Next Article in Journal
Unlocking Tourist Motivations in a Smart Tourism Destination: An Application of the Push–Pull Theory
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Volunteer Management in Sports Tourism Events: Motivation and Satisfaction as Drivers for Repeat Participation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Societies
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/soc15040081
societies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Clustering Residents’ Perception and Support of Urban Rally Tourism: The Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba, Spain

by
José E. Ramos-Ruiz
1,
Inmaculada Jiménez-Manchado
2,
Marianys Fernández
3,* and
Manuel Rivera-Mateos
4
1
Business Administration Department, Faculty of Law and Business Administration, University of Córdoba, 14002 Córdoba, Spain
2
Statistics and Operations Research Department, Faculty of Social Sciences of Melilla, University of Granada, 52005 Melilla, Spain
3
Faculty of Tourism and Finance, University of Seville, 41018 Seville, Spain
4
Human Geography Department, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, University of Córdoba, 14003 Córdoba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies 2025, 15(4), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040081
Submission received: 31 January 2025 / Revised: 24 February 2025 / Accepted: 17 March 2025 / Published: 27 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tourism, Urban Culture and Local Development)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sports events hold significant importance for host territories, influencing their economic, social, and environmental dynamics. These events generate diverse impacts that shape residents’ perceptions and subsequent support, which are crucial for ensuring long-term success. However, the study of motorsports, particularly rally events at the national championship level, remains underexplored, despite their capacity to attract tourism and foster regional development. This study adopts a quantitative approach, employing a survey of 753 responses collected during the urban track of the 2024 Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba, Spain. Using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and non-hierarchical Cluster Analysis, residents were segmented based on their perceptions of impacts—touristic, economic, social, environmental, and urban—and their support for the event. The analysis identified three resident clusters: Reluctant Beneficiaries, Pragmatic Resigned, and Convinced Optimists. These groups exhibited varying levels of perceived positive and negative impacts, with significant differences in their support for the rally. The findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of resident perceptions and support for non-mega motorsports events, highlighting the importance of tailored communication strategies and anticipation of the impacts generated. This study addresses existing knowledge gaps by segmenting residents regarding their perception and support for a national-level urban rally event for the first time in the existing academic literature.

1. Introduction

The celebration of sporting events generates an impact on host communities [1,2,3,4]. Residents’ perceptions of these impacts can condition their support for their celebration [5], and the long-term success of these events depends, among other factors, on this support [6,7]. Therefore, adequate public–private collaboration [8] and communication policies aimed at conveying to the population the benefits of the celebration and anticipation of the externalities that it could generate are essential [9].
The impacts that occur in the territory depend on the type of event [10] as well as its scope in relation to the size of the host community [11,12]. These occur, moreover, at various levels, and do not affect all residents equally [13]. Thus, the intensity of the perception of impacts varies depending on several factors intrinsic and extrinsic to individuals [14,15], so it is common to have different groups of residents sharing the same degree of perception and support within the same population [16,17,18]. Understanding the population structure based on the dimensions of perceived impact and support for hosting a sporting event thus contributes to better management of the positive and negative externalities it produces in the host community [9,19,20].
The variety of theoretical frameworks used is wide [21]. Thus, the literature includes studies based on Prospect Theory [22], the Theory of Reasoned Action [23], or The Social Leveraging Framework [24]. In addition, there are studies that have combined strategic concepts and theories that are compatible with each other, even when they have not been explicitly mentioned [21]. Thus, studies based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) [25], the Social Exchange Theory [26] or the Social Representations Theory (SRT) [26,27] appear. The latter triple perspective of study has been applied mainly on the Olympic Games and international championships at the world or continental level, leaving a knowledge gap to be filled in relation to smaller events [21,28] and in motorsport events, specifically rally-type events (Naess, 2014 [29]).
This study is based on the principles of TBL, SET, and SRT to address the perception of impact and support for the celebration of a national-level rally-type sporting event passing through the urban stage of the city of Cordoba, Spain: The Sierra Morena Rally. Specifically, it is proposed to identify the structure of the resident population based on the perceptions of tourist, economic, social, environmental, urban impact, and support for the celebration. In doing so, it will address the calls of [21,28] on research on non-mega sporting events, as well as the call of [29] on paying greater attention to rally-type motorsport events. Thus, the main contribution of this study will consist of segmenting for the first time the resident population based on perception and support for a rally-type event in a competition of categories below the World Rally Championship (World Rally Championship or WRC) or continental (European Rally Championship or ERC). Thus, the research question (RQ) this research aims to answer is as follows.
Research Question (RQ):
What is the structure of the residents of Córdoba in relation to the perception of impact and support for the celebration of the Sierra Morena Rally in the urban stage?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Residents’ Perceptions and Triple Bottom Line (TBL) in Sporting Events

Traditionally, impact studies have focused on economic, profitability or financial aspects [30,31,32,33]. Ref. [34] extended this practice, suggesting the need to address business impact reports to the social and environmental dimensions, thus giving rise to the term Triple Bottom Line (TBL). These dimensions and their relationship with tourism have been widely addressed by the academic literature to guide management and sustainability [35], something that cannot be separated from the celebration of events and the perception by residents [36], so event planners and event organizers should pay special attention [37]. Refs. [38,39], in fact, put the focus of their studies on these three dimensions, and other researchers such as [40] agree on the need to broaden the impact spectrum to other dimensions, such as political and technological.
From the point of view of sporting events, the academic literature offers several case studies, mainly large-scale ones. Ref. [41] used the TBL concept for the London 2012 Olympic Games and identified five anticipated perception factors: positive social impacts, negative impacts, transportation issues, positive economic impacts, and price increases. Ref. [42], on the other hand, focused on how the celebration of major sporting events can be used as a public policy instrument to reduce social differences thanks to the benefits that occur in other senses, such as economic, employment or leisure opportunities. Subsequently, this was empirically demonstrated in the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games [43]. These public policies should generate expectations in the population aligned with the lines of action that are effectively carried out, to ensure the sustainable management of mega events, as analyzed by [44] in the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.
On the other hand, smaller-scale sporting events, although with less quantitative impact, have proven to be an effective tool for promoting sustainable tourism development [45], provided that there is a balanced portfolio of sporting events, as well as sufficient and consistent human and cultural capital resources [46]. Furthermore, it has been shown that when positive impacts are perceived before and after the event is held, the resident population tends to maintain the support they lend to its celebration [47], thus connecting TBL with the Social Exchange Theory (SET).

