Impacts of the organisation challanges and capacities on attendees satisfaction

UNIVERSITY

of

GREENWICH

A THESIS ON

“IMPACTS OF THE ORGANISATION CHALLENGESAND CAPACITIES ON ATTENDEES SATISFACTION

AT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY FESTIVALS” Submitted for partial fulfilment of award of

MASTER OF ARTS IN EVENTS MANAGEMENT

By

OZGE ALI

STUDENT ID: 000802210-0

SUPERVISOR

PETER VLACHOS

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING, EVENTS and TOURISMSCHOOL OF BUSINESS

I m p a c t s o f t h e O r g a n i s a t i o n C h a l l e n g e s a n dC a p a c i t i e s

O n A t t e n d e e s S a t i s f a c t i o n a t t h eL o c a l

C o m m u n i t yF e s t i v a l s

September 2014

ABSTRACT

This study examines the impacts of the organizations’

challenges on the attendees’ satisfaction at local

community events. 255 attendees responded the attendees’

satisfaction survey, four interviews were conducted with

the organisers’ and five community festivals were

observed. The major findings of this study are;

identified the Volunteer organizer constraints and

capacities are not reflecting attendees’ satisfaction.

Conversely, overall enjoyment was correlated with

attendees’ demographic structure. For each festivals

five different activities recognized the responses of

the attendees enjoyed during the event those are

included; the entertainment, children activities,

stalls, food and drink options, and socializing. In

contrast to the most enjoyed activities, the festival

goers made improvement suggestion in seven different

categories. These include; Food and drink options,

entertainment, stalls, children activities, monetary

request, environmental issues and marketing. The

results demonstrate no significant difference for the

attendee’s satisfaction between the two different

locations and the community festival which is run by




volunteers and local council. Moreover, while the local

council community festival host 30,000 attendees, the

volunteer organizations hosts between 200 to 7000

festival goers. The responders overall satisfaction does

not reflect the difference in the size of the events. In

depth interviews demonstrated that the volunteer

festival organisers’ major constraints are retain the

volunteers, legal requirements, in sufficient support

for improve organisations capacities. In this study

overall findings provide information for the community

festivals stakeholders regarding managerial constraints

and attendees’ satisfaction at community festivals.




Table of Contents

Title Page

Declaration Form

Abstract

List of Contents

Acknowledgements

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 The Study Aims and Objectives 2

1.2 Background of the Study 3

1.3 Justification of the Study4

1.4 Conclusion of the Introduction 5

2.0 Literature Review 62.1 Community Festivals

2.1.1 Definition of Community Festivals 6

2.1.2 Aims and Powers of Community Festivals7

2.1.3 Impacts of Community Festivals9

2.1.4 Issues Related with Community Festival Management9

2.2 Volunteer Management Constraints11

2.2.1 Definition of Volunteer11

2.2.2 Volunteer Constraints12




2.3 Attendees Satisfaction 14

2.3.1 Factors for Attendees Satisfaction14

2.3.2 Importance of Measuring Attendees’ Satisfaction15

2.3.3 Attendees Reasons to Attend Community Festivals16

3.0 Methods Used 17

3.1 Multi-Methods and Analysis Graphs17

3.2 Research Approach 18

3.3 Research Design 19

3.4 Research Methods 19

3.5 Sampling Strategies 20

3.6 Instrument Design 22

3.7 Data Collection Techniques22

3.8 Method Analysis 24

3.9 Discussion of This Study Ethical Consideration24

3.1.1 Limitation of Methodology24

3.1.2 Conclusion of the Methodology Chapter26

4.0 Results and Analysis 27

4.1 Data Results for Attendees’ Satisfaction27

4.2 Discussion of Community Festivals Research Data-




2014 - South East London 32

4.2.1 Greenwich PARKSFest (Hornfair Park and Eltham South)39

4.3 Organisers Challenges and Capacity Data40

4.3.1 Discussion of Findings Festival Organisers “A” 43

4.3.2 Discussion of Findings Festival Organiser “B”44

4.3.3 Findings, of the Semi-Independent Volunteer Organiser 44

4.3.4 Findings of Community Festival Run by Council45

4.4 Discussion of the All Festivals Included in This Study45

5.0 Conclusion 48

5.1 Review of the Study Aims and Objectives48

5.2 Key Findings 49

5.3 Key Conclusions and Recommendations 50

5.4 Recommendation for the Future Research50

6.0 References 57

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




I am immensely lucky to work with Peter Vlachos whoencouraged and guided me through each stage of thisresearch as my supervisor and made me believe inmyself, it was a real privilege to work with him. Onceagain thank you Peter.

Also, I would like to add my gratitude to communitychampions for their participation for the communityfestivals; Sarah Parker, Claire Cowen, Terry Powley andJohn Fahy. While I have an opportunity, I would like tosay thanks, the precious benefits that I gained duringmy education; Irem Akin and Weiwei Liu.

This piece of paper demonstrates how festivals areuseful for bringing people together to share the sameexperience with others, regardless of whichorganisation organised the events, regardless of whatthe aims of the organisation. No matter what will be mymark from this research, I do believe next year at someof the festivals, some rides are going to be free forthe children in Greenwich.




Dedicated to my Daughters Gozde and Gonul…

1.0 Introduction

Community festivals are rapidly growing in recent years

(Lee and Kyle, 2014; Yoon et. al., 2010; Delamere et

al., 2001; Getz, 1997; Jamieson 2006; Neirotti, 2003;

Prentice and Anderson, 2003; Mayfield and Crompton,

1995; Van Zyl, 2006). The community festivals which were

included in the scope of this study were mainly




organized by the volunteers. Because of the nature of

community festivals; the organising committee is

predominantly composed of members of the society (Getz,

1993; Meyer and Edwards, 2007). Local festivals also

described as celebrations of community or “what a

community is all about” (Janiskee and Drew, 1998 cited

in Lee et al., 2009:588). However, the community

festivals management committees face with different

constraints while the events are operating (Meyer and

Edwards, 2007). Moreover, measuring the attendees’

satisfaction is crucial (Lee et. al., 2008), to retain

the attendees (Kim et al., 2010).

Community festivals are aimed at improving community

cohesion, and sometimes authorities organise community

festivals to reach this aim (Jepson et al., 2008). While

local bodies organize this type of event, volunteers

organise independently or semi-independent festivals for

the same purpose. The previous finding in this area is

very narrow (Meyer and Edwards, 2007). However, the

community festival literature mainly investigated

different issues relating to the community Festival;

attendees’ satisfaction which is mainly related with the

marketing and the loyalty (Gursoy et al., 2004; Lee et

al., 2008; Yoon et al., 2010; Kim et al.,2010; Drengner

et al., 2012; Rosenbaum et al., 2005), impacts of




community festivals (Delamera, 2001; Delamera et al.,

2001; Small 2007; Wood 2005, 2009; Reid 2007;) and

volunteers (Meyer and Edwards, 2007; Earl et al., 2005;

Cleave and Dorothy 2005; Brennan 2007; Love, 2009;

Downward and Ralston 2005; Baum and Lockstone 2007).

Furthermore, community festivals are recognized by some

of the authors’ within the literature relating to event

tourism because the major driving force for the event

industry is tourism (Getz 2008). Conversely, in the

literature some of the other authors’ such as Clarke and

Jepson (2011) and Meyer and Edwards (2007) researched

community festivals relating to the community

development.

These types of events allow residents to engage with

their community and provide entertainment for a wide

variety of age groups and all community members who have

children or are alone, who are disabled or healthy, and

who are have a religious faith or are atheist. From this

viewpoint community festivals are a way to bring

residents to one place, improve community cohesion,

create an impact on communities while the residents are

entertained and promote governmental or local business

services.

This study focuses on free entry community festival

attendees’ satisfaction and organizers challenges and




capacities. In this research there is an emphasis on

volunteer community festival organizer’s challenges and

the study attempts to measure attendees’ satisfaction

related to the organisers’ challenges.

1.1 This Study Aims and Objectives The main aim of this study is to identify impacts of the

organisation on attendees’ satisfaction at the local

community festivals and predict future improvements for

the organisations and on the attendees’ satisfaction.

The hypothesis of this research is sought that

attendees’ satisfaction is dependent on organisers’

challenges and capacity.

Objectives

To determine differences of the aim at the

community festivals dependent on organisation

The community festivals are organised mainly for

community cohesion and promote local services purposes

by the local governments. However, independent volunteer

organisations also organise community festivals. The

community cohesion is main aim. However, there are

variant aims and power of the festivals dependent on

organisations capacities. This study investigated

different organiser’s aims and perceptions of the




community festivals by the organisers, festival goers

and the local authority.

To investigate volunteer management constraints and

capacities at the community festivals

The volunteers’ community festival organisers are

struggle with different challenges related with

organisation capacities. However, there is no obligation

to manage community festivals in the legislations. This

study argued impacts of support and the existing gaps in

the legislations.

To analyse factors of the attendees’ satisfaction

at the community festivals

Measuring festival attendee’s satisfaction is essential

(Gursoy et al. 2004; Lee et al., 2008), as with many

industries, because satisfied customers are more likely

to attend subsequent festivals (Lee et al. 2008; Kim et

al., 2010). The previous researchers’ findings show

there is a strong relation between a customer’s decision

to revisit the event and satisfaction with the existing

event (Lee and Kyle 2014). Segmenting the attendees

provide understanding the attendees attitudes and

perceptions.

To predict future improvement for the attendees

satisfaction




A community festival has no wide media coverage and

economic impacts (Getz 2008) and none of the existing

research has been conducted on the impacts of the

organisations capacities and constraints on attendees’

satisfaction. This study examines attendees’ attitudes

and perceptions related to demographic segmentations on

satisfaction, and defined improvement topics for the

future community festivals.

To determine the organizers’ improvement concerns

for the future community festivals

Whether organised by volunteers or local authority,

community festivals face with constraints. This study

analyses the limitations for the organisers depending on

organisational structure. The results suggest ways in

which future community festivals could be improved.

1.2 Background of the studyThis research particularly evaluated and focused on

three free festivals which do not have to be pre-booked

to attend. This provides an opportunity for the

attendees’ and the local residents to watch live

performances, access food stalls, entertainments,

children’s activities, arts and craft stalls,

information stalls and so on at the communal spaces.

These festivals are celebrated annually for members of




the community, at the same location and hence attract

mainly local people. Moreover, the festivals open to

everyone (include those from different ethnic

backgrounds and people of all ages), providing a range

of activities for different age groups all day long in

South East London.

For this research, data was collected for the attendees’

satisfaction at three different community festivals in

London in June 2014. The research result was verified by

255 survey respondents at three different community

festivals and four interviews were conducted to identify

the organizations’ constraints and capacities. The

Department of Culture, Art and Leisure, (2007) policy

posed; “A community festival is a series of events with

a common theme and delivered within a defined time

period. It is developed from within a community and

should celebrate and positively promote what the

community represents. Community festivals are about

participation, involvement, and the creation of a sense

of identity and are important in contributing to the

social well-being of a community”.

1.3 Justification of the Study




The four community festival organisation’s assignees

were interviewed for the purpose of discovering the main

challenges that organisers experienced in South East

London and measured the factors of attendees’

satisfaction at these local festivals. Those annually

community festivals celebrate and entertain residents.

The reasons to focus on these topics were; these

festivals are also organised by volunteer community

groups. The governmental bodies are promoting grants and

training availabilities for the volunteer community

festivals committee at the London Community Foundation

(2014). Conversely, none of the training is mandatory

for being able to run community festivals in London,

moreover, some festivals are failing. Examining the

impacts of these constraints and capacities of the

organisations on the attendees’ satisfaction becomes

more important for understanding the attendees’

attitudes and understanding the organisers’ desires for

potential improvements at future festivals. Nonetheless,

the overall satisfaction at these events was compared to

identify the attendees overall satisfaction at various

community festivals included in this study.

1.4 Conclusion of Introduction




The impacts of the organisational challenges and

capacities factors of attendee satisfaction of local

community events will allow the organisers to predict

future improvement on attendee satisfaction,

strengthening their awareness of ways to overcome

volunteer constraints. Volunteers for the community

events are an important element of the social changes

(Brennan 2007), volunteers give their time, skills and

effort without monetary expectations (Meyer and Edwards

2007). In this study the researcher sought to identify

impact of the organisational challenges on attendees’

satisfaction at the local community festivals and

predicts future improvements for the community

festivals.

The research outline was designed as follow: In the

literature review a critical analyses was conducted for

several of the topics, relating to community festivals,

volunteer management constraints and capacities. The

attendees’ satisfaction reviewed with the different

authors’ arguments. The purpose of this was to

strengthen this study. Methodology chapter summarizes,

detailed research methods, which this study conducted

for meeting the aims. Furthermore, other available

methods are discussed and explained with reasons for not

using these options in this study. The following chapter




aims to demonstrate the findings of this research, the

attendees’ satisfaction results and the interviews

presented in this chapter. In the concluding chapter all

previous sections are reviewed and recommendations

offered for the future research.

