The Olympic Legacy: People, Place, Enterprise

University of Greenwich, May 8th&9th, 2008

Monitoring the Public Opinion: a Serendipity Effect

of the Winter Olympic Games Torino 2006

(longitudinal survey 2002-2007)

Chito Guala, director of OMERO, University of Torino

OMERO includes also L. Bobbio, P. Bondonio, E. Dansero, S. Scamuzzi, A.

Mela

OMERO (Olympics and Mega Events Research Observatory)

(University of Torino 2000-2008)

1 The project of a Cultural, Sports and Leisure District in the

Olympic Valleys: the new Foundation TOP (Torino Olympic

Park) is now working, as a Legacy of the Games

2 Olympic Communication and Citymarketing Strategy:

how to overcome the “One Company Town” stereotype

3 Territorial and Environmental Transformations (in the City

but especially in the Alp Valleys

4 Survey on Public Opinion in Torino & Valleys

Torino: from Nov. 2002 till December 2006: 4 polls before the Games, 2 after (900 interviews per year)

Alp Valleys: from Febr. 2003 till March 2006: 3 polls before the Games, 1 after (400 interviews per y.)

5 The Institutional Legacy & the Governance Networks

6 Monitoring the Legacy: the research is working, and deals

with TOP activities, the local economy, the “culture” tourism

Surveys & polls about the public opinion

tools: questionnaires, interviews, telephone polls

Tools for monitoring Olympics: national & local

Surveys before the bidding, during the event or after the nomination

panel studies and/or longitudinal surveys/polls

Referendumcompulsory or non-compulsory

propositive / confirmative / abrogative

Other researchabout the

main effects of the Games

Main effects studied

economics (new firms & jobs , tourism)

urban regeneration & city marketing

communication, Media, image & visibility of a Place

international repositioning of a city

urban planning and environment

re-building the local identity & culture

improving the social capital & governance

Monitoring the Olympic Experience:

a long tradition for cities hosting the Games

Polls: Lillehammer Winter 1994

2 samples (national: Norway, and local: Lillehammer)

Longitudinal surveys 1991-1994

Only 50% in favour in the first surveys

High favour after WG (80% national 88% in Lillehammer)

Difference between the high favour diffused among the

interviewed population and the lack of positive effects after

the games: the “intermezzo” syndrome

(source: Spilling, Lesio)

Polls: Atlanta Summer 19962 samples (national: Georgia and local: Atlanta)

9000 interviews from 1992 to 1996, 2 polls per year

In Atlanta a very simple questionnaire was used : ten questions using the

Likert Scale, with a questionnaire already used in Calgary Winter1988

in a research carried out by Ritchie

Some results:

1. before the Games high fears were diffused among the population, with

attention to traffic, inflation, security, expenses for the local community

2 after the Games the % of fears dramatically fell: only 1 item remained

steady, the security, because of a bomb explosion in the Olympic Park

Other research underlined:

1 limited urban regeneration in Atlanta downtown

2 limited improvement of the public transportation system

3 positive case of visibility for Atlanta and Georgia (repositioning)

(source: Mihalik, Juloya)

Polls: Nagano Winter 1998In 1997 a national survey on the possibilty of attending the Games

showed that :

1. the Japanese interviewed 1 year before the OG were uncertain :

2. only 3% said they would attend the Games

3. main fears dealt with logistics, transportation, accommodation

(source: Roper Poll 1997)

Polls and referendums: Salt Lake City Winter 2002

1. a referendum held in 1989 was in favour of the bidding competition

for the WG in 2002

2 in a post event research, those interviewed were strongly in favour

of having hosted the Games

3 In a post event research, Utah Tourism measured positive shifts in

tourism perception within key European markets after the OWG

(source: Hiller, Heinemann, Ritchie)

Calgary Winter Olympics 1988

“Each Olympic Games, while drawing on the legacy of its

forerunners, reflects a unique set of circumstances. The

characteristics of the host region and its people, the prevailing

international situation….all combine to produce a set of

impacts which can be anticipated but which are difficult to

predict accurately.”

(source: Guala, Turco, presentation at EASM Congress, 2007, Torino)

A longitudinal survey

“Olympulse” : in a Landmark longitudinal research (2000) on

the post-Olympic effects of the Calgary Games, Ritchie said:

Referendums Many referendums were against the participation

to the bid competition (source Chappelet, Preuss, OMERO Centre)

The recalled case of Salt Lake City shows that :

- A referendum (1989) was in favour of the Bid (majority of 57%)

- A post event survey confirmed a much more favourable judgement

The Swiss case shows conflicts between Municipalities and Cantons:

this internal opposition weakened the Confederation in organizing

the bidding and obtaining the nomination; after two positive

referendum in St. Moritz (1928, 1948), all the other referendum were

generally uncertain, or against the bidding (Valais, Interlaken, Davos).

