<%BANNER%>

The Influence of Small-Scale Sport Event Impacts on Personal and Community Quality of Life and Support for Sport Event T...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044376/00001

Material Information

Title: The Influence of Small-Scale Sport Event Impacts on Personal and Community Quality of Life and Support for Sport Event Tourism
Physical Description: 1 online resource (146 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Karadakis, Kostas N
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: impacts -- qol -- resident -- small-scale -- sport -- support -- tourism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Communities seeking to develop their tourism industry or attract spectators and event participants bid to host small-scale sport events. However, there is limited research that examines the impact these events have on local communities (Gibson et al., 2003). As social exchange theory suggests, if residents experience more positive impacts than negative impacts then they are more likely to support hosting additional events in the future. Furthermore, literature suggests that when a community hosts an event, their quality of life is affected, although this thesis has not been empirically tested. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perceived event impacts of a small-scale sport event, quality of life and resident support. A theoretical model was proposed and tested utilizing Anderson and Gerbing (1988) structural equation modeling. A total of 412 respondents at two Florida Youth Soccer Association events were recruited to examine their perceived impacts of small-scale sport events on their quality of life and support for hosting future events. Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance and satisfaction with event impacts (economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, socio-cultural, knowledge development, political and tourism) in their community; their satisfaction with their community’s quality of life; as well as their personal quality of life; and their level of support for hosting  small-scale sport events in their community.  It was hypothesized that support for hosting additional events in a community would be influenced by the perceived impacts and quality of life measures. The results indicated respondents felt that all impacts were important and that they were satisfied with the impacts they experienced. Respondents also indicated they were satisfied with their quality of life. Furthermore, respondents indicated they would support hosting future events in their communities. The results indicated that impacts did influence support for hosting small-scale events, and impacts did affect community and personal quality of life. Furthermore, it was found that only personal quality of life influenced resident support for hosting small-scale sport events. A discussion of the results as well as practical and theoretical implications is provided.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kostas N Karadakis.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Kaplanidou, Kyriaki.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044376:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044376/00001

Material Information

Title: The Influence of Small-Scale Sport Event Impacts on Personal and Community Quality of Life and Support for Sport Event Tourism
Physical Description: 1 online resource (146 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Karadakis, Kostas N
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: impacts -- qol -- resident -- small-scale -- sport -- support -- tourism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Communities seeking to develop their tourism industry or attract spectators and event participants bid to host small-scale sport events. However, there is limited research that examines the impact these events have on local communities (Gibson et al., 2003). As social exchange theory suggests, if residents experience more positive impacts than negative impacts then they are more likely to support hosting additional events in the future. Furthermore, literature suggests that when a community hosts an event, their quality of life is affected, although this thesis has not been empirically tested. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perceived event impacts of a small-scale sport event, quality of life and resident support. A theoretical model was proposed and tested utilizing Anderson and Gerbing (1988) structural equation modeling. A total of 412 respondents at two Florida Youth Soccer Association events were recruited to examine their perceived impacts of small-scale sport events on their quality of life and support for hosting future events. Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance and satisfaction with event impacts (economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, socio-cultural, knowledge development, political and tourism) in their community; their satisfaction with their community’s quality of life; as well as their personal quality of life; and their level of support for hosting  small-scale sport events in their community.  It was hypothesized that support for hosting additional events in a community would be influenced by the perceived impacts and quality of life measures. The results indicated respondents felt that all impacts were important and that they were satisfied with the impacts they experienced. Respondents also indicated they were satisfied with their quality of life. Furthermore, respondents indicated they would support hosting future events in their communities. The results indicated that impacts did influence support for hosting small-scale events, and impacts did affect community and personal quality of life. Furthermore, it was found that only personal quality of life influenced resident support for hosting small-scale sport events. A discussion of the results as well as practical and theoretical implications is provided.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kostas N Karadakis.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Kaplanidou, Kyriaki.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044376:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE INFLUENCE OF SMALL SCALE SPORT EVENT IMPACTS ON PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY QUALITY OF LIFE AND SUPPORT FOR SPORT EVENT TOURISM By KOSTAS KARADAKIS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Kostas Karadakis

PAGE 3

3 I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my parents, George and Athena Karadakis who have supported and in spired me in every aspect of my life. My father, George who in fewer words than any man I have ever known instills a sense of calm and wisdom in my life. He has also showed me that taking chances in life can lead to incredible experiences, and fearing the unknown is just that, the unknown so take the chance. My mother, a person that will support and inspiration in my life. I have her to thank for my drive and determin ation to achieve my highest potential. As I have learned from her that as long as I try and keep working hard she will be taken this to heart. So mom and dad I t hank you and love you! , .

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was made possible through the time, support and encouragement of many. Firstly, I would like to thank the members of my supervisory committee at the University of Florida for their guidance and support throughout this project. I would particularly like to I can be. I will fore ver remember Friday, April 25 th 2008 when Dr. Kaplanidou called to tell me I was accepted as her first doctoral student. I promised that I would do my best to make her proud and never disappoint her, and I hope I have kept my promise. Over the years Dr. Ka planidou has provided me with outstanding mentoring and guidance, and without her I would never have developed critical thinking skills, problem solving and most importantly attention to details. Kiki has spent numerous hours helping me and challenging me to develop and refine my academic skills. I feel truly lucky to have had her as my advisor to receive feedback and be included on numerous projects. I have the utmost respect for her work ethic, the quality of work she produces, her intellect and her dedic ation to her students. I thank her not only for taking a chance on me as her student and being my mentor, but for her constant support and encouragement, and also her friendship. I will miss the days where I could come into her office and just have casual chats about life and practicing my Greek with her. I hope I can become as an amazing person as her one day. I would like to also thank my other committee members. Dr. Swisher, one of the most knowledgeable and intelligent people I have ever had the honor of knowing and taking classes with. She encouraged and inspired me to look at numerous theories and research designs and her insights have been a great help to my academic career. Dr. Donohoe, I thank for her solid knowledge and background on the quality o f life literature and for including me in projects. Finally, Dr. Sagas, for his contributions to my research methods and saving me time and money

PAGE 5

5 with regards to data collection, and for recruiting respondents to take my survey. Without these individuals m y dissertation would not have materialized. I would like to thank all those individuals who travelled with me to collect my data. Ben Salo, Trevor Bopp, Shannon Kerwin, Todd Gilmore, Eric Jang, Hany Kim, Galina Simanovskaya, Christina Zhan, Ryan Wang and Ari Kim, without you this dissertation would not have been completed in time. I would also like to thank Dr. George Karlis, for introducing me to Dr. Kaplanidou and for all his support during my academic career. It took one conversation with George to ins pire me to pursue my Ph.D. I thank him and his wife, Penny for all their support and encouragement over the years. Also, I thank all the friends that I have met during my time here, for all their support and conversations about theories, statistical analys es, research design and in general being there to share in my experiences. I will miss weekly steak and dairy queen nights with Trevor, Mike, Ben and Todd. Finally, I would like to thank my family and my brother and sister for their psychological support. Maria, I will still look forward to our weekly Skype conversations, and George our Xbox Live soccer matches that are meant to help me relieve stress, not cause more.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Justification for The Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 15 Statement of The Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17 Purpose of The Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 19 Sport Tourism ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 19 Types of Sport Events ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 20 Small Scale Events ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 21 Hallmark and Mega Event s ................................ ................................ ............................. 25 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 27 Impacts of Events ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 30 Studies Exami ................................ ............................. 34 Quality of Life ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 37 Measurement of Quality of Life ................................ ................................ ............................. 45 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 48 3 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 52 Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 52 Study Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 53 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 58 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 58 Sample Size ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 59 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 Measurement Model Test ................................ ................................ ................................ 60 Structural Model Testing ................................ ................................ ................................ 64 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 76 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 76

PAGE 7

7 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 77 Results of The Proposed Model ................................ ................................ .............................. 78 Hypotheses Tested ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 78 Perceived Sport Event Impact Hypotheses Tested on Event Support and QOL Dimensions ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 79 Community and Personal Quality of Life Hypotheses Tested ................................ ........ 81 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ .................... 90 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 90 Community Quality of Life ................................ ................................ ............................. 91 Personal Quality of Life ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 97 Resident Support ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 101 Non significant Hypothesis Findings ................................ ................................ ............ 102 Theoretical Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ 111 Practical Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 114 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 117 Future Studies ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 118 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 121 APPENDIX A IRB CONSENT FORM AND SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ............ 123 B DEMOGRAPHICS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 130 REFEREN CES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 133 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 146

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Disposition of items t aken from Solberg and Preuss (2007) created for use in a study of perceived effects of small scale sport events in Florida, 2012 ................................ ...... 65 3 2. Final instrument for impact items created from Solberg and Preuss (2007) used in a study of perceived effects of small scale sport events in Florida, 2012 ............................ 69 3 3 scale event impa cts, community quality of life, personal quality of life and resident support ............ 70 3 4 Unidimensionality and Variance Explained for constructs used to measure perceptions of small scale event im pacts, CQOL, PQOL and resident support ................. 71 3 5 Goodness of Fit Indices of proposed measurement model predicting support for hosting small scale events in Florida, 2012 ................................ ................................ ....... 72 3 6 Factor Loadings, C.R of the perceptions of small scale event impacts, CQOL, PQOL and resident support ................ 73 3 7 Correlations among measurement constructs/factors of the perceptions of small scale event impacts, CQOL, PQOL and resident support ................................ ........................... 75 4 1 action, Importance + Satisfaction, Quality of life and Support for hosting small scale sport events in Florida, 2012 ............ 86 4 2 Path Analysis results of proposed model of the relationship between small scale sport event impacts, quality of life and resident support ................................ ................... 87 4 3 Goodness of Fit Indices of the path analysis model predicting support for hosting small scale sport events in Flori da, 2012 ................................ ................................ ........... 88 B 1 Participant demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ 130 B 2 Miles traveled, events attended, years lived in city, sport interest ................................ .. 131 B 3 Miles travelled frequency ................................ ................................ ................................ 131 B 4 Events attended in past 24 months ................................ ................................ ................... 131 B 5 Years lived in current city ................................ ................................ ................................ 132 B 6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 132

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Proposed model for resident support for hosting a small scale sport event ...................... 51 4 1 Path analysis model of sport event impacts, quality of life, and support with standardized coe fficients ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 89

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INFLUENCE OF SMALL SCALE SPORT EVENT IMPACTS ON PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY QUALITY OF LIFE AND SUPPORT FOR SPORT EVENT TOURISM By Kostas Karadakis August 2012 Chair: Major: Health and Human Performance Communities seeking to develop their tourism i ndustry or attract spectators and event participants bid to host small scale sport events. However, there is limited research that examines the impact these events have on local communities (Gibson et al., 2003). As social exchange theory suggests, if resi dents experience more positive impacts than negative impacts then they are more likely to support hosting additional events in the future. Furthermore, literature suggests that when a community hosts an event, their quality of life is affected, although th is thesis has not been empirically tested. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perceived event impacts of a small scale sport event, quality of life and resident support. A theoretical model was proposed and tested utilizing Anderson and Gerbing (1988) structural equation m odeling A total of 412 respondents at two Florida Youth Soccer Association events were recruited to examine their perceived impacts of small scale sport events on their quality of life and suppor t for hosting future events. Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance and satisfaction with event impacts (economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, socio cultural, knowledge development, political and tourism) in their communit y

PAGE 11

11 personal quality of life; and their level of support for hosting small scale sport events in their community. It was hypothesized that support for hosting additional events i n a community would be influenced by the perceived impacts and quality of life measures. The results indicated respondents felt that all impacts were important and that they were satisfied with the impacts they experienced. Respondents also indicated they were satisfied with their quality of life. Furthermore, respondents indicated they would support hosting future events in their communities. The results indicated that impacts did influence support for hosting small scale events, and impacts did affect com munity and personal quality of life. Furthermore, it was found that only personal quality of life influenced resident support for hosting small scale sport events A discussion of the results as well as practical and theoretical implications is provided.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Sport and tourism are two rapid developing industries in the world (Kurtzman & Zauhar, 2003) In Florida, sports are a $36 billion industry and employs 434,000 citizens (Florida Sports Foundation, 2011) In order to bring sport events t o Florida, the Florida Sports Foundation works with more than 20 sports commissions through their grant program. In 2010, the grant program was able to secure and attract 33 sport events to Florida. Interest in sport participation and consumption has incr eased because of media attention on sport events, heightened awareness for public health, and the emergence of new sports (Williams, 2003) Growth in the sport and tourism industries has lead to a trend of more active holidays (De Villers, 2003) and toward s holidays where sport or a sporting event is the main attraction. Within the sport tourism market, sport event tourism has a major role for host destinations, evidenced by the inclusion of sport events into their tourism marketing mix (Chalip & Leyns, 2002; Higham & Hinch, 2002) There is a variety of sport event types. These include mega sport events such as the Olympic Games, medium size sport events such as national championships, and smaller size sport events such as local cycling, walking, and running events (Getz, 2008) Research indicates that small and large scale spor t events can draw tourists, spectators and participants, increase media attention and generate a positive destination image among tourists (Chalip, Green, & Hill, 2003; De Knop, 1998; Getz, 1998; Gibson, Willming, & Holdnak, 2003) Sport tourism is considered to act as a catalyst for economic development in urban areas (Gibson, 1998; Gibson, Kaplanidou, & Kang, 2012) Research has explored the perceived economic impacts of specific sport tourism events by host community residents. Walo, Bull, and Breen (1996) found that residents perceived an economic benefit from sporting events, however,

PAGE 13

13 smaller scale events also provided a social benefit, as residents were more likely to volunteer for these events which were perceived to bring the community together. The above studies group tourism impacts into positive or negative perceptions without distinguishing specific types of impacts. Chen (2001) suggested that impacts should be br oken down to represent different types such as economic, social and environmental in order to provide researchers and organizers with a comprehensive representation of the types of impacts that predict/influence resident support towards sport event tourism As mentioned above, sport event impact and tourism impact research has mainly focused on economic impacts; however, there is need for a more balanced research that looks at social and cultural impacts as well. For example, Delamere (2001) looked at developing a resident attitude scale to measure social impact indicators; Fredline and Faulkner (2002) looked at resident perceptions of event impacts such as sociopolitical values, community attachment, and percept ions of participation and justice; and, Fredline (2006) focused on the development of a social impact scale for events. Emerging sub areas of impact studies include: environmental, social/cultural, economic event related impacts, policy and planning, business and management and quality of life. Tourism and sport event impacts/issues can be considered as related to these entire sub a reas (Getz, 2008). For the purposes of this study a holistic approach to the impacts mentioned in the literature will be used, as well as residents perceptions of how these impacts As suggested by Chen (2001), when examining resident support for tourism development, it is important to study the impacts as it allows organizers and policymakers to better understand what impacts influence resident support and for organizers to improve scale event on their quality of

PAGE 14

14 life, organizers can be aware of problem areas and address them, therefore making efforts to ensure that ho their personal quality of life and community quality of life. Personal quality of life can be (2005) and will be discussed in the literature review, while community quality of life refers to a ommunity such as education, neighborhood, service and facilities, social life and relations (Cummins, 1997). For communities that utilize sport events as a tourism development strategy, local resident support is important in tourism planning and developmen t (Sautter & Leisen, 1999) This is due to the fact that residents interact directly with tourists and athletes who attend the events. Thus, a social exchange is activated. Residents can provide either a welcoming or unfavorable atmosphere, and may als o choose to volunteer to help at the event. Therefore, understanding the factors that influence resident support for hosting a sport event is important. Also, there is little research that examines the meaning attached to a small scale sport event experien ce from the (2010) suggests that the meaning derived from an event experience is developed around the organizational, environmental, social and emotional characteristics. Since it was found that active participants use a holistic assessment method when evaluating their event experience, it is important to understand and include how residents evaluate their satisfaction with the event experience when examining oted to small scale sports events (Higham & Hinch, 2002) b ecause they are seen as having a small economic impact (Daniels & Norman, 2003) But, Walo, Bull, and Breen (1996) argued that

PAGE 15

15 smaller events deserve more research attention because these events operate within the existing resource capacity of a local economy featuring low opportunity costs and high community benefit. Therefore, research should focus on what influences resident support towards these sport events. Justification for The S tudy Compared to the mega event literature, research examinin g small scale events or regular events is limited (Gibson et al., 2003) .The factors that influence resident support for hosting small scale events deserves attention. As Ritchie (2004) stated, Despite the popularity and number of small scale sporting events, little research has been published conc erning the nature or tourism potential of small scale sport events. research concerning small scale sport events has usually examined either spectator/passive sport events or participatory/active sport events. However, despite such research the detail ed examination of active small scale sport event tourism is rare. Yet the potential marketing and economic development benefits are similar, generate the most interest from re searchers, policy makers and planners alike (p. 137) While the majority of small scale event research has examined economic impacts (Crompton, 1999) other potential impacts (economic, tourism, socio cultural environmental, psychological, knowledge development and political) that influence resident support toward sport events are rarely examined. The majority of literature examines resident attitudes towards tourism development and has focused on resident sup port for tourism development (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004) or resident support for hosting a mega event (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006) In f impacts and support for tourism development or support for hosting mega events, social exchange theory serves as the proper theoretical framework. Social exchange theory is a theoretical approach used f impacts produced by tourism development (Emerson, 1976) Factors such as socia l, cultural, economic, ecocentric attitudes, community

PAGE 16

16 attachment and environmental impacts have been identified by social exchange theory as events (G ursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Twynam & Johnston, 2004) The theory suggests that when residents perceive or feel they experience benefits from tourism development, they will develop a positive attitude and they will support further de velopment mainly because of these perceived benefits (Andereck & Vogt, 2000) As Andereck and Vogt (2000) found residents of a tourism destination had a positive attitude towards tourism and tourism dev elopment when community benefits of tourism was experienced. More specifically, their findings revealed that economic, socio reported positive attitudes regarding tour ism and economic improvement, more recreation and (2002) found that residents not only considered the impacts of an event, but also the changes in quality of life. These results suggest that there is a relationship between quality of life, event impacts and support for tourism development through hosting a sport event in the community. Hosting a sport event in a community offers residents an opportu nity to improve quality of life through tourism development. As Andereck, Valentine, Knopf and Vogt ( 2005 ) improve quality of life such as employment opportunities, tax revenues, economic diversity, festivals, restaura 1056 1057). However, there is research that has identified negative tourism event impacts such as crowding, traffic, parking problems, increased crime and cost of living as ne gatively influencing quality of life (Andereck et al., 2005; Ap & Crompton, 1993; McCool & Martin, 1994)

PAGE 17

17 Gursoy and Kendall (2006) in modeling resident support for hosting a mega sport event used variables such as perceived benefits and costs community concern and attachment, and, ecocentric attitude. Quality of life is alluded to as being affected by hosting an event or engaging in tourism development. However, quality of life has not been empirically tested to determine its relationship wit research attempts to empirically test whether quality of life is viewed as a platform of exchange for residents which in turn results in supporting behaviors toward event sport tourism initiatives. Two gaps in the literature will therefore be filled: 1. Is quality of life considered an exchange? 2. Which types of impacts influence quality of life and subsequently event support for small scale events? Statement of T he P roblem The problem this research aimed to address is the poor understanding of the relationship between impacts, community quality of life, personal quality of life and resident support for hosting small scale sport events in their community. It is important to iden tify the factors that influence resident support towards hosting a small scale event in their community and the impacts events have on community and personal quality of life, because the residents can contribute to the sustainability, success and promotion of the event. Purpose of T he S tudy The purpose of this study was to identify the relative weight and influence of the impacts that are identified in the literature within the small scale sport event context on community quality of life, personal quality of life and resident support towards hosting sport tourism events. This study examined the relationship between quality of life and the effect impacts (economic, tourism, environmental, socio cultural, psychological, knowledge development, infrastructure

PAGE 18

18 a nd political) have on resident support for the hosting of a small scale sport event. Finally, this study also aimed to improve the understanding of resident support for hosting an event by extending the application of social exchange theory in the context of small scale sports events.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review section will discuss the sport tourism phenomenon, the types of sport events and the rationale for small scale sport events hosting; resident support towards sport e vents through social exchange theory; quality of life (definitions, operationalization and measurement) and the relationship between quality of life and support for sport events. Sport Tourism Travel related to sport tourism has received special attention in the tourism field (Gibson et al., 2003) Sport tourism can occur through a passive or active mode (Gibson et al., 2003). based travel that takes individuals temporarily outside of their home communities to participate in physical activities to watch (2005) and Weed and Bull (2004) ull, 2004, p. 37). The definition provided by Weed and Bull aims to establish sports tourism as (Weed, 2009, p. 618) The categorization of sport tourists has been suggested in order to identify motivations, behavi ors and characteristics of the types of sport tourists. According to Gibson (1998) there are three types of behaviors associated with sport tourism: active sport tourism, identified as individuals who travel to engage in sport; event sport tourism, individ uals that attend sport events and are spectators; and nostalgia tourism: and luxury sports tourism, and that these types may be multi or single sport, may be active or

PAGE 20

20 passive, and may involve instruction, elite sport and/or a corporate categories mentioned above, sport event tourism has received the most attention, with behaviors being the topic most covered, followed by profiles, motivations and impacts (Weed, 2009). According to Weed (2009) research in sport touri sm has focused on the problems and evaluations of the economic impacts of event sports tourism; the trend towards leveraging research in event sports tourism; the more holistic focus on social and cultural, as well as economic impacts of sports participati on tourism; the behavioral focus of research in sports participation tourism, the examination of the role of sports tourism in destination marketing and in generating media exposure; and the increasing concern with developing positive perceptions among loc al residents. It has been suggested that there is a need for theory as the field is (Gibson, 2004, p. 258) Therefore, the curr ent study utilized social exchange theory to examine the exchange process in understanding resident behavior towards supporting the hosting of a small scale sport event. Types of Sport Events Sport events can range from mega sporting events such as Olympi c Games to medium size sports events such as national championships to smaller scale events such as local cycling, walking and running events (Getz, 2008) It is important to consider the size of each event because of its impacts on the community (Chalip & Costa, 2005) Higham (1 999, p. 87) suggested that there is more tourism development potential in small season sporting competition, international sporting fixtures, domestic competitions, and Masters r suggested that some of these small scale events will draw spectators, while others such as marathons, due to their features (i.e.

