並列タイトル等スポーツレガシー形成へのスポーツ政策の寄与に関する研究 : 2000年シドニーオリンピック競技大会を事例として
一般注記The impacts of hosting the Olympic Games on a host city/nation are significant, and therefore how to minimize the negative effects and maximize the positive effect has been an issue for the event owner, the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The IOC aims to leave so-called ‘legacy,’ which are to be long-term positive effects, in host cities and nations. The legacy issues captured Olympic stakeholders and researchers, after the IOC Olympic Study Centre and Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain jointly held a symposium ‘The Legacy of the Olympic Games: 1984–2000’ in 2002. As shown in the title, the discussion targeted the 1984 Olympic Games and after. This was because the impact of hosting the Olympic Games became larger as more stakeholder were involved in the management after the introduction of commercialization at the 1984 Los Angeles Games. The change in the management source from public fund to private fund was successful with revenue being generated at the Olympics. It probably saved the Olympic Movement from the financial crisis. However, such expansion of the Games was revisited in response to a growing global concern on the environment and sustainable development in 1990s. The IOC launched a legacy/impact study in 2001 and introduced indicators in 2003 to measure impacts on host cities and nations. The indicators were collectively called as Olympic Games Global Impact (OGGI) study, covering three areas of economy, environment and society. The Organizing Committees of the Olympic Games (OCOGs) were required to collect data based on the indicators and to submit reports accordingly. The OGGI was then reviewed and the name was changed to Olympic Games Impact (OGI) study in 2007. The introduction of the OGGI/OGI study was a positive step to understand the impacts, however, some researchers pointed out the issues such as difficulty in collecting required data and inconsistent methodologies in the data. Not only the OGGI/OGI study but also most of the existing legacy studies focused on ‘impacts’ immediately after the Olympic Games. As a result, those existing legacy studies did not find any evidence that hosting the Olympic Games left a sustainable sport legacy in a host city/nation, for example. This is due to the limitations in the methodology where the secondary data such as sport participation rate or club membership were analysed. It is difficult to establish the relationship between the trend in such data and the Olympic Games, because other factors might affect the changes. Those legacy studies are considered as an outcome-based study. Therefore, this study applied a different approach by focusing on the process rather than the outcome. As a case study, this study focused on sport legacies in accordance with the objective of ‘Olympism’, a word/philosophy created by Pierre de Coubertin who revived the modern Olympics. In addition, this study chose the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games to analyse long-term sport legacies. According to the pilot study, sport policy could contribute to develop sport legacy and therefore this study analysed the process of Australian federal sport policy from the time the city of Sydney bid for the 2000 Olympics, to date. Through the sport policy analysis, some sustainable sport legacies were found, which existing studies did not refer to. They are: Australian Youth Olympic Festival (AYOF) organized by Australian Olympic Committee (AOC); Sydney Marathon owned by Athletics Australia; and sport activities at the Sydney Olympic Park overseen by Sydney Olympic Park Authority. In addition, another sport legacy ‘Pierre de Coubertin Award’ conducted by the AOC was also found and analysed. The national sport policy played an important role for the success of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, especially at early stage of the preparation, but it was not directly involved in the development of sport legacies. Those sustainable sport legacies were not planned in advance but developed almost by accident in the case of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. This might be because its preparation was made in the 1990s before the ‘legacy’ issues captured Olympic stakeholders. However, there are still lessons from the case study. For example, it might be better that national sport policy be responsible for developing national programs/networks for sports or physical activities than local authority does. Sport policy would be able to be a primary legacy actor, in order that everyone enjoys the legacy from the Olympic Games. This study would be helpful for future bid cities/nations and host cities/nations to plan their sport legacy of the Olympic Games.
首都大学東京, 2015-03-25, 博士（学術）, 乙第93号
関連情報http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09523367.2013.825251
連携機関・データベース国立情報学研究所 : 学術機関リポジトリデータベース（IRDB）（機関リポジトリ）