2.2. Residents’ Perceptions and Social Exchange Theory (SET) in Sporting Events

Social Exchange Theory (SET) conceptualizes social interactions as resource exchanges in which individuals maximize benefits and minimize costs, including intangible rewards such as prestige or support [48,49]. Ref. [50] proposed it as a suitable framework for analyzing residents’ perceptions of activities such as tourism, differentiating social benefits and costs. Refs. [51,52] developed this application by distinguishing between positive and negative perceptions of residents, and how valuation among residents can condition support. Later, ref. [53] highlighted its usefulness in cultural and political studies, underlining its relevance in the analysis of social and environmental factors. Thus, the case studies that applied SET to sporting events have traditionally been based on mega events, leaving smaller events underexplored [54].
Thus, the Olympic Games have garnered much of the interest in the academic literature. Ref. [55] analyzed the 2010 Youth Olympic Games in Singapore based on six factors, of which three were positive, (i) long-term economic benefits for Singapore, (ii) tourism benefits, and (iii) economic benefits, and three were negative, (iv) quality of life, (v) social behavior, and (vi) preparation for the Games. The population was segmented into three clusters: enthusiasts, enthusiasts with reservations, and skeptics. Ref. [56] studied the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games and found that the income level of residents was a determinant. The higher the income, the higher the expectations on the tourism legacy and the more negative the environmental valuations. Ref. [57] analyzed the 2018 Pyeong Chang Winter Olympic Games and found that participation in sport by the resident population was a discriminant for more positively perceiving increases in quality of life and thus support for the event. In the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it was concluded that a good relationship between both parties [19], trust in public–private partnerships, and the management of public administrations during the bidding and consultation processes, favor positive perceptions of impacts and support [58]. Ref. [59] analyzed the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics in the host city and non-host cities. They found that host residents have more moderate expectations than non-host residents, as well as that non-hosts perceive higher value and higher behavioral intention than hosts. Recently, ref. [60] analyzed the 2017 Sapporo Asian Winter Games and concluded that improved external image, social cohesion, pride of belonging, and perceived sports interest positively influenced support, whereas perceived economic implications produced the opposite effect.
Other major international events have also been studied from the perspective of SET. In the Kaohsiung 2009 World Games, ref. [61] found three population clusters prior to the event: neutral, moderately positive, and positive. It is relevant in this study that the differences between the clusters were not very pronounced. In the authors’ opinion, the direct benefits of the celebration for the community were not adequately passed on to the resident population since, after the Games, the positive cluster disappeared. Ref. [61] interpreted several reasons: (i) perception of excessive public investment, (ii) only students were involved in the activities, and (iii) the new facilities were used only by athletes. Ref. [15] found that despite the fact that the World Golf Championship HSCB has been held in Shanghai for a decade, there was no positive appraisal among the resident population due to a lack of awareness of the event. Ref. [62] found a more positive perception of social impact among Qatari-born residents than among foreign residents of Arab origin, and among the latter relative to foreign residents of non-Arab origin, when studying the Qatar IAAF 2019. In addition, from a gender perspective, women offered higher social impact scores than men. Ref. [63] developed a study in the five cities in Cameroon where the Africa Cup of Nations Football Tournament (AFCON) 2022 was held: Bafoussam, Douala, Garoua, Limbe, and Yaoundé. He found age and educational level as determinants to differentiate different levels of impact perception.
Regarding non-mega sporting events, ref. [64] analyzed the Malaysian Monsoon Cup and found that knowledge of the sport and the specific event contributes to positive perception and support. Ref. [65], on the Taiwan Tour, concluded that perception about the event’s legacy may be positively related to residents’ quality of life improvement and support. Ref. [66] analyzed The Hong Kong Games and found low support from the public, which they attributed to an excessive focus by the organizing body on the spectacle of the opening ceremony, and a lack of promotion of the economic and social benefits generated by the event in the community. Ref. [67] identified in Aqaba that the effective management of sports event portfolios was associated with a positive perception of tourism promotion and environmental stewardship. Ref. [68] analyzed the 2018 UCI Road World Championships and found that residents’ image of the event and the venue conditioned their general attitude and support for its celebration. Ref. [69] concluded that residents’ emotional solidarity, consisting of interactions based on (i) a welcoming nature, (ii) an empathetic understanding, and (iii) emotional closeness influenced their (i) support for sport tourism, (ii) community contribution, and (iii) future support for the event. Ref. [70] highlighted the importance of management by public administrations, as well as welfare enhancement as an antecedent to resident support, when studying non-mega international sporting events in the city of Cambridge (New Zealand).
Studies that have applied SET are based on TBL, and many of their conclusions point to the need to differentiate the perception of impact and support by certain characteristics of the sociodemographic profile, such as gender, age, income, and educational level, as well as by intrinsic dimensions, knowledge of the event and of the specific sport, and the involvement or the receipt of benefits or costs derived from its celebration. This has facilitated the emergence of studies that combine SET with Social Representations Theory (SRT).

2.3. Residents’ Perceptions and Social Representations Theory (SRT) in Sporting Events

The Social Representation Theory (SRT), though not widely applied in the study of sports events, complements the SET without conflicting with its principles [71]. SRT [72] aims to explore how diverse groups within a host community perceive the social impacts of such events, highlighting both shared and differing viewpoints [53]. These perceptions are deeply influenced by personal experiences, sociodemographic profile, social interactions, media, and acknowledgement exposure [73]. Thus, this combination of theories has been applied to sporting events of various types and sizes.
Ref. [74] analyzed the 2013 Mediterranean Games in Turkey and found that economic benefits and image enhancement were the main factors determining residents’ support for the event. Ref. [75] addressed the 2012 Tour of Taiwan in Taiwan and obtained that positive pre- and post-event perceptions enhanced residents’ support, influenced by factors such as interest in cycling and perceived overall benefits. Ref. [76] investigated the 2018 European Handball Championship in Croatia and concluded that economic benefits and community pride were the most prominent impacts, while non-local residents showed a higher level of agreement on positive impacts. Ref. [77] investigated the social and cultural impacts of the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar and concluded that although residents were mostly supportive of the event, there were concerns about traffic, pollution, and increased cost of living. And recently, they concluded that demographic factors such as gender, nationality, and educational level significantly influenced interest and support for the celebration [78]. Ref. [79] studied the 2019 Military World Games in China and concluded that perceived benefits, both personal and community, significantly influenced affective commitment and support for the event. In the same vein and for the same event, ref. [80] indicated that perceived costs had a negative impact on attitude and support toward the event. Ref. [17] studied the Euro 2020 in Budapest, Hungary and concluded that fear of COVID-19 significantly influenced residents’ perceptions, generating differences between groups according to their level of concern. Ref. [81] investigated the perceptions of residents in potential host cities of the Commonwealth Games in New Zealand and identified that community pride was the main positive impact related to support for the event.

2.4. Residents’ Perceptions in Motorsports Events

The scientific literature on perception of impact and support for motorsports events by residents is smaller than for other types of sports, and has mainly been based on world-level championships [29], with a knowledge gap existing for smaller-scale motorsports events and, specifically, rally-type events [21].
Ref. [82] studied the 2008 Formula One Singtel Singapore Grand Prix in Singapore and concluded that although residents supported the event, discrepancies were identified in the perception of negative social and cultural impacts. For the Formula One (F1) Australian Grand Prix, ref. [83] concluded that estimates of actual economic impact are of great difficulty, and thus social and economic domains need to be addressed, in line with [34]. Ref. [84] studied the Shanghai Formula One Chinese Grand Prix in China and concluded that perceived costs had a greater weight in residents’ evaluation, although collectivism could counteract negative effects. For the same event, ref. [14] found that involvement with the sport, community attachment, and identification with the event were related to perceived positive social impact and negative environmental and cultural impact. Ref. [85] analyzed the MotoGP 2022 in Indonesia and concluded that economic, social, and cultural perceptions significantly influenced support for tourism development, while environmental perceptions were not relevant. Ref. [86] concluded that the Fair Social Distribution (FSD) of the benefits generated by the Formula 1 Grand Prix of Valencia was a mediator of support, with strong correlations between the perception of positive and negative impacts.
On the other hand, the scientific literature on rally-type events is still scarce. As a specific field, it is a growing body of knowledge for which the case studies do not offer homogeneous theoretical frameworks or methodological applications. In fact, neither TBL nor SET are sometimes mentioned, even though the studies are inspired by their principles. Thus, ref. [87] investigated WRC in Kyogle, Australia and found that although residents highlighted benefits such as increased tourism, support for local businesses, and greater community pride, they also identified negative impacts related to noise, dust, and conflicts due to the lack of community consultation. Ref. [88] studied the WRC in Sardinia, Italy and observed that residents fell into four groups based on their perceptions, enthusiasts, neutrals, supporters, and critics, with notable differences in their opinions on economic, cultural, and social benefits, as well as support for the event. In the Hail International Rally in Saudi Arabia, ref. [89] found that the population supported this mega event thanks to the perceived positive impacts, improvement of urban facilities, city image, economic benefits, reinforcement of local identity, and increased leisure opportunities, despite the perceived negative impacts: increased price level, increased traffic congestion, cultural conflicts, and impacts on the environment. Ref. [90] examined the ERC Azores in Portugal and concluded that the event improved the tourist image of the islands and contributed economically, although it also generated criticism for increased prices and environmental problems such as dust and pollution. For WRC Kenya, ref. [91] found a positive perception of economic and social impacts, as well as an improvement in the country’s image as a tourist destination. This improvement in the image of the tourist destination was also found by [92] when analyzing the WRC Vodafone Rally in Portugal, but at the level of the city of Porto. As a consequence, community pride was improved. In addition, both studies also share the perception of an economic boost generated after the COVID-19 pandemic. Ref. [93] analyzed the WRC in Zagreb and Rijeka, Croatia and concluded that although traffic problems were the most perceptible, security risks and social conflicts were minimal, while environmental impacts were moderate. Recently, ref. [94] found in the Sierra Morena Rally a gender bias based on the fact that men perceive the positive impacts more than women, men support the celebration of the event more strongly than women, and on the contrary, women perceive the negative impacts more than men and, therefore, although they support the celebration of the event, they do so with less intensity. A summary of these results is shown in Table 1.

