Contemporary Destination Governance: A Case Study

Approach
The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games
Article information:
To cite this document: "The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games" In
Contemporary Destination Governance: A Case Study Approach. Published online: 09
Apr 2015; 207-221.
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/S2042-144320140000006037
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 14 April 2019, At: 08:18 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 65 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Conclusion", Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 pp. 223-232 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/S2042-144320140000006054">https://doi.org/10.1108/
S2042-144320140000006054</a>
(2015),"Gold Coast, Queensland", Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 pp.
181-192 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/S2042-144320140000006035">https://
doi.org/10.1108/S2042-144320140000006035</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Case 16

THE 2010 OLYMPIC AND

PARALYMPIC WINTER GAMES

Abstract: This case examines the concept and role of adaptability in

Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

destination governance, particularly as it relates to hosting a mega-event

such as the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. It describes
how the Resort Municipality of Whistler in British Columbia, Canada,
used its broad sustainability-focused destination governance system to
guide and manage relationships and outcomes related to the Games.
Through its strategic and adaptive interactions with the International
Olympic Committee and the Vancouver Organizing Committee, the
Resort Municipality of Whistler leveraged unprecedented sustainability
benefits from this mega-event. Keywords: Adaptability, resilience,
sustainability-focused governance, Olympics

INTRODUCTION

Adaptability is considered one of the most important principles related to

management systems for sustainability purposes (Kemp, Parto, & Gibson,
2005; Lenskyj, 2000). Over the past decade, an increasing number of studies
have explored how adaptability within governance systems might support
and enable progress on sustainability initiatives (de la Torre-Castro, 2012;
Dietz, Ostrom, & Stern, 2003; Elbakidze, Angelstam, Sandstrom, &
Axelsson, 2010; Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005; Lockwood,
Davidson, Curtis, Stratford, & Griffith, 2010; Rijke et al., 2012). This case

Contemporary Destination Governance: A Case Study Approach

Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, Volume 6, 207 221
Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2042-1443/doi:10.1108/S2042-144320140000006037
 208 Contemporary Destination Governance

study describes the process by which the Resort Municipality of Whistler

(RMOW) in British Columbia (BC), Canada, used its broad sustainability-
focused destination governance system to guide and manage relationships
and outcomes related to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games
(the Games). Through adaptive strategies and strategic interactions with the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Vancouver Organizing
Committee (VANOC), the RMOW leveraged unprecedented sustainability
benefits from this mega-event.
The case begins by contextualizing British Columbia’s tourism economy
and governance system. It then offers an overview of the evolution of
governance in the Whistler region from its earliest days as the trading
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

center for First Nations peoples through to its contemporary position as a

world-class mountain resort community. This is followed by a description of
the concept of adaptive governance and a discussion of how its precepts
were embodied into the RMOW’s relationships with its Olympic counter-
part organizations.

ADAPTABILITY IN DESTINATION GOVERNANCE

Tourism is an important contributor to the Province of British Columbia’s

overall economy. An estimated 18,000 tourism businesses employ approxi-
mately 27,400 people. In 2013 tourism generated approximately CD $1.3 billion
(∼USD $1.2 billion) in added value to British Columbia’s gross domestic
product. Approximately CD $428 million of this contribution is funnelled
through to the government as tax revenues annually (RMOW, 2013). On a
comparative basis, tourism’s contribution to BC’s overall domestic
GDP was ranked higher than all other primary resource sectors in the pro-
vince (e.g., forestry, mining, oil and gas, agriculture and fishing) (BC Stats,
2012).
British Columbia is primarily composed of mountainous and coastal
regions. Its geographically diverse and extensive mountain ranges provide
the setting for a vast array of tourism activities. While many ski areas exist
within its alpine regions, the province has identified several mountain resorts
as being particularly critical to the tourism industry’s long-term prosperity
and sustainability. These mountain destinations offer a variety of cultural
and recreational experiences that extend well beyond solely winter-based
products and services. They include experiences related to festivals and
events, various forms of Nordic and alpine winter sport, hiking, cycling, and
 The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games 209

