Olympic Legacy
An evaluation of the 2012 London Olympic Games as
a means of delivering urban regeneration !
!
Bachelor Thesis - Claire Loven - 10294597 - University of Amsterdam - June 2014!
!
!
!
!
!
Content!
!
Introduction………4
1. Theoretical Framework………..6
1.1 A Historical Review………6
1.2 The Legacy Discourse……….6
1.3 Olympic Legacy and Previous Olympic Games……….8
1.4 The 2012 London Olympic Games……….9
2. Methodology………10
2.1 Research Method……….. 10
2.2 Research Design………10
2.2.1 Research Question and Subquestions………10
2.2.2 Conceptual Model and Measurement of Concepts……….. 11
2.2.3 Research Strategy………..12
2.3 Limitations………13
3. Case Description……….. 14
3.1 The Golden Games………14
3.2 The Olympic Host Boroughs……….15
4. Policy Analysis……….18
4.1 The Candidate File………21
4.2 Multi-Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs……….21
4.3 Strategic Regeneration Framework……….. 22
4.3.1 Creating a coherent and high quality city within a world city region……….. 23
4.3.2 Reducing worklessness, benefit dependency and child poverty……….. 24
4.3.3 Homes for all……….24
4.4 Progress Report 2009 - 2011……….25
5. Analysis of Employment, Housing, Public Space………27
5.1 Employment………..27
5.1.1 Narrowing the gap ………27
5.1.2 Dependent t-test………28
5.1.3 Independent t-test………..29
5.2 Housing……….30
5.2.1 Dwellings Started and Completed ………30
5.2.2 New Affordable Homes……….32
5.3 Public Space………..33
5.3.1 Reportage The Guardian……….. 33
5.3.2 Kennelly and Watt……….35
Conclusion………37
References………40
!
Appendix 1: Critical Actions up to 2015, Strategic Regeneration Framework Appendix 2: SPSS Output Dependent t-test
Appendix 3: SPSS Output Independent t-test
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Introduction!
!
Wednesday the sixth of July 2005, London won the right to host the 2012 Olympic Games. Olympic legacy, the regeneration of east London in particular, was the main focus of London’s Candidate File (bid) and this focus is broadly seen as the main reason why London won the right to host the 2012 Olympic Games (Guardian 2005). Along with investments in public infrastructure, the re-development would provide long-term benefits for the residents of London, including employment, housing, educational and recreational benefits (IOC 2005). With the football World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil, a discussion about the legacy of mega-events is again point of discussion in popular media. Last May the BBC reported about people in Brazil protesting against the government, because of urban public transport initiatives that were part of the wider World Cup vision, the legacy, and are now late or quietly abandoned schemes, due to stadiums that have to be finished on time (BBC 2014). Besides these public transport initiatives, the promised regeneration of host cities and development of social housing has also been postponed or abandoned for the sake of new stadiums (Putter 2014).
!
The focus on the redevelopment of east London was not without a reason. The boroughs: Greenwich, Newham, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Hackney were the ones in east London where the Games took place and the plans were focused on. In 2001 for example, Newham was the poorest and most deprived area of the United Kingdom, due to factors like a high number of people under the age of 24, a high percentage of one-parent families and a high welfare dependency ratio; the salaries of the Borough’s wage earners average only one fifth of the average annual salary of the population of west London boroughs (Digby 2008). Overcrowded households, high unemployment levels and low participation rates are other indicators of deprivation in east London (Harvie 2013).
!
In the London bid and other policy documents big promises were made regarding the regeneration of east London: “…the most enduring legacy of the Olympics will be the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit for everyone who lives there.” (London’s Candidate File 2005: Volume 1 - Theme 1: 19), “The true legacy of 2012 is that within 20 years the communities who host the 2012 Games will have the same social and economic chances as their neighbours across London.” (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 2). Yet protesters have argued that the Games would bring displacement of the population of east London instead of regeneration (The Dark Side of the London Olympics: 1/4 2012). Besides this social debate, studies of previous host cities of the Olympic Games illustrate that positive as well as negative legacies of Olympic Games can be found. The social debate and different theories about the legacy of previous Olympic Games make it relevant to research the legacy of the 2012 London Olympic Games. In order to do so, the research question underpinning this thesis is: “To what extent can effects of the urban regeneration program in east London associated with hosting the 2012 Olympic Games already be found?”.
!
On the basis of a policy analysis, a quantitative analysis, and an analysis of images, the research question will be answered. London’s Candidate File (2005), the Olympic host borough’s Multi Area Agreement
(2009) and the Strategic Regeneration Framework (2009) will be discussed in the policy analysis to examine what were defined as the main points of the urban regeneration program in east London. In the quantitative analysis, data of 2009 and 2013 regarding employment, data of 2005 to 2013 regarding housing development and images of the public space before and after the organization of the 2012 Olympic Games will be compared to map changes over time and construct an answer to the research question. This thesis will start with a theoretical framework consisting a brief history of the Olympic Games, the legacy discourse and previous Olympic Games, and previous research on the 2012 London Olympic Games, to provide a theoretical context for the case study of the 2012 London Olympic Games.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1. Theoretical Framework!
1.1 A Historical Review!
The introduction of objectives and principles for the Olympic Games by Pierre de Courertin in 1896 were responsible for the revival of the Modern Olympic Games in Athens in 1896 (Chalkley and Essey 1999). These objectives and principles still play a central role in the operational purposes of the Games and are as follows: to foster the goals of competitive sport (1), to provide a legacy of facilities that will stimulate athletic development which would not have been possible with inferior facilities (2), to heighten the profile of the sport involved by providing better opportunities for training as well as sites for national and international competition (3) (Hall 1993 in Chalkley and Essey 1999).
!
Brian Chalkley and Stephen Essex (1999) illustrate that besides the building of new sporting facilities, Games can also underpin the development of wider programs of infrastructure provision, urban renewal and environmental improvement. According to this, Chalkley and Essey identified four phases in the development of the Olympics to present a historical review of the impact of each Olympic Games on the host city’s facilities, environment and infrastructure. From 1896 to 1904 the Olympics were a small-scale event, poorly organized and its urban impact was minimal. From 1908 to 1932 the event became larger in scale, better organized and usually involved the construction of some new purpose-built sports facilities. From 1936 to 1956 the sports facilities emerged as ‘flag-ship’ symbols of the host society and consequently began to attract much more attention, although their wider urban impacts remained modest. It is only since 1960 that the Games have often been used as a trigger for large-scale urban improvements, consequently they have a much more substantial impact on the landscape and urban environment of its host cities (Chalkley and Essex 1999). In addition, since around the 1960s everyday urban experience has been commodified, which means that the city has been transformed into a space of performance, based on commodity display and symbolic consumption. Nowadays, it is this commodity display and symbolic consumption that have become essential to the survival of postindustrial cities and this implies that staging global events such as the Olympic Games is one of the most effective ways for cities to enhance their world image. The hosting of these events enhances global visibility, and acts, locally, as a catalyst for development and a way to legitimize large-scale transformations (Chalkley and Essex 1999) (Broudehoux 2007).
