Introduction
The decision of the Olympic Games Committee, when choosing the next host for the event, depends on several factors, including the country’s pledge to environmental protection and urban development. The city of Rio de Janeiro, the host of the 2016 Olympic Games, went through this process, but the results of the event are a topic for debate to this day. This review analyses governmental and Olympic reports as well as the opinions of citizens and environmental activists. Such themes as partial environmental conservation, social unrest, unmet sustainability objectives and infrastructure improvement are identified. The findings are summarised to see whether the event was beneficial or detrimental to the area’s regeneration.
Source 1
In their research article, Boroghi, Ribeiro and Lourenço (2018) conduct a qualitative analysis of Rio de Janeiro’s reports on sustainability to see how the environment and the infrastructure of the city changed during and after the event. The authors’ area of expertise makes them credible as these scholars investigate the problem from the point of view of sustainable engineering. Boroghi, Ribeiro and Lourenço (2018) note that there exists a gap between the reports that the Brazilian government created as a prospect for the Olympics and the results of the changes.
They argue that thematic analysis is necessary to reveal whether the promises made in the project have been fulfilled. Apart from their own experience, the authors apply a variety of credible sources, using the International Urban Sustainability Indicators List (IUSIL) as a basis for the investigation.
To conduct the examination, the authors do not make any predictions but pose that the Olympics can have both positive and negative impacts on the hosting city. Their comparison of the results reveals that the developmental objectives set before the Olympic Games were not met by the government. While the transport infrastructure was improved and the area of greenspaces in the city increased, such goals as an offset in carbon emissions, reduction in urban poverty, and sustainable use of resources were not met. As it is a qualitative study, the reliability and validity of the results cannot be discussed apart from mentioning that the researchers used and compared official reports. Overall, this research offers a close and nuanced look at the outcomes of the 2016 Olympic Games.
Source 2
Hofman-Mourão and Rocha (2016) discuss the potential impacts of the 2016 Olympic Games on Rio de Janeiro and its citizens, analysing multiple topics, including urban regeneration, by using historical records of the previous games and Brazil’s reports about the event. The research is a part of a larger investigation into the current state of sports in Latin America, and all articles selected for the book are presented by credible authors. Hofman-Mourão and Rocha (2016) identify several gaps in literature due to the proximity of the event to the tine of the analysis, considering the expectations of scholars about the activities of the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.
The central presupposition made by the authors relies on previous events. Thus, Hofman-Mourão and Rocha (2016) assume that many cities that host the Olympic Games turn into urban entertainment destinations due to the scale of restoration. However, the economic and environmental growth is limited to some regions of the city, while others may suffer from worse conditions instead.
As the authors’ central source of information is the previous research on Olympic Games, the findings of the study are heavily reliant on the belief that most cities go through a similar process when preparing for the event. Therefore, the reliability of the productions is not high, because each of the hosting cities has its unique struggles. Nevertheless, Hofman-Mourão and Rocha (2016) conclude that the existing reports about delays, problems, and changes in financing show that the events’ outcomes will not meet the set standards of urban growth.
Source 3
The news article by Horton (2016) explores the reports by the United States Congressional Research Service, Olympic Committee, and available investigations on the ecological disasters in Brazil. The goal of the author is to show that the discrepancy between some events and the official reports reveals a gap in understanding of urban development and environmental restoration. The author’s interest in climate change issues makes the focus of the discussion understandable.
Horton (2016) utilises a variety of official sources, arguing that the findings of the Committee about the project’s sustainability do not align with Brazil’s other actions, namely the destruction of the rainforests contrasted with the goal of reforestation in Rio de Janeiro. While the author does not make any predictions, he highlights that these contradictions may have a long-term impact on the city and the country as a whole.
The report’s transparent use of the official reports increases the reliability of findings. The author concludes that the area of Rio de Janeiro could be considered improved as the government complied with the rules of the Committee. However, the continuation of rainforest destruction and unclear reforestation goals make this regeneration project questionable. Overall, the outcomes of this investigation demonstrate that on the one hand, some urban growth occurred due to the Olympic Games. On the other hand, environmental concerns were not answered. Therefore, the official reports did not cover the whole picture to adequately conclude whether the event had a positive or a negative impact on the hosting city and its residents.
Source 4
In their study, Neto et al. (2018) examine the changes that happened in Rio de Janeiro’s urban space. The scholars review the official documents and mass media releases to collect sufficient data about urban regeneration. It should be noted that this research is a part of the Olympic Studies Forum, which elevates the quality of collected data and authors’ expertise. Neto et al. (2018) discover a lack of knowledge about the impact of the Olympic Games on the particular regions in the city, thus moving away from general investigations to highly detailed research. The research is based on official reports from the Olympic Games as well as their examinations. According to this literature, the authors presume that the Olympic Games serve as a catalyst for improving urban restoration.
Selecting the qualitative approach, Neto et al. (2018) conduct descriptive research of the official and mass media reports. As the investigation uses qualitative methods, no validity or reliability issues are addressed in the analysis. The results of the authors show that not all areas of Rio de Janeiro changed. However, overall, the catalyst effect happened during this event in a similar way to the previous Olympic Games. Neto et al. (2018) highlight that such change does not always occur in an organised manner, keeping regions farther from the centre without development or support. Thus, it is vital to address the focus of such urban regeneration and make sure that realistic planning covers all areas adequately.
