BookPDF Available

ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: REVIEW AND REDEVELOPMENT

Authors:

Abstract

This was the first of a two stage project to review and redesign the STCRC ENCORE Festival and Event Evaluation Kit (ENCORE). The purpose of this project was to provide a critique of the current ENCORE product and make recommendations to guide the STCRC in future design and development of a revised model. The current ENCORE model provides a sound measure of direct inscope expenditure1 but could be expanded to include social and environmental dimensions to achieve a triple bottom line (TBL) approach. Academics who have used the current model have reported that it is sound, reliable and useful. In contrast, the majority of event organisers who have purchased and trialled the product report that the current model is too complex for comfortable and effective use by their event evaluation staff. The findings indicate that the majority of organisers of smaller festivals and events do not have access to personnel with the level of research skills and resources required to complete an effective event evaluation without ongoing support and training (which wasn’t perceived to be widely available with the current model). A revised paper-based event evaluation tool was developed and field tested at the 2010 CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival. The model incorporated a TBL approach and included comprehensive community, attendee and organiser survey instruments for measuring host community perceptions of the social impacts of the event, motivations for and satisfaction with attending the event, and inscope expenditure. The instruments also facilitated the collection of demographic and marketing data, and an environmental checklist was completed by organisers. Interviews with field researchers and organisers and examination of the data resulted in minor modifications to the proposed tool.
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT:
REVIEW AND REDEVELOPMENT
Katie Schlenker, Carmel Foley, Don Getz
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Disclaimer
The technical reports present data and its analysis, meta-studies and conceptual studies, and are considered to be
of value to industry, government or other researchers. Unlike the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research
Centre’s (STCRC’s) Monograph series, these reports have not been subjected to an external peer review process.
As such, the scientific accuracy and merit of the research reported here is the responsibility of the authors, who
should be contacted for clarification of any content. Author contact details are at the back of this report. The
views and opinions of the authors expressed in the reports or by the authors if you contact them do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the STCRC.
While all reasonable efforts have been made to gather the most current and appropriate information, the
STCRC does not give any warranty as to the correctness, completeness or suitability of the information, and
disclaims all responsibility for and shall in no event be liable for any errors or for any loss or damage that might
be suffered as a consequence of any person acting or refraining from acting or otherwise relying on this
information.
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Entry
Title: ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment / Katie Schlenker,
Carmel Foley, Don Getz.
ISBN: 9781921785146 (pbk) 9781921785641 (pdf)
Subjects: ENCORE (Electronic resource)
Festivals--Marketing--Evaluation.
Special events--Marketing--Evaluation.
Author: Schlenker, Katie
Other Authors/Contributors: Foley, Carmel. Getz, Don. CRC for Sustainable Tourism.
Dewey Number: 658.8
Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2010
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted
under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission
from the publisher. Any enquiries should be directed to:
General Manager, Communications and Industry Extension or Publishing Manager, info@crctourism.com.au
First published in Australia in 2010 by CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd
Printed in Australia (Gold Coast, Queensland)
ii
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY NOTE...........................................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................iv
SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................v
Objectives of Study...................................................................................................................................................v
Methodology.............................................................................................................................................................v
Key Findings.............................................................................................................................................................v
Future Action ............................................................................................................................................................v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY................................................................................................2
CHAPTER 3: CRITIQUE OF ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION
KIT...............................................................................................................................................................................3
User Survey...............................................................................................................................................................3
Secondary Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................3
Summary...................................................................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 4: INFORMING THE NEW DESIGN ....................................................................5
Industry Reference Group.........................................................................................................................................5
Literature Review...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Summary...................................................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 5: TESTING AND REDESIGN..............................................................................10
Attendee Survey......................................................................................................................................................10
Host Community Social Impacts Survey ................................................................................................................10
Organiser Economic Survey....................................................................................................................................10
Organiser Environmental Impact Checklist ............................................................................................................10
Summary.................................................................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................12
Web-Based Tool......................................................................................................................................................12
Data Collection/Input Technologies........................................................................................................................ 12
Training and Support...............................................................................................................................................13
Further Testing........................................................................................................................................................13
APPENDIX A: WEBSITE DESIGN AND CONTENT............................................................14
APPENDIX B: WEBSITE DESIGN – GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION .............................17
APPENDIX C: DEFAULT OPTION INSTRUMENTS...........................................................17
Default Instrument 1: Simple Attendee Survey.......................................................................................................18
Default Instrument 2: Comprehensive Attendee Survey......................................................................................... 20
Default Instrument 3: Host Community Social Impacts Survey.............................................................................24
Default Instrument 4: Organiser Economic Survey.................................................................................................29
Default Instrument 5: Organiser Environmental Impact Checklist.........................................................................32
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................44
AUTHORS....................................................................................................................................48
iii
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Introductory Note
This document reports on the first stage of a two stage project to review and redesign the STCRC ENCORE
Festival and Event Evaluation Kit (ENCORE). The purpose of this project was to provide a critique of the
current ENCORE product and make recommendations to guide the STCRC in future design and development of
a revised model. The second stage of the project was to involve the design and development of a revised
ENCORE product, based on the results of the Stage 1 research. This second stage would also see the transfer of
this revised ENCORE product to an online, web-based platform. While this second stage of the research has not
progressed, the results of the ENCORE review (Stage 1 research) are presented in this report.
Abstract
This was the first of a two stage project to review and redesign the STCRC ENCORE Festival and Event
Evaluation Kit (ENCORE). The purpose of this project was to provide a critique of the current ENCORE
product and make recommendations to guide the STCRC in future design and development of a revised model.
The current ENCORE model provides a sound measure of direct inscope expenditure1 but could be expanded to
include social and environmental dimensions to achieve a triple bottom line (TBL) approach. Academics who
have used the current model have reported that it is sound, reliable and useful. In contrast, the majority of event
organisers who have purchased and trialled the product report that the current model is too complex for
comfortable and effective use by their event evaluation staff. The findings indicate that the majority of
organisers of smaller festivals and events do not have access to personnel with the level of research skills and
resources required to complete an effective event evaluation without ongoing support and training (which wasn’t
perceived to be widely available with the current model).
A revised paper-based event evaluation tool was developed and field tested at the 2010 CountryLink Parkes
Elvis Festival. The model incorporated a TBL approach and included comprehensive community, attendee and
organiser survey instruments for measuring host community perceptions of the social impacts of the event,
motivations for and satisfaction with attending the event, and inscope expenditure. The instruments also
facilitated the collection of demographic and marketing data, and an environmental checklist was completed by
organisers. Interviews with field researchers and organisers and examination of the data resulted in minor
modifications to the proposed tool.
It is recommended that the STCRC facilitate the development of a web-based event evaluation tool with a
user-friendly interface and user access to ongoing training and support. While much of the questionnaire content
has been field tested as part of this study, we recommend that further development of the new tool involve
extensive field testing among event evaluation researchers to ensure its usability in the event marketplace.
A web-based tool has the potential to contribute to the collection of data from a broad range of events,
providing an extensive database for academics, NTOs and STOs involved in research, planning and policy
making for the Australian/global events industry.
Acknowledgements
The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, established and supported under the Australian
Government’s Cooperative Research Centre’s Program, funded this research. The authors are very appreciative
of the assistance and contribution provided by the Industry Reference Group. Thanks are due to Ms Elizabeth
Rich (Chief Executive Officer – Business Events Council of Australia), Ms Sandra Garvin (Manager Regional
Development Program – Queensland Events), Mr James Paterson (Head of Strategy, Research and Legal –
Events NSW), and Mr Brendan McClements (Chief Executive - Victorian Major Events Company), each of
whom shared industry knowledge and provided guidance for this project. Special thanks to Kelly Hendry
(Tourism Manager, Parkes Shire Council), Katrina Dwyer (Events Coordinator, Parkes Shire Council) and Ellie
Ruffoni (Parkes Elvis Festival Coordinator) for assistance with testing the new ENCORE tools. Finally, thank
you to the ENCORE users who provided feedback for this research.
1 Inscope expenditure, also referred to as ‘new expenditure’ is “expenditure that would not have occurred in the host region had the event not taken place” (Jago & Dwyer,
2006, p. 8). This includes the event-induced expenditure of a range of stakeholders in the event, such as event attendees, participants, exhibitors and organisers.
iv
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
v
SUMMARY
Objectives of Study
To provide a robust review and critique of the existing STCRC ENCORE Festival and Event Evaluation
Kit (ENCORE);
To identify necessary product modifications in light of developments in event evaluation literature and
user experiences with the product;
To design the templates for a revised product to meet the requirements of a range of users from
organisers of smaller events and festivals conducting a simple event evaluation, through to event
organisers, STOs, NTO and government authorities, conducting a comprehensive evaluation of medium-
large events;
To test the revised ENCORE templates in the event evaluation process of a medium sized event; and
To provide recommendations to guide Stage 2 of the project – the design and development of a revised
ENCORE product.
Methodology
Review of developments in event evaluation literature;
Secondary data analysis and user interviews to critique existing product;
Interviews with key industry leaders to guide design of new templates;
Design of new templates incorporating TBL dimensions;
Testing of social, environmental, and economic survey instruments in the event evaluation of a medium
sized event.
Key Findings
Developments in event evaluation literature incorporate a TBL focus. Inscope expenditure is a sound
model for benchmarking and collection of baseline economic data. A residents’ perception model is the
preferred method for measuring social impacts on host communities. An environmental checklist is a
practical tool for event organisers who wish to begin focusing on environmental impacts, whereas carbon
calculators require higher levels of input from organisers and a small section of the industry is currently
motivated to use tools at this level.
The majority of purchasers of the current ENCORE tool are organisers of smaller events and festivals
and have not used the product. Those who have trialled it report many difficulties with its usability.
This is in contrast to academics who have tested the product and are comfortable with the usability and
integrity of the program.
The majority of event organisers who have purchased the product lack personnel with the research skills
required to use ENCORE effectively. They require access to training and ongoing support to manage
use of the tool;
STOs see potential for use of a revised ENCORE product by organisers of smaller events and festivals –
particularly if it can address problems mentioned above;
STOs have developed their own models for event evaluation and do not predict ‘in-house’ use of the
existing or revised ENCORE products;
The revised templates tested successfully at the 2010 CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival.
Future Action
A web-based design is recommended for the development of the new product;
The web-based design will need to be tested for usability with event organisers;
Training and support will be required for the majority of event organisers who purchase the new product.
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Chapter 1:
INTRODUCTION
Over the past three decades there has been an explosion in the number and significance of events held in
communities large and small (DeLisle, 2009) in both developing and developed economies. Events are being
used to revitalise tourism in regional areas as well as major cities. Most governments see events as a legitimate
and effective way to brand cities. Securing, creating, staging and retaining major events is a global and highly
competitive business (Victorian Auditor General, 2007).
In Australia, state agencies have been established to strategically plan and manage the event landscape.
Evaluation plays a significant role in the planning process. State agencies are involved in event evaluation in
two main ways. First, they evaluate key events to collect data (marketing, demographic, economic) for their own
organisational needs. Second, they provide support and guidance for organisers of smaller/community events in
evaluating their own events.
Organisers of smaller/community events often lack the financial, human and skill set resources required to
evaluate their events effectively. Those who make the effort to evaluate their events risk compromising the
integrity of their research because of a lack of skills and/or resources. The original ENCORE Festival and Event
Evaluation Kit (ENCORE) was designed to assist with the process of event evaluation, alleviating some of the
problems identified by providing sound questionnaires and reporting templates for event organisers to collect
data on inscope expenditure as well as marketing and demographic information. However, a number of
ENCORE users have experienced problems with the usability of the current tool (see Chapter 3). The revised
model aims to provide a simpler, user friendly tool for evaluating events.
In line with contemporary values and community expectations, event evaluation is evolving. In addition to
the economic bottom line, communities and government agencies are becoming increasingly concerned with the
social and environmental impacts of events. Event organisers have come to recognise that events not aligned to
the environmental and social values of their host communities are not likely to last more than a couple of years
(Fredline, Jago, & Deery, 2003). This trend is reflected in the growth of triple bottom line (TBL) event
evaluation literature.
In addition to improving usability, the revised ENCORE model will offer event organisers tools for
evaluating the impacts of their events from social, environmental and economic perspectives. Cutting edge
research has been used to inform the design of the new models.
The revised ENCORE product will provide a platform for consistency and benchmarking of economic
impacts within and between events on an organisational, regional, national or global scale as well as a more
comprehensive understanding of social and environmental impacts through the use of highly flexible tools that
can be tailored to the specific requirements of each unique event.
