Exploring Issues within Post-Olympic Games Legacy Governance: The Case of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore issues in post-Olympic Games legacy governance by examining the case of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics. Using a combination of the polity, politics, and policy governance dimensions and the issues management literature, a case was built using archival material and semi-structured interviews. The findings highlight 10 issues related to the three dimensions of post-Games legacy governance (legal, accountability, context, funding, conflicting values or interests, venue, coordination, participation, pre-event planning, and policy momentum). The relationships between the identified issues and perceived gaps among stakeholders are also presented. A model of post-sport event legacy governance that highlights the multidimensionality of the governance system is provided.

1. Introduction

Sport event legacy is considered to be “planned and unplanned, positive and negative, tangible and intangible structures created for and by a sport event that remain longer than the event itself” [1]. The concept of Olympic legacy has become institutionalized in order to demonstrate sustainable positive long-term impacts of hosting the Olympic Games and justifying the usage of public monies for the event [2]. However, it can be easy to lose momentum in the provision and sustainability of event legacy as a result of organizational, political, and personnel instability, which create challenges in the post-event phase [3]. In the case of the Olympic Games, this is often accredited to the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) disbanding in the year following the event, and thus legacy programs tend to be or become unsustainable [4]. Moreover, there is a reluctance to invest public funding to sustain the planned sport event legacy objectives after the event, because the public tends to be less supportive about investing additional financial resources at this time [5].

Preuss [6] argued that legacies increase only when opportunities created through hosting an event are optimized after the event. Additionally, because legacy is a dynamic concept that can change over time depending on environmental characteristics (e.g., stakeholders and sociocultural environment), continuous efforts to build and manage legacy programs and policies after the event are important. In line with this point, previous studies [7] highlighted the importance of post-Games commitment and leveraging to sustain polices (e.g., partnerships) for sport development legacy. Moreover, Nakamura and Suzuki [8] suggested the importance of continuous modification of strategic planning and reinterpreting legacies for long-term impacts.

There can also be potential conflict among event stakeholders, that is to say any individual and/or group who can affect or is affected by the event [9]. This is especially true when making legacy-related decisions, making legacy planning a governance issue [10]. Existing research demonstrated the significance of building a governance system (i.e., the combination of controls and processes that drive the network towards consensus while satisfying stakeholders’ needs) to regulate, promote, and manage collaboration among stakeholders in relation to the provision of sport event legacy.

Although strategic planning for legacy and its governance in the pre-event or bid phase has been explored [11], a limited amount of attention has been paid to the post-event phase. As such, little is known about what legacy governance issues exist following the hosting of the event or the key stakeholders involved in the process. This research gap is surprising since researchers [12] have emphasized that legacy management is a key task throughout the entirety of the event’s life cycle. Thus, a deeper understanding and more robust knowledge regarding post-event legacy governance are required in order to facilitate sustainable event legacies. Given the large potential for many issues to emerge post-Games, limited focus on this governance phase is problematic.

The purpose of this study is therefore to explore issues in post-Games legacy governance from the perspective of event stakeholders. Specifically, issues associated with three dimensions of governance: (1) polity (institutional structure of governance); (2) politics (relationships between stakeholders); and (3) policy (policy formulation and implementation) [13] are examined. Using this comprehensive analytical lens can facilitate a broader understanding of governance in the post-event phase. The issues management literature is also employed in this paper to further the exploration and discussion of issues identified in this case [14,15]. The following research questions will be addressed: (1) What legacy issues do event stakeholders encounter post-Games in relation to the polity, politics, and policy governance dimensions; (2) how are these issues interrelated; and (3) are there differences between stakeholders’ perceptions of these issues?

In doing so, we examine the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games. Creating and leaving positive legacies has become an important component of hosting the Games due to the increased public funding needed to host the event [16,17]. This study highlights emergent issues in post-event legacy governance by exploring the multi-dimensionality of governance (i.e., polity, politics and policy). By further exploring the perceived issue differences between event stakeholders, this study also touches on conflicting stakeholder interests in the governance of legacy [18]. Findings from this study will help practitioners and event stakeholders (e.g., host governments and sport organizations) by identifying potential issues within the post-Games phase as well as their impact on event stakeholders. By doing so, this study expands our understanding of how to ensure positive event legacies by building a sustainable post-Games legacy governance system.

2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

2.1. Polity, Politics, and Policy in Event Legacy Governance

The examination of both structures and processes (what, when, who, where, why, and how mechanisms) as well as institutional and procedural aspects (the rules, rights, resources, policy, and the actions of individuals) is central to governance research [19,20]. In order to explore various aspects of the post-Games phase, this study employs a multi-dimensional governance approach focusing on polity, politics, and policy dimensions. The three dimensions of governance cover “all the different facets that are associated with the notion of ‘governance’” [21].

Specifically, polity refers to the governance structures and norms that shape how the institutional actors or properties interact. Politics reflects the process of power relations between stakeholders and their constellations as well as the interdependence or resource exchange among them. Finally, policy is related to policy formulation and implementation [13]. It is important to understand the interlinkages between these governance dimensions such as how polity guides political and policy processes [22]. More specifically, the polity–policy relationship characterizes the institutional condition of policy making while the polity–politics connection establishes “the political playing field” [22]. Institutional rules can determine which stakeholders are involved in the political process as well as their access to resources in the governance system. On the other hand, changes in the political dimension (e.g., stakeholders leaving or entering the political process) may result in modifications to the polity dimension. Lastly, the interplay between politics–policy relates to the impact of stakeholder relationships or interactions on policy formation and implementation.

Girginov [10] investigated the governance of legacy at the 2012 London Olympic Games by exploring the three dimensions mentioned above. By doing so, he mapped the nature, range, and dynamics of the actors, governance modes, and the policy instruments associated with the event’s legacy governance system. In a similar vein, this study will also focus on these three governance dimensions to ensure a broad coverage of post-Olympic Games legacy issues. Based on the three dimensions of governance, a review of related sport event legacy governance research is provided.

2.1.1. Polity

Researchers have discussed the importance of appropriate legacy governance structures (e.g., bottom-up approach) and principles (e.g., good governance) when considering the influence of legal and sociocultural conditions (e.g., austere economic conditions). Brown, et al. [23], for example, highlighted that proper governance structures should include various stakeholders and have clear a vision as early as possible in the event planning phase. Stuart and Scassa [24] identified a lack of legal guarantees regarding legacy planning and delivery, which may make Olympic legacy unsustainable. As such, they identified a need for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its related governing bodies to implement laws that require legacies to be maintained over the long-term. Girginov [10] argued that a bottom-up approach is more effective for gaining a better understanding of legacy and its related governance system. Likewise, Nichols, et al. [25] discussed the negative impact of a ‘top-down’ governance structure on the London 2012 Olympic legacy program. They argued that a state-led governance system and performance monitoring restricted the autonomy of managers responsible for delivering legacy programming at the local level. Furthermore, Leopkey and Parent [26] analyzed stakeholders’ perceptions toward the governance of Olympic legacy and noted that good governance practices (i.e., accountability, participation, performance, and transparency) were paramount. Finally, several studies have highlighted the impact of sociocultural environments on the governance of the legacy. Bell and Gallimore [3] for example, proposed that austere economic conditions negatively influenced the creation of London’s Olympic legacy.

