See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247124009

A model of community-based festival image

Article  in  International Journal of Hospitality Management · June 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.010

CITATIONS READS

110 540

3 authors:

Zhuowei Huang Mimi Li

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
33 PUBLICATIONS   1,278 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   2,455 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Liping Cai
Purdue University
188 PUBLICATIONS   9,411 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sino-Japan Tourism, History and War View project

heritage, tourism, power and responsibility in China View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhuowei Huang on 26 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 254–260

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

A model of community-based festival image

Joy Zhuowei Huang a,*, Mimi Li b, Liping A. Cai a
a
Purdue Tourism & Hospitality Research Center, 700 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States
b
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study initiates an original inquiry into the image of community-based festivals (CBFs). A CBF image
Community-based festival (CBF) model was proposed and empirically tested based on existing destination image models. Four image
Image constructs were identified as Attributes, Family and Friendliness, Affective Association, and Overall
First-time visitors Evaluation. The interrelationships among these constructs were tested by structural equation modeling.
Repeat visitors
The findings revealed that Attributes affects Family and Friendliness and Affective Association, which in
turn, affects Overall Evaluation. This study also included visitor loyalty in the understanding of CBF image.
It was found that repeat visitors had more favorable perceptions of the CBF than did first-time visitors.
Significant perceptual differences were found in Family and Friendliness, Affective Association, and Overall
Evaluation between the two groups of festival goers. In addition, it was revealed that loyalty exerted
significantly negative interaction effects on the relationship between Attributes and Family and
Friendliness, as well as the linkage between Family and Friendliness and Overall Evaluation. In addition, this
study illustrated the importance of the support of local residents for CBFs. CBF planners and local tourism
organizations would benefit from this study in terms of cultivating visitor loyalty to these festivals and
building the destination’s brand.
ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Jackson (2002), are essentially small scale, bottom up, and run by
one or more volunteers for the benefit of the locality. They take
Festivals and special events are increasingly sought after by place in rural or semi-rural areas with the primary goal of
visitors as unique offerings (Litvin and Fetter, 2006). They provide providing cultural and entertainment benefits for locals and
the opportunity for visitors to participate in a collective experience visitors (O’Sullivan and Jackson, 2002). Although small in scale and
that is distinct from everyday life (Getz and Frisby, 1988). From the attendance, they have a diverse range of themes and purposes
standpoint of host communities, festivals help enhance or preserve (Small et al., 2005). In addition, festival goers include nearby town
local culture and history (Xie, 2004), renew an urban area or region or city residents, as well as locals (Bres and Davis, 2001).
(Carlsen and Taylor, 2003; Richards and Wilson, 2004), generate Extant work on CBF focuses on two topics: economic benefits
economic benefits (Litvin and Fetter, 2006; Long and Perdue, for local communities (e.g., Felsenstein and Fleischer, 2003; Long
1990), stimulate the local tourism industry (Long and Perdue, and Perdue, 1990; Mehmetoglu, 2002) and the effects of tourism
1990), and expand the tourism season (Getz, 1991). According to promotion on host destinations (e.g., Boo and Busser, 2006;
one report, about 6.5 million person-trips in Canada were Felsenstein and Fleischer, 2003; Getz and Frisby, 1988; Mehme-
generated through attendance at festivals or fairs, which con- toglu and Ellingsen, 2005). Although tourist expenditure at CBFs is
tributed CDN$1.8 billion to local communities (LeBlanc, 2004). the focus of many studies, increasing research attention is being
These advantages of festivals and special events are demon- directed toward the effects of festivals on destination image
strated more explicitly in rural settings, particularly in boosting improvement (Boo and Busser, 2006). Festivals and special events
local economies (Long and Perdue, 1990), continuing employment have been proposed as an effective image-building strategy to
(Felsenstein and Fleischer, 2003), and proandoting rural destina- make destinations creative and unique (Felsenstein and Fleischer,
tion (Boo and Busser, 2006). Communitand-based festivals (CBFs) 2003; Li and Vogelsong, 2006; Mehmetoglu and Ellingsen, 2005).
in rural areas, labeled ‘‘home-grown’’ festivals by O’Sullivan and The existing literature, however, stops short of explicitly
presenting visitor perceptions of community-based festivals and
special events in rural areas. The purpose of this study is to fill this
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 765 337 8732.
research gap with the objective of developing a model of CBF image.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.Z. Huang), [email protected] Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following questions
(M. Li), [email protected] (L.A. Cai). through the case of a CBF in the Midwestern United States.

