Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore social capital emerging from the collective set of activities pursued by a network of stakeholders leveraging tourism benefits from the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games (the Games).
Design/methodology/approach
A case study of an Olympic tourism consortium (the Consortium) established to garner tourism benefits from the Games illustrates the forms of social capital development emerging from this initiative. A three‐phased research process involving a literature review, key informant interviews with Consortium stakeholders, and a follow‐up on‐line survey with these representatives informs the study's data collection and analysis process. Aspects of bonding, bridging and linking social capital creation are examined.
Findings
Varying levels of confidence, trust, mutual respect, personal ties, shared values, and human capacity were generated through the Consortium's activities. This social capital was perceived as a valuable but fragile legacy capable of nurturing increased leadership and organizational capacity particularly when tackling issues confronting the industry's overall sustained prosperity. They also felt that the value and momentum of the social capital legacy might be imperiled by a limited appreciation of how to effectively activate it in a post‐Games environment.
Practical implications
Insights are provided into the social capital that networks of stakeholders can generate when working collectively to leverage benefits from sport mega‐events such as the Games.
Originality/value
The research contributes to emerging discussions concerning social capital leveraging in tourism related sport mega‐event management settings.
Keywords
Citation
Williams, P.W. and Elkhashab, A. (2012), "Leveraging tourism social capital: the case of the 2010 Olympic tourism consortium", International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 317-334. https://doi.org/10.1108/17582951211262729
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2012, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Introduction
Despite the Olympic Games not being specifically designed as tourism mega‐events by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), they are increasingly positioned by local proponents as “once in a life time” opportunities to bolster the host destination's competitiveness in the global tourism marketplace. Even in the face of mixed tourism outcomes, a stream of rhetoric persists which suggests the Olympic Games (the Games) are useful vehicles for leveraging immediate and potentially longer term benefits for the host destination. Those most frequently heralded include tangible improvements in tourism supporting infrastructure (e.g. transportation systems, accommodation, attractions, communication systems, sports venues, etc.), along with escalations in Games – time tourist visitor flows and related economic expenditures. Longer term tourism legacies noted by Games proponents also include increased levels of travel market awareness, destination interest and tourist flows stimulated by Games‐time media coverage of the mega‐event and its host community. The measurement of such tangible benefits is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and the leveraged outcomes vary from one edition of the Games to the next (Cashman, 2003).
Games proponents also suggest that hosting the Games generates a range of less tangible social legacies (e.g. community pride, receptiveness, volunteerism, entrepreneurism) that spike during the mega‐event's delivery and provide a foundation for extended community social interaction and synergy (MacRury and Poytner, 2009). Some of this translates into community support and contributions to other festivals and events that include tourism components. Research clearly indicates that the extent to which such tangible and intangible tourism benefits emerge and last as positive legacies is situation dependent (Chappelet, 2003; Essex and Chalkley, 2003; Hiller, 1998, 2003; O’Brien, 2006; Preuss, 2007). Indeed, the presence and lasting power of Olympic legacies varies from city to city and depends on the organizational context in which the Games are delivered. The legacies emerging from the Games can be positive or negative, intended or unintended, costly or inexpensive, planned or unplanned as well as popular or unpopular depending on how the mega‐event is managed (Preuss, 2007; Chalip, 2002).
This paper suggests that the collective set of processes, interactions and activities pursued by stakeholders to strategically leverage benefits from the Games can lead to potentially positive social capital legacies for the host destination's tourism industry. In this context and building on more generic interpretations (Woolcock, 2001; Onyx, 2005), social capital refers to the degree of shared trust, mutual understanding and respect generated or lost among stakeholders collectively working to leverage tourism legacies from the Games. Legacies refer to the lasting effects of the social relations and networks developed (Preuss, 2007). The research contributes to emerging discussions concerning social capital development in tourism contexts in general (McGhee et al., 2010) and mega‐event settings in particular. It explores the extent to which different types of social capital emerged from activities pursued by stakeholders participating in a unique 2010 Olympic Tourism Consortium (the Consortium) formed specifically to leverage tourism benefits from the Games. It examines this social capital from the perspectives of those Consortium members involved in the organization's planning and program delivery activities.
Social capital concepts
Social capital is a concept and management asset explored in many contexts including urban and regional development, health science, social policy, criminology, business studies, sustainable development and natural resources management (Field, 2008; Rydin and Holman, 2004; Schuller et al., 2000; Serageldin and Grootaert, 2000; Dale, 2005). However, investigations into its character and role in tourism and/or mega‐event management contexts are limited (McGhee et al., 2010).
