Rutgers University Impact of Olympic Games on Tourism Annotated Bibliography I need an annotated bibliography. About 150 words for each annotation. The top

Rutgers University Impact of Olympic Games on Tourism Annotated Bibliography I need an annotated bibliography. About 150 words for each annotation. The topic of my paper is “impact of olympic games on tourism. Two suggested sites below on what is expected of an annotated bibliography Tourism Management 70 (2019) 355–367
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management
journal homepage:
The ‘summer of discontent’: Exclusion and communal resistance at the
London 2012 Olympics
Michael B. Duignana,?, Ilaria Pappaleporeb, Sally Everettc
Coventry Business School, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
School of Architecture and Cities, University of Westminster, London, UK
King’s Business School, King’s College London, UK
Communal resistance
Small businesses
Hard and soft tactics
Host community
Olympic tourism
London 2012
London 2012 promised local small businesses access to lucrative Olympic event-tourism and visitor trading
opportunities. However, as urban spaces were transformed to stage live Games, many local stakeholders found
themselves locked out. We focus on one ‘host’ community, Central Greenwich, who emerged negatively impacted by such conditions. 43 in-depth interviews and secondary evidence reveal that this was a community
determined to resist. Few papers have extended the concept of resistance to the context of mega-events so we
examine why communities resisted, and how physical tactics and creative resistance were deployed. Although
e?orts a?orded some access for local businesses – they proved too little, too late. We develop and present a
‘tactics for resistance’ approach, a series of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ tactics businesses could use to encourage proactive, as
opposed to reactive, communal resistance required to protect local interests and a?ord access to opportunities
generated by temporary mega-event visitor economies.
1. Introduction
For cities successful in securing the rights to host, a constellation of
sports, policy, private and public bodies and interests adjoin to execute
a project that will signi?cantly impact, and disrupt, the day-to-day lives
of individuals and collective organisations within and beyond the
chosen host city. This is particularly so for those situated within close
proximity of neighbourhood spaces o?cially chosen to play host. In the
preceding decades, and certainly since the turn of the 21st century, the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) and national organising committees (NOCs) have placed extensive emphasis on social and economic
regeneration and development at the heart of project objectives –as
both an immediate outcome and a longer-term so-called ‘legacy’ (see
Olympic, 2020 agenda – IOC, 2018). Positive developmental outcomes
intertwine inextricably with moral virtues extolled within the ‘Olympic
Movement’ itself and inscribed into the ‘Olympic Charter’. The IOC’s
overarching aim: to herald a vision of ‘respect for universal fundamental ethical principles (…) banishing any form of discrimination
with regard to a country or person on grounds of race, religion, politics,
gender, or otherwise which is incompatible with belonging to the
Olympic movement’ (IOC, 2013, p. 54). Yet, Zimbalist (2015) argues
that little evidence suggests the Games has served to end or suspend
hostility between nations or to improve the relationships between national governments and their populaces – in fact, quite the contrary.
Aptly, con?ict of an ideological, political, social and economic
Mega-events are complex projects that exist and ?ourish by garnering signi?cant political-economic support from the upper echelons
of government, quasi and non-governmental bodies (NGOs) (Chalip,
2017). They epitomise the conscious e?ort made by sports policy and
senior managers to catalyse new and existing urban policies and projects. Large-scale development projects, like the Olympics, are by and
large a ‘choice development strategy’ (Broudehoux and Sanchez, 2015)
– cities do not have to bid and host them. Years, if not decades, of
meticulous planning go into preparing a bid, with national organisations like the British Olympic Association (BOA) in the UK requiring a
mandate from central governments to submit an application. However,
the e?cacy of such projects to achieve initial well-intended objectives
have been questioned, and critiqued, and a number of hopeful host
cities now seek referendum-like approval from their citizens before
bidding (Dempsey and Zimbalist, 2017). This activity has, however,
illuminated the extent of public resistance against the Olympics, where
strident international (e.g. DemocracyNow (2018), GamesMonitor
(2018), RioOnWatch (2018)) and national campaigns, like ‘NOlympia’
in both Munich and Hamburg and ‘No Boston Olympics’, have successfully sought to veto government attempts to host (see CityLab, 2017
for a detailed case).
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: (M.B. Duignan).
Received 9 February 2018; Received in revised form 3 August 2018; Accepted 31 August 2018
Available online 15 September 2018
0261-5177/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 355–367
M.B. Duignan et al.
those voices marginalised at the heart of Olympic zones, speci?cally
during the live staging periods (e.g. McGillivray and Frew, 2015;
