1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented global disruption, bringing the tourism and events industries to a near standstill through widespread lockdowns, travel restrictions, and social distancing mandates [1]. Among the hardest hit were mega-events—large-scale international gatherings such as the Olympic Games, Expos, and World Cups—many of which were postponed, canceled, or drastically modified to comply with new public health protocols [2]. As the world has moved into a post-pandemic recovery phase, the re-emergence of mega-events has required not just a return to prior operations but a rethinking of how such events can be made more resilient, adaptable, and sustainable in the face of future global disruptions.
Despite a growing body of literature on sustainability in event management, there remains a gap in understanding how mega-events specifically have adapted their environmental, socio-cultural, and physical sustainability practices in the wake of COVID-19. The need to reassess and innovate within event planning and legacy development has become urgent, particularly as stakeholders push for more responsible and community-focused practices. This study contributes to that emerging discourse by analyzing how selected mega-events have implemented sustainability-focused strategies post-pandemic and what outcomes or lessons have emerged.
The purpose of this study is to examine the recovery of mega-events in a post-COVID-19 context through the lens of sustainability. Specifically, the research addresses the following objectives: To identify the environmental sustainability strategies (e.g., green technologies, energy efficiency, and waste management) adopted by mega-events post-COVID-19; To assess the socio-cultural initiatives designed to engage local communities and promote inclusive benefits; To evaluate how physical infrastructure planning has evolved to emphasize modular, flexible, and low-impact solutions.
To achieve these objectives, this study adopts a qualitative comparative case study approach, analyzing documented practices, policy shifts, and innovations across several major international mega-events held after the pandemic. This methodology enables a nuanced understanding of both the strategic intentions and the practical outcomes of sustainability efforts in varied cultural and organizational contexts.
By focusing on how sustainability has been reimagined in the recovery phase of mega-events, this research advances knowledge on adaptive strategies in event management and offers practical insights for future planning in an increasingly uncertain global environment.
2. Literature Review
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the organization and perception of mega-events worldwide. This literature review examines the evolution of mega-events from the pre-pandemic era through the pandemic’s peak to the post-pandemic period, focusing on the challenges encountered, adaptive strategies employed, and emerging trends that are shaping their future.
2.1. Pandemic Era: Characteristics and Challenges of Mega-Events
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, mega-events such as the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, and World Expositions were recognized for their significant economic, social, and cultural impacts. These events were celebrated for enhancing international visibility, boosting tourism, and promoting urban development [3,4].
Socially, mega-events cultivated community pride, volunteerism, and a sense of shared national identity. For example, Waitt found that the Sydney 2000 Olympics increased local morale and fostered community cohesion [5]. Similarly, Girginov and Hills demonstrated how the London 2012 Olympics promoted youth participation in sport and culture, although they cautioned that such benefits were often short-lived [6].
However, these events also drew criticism for displacing marginalized communities, escalating costs, and creating underused infrastructure post-event [7]. Notably, Rio 2016 and Athens 2004 faced backlash for their unfulfilled legacy promises and socio-environmental disruptions. Although the International Olympic Committee (IOC) introduced Agenda 2020 to promote sustainability and legacy planning, its implementation varied across host cities [8].
2.2. Disruption and Risk in the COVID-19 Era
Host cities frequently used mega-events as platforms to modernize infrastructure, generate employment, and drive foreign investment [9]. The onset of COVID-19 in early 2020 led to significant disruptions in the scheduling and planning of mega-events. Governments imposed lockdowns, travel restrictions, and bans on large gatherings, resulting in widespread postponements or cancellations of events like UEFA Euro 2020, Tokyo 2020 Olympics, and EXPO Dubai 2020 [2,10]. Health and safety concerns necessitated the implementation of stringent protocols, including social distancing measures, vaccination requirements, and, in some cases, the absence of live audiences. For instance, the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games were postponed by a year and held without spectators, significantly altering the traditional atmosphere and the addition of 2.8 billion USD in costs [11].
Athletes experienced disrupted training schedules, and stakeholders incurred additional financial losses. Public risk perceptions evolved during this period, with initial fear and uncertainty giving way to cautious engagement as testing and vaccination protocols improved [12]. Local businesses, particularly those in tourism and hospitality, faced substantial losses due to the absence of international visitors and the prohibition of spectators at events [13].
The pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of mega-events to global crises, prompting organizers to reassess their risk management strategies. Ludvigsen discussed how event organizers had to navigate the complexities of postponements, cancellations, and the shift to virtual or hybrid formats, all while managing financial losses and maintaining stakeholder engagement [12].
The environmental implications of mega-events also came under renewed scrutiny during the pandemic. Mega-events were scrutinized as potential “super-spreader” events. Studies linked UEFA Euro 2020 to 840,000 COVID-19 cases and smaller events like the Biogen Conference in Boston to over 333,000 cases [14,15]. Public trust in organizers became tied to the efficacy of health protocols and transparency in communication.
A systematic review by Gkoumas et al. found that while some events have made strides toward sustainability, many continue to have significant negative environmental impacts, such as increased carbon emissions and resource consumption [16].
In response to these multifaceted challenges, there is a growing emphasis on developing more resilient and adaptable models for hosting mega-events. This includes leveraging technology for virtual participation, implementing sustainable practices, and ensuring that the benefits of such events are equitably distributed among local communities [17]. The experience of the Tokyo 2020 Olympics underscores the need for robust contingency planning in the organization of mega-events. It highlights the importance of flexibility, stakeholder communication, and the integration of public health considerations into event planning processes [18].
In response to these additional challenges, organizers implemented comprehensive health and safety protocols for the rescheduled Games. Measures included regular testing, vaccination requirements, and the establishment of a “bubble” environment to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission. These efforts were largely successful, with a reported infection rate of just 0.02% among participants [13].
The study on the Biogen conference in Boston linked the event to over 333,000 COVID-19 cases, illustrating how a single gathering could have extensive public health ramifications [19]. Similarly, research on the UEFA Euro 2020 championship indicated that large-scale gatherings significantly contributed to the spread of COVID-19 across multiple countries. The study estimated that the championship was associated with approximately 840,000 cases, highlighting the challenges of hosting international events during a pandemic [20].
Further research has shown that the public health impact of such events extends beyond immediate transmission risks. For instance, the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, despite stringent health protocols, faced criticism for potentially increasing local COVID-19 cases. Studies have indicated that even with measures like regular testing and restricted audience sizes, the influx of international participants posed significant risks [13]. This highlights the complex balance between maintaining public health and continuing with scheduled mega-events.
