journal of Travel Research, 22(3), 17-25.

Ritchie, J.B.R. & Lyons, M. (1990). Olympulse VI: a post-event assessment of resident
reaction to the XV Olympic Winter Games. Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 14-23.

Ryan, C., Scotland, A. & Montgomery, D. (1998). Resident attitudes to tourism development:
a comparative study between the Rangitikei, New Zealand and Bakewell, United
Kingdom. Progress in Tourism & Hospitality Research, 4(2), 115-130.

Soutar, G.N. & McLeod, P.B. (1993). Residents’ perceptions on impact of the America’s Cup.
Annals of Tourism Research, 20(3), 571-582.

Steemkamp, J.B. & Van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing
constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 283-299.

278
BEST EN Think Tank XII
Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, LS. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th Ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Ally & Bacon.

Theodoraki, E. (2009). Organisational communication on the impacts of the Athens 2004

Olympic Games. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 1(2), 141-155.

Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study. Annals of

Tourism Research, 29(1), 231-245.

Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London:
Routledge.

Waitt, G. (2003). Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1),
194-215.

Walzer, M. (1990). The communitarian critique of liberalism. Political Theory, 18, 6-23.

Weaver, M. (2007). London 2012 organizers plan greenest games ever. Guardian, 23rd
January.

Weed, M. (2009). Progress in sports tourism research? A meta-review and exploration of

futures. Tourism Management, 30, 615-628.

Williams, D.R., & McIntyre, N. (2012). Place affinities, lifestyle mobility, and quality of life. In
M. Usyal, R. Perdue & M.J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of Tourism & Quality of Life Research:
Enhancing the Lives of Tourists and Residents of Host Communities. New York: Springer
Science +Business Media.

Zhou, Y. & Ap, J. (2009). Residents’ perceptions towards the impacts of the Beijing 2008
Olympic Games. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 78-91.

279