Experiential festival attributes,perceived value,satisfaction,and behavioral intention for Korean festivalgoers

Abstract

Based on an extensive literature review of the festival experience, this study proposes that the experiences of festivalgoers can be classified into five main attributes, namely Escape, Playfulness, Togetherness, Sacredness, and Placeness. A survey of 450 South Koreans who had participated in some type of domestic festival in the past year statistically validated these attributes and explored the impact of each on the perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions of festivalgoers. The study shows that those Koreans who experienced Playfulness, Sacredness, and Placeness at a festival tended to perceive the festival as more valuable than those who experienced Escape and Togetherness, which were factors that did not significantly affect the perceived value of the festival. This study illuminates the nature of festival attributes and the particular characteristics most important to Korean festivalgoers, both of which provide theoretical and practical implications for tourism researchers and festival organizers.

Keywords

Festivals the festival experience experiential festival attributes Korean festivalgoers perceived value satisfaction behavioral intention

Introduction

For the last few decades, the experiential aspects of consumption have been widely discussed in the social sciences, including tourism studies, due to the rapid global transition from product or manufacturing economies to service economies and to what has recently become known as experience economies (Oh et al., 2007; Pine and Gilmore, 1999). Thus, tourism research has increasingly focused on subjective meanings and interpretations that tourists assign to experiences associated with tourist destinations, attractions, services, and products (Jin et al., 2015; Shim and Santos, 2014; Uriely, 2005; Wearing and Wearing, 2001; Wickens, 2002). In particular, festivals have been offered as prime examples of “a popular organizational form for creating experience spaces” (Johansson and Kociatkiewicz, 2011: 2), spaces in which tourists evaluate their experiences based not only on objective criteria, but also on the “emotional and symbolic significance” assigned to the tourist experience (Morgan, 2007: 113).

In this regard, tourism researchers have empirically examined various festivals and the ways they are experienced by festivalgoers. For example, based on the concept of existential authenticity (Wang, 1999), Kim and Jamal (2007) showed that festivalgoers reported different types of experiences, including bonding, identity-seeking, and self-transformation; they suggested that it was these experiences that enabled the festivalgoers to perceive the festival as meaningful. Fry (2013) found that visitors to a music festival moved beyond the role of mere spectators and became a vital part of it, thereby coming to experience individuality, community, a sense of tradition, local flavor, and a sense of fandom. Giovanardi et al. (2014) recently found that festivals were further enriched and diversified by the interactions, mutual experiences, and cooperation between tourists and residents, all of which served to “shape, reproduce and, coalesce” the festival landscape (p. 113). The findings of these studies implied that the experiential aspects of festivals influenced their overall value.

Nevertheless, these studies cannot be generalized since all of the authors focused on different festivals and highlighted different aspects of the festival experience. Moreover, quantitative evidence to support the current understanding of the festival experience is lacking, largely because tourism researchers have regarded the experiential aspects of tourist attractions as mainly a matter of sociocultural inquiry rather than one requiring quantitative analysis. Therefore, the existing literature on the festival experience has largely consisted either of conceptual studies aimed at establishing a theoretical foundation (e.g. Getz, 1997, 2008, 2010; Morgan, 2006, 2007) or qualitative ones evaluating particular festival settings (e.g. Campbell, 2009; Fry, 2013; Giovanardi et al., 2014; Kim and Jamal, 2007). Although some researchers have employed statistical methods to examine festivals, they have tended to focus on attendee motivation, service quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavior (e.g. Cole and Illum, 2006; Lee et al., 2007, 2008; Mason and Nassivera, 2013). Consequently, there is currently insufficient data to establish “a unified theory of festival experiences” (Getz, 2010: 20) with the underlying attributes that make festivals successful.

With this in mind, this study was designed to examine the key attributes of the festival experience and the impact of each on perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention. We began with an extensive literature review from which we identified the five key attributes of the festival experience revealed in previous empirical studies. We then conducted a large-scale survey, asking 450 Korean respondents about their recent festival experiences in terms of those five experiential attributes as well as asking about perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention. We then performed a statistical analysis in the form of exploratory factor analysis and a structural equation model (SEM) to validate the key attributes of the festival experience and test their impacts on perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention. We validated the five key festival attributes, offering insight into the nature of the festival experience, and analyzed how these attributes relate to value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention, giving further insight at the very least into South Korean festivals and festivalgoers, and perhaps suggesting the same to be more universally true to the festival experience. Finally, we summarized our findings and drew conclusions about the practical and theoretical implications of the identified attributes and their importance to festivalgoers.

This paper is organized as follows: the first section is the “Introduction.” The second section is the “Literature review.” The third section addresses “Research methods.” The fourth section presents “Results.” The fifth section presents “Discussion.” The final section is the “Conclusion.”

Literature review

The festival experience

Festivals have existed throughout history and across most human cultures, gathering a large number of people together to celebrate cultural traditions of religious, folkloric, or agricultural significance (Ferdinand and Williams, 2013; Getz, 1997; Prentice and Anderson, 2003; Quinn, 2003). Until recently, scholarly efforts to investigate festivals, particularly in the tourism field, have focused primarily on their positive economic benefits, identifying the various factors that make them economically successful, such as the quality of the programs, services provided, physical environment, and sponsorship. Therefore, festivalgoers have often been regarded as consumers whose experiences, perceptions of value, satisfaction, and behavior are passively determined by the quality of the festival they are attending; these festivalgoers have not generally been viewed as producers who actively and subjectively interpret the festival to create their own unique festival experiences (Cole and Chancellor, 2009; Getz, 2010; Manthiou et al., 2014). In other words, the current understanding of festivals does not sufficiently explain their significant role as unique opportunities “away from everyday life in which intense extraordinary experiences can be shared” (Morgan, 2008: 91).

