Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

Paralympic Legacy
Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020
Simon DARCY, Ph. D.
（UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney）

Introduction
The Olympic and Paralympic Games have a major impact on the cities that they
are hosted in many different ways（Gold & Gold, 2010）. The Olympic games has arich history of research scholarship but the Paralympic games has been examined toa far lesser extent（Legg & Gilbert, 2011）. In an examination of Paralympic legacy
empirical research it was identified that only 13 of 43 papers sampled through major
journal databases had undertaken any empirical research on Paralympic legacy（Misener, Darcy, Legg, & Gilbert, 2013）. The majority of empirical researchundertaken had been completed on the Sydney 2000 Paralympic games.
Tokyo in 1964 became credited as the first official Paralympic games through theuse of the term “Paralympics” within the games documentation （Brittain, 2008;
International Paralympic Committee, 2015）. Since the Tokyo 1964 Paralympic games
there has been an exponential growth in the size of the Paralympics that has been
captured by the IPC in Figure 1. Figure 1 documents the changes that are projected
to occur between Tokyo 1964 and the games to take place in Tokyo in 2020. The
growth metrics are phenomenal:
・21 to more than 160 countries;
・375 to 4350 athletes;
・144 to around 500 medal events;
・9 to 23 different sports; and・1 to 9 impairment groups.
The Tokyo 1964 Paralympic games was a watershed moment for not only the43

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

Paralympic movement but Tokyo itself with a number of significant achievements（Frost, 2012）. As the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Organising Committee
prepare for the impending games, what might they learn from the experience of the
Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic games legacy experience? This paper explores
the nature of legacy and key legacy frameworks before presenting a research design
and findings that re-examine the Sydney 2000 Paralympic legacy. The paper
concludes by presenting what the author believes are the key learnings from theSydney 2000 Paralympic games for the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic games.

Source: International Paralympic Committee（2015）

Figure 1: 50 years since the Tokyo Paralympics

１．Legacy
Legacy is a recent phenomenon as noted Appleby（2007）where she observed thatmost discussions about the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic games had been
anecdotal. While there were a few notable exceptions（Appleby, 2007; Cashman, 2006;
Darcy, 2001, 2003; Goggin & Newell, 2001）, this was hardly unexpected given thatpublic policy evaluation had only moved towards developing a deeper understandingof outcomes from mega events with the advent of triple bottom line evaluation
processes that sought to move beyond economic impact （Carlsen & Soutar, 2000;
Preuss, 2007; Smith, 2009）. If host cities and national public policy and environmental
planning processes did seek to evaluate the outcomes of major developments andevents then why would it be on the agenda of Olympic and Paralympic stakeholders（bid committees, host cities, IOC, IPC, international sporting organisations and a
44

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

multitude of others）? As others rightly note, the developing definitions of legacy
identified that it must be strategically planned for by the stakeholders and sustained
into the future （Chalip, 2004; Preuss, 2007）. As such, it was not until the IOC
incorporated legacy （albeit positive） into their charter （International Olympic
Committee, 2000）that legacy could be planned. Similarly it was not until the IPC
handbook incorporated legacy planning in section 5.2 that a platform for legacies wasclearly outlined. They were: accessible infrastructure in sport facilities and overall
urban development; sport structures for people with disability from the community
to the elite; attitudinal changes towards people with disability; and opportunities forthe social integration of people with disability（International Paralympic Committee,
2007）. This meant that the Beijing 2008 Olympic and Paralympic games technicallybecame the first games to be able to incorporate legacy planning. With respect to thispaper, both the Tokyo 1964 and the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic games had
no incorporated agenda for legacy planning（Appleby, 2007; Cashman & Darcy, 2008）.
While this suggests that all research was post-hoc in its legacy evaluation, there werescholars who undertook empirical research that this paper is based on. Since thisbeginning, Legg and Gilbert’s（2010）book sought to consolidate an understanding of
Paralympic legacy for host cities. As with a great deal of academic work there is afocus on Western English language sources whereas the Barcelona experience（Domínguez, Darcy, & Alén, 2014） and other non-Western Paralympic researchscholarship may remain unknown but could have potential additions to the body ofknowledge.

２．Legacy frameworks“The vision of the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee was to inspire theworld by successfully staging a Paralympic Games which set new standards inexcellence to enable athletes to achieve their best performance”.
（Appleby, 2007; Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee, 1997）
As Appleby and the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee documents attest,

the organising committee goals are to simply stage the best games for athletes to
excel. Yet, for the host city the hosting of an Olympics and Paralympics must be
much more than two week festivals of sport. As explored in other papers, legacy
45

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

became a quest for the Olympic movement’s desire to change perception of theincreasing costs of the staging of the games, garnish further recognition and place
itself in a better media and operational position（Darcy & Taylor, 2013; Girginov &Hills, 2008）. The Olympic movement specifically changed their charter to include “14.
To promote a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities and hostcountries” （International Olympic Committee, 2000）. Yet, as critics observed thedefinition of legacy must be far more encompassing than just positive legacy. In themost used legacy framework developed by Preuss（2007）he defines legacy as“irrespective of the time of production and space, legacy is all planned andunplanned, positive and negative, tangible and intangible structures created for andby a sport event that remain longer than the event itself”（Preuss, 2007, p. 211）.
The framework became known as the cube conceptualisation of legacy as shown in
Figure 1. There are three dimensions to the cube conceptualization: 1, legacy can beplanned or unplanned; 2, positive and negative; and 3, tangible and intangible. Preuss’
work focused on major sport event legacies, drawing most of its context from
Olympic Games. He argues that foremost legacy should be something that is plannedand strategic, and for this reason it was not until the Beijing 2008 Olympic andSource: Adapted from Preuss（2007）

