Next Article in Journal
Environmental Risks or Costs? Exploring Flooding and the Urban Heat Island Effect in Planning for Policymaking: A Case Study in the Southern Taiwan Science Park
Previous Article in Journal
Incorporating Workplace Injury to Measure the Safety Performance of Industrial Sectors in Taiwan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 9
Issue 12
10.3390/su9122240
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Having Fun to Applause: The Study of Relationships among Festival Benefits, Festival Identity and Festival Support by Viewpoints of the Hosts and Guests

by
Kai-Chih Chang
1 and
Tsuifang Hsieh
2,3,*
1
Department of Cultural Resources and Leisure Industries, National Taitung University, Taitung 95092, Taiwan
2
Department of Hospitality Management, Nanya Institute of Technology, Taoyuan 32091, Taiwan
3
Department of Business Administration, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 97401, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2017, 9(12), 2240; https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122240
Submission received: 13 October 2017 / Revised: 23 November 2017 / Accepted: 29 November 2017 / Published: 4 December 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The sustainable development of the festival depends on the support and participation of residents and tourists. There are a number of practical and theoretical gaps regarding the hosts and guests in festival literature. This study attempts to fill the host–guest gap based on the theory of reasoned action to construct and exam a relationship model. Taking the 2016 Summer Festival during busy season as an example in Hualien, 1165 questionnaires were valid, and data were analyzed by SEM (structural equation modeling). Results showed that the hosts had higher perception than the guests in terms of the festival benefits, identity, and support. This study has two concept models: the guest model and the host model. In the host model, the local-development benefits have more positive relationships to affect the festival support and festival identity than the recreation-experience benefits. On the other hand, the recreation-experience benefits could affect the festival support, but the festival identity could not in the guest model. The results of this study indicate that the festival organizers or the public sectors must be pay attention to the viewpoints of the guests and hosts in order to achieve the sustainable development objectives.

1. Introduction

Festivals are one of the fastest ways to promote tourism [1,2] and can promote local economic development [3]; however, local communities find it difficult, and are unable to develop unique features [4] and have sustainable development. Sustainable development of the festival has become an important issue for host organizations. The key factor is how to make people involved in activities feel the benefits and the meaning of a festival identified by the participants [5,6]. The public sector is willing to play the host role and promote the development of festivals in support of governmental policies [7,8], but what are the motivations to support the festival?
When festivals were initially run, participants were mainly local residents, but recently attendance has become more of a mixture of local residents and tourists. Both groups can support and organize a festival to promote local economic development. The festival policy seeks to support and identity festival participants. This study shows that festival participant support is linked to policies promoting sustainable development [9]; in other words, participants’ support will affect and impact the sustainable development of the festival.
The research shows that both residents and tourists participating in a festival hold different positions and views and have different reasons for supporting the festival [3,10]. Residents (the “hosts”) and tourists (the “guests”) feel differently about festivals, and have different needs from the festival [11]. Therefore, a festival-organizing host needs to know the feelings and expectations of both groups and understand their different views and attitudes in order to facilitate festival promotion [8].
The assessment of a stakeholder’s perspectives from [12] can assist policy makers in making the correct choices across different policy goals and priorities. Therefore, this study sets out to discuss and examine the motivations of hosts and guests, in order to compensate for the inadequacy of current research. Members of the public sector and host organizations can learn more about the feelings of both groups, helping to satisfy the needs of the hosts and guests and achieve the sustainable development goals of the festival which both parties praise.
This research gives further discussion and explanation on the guests and hosts relationship and the related influence constructs on the basis of the research motivation and purpose.

