Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
The Importance of Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Erin McGurgan, Linda M. Robson, PhD, William Samenfink, PhD
Department of Hospitality Management
Endicott College, Beverly, Massachusetts
Page 1
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 2
Abstract
Current event management research suggests that site selection criteria is crucial to an
event’s success. This research has been conducted with business events; which focus on
education. Special events, those marking life-cycle milestones (graduation, weddings,
etc) have not received the same attention. This study tested business site selection
criteria on special events. The study found that many of the criteria used for business
events were also used by special event planners, with importance level varying. These
findings can assist venues in structuring their marketing information and to the event
industry in developing site inspection checklists specific to special events.
Introduction
Event management deals with the planning and execution of a wide variety of unique, one-time
celebrations or assemblies of people, which are separate from everyday life (Florek et. al, 2008;
Formica, 1998; Frew & McGillivray, 1988; Getz, 2008; Getz, 1989; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008;
Marris, 1988; Ozdemir & Culha, 2009; Petterson & Getz, 2009; Silvers et. al, 2006).The event
industry can be split into five main categories including: Hallmark or Mega-Events; Fairs and
Festivals; Sporting Events; Business Events; and, Special Events (Dwyer & Fredline, 2008a;
Dwyer & Fredline, 2008b; Fawzy, 2008; Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Florek et. al, 2008; Getz, 2008;
Marris, 1988; Rompf et. al, 2008; Severt et. al, 2009; Silvers et. al, 2006).
Literature Review
The event segment of the hospitality industry has seen significant growth in the past decades due
to the increased expectations of event customers and the goal to better the economy in particular
locations (Ammon & Fried, 1988; Fawzy, 2008; Frew & McGillivray, 2008; Getz, 1989; Getz,
2008; Marris, 1988; Nassar & Talaat, 2009; Nelson, 2009; Pegg & Patterson, 2010; Pettersson &
Getz, 2009; Silvers, et. al, 2006). Event consumers seek diversified and professionally planned
events, which have lead to the creation of professional event planners and managers (Marris,
1988; Silvers et. al, 2006). Furthermore, a separate field of study has been started, particularly
for the events sector, relating to event management (Ammon & Fried, 1988; Back & Lee, 2005;
Formica, 1998; Getz, 2008; Getz, 1989; Nelson, 2009; Pegg & Patterson, 2010; Pettersson &
Getz, 2009; Silvers et. al, 2006).
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 3
Event management deals with the wide array of planned events related to sport, culture,
politics, business, and celebration (Florek et. al, 2008; Frew & McGillivray, 1988; Getz, 2008;
Getz, 1989; Marris, 1988; Ozdemir & Culha, 2009; Petterson & Getz, 2009; Silvers et. al, 2006).
A planned event is a unique, temporary celebration or gathering of people, outside everyday life
(Formica, 1998; Frew & McGillivray, 2008; Getz, 1989; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Marris,
1988; Ozdemir & Culha, 2009; Silvers, et. al, 2006). People are attracted to events because they
last only a limited time and can never be truly replicated (Formica, 1998; Getz, 1989; Odzemir &
Culha, 2009; Pegg & Patterson, 2010; Silvers et. al, 2006). Additionally, events play a significant
role in the tourism industry by enticing tourists to a particular area, acting as catalysts for
redevelopment, and increasing the economy of certain destinations (Frew & McGillivray, 2008;
Getz, 2008; Getz, 1989; Marris, 1988; Odzemir & Culha, 2009; Pettersson & Getz, 2009; Silvers
et. al, 2006).
Business Events
Within the business event sector, there is a wide variety of events, including meetings,
conventions, conferences, and product launches (Fawzy, 2008; Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Getz,
2008; Rompf et. al, 2008; Severt et. al, 2009). These events are typically utilized for career
advancement, discussing business and education, marketing new products, and/or to create
networking opportunities (Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Getz, 2008; Golblatt, 2002; Lee, 2009; Rompf
et. al, 2008; Severt et. al, 2009).
As companies typically pay for the majority of expenses, these events are well-known for
their economic stimulation and for bringing in higher spending travelers (Fawzy, 2008; Fawzy &
Samra, 2008; Lau & Wong, 2010; Lee, 2009). For example, those who attend business events
tend to be higher-level management, and are more well-paid than staff positions, and in turn, are
not concerned with spending more at an event (Fawzy, 2008; Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Lau &
Wong, 2010; Lee, 2009). Additionally, business events can benefit host communities year-round
due to the fact they have no defined peak season (Fawzy & Samra, 2008).