1.2 The Legacy Discourse !
In contrast to the Olympic Games, hallmark events or mega-events have a long history when it comes to their contribution to the built environment and to plans for urban regeneration (Chalkley and Essex 1999). World expositions are an example of these hallmark events. Although since the negative financial aftermath of some Olympic Games, from Montreal (1976) onwards to be precise, attention has focused on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and upon Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOG) to better assure a positive future after the Games. This negative financial aftermath of the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games can be illustrated by the fact that Montreal had to deal with a debt of over 1 million dollar,
due to mismanagement of the organizing committee (Brace 2001). So after 1976, Games were no longer seen as ends in themselves, they became a means for something good (MacRury and Poynter 2009). Here, the term legacy came into focus and the ‘good’ in the previous sentence stands for legacy. As pointed out by Preuss (2007), Cashman (2006) and Moragas (2003) legacy is a contested term in the mega event and Olympic literature.
!
Legacy does not only relate to the concrete and steel infrastructure of sports stadia. In fact, there are so called ‘soft’ legacies as civic pride, individuals’ educational or skills gains arising as direct or indirect results of Olympic ‘inspiration’ (MacRury and Poynter 2009). In other words, legacy is mainly focused upon no-sport-related outcomes (Poynter 2006). Still, the question what is precisely a legacy can be raised, and is still raised nowadays, because one generally accepted definition of legacy does not exist (Preuss 2007). On the basis of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary J.A. Mangan (2008) defines legacy as: “A tangible or intangible thing handed down by a predecessor; a long-lasting effect of an event or process, the act of bequeathing.” (Mangan 2008: 1869). Holger Preuss (2007) defines legacy as: “Irrespective of the time of production and space, legacy is all planned and unplanned, positive and negative, tangible and intangible structures created for and by a sport event that remain longer than the event itself.” (Preuss 2007: 211).
!
As already addressed shortly, the identification of different fields or kinds of legacies is also part of the discussion around the term legacy. The distinction between positive and negative legacies is an illustration of this differentiation and examples of positive and negative legacies can be found in table 1; Preus (2007) made a categorization of positive and negative legacies based on several articles.
!
Table 1: Positive and negative legacies mentioned in literature: Richie and Aitken (1984), Haxton (2000), Lenskyj (2000) (2002), Moragas, Kennet, Puig (2003), Kasimati (2003), Preuss (2004), Cashman (2005), Vigor, Mean, Tims (2005), Kensenne (2005)
Positive Negative
New event facilities High construction costs
General infrastructure Investments in non needed structure
Urban revival Indebtedness of public sector
International reputation Temporary crowding problems
Increased tourism Loss of permanent visitors
Improved public welfare Property rental increases
Additional employment Only temporary increases in employment and business activities
Local business opportunities Socially unjust displacement
Corporate relocation City marketing
Renewed community spirit Inter-regional cooperation Production of ideas
Source: Preuss (2007)
!
Richard Cashman (2006) and Jean-Loup Chappelet (2006) are two other scholars who identified different fields of legacies. Cashman identified economics, infrastructure, information and education, public life, politics and culture, sports, and symbols, memory and history as six fields of legacies (Cashman 2006). By distinguishing between sporting legacy, urban legacy, infrastructural legacy, economic legacy, and social legacy, Chappelet created a different kind of classification for legacy (Chappelet 2006 in Preuss 2007).
!
Finally, it is important to distinguish impact and legacy. An impact is caused by a short-term impulse, for example consumption of event visitors, and because impacts are only short-term they are not the same as a legacy. In fact, post-event tourism due to increased interest in the event city (long-term impulse) is an example of an economic legacy (Preuss 2007).
!
In 1998 Harry H. Hiller introduced another concept to investigate the longitudinal effects of mega-events and the Olympic Games. This is a political economy model that distinguishes three kinds of linkages: forward linkages, backward linkages and parallel linkages. Forward linkages refer to the effects caused by the event itself. Backward linkages refer to the powerful background objectives, which justify or rationalize the event, and parallel linkages are side effects, which are not directly under the control of the organizers of the event (Hiller 1998). Hiller names the issue of displacement and other issues of housing and impacts on neighbouring countries as examples of parallel linkages. When an Olympic site includes unique architectural features, the area would possibly become more desirable for post-Olympic usage. As a result of this development, residents who could afford the location and are willing to pay for it would be attracted, the value of surrounding property would go up and existing local residents might either sell their property for capital gain and thereby transform the social class of the community, or rents would escalate and the existing residents would be pushed out (Hiller 1998).
1.3 Olympic Legacy and Previous Olympic Games !
Due to the infrastructure of the city and the political targets pursued for the event, same events create different legacies in different cities (Preuss 2007). This can be illustrated by comparing previous Olympic Games. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games was staged with relatively minor investments, while Barcelona 1992, Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008 invested billions of euros in infrastructure (Preuss 2004 in Preuss 2007). The 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games is often used as an example of Olympic Games that do generate a legacy benefit (Gratton and Preuss 2008). As illustrated by the research of R. Sanahuja (2002),
Production of cultural values Popular memory
Education
Experience and know-how
Negative Positive
the Games as a means of city marketing was a great success in the case of Barcelona. Here, an increase of almost 100 per cent in hotel capacity, number of tourists, and number of overnight stays in 2001 compared to the pre-game position in 1990 was found (Sanahuja 2002 in Gratton and Preuss 2008). In contrast to the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games did not reach the same tourism attractiveness (Preuss 2007). For the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games the concept of the white elephant dominated the research on the legacy of these games, because a lot of facilities specially built for the Olympic Games were totally abandoned in the years after the Olympic Games (Mangan 2008). The concept or theory of the white elephant is often used in relation to the Olympic Games, but can be also found in International Development Studies literature. In the case of the latter, white elephants are defined as investment projects with negative social surplus (Robinson and Torvik 2005). In relation to the Olympic Games the meaning of white elephants is quite similar and is often used to describe totally abandoned Olympic venues. Historically, purpose-built Olympic venues have been difficult to convert into community facilities, due to their sheer size and competition-specific design. Often, they are ill suited as professional sport venues, and cannot attract Olympic audiences on a regular basis (Broudehoux 2007).