2. Literature Review

The research on traditional festival activities is mainly focused on the analysis of economic issues [13,14] and benefits [15,16]. Although the festival economy and benefits have a positive contribution to regional development, they also have a negative impact; therefore, due to the impact of festival activities on the region [3,9,17], we begin to consider the issue of the sustainable development of festival activities [4] in order to understand the related development dilemma. Regarding this, the perception and cognition of festival participants—especially the supportive attitude for the festival activities [18]—plays the key role in the success of the festival activities held [19].
The festival participants were originally mainly regional residents, and later, with regional development and emerging tourism, the participants gradually began to comprise both regional residents and tourists [20]. Therefore, attendees can be divided into two parts—residents and tourists; in terms of residents, by focusing on the residents’ perception of the festival impact [21,22,23,24], we expect to comprehend the essential meaning of the festival to the regional development of social culture and the physical environment. On the other hand, we try to understand issues such as residents’ identification with the festival [25], which considers that the residents’ support for festival activities originate from the internal, including a common origin or shared characteristics [20]. Generally speaking, we investigate the influence on regional residents by festival activities from the external perspective; we also begin to think of the significance to the region from the internal perspective.
Secondly, the festival activities focus on promoting regional economic development [10,26]; therefore, the research on tourist festival-related issues has focused mainly on tourists’ participation behavior and economic benefit evaluation, such as satisfaction and recreation experience [27,28]; perceptual value and recreation motivation [29]; effect and revisiting intention [15,16]. To examine variety of issues, we should implement different kinds of research, such as research on event festival activities [30] or traditional festival activities [31]. The researchers’ interest in tourists’ experience and perception, revisit intention, and loyalty investigate tourists’ support for festival activities, although they know it to a certain extent for residents; however, they are also participants in the festival activities. The two parties have different positions and views, so it is necessary to understand the difference of festival perception between residents and tourists.
There have indeed been different views about festivals between the hosts and guests from their respective points-of-view. Residents play host and participation roles simultaneously, by welcoming tourists to participate in a festival or event. This shows the distinction between the hosts and guests and their respective rights and obligations. The purpose of local residents’ support of the festival is self-identity and local economy development, cultural heritage, and emotional support [10,26]; these purposes are in contrast with the benefits of visitors’ recreation experience [3,17], showing two different purposes.
From the tourist gaze point of view, tourists left their comfort zone to play “the other” and a “being dominated” role to participate in local festivals, whereas local residents play the host role and invite tourists to share the festival joy and pleasure [21,32,33]. From the perspective of anthropology acculturation, tourists promote cultural acculturation, and external acculturation has gradually changed and influenced the cultural experience of local residents [11]. Thus, local residents and tourists have different viewpoints when participating in a festival; as [8] pointed out, it is necessary for both sides to obtain a balance and to understand each other’s different views and different purposes for participation.
From the perspective of public sector, the stakeholders refer to the participant involved interests or affected by the public policy issues [34]. The attitude of the stakeholders regarding policy will be multivariate because of the background of time and space, which influence the development of public policy [35]. Therefore, including the perception of the stakeholders into the process of policy making will help the policy decisions to promote [36,37]. The hosting of festival activities by the public sector is an important public policy for regional tourism. The residents are the stakeholders which are influenced directly, and the perception of residents regarding festival policy also influences the development of regional festival tourism policy.
In recent years, the research on the residents’ perception on the festival activities shows that many festival activities deviate from the original cultural foundation, which will influence the regional cultural cognition of the residents, and thus the driving force for culture development was weakened [38]. At the same time, the residents’ experience of festival activities varies over time, with positive and negative impacts on the region; there are different perceptions and attitudes affecting the sustainable development of festival activities [39,40]. Overall, whether residents are willing to support policies and festivals to attract tourists to come to participate in the festival has become an important issue. This would certainly have an impact on whether a festival can have long-term development.
The current study only focuses on overall or individual discussions, yet it has not built a theoretical model. This research presents a comparative discussion of the host and guest’s reasons for supporting the festival, and attempts to construct a relationship theory of festival support and architecture from the perspectives of both sides.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. [41] established a theory of reasoned action (TRA), that is, “subjective norm-attitude-behavioural intention” mode. “Behavioural intentions” are the individual’s behavioural tendencies and commitment to take specific actions [42]. “Behaviour attitude” refers to an individual’s beliefs [43]. The “subjective norm” of the individual’s social behaviour in society will be affected by the individual’s social norms and conviction [42,43]. The individual’s subjective norm is when an individual takes on a certain cognitive behaviour that is in contradiction to their feelings. In contrast, when an individual adopts a social belief or feels social pressure, the individual’s subjective norm and identity has become repulsive, and therefore the willingness to take action is relatively low. TRA explains why people do not adopt certain behaviours [44], drawing on cognitive-behavioural research [44,45,46], so this study has taken TRA for the basic theory of this study.
Festival benefits can be divided into two sections: the benefits of recreation experience and the benefits of local development [47,48]. The former means that individuals participate in activities that can result in mental and physical experience [49,50]. It is a kind of temporary psychological satisfaction and personal status [51], such as increased entertaining opportunities, access to entertainment, and gained relaxation experience which is related to other social life, organization, achievement, and learning benefits [3,17]. The benefits of festival recreation experience depend on the value of psychological and physiological benefits after participating in the festival. Therefore, this study will focus on the benefits of festival recreation experience in creating awareness of individual subjective norms.
Festivals increase local tourism attraction [52] and willingness to revisit [10,26,53], and in particular improve economic efficiency [47]. Festivals can benefit local development and meet the expectations of society and an organization [48]. An individual will be affected by the expectations and needs of a festival. Festivals generate specific behavioural responses and impact an individual’s identity and behavioural intention. The research postulates that the benefit of a festival can be to meet an individual’s expectations as well as the overall needs for local economic development, and to satisfy social norms.
Based on the TRA, the individual’s interest and the overall interests of society are influenced by an individual’s subjective norms and social norms [42,43]. In addition, the pressure from social norms can impact an individual’s belief in cognitive benefits [42]; that is, the individual’s subjective norms are influenced by social subjective norms. Therefore, this study proposes that the benefit of an individual’s recreation experience is subjective norms. In contrast, the benefits of local development can be social subjective norms, and at the same time, the benefits of recreation experience will be subject to the benefits of local development. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The benefits of local development are positively related to the benefits of recreation experience.
Identity is an internal individual process [54] through which the evaluation of an individual’s benefit results from the individual’s values and group values [42], and sense of identity will impact an individual’s post-behaviour and future behaviour intention [55]. Self-identity is an internal individual process after the assessment of an individual’s own benefit, and thereby affects behavioural intentions. When tourists participate in festivals, the visiting experience will be impacted by the identity of the festival [25], while the festival identity will determine tourists’ wishes to revisit the festival [27,28]. Therefore, we must take the tourists’ feelings of participating in the festival, sense of identity, and support into consideration. From the viewpoint of residents, a festival’s identity comes from the individual’s identity and collective consciousness. Participating in a festival can generate a sense of belonging and shared experience [20]. Therefore, the main reason that local residents agree to or support the festival lies in the emotion and sense of identity derived from it [56]. A festival needs the coordination of residents. When residents feel a sense of identity from the festival, they can provide a meaningful contribution for local development. Identifying with the festival can be seen as a personal evaluation process in which individuals generate internalized value from subjective norms. At the same time, residents and tourists have different perceptions which will impact their support of festivals. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
The benefits of recreation experience are positively related to the festival identity.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The benefits of local development are positively related to the festival identity.
Support is a process that is a result of an individual’s multiple relationships and interactions [57]. From a policy viewpoint, it can be seen as the identification and support of a policy arising from behavioural intentions [18]. From a community's viewpoint, festival support refers to how members of the group regard, support, think, contribute, and perceive the festival, as well as how they care for their own interests and beliefs [58]. Festival support is mainly measured by the will to revisit and willingness to recommend [59]. The resident’s support for a festival is the key to sustainable development [60]. Both residents’ and tourists’ support of the festival have a certain degree of difference, but their common interest is whether a festival can provide benefit for a person as well as participating in festivals in the long-term. This study defines the festival support as participants’ long-term sustainability support, willingness to revisit, as well as cognitive behavioural intentions and a willingness to recommend to other people. Authors in [18] pointed out that the participants will derive benefits from their participation in and support for the festival and identification with the festival. Such a result is consistent with the theory of reasoned action. Subjective norms will be influenced by both normative beliefs and social norms [42,43], while social normative beliefs will impact the individual normative beliefs. Benefits of the recreation experience and efficiency of local festival development can be seen as festival participants’ subjective norms. The recreation experience will have an impact on the benefits of local development. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
The benefits of recreation experience are positively related to the festival support.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
The benefits of local development are positively related to the festival support.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
The festival identity is positively related to the festival support.