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 4
Special Events
Special events do not have a universal definition, but include those events that are primarily for
celebration (Dwyer et. al, 2005; Nassar & Talaat, 2009; O’Sullivan et. al, 2009). These events
are typically one-time events and can mark important times in life or accomplishments (Dwyer
et. al, 2005; Nassar & Talaat, 2009). Furthermore, they are events that occur outside of normal
life activities (Nassar & Talaat, 2009). Some examples of special events include social life-cycle
events (bar/bat mitzvahs, weddings, anniversaries, and birthdays) and civic events (those
involving government celebration) (Lau & Hui, 2009; Nassar & Talaat, 2009; O’Sullivan et. al,
2009). Due to the rarity of special events in the lives of most people, they help to stimulate the
economy (i.e. food and beverage, hotels, etc.) and bring in high profits because clients are
willing to spend more money on them (Dwyer et. al, 2005; Lau & Hui, 2009; Nassar & Talaat,
2009; O’Sullivan et. al, 2009).
Event Site Selection
Research suggests that the site selected for an event is a crucial step in event planning and has
the potential to influence success or failure (Chacko & Fenich, 2000; Crouch & Ritchie, 1997;
Fawzy, 2008; Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Lee, 2009; Rompf et. al, 2008;
Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2009). The site selection process will typically begin once the goals and
objectives of the event are determined to ensure the best potential venue is chosen (Rompf et. al,
2008). Typically, there are many people involved in the site selection process, including a
planner, an association (the client), a destination (the potential venue), and some event
representatives (those from the association that report progress to a higher authority figure)
(Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Rompf et. al, 2008).
The planner of an event will likely be responsible for researching and visiting potential
event sites and then reporting their findings to all those involved in the decision (Fawzy, 2008;
Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Rompf et. al, 2008; Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2009). It
is usually the responsibility of the planner to also make recommendations about potential sites
based on their knowledge and experience (Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008;
Rompf et. al, 2008). However, research indicates that less than half of the planners were the final
decision makers (Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008).
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 5
There have been a variety of studies done over the years to identify the various factors
that are involved in the site selection process (Chacko & Fenich, 2000; Crouch & Ritchie, 1997;
Fenich, 2001; Getz, 2004; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Oppermann, 1997; Petersen, 2005). There
is agreement on broad categories of site selection factors (accessibility, local support, extraconference opportunities, accommodation facilities, meeting facilities, information, site
environment, and other). There is also agreement that the level of importance of each of these
criteria has not been empirically tested. Some studies have focused on examining these criteria
from the perspective of planners (Chacko & Fenich, 2000; DiPietro, et.al., 2008; Gawzy &
Samra, 2008; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Lee, 2009), while others have examined them from the
perspective of the destination (Getz, 2004; Petersen, 2005; O’Sullivan, et al., 2009).
One of the most important criteria for business events, regardless of the event size or
budget, is the “servicescape” or the physical features of a venue (Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Lee,
2009; Rompf et. al, 2008; Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2009). These are the visible aspects of the venue that
create the setting of the event and may enhance or hinder the overall event outcome (Hilliard &
Baloglu, 2008). Physical features may include the number of meeting rooms, sleeping rooms, or
public areas that a venue offers (Crouch & Ritchie, 1997; Fenich, 2001; Hilliard & Baloglu,
2008). In terms of business events, it is important to have audio/visual equipment easily
accessible as presentations and visual aids are common in these events (Fawzy, 2006; Hilliard &
Baloglu, 2008). Finally, it is important to meeting planners to see visible safety precautions
(Fawzy, 2006; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). Safety refers both to the physical safety of the
attendees as well as safety regarding materials presented during the meeting (Fawzy, 2006;
Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Rompf et.al, 2008). In addition it was indicated that the overall
attitude of the staff in various situations (unhappy attendees, a problem with the food, etc.) was
another important factor when selecting the proper venue because it helps to ensure that
employees will be able to please the client and attendees (Fawzy, 2008; Lee, 2009).