2.5. The Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba

The Sierra Morena Rally is a rally-type event that celebrated its 41st edition between 5 and 7 April 2024. It takes place recurrently in the province of Córdoba and the venues are both urban (Córdoba capital) and rural (Villaviciosa, Posadas, Villaharta and Obejo). In 2024, it was part of the Supercampeonato de España de Rallyes (S-CER), along with the Rallye Tierras Altas de Lorca, Rallye de Ourense Recalvi, Rally Recalvi Rías Baixas, Rallye Blendio Princesa de Asturias Ciudad de Oviedo, Rally Villa de Llanes, and RallyRACC Catalunya Costa Daurada.
The rally is a motorsport event that is regulated by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) at the global and continental level. Thus, the WRC (global level) and the ERC (continental level) are directly organized by the FIA, while the national level championships, like S-CER, are organized by national federations, although under the authorization and supervision of the FIA [29]. However, all categories share essential elements: the vehicle is driven by a driver, accompanied by a co-driver, both have technical equipment and, in turns, ride timed stages on tarmac, gravel, ice or mixed roads, prepared specifically for the event, with the aim of completing the stages in the shortest possible time [95].

3. Methodology

The results and conclusions of this study are based on the data collected in the field work carried out during the celebration of the urban stage of Córdoba of the Sierra Morena Rally. To answer the research question, this study followed the following methodological process.

3.1. Questionnaire Design

The work team designed an initial questionnaire that underwent a double validation process to ensure that the reading of the final questionnaire was agile and the wording easily understandable, thus reducing possible biases derived from respondent fatigue or lack of understanding [96]. This process consisted of a pretest conducted with a sample of 15 people [96] and a pilot study with a sample of 40 people [97]. The final questionnaire was divided into two blocks: Likert-scale questions on different aspects related to the perception of impact and support, on the one hand, and questions related to the sociodemographic profile, on the other. The Likert questionnaire consisted of 19 questions coded by thematic blocks of impact perception: tourism (Q1_TOU to Q3_TOU), economic (Q4_ECO to Q6_ECO), social (Q7_SOC to Q9_SOC), environmental (Q10_ENV to Q12_ENV), urban (Q13_URB to Q15_URB), and support (Q16_SUP to Q19_SUP). A 7-point scale was used to improve the fit in statistical analyses [97], as recently conducted by [90,94], instead of a 5-point scale, as used in other studies [88,93]. The wording of the questions was inspired by previous studies on rally-type sport events and on the specific dimensions analyzed. The complete questionnaire is included in Appendix A.

3.2. Sample Collection

The fieldwork was carried out during the celebration of the event from 5 to 7 April 2024. The questionnaire was distributed for self-administration through a QR code, a methodology previously used in other sporting events in the same city [98]. Four research professors and 40 collaborating students, all linked to the University of Cordoba and residing in different parts of the capital, participated in the sample collection. The complete and valid sample reached 753 questionnaires, so it is considered that for a confidence level of 99%, the margin of error for this study is 4.704%. However, since this is a convenience sample, it is necessary to inform of the need to observe these percentages with caution, since this type of sampling contains a bias of voluntariness in participation.

3.3. Data Analysis for Answering the Research Question (RQ)

Data processing was carried out in three phases: preliminary analysis, response to the research question, and reinforcement of the analysis. Both SPSS v28.0 statistical software and Microsoft Excel were used for the elaboration of the graphs.

3.3.1. Methodology for Preliminary Analysis

The preliminary analysis consisted of two parts. The first part was the assessment of the internal consistency of the scale through Cronbach’s Alpha [99] and the minimum reliability threshold criterion of 0.7 [100]. This validation was also performed on the perception dimensions subsequently obtained. The second part was the analysis of the normality of the sample, for which the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test [101,102] was used. This analysis was performed individually on the 19 Likert questions. Those items that obtained a p-value lower than 0.05 would be considered non-normal and, therefore, could subsequently be subjected to non-parametric tests.

3.3.2. Answering the Research Question (RQ)

The methodology for solving the research question consisted of two phases: an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and a non-hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Refs. [103,104] indicate that EFA is used to identify the underlying structure of a scale and has already been used in research focused on this sport [93]. The methodological criteria followed in this study were as follows. The number of cases had to be greater than 190, since the questionnaire had 19 items [100], and greater than 300 [105]. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) number had to be greater than 0.7 [97], with a p-value less than 0.05 [106], to ensure that the sample was adequate for the EFA. The principal component extraction method and the VARIMAX rotation method with Kaiser normalization were used, expecting that the explored factors met the following requirements: (i) eigenvalues greater than 1 [103,107]; (ii) a composition by at least 4 items and a loading greater than 0.4 [108]; and (iii) a total variance explained greater than 50% [109].
The k-means Cluster Analysis [110] is an effective methodology from a practical and theoretical perspective [111] to structure the resident population into homogeneous segments that are heterogeneous to each other. This methodology has recently been applied internationally for other sports events, such as The Alpine and Biathlon World Championship [18], the Euro 2020 European Football Championship in Budapest [17], and even for future sporting events, such as the 2032 Brisbane Olympic Games [112]. It has recently been applied in Spain for La Vuelta Ciclista 2019 [71]. It has also demonstrated its effectiveness for rally-type events [88]. The methodological criterion followed in this study was to simultaneously obtain F-values far from 1 and p-values less than 0.05 to observe whether the influence of each factor on the cluster configuration is significant or not [113].

3.3.3. Methodology for Validation of Results

To reinforce and validate the results, it was analyzed whether the differences were statistically significant for each type of perceived impact. Specifically, the Kruskal–Wallis H statistic [114] was applied to compare the three clusters simultaneously, and the Mann–Whitney U statistic [115] was applied for each pair of clusters. This combined methodology has been successfully used in previous studies on residents’ perceptions of sporting events such as the 2009 World Men’s Handball Championship [116] and the 29th SEA Games in Malaysia [117]. Specifically, the p-value was expected to be less than 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis and thus determine the existence of statistically significant differences [118,119].

