Toyirova Sarvinoz Atoevna
Lourdes Canós-Darós1
Estefanía Osorio-Acosta- 1Department of Business Organization, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
- 2Tourism and Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Economics and Tourism, Bukhara State University, Bukhara, Uzbekistan
Mega-events such as the Olympic Games, World Cup, and World Expo aim to leave sustainability legacies, yet the mechanisms through which these goals are realized in hotel operations remain underexplored. This study adopts a multiple case study design, analyzing secondary data including sustainability reports, certification documents, and post-event assessments from five host cities—London, Tokyo, Dubai, Rio de Janeiro, and Doha. The findings reveal that mega-events can serve as catalysts for sustainability upgrades in hotels, including energy-efficient technologies, employee training, and guest-oriented green initiatives. However, not all legacies are uniformly positive: issues such as short-lived initiatives, cost burdens, and limited accountability mechanisms persist. This study contributes to tourism and event management literature by demonstrating how hotels, as essential components of tourism infrastructure, operationalize event-time sustainability commitments into longer-term environmental and social value. It also highlights the interplay of motivations (branding, regulation, guest expectations), constraints (financial and operational), and outcomes (emissions reduction, organizational resilience). While many upgrades offer both financial and reputational benefits, others require trade-offs, confirming that sustainability legacies are complex, context-dependent, and not universally “win-win”.
Introduction
Mega-events such as the Olympic Games, World Cup, and World Expo aim to leave sustainability legacies (94, 95), yet the mechanisms through which these goals are realized in hotel operations remain underexplored. This study adopts a multiple case study design, analyzing secondary data including sustainability reports, certification documents, and post-event assessments from five host cities—London, Tokyo, Dubai, Rio de Janeiro, and Doha. The findings reveal that mega-events can serve as catalysts for sustainability upgrades in hotels, including energy-efficient technologies, employee training, and guest-oriented green initiatives. However, not all legacies are uniformly positive: issues such as short-lived initiatives, cost burdens, and limited accountability mechanisms persist. This study contributes to tourism and event management literature by demonstrating how hotels, as essential components of tourism infrastructure, operationalize event-time sustainability commitments into longer-term environmental and social value. It also highlights the interplay of motivations (branding, regulation, guest expectations), constraints (financial and operational), and outcomes (emissions reduction, organizational resilience). While many upgrades offer both financial and reputational benefits, others require trade-offs, confirming that sustainability legacies are complex, context-dependent, and not universally “win-win”.
Central to all these attempts at sustainability are hotels, which are the major venues for accommodating the sheer volume of visitors flooding in during mega-events. Hotels are not only among the largest components of a mega-event's environmental footprint through energy, water use, and waste generation (1, 2), but they can also perform pretty well in providing green practices to a global audience and demonstrating the viability of sustainable hospitality operations on a mass scale. The hospitality sector's contribution to mega-event sustainability goes beyond operational efficiency to encompass workforce development, community engagement, and building long-term resilience in destinations.
A driving force behind the push for sustainability is the increasing public expectation for environmental responsibility. Global travelers are more eco-conscious than ever: the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) reported in 2023 that approximately 73% of tourists prefer to stay in hotels that implement sustainable practices (3). This consumer pattern positions hospitality providers at the leading edge of event sustainability efforts. Hotels accommodate the influx of visitors for mega-events and thus are a major contributor to the event's environmental footprint in energy use, water consumption, and waste generation (1, 2). Hotels additionally have the unique potential to showcase green practices to an international audience and capture the gains of the growing niche of environmentally concerned tourists. The majority of hotel companies have responded by adopting sustainability certifications (e.g., Green Key, EarthCheck, or LEED) and green practices to meet both governmental requirements and traveler expectations (4, 5). For instance, Marriott International has pledged that 100% of its hotels will be certified to an internationally recognized sustainability standard by 2025 (6)—an ambitious goal reflective of industry-wide momentum.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all sustainability efforts provide direct financial returns. While eco-efficiency measures such as energy and water conservation often yield measurable cost savings through reduced utility bills, other important sustainability initiatives may offer primarily indirect or long-term value (7, 8). For example, investments in workforce well-being, community engagement programs, biodiversity conservation, or renewable energy infrastructure may not show immediate return on investment (ROI) but contribute to social sustainability, brand reputation, and long-term resilience (9, 10). This complexity is particularly relevant in the context of mega-events, where hotels may be required to implement comprehensive sustainability measures that go beyond those with clear financial benefits. Understanding this nuanced relationship between sustainability initiatives and their varied outcomes—financial, environmental, and social—is essential for both practitioners and researchers examining the legacy of mega-events on hotel operations.
