A sustainable festival management model

Description
The purpose of this study is to propose a sustainable festival management model (SFMM)
drawing on data from the International Troia Festival, Çanakkale, Turkey

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
A sustainable festival management model: the case of International Troia festival
Erol Duran Bahattin Hamarat Emrah Özkul
Article information:
To cite this document:
Erol Duran Bahattin Hamarat Emrah Özkul , (2014),"A sustainable festival management model: the case of International
Troia festival", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 173 - 193
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0017
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 567 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
J ack Carlsen, Tommy D. Andersson, J ane Ali-Knight, Kari J aeger, Ruth Taylor, (2010),"Festival management
innovation and failure", International J ournal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 1 Iss 2 pp. 120-131 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17852951011056900
Erol Duran, Bahattin Hamarat, (2014),"Festival attendees’ motivations: the case of International Troia Festival", International
J ournal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 146-163http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ EFM-07-2012-0020
Donald Getz, Tommy Andersson, J . Carlsen, (2010),"Festival management studies: Developing a framework and priorities
for comparative and cross-cultural research", International J ournal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 29-59http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17852951011029298
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
A sustainable festival management
model: the case of International Troia
festival
Erol Duran, Bahattin Hamarat and Emrah Özkul
Erol Duran is Resident
Asst Dr and Bahattin
Hamarat is a Lecturer,
both based at the School
of Tourism and Hotel
Management, Çanakkale
Onsekiz Mart U
¨
niversity,
Çanakkale, Turkey. Emrah
Özkul is an Asst. Prof. Dr at
Düzce University, Düzce,
Turkey.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to propose a sustainable festival management model (SFMM)
drawing on data from the International Troia Festival, Çanakkale, Turkey.
Design/methodology/approach – Three research techniques were used in the study. Survey data
examined six motivational dimensions whose importance were tested using the logistic regression
analysis. In-depth interviews and observations were analyzed using content analysis. The study sample
comprised festival event attendees, members of public and private businesses and NGOs.
Findings – The ?eld research indicated that, culture is the main factor, which motivates visitors to
attend the festival and also the main theme of the festival that re?ects the signi?cant cultural heritage of
the city. A SFMM is presented for the International Troia Festival, based on the results of the ?eld
research and literature.
Research limitations/implications – The ?ndings of this study solely of SFMM were identi?ed during
a Turkish festival.
Originality/value – Future applications of SFMM both for generating development of local or
international festivals in a sustainable way and for resolving general or regional environmental
challenges on festival management are discussed. The model can be used to ensure the sustainability
of the International Troia Festival and similar festivals.
Keywords Culture, Turkey, Sustainability, Festivals, International Troia Festival, SFMM model
Paper type Research Paper
Introduction
Festivals are universally important in that they play social and cultural roles, and so they
have increasingly been created and promoted as tourist attractions. They are also viewed
as tools of marketing and destination image making and are valued for their ability to
animate cities, resorts and attractions (Andersson and Getz, 2008, p. 200). The general
population of urban centers hosting festivals seldom derive any sustainable employment
opportunities from festival tourism (Janniskee and Drews, 1998). Festivals are tied to
territorial and regional tourism planning activities. In that respect, the International Troia
Festival (ITF) has a high potential of regional and territorial publicity with its historical assets
from Homer’s Iliad.
Çanakkale is located in Western Anatolia, which, over the years, has become a livable and
lively culture and college town with its cultural heritage and activities. The city holds one of
the oldest cultural festivals in Turkey. The event, ?rst organized in 1963 by the city
municipal authority, attracts a signi?cant number of people to its approximately 50 events
over a period of 5 days in August every year. The festival is recognized as the symbol of
cultural heritage, history and intercultural communication in Çanakkale and neighboring
cities. The mission of the festival is to enliven and enrich environmental consciousness,
cultural awareness as well as business life in Çanakkale (Gökhan, 2011). It is an
international cultural festival which is nourished from the Iliad, the Odyssey, Trojan, Greek,
Ottoman and modern Turkish cultures.
Received 17 April 2013
Revised 5 September 2013
2 December 2013
3 December 2013
Accepted 27 March 2014
The authors thank the
Scienti?c Research Projects
Department, Canakkale
Onsekiz Mart University. This
study is a result of a project
(Project no: COMU BAB
2010/130) which was funded
by them
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2013-0017 VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014, pp. 173-193, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 173
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
This study centers on three objectives. The ?rst objective of the study is to understand the
underlying reasons for the motivation to attend the festival and to identify whether
motivation varies with the socio-demographic composition of attendees. The second
objective is to identify the current condition of the ITF by identi?cation of the basic
problems, managerial challenges and the roles of stakeholders. This was achieved through
using observation and interview techniques. The third objective was to propose a
sustainable festival management model (SFMM) for the ITF, based on the research results
and extant literature on festivals.
Literature review
Events are important motivators of tourism and play a key role in the development of
marketing plans for most destinations (Getz, 2008, p. 402). Festivals are an important topic
subject of tourism research (Gartner and Holecek, 1983; Getz and Frisby, 1988; Uysal and
Gitelson, 1994; Gwinner, 1997; Visser, 2005). Research has examined how festivals may
stimulate economic development of tourist destinations (Walo et al., 1996; Crompton and
McKay, 1997; Kim et al., 1998; Thrane, 2002, Saayman and Saayman, 2012) and how they
may effect and stimulate the socio-cultural structure and prosperity of a destination (Rao,
2001; Hall, 2001; Jackson et al., 2005; Varotsis, 2006). In addition, research has explored
the motivational factors of visitors and the dimensions underlying those factors (Backman
et al., 1995; Schneider and Backman, 1996; Scott, 1996; Crompton and McKay, 1997;
Formica and Murrmann, 1998; Lee et al., 2004; Yolal et al., 2009, Hallman and Harms,
2012). Research has examined the importance of festivals in raising destination awareness
by conveying a destination’s identity (Esman, 1984; Delamere and Hinch, 1994; Besculides
et al., 2002) and explored managerial models for sustaining event lifecycles (Frey, 2000;
Varotsis, 2006; Yuan et al., 2008; Moseley and Mowatt, 2011; van Niekerk and Coetzee,
2011).
A number of studies have taken a broader social and cultural identity and prosperity
perspective on festivals. Varotsis (2006) applied the notion of a reinterpreted cultural
identity based on festivals and events. Accordingly, Hall (2001) investigated the effects of
music and dance festivals on culture and cultural tourism on the Indonesian island of Bali.
Raj (2003) indicated that festivals have a major impact on the development of cultural
tourism for host communities. Festival organizers are now using historical and cultural
themes to develop annual events to attract visitors and create a cultural image in a host city.
Therefore, communities are constantly having to reinterpret their cultural identities in light of
both their immediate, past and projected experiences. Research (Hall, 2001; Raj, 2003;
Inkei, 2005) has suggested that local communities can play a vital role with their culture and
identity in the development of tourism through festivals. Similarly, events and festivals play
a vital role in the cultural identity of local communities and have the potential to generate
cultural profundity and prosperity when they cater to out-of-region visitors, attract grants or
sponsorships (Getz, 1997).
According to O’Sullivan and Jackson (2002), the impacts of festival tourism are, however,
not always that self-evident. The in?ux of tourists can result in a change in the community
infrastructure to serve the needs of festival visitors, so that as festivals grow and begin to
make stronger links outside the locality, local entrepreneurs can become resentful and the
economic bene?ts of the festivals less signi?cant (Visser, 2005, p. 157). Yolal et al. (2009,
p. 288) identi?ed that festivals are important for city of?cials and the organizers of events.
They are aware that community cohesion and bene?ts sought from the festival as well as
the different means for attending the events, are all interconnected. To know the extent of
the relationship that exists between those attending events, and their perceptions of the
bene?ts and costs, helps city of?cials to develop appropriate policies and platforms to
further build community cohesion, thereby gaining support from locals for future programs.