Risk perception among the public also evolved during the pandemic. Initial responses to mega-events were marked by heightened fear and uncertainty, driven by media reports and government advisories [12]. Over time, as more information became available and vaccination campaigns progressed, public perception shifted towards a more nuanced understanding of risk. However, the psychological impact of these events remained significant, with many individuals experiencing increased anxiety and stress related to potential exposure [21].
The experience of managing mega-events during the pandemic has provided valuable lessons for future public health strategies. Effective communication and transparent risk assessment are crucial in managing public perception and ensuring compliance with health measures. Additionally, the integration of robust contingency plans and adaptive strategies can help mitigate the risks associated with large gatherings [15].
2.3. Innovation and Digital Transformation in Response to COVID-19
The pandemic accelerated the adoption of many innovations in mega-events. Technology played a pivotal role. Organizers employed AI-based crowd control, digital ticketing, and health monitoring apps to manage participation and safety. Events like EXPO Dubai 2020 integrated virtual pavilions and digital platforms to maintain accessibility and participation. While these measures addressed immediate risks, concerns regarding digital inclusion and long-term feasibility remain underexplored in the literature [22].
In response to the challenges posed by the pandemic, event organizers and stakeholders implemented various adaptive strategies to mitigate risks and ensure the continuity of mega-events. These strategies included the adoption of hybrid event formats, enhanced health and safety protocols, and the utilization of technology to facilitate virtual participation. The UK government’s Events Research Programme (ERP) conducted pilot events to assess the feasibility of hosting large gatherings safely. These events incorporated measures such as pre-and post-event testing, improved ventilation, and crowd management strategies. While the findings indicated no substantial outbreaks, experts noted that low uptake of post-event testing among attendees limited the robustness of the conclusions [23].
One notable adaptive strategy was the shift to hybrid event formats, combining in-person and virtual elements to reduce the risk of transmission while maintaining engagement. This approach was particularly effective in maintaining international participation and inclusivity, as seen in various conferences and sporting events [24]. Enhanced health and safety protocols, including regular testing, vaccination requirements, and improved sanitation measures, were also critical in minimizing risks. For example, the Tokyo 2020 Olympics implemented stringent health measures, which contributed to a low infection rate among participants [13].
Technology played a pivotal role in facilitating virtual participation and ensuring the continuity of events. Virtual platforms enabled organizers to host events without physical gatherings, thus mitigating the risk of virus transmission. The use of digital tools for event management, audience engagement, and real-time monitoring of health metrics became standard practice [25]. These innovations not only addressed immediate challenges but also set new standards for future event planning.
The pandemic prompted a reevaluation of spatial strategies for mega-events. Organizers adopted measures such as scaling down event sizes, spacing out venues, and utilizing existing infrastructure to reduce the need for new construction and minimize environmental impact [26]. This shift towards sustainability and resilience is expected to influence the planning of future events, emphasizing the importance of adaptability and long-term legacy.
2.4. Pre-Pandemic Sustainability Efforts
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, sustainability in mega-events had become an increasingly important consideration, particularly in response to the widespread criticism of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of such large-scale gatherings. Organizers were beginning to adopt sustainable practices to address issues like carbon emissions, waste management, and community displacement [27,28]. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), for example, introduced sustainability as a key pillar of Olympic Agenda 2020, committing to low-impact infrastructure, environmental stewardship, and community legacy outcomes [29].
However, sustainability efforts during the pre-pandemic era were often viewed as supplementary rather than central to event planning. Numerous host cities faced scrutiny over greenwashing, where sustainability was promoted rhetorically but not sufficiently implemented in practice [30]. Mega-events like the Rio 2016 Olympics and the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil drew significant attention for their social and ecological costs, such as displacements and increased pollution [30].
In addition to these criticisms, research has highlighted the challenges of achieving genuine sustainability in mega-events. For instance, a study on the sustainability practices of mega-events in Chinese metropolises revealed that while economic and environmental sustainability were often prioritized, social sustainability lagged behind [31]. This imbalance underscores the complexity of integrating comprehensive sustainability measures into event planning.
The pre-pandemic era saw a growing emphasis on the legacy of mega-events. Organizers aimed to ensure that the benefits of hosting such events extended beyond their immediate duration. This included investments in infrastructure that could serve the community long-term, as well as initiatives to promote local economic development and social cohesion [32]. Despite these efforts, the actual implementation often fell short of the ambitious goals set by organizers, leading to mixed outcomes in terms of sustainability.
The role of technology in promoting sustainability also gained traction during this period. Innovations such as smart infrastructure, energy-efficient systems, and digital platforms for waste management were increasingly adopted to minimize the environmental footprint of mega-events [25]. These technological advancements not only addressed immediate sustainability concerns but also set a precedent for future event planning.
Overall, while pre-pandemic sustainability efforts in mega-events marked a significant step forward, they were often hampered by practical challenges and inconsistencies in implementation. The lessons learned from these efforts continue to inform current and future strategies for hosting sustainable mega-events.
2.5. Sustainability Trajectories: From Green Rhetoric to Holistic Legacy Planning
The post-COVID landscape has accelerated the integration of sustainability into mega-event planning—not just in environmental terms but also in public health, social inclusion, and economic resilience. The pandemic has reinforced the need for flexible, resilient event models that can respond to global crises without incurring unsustainable burdens [25]. Hybrid and digitally integrated events, which became necessary during the pandemic, now offer opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint associated with long-distance travel and massive infrastructure development [12]. Organizers are re-evaluating the scale and permanence of infrastructure, opting instead for temporary or modular venues and increased community consultation to ensure long-term benefits.
There is a noticeable shift toward the circular economy model in event planning—aiming for zero-waste practices, resource reuse, and energy efficiency. For example, the 2024 Paris Olympics have prioritized carbon neutrality and the use of 95% existing or temporary venues, setting a benchmark for future mega-events [33]. This approach not only reduces environmental impact but also promotes sustainable development by leveraging existing resources and minimizing waste.
The concept of resilience has become central to post-pandemic sustainability efforts. Event organizers are increasingly focusing on creating adaptable and flexible event models that can withstand future disruptions. This includes the incorporation of contingency plans, robust health protocols, and the ability to pivot to virtual or hybrid formats as needed [1]. Such strategies ensure that events can continue safely and effectively, even in the face of unforeseen challenges.
