Content uploaded by Tiago Ribeiro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tiago Ribeiro on Dec 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlst20
Leisure Studies
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlst20
Does the Olympic legacy and sport participation
influence resident support for future events?
Tiago Ribeiro, André Calapez & Victor Manoel Cunha de Almeida
To cite this article: Tiago Ribeiro, André Calapez & Victor Manoel Cunha de Almeida (2021): Does
the Olympic legacy and sport participation influence resident support for future events?, Leisure
Studies, DOI: 10.1080/02614367.2021.2011951
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2021.2011951
Published online: 08 Dec 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Does the Olympic legacy and sport participation inuence
resident support for future events?
Tiago Ribeiro
a
, André Calapez
a
and Victor Manoel Cunha de Almeida
b
a
Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon, Portugal, Cruz Quebrada;
b
Coppead - the Graduate School of
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
ABSTRACT
This study aims to explore and describe the structural relationships
among (a) perceptions of Olympic legacy, (b) sport participation in the
community and (c) resident support towards future events. A eld study
was conducted in Rio de Janeiro ve-year post-Games, and data were
collected from local residents who lived in the Olympic city using an
online questionnaire (n = 400). A conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) ana-
lysed the psychometric properties of the constructs, and a subsequent
structural equation model (SEM) examined the relationships between the
constructs. Results indicated that the Olympic legacy can positively inu-
ence sport participation in the community and its support for future
events. In addition, the ndings also conrmed the predictive power of
the community sport participation on the support behaviours, suggesting
its inclusion in future models. Implications focus on eective synergies of
political, sportive and social participation to enhance the local support
level in the host community.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 25 June 2021
Accepted 18 November 2021
KEYWORDS
Olympic legacy; sport
participation; support future
events; local community; Rio
de Janeiro
Introduction
One of the most important International Olympic Committee (IOC) roles as defined in the
Olympic Charter is to promote a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities and
countries (IOC, 2011). Its current predominance is reinforced by host governments and organising
committees in order to encourage community support for hosting these events (Scheu & Preuss,
2018). A sustainable Olympic legacy serves as a catalyst in the trickle-down effect by not only
providing local communities with more public spaces for active sport participation but also
facilitating the decision to host future sport events (Schnitzer et al., 2019). While the IOC’s legacy
assumptions have not been evidenced in the last decades (e.g. Ribeiro et al., 2021; Rocha, 2020), its
rhetorical commitment is based on formal requirement imposed on bidding cities to commit and
plan for a positive legacy (International Olympic Committee, 2011) as well as providing hosts with
ample opportunities to participate in sports (Huang & Humphreys, 2012) and engage them in the
Olympic cause (Kolotouchkina, 2018).
The Olympic legacy as an assumption of the increase in sport participation is one of the few
promises ideologically grounded in the fundamentals of Olympism both as a founding and ongoing
objective of the Olympic Movement (Nordhagen, 2021). This key area of interest for the IOC and
commonly found in Olympic bids as the ‘sport participation’ legacy seeks to increase sport and
physical activity participation among the local communities (Minnaert, 2012), but the evidence of
increases in sport participation derived from Olympic events is anecdotal and inconclusive (Veal
CONTACT Tiago Ribeiro tribeiro@fmh.ulisboa.pt Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon, Estrada da Costa, Cruz
Quebrada, 1495-751, Portugal
LEISURE STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2021.2011951
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
et al., 2012; Weed et al., 2015). As noted by Mahtani et al. (2013) in their overview of systematic
reviews, there is a paucity of evidence to support the notion that the Olympics lead to increased
participation in physical and sporting activities in the host country. At that point, the IOC’s
Olympic Agenda (2014) did not encourage developing a sports sustainability strategy that resulted
in an increase in sport participation for the Olympic bidders in their host regions. Despite the lack
of evidence, claims of sport participation legacy still abound in the public sphere stemming from
hosting the Olympic Games (Bason & Grix, 2018).
When hosting Olympics, the residents want outcomes to go beyond the international image of
competition (Rocha et al., 2017) and have environmental considerations, economic planning, and
long-term social sustainability at the core for their host city (Ribeiro et al., 2021). The importance of
understanding legacy as a multidimensional construct for their hosts has been highlighted in
previous studies (Kaplanidou & Karadakis, 2010), evidencing that citizen support can change
over the years at different moments of the process (Rocha, 2020). Previous studies noted that
residents support the event in their regions if they perceived potential gains for the local commu-
nity. For instance, increase in community participation (Pappas, 2014), higher quality of life (Ma &
Kaplanidou, 2017), and more involvement (Schnitzer et al., 2019) have been reported as relevant
exchanges that influence resident attitudes towards future events. Thus, understanding the role of
local residents in such events as well as the driving forces influencing their support, are more
important than ever (Scheu & Preuss, 2018).
Rio de Janeiro is an appropriate case-study to discuss the post-Olympic legacies for their local
communities because it had clear strategical objectives in its bidding (Maheshwari et al., 2019).
Brazilian government intended to improve its international image (Grix et al., 2015) and advance
sport participation (Sousa-Mast et al., 2013), but the optimistic view contrasted with many legacy
issues and corruption perceptions by the local citizens (Ribeiro et al., 2021). Anecdotal evidence also
notes a low rate of sports activity in the State of Rio de Janeiro compared to all Brazilian states
(Martini, 2017) when international major sports events entered the Rio calendar. Furthermore,
recent studies found a decrease of Olympic legacy perceptions over the years by local citizens
(Rocha, 2020; Zouain et al., 2019).
Based on these concerns and referring to the Rio 2016Olympic Games, this study explores and
describes the structural relationships among (a) perceptions of Olympic legacy, (b) sport participa-
tion in the community and (c) popular support for future events. Thus, the following questions
were proposed:
●Are the Olympic legacy outcomes determinants to sport participation in the community?
●What role does legacy outcome have on support behaviours for future events?
●Is it possible to state that community sport participation has an influence on resident support
behaviours?
Literature review
Theoretical base
The theoretical foundation for the Olympic legacy analysis is based on the trickle-down effect
(Weed et al., 2015) and the social exchange theory (SET; Ap, 1992). Conceptually, sport mega-
events such as the Olympic Games are understood to have a trickle-down effect on sport participa-
tion (Potwarka & Leatherdale, 2016), on the increase of national pride (Gassmann et al., 2020), and
on the sporting interest of host communities (Aizawa et al., 2018). As noted by Weed et al. (2015,
p. 197), the trickle-down e ffect refers to ‘a process by which people are inspired by the elite sport,
sports people or sports events to participate themselves’. This effect is said to take place when
government investment in staging sport mega-events combined with athlete successes and the
associated media coverage contribute to an increase of sport participation in the host community
2T. RIBEIRO ET AL.
