BURSTING THE OLYMPIC BUBBLE AND (RE)CONNECTING VISITORS WITH HOST CITIES

Olympic host cities promise cultural exchange—but end up isolating visitors and excluding locals. It's time to burst the “double bubble” and redesign mega-events for meaningful engagement and legacy.

Dr Mike Duignan (University of Paris 1: Pantheon-Sorbonne, France).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • Mega-events like the Olympics often isolate tourists in tightly controlled “double bubbles,” limiting cultural engagement and economic inclusion.

  • Safety concerns, commercial exclusivity, and visitor priorities collectively discourage exploration beyond official zones.

  • Rio 2016 illustrates how security planning and zoning constrained both tourist movement and local participation.

  • We propose a “Two-Way Strategy” combining local infusion and tourist diffusion to rebalance host–guest dynamics.

  • Event organisers must embed inclusion into contracts, transit, programming, and evaluation to build truly connected cities.

INTRODUCTION

What does it mean to visit a city without truly experiencing it? During Rio 2016, Olympic tourists were invited to connect with the vibrancy of local communities and culture. Yet in practice, they found themselves confined within carefully managed zones—what researchers have termed “double bubbles.” These were layers of Olympic infrastructure and regulation superimposed on top of pre-existing tourist districts, creating highly controlled environments prioritising safety, efficiency, and commercial gain.

“The aim of blending global spectacle with local authenticity was largely undermined by spatial restrictions, regulatory barriers, and risk-averse planning.”

These spaces delivered security and convenience, but at a cost. Tourists rarely ventured beyond these bubbles, limiting their exposure to the city’s diverse neighbourhoods, everyday life, and cultural richness. The aim of blending global spectacle with local authenticity was largely undermined by spatial restrictions, regulatory barriers, and risk-averse planning.

This dynamic raises critical questions for future host cities. If mega-events are to foster genuine cultural exchange and shared urban benefits, they must look beyond containment strategies that isolate visitors from the realities of the places they are meant to discover. Rio 2016 offers a cautionary tale—highlighting how a desire to protect tourists and sponsors can inadvertently sever the very connections that make tourism socially and economically meaningful.

THE PROBLEM AND/OR OPPORTUNITY

Mega-events like the Olympic Games are promoted as catalysts for economic growth, tourism development, and cultural exchange. Host cities promise visitors an immersive experience that showcases local identity and invites interaction with diverse communities. Yet the spatial and regulatory realities of event delivery often undermine these goals. In Rio 2016, safety concerns and commercial imperatives led to the creation of highly securitized zones that not only controlled the movement of tourists but actively discouraged exploration beyond predefined areas.

The problem is not simply that tourists stayed within official sites. It’s that the entire experience was designed to encourage this behaviour. Transportation systems, legal frameworks, and event infrastructure worked together to funnel visitors into controlled spaces, limiting their engagement with the wider city. This approach may protect visitors and satisfy sponsors, but it reduces the potential for local economic distribution, cultural learning, and meaningful host–guest encounters.

The opportunity lies in rethinking how mega-events are spatially and socially designed—to foster inclusion, diversity, and authentic engagement, rather than isolation within branded compounds.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER NOW?

As cities increasingly compete to host mega-events, the pressure to deliver secure, seamless, and commercially successful experiences is intensifying. At the same time, there is growing demand—from tourists, policymakers, and residents—for more inclusive, sustainable, and locally beneficial models of urban tourism. The tension between these two forces is becoming harder to ignore.

In an era of “New Urban Tourism,” visitors are seeking more authentic, off-the-beaten-track experiences that reflect the everyday life of a destination. But the standard mega-event template—with its walled-off venues, sponsor zones, and tightly managed flows—remains rooted in exclusion and control. Without intervention, this disconnect risks undermining public trust, weakening cultural legacies, and reinforcing urban inequalities.

With future Olympic hosts, from Paris to Los Angeles, pledging greater integration of local communities and cultures, the stakes are high. Learning from the failures of past Games, particularly Rio 2016, is essential if these ambitions are to be realised. Now is the moment to rethink how major events are designed—not just for global audiences and commercial partners, but for the people and places they claim to represent.

“Without intervention, this disconnect risks undermining public trust, weakening cultural legacies, and reinforcing urban inequalities.”

HOW DOES THIS ADD TO WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW?

Existing research on mega-events has long documented their capacity to generate economic impact, enhance city branding, and stimulate tourism. Equally, scholars have critiqued their role in accelerating gentrification, excluding local communities, and creating highly securitized urban environments. What the Rio 2016 case adds is a deeper understanding of how these forces converge to shape tourist behaviour on the ground.

While “tourist bubbles” are a well-established concept in urban tourism studies, this research introduces the idea of the “double bubble”—an Olympic overlay imposed on pre-existing tourist zones.

