There is considerable ambiguity about what makes an event a mega-event. Intervening in this debate, this paper develops a definition and classification scheme for mega-events. On the basis of a review of existing definitions, it proposes four constitutive dimensions of mega-events: visitor attractiveness, mediated reach, costs and transformative impact. The paper develops indicators for each dimension and maps onto these four dimensions a sample of the latest editions of nine large events (Expo, Summer and Winter Olympics, Football World Cup, European Football Championship, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, Universiade). From this, it develops a multi-dimensional, point-based classification scheme of large events according to size, distinguishing between major events, mega-events and the recently emerging class of giga-events. Concluding, it identifies the need for more systematic data on the size, costs and impacts of a broad range of large-scale events over time.
Urban transformation is the fourth and last dimension that appears in denitions of mega-events, though again not in all of them (Table 1). A mega-event must have long-term consequences for cities (Roche, 1994, p. 1) or a signicant and/or 633 634 M. Mller permanent urban effect (Hiller, 2000b, p. 183). Some even go so far as to claim that mega-events must affect whole economies (Gold & Gold, 2011, p. 1). Others place an emphasis on the effects of mega-events on the population of host cities (Gursoy, Jurowski, & Uysal, 2002; Hiller, 2012). An event that does not intervene to a significant degree in its host city, region or even country would thus not qualify as a mega-event.
id: 1c7b33a6968946ea04fbaf4c2be08801 - page: 8
One way of gauging the transformative dimension of mega-events is to look at the share of capital investments in total costs. Using this approach, Liao and Pitts (2006, p. 1247), for example, found that 97% of the spending on the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 1964 was on ancillary infrastructure, whereas it was just about 50% for Los Angeles in 1984. While this does not say much about the nature and the impacts of the spending and, therefore, cannot substitute for a qualitative investigation of urban transformation (e.g. as in Chalkley & Essex, 1999; Kassens-Noor, 2012), it provides a useful scale for comparison between different events.
id: 45f034815efe610686837c82fd0acf15 - page: 9
Table 2 shows the capital investment, operating budgets and the percentages of capital investment in total costs. Capital investment, here, includes infrastructure (transport, energy, ICT, accommodation, etc.) and spending on the construction of venues and ancillary buildings (e.g. media centres, etc.), but it excludes operating costs (e.g. overlays, administration, security and technology). In all cases, capital investments surpass operating costs. In half of the cases, capital investment is more than 90% of total cost. This is a clear indication of the transformative impact of this most investment, round of mega-events. Spending 94% on capital Guangzhou, for example, harnessed the 2010 Asian Games for its wholesale urban restructuring and redevelopment (Shin, 2014) and Poland used the Euro 2012 as an occasion to modernise its highways. Kazan, too, upgraded its roads and airport and built a railway link between the airport and the city for hosting the Universiade (Makarychev & Yatsyk,
id: 331c9380f431306604ebfbcfd526522a - page: 9
2015). Note that high total costs are often but not always associated with a high percentage of capital investment: the only two events hosted in high-income countries (according to the OECD classication), the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver and the 2012 Summer Games in London, have the lowest shares of capital investment. Thus, it is particularly emerging economies in which mega-events effect large urban transformations.
id: f9f3ddebd2ac12b44cda7f7576fed990 - page: 9