The key objectives of this project were:
To provide a robust review and critique of the existing STCRC ENCORE Festival and Event Evaluation
Kit (ENCORE);
To identify necessary product modifications in light of developments in event evaluation literature and
user experiences with the product;
To design the templates for a revised product to meet the requirements of a range of users from
organisers of smaller events and festivals conducting a simple event evaluation, through to event
organisers, STOs, NTO and government authorities, conducting a comprehensive evaluation of medium-
large events;
To test the revised ENCORE templates in the event evaluation process of a medium sized event; and
To provide recommendations to guide Stage 2 of the project – the design and development of a revised
ENCORE product.
1
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Chapter 2:
METHODOLOGY
To address the research objectives the research team completed a literature review, a survey of current ENCORE
users and analysis of secondary data, as well as interviews with state event agency representatives.
Since the development of the existing ENCORE product, significant progress has been made in event
evaluation literature, particularly in the area of triple bottom line reporting. Developments in the literature
mirror a growing awareness and concern in the wider community about social and environmental issues
generally. Events are not exempt from these concerns. Indeed, the Victorian Auditor General (2007) has
recommended a triple bottom line approach to event evaluation.
In order for government to be more comprehensively apprised of the full range of major event
impacts, post-event assessments should be broadened to take, where practicable, a triple bottom
line approach embracing not only economic but social and environmental factors (p.3).
A literature review was conducted, drawing on event evaluation literature relevant to triple bottom line
reporting with specific focus on the environmental, social and economic impacts of events.
A survey of current ENCORE users and analysis of secondary data contributed to a comprehensive appraisal
of the existing ENCORE product.
The ENCORE user survey encompassed a questionnaire survey completed with 71 representatives of
organisations who purchased the ENCORE product between 2006-09. The questionnaire survey was
administered via telephone. Of the 71 event organisations that completed the questionnaire only 22 had
attempted to use the ENCORE tool. Only a small number of these organisations agreed to being involved in
further research, which limited the ability of the team to conduct follow-up interviews. A total of eight follow up
interviews were conducted with ENCORE users. Findings of the questionnaire survey were instrumental in
shaping the themes explored in the in-depth interviews, administered via telephone. An interview schedule was
developed and used to guide the interviews with ENCORE users.
Secondary data comprises reports by Haydon (2006) and Tremblay, Boyle, Rigby, & Haydon (2006) who
used the existing ENCORE product to evaluate events and provided feedback on required modifications. These
reports have been analysed and contribute to the critique of the existing ENCORE product.
In-depth semi structured interviews were completed with each member of the project’s Industry Reference
Group (IRG). Each IRG member was issued with a project summary prior to interview. An interview schedule
was developed and used to guide each interview. The purpose of these interviews was twofold:
to ensure that the research team received feedback on the overall project aims, objectives and direction;
and
to familiarise the research team with parallel efforts by state level event agencies to improve procedures
for event evaluation in their jurisdictions.
All IRG and ENCORE user interviews were transcribed by ESCRIBE Digital Transcription Services.
2
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Chapter 3:
CRITIQUE OF ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION
KIT
The ENCORE Festival and Event Evaluation Kit (ENCORE) was developed by the Sustainable Tourism
Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) with the aim of providing festival and event organisers with a tool to
“assess the magnitude of new funds that are attracted to the host region as a result of staging the festival or
event” (Jago, 2005, p. 1), as well as to collect key demographic, marketing and visitor satisfaction data. Since its
inception in 2005 ENCORE has become a core component of event planning for a number of groups including
the South Australian Government, Coloc Otway Shire Council, Mildura City Council and Gold Coast Council.
Key findings from the user surveys and analysis of secondary data are presented in this chapter. These
findings offer a robust critique of the current ENCORE product and insight into the various ways in which a
revised model could contribute to the events industry.
User Survey
The ENCORE user survey encompassed a questionnaire survey completed with 71 representatives of
organisations who purchased the ENCORE product in the period 2006-9, plus in-depth interviews with eight
ENCORE users. This section provides a breakdown of issues raised in this survey.
Key findings from the ENCORE user survey can be summarised as follows.
The findings indicate that the majority of purchasers of ENCORE have not used the product. Those who
have trialled it are not particularly happy with it and report many difficulties with its usability (e.g. the
questionnaire is too long, some of the questions do not ‘make sense’, the questionnaire is too difficult for
respondents to self-complete, data entry is cumbersome). The questions related to inscope expenditure
were considered to be particularly problematic. This is in contrast to academics who have tested the
product and are comfortable with the usability and the integrity of the program.
A key complaint was the lack of training provided. The majority of users were not comfortable with
using the manual to train themselves. They felt they needed person to person training. This may need
to be costed into the next version of the tool. An online tutorial may not suffice for this group of users.
The new product will need a support system to answer questions and help with evaluations. It can be put
online, complete with demonstrations and tutorials. Potentially, the organisation(s) managing the new
product could charge a fee for consulting/analytical services.
Training users is important, or ‘training the trainers’, and this could be a role for the universities.
Without effective post sales support and appropriate demonstrations of how the software operates, there
is little chance that products like ENCORE will be effective in the market.
The development of a simple and straightforward questionnaire template without any economic
questions (which seem to cause the majority of problems for current users) may alleviate many of the
problems currently experienced by users.
Secondary Data Analysis
This section unpacks critiques of ENCORE provided in reports by Haydon (2006) and Tremblay et al (2006).
Each group of researchers tested the ENCORE tool and provided feedback on required modifications.
Key findings from the secondary data analysis that have informed the design of the new tool include:
Greater flexibility (ordering of questions, inclusion/exclusion of questions, break points in demographic
categories, use of skip logic) is required wherever possible.
Careful attention needs to be paid to the wording of questions so that meaning is clear and unambiguous
to both data collectors and respondents.
The new tool needs to take into account that not all users will be experienced with research terminology
and techniques.
Economic evaluation may not be the first priority for all events, particularly community events – social
impacts need to be incorporated.
3
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
The new tool requires a TBL focus.
Summary
In summary, the current tool provides a sound basis for measuring economic impacts (in terms of inscope
expenditure) but does not incorporate social or environmental dimensions. Users experienced in research
methodology are comfortable with using the tool and consider it sound and reliable. The majority of users did
not have the research skills or resources needed to manage the tool effectively. Ongoing support and training is
considered to be a vital component of any new tool.
4
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Chapter 4:
INFORMING THE NEW DESIGN
Key findings from the IRG interviews and literature review are presented in this section. These findings offer
guidance for the design of the new ENCORE product and insight into the various ways in which the new tool
could contribute to the events industry.
Industry Reference Group
Face to face interviews were conducted with representatives of the different state level agencies who formed the
Industry Reference Group (IRG) for this project.
Key findings from the IRG interviews that have informed the design of the new tool are as follows.
A simple and straightforward tool needs to be designed for ease of administration by less experienced
researchers so that problems with reliability of data are less likely to occur.
For the more experienced researcher and for those critical moments when resources are made available
for a comprehensive evaluation of chosen aspects of events (e.g., economic, social or environmental) a
more comprehensive model is appropriate.
The majority of users will need guidance and support with research methodology to ensure validity of
findings.
Cutting edge and field tested research and international best practice should inform the design of the
social and environmental impact components of the new tool.
Inscope expenditure measures designed for the original ENCORE tool are considered sound and the
most appropriate model for benchmarking purposes and should therefore be retained.
Literature Review
Research into the impacts of events is increasing because of the growing number of events being held, and
because of a growing recognition of the impacts, both positive and negative, that these events can have on host
communities (Dimmock & Tiyce, 2001). There is also increasing recognition of the need for assessments to
move beyond the purely economic justifications for events. Increasingly, the social and environmental impacts
are considered just as important in calculating the overall success or outcomes of an event (Allen, O'Toole,
McDonnell, & Harris, 2005; Hall, 1993). This stems from a recognition that it is counterproductive “to
concentrate on the economic dimension to the exclusion of other perspectives on festivals and events” (Getz,
1991, p. 39).
Economic Impacts
The initial focus of event impact research was on the economic dimension. A substantial body of research has
focused on assessing the economic impacts of events (Burns, Hatch, & Mules, 1986; Crompton, Lee, & Shuster,
2001; Dwyer, Mellor, Mistilis, & Mules, 2000b; McCann & Thompson, 1992; Tyrrell & Johnston, 2001).
Emphasis is often placed on this aspect because, in part, “the success of a festival or event is commonly
measured in terms of its economic contribution to event stakeholders, the community and the region” (Dimmock
& Tiyce, 2001, p. 364).
Evaluation of the economic impacts of events is important for event organisers who must be able to justify
their activities to a range of stakeholders including sponsors, funding bodies, as well as the wider host
community. Additionally, as more events look to governments and other bodies as funding sources, such
organisations require event evaluations in order to assess the value of their investments (Jago & Dwyer, 2006).
A variety of approaches exist for measuring the economic impact of events including cost benefit analysis
(Jackson, Houghton, Russell, & Triandos, 2005), computable general equilibrium models (CGE) (Dwyer,
Forsyth, & Spurr, 2004), input output models (I-O) (Chhabra, Sills, & Cubbage, 2003) and inscope expenditure
(Jago & Dwyer, 2006). Each model has strengths and weaknesses and its own set of underlying assumptions.
Critics argue that while I-O techniques are straightforward and relatively easy to administer, they account for
only the positive impacts of an event and ignore the negative impacts that may be occurring in other parts of the
5
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
economy as a result of the event. These negative impacts can be significant, particularly if the event is large and
held in a major city. The actual net impact of events on economic activity, except on the local area, will
probably be much lower than is estimated using the I-O technique (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2006) . CGE
modelling also has its critics. CGE models are required to make too many assumptions, making them too costly
and complex to use (Dwyer, et al., 2006). Widely differing results can be achieved depending on the model used
to measure economic impact. Differing assumptions lead, inevitably, to different conclusions.
Importantly, as Jago & Dwyer (2006) note, “if the economic impact of events is not assessed in a consistent
fashion, the credibility of the results will invariably be questioned and the opportunity to benchmark the
performance of one event against other events will be limited” (p. 3).
In order to overcome this problem, it is recommended that inscope expenditure be used as the base line data
for reporting on the economic performance of an event. Inscope expenditure, or ‘new expenditure’ is
“expenditure that would not have occurred in the host region had the event not taken place” (Jago & Dwyer,
2006, p. 8). This includes the event-induced expenditure of a range of stakeholders in the event, such as event
attendees, participants, exhibitors as well as organisers. The calculation of inscope expenditure does not equate
to the ‘economic impact’ of an event, but rather inscope expenditure is the base component of any economic
model designed to calculate economic impact. A recommendation for the use of inscope expenditure as a
measure of the economic performance of an event is in line with Jago & Dwyer (2006) who state that “direct
inscope expenditure can be a basis for comparing the economic performance of an event over time as well as
between events without becoming sidetracked by the debate over which multiplier to use” (p. 41).
While economists will continue to debate the merits of cost benefit, CGE and I-O models, the integrity of the
inscope expenditure model is widely accepted, and provides a rigorous and transparent platform for
benchmarking the economic performance of events. As identified previously, an additional benefit of taking
such an approach is that the calculation of inscope expenditure provides much of the base line data needed to
analyse the economic impact of an event using CGE or I-O models, should this next step be warranted in certain
situations (Dwyer, Mellor, Mistilis, & Mules, 2000a; Jago & Dwyer, 2006).
Social Impacts
Recently there has been a growth in studies which pay greater attention to the social impacts that events can have
(Delamere, 1997, 2001; Delamere, Wankel, & Hinch, 2001; Fredline, Deery, & Jago, 2005; Fredline & Faulkner,
2002a, 2002b; Fredline, et al., 2003; Reid, 2004; Small, 2007a; Small & Edwards, 2003; Small, Edwards, &
Sheridan, 2005; Soutar & McLeod, 1993; Waitt, 2003). A focus on the social impacts of events on a host
community is increasingly necessary, since dissatisfaction amongst the community is likely to have negative
implications for the current success and long-term sustainability of an event. Local residents play an important
part in the staging of festivals and events, often taking on roles of both host and participant, especially in the case
of small community festivals. Not only does the host community provide many of the businesses, facilities and
other public places in which an event is held, but members of the host community are a resource in themselves,
with many working in tourism or hospitality businesses, at the event, or as volunteers (Dimmock & Tiyce,
2001). Events provide opportunities for host community members to socialise and be entertained, to enhance
their sense of community identity, and create an increased sense of community wellbeing by way of enhancing
their relationship networks and social capital. However, events can also create inconvenience and frustration for
locals, bringing traffic congestion, overcrowding, litter, and anti-social behaviour. Event organisers need to
understand the positive and negative social impacts of an event on the host community, so that they can develop
future strategies to capitalise on the positive impacts and minimise the negative impacts. By doing so, they are
more likely to retain the support of the host community, which is an essential ingredient to the long-term success
of any event.