According to Allen et al. (2002), governments realize the bene?ts of events and festivals
and promote these as part of their strategies for economic development, nation-building
PAGE 174 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
and destination marketing. In this context, meanings are given to events and festivals by
social groups, communities and society as a whole. Individuals are affected by these
meanings, but are also able to make their own interpretations of events. Festival types or
forms are to a large extent “social constructs”, with collectively assigned and generally
recognized meanings (Getz, 2008, p. 414).
Tourism and social events provide incentives for locals and businesses (Allen et al., 1993;
Gürsoy et al., 2004). A number of researchers have emphasized that there is a positive
relationship between festival sustainability and community bene?ts (Gürsoy et al., 2004;
Rao, 2001; Besculides et al., 2002; Chwe, 1998). Personal bene?ts or incentives from
tourism are important positive impacts of tourism (Lankford and Howard, 1994; Tosun,
2002). By contrast, some studies have emphasized that increasing traf?c congestion and
pressure on local services are basic problems caused by festivals and events (Keogh,
1990; Jurowski, et al., 1997; Tosun, 2002; Gürsoy et al., 2004). Saayman and Saayman
(2012) considered the impact of sport events on the local economy by studying the
Comrades Marathon. They determined that the Comrades Marathon contributed
signi?cantly to the provincial economy and that ? 600 jobs are dependent on the event.
Yan et al. (2012) conceptualized the dimensionality of programming quality of festivals –
consisting of six dimensions, diversity, stakeholder balance, incrementality, simultaneity,
?exibility and linkage – and empirically tested the relationships between these dimensions,
satisfaction and behavioral intention of festival visitors. Consist of six dimensions, namely,
diversity, stakeholder balance, incrementality, simultaneity, ?exibility, and linkage were
found and pointed out with their research. Chwe (1998) argued that festivals and special
events provide social incentives for residents to get actively involved in community
activities and provide incentives for businesses to get involved in the community because
of new promotional opportunities for businesses and new recreational opportunities for
locals.
Backman et al. (1995) explored visitors’ motivations for attending festivals with 12 items
representing 5 dimensions: excitement, external, family, socializing and relaxation. Formica
and Uysal (1998) also explored festival motivations with 23 motivation items representing
six factors: socialization/entertainment, event attraction/excitement, group togetherness,
cultural/historical, family togetherness and site novelty. Bowen and Daniels (2005) explored
the motivations for attending a large music festival by using cluster analysis. Attendance
motivations revealed four groupings of visitors: “just being social”, “enrichment over
music“, “the music matters” and “love it all”. Scho?eld and Thompson (2007) investigated
visitor motivation for attending the Naadam Festival with a scale of 27 motivation items.
Kruger and Saayman (2010) compared travel motives of visitors to Kruger and Tsitsikamma
National Parks. Kruger et al. (2011) also found signi?cant differences between visitors who
attend the different types of shows/productions at the Aardklop National Arts Festival.
Taylor and Kim (2011) explored the motivations of attendees at the Oxford Film Festival and
identi?ed three factors. Hallman and Harms (2012) examined that the determinants of
volunteer’s motivation at major sporting events, how these affect future voluntary
engagement and whether there are differences in motivation based on the type of event.
They determined that expression of values and personal growth are the strongest factors
in?uencing volunteer motivation and future behavior.
Even though festivals and special events have become one of the fastest growing tourism
attractions and research subjects for tourism researchers, few researchers have focused
speci?cally on the sustainability of festivals. Little attention has been paid to whether
festivals can provide an effective vehicle for sustainable urban tourism (Frey, 2000; Quinn,
2006; Getz, 2010). According to Quinn (2006), the conceptualization of festival practices as
socially sustaining devices is important to consider in the context of sustainable tourism.
The current study proposes that the rationale of sustainable festival management and event
organization rests on the assurance of economic, social and cultural bene?ts to the human
community and urban life.
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 175
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Models on festivals
The literature provides several theoretical and practical models of festival management
(Getz and Frisby, 1988; Bergee, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2000; Gwinner, 1997; Moseley and
Mowatt, 2011; van Niekerk and Coetzee, 2011). Frey (2000) drew policy suggestions on
how the state can support art festivals by taking a closer look at cultural festivals such as
musical or operatic festivals. Frey pointed out that such festivals offer great artistic and
economic opportunities, but at the same time, that these opportunities are also easy to
destroy. He suggested a model of festival life cycles that investigates rise and fall reasons
of festivals.
Mitchell et al. (2000) generated a framework that integrated the demand and supply side of
the wine tourism experience (a demand and supply model). Dodd (2000) proposed
a model of vinery visitors’ spending behavior incorporating their demographic,
psychographic and behavioral characteristics, information search, perceptions and
outcomes of the visits (a wine purchasing model). Mitchell (Mitchell et al., 2000) posited a
three-dimensional model to provide a more holistic view of the winery experience. The
framework combined the spatial and temporal dimensions of the wine tourism experience.
Gwinner (1997) proposed a model of image creation and image transfer in event
sponsorship. He put forward several theoretical arguments to explain the mechanisms by
which brand image may be in?uenced through various sponsorship activities and
represented a ?rst step in the discussion of how sponsorship actually works with the study.
Charters and Ali-Knight (2002) proposed a three-dimensional model incorporating
motivation, intention and integration of travel activities.
Getz and Frisby (1988) studied the process of evaluating management effectiveness in
festivals. This research was done to provide a framework for evaluating the management of
festivals. The model proposed by Getz and Frisby (1988) examines the management
system for events, which means that no event or event organization can be understood in
isolation of its environment and the internal processes established to convert resources into
desired outputs (Figure 1).
External environmental forces include policies, resource availability, and demand/supply
factors. These can usefully be separated into the general environment, which impacts
on everything, and the more immediate or community environment which in?uences the
event or its organization directly. Van Niekerk and Coetzee (2011) proposed a model
which utilizes a visitors, industry, community and environment model – a model that is
often used in sustainable destination development (Figure 2) – to create a structure for
different stakeholders. Moseley and Mowatt (2011) proposed a research agenda for
festival exhibitors by analyzing embedded relationships created from festival
participation. The authors developed a framework that revealed that the exhibitor’s
relationship with the festival can be divided into three dimensions: the festival, the
marketplace and the business.
As seen in the literature review, these authors have indeed made substantial contributions
through their models to the theoretical and conceptual understanding of different
dimensions in mega events and special festivals. The current study follows the research
stream and attempts to construct a temporal and local framework (SFMM) to reveal the
motivational dimensions of the ITF for festival visitors. This model was based on previous
models of festivals, especially the framework which was proposed by Getz and Frisby
(1988) and the sustainable tourism tree model proposed by Duran (2012).
Method
More than one research method was used, enabling triangulation of methods (Kerlinger
and Lee, 2000). This approach can contribute to improved reliability and validity of the
results of the research (Rossman and Rallis, 1998, p. 221).
PAGE 176 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The problem
De?ning a research problem is crucial in de?ning the quality of research answers and
determining the exact research methods to be used (Shuttleworth, 2008). The problem of
the current study was:
Figure 1 Event management system
Source: Getz and Frisby (1988)
GENERAL ENV?RONMENT Global forces impacting on events, event organizations, and event
tourism
Inputs
External Evaluation
COMMUNITY CONTEXT Local forces and conditions (other events;
competition; stakeholders; resource availability)
Outputs
INTERNAL ENV?RONMENT
The organization and its management
system: Planning; Leading;
Organizing; Coordinating; Staffing;
Financing; Marketing; Programming
Internal Evaluation
THE EVENT
Theme; Program; Setting;
Consumer Benefits
Figure 2 VICE model
Environment
Industry Community
Source: van Niekerk and Coetzee (2011)
Visitors
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 177
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
[...] what are the strategies that have to be applied for improvement of the managerial
effectiveness for providing sustainability of the ITF as a festival which is well accepted and
recognized? with whom?, with what? and “how can the ITF be developed and sustained?”
