Abstract
Olympic event-tourism and visitor trading opportunities. However, as
urban spaces were transformed to stage live Games, many local
stakeholders found themselves locked out. We focus on one 'host'
community, Central Greenwich, who emerged negatively impacted by such
conditions. 43 in-depth interviews and secondary evidence reveal that
this was a community determined to resist. Few papers have extended the
concept of resistance to the context of mega-events so we examine why
communities resisted, and how physical tactics and creative resistance
were deployed. Although efforts afforded some access for local businesses
- they proved too little, too late. We develop and present a 'tactics for
resistance' approach, a series of 'hard' and 'soft' tactics businesses
could use to encourage proactive, as opposed to reactive, communal
resistance required to protect local interests and afford access to
opportunities generated by temporary mega-event visitor economies
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 355-367 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Tourism Management |
| Volume | 70 |
| Early online date | 15 Sep 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2019 |
Fingerprint
Bibliographical note
NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Tourism Management. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Tourism Management, vol.70, 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.029© 2017, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Keywords
- Communal resistance
- Exclusion
- Hard and soft tactics
- Host community
- London 2012
- Mega-event
- Olympic tourism
- Small businesses
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Development
- Transportation
- Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management
- Strategy and Management
Cite this
The 'Summer of Discontent': Exclusion and Communal Resistance at the London 2012 Olympics. / Duignan, Mike; Pappalepore, Ilaria; Everett, Sally.
In: Tourism Management, Vol. 70, 02.2019, p. 355-367.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The 'Summer of Discontent': Exclusion and Communal Resistance at the London 2012 Olympics
AU - Duignan, Mike
AU - Pappalepore, Ilaria
AU - Everett, Sally
N1 - NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Tourism Management. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Tourism Management, vol.70, 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.029 © 2017, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
PY - 2019/2
Y1 - 2019/2
N2 - London 2012 promised local small businesses access to lucrativeOlympic event-tourism and visitor trading opportunities. However, asurban spaces were transformed to stage live Games, many localstakeholders found themselves locked out. We focus on one 'host'community, Central Greenwich, who emerged negatively impacted by suchconditions. 43 in-depth interviews and secondary evidence reveal thatthis was a community determined to resist. Few papers have extended theconcept of resistance to the context of mega-events so we examine whycommunities resisted, and how physical tactics and creative resistancewere deployed. Although efforts afforded some access for local businesses- they proved too little, too late. We develop and present a 'tactics forresistance' approach, a series of 'hard' and 'soft' tactics businessescould use to encourage proactive, as opposed to reactive, communalresistance required to protect local interests and afford access toopportunities generated by temporary mega-event visitor economies
AB - London 2012 promised local small businesses access to lucrativeOlympic event-tourism and visitor trading opportunities. However, asurban spaces were transformed to stage live Games, many localstakeholders found themselves locked out. We focus on one 'host'community, Central Greenwich, who emerged negatively impacted by suchconditions. 43 in-depth interviews and secondary evidence reveal thatthis was a community determined to resist. Few papers have extended theconcept of resistance to the context of mega-events so we examine whycommunities resisted, and how physical tactics and creative resistancewere deployed. Although efforts afforded some access for local businesses- they proved too little, too late. We develop and present a 'tactics forresistance' approach, a series of 'hard' and 'soft' tactics businessescould use to encourage proactive, as opposed to reactive, communalresistance required to protect local interests and afford access toopportunities generated by temporary mega-event visitor economies
KW - Communal resistance
KW - Exclusion
KW - Hard and soft tactics
KW - Host community
KW - London 2012
KW - Mega-event
KW - Olympic tourism
KW - Small businesses
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053410955&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.029
DO - 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.029
M3 - Article
VL - 70
SP - 355
EP - 367
JO - Tourism Management
T2 - Tourism Management
JF - Tourism Management
SN - 0261-5177
ER -