Public health considerations have also been integrated into sustainability planning. The pandemic highlighted the importance of health security in event management, leading to the adoption of measures such as enhanced sanitation, health monitoring, and vaccination requirements [15]. These practices not only protect attendees but also contribute to the overall sustainability of events by reducing the risk of disease transmission.
Social inclusion and economic resilience are other key aspects of post-pandemic sustainability reframing. Organizers are prioritizing community engagement and ensuring that the benefits of mega-events are distributed equitably. This includes supporting local businesses, promoting social cohesion, and creating opportunities for marginalized groups [1]. By fostering inclusive and resilient communities, mega-events can leave a positive legacy that extends beyond their immediate duration.
2.6. Community Engagement and Public Health in Mega-Events
The pandemic underscored the necessity of community engagement and transparent governance. Traditional top-down planning approaches were challenged as local populations demanded more say in decision-making. For instance, despite Tokyo 2020′s low infection rates, public opposition was strong, with 80% of local residents initially opposed to the event [33]. This illustrates how perceived legitimacy is shaped not only by outcomes but also by participatory processes [34,35].
Historical cases such as Salt Lake City (2002) and Vancouver (2010) demonstrate how inclusive governance can enhance community trust and long-term legacy [36]. Effective engagement entails co-creating event agendas, integrating feedback mechanisms, and ensuring equitable benefit distribution [36].
Aligning mega-events with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—particularly those addressing health, sustainable cities, and reduced inequalities—can strengthen community-centered legacies [37].
2.7. Resilience as a Core Principle in Post-Pandemic Event Governance
Resilience has become a defining principle in the post-COVID organization of mega-events. According to Piperca and Floricel, resilience involves the integration of health resilience (public health protocols), operational resilience (flexible formats), and community resilience (inclusive governance) [38].
Mega-events now emphasize modular infrastructure, contingency planning, and diversified revenue streams to withstand future shocks. Events like the 2022 Commonwealth Games and COP27 embedded resilience planning in their design phases, signifying a strategic shift toward institutional agility [38].
While resilience has always been relevant, its explicit inclusion in legacy planning and bid proposals indicates a paradigm shift in how mega-events are conceptualized and delivered.
In addition to technological advancements, there is a growing emphasis on sustainable practices. Organizers are increasingly adopting measures to reduce the environmental impact of mega-events, such as carbon offsetting, waste reduction, and the use of renewable energy sources [15]. These efforts not only contribute to environmental sustainability but also enhance the social and economic resilience of host communities.
As the sector moves forward, a balanced approach that integrates public health considerations, technological advancements, and sustainable practices will be essential in redefining the future of mega-events in a post-pandemic world. This holistic approach ensures that mega-events can continue to thrive while addressing the challenges posed by global crises.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Design
This study employed a qualitative, comparative case study design to explore strategic transformations in the planning and execution of mega-events. The research was structured around three distinct temporal phases—pre-pandemic (2010–2019), peak pandemic (2020–2021), and post-pandemic recovery (2022–2024)—with the objective of identifying patterns of adaptation, resilience, and innovation. (See Table 1)
To achieve this aim, a total of 66 documents were initially analyzed. These included peer-reviewed journal articles, government and event organizer reports, economic impact assessments, and reputable media sources. The analytical framework was derived through an inductive review of existing literature and structured deductively around four central domains of transformation: infrastructure adaptability, socio-cultural resilience, marketing evolution, and sustainability practices.
3.2. Case Study Selection
Case studies were selected through purposive sampling to capture a diverse spectrum of mega-events in terms of format, location, and response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Selection was guided by four criteria: international scale and visibility, integration with urban environments and public life, inclusion of varying event typologies, and evidence of strategic adaptations in response to pandemic-related disruptions.
The final sample included a range of event types. International sporting events encompassed the FIFA World Cup [40] and multiple editions of the Olympic Games, including London 2012 [41], Rio 2016 [42], Tokyo 2020 [43], Sochi 2014 [44], PyeongChang 2018 [45], Beijing 2022 [46], and Paris 2024 [32]. Cultural events were represented by Lollapalooza Music Festival in Chicago [47], while new-format urban events included the 2023 NASCAR Chicago Street Race [48]. Convention-based events were drawn from programming at McCormick Place in Chicago, including the 2021 Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) conference [49]. Additionally, the study incorporated global expositions and climate-oriented mega-events such as EXPO Dubai 2020 [50] and COP26 in Glasgow [51]. These cases offered a comparative lens through which both traditional and emerging event models could be analyzed. A comprehensive table of all cases, timelines, and data sources is provided in Appendix A.
3.3. Data Collection
Data collection occurred between January and November 2024 and was based exclusively on secondary sources. Searches were conducted across a broad range of academic databases, including JSTOR, Google Scholar, PubMed, ArXiv, Emerald Insight, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink. To ensure breadth and depth, the research also incorporated grey literature, such as official event documentation, government policy briefings, economic impact reports, destination marketing publications (e.g., those from Choose Chicago), and archived media coverage.
The search strategy was informed by targeted keyword clusters tailored to the thematic focus of the research. These included terms such as “mega-event” or “large-scale event” combined with “COVID-19 response” or “post-pandemic,” and more specific pairings like “Olympics” and “resilience,” “urban event planning” and “health protocols,” or “Lollapalooza” and “Chicago pandemic response.”
Inclusion criteria specified that sources must have been published between 2010 and 2024, directly address at least one of the selected events in terms of planning, execution, or legacy, and originate from a reputable peer-reviewed, governmental, or professional media source. Excluded were duplicate publications, superficial news reports lacking analytical depth, and non-institutional blogs or commentary pieces.
Two researchers carried out the data collection process. Each was responsible for a distinct subset of case studies to ensure comprehensive coverage. To ensure consistency, all sources were reviewed using a shared set of relevance criteria. Disagreements over inclusion were resolved through consensus during scheduled joint review sessions, supported by a citation-based vetting protocol.
3.4. Data Analysis
Thematic content analysis was used to interpret the collected data, following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework for qualitative thematic analysis [39]. The coding process was structured around four pre-established analytical themes aligned with the research objectives: infrastructure and spatial adaptability; socio-cultural resilience and community engagement; marketing evolution and audience reach; and environmental and health sustainability.
