Download eBook for Free

Full Document

Includes all sections.

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.8 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Section: Meta-analysis

Setting the evidence-based agenda: A meta-analysis

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.4 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Section: Transport

A research agenda for transport and infrastructure

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Section: Security

Understanding the security agenda

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

To prepare for the London 2012 Olympic Games, it will be vital to ensure that the planning, delivery and legacy of the Games are fully accountable and based on the soundest evidence base available. The evidence base for specific policies can be built on two main foundations. Firstly, on the available evidence from previous mega-events; and secondly, through new primary research that places the challenges faced by the Olympics in the London context. In this report we present a meta-analysis of Olympic Games and mega-event policy issues based on a literature review of previous evaluations and analyses, to identify key issues that should be addressed in order to contribute to London 2012’s aspiration as the most successful modern Games. We highlight two policy areas (transport and infrastructure, and security) in which specific research tools can be used to facilitate evidence-based policy making. In order to understand the evidence base required for transport and infrastructure, we have investigated the sorts of issues that can be addressed and provided a selection of potential studies that would provide high quality primary evidence for policy making for the Games. These studies make use of a number of modelling techniques in use at RAND Europe. Security is a particularly big concern for the modern Olympics. Through investigating previous threats, we can identify the likely threat types to London 2012. By understanding the interaction of hostile intent; operational capability; and potential influences on security, we can start to identify the security capabilities required to address different threats to security during London 2012.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Why do we need an evidence based Olympic Games?

  • Chapter Two

    Setting the evidence based agenda

  • Chapter Three

    A research agenda for transport and infrastructure

  • Chapter Four

    Understanding the security agenda

  • Appendix A

    Meta-analysis framework

Research conducted by

The report was performed as part of the RAND Corporation’s continuing program of self-initiated research. The research was conducted by RAND Europe.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. RAND technical reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.