A number of methodologies have been trialled for measuring social impacts. The Contingent Valuation (CV)
methodology (Lindberg & Johnson, 1997) measures consumers’ willingness to pay for non-market-goods by
asking residents to assign a monetary value to social impacts. While this approach facilitates the analysis of
social impacts by assigning them an economic value it has met with limited success. Many respondents have
difficulty with this process and not all social impacts can be measured this way (Ohmann, Jones, & Wilkes,
2006). Social Impact Assessment (SIA) techniques measure social impacts using a quantitative methodology.
This approach supports the objective measure of impacts such as a change in the level of crime in a region
through police records (Fredline, et al., 2003). Again this method has met with only limited success. There are
only a limited number of social impacts that can be quantified in this manner (Ohmann, et al., 2006).
6
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
A residents' perceptions approach allows residents to make comment on the impacts that a specific event has
had on them. Such an approach is particularly important for the examination of social impacts that are often
difficult to measure objectively since they cannot be easily quantified. Moreover, if residents perceive that
certain impacts are occurring, it is this belief rather than any objective reality that will be important in affecting
their attitudes and behaviours towards tourism or an event (Hall, 2003). Social impacts are therefore best
examined through an investigation of residents’ perceptions (Fredline et al., 2003).
Advocates of residents’ perceptions research typically cite two important reasons for such studies to be
undertaken. First, residents’ perceptions studies are seen to be important because of the role they can play in
providing essential information for planning agencies. “The perceptions and attitudes of residents towards the
impacts of tourism are likely to be an important planning and policy consideration for the successful
development, marketing, and operation of existing and future tourism programs and projects” (Ap, 1992, p. 665).
Second, some argue that a host community that is positively disposed to tourism will enhance the experience of
tourists and contribute to the destination’s attractiveness (Fredline & Faulkner, 2000; Kang, Long, & Perdue,
1996; Madrigal, 1995; Waitt, 2003). In line with this, a lack of support within a resident population could
threaten the existence of future tourism in a destination (Fredline & Faulkner, 2002a). These findings are
equally applicable to events as they are to tourism more generally. Residents' perceptions of the social impacts
of an event need to be monitored and considered throughout the planning process in order to minimise identified
negative impacts and optimise benefits for the host community (Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Kang, et al., 1996).
Environmental Impacts
The relationship between mankind and the physical environmental impacts is one of the core underpinnings of
the sustainable development movement in the second half of the twentieth century. This period of history is
littered with a series of events which have called into question the finite nature of our planet and the sustainable
use of common resources. The concepts of global warming and climate change are well known and have done
much to precipitate a broad community interest in the principles of environmental impact assessment.
In spite of the growth in awareness of environmental issues in the general community, environmental impact
research has lagged behind research on the social impacts, and even more so, the economic impacts of events
(Fredline, Raybould, Jago, & Deery, 2005; Getz, 2008; Sherwood, 2007). However, this is changing. Over
recent years, mega events have come to realise the extent of their influence on the environment. Recent Olympic
Games have for instance included strategic environmental impact assessment for all new and existing venues.
The IOC President Jacques Rogues has made the following statement:
Caring for the environment is an important part of the work of the Olympic Movement. If sport
events and activities are not planned and managed carefully, they can cause degradation of the
natural environment. Equally important is the collective responsibility of those involved in
sport to ensure that athletes and sport participants are able to train and compete in clean and
healthy conditions. We also recognise there are many opportunities for sport, including sport
events like the Olympic Games, to provide sustainable environmental legacies (International
Olympic Committee, 2009).
One approach used to evaluate the environmental impacts of events is ecological footprint analysis. The basic
premise behind ecological footprint analysis is to ‘express using space equivalents the appropriation of
biological productive areas by individuals or nations’ (Gossling, Hasson, Horstmeier, & Saggel, 2002, p. 201).
Another approach to evaluate the environmental impacts of events is to calculate the carbon emissions that can
be attributed to the staging of an event.
Ecological footprint and carbon calculator analyses aggregate the impacts of different consumption activities
into a single measure, offering organisers and policymakers the potential to identify and compare the
environmental impact of different visitor activities such as transport, waste and energy use. These measures
provide the potential for policymakers and event organisers to prioritise their actions in a more informed and
integrated manner. Used sensitively, these tools can provide a benchmark against which environmental impacts
can be calculated. The tools can also be used to analyse the impact of different policy options; for example,
sourcing local food and beverage options in place of imported products (Collins & Flynn, 2008).
7
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
At the time of writing, there are several tools available to the events industry for assessing the environmental
impacts of events. Many of these are free to use, provided by government bodies and not-for-profit
organisations; there are also a number of commercial environmental auditing products on the market
(Sustainability Victoria, 2009).
EPA Victoria has developed a Carbon and Ecological Footprint Events Calculator (EPA Victoria, ND). The
calculator includes the necessary questionnaires for delegates, venues and exhibitors, aimed at measuring the
“event’s impact in a way that is broader than just greenhouse gas pollution” (Sustainability Victoria, 2009, p. 3).
In this case, the appropriation of biological productive area is defined in terms of: general event characteristics,
venue characteristics, accommodation characteristics, catering, print/promotional items, travel and
recycling/waste (Sustainability Victoria, 2009).
A recent Event Carbon Calculator to enter the market is that developed by the Australian Centre for Event
Management. Aspects of this model include the generation of a rolling emission value breakdown for each
indicator item (including venue, transport, food & drink, gifts, and contractor services); easy to navigate user
interface; and the inclusion of low carbon event tips to guide future event development (Australian Centre for
Event Management, ND).
Carbon calculators are gaining popularity in the events industry, particularly with organisers of events that
have a significant ‘green’ focus. However, many other event organisers are more concerned with managing
environmental impacts than measuring them.
In a study of nine events in Western Australia Jones, Pilgrim, Thompson & Macgregor (2008) found that the
environmental impacts identified by organisers and/or hosts as the most important were transport (parking and
traffic), waste management (general rubbish collection, litter, recycling and the provision of toilets) and noise.
For six of the events, mention was also made of putting measures in place to promote environmental awareness.
Environmental impacts/issues perceived as less significant included the provision of power (for outdoor events),
air pollution (smoke haze and vehicle emissions), management of environmental risk and the minimisation of
environmental harm. Significantly, Jones et al. (2008) found little interest among event organisers for measuring
environmental impacts. They were more interested in dealing with the ‘on the ground’ management of issues
such as parking and waste management.
[T]he calculation of environmental impacts is … problematic, due to the limited availability of
data for most of the perceived environmental impacts and the limited enthusiasm of both
organisers and hosts to collect such data (Jones, et al., 2008, p. vi).
Collins, Jones & Munday (2008) also found problems with the input requirements of an ecological footprint
or carbon calculator. Data collection for event-specific consumption can be resource intensive. It is often very
difficult to access data for all areas of visitor consumption, for example, measures of energy use in visitor
accommodation.
In contrast to ecological footprint or carbon calculator tools which aim to assess the environmental impacts
of events, an environmental checklist represents a practical self evaluation tool for event organisers, with the aim
of improving an event’s environmental performance over time. There are countless green and/or environmental
checklists available online (See Australian Centre for Event Management, 2009a, 2009b), many of which have
been consulted for this project (Business Events Australia, 2009; Event Scotland, 2009; Government Office for
the South West, ND; Live Earth, 2009; Sustainable Living Foundation, ND).
For the majority of event organisers a checklist measuring environmental performance and offering tips for
ameliorating impacts may prove to be a more useful tool than a calculator (Jones, et al., 2008). It is also
recommended by Jones et al. (2008) that an environmental checklist be developed to serve as an approval form
for submission by event organisers to local and state authorities.
Summary
The inscope expenditure model as exists in the current ENCORE tool should be retained. Inscope expenditure is
considered to be a sound model for benchmarking and provides the baseline data for other measures of economic
impact.
8
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
A focus on the social impacts of events on a host community is necessary since dissatisfaction amongst the
community is likely to have negative implications for the current success and long-term sustainability of an
event. A number of methodologies have been trialled for measuring social impacts, however, the literature
indicates that social impacts are best examined through an investigation of residents’ perceptions (Fredline, et
al., 2003; Small, 2007b). A residents’ perception survey should be included as a feature of the revised model.
The events industry is beginning to come to terms with issues of environmental sustainability. While the
majority of event organisers do not have the resources or inclination to complete more than a simple
environmental checklist to gauge the sustainability of their events, a small number of organisers have embraced
carbon calculator analyses in an attempt to improve and/or offset the ecological footprint of their event. A
proposed three stage model of measuring environmental impacts will provide event organisers with choice and
for those who are still coming to grips with this aspect of event evaluation, room to develop. An Environmental
Impact Checklist is a practical self evaluation tool for event organisers concerned with managing the
environmental impacts of their event in areas such as event planning; venue and site selection; promotions,
merchandising and education; water; waste; energy; catering; accommodation; travel and transport. Event
organisers can select which of these categories are relevant to their event, and answer the questions within the
selected categories. A second level to the checklist can be utilised for those events that wish to monitor their
performance in the key impact areas of energy, water, waste, and travel and transport. The recording of simple
measures in these areas (e.g. kilograms of waste to landfill; litres of water consumed) will allow events to
benchmark against themselves and monitor their environmental performance over the years. A Carbon
Calculator Survey is recommended for event organisers who wish to move beyond a checklist approach, and do
more than record simple measures in the key impact areas of waste, water and energy etc. The new ENCORE
tool could provide a link to one or more existing carbon calculator tools (Australian Centre for Event
Management, ND; EPA Victoria, ND; Origin Energy, ND) that are freely available online. The recommended
carbon calculators will allow event organisers to measure the environmental impact of an event in terms of the
carbon emissions that can be attributed to its staging.
9
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Chapter 5:
TESTING AND REDESIGN
Extending from the existing ENCORE Festival and Event Evaluation Kit, a set of instruments was designed to:
Address product critiques and user issues with ENCORE;
Incorporate developments in TBL event evaluation tools and techniques; and
Address event industry concerns and requirements regarding event evaluation and reporting.
The revised ENCORE instruments were tested at the 2010 CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival (6th - 10th
January).
Attendee Survey
An attendee survey was administered on site during the festival using a three-page written (i.e. paper) survey
instrument. A research team of five people surveyed a total of 371 festival attendees over a three–day period (8th
- 10th January 2010). The attendee survey gathered basic visitation data, travel characteristics, demographics,
marketing information, motivations for attendance, satisfaction, and expenditure data necessary to calculate the
inscope expenditure resulting from the event.
Host Community Social Impacts Survey
A phone survey of 403 Parkes residents was administered approximately two weeks following the 2010
CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival. The purpose of the survey was to gather residents’ perceptions on the social
impacts that may have resulted from the hosting of the festival. The survey asked residents to comment on the
occurrence of a range of social impacts, and how they feel about such outcomes, answering on a scale ranging
from a very negative outcome, through to a very positive outcome, with a neutral midpoint. The scale, featured
in Section B of the questionnaire, was developed in a previous study by Small (2007b). Also included were
some basic demographics and questions on the level of interest and involvement in the festival by residents.
Organiser Economic Survey
The organisers of the 2010 CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival completed an organiser economic survey to assist
in the calculation of the inscope expenditure resulting from the festival. The survey asked for details on income
and expenditure resulting from the festival, including the percentage breakdown for each income/expenditure
category that was received from outside the Parkes region and State of NSW. Organisers were also required to
provide an estimate of event attendance, along with an explanation of how the attendance figure was arrived at.
Organiser Environmental Impact Checklist
The organisers of the 2010 CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival completed part 1 of an environmental impact
checklist, designed as a practical self evaluation tool for event organisers concerned with managing the
environmental impacts of their event. The checklist addresses areas including event planning; venue and site
selection; promotions, merchandising and education; water; waste; energy; catering; accommodation; travel and
transport. Organisers can select which of these categories are relevant to their event, and answer the questions
within the selected categories. There is a second level to the checklist for those events that wish to monitor their
performance in the key impact areas of energy, water, waste, and travel and transport. The recording of simple
measures in these areas (e.g. kilograms of waste to landfill; litres of water consumed) will allow events to
benchmark against themselves and monitor their environmental performance over the years. This second part of
the checklist was not relevant in the case of the 2010 CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival, and therefore, will
require further testing with an appropriate event.
