Scriptie def single

BastiaanBretveldMasterthesis:TowardsOlympicGames3.0
Towards Olympic Games 3.0
Master thesis
Student:Bastiaan Bretveld | January 2014 | Master Environmental & Infrastructure Planning |
University of Groningen, Faculty of Spatial Sciences | Supervisor:Dr.C.Zuidema7074277812919
ISBN 978-1-291-70742-7
90000

Table of contents
List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
Part I: Context 1
1..Context of the Olympic Games. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 The Development of the IOC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 The cycles of the Games. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2..The Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Cause of the research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Problem statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Research question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Relevance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Part II: Theory 17
3..Transition Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 General sciences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 Complexity theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4 Transition theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5 Governance of transitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4..Olympic theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Governance of the Olympic Games. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3 Sustainable Olympic Games. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Part III: Analysis 41
5..Current Olympic developments to sustainable transitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2 the ecological aspect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.3 the economical aspect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.4 the social aspect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6..Olympic transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.2 The Olympic structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.3 The Olympic procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.4 Towards a future vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Part IV: 57
Olympic Games 3.0 57
7..London 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.2 Preparations of the 2012 Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.3 During the Olympic and Paralympic Games. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.4 The long-term. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8..Future of the Olympic Movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Part V: 69
Conclusions 69
9..Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.1 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.2 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.3 Reflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
9.4 Epilogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Part VI: 83
Appendices 83
Appendix 1 New Olympic system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
The process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Appendix 2: Olympic revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Appendix 3: Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Appendix 3a: Verslag interview Jurryt van de Vooren. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Appendix 3b: Verslag Interview Herbert Wolff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Appendix 3c: Verslag interview Thysia Pater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix 3d: Verslag Interview Willem de Boer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

List of abbreviations
ATP Association of Tennis Professional NGO non-governmental organization
BOA British Olympic Association NOC National Olympic Committee
BOC Bid Organizing Committee NRG Nations and Regions Group
CAS Court of Arbitration of Sport OBS Olympic Broadcasting Services
CSL Commission for Sustainability London OC Olympic Charter
DCMS Department for Culture, Media & Sport OCOG Organizing Committee of Olympic Games
FIFA Fédération Internationale de Football Associa-
tion
ODA Olympic Delivery Authority
GEN Global Ecovillage Network OGI Olympic Games Impact
GLA Greater London Authority OGKS Olympic Games Knowledge Service
IBC International Broadcast Centre OLC Olympic Legacy Company
IF International Sport Federation OM Olympic Movement
IOC International Olympic Committee OPLC Olympic Park Legacy Company
IPC International Paralympic Committee SER Social Economic Council (Sociaal Economische
Raad)
ISL International Sport and Leisure TOK Transfer of Olympic Knowledge
LDA London Development Agency TOP The Olympic Partner program
LLDC London Legacy Development Company UEFA Union of European Football Associations
LOCOG London Organizing Committee of Olympic
Games
UEL University of East London
MoL Mayor of London UN United Nations
MPC Main Press Centre UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme
NBA National Basketball Association VROM Ministery of Housing, Planning and Environ-
ment (Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
en Milieu)
NF National Sport Federation WADA World Anti Doping Agency

Part I:
Context
Source: www.olympic.org/photos

3
1. Context of the Olympic Games
1.1 Introduction
The Olympic Games1
developed to a worldwide, first-class
media and commercial event in which the host city is the
center of the world. This development through more than
a sporting event can be distinguished by two characteristics
(XML Architects, 2012):
• The ideological basis. The 1896 Games were organized
from the ideal that competitive sports would contrib-
ute to international brotherhood and peace. This ideal
evolved during the time through the ideology of ‘Olym-
pism’. This ideology is based on the Olympic icons and
rituals like the Olympic flag, torch and oath. The cen-
tral message here is stated by the International Olympic
Committee: ‘‘place everywhere sport at the service of the
harmonious development of man, with a view to encour-
aging the establishment of a peaceful society concerned
with the preservation of human dignity’’ (IOC, 2013:11).
These principles are hardly changed since the time of
Pierre de Coubertin (Zakus & Skinner, 2008).
• The utopian potential. Hosting the Olympic Games is
such a big challenge for a city that it is impossible to real-
ize it without a vision on the future. Hosting the Games
has an enormous symbolic meaning for the city and the
rest of the world, it brings prestige for the city and the
link with the ideals of Olympism is often seen as a sym-
1 If referred to the Olympic Games as an event, also the Paralympic
Games are meant. On the spatial scale there is no difference, the Paralympics use in
majority the same venues.
bol of progress and modernity. The story a city wants to
tell with hosting the Games is important in the alloca-
tion.
With this in mind, the IOC and the overarching Olympic
Movement developed to a non-governmental organization,
which keeps the middle between the United Nations and the
World Football association FIFA. The IOC is sports associ-
ation like the FIFA, but also acts like a non-governmental
stakeholder outside the sport; in this respect, it is more like
the UN. So it is something in between. The Olympic Games
are the most visible aspect of the bigger context of the Olym-
pic Movement; this will be further elaborated in chapter 4.
The Olympic Movement is the overarching entity of the five
aspects of the Olympic structure (Chappelet & Kübler-Mab-
bott, 2008). This consists of the:
• International Olympic Committee (IOC);
• Organizing Committees of the Olympic Games
(OCOG);
• International Sport Federations (IFs);
• National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and
• National Sports Federations (NFs).
In this, the IOC is the ‘supreme authority’ of the Olympic
Movement. The distinction between the IOC and the Olym-
pic Movement is essential. This research focuses on the
OCOG’s (the Olympic Games) and the IOC as the central
actor in the movement (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008;
Zakus & Skinner, 2008 & Theodoraki, 2007). This first chap-
ter of the research tries to draw the context of the Olympic
The worldwide society competes on different levels with each other, one of these meet-
ings of sportive performance are the Olympic Games. These competitive meetings devel-
op itself along with the developing worldwide society. One of the characteristics of the
Olympic Games in this worldwide society is the urban renewal strategy, which is connect-
ed to the Games. Since the first modern Olympic Games in 1896 in Athens, the Games
developed itself to an international mega-event. On behalf of the International Olympic
Committee (IOC), it also developed to more than just a sporting event.

4
Part I: Context
Games and the IOC. Hereby will § 1.2 focus on the IOC as-
pect, and paragraph 1.3 on the Olympic Games aspect.
1.2 The Development of the IOC
Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the IOC in 1894, as the
central governing body of the movement. It is one of the old-
est non-governmental organizations (NGO). It started with
de Coubertin and fifteen friends as the ‘International Com-
mittee for the Olympic Games’. The first event was in 1896 in
Athens and after that continued the four-year cycle in 1900
in Paris (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008). From this
point, the Olympism tries to achieve an impact beyond sport
in other aspects of our lives, two pillars are traditionally part
of this strategy: ‘sport’ and ‘culture’. Since the 1990s, a third
pillar of ‘environment’ is added. After World War II, with the
emergence of the Cold War, the IOC give some financial
and logistical support in organizing the Games and became
it recognized as a real non-governmental organization. The
IOC stayed an organization, based on principles, which are
stated in the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2013). In the first days it
was an organization with volunteer members who represent
the IOC around the world. Nowadays, it is still an association
of individuals who have the task to promote the IOC world-
wide, but not to represent the country in the IOC. All the
members are co-opted by existing members of the IOC and
elected by secret ballots. This lack of transparent processes
is already since the foundation in 1894, and has never really
changed. The only real democratic element of the IOC is the
election of the athletes in the IOC. One of these 12 athletes
can be nominated by every NOC, this happens during the
so-called ‘Session’, an annual meeting by the 105 IOC mem-
bers. For some facts of the currently IOC, see Box 1. The ac-
tual government of the IOC is the ‘Executive Board’, which
meets four or five times a year.
The selection of the host city for the Olympic Games got a
specific procedure with two phases. Every NOC can nomi-
nate the name of a potential host city. This needs to be done
9 years precede of the Olympics. The NOC needs to fill in
a questionform regarding several key points as motivation,
vision and spatial concept. On basis of this form, the IOC
makes a selection of cities. The cities that do not cope with
the requirements are rejected. The cities that do cope get
the status of ‘Applicant City’. To elaborate the candidacy,
the cities got 6 months to work on their candidacy; the so-
called ‘Application files’ do this. This is all evaluated by an
IOC Working Group with support of technical experts. The
files are checked on realism, planning, and financial aspects
and thereby the city’s ‘hardware’, this results in a Working
Group Report (‘W-Report’). On basis of this evaluation,
the Executive Board selects a number of ‘Candidate Cities’;
this also marks the beginning of the second phase. In the
following year, the candidate cities produce a bid book and
the feasibility will be further investigated. This also comes
by a questionform of 250 questions and a special IOC Eval-
uation Committee visits each city. During this phase, only
the Evaluation Committee members are allowed to visit the
candidate countries, no other IOC members. This is also
the time of intensive lobbying of cities during internation-
Box 1
The current IOC
- 105 members, 32 honorary members, 1 honour member;
- 42% of the members is from a democracy, 58% from a pseudo-democracy of dictatorial country;
- 69% of the member is 60 years of older (48% above 65);
- Sex distribution of 81% men, 19% women;
- Geographical distribution of 41% Europe, 22% Asia, 18% Americas, 13% Africa, 6% Oceania;
- 16% of the member has an aristocratic background
Source: XML Architects, 2012

5
al meetings, with at the end a briefing with the conclusions
of the Evaluation Committee in an Evaluation Commission
Report (‘E-Report’)(Pitts & Liao, 2009). These two phases of
selection are further elaborated in chapter 4. During a last,
special IOC Session on neutral ground, the cities got their
last change to present their bid. It finishes with a secret ballot
in which every IOC member has one vote. The trend of the
last couple of years is that heads of state try to influence the
decision (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). IOC mem-
bers from candidate countries are not allowed to vote as their
candidate is in the running. The voting rounds repeat until
one candidate has the absolute majority (XML Architects,
2012; IOC, 2011b)2
. Important in this whole procedure is
that cities that want to host the Olympic Games need to meet
the requirements of the IOC. It is not allowed to give an own
interpretation of the rules. The rules are set by the Olympic
Movement and are strictly observed. Next to this process,
there are some requirements from the IOC, which are rele-
vant to mention here: it is not allowed to host the Games as a
country or a combination of cities. If you want to organize a
certain sport outside the host city, permission is needed from
the IOC and the dates of the Games are determined by the
IOC (IOC, 2013).
An important aspect is that after the bid procedure is finished
and the host city is chosen, there is no real accountability.
The only sanction the IOC got, is withdrawing the Games,
which is also not good for the reputation of the IOC. After
the Games, there is nobody taking the real responsibility and
accountability for the promises in the bid book.
The central aim of the IOC is to promote the Olympism
through the world. The fundamental principles of the Olym-
pism are stated in the Olympic Charter, but are vague and
exalted goals (Horne & Whannel, 2012). The Olympic Char-
ter is the codification of the fundamental principles of Olym-
pism and so the Olympic Movement. Essentially, it serves
three main purposes (IOC, 2013: 11):
2 The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) is the formal organizer
of the Paralympic Games. The selection of the host city for the Paralympic Games
is in hand of the IOC, so the IPC has no influence on this selection and will further
not being mentioned as a major stakeholder in the selection procedure.
• It is the basic instrument of a constitutional nature, sets
forth and recalls the fundamental principles and essen-
tial values;
• It serves the statutes for the IOC;
• It defines the main reciprocal rights and obligations of
the three main aspects of the Olympic Movement.
During the last 20 years, the IOC had some problems in
achieving their goals. Through the requirements of the IOC,
Los Angeles was the only candidate city for the 1984 Olym-
pics. The Olympic Games were getting bigger and bigger, and
with only amateur athletes and local revenues, it was no lon-
ger possible to host the Games. From that year, the IOC lost
its struggle against the commercialization. One of the causes
was that the IOC acted as a non- democratic closed system.
It tries to remain the idealistic and amateur organization of
a four-year sports event, but the surrounding environment
changed. The costs of investment became too high, the reve-
nues stayed on a same level as in the 1960s so this resulted in
an imbalance. When Juan Antonio Samaranch was elected
as IOC President in 1980, his task was to guide the IOC into
the twentieth century (Zakus & Skinner, 2008). The twenti-
eth century was already 80 years on the go, so this was maybe
a bit late.
As a result, in 1982 Samaranch launched a commission to
revise the Olympic Charter. With this revision, the IOC
was capable of keeping the closed system as it was, except
one point, the business model. This was under pressure of
the Los Angeles organization, they only want to host within
their own frameworks (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren). The
non-democratic characteristic of the IOC remained by this.
With the new business model, the IOC was able to finance
more side programs like the Olympic Solidarity program.
The television revenues and sponsor earning took a central
place. The Los Angeles Games were the first to implement
this new model, but the IOC was too naïve in the contractual
relationships so the most revenues went to the Los Angeles
Organizing Committee (LAOCOG)(Barney et al, 2002).
According to this misunderstanding, the IOC wanted to for-
malize the agreements. Together with International Sport &
Leisure (ISL) they also formulated the Olympic Programme

6
Part I: Context
(nowadays known as The Olympic Partners program: TOP),
the worldwide sponsorship program to take a better advan-
tage of the revenues and commercial opportunities. Also a
television commission was set up for the negotiations with
the broadcasters. The aim was to generate more commercial
returns for the IOC. Here the conflict of the amateur values
came by. The once volunteer organization was now driven by
sponsorships, television rights and merchandising of stamps
and coins. To keep the amateur status to the outside world,
it was initialized within the IOC (Zakus & Skinner, 2008).
This was also the time were the Winter Games cycle was split
up from the Summer Games cycle. In 1986, the IOC decid-
ed to reschedule the Winter Games in between the Summer
Games. This was first introduced in the 1994 Lillehammer
Games. The reason for this was twofold. First, it was better
for the television schedule, two big events in one year is hard
to manage with other television programs. Second, for the
TOP program, it was more attractive to get the attention ev-
ery two years, instead of two times in one year, and than a
break of four year. After the 1992 Olympics in Albertville,
the aspect of sustainability emerged. A central motto of the
1992 Winter edition was ‘Back to nature’, in which came for-
ward the lack of attention to sustainability. Thus, the IOC
had to do something with this. The first step was the 1994
Olympics in Lillehammer, under the responsibility of Prime
Minister Brundtland (former president of the ‘Our common
future’ report), and the Cooperative Agreement of the IOC
and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)
to raise awareness and educate people about sustainability.
This developed through a ‘Third Pillar’ of Olympism and the
Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21. In connection to the envi-
ronmental aspect, the democratic aspect might be included.
One of the core concepts of sustainability is democracy be-
cause the including of the social and environmental aspect
next to the economic aspect. This results in more discus-
sion, tension and critique; and thereby in a more democratic
process, so the moral aspect of democracy. Also the weigh
of pros and cons between different pespectives is an aspect
of importance of sustainability, the more pragmatic aspect.
It gives no guarantee, but it does have a positive influence
(De Roo & Porter, 2006; Rotmans et al., 2001; Rotmans,
2003). The environmental sustainability, such as the use of
renewable sources, less use air polluting products and the
use of environmental impact assessment become part of the
stakeholders regular activities (IOC, 1999). Inspired by the
UNCED Agenda 21 (IOC, 1999) started the IOC an action
program builds around three objectives of the Agenda 21
(IOC, 1999: 23):
• ‘Improve socio-economic conditions;
• Conservation and management of resources for sustain-
able development;
• Strengthening the role of major groups’.
This has been translated in the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2013:
17): ‘to encourage and support a responsible concern for en-
vironmental issues, to promote sustainable development in
sport’. The Sydney Olympics in 2000 were the first the ap-
plication of the sustainability goals and Sydney made a good
first step (Furrer, 2002). Since then it is on the agenda for
every bid, characterized by a very top-down approximation.
After the first step from the bottom, the IOC imposes the re-
quirements top-down in which in many countries there is no
person with the influence of Brundtland to really make the
step to a sustainable Olympic Games (Cantelon & Letters,
2000).
With solving the commercial problem, this was also the
provocative for the next crisis, which erupted in 1999. In the
environment were there is more profit, the danger of cor-
ruption is on the lookout. Unless if this is all regulated. As
evidenced by the election of Salt Lake City for hosting the
Winter Games of 2002, nearly a quarter of the IOC members
get more than a million in pay-offs, vacations to Disneyland,
trips to the Superbowl in Las Vegas and scholarships for the
members’ children. A research by Jennings (2000) conclud-
ed that there had been a long lasting legacy of IOC members
ignoring allegations of influence peddling. Suggested here is
that did not check the allegations because the IOC was the
most ‘unaccountable’ organization in the world, and they
did not have to check it. So the suggestion is that Salt Lake
City was not the first were it happened. When President Sa-
maranch apologized for the scandal after the Salt Lake City
Games, he denied the ingrained culture of corruption in the

7
IOC (Jennings, 2000).
After the 2002 Games, the IOC had to act. Primarily by the
possible loss of commercial support. With pressure from
sponsors and also from the US Congress. After all, ten mem-
bers were removed from the IOC; this also resulted in a major
change of the Olympic Charter. These include for example:
age limits, expansion of membership categories (IFs, NOCs
and athletes) and the launching of an Ethics commission.
Analyzing the IOC nowadays becomes clear that the IOC is
a mixture of the United Nations and the FIFA. What become
clear is that the IOC is a unique body with unique values and
norms. Where it all started in the 19th century with a small
organization it is now one of the most known and powerful
non-governmental bodies of the world, which still acts like a
non-democratic closed system. This grown had an enormous
impact on all the aspect of the Olympic Games. Think about
the organizational philosophy of the Games, the ideals of the
Movement but also the structure in the sports world. This all
becomes visible in the next paragraph, in which the devel-
opment of the Olympic Summer Games will be explained in
detail.
1.3 The cycles of the Games
Next to these core characteristics of the Olympic Games,
which are mentioned in the beginning, the Games did change
since 1896. The Games as an event are no autonomous, im-
mutable and neutral event. It is always a reflection of the
global political, economic and social situation. According
to different researches, the Olympic Games can be classified
in cycles of about 20 years (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott,
2008; XML Architects, 2012; Interview Jurryt van de Vooren,
2013). The various studies have some differences in the cy-
cles; this research will use all of them to design an alternative
typology in six cycles, see also Figure 1.
I. Difficult beginnings (1896-1912)
The launch of the modern Olympic Games in 1896 in Athens
was very successful, but afterwards it was hard to continue
independent. Through the reduced visibility, the Games suf-
fered from the link with the universal exhibitions. The great
success of the Stockholm Games of 1912 (with participants
from five continents) was preservation to survive World War
I. In 1916, the Games were scheduled to Berlin, but were can-
celled, due to the war.
II. The interwar competition (1920-1936)
After World War I, peaceful means like the League of Na-
tions were created. The Olympics gave the opportunity to
transform conflicts to a peaceful battle on a playing field with
individuals representing their country. This was also the time
were many of the symbols, like the athletes’ oath, the medal
ceremony, the five interlocking rings and the Olympic flame
were invented. This was also the time were the Olympics
gain more importance then other multi-sport events. After
the ‘Nazi-Games’ of 1936, World War II prevented the taking
place of the 1940 (scheduled to Tokyo and later Helsinki) and
1944 (symbolically scheduled to London) Olympics.
III. No more War (1948-1964)
The period after World War II can be typified as the interna-
tionalization of the Games by spreading a peaceful competi-
tion. The Games were for the first time held outside Europe
in 1956 in Melbourne, this continued with Tokyo in 1964.
The European editions were marked by post-war feelings.
The 1948 Games of London were symbolic for the victory,
the 1960 (Rome), 1972 (Munich) (and also the 1964 Tokyo)
Games for the rebuilding after the War. The Rome Olympics
were the first in which an urban renewal strategy emerged.
This was also the time were the Cold War emerged and were
the East-West contrast were good visible during the Games
(Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). This period was also
the period of decolonization and the growth of the Games;
through the Cold War, the Games became more political.
IV. The nadir (1968-1980)
The 1968 Mexico Games were a mark of darker period of
time. In front of the IOC-members, 300 protesting students
were shot to go on with the Games. Also Munich 1972; ac-
centuating the political problems by the hostage of the Is-
raeli team, the financial debacle of the Montreal Games of
1976 and the 1980 & 1984 boycotts from the United States

8
Part I: Context
and nearly half of the countries in 1980 during the Games of
Moscow and the Sovjet-countries during the 1984 Games in
Los Angeles caused an unpleasant taste. It was also the time
where the first steps to the future were made with improved
technological sophistication related to the Games for broad-
casting. Due to the different problems, there were many ex-
perts who state that the 1980 Games were the last Olympics.
It looks like it was the end (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren,
2013).
V. The commercial Games/Olympics 2.0
(1984-2000)
But, due to the commercial approach of Los Angeles with
complete different Games was there again a future. The 1984
Games were the turning point. The Games had to be reinvent-
ed, the television became more important, and the capitalism
was surviving the Cold War as best. The commercialization
came up and with all this developments, the competition
opened up the Games to professional athletes. For the 1984
Games,therewasonlyonerealcandidatecity,theothercandi-
date, Teheran, was not a real option in front of the ayatollahs,
so a change was needed. This change happened with the 1984
Games. After a referendum blocked public funding, a group
of entrepreneurs developed a new business model based of
revenues from television and advertising. Important for the
spatial impact, Los Angeles hosted the Games without major
urban developments, this reflected in the lower costs, which
was welcome because of the high costs of Munich and Mon-
Figure 1: cycles of the Olympics Summer Games. (Made by Bastiaan Bretveld, sources: IOC & Google for pictures)
The difficult beginnings
(1896-1912)
I II III IV
The interwar competition
(1920-1936)
No more war
(1948-1964)
The nadir
(1968-1980)
The comme
1920 1948 19681896 1984

9
treal. This continued with The Olympic Partnership (TOP)
in 1985 and reached its peak with the 1996 Atlanta Games.
During this celebration of 100 year Olympic Games of At-
lanta, home of the Headquarter of Coca Cola, was preferred
above Athens, the source of the Games. Next to that, the 1992
Barcelona Games were the first edition free of boycotts in 20
years and according to the urban transformation of Barcelo-
na it is still a well-known example, something what is called
nowadays ‘The Barcelona Model’. It were also the first Games
were South Africa was allowed to participate after the apart-
heid regime and were Germany participated as a single team.
Barcelona paved the way with a good logistical organization
of a gigantic event that can grow bigger. Atlanta 1996 was a
classic example of an underestimation of the logistical orga-
nization. Without government involvement there were some
major problems in transportation, information technology
and security. The 2000 Sydney and 2004 Athens Games ben-
efited from governmental support and there were no major
problems or incidents.
VI. The world expansion (2004-?
With the 2004 Athens Games, the Olympics were back on the
old nest, after that they could spread their wings. Afterwards
are the Athens Games not seen as the best Games. There were
problems with the building procedures, the big internation-
al sponsors did not supported Athens and the IOC used its
power to force some decisions. With Beijing in 2008 and
Rio de Janeiro in 2016, the Olympics discovered some new
worlds. This is also visible in the upcoming Winter Olym-
pics in Sochi (2014) and Pyeongchang (2018). In this era, the
TOP-program is a perfect vehicle for opening new econo-
mies for the 12 big sponsors of the IOC. This along with the
enormous IOC standards for infrastructure investments and
jurisdictional freedom it is hard to integrate this with demo-
cratic countries.
The twenty year-cycle becomes visible in this typology. The
now arise question is when the current cycle will end, and
how long this model of a closed governance system without a
real democratic notion is viable for the long-term. Exception
in this era is London 2012, well-organized Games in a dem-
ocratic country. One of the unique selling points of London
was the redevelopment of one of the poorest parts of London
with a big sustainability and legacy mark, which is after the
London Olympics incorporated in the IOC standards. Lon-
don is in this a good first step in which the environmental
and legacy issues are combined in one comprehensive long-
term vision (Interview Herbert Wolff & Thysia Pater, 2013).
The question is now, would Rio de Janeiro be a step forward
on this, or will it be a big step back?
1.4 Conclusion
As Laughlin (1991) pointed out in his model of organization
change is that an ideal organization is in equilibrium, that
the subsystems within the organization and the design ac-
cording to the surroundings are in some dynamic balance.
Time
V VI
ercial Games/Olympics 2.0
(1984-2004)
The world expansion
(2008-?)
2008

10
Part I: Context
He also suggests that an organization only will change when
it is disturbed. This will not happen if organizations con-
tinually adapt to minor changes in the environment. That
the Olympic Movement is not in equilibrium is something
which became clear after the after the crises at the end of the
20th century.
During the 1980s crisis, the IOC was no longer the amateur
idealistic body of Olympism but became a high-class profit-
able organization in which the television and sponsor reve-
nue became a major driver. An important aspect here is the
picture to the outside world, stay worldwide known as the
idealistic organization.
After that, the second crisis arose in 1999. After a huge cor-
ruption scandal in the run for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter
Games and as a result the relieve of ten IOC members and
some major changes in the Olympic Charter, the IOC was
able to reach calmer water.
In solving the problems, the IOC has only done by symptoms
control. The source of the 1980s crisis of continues growing
Games and thereby continues growing costs stayed. Also the
1999 crisis of corruption is never really solved. The charac-
teristics of the non-democratic closed system with secret bal-
lots and the lack of accountability of the IOC members are
still present. Here become visible that there is no interaction
between the different levels of the system; the regime and
niche participants working not enough together to cope with
the complex worldwide society; and since the end of the 19th
century no move towards a more democratic decision-mak-
ing model is made. The last try to catch up with these issues
is the legacy program. By stating the importance of positive
legacy, the IOC tries to avoid protests and complaints about
the still rising costs. But this is still a measure of symptom
control. Not lowering the costs to a human scale, but try to
leave behind a positive legacy of infrastructure investments
and urban regeneration is the strategy.
With the legacy program, the costs are not lowered, the
impact in host cities does not become smaller and local-
ly adjusted and the IOC stays an ‘old gentlemen’s club’ in a
non-democratic closed and mostly secret system. “The IOC
remains a club based on the eighteenth-century aristocratic
notions of membership associated with a gentlemen’s club”
(Horne & Whannel, 2012: 28). The Executive Board in which
members are not democratically chosen makes most deci-
sions. The host city is chosen by a secret ballot, which is to-
tally not transparent, here the IOC has enormous power over
cities and countries that aspire to host the Olympics (XML
Architects, 2012). This reflects that short-term revenues pre-
fer above the long-term trends of the world. Relevant trends
that the Games should take into account are climate change
(finiteness of fossil fuels, sea-level rise and rising energy pric-
es), technology and digitalizing developments (public view-
ing, temporary venues, (social) media) and the worldwide
crisis (financial, relational in point of view of market, society
and government, values and lifestyle). The solution in my
opinion is a transition to a democratic, transparent, flexible
and sustainable business model, which is based on humanity.
Thereby the Olympic Games can transform to a sustainable
and human scale event in which the legacy of the spatial im-
pact (70% of the investments) got a central place and can
cope with the local needs. It is necessary for the Olympic
Movement to take the lead in this transformation. To make
a sustainable Olympic Games possible, it is important to be
sustainable in the requirements and vision in for example the
spatial, societal, commercial and financial aspect. This all is
where this research is going about.

