Building a Better World Through Sporting Events: Residents’ Perceptions and Support for a Small-Scale Women-Oriented Running Event

Abstract

This study examines residents’ perceptions of the impacts of a small-scale urban running event in Córdoba, Spain, oriented primarily toward women and linked to the visibility of women in sport. The research addresses whether gender bias exists in impact perception, whether a differentiated inclusive-sporting dimension emerges alongside the traditional economic, social, and environmental dimensions, whether the structure of perceived impacts and support is compatible with Social Exchange Theory, and whether different resident segments can be identified in line with Social Representations Theory. Data were collected from 536 residents during the event and in the following week. The analysis combined item-level gender comparisons, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and cluster analysis. The results identified four perceived impact dimensions: inclusive-sporting, economic, social, and environmental, together with a differentiated support construct. Women reported more positive perceptions than men in the inclusive-sporting, economic, and social dimensions, whereas no significant gender differences emerged in environmental inconveniences. Three resident segments were identified: Enthusiasts, Supporters, and Detractors. Overall, the findings suggest that women-oriented small-scale sporting events are evaluated not only through economic, social, and environmental impacts, but also through their perceived contribution to inclusion, city image, and gender equality.

1. Introduction

Sporting events have become important settings for analysing how host communities interpret sustainability, social change and local development, as their impacts extend beyond economic outcomes to encompass social, environmental and symbolic dimensions [1,2,3]. Residents’ perceptions are therefore central because they shape the social legitimacy of events, influence long-term public support, and ultimately affect their sustainability [1,2,4]. Previous research has also shown that these perceptions vary considerably across host communities according to residents’ social positions, expectations and shared meanings [3,5,6].

Despite the growing body of research, several important gaps remain [3,7,8]. First, studies have focused predominantly on mega-events, while small-scale sporting events remain comparatively underexplored despite their closer connection with everyday community life and their potential contribution to local sustainability [3,8]. Second, women-oriented sporting events have received limited scholarly attention, particularly from the perspective of host residents rather than participants or organisers [7,9,10]. Third, existing evaluation frameworks do not fully capture impacts related to inclusion, gender equality and the public visibility of women in sport [11,12,13].

These limitations are especially relevant in women-oriented urban running events organised around International Women’s Day. Beyond their sporting function, these events may promote the city’s image, strengthen social inclusion and increase the visibility of women in sport [9,13,14]. Consequently, residents may evaluate them not only through economic, social and environmental outcomes, but also according to their perceived contribution to inclusion, gender equality and the city’s sporting identity [7,11,12]. This suggests that, when analysing events explicitly linked to equality and inclusion, residents’ perceptions may include context-specific social and symbolic elements that are not necessarily captured as differentiated dimensions within the traditional Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework [11,12,13].

This argument is supported by three complementary theoretical perspectives. The Triple Bottom Line provides the basis for organising perceived impacts into economic, social and environmental dimensions [1,2,12]. Social Exchange Theory explains residents’ support as a function of the balance between perceived benefits and costs [1,2,4]. Social Representations Theory complements this perspective by recognising that residents’ evaluations are also shaped by shared meanings, symbolic interpretations and collective understandings of the event [6,15]. Together, these approaches provide an appropriate framework for analysing women-oriented sporting events, where symbolic meanings may be as influential as tangible impacts [4,9,13].

Against this background, this study analyses residents’ perceptions of a small-scale urban running event held in Córdoba (Spain), organised around International Women’s Day and involving approximately 2500 female participants. Specifically, the study addresses four research questions: (RQ1) whether gender bias exists in residents’ perceptions of event impacts; (RQ2) whether a differentiated inclusive-sporting dimension emerges alongside the traditional economic, social, and environmental dimensions; (RQ3) whether the multidimensional structure of perceived impacts and support is consistent with Social Exchange Theory; and (RQ4) whether residents can be segmented according to Social Representations Theory.

This study makes three contributions to the literature [3,8,11]. First, it extends research on residents’ perceptions to women-oriented small-scale sporting events, an area that remains underrepresented in the literature [7,8,14]. Second, it examines whether previously established social and symbolic elements related to city image, sporting identity, inclusion, gender equality, accessibility, and sport promotion empirically converge into a differentiated inclusive-sporting dimension in this specific event context [11,12,13]. Third, it integrates gender, residents’ support and perceptual segmentation within a single analytical framework, thereby connecting research on sustainable sporting events with debates on symbolic inclusion and public legitimacy [1,3,16].

2. Literature Review

The literature on residents’ perceptions at sporting events has grown steadily over the last two decades, but continues to show a strong focus on mega-events, cross-sectional designs and quantitative strategies based on questionnaires [3]. This evolution has broadened the focus from purely economic impacts to social, symbolic and quality-of-life dimensions, although the evidence remains uneven depending on the scale of the event and the host context [3,17,18]. In this field, residents’ support has established itself as a key indicator of the event’s social legitimacy, political viability and relational sustainability [1,2,4]. Accordingly, this literature review addresses four complementary perspectives: residents’ perceptions and support; the specific nature of small-scale sporting events; the role of gender, equality and public visibility in women-oriented events; and the theoretical interpretation of perceived impacts, support and resident heterogeneity.

2.1. Residents’ Perceptions, Impacts and Support for the Event

Research into perceived impacts is based on the premise that sporting events do not affect the host community uniformly, but rather generate heterogeneous combinations of benefits and costs, the interpretation of which varies across groups and contexts [3,5,19]. This heterogeneity is substantive, not residual, because the event’s continuity and social acceptance depend on how residents assess its effects on the city, neighbourhoods and community life [2,4,18]. Ref. [3] also demonstrated that the field has progressively shifted towards the study of perceived social impacts, pride, subjective well-being and quality of life, whilst there remains a need for further research on small-scale events, local contexts and intra-community differences.

Recent literature has reinforced this direction by showing that resident support is not adequately explained by a narrow focus on economic impact [1,20,21]. Across different types of events, perceptions of local pride, improved urban image, social cohesion or community revitalisation have shown a more stable relationship with support than direct monetary benefits [2,4,17,22]. This is particularly important in small-scale participatory events, where the bond with the host community is typically forged through shared experiences, shared uses of space and a sense of belonging, rather than through spectacular economic returns [8,23,24].