10
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Summary
Following testing at the 2010 CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival data were analysed and the reporting output
produced was examined by the research team. Field researchers involved in testing of the attendee survey and
host community survey were interviewed and feedback was sought on the performance of the surveys, and the
need for modifications. Feedback was also gained from the festival organisers on both the economic survey and
environmental impact checklist, with feedback providing guidance on necessary modifications.
All instruments tested well and only minor modifications were necessary. The revised instruments and
recommendations for their appropriate use are discussed in Appendix C.
11
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Chapter 6:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The aim of this study was to provide a robust critique of the ENCORE Festival and Event Evaluation Kit
(ENCORE) and to make recommendations to guide the STCRC in future design and development of a revised
model.
In response to product critiques, user issues with the current tool, developments in TBL event evaluation
literature and industry concerns regarding event evaluation and reporting, it is recommended that the STCRC
facilitate the development of a web-based event evaluation tool. Specific recommendations to guide the design
and development of a revised ENCORE product are set out below.
Web-Based Tool
It is recommended that the STCRC facilitate the development of a web-based event evaluation tool with a user-
friendly interface and user access to ongoing training and support.
A web-based tool has the potential to contribute to the collection of data from a broad range of events,
providing an extensive database for academics, NTOs and STOs involved in research, planning and policy
making for the Australian/global events industry.
It is proposed that the website design would include a number of tiers (see appendix A for a full outline).
The first tier would be an introduction page, outlining the purpose of event evaluation and the features of the
tool. Users might then be directed to input some basic data about their event (e.g., name of event, type of event).
The third tier would ask users to decide what information they want – for example, ‘Do you want to know the
impacts your event is having on the host community?’. Based on their choices, users will be initially directed to
ready to use (default) survey instruments (see examples in Appendix C).
The default set of survey instruments includes a simple attendee questionnaire template (easy to manage), a
comprehensive attendee questionnaire template (includes inscope expenditure questions), an organiser economic
survey (to be completed in conjunction with comprehensive attendee survey), an environmental checklist for
completion by organisers, and a host community social impacts questionnaire template. This set of instruments
was field tested at the 2010 CountryLink Parkes Elvis Festival. It is recommended that these templates be
offered as a default option as part of the design of a new web-based version of the tool.
As an alternative to the default survey option, it is proposed that users be able to build their own survey
instrument. If they opt to build their own instrument they will be directed to the appropriate ‘basket’ of
questions. It is proposed that question baskets will be available to users, comprising a wide variety of questions
for inclusion in tailor made survey instruments. It is anticipated that separate question baskets would be available
under broad categories of event evaluation dimensions, including economic impacts, social impacts, motivation,
marketing etc. The user could build their own instrument – tailored perfectly to fit their unique event.
Once data has been collected the ENCORE program will be used to input data and generate reporting output
(similar to the output that exists in the current ENCORE tool). The final tier of the website would be a data
collection point, providing a valuable resource for academics, STOs and NTOs who could use this data to gain a
broad- based understanding of industry impacts.
Data Collection/Input Technologies
According to the Industry Reference Group, many piles of questionnaires are currently gathering dust in the
offices of event managers who have failed to progress beyond the data collection stage. We recommend
investigation be made into the feasibility of incorporating a variety of data collection techniques (e.g. PDAs,
mobile phone technologies, online survey software) into the new package. Questionnaire instruments which
12
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
have been created in the new tool need to be able to be imported to such devices, and data from the devices back
into the tool. This has the benefit of allowing the electronic collection of data which can be exported back into
the program, eliminating the time-consuming step of data entry.
Training and Support
Training and support will be vital to the success of any new tool.
A key complaint from users of ENCORE was the lack of training provided. The majority of users were not
comfortable with using a manual to train themselves. They felt they needed person to person training. It is
therefore recommended that face to face training will be necessary for the majority of users, especially where
they have little skill or experience in research and event evaluation. An online tutorial may not suffice for this
group of users.
It is recommended that online tutorials be available in addition to face to face training options, targeted to
users who do have previous experience with research and a strong grasp of methodology.
It is also recommended that ongoing telephone and/or face to face support be made available for the product
to answer user questions and provide other assistance or guidance for evaluations.
Without effective post sales support and appropriate demonstrations of how the software operates, there is
little chance that products like ENCORE will be effective in the market.
This project identified that there are problems in the events industry in terms of the use of sound research
methodology. One of the problem areas identified was bias in sampling. We recommend that the revised
ENCORE tool include instruction in representative data collection. Instruction in sampling would also need to
form part of face to face training. The following instruction is provided as an example of possible content for an
online tutorial on appropriate sampling technique.
In order to achieve a representative sample of the population being surveyed for event
evaluation purposes it is necessary to ensure that the sample is selected in an unbiased manner.
The absence of bias is achieved through use of a random sampling process. Researchers need
to ensure that everyone in their target population has an equal chance of being included in the
sample. Care needs to be taken that no group is more or less likely to be interviewed. For
example, if a resident survey is being conducted on a weekday between the hours of 9am and
6pm it is likely that people in full time employment will be underrepresented in the survey. An
example of an appropriate technique of sampling for an attendee survey might be to interview
every fifth person past a point or to have interviewers spread throughout the event area and
conducting interviews at different times of the day.
Further Testing
While much of the default questionnaire content has been field tested as part of this study, we recommend that
further development of the new tool involve extensive field testing, particularly among less experienced
researchers, to ensure its usability in the event marketplace. Web design and other features are in the concept
phase, yet to be tested in the marketplace. This was outside of the scope of this project. Recommendations on
web design and features are included as a guideline only for stage two of the project.
13
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
APPENDIX A: WEBSITE DESIGN AND CONTENT
Web design and associated features are in the concept phase only. Further research and testing in the field will
be required before implementation is considered. This was outside of the scope of stage one of the project.
Recommendations on web design and features are included below as a guideline for stage two of the project. A
graphic model of the proposed web design can be found on page 17.
Tier 1: Introduction Page
Event evaluation is critical to the event management planning process. It enables event managers to evaluate
their event in relation to the goals and objectives set at the beginning of the planning process. It provides
evidence of outcomes to report to key stakeholders. It provides benchmarks from which to measure the success
(or otherwise) of your event. These can be in relation to past performances of your event or to other similar
events. Event evaluation is the key to continuous improvement of an event.
The (name of new tool) will streamline the process of event evaluation for you. A few simple steps will
produce a questionnaire template tailored to your specific needs. Choose from a selection of data collection and
entry methods and (name of new tool) will produce the information you need to report to your stakeholders,
benchmark your event, and begin the planning process for future events.
To begin the process please provide the following information.
Tier 2: Event Profile
It is proposed that there could be a series of mandatory questions to permit comparisons by type of event,
location, ownership etc. This would facilitate the building of a database of information which could be used by
STO’s, NTO’s and academics to gain a broader understanding of overall industry impacts, which might
influence future planning.
Suggested mandatory items include:
Event name and location
Event timing (start and end dates; or length in days)
Ownership: private; not-for-profit; government/public; mixed; other
Periodic or one-time only?
Age and continuity: year first started/held; number of years run
Main programme features: live music/concert; dance; other performing arts; visual art; demonstrations
for educational purposes; participatory recreational games; food for sale or taste; alcoholic beverages for
sale or taste; competitive sport; parade; art exhibitions; exhibitions or demonstrations by commercial
sponsors; meeting; convention; trade show; consumer show etc.
Staff: number of full and part-time all-year; number of full and part-time during event
Volunteers: number of full and part-time all year and at event only
Type of event: open-gate, free to everyone, no attendance count; closed-gate, ticketed; attendance
counted accurately; registered guests/teams/organisations only; closed-gate, attendance known; profiles
of guests known
Attendance estimate: number of paid admissions (sale of tickets); number of teams registered; number
of guests through the gate
Optional questions might include:
Venues used: streets; public parks and other outdoor spaces; public or private indoor theatres/concert
halls; convention centre; exhibition centre; other
Governance: elected or appointed board of directors; owners; CEO/professional managers; standing
committees
Volunteer roles: sit on board; chair committees; operations only
Fees charged for entrance? Free entry? Mixture?
Tickets sold? Tours sold? Packages sold?
14
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Revenue sources and % from each: commercial sponsors; ticket sales; donations; grants from the public
sector (local, state, commonwealth); merchandise sales; food/beverage sales; rental fees from
concessions; other
Expense categories and % of each: artist/performer fees; costs associated with artists/performers; staff
wages; volunteer costs; pubic services (police, fire, etc,); private security; light and sound; construction;
rents paid; royalties paid; overhead/administration; other
Professionalism: run by permanent, professional manager(s); belongs to event association; has a strategic
plan; has a business plan; has a risk/safety/security management strategy; conducts regular evaluation of
staff/volunteers, visitor satisfaction, stakeholder satisfaction/feedback; consults the public; has
undertaken formal benchmarking against other events; has an environmental or green strategy and
practices in place; has conducted an economic impact assessment
Marketing orientation: has a marketing plan; targets specific segments; targets tourists from outside the
region; does regular customer research; aims to make a profit or surplus; measures supply and demand;
evaluates their competitive position (SWOT etc.); has a title sponsor; has major financial sponsors; has a
media sponsor
Communications mix: uses paid advertising; which media?
Ownership: of land; buildings; equipment?
Tier 3: Establishing Information Needs
Tier 3 will present users with a series of questions designed to determine their evaluation needs. Questions might
include:
1. Who are our attendees and where do they come from? Are our attendees satisfied with the event?
2. What is the direct inscope expenditure or ‘new money’ our event has attracted to the region and/or
State?
3. Is our event having positive and/or negative impacts on the host community?
4. How well are we doing in terms of our environmental impacts?
Tier 4: Default Option or Build Own Instrument
Based on Tier 3 choices, users will be initially directed to ready to use instruments (see Appendix C). For
example, if option 1) is chosen from the tier 3 list the user should be directed to the Simple Attendee Survey.
Option 2) is linked to the Comprehensive Attendee Survey, option 3) to the Host Community Social Impacts
survey, and option 4) to the environmental impacts checklist. The user will consider the default option and
either choose it or opt to build their own instrument. If they opt to build their own instrument they will be
directed to the appropriate ‘basket’ of questions.
Tier 5: Question Baskets
It is proposed that question baskets will be available to users who wish to build their own tailor made
questionnaire. The question baskets will include a wide variety of questions for inclusion in tailor made survey
instruments. It is anticipated that separate question baskets might be available under broad categories of event
evaluation dimensions, including economic impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts, visitor profile and
demographics; motivation, marketing etc. Question baskets could continue to be built over time as new areas of
event evaluation are developed.
Within each of the question baskets, there could be sub sets of questions that can be directed towards
different stakeholder groups including the host community, organisers, attendees, competitors, participants,
exhibitors, sponsors etc.
It is suggested that individual questions be designated as mandatory (M) or optional (O). The inclusion of
mandatory questions will allow for benchmarking and meta-analysis.
15
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
16
Tier 6: Data Entry
We recommend investigation be made into the feasibility of incorporating a variety of data collection techniques
(e.g. PDAs, mobile phone technologies, online survey software) into the new package. Questionnaire
instruments which have been created in the new tool need to be able to be imported to such devices, and data
from the devices back into the tool. This has the benefit of allowing the electronic collection of data which can
be exported back into the program, eliminating the time-consuming step of data entry.
Tier 7: Reports
The tool will allow users to generate a wide range of tabular and graphical reports (consistent with the current
tool). Users should have appropriate choice of graph/table types, size, styles and colours, the option to add
accompanying text and to transport the output to Microsoft word.
Tier 8: Data Store
It is envisaged that this section of the tool will be the repository of all data collected. This repository could be
used to benchmark events by event profile, and to create a broad-based profile of the events industry.