11
2. The Research
2. The Research
The worldwide society is changing through decades towards a society in which the environment
and sustainable aspect of our actions gets more attention. Through experiments are sectors
changing and according to the ideals of Olympism should the Olympic Movement be an experi-
ment in this worldwide transition. This is not the case nowadays. For example, the sustainable
ambitions of the London 2012 Olympics came from the local organizing committee without
support of the IOC. After the Games, the IOC has taken over this, but this reflects once again
there is no reflexive component during the process; this is already written down in chapter 1.
This reflects the ongoing development of the Olympic Games as an event, but also lack of devel-
opment of the IOC by their outdated requirements.
2.1 Cause of the research
These trends are for example: the worldwide climate change,
the developments in technology and digitalization and the
current worldwide crises. The worldwide climate change is
linked with the developments of energy prices, shale gas, re-
newable sources and the finiteness of fossil fuels. The devel-
opments of technology and digitalization, for example, are
visible in the use of social media: always and everywhere on-
line, 3D television and the smartphone density worldwide.
The current crisis reflects the ongoing development from a
banking crisis, towards financial crisis and towards a system
crisis (Rotmans, 2012).
But what remains is the IOC: founded in 1896, since then
hardly changed. Nowadays a group of 105 members decide
about the major issues of the Olympic Movement. This group
decides within the walls of the IOC by secret ballots. They try
to keep the amateur view to the outside world, but they are
mainly driven by commercialization.
This causes problems: the institutional part of the committee
and the cultures and values of the worldwide society, versus
the remained unilateral focus on organizing the Games with-
out the broader perspective of the urban renewal program.
The missing link between the current and a sustainable ty-
pology is the democracy of the current discourse. The tele-
vision broadcasting rights keep rising and the TOP program
still brings more money in every four year. The worldwide
interest becomes more important, but the IOC does not fa-
cilitate on a sustainable way.
This results in an untenable situation as regards the spatial
component in the long-term. The spatial component consists
of the legacy and investments in infrastructure. Stadiums
are built with a capacity of 80.000 people and only used for
five weeks, public transport systems are designed to trans-
port people with a peak capacity of 60.000 people per hour,
something the majority of cities do not need after the Games.
If these requirements of the IOC stay at this level or may-
be even rise f1
urther, this will have a disastrous effect on the
Olympic Movement in the long-term.
2.2 Problem statement
The above described context leads to a lack of transitional
change in the context of the Olympic Games and the Olym-
pic Movement. The Olympic Movement misses the current
trend of sustainable development; a more open governance
system will provide opportunities to make the transition eas-
ier. This will lead to the following problem statement:
The worldwide society is showing signs of a sustainable
transition, the Olympic Movement does not follow this
transition and lacks the notion of long-term vision.
With this problem in mind, it is worth thinking about mak-
ing the Olympic Games sustainable and tenable for the long-
1 five weeks consist of three weeks Olympic Games and two weeks Para-
limpic Games.

12
Part I: Context
Context:
development OG
1896-2012
term future. Chapter 1 made it clear that the Olympic Games
develop along the society, but that the governance structure
of the IOC and the Olympic Movement remains. This re-
flects in the lack in interest of the urban renewal goals in the
whole process (Kassens-Noor, 2012). Since the 1960s, this is
an important aspect of bidding and hosting the Olympics,
but the requirements are not adjusted substantially to this
reality. This can eventually lead to the end of the Olympics
because difference in discourse in the worldwide society and
the discourse within the Olympic Movement. Thus a change
of paradigm is needed. To achieve this, the Olympic Move-
ment should become a more open Olympic Movement in
which the sustainability is one of the key characteristics to
take the role in society. Besides that, there are some devel-
opments expected for the near future, which can radically
change the Games. If we think about the current business
model of television rights, and the developments of social
media, a radical change is not impossible. A structural transi-
tion of the Olympic Movement is needed to make the Games
sustainable and tenable in the long-term. In this change of
paradigm, the Olympic Movement, and especially the IOC is
the key to this change. If the IOC changes the requirements
in a more sustainable way, the Games will presumably follow
according to these requirements.
2.3 Research question
As already mentioned in chapter one, the Olympic Games
are a constantly changing phenomenon in which approxi-
mately every 20 years a new cycle starts. According to this
prognosis, somewhere around 2024 the new cycle will start.
As this is in 10 years, it is impossible to predict in which di-
rection the Games will evolve. Although, the forecast is that
the sustainability aspect is getting more important. This to-
gether result in the following research question:
Can the transition theory be an opportunity for a sustainable
long-term urban development of the host city?
This question can be separated in some sub questions:
• To what extent are the Olympic Games an opportunity
to achieve a spatial development?
• Is a change such as the transition theory desirable?
• Can the transition theory support the adjustments of
the Olympic Movement to become fundamentally more
sustainable?
• should a change be desirable for the stakeholders?
• Allows the IOC more focus on the long-term urban de-
velopments?
• Could the Olympic Movement contribute to a sustain-
able society?
• Is the transition started with the London Olympics?
• What will be the result if nothing changes?
Some remarks on the research question are:
• 1) The term ‘urban’ refers to the built environment in
which the Olympic Summer Games take place every
four-year.
• 2) The term ‘transition’ refers to a structural change of
society or culture towards a society or culture in which
sustainability gets an important position. The theory be-
hind this term comes from Jan Rotmans et al (2001) and
will be elaborated in chapter 3.
• 3) The term sustainable refers to the three-dimensional
nature of sustainable development: economic, social and
environmental (Furrer, 2002). In here, there is a big dif-
ference in sustainability from the perspective
of the daily activities and the sustainability of
mega-events. The IOC tries to catch the daily
part in the ‘Sport and Environment program’,
but misses the mega-event part. In this context,
what is meant with sustainability can as best be
translated from the German ‘nachhaltigkeit’.
Sustainable means more than just the three di-
mensions. The long-term legacy is even more import-
ant. With the enormous investments in infrastructure
(transport, stadia and village), it is possible to do every-
thing on a sustainable way with as less as possible raw
materials, but if it is not used after five weeks, it’s really
unsustainable in the long-term. So sustainability in this
is focused on achieving a positive legacy, with no ‘white
elephants’2
(Cashman, 2002).
2 White elephants is a common used term for venues which have no destiny after

13
2. The Research
• 4) The long-term refers to the gradual transition, which
takes 30-40 years to achieve and come in a new dynamic
equilibrium.
2.4 Hypothesis
The hypothesis is that the worldwide society will make
further a transitional change and that the Olympic Games
should achieve a transitional change to be an opportunity
for the sustainable long-term development for the host city
and also for their own existence. This because it is possible
to make the Olympic Games more fundamentally sustain-
able for the long-term. The Olympics should, just like every
other business, care about the surroundings and take their
social responsibility. It is not impossible to become more
sustainable in the context of a technical rationale, top-down
and blueprint planning model, but with a communicative
rationale which is more open, democratic and interactive,
there are more opportunities. A transitional change can be
an opportunity to become a more fundamental sustainable
and open Olympic system. With this transitional change it
is possible to start the change and to achieve a more funda-
mentally sustainable Olympic Games, which are no longer,
an events. Think about the infrastructure connection between Athens city and the
Olympic area and the stadiums of the FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa.
ter 1). This will continue by the problem statement and meth-
odological underpinnings. Part II will consist of two chapters
of theory, starting with the general and planning theories of
complexity (i.e. Gert de Roo) and transitions (i.e. Jan Rot-
mans) followed by an Olympic theory chapter (chapter 3
and 4). Part III will consist of the analysis of the problem.
The current developments towards a sustainable transition,
specified in a institutional and spatial aspect (chapter 6). In
Part IV, the new era of Olympism will be reached by the case
of London 2012 and afterwards, a sketch what can happen
if nothing changes together with the sketch of the future of
the Olympic Movement. This research will finish with Part V,
with the conclusions, recommendations and the reflection.
This is all schematically displayed in figure 2.
2.5 Methods
The used research methodology will be described in this
paragraph; this will give a justification of the applied tech-
niques and approach.
Research methodology
The goal for this research is to gain knowledge and present a
suitable alternative for the way in which the Olympic Games
are used by cities, and which role the IOC should take to take
Theory:
- Complexity (De Roo)
- Transitions (Rotmans)
Current developments
towards sustainable
a transition
Institutional
Spatial
- IOC
- Bidproces
- Commercial
- Democratic
- Local
- Creative
- Circulair
- Persevering
Conclusions:
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- Reflection
Problemstatement:
The ongoing growth of
the spatial impact of the
OG will in the long-term
lead to the end of the OM
Analysis: Olympic Games 3.0:
- Case London 2012
- Expiration date
- Future OM
Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V
Figure 2: Conceptual model (Made by Bastiaan Bretveld)
an end, but which are a means by which the hosting urban
area can develop itself for the long-term future.
Conceptual model
In order to test this hypothesis, this research is divided in five
parts. Part I starts with analyzing the context of the Olym-
pic Games and the Olympic system in which they developed
since the foundation of the modern Olympics in 1896 (chap-
the responsibility of the impact of the Games in urban areas.
In this research, various cases will be used, but one partic-
ular case will be described in depth, the Games of London
2012. The reason behind this is the relevance of London of
trying to host the Olympics on a more sustainable way. In
this attempt, London was not perfect, but it was a good start
to achieve the transition. Other cases will be used as exam-
ples, in which certain aspects are enlightening the research.

14
Part I: Context
Here, also my knowledge from other Olympics, my bache-
lor thesis with the case of Barcelona 1992 and my addition-
al fieldtrip to Barcelona will be of value. Besides that, desk
study from experiences and researches about other Olympics
will be used. London 2012 is in this case exceptional because
London was the first one to put legacy and sustainability in
‘the heart of the bid’; and was thereby enlightening how the
Games can be a means to develop a part of the city. So, all
previous Olympics do not fit in this research. Rio de Janei-
ro, the host city for the 2016 Olympics should be interesting
to study, but Rio is also the host of the FIFA World Cup in
2014 and they mainly focusing on 2014 now. So there is not
that much ex-ante information about the 2016 edition, and
thereby, the legacy plans are vague, and various authors have
their doubts in the achievements of Rio. Thus, this all togeth-
er makes Rio not a case that is suitable for this research. The
plans for Tokyo are not in a phase to be useful because of the
preparation-time towards the Games. To cope with the com-
plexity of the Olympic system and the amount of stakehold-
ers and different methods are necessary (O’Leary, 2010). She
suggests to use (depth) interviews, observations and docu-
mentation analyses. The different perspectives of research-
ers from different countries are interesting in this process
with an open end. Nobody knows which city will host the
2024 Games or further and nobody can predict the future
of the Olympic system. It is an open and transition system
which evolves through time. Therefore, the perceptions of
the different stakeholders with different backgrounds are
really important. Qualitative research, with subjective and
various perspectives gives meaning to rationality (O’Leary,
2010). This research tries to compare these perspectives into
a vision for the future of the Olympics, in which different
continents can host the Games and which is flexible and ro-
bust enough in creating a sustainable long-term legacy. To
gain additional knowledge I participated in the University of
East London ‘Olympic Legacy Conference’, a three-day con-
ference with around 100 international participants from all
over the world. Here it was possible to gain information from
international scholars specialized on legacy research on the
Olympic Games. During this conference I made notes and
photographs from presentations and other talks. After the
presentations I talked with a lot of researchers about there
research in a short interview setting. During this conference
we also made a trip through the Olympic Park.
Literature study
In order to gain knowledge from different perspectives, this
research consists mostly of literature study. This literature
varies from books from academic researchers; internation-
al journals of sport, history, organizational studies, policies,
future studies, urban development, environmental develop-
ment, governance and so on. Besides this academic litera-
ture does this research also makes use of other documents:
there are various relevant documents from the IOC or relat-
ed bodies, there are relevant reports of different host cities
and also from consultant companies in specific niches of this
research. The UEL Olympic Legacy Conference was helpful
here because of meet some researchers, listening to their ex-
periences and latest researches and results. It also helped to
gain additional literature.
Interviews
Beside the literature study, there were also some interviews.
During the UEL Olympic Legacy Conference there were dif-
ferent talks, not in real in-depth interview setting. But, there
were some other interviews:
• Jurryt van de Vooren: sports historian, specialized on
the history of the Olympic Games.
• Herbert Wolff: during the London 2012 Olympics sus-
tainability coordinator at LOCOG, now Manager Olym-
pic knowledge at NOC*NSF
• Thysia Pater: during the London 2012 Olympics deputy
depot manager at LOCOG, now sport marketing officer
at University of Birmingham.
• Willem de Boer: research sport economics at Hoges-
chool Arnhem Nijmegen and researcher for community
sport event evaluation (WESP).
With these interviews it was possible get in-depth knowledge
and opinions from professionals.

15
2. The Research
2.6 Relevance
This paragraph will discuss the relevance of the research,
from a scientific perspective and a social perspective. The
scientific relevance will reflect the methodological and tech-
nological perspective and will show the way it may contrib-
ute to further development of theories. The social relevance
will focus on the importance for the Olympic Movement and
the forecasted development they might anticipate on.
Scientific relevance
An important aspect is defining the concept of sustainability.
Sustainability is a fuzzy concept; there is no agreement about
what is sustainable and what is not (De Roo & Porter, 2007).
To implement the notion of sustainability it is recommended
to define the concept of sustainability in general and for the
Olympic context and make it operational to agree on what
is sustainable in respect to the Olympics. Learning-by-doing
and doing-by-learning are important aspects in here because
of the relative new theoretical approaches. Transition theory
uses these aspects and this research will test the theory on the
Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games. This research
tries to make it applicable for other events in which a sus-
tainable transition can be made. It will thereby also reflect
on the theory.
From the science field of transition theory this research tries
to contribute in the implication possibilities of so-called ‘ex-
periments’. The transition theory is a relatively new theory in
which new examples are welcome. This research can prob-
ably help in making the theory applicable for other, most-
ly smaller, events in which the sustainable transition can be
made.
Social relevance
The social relevance of this research would be that it could
contribute to unravel the complexity of large-scale events,
which are planned 7-9 years in advance. These are commonly
persistent problems for a society because they don’t happen
regularly and there is no single solution for it. These complex
problems are deeply rooted in structure of the society; the
society is here the source of the problem, because the society
changes. Managing these problems is difficult because there
are various actors with different interests involved. Accord-
ing to the SER (Dutch Social Economic Council, 2001) and
VROM (Dutch Ministry of Housing, Planning and Environ-
ment)(2001) not all these problems can be fixed with cur-
rent policies alone. As stated by Rotmans & Loorbach (2010)
persistent problems are related to systemic failures. These
failures crawl gradually into the societal system in which
the market or policies are not able to fix it. A mechanism as
the Olympic Games can help to unravel these problems and
make achievements in commonly interrelated and multi-dis-
ciplinary persistent problems in a society.
2.7 Structure
The chapters of this research are subdivided in five parts.
Their mutual relation will be explained below and by figure
2. In part I, the introduction will contain the context of the
Olympic Movement as niche with the Games as an exper-
iment and IOC be outlined (chapter 1) and the design of
the research will be presented (chapter 2). Thereafter, part
II, Transition Management will continue and the theoretical
framework of the transition theory is explained (chapter 3).
The complex perspective and the system theory will further
explain this. Chapter 4 will continue with the more Olympic
specific theory of the Olympic governance and with a defini-
tion of sustainable Olympic Games. Part III, the sustainable
transition will start with a short analysis of the current soci-
ety and how the world is changing (chapter 5). This will con-
tinue with a design of a sustainable transition of the institu-
tional and spatial part of the Olympic Movement (chapter 6).
Part IV will combine all this in a view of the Olympic Games
3.0. Here, the theoretical aspect of part II and the practical
aspect of part III come together. This will start with a case
study of the London 2012 Games (chapter 7) and will further
continue a suggestion of the discourse in which the future of
the Olympic Movement can be safeguarded (chapter 8). This
research will end with part V, the conclusions, recommen-
dations and will contain a reflection on the whole process
(chapter 9).

Part II:
Theory

19
3. Transition Management
In the past, the society was assumed to understand easy: indicators measured the success of cer-
tain policies. Nowadays, everything is much more complex and the amount of indicators does
not always give the right picture of the status (Rotmans, 2012; Harvey, 1989). In a straightfor-
ward, technical and functional world, it would be helpful to have more indicators, but in a com-
plex society as it is today, that will not help, so another theory have to come up. To understand
the whole picture of the changing worldwide society and the theory behind it, this chapter will
deconstruct the different aspects of the society to become open minded and gives the opportu-
nity to see everything in a different way.
3.1 Introduction
Since the 1960s and 1970s with the emerging report from
the ‘Club of Rome’ (1972) and the Brundtland Report (1987),
the world started to care about the surroundings, the nature
around us, so the environment. An important aspect of these
initiatives is the humanity and health of the world, this is re-
flected for example by the Word Wildlife Fund’s slogan: ‘Help
to save the world’s wildlife’ of those days. This puts forward
the position of humans in the development of the world.
According to Hughes (2005) are there four major themes in
which global environmental history can be divided: popu-
lation growth (birth of 6 billionth living human in October
1999, and still growing, that will be a problem to feed ev-
erybody); local vs. global determination of policy (who is in
charge to improve the livability? Local of global policies?);
threats of biodiversity (the decreasing biodiversity for centu-
ries); and the supply of and demand for energy and materi-
als (the enormous and continues growth of energy and ma-
terials since the industrial revolution). Thus, the discourse
on environmental policies is changing and becoming more
important over time (Dryzek, 2005). Since the 1970s, these
analyses are seen as problem for the future and since then, it
is slowly internalized in policies and worldwide discussions.
Now becomes visible that we are on a tipping point in which
the world tilts towards a more open type of society (Rot-
mans, 2012). This is endorsed by the transition theory (3.3)
and there are several worldwide examples which shows we
are on that tipping point.
An example of the changing worldview from a closed towards
an open system is the water policy. In the 1970s, higher dikes
were the only possible option for achieving the needed safety
for the people. Gradually, this changed towards a more open
system like it is now. No longer just dikes, but also working
in cooperation with the water and give it more room where
possible or necessary (Huitema & Meijerink, 2010) and adapt
to changing conditions by resilience (i.e. Klein et al, 2003;
Pahl-Wostl, 2007). These transitions happen worldwide, on
different scales, speed and results, in China (te Boekhorst
et al., 2010); Mexico (Wilder, 2010); United States (Meier &
Toole, 2001) and various European countries (Jordan et al.,
2009). Hereby the awareness of adaptation and mitigation is
growing in order to reduce the impact of climate change on
out daily lives (Biesbroek et al., 2009). In water management,
the tipping point is already passed, which is also a character-
istic of the transition theory; the change got different speeds.
Also in urban planning, the procedures and restrictions
change towards a more open system. From closed, top-down
long-term visions and local plans it develops towards coop-
erative methods with civic involvement. Important aspects
for this change are the social involvement of the people to
improve their conditions; but also in the process of account-
ability of the spatial conditions of neighborhoods and there-
by create a better environment (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011).
In other words, the humanity and the long-term sustainabil-
ity are important here. This idea is called ‘self-organization’

20
Part II: Theory
is thereby called as a characteristic of a complex society. This
becomes visible with cases in The Netherlands (Boonstra &
Boelens, 2011); the United States (Innes & Booher, 2000);
Brazil (Cymbalista & Nakano, 2005); and China (Finger-
huth, 2004). For the practical implementation of an example,
see the Global Village Network (GEN, n.y.).
The last example is the energy transition, from which the
complexity became clear. This is a transition from a top-
down centralized energy supply system based of big com-
panies towards a bottom-up, local organized energy supply
system in which households produce their own energy. In
the old system, the big companies like RWE, Vattenfall and
Essent got the power to decide which energy is used. It ap-
pears here that the energy they say they sell is not always
the energy they sell (NOS, 2013). The supply system is based
on big coal or gas power plants, which produce enormous
Megawatts (MW) of energy of mostly non-renewable sourc-
es. The company is the producer; the citizen is the consumer.
In the new system, the consumer is also producer, and the
producer is also the distributor. If you produce more ener-
gy than needed, you can sell it to the market and someone
else can use it. This is based on sharing and local produc-
ing goods without being dependent of big multinationals. A
typical example of this energy transition is ‘Texel Energie’, a
cooperation that produces and sells energy on the island of
Texel, Netherlands. This is a local founded initiative in which
renewable energy is produced and distributed around the is-
land (Texel Energie, n.y.). An important paradigm shift is the
social acceptance of this change (Wüstenhagen et al, 2007).
In Germany it is called ‘Energiewende’, and it is a change
that is happening at many places around the world. Here the
complexity of the process is somewhat similar to the exper-
iment of the Olympic Games: an old system that still works,
some problems are arising and an initially small group who
tries to change the complete system by 180 degrees. The old
power have to change or otherwise lose its position, local
parties take their matters into their own hands and the sys-
tem changes completely towards a sustainable system.
On which argument is the current society called a ‘complex
system’? In here, the article of Horst Rittel (1972) is a useful
source. He came already in 1972 with the notion of tamed
problems and wicked problems. Rittel (1972) gives some ex-
amples on how to characterize wicked problems. Wicked
problems have no definite formulation; that depends on the
state of solution. Every definition of the problems represents
a state of a solution, so identifying the problems solves them.
There is no correct of false application of the problem and a
wicked problem is a symptom of another problem. Import-
ant in searching for a solution is that every wicked problem
is essentially unique and a one-shot-operation, so there is
no trail-and-error (Rittel, 1972: 393). With this in mind, the
current problem continues developing the crisis; the symp-
tomatic solutions for the Olympic crisis can be called wicked
problems. To formulate possible solutions from the perspec-
tive of wicked problem, it is useful to set the scope of the
Olympic system broader than the Olympic system only. With
the relatively new theoretical methods, generic rules can help
in exercising some control
In doing this, it will start below with general sciences, in
particular the complex system theory. This paragraph will
elaborate on the position of planning and planning theory in
the scientific spectrum. This will continue in § 3.3 with the
transition theory, which is also broader than just planning
theory, but which is good applicable for planning theory and
how this is linked to the transition as explained in chapter 1.
The fifth paragraph of this chapter is focusing on the gover-
nance options on how to achieve a shared responsibility and
how to structure the system and how possible solutions help
to practice the optional paths. The last paragraph will give a
conclusion of this theoretical chapter and will also give an
answer to the sub question if a transition desirable is.
3.2 General sciences
General science is the general field of scientific research that
is the relation between different disciplines. To start, it is
good to explain first what is mentioned by ‘theory’. Theory
is ‘an abstract set of general or specific principles to be used
as a basis for explaining and acting, with the theory being
tested and refined if necessary’ (Allmendinger, 2009: 1). In
other words, it is a way of reasoning in which an element

21
of prediction or prescription
is included and also a guide
to action. This varies from
a mathematical algorithm
of reasoning to a mystery in
which an educated guess is
impossible (De Roo, 2013).
An important distinction
in here is between natural
and social sciences. Natural
sciences are able to exclude
the context and test their
theories in a stable and fro-
zen situation. Social sciences
have to deal with the context,
because that is an aspect of
their environment in which
the theories need to be test-
ed. So, the society cannot be
explained the same way as
gravity is explained. Social
science is based on several
conflicting theories with a
fundamental different view on the world, like Marxism and
liberalism (Allmendinger, 2009). Or, as Giddens (1984) ex-
plained: there will never be universal laws in social sciences
because of the empirical testing and validation.
In here general science is the gathering of different scien-
tific field in which planning theory has its place, see figure
3. In this figure, the left-wing arrow of technical rationality
represents the lineair; object oriented, based on facts, direct
causality on which parts of a stable system can be changed.
The right-wing arrow communicative rationality represents a
lineair, opinion based, remote causality on which the context
in a dynamic, unstable and process-oriented systems, this is
also called ‘complexity’. The grey arrow upwards represents
the non-lineair kind of rationality in which time is incorpo-
rated and in which chaos and complexity have their place
(De Roo, 2010). At the bottom, the place of planning in the
scientific field is visible, just in order to sociology, general
Figure 3: The place of planning concepts in the academic world. (De Roo, 2010).
sciences and philosophy. Rationality in this case is seen as a
means to predict and explain a phenomenon. In here it is im-
portant to notice that both rational and real are constructed
by humans means, this through interpretation and sharing
meaning by language (Zuidema, 2013). In this post-posi-
tivist perspective, the plurality of the rationality and reality
are debatable and depend on the context. When zooming in
towards planning theory there is another distinction. Here
comes into play the categorization in classes I-IV (Kauffman,
1991; De Roo, 2010), see figure 4, in which complexity plays
a major role (Van der Graaf & Hoppe, 1996; Batty, 2005). In
here the horizontal arrow is the spectrum of rationality in
which the left side is the technical rationality and the right
side is the communicative rationality. The technical rational-
ity represents a simple, straightforward world in which the
planner is a technician. This world is very top-down, stable
and functional planned with direct causality, one entity in
which there is only one real world with blueprint planning