4. Results

4.1. Preliminary Analysis

The preliminary analysis was favorable. First, the internal consistency of the scale was confirmed with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.884. Subsequently, it was determined that the sample distribution was non-normal, since the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test obtained a p-value of less than 0.05 for each of the items.

4.2. Research Question (RQ)

The results of the EFA were also satisfactory, since they met the methodological criteria established in the research. The KMO test offered a result of 0.931, Chi-Square 10,988.239, and 171 degrees of freedom, with sig. less than 0.05. The principal component extraction method and the VARIMAX rotation method with Kaiser normalization required five iterations. Three dimensions were successfully explored: perception of positive impacts (TOU, ECO, and SOC), perception of negative impacts (ENV and URB), and support for holding the event, as it was expected. Subsequently, these three dimensions were used to perform the non-hierarchical Cluster Analysis, k-means, in which three segments of the resident population were found. The result of this analysis is shown in Table 2.
The results show that the perception of positive impacts and support for holding the event are determinants in classifying the resident clusters, while the perception of negative impacts requires further analysis, which will be addressed later. The clusters were labeled Reluctant Beneficiaries (Cluster 1), Pragmatic Resigned (Cluster 2), and Convinced Optimists (Cluster 3). Table 3 shows in detail the mean and standard deviation for each of the perceived impact typologies for each cluster.
The first cluster has been named “Reluctant Beneficiaries”. It corresponds to 13.95% of the total sample. This group is mainly made up of men (59.05%) under 30 years of age (62.86%). They give the highest score to economic impact (6.18), followed by social (5.96) and tourism (5.84). They consider environmental impact at 4.70 and urban at 3.76. They give a support rating of 4.46. They are the least supportive despite recognizing mainly positive impacts. This is, therefore, a group of skeptical, hesitant or indifferent, who, however much they appreciate the benefits, are not so clear about their support. That is, they recognize benefits at various levels, especially economic, but maintain reservations and do not show enthusiasm for supporting the event.
The second cluster has been named “Pragmatic Resigned”. It is made up of 21.91% of the population. Proportionally, this segment has more women than the other two clusters (48.48%), and it is the segment with the highest proportion of people over 51 years of age (16.36%). They give practically the same rating to tourism impact (4.45) and environmental impact (4.43). Below them are the social impact (4.34) and the economic impact as the lowest of all the positive impacts perceived (4.31). The lowest perceived negative impact is urban (4.12) and the dimension with the highest score is support (5.00), being the second most supportive cluster. This is a cluster that finds a moderate balance relatively balanced between positive and negative impacts but still seems to support the celebration of the event by inertia.
The third cluster has been named “Convinced Optimists”. It is made up of 64.14% of the population. It is the segment with the highest male representation (68.74%) and 30.85% are between 31 and 50 years old and have higher education. It is the cluster that gives the greatest support to the celebration of the event (6.72). The positive impacts offer very high scores, in the following order: social (6.59), economic (6.55) and tourism (6.54). Negative impacts offer lower scores (environmental 4.45 and urban 3.90). This segment is firm and resolute in its support for holding the event, thanks to the strong perception of the positive impacts, and seems to disregard the negative impacts.
The average scores for each cluster are illustrated in Figure 1, where they are ordered from left to right from least to most representation in the sample, and from least to most support for holding the event. In this figure, positive impacts are shown in three shades of blue, negative impacts in two shades of orange, and support in green. The axis has been set at the center point of the Likert-type scale: 4 points, “neither agree nor disagree”.

4.3. Validation of Results

The segmentation analysis was reinforced with the Kruskal–Wallis H test and the Mann–Whitney U test for differences between independent groups. Thus, after the application of the first of these statistics, it was found that the statistically significant differences between the three groups are mainly found among all the blocks of perception of positive impact, as well as in support for the event. From the point of view of environmental impact perception, the statistically significant difference is found between the Reluctant Beneficiaries and Convinced Optimists groups. The differences in the perception of urban impact are not considered statistically significant. The details of these analyses are shown in Table 4.

5. Discussion

The results of this research offer points of contact and contrast with the findings of previous studies on rally-type events.
In relation to the study conducted by [88] in Sardinia, the “Concerned Enthusiasts” cluster finds strong similarity with the “Convinced Optimists” cluster identified in this study. Both cases stand out for the high score they give to positive impacts and support, as well as for disregarding negative impacts. The “Critics” cluster in Sardinia states that they do not support the event due to the negative impacts. In this study, the “Pragmatic Resigned” segment gives relatively low average ratings to the positive impacts, relatively high average ratings to the negative impacts, but is clear in stating, on the contrary, that it supports the event. This discrepancy finds three possible interpretations. On the one hand, the WRC Sardinia runs along rural roads between two towns, so the impact on the environment and the natural environment may be greater. On the other hand, the urban stage of the Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba is held within the city. Therefore, residents may not perceive the environmental impacts that the event could have on the urban sections that are held on other days in small rural communities in the surrounding area. The second and third reasons are interrelated. The WRC is an event with greater tourist attraction capacity, as it is a worldwide competition, while the 2024 edition of the Sierra Morena is a national rally. Moreover, Cordoba is a city with around 360 thousand inhabitants, much more than Alghero (40 thousand) and Olbia (60 thousand). Therefore, fewer tourists arrive in Cordoba proportionally, being a larger city, and, seen on the contrary, Alghero and Olbia are smaller cities to which a greater number of tourists travel, so the agglomeration of people in the Italian cities is greater and therefore the inconvenience to residents is presumed to be greater, which may be causing a reduction of support in this cluster, while in Cordoba, the agglomeration of people is diluted and does not generate so much inconvenience. In fact, the population size of the host community seems to influence the overall perception of impacts when looking at the case of WRC Croatia. Ref. [93] concluded that the resident population of Zagreb, a city with twice the population of Cordoba, perceived virtually no impact on their daily lives, with the exception of traffic and parking problems in areas close to the cut urban stage. This type of inconvenience generated by traffic and road closures is also related to the size of the population. WRC Australia was held in the small rural community of Kyogle, which has a population of less than three thousand. Traffic cuts and the inability to access or leave the township were negative impacts strongly perceived by the population [87]. Furthermore, in Kyogle, another of the negative aspects that caused the most inconvenience to the neighbors was the increase in noise, the inconvenience caused to local fauna, and the accumulation of dust in the streets, something that coincides with the ERC Azores, held on the Island of São Miguel [90]. This disagrees with the results of this study, and the interpretation is based on the different typology of the stages, since the ERC Azores and WRC Australia are gravel rallies and the Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba is a tarmac rally. However, the different perceptions of environmental impacts between the different types of rallies has not affected the high level of support given by the public to their celebration. In fact, this study has similarities with that of [87] in this aspect, since almost 90% of the population of Kyogle supports the event, and in Córdoba, the Reluctant Beneficiaries, the segment that lends less support to the rally, are little more than 10% of the population. Similarly, it coincides with the high support for the ERC Azores and the WRC Portugal de Porto [92].

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical Conclusions

This research has addressed the segmentation of the population living in Cordoba before the celebration of a motorsports event and has found three segments of the population: Reluctant Beneficiaries, Pragmatic Resigned, and Convinced Optimists. This represents an advance in the existing scientific literature on Social Exchange Theory and its application to sporting events. So far, the sporting events addressed consisted mainly of mega events focused on other sports. In relation to motorsports events, there are even more studies on Formula (1) than on rallies, and the studies on rallies have mostly focused on world championships. The results have shown similarities and differences with other case studies, which allow researchers to understand that the positive and negative economic, touristic, social, environmental, and urban perceptions, as well as the support for the event, depend on the intrinsic dimensions of each segment. For this study, however, the perception of negative impacts, specifically environmental, has not been a determining factor in the configuration of the clusters, so it can be deduced that the perception of this impact among the population is similar and of moderate intensity. Furthermore, comparing the different events collected in the literature review, the results of this research suggest the existence of differences depending on the level of the rally category, the size of the resident population, whether it is an urban stage or on open roads, as well as whether it is on gravel or tarmac.

