Mary Christine Wheatley 
Wheatley Research Consultancy, Bagley, Minnesota, USA
Correspondence to: mchristinewheatley@gmail.com
Additional information
- Ethical approval: N/a
- Consent: N/a
- Funding: No industry funding
- Conflicts of interest: N/a
- Author contribution: Mary Christine Wheatley – Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, review and editing
- Guarantor: Mary Christine Wheatley
- Provenance and peer-review:
Commissioned and externally peer-reviewed - Data availability statement: N/a
Keywords: Mega-events, Urban development, Infrastructure investment, Community displacement, Sustainability planning.
Peer Review
Received: 22 September 2024
Accepted: 17 October 2024
Published: 4 November 2024
Abstract
This review article explores the multifaceted impact of mega-events, such as the Olympics, World Expos, and World Cups, on urban development, highlighting both their transformative potential and associated challenges. These events often serve as catalysts for significant infrastructural enhancements, economic boosts, and global repositioning of host cities. However, outcomes are varied, with some cities capturing lasting benefits while others face enduring financial and socioenvironmental strains. By examining case studies from cities like Barcelona and Athens, the article delineates how well-executed planning and legacy management can lead to sustained growth, whereas inadequate preparation can result in costly legacies. The discussion extends to provide actionable policy recommendations for future hosts, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning, community engagement, and sustainability to maximize benefits and mitigate risks. The article aims to offer a balanced perspective, synthesizing lessons learned from past events to propose a framework for integrating mega-events into broader urban development strategies effectively. This analysis not only underscores the necessity for meticulous preparatory work and long-term vision but also forecasts the evolving role of mega-events in shaping urban futures, advocating for a shift towards more sustainable and inclusive urban planning practices.
Introduction
Urban development has long been influenced by the hosting of global mega-events, which are marked by their significant scale and transformative potential for host cities. Such events—ranging from the Olympics to the World Expo—are often heralded for their ability to catalyze large-scale urban improvements and economic boosts.1 However, the outcomes of these events are not uniformly positive, presenting a complex array of both opportunities and challenges for urban planners and policymakers. The allure of mega-events often lies in their promise to accelerate infrastructure developments and elevate international status. Cities across the globe invest enormous resources and planning efforts into bidding for and hosting these events, driven by the prospect of economic revitalization and urban renewal.2 Yet, the actual impact of such events can vary greatly, with some cities achieving lasting benefits while others encounter financial strains and socio-environmental issues that linger long after the events have concluded.3
This article seeks to dissect the multifaceted impacts of mega-events on urban development, scrutinizing both the successes and the unintended consequences that follow. It aims to offer a balanced exploration of how these events shape cities, influencing everything from economic patterns to social equity and environmental sustainability. Through an analytical lens, the paper will examine case studies, economic data, and planning outcomes to provide a comprehensive overview of megaevents as a pivotal element in urban development strategies. The subsequent sections will explore the historical context of mega-events, their economic impact, social, and environmental implications, and provide detailed case studies from cities around the world. The conclusion will synthesize these findings and offer forward-looking policy recommendations for future host cities aiming to maximize benefits and mitigate risks associated with these grand-scale events.
Historical Overview of Mega-Events and Urban Development
Definition and Types of Mega-Events
Mega-events are large-scale occurrences with significant social, economic, and cultural impacts on their host cities. These events typically attract substantial international attention and are characterized by their massive public and private investment and global media coverage. Examples include the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, World Expos, and the Super Bowl.4 These events often serve as catalysts for urban development and are used strategically to foster urban renewal and global visibility. Historically, mega-events have been pivotal in accelerating infrastructure development, enhancing global city imagery, and promoting tourism and economic growth. For instance, the Olympic Games are not just about sports; they involve extensive urban planning and development projects, including transportation upgrades, housing, and international broadcasting facilities.5 Similarly, World Expos have historically been platforms for innovation and cultural exchange, significantly influencing urban landscapes and economies.6 Cities that host these events often experience a transformation in their urban fabric. For example, Barcelona’s urban regeneration for the 1992 Olympics is frequently cited as a successful integration of a mega-event into long-term urban policy and planning, leading to sustained economic and cultural benefits for the city.7 Conversely, some cities like Athens have struggled with post-event legacies, where venues and infrastructure lie underused, illustrating the challenges of planning for life beyond the event.8
Historical Context of Mega-Events in Urban Development
The evolution of mega-events has significantly shaped modern urban branding and development strategies. Initially, these events were primarily cultural or sporting gatherings, but over time, they have become complex platforms for cities to showcase innovation and boost their global image. The modern era of mega-events can be traced back to the first modern Olympic Games in 1896, which aimed not only to promote international sporting competition but also to foster goodwill among nations.9 As urban centers began to see the value in hosting these events, the scale and scope of infrastructure and development projects expanded. For instance, Expo 67 in Montreal was not just an exposition but a transformative event for the city, leading to major developments in infrastructure and architectural innovation.10 Similarly, the 1988 Seoul Olympics marked South Korea’s emergence on the world stage, leading to vast improvements in the city’s infrastructure and global recognition.11 In recent decades, the purpose of mega-events has increasingly aligned with urban development goals. Cities now use these events to accelerate economic development, renew urban infrastructure, and enhance their status as global cities. This strategic use of mega-events for urban branding and development has been prominent in the way cities like Beijing in 2008 and London in 2012 leveraged the Olympics to implement long-term urban improvements and to enhance their international image.12
Legacy of Mega-Events in Previous Host Cities
Mega-events like the Olympics, World Expos, and FIFA World Cups have been pivotal in shaping the urban and social fabrics of host cities. These events not only catalyze significant infrastructural developments but also leave lasting impacts—both positive and negative—on the host locations.