A key distinction for this research is that residents’ perceptions must be distinguished from the event’s legacy [3]. Whilst impact refers to observed or perceived effects surrounding the event, legacy implies lasting transformations that cannot be automatically inferred from immediate positive assessments [3]. In a women-oriented event linked to 8M, this distinction is key, because the visibility of women, civic pride or the promotion of women’s sport may appear as clear perceived impacts, without this in itself implying a stable, long-term legacy [3,25].

2.2. Small-Scale Sporting Events as a Specific Subject of Study

The literature on non-mega sporting events suggests that small and medium-sized events should not be understood merely as scaled-down versions of mega-events, but as phenomena with a distinct social logic. Their relevance for social sustainability lies in their closer integration into local life, lower dependence on specialised infrastructure and greater capacity to foster community-oriented participation. Compared with the top-down organisation, substantial investment requirements and potential urban disruption associated with mega-events, non-mega events may therefore provide more favourable conditions for local ownership, horizontal social capital and organisational strategies aligned with local needs [8,26].

This argument has been reinforced by subsequent studies linking small-scale events to community pride, sociability, local identity, human capital and the potential for social leverage [20,22,27]. The key lies not only in the fact that they generate lower structural costs, but also in the fact that they foster closer relationships among residents, participants, volunteers and organisers [8,27,28]. Furthermore, their potential can be particularly evident in small and medium-sized towns, where the event takes on greater symbolic and social significance than in large cities with more dispersed community networks [8]. This makes it particularly relevant to analyse an urban case such as Córdoba (Spain), where the scale of the event allows the race to be viewed as a community phenomenon and not merely as a sporting event [2,8,29].

The literature on participatory events adds a complementary dimension, as these events can foster physical activity, social interaction and the shared use of urban space [14,28,30,31]. These characteristics are particularly relevant to small-scale running events and provide a bridge to the specific case of women-oriented races examined below.

2.3. Women-Oriented Events, Equality and Public Visibility

The specific literature on women’s or women-oriented sporting events remains comparatively limited, which in itself justifies the need to expand the evidence base in this area [7,9,10]. Existing studies suggest, however, that these events possess a unique capacity to bring together sporting, social and symbolic dimensions linked to gender equality [7,9,13]. At the Women’s Africa Cup of Nations, for example, perceived effects on employment, social cohesion, pride and the advancement of women in sport were observed, although it was also noted that these benefits do not automatically translate into lasting change in the absence of a follow-up strategy [7].

In mass-participation events aimed at women, this specificity takes on an even more distinct profile. Although participatory and small-scale events remain under-represented in research on sport participation, the available evidence suggests that they can encourage physical activity, particularly among novice or previously inactive participants. Women-oriented events may be especially relevant in this respect because their low-barrier and socially supportive character can stimulate additional engagement in physical activity. However, evidence of immediate participation or increased training should not be equated with sustained behavioural change, whose post-event consolidation remains uncertain [14,25,30,31].

Motivational literature also provides useful arguments for interpreting this type of event as a space for inclusion and not merely as a competition [30,32,33]. In the Birkebeiner races, the women-only variants were associated with socialising, community, tradition and exercise goals, demonstrating that a women-centred event can offer a less intimidating environment without losing sporting legitimacy [30]. This point is particularly relevant for an event held around 8 March, where the visibility of women should not be understood solely as a representational issue, but also as a means of legitimising women’s access to sporting and urban spaces [9,13,30].

2.4. The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) and Inclusive-Sporting Perceptions

The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) has been one of the most influential frameworks for organising the assessment of the impacts of sporting events by distinguishing between economic, social and environmental dimensions [34,35]. Its main contribution was to shift the assessment from a purely economic perspective towards a broader understanding of sustainability [2,36,37]. In studies of residents’ perceptions, the TBL has been used to structure scales of positive and negative impacts and to link these impacts to perceived support, quality of life or sustainable development [1,2,4].

However, developments within the field suggest that events with explicit objectives related to inclusion, equality, or sport promotion may involve social and symbolic perceptions that do not necessarily align neatly with the traditional economic, social, and environmental categories [11,12,13]. In small and medium-sized sporting events, ref. [12] demonstrated that perceived social responsibility requires attention to be paid not only to economic, social and environmental variables, but also to dimensions such as cohesion, well-being and sustainable sporting activity. In the case of the Obejo Rally (Córdoba, Spain), ref. [11] argued even more directly for the incorporation of an additional dimension of inclusivity, linked to gender, age and functional diversity.

This theoretical framework is particularly useful for research whose impact indicators are not limited to economic benefits, social effects and environmental impacts, but also include sporting prestige, the city’s capacity to host events, external visibility, inclusivity, gender equality, the promotion of sport across different age groups and openness towards functional diversity [7,11,12]. Accordingly, the possible emergence of an inclusive-sporting dimension should be interpreted as a context-specific empirical configuration in which established social and symbolic elements related to city image, sport and equality are perceived jointly by residents [9,11,13].

The literature on the SDGs and sporting events provides a complementary basis for interpreting this empirical configuration [2,27,38]. An event of this nature can be directly linked to SDG 3 due to its potential to promote health and physical activity, to SDG 5 due to its contribution to the visibility and participation of women in sport, and with SDG 11 through its social use of urban space and its capacity to foster civic identity [13,14,38]. Within this framework, the sport-based and inclusive development of the city ceases to be a secondary effect and may emerge as a differentiated dimension of residents’ perceived impact [7,11,12].

2.5. Social Exchange Theory (SET) and the Structure of Resident Support

Social Exchange Theory (SET) has been the dominant framework for explaining residents’ support for or rejection of sporting events [1,3,4]. Its core explanatory principle holds that individuals support an event when they perceive that the benefits offset or outweigh the costs [4,39]. In the recent literature, this logic has been maintained, but with important nuances that should be incorporated [1,4].