Setting and sample
A survey technique was the ?rst step of the research. The objective of the survey was to
identify the underlying dimensions of motivations for visitors of the ITF. The data collection
instrument was developed in Turkish and had two sections. The ?rst section had a
motivation scale adopted from Uysal et al. (1993), Yolal et al. (2009) and Lee et al. (2004).
In the motivation section of the questionnaire, 26 items were measured on a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1 ? strongly disagree, 3 ? neutral and 5 ? strongly agree). The second
section of the questionnaire addressed demographic variables: age, gender, education
level, occupation and monthly income (in Turkish Lira). Data were collected by way of
a self-administered questionnaire. The study sample comprised attendees of festival
events which were suitable for survey practice in the ITF from August 9 to 14, 2012.
These events were two theater shows (approximately 500 participants each), two
conferences (approximately 300 participants each) and two folk dance shows
(approximately 1,000 participants each). The questionnaires were handed out at the
entrances of the event venues to the potential respondents and were immediately
collected on their completion before the event started. As a result, 473 (26.3 per cent
response rate) usable surveys were obtained from the 1,800[1] visitors and retained in
the analysis. Underlying dimensions of motivation for visitors to the ITF were measured
with the instrument including, cultural exploration, family togetherness, escape and
excitement, novelty, event attractions and socialization dimensions. The data were
analyzed with SPSS-15.
An observation technique was the second step of the research. Within this context, the
whole of the events and event ?elds of the International Troia Festival were considered as
part of the observation. Content analysis was used for interpreting the data. Content
analysis is a research method which allows the qualitative data collected in research to be
analyzed systematically and reliably so that generalizations can be made from them in
relation to the categories of interest to the researcher (Haggarty, 1996). The data were
collected primarily through recorded interviews and observation forms. Where data were
collected through interviews, open-ended questions were used. Probes also tended to
be open ended or speci?c to the participant’s comments rather than to a preexisting
theory. Data analysis starts with reading all data repeatedly to achieve an impression
and obtain a sense of the whole (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) as if one would read a
novel. The recorded data were then typed on Microsoft Word and read word by word
to derive codes (Huberman and Miles, 2002) by ?rst highlighting the exact words from
the text that appear to capture key thoughts or concepts. Next, the text was examined
by making notes of the ?rst impressions, thoughts and initial analysis. As this process
continued, labels for codes emerged that were re?ective of more than one key thought.
Then codes were sorted into categories based on how different codes were related and
linked. These emergent categories were used to organize and group codes into
meaningful clusters (Patton, 2002).
The interview technique was the third step of the research. The interviews were
semi-structured utilizing 11 questions. The sample consists of 15 people, 3 of whom are
academics from Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, 3 are members of non-governmental
organizations of the city, 4 are members of the tourism sector (managers of the hospitality
businesses and travel agencies), 2 are the members of the city council and current agenda
21 and 3 are employers of the city corporation and public sector. The interviewees were
selected according the observations of festival events.
Content analysis was used in this study for the interviews and observations. There are
various approaches to coding (Günlü et al., 2009):
PAGE 178 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)

coding according to previously identi?ed concepts;

coding according to the concepts identi?ed through the data being analyzed; and

coding in a general framework.
The second coding type “coding according to the concepts identi?ed through the data
being analyzed” was preferred in this research because there is no previously de?ned
conceptual structure guiding the analysis of the data.
One of the most important things in qualitative research is to test the validity and reliability
of the research. Implementing different techniques in the same research, such as
interviews and observation, is termed triangulation of methods. This is one means of
improving the reliability of the research (Kerlinger and Lee, 2000). To test the validity of the
research, two independent scholars were selected and asked to investigate the codes and
incidence of coding. As soon as they had coded and calculated incidence rates
separately, responses were collated and the correct application of code was determined
by the author. After coding, code lists were classi?ed into themes.
Research ?ndings
Each research technique was analyzed with different methods according to their
characteristics.
Findings from the survey. A total of 473 usable forms were obtained from the visitors and
retained in the analysis. Because the original instrument was developed and used in
different contexts (Uysal et al., 1993; Yolal et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2004), we adopted the
same instrument. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of each scale used in this study was
analyzed, and all the scales were found to be reliable: cultural exploration (0.841), family
togetherness (0.893), escape and excitement (0.734), novelty (0.833), event attractions
(0.797) and socialization (0.784).
The demographic composition of the visitor pro?le re?ects the nature of the town itself,
being a college town with Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University and housing a signi?cant
number of educators, professionals and retirees alike. The gender distribution of festival
visitors was well balanced, with 43.3 per cent female and 56.7 per cent male. Troia Festival
visitors are more likely to have a college and higher education (69.1 per cent). Just ? 31
per cent of visitors are students, and the remaining 69 per cent represents the categories
of professionals (15 per cent), educators (17 per cent) and others (37 per cent). Slightly ?
47 per cent of visitors reported monthly income of ? 2,000TL ($1,120). Of the visitors, 35
per cent declared that they were attending an ITF event for the ?rst time. Just ?42 per cent
of the visitors had attended the ITF events four times. Of the visitors, 50 per cent were
attending events with their friends.
The data obtained from the festival visitors were analyzed through ordinal logistic
regression analysis (OLOGREG) because of the ordinal structure of the dependent
variables. As it is known, the ordinal logit model is based on distribution standardized
logistic probability. Errors are logistically distributed in the ordinal logit model (Chow,
1988).
The ordinal logistic regression method helps determine cause and effect relations between
response variables and exploratory variables in cases where the response variable
includes three or more categories and where the data are obtained by the ordinal scale
(Özdamar, 2004, p. 608). The ordinal logistic model we consider in this study is the
proportional odds model. With this model, the probability of an equal or smaller response,
Y ? k, is compared to the probability of a larger response, Y ? k, where k is any category
of the response variable (k ? 1,. . .,K) (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000, pp. 290-291). In this
situation, the logit transformation of the model is de?ned as:
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 179
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
logit
?
P(Y ? k
?
x)
?
? ln
?
P(Y ? k
?
x)
P(Y ? k
?
x)
?
? ln
?
?
1
(x) ? ?
2
(x) ? ... ? ?
k
(x)
?
k?1
(x) ? ?
k?2
(x) ? ... ? ?
K
(x)
?
, k ? 1, 2, ... , K ? 1 (1)
where ?
k
(x) ? P(Y ? k?x)
Then the logit model that simultaneously uses all cumulative logits is:
logit
?
P(Y ? k
?
x)
?
? ?
k
? x
'
? (2)
where ?
k
is the constant for each category, k, x
'
and ? are the vectors of independent
variables and parameters (coef?ents), respectively (Agresti, 2002, pp. 275-279; Long,
1997, p. 116). The effects of independent variable in?uencing dependent variables are
calculated as probability in ordinal logistic regression. The ODDS value means that the
probability of an investigated event is the probability ratio of events occurring out of the
investigated event. The ODDS ratio can be de?ned as the ratios of ODDS values of two
different events. The ODDS ratio shows the ratio of one event to occur as compared to
another events to happen. In other words, it shows how many times an event increases or
decreases as compared to another event. The ODDS ratio can change between 0 and ?
? (Çolak, 2002, pp. 7-10, Ayhan, 2006, p. 16). The conditional probabilities of the ordered
outcomes can be written in terms of the cumulative probabilities through equations (1) and
(2) (Powers and Xie 2000, pp. 212-214).
If multi-response categories are ordinal, variable distribution is named as ordinal
multi-nominal distribution. If response categories are from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree), then the given variable is congruent with ordinal multi-distribution. In this
study, responses were obtained with the above 5-point Likert scale. The ordinal logistic
regression was performed with the Minitab software. The algorithm of Minitab considers the
largest (grand) category of the response variable and the small (minor) categories of the
independent variables. Hence, categories acquired on each dimension were
reverse-coded and incorporated into the model. In this case, categories of the model
comprised from strongly disagree or disagree. Following are the research models which
were generated and examined in this study:

Cultural exploration ? socialization ? family togetherness ? education ? gender ?
monthly income (Formica and Uysal, 1998; Lee et al., 2004).

