From my perspective, beyond the structural and academic factors that explain the predominant focus on large-scale events in tourism studies, a key methodological issue must be acknowledged: the high degree of territorial heterogeneity that characterizes tourism phenomena. Each city or tourist destination presents distinct characteristics regarding visitor profiles, regulatory frameworks, dominant tourism typologies, infrastructure and service availability, as well as the relationship between events and local communities.

In this context, analyses that take a global or macro-scale approach, often centered on mega-events in consolidated urban setting, risk introducing a generalization bias that overlooks the diversity and complexity of local dynamics. Differences in governance models, the level of stakeholder professionalization, tensions arising from the use of public space, or the carrying capacity of rural destinations all influence how events are designed, managed, and perceived. However, these dimensions tend to remain invisible when research prioritizes large-scale or high-profile cases.

Therefore, I argue that examining local and rural events is not only a matter of territorial justice, but also an epistemological imperative. Context-sensitive research allows for the development of more nuanced knowledge that can inform tourism policies better adapted to the specificities of each territory. Overlooking this heterogeneity risks applying homogeneous policy models to profoundly diverse realities, potentially undermining both the effectiveness of interventions and the long-term sustainability of tourism development.

Tourism event studies often overlook local and rural events and focus more on mega and regional events due to a combination of academic, economic, and political reasons. Here are the key factors explaining this trend:

1. Visibility and Impact

• Mega-events (e.g., Olympics, World Cups, major expos) attract global media attention, making them more visible and easier to study.
• They generate large-scale economic data, tourism flows, and infrastructure changes that are easier to quantify and analyze.

2. Funding and Policy Priorities

• Governments and sponsors invest heavily in mega-events, making them more politically and economically significant.
• These events align with national or regional development agendas, attracting more academic and policy interest.

3. Availability of Data

• Regional and mega-events have structured data collection, including tourism numbers, spending, media coverage, etc.
• Local/rural events often lack systematic documentation, making research harder.

4. Academic Prestige and Publication Bias

• Studies on mega-events are seen as more "publishable" in high-impact journals due to their broad relevance and larger datasets.
• Local events are sometimes perceived as "niche" or less significant academically.

5. Urban-Centric Research Models

• Tourism research often follows an urban or economic-centric model, prioritizing development in cities and large destinations.
• Rural areas are frequently marginalized or studied only as part of broader regional analyses.

6. Lack of Institutional Support at Local Level

• Local/rural events may not have dedicated tourism departments, research collaborations, or formal evaluation mechanisms.
• This results in under-documentation and low research visibility.

7. Complexity of Measuring Social/Cultural Impact

• Rural events often have more intangible cultural and social impacts (e.g., community pride, cultural revival), which are harder to quantify than economic indicators.

Why It Matters:

Neglecting local and rural events means:

• Missed opportunities to study sustainable, community-based tourism.
• Underestimation of their economic and social impact, especially in heritage preservation and local development.
• Skewed policies that continue to favor urban and mega-scale tourism.

Growing Shift:

There is now a gradual shift in tourism research toward valuing small-scale, community-driven events—particularly in the context of sustainable tourism, cultural resilience, and post-COVID recovery.@

Tourism event studies often exhibit a bias towards mega and regional events, overlooking local and rural ones, for several interconnected reasons:

• Scale and Perceived Impact: Mega-events (like the Olympics, World Cups, or large international festivals) attract massive visitor numbers, significant media attention, and substantial investment. Their economic, social, and cultural impacts are often more visible, easier to quantify, and perceived as having broader relevance, making them seemingly more "impactful" subjects for research.
• Data Availability and Funding: Larger events typically have more structured planning, extensive documentation, and greater resources allocated to data collection (e.g., visitor numbers, economic spending, media coverage). This makes it easier for researchers to access reliable data and secure funding for studies. Local and rural events, conversely, often lack systematic documentation, making data collection more challenging and expensive for researchers.
• Academic Prestige and Publication Bias: Research on mega-events can be seen as more "publishable" in high-impact academic journals due to their global relevance and larger datasets, contributing to a cycle where researchers are incentivized to focus on these larger-scale phenomena. Local events are sometimes perceived as "niche" or less significant academically, even though their cumulative impact can be substantial.
• Policy and Funding Priorities: Governments and large organizations often invest heavily in mega-events as part of national or regional development strategies, aiming for global recognition and large-scale economic boosts. This political and economic significance attracts more academic and policy interest compared to smaller, grassroots initiatives.
• Methodological Challenges: Studying local and rural events presents unique methodological challenges. They often have smaller sample sizes, more localized and sometimes intangible impacts (e.g., community pride, cultural preservation) that are harder to measure and generalize, and fewer readily available economic indicators.
• Urban-Centric Research Models: Much of tourism research has historically followed an urban or economic-centric model, prioritizing development in cities and large tourist destinations. Rural areas and their unique event landscapes are frequently marginalized or only studied as part of broader regional analyses.
• Lack of Institutional Support at Local Level: Local and rural events may not have dedicated tourism departments, formalized research collaborations, or robust evaluation mechanisms in place. This leads to under-documentation and low research visibility.

The consequence of this oversight is a skewed understanding of the full spectrum of event tourism, potentially leading to missed opportunities to study sustainable, community-based tourism, and underestimating the significant collective economic and social impacts of smaller events on heritage preservation and local development.