Quality of Life Subjective Expectations and Exchange from Hosting Mega-Events

Abstract

This study examined residents’ quality of life contexts due to the mega-events (F1 Korean Grand Prix 2010 and 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics) based on an insider’s perspective (emic approach). The study investigated the residents’ quality of life contexts due to hosting the mega-events, which are suitable for understanding changes in social patterns among residents. Specifically, the study investigated diverse phenomena surrounding two mega-events and their relation to the quality of life with qualitative methods of participant observation and in-depth interviews. The phenomenon for the quality of life represented socioeconomic effect, educational impact on the local community, infrastructure development, recreational and cultural experience, emotional use of life, community spirit, and direct economic exchange. The subject phenomenon of quality of life examined the Residents’ Perception of Quality of Life, Subjective Expectations and Exchange, and the Relationship Model. The relationship model shows that the mega-event host community residents’ daily life experience from the individual or collective social exchanges influences their perception of the quality of life and the areas of life. Meanwhile, the factors, including individual social interaction, recreational and cultural experience, and the emotional use of life, positively or negatively influence the residents’ perception of the quality of life. Finally, the standards and procedures of the perception of the quality of life appear different depending on the type of residents and whether they have direct economic exchange experience.

1. Introduction

Mega-events can bring significant changes to local communities, such as infrastructure improvement, which brings the host country economic benefits, and international publicity and voluntary participation, which change the consciousness of residents and promote consensus-building. It is impossible to persuade residents of the economic impact of mega-events [1,2]. The success of mega-events suggests that it is not enough to activate the regional economy, such as by increasing employment and residents’ income [3,4]. Residents may be strong supporters of a mega-event; however, most locals do not feel a benefit, so they are increasingly indifferent to the mega-event [5]. Thus, if the economic effects are short-lived and limited, the socio-cultural impact can be long-term [6,7,8,9,10,11]. Socio-cultural factors can be the soft power of a mega-event [12]. Soft power includes enhancing the host destination image [13,14,15], raising residents’ consciousness, fostering solidarity, and improving residents’ quality of life [16,17,18,19,20,21].

Although there is a wide range of studies on mega-events and their effects, there is little empirical research on the quality of life of the local host residents [19,20,21]. Moreover, studies on residents’ perceptions of mega-events have tended to focus on superficial and cross-sectional research that depends on an empirical survey of statistics analysis [19]. In mega-events research, there has been a gradual increase in experience-related studies, reflecting a challenge to the dominance of positivist, quantitative-based studies [4,5,6]. However, little naturalistic inquiry research exists exploring the phenomenon of mega-events and residents’ quality of life. Naturalistic inquiry is highly appropriate to the context of mega-event environments and could give a deeper understanding of residents’ quality of life. Surveys can interrupt the flow of residents’ perceptions of mega-event or be made impossible by the structure of the mega-event [22,23,24,25,26].

This study examined the contexts of residents’ quality of life due to the hosting of mega-events based on an insider’s perspective (emic approach). Specifically, the study investigated diverse phenomena surrounding the mega-events and their relationship to quality of life with qualitative methods of participant observation and in-depth interviews. The host communities of the 2010 F1 Korean Grand Prix and 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics were selected as the objects of this study. Spradley’s qualitative research method [27,28] was applied to the study participants focusing on four factors: the mega-event venue, time, performance, and performers in the four years since 2010 and the three years since 2018. The study participants were residents of the mega-event host communities. This study will contribute to the theory-building of quality of life according to the context-based mega-event by providing opportunities to understand various phenomena and backgrounds of mega-events from the residents’ perspective. Accordingly, this study adopted an ontological, epistemological, and methodological paradigm to achieve its goals. The study could provide implications for policies to attract and hold successful mega-events.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Mega Event and Quality of Life

Various studies have reviewed the relationship between mega-events and the residents of the host region. Recent research has focused more on residents’ quality of life rather than overall satisfaction. As for previous the study on factors influencing the quality of life effects of mega-events and tourism, Siegfried et al. [29] argued that the correlation between the hosting of mega-events such as the Olympics and positive economic effects on the residents and the local community is not clear. Pfitzner et al. [23] reviewed the 2014 FIFA World Cup and residents’ quality of life. Kaplanidou et al. [30] studied the 2010 South Africa World Cup and residents’ quality of life. Chabra et al. [31] reviewed socio-cultural effects and tourism. They explored social exchange from tourism and how it plays a critical role in enhancing residents’ personal quality of life and satisfaction. In particular, they emphasized that psychological legacies were significant in determining the mega-event host residents’ quality of life [32,33]. Here, the mega-event legacy refers to the structures and impacts created by hosting the mega-event that remain after its conclusion, which can be either planned or unplanned, positive or negative, and intangible or tangible [30,32,33,34].

However, to examine the effects of mega-events on residents’ quality of life, it is essential to include relevant factors such as economy, tourism, politics, psychology, infrastructure, life opportunities, and social benefits [17]. The development of the sociopolitical system in the local community is an intangible soft infrastructure effect promoting unification and pride(intangible legacy) combined with hardware infrastructure development effects (tangible impact) [29]. Further socio-cultural effects [30,31,34], and the impact of tourism, such as social exchange with tourists through hosting the mega-event, play a significant role in improving the quality of life and satisfaction of the local community and individual residents. In particular, psychological legacies become an essential factor that determines the quality of life among residents [32,33]. Some have argued that the expected effects of mega-events such as the Olympics and Formula 1 Grand Prix are ambiguous and they do not contribute to regional economic vitalization [35,36,37,38] and that mega-events may induce adverse effects such as political controversy between supporters and opponents within the local community [34,39]. However, it is imperative to explore the significant relationship between mega-events and residents’ quality of life as there is very little empirical research on the quality of life of the local host residents [22,30].

2.2. F1 Korea Grand Prix and 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics as Mega Events

A mega-event is the optimal instrument to effectively promote the local image as a tourism destination [14]. In addition to this, many studies have pointed out the positive side of the mega-event invitation and hosting, mainly focusing on the effect of positive image building of the host community and affinity enhancement. Mega-events such as the World Cup and the Olympics are considered significant catalysts for the host community’s development. They not only create infrastructure development effects for the host community and the nation [1,35,36] but also contribute to developing the socio-political mechanisms of the host community through harmonization, unity, and national pride [20,22].

The Formula 1 Grand Prix is one of the world’s top three major sports events, along with the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics. Moreover, the F1 Grand Prix is the most significant global sports business. It boasts an average number of viewers of 0.2 million in a single game, an annual average of 4 million in-stadium viewers, and 0.6 billion worldwide viewers a year through broadcasting in 188 countries. The effects of international media exposure are estimated to be approximately KRW 2.9 trillion. With expectations of its tremendous impact, Jeollanam-do, the southern part of Korea, launched the Formula 1 Korean Grand Prix in 2010 with seven years-long contracts. However, it lasted only two years and was forced to terminate the contract due to the local government’s fiscal deficit.

