Research on the Impact of Event Sustainability on Brand Equity in Event Activities: A Case Study of Hainan Expo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the impact of event sustainability on brand equity in the context of Hainan Expo. The authors' research approach using quantitative research and structural equation modeling is commendable. However, there are some areas that need improvement and clarification. Here are some comments for the authors to consider while revising the paper

Introduction - The paper mentions four dimensions of sustainability practice: environmental, economic, social, and policy sustainability practice. It would be helpful if the authors provide clearer and more concise definitions of each dimension to avoid ambiguity and ensure readers have a solid understanding of the concepts. While the use of structural equation modeling is appropriate for examining the relationships between variables, it would be beneficial if the authors justify why this particular modeling technique was chosen over others. Discussing the advantages of SEM in the context of the study would enhance the credibility of the research. The introduction does not clearly state the specific research objectives or the problem the study aims to address. It briefly mentions that the study concentrates on event sustainability's impact on brand equity but lacks a clear problem statement or research questions, making it difficult for readers to understand the study's purpose.

Literature Review - The paper lacks a comprehensive literature review on event sustainability, brand equity, and their interplay. Including a thorough review of relevant literature would strengthen the study's theoretical foundation and help readers understand how this research contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

The paper mentions several definitions of sustainability without clearly stating which definition the study adopts. The lack of a precise definition of sustainability may lead to confusion and inconsistency in the interpretation of results.

The paper lacks a clear theoretical framework to guide the study's research design and analysis. A solid theoretical foundation is essential in providing a conceptual framework for the research and guiding the hypotheses development.

Method and analysis

The section mentions that the questionnaire was modified based on interviews with industry experts to align with the research objectives and the Chinese context. However, it lacks specific details about the modifications made and the rationale behind them. Without this information, it becomes challenging to understand the validity and reliability of the questionnaire and whether it effectively measures the constructs under study.

The data collection method used in the study relies on a single event, the China International Consumer Products Expo. While this event may be relevant to the research topic, it may not fully represent the diversity and complexity of all event activities in the region or beyond. The use of a single event limits the generalizability of the study's findings.

The section mentions that 215 questionnaires were used for analysis. The sample size seems relatively small, especially considering that it includes exhibitors, public visitors, and professional visitors. The demographics of the participants are not fully described, and it is unclear if the sample represents a diverse range of individuals, including various age groups, occupations, and event preferences.

The study uses SPSS for descriptive statistical analysis and Smart PLS 3.0 for structural equation modeling (SEM). While SEM is a suitable method for testing hypotheses, the section lacks information about the specific SEM model used and the goodness-of-fit indices, which are essential for assessing the model's adequacy.

The section briefly mentions the results of the measurement model, indicating acceptable factor loadings, Cronbach's alpha, and average variance extracted (AVE) values. However, it does not provide information about the convergent and discriminant validity tests, which are crucial to establish the measurement model's robustness.

The conclusion section provides a concise summary of the research findings and how sustainability practices in events impact brand equity. However, it lacks specific numerical results or effect sizes to quantify the strength of the relationships between the variables. Including effect sizes would add clarity and help readers understand the practical significance of the findings.

The discussion section offers valuable insights and practical implications for the event industry. However, it could be strengthened by providing more concrete examples or case studies of events that have successfully implemented sustainable practices and the resulting positive outcomes on brand equity. This would enhance the applicability of the research findings in real-world scenarios.

The section discusses the theoretical contributions of the study, but it could be improved by discussing how the research expands or refines existing theories in the field of sustainable development and brand asset theories. A deeper analysis of how the study advances the understanding of these theories would add scholarly value.

While the practical implications are mentioned, the section lacks specific recommendations for event organizers to implement sustainable practices effectively. Including practical strategies or guidelines for event organizers to follow would enhance the usefulness of the research for industry practitioners.

The section acknowledges the limitations of the study, such as the limited sample size and the focus on specific dimensions of sustainability. However, it could be more comprehensive by addressing potential sources of bias and discussing how these limitations could be overcome in future research. Additionally, the future research directions could be more specific and actionable, outlining potential avenues for further investigation in the field.

The study relies on a specific event, the Hainan Expo, as the primary data source. While the research findings provide insights into this event, the generalizability of the results to other events or regions may be limited. Acknowledging this limitation and discussing its implications for broader applications would strengthen the study's credibility.

In summary, the conclusion and discussion section presents valuable insights and practical implications related to sustainable practices in events and their impact on brand equity. However, the section could benefit from more concrete and specific details, as well as addressing the limitations in greater depth to strengthen the research's overall impact and applicability.

Proof read is required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review this paper. Having read the paper entitled “Research on the Impact of Event Sustainability on Brand Equity in Event Activities: A Case Study of Hainan Expo” I believe it has merit. However, I have comments which I have highlighted below for the author(s) to address.

This paper is very timely for the event industry. I like the way that the authors present the introduction part by telling stories and background information of the event industry as well as the importance of sustainability. The authors provide a good justification for this study by considering the sustainability of event industry. However, the reasons of why considering brand equity, brand image in the event activities were lacking. I would suggest authors provide a better justification for these constructs as well.

In the literature review, the authors mentioned Sustainability Theory of Event Activities. It is important to have a theoretical foundation in the paper. However, I am not sure if this is a theory. You may consider a theoretical framework to support this study. In addition, I feel lost by reading the brand equity section. I understand that brand equity includes CBBE. However, when the authors propose the hypotheses, they use brand image rather than brand equity. I wonder why.

By looking at the hypotheses development section, it seems that all the hypotheses were investigated in previous studies. In other words, what is new from this study? To better understand the hypotheses and relationships between constructs, it is better to have a figure to illustrate the research model.

The methodology section is not clear. When and how did the authors collect the data? Any screening or attention check questions? Who are the qualified respondents? More details are needed.

Considering the number of constructs and variables in this study, I would suggest authors to justify if the sample size is adequate.

76.3% of the respondents had college or bachelor degree, which may bias the results. Please also report HTMT.

Again, the hypotheses were investigated by previous studies, what is new from this study? There is nothing new from the theoretical and practical implications. In other words, this study did not contribute much to the literature.

 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The scientific article is devoted to the application of the theory of sustainable development in the event industry (on the example of a specific exposition). This article is an original research based on modern research methods and the use of mathematical methods. The results of the research will contribute to the application of the theory of sustainable development for future activities.

I have several questions:

1)    The article could benefit from describing in more detail what kind of exposition Hainan Expo is. This information could be added to the very beginning of the paragraph 3.2.

2)    What are the methods to encourage exhibitors to use environmentally friendly materials for stands, etc. (Are there any regulations indicated in any document? Who controls it? From whom do exhibitors get

3)    Many exhibitors are willing to pay a sustainability surcharge, will this surcharge be added to the entry fee?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the authors addressing my comments and suggestions. Great job!