22
Part II: Theory
Figure 4: System classes (De Roo, 2010).
as typical example. This type of a world
is also known as Systems Class I (De Roo,
2010), or the steady-state equilibrium
(Kauffman, 1991). The middle of the spec-
trum is the bulk of issues, also known as the
feedback systems. In here, there are many
practical issues in which scenario planning
is the typical example. Gert de Roo called
this ‘the fuzzy middle’, or the Systems Class
II (De Roo, 2010), or oscillation between
fixed states (Kauffman, 1991). The right
end of the spectrum is theoretical com-
municative rationality in which a very
complex instable and chaotic world is the
case; here the planner is the mediator. This
world is bottom-up organized, based on shared responsi-
bility, remote causality, and multiple entities and in an in-
ter-subjective matter with open and participative networks.
Collaborative planning is a typical example in this world,
which is also known as Systems Class III (De Roo, 2010), or
no predictable patterns or stability (Kauffman, 1991). These
three classes are all mentioned without the notion of time;
this is an important aspect in planning nowadays. With this
in regard to complexity and chaos, there are three assump-
tions to keep in mind (De Roo, 2010):
1. Open systems evolve through growing complexity in a
movement from order to chaos. A growing degree of
complexity. In this chaos of non-lineair systems, a small
change at the beginning can lead to a huge difference
in the result. Besides that, the causality is declining, the
entities become fuzzy and the stability is declining
2. Complex systems emerge at the edge of order and cha-
os. Time matters in here. Through the stability and the
capacity of change a system can maximize the benefits
(Phelan, 1999).
3. New and orderly systems emerge out of these complex
systems, at a higher level. When the system is good con-
nected with the surrounding environment at a high-
er level, it can adapt and transform into a situation in
which the system can evolve and survive.
With these three assumptions, the planning theory starts to
move from being to the becoming, or the System Class IV, or
capable of producing extended transients (Kauffman, 1991).
The being focuses on the here and now and make a choice
between top-down (technical) and with more interaction
(communicative), becoming focuses on continues change
during the process, with the technical or communicative ra-
tional in mind. The big difference is the aspect of time, the
ongoing discussion and development towards the future. It is
no longer a frozen situation, but an evolving development in
time, in complexity thinking this is a crucial notion. In here
the wicked problems, as presented in § 3.1 apply. Autono-
mous processes in which the contextual environment is cru-
cial and open to change characterize the Class IV systems;
this will be further elaborated in the next paragraphs.
3.3 Complexity theory
The complexity theory is also known as a complex system
theory; it is an interdisciplinary field of science that studies
the nature of complex systems in society, nature, science and
technology. In Figure 3, the complexity theory is one of the
‘planning concepts’. Complexity tries to analyze a group of
interrelating parts that influence each other, for example a
city, a society, or the Olympic Movement. The system the-
ory is originated in the 1960s, focusing on general systems
theory, also known as the time of blueprint thinking (Young,
1964). System thinking is the link between the complexity

23
theory and the specific planning theory. The first well known
report based on system thinking was published in 1972 as
the ‘Limits to Growth’ report of the Club of Rome (Meadows
et al, 1972), based on a global model of system dynamics,
describing major interrelating factors on a global scale of
environmental stocks an flows. Here, a major characteristic
of system thinking comes ahead: the stocks (state variables:
state of the system on a certain point of time which changes
slowly) and flows (rate variables: processes that relates vari-
ous stocks, which change fast)(Forrester, 1968).
Between the 1970s and 1990s, the system theory evolves
from a blueprint planning discourse towards complex sys-
tem thinking focused on the co-evolutionary development
of systems, also known as the development from Class I to-
wards Class III systems. Still, it is about the here and now,
not about the future and the continuous development. The
transition theory can be helpful in the development towards
the Class IV systems. This reflects in the adaptive complex
systems. They are special because these systems are able to
learn from the experience they have got. In other words,
‘they are able to respond to and adjust themselves to changes
in their environment’ (Grin et al, 2010: 117). This is a re-
flection of the Class IV systems. Some examples of complex
adaptive systems are living organisms, business companies
and the Olympic Games. Complex adaptive systems have the
same shape as one or more subsystems: it is self-similar, the
system as a whole and the agents are adaptive. Three unique
characteristics of a complex adaptive system (system Class
IV) are (Grin et al, 2010; Rotmans, 2012):
• Co-evolution: the interaction between several systems,
which influence the dynamics of separate systems irre-
versible. It is about a mutual selection of two or more
evolving populations, different systems influence the
dynamics of individual systems. This irreversible aspect
distinguishes the co-evolution from the co-production,
in the higher degree of interaction (Kemp et al, 2007).
In here, the long-term sustainable creation of a joint
problem perception and long-term vision are character-
istics that reflect the process-oriented way, and is based
on a multi-actor process with different levels and results
in innovative networks and experimental playgrounds
(Brugge et al, 2005).
• Emergence: arising new, coherent structures, patterns,
and properties in complex systems. This all during the
process of self-organization and on macro-scale. It is
emergent when a group shows different behavior on a
higher scale than the separated individuals on the lower
scale.
• Self-organization: the ability of a complex system to
adapt upon new conditions without steering from the
outside. It refers to the capacity to develop a new struc-
ture of the system on the base of the systems internal
constitution.
Complex adaptive systems are constantly changing, but not
constantly at the same speed. There are periods in which the
system is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, that’s when cer-
tain advantages to the system can be achieved. For example
specific objectives of the systems can then be achieved or con-
sistency can be built up. In order to achieve these advantages,
the state of dynamic equilibrium can last for a relatively long
period of time, for example the industrial city that stays the
same for a long period after the industrialization. After the
dynamic equilibrium, a period of crisis follows, which is not a
problem because it is an opportunity to shake up and reform
the system, like the period that a city developed towards a
modern city and the industrial building remains redundant.
If a complex system is not able to react adequately on these
radical changes on the internal and external changes it can
eventually die out (Grin et al, 2010), for this evolution, see
also Mintzberg (1993) and chapter 4. When this change does
happen and it reaches a new dynamic equilibrium it is called
a transition, this will be further explained in the next para-
graph. According to Loorbach (2010) a transition is based on
long-term, complex processes, which tries to achieve a struc-
tural change in society. This is all based on interdisciplinary
research, part of the complex system theory as researched by
De Roo (2010) and Rittel (1972).
One key characteristic is that it is impossible to predict the

24
Part II: Theory
development of a complex adaptive system, but there are
some governance options to steer these complex systems
(Rotmans, 2012):
• Top-down: change is planned from a compelling, cen-
tral adjustment;
• Bottom up: change is made spontaneous from a decen-
tralized adjustment;
• Hybrid: a mixture of top-down and bottom up in which
the change is emergent. A mix of quasi-planned and
spontaneous change.
In general, a combination, specific on particular situations,
is the best option to achieve the goals; according to De Roo
(2010) is a combination needed. The goals that want to be
achieved need to be flexible and adaptive. This all-togeth-
er makes that the timing is of the intervention is essential
(Rotmans, 2012). See also Rotmans & Loorbach (2010). One
aspect of the complexity theory is the transition theory is
which levels of governance will be visible; this will be further
elaborated in the next paragraph because it is fundamental
aspect of the transition because of the different perspectives
in more sustainable governance systems.
3.4 Transition theory
Transition theory is rooted in the complex system theory and
in principle designed by Jan Rotmans and Derk Loorbach,
both professors of the Erasmus University of Rotterdam. Ac-
cording to Rotmans et al. (2001) the definition of a transition
is ‘a gradual process of structural change within a society or
culture’ (Rotmans et al., 2001: 2). The conceptual framework
of the transition theory consists three concepts, which will be
explained later in this paragraph:
• The multi-phase concept
• The multi-level concept
• The multi-pattern concept1
This comes with five characteristics (Rotmans et al., 2001):
• Long-term thinking as a basis to shape the society on
the short-term.
• Multi-domain thinking, beyond borders with different
actors (multi-actor) and different scales (multi-level).
1 The multi-pattern concept will not be further explained because of the irrelevance
for this research.
• Focus on learning: learning-by-doing and do-
ing-by-learning.
• Besides the system improvement, also try to achieve sys-
tem innovation.
• Keep a wide level playing field. Keep many possibilities
open.
• Creating social support.
The general aim of transition management is not the realiza-
tion of the transition; it is about the improvement of the soci-
ety, if this is possible within the existing system, it is easier to
improve it. Transition management tries to add value to the
existing policy and placing it in a more long-term perspec-
tive (Rotmans et al., 2001). The aim is to achieve collective
benefits and accommodate complexity, this by meaning of an
anticipative, adaptive and prescriptive way. Doing it by these
characteristics is the only option; the degree of complexity is
too high for managing it by control and command (Brugge
et al., 2005). For this, see also page 23 for the characteris-
tics of Class IV systems. By the idea that the transition needs
to result in a more sustainable society, which is a subjective
goal, this should be done on an inter-subjective way, by a
multi-actor process with a balanced diversity of stakeholders
and by integrating systems that come to an agreed reality.
This is relevant because of the different perspectives of sus-
tainability and the different governance options in planning.
Processes through a more open and inter-subjective system
are relevant because of the sustainability goals and theory of
interaction and co-evolution.
Reason for that is that ‘the transition’ does not exist, a tran-
sition can happen through a range of possible development
paths in which the direction, scale and speed cannot be con-
trolled. By the analyses of Geels & Schot (2007), transitions
can be characterized by five major points:
1. Transitions are co-evolutional processes. It involves de-
velopment of technological innovations and the use in
societal domains. It requires a multiple change in the so-
cio-technical system.
2. Transitions are multi-actor processes with interactions
between social groups like policymakers, social move-
ments and special interest groups.

25
3. Transitions are ‘radical’ shifts from
one system to another. The term rad-
ical is not about the speed of change,
but about the scope. It can result in
creative destruction of a slow change
fashion.
4. Transitions are long-term processes.
Some aspects will go quite fast (10
years), but most stages in developing
a new socio-technical system will go
some more gradual and take more
time (20-30 years).
5. Transitions are macroscopic. It anal-
yses the phenomenon not on indi-
vidual or local scale, but on a scale of
organizations (Geels & Schot, 2007).
Time
Indicator(s) for
social development
Time period
Speed
Size
Figure 5: system dimension of transition. (Rotmans et al., 2001).
Transitions can also be seen from a system point of view.
Here there are slow dynamics and quick developments vis-
ible and also instability, reverting to relative stability. In this
system view, a transition consists of three dimensions; see
also Figure 5, Rotmans et al. (2001):
• Speed of change;
• Size of change;
• Period of time of change.
This approach of the concept of transitions comes with so-
called ‘stocks’ and ‘flows’ (see page 23). In a successful transi-
tion stocks and flows come together in the long-term devel-
opments (stocks) and the short-term developments (flows).
The speed of these changes varies between domains. Eco-
nomic changes happen quicker than ecological or cultural
changes. In bringing the different domains together, four
linked development lines emerge. These iterative and cyclical
lines are the following (Brugge et al., 2005):
• Set up of a transition arena: an innovative network;
• Developing of a long-term vision, transition pathways
and agendas;
• A knowledge-development based steering process with
learning effects;
• A way to monitor and evaluated the transition process.
This whole process takes place in the first build transition
arena, which works on a distance from the current policy
arena, but with converging and diverging movements (Dir-
ven et al., 2002).
Transitions are interplays between the people and the sys-
tems. The people created the system and at the same time
the system limited the actions of people. Transitions can be
influenced in some ways by governmental policies, but the
direct connection between interventions and the results are
not clear. This influence also changes through the different
phases of the transition (multi-phase aspect). A transition
can only happen if there are developments in different do-
mains of society. According to Rotmans it can be described
as ‘a set of connected changes, which reinforce each other but
take place in several different areas’ (Rotmans et al., 2001:
2). The different areas are, for example: culture, economy,
institutions and ecology. To achieve the transition, multiple
causality and co-evolution are necessary from independent
developments, the multi-level aspect of the theory. This tran-
sition management is a philosophy, which comes from the
research field of multi-level governance and adaptive man-
agement and is merely process oriented.
Multi-phase

26
Part II: Theory
A transition happens
through different phases
in different stages of the
transition. It is a sequence
of alternating phases with
a mixture of fast and slow
dynamics. Many devel-
opments can influence
the development path
heading to the next phase,
but it is the crucial devel-
opment that is launching
the flywheel. The dynam-
ics together form a strong
non-lineair pattern. An
Stabilization
Acceleration
Take-off
Predevelopment
Time
System state
Figure 6: multi-phase model (Rotmans, 2001)
important aspect is the current dominant culture; this fre-
quently tries to retard the transition. This because of keeping
the power they have (Avelino & Rotmans, 2011).
In the concept as it is presented by Rotmans et al. (2001),
four different phases can be distinguished: the predevelop-
ment phase, the take-off phase, the acceleration phase and
the stabilization phase, see Figure 6.
In the ideal situation, it is a manifestation of alternating
phases, which results in the s-curve. But there are also other
possibilities, for example a lock-in situation where the path
dependency increases (Garud & Karnøe, 2001). Through a
great uncertainty and complexity, the predictability range is
small, but by a path dependency an indication of the future
transition paths is possible (Grin et al. 2010).
The predevelopment phase: a dynamic state of equilibrium
in which the status quo changes in the background, but this
is invisible. It is all about searching, learning and experi-
menting. This is something, which makes the predevelop-
ment tough and long; it can take a lot of time till it really
takes-off.
The take-off phase: the actual point of ignition, after which
the process of structural change picks up momentum. This
phase focuses on selecting and facilitating experiments. The
time of boundless experimenting is over and the time to se-
lect and facilitate a certain number of experiments has start-
ed. This is a chaotic phase in which the government doesn’t
need to organize it by itself, but facilitate others to organize
it (Rotmans, 2012).
The acceleration phase: a structural change becomes visible.
This is the phase in which it becomes clear which experi-
ments are mature enough to get up scaled to the regime level.
This results in a wider application. Here the current power of
the existing dominant actors becomes a barrier. This needs
to be erased.
The stabilization phase: where the new dynamic state of
equilibrium is achieved. This phase focuses on anchoring and
embedding of the changes; changes in routines, laws, rules,
structures and patterns. This is important because there is a
change on recoil.
The indicators, which mark the different phases, are missing
in the theory of this multi-phase model (Rotmans & Loor-
bach, 2010).
Multi-level
In the social organization of transitions, there are different
levels of aggregation. There are three levels: micro-level, me-
so-level and macro-level. This is based on the classification

27
of socio-technical systems by Rip & Kemp (1998) with nich-
es, regimes and landscapes. The more society-based variant
is developed by Rotmans & Loorbach (2010).
The higher the scale of the system is, the slower the dynam-
ics are between the actors, structures and working practices
and the more aggregated the relationships and components
are. For a successful change it is indispensable that the differ-
ent dynamics come together. All different components shall
mesh together to succeed (Grin et al. 2010).
The roots of the multi-level perspective are from social the-
ory (Giddens, 1984) and history (Braudel, 1958), thus the
achievement of structural change is not totally new (Grin et
al. 2010). The three scale levels used in the transition theory
are functional used. Not only geographical, but they also give
a representation of the relationships between the scale levels
MACRO-LEVEL
- autonomous
developments
- global trends
MESO-LEVEL
- regime
- rules, laws, policy
MICRO-LEVEL
- practices
- expiriments, projects
Figure 7: The multi-level concept (Rotmans, 2012: 243. Based on Geels, 2002).
with their own structure, culture and practices. See Figure 7.
The micro-level: This is the so-called ‘niche experiment’ in
which short-term developments loom quickly and disappear
with the same speed. These are new initiatives, outside the
current structures.
The meso-level: This is the so-called ‘regime’ with dominant
structures, cultures and practices, which are shared by the
main actors. There is much protest against changes, because
of the current power and position of the main actors. They
will probably lose their position because of the changes.
The macro-level: This is the so-called ‘landscape’ where
autonomous and slow trends take place. This is the level of
global trends like globalization, climate change, geo-politics
and individualization in transnational actors like the UN and

28
Part II: Theory
IMF and global agreements like the Kyoto-protocol. These
are long-term, global and exogenous trends where no single
actor can have a substantial influence.
Important is that a transition can have its origin in the micro
level, but also in the macro level. For example, if the world-
view would change about empty stadiums and replacing the
poor after the Rio Olympics, it could help to change the IOC
in their policies of selecting host cities. This pressure can
come from certain UN organizations and thereby from the
macro-level. Another example are the ambitions of London
on sustainability and legacy are now used in the selection for
future bidding procedures; so thereby a change from the mi-
cro-level.
3.5 Governance of transitions
this paragraph starts with an explanation of the general term
‘governance’ and follows with the explanation of the gover-
nance of transitions.
Governance
The research field of governance studies is a field in which a
lot of different definitions are used. The term governance is
used by a lot of academics as ‘sustainable governance’ (ES-
FESD, 2000), ‘global environmental governance’ (Speth &
Haas, 2006) and is often confused with the terms ‘sustain-
able’ and ‘development’ (Jordan, 2008). Further on in his
article, Jordan (2008) gives a clear definition of the term
‘governance’. He starts with the notion that governance is
something else than ‘governing’. ‘Governing’ is something
that refers to social activities as a “purposeful effort to guide,
steer, control, or manage societies” (Kooiman, 1993:2). ‘Gov-
ernance in this respect are “the patterns that emerge from the
governing activities of social, political and administrative ac-
tors” (Kooiman, 1993:2). It is not the same as government: a
government centers the institutions and actions of the state.
Governance also allows non-state actors in the process; gov-
ernance is more encompassing in this respect. Governance is
a common-used term, which represents the change of form
and role of the state in contemporary industrialized coun-
tries (Jordan, 2008). The degree of control of the government
is the main difference. This control is less in governance ap-
proaches; this is similar as thinking in the limited predict-
ability and following complexity. Lemos & Agrawal (2006)
add the notion of governance on different levels; this is in
line with patterns of De Haan & Rotmans (2011). Where
governance strategies based on state-, market- and civil soci-
ety-based actors varied in more top-down and more-bottom
up approaches. The more hybrid approaches are practiced
now: they are not based on the leading power of one actor,
but more based on shared responsibility (Lemos & Agrawal,
2006). An important aspect of this function and structure of
governance is plurality. Plurality is not exclusively an aspect
of governance. Plurality has to deal with diversity and dif-
ferences, in which three different meanings are important in
this respect (Zuidema, 2013):
• The philosophical point: there is more than one world,
what we perceive as ‘true’ or ‘real’ is based on our point
of view.
• The sociological point: referred to the condition of so-
cial fragmentation and diversity, is related to the philo-
sophical one, in how we perceive reality.
• The political point: based of the spread of power through
different levels of organizations, a system in which many
parties/organizations have access to power.
A plural governance landscape has to deal with the three
different points of view. This because a societal changes, for
example a more circular based economy has its influence on
the social and political plurality.
Transitional governance
Transition theory and governance approaches are linked to
each other the open character of transitions. Through the
interaction between different levels, a hybrid form of gov-
ernance is useful in achieving the transition. The transition
management works according to a cycle, which consists four
phases, see also figure 8 (Rotmans, 2003; Olshoorn & Wiec-
zorek, 2006):
1. Strategic: structuring the problem in questions and de-
sign a transition arena;
2. Tactical: developing a transition agenda, a vision of the
sustainable development and deduce the transition paths

29
which are necessary;
3. Operational: design and work-out transition experi-
ments and mobilize the relating transition networks;
4. Reflexive: monitor, evaluate and learn lessons of the ex-
periments, which follow in a vision, agenda and coali-
tions.
These cycles are indicative, because it is impossible to keep
this in sequent steps. In the current, non-lineair world it
is no blue print planning thus, it gives an indication of the
following, steps to take, sometimes parallel and in random
sequence. In these transitions, a command-and-control
strategy is useless and doomed to fail because of the limited
predictability of the behavior of a complex adaptive system
(Grin et al, 2010).
In these transitions are some theoretical principles, which
can help to achieve the transition. The first is creating a space
for innovation in niches or arenas, in which experiments can
take place, sometimes in a small, closed setting. Second, the
focus on frontrunners is a key aspect, these are the agents
with the capacity to generate dissipative structures and op-
erate within these deviant structures. Third, the principle of
guided variation and selection is important, especially in the
context of the Olympic Games, for example the idea of the
UEFA to host the European Cup football in 13 cities. In com-
plex adaptive system it is difficult to predict the best route
to the best solution, by different trajectories and flexibility,
the various possible routes and outcomes can be explored.
The fourth principle is radical change in incremental steps,
a paradox. To achieve the transition, especially in the deep
structures of the regime, a radical change is needed, but
this can lead to the biggest protests, because it changes too
fast. Radical change in incremental steps implies a change
in small steps but towards a new direction. See for example
the energy transition: not changing in one day from fossil to-
wards renewable sources, but taking steps of 20% every cou-
ple of years. The principle of empowering niches cares for
providing knowledge, financial resources, exception of rules
and laws and space for the experiments (Avelino, 2007). The
sixth principle of transition management consists two com-
plementary parts: learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning.
Figure 8: Transition cycle (Rotmans, 2003)
Learning-by-doing is the aspect of developing theoretical
knowledge and testing that through practical experience,
and doing-by-learning is the development of practical expe-
rience and testing that through theoretical knowledge. The
last important principle is anticipation and adaptation. An-
ticipation is the analysis of weak aspects of the system and
by acting pro-active this steers by for the long-term. Adap-
tation is the ability to continuously change this in line with
the long-term trends and visions (Grin et al, 2010). All these
principles are useful in creating an opportunity to make the
transition. These principles will be used in suggestions for
changes in the Olympic Movement and Olympic Games in
part VI.
3.6 Conclusion
After the theoretical description, a sub question can be an-
swered: ‘The extend to which the transition theory can support
the adjustments of the Olympic Movement to become funda-
mentally more sustainable?’.

30
Part II: Theory
The transition theory can definitely be useful to become fun-
damentally supportive of a sustainable ambition. The theory
gives a tool in which a transition can be set up. The transition
theory is deeply rooted in the system theory and thereby in
the general sciences. This gives an interdisciplinary oppor-
tunity to start the change with various types of profession-
als. The point of view of a planner is one of them, but more
is needed. Different agreed realities will merge to come to a
transition path. As stated by Immanuel Kant (1996), reality
is a construct of out mind and the only thing we can do un-
derstanding better the reality through theory. In the change
to a more sustainable system and event the transition theory
can be useful and come up with opportunities because of the
open, democratic, interactive and learning approach. This
is important to cope with and adapt to a complex society,
in which the Olympic system is participating. Especially in
the Olympic system, time plays a major role. Through the
characteristics of the four-year cycle on a different place in
the world, the aspect of time, of becoming is essential. Dif-
ferent Olympic cycles are intertwined and should be able to
learn from each other during the process. Through the set
up of a general body (IOC) which centrally decides about
the host city the multi-level is important, they don’t imple-
ment changes, they only set the changes. The multi-pattern
aspect is not obvious, because of the enormous investments,
commercial attention and the importance for the continued
existence of the Olympic system. Different patterns hold the
development and can change the worldwide opinion by one
mistake, See for example Montreal (1976); still today Mon-
treal is cited as an example of the high costs that must be paid
by the population. On the aspect of governance should be a
transition really helpful. The IOC should together with var-
ious partners and professional search for a new structure, a
new business model and a new spatial approach in which the
strategic, tactical and operational perspectives play an im-
portant role. In order to make it real transitional according to
the theory, the reflexive part and the aspect of transparency,
open and democratically play a crucial role. To become more
fundamentally sustainable, a deep-rooted change is required,
also in the governance structure. This holistic approach will
not be easy to define, but in order to cope with the complex-
ity it will help for the long future.