golf. It is estimated that British Columbia’s 13 largest mountain resorts gen-

erated revenues of approximately CD $1 billion (∼USD .92 billion) and
14,000 full-time equivalent jobs and wages of approximately CD $460
million in the 2007 08 season (MJTI, 2012). The RMOW is the most
developed and greatest GDP contributor of these mountain destinations.
Tourism governance in British Columbia is guided by the Tourism Act
1996 and related policies are administered by a range of government minis-
tries (Province of BC, 1996). Collectively these agencies address tourism
management issues primarily related to marketing, employment creation,
human capacity building, land and natural resource, infrastructure and pro-
duct development, and transportation. While the focus and emphasis placed
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

on tourism issues evolve according to political priorities, normally a lead

tourism ministry is designated to develop and coordinate the delivery of
programs supporting provincial as well as regional tourism priorities.
Ministry-appointed tourism industry representatives often act as advisers
guiding the strategic direction of these programs. Depending on the politi-
cal orientation of the elected government, the influence of these advisers on
policy and programming varies from limited and discretionary to almost a
laissez-faire control over decisions. The ebb and flow of government com-
pared to corporate influence on tourism governance is a constant, and
reflects the province’s broader and often turbulent political discourse. For
instance, for approximately a decade immediately prior to the Games, pri-
mary control over British Columbia’s tourism marketing and product
development activities was vested with a government-financed but industry-
led tourism authority, Tourism BC. Its funding was derived from a combi-
nation of core government revenues and compulsory tourism-specific hotel
guest tax.
Tourism BC worked extensively with its regional destination manage-
ment and sector partners to meet government and industry-based perfor-
mance goals. However, immediately before the Games it was dissolved in
favor of a more government-controlled approach led by a provincial gov-
ernment ministry responsible for tourism. A specific division within the
ministry took a lead role in establishing government tourism priorities and
programs, but its capacity to respond to emerging tourism industry needs
was burdened by political and bureaucratic constraints. In response to this
challenge, a more corporate and less bureaucratic governance model was
introduced in November 2012. This new organization, Destination BC, is
mandated to coordinate the development and delivery of marketing-related
programs for destination marketing organization (DMO) partners. The
lessons learned in recent years accentuate the importance of having
 210 Contemporary Destination Governance

governance systems in place that are adaptive and resilient enough to

respond to the range of shocks and stresses that seem constantly to con-
front destinations and their markets.
Working under contract and in partnership with Destination BC are six
provincially appointed regional destination marketing associations
(RDMOs): Vancouver Coast and Mountains (VCM), Vancouver Island,
Thompson-Okanagan, Northern BC, Cariboo-Chilcotin, and Kootenay
Rockies (Figure 1). In turn, the RDMOs work in partnership with the tour-
ism and community stakeholders within their geographic areas to represent,
promote, and deliver a variety of tourism programs (Destination BC,
2013). Each RDMO is registered under the British Columbia Societies Act
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

2012 and is funded through a combination of provincial tax revenue and

membership fees. In addition to provincial and Destination BC oversight,
each RDMO is also guided by a regional board of directors, which works
in partnership with the RDMO chief executive officer. In turn, each board
of directors is guided by a constitution, policies, and bylaws. Day-to-day

Figure 1. BC’s Six Tourism Regions

 The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games 211

operations of the RDMO are guided by the CEO and undertaken by man-
agerial and administrative staff. Although each RDMO maintains its own
unique corporate website, each is linked to a province-wide destination con-
sumer marketing website, Hellobc.com, and marketed under a common
brand and tagline: Super, Natural® British Columbia.
In addition to the RDMOs, smaller community-based DMOs also exist
within each region. Some of them, such as Tourism Vancouver, Tourism
Victoria, and Tourism Whistler, represent larger host destinations. These
community DMOs are governed by industry-led boards of directors that
govern in a fashion similar to the RDMOs. They are financed through
municipal taxes, hotel taxes paid by guests, as well as through DMO
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

business/organization membership fees. For the most part, this multila-

yered set of DMOs focus on marketing, as opposed to broader destination
planning, development, and management needs. Broader infrastructure
planning and development decisions impacting on tourism capacity creation
and management are vested with local municipal governance agencies.

