See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233643887

Festival Visitor Motivation from the Organizers' Points of View

Article  in  Event Management · February 2001

DOI: 10.3727/152599501108751533

CITATIONS READS

99 2,940

3 authors:

Kyungmi Kim Muzaffer Uysal

Incheon National University University of Massachusetts Amherst
21 PUBLICATIONS   2,057 CITATIONS    208 PUBLICATIONS   20,489 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joseph S. Chen
Indiana University Bloomington
94 PUBLICATIONS   4,721 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

article View project

Promotion of Cultural Tourism in SIDS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muzaffer Uysal on 06 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Event Management, Vol. 7, pp. 127–134 1525-9951/02 $20.00 + .00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2002 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
www.cognizantcommunication.com

RESEARCH NOTE
NOTE

FESTIVAL VISIT
FESTIVAL OR MO
VISITOR TIV
MOTIVATION FR
TIVA OM THE ORGANIZERS’ POINTS OF VIEW
FROM

KYUNGMI KIM,* MUZAFFER UYSAL,* AND JOSEPH S. CHEN†

*Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
351 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0429
†Hotel and Restaurant Management, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197

Festivals and special events serve as important attractors for tourists and provide unique experiences for
attendees. These events may also provide both tangible and intangible benefits for communities. Most of the
studies dealing with festivals and events have focused on either understanding attendees’ behavior or delin-
eating the economic impacts of visitation upon communities in which such events are held. Sporadic atten-
tion has also been paid to such issues as sponsorship, volunteerism, the role of community involvement in
staging events, and perceptions of events and festivals. Little, if any, research has been done to examine how
different festival organizers perceive the motivation for attending festivals and events. Thus, the purpose of
this study is to solicit the organizers’ perception of the attendees’ motivations and to compare these results
with those of attendees from literature. The study concludes with management and marketing implications
for festival and event organizers.

Event organizers Perceptions Visitor motivation

Small towns and cities are increasingly seeking to
diversify their economies and ensure their long-term
economic vitality. One of the fastest growing sectors
of the tourism industry has been “event tourism.” The
growing interest in festivals and special events may
provide both tangible and intangible “profitable activi-
ties” in the community (Getz, 1991).
Festivals and special events are unique travel desti-
nations because they need not rely upon expensive
physical developments. Rather, event organizers are
more dependent upon the support of the local commu-
nity for their success than they are upon unique natural
or built attractions (Janiskee, 1994; Turko & Kelsey,
1992). Therefore, to improve the operation, profitabil-
ity, and social objectives of special festivals and events,
it is necessary to provide event managers with greater
and more accurate information about the gap or con-
gruity that may exist between their perception of the
importance of festival motivations and those of attend-
ees’ perceived motivations. However, given the pau-

Address correspondence to Muzaffer Uysal, Ph.D., Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, 351 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0429. Tel: (540) 231-9181; Fax: (540) 231-8313; E-mail: samil@vt.edu

