Aims: There is no evidence that previous Olympic Games have raised physical activity levels in adult populations. However, it may be premature to assume that this lack of previous evidence for an inherent effect is an indication that there is no potential to proactively harness the Games to generate a physical activity or sport legacy. Given that the political goal of achieving a physical activity legacy had already been set, the policy-led aim of this systematic review was to examine the processes by which the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games might deliver a physical activity (as opposed to sport) legacy.
Methods: Searches were conducted on five databases: SPORTS DISCUS, CINAHL, PsychINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Knowledge.
Results: There are two key findings: first, that communities that are not positively engaged with hosting the 2012 Games in London are likely to be beyond the reach of any initiatives seeking to harness the Games to develop legacies in any area; second, major events such as London 2012 can, if promoted in the right way, generate a ‘festival effect’ that may have the potential to be harnessed to promote physical activity among the least active. The ‘festival effect’ derives from the promotion of the 2012 Games as a national festival that is bigger than and beyond sport, but that is also rooted in the lives of local and cultural communities, thus creating a strong desire to participate in some way in an event that is both nationally significant and locally or culturally relevant.
Conclusions: Physical activity policy makers and professionals should seek to satisfy this desire to participate through providing physical activity (rather than sport) opportunities presented as fun community events or programmes. The key to generating a physical activity legacy among the least active adults through this process is to de-emphasise the sporting element of the 2012 Games and promote the festival element.
London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. London 2012 Candidate File. London: London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2004
2.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Before, During and After: Making the Most of the London 2012 Games. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2008
3.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Plans for the Legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010
4.
BrownAMasseyJ. Literature Review: The Impact of Major Sporting Events. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University/UK Sport, 2001
5.
CoalterF. London Olympics 2012: The catalyst that inspires people to lead more active lives?Journal of the Royal Society of Health2007; 127: 109–10
6.
London East Research Institute. Lasting Legacy for London? Assessing the Legacy of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. London: London East Research Institute, 2007
7.
McCartneyGThomasSThomsonHScottJHamiltonVHanlonP. The health and socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport events: A systematic review. British Medical Journal2010; 340: c2369
8.
ChalipL. Towards social leverage of sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism2006; 11: 109–27
9.
SmithAFoxT. FroVm ‘event-led’ to ‘event-themed’ regeneration: The 2002 Commonwealth Games legacy programme. Urban Studies2007; 44: 1125–43
10.
WeedMCorenEFioreJMansfieldLWellardIChatziefstathiouD. A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Developing a Physical Activity and Health Legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. London: Department of Health, 2009
11.
WeedM. The Potential of the Demonstration Effect to Grow and Sustain Participation in Sport. London: Sport England, 2010
12.
CorenEFisherM. The Conduct of Systematic Research Reviews for SCIE Knowledge Reviews. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2006
13.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology2006; 3: 77–101
14.
PopeCMaysN. Synthesising qualitative research. In PopeCMaysN (eds) Qualitative Research in Health Care. London: Blackwell, 2006
15.
LankfordSNealLLSzaboC. Arctic Winter Games: A study of benefits of participation. Journal of ICHPER-SD2000; 36: 50–4
16.
DawsonCR. The Olympic Legacy: Qualitative Research into Public Attitudes. London: Central Office of Information, 2007
17.
CromptonJ. Beyond economic impact: An alternative rationale for the public subsidy of major league sports facilities. Journal of Sport Management2004; 18: 40–58
18.
OhmannSJonesIWilkesK. The perceived social impacts of the 2006 Football World Cup on Munich residents. Journal of Sport & Tourism2006; 11: 129–52
19.
DeccioCBalogluS. Nonhost community resident reactions to the 2002 Winter Olympics: The spillover impacts. Journal of Travel Research2002; 41: 46–56
20.
FredlineE. Host and guest relations and sport tourism. Sport in Society2005; 8: 263–79
21.
WaittG. Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of Tourism Research2003; 30: 194–215
22.
ApJ. Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research1992; 19: 665–90
23.
MoscoviciS. On social representations. In ForgasJP (ed.) Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding. London: Academic Press, 1981
24.
DownwardPMRalstonR. The sports development potential of sports event volunteering: Insights from the XVII Manchester Commonwealth Games. European Sport Management Quarterly2006; 6: 333–51
25.
KimNSChalipL. Why travel to the FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives, background, interest, and constraints. Tourism Management2004; 25: 695–707
26.
HeereBJamesJD. Sports teams and their communities: Examining the influence of external group identities on team identity. Journal of Sport Management2007; 21: 319–37
27.
RalstonRDownwardPMLumsdonL. The expectations of volunteers prior to the XVII Commonwealth Games, 2002: A qualitative study. Event Management2004; 9: 13–26
28.
International Centre for Research & Consultancy for the Tourism and Hospitality Industries. Sports Development Impact of the Commonwealth Games: Study of Volunteers. Manchester: International Centre for Research & Consultancy for the Tourism and Hospitality Industries/UK Sport, 2003
29.
KennedyEPussardHThrontonA. ‘Leap for London’? Investigating the affective power of the sport spectacle. World Leisure Journal2006; 48: 6–21
30.
SymonsC. The Gay Games and the community. In HemphillD (ed.) Gender, Sexuality and Sport: A Dangerous Mix. Petersham: Walla Walla Press, 2002
31.
SparveroEChalipL. Professional teams as leverageable assets: Strategic creation of community value. Sport Management Review2007; 10: 1–30
32.
RitchieJRB. Turning 16 days into 16 years through Olympic legacies. Event Management2000; 6: 155–65
33.
RitchieJRBSmithBH. The impact of a mega-event on host region awareness: A longitudinal study. Journal of Travel Research1992; 30: 3–10
34.
HamlynPJHudsonZL. 2012 Olympics: Who will survive?British Journal of Sports Medicine2005; 39: 882–3
35.
EdComs. London 2012 Legacy Research: Final Report. London: Central Office of Information/Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2007
36.
HindsonAGidlowBPeeblesC. The ‘trickle-down’ effect of top level sport: Myth or reality? A case study of the Olympics. Australian Journal of Leisure and Recreation1994; 4: 16–24