Foundational concepts of social capital are traceable to specific theorists. Each offers distinct but complementary perspectives on what constitutes social capital's dimensions and utility. For Bourdieu and Wacquant, social capital is a resource or asset gained by stakeholders working in networks characterized by relatively durable relationships of “mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p. 119, quoted in Field, 2008, p. 17). Coleman (1994) suggests that social capital exists within networks and facilitates actions by stakeholders within the structure. Often it is an indirect and unintentional by‐product of interaction processes that provide a base and rationale for reciprocity, shared norms and sanctions on “free riders”. In its positive form, social capital motivates individuals to work cooperatively for mutual gain (Coleman, 1988). Putnam (1995) further defines social capital as being a by product of the “[…] features of social life‐networks, norms and trust that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives” (Putnam, 1995, p. 67). Through the shared bonds of norms, values, reciprocity and trust nurtured within these networks, increased flows of information, resources and collective action can emerge.
Building on these concepts and other related social capital perspectives (Grootaert, 1998; Fukuyama, 1995; Portes, 1998; Woolcock, 2001), this paper examines the character of social capital created as an off‐shoot of initiatives taken by the Consortium, a formal network of stakeholders created to leverage tourism benefits from the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. It explores this social capital from the perspectives of those Consortium stakeholders who participated in the organization, strategic planning and programming of this network's activities. Social capital in this context refers to the levels of engagement, trust, cooperation, shared norms, knowledge, power and a sense of common futures created as a result of the collective activities of the Consortium stakeholders (Cohen and Prusak, 2001).
Social capital types
Three forms of social capital are commonly associated with the social networks of organizations. Depending on circumstances, they play varying roles (Grootaert et al., 2004; Schuller et al., 2000). Bonding social capital refers to the “inward looking” ties or relationships built between people within a common geographic, cultural, demographic or institutional unit (Putnam, 2000; Woolcock, 2001). In this study's research, bonding social capital refers to the capital nurtured between individual destination marketing organization (DMO) co‐workers as a result of their Consortium‐related responsibilities.
Bridging social capital refers to the “outward looking” connections of people within organizations that might not have previously interacted with each other (Putnam, 2000; Schuller et al., 2000). In this research, it encompasses the linkages and relationships developed with Consortium members from other DMOs as a result of their participation in the network's activities. Such connections are typically created when individuals realize that the collective capacities of all participating organizations are needed to attain the anticipated goals of the collective. Bridging social capital helps network members attract and capitalize on the intellectual, human and financial resources of stakeholders beyond their own organization. When these connections help cultivate feelings of trust, connections, cooperation and reciprocity that are essential ingredients for collective action (Estlund, 2003).
Linking social capital (Woolcock, 2001) refers to those connections that extend beyond immediate social network stakeholders to institutions possessing different types and scales of power and resources needed to attain desired goals (Grootaert et al., 2004; Rydin and Holman, 2004). In this study, it refers to those relationships developed among Consortium members with strategically important non‐tourism focussed Olympic stakeholders (e.g. the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee (VANOC), the IOC and other members of the IOC “family” including media, sponsors, sport organizations, etc.).
Social capital's effects
Depending on how it is nurtured, social capital can be viewed as being “neutral,” “good/useful” or “bad/harmful” by network stakeholders (Dale, 2005; Field, 2008; Halpern, 2005; Krishna, 2000; Ramos‐Pinto, 2006). As a neutral resource, it is a malleable phenomenon whose eventual effects are shaped by how it is managed and used (Coleman, 1988).
Social capital can help generate positive outcomes for network members. It can enhance the ability of otherwise diverse groups of stakeholders to work together on project specific tasks (Evans and Carson, 2005); increase the collective sharing of technical, operational, administrative, financial, entrepreneurial and other strategic resources (Koka and Prescott, 2002); reduce the transaction costs associated with organizing and delivering specific programs (McGrath and Sparks, 2005); and facilitate ongoing co‐operative community initiatives (Putnam, 1995).
In contrast, it can also generate negative outcomes. For instance, it can lead to exclusive networks that reduce opportunities for the involvement of others; compliance protocols that constrain individual stakeholders from pursuing opportunities beyond the direct concern to the network participants; pressures to comply with network values and actions that do not align with individual stakeholder norms; and, entrapment in negative collective group actions that by association can lower individual stakeholder reputation (Field, 2008; Grootaert et al., 2004; Woolcock and Narayan, 2001; Kilduff and Tsai, 2003).
The capacity of social capital to continue on a specific trajectory is referred to as its legacy momentum (Poytner and MacRury, 2009). Several factors reportedly shape the legacy momentum of social capital. For instance, in an Olympic event management context, these include the development of complementary post‐Games opportunities to re‐deploy and reinforce protocols, practices and relationships developed during the mega‐event; and the purposeful post‐event documentation and sharing of lessons learned from network participation during the Games (London Assembly, 2007).
It is with the preceding dimensions of social capital in mind that this study explores the character of social capital developed through the activities of the Consortium's network of stakeholders. The overall findings contribute to the call for research that “anchors the learning or relationships engendered by the Games” (Chalip, 2002, p. 16).