APPENDIX B: WEBSITE DESIGN – GRAPHIC
REPRESENTATION
17
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
18
APPENDIX C: DEFAULT OPTION INSTRUMENTS
Default Instrument 1: Simple Attendee Survey
The simple attendee survey is recommended as a straightforward tool to allow the collection of basic visitation
data from event attendees. It is designed as a short survey (maximum 2 pages), that should take most attendees
only a few minutes to complete. The questions are not complex and should not require explanation, making the
simple attendee survey appropriate for self completion by attendees. This questionnaire has been designed to
meet the needs of organisers of small and/or community events. The resources required to use this tool are
minimal and should not be beyond the scope of any user. The simple attendee survey includes demographic,
marketing, motivation and satisfaction questions. Expenditure questions are not part of this questionnaire.
Thank you for attending the [name of event]. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Your
feedback will greatly assist in future event planning.
Where is your usual place of residence?
I live in [name of local area]
I live in [name of state], but outside of [name of local area] – Postcode? _______
Interstate – Which State? ____________ – Postcode? _______
International – Which Country? ____________________
* Is this the first time you have visited [name of local area]? Locals do not answer
Yes
No
* Did you travel to [name of local area] specifically for the [name of event]? Locals do not answer
Yes
No, I was visiting [name of local area] anyway
Have you previously been to [name of event]?
Yes How many times? ________
No
How many days will you/did you attend [name of event]? ________
How many people are you attending [name of event] with? ________ (remember to include yourself)
* How many nights are you staying in [name of local area] during this visit? ________ Locals do not
answer
How did you receive information about [name of event] this year? (Tick as many as apply.)
Internet TV programs or advertising
Magazine advertising or articles Newspaper advertising or articles
Radio programs or advertising Newsletters or other subscription material
Festival program or brochures Word of mouth
Prior knowledge Other
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
19
What did you enjoy most about [name of event]?
What improvements or additional things would have made your visit to the [name of event] more
enjoyable?
For each of the motivations below please rate their importance on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Unimportant
and 5 = Very Important in terms of motivating you to attend [name of event]. Please place a tick in the
appropriate box.
Unimportant Of Little
Importance Moderately
Important Important Very
Important
To see the entertainment 1 2 3 4 5
To socialise with friends or family 1 2 3 4 5
To meet new people 1 2 3 4 5
To be with people of similar interest 1 2 3 4 5
To experience new and different things 1 2 3 4 5
To escape from the everyday routine 1 2 3 4 5
Are there any other motivations you had for attending [name of event]?
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Very Unlikely and 5 = Very Likely, how likely are you to:
Very
Unlikely Unlikely Unsure Likely Very
Likely
Attend [name of event] in future years? 1 2 3 4 5
Recommend [name of event] to friends and family? 1 2 3 4 5
* Visit [name of local area] again in the future at some
other time of the year (i.e. not for the event)? Locals
do not answer 1 2 3 4 5
And finally, a few questions about you…
Age bracket:
18-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65+
Sex:
Male Female
Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire.
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
20
Default Instrument 2: Comprehensive Attendee Survey
In addition to the basic visitation data collected through the simple attendee survey, this questionnaire goes
further to include the collection of expenditure data necessary to for the calculation of inscope expenditure
resulting from the event. Recommended use when:
A calculation of the direct inscope expenditure of an event is required. This also requires the collection of
organiser economic data.
Resources must be available for the questionnaires to be administered by trained interviewers – self
completion of the comprehensive attendee survey is not advised.
Thank you for attending the [name of event]. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Your
feedback will greatly assist in future event planning.
Where is your usual place of residence?
I live in [name of local area]
I live in [name of state], but outside of [name of local area] – Postcode? _______
Interstate – Which State? ____________ – Postcode? _______
International – Which Country? ____________________
* Is this the first time you have visited [name of local area]? Locals do not answer
Yes
No
* Did you travel to [name of local area] specifically for the [name of event]? Locals do not answer
Yes
No, I was visiting [name of local area] anyway
If you were visiting [name of local area] anyway did you:
a. Change the timing of your trip to coincide with the [name of event]?
Yes
No
b. Extend your stay to attend the [name of event]?
Yes How many more nights did you stay? ____
No
Have you previously been to [name of event]?
Yes How many times?
No
How many days will you/did you attend [name of event]? ________
How many people are you attending [name of event] with? ________ (remember to include yourself)
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
21
*What type of accommodation are you using during your stay? Locals do not answer
None, I am visiting [name of local area] for the day only
Own property in the area
Motel
Hotel
Friend/ Relative’s House
Caravan park
Bed & Breakfast
Other:
* How many nights are you staying during this visit? ________ Locals do not answer
* Are you staying any additional nights elsewhere in [name of state] during this visit? Only interstate and
international visitors to answer
Yes How many nights? ____
No
How did you receive information about [name of event] this year? (Tick as many as apply.)
Internet TV programs or advertising
Magazine advertising or articles Newspaper advertising or articles
Radio programs or advertising Newsletters or other subscription material
Event program or brochures Word of mouth
Prior knowledge Other
What form of transport did you use to travel to [name of local area] for [name of event]? What forms of
local transport have you used since you arrived in [name of local area]? Please tick all appropriate boxes
for each column.
*Travel TO [name of local area]
Locals do not answer Travel WITHIN [name of local area]
All to answer
Domestic flight
International flight
Small car
Family car
Large car – 4WD
Train
Bus
Other public transport
Motorbike
Walked
Bicycle
Combination (please specify):
_______________________________________________________________
Other (please specify):
_____________________________________________________________________
What did you enjoy most about [name of event]?
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
22
What improvements or additional things would have made your visit to the [name of event] more
enjoyable?
For each of the motivations below please rate their importance on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Unimportant
and 5 = Very Important in terms of motivating you to attend [name of event]. Please place a tick in the
appropriate box.
Unimportant Of Little
Importance Moderately
Important Important Very
Important
To see the entertainment 1 2 3 4 5
To socialise with friends or family 1 2 3 4 5
To meet new people 1 2 3 4 5
To be with people of similar interest 1 2 3 4 5
To experience new and different things 1 2 3 4 5
To escape from the everyday routine 1 2 3 4 5
Are there any other motivations you had for attending [name of event]?
*The questions below are about your expenditure in [name of local area] as well as [name of state] during
this visit. Please include all spending made by you or likely to be made by you and your travel party.
Remember to include all payments made by cash, credit cards, eftpos, cheque or travellers cheque.
Include your best estimates if you are unsure of exact amounts.
Can you please tell me how much money, you and your travel party spent in total on…………
Locals do not answer
Column 1 Column 2
Note: There are two sets of questions;
Column 1 – expenditure within [name of local area] - answer if you are from
outside of [name of local area].
Column 2 – expenditure in [name of state] including expenditure in [name of
local area] – this is an extra question for those not from within [name of state]
that is residents from other states of Australia and overseas. The amounts in
Column 2 must be equal to, or greater than, the amounts in Column 1. It may be
easier to complete this section by working across the columns.
Expenditure in
[name of local
area]
Expenditure in
[name of state],
including
expenditure in
[name of local
area]
Accommodation (including any meals and drinks where you are staying and any
amounts prepaid as part of a package) $A……… $A………
Meals, food and drinks (apart from any you included in your accommodation) $A……… $A………
Event Tickets (include advance bookings) $A……… $A………
Other Entertainment Costs (eg. If going to other tourist attractions not connected to
[name of festival] eg. Museum) $A……… $A………
Transport (e.g. Taxi fares, petrol, vehicle repairs, car hire) $A……… $A………
Personal services (eg. Hairdressing, laundry, medical) $A……… $A………
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
23
Any other expenditure (eg. Films, gifts, books, wine, souvenirs, clothing, toiletries) $A……… $A………
How many people does this expenditure cover? (Remember to include yourself)
Adults: _________________ Children: _______________
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Very Unlikely and 5 = Very Likely, how likely are you to:
Very
Unlikely Unlikely Unsure Likely Very
Likely
Attend [name of event] in future years? 1 2 3 4 5
Recommend [name of event] to friends and
family? 1 2 3 4 5
* Visit [name of local area] again in the future
at some other time of the year (i.e. not for the
event)? Locals do not answer 1 2 3 4 5
And finally, a few questions about you…
Please indicate your age:
18-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65+
Sex:
Male Female
Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire.
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
24
Default Instrument 3: Host Community Social Impacts Survey
The host community social impacts survey will provide users with insight and evidence of the host community’s
perceptions of the social impacts of an event. The questionnaire allows residents to comment not only on the
occurrence of a range of social impacts, but also how they feel about such outcomes, answering on a scale
ranging from a very negative outcome, through to a very positive outcome, with a neutral midpoint. Also
included are some basic demographics and questions on the level of interest and involvement in the event by
residents.
This questionnaire seeks your opinions on a range of social impacts that may have resulted from the hosting of
the [Event Name]. All information will be treated in strict confidence and will only be used in combination with
other responses from the community.
SECTION A:
Were you aware that [Event Name] was held a few weeks ago (insert event dates)?
Yes
No (if no, thank and discontinue)
When you think of [Event Name], what words first come to your mind?
What do you think were the most positive impacts of [Event Name]?
What do you think were the most negative impacts of [Event Name]?
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
SECTION C:
This final section asks a series of questions about your involvement with [Event Name] and concludes with
some demographic information.
Did you attend [Event Name] this year? Yes No
Have you attended [Event Name] in previous years? Yes No
Did you volunteer at [Event Name] this year? Yes No
Have you ever previously volunteered at [Event Name]? Yes No
Did you undertake any paid work during the period of [Event Name]? Yes No
IF YES, did your normal employment hours increase as a result of event trade? Yes No
Did you have any other form of involvement or participation in [Event Name]? Please describe.
Please tick the box next to the statement that most accurately reflects how you feel about [Event Name].
(Please tick only one box.)
I love [Event Name] and hope it continues.
I tolerate [Event Name] and the inconveniences associated with it because overall I think it is good for the
community.
I have to adjust my lifestyle to avoid the inconveniences associated with [Event Name].
I stay away from the area during [Event Name] because I dislike the inconveniences associated with it.
I dislike [Event Name] and would be happier if it didn’t continue in future years.
I have no involvement with [Event Name] and no opinion on it.
Sex: Male Female
In which year were you born? __________
How many years have you lived in [name of town]? (to the nearest year) _________
Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire.
28
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Default Instrument 4: Organiser Economic Survey
In order to estimate the total in-scope expenditure, or ‘new money’ that an event has attracted to your region and/or
State, it is necessary to determine the contribution by the event organiser as well as event attendees.
The following survey collects organiser data on income and expenditure, as well as estimated population
information. The survey asks for estimates of the percentage of each income and expenditure category that is
received from outside the region/State, that is, the funds received from parties outside the region/State in which the
event is being staged.
This data is used in conjunction with attendee data, such as their place of origin, primary purpose of visit, as well as
their expenditure.
1. Which of the following groups did you survey at [Event Name]? (Tick all that apply)
Attendees
Exhibitors
Competitors
Participants
Other (please specify): __________________
2. For the relevant groups you surveyed at [Event Name}, please provide an estimate of the population*.
Attendees: __________
Exhibitors: __________
Competitors: __________
Participants: __________
Other: __________
* Population estimates are only required for attendee groups where separate surveys were administered. Thus, if
only attendees were surveyed, population estimates are not required for competitors or exhibitors, as it is assumed
all attendees were included under the ‘attendees’ category.
Important:
In estimating the population of attendees, it is important to record the number of attendees at the event as a
whole, rather than attendances, which may result in the double counting of an individual who makes multiple
visits to an event.
While the estimated number of attendees and competitors/participants relate to individuals, the estimated
population of exhibitors refers to companies or organisations.
3. Please provide a brief explanation of how you obtained the above population estimates.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
29
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
4. What forms of income were generated from [Event Name]?
REGIONAL INCOME STATE (TERRITORY)
INCOME
INCOME TYPE GROSS
EVENT
INCOME
$
Outside
Region
%
Outside
Region
$
Outside
State
(Territory)
%
Outside
State
(Territory)
$
1 $ % $ % $
2 $ % $ % $
3 $ % $ % $
4 $ % $ % $
5 $ % $ % $
6 $ % $ % $
7 $ % $ % $
8 $ % $ % $
Total Income External
to Region
$
Total Income External to
State
$
GRAND TOTAL $ Total Income Within
the Region $ Total Income from
Within the State
$
Note: Income items will often be specific to an individual festival/event.
Typical income items include: ticket sales, sponsorships, government grants and prizes, and merchandise sales.