2. Literature ReviewThe scope of community festivals literature review is

narrow (Meyer and Edwards, 2007). There have been

several researches made about volunteer community

festivals (Meyer and Edwards 2007; Huang et al., 2010;

Clarke and Jepson 2011; Jepson et al., 2008), impacts of

community festivals (Wood; 2005, Delamera 2001; Delamera

et al., 2001; Small, 2007; Wood, 2009; Gursoy et al.,

2004), evaluation of attendees satisfaction at festivals

(Yoon et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2010)

and Festival volunteers (Meyer and Edwards 2007; Earl et

al., 2005; Cleave and Dorothy, 2005; Brennan, 2007;

Love, 2009; Downward and Ralston, 2005). In this chapter

the literature review enhanced with these authors’ among

many other authors. Literature review consists of the

three main topics; Community festivals included;

definitions of community festivals, aims and perception




of community festivals, impacts of the community

festivals and issues related with community festivals.

Next topic investigated the volunteer management

constraints under; the definitions of volunteer and

volunteer constraints. And the last section of the

literature review discussed, attendees satisfaction

under the topics of, importance of measuring attendees’

satisfaction, attendees’ reasons to attend community

festivals and factors for attendees’ satisfaction.

2.1 Community Festivals

2.1.1. Definitions of Community FestivalsCommunity festivals or as O’Sullivan and Jackson (2002)

described “home grown festivals” are not researched yet

(Li et al., 2009). Allen et al., (2007:50) described;

“festivals and events can be identified in every human

society in every age. They are part of how we interact

as humans, and form part of the social fabric that binds

our communities together”.

However, O’Sullivan and Jackson (2002) posed home grown

festivals are been organised in rural or semi-rural

areas. Furthermore, festival is a way to develop

networking between across sectors (Jepson et al, 2008)




and promoting ethnic differences in doing so revealing

local cultures, customs and history (Jepson et al, 2008;

Getz 1997). Love (2009:3) posed “festivals are important

part of the overall economic exchange for the arts and

cultures industry”. Nonetheless, Quinn (2005), cited

culture is used for restructuring prosperity and job

creation thorough the use of festival.

Different definitions and perceptions of community

festivals are emerging in the literature about what

about festivals are? However, the common theme among

some authors about the festival is people’s Culture

(Quinn, 2005). Clarke and Jepson (2011) posed; culture is

used for constructing festivals for the societies and

also the main decision maker for the community to

include or exclude the festivals. Moreover, Getz (2008)

classified, festival industry along with carnivals,

commemorations and religious events under cultural

celebrations. Art and entertainment are another

classification on the Getz typology of planned events.

The main distinction between Getz (2008) and Love (2009)

descriptions is Getz classified festivals under cultural

celebrations whereas Love classified the festival

industry under the arts and culture industry.

Jepson et al (2008:7) posed; “festivals and moreover,

community festivals are public themed celebration which




can act as a catalyst for demonstrating community values

and culture”. It is important to investigate why

festivals are organized; Mayfield and Crompton (1995)

enriched literature with their findings and the authors

classified eight main reasons why festivals are

organized, these are; internal revenue generation,

external revenue generation, community spirit and pride,

culture/education, tourism, agriculture,

socialization/recreation and natural resources.

2.1.2 Aims and Power of Community FestivalsCommunity based festivals have diverse varieties of

themes and aims (Huang et al., 2010). Quinn (2005:6),

stated; “the first festival took a place in Athens as

long as 534 BC, in honour of the God Dionysos, the

patron of wine, feast and dance”. Community festivals

are used for many other purposes, educational,

religious, private, public purposes and so on (Quinn

2005). Furthermore, opens spaces, free spaces or Public

spaces also provide opportunity for the community to

learn from others how to behave, respect and many other

aspects for communal living requirements (Poletta,

1999). Nonetheless, usage of parks is becoming a

phenomenon of increasing neighbourhood quality and

attracting low-income communities and increasingly

middle-income residents (Walker, 2004). Hart (1997)




posed adequate parks are environmental educator for

children.

The historic community festivals were used as a

political purpose to control the societies (Jarvis

1994). Wood (2005) highlighted local bodies that

utilised the events and festivals to reach various

ranges of economic and social objectives. While interest

in community festivals is increasing in London and the

main aim is to increase the cohesion between residents,

local authorities used funding for running these events

(Wood, 2005) and these festivals contributed to the

essentially well-being of societies (Arcodia and

Whitford, 2007). Festivals are a place where different

voices represent themselves and it is also a place to

manage the tension of generated differences (Derret,

2005). Moreover, at the festivals, attendees’ celebrated

their society identities (Turner, 1982; Gursoy et al.

2004). Attendees attend particular community festivals

to build up bonds with their society (Wood 2005; Gursoy

et al., 2004; Dalemera, 2001; Turner, 1982). The way of

engender local permanency (Quinn, 2005). Furthermore,

Jamieson (2006) stated Community festivals improve

cohesion between local residents which need to be under

control of their local community; author added;




community festivals need to give opportunity to the

local residents to represent others in their community.

The governmental body organise these types of festivals

to create consensus between local residents (Mayfield

and Crompton, 1995), increase social pride and for

community well-being. McMillan (1996:322) stated; “to

have experience, the community members must have contact

with one another. Contact is essential for a sense of

community to develop”. Furthermore, the community

festivals increase civic commitments and morale (Wood,

2005). Wood (2009) investigated the local authority

management festivals and posed the need of clarity

within local government and the author proposed the

government needs to focus and be serious about what the

attendees’ expectations are, when they use public funds

as a return of investment to the community.

2.1.3 Impacts of Community FestivalsMany authorities agreed these types of festivals are a

different, valuable approach to improve identification

and commitment-centred, common values (Lee and Kyle

2014). Wood (2005) describes how the importance of scale

impacts of the festivals. The author investigated

attendees’ motivations and attitudes to measure the

economic and social impacts of the festivals. Delamera

(2001) questioned the Local bodies, the local




communities and the festival organizers perception on

festival is it to predominantly gain on economic

benefit? However the impacts of each event are variable

(economic, environmental, social) depending on the

local, national and international concept (Wood 2009).

Furthermore, Saayman and Saayman (2006) found that the

location and size of the town had a significant

influence on the event. Many studies focused on

economic impacts to measure success of the event and a

few of the researches focused on the socio-cultural

impacts. This is the reason why the success of the

festival is measured by the financial contribution to

the stakeholders (Small et al., 2005). Furthermore,

Jepson et al. (2008) added without community festivals

local communities cannot achieve involvement of the

population.

Small (2007: 45), explored six dimensions of social

impacts of community festivals. The factors listed as a;

inconvenience, community identity and cohesion, personal

frustration, entertainment and socialization

opportunities, community growth and development and also

behavioural consequences. Prentice and Anderson (2003)

and Reid (2007), findings have also raised the

importance of social impacts and consequences of the

local events. Delamera et al., (2001) investigated




social impacts under social benefit and social cost

which is less tangible than economic impacts of

community festivals.

2.1.4 Issues Related with Community Festivals ManagementConversely social benefits of the community festivals,

there are different issues in the literature that is not

commonly in the scope of the research. Jepson et al.,

(2008) posed festival process; develop organisers’

hegemony over the other shareholders and the author

argued about consistently running festival by the same

organiser is not encompassed within the democracy.

Moreover, it is arguable to identify how community

festivals which are steering with the same committee

over the years can be efficiently to represent multi

ethnic communities. Moreover, festivals are going to be

limited to the views of the steering community’s

cultures over the years (Clarke and Jepson, 2011).

Clarke and Jepson (2011) evolved the hegemony of the

steering group at the community festivals related to the

limited resources, the authors added all supports and

consultation meeting are provided in English Language.

This is not allowing non-English speakers to participate

at the organising committee meetings. Other issue

relating to community festivals management is the

financial difficulties which results in insufficient




promotion and unproductive marketing research that lead

to events failing to reach target audiences at the

community festivals (Lee and Kyle 2014; Getz, 2008).

However, developing marketing strategies and

coordinating the festival is a responsibility of the

festival expert. Organisers captivate cultural control

of a community festival (Jepson et al., 2008). In

contrast, some event organisers are against the idea of

running community festivals which develop business

approaches at the community based festivals. Because of

reduce the demand from community involvement (Gursoy et

al., 2004). Brennan (2007) suggests investigating to

community resources, enhanced venues for interaction and

increased community capacity building.

The festival and event evaluation kit was developed by

the cooperative research centre for sustainable tourism.

Four sections identified; Demographic Module which is

assessing demographic structure of the area, Economic

module that calculated expenditure and incomes of the

festival, Marketing Module which was scope marketing,

related concerns asking questions for the participants

and getting feedback about motives for attending the

event and the last section is additional questions

module that is collecting data (Allen et al., 2008).

Getz (2008) emphasized the nature of the event that is




time limited and the author added (2008: 404) “if you

miss it, it’s a lost opportunity” and then the

researcher clarified the importance of satisfying the

goals at the event industry and the author cited, if the

amateurs are run event this is often too risky for

reaching the event goals. Moreover, Jepson et al.,

(2008) defenced successful community events, in other

words community events which reached their targets is a

consequence of organisation, networking and management.

However, Jamieson (2006: 182) explored the importance of

management structure and the author posed “festivals and

events rely on enthusiastic participation, event

planning does not work best with “top down” management

approach that tries to impose practices onto a

community, region, or institution”. Moreover, Wates

(2008) suggested standard organisational structure for

the successful community festival; the author included

local interest groups, consultants and support bodies in

the main organisation framework. Nonetheless, Huang et

al., (2010: 259) posed; “festival organisers, planners

should encourage local people to support community based

festivals and project the image of a friendly community

to the family market”. In contrast Kim et al., (2010)

cited, this type of local community festival success




depends on the organisers and local residents’ passion

for the event.

2.2 Volunteer Management Constraints and Capacities

2.2.1 Definitions of volunteerBaum and Lockstone (2007) defined the volunteers;

“individual volunteer helping others in sport, informal

organization such as clubs or governing bodies, and

receiving either no remuneration or only expenses”.

However, volunteering.org.uk (2014) definition is

slightly different than the aforementioned definition

“volunteering as any activity that involves spending

time, unpaid, doing something that aims to benefit the

environment or someone (individuals or groups) other

than, or in addition to, and close relatives”. Central

to this definition is the fact that volunteering must be

a choice freely made by each individual. This can

include formal activity undertaken through public,

private and voluntary organisations as well as informal

community participation (Volunteer. Org. UK, 2014). One

of the other definitions cited Du Boulay (1996: 4) “a

volunteer is a person who, on a regular basis,

contributes his or her time and energy”. There are

existing gaps even for the definition of the volunteer

in the literature (Baum and Lockstone 2007).




Furthermore, in the legislation there is no any

obligation for the employees to pay volunteer expenses

(Volunteering.uk.gov, 2014).

Community festivals are labelled as a community based on

being run by one or a group of volunteers for advantages

of local residents (Huang et al., 2010; O’Sullivan and

Jackson, 2002). Stebbins (1996) posed; volunteering is

more enjoyable and satisfying, however, it does not

require skill or knowledge. However, Baum and Lockstone

(2007: 33) argued against Stebbins definition and the

authors are defined in the Stebbins definition; “the

definition does not sit well with the skills base often

required or acquired as a result of this of

participation”. Furthermore, Stebbins cited, (2004: 7)

“volunteering, considerable planning, effort and

sometimes skill or knowledge, but is for all that

neither serious leisure nor intended to develop into

such”. Davis Smith (1999) recognized five major elements

for volunteering; rewards, free will, benefits from

volunteer activity, organisational brand, the level of

commitment of volunteers. However, emotional attachment

is one of the key motivation factors for volunteers to

work for the particular festivals (M. Thompson & Heron

2005).




2.2.2 Volunteer constraints and capacitiesIn the literature of the community festival industry

volunteer constraints are not widely scoped (Meyer and

Edwards, 2007). Love (2009) has researched about

community events and volunteer impacts. Moreover,

volunteer constraints at the festivals related

literature investigated by Cleave and Dorothy (2005),

Brennan (2007), Love (2009) and so on. It is important

to understand the volunteer’s needs and expectations

prior to the event to maximise utilisation of a

volunteer’s time and effort (Downward and Ralston 2005).

At the community involved events, individual

contributions create a long term community (Brennan

2007). Cleave and Doherty (2005), research findings

(from 2001 Canada Summer Games) show volunteers

negotiating with the challenges, however, the same

challenges are not overcome by non-volunteers such as

personal cost, lack of skills, language ability and so

on. Earl et al., (2005) urged a capacity of volunteers

at two different levels; as a group and an individual.

The authors increased awareness of the training needs,

how often, and what position festival organisers

utilised from volunteers, in crowd management, campsite

management, entry and exit control and so on. Brennan

(2007) proposed improvement needs of volunteer on

empowerment, training, support and program development.




Volunteer training, through academic, private and

governmental bases would support enabled local

communities into active community leaders (Brennan 2007)

as well as increase capacity and quality of the events

(Brennan, 2007). Furthermore, Earl et al., (2005)

explored how expanding volunteer capacity through

training had a positive effect on the volunteer service

for the authors’ study of the festival. Within this

frame, training and support increases the capacity of

the organisers and simultaneously, increases capacity

and quality of the festivals. Volunteers have positive

impacts on improving the community, individual

volunteers working together with other community members

and build a social network (Cleave and Dorothy, 2005).

Nonetheless, training increases the confidence of the

volunteers for the potential for recruitment (Downward

and Ralston, 2005).

Brennan identified volunteer needs under enhanced or

increased venues for interaction, broad based local

representation, leadership development and increased

skills based training. Instead of conflicts between

community members, distrust, different interest and

variety of other negative conditions. However, the

differences between community members are still not the

barriers to empowering community development (Brenan




2007). The aims of the festivals are communities

celebrating a variety of nations and enhanced values of

life (Quinn, 2005). Department for business innovation &

skills defined there is no department in Government

leading and responsible for volunteer events. This site

posed organisers need to review the local authorities

rules and regulations for organising the volunteer event

(Gov. UK, 2014). The site is added, “The value of the

volunteers is in Government big society agenda”.

