






































Events and Tourism Review


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                 

Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 

License. 

 

 

Events and Tourism Review                                     
 
December 2021                                                                                                                                            Volume 4 No. 2      

   

 

Residents’ Perceptions of Small-scale Rural Events: A Dual Theory Approach 
 

 

 

 

 

Xu Li 

 

South Dakota State University 

Correspondence: Xu.Li@sdstate.edu (X. Li) 

 

 

 
 

 

 

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 

Li, X. (2021). Residents’ Perceptions of Small-scale Rural Events: A Dual Theory Approach. 

Events and Tourism Review, 4(2), 1-13.  
 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         2  

 

 
 

 

 

  Abstract 

 

Previous studies have focused on residents’ perceived impacts on the host communities (perceived 

impacts at community level), and neglected residents’ perceptions of event impacts on their personal 

lives (perceived impacts at individual level). Built upon social exchange theory and social 

representation theory, this study explored how local residents perceived the impacts of small-scale 

recurring events in a rural area. A total of 208 valid responses were obtained through a self-

administrated online survey. Paired sample t-tests and independent samples t-tests were employed to 

test the hypotheses. The results showed that rural residents perceived greater economic, social and 

environmental impacts at the community level than the individual level. Residents’ reliance on 

tourism influenced their perceptions of the event impacts. Finally, implications for local government 

and event organizers were discussed. 

 

 Keywords: Residents’ Perceptions; Event Impacts; Rural Events; Social Exchange Theory; Social   

                   Representation Theory 
 

 

 

Events play an important role in destination development and management. They are 

considered as image makers, man-made attractions, catalysts, and animators of static attractions, and 

thus highly valued by destination marketers (Getz, 2008). Events can bring visitors, expand tourist 

season, and boost destination economy. However, host communities may have to bear the burden of 

events. Local residents are expected to welcome visitors, face the additional pressure on 

infrastructure and resources, and pay for the costs. Events could disrupt their daily routines and 

affect their quality of life (Li et al., 2015; Ouyang et al., 2019). A healthy development of the event 

industry requires community leaders and planners to identify and examine various impacts brought 

by events. As the key stakeholders of the host communities, local residents’ attitudes towards events 

matter and will affect community leaders’ decision-making and the sustainability of events 

(Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Sharpley, 2014). 

Event impact analysis has been one of the central themes in event studies (Getz & Page, 

2016). Previous research has investigated the economic, social and environmental impacts of 

various events. Most studies have been undertaken in urban contexts, with domination of one-off, 

large-scale, sport-related events. Small scale community events in rural areas have received less 

attention (Getz & Page, 2016). Rural events are in general small, geared towards local and 

seemingly insignificant. However, many of them are held on a recurring basis and could generate 

substantive and long-lasting impacts on the host communities in the long run (Alves et al., 2010; 

Fytopoulou et al., 2021).  

Moreover, previous studies have concentrated on the impacts of a single event and 

overlooked the impacts of a set of events or the event sector in the community (Chen, 2011; Egresi 

& Kara, 2014). Further, it is suggested that local residents’ views be considered and taken into 

account when assessing the impacts of events (Li et al., 2015; Panyik et al., 2011). In reviewing the 

literature, most studies were found to have examined one aspect of residents’ perceived event 

impacts, the impacts on the host communities (i.e., perceived impacts at the community level). 

However, few studies have dealt with residents’ perceptions of event impacts on their own lives 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         3  

 

(i.e., perceived impacts at the individual/personal level).  

Given the importance of understanding residents’ perceptions of events and the lack of 

studies on recurring rural events, the current study attempts to assess residents’ perceived impacts 

through an investigation into a number of recurring community events within rural areas. To be 

specific, the research aims to investigate: (1) rural residents’ perceived event impacts at the 

individual level; (2) rural residents’ perceived event impacts at the community level; (3) the 

differences in rural residents’ perceived event impacts between the community and individual 

levels; (4) the effects of tourism reliance on residents’ perception of event impacts. 