Case study context and focus
In July of 2003, Vancouver, British Columbia, won the bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games (the Games). This achievement captured the attention of numerous government, industry and community groups interested in using the momentum and reach of the Games to secure benefits for their stakeholders. Not the least of those interested groups were several DMOs operating in the Vancouver region. They felt that the Games offered unprecedented opportunities to strengthen the region's global tourism competitiveness.
In response to this opportunity, the BC government identified the Games as a vehicle for leveraging a range of tourism infrastructure and market growth opportunities. The strategic intent was to use the ten‐year Games’ ramp‐up, delivery and wrap‐up period to accelerate tourism's growth to levels that might not be otherwise attainable over several future decades (Tourism British Columbia (TBC), 2003). TBC, the province's lead DMO, was charged with using the Games as a “once in a life‐time” opportunity to: increase media, travel trade and visitor awareness of tourism possibilities in BC; fill excess tourism industry capacity; promote BC's existing tourism products and experiences; and ultimately convert expanded market awareness into increased tourism visits and revenues (TBC, 2003).
TBC's initial interactions with the host VANOC quickly confirmed that from the IOC's perspective, the Games were ostensibly a sports spectacle driven by overriding concerns that had little to do with tourism priorities. While VANOC representatives saw potential synergies eventually emerging between themselves and tourism stakeholders, they quickly expressed that tourism was not a priority concern for them. Furthermore, VANOC indicated that without a coordinated “single vision and voice” approach for communicating tourism's collective needs and opportunities to them, it was unlikely that substantive Olympic tourism opportunities would emerge.
Recognizing this reality, TBC led the creation of the Consortium in 2005. It was an unprecedented formal collaborative partnership of Games hosting DMOs and a supporting cast of government stakeholders. The core DMOs were TBC, Tourism Vancouver, Tourism Whistler, Tourism Richmond and the Canadian Tourism Commission. The supporting government stakeholders were the BC Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts; the Olympic and Paralympic Games Secretariat; the City of West Vancouver; as well as representatives from other government funded organizations affecting tourism leveraging opportunities (e.g. 2010 Legacies Now; Olympic Torch Relay communities).
The DMOs provided the vision, administrative and organizational support for the strategic planning and programming activities that ensued. The Consortium's guiding frame included a consensus‐based set of guiding principles and a comprehensive Joint Tourism Olympic Strategy (JTOS). Both were collectively crafted and managed by the DMO partners.
The Consortium's guiding principles comprised what essentially became a code of conduct for stakeholder collaborations both within and beyond the Consortium's immediate network. Some of these principles focussed on foregoing individual member opportunities in the interest of broader goals. Others dealt with procedural protocols associated with the planning and execution of JTOS programs and tactics. In combination the guiding principles laid the foundation of trust and buy‐in needed by the Consortium members to proceed with the collective development and eventual implementation of the JTOS.
A Consortium's Steering Committee comprised of senior representatives from each of the DMOs led the creation of the JTOS. The JTOS's overall goals were to:
- •
Increase consumer awareness of Vancouver, Whistler, British Columbia and Canada as tourism destinations and hosts of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in key markets world‐wide, through unpaid media coverage.
- •
Raise awareness of Vancouver, Whistler, British Columbia and Canada as year‐round tourism destinations among the travel trade.
- •
Leverage government's investment in the BC Canada Pavilion in Beijing 2008 to reach, build relations and learn lessons from key media, travel trade, high‐yield visitor markets.
To develop and execute the JTOS, the Consortium created ten functionally themed working groups. All were comprised of representatives from each DMO. Each was responsible for developing and guiding the implementation of their portion of the JTOS. All plans were vetted and refined based on how well they aligned with the organization's overall goals, other working group action plans and available resources. Strategic leveraging strategies and related tactics were eventually executed with respect to: media relations, travel trade, research and measurement, visitor services, Olympic sponsor, Olympic torch relay, sport tourism, destination branding, consumer marketing, as well as community and regional event planning.
Through these collaborative activities, the Consortium stakeholders collectively accomplished a wide variety of tourism outcomes. These ranged from leveraging previously unattainable levels of media coverage, to heightened travel trade development (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2010), to unprecedented levels of collaboration between what were previously and ostensibly highly competitive organizations. This paper's case study explores the characteristics of the social capital created as a result of the collaborations among the Consortium members during the pre‐Games “ramp‐up” period.
Research methods
Research design
The overarching purpose of the investigation was to determine the character of social capital developed through the Consortium's activities. A three‐phased research process involving a literature review, key informant interviews with Consortium stakeholders and a follow‐up on‐line survey with these same representatives informed the study's design and subsequent analysis phases.