The community festivals have a real potential to

generate socio-cultural impacts (Small et al., 2005).The

volunteer organising committee serves to community and

have a power to promote what they would like to or

protest during stage performance. The question arises

about whether volunteers are vetted (Baum and Lockstone

2007). Getz (2002) identified the main constraints

perceived by the organisers is the retention of the

volunteer. Love (2009:5) posed “gaining better

understanding of how to improve volunteer retention is

important for the management of non-profit festival

organisation”.




2.3 Attendees satisfaction

2.3.1 Factors for attendees’ satisfactionLee et al., (2007: 402) posed for the satisfaction; “it

describes a consumer’s experience, which are the end

state of a psychological process”. In growing festival

industry, understanding festival goers will improve

marketing and festival production (Li et al., 2009). The

authors’ explored six motivational factors at the

festivals in their research; escape novelty, nostalgia

and patriotism, event excitement, family togetherness

and Socialization. Between six different factors escape

found most dominant factor. In spite of festival

popularity many festivals failed because of insufficient

marketing and limited budget (Lee and Kyle, 2014). Lee

and Kyle segmented festival goers based on the attendees

commitment degree and then in socio-demographic

characteristics. The authors posed their finding at the

three different segments; age, education and past

experience and the findings were meaningful and had

significant variation. Moreover, the authors added

(2014: 656) the “more committed visitors were to the

festivals, the higher their overall satisfaction was

with the festival experience, and the more likely they

were exhibit loyalty intension toward the festival”.




Yoon et al., (2010) stated, understanding customer

satisfaction and loyalty is as significant as product

quality. Researchers segmented tangible (food,

souvenir) and intangible benefits (festival quality,

loyalty, value and satisfaction benefits) of the

festivals and segmented gender, age, education level and

marital status. Research findings show (:335) “festival

quality dimensions included program, souvenirs, food,

and facilities affect value, which then contributes to

visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty.” Lee et al., (2007)

emphasized promotion, organization and management of the

value of the festival experiences, and the authors

discovered similar result with Yoon et al., (2010). Yoon

et al., found food quality and program content

positively affects customer satisfaction and is

satisfaction leads to customers being loyal to the

festival. Kim et al., (2010) suggested the importance of

facilitating quality services and valuable experiences

for the perception to repurchase the experience and

researchers categorized socio-demographic structure of

research responders. Moreover, Kim et al., findings

specified “perceived value leads to satisfaction”. Getz

(2008) considered possible measures of value the events

as follow; growth potential, appropriateness, market

share, sustainability, quality, economic benefit,




community support and image enhancement. The author then

separated these into four divisions; low and high demand

/ high and low value on his evaluation pyramid.

According to this approach local events (periodic and

one-time) are described as a low demand and low value

for the measurement strategy of the “value” for the

event industry.

2.3.2 Importance of measuring attendee’s satisfactionMeasuring the satisfaction of the attendees is crucial

(Kim et al., 2010; Gursoy et al., 2004). Satisfied

customers are more likely to revisit next year events,

in other word, are expected to utilise the same service

(Cronin et al., 2000). In the literature there are

different aspects to engender to attendees satisfaction

factors. Drenger et al., (2012) emphasises that loyalty

is the main driver of the satisfaction; the authors’

research on music festivals explored how the feeling at

being part of a community has a wider influence than

overall satisfactions the authors posed (: 59);

“satisfying the customer is not always the key route to

value creation”. Also the authors added customer

interactions improved the building of positive

experience. Moreover, festival satisfaction indicates

the festival quality (Yoon et al., 2010; lee et al.,

2008). Nonetheless discovering the motivational reasons




of the attendees was as inefficient way to measure

attendees’ satisfaction (Yoon et al., 2010).

Wood (2005) recognized vigorous data was a necessity for

planning future events and secures funding from funders.

The authors exposed, 100 per cent audience satisfaction,

moreover, the author added (: 48) “responders stating

they enjoyed the festival “very much” and none of the

responders added any negative comments or complaints to

the recorded assessment. On the other hand, demographic

factors analyses who are the attendees’. Mason and

McCarty (2006) posed; a young visitor feels that they do

not belong the organisation institutions.

2.3.3 Attendee’s reasons to attend community festivalsWoodruff (1997) emphasised the importance of past and

present experience of the value of the event and that

expectation is related with experiences. Prentice and

Anderson (2003) findings, define the experience of the

festival, as the most important reason and socialising

with friends identified, as the second most important

reason for the festival experience of attendees. Wood

(2005) discovered “doing something special” was the most

important factors for attending festivals as followed by

“relaxing entertainment”. On the other hand, repeated

visitors had more awareness than the first time

attending attendees. Huang et al., (2010: 259) exposed




“repeat visitors enjoyed the atmosphere of the festivals

and nice people of the host community, whereas first-

time visitors appreciated the tangible more than the

emotional elements”. The other factors which are described

by Lyon (2000); free events attract the most people and

are more popular than paid events; these types of events

generally include concerts, parades at the open spaces.

Moreover, Drengner, John and Gaus (2012) emphasis on

free events offering loyalty to the attendees.




3. Methods usedFor this study multi-methods were used to verify most

reliable data and reach the most appropriate result.

3.1 Multi-Methods and Analysis Table

Below table demonstrated methods used for this study Datacollectiontechniques

Theaspects oftheory

Researchapproach

Nonprobabilitysampling

Probabilitysampling

Purposeofresearch

Quantitative

Deductive

Pragmatistapproach

Purposive

Simplerandom

Descriptive

Survey Snowball Exploratory

Observation

Explanatory

Contentanalyses(Photographs,books,newspaperand soon)Semi-structurequestionnairesSPSS

Existingstatisticsresearch




Secondaryanalysis/DataQualitativeObservation

Inductive

Informal,semi-structureinterviewsOpenendedquestions

The festival attendee’s satisfaction data was collected

at the three study sites to measure their satisfaction.

One of the other main resources of this study was the

four organiser’s assignee interviews. The organiser’s

challenges and capacities emerged in detail during these

interviews. In total five community festivals were

included this study. The Royal Borough of Greenwich

(RBG) Deputy Leader represented the local body community

festivals organiser and this interview allows the reader

to explore aims of the local authority festivals’ and

the attitude of the local authority to the community

festivals. Furthermore, one of the festivals was in the

Lewisham Borough, this enables the reader to identify

differences between the two different Boroughs. This




research resource includes the many different authors’

academic books, journals, and articles, moreover,

utilised from the secondary data such as census, web-

sites and the photographs taken from the observed

festivals, in addition to primary data from interviewees

and the attendees’ questionnaires.

3.2 Research ApproachThe research was conducted using different approaches

for meeting the most appropriate result of study.

Different perspectives were established during this

study, and allow the reader different views from

different organizational structure. Using multi-methods

refer to pragmatist approach where quantitative and

qualitative data analysed together (Kelemen and Rumens,

2007 and Creswell, 2003). The qualitative approach used

during the interview and part of the attendees’ survey,

when asking attendees most enjoyed activities and

recommendations (Dewhurst, 2006; Berg, 2007). Part of

the survey allows readers to analyse numerically

presented statistical data relating to the attendees’

satisfaction (Neuman, 2007; Bell, 2010). This part of

the research allowed the researcher to develop data

faster with closed questions (Berg, 2007). The overall

findings can be easily compared with different data from




the other similar studies. In this study, the researcher

was a physical component that might impact on the result

of the research. Moreover, the study used quantitative

research during spontaneous interviews and sought

answers with inductive analyses for the purpose of “…

involving the intensive examination of a strategically

selected number of cases so as to empirically establish

the causes of a specific phenomenon” as Johnson cited in

Cassel and Symon (2004: 165). During the interviews to

uncover fundamental meanings and governments’ judgement,

multi-method analysis connections and the impacts of

interaction searched for dynamics (Walliman, 2011).

3.3 Research DesignQualitative data collection conducted for analysing the

community festivals organiser’s constraints and

capacities. In depth interviews, photographs,

observation provide gathers and analyses data results

and considered correlation among the concepts, at this

part of research inductive method used. Research

conducted mainly quantitative data collection on

attendees’ satisfaction. Quantitative data collections

allow to reach larger population of responders easily

compare with other data’s for attendees’ satisfaction.

Conversely, qualitative data allow to used exploratory




research and results were difficult to duplicate.

Dependant to the interviewee the researcher easily

changed the direction to find out relevant information.

Neuman posed (2007: 115) “reliability means

dependability and consistency” and the author defined

“validity suggest truthfulness and refers to match

between construct, or the way a researcher

conceptualised definition, and a measure. The author

added; “perfect reliability and validity are virtually

impossible to achieve”.

3.4 Research MethodsThe qualitative method was used for understanding the

challenges of the organisers. The four community

festival organiser’s assignees were interviewed without

the questions being decided before the interview.

Similar questions were asked of the organisers because

of the similarities of their responses. Furthermore, all

festivals included in this study were observed. Finally

secondary data was used such as news and pre-existing

ideas within the local press about the festivals, and

the census results of the area examined for the purposed

of developing the data (Neuman 2007).




This research was based on survey responses from

attendees of the three local community festivals. The

researcher conducted questionnaires individually within

the attendees who agreed to be part of the research. The

attendees’ questionnaire includes many closed questions

and two open questions, these were; recommendations,

suggestions and what activity during the festival

attendees enjoyed most. That two open questions were not

employs statistical and mathematical concept (Dewhurst,

2006), because of this reason, these questions represent

qualitative methods in the attendees’ survey. The survey

required approximately five minutes of the festival

attendees time. Furthermore, the research required an

interview with the organisers to evaluate organisations

aims and identify challenges, capacities and the

organiser’s experiences during the organisation of the

festival. The interview was conducted wherever the

organiser preferred and voice recorded. The interview

was conducted one week after the festival date. The

primary data reflected on the research from survey and

interview results. The multi-methods data was gathered

to understand different aspects before judging the

responses. Moreover, conducting qualitative data to the

festival goers were vastly difficult because type

recording would not be audible at the festivals. Because




festivals entertained attendees with live music and

there was dominant background noise from the crowd.

Qualitative researches involve longer time consumption

than quantitative (Dewhurst, 2006). In addition,

conducting the interview with approximately hundred

responders at each festival, in six hours’ time limit

would have been almost impossible.

3.5 Sampling StrategyThe attendee’s satisfaction part of this study was

conducted using the quantitative approach and the

primary goal was to reach large amount of responder

(Neuman, 2007) and simple random probability sampling

was conducted whereas select responders purely random

process (Neuman 2007) for the part of measuring

attendees’ satisfaction. Any festival goer was regarded

as a potential survey responder. Attendee’s population

elements were non-zero or every attendee had an equal

chance of being a responder (Brotherton, 2008).

In contrast to probability sampling, non-probability

sampling was conducted for the interviews during which

the researcher was not able to control who was going to

be interviewed (Berg 2007). The purposive type of sample

was applied; the main principles for this part of the

research "all possible cases that fit in particular

criteria” (Neuman 2007: 141). However, to enhance the




research, the researcher decided to investigate semi-

independent volunteer festivals aim, experiences,

capacities and constraints after the RBG event team

suggestion. At this part, the snowball samples were

involved and the interview was conducted by referral to

the one interviewee (Neuman 2007). One of the other

possible type of sampling is haphazard sample which is

any cases chosen that is convenient for the research.

However, this is more biased and in this sampling it is

not necessary to fit the particular criteria of the

research.

The four interviews conducted, one of the interviewee

was chosen from Lewisham Borough. Furthermore, one semi-

independent (run by volunteer, however, festival

expenses are paid by the local body) organiser assignee

from the RBG area was interviewed to identify

independent volunteer semi-independent festivals aims,

experiences, constraints and capacities. Finally the

researcher interviewed the Deputy Leader of the RBG

Council to include local authority aims and views to the

local community festivals. The post-festival surveys and

post interviews allow the readers to access the

capacities of the festivals and challenges, which

organisers faced before and during the particular

festival.




30.000 estimated residents attended the Great Get

Together and Armed Forced Day (GGT) according to The

Telegraphs and Argus (2014), 7.000 people were estimated

to have attended to the Plumstead Make Merry Festival

(PMM) estimated information by local police from

interview with the organiser and Brockley Society Mid-

Summer Fayre (BSMSF) organiser estimated 3000 people

attended their festival. The 269 Festival goers’

responded to questionnaires, 6 responders were under 18

years old and 8 responders did not complete

questionnaire. 255 surveys were accepted as completed of

surveys for this research. This number 255/50,000

considered 0.63% of the total festival goers at the

three included festivals studied.

3.6 Instrument DesignMainly, closed questions were asked of the festival

goers. The attendees’ survey asked some questions to

identify socio demographic population of the attendees

these questions were; age, revisit and residential

status. Latter were asked attitudes and perceptions of

attendees, including community support/ meeting new

people/ meeting old friend /willingness to pay/ do food

encourage to attend/ do feel secure at the environment/

friendly service at the festival. Some of the other




questions analysed marketing impacts; where attendees

had heard about the festival/ freebies impacts to attend

festival and do know who are the organisers.