PAGE 21

21 competition) may attract participants. Higham (1999) also suggested that small scale sports events can have more positive im pacts for residents and is discussed in the next section. Small Scale Events Gibson, Kaplanidou and Kang (2012) suggested, based on the results of their study that small scale sport tourism can be used as a method for sustainable tourism. If the event a may experien sustainable tourism. Although quality of life was not tested in Gibson et al., (2012) study, the authors suggested that local residents as well as event participants that attende d the events may have experienced an improvement to their quality of life through the entertainment and pride of interacting with visitors, results reported in similar studies (Ziakas, 2010, Veltri et al., 2009; Walo et al., 1996). The benefits of having o r hosting a small scale event is that they function within existing infrastructures, need little investment of public finances, and are more manageable with regard to crowding and congestion (Higham, 1999). Fredline (2005) agrees with Higham and suggested that impacts from small scale events may seem minimal, but over time as they persist, residents are likely to view impacts favorably if the event is in harmony with community values and the residents experience benefits through participation. Mega events, in contrast, may be disturbing but they produce more economic, entertaining and excitement benefits (Fredline, 2005). Literature discussing the role of small scale sport events in community development is scant, even though they have the potential to brin g in economic benefits (Higham, 1999). As the literature review below indicates, small scale sport events provide host communities with additional benefits beyond just economic benefits including: psychological, social and

PAGE 22

22 environmental benefits, destinati on attraction and development and improvements to quality of life. In one of the earliest studies of the field, Garnham (1996) investigated host community impacts of the Ranfurly Rugby Shield and found that the impact experienced by residents was an increase in spirit and mora le. Positive economic impacts were experienced by local businesses such as restaurants and pubs that were in close proximity to the event as opposed to other businesses such as retail shopping that were further away. Higham and Hinch (2001) exami ned the symbiotic relationship between sport and tourism of the Super 12 Rugby in New Zealand. They found perceived destination image of the region was linked to publicity obtained from individuals attending the rugby games or watching the media coverage o f the games and individual teams. Association Games held in Australia in 1995. Their study found that there was an increase of economic activity within the community with spect ators spending their money on food and drinks. Also, the study found that those individuals attending the Games indicated they would not have traveled to the host community had the event not been located there. Another benefit experienced by the community was an increase in sense of spirit and cooperation among the residents who volunteered for the event. Similar results were found by Gibson et al., (2003) who f ootball team. Results indicated that the event was the motivation that attracted fans outside of the host community and these fans provided an economic impact by spending money on food, shopping and accommodations, and a psychological boost.

PAGE 23

23 Hritz and Ros tourism impacts in Indiana, Indianapolis. The results revealed that the tourism business representatives experienced social, environmental, economic benefits but also negative impacts Specifically, support for hosting future sports events was predicted by social and economic benefits. The study also found that negative impacts reduced support for sport tourism. Furthermore, Hritz and Ross (2010) revealed that respondents believed resi is negatively impacted by convention and sport tourism. More specifically they said that due to their standard of living and residents suffer ed from living in a destination that caters to sport Fu, and Wang (2005) who reported that as an alternative to sport tourism the quality of life for Mason and Duquette (2008) found that host communities with local Western Hockey League teams in Canada benefited economically with spending occurring in season ticket sales, ac commodations and shopping. Another benefit experienced by the host community was branding and exposure through televised games and print media highlights. A negative impact that the authors found was a lack of coordination between franchises, government, a nd local businesses when it came to leveraging the local hockey franchise. Daniels and Norman (2003) in a study examining several sport tourism events found that hosting the events attracted visitors to the destination, and without the event, these visitors would not have come to the destination. As a result, the host community experienced economic impacts with lodging and meals being the areas that visitors spent most of their money. The authors also found support for the benefits outlined by Higham (1999) relate d to minimal bidding expenses, limited expenditure of public

PAGE 24

24 money, no interference in the life of local people and residents could attend some of the events for free. In the context of a recurring small scale sport event, Kaplanidou and Gibson (2010) examined the variables that influence active sport tourism behaviors. Their study explored whether past participation, attitudes toward event participation, satisfaction with the sport event, and destinat authors found that attitudes between satisfaction and intentions to participate in the event again mediated the effects of destination image and intentions (Kaplanidou & Gibson, 2010) Specifically, the study found that intentions to participate in a recurring sports event again was influenced by attitudes and satisfaction with the overall event experience while attitudes to particip ate in a recurring sports event again was influenced by satisfaction and destination image. The results of this study are important because small scale sport events are re occurring, which means a satisfied participant that intends to return to the event p rovides the host community with an economic benefit and the potential to return to the host community as a tourist with family and friends. This leads to additional positive economic and destination image impacts for the host community. In a study focusin g on the economic benefits of hosting a small scale sport event in a mid sized city Veltri, Miller, and Harris (2009) found that small scale sport events provided the host community with an economic benefit, but the event also promoted an active lifestyle and attracted visitors to the area. Ziakas (2010) found similar results as well as social impacts that benefitted the community, suggesting that event tourism should be part of the communi efforts for economic development and improving quality of life.

PAGE 25

25 In summarizing what has been studied in the small scale event context, studies have focused on economic impacts, development of destination image, fan and participant behaviors and some perceptions of resident impacts. With the exception of the economic studies, most of the studies have used participants and spectators to examine the impacts of a small scale sport event. What is important to note is how satisfaction has been found to be a n influence in developing attitudes and intent to either participate again, or revisit a destination. Satisfaction has perspective. But, there is a lack of literature t hat focuses on resident perceptions of the importance and satisfaction of impacts beyond that of economic impact studies. Furthermore, although it is alluded to, quality of life has not been empirically tested in the small scale sport event context, nor th e relationship between impacts, quality of life and support for hosting an event been examined. This study aimed to explore these relationships and address the gap in the literature by using a holistic approach and examining the importance and satisfaction of the various impacts residents can experience from an event and the relationship quality of life has in predicting support for hosting a sport event. In order to investigate impacts, mega event and tourism literature was consulted as there are studies t hat have researched resident perceptions of the impacts of hosting a mega event and support for tourism. Hallmark and Mega Events Although not at the focus of this research, limited discussion has to be presented on the mega event impact literature, as th ese types of events generated the discussion of impacts and later on legacy. To an extent the mega event impacts can convert to small scale sport events. Ritchie (1984, p. 2) time or recurring events of

PAGE 26

26 and local pride for the host community. Mega events are one time events that t ake place on an international scale (Jago & Shaw, 1998) The characteristics of a mega event are: that they attract a large amount of attendees, attract international tourists, and there is a major financial investment from the public and require the development of infrastruct ures for the event (Lo rde, Greenidge, & Devonish, 2011 ) Mega events also have the potential to create international awareness through the media and generate economic benefits for the host community (Chalip, 2007; Hall, 1997) Hallmark and mega events differ with regards to the size, appeal and significance (Lorde et al., 2011 ) and therefore its impacts can be perceived differently by res idents (Kim & Chalip, 2004) Residents experience the impacts of mega events first hand and are directly involved with the exchanges of resources and experience the impacts from hosting the event. Therefore, residents are in a posi tion to evaluate whether or not the event met their expectations (Guala & Turco, 2009) and if they perceive personal or community benefits from hosting the event. There event and the impacts residents are expected to experience (Guala & Turco, 2009). Ritchie (1984) classified the positive and negative impacts of mega events using the following categories: economic, tourism/commercial, physical, socio cultural, psychological and po litical. This classification also fueled discussion on small scale event impacts. Studies examining resident perceptions of event impacts have examined the impacts through social exchange theory. The following section discusses social exchange theory and h ow resident support is provided through experience.

PAGE 27

27 Theoretical Framework de theory has been used as the relevant theoretical framework (Ap, 1992; Perdue et al., 1990) (Malinowski, 1922) influential conceptual paradig (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, p. 874) Social exchange theory posits that individuals interact with other individuals because they anticipate that they will benefit from the interaction (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960) or that through their interaction obligations will be created between the two parties (Emerson, 1976) Accordingly, once an interaction occurs, individuals engage in a subjective cost benefit analysis that leads to obligations, reciprocity, or repayment between t he two parties (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960) A ccording to Emerson (1976), interactions are likely to continue if those involved in the interaction feel that they are benefiting more than they are losing. The advantages of using social exchange theory are that it can help explain positive and negative attitudes, and investigates exchanges at the individual and community level (Ap, 1992) Social exchange theor y states that residents are more inclined to engage in exchange with others if they believe they will receive benefits without acquiring intolerable expenses (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006) This theory is a behavioral theory that aims to understand and predict (Ap, 1990) Exchanges are used to illustrate behavior in this theory, implying that residents take part in sport tourism exchanges, share community resources with visitors, and make use of sport tourism resources developed as a result of the event (Fredline, 2005) these (Fredline, 2005, p. 271). If residents feel that benefits experienced from hosting the event

PAGE 28

28 outweigh the costs, then they will have a positive attitude t owards hosting future events and exhibit supportive behaviors (Fredline, 2005). If, however, residents feel the experience is negative, then a negative attitude will form resulting in a lack of residential support. There are numerous studies conducted to evaluate tourism related impacts on a community and to determine resident support for tourism developments that utilize social exchange theory (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andriotis, 2005; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Ap, 1992; Bull & Lovell, 2007; Chen, 2001; Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Harrill, 2004; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010; Perdue, Long, & Kang, 1999; Perdue et al., 1990; Preuss & Solberg, 2006; Wang & Pfister, 2008) The ba sic assumption derived from these studies is that resident support occurs when positive impacts such as economic benefits, outweigh the negative impacts of sharing environmental and social resources with tourists (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Harrill, 2004) It is important to note that resources being exchanged between the residents and the visitors in a community must be value d by both residents and visitors. It is in this exchange process where residents and the community will experience any positive or negative impacts associated with hosting the event and either will support or not support further tourism developments or the hosting of future events based on their perceived benefits or costs (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Sutton, 1967) Resident perceptions are important to consider because if a community feels that they are being exploited and are not benefiting from the host/tourist relationsh ip (Sutton, 1967), then the community may perceive impacts to be negative (Harill, 2004). This leads to some limitations in the use of social exchange theory, such as the idea that residents expect to gain at the end of the exchange process or when the eve nt ends (McGehee & Andereck, 2004). This expectation suggests that a host community and its residents agree to be the host of an event because they want to gain

PAGE 29

29 economically from the tourists that visit their community (Hritz & Ross, 2010) Another limitation to the social exchange theory identifi ed by McGehee and Andereck (2004) is that the theory assumes that residents and tourists take part in the exchange process having enough information about expected impacts, however enough or correct information is not commonly provided by the organizers. C halip, Green, and Hill (2003) suggested that it is the responsibility of event organizers and destination marketers to show that the events they are providing have a beneficial impact to the host community. Focusing on the benefits that result from the ex change process, Wang and Pfister (2008) argued it is n and hosting an event but also non economic impacts. They suggested that examining the exchange process should include sociological approaches in addition to econometric an alyses. Therefore, analysis of the exchange process should involve non economic social situations (Emerson, 1976). Homans (1961) suggested that from the sociological perspective, exchange theory is based on interactions that are tangible and intangible. However, studies that used social exchange theory to id entify which perceived impacts lead to support for tourism development focused mainly on the economic impacts and neglect the intangible ones (e.g., Andereck et al., 2005; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; McGehee & Andereck, 2004) These studies identified that personal benefits and economic impacts such as income, tax revenue, employment, and consumer spending influence the exchange process, but fail to consider intangible impacts such as social interactions, com munity pride, cultural exchange and other variables (Wang & Pfister, 20 08) Researchers have suggested that studies investigating resident perceptions of impacts should include impacts affecting individual and community life (Horley & Little, 1985;

PAGE 30

30 McKennell & Andrews, 1983) By taking a more holistic approach to identifying impacts on residents and the community, influences on quality of life can be identified. Research suggested that an increase in quality of life is a result of imp roved socio economic benefits (Nichols, Giacopassi, & Stitt, 2002) For example, positive impacts such as social interaction with tourists, increased employment and community pride can explain an improvement to quality of life (Chhabra & Gursoy, 2009) However, negative impacts suc h as alcoholism, crime and an increase of the cost of local goods and services can deteriorate quality of life (Chhabra & Gursoy, 2009) Impacts of Events As identified in the previous section, there is little research that examines resident perceptions of the impacts associated with hosting a s mall scale sport event. In order to gain an understanding of what impacts may be experienced by the residents hosting a small scale sport event in their community, examining the mega event literature is important, as it provides researchers with insights o f what impacts a sport event may have on a community. As Higham (1999) suggested small scale events have more potential to provide positive impacts for residents and negative impacts are more manageable compared to mega events. Therefore in order to examin e the impacts of a small scale event (beyond the economic impacts), mega event literature will be examined and utilized. Studies focusing on resident impacts discuss the economic impacts including: increased employment, increased spending within the commun ity, increased tourism (Chalip, 2002; Horne, 2007; Owen, 2005; Whitson & Horne, 2006) catalysts for urban regeneration and tax revenues. Additional impacts found in the literature pertain to the development of in frastructure (i.e., transportation, housing, hotels, sports venues, facilities, parks and recreation, media centers, tourist attractions and airports) (Jones, 2001; Chappelet, 2008; Hiller, 2006; Solberg & Preuss,

PAGE 31

31 2 007) and with the development of infrastructure, additional economic benefits can occur such as additional sources of income, job creation that will lead to improved skills for local residents as well as improving overall quality of life (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Whitson & Horne, 2006) By hosting a mega event, the host city has the opportunity to accelerate work and finish projects that otherwise would not have occurred without the event, and a number of these improvements usually come in the form of infrastructure improv ements (Terret, 2008) Social impacts mentioned in the literature include community pride, cohesion, involvement of individuals in community activities, interaction, strengthened image and awareness (Bull & Lovell, 2007; Solberg & Preuss, 2007) There is the benefit of social interaction, inc reasing cultural understanding, strengthening values and traditions, self esteem, quality of life and the image of the city. The host city also receives the opportunity to promote the city, and can even bring attention to environmental concerns (Bull & Lovell, 2007; Cegielski & Mules, 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006) Studies on hosting the Olympic Games reveal that the local residents take on the identity of citizens of the world (Horne, 2007; Whitson & Horne, 2006) Gursoy and Kendall (2006) found that the community pride and the international recognition were just a s important as the economic impacts of the Olympic Games. Other benefits that residents and the community can experience from hosting an event is the knowledge and skills that the citizens gain. Knowledge and skill development can be enhanced in three way s: (i) skills and knowledge in the service industry through hospitality training for volunteers; (ii) knowledge and skills needed to win future bids to attract congresses, fairs, and cultural and sport events; and (iii) the skills that are needed in order to create a safe environment are improved (Solberg & Preuss, 2007) Studies have also found that resident support is higher when residents perceive tourism development as creating facilities or

PAGE 32

32 opportunities for recreational activities for the community at large (Allen, Hafer, Long, & Perdue, 1993; Kendall & Var, 1984) If residents perceive there are negative economic, ecological and socio cultural impacts, then opposition to sport event hosting may occur (Witt, 1988) Jones (2001) argues that economic benefits are often overstated in order to justify the use of public funds. Hosting an event can cause tremendous debt as was experienced by Montreal 1976 as a result of hosting the Olympic Games. Hosting the Olympics cost the city and its residents over CAD$2 billion in capital and interest costs (Whi tson & Horne, 2006) Some other economic costs include price inflation for products and services as resources become increasingly scarce, and an increase in taxes to pay for costs of hosting the event (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Solberg & Preuss, 2007) When the host city cannot raise enough funds in order to pay for the Olympic Games, then the government is forced to make cut backs, causing opportunity costs to occur. Money that would have gone towards hospitals, education, less taxes for the residents become evident and may cause civil unrest (Owen, 2005; Toohey, 2008) Althoug h public awareness and tourism do see an increase during the year of the Olympics, it was found that this impact declines drastically two years after the event (Ritchie & Smith, 1991; Whitson & Horne, 2006) Other things that can negatively impact the image and tourist industry of a host city, including war, econom ic crises, pandemics, terrorist attacks, and other similar types of events (Hiller, 2006; Solberg & Preuss, 2007) Hosting a mega event can also generate negative social impacts such as anti social behavior, crime, congestion, crowding, disruption of community life, community alienatio n and displacement, administrative problems, security breaches and over commercialization (Bull & Lovell, 2007; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Jones, 2001; Owen, 2005) Other negative impacts

PAGE 33

33 include capacity constraints, financial costs, the displacement and physical removal of host residents and political activism (Higham, 1999) Higham (1999) found that crowding and congestion are linked to staging events that make it difficult for re sidents to get involved. daily lives are caused by crowding, security issues and construction (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Higham, 1999; Jones, 2001) Other negative impacts include a negative influence on traditional family values (Kousis, 1989) cultural commercialization (Cohen, 1988) and conflicts between residents and tourists because of different standards of living, economic welfare and purchasing power gaps (Tosun, 2002) Furthermore, Kim, Gursoy, and Lee (2006) found that hosting a mega event may be perceived by residents as having a negative impact on the physical and natural environment, causing problems such as pollution and the deterio ration of natural, cultural and historical property. Refer to the research by Solberg and Preuss (2007) for a summary of the potential positive and negative impacts of hosting a mega event. of the impacts associated with hosting a mega event vary. Some residents may perceive the impacts they experience as being both positive and negative; others feel that impacts are strictly negative; also others may perceive that impacts are only positive (Kim et al., 2006) The reason for these varying perceptions is because individuals interpret impacts differently. Regardless of how residents perceive the impacts of hosting an event, their support is essential for the success of the event, and as Deccio and Baloglu (2002) suggested, residents who experience positive impacts tend to support the event as well as hosting future events. Review of the literature indicates that local communities tend to either be doubtful or hostile toward s sport tourism developments (Getz, 2005) However, some research (Bull &