The 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics was held mainly for skiing competitions in Pyeongchang, and indoor events such as skating and curling were mainly held in Gangneung, Gangwon-do. The Pyeongchang Winter Olympics Organizing Committee announced that the total cost of preparing for the Olympics is 14.2 trillion won (112 million dollars). In fact, what the host country really wants to achieve from the Olympics is indirect economic effects, not direct profits. The Blue House analyzed that the indirect effects, such as the development of the tourism industry and enhancement of the national image, were significant in this Olympic Games. Among the indirect returns, one that deserves more attention is the investment in social overhead capital (SOC).

Regarding Post-Olympic Utilization Issues, however, there is still work to be done. Infrastructure facilities such as the ice rink invested in for the Winter Olympics require further maintenance and the problem of future use is the most typical. The economic burden after the Olympics is ultimately caused by poor follow-up management. After the Olympics in Pyeongchang, unlike the KTX (Bullet train) and highways, there was no clear plan for utilizing the ice rink and ski resort infrastructure and who would secure the budget for post-use.

3. Methods

This study was to verify the phenomenon of residents’ quality of life due to mega-event hosting, using a qualitative research method that approaches the phenomenon from an analytic aspect to understand and interpret participants’ experiences during the mega-event of the F1 and 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. The characteristics of such qualitative research is summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1. First, the study analyzed how the subject of the in-depth investigation and analysis, i.e., the research participants, thought about their situation and understood it as scientifically and logically as possible from an insider’s viewpoint. Second, qualitative research stresses a field study to achieve the goal of profound understanding, and researchers directly collect data in the field. Third, the study understands and explains a situation from an inductive approach based on the data obtained directly from the field.

The goal of qualitative research does not begin from a deductive approach but rather from proper research that fits the situation by extracting the research focus and required themes during the data collection procedure, such as field observation and in-depth interviews. The characteristics of qualitative research are contextual in orientation, which implies the inseparable relation between human behavior and social phenomena, as human behavior is formed within the socio-cultural context [40]. This study adopted the methodological paradigm suggested by Spradley [27,28] to achieve the study’s goal.

While quantitative research begins with a previous literature review, qualitative research selects research topics in a circular model. That is, qualitative research has a circular process of open-ended inquiries. It relies on data collection and analysis relevant to the chosen research topic and question.

This study attempted to examine the diverse phenomena surrounding mega-event hosting using a qualitative research method, focusing on the process of subjective experience and exchange from an insider’s viewpoint as a resident. The merits of such qualitative research are that it can establish a theory that fits the situational context by securing in-depth data and affluence descriptions of the tourism phenomenon. In particular, this study used a development research sequence by Spradley [27,28] as a research method for data collection and analysis.

This study focused on the specific process and situation when investigating the residents’ quality of life following the mega-event hosting of the Formula One Korean Grand Prix. Posing questions such as “Through which factors do residents perceive the quality of life?” and “How do they interpret and perceive experiences surrounding the mega-event phenomenon?”. Figure 1 describes the qualitative research’s overall contents, including the research field, data collection period, data collection method, researcher, and research participants, all of which aimed to verify residents’ quality of life following the hosting of the mega-event. Moreover, the study collected data to verify the mega-event and quality of life phenomenon through participant observation during the Formula One Korean Grand Prix hosting period over four years, from 2010 to 2013, and conducted in-depth interviews five times.

• (1). Social condition and research participant selection

As for verifying the social conditions of the residents’ quality of life phenomenon during mega-event hosting, four situations were defined, including ‘actor,’ ‘action,’ ‘space and location,’ and ‘time.’ This study defined the participants of the F1 Korean Grand Prix who were residents as ‘actors’ and the exchange that took place during these diverse ‘actors’ participation in the F1 mega-event as ‘actions,’ including transportation, accommodation, and different consumption behaviors. The ‘space and location’ were set as the host location of F1 Korea, Mokpo City, and the Young-am region. The research relied on participant observation, from the viewpoint of tourists and observers, of the different exchange and social conditions that unfolded following the ‘time’ change of the F1 mega-event. Participant observation lasted for four years, beginning in 2010, during the Formula One Korean Grand Prix holding period.

The participants showed a high level of situational understanding of the domains extracted from the participant observation. The study used the snowball sampling method, in which the previous study participants recommended the current participants. The sample interviewees shown in Table 2 who have a certain amount of knowledge regarding the research topic of the F1 mega-event were 21 subjects, of both sexes, with diverse occupations and ages.

• (2). Participant observation

To achieve the goal of the research and understanding the quality of life phenomenon due to hosting the mega-event, this study conducted narrative observation. The researcher walked into the field to minutely and chronologically record what he/she saw and heard from the viewpoint of residents in that local community. With the narrative question matrix shown in Table 3, the participant observation was conducted four times in October each year from 2010 to 2013. The researcher assumed the role of a tourist who visited the F1 host location. The observation of diverse phenomena included:

• -. Contacts and accessibility to tourists by type of residents,

• -. Tourists’ preference by business, and

• -. Actual economic phenomena following the mega-event host through interviews with residents.

Regarding the social phenomenon related to the Formula One Korean Grand Prix host, specific conditions such as participants, time, action, and events were recorded during the game hosting period from 2010 to 2013. The observation and recording continued until the theoretical saturation point, where no further new cases and the development of category property were expected.

• (3). The structural question, intensive observation, and recording

Although the study is based on the F1 mega-event phenomenon’s domain analysis, it was impossible to describe and understand all the situations and phenomena regarding the mega-event entirely and strictly. The study intensified the developmental research phase through domain analysis by proceeding with intensive observation, and a fundamental question focused on the resident’s quality of life. In-depth interviews supplemented the records and results of the participant observation conducted with a half-structural question and an episode-type question, which asked residents related to actor, space, time, and action/event, which are captured in the domain analysis shown in Table 4.

Structural questions refer to an iterative question about the semantic relationships within each domain’s substructure that investigates the difference and relation of meanings belonging to each domain, where diverse questions are technically repeated through an in-depth interview of the research participants. Such structural questions consist of a proof question that includes domain, inclusion terminology, semantic relationship, native speaker, language proof, a general terminology question, an inclusion terminology question, and a fundamental substitution question [24,25,26]. The structural question phase found the structure of a specific cultural scene by narrowing down the research coverage during the process of some small and large categories.

4. Analysis and Findings

4.1. Domain Analysis on the Quality of Life-Related to Mega-Event Hosting

Domain categorization is related to residents’ quality of life, focusing on the space and time change of the Formula One Korean Grand Prix host, which was followed by the data collection shown in Table 4. Among the mega-event host phenomena collected and classified, those that want residents’ quality of life’ were categorized by referring to the semantic criteria such as ‘identical/similar attribute/homogeneous dimension’ and ‘inclusion’.

4.2. Taxonomic Analysis of Mega-Event and Quality of Life

The domains of residents’ lives due to mega-event hosting were extracted through domain analysis, as shown in Table 4. Next, intensive observation and the fundamental question were posed, focusing on the resident’s quality of life using the list of diverse extracted domains. Table 5 shows the types of quality of life due to hosting the mega-event.