Furthermore, three questions asked the purpose of

recognised attendees’ satisfier. Interval scale was used

to identify the overall enjoyment and two open questions

asked to the attendees for their recommendations and

most enjoyed activities they involved with during the

festival. A result of survey generalises with overall

attendee’s satisfaction. Also, deductive methodology was

applied to that part of research. However, open

questions and interviews were inductive, that might lead

the researcher to find new definitions of the community

festivals. Questions from interviews were spontaneous

(Buckingham and Saunders, 2004; Bell, 2010). The

interview structure and the questions were changed

depending on the interviewee response.

3.7 Data Collection TechniquesThe Royal Borough of Greenwich website was used to find

festivals through the organisation events list for the

most appropriate festivals for the study criteria. Two

community events were found which were suitable for this

study at the local body website. The researcher

contacted the organisers, informed them about the




research and requested to conduct on interview with one

of the organiser. The Plumstead Make Merry (PMM)

Organiser accepted. However, the Great Get Together and

Armed Forced Day (GGT) Organiser; Local Authority Event

Team did not agree to be part of the dissertation

because of having insufficient resources. The GGT

organisers suggested the researcher to communicate with

the PARKSfest organisers for this study. The PARKSfest

organisers agreed to be part of this research.

Furthermore, the researcher asked the GGT organising

team permission for survey, the team did not respond but

the researcher conducted survey with the attendees on

the festival day. Then research was developed wider to

discover volunteer challenges and analysed attendees’

satisfaction in the different Borough in London.

The first surveys conducted on 7th of June 2014 at

Plumstead Make Merry, 101 useable surveys were completed

on the day. The second survey was conducted at Brockley

Mid-Summer Fayre, 100 useable surveys accomplished on

21st of June 2014. Finally festival goers answered the

survey at the Woolwich Great Get Together & Armed Forced

Day on 28th of June 2014, 54 usable attendees’ responded

collected. Before attendees answered the survey the aims

and objectives of the research was explained verbally.

Nonetheless, each survey contained a small explanation




about the research. However, research aims and

objectives were provided with more details in written

form on A4 paper for any further information request

from any attendees. The Interviewees received the

consent letter before the interview has conducted and on

the interview day a copy of the consent letter has

provided for the interviewee. All interviews were tape

recorded. The Plumstead Make Merry organiser (on 11th of

June) and Brockley Society Hilly Field Mid-Summer

organiser (on 27th of June) preferred to use their house

for the interview. The PARKSfest organiser (on 13th of

August) preferred the South Eltham Park Cafe where one

of the PARKSfest events was celebrated. Finally the

PARKSfest festivals creator Deputy Head of Council John

Fahy responded the interview request and invited the

researcher (on 19th of August 2014) to the councillor’s

formal office at the Town Hall.

3.8 Method analysisThe results of this study emerged as able to be used

with a variety of research methods. For the festival

goers satisfaction; mean, descriptive, correlated and

frequencies analyses used at the raw data in the

Statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS). For

the quantitative part of the attendees’ surveys two




different subtitles emerged after analysing the

responders; most enjoyed activities also their

recommendations, comments and suggestions. At the

qualitative part of the research interviews conducted,

similar questions were asked of the organisers during

the interview. However, to identify local body aspects

for the local volunteer festivals different questions

applied to the Councillor. Each answer segmented in a

different topic and analysed the common points and

differences between organisers.

3.9 Discussion of this study ethical considerationThe organiser’s participation was completely voluntary

and a letter of consent was signed before the interview

started. The consent letters contained brief

instructions about the topic, aims and objectives of

this research and the confidentiality was explained in

the consent letter. All relevant documents and raw data

are kept at the researcher’s locked office.

3.1.1 Limitations of MethodologyThere are some limitations to this study; One of the

limitations was responders had answered the questions

for the festival they attended on the day. None of the




responders were asked questions about their previous

festival experiences or level of satisfactions. The

other limitation of this research; requires the time of

the organiser who takes part of an interview and

discussion about the problems that they encountered

before, during and after the festival. Some of the

organisers refused to being part of this research

because of they didn’t have enough time resources for

the interview. One of the religious festival organiser’s

requested one to one assessment before confirming

availability to be interviewed, and three different

festival organisers did not respond to emails regarding

the survey and interview request. One of the other

limitations was; at this type of festivals, the attendee

profile is more likely to be a local resident who would

like their family to share family experiences (Small,

2007) from where the festival was organised. Because of

this, some of the attendees refused to be part of this

survey for their children safety, even for the five

minutes the survey would take. This could be a barrier

affected children’s safety. Some of the attendees

refused because they were sun bathing, eating or having

conversation with their family or friends.

The attendees’ satisfaction survey was conducted with

anyone, who could communicate verbally in English or in




Turkish Languages. In contrast community events are a

good way to break isolation and increase socialising

(Small, 2007; Reid, 2007; Wood, 2005) for the whole

community. The people who were not able to speak in

English or Turkish were not represented in this research

result. Also, people with severe mental health problems

were excluded from this research beside people under the

age of 18. The researcher did not ask the responders for

ID, however, at the survey, first question was asked

responder’s age group and any attendee’s under the age

of 18 were excluded from the survey. A Royal Borough of

Greenwich Councillor took a part at this study however,

each local authority has different legislations and

criteria for volunteer community festivals as well as

many similar legislations. The RBG represented their

thought for Greenwich. Moreover, the researcher has not

conducted other interviews with the other borough

councillors.

Finally the organisers’ capacities and constraints

measured through interviews with the organisation’s

assignee, for each festival was included in this study.

However, despite all volunteers’ efforts, these

festivals are created and displayed through committee

members and volunteers’ time, skills and efforts. This




research did not investigate committee members and other

volunteers’ experiences at the festivals.

3.1.2 Conclusion of the Methodology ChapterThe aim of this study was to seek and identify; the

impacts of the organisers challenges on attendees

satisfaction. A variety of stakeholders were identified

and the most appropriate methodology conducted for the

most reliable results. The study conducted different

approaches for different stakeholders; multi-methods

were applied to this study. First main stakeholders for

this study were attendees and for measuring their

satisfaction the quantitative and qualitative approach

was conducted. Five questions were on nominal scale, one

question was on ordinal and one question was on ratio

scale, 7 multiple questions were on (equal) interval

scale and 2 open questions were asked. Second main

stakeholders were; the organisers and quantitative

approach used; interviews conducted, similar questions

asked and interviews were semi-structured. The

Councillor’s interview identified aspects of volunteer

community festivals. Moreover, secondary data; the

census result, local magazines, website and so on were

explored. Finally two semi-independent community




festivals were observed to raise reliability and

analysed wide variety of views.




4.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS In this chapter, the results are presented; the 255

responders’ satisfaction surveys and four in depth

interviews with the festival management committee

assignees and some photographs are presented. The

provided information demonstrates efficacy of the data

gathered. Moreover, readers are able to see a discussion

of results supported by existing literature.

4.1 Data Results for Attendees’ SatisfactionCommunity Festivals Research Data– South East London 2014

N = 255

Below tables demonstrate 255 festival goers’ responses

at the three festivals in South East London 2014. 101

useable questionnaire collected at Plumstead Make Merry

(PMM), 100 useable questionnaire collected at Brockley

Society Mid-Summer Fayre (BSMSF) and 54 useable

questionnaire collected at Great Get Together and Armed

Forced Day (GGT).

Demographic Perceptions

Marketing Satisfier




Questions & Questions

Questions Attitudes

Result All PMM %(n= 101)

BSMSF %(n = 100)

GGT &(n = 54)

Demographic

Q1. Age? 18-28 years= 43(16.89%)29-39 years= 97 (38%)40-50 years= 67 (26.3%)51-59 years= 31(12.15%)Over 60 =17(6.66%)Totalresponse:255 (100%)

18-28 years =25 (24.8%)29-39 years =36 (35.6%)40-50 years =17 (16.8%)51-59years=15(14.9%)Over 60 years=8 (7.9%)Totalresponse: 101(100%)

18-28 years= 15 (15%)29-39 years= 44 (44%)40-50years=31 (31%)51-59 years=6 (6%)Over 60years =4(4%)Totalresponse =100 (100%)

18-28 years =3 (5.6%)29-39 years =17 (31.5%)40-50 years =19 (35.2%)51-59 years=10 (18.5%)Over 60 = 5(9.3)Totalresponse = 54(100%)

Q2. Areyouresident?

Yes=155(60.8%)No=100(39.2)Totalresponses=255 (100%)

Yes= 71(70.3%)No=30 (29.7%)Totalresponse =101 (100%)

Yes=60(60%)No=40 (40%)Totalresponse =100 (100%)

Yes=24(44.4%)No=30 (55.6%)Totalresponse =54(100%)

Q3. Haveyouattendedpreviously?

Yes=158(62%)No=97 (38%)Totalresponses =255 (100%)

Yes=64(63.4%)No=37 (36.6%)Totalresponse =101 (100%)

Yes=60(60%)No=40 (40%)Totalresponse =100 (100%)

Yes=34 (63%)No=20 (37%)Totalresponse =54(100%)

Attitudes andPerceptions

Q4. Doyouthinkfestivalis a waytoSupportcommunity

Yes=232(91%)No=3 (1.2%)Totalresponses =235 (92.2%)Refused/unknown= 20(7.8%)Total=255(10

Yes=90(89.1%)No=3 (3%)Totalresponses=93 (92.1%)Refused/unknown = 8(7.9%)Total=101(100

Yes=93(93%)No=0 (0%)Totalresponse =93 (93%)Refused/unknown= 7(7%)Total=100(1

Yes=49(90.7%)No=0 (0%)Totalresponse =49 (90.7%)Refused/unknown=5(9.3%)Total=




0%) %) 00%) 54(100%)


Q5. HowusefulareCommunity eventsto meetnewpeople?

Not useful =53 (20.8%)Slightlyuseful=48(18.8%)Useful=55(21.6%)Very useful= 34 (13.3%)Extremelyuseful=43(16.9%)Totalresponse= 233(91.4%)Refused/unknown=22(8.6%)Total=101(100%)

Not useful =14 (13.9%)Slightlyuseful=19(18.8%)Useful=22(21.8%)Very useful =8 (7.9%)Extremelyuseful=23(22.8%)Totalresponse= 86 (85.1%)Refused/unknown= 15 (14.9%)Total=101(100%)

Not useful= 32 (32%)Slightlyuseful=26(26%)Useful= 20(20%)Very useful= 8 (8%)Extremelyuseful=8(8%)Totalresponse= 94 (94%)Refused/unknown=6(6%)Total=100(100%)

Not useful =7 (13%)Slightlyuseful= 3(5.6%)Useful= 13(24.1%)Very useful =18 (33.3%)Extremelyuseful=12(22.2%)Totalresponses= 53 (98.1%)Refused/unknown=1 (1.9%)Total= 54(100%)


Q6. HowusefulareCommunity eventsto SeeOldFriends

Not useful =29 (11.4%)Slightlyuseful=37(14.5%)Useful=41(16.1%Veryuseful=53(20.8%)Extremelyuseful=67(26.3)Totalresponses= 227 (89%)Refused/unknown=28(11%)Total=255(100%)

Not useful =14 (13.9%)Slightlyuseful=16(15.8%)Useful=18(17.8%)Veryuseful=17(16.8%)Extremelyuseful=20(19.8)Totalresponse= 85 (84.2%)Refused/unknown=16(15.8)Total=101(100%)

Not useful= 7 (7%)Slightlyuseful=12(12%)Useful=12(12%)Veryuseful=29(29%)Extremelyuseful=34(34%Totalresponse=94 (94%)Refused/unknown=6(6%)Total=100(100%)

Not useful =8 (14.8%)Slightlyuseful=9(16.7%)Useful=11(20.4%)Very useful=7(13%)Extremelyuseful=13(24.1%)Totalresponses=48 (88.9%)Refused/unknown=6(11.1%)Total=54(100%)





Q7. Ifthiseventwas a“paidfestivalhow muchWillingto payfor theentry?

Between £1-£5= 180(70.6%)Between £5-£10 = 9(3.5%)Between £10-£20 =1(0.4%)Not worth topay any fees= 32 (12.9%)Totalresponses =222 (87.1%)Refused/unknown=33(12.9%)Total=255(100%)

Between £1-£5=74 (73.3%)Between £5-£10 =3(3%)Between £10-£20 =1 (1%)Not worth topay any fees= 13 (12.9%)Totalresponse=91(90.1%)Refused/unknown=10(9.9%)Total=101(100%)

Between £1-£5 =70(70%)Between £5-£10 = 2(2%)Between£10-£20 = 0(0%)Not worthto pay anyfees=19(19%)Totalresponse=91 (91%)Refused/unknown = 9(9%)Total=100(100%)

Between £1-£5=36 (66.7%)Between £5-£10=4 (7.4%)Between £10-£20 =0 (0%)Not worth topay any fees= 0 (0%)Totalresponses=40 (74.1)Refused/unknown=14(25.9%)Total=54(100%)

Marketing

Q8. Howusefulfreegifts/freebiestoencourageattendees toattendthisfestival?