PAGE 34

34 Lovell, 2007) suggests that local communities either experience little to no inconvenience or tolerate the inconvenience of hosting an event because of the expected benefits. Fredline (2005), utilizing social exchange theory, suggested that if positive impacts are accurately communicated to residents and a perceived positive impact is experienced, the event will be considered a success and supp ort for future events will be provided. Event impact studies have focused mainly on the economic and social benefits, however there is a need to examine how impacts influence nce, impacts might be interpreted as positive or negative. The need for studying impacts as it relates to quality of life increases the likelihood of identifying factors that predict resident support for hosting an event, tourism development and helping po licymakers improve the quality of life for the host them can have economic and social ramifications according to Pearce (1998) These include delayed construction of tourism development from resident protests, loss of support for tourism development officials, an unwillingness to work in the industry or volunteer for th e event, and a lack of enthusiasm affecting the atmosphere of the event (Pearce, 1998) Studies that examine factors that tourism development should be integrated into models in order to explain the interrelationships between factors (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Lankford & Howard, 1994) Social exchange tourism development utilizing structural equation modeling (Vargas Sanche z, Porras Bueno, & Plaza There have been fourteen published research studies reviewed by Vargas Sanchez et al., (2011) that examine resident attitudes through structu ral equation modeling This is important as it shows the relationship betwe en impacts and support for tourism development or

PAGE 35

35 support for events. As it can be identified, the quality of life construct has not been included in these models and impacts examined mainly focus on the triple bottom line approach (economic, socio cultura l and environmental impacts). Research has identified that residents experience a personal benefit from tourism development when benefits are perceived to exceed costs (Ko & Stewart, 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue et al., 1990; Vargas Sanchez, Plaza Mejia, & Porras Bueno, 2009; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2011) These studies found that residents who experienced personal benefits from tourism development perceived more strongly the positive impacts of tourism in stead of negative impacts. Furthermore, residents that experienced positive impacts from tourism development were more supportive of further tourism development (Harill 2004; Ko & Stewart 2002; McGehee & Andereck 2004; Perdue et al., 1990; Vargas Sanchez e t al., 2009; 2011). Vargas Sanchez et al., (2011) also found that the personal benefits also led to residents having a positive perception towards tourists (in terms of respect). exceed the Sanchez et al., 2011, p. 470) (overall satisfaction with community was derived from seven dimensions: pub lic services, economic, environment, medical services, citizen involvement, formal education and recreation services and opportunities) (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2009; 2011). Ko and Stewart (2002) found a positive link between perceived r satisfaction, and the opposite was found in relation to perceptions of costs. Other studies have found that resident attitude supporting additional tourism is influenced by the perception that there ar e more tourism related benefits than costs (Dyer, Gursoy, Sharma, & Carter, 2007;

PAGE 36

36 Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Perdue et al., 1990; Vargas Sanchez et al ., 2009; Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001) perceptions of tourist behavior (in terms of respect) were found to have a positive relationship with the perception of benefits exceeding the costs from tourism (Vargas Sanchez, 2011), and resident a ttitudes towards additional tourism development (Sirakaya, Teye, & So''nmez, 2002; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2011) Recently, some studies have focused on how the density (the amount of tourists in an area) affects re sident attitudes towards additional tourism development. Faulkner and Tideswell (1997) found a negative relat ionship, while Bujosa Bestard and Rosello Nadal (2007) and Vargas Sanchez et al., (2011) found that residents held a more supportive atti tude towards tourism development when there was a greater density of tourists. However, there have been studies that tourists (Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004) Vargas development found that there was a negative relationship with tourism development and perception of tourist behavior. They also found a negative relationship between perceived tourism development and resident attitude toward additional tourism development. They that as a community is developed by tourism objectives, resident perceptions towards the community changes from a supportive euphoria to a negative or non supportive attitude towards tourism (Vargas Sanchez et al., 2011). Vargas Sanchez et al., (2011) als community satisfaction was correlated with resident attitudes towards additional tourism development, but Ko and Stewart (2002) found a negative relationship.

PAGE 37

37 Research examining resident support for mega events suggested that resid ents provide support because of the positive impacts such as tax revenues and employment opportunities, enhanced regional and international awareness, opportunities to attract investors and increased commercial activity (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006). Research h as also shown that residents show impacts such as pride (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006). However, political leaders and organizers ignore or minimize negative impacts (e .g., pollution and traffic congestion) and glorify benefits in pursuit of hosting a mega event (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006). Quality of L ife As Jurowski (1994) suggested, once a community becomes a tourist destination, tourism the development, plann ing, successful operation and sustainability of tourism. Hence, studying resident quality of life is important to ensure that the impacts derived from hosting an event do not decrease quality of life otherwise support will not be provided by the residents. Quality of life (QOL) has been shown to include both objective (i.e., conditions of life) and subjective (i.e. experiences of life) aspects (Osborne, 1992) Definitions of QOL suggest that it is a multidimensional concept comprised of socially and culturally related factors (e.g., life satisf action, happiness) (Schalock et al., 2002) A definition is pr ovided by the World Health Organization (1997) and value system and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It is a broad level of independence, social relationships, and their relationships of salient features or their Quality of life subjective well being and personal well being are terms utilized in the literature interchangeably (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002; Ring, Ho¨ fer, McGee,

PAGE 38

38 with the term Quality of life often used to operationalize in different way s depending on the research agenda (Renn et al. 2009) The Social Indicator Approach idea for the use of public policy (Hagerty et al. 2001) Subjective well being evalua tes quality of life by asking individuals to rate their happiness and/or satisfaction with life (Diener, 2000). Personal well being measures quality of life through self realization, and thus well being is on (Ryan & Deci, 2001) The main idea behind researching the qu ality of life of an individual lies in the importance of measuring their cognitive and affective response to their life, and to specific domains of life (Diener, 2000) ent research, however, indicates multiple item indices exist that are more appropriate (Diener, 2000) In terms of domains, research indicates there are a number of different life domains with scholars agreeing on a minimum set including health, personal relationships, employment, we alth and a sense of community (Cummins, 2005) In the current study, the quality of life construct was deconstructed to be measured using the I nternational W ell being I ndex (IWI) which is comprised of the personal and national well being scales which are subjectiv e measure s This approach was appropriate as suggested by Hagerty et al. (2001) who created fourteen criteria in order to review twenty two of the most popular quality of life indexes. There are two criteria that are important with regards to the domains o f quality of life. First the domains in aggregate must encompass life as a whole (Hagerty et al., 2001, p. 7). For instance the domains all together represent the quality of life construct. Furthermore, the domains must cover a significant but distinct fra ction of the quality of life construct ( Hagerty et al., 2001, p. 7 ) which can be determined by examining each

PAGE 39

39 unique variance in the total quality of life score. Since the present study examined perceptions of how impacts from a sport event can af fect community and personal quality of life, IWI created by Cummins (2006) was employed, which meets the criteria put forth by Hagerty et al., (2001) to measure quality of life. The domains are as follows: standard of living, health, achieving in life, relationships, safety, community connectedness, future security, and spirituality/religion. The tourism industry can serve as a catalyst in order to build infrastructure that improves a (Andereck, Valentine, Vogt, & Knopf, 2007) In order for residents to experience an improvement to their quality of life, improvements to community services and social opportunities need to be present (Perdue et al., 1999). As the literature above suggests, defining quality of life is difficult, although there is agreement that quality of life consists of (Andereck et al., 2007) According to Mattson (1990) life, the community needs to ensure that their economic development strategies are in line with heritage sites and the unique destination characteristics that attract t ourists and businesses in the first place (Andereck et al., 2007). This strategy has been linked with tourism development initiatives for which these developments and the tourism industry have increasingly been credited with improving the quality of life f or residents. This is achieved by developing and attracting festivals, restaurants, natural and cultural attractions, outdoor recreation opportunities and sporting events for which residents, the community and tourists can participate and enjoy (Andereck e improved through tourism development if a community and the residents experience an increase

PAGE 40

40 in the standard of living, increased tax revenues, increased employment opportunit ies and suggested that negative impacts can include crowding, traffic congestion, an increase in crime, (Andereck et al., 2007; Ap & Crompton, 1993; McCool & Martin, 1994) Studying t he impacts of tourism with regards to quality of life is important because it assists in examining resident attitudes and perceptions of tourism and helps identify which factors lead to resident support for tourism development (Perdue et al., 1990) Studies have found that the factors influencing quality of life are associated with tourism impacts and development are often categorized as: (1) economic, such as tax burdens, inflation and job availability; (2) socio cultural, such as communit y image, the availability of festivals and museums and awareness of cultural heritage; and (3) environmental, such as crowding, air, water and noise pollution, wildlife destruction and littering (Andereck et al., 20 07; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004) Other tourism studies that have measured perceptions of quality of life impacts have looked at the net economic gain, minimal impacts to everyday life, having recreation infrastructures in place, beaut iful environments, positive interactions between residents and tourists, an understanding and tolerance for community/culture and inclusion of local residents in the decision making process (Andereck et al., 2007; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997) (1986) study found that resident associated with economic, socio cultural and environmental impacts, with residents indicating that it was economic and cultural impacts which provided benefits to the community, while the social and environmental costs were not se en as negative impacts of tourism. Andereck et al.,

PAGE 41

41 (2007) found that residents rated importance of tourism impacts in relation to quality of life higher than satisfaction evaluations, in which residents were not satisfied with negative tourism impacts suc cultural community were modest. Andereck et al., (2007, p. 498) study indicated that reside nts felt that tourism should increase their quality of life, and confirms the notion that quality of life is s attribute tourism impacts on quality of life in supporting tourism development and that these developments have both positive and negative impacts on quality of life (Andereck et al., 2007, p. 498). In a recent study, Karadakis and Kaplanidou ( 2012 ) examined what legacies are important for host and non Vancouver Olympic Games. Results from the importance of legacies, as they relate to quality of life indicated that there was no significant difference between host and non host residents. Respondents indicated that environmental/infrastructure legacies were the most importa nt aspect, as they pertain to quality of life. Andereck et al., (2007) findings support these results in which the environmental category was reported to be very important for quality of life. It is important to note that for Vancouver (host residents), economic legacies were the second most important legacy and socio cultural legacies were the second most important legacy for non host residents (Ottawa). Post event, non host city participants indicated that psychological legacies were the second most important legacy. The economic aspects were deemed important for the quality of life and these results are in line with the research of Andereck et al., (2007) who found that economic va riables were rated most important, followed by socio cultural variables. In the

PAGE 42

42 Karadakis & Kaplanidou ( 2012 ) study and with respect to the importance characteristics (as they relate to overall quality of life), the residents indicated that economic, envir onmental/infrastructure, and socio cultural legacies were the most important, however Ottawa residents also indicated the importance of psychological legacies. With regards to performance evaluations related to quality of life, residents indicated that tou rism legacies met expectations, a finding supported also by McGehee and Andereck (2004) who suggested tourism improved quality of life. As for the performance of the economic legacies, results from this study were similar to Andereck et al., (2007), where residents felt that the performance of the economic legacies was below expectations. Karadakis and Kaplanidou ( 2012 ) reported that during, and post event, the socio cultural and psychological legacies met expectations. Furthermore, residents indicated that psychological legacies met expectations, and that performance scores for the psychological legacies increased from the during to post event stages, which is in line with results from Kim et al., (2006) who found an increase in psychological impacts post World Cup. With regards to touris m, this study corroborates findings of previous research that suggested hosting the Olympic Games provides the host city an opportunity to showcase its tourist attractions and infrastructure generated, alluding to the improvement in ife because of such changes (Chalip, 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Owen, 2005; Whitson & Horne, 2006) Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) developed a QOL measure based on the subjective behind this measure is that if a resident feels that an impact fr om tourism is important to them, then the resident will attribute a meaning of whether or not the impact is positive or negative. For example, an individual may attribute tourism as being the cause for more festivals and fairs in

PAGE 43

43 the community. Having more they feel that having such events is important, and that there are not enough of them in the community (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011) Some of the results from this study are supported by similar studies, focusing on positive and negative impacts that included items such as more jobs, better shopping, more recreation opportunities, a nd more crime and traffic (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Dyer et al., 2007; Perdue et al., 1990) However, some of the quality of life related factors included items such as cultural exchange, better public services, and more parks (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Liu, Sheldon, Var, 1987; Sirakaya et al., 2002) The difference in the Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) study from others was the domains they developed such as urban issues, communit y well being, economic strength, and community pride differed with respect to specificity (using focused items related to variables instead of variables that are general in nature with more items) (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011) According to the authors, the domains allow Nyaupane (2011) found that reside nts had a more positive attitude towards tourism with respect to the availability of recreation amenities and feelings of community pride. Residents also indicated that tourism had a positive impact on the economy, preserving facilities of natural and cult ural resources, enhanced community well being and had an overall beneficial impact on the identify some negative impacts to their quality of life as a result of tourism, and this was an increase in crime and urban issues. This study also found that personal benefit from tourism mediated the effect of the economic aspects of quality of life, contact with tourists and employment in tourism on the perceptions of the role of tourism in the local economy (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011).

PAGE 44

44 Kim (2002) examined the relationship between tourism impacts (economic, social, cultural, and environmental) and quality of life using quality of life domains such as: material well being, communit y well being, emotional well being, and health and safety well being. The stage of tourism development was also examined as a moderating variable between the impacts and quality of life domains, although there was no moderating effect found. Kim (2002) did find that economic impacts had a positive effect on material well being; social impacts had a positive effect on community well being; cultural impacts had a positive effect on emotional well being; and environmental impacts had a positive effect on emoti onal well being. Emptaz Collomb (2009) examined the rel ationship between tourism, human well being and conservation in rural Africa by creating a multidimensional quality of life index that included both subjective and objective measures of health, wealth, education, economic, social, infrastructural and polit ical life. It is important to note that the index was developed specifically for the study site and therefore, the results should be interpreted accordingly. Emptaz Collomb (2009) did not find any difference in perceived quality of life between communities that had tourism and those that did not. However, findings did show that for tourism communities, quality of life was affected differently by tourism impacts at the community and personal level, and therefore should be explored. In a study examining resi dent perceptions of tourism impacts, quality of life and support for tourism, Meyer ( 2011) found that there was a positive relationship between perceived impacts and tourism support. Meyer (2011) also examined how impacts affect community quality of life and personal quality of life and if quality of life mediates the relationship between impacts and support. Specifically, Meyer (2011) reported that community and personal quality of life were affected by different tourism impacts. Community quality of life was found to be

PAGE 45

45 influenced by institutional structure and socio cultural impacts, wh ile personal quality of life was influenced by economic and environmental impacts. Furthermore, quality of life did not mediate the relationship between the impacts and support. As can be seen by the literature review, there are few studies that measured how tourism Karadakis and Kaplanidou (2012 ) quality of life and whether they performed up to expectations. Kim (2002) and Emptaz Collomb (2009) both examined the re lationship between tourism impacts on quality of life domains, while Meyer (2011) examined the mediating role of quality of life and sustainable tourism impacts on resident support. There is still a lack of literature that examines how hosting a sport even t furthermore, the relationship between impacts and quality of life and residents support for hosting a sporting event. Measurement of Quality of L ife Measuring qualit y of life within domains as mentioned earlier can be achieved through subjective or objective indicators (Samli, 1995) from subjective evaluations such as standard of living, physical health status, and personal income (Diener & Suh, 1997) The advantage of using objective indicators is that they can be easily defined and quantified and do not rely heavily on individual perceptions (Diener & Suh, 1997). Another advantage of the objective approach is that you can use various life domains to measure quality of life that are not reflected in economic terms ( Diener & Suh, 1997). The problem with relying on objective indicators is that when a person is asked to evaluate their quality of life, there is a subjective component that comes into their evaluation. Their assessment

PAGE 46

46 uses personal feelings and perception s about their environment (Dissart & Deller, 2000) The subjective indicators are mainly based on psychological responses, such as life satisfaction, jo b satisfaction, and personal happiness (Davidson & Cotter, 1991; Diener & Suh, 1997) Using a subjective indicator provides researchers with the advantage of examining experiences and perception of quality of life on common dimensions and scales suc h as degree of satisfaction, comparisons across domains such as impacts of an event can be objectively measured (Kim, 2002) In arguing for the use of domains, Cummins et al., (2003, p. 164) suggested that While the classic life as a whole question is useful as an estimate of the homeostatic set point, due to its high level of abstraction it cannot provide information about the components of life that also contribute positively or negatively, to this sense of wellbeing. In order to approach such information, questions need to be directed at satisfaction with life domains. The International Well being Index (IWI) is an instrument that uses the domain approach and cons ists of two scales: the Personal Well being Index and the National Well being Index (NWI) (Cummins, 2006) In researching life satisfaction domains to be measured, Cummins (1997) reviewed 32 studies and found 173 terms that were used to illustrate doma ins of life satisfaction. Cummins further synthesized the results within seven domains: material well being, health, productivity, intimacy, safety, community well being, and emotional well being. Cummins used these domains to create the Comprehensive Qual ity of life scale; however in 2001 it was abandoned (Cummins, 2006). Problems that were identified in the scale were as follows: not act in the same manner as o ther domains. That is, it could not be objectively and subjectively operationalized because it is referred to as an affective state not a domain of life satisfaction (Cummins, 2002) From this scale the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) was developed, which was made up of the six original domains (Cummins, 2006). The PWI scale is comprised of the

PAGE 47

47 following domains: standard of living, health, achieving in life, relationships, safety, community connectedness, future security and spirituality/religion. The International Wellbeing Group suggested that these ei point Likert scale with an 11 point (0 10) End Defined Response Scale (Jones & Thurstone, 1955) The applying adjectival descriptors to a numerically interval scale. Such descriptors are not separated by equal psychometric intervals a nd therefore provide misleading and redundant information. Additionally, the 11 point (0 10) choice is preferred as this optimizes respondent discriminative The current study measured quality of life from the community and personal perspectives. As mentioned above, the IWI uses two scales to measure quality of life, the PWI for personal quality of life and the NWI for community quality of life. Furthermore, since the IWI scale was developed to mea sure satisfaction with domains representing quality of life as a whole from an was utilized. Using a subjective approach was appropriate for this study because respondents a re being asked to evaluate their levels of satisfaction with regards to impacts of a sport event on their quality of life. As Dissart and Deller (2000) indicated when examining perceptions and asking people to rate their satisfaction levels there is a subj ective component that is present during the evaluation importance of various impacts as they relate to their quality of life of hosting a small scale sport event, it is the experience of the event that they are evaluating, and thus a subjective approach will be utilized by the respondents.