Initially, a review of pertinent social capital, event management and tourism‐related Olympic impact literature provided the rationale, guiding framework and focus for the questions explored in the study. Topics explored included the influence of network policies and procedures, operating culture, working atmosphere, transparency, information sharing and group cohesion in shaping social capital. It also helped identify approaches to identifying and measuring various types of social capital (Edwards, 2004; Franke, 2005; Grootaert and Bastelaer, 2002; Krishna and Shrader, 2002; Grootaert et al., 2004; Onyx and Bullen, 2000).
A series of face‐to‐face interviews with select Consortium members constituted the second phase of the investigation. Overall, 18 of the Consortium's executive committee and/or working group leaders were targeted for participation. Due to scheduling and other personal commitments, three of these personnel were unable to participate. The remaining 15 were all intimately involved with various aspects of the Consortium's pre‐Games preparations for over 2.5 years. As such, they were well positioned to elaborate on various aspects of social capital development relevant to this study. All 15 key informants were interviewed in the late spring or summer of 2009, about six to nine months prior to the Games.
The interviews were organized around several social capital themes emanating from the literature. Open‐ended questions related to these themes guided the interview process, and helped solicit insights into aspects of social capital development central to the Consortium's context (Hague and Morgan, 2004). The informants provided valuable information (e.g. examples, issues, experiences) about the overriding interactions, relationships and outcomes emerging from Consortium‐catalyzed activities. Their comments also assisted in framing the ensuing on‐line survey conducted in the third phase of the research.
The third phase of the research was conducted via an on‐line survey administered about two weeks after all of the face‐to‐face interviews were completed. It involved the same informants. Unlike its more qualitative predecessor, the on‐line survey focussed on soliciting quantifiable measures of the extent to which specific structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital were apparent in the Consortium's stakeholder network. Structural dimension questions were centered on determining the incidence, frequency and diversity of Consortium stakeholder interactions. Cognitive dimensions of the Consortium's social capital were measured through Likert‐type questions. These queries probed the extent of stakeholder agreement/disagreement with various social capital statements, as well as their impressions of the level of increase/decrease in various aspects of this resource.
Data analysis
Qualitative data emanating from the first phase key informants interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and categorized based on their relevance to the overriding research questions. Key quotations and examples emanating from this process were then selected and used to help contextualize and/or elaborate on specific social capital dimensions measured in the on‐line survey phase of the study.
Frequency counts summarized the on‐line survey data collected. When triangulated with the qualitative information generated in the key informant interview phase of this research, these counts helped deepen the researchers’ appreciation of the nature and trajectory of the Consortium's social capital.
Findings
The following sections describe key informant perspectives on the character of the Consortium's social capital. Emphasis is placed on identifying various dimensions of bonding, bridging and linking social capital emerging from the Consortium's tourism networking activities, as well as the extent to which this legacy is perceived to have momentum.
Bonding social capital
Bonding social capital referred to the extent to which the Consortium's activities contributed to increased positive co‐worker interaction within each participating DMO. Several indicators related to co‐worker relationships and personnel development were explored.
DMO co‐worker relationships
Six indicators were used to capture respondents’ perspectives concerning the extent to which co‐worker relationships had increased. On average, respondents felt that these relationships had somewhat or greatly increased due to their DMO related Consortium responsibilities (Table I). These impressions varied according by indicator. For instance, 12 of the respondents felt that the Consortium‐related initiatives led to somewhat or greatly increased levels of interaction and information sharing between people in various departments in their DMO. Almost as many (11) also believed that interactions with people in the DMO had increased beyond the immediate workplace (Table I). Comments by two informants emphasized the value of these increased interactions:
I think it increased the understanding and respect for what other units do […] (Key informant 11).
[…] because the project is outside of our norm we have learned to rely on each other [across departments], which is a good thing […] (Key informant 9).
Despite these perceived increases in interaction, only slightly more than half (eight) of the respondents felt that the Consortium's activities had increased co‐worker trust and cooperation. Similarly only half (seven) of them felt that this increased interaction had led to escalated levels of DMO co‐worker support for Consortium‐related tasks (Table I).
DMO staff development and work atmosphere
Six indicators explored the extent to which Consortium‐related activities contributed to staff development and the overall working atmosphere within the DMOs. On average, about half (seven) of the respondents believed that their Consortium‐related initiatives had somewhat or greatly increased staff development opportunities and the working atmosphere within their DMO (Table II). These impressions varied by indicator. About two‐thirds (nine) of the respondents believed that participation in the Consortium had somewhat or greatly increased the sense of integrity of people in their DMO. Conversely, only four of them believed that it had increased the ease of working with other people in their organization (Table II).
Bridging social capital
Several sets of indicators helped gauge the Consortium's perceived contribution to the development of bridging social capital. The findings emanating from the qualitative and quantitative investigations are summarized and highlighted in the following sections.