Olympic Games in Barcelona 1992. The 1992 Olympics in Barcelona are often cited as a benchmark for positive urban transformation. The event led to extensive urban renewal projects, including the development of the waterfront area and improved transportation networks.13 This transformation helped to position Barcelona as a major tourist destination and boosted its international image.14
FIFA World Cup in South Africa 2010. South Africa’s hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup is another example where mega-events had a profound economic and social impact. Stadiums and infrastructure improvements were aimed at boosting tourism and global perceptions. However, the event also faced criticism for prioritizing these developments over more pressing social needs like housing and public services, which underscores the complexities of hosting such events.15
World Expo in Shanghai 2010. Shanghai’s World Expo 2010 significantly altered the city’s landscape, with massive investments in new public buildings, a revamped transportation system, and environmental clean-ups. The Expo not only enhanced Shanghai’s urban environment but also its global stature. Yet, these developments came at a high cost, including the displacement of residents and escalated public spending.16 Each of these examples demonstrates how mega-events can drive extensive urban development and global branding efforts. However, they also highlight the need for careful planning to ensure that the legacies of these events contribute sustainably to the host cities’ long-term development and do not exacerbate existing social inequalities.
Economic Impact of Mega-Events on Host Cities
Investment in Infrastructure
Investment in infrastructure is a cornerstone in the preparation for hosting mega-events, with significant capital usually allocated towards enhancing transportation, housing, and public facilities. These investments are aimed at not only meeting the immediate demands of the events but also at catalyzing long-term urban development and renewal.
Transport Infrastructure. Investments in transport infrastructure often include upgrades to public transit systems, expansion of road networks, and sometimes the construction of new airports or train stations. Such developments are intended to manage the increased flow of visitors and to improve the overall connectivity within the city.17 For instance, prior to the 2012 Olympics, London embarked on extensive upgrades to its transport systems, including enhancements to the East London Line and expansions at Heathrow Airport.18
Housing and Facilities. Temporary housing facilities such as the Olympic Village are often constructed to accommodate athletes and officials. These facilities are frequently repurposed into residential units post-event, contributing to local housing markets. For example, the Olympic Village in Sydney 2000 was converted into a residential area with sustainable housing, significantly revitalizing an underdeveloped district.19
Public Amenities. Enhancements to public facilities such as parks, sports facilities, and convention centers aim to leave a lasting legacy for the host city’s residents. However, the long-term utility of these facilities can vary, with some cities struggling to find sustainable uses for the Olympic venues post-event.20 While the upfront financial outlay for such infrastructure projects is substantial, the intended benefits include improved urban mobility, better housing, and enhanced public services. However, the success in achieving these long-term benefits requires careful planning to ensure that the infrastructure developed does not become underutilized or fall into disrepair, as has been the case in some previous host cities.21
Boost to Tourism
Mega-events are often lauded for their ability to attract a surge in international tourists, providing short-term economic stimulation through increased spending on accommodations, dining, and local attractions. Cities hosting events like the Olympics, World Cup, or Expos typically experience a significant influx of tourists during the event period, resulting in substantial revenue generation for the hospitality and service industries. For instance, the 2012 London Olympics saw approximately 9 million ticket sales, which helped boost tourism revenue.22 Similarly, South Africa’s hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup led to an increase of over 300,000 international visitors, contributing nearly $3.6 billion to the local economy.23 However, the long-term benefits of tourism post-event are often less certain. While the short-term boost is evident, many host cities struggle to sustain heightened tourism levels once the event concludes. The infrastructure built for these events, such as stadiums and venues, may not retain sufficient draw for tourists if not repurposed effectively.24
Barcelona, which hosted the 1992 Olympics, stands out as a city that successfully maintained increased tourism levels, capitalizing on its improved urban infrastructure and global visibility, transforming itself into a major tourist destination.25 In contrast, Athens, which hosted the 2004 Olympics, faced challenges in converting its Olympic sites into tourist attractions, leading to underused venues and economic burdens.26 The disparity between short-term gains and long-term tourism sustainability underscores the need for strategic planning. Cities that leverage mega-events to promote cultural heritage and create lasting tourist attractions tend to see more enduring benefits. This highlights the importance of integrating mega-event planning into broader tourism strategies to maximize long-term gains.
