



































Events and Tourism Review


   

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuion 4.0 International License. 

 

Events and Tourism Review 
 

December 2019 

 

Volume 2 No. 2 

 

 

Festival Admission and Visitors’ Behavioral Intentions: Do Previous Visit 

and Age Matter? 
 

Yvette Green  

University of New Orleans 

 

Han Chen 

University of New Orleans 

 

Kim Williams 

University of North Texas 

 

 
  

 

For Authors 

Interested in submitting to this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal 

page for the journal's section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to 

register with the journal prior to submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and 

begin the five-step process. 

  

For Reviewers 

If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer, please register with the journal. Make sure to 

select that you would like to be contacted to review submissions for this journal. Also, be sure 

to include your reviewing interests, separated by a comma. 

  

About Events and Tourism Review (ETR) 

ETR aims to advance the delivery of events, tourism and hospitality products and services by 

stimulating the submission of papers from both industry and academic practitioners and 

researchers. For more information about ETR visit the Events and Tourism Review. 

 

 

Recommended Citation 

Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019). Festival Admission and Visitors’ Behavioral 

Intentions: Do Previous Visit and Age Matter? Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87. 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/index/login
https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   77 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Abstract 

 

             Food festivals provide unique opportunities for leisure, social and cultural experiences, 

help generate business and income for the host community and promote a positive image of the 

local community. This study examines the behavioral intentions of the first time and repeat 

visitors to revisit and recommend a festival when admission fee is charged vs no admission. 

The study also investigates the impact of admission fees on the intention to revisit and 

recommend the festival for different age groups. Two-way ANOVA and independent t-tests 

were used. Results found that admission fees impacted the intentions to revisit and recommend 

the festival. 

 

Keywords: Festival, Behavioral Intentions, Revisit, Recommendations, Admission Fee, Age 

 

Introduction 

 

Festivals, in particular, food festivals, provide unique opportunities for leisure, social and 

cultural experiences, help generate business and income for the host community and promote a 

positive image of the local community. Understanding that the economic impact of festivals is 

heavily determined by attendees’ direct and indirect expenditures, festival organizers strive to 

maximize visitor satisfaction and increase revisit (Chen, Lee & Lin, 2012; Lee et. al, 2008). 

There are numerous satisfaction studies on nonfood festivals (Anwar & Sohail, 2004; 

Crompton & Love, 1995; Lee et al., 2008) and wine and food festivals (Axelsen and Swan, 2010; 

Yuan and Jang, 2008).  Festival researchers have focused on reporting the profiles and 

characteristics of visitors (Nicolson & Pearce, 2000; Yuan et al., 2005), motivations for attending 

food festivals (Cela et al., 2008; Crompton & Mckay, 1997; Nicholson & Pearce, 2000), festival 

experiences (Axelsen & Swan, 2010) and ways to organize a successful food/wine festival 

(Einarsen & Mykletun, 2009). Although there is growth in research on festivals, limited studies 

have examined the factors and attributes that affect the levels of satisfaction and loyalty towards 

food festivals, consumers’ satisfaction and revisit intentions (Özdemir & Culha, 2009; Yuan & 

Jang, 2008), as well as the impact of admission fees on the intention to revisit or recommend a 

festival or event (Hubbard, et. al, 2012; Wan & Chen, 2013). 

The above-mentioned gaps in revisit and recommendation intentions and admission fee 

impacts make it critical to understand the factors or attributes that affect satisfaction and loyalty 

towards attending food festivals. The study aims to 1) examine the impact of admission fees on 

the intention to revisit and recommend a festival for first-time visitors vs. repeat visitors and to 

2) examine the impact of admission fees on the intention to revisit and recommend for older vs. 

younger visitors.  