3. Research Method

According to [41,61] the theory of reasoned action, this study considers the recreation experience and local development as festival benefit and festival identification. This study created a research framework of the festival benefits that lead to festival identification and festival support. The benefit of the recreation experience and local development can be very important elements for a festival. Festive benefits and festival support can be regarded as a link with festival identification in order to establish a LISREL (linear structural relation model) relationship between the various structures.
In accordance with the rational behavior theory and related literature, “recreation experience benefit” (i.e., the recreation experience benefit of individual) is the individual external influence and cognition deriving from the perception of festival activities; under some certain specific external stimulation, it is a normative belief of an individual’s. “Regional development benefit” refers to the external benefit from regional festival activities, which is the perception and beliefs of an individual regarding the regional development benefit from festival activities, so it is a kind of social normative relief. In accordance with the rational behavior theory, from the cause-and-effect relationship of “beliefs → attitudes → behavioral intentions” [41,61], recreation experience benefit (individual normative belief) and regional development benefit (social normative belief) can be considered as the consciousness construct of an individual regarding the festival’s benefit. The identification of the festival is regarded as the judgment result of the festival benefit, or the result of the internalized value of the subjective norm, which is similar to attitude. In addition, the festival support can be regarded as a behavioral intention construct. It is derived that this research regards both the recreation experience benefit and the regional development benefit as perception variables of festival benefit, the festival identification as attitude variables, the festival support as intention variables, constructing a cause-and-effect research framework of “festival benefits → festival identification → festival support”. That is to say, this research regards recreation experience benefit and regional development benefit as the front variables of festival support and festival identification, as intermediary variables affecting the two constructs of festival benefit and festival support. In the end, this research tries to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationship between the constructs with LISREL.
However, the sustainable development of the festival depends on the support and participation of residents and tourists. Indeed, there have been different views about festivals between the residents and the tourists from the role-player’s view [8,21,32,33]. The purpose of this study is to establish a research framework that can accommodate the viewpoints of both tourists and residents. Therefore, this study focuses on the viewpoints of residents and tourists, and explores the research framework and assumptions, as shown in Figure 1.
Hualien is near Taroko National Park, in the East Rift Valley and on the East Coast of the National Scenic Area and other famous attractions of Taiwan. The tourism department of the public sector expects to promote tourism development through the festival. The annual Summer Festival is one of the longest running and most highly-funded events in Taiwan. Since 2009, the festival has included large-scale performing art events. In 2015, the number of participants had increased to about 100,000 with a 95% confidence level and 3% variation. Trained interviewers were sent to the festival on the nights from 9 to 16 July 2016, to invite one out of every five tourists to engage in face-to-face interviews. By estimating the anticipated number of tourists attending during peak and off-peak times of the festival, 200 questionnaires per day were distributed during the busiest days (i.e., Friday, Saturday, and Sunday—three days) whereas 150 questionnaires per day were distributed during the off-peak days (i.e., Monday to Thursday—four days). Over the total eight days of the festival, 1400 questionnaires were issued and 1165 valid questionnaires were received (83.21%). According to Cronbach’s α verification for internal consistency (local development benefit (0.878), recreation experience benefit (0.892), festival identity (0.855), festival support (0.829), the ratio for both groups of residents (the “host”) and tourists (the “guest”) was greater than 0.7, which means the creditability of the questionnaire responses was acceptable.
There are five parts to the questionnaire, including; benefits of local development, benefits of recreation experience, festival identity, festival support, and demographic data, and a closed-ended questionnaire in addition to the demographic data. It uses a four-point Likert scale to measure various responses of the questionnaire. For the benefits of local development part, we refer to [62,63]; for recreation experience benefit we refer to [64,65]; for festive identity, we referred to [48,52]; for festival support, we refer to [25,59,66].