Despite this shortcoming, recent studies have contributed to developing a comprehensive model of festival experiences by identifying the core attributes of festivals that allow festivalgoers to construct their own individual experiences of the event. For example, based on Kapferer’s (1998) brand identity prism, Morgan (2006, 2008) presented “the prism of event experience,” which separated out pull factors (physical organization and design personality), opportunities (social interaction and cultural communication), and results (personal benefits and symbolic meanings), and then used this framework in his ethnographic study of a folk festival. Getz (2008) provided his own model of planned event experiences containing three interrelated dimensions (conative, affective, and cognitive). He argued that researchers should concentrate on anthropological concepts such as liminality, communitas, and authenticity, in order to holistically understand people’s experiences in the special framework of festivals, which he argued were events that suspend time and remove the normal restrictions of everyday life. Despite these few conceptual works that have engendered subsequent qualitative studies examining particular festival cases, most concepts associated with the festival experience have not been sufficiently validated through empirical research, nor have they offered much in the way of explanation of the impact of these concepts.

There does seem to have been widespread agreement that the festival experience is multidimensional, with several distinct attributes central to the experience, but few empirical studies have validated these attributes. Getz and Brown (2006) and Sparks (2007) did empirically provide several experiential dimensions of wine festivals, including the wine experience, destination experience, cultural experience, social experience, and personal development experience. Cole and Illum (2006) examined visitors to a heritage festival in Missouri and their focus group interviews and surveys showed that the quality of the festival experience consisted of three dimensions, namely history appreciation, socialization, and enjoyment. Packer and Ballantyne’s (2010) study also included quantitative methodology to examine music festival participants and proposed a four-dimensional model of the festival experience: the music, the festival, social experiences, and separation experiences, all of which positively affected the well-being of festivalgoers.

Experiential festival attributes

Our extensive literature review revealed that the experiences of festivalgoers fell into five main categories. First, the literature revealed that festivalgoers often experienced a sense of escape from their daily lives and responsibilities. Tourism studies have viewed escape-seeking as one of the primary motivations for traveling; in particular, festivals have been understood as rare opportunities for tourists to temporarily separate themselves from the norms of existing societal structures (Anderton, 2008; Jamieson, 2004; Kim and Jamal, 2007; Packer and Ballantyne, 2010; Ravenscroft and Matteucci, 2003). Jamieson (2004) argued that the Edinburgh festival enabled its attendees to experience the temporary suspension of their mundane patterns and daily constraints by providing “flamboyance and spontaneous street activities… carnivalesque atmospheres and manufactured heterotopias” (p. 71). Similarly, Van Heerden (2011) concluded that art festivals in South Africa induced an alteration of everyday routines, in which festivalgoers experienced a different sense of time through vibrant nightlife and deserted morning streets.

Second, the literature revealed that festivalgoers experienced playfulness when they enjoyed festivals in a fun, spontaneous, and nonutilitarian manner. The leisure literature has long discussed the concept of playfulness and has implied that leisure attendees were likely to seek and experience arousal-producing stimuli that affected their internal dispositional qualities during leisure participation, including pleasure, enjoyment, involvement, competence, and the effectance motivation (Cole and Chancellor, 2009; Cole and Illum, 2006; Giovanardi et al., 2004; Kim and Jamal, 2007; Korol-Evans, 2009; Morgan, 2008). Festivals have also been seen as particularly good examples of how leisure settings induced a playful mood in people who visited them. A study by Giovanardi et al. (2014) on the Pink Night Festival in Italy suggested that the coperformance of guests and hosts through playful competitions, live concerts, and fireworks created a “spirit of play framed by intoxication, enjoyment and camaraderie” (p. 112). Kim and Jamal (2007) and Korol-Evans (2009) examined Renaissance festivals in Texas and Maryland and found that the festivals playfully recreated history and pointed out that festivalgoers were likely to experience ludic elements, such as funny costumes, fanciful interactions with others, and spontaneous performances.

Third, the literature revealed that festivalgoers interacted together, and thereby experienced a sense of community. It showed festivals as regularly held events, usually held annually, where local community members gathered; they have increasingly provided unusual opportunities for people from different sociocultural backgrounds to constitute one festival community (Cole and Illum, 2006; Kim and Jamal, 2007; Morgan, 2008; Packer and Ballantyne, 2010; Picard and Robinson, 2006; Ziakas and Boukas, 2006).To explain this attribute of the festival experience, tourism researchers have focused on Victor Turner’s notion of communitas, viz. “intense feelings of belonging and sharing among equals” (Getz, 2010: 8). For example, Kim and Jamal (2007) found that a festival setting allowed festivalgoers to experience equality, acceptance, and ludic interaction, resulting in a sense of touristic communitas through “unmediated relationships not governed by social norms and regulations” (p. 193). Ziakas and Boukas’ (2013) phenomenological study on the Limassol carnival in Cyprus similarly showed that the event fostered a sense of communitas, not just by bringing together the host community, but also by making foreign attendees feel included and welcomed into the carnival community.

Fourth, the literature showed that festivals often increased the spiritual consciousness of festivalgoers, offering experiences in the realm of the sacred. Historically, festivals have been associated with a given society’s sacred and special occasions related to religious traditions, harvest celebrations, and community rituals. Sacred traditions introduced in historic festivals have often been observed in the form of magnificent sights and solemn and ritual speeches or performances (Kaplan, 2008; Mackay, 2011; Matheson et al., 2014; Sherry and Kozinets, 2007). Matheson et al. (2014) found that attendees of the Beltane Fire Festival, an annual participatory arts event and ritual drama, held in Edinburgh, were highly motivated by the desire to experience spirituality at this modern reimagining of an ancient Celtic festival celebrating the passage of the seasons. Sherry and Kozinets (2007) examined the Burning Man Festival in Nevada and asserted that volunteers and attendees perceived the event as a sacred space creating a nomadic spirituality, even though it had no religious origin. Mackay (2011) affirmed that festivals offer an opportunity for participants to reclaim what is sacred to them in an increasingly globalized world. In Korea, festivals are referred to as “chukje (, ),” a term which itself has a spiritual connotation combining the concepts of celebration and rite.