 

 

 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   78 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Literature Review  

 

Intention to Revisit and Recommend 

 

In a study conducted by Hall et al. (2016), findings revealed that visitor perception of 

festival attributes determined perceived quality; while entertainment quality, informational 

services, food and beverage provision, and comfort facilities had a strong influence on the 

evaluation of the festival. Hall et al. (2016) also concluded that overall perceived quality had 

more influence over recommendations than revisit intentions, and festival visitor satisfaction 

predicted revisit intentions more than recommendation intentions.  The Hall et al. (2016) study 

supported existing literature (Cronin et al, 2000; Lee et al, 2007; Papadimitriou, 2013; Petrick, 

2004) that the perceived quality of a festival exerts direct and significant influence on visitors’ 

behavioral intentions. Other studies have found a positive and significant relationship between 

satisfaction and revisit intentions on one hand and satisfaction and recommendation on the other 

hand (Thrane, 2002; Yoon et al.,2009). 

Previous studies have proven that festival attendees’ satisfaction levels have a direct 

association with their loyalty towards a particular festival (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Özdemir & 

Culha, 2009; Thrane, 2002; Yuan & Jang, 2008). Tourists’ loyalty in these studies refers to their 

intention to return to the food festival or recommend it to other people. The food, environment, 

entertainment and service quality of festivals leave a positive image with most tourists. These 

positive attributes increase satisfaction towards the food festival and consequently increased 

visitors’ intentions to revisit the festival and recommend it to family, friends, and others (Wan & 

Chan, 2013). These findings reiterate the connection between tourist satisfaction and their 

behavioral intentions and support earlier research that the three concepts, namely, image, 

satisfaction and behavioral intention (Thrane, 2002; Yuan & Jang, 2008), are linked.  

 

Behavioral Intentions of First time vs. Repeat Visitors  

 

Behavioral intentions are what a visitor intends to do after experiencing an opportunity 

(Naik, Gantasala, & Prabhakar, 2010). Behavioral intentions can involve individuals making the 

decision to revisit an organization, the decision to make a repeat purchase with an organization, 

and delivering word-of-mouth publicity about an organization to family and friends (Zeithaml et 

al., 1996). Shanka and Taylor (2004) reported two festival attributes and four visitor 

characteristics of festivals that impacted first time and repeat visitors. The two festival attributes 

with discriminating abilities between the first-time visitors and repeat visitors were parking and 

services, while the four visitor characteristics that showed discriminating effects were age, place 

of residence, group composition, and information sources utilized (Shanka & Taylor, 2004). 

Lee and Beeler (2007) highlighted differences between first-time and repeat visitors in 

terms of the strength of the relationship among service quality, satisfaction, and future intention. 

First-time visitors were more likely than repeat visitors to count on the quality of the festival to be 

satisfied. On the other hand, repeat visitors were satisfied with factors other than service quality 

(Lee & Beeler, 2007). 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   79 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Behavioral Intention, Admission and Age 

 

Limited research is available on behavioral intentions and the impact of admission and 

visitor age on a festival (Hubbard et al, 2016) or mega event (Lee et al, 2013).  Hubbard et al. 

(2016) reported that the respondents were very positive about their intentions to attend the 

festival again with admission fees and a large proportion of attendees were very likely to 

recommend this festival to a friend or relative. The respondents rated the festival as a high 

performer in terms of satisfaction, quality, and experience. A large proportion of respondents 

planned on attending the festival again and the admission price was not seen as affecting 

attendance (Hall et al., 2016; Hubbard et al, 2016). Research also indicated that age could impact 

behavioral intentions (Hall, et al., 2016). Reynisdottir, Song, and Agrusa (2008) suggested that 

willingness to pay admission fee was negatively related to age as younger people are more used 

to the idea of having to pay entrance fees to tourist attractions. In addition, researchers indicated 

that older visitors were less willing to pay more for park admission fees than younger visitors 

(Uyarra, Gill, & Côté, 2010). Uyarra et al. (2010) found the willingness to pay more increased 

with repeat visits. Based on the literature, two hypotheses were developed for the study: 

H1: Admission fee has a more negative impact on attendees’ (a) intention to revisit and 

(b) intention to recommend to new visitors compared to repeat visitors. 

H2: Admission fee has a more negative impact on attendees’ (a) intention to revisit and 

(b) intention to recommend for older visitors compared to younger ones. 

