Mega Events And Their Impact On Tourism Tourism Essay

Most of the published surveies of events have tended to concentrate on mega-events, such as universe exhibition ( Monclus, 2006 ) and Olympics ( Kasimati, 2003 ; Preuss, 2004 ; Humphreys and Plummer, 1995 ; KPMG, 1993 ) . Harmonizing to Matheson ( 2006 ) , surveies of mega-events has showed that economic benefits overestimate the existent ex-post benefits by broad border. Writers such as Matheson ( 2004 ) and Bull ( 2005 ) contest the theory that hosting mega-events could hold a important economic impact for the host country. The argument about what is better between hosting more little events or a mega 1 has become one of the major subjects at the Centre of academic treatments.

Harmonizing to Hall ( 1997 ) and by Malta et Al ( 2004 ) mega-events require a important investing, aiming an international market, and affecting the extended engagement of mass media ( cited in Bull, 2006 ) . Yet, Getz ( 1999 ) , Gratton et Al ( 2005 ) and Roche ( 2001 ) specify a mega event by its long-run economic benefits, impact on a finish ‘s image and individuality, and effects on finish regeneration ( cited in Bull, 2006 ) . While Bowdin ( 2010 ) underlined that mega events are events which have tremendous impact on economic systems in whole and that they are rather recognizable and influential in the universe of a planetary media. Harmonizing to Bull ( 2006 ) little events rely on local resource merely, involve zero chance costs, but are less seeable in term of marketing cognition, because their little graduated table and involvements.

A elucidation of what the construct of economic impact includes and the assorted procedures taken in finding, it is necessary to understand the common defects done by many surveies measuring events economic impacts. Harmonizing to Dwyer and Forsyth ( 1996, 1997 ) the economic impact of an event can be direct on the locale and its providers, or indirect on other local concerns ( eating houses, local store, and conveyance installations ) purchased by the direct providers who themselves pay for farther inputs ( cited in Lee, 2006, p.77 ) . The direct and indirect income and outgo can besides bring forth an induced consequence on the economic system when the donees of the direct and indirect effects spend their increased incomes on local consumer goods and services ( McCabe et al. , 2000 ) .

Assorted local and national authoritiess have begun to give their support to the industry ( making command for big events ) harmonizing to this so extended impact, as demonstrated above ( McCabe et al. , 2000 ) . In return, authoritiess could gain in footings of revenue enhancement gross – either direct, or indirect ( Davidson and Rogers, 2006 ) , political benefits, viz. , risen image for politicians, particularly if the event traveling good or has given benefits to the population ( Bowdin et al. , 2006 ; Van der Vagen, 2005 ) . Quite frequently, as already underlined by Matheson ( 2006 ) and supported by Kasimati ( 2003 ) , more surveies and studies are sponsored by local authoritiess to warrant the big public outgo and for this ground be given to be based on an overoptimistic “ ex-ante ” analysis. Furthermore, “ ex-ante ” multiplier analysis may be inaccurate, because research workers assume that the usual multipliers applied on estimated direct disbursement are the same during mega-events ( Matheson, 2006 ) . The common defects of these ex-ante methods are that they do non include herding out and displacement effects already underlined by Getz ( 1999 ) , which are frequently caused by mega-events ( Matheson, 2006 ) . Yet, Kasimati ( 2009 ) added that research workers, mistakenly, tend to borrow rating systems and multipliers from other similar instances interpreting them onto their ain. Finally, Mondello and Rishe ( 2004 ) underlined that the most common misdemeanor among mega-events analysis was the usage of gross instead than net impacts, with other surveies utilizing hyperbolic multipliers.

Matheson ( 2006 ) , analyzing merely the research of Mondello and Rishe ( 2004 ) , pointed out that smaller event may hold non these jobs when evaluated. More exactly, economic ratings of little events are more accurate, because without the herding out and supplanting effects which could do mistakes in ciphering direct outgos. Yet, they are more aims, because they do non hold to warrant a big sum of public outgo. While, Bull ( 2006 ) affirms that happening dependable informations on little events could be hard, because statistical institutes less look into them, and few informations are available about them.

Harmonizing to some studies on huge-events and Olympics in peculiar, such as Preuss ( 2004 ) , Humphreys and Plummer ( 1995 ) , several are the identifiable economic impacts in hosting immense events. The first of these is an addition in fiscal incomes ( direct pecuniary costs and gross derived from hosting an event ) , characterised by new outgos into local concerns, which could turn into foreign exchange net incomes if the attendants come from abroad ( Matos, 2006 ) . Revenues represent the organisations income ; common of mega-sport events are the merchandising of tickets and selling, Television rights ( Matos, 2006 ) .