 

Rural events 

 

Approximately 97% of the United States’ land is rural and around 19% of the population 

lives there, almost 60 million people (US Census Bureau, 2017). Rural economy heavily relies on 

resource-based activities, such as agriculture, forestry, mining, etc. (Cromartie et al., 2020). It is 

widely acknowledged that rural areas lag behind non-rural areas in many aspects of economic 

performance, ranging from poverty rates to employment opportunities (O’Dell, 2021). Rural areas 

often face disadvantages that urban areas do not, such as physical isolation, population decline, and 

limited professional services. As a result, many rural communities have turned to events and 

festivals as an option to diversify economies and attract temporary and permanent residents (Alves 

et al., 2010; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017).  

Events can bring tourists and outside investments to rural communities, which can lead to 

more employment and business opportunities, increased household income and tax revenue for local 

governments, improved infrastructure, restoration of heritage resources, and beautification of the 

rural landscape. Meanwhile, researchers have identified a number of concerns about rural events, 

such as overcrowding, traffic congestion, parking problems, increased crime, and cost of living, 

which all can disrupt rural residents’ quality of life (Kaplanidou et al., 2013). Many scholars have 

suggested that an assessment of event impacts be critical to the success and sustainability of rural 

event development, and thus be adopted as a useful tool to measure and monitor event performance 

(Getz & Page, 2016; Panyik et al., 2011; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). 

 

The impacts of events on rural communities 

 

The impacts of events are diverse and can be roughly categorized into positive and negative, 

depending on the nature of the consequences events bring to a destination. According to Getz 

(2008), event impact studies has shifted its focus from the economic dimensions to a triple-bottom-

line approach with consideration of economic, social, and environmental impacts. In other words, 

events may influence host communities economically, socially and environmentally. Economically, 

events can increase tax revenue, investment, employment opportunities, and household incomes. 

The negative economic impacts consist of a rise in the cost of living, price of goods and service, and 

property tax (Latkova & Vogt, 2012; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). Socially, improved infrastructure, 

better cultural and social understanding, increased community involvement and support, and 

enhanced community spirit and pride are examples of positive impacts. The negative social impacts 

of events include disruption of local life, changing of family value systems and relationships, 

increased crime and vandalism, and conflicts between locals and visitors (Alves et al., 2010; Reid, 

2007). In addition, from an environmental perspective, events might result in more negative impacts 

than positive ones on the host community, such as damaged natural environment, air and water 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         4  

 

pollution, and increased waste (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017).   

There is a strong research emphasis on the inclusion of local residents in assessing event 

impacts (Hjalager & Kwiatkowski, 2018; Panyik et al., 2011). Local people get involved in events 

in various ways (e.g., volunteers, organizers, or participants). They are also considered as part of the 

event product, interacting with event attendees and other stakeholders, and creating the event 

atmosphere (Chen, 2011; Kaplanidou et al., 2013). Local people are not only affected by events but 

also witness community changes brought by events. Therefore, their understanding of event impacts 

is indispensable for the sustainability of events in rural settings and should be incorporated into 

event planning and development (Chen, 2011; Hjalager & Kwiatkowski, 2018). 

 

Theoretical framework 

 

 A number of theoretical frameworks have been employed to explain how local residents 

perceive and react to the impacts of events. Social exchange theory (SET) and social representation 

theory (SRT) are two dominant theories. SET takes an economic approach and focuses on individual 

needs’ fulfillment. According to SET, local resident attitudes toward events is an outcome of cost-

reward evaluation in the event interaction process (Zhou & Ap, 2009). It is suggested that if 

residents perceive the positive outcomes brought by an event (i.e., rewards exceed costs), they are 

willing to engage in the exchange process and support the event. Likewise, if residents view the 

event costs outweigh the benefits, they will disengage themselves from any exchange and hold a 

negative attitude. In the current study, SET is adopted to explain the perceived impact of events at 

the individual level. In other words, the author used SET to understand how rural residents perceive 

themselves benefiting from community events. 