PAGE 48

48 Summary In summary, the results from several of the studies mentioned above indicate that if residents perceive an overal l positive impact, then they will have a positive attitude towards tourism development (Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy et al., 2002; Ko & Stewart, 2002) and that a negative attitude will develop if residents experience an overall negativ e impact (Dyer et al., 2007; Ko & Stewart 2002; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2009; Yoon et al., 2001). These results coincide with social exchange theory that has as its main premise that as long as residents feel that they are benefiting throughout the exchange of resident tourist interactions, then they will continue to support and engage in that behavior. The studies mentioned above indicate that if residents perceive overall personal benefits resulting from hosting an event in the community and are satisfied with the community, they will have a favorable attitude towards additional tourism development and the hosting of future events. Therefore the model in this study proposed that support for hosting an event is predicted by the perceived impacts experienced by residents, individual and community quality of life. The items used to operationalize the constructs include economic, tourism, environmental, socio cultural, psychological, knowledge development, infrastructure and political impacts. Based on findings from previous studies, and in support of social exchange theory, residents are inclined to support the hosting of a sport event if they perceive to experience more benefits than costs (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). Review of the literature shows that there are few studies that have considered the impact of a small scale sport event on quality of life; instead they have examined resident attitudes and perceptions towards expected impacts. The difference between quality of life and attitudes/impact studies is mainly measurement as stated in the words of Andereck et al., (2007, p. 485)

PAGE 49

49 attitude/impact studies largely focus on the way in which tourism is perceived to effect the communities and the environment, whereas quality of life studies are typically concerned with the way these impacts affect individual or family life satisfaction, including satisfaction with community, neighborhoods and personal satisfaction. Review of the literature showed that attitude/impact studies, tend to ask respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with statements dealing with impacts on their (Andereck et al., 2007, p. 485) The purpose of this study was to identify the relative weight and influence of the impacts that are identified in th e literature within the small scale sport event context on community quality of life, personal quality of life and resident support towards hosting sport tourism events. This study examined the relationship between quality of life and the effect impacts ha ve on resident support for the hosting of a small scale sport event. The IWI scale which is considered a subjective measurement of quality of life was utilized. The IWI scale is subjective since ve in that respondents compare the existing circumstance to their ideal standard; and specific because respondents evaluate specific (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011, p. 250) In keeping with the ideas of social exchange theory this study utilized the idea of value (importance) and evaluation/satisfaction in asking residents to evaluate the i mportance and satisfaction of impacts residents perceive to experience from hosting a small scale sport event. Furthermore, this study tested the relationship between quality of life and resident support for hosting future events in the community. As socia l exchange theory suggests, if individuals feel that quality of life as a whole is improved as a result of the impacts from hosting a small scale sport event, then support for hosting future events will be provided. The following hypotheses and model were proposed and te sted in this study:

PAGE 50

50 H1 (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h). There is a direct positive relationship between perceived (economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, knowledge development, socio cultural, political, tourism) impacts and resid ent support for hosting a sport event. H2 (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h). There is a direct positive relationship between perceived (economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, knowledge development, socio cultural, political, tourism) impacts and co mmunity quality of life. H3(a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h). There is a direct positive relationship between perceived (economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, knowledge development, socio cultural, political, tourism) impacts and personal quality of life. H4. There is a direct positive relationship between community quality of life and resident support for hosting a sport event. H5. There is a direct positive relationship between personal quality of life and resident support for hosting a sport eve nt

PAGE 51

51 Figure 2 1. Proposed model for resident support for hosting a small scale sport event

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 METHOD The purpose of this study was to identify the relative weight and influence of the impacts that are identified in the literature within th e small scale sport event context on community quality of life, personal quality of life and resident support towards hosting sport tourism events. This study examined the relationship between quality of life and the effect impacts have on resident support for the hosting of a small scale sport event. The method section will discuss the pilot study and changes made to the instrument; an overview of the study participants; measures used in the study; how the data was collected and analyzed; how the measureme nt model was tested; and how the structural model was tested. Pilot Study Since the items for the current study were adapted from previous studies in order to develop the final survey instrument, it was necessary to conduct a pilot study to determine the v alidity of the items. A convenience sample was used as it has been suggested by Bernard ( 2000 for pretesting questionnaires to make sure that the items a re unambiguous and not to threatening Participants for the pilot study were intercepted at two small scale events held in Gainesville, FL (an archery tournament and a marathon race) Spectators at each site were intercepted and requested to complete the survey. Spectators were given a brief explanation of the purpose of the study and were assured that responses would be completely anonymous and confidential. The survey took an average of 20 to 25 minutes with a total of 20 completed questionnaires collect ed. Data from the surveys were inputted and analyzed using SPSS. A professor from the department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management (TRSM) at the University of Florida and I reviewed the results from the pilot study and assessed the

PAGE 53

53 content adeq uacy of the items. The initial structure of the items used in the study were adapted by the work of Ko and Stewart (2002); McGehee and Andereck (2004); Oviedo Garcia et al (2008); Yoon, Gursoy and Chen (2001); and Solberg and Preuss ( 2007 ). Edits and impro vements were made in order to ensure that the items were clear, readable and were adequate for the content. Items were modified or dropped based on suggestions from the professor to ensure face validity and due to poor inter item correlations. Specific cha nges made to the instrument include classifying Environmental and Infrastructure impacts separately as well as classifying Political and Knowledge Development impacts separately. Before these changes were made Environmental and Infrastructure impacts were classified together, as well as Political and Knowledge development impacts (based on the work by Solberg and Preuss, 2007 ). Table 3 1 below indicates which items were dropped, modified and added from the original instrument. The original instrument consis ted of 48 items to measure Economic, Environmental, Psychological, Socio cultural, Political and Tourism impacts. The final instrument consisted of 32 items to measure Economic, Environmental, Psychological, Infrastructure, Knowledge Development, Socio cul tural, Political and Tourism Impacts. The final instrument for the impact items can be found in table 3 2. Study Participants Participants for this study included spectators of two youth soccer events in Florida. The Florida Youth Soccer association (FYSA) has more than 100,000 registered players and is regarded as one of the leaders in youth sports organizations in the state of Florida (FYSA, 2012) Furthermore, the FYSA hosted approximately 50 soccer events in Florida during 2011. I travelled with a research team consisting of gra duate students in TRSM to two events (Auburndale and Palm Bay, Florida) the weekends of October 15 th and November 20 th 2011 to collect data. These two events were selected because of the size of the events in terms of

PAGE 54

54 spectators, participants and teams attending Specifically, parents, family and friends of players attended these events and the teams registe red for the tournaments were comprised of U9 U19 boys and girls The two soccer tournaments had 21 and 93 registered teams respectively and both tournaments were in their 4 th year of operation. It was determined that these events would be attended to ensu re enough surveys could be collected. Spectators were asked to answer the questionnaire with regards to having hosted a small scale sport event in their community. Targeting spectators at these events was the appropriate theoretical population because as t he literature suggests spectators attending an event in person have the opportunity to become 2007 ). Furthermore, Weed (2007) goes on to suggest that being ure and excitement of witnessing live events, a further motivation for live presence is the retrospective recall of the ( p. 406 ). By being present and experiencing the sport event, spectators can recount to peers stories and experiences. These stori es and experiences have been suggested to being a key part of the sport spectator experience and related to the importance of retelling of the event experiences and enhancing the event experience ( Urry, 2002; Weed, 2007 ). Therefore, spectators were deemed the appropriate theoretical population as Weed ( 2007, p. 407) indicated It would appear, therefore, that the two key features of the sport spectating experience are, firstly, a desire to experience physical proximity to the live event, and secondly, a des ire to have an experience that can be re told to others after the event. Furthermore, spectators at the two small scale events were appropriate for this study as they are the individuals that would be most affected and be aware of small scale sports event s being hosted in their community Therefore, for this purpose, the theoretical population for the study was the spectators attending a small scale sport event. These individuals are the ones most interested in the event and are the consumers of the event (and related impacts such as developed

PAGE 55

55 infrastructure) O ther residents may not be consumers and although they may be affected by the hosting and sport related developments for a small scale sport event they may not be aware of them since they do not atten d these events. Mailing out surveys to residents for the study was not used because of the potential for response bias which is pre valent in mail/internet surveys, non rest in the topic, and there is no way of knowing who or how many people answer the survey or t he order in which questions are answered (Czaja & Blair, 2005). Furthermore, since the study was explora tory in nature, and aimed to examine the perceptions of those having attende d an event in their community, ensuring the quality of responses was necessary. To ensure the quality of responses, intercept surveys were used since an interviewer was present to explain any questions so that respondents did not misinterpret or skip quest ions (Czaja & Blair, 2005). Measures Participants were given a questionnaire in which they were asked to provide their perceptions about the impact of these types of events for their community. Participants provided demographic data and responded to items used to measure economic, tourism, environmental, socio cultural, psychological, political, infrastructure, knowledge development impacts, community quality of life, personal quality of life and support for hosting future events in their community. The dev elopment of all measures were heavily influenced and at times adapted by the work of Ko and Stewart (2002); McGehee and Andereck (2004); Oviedo Garcia et al (2008); Yoon, Gursoy and Chen (200 1); and Solberg and Preuss (2007 ). Community and personal qualit y of life were measured using the IWI scale developed by Cummins (2006). This scale was appropriate as they allow for the examination of the factors that positively or neg atively influence perceived quality of life. The subjective indicators are mainly based on psychological

PAGE 56

56 responses, such as life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and personal happiness (Davidson & Cotter, 1991; Diener & Suh, 1997). Using a subjective indica tor provides researchers with the advantage of examining experiences and perceptions that are important to the individual. Furthermore, by degree of satisfactio n, comparisons across domains such as impacts of an event can be measured (Kim, 2002). Refer to Appendix A for detailed description of the constructs and items used in the instrument. For economic, socio cultural, environmental, tourism, psychological, pol itical, infrastructure, knowledge development impacts participants were asked to rate the level of importance and their level of satisfaction with impact outcomes as they relate to hosting a sport event in their home community. Importance and Satisfaction levels were measured on a five point Likert scale. Importance questions were anchored from 1= unimportant to 5= very important. Satisfaction questions were anchored 1= very dissatisfied to 5= very satisfied. A box for respondents to check N/A (not related/ applicable to the event) was included for respondents that felt the item being asked to evaluate in terms of satisfaction did not relate or was applicable to them. Taking the results of the pilot test into consideration, Economic impacts were measured usi ng six items adapted by Ko and Stewart (2002); McGehee and Andereck (2004); Yoon, Gursoy and Chen (2001). Socio cultural Impacts Socio cultural impacts were measured using four items adapted by Ko and Stewart (2002); Yoon, Gursoy and Chen (2001). Enviro nmental Impacts. Environmental impacts were measured using three items adapted by Ko and Stewart (2002) and Oveido Garcia et al (2008).

PAGE 57

57 Tourism Impacts. Tourism impacts were measured using five items created from Preuss and Solberg (2006 ). Psychological Impacts. Psychological impacts were measured using four items created from Preuss and Solberg (2006). Political Impacts. Political impacts were measured using three items created from Preuss and Solberg (2006). Infrastructure Impacts. Infrastructure i mpa cts were measured using four items adapted from Ko and Stewart (2002); Oviedo Garcia et al (2008) and created by Preuss and Solberg (2006). These items ( c reation of parks and leis ure areas for local residents; q uality of police and fire department services ; i mprovement of sport infrastructures; and i mprovement of public infra structure) were separated from environmental i mpacts as a result of the pilot study and discussions by a professor in TRSM and me Knowledge Development Impacts. Knowledge Development i mpacts were measured using three items created from Preuss and Solberg (2006). These items ( a cquirement of experience in hosting sport events as a person; v olunteering opportunities for these sport events; and a cquirement of experience in hosting sport eve nts as a community) were separated from p olitical i mpacts as a result of the pilot study and discussions by a professor in TRSM and me For community and personal quality of life participants were asked to indicate how satisfied they are with statements de aling with community quality of life on an 11 point scale anchored with 0=completely dissatisfied and 10=completely satisfied. Community Quality of Life. Community quality of life was measured using six items adapted by Cummins (2006).

PAGE 58

58 Personal Quality o f Life. Personal quality of life was measured using eight items adapted by Cummins (2006). Support for hosting future events. Support for hosting future events was measured using ten items, the first eight were adapted by McGehee and Andereck (2004) and t wo items asking overall support. Participants were asked to indicate whether they strongly disagree or strongly agree on a five point Likert scale. Data Collection Spectators at two youth soccer tournaments held in Auburndale and Palm Bay, Florida were in tercepted and asked to comp l ete a self administered survey questionnaire. Spectators were given a brief explanation of the purpose of the study and were assured that responses would be completely anonymous and confidential. The survey took an average of 15 to 20 minutes to complete. A total of 670 individuals were approached, with 482 surveys collected, of which 414 were completed yielding a 76.4% response rate. Sample This study aimed to test the perceptions of spectators hosting a sport event in their c ommunity. The population for this study were spectators from two youth soccer events who were at least 18 years of age or older and were aware that their community had hosted a sport event in the last 24 months. Respondents were asked how many miles they h ad travelled to attend the event? And, how many events such as the one they were attending today had they been to in the past 24 months. It was explained to the respondents as well as in the directions for the questionnaire that respondents should answer q uestions with regards to their experiences of having hosted an event in their home community. A total of 482 surveys were collected (245 from Palm Bay, Florida and 237 from Auburndale, Florida).

PAGE 59

59 Sample S ize When it comes to utilizing SEM, a sufficient s ample size is always an area of discussion (Kline, 2011) Generally, there is agreement that 10 participants are needed for every parameter estimated (Hoe, 2008) while other research suggests an acceptable rati o can be 5 participants per variable (Bentler, 1985) However, there is no consensus on how large a sample size should be when using SEM (Kline, 2011), Garver and Mentzer (1999) Hoelter (1 983) and Kline (2011) 200 will provide acceptable statistical power for data analysis (Hoe, 2008). This sa mple size aids in ensuring that there would not be an inflated goodness of fit indices calculated because of a small sample size (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) The target usable sample size for this study was 386 and a maximum sample size of 540 (10 x 54 = 540). A total of 482 surveys were collected 414 which were completed. Since t he purpose of the study was to test the proposed model, respondents indicating that an impact was not applicable or not related to the event were excluded. Consequently, 362 surveys were used in the analysis, satisfying the critical sample size of 200, and the acceptable ratio of 5 participants per variable (5 x 54 = 270). Data Analysis Prior to conducting any analysis, an independent sample t test for all the variables to was conducted No differences were found between the two samples with regards to their responses. For the proposed model being tested a new variable was calculated for each of the impact categories for the importance and satisfaction evaluations. Prior to creating the new variable a factor analysis was conducted for the impact factors (economic, socio cultural, environmental, tourism, psychological, political, infrastructure and knowledge development), and then the mean score for each factor for importance and satisfaction ratings was calculated. Then the new

PAGE 60

60 variable was created for each impact category by adding the mean score for the importance and the mean score for the satisfaction category items. The new variable was created in order to account for va riability in the importance and satisfaction measures and to provide an overall social exchange theory posits that for an individual to evaluate the satisfaction of an interaction the item being evaluated must have some importance to both parties involved in the interaction (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Sutton, 1967) The score for these items ranged from 2 to 10 as they were derived from both importance and evaluation scores. Overall scores from 2 4 indicate low importance and satisfaction levels; 5 7 medium importance and satisfaction levels; and, 8 10 high importance and satisfaction levels. Measurement Model Test The proposed model and the hypothesized paths were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). The fit of the measurem ent model and the structural model was analyzed using as which variables are assumed to affect other variables and the directionalities of these effects. These a priori specifications reflect your hypotheses, and in total they make up the model to be analyzed. In this sense, SEM can be viewed as confirmatory. That is your model is a given at the start of the analysis, and one of the main questions to be answered is whether it is supported by two step process recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the first step, the proposed structural model was evaluated using co nfirmatory factor analysis. The second step involved evaluating the structural model by examining the hypothesized paths between the constructs. Since the instrument used in the study classified the impact items a priori based on the literature into eight impact categories it was necessary to examine their internal consistency and

PAGE 61

61 reliability. Coefficient alpha was estimated in order to provide evidence of internal consistency and reliability for each of the Impact categories (Economic, Environment, Infrast ructure, Psychological, Socio cultural, Knowledge development, Political, and Tourism), Community quality of life, Personal quality of life and Support categories. Evidence of internal consistency (1978) recommended level of .70]. Cr Table 3 3 with the exception of the Socio cultural importance category (a=.60), and Knowledge Development satisfaction category (a=.68) which did not meet the alpha value cutoff. T he Socio cultural and Knowledge Development categories were kept because they are conceptually consistent, their respective alpha scores for Socio cultural satisfaction (a=.73) Knowledge Development importance (a=.77) were above the a cceptable cut off and due to the exploratory nature for the study, which deems this alpha value acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). Furthermore, the proposed model was tested using a new variable that was calculated for each of the impact categories for the impo rtance and satisfaction evaluations. As mentioned above, the new variable was created for each impact category by adding the mean score for the importance and the mean score for the satisfaction category items. Again, internal consistency and reliability w ere estimated for the new variable for each impact which showed to be internally consistent and reliable with all impact categories scoring above the recommended cut off score ranging from .75 to .93 respectively. Table 3 4 below shows the results in more detail. Normality of distribution of the data was conducted by examining the skewness and kurtosis of the data. According to Hair et al., (1998) data with skewness values 2.58 indicate rejecting the normality assumption at the 0.01 probability level, and 1.96 at the 0.05 level. None of the values were above or below these cut off values suggesting the variables of the

PAGE 62

62 study are free from skewness. For kurtosis the cut off values are in 2.56 range. Again none of the variables exceeded or fell below these values suggesting that kurtosis was not an issue with the data. As suggested by Anderson and Gerb step modeling, the proposed measurement model was tested with confirmatory factor analysis. Before testing the model, the unidimensionality of each construct was examined (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006). This is done in order to confirm that alte rnate indicators had only one construct in common (Sethi & King, 1994) All constructs were found to be unidimensional. Table 3 4 below represents the results in more detail. The results from the CFA indicated that the measurement model met the recommended threshol ds thus indicating reasonable model fit. The value of the 2 /df ratio (2949.53/1270=2.32) was lower than the recommended threshold (< 3.0) (Bollen, 1989; Kline, 2005) The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .06 which meets the minimum criteria of acceptable fit (i.e., equal to, or below .06) (Hu & Bentler, 1999) The comparative fit index (CFI; .91) and the Tucker Lewis index (T LI; .90) exceeded or met the minimum recommended threshold of .90 (see table 3 5). The item loadings from the model ranged from .62 to .76 for Economic impacts; .78 to .81 for Environmental impacts; .62 to .83 for Psychological impacts; .70 to .79 for Inf rastructure impacts; .66 to .85 for Knowledge impacts; .67 to .71 for Socio cultural impacts; .79 to .83 for Political impacts; .78 to .83 for Tourism impacts; .68 to .86 for Community Quality of Life; .60 to .91 for Personal Quality of life; and, .83 to 90 for Support. Table 3 6 presents the results of the measurement model, including the standardized factor loadings, construct reliabilities (CR) and the average of variance extracted (AVE) for each of the constructs. The loading factors for

PAGE 63

63 the indicators for the constructs were significant at the .05 significance level and either met or exceeded the suggested value of .60 (Kline, 2005). Model reliability was examined by computing ranged from .78 to .96 and .75 to .93, respectively, which were all above the .70 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) As for the AVE for each of the latent cts (Hair et al., 1998). Discriminant validity was determined by computing the correlations among the 11 constructs and comparing the squared correlations among the 11 constructs against the AVE (see table 3 7 for the correlation matrix). All of the inter factor relationships were lower than the threshold of r < .85 (Kline, 2005). In addition, examination revealed that the AVEs were all above the squared correlations of constructs with the exception of socio cultural and economic impacts, and socio cultural and infrastructure impacts. Therefore, all other impacts confirmed discriminant validity of the factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Based on the results from the data analyses, validity and reliability of the overall scale were established with the excepti on of several factors having high correlations. In order to solve this problem, the factors were examined for internal consistency and unidimensionality as recommended by Landis, Edwards and Cortina (2009) and are discussed below. It is important to note t hat scale development was not the purpose of the study, but rather these impacts have on community and personal quality of life, and whether these influence resid ent support. With this in mind, the current study was exploratory in nature and therefore the constructs utilized in the study were adopted a priori from previous literature and were examined

PAGE 64

64 individually in order to determine unidimensionality and reliab ility. The results of the CFA model indicated adequate goodness of fit statistics when considered in combination with the factor loadings and reliability analyses. Furthermore, the indicators used in the study to measure a common underlying factor showed t o have higher standardized loadings indicating convergent validity. In order to test the model the decision to utilize path analysis was made as a result of the h igh c orrelations. With these results it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the second step and test the path model. Structural Model Testing To analyze the hypothesized relationships of the structural model, a structural model estimation was attempte d. However, the socio cultural impacts were found to be highly correlated with the other impacts, specifically economic and infrastructure impacts, and thus the structural model could not be estimated. In dealing with highly correlated factors, Landis, Edw ards and Cortina (2009, p. 210) discussed in order to to omit the measurement model altogether and simply create scale scores and estimate a path analysis with manifest variables. This suggestion, however, is predicated on the assumption that t he psychometric characteristics for each measure are sufficient to warrant calculating scale scores for the variables (e.g., sufficient internal consistency). As the results above indicate, each factor proved to be unidimensional and met the recommended t hresholds for internal consistency. Consequently, the grand means for all the factors was calculated and a path analysis using Mplus was conducted Results of the specific hypotheses and path analyses are presented in the results, chapter 4.