The good feeling made by the finish to people go toing an event, could actuate them to widen the permanency or to return in private and, in the terminal, the finish could hold a big figure of people as unpaid embassadors ( Bowdin et al. 2006 ; Davidson and Cope, 2006 ) . Preuss ( 2004 ) pointed out that the proclamation of the Olympic Games entirely will non pull extra tourers to see the metropolis. However, the most of the outgo is made during coordination and planning stage, because the organisers of the Olympics are the largest and more disbursement group of pre-Olympic visitants together with jocks, Judgess, and guest of trial events ( Preuss, 2004 ) . Positive findings underlined by some researches on Olympics ‘ impacts, has shown that the pre-Olympic consequence is non fringy.

Yet, harmonizing to Kasimati ( 2003 ) and Preuss ( 2004 ) mega-events bequest is mostly positive, because the media coverage increases the desire of possible tourers to see the state after the event, due to a alteration in perceptual experience. As already mentioned, mega-events are become powerful tools to re-image and trade name a metropolis in order to set it on the touristic map. Selling and PR benefit significantly from the immense media exposure given by mega-events ( Bull, 2006 ) . More exactly, in the instance of the Olympics, host state of the Games has chance to better their ain image in general ( Preuss, 2004 ) .

However, Dwyer ( 2002 ) affirm that we have to take into history the escape phenomenon dwelling in the fact that non all the outgos related to an event remain within the host finish ( cited in Davidson and Rogers, 2006, p.22 ) . This occurs, for illustration, when a host finish has to buy services abroad, because it is unable to bring forth themselves or are non present within the local country. This is frequently the instance of the less developed states. ( Davidson and Rogers 2006 ) .

Another two hidden and negative facets are switched and transferred outgos. An illustration, the “ clip switched consequence ” , occurs when an attendant combines his vacation with a conference ( Davidson and Rogers 2006 ) .

Harmonizing to Bowdin et Al. ( 2006 ) another of import touchable benefit is the addition in employment, although frequently made by bing staff or by impermanent occupations related to short term events. Many writers concordant that hosting mega events could pull new investings. That is because, for illustration, the great exposure given by the media coverage or new substructures built for the event. ( Bowdin et al. 2006 ; Davidson and Rogers, 2006 ; Getz, 2005 ; McCabe et al. , 2000 ) . However, Kasimati ( 2009 ) underlined that there is possibility of increasing the supply of occupations being met by workers from other states, particularly if domestic markets is tight, because of the force per unit area to finish the substructure. Yet, Baade and Matheson ( 2002 ) , in their ex-post attack to gauge the degree of employment in the Olympics held in Los Angeles and Atlanta, found that the coefficient for the both Olympics was undistinguished.

Although the economic benefits of mega events are undeniable, some writers warned that a small attending has been dedicated on their negative impacts and costs ( Getz, 1999 ) . While economic benefits are frequently highlighted and proclaimed, and the legion literatures on Olympics ‘ economic impacts are a clear illustration, touchable costs are often hidden ( Davidson and Rogers, 2006 ) .

Promoting and hosting an event require high costs, particularly in new substructures, for security, particularly after 9/11, and in facilitation for VIPs ( Matheson, 2004 ) . These immense costs are frequently public ( Kasimati, 2003 ) . Namely, new substructures means more revenue enhancements and may stand for less investing by the authoritiess in other critical countries ( e.g. wellness or instruction ) ; the alleged chance costs ) . In the instance of a mega athletics event, harmonizing to Matos ( 2006 ) , immense are the costs for new substructures, with a possible hazard of over liability. Yet, there are besides offering costs to procure the right to host the mega event ( Matos, 2006 ) .

Some events could adversely impact local concern or caused private amendss ( Davidson and Rogers, 2006 ; Getz, 2005 ) . In fact, mentioning to “ displacement ” consequence caused by mega-events, Getz ( 2005 ) pointed out that some activities associated with mega- events, as traffic congestions, closed roads, higher security or restricted entree to some public countries in the metropolis could earnestly deflect “ normal concern ” activities ( non-touristic ) . Yet, displacement effects could take occupants ( blowouts or modifiers ) to avoid the country or even to go forth the town. For illustration, Hultkrantz ‘ ( 1998 ) reappraisal of the economic impact of the Athletics Championship noted that while Goteberg ‘s visitant reachings were boosted by the event that overall Sweden reachings fell as travellers avoided the state as a reaction to the Games ( named “ avoiders ” by Preuss, 2004 ) . Similarly, in Carlton ‘s ( 2002 ) treatment of the Salt Lake City Olympics, it is noted that while Salt Lake City hotel suites were full with Olympic visitants and participants, that the country ‘s ski resorts suffered significantly as skiers avoided the finish due to the presence of the Games. This is supported by Leeds ( 2008 ) survey which highlighted how 2002 Winter Olympic Games has suffered of high supplantings by demoing that outgo at ski resorts in Colorado rose as a consequence of the Games.