 

Methodology 

 

The Louisiana Seafood Festival 

 

The Louisiana Seafood Festival was selected as the festival to investigate. The Louisiana 

Seafood Festival is a celebration of all the fresh and flavorful seafood from the state of 

Louisiana.  The seafood highlighted at the festival includes crab, shrimp, oyster, alligator, 

crawfish and all finfish. The festival was founded in 2007. In the past, the dates for the festival 

fluctuated during the fall months of September and October. In 2015, the festival locked in the 

Labor Day weekend dates for three years. Along with the fluctuation of dates, the venue for the 

festival has also fluctuated. Each year the venue grew larger to accommodate the growing 

number of patrons. Since 2014, the festival has taken place in the New Orleans City Park 

Fairgrounds, one of the largest festival venues in the city.   

The three-day festival offers the following activities/events: three days of live music, 

celebrity chef cooking demonstrations, a beer garden featuring a wide selection of craft beers, a 

kid’s tent featuring seafood-themed activities, an arts village, and food and beverage vendors.  

Admission for the festival was free since its inception, however, patrons purchase food and 

beverage items as well as arts and crafts. In 2016, the festival organizers began charging 

admission into the festival. 

 

 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   80 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Questionnaire Design 

 

Representatives of the Louisiana Hospitality Foundation (LHF), the producer of the 

Louisiana Seafood Festival (LSF), contracted with the Hospitality Research Center (HRC) at the 

University of New Orleans (UNO) for the purpose of providing information about attendees to 

the 2015 and 2016 LSF festival. The questionnaire was adapted from a visitor profile survey 

developed and used by the HRC in prior studies (Chacko & Marcell, 2007; Jainchill, 2013; 

Roussel, 2009). Representatives from HRC, with input from LHF, designed the questionnaire to 

be administered during the event. The questionnaire consisted of 30 questions. Fifteen questions 

addressed the festival event characteristics, eleven questions addressed visitor attendees travel 

characteristics, and four questions addressed demographics. 

 

Data Collection and Analysis 

 

Data was collected over a span of two years. A team of surveyors trained in data collection 

administered the surveys during the festival weekends in 2015 and 2016 via on-site intercept.  A 

total of 600 completed surveys were obtained in 2015 and 649 completed surveys in 2016.  The 

completed questionnaires were forwarded to HRC for data entry and editing. The HRC analyzed 

the data using statistical software, results were tabulated and a frequency analysis conducted. 

Information provided by respondents relative to their experience at the festival 

(sociological/cultural festival impacts) and demographic characteristics were summarized using 

simple statistics. Responses to open-ended questions were categorized by hand and then 

organized based upon the most frequent themes that emerged from visitors’ comments. These 

data collection and analysis methods were successfully used in other festival research studies 

(Mcdowall et al., 2014; Shani et al., 2009).  The hypotheses testing was done using two-way 

ANOVA and independent T-tests. 

 

Results and Discussion 

 

Demographics 

 

Out of the 1249 responses collected over a period of two years, a total of 1229 were 

usable. Detailed demographic information were indicated by Table 1.  

 

Hypothesis Testing 

 

To examine if admission fee influence visitors’ intention to revisit differently for new 

visitors compared to repeat visitors, a two-way ANOVA (repeat visitor, new visitor; admission 

fee, free admission) was carried out. Results indicated a significant interaction between previous 

festival visitation and admission fee, F (1,1225) =10.16, p< .01 (Table 2).  

An Independent t-test was conducted with new visitors and repeat visitors separately to 

better understand the simple main effects (Table 3). Results showed that new visitors had a 

significantly lower intention to revisit when the admission fee is charged (.68 ± .47) than free 

admission (.84 ± .37), t (863) = 5.68, p< .01 . However, admission fee did not have a significant 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   81 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

influence on repeat visitors’ intention to revisit, t (362) = .71, p = .48. Hence, hypothesis 1a was 

supported.  