Novelty ? event attractions ? escape and excitement ? gender ? monthly income ?
education ? coming with whom (Lee et al., 2004; Yolal et al., 2009).

Socialization ? family togetherness ? cultural exploration ? gender ? attendance
score ? education (Uysal et al., 1993; Formica and Uysal, 1998; Woo et al., 2011).

Event attractions ? socialization ? cultural exploration ? education ? gender ?
occupation (Scho?eld and Thompson, 2007).

Family togetherness ? socialization ? novelty ? gender ? education ? attendance
score ? coming with whom (Mohr et al., 1993; Woo et al., 2011).

Escape and excitement ? cultural exploration ? socialization ? novelty ? event
attractions ? education ? occupation ? gender ? monthly income (Backman et al.,
1995; Yolal et al., 2009).
OLR results, considered to test whether different characteristics of attendants are relational
factor, were obtained and given in Table AI. In the analysis, “strongly agree” was
considered as the reference category for the dependent category and the results were
evaluated in relation to this category.
PAGE 180 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The cultural exploration dimension is the response variable on the ?rst research model. The
model revealed that socialization, family togetherness, education, gender and income have
effects on the cultural exploration motive (p ? 0.05). These results (Table AI) mean that
visitors who attended festival activities for having time in social environments and for family
togetherness dimensions also attended activities for cultural exploration. These ?ndings
indicate that the cultural exploration motive changes according to gender (z ? ?2.28; p ?
0.022) and education (z ? 2.26; p ? 0.024, z ? 2.62; p ? 0.009).
According to research model 2, the novelty motive increased when attraction, escape and
excitement dimensions and sensation increased (p ?0.05, z ?7.39, p ?0.001, z ?12.34;
p ?0.001). According to these results, visitors who attend festival activities to have time for
event attractions and for escaping from simplicity also attend activities for novelty too. No
signi?cant relation was detected between gender, education, attendance score and
novelty dimension (p ? 0.05). This result indicates that demographic features of the
participants do not affect the novelty motive.
The third research model revealed that the socialization motive increased when
participation for family togetherness and cultural exploration dimensions increased (p ?
0.05, z ? 5.08; p ? 0.001, z ? 8.75; p ? 0.001). Accordingly, visitors who attended festival
activities for having time with their families and for cultural exploration also attended
activities for having new social environments too. No signi?cant relation was found between
gender, monthly income, education, attendance score and socialization dimension (p ?
0.05). This result indicates that demographic features of the participants do not affect the
sensation of socialization dimension.
The event attraction dimension is the response variable in the fourth research model and
was found to be signi?cant (z ? 8.88; p ? 0.001, z ? 7.55; p ? 0.001). According to the
analysis, visitors who attended festival activities for cultural exploration and having new
social environments also attended new event attractions too. No signi?cant relation was
found between gender, education and monthly income and the event attraction dimension
(p ? 0.05). Visitors who have ? 4 events had 1.58 times the level of the event attraction
motive (z ? 2.13; p ? 0.033).
According to the family togetherness dimension in research model 5 (p ? 0.05), as
attending festival attractions with the motivation of novelty and socialization dimensions
increases, the family togetherness motive also increases (z ?2.7; p ?0.007, z ?5.39; p ?
0.001). Compared to male attendees, the family togetherness motive was 1.37 times higher
female attendees (z ? ?1.77; p ? 0.077). In terms of education level, participants with a
university education had 2.13 times lower family togetherness motive compared to
participants with primary school education (z ? ?1.81; p ? 0.071). Participants with
incomes between 1,001TL(561$) ?2,000 (1120$)TL income rate had 1.62 times lower
family togetherness motives compared to participants with ? 1,000 TL ($560) monthly
income rate (z ? 1.93; p ? 0.053). Participants who had attended two ITF events had 1.59
times more of the family participation motive than ?rst time participants (z ?1.69; p ?0.09).
Similarly, participants who had attended three ITF events had 2.03 times more of the family
togetherness motive than ?rst-time participants (z ?2.26; p ?0.024). Participants who had
attended four ITF events had 1.72 times more of the family togetherness motive than ?rst
time participants (z ? 2.8; p ? 0.005).
For research model 6 the escape and excitement dimension is the response variable,
cultural exploration, novelty, event attraction and socialization dimensions are the
independent variables (p ? 0.05). According to this, the escape and excitement motive
increases 2.75 times with increases in the novelty motive (z ? 7.07; p ? 0.0001). Similarly,
increments on socialization motive cause 1.77 times increases in the escape and
excitement motive (z ? 4.37; p ? 0.0001).
The main objective of the surveys was to identify the set of motives which stimulated visitors
to go to the ITF. Speci?cally in this ?rst context, it was anticipated that this research
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 181
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
technique would identify which motives visitors have for attending the festival and would
contribute to the model of festival sustainability.
Findings from the observations. The whole of the events and the event ?elds were
considered as part of the observation. Within this context, 50 events were observed in 17
event ?elds during the festival organization and content analysis was used for interpreting
the data. Table I shows the themes and codes identi?ed in the observation data.
As seen on Table I, the location of events varied according to seven different types. Mostly
local people attended the events and they displayed non-organized mass visitor
characteristics. This result indicates that different locations and inadequate advertisement
and publicity cause ad hoc attendance at festival events. Thematic features of the events
attracted the greatest interest from visitors. The observations on events indicated that the
ITF is not international, with its visitors being mostly local people. But it is an international
festival in terms of its cultural heritage, historical background, community support and
awareness of the people. The ITF is a cultural festival according to the results of the
observation technique. The observations on the ?eld indicated that general features of the
events are hosting cultural, thematic and massive characteristics together. The local and
international cultural nature of the events are characteristics to be protected. Effective
publicity, advertisement, public relations, professional support and organizational structure
are the instruments which have to be developed.
Findings from the interviews. Fifteen recorded interviews were performed during the festival
organization. The participants of the interviews were chosen from different socio-cultural
and socio-economic backgrounds. The interviewees were selected according to
observations of festival events. The frequency of codes and themes from the interviews are
presented in Table II.
Table I Themes and codes from observations on the event ?elds
Themes Code list Coding score Total event
Location of the event Outdoor/historical instruments 7 50
Closed space 9 50
Amateur concert area 6 50
Professional concert area 6 50
Event space in streets 9 50
Open-air park 9 50
Amphitheatre 4 50
General character of event visitors Local people 33 50
Mixed with local and foreign visitors 8 50
Non-organized mass 18 50
Event-oriented mass 34 50
Special interests 21 50
Cultural nature of the event Thematic (theater, folklore, etc.) 29 50
Outdoor concert 9 50
International culture samples 21 50
Local culture and identity samples 27 50
General feature of the event Massive 21 50
Unique (thematic) 22 50
Cultural 32 50
International 9 50
Local 28 50
Environmental 7 50
Instruments that have to be protected
against corruption
Events oriented local themes and cultures 23 50
International culture events 32 50
Publicity and promotion 36 50
Professional festival/fair ?eld 38 50
Effects of the festival on urban tourism Local and touristic 4 50
Touristic on international level 4 50
Local (not touristic) 36 50
PAGE 182 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
As seen on Table II, the interviewees characterized the ITF as a culture festival and image
generated for the city. According to the analyses of the interviews, the ITF is being
speci?ed as a local and amateur festival. At the same time, the festival is an important factor
in social and cultural structure of the city, but is not an inclusive feature for the whole of the
society. Interviewees declared views about the necessity of protecting the sources of historical
and cultural heritage of the festival. Therefore, developing an effective theme and a sustainable
organization framework for the festival intended to increase the contribution of the festival to the
social, cultural and economic structure of the city are important factors to provide sustainability.
Interviewees indicated that the effect of the ITF on Çanakkale tourism is de?cient and
stakeholder participation should be provided during the festival organization process.