(Veal et al., 2012). In the context of Olympics, the public interest generated by hosting this mega-
event provides an opportunity to boost participation in sports (Ramchandani et al., 2017) as well as
generates new benefits for the local community (Kokolakakis et al., 2019). In fact, the increase in
sports and physical activity through the trickle-down effect is one of the most frequently mentioned
sports development legacy in the Olympic literature (Hayday et al., 2017; Huang & Humphreys,
2012). Notwithstanding its prevalence in sports policy and legacy discourse, the trickle-down effect
literature is based on anecdotal evidence with few empirical studies supporting local-level data
(Weed et al., 2015) and without subsequent evaluation to a particular host city/jurisdiction
(Potwarka & Leatherdale, 2016).
If Olympic Games are successful, it is expected that they inspire the local communities,
increase the sports participation (Veal et al., 2012), as well as influence their support
behaviours for future events (Schnitzer et al., 2019). To explain this last phenomenon, some
researchers draw on the social exchange theory (SET) to illustrate that supportive attitudes or
behaviours are influenced by both positive and negative legacies (Rocha et al., 2017). Some
locals may perceive that the mega-event had mainly negative consequences for the host region,
but others may perceive that mostly positive legacies occurred. The social exchange theory
(Ap, 1992) focuses on the weights that are assigned by residents to the various benefits and
costs in the exchange and evaluation procedure. In the Olympic context, if the residents
believe that the benefits are outweighing the costs, i.e. that Olympic legacy outcomes are
better than they expected, it is likely they take part in an exchange (Ribeiro et al., 2020). This
means that resident attitudes towards the performance of legacies can be explained by the
exchange of benefits (e.g. improvement in sport facilities or enhancement in sport participa-
tion) related to the event-hosting process (Karadakis & Kaplanidou, 2012). This theoretical
base assumes that resident judgment in post-Games contains a more holistic memory-based
evaluation of the event in their experiences and social interactions (Ribeiro & Almeida, 2021).
Therefore, SET will allow to add rigour to the analysis of the trickle-down effect by arguing
how it might work and on what social consequences it can generate. The combination of these
theories contributes to the following explanation: assuming the trickle-down effect that
inspires participation, a social exchange may occur by the shared value of hosting a sport
mega-event. Thus, bridging among theories may help clarify the legacy value that residents
impute to hosting the Olympic Games because not all of them attribute the same value to the
mega-event (Ritchie et al., 2020).
Olympic legacy outcomes on the community sport participation
Sport is the central focus in Olympic Games and stimulating sport participation by hosting such
events can be considered a logical and desirable legacy (Taks et al., 2013). Legacy is defined as ‘any
outcomes that affect people and/or space caused by structural changes that stem from the
Olympic Games’ (Preuss, 2019, p. 106). The IOC (2013) identified five dimensions of Olympic
legacy: social, environmental, urban, economic, and in particular the sportive dimension. The
sports legacy includes the sport venues that are either built or refurbished for an event (e.g.
Olympic Park) and the opportunity to boost participation in sport through hosting a mega-event
(Ramchandani et al., 2017).
Academic literature on legacy and mega events has been largely focused around increasing
sport participation as an outcome of the Olympic legacy (Ramchandani et al., 2017; Aizawa
et al., 2018; Hayday et al., 2017). The Olympic Games can provide a positive legacy on host
communities by changing attitudes and subjective norms about sport participation (Brown
et al., 2017). An interpretation drawing on the trickle-down effect would regard the increase
in sport and physical activity as one of the most frequent sport legacies (Reis et al., 2017) and
the basis for a sport development policy in developed countries (Chalip et al., 2017). However,
most previous studies have highlighted little evidences of sustained increase in sport
LEISURE STUDIES 3
participation as a result of the trickle-down effect in hosting the Olympics (Weed et al., 2015),
and others demonstrated the lack of a government role to strategically leverage a sport
participation legacy for the wider population (Reis et al., 2017, 2014). Veal et al. (2012)
argued that any suggestion of increase in sport participation from the Olympics is ‘extremely
speculative’ and they encouraged new studies that could explain this phenomenon. In addi-
tion, social and economic characteristics of a host country or city, such as its economic status
or income level, can also have a strong contribution on sport participation (Aizawa et al.,
2018). For instance, it is expected that the sport participation rate is higher in cities with high
economic and social development because they have sufficient resources, infrastructures, and
urban policies to providing wider sports opportunities for their host communities (Huang &
Humphreys, 2012).
In Rio’s 2016 case, the sport participation legacy had a strong impact on its bidding (Rio 2016) as
a way to enhance the quality of life of its young population through sport participation. Educational
programmes such as the ‘Second Half’ (Knijnik & Tavares, 2012), ‘More Education’ (Reis et al.,
2014), or ‘Transform’ (Ribeiro et al., 2020) were part of the sport/physical activity developing
strategy among the (young) population as a long-term intangible legacy. However, concerns raised
about the coalition’s fragility (Lauermann, 2019), political corruption allegations (Nunkoo et al.,
2018), and protest movements on the bidding process generated a critical impact on the perceived
value of these programmes, leading to decreased Brazilian government funding (Reis et al., 2014).
Despite these legacy strategies to promote access to sport have been scattered and inconsistent (Reis
et al., 2017), so far there have been no studies to assess their effects on sport participation in
Brazilian community and in particular in the Rio Olympic city after the Games. Taking into account
that the Olympic legacy has critical implications for the hosts (Ribeiro & Almeida, 2021) and that its
‘trickle-down’ outcomes can represent long-term consequences (Aizawa et al., 2018), it becomes
important to understand if the Olympic legacy is a predictor of the community sport participation
after the Games. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Positive Olympic legacy perceptions will have a positive effect on community sport
participation.
Olympic legacy outcomes on citizen support for future events
Hosting the Olympic Games could have both positive and negative impacts on behavioural
intentions by changing attitudes and perceptions about the local support for the event (Bakhsh
et al., 2018). For several host stakeholders (e.g. non-residents, companies, or poor commu-
nities), the positive legacies may be rare even though prominently extant in the political
narrative used by host governments to gain local support (Bason & Grix, 2018). Previous
studies have revealed that the Olympic legacy perception by local communities may influence
their support for already staged or planned events (Schnitzer et al., 2019). In this respect, an
effectively sustainable legacy for the host community is crucial for their support with future
mega-events (Scheu & Preuss, 2018). This can be confirmed by recent studies stating that
community attachment (e.g. Li & Wan, 2017), employment opportunities (Maheshwari et al.,
2019), and awareness of the city’s environment and natural resources (Rocha, 2020) are
central determinants of resident support for the Games.