Figure2: Cube Conceptualisations of Legacy
46

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

Paralympic games that Olympic and Paralympic charters formally incorporated
legacy（International Olympic Committee, 2000; International Paralympic Committee,
2007）.
Others have critiqued and sought to extend his conceptualisation noting its
strength, weaknesses and omissions. For example, Dickson, Benson, and Blackman（2011） note that time and space are important dimensions that should beincorporated into any discussion of legacy. Further, they argue and present that the
key components should not only be identified but they should be assessed andmeasured through what they described as the radar or spider web conceptualisationof legacy. In analysing legacy they identified and extended Preuss’ work to include:
planning; tangibility; spread of impacts; magnitude of effects; and timeframe of theeffect. In reviewing the literature, they suggest that the analysis should include:
economic; sport participation; infrastructure; environmental; urban renewal; transport;
and volunteer/social capital. Figure 2 is used to explain the radar conceptualisations
and shows volunteer/social capital. Using expert assessment, each component oflegacy can be scored between 1-4. The scoring system then creates a footprint on theradar diagram that can then measure each legacy component against each other.
Their work also identified that while the Olympics had been the most frequently
cited mega event within legacy conceptualisations, that other mega events（in their

Source: adapted from Dickson, Benson ＆ Blackman（2011）

Figure 3: Volunteering and Social Capital Radar Diagram
47

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

case they use the example of the Paralympics）may have other legacy dimensions
that could be incorporated to develop a more sophisticated understanding of mega
sport event legacy.
In taking the lead from Dickson, Benson and Blackman （2011）, Misener et al.
（2013）examined Paralympic legacy through undertaking a systematic review of theliterature. To their surprise, in the academic literature there were only 43 articles
that fitted the criteria of examining Paralympic legacy but only 13 of these articles
undertook empirical research on which to ask questions, gather data and draw
conclusions. The other 30 articles wrote generally about legacy in the Paralympics,
some proffered theoretical frameworks, and others simply reported the anecdotal
accounts of legacy. Of the empirical articles, the legacy components identified were
infrastructure; sport; information education and awareness; human capital; andmanagerial changes. They concluded that while these outcomes appeared to mirror
Olympic related research that on detailed examination of the findings Paralympic
legacy makes a distinct contribution to extending an understanding of legacies forhost cities and nations.

３．Research design
The research design is informed by an interpretive multiple method approach to
examining legacy from the perspective the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic
games experiences （Veal & Darcy, 2014）. The data gathered is then interpreted
through the legacy framework outlined in the previous section（Dickson et al., 2011;
Preuss, 2007）. Sydney 2000 draws on a literature review, empirical research
conducted by the author, policy analysis and interrogation of management information
systems of Olympic and Paralympic organisations pre, during and post the games
period. The author has been involved in this research since 1993 with theannouncement of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic games bid success. Notlong after I was drawn into examining the developing narrative around Sydney 2000
（Darcy & Veal, 1994）and have continued that involvement through a number of
direct relationships. As an academic teaching research, policy and planning together
with a professional background as an environmental planner, I became deeply
engaged in understanding the relationships between the bid organising committee,
48

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

host city, redevelopment sites, Olympic and Paralympic games organising committees
and other stakeholders. In 1998, through the Olympic Coordination Authority（state
government body charged with long-term planning） I was engaged to undertake
research on the 18 months of test events leading up to the games that directly
informed operational plans and develop strategic approaches to transport, event
management and spectator services. In 1999, again through the Olympic Coordination
Authority I assisted in the development of materials for the Sydney Olympic andParalympic Access Guide （Olympic Co-ordination Authority, 2000） and undertook
operational venue audits of sport, cultural and hotel accommodation. This consultancy
work continued up until the games where I became a “participant observer”, as wellas an ordinary spectator who went into the ballots, received tickets and then enjoyedgames experiences. Pre-and post 2000 as an academic, there was opportunity todevelop what would then become legacy assessment research that occurred in 4
major phases pre-2000, 2003, 2007-2008 and 2011. For this paper I add a new phase to
the legacy research where I draw on my multiple perspectives as informed observerand I adopt a heuristic approach to enquiry that draws on the researcher’s
experience of the phenomenon and the essential experience of others who also
experience the phenomenon（Patton, 1990, p. 71）.
With these preliminary comments, it is also recognized that the Sydney 2000
Paralympic Games has been well served by albeit post-hoc evaluation through an
excellent yet poorly distributed post games report（Sydney Paralympic Organising
Committee, 2001）, post games access reports （Olympic & Paralympic Disability
Advocacy Service, 2000; Olympic Co-ordination Authority, 2001）, a number ofdisability critiques（Darcy, 2001, 2003; Goggin & Newell, 2001）, an historical review（Cashman, 2006）, an insider’s perspective （Appleby, 2007） and a comprehensive
examination of a single Paralympic Games（Cashman & Darcy, 2008）.The paper now
examines the major legacies of the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games through a reexamination of the main legacy critiques of Appleby （2007）, Darcy and Cashman（2008）, Darcy and Appleby （2011） and other sources, and by providing a freshsummary and interpretation. Table 1 provides a summary of the major themes
identified in these works. However, this paper will reinterpret legacy through Preuss’（2007）framework examining planned, unplanned, tangible, intangible, positive and49