“This analysis challenges the assumption that mega-events naturally lead to local engagement and benefit.”

This layered spatial control reveals how mega-events not only replicate exclusionary patterns but intensify them. It also shows how risk-averse planning, combined with global commercial interests, actively discourages the kind of cultural exploration cities claim to promote.

This analysis challenges the assumption that mega-events naturally lead to local engagement and benefit. Instead, it highlights the need for intentional design strategies that enable—not inhibit—authentic tourist–host interactions. It reframes the debate from impact to agency: not just what events do to cities, but how they shape what visitors can—and cannot—do within them.

Key Arguments

  • Mega-events are frequently promoted as opportunities to connect international visitors with local cultures. Yet in practice, they often do the opposite. In Rio 2016, the creation of Olympic “Host Event Zones” (HEZs) overlaid on top of existing tourist precincts like Copacabana resulted in what the researchers call a “double bubble”—a spatial and regulatory layering that isolated visitors from the broader urban environment.

    These zones were designed to maximise safety and streamline visitor movement, but their effect was to reduce tourists’ motivation and ability to explore beyond official sites. Transport systems were reconfigured to move people efficiently between hotels and venues, bypassing neighbourhoods not directly connected to the Games. Within the bubbles themselves, ticketing restrictions, sponsor-only food and retail options, and hyper-visible security created a familiar, generic experience—more global brandscape than local showcase.

    Rather than acting as gateways to the host city, these zones became end points. The layering of Olympic infrastructure on top of existing tourist areas reinforced existing patterns of enclosure and limited tourists’ exposure to the everyday life of Rio. This spatial choreography actively undermined goals around cultural exchange, visitor dispersal, and inclusive legacy.

  • One of the most influential factors determining tourist engagement in Rio 2016 was the pervasive narrative of risk. Long before the Games began, global media coverage emphasised concerns about crime, violence, and political instability in the city. These narratives shaped visitor expectations, heightening anxiety and reducing tourists’ willingness to explore beyond designated zones.

    Event organisers responded with a securitised urban strategy: deploying military police, restricting access to certain areas, and introducing visible barriers around key Olympic sites. While intended to reassure, these measures often reinforced perceptions of danger outside the Olympic bubbles. Rather than encouraging exploration, the heavy security presence acted as both a psychological and physical boundary—deterring tourists from venturing into less-policed neighbourhoods, regardless of their cultural value.

    This created a paradox. The very measures put in place to make visitors feel safe contributed to their disconnection from the host city. The Olympic bubble became a space where tourists felt protected, but also confined—cut off from the local communities they had ostensibly come to experience. This reveals how risk management, if not carefully balanced, can restrict the transformative potential of mega-events by suppressing spontaneity, discovery, and local contact.

  • Despite official rhetoric about showcasing the host nation’s cultural richness, the actual design of Olympic event zones often privileges global brands over local producers. At Rio 2016, commercial interests were embedded within the spatial and legal architecture of the Games. Food, merchandise, and entertainment offerings inside Olympic zones were dominated by official sponsors and suppliers, with little visibility for Brazilian or Cariocan businesses.

    Regulations tied to the Host City Contract created so-called “clean zones” where only accredited sponsors could operate. These exclusions extended beyond venue boundaries to encompass broader city areas, making it illegal for unauthorised vendors to associate themselves with the Olympics—even indirectly. As a result, visitors encountered a heavily curated experience that mirrored the same fast-food chains, retail stalls, and branded activations found at other global events.

    This commercial homogenisation displaced opportunities for local cultural producers, from artists and musicians to food vendors and artisans, to engage meaningfully with international audiences. It also denied tourists the chance to experience the everyday culture of the host city. By prioritising sponsor visibility over cultural diversity, the event’s design reduced the richness and authenticity of the visitor experience—undermining both economic inclusion and cultural legacy goals.

  • Not all tourists arrive with the same intentions. While some visitors seek deep cultural engagement, others prioritise the spectacle of the Games itself. For many Olympic tourists, the primary draw is the shared experience of sport fandom—connecting with other supporters, following their national teams, and immersing themselves in a global celebration of competition.

    This sporting focus often overrides interest in exploring the host city. The time and energy invested in attending events, navigating Olympic logistics, and socialising within fan zones leaves little room for cultural excursions. The Olympic bubble, in this sense, aligns well with visitor expectations—it offers safety, convenience, and a ready-made community of like-minded fans.

    This behavioural pattern is compounded by practical constraints. Short stays, tight schedules, and long travel times between venues reduce the likelihood of spontaneous or off-route exploration. Even visitors with an interest in seeing the “real” Rio often postpone this ambition for a future trip. In this context, the double bubble becomes not only a product of planning, but also a reflection of tourist identity and motivation.