2.1.2. Politics

The political dimension is associated with power relations between stakeholders involved in the governance of legacy [11]. Girginov [10] noted tensions between government and local communities regarding the London 2012 edition of the Games and in doing so emphasized the importance of developing legacies that benefit local communities. Moreover, Postlethwaite, et al. [27] examined the impact of educational programs (i.e., the Get Set program) on stakeholder relations during not only the preparation and delivery of the 2012 event but also post-event. Specifically, they discussed how diverging understandings of the programs’ goals created strains on the existing relationships. The paper also highlighted the importance of localized goals and formalized stakeholder agreements in helping to facilitate positive long-term impacts.

2.1.3. Policy

Several studies (e.g., [3,28]) have examined aspects of the policy dimension of legacy governance by focusing on the practical strategies used to leverage and secure event legacy and interactions among stakeholders (e.g., partnerships). Bell and Gallimore [3] investigated the effectiveness of a multi-agency strategic partnership for leveraging the legacy of the London 2012 Games at the sub-regional level. By doing so, they proposed limited ability of the partners and extensive structural changes in the public sector as barriers prior to the event. They also noted that following the conclusion of the 2012 Games there was a loss in momentum behind the creation, maintenance, and sustainability of legacy due to organizational, political, and personnel change. Harris and Houlihan [28] demonstrated the challenges (e.g., conflicting values and beliefs among policy agents, problems of enforced partnerships, and a lack of discussion in relation to policy learning) associated with the implementation of community sport policy through partnerships.

In sum, the three dimensions have been important foci of event legacy research [11]. Notably, Lange, Driessen, Sauer, Bornemann, and Burger [21] argued that this approach is amenable to being paired with a wide range of theoretical concepts because it is not based on a specific theoretical view. Thus, this study also utilized the issues management literature to facilitate identification and analysis of emergent legacy governance issues in the post-Games phase.

2.2. Issues Management

Contentious issues (e.g., environmental and corporate governance) can put pressure on organizations in a wide range of industrial fields [29]. In light of this, an issues management perspective was developed by researchers to help managers better understand and cope [30].

Wartick and Mahon [31] proposed three important themes related to defining issues: impact, controversy, and expectation gap. A change or trend can be considered an issue when it has an impact on the organization [31]. Additionally, issues are also linked to “conflict between two or more identifiable stakeholder groups” [31] and as such the concept of controversy is also a key to understanding issues. Finally, expectation gaps among stakeholders about the firm’s performance also play an important role in understanding issues. Given that issues can be developed and defined by various stakeholders’ interactions, there can also be varied interpretations among them [29,32]. As such, issue identification and interpretation are interrelated, and understanding stakeholder perspectives is important for identifying concerns and understanding how stakeholders respond to them.

In the sport management field, Friedman, et al. [33] proposed a framework to help sport managers analyze their organizations’ issues by integrating stakeholder theory and the issues management literature. Specifically, they highlighted that it is imperative to consider stakeholders’ perceptions, roles, and attributes (e.g., power, legitimacy, and urgency) (cf. [34]) in order to understand the impact of the relevant issues. Parent [12] identified issues that event-organizing committees and their related stakeholders deal with (e.g., politics, financial, visibility) when organizing large-scale sporting events. Leopkey and Parent [14] investigated risk management issues at large-scale sporting events (e.g., financial, media, political, visibility, threats) and highlighted the heterogeneity of issues depending on stakeholders and event types. Furthermore, Parent, Rouillard, and Leopkey [15] investigated issues and strategies related to the coordination of Canadian governments for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver. In doing so, they identified five contextual-based issues (e.g., time, funding, the political situation) and other types of issues, including authority or accountability, operational, planning, power, social issues, legal, and structure. From the findings the researchers proposed eight case-specific strategies ranging from formalized agreements to stakeholder engagement that were utilized to help manage the emergent issues.

Previous research highlighted that managing different expectations, needs, and values of key stakeholders is important when developing and implementing long-term plans for event legacy [11]. Using an issues management approach, this study explores post-Games legacy governance issues and how they are perceived by event stakeholders. In the following section, the methodology of this study is outlined.

3. Methodology

A qualitative single case study approach was employed in this paper to facilitate our understanding of a complex problem and to present an in-depth understanding of the case [35]. Homma and Masumoto [36] suggested that examining sport event legacy from a constructivist perspective is useful in understanding the process of policy development related to event legacy. As such, this study examines the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Games and specifically focuses on the post-Games legacy governance phase from a constructivist lens in order to understand the multiple perspectives of those who were involved in the research context [37].

3.1. Research Context

South Korea hosted the 2018 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 9 to March 18 in PyeongChang, Gangwon Province. Given that legacy plan proposals were required by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the bidding stage of the 2018 event, the PyeongChang Organizing Committee for the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (POCOG) set a goal to develop winter sports in Asia and economic and urban development at the local level early on in the bidding and hosting process [38]. It is suggested that the event left a number of event legacies including political (temporally improved relations between South and North Korea), urban development (the construction of a high-speed railway), and sport development (new winter sport facilities) in the nation [39].

However, debates continue among event stakeholders regarding the event’s legacy following the conclusion of the event. For example, key discussions around post-event venue usage created conflict among the Korean government, local government, and community groups [40]. Thus, it is evident that there were many issues in the post-Games legacy governance phase in the Korean case. At the same time, stakeholders within the legacy governance system have tried to resolve some of these issues. For instance, there have been continuous discussions regarding Olympic legacy from the early planning phases to post-event (IOC, 2019). After the Games were over, the Korean government established the PyeongChang 2018 Legacy Foundation (PCLF) to sustain and monitor Olympic legacy. Given the challenges and opportunities in the post-Games phase, it is evident that analyzing the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Games case is critical to our understanding of post-sport event legacy governance.

3.2. Data Collection

In conducting a case study, gathering and analyzing various types of data enables researchers to obtain a holistic perspective of a certain phenomenon [35]. In line with this, many sources were utilized for this case study, including archival materials and semi-structured interviews.

Archival materials, such as newspaper articles, bid and organizing committee documents, policy documents, and website information were collected. Because it was important to understand pre-event planning and issues in order to examine post-Games legacy governance, the data collection started in August 2016 (about two years before the Olympics) and continued until February 2020 (two years after the event). Consequently, a total of 164 documents, approximately 4294 pages, were analyzed. The collected archival materials helped to contextualize pre-event legacy planning, historical development of the legacy governance system, and stakeholders’ policy orientation regarding legacy management.

A review of collected archival materials facilitated the identification of key stakeholder groups and potential participants for the semi-structured interviews (see

Table 1. List of interviewees.