30
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
5. What expenses were incurred as a result of staging [Event Name]?
REGIONAL
EXPENSES STATE (TERRITORY)
EXPENSES
EXPENSE TYPE GROSS
EVENT
EXPENSES
$
Outside
Region
%
Outside
Region
$
Outside
State
(Territory)
%
Outside
State
(Territory)
$
1 $ % $ % $
2 $ % $ % $
3 $ % $ % $
4 $ % $ % $
5 $ % $ % $
6 $ % $ % $
7 $ % $ % $
8 $ % $ % $
Total Expenditure
External to Region
$
Total Expenditure
External to State
$
Grand Total $ Total Expenditure
Within the Region
$
Total Expenditure
Within the State
$
Note: Expenditure items will often be specific to an individual festival/event.
Typical expenditure items include: performer fees, construction/hire costs, marketing, salary/wages, travel costs,
administration fees, and prizes.
31
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Default Instrument 5: Organiser Environmental Impact Checklist
The Environmental Impact Checklist is a practical self evaluation tool for event organisers concerned with managing
the environmental impacts of their event in areas such as event planning; venue and site selection; promotions,
merchandising and education; water; waste; energy; catering; accommodation; travel and transport.
The following survey collects organiser data on sustainable event practices and provides insight into the impacts an
event is having on the environment.
How to use the checklist:
Stage 1 – Checklist
Stage 1 comprises nine categories (event planning; venue and site selection; promotions, merchandising and
education; water; waste; energy; catering; accommodation; travel and transport) in which you can choose to
evaluate your event’s performance. Your first step is to select the categories that are relevant to your event.
If, for example, catering is not relevant to your event, then you would not select this category.
For your selected categories you should answer all included questions. There is a ‘Not Applicable’ (N/A)
response available for any questions within your selected categories that may not be relevant to your event.
Stage 2 – Measurement (optional)
Stage 2 is provided as an optional add-on to the checklist.
Stage 2 is only relevant for events that wish to monitor their performance in the key impact areas of energy,
water, waste, and travel and transport. An event needs to have measured their impacts in one or more of the
above areas, for example, their energy or water usage.
The recording of simple measures in these areas (eg. kilograms of waste to landfill; litres of water consumed)
will allow events to benchmark against themselves and monitor their environmental performance over the
years.
32
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
STAGE 1 – CHECKLIST
1. Event Planning
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Event Planning?
Yes Continue
No Move onto Category 2
N/A Move onto Category 2
a. Did you prepare a written environmental policy for your event which can be shared with all stakeholders?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
b. Did you look at past event energy use, wastage and other environmental impacts and find ways of reducing this?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
c. Did you estimate the total carbon footprint of your event?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
d. Did you offset the carbon emissions produced at the event?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
2. Venue and Site Selection
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Venue and Site Selection?
Yes Continue
No Move onto Category 3
N/A Move onto Category 3
a. Did you plan your event precisely (looking at numbers, duration, space required etc) in order to select an
appropriate venue or site to ensure minimum energy and resource use?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
b. Did you choose a venue/site site with good public transport links?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
c. Did you choose a site that is not sensitive or at risk from the event (for example, due to biodiversity or
archaeological significance)?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
33
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
d. Did you choose a venue with environmental accreditation or one that uses green/sustainable practices?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
3. Promotions, Merchandising and Education
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Promotions, Merchandising and
Education?
Yes Continue
No Move onto Category 4
N/A Move onto Category 4
a. Did you use electronic media (websites, radio, television) as much as possible to reduce printing of promotional
materials?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
b. Did you print on recycled paper?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
c. Did you print using vegetable inks?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
d. Did you carefully estimate the quantities of printed material required so as not to over-order?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
e. Did you design printed materials and signage to have a life beyond the event (for example, without dates) so that
spares can be used for future events?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
f. Did you reduce use of non-recyclable gift bags or satchels?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
g. Did you source merchandising and gifts made from recycled or sustainable materials?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
h. Did you promote the event’s sustainable practices, pre, during and/or post the event?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
i. Did you educate attendees about ways they can assist in reducing their environmental footprint?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
34
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
4. Catering
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Catering?
Yes Continue
No Move onto Category 5
N/A Move onto Category 5
a. Did you use local rather than imported food and beverage where possible?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
b. Did you use Fairtrade products such as coffee, tea and sugar?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
c. Did you plan menus using in-season, fresh organic food?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
d. Did you request that caterers/vendors use washable and reusable cutlery & crockery?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
e. Did you ensure that caterers/vendors using disposable cutlery & crockery sourced biodegradable or compostable
products?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
f. Did you eliminate the use of single serve water bottles?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
g. Did you supply drinking water to minimise the sale of bottles and/or encourage the use of refillable bottles?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
5. Accommodation
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Accommodation?
Yes Continue
No Move onto Category 6
N/A Move onto Category 6
a. Did you use or recommend accommodation within walking distance of the event site/venue?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
35
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
b. Did you use or recommend accommodation with pro-active waste, water and energy management practices?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
6. Energy
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Energy?
Yes Continue
No Move onto Category 7
N/A Move onto Category 7
a. Did you use a green/renewable energy supplier/source?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
b. Did you use sustainable alternatives (such as bio fuels) over diesel and gasoline powered generators?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
c. Did you carefully plan the number, size and placement of generators based on load and usage patterns?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
d. Did you use any zero emissions solutions for your energy production, such as solar, wind, or pedal power?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
e. Did you hold the event during the day to maximise use of natural light?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
f. Did you ensure that suppliers used modern energy efficient technology?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
g. Did you use low energy lighting?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
h. Did you ensure all equipment was turned off when not in use?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
i. Did you measure your impacts? (i.e. record any figures for energy usage etc)
Yes Also Complete Stage 2 (Energy Impacts)
No Move onto Category 7
36
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
7. Travel & Transport
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Travel and Transport?
Yes Continue
No Move onto Category 8
N/A Move onto Category 8
a. Did you choose local contractors, vendors and/or artists to minimise transport climate impacts?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
b. Did you provide attendees, staff and volunteers with public transport information?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
c. Did you promote and/or encourage the use of public transport?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
d. Did you promote and/or encourage the use of car sharing, walking or cycling to the event?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
e. Did you run shuttle buses to and from the event site?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
f. Did you offset carbon emissions for transport where possible?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
g. Did you offer options to attendees to offset their carbon emissions for transport?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
h. Did you measure your impacts? (i.e. record any figures for travel and transport impacts etc)
Yes Also Complete Stage 2 (Travel and Transport Impacts)
No Move onto Category 8
8. Waste
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Waste?
Yes Continue
No Move onto Category 9
37
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
N/A Move onto Category 9
a. Did you implement practices that focused on waste prevention and minimisation in areas such as ticketing,
promotions and marketing materials, food packaging etc.
Yes No Sometimes N/A
b. Did you store any materials and/or equipment for re-use in future years?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
c. Did you encourage attendees to separate waste by providing separate bin systems?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
d. Did you provide recycling bins for glass, paper, plastics and other recyclable materials?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
e. Did you provide compost bins for food scraps and compostable cutlery, cups etc?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
f. Did you place recycling bins in high traffic areas with visible signage?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
g. Did you measure your impacts? (i.e. record any figures for waste production, recycling etc)
Yes Also Complete Stage 2 (Waste Impacts)
No Move onto Category 9
9. Water
Do you want to evaluate your environmental performance in the category of Water?
Yes Continue
No You have finished completing the checklist.
N/A You have finished completing the checklist.
a. Did you implement a grey water treatment and re-use process?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
b. Did you implement a waste water management system to ensure the correct disposal of black/brown water?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
c. Did you use restricted flush or water free (e.g. composting) toilets and urinals?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
38
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
d. Did you use water saving showerheads and/or taps?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
e. Did you use motion sensor taps with an auto stop mechanism?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
f. Did you use eco-friendly or chemical free cleaning products?
Yes No Sometimes N/A
g. Did you measure your impacts? (i.e. record any figures for water usage and/or production etc)
Yes Also Complete Stage 2 (Water Impacts)
No You have finished completing the checklist.
39
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
STAGE 2 - MEASUREMENT
Energy Impacts
Please record available figures below to measure what power was consumed at your event.
1. Landline/grid power
a. Total landline/grid power used:
____ kilowatt hours
____ kilowatt hours per person
b. Percentage of landline/grid power from renewable sources:
____ %
2. Fuel usage for power generators
a. Amount of diesel used for generators:
____ litres
____ litres per person
b. Amount of biofuel (or other sustainable alternative) used for generators:
____ litres
____ litres per person
c. Percentage of generators powered by sustainable alternatives (e.g. biofuel):
____ %
3. Zero emissions power
a. Total zero emissions power (solar, wind, pedal power etc) used:
____ kilowatt hours
____ kilowatt hours per person
Travel and Transport Impacts
Please record available figures below to measure the travel and transport impacts of your event.
1. Travel to and from the event (attendees, artists, competitors, exhibitors, volunteers, crew etc)
a. Distance travelled on return trip (to and from) the event for each mode of transport:
Domestic flight:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person
International flight:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person
Hybrid car:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person
Small car:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person
Family car:
40
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person
Large car – 4WD:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person
Train:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person
Bus:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person
b. Population using each mode of transport:
Domestic flight:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
International flight:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Hybrid car:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Small car:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Family car:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Large car – 4WD:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Train:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Bus:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
2. Travel to and from accommodation/residence to the event (attendees, artists, competitors, exhibitors,
volunteers, crew etc)
a. Distance travelled per day on return trip (to and from) accommodation/residence to the event for
each mode of transport:
Walking:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per day
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person per day
Cycling:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per day
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person per day
Hybrid car:
41
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per day
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person per day
Small car:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per day
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person per day
Family car:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per day
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person per day
Large car – 4WD:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per day
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person per day
Train:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per day
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person per day
Bus:
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per day
____ average distance (kilometres) travelled per person per day
b. Population using each mode of transport:
Walking:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Cycling:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Hybrid car:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Small car:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Family car:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Large car – 4WD:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Train:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
Bus:
____ % population using transport mode
____ number of people using transport mode
42
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Waste Impacts
Please record available figures below to measure what weight of waste was recycled, composted, or landfilled at
your event.
1. Landfill
a. Amount of waste sent to landfill:
____ kilograms
____ kilograms per person
2. Recycled
b. Amount of waste recycled:
____ kilograms
____ kilograms per person
3. Composted
c. Amount of waste composted:
____ kilograms
____ kilograms per person
Water Impacts
Please record available figures below to measure what amount of water was consumed, and what amount of waste
water was produced at your event.
1. Water consumed
a. Total volume of water used:
____ litres
____ litres per person
2. Waste water produced
a. Total volume of grey water produced:
____ litres
____ litres per person
b. Total volume of grey water treated and re-used at the event
____ litres
____ litres per person
c. Total volume of sewage (black/brown water) produced:
____ litres
____ litres per person
43
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
REFERENCES
Allen, J., O'Toole, W., McDonnell, I., & Harris, R. (2005). Festival and special event management (3rd ed.). Milton, Queensland:
John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665-690.
Australian Centre for Event Management. (2009a). Event Online Resources - Environmental Impact, Sustainability, Carbon
Neutral, Waste Management. Retrieved 16 December 2009, from
http://www.business.uts.edu.au/acem/resources/environmental.html
Australian Centre for Event Management. (2009b). Event Online Resources - Green Events. Retrieved 16 December 2009, from
http://www.business.uts.edu.au/acem/resources/green.html
Australian Centre for Event Management. (ND). Event Carbon Calculator. Retrieved 23 December, 2009, from
https://calculator.noco2.com.au/acem/
Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 493-515.
Burns, J. P. A., Hatch, J. H., & Mules, T. J. (1986). The Adelaide Grand Prix: the impact of a special event. Adelaide: The Centre
for South Australian Economic Studies.
Business Events Australia. (2009). Green Checklist. Retrieved 21 December, 2009, from
http://www.businessevents.australia.com/Files/GREEN_CHECK-LIST_fact_sheet.pdf
Chhabra, D., Sills, E., & Cubbage, F. (2003). The significance of festivals to rural economies: estimating the economic impacts of
Scottish Highland Games in North Carolina. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 421-427.
Collins, A., & Flynn, A. (2008). Measuring the environmental sustainability of a major sporting event: A case study of the FA
Cup Final. Tourism Economics, 14(4), 751-768.
Collins, A., Jones, C., & Munday, M. (2008). Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options?
Tourism Management, 1-10.
Crompton, J. L., Lee, S., & Shuster, T. J. (2001). A guide for undertaking economic impact studies: the Springfest example.
Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 79-87.
Delamere, T. A. (1997). Development of scale items to measure the social impact of community festivals. Journal of Applied
Recreation Research, 22(4), 293-315.
Delamere, T. A. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of community festivals,
part II: verification of the scale. Event Management, 7, 25-38.