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

negative.
Table1: Sydney Paralympic Legacy Literature
Appleby 2007

Darcy and Cashman 2008

Darcy and Appleby 2011

International

International

International

IOC recognition

Media benchmarks

IPC IOC relationship

Improved organization

IPC IOC relationship

Strategic vision

Media coverage

Sport delivery

Branding/ Media coverage

Athlete support

Sport delivery and athlete
support

Education

Education

Moving beyond disability
sport community

Post games evaluation /Knowledge transfer

Australia

Australia

Australia

Access issue

Community response

Community response

Role models

Disability education

Australian Paralympic
movement （funding andmainstreaming）

Mainstreaming of disability Legacy for Paralympians
sport with NSOs
（funding and status）

Education/Role models

Greater sporting recognition

Infrastructure

Public recognitionSource: Adapted from Darcy & Appleby 2011

４．Findings and discussion（1）Planned, tangible and positive① Strategic long-term vision for site and venues
Given our preceding discussion that pre-the IOC and IPC including legacy within
their charter documents and handbook, all Olympic and Paralympic games before
Beijing 2008 could be regarded as having “unplanned legacy”. Yet, Sydney
demonstrated a long-term vision for the sites and venues through the administrative
arrangements where there were three distinct administrative bodies:・ Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games（SOCOG）charged withthe organisation and delivery of the Olympic Games;
50

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

・ Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee （SPOC） charged with theorganisation and delivery of the Paralympic games;
・ Olympic Coordination Authority（OCA）charged with overseeing the long-term
future of the Olympic and Paralympic games sites and venues.
Operationally there were tensions between these three organisations where
SOCOG and SPOC had a short-term agenda that was at odds with the vision of the
OCA. So it was the OCA who oversaw operations of SOCOG and SPOC to bringabout the long-term future（Olympic Co-ordination Authority, 1998 - October）. This
included the disability, access and inclusion considerations of the Olympics,
Paralympics（Olympic Co-ordination Authority, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001）and thecultural Olympiad（Stevenson, 1997）. While the long-term future of the site and thevenues was always going to be at the core of its work, the timeliness of establishing avision for the future was somewhat elastic. It was not until 2009 that the successor
organisation established by the NSW Government, the Sydney Olympic Park
Authority, released its master plan of the site to 2030 some nine years after the event（Sydney Olympic Park Authority, 2009）.
② Operational partnership
Following from the above, a major legacy arguably from Sydney with its roots inBarcelona（Legg & Gilbert, 2011）was the operational partnership between SOCOG
and SPOC for major operational units across the Olympics, Paralympics and Cultural
Olympiad （Darcy, 2003）. This was particularly important after the significant
Olympic and Paralympic Games transitional issues at the 1996 Atlanta Games,
regarded as shambolic at best（Appleby, 2007; Heath, 1996）. Quite simply, the major
operational units for the Olympics delivered for the Paralympics（Darcy, 2003, 2008a,
2008b; Darcy & Cashman, 2008）. Appleby as CEO and Dr. John Grant as president of
SPOC, ensured that the operational partnership had an identity and that SPOC itself
raised the stakes with regard to the professionalism of Paralympic sport and whatshould be expected of a Paralympic organising committee and their national
Paralympic committees（Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee, 2001）

51

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4③ Accessibility of venues
The OCA had an important role to play in legacy as they were the ones that would
be in charge of the access issues for perpetuity. The OCA in short did this throughthe production of Access Guidelines, implemented the Olympic Access Advisory
Committee as central to the process of planning for disability and access issues,
produced an access guide for the games and wrote a critical review of games access
operations（Olympic Co-ordination Authority, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001）. Each ofthese inclusions contributed to the accessibility of venues and operational planning（see Darcy & Harris, 2003）. The outcome was that Sydney Olympic Park where thevast majority of the games took place has been regarded as the premier access
precinct in Australia and an example of world best practice for its time.
④ Sport delivery
As an outcome of the above three points the sport competition experiencedelivered to Paralympic athletes was regarded as first rate （Cashman, 2008）.
Together with Appleby’s（2007）section on branding（see a later section）the Sydney
2000 Paralympic Games provided a sporting spectacle of excellence, the games wasprofessionally delivered to the athletes, and had record ticket sales and media
coverage. The Paralympic athletes had the same experience as the Olympic athletes
using the village, venues, transport and planning overlay. Yet, as Cashman（2008）
identifies the Paralympic games are actually more complex technically due to theseven main disability types and the classification system. The establishment of the
SOCOG sports commission was another major innovation that separated the politics
of sport delivery from the two organising committees while at the same timedelivering operational efficiency（Cashman, 2008）. Nine years later these processes
were again used to host the Sydney 2009 World Masters Games, which can be
regarded as a legacy event of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games（Cashman & Adair, 2009）.
⑤ Creating, marketing and promoting a Paralympic brandAppleby （2007） and Darcy and Appleby （2011） explored the Sydney 2000
Paralympic brand creation. Together with the previously mentioned focus on elite
Paralympic performance, the organisation needed to attract sponsorship, sell media
52