Coding was performed independently by both researchers using NVivo 14 qualitative data analysis software. Initial codes were developed inductively within each case study, allowing for emergent insights, and subsequently refined into a shared codebook. Inter-coder reliability was assessed through peer debriefing and code comparison, resulting in an agreement rate of 87 percent. Discrepancies were addressed through discussion and consensus-building, leading to further refinement of theme definitions and scope.
Cross-case matrices were developed to identify thematic convergence and divergence across different event types and pandemic phases. Research responsibilities were clearly delineated: one researcher focused primarily on international sports events, while the other analyzed cultural festivals and conventions. Each researcher also reviewed the other’s coded data for quality assurance and consistency. This iterative and collaborative approach enhanced the analytical robustness and credibility of the findings.
3.5. Ethical Considerations
As the study relied exclusively on publicly available secondary data, no human subjects were involved, and no institutional ethical approval was required. All sources were used in accordance with established standards for secondary data usage, and every document cited has been accurately referenced in the final manuscript.
4. Results
This section presents a thematic synthesis of findings from the comparative case studies of eight international mega-events, structured around four key analytical dimensions: infrastructure and spatial adaptability, socio-cultural resilience and engagement, marketing evolution and global reach, and environmental sustainability. The results highlight systematic shifts in mega-event strategies from pre-pandemic models of permanence and expansion toward post-pandemic paradigms of flexibility, resilience, and inclusion.
4.1. Infrastructure and Spatial Adaptability
Infrastructure strategies varied significantly across events, revealing a spectrum from high-cost legacy projects to temporary, modular approaches. The FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar [40] represented the most infrastructure-intensive model, with investments exceeding 220 billion USD, far surpassing previous tournaments in Brazil (2014, ~15 billion USD) and Russia (2018, ~11.6 billion USD). This model prioritized permanent stadiums and transportation upgrades aimed at long-term urban transformation.
By contrast, recent urban events such as the NASCAR Chicago Street Race and Lollapalooza (2021–2023) illustrate a shift toward temporary, adaptive infrastructure [47,48]. NASCAR converted downtown Chicago into a racetrack using minimal physical modifications, emphasizing reversibility and event scalability. Similarly, Lollapalooza used modular, seasonal infrastructure in Grant Park, favoring low-impact, repeatable urban integration. Figure 1 below illustrates the contrast in infrastructure investments across selected events:
Meanwhile, McCormick Place Convention Center, one of the largest U.S. convention venues, adapted existing infrastructure through enhanced post-pandemic retrofitting, including sanitation systems, revised ventilation, and spatial reconfiguration for distancing protocols [49].
These developments collectively indicate a post-COVID trend toward spatial flexibility, the reuse of infrastructure, and the avoidance of long-term construction liabilities.
4.2. Socio-Cultural Resilience and Community Engagement
Audience recovery and re-engagement emerged as consistent themes across all events. The FIFA World Cup 2022 achieved a record global audience of 5 billion and in-person attendance of 3.4 million, reaffirming the enduring social pull of global sports [40]. Simultaneously, Lollapalooza drew ~385,000 attendees in 2021, reflecting strong local and regional cultural resilience [47].
NASCAR’s 2023 and 2024 Chicago races attracted significant non-local attendance and contributed to improved perceptions of both the city and the sport. Notably, NASCAR’s event satisfaction index increased from −3.0 in 2023 to +29.7 in 2024, signaling rapid improvements in public experience and urban hospitality efforts [48].
McCormick Place recovered from pandemic-era shutdowns, returning to near pre-pandemic event volume by 2024. Local economic activity and industry participation rebounded, indicating strong demand for face-to-face engagement in professional and business sectors.
However, the link between these attendance figures and deeper forms of engagement, such as co-creation, participatory design, or legacy input, was inconsistently documented, suggesting a gap in reporting meaningful community integration.
4.3. Marketing Evolution and Global Reach
Post-pandemic marketing strategies increasingly emphasized trust-building, safety assurance, and sustainability narratives. The FIFA World Cup continued to deliver commercial success, with marketing rights revenue growing from 1.6 billion USD in 2014 to 1.795 billion USD in 2022, despite the challenges of pandemic uncertainty [40].
NASCAR’s 2024 media value surged to 43.6 million USD, nearly doubling its 2023 performance. Social media engagement and public relations campaigns significantly broadened the event’s reach, supported by urban branding strategies tied to recovery and inclusion [48].
Lollapalooza’s marketing strategy integrated public health messaging, encouraging mask usage and responsible participation. McCormick Place emphasized messages of economic recovery and normalcy, reflecting a pivot toward assurance and resilience in branding [47,49].
Overall, post-pandemic marketing emphasized transparency, localized storytelling, and health-conscious branding, responding to shifts in audience trust and risk perception.
4.4. Environmental Sustainability: A Cross-Cutting Priority with Gaps
Environmental sustainability remained a rhetorical theme but was inconsistently supported by measurable actions or disclosures. The FIFA World Cup 2022, despite international scrutiny, lacked transparent data on emissions, water usage, or waste management, though Qatar claimed the use of sustainable building techniques [40].
In contrast, NASCAR’s Chicago event, though temporary, raises concerns over fuel consumption, noise pollution, and waste generation, particularly given its urban context and non-local visitor footprint. However, the short-term nature of the infrastructure may reduce lasting environmental disruption [48]. Lollapalooza shares similar environmental risks—including waste and energy usage—though its repeated use of Chicago’s main park, Grant Park, suggests a lower ecological impact relative to new construction [47].
McCormick Place, as a fixed convention center, represents another sustainability challenge. Large venues inherently consume high energy and generate substantial waste. The recovery period presents a pivotal opportunity to implement green retrofits, including energy efficiency upgrades and enhanced waste management systems [49]. However, like other case studies, these sustainability actions were not detailed in the primary reports, underscoring the need for future transparency and commitment to measurable outcomes.
Across all events, sustainability remains under-reported yet increasingly relevant. Emerging patterns suggest a shift toward temporary and modular infrastructure, decentralized energy use, and recyclable materials, though concrete environmental reporting is sparse. As public expectations rise and regulations tighten, mega-events will need to adopt sustainability not only as a communication theme but as a core operational principle.
4.5. Comparative Analysis of the Olympic Games
To contextualize the broader trends, a focused comparison of Summer and Winter Olympic Games is presented in Table 2, summarizing strategic evolution across key dimensions from the pre- to post-pandemic eras.
These comparisons illustrate a clear post-pandemic pivot toward resilience, reuse, and innovation, especially visible in Beijing 2022′s closed-loop system and carbon-neutral achievements [46].