Literature review
The concept of legacy in mega-events has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Early conceptualizations focused primarily on economic and infrastructural outcomes (11, 12), but contemporary understanding encompasses environmental, social, and cultural dimensions (13, 14). Preuss (15) refined his earlier definition to emphasize that legacies can be both tangible (infrastructure, venues) and intangible (knowledge transfer, social capital), and that they may manifest differently across stakeholder groups.
For hotels, mega-event legacies are felt in terms of shifts in operations, infrastructure upgrading, and capacity building that lasts beyond the event horizon. These legacies may be comprised of physical capital (energy systems, waste management plants), human capital (skilled staff, sustainability experience), and organizational capabilities (environmental management systems, stakeholder engagement processes). However, theoretical concepts of how these legacies for hotels are built, maintained, and measured are still lacking. This study contributes to legacy theory by investigating the specific processes through which hotels translate event-time sustainability pressures into sustainable operational changes.
Environmental sustainability in mega-events gained prominence following criticism of the ecological impacts of earlier events (16, 17). The Sydney 2000 Olympics marked a turning point with its “Green Games” agenda, though scholars have debated the extent to which these aspirations were realized (18, 19). Subsequent events have increasingly incorporated sustainability into bid documents and operational planning, driven by both regulatory requirements and reputational concerns (20).
The hospitality industry's engagement with sustainability has been extensively documented in academic literature. Early work by Kirk (21) and Bohdanowicz (22) established the business case for environmental management in hotels, focusing primarily on eco-efficiency measures. More recent scholarship has expanded to examine social sustainability dimensions, including workforce development, community engagement, and cultural preservation (23, 24).
Institutional theory provides an effective framework for analyzing how mega-events influence hotel sustainability adoption. DiMaggio and Powell (25) identified three sources of institutional pressures for organizational change: coercive (regulations, mandates), normative (professional standards, certifications), and mimetic (imitation of successful practices). Mega-events create all three sources of pressure simultaneously because hotels are exposed to regulatory demands, industry norms, and competitive pressure to implement sustainable practices. However, the between-event and between-setting heterogeneity of results suggests that institutional pressures alone are not enough to guarantee implementation success—organizational capacity and commitment remain necessary (26). The concept of resilience in hotel operations has gained increasing attention, particularly following shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Resilience can be conceived as both the ability to cushion shocks and the ability to learn and transform with changing conditions (98, 99). For hotels, sustainability initiatives undertaken during mega-events can contribute to operational resilience through reducing resource dependencies, diversifying revenues, and building adaptive capacity. This study contributes to resilience theory by examining how mega-event sustainability initiatives enhance hotels' adaptive capacity and long-term viability. The analysis reveals that hotels that successfully implement comprehensive sustainability programs during mega-events often develop organizational capabilities that enable them to respond more effectively to future challenges and opportunities.
Certification systems have emerged as key mechanisms for standardizing and communicating sustainability practices in hospitality (27, 28). Industry-specific certifications like LEED have seen increasing adoption in the hospitality sector, with over 1,000 hotels globally achieving certification by 2021 (73). However, research has identified several challenges, including the proliferation of competing standards (29), varying levels of rigor (30), and questions about their effectiveness in driving genuine change vs. “greenwashing” (31). Studies by Geerts (32) and Pereira et al. (33) found that while certifications can drive operational improvements, their impact on actual environmental performance varies considerably based on implementation quality and management commitment. A critical consideration in evaluating sustainability initiatives is the well-documented gap between stated consumer preferences and actual behavior. While surveys consistently show high levels of consumer interest in sustainable tourism options, actual purchasing decisions often prioritize price and convenience (34, 35). This phenomenon, known as the intention-behavior gap or attitude-behavior gap, has significant implications for hotels investing in sustainability measures based on guest preference surveys (36, 37). The business case for hotel sustainability is further complicated by the reality that not all sustainability initiatives provide direct financial returns. While eco-efficiency measures often demonstrate clear ROI, comprehensive sustainability requires acceptance of initiatives without immediate financial benefits (8). These challenges simplistic “win-win” narratives and aligns with critical perspectives on corporate sustainability that emphasize trade-offs and competing objectives (38, 39). Research has identified various factors contributing to this gap, including:
• Price sensitivity and perceived value trade-offs (40)
• Lack of transparent information about sustainability practices (41)
• Habitual behaviors that override intentions (42)
• Social desirability bias in survey responses (43)
Methodology
This study employs a multiple case study approach, which is particularly suited for examining complex phenomena in real-world contexts where boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly defined (44). The case study methodology has been widely used in tourism and hospitality research to investigate sustainability initiatives (45, 46) and mega-event legacies (47, 48).