Sustainable festival management model
A model of sustainable festival management is presented which identi?es the problems,
discovers the solutions, develops analytical suggestions and determines the political and
managerial units which will enact those suggestions (Figure 3).
The SFMM is a universal model which gives general solutions via socio-economic,
socio-cultural and structural problems regarding the ITF based on the results of the ?eld
research and re?ecting on the literature on festivals and event tourism. Problems with the
festival are particularly common to the city of Çanakkale and its’ environmental identity.
Developing a model with a sustainability perspective requires radical solutions to the
problems of environmental pressures. As Reed (2008, p. 1) points out: “the complex and
dynamic nature of environmental problems requires ?exible and transparent decision-making
that embraces a diversity of knowledge and values”. For this reason, stakeholder
Table II Frequencies of the themes and codes between interviewees
Themes Codes listed according to themes Total mentions F (per cent)
Structure of the festival Culture festival 15 100
International tourism festival 8 53.3
Local tourism festival
A great image fact for city 12 80
Current situation of the festival Local festival quali?cation 14 93.3
International festival quali?cation 6 40
Amateur festival quali?cation 12 80
Non-excited festival 8 53.3
Effects of festival on social and cultural
structure
Embracing whole of the community 8 53.3
Increasing cultural brightness 12 80
Distant from embracing whole of the
community
13 86.6
Mobilizing social and economic life 4 26.6
Values which have to be protected Unique historical and cultural sources 15 100
Contribution on local values and culture 9 60
Part on international publicity 15 100
Contribution on city image 15 100
Effects of festival on Çanakkale tourism Refreshing city tourism 5 33.3
Does not affect the city tourism 12 80
Attracting domestic visitors 5 33.3
Attracting foreign visitors 5 33.3
Policies have to be applied All stakeholder participation 14 93.3
Exploitation from ideas of authorities 13 86.6
Theme including city history and culture 13 86.6
Programmed development process 12 80
Settlement far from authorization 7 46.6
Elements have to be developed Publicity, public relations, advertisement 15 100
Professional festival/fair ?eld 13 86.6
Events suitable to intangible inputs of festival 12 80
Next festival development Effective stakeholder participation 14 93.3
Professional festival ?eld 13 86.6
Inclusive festival organization 11 73.3
Events suitable for festival theme 11 73.3
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 183
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
participation in environmental decision making has been increasingly sought and
embedded into regional, national and international policy. Although many bene?ts have
been claimed for participation, disillusionment has grown among practitioners and
stakeholders who have felt disappointed when these expectations were not met (Duran,
2012). In this context, stakeholder participation is necessary for developing sustainable
models. This model has been presented as a solution for sustainable festival management
for the ITF in Çanakkale.
Socio-cultural, socio-economic and structural problems resulting from sustainable festival
organization in Çanakkale were exposed according to the results of the ?eld research. The
questions of what? for what? how? for whom? and by whom? were the essential problems
which should be answered in the process of sustainable festival organization and
management. The SFMM model addresses these issues.
The SFMM model examines the management system for the ITF, which means that no event
or event organization can be understood without its environment and the internal processes
established to convert resources into desired outputs as suggested by Getz and Frisby
(1988). External environmental forces include policies, resource availability and demand/
supply factors. These can usefully be separated into the general environment, which impacts
everything, and the more immediate or community/city environment/identity which in?uences
the event or its organization directly. Speci?c attention should be given to inputs of the SFMM,
which are the resources and information ?ows on which festival management decisions are
based and can change from region to region and event to event according to the general
environment. Ongoing monitoring of forces and trends is needed, with a question of “by
whom?” All the internal event management processes have to be studied to assist in
improvements to program, goal attainment and ef?cient operations. The management system
of SFMM is based on stakeholder collaboration. Professional associations, government
agencies, academic institutions and NGOs should collaborate to ensure that festival and event
practitioners have information and can use it in their strategic planning.
Discussion
Festivals, perhaps inevitably, engage in tourism processes. From a tourism perspective,
festivals create product, enliven a destination and promise a glimpse into the authentic
culture of a place. From a festival perspective, visitors create new forms of demand,
sources of box-of?ce income and a means of raising the reputation of the destination. This
Figure 3 SFMM for Troia festival
I. Stage (What?) II. Stage (How?) V. Stage (For What?)
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL ENV?RONMENT CITY IDENT?Y
Problems for Troia Festival
Suggestions
Inputs Outputs
III. Stage (With What?)
External Evaluation (Feedback)
IV. Stage (By Whom?)
Socio-economic
- Publicity/Advertisement
of festival
- Deficient professional
support
- Inactive sponsorship
- Deficient stakeholder
participation
- Ineffective theme
Socio-cultural
- Local cultures
- Internationalization
- Cultural heritage
(protection &
beneficiation)
- Community
participation
- NGO’s
Structural
- Professional
fair/festival field
- Deficient physical
equipment
- Service quality
- Entertainment and
shopping facilities
- Health and security
conditions
Festival/fair field
Effective stakeholder
participation
Efficient professional
support
Effective
publicity/advertisemen
t
Effective theme
Physical equipment
Professional
sponsorship
Internal Evaluation
Planning and Coordination
Implementation and Control
Solidarity
Support
Tracking
Funding
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
Publicity/Ad
vertisement
Development
Arrangement
Festival
Implementation
PAGE 184 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
study focused on determining the important motivational dimensions concerning festival
visitors, determining current conditions of the festival by de?ning problems, managerial
challenges and roles of stakeholders, identifying the current position of festival in the
international marketplace and proposing a managerial model to ensure sustainability of the
festival. In this context, the SFMM model has been structured according to the ?eld
research of these aims and has a response on all the questions of this study as a universal
model with local features and problems of the ITF.
The ITF has a signi?cant in?uence on the socio-cultural and socio-economic life of
Çanakkale with its long history, cultural heritage and historical sources as an international
event. The results of this research suggest that the success of any festival or special event
relies heavily on the support of local communities; organizers may place more importance
on the social bene?ts of festivals and special events to the local community. SFMM requires
effective stakeholder participation, especially non-governmental organizations, the tourism
sector and local peoples who might be impacted by the festival. Effective stakeholder
participation is an important element underlying the success of events and festivals. In this
context, effective collaboration of stakeholders should be gained for robust tourism
development.
Field research from this study indicated that the ITF should be based on cultural heritage.
In addition, the festival should be based on an effective theme which re?ects this cultural
heritage and city identity at the same time. Effective professional support should be
provided for the festival organization process. In this context, similar festivals and their
successful processes should be examined. A professional festival/fair venue with high
standards of physical equipment and service quality should be constructed for the ITF and
for Çanakkale.
A successful and sustainable tourism strategy identi?es how to welcome and involve
visitors satisfaction, achieve a pro?table and prosperous industry, engage and bene?t host
communities and protect and enhance the local environment. These factors will become
more and more important for the ITF due to heightened competition. In this context,
effective festival organization requires maximization of community, stakeholder and festival
visitor bene?ts. If costs of a festival or a special event are likely to be higher than the
bene?ts for all stakeholders, they should reconsider the proposal because a special event
or a festival which is not planned and developed carefully and organized by organizers who
are not concerned about the negative impacts on the community may create disastrous
results.
This ?eld research identi?ed a de?cient publicity and advertisement campaign for the ITF.
Effective publicity and advertisement campaign should be performed to promote tangible
and intangible values of the ITF. For this purpose, publicity and advertisement programs
about festivals should be undertaken for international events. In addition, effective
sponsorship support and service should be obtained during the organizing and
programming process of festival organization. Entertainment and shopping facilities and
points should be arranged for the maximization of visitors’ satisfaction.
Note
1. According to the personal interview with festival organizers.
References
Agresti, A. (2002), Categorical Data Analysis, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Allen, J., O’Toole, W., McDonnell, I. and Harris, R. (2002), Festival and Special Event Management,
John Wiley & Sons, Sydney.
Allen, L.R., Hafer, H.R., Long, H.R. and Perdue, R. (1993), “Rural residents’ attitudes toward recreation
and tourism development”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 27-33.