Recent evidence introduces two important nuances into the conventional SET explanation of resident support. First, perceived benefits appear to be more consistently associated with support than perceived costs, with social benefits playing a particularly prominent role and environmental costs showing a more consistent negative relationship than other cost dimensions [1]. In small-scale events, this asymmetry is especially relevant because support appears to rest more on pride, cohesion, image or perceived well-being than on direct monetary returns [1,20,24]. Second, residents may distinguish between impacts on the community and impacts on their personal lives, with community benefits generally perceived more strongly than personal ones and pride emerging as a particularly relevant positive predictor of support [4]. Conversely, opportunity costs and perceptions of distributive injustice may act as specific disincentives [4]. Taken together, this evidence suggests that resident support may be built not only on individual utility but also on a community-level assessment of collectively perceived benefits and costs [4,39].

Accordingly, SET is used in this study primarily to interpret the relationship between perceived benefits and costs and residents’ support for the event, while the symbolic and identity-related meanings of these perceptions are more directly addressed through Social Representations Theory [1,2,4]. This justifies treating support for the event as a distinct construct, yet one that is closely linked to a multidimensional structure of perceived impacts [1,2,4].

2.6. Social Representations Theory (SRT), Gender and Heterogeneity of Perception

Social Representations Theory is particularly well-suited when the event carries strong symbolic significance and when perception cannot be reduced to a simple individual utility calculation [15,16]. SRT is based on the premise that social groups construct shared representations of public phenomena through experience, communication, values and cultural frameworks [15]. In the context of sporting events, this approach helps to explain why residents exposed to the same event interpret it differently depending on their identities, life trajectories or symbolic positions in relation to the event [6,40,41].

The integration of SET and SRT has been proposed precisely to overcome the strong individualism found in some applications of SET [4,39]. Ref. [39] showed that, in small-scale events, residents assess the impacts on the community and on their own lives differently, suggesting that perception is mediated by collective frameworks and not solely by personal utility [39]. Li and colleagues added that the image of the event and prior representations constructed through communication and the media shape perceptions, attitudes and behavioural intentions even before the event takes place [15].

This approach is particularly relevant for studying a women’s-themed race, because the event not only involves a sporting activity, but also conveys meanings relating to equality, inclusion, urban identity and the symbolic legitimacy of women’s sport [9,13,30]. Previous research nevertheless suggests that sociodemographic differences in residents’ perceptions are context-dependent rather than uniform. Gender, age and income may differentiate perceptions in some settings, whereas in others variables such as interest in sport, identification with the event, attendance or connection to the local area appear to be more relevant [4,23,42]. Following this line of reasoning, it is reasonable to expect that perceptions of an inclusive, sport-oriented image of the city will not be uniform across men and women, and that gender differences will emerge more clearly in positive or representational dimensions than in specific urban nuisances [1,4,16]. Thus, a more favourable perception among women should not be assumed a priori or regarded as universal but examined empirically within the specific social and symbolic context of the event. The literature does not require us to assume that gender bias will affect all dimensions equally, but it does support the hypothesis that gender can shape distinct perceptual positions towards events with explicit social significance [7,16,43].

2.7. Heterogeneity and Segmentation of Residents

The literature on residents and events has frequently used factor analysis and cluster analysis to capture the internal heterogeneity of the host community [19,41,42]. This methodological tradition is based on a clear theoretical premise: the community is not a homogeneous unit, and an overall average may mask profiles of support, scepticism or rejection, each with different implications for event management [3,5,40]. Consequently, segmentation is not merely a descriptive add-on, but a means of reconstructing distinct social representations [6,29].

Empirical evidence across different sporting contexts consistently supports the existence of heterogeneous resident profiles, ranging from favourable or enthusiastic positions to more moderate, sceptical or unfavourable assessments [6,29,41,42]. These profiles differ in their assessments of social, economic and environmental impacts and in their willingness to support the event, including in small-scale sporting contexts [6,29,41]. Taken together, this evidence indicates that aggregate measures of community perception may conceal substantively different resident positions towards the same event, supporting the analytical value of segmentation beyond the interpretation of overall averages [3,5,40].

The literature also shows that segment profiling does not always yield stable associations with all sociodemographic variables [3,22,41,42]. In some studies, gender, age or income help to differentiate between groups, whilst in others, variables relating to interest in sport, identification with the event, attendance or connection to the local area carry greater weight [4,23,42]. This variability reinforces the need to empirically examine the relationship between cluster membership and gender, age, education, occupation or income, without assuming a priori that all of these will function as differentiating factors [3,4,42].

2.8. Research Gap

This review identifies a research gap across four converging dimensions [3,7,8,11]. The first is scale-related, as the evidence remains dominated by mega-events, whilst small-scale urban events continue to be less studied [3,8]. The second is thematic, as women-oriented sporting events continue to receive limited attention, despite their potential to bring together sport, health, inclusion and gender visibility [7,9,14]. The third is conceptual, as the classic TBL may not fully reflect how context-specific social and symbolic elements are empirically organised in events explicitly associated with gender equality, sporting identity and inclusion [11,12,13]. The fourth is analytical, as there are still few studies that integrate gender bias, resident support, a multidimensional impact structure and perceptual segmentation within a single research design [3,4,6].

Taken together, these gaps justify examining whether residents’ perceptions of a women-oriented small-scale sporting event reveal gender-based differences, a differentiated inclusive-sporting configuration, a multidimensional structure of perceived impacts and support, and heterogeneous resident segments.

In light of the above, this study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1. Is there any evidence of gender bias in residents’ perceptions of the impacts of a women’s fun run?

RQ2. Does a distinctive image of a sporting and inclusive city emerge as a differentiated dimension of perceived impact alongside the traditional economic, social and environmental dimensions?

RQ3. Does a multidimensional structure of perceived impacts and support for the event emerge that is consistent with Social Exchange Theory?

RQ4. Can different segments of residents be identified based on perceived impacts and support for the event, in a manner consistent with Social Representations Theory?