127
128 KIM, UYSAL, AND CHEN
city of the research in this area, it is essential to gener-
ate more specific information about festivals and spe-
cial events that may be of help to destination promot-
ers, event managers, and organizers.
Festivals and special events also serve as important
attractors for destinations and provide unique experi-
ences for attendees. These events also have the capa-
bility of providing both tangible benefits, such as addi-
tional income and tax revenues, and intangible benefits,
such as renewal of community pride and an enhanced
image of the place. Most of the studies dealing with
festivals and events have focused on either understand-
ing attendees’ behavior or delineating the direct eco-
nomic impacts of visitation upon communities in which
such events are held. Additionally, sporadic attention
has also been paid to the issues on sponsorship
(Crompton, 1995; Mohr, Backman, & Backman, 1995),
volunteerism (Williams, Dossa, & Tompkins, 1995),
service quality (Crompton & Love, 1995; Wicks &
Fesenmaier, 1993), and the role of community involve-
ment in staging events and festivals (Backman,
Backman, Uysal, & Sunshine, 1995). Although many
event-related issues have been studied in the past, it
seems that some critical points affecting the success of
event management have been ignored. For examples,
as the service providers, festival organizers ought to
understand attendee’s needs and wants in order to de-
liver their customers optimal experiences; however, little
research, if any, has been done to examine how differ-
ent festival organizers perceive the motivation of at-
tendees to festivals and events.
Based on a descriptive review of festivals and events,
one can easily determine that festivals and events are
put on and organized by a wide variety of entities, in-
cluding festival and event organizers, local parks pro-
fessionals, convention and visitors bureau (CVB) di-
rectors, extension specialists, and other organizations,
such as local chambers of commerce, and local and
regional tourism entities. However, the objectives and
goals of these organizations may be very different. One
of the commonalities they share may be to improve the
quality of life in their communities. Some organizers
may see festivals as recreational pursuits that should
be managed on a somewhat loose and informal basis.
Others may resist the trend toward professionalism be-
cause they fear that community involvement and con-
trol may diminish if a business-like approach devel-
ops. There may also be a concern that the event will
become a “tourist trap” in which authenticity dimin-
ishes or disappears and problems of overcrowding and
commercialism take over. On the other hand, the festi-
val is likely to survive and become financially more
viable if it is marketed to visitors beyond the immedi-
ate local area (Frisby & Getz, 1989). Therefore, it is
imperative to ensure that the festival and event orga-
nizers understand their clients’ underlying motivations
to the events and festivals. Due to the deficiency of
current literature on event and festival organizer’s per-
ceptions of their customers’ participation motivations,
this research is to detect the festival and event organiz-
ers’ perceptions to their attendees’ motivation and to
determine if the perceptual gaps between event orga-
nizers and event participants exist.
Festival and Event Motivation
Festivals and special events are the cultural resources
of an area that make possible the successful hosting of
attendees. These events are usually organized to create
a positive image of a place and to bring money to the
local economy. Such cultural and heritage events are
also viewed as part of the new wave of “alternative tour-
ism” (Getz, 1991). In this context, festivals and special
events may minimize negative impacts, contribute to
sustainable development, foster better host–guest rela-
tionships, and help preserve sensitive natural or social
and cultural environments. Festivals and special events
vary greatly in terms of place, objectives, program con-
tents, and purposes. These dimensions and unique quali-
ties of the festivals and special events necessitate a care-
ful and thoughtful approach to determine data, data
collection methods, and impact estimation methods, and
to assess market characteristics for use in delineating
the economic, social, and managerial impacts of festi-
vals and special events (Uysal & Gitelson, 1994).
To develop an effective marketing strategy for a spe-
cial event, it is paramount for organizers to understand
the motivating factors that lead to the decision to at-
tend an event. To date, festival and event research has
examined motivations from the attendee’s point of view.
Needless to say, event organizers might have miscon-
ception of their customers’ motivation. Wicks and
Fesenmaier (1993) examined the perceptual gap on