Infrastructure (services put in place for residents to use- i.e. transportation, medical
facilities, etc.) and superstructure (services or amenities put in place for tourists- i.e. hotels,
restaurants, etc.) within a destination tend to either help or hurt a venue during site selection due
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 6
to the need for various amenities (Rompf et. al, 2008; Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2009). Ease of
accessibility and ample leisure activities to partake in encouraged planners to select one
destination over another (Rompf, et. al, 2008; Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2009).
While research has been done to determine the importance of site selection and site
selection criteria for business events and conventions, little has been researched about other
event types, specifically special events (Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Rompf et. al, 2008; Tsai & Tsan
Ho, 2008). Further research on special events can assist in determining the importance of site
selection and the presence or lack of certain site selection criteria to this group of event
organizers. The purpose of this research is to survey special event planners in order to explore
their perceptions of site selection and event success or failure.
Method
There is limited research related to special event planners in general, and specifically involving
their perception of important site selection criteria (Fawzy & Samra, 2008; Rompf et. al, 2008;
Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2008). In order to gather this foundational information descriptive research
using a quantitative approach is best suited to conduct the current research study (Fawzy, 2008;
Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Rompf et. al, 2008; Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2009). Furthermore, due to the
relatively recent introduction of research to the special events industry, the benchmarks within
the industry are still being determined (Ammon & Fried, 1988; Fawzy, 2008; Frew &
McGillivray, 2008; Getz, 1989; Getz, 2008; Marris, 1988; Nassar & Talaat, 2009; Nelson, 2009;
Pegg & Patterson, 2010; Pettersson & Getz, 2009; Silvers, et. al, 2006). Quantitative research
will help to determine the validity of the “important” site selection criteria that researchers have
identified for business events (Formica, 1998; Getz, 2008; Lau & Wong, 2010).
The target population for this research was special event planners. A convenience sample
included special event planners that have a current LinkedIn or Twitter account. Convenience
sampling is commonly used in hospitality and tourism exploratory research (Baloglu & Assante,
1999; Cooper & Schindler, 2000; Salant & Dillman, 1994; Smith, 2010).
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 7
A questionnaire was created on Survey Monkey to which potential respondents were
invited to participate in two ways. First, the link for the questionnaire was posted on various
event industry groups on LinkedIn. These groups included: Event Managers; Event Peeps: For
Live Event Industry Professionals; Event Planning & Event Management; Green Special Events;
ISES- International Special Event Society; ISES Denver Chapter; ISES Houston Chapter; ISES
International Special Events Society; ISES New England Chapter; ISES Pittsburgh; and, Who’s
Who in Events. Second, the researcher posted the link on Twitter for any planners with a Twitter
account to easily access it. The questionnaire was live from March 8, 2011 until April 8, 2011
and received a total of 62 completed questionnaires. Many of these questionnaires were
disqualified as they were not part of the defined target population or did not answer the key
research questions. In total, there were 36 respondents whose questionnaires were able to be
used.
Results
For this research, descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. These statistics allow for
the ability to determine general information about the topic and to recognize patterns. Based on
the limited research done within the special events industry, descriptive statistics are the most
suitable for this research to gain foundational information (Fawzy, 2008; Hilliard & Baloglu,
2008; Rompf et. al, 2008; Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2009).
Respondent Demographics
Industry literature suggests that women are the dominant gender among professional meeting
planners (Fawzy, 2008), which is supported by this research (Table 1). A total of 26 of 36
respondents, or 74.3%, indicated they were women. The majority of planners fell within the 3544 years and 45-54 years of age range categories with ten respondents in each category at 27.8%
each. These age categories are closely followed by 25-34 years and 55-64 years claiming 22.2%
and 20% of the respondents respectively.
Although event management specific information was invalid, 44.4% of respondents
indicated that they had received an undergraduate degree of some sort, followed closely by
38.9% of respondents who received a college or university certification.