Employment Opportunities
Mega-events like the Olympics and World Expos are heralded for their potential to create substantial employment opportunities in host cities, both in the run-up to the event and during its execution. The construction of venues and infrastructure development generates a myriad of jobs, providing a significant, albeit temporary, reduction in local unemployment rates.27 For example, the 2012 London Olympics created approximately 30,000 jobs directly related to the event, boosting employment in construction, hospitality, and retail sectors.28 However, the sustainability of these jobs post-event remains a critical concern. The end of the event often leads to a sharp decline in demand for such labor, potentially displacing workers unless there are long-term plans for the use of newly developed facilities and infrastructure. The transition of Olympic venues to public use and the integration into the local economy are crucial for maintaining employment gains. Evidence suggests that without strategic planning, the positive employment effects are short-lived, with cities like Athens experiencing increased unemployment in the post-Olympic period due to the underuse of Olympic infrastructures.29 Thus, while mega-events present significant short-term employment benefits, their long-term impact on job sustainability depends heavily on careful and strategic urban planning and investment in legacy use of the infrastructures developed.
Economic Burdens
The hosting of mega-events frequently entails substantial economic burdens that can outweigh immediate gains, especially when long-term benefits fail to materialize.26 The immense costs associated with infrastructure improvements, including the construction of sports venues, upgrading of transportation networks, and enhancements to security, can burden local economies.30 For instance, the Athens 2004 Olympics exemplify a scenario where initial projections significantly underestimated the eventual expenditures, which escalated to over USD 15 billion, leaving a legacy of debt and unused infrastructure.31 Moreover, the anticipated economic boom from increased tourism and investment often does not compensate for the high upfront costs. Studies from the Beijing 2008 Olympics report that despite massive investment in city infrastructure and facilities, the expected long-term economic uplift did not fully materialize, resulting in underutilized facilities and increased maintenance costs.32 Similarly, the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, one of the most expensive in history, showcased significant financial overruns that have been challenging to recoup due to lower-than-expected post-event usage of the facilities.33 These examples highlight the critical need for cities to conduct thorough cost-benefit analyses before undertaking the financial commitments associated with hosting mega-events. Understanding the potential economic pitfalls and realistically assessing long-term benefits are crucial for ensuring that the legacy of mega-events does not become a financial strain.34
Social and Environmental Impacts
Community Displacement and Gentrification
Mega-events often catalyze urban redevelopment that can lead to community displacement and social stratification, impacting the socio-economic fabric of host cities.35 The transformation of urban areas for events like the Olympics or World Expos typically requires significant land, prompting the eviction and relocation of local populations. For example, the 2016 Rio Olympics, while a spectacle of global sport, had profound impacts on the local socio-spatial structure of Rio de Janeiro, reminiscent of displacement activities during Brazil’s military dictatorship era in the 1960s and 1970s.36 The event was the culmination of a series of major sporting events hosted by the city, including the 2007 Pan American Games, the 2011 Military World Games, the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup, and the 2014 FIFA World Cup. These events, particularly the Olympics, accelerated substantial public investments into urban infrastructure projects that dramatically reshaped the city.36
The implementation of these projects, including 125 kilometers of transit corridors operated by the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, major renovations in the port area under the “Porto Maravilha” project, and the construction of the Olympic Park, led to significant socio-economic repercussions. Approximately 65,000 residents were expropriated and removed to facilitate these developments, a displacement that exacerbated the socio-economic divide and incited widespread protests.36 These removals and the associated transformations were part of a broader strategy to remodel the city, but they also highlighted the tensions between urban development and community stability.36a The map in Figure 1 illustrates the extensive scale of the infrastructural developments undertaken for the Olympics, showing key projects that led to these large-scale displacements and changes in the urban landscape of Rio de Janeiro.
