ABBREVIATIONS (IF ANY)

IOC, international olympic committee; IUCN, union for conservation of nature; CVR, content validity ratio; CVI, content validity index; SDGs, United nations’ sustainable development goals

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, the growing social demand for sports activities in natural areas has led to an increase in the popularity of sports events in such environments [1]. These areas, endowed with natural resources—both fauna and flora—have become essential resources for leisure and recreation, attracting a wide variety of participants engaging in diverse nature-based activities [2]. The opportunity to practice sports in these unique settings, often offering more favorable conditions than urban environments, further enhances their appeal [3]. However, the rising popularity of these events also presents significant challenges, as such activities can threaten the authenticity, natural landscapes, and visual appeal of these environments [4].

Sports events held in protected natural areas, in particular, can have a greater environmental impact due to their higher ecological and carbon footprint, necessitating careful consideration in their planning and organization [5]. Additionally, these events can generate complex social, economic and ecological repercussions, underscoring the urgent need for effective resource management [6]. Sustainable management practices are crucial for mitigating negative impacts and generating positive outcomes for wildlife and their habitats [2]. Sustainability in the organization of sports events provides strategies and practices that ensure the protection of environmental resources while promoting mutual benefits for all involved [3].

Given the need to improve monitoring and measurement of sustainable practices, it is critical to assess the extent to which sports event organizers integrate sustainability into their planning [7]. To guide these events towards positive outcomes, it is essential to focus on strategic elements during the planning and organization stages, especially in outdoor sports events, which are particularly ecologically sensitive [8,9].

The present study aims to development and validate a proposed set of sustainability items, materialized in a questionnaire directed at sports event organizers in natural areas. This questionnaire will enable the identification of the level of sustainability in the organization of these events and provide key tools to improve their management, thus addressing the specific challenges posed by hosting sports activities in natural environments.

Numerous international organizations have led the development of sustainability in sports events, initiating actions to mitigate their negative impacts. Since the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, held partially in a natural environment and recognized as the first “Green Games,” the IOC has established sustainability as a central pillar. This is reflected in key documents such as the Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21 in 1999, Agenda 2020 in 2014, and its successor 2020 + 5 in 2021 [10,11].

Furthermore, the IOC has explicitly aligned its strategic vision with the SDGs. This was reaffirmed through the Olympism365 programme, which highlights how sport can act as an enabler for sustainable development. The IOC has identified ten SDGs as directly relevant to the Olympic Movement: good health and well-being (SDG 3), quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), climate action (SDG 13), peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16), and partnerships for the goals (SDG 17) [12]. These initiatives, have led to an integration of sustainable practices in sports events in natural areas, providing frameworks and guidelines for a greener future in the sports field.

Organizations dedicated to nature conservation, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), have also developed various strategies and collaborative programs with sports organizations. In alignment with this, the IUCN has created a guide to help sports event organizers understand potential impacts on biodiversity and offers options to mitigate these impacts [13]. Furthermore, under the United Nations Environment Programme (2022), a manual has been developed to inspire and innovate through case studies of best sustainable practices in sports events.

In this context, sustainable development is essential for natural areas; however, the lack of awareness regarding the sensitivity of these areas limits the development of a green economy. Therefore, adapting activities to the specific conditions of these areas is vital for their effective functioning [14,15].

Sustainability assessments in sports events held in natural environments emphasize the importance of considering environmental, social, and economic aspects. However, implementing these assessments is complex, and their measurement often proves challenging. For example, the 2014 World Orienteering Championship in Italy, as analyzed by [16], applied a mixed-method approach to measure the event’s sustainability. This method integrated the EBI 2012 (Italian acronym for “Low Impact Events”) tool to quantitatively calculate environmental impacts, along with a qualitative analysis of the activities implemented during the event’s planning and management. Similarly, the Wales Rally Great Britain, part of the 2004 World Rally Championship in the United Kingdom, employed a methodology focused on analyzing both the environmental and economic impacts of the event. It applied environmental accounting techniques to estimate carbon emissions and industrial waste [17].

In addition to these case studies, a study by [18] aimed to develop and validate a research instrument based on the SDGs. Administered among event organizers in Flanders, Belgium, the survey revealed significant discrepancies between the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability, emphasizing the need for more holistic approaches to event planning. This is further supported by the study of the 2013 Tour of Qinghai Lake in China, conducted by [19], who used the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) methodology to identify five key sustainability factors: legacy planning, resource consumption reduction, health and education, policies and principles, and monitoring processes. Their research suggested improvements in each of these areas to achieve more sustainable and responsible development of sports events.