Only in Sion a referendum (2002) was in favour; but, after that,

Sion was defeated by Torino at the last step of the competition

In Italy the Aosta Valley in 1991 held a referendum about the bidding

for the 1998 OWG : a large majority voted “no” (84.7%), rejecting the

regional law in favour of financing the Games.

Some findings from Torino 2006 survey Surprise: since 2002, people agree with the OWG, and is in

favour with the project of hosting the Games

2005 2004 2003 2002

Don't know 2% 2% 0% 4%

Agree 85% 80% 79% 79%

Slightly agree 9% 10% 17% 13%

Slightly disagree 2% 4% 3% 1%

Disagree 2% 4% 2% 3%

0,0%

20,0%

40,0%

60,0%

80,0%

100,0%

Survey

2005

Survey

2004

Survey

2003

Survey

2002

Slightlyagree

Agree

77 7782 79

4957 57

77 76 79 78

5349

54

88 87 90 87

7479

56

8883

87 84

69 72

0

25

50

75

100

ameliorism of

infrastructures

ameliorism of

sport facilities

increasing

fame and

visibility

abroad

tourism and

culture

development

new jobs, new

firms

new occasions

for the

stakeholders

preserving

nature and

enviroment

Survey 2005 Survey 2004 Survey 2003 Survey 2002

People understand that the Games represent a

catalyst of visibility, urban change, repositioning

Positive effects of the 2006 Games (surveys before)

Positive Effects linked to the Games

(answers: completely agree + sligthly agree)Comparison: the 2006 survey and the 4 survey before

93% 93%83%

73%

62% 58%

47%

82% 84% 80%

55%

82%

65%61%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

tourism and

culture

development

increasing

fame and

visibility

abroad

ameliorism of

sport facilities

preserving

nature and

enviroment

ameliorism of

infrastructures

new

occasions for

the

stakeholders

new jobs, new

firm

s

survey 2006 average before the Games

67 64 67

28

63

35

707066

72

32

69

42

7476 7670

63

34

68

45

8073 71

6359

25

62

35

76

0

25

50

75

100

heavy public

works before

the Games

traffic

problems

during the

Games

confusion,

crowding

during the

Games

excess

expenditure

of local

municipalities

Hazardous

investments

for privates

unusefull

sport facilities

enviromental

problems and

pollution

corruption

cases

survey 2005 survey 2004 survey 2003 survey 2002

People show many fears looking at the Games

Big expectations and big fears at the same time

Problems linked to the 2006 Games (surveys before)

The success of the 2006 OWG lowers the previous fears

After the Games. Problems emerging from the survey

The 2006 survey and the surveys before

(answers: completely agree + slightly agree)

43% 41% 40% 39% 36%

17% 15%9%

75% 71%65% 65% 66%

40%

30%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

corruption

cases

traffic

problems

during the

Games

excess

expenditure of

local

municipalities

unusefull sport

facilities

confusion

crowding

during the

Games

enviromental

problems and

pollution

hazardous

investm

ents

for privates

public safety

survey 2006 average before the Games

Serendipity effect: an unexpected optimism for the future

% of people confident that the positive effects of the Games

will be long lasting after the WOG (surveys 2002-2007)

43%

37%34%

51%53%

44%

18% 18%21%

6%

18%19%

0%

25%

50%

75%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Enduring

Only during the Games

Percentage of “right answers” to the questions about the

destination of the main building and facilities (survey 2007)

Problems about information: one year after the Games, there is a

lack of knowledge about the re-use of the Olympic facilities

70,5%

48,8%42,3%

28,0%

20,4% 20,2%16,7%

12,3% 10,2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stadio

Comunale

Olympic

village

(atheltes)

Palaghiaccio

Palaisozaki

Torino

Esposizioni

Olympic

village

(media)

Oval

Lingotto

Palavela

offices of the

Organizing

Committee

Participation: people were involved in the “Olympic athmosphere”

% of interviewed people that during the Games in Torino :

39%

58%62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

joined exibitions and

festivals, and visited the

museums

visited the sport

facilities and the

Nation’s Houses

went to downtown in

occasion of the “white

nigths” during the Plays

Serendipity: a new way of considering the future of Torino

Do you think that Torino will overcome its difficulties (the Fiat

crisis) and develope new opportunities for its future ? (% of yes)

78%

96%

82%84%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007

% Yes

Why monitor the public opinion: a lesson from Torino

and a suggestion looking forward to London 2012

Monitoring the public opinion - means new tools for the governance, and contributes to

legitimate the public decision process and to plan the Legacy

- it creates discussion, attention, concerns among groups,

associations, individuals, political parties : this process facilitates

participation, and helps the creation of a new local identity

- it allows to re-define the community, to create a new image of

the Place, to “sell the territory” with a citymarketing strategy

- I would like to share with you our questionnaire for a survey

in Greenwich, that we all can use in a comparative analysis

thank you