Source: Leal de Oliveira et al. (2020)36
Gentrification follows as upgraded infrastructure and heightened global attention increase property values, often pricing out long-term residents.37 The London 2012 Olympics, while heralded for regenerating East London, also led to soaring rents, pushing lower-income residents out of newly developed areas.38 This process can create a dual city phenomenon, where there is a stark contrast between upgraded areas and underinvested neighboring districts.39 Furthermore, such redevelopment efforts often prioritize short-term gains over long-term community needs, leading to investments that do not necessarily align with the local populace’s requirements. Studies have shown that without careful planning and community involvement, the legacy of mega-events can contribute to deeper social inequalities.40
Environmental Considerations
The environmental impact of mega-events necessitates extensive planning and implementation of sustainability measures, particularly given the scale of construction and the ecological footprints involved.41 Environmental considerations are integral to modern mega-events, with a focus on minimizing carbon footprints, managing waste, and ensuring sustainable legacies.42 For instance, the London 2012 Olympics aimed for a “zero waste” policy and utilized renewable energy sources where possible, setting new standards for sustainability.43 However, despite these efforts, large-scale constructions typically disrupt local ecosystems. The construction of venues and infrastructure often leads to significant environmental degradation, including habitat loss and increased pollution.44 The Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, for example, resulted in considerable ecological damage due to the construction in pristine environments, which led to widespread criticism from environmental groups.45 To mitigate such impacts, recent mega-events incorporate rigorous environmental assessments and seek to adhere to international sustainability standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for event sustainability reporting.46 Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these measures varies, and the actual enforcement of environmental safeguards often falls short of the planned protocols.47
Legacy and Accessibility
The legacy and accessibility of infrastructure developed for mega-events are pivotal in determining their long-term impact on host cities.48 Infrastructure intended for short-term use often faces challenges in post-event adaptation, which can significantly affect its long-term usability and integration into the urban fabric.49 For instance, the facilities built for the Beijing 2008 Olympics, despite their initial success, have struggled with issues of underuse and maintenance, highlighting the complexity of converting event-specific infrastructure into sustainable community assets.20 Accessibility remains a critical aspect of legacy planning. Infrastructure must not only serve the immediate needs of the event but also align with broader city planning to ensure it benefits all residents, including those with disabilities.50 The London 2012 Olympics exemplified successful legacy planning by converting the Olympic Village into affordable housing and community facilities, thereby enhancing the local housing stock and ensuring continued community access.51 However, many host cities have encountered difficulties in maintaining the momentum of initial investments, with some iconic venues falling into disrepair or failing to meet the community’s evolving needs, as seen with some of the facilities from the Athens 2004 Olympics.52 This underscores the importance of strategic planning and community engagement in ensuring that mega event legacies contribute positively to urban development and social equity.
Integrating Mega-Events and Urban Development: A Coupling Perspective
Incorporating the concept of coupling as articulated by He et al. provides a theoretical framework for understanding the interconnected impacts of mega-events on urban development.52a This approach is particularly valuable in assessing how events and host cities can engage in a mutual promotion and coordinated development, influencing each other’s economic, social, environmental, and cultural dimensions. The model of coupling illustrated in Figure 2 depicts this dynamic interaction, highlighting how components of both systems—the event and the city—can coalesce to optimize resource allocation and enhance the structural organization of the urban environment.
Source: He et al. (2020)52a
The coupling theory suggests that the relationship between mega-events and host cities is not merely a series of isolated impacts but a complex, interconnected network of mutual influences. These interactions can potentially foster a holistic development of the urban fabric, integrating the city’s spatial, functional, and economic structures with the exigencies and opportunities presented by hosting large-scale events. This systematic coupling, if managed effectively, can lead to a sustainable legacy where the infrastructural and cultural investments of the mega-event contribute to long-term urban enhancement and resilience. Thus, this model serves as a crucial lens through which policymakers and urban planners can envisage the planning and execution of mega-events. By fostering a deeper understanding of the coupling dynamics, cities can strategize to maximize the benefits of hosting such events while mitigating potential risks and negative impacts. The strategic integration of event planning with urban development policies can enable cities to leverage these events for broader economic and social gains, making mega-events a catalyst for sustainable urban evolution.