Delamere, T. A., Wankel, L. M., & Hinch, T. D. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social
impacts of community festivals, part I: item generation and purification of the measure. Event Management, 7, 11-24.
DeLisle, L. (2009). Creating special events. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore.
Dimmock, K., & Tiyce, M. (2001). Festivals and events: celebrating special interest tourism. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas & R.
Derrett (Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 355-383). Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons Australia.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: new and old approaches. Tourism
Management, 25, 307-317.
44
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2006). Assessing the economic impacts of events: A computable general equilibrium
approach. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 59-66.
Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N., & Mules, T. (2000a). A framework for evaluating and forecasting the economic impacts of
special events. In J. Allen, R. Harris, L. Jago, and A. J. Veal (Eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Event Evaluation,
Research and Education - Events Beyond 2000: Setting the Agenda. Sydney: Australian Centre for Event Management,
University of Technology, Sydney.
Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N., & Mules, T. (2000b). A framework for assessing "tangible" and "intangible" impacts of events
and conventions. Event Management, 6, 175-189.
EPA Victoria. (ND). Carbon and Ecological Footprint Events Calculator. Retrieved 22 December 2009, from
http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/event/introduction.asp
Event Scotland. (2009). Sustainable Events Checklist. Retrieved 21 December, 2009, from
http://www.eventscotland.org/funding-and-resources/greener-events/how-to-go-green/guidelines/
Fredline, E., Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2005). Testing of a compressed generic instrument to assess host community perceptions of
events: a case study of the Australian Open Tennis Tournament. In J. Allen (Ed.), Proceedings of Third International Event
Management Research Conference: The Impacts of Events. Sydney: Australian Centre for Event Management, University of
Technology, Sydney.
Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Host community reactions: a cluster analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 763-784.
Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2002a). Residents' reactions to the staging of major motorsport events within their communities: a
cluster analysis. Event Management, 7, 103-114.
Fredline, E., & Faulkner, B. (2002b). Variations in residents' reactions to major motorsport events: why residents perceive the
impacts of events differently. Event Management, 7, 115-125.
Fredline, E., Jago, L., & Deery, M. (2003). The development of a generic scale to measure the social impacts of events. Event
Management, 8(1), 23-37.
Fredline, E., Raybould, M., Jago, L., & Deery, M. (2005). Triple Bottom Line Event Evaluation: A proposed framework for
holistic event evaluation. In J. Allen (Ed.), Proceedings of Third International Event Management Research Conference:
The Impacts of Events. Sydney: Australian Centre for Event Management, University of Technology, Sydney
Getz, D. (1991). Festivals, special events and tourism. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Getz, D. (2008). Event Tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29(3), 403-428.
Gossling, S., Hasson, C., Horstmeier, O., & Saggel, S. (2002). Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism
sustainabilty. Ecologicla Economics, 43, 199-211.
Government Office for the South West. (ND). Greener Events Guide. Retrieved 21 December, 2009, from
http://www.oursouthwest.com/SusBus/gevents.html
Hall, C. M. (1993). Hallmark tourist events: impacts, management and planning. London: Belhaven Press.
Hall, C. M. (2003). Introduction to tourism: dimensions and issues (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Haydon, J. (2006). Indigenous community festivals - top end: An evaluation using Encore event evaluation kit. Gold Coast,
Queensland: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
International Olympic Committee. (2009). “Innovation and inspiration” in sport for a better environment. Retrieved 3rd
September, 2009, from http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/olympic_news/full_story_uk.asp?id=2963
45
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
Jackson, J., Houghton, M., Russell, R., & Triandos, P. (2005). Innovations in Measuring Economic Impacts of Regional Festivals:
A Do-It-Yourself Kit. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 360-367.
Jago, L. (2005). Encore Festival and Event Evaluation Toolkit: A Guide to Using the ENCORE Kit. Gold Coast, Queensland:
Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
Jago, L., & Dwyer, L. (2006). Economic evaluation of special events: A practitioner's guide. Gold Coast, Queensland: Sustainable
Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
Jones, R., Pilgrim, A., Thompson, G., & Macgregor, C. (2008). Assessing the environmental impacts of special events:
examination of nine special events in Western Australia. Gold Coast, Queensland: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative
Research Centre.
Kang, Y., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1996). Resident attitudes toward legal gambling. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 71-
85.
Lindberg, K., & Johnson, R. L. (1997). Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 402-424.
Live Earth. (2009). Green Event Guidelines. Retrieved 20 January, 2010, from http://liveearth.org/en/save/event
Madrigal, R. (1995). Residents' perceptions and the role of government. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 86-102.
McCann, C., & Thompson, G. (1992). An economic analysis of the First Western Australian State Masters Games. The Journal of
Tourism Studies, 3(1), 28-34.
Ohmann, S., Jones, I., & Wilkes, K. (2006). The Perceived Social Impacts of the 2006 Football World Cup on Munich Residents.
Journal of Sport and Tourism, 11(2), 129-152.
Origin Energy. (ND). Origin Sustainable Events Calculator. Retrieved 22 December, 2009, from
http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/origin/default.asp
Reid, S. (2004). The social consequences of rural events: the Inglewood Olive Festival. Paper presented at the Creating Tourism
Knowledge. Proceedings of the 2004 CAUTHE Conference, Brisbane.
Sherwood, P. (2007). A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of the Impact of Special Events: The Development of Indicators.
Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria.
Small, K. (2007a). Social Dimensions of Community Festivals: An Application of Factor Analysis in the Development of the
Social Impact Perception (SIP) Scale. Event Management, 11, 45-55.
Small, K. (2007b). Understanding the Social Impacts of Festivals on Communities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Western Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Small, K., & Edwards, D. (2003). Evaluating the socio-cultural impacts of a festival on a host community: a case study of the
Australian Festival of the Book. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Asia Pacific
Tourism Association Sydney.
Small, K., Edwards, D., & Sheridan, L. (2005). A flexible framework for evaluating the socio-cultural impacts of a small festival.
International Journal of Event Management Research, 1(1), 66-77.
Soutar, G. N., & McLeod, P. B. (1993). Residents' perceptions on impact of the America's Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 20,
571-582.
Sustainability Victoria. (2009). Sustainable Events Tools Review: Resource Smart, Sustainability Victoria.
Sustainable Living Foundation. (ND). Sustainable Events Planner. Retrieved 21 December, 2009, from
46
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
http://www.slf.org.au/eventplanner/
Tremblay, P., Boyle, A., Rigby, H., & Haydon, J. (2006). Assessing the value and contribution of the Darwin Festival 2004: A
trial of the national events evaluation kit. Gold Coast, Queensland: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
Tyrrell, T. J., & Johnston, R. J. (2001). A framework for assessing direct economic impacts of tourist events: distinguishing
origins, destinations, and causes of expenditures. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 94-100.
Victorian Auditor General. (2007). State Investment in Major Events. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.
Waitt, G. (2003). Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 194-215.
47
ENCORE FESTIVAL AND EVENT EVALUATION KIT: Review and Redevelopment
48
AUTHORS
Dr Katie Schlenker
Dr Katie Schlenker is a lecturer in Event Management in the School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism at the University
of Technology, Sydney. Katie completed her PhD in 2007, with her research focusing on the social impacts that
festivals have on their host communities. Her research interests and publications are in the areas of social impacts of
events, event legacies; events and social capital and urban tourism precincts. Katie’s most recent project was a
scoping study of the impacts of Business Events on host destinations.
Email: Katie.Schlenker@uts.edu.au
Dr Carmel Foley
Dr Carmel Foley is a lecturer in Event and Leisure Management at the School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism at the
University of Technology, Sydney. Carmel’s research interests and publications are in the areas of leisure history,
leisure theory, and sociocultural aspects of events and leisure. Carmel’s most recent project was a scoping study of
the impacts of Business Events on host destinations.
Email: Carmel.Foley@uts.edu.au
Professor Don Getz
Don Getz is currently Professor in the School of Tourism, University of Queensland, and also Adjunct Professor in
the Haskayne School of Business at University of Calgary, Canada. He is an ongoing Visiting Professor at the Centre
for Tourism at The University of Gothenburg, in Sweden.
Professor Getz conducted his advanced education at the University of Waterloo (Bachelor of Environmental
Studies in Urban and Regional Planning, 1971), Carleton University (Master of Arts, Geography, 1975) and the
University of Edinburgh, in Scotland (PhD in Social Sciences - Geography, 1981).
Professor Getz teaches, conducts research, writes and consults in the field of tourism and event management. He
has developed an international reputation as a leading scholar and proponent of event studies. Related areas of
expertise include destination and resort management and marketing, family business and entrepreneurship, rural
tourism, impact assessment, consumer research and special-interest travel.
Professor Getz co-founded, and was Editor-in-Chief of Festival Management and Event Tourism: An
International Journal, re-named to Event Management as of 2000. He is on the editorial board of many international
tourism journals including Tourism Management and Journal of Travel Research. He is a Distinguished Fellow in
the International Academy for the Study of Tourism.
Email: d.getz@uq.edu.au
COMMERCIALISE
RESEARCH
AND
DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
AND
TRAINING
UTILISE
COLLABORATION
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
• Travel and tourism industry
• Academic researchers
• Government policy makers
• New products, services and technologies
• Uptake of research finding by business,
government and academe
• Improved business productivity
• Industry-ready post-graduate students
• Public good benefits for tourism destinations
INDUSTRY P ARTNERS UNIVERSITY P ARTNERS COMMERCIALISATION
TOURISM NT
NORTHERN TERRITORY
AUSTRALIA
EC3, a wholly-owned subsidiary company, takes the
outcomes from the relevant STCRC research; develops
them for market; and delivers them to industry as products
and services. EC3 delivers significant benefits to the
STCRC through the provision of a wide range of business
services both nationally and internationally.
KEY EC3 PRODUCTS
Chairman: Stephen Gregg
Chief Executive: Ian Kean
Director of Research: Prof. David Simmons
CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd
Gold Coast Campus Griffith University
Queensland 4222 Australia ABN 53 077 407 286
Telephone: +61 7 5552 8172 Facsimile: +61 7 5552 8171
Website: www.crctourism.com.au
Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop
Email: info@crctourism.com.au
Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research
Centre (STCRC) is established under the
Australian Government’s Cooperative
Research Centres Program.
STCRC is the world’s leading scientic
institution delivering research to support the
sustainability of travel and tourism—one of the
world’s largest and fastest growing industries.
Introduction
STCRC has grown to be the largest dedicated
tourism research organisation in the world,
with $187 million invested in tourism research
programs, commercialisation and education
since 1997.
STCRC was established in July 2003 under the
Commonwealth Government’s CRC program
and is an extension of the previous Tourism
CRC, which operated from 1997 to 2003.
Role and responsibilities
The Commonwealth CRC program aims to
turn research outcomes into successful new
products, services and technologies. This
enables Australian industries to be more
efcient, productive and competitive.
The program emphasises collaboration
between businesses and researchers to
maximise the benets of research through
utilisation, commercialisation and technology
transfer.
An education component focuses on producing
graduates with skills relevant to industry
needs.
STCRC’s objectives are to enhance:
the contribution of long-term scientic and
technological research and innovation
to Australia’s sustainable economic and
social development;
the transfer of research outputs into
outcomes of economic, environmental or
social benet to Australia;
the value of graduate researchers to
Australia;
collaboration among researchers,
between searchers and industry or other
users; and
efciency in the use of intellectual and
other research outcomes.
... These tools proved problematic and are now no longer in use. Reviews of Encore and FEET by Schlenker, Foley, and Getz (2010) and Pasanen, Taskinen, and Mikkonen (2009) identified the problem areas and provided recommendations for the development of more effective event evaluation methods. ...
... In order to ensure transparency, a standardized approachthe use of the same methods and measuresis recommended (Getz, 2016) and has the benefit that comparability becomes possible. The Encore and FEET toolkits were primarily developed to meet that call for standardization (Pasanen et al., 2009;Schlenker et al., 2010). Emma Wood, a researcher with consultancy experience, was also in favor of standardization, 'not for a standardized set of questionnaires but for a standardized framework for developing, administering, and using impact evaluation' (Wood, 2009, p. 178). ...
... The Encore toolkit was developed by the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) in Sustainable Tourism in Australia and was reviewed by Schlenker et al. (2010) with recommendations for future development. The first self-administrated version (focusing on economic impact, demographic and marketing data) had problems with usability (too complex in use for event organizers) and its too narrow focus on economic impact. ...