At the level of mega-events like the Winter Olympics, sustainability is particularly critical due to the reliance on natural environments for their execution [20]. In this context, the study by [21] analyzed the measures taken during the planning, promotion, marketing, and operation of the Winter Olympics in Lillehammer 1994 and Beijing 2022. The study demonstrated that it is indeed possible to organize mega sports events sustainably in natural settings by adopting advanced technologies and strict environmental protection policies. These examples, across different contexts and methodologies, highlight the diverse ways sustainability can be integrated into event planning, from local events to large-scale international competitions.

Achieving sustainable management of sports events in natural areas faces significant challenges. These include the direct environmental impact from the construction and operation of facilities [22], waste management generated during events [23], sustainable use of resources such as water and energy [24], carbon emissions from transportation [25], and the direct impact on natural resources, such as ecosystem alteration and biodiversity loss due to human intervention in sensitive areas [26]. Moreover, social and economic pressures on local communities arise [27], along with the inherent need to promote environmental education and awareness [28] and to adapt to variable climatic conditions [29]. To address these challenges, it is essential to adopt a comprehensive approach that balances the needs of environmental conservation with the development of sports events, ensuring that sustainability is a central pillar in the planning and execution of these activities.

GENERAL APPROACH

To develop and validate a questionnaire to measure the level of sustainability in the organization of sports events in natural areas, a sequential multi-study approach is structured. This approach optimizes each stage of the process and addresses specific objectives according to the various sample profiles, as outlined by [30].

A total of three studies were conducted, organized into six phases. The first study included three phases, the second study two phases, and the third study one phase (see Figure 1). This methodology enables a focus on the specific characteristics of each group involved—organizers, experts, and the target population—integrating their perspectives into the development of a contextually relevant measurement tool.

The following sections briefly outline the purpose of each study, offering an overview of the questionnaire development process:

The first study focused on developing an initial set of items aimed at capturing the various aspects of sustainability in sports events held in natural areas and assessing its content validity. Sustainability was addressed through three fundamental dimensions: social, economic, and environmental [31]. In Phase 1, to ensure content validity, a scoping review of existing literature on sustainability and sports events in natural settings was conducted, identifying key items for each dimension. In Phase 2, a panel of 10 experts from fields related to the organization of sports events in natural environments evaluated these items. This expert panel assessed the clarity, relevance, and feasibility of each item, allowing for refinement and content validation of the preliminary questionnaire. In Phase 3, the authors developed a discussion on the experts’ responses and recommendations.

The second study aimed to assess the target population’s understanding of the items, composed of organizers of sports events in natural areas. That is, to provide evidence concerning the validity related to the response process [32].

In Phase 4, through cognitive interviews, the study identified how participants interpreted and responded to the questionnaire items. This stage was crucial for identifying potential comprehension issues and ensuring that the questions were consistently interpreted by the organizers. In Phase 5, adjustments to the questionnaire were made based on the feedback received.

In Phase 6, taking into account the small size of the target population, this study focused on conducting a preliminary reliability analysis of the questionnaire, by assessing the internal consistency of the dimensions of the questionnaire. This step is crucial for determining the initial robustness of the scale and providing preliminary data on its suitability in the specific context of organizing sports events in natural areas.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Description of the overall process followed in this the research. *: These sections are not part of the validation study results; they were added as complementary information to the questionnaire.

Next, the details of Study 1 will be presented, including its methodology and results, followed by a similar approach for Studies 2 and 3. Finally, the discussions and general conclusions for all three studies will be presented.

STUDIES ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE VALIDATION PROCESS

The purpose of Study 1, which included three phases (see Figure 1), was to develop an initial set of items designed to capture the various aspects of sustainability in sports events held in natural areas. This involved defining specific social, economic, and environmental items for the questionnaire, bearing in mind that, among the many definitions of sustainability, most agree that, to achieve sustainability, economic actions must respect the environment and be socially equitable [31]. Once the initial set of items was developed through a scoping review, content validity evidence was sought through a panel of expert academics who reviewed the related items.