PAGE 65

65 Table 3 1. Di sposition of items tak en from Solberg and Preuss (2007 ) created for use in a study of perceived effects of small scale sport events in Florida, 2012 Action Taken Justification Economic The economic situation of your town/city Kept Good Inter item co rrelation The buying power of your community Kept Good Inter item correlation The creation of jobs in your community Kept Good Inter item correlation The attraction of investments to your community Dropped Poor Inter item correlation The economic benefits for the local residents Kept Good Inter item correlation The life quality of the community Dropped Poor Inter item correlation The cost of real estate and the taxes related to it Dropped Poor Inter item correlation The low cost of living M odified (deleted low from the sentence) Discussed and agreed between advisor and me The stability in the prices of goods and services Dropped Poor Inter item correlation The minimization of public expenses in your community Dropped Poor Inter item cor relation Socio cultural The restoration of historical buildings Dropped Poor Inter item correlation The improvement of quality of public services Dropped Poor Inter item correlation The availability of leisure opportunities Kept Good Inter ite m correlation A variety of cultural performances Dropped Poor Inter item correlation The quality of police and fire department services Moved to Infrastructure Discussed and agreed between advisor and me The cultural exchange between tourists and re sidents Kept Good Inter item correlation The cultural identity development of your community Dropped Poor Inter item correlation

PAGE 66

66 Table 3 1. Continued Action Taken Justification Socio Cultural (continued) The construction of modern buildings Dr opped Poor Inter item correlation The minimization of the number of traffic accidents Dropped Poor Inter item correlation The minimization of crime/theft/vandalism Kept Good Inter item correlation The minimization of alcoholism and prostitution Drop ped Poor Inter item correlation The minimization of illegal activities Dropped Poor Inter item correlation Minimization of the exploitation of local residents Dropped Poor Inter item correlation Tourists with high buying power Moved to Economic Dis cussed and agreed between advisor and me Environmental The improvement of infrastructure (water supply, electricity, etc.) Moved to Infrastructure and modified (the improvement of sport infrastructure) Discussed and agreed between advisor and me The improvement of public facilities (road network, civic centers, etc.) Moved to Infrastructure and modified (the improvement of public infrastructure Discussed and agreed between advisor and me The creation of parks and leisure areas for local residents M oved to Infrastructure Discussed and agreed between advisor and me The minimization of the damage in the natural environment and landscape Kept Good Inter item correlation The minimization of the damage to the local ecosystem Kept Good Inter item co rrelation Minimization of environmental pollution (trash, water, air, and noise) Kept Good Inter item correlation

PAGE 67

67 Table 3 1. Continued Action Taken Justification Minimization of damage from the construction of hotels and tourism facilities to the natural environment Dropped Poor Inter item correlation Minimization of the crowding of beaches, paths, parks, and other leisure places in your community Moved to Socio cultural and modified (the crowding of public spaces) Discussed and agreed between a dvisor and me Tourism image Kept Good Inter item correlation Tourism development Kept Good Inter item correlation Tourism infrastructure improvements Kept Good Inter item correlation Awareness of the community as a tourism destination Kept Good Inter item correlation The reputation of your community as a sport hosting destination Kept Good Inter item correlation Psychological Community spirit and pride Modified (deleted and pride) Discussed and agreed between advisor and me Feel good about yourself Kept Good Inter item correlation Feel good about the community Kept Good Inter item correlation Feelings of a renewed community Modified (changed to Community pride) Discussed and agreed bet ween advisor and me Political Communication between residents and community leaders Kept Good Inter item correlation Transparency of government decision making processes in your community Kept Good Inter item correlation

PAGE 68

68 Table 3 1. Continued Ac tion Taken Justification Political (Continued) Community voices are respected by decision makers Dropped Poor Inter item correlation Residents being a part of community decisions Kept Good Inter item correlation Accessibility of government officers an d leaders Dropped Poor Inter item correlation Acquirement of experience in hosting sports events as a person Moved to Knowledge development Discussed and agreed between advisor and me Acquirement of experience in hosting sports events as a community Mo ved to Knowledge Development Discussed and agreed between advisor and me Added Volunteering opportunities for these sport events to Knowledge development Discussed and agreed between advisor and me

PAGE 69

69 Table 3 2. Final instrument for impact i tems creat e d from Solberg and Preuss (2007 ) used in a study of perceived effects of small scale sport events in Florida, 2012 Economic Impacts Economic situation of your town/city Tourists with high buying power Creation of jobs in your community Economic benefit s for the local residents Cost of living Buying power of your community Environmental Impacts Minimization of damage to the local ecosystem Minimization of environmental pollution Minimization of damage in the natural environment and landscape Psych ological Impacts Community Pride Feeling good about yourself Community Spirit Feeling good about your community Infrastructure Impacts Creation of parks and leisure areas for local residents Quality of police and fire department services Improvemen t of sport infrastructures Improvement of public infrastructure Knowledge Development Impacts Acquirement of experience in hosting sport events as a person Volunteering opportunities for these sport events Acquirement of experience in hosting sport ev ents as a community Socio Cultural Impacts Availability of leisure opportunities Minimization of crime/theft/vandalism Crowding of public spaces Cultural exchange between tourists and residents Political Impacts Communication between residents and c ommunity leaders Residents being a part of community decisions Transparency of government decision making processes in your community Tourism Impacts Reputation of your community as a sport event destination Tourism infrastructure improvements Improv ement of community's destination image Awareness of the community as a tourism destination Tourism development

PAGE 70

70 T able 3 onstructs used to measure perceptions of small scale event impacts, community quality of life, personal qual ity of life and resident support Categories Importance Satisfaction Importance + Satisfaction Economic .77 .80 .81 Environmental .81 .78 .81 Psychological .77 .72 .79 Infrastructure .72 .79 .80 Knowledge Development .77 .68 .78 Socio cultural .60 .7 3 .75 Political .73 .87 .81 Tourism .85 .83 .88 Community Quality of Life .91 Personal Quality of Life .93 Support .88

PAGE 71

71 Ta ble 3 4. Unidimensionality and Variance E xplained for c onstructs used to measure perceptions of small scale event im pacts, community quality of life, personal quality of life and resident support Kaiser Meyer Olkin MSA Sphericity Eigen value Variance Explained % Economic .79 .00 3.11 51.82 Environment .71 .00 2.18 72.67 Psychological .77 .00 2.43 60.82 Infrastructure .77 .00 2.52 63.03 Knowledge .70 .00 2.11 79.20 Socio Cultural .77 .00 2.30 57.55 Political .70 .00 2.19 72.83 Tourism .86 .00 3.35 66.99 Community QOL .88 .00 4.10 68.28 Personal QOL .92 .00 5.36 66.99 Support .84 .00 3.38 67 .57

PAGE 72

72 Table 3 5. Goodness of Fit Indices of proposed measurement model predicting support for hosting small scale events in Florida, 2012 N X2 df X2/df CFI TLI RMSEA Measurement Model 362 2949.534 1270 2.32 0.91 0.90 0.06

PAGE 73

73 Table 3 6. Factor Load of the perceptions of small scale event impacts, CQOL, PQOL and r esident support Loadings CR AVE Economic 0.84 0.47 .81 Economic situation of your town/city 0.62 Tourists with high buying power 0.63 Creation of jobs in your community 0.75 Economic benefits for the local residents 0.76 Cost of living 0.65 Buying power of your community 0.69 Environment 0.84 0.64 .81 Minimization of damage to the local ecosystem 0.78 Minimization of environmental pollution 0.81 Minimi zation of damage in the natural environment and landscape 0.80 Psychological 0.82 0.54 .79 Community Pride 0.74 Feeling good about yourself 0.62 Community Spirit 0.83 Feeling good about your community 0.74 Infrastructure 0.84 0.56 .8 0 Creation of parks and leisure areas for local residents 0.70 Quality of police and fire department services 0.73 Improvement of sport infrastructures 0.79 Improvement of public infrastructure 0.78 Knowledge Development 0.81 0.59 .78 Ac quirement of experience in hosting sport events as a person 0.66 Volunteering opportunities for these sport events 0.78 Acquirement of experience in hosting sport events as a community 0.85 Socio cultural 0.78 0.47 .75 Availability of leisure opportunities 0.70 Minimization of crime/theft/vandalism 0.67 Crowding of public spaces 0.71 Cultural exchange between tourists and residents 0.67 Political 0.85 0.65 .81 Communication between residents and community leaders 0.80 Res idents being a part of community decisions 0.79 Transparency of government decision making processes in your community 0.83

PAGE 74

74 Table3 6. Continued Loadings CR AVE Tourism 0.90 0.65 .88 Reputation of your community as a sport event destination 0.78 Tourism infrastructure improvements 0.83 Improvement of community's destination image 0.82 Awareness of the community as a tourism destination 0.81 To urism development 0.78 Community Quality of Life 0.90 0.61 .91 The government in the community 0.82 The economic situation in the community 0.68 The state of the natural environment in the community 0.86 The business in the community 0.69 The social conditions in the community 0.81 The local security in the community 0.82 Personal Quality of Life 0.96 0.62 .93 Your future security 0.77 Feeling part of your community 0.88 Your standard of living 0.82 What you are a chieving in life 0.84 How safe you feel 0.91 Your health 0.77 Your personal relationships 0.68 Your spirituality or religion 0.60 Support 0.96 0.76 .88 Hosting sport events can be one of the most important industries for a community 0 .90 The hosting of additional sport events would help my home community's social growth 0.84 The hosting of sport events play a major economic role in my home community 0.85 I am proud to see tourists experience what my community has to offer w hen sport events are hosted there 0.86 I favor building new tourism facilities which will attract more tourists 0.83

PAGE 75

75 Table 3 7. Correlations among measurement constructs/factors of the perceptions of small scale event impacts, community quality o f life, personal quality of life and resident support Econo mic Environme ntal Psycholog ical Infrastruc ture Knowle dge Socio Cultu ral Politi cal Touris m Commu nity QOL Person al QOL Suppo rt Economic 1.00 Environmental 0.58* 1.00 Psychological 0.63* 0.57* 1.00 Infrastructure 0.68* 0.62* 0.66* 1.00 Knowledge 0.69* 0.46* 0.59* 0.58* 1.00 Socio Cultural 0.75* 0.64* 0.65* 0.76* 0.61* 1.00 Political 0.70* 0.60* 0.62* 0.71* 0.61* 0.75* 1.00 Tourism 0.78* 0.53* 0.62* 0.71* 0.67* 0.76* 0.70* 1.00 Community QOL 0.41* 0.33* 0.41* 0.48* 0.30* 0.46* 0.44* 0.36* 1.00 Personal QOL 0.34* 0.27* 0.40* 0.41* 0.26* 0.35* 0.35* 0.37* 0.66* 1.00 Support 0.49* 0.35* 0.37* 0.45* 0.52* 0.47* 0.41* 0.50* 0.32* 0.33* 1.00 Mean 7.62 7.93 8.38 8.25 7.40 7.77 7.63 7.74 6.01 7.37 4.02 S.D. 0.94 1.07 1.05 0.96 1.16 0.98 1.12 1.07 1.73 1.60 0.69 *Correlations significant at p<.001.

PAGE 76

76 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results section will discuss the demographics of the participants; descriptives; the results from the proposed measurement model; and the hypotheses tested (event impacts, quality of life). Demographics Respondents were comprised by mostly females (55.6%) and males making up 44.4%. The mean for how many years respondents had lived in their respective cities was 18.9 years, with 37.2% indicating they had lived in their city for 1 to 10 years. The average age of respondents was 43 years old, with 40.6% indicating they were between the ages of 36 45 yea rs. The highest level of education attained by respondents was a College Degree (38%) followed by Some College (no degree; 18%), Advanced Degree (18%), High School Graduate (15.8%), Technical College (7.2%), and Less than High School Graduate (3.0%). The m ajority of respondents (40.6%) earned more than $80,000 in 2010, followed by those earning $60,000 $79,999 (21.6%) and those earning $40,000 $59,999 (21.6%). The ethnic background of the respondents was mainly White (79.8%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (12.2%), and African American (5%). Respondents travelled on average 45.1 miles to attend the event, with 75.1% traveling between 0 to 50 miles. The largest percentage of respondents lived in Polk County (40.2%) and Brevard County (30.6%); these were the c ounties hosting the sport events. Ninety five percent of respondents indicated that they did not receive any immediate financial benefit from the event being hosted in their community. Respondents indicated that they had attended on average 26.8 events in their community in the past 24 months, with 37% indicating they attended

PAGE 77

77 (measured on a 10 demograph ics. Descriptive Statistics and whether respondents were satisfied with the impacts related to hosting a small scale sport event in their community, one sample t t ests were conducted with a critical value set at 3 (mid point on the 5 point scale). The one sample t tests showed that respondents scored significantly higher (p<.00) above the neutral point (3 was the mid point of the 5 point scale) for all the impacts suggesting their importance for their quality of life and support for hosting future events in their community. Infrastructure ( M=4.43, S.D=0.52 ) ranked the highest in terms of importance followed closely by Psychological impacts ( M=4.40, S.D=0.60 ). Knowle dge Development impacts had the lowest importance mean score, scoring a mean of 3.84 ( S.D=.76 ) impacts, all impacts were slightly higher than the neutral point ( 3 was the mid point on the 5 point scale), suggesting the respondents were satisfied with the overall impacts of the event. Psychological impacts ( M=3.99, S.D=.61 ) was ranked the highest, followed by Infrastructure impacts ( M=3.83, S.D=.67 ). The one sample t test showed that for the new variable (importance + satisfaction mean scores), all impacts were significantly higher than the mid point (6 was the mid point on the 9 point scale). Psychological ( M=8.38, S.D=1.05 ) and Infrastructure ( M=8.25, S.D=.96 ) sco red the highest, suggesting that these impacts were the most important and above 7.0 suggesting that the impacts of the event were highly important and respond satisfied with their performance.

PAGE 78

78 Results from the one sample t M=6.01, S.D=1.73 ). As for personal quality of life the results were significantly higher ( M=7.47, S.D=1.60 ) than the mid point (5 was the mid point on the 11 point scale) suggesting that respondents were satisfied with their personal quality of life. Support toward events was found to be significantly hig h (3 was the mid point on the 5 point scale) by the respondents ( M=4.08, S.D=.69 ) suggesting that respondents would support the hosting of future events in their community. Table 4 1 below Results of T he Pro posed Model Twenty six hypotheses examining the relationship between the perceived small scale sport hosting additional sport events in their community were empirically tested. As mentioned above, a conceptual model was proposed and analyzed using path analysis. The model proposed to include direct effects between the exogenous variables (perceived small scale sport event impacts: economic, environment, psycho logical, infrastructure, knowledge, socio cultural, political, tourism) and the endogenous variables (community quality of life, personal quality of life, and support for hosting additional sport events). The results of the path analysis indicated that the model met the recommended thresholds for the CFI (.99) and the TLI (.92). Figure 4 1, Table 4 2 and Table 4 3 provide detailed information and a visual representation of the resulting path analyses with standardized coefficients. Hypotheses Tested The h ypotheses tested were formulated based on the sport event and tourism development literature and are discussed in the subsequent section. Support for the hypotheses was explored

PAGE 79

79 by examining the significance of individual path coefficients between the vari ables of interest based on the results of the path analyses. Perceived Sport Event Impact Hypotheses Tested on Event Support and QOL Dimensions H1a. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived economic impacts and resident support for hostin g a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived economic impacts on resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .08; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypot hesis. H1b. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived environmental impacts and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived environme ntal impacts on resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .04; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H1c. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived psychological impacts and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived psychological impacts on resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .10; p >.05). There was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H1d. There is a direct positive relationship between percei ved infrastructure impacts and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived infrastructure impacts on resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .0 7; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis.

PAGE 80

80 H1e. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived knowledge development impacts and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed t hat perceived knowledge development impacts had a significant direct, positive effect on resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .31, p < .01). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents that perceived positive knowledge development impacts were more likely to report support hosting sport events in the community. H1f. There is a direct positive relationship between percei ved socio cultural impacts and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived socio cultural impacts on resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .0 8; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H1g. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived political impacts and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that there wa s not a significant direct effect of the perceived political impacts on resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .09; p >.05). There was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H1h. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived tourism impacts and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived tour ism impacts had a significant direct, positive effect on resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .31, p < .05). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents that perceived positive tourism impacts were more likely to report support hosting spo rt events in the community.

PAGE 81

81 Community and Personal Quality of Life Hypotheses Tested H2a. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived economic impacts and community quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed there was not a si gnificant direct effect of the perceived economic impacts on community quality of life ( = .13; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H2b. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived environmental impacts and community quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a s ignificant direct effect of the perceived environmental impacts on community quality of life ( = .06; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H2c. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived psychological impacts and community quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived psychological impacts had a significant direct, positive effect on community quality of life ( = .13, p < .05). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents felt that psychological impacts positively affected their community quality of life. H2d. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived infrastructure impacts and community quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived i nfrastructure impacts had a significant direct, positive effect on community quality of life ( = .27, p < .01). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents felt that infrastructure impacts had a positive effect on their community quality of life.

PAGE 82

82 H2e. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived knowledge development impacts and community quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived knowledge development impacts on community quality of life ( = .08; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for th is hypothesis. H2f. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and community quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived socio cultural impacts had a significant direct, positive effect o n community quality of life ( = .16, p < .05). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents felt that socio cultural impacts positively affected their community quality of life. H2g. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived political impacts and community qualit y of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived political impacts had a significant direct, positive effect on community quality of life ( = .16, p < .05). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents felt that political impacts p ositively affected their community quality of life. H2h. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived tourism impacts and community quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived tourism impacts had a significant dir ect, negative effect on community quality of life ( = .16, p < .05). Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported. Residents felt that tourism impacts negatively affected their community quality of

PAGE 83

83 life. Residents perceived that tourism impacts had a negative effect on their community quality of life. H3a. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived economic impacts and personal quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived economic impacts on personal quality of life ( = .02; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H3b. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived environmental impacts and personal quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a si gnificant direct effect of the perceived environmental impacts on personal quality of life ( = .04; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H3c. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived psychological impacts a nd personal quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived psychological impacts had a significant direct, positive effect on personal quality of life ( = .24, p < .01). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents felt tha t psychological impacts positively affected their personal quality of life. H3d. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived infrastructure impacts and personal quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived infrast ructure impacts had a significant direct, positive effect on personal quality of life ( = .23, p < .01). Therefore, the hypothesis was

PAGE 84

84 supported. Residents felt that infrastructure impacts had a positive effect on their personal quality of life. H3e. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived knowledge development impacts and personal quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived knowledge development impacts on personal quality of life ( = .11; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H3f. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived socio cultural impacts and personal quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect of the perceived socio cultural impact s on personal quality of life ( = .06; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H3g. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived political impacts and personal quality of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a signi ficant direct effect of the perceived political impacts on personal quality of life ( = .06; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H3h. There is a direct positive relationship between perceived tourism impacts and personal qua lity of life. The results of the path analysis revealed that perceived tourism impacts had a significant direct, positive effect on personal quality of life ( = .14, p < .05). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents felt that tourism impacts pos itively affected their personal quality of life.

PAGE 85

85 H4. There is a direct positive relationship between community quality of life and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that there was not a significant direct effect between community quality of life and resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .04; p >.05). Therefore there was a lack of support for this hypothesis. H5. There is a direct positive relationship between personal quality of life and resident support for hosting a sport event. The results of the path analysis revealed that a signif icant direct, positive effect between personal quality of life and resident support for hosting a sport event ( = .14, p < .05). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Residents felt that as their personal quality of life improved they were more likely t o report support hosting sport events in the community.