SRT was introduced as an alternative theory to illuminate how local residents understand 

and respond collectively to event impacts within a community (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000; Li et al., 

2015; Pearce et al., 1996). As defined by Moscovici (1982), social representations are mechanisms 

enabling people to construct and understand the meaning of their social world. According to SRT, 

when people encounter a new or unfamiliar event, they will refer to their prior knowledge from past 

experiences, social interaction or other sources (e.g., the media) to make collective meaning of the 

event. Social representations within a community can be identified through recognizing 

commonality or consensus of resident perceptions (Pearce et al., 1996). In the current study, the 

author used SRT to understand shared values and attitudes towards events within a community, that 

is, perceived event impacts at the community level. 

SET and SRT are two distinctive theories. Each could be more useful in certain context. 

Previous research has applied and validated SET and SRT in understanding residents’ perceived 

impacts of events. However, most of the studies focus on either SET or SRT and very few studies 

focus on both. Li et al. (2015) recognized a complementing relationship between SET and SRT and 

suggested incorporating both theories into a study. SRT is more useful in understanding impacts on 

the host community as a whole, whereas SET helps explain perceived impacts on one’s own life. 

When combined, the two theories can be used to examine residents’ perceived impacts at both the 

individual and community levels, through which a full picture of perceived event impacts can be 

drawn.  

Accordingly, the following hypotheses were developed: 

Hypothesis 1a: There is a significant difference in residents’ perceived economic impacts of 

rural events between individual and community levels. 

Hypothesis 1b: There is a significant difference in rural residents’ perceived social impacts 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         5  

 

of rural events between individual and community levels. 

Hypothesis 1c: There is a significant difference in residents’ perceived environmental 

impacts of rural events between individual and community levels. 

The general tourism research has indicated that residents’ attitudes towards tourism 

development are influenced by a number of factors, including geographical proximity to tourism 

zones, economic dependency on the tourism industry, knowledge about tourism, level of contact 

with tourist and demographics such as age, gender, education, income, etc. (Almeida et al., 2015; 

Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Vargas et al., 2011). Few researchers have applied these factors to the 

event context. Among the limited studies, researchers have drawn mixed conclusions. For instance, 

residents’ knowledge about events didn’t influence their perceptions of impacts (Li et al., 2015). 

Similarly, Yao and Schwarz (2018) concluded that distance from the event location had little 

influence on the residents’ attitudes. Drawing on the social exchange theory, Fredline and Faulkner 

(2000) has argued that residents whose occupation is related to events are more likely to have 

positive attitudes because the economic benefits they obtain can trade off costs. However, they 

didn’t have empirical results to support their view. To fill the research gap, the author also 

investigated the relationship between residents’ economic dependency on the event/tourism industry 

and their perceptions of events. A series of hypotheses were developed:  

Hypothesis 2a: Residents’ perceived economic impacts of rural events at the individual level 

differ significantly between those who are economically reliant on the tourism industry and those 

who are not. 

Hypothesis 2b: Residents’ perceived social impacts of rural events at the individual level 

differ significantly between those who are economically reliant on the tourism industry and those 

who are not. 

Hypothesis 2c: Residents’ perceived environmental impacts of rural events at the individual 

level differ significantly between those who are economically reliant on the tourism industry and 

those who are not. 

Hypothesis 2d: Residents’ perceived economic impacts of rural events at the community 

level differ significantly between those who are economically reliant on the tourism industry and 

those who are not. 

Hypothesis 2e: Residents’ perceived social impacts of rural events at the community level 

differ significantly between those who are economically reliant on the tourism industry and those 

who are not. 

Hypothesis 2f: Residents’ perceived environmental impacts of rural events at the community 

level differ significantly between those who are economically reliant on the tourism industry and 

those who are not. 

 

Methodology 

 

Study Site 

Brookings, located in southeast South Dakota, is the research site for this study. Brookings is 

home to South Dakota State University, the largest university in the state. The community has a 

variety of attractions ranging from museums, parks, shopping, dining to special events such as 

Downtown at Sundown, Summer Art Festival, etc. To bring more tourists into the local area to boost 

the local economy and promote the image of the city, the municipality of Brookings created an 

independent Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) in 2012, after 30 years of operation under the 

leadership of the Chamber of Commerce (Visit Brookings, n.d.) 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         6  

 

The study includes five local and regional annual events hosted in Brookings: Summer Art 

festival, Downtown at Sundown, Fourth of July Celebration, Hobo Day, and Festival of Lights. 

