How this instrument works
Müller, Wolfe, Gaffney et al.'s 2021 study 'An evaluation of the sustainability of the Olympic Games,' published in Nature Sustainability, built the first systematic scoring model to compare how sustainable different Olympic Games editions actually were, applying it to 16 Summer and Winter Games between 1992 and 2020 representing over $70 billion in combined cost.
The methodology scores nine criteria on a 0-100 scale, grouped into three dimensions of three criteria each: ecological (new-construction impact, event-size impact, and visitor transport/accommodation footprint), social (public approval, social safety/displacement, and rule of law), and economic (budget balance, public financial exposure, and long-term venue viability). Each dimension score is the average of its three criteria, and the overall score is the average of the three dimension scores.
Arithmetically this reduces to a mean of nine numbers, but the study deliberately keeps the three intermediate dimension scores visible rather than only reporting one final number, because that three-part breakdown is the actual analytical point of the methodology — it shows whether a Games' overall score is being pulled down by, say, poor ecological performance specifically, rather than an even mix across all three areas.
- Score each Ecological criterion (construction, event size, visitor footprint) from 0 to 100.
- Score each Social criterion (approval, displacement, rule of law) from 0 to 100.
- Score each Economic criterion (budget, exposure, viability) from 0 to 100.
- Read the Ecological, Social, and Economic dimension scores — each an average of its three criteria.
- Read the Overall sustainability score — the average of the three dimension scores.
Worked example — reproducing the study's Barcelona 1992 score
Müller et al.'s own published worked example scores Barcelona 1992 as follows: ecological criteria of 20 (construction), 100 (event size), and 100 (visitor footprint) average to (20+100+100)/3 ≈ 73.33. Social criteria of 100 (approval), 0 (displacement), and 80 (rule of law) average to (100+0+80)/3 = 60.
Economic criteria of 0 (budget), 20 (exposure), and 80 (viability) average to (0+20+80)/3 ≈ 33.33. Averaging the three dimension scores gives (73.33+60+33.33)/3 = 55.56 — reproducing the study's own published Barcelona 1992 total exactly, and illustrating how a single dimension (here, economic) pulling down the average doesn't necessarily sink the overall score if the other two dimensions score well.
Questions
Which Olympic Games scored best and worst in the original study?
Müller et al. (2021) found Salt Lake City 2002 was the most sustainable Games in their 1992-2020 sample, while Sochi 2014 and Rio de Janeiro 2016 scored the lowest — and, more broadly, the study found overall Olympic sustainability has declined over that period even as host cities increasingly market their Games as sustainable.
Why does the methodology use three separate dimension scores instead of one overall average?
Because collapsing straight to a single number would hide exactly what's driving a Games' sustainability performance — a Games that scores poorly because of construction-heavy ecological impact needs a very different response than one scoring poorly because of cost overruns. Keeping ecological, social, and economic scores visible separately is the actual analytical value of the methodology; the overall total is really just a convenient summary on top of that breakdown.
Are the nine criteria weighted equally?
Yes — within each dimension, all three criteria are weighted equally (simple average), and the three dimension scores are then also weighted equally against each other in the final total. That equal-weighting choice is a modeling decision the original study made explicitly, not a claim that ecological, social, and economic sustainability are inherently equally important in every context.
Can I use this to score a future or hypothetical Games bid?
Yes, functionally — you can enter projected or planned scores for a bid under consideration, though keep in mind the original study's scores were assigned using its own detailed research methodology and historical data for each criterion, not simple guesses. Any score you enter here is only as reliable as your own basis for choosing that number.
What counts as a good overall sustainability score?
The original study doesn't set a hard pass/fail threshold, but its comparative results give useful context: most Games in the 1992-2020 sample clustered in a 'medium' sustainability range, with Salt Lake City 2002 near the top of that range and Sochi 2014 and Rio 2016 near the bottom. A score in the 60s or higher would put a Games among the stronger performers relative to that historical set; scores in the 30s-40s would put it among the weaker ones.