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 mean scores for Importance, Satisfaction, Importance + Satisfaction, Quality of life and Support for hosting small scale sport events in Florida, 2012 N Mean S.D. S .E. Importance Economic 362 4.17* .57 .03 Environmental 362 4.26* .73 .04 Psychological 362 4.40* .60 .03 Infrastructure 362 4.43* .52 .03 Knowledge Development 362 3.84* .76 .04 Socio Cultural 362 4.21* .53 .03 Political 362 4.24* .65 .03 Tourism 362 4.10* .67 .04 Satisfaction Economic 362 3.46* .64 .03 Environmental 362 3.67* .68 .04 Psychological 362 3.99* .61 .03 Infrastructure 362 3.83* .67 .04 Knowledge Development 362 3.57* .61 .03 Socio Cultural 362 3.57* .65 .03 Politic al 362 3.40* .83 .04 Tourism 362 3.65* .64 .03 Importance + Satisfaction Economic 362 7.62** .94 .05 Environmental 362 7.93** 1.07 .06 Psychological 362 8.38** 1.05 .06 Infrastructure 362 8.25** .96 .05 Knowledge Development 362 7.40** 1.16 .06 Socio Cultural 362 7.77** .98 .05 Political 362 7.63** 1.12 .06 Tourism 362 7.74** 1.07 .06 Quality of Life Community Quality of Life 362 6.01 1.73 .09 Personal Quality of Life 362 7.37*** 1.60 .08 Support Support 362 4.02* .69 .04 One s ample t test results: *sig. p<.001 (5 point scale; 3 mid point); **sig. p<.001 (9 point scale; 6 mid point); *** sig. p<.001 (11 point scale measured from 0 to 10; 5 mid point).

PAGE 87

87 Table 4 2. Path Analysis results of proposed model of the relationship bet ween small scale sport event impacts, quality of life and resident support Hypothesis Variables Path Model Coefficients p value H1a Economic Support .08 .31 H1b Environment Support .04 .50 H1c Psychological Support .10 .12 H1d Infrastructure S upport .07 .36 H1e Knowledge Support .31* .00 H1f Socio Cultural Support .08 .36 H1g Political Support .09 .24 H1h Tourism Support .16* .04 H2a Economic Community Quality of Life .13 .13 H2b Environment Community Quality of Life .06 .33 H2c Psychological Community Quality of Life .13* .04 H2d Infrastructure Community Quality of Life .27* .00 H2e Knowledge Community Quality of Life .08 .25 H2f Socio Cultural Community Quality of Life .16* .03 H2g Political Community Qualit y of Life .16* .04 H2h Tourism Community Quality of Life .16* .03 H3a Economic Personal Quality of Life .02 .83 H3b Environment Personal Quality of Life .04 .50 H3c Psychological Personal Quality of Life .24* .00 H3d Infrastructure Persona l Quality of Life .23* .00 H3e Knowledge Personal Quality of Life .11 .12 H3f Socio Cultural Personal Quality of Life .06 .54 H3g Political Personal Quality of Life .06 .44 H3h Tourism Personal Quality of Life .14* .05 H4 Community Quality o f Life Support .04 .47 H5 Personal Quality of Life Support .14* .02 *denotes significant at p < .05 Note: R 2 =.345 for Support; R 2 =.210 for personal quality of life; and, R 2 =.275 for community quality of life.

PAGE 88

88 Table 4 3 Goodness of Fit Indi ces of the path analysis model predicting support for hosting small scale sport events in Florida, 2012 N X2 df X2/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Path Analysis model 362 3.74 1 3.74 .99 .92 .09 .008

PAGE 89

89 Note: p. < .05. For clarity purposes only significant paths were included in the figure. Figure 4 1. P ath analysis model of sport event impacts, quality of life, and support with standardized coefficients

PAGE 90

90 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCL USION The discussion and conclusio n section will present the summary of the findings and connect to the literature. Then theoretical and practical implications along with limitations and future research will be presented. Summary of Findings Respondents were asked to rate the level of imp ortance and evaluate their level of satisfaction with small scale sport event impacts hosted in their community. It was hypothesized community quality of life, as well a s their support for hosting sport events in their community. Findings from the current study are supported by previous research which found that residents who perceived positive impacts from tourism or hosting sport events supported additional tourism deve lopment or hosting sport events in their community (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andriotis, 2005; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Ap, 1992; Bull & Lovell, 2007; Chen, 2001; Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Dyer, Gursoy, Sharma, & Carter, 2007; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Ru therford, 2004; Harrill, 2004; Kim et al., 2006; Ko & Stewart 2002; McGehee & Andereck 2004; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010; Perdue, Long, & Kang, 1999; Perdue et al., 1990; Preuss & Solberg, 2006; Wang & Pfister, 2008; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2009; 2011; Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001). Previous research (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andereck et al., 2005, 2007; Deccio & Baloglu, 2000; Jurowski, 1994; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Wang & Pfister, 2008) that examined at the perceived impacts were

PAGE 91

91 on quality of life by incorporating an actual quality of life measure in order to examine and gain an understanding between s port event impacts and their effect on quality of life. By including the personal and community quality of life constructs, the results indicated that even though there is a positive perception of sport event impacts that may predict support for hosting s port events in a community, the relationship between perceived impacts and quality of life may not be as direct as previously proposed. Specifically, psychological, infrastructure, socio cultural and political sport event impacts had a direct effect on res ident community quality of life, while tourism had negative relationship with resident community quality of life. Furthermore, psychological, infrastructure and tourism had a significant direct effect on personal quality of life. As for support for hosting a sport event, knowledge development and tourism discussion regarding the importance and satisfaction of the perceived event impacts, followed by the effect s of the perceived sport event impacts on quality of life and support for hosting sport events is presented. Community Quality of Life This study hypothesized that community quality of life is positively affected by perceptions of economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, knowledge development, socio cultural, political and tourism impacts. The results showed that only psychological, infrastructure, socio cultural, and political impacts had a significant positive effect on community quality o f life. H owever it is important to note that tourism had a significant negative effect. Specifically, community quality of life was most affected by infrastructure impacts, suggesting that the more respondents felt it was important and they were satisfie d with the creation of parks and leisure areas, the quality of police and fire department services and the

PAGE 92

92 improvement of sport and public infrastructure, the more positively they perceived their community quality of life. These results are corroborated by previous research that found residents felt that tourism and tourism development provided the community and its residents with more leisure and park opportunities resulting in an improvement to quality of life (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andereck, Valentine, Knopf &Vogt, 2005). Research also showed that the tourism industry and the hosting of a mega event can serve as a catalyst in order to build or (Andereck et al., 2007; Kaplanidou & Kar adakis, 2010; Lorde et al., 2011 ) This study corroborates findings of previous research indicating that hosting a sport event provides residents the opportunity to showcase infrastructure generated, allud because of infrastructure changes such as better public services and the availability of more parks and outdoor spaces for recreation (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Chalip, 2002; Liu, Sheldon & Var, 1987; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Owen, 2005; Sirakaya et al., 2002; Whitson & Horne, 2006). The current study corroborated findings of previous research that indicate residents experience the development and improvement of infrastructure (Jones, 2001; Chappelet, 2008; Hiller, 2006; Solberg & Preuss, 2007) and these developments will lead to an improvement in overall quality of life (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Terret, 2008; Whitson & Horne, 2006). Resul ts also indicated that community quality of life was affected by psychological impacts, suggesting that the more respondents felt they were important and they were satisfied with community pride, community spirit, feeling good about themselves and the comm unity, the more positively they perceived their community quality of life. These results are in line with the findings from Kaplanidou, Gibson, Karadakis, Walker, Thapa, Geldenhuys, and Coetzee (2011)

PAGE 93

93 that found perceived psychological impacts created by the World Cup had a significant pos itive effect on the quality of life of the South African residents. Research further corroborates the findings of this study where residents hosting a small scale event have experienced positive psychological impacts such as an increase in local and commun ity pride, spirit, morale, (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Garnham, 1996; Walo, et al., 1996; Lorde et al., 2011 ; Solberg & Preuss, 2007; Bull & Lovell, 2007) and a psychological boost (Gibson et al., 2003). These psychological impacts can explain an improvement to quality of life (Chabra & Gursoy, 2009) as has been reported in previous studies examining small scale sport events (Horne, 2000; Veltri et al., 2009; Ziakas, 2010). Similar results were found by Karadakis and Kaplanidou ( 2012 ) where participants indicated that psychological legacies were important as it relates to their quality of life and that during and post event, participants were satisfied with the psychological legacies. Lastly, Kim et al., (2006) also found an increase in perce ptions of psychological impacts post World Cup. Therefore the results indicate the importance of examining the psychological impacts as it relates to perceived quality of life, as Gursoy and Kendall (2006) found that psychological impacts are just as impor tant as the economic impacts of a sport event such as the Olympic Games. Socio cultural perceptions of sport event impacts were also found to have a significant positive effect on community quality of life. Residents felt that the availability of leisure opportunities, cultural exchange, and the minimization of crime, theft, vandalism and crowding of public spaces contributed to a positive perception of community quality of life. Results support previous research that has indicated that social benefits f rom hosting small scale events have contributed to quality of life (Kaplanidou et al., 2011; Meyer, 2011; Walo et al., 1996). For example, positive impacts such as social interaction with tourists can

PAGE 94

94 explain an improvement to quality of life (Chhabra & Gursoy, 2009) Hritz and Ross (2010) found t hat support for hosting future sport events were predicted by social and economic benefits. Previous research supporting the current study suggested an increase in quality of life is a result of improved socio economic benefits (Nichols et a l., 2002) There is the benefit of social interaction, increasing cultural understanding, strengthening values and traditions, self esteem, quality of life and the image of the city (Ko & Stewart, 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Oviedo Garcia et al., 2008 ; Preuss & Solberg, 2006). The findings in this study are also supported by the quality of life literature, in which social life and relationships are related to community well being (Cummins, 1997). This was evident with the respondents from the study who were positive and supportive of hosting a small scale sport event with regards to having leisure opportunities and interactions with other tourists or residents. Kim (2002) also found that y the availability of services and facilities which could be used for leisure and recreation. The results of this study also support previous studies that found factors influencing quality of life was related to items such as cultural exchange, better publ ic services, and more parks (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Liu, Sheldon, Var, 1987; Sirakaya et al., 2002) Lastly, political impacts had a significant positive effect on community quality of life, indicating that the mor e respondents felt they were being communicated to by leaders, being part of community decisions and transparency of government decisions, the more positive they perceived their community quality of life. There is some theoretical literature that examined reasons why political participation, rights and democracy have a positive impact on quality of life, however little empirical research exists in the area (Weitz Shapiro & Winters, 2008) Results from the current study s upport similar results found by Meyer (2011), where residents

PAGE 95

95 who perceived they were informed, consulted and respected had a positive perception of their community quality of life. Ott (2010) found a relationship between democratic and technical quality of governance and resid Pacheco & Lange (2010) found a significant relationship between political participation and satisfaction with life. In the sustainable tourism literature, researchers (Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; Huayhuaca, Cottrell, Gradl, & Mateev, 2010; Shen & Cottrell, 2008) have found that local participation in political governance leads to resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism. Furthermo re, research in tourism development has found a positive correlation between making process and tourism development (Ap, 1992; Lankford & Howard, 1994). Other studies have looked at how the inclusion of local residents in the decision making process impacts quality of life (Andereck et al., 2007; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997). Therefore, the current study and as previous studies suggest, perceptions of positive political impacts can lead to enhanced commun ity quality of life. This is based on acknowledging the importance of communication and involvement of residents in the decision making process for support of hosting events in a community or additional tourism/sport development (Andereck et al., 2007; Byrd, 2007; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Lindberg & Johnson, 1997; Meyer, 2011; Yoon et al., 2001) Although the tourism hypothesis was not supported, there was a significant negative relationship between perceived tourism impacts and community quality of life. A possible explanation for this result could be the increased traffic or density of tourists coming to the host community. Research has found conflicting results with residents experiencing both positive and negative impacts to the community affecting their support. Specifically, it has been found that

PAGE 96

96 (Vargas Sanchez et al., 2011, p. 470) have been found to positively correlat Sanchez et al., 2009; 2011). Ko and Stewart (2002) found a positive link between perceived resident benefits from tourism and as found in relation to perceptions of costs. Recently, some studies have focused on how the amount of tourists in an area affects resident attitudes towards additional tourism development. Faulkner and Tideswell (1997) found a negative relationship, while Bujosa Bestard and Rosello Nadal (2007) and Vargas Sanchez et al., (2011) found that residents held a more supportive attitude towards tourism development when there was a greater amount of tourists. Other studies reporting similar results have a given area (Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004) Andereck et al., (2007, p. 498) study indicated that residents felt that tourism should increase e, the study found that residents attribute tourism impacts on quality of life in supporting tourism development and that these developments have both positive and negative impacts on quality of life (Andereck et al., 2007, p. 498). Other possible explana tions as to why there was a negative association between perceived tourism impacts and quality of life can be attributed to residents experiencing negative impacts such as capacity constraints, the displacement and physical removal of host residents, crowd ing that causes local residents difficulty accessing resources or the event itself, disagreements (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Higham, 1999; J ones, 2001; Tosun, 2002)

PAGE 97

97 as a community is developed by tourism objectives, resident perceptions towards the community changes from a supportive euphoria to a neg ative or non supportive attitude towards tourism (Vargas Sanchez et al., 2011). Vargas community satisfaction was correlated with resident attitudes towards additional tourism development, but Ko and Stewar t (2002) found a negative relationship. Furthermore, the tourism results could be explained by social exchange theory. That is respondents felt that the tourism benefits that they perceived the community was gaining did not exceed the costs, and therefore did not feel that the quality of life in the community was being improved for the community at large. However, when it came to the impacts tourism had on personal quality of life a positive relationship was found, and is discussed in detail below. Persona l Quality of Life This study hypothesized that personal quality of life is positively affected by perceptions of economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, knowledge development, socio cultural, political and tourism impacts. The results showe d that only psychological, infrastructure, and tourism impacts had a significant positive effect on quality of life. Results indicated that personal quality of life was most affected by psychological impacts, suggesting that the more respondents perceived community pride, community spirit, feeling good about themselves and the community, the more positively they perceived their personal quality of life. As mentioned in the above section these results are in line with the results from previous studies that f ound by hosting a sport event, residents and those attending the event experienced positive psychological impacts such as increased spirit, morale and pride (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Bull & Lovell, 2007; Gibson et al., 2003;Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Garnha m, 1996; Kaplanidou et al., 2011; Lorde et al, 2011 ; Solberg & Preuss, 2007; Walo, et al., 1996) and

PAGE 98

98 as a result of hosting the event experienced an improvement to their quality of life (Chabra & Gursoy, 2009; Horne, 2000; Veltri et al., 2009; Ziakas, 2010 ). These results corroborate the findings of Karadakis and Kaplanidou ( 2012 ) where participants indicated that psychological legacies were important for their quality of life and that during and post event, participants were satisfied with the psychologica l legacies they experienced. Furthermore, with parents feeling they are responsible for the well being of their children (Gibson et al., 2012), seeing their children participate and enjoy these soccer tournaments could cause them to feel proud and feel goo d about themselves, thus resulting in more satisfaction with their personal quality of life. Personal quality of life was also affected by infrastructure impacts, suggesting the more respondents felt there was a positive relationship with the creation of parks and leisure areas, the quality of police and fire department services and the improvement of sport and public infrastructure, the more positively they perceived their quality of life. The results of the current study are supported by previous researc h that found residents experienced an improvement to their quality of life as a result of infrastructure developments such as more leisure and park opportunities for them to use (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andereck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt, 2005). Similar resu lts were reported in previous studies that alluded to enhanced quality of life for residents because of infrastructure generated for the event, providing residents the opportunity to showcase these developments, as well as improving public services and cre ating more parks and outdoor spaces for recreation (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Chalip, 2002; Liu, Sheldon, Var, 1987; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Owen, 2005; Sirakaya et al., 2002; Whitson & Horne, 2006). Research from the sport event literature suggests that improvement to overall quality of life is a result of the development and improvement of infrastructure generated from the event (Chappelet, 2008; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Hiller, 2006;

PAGE 99

99 Jones 2001; Solberg & Preuss, 2007; Terret, 2008; Whitson & Horne, 2006) Conversations with some of the respondents indicated that they were happy and extremely satisfied with the construction of the facilities that hosted the soccer tournaments. They furthe r indicated that before these facilities were constructed, there was nowhere for them to host events (Personal Communication). With the construction of these infrastructures, residents felt they could host events, thus providing the opportunity for them an d their families to enjoy the infrastructure, (2007) suggestion of ensuring that infrastructures developed for small scale events are tied to the Personal quality of life was also affected by tourism impacts, suggesting that the more respondents felt there was a positiv e relationship with the reputation of the community as a sport image, awareness of the community as a tourism destination and tourism development, the more positi previous research that found residents experience a positive impact such as enhanced regional ndall, 2006) increased awareness of the host community, attracting tourists to the community as a result of hosting the event (Higham & Hinch, 2001; Walo, et al., 1996; Gibson et al., 2003; Daniels & Norman, 2003; Kaplanidou & Gibson, 2010), and exposure o f the community through the media (Mason & Duquette, 2008; Chalip, 2007; Hall, 1997). Previous studies support the current study that examined resident attitudes towards tourism and the impacts of tourism and sporting events (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andereck et al., 2005; Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Kim et al., 2006; Perdue et al., 1990; Wang & Pfister, 2008) The

PAGE 100

100 studies mentioned above imply that tourism and hosting a sport ev quality of life. With regards to tourism impacts on perceptions of quality of life, this study corroborates findings of previous research that suggested hosting the Olympic Games provides the host city an opportunity to showcase i ts tourist attractions and infrastructure generated, alluding to the (Chalip, 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Owen, 2005; Whitson & Horne, 2006) Si milar results were reported by Avgoustis, Cecil, Fu, and Wang (2005) who reported quality of life for residents was improved touris m results can be attributed to the fact that small scale events occur on a regular basis It could be a family trip to look forward to so that families can social ize and travel together near their hometown and even in their hometown enjoying the tourist attractions and interacting with visitors (Kaplanidou & Gibson, 2012) These small scale events can also serve as a place for people to meet up once a year if they are not in the same hometown furthering their relationships Finally, although not a significant result, th e socio cultural impacts had a negative impact on personal quality of life, even though socio cultural impacts were significant and positive for community quality of life. Although the findings from this study contradict previous studies that found residen cultural impacts such as increased leisure opportunities, cultural exchanges, interactions and relationships (Liu & Var, 1986; McCool & Martin; 1994; Perdue et al., 1990); findings of socio cultural impacts have also produced i nconsistent results (Andereck et al., 2005; Dyer et al., 2007). For example, hosting a mega event

PAGE 101

101 can generate negative social impacts such as anti social behavior, crime, congestion, crowding, disruption of community life, community alienation and displac ement, administrative problems, security breaches and over commercialization (Bull & Lovell, 2007; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Jones, 2001; Owen, 2005) Hritz and Ross (2010) revealed that respondents believed resident quality of life is negatively impacted by convention and sport tourism; specifically they said that it was due to the social costs. These negative socio cultural impacts are probably experienced in communities that have conflicting socio cultural percep tions between residents and tourists. While the two communities from this study more than likely experienced negative impacts such as crime, pollution or crowding of public areas, it could be that friendly encounters with tourists or establishing relations and experiences contributing to the positive perception of socio cultural impacts on community quality of life. Resident Support It was hypothesized that resident support for hosting a small scale sport event was directly affected by the perceived economic, environmental, psychological, infrastructure, knowledge development, socio cultural, political and tourism impacts, community quality of life and personal quality of life. Results show that only personal quality of life, knowledge development and tourism impacts have a direct positive relationship with resident support. Thus, as personal quality of life, knowledge development and tourism perceived impacts increased so did support fo r hosting sport events. Specifically, the results of this study support previous research which identified that residents provide support when they perceived to experience a personal benefit (i.e., improved quality of life) from tourism development or whe n benefits are perceived to exceed the costs (Ko & Stewart, 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue et al., 1990; Vargas Sanchez, Plaza