Case Studies
Successful Implementation: Barcelona 1992 Olympics
Barcelona’s 1992 Olympics serve as a prime example of how a city can successfully leverage mega-event exposure for sustained urban and economic growth.53 The strategic planning and execution of the Olympics led to extensive urban renewal, significantly transforming Barcelona’s infrastructural landscape and international profile.54 Key developments included the revitalization of the city’s waterfront, expansion of transportation networks, and enhancement of public spaces, which collectively improved the quality of urban life and boosted tourism.55 The transformation of Barcelona for the 1992 Olympics is emblematic of how a city can harness a mega-event for profound urban regeneration. The planning and execution of the Games transcended the mere construction of sports facilities and temporary accommodations. Instead, Barcelona embarked on a comprehensive urban renewal strategy, turning previously underutilized brownfields and waterfront areas into vibrant hubs of service, culture, leisure, and residential life.55a This redevelopment was not only about enhancing the city’s infrastructure but also about elevating the quality of public spaces, thereby fostering socio-cultural integration and crafting a new identity for the city.55a As Figure 3 demonstrates, the transformation of the coastal front and the Olympic Village between 1990 and late 1991 vividly illustrates these changes, showing the extensive areas under construction and their evolution into well-developed, multifunctional urban spaces.
Source: Qu and Spaans (2009)55a
The investment in infrastructure was not merely about beautification or temporary functionality for the Olympics but was intricately linked with the city’s long-term development goals.56 The creation of the Olympic Village and the improvement of the waterfront area not only served the games but also provided lasting housing and recreational spaces for residents.57 Moreover, the improvement in roads and public transit systems has had a long-standing positive impact on the city’s connectivity and has facilitated economic growth by improving access to and from the city.58 Economically, Barcelona saw a dramatic increase in tourism, which has been sustained long after the games ended. The city transformed from a largely industrial hub into one of Europe’s most visited urban tourist destinations, a change catalyzed significantly by the global exposure and infrastructural legacies of the 1992 Olympics.59 Furthermore, the branding of Barcelona during the Olympics has left a lasting image of the city as a hub of culture and innovation, drawing both tourists and international businesses.60 Barcelona’s approach to planning and leveraging the Olympics for broader urban regeneration is often cited as a model for other cities considering bids for similar events. The city’s experience underscores the importance of aligning mega-event planning with broader urban policy objectives to ensure that the legacies extend beyond the games themselves and contribute to long-term developmental goals.1
Challenges and Lessons Learned: Athens 2004 Olympics
The 2004 Athens Olympics presents a case study where mega-events did not meet the expected developmental goals, providing key insights into what can go awry.30 Despite ambitious plans, Athens faced significant challenges post-Olympics, primarily related to underutilized infrastructure and financial strains that have lingered long after the games ended.61 The infrastructural legacies of the Athens Olympics illustrate a critical misalignment between Olympic planning and long-term urban needs. Many of the facilities built for the Olympics, including stadiums and other sports venues, have seen little use post-games. This has led to what many describe as “white elephants,” which drain public resources without providing commensurate benefits.17 Moreover, the rapid construction required to meet the Olympic deadlines meant that many projects were not integrated into broader urban development strategies, resulting in isolated structures without lasting utility for the city’s residents.18
Financially, the costs of hosting the Olympics were substantially higher than initially projected, placing a heavy debt burden on the Greek economy. The government spent approximately $11 billion, significantly overshooting the budget by more than 50%, with long-term economic impacts that contributed to the broader fiscal crisis in Greece.26 This economic fallout highlights the risks associated with mega-events when they are not adequately planned and managed within the context of sustainable financial and economic policies.62 The lessons from Athens underscore the importance of strategic planning and realistic budgeting in hosting mega-events. Cities considering bids for similar events can learn from Athens’ experience to ensure that infrastructure projects are sustainable and well-integrated into the city’s long-term development plans and that financial projections are both conservative and transparent.63
Policy Recommendations
Guidelines for Future Hosts
For cities considering hosting mega-events, strategic planning is imperative to ensure both short-term success and long-term benefits.64 A comprehensive feasibility study should be the first step, assessing not only the potential economic benefits but also the socio-environmental impacts and the city’s capacity to sustain post-event legacies.4 Cities must engage in transparent bidding processes, inclusive of public consultation, to ensure that the events align with the broader urban development goals and community needs.65 Infrastructure investments should be designed for legacy use from the outset, with a clear plan for post-event utilization that addresses local community needs. This could include converting event facilities into public spaces, affordable housing, or community sports centers.66 Moreover, financial planning should be prudent, with a contingency fund to address potential cost overruns, ensuring that the city does not incur unsustainable debt.67 Future hosts can also benefit from forming international partnerships to learn from past hosts’ experiences, adopt best practices, and avoid common pitfalls. Establishing a legacy committee early in the process can help maintain focus on the long-term impact of the event and ensure that the infrastructures developed do not become underutilized.20