3. Methodology

3.1. Design of the Questionnaire

The final instrument (Appendix A) comprised 30 items distributed across five conceptual blocks: inclusive-sporting impact, economic impact, social impact, environmental impact and event support. The inclusive-sporting block included items referring to sport prestige, the city’s ability to host sporting events, external image, gender equality, sport promotion across ages and openness toward functional diversity. The economic, social and environmental blocks were consistent with the dominant dimensions used in resident perception research on sporting events [1,2]. Finally, the support block was designed to measure residents’ willingness to endorse similar events and to accept their temporary inconveniences, following previous studies that distinguish perceived impacts from supportive attitudes toward event hosting [1,2,4].

All items were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale. The wording of the instrument was mainly oriented toward community-level evaluation, since the items referred primarily to the city, neighbourhoods and residents rather than to direct private benefit. This orientation is coherent with previous sport event studies showing that support is often shaped more strongly by collective meanings than by strictly individual utility [4,39].

3.2. Data Collection

The event analysed in this study is an established annual women-oriented urban running event in Córdoba, first held in 2016 and traditionally organised in connection with International Women’s Day. The edition analysed was the ninth edition and took place on 3 March 2024, a few days before International Women’s Day.

Data were collected through a convenience sampling procedure during the celebration of the event and in the week immediately following it. The fieldwork was conducted with the assistance of student collaborators across different areas of Córdoba, including locations both close to and away from the event area. Potential participants were approached in person and, after agreeing to participate, accessed the self-administered questionnaire by scanning a QR code on their own mobile devices. This strategy is common in resident perception research on sporting events, particularly when the aim is to capture evaluations while the event and its perceived impacts remain recent and socially salient [3,23,44]. The target population consisted of residents of Córdoba, Spain, and the final sample comprised 536 valid responses.

The timing of fieldwork was considered appropriate because it made it possible to capture both immediate perceptions formed during the event and early post-event evaluations once the event had ended. Previous studies have shown that residents’ perceptions may vary according to the moment of data collection, which makes temporal proximity to the event analytically relevant [1,4,44]. Given the non-probabilistic nature of the sampling procedure, the findings should be interpreted as evidence of the perceptions captured in this study rather than as strictly representative estimates of the full resident population [3].

3.3. Data Processing

Data analysis was conducted in three stages.

First, descriptive statistics and gender-based group comparisons were used to examine whether men and women differed in their item-level evaluations of event impacts. This first step was directly connected to the study’s aim of identifying possible gender bias in residents’ perceptions. These item-level statistics were therefore not intended as part of the measurement-model validation, but as a substantive analysis required to answer RQ1. Accordingly, the purpose of these comparisons was to identify which specific perceived impacts differed by gender, rather than to compare men and women at the aggregate latent-construct level. Effect sizes (r) were also calculated for the Mann–Whitney comparisons, with values of approximately 0.10, 0.30 and 0.50 interpreted as small, medium and large effects, respectively.

Second, to answer RQ2, the dimensional structure of the instrument was assessed through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). The use of EFA was appropriate because one of the objectives of the study was to explore whether a differentiated perceived impact dimension could emerge alongside the traditional economic, social and environmental dimensions [45]. This procedure is methodologically well established and has been widely used in sport event research to identify the latent structure of residents’ perceptions before proceeding to confirmatory testing [12,22,42]. Factorability was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, while factor retention considered eigenvalues, substantive coherence, cross-loadings and factor loadings [46,47].

Internal consistency was examined through Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega. Values above 0.70 were considered indicative of acceptable reliability, while the use of omega complemented alpha by providing a more robust estimate when tau-equivalence could not be assumed [48,49].

The factor structure identified in the exploratory phase was then tested through CFA to answer RQ3. This step was appropriate because the study sought to examine whether a theoretically coherent multidimensional model of perceived impacts and support fitted the observed data [50,51]. Model fit was assessed through the chi-square statistic, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Following commonly used guidelines, CFI and TLI values of 0.90 or above, together with RMSEA and SRMR values below 0.08, were considered indicative of acceptable model fit [50,51]. Convergent validity was assessed through standardised loadings above 0.50, composite reliability (CR) above 0.70 and average variance extracted (AVE) above 0.50 [52,53]. Discriminant validity was examined through the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT), with values below 0.85 considered acceptable [54,55].

To evaluate whether the factorial structure operated equivalently across men and women, multigroup CFA was performed. Measurement invariance was tested sequentially at the configural, metric and scalar levels. Invariance was considered acceptable when the decrease in CFI did not exceed 0.010 and the increase in RMSEA did not exceed 0.015 across nested models, following commonly used criteria in multigroup CFA [56,57]. This step was included as a robustness assessment to determine whether the factorial structure operated equivalently across gender. It should be distinguished from the item-level gender comparisons used to answer RQ1, which were intended to identify differences in specific resident perceptions rather than differences in latent factor means.

Third, to answer RQ4, resident segmentation was conducted using cluster analysis. This technique was appropriate because the study aimed not only to estimate average perceptions but also to identify differentiated resident profiles based on shared patterns of perceived impacts and support [3,5]. In sport event research, cluster analysis has been widely used to distinguish favourable, moderate, critical or enthusiastic resident segments [41,42]. Following this tradition, the segmentation variables were first standardised and then entered into a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s method to determine the most plausible number of groups. The resulting solution was subsequently refined through non-hierarchical k-means clustering [41,42].

Finally, contingency tables were used to examine whether cluster membership was associated with sociodemographic variables such as gender, age, education, occupation and income. The strength of association was assessed through Cramer’s V. Following common interpretive guidelines, values around 0.10, 0.30 and 0.50 were interpreted as small, medium and large effect sizes, respectively [58]. This final profiling stage is also consistent with previous sport event studies that examine whether resident segments differ according to sociodemographic characteristics [41,42].

4. Results

The characteristics of the sample are set out in Table 1. The sample offers sufficient diversity in terms of gender, which has facilitated the conduct of the various comparative tests, as well as a reasonable distribution for each aspect of the socio-demographic profile.

Table 1. Sociodemographic profile of the sample.