These recurring events vary in terms of size, type, season and life cycle. Due to their local tradition 

and popularity, the researcher selected these events to represent the events held in the region.  

 

Data Collection 

To assess local residents’ perceived impacts and support for the event industry, the author 

developed an online survey via QuestionPro.com. There were four sections in the questionnaire. 

Section One contained screening questions on participants’ residence status. Only those who lived in 

Brookings, SD in the past 12 months and attended one of the five local events were qualified for the 

survey. Sections Two captured the perceptions of event impacts at both the individual and 

community levels. First, perceived impacts at the community level were measured. Participants 

were asked their level of agreement (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) with the event impact 

statements. The 5-point Likert scale was adopted from previous literature (e.g., Chen, 2011; Fredline 

& Faulkner, 2000; Li et al., 2015; Wang & Pfister; 2008; Zhou & Ap, 2009). Then perceived 

impacts at the individual level were measured. Respondents were asked to indicate how the 

perceived event impacts affected their individual life with 5-point Likert scale where 5 = extremely 

affected, 1 = not at all affected). Section Three examined residents’ attitude and support for the 

event industry through a five-point Likert scale where 5 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree. 

Section Four collected survey participants’ demographic information, such as age, gender, 

education, occupation, source of income, etc. The survey instrument was pre-tested by several 

faculty, students, and three event industry professionals. They were asked to provide feedback 

regarding the wording, layout, and readability of the measurement items. The feedback was used to 

revise the questionnaire. 

The self-administrated online survey was advertised in late summer, 2019, through several 

local media platforms (e.g., newspaper, social media of local organizations). To encourage 

participation, respondents had a chance to win a $100 gift card through drawing. A total of 208 valid 

responses were obtained.  

 

Data Analysis 

Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 

25. 0). First, descriptive statistics was calculated to provide a profile of the survey respondents. 

Second, paired sample t-tests were conducted to examine the differences in residents’ perceptions of 

event impacts between the individual and community levels (Hypothesis 1). To test the relationship 

between residents’ economic dependency on the event/tourism industry and their perceptions of 

events (Hypothesis 2), independent samples t-tests were employed.  

 

Results 

 

As shown in Table 1, the gender distribution was 62.5% females and 37.5% males. The vast 

majority of respondents were aged between 22 and 65 (74.5%). Nearly two thirds of the respondents 

were Caucasians. About 32.7% of the respondents received graduate school education, 29.8% had 

Bachelor’s degrees, 19.2% had some college education, and 10.1% completed high school. Close to 

half of the respondents held a full-time position. Results also indicated that 35.6% of the 

respondents were economically dependent on the tourism industry. 

 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         7  

 

Table 1 

Profiles of Respondents (N=208) 

 

Demographic variables Frequency % 

Gender   

   Female 130 62.5 

   Male 78 37.5 

Age   

   Younger than 22 22 10.6 

   22-35 63 30.3 

   36-50 55 26.4 

   51-65 37 17.8 

   65+ 31 14.9 

Ethnicity   

   Caucasian 129 62.0 

   Hispanic 28 13.5 

   African-American 26 12.5 

   Asian 24 11.5 

   Other 1 0.48 

Education   

   Less than high school 17 8.2 

   High school 21 10.1 

   Some college/Associate’s degree 40 19.2 

   Bachelor’s degree 62 29.8 

   Master’s degree 39 18.8 

   Doctorate degree 29 13.9 

Occupation   

   Student 27 13.0 

   Housework 15 7.2 

   Full-time employed 93 44.7 

   Part-time employed 20 9.6 

   Unemployed 17 8.2 

   Retired 34 16.3 

   Other 2 0.9 

 Income from tourism   

   No 134 64.4 

   Yes 74 35.6 

 

 

Hypotheses Testing 

The findings of the research show that residents recognized both the positive and negative 

impacts of events on the community and their individual lives as well (Table 2). At the community 

level, respondents were most positive about the economic and social impacts. The highly ranked 

economic benefits of events were increased trade for local business (M = 4.21), improved local 

economy (M = 4.15), investment opportunities (M = 3.70), and employment opportunities (M = 