Whistler, British Columbia, and its Governance System

One of the most developed and recognized tourism destinations in British

Columbia is the RMOW. It is situated approximately 120 km north of
Vancouver in the province’s coastal mountain range. Its proximity to and
rapid rise in elevation from the coast makes it a prime location for reliable
snow cover and outstanding natural alpine scenery. Although Whistler’s
average winter temperature has increased, on average, 0.5 degrees from 1976
to 2011, this has been accompanied by an increase in precipitation.
Consequently, Whistler has seen an increase in snowfall in the high alpine
region, as well as in the valley during winter. Summer temperatures have
increased by a dramatic 2.0 degrees during this same period (Mitchell,
2013). Average annual snowfall in the Whistler region is approximately
11.92 m. Whistler is located in the provincially designated Vancouver Coast
and Mountains Tourism Region (Figure 1).
Long before the arrival of the first European settlers in the late 1700s,
the lands in and around the Whistler area were inhabited by the Coast
Salish Aboriginal people. The richness of wildlife and resources in the area
made it an important trading point for the people of several First Nations.
Many descendants of the Coast Salish cultural group can be found in the
four First Nations that now share the surrounding territory: the Lil’wat,
Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations. Although these
First Nations and many other Aboriginal people across Canada suffered
 212 Contemporary Destination Governance

damaging sociocultural and economic results in their contact with the first
European settlers and subsequent governmental policies, their traditional
way of life continues to be an important part of their culture and future. In
2004 the Four Host Nations, as they became known, signed the historic
2004 Protocol Agreement. This agreement enabled the Four Host Nations
to collaborate with key Olympic-related actors during the Olympic bid pro-
cess, as well as in the planning and delivery of the Games (Lil’wat Nation,
2010; Musqueam, 2011; Squamish Nation, 2008; Tsleil-Waututh, 2012).
Their role and participation in the delivery of the Games was integral to the
success of the event.
As with the Coast Salish Aboriginals, early European visitors were drawn
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

to the rich bounty of natural resources the areas provided for sustenance
and leisure purposes. From a leisure perspective, it was not the spectacular
mountains that drew tourists to the region initially. Rather, it was the fine
fishing opportunities that the area’s lakes and streams provided. It was not
until the 1960s that a Vancouver business group recognized the opportunity
to develop an alpine ski area where Whistler is currently located. At that
time, their company, Garibaldi Lifts Limited, commenced installing ski lifts
on what was to be named Whistler Garibaldi Mountain. While plans for the
area included real estate development at the mountain’s base, the real dream
was to host the 1968 Olympic Games. Several decades later that dream was
eventually realized when Vancouver, in association with Whistler, hosted
the 2010 Olympic Games (Whistler Blackcomb, 2012).
Since the 1960s Whistler has undergone considerable development and
change. Some of the more notable events shaping those changes include the
incorporation of Whistler as a resort community with unique governance
powers, the initial planning and development of the purpose-built Whistler
Village in the late 1970s, the embedding of a bed-unit based growth limit on
development in the 1980s, the merger of Whistler’s two mountain lift com-
panies into a flagship real estate and snowsport business operated by
Intrawest Corporation in the 1990s, the creation of Whistler’s award-
winning sustainability strategy, the development of venues for the 2010
Games in the 2000s, the 2008 opening of the Peak 2 Peak Gondola, and the
delivery of the Games in most recent times. All of these events have served
to help position Whistler as one of North America’s most recognized four-
season alpine destinations. Today it offers a variety of recreational, cultural,
health, and wellness experiences for residents and tourists alike on its two
mountains and extensive network of valley trails and lakes.
Whistler is governed by the RMOW, a unique form of municipal
government designed specifically to manage tourism resort-community
 The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games 213

destinations (the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act 1996). The RMOW

guides the development and management of Whistler’s physical and social
environments through an official community plan and a comprehensive
sustainability policy (Whistler2020.ca). The development and enforcement
of this plan and policy are led by an elected mayor and council and admi-
nistered by an executive team and staff. These RMOW personnel are
charged with serving the interests of approximately 9,824 permanent resi-
dents, 2,266 seasonal residents, and 11,522 second-home owners (RMOW,
2011b; Tourism Whistler, 2012). While a portion of their mandate is to
facilitate tourism development through a range of infrastructure capacity-
building activities, the marketing and management of tourism is formally
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

assigned to a DMO (Tourism Whistler, 2012).