Variable	Category	n	%
Gender	Male	226	42.16%
	Female	310	57.84%
Age	Z (18 to 28 years old)	147	27.43%
	Y (29 to 44 years old)	194	36.19%
	X (45 to 60 years old)	123	22.95%
	Boomers (61 to 79 years old)	72	13.43%
University degree	Yes	148	27.61%
	No	388	72.39%
Occupation	Employed	221	41.23%
	Any other situation (student, retired, etc.)	315	58.77%
Income per month	More than €3500 per month	11	2.05%
	€2500 to €3500 per month	87	16.23%
	€1500 to €2500 per month	229	42.72%
	€1200 to €1500 per month	117	21.83%
	Less than €1200 per month	92	17.16%

4.1. Answer to Research Question 1

Table 2 presents evidence to determine whether there are signs of gender bias in the perception of the impacts arising from the event. The analysis compares responses separately by gender rather than drawing conclusions from the overall sample means; therefore, the unequal proportion of women (57.84%) and men (42.16%) in the sample does not account for the observed direction of the gender differences. As shown in Table 2, descriptive statistics and between-group comparisons are reported separately for women and men. Specifically, women tend to give higher scores than men to items relating to the perception of inclusive impact, sporting impact and the promotion of the city’s image. In this regard, only IDT8 (promotes sport amongst people with disabilities) shows no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, virtually all the medians for women are at the maximum value on the scale and 1 point above the corresponding value for men. This is not the case, however, for IDT4 (visitors to Córdoba will find this event appealing). When analysing the standard deviations, it can be seen that the greatest consensus in responses is found in the items relating to the perceived impact on inclusion, sport and the promotion of the city’s image, and this applies only to women, whilst for men there is greater disparity of opinion.

Table 2. Bias in residents’ perception of impacts according to gender.

Items	Total				Male				Female				U 3	Bias
	Mean	SE 1	Median	SD 2	Mean	SE 1	Median	SD 2	Mean	SE 1	Median	SD 2
IDT1	5.92	0.06	6	1.32	5.65	0.10	6	1.46	6.12	0.07	7	1.18	<0.001	Yes
IDT2	6.06	0.05	6	1.16	5.83	0.08	6	1.24	6.24	0.06	7	1.06	<0.001	Yes
IDT3	6.10	0.05	6	1.17	5.86	0.08	6	1.27	6.28	0.06	7	1.07	<0.001	Yes
IDT4	5.47	0.06	6	1.45	5.21	0.10	5	1.49	5.66	0.08	6	1.40	<0.001	Yes
IDT5	5.83	0.06	6	1.44	5.54	0.11	6	1.57	6.05	0.07	7	1.29	<0.001	Yes
IDT6	5.94	0.06	7	1.47	5.63	0.11	6	1.62	6.16	0.07	7	1.30	<0.001	Yes
IDT7	6.13	0.05	7	1.13	5.84	0.08	6	1.21	6.35	0.06	7	1.01	<0.001	Yes
IDT8	5.77	0.06	6	1.40	5.63	0.10	6	1.48	5.87	0.08	6	1.33	0.05	No
IDT9	6.04	0.05	7	1.22	5.88	0.09	6	1.31	6.15	0.07	7	1.15	0.01	Yes
ECO1	5.45	0.07	6	1.50	5.22	0.10	5	1.55	5.62	0.08	6	1.45	0.001	Yes
ECO2	5.25	0.07	5	1.58	5.06	0.10	5	1.56	5.38	0.09	6	1.59	0.009	Yes
ECO3	5.35	0.07	6	1.53	5.16	0.10	5	1.56	5.48	0.09	6	1.49	0.012	Yes
ECO4	5.40	0.06	6	1.49	5.13	0.10	5	1.51	5.59	0.08	6	1.44	<0.001	Yes
SOC1	5.58	0.06	6	1.36	5.33	0.09	5	1.41	5.76	0.07	6	1.29	<0.001	Yes
SOC2	5.46	0.07	6	1.53	5.28	0.10	5	1.52	5.58	0.09	6	1.52	0.007	Yes
SOC3	5.48	0.07	6	1.52	5.30	0.10	6	1.56	5.61	0.08	6	1.47	0.014	Yes
SOC4	5.57	0.06	6	1.46	5.33	0.10	6	1.47	5.75	0.08	6	1.43	<0.001	Yes
SOC5	5.63	0.06	6	1.47	5.36	0.11	6	1.58	5.82	0.08	6	1.36	<0.001	Yes
SOC6	5.49	0.06	6	1.49	5.35	0.10	6	1.54	5.59	0.08	6	1.44	0.086	No
ENV1	3.94	0.08	4	1.74	4.02	0.12	4	1.74	3.88	0.10	4	1.74	0.341	No
ENV2	4.67	0.07	5	1.72	4.70	0.11	5	1.63	4.65	0.10	5	1.78	0.819	No
ENV3	4.13	0.08	4	1.86	4.04	0.12	4	1.87	4.20	0.11	4	1.86	0.335	No
ENV4	4.02	0.08	4	1.83	3.92	0.12	4	1.84	4.09	0.10	4	1.82	0.282	No
ENV5	2.89	0.08	2	1.90	2.85	0.13	2	1.95	2.92	0.11	2	1.86	0.445	No

Notes: 1 = Standard error; 2 = Standard deviation; 3 = Mann–Whitney U test.

Perceptions of economic impact show statistically significant differences across all items (ECO1 to ECO4). The medians for women (6 points) are also 1 point higher than those for men (5 points). Furthermore, the items relating to the perception of social impact (SOC1 to SOC6) also show a gender-based bias in perception, with the exception of SOC6 (‘This event positions Córdoba as a safe city’), although women’s mean score is also higher than men’s. In the social sphere, however, there is not such a significant difference between women’s and men’s mean scores.

Finally, perceptions of environmental impacts or urban disturbances caused during the event do not show any statistically significant differences by gender across any of the items. Despite this, the standard deviations are the highest in the questionnaire for both men and women. This suggests the existence of a perceptual bias stemming from other factors and calls for further exploration of the analysis proposed by this research. Therefore, in response to RQ1, the results provide evidence of gender differences in residents’ perceptions of event impacts, with women tending to give higher ratings than men regarding the promotion of an inclusive and sporting image of Córdoba, as well as perceived economic and social impact. However, no statistically significant gender differences were found in perceptions of environmental impact or urban disruption.