Pappalepore and Duignan, 2016). We present the case of Central
Greenwich, an o?cially designated UNESCO World Heritage site and
established as one of London’s key touristic sites – home of some of the
UK’s leading attractions (e.g. National Maritime Museum, Cutty Sark)
according to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions ALVA
(2018). The paper contributes by presenting an in-depth, empirically
driven analysis of the experiences of one speci?c small retail and hospitality business community promised a summer of event-tourism trade
opportunity, yet found themselves unable to leverage. As a result, we
identify how locals resisted against Olympic strategies designed to restrict them from accessing such opportunity. The paper ampli?es their
narratives, examines through an analysis of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ tactics how
and why they resisted, and subsequently proposes a series of ‘tactics for
resistance’ for future communities to proactively resist and support the
e?ective (re)distribution of event (tourism) bene?ts (Ziakas, 2014). As
a result, we draw on and advance the under-utilised concept of resistance within tourism studies. Speci?cally, the work of de Certeau
(1984) is adopted as a means to theorise local acts of resistance towards
the ‘strategies’ of dominant powers in a mega-event tourism context.
We suggest there is insight to be gained by applying concepts of local
‘tactics’ to the Olympics to develop a theory of practice that considers
the relationship between local resistance, stakeholders and powerful
strategic manoeuvres.
Empirically driven, this paper is guided by three key research
nature emerges as a direct result of the rather extraordinary conditions
that typify the multifaceted unequal developmental e?ects of megaevents (OECD, 2008). Theoretically, such projects have the power to
‘orientate’, ‘connect’ and ‘integrate’ global (and local) communities
(Horne and Manzenreiter, 2006). However, numerous authors argue
that they exacerbate con?ict and division within the host city (Raco and
Tunney, 2010). As a result, the ability and e?cacy by which megaevents achieve reasonable and [well] distributed developmental bene?ts is questionable (Vieho? and Poynter, 2015, pp. 109–123). Critical
economic geographers like Harvey (1989) argue that entrepreneurial
projects, speculative in nature with little evidence of positive social and
economic returns on investment, serve to divert public attention and
funds away from fundamental socio-economic challenges in the neoliberal city. Zimbalist (2015) claims that mega-events are an ‘economic
gamble’ that excludes individuals and communities without the social
and economic capital to participate and leverage such an opportunity.
E?ectively, they favour those with the in?uence and power to participate (e.g. Horne, 2007), and disserve those less visible who do not
(Raco and Tunney, 2010).
Emphasis on certain intended ‘desired’ outcomes may serve as a
‘smoke and mirror’ e?ect (Garcia, 2004), or perhaps a placebo (Rojek,
2014) that conceals parochial interests (McGillivray and Frew, 2015).
Pappalepore and Duignan (2016) argue that a rhetoric of positive local
inclusion, community participation and developmental outcomes may
simply serve to justify the event and help negate resistance e?orts
across the host nation, city and soon to be o?cial event zones. Yet,
empirical evidence points to the way such projects may favour a narrow
sub-section of society – namely those interests that align and intertwine
with those who wish to pro?t from the Olympics’ occurrence (Raco and
Tunney, 2010). As such, it can be argued that project plans are drawn
up embodying the ‘sectional interests’ of more desirable, prosperous
and upwardly mobile citizens (e.g. large-scale business owners and
property developers) considered ‘synonymous with the well-being of
the city’, speaking on behalf of their fellow citizens (Gruneau, 2002, pp.
9–10). McGillivray and Frew (2015) therefore question the foundational ethical principles of mega-events, and the actions of their policy
makers and project managers as a far cry from the principled, virtuous
departicularised moral positionality projected by the Olympic Movement and Charter. Following the Sydney 2000 Games Vigor et al.
(2004) stated that the Games has seen a progressively ‘fundamental
change in philosophy’ (2004: 5). We argue, and our empirical analysis
suggests that such change represents an on-going focus toward commercial logic and pro?t maximisation, whereby mega-events simultaneously step back away from (particularly locally rooted) social responsibilities and o?er an illusion of inclusivity.
Brazil’s 2014 FIFA World Cup and Rio’s 2016 Olympics illustrated
such challenges (e.g. Vox, 2016). South America’s Olympic project received notable media and academic criticism, alongside urban protestation found across the city, in touristic areas like airports, and inside
speci?c urban zones to be a?ected by the diversion of funds away from,
and displacement of, indigenous favela and slum communities (e.g.
Strange, 2013; Euromonitor International, 2013; O’Neill, 2014; BBC,
2015). As a result, strategic task forces of Olympic planners (and ‘paci?cation’ forces) took hard, physical action against urban dwellers who
refused to be displaced – breaking down local resistance e?orts (see
Talbot, 2016 graphic analysis). Yet, somewhat ironically, Rio claimed
1 What are the reasons behind local acts of small business communal