Source 5
The official report about the 2016 Olympic Games lists examples of the environmental legacy, addressing the question of urban regeneration. This document shows the positive actions taken by the Brazilian government and their efforts in making the city’s environment better for its citizens and guests. The credibility of the author is strong – The Olympic Committee approaches the issue of sustainability with great attention.
Notably, the report mentions several qualifications that the program for Rio 2016 passed, including the plan’s approval by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and ISO 20121 certification checked by a third party (Olympic Games Rio 2016 – environmental legacy, 2017). Therefore, the achievements made by Rio 2016 organisers were verified by trustworthy officials, making this report’s information indispensable.
In preparation for the Olympic Games, Rio 2016 organisers introduced low-carbon technologies to the country and other nations in the region. They also achieved higher certification rates of fish and seafood, and all food served during the Games Operations was certified (Olympic Games Rio 2016 – environmental legacy, 2017). More than 50 hectares of native vegetation was restored in the golf course and the Olympic Park (Olympic Games Rio 2016 – environmental legacy, 2017).
The project included river recovery and sanitation infrastructure installation to improve environmental management. New waste treatment centres were opened in the west of Rio. During the Games, more than a thousand tons of waste was recycled. Finally, Rio de Janeiro closed its last landfill before being accepted by the Committee in 2012.
Source 6
The final source is a news publication that analyses the personal opinions of people connected to the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. In it, Watts (2016) interviews several individuals, including citizens, volunteers, athletes, organisers, government officials, and environmental activists. Each person has an in-depth knowledge of the particular issue related to the Olympic Games. For the question of the area’s regeneration, the opinions of the citizens and environmental activities seem the most suitable since they raise concerns about the infrastructure of the city and sustainability efforts made by the government in preparation for the event. Nonetheless, as each of these categories is represented by a single person, the reliability of the information that these speakers provide is limited to their personal view of the problem.
The central concerns raised by these persons are the treatment of low-income regions of the city and the cleanness of water. The interviewed favela resident, Barbara Assis, states that poor favela communities did not benefit from the Olympics in any way and that all stadiums and entertainment centres were built in wealthy parts of the city, serving affluent communities with connections and resources.
Next, the resident notes that the event did not reduce the amount of violence in the neighbourhoods, thus leaving some parts of the city without support or protection. Furthermore, Mario Moscatelli, a conservationist, argues that the project to clean up Guanabara Bay was not completed, leaving the water polluted for the competition (Watts, 2016). He highlights the lack of funding for environmental projects which could be pulled from construction and other major costs.
Summary
The amount of coverage about the environmental and urban projects planned and completed for the 2016 Olympic Games allows one to see which issues became the centre of the debate. Notably, the scholarly literature on the subject and mass media publications based their investigations on the same official reports, finding different gaps in knowledge depending on their interests. As an outcome, several conclusions were drawn about the impact of the major event on area restoration. First of all, most sources, regardless of their credibility, find that the transportation infrastructure has improved in the city as a result of the Games. Furthermore, all sources show that some changes were positive for the residents.
One of the bases for further investigations is the official report published on the website of the Olympic Games. It contains the main steps that Rio 2016 organisers took to be approved for participation and the smooth operation during the event. However, it is also a source that reveals several issues with the approach of the government to regeneration. As Boroghi, Ribeiro and Lourenço (2018) note, the scale of these projects does not ensure long-term sustainability in the region. Moreover, the lack of recognition of the poor regions’ struggles during the Olympic Games is brought up by both Rio’s citizens and academics.
The study by Neto et al. (2018) shows a level of inequality in the distribution of resources which is further supported by Assis, an individual who experienced these limitations first-hand (Watts, 2016). Another side of the issue is concerned with deforestation and water pollution. These two problems are addressed in the official report, but environmentalists provide evidence that these actions are mismatched with the reality of significant climate problems.
To conclude, the difference in reports does not signify a lack of transparency, but the different focuses of reporting channels. Reviewing scholarly data, news, official reports and personal views, one may see that Rio 2016 Olympic Games had an impact on area regeneration that was heavily influenced by resources’ distribution and adherence to the established standards. This approach resulted in several regions of the city and country being neglected by urban development programs and environmental projects. Poor neighbourhoods were underrepresented in the organisers’ plans, which resulted in unequal development and unstable change. Such a lack of equity may be unsustainable in the long term, increasing the divide between regions and negatively affecting the quality of life.
References
Boroghi, F., Ribeiro, P. and Lourenço, J.M. (2018) ‘Olympics´ impacts in Rio de Janeiro´ s urban sustainability’, Transylvanian Review, 26(30), pp. 7759-7765.
Hofman-Mourão, M. and Rocha, C.M. (2016) ‘The wonders of the wonderful city: social impacts and legacies of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro’, in Bravo G., D’Amico, R. L. and Parrish, C. (eds.) Sport in Latin America: policy, organization, management. London: Routledge, pp. 196-212.
Horton, A. M. (2016) ‘2016 Olympic Games and the environment’, Independent Australia. Web.
Neto, S., Cardoso, V.D., Santos, T., Oliveira, A.F.S.D., Terezani, D.R. and Haiachi, M.D.C. (2018) ‘Rio 2016 Olympics: urban regeneration and social legacy’, Journal of Human Sport & Exercise, 13, pp. S116-S133.
Olympic Games Rio 2016 – environmental legacy. (2017). Web.
Watts, J. (2016) ‘Have the Olympics been worth it for Rio?’, The Guardian. Web.