Notuseful=68(26.7%)Slightlyuseful = 34(13.3%)Useful=40(15.7%Very useful=41 (16.1%)Extremelyuseful=63(24.7%Totalresponses=246 (96.5%)Refused/unknown=9(3.5%)Total=255(100%)

Not useful =22 (21.8%)Slightlyuseful=9 (8.9%)Useful=18(17.8%)Veryuseful=15(14.9%)Extremelyuseful=32(31.7%)Totalresponse=96 (95%)Refused/unknown=5(5%)Total=101(100%)

Notuseful=40(40%)Slightlyuseful=20(20%)Useful=14(14%)Veryuseful=13(13%)Extremelyuseful=11(11%)Totalresponse= 98 (98%)Refused/unknown=2(2%)Total=100

Not useful=6(11.1%)Slightlyuseful=5 (9.3%)Useful=8(14.8%)Veryuseful=13(24.1%)Extremelyuseful=20(37%)Totalresponses= 52 (96.3%)Refused/unknown=2(3.7%)Total=54(100%)





Q9. Dofoodoptionsencourage you toattendthisevent?

Yes=181(71%)No=68(26.7%)Totalresponses=249 (97.6%)Refused/unknown=6(2.4%)Total=255(100%)

Yes=75(74.3%)No=25 (24.8%)Totalresponses=100 (99%)Refused/unknown=1(1%)Total= 101(100%)

Yes=75(75%)No=22 (22%)Totalresponses=97 (97%)Refused/unknown=3(3%)Total=100(100%)

Yes=31(57.4%)No=21 (38.9%)Totalresponses=52 (96.3)Refused/unknown=2(1.7%)Total=54(100%)

Satisfiers

Q10.What wasbestactivity

Table IX Table IX Table IX Table IX


Q11. Doyou feelsecureat thisfestivalenvironment

Not at all =1(0.4%)Slightlysecure =4(1.6%)Secure=23(9%)Verysecure=44(17.3%)Extremelysecure=183(71.8)Totalresponses =255 (100%)

Not at all =1(1%)Slightlysecure=1 (1%)Secure=8(7.9%)Verysecure=16(15.8%)Extremelysecure=75(74.3%)Totalresponse= 101(100 %)

Not at all=0 (0%)Slightlysecure = 1(1%)Secure=4(4%)Verysecure=19(19%)Extremelysecure=76(76%Totalresponse=100 (100%)

Not at all =0 (0%)Slightlysecure= 2 (3.7%)Secure=11(20.4%)Very secure =9(16.7%)Extremelysecure=32(59.3%)Totalresponses=54(100%)

Marketing

Q12.Wheredid youheardaboutthisevent?

Localnewspaper=24(9.4%)Socialmedia=21(8.2%)Friend (WOM)=99(38.8%)Leaflets=58(20.8%)Other=53(20.8%)

Localnewspaper=12(11.9%)Socialmedia=11(10.9%)Friend (WOM) = 37 (36.6%)Leaflets=19(18.8%)Other=22(21.8%)

Localnewspaper=2(2%)Socialmedia=5(5%)Friend(WOM)=50(50%)Leaflets=32(32%)Other=11

Localnewspaper=10(18.5%)Socialmedia=5(9.3%)Friend (WOM) =12 (22.2%)Leaflets = 7 (13%)Other=20(37%)




Totalresponses =255 (100%)

Totalresponse=101 (100%)

(11%)Totalresponse =100 (100%)

Totalresponses =54 (100%)


Q13. HowfriendlyServiceatfestival(staff)?

Not friendlyat all=3(1.2%)Slightlyfriendly=4(1.6%)Friendly=28(11%Veryfriendly=62 (24.3%)Extremelyfriendly=140(54.9)Totalresponses= 237(92.9%)Refused/unknown = 18(7.1%)Total=255(100%)

Not friendlyat all=1(1%)Slightlyfriendly=1(1%)Friendly=11(10.9)Veryfriendly=26 (25.7%)Extremelyfriendly=58(57.4%)Totalresponse=97 (96%)Refused/unknown=4(4%)Total=101(100%)

Notfriendly atall=0 (0)%Slightlyfriendly=1(1%)Friendly=10(1%Veryfriendly =25 (25%)Extremelyfriendly=51(51%)Totalresponse=87 (87%)Refused/unknown=13(13%)Total=100

Not friendlyat all=2(3.7%)SlightlyFriendly=2(3.7%)Friendly=7(13%)Veryfriendly=11 (20.4%)Extremelyfriendly=31(57.4%)Totalresponse= 53(98.1)Refused/unknown=1(1.9%)Total=54(100%)

Marketing

Q14. Doyou knoworganiser?

Yes=97(38%)No=158 (62%)Totalresponses= 255 (100%)

Yes=19(18.8%)No=82 (81.2%)Totalresponse=101 (100%)

Yes=34(34%)No=66(66%)Totalresponse=100 (100%)

Yes=44(81.5%)No=10 (18.5%)Totalresponses= 54 (100%)

Satisfiers

Q15.Overallenjoyment of theevent?

Veryunlikely= 1(0.4%)Unlikely=8(3.1%Enjoyed=45(17.6)Verylikely=114(44.7%)Extremelylikely=87(34

Veryunlikely=0(0%)Unlikely=4(4%)Enjoyed=21(20.8%)Verylikely=39(38.6%)Extremelylikely=37

Veryunlikely=0(0%)Unlikely=2(2%)Enjoyed=15(15%)Verylikely=52(52%)Extremelylikely=31(3

Veryunlikely=1(1.9%)Unlikely=2(3.7%)Enjoyed=9 (16.7%)Verylikely=23(42.6%)Extremelylikely=19




.1%)Totalresponses=255 (100%)

(36.6%)Totalresponses= 101 (100%)

1%)Totalresponses=100 (100%)

(35.2%)Totalresponses=54(100%)

Satisfiers

Q16Suggestions

Table X Table X Table X Table X

4.2 Discussion of Community Festivals Research Data–South East London 2014

Plumstead Make Merry Brockley Society Great Get Together




Mid-Summer Fayre Armed

Forced Day

Q1. Discussion – Age

At the three festivals the highest number of responder’s

age group was 29-39 years old. The lowest amount of

responder’s age group was over 60 years old. The

Brockley Mid-Summer Fayre responders were represented by

the older age groups than the PMM festivals. The other

significance of the GGT result was demonstrated by “18-

28 years old” attendees and “overall satisfaction” is

correlated, 18-28 years old were less overall satisfy

than any other age groups (0.05 < .276)

In the aforementioned literature, some of the authors

segmented attendees’ with their age groups (Li et al.,

2009; Lee and Kyle, 2014; Yoon et al., 2010; Kim et al.,




2010). Kim et al., (2010), Yoon et al., (2010), Lee and

Kyle (2014), indicated importance of segmenting

attendees for the future events satisfaction, associated

to the authors’ findings, except Kim et al., the PMM

responders represent younger population than the

authors, and older attendees profile than the Kim et

al.,(2010). Segmenting age groups provides advantages to

the organisers for future events for activities related

to the age variants.

Q2. Are you resident?

In total (60.8%) 155 festival goers were Borough

Residents and (39.2%) 100 festival goers were not

residents. Only at the GGT festival dominant number

(55.6%) of responders were out of the location. However,

the GGT hosted 30,000 and it represented Greenwich

Borough residents. Furthermore, at this study the most

significant finding evolved as a correlation between

“being resident” and “overall enjoyment” (.165>0.01).

Simultaneously, Delamera (2001) research identified

resident attitudes, positive expectancy and positive

importance for the community benefit from festivals.

Nonetheless, target markets are typically segmented with

basic descriptions; gender, geography, age, and

frequency of visit according to Dwyer et al., (2013).




Q3. Have you attended previously?

In total of the three community festivals 62% festival

goers’ attended festivals on previous years. Some of the

attendees did not respond this questions, as a reasons

they posed they were not sure if they attended the

festival or different festival at the same venue.

However, the SPSS correlation analysis found significant

for the three festivals between; “revisit” and “overall

satisfaction” (-.185> 0.01). Moreover, Huang et al.,

(2010: 257) posed repeated visitors enjoyed more than

the first time visitors. Cronin et al., (2000) verified

satisfied customers expected to revisit again the event.

This finding supports the author’s findings.

Simultaneously, Kim et al., (2010) emphasise quality

service and valuable experiences one of the factors to

repeat the same experience. Nonetheless, Woodruff (1997)

highlighted past and the present experiences for the

value of the event.

Q4. Do you think festival is a way to support your

community?




92.2% attendees responded in total of three festivals

and 98.7% festival goers’ responses demonstrated

festival is a way to support their community. Moreover,

the SPSS correlation found significant with this

question and overall enjoyment (-.157 > 0.05). Attendees

attend festivals for different reasons and they found

something to attract them. However, communities exist

within multi-ethnics groups in London. While three

hundred different languages are spoken in London, and

people describe their ethnicity and religion different

from each other (London councils, 2014), it is very

important to get response for “event is a way to support

your community”. The result supported the literature,

Gursoy et al., (2004) and Turner (1982) posed at the

festival attendees’ celebrated their society identities.

Nonetheless, Jamieson (2006), Derret (2003) and Delamere

(2001) among the many other authors described community

festivals as bridges to build for improve cohesion

between residents.

Q5. Meeting new people?

The BSMSF “overall satisfaction” has a significant

relationship that “the festival was useful to meet new

friends”. Li et al., (2009) explored socialization as




one of the motivational factors to attend the community

festivals.

Q6. See old friends?

89% attendees did respond this question, when the

researcher asked “why not responded this question?

Responders explained reasons as a recently moved to the

area or not leaving in the area. However, attendees’

responses demonstrated majority of the festival goers

found community festivals “extremely useful to see old

friend”. Also correlation found significance between

“how useful are community events for you to meet old

friend”, “overall enjoyment” (0.05<.146), “friendly

service at the festival by organisers” (0.05 <.158). Lee

et al., (2008) emphasized the consumer’s satisfaction is

psychological state. The attendees found useful the

festival to meet new people and meet old friends

Q7. Willingness to pay

222 responders out of 255 responded this question, 81.1%

responders willing to pay between £1-£5 and have least

responses from festival goers. Many responders who did

not respond to this question, argued “community events

need to be free”. One of the festival goers at the PMM

stated for this question “that shouldn’t be paid, children have




opportunity to entertain themselves if we need to pay this is discrimination

of the kids. This is for common”. One of the other responder’s at

the GGT posed “Don’t charge for the entry, as people can come here

gather all the information, they need for so many aspects of their lives and

their family’s life. This event is so valuable to the residents of Greenwich”.

This statement demonstrated the festival is a place to

network (Jepson et al., 2008). Moreover, Lee and Kyle

(2014) simultaneously, indicated community festivals are

an approach to improve identification. On the other

hand, Lyon (2000) defined; free events are more popular

than paid events.

Q8. Do freebies encourage attending?

The SPSS correlation found is significant, between this

question and variables of; “overall enjoyment”

(.226>0.01), “friendly service at the festival” (.172>

0.01), and “being resident” (.150 >0.05). At this

question the differences between perceptions of two

locations emerged, 33.3% at the PMM and 37% of the GGT

attendees found “freebies extremely useful to encourage

attendees to attend festival”. Conversely 40% of the

BSMSF attendees found not useful at all. The main

demographic differences between the PMM and the BSMSF

were age and education level. The BSMSF attendees were

older than the PMM attendees’. Moreover, at the




literature, young visitors feel that they do not relate

to the organisation institutions (Mason and McCarty,

2006). The other important difference between the RBG

and the Lewisham Borough which was the researcher did

not asked festival goers at the survey but identified at

London’s Poverty Profile was education level. The

Greenwich is included in “the worst four Boroughs” in

low education attainment in London and Lewisham Borough

is listed in the “next 8 boroughs” in the same category.

Between two regions there is a salient education

differences. Segmenting attendees is major scale to

understand attendees’ perceptions and attitudes (Lee and

Kyle, 2014; Yoon et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010).

Q9. Do food options encourage you to attend?

249 attendees respond (97.6%) and 72.7 % responded

attendees found food options encourage them to attend

festival. Kim et al., (2010) discussed about the

importance of food quality and program content.

Furthermore, Lee et al., (2007) and Yoon et al., (2010)

stated is crucial to provide appropriate program

souvenir, food and facilities which leads to

satisfaction and loyalty.




Q10. What was the most enjoyed activities?

Five dimensions were analysed as most enjoyed activities

at the three community festivals, below table

demonstrates the results;

ENTERTAINMENT CHILDREN

ACTIVITIES

STALLS FOOD &

DRINK

OPTIONS

SOCIALISING

Plumstead

Make Merry

36 24 8 10 5

Brockley

Society

Mid-Summer

Fayre

26 11 18 19 8

Great Get

Together

and Armed

Forced Day

21 11 8 None 8

Total (the

figures

show how

many times

attendees’

mentioned)

83 46 34 29 21

The entertainments were described as most enjoyed

activities the attendees mentioned this 83 times,

followed by children activities, stalls, food and drink

options and socialising (Detailed reflected at appendix

on Table I, III and V).




Children activities were more popular at the PMM than

other two festivals. During the interview organiser

confirmed the PMM is for mainly families. Moreover,

adequate parks are environmental educators for children

(Hart, 1997).

Stalls options found more enjoyed activities at the

BSMSF than the other two festivals. The organiser

confirmed 160 stall owners hired from organisation at

the BSMSF. These findings support MacLaran et al.,

(1999:304) “target audience may aspire through

consumption of a particular product or service”. Food

and Drink options were other dimension that festival

goers identified. However, one of the interesting points

evolved at this question, none of the responders enjoyed

food and drink at the GGT festival whereas other two

festival goers enjoyed the food and drink options.

Conversely, Food and drink is identified as an

improvement suggestion which this research discusses in

the last question recommendations and suggestions.

