Leveraging the 2010 Olympic Games: 'Sustainability' in a City of Vancouver Initiative
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Where once the value of hosting sports mega-events like the Olympics was assumed, scholars, activists, media, politicians and the general public have all questioned if hosting an Olympics or other sporting mega-event is worth it. Often these same stakeholders call for cost-benefit analyses to determine whether the economic output involved in hosting is matched or exceeded by the environmental or social costs engenders. Asking if hosting the Olympic Games is worth it demands data that measures change in the host context before, during, and after the Games. For example, does air quality change? Do more tourist dollars come in? Do perceptions of people with disabilities change? Do the levels of people taking public transit increase, and does this increase last beyond the event? In addressing these questions, one can measure the impacts of building Games-time infrastructure, generating new local transportation systems, pulling in tourists (while scaring off others), and exposing potential investors to the host city; then, this line of thinking suggests, one can answer whether the Games were worth it or not. In 2009, the Olympic Games Impact (OGI) research team at the University of British Columbia conducted a large-scale pre-Games evaluation of the 2010 Games asking questions like those above. OGI is an International Olympic Committee initiative whose overall purpose is to gather information on economic, environmental, and social data on 126 prescribed indicators that measure changes in the host region (e.g., venues, tourists, media, housing, protest) and whether any changes may be attributed to the Games or not. OGI evaluates these changes against a sustainability standard. Data for each of the variables that comprise the individual indicators are sought at multiple scales (e.g., municipal, regional, provincial, and national). OGI has a twelve-year reporting period, starting two years before the awarding of the bid (2001 in Vancouver) and ending three years after the event (201 3 in Vancouver) to conduct four reports (e.g., a baseline, pre-Games, Game-time, and post-Games). Multiple reports enable the comparison of individual indicators across the pre-Games, Games-time, and post-Games state to determine changes and trends in the indicators. Attuned to the theoretical and methodological literature on sporting mega-events, leveraging, and sustainability, (1) the implications included the observation that government investments in the host context were likely to effect Games impacts. The pre-Games research analyzed government initiatives that were newly created, modified, or fast-tracked to take advantage of 2010 Games. (2) Fifty initiatives from governments that were part of the Olympic bid (municipal, regional, provincial, and federal) were identified up to February 2009 in the lead-up to the 2010 Games events. (3) OGI findings from these initiatives confirmed the effort by host governments to develop what appeared to be a long-term, planned, and coordinated approach to leveraging the Games. In addition, the OGI research team determined that impact-inducing activities appeared to begin years before the Games, going back to when the decision to bid is made. Mindful of the IOC's desire to employ OGI and other means to promote sustainability, the pre-Games report also suggests that the initiatives can be categorized as oriented towards sustainability. The implications are that hosting sports mega-events, rather than simply representing a list of processes necessary to hosting that cause measurable impacts, may also leverage desired benefits such as public policy implementing new curricula, community programs, demonstration projects, or marketing efforts that leverage the Games to move society toward greater sustainability. The authors of the current study will investigate how leveraging proceeded in the city of Vancouver immediately preceding and following the 2010 Olympic Games, by analyzing a case of how the City of Vancouver leveraged the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».