During the pre-pandemic period, both the Summer and Winter Olympics demonstrated a growing, albeit different in focus, awareness of sustainability. Rio 2016 emphasized localized environmental efforts such as ethanol fleets and forest replanting [42]. In contrast, Sochi 2014 introduced “Green Construction” standards alongside substantial infrastructure development, and PyeongChang 2018 highlighted eco-friendly design and the use of renewable materials [44,45]. This suggests that the pre-pandemic Summer Games focused on specific environmental initiatives, while the Winter Games began to integrate broader eco-conscious design principles.
In terms of infrastructure and legacy, Rio 2016 aimed for significant urban renewal through extensive construction, mirroring Sochi 2014′s construction of an entirely new Olympic Park [42,44]. PyeongChang 2018, however, showed an early move towards prioritizing venue reuse and long-term legacy [45]. Thus, the pre-pandemic Summer Games were more oriented toward large-scale urban transformation through new infrastructure, whereas the Winter Games started to explore venue reuse as a legacy strategy.
Efforts towards inclusion and accessibility were also evident. Rio 2016 marked a milestone with the debut of the Refugee Olympic Team [42]. Sochi 2014 focused on creating Paralympic-friendly urban infrastructure, and PyeongChang 2018 expanded accessibility efforts and featured a symbolic joint Korean team [44,45]. This indicates that both the Summer and Winter Games recognized the importance of inclusion, with the Summer Games pioneering global inclusion through the Refugee Team and the Winter Games emphasizing Paralympic integration and symbolic unity [43,44,45,46].
Technological integration advanced in both Summer and Winter Games before the pandemic. Rio 2016 enhanced digital viewership, Sochi 2014 featured large LED displays, and PyeongChang 2018 launched 5G and VR viewing. Technology served as an increasingly vital tool to enhance the spectator experience for both Summer and Winter editions. [42,44,45]
4.6. Post-Pandemic Era (Summer: Tokyo 2020 & Paris 2024; Winter: Beijing 2022)
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly accelerated the commitment to sustainability, particularly in the Winter Games. Tokyo 2020 aimed for carbon-negative operations and medal recycling, while Paris 2024 set ambitious goals for a circular economy and net-zero carbon emissions [32,33]. Notably, Beijing 2022 achieved 100% renewable energy use for all venues and full carbon neutrality, setting a new benchmark for environmental sustainability in the Olympics [46]. This suggests that post-pandemic, sustainability became a central and rigorously pursued goal for both Summer and Winter Games, with Beijing 2022 demonstrating exceptional achievements in this area [46].
Infrastructure prioritization shifted significantly post-pandemic towards the reuse of existing venues. Tokyo 2020 emphasized minimal new infrastructure due to cost-saving measures, a trend further amplified in Paris 2024 with a target of 95% existing or temporary venues [32,33]. Beijing 2022 also heavily relied on reusing venues from the 2008 Summer Olympics [46]. Both the Summer and Winter Games post-pandemic strongly prioritized the reuse of existing infrastructure over large-scale new builds, driven by cost considerations and sustainability objectives.
Inclusion and accessibility efforts deepened in the post-pandemic era. Tokyo 2020 focused on record female participation and gender-balanced events, which were maintained in Paris 2024 alongside an expanded Refugee Team and accessible events [33,43]. Beijing 2022 was the most gender-equal Winter Olympics to date and emphasized digital accessibility [46]. Both the Summer and Winter Games continued to prioritize gender equality and broadened the scope of accessibility initiatives, with the Winter Games increasingly leveraging digital tools.
Technology’s role evolved from a support function to a foundational platform in the post-pandemic Games. Tokyo 2020 utilized virtual audience features and cloud-based operations. Paris 2024 incorporated AI-powered experiences, digital twins, and VR content [32,33]. Beijing 2022 featured digital twins, AI traffic control, and a fully digital broadcast infrastructure [46]. Post-pandemic, technology became crucial for fan engagement, operational efficiency, and even health security, with both Summer and Winter Games showcasing sophisticated digital integrations.
4.7. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic represents a defining divergence in the post-pandemic era. Tokyo 2020 faced significant disruption through postponement and the absence of international spectators [33]. Paris 2024 incorporated lessons learned from this experience, emphasizing flexibility and resilience [32]. Beijing 2022, as the first pandemic-era Winter Olympics, implemented a rigorous “closed-loop” system, including mass testing and vaccine mandates [46]. Thus, the Winter Games directly confronted the immediate challenges of staging a major event during a global health crisis, necessitating the development of stringent health security protocols. At the same time, the Summer Games adapted their strategies in response to the pandemic’s broader impacts.
4.8. Summary of Strategic Shifts and Interpretation
Across all cases, the COVID-19 pandemic acted as a critical inflection point, accelerating transformations that were already emergent: (a) Infrastructure shifted from monumental investment to scalable, modular, and reusable forms. (b) Audience engagement rebounded, but qualitative inclusion (beyond attendance) remains uneven. (c) Marketing and communications now prioritize health security, sustainability, and community trust. (d) Sustainability is increasingly expected but still lacks transparency and enforcement.
The Olympic Games—especially Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022—demonstrated the most comprehensive integration of post-pandemic priorities, setting benchmarks for digital infrastructure, gender equity, and climate-conscious planning.
Collectively, the results support a broader theory of post-pandemic mega-event resilience, defined by fiscal responsibility, inclusion, technological adaptability, and sustainability ambition.
5. Discussion and Implications
The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a catalyst for fundamental transformations in the planning and governance of mega-events. As demonstrated through the comparative analysis of major global events—including the FIFA World Cup, the Olympic Games, Lollapalooza, NASCAR’s Chicago Street Race, and McCormick Place conventions—there has been a significant shift away from pre-pandemic models emphasizing monumental infrastructure and mass physical attendance toward more agile, inclusive, and sustainability-oriented approaches. These changes, though often born of necessity, have contributed meaningfully to evolving theoretical and practical understandings of mega-event management in crisis-prone contexts [32,33,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].
Theoretically, this study contributes to the discourse on resilience by demonstrating its expansion beyond traditional risk mitigation to include infrastructural flexibility, digital transformation, and public health integration. Notably, post-pandemic mega-events illustrate how resilience now encompasses adaptive governance, community trust-building, and operational agility. The inclusion of a diverse set of events—beyond the Olympic Games and World Cups—further extends event typology theory by highlighting how smaller-scale but still internationally visible events adopt hybrid strategies and localized innovations to remain viable and relevant.
Practically, the findings suggest that infrastructure planning has evolved significantly. Post-pandemic mega-events are increasingly favoring modular and temporary designs over permanent structures, a strategy evidenced in events such as NASCAR’s Chicago Street Race and Lollapalooza [47,48]. This trend reflects both cost consciousness and ecological awareness. Furthermore, audience re-engagement in events like FIFA 2022 and McCormick Place conventions points to the enduring importance of social cohesion, with community participation emerging not merely as a benefit but as a requirement for success [40,49]. Engagement strategies are now more reliant on inclusive planning and transparent communication, particularly given heightened sensitivities around public health and urban space.
The evolution of marketing strategies also warrants emphasis. In a post-pandemic world, safety and trust have become integral to promotional narratives. Events increasingly leverage digital platforms to reassure audiences while expanding global reach. At the same time, environmental sustainability has shifted from symbolic messaging to operational mandate. Events like the Paris 2024 Olympics and Beijing 2022 Winter Games provide emerging models, with demonstrable commitments to circular economy principles, renewable energy usage, and venue reuse [32,45]. However, the analysis also reveals substantial gaps in sustainability reporting, suggesting that while aspirations are rising, transparency and implementation remain inconsistent.
Health security has become institutionalized in event planning, no longer relegated to reactive protocol but embedded as core infrastructure. The Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022 Olympics showcased this transformation through measures such as closed-loop systems, contactless logistics, and virtual engagement platforms [43,46]. Finally, the emphasis on legacy planning has grown. Organizers are increasingly mindful of avoiding “white elephant” outcomes and are seeking alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in areas of urban resilience, inclusivity, and environmental stewardship.
Collectively, these developments indicate that the post-pandemic mega-event is being redefined as a human-centered, technologically enabled, and environmentally responsive institution. This transformation underscores the need for innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and long-term vision in both research and practice.
6. Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Despite the breadth and depth of analysis, this study is subject to several important limitations that may affect the scope and generalizability of its findings. First, the exclusive reliance on secondary data imposes constraints on the richness and granularity of insights. While sources included peer-reviewed articles, government documents, and event reports, the lack of access to internal planning records, proprietary evaluations, and unpublished materials may limit the comprehensiveness of the analysis. This challenge is particularly acute in areas such as sustainability performance and stakeholder negotiations, which are often under-reported or confidential.
Second, the absence of primary data collection—such as interviews with organizers, local officials, or community participants—precludes the triangulation of findings and restricts the exploration of motivations, conflicts, and decision-making dynamics that shape mega-event strategies. Given the complex socio-political environments in which these events occur, such data would have enhanced interpretive depth and contextual specificity.
Third, although thematic analysis was conducted collaboratively and supported by software tools, the interpretive nature of qualitative coding introduces subjectivity. Inter-rater reliability was not statistically assessed, which may affect reproducibility. While cross-validation helped mitigate potential biases, a more formalized coding protocol could enhance methodological rigor in future studies.
Moreover, the selected case studies, while geographically diverse and thematically varied, do not represent the full spectrum of global mega-events. The focus on North American, European, and East Asian contexts leaves out regions such as Africa, South Asia, and Latin America (outside Brazil), where different political, economic, and infrastructural dynamics may shape event planning in unique ways. As such, the findings should be interpreted with caution when applied beyond the contexts examined.
Finally, while the study identifies critical patterns across infrastructure, marketing, sustainability, and community engagement, the lack of standardized quantitative data—particularly in environmental impact, health outcomes, and economic return—limits its ability to offer empirical generalizations or cross-case benchmarking.
Future research should seek to address these limitations by incorporating mixed-methods approaches, including stakeholder interviews, survey-based analyses, and longitudinal studies of event legacies. Investigations into under-represented contexts, especially first-time host cities or events in the Global South, are also critical to expanding the conceptual and empirical breadth of mega-event studies. Furthermore, there is a need to develop standardized indicators for assessing the environmental, social, and economic performance of events to facilitate comparative evaluations across time and geography.
This study offers a timely and necessary intervention in the study of mega-events, illuminating the strategic recalibrations taking place in the wake of a global crisis. While the post-pandemic future remains uncertain, the trajectory of mega-events points toward a more adaptive, equitable, and sustainable model of global public gathering.
7. Conclusions
The post-pandemic era has significantly transformed the landscape of mega-events, emphasizing resilience, adaptability, and sustainability. Event organizers are increasingly integrating health security, environmental considerations, and community engagement into their planning processes to ensure long-term viability and acceptance [6,27]. The shift towards hybrid and digitally integrated event models offers opportunities to reduce carbon footprints and enhance inclusivity [1]. Furthermore, the alignment of mega-events with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) underscores the importance of delivering lasting social, economic, and environmental benefits [52].
The pandemic has accelerated the adoption of innovative strategies, such as modular infrastructure and temporary venues, which reduce the environmental impact and promote resource efficiency [26]. These approaches not only address immediate sustainability concerns but also set a precedent for future event planning. Additionally, the integration of robust health protocols, including sanitation measures and vaccination requirements, has become essential in safeguarding public health during large gatherings [15].
Community engagement has emerged as a critical component of sustainable legacy planning. By involving local residents in decision-making and ensuring that the benefits of mega-events are equitably distributed, organizers can foster social cohesion and enhance the perceived success of events [17]. This approach helps to build trust and improve attendee experiences, which are vital for the long-term acceptance of mega-events.
The evolution of marketing strategies reflects the need for transparency and trust-building in the post-pandemic era. Emphasizing public safety, adaptability, and environmental responsibility in promotional narratives can enhance the global reach and commercial success of mega-events [53].
In summary, the post-pandemic transformations in mega-event planning highlight the necessity for innovation and adaptability in addressing global tourism challenges. A balanced approach that integrates public health considerations, technological advancements, and sustainable practices will be essential in redefining the future of mega-events in a post-pandemic world.
M.J.D. and C.R. were equally involved in each step of this research project including conceptualization, methodology, and validation; formal analysis; resources; data curation; writing—original draft preparation, review, and editing; and visualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
All secondary data used in this study are publicly accessible on the Internet by searching for performance metrics of these mega-events. No proprietary data were used.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Infrastructure investment in selected mega-events.
Methodological Framework.
| Stage | Procedure |
|---|---|
| 1. Case Selection | Purposeful sampling based on event typology, geographic diversity, and pandemic response |
| 2. Case Selection | Targeted keyword searches in academic and gray literature (66 documents collected) |
| 3. Screening & Validation | Dual-researcher screening, conflict resolution by consensus |
| 4. Thematic Coding | NVivo-assisted thematic analysis using Braun & Clark model [ |
| 5. Comparative Synthesis | Pattern identification across events and pandemic phases |
Comparative Shifts in Olympic Mega-Events (Pre- and Post-Pandemic).
| Dimension | Pre-Pandemic (Rio 2016, Sochi 2014, PyeongChang 2018) | Post-Pandemic (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022, Paris 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Infrastructure | Large-scale new builds, Olympic Parks | Reuse of venues, modular structures, 95% of existing venue targets |
| Sustainability Focus | Ethanol buses, forest offsets, "green construction" | Carbon neutrality, circular economy, 100% renewable energy (Beijing) |
| Inclusivity | Refugee Olympic Team, Paralympic infrastructure | Gender-balanced events, expanded Refugee Team, and digital accessibility |
| Technology Integration | LED displays, VR, 5G experiments | Cloud-based operations, AI-driven logistics, digital twins |
| Pandemic Adaptation | N/A | Closed-loop systems, health bubbles, event postponement (Tokyo) |
N/A, Information not available.
Appendix A
Research Corpus by Case Study.
| Event Name | Event Type | Location | Pandemic Phase(s) Covered | Types of Sources Analyzed |
| FIFA World Cup (2018, 2022) | International Sports | Russia, Qatar | Pre, Peak, Post | Academic articles, FIFA reports, and news media |
| Summer Olympics (London 2012, Rio 2016, Tokyo 2020) | International Sports | UK, Brazil, Japan | Pre, Peak, Post | IOC reports, academic studies, and government documents |
| Winter Olympics (Sochi 2014, PyeongChang 2018, Beijing 2022) | International Sports | Russia, South Korea, China | Pre, Peak, Post | Sustainability reports, academic journals, and media |
| EXPO Dubai 2020 | Global Exposition | United Arab Emirates | Peak, Post | Official EXPO briefings, economic impact assessments |
| COP26 (Glasgow, 2021) [ | Climate Conference | UK | Peak | Policy documents, UN reports, news media |
| NASCAR Chicago Street Race (2023) | Street Racing/Urban Event | United States (Chicago) | Post | Local news, city reports, event press releases |
| Lollapalooza (Chicago, multiple years) | Music Festival | United States (Chicago) | Pre, Peak, Post | Tourism board data, economic studies, and news media |
| McCormick Place Conventions (RSNA 2021, etc.) | Trade Show/Convention | United States (Chicago) | Pre, Peak, Post | Trade show data, event analytics, government reports |
1. Chen, Y. The future of mega-events, post COVID-19 pandemic: The resilient path towards legacy creation. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev.; 2022; 10, pp. 168-178.
2. Assaf, A.; Kock, F.; Tsionas, M. Tourism during after COVID-19: An expert-informed agenda for future research. J. Travel Res.; 2022; 61, pp. 454-457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00472875211017237]
3. Grix, J. Image leveraging and sports mega-events: Germany and the 2006 FIFA World Cup. J. Sport Tour.; 2012; 17, pp. 289-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2012.760934]
4. Muller, 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, pp. 6-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1038292]
5. Waitt, G. Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2003; 30, pp. 194-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00050-6]
6. Girginov, V.; Hills, L. A sustainable sports legacy: Creating a link between the London Olympics and sports participation. Int. J. Hist. Sport; 2008; 25, pp. 2091-2116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523360802439015]
7. Flyvbjerg, B.; Steward, A. Olympic Proportions: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Olympics 1960–2012. Said Business School Working Paper. 2012; Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2238053 (accessed on 10 February 2025).
8. Gold, J.R.; Gold, M.M. Olympic Sustainability. Olympic Cities; 4th ed. Routledge: London, UK, 2024.
9. Preuss, H. The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies. J. Sport Tour.; 2007; 12, pp. 207-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775080701736957]
10. IOC. Olympic Agenda 2020+5. Retrieved from International Olypic Committee. 2021; Available online: https://olympics.com/ioc/olympic-agenda-2020 (accessed on 17 April 2025).
11. IOC. 2022 Annual Report. Retrieved from International Olympic Committee. 2022; Available online: https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/solidarity-and-peace-the-ioc-publishes-2022-annual-report-and-financial-statements (accessed on 1 April 2025).
12. Ludvigsen, J.A.; Rookwood, J.; Parnell, D. Governing the games in the 2020s: The COVID-19 pandemic and the future of sports mega-events. Manag. Sport Leis.; 2022; 27, pp. 1-15.
13. Mohammadi, S.; Siani, M.; Abdolmaleki, H.; Sato, M. COVID-19 pandemic and sporting events: Tokyo 2020 Olympics-Challenges and solutions. Ciris Management and Sports: Global Perspectives; Menaker, B.; Sheptak, D.; Zhang, J. Routledge: London, UK, 2025; pp. 182-195.
14. Lemieux, J.E. Phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in Boston highlights the impact of superspreading events. Science; 2021; 371, 6529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abe3261]
15. Smith, L.; Jones, P.; White, R. The public health risks of mega-events: Lessons from UEFA Euro 2020. Glob. Public Health; 2022; 17, pp. 1354-1369.
16. Gkoumas, A. Evaluating a standard for sustainable tourism through the lenses of local industry. Heliyon; 2022; 5, e02707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02707] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31840122]
17. Mair, J.; Chien, P.; Kelly, S.; Derrington, S. Social impacts of mega-events: A systematic narrative review and research agenda. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2021; 31, pp. 538-560. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1870989]
18. Fauci, A.; Folkers, G. Pandemic preparedness and response: Lessong from COVID-19. J. Infect. Dis.; 2023; 228, pp. 1234-1245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiad095]
19. Fernandez, A. A Boston Conference Let to 300,000 COVID-19 Cases. Retrieved from Axios. Available online: https://www.axios.com/2020/12/12/biogen-conference-coronavirus-covid-superspreader (accessed on 18 January 2023).
20. Dehning, J.; Mohr, S.; Contreras, S.; Donge, P.; Schulz, E.; Bechtle, P.; Priesemann, V. Impact of the Euro 2020 Championship on the Spread of COVID-19. Nat. Commun.; 2023; 14, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35512-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36653337]
21. Purves, R.; Maclean, J.; Rocha, C.; Philpott, M.; Fitzgerald, N.; Piggin, J.; Hunt, K. Attending sporting mega events during COVID-19: Mitigation and messaging at UK EURO 2020 matches. Health Promot. Int.; 2023; 38, daac176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daac176]
22. Jiminez-Andres, M. Accessibility of large events: An empirical study of the Expo 2020. Univers. Access Inf. Soc.; 2024; 23, pp. 1561-1577. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-023-01079-7]
23. Grover, S. The UK government’s events research programme: Assessing the feasibility of hosting large gatherings safely. J. Public Health; 2021; 43, pp. 345-356.
24. Dragin-Jensen, C.; Kwiatkowski, G.; Hannevik Lien, V.; Ossowska, L.; Janiszewska, D.; Kloskowski, D.S. Event innovation in times of uncertainty. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag.; 2022; 13, pp. 387-405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-07-2021-0063]
25. Jones, C. Mega-events and sustainable urban development: Learning from the 2012 London Olympics. J. Urban Aff.; 2017; 39, pp. 1031-1046.
26. Collins, A.; Jones, C.; Munday, M. Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options?. Tour. Manag.; 2009; 30, pp. 828-837. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.006]
27. Laing, J.; Frost, W. How green was my festival: Exploring challenges and opportunities associated with staging green events. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2010; 29, pp. 261-267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.009]
28. International Olympic Committee (IOC). Olympic Agenda 2020: Strategic Roadmap for the Future of the Olympic Movement. 2020; Available online: https://www.olympic.org/olympic-agenda-2020 (accessed on 17 April 2025).
29. Gaffney, C. Mega-events and socio-spatial dynamics in Rio de Janeiro. J. Lat. Am. Geogr.; 2013; 12, pp. 7-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lag.2013.0007]
30. Li, L. Contesting sustainability of mega-events in Chinese metropolises: A narrative and practice review. Front. Sustain. Cities; 2021; 3, 687315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.687315]
31. Vrondou, O.P. Urban mega events: The challenge of hosting sustainably. Recent Advancements in Tourism Business, Technology and Social Sciences; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 653-664. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54338-8_38]
32. Paris Olympic Committee. Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Sustainability Strategy. Retrieved from Paris 2024. 2024; Available online: https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/all-you-need-to-know-about-paris-2024-sustainability (accessed on 7 April 2025).
33. NHK. Can Tokyo Really Stage an Olympic Games? Retrieved from NHK World—Japan. Available online: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/1466/ (accessed on 17 January 2021).
34. Werner, H.; Marien, S. Process vs. Outcome? How to Evaluate the Effects of Participatory Processes on Legitimacy Perceptions. Br. J. Political Sci.; 2022; 52, pp. 429-436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000459]
35. Misener, L.; Mason, D.S. Creating community networks: Can sporting events offer meaningful sources of social capital?. Manag. Leis.; 2006; 11, pp. 39-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13606710500445676]
36. Mair, J. Rethinking the social impacts of events. Event Manag.; 2019; 23, pp. 471-484.
37. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform our World. Retrieved from UN Exhibits. 2023; Available online: https://www.un.org/en/exhibits/page/sdgs-17-goals-transform-world (accessed on 23 March 2025).
38. Piperca, S.; Floricel, S. Understanding project resilience: Designed, cultivated or emergent?. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2023; 41, 102453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102453]
39. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and becoming a knowing researcher. Int. J. Qual. Methods; 2022; 21, pp. 1-6.
40. FIFA. FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 Official Report. Retrieved from the Federation Internationale de Football Association. 2025; Available online: https://fifa.com (accessed on 23 March 2025).
41. London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2012 Post-Games Sustainability Report; London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games: London, UK, 2012; Available online: https://library.olympics.com/default/official-reports.aspx?_lg=en-GB (accessed on 12 February 2025).
42. Rio 2016 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Rio 2016 Official Report, Volume 1 Official Report. Volume 1: Preparation Process; Rio 2016 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2016; Available online: https://library.olympics.com/default/official-reports.aspx?_lg=en-GB (accessed on 12 February 2025).
43. Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Tokyo 2020 Sustainability Post-Games Report; Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games: Tokyo, Japan, 2020; Available online: https://library.olympics.com/default/official-reports.aspx?_lg=en-GB (accessed on 12 February 2025).
44. Sochi Organising Committee for the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Sochi 2014 Sustainability Report; Sochi Organising Committee for the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: Sochi, Russia, 2014; Available online: https://library.olympics.com/default/official-reports.aspx?_lg=en-GB (accessed on 12 February 2025).
45. PyeongChang Organising Committee for the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. PyeongChang 2018 Final Post-Games Sustainability Report; PyeongChang Organising Committee for the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: PyeongChang, Republic of Korea, 2019; Available online: https://library.olympics.com/default/official-reports.aspx?_lg=en-GB (accessed on 12 February 2025).
46. Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Beijing 2022 Post-Games Sustainability Report; Beijing Organising Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: Beijing, China, 2022; Available online: https://library.olympics.com/default/official-reports.aspx?_lg=en-GB (accessed on 12 February 2025).
47. Lollapalooza. Annual Festival Report 2024; C3 Presents: Austin, TX, USA, 2025.
48. NASCAR. Chicago Street Race Impact Report 2024; National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing: Daytona Beach, FL, USA, 2025.
49. McCormick Place. Post-Pandemic Operations and Recovery Report; Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority: Chicago, IL, USA, 2025.
50. EXPO Dubai. Expo 2020 Dubai: Connecting Minds, Creating the Future. Retrieved from Embassy of the United Arab Emirates. 2020; Available online: https://www.uae-embassy.org/expo-2020#:~:text=Over%20six%20months%2C%20192%20participating,better%20world%20for%20everyone%2C%20everywhere (accessed on 23 March 2025).
51. United Nations. Delivering the Glasgow Climate Pact. Retrieved from Unclimate Change Conference UK 2021. 2021; Available online: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20230401054904/https://ukcop26.org/ (accessed on 23 March 2025).
52. Kobierecki, M. Sports mega-events and shaping the international image of states: How hosting the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cups affects the interest in host nations. Int. Politics; 2020; 34, pp. 627-642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00216-w]
53. Chappelet, J. Mega sporting event legacies: A multifaceted concept. Sports Manag. Rev.; 2012; 15, pp. 76-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_PADE.2012.n25.41096]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.