4.3. Contrasting Questions Regarding Quality of Life and Mega-Event Effects

The taxonomic analysis results revealed six indicators for quality of life due to the F1 mega-event hosting that the residents perceived: mental benefit of individual life, economic exchange, socio-economic effects of mega-event, local community educational effect, leisure and culture experience, and infrastructure improvement. The study used taxonomic analysis to understand the residents’ perception difference between the mega-event and quality of life and its causes and attributes. A contrasting question was implemented on the essential phenomenon and cause of residents’ perception of the F1 mega-event. The results showed a difference in perception by business type. The residents were divided into two types. The first type included those working in the restaurant and accommodation businesses that experienced financial and economic exchange by directly receiving tourists due to the F1 mega-event hosting. The second type included ordinary citizens who had business-related, emotional, or socio-cultural experiences rather than experiences related to economic affairs. As a result, the difference in perception of the quality of life by resident type was extracted.

4.4. Extractions of Quality of Life Attributes through Componential Analysis

Componential analysis is a method that systematically discovers indicators related to social phenomena. Whenever different points are found among the factors within a domain, they can be considered the indicator or attribute of each terminology [26].

The contrasting point showed that the residents’ different perceptions of quality of life are related to the types of residents and the types of mega-event effects. A theoretical explanation of this phenomenon can be found in the social exchange theory. First, different types of residents in the mega-event host community were found. According to the direct economic exchange experience, which is one of the attributes that create a perception difference in the quality of life, the resident types are classified in Table 6. In the case of residents of the individual entrepreneur type who experienced direct economic effects from the mega-event hosting, restaurant, and accommodations businesses, satisfaction with economic effects became a core criterion that determined the quality of life perception and a central phenomenon of the residents’ lives.

Second, different types of social exchange phenomena were found. From the question, “what is the reason behind the difference in perception of quality of life among the residents?” This can be found in social exchange theory. Some sociologists used the concept of social exchange and economic exchange to explain its effectiveness, such as collective behavior, emphasizing the importance of exchange as a critical type of social exchange.

In analyzing social exchange phenomena related to mega-event hosting and public service, it was found that the resident’s perception of the quality of life differed significantly according to whether the type of exchange phenomenon was strongly related to the individual’s consumption or collective consumption. The viewpoint sees the phenomenon of residents’ quality of life about mega-event hosting as a social phenomenon composed of interactions between the mega-event and residents. Viewing the mega-event as a policy or public service that a local government promotes for a local community’s development; one can see that the diverse effects of the F1 mega-event can be delivered to the residents and categorized as shown in Table 7.

These social exchange phenomena were classified into individual/private, including economic exchange, leisure and cultural experience, personal mental benefit, personal emotions, local promotion effects, and infrastructure improvement effects. The study extracted differences between residents’ perceptions of the quality of life and the consequences of these differences in the mega-event phenomenon. This kind of social exchange theory can explain the situation in which there are differences in perceived quality of life while facing the same phenomenon, i.e., the quality of life due to F1 mega-event hosting, and it can verify its attribute. The residents perceived their quality of life through personal experiences such as leisure and cultural background, local community promotional effects, infrastructure improvement, pride and self-esteem about the region, and an expectation of local community development. Despite the negative perception of the economic impact of F1, ordinary residents revealed an expectation of local community development, following the F1 Mokpo hosting, through local leisure and cultural experience, individual experience and pride, and a sense of belonging. The componential analysis indicated that the residents perceive the quality of life through the experience of diverse effects and social exchange phenomenon of the mega-event. Moreover, the results showed that the understanding of social exchange phenomena, including social/collective exchange and individual/private exchange, are attributes that cause differences in the perceptions of the quality of life.

4.5. Individual/Personal Exchange Phenomenon

The individual/private social exchange phenomenon due to mega-event hosting is experienced and selected by the residents’ free will to satisfy personal needs, including an economic exchange with tourists. As the individual/personal exchange phenomenon during the mega-event hosting process directly affects the residents’ demand satisfaction, the exchange takes place with significant attention paid by the residents. Moreover, in the individual/private social exchange phenomenon, the residents directly participate in the production and consumption process to reflect their personal preferences, paying close attention to the whole process.

According to individual/personal choice, the social exchange phenomenon can be classified, as shown in Table 7. They included ‘materialistic economic exchange,’ which means the transactional relationship between direct consumption by mega-event tourists and ‘personal leisure and culture experience, ‘which implies consumption by residents for personal satisfaction, ‘community spirit.’ Residents’ benefits include individual pride, a sense of belonging, and ‘mental benefit of individual life,’ which consists of a personal sense of accomplishment and satisfaction through the performance of new tasks and collaboration and an individual’s emotion arising from the F1 experience. For example, the residents in the accommodations or restaurant businesses experienced social exchange phenomena such as economic transactions through contact with tourists. These people responded to the mega-event hosting’s personal economic effects, e.g., income and sales growth or decrease, and accordingly perceived their quality of life. That is, the l residents who perceived the positive economic effects of event hosting tended to tend toward leniency. They revealed positive perceptions about the impact in other areas as well.

In addition to the economic exchange, residents perceived their quality of life through the leisure and cultural experiences of watching and experiencing the F1 mega-event, new knowledge acquisition, and understanding of the mega-event, or positive or negative individual emotions. The residents positively perceived their quality of life by recognizing a sense of belonging, pride, achievement, and consensus among the host community members and the individual’s experience. Moreover, recognition of local dignity, sense of belonging, and consensus-building due to mega-event hosting impacted its social effects and positive perception of the quality of life.

4.6. Collective/Social Exchange Phenomenon

Among the phenomena instigated by mega-event hosting, the collective/social exchange phenomenon occurs not because of the residents’ personal preference but because of the overall necessity that affects the whole local community, including mega-event hosting and function maintenance, public safety, and mega-event promotion.

The following three effects cause these phenomena: ‘socio-economic effects of mega-events such as the effects of domestic and international promotion of Mokpo and the host community, residents’ source of pride, the fiscal deficit problem, local consciousness development, and problems of regional unity and disruption, ‘local community educational effect’ such as residents’ service attitude improvement and tourism industry recognition and ‘infrastructure improvement effects’ such as urban road expansion and building exterior and function improvement, and improvement of local acceptance of tourists. In many cases, the mega-events collective/social exchange phenomenon occurs through the administrative procedures of official institutions, including regulations and ordinances, rather than by giving a choice to the residents. Hence, its contribution to resident individuals’ satisfaction can be relatively small. The collective/social exchange phenomenon is classified in Table 8.

4.7. Indicators for Mega-Event and Quality of Life

• (1). Extracting Indicators for Mega-event and Quality of Life

The study extracted seven indicators regarding the perception of host residents’ quality of life due to mega-event, as shown in Table 9. These indicators included socioeconomic effects, local community educational effect, infrastructure improvement, personal leisure and cultural experience, mental benefit to life, community spirit, and direct economic exchange.