6.2. Practical Implications

The results of this research offer a structured view of the perception of the impacts and support provided by the resident population to a rally-type event at the national level. Organizers of such events will therefore be able to use this information to target their communication policies to specific target groups. Through public–private collaboration, these results invite public administrations to improve their consultation and governance processes for the promotion and allocation of public funds, in order to ensure the sustainable success of these events in the long term.

6.3. Limitations

This study was based on the field work carried out in the 2024 edition of the Sierra Morena Rally. In order to differentiate the clusters, the perception of negative impacts (environmental and urban) was not significant. Despite this, the theoretical underpinnings of TBL and SET compel its inclusion. In addition, the academic literature reviewed offers several studies in which differences are scarce among the different clusters or no differences are found considering some sociodemographic profile features.
In addition, there are no studies that have addressed previous editions. Therefore, it is a starting point for understanding the structure of population segments and it is not possible to conclude what the trend is. It is not yet possible to analyze the effect of certain communication policies on the reconfiguration of the population structure. Moreover, the results are based on convenience sampling. There is a possibility, therefore, that the questionnaire was answered by people who really wanted to participate in this study, which poses a risk of response bias that needs to be taken into consideration.
Finally, this research highlights that the academic literature on impact perception, support, SET, and rally is still very scarce compared to other types of sporting events. Moreover, the few published studies have applied different methodologies, which makes it difficult to generalize the academic discussion.

6.4. Future Research

This work proposes to increase the number of case studies on rally-type sports events and the perception of impact and support of the resident population to consolidate an academic body to enrich the academic discussion and reduce biases in the categories of competition and cultural differences. To this end, it is proposed to strengthen research on events at the global level, i.e., the WRC, at the continental level, such as the ERC, and at the national level in each country. In addition, it is considered advisable to increase studies of smaller rally-type events without relevant tourist repercussions, in order to establish a comparison of the perception of impact and support.
In these case studies, it is suggested to consider the following variables: the size of the host community, the exposure to urban or rural sections, as well as whether they are gravel, tarmac, ice or mixed tracks. In addition, it is considered necessary to analyze features of the sociodemographic profile of the residents, such as gender, age, education or income level, as well as intrinsic dimensions: having a profession related to the world of motorsports, residing near or far from the place where the event is held, being a direct or indirect beneficiary of a celebration of this type of event, and using or not habitually using roads closed to traffic.
Finally, it is suggested to homogenize the use of methodologies. Thus, it is suggested to know for each study and for each level of competition the different dimensions of impact perception detected through an EFA, the structure of the population through a Cluster Analysis, and to reinforce all the studies with structural equation systems of the PLS-SEM type or artificial neural networks (ANNs) to determine which constructs and variables have the greatest influence on support for the event.

6.5. Main Contribution

This research is the first one in segmenting the resident population of a city in which the urban stage of a national rally is held, applying the principles of the Social Exchange Theory. It is hoped that the conclusions of this study will help public administrations and rally events planners to have useful information in the management of communication with the public on the impacts generated by the celebration of the event at various levels. Thus, it is expected to contribute to increase the support of the less committed segments and to reinforce the support of the consolidated segments and, thus, the long-term success of this type of event.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E.R.-R. and M.R.-M.; methodology, J.E.R.-R. and I.J.-M.; software, J.E.R.-R.; validation, J.E.R.-R.; formal analysis, J.E.R.-R.; investigation, J.E.R.-R.; resources, J.E.R.-R.; data curation, J.E.R.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.E.R.-R. and M.F.; writing—review and editing, J.E.R.-R. and M.R.-M.; visualization, J.E.R.-R., I.J.-M., and M.F.; supervision, J.E.R.-R. and M.R.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Questionnaire.
Table A1. Questionnaire.
CodeItemReferences
Q1_TOUThe Rally contributes to the deseasonalization of tourist flows.[47,76,120,121].
Q2_TOUThe Rally enhances the image of Cordoba as a sports tourism destination.
Q3_TOUThe Rally is a distinctive sign of Cordoba to the outside world.
Q4_ECOThe Rally contributes to the visibility of local businesses.[90,92,122].
Q5_ECOThe Rally generates employment opportunities.
Q6_ECOThe Rally makes a positive contribution to the economy of Cordoba.
Q7_SOCThe Rally helps neighbors interact with each other.[87,88,93]
Q8_SOCThe Rally fosters a positive sense of pride and belonging to the community.
Q9_SOCThe Rally sparks new entertainment opportunities for residents.
Q10_ENVThe celebration of the event substantially increases the amount of garbage that is generated.[123,124].
Q11_ENVThe celebration of the event generates inconvenience to the residents due to the noise.
Q12_ENVHolding the event harms the environment.
Q13_URBThe Rally generates insecurity among the neighbors.[2,41,125]
Q14_URBThe Rally annoys the neighbors due to the road closures.
Q15_URBThe agglomeration of people makes the neighbors uncomfortable.
Q16_SUPHolding an event like this is a positive thing for Cordoba.[88,93,126].
Q17_SUPThe occasional inconveniences it causes are compensated by the benefits it generates for the community.
Q18_SUPI will accept the occasional inconveniences caused by the further celebration of the Rally.
Q19_SUPPublic administrations must increase the amount of public funds allocated to support these types of events.