!
Looking back across Olympic history, Chalkley and Essex (1999) defined five main possible explanations for why some cities have been more positive and energetic than others in using the Games as a springboard to wider urban development: “the gradual increase in the scale of the Games has tended to increase the opportunities for harnessing the Games for wider urban purposes (1), the Games have been affected by the prevailing national and local attitudes to public expenditure and the role of the state (2), the scale and nature of wider infrastructural provision has also reflected the needs and circumstances of the individual hosts (3), economic factors have also played a key role (4), political factors have been influential (5)” (Chalkley and Essex 1999: 390-391). By using examples of previous Olympic Games these possible explanations can be clarified: the early Olympics were too small to be used as a springboard for wider urban development (1), Olympics that have been private-sector led, were accompanied by little public-sector planning and infrastructural investment (2), in the cases of Tokyo and Seoul substantial public investment was needed to help raise environmental standards to an acceptable level for international visitors and the world’s media (3), Mexico lacked the resources for major new investments (4), and Barcelona’s desire to express the achievements of Catalonia is a political example (5) (Chalkley and Essex 1999).
1.4 The 2012 London Olympic Games!
Georgios Kavetsos (2012) and Jen Harvie (2013) are examples of two scholars who have already researched the legacy of the 2012 London Olympic Games. The study of Kavetsos estimated the impact of the London 2012 Olympics announcement on property prices. Kavetsos concluded that properties in host boroughs were sold between 2.1 and 3.3 per cent higher and properties up to three miles away from the main Olympic stadium were sold for 5 per cent higher. Harvie argues that the 2012 Games were in many ways much less advantageous for East Londoners and for a commitment to equality than had been promised in the London Olympic and Paralympic bid and the East London regeneration must yet be realized (Harvie 2013).
2. Methodology!
2.1 Research Method !
This research will take the form of a case study research, a single-case study to be precise. A case study is a research method that entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a case in order to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events (Bryman 2008) (Yin 2009). Here, the 2012 London Olympic Games will function as the single case. Within this case the London boroughs: Greenwich, Newham, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Hackney will be taken as research units and because of the use of more than one unit of analysis, we can speak of an embedded case study design (Yin 2009). Greenwich, Newham, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Hackney are the boroughs in which the Games took place and the policy associated with hosting the 2012 Olympic Games was focused on (Fussey 2012). In 2010 the borough Barking and Dagenham subsequently became a sixth host borough, however I have chosen to not include Barking and Dagenham in the analysis, because all the policy documents are focused on and most of the literature only speaks about the five host boroughs. A more detailed description of the case and research units will be given in chapter three, case description.
!
According to Robert K. Yin (2009) a single-case design is defensible when the case represents a critical test of existing theory (critical case), or a rare or unique circumstance (extreme or unique case), or a representative or typical case (representative or typical), or where the case serves a revelatory (revelatory case) or longitudinal purpose (longitudinal case) (Yin 2009). Alan Bryman (2008) prefers to call the representative or typical case an exemplifying case and this is the best way to classify the 2012 London Olympic Games. The 2012 London Olympic Games is a member of a broader categories of cases, the Olympic Games, and the 2012 London Olympic Games is used to allow a better understanding of and illustrate the Olympic legacy theory. The purpose of this research is to map effects of the urban regeneration program in east London associated with hosting the 2012 Olympic Games and providing a basis for future research to provide explanations for these effects.
2.2 Research Design!
2.2.1 Research Question and Subquestions
!
As already mentioned in the introduction this thesis will research“To what extent can effects of the urban regeneration program in east London associated with hosting the 2012 Olympic Games already be found?”. In order to answer this research question the following subquestions are formulated:
❖ “What is the history of east London and what were main characteristics of the area before London
won the right to host the 2012 Olympic Games?”
❖ “What were in the bid specified as the main goals of the urban regeneration program in east
❖ “How are the main goals of the urban regeneration program elaborated in the Olympic host
boroughs’ Multi Area Agreement (2009) and the Strategic Regeneration Framework (2009)?”
❖ “Have indicators of urban regeneration: employment, housing, public space, changed between 2009
and 2013, and if yes, who has profited from the Olympic Games?”
!
2.2.2 Conceptual Model and Measurement of Concepts
!
The conceptual model (figure 1) is based on hypothetical relations. The hypothetical relation that functions as the basis of this research is that policy measures regarding the hosting of Olympic Games will improve the deprived and spatial situation of parts of the city were the Games are organized. After the case study research it will be determined if the hypothetical relations are in line with the findings of the research or if the conceptual model should be revised in a way that it can be applied to the results of the research. Evidence from previous Olympics shows that instead of urban regeneration, lower socio-economic groups were replaced with those from higher socio-economic backgrounds, this process can also be called displacement or gentrification, and is in fact changing the location of the problem instead of regenerating the area (MacRury and Poynter 2009). As already described in the introduction, protesters of the 2012 London Olympics also argued that the Games would bring displacement instead of regeneration. Yet London tried to minimize the displacement effect by focusing on employment, housing and the public space, to enhance social integration and achieve sustainable communities (Macrury and Poynter 2009).
!
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
!
This research is built on three pillars or concepts: employment, housing and public space. I have chosen for these three pillars, because employment, housing and public space are the main domains in which the legacy vision for the 2012 Olympic Games is elaborated in the policy documents. In addition, according to Iain
Policy Measures as specified in:
The Bid, Strategic Regeneration Framework, Multi Area Agreement
Regeneration
Overall improvement of the neighbourhood
Employment
- increase of employment rate - decrease of unemployment rate
Housing
- provision of more homes (including affordable homes)
Public Space
- improve overall/general satisfaction with the local area
Macrury and Gavin Poynter (2009) London tried to minimize the displacement effect by focusing on employment, housing and the public space, to enhance social integration and achieve sustainable communities (Macrury and Poynter 2009).
!