Fifth and finally, the literature showed festivals often provided a sense of placeness, where experiences were particular to the festival location, providing a sense of placeness, that is giving festivalgoers the opportunity to see, hear, smell, and taste the festival’s local flavor and identity. Festival themes have largely been based on music, sports, agricultural products, and the religious history of the region, arising from community members’ desire to celebrate their community’s unique identity (Cole and Illum, 2006; Derrett, 2003; Morgan, 2008; Simeon and Buonincontri, 2011). Furthermore, the core mission of most festivals has included the preservation and promotion of a region’s unique physical and cultural assets. For example, the Ravello Festival in Italy clearly stated that its purpose was to rebuild the material and nonmaterial heritage linked to the history, traditions, and natural environment of the town (Simeon and Buonincontri, 2011). Schofield and Thompson (2007) found that attendees in the Naadam Festival of Mongolia, especially international and older ones, most frequently reported their reason for attending the festival to be the cultural exploration of the region to learn about and experience Mongolian culture and history.

Table 1 shows operational definitions found in the literature for the five festival attributes.

Table 1.

Main attributes of the festival experience.

Attributes	Definition	Related literature
Escape	Being out of one’s daily life and responsibility	Anderton (2008), Jamieson (2004), Kim and Jamal (2007), Packer and Ballantyne (2010), Ravenscroft and Mateucci (2002)
Playfulness	Fun, spontaneous, and nonutilitarian status	Giovanardi et al. (2004), Kim and Jamal (2007), Korol-Evans (2009, Morgan (2008)
Togetherness	Feeling of belonging to a community	Cole and Illum (2006), Kim and Jamal (2007), Lau and Li (2014), Morgan (2008), Packer and Ballantyne (2010), Roemer (2007), Ziakas and Boukas (2006)
Sacredness	Entering into spiritual consciousness	Blackwell (2007), Kaplan (2008), Matheson et al. (2014), Roemer (2007), Sherry and Kozinets (2007)
Placeness	The local identity of the festival place	Cole and Illum (2006), Derrett (2003), Lau and Li (2014), Morgan (2008), Simeon and Buonincontri (2011)

Perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention

From the perspective of consumer behavior, there has been increasing appreciation of the significance of the experiential aspects of consumption in determining consumer perception of the value of a given product (Chen and Chen, 2010; Cronin et al., 2000; Jin et al., 2015). Perceived value has been defined as the consumer’s overall assessment of a product or service based on his or her perceptions of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml, 1988), which has been deemed useful to the ability of allowing consumers to bundle the complicated aspects of products and services together when faced with competitive offers (Woodruff, 1997). It has also been argued that perceived value is more important than perceived quality because it is more directly linked to future behavior and intentions (Dodds and Monroe, 1985). Therefore, researchers have found perceived value to offer producers “guidance as to how to create the product and service in order to fulfill the consumers’ needs and expectations” in the trade-off between cost and perceived benefits (Bajs, 2015: 124).

Recent tourism studies have reinforced the positive relationship between the experiential aspects of tourism settings and their perceived value (Chen and Chen, 2010; Gallarza and Saura, 2006; Jin et al., 2015; Song et al., 2014). For example, Gallarza and Saura (2006) found that the value of trips as perceived by Spanish university students was significantly influenced by experiential factors, such as esthetics and play. Similarly, Chen and Chen (2010) suggested that, among Taiwanese heritage tourists, the quality of experience associated with immersion, surprise, participation, and fun had a direct positive impact on the perceived value of the trip. Focusing on water park patrons in South Korea, Jin et al. (2015) offered a four-dimensional model of experience quality based on immersion, surprise, participation, and fun. They suggested that a higher quality experience significantly increased the perceived value of the water park. Using the experience economy theory, Song et al. (2015) also identified four kinds of experiences: entertainment, educational, escape, and esthetic experiences (the 4Es), all of which were found to positively affect the perceived value of temple stays in South Korea.

Without reaching a clear consensus in the tourism and festival industry about the effects on perceived value of the five experiential festival attributes of Escape, Playfulness, Togetherness, Sacredness, and Placeness, several studies have explored the positive impact of some of these attributes on the tourist value perception process. For example, Cole and Chancellor (2009) argued that entertainment was a key attribute affecting the festival experience; similarly, Hosany and Withnam (2010) showed that travelers on cruise ships who experienced entertainment and escapism were more likely to perceive their cruise experience as valuable than those who did not. Gallarza and Gil (2008) found that the experience of playfulness and spirituality significantly influenced travelers’ perceived value of a trip to an extent which varied with their gender, age, and income level. Mackay (2011) also argued that sacredness and spiritual experience were crucial in contemporary festivals despite the perception of festivals as places of commodification. Ryu et al. (2015) revealed that older Japanese travelers evaluated their trips positively when they experienced togetherness with cotravelers, although Heimtun and Abelsen (2012) found that significant gender differences may have existed as to the importance of this attribute. Gallarza and Saura (2006) found that those who felt a sense of togetherness during their spring break tended to perceive their experience as more valuable. In addition, most studies suggested that the degree to which tourists experience local culture significantly affected how they evaluated tourism products (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010; Lin and Wang, 2012; Ramkissoon and Uysal, 2010). These studies have all suggested that experiential festival attributes positively and directly impact perceived value. This leads to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. The experiential aspects of festivals have a positive effect on festivalgoers’ perceived value of the festival.

Hypothesis 1a. Festivalgoers’ experience of escape has a significant positive effect on their perception of the festival’s value.

Hypothesis 1b. Festivalgoers’ experience of playfulness has a significant positive effect on their perception of the festival’s value.

Hypothesis 1c. Festivalgoers’ experience of togetherness has a significant positive effect on their perception of the festival’s value.

Hypothesis 1d. Festivalgoers’ experience of sacredness has a significant positive effect on their perception of the festival’s value.

Hypothesis 1e. Festivalgoers’ experience of placeness has a significant positive effect on their perception of the festival’s value.