    Understanding these layered identities—nationalist, cosmopolitan, fan-based—is critical for event organisers aiming to expand cultural engagement. Without recognising the diversity of tourist priorities, efforts to encourage deeper exploration may fail to resonate.

  • Mega-events often promise benefits for host communities—enhanced tourism, improved infrastructure, and opportunities for cultural exchange. Yet Rio 2016 highlighted how event planning can actively exclude local populations from participating in or benefiting from these outcomes. The spatial logic of the Games not only kept tourists in, but kept many locals out.

    Public transport routes were rerouted or restricted, making it harder for residents—particularly from low-income neighbourhoods like favelas—to access Olympic zones. Informal and small businesses near event venues were often shut out by legal restrictions or displaced through urban redevelopment. Even when venues were located in peripheral areas, these were often sanitized and gentrified in advance, further distancing them from their communities.

    This exclusion undermines the legitimacy of mega-event hosting. When local people are denied access to public spaces, cultural programming, and economic opportunities during a moment of global attention, the promised “legacy” becomes a hollow narrative. Worse, it reinforces existing inequalities and fosters resentment toward the event itself.

    Creating meaningful legacy requires integration, not isolation. Without inclusive planning that centres local voices and access, mega-events risk repeating the same mistakes—offering spectacle without substance, and visibility without value.

THE TWO-WAY STRATEGY FOR CULTURAL INTEGRATION

To move beyond the limitations of the Olympic “double bubble,” we propose a simple yet powerful framework that event planners, city officials, and tourism managers can apply: the Two-Way Strategy for Cultural Integration. This framework has two complementary pillars:

1. Local Infusion – Bringing the City Inside the Bubble

Event zones don’t have to be cultural vacuums. By intentionally designing Host Event Zones (HEZs) to include local producers, artists, and entrepreneurs, organisers can turn sterile commercial spaces into platforms for authentic cultural exchange. This includes:

  • Curated stalls and food courts featuring regional cuisines.

  • Live performances by local musicians, dance troupes, and cultural groups.

  • Artist residencies, pop-up galleries, and storytelling spaces that reflect host communities.

  • Opportunities for local SMEs and cooperatives to trade, not just corporate sponsors.

To avoid tokenism, inclusion must be planned collaboratively with local stakeholders, ensuring diverse representation across class, race, and region—not just polished export-ready culture.

2. Tourist Diffusion – Guiding Visitors Beyond the Bubble

While not all tourists will explore independently, event organisers can shape movement patterns through subtle nudges and supportive infrastructure. This can be achieved through:

  • Clear, multilingual maps of off-the-beaten-path attractions near HEZs.

  • Partnerships with local tour operators to offer guided cultural experiences.

  • Integration of cultural itineraries into official Olympic apps and platforms.

  • “Live Like a Local” campaigns encouraging tourists to visit local markets, festivals, and neighbourhoods safely.

By embedding these strategies in communication and logistics—rather than treating them as optional extras—organisers can support visitor mobility and help redistribute economic and cultural benefits more equitably across the city.

Why It Matters

The Two-Way Strategy challenges the default logic of containment by rebalancing global spectacle with grounded cultural presence. It acknowledges the realities of safety and crowd control while pushing for creative planning that makes space for deeper engagement.

Applied well, it can transform double bubbles into cultural bridges—places where international visitors not only consume Olympic sport, but also connect meaningfully with the host city. It also helps reposition mega-events as more than commercial showcases, restoring their potential as inclusive urban experiences.


CONCLUSIONS

As global cities continue to compete for the right to host mega-events, the stakes are not just economic—they are social, cultural, and political. The Rio 2016 Olympic Games offered important lessons on what happens when grand promises of local engagement collide with the reality of hyper-securitised, commercialised event zones. The result was a spatial architecture that favoured control over connection, spectacle over substance, and convenience over cultural depth.

If left unchallenged, this model will persist—replicated in future Olympic cities like Paris, Los Angeles, and Brisbane—undermining their own commitments to community inclusion and cultural legacy. Now is the moment to rethink how mega-events are planned and experienced. We must confront the contradictions between visitor safety and cultural immersion, between brand exposure and local benefit, and between international fan culture and meaningful host-guest encounters.

The “double bubble” is not inevitable. It is a product of specific decisions—about zoning, security, sponsorship, and tourist logistics—that can be redesigned. But change requires courage: the willingness to depart from standardised playbooks and instead co-create new approaches with residents, local creatives, and smaller businesses.

Cities don’t just host events; they embody them. And if we want the Olympics to leave behind more than infrastructure and merchandise, we must act decisively to open up event spaces, diversify cultural programming, and invite tourists to see more than the inside of a branded fan zone.

The time to rewire Olympic tourism is now—before the next wave of mega-events reinforces the same boundaries it claims to transcend.

“The ‘double bubble’ is not inevitable. It is a product of specific decisions—about zoning, security, sponsorship, and tourist logistics—that can be redesigned.”

PRACTICAL ACTIONS

TTo break the cycle of exclusion and repetition in mega-event planning, cities must adopt a proactive and inclusive approach to cultural integration. The following actions, grounded in the Two-Way Strategy framework, are immediately actionable across Olympic and other large-scale event contexts.

1. Embed Local Infusion in Planning Contracts

Ensure host city and organising committee agreements mandate space and support for local cultural producers inside Host Event Zones (HEZs). This can include quotas for local food vendors, artists, and craftspeople; access to cultural programming budgets; and co-governance models where local groups co-design event experiences. Embed equity-based criteria to avoid elite gatekeeping and ensure representation from underserved communities.

2. Create a Cultural Advisory Council

Establish an independent advisory body made up of local artists, historians, small business representatives, and cultural institutions to oversee cultural content, approve local partnerships, and hold organisers accountable to inclusion goals. This ensures that cultural infusion is not an afterthought but a strategic pillar.

3. Integrate Off-Bubble Exploration into Visitor Journeys

From the outset, design digital and physical visitor itineraries that encourage exploration beyond the main venues. Use official Olympic apps, signage, and transit maps to highlight neighbourhood cultural trails, street food clusters, and community-led events. Provide safe, supported ways for tourists to access these areas—including shuttle buses, walking tours, or bundled experiences.

4. Train Volunteers as Cultural Connectors

Instead of limiting volunteer training to logistics and crowd management, expand their role to include cultural ambassadorship. Equip them to answer questions about local history, recommend nearby non-commercial attractions, and share stories that deepen visitor engagement with the host city’s identity.

5. Rethink Security with a Community Lens

Balance safety needs with hospitality. Design softer forms of security—visible but non-militarised—and avoid symbols that create fear or imply exclusion. Engage local communities in co-producing safety plans to avoid reinforcing the sense that events are imposed rather than shared.

6. Use Zoning Creatively, Not Exclusively

Rather than using zoning to exclude, use it to connect. Design mixed-use public spaces within HEZs where sponsor activations sit alongside local performers, community exhibitions, and independent food vendors. Offer flexible space for pop-ups and grassroots activations, not just large corporate installations.

7. Monitor and Report Cultural Legacy

Develop clear KPIs to measure cultural inclusion—not just visitor numbers or global media reach. Track how many local businesses were included, what portion of cultural programming came from the host community, and how many tourists ventured beyond official zones. Publish results publicly to build transparency and set benchmarks for future hosts.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

While the Two-Way Strategy offers a clear direction, applying it in practice is not without obstacles. First, commercial constraints are significant—Host City Contracts often prioritise sponsor rights, limiting the flexibility to include non-affiliated local vendors or artists. Second, security concerns in high-risk cities can constrain mobility and increase resistance to opening up event zones. Public safety remains paramount, and perceptions of risk—however unevenly distributed—can override inclusive intentions.

There are also logistical challenges: time-budgets for tourists are tight, and deeper engagement requires infrastructure, communication, and coordination across multiple stakeholders. Not all visitors want cultural immersion, and host communities may vary in their capacity or willingness to participate, especially where distrust in event organisers exists.

Finally, the risk of tokenism is real. Without proper resourcing, “local infusion” may amount to surface-level gestures rather than meaningful inclusion. This underscores the importance of co-creation, accountability mechanisms, and early engagement to ensure the strategy is genuinely transformative—not just decorative.

REFERENCES

See original article for references.

AUTHOR(S)

Professeur des universities, University of Paris 1: Pantheon-Sorbonne (France).

Mike is the Founder and CEO of the Centre for Events and Festivals (CEF); Professeur at the University of Paris 1: Pantheon-Sorbonne; and the Editor-in-Chief of Event Management Journal - the leading academic journal for the study and analysis of events and festivals, founded in 1993, and based in New York (USA). He is also the Editor of Routledge’s book series: ‘How Events Transform Society’. Previously, Mike has been Director of Research, Intelligence and Education at Trivandi; Associate Professor at the University of Central Florida (USA) and Head of Department and Reader at the University of Surrey, where he was also the Director of the UK Olympic Studies Centre - the #1 UK, European and USA universities for the study of events and festivals. For the past 15 years, Mike has been researching, analysing, commentating, writing, publishing, and teaching on the economics and social impacts of staging major events, with the view to improve delivery and leave a sustainable legacy for the communities, people and places that play host. All Mike’s work is available at: www.MikeDuignan.com. 

Disclaimer
The views and insights expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and reflect their research and professional expertise. They do not represent the views of the Centre for Events & Festivals CIC or its partners.