Following Eisenhardt's (49) recommendations for theoretical sampling in case study research, we selected cases that would provide both literal replication (similar results for predictable reasons) and theoretical replication (contrasting results for predictable reasons). The selection criteria included:
1. Temporal diversity: Events spanning from 2012–2022 to capture evolving sustainability practices
2. Geographic distribution: Different continents and development contexts
3. Event types: Both sporting (Olympics, World Cup) and non-sporting (Expo) mega-events
4. Documented sustainability commitments: All selected events made explicit sustainability claims
5. Data availability: Sufficient documentation for analysis
The selected cases are:
• Summer Olympic Games [London 2012 (50), Rio de Janeiro 2016, Tokyo 2020]
• FIFA World Cup 2022 (51) (Qatar)
• World Exposition 2020 (Dubai)
This selection aligns with Stake's (52) collective case study approach, where multiple cases are examined to investigate a phenomenon, population, or general condition.
Data were collected from multiple sources to enable triangulation and enhance validity (53, 54):
1. Official documentation: Sustainability reports, legacy plans, environmental impact assessments
2. Academic literature: Peer-reviewed articles analyzing specific events
3. Industry reports: Hotel certification databases, trade publications, corporate sustainability reports
4. News media: Contemporary coverage and post-event analyses from reputable sources
5. NGO assessments: Independent evaluations from environmental and human rights organizations
Data analysis
The analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (55) thematic analysis framework, adapted for case study research:
1. Familiarization: Immersion in data through repeated reading
2. Initial coding: Generation of initial codes for sustainability initiatives and outcomes
3. Theme development: Grouping codes into potential themes
4. Theme review: Checking themes against coded extracts and entire dataset
5. Theme definition: Refining and naming themes
6. Cross-case synthesis: Identifying patterns across cases (56)
The coding framework encompassed:
• Sustainability initiatives: Energy, water, waste, transportation, social programs
• Implementation mechanisms: Certifications, regulations, partnerships
• Outcomes: Environmental, economic, social, legacy dimensions
• Challenges: Financial constraints, operational difficulties, stakeholder conflicts
This study relies on secondary data, which presents several limitations:
• Potential bias in official reports toward positive outcomes
• Varying levels of detail and transparency across sources
• Limited access to internal hotel operational data
• Temporal constraints in assessing long-term legacies
We addressed these limitations through source triangulation and explicit acknowledgment of conflicting evidence where it exists.
Results
Past mega-events have implemented various sustainability measures with mixed success. Table 1 provides a comparative analysis of significant sustainability measures and their outcomes.
Table 1. Sustainability initiatives and outcomes in recent mega-events.
The proliferation of sustainability certifications in the hospitality sector reflects growing industry engagement with environmental and social responsibility (Table 2). However, evidence of direct causal links between mega-events and certification adoption requires careful examination.
Table 2. Major hotel sustainability certifications.
Hotels implement a variety of sustainability practices for mega-events, though the extent to which these are event-driven vs. reflecting broader industry trends must be closely analyzed. The evidence suggests that mega-events serve as accelerators of pre-existing sustainability trends rather than creating entirely new practices.
Energy conservation is the most common mega-event sustainability practice among hotels, driven by environmental as well as cost-saving imperatives. London 2012 hotels attained 15%–20% energy savings by implementing LED retrofits, smart building systems, and renewable energy sourcing. Tokyo 2020 featured more advanced measures, with AI-driven energy management systems providing additional 10% savings in some properties. These advances, however, reflect broader industry trends toward energy efficiency that have been accelerated by demands and visibility created by the events.
The longevity of energy conservation actions after the event differs significantly. Those hotels that incorporated energy management into mainstream operations sustained gains, whereas those that took temporary actions tended to revert to former routines. This trend indicates that durable energy efficiency legacies depend on systematic organizational transformations instead of discrete technological initiatives.
Water conservation measures for mega-events build on those already practiced, such as linen reuse programs and low-flow fixtures, in hotels. Over 90% of London's hotels had reuse programs by 2012, though the extent to which this was event-driven adoption vs. business-as-usual practice is unclear. More advanced water conservation measures, such as greywater reuse and leak detection systems, were more obviously event-demand driven.
Hilton Tokyo Bay's 5,000-liter saving during the Games shows how events can trigger intensified monitoring and optimization of existing systems. But the relatively limited scale of these gains suggests that water conservation for mega-events is a question of intensification of normal practice rather than transformational operational change.
Mega-event waste management improvements usually highlight the most creative and long-lasting transformation of hotel operations. FIFA partnerships on waste targets led to system-wide solutions that extended beyond individual properties. Marriott's elimination of plastic straws by 2019 (76), while part of an overall corporate plan, was accelerated because of mega-event sustainability pressures.