resistance in the ‘live staging’ periods?
2 What are the tactics and resistance mechanisms deployed by small
businesses at the host community level?
3 How far are such acts of resistance e?ective in redistributing eventrelated bene?ts and/or in negating challenges?
Structurally, the following sections provide an in-depth analysis of
the speci?c ways host communities, speci?cally small businesses may
?nd themselves locked-out of event-tourism trade opportunities, and
how planning practices often transcend and ignore local interests. We
draw on these economic and spatial exclusions as a prelude to explain
why host communities have and continue to resist the very presence
and execution of mega-events. The literature review shifts to a focus on
the concept of resistance, speci?cally how and why ‘communal resistance’ has materialised in the context of mega-events. Afterwards, we
present a detailed methodology, followed by empirical ?ndings and
analysis in light of our theoretical frame. We close by articulating our
main contributions, namely the extension of key conceptual and practical aspects in the context of mega-events, managerial and policy implications, and proposed future avenues of research.
2. Economic and spatial exclusions of mega-events
De?ned as having a ‘dramatic character’ of ‘international signi?cance’ (Roche, 2000, p. 1), mega events symbolise and manifest as
extraordinary forms of event-led policy. They have been described as an
exogenous shock, serving to fast-track urban policy (Faulkner et al.,
2001). Catalysing developmental outcomes features as a core objective
of all mega-events, and emerges as a key direct – and hoped-for – aspect
of achieving a successful urban legacy in the context of London (2012)
(House of Lords, 2013). Yet, speeding up development and execution of
policy, may serve to transcend everyday consultative [democratic]
processes of inclusive and progressive urban governance. Host cities
and project actors target places and spaces for speci?c action under the
guise of immediate deadlines and short timescales – swiftly and e?ectively. Yet, such processes do not always satisfy the short-term interests
of host communities at the epicentre of Games planning – particularly
‘ … the Olympic Games should serve the city, rather than the city
serving the Games and to be an ‘inclusive’ Games’ (Rio Candidature
File, 2009: 9).
Pappalepore and Duignan (2016) argue that such contradictions
frequently typify the dichotomy between ‘rhetoric’ and ‘reality’ in
mega-events. However, commentators have claimed that there is a
signi?cant lack of academic research, and focus on the complex, localised and often idiosyncratic urban impacts on host communities and
Tourism Management 70 (2019) 355–367
M.B. Duignan et al.
during the ‘live staging’ phases. Evidence points to the way in which
mega-events suspend and supersede existing national law, rules and
regulations, legal precedence and sovereignty (Siddons, 2012). They
e?ectively render certain local laws obsolete, replacing them with the
overarching ‘Host City Contract’ (HCC): o?-the-shelf rules and regulations demanded by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
Braathen et al. (2016) simply state that ‘Olympic bid books become the
de-facto planning documents’ (2016: 262) as power and legitimacy
transfer to a new regime of policy makers and project actors. As a result,
mega-events e?ectively create what Agamben (2005) describes as a
‘state of exception’ under the auspices of being in both the local and
national interest. Powell and Marrero-Guillamon, 2012 examination of
‘London’s state of exception’ has been in?uential in examining how
mega-events in general, and speci?cally to London 2012, have supported the installation of spatial and regulatory controls at the local
level – conditions that may serve to exclude host communities from
accessing opportunity across heavily securitised – and militarised –
event zones, including Greenwich. The exclusion of host communities,
across a variety of cases and ways, emerges as a common picture in
light of mega-event planning, delivery and even legacy.
Host communities may ?nd themselves excluded from Games
planning and delivery in a number of ways. For instance, through the
immediate displacement and removal of economically [and politically]
vulnerable local stakeholder groups to make way for necessary
Olympic-related developments (Raco and Tunney, 2010), right through
to a legacy of gentri?cation and rising rents (commercial and residential) through, for example, increased desirability, marketing of
place and infrastructural developments (Gold and Gold, 2008; OECD,
2008; Vigor et al., 2004). Yet, very little academic attention has examined the ways small businesses residing at the heart of Olympic
event zones can be excluded during the intense live staging of the
Olympics – the temporal focus of this paper. This seems surprising as
such projects demand the sequestration of public space, usually owned
by those residing at the local level, to fuel the event’s existence – often
at the expense of local inclusion (Hall, 2006; Pappalepore and Duignan,
2016). In the period immediately prior to the Opening Ceremony civic
spaces (soon-to-be Olympic event zones) are e?ciently captured. This
act of ‘territorialisation’ (e.g. Ra?estin, 1980) is e?ectively where the
‘project territory’ merges with that of the existing ‘context territory’.