Participants

This study involved two groups: the authors and a panel of 10 experts from various sectors related to sporting events in natural settings. In Phase 1, the authors conducted the scoping review. In Phase 2, the experts assessed the content validity of the initial item derivation. The panel, with ages between 37 and 63 and 7 to 30 years of experience, included specialists in event organization, biology, sport sciences, and park management (Table 1). In Phase 3, the authors refined the content based on expert feedback.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Characteristics of the experts.

Procedure

To ensure content validity, a preliminary scoping review of the existing literature on sustainability and sports events in natural settings was conducted. This review provided the foundation for identifying key items for each dimension. It was previously published by [33], and presented general analyses that informed the initial item development process. However, in the current study, a more detailed analysis was carried out, specifically related to detailed items, which were not included in the original publication.

In Phase 1, the authors developed the items by applying a theoretical criterion based on previous literature [34], and using a deductive approach. A scoping review and evaluation of existing scales [35] were conducted to identify relevant items in the environmental and socioeconomic areas, where the latter refers to the social and economic dimensions of sustainability. The lead researcher initially carried out the identification of items, followed by a review by the team to ensure accuracy and consistency. Subsequently, an initial categorization was proposed and discussed in group meetings for further adjustments.

In Phase 2, an expert panel reviewed and refined the selected items, evaluating them for clarity, relevance, and feasibility on a scale from 1 to 5. Experts also indicated whether each item should be included and provided comments. The CVR was used to assess the responses, with a CVR above 0.62 indicating inclusion, as per [36] criterion. Items with a CVR below 0.62 were considered for modification or removal. The CVI was used to assess relevance, with [37] recommending modification or removal of items with a CVI below 0.78. Mean and standard deviation were calculated to guide item adjustments. These content validity processes are essential for instrument development and must be reported with the same rigor as other validation types [38].

In Phase 3, the authors reviewed the experts’ comments and suggestions, discussed the items, and reached a consensus, leading to the development of version 1 of the questionnaire.

Phase 1. Development of Items through a Scoping Review

The development of the sustainability questionnaire began with a scoping review of existing literature, which led to the initial identification of sustainability items across broad environmental and socioeconomic areas. However, as the questionnaire progressed, these areas needed further refinement to more accurately capture specific components of sustainability [33]. Initially, 15 dimensions and 82 items were identified, categorized into 10 environmental and 5 socioeconomic dimensions (Table 2). This approach followed the recommendations of [39,40], who suggest that the initial item list should be at least twice the length of the desired final scale.

After this, comprehension criteria were applied, with each author individually reviewing each item. Items were then selected by majority consensus, focusing on those that best represented the construct (theoretical criteria) and were clearly worded (comprehension criteria). The items were then analyzed and selected based on majority consensus. This process led to the removal of two environmental dimensions (Permits and Event Oversight, and Environmental Certifications) and the reassignment of four items to the Event Planning and Design dimension. Further adjustments included reducing the number of items across several dimensions, such as Waste Minimization and Responsible Consumption (from 15 to 12 items) and Mobility and Transport (from 8 to 7 items), while expanding the Event Environmental Assessment dimension (from 1 to 2 items). In the socioeconomic domain, items were reduced from 25 to 18, with one dimension eliminated and another merged into Event Planning and Design. By the end of this process, the total number of dimensions was reduced to 12, with 66 items.

Following discussions in the first meeting, it was decided to collectively review the grouping, selection, and elimination of each item in order to further streamline the dimensions, eliminate redundancies, and improve the wording. This led to the reduction of the 12 dimensions to 9, with a total of 54 items. For example, the dimension “Event Planning and Design” was renamed “Event Typology and General Planning,” and dimensions such as “Waste Minimization,” “Responsible Consumption,” and “Mobility and Transport” were consolidated into a single dimension with 6 items. Items previously allocated to separate dimensions, such as “Environmental and Social Evaluation,” were merged into a single dimension with 3 items.

After six additional revisions in follow-up meetings, the final questionnaire consisted of 7 dimensions and 52 items (Table 2). Several dimensions were merged and renamed to improve coherence and framework effectiveness. For instance, Communication and Collaboration with Entities was renamed Communication and Strategic Partnership Building, now comprising 8 items. Additionally, the dimensions Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprint Compensation were integrated into one, with 5 items. Finally, the Environmental and Social Evaluation dimension expanded from 3 to 5 items, offering a more detailed approach.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Evolution of dimensions and items-study I.