Stakeholder Group	Interviewees	Code	Interview Method (Duration)
Central	Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism	#1	In-person (45 mins)
Provincial	Gangwon Provincial Government	#2	In-person (72 mins)
		#3	In-person (72 mins)
		#4	In-person (73 mins)
Municipal	PyeongChang County Government	#5	In-person (80 mins)
	Gangneung City Government	#6	In-person (35 mins)
	Jeongseon County Government	#7	In-person (49 mins)
		#8	In-person (49 mins)
Local resident groups	PyeongChang County	#9	In-person (60 mins)
	Jeongseon County	#10	Phone (68 mins)
		#11	Phone (52 mins)
Sport organizations	Korean Sport & Olympic Committee (KSOC)	#12	In-person (43 mins)
	Korean Paralympic Committee (KPC)	#13	In-person (46 mins)
	Korea Ski Association	#14	In-person (60 mins)
		#15	In-person (48 mins)
	Korea Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation	#16	In-person (43 mins)
	Korea Luge Federation	#17	In-person (52 mins)
Post-Games legacy organization	PyeongChang 2018 Legacy Foundation	#18	In-person (57 mins)
		#19	In-person (54 mins)

Note: interviews with Participants #2, #3, #7, and #8 were conducted in groups of two at the request of the participants.

). Then, individuals who were responsible for Olympic legacy in their organizations were invited to participate in the study through purposeful and snowball sampling, which helped select individuals with firsthand knowledge and experience regarding the topic [41]. After receiving approval from the University’s ethics committee, 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted and ranged from 35 to 80 minutes (average 61 minutes) in length. An interview guide was developed and used to help probe for post-Games legacy issues related to the three dimensions of governance (i.e., polity, policy, and politics) (see Appendix A for a copy of the interview guide). Interviews were conducted between June and December 2019. Immediately after each interview, descriptive and analytical field notes were written to gain a clear understanding of the contextual information gained from each interview. The interviews were conducted in Korean and transcribed verbatim. After the analysis, selected excerpts were translated from Korean to English by the lead researcher, who has proficiency in both languages, as representative examples of the data.

3.3. Data Analysis

The qualitative data analysis software ATLAS.ti 8 (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, 2017, Berlin, Germany) assisted with the content analysis of the data. Specifically, this study employed the grounded theory coding approach, which emphasizes a systematic data analysis process to facilitate the identification and categorization of post-Games legacy governance issues [42]. Open coding, the first step in the data analysis process, allowed researchers to label the key concepts with codes regarding the emergent legacy governance issues (see

Table 2. Description of issue categories in post-Games legacy governance.

Governance Dimension	Issue Category (Axial Codes)	Description	Specific Issues (Open Codes)
Polity	Legal	Lack of legal guarantees for event legacy in post-Games phase	- Lack of legal guarantees for funding venues and legacy programs - Lack of legislation determining responsibilities of stakeholders - Lack of legal guarantees supporting post-Games legacy organization
	Accountability	Uncertainty of roles, responsibility, and authority regarding the management of legacy in post-Games phase	- Unclear stakeholder roles - Delayed establishment of a post-Games legacy organization - Determining role and authority of stakeholders in transition phase
	Context	The impact of Korean governance context	- Locally driven event hosting - Limited role of the central government - Power of the central government - Decentralized governance
Politics	Funding	Lack of funding to sustain legacy programs and organization	- Lack of government funding - Lack of private funding - Fairness issues in supporting the host community
	Venues	Lack of agreement among stakeholders on post-Games use of the venues	- Deconstruction of Olympic venues or facilities - Difficulty of operating and using the venues - Winter Olympic venues’ sustainability issues - Tension among stakeholders surrounding post-Games usage of the venues
	Conflicting values or interests	Value or interest differences among stakeholders regarding Olympic legacy	- Conflicting values and interests regarding legacy programs and policies - Differences in setting legacy program goals - Different perspectives toward the usage of the Olympic venues
	Coordination	Coordination of stakeholder relationships in post-Games legacy governance	- Power and politics - Conflict among stakeholders regarding Olympic legacy -Tensions between local governments regarding resources for Olympic legacy
	Participation	Limited participation of non-public sector stakeholders in post-Games legacy governance	- Limited participation opportunity for local residents and national federations - Perceived unfairness due to limited participation opportunities
Policy	Pre-event planning	Lack of pre-event planning and agreement for managing event legacy in post-Games phase	- Unclear legacy plans before the Olympics - Lack of agreement among stakeholders regarding legacy plans - Unclear venue and post-Games legacy organization plans
	Policy momentum	Loss of policy momentum for legacy programs in the post-Games phase	- Loss of political or financial support for legacy programs and policies - Missed window of opportunity for sustaining the momentum of the Olympic Games

). The initial codes were created mainly through inductive coding. By doing so, the researcher attempted to dig into the collected data from the perspective of the participants rather than preconceived concepts [42].

Next, axial coding was conducted in order to group initial codes into categories based on the consideration of relational aspects between and among them. This step resulted in the generation of higher-order themes related to legacy governance issues following the event. A combination of inductive and deductive coding was utilized in this process following guidelines suggested by Miles et al. [43] and based on the existing event legacy [1,2] and issue management [12] literatures. This resulted in the emergence of 10 legacy governance issues themes (see Table 2). The identified themes were then analyzed based on the three dimensions of governance (i.e., polity, politics, and policy) [21].

Finally, selective coding was conducted to better understand the relationships among the categories. Based on previous studies [15] the issue–issue links were identified when data represented an identified issue and connected it (talked about, presented, described an impact upon) to another issue [15]. The issue–stakeholder links were established when a stakeholder group related to an identified issue. Employing a constant comparative technique [44] allowed the researchers to refine codes, categories, and patterns, and helped ensure the quality of data analysis. Additionally, in order to guarantee trustworthiness, peer-debriefing was performed throughout the data analysis process. Specifically, the authors regularly discussed emergent codes and findings.

4. Findings

4.1. Post-Games Legacy Governance Issues

In this study, 10 post-event legacy governance issues emerged and were categorized based on the three dimensions of governance: polity (legal, accountability, context), politics (funding, venues, conflicting values or interests, coordination, participation), and policy (pre-event planning, policy momentum). Table 2 provides an overview of the emergent issue categories. Additionally, the issue–issue link analysis enabled us to understand how the issues were interrelated with each other (see

Table 3. Links between issues.

		Issue Impacted
Governance Dimensions		Polity			Politics					Policy
	Issue Category	Leg.	Acc.	Kor.	Fun.	Ven.	Conf.	Co.	Part.	Pre.	Pol.
Polity	Leg.		X		X	X					X
	Acc.					X	X				X
	Cont.	X	X		X
Politics	Fun.					X					X
	Ven.				X		X				X
	Conf.					X		X
	Co.						X
	Part.						X	X
Policy	Pre.		X		X	X	X				X
	Pol.				X

Note: Leg. = legal; Acc. = accountability; Cont. = context; Fun. = funding; Ven. = venue; Conf. = conflicting values or interests; Co. = coordination; Part. = participation; Pre. = pre-event planning; Pol. = policy momentum.

