Economic & environmental benefits but at a social cost- How far do you think this description is true of Sydney Olympics?

OCA’s plan was to provide effective public transport (coinciding with its aim to be ‘green’) in order to reduce carbon emissions caused by the Games, make it accessible to more people and to be available for use after the Games so people can continue using the facilities. This is an environmental benefit as it reduces carbon emissions, it also has an economic benefit as the facilities will continue to be used after the Olympics (bringing in money) and also as more people will be using public services. In this case there are no social issues but, in fact, there are social benefits as it makes the Games more accessible- hence relating to the first part of the description. The Olympics also provided employment opportunities which therefore reduces unemployment and increases the GDP. This is therefore an economic benefit.

        There were a few social issues caused by the Games for example; there was an uproar due to the beach being closed for the volleyball. Although this was a negative of the Games it meant there were environmental and economic benefits. Due to using the beach that was already there they didn’t need to build anything which reduced costs and reduced the amount of materials being used. This hence supports the statement.

        The cost of the Games diverted money from health, education and transport. Although this was a social cost in the long run the Games would bring in more money and they could use it to improve the facilities after- part of the Olympics plan was to build facilities to improve QOL and would hence have more positive long term effects than negative.  

        Overall the description does apply to the Sydney Olympics as there was economic and environmental benefits and they did cause some social issues. However the issues raised were worth the price due to the short & long term benefits- there was also some social benefits from the Games.