• (2). Comparison with Previous Studies

As mentioned in the literature review above, empirical studies of mega-event hosting and quality of life are scarce [22,33]. First, the mega-events economic exchange phenomenon is similar to the economic effects produced by mega-events by Pappas [7], including items such as tourism revenue and a rise in the living standard. However, they differ in that the economic exchange phenomenon in this study means a financial transaction directly linked to revenue and income of individual residents, while the factors of economic effects in previous studies concerning the economic vitalization aspects, including job creation, and local tax. The study included these aspects of local community economic vitalization in the quality of life indicator of ‘socio-economic effects of mega-event.’ The mental benefit to an individual’s life corresponds to psychological factors [32] in previous studies. However, they differ in that previous studies considered only the positive psychological factors, while this study assessed the mega-events’ negative mental impact.

The mega-events’ socio-economic effects included local promotion, local community development, regional economic vitalization, tax indulgence, local community safety, fiscal deficit, political controversy, and negative public sentiment. They are similar to the socio-economic effects [15,16], including the political factors shown in previous studies, such as social and economic effects, economic opportunity, and social cost [36,37].

The educational effect on the local community contained the consciousness revolution of residents, service attitude improvement, enhancement of perception toward tourism, public consciousness improvement through the mega-event host, globalization of life, and knowledge acquisition related to the mega-event. The previous studies examined the addition of skills and knowledge of mega-event in the social benefits.

Finally, in the community spirit indicator, the study attempted to understand the mega-event supporting degree by referring to the previous studies with a policy participation degree [7,8]. The self-esteem, sense of belonging, and source of pride in this study are similar to the psychological factors presented in Kaplanidou et al. [30], extracted local community pride, and patriotism toward the nation and the local community, as an evaluation item of the mega-event. However, they differ in that the community spirit in this study affects the collective context of the local community and the resident’s perception of their personal quality of life.

As reviewed above, the results may look like previous studies’ quality of life indicators. However, they differ because previous studies’ factors were researched and extracted mainly by referring to the quality of life measurement in the last Western research literature. The most significant difference is that this study inductively verified the residents’ most significant life phenomenon and the process of perceiving the quality of life to extract the indicators through qualitative research using participant observation and in-depth interviews.

4.8. Phenomenon of Mega-Event and Residents’ Quality of Life

The characteristics of the phenomenon of the issues of residents’ quality of life due to mega-event hosting are that it appears in more than one domain and is connected to other subcategories through repetition. Although qualitative research needs to categorize the overall phenomena by each item and record it, it is more important to detect the social phenomenon’s issue to extract the relationship between the subcategories of the social phenomenon with widespread phenomena and establish a new theoretical model.

The study extracted seven social phenomena, covering the widespread phenomenon of the mega-event and quality of life through qualitative research. They included economic exchange phenomenon, leisure, and cultural experience, mental benefit to life, socio-economic effects of mega-event, local community educational effect, and infrastructure improvement effect.

• (1). Personal economic benefit

The residents in the restaurant and accommodations businesses who experienced direct contact with tourists and economic exchange due to mega-event hosting perceived their quality of life using economic effects, such as sales and revenue, as a standard, regarding it as a central phenomenon of the mega-event. The residents who have accommodation and restaurant businesses who had many contacts with tourists responded that ‘sales growth’ and ‘revenue increase’ were the significant positive factors in their quality of life, indicating the importance of the economic effects of the mega-event on their quality of life.

In the case of some residents who reported high satisfaction with the economic exchange phenomenon, the leisure and culture experience, and personal mental benefit, as well as the collective/social exchange phenomenon of the mega-event social effects, local community educational effect, and community spirit turned out to be positively perceived. In contrast, satisfaction with the economic exchange phenomenon played a central role in determining other elements’ perceptions. The residents who obtained direct economic exchange perceived satisfaction with financial benefits as a critical standard for quality of life. Moreover, a problem with the unequal distribution of the mega-event’s economic effects appeared across businesses and locations. The residents who were aware of such unbalanced benefits perceived the change in life quality due to mega-event hosting more negatively.

• (2). Mental benefits to life

It turned out that ordinary residents positively perceived the quality of life through emotional and mental effects and the economic effects of hosting the mega-event. Concerning F1 mega-events meaning in their lives, some residents responded that they experienced a ‘new feeling of life’ and an ‘upgrade of life’ and that F1 is a new beginning. Table 5 shows the positive perception of individual leisure and culture experience, acquisition of unique culture and knowledge, and a sense of accomplishment through business experience [41].

On the other hand, for some other residents, the mega-event negatively affected their perception of their quality of life, reporting negative feelings such as rage, annoyance, indifference, and damage to self-regard that were formed due to the negative experience of F1. Contextually analyzing these responses, we can say that hosting the F1 mega-event gives essential benefits to residents’ lived [42]. They perceive it as an expectation of the unification of their local community and a significant symbol that can provide momentum for local community development.

• (3). Sense of community

The residents expressed pride in seeing many foreigners visiting the community as a source of dignity and self-respect for the community and an opportunity for regional development. They believed Mokpo should have implemented this kind of event long ago because it is a source of pride for Mokpo. They perceived local pride through diverse experiences hosting the F1 mega-event [42,43,44,45] and local attachment. Local pride refers to a psychological sense of solidarity, sense of belonging, and local attachment that the residents feel like the host community members. A sense of community was formed wherein the residents felt a sense of belonging and thought of each other as necessary. Previous literature mainly suggests community spirit in the local community as a significant factor in residents’ quality of life [42,43,44,45]. The community spirit positively impacts the quality of life by enhancing psychological benefits for residents while boosting pride in the local community by forming community identity [44,45].

• (4). Local community educational effect

Although it can vary according to the host’s characterization of the mega-event, hosting mega-events is generally said to have an educational effect [42,45]. A mega-event can produce an educational influence on tourists or residents with its event theme or properties by introducing detailed knowledge to the new field. It turned out that the residents perceived that service attitude in the regional service industry was improved according to the international game host, along with the positive perception of related social knowledge and host know-how. In particular, the F1 tourist inflow following the mega-event provided the local community and its residents a chance to realize the importance of the tourism industry.

Recent studies have emphasized that the impact of tourism produced by the mega-event played a critical role in determining residents’ quality of life [2,7,33]. Considering this, the local community began to perceive tourism and its effects through mega-event hosting as a positive educational effect.

• (5). Social impact

The ultimate goal of hosting a mega-event is economic development and the local community’s overall development, including local society and culture. In particular, with its size and promotional effects, a mega-event can contribute to building local identity and provide an opportunity to improve interaction and mutual understanding with other regions and the world. Kaplanidou et al. [30] argued that there had been a tangible impact, which includes local hardware infrastructure development effects, and an intangible legacy, which consists of the development of political and social systems, infrastructure effects of unity, and pride of the local community. Many residents in the F1 host community positively perceived mega-event hosting [46,47]. They believed it was a source of momentum for the promotion effects of the host community through F1 hosting, the inflow of many foreigners, know-how, and confidence about hosting mega-event in the region, and regional economic vitalization such as job creation tourists’ inflow, ‘collaborative action between industry sector and F1 organizing committee.

• (6). Opportunity for leisure and cultural experience

For residents, the opportunity for leisure and cultural experience following mega-event hosting directly impacted their quality of life. In particular, the attractiveness, novelty, and amusement factors of the once-in-a-lifetime experience of hosting a mega-event turned out to be the motivating factor related to the quality of life [35]. Moreover, residents’ expectations of leisure opportunities, in that they could use the facilities afterward, turned out to have a specific impact [48].

• (7). Infrastructure improvement

Hosting a mega-event is accompanied by the effects of the groundbreaking improvement of infrastructure, including transportation, and accommodations, following the implementation of a massive budget [44,48]. As F1 built the stadium using tideland, it had relatively little effect on the regional economy, unlike in cases that require land compensation. Moreover, as the infrastructure supplement project proceeded mainly by expanding the road surrounding the stadium and remodeling accommodation facilities, residents’ perceptions of the infrastructure improvement effect of hosting the F1 mega-event were not extensive.

4.9. Further Investigation of Mega Event Impact: 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics

The data for this research are relatively old. The situation has been changing in terms of mega-event impact. The study selected the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics to review the findings from the F1 mega-event (2010–2012).

There are post-Olympic utilization issues, such as continuous regional re-vitalization through post-Olympic infrastructure utilization, such as the Salt Lake Olympics, and securing a budget for its operation. In this context, In March 2021, additional research was conducted on residents, shown in Table 10, of the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympic host city for the seven quality-of-life thematic phenomena and theoretical models examined.

• (1). Personal economic impact of the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics

During the Olympics, the visitors were significantly reduced to enjoying ski facilities due to the control of private transportation to the main stadium in the Pyeongchang area. The Pyeongchang residents and commercial entities did not receive economic benefits during the Olympics. Gangneung, the second city for the Pyeongchang Olympics, received more economic benefits. The city has a more convenient transportation system (i.e., express train and public transportation). Cafes, restaurants, and lodging businesses enjoyed a tremendous boom, which had a substantial economic effect on residents during the event. So many tourists have inflowed.

• (2). Mental benefits to the life of Pyeongchang Olympics

The findings supported the F1 results. The residents positively perceived the quality of life through emotional and mental effects and the economic impact of hosting the Olympics. Concerning the Winter Olympics’ meaning in their lives, most residents expressed that they have a ‘new feeling of life and an ‘upgrade of life.’ Similar to the F1 events, the residents in Pyeongchang and Gangneung cities positively perceive individual leisure and culture experience, the acquisition of unique culture and knowledge, and a sense of accomplishment through business experience. There is pride that Pyeongchang and Gangneung cities were recognized internationally through the Olympics.

On the contrary, for some other residents, the Olympics negatively affected their perception of the quality of life, reporting negative feelings such as disorder, crime, and damage to the local community, although infrastructure has been remarkably improved.

• (3). Sense of Community

The residents expressed pride in hosting the Olympics, which played a role in easing the military tension between South and North Koreans. The residents had hope for Korean Peninsular unification. They perceived local pride through diverse experiences hosting the Olympics and local attachment. Local pride refers to a psychological sense of solidarity, a sense of unification, and local attachment, as F1 residents perceived.

The Pyeongchang Olympics had several difficulties in being selected as the host of the 2018 Winter Olympics. The residents responded that they were active in local volunteer groups during the Olympic preparation and hosting stage, and their emotional attachment to the region increased. Local communities feel more connected with the natural environment in which they exist. The local community has more knowledge and a sense of belonging to two Korean ethnicities.

• (4). Local community education impact of the Pyeongchang Olympics

Service education centered on service workers following the Pyeongchang Olympics, and Olympic-related work experience had an educational effect. However, since Pyeongchang and other regions are ski resorts favored by Southeast Asian tourists, there was no epoch-making effect. Daily life’s inconvenience was the most negative impact recorded, followed by price inflation, security, crime concern, risk of disease and pollution, and environmental concern. The residents were unsure about any adverse effects on service quality degradation. In conclusion, there was no distinctive similarity with the F1 educational effect on the local community.

• (5). Social impact of the Pyeongchang Olympics

Intangible assets such as the unity of residents from the induction stage, the pride of Gangwon-do residents, and experience in preparing for mega-events increased during the event.

The residents believed it was a source of momentum for the promotion effects of the host community through the Olympics. As Kaplanidou et al. [30] mentioned, there had been a tangible impact, including local hardware infrastructure development effects, and an intangible legacy, consisting of the development of political and social systems, infrastructure effects of unity, and pride in the local community. The negative social impact included crime, price inflation, the feeling of alienation, divided opinion, and polarization of the powerful and ordinary citizens.

• (6). Opportunity for leisure and cultural experience of Pyeongchang Olympics

In the case of residents in Pyeongchang, there was nothing new about skiing events. This is because residents have already experienced many winter sports events and are familiar with them.

• (7). Infrastructure improvement through the Pyeongchang Olympics

The accessibility of the mountainous regions of Gangwon-do was improved through road maintenance and the opening of high-speed railways connecting the Olympic host regions. The residents expected that this transportation infrastructure construction would be a positive opportunity to revitalize the local economy and act as a positive perception of the quality of life.

These residents’ quality of life factors included emotional expressions such as pride, a sense of community, local socioeconomic effects, and infrastructure improvement effects. As well as perceived issues among stakeholders shown in this study, the post-winter Olympic games legacy should be regulated and harmonized [45,47,48].

The Pyeongchang Olympic Stadium was designed to be portable and removable, so it can be said that it complied with the sustainable environment principle. The sustainability principle was positively evaluated in that the Olympic legacy remains an emotional and spiritual legacy rather than the hardware called infra-structure [49].

4.10. Characteristics of Mega-Event and Residents’ Quality of Life

From the model of residents’ perception of quality-of-life subjective expectations and exchange, it can be said that the residents perceive their quality of life according to diverse phenomena regarding mega-event hosting through the social exchange phenomenon. Figure 2 shows residents’ perception of the quality of life, subjective expectations and exchange, and the relationship model.

The most significant characteristic of the relationship model of residents’ perception of the quality of life subjective expectations and exchange is shown in Figure 2 because it does not assume a linear causal relationship between the economic impact of the mega-event and residents’ support, as in the previous studies. The model assumes that the process of expectation and perception about the mega-event and quality of life is formulated differently depending on the types of mega-event hosts’ social exchange phenomenon and residents’ types.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Mega-events can bring significant changes to local communities. Whereas imbalanced and ambiguous beneficiaries hinder avid support from the residents. In this aspect, verifying the residents’ quality of life due to hosting the mega-event is expected to validate mega-event hosting’s success. This study was to (1) examine contexts of resident quality of life in the mega-event hosting region and (2) to compare if the perceptions differ according to the type of quality of life and residents. The study investigated the relationship between mega-events and quality of life through participation observation, in-depth interviews, and emic approaches based on qualitative methods. The study defined four social conditions: the mega-event venue, time, performance, and performers over four years. In doing so, this article has illustrated indicators of the mega-event and quality of life through domain analysis, taxonomic analysis, and componential analysis. Seven factors were extracted as indicators of resident quality of life due to mega-event hosting: the socioeconomic effects, local community educational effect, infrastructure improvement effect, personal leisure and cultural experience, mental benefit to life, community spirit, and direct economic exchange. These indicators of quality of life due to hosting the mega-event were explored as phenomena representing the quality-of-life conditions. Among the quality-of-life issue phenomena, community spirit positively influenced the quality of life as a sense of belonging, local attachment, and psychological sense of solidarity enhanced the psychological benefits of hosting the mega-event. The resident recognition of collective and individual community spirit from both the collective/social exchange phenomenon and individual/private exchange phenomenon positively influenced the residents’ quality of life. To verify the phenomenon of quality of life due to the mega-event host, a relationship model named ‘resident’ perception of quality-of-life subjective expectations and exchange’ was proposed.

This research has both theoretical and practical implications, which are highlighted below. First, mega-events planned and promoted by the government should stress socio-cultural policies in the long term rather than a short-term point of view. Mega-events infrastructure and the policies promoted by the local government remain a legacy. It is important to note that the sustained social and cultural advancement of the residents and the local community is the essential purpose of hosting a mega-event. Hence, building elaborate mega-event plans such that the remaining structures and phenomena can take root within the community will be very important in the long term. Second, although the criteria for determining mega-event satisfaction and quality of life are based on most of the residents’ economic effects, it has limitations because most ordinary residents cannot directly feel the economic consequences. Thus, it would be more powerful to evaluate mega-event hosting in terms of residents’ emotional benefits in daily life, such as the experience program, exchange program with tourists, and leisure experience opportunity, rather than persuading residents with ambiguous expected economic effects of the mega-event.

Third, a necessary condition for the successful hosting of mega-events is inducing active participation and sustaining consensus-building among the residents who are the mega-events key interested parties. This process can promote the building of community spirit and identity of the local community. After deriving the subject phenomena of quality of life, the study derived the relationship model of residents’ perception of the quality of life subjective expectations and exchange shown in Figure 3 to identify the phenomenon of quality of life.

This relationship model is characterized by residents’ experiences in their daily lives, influences areas of life, and quality of life through individual/individual or group/social exchange. In the case of group/social exchanges such as socio/economic effects, community education, and infrastructure improvement effects of mega-events, as a public good, it affects the quality of life through the experiences of everyday life recognized by residents.

On the other hand, individual/individual exchange factors such as economic effects, leisure/cultural experiences, and emotional utility of life directly impact the quality of life area. Finally, standards and processes for quality of life differ depending on whether residents have experienced direct economic exchanges.

This study used qualitative research using participant observation and in-depth interviews to inductively present a comprehensive picture of life quality during the mega-event. Through the research results, we introduced a model of the relationship between ‘subjective expectation and exchange of residents’ perception of the quality of life.’

Additional research on the Pyeongchang Olympics residents’ quality of life shows the mega-event exchange relationship model in Figure 3. In personal/individual and collective/social exchange, factors that negatively or positively affect the quality of life were neutralized or reinforced by the Sense of Community as a mediating impact. This relationship mega-event synergy effect can be seen in Figure 3.

This study has a defined but limited geographical context: the southwestern region and the eastern region of Korea. It could be replicated to emphasize mega-events in other regions and a more comprehensive range of mage event stakeholders to compare and contrast findings from the current study. While the recent research was qualitative, future studies could apply survey data for a quantitative analysis to enrich this study’s findings. Finally, a prospective study could also carry out a longitudinal study where the change and influence of residents’ impacts can be observed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, literature review, analysis, and writing, J.K.; investigation, data curation, review and editing, J.H. and E.K.; writing, review and editing, infrastructure support, C.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Participant Observation & Data Collection.

Figure 2. Residents’ Perception of Quality of Life, Subjective Expectations, Exchange, and the Relationship Model.

Figure 3. Synergy Effect Model for Mega-events and Quality of Life.

Table 1

Research Plan for two Mega-events and Residents’ Quality of Life.

Event	F1 Korea Grand Prix	Pyeongchang Winter Olympics
Period	2010–2012	2018
Location	Mokpo, Korea	Pyeongchang & Gangneung, Korea
Research date	2010–2013	2018, 2021
Method	Observation, Interview	Observation, Interview

Table 2

Interviewee Profiles.

	Name	Type of Business	Gender	Age Group
1	A-KIM	Restaurant business owner	Male	40
2	B-LEE	Hotel Business Owner	Male	60
3	C-KIM	Hotel Business Owner	Female	50
4	D-LEE	Hotel Business Owner	Male	30
5	E-KIM	Citizen	Female	20
6	F-PARK	Citizen	Female	20
7	H-PARK	Restaurant business owner	Male	60
8	I-KANG	Restaurant business owner	Male	60
9	J-SONG	Restaurant business owner	Male	50
10	K-OH	Citizen	Female	30
11	L-JANG	Restaurant business owner	Female	40
12	M-YANG	Hotel Business Owner	Male	60
13	N-LEE	Public Official	Male	30
14	O-HEO	Public Official	Male	30
15	P-PARK	Public Official	male	30
16	Q-CHOI	Citizen	Male	50
17	R-SEO	Citizen	Male	40
18	S-LIM	Citizen	Male	30
19	T-LEE	Businessman	Male	40
20	U-KIM	Restaurant business owner	Male	50
21	V-JANG	Hotel Business Owner	Female	60

Table 3

Questionnaire for In-depth Interview.

Type	Category	Interview Questions
Semi-structural question	Feeling about personal life	1. Local community and personal expectations upon knowing about the F1 hosting2. Any change or development of the hostcommunity after the F1 hosting?3. Individually preferred experience of F1 hosting4. Inconvenience due to F1 hosting 5. Personal or Neighbors’ opinion F1 hosting effects 6. Personal emotion on F1, change of quality of life perception7. Experience of forced purchase of F1 ticket 8. Five positive effects of F1 hosting on Residents’ quality of life 9. Five negative effects of F1 hosting on Residents’ quality of life
Episode-type question	Related to watching and hosting F1 Korea	10. Experience in contacting tourists and special situations11. Degree of satisfaction of expectation of F1 host 12. What F1 means in life 13. Recommendation for successful F1 hosting14. Feelings about hosting suspension

Table 4

Results of Domain Analysis.

Attribute (A)	Homogeneous Dimensions (B)
Local resident type	F1 related party	Volunteer	Local civil Servants	AccommodationWorker
	Restaurant Business worker	Culture event anchorman	affiliated organization worker	Ordinary citizens student and laborer
	F1 participants	F1 collaboration organization		taxi driver
F1 community and location	F1 stadium	peace plaza of community	F1 event hall	F1 exhibition hall
	F1 souvenir store	shuttle bus stop	stadium entrance	F1 moving path
	F1 promotion Booth	Downtown	F1 watch stand	Transfer parking lot
	Train station	bakery	Cafe	Fast food restaurant
	Supermarket	Seafood restaurant	Japaneserestaurant	Family restaurant
	pub/bar	Convenience store	Pork barbequerestaurant	convenience facility
Experience and behavior of local resident and F1 tourists	F1 watch	Accommodation	Food and Drink consumption	Concert experience
	Sales—profit making	Local transportation usage	Shopping	F1 exhibition promotion experience
	increase of contact with tourist	F1 festival experience	F1 negative experience	Business preparation facing the tourist
	Forced purchase of F1 ticket	Conflict with the F1 party	F1 collaboration action	Facility Infrastructure improvement
personal emotional and expectation	Pride	Local promotion	revenue increase	Regional economic development
	indifference	Anger, disappointment due to unsatisfied demand and negative experience

Table 5

Results of Taxonomic Analysis.