Expo 2020 hotels' contribution of 50,000 meals reflects wider incorporation of circular economy principles that have the potential to establish long-term operational transformation. Such practices tend to continue after the event due to alignment with both sustainability objectives and operational efficiency, generating reinforcing incentives for perpetuation.
Sustainable F&B at mega-events typically prioritize local supply, vegetarianism, and waste reduction. London 2012's Food for Life certification and Paris 2024's 50% local supply commitment demonstrate how events can formalize and accelerate existing trends for sustainable hospitality practices.
The integration of sustainable F&B practices has a tendency to extend beyond the event timeline as they can help optimize guest experience and reduce costs. Hotels that develop local supply chain connections and sustainable menu options during events are likely to sustain these efforts as they become engrained in operational routines and guest expectations.
One of the most significant long-term mega-event sustainability initiative legacies in hotels is employee training programs. Beijing (77) city-wide employee training programs created long-lasting human capital that persisted well beyond the event. These initiatives have a tendency to develop organizational competencies that enable hotels to achieve sustainability performance gains by themselves well beyond the event.
However, retention of sustainability knowledge and practices is dependent to a large degree on staff turnover rates and ongoing organizational support. Hotels with formal knowledge management processes and ongoing training exhibited greater sustainability improvement persistence instigated by events.
The mega-event legacies for hotel infrastructure and destination sustainability are extremely diverse, reflecting differences in planning, implementation, and post-event management. These legacies are of particular interest to hotel operations in that they establish the context within which individual properties develop their sustainability plans. The long-term impacts of mega-events on host destinations vary considerably, reflecting differences in planning, implementation, and post-event management.
Note: The long-term impacts of mega-events on host destinations vary considerably, reflecting differences in planning, implementation, and post-event management. To enhance clarity and enable more detailed analysis, we present these findings in two complementary tables: Table 3a examines infrastructure legacies across the five cases, while Table 3b specifically analyzes the implications for hotel operations and sustainability outcomes.
Table 3a. Infrastructure legacy from mega-events.
Table 3b. Hotel sector implications and operational impacts.
Discussion
This study contributes theoretically by building on Preuss's (15, 87, 88) legacy frameworks and the adaptive systems literature. Specifically, it examines how event-time sustainability efforts catalyze longer-term adaptive capacity in hotels, thus extending resilience theory. The empirical findings challenge and enrich these frameworks by emphasizing the importance of sector-specific implementation mechanisms and organizational routines.
Our findings contribute to several theoretical discussions in tourism and event management literature. First, we extend legacy theory by demonstrating how sustainability initiatives create multi-dimensional impacts that transcend traditional economic and infrastructural outcomes (88). The cases reveal that environmental legacies are deeply intertwined with social and economic dimensions, supporting integrated approaches to legacy planning (13, 89).
Specifically, this study advances legacy theory by identifying the mechanisms by which hotels translate transient event pressures into resilient organizational capabilities. The results suggest that successful legacy creation is not only about initial adoption of sustainable practices, but also creating organizational routines, systems of knowledge, and stakeholder relations that contribute to continuous improvement. This result extends Preuss's (15) legacy conceptualization to emphasize the importance of adaptive capacity in predicting whether event-induced changes are sustained and evolve.
Second, our analysis provides empirical evidence for institutional theory perspectives on sustainability adoption in hospitality (25). Mega-events create coercive pressures (regulations, requirements), normative pressures (industry standards, certifications), and mimetic pressures (best practice adoption) that accelerate sustainability implementation. However, the variation in outcomes across cases suggests that institutional pressures alone do not guarantee successful implementation—organizational capacity and commitment remain critical factors (26).
The study illustrates that hotels respond to institutional pressures in different ways based on their existing capabilities, resource constraints, and strategic agendas. Hotels that already have sustainability practices can leverage mega-event pressures to advance improvements, but inexperienced hotels might struggle to implement major changes within event timeframes. The finding contributes to institutional theory by demonstrating the requirement of organizational readiness for moderating institutional impacts.
Third, the study highlights the complexity of the business case for sustainability in hospitality. While eco-efficiency measures often demonstrate clear ROI, our findings support Melissen et al.'s (8) argument that comprehensive sustainability requires acceptance of initiatives without direct financial returns. This challenges simplistic “win-win” narratives and aligns with critical perspectives on corporate sustainability (38, 39).
The concept of “sustainability-enabled resilience” is a concept emerging from our research, and its implications are that hotels adopting overall sustainability strategies in the context of mega-events build adaptation capabilities that pay off well beyond the life of the event. Specifically, this contribution to hospitality resilience theory illustrates how sustainability strategies and measures can be at once ends and means of building organizational resilience.
The hospitality industry has been increasingly adopting green technologies, though significant implementation challenges remain (96). Olympic Agenda 2020 has further emphasized sustainability as a core pillar for mega-events (97).
Our findings must be interpreted in light of the well-documented intention-behavior gap in sustainable tourism (34). While 73% of tourists express preference for sustainable hotels (3), actual booking behaviors often prioritize other factors. Hotels investing in sustainability based on stated preferences may overestimate demand, particularly for measures that increase costs without enhancing guest experience.
This gap manifests differently during mega-events. Event attendees may be less price-sensitive than typical tourists, potentially reducing barriers to choosing sustainable options. However, convenience factors (proximity to venues, availability during peak periods) may override sustainability considerations. Hotels must therefore frame sustainability initiatives not solely as responding to guest demands but as fulfilling broader stakeholder expectations and regulatory requirements.
The evidence is directed to the business case of sustainability in hotel operations of mega-events as complicated. Since eco-efficiency efforts are likely to reflect clear ROI by way of reduced operating costs, our findings substantiate Melissen et al.'s (8) argument that serious sustainability in hotels must embrace actions without manifest monetary benefits. This challenges naive “win-win” arguments and agrees with critics' arguments regarding corporate sustainability (38, 39). Our analysis reveals that mega-event sustainability initiatives encompass more than eco-efficiency measures. Environmental sustainability includes investments in renewable energy infrastructure, biodiversity conservation, and circular economy practices—many without immediate financial returns. Social sustainability dimensions include: These findings reiterate the importance of explicitly anchoring sustainability legacies within hotel operations—highlighting how hotel-specific constraints and incentives shape long-term outcomes.
• Workforce development: Training programs, fair labor practices, career advancement opportunities
• Community engagement: Local hiring, supplier diversity, cultural preservation
• Accessibility: Infrastructure improvements benefiting persons with disabilities
• Human rights: Particularly salient in Qatar 2022, where labor conditions overshadowed environmental initiatives
These broader sustainability dimensions align with evolving frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and emerging regulatory requirements like the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Hotels must increasingly account for Scope 3 emissions (including guest travel) and demonstrate progress on social indicators, challenging narrow focus on operational eco-efficiency (90).
The variation in outcomes across cases underscores the importance of governance structures and accountability mechanisms. London 2012's independent oversight body provided credibility and enabled adaptive management. Conversely, Qatar 2022's disputed carbon-neutral claims illustrate how inadequate transparency can undermine legitimacy, regardless of actual achievements.
This finding supports calls for standardized reporting frameworks and third-party verification in event sustainability (91). The adoption of ISO 20121 (sustainable event management) and alignment with GRI standards represents progress, but enforcement remains inconsistent. Future events must balance ambitious targets with credible measurement and reporting to avoid greenwashing accusations.
Our analysis reveals that sustainability legacies are neither uniformly positive nor represent clear “win-win” scenarios. Several factors complicate outcomes:
1. Temporal dynamics: Short-term gains may not translate to long-term benefits without continued investment
2. Distributional effects: Benefits and costs unevenly distributed across stakeholder groups
3. Opportunity costs: Resources directed to event sustainability might achieve greater impact elsewhere
4. Attribution challenges: Difficulty isolating event impacts from broader industry trends
These complexities challenge deterministic views of mega-event legacies and support more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to evaluation (92, 93).
For event organizers and policymakers:
• Integrate sustainability planning from bid stage, not as add-on
• Establish independent oversight with transparent reporting
• Set realistic targets based on implementation capacity
• Create mechanisms for post-event legacy management
For hotel operators:
• View mega-events as catalysts for accelerating existing sustainability plans
• Invest in initiatives with co-benefits (e.g., efficiency + guest experience)
• Prepare for evolving regulations beyond voluntary standards
• Document and share learnings for industry advancement
For certification bodies:
• Harmonize standards to reduce confusion and costs
• Strengthen verification processes to ensure credibility
• Develop event-specific modules recognizing unique demands
• Track long-term outcomes beyond initial certification
Conclusion
This study examined how mega-events influence sustainability practices in the hotel sector, revealing complex patterns of adoption, implementation, and legacy. While events can catalyze significant improvements in environmental and social performance, outcomes depend critically on governance structures, stakeholder commitment, and post-event management. The findings challenge simplistic narratives of universal “win-win” outcomes, instead revealing trade-offs between different sustainability dimensions and stakeholder interests.
The research contributes to theoretical understanding of legacy creation, institutional pressures in sustainability adoption, and the evolving business case for comprehensive sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Practical implications include the need for integrated planning, transparent accountability mechanisms, and recognition that meaningful sustainability requires accepting some initiatives without direct financial returns.
Future research should employ longitudinal designs to track legacy evolution, examine differential impacts across stakeholder groups, and investigate how emerging regulations (e.g., CSRD, mandatory climate disclosures) influence event and hotel sustainability practices. As the climate crisis intensifies and social inequalities persist, the imperative for genuinely sustainable mega-events—and the hospitality infrastructure supporting them—will only grow stronger.
Author contributions
TS: Writing – original draft. LC-D: Writing – review & editing. EO-A: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
2. Kasim A. Managerial attitudes towards environmental management among small and medium hotels in Kuala Lumpur. J Sustain Tour. (2009) 17(6):709–25. doi: 10.1080/09669580902928468
3. UNWTO. Tourism sustainability report 2023 (2023). Available online at: https://www.unwto.org/tourism-sustainability (Accessed November 20, 2023).
4. Font X, Harris C. Rethinking standards from green to sustainable. Ann Tour Res. (2004) 31(4):986–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.001
5. Honey M, Rome A. Protecting Paradise: Certification Programs for Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism. Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies (2001).
6. Marriott International. Serve 360: 2023 Sustainability and Social Impact Report. Bethesda, MD: Marriott International (2023).
7. Mair J, Laing J. The greening of music festivals: motivations, barriers and outcomes. Applying the Mair and Jago model. J Sustain Tour. (2012) 20(5):683–700. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2011.636819
8. Melissen F, van Ginneken R, Wood RC. Sustainability challenges and opportunities arising from the owner-operator split in hotels. Int J Hosp Manag. (2018) 76:35–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.07.002
9. Jones P, Hillier D, Comfort D. Sustainability in the global hotel industry. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. (2014) 26(1):5–17. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2012-0180
10. Saarinen J. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Ann Tour Res. (2006) 33(4):1121–40. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2006.06.007
11. Cashman R. The Bitter-sweet awakening: The Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Sydney: Walla Walla Press (2006).
12. Gratton C, Shibli S, Coleman R. Sport and economic regeneration in cities. Urban Stud. (2005) 42(5-6):985–99. doi: 10.1080/00420980500107045
13. Chappelet JL. Mega sporting event legacies: a multifaceted concept. Pap Eur. (2012) 25:76–86. doi: 10.5209/rev_PADE.2012.n25.41096
14. Grix J, Brannagan PM, Wood H, Wynne C. State strategies for leveraging sports mega-events: unpacking the concept of ‘legacy’. Int J Sport Policy Pol. (2021) 13(2):203–18. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2021.1890634
15. Preuss H. A framework for identifying the legacies of a mega sport event. Leis Stud. (2015) 34(6):643–64. doi: 10.1080/02614367.2014.994552
16. Death C. ‘Greening’ the 2010 FIFA world cup: environmental sustainability and the mega-event in South Africa. J Environ Pol Plan. (2011) 13(2):99–117. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2011.572656
17. Hayes G, Karamichas J, editors. Olympic Games, Mega-Events and Civil Societies: Globalization, Environment, Resistance. London: Palgrave Macmillan (2012).
18. Lenskyj HJ. The Best Olympics Ever? Social Impacts of Sydney 2000. Albany, NY: SUNY Press (2002).
19. Toohey K. The Sydney olympics: striving for legacies–overcoming short-term disappointments and long-term deficiencies. Int J Hist Sport. (2008) 25(14):1953–71. doi: 10.1080/09523360802439270
20. VanWynsberghe R, Derom I, Maurer E. Social leveraging of the 2010 olympic games: ‘Sustainability’ in a city of Vancouver initiative. J Pol Res Tour Leis Events. (2012) 4(2):185–205. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2012.662618
21. Kirk D. Environmental management in hotels. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. (1995) 7(6):3–8. doi: 10.1108/09596119510095325
22. Bohdanowicz P. European Hoteliers' Environmental attitudes: greening the business. Cornell Hotel Restaur Adm Q. (2005) 46(2):188–204. doi: 10.1177/0010880404273891
23. Cavagnaro E, Gehrels S. Sweet and sour grapes: implementing sustainability in the hospitality industry—a case study. J Culin Sci Technol. (2009) 7(2-3):181–95. doi: 10.1080/15428050903324504
24. Font X, Torres-Delgado A, Crabolu G, Palomo Martinez J, Kantenbacher J, Miller G. The impact of sustainable tourism indicators on destination competitiveness: the European tourism indicator system. J Sustain Tour. (2021) 31(7):1608–30. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1910281
25. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev. (1983) 48(2):147–60. doi: 10.2307/2095101
26. Scott WR. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications (2014).
27. Font X. Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and prospects. Tour Manag. (2002) 23(3):197–205. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00084-X
28. Honey M. Ecotourism Certification: Setting Standards in Practice. Washington, DC: Island Press (2002).
29. Conaghan A, Hanrahan J, McLoughlin E. The attitudes of the key stakeholders on sustainable tourism in Ireland: the holidaymaker and tourism enterprise perspective. Tourism. (2015) 63(3):275–93.