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Analysis

The results of the questionnaire analysis confirmed that more women (59.6%) than men completed the questionnaire; most were aged 20–29 (21.1%), then aged 30–39 (20.5%), followed by married people (53.6%); most of their education levels were between college (35.8%) and high school (35.5%); service (27.3%) and students (21.6%) were the main careers; TV news and radio (26.1%) were major news resources. Responding to the questionnaire, there were 730 residents (63.0%) and 435 tourists (37%); the majority of tourists were from Northern Taiwan (200, 17.18%), followed by the surrounding areas of the eastern counties of Hualien (Taitung and Yilan), followed by the south-central (11.6%) and offshore islands (1.4%). Local residents are still major players in a festival, providing evidence that future marketing campaigns should be carried out amongst tourists in the northern area.

4.2. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

The average for the four constructs was higher than 3, which shows that hosts and guests hold a positive attitude in activities. Both groups believe that summer festivals can promote Hualien tourism development, boost its reputation and the support for and significance of the festival. The results for each construct and difference analysis are shown in Table 1 below.
The difference analysis found that there was a significant difference between the benefits of the recreation experience of guests and hosts; hosts felt a stronger benefit from the recreation experience of the festival than guests (t = 1.498, p = 0.000 ***). Hosts felt more pleasure from leisure activities than tourists. Recreation experiences include boosting individuals’ feelings of mental and spiritual enlightenment and life satisfaction [67]. The results show that the hosts’ spiritual and leisure experiences were stronger than for guests, and therefore host organizations need to devise a way to enhance festivals’ recreation experience.
In terms of cognitive benefits of the local development, there were more hosts than guests that believe festivals can contribute to local development (t = 1.583, p = 0.000 ***). Through festivals, the public sector can help relevant stakeholders to have a clearer understanding of policy objectives [12]. They can also inform hosts that the festival brings benefits for local development and in turn will gain more support from the local residents.
Although hosts are more favorable festival participants than guests in terms of festival identification and recognition, there is a small gap between the two (t = 0.599, p = 0.095 *). This reflects how to create a distinctive local festival—an important factor to enhance people’s visiting experience [60]. A survey result indicates that both hosts and guests identify with the festival; however, host organizations should rethink the different festival needs between hosts and guests, adjust festival content and uniqueness, and enhance festival segmentation and differences.
In support of a festival, hosts are more favorable than guests (t = 0.065, p = 0.004 *), indicating that hosts support festival policy and festival can get support from residents. For hosts, a festival reflects policy performance of the public sector and enhances the host’s support for the public sector; however, for guests, the program content is an important factor to participate [59]. Therefore how to highlight or differentiate, establish uniqueness and competitiveness is key to attracting guests to participate over the long-term.

4.3. Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the construct validity with an estimation of maximum likelihood parameter, as shown in Table 2 and Table 3.
The benefits of the recreation experience positively affected local development at the same time. The benefits of both the recreation experience and local development affected people’s support for and identification with the festival. From the entire practical research studies conducted as shown in Figure 2, a good recreation experience can prompt people’s support and affirmation of festivals and gain their support for and identification with the festival, such that people recognize that the festival’s benefit for local development. The theory of reasoned action indicates that social norms of local development benefits will affect individual’s recreation experience. In practice, it also meets the consumer satisfaction and identity theory [18] that festival participants will identify with the festival by deriving benefits from and supporting the festival.

4.4. Host and Guest Model Analysis

Previous studies on festivals only focus on cognitive feelings of people’s participation, but both residents and tourists have different purposes and different positions, both of which will have an impact on the success of the festival. Overall examination samples (n = 1165) were divided into “guests” (n = 435) and “hosts” (n = 730), and were verified. Results found that most of the statistical indicators were within the reference range and overall components and parameter between relevant components were valid, as detailed in Table 4.
Results show that the model of host and guest to local development will impact people’s recreation experience. The empirical theory of reasoned action indicates that social normative beliefs influence local development, which then influences individual normative beliefs, which then influences the recreation experience benefit. Secondly, the benefits of local development for residents are greater than the benefit of the recreation experience for tourists (H21:0.884 > H31:0.822). Stakeholder theory states that due to the demand of local development benefits, residents feel a stronger need to participate in a festival [12]. Therefore, when people believe a festival can bring prosperity for local communities, people feel a greater recreation experience by participating in a festival, and this is especially significant for local residents.

4.4.1. Host Model

From the empirical evidence gathered, related concepts were verified and positive. However, this study found that local development benefits → festival identity (standardized estimates = 0.671) is greater than recreation experience benefits → festival identity (standardized estimates = 0.255); this shows that the resident’s identification with the festival depends on whether the festival can bring more benefits to local residents. The key of the resident’s self-identity lies in how many benefits the festival can bring to local development, rather than whether the festival has provided recreation experience benefits for residents. As a result, [52] argues that residents are more concerned about the impact on the local development benefits of the festival.
The exploration of festival benefits for residents states that local development benefits → festival support (standardized estimates = 0.359) significantly influences resident recreation experience → festival support (standardized estimates = 0.196). As key festival participants residents will gain self-identification with the festival when the festival benefits local development [48,52]. From the residents’ viewpoint, regardless of whether the festival can gain recognition or support, local development benefits are more important than recreation experience. From the theoretical viewpoint of reasoned action, the influence of social norms and beliefs are higher than individual normative beliefs in terms of festival support.