customer expectations between visitor and vendors,
identifying those areas of the event that need improve-
ment. The same analogy also has applicability to the
identification of the motivation gap that may exist be-
tween attendees and festival and event providers. As
 VISITOR MOTIVATION FROM ORGANIZERS’ POINT OF VIEW
Fodness (1994) points out, the motivation represents
the major driving power in explaining human behav-
ior, although it is not the exclusive factor. Indeed, mo-
tivational factors best represent the personal psycho-
logical components, such as needs, expectations,
benefits sought, and achievements that are likely to be
satisfied through tourism activities.
In order to fully understand festival and event moti-
vation, the study reviews existing research where the
unit of analysis is the individual attendee. Among the
recent research studying visitors’ motivations of the
festivals, Uysal, Gahan, and Martin (1993) explored
visitors’ motivations for attending a county festival in
South Carolina. Their findings showed that Escape,
Excitement/Thrill, Event Novelty, Socialization, and
Family Togetherness were the most common motiva-
tional factors. Mohr, Backman, Gahan, and Backman
(1993) identified similar motivational factors to those
identified by Uysal et al. (1993) when they examined
first-time and repeated festival visitors. In their results,
the repeat visitors reported the most satisfaction with
the festival initiatives. They attached significant impor-
tance to Excitement factor, and showed low interest in
Event Novelty. In a recent study by Formica and Uysal
(1996), five motivation factors (Excitement/Thrills,
Socialization, Entertainment, Event Novelty, and Fam-
ily Togetherness) accounted for 55% of the variance in
motivation. That study focused on exploring the moti-
vational differences between residents and nonresidents
in the Umbria region of Italy in attending an interna-
tional jazz festival. The results revealed that while lo-
cal visitors were more driven by Socialization motiva-
tions, those who came from outside the region were
most interested in Entertainment activities. Also,
Formica and Uysal (1998) found six motivation fac-
tors in the Spoleto Festival in Italy: Socialization and
Entertainment, Event attraction and Excitement, Group
Togetherness, Cultural/Historical, Family Togetherness
and Site Novelty.
From the previous research findings, usually five
common factors—Escape, Excitement, Event Novelty,
Socialization, and Family Togetherness—are revealed.
Despite extensive writings on motivations of visitors
on festivals and special events, there are few studies
that examine the understanding of the perception of
attendees within the event-planning context. If the or-
ganization managers perceive the motivation of the
participants and understand their needs and wants, the
managers can produce more successful festivals and
129
events. Identifying the motivations of the visitors to a
festival and special event allows managers to develop
successful special events. When visitors’ motivations
are fully understood, decisions about the promotional
efforts and expenditures can be more consistent and
effective.
Method
Subject
Data were collected from the festival and event or-
ganizers in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1998. The
sampling population of the study consisted of a list of
organizers representing a wide variety of entities. The
study used Virginia’s festival association membership
list, the International Festival Association (IFA) mem-
bership list for Virginia, extension specialists, local
chambers of commerce in the state, state event and travel
guides, and existing festival and event books for Vir-
ginia. With the elimination of double listings, an initial
list of over 600 festival and event organizers was gen-
erated to serve as the sampling frame for the study.
A total of 124 useable questionnaires from festival
and event organizations in Virginia were returned, rep-
resenting an overall response rate of 20.67% of the sur-
vey population. Although some of the nonrespondent
organizers were contacted to encourage them to send
back the questionnaires, this effort largely proved to be
fruitless, and resulted in 8 more usable questionnaires,
a less than 5% increase in response rate. Because the
unit of analysis of this study is the person who repre-
sents organizations, the relatively low response rate of
the study was deemed acceptable to address the study
objectives.
Survey Instrument
A two-page survey instrument was mailed to the en-
tire population of the festival and event organizers with
a reply-paid envelope and a cover letter. The survey
instrument consisted of three sections: (1) general in-
formation about the respondents (gender, type of orga-
nization, and organize festival or not); (2) characteris-