3.54). Respondents also rated the social benefits of events high in the areas of enhanced city 

reputation and identity (M = 3.61), leisure opportunities for local residents (M = 3.60), sense of 

pride of local residents (M = 3.42), sense of belonging to the community (M = 3.31). Moreover, 

some negative impacts were noted in the economic and social categories. The main economic and 

social costs were increased prices of goods and services (M = 2.98), increased cost of living (M = 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         8  

 

2.82), and increased crime rate (M = 2.68). In addition, respondents had negative perceptions of the 

environmental impacts, with traffic congestion (M = 4.10) as the most serious concern, followed by 

litter (M = 3.22), pollution (M = 2.91), noise (M = 2.69), and damaged natural environment (M = 

2.44). 

 

Table 2 

Perceived Impacts at Community and Individual Levels 

Items Community 

Mean 

Individual 

Mean 

T-value* 

Employment opportunities 3.54 1.63 21.69 

Investment opportunities 3.70 1.78 22.03 

Increased trade for local businesses 4.21 2.16 18.55 

Increased cost of living 2.82 2.12 8.24 

Improved local economy 4.15 2.67 14.78 

Increased prices of goods and services 2.98 2.20 10.08 

Noise 2.69 2.17 6.93 

Litter 3.22 2.12 14.16 

Pollution 2.91 2.27 8.61 

Traffic congestion 4.10 3.03 12.56 

Damaged natural environment 2.44 1.76 11.27 

Improved environment 2.82 1.71 14.77 

Sense of pride of local residents 3.42 2.78 7.77 

Enhanced city reputation and identity 3.61 2.59 11.86 

More leisure opportunities for local residents 3.60 2.81 8.7 

Sense of belonging to the community 3.31 2.37 11.14 

Increased crime rate 2.68 1.82 10.92 

* P<0.001 
 

At the individual level, respondents reported similar perceptions of the economic, social and 

environmental impacts of events. Traffic congestion had the most negative impact on their personal 

lives (M = 3.03). Local residents also felt that the events had affected their lives through more 

leisure opportunities (M = 2.81), increased sense of pride (M = 2.81), improved local economy (M = 

2.81), and enhanced city reputation (M = 2.81). The results of paired sample t-test showed that the 

perceived impacts at the community level were more positive than at the individual level. Therefore, 

Hypotheses 1a-1c were supported. 

A series of independent samples t-tests were conducted to test Hypothesis 2, which suggests 

the effects of tourism reliance on residents’ perceived event impacts. Table 3 showed the results. At 

the community level, five out of the seventeen sets of comparisons showed significant differences, 

including three economic impacts, one social impact and one environmental impact. Residents who 

were economically reliant on the tourism industry perceived more positive impacts and less negative 

impacts. Two of the economic impacts were exceptions: increased trade and improved local 

economy. Residents who didn’t rely on tourism income rated these two economic impacts higher. 

Thus, Hypotheses 2d, 2e and 2f were partially supported. 

At the individual level, four out of the seventeen sets of comparison showed significant 

differences, including three economic impacts and one environmental impact (Table 3). Residents 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         9  

 

who were dependent on tourism income indicated higher level of agreement on such impact items as 

“more employment opportunities,” “more investment opportunities,” “increased trade,” and 

“improved environment.” Hence, Hypotheses 2a and 2c were partially accepted. Although residents 

who were reliant on tourism rated all the five social impacts higher than those who were not, none 

of the differences was statistically significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was rejected. Overall, residents’ 

economic dependence on the tourism industry appears to affect their perceived impacts of events at 

both the community and individual levels. 