PAGE 102

102 Mejia, & Porras Bueno, 2009; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2011) In the instance of t he current study positive knowledge development, tourism, and personal quality of life predicted support for hosting a sport event. As suggested by Solberg and Preuss (2007), the current study showed that hosting a sport event leads to knowledge developme nt. The tourism findings in the current study corroborate previous research in which residents who experienced positive impacts from tourism development were more supportive of further tourism development (Harill 2004; Ko & Stewart 2002; McGehee & Andere ck 2004; Perdue et al., 1990; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2009; 2011). Other studies that support the findings have found that resident attitude supporting additional tourism is influenced by the perception that there are more tourism related benefits than cost s (Dyer et al 2007; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Perdue et al., 1990; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2009; Yoon et al., 2001) Overall the literature corro perceptions of the impacts associated with hosting an event vary. Some residents may perceive the impacts they experience as being both positive and negative; others feel that impacts are s trictly negative; also others may perceive that impacts are only positive (Kim et al., 2006) Regardless of how residents perceive the impacts of hosting an event, their support is essential for the success of the event. As Deccio and Baloglu (2002) suggested, residents who experience positive impacts tend to support the event and hosting future events. The results from the current study indicate that overall, respondents felt perceived impacts provided more benefits than costs, and th erefore supported the hosting of future sport events in their community. Non significant Hypothesis Findings The findings with regards to the perceived impacts of hosting a sport event were surprising in the sense that for perceived quality of life and su pport for hosting a sport event, economic and

PAGE 103

103 environmental impacts did not have a significant effect. Although the relationship was positive for the economic impacts and its influence on quality of life and support, environmental impacts were negative. Al though, socio cultural and political impacts had a significant positive effect on community quality of life, they did not have a significant effect on personal quality of life nor support for hosting a sport event. These particular findings are surprising because previous research has found that factors influencing quality of life which are associated with tourism impacts and development are often categorized as economic, socio cultural, and environmental (Andereck e t al., 2007; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004) Respondents of the current study perceived that the economic impacts of hosting a sport event had a positive effect on quality of life, therefore as respondents experienced a positive economic impact, their quality of life also increased. Although not significant in the current study, the positive relationship between perceived economic impacts on quality of life is consistent with previous literature (H aralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Kaplanidou et al., 2011; Liu & Var, 1986; Meyer, 2011; Perdue et al., 1990) In the quality of life literature, economic impact has been found to have a significant influence on overall quality of life (Cummins, 1997; Diener & Suh, 1997), and thus it is surprising that in the current study, although a positive relationship exists, it is not significant. did not affect their personal and their community quality of life. In a similar study examining community satisfaction, McCrea, Stimson, and Western (2005) found that environmental impacts were the least significant feature in predicting co mmunity satisfaction. Although in the current study, respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the overall performance of the environmental impacts, there was still a negative association between environment, quality of

PAGE 104

104 life and support for hosti ng sport events in the community. These results support previous studies in which the perceived environmental impacts were found to affect resident support (Chen, 2001; Yoon et al., 2001). Specifically, a negative relationship was found between environment al impacts and resident support, indicating that residents are quite concerned about the negative impacts associated with tourism development, and in the context of the current study, sport development on the environment. As predicted in these previous stu dies, and in the current study, the perceived negative impacts are likely to decrease resident support, as resident are concerned about the negative social and environmental impacts due to tourism development (Chen, 2001; Meyer, 2011; Yoon et al., 2001). Although in the current study, respondents evaluated their satisfaction with environmental impacts favorably, a negative relationship was found between environmental impacts and quality of life. A reason for this could be concerns for the environment have become embedded in personal quality of life evaluations (Meyer, 2011). Thus, even though respondents had a favorable evaluation of environmental impacts in terms of minimal environmental damage and pollution, respondents still felt there was room for improvement and a negative relationship between environmental impacts, quality of life and support existed. On the other hand, it is possible that the respondents do not think these events can have a real environmental impact as research suggests that 2012, p. 162). There exists some literature from the community quality of life context in which the environmental factor has been examined in relation to economic, social, physical, an d security characteristics instead of just the natural environment (Vemuri, Grove, Wilson, & Burch Jr., 2 011) Contrary to the findings of the current study, Vemuri et al., (2011) found a positive

PAGE 105

105 relationship between environmental indicators of environmental quality on community and personal life satisfaction. Cummins et al., (2003) reported the same result s, but their study focused on overall quality of life and community quality of life questions that included environmental indicators determining satisfaction with environmental quality. Furthermore, research has also found residents have indicated that env ironmental impacts are considered the most important aspect as it pertains to their quality of life (Karadakis & Kaplanidou, 2012 ; Andereck et al., 2007), and the findings of the current study support the call for more research examining the relationship b etween the environment and quality of life (Vemuri & Costanza, 2006; Vemuri et al., 2011) Another interesting f inding from the current study was the lack of a significant effect regarding perceptions of the socio cultural and political event impacts on personal quality of life. Vemuri et al., (2011) examined the relationship between social capital, income and the n atural environment with regards to personal and community life satisfaction. Their study found that income was a significant predictor of personal satisfaction (higher personal satisfaction was found with more income), but no relationship was found with co mmunity life satisfaction. Vemuri et al., (2011) go on to suggest that individuals focus on their individual psychological well being when it comes to their personal life satisfaction, while social interactions are the focus for community life satisfaction Vemuri et al., (2011) findings could explain why in the current study socio cultural and political impacts did not have a significant effect on personal quality of life, but did for community quality of life. Specifically, respondents could have attribut ed socio cultural and political impacts with social interactions and only for the Furthermore, as mentioned above this could also explain the

PAGE 106

106 associated economic and environmental impacts with their personal quality of life Based on the results, it could be suggested that respondents believe the opportunity to engage in social interactions (socio cultural impacts) and be included in community decisions (political impacts) are considered more important for their community quality of life than for their personal quality of life. Perhaps, hosting a sport event provided respondents with the opportunity to experience socio cultural impacts in the co mmunity, and without the event personal benefits are not experienced or considered. Finally, as the literature suggests (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andriotis, 2005; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Ap, 1992; Bull & Lovell, 2007; Chen, 2001; Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Harrill, 2004; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010; Perdue, Long, & Kang, 1999; Perdue et al., 1990; Preuss & Solberg, 2006; Wang & Pfister, 2008) support for hosting sportin g events in a community can be predicted by benefits that residents perceive to experience. Specifically, in this study knowledge development, tourism, and personal sport event in the community. These results are in line with Wang and Pfister (2008) who argued it is hosting an event but also non economic impacts. As is the case of the current study, economic impacts did not predict support it was the non economic impacts. What is surprising about the results was the lack of significant relationships between the other impacts such as economic, environmental, socio cultural, political impacts and community quality of life. These result s can be explained by social exchange theory. As social exchange theory suggests, once an interaction occurs the individual conducts a cost benefit analysis to determine if they are benefiting more than they are giving up (Emerson,

PAGE 107

107 1976). If residents fee l that benefits experienced from hosting the event outweigh the costs, then they will have a positive attitude towards hosting future events and exhibit supportive behaviors (Fredline, 2005). As the results of this study indicate, respondents evaluated tha t the knowledge development, tourism, and the benefits to their personal quality of life exceeded the costs of the other impacts resulting in support for hosting sport events in their community. However, on the other hand, respondents also indicated throug h the exchange process that they did not experience more benefits in terms of economic, environmental, socio cultural, political impacts and community quality of life and thus these impacts did not affect their support for hosting a sport event. The result s also support social exchange theory in the sense that the exchange process in benefit analysis (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960) Although respondents do consider the impacts of hosting an event on their community quality of life, i t is only the impacts on their personal quality of life that lead to resident support. Another possible explanation for the lack of significant relationships between impacts and support can be a lack of media attention or event publicity. Findings from Chien, Ritchie, Shipway and Henderson (2012 ) found that having an event covered b y the media can be a useful method of promotion; however, a negative representation of the event can decrease and even reverse this effect. Specifically, Shipway and Henderson (2011) found that greater support for the event was provided by residents when t he event was portrayed positively. With the events of the current study generating little attention by tourists and being mainly attended by friends and family members, there may be little incentive for the media to get involved and cover the event. This c ould lead to a lack of awareness of the impacts the event has on the community. Also, for those individuals that are not aware of the impacts associated with the event, this could explain

PAGE 108

108 the lack of impacts on their personal quality of life and support fo r hosting events in the community. Furthermore, looking at the results, and explaining the lack of significant relationship between economic, socio cultural, environmental and political impacts can be attributed to the size of the event itself. As Higham (1999) suggested, small scale events are held within existing infrastructure, they need little financial investment from the public, and there is less crowding or congestion. Therefore, the impacts from these events may seem minimal, or may not be signific ant predictors of support because these impacts are not as drastic or apparent compared to mega events which produce more economic, socio cultural, environmental and political benefits and costs (Fredline, 2005). It can be suggested that these impacts may become significant over time as they persist, and residents are likely to perceive impacts favorably if the event is in harmony with community values and the residents experience benefits through participation (Fredline, 2005). The economic recession could also be a reason explaining the results of the current study, which is in line with Liu (2003) who found that the economic recession had a negative impact on the sustainability of tourism. This can also explain why psychological and infrastructure impacts had a positive effect on support, because parents and participants were more c oncerned about their perso nal happiness of their children (Gibson et al., 2012). The pride and joy of watching their children participate and have fun can cause individuals psychological impacts to increase, while the local infrastructure that was develope d to host these events explains why infrastructure had a positive effect on support. Furthermore, the socio cultural impacts can be explained by the fact that small scale events heavily rely on local volunteers to be successfully executed. Therefore, altho ugh respondents did not feel they were personally benefiting from attending the

PAGE 109

109 event, overall the community was being brought together. This was accomplished through the volunteers and children being given an opportunity to socialize and engage in cultura l exchanges, develop knowledge and skills, which may explain the significant effects of the socio cultural, knowledge development and tourism impacts on community quality of life. action of impacts, satisfaction with their community and personal quality of life and support for hosting sport events in the community was positive (means were all above the mid point of their respective scales). Moreover, in line with previous studies re spondents specifically recognized the importance of and being satisfied with the positive impacts of having infrastructure present in the community, as well as the importance and satisfaction of the psychological impacts of hosting a sport event in the co mmunity ( Karadakis & Kaplanidou, 2012 ). The results of the path analysis are in line with previous research where support for hosting sport events in a community are influenced by the perceived positive impacts (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Kim et al., 2006; D eccio & Baloglu, 2002; Fredline, 2005). As with previous impact studies, this study utilized social exchange theory as the theoretical framework (Ap, 1990; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Andereck et al., 2005; Karadakis & Kaplanidou, 2012 ; Fredline, 2005), in whi ch perceived impacts have been evaluated using a cost benefit frame of mind and are therefore interpreted as having a positive or negative impact s on the community (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Hritz & Ross, 2010; Gursoy et al., 2002 & 2009; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Vargas Sanchez et al., 2009 & 2011). It is also important to note that studies using scales to measure impacts have been through numerous factor analysis and the results show that it is difficult to construct consistent dimensions (Meyer, 2011). Fur thermore, with the limited amount of impact studies focusing on small scale sport events and the lack of

PAGE 110

110 consistent scales, possible comparisons to previous studies is limited, and therefore tourism studies and mega event literature was consulted. However there are comparable findings with the impacts from the current study that are presented briefly. impacts have been found to improve or enhance quality of life (An dereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Chalip, 2002; Liu, Sheldon, Var, 1987; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Owen, 2005; Sirakaya et al., 2002; Whitson & Horne, 2006). Moreover, perceptions of positive psychological impacts such as an increased sense o f pride can explain an improvement to quality of life as a result of hosting a small scale sport event (Chabra & Gursoy, 2009; Horne, 2000; Veltri et al., 2009; Ziakas, 2010). Furthermore, socio cultural impacts have been found to contribute to quality of life as a result of hosting small scale events and tourism development (Kaplanidou et al., 2011; Meyer 2011; Walo et al., 1996). In the sustainable tourism literature it has been found that perceptions associated with political structure lead to resident s atisfaction with tourism (Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; Cottrell, Vaske, Shen, & Ritter, 2007; Meyer, 2011) Tourism impacts associated with hosting a sport event in the community have been found to be perceived favorabl y by residents with regards to the attention generated from the event, attracting & Hinch, 2001; Walo, et al., 1996; Gibson et al., 2003; Daniels & Norman, 2003; K aplanidou & Gibson, 2010). As in previous studies that have utilized social exchange theory to determine support for hosting an event or tourism development, support is provided when residents perceive to experience more positive impacts such as improved q uality of life, knowledge development, and tourism impacts than negative impacts (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Andriotis, 2005; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Ap, 1992; Bull & Lovell, 2007; Chen, 2001; Deccio &

PAGE 111

111 Baloglu, 2002; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Harrill, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010; Perdue, Long, & Kang, 1999; Perdue et al., 1990; Preuss & Solberg, 2006; Vargas Sanchez, Plaza Mejia, & Porras Bueno, 2 009; Vargas Sanchez et al. 2011; Wang & Pfister, 2008) Thus, the big picture of the current study is the importance that intangible impacts such as the psychological benefits have on quality of life and support. These intangible impacts of hosting a sm all scale sport event need to be considered and examined. A s suggested by Weed (2007), there is a need to be able to re tell the experience of being at the event that contributes to the longevity of the experience, which could help maintain the perception of a positive event during hard times. The joy of watching their children play can serve as a means for parents to live vicariously through their children an d unite the community Seeing their children play and succee d can have an impact on quality of life for years to come. I am reminded of the Disney before a game. The father tells the main character how during the recession, watching the Philadelphia Eagles score a touchdown helped him get through the recession. This is why studying the intangible impacts of sport events and the relationship they have on quality of life is important. With the amount of resources and money that goes towards developing sport related infrastructures (in the case of the current study, the Lake Myrtle Soccer Complex) positive intangible impacts to individual and community quality of life helps justify the use of resources and spending. Theoretical Implications This study contributes to the sport tourism literature, specifically examining perceptions of event impacts and their relationship with quality of life and support for hosting spor t events. The

PAGE 112

112 theoretical implications of this study include identifying the differential weight of impacts on residents support for hosting future sport tourism events, and on community quality of life and personal quality of life. Knowledge development impacts were found to have the strongest relationship to support for hosting future sport tourism events. Community quality of life was affected mostly by infrastructure impacts, while personal quality of life was influenced by psychological impacts. This study also shows that the quality of life construct is multidimensional and should be considered as two separate constructs (community quality of life and personal quality of life) as event impacts can influence each differently. This study extends the u se of social exchange theory in the sport tourism studies with regards to small scale events and resident attitudes. It also extends social exchange theory to understanding how importance and satisfaction can influence resident attitudes towards a small sc ale sport event. As suggested by social exchange theory, respondents identified impacts that were important to them and evaluated their satisfaction with those impacts as it relates to their quality of life. It was also found that the evaluation process al though it can occur on an benefit analysis. As mentioned earlier social exchange theory is a social interaction theory that suggests an individual or group will be more a greeable to take part in an exchange with others if they feel that they benefit from the exchange. The results of this study support social exchange theory as we saw that it is not just the tangible but intangible impacts that lead to resident support. The refore, this study adds to the literature by going beyond examining just the economic impacts of an event and considering the intangible impacts addressing a gap in the literature (Wang & Pfister, 2008). Furthermore, the study adds to social exchange theor y by identifying that quality of life can serve as the perceived exchanged benefit in the exchange process showing that both

PAGE 113

113 tangible and intangible impacts can predict resident support. As social exchange theory suggests, respondents felt that hosting the event increased their quality of life, and therefore this increase in quality of life lead to support for hosting a sport event. However it is important to note a limitation for using social exchange theory in the current study was that it was used from an ec onometric perspective. T he theory is limited to the fact that individuals are sensory machines and therefore perceptions in the current study are based on structures developed from multiple cost benefit analysis (the basis for which exchanges are eval uated in social exchange theory) From this perspective we know that individuals that experience benefits are more likely to be supportive of an event, especially if it is an economic benefit. However, there is a lack of understanding examining how the int angible impacts and exchanges that are difficult to measure in econometric terms affect support. S ocial exchange theory was useful in exploring the p erceptions in the current study but it may not be adequate for examining perceptions of other stakeholders such as minority groups, different classes and races. Therefore, a broader theoretical base is needed to further the sport event impact and resident support discourse by making use of different theories such as class and race theories. The model proposed and tested in this study provides a theoretical foundation for studying support for hosting a small scale sport event in a variety of settings. The model can be applied and used to compare communities that host different types of small scale sport events or that have different social structures. Furthermore, new factors can be added such as the economic state of the community and the dependency on the event; and overall attitudes toward the event may further explain support for hosting a sport event and im prove the variance explained. Finally, the model contributes a theoretical basis for empirically testing and examining the

PAGE 114

114 relationship between small scale sport event impacts on quality of life and ultimately resident support for hosting future events. Practical Implications By gaining an understanding of how sport event impacts are evaluated, event organizers, the local government and the host communities can utilize their resources into improving programs related to the impacts residents feel contribut their personal quality of life. The results from the current study are important for sport managers and event planners for several reasons. First, this study examined quality of life aspects within the context of sm all scale sport events an area with scarce literature. Furthermore, this study measured the perceived importance and satisfaction of sport event impacts as they relate to quality of life, a relationship which in the sport tourism and sport management liter ature has not Identifying the impacts of small scale sport event hosting are important as it provides sport managers and event planners with useful information to leverage these events to enhance community and per sonal quality of life for residents and the host communities. These consequences should be considered during the planning period for future events as small scale sport events tend to occur on an annual basis. Although all impacts were considered important in the current study, psychological and infrastructure were rated the highest and therefore the most important for quality of life. Furthermore, psychological and infrastructure impacts were found to positively increase perceptions of community and person al quality of life. Therefore organizers need to create programs and communication campaigns that promote the positive effects of hosting a small scale sport event in the community. This can be done through the use of social media, community bulletin board s and the local newspaper.