0278-4319/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.010
 J.Z. Huang et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 254–260 255

1. What are image constructs of the CBF? positive word of mouth (Oppermann, 2000; Shoemaker and Lewis,
2. What are the relationships among the image constructs of the 1999). Community-led festivals could benefit from more repeat
CBF? visitors. These festivals are at a great disadvantage in promoting
3. To what extent, does visitors’ loyalty affect their perceptions of themselves to potential and existing markets, which is an obstacle to
the CBF? the expansion of their market into outlying areas. The primary target
market of CBFs in rural areas is the localities surrounding the host
2. Literature review destination. Therefore, a better understanding of perceptions and
feelings of current visitors is greatly needed, which helps formulate
Image is a mental structure that integrates the elements, strategies to encourage them to return.
impressions, and values people project onto a specific place. It is The perceived destination image of visitors has been identified
based on the material knowledge and emotional perceptions of as a significant factor influencing repeat visitation. An emerging
perceivers of places (Espelt and Benito, 2005). Evidence suggested body of literature has addressed this issue (e.g., Bigne et al., 2001;
that tourist destination choice decisions were based on the degree Cai et al., 2003; Castro et al., 2007; Lucio et al., 2006). Several
to which they generate favorable images (Gartner, 1989; Um and studies advanced this line of research to delineate effects of various
Crompton, 1990). Destination image also illustrates the projection image components on repeat visitation. Cai et al. (2003) compared
of a destination (Bonn et al., 2005; Mill and Morrison, 2002; Sirgy perceptions among tourists of various degrees of loyalty, such as
and Su, 2000). Understanding the existing images that visitors first-time visitors, occasional visitors, frequent visitors, and
possess about destinations allows tourism organizations to project loyalists. No differences in attributes were found among the
an effective image to target markets (Bonn et al., 2005; Pike and various groups of visitors, whereas significant differences in
Ryan, 2004). Although image is difficult to define, the dimensions Affective and Attitude factors were revealed among them. Lucio
of destination image suggested by Gartner are commonly accepted et al. (2006) investigated causal relationships between image
in tourism literature. He posited that destination image was components and visitor loyalty. Their results showed that affective
formed by three distinctly different but hierarchically interrelated image exerted a significant positive influence on visitor attitudinal
elements: cognitive, affective, and conative (Gartner, 1993). This loyalty, whereas cognitive image did not.
model has been adopted in subsequent studies on destination Few tourism studies have attempted to develop a CBF image
image. Baloglu and McCleary (1999) employed these components model, or relate it to repeat visitation. The current study is
to measure images of four Mediterranean countries. Based on conducted to address this deficiency in the CBF research with four
Gartner’s model and Keller’s concept of brand association (Keller, specific objectives: (1) to explore image constructs of the CBF on
2002), Cai (2002) proposed and tested a 3As (Attributes, Affective, the basis of visitor perceptions; (2) to examine the relationships
and Attitudes) model of image, which emphasized the hierarchical among festival image constructs and develop a model of CBF
nature of the image components. These three dimensions of image; (3) to identify the similarities and discrepancies between
destination image are also of value in destination positioning the proposed CBF image model and a general destination image
analysis. Pike and Ryan (2004) noted that affective messages may model; and (4) to investigate the effects of loyalty on visitors’
be used in promotional themes aimed at previous visitors. perceptions of the CBF.
However, for an individual with no previous experience of a
destination, cognitive elaboration is required. 3. Methodology
Gartner’s model has been employed, at least in part, in studies
that link festivals and special events with image. Prentice and The data used in the current study were drawn from a visitor
Andersen (2003) believed that a festival can reposition a profile study of a CBF that took place from June 30 to July 4, 2006, in
destination’s image, or even modify a region’s image. Richards a county in the Midwestern United States. Adult visitors from
and Wilson (2004) employed a cognitive-affective approach to outside the host community were qualified as respondents. The
evaluate the impact of a cultural event on Rotterdam’s image and data were collected through personal interviews at a variety of
found that a mega event could positively change the general image interview sites during the festival. A total of 258 usable
of the host city, at least immediately following the event. Boo and questionnaires were collected. The survey instrument contained
Busser (2006) examined a CBF and applied a semi-cognitive pure- five parts. The first section pertained to the visitor’s trip
affective model to investigate whether a festival could contribute characteristics and behavioral patterns (i.e., travel companion(s),
to the improvement of the destination image. In contrast to the visit frequency, transportation, and distance between the origin
finding of Richards and Wilson on a mega event, Boo and Busser and destination). The second section measured the visitor’s
reported that the CBF did not improve the host destination’s image. evaluation of activities in which he or she participated at the
Li and Vogelsong (2006) examined changes in festival image festival. The third section focused on the participant’s information
attributes using two methods and concluded that visitor percep- search behavior and information needs. Section 4 dealt with the
tions of the host community were improved because of their visitor’s perceptions of the festival. The fifth section solicited
festival experience. Jago et al. (2003) extended the line of demographic information about the respondents. Regarding to the
destination image research to destination branding in their instrument design, the respondents were asked to evaluate their
attempt to identify the contributions of events to destination perceptions pertaining to the festival delineated by the 17
branding. statements on a scale ranging from 1 (the least descriptive) to
Despite the progress in examining promotional effects of 10 (the most descriptive). Among these 17 items, 14 were initially
festivals on the image of the host community, extant literature has generated from a review of previous studies on destination image
overlooked the transferring process of visitor perceptions from the in general and festival image in particular (Anwar and Sohail, 2004;
festival to the destination (Jago et al., 2003). The concept of festival Boo and Busser, 2006; Crompton, 2003; Grosspietsch, 2006;
image remains ambiguous and unexplored. Mackay and Fesenmaier, 1997; Petrick, 2004; Pike and Ryan, 2004;
In addition, while substantive attentions are attracted to Poria et al., 2006; Richards and Wilson, 2004). Three statements
promotional effects of festivals, research on how to encourage were designed specifically for this CBF according to suggestions
repeat festival visitation is limited. Repeat visitation tends to reduce from the CBF organizers. They are: the festival provides a unique
marketing budgets (Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999), increase visitor experience to celebrate Independence Day; the festival is ideal
expenditure (Alegre and Juaneda, 2006; Lehto et al., 2004), and elicit destination for a fun day trip; the festival is a local festival.
256 J.Z. Huang et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 254–260

Statistical analysis was carried out as follows. Frequency difference between CBFs and mega events. The latter attract more
analysis was employed to determine the profile of the festival overnight visitors from other states or other countries (Getz, 1991).
attendees. Descriptive analysis was then conducted to summarize Over 65% of the respondents were repeat visitors. Clearly, the
the visitor perceptions of each image statement. Exploratory factor repeat market from nearby communities is the primary market of
analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation was followed to identify the this CBF.
underlying image constructs. Items exhibiting low factor loadings
(<0.40), high cross-loadings (>0.40), or low communalities 4.2. Community-based festival image constructs
(<0.50) were candidates for deletion (Hair et al., 1998). To verify
the internal consistency reliability of the variables generated by Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was
EFA, Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was employed. Structural conducted on the 17 image items to identify the image constructs
equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to examine the relation- of the CBF. Table 2 shows the results of EFA and the Cronbach’s
ships among the factors identified by EFA. Two analyses were used alpha reliability test for each identified construct. The four
to investigate the effects of loyalty on visitors’ CBF perceptions. underlying image constructs generated by EFA explained
First, ANOVA was conducted to compare the different perceptions 67.583% of the total variance. These constructs were labeled
of the festival of first-time and repeat visitors, with the image Attributes, Family and Friendliness, Affective Association, and Overall
constructs as the dependent variables and the number of visits as Evaluation. The alphas ranged from 0.789 to 0.930, which were
the independent variable. Second, the interaction effects of loyalty higher than the conservative criterion of 0.70 (Pedhazur and
on relationships among CBF image constructs were examined in Schmelkin, 1991).
structural equation modeling. Attributes refers to the items related to the specific features of
the festival, such as the dining facilities, activities, and entertain-
4. Results ment opportunities; Family and Friendliness concerns the hospi-
tality of the local residents; and Affective Association concerns the
4.1. General profile and trip characteristics of the respondents festival goers’ emotional attachment to the festival. Sample
statements for this dimension included ‘‘The festival is my favorite
The profile and trip characteristics of the sample are provided in festival’’ and ‘‘The festival is my type of festival’’. Finally, Overall
Table 1. The majority of the respondents were repeat visitors and Evaluation included items related to visitors’ overall impression of
day trippers who came from nearby communities. More women the festival.
than men participated in this survey. More than half of the The CBF image constructs mirror those of the 3As model of
respondents held an associate’s degree or below. The trip destination image by Cai (2002). In his destination image model,
characteristics of respondents showed that most of the respon- attributes are defined as the perceived tangible and intangible
dents were day trippers and that around 80% lived within 50 miles features characterizing the destination; affective elements are the
of the host community (Table 1). These characteristics indicate the personal values and meanings attached to and benefits desired
from the attributes; and attitudes are related to the overall
Table 1 evaluation and the basis for actions and behavior (Cai, 2002). The
Profile and trip characteristics of respondents. CBF image constructs of Attributes and Overall Evaluation corre-
Variables Frequency Percentage spond to Cai’s attribute and attitude components. The constructs of
(n = 258) (%) Family and Friendliness and Affective Association agree with Cai’s
Gender definition of the affective component. One difference is that the
Male 114 44.2 affective construct in the current study specifically emphasized the
Female 144 55.8 importance of family togetherness and friendly people at the CBF.
Education
Left high school before diploma 4 1.6
4.3. Community-based festival image model
High school diploma 102 39.5
Associate’s degree 48 18.6
Bachelor’s degree 57 22.1 This study is unique in bringing up the concept of CBF image,
Master’s degree 14 5.4 and in proposing and testing a CBF image model. Both Gartner
Doctorate 5 1.9 (1993) and Cai (2002) found a hierarchical relationship among
Household income three image components in their destination image models, which
Unwilling to tell 60 23.3 support the current study to propose the model of CBF image with
Under $20,000 23 8.9
the following two sets of hypotheses.
$20,000–39,999 21 8.1
$40,000–59,999 39 15.1
The first set of hypotheses concerns the relationships between
$60,000–79,999 40 15.5 Attributes and the affective constructs of Family and Friendliness
$80,000–99,999 32 12.4 and Affective Association.
Over $100,000 32 12.4
H1a. The image construct of Attributes positively influences Family
Travel distance (miles)
1–9 69 26.7 and Friendliness.
10–19 70 27.1
20–29 33 12.8 H1b. The image construct of Attributes positively influences Affec-
30–39 24 9.3 tive Association.
40–49 10 3.9
Over 50 40 15.5 The second set of hypotheses concerns the relationships
between the affective constructs and Overall Evaluation.
Travel times
First time 84 32.6
Repeat 170 65.8
H2a. The image construct of Family and Friendliness positively
influences Overall Evaluation.
Length of stay
Day trip 209 81.0 H2b. The image construct of Affective Association positively influ-
Overnight 48 19.6
ences Overall Evaluation.
 J.Z. Huang et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 254–260 257

Table 2
Results of exploratory factor analysis of visitor perceptions.

Image constructs and items Factor loading Eigenvalue Variance Reliability

explained (%) coefficient

F1: Attributes 4.139 24.350 0.930

The festival provides a unique experience to celebrate Independence Day 0.78
There are many things to see and do at the festival 0.76
There are exciting entertainment opportunities at the festival 0.75
The festival provides a unique atmosphere 0.68
The festival is ideal destination for a fun day trip 0.59
The festival provides a quality dining experience to festival goers 0.52

F2: Family and friendliness 2.019 11.876 0.812

The festival is an ideal festival for family togetherness 0.81
People at the festival are warm and friendly 0.50

F3: Affective association 3.046 17.915 0.886

The festival is my favorite festival 0.63
I would recommend the festival to my friends and/or relatives 0.62
The festival is my type of festival 0.60
The festival is affordable 0.52
The festival is a regional festival 0.47
The festival is an ideal festival for a couples getaway 0.48

F4: Overall evaluation 2.285 13.442 0.789

The festival is a local festival 0.86
The festival is for people of all ages 0.71
I feel safe at the festival 0.44

Total variance explained 67.583

A structural equation modeling approach was used to test the

hypotheses pertaining to the relationships among the festival
image constructs. The results indicated a good fit for the data:
x2 = 98.526, x2/df = 1.23, p-value = 0.078, GFI (goodness-of-fit
index) = 0.948, AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-fit index) = 0.901 and
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) = 0.033, which
supported all the hypotheses. The Attributes construct exerted a
positive influence on the affective factors of Family and Friendliness
and Affective Association, which in turn, affects Overall Evaluation.
The test results of the hypothesized relationships are reported in
Table 3. The CBF image model (shown in Fig. 1) is consistent with
that of Gartner (1993) and Cai (2002) in terms of the constructs and
their interrelationships.
Fig. 1. The CBF image model.
4.4. Effects of loyalty on visitors’ CBF perceptions
significant differences between first-time and repeat visitors with
Given the overwhelming market share of repeat visitors to this respect to the constructs of Affective Association (F = 4.461, p-
CBF, it is meaningful to understand how to retain the repeat value = 0.036) and Overall Evaluation (F = 8.102, p-value = 0.005) at
market. The effects of loyalty on visitors’ CBF perceptions were the 0.05 level, and a marginal difference in the Family and
examined. Different perceptions of the festival from first-time and Friendliness construct (F = 3.850, p-value = 0.051) at the 0.1 level.
repeat visitors were first investigated. It was indicated that repeat However, no significant difference was found for the Attributes
visitors reported higher perceptual scores on all items than new construct (F = 0.268, p-value = 0.605). This result indicates that
tourists (Table 4). Repeat visitors were more satisfied with the repeat visitors responded with greater emotion to the festival than
festival than first-time visitors, both physically and emotionally. did new customers. Repeat visitors enjoyed the atmosphere of the
ANOVA was conducted to compare the two groups for the four festival and nice people of the host community. Although the
festival image constructs (Table 4). There were statistically scores of Attributes items of repeat visitors were higher than those

Table 3
Results of hypotheses testing and goodness-of-fit indices for the CBF image model.

Paths Standardized estimates t statistics Hypothesis

Attributes ! family and friendliness 0.68 10.561*** Accepted

Attributes ! affective association 0.70 7.803*** Accepted
Family and friendliness ! overall evaluation 0.37 2.991*** Accepted
Affective association ! overall evaluation 0.39 3.003*** Accepted

Index x2 x2/df p-value GFI AGFI RMSEA

Cut-off value N/A 1.0–5.0 >0.05 >0.90 >0.90 <0.1

Observed statistics 98.526 1.23 0.078 0.948 0.901 0.033
***
Indicates significance at the a = 0.05 level.
258 J.Z. Huang et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 254–260

Table 4
Perceptual differences between first-time and repeat visitors.

Image constructs and items Means of image items Image constructs

differences between
first-time (n = 84) and
repeat visitors (m = 170)

First-time Repeat F Sig.

F1: Attributes 0.268 0.605

The festival provides a unique experience to celebrate Independence Day 7.19 7.82
There are many things to see and do at the festival 6.79 7.09
There are exciting entertainment opportunities at the festival 6.59 7.10
The festival provides a unique atmosphere 7.11 7.82
The festival is ideal destination for a fun day trip 7.56 8.01
The festival provides a quality dining experience to festival goers 6.35 7.12

F2: Family and friendliness 3.850 0.051

The festival is an ideal festival for family togetherness 7.99 8.41
People at the festival are warm and friendly 7.71 8.63

F3: Affective association 4.461 0.036

The festival is my favorite festival 5.14 6.46
I would recommend the festival to my friends and/or relatives 7.26 7.87
The festival is my type of festival 6.53 7.46
The festival is affordable 7.61 7.75
The festival is a regional festival 6.19 7.42
The festival is an ideal festival for a couples getaway 7.04 7.24

F4: Overall evaluation 8.102 0.005

The festival is a local festival 8.19 9.12
The festival is for people of all ages 8.39 9.00
I feel safe at the festival 8.32 8.69

Table 5
Results of interaction effect testing.

Index x2 x2/df p-value CFI RMSEA Interaction effect

Cut-off value N/A 1.0–5.0 <0.05 >0.90 <0.1

Test Ia 197 1.71 0.000 0.975 0.059 0.896*
Test IIb 248.4 2.1 0.000 0.960 0.074 1.390*
a
Test I was conducted to examine the interaction effect of loyalty on the relationship between Attributes and Family and Friendliness.
b
Test II was conducted to examine the interaction effect of loyalty on the relationship between Family and Friendliness and Overall Evaluation.
*
Indicates significance at the a = 0.05 level.

of first-time visitors, the discrepancy between these two groups The finding pinpoints the particular role of Family and
was not significant for this image construct. This implies that new Friendliness construct in CBF image model, especially for the group
visitors and repeat visitors felt more or less the same about the of repeat visitors. They appeared to have an independent and
tangible attributes of the festival, such as dining facilities, specific perception of family get-togetherness and friendly local
activities, entertainment, and so forth. Repeat visitors did not residents at the CBF, which demonstrates fewer connections with
overvalue the tangible characteristics of the festival because of Attributes and Overall Evaluation of the CBF image. A close look at
their emotional attachment. It therefore suggests that people did the data provides more insights in this regard. Over 80% of repeat
not return only for their positive perceptions of the festival’s visitors traveled with their spouses, own kids, parents, grand
attributes. The other three constructs played a greater role in children, or other relatives. Most of them believed the festival was
cultivating visitor loyalty to the festival. good for family get-together and they came with this purpose.
The interaction effects of loyalty on relationships among CBF Repeat visitors had a well-established emotional perception of the
image constructs were tested in structural equation modeling, festival in this aspect which is difficult to be affected by attributes.
respectively. The construct of loyalty here is behavioral loyalty The outcome of ANOVA reveals the marginal difference of Family
measured by first and repeat visitation, as visiting time is not a and Friendliness between first-time and repeat visitors. This result
continuous variable. The testing results (Table 5) showed that therefore explains why this established image of repeat visitors
loyalty exerted significantly negative interaction effects on the weighs less in the overall evaluation of CBF.
linkage between Attributes and Family and Friendliness, as well as the
relationship between Family and Friendliness and Overall Evaluation, 5. Conclusions and discussions
but no effects on relationships between Attributes and Affective
Association, as well as Affective Association and Overall Evaluation. This research offered insights into an issue not extensively
This result indicates that compared to first-time visitors, the addressed by far. The study proposed and empirically tested a
relationship between Attributes and Family and Friendliness becomes model of CBF image, and examined the effects of loyalty on visitors’
weak for repeat visitors, so does the linkage between Family and CBF perceptions. Four image constructs were identified and labeled
Friendliness and Overall Evaluation. This implies that how repeat Attributes, Family and Friendliness, Affective Association, and Overall
visitors perceive the family oriented and friendly atmosphere at the Evaluation. In addition, hierarchical interrelationships among
CBF did not depend so much on their perceptions of CBF attributes as these constructs were examined. The study also revealed that
first-time visitors did. The same can be said for the effects of Family repeat visitors had more positive perceptions than first-time
and Friendliness on Overall Evaluation. visitors. The perceptual differences of Family and Friendliness,
 J.Z. Huang et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 254–260 259

Affective Association, and Overall Evaluation between first-time and This study is not without limitations. The image constructs
repeat visitors were significant. In addition, this study found that identified were based on an empirical study of an Independence
the relationships between Attributes and Family and Friendliness, as Day festival in a county in the Midwestern United States in
well as Family and Friendliness and Overall Evaluation became weak summer. It is very likely that visitors will have different
when it comes to repeat visitors. perceptions of festivals with other themes, taking place in other
The contribution of this study to the extant literature is two- seasons, or in different locations. Further research with a larger
fold. First, although tourism destination image has been exten- sample size and using other analytical methods is needed to verify
sively investigated, the current study advanced this line of research the results of this study. In addition, CBFs substantively benefit
by exploring the image of CBFs. A CBF image model is proposed and from the repeat market, but festival goer loyalty has not received
empirically tested, which is consistent with general destination adequate attention from practitioners or the academic community.
image models in previous studies (Cai, 2002; Gartner, 1993). The This study investigated the relationship between repeat visitation
study findings indicate the importance of local resident involve- and festival image. Future studies should extend this line of
ment to the CBF image of visitors. research to examine visitor loyalty in the context of CBFs more
Second, the results with reference to CBFs and loyalty provide extensively.
evidence to support prior research. Petrick (2004) found that when
making repurchase decisions, repeat visitors were more likely to References
base their perceptions of quality on how the experience made
them feel, whereas first-time visitors were more likely to base their Alegre, J., Juaneda, C., 2006. Destination loyalty: consumers’ economic behavior.
perceptions on price, which implies that the former make decisions Annals of Tourism Research 33 (3), 684–706.
Anwar, S.A., Sohail, M.S., 2004. Festival tourism in the United Arab Emirates: first-
based on affective perceptions while the latter are more likely to do time versus repeat visitor perceptions. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10 (2),
so based on attribute-based perceptions. Some researchers 161–170.
suggested that affective messages could be more useful in Baloglu, S., Brinberg, D., 1997. Affective images of tourism destinations. Journal of
Travel Research 35 (Spring), 11–15.
positioning a destination, especially when they are aimed at Baloglu, S., McCleary, K.W., 1999. U.S. international pleasure travelers’ images of
previous visitors (Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997; Pike and Ryan, four Mediterranean destinations: a comparison of visitors and nonvisitors.
2004). Um et al. (2006) argued that the revisit intention of first- Journal of Travel Research 38 (November), 144–152.
Bigne, J.E., Sanchez, M.I., Sanchez, J., 2001. Tourism image, evaluation variables and
time visitors may be influenced mainly by destination perfor- after purchase behavior: inter-relationship. Tourism Management 22, 607–616.
mance as a whole, whereas intention of repeat visitors may be Bonn, M.A., Joseph, S.M., Dai, M., 2005. International versus domestic visitors: an
influenced largely by promotional efforts to elicit positive examination of destination image perceptions. Journal of Travel Research 43
(February), 294–301.
memories and disseminated information on new attractions. This
Boo, S., Busser, J.A., 2006. Impact analysis of a tourism festival on tourists’ destina-
supports Cai’s assertion that affective and attitude image tion images. Event Management 9 (4), 223–237.
components are closer and more critical than attribute-based Bres, K.D., Davis, J., 2001. Celebrating group and place identity: a case study of a new
ones to the decision-making stage of destination selection (Cai regional festival. Tourism Geographies 3 (3), 326–337.
Cai, L.A., 2002. Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism
et al., 2003). Research 29 (3), 720–742.
In addition to making conceptual contributions, the findings of Cai, L.A., Wu, B., Bai, B., 2003. Destination image and loyalty. Tourism Review
this study should be helpful to practitioners for the marketing and International 7, 153–162.
Caldwell, N., Freire, J.R., 2004. The differences between branding a country, a region,
management of CBFs in several aspects. First, the results point to and a city: applying the brand box model. Journal of Brand Management 12 (1),
the significance of the involvement of local residents in CBFs. They 50–61.
indicate that visitors to these festivals regard family togetherness Carlsen, J, Taylor, A., 2003. Mega-events and urban renewal: the case of the
Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games. Event Management 8 (1), 15–22.
and friendliness of local communities as important, especially Castro, C.B., Armario, E.M., Ruiz, D.M., 2007. The influence of market heterogeneity
repeat visitors. Festival organizers and planners should encourage on the relationship between a destination’s image and tourists’ future behavior.
local people to support CBFs and project the image of a friendly Tourism Management 28, 175–187.
Crompton, J.L., 2003. Adapting Herzberg: a conceptualization of the effects of
community to the family market. hygiene and motivator attributes on perceptions of event quality. Journal of
Second, CBFs need to pay greater attention to the repeat market, Travel Research 41 (February), 305–310.
as the study findings suggest that repeat visitors from nearby rural Espelt, N.G., Benito, J.A.D., 2005. The social construction of the image of Girona: a
methodological approach. Tourism Management 26, 777–785.
communities are the primary market of these festivals. It was also
Felsenstein, D., Fleischer, A., 2003. Local festivals and tourism promotion: the role of
revealed that repeat visitors enjoyed the atmosphere of the festival public assistance and visitor expenditure. Journal of Travel Research 41 (May),
and nice people of the host community, whereas first-time visitors 385–392.
appreciated the tangible more than the emotional elements. Gartner, W.C., 1989. Tourism image: attribute measurement of state tourism
products using multidimensional scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Research
Recognizing the importance of repeat patronage at CBFs, local 28 (2), 15–19.
organizations should improve their promoting strategies and focus Gartner, W.C., 1993. Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism
on the affective elements of the festivals. Promotion of specific Marketing 2 (2/3), 191–215.
Getz, D., 1991. Festivals, Special Events and Tourism. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
attributes is essential to increase the awareness of the festivals and York.
attract new customers, whereas establishing emotional bonds Getz, D., Frisby, W., 1988. Evaluating management effectiveness in community-run
with visitors is more effective in cultivating loyalty and thus, festivals. Journal of Travel Research 27 (1), 22–27.
Grosspietsch, M., 2006. Perceived and projected images of Rwanda: visitor and
repeat visitors. international tour operator perspectives. Tourism Management 27 (2), 225–234.
In addition, this study introduces the concept of branding to the Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis,
current marketing program of CBFs in rural areas. Branding is a 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Jago, L., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T., Ali, S., 2003. Building events into destination
powerful tool to increase the attitude strength of visitors toward
branding: insights from experts. Event Management 8 (1), 3–14.
destinations and establish emotional connections between desti- Keller, K.L., 2002. Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed. Prentice
nations and visitors, thereby creating unique competitiveness (Cai, Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kim, H., Kim, W.G., 2004. The relationship between brand equity and firms’
2002; Caldwell and Freire, 2004; Morgan et al., 2003). Effective
performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants. Tourism Management
branding programs foster greater confidence of consumers, which 26, 549–560.
induces consumer loyalty (Kim and Kim, 2004). It will be LeBlanc, M., 2004. Tourist characteristic and their interest in attending festivals and
meaningful for tourism organizations in rural areas to understand events: an anglophone/francophone case study of New Brunswick, Canada.
Event Management 8, 203–212.
the CBF image model and recognize the significance of festivals to Lehto, X.Y., O’Leary, J.T., Morrison, A.M., 2004. The effect of prior experience on
repeat visitation, especially when building the destination’s brand. vacation behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4), 801–818.
260 J.Z. Huang et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 254–260

Li, X., Vogelsong, H., 2006. Comparing methods of measuring image change: a case Pedhazur, E., Schmelkin, L., 1991. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Inte-
study of a small-scale community festival. Tourism Analysis 10, 349–360. grated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Litvin, S.W., Fetter, E., 2006. Can a festival be too successful? a review of Spoleto, Petrick, J.F., 2004. First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value. Journal of Travel
USA. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (1), Research 43 (August), 29–38.
41–49. Pike, S., Ryan, C., 2004. Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of
Long, P.T., Perdue, R.R., 1990. The economic impact of rural festivals and special cognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research 42 (4),
events: assessing the spatial distribution of expenditure. Journal of Travel 333–342.
Research 28 (4), 10–14. Poria, Y, Reichel, A., Biran, A., 2006. Heritage site perceptions and motivations to
Lucio, H., Maria, M.S., Miguel, A.M., Javier, S., 2006. Tourism destination image, visit. Journal of Travel Research 44 (3), 318–326.
satisfaction and loyalty: a study in Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, Mexico. Tourism Geo- Prentice, R., Andersen, V., 2003. Festival as creative destination. Annals of Tourism
graphies 8 (4), 343–358. Research 30 (1), 7–30.
Mackay, K.J., Fesenmaier, D.R., 1997. Pictorial element of destination in image Richards, G., Wilson, J., 2004. The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotter-
formation. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3), 537–565. dam, cultural capital of Europe 2001. Urban Studies 41 (10), 1931–1951.
Mehmetoglu, M., 2002. Economic scale of community-run festivals: a case study. Shoemaker, S., Lewis, R.C., 1999. Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality market-
Event Management 7, 93–102. ing. International Journal of Hospitality Management 18, 345–370.
Mehmetoglu, M., Ellingsen, K.A., 2005. Do small-scale festivals adopt ‘‘market Sirgy, M.J., Su, C., 2000. Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behavior:
orientation’’ as a management philosophy? Event Management 9, 119–132. toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research 38 (May), 340–352.
Mill, R.C., Morrison, A.M., 2002. The Tourism System, 4th ed. Kendall/Hunt Publish- Small, K, Edwards, D., Sheridan, L., 2005. A flexible framework for evaluating the
ing Company, Dubuque, IO. socio-cultural impacts of a small festival. International Journal of Event Man-
Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A., Piggott, R., 2003. Destination branding and the role of the agement Research 1 (1), 66–76.
stakeholders: the case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9 (3), Um, S., Chon, K., Ro, Y., 2006. Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism
285–298. Research 33 (4), 1141–1158.
O’Sullivan, D., Jackson, M.J., 2002. Festival tourism: a contributor to sustainable Um, S., Crompton, J.L., 1990. Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice.
local economic development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10 (4), 325–342. Annals of Tourism Research 17, 432–448.
Oppermann, M., 2000. Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research 39 Xie, P.F., 2004. Visitors’ perceptions of authenticity at a rural heritage festival: a case
(August), 78–84. study. Event Management 8, 151–160.

View publication stats