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Table 1. Respondent Demographics
Gender
Percentage
Male
25.7
Female
74.3
N= 35
Age
Percentage
18-24 years
2.8
25-34 years
22.2
35-44 years
27.8
45-54 years
27.8
55-64 years
20.0
65 +
0.0
N=36
Highest Level of Education
Achieved
Percentage
Some High School
2.80
Graduated from High School
2.8
College/ University Certification
38.9
Undergraduate Degree
44.4
Graduate Degree (Masters,
Doctorate)
11.1
N=36
When asked how many years the respondents have been planning special events,
the majority (35.3%) had been planning for six to ten years with a close percentage
(20.6%), having planned events for zero to five years. In addition, nearly half (48.6%) of
respondents planned celebratory or life-cycle events (Table 2). There were no
respondents who planned hallmark or mega-events. In addition, many of the planners
who responded “other” planned non-profit events or fundraisers.
Table 2. Types of Events Planned
Types of Events Planned
Fairs & Festivals
Celebratory/ Life Cycle Events
Sports Events
Mega-Events or Hallmark Events
Other
N= 35
Percentage
28.6
48.6
5.7
0.0
22.6
Page 8
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 9
Site Selection Process Responsibilities
Table 3 discusses information gathered about the site selection process. One interesting result
was that over 60% of planners were responsible for researching potential venues (68.6%), doing
actual site inspections (68.6%), and making recommendations to clients (62.9%). Interestingly,
only 25.7% had final decision making power. One respondent, however, claimed to work for a
venue, and clients would go to them.
In relation to their involvement in the site selection process, 80.6% of respondents
deemed that selecting the proper venue is crucial to the overall success of an event, while zero
respondents believed that the venue had no affect at all. Only 19.5% of respondents thought that
the venue had moderate or limited affects on the success of events. Although the majority of
respondents indicated that selecting the proper venue is crucial to an event’s success, 14% of
planners rarely or never use a checklist during a site inspection. Of those that indicated that they
did use a checklist, 100% of respondents said that they created their own checklist rather than
obtaining an already available one.
Table 3. Site Selection Impact
Site Selection Responsibilities
Research for potential venues
Site inspections
Final decision making
Recommendation to client
Other
N= 35
Affect of Venue on Event Success
No Affect on Success
Limited Affect
Moderate Affect
Crucial to Success
Don't Know
N= 36
Checklist Used For Site Selection
Always
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
N= 36
Percentage
68.6
68.6
25.7
62.9
2.9
Percentage
0.0
2.8
16.7
80.6
0.0
Percentage
47.2
38.9
8.3
5.6
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 10
Importance of Site Selection Criteria
Respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance for a variety of site selection criteria.
The 5-point Likert-type scale ranged from 1 as important and 5 unimportant. Table 4 illustrates
the mean rating for a list of site selection criteria. Based on these means, attitudes of staff (1.1);
size of venue (1.2); venue ambiance (1.3); and the first impression of venue (1.3) were skewed
toward important. Distance from attractions, distance from airports, visible smoke alarms, and
distance from public transportation received mean ratings of 3.1, 2.9, 2.8, and 2.7 respectively,
indicating these criteria fall toward the neither important nor unimportant rating. The ‘don’t
know’ response option was not chosen by any respondent and the ‘not applicable’ response
option was chosen infrequently, indicating the site selection criteria were considered in some
form by all respondents. Some of the “other” responses indicated that the price of the venue and
the availability of food and beverage accommodations are also important when selecting a venue.
Table 4. Site Selection Criteria
Site Selection Criteria
Attitudes of Staff
Size of Venue
Venue Ambiance
First Impression of Venue
Venue Décor
Available Function Rooms
Audio/Visual Capabilities
Distance of Venue from Accommodations
Security Personnel on Premise
Accessible Building Evacuation Plan
Lodging Accommodations Available On-Site
Distance of Venue from Public
Transportation
Visible Smoke Alarms
Distance of Venue from Airports
Distance of Venue from Attractions
Mean
N=
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.7
36
36
36
36
35
35
35
35
36
36
35
36
2.8
2.9
3.1
36
35
35
When comparing the site selection criteria across the most prominent age categories (2534, 35-44, 45-54, and 55-64), it was found that both those in the range of 25-34 years and those
within the 55-64 years range indicated attitude of the staff as skewed toward important. In
contrast, respondents ages 35-44 felt that the size of the venue was important, while the
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 11
respondents that fell within 45-54 years of age saw the venue ambiance as between important
and somewhat important. In addition, when comparing the data to those respondents with at least
a college certification or higher, it was found that size of venue, attitudes of staff, venue
ambiance, venue décor, first impressions were deemed most important, respectively.