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

coverage and create an atmosphere in the venues in the same way that othersporting contests do. To achieve this they established a very successful Paralympic
ambassadors program of athletes and set about promoting this over a four-year
period through media, a targeted community program and major media events. This
was leveraged into a very successful ticket sale program that offered a $15 ticket toall events on one day and gave spectators a taste of the different Paralympic sports
on offer. Spectator experience was enhanced through a prolonged merchandising
campaign with an iconic representation that is such an important element to branddevelopment. What is a major sport event without merchandising? “Lizzie” became aphenomenon that was everywhere in the lead up to the games and had extraordinary
merchandising success through a low cost point and availability through a major
supermarket chain throughout Australia（see Cashman & Darcy, 2008, pp. 123-140）.
This approach was diametrically opposite to SOCOG that positioned its merchandisingat the premium price point. The outcome for the Sydney Paralympic games wasrecord-breaking ticket sales, spectators and media coverage in Australia andinternationally（Cashman & Tremblay, 2008）.
⑥ Planned, tangible and positive/negative
The Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games volunteer program has been
regarded as a major success and legacy（Green, Chalip, Stebbins, & Graham, 2004）.
The volunteer program incorporated Olympic and Paralympic volunteering, withmany volunteers committing to both games programs （Cashman, 2006）. The
volunteer program became a legacy of the Sydney 2000 Games with, for example, theSydney 2009 World Masters Games drawing on many of those same volunteers（Dickson, Darcy, Edwards, & Terwiel, 2015）. Yet, as identified through post games
evaluation there were problems with people with disability volunteering experience（Olympic & Paralympic Disability Advocacy Service, 2000; Olympic Co-ordination
Authority, 2001）. However, the success of the volunteer program also put significant
strain on traditional volunteer organisations within Sydney by creating a heightened
expectation of volunteer rewards that not-for-profit organisations could not resource（Darcy, 2003）. Other volunteering considerations within an international context arethat there are significant cultural differences in the volunteering between nations（Lai, Ren, Wu, & Hung, 2013）. These cultural variations also occur in a sporting and53

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

event management context（Fairley, Lee, Green, & Kim, 2013）. More recent work
also suggests that people with disability should be specifically targeted for volunteer
programs at the Olympics and Paralympics but that these programs must follow
through to all operational considerations or problems can emerge（Darcy, Dickson, &Benson, 2014）.
（2）Unplanned, tangible and positive⑦ Australian Paralympic movement
The Australian Paralympic Committee over the decade following the Sydney 2000
Paralympics became the legacy recipient in four major ways: recognition; funding;sport organisation; and capacity development. Holding a home Paralympic games may
provide Paralympians, future Paralympians and the Australian Paralympic movementwith ongoing recognition within the broader community （Australian Paralympic
Committee, 2008）. The recognition was supported by government funding with a
150% increase over the seven years post games（Cashman & Darcy, 2008, p. 223）.
Some aspects of the Paralympic sporting bodies were mainstreamed and said to gain
benefits of improved training, coaching and professional sport organisations（Appleby,
2007）. Yet with the mainstreaming of sport comes competition from other competinginterests within the same sport who may attract greater resources with the disability
sport component overlooked or be placed on a lower priority for resources（Darcy,
2014）. Through the increased recognition, there was an opportunity to build capacity
through delivering disability education programmes that were delivered 1966 times
to some 39,000 individuals including coaches, students, teachers and others（Australian Sports Commission, 2009）.
（3）Unplanned, tangible and negative（with some positive outcomes）⑧ Transport accessSydney’s public transport system was by no means accessible. At the time ofawarding the games 0% of Sydney public and private buses were accessible and lessthan 5% of rail stations accessible. Olympic Roads and Transport Authority（ORTA）
were charged with planning and coordinating transport services during the Olympics
and Paralympics, travel demand management and maintenance of existing services
during Games. Very little work was undertaken to improve the access situation in
54

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

the early lead up to Sydney 2000 by ORTA. This was until three separate Disability
Discrimination Act complaint cases were taken by people with disability in NSW,
Victoria and South Australia forcing state government tender processes to purchasenew low floor accessible bus fleets that were subsequently contracted in for use
during the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games （Darcy, 2003）. This type ofsystemic disability advocacy brought some semblance of accessible public transport
to the games and was a foundation for the ongoing improvements to accessible public
transport over the decade post games. That said a great deal of complaints stemmed
from accessible transport complaints from spectators（OPDAS, 2001）.
⑨ Access to the urban domain, virtual environments and ticket books
Any Paralympic games will not change a city without building codes, standards,
human rights frameworks and a disability advocacy system（Darcy, 2003; Fox, 1994,
2000, 2001）. The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games benefited extraordinarily well fromsuch systems being in place（Darcy, 2003, 2008a, 2008b）. However, even with thesesystems in place there were a number of very well documented access issues to thebuilt environment, websites and ticket books that led to discrimination against
spectators, volunteers and employees with disabilities. The result was poor customer
service for people with disability, complaint cases and hearings through theAustralian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission（“Maguire v SOCOG［HREOCA H 99/115］,” 2000; “Maguire v SOCOG ［HREOCA H 99/115］,” 1999;
Olympic & Paralympic Disability Advocacy Service, 2000）. Early confrontations withboth SOCOG and SPOC over access related considerations were antagonistic. Thischanged when OCA took over responsibility for access, which was systematically
included within operational planning（Darcy, 2008a, 2008b）.
（4）Planned, intangible and lost opportunity⑩ Disability awareness, education and community response
Ticket sales, media coverage, public awareness and spectator engagement are allpart of the IPC hope for legacy from Paralympic games（International Paralympic
Committee, 2007）. As already stated Sydney for its time, broke records across all
major metrics for ticket sales, media coverage and spectator numbers. Anecdotally,
the very successful Reaching the Community Program （SPOC 1998a） targeted55

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

schoolchildren and seniors to promote to, recruit and engage in attending theParalympics, with some 320,000 schoolchildren attending the programs（Horin, 2000）
and learning about disability and Paralympic sport（Appleby, 2007）. However, despite
anecdotal accounts of improved attitudes towards people with disability it was a lost
opportunity as no research had been commissioned to examine the general public’s,
schoolchildren’s or seniors’ perceptions of disability or Paralympic sport pre, during
and post the games.
（5）Negative⑪ Engagement with the disability community
As more fully outlined by Darcy（2003）it was an abject failure by SPOC to engage
with the disability community beyond the Australian Paralympic Committee
community. Even the much vaunted Reaching the Community Program had included
the disability community as a targeted group. However this part of the program wasabandoned without discussion very early on. A great deal of the advocacy work toensure the accessibility of venues and public transport （discussed earlier） was
brought about through the Olympic Access Advisory Committee made up ofcommunity members with disability with professional expertise in access planning.
Yet, this group was not publicly given the degree of credit they deserved for theirprolonged, professionally engaged and doggedly determined contribution to thesuccess of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The lack of engagementwith the disability community was even starker in that politicians never mentioned
the word disability in discussing the Paralympic Games（Darcy, 2003）. This led to anunderlying alienation of the disability community that was compounded through themixed messages of disability as inspiration or as “super crips”（Goggin & Newell,
2001）.
⑫ Spectator, volunteer and employee with disability experience
While a series of processes and protocols were put in place to improve disability
experiences at the games （Darcy & Harris, 2003）, there were a series of welldocumented negative disability experiences from the perspective of spectators,
volunteers and employees with disabilities. In their role as long-term custodians of the
Sydney 2000 experience, OCA funded third-party assessment through the Olympic
56

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020and Paralympic Disability Advocacy Service （2000）. The outcome identified anddocumented the problems and issues experienced by people with disability inaccessing any aspect of Sydney 2000. The issues ranged from accessing tickets,
ongoing transport problems, inappropriate venue seating, inappropriate volunteer
roles, sight lines in venues and inaccessible documentation to name but a few.
（6）Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games legacy summary
In summary, the Sydney Paralympic games legacy was strategically unplanned
from the perspective of the IOC Charter legacy inclusion and the IPC handbook
legacy inclusion. However, as was presented in the findings the Sydney 2000
Paralympic games had strategically planned for aspects of legacy albeit under theumbrella of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games organisations
specifically OCA, SOCOG and SPOC. Through the combination of having a strategic
vision and the development of the operational partnership, the Sydney 2000
Paralympic Games was able to deliver a legacy of accessibility of venues, sportdelivery and created a brand that led to significant ticket sales, spectators and media
coverage. The Sydney Paralympic Games were also very well supported by avolunteer program that is essential for any major sport event. The Paralympic
movement in Australia has grown and received increased funding. Yet, Sydney was
not without its problems largely to do with rail and bus access, aspects of thecommon domain outside of the Olympic precincts and online access for people withvision impairment. Within the venues there were noted problems with spectator,
volunteer and employees with disabilities experiences. Lastly, there was a separation
between the elite Paralympic experiences and those from the disability community,
which should not occur as both groups can benefit from one another’s experiences.

５．Lessons for the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic GamesIt has been some 50 years since Tokyo last hosted the Paralympic games in 1964.
A lot has happened with the Paralympic movement in that time including the sizeand complexity of the games growing exponentially. As part of the Nippon
Foundation Paralympic Research Group funded workshop, discussions were
undertaken with people attending the workshop, in a separate meeting with Japanese
media, and in meetings with Japan National Assembly of Disabled Peoples’57

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

International and the Japanese Paralympic Committee, and members of the Tokyo
2020 Committee. These discussions together with my reflections on Sydney 2000 haveled me to draw conclusions as to some lessons from Sydney that Tokyo may like toconsider in planning for legacy outcomes from the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games.
Tokyo does not face some of the challenges that the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games
did particularly with regards to the public transport system, which was a major
concern for Sydney. However, there are four major lessons that can be learnt fromthe Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games that may place Tokyo in an even better position
to realise legacy and proactively act to ensure a successful Paralympic games in 2020.
They are: foster a relationship with the disability community; establish a research
agenda; start educating the public and the media about Paralympic sport; andconsider the importance of the volunteer program. Each of these will now be
discussed.
（1）Foster a relationship with the disability community
The Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Organising Committee, together with theJapanese Paralympic Committee should open a dialogue with organisations
representing people with disability in Japan. For example, the Japan National
Assembly of Disabled Peoples’ International （DPI-Japan） attended the Tokyo
workshop and held meetings after this time with the Japanese Paralympic Committee.
This is a really positive step to opening up dialogue between the two groups andhaving a concerted effort to establish a dialogue between the organisations. People
with disability in Japan should be considered when developing policy and protocols
for spectators, volunteers, employees, members of the torch relay as well as athletes
attending the game through elite sporting performance. Both groups can learn fromeach other and create mutually beneficial opportunities to enhance legacy
opportunities from the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games that will benefit all Japanesepeople with disability.
（2）Establish a research agenda
The Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Organising Committee has anopportunity to develop a research agenda well in advance of the games. It shouldseek to resource the research agenda as stipulated by the IPC handbook. This should
58

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

include Paralympic movement, Paralympic sport and broader disability community
research priorities. The earlier that the research agenda can be identified, the moretime to establish relationships with scholars, universities and market research houses.
However, the questions as to what that research agenda should look like is wholly up
to the Japanese Paralympic movement, the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic
Organising Committee, Japanese people with disability and other informed
stakeholders.
（3）Start educating the public and media about Para sport
One of the major challenges that all Paralympic games have is to educate thepublic and the media about Paralympic sport. The different types of disability
participating at the games, the classification system and disability specific sports allneed to be explained to a public and international audience. Success can be measured
as it was in Sydney through ticket sales, spectators in attendance, and domestic andinternational media attention. The public must be engaged both domestically andinternationally for this success to occur. The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games had some success with the A-Z of Paralympic Classification that was bothweb-based and had specific free to air broadcast to coincide with Paralympic events（BBC Sport, 2014）. Sydney’s Reaching the Community Programme was also
particularly successful and provides some direction for programs to be run for Tokyo
2020.
（4）Consider the importance of the volunteer program
There is a significant body of research that has built up on Olympic andParalympic volunteer programs. As noted previously there is also an understandingthat there are cultural differences towards volunteering and that this will be very
important to understand in the Japanese context. During the Nippon Foundation
Paralympic Research Group workshop and subsequent meetings, it was expressedthat Japan may not embrace volunteering in the same way that the Sydney and
London Games did. A program more broadly to attract volunteers is important to thesuccess of any games and the knowledge transfer program run by the Olympics andthe Paralympics will provide a general framework. However this will need to be
culturally contextualised for Tokyo 2020. As in Sydney, the volunteer program will
59

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

need a disability awareness module（see Darcy, 2003）to prepare all volunteers forpeople with disability attending as athletes, spectators, other volunteers, employees
and international travellers.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Tokyo is in the unique position of being the first city ever to host
two Paralympic Games. Since the first Paralympic Games in 1964 the sheer size andcomplexity of the Paralympics has developed exponentially. This requires the Tokyo
2020 Paralympic Games to draw on Japan’s culture of innovation and solution finding
to consider the reflections on the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games presented in thispaper and the learnings offered to ensure that the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games
legacy can be planned, tangible, positive and evidenced-based. At the time of writingat the end of 2015 we are moving onto the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games,
which signifies that there are only four years for the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games
to be positioned to capture the opportunity that legacy planning offers and is
executed in an appropriate, effective and efficient manner.
References
Appleby, L.（2007）. Legacy of Sydney Paralympics. Paper presented at the Taiwan Olympic
Committee Event Management Seminar for Deaf Olympics & World Corporate Games,
Taiwan - Cities of Taipei and Kaohsiung.
Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. （2000）. Bruce Lindsay
Maguire vs. Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games（ Internet）.（No H
99/115 2000）.
Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. （1999）. Bruce Lindsay
Maguire vs. Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games（ Ticket Book）.（NoH 99/115 1999）.
Australian Paralympic Committee. （2008）. Did you know? Retrieved 25 April, 2008, fromhttp://paralympic.com.au/Media/Didyouknow/tabid/448/Default.aspx
Australian Sports Commission.（2009）. Sport CONNECT Research Update: Identifying the
sporting needs of people with disability. Retrieved from http://www.ausport.gov.au/
BBC Sport.（2014）. A-Z Paralympic classification Retrieved 1 October, 2015, from http://
www.bbc.com/sport/0/disability-sport/18934366
Brittain, I.（2008）. “The Evolution of the Paralympic Games.” In R. Cashman & S. Darcy（Eds.）,Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games（pp. 19-34）. Petersham,
NSW Australia: Walla Walla Press in conjunction with the Australian Centre for
Olympic Studies.
Carlsen, J., & Soutar, G.（2000）. Event evaluation research. Event management, 6（4）
, pp.
60

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020247-257.
Cashman, R.（2006）. Chapter 10: Paralympic Games The bitter-sweet awakening: the legacyof the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games（pp. 226-250）. Petersham, NSW: Walla Walla Press,
pp. 226-250.
Cashman, R.（2008）. Chapter 8 - The delivery of sport. In R. Cashman & S. Darcy e（Eds.）,
Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games （pp. 141-160）., Petersham,
NSW Australia: Walla Walla Press in conjunction with the Australian Centre for
Olympic Studies, pp. 141-160.
Cashman, R., & Adair, D. （2009）. History and legacy of the Sydney 2009 World Masters
Games. Sydney: Sydney World Masters Games Organising Committee.
Cashman, R., & Darcy, S.（Eds.）.（2008）. Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic
Games. Petersham, NSW Australia: Walla Walla Press in conjunction with theAustralian Centre for Olympic Studies.
Cashman, R., & Tremblay, D.（2008）. “Chapter 6 - Media.” In R. Cashman & S. Darcy（Eds.）,
Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games.（pp. 99-122）. Petersham, NSW
Australia: Walla Walla Press in conjunction with the Australian Centre for Olympic
Studies, pp. 99-122.
Chalip, L.（2004）. Beyond Impact: A General Model for Sport Event leverage. In B. Ritchie &D. Adair（Eds.）, Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues（pp. 226-252）.
on-line e-book: Channelview Publications, pp. 226-252.
Darcy, S.（2001）. “A Games for Everyone?: Planning for Disability and Access at the Sydney
2000 Games. “Disability Studies Quarterly, 21（3）.
── 2003. “The politics of disability and access: the Sydney 2000 Games experience.”
Disability & Society, 18（6）,pp. 737-757.
──（2008a）. “Chapter 5 - Planning. “ In R. Cashman & S. Darcy（Eds.）, Benchmark Games:
The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games （pp. 74-98）. Petersham, NSW Australia: Walla
Walla Press in conjunction with the Australian Centre for Olympic Studies.
──（2008b）. “Chapter 9 - Infrastructure.” In R. Cashman & S. Darcy（Eds.）, Benchmark
Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games（pp. 161-182）. Petersham, NSW Australia:
Walla Walla Press in conjunction with the Australian Centre for Olympic Studies.
──（2014）. “In picking winners, sport funding rules can fail people with disabilities.” The
Conversation, 16 July. Retrieved from The Conversation website: https://theconversation.com/in-picking-winners-sport-funding-rules-can-fail-people-withdisabilities-29101
Darcy, S., & Cashman, R.（2008）. “Chapter 12 - Legacy.” In R. Cashman & S. Darcy（Eds.）,
Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games （pp. 218-231）. Petersham,
NSW Australia: Walla Walla Press in conjunction with the Australian Centre for
Olympic Studies.
Darcy, S., Dickson, T. J., & Benson, A. M. 2014. “London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games: Including Volunteers with Disabilities - A Podium Performance?” EventManagement, 18（4）,431-446.
Darcy, S., & Harris, R.（2003）. “ Inclusive and accessible special event planning: an Australia
perspective.” Event Management, 8（1）,pp.516-536.
Darcy, S., & Taylor, T.（2013）.“Managing Olympic Venues.” In S. Frawley & D. Adair（Eds.）,
Managing the Olympics（pp. 99-126）.Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Darcy, S., & Veal, A. J.（1994）. “The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games: the story so far.” LeisureOptions, 4（1）,pp.5-14.
61

Journal of The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Research Group vol.4

Dickson, T. J., Benson, A. M., & Blackman, D. A. （2011）. “Developing a framework forevaluating Olympic and Paralympic legacies.” Journal of sport & tourism, 16（4）, pp.285302.
Dickson, T. J., Darcy, S., Edwards, D., & Terwiel, F. A.（2015）.“Sport Mega-Event Volunteers’
Motivations and Postevent Intention to Volunteer: The Sydney World Masters Games,
2009. “ Event Management, 19（2）,pp.227-245.
Domínguez, T., Darcy, S., & Alén, E. （2014）. “Juegos olímpicos y paralímpicos en Brasil:
Aprendiendo de Barcelona y Sidney Olympic and Paralympic Games in brazil: Learningfrom Barcelona and Sydney.” RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas Journal ofBusiness Administration（ Brazil Portuguese）,, 54（2）, pp.222-230.
Fairley, S., Lee, Y., Green, B. C., & Kim, M. L.（2013）. “Considering Cultural Influences in
Volunteer Satisfaction and Commitment.” Event Management, 17（4）, pp.337-348.
Fox, M.（1994）. “Access standards and legislation in Australia.” Quad Wrangle - the Journalof the Australian Quadriplegic Association, 12（3）, pp.10-12.
──（2000）. “Housing for the Future - The Sydney Olympic & Paralympic Games
Experience.” Disability World, 3（June/July）, http://www.disabilityworld.org/JuneJuly2000/access/Housing.html.
──（2001）. The Accessible Games. Paper presented at the Centre for Accessible
Environments, UK.
Frost, D. J.（2012）. “Tokyo’s other games: The origins and impact of the 1964 paralympics.”
International Journal of the History of Sport, 29（4）, pp.619-637.
Girginov, V., & Hills, L.（2008）. “A Sustainable Sports Legacy: Creating a Link between the
London Olympics and Sports Participation.” International Journal of the History ofSport, 25（14）,pp.2091-2116.
Goggin, G., & Newell, C. 2001. “Crippling Paralympics? Media, Disability and Olympism.”
Media International Australia, 97（November 2000）, pp.71-83.
Gold, J. R., & Gold, M. M.（2010）. Olympic cities: city agendas, planning, and the world’s
Games, 1896–2016: Routledge.
Green, B. C., Chalip, L., Stebbins, R., & Graham, M.（2004）. “Paths to volunteer commitment:
lessons from the Sydney Olympic games.” Volunteering as leisure/leisure as
volunteering: An international assessment, pp.49-67.
Heath, J.（1996）.“1996 Atlanta Paralympic Games.” Link, 5（4）, pp.16-23.
Horin, A.（2000,（2 November 2000）. After the Paralympics, priorities, The Sydney Morning
Herald, p. 41.
International Olympic Committee.（2000）. Conclusions and recommendations: International
symposium on volunteers, global society and the Olympic movement,. Retrieved fromhttp://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_633.pdf
International Paralympic Committee. （2007）. IPC Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.
paralympic.org/TheIPC/HWA/Handbook.website:
International Paralympic Committee.（2015）. Tokyo 1964: developing one of the world’s best
public transport systems Retrieved 18/8, 2015, from http://www.paralympic.org/news/
tokyo-1964-developing-one-world-s-best-transport-systems#!prettyPhoto
Lai, M. H. C., Ren, M. Y. W., Wu, A. M. S., & Hung, E. P. W.（2013）. “Motivation as Mediator
Between National Identity and Intention to Volunteer.” Journal of Community &Applied Social Psychology, 23（2）,pp.128-142.
Legg, D., & Gilbert, K. （Eds.）.（2011）. The Paralympic Legacies. Champaign, IL USA:
Commonground Publishing.
62

Paralympic Legacy Learning from Sydney 2000 to Prepare for Tokyo 2020

Misener, L., Darcy, S., Legg, D., & Gilbert, K. （2013）. “Beyond Olympic Legacy:
Understanding Paralympic Legacy through a Thematic Synthesis.” Journal of SportManagement, 27（4）,pp.329-341.
Olympic & Paralympic Disability Advocacy Service.（2000）. Final Report to the Department
of Family and Community Services.（pp. 9）. Sydney: Commonwealth Department of
Family and Community Services,. p. 9.
Olympic Co-ordination Authority.（1996）. Access Guidelines（1st ed.）. Sydney: Olympic Coordination Authority.
──（1998）.Access Guidelines（2nd ed.）.Sydney: Olympic Co-ordination Authority.
──（1998（- October）.Access Factsheet. Sydney: Olympic Co-ordination Authority.
──（1999）.Access Guidelines（3rd ed.）.Sydney: Olympic Co-ordination Authority.
──（2000）. Sydney 2000 Access Guide to the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Homebush
Bay, N. S. W.:: Olympic Co-ordination Authority.
──（2001）. Accessible Operations Post Game Report - Sydney 2000 Olympic andParalympics Games. Sydney: Olympic Co-ordination Authority.
Patton, M. Q.（1990）. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Preuss, H.（2007）. “The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies.”
Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12（3）,pp.207-228.
Smith, A. （2009）. “Theorising the Relationship between Major Sport Events and Social
Sustainability.” Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14（2）, pp.109 - 120.
Stevenson, D.（1997）.“Olympic Arts: Sydney 2000 and the Cultural Olympiad.” International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 32（3）,pp.227-238.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority. （2009）. Master Plan 2030. Homebush Bay, N. S. W.:
Sydney Olympic Park Authority.
Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee. （1997）. Paralympic Games: Sydney 2000:
information kit. Sydney: Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee.
──（2001）.Paralympic Post Games Report（1 Vol）
. Sydney: SPOC.
Veal, A. J., & Darcy, S.（2014）. Research Methods for Sport Studies and Sport Management:
A Practical Guide（1st ed.）.Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxam UK: Routledge.

63日本財団パラリンピック研究会紀要 vol.4

パラリンピックのレガシー：2020年東京大会に向けて2000年シドニー大会から学ぶべきもの
サイモン・ダーシー（シドニー工科大学 UTS ビジネススクール）

大規模なスポーツ大会のレガシーすなわち遺産と，レバレッジすなわち活用化について，この10年間に多くの調査研究がなされてきた。オリンピックを研究対象に含めるものは多いが，パラリンピックについてはほとんど取り上げられていない。パラリンピッ
ク大会は，オリンピックに次いで２番目に大規模な複合スポーツ競技会である。2000年のシドニー大会からは「運営パートナーシップ」が設けられ，招致都市にはオリンピッ
クおよびパラリンピック両競技大会の開催が義務付けられるようになった。それでも，
これまでにパラリンピック大会がもたらしてきた成果，レガシー，レバレッジに関する評価を行った研究はほとんどみられていない。
本稿では，レガシーの枠組みを提示し，2000年シドニー大会のパラリンピック・レガ
シーに関するリサーチを再検討することによって，こうした研究の空白を埋めることを意図する。1964年東京パラリンピック大会から50年が経過したこと，2020年に再度東京
でパラリンピックが開催されることからも，意義が認められるであろう。
レガシーおよびレガシーの枠組みに対する背景理解を深めた上で，リサーチデザインについて論じる。その上で，Preuss（2007年）のレガシー・キューブを用いて所見を述べる。レガシー・キューブとは，計画的／偶発的，有形／無形，ポジティブ／ネガティ
ブの３つの軸でレガシーを概念化したものである。
2020年東京パラリンピック大会に向けてより戦略的にレガシーの課題に取り組むために，2000年シドニー大会から学ぶべきこととして，４つの教訓が挙げられる。すなわち，障害者コミュニティーとの関係促進，リサーチアジェンダの策定，一般市民に対するパ
ラリンピックに関する啓蒙，そして文化的に適切なボランティア募集キャンペーンの準備である。

64