Finally, during the Democratic convention, non merely was every hotel room in the metropolis full, but cruise ships were used to house the flood. However, as noted by Blanton and Caffrey ( 2004 ) , Boston eating houses and stores fared ill, as non-delegate tourers avoided the metropolis due to the deficiency of hotel suites and locals stayed far off from downtown Boston due to the crowds and to a great extent restricted drive and parking.

Opportunity and supplanting costs, together with clip whippers, defined by Getz ( 1999 ) those people who wanted to go to the metropolis but at another clip, contribute to cut down the net outgo in a finish caused by the event ( Bull, 2006 ) . Paradoxically, this value is higher for little event instead than for mega-events ; that is the effect of the above mentioned break costs frequently non included into multiplier analysis ( Kasimati, 2003, Matheson, 2004 ) . Some probe “ ex-ante ” on mega-events ‘ economic impacts are done without sing such elements underlined by Getz ( 2005 ) .

However, harmonizing to Getz ( 2005 ) , there is a inquiry that could be raised are the intangible costs are sufficient to neutralize the economic benefits? However, Baade and Matheson ( 2002 ) disagree asseverating that the economic system virtually returned to its normal form afterwards and any addition in economic system activity attributable to the Olympics of Los Angeles and Atlanta was impermanent. Mount and Leroux ( 1994 ) and Spilling ( 1998 ) have supported this position confirming that ‘one-time ‘ events have no permanent post-event effects in new concern activities or employment. Nevertheless, Kasimati ( 2003 ) underlined that the findings of these researches are limited because their short-run focal point and inaccuracy.

This paper has already mentioned about the wont of overrating economic impacts to warrant the big sum of public money spent to form the event. But, harmonizing to writers such as Getz ( 1999 ) and Matheson ( 2004 ) , some are the common defects among researches measuring mega-events ‘ economic impacts. A brief overview of the common ratings methods is now necessary to understand those errors.

Recognizing that bing informations on economic impact of mega events do non allow accurate finding of the income and employment, research workers have developed theoretical model to gauge the economic impact ( Lee, 2006 ) . Almost every of these theoretical accounts are based on an ex-ante attack and, harmonizing to Kasimati ( 2003 ) , have shown economic growing, increased touristry and extra employment.

Harmonizing to Dwyer et al. , ( 2005 ) , the I-O theoretical accounts evaluate the overall impact of injected new money, as they drifting across different sectors of economic system. Then, assorted multipliers ( coefficients ) are used to derive the event ‘s gift to finish end product, value added, and employment. Johnson ( 1999 ) recommends the usage of input-output analysis to sum up the impact of a undertaking at a regional or community degree, in the economic system of which there is improbable to be long-run structural alteration. Unfortunately, this theoretical account is based on historical informations and on the usage of standard multiplies ; yet, it does non see rising prices effects of increased demand. Houghton et al. , ( 2005 ) added that the I-O theoretical account assumes that exchange rate ; labour market and monetary values are changeless. In add-on, tend non to see the supply side limitations such as investing bulge, monetary values increases owing to resource scarceness and substructure outgos, which are of great importance in the analysis of mega events.

CGE theoretical accounts are good suited to patterning herding out effects and structural alteration in the economic system, including labor markets, at national or province degree and, alternatively I-O theoretical accounts, monetary values are allowed to change ( Hodur and Leistritz, 2006 ) . However, with the handiness of extra capacity within organisations or insouciant labor, and in the short-run context, the complexness and trouble in using and construing CGE theoretical accounts in a regional context may non be warranted ( Houghton et al. , 2005, p.361 ) .

Cost – Benefits Analysis is most suited where impacts such as societal or environmental issues or chance costs of events are of peculiar involvement ( Hunn and Mangan 1999 ) . However, in the absence of full information, the trouble in rating of societal or public assistance costs and benefits makes this theoretical account excessively complex for application by little regional festival organisers in finding festival economic impacts ( cited in Houghton et al. , 2005, p.361 ) . Quantifiable informations on the chief economic impacts of mega events are based about entirely on secondary research and the surveies did non supply any anticipations utilizing a signifier of modeling ( Kasimati, 2003 ) . This brief reappraisal of the theoretical accounts has underlined that these models frequently used to measure Olympics normally ignored supply side restraints.

Writers like Matheson ( 2004 ) , Getz ( 1999 ) , Mondello ( 2004 ) and Bull ( 2006 ) has stressed the vantage of little events compared with mega-events, because about devoid of that “ concealed ” costs. Small events may acquire more visitants passing without cost of supplanting, because require merely local direction, rely on small-scale publicity, and affect zero chance costs ( Burgan and Mules, 2001 ; Matheson, 2004 ) . Yet, they are less likely to do divergences from normal concern forms make multiplier analysis more accurate ( Mondello and Rishe ( 2004 ) . While Bull ( 2006 ) asserted that few informations are available on little events, because their small importance. Furthermore, Bull ( 2007 ) pointed out that compared with the high visibleness and exposure of the mega events, the little 1s have a small long-run PR, less visibleness, and selling and PR costs are speedy dissipated.