References

  1. Chalip, L. Towards social leverage of sport events. J. Sport Tour. 2006, 11, 109–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kim, W.; Jun, H.M.; Walker, M.; Drane, D. Evaluating the perceived social impacts of hosting large-scale sport tourism events: SCALE development and validation. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Duignan, M.B. London’s local Olympic legacy: Small business displacement, ‘clone town’ effect and the production of ‘urban blandscapes’. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2019, 12, 142–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oshimi, D.; Yamaguchi, S. Leveraging strategies of recurring non-mega sporting events for host community development: A multiple-case study approach. Sport Bus. Manag. Int. J. 2022, 13, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Parra-Camacho, D.; González-Serrano, M.H.; Alguacil-Jiménez, M.; Jiménez-Jiménez, P. Analysis of the contribution of sport events to sustainable development: Impacts, support and resident’s perception. Heliyon 2023, 9, e22033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dowson, R.; Basset, D. Event Planning and Management: Principles, Planning and Practice, 2nd ed.; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Duignan, M.; Carlini, J.; Parent, M. Host community salience loss across major sport event planning. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2024, 24, 1047–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ribeiro, T.; Almeida, V.M.C.D. Understanding resident support toward the 2030 FIFA World Cup: A co-hosting country’s perspective. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2024, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bowdin, G.A.J.; Allen, J.; Harris, R.; Jago, L.; O’Toole, W.; McDonnel, I. Events Management, 4th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2023; ISBN 978-100090439-0. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ramasamy, B.; Wu, H.; Yeung, M. Hosting annual international sporting events and tourism: Formula 1, golf or tennis? Tour. Econ. 2022, 28, 2082–2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, K.C.; Gursoy, D.; Lau, K.L.K. Longitudinal Impacts of a Recurring Sport Event on Local Residents with Different Level of Event Involvement. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 28, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Duan, Y.; Mastromartino, B.; Zhang, J.J.; Liu, B. How do perceptions of Non-Mega Sport Events impact Quality of Life and Support for the Event among local residents? Sport Soc. 2020, 23, 1841–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Moreno, F.C.; Camacho, D.P.; Sanz, V.A.; Pérez, D.A. Analysis of resident’s perception on the cultural and sport impact of a formula 1 grand prix. Movimiento 2014, 20, 261–280. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mao, L.L.; Huan, H. Social impact of Formula One Chinese Grand Prix: A comparison of Local Residents’ Perceptions based on the intrinsic dimension. Sport Manag. Rev. 2016, 19, 306–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yao, Q.; Schwarz, E.C. Impacts and implications of an annual major sport event: A host community perspective. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 8, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bakhsh, J.T.; Kennedy, H.; Naraine, M.L. Examining the mega-event space-perception nexus: An advanced epicenter effect perspective. Event Manag. 2024, 28, 915–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Polcsik, B.; Laczkó, T.; Perényi, S. Euro 2020 held during the COVID-19 period: Budapest residents’ perceptions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wallstam, M.; Kronenberg, K. The role of major sports events in regional communities: A spatial approach to the analysis of social impacts. Event Manag. 2022, 26, 1025–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, S.; Manoli, A.E. Does relationship quality matter in policy-making? The impact of government-public relationships and residents’ perceptions on their support towards a mega-sport event. Int. J. Sport Policy Politics 2022, 14, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Getz, D.; Page, S.J. Event Studies: Thoery and Management for Planned Events, 5th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2024; ISBN 978-100381408-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Polcsik, B.; Perényi, S. Residents’ perceptions of sporting events: A review of the literature. Sport Soc. 2022, 25, 748–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lorde, T.; Greenidge, D.; Devonish, D. Local Residents’ Perception of Impacts of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 on Barbados: Comparisons of Pre- and Post-Games. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Prayag, G.; Hosany, S.; Nunkoo, R.; Alders, T. London Residents’ Support for the 2012 Olympic Games: The Mediating Effect of Overall Attitude. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Balduck, A.L.; Maes, M.; Buelens, M. The social impact of the Tour de France: Comparisons of Residents’ Pre- and Post-Event Perceptions. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2011, 11, 91–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, J.; Byon, K.; Xu, K.; Huang, H. Event impact associated with residents’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions: A pre-post study of the Nanjing Youth Olympic Games. Int. J. Sports Mark. Spons. 2020, 21, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Oshimi, D.; Harada, M.; Fukuhara, T. Residents’ perceptions on the socio-economic impacts of an international sporting event: Applying Panel Data Design anda a Moderate Variable. J. Conv. Event Tour. 2016, 17, 294–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhou, Y.; Ap, J. Residents’ perception towards the impacts of the Beijing Olympic Games. J. Travel Res. 2009, 48, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bazzanella, F.; Schnitzer, M.; Peters, M.; Bichler, B.F. The role of sports events in developing tourism destinations: A systematized review and future research agenda. J. Sport Tour. 2023, 27, 77–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Naess, H.E. A Sociology of the World Rally Championship: History, Identity, Memories and Place; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Della Britta, A.J.; Loudon, D.L.; Booth, G.G.; Weeks, R.R. Estimating the economic impact of a short-term tourist event. J. Travel Res. 1997, 16, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Marsh, J.S. The economic impact of a small city annual sporting event: An initial case study of the Peterborough Church League Atom hockey Tournament. Recreat. Res. Rev. 1984, 11, 48–55. [Google Scholar]
  32. Long, P.T.; Perdue, R.R. The economic impact of rural festivals and special events: Assessing the spatial distribution of expenditures. J. Travel Res. 1990, 28, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Burgan, B.; Mules, T. Economic impact of sporting events. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992, 19, 700–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The TBL of the 21st Century Business; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pirmar, I.; Celebi, D. Sustainable Festival Event Tourism Management. In Festival and Event Tourism Impacts; Gursoy, D., Nunkoo, R., Yodal, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Andersson, T.D.; Lundberg, E. Commensurability and sustainability: Triple impact assessment of a tourism event. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Draper, J.; Dawson, M.; Casey, E. An exploratory study of the importance of sustainable practices in the meeting and convention site selection process. J. Conv. Event Tour. 2011, 12, 153–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lasevoli, G.; Massi, M. The relationship between sustainable business management and competitiveness: Research trends and challenge. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2012, 58, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, C.R.; Lin, W.R.; Wang, Y.C.; Chen, S.P. Sustainability indicators for festival tourism: A multi-stakeholder perspective. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2019, 20, 296–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ritchie, B.W.; Shipway, R.; Cleeve, B. Resident perceptions of mega-sporting events: A non-host city perspective of the 2012 London Olympic Games. J. Sport Tour. 2009, 14, 143–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Smith, A. Theorising the relationship between major sport events and social sustainability. J. Sport Tour. 2009, 14, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Van Wynsberghe, R.; Derom, I.; Maurer, E. Social leveraging of the 2010 Olympic Games: ‘sustainability’ in a City of Vancouver initiative. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2012, 4, 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tsai, C.H.; Su, C.H.; Lin, L.C. From promises to reality: Lessons from Rio’s 2016 Olympics. J. Teach. Travel Tour. 2024, 24, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gibson, H.J.; Kaplanidou, K.; Kang, S.J. Small-scale event sport tourism: A case study in sustainable tourism. Sport Manag. Rev. 2012, 15, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ziakas, V. Leveraging Sport Events for Tourism Development: The Event Portfolio Perspective. J. Glob. Sport Manag. 2023, 8, 43–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yamaguchi, S.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Nogawa, H. The perceived impacts of non-mega-sporting events among host residents: A pre-post analysis of the Kobe Marathon. Event Manag. 2022, 26, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Homans, G.C. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 1958, 63, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Homans, G.C. Social Behavior in Elementary Forms; Harcourt, Brace and World: San Diego, CA, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  50. Perdue, R.R.; Long, P.T.; Allen, L. Resident Support for Tourism Development. Ann. Tour. Res. 1990, 17, 586–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ap, J. Residents’ perceptions research on the social impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1990, 17, 610–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ap, J. Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992, 19, 665–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fredline, E.; Faulkner, B. Host community reactions: A cluster analysis. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 763–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Parent, M.; Chappelet, J.L. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Sports Event Management; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chiam, M.; Cheng, E. Residents’ perceptions of the inaugural Youth Olympic Games 2010: A cluster analysis. Event Manag. 2013, 17, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rocha, C.M.; Barbanti, V.J.; Chelladurai, P. Support of local residents for the 2016 Olympic Games. Event Manag. 2017, 21, 251–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, C.; Kaplanidou, K. The effect of sport involvement on support for mega sport events: Why does it matter. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yamashita, R.; Hallmann, K. Residents’ trust, perceived benefits and support for mega-sporting events: Insights from the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag. 2024, 15, 575–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xu, Z.; Wu, C.; Li, X. Residents’ Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions towards Mega-Sports Events: A Case Study of Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Matsuoka, H.; Kang, T.; Oshimi, D.; Hahm, J. What motivates residents’ approval of hosting another winter mega-sporting events? Curr. Issues Tour. 2024, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ma, S.C.; Ma, S.M.; Wu, J.H.; Rotherdam, I.D. Host residents’ perception changes on major sport events. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2013, 13, 511–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ishac, W.; Swart, L. Social impact projections for Qatar youth residents from 2022: The case of the IAAF 2019. Front. Sports Act. Living 2022, 4, 922997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Acha-Anyi, P.N. A tale of five cities: Residents’ perceptions of the African Cup of Nations Tournament in Cameroon. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2023, 49, 1096–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Abdullah, N.H.; Patterson, I.; Pegg, S. Knowledge as contributing factor affecting residents’ support towards a sailing event. Int. J. Econ. Manag. 2015, 9, 197–210. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ma, S.C.; Kaplanidou, K.K. Legacy perceptions among host Tour de Taiwan residents: The mediating effect of quality of life. Leis. Stud. 2016, 36, 423–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ho, G.; Yiu, E.Y.M.; Lam, M.H.S. The Hong Kong Games in the eyes of local sport and recreation students. Int. J. Hist. Sport 2016, 33, 1209–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abujamous, I.M.; Jahmani, A.; Harazneh, A.A.; Jawabreh, O.A.A.; Alsarayreh, M.N. Developing tourism through sports events to assist in the rejuvenation of the strategic position of the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority (ASEZA). Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2019, 8, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schnitzer, M.; Kössler, C.; Schlemer, P.; Peters, M. Influence of event and place image on residents’ attitudes toward and support for events. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2021, 45, 1260–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Giango, M.K.; Hintapan, R.; Suson, M.; Batican, I.; Quiño, L.; Capuyan, L.; Anaos, J.M.; Batoon, J.; Aro, J.L.; Maturan, F.; et al. Local support on sports tourism development: An integration of emotional solidarity and social exchange theory. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wang, X.; Qiao, G.; Lu, Y. Sustainable development of non-nega international sports events in a small town: Social impacts, residents’ attitudes, and leveraging role of local government. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2024, 26, e2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vegara-Ferri, J.M.; Angosto, S.; Parra-Camacho, D. Effect of residents’ satisfaction between perceived impacts and future intentions regarding holding a small-scale event. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte 2020, 15, 81–91. [Google Scholar]
  72. Moscovici, S. On Social Representations. In Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding; Forgas, J., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981; pp. 181–210. [Google Scholar]
  73. Faulkner, B.; Tideswell, C. A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 1997, 5, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Atci, D.; Unur, K.; Gürsoy, D. The impacts of hosting major sporting events: Residents’ perceptions of the Mediterranean Games 2013 in Mersin. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2016, 6, 139–145. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ma, S.C.; Rotherham, I.D. Residents’ changed perceptions of sport event impacts: The case of the 2012 Tour de Taiwan. Leis. Stud. 2016, 35, 616–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Perić, M. Estimating the perceived socio-economic impacts of hosting large-scale sport tourism events. Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Al-Emadi, A.; Sellami, A.L.; Fadlalla, A.M. The perceived impacts of staging the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. J. Sport Tour. 2022, 26, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Al-Emadi, A.; Sellami, A.L.; Al-Marri, S.S.; Fadlalla, A.M.; Almekaimi, H.Z. The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar: Resident interests and attitudes. Soccer Soc. 2025, 26, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ok, C.M.; Park, K.; Park, S.B.; Jeon, H.H. Event participation and advocacy: Assessing the role of affective commitment and perceived benefits. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2020, 37, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lee, C.; Bang, H.; Won, D.; Chen, L. What is in it for me? Perceived benefits and costs on the support of a sporting event. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag. 2022, 13, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Johnston, M.; Naylor, M.; Dickson, G. Local resident support for hosting a major sport event: The role of perceived personal and community impacts. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2023, 23, 877–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cheng, E.; Jarvis, N. Residents’ perception of the social-cultural impacts of the 2008 Formula 1 Singtel Singapore Grand Prix. Event Manag. 2010, 14, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Fairley, S.; Tyler, B.D.; Kellet, P.; D’Elia, K. The Formula One Australian Grand Prix: Exploring the Triple Bottom Line. Sport Manag. Rev. 2011, 14, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Huang, H.; Min, S.D.; Wang, T.R.; Mao, L.L. Social exchange process in collectivistic countries: An examination of sporting events in China. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2016, 16, 172–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pahrudin, P.; Liu, L.-W.; Royanow, A.F.; Kholid, I. A large-sport event and its influence on tourism destination image in Indonesia. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 29, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Parra-Camacho, D.; Alguacil, M.; Calabuig-Moreno, F. Perception of the Fair Social Distribution of Benefits and Costs of a Sport Event: An Analysis of the Mediating Effect between Perceived Impacts and Future Intentions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. MacKellar, J. World Rally Championship 2009: Assessing the community impacts on a rural town in Australia. Sport Soc. 2013, 16, 1149–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Del Chiappa, G.; Presenza, A.; Yücelen, M. Profiling residents based on their perceptions and attitudes toward sport event: Insights from the FIA World Rally Championship. Tour. Int. Multidiscip. J. Tour. 2016, 11, 25–51. [Google Scholar]
  89. Ahmed, T.S.A.A. A triple bottom line analysis of the impacts of the Hail International Rally in Saudi Arabia. Manag. Sport Leis. 2017, 22, 276–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Custódio, M.J.F.; Azevedo, A.; Perna, F.P. Sport events and local communities: A partnership for placemaking. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2018, 11, 6–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wanyonyi, L.; Njoroge, J.; Juma, R. Beating Odds in Post Pandemic Times: Lessons from World Rally Championship 2021. Events Tour. Rev. 2022, 5, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liberato, D.; Costa, E.; Ferraz, A. WRC Vodafone Rally de Portugal fostering tourism development. In Advances in Tourism, Technology and Systems: Selected Papers from ICOTTS 2022; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Peric, M.; Vitezic, V. WRC 2021 Croatia during the pandemic: Do environmental consciousness of residence affect respondents’ perception of impact and support? Event Manag. 2023, 27, 713–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ramos-Ruiz, J.E.; Solano-Sánchez, M.Á.; Castaño-Prieto, L.; Aguilar-Rivero, M. Gender bias in residents’ perceptions and support of rally event tourism: The Sierra Morena Rally of Córdoba, Spain. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rico-Bouza, C.; Araújo-Vila, N.; Fraiz-Brea, J.A. Aproximación al perfil sociodemográfico y comportamiento del asistente a rallies. Investig. Turísticas 2021, 22, 377–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Moore, Z.; Harrison, D.E.; Hair, J. Data quality assurance begins before data collection and never ends: What marketing researchers absolutely need to remember. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2021, 63, 693–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hair, J.F.; Page, M.; Brunsveld, N. Essentials of Business Research Methods, 4th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ramos-Ruiz, J.E.; Solano-Sánchez, M.Á.; Castaño-Prieto, L.; García-García, L. Why do we run in a sporting event? A gender perspective through the Half-;arathon of Cordoba, Spain. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  101. Kolmogorov, A. Sulla determinazione empirica di una lgge di distribuzione. G. Istituto Ital. Degli Attuari 1933, 4, 83–91. [Google Scholar]