Phase 2 and 3. Expert Panel Feedback and Authors’ Discussion of Responses and Recommendations

The evaluation of the selection of items was conducted by a panel of 10 experts, although typically between 5 and 7 experts are used. Increasing the number of experts, however, has been shown to enhance the robustness of scoring [35,41]. In both this stage and the subsequent author analysis in the Phase 3, certain items were modified or eliminated based on CVI and CVR values. For the CVI analysis, experts rated each item on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, assessing clarity, relevance, and feasibility. For the CVR analysis, the experts’ binary responses were reviewed to determine whether each item should be included in the model (Table 3).

The following dimensions are presented with the corresponding modifications made based on the expert panel feedback and subsequent author discussion, with the following modifications made based on the CVI values first, followed by the CVR values (Table 3):

Dimension of Environmental Event Planning and Design:

Dimension of Social Event Planning and Design:

Dimension of Waste Minimization and Responsible Consumption:

Dimension of Mobility and Transport:

Dimension of Communication and Strategic Partnership Development:

Dimension of Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprint Compensation:

Dimension of Environmental and Social Evaluation of the Event:

TABLE 3

Table 3. CVR and CVI values of modified items.

As a result of Phase 2 of the expert evaluation and Phase 3 of the expert panel analysis conducted by the authors and Study 1, the 7 Dimensions were retained, and the number of items was reduced from fifty-two to 44 (Table 2).

The purpose of Study 2, which included two phases (see Figure 1), was to evaluate the comprehension of the items by the target population, consisting of event organizers, through conducting interviews to test the understanding of the questionnaire and individual items, ensuring clarity and relevance for the intended respondents.

The questionnaire evaluated was the outcome of Study 1, consisting of 7 dimensions and 44 items, each with its corresponding question. Additionally, two new data points were integrated:

These additions provide essential context to understand the background of respondents, their organizations, and the specific event, ensuring more accurate interpretation of the responses. Since these data points are straightforward and do not require expert validation, they were incorporated directly into the questionnaire without the need for further expert review.

Participants

In Phase 4, the tests were conducted with 8 event organizers from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds and different types of organizations. They were asked to respond based on an event organized in 2023. This approach provided information on various sports modalities and the scope of events held in Catalonia (local, regional, national, or international) (Table 4). In Phase 5, the authors participated in the “Authors’ Discussion and Final Decision on Items” phase.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Main characteristics of the respondent, the organization, and the event.

Procedure

To conduct this, in Phase 4, organizers were asked in individual interviews to verbalize the cognitive process they followed when responding to the questions. One author was present to offer support and guidance during this process. This approach allowed us to determine whether they understood the items and if their responses reflected their experience [35]. Participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions while answering each question, if deemed relevant. At the end of the questionnaire, they were allowed to offer general feedback.

In Phase 5, following the completion of the 8 interviews, the authors conducted a detailed analysis of the collected information, following the recommendations of [42] in their article on cognitive interviewing practice. According to [43], this process often involves using a small sample of subjects to detect potential issues with the wording of items, which is a form of preliminary qualitative validation that ensures the clarity of the items and that the instrument measures what it is intended to measure. The analysis process included the following steps. The analysis process included the following steps:

These steps ensured that the questionnaire became clearer and more relevant, facilitating better comprehension.

Phase 4. Pre-Test through Cognitive Interviews with the Target Population

In the Phase 4, the 8 participating event organizers—a sample size within the ideal parameters for a pre-test [42,44], demonstrated an excellent understanding of the questionnaire items. All participants understood the questions as intended and were able to respond based on their experience. No significant confusion was reported for any of the questions.

Feedback reflected a positive perception of the questionnaire’s clarity and structure. For example, some participants noted: “The questionnaire is very well structured” and “The questions are clear and straightforward.” Additionally, several organizers highlighted that the wording of the items facilitated reflection and responses based on their experience, suggesting that the questionnaire effectively captured the desired information.

Phase 5. Authors’ Discussion and Final Decision on Items

The suggestions provided by event organizers primarily aimed at further improving the clarity of the questions and ensuring that the response options were appropriate—two advantages of conducting interviews with the target population, as identified by other authors [35,45].