 

Table 1. Demographics 

 

 No Admission Fee (N=590) Admission Fee (N=639) 

 n % n % 

Gender     

Male 251 42.5 287 44.9 

Female 339 57.5 352 55.1 

     

Ethnicity      

White 381 64.6 431 67.4 

Black  170 28.8 138 21.6 

Asian 13 2.2 14 2.2 

Hispanic 16 2.7 27 4.2 

Other 10 1.7 29 4.5 

     

Generation     

18-24 46 7.8 68 10.6 

25-34 202 34.2 216 33.8 

35-49 146 24.7 188 29.4 

50-64 145 24.6 133 20.8 

65 and above 51 8.6 34 5.3 

     

Previous Visitation     

Yes 191 32.4 173 27.1 

No 399 67.6 466 72.9 

     

Household Income      

Less than $25,000 5 7.6 44 6.9 

$25,000 to $49,999 25 13.6 84 13.1 

$50,000 to $74,999 21 19.0 99 15.5 

$75,000 to $99,999 33 15.1 104 16.3 

$100,000 to $149,999 22 17.3 109 17.1 

$150,000 to $199,999 20 8.5 106 16.6 

$200,000 and more 10 5.9 42 6.6 

Prefer not to answer  77 13.1 51 5.0 
Table 1 Continuation 

 

Similarly, a two-way ANOVA (repeat visitor, new visitor; admission fee, free admission) 

was carried out to examine if admission fee influences visitors’ intention to recommend 

differently for new visitors compared to repeat visitors (Table 4). Results indicated no significant 

interaction between admission fee and previous visitation, F (1,1225) =.01, p=.91. Admission fee 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   82 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

had a significant main effect on intention to recommend, F (1,1225) =20.12, p< .01. Visitors had 

a higher intention to recommend the festival when there was no admission fee (9.32, ± .06) than 

admission was charged (8.92 ±.06). In addition, the previous visitation had a significant main 

effect on the intention to recommend, F (1,1225) =16.74, p< .01. New visitors have significantly 

lower intention to recommend the festival (8.94, ± .05) than repeat visitors (9.30, ± .07). 

Therefore, hypothesis 1b is not supported.  

 

Table 2. Summary of ANOVA, intention to revisit as dependent variable 

 

Source Type III SS df MS F 

Corrected Model 16.29 3 5.43 39.11** 

Intercept 751.56 1 751.56 5414.21** 

Admission Fee 2.05 1 2.05 14.79** 

Visitation 9.76 1 9.76 70.33** 

Admission Fee × 

Visitation 

1.41 1 1.41 10.16** 

Error  170.05 1225 .14  

Total  1000.00 1229   

Corrected Total 186.33 1228   

*p< .05; ** p< .01 

 

Table 3. Independent t Test 

 

 Free Admission Fee 95% CI for Mean 

Difference 
t  df 

 M SD N M SD N 

New Visitor   .84 .37 399 .68 .47 466 .11, .22 5.68 863 

Repeat Visitor  .96 .19 191 .95 .22 173 -.03, .06 .71 362 

 

 

Table 4. Summary of ANOVA, intention to recommend as dependent variable 

 

Source Type III SS df MS F 

Corrected Model 84.38 3 28.13 14.27** 

Intercept 84948.40 1 84948.40 43095.79** 

Admission Fee 39.66 1 39.66 20.12** 

Visitation 33.01 1 33.01 16.74** 

Admission Fee × 

Visitation 

.03 1 .03 .01 

Error  2414.66 1225 .14  

Total  102932.00 1229   

Corrected Total 2499.05 1228   

*p< .05; ** p< .01 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   83 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

In order to investigate if admission fee influence visitors’ intention to revisit differently 

for older visitors compared to younger ones, a two-way ANOVA was carried out (Table 5). 

Results did not show significant interaction between admission fee and age, F (4,1219) =1.43, 

p=.22. Admission fee had a significant main effect on intention to revisit, F (1,1219) =33.88, p<
.01. Visitors had a higher intention to revisit the festival when there was no admission fee (.90, ± 

.02) than admission was charged (.75 ±.02). In addition, age had a significant main effect on 

intention to revisit, F (4,1219) =2.64, p< .05. Visitors aged 18 to 24 (.92 ± .04) had a 

significantly higher intention to revisit than visitors in the age group of 35 to 49 (.80 ± .02). 

Hypothesis 2a is not supported.  