Consortium network interactions
Overall, respondents reported that their level of professional interaction with members from other DMOs had increased after joining the Consortium. Prior to the Consortium's creation they averaged 3.16 interactions annually. This jumped to more than almost six times (5.93) annually after engaging in Consortium affairs. Exemplifying the nature of these interactions, a key informant indicated:
I didn’t really know a lot of those people very well and some of them I never met before, we worked together and certainly established relationships. […] it has been very rewarding getting to know some of the players […] (Key informant 8).
Consortium network policies and procedures
Eight indicators were used to examine the extent to which the Consortium's policies and procedures strengthened commitments to the network and its members. Overall about nine of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the policies and procedures generated positive benefits for the network's members (Table III). Their responses varied by indicator. For instance, 12 respondents claimed the Consortium's guidelines helped them collectively respond to changing circumstances, as well as learn from previous experiences (Table III). However, less than half of them (six) agreed or strongly agreed that the policies and procedures implemented fully addressed power imbalances (Table III). Largely because of the Consortium's primary focus on Olympic matters, even less (four) of the respondents felt that it adequately facilitated partnerships that might lead to other non‐Olympic‐related tourism development opportunities (Table III).
Consortium network operating culture
Nine indicators were used to explore respondents’ views on the operating culture of the Consortium. Overall, about nine of those interviewed agreed or strongly agreed that a positive operating culture existed in the Consortium (Table IV). The levels of agreement with this position varied by indicator. For instance, most (13) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Consortium's operating culture was sufficiently informal to create opportunities for discussion around broader matters not directly linked to their formal responsibilities. Furthermore, 12 of them felt that such discussions and debates occurred in a respectful manner. These and other factors (Table IV) combined to create a collective confidence that the Consortium's activities would lead to substantive benefits for the DMOs. However, less than half (six) of them felt that the Consortium had increased opportunities to access and learn from non‐Consortium members such as VANOC (Table IV). This situation existed despite the important role VANOC played in controlling access to potential Games’ allies. As one key informant indicated:
[…] it has been very interesting experience working with VANOC […] They really have nothing to do with the promotion of the host destination. […] their core objectives are to take care of the Olympic family and sporting events (Key informant 6).
Consortium network cohesion and capacity
A total of 11 indicators were used to examine respondent's impressions of the Consortium networks cohesion and capacity. On average, about 12 of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Consortium was a unified, focussed and capable network (Table V). All of them agreed or strongly agreed that the organizations operated in ways that provided opportunities for working collaboratively, sharing information and developing contacts critical to the Consortium's and their DMOs objectives. Most of them (13) agreed or strongly agreed that other members of the consortium worked in a focussed and collaborative manner to achieve the clearly focussed interests of the network (Table V). However, they stated that reputation had to be earned through performance within the Consortium over time. The following key informant's words reflect this commonly held viewpoint:
We have met more frequently and communicated with each other and see each other in different situations. Like any other committee, we have come to trust each other and the Consortium has become more effective as we learned how to work together […] (Key informant 10).
Consortium network information sharing
Six indicators were used to assess the quality of Consortium member information sharing. Overall, 11 of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that high quality information and knowledge sharing occurred in the Consortium's network. All of them also agreed or strongly agreed that their organizations had benefited in this regard. Most of them (12) felt that this sharing had strengthened their awareness of each other's DMO programs (Table VI). The information shared was perceived by 11 of the respondents to be timely and transparent – frequently providing access to normally inaccessible intelligence. Emphasizing this perspective, one key informant stated:
I think we all benefited each other […] probably learned things a little bit sooner then you would if you just waited on your own (Key informant 4).
Consortium network experiences
On average, about 12 of the respondents felt that their Consortium relationships were positive. All 14 informants felt this way with respect to matters concerning the cooperative achievement of the Consortium's Olympic tourism goals (Table VII). For 13 of them it was perceived to have also been a good professional development experience (Table VII). However, only nine of them felt that the lessons and relationships the Consortium offered would lead to new tourism projects or working opportunities in their respective DMOs (Table VII).
Linking social capital
Despite the challenges of tourism stakeholders gaining access to IOC and other Olympic “Family” stakeholders, all respondents believed that the Tourism Consortium opened doors for their organizations to work more closely with media, sponsors, VANOC and the IOC in a single organized and integrated fashion. Overall, nine of them believed that without the impetus of the Consortium, these external linkages with other groups would not have been developed. As one key informant commented:
[…] organizations like Microsoft, Google are now interested in what we are doing because of the Olympics. They [can] open stores of relationships that we probably previously wouldn’t have access to (Key informant 11).
In addition, ten of them felt that the relationships built as a result of their involvement in the Consortium's activities had escalated their personal and organizational capacity to work with other professionals outside their organization.
The following statement by one of the key informants exemplifies that perspective:
[…] one of the biggest things for me is the relationships that I have developed with people which will carry on long passed the Games […] [this includes] […] working on relationships with the tourism agencies, with government, with people at VANOC, many of whom are only here for a short period […] (Key informant 3).