  102. Smirnov, N. Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions. Ann. Math. Stat. 1948, 19, 279–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kahn, J.H. Factor analysis in Counselling Psychology research, training and practice. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Pérez, E.R.; Medrano, L. Análisis Factorial Exploratorio: Bases Conceptuales y Metodológicas. Rev. Argent. Cienc. Comport. 2010, 2, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Tabachnick, B.; Fidell, L.Y. Using Multivariate Statistics; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  106. Everitt, B.S.; Wykes, T. Diccionario de Estadística para Psicólogos; Ariel: Barcelona, España, 2001; ISBN 84-344-0893-7. [Google Scholar]
  107. Kaiser, H.F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Glutting, J. Some psychometric properties of a system to measure ADHD Among College Students: Factor Pattern, Reliability, and One-Year Predictive Validity. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2002, 34, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Merenda, P. A guide to the proper use of Factor Analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: Pitfalls to avoid. Meas. Eval. Couns. Eval. 1997, 30, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. MacQueen, J.B. Some Methods for classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations. In Proceedings of 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1967; pp. 281–297. [Google Scholar]
  111. Pérez-López, C. Técnicas Estadísticas Multivariante Con, S.P.S.S.; Garceta Grupo Editorial: Madrid, Spain, 2009; ISBN 978-84-9281-200-4. [Google Scholar]
  112. Weaver, D.B.; McLennon, C.L.; Moyle, B.D.; Casali, L. Arly resident support for a mega-event: Evidence from the 2032 Brisbane Summer Olympic Games. Event Manag. 2023, 27, 967–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Singh-Kuarav, R.P.; Chowdarhy, N.; Gursoy, D. (Eds.) An SPSS Guide for Tourism Hospitality and Events Researchers; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-0-367-23657-1. [Google Scholar]
  114. Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Mann, H.B.; Whitney, D.R. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Ann. Math. Stat. 1947, 18, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Pranić, L.; Petrić, L.; Cetinić, L. Host population perceptions of the social impacts of sport tourism events in transition countries: Evidence from Croatia. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag. 2012, 3, 236–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Murugan, N.; Sai, B.T. Perceptions on social impacts of hosting the 29th SEAGames Asia-Pac. J. Innov. Hosp. Tour. 2018, 7, 11–33. [Google Scholar]
  118. McKight, P.E.; Najab, J. Kruskal-wallis test. Corsini Encycl. Psychol. 2010, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  119. Nachar, N. The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2008, 4, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Richelieu, A. A sport-oriented place branding strategy for cities, regions and countries. Sport Bus. Manag. Int. J. 2018, 8, 354–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Strzelecki, L.; Czuba, T. Sports events as an effective way of brand marketing communication using the example of the Orlik sports facilities. Balt. J. Health Phys. Act. 2021, 10, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Kim, J.; Boo, S.; Kim, Y. Patterns and trends in event tourism study topics over 30 years. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag. 2013, 4, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Dwyer, W. Tourism Economics and Policy; Channel View Publications: Cheltenham, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  124. Guizzardi, A.; Mariani, M.; Prayag, G. Environmental impacts and certification: Evidence from the Milan World Expo 2015. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 1052–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Kostantaki, M.; Wickens, E. Residents’ perceptions of environmental and security issues at the 2012 London Olympic Games. J. Sport Tour. 2010, 15, 337–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Gursoy, D.; Kendall, K. Hosting mega events: Modelling locals’ support. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 603–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Societies 15 00081 g001
Figure 1. Perception and support of each cluster.
Figure 1. Perception and support of each cluster.
Societies 15 00081 g001
Table 1. Results on supporting rally events.
Table 1. Results on supporting rally events.
EventMethodologyResults on Supporting the EventReference
WRC AustraliaSET.
Descriptive analysis,
semi-structured interviews.
351 surveys, 12 interviews.		Support for the event was linked to the perception of local economic benefits, though community conflicts and environmental concerns reduced support in some sectors.[87]
WRC SardiniaSET.
EFA, Cluster Analysis.
759 surveys.		Support for the event varied according to perceived impacts: “Supporters” showed high backing due to perceived benefits, “Neutrals” were indifferent, “Concerned Enthusiasts” supported with reservations due to environmental concerns, and “Critics” opposed due to negative impacts.[88]
Hail International Rally in Saudi ArabiaTBL, SET.
Descriptive analysis,
basic statistical analysis.
127 surveys.		Positive relationship between perceived benefits and support for the event, highlighting positive economic and social impacts.[89]
ERC Azores in PortugalTBL, SET.
Multiple regression analysis.
669 surveys.		Positive perception of economic and image impact enhances support for the event; the level of spectacle directly influences residents’ self-esteem.[90]
WRC KenyaTBL.
Qualitative analysis.
12 interviews.		Improvement of the local economy, increased tourism, job creation, and strengthened community sense.[91]
WRC Vodafone Rally PortoTBL.
Qualitative analysis.
6 interviews.		Increased international reach, economic benefits, community pride and environmental challenges.[92]
WRC CroatiaTBL, SET.
EFA, ANOVA.
462 surveys.		Support does not necessarily depend on cost minimisation. The economic benefits are superimposed on the environmental impact. Non-host communities support the event.[93]
S-CER Sierra Morena RallyTBL, SET, SRT.
EFA,
Mann–Whitney U,
Hedges’ G.
753 surveys.		Existence of gender bias: men perceive more benefits and support, while women perceive more negative impacts.[94]
Table 2. Results of the research question (RQ).
Table 2. Results of the research question (RQ).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)Cluster Analysis
ComponentItemLoadClusterErrorFSig.
Sq. M.DoFSq. M.DoF
Perception of positive impactsQ01_TOU0.637239.99420.363750661.719<0.001
Q02_TOU0.737
Q03_TOU0.738
Q04_ECO0.809
Q05_ECO0.798
Q06_ECO0.822
Q07_SOC0.809
Q08_SOC0.798
Q09_SOC0.755
Perception of negative impactsQ10_URB0.8790.51621.0017500.5150.597
Q11_URB0.882
Q12_URB0.891
Q13_ENV0.754
Q14_ENV0.873
Q15_ENV0.900
SupportQ16_SUP0.724204.47920.457750447.055<0.001
Q17_SUP0.774
Q18_SUP0.810
Q19_SUP0.671
Table 3. Clusters according to identified components.
Table 3. Clusters according to identified components.
ComponentsCluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3
MeanSt. Dv.MeanSt. Dv.MeanSt. Dv.
Perception of positive impactsTOU5.841.2124.451.5966.540.963
ECO6.181.0604.311.3646.550.833
SOC5.961.0704.341.3946.590.747
Perception of negative impactsENV4.701.8654.431.5754.452.308
URB3.761.8674.121.6453.902.361
SupportSUP4.461.7545.001.4166.720.618
Table 4. Validation of results.
Table 4. Validation of results.
Components Diff. 1-2 Diff. 1-3 Diff. 2-3
HUpUpUp
Perception of positive impactsTOU0.0003009.500.00037,176.00<0.00176,183.000.000
ECO0.0001260.000.00032,322.00<0.00177,583.000.000
SOC0.0002013.500.00037,147.50<0.00177,393.000.000
Perception of negative impactsENV0.4307370.000.03824,468.500.571 (1)40,922.000.603 (1)
URB0.1769854.500.056 (1)25,803.500.776 (1)36,572.000.113 (1)
SupportSUP0.00010,617.500.00250,363.000.00074,911.000.000
(1) Figures higher than 0.05 are not significant, so there is no difference between these groups.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramos-Ruiz, J.E.; Jiménez-Manchado, I.; Fernández, M.; Rivera-Mateos, M. Clustering Residents’ Perception and Support of Urban Rally Tourism: The Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba, Spain. Societies 2025, 15, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040081

AMA Style

Ramos-Ruiz JE, Jiménez-Manchado I, Fernández M, Rivera-Mateos M. Clustering Residents’ Perception and Support of Urban Rally Tourism: The Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba, Spain. Societies. 2025; 15(4):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramos-Ruiz, José E., Inmaculada Jiménez-Manchado, Marianys Fernández, and Manuel Rivera-Mateos. 2025. "Clustering Residents’ Perception and Support of Urban Rally Tourism: The Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba, Spain" Societies 15, no. 4: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040081

APA Style

Ramos-Ruiz, J. E., Jiménez-Manchado, I., Fernández, M., & Rivera-Mateos, M. (2025). Clustering Residents’ Perception and Support of Urban Rally Tourism: The Sierra Morena Rally in Córdoba, Spain. Societies, 15(4), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040081

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop