Differences in residents’ social impact perception of a cycling event based on the fear of the COVID-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT

Research questions

The COVID-19 pandemic has paralysed the global economy, forcing the cancellation of many sports events around the world. Faced with this new situation of normality in professional sports events, this study examines the perceived social impact of a post-COVID-19 professional cycling event, assessing the influence of fear and health concerns on residents’ perception.

Research method

The sample was made up of a total of 349 residents, 62.8% male and 37.2% female with an average age of 40. A resident's social impact perception questionnaire was used. Data collection was carried out post-event through online surveys via Facebook. A cluster analysis was carried out taking as a dependent variable, concern or fear for health and the increase in the number of infections of COVID-19.

Results and findings

The cluster analysis identified three groups of residents (Safe, Neutral and Unsafe), showing statistically significant differences in the residents’ perceived social impact of the event between groups. The ‘Safe’ group valued all dimensions of social impact perception more positively than the ‘Neutral’ and ‘Unsafe’ groups. The socio-demographic profile presented differences according to gender and event attendance.

Implications

The findings of this study help to better understand the social perception of residents in the host city in a pandemic situation and how fear can affect their perceptions of the event. Knowing the opinion of the residents and having their involvement and support in the organisation of sports events is a key factor for the success of these competitions in cities. In this situation of uncertainty, it is necessary to be aware of these perceptions and to develop strategies to involve the citizens in the development of these events.

KEYWORDS:

• Sport event
• social impact
• community support
• residents
• segmentation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).