 

Table 5. Summary of ANOVA, intention to revisit as dependent variable 

 

Source Type III SS df MS F 

Corrected Model 7.60 9 .85 5.76** 

Intercept 557.29 1 557.29 3800.95** 

Admission Fee 4.97 1 4.97 33.88** 

Age 1.55 4 .39 2.64* 

Admission Fee × 

Age 

.84 4 .21 1.43 

Error  178.73 1219 .14  

Total  1000.00 1229   

Corrected Total 186.33 1228   

*p< .05; ** p< .01 

 

A two-way ANOVA was carried out to examine if admission fee influence visitors’ 

intention to recommend differently for older visitors compared to younger visitors (Table 6). 

Results indicated significant interaction between admission fee and visitors’ age, F (4,1219) 

=5.45, p< .01. Independent t test was conducted with different age groups separately to better 

understand the simple main effects (Table 7). Results showed that visitors who were 50 to 64 

years old had significantly lower intention to recommend the festival when admission fee was 

charged (8.58 ± 2.11) than free admission (9.43 ± 1.01), t (276) =4.33, p< .01. Moreover, 

visitors who were 65 years old and above had lower intention to recommend the festival when 

admission fee was charged (8.12 ± 1.84) than when it was free (9.45 ± 1.03), t (83) =4.28, p<
.01. Admission fee did not have a significant influence on visitors’ intention to recommend for 

all other younger age groups (see Table 6), supporting hypothesis 2b.  

 

Discussion  

 

Admission fee tends to negatively influence new visitors’ intention to visit than repeat 

visitors. In addition, admission fee was negatively associated with visitors’ intention to 

recommend. The results do not support the previous research that admission price would not 

impact the intent to revisit or recommend (Hall et al., 2016; Hubbard et al, 2016). Repeat visitors 

have higher level intention to recommend than new visitors in general, which echoes with Uyarra 

et al.’s (2010) finding that the willingness to pay more increased with repeat visits. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   84 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Visitors’ intention to recommend was significantly lower among visitors whose age were 50 and 

above when admission fee was charged. In general, visitors showed a higher intention to revisit 

when there was no admission fee. Also, visitors aged 18 to 24 had a significantly higher intention 

to revisit than visitors in the age group of 35 to 49. The results are consistent with previous 

research findings that willingness to pay admission fee was negatively related to age as younger 

people are more used to the idea of having to pay entrance fees to tourist attractions 

(Reynisdottir, Song, & Agrusa, 2008; Uyarra, Gill, & Côté, 2010). 

 

Table 6. Summary of ANOVA, intention to recommend as dependent variable 

 

Source Type III SS df MS F 

Corrected Model 98.21 9 10.91 5.54** 

Intercept 66564.49 1 66564.49 33797.47** 

Admission Fee 61.00 1 61.00 30.97** 

Age 6.66 4 1.66 .85 

Admission Fee × 

Age 

42.95 4 10.74 5.45** 

Error  2400.83 1219 .14  

Total  102932.00 1229   

Corrected Total 2499.05 1228   

*p< .05; ** p< .01 

 

Table 7. Independent t Test 

 

 Free Admission Fee 95% CI for Mean 

Difference 
t  df 

Age Group M SD N M SD N 

18-24   9.13 1.13 46 9.01 1.31 68 -.35, .58 .49 112 

25-34  9.14 1.26 202 9.03 1.20 216 -.12, .35 .96 416 

35-49 9.20 1.36 146 8.89 1.52 188 -.01, .63 1.94 332 

50-64 9.43 1.01 145 8.58 2.11 133 .46, 1.23 4.33

** 

276 

65 and above 9.45 1.03 51 8.12 1.84 34 .71, 1.95 4.28

** 

83 

 

Conclusion and Implications 

 

In conclusion, the current study provided implications for both practitioners and 

academics. Practitioners can use the results to assist with the planning and logistics, revenue and 

economic impact of the festival. The research also contributes to the body of knowledge for 

festival behavior intention research. 

The results of this study are limited to the 2015 and 2016 Louisiana Seafood Festival.  However, 

such research provides the opportunity for future investigation. Future research may examine 

how visitors’ travel distance to the festival venue influence their revisit intention. In addition, the 

economic impact of the festival on the local community can also be investigated. Continuing to 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   85 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

study the festival longitudinally to examine trends in visitor profile, economic impact, and 

changes in festival organization and delivery of the festival are also opportunities for future 

research. The current study along with future research opportunities will provide valuable 

information for the festival management research body of literature. 