Table 5. Site Selection Criteria & Age
Site Selection Criteria
Venue Ambiance
Visible Smoke Alarms
Security Personnel on Premise
Accessible Building Evacuation Plan
Venue Décor
Attitudes of Staff
First Impression of Venue
Distance of Venue from Airports
Distance of Venue from Public
Transportation
Distance of Venue from
Accommodations
Distance of Venue from Attractions
Lodging Accommodations Available OnSite
Audio/ Visual Capabilities
Size of Venue
Available Function Rooms
25-34
Years
1.4
2.9
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.3
1.6
2.9
35-44
Years
1.5
2.7
2.3
2.5
1.5
1.3
1.4
3.3
45-54
Years
1.0
3.0
2.5
2.6
1.4
1.0
1.2
2.7
55-64
Years
1.6
2.8
1.8
2.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
2.1
2.4
2.9
2.5
2.6
1.9
2.6
2.0
1.4
3.0
3.0
3.4
3.0
2.1
1.9
1.4
1.8
2.9
1.8
1.1
1.5
2.4
2.1
1.0
1.3
1.9
1.7
1.3
1.7
Discussion
This research study surveyed special event planners in order to explore their perceptions of the
connection between site selection and event success. Each question within the questionnaire was
designed to measure the similarities and differences between site selection for business events
and special events.
Respondent Demographics
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 12
Similar to previous business event research, this study found that a large majority of respondents
were females between the ages of 25-54 (Fawzy, 2008; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). While the age
ranges are slightly broader than those of the research results, the similarity is likely due to the
young age of the industry. Due to the growth of the event industry in the past decades, the
current planners that fall within these age ranges are likely those that were planners once the
industry became recognized recently (Ammon & Fried, 1988; Fawzy, 2008; Frew &
McGillivray, 2008; Getz, 1989; Getz, 2008; Marris, 1988; Nassar & Talaat, 2009; Nelson, 2009;
Pegg & Patterson, 2010; Pettersson & Getz, 2009; Silvers, et. al, 2006).
In addition, while it was unclear as to the type of event management education in
particular, that the planners had, this study indicated that similar to industry research, the
majority of planners have at least some general college education (Fawzy, 2998; Rompf et. al,
2008). This is likely due to the fact that over 25% of all Americans have completed a bachelor’s
degree of some sort and those that became planners had previous jobs that evolved into their
event planning careers (Census 2000 Brief, 2003).
One might expect planners to have had more years of experience based on their higher
age ranges; however, over half of the respondents have been planning events for 0-10 years. In
addition, it was found that nearly half of the respondents planned social life-cycle or celebratory
events with the next closest event type being fairs and festivals. This is likely due to the fact that
more social life-cycle events and celebratory events will take place in one year, while fairs and
festivals typically take place once annually in specific geographic areas (Getz, 2008; Ozdemir &
Culha, 2009; Pegg & Pattersson, 2010; Tsai & Tsan Ho, 2009).
Site Selection Process Responsibilities
Within this study and industry research, it has been suggested that event planners are typically
responsible for the research of an event venue, the actual site inspection, and making
recommendations to the client (Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). This is likely due to the desire that
clients have to please their attendees. They likely want to ensure that the venue will truly fit their
needs and that attendees will be able to enjoy the event as much as possible.
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 13
Previous research indicated that very few planners were permitted to make the final site
selection (Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). In contrast this study found that a quarter of special event
planners were responsible for the final site selection. This could be due to the fact that meetings
tend to have organizing committees made up of various members, including the event planner.
Special events, specifically celebratory/life cycle events, do not have organizing committees.
Instead the selection of the venue is part of the event planner’s responsibilities.
Respondents of this study also indicated that they thought the venue is crucial to the
overall success of the event. Nearly half of respondents used a checklist when completing site
selections and of those, all used a checklist that they had created. These results are likely due to
the fact that most planners know the basic site selection criteria and know what they are looking
for. Therefore, respondents are likely able to complete site selection without a checklist, but will
remember the important criteria in their heads. This may also be likely based on the number of
years of experience that planners have. As they have completed more site selections, they will be
able to tell if a venue will work or not. As each event has different goals and objectives, each
planner will be looking for something different within a site. This means that industry provided
checklists may not have all the necessary elements.