Despite the statistical significance observed for several items, all significant differences showed small effect sizes, ranging from r = 0.11 to r = 0.24, with the largest effect observed for IDT7 (r = 0.24). Conversely, non-significant comparisons showed trivial effect sizes, ranging from r = 0.01 to r = 0.08. Thus, although the results indicate a consistent pattern of gender differences in several perceived impacts, their magnitude should be interpreted as small.

4.2. Answer to Research Question 2

The results of the EFA (Table 3) identified a structure comprising four distinct dimensions of perceived impact: inclusive-sporting impact (IDT), environmental impact (ENV), social impact (SOC) and economic impact (ECO). Each of the identified dimensions comprised at least four items, all of which had factor loadings greater than 0.50 and were clearly associated with a single factor, with no issues of cross-saturation. The eigenvalues of the four extracted factors were greater than 1, meeting the standard criteria for factor retention. Overall, the factor solution explained 72.72% of the total variance, indicating the model’s high explanatory power. In particular, the inclusive-sporting impact (IDT) factor had the greatest explanatory weight, followed by the environmental, social and economic dimensions. The internal reliability of the dimensions was adequate, with high values for both Cronbach’s alpha (α between 0.90 and 0.92) and McDonald’s omega (ω between 0.90 and 0.93), which supports the internal consistency of the identified scales. These results highlight the emergence of a specific dimension linked to the perception of the promotion of the city’s sporting and inclusive image, distinct from the economic, social and environmental dimensions traditionally associated with the Triple Bottom Line approach, thereby providing an affirmative answer to RQ2.

Table 3. Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Item	F1_IDT	F2_ENV	F3_SOC	F4_ECO	Eig. (1)	Exp. Var. (2)	α (3)	ω (4)
IDT5	0.81				10.10	25.75%	0.92	0.92
IDT6	0.78
IDT3	0.77
IDT1	0.76
IDT2	0.74
IDT9	0.73
IDT4	0.62
IDT7	0.58
ENV4		0.88			3.65	16.51%	0.90	0.90
ENV3		0.88
ENV1		0.87
ENV2		0.85
ENV5		0.76
SOC3			0.82		1.25	15.77%	0.92	0.93
SOC2			0.80
SOC4			0.80
SOC5			0.61
SOC6			0.55
ECO3				0.84	1.01	14.69%	0.92	0.93
ECO2				0.80
ECO4				0.77
ECO1				0.64
(5)	0.94
(6)	9438.48
(7)	231
(8)	0.000
(9)	5
(10)	72.72%

Notes: (1): Eigenvalues, (2): individual explained variance for each factor, (3): Cronbach’s alpha (α), (4): McDonald’s omega (ω), (5): Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO), (6): Chi-s, (7): degrees of freedom, (8): p-value, (9): number of iterations; (10): total explained variance.

These results demonstrate the existence of a framework for perceiving impact based on the traditional TBL approach (perception of economic, social and environmental impact), alongside a dimension relating to the promotion of the city’s sporting and tourism image, thereby providing an affirmative answer to RQ2.

4.3. Answer to Research Question 3

The CFA sought to identify a structure of perceived impact and support consistent with the SET (Table 4). These latent constructs were: inclusive-sporting impact (IDT), environmental impact (ENV), social impact (SOC), economic impact (ECO) and support for the event (SUP). The model demonstrated an adequate fit to the data (χ²(378) = 1158.76, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.07, 90% CI [0.06, 0.07]; SRMR = 0.05). The standardised factor loadings were all statistically significant and above the recommended thresholds, ranging from 0.66 to 0.92, indicating an adequate relationship between the observed items and their respective latent constructs. Furthermore, the composite reliability (CR) values exceeded the 0.7 threshold for all factors (0.90 to 0.93), and the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the reference value of 0.50 in all cases (0.59 to 0.75), which supports the convergent validity of the measurement model.

Table 4. Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Factors	Items	SFL 1	AVE 2	CR 3
IDT	IDT1	0.78	0.59	0.92
	IDT2	0.74
	IDT3	0.80
	IDT4	0.74
	IDT5	0.81
	IDT6	0.77
	IDT7	0.66
	IDT9	0.83
ENV	ENV1	0.83	0.66	0.90
	ENV2	0.82
	ENV3	0.84
	ENV4	0.86
	ENV5	0.69
SOC	SOC2	0.88	0.72	0.93
	SOC3	0.89
	SOC4	0.92
	SOC5	0.82
	SOC6	0.70
ECO	ECO1	0.80	0.75	0.92
	ECO2	0.90
	ECO3	0.91
	ECO4	0.86
SUP	SUP1	0.76	0.65	0.92
	SUP2	0.89
	SUP3	0.73
	SUP4	0.84
	SUP5	0.82
	SUP6	0.79
χ2(df 4)		1158.76 (378)
p-value		<0.001
CFI 5		0.93
TLI 6		0.92
RMSEA 7 [CI 8 90%]		0.07 [0.06; 0.07]
SRMR 9		0.05

Notes: 1 = Standardised Factor Loadings; 2 = Average Variance Extracted; 3 = Composite Reliability; 4 = Degrees of Freedom; 5 = Comparative Fit Index; 6 = Tucker–Lewis Index; 7 = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 8 = Confidence Interval; 9 = Standardised Root Mean Square Residual.

Discriminant validity was assessed using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) criterion (Table 5). All the values obtained were below the threshold of 0.85, confirming that the five constructs analysed are empirically distinguishable from one another.

Table 5. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio.

Variables	IDT	ENV	SOC	ECO	SUP
IDT	1.00
ENV	0.09	1.00
SOC	0.83	0.08	1.00
ECO	0.77	0.06	0.78	1.00
SUP	0.79	0.21	0.70	0.57	1.00

In addition, the factor invariance of the model across genders was assessed using a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. The model showed an acceptable fit at the configural level (CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.07), and the progressive imposition of restrictions on factor loadings and intercepts did not result in a significant deterioration in the model’s fit at the metric (CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.07) and scalar (CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.07) levels. In accordance with the criteria proposed by [59], the changes observed in the fit indices were minimal and the indicators remained within the thresholds established in the methodological process, which supports the configural, metric and scalar invariance of the model across genders. Therefore, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis provide an affirmative answer to RQ3, supporting the existence of a multidimensional structure of perceived impact and a differentiated construct of support. As an additional robustness analysis, it was found that this structure is equivalent between men and women.