For the concepts employment, housing and public space indicators will be used to measure these concepts. I have chosen to base the indicators on the policy analysis, because the objective of this research is to evaluate to what extent effects of the urban regeneration program in east London associated with hosting the 2012 Olympic Games can already be found, and a true evaluation of effects can only be carried out when the targets as set in the policy documents are evaluated. So the indicators are in line with the targets as set in in the policy documents and these targets can also be seen in the conceptual model. The policy analysis will provide a detailed description of the targets and indicators. Finally, in the quantitative analysis and conclusion a critical reflection on these targets will be discussed.
!
2.2.3 Research Strategy
!
Using mixed methods will be the strategy of this research. First, a qualitative analysis, a policy analysis to be specific, will be done to answer the second and third subquestion (“What were in the bid specified as the main goals of the urban regeneration program in east London?”, “How are the main goals of the urban regeneration program elaborated in the Olympic host boroughs’ Multi Area Agreement (2009) and the Strategic Regeneration Framework (2009)?”). London’s Candidate File (2005), the Multi Area Agreement (2009) and the Strategic Regeneration Framework (2009) are the policy documents that will be used for this analysis. These three documents are the main policy documents regarding the legacy vision for the 2012 Olympic Games and are also referred to in earlier studies about the 2012 Olympic legacy (Poynter 2006) (Macrury and Poynter 2009) (Kavetsos 2012) (Harvie 2013). The documents can be found online. Concerning the Multi Area Agreement it is worth mentioning that a draft document was the only available document, yet it gives a clear view of the actions and targets, and it is approved by the five host boroughs.
!
The second part of this research will mainly be a quantitative analysis. Data from 2009 and 2013 regarding employment level, and data from 2005 to 2013 regarding housing development will be compared. The used data is retrieved from online databases like the Office for National Statistics (neighborhood statistics), the London Datastore and Statistical Datasets (house building statistics) available at“gov.uk’’. I have chosen to compare 2009 and 2013, because I want to limit as much as possible the influence of other variables on changes in the statistics. With the Strategic Regeneration Framework in 2009 and the Multi Area Agreement in 2009 the plans as stated in the bid were elaborated and specified, so actual measures regarding urban regeneration were actually taken from 2009 onwards. In the case of housing, I have chosen to look at data of 2005 to 2013, because this data is about new affordable homes, number of dwellings started and number of dwellings completed, and by using such data it is more useful to look at the trend than to compare random years. Besides a discussion of the statistics, a dependent and independent t-test is carried out for employment to analyze if the means of the 2009 and 2013 employment and unemployment rates of the Olympic boroughs are significantly different from each other and to analyze if the means of the 2013
employment and unemployment rates of the Olympic and non-Olympic boroughs are significantly different from each other.
!
An analysis of images will be the last part of this research. To analyze public space, images of the public space before and after the organization of the 2012 Olympic Games will be compared. These images are retrieved from a photo reportage of The Guardian (2012) and an article by Jacqueline Kennelly and Paul Watt (2012). This analysis can be classified as a content analysis and by doing this form of analysis it is important to keep some things in mind. Sometimes a content analysis is seen as controversial, and one of the reasons for this is that the analysis can only be as good as the documents on which the practitioner works (Bryman 2008). Here criteria such as authenticity (that the document is what it purports to be), credibility (whether there are grounds for thinking that the contents of the documents have been or are distorted in some way) and representativeness (whether the documents examined are representative of all possible relevant documents) are important (Bryman 2008). In order to provide a solid analysis these criteria are kept in mind while analyzing the photo’s and will also be discussed in the analysis.
!
In addition to the policy and quantitative analysis, and analysis of images I would have liked to, and have tried to arrange several interviews with key players in order to get a better understanding of the policy plans that were actually realized. Visiting London for the purpose of interviews would have been the most ideal situation, unfortunately it was not possible to visit London in the time frame of this thesis. Interviews by telephone or Skype were also an option, but contacting the Olympic boroughs about the arranging of interviews was not successful. At least three interviews would have been a useful addition to this research, however it does not undermine the strength of the research; from the start, the research was not built on interviews, but on the policy and quantitative analysis, and analysis of images.
2.3 Limitations !
The limitation of this research is addressed by James Mangan (2008) and that is the question when the true legacy of an event can be measured. Chris Gratton and Holger Preuss (2008) have argued that it takes fifteen to twenty years to measure the true legacy of an event such as the Olympic Games, because early evaluation can overlook eventual successful action and produce error due to incomplete evidence (Gratton and Preuss 2008). On the other hand early evaluation can raise constructive concerns, alert the public to overlooked obligations and stimulate official action (Mangan 2008). The last two points are less applicable to my research, but it shows that early evaluation of the Olympic legacy can still be relevant and useful.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
3. Case Description!
!
To provide a better understanding of the case and the research units this chapter will give a short introduction to the 2012 London Olympic Games and the boroughs in which the Games were staged
3.1 The Golden Games!
After hosting the Olympic Games in 1908 and 1948, London won the right to host the 2012 Olympic Games in 2005. New York, Paris and Moscow were the other cities who were in the running to host the 2012 Games, but after a maximum of four rounds London beat Paris by 54 to 50 votes (Guardian 2005). As already mentioned in the introduction, the legacy issues that formed an important part of the bid, also played a major role in winning the right to host the 2012 Games. The games took place from 25 July to 12 August, and are in the British media also described as the Golden Games, because of the successful performances of the British athletes. Almost till the opening ceremony on July the 25th there was a lot of skepticism about the hosting of the Games in London, however during and after the Games enthusiasm was the dominant attitude (Guardian 2012a). The already mentioned documentary “The Dark Side of the London Olympics” is an illustration of the skepticism about the hosting of the Games in London. This documentary was especially focused on the position of local residents in the organization of the Games and displacement- and environmental issues. However, as a result of, among others, the performances of the British athletes and feelings of national solidarity and proud that arose during the Games, enthusiasm took the overhand.
!
In figure 2 and 3 the funding and spending of the 2012 Olympic Games are presented. In these figures Locog stands for the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and according to these figures most money has been spent on the Olympic Park, which includes the local infrastructure, roads, cleaning up the site and power lines. The costs for the legacy of the Games are in this figure specified as park transformation, in other words: making sure that the park has a future after the Games.
3.2 The Olympic Host Boroughs !
From the early years onwards London is known for the West End and East End divide and this divide is still present in the 21st century. Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Islington are the most professionalized boroughs, in other words private, public and third sector services-based, while east London is far less professionalized by its working-class history and social housing estates (Watt 2013) (Butler and Hamnett 2009). However, in the last 40 years London experienced a transformation in its employment profile, due to de-industrialization, de-centralization and feminization that restructured the economy (Buck et al. 2002 in Gunter and Watt 2009). East London is an illustration of how profound these changes have been; the Docklands (historically providing physically demanding employment) have transformed into a major financial services hub (Hamnet 2003 in Gunter and Watt 2009).
The 2012 London Olympic Games were hosted in the boroughs Greenwich, Newham, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Hackney. As can be seen from the map presented in figure 4, these boroughs (marked in red) are located in east London. Newham, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Hackney in which the Olympic Park was located are also known as the Lower Lea Valley. In addition, figure 5 shows how the Olympic venues were distributed over London and illustrates the location of the Olympic Park in the Lower Lea Valley.
!
From the first official documents about the 2012 Games, east London, the Lea Valley in particular, was described as: “…an area that is ripe for redevelopment…” (London’s Candidate File 2005: Volume 1 - Theme 1: 19), and “…London’s poorest and most disadvantaged area…” (London’s Candidate File 2005: Volume - Theme 1: 23). As will also be described in the policy analysis (chapter 4) the deprived situation in east London was one of the reasons to host the Olympic Games in these boroughs, so that the Games could act as a catalyst for change in east London.
!
Statistics and academic literature bear out the image of east London as a poor, disadvantaged and deprived area. So the earlier described transformation of the Dockland is not accompanied by changes in, and advantages for the position of the poorer residents of east London (Gunter and Watt 2009). In 2004 London’s employment rate was approaching 70 per cent, five percentage points below England and Wales as a whole. In contrast, in Newham, Tower Hamlets, and Hackney the employment rate was only 59 per cent and in Waltham Forest it was approximately five to six percentage points below the London average (LDA 2006). In addition, the Index of Multiple Deprivation (poverty measured by several significant indicators as income, employment, crime, living environment) by London borough (2004) illustrates that the residents of the Olympic host boroughs did not only face difficulties in terms of their work environment (LDA 2006).
!
The host boroughs are also known by a a large proportion of the population coming from an ethnic minority group. In 2004 approximately 30 per cent of the population in London was from an ethnic minority, compared to 10 per cent nationally. In Newham 60 per cent op the population was non white, compared to 48 per cent in Tower Hamlets, 41 per cent in Hackney, 35 per cent in Waltham Forest and 23 per cent in Greenwich (LDA 2006). Other characteristics of the the host boroughs are: high level of people under the
age of 24, high percentage of one-parent families, overcrowding, huge population inflows, and low rates of home ownership (LDA 2006) (Digby 2008).
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
4. Policy Analysis !
!
London’s plans for hosting the 2012 Olympic Games were part of the Mayor of London’s plan for the city, adopted in 2004, which provides the framework for spatial development to 2016. Developing London as a sustainable world city, with strong, long-term and diverse economic growth, social inclusion, and improvements in the environment and use of resources are the key points of this plan, and the Olympic Games were seen as a catalyst for this change in east London (London’s Candidate File 2005: Volume 1 - Theme 1).
!
The Candidate File (2005), Multi-Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs (2009) and the Strategic Regeneration Framework (2009) are the main policy documents regarding the legacy vision of the 2012 Olympic Games and the three documents that will be discussed in this policy analysis. The Multi Area Agreement (MAA) and the Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) are both part of a series of initiatives in response to the promise of legacy benefits for communities, made in the Candidate File, and show a shared ambition of the five host boroughs, the Central Government and the Mayor of London to change the lives of the people living in the five host boroughs. The Candidate File has set the big lines for the legacy vision and the MAA and the SRF are built on this vision. In the SRF more outcomes are specified, but all of the outcomes are built on the same ideas as stated in the Candidate File and the MAA. The main limitation of the three policy documents is that the specified actions remain abstract and limited in their description. The described actions sound promising, but after studying the policy documents it is still unclear what the writers of the policy documents meant with the terms that are used and how the concrete implementation of these actions will look like. Paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 will further illustrate and discuss this limitation.
!
A data matrix including the three documents is presented in table 2. This matrix provides an overview of the targets and actions as described in the documents and can be seen as a summary of the policy analysis. Here, a bullet point stands for a target, an enumeration indent for an action, and green indicates that the targets/ actions are the same across the policy documents. Only in the case of the unemployment rate the targets are not exactly the same, but are marked in green, because they express the same trend. In other words, in the Multi-Area Agreement the target is to narrow the gap by 0.5 to 1.5 per cent points and in the Strategic Regeneration Framework the target is to narrow the gap by 0.5 to 1 per cent points. The minus and plus signs in the data matrix symbolize the attention that is paid to employment, housing and public space in the policy documents. As an illustration, a double plus sign indicates that a lot of attention is paid to the topic and a single plus sign indicates that attention is paid, but in other documents more attention is paid to the topic. In the follow-up of this chapter each policy document and an already published progress report will be discussed in more detail.
!
!
!
!
Table 2: Data matrix Candidate File, Multi-Area Agreement and Strategic Regeneration Framework
Candidate File Multi - Area Agreement
(MAA) Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) Summary First outline of London’s plans
for hosting the 2012 Games. Functions as a starting point for the MAA and SRF. The three pillars: public space, employment and housing are already named, specific actions and targets are not defined though.
Building on the Candidate File, this Agreement focuses on the short - term actions, in particular how the host boroughs and other institutions/organizations can work together to deliver the desired outcomes.
Building on the Candidate File, this Framework is the most detailed policy document regarding the legacy vision. The targets are similar to the ones described in the MAA, but more actions are specified and these are more long-term actions.
Employment - -
!
• Opening up opportunities for
education, cultural and skills development, jobs for people across the United Kingdom.
+ +
!
• Employment rate: narrow gap with rest of London by 1 - 5 % points
• Unemployment rate: narrow gap by 0.5 - 1.5 % points
• Percentage of working age
population with no
qualifications: narrow gap by 0.5 - 1.5 % points
!
- Establish a Joint Employment
and Skills Group to develop joint machinery to maximize the responsiveness of employment and skills services to local needs and develop an integrated employment and skills strategy (by April 2010)
- Link worklessness services
and housing to move people into work by following the forthcoming publication of the consultation document on options for reforming Housing Benefit (by July 2009)
- Create incentives for parents
which replicate the offer to lone parents with appropriate tax disregards (effective immediately)
+ +
!
• Employment rate: narrow gap with rest of London by 1 - 5 % points
• Unemployment rate: narrow gap by 0.5 - 1% points
!