30. Jarvis N, Weeden C, Simcock N. The benefits and challenges of sustainable tourism certification: a case study of the green tourism business scheme in the West of England. J Hosp Tourism Manage. (2010) 17(1):83–93. doi: 10.1375/jhtm.17.1.83
31. Self RM, Self DR, Bell-Haynes J. Marketing tourism in the Galapagos Islands: ecotourism or greenwashing? Int Bus Econ Res J. (2010) 9(6):111–25. doi: 10.19030/iber.v9i6.587
32. Geerts W. Environmental certification schemes: hotel managers’ views and perceptions. Int J Hosp Manag. (2014) 39:87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.007
33. Pereira V, Silva GM, Dias Á. Sustainability practices in hospitality: case study of a luxury hotel in Arrábida Natural Park. Sustainability. (2021) 13(6):3164. doi: 10.3390/su13063164
34. Juvan E, Dolnicar S. The attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Ann Tour Res. (2014) 48:76–95. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.012
35. Tölkes C. Sustainability communication in tourism–A literature review. Tour Manag Perspect. (2018) 27:10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2018.04.002
36. Antimova R, Nawijn J, Peeters P. The awareness/attitude-gap in sustainable tourism: a theoretical perspective. Tour Rev. (2012) 67(3):7–16. doi: 10.1108/16605371211259795
37. Baker MA, Davis EA, Weaver PA. Eco-friendly attitudes, barriers to participation, and differences in behavior at green hotels. Cornell Hosp Q. (2014) 55(1):89–99. doi: 10.1177/1938965513504483
38. Banerjee SB. Corporate social responsibility: the good, the bad and the ugly. Crit Sociol (Eugene). (2008) 34(1):51–79. doi: 10.1177/0896920507084623
39. Hahn T, Figge F, Pinkse J, Preuss L. Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can't have your cake and eat it. Bus Strategy Environ. (2010) 19(4):217–29. doi: 10.1002/bse.674
40. Berezan O, Raab C, Yoo M, Love C. Sustainable hotel practices and nationality: the impact on guest satisfaction and guest intention to return. Int J Hosp Manag. (2013) 34:227–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.03.010
41. Chen MF, Tung PJ. Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. Int J Hosp Manag. (2014) 36:221–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006
42. Dolnicar S, Grün B. Environmentally friendly behavior: can heterogeneity among individuals and contexts/environments be harvested for improved sustainable management? Environ Behav. (2009) 41(5):693–714. doi: 10.1177/0013916508319448
43. Fisher RJ. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consum Res. (1993) 20(2):303–15. doi: 10.1086/209351
44. Yin RK. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications (2018).
45. Beritelli P. Cooperation among prominent actors in a tourist destination. Ann Tour Res. (2011) 38(2):607–29. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2010.11.015
46. Bramwell B, Lane B. Tourism Governance: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Sustainability. London: Routledge (2012).
47. Smith A. Leveraging sport mega-events: new model or convenient justification? Journal of policy research in tourism. Leis Events. (2014) 6(1):15–30. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2013.823976
48. Ziakas V. For the benefit of all? Developing a critical perspective in mega-event leverage. Leis Stud. (2015) 34(6):689–708. doi: 10.1080/02614367.2014.986507
49. Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev. (1989) 14(4):532–50. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
50. LOCOG. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Official Report. London: London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (2013).
53. Denzin NK. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill (1978).
54. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications (2002).
55. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. (2006) 3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
56. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications (2020).
57. UNEP. London 2012 Will Leave a Lasting Legacy for the UK and the Olympic Movement [Press Release]. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (2012).
59. GHD. It Takes the London 2012 Olympics to Raise a Village. GHD Insights. Sydney: GHD Group (2023).
60. UNEP. Rio 2016 Olympic Games Sustainability Report. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (2016).
61. Rio 2016 Official Report. Rio 2016 Olympic Games Official Report. Rio de Janeiro: Rio 2016 Organizing Committee (2016).
63. Teo A. Plastic Podiums, Recycled Medals, Cardboard Beds: Sustainability at Tokyo 2020. London: Reuters (2021). Available online at: https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/plastic-podiums-recycled-medals-cardboard-beds-sustainability-tokyo-2020-2021-08-03/
67. Boykoff J. The World Cup in Qatar is a Climate Catastrophe. New York: Scientific American (2022). Available online at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-cup-in-qatar-is-a-climate-catastrophe/ (Accessed December 15, 2022).
68. Human Rights Watch. Qatar: World Cup Forced Labor Persists Despite Reforms. New York: Human Rights Watch (2022).
69. FEE. Green Key: Unlocking Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry. Copenhagen: Foundation for Environmental Education (2025).