4.4. Answer to Research Question 4

To answer RQ4, a segmentation analysis was carried out based on the five previously validated dimensions of perception (tourism and sport impact, environmental impact, social impact, economic impact and support), which had been standardised using Z-scores (Table 6).

Table 6. Segmentation.

Variables	Cluster 1 = Supporters			Cluster 2 = Enthusiasts			Cluster 3 = Detractors
	n = 171 (31.90%)			n = 319 (59.52%)			n = 46 (8.58%)
	Z-Score	Mean	SD	Z-Score	Mean	SD	Z-Score	Mean	SD
IDT	−0.54	5.38	0.68	0.59	6.55	0.44	−2.06	3.80	1.07
ENV	−0.10	3.77	1.26	−0.02	3.90	1.65	0.50	4.70	1.45
SOC	−0.61	4.73	0.95	0.59	6.29	0.67	−1.82	3.14	1.15
ECO	−0.74	4.34	1.03	0.61	6.19	0.77	−1.45	3.36	1.15
SUP	−0.31	5.57	0.80	0.49	6.47	0.60	−2.22	3.45	1.00
Male	n = 83 (36.73%)			n = 116 (51.33%)			n = 27 (11.95%)
Female	n = 88 (28.39%)			n = 203 (65.48%)			n = 19 (6.13%)

Hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s method was used to examine the clustering structure of the cases. The agglomeration history showed a marked increase in the agglomeration coefficient when moving from three to two clusters (from 1649.75 to 2675.00), which was substantially higher than that observed in the previous merger from four to three clusters (from 1403.22 to 1649.75). This pattern provided empirical support for selecting a three-cluster solution.

Based on this solution, a non-hierarchical k-means cluster analysis was applied, which converged after 12 iterations. The resulting solution comprised Cluster 1 (n = 171; 31.9%), Cluster 2 (n = 319; 59.5%) and Cluster 3 (n = 46; 8.6%). Descriptive analysis of variance showed that the five dimensions used for segmentation exhibited statistically significant differences between the clusters (p < 0.001 in all cases), providing further evidence of differentiation between the identified profiles. Finally, the socio-demographic profiling of the clusters using contingency tables found no statistically significant associations between cluster membership and socio-demographic variables, such as age (χ²(6) = 8.80, p = 0.185; V = 0.09), educational attainment (χ²(2) = 3.45, p = 0.178; V = 0.08), occupation (χ²(6) = 9.02, p = 0.172; V = 0.09) or income level (χ²(8) = 5.41, p = 0.713; V = 0.07). However, a statistically significant association was found with gender (χ²(2) = 12.41, p = 0.002), with a small effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.15).

Cluster 1, termed “Supporters”, accounts for 31.90% of the sample (n = 171) and is characterised by scores slightly below the mean on the dimensions of perceived inclusive-sporting, social and economic impact, alongside values close to the mean for environmental impact in terms of standardised scores. Perceptions of social (SOC = 4.73) and economic (ECO = 4.34) impact are above the midpoint of the scale. However, this group shows a moderately high willingness to support the event (SUP = 5.57). From a sociodemographic perspective, the cluster tends to comprise a higher proportion of men (36.73% of the total number of men) than women (28.39% of the total).

Cluster 2, labelled “Enthusiasts”, constitutes the largest segment of the sample (59.52%, n = 319) and has the highest scores relative to the centroids across all dimensions of perceived impact, as well as in support for the event, reflecting a clearly positive assessment of the race. It shares with the “Supporters” a low perception of negative environmental impacts, slightly below the midpoint of the scale. This cluster comprises a higher proportion of women (65.48% of the total) compared with the other segments.

Cluster 3, termed “Detractors”, represents 8.58% of the sample (n = 46) and is characterised by scores clearly below the mean across all dimensions of impact perception and support, indicating a predominantly negative assessment of the event. This segment constitutes the smallest group in the sample and has a lower relative proportion of women.

Overall, the results addressing RQ4 provide evidence of differentiated segments in terms of perceived impact and support, as well as a gender bias in membership of these segments, evidenced by the over-representation of women in the “Enthusiasts” cluster and of men in the “Supporters” cluster. This pattern is consistent with a structure of impact perception aligned with the Triple Bottom Line and with the tenets of Social Exchange Theory and Social Representations Theory.

5. Discussion

The results indicate that residents evaluate this event in terms of its economic, social, environmental and inclusive sporting dimensions, alongside a construct of differentiated support [2,11,12]. This supports the argument that small-scale sporting events aimed at women are not fully reflected in conventional ‘triple bottom line’ approaches when inclusion, gender equality and sporting visibility form part of the event’s fundamental significance [7,11,12]. In this case, the findings show that established social and symbolic elements related to inclusion, gender equality and sporting visibility converge into a differentiated perceptual dimension alongside the conventional Triple Bottom Line dimensions [9,13]. This dimension can also be interpreted in relation to SDGs 3, 5 and 11, as residents’ perceptions encompass the promotion of sport and physical activity, the visibility and participation of women in sport, and the inclusive use and image of urban space, respectively. These links should be understood as perceived contributions of the event rather than evidence of actual progress towards the SDGs.

The gender pattern is particularly relevant. Women expressed more positive perceptions than men regarding the inclusive-sporting, economic and social dimensions, whilst no significant gender differences were observed in terms of environmental disruption. This suggests that gender is associated with a modest but significant differentiation in perceptual positioning [1,4,16]. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that women-oriented events can be interpreted as spaces for visibility and recognition just as much as sporting activities [7,9,43]. However, these differences should not be attributed to gender alone. They may also reflect differences in identification with the event, support for gender equality, sport involvement, or broader social values, none of which were directly measured in this study. Gender should therefore be interpreted here as an observed axis of differentiation rather than as an independent explanation of residents’ perceptions.