). Based on this analysis, the interplay between the issues and the three dimensions of post-Games legacy governance are also presented in this section.

4.1.1. Polity

Three issues relating to the institutional structure of the post-Games legacy governance system were identified: legal, accountability, and context. Moreover, it was evident that the three issues related to the polity dimension were interrelated and influenced other issues in the polity and policy dimensions.

Legal

A lack of legal guarantee formalizing legacy management plans in the post-Games phase was perceived as a key issue. In 2017, the Korean Government enacted the Special Act on Support for the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Games to facilitate the event organizing process. However, after the conclusion of the Games, there was no legislation that supported post-Games legacy policy and programs. Data indicated that a lack of legal guarantee influenced several aspects of the event’s legacy, including stakeholder accountability, funding, venues, and policy momentum (see Table 3). For instance, because the post-Games legacy organization for the PyeongChang Olympics (i.e., PCLF) had a weak legal guarantee, it was difficult to gain and exercise authority and to secure financial resources from the Korean government. These barriers caused the legacy-related policies to lose momentum during the post-Games phase. A PCLF official discussed this issue: “While there is no such law for the foundation to be established, a state subsidy for operating expenses can only be obtained through a foundation created under the law” (Participant #19).

Accountability

Stakeholders also discussed the problem of accountability in the post-Games phase. Accountability, which can be linked to problems of unclear authority and roles in the legacy governance system, made it harder to manage venues and fostered conflicting values or interests at this time. This also impacted policy momentum because in the first year after the Games there was no organization responsible for legacy management. Although POCOG existed until 31 March 2019 they were focused on wrapping up the Games and as a result had a limited role in planning and managing the event’s legacy. This lack of a central organization for managing and monitoring Olympic legacy in the transition phase undoubtedly created much uncertainty: “Since no organization offered to take responsibility for venue operations, the Olympic legacy plans were never initiated” (Participant #16).

Context

Finally, many stakeholders discussed the impact of the unique Korean governance context. Particularly, the locally-driven nature of the event and the limited role of central government in the legacy governance system were discussed. Moreover, participants frequently commented on the differences between the sociocultural environments that surrounded the Seoul 1988 and the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Games. Korean society has been democratized for the past three decades, resulting in the decentralization of power and authority to local governments [45]. The Seoul 1988 Olympics were driven by the Korean government under the guise of nation branding; however the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Games were supported by local governments (e.g., Gangwon province and PyeongChang county) [46].

More specifically, following the Seoul 1988 Olympics, the Korean government enacted legislation that supported post-Games legacy and resulted in the establishment of the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation, which has played an important role in developing sport in the nation by generating and providing funding via the national sport development policy. By contrast, no legislation for the 2018 Olympic Games legacy has been instituted at a national level because the Games were considered a locally driven sport event. This also resulted in limited funding from the central government. A local government official reflected on this:

The 1988 Olympics were led by the central government from the bid and the central government managed the legacies, whereas the 2018 PyeongChang Olympics were mainly led by the three local governments (…) I think the central government has paid less attention to post-Games legacy [of the PyeongChang event] than before [the 1988 Seoul Olympic legacy].

4.1.2. Politics

With regards to the political dimension, five issues emerged from the data analysis: funding, venues, conflicting values or interests, coordination, and participation. The issues are interrelated with each other and influence the policy dimension of governance (i.e., legacy policy momentum) (see Table 3).

Funding

Funding was perceived as a key issue that caused confrontation between stakeholders in the post-Games phase. Stakeholders at the local level (e.g., provincial or municipal governments and community resident groups) perceived the central government’s financial support as imperative for successful legacy planning and management because of the large expenses associated with venue maintenance. In particular, the funding issues caused tension between the Korean government and local stakeholders (funding–venues link) about post-Games venues use. One local government official discussed this issue: “Essentially, the problem arises from operational costs because the national government does not financially support the local governments”.

In order to reduce the economic burden associated with venue maintenance, local politicians and community leaders continuously asked the central government to provide additional funding. However, given the small size of Gangwon province’s representation at the National Assembly, they had limited political power to help secure financial support for the legacy programs. This is demonstrative of the role that power and politics play in securing funding and support for hosting sporting events in the country. Consequently, the lack of additional funds also decreased the impact of the legacy policy and programs in the post-event phase: “Compared to other provinces in South Korea, Gangwon Province has only eight congressmen. Thus, most investments go towards provinces with more population and more congressmen, so the smaller provinces are neglected” (Participant #9). In December 2019, as a result of lobbying efforts by local politicians, part of the national budget was allocated for the 2018 legacy programs by Korea’s National Assembly. This provision of financial resources enabled the host communities to initiate legacy policies (e.g., the construction of the PyeongChang Peace Theme Park) after the event, reinforcing the impact of funding on legacy policy momentum in the post-Games phase.

Venues and Conflicting Values/Interests

In addition to the financial challenges, this study identified venues and conflicting values or interests as issues that were closely linked. Thus, the two issues are presented together in this section. Deciding the fate (i.e., deconstruction or maintenance) of four Olympic venues (i.e., the Olympic Sliding Center, the Jeongseon Alpine Center, the Gangneung Oval, and the Gangneung Hockey Center) was a central concern identified in the post-Games phase. Debates between stakeholders concerning the Olympic venues were heightened because of these conflicting values and interests regarding post-Games venue use. Local governments, sport organizations, and local community groups fought to maintain the venues in order to increase economic legacy through tourism and sport development, whereas the South Korean government was more concerned about the economic and environmental sustainability of the venues.

Particularly, stakeholders involved in the Jeongseon Alpine Center experienced intense conflict regarding the post-Games use of the facility. Some stakeholder groups (e.g., the Korean government and environmental activists) underlined the value of environmentalism and returning the land to its original purpose while other groups (e.g., Jeongseon local government, residents, and the Korea Ski Association) insisted on maintaining the venue for future sport development and competition use. This issue is reflected in the following quote: “A common issue between national and local governments is whether the venues should be preserved or not. Specifically, the national government prefers to demolish the venue and restore the land, but Gangwon Province and Jeongseon County argue that the facilities should be maintained to help stimulate the local economy” (Participant #7).

Furthermore, concerns about venue usage were apparent. For example, the elite sport-oriented venues (e.g., the Olympic Sliding Center) were not going to be used for other purposes such a mass sport development, thereby diminishing the rationale behind requests to the central government for additional funding (venues–funding link). Ongoing debates continued following the wrap-up of the event about how to use and fund the remaining venues. An official from a national federation discussed this challenge: “[Alpensia Sliding Center] is the only training facility for bobsleigh, skeleton, and luge, but if the training facility is not retained, then the training accessibility for the specific sports will disappear” (Participant #16).

Coordination

The development of conflicts among stakeholders resulted in the need for coordination of the relationships among them within the post-Games phase. At the local level, the Gangwon provincial government had to manage the needs of the host communities:

PyeongChang, Gangneung, and Jeongseon are all located within the Gangwon Province, and although the three counties are working together to create and maintain Olympic legacies, there exist invisible conflicts between the three regions. Thus, the tension is preventing Gangwon Province from coordinating the necessary needs to initiate Olympic Legacy projects.

Participation

Limited opportunity for stakeholders to participate in the post-Games legacy governance system was identified as one of the issues connected to the political governance dimension. Findings highlighted the link between participation and conflicting values or interests and coordination issues. Specifically, stakeholders discussed the lack of consideration of local interests in developing the legacy programs. This was connected to the exclusion of local residents from the governance process, which negatively influenced the full understanding of stakeholders’ needs and the ultimate collaboration among them. Participant #9 said: “Our greatest concern is the people managing the Olympic Legacy. These people have great qualifications but are unfamiliar with the region [PyeongChang]”.

4.1.3. Policy

The policy dimension of governance may include policy goals and the process of policy development and implementation [47]. Two issues related to the policy dimension were highlighted in this case: pre-event planning and policy momentum.

Pre-Event Planning

Stakeholders in this case commonly discussed the limited pre-event planning for Olympic legacy, which impacted various issues (i.e., accountability, funding, venues, conflicting values or interests, policy momentum). Specifically, due to time pressures placed on the organization to plan and implement the Olympic Games, little attention was paid to developing post-Games legacy programs and policies in the pre-event phase. For example, the lack of agreement on and plans for how to use Olympic venues resulted in conflict among stakeholders. A sport organization official discussed the legacy programs as follows: “Personally, I think Olympic legacy projects should be planned well ahead of time. Even the IOC admits that there should be a comprehensive plan on how to utilize the venues post-Olympics, but without any strategies, conflicts may occur” (Participant #12).

Policy Momentum

In the Korean case, clear plans for establishing an organization for managing and monitoring Olympic legacy during the post-Games phase did not exist. Consequently, uncertainty during the early parts of the post-Games phase increased and caused a decline in the legacy policy momentum after the event. Event stakeholders were concerned about the decreasing investment and attention to the Olympic legacy policy due to the series of Olympic Games in Asia following the 2018 event (i.e., Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022) as indicated in the following quotation:

If money is not allocated to help maintain the Olympic legacy, the 2018 PyeongChang Olympics will be forgotten since the 2020 Summer Olympics will be held in Japan, a neighboring country. At that point, the national government will reduce the amount of money for legacy programs (Participant #9).

However, because there were no clear plans for the Olympic legacy, discussion among stakeholders only started after the conclusion of the event. For instance, PCLF was established a year after the end of the event on March 25, 2019. Thus, specific legacy programs could not be developed and implemented immediately following the Games, which made it difficult to maintain policy momentum. Particularly, this seemed to decrease the opportunity to gain funding from various sources such as government and sponsors, one interviewee discussed: “In Korean corporate culture companies will sponsor us if there are sport events. But when it [the Olympics] is over, long term sponsorships for the legacy foundation is highly unlikely”.

4.2. Issue Categories by Stakeholder

Following the analysis of post-Games legacy governance issues, data were reviewed for differences between stakeholders’ perceptions of the emergent issues. In line with the aim of this study, issues perceived by stakeholders who form PCLF’s board of directors (i.e., central government, Gangwon provincial and PyeongChang, Gangneung, Jeongseon government, and sport organizations) were explored. Additionally, issues perceived by host community residents were also identified, given that they are major stakeholders that are directly impacted by event legacy on a daily basis [48]. It was evident that all stakeholders were concerned with funding, venues, and conflicting values or interests, albeit to varying degrees in the post-Games phase. However, differences existed between stakeholders’ perceptions with regards to the other emergent issues, such as legal, accountability, and participation (see

Table 4. Issue categories by stakeholder group.

Stakeholder Group	Stakeholders	Issue Categories
		Polity			Politics					Policy
		Leg.	Acc.	Cont.	Fun.	Ven.	Conf.	Co.	Part.	Pre.	Pol.
Government group	Central Government	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
	Gangwon province	X	X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
	PyeongChang	X	X	X	X	X	X			X	X
	Gangneung	X	X		X	X	X			X	X
	Jeongseon	X	X		X	X	X			X	X
Post-Games legacy organization	Legacy Foundation	X	X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Sport organizations	Korean Sport & Olympic Committee				X	X	X			X	X
	Korean Paralympic Committee	X			X	X	X			X	X
	National Federations		X		X	X	X		X	X	X
Community	Residents				X	X	X		X		X

Note: Leg. = legal; Acc. = accountability; Cont. = context; Fun. = funding; Ven. = venue; Conf. = conflicting values or interests; Co. = coordination; Part. = participation; Pre. = pre-event planning; Pol. = policy momentum.

for a breakdown).

4.2.1. Central Government

The Korean government was concerned with issues related to structuring a legacy governance system that facilitated stakeholder relationships (i.e., accountability and coordination). A central government official said: “Establishing the foundation and the process itself has been the main focus, and we believed that if there exists a foundation, then we could easily build the legacy projects” (Participant #1). The impact of the Korean governance context was also a principal concern of the central government because they were not directly involved in the policy development process. However, because the central government was perceived by other stakeholders as a key financial resource provider for the post-Games use of Olympic venues, funding and venues were also considered relevant.

4.2.2. Local Government

Findings illustrated that local governments were interested in a number of legacy governance issues. In order to more deeply explore differences within this stakeholder group we analyzed the legacy governance issues at two levels: provincial and municipal. By doing so, intra-stakeholder differences and similarities between local governments are highlighted.

Homogeneous issues for local government centered on legal issues and accountability. Additionally, local governments were responsible for communicating with stakeholders in each local area as well as managing the relevant stakeholder relationships. With the exception of coordination and participation issues, the political dimension was considered significant. Moreover, compared to the central government, local government officials discussed issues associated with the policy dimension of the governance (i.e., pre-event planning and losing legacy policy momentum).

Differences between the local government stakeholders also emerged; interviewees from the Gangwon provincial government and the local government in PyeongChang highlighted the impact of the Korean governance context (e.g., locally driven) whereas interviewees from Gangneung and Jeongseon governments who had smaller roles in the hosting of the 2018 event seemed less concerned. In terms of accountability, Jeongseon county, the host of the alpine skiing events, said that it had limited authority in the legacy governance process due to its small role during the event. An interviewee from the Jeongseon local government discussed this difficulty:

We have requested approval for using the five rings sculptures as legacies, but I think they [the IOC] are considering approving only for two regions despite there being three host cities (…) If they approve, only PyeongChang and Gangneung will get the approval. If we don’t get approval and the stadium is demolished, there would be nothing left (Participant #7).

On the other hand, Gangwon province, PyeongChang county, and Gangneung city were concerned about accountability. More specifically, tension emerged between PyeongChang (where most of the snow sport events were held) and Gangneung city (where all ice sport events were held) because of several legacy-related initiatives including the 1st anniversary celebration and Olympic Memorial Hall. While PyeongChang was branded as the official host city of the 2018 Olympic Games, Gangneung was responsible for the indoor Olympic venues (e.g., Gangneung Ice Arena) and was determined to be the better location for post-Games legacy events. Moreover, the Gangwon provincial government was responsible for coordinating the relationship between the local governments involved in the Games. Thus, officials from the provincial government discussed coordination as a key issue for them: “At the time, [one of the staff members] was in charge of easing the tensions between the three regions but this was deemed very difficult. Even the Gangwon Province governor intervened to alleviate the high conflicts between the three regions”.

4.2.3. Post-Games Legacy Organization

The PCLF was established on 25 March 2019 to manage and promote the post-Games Olympic legacy. The establishment of this organization was supported by a financial contribution from the IOC of about USD 55 million [49]. Given that the organization was expected to play a key role in the post-Games legacy governance system, it was impacted by the greatest number of issues (9 out of 10) across the governance dimensions. A PCLF official stated: “The host cities, Gangwon Province, and the Ministry of Culture, Sport, and Tourism were all concerned about the legacy including the facilities after the Olympics, so the foundation was established and has been asked to manage basic tasks to maintain the legacy” (Participant #19). That is, PCLF was considered the central organization within the post-Games legacy governance system and it was responsible for accountability, coordination, and venue issues.

Additionally, PCLF attempted to manage different values and interests between stakeholders. PCLF’s board of directors was formed by a number of stakeholders, including representatives from central government, local government, and sport organizations [50]. However, its organizational structure provided limited opportunities for other stakeholders to be involved in the legacy decision-making process. This role also gave the organization authority and responsibility in the decision-making process concerning the direction and content of post-Games legacy policy. The lack of legal and funding guarantees were also perceived as constraints by PCLF officials to continuing legacy programs into the future: “Currently, the most desirable situation is that this foundation becomes legalized like that of the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation, so that the foundation can receive a portion of the funds for the project [from the Korean government]” (Participant #18).

Finally, PCLF was continuously asked to include local community groups into its decision-making process, as indicated by the following newspaper article: “Since the legacy foundation must create and develop the Olympic legacy and conduct various projects related to the region, key figures of the foundation must be able to understand and be familiar with the region (...)” (Gangwon Domin Daily, 2019). Consequently, compared to the central and local governments, it is evident that PCLF was concerned with participation.

4.2.4. Sport Organization

Sport organizations were concerned with various issues related to the three dimensions of legacy governance (e.g., accountability, funding, conflicting values or interests, venues, coordination, pre-event planning, and policy momentum). Intra-stakeholder differences and similarities between sport organizations are highlighted below.

Similar key concerns were recognized by sport organization representatives including funding, conflicting values, and venues. When compared to other stakeholder groups, interviewees from the sport field discussed the problem of underused human resources developed through hosting the Olympics. For example, although many people who worked at POCOG gained experience in the management of major sport events, this intangible resource was not managed after the Olympics:

We had hosted the Olympics in 1988 with little knowledge. Then 30 years later, we did in 2018 again, right? Everyone who worked 30 years ago is retired. So, young people who majored in sport were trained for seven years although they didn’t know about administration and the Olympics. But if they experience career disruption, it would be a great national loss (Participant #13).

Differences in perceiving legacy governance issues also existed between the sport organization stakeholder representatives. The lack of venue management organizations was perceived as the main issue by National Federations, as represented in the following quote: “I hope an organization will be established where people can work collaboratively. If a pre-existing organization is ordered to take responsibility for the Olympic legacy, the organization will most likely work passively regarding that area. Thus, the Olympic legacy operation will not be as effective” (Participant #16).

However, when compared to the KSOC, the KPC, and board members of PCLF, NFs had limited opportunity to participate in the legacy decision-making post-Games. A NF official stated: “Functionally, the Jeongseon Alpine Center is a ski resort, but the opinions of the people who actually use the facility [officials, athletes, and citizens] were disregarded” (Participant #15). Lastly, a KPC official discussed opportunities to sustain and create legacy after the Olympics through the enactment of legislation guaranteeing construction of 150 Bandabi community parasport centers in Korea by 2025. Participant #13 discussed:

South Korea won bronze in ice hockey and a gold in biathlon, so the programs were considered successful. The national government decided to fund the construction of 150 parasport centers. Making the operation the largest legacy project of the PyeongChang Olympics and it is called the Bandabi project.

4.2.5. Community

The local community group discussed the economic legacy of the Games with hopes of increased tourism. However, community members did not feel involved in the decision-making process related to Olympic legacy policy. A local community leader discussed: “When establishing the PCLF, people who are familiar with the region and understand the Olympics should be recommended to become members of the board, but consequently it did not happen” (Participant #9). Furthermore, diverse issues (i.e., funding, conflicting values or interest, and venues) were perceived by the local resident groups, resulting in a loss to legacy policy momentum.

5. Discussions and Implications

In this section, the findings of this study are discussed. First, a model is offered to present the dynamics of post-Games legacy governance. A discussion of the findings related to each governance dimension follows.

5.1. The Post-Event Legacy Governance Model

Constructing and managing a post-event legacy governance system is important to ensure long-lasting sport event legacy [17]. However, despite potential challenges in sustaining sport event legacy after an event [3] little attention has been paid to the post-event phase. In order to fill this gap, this study explored various issues related to post-Games legacy governance by examining the PyeongChang 2018 case. Based on the findings of this study and the related governance literature [21,22] a model of post-sport event legacy governance (see Figure 1) is provided. The model consists of the polity, politics, and policy dimensions of governance, which are interconnected to each other. The dimension of polity is placed at the top of the model since this governance dimension is responsible for the institutional rules of the political and policy processes in post-Games legacy governance [22].

More precisely, this study identified 10 issues in post-Games legacy governance across three governance dimensions. As Wartick and Mahon [31] argued, issues have an impact on stakeholders and their relationships and similar findings were noted in this context. Additionally, through the examination of issue–issue links, this study presented how the three governance dimensions are interrelated. In order to build sustainable event legacy governance, event stakeholders and hosts should consider all dimensions of governance since a change in one of the dimensions may lead to modifications in the other two [21]. For instance, enacting laws (a change in the polity dimension) to ensure appropriate financial investment for post-Games venue usage may decrease tensions among stakeholders with regards to funding and venues (issues in the political dimension). Furthermore, changes in the polity and political dimensions may influence the policy dimension. Specifically, the strengthened collaboration among stakeholders based on the financial support ensured by the enactment of the legislation may lead to sustainable legacy policy momentum. Given the interconnection between the three governance dimensions, future research should further investigate not only each dimension of post-Games legacy governance but also the interplay between the dimensions in order to extend our knowledge on the topic. Finally, the identification of issue–stakeholder links enabled us to further explore perceived gaps among the stakeholders.

In the following section, a discussion of the results is offered based on the sport event legacy, governance, and issues management literatures. By doing so, future research directions and practical implications of this study are highlighted.

5.1.1. Polity

This study identified three issues related to the polity dimension of governance: legal, accountability, and context. This reinforces the importance of considering institutional structures for successful legacy management. Given that polity shapes stakeholders’ actions, policy formulation and implementation processes [47], event stakeholders should consider the potential impact of the polity-related issues on the other two dimensions of the post-event legacy governance system.

Despite the fact that Stuart and Scassa [24] discussed the importance of legal guarantees for event legacy, little is still known about their impact on event legacy. In the PyeongChang case, an absence of legal guarantees resulted in a lack of financial support as well as creating unclear roles for stakeholders in the governance system, which hindered legacy policies and program development in the post-event phase. On the other hand, positive impacts from legislation enacted after the Olympics resulted in the construction of parasport centers and helped ensure long-term Paralympic legacies. Given that there is the potential to lose legacy momentum after the event [3] future hosts should consider event legacy legislation as early in the event organizing phase as possible to ensure a continuity of resources (e.g., funding) and better clarity of stakeholder roles and responsibilities in the legacy governance system.

Moreover, this study demonstrated the impact of the Korean context on various governance issues (i.e., legal, accountability, and funding), which reinforces the importance of understanding the host country’s sociopolitical context with regards to legacy delivery [3]. Since the PyeongChang Olympics were a locally driven project, local authorities were mainly responsible for the post-Games legacy management. Specifically, the Korean government tended to focus on coordinating stakeholders, while local authorities and non-public stakeholders managed and organized legacy programs and policies. This finding echoes previous research (e.g., [10,51]) that highlighted the shifting role of state governments and their increased focus on facilitating governance networks.

In the PyeongChang case, stakeholders discussed the expectation of increased roles and responsibility of the central government, especially regarding financial support for addressing legacy-related challenges (e.g., venues and accountability). This finding indicates that it may be difficult to sustain post-Games legacy governance without the involvement of the state depending on hosts’ governance context. In that regard, there may exist different governing approaches across the recent and future Games (e.g., the 2014 Sochi, 2018 PyeongChang, the 2020 Tokyo, and the 2022 Beijing). This implies potential differences in how each national state controls the event and its related legacy [52]. Additionally, local governments and non-public stakeholders may not have enough political and financial capacity for continuing legacy programs by themselves. Despite varying governance conditions among hosts, if post-Games legacy governance is entirely controlled by the state, the autonomy of local authorities and non-public stakeholders may be hampered [53]. As such, for effective legacy governance, it is imperative to balance the extent of the state government’s involvement against the level of autonomy of local stakeholders in post-Games legacy governance.

5.1.2. Politics

Five issues (i.e., funding, venues, conflicting values or interests, coordination, and participation) were identified in the politics governance dimension. These issues represent stakeholder relationships in post-Games legacy governance. At the beginning, event stakeholders competed and confronted each other over key resources (i.e., funding and venues) in the legacy governance system. Previous research (e.g., [54]) indicates that the lack of financial resources and high resource dependence on other organizations may decrease a sport organizations’ performance. For sustainable legacy management, future hosts may need to not only ensure funding for legacy projects and programs in the post-event phase, but also decrease their resource dependence on other organizations. In this regard, resource dependence theory (cf. [55]) could provide a framework for the development of future research that could examine not only challenges arising due to limited resources in post-event legacy governance but also strategies to handle the challenges.

An interesting finding of this study is related to the role of the IOC. While the IOC donated its full share of the surplus from the 2018 Olympics towards the creation and support of legacies in Korea, they did not maintain a central position in the post-Games legacy governance system. The funds resulted in the establishment of PCLF, which enabled various event stakeholders (e.g., local governments, sport organizations) to become engaged in the post-Games legacy governance process [49]. Börzel and Risse [53] suggested that international organizations could commit to the establishment of good governance by facilitating the participation of non-public stakeholders. In a similar vein, the PyeongChang case illustrated how the IOC can play a key role in facilitating stakeholder engagement and collaboration even after the conclusion of the Games.

Moreover, the venues constructed for the Olympics were discussed as a key legacy governance issue following the event. More precisely, as many previous studies (e.g., [56]) noted, the cost of maintaining post-Games use of the Olympic venues created challenges in the PyeongChang case (i.e., the venues–funding link). However, this study also showed that post-Games venue usage may also affect and is influenced by conflicting values and interests among stakeholders. That is, stakeholders with different values related to post-Games venue usage (e.g., economic development, environmentalism, and sport development) confronted each other, resulting in increasing conflict among them. This finding suggests that future hosts should consider how to manage stakeholders’ venue needs and interests in the post-event phase so as to decrease negative incidents that may occur in post-Games venue management.

Coordination was also one of the important issues in the politics dimension. In the PyeongChang case, non-public stakeholders (i.e., PCLF, NFs, and residents) discussed their limited opportunity to participate in the governance of legacy-confirming existing research [57]. However, public stakeholders had less awareness of the participation issue than the non-public stakeholders did. This perception gap may be problematic because public stakeholders who have authority and power to coordinate various stakeholders in the post-Games legacy governance system may not make enough of an effort to ensure equal participation opportunity for other stakeholders in the decision-making process. In this vein, this study demonstrated that participation issues may influence the coordination of event stakeholders. Given that limited opportunities for non-public stakeholders who have stakes in Games legacies may exist [58], it would be vital to provide non-public stakeholders with opportunities to participate. In this regard, PCLF officials perceived the importance of coordination as well as participation issues and their organization’s role regarding the issues. This finding implies that a post-Games legacy organization may be a platform to coordinate stakeholders and ensure the participation of public and nonpublic stakeholders in post-Games legacy governance. As such, further research is needed to examine the role of a post-event legacy organization in stakeholder management in the post-Games legacy governance system.

Furthermore, coordinating tensions between host cities (i.e., PyeongChang and Gangneung) was a key challenge perceived by Gangwon province. The importance of effective coordination among governments in hosting sport events has been highlighted in previous studies [15]. However, little discussion regarding the issue of coordination in terms of event legacies has emerged. This underlines the significance of understanding the causes of tension among host regions regarding event legacy. In particular, the IOC has allowed multiple cities to cohost the Olympics with the adoption of Agenda 2020, specifically the 2026 Winter Olympics being cohosted by two Italian cities (Milano–Cortina) for the first time in Olympic history. Within the new Olympic hosting system, more coordination related issues, including event legacy between the two official cohosts, may occur [59]. Thus, future hosts will need to consider potential challenges regarding coordinating and managing the relationship between host regions. In this regard, given that the tensions among host communities in the Korean case occurred due to perceived unfairness of allocating legacy-related projects and resources, ensuring fair distributions of legacy opportunities to each host community would be critical in multi-city hosting arrangements.