 

References 

 

Anwar, S. & Sohail, M. (2004).  Festival tourism in the United Arab Emirates: First-time versus 

repeat visitor perceptions. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 10(2), 161-170. 

Axelsen M, Swan T. 2010. Designing festival experience to influence visitor perceptions: the 

case of a wine and food festival. Journal of Travel Research. 49(4): 436–450 

Baker, D. A. and Crompton, J. L. (2000), Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions, Annals 

of Tourism Research, 27:3, pp. 785–804. 

Bruwer, J.(2015), ‘Service performance and satisfaction in a South African festivalscape’, 

Anatolia, 26(3), 434–462. 

Cela A., Knowles-Lankford J. & Lankford S. (2008). Local food festivals in Northeast Iowa 

communities: a visitor and economic impact study. In Events and Festivals: Current 

Trends and Issues, Robertson M, Frew E (eds.) Routledge: London & New York; 70–85. 

Chacko, H., & Marcell, M. (2007).  Repositioning a Tourism Destination: The Case of New 

Orleans After Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing.23 (2/4), 223-

235. 

Chen, W. C, Lee, C. F., & Lin, L. Z. (2012). Investigating factors affecting festival quality: A 

case study of Neimen Song Jiang Jhen Battle Array, Taiwan. African Journal of 

Marketing Management, 2(4), 43-54 

Choe, J., Qian, X., O' Regan, M. & Yap, M.(2018). Macau wine festivalscape: Attendees' 

satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Hospitality & Society. 8(3), 273-295. 

Crompton JL, Love LL. 1995. The predictive validity of alternative approaches to evaluating 

quality of a festival. Journal of Travel Research. 34(1): 11–24. 

Crompton JL, McKay SL. 1997. Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism 

Research. 24(2): 425–439. 

Cronin, J., Brady, M., & Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer 

satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of 

Retailing, 76(2), 193-218. 

Einarsen K, Mykletun RJ. 2009. Exploring the success of the Gladmatfestival (The Stavanger 

food festival). Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 9(2–3): 225–248. 

Hall, S., Oriade, A. & Robinson, P. (2016).  Assessing festival attendees' behavioral intentions 

through perceived service quality and visitor satisfaction.  Event Management. 20(1), 27-

40. 

Hubbard, K., Mandabach, K., McDowall, S. & VanLeeuwen, D. (2012). Perceptions of Quality, 

Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Approximate Spending at an American Wine Festival. Journal 

of Culinary Science & Technology. 10(4), 337-351. 

Jainchill, J. (2013). 2012 visitor numbers boost city's confidence. Travel Weekly, 72 (12), 47. 

Lee, J. & Beeler, C. (2007).  The relationships among quality, satisfaction, and future intention 

for first-time and repeat visitors in a festival setting. Event Management. 10(4), 197-208. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Sohail%2C%20M.%20Sadiq%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Journal%20of%20Vacation%20Marketing%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Yap%2C%20Matthew%20H.%20T.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Hospitality%20%26%20Society%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22HALL%2C%20SOPHIE%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22ROBINSON%2C%20PETER%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Event%20Management%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Mandabach%2C%20Keith%20H.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Mandabach%2C%20Keith%20H.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22VanLeeuwen%2C%20Dawn%20M.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Journal%20of%20Culinary%20Science%20%26%20Technology%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Journal%20of%20Culinary%20Science%20%26%20Technology%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Lee%2C%20Joohyun%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Beeler%2C%20Cheryl%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Event%20Management%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   86 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Lee, J., Graefe, A. R., & Bums, R. C. (2008). Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioral 

intention among forest visitors. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7(17), 73-82. 

Lee YK, Lee CK, Lee SK, Babin BJ. 2008. Festivalscapes and patrons’ emotions’, satisfaction, 

and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61(1): 56–64. 

Lee, C., Mjelde, J., & Kim, T. (2013).  Estimating the effects of different admission fees on 

revenues for a mega-event using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Economics. 19 

(1), 147-159. 