However, in contrast, Spoleto, though a festival, had the possible to make full but a comparatively little part of the metropolis ‘s available hotel suites. The “ displacement consequence ” should non hold been the factor that it seemed to be ( Litvin and Fetter, 2006 ) . Harmonizing to the writers the success of the Spoleto Festival has become an obstruction. O’Sullivan and Jackson ( 2002 ) consequences on the part of festival touristry to a sustainable local economic development showed that festivals may hold the possible to do a valuable part to a vicinity. Nevertheless they do non do a important support to sustainable local economic development. Vararos ( 2004 ) added that the economic impact depend on the size and the develop position of the economic system of the host finish. Surveies to find the local economic impact of the three taking humanistic disciplines festivals in South Africa indicate that the location and size of the town is an of import factor in the impact of the event on the town and the part ( Saayman and Saayman, 2006 ) .

Another little events ‘ advantage, arisen from the literature, is the capacity to fulfill more niches than one large ( Bull, 2006 ) . This leads local authoritiess to accomplish a scope of aims instead than a individual specific promo-tool. Many little towns host short-run festivals for net income, and some communities use festivals as a encouragement to touristry for the off-season ( Goldblatt, 2002 ) . When the alone attractive forces of communities meet tourers ‘ satisfaction, a festival at the same time gets the most effectual net income from the festival itself every bit good as tourers. A festival gives occupants experiences of a local civilization, and at the same clip, gives tourers a opportunity to see different civilizations between themselves and a touristry finish ( University of Minnesota, 1998 ) .

Getz ( 1999 ) support this position confirming that event visitants will pass much more and remain longer, if they had a desire to see the event and its finish, from those who may hold been less attracted by the host part. Yet, Getz ( 1999 ) underlined that emphasizing the volume is frequently a error ; alternatively, pulling higher-yield, quality visitants, instead than big volumes could be a successful scheme for a finish. However, the same writer affirms that may originate jobs of mutual exclusiveness within the mix of event mark sections ( Getz, 1999 ) .

Findingss from a survey of Cela et Al. ( 2007 ) on the local nutrient festivals in Northeast Iowa communities back up the bing literature concentrating on the impacts and results of little events. Local nutrient festivals in Northeast Iowa contributed economically in the country by bring forthing more end product, income and occupations ( Cela et al. , 2007 ) . Interestingly, the economic impacts of local festivals, in footings of the multiplier, were similar to heritage sites ( O’Sullivan and Jackson, 2002 ) . Findingss besides revealed some practical deductions for festival organisers. More exactly, advertizements should be put in topographic point to pull more adult females and younger coevalss. This position is supported by Mondello and Rishe ( 2004 ) who affirmed that adult females and immature coevalss go toing recreational athletics events tend to pass more than work forces and agers severally.

The paper has showed the high capacity in re-branding and positioning a finish owned by mega-events thanks to their immense media exposure and temptingness. While, those events required high theatrical production costs and ill-defined are the existent economic benefits they induced. Forming multi-mini events has demonstrated to be an optimal instrument for finish directors to diversify and distribute the mark markets. Yet, avoiding heterotaxy costs, it is frequently assumed that they may hold the same economic impacts of a big or mega-event, unluckily missing in media exposure.

All these facts may bring on to believe that the event type could be chosen harmonizing to the chief aim of a finish. For illustration, if the aim is to set a metropolis on the touristic map, presenting a mega-event to heighten the consciousness of the trade name internationally, following by a series of little events to aim dedicate niches or to enlarge the mega event consequence, could be a successful scheme.

The response on the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act ( 2006 ) was largely positive and supportive. One of the most of import grounds was that East London, greater London and whole United Kingdom would thrive from it. This advancement would be reflected in the fact that Games will convey benefit to touristry and cordial reception in general. One of the factors that stood against London Olympic Games was the bing job of deficiency of a land for building, every bit good as placing ways in which those inquiries and jobs would be answered and solved. In add-on to that, of class, was the fact of the possibility of a terroristic onslaught was and still is a large concern for both the people and governments. Even the fact that 2012 Olympic Games will be held in London is really of import and serious affair, and that it will convey multiple concern chances to a wide scope of companies, every bit good as a state as a whole. This means that the competition among the companies is certainly traveling to lift, it is obvious that the new Act could convey many bing chances to the corporate universe, it is commercial and concern success is yet to be shown.