The DMO’s operations are guided by what is essentially a tourism indus-
try board of directors along with a designated representative from the
RMOW. Its operating funds are derived from hotel room guest and busi-
ness taxes collected and distributed by the RMOW. Tourism Whistler aug-
ments these funds with revenues gained directly from the operation of its
own golf course, convention center, and accommodation and event booking
services. In combination, the RMOW and Tourism Whistler promote and
guide the hosting of approximately two million domestic and international
overnight tourists annually. While the revenue yield from winter tourists is
considerably greater than that received from summer enthusiasts, more
tourists visit Whistler in summer (52%) than in the winter season (48%).
The resort community has an overnight accommodation capacity of
approximately 35,000 people (Tourism Whistler, 2012).
Whistler is also recognized for its innovative approaches to destination
planning and development. Undeniably, the development of the area’s two
snowsport mountains and the valley lands associated with them has altered
the area’s landscape and character. However, the focus on tourism-driven
economic development has not happened without consideration of other
environmental and social factors. Developers, businesses, and Whistler
residents have demonstrated and maintained a remarkable appreciation
and respect for the area’s natural and social environment. Their most
impressive commitment to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the des-
tination is reflected in Whistler 2020, a community-wide comprehensive
sustainability policy and strategy. This document provides a strategic
vision and path to a more sustainable future. Based on almost three years
of community consultation shaping its vision, priority directions and pro-
grams, Whistler 2020 was the cornerstone policy guiding governance
decisions during the almost decade long run up to the Games. It clearly
 214 Contemporary Destination Governance

outlined a range of sustainability building priorities related to enriching

community life, enhancing the resort experience, partnering for success,
protecting the environment, and ensuring economic viability. These priori-
ties provided the filter through which RMOW decisions on development
and management were made (Whistler2020.ca, 2011; Whistler Blackcomb,
2012). Its establishment (2005) was celebrated with the signed endorsement
of 54 businesses and organizations including the RMOW (RMOW,
2011a).

Adaptive Governance
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

The vision, principles, and priorities for action and partnerships that
emerged in Whistler 2020 helped ensure that governance of the destination
would remain adaptable but focused in the face of emerging internal
and external pressures. Built through an extensive process of community
stakeholder engagement, it also helped shape Whistler’s approach to
establishing priorities and leveraging benefits from the 2010 Games. A
destination’s ability to be proactive and make well-informed and long-
term decisions is essential in the development and implementation of
appropriate adaptation strategies that reduce a destination’s vulnerability
(Jopp, DeLacy, & Mair, 2010, p. 592). While Jopp et al. (2010) write in
the context of adaption to climate change, the ability to adapt proactively
to shocks and stressors of any kind ultimately enhances a destination’s
future resilience.
Destinations have varied histories of adaptive capacity. Those demon-
strating such capabilities are typically more resilient to external forces
beyond their immediate control, such as terrorism, natural disasters, tsuna-
mis, earthquakes, and health-related events such as SARS (United Nations
World Tourism Organization, United Nations Environment Program &
World Meteorological Organization, 2008). Resilience in this context refers
to the ability of a system to respond to, renew, recover, reorganize, and
move on from shocks and stressors (Janssen & Ostrom, 2006; Miller,
Osbahr, Boyd, Thomalla, Bharwani, Ziervogel, Nelson, 2010; Schwarz
et al., 2011; Turner et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2002; Walker, Holling,
Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004). Adaptability is an important trait of
sustainability-focused governance, particularly in contexts where a wide
range of sociocultural, political, and economic circumstances may be at
play (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003; Folke, 2006; Gunderson & Holling,
2002). It is nurtured by governance systems that encourage “flexibility,
inclusiveness, diversity, and innovation” (Resilience Alliance, 2010, p. 8).
 The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games 215