- Strengthen the links between
public sector services related to worklessness and child poverty in order to prevent people getting lost between services, by creating a more effective client-centred system for workless people who have more than one barrier to work and to reach those who are less likely to engage in services
- Develop commissioning,
funding and benefit flexibilities with national and regional Government to create a devolved employment and skills system
- Develop flexible and
supportive recruitment practices and workplaces, led by the public sector, to widen local access and take up of employment and workforce development opportunities
- Plan and deliver skills
provision more closely to match the future demand of employers and the evolving sub-regional economy
- Target specific groups by
tailoring specific services, and exploit the opportunities offered by major housing and estate renewal initiatives to tackle large concentrations of workless residents
Source: London’s Candidate File (2005): Volume 1 - Theme 1, Multi-Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs (2009), Strategic Regeneration Framework (2009)
!
Housing -
!
!
• Olympic Village: residential
community with 3600 new housing units.
- -
!
• No target specified.
!
- Cooperation between the
government, the Homes and Community Agency, the Greater London Authority and the five host boroughs to deliver new homes and improve existing housing, to reduce overcrowding and increase affordable housing (by October 2009)
+ +
!
• Provide for 50,000 more
homes, and aim to deliver 12,000 additional affordable homes
!!
- Reduce overcrowding,
homelessness and social housing waiting lists
- Increase employment rates
amongst social tenant families
- Increase and keep prosperity
in the boroughs
- Intervene for decent private
homes, and better private sector provision to meet local needs
- Mitigate fuel poverty and
unaffordable fuel bills, helping to reduce climate change
- Ensure that the highest quality
of housing, inside the homes and in the neighbourhoods, is secured
Public Space - -
!
• Significant improvements in
health and well-being.
+ +
!
• Overall/general satisfaction with local area: narrow gap with rest of London by 1.5 - 3.5 % points
!
- Establish a senior
multi-agency group to develop and agree a shared protocol on cleansing and maintenance of structures and transition areas, joint and coordinated plan for improvement and
maintenance works across all the main public realm players in the five borough area, public facing commitment on how these will make a difference to the quality, cleanliness, and management of the public realm (by April 2010)
- Cooperation between
Government departments and the Olympic Host Boroughs to explore barriers to the effective implementation and/ or enforcement of legislation on management of the public realm and identify action to overcome these
- Cooperation between
Transport for London and the boroughs to deliver a strategic and holistic approach to planning investment
+ +
!
• Overall/general satisfaction with local area: narrow gap with rest of London by 1.5 - 3.5 % points
!
- World- class development of
the Olympic Park
- The arc from the Lea Valley to
the riverside providing a heart for the area
- Improving connectivity for the
locality
- All places becoming high
quality
- High-quality social
infrastructure
- Physical development
providing for local economic growth
Candidate File Multi - Area Agreement
4.1 The Candidate File !
London’s plans for hosting the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games were first outlined in a 600 page Candidate File (the bid) in 2005. In relation to the research, Volume 1, Theme 1: Olympic Games Concept and Legacy, is most relevant for this policy analysis. Other parts of the Candidate File address practicalities as medical services and security, or cases as the environment and meteorology that are not within the scope of this research.
!
The four main themes that underpinned the vision for the 2012 Games in London were stated as follows: “… delivering the experience of a lifetime for athletes, leaving a legacy for sport in Britain, benefiting the community through regeneration, and supporting the IOC and the Olympic Movement…” (London’s Candidate File 2005: Volume 1 - Theme 1: 17). This illustrates that regeneration was one of the main themes of organizing the 2012 Olympic Games, it is even described as the “…most enduring legacy of the Olympics…” (London’s Candidate File 2005: Volume 1 - Theme 1: 19).
!
The Olympic Park is described as one of the main attributors to this regeneration, in other words the Olympic Park should become a hub for East London that was going to bring communities together, and was going to act as a catalyst for profound social and economic change. This social and economic change is further specified as a model of social inclusion, opening up opportunities for education, cultural and skills development, and jobs for people across the United Kingdom, London, and east London in particular (London’s Candidate File 2005: Volume 1 - Theme 1). Moving further in the Candidate File significant improvements in health and well-being are also named as parts of social and economic change. Finally, it is stated that the Olympic Village would become a residential community with 3600 new housing units (London’s Candidate File 2005: Volume 1 - Theme 1).
4.2 Multi - Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs !
The London Borough Greenwich, London Borough Hackney, London Borough Newham, London Borough Tower Hamlets, and London Borough of Waltham Forest were the five participating local authorities in the Multi-Area Agreement (MAA). Jobcentre Plus, London Learning and Skills Council, London Skills and Employment Board, Greater London Authority and its agencies, including Transport for London and the London Development Agency were other non-Central Government partners that participated in the MAA. According to the MAA, the five host boroughs and the other authorities are the ones who will seek to close the deprivation gap and are responsible for the implementation of the actions. In addition, for each action is separately specified who has the direct implementation responsibility (Multi- Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs 2009). The MAA is about the regeneration of local communities in these five boroughs and can be summarized as giving people access to a decent job, a decent appropriate home, and a decent place to live and settle (Multi-Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs 2009). This analysis of the MAA is based on the draft document created and signed by the five boroughs in 2009. Unfortunately this is the only document that is available, yet it gives a clear view of the actions and targets, and is approved by the five host boroughs.
!
Table 3 gives an overview of the targets as set in the MAA. The delivery of new homes, including new affordable homes, and the reduction of overcrowding, is not specified in a target. According to the MAA, because this is dependent on the volume and timing of investment (Multi - Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs 2009).
!
Table 3: Targets as set in the Multi - Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs (2009)
Source: Multi - Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs (2009)
!
To facilitate the delivery of the outcomes as stated in table 3, the MAA also specified “actions”. After studying these actions it can be concluded that in general these actions focus on cooperation between the boroughs and other institutions and the creation of new institutions in order to deliver the desired outcomes. The establishment of a Joint Employment and Skills Group to develop joint machinery to maximize the responsiveness of employment and skills services in the five borough areas to local needs is an illustration of this (Multi - Area Agreement Five Host Boroughs 2009). This focus on the cooperation between institutions and the creation of new institutions, sounds more like an intensification of bureaucracy instead of concrete actions and it can be questioned how this will lead to the direct creation of for example jobs. A complete overview of the actions can be found in the data matrix, table 2.