 

Table 3  

Differences in Perceived Impacts between Residents Reliant on Tourism and Those Not 
 

 

Community Level Individual Level 

Tourism 

Reliance 

Mean 

Non-Tourism 

Reliance 

Mean 

t Value Tourism 

Reliance 

Mean 

Non-Tourism 

Reliance 

Mean 

t Value 

Economic Impact 

Employment 

opportunities 

3.75 3.39 -2.34* 2.17 1.42 -3.72* 

Investment 

opportunities 

3.74 3.67 -0.42 2.12 1.59 -3.07* 

Increased 

trade  

4.02 4.32 2.08* 2.50 1.97 -2.58* 

Increased cost 

of living 

2.81 2.80 -0.08 2.10 2.07 -0.15 

Improved 

local economy 

3.84 4.28 2.41* 2.89 2.54 -1.77 

Increased 

prices of 

goods and 

services 

3.02 2.96 -0.33 2.28 2.11 -0.86 

Environmental Impact 

Noise 2.68 2.72 0.26 2.12 2.21 0.42 

Litter 3.34 3.21 -0.71 2.09 2.16 0.36 

Pollution 2.82 3.01 1.02 2.29 2.26 -0.11 

Traffic 

congestion 

3.78 4.22 2.40* 3.08 3.06 -0.10 

Damaged 

natural 

environment 

2.46 2.45 -0.03 1.73 1.80 0.37 

Improved 

environment 

2.86 2.76 -0.02 1.90 1.58 -2.28* 

Social Impact 

Sense of pride  3.48 3.39 -0.54 2.97 2.73 -1.19 

Enhanced city 

reputation and 

identity 

3.75 3.49 -1.69 2.78 2.50 -1.49 

More leisure 

opportunities  

3.87 3.51 -2.22* 2.88 2.75 -0.60 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         10  

 

Sense of 

belonging  

3.26 3.27 0.07 2.56 2.25 -1.62 

Increased 

crime rate 

2.50 2.78 1.67 1.87 1.79 -0.38 

 

 

Discussion and Conclusion 

 

Built upon two theoretical frameworks of Social Exchange Theory and Social 

Representations Theory, the current study investigates how rural residents have perceived the 

impacts of the major annual events on the community and their personal lives as well. The results 

showed that rural residents recognized the economic, social and environmental impacts at both the 

community and individual levels, and confirmed the usefulness of the two theories in explaining 

residents’ perceptions of event tourism. Overall, greater impacts were perceived at the community 

level than the individual level. The findings support the conclusion of Li et al.’s (2015) investigation 

into Chinese residents’ perceptions of the 2010 World Expo. They argued that the differences 

resulted from the underlying mechanisms of the two theoretical frameworks (i.e., SET and SRT). 

When evaluating the impacts of events at the individual level, respondents used the SET and 

calculated their personal gains and loss from the events. In comparison, the event impacts at the 

community level were abstract and unfamiliar. Respondents were more likely to use the SRT to 

form a reference point and make judgement. Both theories can complement each other and apply in 

different circumstances. 

This study differs from Li et al.’s (2015) research in several ways. First, this study added a 

new dimension of the impacts of events: environmental impacts. Due to the growing interest in 

adopting a holistic approach and measuring the impacts of events from multiple perspectives, the 

current study examined three types of event impacts: economic, social and environmental. Although 

both the positive and negative impacts were perceived in each of the three dimensions, more 

negative environmental impacts were reported by the local residents. Secondly, this study focused 

on a set of small-scale recurring events in a rural community, whereas Li et al.’s study examined a 

single mega-event in an urban context. The findings showed that similar to mega-events, small-scale 

rural events held on a regular basis also generated economic, social and environmental impacts on 

the host community and the residents’ personal lives as well. Local residents were more likely to 

agree with the positive impact statements than the negative ones. At the community level, the 

perceived economic and social benefits (e.g., improved economy and enhanced reputation) 

outweighed the negative environmental impacts (e.g., traffic congestion and litter). At the individual 

level, despite the traffic congestion problem, the residents were slightly aware of the impacts of 

events on their personal lives. The findings were in line with previous studies, indicating that 

residents’ awareness of event impacts is relatively low in rural areas (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; 

Sharpley, 2014). Further, the current study included five major community events, and thus 

provided a rather comprehensive view of the impacts of events on the study area (Chen, 2011; 

Egresi & Kara, 2014).  