Jopp et al. (2010) identify three sets of broad adaptation strategies that
nurture resilience in governance systems. In a tourism context they include:
(1) technical (e.g., snowmaking, lift transportation), (2) business manage-
ment (new product/service delivery systems), and (3) behavioral (shifts in
communication and decisionmaking) options.
The precursor to effective adaptation is the presence of adaptive capa-
city within the governance system (Brooks & Adger, 2005). Adaptive
capacity relates to the potential to cope, adapt, and minimize system vul-
nerability to shocks, stressors, or threats (Adger, 2006; Adger & Vincent,
2005; Brooks, 2003; Janssen & Ostrom, 2006; Luers, 2005). Improving
adaptive capacity often involves structural changes including those to gov-
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

ernance structures (Adger & Vincent, 2005; Vogel & O’Brien, 2004).
Specific catalysts for building it include providing working environments
that encourage leadership and trust, recognizing stakeholder rights to sus-
tainable livelihoods and personal well-being, developing productive social
networks through inclusive communication and accountability practices,
and sharing responsibility for decisions and actions among stakeholders
(Resilience Alliance, 2010).

Whistler’s Olympic Governance Approach

Whistler employed a variety of adaptation strategies to leverage benefits

that supported its Whistler 2020 vision and priorities. The following discus-
sion highlights the challenges, approaches, and outcomes emanating from
its efforts to manage its Games’ governance experience proactively. Many
studies highlight the challenges communities typically face when attempting
to host Olympic Games. A recurring theme and warning in these discourses
concerns how the powerful IOC governance systems fail to adequately
accommodate host community priorities. For the most part, the Games are
viewed as being run by an elite set of stakeholders for their constituents, to
the exclusion of almost everyone else (Hall, 1992; Lenskyj, 2000; Roche,
2000; Tooey & Veal, 2000).
The IOC is characterized as being essentially a corporate entity endowed
with the financial, political, and communicative resources needed to ride
roughshod over local host community stakeholders and their governance
systems. As Hall (1992, p. 125) suggests, “the importance and prestige
attached to hallmark events by government often means a commitment to
‘fast track’ planning practices which ignore community resistance to either
the hosting of the event or the construction of associated infrastructure.”
The general impression is that in many cases long-term commitments to
 216 Contemporary Destination Governance

communities are forgotten or denied. The normal legal safeguards are either
modified or set aside in the spirit of urgency to “getting the job done, on
time and on-budget.” Veal (2002) refers to this lack of democratic account-
ability and process as “hallmark decisionmaking,” where judgments to
move ahead with a project are made without public consent, and justified
later. It is not surprising, then, that relationships between the IOC including
it’s local Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) and host
community groups are often tenuous with local stakeholder interests taking
a back seat to Olympic priorities.
The IOC has historically provided little leadership to its host OCOGs
with respect to recognizing and accommodating the priorities of local civil
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

society groups. The IOC entrusts the National Olympic Committee of the
host country to organize the Olympic Games. The National Olympic
Committee forms and, in turn, entrusts its mandate to organize Olympic
Games to the host city’s OCOG (Olympic.org). In the case of the 2010
Olympic Games, Canada’s OCOG was the Vancouver Organizing
Committee (VANOC). VANOC’s mandate was to plan, organize, finance,
and stage the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, thereby sup-
porting and promoting the development of sport in Canada (RMOW,
2008). Moreover, the IOC has no formal requirements concerning how
OCOGs should incorporate authentic community involvement into broader
Games decisionmaking and governance. This situation exists for most
Games’ governance contexts, save for the development of cultural pro-
grams, which normally require the motivated engagement of vast numbers
of volunteers (Lenskyj, 2000). Consequently, it is not surprising that in
recent years a growing momentum from anti-Olympic groups has pressured
the IOC to reform its own governance approaches and those of its partners
with respect to opening meaningful lines of engagement and accommoda-
tion between host OCOGs and local community stakeholders.
Whistler’s experiences with hosting a significant portion of the Games
provide constructive insights into how a mountain destination adapted to
the challenge of retaining its sustainability-focused governance priorities.
Recognizing early on the immensity, complexity, and urgency of the Games
planning and development, the RMOW immediately brought together local
community stakeholders to clarify Whistler’s internal approach to governing
and leveraging benefits from the Games. Ensuing discussions led not only to
the identification of anticipated benefits that aligned with the Whistler 2020
priorities but also rules of engagement that would guide future deliberations,
partnerships, and program development with the IOC and VANOC. Given
the broad-ranging set of development issues to be addressed, an RMOW-led
 The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games 217