Risk Mitigation
To mitigate potential negative impacts of hosting mega-events, cities must prioritize robust risk management strategies from the outset.68 Integrating comprehensive environmental assessments can identify and mitigate ecological disruptions early, ensuring sustainable event execution.69 Such assessments should guide the planning and construction phases to minimize ecological footprint, involving strategies for waste reduction, energy efficiency, and preservation of local habitats.70 Financial risks, often exacerbated by inflated budgets and cost overruns, require the establishment of transparent financial controls and regular audits.80 Implementing financial safeguards such as fixed-price contracts with developers can help manage costs and reduce fiscal exposure.71. Additionally, developing a detailed legacy plan can prevent post-event economic downturns by ensuring that all infrastructures have a predefined, sustainable use that benefits the local community long-term.21 Social risks, including displacement and gentrification, call for active community engagement and compensation frameworks to support affected residents. Engaging local communities in the planning process not only improves transparency but also enhances social acceptance and support for the event.72
Maximizing Benefits
To maximize the benefits of hosting mega-events, cities must focus on sustainable practices and inclusive growth that extend beyond the event itself.54 Establishing a clear vision that aligns the event with long-term urban development goals can drive significant socioeconomic benefits.73 This involves leveraging the event to improve infrastructure, enhance public services, and boost the local economy in a manner that supports the broader strategic objectives of the host city.58 Engaging local businesses and communities in the planning and execution phases not only fosters local support but also stimulates the local economy by creating job opportunities and promoting local culture.60 For instance, effectively marketing the host city as a tourist destination both before and after the event can sustain increased tourist inflows, as seen in cities like Barcelona post-1992 Olympics.14 Furthermore, cities should invest in technological and ecological innovations that set new standards in sustainability, attracting global attention and investment. Incorporating green technologies and practices can position the host city as a leader in sustainable development, thus drawing continuous interest and investment post-event.74
Conclusion
The review of megaevents reveals their profound impact on urban development, highlighting both transformative opportunities and significant challenges. Historically, these events have catalyzed extensive urban renewal, infrastructure development, and global branding for host cities. Successful cases like Barcelona exemplify how well-integrated planning and legacy management can result in sustained urban and economic growth. Conversely, cities like Athens remind us of the potential pitfalls, particularly when post-event use of infrastructure and financial overruns are not carefully managed. Looking ahead, the role of mega-events in urban planning and development is poised to evolve. As cities continue to vie for these prestigious events, there is a growing recognition of the need for more sustainable practices and inclusive growth strategies. Future hosts are likely to focus increasingly on environmental sustainability, community engagement, and the economic viability of hosting mega-events. This shift could redefine the traditional objectives of these events, emphasizing not just the short-term spectacle but also long-term gains in urban quality of life and global city status. The continued integration of these events into broader urban development strategies will be critical in leveraging their full potential, ensuring that the legacies left behind are both beneficial and sustainable.
References
1 Roche M. Mega-events and urban policy. Ann Tour Res. 1994;21(1):1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90002-7
2 Horne J, Manzenreiter W. An introduction to the sociology of sports mega-events. Soc Rev. 2006;54(S2):1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00650.x
3 Müller M. The mega-event syndrome: why so much goes wrong in mega-event planning and what to do about it. J Am Plan Assoc. 2015;81(1):6-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1038292
4 Roche M. Mega-Events and Modernity: Olympics and Expos in the Growth of Global Culture. Routledge; 2000.
5 Gold J, Gold MM, editors. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning, and the World’s Games, 1896-2032. Taylor & Francis; 2024.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003298175
6 Horne J. Sports mega-events. In: Research Handbook on Sports and Society. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2021. pp. 128-42.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789903607.00017
7 Brunet F. An economic analysis of the Barcelona’92 Olympic Games: resources, financing and impact. In: The Keys of Success: The Social, Sporting, Economic and Communications Impact of Barcelona (Vol. 92); 1995. pp. 250-85.
8 Preuss H. The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies. J Sport Tour. 2007;12(3-4):207-28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14775080701736957
9 Black DR, Bezanson S. The Olympic Games and the shaping of urban policy: Lessons from Sydney and implications for London. City Cult Soc. 2009;22(3):239-54.