Importance of Site Selection Criteria
Respondents in the current study indicated that the attitude of staff, size of the venue, venue
ambiance, and the first impression of the venue are the most important site selection criteria for
special events. These criteria are similar to industry research which suggests meeting planners
saw “servicescape” (the physical features of a venue) and the overall staff attitude within various
situations as the most important site selection criteria for business events.
In contrast, industry research suggested that safety factors were also very important for
business events (Fawzy, 2008; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; Rompf et.al, 2008). Respondents for
this study positioned criteria relating to safety and security as “somewhat important” or “neither
important nor unimportant.” These results are likely due to the celebratory nature of special
events and the lack of circumstances that planners would typically worry about when planning
business events (terrorism, expensive products, larger-scale events, etc.). Furthermore, the
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 14
majority of events that respondents planned were social life-cycle events, which indicates that
most attendees are likely friends and family rather than public figures. This, in turn, will
typically lessen the chance of terrorism threats and other hostile acts within the event.
Another interesting result to note is that a college education did not affect the importance
level of the site selection criteria. It would be interesting to know whether they had any sort of
event management education to examine if that influenced their perceptions.
Limitations
One limitation of this study was that it used a convenience sampling method. This does not allow
the findings to be generalized to the larger population. Using a convenience sampling method
may create biases because of the potential that the respondents know the researcher.
Associated with the use of a convenience sampling method is the small sample size of the
study. Although a higher number of respondents would allow for generalization to the larger
population, this study was focused on obtaining foundational data.
Another limitation of the questionnaire is that the researcher did not correctly format
Question #13. Rather than allowing respondents to select all answers that applied to them,
respondents were only able to select one response. Approximately halfway through the data
collection, the question was re-formatted to allow the correct responses; however, this may have
skewed the results. This question had to be discarded because there was no way to analyze the
results as they were.
Recommendations
For future studies involving the importance of site selection, it would be beneficial to include
more criteria. There are likely other aspects involved with selecting a site that planners deem
significant. In order to determine the most appropriate criteria for special event site selection,
qualitative research could be undertaken. This would include individual interviews with special
event planners to discover the criteria they currently use. It would also include content analysis
through an examination of checklists.
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 15
Second, the location of the event could be studied in order to further delineate site
selection criteria. This could be examined from a geographic perspective (country), or type of
venue (hotels or resorts). This would assist in determining common criteria for special events, as
well as venue specific and geographically specific criteria.
Finally, a third recommendation would be to do this study again including a question
about event management specific education. Whether planners had event management education
or not may alter the responses given. For example, it may be likely that a planner would place a
greater emphasis on safety and security factors had they taken risk management hospitality
courses. This would be useful for venues to use in order to learn which criteria they need to have
present in order to remain competitive as a special event venue.
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 16
References
Ammon, R. & Fried, G. (1988). Crowd management practices. Journal of Convention &
Exhibition Management, 1(2/3), 119-150.
Back, K. & Lee, M. (2005). A review of convention and meeting management research 19902003. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 7(2), 1- 20.
Baloglu, S. & Assante, L.M. (1999). A content analysis of subject areas and research methods
used in five hospitality management journals. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 23(1), 53-70.
Census 2000 Brief (2003). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf
on April 13, 2011.
Chacko, H.E. & Fenich, G.G. (2000). Determining the importance of US convention destination
attributes. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 6(3), 211-220.
Chen, C.F. (2006). Applying the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to convention
site selection. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 167-174.
Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2000). Business Research Methods (7th ed). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Crouch, G.I. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1997). Convention site selection research. Journal of
Convention & Exhibition Management, 1(1), 49-69.
DiPietro, R.B., Breiter, D., Rompf, P. & Godlewska, M. (2008). An exploratory study of
differences among meeting and exhibition planners in their destination site selection
criteria. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 9(4), 258-276.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P. & Spurr, R. (2005). Estimating the impacts of special events on an
economy. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 351-359.
Dwyer, L. & Fredline, L. (2008 a). Special sport events – part i. Journal of Sport Management,
22, 495-500.
Dwyer, L. & Fredline, L. (2008 b). Special sport events – part ii. Journal of Sport Management
22, 385-391.