31
4. Olympic theory
4. Olympic theory
This research tries to combine the general transition theory for planning issues with more spe-
cific Olympic theory. The Olympics theories make use of the ideas of Elena Theodoraki, Holger
Preuss and are based on the structure of Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott. Concepts and ideas pre-
sented in chapter 1 and 3 will be combined here in an integral theory applicable for the Olympic
Games.
4.1 Introduction
§ 4.2 will elaborate on the Governance aspect of the Olympic
Games. It will use the theory of Chappelet & Kübler-Mab-
bott, Elena Theodoraki and Henry Mintzberg to sketch the
structure of the Olympic system and on the basis of their
findings a renewed structure will be presented.
§ 4.3 will elaborate on the sustainable aspect of the Olympic
Games. It will therefore zoom in towards the planning pro-
cess and theory, sustainability and legacy aspects, here the
theories of Gratton & Preuss and Furrer will be used. This
chapter will follow through a conclusion and will thereby fin-
ish Part II of this research.
4.2 Governance of the Olympic Games
The Olympic structure, as it is drawn in chapter 1, is the
stripped version of the complete version in which there is
also a role for sponsors, media, governments, the WADA and
the CAS (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008). The IOC as
central actor, and the OCOGs, Ifs, NOCs and NFs are still
present. This basic version of the structure is also called the
‘classical version’, and this was the case until the beginning of
the 1980s. Since the 1980s, there are five types of actors in the
current ‘extended’ Olympic structure. These are all external
actors by which the Olympic structure became more com-
plex. These five types will be explained below (Chappelet &
Kübler-Mabbott, 2008), see also Figure 9 for the structure:
Governments and inter-governmental organizations: na-
tional and international authorities are getting more import-
ant in the legislation processes around the Olympics and the
jurisdictional aspects.
International sponsors: International multinationals, which
have, direct relations with the IOC and Ifs, for example the
TOP program sponsors and major broadcasters. This type
developed itself towards the most important revenue source
because of the funding function of the sponsors.
National sponsors: sponsors which work together with
NOCs, NFs and the OCOG for sponsoring on national ba-
sis with national restrictions, for example Asics, the clothing
sponsor for the Dutch Olympic and Paralympic Team. They
have a role in the national field, but not on international ba-
sis.
Leagues for professional teams or athletes: profession-
al teams or athletes, which have a strong influence on the
participation of athletes in Olympic events. For example the
Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and National Bas-
ketball Association (NBA).
Regulators: The regulators, designed to keep the competition
fair. The first regulative body was the CAS, founded in 1983
to resolve disputes concerning sport by means of arbitration.
The second was WADA, founded in 1999 to promote, super-
vise and coordinate the fight against all forms of doping in
the sport
In analyzing the current structure, the struggle of the IOC
becomes clear. The IOC do not like to work with complex
democratic and participative countries because the public
support is somewhat lower and this brings a lot more trouble
in legislation aspects. On the other hand, the less complex
democratic countries, think about for example Russia, Brazil,
oil states and dictatorial countries, the stakeholder system
in which the IOC have to deal with is less complex and the
IOC have a stronger voice in the actions they like to see, but
here also come the protest of the local people, for example in

32
Part II: Theory
WADA CAS
Governments
and inter-
governmental
organizations
Olympic
Movement
(IOC, Ethics
Commission)
International
sponsors
NOCs OCOGs IFs
National
sponsors
and media
NF’s
(clubs, athletes)
Leagues
of pro athletes
or teams
Figure 9: ‘extended’ Olympic structure (Chappelet &
Kübler-Mabbott, 2008).
Brazil, or the protest from the western world about the gay
propaganda in Russia. This is the struggle of complexity of
the IOC. In both cases, the IOC does not have full power,
see for example the torch relay through Tibet and Taiwan
(Beijing 2008). All host cities have different degrees of com-
plexity. The research of XML Architects (2012) has com-
pared different cities, which are possible trying to host the
Olympics. XML did research on Madrid, Istanbul, Tokyo,
Doha, South Africa and The Netherlands about the stake-
holders in the process of bidding and hosting the Olympics.
The government involvement of different levels, the power
of IOC-members in the complete organization and the deci-
sion-making process varies.
In order to keep the Olympic Games manageable, former
IOC President Rogge launched the ‘Olympic Games Study
Commission’ (OGS) to make recommendation by which
costs, complexity and size the Games will be manageable,
because they must be foremost a sporting event (Furrer,
2002). In this same article of Furrer, project manager for
the IOC, he said: “Discussions with experts and with vari-
ous constituents of the Olympic Movement confirmed that
today’s Games have indeed reached a critical size and any
further growth in size and cost could jeopardize the Games’
success and sustainability, i.e. the continued success of its or-
ganization and of its power to raise funds from sponsors and
broadcasters”, followed by “The size, cost and complexity of
hosting the Games can also exceed the capacity of most cities
to stage them” (Furrer, 2002: 17). It is typical that this OGS
Commission and analyses were already made in 2002, and
that that nothing really changed in the results. The Olympics
are still getting bigger, more complex and more difficult to
organize. In order to do something, the IOC decided to cap
the number of sports, events and participating athletes (Fur-
rer, 2002). It is good to think about this, but the sport is the
core of the event and it is questionable if this is a good first
step.
In essence, the Olympic Movement as a set of entities is com-
plex with all the different stakeholders (elements), the inter-
actions between the elements and the boundaries between
the system above (the ‘system’) and the outside world (the
‘environment’) of the system make that it is not a complex
system in essence (McLoughin, 1969 & 1985). De Roo &
Porter (2006) calls this an issue in the ‘fuzzy middle’. But by
interactions and the adding of the commercial, sustainable,
spatial and also political aspects in the last decades, the sys-
tem became complex. The OM as a system is very hierarchi-
cal, functional and thus technical organized, the system is
based on direct causality and is object oriented (See figure
4). According to the research of Elena Theodoraki (2007),
the Olympic Movement fits inside the ‘Divisionalised Form’
typology of organizations of Henry Mintzberg (1993). This
Divisionalised Form is a closed system and fits in the broader

33
4. Olympic theory
structure of the Olympic system. Theodoraki also links the
organizational theory to the systems theory, which is in her
book called the open system theory. This is in line with the
adaptive complex systems as presented in chapter 3 by Gert
de Roo. It is described in which the acceptance with the un-
certainty and the environment is crucial to adapt to markets
and technologies. An organization in terms of an open sys-
tem theory is defined as “a group of interrelated subsystems
and attempts to establish congruencies between different
systems” (Theodoraki, 2007: 13), in other words: to modify
the organization in order to guide the Olympics through the
transition towards a fundamental more sustainable event.
Although it is a closed system, governance plays an import-
ant role in the Olympic system, in relation to the degree of
self-organization. The IOC can be seen as the ‘central state’
Session, President, Executive Board, Olympic Foundation
Olympic Games
Knowledge
Service SA,
Olympic
Broadcasting
Services SA
IOC & IPC
administration
Continental
NOC Associations
Commissions
Olympic Musuem,
Olympic Solidarity
NOCs, IFs, OCOGs, TOP
Ahtletes
of the Olympic Movement, see Fig-
ure 9. The system is driven by the
international sponsor interests;
underhanded arrangements of
host cities; and internal ballots of
new IOC-members, the IOC is the
main actor, but without the power
to rule. It is not transparent and
open and forms thereby a danger
for the sustainable long-term. The
structure of the OM itself becomes
clear from figure 10, which is in the
typology of a Divisionalised Form
as presented by Mintzberg (1993).
This typology has some overlap
with the typology of Chappelet &
Kübler-Mabbott (2008), the figure
below focuses more on its own
Olympic aspects in which the op-
erating core does not really reflects
the described discourse. The Na-
tionals Committees, Federation,
OCOGs, TOP program sponsors
and athletes can not been seen as
the same group, in my point of
view because of the different functions, powers and interests.
So I will further focus on the other four aspects.
The executive board consists of the IOC President, four
vice-presidents and ten other members, which are elected
by the Session for a four-year term (Theodoraki, 2007). This
structure, in which the IOC is not the only stakeholder, is
in line with the hybrid forms of governance, as presented
by Lemos & Agrawal (2006) in which partnerships between
at least two social mechanisms cooperate and mix. In the
Olympic structure, this can be reflected to the Ifs, NOCs and
also the OCOGs. They together form the Olympic visibility
of the brand, the Games and all the additional programs. Im-
portant to note here is that the IOC tries to stay in control of
all the aspects, which is in danger because of the complexity.
Therefore, §6.2 will sketch a new governance structure for
Figure 10: Divisionalised Form of the Olympic Movement (Theodoraki, 2007).

34
Part II: Theory
the Olympic system and the Olympic Games
According to Mintzberg (1993) leads a non-changing divi-
sionalized form of organization within a structural changing
society to a phenomena he calls: “a structure at the edge of a
cliff” (1993, 252). Mintzberg continues by stating that a divi-
sionalized organization like this settles on the end of a long
path, on the edge of a cliff. In here, it is one step away from
disintegration and falling apart in separate pieces (Mintz-
berg, 1993). This is something that should be prevented to
change along the society.
4.3 Sustainable Olympic Games
As stated in chapter 2, the notion of sustainability is a real
fuzzy notion, and therefore it is important to define sus-
tainability for the Olympic context and make it operation-
al, related to actions. For developments in this direction
see Cantelon & Letters (2000); Furrer (2002); Pitts & Liao
(2012); and Pentifallo & VanWynsberghe (2012). The Olym-
pic Movement intents to move into a more sustainable sys-
tem, but does not follow that by applicable requirements for
candidate cities. The goal of this paragraph is to achieve this
definition and test this in chapter 7 on the case of London.
An important remark is that it is extremely difficult to be
sustainable in respect to the Olympics on a certain day, this
because of the context dependency and also because always
lasting impact of building and traveling. What can be sus-
tainable for a western society; can be very unsustainable for
people from another context. The Olympics can make a con-
tribution to a world that is more sustainable.
An important notion in the organization of one-off me-
ga-events is the difference between policy goals and the
practical performance during the preparations. Due to lack
of time, some setbacks and the complexity of the projects,
some changes have to be made during the process. Flexi-
bility is needed. In these flexibility and ad hoc adjustments,
the sustainable part is the victim in most cases (Interview
Herbert Wolff, 2013). The connection between the long-term
development vision and short-term hosting of the event go
separate ways. The sustainable and legacy aspects turned into
a neglected child. An important cause of this is the notion
that sustainable measurements in first instance cost money
and effort. Especially when trying to do it halfway it proba-
bly cost a lot and the profits are minimal. The environmental
ambition has a weak profile here.
In the current discourse, the notions of ‘legacy’ and ‘sustain-
ability’ have a different function. Legacy is seen as the aspect
which comes into play after the event, or at least after the
event is planned; and sustainability is environment, and is
in the case of the ‘Sport & Environment’ program of the UN
and IOC. But no single Olympic Games do have the legacy
vision incorporated from the beginning, London was ‘early’,
three years in prior to the Games, but this was already four
years after the selection of London.
Planning process and theory
From the beginning of the Olympics, the process was more
of a trial-and-error procedure, towards a quantitative mea-
sured environment nowadays. During the analysis of litera-
ture became clear that the IOC has an enormous impact on
the spatial impact of the Games. This in itself is not weird,
because of the governmental task of the IOC, but by the re-
quirements, they have a strong steering influence on the spa-
tial vision and thereby the impact for a city. These Reports,
the W-Report and E-Report (see also chapter 1) are present-
ed, since the 1990s and the crises they are part of the process.
The W-Report is based on a ranking-system to make the first
selection between the cities that does not comply with the
basic requirements. From this ranking becomes clear that
the short-term of hosting the event is a leading aspect for
the IOC. 17% of the ranking has a relation to the long-term
impact of sustainability and legacy, 75% has a relation to the
short-term organization of the Games, see Appendix 2 for
the list (IOC, 2004). So, the opportunity of achieving an ur-
ban development is underestimate and of very small interest
of the IOC.
The E-Report is a comment-based checklist to help the
IOC-member to vote (Pitts & Liao, 2009). According to Pitts
& Liao (2009: 115) these reports ‘have strong impacts on the
host city selection’, but this is not argued. Why, if there are
one, or maybe two cities which ranked the best after both

35
4. Olympic theory
reports, is there no candidate city that gets the majority of
the votes in the first rounds? IOC-member does not just
vote because of the ranking, there is more behind it. This as-
pect of the theory cannot be deconstructed, because of the
non-transparent and secret procedures and election within
the IOC. This is all classified information.
According to the rationality of the process, it does not stroke
with the current procedures in which the bid book is a
blueprint plan for the next seven years. The Bidding Man-
ual declared: ‘It is fundamental that from the beginning of
the candidature to the post-Olympic period, all measures are
taken to minimize or eliminate negative impact on the envi-
ronment and contribute to the harmonious integration of the
Olympic Games into the natural surroundings’ (IOC, 2004).
By this statement, the IOC gives a direction towards a strate-
gy, which cares about the environment, but links no tangible
demands on it. It stays vague and from a real top-down per-
spective in which the context does not play a clear role; and
does not contain the social and economic aspects.
Sustainability
The aspect of sustainability was already part of the Olympic
ideals since the times of Pierre de Coubertin. His idea was to
use sport in teaching the world’s youth basic human values
that would enable them to lead better lives and build bet-
ter communities. Nowadays, the IOC tries to cover this by
the Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21, the Transfer of Olym-
pic Knowledge (TOK), Olympic Games Knowledge Series
(OGKS), Olympic Games Study Commission (OGS) and the
Olympic Games Impact (OGI). As presented in chapter 1, the
Agenda 21 covers mainly the environmental protection of the
planet, the TOK and OGKS is the transfer between different
host cities and specific education services, so no real pro-ac-
tive bodies to improve the long-term impact and vision of
the Olympics. The Olympic Study Commission got the mis-
sion to control the costs and complexity of the Games, by the
notion that it is still a sports event. Thus a commission that
tries to keep the organization of three weeks sport control-
lable. This is overly ambitious since there are other interests:
the commission started in 2000, and since then, the Games
only got bigger and more complex, due to the requirements
of the IOC. The IOC had sought cooperation with the United
Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), which resulted
in a Cooperative Agreement in 1994 and the IOC Sport and
Environment Commission in 1995. Through this integration
it is now called the ‘Third pillar of Olympism’ and is since
2011 it is included in the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2011, Rule
2.13)(Cox, 2012). In this discussion, around the year 2000,
the analysis was made that the Games reached a critical size
and that further grow could damage the Games, also in rela-
tion to the host-city (Essex & Chalkley, 1999; Furrer, 2002),
but since then, there is not changed that much. The Games
grow bigger, more investments, larger commercial interests,
bigger impacts on cities, so long-term vision in which the
Olympics are a means and no end it is still undervalued. Sim-
ilar discussions were held in 1928; 1968; around the election
of Jacques Rogge (around 2000); and also by the election of
Thomas Bach in 2013 (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013;
Chauhan, 2013). By the various measurement projects, the
IOC tries to cope with the growing complexity by using more
indicators; chapter 3 reflected that more indicators do not
definitely improve the measurements and quality of results.
To incorporate the Brundtland definition in the Olympics is
hard. Hosting the Games has a big impact on the city’s ac-
commodation stock, land use, energy supply, waste manage-
ment, sewage system, transport and security networks and
water consumption. This all according the standards of the
IOC, which sets a host city for an enormous challenge to ac-
commodate this during the Games, and to make in profitable
after the Games. So the regular definition of sustainability is
not one on one applicable on mega events in general and on
the Olympic Games is specific.
In order to cope with the current effects of the Games, Phil-
lipe Furrer (2002), project manager at the IOC, wrote an ar-
ticle about the sustainable aspect of the Olympics. From his
point of view, the ‘sustainable’ part of the Olympics is in first
instance ‘that the funding from broadcast rights and fees and
sponsors continues’ (Furrer, 2002: 25). This reflects the defi-
nition of ‘keeping alive’ of the Olympics. After that, sustain-
able Olympic Games must (Furrer, 2002: 25):

36
Part II: Theory
• “Contribute to the sustainable development of the host
city and region through their economic,  social and en-
vironmental legacy;
• Be conceived from the outset as an opportunity to ad-
dress serious urban and regional  challenges, and to
promote development solutions and innovations which
maintain or even  improve the quality of life of all resi-
dents;
• Lead to the management of all local and regional re-
sources (financial, social and environmental)  in a way
that the Olympic Games’ requirements can be fulfilled
while maintaining harmonious socio-economic urban
and regional milieus and safeguarding the cultural in-
tegrity at the same time, biological diversity and life sup-
port systems of the host city and region;
• Include the public through genuine consultation pro-
cesses at the earliest stage and beware of local agendas
driven by a showcasing need;
• Benefit equally all layers of the host population;
• Identify and address risks, as well as mitigate distress or
drawbacks caused by the residents.”
By achieving these goals, the Olympics deserve the label ‘sus-
tainable’ according to Furrer (2002).
The current notion of sustainability with its four pillars (hu-
man, social, economic and environmental, both built and
natural) are separated by the IOC; here the Agenda 21 project
covers mostly the social aspect, but not the economic aspect,
which is strange in a system considering the economic ratio-
nal like the Olympic system follows (Hiller, 1998; Horton &
Zakus, 2010). The IOC (2012) report ‘Sustainability through
sport’ is stated that due to the complete different contexts it
is not a real option to set strict environmental standards. To
come to a definition, the previous mentioned aspects of sus-
tainable Olympic will be taken into account. This results in
the following definition: ‘‘Sustainable Olympic Games are de-
veloped in towards the long-term future of the city in regarding
the social, ecological and economical aspects in a transparent
decision-making process’’. The 2012 London Olympics were a
good result in which the sustainability got a major role. This
will be further elaborated in chapter 7, but important to no-
tice here is that the sustainability goals were initiated by the
London bid. After it has turned out well, it is now part of the
general evaluation process (Interview Herbert Wolff, 2013).
Thus, it is in several aspects also a more communicative ra-
tional, Class IV system. The bottom up experiments workout
and through learning-by-doing the process improves in time.
Here it reflects some characteristics of an adaptive complex
system as defined by Grin et al (2010). In other aspects, the
learning aspects are not used to full potential because of the
limited timeframe (OGI) or the lack of honest reports on im-
provements (OGS).
Legacy
The danger with legacy plans and mega events is that mega
events are often seen as ‘footloose industries’, they mobilize
investments for a short term prior to the Games, and af-
terwards they disappear. An important aspect of the short-
term focus of the Olympic Games is the underestimation
of the legacy of the Games, this became an aspect with the
Games of 2000. The IOC introduced in 2000 the Olympic
Games Global Impact (OGGI), later transformed to Olympic
Games Impact Study (OGI), to develop objective and scien-
tific analysis of the impact, on which they can anticipate for
the next Olympiad. The problem with this program is that
it ends three years after the Games. For example, the OGI
Study of the London 2012 Olympics ends with a Final Re-
port in 2015, but the year 2015-2016 is the first full year of
events and activities in the park. According to the schedule
the former Olympic Park opens in the spring of 2014. The
real legacy only becomes clear after a couple of years. This
relatively short period after the Games is an important as-
pect of the underestimation. Legacy is about how much of
the investments are used on the long-term, this depends on
the context, the size of investments, for example: the state
of the transport system, the offer of the hotels and different
other facilities. It is often used to show the involvement of
the public sector and their return on investment (Thomson,
Leopkey, Schlenker & Shulenkorf, 2010). Every edition has
aspects, which are not used or oversized to use the complete
capacity in the long-term after the Olympics. The aspects
of the good and useful aspects that stay after the Games are

37
4. Olympic theory
called ‘positive legacy’, and the unused or oversized aspects
are called ‘negative legacy’. A positive legacy is also seen in
the interest of the IOC, for three reasons (Gratton & Preuss,
2008):
1. A positive legacy avoids blaming the IOC in the pro-
vision of ridiculous requirements for the host city and
shows the reason it is good for the city;
2. The use of big amounts of public money for investments
can be justified;
3. By showing the positive aspects, it motivates other cities
to bid for future events.
Although the appreciation of legacy depends on the perspec-
tive, something can be a positive legacy for tourism and at
the same time a negative legacy for environment. Due to the
short period of monitoring the legacy, the OGI-program does
not really reaches their goal and it is mainly window-dress-
ing because it is not integrated in the learning curve for the
next Olympiad.
This comes together in a definition of legacy. Important to
note is that the IOC itself has no definition of what they ex-
actly mean by legacy. It is mentioned in the Olympic Charter,
as ‘It is the IOC’s role to promote a positive legacy from the
Olympic Games to the host cities and host countries’ (IOC,
2013). This is a typical vague and exalted goal as stated in
chapter 1 by Horne & Whannel (2012). The IOC makes a dis-
tinction between five categories: sport, social, environmen-
tal, urban and economic. This can all be in a tangible and
intangible form (Gratton & Preuss, 2008). In this respect, the
IOC also uses the term ‘impact’ to describe the effects of a
policy, program or project and the negative or damaging ef-
fect (IOC, 2013b). It is strange that the IOC sets no clear defi-
nition of legacy in their reports (Horne & Whannel, 2012),
because they steer on it in the bid books and in the decision
which city is chosen to host the Games. This can be declared
by the fact that the IOC now can explain it in a positive way
according to the interest of the IOC and the Olympic Move-
ment (Kassens-Noor, 2012). Without a clear definition it is
much easier to tell the good news show without mention-
ing the bad news. This is also seen in the report on ‘Olym-
pic Games: Legacies and impacts’ of the IOC (2013b), there
are many examples from different Olympics mentioned, but
without a clear line and only positive experiences.
The most commonly used definition of legacy is defined by
Preuss (2007: 87): ‘Legacy is planned and unplanned, positive
and negative, intangible and tangible structure created through
a sport event that remain after the event’. Most of the stud-
ies made, which are held before the Olympics, focus on the
tangible, positive and planned legacy. The potential risks of
failed legacies is often unmentioned and without a clear re-
sponsibility of the IOC or the city (Interview Herbert Wolff,
2013; Kassens-Noor, 2012). This is only a minor aspect of the
total range of legacy perspectives; the concept of legacy has
evolved achieving general benefits for the hosting city, to-
wards achieving a strategically long-term sustainable legacy
plan (Leopkey & Parent, 2012a). This legacy cube model, as it
is called, is further developed towards a ‘Green Legacy model
of Mega Events’ (See Figure 11)(Preuss, 2013). In this figure,
the first dimension is the structure; this is the structure in
which the host cities differ from each other. They all have
a different structure, resulting in a different environmental
impact. The structure is tangible or intangible, but to some
degree for the Games. The distinction on what is specific for
the Olympics, and what is for structural urban development
is important to avoid double counting.
The second dimension is the branch in which a variety of
sectors can be analyzed. The focus in this research is based
on environment, but also sport or politics are options for a
focus. The concepts on both other axis can be explained ac-
cording to the focus on the branch.
The third dimension is the site; this is something that chang-
es after the event. Some of the sites will disappear; most will
continue to exist for a longer or shorter period. The influence
of the IOC is great in the achievement of a benefitting leg-
acy and the difference between hosting the ‘Perfect Games’
and the city’s foresight and sophistication for a development
path. Kassens-Noor (2012) states that the cities dream of us-
ing the Games for development, had led to a different urban
reality in the majority of the cases because of the mismatch
between the cities goals and the IOC requirements.

38
Part II: Theory
A green legacy has different parts in which they can con-
tribute to an environmental development: environmental
infrastructure, environmental knowledge, environmental
networks, environmental culture, environmental policies,
and environmental emotions (Preuss, 2013). But Preuss
also mentions that the influence and the contribution mega
events can develop a green economy. This because of the past
events did not show that good results, especially not on the
long-term. Mega events have a big advantage because of the
visibility, branding and attention (Preuss, 2013). In here, Pre-
uss does not mention the transition of the governance model.
Legacy is not a fixed notion; it is rather evolving and dynam-
ic (Cashman, 2006). This critique is not that valuable. Leop-
key & Parent (2012b) add necessity of legacy governance to
proactive the legacy benefits. Important to notice here is that
in the current governance model nobody is responsible for
the legacy after the Games. During the bid phase, the city
includes a vision for the long-term legacy, after the selection
the OCOG is responsible for delivering the Games. But after
Figure: 11 Green legacy cube (Preuss, 2013: 3587).
the Games, within two years the OCOG is disbanded, the
OGI program stops and no ‘Olympic-body’ visits the for-
mer host city (Agha et al, 2010). The IOC is not responsible
because cities participating voluntarily in the bidding phase
(Interview Herbert Wolff), so the only stakeholder that is in-
volved during the whole process is the city.
4.4 Conclusion
This chapter analyzed specific developments on the Olym-
pic system. The IOC focuses on short-term benefits for
the Olympic Movement with the commercial thoughts in
mind. This does not match with the long-term legacy point
of view in which the host city can improve the city, because
of lacking a general accepted definition and because of the
possible multi-interpretation of the concept. Also the differ-
ent timefocuses can play a role here. By the culture of the
Olympic Movement and the host city selection it takes seven
years before changes are visible. The governance system is
very top-down designed with a lot of big and international

39
4. Olympic theory
stakeholders with their own interests. The IOC tries to rule
the system in a very technical and rational way but discov-
ers through time more problems with this. The continuously
growing complexity of the system makes it hard to predict
and to rule it.
On the aspect of sustainability, the idea of ‘keeping alive’ the
Olympics is the main aspect in this discussion. Thereby, there
are some vague and general ideas in which the Olympics can
contribute to the fuzzy notion of a more sustainable living.
After the commercial and sustainable wave in the Olympic
system, the last wave is the aspect of legacy. This became
important at the beginning of this century and is developed
by Holger Preuss, in large parts, but is still a not integrated
aspect, like the sustainability aspect. The holistic approach
is missing in the current theoretical debate. This will be elab-
orated in chapter 6.
The importance and impact of the Games makes the IOC an
important and global stakeholder in the urban development
in host cities. In the complete process of bidding and host-
ing the Olympics and using the short-term developments
afterwards, there is one major distinction: the short-term
goals from the IOC and the long-term developmental ideals
from a city. The IOC does not feel the trade-off, it only pays
a minor aspect and thereby has a major interest in only the
Games, while the city wants to host the Games, but wants to
use it as a meaning to achieve the long-term strategy and give
it a boost.
To what extent are the Olympic Games an opportunity to
achieve a spatial development? According to Essex & Chalk-
ley (1999) and Furrer (2002), the current design of the Olym-
pics reached their limit; their size and also impact on host
cities makes it not responsible to grow further. These findings
indicate that there is an impact on host cities and that this im-
pact has it boundaries. According to Gratton & Preuss (2008)
and Preuss (2013) is the legacy, the impact on the host city
is important for the IOC. This reflects that not only the de-
livery of the Games is important, but also the post-use of the
investments. Thus, the IOC and host cities should together
come up to a solution. Here, the statement of Kassens-Noor
(2012) about the dreams and realities of city comes by. Host
cities have a dream in mind but will be confronted with a
reality what does not look like the dream. This is in major
aspect the responsibility of the host city, but if this happens
every four-year cycle, also the IOC has a task to improve this,
especially through the influence of the IOC on the process by
the requirements. This all together: the Olympic Games are
a real opportunity to achieve a spatial development. In some
way, it is mandatory by the requirements of the IOC. There is
no city that has an area in which five big stadiums are located
and where a transport capacity of 60.000 people per hour is
available. So the Olympics are an opportunity, but this op-
portunity does not become a reality in most cases due to the
mismatch between the city goals and the IOC requirements.
This answers the sub question answered for which stakehold-
er a change would be desirable. It is definitely in the interest
of the future host cities because of their dream and reality by
hosting the Games. Thereby it is also an interest of the IOC,
because they do get a bad reputation by the long lasting leg-
acies that are not used.