They (ten) also suggested that they were now much better prepared to deploy these enhanced abilities in a variety of new contexts after the Games. As one key informant aptly stated:
[…] it has created a new bunch of lead opportunities that we would never have thought about it, pursued or been exposed to (Key informant 12).
Discussion
In this case study the Consortium is positioned as an intervention in the traditional Games planning and delivery process. Through its interventionist activities, it leveraged a range of tourism benefits (including social capital) that the tourism industry might not have otherwise realized. There are several reasons for this positioning and performance.
First, very early on in the Games’ preparation process, tourism industry leaders and eventual Consortium partners recognized that “once in a lifetime” tourism leveraging opportunities would only be realized if a highly collaborative and focussed approach was pursued. The need for this type of collaborative approach was emphasized by VANOC representatives who essentially told the tourism industry to “get its collective act together” before coming to the Olympic “Family” with tourism leveraging requests.
Second, as the immensity and complexity of the tasks needed to secure tourism benefits unfolded, so did the realization that only a unified and highly targeted strategy would succeed. Tourism benefits would not flow without the industry's DMOs intervening via a collective set of proactive and aligned actions. This required the cultivation of social capital capable of facilitating the easy flow of those human, technical and financial resources needed to get the job done.
Third, as awareness of VANOC's limited ability to contribute resources to the Consortium's activities increased, so did the realization that each DMO would have to share the burden of contributing equitably to the provision of the resources required. This sharing involved a combination of human, technical, financial, informational and infrastructural contributions, and varied according to each DMOs capacity to offer support in each of these areas.
Fourth, as awareness of IOC and VANOC Games’ engagement protocols and programming requirements became more evident, so did the urgency for collective action among the Consortium's members. While many needed linkages and relationships were in place prior to Consortium's inception, the magnitude of the leveraging exercise and the unalterable Games’ timelines brought home the need to nurture and expand the base of social capital needed to work together.
With these Olympic “drivers” of tourism collaboration and networking development in mind, the following paragraphs discuss the overriding perspectives offered by Consortium respondents concerning the extent of social capital created and its potential legacy momentum.
Bonding social capital as reflected in the extent and nature of relationships within individual Consortium partner DMO organizations was examined in this study. It was expected that the urgency and magnitude of Games’ responsibilities within each participating DMO organization would stimulate increased and strengthened internal relationships. While increases in such relations occurred, for the most part respondents felt that the character of their co‐worker relations remained relatively unaltered. This perception existed largely because internal interactions were perceived to already be strong prior to Games’ preparations. On a less positive note, some informants remarked that many normal DMO responsibilities had been “put on hold” to make way for Consortium responsibilities. As a result, they were concerned that the back log of DMO work would create additional workplace stress well beyond the Games. They believed this situation would reduce any momentum to use the Games’ social capital legacy for collective gain in the immediate post‐Olympic period.
Bridging social capital, as expressed in terms of relationships with other Consortium stakeholder organizations and individuals was the second area of social capital explored in this study. It was anticipated that the immensity, complexity and “time constrained” character of the Games would compel the Consortium's members to demonstrate unprecedented levels of collective action. Respondents felt that overall bridging capital gradually ramped up as recognition of the multi‐faceted and entangled complexity of leveraging benefits from the Games became clearer. As the subtle intricacies of leveraging these benefits emerged, so did recognition of the need to marshal the Consortium's collective technical, financial and social capacities. At times, this involved investing in new/and or strengthened relationships with Consortium organizations that were previously viewed as competitors. Some respondents reported that as these relationships evolved, levels of relatively untapped trust, goodwill, cooperation and power sharing emerged. While not fully endorsed by all respondents, there was some agreement that Consortium experiences had raised their appreciation of bridging social capital as a tourism development asset. Some respondents mused about the extent to which the types of collaborative relationships developed and employed in an Olympic context would transfer over to the more parochial and often highly competitive environment of non‐Games DMO operations. Their main concern was that without the possibility of another industry‐coalescing mega‐event on the horizon, limited incentive existed to activate many of the social capital resources nurtured in the Consortium. The bottom line was that a lack of any foreseeable major event would dissipate the social capital legacy momentum created through the Consortium's initiatives.
Linking capital as expressed through relationships with other non‐tourism Olympic stakeholders was the final category of social capital investigated in this study. Opportunities for leveraging tourism benefits from the Games’ were dependent gaining access to VANOC's influential network of Olympic partners. That access was facilitated by the Consortium becoming the legitimate “single” voice for tourism stakeholders. As VANOC's trust in the Consortium grew, so did opportunities for the Consortium to reach out and collaborate with Games’ sponsors, media, sporting organizations, cultural groups and government agencies. At times these collaborations involved Consortium members embedding their human and infrastructural resources into the programs of the Olympic partners in exchange for opportunities to subtly communicate key tourism brand messages. Several respondents agreed that often these non‐traditional links created unprecedented levels of new social capital that could potentially be used to leverage future tourism marketing opportunities. However, they were less certain as to how such capital would be activated without the catalyst of another mega‐event.