4.3 Strategic Regeneration Framework !
In a response to the promise of legacy benefits for communities, made in the Candidate File, the host boroughs and their partners also wrote the Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) in 2009. The goal of the SRF was “…to set out an Olympic legacy vision for the area which goes beyond sport.” (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 4). This legacy vision is that “…within 20 years the communities who host the 2012 Games will have the same social and economic chances as their neighbours across London.” (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 2) and this vision is summarized in the title of the SRF: “Convergence’’.
!
Although the legacy vision of the SRF is set for a twenty year period, twelve critical actions up to 2015 are one of the starting points of the SRF. “Delivering a higher quality public realm to broaden the impact of the Olympic Park and bringing direct benefit to local communities”, “Commissioning a single well-informed economic and employment forecast for the host boroughs”, “Creating a top-quality employment and skills
Key Performance Indicator 2014/2015 Outcome
Overall/general satisfaction with the local area Narrow Gap with rest of London by 1.5 - 3.5 % points
Economically active people in employment Narrow gap with rest of London by 1 -5 % points
Economically active people unemployed Narrow gap with rest of London by 0.5 - 1.5 % points
service”, “Delivering affordable homes and expanding choice and mobility for social housing tenants” (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 6-8) are four out of the twelve critical actions up to 2015. These actions are the most relevant for this research, but a complete overview of the actions can be found in Appendix 1. The critical actions can be seen as concrete actions based on the more general outcomes that are also formulated in the SRF to address deprivation and meet the legacy vision (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 18):
1. “Creating a coherent and high quality city within a world city region” 2. “Improving educational attainment, skills and raising aspirations” 3. “Reducing worklessness, benefit dependency and child poverty” 4. “Homes for all”
5. “Enhancing health and wellbeing”
6. “Reduce serious crime rates and anti social behaviour” 7. “Maximising the sports legacy and increasing participation”
!
Point 1,3, and 4 are most relevant for this research, because these outcomes are the closest related to the three concepts this research is built on: employment (point 3), housing (point 4) and public space (point 1), and will therefore be addressed in more detail. This research is, as already discussed in the methodology chapter, built on these three pillars, because these are the main domains in which the legacy vision for the 2012 Olympic Games is elaborated in the policy documents. The MAA is for example summarized as giving people access to a decent job, a decent appropriate home, and a decent place to live and settle.
!
4.3.1 Creating a coherent and high quality city within a world city region
!
In the SRF is stated that the future growth of London depends on what happens in the five boroughs. It is estimated that in 2026 250,000 additional residents will be living in the five host boroughs, who require new homes as well as workplaces and social facilities (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009). To create a coherent high quality city within a world city region the following targets for 2015 were stated in the the SRF (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 18):
!
•
“Narrow the gap between London and the host boroughs performance for people satisfied with their local area by 1.5 - 3.5% points”•
“Deliver new and better places to live and work, including planning for 50,000 homes, and the related schools, health centers and other social infrastructures”•
“Complete the early stages of the Olympic Park redevelopment as a lasting legacy”!
In relation to these targets, actions are specified in the SRF to establish the desired outcomes. An overview of these actions can be found in the data matrix, table 2. In general, these actions are quite clear, however it is worth addressing the world-class development of the Olympic Park a bit more in detail. The idea of the world-class development of the Olympic Park is that the Park will be a long-term place where sport and
physical activity will be hosted, grown and sustained. In addition, the Park and other retained venues must act as a magnet for sports tourism and contribute to the growing east London visitor economy (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009). Although these actions seem quite clear at first sight, they also have their limitations, which are a result of the terms that are used. For example, “…all places becoming high quality…” (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 23) sounds clear, but the question that arises is how high quality is defined. The SRF speaks of clean, decent and attractive places for residents and businesses, but this are still abstract and subjective terms. Places can be very attractive for businesses and at the same time not match the needs of the residents or be an eyesore for the residents.
!
4.3.2 Reducing worklessness, benefit dependency and child poverty
!
Reducing poverty by tackling worklessness is described as one of the things that was very important to improve the deprived situation in east London, because the low employment rate and consequent lack of income from work is the main causal factor behind the high levels of disadvantage and child poverty (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 30). To reduce worklessness, benefit dependency and child poverty, the following targets for 2015 were stated in the SRF (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 29):
!
•
“Narrow the gap for employment rates by 1-5% points”•
“Narrow the gap for unemployment rates by 0.5-1% points”!
Actions that are specified in the SRF to establish these outcomes are described in the data matrix, table 2. These actions overlap in some ways with the actions as described in the MAA, in particular in the sense how the boroughs and other institutions can work together to deliver the desired outcomes. Besides the collaboration between institutions, the actions stated in the SRF also focus on recruitment and the matching of supply of employment and demand of employers. The overall idea that arises while looking at these actions is that in some ways they remain abstract and are still not concrete. For example the cooperation of institutions is a beautiful policy term, but it is questionable whether local residents will benefit from this. The action: “Tackle large concentrations of workless residents by target specific groups by tailoring specific services, and exploit the opportunities offered by major housing and estate renewal initiatives” (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 31) is another illustration of actions that remain abstract, the question that arises is what are the specific groups and what are the specific services. The additional information regarding this actions makes things a bit more clear, but terms that are used remain limited to for example “might”.
!
4.3.3 Homes for all
!
As already assessed before, the level of housing need in the host boroughs is intense and the host boroughs have one of the highest rates of overcrowding and homelessness. Another important part of the housing problem that is addressed in the SRF, is that the five boroughs have always been a place of transience,
people move outwards when they achieve prosperity. In relation to this they want to encourage people to stay in the boroughs for longer as they become more prosperous (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 33). In order to provide homes for all, the following target for 2015 was stated in the SRF (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 32).
!
•
“Provide for 50,000 more homes, and aim to deliver 12,000 additional affordable homes”!
Here, affordable housing refers to the sum of social rent, affordable rent, intermediate rent and low cost home ownership. Actions that are specified in the SRF to establish these outcomes can be found in the data matrix, table 2. Here, the most interesting and relevant part of these actions is the correlation between the employment target and the housing action. In other words, increasing employment rates, among social tenants families in particular, a target of employment, is on the other hand an action to deliver the route to convergence on the field of housing. The actions specified for housing are less abstract than the ones that are specified for public space and employment, because less subjective terms are used. However, there is again a lack of additional information about the implementation of, and specific targets regarding the actions. The action “…reduce overcrowding, homelessness and social housing waiting lists…” (Strategic Regeneration Framework 2009: 32) is an illustration of this.