Part III:
Analysis

43
5. Current Olympic developments to sustainable transitions
In the current Olympic system, there are some initiatives, which are in line with, or opposing a
sustainable transition as described in chapter 3 and 4. The concepts that will be described are
the lack of accountability, lack of a long-term vision, the social and local support and the first
directions towards a more democratic system.
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will analyze the current procedures and changes
in processes of the Olympic Movement and connect those to
the defined concepts. This is done according to the three ma-
jor aspects of sustainability: the ecological aspect (§5.2), the
economic aspect (§5.3) and the social aspect (§5.4). Chap-
ter 6 will continue this towards more sustainable Olympic
Movement in the future.
5.2 the ecological aspect
Since the emerging report of the Lillehammer Wintergames
of 1994, the IOC and the Olympic Movement is working on
the incorporation of an environmental ambition. As elabo-
rated in chapter 1 and 4 has ‘the environment’ slowly claimed
a position in current bidding and hosting procedure of the
Olympic Movement. This Sport and Environment program
of the IOC focuses mainly on the environmental sustainabil-
ity aspect (Cantelon & Letters, 2000).
This paragraph covers not only the ecological aspect, but also
the spatial aspect; which has a major influence on the pure
environmental aspect by the land-use.
The aspect of legacy and impact of the hosting Olympics has
a strong relation with the IOC requirements. When a city
decides to bid for the Olympics, they know the requirements
of the IOC and by the selection of the host city an agree-
ment is signed were among things also the legacy and im-
pact aspects are covered. The practical implementation on
detail is a task for the city and the OCOG, but the IOC does
have an influence on this (Kassens-Noor, 2012). This influ-
ence reflects in the spatial impact of an Olympic Park and
Village with short distances, a rail transport system, and a
high capacity of stadiums. Although, not only the IOC is
accountable for this impact, the city decides voluntarily to
bid and to have the ambition to host the Olympics, so they
are responsible for the long-term visions and plans. The IOC
does not require launching a bid. Hereby looking specifical-
ly to the environmental ambitions, Rio de Janeiro proposed
a rigorous program of environmental protection (Pentifallo
& VanWynsberghe, 2012), but the question remains, what
will be realized. An important aspect in this discussion on
accountability, environmental and also social sustainability
is the fact that the organizational bodies change during the
process. In the bidding phase, there is the Bid Organizing
Committee (BOC), during preparations of the Games it is
the OCOG, and after the Games it is the Legacy Company.
The BOC makes the promises towards the IOC; OCOG pre-
pares and delivers the Games and the Legacy Company cares
about the long-term future. The OCOG do not necessarily
needs to come with a follow-up on the BOC promises, so the
long-term urban development is out of sight by now. Can-
didate cities can design wonderful stadiums, draw fantastic
plans and host great Olympics, but nobody cares about what
promises are fulfilled. The IOC is not accountable for there
choices, why do they still accept that candidate cities have
a complete plan for sustainability in their Games and their
legacy? This is endorsed by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD): “Accountability is
a key pre-requisite for achieving sustainable development”
(OECD, 2002: 12). Another aspect is the position of the BOC
regarding the IOC. The IOC is responsible for the selection
of the host city, so the BOC objectives do resemble on the
IOC objectives. In order to improve something on this pro-

44
Part III: Analysis
cedure, the IOC tried to improve (Pentifallo & VanWynsber-
ghe, 2012). All these attempts have not really been effective,
likely by the way of implementation: the IOC makes plans to
change, and tries to improve aspects in a top-down way and
local parties can not do anything with it. There is no room for
local initiatives, no connection between the regime and the
niche stakeholders and no interaction. There is definitely no
hybrid governance model.
Besides the environmental legacy aspect, also the long-term
vision for the city is an important aspect for the ecological
point of view. This is mentioned because of the high pres-
sure of the process and the strict deadlines. At the day a city
is chosen to host the Olympics, the seven-year preparation
time starts. The editions of Athens, 2004, Turin 2006 and
now also the Sochi 2014 Games show that this deadline can
become a problem. The consequence of the deadline is that
the process of public participation and adjustments of the vi-
sion in favor of the local interests is frequently lacking. This
results in citizens protesting against the developments con-
cerning the Games (Sochi 2014, Rio 2016) and thereby the
lack of a balanced long-term vision for the surrounding area.
This can result in developments pure for the Games with an
added value for the neighborhood or a unilateral develop-
ment on the interest of a single developer or stake.
If a city do have a long-term vision in which is a place for the
Olympics, but the Olympics are a means to reach the end, the
procedure-time is not just the seven years after selection, but
also a decade before.
An example of this is Sochi. It sounds maybe a bit strange
because of the protests, the stories that it isn’t a winter resort
but a summer resort; although the Olympics are on one point
used to develop an area for the long-term. Russia does not
have an elite-mountain resort for their top athletes to pre-
pare for their competitions. Now, through the hosting of the
Sochi Winter Games, an elite mountain accommodation is
build, which can be used by the Russian winter athletes in
the next decades. The long-term vision uses the Olympics to
reach a goal. If the means to reach is legitimate, by demolish-
ing a natural forest, building facilities on geological unstable
ground is questionable from a western point of view; and
there are a lot of other doubtful development and procedures
(Gentelev, 2013). But the idea is good in an economic long-
term aspect; the mountain accommodation is not build for
just three weeks, but for the long-term by using the Olym-
pics. This reflects the fuzziness of the concepts of sustainabil-
ity and legacy.
So, the ecological aspect has grown since the beginning of the
1990s, but still got a minor role in the complete procedure
and requirements. The aspect of hosting the Perfect Games is
major for the IOC and every other interest is pushed off to-
wards the host city. In spatial terms, it is impossible to speak
about a holistic approach in which there is an interaction be-
tween different levels. All the separate levels do something
with the best intentions, but the real step towards a transition
is not achieved.
5.3 the economical aspect
The economic aspects of the Olympic Games are mainly for
achieving the highest possible revenues, and thereby sustain-
ing the Olympic Games for the next editions (Furrer, 2002).
This is for the IOC an important part, see chapter 1, but also
for cities. Cities bid on the Olympics because they think they
can earn money with hosting the Games. Tourism is one of
the major goals for many cities, ‘placing your city on the map’.
Once again Barcelona is a well-known example, before 1992,
Barcelona was no real tourist destination. It was an old-fash-
ioned city with lots of old industrial areas, after being the
center of the world for two weeks; Barcelona is one of the
major tourist cities in the world. Although, this could also
happened without the Games, because it is no panacea. An-
other aspect is the financial concentration of the Games. The
Games are hosted in one city, so all the investment money
will go to that city, and it is impossible to invest that money
in other parts of the country, so all the national taxes are ap-
plied in one city but paid by people from the whole country
(Scotsman, 2011). An interesting question to ask in this case
is what it is worth it to not host the Games, how much will
people pay for that? But also the revenues are for only that
one city, so the taxpayers outside the host city pay their taxes,
but do not get the profits from this. This is also the case for a

45
lot of local businesses.
During the London 2012 Games, Greenwich Park was the
historical venue for the horse competitions and the equestri-
an events. For guiding the mass of people from the Under-
ground transport links to the venue there were marked routes
to improve the speed of the spectators, which resulted in a
street with barriers where it was impossible to buy or drink
something in the local businesses. Result of the research is
that 58,3% of the surveyed local business had a substantial
loss of revenues during the Games (Vlachos, forthcoming).
The only focus in this aspect is the delivery of the Games
on time, the long-term vision of the host city is no longer
important.
Through the developments of the last decades, the business
model of the IOC developed towards a model based on four
Olympic
Revenues

47,8%
Broadcas.ng

11,8%
TOP
program

22,8%
OGOC
Sponsors

15,4%
Ticke.ng

2,1%
Licensing

Figure 12: Olympic revenues for the Vancouver 2010 and Lon-
don 2012 Olympics (IOC, 2013c). For specified information see
Appendix 2.
pillars, see also figure 12 (IOC, 2013c).
Other economic aspects of mega events are the venues. Sta-
diums are more and more architectural delights, to show
the abilities of a country and to attract tourists just for the
stadium; just like the 2 million people visited the Beijing
Bird’s Nest in 2011 (Yugian, 2012). The big question here is
the affair of a permanent or temporary stadium. Temporary
stadiums are more of less 70% of the prices of a permanent
venue. The big difference is that a permanent venue needs
maintenance during the complete life cycle (Cartalis, 2013).
So, the economic aspects from the IOC’s point of view are
quiet clear. The most important aspect is to sustain the
Olympics for the future. In order to do this, revenues has
to be achieved, mostly by sponsorships, global and national
and broadcasting rights. More than 80% of the revenues are
from these sources, so there could be argued that they are
floating for a majority on commercial money, and thereby
on commercial interests. This became already visible in Syd-
ney, 2000: swimmers had to swim early in the morning, be-
cause it could be live broadcasted on primetime in the Unit-
ed States. Such a commercial event is not on definition bad,
but it is not flexible and robust in the case of an emergency,
and is losing their ideals: something, which is important in
the Olympics. These revenues are only getting higher, so the
interest is becoming more important. In the light of the tran-
sition theory, the local interest should need to be of more
importance.
5.4 the social aspect
Social aspects have always played a role in hosting the Olym-
pic Games. From the beginning of Pierre de Coubertin hu-
manity is an important aspect. The social aspect covers the
human interaction through citizens, businesses of powerful
groups and less powerful minority groups. This is difficult to
quantify, it covers various aspects, like: citizens, business, ed-
ucation, the party aspect, but also the housing and employ-
ment questions. These different aspects are hard to measure,
there are no hard facts and it is questionable if an improve-
ment in, for example, school performances has a relation
with a side program of the Games. Although, according to
the transition theory it is an important aspect in the human-
ity of the complete process. It is not all about money, but also
about the livability and happiness of the people.
These intangible aspects are important to achieve in a sustain-
able and long lasting benefit for a city. In prior to the Games,
the collaboration between the different governments, public
bodies and private stakeholders is necessary. The networks,

46
Part III: Analysis
which are originated during this pro-
cess, are useful in other projects af-
ter the Games. The same applies for
the volunteers’ organization. Lots of
people experienced the good feeling
of doing voluntarily work and many
people will help with other events
after the Games (Rayner, 2012), al-
though it is hard to keep people ac-
tive (Gibson, 2013).
Also the social surrounding aspects
do have an influence on the Olympic
Games. This is not specific one aspect
within the power of the IOC, but it is
important for the city. If many people
lose a job, leave their house and can-
not enjoy the positive aspects of the
Games, it will reflect in protest and
offensive opinions of the citizens. If
they gain jobs, get a new or alterna-
tive house and do enjoy the Games,
they have a good view and this will
have a good reflection on the tourists
and on the city. This is mainly as task
for the OCOG in the preparations of
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1993-‐1996
1997-‐2000
2001-‐2004
2005-‐2008
2009-‐2012

Millions
dollars

Olympiads

Olympic
revenues
in
last
ﬁve
Olympiads

(1993-‐2012)

Broadcas4ng

TOP
Program

OGOC
sponsors

Ticke4ng

Licensing

Figure 13: Olympic revenues in the last five Olympic cycles (1993-2012) (IOC, 2013c).
the Games, although it is made difficult by the IOC require-
ments. Through the strict deadline, but mainly a preparation
time of only seven years, it is almost impossible to move
along a complete public participation procedure. As a result,
the local public is more likely to protest against the Games,
because they did not give a voice in the developments. Here
is a task for the IOC to maybe change these preparation
times. Instruments to improve this can be a referendum in
the applicant city before the bidding phase and the extension
of the preparation time. Seven years is probably too short for
urban development, which usually takes about 20-25 years.
Two or four years extra will help in this case.
One of the aspects which are specific an IOC affair, is the
development of the Athletes Commission of the IOC. This
develops in a good direction. This Commission is part of the
Session and these athletes are also IOC-member, because of
their sport merits. They are chosen democratically, and the
Commission is a slowly growing group. This is a good de-
velopment from a democratic perspective, because of the in-
fluence in decision-making processes of former top-athletes,
who know the Games from the field perspective. The former
athletes provide another point of view in the discussion in
the IOC, which is important for the interaction.
A pure social part is the humanity of the Olympic Movement
and Games in many aspects. This varies from education of
children, to housing poor people and from local jobs to so-
cial accountability. This development through sport is since
the time of Pierre de Coubertin as aspect of the Olympic ide-
als. On the various aspects there are different initiatives and
programs with different organizations and federations. The
programs are divided in the following (IOC, 2013d):

47
• Sport for all people
• Development through sport
• Education through sport
• Women and sport
• Peace through sport
• Sport and environment
The exact goals and achievements of these different pro-
grams are a kind of vague. There are no annual reports avail-
able which made clear what the results are. It is good that
these programs exist and, in cooperation with different other
parties, like the UN, they will have good results. But it would
be good if its measurable, so other programs can learn from
them.
Thus, the IOC and the surrounding bodies try to do some-
thing about social responsibility, they interact with many
federations and NGO’s and try to measure the impact and
influences of the Olympics, but the results do not become
very clear. The IOC could improve this transparency by a
change of the Olympic Movement. Thinking about transpar-
ency, accountability, flexibility and robustness to change the
Olympic Movement. All these factors do not play an import-
ant role in the state of affairs within the Olympic Movement
today
5.5 Conclusion
To conclude this chapter, the Olympic Movement is not
a real progressive institute because of its design, but there
are some developments towards a transitional direction. As
usual in transitional changes, these developments start at the
experimental level of the system. This chapter covers the role
of the regime level in this; here is the IOC mentioned as part
of shaping the worldwide society. The IOC and the Olympic
Movement do allow and stimulate some changes towards a
new kind of thinking. For example: putting the environmen-
tal issue on the agenda of the events. The Olympic Movement
was really early with this. Many sport federations nowadays
are just starting to do something with this. On the other
hand, the cork of the Olympic Movement floats on the com-
mercial money and thereby commercial interests, and that
while the Olympic Movement got a special place because of
the ideological basis and utopian potential (See chapter 1).
To answer the question: ‘allows the IOC more focus on the
long-term urban developments?’ the findings from the para-
graphs come together. On the environmental aspect the
main focus is on the natural environment, the more urban
environment, important in urban areas where the Summer
Games are hosted, are somewhat off screen. There is no ho-
listic approach with strong interaction between different
levels of society, everybody works on there own island and
nobody is looking at a longer future. The economic aspect
is mainly focusing on sustaining the Olympics on the long
term by repeating their cycle every four year. More money is
earned, thus everything is going well. But 80% of the money
is from commercial interest, but with losing the local inter-
ests. Social aspects, transparency, flexibility, robustness and
accountability are important aspects, but the IOC uses none
of these. The IOC tries to do well with programs for educa-
tion, health and job creation, but there are no results mea-
sured thus nobody knows what is happening and what can
be improved: there is no interaction.
Although not only the IOC is responsible for achieving im-
provements for the worldwide society, also the host cities do
have a task in this. The host cities are a voluntarily candidate
to host the Games, and they have a task to keep the long-term
urban development in mind. The difficulty with the current
requirements is that they do not give the host city enough
freedom to come up with local improvement, because the
IOC do not want to risk a failed Olympic Games. Also the
measurement of the results of former host-cities is inad-
equate. The OGI program ends two years after the Games,
while the real legacy gets clear after 10 years, or maybe 20
years: it measures and understands the impact before, during
and after the Games. But there is no applicable standard like:
a reduction of 50% of the emissions is necessary to get the
label ‘Green Olympics’.
Thus, all together, the IOC does not promote to look beyond
the deadline of delivery, and also does not allow many initia-
tives from cities.

49
6. Olympic transition
In the beginning, the Olympic Games did not have much to do with urban planning. It was a
sport event, and the only newly build infrastructure was an Olympic Stadium and for the rest
they used existing buildings. Although, as sketched in chapter one: the Olympics are evolving
towards more than just a sport event.
6.1 Introduction
Harvey (1989) stated already in 1989 that de-industrialized
and post-modern societies ‘urban spectacles’ has become a
key element of urban en economic policy (Harvey, 1989),
in which the Olympic Games are an emerging example. Ten
years later, Essex & Chalkley (1999) found a similar role for
mega events. The Olympics are developing more towards an
urban development tool (Kassens-Noor, 2012), but without
an equal development of the procedures and requirements.
So, nowadays, the Games does not fit in a planning model
(Essex & Chalkley, 2005), due to the lack of priority of legacy
(IOC, 2003), the frequent creation of white elephants (Gold
& Gold, 2007) and the power and influence of the IOC (Kas-
sens-Noor, 2012), a major revision of the spatial impact and
thereby the general typology of the Games is necessary. If the
Olympic Games are becoming an event of not just a com-
mercialized sports event, but also a showcase for long-term
sustainable urban regeneration, some important changes are
required both regarding the requirements and accountabili-
ties for host cities and the institutional structure of the IOC.
This chapter will elaborate on this. The foundation for the
spatial impact comes from the institutional design and re-
quirements. One of the main problems in the current spatial
impact is rule 34 of the Olympic Charter, it regulates that:
‘All sports competition must take place in the host city of
the Olympic Games, unless the IOC Executive Board autho-
rizes the organization of certain events in other cities, sites
or venues situated in the same country’ (IOC, 2013: 70). By
this rule, the IOC places itself into the position of a prin-
ciple of urban development. Chapter 4 forms the basis for
this connection between the different domains. According to
the transition theory, the current society is non-lineair and
thereby is it only possible to give some suggestion for possible
future change. Key is being flexible and robust to be able to
adapt to the continuously changing conditions. Interaction
between different level and sustainability are major points of
focus. The aspects are covered to change the typology of the
Olympic system are: the structure (§6.2) and the Olympic
procedures (§6.3). This result not in blueprints on what the
future should look like, so therefore, these suggestions are
ideas based on research and personal ideas of the author, but
are definitely not a guide towards a new Olympic structure. It
just gives a suggestion on how it could transform the typolo-
gy, structure and impact of the Olympic Movement and the
Olympic Games (§6.4).
6.2 The Olympic structure
In order to give the opportunity to achieve a sustainable
transition, the current Olympic structure should be updat-
ed towards a more transparent and sustainable structure.
Through decades, the problem of a growing complexity
through adding of the regulators (WADA & CAS), sponsors,
and also leagues of professional athletes and teams became
clear. Updating the current system is preferred according to
the transition theory (Rotmans, 2012), instead of building up
a new one. Figure 9 (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008) is
the starting point.
The proposed update supports the change towards a more
sustainable, long-term focused structure. Transparency is a
major concept to cope with the growing complexity of the
surrounding developments (Grin et al., 2010) and thereaf-
ter it can become more local and bottom up organized to
achieve an OM on human scale with observance of the sur-

50
Part III: Analysis
rounding environment. In this shift, the power and amount
of stakeholders decreases and shifts from top-down to more
bottom up organized structure in which there is a real inter-
est in the future of the Olympic ideals (Rotmans, 2012). The
more bottom up focused structure will help to gain interac-
tion between different niches, because of a clear balanced and
delineated position in the whole; can make a consideration
of the sustainability perspective; and will be able to respond
to a continues evolving society (Grin et al., 2010). Every
stakeholder knows its responsibility and can learn through
interaction what can be improved. According to these de-
velopments, the Olympic system can develop itself towards
an experimental complex adaptive system, which is flexible
and adaptable enough to cope with the worldwide changing
conditions of the surrounding developments and is no lon-
ger bigger than the scope of the IOC (Gamesbid, 2013; Inter-
view Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). The aspect of time and of
This will help in the reduction of the influence of the inter-
national sponsors and to achieve a sustainable and balanced
power-relation. The reason for this is that the sponsors rule
the decision-making process (Cartalis, 2013; Interview Jur-
ryt van de Vooren, 2013). Also the Leagues of professional
athletes should no longer be a part of the system. A vast ma-
jority of the athletes is professional. As a possible suggestion
the tennis professionals state that the Grand Slams are more
important than the Olympics, why would the IOC keep host-
ing those sports during the Olympics? The same case is here
with soccer: the EUFA European Cup and FIFA World Cup
do prevail above the Olympics. According to the FIFA rules,
only players under 23 years old are allowed to participate. Re-
search among athletes is important here to see if something
like this is wanted; it would be suggestion to return to a hu-
man scale of the event. Why not make space for other sports?
This will keep the sports fresh and the IOC keeps their posi-
WADA & CAS
governments
& NGOs
Olympic
Movement
NOCs
National
sponsors
NFs &
athletes
IFs
International
sponsors
OCOGs
Figure 14: updated Olympic structure (Made by Bastiaan Bretveld &
Janneke van der Horst).
sustainability can be integrated here by the interaction
of the complex adaptive system. In words of De Roo,
(2010) it is the step towards Class IV systems. By the
shift towards a hybrid governance model in which the
IOC, OCOGs and Legacy Company have the most im-
portant role it remains possible to continuous devel-
op the system to become a self-regulating event with
a flexible structure. The updated structure forms the
basis of the revised system, which results in Figure 14.
The development between the old system and the new
system is described and visualized in Appendix 1.
Some highlights from this process are the regulators,
the new role of the OM and OCOG’s, the TOP-pro-
gram, and the professional leagues. The regulators are
no longer inside the system, but are now above the sys-
tem, to act as an independent judicial power. The IOC
and the OCOGs are the new central actors of the com-
plete system in which the sponsors no longer have such
an important position. Especially the international
sponsor influence should decrease, the TOP-program
should no longer consist of 12 partners, but should
for example phase out towards 6 in three Olympic cy-
cles, so a reduce of two sponsors every four-year cycle.

51
tion of most important event for athletes. Additional advan-
tages of measurements like these are the increased possible
spread of sports through venues in the region and thereby
the decreased concentrated investments in the host city. So,
it can improve the long-term legacy for the region of country
instead of only the city.
6.3 The Olympic procedures
As stated in the introduction of this chapter, the Olympic
Games nowadays do not fit in a planning model (Essex &
Chalkley, 2005). As a cause of this characterization, the plu-
ralistic governance landscape in which the IOC, the Olympic
Movement, and the bigger Olympic system take part of do
not correspondent with the current society worldwide. As
described in chapter 1, in the 19th century, the IOC was the
central state in the Olympic system and was able to rule the
system. Through decades, the Olympic Games evolved and
the governance landscape became complex and pluralistic.
Nowadays, this structure still exists and got its influence on
the planning system of the Olympic Games. The IOC is the
main stakeholder for three reasons.
First, the IOC has the institutional power and tools to influ-
ence the host city planning process. Due to the strict deadline
and 7 years of preparation, the IOC has an influence on the
planning process of the host city. Due to lack of time, pub-
lic participation is minimized. This is similar in the design
of a long-term vision for post-event use, the time to consult
stakeholders, other interests are limited, and so a top-down
technical planning process is the easiest option. The IOC
tries to cover the long-term aspect since the 2004 Olympic
Charter by promoting a positive legacy (Bovy, 2004; Kas-
sens-Noor, 2012), even though in chapter 4 became clear that
this does not get a follow up in the appreciation of the can-
didates. In planning theory is discovered that complex plan-
ning issues can better be solved with a longer initial period
and an outside-inward, actor-relational approach in which
different stakeholders can bring in their interests (Boelens,
2010 & Innes & Booher, 2004). This different approach of
coping with planning issues will improve the robustness and
flexibility of the plans because not everything is defined in
strict rules. Due to the short initial period, it is more like a
blueprint, designed by a limited group to stay within time.
Second, the IOC vision reflects on the vision for the city.
Cities who want to host the Olympics and do a serious at-
tempt, ensure that they comply with the requirements, this
is a Golden Rule in being successful. The IOC vision regard-
ing the transport system is that through clustering, the travel
distance can be reduced. In order to achieve this vision, the
IOC has set a requirement for a maximum travel time of 45
minutes for athletes and the Olympic Family. According to
Bovy (2004): the shorter the travel time, the better the bid.
This concentration reflects on an enormous clustering of fa-
cilities in one (part of the) city, in which the legacy aspect,
the post-event use is of inferior interest. Thus, due to the vi-
sion of travel distances of the IOC, the host city is stuck with
the spatial design, which is useless for the city. The few cities
that can adjust this in the daily usage are mega-cities with an
inner-city derelict area, like East London.
Third, the interest of the IOC becomes visible in the weight-
ing of the W-Report, it is in a post-modernistic sense good
to question, but looking from a transitional perspective, not
the right questions are asked. For London 2012 broadly 25%
of the costs are for hosting 3 weeks of sport, and the oth-
er 75% for developing East-London. This is endorsed by the
fact that the 2008 and 2012 candidature manuals identify
three types of facilities, which was financial supported by
the IOC: the competition facilities; the Olympic Village; and
the Main Press Centre (MPC) and International Broadcast
Centre (IBC). All other facilities were outside the Organizing
Committee’s budget (Pitts & Liao, 2009). This suggests a real
one-sided interest for short-term wins of hosting the Perfect
Games, no matter what the city will suffer. This reflects a real
technocratic way of acting: every edition and every candidate
is reviewed on the basis of a standardized procedure; for the
IOC it is a blueprint that repeats every four-year. The contex-
tual differences between cities are neglected. The Barcelona
Model is still an ideal model for the IOC. Rio is trying to
copy the Barcelona Model without the crucial aspect of a stra-
tegic vision for urban development (Kassens-Noor, 2012).