In summary, the respondents suggested that to varying degrees increased levels of confidence, trust, mutual respect, personal ties, shared values and human capacity were generated through the Consortium's activities. This social capital was perceived to be a valuable but fragile legacy capable of nurturing increased:
- •
information and cost sharing among DMOs when tackling issues confronting the industry's overall sustained prosperity (e.g. human resource capacities, technological innovation, infrastructure development, etc.); and
- •
organizational leadership for marshalling the collective capacities of tourism stakeholders and other non‐traditional partners in planned (e.g. sports and culture festivals) and unplanned (e.g. natural and human crises) mega‐event situations.
Simultaneously, some of the informants expressed concern that the utility of this social capital might not be fully realized going forward. Several reasons were behind this concern. First, they wondered how the Consortium's social capital might be activated in the less grandiose and more individualistic post‐Games operating environments of most DMOs. Second, even if future opportunities existed for collectively leveraging such social capital, they felt that much of the collaborative, strategic and tactical memory of the Consortium network would likely dissipate quickly without a formalized strategy for documenting and sharing the Consortium's relationship building practices and lessons. Finally, some respondents expressed a concern that access to the inflated pre‐ and in situ Games’ budgets of the Consortium would be non‐existent after the Olympics. They felt that this would lead to reduced incentives and fewer opportunities to activate the social capital created by the Consortium. For these reasons and others, a feeling existed that the value and momentum of the social capital legacy generated via the Consortium's activities was imperiled by a limited appreciation of how it might be effectively activated and leveraged in a post‐Games environment.
Conclusions
This study provided insights for scholars and practitioners interested in understanding processes for measuring and nurturing social capital in Olympic Games and other sporting mega‐event contexts. It illustrated the types and dimensions of social capital that can be generated through purpose‐built organizations designed to marshal the collective capacities of normally competitive tourism entities. While the research identified the extent to which the 2010 Tourism Consortium nurtured and generated social capital among its stakeholders, it is challenging to transfer its specific findings to other sport mega‐event contexts. Much of its intelligence is based on the perspectives offered by a select group of respondents involved in a unique pre‐Games tourism leveraging exercise. Consequently, further related analyses are needed to extend our understanding of the character and role of social capital development in sport and other mega‐event management settings. Future research efforts that might help address this need include:
- •
Exploring how and the extent to which tourism‐related social capital is activated in post‐Games’ operating environments. While this study identified the extent to which social capital emerged during the run‐up to the Games, it also noted concerns about the extent to which this intangible resource would be activated in post‐Games context. Longitudinal investigations into the dynamics of social capital development, retention and activation prior to, during and at various points after the Games would provide useful insights into those forces shaping social capital momentum.
- •
Comparing the findings of this social capital investigation with those in other mega‐sport event contexts. This study identifies a social capital assessment frame and method that could be readily applied in other contexts. Comparative studies would help refine and/or validate the types of findings emerging from this study's case.
- •
Exploring the relative importance of various types of social capital at different stages in the mega‐event management process. This study did not measure the relative importance that bonding, bridging and linking social capital play in pre‐, in situ and post‐Games managerial settings. It is conceivable that some forms of social capital are more critical than others to leveraging tourism benefits at each of these stages. Further investigations into this topic would make valuable contributions to mega‐event practice and academic understanding of this emerging area of event research.
Corresponding author
Peter W. Williams can be contacted at: peterw@sfu.ca
References
Cashman, R. (2003), “What is Olympic legacy?”, in De Moragas, M., Kennet, C. and Puig, N. (Eds), The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984‐2000, Proceedings of the International Symposium 14‐16/11/2002, International Olympic Committee, Lausanne, pp. 31‐42.
Chalip, L. (2002), Using the Olympics To Optimize Tourism Benefits, Centre d’Estudis Olimpics 1 de L’Esport, Universitat Autonoma Barcelona, Barcelona.
Chappelet, J.‐L. (2003), “The legacy of the Olympic winter games: an overview”, in De Moragas, M., Kennet, C. and Puig, N. (Eds), The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984‐2000, Proceedings of the International Symposium 14‐16/11/2002, International Olympic Committee, Lausanne, pp. 54‐65.
Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001), In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Coleman, J. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, Supplement, pp. S95‐S120.
Coleman, J. (1994), Foundation of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, London.
Dale, A. (2005), “Social capital and sustainable community development: is there a relationship”, in Dale, A. and Onyx, J. (Eds), A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development, UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 13‐30.