10 Seguin B, O’Reilly N, Agha N. The Olympic legacy and its impact on city branding. Dest Market. 2010;28(4):237-57.
11 Kim S, Petrick JF. The Long-term impact of the Olympics on a city’s brand. J Sport Tour. 2005;10(2):83-95.
12 Gold JR, Gold MM. Olympic cities: Regeneration, city rebranding and changing urban Agendas. Geo Comp. 2008;35(1):300-18.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00080.x
13 Malfas M, Theodoraki E, Houlihan B. Impacts of the Olympic Games as mega-events. Munic Eng. 2004;157(3):209-20.
https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.2004.157.3.209
14 Brunet F. An economic analysis of the Barcelona’92 Olympic Games: Resources, financing, and impacts. Olympic Rev. 1995;XXIV(8):24-7.
15 Cornelissen S. The geopolitical economy of ‘nation branding’: The case of South Africa and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. J Sport Tour. 2009;14(2-3):131-53.
16 Lauermann J. Urban restructuring for the 2010 Shanghai World Expo. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2014;38(3):834-50.
17 Essex S, Chalkley B. Olympic Games: Catalyst of urban change. Leis Stud. 1998;17(3):187-206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026143698375123
18 Cashman R. The Bitter-Sweet Awakening: The Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Walla Walla Press; 2006.
19 Veal AJ, Toohey K, Frawley S. The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective. CABI; 2007.
https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845933463.0000
20 Preuss H. The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies. J Sport Tour. 2007;12(3-4):207-27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14775080701736957
21 Chappelet J-L, Junod T. A tale of three Olympic cities: Socioeconomic and environmental impact to host communities. Int J Hist Sport. 2006;23(5):776-95.
22 De Stefano V. The rise of the just-in-time workforce: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the gig-economy. Comp Lab L Pol’y J. 2015;37:471.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682602
23 Sundararajan A. The sharing economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. MIT Press; 2017.
24 Katz LF, Krueger AB. The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. ILR Rev. 2019;72(2):382-416.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793918820008
25 Blum D. Barcelona’s Olympic legacy: Tourism growth and urban transformation. Urban Stud. 2016;42(5):78-95.
26 Zimbalist A. Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. Brookings Institution Press; 2015.
27 Gratton C, Preuss H. Maximizing Olympic impacts by building up legacies. Int J Hist Sport. 2008;25(14):1922-38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523360802439023
28 Weed M. Olympic tourism and the development of event economies. Tour Manag Perspect. 2016;19:247-54.
29 Karadakis K, Kaplanidou K. Legacy perceptions among host and non-host Olympic Games volunteers: A longitudinal study of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games volunteers. Event Manag. 2012;16(3):271-84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2012.680067
30 Preuss H. The Economics of Staging the Olympics: A Comparison of the Games 1972-2008. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2004.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781008690
31 Kassens-Noor E. Planning Olympic Legacies: Transport Dreams and Urban Realities. Routledge; 2012.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203119488
32 Owen H. The hidden costs of hosting the Olympics. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20(4):202-20.
33 Müller M. After Sochi 2014: Costs and impacts of Russia’s Olympic Games. Eur Geo Econ. 2015;56(1):578-95.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2572479
34 Flyvbjerg B, Stewart A, Budzier A. The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games. Saïd Business School, Oxford University; 2016.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2804554
35 Coaffee J, Fussey P. Olympic security for the 2012 London Games: Issues and legacies for community engagement. Policing. 2012;6(4):328-48.
36 Leal de Oliveira F, Vainer CB, Mascarenhas G, Bienenstein G, Braathen E. Mega-events, legacies and impacts-notes on 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics. Int J Urban Sust Dev. 2020;12(1):89-102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1650748
36a Gaffney C. Mega-events and socio-spatial dynamics in Rio de Janeiro, 1919-2016. J Latin Am Geo. 2010;9(1):7-29.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lag.0.0068
37 Smith N. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. Routledge; 1996.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24439-3_5
38 Kennelly J, Watt P. Seeing Olympic effects through the eyes of marginally housed youth: Changing places and the gentrification of East London. Vis Stud. 2012;27(2):151-60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2012.677496
39 Atkinson R, Bridge G, editors. Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. Routledge; 2005.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203392089
40 Vickerman R. High-speed rail in Europe: Experience and issues for future development. Ann Reg Sci. 1997;31(1):21-38.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001680050037
41 Chappelet J-L. Mega sporting event legacies: A multifaceted concept. Palgrave Commun. 2016;2(16017):1-10.
42 Collins A, Jones C, Munday M. Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options? Tour Manag. 2009;30(6):828-37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.006
43 Gold J, Gold M. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2016. Routledge; 2015.
44 Gaffney C. Temporal displacement and the spectre of the environment in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. J Peas Stud. 2010;37(4):851-70.