52
Part III: Analysis
In the selection procedure, a host city is not just chosen for
the quality of the bid, more interests play a part. On the one
hand, it is driven by the commercial interests and the discov-
ery of new markets to spread the Olympism (Sochi 2014, Rio
de Janeiro 2016, Pyeongchang 2018), but on the other hand
the safe and ‘easy’ choice is played (London 2012, Tokyo
2020) and the IOC just receive the money. The struggle be-
tween the commercial interests and the sportive interests is
clear, the growing complexity and the surrounding develop-
ments are difficult to manage. The discussion on gay-rights
in Russia, the protests on pacification of the favelas in Rio de
Janeiro are not beloved by the IOC. Another example: Coca
Cola is one of the sponsors in the TOP-program. When the
Games are hosted in Asia or South America it is much more
attractive for Coca Cola; they have a small market share and
wants to improve that by means of the Olympics. In con-
tinuing this process, the IOC walks away from the growing
complexity of considering the various interests, something
already happens since the end of the 1990s. The decisions
are made beyond the control of the IOC (Horne & Whannel,
2012); the commercial interests are leading (interview Jurryt
van de Vooren). The difficulty with the commercial interest,
and thereby the complexity, is that it not will disappear by
walking away from it, it will grow further, so the best solution
is to cope with and adapt to it.
To cope with the complexity of the worldwide society, the
Olympic Movement should make a transition, which should
start by the IOC, which allows external visions to change it-
self towards a sustainable design. The complete process and
model should respond to, as i.e. Gert de Roo (2010) called
it a Class IV system in chapter 3. Holistic, sustainable and
adaptive Olympic planning at the urban level can play from
this aspect a significant role in helping host cities to achieve
broader and more lasting benefits (Pitts & Liao, 2009: 29).
See also Agha et al (2010) & Cox (2012).
The Olympics can transform quickly by the fact that bidding
cities are more ambitious than strict required. This is also
what is happening now with, for example, the maximum
travel distances: bidding cities try to stay under 30 minutes
because this improves the bid. This mechanism can also be
used by sustainability objectives. The enormous scale of the
Olympics and the worldwide attention can be used as a tool
to promote a sustainable objective. Also through the set-
up of requirements on sustainability and legacy, next to the
sport-aspect, the holistic and adaptive approach gets into the
picture.
In chapter 1, the characteristics of the IOC are sketched. This
paragraph will give a suggestion for a transition agenda for
the next decade on how to change the IOC and can contrib-
ute to a sustainable societal transition. A big step may be tak-
en in the next four years: the selection moment for the 2024
Olympics. It looks impossible to achieve a complete transi-
tion in those four years, but a first big step can be made.
The next four years
It will be impossible to change everything in one day, so this
paragraph will start with a first step in the next four year.
The next paragraph continues with more radical changes for
the period after these four years. To start with the highest
body: the Session, a transition is needed through the secret
ballots in which every decision is made; transparency and
democracy are key concepts in a more sustainable design
and important for public support and the accountability of
the decisions. To become more transparent, the decisions
must be made public as a first step, the next step have to be
made in the following years, but with this, the transparen-
cy and responsibility comes on the strategic agenda. Simi-
lar to this discussion is the representation point. Why is an
IOC-member only a representative of the IOC in their home
country and not a local representative in the IOC? The aim
of this measure is not to only get local problems in the IOC
meetings, but to put the IOC more into the society of the
athletes, and not to rule from out of the ivory tower; this is
the first step towards accountability. Why would they not de-
cide which candidate becomes the new IOC member on ba-
sis of one vote per NOC? Why would they not let have every
NOC a candidate for the IOC? Nowadays this happens with
consultation of the old, withdrawing member. Why is only
the Athletes-commission a democratic voting? As stated in
chapter 1: 48% of the IOC members are above 65, 69% above

53
60. So only 31% is below 60, with an 81% sex distribution
of men. This is absolutely not an equal distribution of the
worldwide population. A first step here is to lower the maxi-
mum age from 70 to 65 and promote the selection of women.
As stated by Leopkey & Parent (2012a) in chapter 4: legacy
governance is needed. The responsibility for the long-term
development, so the legacy, is not good covered nowadays.
A first step can be a modification in the already existing OGI
program. In the current situation, this starts five years in pri-
or to the Games and finishes two years after the Games. This
is way too short to analyze a real legacy and learn from it
for future host cities (Interview Willem de Boer, 2013). So,
the suggestion would be, stretch this period towards five year
after the Games. For example, the OGI program for London
stops in 2015, but the Olympic Park will get its destination in
2016, so it is impossible to say something about the legacy.
The longer future
Also on the longer future, after the next four years, are there
some changes necessary. To start again with the Session,
the annual meetings with the votes are made public after-
wards, but to make it real transparent, the meetings needs
to be streamed through the whole world by the IOC and the
Broadcasting company of the Olympic Movement. Every
Session is transparent and a first step can be taken by making
IOC-member responsible for their behavior. Do they vote for
a certain candidate because of the good quality of the bid
and the good long-term perspective for the host city; or do
they vote because of the good weather during the Games,
and good education opportunities for their (grand) children?
The last one happened a lot during the 1990s, now with the
Ethics Commission this should not happen anymore, but
nobody is able to check it and nobody has to take respon-
sibility for the votes towards a certain candidate. Eventual-
ly, the IOC-members can be evaluated before a re-election
if they voted just their own interest, or is there a line in it.
This is peerless in a time where everything is visible, where
phones are tapped and where citizens ask for the truth. And
the IOC still votes according to the rule from 1896 with an
Ethics Commission to prevent corruption. Transparency is a
key in here, to achieve support in democratic countries and
to prevent wrong decisions.
In the selection of new member, a long-term vision is the
selection on basis of one vote per NOC and also to set a term
for the IOC-membership. For example by two terms of 6
years, with at the end a term of 4 year. The knowledge will
not drain from the members, but the member will not keep
their position till they die. With addressing the member se-
lection procedure, it can also help in the straightening of the
geographical distribution and the relatively large amount of
aristocratic members.
By decreasing the amount of big, international sponsors, it
will help to cope with the extreme commercialization. Small-
er, local and national companies can sponsor the Games by
getting new customers, which only have an interest in the
Games in their city and in the development of their city. They
do not have any interest in the voting for other Olympics so
it will help to decrease the corruption. The local interest will
become more important, because there are no commercial
expressions inside the venues the global television spectators
will not miss the global firms; and it will support the human
scale. The results of such an intervention are unknown, but
after a first step can be evaluated of it gives desired results.
According to the legacy governance is a stretching towards
five years is good first step, but to see some real legacies, five
year is not enough. For example: the Amsterdam 1928 Olym-
pic Stadium is still in use; the Barcelona legacy nowadays is
well known, but the bachelor thesis by the author (2010)
showed that not everything was that good as the story was
told. To real learn from the legacies of earlier Olympics, the
OGI program should last much longer. The program as it is
right now, with a report every two years should be 10 years,
after those 10 years, the city can for example present a re-
port every 5 or 8 years in order to keep learning for the past.
Otherwise every city continues to reinvent the wheel. Also
important for the legacy is the concentration of the Games.
Why keep the Games within one city? Due to growing im-
pact a relatively limited number of cities that can host the
Olympics in the future. In itself that is not a problem, but
the size of the city and the amount of money needed results
in sometimes-dubious cities. Take for example: hosting the
Winter Games in a subtropical city like Sochi of hosting the

54
Part III: Analysis
World cup football in the summer in a desert of Qatar. There
comes by that these city or countries not acting like the west-
ern norms and values, and the current Olympism values.
The question here is of the values needs to be changed, or
of the trend towards countries with different human rights,
environmental norms and other constitutional powers is a
desired one. This question goes beyond the scope of the re-
search, but a discussion is desired.
6.4 Towards a future vision
A long-term sustainability vision is a major aspect in the
transition towards a long-term focused planning strategy and
vision. Spatial aspects are important in this respect, once a
place is build with a Olympic Village, new transport connec-
tion or an Olympic Stadium, it is hard to change the urban
lay-out and the structure of the networks (HCA, 2000). The
IOC wants to have a strong concentration of the Games. For
some cities this concentration is a good solution. For cities in
which the spatial structure is good organized it is a good op-
tion to concentrate all the activities in one area. A city, which
wants to promote and improve more areas, it is useful to
spread the venues and investments through different parts of
the city, just like Barcelona and Rio de Janeiro (Pitts & Liao,
2009). The trend of the last Olympiads is a concentration of
more than 80% of all the venues on a walking distance of
maximum 5-8 kilometers with transport links from differ-
ent directions. Due to the concentration, an opportunity for
‘white elephants’ can be created. Five or more stadia on one
spot are hard to exploit after without a long-term vision, Bei-
jing 2008 and Athens 2004 are famous examples. This short-
term focus on the use of venues is something that should to
be changed by a transitional way. Olympic sports can be flex-
ible according to the host country. As a suggestion, there can
be some core sports of the Olympics, which are mandatory
during every Games, but why playing basketball in London
2012 if it is a really small sport in England? Why invest a lot
of money in infrastructure that is only used for three weeks
when there is no opportunity to use the stadium on the long-
term.
Interaction between different levels (regime, niche, exper-
iment) is essential: the spatial concentration of the invest-
ments; which sports are local practiced; and the local goals
of hosting the Games are important questions for this tran-
sition. Through interaction between these levels can a con-
text specific and adaptive approach be designed. A general
solution is no longer good enough, but a holistic approach,
context specific will help a lot. By changing this, it helps host
cities to deliver all the facilities on time because there are
much more facilities which can be used during the Games.
Rio de Janeiro is one of the examples in which a plan is not
used. The last strategic plan is from 1995 and visioned a city
without an Olympic bid; and that while the first bid was for
the 2004 Olympics where Rio did not reached the candidacy
status; this was in 1997. The goal of this plan was to make
Rio a globalized city (Kassens-Noor, 2012). Rio did this by
hosting mega events like the Pan-American Games (2007),
Confederations Cup (2013) and will host this year the FIFA
World Cup (2014). When started winning those bids, the
1995 strategic plan was almost completed and the new goal
was the desire of fast globalization (Maricato, 2002). Rio fo-
cused on the development of high value real estate proper-
ties at the expense of the poor people (Pires, 2010). By the
time of 2009, the strategic plan was updated by a stronger
focus on globalization, this was announced a couple of days
after the selection of Rio for the 2016 Games. Officially, the
strategic plan was released in December 2010, in which the
Olympic requirements and needs were arranged (Pires, 2010
& Kassens-Noor, 2012). This process reflects the observation
of Essex & Chalkley (2002) that a mismatch exists regularly
between the long-term vision for the city and the interest of
the Olympic Movement of hosting the Perfect Games. By the
absence of a long-term vision, the host city cannot defend
their long-term goals and can thereby be used to carry out
the goals of the IOC. Interaction between different levels
would be desired to come to an agreed goal for that specific
Olympic Games which helps the city and the Olympic Move-
ment. Hosting the Olympic became a goal in itself, mostly
to promote tourism and showing the world the greatness of
the city or country. The post-use period is mostly forgotten
because it is on a too long term. But achieving the goals can
only be truth when a vision is behind it and when there is an

55
idea behind it.
So, a flexible long-term vision is a key characteristic of using
the Olympic Games to develop a city. Interaction between
the different levels of the multi-level concept is important in
achieving a sustainable en robust use on the long-term.
6.5 Conclusion
If the IOC wants to become a governmental body that fulfill-
ing it’s promises as stated in the Charter, the IOC should do
something about the mismatch of the spatial impact of the
Olympics and the underestimation of this impact based on
the requirements. The IOC neglects the influence they have
on the spatial impact (Essex & Chalkley 2005; Kassens-Noor,
2012). There should be a content discussion about the spatial
concentration of the Games. Do the Games not grow beyond
the scope of one city; is a region or a country not a better
applicable scale for the Olympics?
In order to change something in this policy, a fundamental
transition should be required. The structure of the Olympic
system should be updated according to the current power
relation and interests inside the Olympic Movement and the
surrounding Olympic system (see figure 14). This will be
the first step together with a critical reflection on the pro-
cedures. There are some aspects, which can be improved to
cope with the spatial impact and the sustainability and legacy
questions. Important to mention is that these suggestions are
no blueprint for change, this is impossible through a lack of
knowledge of the closes system and should not be done from
the outside. Hereby, the sub question can be answered:
Could the Olympic Movement contribute to a sustainable
society?
A transition should look like a holistic, adaptive and partic-
ipative process in which the important stakeholders partic-
ipate. These are the stakeholders who have a real interest in
the continued existence of the Olympic Movement and the
Olympic Games. The IOC, NOCs, athletes and sport feder-
ation have that interest, and should also be able to sketch an
updated role for the sponsors because they need the spon-
sors in the funding. The structure should be changed from a
centrally planned governance model towards a hybrid model
in which local aspects plays a real role. Through the char-
acteristics of a four-years cycle and using the advantages of
adaptive learning can the Games make the transition rela-
tively quick. The IOC can decide what the requirements will
be for the next Olympics and can thereby enforce big steps.
By this development could the Olympic Movement make a
contribution in a transitional change towards a sustainable
society. The Olympic Games can develop towards a great ex-
periment. It is a continues process of learning and experi-
menting through the different contexts in spatial and policy
perspective and through the four-years cycle can it become
a real interactive and learning experiment for the Olympic
Movement and the world.
The consequences will be that there changes a lot every four
year and that the learning aspect is becoming essential, this is
one of the core aspects of achieving a transition. Through the
use of niche experiments on certain aspects of the Games the
theory of doing-by-learning and learning-by-doing can be
put into practice. Some of the changes can lead to undesired
developments, but with a robust, flexible and interactive
structure should the Olympic Movement be able to resolve
this and in the end become a part of transition towards a
more sustainable society in which the long-term aspect is of
bigger importance.
So, to conclude, a change in the structure and the spatial
impact and legacy can guide the Olympic Games towards
the new era as reviewed in figure 1. The main problem on
the spatial aspect is the absence of the planning model for
the Olympics (Essex & Chalkley, 2005) by which long-term
development does not play a substantial role in host selec-
tion and planning process. Through the development of the
Olympics as sketched in chapter 1, the Olympics grow bigger
without support of the procedures and the structure of the
IOC. This is already for more than 10 years a problem, with-
out a big change. In order to transform the Olympics for the
next decades, this change is required.

Part IV:
Olympic Games 3.0

59
7. London 2012
7. London 2012
After failed bids of Birmingham (1992) and Manchester (1996 & 2000), London was seen as the
only option for hosting the Olympics again after 1908 and 1948 (Horne & Whannel, 2012). The
focus came on the eastern part of London, which was hard-hit by the decline of dock and man-
ufacturing industries in the 1980s. After de development of Canary Wharf, this was the chance
to develop another part of East London.
7.1 Introduction
The area in which London hosted the Olympics is called the
Lower Lea Valley (see figure 15). It runs along the banks of
the River Lea and starts north of Stratford and runs over
in the Thames below Canning Town. The area spans four
boroughs (Brown et al, 2012). These boroughs are in most
deprived 10% of districts of England (EDAW, 2005). From
the City of London towards Canning Town, along the Jubi-
lee Line, every two stops represents on average one year of
shortened lifespan (London Health Observatory, 2008).
An important aspect for political support for the mayor of
London was the connection with the strategic spatial ambi-
tion of the London Plan 2004 (Brown et al, 2012). In this vi-
sion document from the Mayor of London (2004) is already
stated that East London is a national priority area for regen-
eration (MoL, 2004: 241).
The focus of the bid was on two main themes: legacy and
sustainability (Cox, 2012). London was the first in which the
sustainability part was more than just air and water quali-
ty and climate. London formulated four ambitions (London
2012, 2005b: 65):
• Enhancing the delivery of the Games through environ-
mental excellence;
• Regenerating East London communities and their en-
vironment;
• Embedding sustainability in all planning and imple-
mentation;
• Demonstrating sustainable solutions for global prob-
lems.
To enforce that, there was a project started in cooperation
with the WWF and Bioregional Development Group called
‘Towards one planet Olympics’ (London 2012 et al., 2005).
This was further translated into four priorities: low carbon
Games; a zero waste Games; conserving biodiversity; and
promoting environmental awareness and partnerships (Lon-
don 2012, 2005b).
The complete Games procedure can according to Cashman
(2002) be split up in four phases: the phase till winning the
bid (§ 8.1); the phase from winning the bid until the start
of the Games (§ 8.2); during the Olympic and Paralympic
Games (§ 8.3); and the phase after the Games, the long-term
(§ 8.4), these phases will be used in this chapter.
7.2 Preparations of the 2012 Games
From 2003 onwards, the London bid was prepared together
with the consulting engineers of ARUP and the London De-
velopment Agency (LDA). The costs for hosting the Games
were at that time projected around £2.375 billion.
According to the London Plan (2004) are the Olympic Games
a “major catalyst for change and regeneration in East London,
especially the Lower Lea Valley…leaving a legacy to be valued
by future generations” (MoL, 2004: 139). On the same level:
“staging the Olympic Games in the Lea Valley will stimulate a
vital economic regeneration program in London’s poorest and
most disadvantaged area” (London 2012, 2005: 23).
In supporting the bid, the LDA designed a Lower Lea Valley
Masterplan (LLV) with two options: A, including the Olym-
pics; and B, without the Olympics. The London Plan 2004
and the LLV Masterplan covered the long-term vision and
the Olympics can be used as a mean to reach a goal. An im-
portant risk was the forecasted and usual planning delay; this

60
Part IV: Olympic Games 3.0
could be a problem in the delivery of the Olympics. These
planning decisions were already made in 2004 and new ar-
rangements were added after de selection of London (LDA,
2004). This is something very important: preparing and
taking the decision for a specific area before the Olympics
are rewarded towards the city. After the selection, the seven
years of preparation time can be somewhat short.
On 6 July 2005, the decision on the host city of the 2012
Olympic Games was made. In the fourth round, London de-
feated Paris by 54 to 50 votes. The delivery was split-up in
the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the London Or-
ganizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
(LOCOG). The ODA was responsible for transport and plan-
ning decisions; and LOCOG was a private company joint-
ed by the British Olympic Association (BOA), the Mayor of
London (MoL) and the UK Government. The LDA keeps its
task in the development, planning and land assembly and
remediation. The Olympic Board together coordinates this
all (Brown et al, 2012). In early 2006, the ODA and LOCOG
were created and both organizations moved into a shared
office. This was important for the personal relationships,
despite the sometimes-conflicting interest and duties. Right
after became clear that the budget was not sufficient, so the
budget need to be revised. This became public in June 2007 a
budget upsurge from £2.375 billion towards £9.3 billion, here
Figure 15: The Lower Lea Valley in the context of (East) London (GLA & LDA, 2007).

61
7. London 2012
also came by the high rise of security costs. Although it is ad-
justment which 3,9 times higher then projected. Reason for
this is the underestimation of the public investments thanks
to optimistic financial estimations; underestimation of the
complexity of the Games; oblivion of costs like FAT (House
of Commons, 2008 & Poynter, 2009). This was excluded the
land purchase of the Olympic Park and the administrative
costs of the government (House of Commons, 2008 & House
of Commons, 2013).
One of the problems with the promises of the bid was the
legacy planning. As explained in chapter 4, is there no
straightforward definition, so London could explain legacy
in the way that suits them best. There was no single voice for
legacy or with accountability for operating the venues after
the Games. In order to obtain a solution for this, the Olym-
pic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) was incorporated in May
2009. This was in February 2012 transformed towards the
London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). From
the beginning of the legacy plans, it was focused on urban
regeneration to develop a park and 4300 housing units from
the Olympic Village. A major part of the stadium was only
temporary build, except the Olympic Stadium, Velodrome
and swimming pool. Through the financial crisis in 2008, the
original plan of building for 50% ‘affordable’ housing failed.
Also the stadium faced some problems. In the bid is stated
that the Olympic stadium will get a reduced capacity: 80.000
seats during the Games, 25.000 after. Thereby it will host the
2017 World Athletics Championships. But in the period of
the take over plans for the stadium, two football clubs (West
Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur) were interested in the
stadium after the Games. After a lot of discussion, also in
court will it now be reduced to 50.000 for West Ham United
with the athletics track (Thornley, 2012). In the building pro-
cess, there is not taken into account the possibility to reduce
the capacity to 50.000, only to 25.000; and to create a real
English football atmosphere (Interview Herbert Wolff). Al-
though the good intentions of planning a legacy, the reality
is stubborn and there were in the planning procedures not
taken into account the possibility of adapting the stadium
towards a football stadium. This lack of flexibility and adapt-
ability to the reality are difficult and may cost more money
in the beginning. But this flexibility and adaptability saves
money in the end, and makes the long-term suitability be-
comes greater. What the real legacy of the Olympic Park will
be is unclear until 2017, five years after the Games, when the
Park is complete open and the housing developments are fin-
ished.
In January 2007, the Mayor of London, LOCOG, ODA and
the UK Government established the Commission for Sus-
tainable London 2012 (CSL) to cover the comprehensive
sustainability aspect of the Games (Brown et al., 2012).
The Sustainable Development Strategy (ODA, 2007) states
that the ODA will implement the five sustainability themes
during the preparations. Goal of this strategy was to promote
the UK industry for sustainable solutions. Some targets here
are: in the build environment, a reduction in carbon emis-
sions of 50% in 2013 compared to 2005; or at least 20% of the
value of constructed materials will be reused recycled. The
Government legacy promise was: “to make the Olympic Park
a blueprint for sustainable living” (London 2012, 2009:9).
This promise was divided in five priority themes (London
2012, 2009):
• Climate change: focusing on energy and water resource
management, infrastructure, local food production and
carbon footprint;
• Waste: provide a new waste management system mini-
mized at the source;
• Biodiversity: improve the ecology of the Lower Lea Val-
ley and bring people closer to the nature;
• Inclusion: promoting access and celebrating diversity;
• Healthy living: inspire people to develop an active
healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
In this plan, the Olympic Games are mentioned in two ways:
first as provider for sport facilities and second as “an ex-
treme important stimulus to the regeneration of the Lee Val-
ley” (GLA, 2004: 267). So, a long-term vision is underlying
the Olympic bid phase in which the urban development
plays a major role. The Olympics seen from spatial develop-
ment perspective are not the end, but the means to develop
East-London. The horizon of the vision is 2016, and thereby

62
extends beyond the Olympic procedure. London 2012 is an
enlightening example of hosting the Games with a plan. For
this plan, the London Development Company is created in
2009. During the whole process, the ecological aspect, the
past characteristics of the area are important. The historical
course of a river, the historical parceling and energy land-
scapes are aspects to take into account.
7.3 During the Olympic and Paralym-
pic Games
For the athletes and public were the Games a wonderful ex-
perience with a lot of good memories and without big ac-
cidents. Although from a professional perspective there is a
lot more. Here are some highlights from professional expe-
riences.
The ambition during the Games was to transport all the
Olympic related people on a sustainable way. In order to
do this, the focus was put into public transport, cycling and
walking (Earnshaw & Ramsden, 2012). Through the short
distances in the Olympic Park, walking was a good option,
and for the longer journeys, public transport worked well.
But, the cycling ambition did not work that well. The lack of
biking paths and rent possibilities did not help in here. Also
the legacy aspect of London as cycling-city could be done
better (Interview Herbert Wolff & CSL, 2012). In the deci-
sion-making process, the accessibility by public transport
was one of the key criteria. During the Games, the carbon
footprint of travel journeys related to the Games got a 30%
reduction compared to a ‘no plan’ scenario (Earnshaw &
Ramsden, 2012).
The Commission for Sustainability London 2012 (CSL)
monitored and evaluated the objectives and targets set by
LOCOG. The general conclusion of the CSL was positive.
Besides, there were some points of attention, in a way which
future OCOG’s can learn from it. In the food services, there
were targets in diversity, quality and prices of the food. These
targets were implemented in official venues and live sites,
but not in local authority sites like Hyde Park and Trafalgar
Square (CSL, 2012). So, a point of attention is not only at-
tending official venues, partners and suppliers, but also try to
incorporate live sites, media partners which are no partner;
interaction between different businesses is essential reach the
ambition. For the visitors there is no difference between an
official live site and an unofficial live site. London made a big
step in the integration of waste, materials, food and pack-
aging policies. This holistic system approach represents a
strong connection and interaction between different aspects
of waste treatment. Information and awareness for visitors is
major point of improvement.
In 2011, CSL discovered there was no energy conservation
plan; so this was setup and finished in May 2012. The target
was set on a reduction of 20% of energy use on the Olympic
Park and 20% of the energy from local renewable sources.
By an earlier start, more could be achieved. For the imple-
mentation of the plan it was hard to get al the volunteers and
workers to do the lights off during the day for example (CSL,
2012). The use of fuels was for 90% on fossil basis, just 10%
was alternative. As earlier mentioned, the cycling targets
were not met, but the public transport for all spectators was
seen as a risk, but there were no problems at all.
One of the general points of critiques was the high price
of the tickets and the availability for the people from the
UK. Especially people from East London, who were paying
through taxes for the Games but were not able to see it (GLA,
2013 & Hover et al., 2013).
Besides these points of interest and some points of intention,
it were good organized Olympic Games without a specific
sustainability or legacy focus for the general spectator.
7.4 The long-term
On September 9, 2012 the Paralympic Games Closing Cer-
emony was done and so, from October 2012 the LLDC
gets the responsibility for the Olympic Park. This date also
marked the start of the period after the London 2012 Olym-
pic Games, and thereby the start of the long-term destination.
This long-term legacy is not clear by now, but 18 months af-
ter the Games there were some developments en lessons can
be learned already.
The sustainability ambitions for the energy efficient venues,
re-use of construction materials and separating waste were

63
7. London 2012
majorly achieved (LOCOG, 2012 & Hover et al., 2013). This
is endorsed by two awards: London 2012 became the gold
winner in the category of ‘Environment & Sustainability of
the International Sports Event Management Award and the
Sustainability Leaders Award’ (LOCOG, 2012). Next to that,
the British norm for sustainable events was first obtained by
London 2012 and is after the Games translated towards an
International ISO norm. The head of the sustainability ambi-
tion of London was also one of the advisors for the evaluation
commission of the Tokyo 2020 Games (Interview Herbert
Wolff). The cooperation of LOCOG and ODA was import-
ant for permanent venues meet the legacy requirements.
They rationalized operational needs during the Games and
the and during the post-Games use. Understanding risks
and cope with these helped implement the strategy (Aukett,
2012).
London’s ambition for a long lasting legacy is specified into
four themes with sustainability and disabled people as con-
stant factor (DCMS, 2010):
• Sport: The goal was to stimulate sport and exercise from
out health and economic motives. The accent was on
the participation of the youth (11-19 year). The prom-
ise made in the Candidature File was: “The Games in
London will inspire a new generation of youth to greater
sporting activity (London 2012, 2005: 19).
• Economy: through the international attention could the
success of the Games be widely reported. Also the UK as
holiday destination, as business investment and to im-
prove the international networks.
• Participation and cohesion: the creation of national co-
hesion and participation under minority and disadvan-
taged groups.
• East London: decrease of the social economic backlog
was the main goal.
The UK Government also formulated a social and health am-
bition. The ambition is that 70% of the population got 5x30
minutes moderate activity per week in 2020; the Olympics
can help by achieving this (DCMS, 2002). In which way, by
which implications the Olympics would help to achieve this
ambition is not clear formulated (Coalter, 2012). In order
to spread the social, sports and economic benefits around
the whole UK (NRG, 2010) the Nations and Regions Group
(NRG) was founded. The spreading of the benefits was lim-
ited, only some soccer matches were spread through the UK,
the torch relay, pre-Games training camps and some extra
businesses, but the rest focused purely on London (Hover et
al., 2013).
With help of the London Plan 2004 the long-term develop-
ment of East London was planned. According to the national
status of the area, the flood risks of the Thames Gateway and
Stratford as the connection with Europe is unlikely that there
was nothing happened since 2004 (MoL, 2004). But, through
the hosting of the Olympics, there was worldwide attention,
from public, businesses, developers but also from politicians,
so it is likely that the Olympics had an influence. What this
influence exact is difficult to say, but the Barcelona Model
may be applicable. The question remains what will we be the
real Olympic legacy. The development of the Stratford sta-
tion and the Westfield shopping mall (the largest of Europe:
300 shops, 70 restaurants, a cinema, a bowling center, three
hotels and the largest casino of the UK) are next to the Olym-
pic Park. What was the role of the Olympics in this develop-
ment? And what will be the effects for the old, less luxurious
shopping center on the other side of Stratford station? Some
of the projects are still pending and are not evaluated, other
projects are finished. The final OGI-report is scheduled for
2015, which will give a relevant view then. A fact is that one
exact one-year after the Olympics the former Olympic sou-
venir shops are still for rent. To draw any conclusions on this,
more research is needed. The general tendency that becomes
clear now is that the results are doubtful for the local lega-
cy of London. (Conway, 2013; Wainwright, 2013; Interview
Willem de Boer, 2013). The London Olympics do set a new
standard for the sustainability aspect for the next Olympics;
this can be useful for the future of the Olympic Movement.
7.5 Conclusion
The London Olympics did a great job from sustainable point
of view. The Games were more sustainable then ever before
and London was the first in making legacy plans three years

64
in prior to the Games. But the real legacy can be analyzed in
a couple of years, and also without hosting the Games should
there been some improvements made in East London. So the
real legacy of the Olympic Games is hard to prove. What is
the influence of the Olympics in physical activity of the citi-
zens? What is the influence of the Games on pride in London
and England? What is the exact influence of the Olympics on
the development of East London? How many jobs are noe
available through the Olympic Games? Also the long lasting
improvements on sustainability aspects achieved during the
Olympics will have a doubtful legacy. Is Mc Donalds more
sustainable because of the Olympics? To answer these ques-
tions is more research needed. The sub question for this re-
search can be answered.
‘Is the transition started with the London Olympics?’
Yes, a first step is made. Sustainability and legacy are now
more important in hosting the Olympics, people think about
these concepts in hosting mega events and the IOC used the
lessons of London in the next bidding round for 2020. So, the
first step is made, but this step is majorly based on the efforts
on London and LOCOG and it is doubtful what the next step
will be. The signs for Rio 2016 are not that hopeful.