task force was created to lead negotiations and facilitate appropriate Games
developments in Whistler. This leadership group included tourism as well as
a broader set of community representatives.
Armed with its strategic priorities and terms of engagement in place,
the RMOW team commenced negotiations with the IOC and VANOC. The
collaborative and principled approach to initial discussions taken by the
RMOW team led the IOC to confer the official status of Host Mountain
Resort on Whistler (RMOW, 2010). This first-ever IOC designation for-
mally recognized Whistler’s leading governance position in the preparation
of the destination for the Games (Government of Canada, 2009). It also
provided the RMOW with the status, power, and opportunity it required to
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

clearly represent community interests in negotiations with VANOC and the

IOC. The RMOW was given the formal authority and voice it required to
shape the proposed development of the Games’ infrastructure and pro-
grams in ways that complemented and reinforced the community’s vision of
“becoming the premier mountain resort community as it moves toward
sustainability” (RMOW, 2010, p. 1).
To further cement its central leadership position, the RMOW established
relationships with the Government of Canada, the Province of British
Columbia’s Games’ Secretariat, and other tourism-related businesses
including transportation providers, marketers and broadcasters, sporting
and coaching organizations, as well as community and environmental orga-
nizations (RMOW, 2010). These social network relationships helped to soli-
dify and bolster the RMOW’s credibility and power base, as well as to
expand its appreciation of the challenges and options available for achiev-
ing its sustainability goals. The RMOW managed its ongoing relationship
with both VANOC and the IOC by clearly establishing rules of engage-
ment. These protocols identified guiding principles that specified under
what conditions the Games initiatives would be encouraged in Whistler and
how the creation of preferred developments would be managed and how
these developments would have to align with the destination’s emerging sus-
tainability priorities. Upon refinement through negotiations with its coun-
terparts, the protocols provided a consensus-based framework for
decisionmaking. They also helped keep the RMOW in the driver’s seat
when it came to decisions concerning development activity, bylaw compli-
ance, and interpretation of the intent of its Whistler 2020 sustainability
vision and strategy (RMOW, 2010). While the pressures and urgency
applied by the IOC and VANOC on Whistler to meet their needs stretched
the capacities of the RMOW’s stakeholders, they failed to put the resort
community off its sustainability-oriented governance path.
 218 Contemporary Destination Governance
Table 1. Benefits in Support of Whistler 2010 Priorities
Whistler’s Five Priorities
Sociocultural sustainability
1. Enriching community life
2. Enhancing the resort
experience
3. Partnering for success
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)
Olympic-Related Community Benefit
Community Land Bank—300 acres of gifted
Provincial Crown land developed into resident
housing;
Cheakamus Crossing—Whistler’s green
neighborhood (formerly Athletes Village);
Athletes Centre—high performance athletes’ center,
athletes’ townhouses, and lodge provide
accommodation for athletes training at Whistler;
Whistler Olympic Plaza (formerly Whistler Medals
Plaza)—a hub for arts, culture, and recreation;
Whistler Olympic/Paralympic Park—enjoyed by
local residents, visitors, and athletes for
recreational to high performance activities;
Whistler Sliding Centre—four-season venue for
residents, visitors, athletes, and now used as event
space;
CT Scanner—enabled through a $1.4 million
General Electric donation;
Bell fiber-optic cable installation—286 km of cable
enhanced telecommunication services for
residents;
Public art in Whistler Olympic Plaza and
throughout resort;
Cultural opportunities—Lil’wat Cultural Centre;
Enhanced accessibility—Whistler is one of the most
accessible resort communities in the world;
Accessible playground—constructed in partnership
with 2010 Legacies Now Society, Ronald
McDonald House Charities, and Rick Hansen
Foundation;
Resident skills building and capacity—enabled
through work and/or volunteering opportunities
during the planning and delivery of Games;
Partnerships—with Province of BC, Federal
Government of Canada, Vancouver, First
Nations;
Community pride;
Driving range improvements;
 The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games
Whistler’s Five Priorities
Environmental sustainability
4. Protecting the environment Cheakamus Crossing—innovative energy system and
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)
Economic sustainability
5. Ensuring economic
viability
Source: www.whistler.ca/2010-games/planning-for-success/living-dream
219
Table 1. (Continued )
Olympic-Related Community Benefit
storm water management now in place;
Hydrogen buses brought in for Olympics remain in
service in the community;
Fortis natural gas pipeline—community reduced
greenhouse gas emissions by 15% in the
conversion from propane to natural gas;
BC Hydro new substation—increased
hydroelectricity capacity;
Austria Passive House—a permanent model of
passive sustainable design and a venue for
community events;
Global awareness and brand recognition was created
through TV programming and international
visitors;
Whistler Conference Centre—received $3 million in
renovations and updates;
Hotel tax increased from 2 to 6%—continues to
help grow Whistler’s tourism economy;
Boundary expansion to 24,300 hectares—resulted in
better watershed management and growth
management policies;
Representation on the Whistler 2010 Sport Legacies
Society and the 2010 Games Operating Trust—
high performance amateur sporting events are
now hosted in Whistler;
Enhanced snow-making capabilities now exist;
Sea to Sky Highway—enhanced safety upgrades and
capacity improvements;
Road improvements—provided room for cyclists
and vehicles to share the highway;
Local business success—many secured Olympic-
related contracts and benefitted from visitor
spending on merchandise, meals, lodging, etc.
 220 Contemporary Destination Governance