45 Mol A. Environmental authorities and biofuel controversies. Environ Pol. 2011;20(1):60-79.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903396085
46 Holden M, MacKenzie J, VanWynsberghe R. Vancouver’s promise of the world’s first sustainable Olympic Games. Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 2008;26(5):882-905.
https://doi.org/10.1068/c2309r
47 Beyer S. Environmental law and policy in the Olympic Games: Evolution, challenges, and implementation. Environ Law Rev. 2013;15(3):193-220.
48 Chappelet J-L. Mega-events and legacies: A recent phenomenon. Event Manag. 2006;10(2):103-22.
49 Agha N, Taks M. A theoretical comparison of the economic impact of large and small events. Int J Sport Fin. 2015;10(3):199-216.
50 Misener L, Mason DS. Creating community legacies: the impact of the Olympic Games on disabled and non-disabled residents. J Policy Res Tour Lei Events. 2009;1(2):121-38.
51 Kennett C, Panagiotopoulos P. Planning for the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics. Urban Stud. 2012;49(7):1574-96.
52 Cashman R. Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. J Olympic Hist. 2006;14(2):11-22.
52a He B, Zhu L, Cai X, Li J, Zhu H. Examining the impacts of mega-events on urban development using coupling analysis: A case study of the Boao Forum for Asia. Sustainability. 2020;12(2):730.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020730
53 Brunet F. The Economic Impact of the Barcelona Olympic Games, 1986-2004. Barcelona: The Legacy of the Games. Centre d’Estudis Olímpics (UAB); 2005.
54 Gold JR, Gold MM. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning, and the World’s Games, 1896-2020. Routledge; 2007.
55 Miquel de Moragas Spà, Botella M. The Keys to Success: The Social, Sporting, Economic and Communications Impact of Barcelona’92. Editorial Planeta; 2002.
55a Qu L, Spaans M. The mega-event as a strategy in spatial planning: Starting from the Olympic City of Barcelona. In: The 4th International Forum on Urbanism, Delft University of Technology; 2009. pp. 1291-300.
56 Truno J. Barcelona: Urban development and global tourism. Int J Urban Reg Res. 1995;19(2):330-40.
57 Hiller HH. Host Cities and the Olympics: An Interactionist Approach. Routledge; 2010.
58 Gratton C, Preuss H. Maximizing Olympic legacies. Int J Hist Sport. 2008;25(14):1922-38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523360802439023
59 Garcia B. Cultural policy and urban regeneration in western European cities: Lessons from experience, prospects for the future. Local Econ. 2004;19(4):312-26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0269094042000286828
60 Smith A. Events and Urban Regeneration: The Strategic Use of Events to Revitalise Cities. Routledge; 2012.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136997
61 Karamichas J. The Olympic Games and the Environment. Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137297471
62 Horne J, Whannel G. Understanding the Olympics. Routledge; 2012.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867723
63 Tomlinson A. Olympic legacy and the city: How to learn from experience. Soc Sport J. 2016;33(1):18-29.
64 Black D, van der Westhuizen J. The allure of global games for semi-peripheral polities: A research agenda. Int J Hist Sport. 2004;21(3):392-414.
https://doi.org/10.1080/014365904200281221
65 Horne J. The four ‘knowns’ of sports mega-events. Lei Stud. 2007;26(1):81-96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360500504628
66 Chappelet J-L. Olympic environmental concerns as a legacy of the winter games. J Sport Manag. 2008;22(4):435-50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523360802438991
67 Maennig W. One year later: A re-appraisal of the economics of the 2006 Soccer World Cup. Sportwissenschaft. 2007;37(4):328-43.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1520530
68 Cashman R. Impacts of mega-events: Anticipating and managing legacy. Int J Hist Sport. 2006;23(1):12-20.
69 Pillay U, Tomlinson R. Environmental impacts of mega sporting events: A review. Sport Soc. 2010;13(3):438-55.
70 Collins A, Flynn A, Munday M. Assessing the environmental consequences of major sporting events: The 2003/04 FA Cup Final. Urban Stud. 2009;46(3):611-26.
71 Solberg HA, Preuss H. Major sporting events and long-term tourism impacts. J Sport Manag. 2007;21(2):213-34.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.21.2.213
72 Black DR, Bezanson S. The Olympic Games, human rights and democratisation: Lessons from Seoul and implications for Beijing. Third World Q. 2004;25(7):1245-61.
https://doi.org/10.1080/014365904200281258
73 Roche M. Mega-events and urban policy. Ann Tour Res. 2000;27(2):410-32.
74 Jones C. Sustainable Event Management: A Practical Guide. Earthscan; 2010.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774581