65
8. Future of the Olympic Movement
As introduced in chapter 1, the Olympic Movement will likely not work and survive (Theodora-
ki, 2007) on the long-term how it is designed nowadays. The IOC hardly changed since 1896 and
is still an ‘old gentlemen’s club’, with a lot of aristocratic influences, secret ballots and with a
dubious degree of democracy, transparency and accountability. As described by the theory of
Mintzberg (1993), organizations like the IOC are acting ‘on the edge of a cliff’ (see chapter 4).
Besides that, the Olympics are getting bigger and bigger, in
which only megacities like London, Beijing and Tokyo can
host the Games according to the current norms and require-
ments. This list could stop in the near future and there won’t
be an alternative because of the enormous scale of the Games
(Gamesbid, 2013). Through the underestimation of sustain-
ability and legacy through many host cities and the IOC are
the short-term winnings more important than the long-term
survival of the IOC, the Olympic Games and eventually the
world.
Besides that, the growing protests could develop towards a
real problem: the torch relay of Beijing through Tibet, the
gay rights in Russia, the pacification of the favela’s; these are
aspects which put the IOC and the Olympism in a pejorative
context (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). The crises
of the 80s and 90s in which the IOC by means of symptom
treatment now come to a point that only by radical change
can make the transition for the future to become sustainable
and survivable for the long-term.
This could results in the end of the Games in several options:
• Cities won’t be able to host the Games because the
Games are too big on financial aspects or spatial impact,
just like the bid of Rome 2020 (financial) Munich for
2022 (environmental/spatial);
• Cities that hosted the Games stuck with a negative lega-
cy, which is so big, that other cities won’t host because of
the unused investments.
• Through the negative taste after Sochi 2014 and may-
be Rio de Janeiro 2016, the worldwide societies will de-
mand for a shift in power in the Olympic system (inter-
view Jurryt van de Vooren).
A possible way to get out are the oil states or dictatorial coun-
tries where the money to invest is not a real issue, because
of the power of the government and the idea to show their
country to the world is more important. In order to sustain
the Olympism and the ideals of the Olympic Movement it
seems an undesirable situation for the Olympic Games as an
event, the IOC as governance body, and the Olympic Move-
ment as the owner of the Olympic ideals.
Another possible route to survive is according to this re-
search the desired option. Legacy and sustainability are
aspects, which are good to combine in hosting the Games,
which are embedded in a long-term vision for a city or coun-
try. This transition will cost the IOC a lot of effort and their
only goal and interest in the current system is organizing the
Olympic Games every four years. This suggests a change of
the Olympic Movement and IOC, which is able to cope with
the complexity and interaction between different levels of the
Olympic structure.
Changing this can solve some existing or developing ques-
tions. Hosting the three-weeks event cost in the current sys-
tem $2,5 billion, but the investments in the infrastructure
and venues vary. This depends on the status of the transport
system, how much existing venues can be used, how many
hotel beds are available and how much work needs to be
done for the site preparation. For example, the Sydney 2000
Olympics cost $4,5 billion, but the Beijing 2008 Olympic cost
about $40 billion. The London 2012 Olympics cost $9 billion,
and the rising costs during the process phase in prior to the
Games caused by investments, not in organizing the Games
itself (Coleman, 2013). A major part of these investments is

66
done for the huge tourist amounts: for transportation, the
stadiums, hotels etc. But why all these investments, while
the Olympic Games are first stance a television event? Or
why not hosting less sports, different sports with less invest-
ments/impact or a spread in time, not 3 weeks but 3 months?
A choice or a strategic combination should be required here;
otherwise it keeps going the same way. As a result, the Games
stay at one place in a limited time period and so keep their
impact on the urban development of the city, or one city is
the host but board out some sports which are not relevant
in the host city, or the Games are getting hosted around the
world connected with data connections to achieve the feeling
of one event.
If the first option is decided by the main stakeholder to be de-
sired, a holistic vision for the sustainability, legacy and urban
development strategy is required. In this scenario is it about
the separated concepts of sustainability, legacy and urban
development, a much more holistic and comprehensive ap-
proach is required, all in one general vision for the long-term
aspects of the Olympics. The current Olympics are based on
a short-term maximization of revenues in which the TOP
sponsors are more important than the local businesses. An
exception here is London that incorporated sustainability
with planning and building around the ‘One Planet Living’
concept. But provisionally, this remains the exception. In the
plans for Rio 2016, the One Planet Living is not mentioned.
The notion of a circulair-based system should become more
important. Today, there is not that much academic knowl-
edge about, it is expected that this concept will cover both
sustainability and legacy in the future.
The version in between will keep the concentration in one
host city or region with advantages of developing the city
with the Olympics as a means, but some sports, like basket-
ball in London, can be hosted in a other country because of
the popularity and infrastructure for that specific sport.
If the worldwide version is required, the Olympics shall de-
velop more towards an enormous media event in which not
only television has a role, but also the various future services
which go beyond YouTube and live streams. There are no sta-
diums required in one city because every sport will be hosted
in a different city or even country. New stadiums are not nec-
essary, only a good and fast internet connection and every-
body can watch the Olympic Games on their home screen,
favorite bar or local stadium with for example holograms.
In general, independent of the scenario’s, sustainability is an
aspect that suggested by this research should become more
important. The IOC should take their position in this and
for example increase the percentage of renewable energy ev-
ery four-year cycle. With an increase of 25% per cycle big
steps can be taken. This could be the same for newly build
permanent venues and other facilities. If they have a desti-
nation after the Games, the risk on ‘white elephants’ is small-
er. A creative solution for ownership for the stadiums can
be one of the possibilities. Why can the Olympic Movement
rent certain facilities? Every four years, a city has to deal with
stadiums for just three weeks, if the Olympic Movement
manages this, cities can rent this from the IOC. To develop a
‘Green Olympics’ label, the IOC can promote the reduction of
emissions, carbon footprint, percentage of sustainable trans-
port and sustainable housing of minority groups. This can be
elaborated to a certain amount of parameters and this can be
translated into a bronze, silver and gold ‘Green Olympics’-la-
bel. Where gold is excellent, an improvement in every field,
silver is a substantial improvement in 8 of 10 fields, bronze in
6 of 10. If it is less, it does not get the label of ‘Green Olym-
pics’.
So the sub question: ‘What will happen if nothing changes?’
can be answered. It is possible that if nothing changes, the
Olympic Games and thereby the IOC will come to an end.
It almost happened before; there are some signs now that it
probably could happen after Sochi and Rio. But with only
two Olympics Games which are not that good for the future
the Olympic Games and IOC will survive. Looking towards
the 1970s, there were three or even four Olympics in which a
lot negative things happened, also that were complete differ-
ent times, but the Olympics are resilient enough to survive.
But, if some unexpected things in Sochi or Rio happen and
Tokyo has some problems with for example solving the nu-
clear waste, this can be completely different. The structure of
the IOC, but also the Olympics are ‘at the edge of the cliff’ as

67
Mintzberg (1993) stated, and with one unexpected accidents,
much can change. This is, for now, a very negative scenar-
io without any evidence or arguments, but it is just a sketch
what could happen if many of things would go wrong.

Part V:
Conclusions

71
9. Conclusions
9. Conclusions
This research started with the question: ‘Should the Olympic Games change transitional to be
an opportunity for a sustainable long-term urban development of the host city?’. In order to
answer this question on an academic way, this question is divided in eight sub questions, which
are answered in the preceding chapters. This will all be concluded here in this paragraph.
9.1 Conclusion
Looking to the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, the
basic rule for the Olympic Movement reflects a progressive
and holistic approach. They state a “philosophy of life, exalting
and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will
and mind” (IOC, 2013:11). The goal of Olympism is “to place
sport at the service of the harmonious development of human-
kind” (IOC, 2013:11). These are aspects, which can be doubt-
ed in the current structure and procedures and in order to
achieve a sustainable long-term urban development there, a
change is required. In chapter 1 and 4 is concluded that the
Olympics do have an influence on the urban development of
a city because of reaching the limit of the current design and
the long lasting legacy. This is absolutely not fundamentally
bad, but this is nowadays underestimated. Chapter 4 also de-
scribed that according to the IOC, and the future host cities
have a major interest in this. These stakeholders have an in-
terest in the continued existence of the Olympics. In the first
couple of chapters is described why a transitional change is
desired: through symptom control, continues growing, the
lack of interaction and the non-democratic characteristics
of the Olympics is a transitional change suggested as the
first option. Looking towards the multiphase model (figure
6) and the phase of transition are the Olympics between the
predevelopment and take-off phase. A radical shift may sup-
port to achieve a sustainable and long-term focus Olympic
Movement. The transition theory can be useful in here; it is
not designed to achieve a transition for a body like the IOC,
but more for a sector like the energy sector. It is probably not
possible to use it directly for a transition towards a sustainable
Olympic Movement, but it is definitely useful. More research
is needed and professionals should analyze the possibilities.
A transition could look like it is sketched in the theory, a
group of stakeholders with a real interest in the future of the
Olympics, with a reflexive aspect as one of the core aspects.
This holistic, adaptive and participative process should guide
the Olympic Movement towards a governance model that is
better equipped to respond to complexity, and together with
the local stakeholders is it possible to cope with complexi-
ty and achieve a flexible, robust, sustainable and democratic
Olympic system for the future. In this process, London can
be seen as a first step with their early vision of the long-term
and the incorporation of the legacy and sustainability plans.
If these changes are not made, it can result in the end of the
Olympic system and thereby the Olympic Games.
9.2 Recommendations
This research leads to a number of recommendations. These
shall not be all embracing, and more research is needed for
the more commercial and administrative aspects. The rec-
ommendations of this research are:
• Restructure the Olympic Movement with a focus on
wider interests and more representation from differ-
ent countries. The IOC should host an open discussion
around the aspects of sustainability and legacy and inte-
grate this in a fundamental update of the Olympic Char-
ter;
• Translate the results of this discussion to requirements
and approaches in the different phases of the procedure
and support the cities in achieving the long-term goals
by means of the Olympic Games;

72
Part V: Conclusions
• Make a vision for the Green Olympics together with the
main stakeholders for the coming 20 years and develop
and learn from the experiments every two years;
• Create together with the stakeholders and former host
cities an adaptive and reflexive learning approach on ba-
sis of the cycles as presented in chapter 1.
• Turn around the OGI program with a longer time of re-
flexive and learning period after the Games;
• Conect existing institutions (i.e. UN, UNEP, WWF) to
create more body against the commercial interests, and
create incentives with good examples.
9.3 Reflection
This research tried to make a combination of the relatively
new transition theory and the characteristics of the Olympic
Movement and the Olympic Games. As far as I know is it the
first research in which this combination is made, which was
sometimes hard. Other researches do not link the Olympics
on such a fundamental different theory. This made it difficult
in using many researches as they try to reform the impact
of the Olympics within the current structure. There are not
many researches in which they combine between the struc-
ture aspect and the long-term sustainability and sometimes
purely spatial impact of legacy. This is from a planning per-
spective rarely done. But there were also some researches
that did this and those were very useful.
By the difficulty as described above I experienced some hard
aspects of the structure, the theory of for example Mintzberg
is not educated to me, which made it hard.
According to the Olympics, this research is based on west-
ern norms and values and is therfore probably not useful for
other cultures in which the Olympics also perform. This re-
search tried to take other cultures into account but as I live
in a west European culture, this difference is sometimes hard
and the future of the Olympics is beyond the west European
borders.
On the basis of this research it will be very interesting to
discuss with IOC-members or employers from the IOC on
what is possible to achieve. This will be very enlightening
because of the results of the research. Due to the perspec-
tive of academic research and the lack of interaction with
people working along the IOC, it can be a one-sided story
in some aspects. On the structure aspect of the IOC, more
research is required because of the limited knowledge I have
on that subject. On the spatial aspect further research is also
required: what is practically feasible?
9.4 Epilogue
The preparations of this master thesis started already when
I started the Master Environmental & Infrastructure Plan-
ning. I had written my bachelor thesis about the Olympics
and possible legacy of a public transport system in Amster-
dam, and after that I kept active with Olympic activities in
The Netherlands, I became member of the Vonken van 2028
(a young professional network group), I visited the London
2012 Games and followed the news reports and academic
reports around the Olympics. Without a doubt, my master
thesis would be about the Olympics. Gradually the master,
the idea became bright, the future of the Olympics was some-
thing I cared about, and the transition theory was interesting
from that perspective. After designing a research proposal,
the real research started. With an internship besides the the-
sis at the local organizing committee of the European Cham-
pionships Athletics in 2016 in Amsterdam I had a good com-
bination of writing a thesis and doing some practical work.
Writing the thesis went quite well. No big writers blocks,
no huge delays on my schedule and no crashing computers.
There were some struggles with a supervisor from the uni-
versity, but this was all fixed. The largest struggle was to get in
contact with some people who were useful for the research.
At first, I tried to do an internship at the University of East
London, but due to the staffing struggles was this not possi-
ble. Also reaching people to interview them was sometimes
hard. The people from the more Olympic perspective were
cooperative and liked to help me, but the more theoretical
people were harder. After lots of emails, telephone calls, face-
to-face calls with some people this did not work. According
to the internship in London was there a wonderful alternative
of the Olympic Legacy Conference at the UEL. Three days of
great presentations, talks and contacts with professionals on
the legacy field from around the world. This provided much
valuable information, thanks Gavin Poynter and Valerie Vie-

73
9. Conclusions
hoff for this. Also as regards to the interviews, thanks Her-
bert, Jurryt, Thysia and Willem for your time and thanks to
Janneke van der Horst for your help with the visual aspect of
designing the updated structure of the Olympic system.
As regards the Dutch idea of hosting the Olympic Games
of 2028, 100 years after the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics. In
my opinion it’s a great idea, but on a number of conditions
I have some advises. Do not focus on the 2028 alone, not
for hosting the Games in 2028 and also not only on hosting
the Olympics. Look beyond the Olympics, what goals can be
achieved by hosting the Olympics. Do not let disturb the idea
by the requirements of the IOC, maybe we will not be able
to host the Olympics, but what is more important: hosting
the Olympics, or developing the country? Be creative and try
to talk with the IOC and try to be an experiment on how
the Olympics could be hosted. With a good argued story in
which not only the costs are part of the discussion, the Neth-
erlands will support the bid and if we are able to host the
Olympics it will The Barcelona Model of the 21st century.
Last, but not least I want to thank my supervisors Hotze Hof-
stra and Christian Zuidema, and my father Henk Bretveld
for supporting me.

75
Sources
Agha, N., Fairley, S. & Gibson, H. (2010) Considering legacy as multi-dimensional construct: the legacy of the
Olympic Games. Sport management review, 15: 125-139.
Allmendinger, P. (2009) Planning Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
ANP Perssupport (2013) The Sochi Project een jaar voor Sochi 2014: boekpresentatie [Online] <http://perssupport.
nl/apssite/persberichten/full/2013/02/06/The+Sochi+Project+een+jaar+voor+Sotsji+2014+boekpresentatie>
(consulted at December 17, 2013)
Aukett, A. (2012) Learning legacy. Lessons learned from staging the London 2012 Games. London: LOCOG.
Avelino, F. (2007) Power in Transitions, working paper. Publications KSI-network.
Avelino, F. & Rotmans, J. (2011) Power in transitions. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4): 543-569.
Barney, R., Wenn, S., & Martyn, S. (2002) Selling the five rings: The International Olympic Committee and the rise of
the Olympic commercialism. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Batty, M (2005) Cities & Complexity: Understanding Cities through cellular automata, agent-based models and frac-
tals. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Biesbroek, G., Swart, R. & Knaap, W. van der (2009) The mitigation-adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial
planning. Habitat internationaI 33: 230-237.
Boelens, L. (2010) Theorizing practice and practising theory: outlines for an actor-relational-approach in planning.
Planning Theory, 9(1):28-62.
Boonstra, B. & Boelens, L. (2011) Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial
planning, Urban Research & Practice, 4(2): 99-122.
Bovy, P. (2004) Mega event transport planning and traffic management - 2004 [Online] <http://www.mobility-bovy.
ch/resources/28_CIES.bidding.05.pdf> (consulted ar December 15, 2013).
Braudel, F. (1958) “Histoire et sciences sociales: La longue durée”, Annales 13: 725-753.
Brown, R., Cox, G. & Owens, M. (2012) Bid, delivery, legacy - creating the governance architecture of the London
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games legacy. Australian planner, 49(3): 226-238.
Brugge, R. van der, Rotmans, J. & Loorbach, D. (2005) The Transition in Dutch water management. Regional Envi-
ronmental Change, 5(4): 164-176.
Cantelon, H. & Letters, M. (2000) The making of the IOC environmental policy as the third dimensions of the
Olympic Movement. International review for the sociology of sport, 35(3): 294-308.
Cashman (2002) Impact of the Games on Olympic host cities. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudies Olimpics (UAB).
Cashman, R. (2006) The bitter-sweet awakening: The legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Sydney: Walla Walla
Press.
Chappelet, J. & Kübler-Mabbott, B. (2008) International Olympic Committee ad the Olympic system: the governance
of world sport. New York: Routledge.
Chauhan, E. (2013) Bach: IOC needs new host city bidding process. SportBusiness, 16 September.
Sources

76
Coalter, F. (2004) London 2012: a sustainable sporting legacy?, in Vigor, A. & Mean, M. (2004) After the Goldrush:
a sustainable Olympics for London. London: ippr and Demos.
Conway,R. (2013) London 2012: Lord report warns of faltering Olympic legacy [Online] <http://www.bbc.com/
sport/0/olympics/24981550> (Consulted January 5, 2014)
Cox, G. (2012) Sustaining a legacy – from Sudney 2000’s environmental guidelines to the Commission for a Sus-
tainable London 2012. Australian Planner, 49(3): 203-214.
Cymbalista, R. & Nakano, K. (2005) São Paulo, Brazil: a need for stronger policy advocacy. In: Balbo, M., ed. Inter-
national migrants and the city, pp. 211-234. Venezia: IUAV.
DCMS (2002) Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity objectives. London:
DCMS/Strategy unit.
DCMS (2010) Government Olympic executive. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Annual report Feb-
ruary 2011. London: DCMS.
De Roo, G. & Porter, G. (2006) Fuzzy Planning – Introducing actor-consulting as a means to address fuzziness in
planning and decision-making. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Dirven, J., Rotmans, J. & Verkaik, A. (2002) Samenleving in transitie, een vernieuwend gezichtspunt, Den Haag:
InnovatieNetwerk groene Ruimte en Agrocluster.
Dryzek, J. (2005) The politics of earth: environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Earnshaw, N. & Ramsden, C. (2012) Learning legacy. Lessons learned from planning and staging the 2012 Games.
London LOCOG.
ECFESD (2000) Sustainable Governance. European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Devel-
opment. Brussels: European Commission.
EDAW (2005) Lower Lea Valley regeneration strategy: social infrastructure context paper. London: EDAW.
Eenvandaag (2013) Poetins Spelen, interview Jurryt van de Vooren [Online] <http://perssupport.nl/apssite/pers-
berichten/full/2013/02/06/The+Sochi+Project+een+jaar+voor+Sotsji+2014+boekpresentatie> (broadcasted
at November 23, 2013)
Essex, S. & Chalkley, B. (1999) Olympic locations and legacies: a study in geography and tourism. Pacific tourism
review, 3: 185-200.
Essex, S. & Chalkley, B. (2002) The infrastructural legacy of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games - A comparative
analysis. The legacy of the Olympic Games: 1984-2000. Lausanne: IOC.
Essex, S. & Chalkley, B. (2005) The Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change. Plymouth [Online] < http://www.
plymouth.ac.uk/files/extranet/docs/SSB/eurolympicgames.pdf> (consulted at November 19, 2013)
Fingerhuth, C. (2004) Learning from China – the Tao of the city. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Forrester, J. (1968) Principles of systems. Cambridge: Wright-Allen Press.
Furrer, P. (2002), Sustainable Olympic Games: A dream or a reality? Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana,
12(4): 1-31.

77
Sources
Gamesbid (2013) IOC President wants changes [Online] <http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/other_news/121613
6768.html> (consulted at December 16, 2013)
Garud, R. & Karnøe, P. (2001) Path Dependance and Creation, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Geels, F. (2002) Understanding the dynamics of technological transitions: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical anal-
ysis. PhD-Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.
Geels, F. & Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3): 399-417.
GEN (n.y.) GEN Global Ecovillage Network Europe: Home [Online] <http://gen-europe.org/home/index.htm>
(consulted at October 30, 2013)
Gentelev, A. (2013) Putin's Games. (Broadcasted at IDFA Amsterdam)
Gibson, O. (2013) MPs warn legacy of London 2012 volunteers is ‘fizzling out’. [Online] < http://www.theguardian.
com/uk/2013/apr/19/legacy-london-2012-fizzling-out> (consulted at December 9, 2013)
Giddens, A. (1984) The Construction of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration, Berkeley: University of Cal-
ifornia Press.
GLA (2004) Towards the London Plan. London: Greater London Authority.
GLA & LDA (2007) Lower Lea Valley: opportunity area planning framework. London.
Gold, J. & Gold, M. (2007) Olympic Cities: city agenda, planning and the world's games 1896-2012. New York: Rout-
ledge
Gratton, C. & Preuss, H. (2008) Maximizing Olympic impacts by building up legacies. International journal of
history of sport, 25(14): 1922-1938.
Graaf, H. van der & Hoppe, R. (1996) Beleid en politiek. Een inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en de beleidskunde.
Bussum: Coutinho.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J. & Schot, J. (2010) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long-
term transformative change. New York, Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1989) The urban experience. Blackwell, Oxford.
HCA (2000) Urban design compendium, urban design principles. London: Homes & Communities Agency.
Hiller, H. (1998) Assessing the impact of mega-events: a linkage model. Current issues in tourism, 1, 47-57.
Horne, J. & Whannel, G. (2012) Understanding the Olympics. New York: Routledge.
Horton, P. & Zakus, D. (2010) Sustainability of the International Olympic Movement. International Journal for the
History of Sport, 27(6): 2677-2709.
House of Commons (2008) The budget for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Fourtheenth report of
session 2007-2008. London: House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts.
House of Commons (2013) The London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: post Games review. London:
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts.
Hover, P., Straatmeijer, J., Romijn, D. & Breedveld, K. (2013) The Story of London: maatschappelijke betekenis van
de Olympische en Paralympische Spelen 2012. Utrecht: Arko Sports Media/Mulier Instituut
Hughes, J. (2005) Global Environmental history: the long view. Globalizations 2(3): 293-308.

78
Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2000) Planning institutions in the network society: theory for collaborative planning. In:
W. Salet and A. Faludi, eds. The revival of strategic spatial planning, 175–189. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands
Academy of Arts and Sciences.
International Olympic Committee (1999) Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21: Sport for sustainable development. Lau-
sanne.
International Olympic Committee (2003) Olympic Games study commission. Lausanne: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (2004) 2012 Candidature procedure and questionnaire: Games of the XXX Olym-
piad in 2012. Lausanne: IOC
International Olympic Committee (2011) Olympic Charter, in force from 8 July 2011. Lausanne: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (2011b) Candidature Acceptance Procedure Games of the XXXVII Olympiad.
Lausanne.
International Olympic Committee (2012) IOC marketing: Media guide. London 2012. Lausanne: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (2012b) Factsheet London 2012 facts and figures. Lausanne: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (2012c) Sustainability through sport. Implementing the Olympic Movement’s
agenda 21. Lausanne: IOC
International Olympic Committee (2013) Olympic Charter, in force from 9 September 2013. Lausanne: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (2013b) Olympic Games: legacies and impacts, Bibliography. Lausanne: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (2013c) Olympic marketing fact file. Lausanne: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (2013d) Olympism in action [Online] < http://www.olympic.org/olymp-
ism-in-action> (consulted at December 12, 2013)
Jennings, A. (2000) The great Olympic swindle: When the world wanted its games back. London: Simon & Schuster.
Jordan, A. (2008) The governance of sustainable development: tacking stocks and looking forwards. Environment
and planning C: government and policy, 26(1): 17-33.
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Asselt, H. van, Rayner, T. & Berkhout, F. (2009) Climate change policy in the European
Union: confronting the dilemmas of mitigation and adaptation? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Judge, D., Stoker, G. & Wolman, H. (1995) Theories of urban politics. London: Sage.
Kant, I. (1996) Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by W. Pluhar. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Kassens-Noor, E. (2012) Planning Olympic legacies: transport dreams and urban realities. New York: Routledge.
Kauffman, S. (1991) Antichaos and adaptation. Scientific American, 265(2): 78-84.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D. & Rotmans, J. (2007) Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evo-
lution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,
14: 1-15.
Klein, R., Nicholls, R. & Thomalla, F. (2003) Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept. Environmen-
tal hazards 5:35-45.
Kooiman, J. (1993) Modern Governance. Newbury Park: Sage.

79
Sources
Laughlin, R. (1991) Environmental Disturbance and organizational transitions and transformations: some alterna-
tive models. Organizational Studies, 12: 209-232.
LDA (2004) Design statement precinct and legacy - context document for the Lower Lea Valley, Olympic and legacy
applications. London: London Development Agency.
Lemos, M. & Agrawal, A. (2006) Environmental governance. Annual Review of environmental resources, 31: 297-
325.
Leonardsen, D. (2007) Planning of mega events: Experiences and lessons. Planning theory & practice, 8(1):11-30.
Leopkey, B. & Parent, M. (2012a) Olympic Games legacy: from general benefits to sustainable long-term legacy.
International journal of history of sport, 29(6): 924-943.
Leopkey, B. & Parent, M. (2012b) The (neo) institutionalization of legacy and its sustainable governance within the
Olympic Movement. European sport management quarterly, 12(5): 437-455.
LOCOG (2012) London 2012 post-Games sustainability report. A legacy of change. London: LOCOG.
London 2012 (2005) London candidature file for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games - volume 1, theme 1: con-
cept and legacy. London: London 2012.
London 2012 (2005b) London candidature file for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games - volume 1, theme 5:
environment and meteorology. London: London 2012.
London Health Observatory (2008) The jubilee line of health inequality 2004-2008. [Online] <http://www.lho.org.
uk/viewResource.aspx?id=15463> (consulted at December 19, 2013)
Loorbach, D. (2007) Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: Inter-
national Books.
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based gov-
ernance framework. Governance, 23(1): 161-183.
Maricato, E. (2002) Brasil, cidades - alternativas para a crise urbana. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.
Mashable (2012) Why social media will reshape the 2012 Olympics. [Online] <http://mashable.com/2012/07/
08/2012-olympics-social-growth/> (consulted at December 20, 2013)
Mayor of London (2004) Spatial development strategy for London: the London plan. London: Greater London Au-
thority.
McLoughin, B. (1969) Urban and regional planning: a system approach. London: Faber & Faber.
McLoughin, B. (1985) The systems approach to planning: a critique. Working paper. University of Hong Kong.
Meadows, D, Meadows, I., Randers, J. & Behrens, W. (1972) The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.
Meier, K. & Toole, L. (2001) Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: a model with evidence from U.S.
public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3):271–294.
Miah, A. & Garcia, B. (2012) The Olympics - the basics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mintzeberg, H. (1993) Structures in fives: designing effective organizations. Essex: Prentice-Hall.
NOS (2013) NLE: leugens over groene stroom [Online] <http://nos.nl/artikel/506565-nle-leugens-over-groene-
stroom.html> (consulted at December 16, 2013).