70. Green Key Global. Green Key certification criteria & statistics (2022). Available online at: https://www.greenkey.global (Accessed February 12, 2023).
72. Swindells K. How Earthcheck is Helping Luxury Hotels Go Green. London: Elite Traveler (2021). Available online at: https://elitetraveler.com/travel/hotel-news/how-earthcheck-is-helping-luxury-hotels-go-green
73. USGBC. LEED in Hospitality: Global Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S: Green Building Council (2021).
74. Green Lodging News. USGBC: more than 1,000 hotels now LEED certified globally (2021). Available online at: https://www.greenlodgingnews.com/usgbc-more-than-1000-hotels-now-leed-certified-globally/ (Accessed March 12, 2023).
75. ISO. ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems Statistics. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (2022).
76. Marriott International. Marriott International to remove plastic straws worldwide by July 2019 (2018). Available online at: https://news.marriott.com/news/2018/07/18/marriott-international-to-remove-plastic-straws-worldwide-by-july-2019 (Accessed January 15, 2023).
77. Beijing Organizing Committee. Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Official Report. Beijing: BOCOG (2008).
79. UK Government. London 2012 Olympic Legacy Report. London: Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2021).
80. Al Jazeera. Five Years On: Revisiting Rio 2016 Olympics' Unkept Promises. Doha: Al Jazeera Media Network (2021). Available online at: https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2021/9/19/five-years-on-revisiting-rio-2016-olympics-unkept-promises (Accessed October 3, 2023).
81. Rio Tourism Board. Rio de Janeiro Tourism Impact Report 2016-2017. Rio de Janeiro: Riotur (2017).
84. Dubai Tourism. Dubai Tourism Statistics 2022. Dubai: Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing (2022).
86. Qatar Tourism. Qatar tourism statistics 2023 (2023). Available online at: https://www.visitqatar.qa/corporate/planning/research-and-insights (Accessed December 5, 2023)
87. Preuss H. The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies. J Sport Tour. (2007) 12(3-4):207–28. doi: 10.1080/14775080701736957
88. Preuss H. Event legacy framework and measurement. Int J Sport Policy Polit. (2019) 11(1):103–18. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1490336
89. Thomson A, Cuskelly G, Toohey K, Kennelly M, Burton P, Fredline L. Sport event legacy: a systematic quantitative review of literature. Sport Manag Rev. (2019) 22(3):295–321. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.011
90. Gössling S, Peeters P. Assessing tourism’s global environmental impact 1900–2050. J Sustain Tour. (2015) 23(5):639–59. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1008500
91. Müller M, Wolfe SD, Gaffney C, Gogishvili D, Hug M, Leick A. An evaluation of the sustainability of the Olympic games. Nat Sustain. (2021) 4(4):340–8. doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00696-5
92. Müller M. The mega-event syndrome: why so much goes wrong in mega-event planning and what to do about it. J Am Plann Assoc. (2015) 81(1):6–17. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1038292
93. Zimbalist A. Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press (2015).
94. Getz D. Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research. Tour Manag. (2008) 29(3):403–28. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017
95. Hall CM. Sustainable mega-events: beyond the myth of balanced approaches to mega-event sustainability. Event Manag. (2012) 16(2):119–31. doi: 10.3727/152599512X13343565268294
96. Hotel Technology News. While more hotels are turning to green technology for sustainable, operations, the industry still has a long way to go (2024). Available online at: https://hoteltechnologynews.com/2024/04/while-more-hotels-are-turning-to-green-technology-for-sustainable-operations-the-industry-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/ (Accessed April 30, 2024).
97. IOC. Olympic Agenda 2020: 20 + 20 Recommendations. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee (2014).
98. Holling CS. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. (1973) 4:1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Keywords: mega-events, sustainable tourism, green hotel operations, resilience, event legacy, hospitality management, community impact
Citation: Sarvinoz Atoevna T, Canós-Darós L and Osorio-Acosta E (2025) Green and resilient hotel operations through mega-event legacies. Front. Sports Act. Living 7:1604131. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1604131
Received: 1 April 2025; Accepted: 21 July 2025;
Published: 15 August 2025.
Edited by:
Kiattipoom Kiatkawsin, Singapore Institute of Technology, SingaporeReviewed by:
Voltaire Alvarado Peterson, University of Concepcion, ChileElena Cavagnaro, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands
Rawan Nimri, Griffith University, Australia
Copyright: © 2025 Sarvinoz Atoevna, Canós-Darós and Osorio-Acosta. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Toyirova Sarvinoz Atoevna, c3RvaXJvdkB1cHYuZWR1LmVz; cy5hLnRveWlyb3ZhQGJ1eGR1LnV6