Rio de Janeiro is an interesting occasion to discuss the supposed legacies and the support
behaviours of hosting future events particularly given its clear political objectives when it bid for
the Rio Olympics (Maheshwari et al., 2019). The Brazilian government and Rio’s organising
committee intended to promote three sustainable aims based on the people, the planet, and prosper-
ity (Rocha, 2020). The planet pillar encompassed environmental legacies, the people axis considered
social and cultural legacies, while the prosperity support sustained the economic and tourism legacies
4T. RIBEIRO ET AL.
(Rio 2016). These legacies had the potential to enhance the host city’s international image while
providing new opportunities for economic growth and social development (Maheshwari et al., 2019).
In addition to attracting a global audience such as visitors and investors, Rio’s initiative also
presented an opportunity for the host city to build a sustainable legacy in the form of urban
regeneration and improving the quality of life for their local residents (Ribeiro & Almeida, 2020).
As noted by SET, resident support level is a critical determinant of their willingness to participate in
an exchange (Nunkoo et al., 2018). In particular, residents with positive perceptions about the events
legacy are more likely to support future mega-events in their communities (Schnitzer et al., 2019).
Social exchanges support the hypothesis of a positive relationship between a perceived positive legacy
and popular support. Citizens tend to support future events if the Olympic legacy outcomes are better
than they expected, and thus, if they bring more benefits to the city and to the residents themselves
(Maheshwari et al., 2019). Therefore, the second path to be tested in our model goes from the
Olympic legacy outcomes to local resident support towards future events.
This led to the second hypothesis:
H2: Positive Olympic legacy perceptions will have a positive effect on resident support for future
events.
Figure 1 represents the proposed model through solid arrows. In addition to the two proposed
paths, a third path to be tested in our model includes the perceived sport participation in the
community and resident support for future events. As noted by Chalip et al. (2017), sport mega-
events can be leveraged to enhance sport participation in the community if there are locals support-
ing and building alliances across a diverse array of stakeholders. For that, it is important to define
sport participation as a Games legacy and to include it in event planning and in the sustainable sport
development outcomes (Girginov & Hills, 2008). The indirect version of the trickle-down effect
involves hosting the event, enhancing the local context, and giving support for sport participation in
the community (Veal et al., 2012) as way to encourage their support for staging these events. This
means that a positive legacy that is integrated to the sportive and social policy of the host city (Preuss,
2019) may contribute to enhancing sport participation in the community (Hayday et al., 2017) and
thus lead residents to be more likely to support future events. In this sense, the current study explores
this mediator effect on the post-event stage and considers sport participation in the community as an
intangible legacy (Reis et al., 2017), which can influence the host community to hosting future mega-
events. Based on the preceding assumption, it is logical to hypothesise that:
H3. There is an indirect relationship between positive legacy and event support mediated by the
community sport participation.
Figure 1. Hypothesised model.
LEISURE STUDIES 5
Method
A case study approach was selected to explore the structural relationships between the constructs. In
addition to being suited for investigating contemporary phenomenon, case studies complement the
realist perspective and attempt to understand how and why something happens (Yin, 2014). Thus,
this case study considered the Rio 2016 Olympic Games five years after the event.
Research context
The Rio 2016 Olympic Games were held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from August 5–21, 2016 and
featured 11,238 athletes from 205 National Olympic Committees (Olympics, 2021). The athletes
participated in 305 events in 28 sports. In 2016, Rio de Janeiro received 1.17 million tourists and,
according to Tourism Ministry survey, almost 95% of tourists intended to revisit the city. The final
costs of the Games were around $11.1 billion, justifying the heavy investment to host the Olympics
in recent editions (Khraiche & Alakshendra, 2021). Based on Rio’s official bid, two of the five main
strategies for Olympics hosting were related to sport legacies and one of the four expected Olympic
legacies was sport (Rio 2016). However, Rio Olympics were also fraught with difficulties and
unfulfilled promises, such as Guanabara Bay’s clean-up, revamped housing, or the access to leisure
or sports facilities (Boykoff & Mascarenhas, 2016).
Data collection and sample
A field study was conducted in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) five years after the Games and data were
collected among local residents through an online questionnaire (n = 400). A quantitative approach
was employed using a convenience sampling method.
Data were collected in post-Games stage (January 1 to 30, 2021) and the sampling strategy
employed was twofold, which considered (1) a local university database and (2) resident groups on
social media networks (Facebook: 6 neighbourhood groups). The following criteria were considered
for participant selection: (1) residents who lived in Rio de Janeiro for at least 10 years, thus getting
a sense of both pre- and post-Games stages, (2) residents who had at least high school so as to be
able to read and understand the items, and (3) residents who were fluent in Portuguese because of
the survey language and the study aims. A question guide invited the respondents to assess the items
according to their level of agreement and included an initial filter question related to respondents
being (or not) residents of Rio de Janeiro for at least 10 years.
All participants voluntarily joined in the research and accepted the informed consent form. To
ensure that each participant answered only once, the IP address was recorded in the database,
preventing further access to the survey. A total of 438 surveys were returned and responses that
were not fully completed were excluded, leaving 400 usable surveys. Samples were balanced on the
gender level with 206 (51.5%) women and 194 (48.5%) men in the total sample with the ages
ranging from 20 to 72 years old, predominantly in the 30–39 age bracket (33.5%). Almost 80% of the
participants reported having a college education level with 42.3% having an undergraduate degree,
27.2% a master’s degree, and 7.7% a doctorate, followed by participants with a high-school
education (22.8%). As for the neighbourhoods of residence, the sample ranged from the Midwest
zone (51.3%), followed by the North zone (33.2%) and next the South zone (15.5%) of Rio de
Janeiro.
Measures
The online questionnaire was constructed for assessing a pool of 18 items in order to measure the
following constructs: perceived Olympic legacy (OL), community sport participation (CSP), and
resident support for future events (RSE).
6T. RIBEIRO ET AL.
Perceived olympic legacy
This factor captured resident perception of the economic, social, and environmental outcomes that
stem from the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. A 12-item scale adapted from Rocha (2020) and Tsaur
et al. (2015) was used to assess sport mega-event legacies in the context of Global South countries.
Three distinct legacy dimensions were considered: economic, social, and environmental.
Community sport participation
This factor focused on the local residents’ perceptions about the increase in sport/physical activity
participation in the host community (Reis et al., 2014). The CSP was based on an IOC factsheet on
Legacies of the Games (IOC, 2016) that lists the sports legacy achievements from the Olympic
Games and included 3-items about the increase in sport participation from young people, adults,
and the community at large in the host city.
Resident support for future events
This factor referred to the level of public support for future events after the event was staged.
A 3-item scale for measuring resident support was adopted from Schnitzer et al. (2019) and Rocha
(2020) in the Olympics context.
The first section of the survey instrument examined resident perceptions on Olympic legacy,
sport participation, and local support. The second part collected socio-demographic information
(i.e. age, gender, education level, and residence). All measurement items were translated into
Portuguese and back-translated into English to ensure the accuracy between the original scales
and the necessarily translated versions (Banville et al., 2000). The content validity process was
ensured by two scholars with experience in sport management research and two native Brazilian
researchers. This survey included 5-point Likert scales (1 = ‘Strongly Disagree’ to 5 = ‘Strongly
Agree’) all formulated in Portuguese. The survey items are showed in the Appendix.
Data analysis
Using SPSS 26.0, the descriptive statistics were calculated (see Table 1) and the fit of the
model was estimated using structural equation modelling (SEM) with AMOS 26.0.
A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine whether the model
proposed fit the data, ensuring the measurement model’s psychometric properties (Kline,
2005). The recommendations of Hair et al. (2009) were followed to report the Tucker–Lewis
Index (TLI), Comparative-of-Fit Index (CFI), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the ratio of chi-square (χ2) to its degrees of freedom.
Convergent validity was assessed to determine whether the measures were indeed measures of
the constructs it aimed to assess using the factor loadings in the measurement model (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing squared correlations
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and summary results of measurement model.
Construct Mean SD
Correlation matrix (n = 400)
Factor loadings CR α AVE
1 2 3 4 5
1. Economic Legacy 3.26 1.12 1.00 .706 – .896 .88 .88 .66
2. Social Legacy 2.17 .99 .26 1.00 .732 – .857 .88 .87 .64
3. Environmental Legacy 1.94 .96 .30 .53 1.00 .815 – .886 .91 .90 .72
4. Community Sport Participation 2.23 1.06 .29 .60 .50 1.00 .618 – .917 .85 .83 .66
5. Resident support for the Games 2.35 1.13 .28 .46 .39 .58 1.00 .734 – .825 .83 .83 .62
SD = standard deviation; all correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the .01 significance level (p < .01); CR = construct
reliability; α = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance extracted; n = 400.
LEISURE STUDIES 7
among the constructs (Hair et al., 2009) in order to verify whether the measures were isolated
to the construct which they were said to gauge. With respect to internal consistency,
Cronbach’s alpha and item-to-total correlations were computed to assess the reliability level
of the survey measures. Subsequently, MANOVA and a series of ANOVA tests were also
performed to analyse the differences in perceptions among two samples (i.e. Facebook groups
vs. local university database).
Results
Descriptive statistics and MANOVA results
The descriptive statistics of the factors are presented in Table 1. Skewness values did not exceed
3.0 and kurtosis values were all below 7.0 (Kline, 2005). The descriptive statistics of these results
revealed that local attendees on average provided low scores not exceeding the midpoint (i.e.
3-point; except for the economic legacy dimension) for all of the perceived factors, suggesting that
the Olympic Games generated a low level of perceived legacy outcomes. The means of factors
pertaining to ‘Social Legacy’ (M = 2.17) and ‘Environmental Legacy’ (M = 1.94) were those with
lower mean values, showing a negative perception of social and ecological issues stemming from
hosting the event. And in turn, ‘Economic Legacy’ (M = 3.26) evidenced the highest average
among the factors, although not exceeding the midpoint significantly. Regarding ‘Community
Sport Participation’ (M = 2.23) and ‘Resident Support for future Events’ (M = 2.35), they also
showed low score means. These two factors were below 3, which is the minimal agreement point
in the Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5. In fact, it seems that local attendees did not have a positive
perception of sport participation in the host community after the Games. Likewise, the locals
declared low support for hosting future events in the city (M = 2.35, SD = 1.13). In summary, the
descriptive statistics revealed that Rio’s citizens had a negative perception about the Olympic
legacies, they did not perceive an increase in sport participation in the community, and expressed
a low support level for future events.
In regard to the MANOVA, the results did not reveal significant mean differences in resident
perceptions (Wilks’ lambda = 0.97, F(3,321) = 2.43, p > 0.05). Separate ANOVAs confirmed these
findings for two samples: Olympic legacy [F(1,323) = 2.58, p = .102], community sport participation
[F(1,323) = 2.42, p = .121] and resident support [F(1,323) = 0.07, p = .785], showing the lack of
differences between the groups compared.
Assessment of the measures
The measurement model results revealed a good fit of the model to the data [χ2 (50) = 135.06
(p < .01), χ2/gl = 2.70, CFI = .96, GFI = .93, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .06]. All fit indices were
above .95, the chi-square ratio to the degrees of freedom was below the threshold of 3.0, and
the RMSEA value was equal to .06, suggesting good fit to the data (Hair et al., 2009). A review
of the item loadings for each factor showed that all items loaded sufficiently, ranging from .61
to .91 (see Appendix), and that the items accurately captured the respective factors (Hair
et al., 2009) with all factors analysed being positively correlated at the .01 significance level.
Construct reliability (CR) values were greater than their commended cut-off point for all
factors (above .84), and all constructs presented a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha
varying from .83 to .90). The average variance extracted (AVE) values for the five constructs
ranged from .62 to .72, providing evidence of convergent validity greater than .50 (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The discriminant validity was ensured because the AVE values were consider-
ably greater than any squared correlations between all pairs of the constructs (see Table 1)
with the correlation coefficients ranging from .28 to .60 between all factors. Table 1 shows the
correlation matrix and the results of the measurement model.
8T. RIBEIRO ET AL.
The Olympic legacy dimensions provide statistical support to our proposition that legacy
outcome may be understood as a second-order latent variable. The second-order measurement
model also showed a good fit to the data. Inspection of the path coefficients between
Olympic legacy and its associated dimensions (economic = .63, social = .82, and environ-
mental = .88) reveal that all paths were significant at p < .01. Subsequently, the structural
model was tested.
Assessment of the structural model
Structural modelling
The hypothesised structural model demonstrated a good fit to the data [χ2 (129) = 327.55 (p < .01),
χ2/gl = 2.53, CFI = .95, GFI = .90, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .06]. The results indicated that Olympic
legacy outcomes showed a significant and positive effect on community sport participation (H1 →
β1 = .89, p < .01) and on support for future events (H2 → β2 = .81, p < .01). Therefore, H1 and H2
were supported, indicating the Olympic legacy relevance as a significant predictor for sport-related
and event-support behaviours. The model proposed explained 79% of the variance in sport
participation in the community (R
2
= .79) and 67% of the resident support for future events
(R
2
= .67). Figure 2 shows the relationships between the constructs specified.
Figure 2. Structural relationships among evaluations of Olympic legacy, sport participation in the community, and resident
support for future events.
LEISURE STUDIES 9
Mediator analyses
The alternative mediated model also evidenced a good fit to the data [χ2 (128) = 322.16 (p < .01), χ2/
gl = 2.51, CFI = .95, GFI = .90, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .06] and indicated that Olympic legacy had
a significant direct effect towards support [OL→CSP→RSE, β = 0.492, 95% bootstrap CI (0.148 to
0.840), Z = 3.25, p < 0.01] via the sport participation in the community. According to the theoretical
prediction, the direct influence of the community sport participation on support for future events
was positive and significant (H3 → β3 = .36, p < .01); therefore, H3 was supported in the mediated
model. The first path coefficient remains positive and significant (H1 → β1 = .86, p < .01),
indicating Olympic legacy was the significant predictor of sport participation in both models,
while the coefficient of the second path revealed a decrease in the effect magnitude of the legacy
perceived on event support (H2 → β2 = .46, p < .01). The partial mediation model explained 64%
(R
2
= .64) of the variance in resident support for future events (Figure 2).
Discussion and managerial implications
The main purpose of this study was to explore the structural relationships among perceptions of
Olympic legacy, community sport participation, and resident support towards future events. In
doing so, this study highlights that the Olympic legacy outcome is an important predictor of sport
participation in the community and its support behaviours. In addition, the support for future
events in Rio is partially mediated for sport participation in the community, suggesting its relevance
in the model. Considering that the Olympic legacy is an important issue that affects the host city
resident’s quality of life (Ma & Kaplanidou, 2017), this study represents an important step by
clarifying its social effects on sport participation and on resident support behaviours.
Our empirical findings suggest that resident evaluations about the Olympic legacy of Rio 2016
can positively influence sport participation and support for future events. This means that (a) the
more residents who believe in the Olympic legacies, the more they perceive an increase of sport
participation in the community, and (b) the more residents who believe in positive legacies, the
better they expressed intentions to support future events. Similar to Shipway et al. (2020) in London
and Schnitzer et al. (2019) in Innsbruck, the Olympic legacy plays a critical role in influencing
resident support and in motivating hosting the event in their community. As noted by SET, positive
legacy perceptions function as a platform of positive exchange. As such, if citizens understand that
positive legacies were gained from hosting the Olympics, then they will link this understanding with
increased sport participation and with supporting such events. This is consistent with recent studies
that noted a potentially positive relationship between perceived legacy with event support (Ritchie
et al., 2020) and with increasing sport participation (Kokolakakis et al., 2019). Therefore, one may
argue that popular participation in sport and positive legacy-related outcomes are deemed appro-
priate and necessary variables to reflect the support for future events in the host communities.
Findings of this study also revealed that sport participation perceptions partially mediated the
relationship between perceived Olympic legacy and resident support for future events. As Olympic
legacy perceptions increase in the host community, sport participation levels are viewed more
positively and evaluated to have a positive impact on support behaviours (Ritchie et al., 2020). At
that point, Olympic Games hosting might be a tool for boosting sport participation rates, thereby
leading to positive effects on the local communities (Kokolakakis et al., 2019), which is in line with
the trickle-down theory. In other words, resident support of the Games may be linked to the
potential legacies perceived of hosting the event (Rocha et al., 2017) and specifically with increasing
sport in the life of the locals (Ramchandani et al., 2019). The presence of the mediator effect suggests
that governments should think sequentially. This means that firstly they should focus on delivering
the positive legacy, then they could explore the potential of sport participation to foster support.
The findings of this study extend previous findings about perceptions of community sport parti-
cipation (e.g. Ritchie et al., 2020) by suggesting its mediating role in legacy perceptions and on
support behaviours for future events.
10 T. RIBEIRO ET AL.
However, by introducing the community sport participation construct in the model, the
magnitude of the effect among the legacy outcomes and resident support was relatively lower
(Mstructural = .81; Mmediator = .46), highlighting itself as a key determinant in predicting support.
That is, this sport participation construct is a significant and positive indication on the structural
model of support for the Olympic Games. One possible explanation for this result can be related to
the cultural context (i.e. given that Rio residents have a high interest and value in sports; Zouain
et al., 2019), or, as this dimension is explicitly included in the legacy plan, it therefore may be
understood as part of the Olympic legacy (IOC, 2013). The study’s theoretical implications justify
the differential weight of these constructs for the hosts and their social contributions to support
future events in the local community.
Notwithstanding, although the relationship between the constructs and explained variance in the
model indicates a strong association (R
2
= 0.64), residents reported a low mean score over both
factors after the Games (Mlegacy = 2.46; Mparticipation = 2.23; Msupport = 2.35), which suggests
that Rio’s resident did not believe in positive legacies in the post-Games, nor in the increase in sport
participation, and as a result they have no intention of giving support to future events in their
community. This finding may be explained by widespread evidence of corruption and disbelief in
the government (Ribeiro & Almeida, 2021), by decreased support funding (Reis et al., 2017), or by
a lack of maintenance and commitment to the legacy delivery after the Games (e.g. governance,
sports programmes or planning). Recent studies have highlighted and confirmed these trends
associated with economic crisis in Brazil, pointing to negative outcomes from the Olympic legacy
(Rocha, 2020) and the lack of a strategic plan to ensure a sport participation legacy in the host city
(Reis et al., 2017). Another alternative explanation might be related to several social issues that
remained in the host community (e.g. socio-spatial inequalities, the eviction threats, or the violation
of human rights; Ribeiro et al., 2021), which may have influenced the popular opinion, leading to
a decrease in their support behaviours. In this sense, these findings support the notion that the
trickle-down effect may not have been perceived as a reality by Rio’s community and the social
exchanges may be weak or non-existent after the Games. As a result, our findings contribute to the
empirical literature on post-event resident perspectives, allowing a better comprehension on how
the Olympic legacy is perceived and how it attributes a social value on participating in and staging
future events.