The suggestions mainly centered on refining the wording of the questions and expanding the response options to better capture the nuances of the organizers’ experiences. For example, additional response options were added to questions about impact reduction plans, safety measures, and sustainability practices. In some cases, questions were reworded to focus on the dissemination of information, such as the event routes, to ensure more accurate responses (Table 5).

After analyzing these suggestions, the authors made specific changes to the questionnaire. This decision was based on the understanding that analyzing these interviews and implementing strategies are crucial steps for developing instruments and validating their content [46]. These changes were essential for refining the instrument, enhancing its clarity, and improving its ability to capture the intended data, ultimately contributing to its overall validity and reliability (Table 5).

TABLE 5

Table 5. Modifications to the questionnaire based on organizers’ suggestions.

Regarding the general comments on the questionnaire, they can be divided into 5 main points:

As a result of the qualitative analysis, a total of 44 items and 7 dimensions from the previous two studies were validated, along with the data points: Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Organizer and Typology of the Sports Event, which include 27 additional items (Table 6). Of the 44 qualitatively validated items, 20 will be classified as non-mandatory and 24 as mandatory. The latter will be validated through a reliability test in the next study (Study 3), as they meet the dichotomous nature of the questions required for this type of analysis. The mandatory and non-mandatory items for each dimension are detailed in Table 7, where they are presented reorganized according to their initial area, allowing for a more detailed analysis in the type of test in Study 3. The items have been written in a clear and straightforward manner, without examples; however, in Appendix A, the items with the examples provided to the organizer as they appeared in the questionnaire are included.

TABLE 6

Table 6. Evolution of dimensions and items—study II and III.

TABLE 7

Table 7. Classification of mandatory and non-mandatory items.

As a result of the qualitative analysis in Study 2, a total of 44 items and 7 dimensions were validated, along with data points on the Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Organizer and the Typology of the Sports Event. Of the 44 qualitatively validated items, 20 are classified as non-mandatory and 24 as mandatory. These 24 items, selected for the reliability analysis, were designed with dichotomous responses to capture key aspects of sustainability that require clear, definitive answers, ensuring consistency and reliability in the data collected. The remaining items, validated in Study 2, were not included in the reliability analysis.

This study which included one phase (see Figure 1), aimed to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire scales in measuring the theoretical constructs. To perform this analysis, the items were reorganized back into their initial broad areas (environmental and socioeconomic), rather than the more specific dimensions, to facilitate a clearer analysis of the overall reliability (Table 9).

Participants

The sample in this study consisted of 101 organizers of sports events held in natural areas of Catalonia. Almost 90% of participants were men, with less than 15% being women and only a few identifying as non-binary or preferring not to disclose their gender. The majority of respondents were between 41 and 60 years old (66%), and had completed some level of university studies, including bachelor (31%), master’s degree (28%) or doctoral degree. Over 90% of the participants had primary roles in event planning and coordination, with nearly half (44%) having more than 10 years of experience in the field (Table 8).

TABLE 8

Table 8. Sociodemographic profile of event organizers.

Procedure

To conduct this, the 24 mandatory items were reorganized into their initial broad areas (environmental and socioeconomic), rather than the more specific dimensions, in order to facilitate a clearer analysis of overall reliability. The specific items for each dimension can be found in the results section of each dimension.

In Phase 6, a non-probabilistic convenience sampling method was employed, with the inclusion criterion requiring participants to be organizers of sports events held in natural areas across Catalonia. A database of sports events in natural environments was compiled using data from the Runedia website, a pioneering platform for sports event information in Spain since 2007. Runedia consolidates details of sports events organized by autonomous communities, including contact information. Additionally, a search was conducted on Buscametas, another event database. It was noted that within a year, Runedia registered 31.65% more mountain races and hikes, further justifying the choice of this website for gathering event data.

It is important to clarify that the database contains 622 confirmed sports events, not organizers. These events, covering various sports disciplines such as trail running, mountain biking, orienteering, hiking, and Nordic walking, were confirmed by Runedia based on their scheduled dates. The database was further enriched with additional data retrieved from official sports federation websites.

According to [35], no universal criterion applies to all questionnaire development processes. Since a single organizer can manage multiple events, the sample size was determined based on the average number of events each organizer managed, which was 4.1 events per organizer, as indicated by survey responses. Dividing the 622 recorded events by this average number, the estimated number of organizers was approximately 151. To achieve a margin of error of 6%, it was calculated that at least 98 responses were needed. This margin was considered appropriate given that organizers may oversee multiple events and that there is no formal registry of sports event organizers in Catalonia. The final sample exceeded expectations, with 101 responses collected, surpassing the threshold necessary for the desired margin of error.

Data collection took place between February and August 2024. The survey was developed in both Catalan and Spanish and administered online via the Kobotoolbox^® platform to efficiently distribute the survey to the contacts in the established database. Informed consent was explicitly requested in the written introduction of the survey, which was sent by email to the participants. The introduction clearly outlined the purpose of the study, how the data would be used, and the participants' rights, including their right to confidentiality and voluntary participation. Consent was implicitly given when participants completed and submitted their responses. No minors or vulnerable groups were involved in this study.

Data analysis was performed using SPSS version X (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A frequency descriptive analysis was conducted to better understand the distribution and response patterns across the 24 mandatory items. Additionally, a reliability analysis using the OMEGA coefficient was performed for these items. This test was chosen due to the sample size and the binary nature of the items. Since the sample was not randomly selected and organizers could manage several events, the OMEGA reliability test was deemed appropriate to assess the internal consistency of the items in the context of the study and the sample characteristics.

Phase 6. Preliminary Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Scale (Pilot Study)

The descriptive analysis of the Environmental Area revealed two key differences. First, with regard to initiatives aimed at minimizing transportation impacts, only 32.7% of organizers reported implementing measures, while 67.3% did not, indicating a significant gap in actions related to this crucial aspect of sustainability (Table 9). The second notable difference was in the adoption of measures to reduce light pollution. Here, 47.5% of organizers stated they had implemented such measures, while 52.5% had not, reflecting an almost equal split in the adoption of practices to mitigate this type of pollution (Table 9). Regarding the reliability of the Environmental Area and its 14 items, the results show an Omega coefficient of 0.73, indicating acceptable reliability (Table 9).

TABLE 9

Table 9. Descriptive analysis of environmental sustainability measures in sporting events with reliability coefficient (OMEGA (ω = 0.73)).

In the socioeconomic area, two significant differences emerged from the descriptive analysis. The first concerns the promotion of sustainable actions for participants during the event, with only 33.7% of organizers reporting the implementation of such actions, compared to 66.3% who did not (Table 10). Second, 55.4% of organizers applied rules and sanctions to encourage environmental care during the competition, with 44.6% not doing so, suggesting uneven prioritization of sustainability in the competitive setting (Table 10). The socioeconomic area, comprising 10 items, showed an Omega coefficient of 0.69, indicating acceptable reliability for this dimension (Table 10).

TABLE 10

Table 10. Descriptive analysis of socioeconomic sustainability measures in sporting events with reliability coefficient (OMEGA (ω = 0.69)).

As a final outcome of Study 3, the inclusion of the 14 items from the environmental area and the 10 items from the socioeconomic area as mandatory items is upheld, providing evidence of their reliability. The items for each dimension, within the areas, are presented in Table 6.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONs

The main objective of this multi-study was to develop a reliable questionnaire to measure the level of sustainability in the organization of sports events in natural areas, aiming to provide evidence supporting its consistency. To achieve this, a qualitative validation process was implemented in the first two studies, validating 7 dimensions and 44 items qualitatively, and a preliminary reliability assessment was conducted in the third study, which included the validation of items classified as mandatory that met the dichotomous nature required for this test. The final result was the preliminary quantitative validation of 24 items classified as mandatory and 20 non-mandatory items, the latter being validated in the qualitative process.

This multi-study validation approach can significantly enhance the robustness of results and conclusions, as highlighted by [47]. However, its use in sports management is uncommon, with most studies relying on traditional validation methods. For example, the study by [48] focused on factor analysis and reliability testing to assess perceived quality in women’s football sports management, without using a multi-study approach. Similarly, [49] validated a questionnaire aimed at understanding the opinions of sports managers and facilitators, but without integrating multiple interrelated studies.

A more specific example related to this study is the work by [50], which employed the Delphi method to identify key indicators for assessing the impact of international sports events in Taiwan, also without a multi-study design. These examples highlight the rarity of multi-study approaches in sports management.

This study, which integrates qualitative processes and preliminary quantitative analysis, demonstrates the potential of this approach in strengthening the validation of instruments in the field.

This study used a multi-study approach combining qualitative and quantitative phases. Initially, items were selected through a scoping review, a method that helps map existing evidence and identify relevant areas, as noted by [51], These items were then refined through expert evaluation with 10 experts, improving the reliability of the process, as emphasized by [41]. Interviews were subsequently conducted to further refine the questionnaire, providing qualitative feedback to improve its design, as discussed by [52]. Finally, a preliminary quantitative validation was carried out to assess internal consistency, ensuring that the items accurately measure the intended construct, as highlighted by [53].

After completing the validation process, the second significant contribution of this study lies in the resulting dimensions and their respective items. The dimension with the highest number of items (7 non-mandatory and 5 mandatory) was Design and Environmental Planning, which covers key aspects such as implementing measures to comply with local environmental regulations, reducing noise and light pollution, and obtaining environmental certifications, among others. Environmental design and planning in sports events are crucial for minimizing environmental impact and promoting ecological awareness, as highlighted by [54]. In this regard, [55] points out that event organizers are gradually adopting more sustainable formats, aligning with environmental concerns and protections in event organization.

Another relevant dimension with 7 items in this study was Waste Minimization and Responsible Consumption (1 non-mandatory and 6 mandatory), focusing on reducing product consumption, promoting recycling and reuse, and prioritizing the use of local and biodegradable products. These items align with the recommendations of [56], who present an effective waste management framework for sports events, detailing how to manage waste throughout the various stages of an event.

The dimension Communication and Strategic Alliance Creation, with 6 items (1 non-mandatory and 5 mandatory), was also crucial, as it incorporates communication plans centered on sustainability, promoting local environmental values, and implementing environmental awareness actions for the local community and participants. These communication aspects are becoming increasingly relevant. In fact, [57] developed an evaluation model for sustainability campaigns in sports, which measures the effectiveness of communication strategies in promoting sustainable behaviors during events and their long-term impact.

With 5 items (5 non-mandatory), we find the dimension Social Event Design and Planning, which includes measures to ensure the safety of participants, preventive and evacuation plans, as well as a legacy plan for the local community and the promotion of the SDGs during the event. This approach has been widely accepted, considering that sports can be an agent of social change and a means to measure and achieve the SDGs, as highlighted by [58] in their study on the contribution of sports to the SDGs.

The dimension Mobility and Transport, with 5 items (4 non-mandatory and 1 mandatory), addresses strategies for rationalizing travel and minimizing transportation impact in sports events, as well as regulating access to high-value conservation areas and designating parking zones. Ref. [59] confirms the relevance of this dimension in the questionnaire, as they discuss a mutually beneficial relationship between event sustainability and sustainable transport, demonstrating that implementing such measures can improve both the environmental and social sustainability of events while contributing to their economic viability.

At the same level in terms of the number of items (1 non-mandatory and 4 mandatory), we find the dimension Energy Consumption, which includes measures to reduce fossil energy use, track the direct carbon footprint of the event, offset emissions, and allocate funds to environmental causes. Tracking the carbon footprint is particularly relevant in this study, as [60] mention that sports contribute to climate change through carbon emissions. However, they also acknowledge the need to address gaps in carbon accounting tools, which makes this study an important step toward implementing these mitigation measures in the sports context.

Finally, with a reduced number of 4 items (1 non-mandatory and 3 mandatory), the dimension Environmental Assessment focuses on restoring the environment before, during, and after a sports event. This dimension includes evaluating trail degradation and implementing socio-environmental perception surveys. [61] highlights the importance of post-event assessments, as they allow measuring impacts on natural environments and applying corrective measures to mitigate the negative effects of sports events in protected areas.

When comparing some validated tools related to the measurement of sustainability in sports events with this study, we find those [18], which constructs and validates a research instrument based on the SDGs, distributed across three dimensions: social, economic, and environmental, aimed at sports organizers in Belgium.

The study by [62], where the goal was to develop a measurement tool to help determine the degree of perceived social responsibility, understood as a specific aspect of sustainability, by residents at small- and medium-scale sports events, to guide sports managers in designing events focused on the dimensions of Sustainable Sports Activity, Social Cohesion, and Well-Being. Similarly, [50], which identifies appropriate indicators for assessing the impact of international sports events in Taiwan through the Delphi study, where four areas are identified: sporting, economic, social, and environmental.

These studies show both significant similarities and differences. The dimensions of Design and Environmental Planning and Waste Minimization and Responsible Consumption in this study align with the items of [18], who also advocate for waste management and sustainability. However, this study adopts a more specific approach to reducing pollution and obtaining environmental certifications, with a greater number of items. On the other hand, the study by [62], which focuses more on Corporate Social Responsibility, notably emphasizes local impact, which is also reflected in the Social Event Design dimension of this study, related to social cohesion and local pride.

The dimension Communication and Strategic Alliance Creation in this study shares similarities with [61], in terms of social inclusion and community development, but it differentiates itself by integrating more specific strategies to strengthen environmental awareness. Regarding environmental impact, this study introduces the Environmental Assessment dimension, which is not addressed in as much detail in previous studies. While [18,62], agree on the importance of reducing emissions, this study adds a post-event approach, allowing for more comprehensive mitigation of impacts. Additionally, the Mobility and Transport dimension in this study, which includes planning for parking and eco-friendly transportation, aligns with [49], but with more detailed management.

In summary, the items related to Design and Environmental Planning, Social Event Design and Planning, Waste Minimization, Mobility and Transport, Communication and Strategic Alliance Creation, and Energy Consumption align with validated tools from previous studies but offer more detailed and specific approaches. However, this study integrates the Environmental Assessment dimension with regard to post-event management and strategic alliances for long-term sustainability, an aspect not significantly addressed in the previously mentioned studies. It is important to note that two of these tools are primarily aimed at general sports event organizers, highlighting the limited literature available on validated tools specifically designed to measure sustainability in events held in natural areas.

This study provides valuable insights for sports event organizers seeking to implement sustainable practices in natural areas. The validated questionnaire developed in this research offers a comprehensive tool for measuring sustainability across several key dimensions. Sports managers can use this tool to assess and improve the sustainability of their events, focusing on the various dimensions and items covered in the questionnaire, which can serve as a guide to advancing in the diverse aspects encompassed by sustainability. By adopting this multidimensional approach, managers can better align their events with sustainability goals, contributing to environmental preservation and social development.

The main contributions of this study are the introduction of the multi-study approach in the field of sports management through a reliable process, and the depth provided in each dimension. A notable contribution is the Environmental Assessment dimension, which addresses post-event management and strategic alliances for long-term sustainability, an aspect not significantly addressed in the previously mentioned studies. This study also addresses a gap in the literature, as validated tools for measuring sustainability in events held in natural areas, aimed at organizers, are scarce, which helps advance this area of research.

LIMITATION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The main limitation of this study was the sample size, particularly regarding sports event organizers. As mentioned earlier, a single organizer may manage multiple events, and these records are not currently formalized.

Therefore, for future studies, it would be advisable to expand the sample to include event organizers on a national level, for example, throughout Spain, or to explore other international contexts. This would allow for the evaluation of the tool’s applicability and robustness across a wider range of situations and environments.

ETHICAL APPROVAL STATEMENT

This study was reviewed and approved by the Comité de Ética de Investigación y Transferencia of the University of Lleida (CERT-UdL). The evaluation was registered under the reference code CERT159, corresponding to the doctoral thesis entitled “La sostenibilidad en la organización de eventos deportivos en espacios naturales (no) protegidos”. The committee issued its report on June 9, 2025, signed by its president, Dr. Jorge Moya Higueras.

For more information on the ethical review process at the University of Lleida, please refer to: https://www.recercaitransferencia.udl.cat/ca/gestio-de-la-rdi/comites/Comite-dEtica-de-Recerca-i-Transferencia-CERT/#presentacio.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The data will be available upon reasonable request through the University of Lleida’s OneDrive storage platform or can be shared in an open data repository if preferred.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization, MU-H and EIF-T; Methodology, MU-H; Validation, MU-H, EIF-T, and JS-U; Formal Analysis, MU-H; Investigation, MU-H; Resources, MU-H; Data Curation, MU-H; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, MU-H; Writing—Review & Editing, MU-H, JS-U, and EIF-T; Visualization, MU-H; Supervision, EIF-T and JS-U; Project Administration, JS-U and EIF-T.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest related to this study.

FUNDING

This research received no external funding.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our gratitude to the National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC) for awarding the pre-doctoral grant PRE133/22/000008, which has made it possible to carry out this research.

APPENDIX A

TABLE A1

Table A1. Classification of mandatory and non-mandatory items with examples.