4.4.2. Guest Model

From the guest model, recreation experience benefits are insignificant to festival identity (standardized estimates = 0.138, p = 0.145), but recreation experience benefits are significant to festival support (standardized estimates = 0.528, p = 0.000). That is, the recreation experience benefits of festival identification and festival supportive relationship does not have an intermediary effect. This means that tourists can obtain a recreation experience through participation in the festival in order to support the festival. Tourists do not support the festival based on their recreation experience. Tourists support the festival because of the content and attractiveness of festival events, and can achieve the purpose of recreation experience through participation in the festival. The festival must focus on their local traditional characteristics, derived from specific historical traditions and the local environment [21]. For the festival to be viable and competitive, it must stage activities that are unique and difficult to copy. The host organizers should be looking for local featured attractions with unique competitive features. This is important in order to gain tourists’ support, and can make the festival sustainable.
In contrast, local development benefits are significantly related to identification with festival (standardized estimates = 0.730, p = 0.000). However, local development benefits are not significantly related to festival support (standardized estimates = 0.101, p = 0.448). This implies that because of the festival, tourists can still bring benefits for local development, and recognition of the festival value for local development by not only local residents but also foreign tourists can support local festival activities for the promotion of local development. In other words, tourists support the festival because of the activities that can derive recreation experience benefits. Tourists will support the festival because recognition of the value of the event can promote local development. Detail of the related model path of the host and guest relationship is shown in Figure 3.

5. Discussion

The study found that residents feel more strongly than tourists regarding the benefits of recreation experience, local development, identification with and support for the festival, indicating that residents support the festival more than tourists. In the majority of cases, a local development benefit is greater than the benefit of the recreation experience benefit in terms of festival recognition and support. This is consistent with key master theory. In contrast, from the object of identification with the festival, the benefits of the recreation experience and festival support do not play an intermediary role. In addition, the main reason why tourists support festivals is because the festival can improve the tourist’s recreation experience, not because the recreation experience supports the festival. The research shows that the residents and tourists have different viewpoints regarding festival support, and the recreation experience benefits and regional development benefits have a different influence and causal relationship on the identification and support for festival activities. Therefore, it is worthwhile for the organizer to facilitate the future festival activities and achieve the mutual satisfaction of guest and host.
Overall, from an academic viewpoint and considering both of host and guest, this study supports the construction of a theoretical foundation through reasoned action theory. From a practical viewpoint, it found that although there is recognition and support for the festival from both residents and tourists, there are different views between the two. It is worthwhile for an organizer to understand and pay attention to this so the results and conclusions herein can be used as a reference in the organization of a future festival—not only to ensure the hosts and guests are happy, but to ensure long-term sustainable development.
To sum up, in theory, from the viewpoints of host and guest, this research constructs the effect model for festival support on the basis of theory through the concept of rational behavior theory, discloses that festival identification becomes the mediator variable of the festival benefits (benefit of regional development and recreation experience) and festival support in the part of residents, and shows the importance of festival identification. In contrast, only the regional development benefits can influence the festival support through festival identification on the part of tourists. That is, the reason for residents to support the festival activities is not only the benefits of recreation experience, but also the regional development benefits. In contrast, the tourists focus on the recreation experience benefits, and the regional development benefits must be judged by the festival identification, i.e., the internalized value of the subjective norms is able to influence tourists’ support for festival activities. This shows that although the residents and tourists identify with and support the festival activities (although their internal reasons for doing so are different), which deserve the efforts of the organizer to facilitate the future festival activities, not only both having fun but also support and applaud, achieve the long-term goals of sustainable development of festival activities.