Edwards, R. (2004), Measuring Social Capital: An Australian Framework and Indicators, Information Paper No. 1378.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Essex, S. and Chalkley, B. (2003), “The infrastructure legacy of summer and winter Olympic games: a comparative analysis”, in De Moragas, M., Kennet, C. and Puig, N. (Eds), The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984‐2000, Proceedings of the International Symposium 14‐16/11/2002, International Olympic Committee, Lausanne, pp. 94‐100.
Estlund, C. (2003), Working Together: How Workplace Bonds Strengthen a Diverse Democracy, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Evans, W. and Carson, C. (2005), “A social capital explanation of the relationship between functional diversity and group performance”, Team Performance Measurement, Vol. 1 Nos 7‐8, pp. 302‐15.
Field, J. (2008), Social Capital, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.
Franke, S. (2005), “Measurement of social capital: reference document for public policy research, development, and evaluation”, Policy Research Initiative, Ottawa, available at: www.horizons.gc.ca/doclib/Measurement_E.pdf (accessed August 14, 2012).
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Grootaert, C. (1998), “Social capital: the missing link”, World Bank Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 3, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Grootaert, C. and Bastelaer, T. (Eds) (2002), Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Nyhan‐Jones, V. and Woolcock, M. (2004), Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Hague, N. and Morgan, C. (2004), Market Research in Practice: A Guide to Basics, Kogan Publishers, London.
Halpern, D. (2005), Social Capital, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hiller, H. (1998), “Assessing the impact of mega‐events: a linkage model”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47‐57.
Hiller, H. (2003), “Towards a science of Olympic outcomes: the urban legacy”, in De Moragas, M., Kennet, C. and Puig, N. (Eds), The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984‐2000, Proceedings of the International Symposium 14‐16/11/2002, International Olympic Committee, Lausanne, pp. 102‐9.
Kilduff, M. and Tsai, W. (2003), Social Networks and Organizations, Sage Publications, London.
Krishna, A. (2000), “Creating and harnessing social capital”, in Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (Eds), Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective, World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 71‐93.
Krishna, A. and Shrader, E. (2002), “Social capital assessment tool: design and implementation”, in Grootaert, C. and Bastelaer, T. (Eds), Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 17‐40.
Koka, B.R. and Prescott, J. (2002), “Strategic alliance as social capital: a multi‐disciplinary view”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 795‐816.
London Assembly (2007), A Lasting Legacy for London? Assessing the Legacy of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, Greater London Authority, London.
McGhee, N.G., Lee, S., O'Bannon, T.L. and Perdue, R.R. (2010), “Tourism related social capital and its relationship with other forms of social capital: an exploratory study”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 486‐500.
McGrath, R. and Sparks, W. (2005), “The importance of building social capital”, Quality Progress, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 44‐9.
MacRury, I. and Poytner, G. (2009), “Olympic cities and social change”, in MacRury, I. and Poytner, G. (Eds), Olympic Cities and the Remaking of London, Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey, pp. 303‐26.
O'Brien, D. (2006), “Event business leveraging: the Sydney 2000 Olympic games”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 240‐61.
Onyx, J. (2005), “Introduction”, in Dale, A. and Onyx, J. (Eds), A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development, UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 13‐30.
Onyx, J. and Bullen, P. (2000), “Measuring social capital in five communities”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 23‐42.
Portes, A. (1998), “Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1‐24.
Poytner, G. and MacRury, I. (Eds) (2009), Olympic Cities and the Remaking of London, Ashgate Publishing, London.
Preuss, H. (2007), “The conceptualization and measurement of mega sport event legacies”, Journal of Sport and Tourism, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 207‐28.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2010), The Games Effect. Preliminary Impact of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games on British Columbia and Canada to March 10, 2010, Report No. 6, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Vancouver.
Putnam, R. (1995), “Bowling alone: America's declining social capital”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 65‐78.
Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Ramos‐Pinto, P. (2006), “Social capital as a capacity for collective action”, in Edwards, R., Franklin, J. and Holland, J. (Eds), Assessing Social Capital: Concepts, Policy and Practice, Cambridge Scholar Press, Newcastle, pp. 53‐69.
Rydin, Y. and Holman, N. (2004), “Re‐evaluating the contribution of social capital in achieving sustainable development”, Local Environment, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 117‐33.
Schuller, T., Baron, S. and Field, J. (2000), “Social capital: a review and critique”, in Schuller, T., Baron, S. and Field, J. (Eds), Social Capital: Critical Perspective, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 1‐39.
Serageldin, I. and Grootaert, C. (2000), “Defining social capital: an integrated view”, in Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (Eds), Social capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 40‐58.
Tourism British Columbia (TBC) (2003), Tourism BC Ten Year Strategic Plan, Tourism British Columbia, Victoria.
Woolcock, M. (2001), The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes, Development Group, The World Bank and Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. (2001), “Social capital: implications for development theory, research and policy”, The World Bank, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 225‐49.