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 185
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Andersson, T.D. and Getz, D. (2008), “Stakeholder management strategies of festivals”, Journal of
Convention and Event Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 199-220.
Ayhan, S. (2006), “SS?ral? Lojistik Regresyon Analiziyle Türkiye’deki Hems¸irelerin I
?
s¸ B?rakma Niyetini
Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi”, in Yay?nlanmam?s¸ Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Eskis¸ehir Osmangazi
U
¨
niversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Backman, K.F., Backman, S.J., Uysal, M. and Sunshine, K.M. (1995), “Event tourism: an examination
of motivations and activities”, Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 15-24.
Bergee, J.M. (2006), “Validation of a model of extramusical in?uences on solo and small-ensemble
festival ratings”, Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 244-256.
Besculides, A., Lee, M.E. and McCornic, P.J. (2002), “Residents perceptions of the cultural bene?ts of
tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 303-319.
Bowen, H.E. and Daniels, M.J. (2005), “Does the music matter? Motivations for attending a music
festival”, Event Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 155-164.
Charters, S. and Ali-Knight, J. (2002), “Who is the wine tourist?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 311-319.
Chow, G.C. (1988), Econometrics, 4th Printing, McGraw-Hill Book, Singapore.
Chwe, M.S.Y. (1998), “Culture, circles and commercials: publicity, common knowledge and social
coordination”, Rationality and Society, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-75.
Çolak, E. (2002), “Kos¸ullu ve s?n?rland?r?lm?s¸ lojistik regresyon yöntemlerinin kars¸?las¸t?r?lmas? ve bir
uygulama”, in Yay?nlanmam?s¸ Yüksek Lisans tezi, Eskis¸ehir Osmangazi U
¨
niversitesi, Sag? l?k Bilimleri
Enstitüsü.
Crompton, L.J. and McKay, L.S. (1997), “Motives of visitors attending festival events”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 425-439.
Delamere, T. and Hinch, T. (1994), “Community festivals: celebration or sellout”, Recreation Canada,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 26-29.
Dodd, T. (2000), “In?uences on cellar door sales and determinants of wine tourism success: results
from Texas wineries”, in Hall C.M., Sharples L., Cambourne, B. and Macionis, N. (Eds), Wine Tourism
Around the World: Development, Management and Markets, Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford.
Duran, E. (2012), “Protecting social and cultural identity in sustainable tourism: the case of Gökçeada,
Turkey”, in Hyde, K.F., Ryan, C. and Woodside, A.G. (Eds), Field Guide to Case Study Research in
Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure: Advances in Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6,
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK.
Esman, M. (1984), “Tourism as ethnic preservation: the Cajuns of Louisiana”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 451-467.
Formica, S. and Murrmann, S. (1998), “The effects of group membership and motivation on
attendance: an international festival case”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 3 Nos 3/4, pp. 197-207.
Formica, S. and Uysal, M. (1998), “Market segmentation of an international cultural-historical event in
Italy”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 16-24.
Frey, B.S. (2000), “The rise of festivals re?ection on the Salzburg festival”, Working papers of the
Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, available at: www.unizch.ch/iew/wp
(accessed 21 September 2012).
Gartner, W.C. and Holecek, D.F. (1983), “Economic impact of an annual tourism industry exposition”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 199-212.
Getz, D. (1997), Event Management and Event Tourism, Cognizant Communications Corporation,
New York, NY.
Getz, D. (2008), “Event tourism: de?nition, evolution, and research”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 403-428.
Getz, D. (2010), “The nature and scope of festival studies”, International Journal of Event Management
Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-47.
Getz, D. and Frisby, W. (1988), “Evaluating management effectiveness in community-run festivals”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 22-27.
PAGE 186 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Gökhan, U
¨
. (2011), “About Troia festival”, available at: www.canakkale.bel.tr/bpi.asp?caid?
204&cid?562 (accessed 15 August 2011).
Günlü, E., P?irnar, I. and Yag? c?i, K. (2009), “Preserving cultural heritage and possible impacts on
regional development: case of I
?
zmir”, International Journal of Emerging and Transition Economies,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 213-229.
Gürsoy, D., Kyungmi, K. and Uysal, M. (2004), “Perceived impacts of festivals and special events by
organizers: an extension and validation”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 171-181.
Gwinner, K. (1997), “A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 145-158.
Haggarty, L. (1996), “What is content analysis?”, Medical Teacher, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 99-101.
Hall, D.P. (2001), “Culture, tourism and cultural tourism: boundaries and frontiers in performances of
Balinese music and dance”, Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 173-187.
Hallman, K. and Harms, G. (2012), “Determinants of volunteer motivation and their impact on future
voluntary engagement: a comparison of volunteer’s motivation at sport events in equestrian and
handball”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 272-
291.
Hosmer, D.W. and Lemeshow, S. (2000), Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, E.S. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative
Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277-1288.
Huberman, A.M. and Miles, B.M. (2002), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Inkei, P. (2005), Assistance to Arts and Culture Festivals, D’art topics in art policy, No. 21, International
Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, Sydney.
Jackson, J., Houghton, M., Russell, R. and Triandos, P. (2005), “Innovations in measuring economic
impacts of regional festivals: a do-it-yourself kit”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 360-367.
Janniskee, R. and Drews, P. (1998), “Rural festivals and community re-imagining”, in Butler, R. Hall, C.
and Jenkins, J. (Eds), Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 135-153.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. and Williams, R.D. (1997), “A theoretical analysis of host community resident
recreations to tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 3-11.
Keogh, B. (1990), “Resident and recreationists’ perceptions and attitudes with respect to tourism
development”, Journal of Applied Recreation Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 71-83.
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000), Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th ed, Wadsworth,
Belmont, CA.
Kim, C., Scott, D., Thigpen, J.F. and Kim, S.S. (1998), “Economic impacts of a birding festival”, Festival
Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-58.
Kruger, M. and Saayman, M. (2010), “Travel motivation of tourists to Kruger and Tsiksikomma National
Parks: a comparative study”, South African Journal of Wildlife Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 93-102.
Kruger, M., Saayman, M. and Ellis, S. (2011), “Segmentation by genes: the case of the Aardklop
National Arts Festival”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 13, pp. 551-526.
Lankford, S.V. and Howard, D.R. (1994), “Developing a tourism impact attitude scale”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 121-139.
Lee, K.C., Lee, K.Y. and Wicks, E.B. (2004), “Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and
satisfaction”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 2004, pp. 61-67.
Long, J.P. (1997), Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mitchell, R., Hall, C.M. and McIntosh, A. (2000), “Wine tourism and consumer behavior”, in
Hall C.M, Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and Macionis, N. (Eds), Wine Tourism around the World:
Development, Management and Markets, Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford.
Mohr, K., Backman, K.F., Gahan, L.W. and Backman, S.J. (1993), “An investigation of festival
motivations and event satisfaction by visitor type”, Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 89-97.
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 187
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Moseley, M. and Mowatt, R. (2011), “Reconceptualizing and repositioning festival exhibitors within
tourism research”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 254-270.
O’Sullivan, D. and Jackson, M. (2002), “Festival tourism: a contributor to sustainable local economic
development?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 325-342.
Özdamar, K. (2004), Paket Programlar I
?
le I
?
statistiksel Veri Analizi 1. Genis¸letilmis¸ 5. Bask?i. Kaan
Kitabevi, Eskis¸ehir.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Powers, D.A. and Xie, Y. (2000), Statistical Methods for Categorical Data Analysis, Academic Press,
Orlando.
Quinn, B. (2006), “Problematising ‘festival tourism’: arts festivals and sustainable development in
Ireland”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 288-306.
Raj, R. (2003), “The impact of festivals on cultural tourism”, The 2nd De Haam Tourism Management
Conference “Developing Cultural Tourism”, Nottingham, 16 December.
Rao, V. (2001), “Celebrations as social investments: festival expenditures, unit price variation and
social status in rural India”, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 71-97.
Reed, S.M. (2008), “Stakeholder participant for environmental management: a literature review”,
Biological Conservation, Vol. 141 No. 10, pp. 2417-2431.
Rossman, G.B. and Rallis, S.F. (1998), Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Saayman, M. and Saayman, A. (2012), “The economic impact of the Comrades Marathon”,
International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 220-235.
Schneider, I.E. and Backman, S.J. (1996), “Cross-cultural equivalence of festival motivations: a study
in Jordan”, Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 139-144.
Scho?eld, P. and Thompson, K. (2007), “Visitor motivation, satisfaction and behavioral intention: the
2005 Naadam festival, Ulaanbaatar”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 5,
pp. 329-344.
Scott, D. (1996), “A comparison of visitors’ motivation to attend three urban festivals”, Festival
Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 121-128.
Shuttleworth, M. (2008), “De?ning a research problem”, Retrieved from Experiment Resources,
available at: www.experiment-resources.com/de?ning-a-research-problem.html (accessed 15 May
2010).
Taylor, T. and Kim, H.Y. (2011), “A Study attendees’ motivations: Oxford ?lm festival”, Undergraduate
Research Journal for the Human Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Thrane, C. (2002), “Jazz festival visitors and their expenditures: linking spending patterns to musical
interest”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 281-286.
Tosun, C. (2002), “Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 231-245.
Uysal, M. and Gitelson, R. (1994), “Assessment of economic impacts: festivals and special events”,
Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Uysal, M., Gahan, L. and Martin, B. (1993), “An examination of event motivations: a case study”,
Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-10.
Van Niekerk, M. and Coetzee, W.J.L. (2011), “Utilizing the VICE model for the sustainable development
of the Innibos arts festival”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4,
pp. 347-365.
Varotsis, S.E. (2006), “Festivals and events-(re) interpreting cultural identity”, Tourism Review, Vol. 61
No. 2, pp. 24-29.
Visser, G. (2005), “Let’s be festive: explanatory notes on festival tourism in South Africa”, Urban Forum,
Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 155-175.
Walo, M., Bull, A. and Green, H. (1996), “Achieving economic bene?ts at local events: a case study of
a local sport event”, Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 3 Nos 3/4, pp. 96-106.
PAGE 188 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Woo, E., Yolal, M., Çetinel, F. and Uysal, M. (2011), “A Comparative study of motivation across different
festival products”, 16th Graduate Students Research Conference, available at: http://
scholarworks.umass.edu/gradconf_hospitality/2011/Presentation/92/ (accessed 7 September 2012).
Yan, Q., Zang, H. and Li, M. (2012), “Programming quality of festivals: conceptualization,
measurement, and relation to consequences”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 653-673.
Yolal, M., Çetinel, F. and Uysal, M. (2009), “An examination of festival motivation and perceived
bene?ts relationship: Eski°ehir international festival”, Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 276-291.
Yuan, J., Morrison, M.A., Chai, A.L. and Linton, S. (2008), “A model of wine tourist behaviour: a festival
approach”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 208-219.
Further reading
Brannas, K. and Nordstrom, J. (2002), Tourist Accommodation Effects of Festivals, Department of
Economics, Umea University, Sweden.
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 189
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Appendix
Table AI Ordinal regression results
Predictor Coef?cients SE coef?cients Z p Odds ratio
Model–1
Const(1) ?5.41462 0.47242 ?11.46 0.000
Const(2) ?3.01131 0.417918 ?7.21 0.000
Const(3) ?1.68664 0.418099 ?4.03 0.000
Family togetherness 0.20383 0.089372 2.28 0.023 1.23
Socialization 1.19063 0.124649 9.55 0.000 3.29
Const(1) ?3.32165 0.594129 ?5.59 0.000
Const(2) ?0.80997 0.570881 ?1.42 0.156
Const(3) 0.537272 0.577474 0.93 0.352
Gender
Male ?0.44461 0.194773 ?2.28 0.022 0.64
Education
High school 0.481872 0.462055 1.04 0.297 1.62
Associate degree 1.24365 0.551194 2.26 0.024 3.47
Bachelor’s degree 1.18464 0.452109 2.62 0.009 3.27
Master’s degree 0.243352 0.513766 0.47 0.636 1.28
Doctorate 0.371532 0.6377 0.58 0.56 1.45
Income
1001-2,000 TL 0.242399 0.278572 0.87 0.384 1.27
2001-? ?0.31075 0.311539 ?1 0.319 0.73
Not responded ?0.01148 0.268025 ?0.04 0.966 0.99
Attendance score
2 ?0.07191 0.304077 ?0.24 0.813 0.93
3 ?0.43196 0.341841 ?1.26 0.206 0.65
4 0.066293 0.213474 0.31 0.756 1.07
Family togetherness
Const(1) 0.479635 0.282476 1.7 0.09 1.62
Const(2) 0.601627 0.297544 2.02 0.043 1.83
Const(3) 0.886896 0.336368 2.64 0.008 2.43
Const(4) 0.948702 0.364716 2.6 0.009 2.58
Socialization
Const(1) 0.861623 0.308028 2.8 0.005 2.37
Const(2) 1.56569 0.304036 5.15 0.000 4.79
Const(3) 2.99814 0.348177 8.61 0.000 20.05
Model–2
Const(1) ?11.3941 0.746909 ?15.26 0.000
Const(2) ?9.11426 0.676542 ?13.47 0.000
Const(3) ?7.10425 0.624936 ?11.37 0.000
Escape/excitement 0.707820 0.0957533 7.39 0.000 2.03
Event attractions 1.87395 0.151866 12.34 0.000 6.51
Const(1) ?5.11397 0.660311 ?7.74 0.000
Const(2) ?2.82918 0.635792 ?4.45 0.000
Const(3) ?0.92758 0.618 ?1.5 0.133
Gender
Male ?0.2408 0.19002 ?1.27 0.205 0.79
Education
High school 0.230036 0.462814 0.5 0.619 1.26
Associate degree 0.468078 0.541377 0.86 0.387 1.6
Bachelors de’gree 0.087414 0.446215 0.2 0.845 1.09
Master’s degree ?0.25746 0.513048 ?0.5 0.616 0.77
Doctorate ?0.6269 0.642223 ?0.98 0.329 0.53
Income
1001-2,000 TL ?0.41878 0.274235 ?1.53 0.127 0.66
2001-? ?0.31203 0.307781 ?1.01 0.311 0.73
Not respond ?0.22701 0.268019 ?0.85 0.397 0.8
Attendance score
2 ?0.12136 0.301824 ?0.4 0.688 0.89
3 0.32568 0.338546 0.96 0.336 1.38
4 ?0.11831 0.211354 ?0.56 0.576 0.89
(continued)
PAGE 190 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Table AI
Predictor Coef?cients SE coef?cients Z p Odds ratio
Escape/excitement
Const(1) 1.02737 0.296139 3.47 0.001 2.79
Const(2) 1.24297 0.281045 4.42 0.000 3.47
Const(3) 2.19871 0.293386 7.49 0.000 9.01
Escape/excitement
Const(1) 1.40938 0.440746 3.2 0.001 4.09