Representative Terms (A)	Included Items (B)
1. personal emotion	Pride/Self-regard/living force/F1 is my life itself New feeling/Another opportunity/Upgrade lifeDisappointment, Anger, Annoyance, Indifference
2. Regional economic effects	Sales and revenue increase F1 tourist consumption Free ticket, forced purchase of the ticketNo economic effects/Income decrease due to the traffic control/Expectation of regional economy effectThe expectation of real estate value increase/New business investment/Unbalanced benefit
3. Socio-economic effects	F1 is a source of self-esteem and pride of the Host regionRegional collaboration/Confidence in the mega event hosting/Global promotion effects/New culture experience/government-led investment
	Huge fiscal deficit/Potential Unity disruption/Conflict between business and regional parts/Concern for future event
4. Educational effects	Improvement of local residents’ consciousness and Service attitude/Recognition of regional tourism/Voluntary responsibility of mega-event hosting
5. Leisure-culture experience	New, precious experience/positive, negative effects of contact with tourists, F1 racing watching, new experience
6. Infrastructure Improvement effect	building and renovating accommodation business/Road expansion/infra facility improvement

Table 6

Componential Analysis.

Type of Residents	Major Characteristics	Major Business
Experience of local resident with a direct economic exchange	- Personal/individual exchange - Standard for perceived quality of life according to satisfaction with economic exchange effects	- Local resident in direct economic exchange relations such as those in accommodations and restaurant businesses
Experience of local resident without direct economic exchange	- Perception of quality of life through a daily experience	- Ordinary citizens (civil servants, students, wage laborers, affiliated organization workers, etc.)

Table 7

Classification of Social Exchange Phenomenon.

Mega-Event and Social Exchange	Major Characteristics	Representative Phenomena
Individual/privateexchange	- Exchange according to individual preference and autonomous choice - Direct contribution to residents’ demand satisfaction - Economic effects (central function for quality of life)	- Economic/materialistic exchange - Leisure and cultural experience - Mental benefit to life - Forced purchase of ticket/ negative experience
Collective/socialexchange	- Overall necessity - Restriction on autonomous choice and exchange - Collective preference system - Functions as public property	- Positive social effects Local promotion effects Educational effects of residents’ consciousness - Negative social effects Political conflicts such as negative public opinion and unity conflict - Local pride, self-respect, sense of belonging, collaboration action - Infrastructure establishments

Table 8

Social Exchange by Resident Type.

Individual/Private Social Exchange	ResidentType	Collective/Social Exchange	Resident Type
Economic exchange	Restaurant businessIndividual entrepreneur	Local promotion effects	Ordinary citizensIndividual entrepreneur
Personal leisure and culture	Restaurant businessOrdinary citizensIndividualentrepreneurCivil servants	Mega-event educational effect	Ordinary citizensRestaurant business
Mental benefits to life	Restaurant business Accommodations Ordinary citizensCivil servants	Political conflict	Ordinary citizensCivil servantsRestaurant businessAccommodations
Negative experiences of F1, such as forced ticket purchase	Ordinary citizensCivil servantsAccommodations Restaurant business	Community spirit	Ordinary citizensCivil servantsRestaurant businessAccommodations
Community spirit	Ordinary citizensCivil servantsAccommodations Restaurant business	Infrastructure establishment improvement	Civil servantsOrdinary citizens Restaurant business

Table 9

Extraction of Indicators.

Indicator	Direct economicexchange	Job and business type Direct economic exchange through mega-eventFrequency of contacting tourists
	Mental benefits to individual life	Individual Pride, work-related experience, individual sense of accomplishment, the pleasure of life Consensus and community spirit through mega-event participation Self-regard, disappointment, anger, annoyance, etc.
	Personal leisure and cultural experience	Leisure experiences such as participating in mega-eventExperience of personal contact with domestic and international tourists Mega-event satisfaction
	Local community spirit	F1 mega-event host-related participation, pride and sense of belonging, consensus, collaborative action Regional source of pride, self-respect, pleasure of life
	Socio-economic effects	Regional economic vitalization through local pride, local promotion, tourist inflow, etc. Chance for regional development such as job creation and real estate value hike
		Tax waste forced purchase of tickets, local community safety Central government support, fiscal deficit Political conflict: negative public opinion, indifference, regional conflict
	Local community educational effect	Consciousness revolution of the region, recognition of tourismLocal residents’ service attitude improvementCivil consciousness such as responsibility as a mega-event host communityGlobalization of local community through contact with outsiders
	Infrastructure improvement effect	Improvement of infrastructures such as accommodation facilities and roads Improvement of leisure infrastructure, transportation system, etc.

Table 10

Interviewee Profiles for Winter Olympics and Quality of Life.

	Name	Type of Business	Gender	Age
1	A-KWAK	Public Official	Female	50
2	B-CHO	Public Official	Male	30
3	C-KIM	Hotel Business Owner	Female	40
4	D-LEE	Hotel Business Owner	Male	30
5	E-KIM	Restaurant business owner	Female	60
6	F-PARK	Restaurant business owner	Female	50

References

1. He, B.; Zhu, L.; Cai, X.; Li, J.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, 730. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12020730]

2. Kaplanidou, K.; Karadakis, K. A Study. Sport Mark. Q.; 2010; 19, pp. 110-117.

3. Graeff, B. Capitalism, Sport Mega Events and the Global South; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.

4. Matheson, V.A. Economic multiples and mega-event analysis. Int. J. Sport Financ.; 2009; 4, pp. 63-70.

5. Brown, G. Sponsor Hospitality at the Olympic Games: An Analysis of the Implications for Tourism. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2007; 9, pp. 315-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.636]

6. Müller, M.; Gaffney, C. Comparing the urban impacts of the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games from 2010 to 2016. J. Sport Soc. Issues; 2018; 42, pp. 247-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193723518771830]

7. Fredline, L.; Jago, L.; Deery, M. The development of a generic scale to measure the social impacts of events. Event Manag.; 2003; 8, pp. 23-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599503108751676]

8. Pappas, N. Hosting megaevents: Londoners’ support of the 2012 Olympics. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2014; 21, pp. 10-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.02.001]

9. Toohey, K.; Taylor, T.; Lee, C.K. The FIFA world cup 2002: The effects of terrorism of sport tourists. J. Sport Tour.; 2003; 8, pp. 167-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775080310001690495]

10. Gogishvili, D.; Harris-Brandts, S. Coinciding practices of exception in urban development: Mega-events and special economic zones in Tbilisi, Georgia. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2020; 28, pp. 1999-2019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1701995]