Socialising was another dimension that festival goers

identified at the three festivals. Small (2007) findings

analysed six dimensions of the social impacts. At this

study the attendee’s responses indicated similarities

with Small (2007) discoveries with the entertainment and

socialising results. Prentice and Anderson (2003)




defined, the attendees’ most popular reason to attend

festival was socialising. However, most popular reason

opposes to Prentice and Anderson was the Entertainments

in this study. One of the other point, emerged at this

study people recognized community festivals as a stage

to represent their community identity and values (Jepson

et al., 2008; Turner, 1982; Gursoy et al., 2004; Wood,

2005; Dalemera, 2001).

Q11.Do you feel secure at this festival environment?

Over 80% responders felt very secure and extremely

secure to the three observed community festivals. Dwyer

et al., (2000) emphasized environmental negative factors

such as overcrowding, crime, vandalism, resident

lifestyle. Conversely, the authors finding, none of the

festival goers identified any environmental security

difficulties.

Q12. How you heard?

At the two festivals, responders mainly heard about the

festival from their families and friends (WOM),

moreover, social media option was answered by the least

number of responses. At the GGT, most popular answer was




an option was not offered. However, at the GGT, the BBC

was one of the festival’s sponsors. Considering number

of people (30,000) that attended and while other two

festivals attendees’ suggested better marketing, at GGT

responders made few comments about improvement in

suggestions. The RBG did use marketing instruments on

wide variety of population, all primary schools, all

houses in Greenwich and so on. Mayfield and Crompton

(1995: 37) defined “use of instruments is likely to lead

to better targeting of programs and better matching of

programs to the needs of particular clienteles”. The

resulting suggestion is not different than the previous

studies, many festival goers are informed by their

friends or families of the festival (Lee and Kyle 2014;

Grunwell et al., 2008).

Q13. How friendly is it service at festival (staff)?

The attendees responses result for this question

indicated organisers at the three community festivals

were extremely friendly (descriptive statistic mean 4.43

out of 5). Even attendees not aware who organised the

festival, they found organisers “extremely friendly”.

Moreover, Pearson correlation defined significant

relation between this question and “overall




satisfaction” (0.01< .312). This finding support Kim et

al., (2010) research; perceived value leads to

satisfaction.

Q14. Do you know who the organiser is?

One of the other questions that identified marketing

factor was this question. At the PMM and the BSMSF more

than 60% attendees do not know who had organised the

events, while PMM celebrate 39th and BSMSF 40th years in

2014, this was showing paucity of the marketing

Conversely the GGT attendees’ knew who the organisers

were. Smith and Roy (2011) emphasized, organisation

culture play a substantial role for customer

satisfaction and customer loyalty. Furthermore, the

authors defined organisation culture is one of the

factors that motivate attendees to attend. Within this

point this research finding does not support the

author’s findings, because all three festivals

attendees’ overall enjoyment was very similar. The bias

emerged at this point between capacities of the

different festival organisations. One of the other

limitations of this study while all events aims were

similar, each festivals potential was different for

comparing. Interestingly at the PMM many festival goers’




answered this question as RBG, while organiser was a

non-profit organisation.

Q15. Overall enjoyment

Nonetheless, the variety of services is not an indicator

for the attendee’s positive satisfaction. The SPSS,

descriptive statistics mean value for the overall

satisfactions were;

Plumstead Make Merry; 4.08 (out of 5),

Brockley Hilly Field; 4.12 (out of five),

Great Get Together Armed Forced Day; 4.06 (out of 5)

During survey many attendees’ not responded to the

questions of “how much would you be willing to pay for

entry if this event was paid festival?” One responder

stated “community festival is for the community and it should be free for

the community member” at the PMM and others responded

similarly as aforementioned. These responses are showing

the value of the events for the residents and these

festivals responders represented feeling that community

has a superior impact on loyalty intensions as Drengner

et al., (2012) modelled.

At the annually repeated community festivals, attendees

feel, event is a part of their own community. Reid

(2007:89) defined; “the event provides the opportunity to bring




people together within a social environment to celebrate their achievements;

thus, events are integral for individuals as well as communities as a whole”

Most mentioned recommendations and suggestions

Multi-

cultural

Food &

Drink

options

Entertainm

ent

Stal

ls

Childre

n

activit

ies

Monetary

request

Environmenta

l issues

Marketin

g

Plumste

ad Make

Merry

19 20 22 10 13 7 8

Brockle

y

Society

Mid-

Summer

Fayre

21 11 5 9 6 5 3

Great

Get

Togethe

r and

Armed

Forced

Day

7 2 1 2 1 - 1

Total 47 33 28 21 19 12 12

(details reflected at appendix table II, IV, VI);

Most improvement suggestions were for the more varieties

of food and drink options; followed by the

entertainments, the third made for more variety of

stalls, following dimension identified by festival goers

was improved children activities and safe guarding

issues. Following suggestions and recommendations were




for the monetary requests included free rides tickets

for the children, reducing cost of the foods and

activities. Next suggestion and recommendation were for

marketing include better advertising and environmental

issues these include more toilets, more bins and

environmental cutlery request where food and drink were

sold. Other comments were excluded from any

classifications which were more volunteers requested,

renaming the festival, better public transport to the

venue and so on.

Attendees’ survey analysed impacts of attendees’

demographic structure, perceptions, and attitudes on the

attendees’ satisfaction. However, more research is

needed to understand improvement of community festivals

on attendees’ responses.

4.2.1 Greenwich PARKSFest (Hornfair Park and Eltham Park

South)




Hornfair Park Eltham Park South

The attendee’s satisfaction survey did not conducted at

the Hornfair Park and the Eltham Park South. These two

festivals were part of Greenwich PARKSFest. The

Researcher observed these two semi-independent community

festivals and interviewed the organiser. (Details are in

appendices table IX).




4.3 Organisers Challenges and Capacity DataThis study conducted interviews with the organisers to

identified organisations committee aims, experiences,

challenges and the capacities. Two volunteer independent

community festivals organisers were interviewed, one

semi-independent volunteer organiser was interviewed and

the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) Deputy Head of

Council was interviewed for recognized the political

aspects in the community festivals.

ISSUES;

Volunteer “A”

independent

organizers

at Greenwich

Borough

Volunteer “B”

independent

organizers

At Lewisham

Borough

Semi-

independent

Volunteer

organizers

Local

authority

Feedback from

attendees

n/a n/a Questionnaire

or/and verbally

feedback taken

Random

attendees

questionnaire

Segmenting

attendees

n/a n/a yes n/a

Variety of

activities

Sufficient Yes but there

is always room

for improvement

Yes Yes

Involvement

opportunity

at the

management

committee

Always

publicized for

volunteers and

people for the

management

committee

Always

publicized for

volunteers

They need to be

member of

another

organisation*

N/A




Providing

freebies

No No Yes Yes

Financial

support

No Organisation

arranged

sponsors

Government

funding

N/A

No. of

attendees

7000 3,000 250 30,000

Organisation

structure

Non-profit

volunteer

organisation

Charity Charity Local authority

Number of

people in the

mgmnt

committee

7 7 6 6

Security

arrangements

Volunteers Volunteers Volunteers Paid staff

Any incident

history

Not recorded Not recorded Not recorded Not recorded

Marketing Local newspaper

Posters,

Leaflets,

Social media

(facebook,

twitter, web-

sites)

Local newspaper

Posters

Leaflets

Twitter

Web blog

Emails

Organisation

newspaper

Venue promotes

events

celebrated

there

Big banner

Local newspaper

Posters

Leaflets

Web pages

Social media

Local

newspapers

Posters

BBC TV& Radio

Big banner at

several

location

Leaflets to all

primary schools

All council

services

Community

centres

Social media




(twitter)

History of

the event

Celebrate 39th

years in 2014

Celebrate 40th

year in 2014

Celebrate 6th

year in 2014

n/a

Education of

the committee

Under graduate

not related

with event

industry

Some of the

members

educated on

event

management

Some of the

members

educated on

event

N/A

Committee

experiences

Only organiser

has experience

Some members

are

experienced

Yes some

members

experienced

Actively

working on

event

management

Training

opportunities

n/a

insufficient

budget for the

training

expenses

n/a Local authority

provide

necessary

training

They are

receiving

relevant

training

Number of the

volunteers at

the event

25 50 50 -

Venue for

committee

meeting

n/a n/a Charlton House Local body

Communication

between

committee

member

Easily, some of

the members

meeting in

their social

life

Easily, some of

the members

meeting in

their social

life

Easily, some of

the members

meeting in

their social

life

n/a

Main problems

before,

during and

after the

Finance,

licence

requirements,

recruiting

staff, in

Legal issues,

event notice,

first aid,

inform police

etc., retaining

Communication

problems,

retaining

volunteers

Retaining

volunteers




event sufficient

support from

local authority

volunteers

Aspects for

Food

varieties

Very important Very important Important

(however some

organisers do

not allow food

seller at the

festivals)

Extremely

important

Motivation

factor

Motivated by

success of the

event

Every volunteer

self-motivated

Motivated by

success

n/a

How long

event is

running by

same

organiser

7 years 4 years 6 Years n/a

How long you

are in the

management

committee

7 years 18 years 6 years n/a

How you cover

your expenses

Income from

stalls, café

and donations

Stalls

Sponsors

Council funding n/a

Aims of the

festivals

Something to

keep community

spirit alive

Strengthening

the community,

giving to self-

awareness,

getting to know

your neighbours

Raising

awareness,

getting know

your

neighbourhood.

Promote

services, crate

cohesion

between

resident, build

a bridge

between gaps(*Because of the confidentiality organisation name is not shown)




Every organiser answered the questions of “What is

community festival definition for you?”

The volunteer independent organisation A answered;

“Something the gives people in the community and opportunity together, in

one place to enjoy the same things and experiences at the same time and a

kind of being as one”. Wood (2005), Gursoy et al., (2004),

Dalemera (2001), Turner (1982) also defined as

aforementioned, community festivals are a stage to

improve society bonds.

The Volunteer independent organisation “B” answered; “one

that involves the community where the community fells they have an inputs

in to it and they have some ownership but they feel it belongs to them. It

does have so much involvement of local people somebody isn’t doing it for

you also do in it or also you can doing it.” Jamieson (2006) also

pointed community festivals need to be under control of

the local residents.

The semi-independent volunteer organisation answered;

“local events run by local people for local community”

The Local authority answered; “it varies to each individual

organisation, it is about supporting diversity, it is about encouraging people

to share with each other their own cultural offer so cultural events bring a

great sense of community, a great sense of participation which helps to build

strong community” Moreover, interviewee added local council

responsible for well-being of the society and facilitate




festivals for promoting local activities. This

definition is similar with the definition of Arcodia and

Whitford (2007), Wood 2005, Mayfield and Crompton

(1995).

4.3.1 Discussion of Findings Festival Organiser “A”

During the interview the volunteer’s passion emerged for

running the festival, the organisation committee put

their own money in order to run an annual festival in

2014, Kim et al., (2010) discoveries embedded with

importance of local resident’s passions for running the

event. However, at the literature volunteers definitions

such as “a volunteer is a person who, on a regular

basis, contributes his or her time and energy”. (Du

Boulay 1996: 4) are not sufficient to describe committee

members commitment for this volunteer committee. In

contrast, to committee member’s passion for the event,

for participating at the committee, the members do not

need to have qualifications, skills or experiences in

the event industry as organisers indicated, and Stebbins

(1996) posed at the literature.

The Organiser “A”, located at the Greenwich Borough and

steering the festival committee since 2007. The

organiser posed she is the only one in the management




committee present since 2007. Jepson et al., (2008)

posed negative impacts of festivals who are steering by

the same organisers over the years and the authors

emphases developing hegemony of the organisers after

running event long term. The organiser “A” describes

financial constraints as an organisation main

constraint, which is reflecting to entertainments,

marketing and recruiting. At the literature Lee and Kyle

(2014) and Getz (2002), were identified tight budgets

and lack of marketing as common constraints for the

community festivals. Moreover, Clarke and Jepson (2011)

indicated relation between hegemony of the steering

committee and limited resources. Nonetheless, the

organiser stated difficulties to reach other ethnic

groups. The Clarke and Jepson (2011) posed consultation

language is English and that is not conducive to new

non-English speakers to support the organisation.

4.3.2 Discussion of Findings Festival Organiser “B”

The volunteer organiser “B” described legal procedures

as a main problem as the organisation challenged. The

organiser stated, “This is becoming greater problem if one organiser

deals with everything” and furthermore, the organiser “B”

stated one person dealt with everything on previous




years. Moreover, Department for Business Innovation &

Skills (Gov.uk, 2014) defined there is no department in

Government leading and responsible for volunteer

events, this site posed, the organisers need to review

the local authorities rules and regulations for

organising volunteer events. The site added, “The value of

volunteers is in Government big society agenda”. This statement

shows the gaps at the legislation for event organisation

and volunteer involvements. The question “are volunteers

receiving any training or not? The organiser’s response

was “we throw them into the deep end and gain the experience”. The

following question identified the importance of training

as Brennan (2007) stated. “Have you experienced any

accident, injuries, and fights during the event?” and

the response was “No. We never had any serious problems, one day

something will happen, but it is never happened yet”. As Brennan

(2007) and Earl et al., (2005) stated, the volunteers

need support to enable them to be active community

leaders to increase the capacity and quality of the

event. Also, the organiser was reassured about how

committee will react if any unexpected incident happens.