Article
Full-text available
A recognized increase in public-sector investment in events has led to a consequent requirement to clearly demonstrate a return on that investment. Commonly that return is seen as an economic one, but this ignores a range of other impacts. There is, therefore, a need to identify theoretically sound and practically relevant methods for evaluating publicly supported events. Also needed from those investing in the events is broad support for the method of evaluation and confidence in the validity of the results obtained. In order to support the development of event evaluation methods to satisfy this need, this case study research undertaken in Östersund, Sweden, identifies – in the context of publicly supported periodic events and festivals – what should be evaluated and how these events and festivals should be evaluated. The studies revealed that regardless of their different needs there was consensus amongst participant stakeholders regarding the criteria required for the evaluation.
... The range of evaluation models and approaches have recently been well documented by Brown, et al., (2015) who highlight it is vital organisers select the most appropriate evaluation model and method to suit individual events and their wider socio-political context. However, barriers must be addressed and overcome, including resources (staff, staff expertise, money, time, software), event objectives (research questions, stakeholder influence, evaluator bias) and respondents (recollection/memory, access, sampling strategy) (Schlenker et al., 2010;Goldblatt, 2011). As resources are a common issue, questions of scope versus depth of evaluation present considerable challenges. ...
... For satisfaction to occur there are also basic needs to be met, but these alone are not sufficient and motives must be fulfilled. There is consensus that the main motivational dimensions which stimulate event attendance can be classified under the headings of socialisation, family togetherness, event novelty, escape and relaxation, excitement and enjoyment, cultural exploration and event specific characteristics, along with other motivators which are explored below (Schlenker et al., 2010;Hixson et al., 2011;Abreu-Novais and Arcodia, 2013). ...
... Socialisation is one of the most important motivations for attendance (Abreu-Novais and Arcodia, 2013; Dos Santos and Montoro Rios, 2016). Linked to the human need for interaction, known group socialisation is a greater influence when attending leisure events, whilst external socialisation motivates attendance at many other events (Schlenker et al., 2010). Family togetherness, a sub-category of known group socialisation, relates to spending leisure time with family, building and reinforcing bonds (Abreu-Novais and Arcodia, 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose This paper explores the priorities of event organisers and venue managers in terms of evaluation criteria and avenues for advancing the development and implementation of banks of questions regarding customer satisfaction evaluation. Design/methodology/approach The results presented are based on a questionnaire distributed to a sample of event organisers and venue managers which sought to identify their priorities with regards to customer satisfaction feedback. Findings Findings show that a significant proportion of respondents had never undertaken formal evaluation, citing time and resources as the key barriers. In addition, a wide range of satisfaction related criteria were rated as important, with the most valued criteria often related to generalised areas, but failing to consider the motivations of individuals for event attendance, which also appears as a gap within evaluation literature. The research findings indicate that developing banks of evaluation questions is a complex task, due to the number of potential variables in terms of events and audiences. Originality/value In linking the priority areas identified by the respondents with evaluation literature and event attendee motivations this paper proposes alternative ways of structuring and utilising banks of evaluation questions linked to attendee profiles and motivations. Its central premise is that evaluation of consumer satisfaction should be led by consumer motivations and expectations if it is to be viable, meaningful and aid future event development and enhancement. This raises many questions and avenues for future research, to progress the area of logistically feasible evaluation, which generates rich and meaningful data.
... Along with Dann's (1981) push and pull factors and Crompton and Mckay's (1997) work on seeking and escaping it is accepted that "consumers are driven by a range of extrinsic motivations such as social pressures and peers and intrinsic motivations such as personal goals and interests" (Jaimangal-Jones et al., 2018, p. 54). There is consensus that event motivations can be summarized under the categories of 'family togetherness' and 'socialisation', 'escape and relaxation', 'event novelty', 'cultural exploration', 'excitement and enjoyment' and 'event specific characteristics' (Abreu-Novais & Arcodia, 2013;Hixson, Vivienne, McCabe & Brown, 2011;Schlenker, Foley & Getz, 2010). Given the experiential nature of events, motives must be incorporated and scrutinized to aid in understanding the experiences individuals seek from events and the resultant perceptions of, and reactions to, event design and programming dimensions. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper argues that to really understand the complexities of event experiences and their meaning, we need to gather rich data, on a longitudinal basis. It demonstrates how ethnographic and constructionist approaches assist in understanding event experiences in relation to the cultural context, symbolic nature, and ritualistic aspects of the event and the corresponding impacts on participants. It considers how spending time immersed in the culture of the event and observing with a wide angle lens, using photographic evidence to capture, recall and discuss experiences, provides for a depth of data beyond the realms of quantitative data collection. The paper presents research undertaken at the case of Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod into experiences by event attendees and volunteers in relation to the specific aspect of intercultural communication and exchange. The findings provided rich and meaningful data on individual experiences at the case study event from which to provide recommendations for organisers on how this aspect of the event can be enhanced and improved. The results underline and demonstrate the effectiveness of longitudinal, constructionist and ethnographic methodological approaches in understanding event experiences, and their credibility and generalisability moving into the future.
... This was followed on by Dwyer et al. (2006) in their work on tourism yield and benefits. Further work conducted under the auspices of the CRC for Sustainable Tourism provided case studies of Australian events (Janeczko, Mules, & Ritchie, 2002;Jones, 2001), methods for conducting research , and the ENCORE toolkit for conducting triple bottom line evaluations (Schlenker, Foley, & Getz, 2010). The book Tourism Economics and Policy by Dwyer and Forsyth (2010) provides detailed guidance as to issues and methods for single-event impact measurement, including costs and benefits. ...
Article
Full-text available
Residents of the Sunshine Coast region in Queensland, Australia, were surveyed on the subject of planned events in their region with the main aim of determining how and why they value events. It was revealed that residents gained considerable use value from events that they attended as audience or otherwise participated in, expressed strong support for a range of events (with a preference for community festivals), and overall did not believe that problems or costs were serious. Residents also indicated strong nonuse values (being existence, option, and bequest values) for events in general. Our findings are positioned within the body of literature concerning impact assessment (specifically, resident perceptions and attitudes towards events), valuation (i.e., the worth of events), and policy and strategy concerning community events and event tourism.
... On the other hand, the most serious dysfunctions of festival tourism related to the natural heritage (Tab. 1) are the threats to the natural environment due to the pollution caused by festival tourism (Schlenker et al. 2010) . An increased inflow of visitors to a given area is always connected with heavier pollution (Gaworecki 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
Festivals are a rapidly developing phenomenon, which is why they are frequently studied in different sciences. They play a major role in the development of tourism; therefore it is important to conduct a comprehensive study of festivals within the framework of tourism geography. Travel to visit a festival may be treated as a separate type of tourism called festival tourism. It has a substantial influence on the tourist space. If the impacts are positive, they are referred to as functions. There are also negative impacts described as the dysfunctions of festival tourism. The aim of this article is to compensate for the shortage of geographical works concerning festival tourism. The author's intention is to present festivals as an object of study in tourism geography, to provide the definition of festival tourism, as well as to establish its main impacts on the tourist space (tourism functions and dysfunctions).
Chapter
A unique and user-friendly text which advances managerial views on how the event industry is transforming. Packed with international real-life case studies and examples, it contextualises theory and illustrates how the industry has had to adapt whilst still considering key technological and sustainability issues.
Chapter
A contemporary overview of festival activity from around the world based on over 30 case studies drawn from every continent. Through its case-study focus it examines different types and genres of festival across the world; considers in detail specific festivals in specific contexts; looks at management and organisational issues in festival provision, and illustrates debates and theories pertaining to festivals throughout the world.
Chapter
Impact assessment can be highly technical and complex, requiring a broad knowledge base and diverse skills, but like evaluation, it is a process fraught with philosophical, technical and political perils. Why is it done, by whom, and how, must be carefully planned. Impacts cannot always be ’proven’, so the nature of evidence becomes critical. Accordingly, a strong theoretical base is needed by all IA practitioners. Whilst economic impacts have received a great deal of attention, with sufficient material available to guide all applications, for social, cultural and environmental IA the theory and practice has lagged. In the context of Triple Bottom Line, social responsibility and sustainability approaches most of the available literature is on normative goals (such as going green, meeting sustainability standards), the nature of positive and negative impacts (a descriptive approach or based on public input), or theory about how impacts occur; very little theory development or praxis has been directed at impact assessment for these applied fields.
Chapter
In this chapter, the basic conceptions and definitions related to festivalisation, the main impacts of festivals on space, the concept of festival tourism and the most important types of festivalisation spaces are characterised. The description of the basic conceptions and definitions related to festivalisation includes concepts such as geographical space and its types, or urban space. This is the theoretical basis for the analysis developed further in the book. The concept of festivalisation and its main features are investigated in this chapter as well. In the next subchapter, the most important impacts of festivals on urban space, divided into tangible, intangible, positive, and negative ones, are described. Further on, the reader can find references to festival tourism, first to the understanding of the concept of tourism and its classifications. The definitions of tourism, tourists and tourist assets are given here as well. Later the definition of festival tourism as one of the tourism types is formulated, and its influence on tourism space is briefly presented. The last subchapter presents festivalisation spaces. They are urban spaces which festivals influence most strongly: e.g. festival centres as spaces of permanent festivalisation, or theatres, museums, streets and squares, occupied temporarily for festival purposes. The theoretical characteristic of different festivalisation spaces is supplemented with many practical examples.
Article
Full-text available
All major sporting events result in a variety of impacts upon the host community. To date, the majority of existing studies have focused upon the wider economic impacts, with few empirical studies of the social impacts upon local residents. This paper explores the perceived impacts of the 2006 Football World Cup upon residents of one of the host cities–Munich. Using a multi-stage sampling technique, 180 Munich residents were randomly selected. Of these, 132 agreed to participate in face-to-face interviews. Findings from the study suggested that the impacts were largely perceived as positive by residents, especially in terms of urban regeneration, increased sense of security, positive fan behaviour and the general atmosphere surrounding the event. Negative impacts, such as increased crime, prostitution, and displacement of local residents were perceived by fewer respondents. Further analysis demonstrates that such perceptions are not dependent upon socio-demographic factors such as age, gender or length of residence in the city.
Book
Hall, C.M. 1998, Introduction to Tourism: Development, Dimensions and Issues, 3rd ed., Addison Wesley Longman, South Melbourne. 390pp, ISBN 0 582 81244 5 (Pbk) (shortlisted in the 'Tertiary Single Book' category of the 'Australian Awards for Excellence in Educational Publishing' 1999).
Book
Hall, C.M. 1992, Hallmark Tourist Events: Impacts, Management, and Planning, Belhaven Press, London. 215pp, ISBN 1 85293 147 7 (Hbk) (co-published in the Americas by Halsted Press, an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. ISBN 0 470 21929 7)
Article
Numerous analyses have been performed to identify resident attitudes toward tourism. This article extends the subject by introducing a broad, synthetic conceptual model of attitudes. Using data from a survey, two sets of specific models derived from this general one are evaluated using structural equation modeling (e.g., LISREL). The value-attitude models indicate that the strength of resident values regarding economic gain better predict attitudes than do values regarding disruption within the community. The expectancy-value models indicate that perceived economic and congestion impacts have greater effect on attitudes than do perceived crime and aesthetic impacts. The data support the hypothesis that demographic variables affect attitudes indirectly through values.
Article
This article reviews ‘event tourism’ as both professional practice and a field of academic study. The origins and evolution of research on event tourism are pinpointed through both chronological and thematic literature reviews. A conceptual model of the core phenomenon and key themes in event tourism studies is provided as a framework for spurring theoretical advancement, identifying research gaps, and assisting professional practice. Conclusions are in two parts: a discussion of implications for the practice of event management and tourism, and implications are drawn for advancing theory in event tourism.
Article
Festivals and events are increasingly important to the tourism industry, especially in regional areas, where the possible sources of gross regional product are more limited than in metropolitan areas. In recognition of the potential economic contribution of arts festivals and other special events to regional economies, there is a need for a rigorous and replicable model/methodology for assessing such impacts. A project initiated in the state of Victoria, Australia, by Arts Victoria, constituting the development of a software tool, the Festivals Do-it-Yourself (DIY) kit, enables regional event organizers to assess the economic impact of their events to the region simply and relatively inexpensively. As well as providing information to the festival organizers, the results for festivals are able to be compared by external sponsors and stakeholders. A key to the successful application of the kit was the dissemination project discussed in this article. Preliminary results from the use of the DIY kit and reactions of some users are also presented.