6. Conclusions and Suggestions

This study is based on the theory of reasoned action, and has created a conceptual architecture. The study chose the Summer Festival in Hualien, Taiwan, which is the most expensive, long-term, and continued event to examine and look for practical dialogue through a linear model structure and empirical relationship. The results found that residents felt more strongly than tourists regarding the benefits of the recreation experience and local development, and showed that residents felt more strongly than tourists about the festival benefits to local development. At the same time, residents gave more support for the festival and festival identity.
From the discussion of the two models of the host and guest, residents’ recreation experience will benefit local development in a positive way. Residents have played a more influential role compared with tourists, which is consistent with the key argument for local development. At the same time, the main model finds that the benefits of local development are more important than the benefits of the recreation experience; that is to say, residents feel local development benefits are more important than the benefits of the recreation experience. With respect to the former, identification with the festival was not an intermediary effect from the benefits of local development and festival support. In contrast, identification with the festival has become an intermediary variable from local development effectiveness and festival support; that is, the resident’s recognition of the festival has brought benefits to local development, and therefore identification with the festival, value of recognition, and continued support for the festival’s development.
In terms of management implications, the support of festival activities by the tourists still depends on the recreation experience benefits, showing that enhancing the benefits of recreation experience plays a key role in influencing the support of festival activities by tourists. In contrast, in terms of residents, festival identification plays a key role influencing the festival benefits and festival support; that is, to attain the support of regional residents on the festival policy of public sector, we must let the regional residents experience the benefits of festival activities, in addition to focusing on the recreational experience benefits, so as to identify and support the festival policy.
From the viewpoints of both host and guest, and with consideration of the benefits of the festival’s personal experience and local development and support for the festival from the public sector, there is some difference between the host and the guest regarding the impact of festival support and identification with the festival. The public sector should re-think the difference between the two and emphasize the different views between host and guest so as to achieve the happiness of both groups and achieve the sustainable development goals.
From a policy perspective, there are differences in the reasons why tourists and residents support festivals and their recreation experience. Therefore, in promoting a festival, we should ask who are the main participants and why? For what purpose? What are their respective needs? Based on different reasons, festival organizers should arrange suitable activities and services for greater recognition and support. The results from the study show that residents gave higher support for festivals. Identification with the festival is an intermediary variable between festival benefits and support. To promote a similar festival, residents should emphasize identification with the festival. The only way to promote residents’ support of the festival is to promote the festival as a means to enhance public sector performance and prestige.
The investigation of residents’ views concluded that local development benefits are higher than recreation experience in the relationship between festival recognition and support of festivals. Therefore, how festival organizers make a profit for local communities and how they make residents feel the benefits from local development have become very important. Whether a festival is successful or not should not be based on the number of participants, or whether it can improve the reliability of the public sector, but rather how to promote local development benefits through the festival. The public sector should not highlight the festival participation number or festival performance, but more importantly, should always reflect on whether the festival can or cannot derive a profit for local communities.
It is suggested that future research studies include dialogue and interviews with representatives of other regions and increase the diversity of the research at the same time. If festivals are to be sustainable, then the study should be based on longitudinal studies. Furthermore, this study was mainly carried out during the peak season of tourism in Hualien, when the tourism industry has an advantage. It is therefore recommended to expand the study to analyze the quiet season in order to understand the difference between peak and quiet seasons. This study explores the influence of festival support from the perspective of reasoned action theory. There are many factors impacting the festival’s influence. In the future, the study can be integrated with other theories and doctrines to clarify the festival’s impact on people’s propositions and expectations.
This research is a case study in the specially appointed region, and does not necessarily apply to other regions; it is suggested that future research should implement study communication with other representative tourist regions, and find out more research results. At the same time, the festival activities are sustainable and continuous; therefore, the long-term longitudinal research should be implemented if there is enough time in the future. In addition, this research is mainly focused on the period of high season (summer vacation), so some degree of pulling effect and advantages have emerged. It is suggested that researchers should research off-season activities in the future, so as to understand the relationship of related parts in off-season festival activities. At the same time, this research discusses the factor of affecting festival support from only two viewpoints: festival benefits and festival identification. However, there are many factors influencing festival support. Some other theories and doctrines can be introduced in the future; in order to re-clarify the constructs influencing the public’s festival support, let us work towards attaining a more complete understanding of the real relationship of influence.