4.4 Progress Report 2009 - 2011!
For the period 2009 - 2011 there is already published a report to assess the progress made on the vision and strategy as outlined in the Strategic Regeneration Framework. For outcome 1, creating a coherent and high quality city within a world city region, the indicator “general satisfaction with the local area” was used in previous years. Yet this was one of the indicators that was collected through the now abandoned Place Survey, what makes it, according to the Progress Report, difficult to assess the progress on this outcome.
!
Table 4: Employment rate aged 16-64, March 2008 - September 2010, in percentages
Source: Strategic Regeneration Framework Progress Report 2009 - 2011 (2011)
!
Concerning outcome 3, reduce worklessness, benefit dependency and child poverty, the Progress Report concludes that there has been progress in the employment and unemployment rate for people aged 16-64. In relation to the former, the gap between the host boroughs and the London average is decreasing as is shown in table 4. The latter has also reduced, although the number of unemployed people remains high. Looking at
Employment
rate aged 16-64 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10
The Olympic
Host Boroughs 62.4 62.9 63.0 62.8 62.7 63.6
London 69.1 69.5 69.2 68.3 68.0 68.2
London/Host
these numbers more closely shows that gap has indeed been reduced, however London’s employment has also decreased in this period. So the narrowing of the gap is partly due to a decrease in London’s employment rate. This puts the stated progress made in the employment and unemployment rate in a new light, but is not mentioned in the Progress Report.
!
In the period 2009-2010 over 13,000 new homes, of which 4,300 were affordable have been completed or were under construction within the Olympic host boroughs and according to the Progress Report, this progress is seen as significant in light of the target (provide 50,000 more homes, 12,000 additional affordable homes) (Progress Report 2009-2011 2009: 7).
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
5. Analysis of Employment, Housing and Public Space!
5.1 Employment !
As showed by the policy analysis, employment was one of three focus points in delivering urban regeneration in East London. In the MAA and the SRF specific targets regarding the employment and unemployment rates were set. Regarding the employment rate the target was: narrow the gap with the rest of London by 1 to 5 per cent points (MAA and SRF) and for the unemployment rate the following targets were set: narrow the gap with the rest of London by 0.5 to 1.5 per cent points (MAA) and 0.5 to 1 per cent points (SRF). By looking at statistics of 2009 and 2013 and the results of a dependent and independent t-test, the employment and unemployment rates will be analyzed is this paragraph.
!
5.1.1 Narrowing the gap
!
Based on Neighborhood Statistics of the Office for National Statistics, the employment and unemployment rates of 2009 and 2013 are presented in table 5 and 6. According to these statistics, the employment rates have increased with the exception of Hackney, here it even decreased with 5.0 per cent points. The unemployment rates have decreased in all the Olympic Boroughs, with Greenwich being the borough that made the biggest progress. The decrease of the employment rate of Hackney by 5.0 per cent points is a more than striking finding, it is a totally opposite development than the other Olympic Boroughs have experienced. Massive cuts in public sector budgets that have been made since the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition formed after the 2010 elections could be an explanation for the decrease. In Hackney, available jobs have always been mainly jobs in the public sector; two in five jobs are in education, health or public administration (NHS East London et.al n/d), but as a result of the cuts, public services in Hackney are going through an exceptionally tough time (London Borough of Hackney 2012).
!
According to the statistics, the gap between the Olympic Host Boroughs and the rest of London is reduced. In the case of the employment rate the progress is not big enough to meet the target as set in the MAA and SRF, progress is made, but the gap is only narrowed by 0.5 per cent points, while the target was 1 to 5 per cent points (table 5). However, for the unemployment rate, a reduce of the gap by 0.7 per cent points indicates that the target of 0.5 to 1/1.5 per cent points is met, as can be seen in table 6. It should be noted that the unemployment rate is defined as unemployed people as a percentage of economically active people aged between 16-64 (Office for National Statistics 2013). Hence, a decrease in the unemployment rate can also be a result of a decrease in the number of people who are economically active. This means that unemployed people who are moving out the neighbourhood can have a positive effect on the unemployment rate, even if the number of employed people did not increase. A similar remark can be made with respect to the employment rate that is defined as employed people as a percentage of economically active people aged between 16-64 (Office for National Statistics (2013).
!
Table 5: Employment rate aged 16-64, 2009 - 2013, in percentages
Source: Office for National Statistics (2013)
!
Table 6: Unemployment rate aged 16-64, 2009-2013, in percentages
Source: Office for National Statistics (2013)
!
5.1.2 Dependent t-test
!
In addition, a dependent and independent t-test are carried out to evaluate the effects of the 2012 Olympic Games on employment more precisely. First, a dependent t-test is done to analyze if the differences between the means of the 2009 and 2013 employment and unemployment rates of the Olympic boroughs are statistically significant. A normal distribution of the sampling distribution and data measured at least at interval level are assumptions of the dependent t-test (Field 2009). The data is measured at least at interval level, but before we apply any tests of differences in means, it should be tested if the data is approximately normal. In order to do so, a test of normality, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk, is carried out. Looking at the significance level of the Kolmogovor-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test for the employment and unemployment rates of 2009 and 2013, it can be concluded that for all four the normality assumption can be accepted, because the significance levels of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests are higher than
Employment rate aged 16-64 2009 (Jan 2009 - Dec 2009) 2013 (Apr 2012 - Mar 2013) 2009 - 2013
Newham 56.1 60.5 + 4.4 % points
Hackney 68.6 63.6 - 5.0 % points
Greenwich 63.5 67.4 + 3.9 % points
Tower Hamlets 59.5 61.9 + 2.4 % points
Waltham Forest 65.6 67.9 + 2.3 % points
Average Olympic Host Boroughs 62.7 64.3 + 1.6 % points
London 68.4 69.5 + 1.1 % points
London/ Olympic Host
Boroughs gap 5.7 % points 5.2 % points - 0.5 % points
Unemployment rate aged 16-64 2009 (Jan 2009 - Dec 2009) 2013 (Apr 2012 - Mar 2013) 2009 - 2013
Newham 14.4 12.9 - 1.5 % points
Hackney 11.0 10.8 - 0.2 % points
Greenwich 11.1 8.9 - 2.2 % points
Tower Hamlets 13.8 13.4 - 0.4 % points
Waltham Forest 11.5 11.4 - 0.1 % points
Average Olympic Host Boroughs 11.9 11.1 - 0.8 % points
London 9.0 8.9 - 0.1 % points
London/ Olympic Host