In addition, findings from this research suggest that local residents’ economic reliance on the 

tourism industry affects their perceptions of the impacts of events. Specifically, more positive 

impacts were perceived by those residents who were economically dependent on the tourism 

industry. Rural residents who were not dependent on the tourism industry were likely to have an 

unfavorable attitude toward event development and its impacts. These are particularly true when the 

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


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         11  

 

impacts were measured at the individual level. These findings were in accordance with the general 

tourism studies (e.g., Chen & Chen, 2010; Jurowski et al., 1997; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010), 

which indicated that tourism reliance is associated with positive attitudes toward the industry. 

At the community level, two economic impact items were exceptions. Residents who were 

not reliant on tourism perceived more trade opportunities and better local economy than those who 

were reliant on tourism. A possible explanation might be that the two economic items were more 

about the overall economic condition of the community whereas the other economic item (i.e., 

employment opportunity) was more related to respondents’ own financial well-being.  

From a practical standpoint, findings of the study can help the rural government and event 

organizers develop a sustainable approach to community event management. These small-scale 

recurring events aimed to boost local economy, showcase local tradition, and enrich residents’ lives. 

Negative environmental impacts (e.g., noise, pollution, congestions) were not considered as an issue 

due to the remote rural location. However, this study reported that traffic congestions and litter 

disrupted the lives of local residents. It is imperative for local government and event organizers to 

take immediate actions to mitigate and minimize the perceived negative impacts. It is also suggested 

that the attitude of local residents should be monitored on a regular basis. Destination policy-makers 

should establish systematic procedures to ensure such assessment and incorporate the results into 

destination planning and management policies. To gain local support, event organizers should 

communicate with the host community about the event impacts and how the benefits of events 

contribute to their daily lives. This study shows that tourism involvement influences residents’ 

perceptions of event impacts. Event organizers may plan some opportunities to involve local 

residents into the event planning and management process. This will foster the sense of personal 

gains (Li et al., 2015).  

This study has some limitations. First, the survey used a convenience sample. Local residents 

chose to participate in the survey based on their self-judgement. Although the sample was adequate 

for statistical analysis, the conclusion cannot be generalized to represent the overall population. 

Second, the data were collected in the summer, right after two of the five major events: Summer Art 

Festival and Downtown at Sundown. Thus, the responses might be more based on the two recent 

events rather than all the five. Moreover, this study was operated at a particular point of time. Like 

other tourism products, these recurring events have a life cycle. At different stages of development, 

residents’ perceptions might vary (Kaplanidou et al., 2013; Li et al., 2015). Future researchers could 

conduct longitudinal studies to track the residents’ attitudinal changes over time.  

 

References 

 

Almeida, F., Balbuena, A., & Cortés, R. (2015). Residents' attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. 

Tourism Management Perspectives, 13(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002 

Alves, H. M. B., Cerro, A. M. C., & Martins, A. V. F. (2010). Impacts of small tourism events on 

rural places. Journal of Place Management and Development, 3(1), 22– 37. 

doi:10.1108/17538331011030257 

Andersson, T. D., & Lundberg, E. (2013). Commensurability and sustainability: Triple impact 

assessments of a tourism event. Tourism Management, 37, 99-109. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.015 

Chen, C., & Chen, P. (2010). Resident Attitudes toward Heritage Tourism Development. Tourism 

Geographies, 12(4), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2010.516398 

Chen, S. (2011). Residents' perceptions of the impact of major annual tourism events in Macao: 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.015
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2010.516398


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         12  

 

Cluster analysis. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 12(2), 106-128. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2011.569877 

Cromartie, J., Dobis, E. A., Krumel, T., McGranahan, D., & Pender, J. (2020). Rural America at a 

glance (2020 edition). U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/business-industry/ 

Egresi, I., & Kara, F. (2014). Economic and tourism impact of small events: The case of small-scale 

festivals in Istanbul, Turkey. Studia UBB Geographia, 59(1), 47-64. 

Fredline, E., and Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions—A cluster analysis. Annals of 

Tourism Research, 27(3), 763-784. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00103-6 

Fytopoulou, E., Tampakis, S., Galatsidas, S., Karasmanaki, E., & Tsantopoulos, G. (2021). The role 

of events in local development: An analysis of residents' perspectives and visitor satisfaction. 

Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.018 

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 

            29, 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017 

Getz D., & Page S.J. (2016). Progress and prospects for event tourism research. Tourism 

Management, 52, 593-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.03.007 

Hjalager, A. M., & Kwiatkowski, G. (2018). Entrepreneurial implications, prospects and dilemmas 

in rural festivals. Journal of Rural Studies, 63, 217-228. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.019 

Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Annals 

of Tourism Research, 31(2), 296-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.005 

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. & Willams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident 

reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3–11. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600202 

Kaplanidou, K., Karadakis, K., Gibson, H., Thapa, B., Walker, M., Geldenhuys, S., & Coetzee, W. 

(2013). Quality of life, event impacts, and mega-event support among residents before and 

after the event: the case of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Journal of Travel 

Research, 52(5), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478501 

Latkova, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents’ Attitudes toward Existing and Future Tourism 

Development in Rural Communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 50–67. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510394193 

Li, X.R., Hsu, C.H., & Lawton, L.J. (2015).Understanding residents’ perception changes toward a 

mega-event through a dual-theory lens. Journal of Travel Research, 54, 396-410. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513517422 

Moscovici, S. (1982) The coming era of representations. In Cognitive Analysis of Social Behaviour, 

Codol, J.-P. and Lyons, J.-P. (eds). Nijhoff, The Hague. 

Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents' support for tourism an identity perspective. Annals of 

Tourism Research, 39(1), 243-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.006 

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2010). Small island urban tourism: A residents’ perspective. 

Current Issues in Tourism, 13(1), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802499414 

O’Dell, K. (2021). Redefining rural towards a better understanding of geography, demography, and 

economy in America’s rural places. Economic Innovation Group. 

https://eig.org/news/redefining-rural-basics-and-well-being 

Ouyang, Z., Gursoy, D., & Chen, K. (2019). It’s all about life: Exploring the role of residents’ 

quality of life perceptions on attitudes toward a recurring hallmark event over time. Tourism 

Management, 75, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.032 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2011.569877
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/business-industry/
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00103-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.03.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.005
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004728759703600202
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047287513478501
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047287510394193
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047287513517422
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.006
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802499414
https://eig.org/news/redefining-rural-basics-and-well-being
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.032


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021), 1-13, DOI: 10.18060/25829                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Xu Li 

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

Li, X. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(2) 

                                                                                                                                                                         13  

 

Panyik, E., Costa, C., & Rátz, T. (2011). Implementing integrated rural tourism: An event-based 

approach. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1352-1363. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.009 

Pearce, P. L., Moscardo, G. & Ross, G. F. (1996). Tourism Community Relationships. Oxford: 

Pergamon. 

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ringle, C. M., Jaafar, M., & Ramayah, T. (2017). Urban vs. rural 

destinations: Residents’ perceptions, community participation and support for tourism 

development. Tourism Management, 60, 147–158. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.019 

Reid, S. (2007). Identifying social consequences of rural events. Event Management, 11, 89-98. 

https://doi.org/10.3727/152599508783943192 

Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perception of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management. 

42, 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.10.007 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). One in five Americans live in rural areas. Retrieved June 12, 2021, 

from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html 

Vargas, A., Plaza, M.A., & Porras, N. (2011). Explaining residents' attitudes to tourism is a 

universal model possible? Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 460-480. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.10.004 

Visit Brookings. (n.d.). About us. https://visitbrookingssd.com/about/ 

Wang, Y., & Pfister, R. E. (2008). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism and perceived personal 

benefits in a rural community. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 84-93. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507312402 

Yao, Q. & Schwarzb, E. (2018). Impacts and implications of an annual major sport event: A host 

community perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 161-169. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.02.007 

Zhou, Y., & Ap, J. (2009). Residents’ perceptions towards the impacts of the Beijing 2008 Olympic 

Games. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 78-91. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508328792 

 

Acknowledgement 

The author would like to thank the College of Education and Human Sciences at South Dakota State 

University for the research grant entitled Residents’ Perceived Impacts and Support for Events: 

Evidence from Brookings, SD. The grant makes the research and this article possible. 
 

 

 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.009
https://doi.org/10.3727/152599508783943192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.10.007
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.10.004
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047287507312402
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.02.007
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047287508328792