This statement supported Downward and Ralston (2005)

research result; training increase confidence vice versa

if training is insufficient there is a decrease

confidence.




4.3.3 Findings, the Semi-independent Volunteer Organiser

The events are run by volunteers, the volunteers have

complete control over the festivals programme; however,

the festivals are funded by the council and the same

person has been leading the committee since the festival

started. At these festivals, organisers are aware of the

importance of measuring attendee’s satisfaction at the

literature Yoon et al., (2010); Lee and Kyle (2014); Li

et al., (2009); Getz (2008); Wood (2005), were

emphasises benefits of measuring attendees satisfaction.

One of the other interesting findings was; the

organiser, who leads the committee, published a book

(appendix table IX) about the venue where the one of the

festival is held. This is shows passion of the volunteer

and emotional connection to the work.

4.3.4 Findings, Community Festival Run by Council

For the community festivals interview, the researcher

contacted event team of the RBG, the event team decided

to not take part in this study. However, the Deputy Head

of RBG kindly agreed to take part and answer questions

in this study. Moreover, this interview allows readers




to understand political perspectives of the community

festivals as well as social perspectives. This study

clearly shows the impacts of each festival are variable

as Wood (2009) and Huang et al., (2010) stated, and also

Mayfield and Crompton (1995) identified different

purposes of the festivals and the authors posed that

local authorities organised events help create consensus

between the residents and increase wellbeing.

Nonetheless, at the literature Wood (2005) explored

local bodies facilitated from festivals to reach several

economic and social objectives.

4.4 Discussion of the all festivals included in this

study

This study result shows there is no straight relation

between attendee’s satisfaction and the organiser

challenges. Retaining volunteers is a common constraint

at community festivals, the organisers constraints were

diverse and depended to the structure of the organiser

committee and capacities. Moreover, there is no

significant impact between who organised the festival

and the attendees overall satisfaction.

Two of the independent volunteer management organisers

indicated constraints for the legal requirement. In this




study the independent volunteer festival organisers did

not receive financial and non-mandatory support in local

councils. However, the main reason behind this is it was

evolved as a legal requirement to apply for funding. The

local council is investing the community funds and

resources for the existing cultural community festivals

and new community festivals by providing relevant

documents. The Local authorities should find a way to

invest financially and non-monetary the existing

annually celebrating festivals which gained value by

recognition of the attendees, to empower community and

volunteers. One of the main reason for this suggestion

is marketing cost more for the new or unrecognized

community festivals than the existing celebrating

festivals (Bilgili et al., 2012), Additionally, in the

literature Wood (2005) stated, funds are available for

running these events. However, there are requirement to

apply funding (The London Community Foundation, 2014)

and if the organisers not gathered relevant document

they are not able to apply available funds which they

are entitled.

Getz (2008) stated running events required many

different skills and moreover, Jepson et al., (2008)

posed, successful events are consequences of

organisation, networking and management. With the




financial and non-mandatory support the volunteers are

able to access information and provide better

organisation, management and marketing. If the event is

for community, community should be part of steering

groups, however, not independently. Otherwise, the

community festivals do not represent dominant social

groups and festivals become mono-ethnic celebrations as

Jepson et al., (2008) indicated. As Jamieson stated,

structure does not work “top down” management approach,

the volunteer festival organisers need to support by top

management of local authority and run by community.

The volunteer independent organising committee struggle

to find a venue to meet on a regular basis. At both

independent community festivals organiser’s interviews,

the organisers addressed their own home for the meeting

point with the committee or they used online

communication by emails (Brockley Mid-Summer Fayre) or

through the Skype (Plumstead). During the interviews

both independent volunteer organisers clarify,

organising committee has no legal building to arrange

their meeting and follow ups. Volunteer committees need

a venue for improve or increasing their capacity as

Brennan (2007) stated.




5.0 CONCLUSION

One of the growing industries in London is Festival

industry, and there are different organisations which

organise Community Festivals. However, the different

structure of the steering committee is challenging to

the different constraints those are related to

management, marketing, experiences, finance capacities.

As this particular research, impacts on the organisation

challenges on attendees overall satisfaction is tested

and any impacts did not found at the local community

festivals in South East London.

5.1 Review of the Study Aims and Objectives

The main aims of this study were to analyse the impacts

of the organization challenges on attendee’s




satisfaction at local community festivals. Moreover this

studies objective was set by,

To determine that the differences of the aims at the

community festivals depended on organisations; the aims

are variable depending on organizers. However, common

aims of the community festivals are to create cohesion,

bring residents to one place and giving opportunity to

share the same experiences. The volunteer’s organizers’

main aims are to create positive social impacts for the

community. Moreover, the local authorities organise this

type of event to promote their services, improve health

and wellbeing of the residents and create positive

social impacts.

To investigate volunteer management constraints and

capacities; volunteer management constraints are mainly

related to retaining volunteers, legal issues, funding

and follow-up procedures. Moreover, the volunteer

organisers are limited to expand their capacity because

of not having enough support and existing legislations

is not clear about volunteers and supports.

To analyses factors of the attendee’s satisfaction at

the community festivals; to improve future community

festivals, analyse the success of the festivals and

understand attendees’ behaviour, measure the attendees’




satisfaction are major key points. This study finding

demonstrated; the attendees satisfaction is not

correlated with the organizers constraints. The

attendees overall enjoyment related with demographic

structure (age, revisit, being resident and education).

Also this study identified; entertainment, children

activities, food & drink options, socialising,

information and selling stalls as most enjoyed

activities at the festivals. Moreover, attendee’s

improvement recommendations were on most issues as

aforementioned at most enjoyed activities, except

socialising.

To predict future improvement for the attendees

satisfaction; the results demonstrated attendees

expectations at the community festivals related with

attendees demographic structure. The study would be used

as a reference for improvement of attendees’

satisfaction through segmentation of attendees’ and

improvement suggestions, comments and also most enjoyed

activities..

To determine the organisers improvement concerns for the

future community festivals; the community festivals

organisers’ interviews captured the organisers’

limitations, this study can be utilised for the

development of the organisers’ aims.




5.2 Key findings

Major findings were organisations constraints is not

reflecting attendee’s satisfaction. Many of the festival

goers were not sure who organized festival even for the

festivals celebrated 39th and 40th years in 2014. As this

study finding shows there was no significant difference

for the attendee’s satisfaction between different two

locations and no significant differences between those

run by volunteer and the local authority for the

attendee’s satisfaction. However, demographic

differences were identified as a factor for the

attendees’ satisfaction. The overall finding provides

information for the community festivals stakeholders

about managerial constraints, capacities and attendees

satisfaction. The festival goer’s satisfaction survey

identified; entertainment, children activities, food &

drink options, information and selling stalls and

socializing as a most enjoyed activities during the

event. In contrast, the most improvement suggestions

made were for the food & drink, entertainment, children

activities and stalls. However, three different

dimensions; environmental concerns, monetary request and

marketing suggestions emerged at this part with the

attendees comments.




The volunteer organisers have constraints mainly on

funding, recruiting volunteers, legal requirements,

marketing, training, venue for meeting and inefficient

support from the local authority for legal procedures

and monetary supports. The volunteers’ need more support

to improve organisations capacities. However, there are

some gaps for the volunteer community festivals in the

legislations which are not embedded organisers needs,

such as between, expected legal requirement for

volunteers by local authorities to apply funding and

organisations’ capacities.

5.3 Key Conclusions and Recommendations

The physical events are the tools to bring residents

together, and building community spirit, without this

type of event it is difficult to build up community

cohesion. The organisers depend on the structure of the

steering committee to organise these events. The common

aim is community togetherness, there were different

purposes between the organisers; such as local authority

organised community festivals for community togetherness

and to promote services and differences on organisers

capacities related with organisations. Nevertheless, the

attendees’ satisfaction does not rely on organiser’s

constraints. The community festivals attendees’




expectations were associated with the attendees’

demographic structure and the entertainer, children

activities, food & drink quality, stalls and socialising

in this study. However, the attendees’ expectations at

the community festivals need to be the scope of future

research.

5.4 Recommendation for future research

The communities flourish with people who care about

others in their community (McDermott, 2000). The

volunteer community festival organisers’ inputs for the

community cohesion are invaluable. All the festivals

management committees which were included this study

have at least one member from the event industry.

However, even committee’s with the members from event

industry have many constraints and furthermore, there is

no legislation for the community festival organizers and

if amateurs run these events this is often too risky for

reaching the event goals (Getz, 2008).

The questions which were discovered whilst doing this

study for future research are;

“Is local authority putting under risk attendees with giving permission to

volunteers to organize events without training and support them?”




“As volunteer festivals organiser’s capacity limited to apply for funding?”

either;

“Are independent volunteers receiving value from local government which is

value for creating cohesion with their skills, knowledge, time and sometimes

with their own money?”

“Are community festivals reflecting the multi-cultural communities or

cultures of the steering groups?”

This study finding could be used as references to

improve organizers capacity and attendees’ satisfaction

and identify organisations aims at the local community

festivals. However, this research reflected results of

the surveyed attendees at the particular community

festivals and the interviewed community festivals

organisers’ assignee’s in South East London. The study

finding has some similarities with the existing

literature with this scope. This study with the above

questions revealed necessity of in depth research for

the attendees’ satisfaction and organizers constraints.




CHAPTER VI6.0 REFERENCES

Aitchison, C. and Pritchard, A. 2007. Festivals and events.

Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association. P. 9

Allen, J., O'Toole, W., Harris, R. and McDonnel, I.

(2008). Festival and Special Event Management. 4th ed.

Australia: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 14-283




Arcodia, C. and Whitford, M. (2006). Festival Attendance

and the Development of Social Capital. Journal of Convention &

Event Tourism, 8(2), pp.1-18.

Baum, T. and Lockstone, L. (2007). Volunteers and mega

sporting events developing a research framework.

International Journal of Event Management Research, 3(1), pp.29--

41.

Bbc.co.uk, (2014). BBC - BBC’s World War One At Home Tour comes to

Woolwich - Media centre. (online) Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/ww1-

woolwich (Accessed 01 Aug. 2014).

Bell, J. 2010. Doing Your Research Project. Maidenhead: McGraw-

Hill Open University Press.

Berg, B. L. 2007. Qualitative research methods for the social

sciences. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. pp 2-3

Bilgili, B., Yagmur, O. and Yazarkan, H. (2012). A

research on the efficiency and productivity of festivals

as a Touristic Product (Sample of Erzurum-Oltu Kirdag

festival). International Journal of Social and Economic Sciences,

2(2), pp.117-124.

Bradford Telegraph and Argus, (2014). Pictured: 30,000 people

visit Woolwich for Armed Forces Day celebration. (online) Available

at:

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11309373.PICT




URED__30_000_people_visit_Woolwich_for_Armed_Forces_Day_

celebration/ (Accessed 11 Aug. 2014).

Brennan, M. (2007). Placing volunteers at the center of

community development. International Journal of Volunteer

Administration, 24(4), pp.5--13.

Brotherton, B. (2008) Researching Hospitality and Tourism A Student

Guide. London: Sage

Buchanan, T. (1985). Commitment and leisure behaviour: A

theoretical Perspective. Leisure Sciences, 7(4), pp.401-402

Buckingham, A. and Saunders, P. (2004). The Survey Methods

Workbook. Cambridge, UK: Polity, pp 7-187

Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2004). Essential guide to qualitative

methods in organizational research. 1st ed. London: SAGE

Publications.

Clarke, A. and Jepson, A. (2011). Power and hegemony

within a community festival. International Journal of Event and

Festival Management, 2(1), pp.7--19.

Cleave, S. and Doherty, A. (2005). Understanding

volunteer and non-volunteer constraints: A mixed-method

approach. 11th Canadian Congress on Leisure Research.

Colerainebc.gov.uk, (2014). - CBC. (online) Available at:

http://www.colerainebc.gov.uk/show.php [Accessed 08 Aug.

2014].




Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design. Thousand Oaks,

California. Sage Publicationss.

Crompton, J. (2003). Adapting Herzberg: A

conceptualization of the effects of hygiene and

motivator attributes on perceptions of event quality.

Journal of Travel Research, 41(3), pp.305--310.

Cronin, J.J. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M (2000),

“Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer

satisfaction on customer behavioral intentions in

service environments”, Journal of Retailing pp.194-200

Data.london.gov.uk, (2014). London Borough Profiles | London

DataStore. (online) Available at:

http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-

borough-profiles (Accessed 02 Aug. 2014)

Dcalni.gov.uk, (2014). (online) Available at:

http://dcalni.gov.uk/index/arts_and_creativity/community

_festivals_fund_revised_policy_document (Accessed 10

Aug. 2014).

Delamere, A. T. (2001). Development of a scale to

measure resident attitudes towards the social impacts of

community festivals, part II: verification of the scale.

Events Management, 7 pp. 25-38.

Delamere, T., Wankel, L. and Hinch, T. (2001).

Development of a Scale to Measure Resident Attitudes




Towards the Social Impacts of Community Festivals, Part

I: Item Generation and Purification of the Measure. Event

Management, 7, pp.11-24.

Design.iastate.edu. (2014). Cultural and Community Events.

[online] Available at:

http://www.design.iastate.edu/NAB/about/thinkingskills/c

ultural_context/cultural_community.html (Accessed: 2

July 2014).

Derrett, R. (2003). Making sense of how festivals

demonstrate a Community’s Sense of Place. Event

management, 8, pp.49-58.

Derrett, R. (2005). Why do regional community cultural

festivals survive?. School of Tourism and Hospitality Management

Papers, p.298

Dewhurst, F. (2006). Quantitative Methods for Business and

Management. London: McGraw-Hill Education, pp 3 and pp

87-90.

Downward, P. and Ralston, R. (2005). Volunteer

motivation and expectations prior to the XV Commonwealth

Games in Manchester, UK. Tourism and Hospitality Planning \&

Development, 2(1), pp.17--26.

Drengner, J., Jahn, S. and Gaus, H. (2012). Creating

Loyalty in Collective Hedonic Services: The Role of




Satisfaction and Psychological Sense of Community.

Schmalenbach Business Review, 64, pp.59--76.

Du Boulay, C. (1996). What does it take to manage

volunteers? Australian Journal on Volunteering, 1(2), p.4

Dwyer, B., Drayer, J. and Shapiro, S. (2013). Proceed to

Chekout? The Impact of Time in Advanced Ticket Purchase

Decision. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22(3), pp.166-180.

Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N., and Mules, T

(2000). Forecasting the economic impacts of events and

conventions. Event management, 6, 191-204

Earl, C., Parker, E., Edwards, M. and Capra, M. (2005).

Volunteers in public management at outdoor music

festivals (part2): A European study. The Australian Journal of

Emergency Management, 20(1).

Gallup, I. (2008). Worldwide, Residents of Richer Nations More

Satisfied. (online) Gallup.com. Available at:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104608/Worldwide-Residents-

Richer-Nations-More-Satisfied.aspx (Accessed 10 Aug.

2014).

Getz, D., (1993). Corporate Culture in Not Profit

Festival Organizations: Concept and Potential Applications in

Festival and Event Tourism vol.1 pp. 11-17




Getz, D. (1997). Event management and event tourism. New York:

Cognizant Communication

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

research. Tourism management, 29(3), pp.403--428.

Getz, D. (2002). “Why Festivals Fail”. Event Management, 7

(4): 29-19.

Gov.uk. 2014. Organizing a voluntary event: a 'Can do' guide -

GOV.UK. (online) Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/can-do-guide-

for-organisers-of-voluntary-events/the-can-do-guide-to-

organising-and-running-voluntary-and-community-events

(Accessed: 24 July 2014).

Gov.uk. (2011). Community Budgets - Publications - GOV.UK.

(online) Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-

budgets (Accessed: 17 Feb 2014).

Gov.uk, (2014). Volunteer placements, rights and expenses - GOV.UK.


https://www.gov.uk/volunteering/pay-and-expenses

(Accessed 08 Aug. 2014).

Gov.uk, (2014). About - Department for Business, Innovation & Skills -

GOV.UK. (online) Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-




for-business-innovation-skills/about (Accessed 02 Aug.

2014).

Greenwich.searchimprove.com, (2014). Search for “great get

together” - Result no. 1 to 10 - Royal Borough of Greenwich. (online)

Available at:

http://greenwich.searchimprove.com/search.aspx?

pckid=1775682130&aid=5164167&sw=great+get+together

(Accessed 01 August 2014).

Grunwell, S., Ha, I. and Martin, B. (2008). A

comparative analysis of attendee profiles at two urban

festivals. Journal of Convention & Events. Taylor & Francis 9(1),

pp.1--14.

Gursoy, D., Kim, K. and Uysal, M. (2004). Perceived

impacts of festivals and special events by organizers:

an extension and validation. Tourism Management, 25(2),

pp.171--181.

Hart, R. (1997). Children's participation. 1st ed. London:

Earthscan.

Huang, J., Li, M. and Cai, L. (2010). A model of

community-based festival image. International Journal of

hospitality management, 29(2), pp.254--260.

Institute, T. (2014). London's Poverty Profile. (online)

Londonspovertyprofile.org.uk. Available at:




http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/ (Accessed 01

Aug. 2014).

Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and

community tourism planning. Annals of tourism research, 22(1),

pp.186--204.

Jamieson, W. (2006). Community destination management in

developing economies. 1st ed. New York: Haworth Hospitality

Press, pp.1-190

Jarvis, B. (1994), “Transitory Topographies: Places,

Events, Promotions and Propaganda”. In Gold, J. and

Ward, S. (eds) Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and

Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions pp. 181-193. Wiley, New

York.

Jepson, A., Wiltshier, P. and Clarke, A. (2008).

Community Festivals: involvement and inclusion. Council for

Hospitality Management Education (CHME).

Kelemen, M. and Rumens, N. (2008). An introduction to critical

management research. Los Angeles. Sage.

Kim, Y., Kim, M., Ruetzler, T. and Taylor, J. (2010). An

examination of festival attendees' behavior using SEM.

International Journal of Event and Festival Management, [online]

1(1), pp.86-95. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17852951011029324 [Accessed 5

Jul. 2014].




Lee, J. and Kyle, G. (2014). Segmenting Festival

Visitors Using Psychological Commitment. Journal of Travel

Research, pp 656-669.

Lee, Y., Lee, C., Lee, S. and Babin, B. (2008).

Festivalscapes and patrons' emotions, satisfaction, and

loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), pp.56--64.

Li, M., Huang, Z. and Cai, L. (2009). Benefit

segmentation of visitors to a rural community-based

festival. Journal of Travel \& Tourism Marketing, 26(5-6),

pp.585--598.

Li, X. and Vogelsong, H. (2006). Comparing methods of

measuring image change: A case study of a small-scale

community festival. Tourism Analysis, 10(4), pp.349--360.

London Councils, (2014). London Key Facts and Statistics.

[online] Londoncouncils.gov.uk. Available at:

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/londonfacts/default.htm

?category=2 [Accessed 16 Jun. 2014].

Local.gov.uk, (2014). Culture, tourism and sport | Local Government

Association. [online] Available

at:http://www.local.gov.uk/culture-tourism-and-sport/-/j

ournal_content/56/10180/3510139/ARTICLE [Accessed 10

Jul. 2014].




Localhealth.org.uk,(2014). (online) Available at:

http://www.localhealth.org.uk/#v=map7;sid=311;l=en;sly=m

soa_2011_DR;z=540548,183367,12720,9774 (Accessed 01 Aug.

2014).

London Councils, a. (2014). London Key Facts and Statistics.

(online) Londoncouncils.gov.uk. Available at:

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/londonfacts/ (Accessed

08 Aug. 2014).

Londoncf.org.uk, (2014). The London Community Foundation.


http://www.londoncf.org.uk/grants/read-this-first.aspx


Love, G. (2009). Relationship among volunteer motivations, festival

context factors, and retention of festival volunteers in the Southwest.

Degree doctor of business. University of Phoenix.

Lyon, T. (2000). Making special events special. The Cyber-

Journal of Sport Marketing, 2, pp.1--12.

MacLaran, P., Brown, S. and Stevens, L. (1999). The Utopian

Imagination: Spatial Play in a Festival Marketplace. European

Advances in Consumer Research, 4, pp.304--309.

Mason, D. and McCarthy, C. (2006). ‘The feeling of

exclusion’: Young peoples’ perceptions of art galleries.

Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(1), pp.20--31.




Mayfield, T. L. and Crompton, J. L. 1995. Development of

an instrument for identifying community reasons for

staging a festival. Journal of Travel Research, 33 (3), pp.

37--44.

McDermott, R. 2000. Knowing in Community. IHRIM journal, pp.

1--12.

McMillan, D. (1996). Sense of Community. Journal of

Community Psychology, 24, pp.315-325.

Meyer, P. and Edwards, D. (2007). The Future of

Volunteer Managed Festivals? Where Do We Go From Here.

In: Cauthe 2007 conferences. Australia

Neirotti, L.D. 2003. An introduction to sport and

adventure tourism. New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press, pp

1-25

Neuman, W. L. 2007. Basics of social research. Boston:

Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

O’Sullivan, D., Jackson, M, J., 2002. Festival Tourism:

a contributor to sustainable local economicc

development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(4), 325-342.

Painter, J. (2014). Positive Psychology UK. (online) Positive

Psychology UK. Available at:

http://positivepsychology.org.uk/pp-theory/happiness/133

-income-and-well-being.html (Accessed 02 Aug. 2014).




Polletta, F. (1999). "Free Spaces" in collactive action.

Theory and Society, 28, pp.1-38.

Prentice, R. and Andersen, V. (2003). Festival as

creative destination. Annals of Tourism Research, [online]

30(1), pp.7-30. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(02)00034-8

[Accessed 11 Jul. 2014].

Quinn, B. (2005). Arts festivals and the city. Urban

studies, 42(5-6), pp.927--943.

Raj, R. and Musgrave, J. (2009). Event management and

sustainability. 1st ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI

Rao, V. (2001). Celebrations as social investments:

Festival expenditures, unit price variation and social

status in rural India. The Journal of Development Studies, 38(1),

71-79

Reid, S. 2007. Identifying social consequences of rural

events. Event Management, 11 (1-2), pp. 1--2.

Riley, M. (2000). Managing people. 1st ed. Oxford:

Butterworth Heinemann. pp 18.

Royalgreenwich.gov.uk, (2014). Households, older people and

statistics – Population data-Greenwich. [online] Available at:

http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200088/statistics_




and_census_information/114/population_data (Accessed 12

Sep. 2014).

Rosenbaum, M., Ostrom, A. and Kuntze, R. (2005). Loyalty

programs and a sense of community. Journal of Services

Marketing, 19(4), pp.222--233.

Sarkissian, W. (2005). Stories in a park: Giving voice

to the voiceless in Eagleby, Australia. Planning theory &

practice, 6(1), pp.103—117

Saayman, M. and Saayman, A. (2006). Does the location of

arts festivals matter for the economic impact?. Papers in

Regional Science, 85 (4), pp. 569--584.

Small, K., Edwards, D. and Sheridan, L. (2005). A

Flexible Framework For Evaluating The Socio-Cultural

Impacts Of A (Small) Festival. International Journal of Event

Management Research, 1(1), pp.66--77.

Small, K. (2007). Social dimensions of community

festivals: an application of factor analysis in the

development of the social impact perception (SIP) scale.

Event Management, 11(1-2), pp.45--55.

Smith, G. and Roy, D. (2011). A Framework for Developing

Customer Orientation in Ticket Sales Organizations. Sports

Marketing quarterly, 20(2), pp.93-102.




So Yon Lee, Petrick, J. and Crompton, J. (2007). The

Roles of Quality and Intermediary Constructs in

Determining Festival Attendees' Behavioral Intention.

Journal of Travel Research, [online] 45(4), pp.402-412.

Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287507299566

[Accessed 2 Aug. 2014].

Stebbins, R. (1996). Volunteering: A serious leisure

perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(2),

pp.211--224.

Stebbins, R.A. (2004). Introduction. In R. Stebbins & M.

Graham, Volunteering as leisure/ Leisure as

Volunteering: an International Assessment (pp. 1-12).

Walingford: CABI

Thetelegraphandargus.co.uk, (2014). The Telegraph & Argus:

News from across the Bradford district. [online] Available at:

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/ (Accessed 11

Aug. 2014).

Toomey, T., Erickson, D., Patrek, W., Fletcher, L. and

Wagenaar, A. (2005). Illegal alcohol sales and use of

alcohol control policies at community festivals. Public

Health Reports, 120(2), p.165.

Turner, V. 1982. Introduction. In V. Turner,

Celebration: studies in festivity and ritual. Washingon,

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press




Van Zyl, C. (2006). Motivating factors of local

residents for attending the Aardklop National Arts

Festival. Southern African Business Review, 10(2), pp.150--171.

Visitbritain.org, (2014). Britain's Tourism Industry : VisitBritain

Corporate site. (online) Available at:

http://www.visitbritain.org/britaintourismindustry/


Visitengland.org, (2014). VisitEngland Home Page : VisitEngland

Corporate Site. (online) Available at:

http://www.visitengland.org/ (Accessed 11 Aug. 2014).

Voluntaryarts.org, (2014). Voluntary Arts. [online]

Available at: http://www.voluntaryarts.org [Accessed 10

Jul. 2014].

Volunteering.org.uk, (2014). What is volunteering? - Volunteering

England. (online) Available at:

http://www.volunteering.org.uk/iwanttovolunteer/what-is-

volunteering (Accessed 11 Aug. 2014).

Walker, C. (2004). The Public Value of Urban Parks. The

Urban Institude, pp.1-6.

Walliman, N. (2011). Research methods. 1st ed. London:

Routledge.

Wates, N. 2008. The Community Planning Event Manual. 1st

edition London: Earthscan.pp 6-87




Wood, E. H. (2005). Measuring the economic and social

impacts of local authority events. International Journal of

Public Sector Management, 18 (1), pp. 37--53.

Wood, E. (2009). An Impact Evaluation Framework: Local

Government Community Festivals. Event Management, 12,

pp.171-185.

Woodruff 1997, “Customer value: the next source for

competitive advantage”, Journal of the academy of Marketing

Sciences, Vol. 25 No.2

Yeoman, I., Robertson, M., Knight, J., Drummond, S. and

Beattie, U. (2004). Festival and events management. 1st ed.

Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, pp.65-70.

Yoon, Y., Lee, J. and Lee, C. (2010). Measuring festival

quality and value affecting visitors’ satisfaction and

loyalty using a structural approach. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 29(2), pp.335--342.

Impacts of the organisation challanges and capacities on attendees satisfaction

Documents

Transcript of Impacts of the organisation challanges and capacities on attendees satisfaction