80
NRG (2010) London 2012. Nations and Regions Group - report of reports. August 2009 - January 2010. London:
NRG
O’Leary, Z. (2010) The essential guide to doing your research project. London: Sage.
OECD (2002) Working together towards sustainable development. The OECD Experience, Paris.
Olshoorn, X. & Wieczorak, A. (2006) Understanding industrial transformation: views form different discplines.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007) Transition towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water
resource management 21: 49-62.
Pentifallo, C. & VanWynsberghe, R. (2012) Blame it on Rio: isomorphism, environmental protection and sustain-
ability in the Olympic Movement. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(3): 427-446.
Phelan, S. (1999) A note on the correspondence between complexity and systems theory. Systemic practice & action
research, 12(3): 237-246.
Pires, H. (2010) Planjamento e intervencoes urbanisticas no Rio de Janeiro: a utopia do plano estrategio e sua in-
spiracao catala. [Online] <http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/b3w-895/b3w-895-13.htm> (consulted at December 15,
2013).
Pitts, A. & Liao, H. (2009) Sustainable Olympic design and urban development. New York: Routledge.
Poynter, G. & MacRury, I. (2009) Olympic Cities: 2012 and teh remaking of London. Farnham: Ashgate.
Preuss, H. (2007) FIFA World Cup 2006 and its legacy on tourism. In Conrady, R. & Buck, M. (Eds.), Trends and
issues in global tourism 2007, pp. 83-102. Berlin: Springer.
Preuss, H. (2013) The contribution of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games to Green Economy. Sustain-
ability, 5: 3581-3600.
Rayner, G. (2012) London 2012: 100,000 volunteers sign up to Keep The Flame Alive. [Online] < http://www.tele-
graph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9473635/London-2012-100000-volunteers-sign-up-to-Keep-The-Flame-
Alive.html> (consulted at December 9, 2013)
Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Bucking-
ham: Open University Press.
Rip, A. & Kemp, R. (1998) ‘Technological Change’, in S. Rayner & E. Malone (eds.), Human choice and climate
change, 2: 327-399. Columbus: Batelle Press.
Rittel, H. (1972) On the planning crisis: systems analysis of the ‘first and second generations’. Bedriftsekonomen,
8:390-396.
Roo, G. de (2010) Being of becoming? That is the question! Confronting complexity with contemporary planning
theory, in: G. de Roo & E. Silva, A planner’s encounter with complexity, pp19-40. Farnham: Ashgate.
Roo, G. de (2013) Course Planning Theory, class 7, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2013.
Roo, G. de & Porter, G. (2007) Fuzzy Planning – The role of actors in an fuzzy governance environment. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishers Ltd.
Rotmans, J. (2003) Transitiemanagement: sleutel naar een duurzame samenleving. Assen: Van Gorcum Uitgeverij.

81
Sources
Rotmans, J. (2012) In het oog van de oorkaan: Nederland in transitie. Boxtel: Aeneas
Rotmans, J. & Loorbach D. (2010) 'Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance: systemic
and reflexive approach', Part II in Grin, J., Rotmans, J. & Schot, J. (2010) Transition towards sustainable devel-
opment, pp. 105-222. New York: Routledge.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. & Asselt, M. Van, (2001) More evolution than revolution, transition management in public
policy. The journal of future studies, strategic, thinking and policy, 3(1): 1-17.
Scotsman (2011) Scotland's'minimal' Olympic legacy revealed [Online] <http://www.scotsman.com/news/scot-
land-s-minimal-olympic-legacy-revealed-1-1701114> (consulted at January 1, 2014)
SER (2001) Ontwerpadveis Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan 4, Den Haag: Sociaal Economische Raad.
Speth. J. & Haas, P. (2006) Global Environmental Governance. Washington DC: Island Press.
Te Boekhorst, D., Smits, M., Yu, X., Li, L., Lei, G. & Zhang, C. (2010) Implementing integrated river basin manage-
ment in China. Ecology and Society 15(2): 23-41.
Theodoraki, E. (2007) Olympic event organization. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Thomson, A., Leopkey, B. Schlenker, K. & Schulenkorf, N. (2010) Sport event legacies implication for meaningful
outcomes. Leeds.
Thornley, A. (2012) The London 2012 Olympics. What legacy? Journal of poliy research in tourism, leisure and
events, 4(2):206-210.
UNEP (2009) Short documentary during the United Nations Environment Programme & European Environment
Agency. Copenhagen, 2009 [Online] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rV_dKZPoc&feature=related>
(consulted ar October 30, 2013)
VROM (2001) Nationaal milieubeleidsplan: een wereld en een wil, Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting,
Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu.
Wainwright, O. (2013) London's Olympics legacy facesearly disqualification [Online] <http://www.theguardian.
com/artanddesign/2013/jul/21/london-2012-olympics-architecture-legacy> (consulted at January 5, 2014)
WCED (1987) Our common future. Brundlandt Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilder, M. (2010) Political and economic apertures and the shifting state-citizen relationship: reforming Mexico’s
national water policy. Ecology and society, 15(2): 22-37.
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. & Bürer, M. (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduc-
tion to the concept. Energy Policy, 35: 2683-2691.
XML Architects (2012) Olympic Cities. Amsterdam: Jubels. commissioned by Ministery of Infrastructure and En-
vironmental.
Young, O. (1964) A survey of general systems theory. General Systems, 9: 61-80.
Yugian, W. (2012) Empty Nest syndrome for post-Olympics Beijing. [Online] < http://english.caixin.com/2012-07-
25/100414963.html> (consulted at December 9, 2013)
Zakus, D. & Skinner, J. (2008) Modelling Organizational Change in the International Olympic Committee, Euro-
pean Sport Management Quarterly, 8(4): 421-442.

82
Zuidema, C. (2013) Post-Contingency: Stimulating Local Environmental Policy. Farnham: Ashgate
Interviews/presentations during the UEL Olympic Legacy Conference:
Cartalis, C. (2013) Mega (sport) events as catalysts for sustainable urbanization? Case study of the Olympic Games
Athens (2004). Presentatin at the UEL Olympic Legacy Conference, September 5, 2013.
Coleman, N. (2013) London 2012 Games and their legacy. Presentation at the UEL Olympic Legacy Conference,
September 4, 2013
Vlachos, P. (2013) The Olympics ans small businesses: preliminary findings. London: London Centre for Events
Management Business School [Online] <http://www.surrey.ac.uk/shtm/Files/The%20Olympics%20and%20
Small%20Business.pdf> Presentation at UEL Olympic Legacy Conference, September 6, 2013.

83
Part VI:
Appendices

85
Appendix 1 New Olympic system
The process
On Friday November 1st, 2013, together with Janneke van der Horst, I transformed the Olympic system towards a
revised system. We started with the sketch of the current system as presented by Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott (2008).
This together with the structure of the Olympic Movement from Theodoraki (2007) are the grey aspects in drawing
1. The colored arrows represent the arrows how they ought to be in my opinion, based on the literature. After adding
the arrows in 1, this is rearranged in drawing 2 and finally in drawing 3. Drawing 3 is after that digitally sketched (and
changed on some minor aspects), and is visible in chapter 6.
Here, we started with the distinction between the regulators (WADA & CAS) and other stakeholders. This because
they have a control function and they should be positioned above all parties. Both regulators have contacts with the
governments & NGOs; and the IOC about the rules they have to control. They have now connection with international
sponsors. They do have a connection with the Ifs about the established rules and about the funding of the regulators.
In drawing 3, these are the dark green arrows. The arrows towards the regulators represent the funding.
The Olympic Movement and the OCOGs are the central drivers and thereby stakeholders in the whole system, be-
cause it all is about the distribution and promotion of the Olympism, by organizing the Olympic Games. These both
are separated because of the different interests they have. The Olympic Movement is more focused on the promotion
and distribution and the OCOG are more focused on the Games and the development of the city. The typical aspect of
the sustainable development of the Games is important in the new structure. This will become a task of the Olympic
Movement.
On the right side of drawing 3, there are the Ifs, as the stakeholder who establishes the rules of the game, sport specific.
Therefore it has connections with the Olympic Movement and the OCOG’s but also with athletes about the develop-
ments and changes in their specific sport.
The sponsors, international and national, will both get an other position in the system. The international sponsors have
a major position nowadays with the TOP-program. With this revision, the local power of people and companies are
becoming more important. Local and national initiatives and companies have a more humankind connection to the
local environment in which the Games are organized. This will not say that international sponsors are bad by defini-
tion, but have to decrease in power and size.
The governments and NGOs only have a role in the approval towards the OCOGs and the OCOG have take responsi-
bility for the public money. In here the government have a bit higher position, but not on the same level as the Olym-
pic Movement. The NOCs in this respect have a responsibility towards the Olympic Movement and the IOC and the
government. These are all arrows in line of money and the associated responsibility. The NOCs also have a connection
with the NSFs: the athletes. The Leagues of pro athletes are something, which does no longer fits in the system. The

86
vast majority of the athletes competing in the Olympics are to a certain scale professionals. Why keep sports as tennis
and soccer in the Olympics if the sporters don’t really like it.
This together results in a new kind of structure of the Olympic system, see drawing 3 and Figure #Ch6.
drawing 1:

88
Appendix 2: Olympic revenues
• Revenues from competition tickets: An important aspect for the citizens and tourist, but only 15% ($1,238 mil-
lion) in the last four years. It is not expected to grow, stadiums will not grow much bigger, this will be a larger
problem for the legacy.
• Revenues from broadcasting rights: A major part of the revenues. 48%, $3.850 million in the last four year. This is
grown enormously is the last 20 years, and it is questionable what the developments will be. The London Olympics
were the first with high numbers of live streams and online views, this can undermine the position of the televi-
sion. The percentage of people watching the Games live (5-7 million) is tiny in relation to the people watching the
Games on television (3.6 billion in London 2012) (IOC, 2012). The online video streaming becomes more popular
on a high speed; in 2012 1.9 billion video views (IOC, 2012). The worldwide expectations are that these will expand
with huge amounts the next couple of Olympiads, so this can be a problem for the future of the business model.
• Sponsorships: This pillar is divided in two parts, the TOP program sponsors ($950 million), and the national
OCOG sponsors ($1,838 million). They pay a lot of money to be linked on the Olympics, or on the Olympic rings,
they have the power to abandon other, small entrepreneurs (Vlachos, forthcoming). It is impossible to prove, but
there are stories that the sponsors do have influence in the decision-making. For example: the 100 years anniversa-
ry of the Olympics Games were not celebrate in Athens, but in Atlanta, the city with he headquarter of Coca Cola,
one of the TOP sponsors; the discovery of new markets is new is not just in the interest of the IOC, but also for
sponsors like Omega, Coca Cola and Mc Donalds is it attractive to achieve a larger market share in Asia or South
America.
• Licensing revenues: a really tiny part of the complete revenues, only $170 million dollars, 1,2%, which does not
make that much sense. For the tourist it is nice that they can buy some product with the Olympic rings on it, but
this will not grow that much for the future.

89
Appendix 3: Interviews
Appendix 3a:Verslag interview Jurryt van de Vooren
18 december 2013, Olympisch Stadion, Amsterdam
Welke ontwikkeling heeft het IOC doorgemaakt sinds haar oprichting?
Elke fase van de Olympische geschiedenis, 25 Olympische Spelen zijn op te delen in 5 fases van 5 Olympische Spelen,
dus van periodes van 20 jaar.
• De 1e fase zijn de Spelen voor WOI. IOC nog niet zo sterk. Politiek niet zo belangrijk. Nu bekende symbolen
bestonden nog niet, alleen motto uit die tijd.
• Tussen 2 WO. Symboliek breekt door, sport zorgt voor verbroedering. Vereeni-ging van landen centraal. Symbol-
iek wringt omdat niet meer van deze tijd is.
• 3e periode Koude Oorlog, tot 1964. Sovjet-Unie deed vanaf 1952 weer mee, in teken strijd tussen oost en west.
Kolonisatie belangrijk, groter en politieker.
• 4e periode 1968-1984 in teken van studentenopstand (1968), terrorisme (1972), financiële debacle (1976) en boy-
cots (1980/84). Na 1980 leek het klaar. Ommekeer in 1984. LA enige kandidaat, wel voorwaarden: commercieel,
met beroepssporters, private financiering en met stijgende televisierechten.
• 1988-2000 is de 5e periode. Wordt echt mega event, zware belasting voor stad en vanaf die tijd ook corruptie.
• De 6e vanaf 2004, definitief in teken van terrorisme. Beveiliging gelijk aan totale kosten 1972. Ook periode waarin
presidenten en staatshoofden invliegen om zo veel mogelijk handjes te schudden om beslissing te forceren.
Dat Spelen te groot zijn is niet voor het eerst. Ook in 1928 en 1968 is erover gesproken Rogge zei dit als een van de
eerste dingen bij aantreden. Bach zegt dit nu ook, verwacht hier niet veel van. Kijkend naar Sochi, Bach heeft belangen
bij Gazprom, zijn verkiezing heeft met Sochi te maken. IOC wordt meer speelbal van zichzelf, kunnen er niks meer
aan doen. Sochi wordt Berlijn 1936 onze tijd. IOC heeft iets gemaakt wat groter is dan zichzelf. Dus verwacht geen
Spelen in 2028. Omdat Sochi en Rio ontwricht. Sport laat maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid liggen. 2028 omdat
2021 congres is waarbij er voor 2028 besloten wordt. Eerst na 2016, eerste verhalen zullen fantastisch zijn, later zal dit
slechter worden.
Hoe denk je dat de toekomst eruit zal zien?
Aantal zaken zullen veranderen: Uitzendrechten lopen in 2020 af, zal door livestreams niet controleerbaar zijn, huidige
voorzitter komt uit oude Olympische wereld, zal voordeel zijn. Gaat een hoop veranderen, aantal opties:
- Spelen gaat kapot en een evenement als de X-Games vervangt het;
- Bedrijf als Red Bull, organiseert en zelf ook sponsor dus kan beslissen;
- Maatschappelijk bewustzijn dat sport iets wil veranderen,
De Olympische Spelen hebben zicht de afgelopen decennia enorm ontwikkeld, is het IOC hierin meegegaan?
Het IOC had eerst alleen verantwoordelijkheid voor Zomerspelen. Spelen van Tokyo, voor eerst echt op tv, door sat-
ellietbeelden. Nu meer oneven jaren opzoeken met nieuwe evenementen. IOC heeft meer belangen heeft dan sport

90
alleen: geldstromen groot belang, geen onafhankelijke koepel meer. Legacy wordt antwoord op oude ideologie.
Welke rol heeft duurzaamheid gespeeld in deze ontwikkeling?
Niet zo hoopvol. Sydney was drama, weinig verwachtingen Rio, vraag wat echte resultaten London zijn. IOC zal pas wat
aan gaan doen als het de bedrijfsvoering aantast. We moeten vooral niet democratie en onze normen en waarden via
het IOC gaan spelen. Drie bekendste symbolen van onze tijd zijn de dollar, het kruis en de Olympische ringen. Om de
eerste 2 wordt oorlog gevoerd, de derde heeft zorgt voor vrede. Dus blijkbaar is er toch iets bijzonders aan.
Appendix 3b:Verslag Interview Herbert Wolff
26 november 2013, Hogeschool van Amsterdam
Wat is je belangrijkste leerpunt vanuit je ervaring in London?
Samenwerking met LOCOG sponsoren (BMW, BP, EDF) in relatie tot sustainability lastig. Geen concrete afspraken
voor de stand op het Olympisch Park. Specifiek sustainability bij veel bedrijven lastig. Duurzaam maakt het ook com-
plex.
Creativiteit en verbinding vormen de sleutel. Met name verbinding tussen partijen die elkaar niet kennen.
Het werk van LOCOG werd beoordeeld door een externe organisatie, deze had als taak monitoring. Zij kwamen echter
ook met adviezen, wat veranderde in kritiek als er niet iets mee gedaan werd. Splitsing van deze rollen is gewenst.
Andere partijen hebben een invloed op het proces.
Specifiek kijkend naar het legacy/duurzaamheid, dus lange termijn perspectief?
80/90% van alle sustainability maatregelen waren voor de Olympische Spelen geplant, en niet voor daarna. Er is wel een
positieve legacy van het Olympisch Park die overgebleven is: o.a. het verschonen van het water en het terugbrengen van
inheemse planten en vissen in het park. Sustainability was puur voor de Olympische Spelen, alle mensen die daarmee
bezig waren zijn nu weg, niet bezig met legacy, geen sustainability planning. Ook wat betreft het stadion ingehaald door
de tijd. Niet flexibel om van 25.000 zitplaatsen naar 50.000 aan te passen. Meer flexibiliteit gewenst.
In hoeverre was London gevangen in het organiser-contract van het IOC?
Het IOC laat zich hierin leidden door OCOG. Sustainability kwam vanuit London. Het IOC heeft dit na London
aangepast omdat het beviel. Voor 2020 kwam dit in de evaluatiecommissie. Van daaruit is het IOC zelf een plan gaan
ontwikkelen. Dit verschilt per land en dus per context.
Zou er hier naar jou idee een ontwikkeling gewenst zijn?
Verandering zal meevallen. Het probleem van omkoping is volledig opgelost, verschillende belangen spelen nog wel.
Bidcampagne kost te veel geld.
Hoe schat je de invloed van de nieuwe voorzitter van het IOC in?

91
Focus op sporters: doping, match fixing, minder spelen. Vermoeden mensen rechten, mens centraal, menselijke maat
die terugkomt
Wat is naar jou idee de betekenis van het terugtrekken van München voor 2022?
Bach zei verheugd te zijn dat er 5 kandidaten zijn, dat is een goede ontwikkeling. Davos en Munchen zijn zorgelijk. In
Munchen ging het met name om duurzaamheid en de natuur.
Wat is naar jou idee de rol van het IOC in de ruimtelijke ordening van een gast stad?
IOC heeft hierop geen invloed. Compacte spelen, goede ov-verbindingen en voldoende hotels. Stad kijkt hoe dit te
realiseren, kunnen het ook niet doen, kan ook deels voldoen. Verleiding is keuze van de stad.
Welke rol zou dit moeten spelen voor de toekomst?
Blijft wel, wel met golfbeweging. Heeft veel te maken met spelen die net geweest zijn. Spelen zijn de baby van het IOC.
Hoe zorg voor een kind van een ander.
Appendix 3c:Verslag interview Thysia Pater
12 december 2013, Skype
Wat is je belangrijkste leerpunt vanuit je ervaring in London?
Grote organisatie, dat je eigenlijk goed moet samenwerken en afstemmen. Alle verschillende onderdelen en vrijwil-
ligers moeten goed met elkaar afstemmen.
Specifiek kijkend naar het legacy/duurzaamheid, dus lange termijn perspectief?
Mijn rol voornamelijk met vip, BMW’s, niet specifiek leerpunt. Gebouwen en stadions is mooi nieuw stuk, is veel ver-
beterd, de legacy daarin is heel goed. Legacy als event voor 2 weken, niet tastbare kant is er nog niet zo. Sportpartici-
patie is niet echt grote vooruitgang geboekt. Hype in 2 weken, 24/7, na een maand is die aandacht weg en die aandacht
wordt vervolgens verlegd. Heeft mensen na elkaar gebracht, hype tot eind 2012. Gevoel wordt nog herkent, maar is er
niet meer.
In hoeverre was London gevangen in het organiser-contract van het IOC?
Gevangen? Lastig. Veel vrijheid, IOC alleen overkoepelend. Overziet, bekijkt vanaf de buitenkant, verantwoordeli-
jkheid ligt bij LOCOG, Uiteindelijk IOC. Politiek spel is hierin ook belangrijk. Natuurlijk richtlijnen, transport, hoe het
werkte, daarin was wel enige vrijheid. Veel verschillende diensten van vervoer, eerst heel streng, door ervaring blijkt dat
je flexibel kan zijn, kortsluiting met IOC weet ik niet.
Wat is naar jou idee de rol van de sustainability ambitie binnen de Olympische beweging, en daarbij specifiek wat
betreft transport?

92
London & Vancouver, zoeken naar sustainability van openbaar vervoer. BMW had hierin wel de sustainability kant.
Denk aan de start-stop systemen. Kan nog beter door meer mensen in de auto te krijgen. In hoeverre dat mogelijk is
weet ik niet. Kleine dingetjes als tasjes bij winkels niet over na gedacht, iedere vrijwilliger kreeg bidon, werd gebruikt.
In grote lijn veel aan gedaan, op kleine dingen nog hoop te winnen.
Welke rol zou legacy moeten spelen voor de toekomst?
Steeds belangrijker, niet alleen voor land zelf, maar ook voor steun inwoners. Zeker nu, mensen kritischer om uitgaven
en inkomsten. Als je als inwoner extra betaald, wil je iets voor terugzien. Iedereen trots, niet iedereen had kans om iets
te zien. Iedereen herinnert zich, maar in oost London betalen ze nog steeds veel geld om te leven, is niet veranderd. IOC
zou daar strikter op moeten zitten om in de hand te houden. Paar maanden voor spelen was stadion in gebruik, afbraak
en gebruik voor community duurt lang. Het teruggeven moet hier een plan voor hebben. Gevoel van 2012 moet warm
gehouden worden. Leeft nu niet meer zo erg. IOC: strengere bid procedure. Meeste werknemers kwamen minder dan
jaar van tevoren. Veel contracten lopen af direct na de Spelen. Dit verlengen is belangrijk. Aanloop heel belangrijk, after
sales nog belangrijker, hier is veel te winnen.
Wat de positieve punten vanuit London die meegenomen moeten worden naar de toekomst?
- Gamesmaker: vrijwilligers en het management daarin.
- Financieel, als enige wel positief uitkomen ten opzichte van een verlies.
- Hele organisatie, punctualiteit, alles begon op tijd en was goed geregeld.
Wat zijn de negatieve punten die verbeterd moeten worden
Echte londonaren, nog steeds 50/50, nog niet iedereen was mee. London wil graag een fietsstad worden, waarom dan
zo veel investeren in de tube?
Meer kijken naar toekomstambities na 2012. Er is eigenlijk niet verder dan 2012 gekeken.
Appendix 3d:Verslag InterviewWillem de Boer
26 november 2013, Utrecht
Wat is je idee over de huidige economische belangen binnen het IOC?
Het IOC is eigenlijk een monopolist maar ook multinational. Het is een monopsoniey: er is 1 aanbieder (van in dit
geval de OS), er zijn meerdere vragers (om die OS te hosten). Blijft verbazend dat het uit komt qua kosten en opbreng-
sten, er wordt in deze tijden meer kritisch naar gekeken. Worst is blijkbaar nog steeds te groot om te laten liggen. Is
fascinerend en verbazend vanuit economisch perspectief. De time-gap tussen kosten en opbrengsten is wel interessant
Welke belangen spelen hier verder een belangrijke rol?
Net zo breed als maatschappij. De legacy van London is misschien wel concept ‘legacy’. Uitwerking niet goed: sportpar-
ticipatie, renovatie wijk (ook zonder OS), nationale trots ebt weg. Achtergrond redenen daarachter heel moeilijk, imago

93
middenlange termijn kan veranderen, vraag is of je dat wil bereiken.
Wat is naar jou idee een te verwachten ontwikkeling?
Legacy blijft plakken, organisatie is meer dan alleen organisatie feest, 75% bevolking ziet nut, mag ook wat kosten.
Beleid gaat wel traag, toch sprake van een time-lag van ongeveer 10 jaar. IOC probeert hierin semi-maatschappelijk
belang te behartigen. Iets democratischer zou niet gek zijn. 3 Nederlanders tot voor kort is opmerkelijk veel.
Wat zouden de gevolgen zijn van in stappen radicaal omgooien van de Olympische Beweging volgens de transiti-
etheorie van Jan Rotmans?
Ligt eraan welke kant je op wil. Lokaal kan er heel veel: draag vlak, beperking kosten. Ergens manier voorwaarts zou je
denken. Prijs kan opgedreven worden door aantrekkelijkheid.
Nu: beperkt aantal landen. Dan: goedkoper, meer interesse, macht en belangen worden niet per se minder. MKBA’s
zouden beter moeten.
London: wat zou je max willen betalen om het te krijgen? Wat om het niet te krijgen? Willingness to pay/to accept.
Nauwelijks onderzoek naar gedaan naar dat laatste.
Vraag is of legacy excuustruus is, of dat het echt wat oplevert. Nu beetje lege huls. OGI moet eigenlijk omgedraaid
worden, wat beklijft er daadwerkelijk?
Rol IOC is dubbelzijdig: zichzelf in stand houden, zichzelf een maatschappelijke rol toedichten, wat houdt dat in? IOC
biedt iets aan, verschillende steden willen product, stad is verantwoordelijk voor alle zaken buiten sport. Spelen soms
zelfde belangen, soms andere.
Wat zouden de gevolgen zijn van een lokaal en bottom up organisatie van de Olympische Spelen?
IOC kan niet lokaal werven, wel wereldwijd. Lokaal feestje moet wel internationale allure uitstraling houden met
merken die mensen aanspreken. Beleving van groot belang, maar ook andere kant van de wereld. OS is hierin ongeëve-
naard, voor groot gedeelte televisie evenement. Oude instituties zijn niet snel omver te halen, problemen los je niet op
door opnieuw te beginnen.

Scriptie def single

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Scriptie def single (20)

Scriptie def single