tics of the festivals and events (size of events and
festivals in terms of attendees and full- and part-time
employees, location, duration of the festival/event, fre-
quency of the festival/event held, festival and event of-
ferings, promotional efforts, and target market-related
issues); and (3) their perceived importance of reasons
130 KIM, UYSAL, AND CHEN
for attending festivals/events in communities. Motiva-
tion was measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from
1 = very important to 5 = not at all important. The mo-
tivation scale was pretested and refined before it was
used in this study. The development and application of
the motivation scale has been well documented in pub-
lished research (Backman et al., 1995; Formica & Uysal,
1996; Mohr et al., 1993; Raybould, 1998; Ryan & Bates,
1995; Schneider & Backman, 1996; Scott, 1996; Uysal
at al., 1993).
The data analysis of the study consisted of three steps.
The first step was to provide a descriptive profile of the
festival organizers based on selected questions. In the
second step, the study employed a factor analysis pro-
cedure to delineate the perceived underlying dimen-
sions of attendees’ motivations. In the final step, a com-
parison of festival organizers on the perceived
importance of motivations was done using the
MANOVA procedure. This test is more appropriate than
the univariate ANOVA procedure for assessing overall
differences between groups when there are multiple
dependent variables (perceptions of motivations), and
when multicollinearity may exist between dependent
variables (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992).
Results
The descriptive analysis of the study revealed that
43% of respondents were festival and event organizers,
15% were CVB directors, 15% were local park profes-
sionals, and 28% were extension specialists. Roughly
48% of the respondents were male and 52% were fe-
male (Table 1). Seventy percent of respondents were
Table 1
Descriptive Profile of Respondents (N = 124)
Variables
Gender
Male 47.6%
Female 52.4%
Type
Festival event organizer 42.7%
CVB director/personnel 14.5%
Local parks professional 14.5%
Extension specialist 28.2%
Organize Festival
Yes 69.4%
No 29.0%
Average number of festivals per year 7 times
Average number of full-time employees 10 persons
festival organizers and, on average, each festival orga-
nization produced seven events per year and had 10
full-time employees.
The mean importance scores for the individual mo-
tivation items are reported in Table 2. The items that
received the highest mean ratings were: “To observe
the other people attending the festival,” and “Because I
enjoy festival crowds.” The items receiving the lowest
ratings included: “To experience new and different
things,” and “Because I like the variety of things to see
and do.”
As part of the factor analysis procedure, the study
also reproduced the correlation matrix for the scale of
motivation items. The result revealed that more than
half of the coefficients are greater than the absolute
value 0.2, indicating a small percent of nontrivial re-
siduals. Therefore, most of the variables have a large
correlation with at least one of the other variables in
the scale. A total of 19 items for the perceived festival
motivation of attendees by organizers were factor ana-
lyzed.
To account for covariance among the items and to
reduce items to a smaller number of underlying latent
variables, the principal axis factoring method was se-
lected. Also, to involve moving the data to line up
graphically in a more meaningful way, the rotation
method was adapted. Initially, the principal axis factor
analysis with the Varimax rotation was used to confirm
the underlying dimensions of the perceived importance
of motivation items. The results showed that all items
loaded saliently (0.40 or higher) on one of the five re-
sultant factors with an eigenvalue of greater than 1
(Table 3).
The first factor consisted of five items, such as “to
be with people who enjoy the same things I do” and
explained 38.43% of the total variance with an eigen-
value of 7.3. The second factor consisted of six items,
such as “because festivals are unique,” and explained
almost 12% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of
2.25. The third factor, which explained 8.62% of the
total variance with an eigenvalue of 1.64, consisted of
such items as “to have a change from my daily rou-
tine,” “to get away from the demands of life,” “for a
change of pace from every day life.” The fourth factor
included such items as “so the family could do some-
thing together,” “because I thought the entire family
would enjoyed it,” and “to see the entertainment,” and
explained about 7% of the total variance with an eigen-
value of 1.33. The last factor grouping consisted of two
 VISITOR MOTIVATION FROM ORGANIZERS’ POINT OF VIEW 131