Fawzy, A. (2008). Site selection criteria for meetings on cruise ships: The View of Corporate
Meeting Planners. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 9(1), 81-94.
Fawzy, A. & Samra, Y. (2008). A conceptual model for understanding associations’ site
selection processes: an organizational buyer behavior perspective. Journal of Convention
& Event Management, 9(2), 119-136.
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 17
Fenich, G.G. (2001). Towards a conceptual framework for assessing community attractiveness
for conventions. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 3(1), 45-64.
Florek, M., Breitbarth, T. & Francisco, C., (2008). Mega event = mega impact? Travelling fans’
experience and perceptions of the 2006 FIFA World Cup host nation. Journal of Sport &
Tourism, 13(3), 199-219.
Formica, S. (1998). The development of festivals and special events studies. Festival
Management &Event Tourism, 5, 131-137.
Frew, M., & McGillivray, D., (2008). Exploring hyper-experiences: performing the fan at
Germany 2006. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13(3), 181-198.
Getz, D. (1989). Special events: defining the product. Tourism Management, 10(2), 125.
Getz, D. (2004). Bidding on events. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 5(2), 124.
Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29(3),
403-428.
Hilliard, T. & Baloglu, S., (2008). Safety and security as part of the hotel servicescape for
meeting planners. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 9(1), 16-34.
Korstanje, M. (2009). Reconsidering the roots of event management: leisure in Ancient Rome.
Event Management, 13(3), 197-203.
Lau, C. & Hui, S. (2009). Selection attributes of wedding banquet venues: An exploratory study
of Hong Kong Prospective wedding couples. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29, 268-276.
Lau, C. & Wong, S. (2010). The value of conventions and events: perspectives and experiences
of industry leaders at international convention and expo summit 2009. Journal of
Convention and Event Tourism, 11(3), 234-246.
Lee, T. (2009). The successful conference venue: perceptions of conference organizers and hotel
managers. Event Management, 33, 171-180.
Marris, T. (1988). AIEST congress: summary and conclusions. Journal of Travel Research,
26(31), 31-35.
McGill, S. (2009). Daily life in Ancient Rome. Daily Life in Ancient Rome, 1-2.
Nassar, N. & Talaat, N. (2009). Motivations of young volunteers in special events. Tourismos:
An International Journal of Tourism, 4(1), 145-152.
Site Selection Criteria for Special Events
Page 18
Nelson, K., (2009). Enhancing the attendee’s experience through creative design of the event
environment: applying Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective. Journal of Convention &
Event Tourism, 10, 120-133.
O’Sullivan, D. & Pickernell, D., & Senyard, J. (2009). Public sector evaluation of festivals and
special events. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1), 19-36.
Oppermann, M. (1997). Perceptions of convention destinations. Journal of Convention &
Exhibition Management, 1(1), 35-48.
Ozdemir, G. & Culha, O. (2009). Satisfaction and loyalty of festival visitors. An Institutional
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(2), 359-373.
Pegg, S. & Patterson, I. (2010). Rethinking music festivals as a staged event: gaining insights
from understanding visitor motivations and the experiences they seek. Journal of
Convention & Event Tourism, 11(2), 85-99.
Petersen, D.C. (2005). The city as a destination. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 6(12), 145-157.
Pettersson, R. & Getz, D., (2009). Event experience in time and space: a study of visitors to the
2007 world alpine ski championships in Are, Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 9 (2-3), 308-326.
Rompf, P., Breiter, D., Severt, K. (2008). Destination selection criteria: key success factors
evolve and dominate. Event Management, 12, 27-38.
Salant, P. & Dillman, D.A. (1994). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Severt, K., Fjelstul, J. & Breiter, D. (2009). A comparison of motivators and inhibitors for
association meeting attendance for three general cohorts. Journal of Convention & Event
Tourism, 10, 105-119.
Silvers, J., Bowdin, G., O’Toole, W. & Nelson, K. (2006). Towards an international event
management body of knowledge (EMBOK). Event Management, 9, 185-198.
Smith, S.L.J. (2010). Practical Tourism Research. Cambridge, MA: CABI.
Tsai, H. & Tsan Ho, P. (2009). Assessing site selection criteria for Taiwan Lantern Festival by
analytic hierarchy process. Event Management, 12, 187-197.