Const(2) 2.26242 0.402392 5.62 0.000 9.61
Const(3) 4.23345 0.434152 9.75 0.000 68.95
Model–3
Const(1) ?6.84434 0.566942 ?12.07 0.000
Const(2) ?5.01099 0.528721 ?9.48 0.000
Const(3) ?3.34772 0.502335 ?6.66 0.000
Family togetherness 0.426831 0.084091 5.08 0.000 1.53
Cultural exploration 1.12709 0.128866 8.75 0.000 3.09
Const(1) ?3.19017 0.619637 ?5.15 0.000
Const(2) ?1.30241 0.610117 ?2.13 0.033
Const(3) 0.373924 0.604078 0.62 0.536
Gender
Male 0.061668 0.184386 0.33 0.738 1.06
Education
High school ?0.39438 0.456528 ?0.86 0.388 0.67
Associate degree ?0.72229 0.527048 ?1.37 0.171 0.49
Bachelors degree ?0.68961 0.444562 ?1.55 0.121 0.5
Master ?0.61818 0.507938 ?1.22 0.224 0.54
Doctorate ?0.38724 0.642299 ?0.6 0.547 0.68
Income
1001-2000 TL ?0.20319 0.260365 ?0.78 0.435 0.82
2001-? 0.284038 0.297191 0.96 0.339 1.33
Not responded ?0.20762 0.253311 ?0.82 0.412 0.81
Attendance score
2 0.203383 0.289026 0.7 0.482 1.23
3 ?0.10617 0.327859 ?0.32 0.746 0.9
4 ?0.18472 0.202292 ?0.91 0.361 0.83
Family togetherness
Const(1) ?0.23671 0.275294 ?0.86 0.39 0.79
Const(2) 0.247166 0.286853 0.86 0.389 1.28
Const(3) 0.499544 0.315251 1.58 0.113 1.65
Const(4) 1.43941 0.34682 4.15 0.000 4.22
Cultural exploration
Const(1) 1.07086 0.445048 2.41 0.016 2.92
Const(2) 2.2272 0.403006 5.53 0.000 9.27
Const(3) 3.3218 0.422592 7.86 0.000 27.71
Model–4
Const(1) ?6.84434 0.566942 ?12.07 0.000
Const(2) ?5.01099 0.528721 ?9.48 0.000
Const(3) ?3.34772 0.502335 ?6.66 0.000
Family togetherness 0.426831 0.084091 5.08 0.000 1.53
Cultural exploration 1.12709 0.128866 8.75 0.000 3.09
Const(1) ?3.19017 0.619637 ?5.15 0.000
Const(2) ?1.30241 0.610117 ?2.13 0.033
Const(3) 0.373924 0.604078 0.62 0.536
Gender
Male 0.061668 0.184386 0.33 0.738 1.06
Education
High school ?0.39438 0.456528 ?0.86 0.388 0.67
Associate degree ?0.72229 0.527048 ?1.37 0.171 0.49
Bachelor’s degree ?0.68961 0.444562 ?1.55 0.121 0.5
Master’s degree ?0.61818 0.507938 ?1.22 0.224 0.54
Doctorate ?0.38724 0.642299 ?0.6 0.547 0.68
Income
1,001-2000 TL ?0.20319 0.260365 ?0.78 0.435 0.82
2001-? 0.284038 0.297191 0.96 0.339 1.33
(continued)
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 191
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Table AI
Predictor Coef?cients SE coef?cients Z p Odds ratio
Not responded ?0.20762 0.253311 ?0.82 0.412 0.81
Attendance score
2 0.203383 0.289026 0.7 0.482 1.23
3 ?0.10617 0.327859 ?0.32 0.746 0.9
4 ?0.18472 0.202292 ?0.91 0.361 0.83
Family togetherness
Const(1) ?0.23671 0.275294 ?0.86 0.39 0.79
Const(2) 0.247166 0.286853 0.86 0.389 1.28
Const(3) 0.499544 0.315251 1.58 0.113 1.65
Const(4) 1.43941 0.34682 4.15 0.000 4.22
Cultural exploration
Const(1) 1.07086 0.445048 2.41 0.016 2.92
Const(2) 2.2272 0.403006 5.53 0.000 9.27
Const(3) 3.3218 0.422592 7.86 0.000 27.71
Model–5
Const(1) ?9.75473 0.703687 ?13.86 0.000
Const(2) ?7.03655 0.622653 ?11.3 0.000
Const(3) ?5.35116 0.589663 ?9.07 0.000
Cultural exploration 1.33266 0.150083 8.88 0.000 3.79
Socialization 1.00954 0.133693 7.55 0.000 2.74
Const(1) ?4.28161 0.673554 ?6.36 0.000
Const(2) ?1.58795 0.652737 ?2.43 0.015
Const(3) 0.017052 0.638983 0.03 0.979
Gender
Male ?0.07688 0.197583 ?0.39 0.697 0.93
Education
High school ?0.49808 0.497418 ?1 0.317 0.61
Associate degree ?0.68747 0.57806 ?1.19 0.234 0.5
Bachelor’s degree ?0.80653 0.483687 ?1.67 0.095 0.45
Master’s degree ?0.66251 0.546776 ?1.21 0.226 0.52
Doctorate ?1.10596 0.672839 ?1.64 0.100 0.33
Income
1,001-2,000 TL ?0.16739 0.277626 ?0.6 0.547 0.85
2,001-? ?0.03051 0.315666 ?0.1 0.923 0.97
Not responded 0.253971 0.272155 0.93 0.351 1.29
Attendance score
2 0.321995 0.309996 1.04 0.299 1.38
3 0.13593 0.343148 0.4 0.692 1.15
4 0.458846 0.215374 2.13 0.033 1.58
Cultural exploration
Const(1) 1.74453 0.45691 3.82 0.000 5.72
Const(2) 2.57081 0.429138 5.99 0.000 13.08
Const(3) 3.8354 0.462242 8.3 0.000 46.31
Socialization
Const(1) 0.300265 0.316055 0.95 0.342 1.35
Const(2) 1.12399 0.317082 3.54 0.000 3.08
Const(3) 2.17087 0.355276 6.11 0.000 8.77
Model–6
Const(1) ?4.00239 0.339608 ?11.79 0.000
Const(2) ?2.90189 0.317469 ?9.14 0.000
Const(3) ?1.80648 0.299877 ?6.02 0.000
Const(4) ?0.25962 0.291911 ?0.89 0.374
Novelty 0.247416 0.091491 2.7 0.007 1.28
Socialization 0.506985 0.094095 5.39 0.000 1.66
Const(1) ?3.36112 0.557178 ?6.03 0.000
Const(2) ?2.20153 0.546845 ?4.03 0.000
Const(3) ?1.04286 0.540853 ?1.93 0.054
Const(4) 0.574441 0.538402 1.07 0.286
Gender
Male ?0.31269 0.176606 ?1.77 0.077 0.73
Education
High school ?0.25524 0.427501 ?0.6 0.55 0.77
(continued)
PAGE 192 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
About the authors
Erol Duran is Resident. Assistant, Faculty of Tourism, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University,
(Terziog? lu Campus, 17100, Turkey. His research interests include tourism and
sustainability and socio-cultural effects of tourism. Erol Duran is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Bahattin Hamarat is lecturer at Faculty of Tourism, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University. His
research interests include statistics and environmental change.
Emrah Özkul is Assistant Professor School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, in
Düzce University, Akcakoca. His research interests include tourism marketing and guest
relations management in tourism.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Table AI
Predictor Coef?cients SE coef?cients Z p Odds ratio
Associate degree ?0.14892 0.501769 ?0.3 0.767 0.86
Bachelor’s degree ?0.74726 0.413381 ?1.81 0.071 0.47
Master’s degree ?0.65822 0.477333 ?1.38 0.168 0.52
Doctorate ?0.58828 0.595892 ?0.99 0.324 0.56
Income
1,001-2,000 TL 0.483925 0.250441 1.93 0.053 1.62
2,001-? 0.434462 0.284705 1.53 0.127 1.54
Not responded 0.091709 0.242598 0.38 0.705 1.1
Attendance score
2 0.466286 0.275134 1.69 0.09 1.59
3 0.709481 0.313681 2.26 0.024 2.03
4 0.540722 0.193143 2.8 0.005 1.72
Novelty
Const(1) 0.289123 0.295028 0.98 0.327 1.34
Const(2) 0.320515 0.288174 1.11 0.266 1.38
Const(3) 0.851026 0.31134 2.73 0.006 2.34
Socialization
Const(1) 0.90456 0.298909 3.03 0.002 2.47
Const(2) 0.970278 0.293597 3.3 0.001 2.64
Const(3) 1.68886 0.317323 5.32 0.000 5.41
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 193
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
4

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)

doc_420413705.pdf