Author Contributions

Kai-Chih Chang and Tsuifang Hsieh conceived and designed the experiments; Kai-Chih Chang performed the experiments; Kai-Chih Chang and Tsuifang Hsieh analyzed the data; Kai-Chih Chang contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Tsuifang Hsieh wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Getz, D. Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 403–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hede, A.; Jago, L.; Deery, M. An agenda for special event research: Lessons from the past and directions for the future. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2003, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lee, C.K.; Lee, Y.K.; Wicks, B.E. Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Saarinen, J. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 1121–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gallagher, A.; Pike, K. Sustainable management for maritime events and festivals. J. Coast Res. 2011, 61, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Testa, A. Rethinking the festival: Power and politics. Method Theory Study Relig. 2004, 26, 44–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Allen, J.; Harris, R.; McDonnell, I.; O’Toole, W. Festival and Special Event Management, 5th ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Milton, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  8. Douglas, N.; Derrett, N. Special Interest Tourism: Context and Cases; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Milton, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pereira, L.C.B.; Maravall, J.M.; Przeworski, A. Economic Reforms in New Democracies: A Social-Democratic Approach. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  10. Yoon, S.; Spencer, D.M.; Holecek, D.F.; Dae-Kwen, K. A profile of Michigan’s festival and special event tourism market. Event Manag. 2000, 6, 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  11. Smith, V.L. Introduction in Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism; University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  12. Grimble, R.; Wellard, K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric. Syst. 1997, 55, 173–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Crompton, J.L.; Lee, S.; Shuster, T.J. A guide for undertaking economic impact studies: The spring fest example. J. Travel Res. 2001, 40, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Spurr, R. Assessing the economic impacts of events: A computable general equilibrium approach. J. Travel Res. 2006, 45, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cole, S.T.; Chancellor, H.C. Examining the festival attributes that impact visitor experience, satisfaction and re-visit intention. J. Vacat. Mark. 2009, 15, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yoon, Y.S.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, C.K. Measuring festival quality and value affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Crompton, J.L.; McKay, S.L. Motives of visitors attending festival events. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Trail, G.T.; Anderson, D.F.; Fink, J.S. Consumer satisfaction and identity theory: A model of sport spectator conative loyalty. Sport Mark. Q. 2005, 14, 98–112. [Google Scholar]
  19. McDonnell, I.; Allen, J.; O’Toole, W. Festival and Special Event Management; Wiley & Sons: Milton, Australia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hall, S. Questions of Cultural Identity; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  21. Getz, D. Festival, Special Event and Tourism; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  22. Briedenhann, J.; Wickens, E. Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas-vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ohmann, S.; Jones, I.; Wilkes, K. The perceived social impacts of the 2006 Football World Cup on Munich residents. J. Sport Tour. 2006, 11, 129–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lu, X.L.; Wu, C.; Xiao, G.R. Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts: An analysis of fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Tour. Anal. 2007, 6, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Choi, H.S.C.; Murray, I. Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Light, D. Characteristics of the audience for events at a heritage site. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bigne, J.E.; Sanchez, M.I.; Sanchez, J. Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behavior: Inter-relationship. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 607–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, Y.K.; Lee, C.K.; Lee, S.K.; Babin, B.J. Festivals capes and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction, and loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, H.; Borges, M.C.; Chon, J. Impacts of environmental values on tourism motivation: The case of FICA, Brazil. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 957–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, Y.G.; Suh, B.W.; Eves, A. The relationships between food-related personality traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events and festivals. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Yuan, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Cai, L.A.; Linton, S. A model of wine tourist behaviour: A festival approach. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 10, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pearce, P. Tourist Behaviour: Themes and Conceptual Schemes; Channel View Publications: Clevedon, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  33. Urry, J. The Tourist Gaze; Sage: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  34. Varvasovszky, Z.; Brugha, R. How to Do (or Not to Do) … A Stakeholder Analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2000, 15, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bourne, L.; Weaver, P. Mapping stakeholders. In Construction Stakeholder Management; Chinyio, E., Olomolaiye, P., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gregory, R.; Wellman, K. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 39, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Carina, E.; Keskitalo, A.H. A framework for multi-level stakeholder studies in response to global change. Local Environ. 2004, 9, 425–435. [Google Scholar]
  38. Chen, H.; Tao, W. The revival and restructuring of a traditional folk festival: Cultural landscape and memory in Guangzhou, South China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Negruşa, A.L.; Toader, V.; Rus, R.V.; Cosma, S.A. Study of perceptions on cultural events’ sustainability. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pavluković, V.; Armenski, T.; Alcántara-Pilar, J.M. Social impacts of music festivals: Does culture impact locals' attitude toward events in Serbia and Hungary? Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M.; Heilbroner, R. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Becker, T.E.; Randal, D.M.; Riegel, C.D. The multidimensional view of commitment and theory of reasoned action: A comparative evaluation. J. Manag. 1995, 21, 617–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Madden, T.J.; Ellen, P.S.; Ajzen, I. A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 18, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hsu, C.; Lu, H. Consumer behavior in online game community: A motivational factor perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2007, 23, 1642–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Uysal, M.; Gahan, L.; Martin, B. An examination of event motivations: A case study. Festiv. Manag. Event Tour. 1993, 1, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
  48. Watt, D.C. Event Management in Leisure and Tourism; Addison Wesley Longman: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  49. Driver, B.L.; Tocher, R.C. Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreation engagement with implications for planning. In Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning; Driver, B.L., Ed.; The University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1970; pp. 9–31. [Google Scholar]
  50. Fennell, D.A. Ecotourism Programmed Planning; CABI Pub: Oxfordshire, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hull, R.B.; Steward, W.P.; Yi, T.K. Experience patterns: Capturing the dynamics nature of a recreation experience. J. Leis. Res. 1992, 24, 240–252. [Google Scholar]