11. Gray, N.; Porter, L. By any means necessary: Urban regeneration and the “state of exception” in Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games 2014. Antipode; 2015; 47, pp. 380-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.12114]

12. Grix, J.; Brannagan, P.M. Of mechanisms and myths: Conceptualising states’ “soft power” strategies through sports mega-events. Dipl. Statecraft; 2016; 27, pp. 251-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2016.1169791]

13. Hsu, B.C.Y.; Wu, Y.F.; Chen, H.W.; Cheung, M.L. How sport tourism event image fit enhances residents’ perceptions of place image and their quality of Life. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12198227]

14. Erfurt, R.A.; Johnsen, J. Influence of an event on a Destination’s image—The case of the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum(WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. Tour. Rev.; 2003; 58, pp. 21-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb058420]

15. Morgan, A.; Wilk, V.; Sibson, R.; Willson, G. Sport event and destination co-branding: Analysis of social media sentiment in an international, professional sport event crisis. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2021; 39, 100848. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100848]

16. Lee Ludvigsen, J.A.; Rookwood, J.; Parnell, D. The sport mega-events of the 2020s: Governance, impacts and controversies. Sport Soc.; 2022; 25, pp. 705-711. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2026086]

17. Ouyang, Z.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, K.C. It’s all about life: Exploring the role of residents’ quality of life perceptions on attitudes toward a recurring hallmark event over time. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 75, pp. 99-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.032]

18. Gursoy, D.; Yolal, M.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Panosso Netto, A. Impact of trust on local residents’ mega-event perceptions and their support. J. Travel Res.; 2017; 56, pp. 393-406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287516643415]

19. Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Vogt, C.A.; Knopf, R.C. CrossCultural analysis of tourism and quality of life perceptions. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2007; 15, pp. 483-502. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2167/jost612.0]

20. Lamberti, L.; Noci, G.; Guo, J.; Zhu, S. Mega-events as drivers of community participation in developing countries: The case of Shanghai World Expo. Tour. Manag.; 2011; 32, pp. 1474-1483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.12.008]

21. Zhou, Y.; Ap, J.; Bauer, T. Government motivations for hosting the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. J. Tour. Cult. Change; 2012; 10, pp. 185-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2012.662984]

22. Holloway, I.; Brown, L.; Shipway, R. Meaning not measurement: Using ethnography to bring a deeper understanding to the participant experience of festivals and events. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag.; 2010; 1, pp. 74-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17852951011029315]

23. Pfitzner, R.; Koenigstorfer, J. Quality of life of residents living in a city hosting mega-sport events: A longitudinal study. BMC Public Health; 2016; 16, 1102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3777-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27769276]

24. Wolcott, H.F. Transforming Qualitative Data: Description Analysis, and Interpretation; Sage: Thousands Oaks, CA, USA, 1994.

25. Hammersley, M.; Atkinson, P. Ethnography; Routledge: London, UK, 1995.

26. Bowen, G.A. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual. Res. J.; 2009; 9, pp. 27-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027]

27. Spradley, J.P. The Ethnographic Interview; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: San Diego, CA, USA, 1979.

28. Spradley, J.P. Participant Observation; Holt, Reinhart & Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1980.

29. Siegfried, J.; Zimbalist, A. The economic impact of sports facilities, teams, and mega-events. Aust. Econ. Rev.; 2006; 39, pp. 420-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8462.2006.00431.x]

30. Kaplanidou, K.; Karadakis, K.; Gibson, H.; Thapa, B.; Walker, M.; Geldenhuys, S.; Coetzee, W. Quality of life, event impacts, and mega-event support among South African residents before and after the 2010 FIFA World Cup. J. Travel Res.; 2013; 52, pp. 631-645. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478501]

31. Chhabra, D.; Gursoy, D. Life dynamism explorations on perceived quality of life and social exchange paradigms in casino settings. Leis. Sci.; 2009; 31, pp. 136-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400802685989]

32. Sato, S.; Kinoshita, K.; Kim, M.; Oshimi, D.; Harada, M. The effect of Rugby World Cup 2019 on residents’ psychological well-being: A mediating role of psychological capital. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2022; 25, pp. 692-706. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1857713]

33. Gratton, C.; Preuss, H. Maximizing Olympic Impacts by Building up Legacies. Int. J. Hist. Sport; 2008; 25, pp. 1922-1938. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523360802439023]

34. Roche, M. Mega-events and social change: Spectacle, legacy and public culture. Mega-Events and Social Change; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 2017.

35. Rose, A.K.; Spiegel, M.M. The Olympic effect. Econ. J.; 2011; 121, pp. 652-677. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02407.x]

36. Preuß, H.; Andreff, W.; Weitzmann, M. Cost and Revenue Overruns of the Olympic Games 2000–2018; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; 184.

37. Gogishvili, D. Urban infrastructure in the framework of mega-event exceptionalism: Glasgow and the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Urban Geogr.; 2022; 43, pp. 589-612. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1880696]

38. Gratton, C.; Shibli, S.; Coleman, R. The economic impact of major sports events: A review of ten events in the UK. Sociol. Rev.; 2006; 54, pp. 41-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00652.x]

39. Johnson, M.W. Mega-events, urban space, and social protest: The Olympia 2000 bid in reunified Berlin, 1990–1993. Cent. Eur. Hist.; 2019; 52, pp. 689-712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000893891900089X]

40. Shimahara, N. Autoethnography: A methodological consideration. Qualitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods; Psychology Press: London, UK, 1988; pp. 76-89.

41. Phillips, R.; Rahtz, D.R. Community Quality-of-Life Indicators: Best Cases II; Sirgy, M.J. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006.

42. Kim, S.S.; Petrick, J.F. Residents’ perceptions on impacts of the FIFA 2002 World Cup: The case of Seoul as a host city. Tour. Manag.; 2005; 26, pp. 25-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.013]

43. Ritchie, J.R.B. Assessing the Impact of Hallmark Events: Conceptual and Research Issues. J. Travel Res.; 1984; 23, pp. 2-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728758402300101]

44. Smith, A.; McGillivray, D. The Long-Term Implications of Mega-Event Projects for Urban Public Spaces. Sport Soc.; 2020; pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2020.1826934]

45. McMillan, D.W. Sense of community. J. Community Psychol.; 1996; 24, pp. 315-325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199610)24:4<315::AID-JCOP2>3.0.CO;2-T]

46. Kim, H.J.; Gursoy, D.; Lee, S.B. The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South Korea: Comparisons of pre-and post-games. Tourism Management; 2006; 27, pp. 86-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.07.010]

47. Lee, J. A winter sport mega-event and its aftermath: A critical review of post-Olympic PyeongChang. Local Econ.; 2019; 34, pp. 745-752. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269094219889608]

48. Gaffney, C. Mega-events and socio-spatial dynamics in Rio de Janeiro, 1919–2016. J. Lat. Am. Geogr.; 2010; 9, pp. 7-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lag.0.0068]

49. Byun, J.; Leopkey, B. Exploring issues within postolympic games legacy governance: The case of the 2018 Pyeongchang winter olympic games. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12093585]