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics on Motivation Items (N = 124)

Items Mean SD

To observe the other people attending the festival 3.20 1.26

Because I enjoy festival crowds 3.15 1.27
To get away from the demands of life 2.81 1.22
Because I was curious 2.80 1.15
For a chance to be with people who are enjoying themselves 2.70 1.02
To be with people who enjoy the same things I do 2.68 1.13
To enjoy the food 2.66 1.18
Because festivals are unique 2.58 1.26
To have a change from my daily routine 2.55 1.13
To be with people of similar interest 2.55 1.19
So I could be with my friends 2.50 1.13
For a change of pace from every day life 2.49 1.13
To see the entertainment 2.32 1.21
Because it is stimulating and exciting 2.32 1.14
Because I enjoy special events 2.25 1.11
So the family could do something together 2.19 1.29
Because I thought the entire family would enjoy it 2.17 1.19
To experience new and different things 2.12 1.06
Because I like the variety of things to see and do 2.07 1.10

Table 3
Exploratory Factor Analysis of Festival/Event Motivation Items

Percentage of
Variance Reliability
Factors Loadings Eigenvalue Explained (%) Alpha

Social/Leisur
Social/Leisuree 7.302 38.434 0.848
To be with people who enjoy the same things I do 0.797
So I could be with my friends 0.793
For a chance to be with people who are enjoying themselves 0.743
To be with people of similar interest 0.692
Because I enjoy festival crowds 0.628
Ev ent No
Event velty
Nov 2.249 11.836 0.841
Because festivals are unique 0.738
Because I like the variety of things to see and do 0.715
Because I enjoy special events 0.586
To enjoy the food 0.586
To experience new and different things 0.572
Because it is stimulating and exciting 0.540
Escape 1.638 8.621 0.919
To have a change from my daily routine 0.902
To get away from the demands of life 0.871
For a change of pace from every day life 0.871
Famil
amilyy Together ness
etherness 1.329 6.995 0.839
So the family could do something together 0.879
Because I thought the entire family would enjoy it 0.835
To see the entertainment 0.480
Curiosity 1.028 5.441 0.508
Because I was curious 0.877
To observe the other people attending the festival 0.583
Total 71.297
132 KIM, UYSAL, AND CHEN
items, “because I was curious,” and “to observe the other
people attending the festival.” This factor explained
5.44% of the total variance and had an eigenvalue of
1.03. According to the subitems of each factor, the de-
lineated factors were respectively labeled as Social/
Leisure, Event Novelty, Escape, Family Togetherness,
and Curiosity.
To verify reliability within factors, Cronbach’s alpha
was used. The results revealed that the first factor had an
alpha value of 0.85, the second factor 0.84, the third fac-
tor 0.92, the fourth factor 0.84, and the last factor 0.51.
Nunnally (1978) mentioned that reliability over 0.7 is
the rule of thumb. However, 0.50 or 0.60 would suffice
in the early stage of research. Therefore, all five factors
were retained for further analyses. Combined, the five
factors accounted for slightly over 71% of the total vari-
ance in the motivation scale, and their reliability alpha
values ranged from 0.51 to 0.92 (Table 3).
The results of MANOVA overall revealed that there
were no statistically significant differences among the
four types of festival and event organizers with respect
to the perceived importance of motivation items (Table
4). This might be attributed to a small sample size.
However, when each factor was considered based on
the ranking of the mean scores, the perceived impor-
tance of motivations showed variation among the four
types of festival and event organizers. For example,
festival and event organizers, local parks profession-
als, and extension specialists ranked Curiosity as the
most important motivation for attending such events,
while CVB directors ranked Escape as the most impor-
tant motivation for attending festivals and events. Also,
festival and event organizers, local parks profession-
als, and extension specialists ranked Family Together-
ness as the least important motivation for attending such
Table 4
MANOVA on Delineated Factors Groupings of Festival/Event Motivation
Type O1 O2 O3
Social/leisure 2.743 2.553 2.671
Event novelty 2.301 2.186 2.235
Escape 2.623 2.765 2.627
Family togetherness 2.181 2.275 1.863
Curiosity 3.054 2.529 3.029
O1 = Festival/event organizer, O2 = CVB director/personnel, O3 = Local parks profes-
sional, O4 = Extension specialist. The scales were from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly
disagree.
Wilk’s lambda = 0.888, F = 0.857, p = 0.613.
events, while CVB directors ranked Event Novelty as
the least important motivation for attending festivals
and events.
Concluding Comments
This study delineates the organizers’ perceptions of
festival visitors’ motivations. Data from a survey of the
organizers in 1998 are used. Five motivational dimen-
sions (Social/Leisure, Event Novelty, Family Togeth-
erness, Escape, and Curiosity) emerge from the factor
analysis on 19 motivational attributes pertaining to fes-
tival and event organizers’ perspective. However, the
literature has reported that Escape, Excitement/Thrills,
Event Novelty, Socialization, and Family Togetherness
are the critical motivational factors tied to festivals and
events visitation (Backman et al., 1995; Mohr et al.,
1993; Raybould, 1998; Ryan & Bates 1995; Schneider
& Backman, 1996; Scott, 1996; Uysal at al., 1993). It
appears that curiosity and novelty seeking are the two
conceptual gaps. The above findings suggest that the
organizers thought their visitors inadvertently look for
something unknown while the visitors are more inclined
to progressively seek something new. The tenet further
leads to a marketing implication; the organizers should
provide more in-depth information regarding the event
offerings because the novelty seeker’s trip decision may
be affected by the provision of activities and services
that they are longing for.
Furthermore, regarding the importance scores for
individual motivation items, it is surprising to note
that “To observe the other people attending the festi-
val” was the highest important visitor motivation per-
ceived by the organizers, whereas the visitors com-