  52. Jago, L.; Chalip, L.; Brown, G.; Mules, T.; Ali, S. Building events into destination branding: Insights from experts. Event Manag. 2003, 8, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Janiskee, R.L. Historic houses and special events. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 398–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; Stanford University Press: California, CA, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ervin, L.H.; Stryker, S. Theorizing the relationship between self-esteem and identity. In Extending Self-Esteem Theory and Researcher: Sociological and Psychological Currents; Owen, T.J., Stryker, S., Goodman, N., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 29–55. [Google Scholar]
  56. Avieli, N. Roasted pigs and bao dumplings: Festive food and imagined transnational identity in Chinese-Vietnamese festivals. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2005, 46, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Johnson, M. Support groups for parents of chronically ill children. Pediatr. Nurs. 1982, 8, 160–163. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, S.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 81, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Boulding, W.; Kalra, A.; Staelin, R.; Zeithaml, V.A. A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. J. Mark. Res. 1993, 30, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Anderson, T.D.; Rustad, A.; Solberg, H.A. Local residents’ monetary evaluation of sports events. Manag. Leis. 2004, 9, 45–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oliver, R.L. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kim, C.; Scott, D.; Thigpen, J.F.; Kim, S.S. Economic impact of a birding festival. Festiv. Manag. Event Tour. 1998, 5, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Roche, M. Mega-events and urban policy. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Manfredo, M.J.; Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J. A test of concepts inherent in experience based setting management for outdoor recreation areas. J. Leis. Res. 1983, 15, 263–283. [Google Scholar]
  65. Otto, J.E.; Ritchie, B.J. The service experience in tourism. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Modeling community support for a proposed integrated resort project. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mitchell, A. Right Side up: Building Brands in the Age of the Organized Consumer; Harper Collins Business: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 09 02240 g001 550
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 09 02240 g001
Sustainability 09 02240 g002 550
Figure 2. The hypothesized model.
Figure 2. The hypothesized model.
Sustainability 09 02240 g002
Sustainability 09 02240 g003 550
Figure 3. Path analysis of host and guest model.
Figure 3. Path analysis of host and guest model.
Sustainability 09 02240 g003
Table
Table 1. Analysis of variance.
Table 1. Analysis of variance.
ConstructsHostsGuests
MeanSDMeanSDt Valuep Value
Recreation experience benefit3.4130.5083.3680.4421.498 ***0.000 ***
A1 Summer festival offers entertainment activities3.4440.6043.3940.622
A2 Summer festival enriches my spiritual life3.3680.6203.2550.732
A3 Summer festival increases my opportunity to participate in festivals3.3840.6183.4000.638
A4 Summer festival can promote emotional connection between my family/friends/colleagues3.4010.6193.4780.573
A5 Summer festival can help me to watch better programs3.4220.6093.4570.572
A6 Summer festival’s entertainment outcome can be achieved3.4490.5863.3130.625
Local development benefit3.4320.5143.3840.4591.5830.000 ***
B1 Summer festival can contribute to the tourism development of Hualien3.5680.5943.4580.638
B2 Summer festival can improve the reputation of Hualien3.2620.7063.2350.769
B3 Summer festival can bring energy to Hualien3.3810.6473.3720.655
B4 Summer festival enhance employment opportunities in Hualien3.4920.6053.4670.593
B5 Summer festival raises Hualien people’s income3.4700.6133.4360.594
B6 Summer festival can attract tourists to Hualien3.4080.6403.3270.662
Festival identification3.4000.5663.3800.5350.5990.095 *
C1 Summer festival is a big annual event in Hualien3.3980.6323.3690.598
C2 Summer festival is very unique3.3860.6473.3930.622
C3 Summer festival has a reputation3.4140.6303.3740.662
Festival support3.4760.5353.4470.4690.065 *0.004 **
D1 I support Summer festival’s long-term planning and sustainable development3.4600.6283.4220.608
D2 I would like to come back next time to participate in Summer festival3.4930.5793.5060.557
D3 I will vigorously recommend Summer festival to others3.4750.6023.4840.581
Note: * p ≤ 0.1; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Table
Table 2. Analysis of measurement.
Table 2. Analysis of measurement.
ConstructDimensionFactor LoadingMeasurement Error (η)Composite Reliability, CRAVE
Recreation experience benefitA10.7640.4160.8910.577
A20.6880.527
A30.7510.436
A40.8040.354
A50.8030.355
A60.7430.448
Local Development benefitB10.6860.5290.3220.533
B20.6830.534
B30.7260.473
B40.7430.448
B50.7550.430
B60.7840.385
Festival identificationC10.7860.3820.3470.652
C20.8210.326
C30.8150.336
Festival supportD10.7280.4700.8380.634
D20.8310.309
D30.8260.318
Table
Table 3. Comparison of measurement models.
Table 3. Comparison of measurement models.
Statistic SampleNχ2Dfχ2/DfP (p Value)CFI (Comparative Fit Index)NFI (Normed Fit Index)RMSEA (Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation)RMR (Root Mean Square Residual
Overall1165644.1291294.9930.0000.9480.9360.0740.076
Hosts730937.4601297.2670.0000.9400.9310.0730.075
Guests435509.1621293.9470.0000.9020.8750.0820.080
Table
Table 4. Parameter estimation.
Table 4. Parameter estimation.
Sample StatisticalObserved ValueStandardized EstimatesStandard Error S.EC.R.p ValueOutcome
OverallLocal development benefit → Recreation experience benefitH10.8090.8670.03324.3220.000 **Support
Recreation experience benefit → Festival identificationH20.2300.2040.0643.6080.000 **Support
Local development benefit → Festival identificationH30.7380.7040.60311.6260.000 **Support
Recreation experience benefit → Festival supportH40.3400.3500.0546.3460.000 **Support
Local development benefit → Festival supportH50.2090.1850.0692.1710.000 **Support
Festival identification → Festival supportH60.3690.4260.0566.5680.000 **Support
HostsLocal development benefit → Recreation experience benefitH210.8650.8840.01217.4100.000 **Support
Recreation experience benefit → Festival identificationH220.2640.2550.0604.4230.000 **Support
Local development benefit → Festival identificationH230.6700.6710.05911.3720.000 **Support
Recreation experience benefit → Festival supportH240.2500.1960.0534.7470.000 **Support
Local development benefit → Festival supportH250.2960.3590.0654.5630.000 **Support
Festival identification → Festival supportH260.3000.3930.0555.4670.000 **Support
GuestsLocal development benefit → Recreation experience benefitH310.7570.8220.06711.3240.000 **Support
Recreation experience benefit → Festival identificationH320.1730.1380.1181.4580.145Not support
Local development benefit → Festival identificationH330.8430.7300.1226.9270.000 **Support
Recreation experience benefit → Festival supportH340.4570.5280.0895.1580.000 **Support
Local development benefit → Festival supportH350.0810.1010.1070.7580.448Not support
Festival identification → Festival supportH360.3420.4950.0774.4360.000 **Support
Note: * p ≤ 0.01, ** p ≤ 0.001.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chang, K.-C.; Hsieh, T. From Having Fun to Applause: The Study of Relationships among Festival Benefits, Festival Identity and Festival Support by Viewpoints of the Hosts and Guests. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122240

AMA Style

Chang K-C, Hsieh T. From Having Fun to Applause: The Study of Relationships among Festival Benefits, Festival Identity and Festival Support by Viewpoints of the Hosts and Guests. Sustainability. 2017; 9(12):2240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122240

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chang, Kai-Chih, and Tsuifang Hsieh. 2017. "From Having Fun to Applause: The Study of Relationships among Festival Benefits, Festival Identity and Festival Support by Viewpoints of the Hosts and Guests" Sustainability 9, no. 12: 2240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122240

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop