Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Carla Barbieri Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism University of Missouri BarbieriC@missouri.edu Yasuharu Katsube University of Missouri Christine Tew University of Missouri Abstract.—Festivals attract a variety of visitors driven by a complex set of motivations. Th e objective of this study was to identify and classify motivations for attending the South Farm Showcase (SFS), a universitybased agricultural festival in Missouri. Th e study further developed a motivation-based segmentation of festival visitors and examined their distinct characteristics. Analysis identifi ed two motivation factors (Fun and Entertainment and Th eme Identity) and two types of visitors (Entertainment Seekers and Institutional Loyals). Entertainment Seekers and Institutional Loyals diff er in their socio-economic characteristics and in their leisure and tourism preferences. Marketing, management, and academic implications of these fi ndings are presented. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ATTENDANCE MOTIVATIONS AND VISITOR SEGMENTS WITHIN A UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL FESTIVAL Th e South Farm Showcase (SFS) is a 1-day festival that the College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources at the University of Missouri (MU-CAFNR) has hosted annually since 2006. Th e festival’s purpose is to connect MU-CAFNR with the local community and to involve local people in – and educate them about – MU-CAFNR research eff orts. Th e 2008 SFS received about 2000 visitors and off ered a variety of recreational activities and educational displays. Research on festival attendance motivations fi nds that attendance is driven by a complex set of goals, the most recurrent of which are socialization, escapism, and gregariousness (Backman et al.1995, Crompton and McKay 1997). However, this topic has not been fully explored (Getz 2008). Recent studies suggest that further examination is needed to identify motivations associated with the uniqueness of festivals (Nicholson and Pearce 2001, Schofi eld and Th ompson 2007). Th is research angle is especially relevant to university-based agricultural festivals, which have received little attention from researchers (Barbieri et al. 2009). Th e SFS is distinctive because of its universitycommunity bridging purpose, agricultural focus, and edutainment nature. Th is study aims to identify the motivations behind attendance at the SFS. Recognizing that festivals attract visitors of diff erent characteristics, this study developed a motivation-based segmentation of attendees and identifi ed diff erent socio-economic, lifestyle, and tourism characteristics associated with those segments. 2.0 METHODS Th e sample for this study was randomly selected attendees of the 2008 SFS. Th e researcher/interviewer explained the study purpose to each participant and asked for an email address for future on-line survey participation. Th ree hundred twenty-six valid email addresses were obtained. Only 26 people declined to participate. Th e online survey was launched 4 days after the festival and remained open for 27 days. Th ree electronic reminders were sent to nonrespondents. Th e survey asked about SFS attendance motivations, festival behavior, lifestyle information, and socio-demographics. A total of 251 surveys were completed (77-percent response rate). Of these, 231 cases were included for analysis after we excluded respondents who were associated with the SFS event (e.g., volunteers). Th e survey included attendance motivations selected from the events literature or constructed to refl ect the SFS’s purposes and goals (for example, “learn about agriculture and related activities” or “I like to attend festivals”). Respondents ranked each motivation using a fi ve-point Likert scale rank anchored in 1 (not important) and 5 (extremely important). A principal factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed on Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 165
the rankings of 12 attendance motivations. Eigenvalues greater than 1 and loadings greater than 0.50 were used to select principal factors. Th en, a K-means cluster analysis was performed over the motivational regressional scores in order to segment participants. ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to analyze diff erences between identifi ed clusters. On another section of the survey, respondents used a fi ve-point Likert scale anchored in 1 (not important) and 5 (extremely important) to rate the importance of 14 culture-, nature-, and agriculturerelated attractions and activities on their decisions about pleasure travel destinations. 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Respondents were preponderantly female (67.4 percent) and between 26 and 45 years old (68.2 percent). More than a third (36.3 percent) of respondents had an advanced education degree and almost three-quarters (73.5 percent) had at least a 4-year college degree. Th e majority was employed full-time (70.1 percent) and had a household income of at least $50,000 (74.5 percent). Th e data suggest that SFS visitors are in the early stage of their family life cycle; a high proportion of visitors lived with children younger than 7 years (58.3 percent) or between 7 and 12 (33.0 percent). Th e majority (70.5 percent) lived in an urbanized area (population≥50,000). Consistent with the location of the festival (Columbia, MO) and the strong university presence in this town, a high proportion of respondents (65.7 percent) were affi liated in some way with MU. Results confi rm that a complex set of motivations drove visitors to attend the festival (Table 1). Th e most important motivations for attending the SFS were related to the recreational aspect of festivals: “the variety of entertainment and activities off ered” (mean=3.96), “enjoy a day on a farm” (mean=3.84), and “the educational activities for children” (mean=3.83). Th e least important reason was to learn about MU research eff orts (mean=2.83). In the analysis, attendance motivations were reduced to fewer dimensions to facilitate their application in marketing strategies (e.g., advertising, positioning) and planning activities. Th e varimax-rotated factor analysis resulted in two factors accounting for 74.1 percent of the variance in the data. Cronbach’s alpha coeffi cients were high (�≥0.80), indicating overall and within-factor internal consistency. Th e factors were labeled based on the motivations that loaded on them: Th eme Identity (F1) and Fun and Entertainment (F2). Th e motivation related to “educational activities for children” (mean=3.83) did not load on any factor and was dropped from further analysis. Th eme Identity (F1) is associated with several attributes that shape this festival’s distinctiveness, including appreciation of MU outreach eff orts and learning about agriculture. Th is factor explained 42.8 percent of the variance for these data and had an eigenvalue greater than 3 (Cronbach’s �=0.82). Th e second factor, Fun and Entertainment (F2), is related to the recreational nature of festivals, including the variety of recreation and entertainment activities off ered at SFS. It explained 22.8 percent of variance and had an eigenvalue close to 2 (Cronbach’s �=0.80). A composite mean was calculated for each motivational factor (Factor Mean Score [FMS]) by averaging the means of the variables loaded in each factor. Overall, the motivations related to the recreational aspect of the SFS have a larger infl uence on attendance (FMS-2=3.63) than do the motivations related to the SFS purpose (FMS-1=3.22). K-means cluster analysis was performed over the factor scores and resulted in two clusters (Table 2). Cluster 1 was named Entertainment Seeker (n=120; 52 percent) because people in this category had a relatively high cluster center in the Fun and Entertainment factor (.32) and a negative center in the Th eme Identity factor (-.68). Cluster 2 was named Institutional Loyal (n=108; 48 percent) because people in this category had a high fi nal cluster center in the Th eme Identity factor (.75) and a negative center in the Fun and Entertainment factor (-.34). Using the FMS previously calculated, we found that the motivations related to the Th eme Identity factor were signifi cantly more important (p
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2009 NORTHEASTER
Page 5 and 6:
OUTDOOR RECREATION—TRAILS Experie
Page 7 and 8:
GIS APPLICATIONS AND RECREATION RES
Page 9 and 10:
diff erent points along the spectru
Page 11 and 12:
Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 13 and 14:
amount of bare rock. Camel’s Hump
Page 15 and 16:
Larson, M. 2004. A Passive Approach
Page 17 and 18:
THE ROLE OF IMAGINATION IN EXPERIEN
Page 19 and 20:
Table 1.—Special places surveys L
Page 21 and 22:
For some people, being in their spe
Page 23 and 24:
CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESOURCE PLANNIN
Page 25 and 26:
large geographical area (Fig. 1). T
Page 27 and 28:
Divers seen = 4.4 Figure 2.—Norm
Page 29 and 30:
Table 4.—Most-specialized divers
Page 31 and 32:
Sarah Young Human Dimensions of Mar
Page 33 and 34:
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Th e FRR
Page 35 and 36:
Table 4.—Divers’ perception of
Page 37 and 38:
YOUTH AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Page 39 and 40:
A qualitative research design was u
Page 41 and 42:
containers, instead of plastic bags
Page 43 and 44:
WALK, RIDE AND LEARN: STUDENTS’ D
Page 45 and 46:
school. Because of the large sample
Page 47 and 48:
Table 8.—Observation of built str
Page 49 and 50:
“I’M TOO OLD TO GO OUTSIDE!”
Page 51 and 52:
Mean Eco-Affinity Score 5.0 4.5 4.0
Page 53 and 54:
children. In: Klenosky, David B., F
Page 55 and 56:
Cherie LeBlanc Fisher U.S Forest Se
Page 57 and 58:
Table 1.—Comparative statistics f
Page 59 and 60:
did some fi shing himself at each s
Page 61 and 62:
On the other hand, some personal kn
Page 63 and 64:
Illinois Department of Natural Reso
Page 65 and 66:
Consumer behavior researchers have
Page 67 and 68:
50 percent of the households were d
Page 69 and 70:
y respondents indicated that these
Page 71 and 72:
a bivariate approach (instead of th
Page 73 and 74:
HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN RUR
Page 75 and 76:
Short cruise season. Th e river fre
Page 77 and 78:
Lynda J. Sperazza, Ph.D. Recreation
Page 79 and 80:
2.3 Leisure Participation Values Re
Page 81 and 82:
Dychtwald, K. 1999. Age power: How
Page 83 and 84:
With all research, the research que
Page 85 and 86:
comprehensive. Cross (2005) even ar
Page 87 and 88:
Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State Univ
Page 89 and 90:
EXPERIENCE USE HISTORY AND ITS RELA
Page 91 and 92:
Table 1.—Comparison of experience
Page 93 and 94:
5.0 DISCUSSION As mentioned previou
Page 95 and 96:
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
Page 97 and 98:
2.0 METHODS Data were collected at
Page 99 and 100:
0 buses 4 buses 8 buses 12 buses Fi
Page 101 and 102:
4.0 DISCUSSION Visitor surveys and
Page 103 and 104:
LEISURE AND HEALTH
Page 105 and 106:
Second, in a world where clean drin
Page 107 and 108:
Table 1.—Importance of different
Page 109 and 110:
Countries also need to be careful a
Page 111 and 112:
Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 113 and 114:
Table 1.—Informant profi les Info
Page 115 and 116:
do something and we might think it
Page 117 and 118:
Th ese relational interactions enab
Page 119 and 120:
EXPLORING ELEMENTS THAT INFLUENCE S
Page 121 and 122: trails, and asking others to stay o
Page 123 and 124: time/fi nances” in dune protectio
Page 125 and 126: In summary, this study explored the
Page 127 and 128: Jinhee Jun Texas A&M University jju
Page 129 and 130: Table 1.—Sample demographics Indi
Page 131 and 132: Grayson 1995). Th e fi t of this mo
Page 133 and 134: Stets, J.E.; Burke, P.J. 2003. A so
Page 135 and 136: Jiaying Lu Texas A& M University Ji
Page 137 and 138: Table 1.—Demographic and particip
Page 139 and 140: Table 3.—Factor analysis of motiv
Page 141 and 142: species sought, satisfaction, and r
Page 143 and 144: social nature within sense of place
Page 145 and 146: Table 1.—Descriptions of key info
Page 147 and 148: sharing the place with others and a
Page 149 and 150: Manzo, L.C. 2005. For better or wor
Page 151 and 152: NORMATIVE TOLERANCES FOR SCUBA DIVE
Page 153 and 154: neutral point. Bubbles at the top o
Page 155 and 156: Table 1.—Snorkeler evaluations of
Page 157 and 158: Davis, D.; Tisdell, C. 1995. Recrea
Page 159 and 160: William Valliere University of Verm
Page 161 and 162: ��
Page 163 and 164: Manning, R. 2007. Parks and carryin
Page 165 and 166: mission is “...to promote and reg
Page 167 and 168: Figure 1.—Pedestrian walkway LOS
Page 169 and 170: Acceptability 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4
Page 171: TOURISM TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
Page 175 and 176: Table 3.—Comparison of socio-econ
Page 177 and 178: Table 6.—Entertainment Seekers’
Page 179 and 180: PLACE MEANINGS
Page 181 and 182: Stedman (1999) posited that sense o
Page 183 and 184: points in a focus group session, Ne
Page 185 and 186: are not shared by current residents
Page 187 and 188: Ishwar Dhami Division of Forestry a
Page 189 and 190: Figure 2.—Model for the calculati
Page 191 and 192: Table 1.—Viewshed results for all
Page 193 and 194: land implies that planting vegetati
Page 195 and 196: Shafer, E.L.; Hamilton, J.F.; Schmi
Page 197 and 198: a setting’s ability to facilitate
Page 199 and 200: EUH Place Satisfaction Figure 1.—
Page 201 and 202: Table 4.—Regression coefficients
Page 203 and 204: Jőreskog, K.G.; Sőrbom, D. 2004.
Page 205 and 206: OUTDOOR RECREATION II
Page 207 and 208: Th e primary objective of the propo
Page 209 and 210: Question 10. Do you believe that SU
Page 211 and 212: Rodney B. Warnick Tom Stevens Unive
Page 213 and 214: Table 1.—Estimated visitation to
Page 215 and 216: Table 2.—Estimated national park
Page 217 and 218: For this section of the trend analy
Page 219 and 220: 5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IM
Page 221 and 222: RECREATION TRAILS IN MAINE AND NEW
Page 223 and 224:
Table 2.—Average cross-sectional
Page 225 and 226:
Table 5.—The percentage of stream
Page 227 and 228:
Demrow, C.C. 2002. Maine trails man
Page 229 and 230:
Turner, J.M. 2002. From woodcraft t
Page 231 and 232:
Chad P. Dawson, Professor State Uni
Page 233 and 234:
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very diss
Page 235 and 236:
Table 4.—The number of campers in
Page 237 and 238:
Fuller, C.; Dawson, C. 1999. A comp
Page 239 and 240:
Table 1.—Modal response rates Ini
Page 241 and 242:
Smee, A.; Brennan, M. 2000. Electro
Page 243 and 244:
Table 1.—Characteristics of parti
Page 245 and 246:
Table 3.—Results of discriminant
Page 247 and 248:
5.0 CITATIONS Babbie, E. 2001. Th e
Page 249 and 250:
Bernardita Silva Graduate Assistant
Page 251 and 252:
Table 1.—Expenditures by 2008 Ame
Page 253 and 254:
6.0 CITATIONS Della Bitta, A.; Lond
Page 255 and 256:
the economic impact of travel, and
Page 257 and 258:
the air show. Th e second most popu
Page 259 and 260:
not displace other local spending.
Page 261 and 262:
6.0 CITATIONS Adams, P.D.; Parmente
Page 263 and 264:
MANAGEMENT AND USE OF PARK, RECREAT
Page 265 and 266:
which suggests that diff erent type
Page 267 and 268:
Table 2.—Between-groups ANOVA to
Page 269 and 270:
forest settings (means = 4.4 and 4.
Page 271 and 272:
LEISURE RESEARCH
Page 273 and 274:
communities together, and a decline
Page 275 and 276:
Table 2.—Life satisfaction scale
Page 277 and 278:
onds within a social group is a mec
Page 279 and 280:
“I JUST WANTED TO GET AWAY”: AN
Page 281 and 282:
Th e importance of “getting away
Page 283 and 284:
Gerlach, J. 1989. Spring Break at P
Page 285:
www.nrs.fs.fed.us The U.S. Departme
show all

Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?