Lee, S. Y., Petrick, J. F., & Crompton. J. L. (2007). The roles of quality and intermediary 

constructs in determining festival attendees’ behavioral intention. Journal of Travel 

Research, 45, 402-412 

Mason, M. C. and Paggiaro, A. (2012), ‘Investigating the role of festivalscape in culinary 

tourism: The case of food and wine events’, Tourism Management, 33(6), 1329–36. 

Mcdowall, S., Lillywhite, J., & Simonsen, J. (2014). Renaissance ArtsFaire’s Economic & 

Socio-Cultural Impacts on a Local Community, Consortium Journal Of Hospitality & 

Tourism.19 (2), 74-95. 

Naik, K. C. N., Gantasala, S. B., & Prabhakar, G. V. (2010). SERVQUAL, customer satisfaction 

and behavioral intentions in retailing. European Journal of Social Sciences, 17(2), 200. 

Nicolson R, Pearce DG. 2000. Who goes to events: A comparative analysis of the profile 

characteristics of visitors to four South Island events in New Zealand. Journal of 

Vacation Marketing, 6(3): 236–253.  

Özdemir G, Culha O. 2009. Satisfaction and loyalty of festival visitors. Anatolia: An 

International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(2): 359–373. 

Papadimitriou, D. (2013) Service quality components as antecedents of satisfaction and 

behavioral intentions: The case of a Greek carnival festival. Journal of Convention & 

Event Tourism, 74(1), 42-64.  

Petrick, J. (2004). The roles of quality, value and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’ 

behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 397-407. 

Reynisdottir, M., Song, H., & Agrusa, J. (2008). Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural 

attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1076-1083. 

Roussel, B. (2009). New Orleans: Report: Visitor numbers continued to climb in 2008 Travel 

Weekly, 68 (18), 28. 

Shani, A., Rivera, M., & Hara, T. (2009). Assessing the Viability of Repeat Visitors to Cultural 

Events: Evidence from the Zora! Festival. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism.10 

(2), 89-104. 

Shanka, T. & Taylor, R. (2004). Discriminating Factors of First-time and Repeat Visitors to 

Wine Festivals. Current Issues in Tourism. 7(2), 134-145. 

Thrane, C. 2002. Music quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions within a Jazz festival 

context. Event Management, 7(3): 143–150. 

Uyarra, M. C., Gill, J. A., & Côté, I. M. (2010). Charging for nature: marine park fees and 

management from a user perspective. Ambio, 39(7), 515-523. 

Wan, Y., & Chan, S. (2013).  Factors that Affect the Levels of Tourists' Satisfaction and Loyalty 

towards Food Festivals: a Case Study of Macau. International Journal of Tourism 

Research. 15(3), 226-240. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Lee%2C%20Choong-Ki%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Lee%2C%20Choong-Ki%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Kim%2C%20Tae-Kyun%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Tourism%20Economics%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Wan%2C%20Yim%20King%20Penny%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Chan%2C%20Sow%20Hup%20Joanne%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22International%20Journal%20of%20Tourism%20Research%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~hjh%7C%7Cjdb~~hjhjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22International%20Journal%20of%20Tourism%20Research%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');


Green, Y., Chen, H., & Williams, K. (2019) / Events and Tourism Review, 2(2), 76-87.   

   87 

 
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2019), 76-87, DOI: 10.18060/23435 

Copyright © 2019 Yvette Green, Han Chen, & Kim Williams. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Yang, J., Gu, Y. & Cen, J. (2011), ‘Festival tourists’ emotion, perceived value, and behavioral 

intentions: A test of the moderating effect of festivalscape’, Journal of Convention & 

Event Tourism, 12(1), 25–44. 

Yuan, J., Cai, L., & Morrison, A, & Linton, S. (2005). An analysis of wine festival attendees’ 

motivations: a synergy of wine, travel and special events. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 

11(1): 41–58. 

Yuan J. & Jang, S. (2008). The effects of quality and satisfaction on awareness and behavioral 

intentions: exploring the role of a wine festival. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3): 279–

288.  

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of  

service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31- 46. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