Managerial implications
From a practical standpoint, our findings can help local governments, organisers, and future
bidding cities on their action plans and strategies for such events. The following paragraphs discuss
three practical implications that arise from the findings of this research.
Recognising the sport participation as long-term strategy
Findings suggest how Olympic-related support can have sport participation in the community as
a key determinant. Governments should explore this by working to boost sport participation
through educational programmes (Ribeiro et al., 2020), providing resources for helping facilitate
active life-styles (Kokolakakis et al., 2018), or building the capacity of sport providers (Chalip et al.,
2017). By leveraging the potential benefits stemming from the Olympics, it is imperative that future
organisers provide new specific and sports-oriented action plans as part of their legacy strategies.
For example, create strategic alliances among sport organisations, sponsors, and local stakeholders
may be useful for addressing the wants and needs of local sport communities.
Fostering the social exchanges among locals
The social exchanges appear to be weak or negative after the Games, leading residents to be more
reluctant to supporting the mega-event. As a result, it is recommended that future bidders build-up
lasting legacies through popular participation by promoting cultural exchanges, encouraging
LEISURE STUDIES 11
volunteering, raising awareness of environmental issues, and giving support to sustainable economy
during such events. This is especially important some years before and after the event, when locals
are still waiting for the Olympic legacies to become reality.
Building up lasting and long-term legacies
The finding that the resident perception of the Olympic legacy had a low mean score on all
dimensions provides implications for future bidders, too. The negative attitude and disappointment
towards the performance of legacies justify a new strategy to leverage them. For that, it is important
build-up lasting planning through a social engagement plan in host city, creating support commit-
tees to raise public awareness and, allowing to multiple host-cities bid arrangements (MHC)
(Bakhsh et al., 2018). This should give residents a reason to support future events and perceive
them as part of a longer-term strategy.
Limitations and future research
First, this study measured legacy, participation, and support perceived during the COVID-19
pandemic context, which may have influenced citizen perspective. This is an aspect that should
be considered and could condition resident perception regarding their social perspective (Vegara-
Ferri et al., 2021). In addition, the limitations in people participating in sports and the fear in the
midst of the COVID-19 pandemic may have directly influenced the results obtained. Future studies
should revise the scale and relationship between the constructs analysed.
Second, though our study used legacy as a multidimensional construct (social, environmental,
and economic), other legacies such as urban or psychological were not considered in the survey and
need to be measured. Similarly, it is not only positive legacies are important in supportive
behaviours for the event but also the negative impacts may influence the resident perceptions
and, therefore, should be taken into consideration in the future models. Moreover, additional
studies should include an in-depth qualitative approach to residents and other stakeholders in order
to contribute towards a broader discussion about the role of legacy on sport participation and
support behaviours.
Third, with regard to sample size and composition, the current sample is skewed towards adults
(second age), high-education-level people, and mostly from the Midwest zone of the city. The
sampling method used does not allow the results to be generalised and the sample does not fully
represent Rio’s population (non-residents and residents). Future studies should collect larger
samples and include different stakeholder perceptions in post-Games such as government, sport
organisations, and event managers.
Fourth, caution should be exercised so as not to misuse the term ‘community sport participation’
given its relation to sport elite practices or sport culture from a nation/region. This is because
frequent references to ‘sport participation’ might make respondents ‘confused’ in relation to their
different levels (national, regional, or individual). Although our items were conducted at the local
level (micro-level), future studies should consider a primary data set at an individual level about the
community motivations and behaviours towards sport participation in post-Games.
Finally, the sport involvement of the respondents may have influenced their responses and
created a potential bias in the results, given that the residents’ level of participation is a significant
determinant of impact perceptions (Chen et al., 2018). Future studies should include different
degrees of association with the event such as knowledge of the event, attention level, or sport
involvement. Relatedly, the current study only focused on perceptions of community sport parti-
cipation, and the sport involvement dimension was not directly captured. As noted by Kim and
Kaplanidou (2019), sport involvement reveals how important one considers sports and how
interested one is in sports, which may affect its impact perception on the Olympic Games. Thus,
further research should be conducted to explore the impact this construct in the model of support
for sport mega-events.
12 T. RIBEIRO ET AL.
In summary, this study has sought to provide initial empirical evidence related to perceived
legacies, sport participation, and intentions of support for future events in the community. It is
apparent that during the bidding process of sport mega-events, many local governments and
bidders cite positive legacies (Preuss, 2019) as intangible benefits to the community. However,
views from academia on such a claim have been inconclusive and lack support from further
empirical evidence in the literature (Kim & Kaplanidou, 2019). This study has sought to explore
and describe the structural relationships among three constructs and contribute to a broader
discussion about the legacy role in the community. It is conceivable that better an understanding
of these relationships will significantly contribute to structural changes at the local level and
leverage a comprehensive strategy to support similar events in the future.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Tiago Ribeiro is an Assistant Professor in sport management at the Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon,
Portugal. His research is in sport mega-events, social impacts and Olympic legacies.
André Calapez is a Phd student in sport management at the Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon,
Portugal. His research focuses on consumer behaviours, eSports identity and sport events.
Victor Manoel Cunha de Almeida is an Associate Professor in marketing and business at the COPPEAD - The
Graduate School of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His research is in sport marketing, sport events and
eSports.
ORCID
Tiago Ribeiro http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4307-8671
André Calapez http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0467-8532
Victor Manoel Cunha de Almeida http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4433-0787
References
Aizawa, K., Wu, J., Inoue, Y., & Sato, M. (2018). Long-term impact of the Tokyo 1964 Olympic Games on sport
participation: A cohort analysis. Sport Management Review, 21(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.05.
001
Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665–690. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90060-3
Bakhsh, J., Potwarka, L. R., Nunkoo, R., & Sunnassee, V. (2018). Residents’ support for the Olympic Games: Single
Host-City versus Multiple Host-City Bid arrangements. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(5),
544–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1398119
Banville, D., Desrosiers, P., & Genet-Volet, Y. (2000). Translating questionnaires and inventories using a
cross-cultural translation technique. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(3), 374–387. https://doi.org/
10.1123/jtpe.19.3.374
Bason, T., & Grix, J. (2018). Planning to fail? Leveraging the Olympic Bid. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(1),
138–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-06-2017-0106
Boykoff, J., & Mascarenhas, G. (2016). The Olympics, Sustainability, and Greenwashing: The Rio 2016 Summer
Games. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 27(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1179473
Brown, G., Essex, S., Assaker, G., & Smith, A. (2017). Event satisfaction and behavioural intentions: Examining the
impact of the London 2012 Olympic Games on participation in sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 17
(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.1294193
Chalip, L., Green, B. C., Taks, M., & Misener, L. (2017). Creating sport participation from sport events: Making it
happen. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9(2), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2016.
1257496
LEISURE STUDIES 13
Chen, K.-C., Gursoy, D., & Lau, K. L. K. (2018). Longitudinal impacts of a recurring sport event on local residents
with different level of event involvement. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28(1), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tmp.2018.09.005
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224378101800104
Gassmann, F., Haut, J., & Emrich, E. (2020). The effect of the 2014 and 2018 FIFA World Cup tournaments on
German national pride. A natural experiment. Applied Economics Letters, 27(19), 1541–1545. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504851.2019.1696448
Girginov, V., & Hills, L. (2008). A sustainable sports legacy: Creating a link between the London Olympics and sports
participation. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25, 2091–2116. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09523360802439015
Grix, J., Brannagan, P., & Houlihan, B. (2015). Interrogating states’ soft power strategies: A case study of sports
megaevents in Brazil and the UK. Journal Global Society, 29(3), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2015.
1047743
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Hayday, E. J., Pappous, A., & Koutrou, N. (2017). Leveraging the sport participation legacy of the London 2012
Olympics: Senior managers’ perceptions. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9(2), 349–369. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2016.1255241
Huang, H., & Humphreys, B. R. (2012). Sports participation and happiness: Evidence from US microdata. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33(4), 776–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.02.007
International Olympic Committee (2011). Olympic Charter [online]. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_
charter_en.pdf
International Olympic Committee (2013). Olympic Legacy [online]. https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/
Olympism_in_action/Legacy/2013_Booklet_Legacy.pdf
International Olympic Committee (2014). Olympic Agenda: 20 + 20 Recommendations [online]. https://stillmed.
olympic.org/Documents/Olympic_Agenda_2020/Olympic_Agenda_2020-20-20_Recommendations-ENG.pdf
International Olympic Committee (2016). Fact Sheet Legacies of The Games [online]. https://stillmed.olympic.org/
media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Factsheets-Reference-Documents/Games/Legacies/Factsheet-Legacies
-of-the-Games-May-2016.pdf
Kaplanidou, K., & Karadakis, K. (2010). Understanding the legacies of a host Olympic city: The case of the 2010
Vancouver Olympic Games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 110–117. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/understanding-legacies-host-olympic-city-case/docview/528002795/se-2
Karadakis, K., & Kaplanidou, K. (2012). Legacy perceptions among host and non-host Olympic Games residents: a
longitudinal study of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12(3), 243–
264. http://10.1080/16184742.2012.680067
Khraiche, M., & Alakshendra, A. (2021). Hosting the Olympics: Why are we always getting the cost wrong?
Managerial Finance, 47(6), 845–855. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-05-2020-0231
Kim, C., & Kaplanidou, K. (2019). The Effect of Sport Involvement on Support for Mega Sport Events: Why Does It
Matter. Sustainability, 11(20), 5687. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205687
Kline, R. B. (2005). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford
Press.
Knijnik, J., & Tavares, O. (2012). Educating Copacabana: A critical analysis of the “Second Half”, an Olympic
education program of Rio 2016. Educational Review, 64(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2012.
671805
Kokolakakis, T., Lera-López, F., & Ramchandani, G. (2019). Did London 2012 deliver a sports participation legacy?
Sport Management Review, 22(2), 276–287. http://10.1016/j.smr.2018.04.004
Kolotouchkina, O. (2018). Engaging citizens in sports mega-events: The participatory strategic approach of Tokyo
2020 Olympics. Communication & Society, 31(4), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.31.4.45-58
Lauermann, J. (2019). The Urban Politics of Mega-Events Grand Promises Meet Local Resistance. Environment and
Society: Advances in Research, 10(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2019.100104
Li, X., & Wan, Y. K. P. (2017). Residents’ support for festivals: Integration of emotional solidarity. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 25(4), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1224889
Ma, S. C., & Kaplanidou, K. (2017). Legacy perceptions among host Tour de Taiwan residents: The mediating effect of
quality of life. Leisure Studies, 36(3), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2015.1128475
Maheshwari, V., Giraldi, J. D. M. E., & Montanari, M. G. (2019). Investigating residents’ attitudes of 2016 Olympic
Games: Examining socio-cultural, economic and environmental dimensions. Journal of Place Management and
Development, 12(3), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-08-2018-0059
Mahtani, K. R., Protheroe, J., Slight, S. P., Demarzo, M. M., Blakeman, T., Barton, C. A., Brijnath, B., Roberts, N.
(2013). Can the London 2012 Olympics’ inspire a generation’ to do more physical or sporting activities? An
overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open, 3 (1) , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002058
14 T. RIBEIRO ET AL.
Martini, P. (2017). Rio is the state with the lowest number of sports practitioners in the country. Globo. https://cbn.
globoradio.globo.com/editorias/ciencia-saude/2017/05/17/RIO-E-O-ESTADO-COM-O-MENOR-NUMERO-DE
-PRATICANTES-DE-ESPORTES-DO-PAIS.htm
Minnaert, L. (2012). An Olympic legacy for all? The non-infrastructural outcomes of the Olympic Games for socially
excluded groups (Atlanta 1996–Beijing 2008). Tourism Management, 33(2), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2011.04.005
Nordhagen, S. E. (2021). Leveraging sporting events to create sport participation: A case study of the 2016 Youth
Olympic Games. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 13(3), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19406940.2021.1891946
Nunkoo, R., Ribeiro, M. A., Sunnassee, V., & Gursoy, D. (2018). Public trust in mega event planning institutions: The
role of knowledge, transparency and corruption. Tourism Management, 66(1), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2017.11.010
Olympics (2021). Rio 2016 [online]. https://olympics.com/pt/olympic-games/rio-2016
Pappas, N. (2014). Hosting mega events: Londoners’ support of the 2012 Olympics. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 21(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.02.001
Potwarka, L. R., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2016). The Vancouver 2010 Olympics and leisure-time physical activity rates
among youth in Canada: Any evidence of a trickle-down effect? Leisure Studies, 35(1), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02614367.2015.1040826
Preuss, H. (2019). Event legacy framework and measurement. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(1),
103–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2018.1490336
Ramchandani, G., Coleman, R., & Christy, E. (2017). The sport participation legacy of major events in the UK. Health
Promotion International, 34(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax061
Reis, A. C., Frawley, S., Hodgetts, D., Thomson, A., & Hughes, K. (2017). Sport Participation Legacy and the Olympic
Games: The Case of Sydney 2000, London 2012, and Rio 2016. Event Management, 21(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/
10.3727/152599517X14878772869568
Reis, A. C., Sousa-Mast, F. R., & Gurgel, L. A. (2014). Rio 2016 and the sport participation legacies. Leisure Studies, 33
(5), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2012.758304
Ribeiro, T., & Almeida, V. (2020). The Rio’s Transport Legacy: Pre- and Post-Games Resident Perceptions.
International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 22(1), 32–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-04-
2020-0073 .
Ribeiro, T., & Almeida, V. (2021). Does the Olympic legacy perceived in the host city influence the resident support
after the Games? International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 13(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19406940.2021.1898446 .
Ribeiro, T., Correia, A., Biscaia, R., & Bason, T. (2021). Organisational issues in Olympic Games: A systematic review.
Event Management, 25(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599519X15506259856570
Ribeiro, T., Correia, A., & Biscaia, R. (2020). The social impact of the 2016 Rio Olympic Games: Comparison of
residents’ pre- and post-event perceptions. Sports, Business and Management, 11(2), 201–221.https://doi.org/10.
1108/SBM-02-2020-0014 .
Rio 2016. (2013). Sustainability Management Plan: Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. https://www.climateac
tion.org/images/uploads/documents/sustainability_management_plan_aug2013.pdf
Ritchie, B. W., Chien, P. M., & Shipway, R. (2020). A Leg(acy) to stand on? A non-host resident perspective of the
London 2012 Olympic legacies. Tourism Management, 77, 104–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.
104031
Rocha, C. M., Barbanti, V. J., & Chelladurai, P. (2017). Support of Local Residents for the 2016 Olympic Games. Event
Management, 21(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.372/152599517X14942648527491
Rocha, C. M. (2020). Temporal Variations in the Relationship Between Legacies and Support: A Longitudinal Case
Study in Rio 2016 Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, 34(2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.
2019-0039
Scheu, A., & Preuss, H. (2018). Residents’ perceptions of mega sport event legacies and impacts. German Journal of
Exercise and Sport Research, 48(3), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-018-0499-y
Schnitzer, M., Walde, J., Scheiber, S., Nagiller, R., & Tappeiner, G. (2019). Does the young residents’ experience with
the Youth Olympic Games influence the support for staging the Olympic Games? Tourism Management
Perspectives, 30(1), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.03.002
Shipway, R., Ritchie, B. W., & Chien, P. M. (2020). Beyond the glamour: Resident perceptions of Olympic legacies and
volunteering intentions. Leisure Studies, 39(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2019.1693612
Sousa-Mast, F. R., Reis, A. C., & Gurgel, L. A. (2013). Are cariocas getting ready for the Games? Sport participation
and the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic Games. Managing Leisure, 18(4), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-
65742013000300008
Taks, M., Misener, L., Chalip, L., & Green, B. C. (2013). Leveraging sport events for participation. Canadian Journal
for Social Research (Recent Research on Sport in Canada), 3(1), 12–23. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/humankinetic
spub/26
LEISURE STUDIES 15
Tsaur, S. H., Yen, C. H., Tu, J.-H., Wang, C.-H., & Liang, Y.-W. (2015). Evaluation of the 2010 Taipei International
Flora Exposition from the perceptions of host-city residents: A new framework for mega-event legacies
measurement. Leisure Studies, 36(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2015.1037786
Veal, A. J., Toohey, K., & Frawley, S. (2012). The sport participation legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic games and
other international sporting events hosted in Australia. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4
(2), 155–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2012.662619
Vegara-Ferri, J. M., Pallarés, J. G., & Angosto, S. (2021). Differences in residents’ social impact perception of a cycling
event based on the fear of the COVID-19 pandemic. European Sport Management Quarterly, 21(3), 374–390.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1903526
Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., & Dowse, S. (2015). The Olympic
Games and raising sport participation: A systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for
a demonstration effect. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2), 195–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/
16184742.2014.998695
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.) ed.). Thousand Oaks.
Zouain, D. M., Lohmann, P. B., Cardoso, G. L., Virkki, K. B., & Martelotte, M. C. (2019). Residents’ Perceptions of
the Impacts of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Before, during and after the mega-event. Revista Brasilieria
Pesquisa Turismo, 13(2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v13i2.1554
Appendix. Factor Loadings, Z-Values, CFA item statistics, and correlation matrix of
the variables used in the structural model
Variables/Items Factor loading Z-value CR AVE
Olympic Legacy Outcomes .92 .79
Economic legacy .88 .66
1. Increased employment opportunities in the city. .820 16.52
2. Increased local business opportunities. .896 18.61
3. Improved business investment in the city. .811 16.52
4. Increased tourism consumption. .706 13.74
Social legacy .88 .64
5. Enhanced social bonding in the local community. .821 16.66
6. Enhanced resident pride. .857 17.71
7. Increased entertainment opportunities. .732 14.35
8. Increased popular participation in public affairs. .781 15.66
Environmental legacy .91 .72
9. Promote construction of green areas. .815 18.09
10. Enhanced environmental awareness. .886 18.80
12. Enhanced the conservation of natural resources. .867 18.09
12. Enhanced the preservation of natural heritage resources. .824 16.75
Community Sport Participation .85 .66
13. The community participation in sports increased in the city. .871 19.21
14. The sports participation among young people increased in the city. .917 20.89
15. The sports opportunities increased in the city. .618 11.86
Resident Support for future Events .83 .62
16. I would like Rio to apply to host the Olympic Games again. .825 17.85
17. I believe in the organisation’s success in the upcoming Olympics. .773 14.07
18. I believe that hosting the Olympic Games will bring positive results for Brazil. .734 14.94
Construct Correlation matrix
12 3
(1) Olympic Legacy Outcomes 1.00
(1) Community Sport Participation .54 1.00
(1) Resident Support for future Events .42 .49 1.00
No correlations failed the AVE test of discriminant validity.
** p<.01, χ²(128)=322.16 (p<.01), χ²/gl=2.51, CFI=.95, GFI=.90, TLI=.94, RMSEA=.06.
16 T. RIBEIRO ET AL.