The positive relationship between perceived value and satisfaction has been widely accepted in tourism studies (Bajs, 2015; Chen and Chen, 2010; Eid and El-Gohary, 2015; Gallarza and Saura, 2006; Jin et al., 2015). For example, Bajs (2015) examined the impact of perceived value on satisfaction among tourists in Dubrovnik, Croatia, and found a significant relationship between these two factors. Eid and El-Gohary’s (2015) study on Muslim tourists similarly showed the positive effects of perceived value on satisfaction; Jin et al. (2015) also found that the higher the perceived value of the waterpark, the greater the satisfaction with the place. Festival studies have in fact shown a positive relationship between these two constructs (Lee et al., 2007, 2011; Yoon et al., 2010; Yuan et al., 2008). Lee et al. (2007) specifically focused on festivalgoers in Texas, suggesting that their perceived value of the festival had a significant positive effect on both their overall satisfaction with an intention to revisit it. Yuan et al. (2008) examined visitors to a wine festival in Indiana and suggested that higher levels of perceived value resulted in higher levels of visitor satisfaction. More recently, Lee et al. (2011) and Yoon et al. (2010) similarly found that Korean festivalgoers’ satisfaction was significantly affected by their perception of the value of a festival. Against this theoretical background, the following hypothesis can be derived:

Hypothesis 2. Festivalgoer’s perceived value of a festival has a significant positive effect on their satisfaction with the festival.

In addition, festival literature to date has shown satisfaction to serve as a reliable predictor of behavioral intention, which is the immediate psychological precursor of volitional behavior (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Jung et al., 2015; Mason and Nassivera, 2013; Sohn et al., 2016). For example, Baker and Crompton (2000) showed that there was a positive relationship between satisfaction with an annual festival and two indicators of behavioral intention: loyalty and willingness to spend money. Mason and Nassivera (2013) examined festivalgoers in Italy and similarly suggested that their satisfaction with the festival significantly influenced their behavioral intention, in this case their intention to revisit the festival and to spread word-of-mouth advertising about it. More recently, Jung et al. (2015) and Sohn et al. (2016) showed that there was direct causality between the satisfaction and behavioral intentions of festivalgoers in Wales and South Korea. With this theoretical background, the following hypothesis can be derived:

Hypothesis 3. Festivalgoers’ satisfaction with a festival has a significant positive effect on their behavioral intention associated with the festival.

Research methods

Theoretical model

Based on the literature review, a theoretical model was proposed, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model. Note: *: p < .05, **: p < .01.

Measurement

Experiential festival attributes

To develop a new measurement for the experiential festival attributes, five constructs (Escape, Playfulness, Togetherness, Sacredness, and Placeness) consisting of 76 items were generated from a literature review of previous studies pertaining to the festival experience. Then, to ensure face and construct validity (DeVellis, 1991), the initial items were reviewed by six experts holding doctoral degrees in tourism who had conducted festival-related research. The expert review resulted in the removal or revision of some items, yielding 30 items with improved descriptions of festival experiences.

Using these items, a pilot survey of 91 Korean college students who had at some time participated in a festival was conducted. To purify the items and validate the constructs, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Before performing the factor analysis, three items (E6, S2, S7) with mean scores lower than 3 were removed; ultimately 27 items were included in the analysis. The factor analysis resulted in a five-factor structure scale with 26 items, after one item (P4) with a factor loading of less than .4 was removed. The alpha coefficient for the five factors ranged from .745 to .898, which was considered to be an acceptable level (Nunally, 1978).

Perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention

The three theoretical constructs of perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention in our proposed model were measured using scales that have been employed in previous literature. Perceived value was measured using six items adapted from Chen and Chen (2010) and Yoon et al. (2010), while satisfaction was measured using two items cited from Grappi and Montanari (2011), Lee et al. (2007), and Yoon et al. (2010). Behavioral intention was measured using two items from Mason and Nassivera (2013), Song et al. (2012), and Yoon et al. (2010).

Data collection and analysis

The questionnaire consisted of 42 questions addressing experiential festival attributes (26 items), perceived value (six items), satisfaction (two items), behavioral intention (two items), and demographic information (five items). A seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”) was used to measure all of the items in the proposed model. The self-administrated survey was designed to provide an understanding of the universal nature of the festival experience and the particular characteristics most important to South Korean festivalgoers; therefore, it was not focused on attendees of a particular festival but open to any South Korean adult respondents who had participated in some type of domestic festival in the past year. The survey was performed online from August to September of 2013, hosted by a South Korea-based professional survey company. Email invitations to complete an online survey were sent out to the company’s national web-panel members and collected 450 completed questionnaires, while a proportional quota sampling strategy was used to reflect the demographic characteristics of South Korea.

The current study used SPSS 18.0 and AMOS 18.0 to analyze the survey data. First, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assure the internal consistency and construct validity of the measurements (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Second, SEM with maximum likelihood was used to test the proposed conceptual model and hypotheses.

Profile of sample

Table 2 shows the sample profile. Of the 450 respondents in the final dataset, 50.1% were male and 49.9% were female, with the largest group of survey respondents between the ages of 40 and 49 years old (26.4%). In terms of income, the respondents were fairly evenly distributed, with the largest group (19.6%) reporting an income between $40,000 and $49,999; the smallest group (6.2%) reporting an income of $19,999 or less; and 59.9% of respondents reporting incomes higher than $40,000. Most respondents, 64.2%, held baccalaureate degrees; 9.1% held graduate degrees; 15.1% were high-school graduates; and 10.7% described themselves as college students. The demographic features of the respondents adequately represent the demographic composition of the country’s population. All of the respondents reported that they had participated in domestic festivals at least once in the past year.

Table 2.

Demographic information of sample.

Variable	N	%	Variable	N	%
Gender			Age
Male	229	50.9	20–29	112	24.9
Female	221	49.1	30–39	110	24.4
			40–49	119	26.4
			Older than 50	109	24.2
Education			Income (USD)
Less than high school diploma	4	.9	Less than 19,999	28	6.2
High school diploma	68	15.1	20,000–29,999	67	14.9
College students	48	10.7	30,000–39,999	86	19.1
Bachelor’s degree	289	64.2	40,000–49,999	88	19.6
Postgraduate degree	41	9.1	50,000–59,999	70	15.6
			More than 60,000	111	24.7

Results

Measurement test

Before testing the proposed model, the unidimensionality of each construct was examined. Table 3 presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA revealed that the overall fit of the measurement model was satisfactory, χ²= 1421.057 (df = 586, p < .001), RMSEA = .053, CFI = .955, TLI = .949. The values of CFI and TLI were higher than the 0.9 threshold value (Byrne, 1998).

Table 3.

Confirmatory factor analysis.

Constructs	Items	Standardized factor loading
Escape	ES1. The festival was a unique experience different from my routine	.755
	ES2. I was able to forget my daily life	.801
	ES3. I was able to get way from daily tension	.797
	ES4. I felt differently than I had ever felt	.778
	ES5. I felt that I was different	.764
Playfulness	PF1. The festival was fun	.839
	PF2. The festival stimulated my creativity	.819
	PF3. The festival was cheerful	.844
	PF4. I enjoyed other people’s behavior in the festival	.756
	PF5. The festival’s programs were pleasurable	.798
	PF6. I got excited at the festival	.769
Togetherness	TG1. I shared the same feelings with other attendees in the festival	.738
	TG2. I felt that people behaved similar to me in the festival	.734
	TG3. I made many friends in the festival	.832
	TG4. I felt that people became one in the festival	.822
	TG5. The festival promoted friendship between people	.887
	TG6. The festival made my group closer	.882
Sacredness	SC1. I was overwhelmed by the festival	.805
	SC2. The festival was inspiring	.922
	SC3. The festival was sublime	.938
	SC4. The festival was impressive	.781
	SC5. The festival stimulated my spirituality	.735
Placeness	PL1. I experienced the identity of the locale in the festival	.843
	PL2. I experienced the authenticity of the region in the festival	.881
	PL3. The festival’s theme reflected local culture well	.906
	PL4. The festival informed me about the region	.876
	PL5. I felt the characteristics of the region in the festival	.817
Perceived value	PV1. The festival made me feel good	.861
	PV2. The quality of the festival was outstanding	.882
	PV3. The festival was fairly priced	.895
	PV4. The festival was easy to participate in	.848
	PV5. Visiting the festival was valuable	.893
	PV6. The value of visiting the festival was more than I expected	.901
Satisfaction	SA1. Overall, I am satisfied with the festival	.920
Satisfaction	SA2. My choice to attend the festival was a wise one	.911
Behavioral intention	BI1. I would like to come to the festival again next year	.935
Behavioral intention	BI2. I would like to recommend the festival to others	.839

BI: behavioral intention; ES: escape; PF: playfulness; PL: placeness; PV: perceived value; TG: togetherness; SA: satisfaction; SC: sacredness.

χ²/df = 1421.057/586 = 2.425 (p < 0.001), TLI = .949, CFI = .955, RMSEA = .053.

After examining the unique dimensions of each construct, the validity and reliability of the measurements were examined. First, factor loadings were equal to or greater than .734. All of the factor loadings were significant at p < 0.001 and their t-values ranged from 16.926 to 33.329. As shown in Table 4, the average variance extracted (AVE) was greater than .5 for all of the constructs (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Considering the high factor loadings on the intended variables and acceptable AVE values for each construct in the model, it was decided that convergent validity for the measurement-scale items had been achieved (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Second, discriminant validity was tested by comparing the squared correlation of each pair of constructs with the AVE for each construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All of the squared correlations of each pair of constructs were lower than the AVE for each construct, with the exception of two pairs: Escape/Playfulness and Playfulness/Togetherness. Therefore, as suggested by Farrell (2010), the discriminant validity between the pairs was reexamined by combining them into a single construct and then conducting a χ² difference test between the values obtained from the combined and uncombined models. The results showed that Δχ²/df was greater than 3.84 in both pairs, thus supporting the discriminant validity of Escape/Playfulness and Playfulness/Togetherness. Finally, all of the composite reliability values were greater than .7 (Hair et al., 1998), thus indicating that the multiple items used to measure each theoretical concept were reliable and internally consistent.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.

	Mean (SD)	AVE	Correlation matrix
	Mean (SD)	AVE	ES	PF	TG	SC	PL	PV	SA	BI
Escape (ES)	5.08	.607	.873	.826	.627	.457	.175	.411	.480	.487
Escape (ES)	(1.04)	.607	.873	.826	.627	.457	.175	.411	.480	.487
Playfulness (PF)	4.95	.648	.909	.904	.663	.561	.187	.578	.629	.613
Playfulness (PF)	(1.06)	.648	.909	.904	.663	.561	.187	.578	.629	.613
Togetherness (TG)	4.75	.669	.792	.814	.904	.530	.206	.428	.426	.449
Togetherness (TG)	(1.09)	.669	.792	.814	.904	.530	.206	.428	.426	.449
Sacredness (SC)	4.34	.706	.676	.749	.728	.892	.213	.417	.437	.497
Sacredness (SC)	(1.18)	.706	.676	.749	.728	.892	.213	.417	.437	.497
Placeness (PL)	4.97	.749	.418	.433	.454	.462	.917	.255	.242	.047
Placeness (PL)	(1.14)	.749	.418	.433	.454	.462	.917	.255	.242	.047
Perceived value (PV)	4.54	.775	.664	.760	.654	.646	.505	.945	.796	.759
Perceived value (PV)	(1.07)	.775	.664	.760	.654	.646	.505	.945	.796	.759
Satisfaction (SA)	4.82	.838	.693	.793	.653	.661	.492	.892	.902	.823
Satisfaction (SA)	(1.03)	.838	.693	.793	.653	.661	.492	.892	.902	.823
Behavioral intention (BI)	4.56	.789	.698	.783	.670	.705	.497	.871	.907	.823
Behavioral intention (BI)	(1.23)	.789	.698	.783	.670	.705	.497	.871	.907	.823

Note: Composite reliability is indicated along the diagonal; correlations are below the diagonal; and squared correlations are above the diagonal.

Table 5.

Standardized parameter estimates for the structural model.

Paths	Standardized estimate	t-value	Hypothesis
H1a. Escape → Perceived value	−.185	−1.615	Not supported
H1b. Playfulness → Perceived value	.757	5.766	Supported
H1c. Togetherness → Perceived value	.029	.436	Not supported
H1d. Sacredness → Perceived value	.109	1.975	Supported
H1e. Placeness → Perceived value	.199	5.405	Supported
H2. Perceived value → Satisfaction	.922	25.178	Supported
H3. Satisfaction → Behavioral intention	.931	23.402	Supported

χ²/df = 1514.475/597 = 2.537 (p < 0.001), TLI = .945, CFI = .951, RMSEA = .055.

Hypothesis testing

Following the assessment of the measurement model, the structural model was analyzed. Table 5 and Figure 2 present the results of the goodness-of-fit statistics and a summary of our findings. The overall fit of the structural model was satisfactory, χ²/df =1514.475/597 = 2.537 (p < 0.001), TLI = .945, CFI = .951, RMSEA = .055, indicating that the proposed conceptual model provided an adequate explanation of the observed covariance among the study variables. The E explained about 65.8% of the total variance in perceived value. The perceived value explained approximately 85.0% of the variance in satisfaction, while 86.6% of the variance in behavioral intention was explained by satisfaction.

Figure 2.

Standardized theoretical path coefficients.

The links from experiential festival attributes to perceived value were tested. As shown in Table 4, Playfulness, Sacredness, and Placeness significantly influenced perceived value, while the effects of Escape and Togetherness on perceived value were not significant. Thus, H1b, H1d, and H1f were supported by our findings, while H1a and H1c were not. Also, perceived value had a positive effect on satisfaction, supporting H2. Satisfaction had a significant positive effect on behavioral intention, supporting H3.

Discussion

Based on our extensive literature review of previous festival research, this study identified five main attributes of the festival experience, namely Escape, Playfulness, Togetherness, Sacredness, and Placeness, and statistically validated a new measurement of experiential festival attributes based on a large sample survey. Moreover, the results of SEM revealed that those who experienced Playfulness, Sacredness, and Placeness at a festival tended to perceive it as more valuable, while Escape or Togetherness did not significantly affect the perceived value of the festival; of these attributes, Playfulness most significantly increased the perceived value of a festival. The present study also confirms in the context of festivals the positive relationship that previous studies have posited between perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in tourism experiences. The results offer empirical findings that contribute to our understanding of certain key festival attributes and the particular characteristics most important to Korean festivalgoers.

First and foremost, the current analysis confirms that the festival experience should be understood to be multidimensional, consisting of at least five identifiable attributes. While each of these attributes has been frequently discussed in previous qualitative studies in a variety of festival contexts, this study statistically validated these five attributes in the context of South Korean festivals. Therefore, these attributes can be understood as the core elements of the festival experience that contemporary tourists are likely to expect when they attend festivals, at least in South Korea. The current results are in line with previous studies proposing various dimensions of festival experiences, such as Cole and Illum (2006), Getz and Brown (2006), and Packer and Ballantyne (2010). The multifaceted nature of the festival experience also shows the importance of taking into account the multivalent and subjective meanings assigned to festivals by contemporary tourists (Uriely, 2005; Wearing and Wearing, 2001; Wickens, 2002). In other words, festival organizers should focus on creating festival environments and programs that allow festivalgoers to experience Escape, Playfulness, Togetherness, Sacredness, and Placeness in order to maximize the richness of the festival experience. Furthermore, more scholarly attention can now be devoted to identifying and validating additional experiential attributes, including new attributes that may arise as festivals evolve.

This study suggests the extent to which South Korean festivalgoers appreciate various aspects of festivals and, more broadly, how South Korean society in general perceives them. South Korean respondents tended to assign a higher value to festivals that allowed them to experience Playfulness, Sacredness, and Placeness than to those that provided them with Escape or Togetherness, although there was no significant difference in the degree to which respondents actually experienced these five experiential attributes. In other words, in South Korea, although all five attributes are experienced by festivalgoers, festivals are mainly expected to provide them with the opportunity to spend pleasurable time, become spiritually aware, and experience local flavor, whereas they are not expected to allow festivalgoers to escape their daily lives or to bond with other festivalgoers. The meaning assigned to festivals by South Koreans, who primarily value Playfulness, Sacredness, and Placeness, differs somewhat from the importance assigned to Escape and Togetherness in previous studies of the festival or tourist experience in other countries, which studies were admittedly in Western settings (e.g. Cole and Illum, 2006; Kim and Jamal, 2007; Packer and Ballantyne, 2010).

Conclusion

The current findings provide major implications for future research and provide festival planners with practical guidance. This study shows the current status of South Korean festivals and provides meaningful implications for festival organizers and researchers who may be grappling with the future direction of festival management. On the one hand, it is clear that South Koreans will not be satisfied with a given festival unless it allows them to sufficiently experience Playfulness, Sacredness, and Placeness. Compared to the other attributes, namely Escape and Togetherness, these three attributes are more closely associated with objective attributes of the festivals themselves rather than with subjective experiences of festivalgoers. Therefore, from a marketing perspective, festival organizers, who may also need to serve as tourism marketers, should place priority on creating festival sites, facilities, and programs to satisfy festivalgoers’ expectations of Playfulness, Sacredness, and Placeness. Organizers in the already fiercely competitive South Korean festival market struggle to provide ever more attractive sites, facilities, and programs: they can now take into account that festivals are likely to draw more crowds in South Korea to the extent that they offer amusing programs, religious or spiritual ceremonies, or distinct local food.

Marketing to increase the number of visitors is not, however, the only consideration for festival organizers: they are also expected to provide the public with high-quality recreational opportunities. However, our findings indicate that South Koreans do not expect Escape and Togetherness at domestic festivals, and this seems to be borne out by the fact that, to date, South Korean festivals have not sufficiently served to provide recreational opportunities and liminal spaces that create a spirit of communitas and/or provide people with venues where they can escape the stress of daily life. This means that either South Koreans do not need such outlets at all or, for some reason, seek other methods of escape in their quest for liminality, given the long working hours and high levels of stress known to exist in South Korean society (Park and Lee, 2009; Park et al., 2010). Indeed, the National Survey on Leisure Activity conducted by the Korean government shows that participating in festivals is not among the top ten leisure activities Koreans enjoy (Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, 2014). Therefore, the South Korean festival industry, with over 700 festivals competing for visitors, can reach out to show Koreans that festivals can fill an important social role as healthy recreational spaces for stressed-out Koreans. This may be a counterintuitive but smart way to enlarge the role that festivals can play in South Korean society moving forward. This is especially promising given the likelihood that more and diverse recreational demand will be created due to rising incomes, increasing leisure time, and longer life expectancy.

In spite of its meaningful implications, some limitations of the present study should be noted. First, more research is needed to determine whether the associations that we found for South Korean festivalgoers are unique or whether the results can be confirmed in other countries. Previous studies conducted in the context of festivals in the western hemisphere have suggested the importance of all five festival attributes, yet our study clearly shows that in South Korea, Escape and Togetherness do not have a significant impact on perceived value, satisfaction, or behavioral intention. Extending our study to other markets will either confirm differences between festival markets in other countries, given the potential for different historical and sociocultural contexts in how these markets have originated and developed, or, to the contrary, it may be that the associations we found between the attributes and value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention are not unique to Koreans but rather are shared rather universally in the festival context. Second, by focusing on the general features of festival experiences, this study did not account for variations in the attendee experience based on the different histories, themes, and objectives of particular festivals or types of festivals. Nevertheless, our results provide an excellent point of departure for future festival research that can illuminate both the universality of festivals and the particularities that arise in different contexts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University (HY-2016).

Author Biographies

Hoon Lee is a Professor in the School of Tourism and a Director of Tourism Research Institute at Hanyang University, South Korea. He also serves as an editor-in-chief of Journal of Tourism Studies and a General Director of International Uijeongbu Music-theathre Festival. He has written six books, over 103 peer-reviewed journal articles and taken part in over 83 research projects. His primary research interests focus on sustainable tourism and festival management.

Heejeong Hwang is a Visiting Research Fellow at Incheon Development Institute, South Korea. She obtained her doctoral degree in Tourism from Hanyang University. Her research interests include cultural tourism, community tourism, and alternative tourism.

Changsup Shim is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Tourism Management at Gachon University, South Korea. He obtained his doctoral degree in Recreation, Sport and Tourism from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests include cultural aspects of tourism, urban tourism, authenticity, and cultural sustainability.

References

Anderson

Gerbing

(1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.

Anderton

(2008) Commercializing the carnivalesque: The V Festival and image/risk management. Event Management 12(1): 39–51.

Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science 16(1): 74–94.

Bajs IP (2015) Tourist perceived value, relationship to satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: The example of the Croatian tourist destination Dubrovnik. Journal of Travel Research 54(1): 122–134.

Baker

Crompton

(2000) Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research 27(3): 785–804.

Byrne

(1998) Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS. Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Campbell

(2009) The importance of being valued: Solo ‘grey nomads’ as volunteers at the National Folk Festival. Annals of Leisure Research 12(3–4): 277–294.

Chen

(2010) Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management 31(1): 29–35.

Cole

Chancellor

(2009) Examining the festival attributes that impact visitor experience, satisfaction and re-visit intention. Journal of Vacation Marketing 15(4): 323–333.

10.

Cole

Illum

(2006) Examining the mediating role of festival visitors’ satisfaction in the relationship between service quality and behavioral intentions. Journal of Vacation Marketing 12(2): 160–173.

11.

Cronin

Brady

Hult

GTM

(2000) Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing 76(2): 193–218.

12.

Derrett

(2003) Making sense of how festivals demonstrate a community’s sense of place. Event Management 8(1): 49–58.

13.

DeVellis

(1991) Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

14.

Dodds WB and Monroe KB (1985) The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations. ACR North American Advances 12: 85–90.

15.

Eid R and El-Gohary H (2015) The role of Islamic religiosity on the relationship between perceived value and tourist satisfaction. Tourism Management 46: 477–488.

16.

Farrell AM (2010) Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research 63(3): 324–327.

17.

Ferdinand

Williams

(2013) International festivals as experience production systems. Tourism Management 34: 202–210.

18.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

19.

Fry

(2013) Becoming a “True Blues Fan”: Blues tourism and performances of the King Biscuit Blues Festival. Tourist Studies 14(1): 66–85.

20.

Gallarza

Gil

(2008) The concept of value and its dimensions: A tool for analysing tourism experiences. Tourism Review 63(3): 4–20.

21.

Gallarza

Saura

(2006) Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management 27(3): 437–452.

22.

Getz D (1997) Event management and event tourism. Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication Corporation.

23.

Getz

(2008) Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management 29(3): 403–428.

24.

Getz

(2010) The nature and scope of festival studies. International Journal of Event Management Research 5(1): 1–47.

25.

Getz

Brown

(2006) Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: A demand analysis. Tourism Management 27: 146–158.

26.

Giovanardi

Lucarelli

Decosta

PLE

(2014) Co-performing tourism places: The “Pink Night” festival. Annals of Tourism Research 44: 102–115.

27.

Grappi S and Montanari F (2011) The role of social identification and hedonism in affecting tourist re-patronizing behaviours: The case of an Italian festival. Tourism Management 32(5): 1128–1140.

28.

Hair

Jr Anderson

Tatham

et al. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

29.

Heimtun B and Abelsen B (2012) The tourist experience and bonding. Current Issues in Tourism 15(5): 425–439.

30.

Hosany S and Witham M (2010) Dimensions of cruisers' experiences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research 49(3): 351–364.

31.

Jamieson

(2004) Edinburgh the festival gaze and its boundaries. Space and Culture 7(1): 64–75.

32.

Jin NP, Lee S and Lee H (2015) The effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research 17(1): 82–95.

33.

Johansson

Kociatkiewicz

(2011) City festivals: Creativity and control in staged urban experiences. European Urban and Regional Studies 18(4): 392–405.

34.

Jung T, Ineson EM, Kim M, et al. (2015) Influence of festival attribute qualities on slow food tourists' experience, satisfaction level and revisit intention: The case of the mold food and drink festival. Journal of Vacation Marketing 21(3): 277–288.

35.

Kapferer

(1998) Why are we seduced by luxury brands? Journal of Brand Management 6(1): 44–49.

36.

Kaplan

(2008) Finding the true cross: The social-political dimension of the Ethiopian Mäsqäl Festival. Journal of Religion in Africa 38(4): 447–465.

37.

Kim

Jamal

(2007) Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 34(1): 181–201.

38.

Kolar

Zabkar

(2010) A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management 31(5): 652–664.

39.

Korol-Evans

(2009) Renaissance Festivals: Merrying the Past and the Present, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

40.

Lee

Choi

(2011) Examining the role of emotional and functional values in festival evaluation. Journal of Travel Research 50(6): 685–696.

41.

Lee

Petrick

Crompton

(2007) The roles of quality and intermediary constructs in determining festival attendees’ behavioral intention. Journal of Travel Research 45(4): 402–412.

42.

Lee

et al. (2008) Festivalscapes and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction, and loyalty. Journal of Business Research 61(1): 56–64.

43.

Lin

Wang

(2012) Effects of authenticity perception, hedonics, and perceived value on ceramic souvenir-repurchasing intention. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 29(8): 779–795.

44.

Mackay K (2011) Reclaiming the sacred: a festival experience as a response to globalisation. Journal for the Study of Religion 24(2): 75–96.

45.

Manthiou

Lee

Tang

et al. (2014) The experience economy approach to festival marketing: Vivid memory and attendee loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing 28(1): 22–35.

46.

Mason

Nassivera

(2013) A conceptualization of the relationships between quality, satisfaction, behavioral intention, and awareness of a festival. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 22(2): 162–182.

47.

Matheson

Rimmer

Tinsley

(2014) Spiritual attitudes and visitor motivations at the Beltane Fire Festival, Edinburgh. Tourism Management 44: 16–33.

48.

Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (2014) National survey on leisure activity. Available at: http://www.mcst.go.kr/web/s_data/research/researchView.jsp?pSeq=1562.

49.

Morgan

(2006) Making space for experiences. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property 5(4): 305–313.

50.

Morgan

(2007) What makes a good festival? Understanding the visitor experience. Event Management 12(2): 81–93.

51.

Morgan M (2008) What makes a good festival? Understanding the event experience. Event Management 12(2): 81–93.

52.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.

53.

Fiore

Jeong

(2007) Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research 46(2): 119–132.

54.

Packer

Ballantyne

(2010) The impact of music festival attendance on young people’s psychological and social well-being. Psychology of Music 39(2): 164–181.

55.

Park

Lee

(2009) First Korean working conditions survey: A comparison between South Korea and EU Countries. Industrial Health 47(1): 50–54.

56.

Park

Kim

(2010) Weekly work hours and stress complaints of workers in Korea. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 53(11): 1135–1141.

57.

Picard

Robinson

(2006) Remaking worlds: Festivals, tourism and change. In: Picard

Robinson

(eds) Festivals, Tourism and Social Change: Remaking Worlds, Clevedon: Channel View, pp. 1–31.

58.

Pine

Gilmore

(1999) The Experience Economy: Work Is Theater & Every Business a Stage, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

59.

Prentice

Andersen

(2003) Festival as creative destination. Annals of Tourism Research 30(1): 7–30.

60.

Quinn

(2003) Symbols, practices and myth-making: Cultural perspectives on the Wexford Festival Opera. Tourism Geographies 5(3): 329–349.

61.

Ramkissoon

Uysal

(2010) Testing the role of authenticity in cultural tourism consumption: A case of Mauritius. Tourism Analysis 15(5): 571–583.

62.

Ravenscroft

Matteucci

(2003) The festival as carnivalesque: Social governance and control at Pamplona’s San Fermin Fiesta. Tourism Culture and Communication 4(1): 1–15.

63.

Ryu E, Hyun SS and Shim C (2015) Creating new relationships through tourism: A qualitative analysis of tourist motivations of older individuals in Japan. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32(4): 325–338.

64.

Schofield

Thompson

(2007) Visitor motivation, satisfaction and behavioural intention: The 2005 Naadam Festival, Ulaanbaatar. International Journal of Tourism Research 9(5): 329–344.

65.

Sherry

Kozinets

(2007) Comedy of the commons: Nomadic spirituality and the Burning Man festival. Research in Consumer Behavior 11: 119.

66.

Shim

Santos

(2014) Tourism, place and placelessness in the phenomenological experience of shopping malls in Seoul. Tourism Management 45: 106–114.

67.

Simeon

Buonincontri

(2011) Cultural event as a territorial marketing tool: The case of the Ravello Festival on the Italian Amalfi Coast. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 20(3–4): 385–406.

68.

Sohn HK, Lee TJ and Yoon YS (2016) Relationship between Perceived Risk, Evaluation, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intention: A Case of Local-Festival Visitors. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 33(1): 28–45.

69.

Song

Lee

Kang

et al. (2012) The effect of environmentally friendly perceptions on festival visitors’ decision-making process using an extended model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management 33(6): 1417–1428.

70.

Song

Lee

Park

et al. (2014) The influence of tourist experience on perceived value and satisfaction with temple stays: The experience economy theory. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 32(4): 401–415.

71.

Sparks

(2007) Planning a wine tourism vacation?: Factors that help to predict tourist behavioural intentions. Tourism Management 28(5): 1180–1192.

72.

Uriely

(2005) The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism Research 32(1): 199–216.

73.

van Heerden

(2011) The social and spatial construction of two South African arts festivals as liminal events. South African Theatre Journal 25(1): 54–71.

74.

Wang

(1999) Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2): 349–370.

75.

Wearing

(2001) Conceptualizing the selves of tourism. Leisure Studies 20(2): 143–159.

76.

Wickens

(2002) The sacred and the profane: A tourist typology. Annals of Tourism Research 29(3): 834–851.

77.

Woodruff RB (1997) Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the academy of marketing science 25(2): 139–153.

78.

Yoon

Lee

(2010) Measuring festival quality and value affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29(2): 335–342.

79.

Yuan

Morrison

Cai

et al. (2008) A model of wine tourist behaviour: A festival approach. International Journal of Tourism Research 10(3): 207–219.

80.

Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing 52(3): 2–22.

81.

Ziakas

Boukas

(2013) Extracting meanings of event tourist experiences: A phenomenological exploration of Limassol carnival. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 2(2): 94–107.