monly viewed “To have fun” (Kerstetter & Mowrer,
O4 Uni. F (df = 3) p-Value
2.776 0.254 0.859
2.525 0.838 0.476
2.549 0.149 0.930
2.471 1.333 0.268
3.162 1.670 0.178
 VISITOR MOTIVATION FROM ORGANIZERS’ POINT OF VIEW
1998) or “Because it is stimulating and exiting”
(Raybould, 1998) as the most important motivation.
In the same context, the organizers were apt to view
Social/Leisure as the most important (38.43% of the
variance in motivation) factor for the visitor’s moti-
vation, while the literature on visitors’ motivation ex-
hibited that escape from daily life (which explained
only 8.6% of variance of the perceived motivation
from the organizers’ perspective) was one of the most
important motivation factors.
The above findings seem to suggest that the percep-
tual gap between the event organizers and visitor also
exists, in regard to the importance rating of visitor
motivations to events and festivals. Retrospectively, as
for the past program development, organizers might
have overemphasized Social/Leisure dimensions, such
as “being with people who enjoy the same thing I do,”
“being with people of similar interests,” or “gathering
the people.” However, the attendees might just want to
escape their mundane daily lives. Due to the above
misconceptions, event organizers should consider re-
aligning their strategies in service delivery to, first, cre-
ating an atmosphere promoting a sense of escaping from
daily routine and, second, infusing an ambient envi-
ronment focusing on Social/Leisure, Family Together-
ness, and Excitement.
Given the exploratory nature of the study, some limi-
tations are obvious. Readers should be cautious when
interpreting the data. One important limitation is tied to
the small sample size. No significant differences in per-
ceived visitor motivations among different types of event
organizers were found. If a larger sample had been col-
lected, some significant differences might emerge. To
validate the findings of the study, it is wise to conduct
similar studies using a larger sample size. A regional or
nationwide survey might help eliminate the problem of
small sample size. Moreover, the perceptual gap might
also be alive between the visitors and other stakeholders
(e.g., local business owners and local residents). Further
studies on such issues should promise organizers better
communication to their constituencies that may help sus-
tain the event operations.
Acknowledgment
This study is a result of a research project that was
funded by the Virginia Tech-Virginia Agricultural Ex-
periment Station and Virginia Cooperative Extension,
Blacksburg, VA.
133
References
Backman, K. F., Backman, S. J., Uysal, M., & Sunshine, K. M.
(1995). Event tourism: An examination of motivations and
activities. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 3(1), 15–
24.
Crompton, J. L. (1995). Factors that have stimulated the growth
of sponsorship of major events. Festival Management & Event
Tourism, 3(2), 97–101.
Crompton, J. L., & Love, L. (1995). The predictive validity of
alternative approaches to evaluating quality of a festival. Jour-
nal of Travel Research, 34(1), 11–24.
Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 21(3), 555–581.
Formica, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). A market segmentation of fes-
tival visitors: Umbria Jazz Festival in Italy. Festival Man-
agement & Event Tourism, 3(4), 175–182.
Formica, S., & Uysal, M. (1998). Market segmentation of an
international cultural-historical event in Italy. Journal of
Travel Research, 36(3), 16–24.
Frisby, W., & Getz, D. (1989). Festival management: A case
study perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 28(1), 7–11.
Getz, D. (1991). Festivals, special events, and tourism. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. L., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1992). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Janiskee, J. R. (1994). Some macro scale growth trends in
America’s community festival industry. Festival Management
& Event Tourism, 2(1), 10–14.
Kerstetter, D. L., & Mowrer, P. H. (1998). Individuals’ reasons
for attending first night a unique cultural event. Festival Man-
agement & Event Tourism, 5(3), 139–146.
Mohr, K., Backman, K. F., & Backman, S. J. (1995). An exami-
nation of sponsorship proposals in relation to corporate ob-
jectives. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 3 (21), 159–
166.
Mohr, K., Backman, K. F., Gahan, L. W., & Backman, S. J.
(1993). An investigation of festival motivations and event
satisfaction by visitor type. Festival Management & Event
Tourism, 1(3), 89–97.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Raybould, M. (1998). Participant motivation in a remote fishing
event. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 5(4), 239–
241.
Ryan, C., & Bates, C. (1995). A rose by any other name: The
motivations of those opening their gardens for a festival. Fes-
tival Management & Event Tourism, 3(2), 59–71.
Schneider, I. E., & Backman, S. J. (1996). Cross-cultural equiva-
lence of festival motivations: A study on Jordan. Festival
Management & Event Tourism, 4(3/4), 139–144.
Scott, D. (1996). A comparison of visitor’s motivations to at-
tend three urban festivals. Festival Management & Event
Tourism, 3(3), 121–128.
Turko, D. M., & Kelsey, C. W. (1992). Determining the eco-
nomic impact of recreation special events. Alexandria, VA:
National Recreation and Park Association.
Uysal, M., Gahan, L., & Martin, B. (1993). An examination of
event motivations: A case study. Festival Management &
Event Tourism, 1(1), 5–10.
Uysal, M., & Gitelson, R. (1994). Assessment of economic im-
pacts: Festivals and special events. Festival Management &
Event Tourism, 2(1), 3–10.
Wicks, E. B., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1993). A comparison of visi-
134 KIM, UYSAL, AND CHEN

tors and vendor perception of service quality at a special Volunteerism and special event management: A case study
event. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 1(1), 19–26. of Whistler’s Men’s World Cup of skiing. Festival Manage-
Williams, P. K., Dossa, K. B., & Tompkins, L. (1995). ment & Event Tourism, 3(2), 83–96.

View publication stats