From a Social Exchange Theory perspective, the results support the distinction between perceived impacts and event support. However, the collective and symbolic meanings underlying these perceptions are more directly interpreted through Social Representations Theory [1,2,4]. The factor structure supports the distinction between perceived impacts and support, whilst the overall pattern suggests that support is based primarily on positive collective meanings, rather than merely the absence of drawbacks [1,4]. This is particularly consistent with an instrument focused on the city, neighbourhoods and residents, rather than on direct personal benefit [4,39].

The clustering solution supports the relevance of Social Representation Theory [6,15]. The identification of “Supporters”, “Enthusiasts” and “Detractors” shows that the host community is not homogeneous from a perceptual point of view, even when overall support is high [3,5,42]. The over-representation of women amongst the “Enthusiasts” and of men amongst the “Supporters” suggests that gender is associated with a modest but significant differentiation in perceptual positioning in relation to the inclusive and symbolic dimensions of the event [7,16].

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical Conclusion

This study supports the idea that research into residents’ perceptions of sporting events benefits from combining the Triple Bottom Line approach with Social Exchange Theory and Social Representation Theory when the event has explicit social significance [1,2]. More specifically, the results show that, in this women-oriented small-scale sporting event, previously established social and symbolic elements related to city image, gender equality and sport promotion empirically converge into a differentiated inclusive-sporting dimension. Rather than constituting a formal extension of the Triple Bottom Line, this finding provides context-specific evidence on how such impacts may be jointly perceived by residents [7,11,12].

6.2. Empirical Conclusion

From an empirical perspective, the study shows that residents’ perceptions of the event revolve around four dimensions of impact: inclusive-sporting, economic, social and environmental, alongside a differentiated support construct. It also shows that women rate the positive dimensions of the event more favourably than men, whilst no gender differences are observed regarding perceived environmental drawbacks. Furthermore, the study identifies three segments of residents: Enthusiasts, Supporters and Detractors, showing that support within the sample is generally high but exhibits internal differences.

6.3. Practical Implications

From a practical perspective, the results suggest that organisers and public authorities should not frame this type of event solely as a recreational race or a tourist product. Its perceived value also reflects residents’ assessments of its contribution to inclusion, the visibility of women’s sport, and a positive image of the city. Communication strategies should therefore emphasise these perceived collective and symbolic benefits. In particular, communication aimed at the “Supporters” segment could make the perceived inclusive-sporting, social and economic benefits of the event more visible, for example by highlighting women’s participation and sporting visibility, community involvement, the promotion of Córdoba’s image, and perceived benefits for local economic activity. Such messages could help reinforce the positive perceptions of residents who already show relatively high support for the event but evaluate these dimensions less favourably than the “Enthusiasts”.

At the same time, the absence of significant gender differences in perceived environmental drawbacks suggests that concerns about temporary urban disruption are broadly shared across men and women rather than being gender-specific. For policymakers and organisers, this reinforces the importance of addressing these costs through measures and communication strategies directed at the resident population as a whole. These implications concern residents’ perceived impacts and should not be interpreted as evidence that the event produces actual or lasting societal changes in inclusion, gender equality or city image.

6.4. Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. Firstly, the study relies on cross-sectional self-reported data collected through a single questionnaire. Consequently, the findings reflect residents’ perceptions at a specific point in time, do not allow for causal relationships to be established, and may be subject to common method variance. Accordingly, the perceived benefits identified in this study should not be interpreted as evidence of actual or lasting societal impacts.

Second, the use of convenience sampling and the timing of data collection may have introduced a positive selection bias. Residents who were more interested in the event, more engaged with sports, or more supportive of the event may have been more likely to participate in the survey. Consequently, the relatively favourable perceptions and high levels of support observed in the sample should not be assumed to be fully representative of the wider population of Córdoba.

Third, EFA and CFA were conducted using the same sample. Although this approach is commonly used, validation using an independent sample or separate exploratory and confirmatory subsamples would provide stronger evidence of the stability and generalizability of the identified factor structure.

Fourth, the instrument is primarily geared towards community-level assessments and, to a lesser extent, towards direct personal perceptions of cost–benefit.

Fifth, the small size of the group of detractors calls for caution when interpreting its specific characteristics and limits their generalizability beyond the present sample.

Sixth, although scalar measurement invariance was established across gender, latent mean comparisons were not performed, as the gender analysis focused on differences in specific perceived impacts at the item level.

Seventh, the observed gender differences cannot be attributed exclusively to gender, as potentially relevant factors such as identification with the event, support for gender equality, sport involvement or broader social values were not measured. These variables may partly account for the differences observed between men and women.

Finally, although the three-cluster solution was supported by the agglomeration history and subsequently refined using k-means clustering, additional assessments of cluster stability, alternative solutions and replication in independent samples were not performed. Therefore, the identified segmentation should be interpreted as an empirical solution for the present sample rather than as a unique or definitive classification of residents.

6.5. Future Lines of Research

Future research should address these limitations through several complementary approaches. First, longitudinal designs combining perceptual measures with objective indicators would help determine whether the perceived benefits identified here translate into actual and lasting societal impacts, including sustained support, sporting participation or gender-related legacy effects. Second, probability-based or more systematically stratified sampling strategies would improve the representativeness of the findings and reduce the potential positive selection bias associated with convenience sampling.

Third, the proposed inclusive-sporting dimension should be tested in other small-scale, women-oriented sporting events using independent samples or separate exploratory and confirmatory subsamples, thereby providing stronger evidence for its stability and generalizability across contexts. Future instruments could also incorporate a more balanced assessment of community-level and direct personal impacts.

Fourth, future studies could complement the item-level analysis of gender differences with latent mean comparisons and incorporate potentially relevant explanatory variables, including identification with the event, support for gender equality, sport involvement and broader social values. This would help determine whether the gender differences observed here persist after accounting for these factors.

Fifth, future segmentation studies should assess the stability and replicability of the identified resident profiles through additional validation procedures, alternative cluster solutions and independent samples, while seeking to obtain larger samples of less supportive residents.

Finally, comparative studies could examine whether the gender perception pattern identified here is specific to women-oriented events or whether it also appears in other socially themed sporting events.