5.1.3. Policy

Policy-related issues in the legacy governance system included pre-event planning and policy momentum. Essentially, this study presented how unclear pre-event legacy plans may impact various issues across the three dimensions of post-Games legacy governance. In the PyeongChang case, a lack of a clear plan increased uncertainty regarding accountability, funding and venues, which in turn led to different interests and values among stakeholders regarding post-Games legacy. Given that those uncertainties decreased legacy policy momentum during the post-event phase, future event hosts should develop event legacy plans and polices in the pre-event phase to reduce uncertainty in the governance system.

Furthermore, this study identified how the loss of policy momentum occurred due to several legacy governance issues (i.e., legal, accountability, funding, venues, and pre-event planning). This is supported by previous studies [3,5], which highlighted that a loss of momentum for sustaining event legacy after the conclusion of a sport event was a result of organizational and financial instability. Additionally, compared to other stakeholders, sport organizations perceived the problem of underused human resources developed through hosting the event, which was discussed as a key legacy type for them. Thus, future research could explore how developed human resources should be managed and used for sport development in the post-Games phase.

Lastly, the delayed establishment of PCLF created problems in the first year following the event, thereby contributing to the decrease in legacy policy momentum. This finding is in line with previous studies that emphasized the significance of building and maintaining a separate legacy delivery organization during the transition phase following the end of the event [17,60]. In the PyeongChang case, PCLF was associated with the greatest variety of issues (9 out of 10) across the governance dimensions, which reinforces the importance of its role in the governance system. This study illustrated how a weak legal basis and financial stability of PCLF limited its effectiveness in the post-Games legacy governance. Given its importance in post-Games legacy governance, future research should investigate what challenges are faced by a post-Games legacy organization and how the organization should manage the governance of legacy and relevant stakeholders.

5.1.4. Implications for Sustainable Environmental Legacy

Mitigating negative environmental impacts has been a major concern of sport event managers for several decades [61]. This is particularly true for the Olympic Games, since the environmental impact of the event has increased significantly due to its size [62]. The importance of the environment was cemented in the Olympic Movement by its inclusion as the third pillar of Olympism [63], while at the same time the practice of leaving a positive sustainable environmental legacy has become institutionalized [64]. In particular, the ability to deliver sustainable environmental legacies has been important in hosting the Winter Olympics. Compared to the Summer edition, there can be greater environmental influences from the construction and operation of Winter Olympic venues due to their locations and the use of chemicals (e.g., ammonia for artificial freezing) to maintain their functionality [65]. The PyeongChang case, in which most events were hosted in small rural areas in Korea, was not an exception.

In this last section, we discuss the practical implications of the findings on the provision of sustainable environmental legacies during the post-Games phase. By doing so, the importance of understanding issues across the three governance dimensions is highlighted.

First, continuous debates regarding environmental issues at the Jeongseon Alpine Center during the post-Games phase emerged. Through the issue–issue link analysis (see Table 3), this study indicates that venue issues may be influenced by other issues across the three governance dimensions, such as legal, funding, conflicting values or interests, and pre-event planning. This reinforces the need to consider the impacts of all governance dimensions on the potential environmental impacts of the venues. From the policy dimension perspective, unclear pre-event legacy planning for post-Games venue operation resulted in the underusage of the venue and a lack of continued maintenance. Thus, there is a need for clear long-term legacy plans to help reduce and avoid negative environmental legacies.

Furthermore, as conflict among stakeholders surrounding venues in the post-Games phase increased, critical decisions were delayed. Thus, early participative decision-making about post-Games venue usage is key. Moreover, this study demonstrated a lack of legal guarantees might decrease post-Games utilization of the Olympic venues because financial investments may be limited without legal support. As the PyeongChang case indicates, when appropriate maintenance of venues in the post-Games phase is not implemented, negative impacts (e.g., environmental) of the venues may increase. As such, future hosts should consider enacting laws to mandate environmentally responsible venue management practices following the conclusion of the event.

In addition to venue-related issues, hosting an event like the Olympic Games may also result in a plethora of other environmental issues, such as air pollution and waste management [66]. These effects may not be limited to the pre-event phase but extend post-event [67]. Therefore, the IOC’s bidding and event organizing requirements to mandate environmental practices and policies to future host cities should be expanded to focus on the post-event phase. In the PyeongChang case, while the IOC’s financial support inspired the establishment of the PyeongChang’s post-event legacy organization, they must also take additional oversight on the potential environmental impacts after the Games. Moreover, it is important to note that at the policy level, the environmental issues listed above are not limited to sport policy but also extend to other fields (e.g., construction, tourism, and transport). Therefore it is imperative to develop and implement environmental legacy policy based on collaboration among stakeholders and experts across diverse policy areas. The inclusion of residents who may be directly impacted by environmental issues is also vital [68]. In this regard, this study highlighted the problem of limited opportunity for residents in the post-Games legacy governance phase, making it imperative for future hosts to provide residents with opportunities to participate in decisions related to environmental legacy.

In sum, the discussion in this section suggests how negative environmental legacy can be potentially mitigated in the post-Games phase. Future event managers and stakeholders can also develop their policy and strategies to sustain other legacy types based on the analysis of the three governance dimensions.

6. Conclusions

Based on the polity, politics, and policy governance dimensions and the issues management approach, this study identified 10 post-Games legacy governance issues, their interconnections, and how stakeholders perceived these issues by examining the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Games. This study provides several important theoretical and practical contributions that expand our knowledge about post-Games legacy governance. First, by proposing a model of post-sport event legacy governance, this study demonstrated the multi-dimensional characteristics of post-event legacy governance. Additionally, through the issue–issue links analysis, this study highlighted the interconnection among the three dimensions of legacy governance. This finding underscores the significance of considering diverse governance dimensions and their interplay to build and coordinate sustainable legacy governance. From a managerial perspective, the issues identified through the examination of the PyeongChang case can help future event hosts more effectively manage post-event legacy governance. Furthermore, perceived issue gaps among stakeholders presented in this study outline the potential for conflict among stakeholders in post-Games legacy governance, which should be regulated and harmonized by future event stakeholders and hosts.

Despite its contribution, this study has some limitations that should be addressed in future research. This study used a single case study design, which may limit the finding’s transferability to other event contexts. In this vein, although we attempted to cover as many legacy governance issues as possible by using multiple data sources, our data from a single case may not present all issues and links between the issues. For instance, our data did not present the impact of issues related to politics dimensions on the polity dimension, which may be evident in other cases. Future research should investigate various events and contexts to confirm and expand the findings of this study. Additionally, even though some stakeholder groups (e.g., media, local sponsors) were not involved in PyeongChang’s post-Games legacy governance system, these stakeholder groups may be important in other Olympic contexts. Moreover, the timeframe of this study was limited to two years following the conclusion of the PyeongChang Games, which was beneficial to present the dynamics of post-Games legacy governance in constructing and rearranging the governance system. However, given that there may be continuous change in this phase, future research may need to examine post-Games legacy governance by employing a longitudinal study approach. Finally, because the primary focus of this study was to explore the issues in post-Games legacy governance, strategies employed by event stakeholders to handle the issues were not examined. Future studies could explore the development of strategies in post-Games legacy governance and their impact on the governance system.