However, in dealings with VANOC, it became apparent that alternative

options for addressing Whistler’s priorities from those initially envisioned
in Whistler 2020 existed in some cases and that other unanticipated oppor-
tunities to enhance the destination’s sustainability existed in others. Given
the strategic ambiguity apparent in Whistler’s sustainability strategy, many
opportunities for adaption emerged. In particular, priorities related to
development of a nearby Nordic Centre captured more attention than ori-
ginally envisioned, as did Aboriginal engagement in the Games. Having
well-conceived development assessment processes readily available enabled
the RMOW team to either reject or to endorse these proposed Games’
development alternatives in a rigorous and timely fashion. It also helped
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

them leverage benefits from projects that might not have otherwise been
considered. Specific benefits emerging from the Games that supported
Whistler 2020 priorities are presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSION

The RMOW and its key stakeholders can be credited with capitalizing
on the hosting of the Games in numerous ways that benefited the tour-
ism industry and resort community. These benefits spanned a wide range
of sociocultural, environmental, and economic realms (Table 1). Through
the implementation of a significant community stakeholder awareness-
building and network-building process during the development of
Whistler 2020, the RMOW and its partners were conditioned to identify
and negotiate refinements to VANOC’s proposed developments that not
only enhanced the overall sustainability of these projects but also ensured
that they aligned with Whistler’s long-term vision in innovative ways. As
trust in VANOC’s and the IOC’s commitments to sustainability and col-
laboration became clearer, so did the RMOW’s willingness to adapt its
short-term priorities to capture other unanticipated development opportu-
nities. This newfound adaptability opened doors to a range of project,
program, and partnership opportunities that now contribute to the desti-
nation’s overall ability to learn from and adapt to exogenous distur-
bances without straying from its overriding and strategically important
sustainability goals.
 The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games 221

QUESTIONS

1. What aspects of sustainability-focused governance make it particularly

suited to guiding decisionmaking in destination communities?
2. What factors contribute most to nurturing adaptability in governance
systems?
3. What role, if any, should destination marketing organizations (DMOs)
play in shaping broader community destination governance systems?
4. Should the hosting of mega-events be primarily a tourism destination
management organization function, or should it be the responsibility of
Downloaded by New York University At 08:18 14 April 2019 (PT)

the broader governance system? Why?

5. What are the main leverage points that host communities can use to
ensure that they are not overpowered by externally driven mega-event
governing organizations?
6. What actions can destination governance actors take to enable and
encourage adaptability in governance systems?