Project territory, to some extent, is the production of territory striking
an (uneasy) balance between ‘global’, ‘project’ and ‘macro’ needs (e.g.
the IOC, sponsors, local sanctioning bodies and the event itself etc.),
and ‘local’ needs (e.g. nation, city, region, locale, community of residents/traders etc). Olympic territorialisation, inasmuch as it can be
considered the production of new territory-created ‘striated’ space, interweaves its project requirements within the existing environment: the
‘context territory’.
Spaces earmarked for mega-event led development are thus subject
to political moves and power struggles. One of the major issues is that
spaces required for Olympic development are often conceptualised as
‘blank slates’ (Raco and Tunney, 2010) ready for ‘wholesale demolition’
(Shin, 2013, p. 7) with ‘little consideration needed for existing activities
and practices’ (Raco and Tunney, 2010, p. 2087). Raco (2014) and Raco
and Tunney (2010), however, suggest that such intervention re?ects
little understanding of the pre-existing socio-economic practices that
permeate across ‘invisible’ host community spaces, and the interconnected networks that localities rely on. Existing academic and policy
research currently shows that those who need the changes rarely bene?t from them (e.g. OECD, 2008; Zimbalist, 2015). One of the key issues identi?ed is that mega-events often focus on ‘project’ ambitions,
prioritising more ‘macro’ and ‘city and nation’ objectives in search of a
‘utilitarian’ vision – thus limited critical analysis focuses on local
challenges bestowed at the host community level.
It seems that stakeholders are often perceived as existing in loworder suburbs, o?ering little to the economic vitality of the city, and so
interventions regularly ignore the day-to-day socio-economic practices
that local communities frequently rely on (Raco and Tunney, 2010).
This re?ects an ironic situation whereby the very communities who
formed the intended bene?ciaries of London (2012)’s initial bid, and
recipients of a virtuous legacy vision, become marginalised. Raco and
Tunney (2010) argues that Olympic planning is akin to a
‘ … tidal wave crashing over local businesses (…) their low visibility
has [in the context of London (2012)] made them relatively easy
targets for ‘decisive action’’ (2010: 2082).
3. Ignoring the ‘host context’
E?ectively, ‘the Olympics allow democracies to behave like dictatorships – if only for a short time’ (Mohdin, 2016, p. 1) and seldom
facilitate any ‘real’ form of democratic consultation (Cashman, 2002).
Hiller (2002) argues that, instead of consulting local residents and
businesses, project actors often conceive their task as ‘merely informing
people about plans rather than truly seeking input about these plans
from the ground up’ (2002: 104). A key project strategy is to seek super?cial representation from key community gatekeepers, to demonstrate ‘wide community consent’ and pay lip service to those who may
oppose delivery to neutralise threats, avoid dissent and prevent resistance – leading to a continued lack of understanding of local issues
and localism (Cashman, 2002). Hiller (1998) claims that such processes
are historically rooted in Games delivery, and frequently uses the Calgary 1998 Winter Games as an example of how the Olympics ignores
grassroots participation in favour of privileged stakeholder interests
(also see Miles, 2010). Limited…
Purchase answer to see full

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Rutgers University Impact of Olympic Games on Tourism Annotated Bibliography I need an annotated bibliography. About 150 words for each annotation. The top
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay
Homework On Time
Calculate the Price of your PAPER Now
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Choose Us

Top quality papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional academic writers

We have hired a team of professional writers experienced in academic and business writing. Most of them are native speakers and PhD holders able to take care of any assignment you need help with.

Free revisions

If you feel that we missed something, send the order for a free revision. You will have 10 days to send the order for revision after you receive the final paper. You can either do it on your own after signing in to your personal account or by contacting our support.

On-time delivery

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & confidential

We use several checkers to make sure that all papers you receive are plagiarism-free. Our editors carefully go through all in-text citations. We also promise full confidentiality in all our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.


Essay Writing Service

You are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper. Our academic experts will gladly help you with essays, case studies, research papers and other assignments.


Admission help & business writing

You can be positive that we will be here 24/7 to help you get accepted to the Master’s program at the TOP-universities or help you get a well-paid position.


Editing your paper

Our academic writers and editors will help you submit a well-structured and organized paper just on time. We will ensure that your final paper is of the highest quality and absolutely free of mistakes.


Revising your paper

Our academic writers and editors will help you with unlimited number of revisions in case you need any customization of your academic papers