PAGE 115

115 For another small scale sport event, similar or different perceptions of impacts may be experienced by the residents. The findings of this study suggest that not all impacts are equally important to residents, but there are cer tainly some more important than others which may satisfy events in the community. Thus, event organizers and planners can identify the areas that need support o r improvement. Identification of problem areas should alert the event organizers and the local governments to direct more attention and resources towards these projects. This in turn, can dissatisfaction or negative attitudes. As the current study found, if residents perceive that impacts they believe to be expectations, support for future events can be achieved. With respondents indicating the importance and their satisfaction with the knowledge development, psychological and infrastructure impacts, organizers should ensure that they are maximizing opportunities for residents and participants to learn and gain new skills from the event. As mentioned above, use media outlets and create communications campaigns focusing on the psychological benefits that are experienced by hosting the event such as increased sense of personal and community pride, and fee ling good about the community and themselves. This can be achieved by having organizers, the local government, community leaders, the local business bureau and any tourism agencies cooperate with each other in order to establish and promote a festive atmos phere and celebrate the event as a community increasing the sense of pride and community coming together. Furthermore, these initiatives as well as creating volunteer opportunities can lead to community engagement further increasing the positive experience s and provide residents with a feeling of inclusion and community or unity adding to the positive perceptions of the impacts on

PAGE 116

116 quality of life and more specifically, the socio cultural impacts. Finally, organizers and event planners need to ensure that t he development or improvement to venues and facilities created for the event are converted to meet community needs and fit into the long term profile of the community, so that residents can utilize and benefit from their use throughout the year (sustainabl e use of facilities). Organizers and planners should further communicate accurate impacts that consider both the potential positive and negative impacts that residents may experience as tourism impacts were found to have a negative impact on the community positive relationship with personal quality of life and support for hosting future events. Therefore, as Fredline (2005) suggests, if positive impacts are accurately communicated to residents and a perceived positive i mpact is experienced, the event will be considered a success and support for future events will be provided. In the current study it was identified that the tourism impacts had a negative impa ct on community quality of life. T herefore event planners and o rganizers can be proactive in the planning efforts in dealing with these issues before hosting the event in the future. Specifically, organizers need to focus resources towards addressing the rt event destination and improvements to the tourism infrastructure and development. If major tourism initiatives or any other initiatives relating to the event are undertaken by the community and the event organizers, then media communications (i.e., soci al media outlets, local newspapers and television stations) need to be consulted in order to inform residents of these initiatives and they can properly asses these impacts. By utilizing the model to examine the type of impacts influencing resident suppor t, event organizers and planners are in a position to maximize positive impacts and minimize negative

PAGE 117

117 impacts experienced by the host community. This can lead to the event organizers and anyone that is associated with the event to avoid being criticized an d instead be supported for hosting the event; it can also lead to validating the use of public resources for developing event related infrastructure; and, it could stimulate more interest in the event by the local community which will lead to the continuat ion of the event itself (Gratton & Preuss, 2008) Conclusion hosting a sport event has on their quality of life, and relationships between quality of life percept ions and support for hosting additional events in the community (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Perdue et al., 1999) Furthermore, there is limited research examining perceptions of impacts of hosting a small scale sport event in a community. As a result, and t he contribution of this study was to address these gaps in the literature by examining the relationship between quality of life and the effect impacts have on resident support for the hosting of a small scale sport event. Finally, this study also aimed to improve the und erstanding of resident support for hosting an event by extending the application of social exchange theory in the context of small scale sports events. By empirically testing quality of life (including both community and personal quality of life constructs ) significant differences were found with regards to small scale sport event impacts and quality of life. Community quality of life was significantly affected by psychological, infrastructure, socio cultural, political and tourism impacts. Personal quality of life was significantly affected by psychological and infrastructure impacts. As social exchange theory suggested, individuals felt that their personal quality of life improved as a result of the impacts from hosting a small scale sport event, and there fore support for hosting events was provided. Explanations for the difference between perceived impacts on community quality of life and

PAGE 118

118 personal quality of life could be in the evaluation that respondents conducted. Specifically, respondents evaluated imp acts on a personal level focusing on their personal quality of life while community quality of life is perceived to be affected by social interactions. The need for studying impacts as it relates to quality of life increases the likelihood of identifying factors that predict resident support for hosting an event and helping policymakers improve the quality of life for the host community (Chen, 2001) and is another important factor of successful sport event management. As recent studies show, scholars have become more interested in the relationship between perceived impacts and resident quality of life (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Cecil, Fu, Wang, & Avgoustis, 2010; Chancellor, Yu, & Cole, 20 11 ; Karadakis & Kaplanidou, 2012 ; Schofield, 2011 ) and have been beneficial in developing measures for quality of life. Nevertheless, none have empirically tested quality of life by differentiating between community and personal quality of life. As we have seen through the literatu re review of small scale sport events, impacts of tourism and mega events tend to focus on the economic impacts and is largely the focus for justifying hosting an event and spending public money to pay for these events. However, recent research has found t hat positive intangible impacts such as psychological benefits, community benefits and improvement to quality of life can help justify hosting events and developing infrastructure for these events (Grieve & Sherry, 2012). Therefore, understanding how hosti ng a small scale sport event impacts quality of life for individuals and the community is important as it can help organizers and policymakers justify the hosting of small event. Future Studies With small scale sport events occurring on an annual basis, future studies examining quality of life could benefit by using longitudinal data. As Fredline (2005) suggested, impacts

PAGE 119

119 from small scale events may become more significant as ti me and the event continue. Furthermore, longitudinal data is useful because they help identify how importance and satisfaction of impacts may change over time and contribute to community and personal quality of life. For instance, with infrastructure being developed and established within a community, the importance or need for it may not be as high as it was in the current study. Therefore, future studies may find that the predictive power may not be the same, or even significant. Also, as the event attrac ts more participants, future studies may find that the tourism and economic impacts may contribute more to the community for which these impacts may begin to show a positive and significant relationship on quality of life and support. Also, respondents wer e asked about their perceptions during the event, and therefore future studies may want to focus on perceptions between the pre and post event stages. By utilizing longitudinal data organizers can examine resident perceptions before the event, which can h elp organizers address any concerns or problem areas early and be proactive in their planning efforts. During the event, organizers and event planners can focus on successfully delivering the event. Post event organizers can evaluate their initiatives and determine what was successful, what areas still need additional improvement and then plan for the following year or for other similar events that the community may host. As identified in the literature, there was no established scale to measure sport even t impacts in the context of small scale sport events, and therefore tourism and mega event impact studies were consulted. Therefore, future studies need to refine and develop small scale sport event impact scales, which will make it easier for direct and c omparative analyses. This lack of a scale could also act as motivation or support for more qualitative studies in order to establish more reliable and accurate impacts. While the current study aimed to address the gap in the literature of examining the imp acts of small scale sport events on quality of life and predicting

PAGE 120

120 support for hosting events in a community, future studies should duplicate the current study in similar contexts in order to gain a better understanding of the relationships between event i mpacts, quality of life and support. The model in the current study examined the relationships between sport event impacts on quality of life and support for hosting an event. Previous research has used different impacts such as economic dependency on th e tourism industry, involvement, community attachment, proximity to the event, and the state of the economy, and thus the model should be expanded to include some of these factors. Although community quality of life was not a significant predictor of suppo rt, the findings from this study showed that there are differences as to which impacts affect community and personal quality of life and therefore future research should make the distinction between community and personal quality of life. Through the lite rature review of small scale sport events, it was found that no small sc ale event measurement scale existed. Therefore, future research should aim to create a measurement scale specifically for small scale sport events, through the use of qualitative inter views with residents and other stakeholders. This may provide additional insight in understanding the relationship between perceived impacts and quality of life. Future studies should also be conducted in the mega event context in order to examine how per ceived impacts affect quality of life and support, as research has reported that mega events tend to be catalysts for developing infrastructure and have more impacts than small scale events (Kaplanidou & Karadakis, 2010; Fredline, 2005). Future research sh ould also include an (2010) suggested that the meaning derived from an event experience is developed around satisfaction with the organizational, environmental, soc ial and emotional characteristics. Since it

PAGE 121

121 was found that active participants use a holistic assessment method when evaluating their event experience, it is important to understand and include how residents evaluate their satisfaction with the event expe The current study only surveyed individuals that were present at one of the two soccer es. Future studies should aim to include the general population as their perceptions may have provided a more comprehensive representation of how impacts affect personal and community quality of life and overall support for the broader community (Grieve & Sherry, 2012). The context of the current study was created so that respondents having attended a sport event in their community would evaluate the importance and satisfaction of their experiences in terms of impacts, quality of life and support for hostin g additional events in their community, instead of the general population. While the current study was exploratory and provided insight into examining the relationship between small scale sport events on quality of life from the perspective of those having attended these types of sport events, future studies could benefit those found in the current study (Grieve & Sherry, 2012). Limitations The sample of the s soccer tournaments, and therefore the findings may be limited in generalizability to similar communities that host soccer tournaments. However, generalizability of the findings was not th e goal of this study, as the aim of the study was to test a theoretical model that has not been tested interpreted with caution as the nature of the study was explora tory and may not have included all possible factors.

PAGE 122

122 No established scale for small scale sport events was available and therefore impacts and items used in the study were based on an extensive literature review. This could explain why the items used in t he study were highly correlated and limited the analysis to using path analysis. Scale development was not the goal of the study due to time and resource constraints. Responses tended to be more favorable, which implies that respondents may have been biase d with their responses. Additionally, the results are limited to studies conducted during the event. Finally, indicators which could present a different picture.

PAGE 123

123 APPENDIX A IRB CONSENT FORM AND SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 124

124

PAGE 125

125 Location:___________ Date:_________ Survey I.D._________ UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1. Approximately h ow many miles did you travel to attend this event today ? _____________________________ 2. How many sport events have you attended in YOUR HOME COMMUNITY in the past 24 months?_______ (If 0, is it because you r community did not host any of these types o f events during the past 24 months ? 1 Yes 2 No it is for other reasons (describe)____ _____________________________ 3. Read the statements in the middle. To the LEFT state HOW IMPORTANT these characteristics are to Y OU in general. Then, thinking about sport events like the one you are attending today, evaluate HOW SATISFIED you are with the items in the middle describing certain aspects related to having these sport events in YOUR HOME COMMUNITY. If you feel the item we are asking you to evaluate in terms of satisfaction does not relate or is applicable A box (not related /applicable to the event). GENERAL IMPORTANCE Unimportant Somewhat unimportan t Neutral Important Very Important Indicate IMPORTANCE to the LEFT and SATISFACTION to the N/ A Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Economic situation of your town/city 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Minimization of damage to the local ecosystem 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community pride 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Creation of parks and leisure areas for local residents 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Acquirement of experience in hosting sport events as a person 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Tourists with high buying power 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of leisure opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Communication between residents and community leaders 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Minimization of crime/theft/vandalism 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Feeling good about yourself 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of police and fire department services 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Reputation of your community as a sport event destination 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Creation of jobs in your community 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism infrastructure improvements (attractions, restaurants, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Volunteering opportunities for these sport events 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Residents being a part of community de cisions 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Minimization of environmental pollution (trash, water, air, and noise) 1 2 3 4 5 QUALITY OF LIFE AND SPORT EVENTS SURVEY S ATISFACTION WITH SMALL SCALE EVENT ASPECTS Please turn page

PAGE 126

126 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Transp arency of government decision making processes in your community 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Economic benefits for the local residents 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Awareness of the community as a tourism destination 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Improvement of sport infrastructures (sport facilities, programs, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community spirit 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Crowding of public spaces 1 2 3 4 5 Unimpo rtant Somewhat unimportant Neutral Important Very Important Indicate IMPORTANCE to the LEFT and SATISFACTION to the N/R Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Improvement of public infrastructure (road network, civic centers, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Cultural exchange between tourists and residents 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Acquirement of experience in hosti ng sport events as a community 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Tourism development 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Buying power of your community 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Minimization of damage in the natural environment and landscape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Feeling good about your community 1 2 3 4 5 4. What factors do you think make a small scale sport event a success for YOU and YOUR HOME community? 5. Do you have any other comment s you would like to add about how these small scale sport events (like the one you attend today) impact YOU and YOUR HOME community? Please turn page

PAGE 127

127 6. Do you have any friends or family participating in the event you are attending today ? 1 Yes 2 No 7 The following questions ask how satisfied you feel, on a scale from 0 to 10. 0 means you feel completely dissatisfied. 10 means you feel completely satisfied. And the middle of the scale is 5 which means you feel neutral, neit her satisfied nor dissatisfied. Completely Dissatisfied Neutral Completely Satisfied The government in the community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The economic situation in the community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The state of the natural environment in the community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The business in the community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The social conditions in the community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The local security in the community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely Dissatisfied Neutral Completely Satisfied Your future security 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Feeling part of your community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Your standard of l iving 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 What you are achieving in life 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How safe you feel 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Your health 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Your personal relationships 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Your spirituality or religion 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Your life as a whole 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements as they relate to your support for hosting future spo rt events in your community on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = Totally D isagree and 5 = Totally Agree Totally Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Totally Agree Hosting sport events can be one of the most important industries for a community 1 2 3 4 5 The hosting of additional sport events w 1 2 3 4 5 The hosting of sport events play a major economic role in my home community 1 2 3 4 5 I am proud to see tourists experience what my community has to offer when sport events are hosted there 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 128

128 I favor building new tourism facilities which will attract more tourists 1 2 3 4 5 Overall, I support the idea of hosting more sport events in my home community 1 2 3 4 5 Overall, I support tourism development through the hosting of sport events 1 2 3 4 5 9 Do you receive any immediate financial benefits from the small scale sport events being hosted in your HOME COMMUNITY? 1 Yes 2 No 1 0 On a scale from 1 10, with 1 = not at all interested and 10 = com pletely interested Not at all interested Completely interested In sport spectating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In active sport participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In watching sport events 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In volunteering f or sport events 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 What are the 3 words that come to mind when you think of this event you are attending today ? 1._____________ 2.________________ 3.___________________ 1 2 1 Male 2 Female 1 3 How many years have you lived in your city? _________ 1 4 What year were you born? _______________ 1 5 What is the highest level of education you have completed? Please one answer. 1 Less than High School Graduate 2 High School Graduate 3 T echnical College 4 Some College (no degree) 5 College Degree 6 Advanced Degree 1 6 .Which statement best describes your total 2010 annual household income (from all sources and before taxes)? Please one answer. Less than $20,000 2 $20,000 $39,999 3 $40,000 $59,999 4 $60,000 $79,999 5 $80,000 or more 17 What is your ethnic background? Please one answer. White 2 African American 3 Asian 4 Hispanic or Latino 5 Pa cific Islander 6 Other _____________________ 18 What is your U.S. Zip Code : __________ 9 I do not live in the US 19 Would you be interested in participating in follow up interviews related to this topic ? Please turn page

PAGE 129

129 1 No 2 Yes, please provide your e mail address or a phone number where you can be reached__________________________________________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire!

PAGE 130

130 APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHICS Table B 1. Participant d emographics Demographics Frequency Valid Percent Gender Male 160 44.4 Female 200 55.6 Total 360 100.0 Highest level of education Less than High School Graduate 11 3.0 High School Graduate 57 15.8 Technical C ollege 26 7.2 Some College (no degree) 65 18.0 College Degree 137 38.0 Advanced Degree 65 18.0 Total 361 100.0 2010 annual income Less than $20,000 26 7.4 20,000 $39,999 31 8.8 $40,000 $59,999 76 21.6 $60,000 $79,999 76 21.6 $80,000 or mo re 143 40.6 Total 352 100.0 Ethnic background White 288 79.8 African American 18 5.0 Asian 7 1.9 Hispanic or Latino 44 12.2 Other 4 1.1 Total 361 100.0 Immediate financial benefits Yes 17 4.7 No 345 95.3 Total 362 100.0 County Polk Cou nty 143 40.2 Brevard 109 30.6 Orange/Seminole 15 4.2 Hillsborough 10 2.8 Clay 5 1.4 Martin 1 .3 Duval/Jacksonville 16 4.5 Broward 2 .6 Miami Dade 12 3.4 Osceola 6 1.7 St.Lucie 8 2.2 Indian River 18 5.1 Alachua 11 3.1 Total 356 100.0

PAGE 131

131 Table B 2. Miles traveled, events attended, years lived in c ity, sport i nterest Categories N Mean Std. Deviation Miles Traveled 361 45.1468 61.39216 Sports events attended past 24 months 362 26.8674 21.14753 Years lived in city 352 18.8920 13.54295 Sports inte rest 362 7.5967 1.92303 Table B 3. Miles travelled frequency Miles Travelled to Attend the Event Frequency Valid Percent 1 50 271 75.1 51 or more 90 24.9 Total 361 100.0 Table B 4. Events attended in past 24 months Events Attended in past 24 mont hs Frequency Valid Percent 0 15 120 33.1 16 30 134 37.0 31 45 54 14.9 46 60 24 6.6 61 or more 30 8.3 Total 362 100.0

PAGE 132

132 Tab le B 5. Years lived in current c ity Years lived in City Frequency Valid Percent 1 10 131 37.2 11 20 77 21.9 21 30 73 20.7 31 or more 71 20.2 Total 352 100.0 Table B ge Age Frequency Valid Percent 18 25 34 9.9 26 35 73 21.3 36 45 139 40.6 46 55 64 18.7 56 and above 32 9.4 Total 342 100.0

PAGE 133

133 REFERENCES Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Lo ng, R., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural residents' attitudes toward recreation and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31 (4), 27 33. Tourism and Tourism Develo pment Options. Journal of Travel Research, 39 (1), 27 36. Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the Nature of Tourism and Quality of Life Perceptions among Residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50 (3), 248 260. Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K., Vogt, C., & Knopf, R. (2007). A Cross cultural Analysis of Tourism and Quality of Life Perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15 (5), 483 500. Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents' perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (4), 1056 1076. Anderson, J. R., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3) 411 423. Andriotis, K. (2005). Co development: Evidence from Crete. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 29 (1) 67 90. The case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42 (2) 172 185. Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (4), 610 616. Ap, J. (1992). Resident Perceptions on Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism Res earch, 19 (4) 665 690. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (1), 47 50. Avgoustis, S. H., Cecil, A. K., Fu, Y., & Wang, S. (2005). Exploring a relationship between quality of life, enjoyment of cultural tourism and demography. Tourism Today, 5 (1) 35 38. Bachleitner, R., & Zins, A. (1999). Cultural tourism in rural communities: The resident perception. Journal of Business Research, 44 (3), 199 209. Bentler, P. (1985). Theory and implementation of EQS: A structural equations program Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software. Bernard, R.H. (2000). Social Research Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life New York: John Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 134

134 Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation with latent variables New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bujosa Bestard, A., & Rosello Nadal, J. (2007). Modelling Environmental attitudes toward tourism. Tourism Management, 28 (3) 688 695. Bull, C., & Lovell J. (2007). The Impact of Hosting Major Sporting Events on Local Residents: an Analysis of the Views and Perceptions of Canterbury Residents in Relation to the Tour de France 2007. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12 (3 4), 229 248. Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakehol ders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism Review, 62 (2) 6 13. Cecil, A. K., Fu, Y., Wang, S., & Avgoustis, S. H. (2010). Cultural tourism and quality of life: Results o f a longitudinal study. European Journal of Tourism Research, 3 (1), 54 66. Cegielski, M., & Mules, T. (2002). Aspects of residents' perceptions of the GMC 400 -Canberra's V8 Supercar Race. Current Issues in Tourism, 5 (1), 54 70. Chalip, L. (2002). Using the Olympics to optimise tourism benefits: university lecture on the Olympics [online article]: Barcelona: Centres d' Estudis Olimpics (UAB). International Chair in Olympism (IOC UAB). Website: http://olympicstudies.uab.es/lectures/web/pdf/chalip.pdf Chalip, L. (2007). Towards social leverage of sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11 (2), 1 19. Chalip, L., & Costa, C. A. (2005). Sport event tourism and the destination brand: tow ards a general theory. Sport in Society, 8 (2), 218 237. Chalip, L., Green, B. C., & Hill, B. (2003). Effects of sport event media on destination image and intention to visit. Journal of Sport Management, 17 (3) 214 234. Chalip, L., & Leyns, A. (2002). Loca l business leveraging of a sport event: Managing an event for economic benefit. Journal of Sport Management, 16 (2) 132 158. Chancellor, C., Y u, C. S., & Cole, S. T. C. (2011 ). Exploring quality of life perceptions in rural Midwestern (USA) communities: An application of the core periphery concept in a tourism development context. International Journal of Tourism Research 13 (5), 496 507 Chappelet, J. L. (2008). Olympic Environmental Concerns as a Legacy of the Winter Games. The International Journal of th e History of Sport, 25 (14), 1884 1902. perspectives. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 25 (3) 235 250. Chhabra, D., & Gursoy, D. (2009). Life Dynamism Exploratio ns on Perceived Quality of Life and Social Exchange Paradigms in Casino Settings. Leisure Sciences, 31 (2), 136 157.

PAGE 135

135 Chien, P. M., Ritchie, B., Sh ipway, R., & Henderson, H. (2012 ). I am Having a Dilemma: Factors affecting resident support of event developme nt in the community. Journal of Travel Research 51 (4), 451 463 Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents' attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43 (4) 380 394. Co hen, E. (1988). Tourism and aids in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 15 (4), 467 486. Cottrell, S. P., & Vaske, J. J. (2006). A framework for monitoring and modeling sustainable tourism. e Review of Tourism Research, 4 (4), 74 84. Cottrell, S. P., Vaske J. J., Shen, F., & Ritter, P. (2007). Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism in Chongdugou, China. Journal of Society and Natural Resources, 20 (6), 511 525. Crompton, J. (1999). Measuring the Economic Impact of Visitors to Sports Tournaments and Spe cial Events Ashburn: National Recreation and Park Association. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31 (6) 874 900. Cummins, R. (1997). The domain of life satisfaction: an at tempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38 (3) 303 328. Cummins, R. (2002). Vale ComQol: Caveats to using the Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale: Welcome the Personal Wellbeing Index from Deakin University Website: http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/instruments/Caveats_ComQol_scales.doc Cummins, R. (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index from International Wellbeing Group Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin Un iversity Website: http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing_index.htm Cummins, R., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Vugt, J. V., & Misajon, R. (2003). De veloping a National Index of Subjective Wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64 (2) 159 190. Cummins, R. A. (2005). Moving from a quality of life concept to a theory. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49 (1 0) 699 706. Czaja, R. & Blair, J. (2005) Designing Surveys. A Guide to Decisions and Procedures Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Daniels, M. J., & Norman, W. C. (2003). Estimating the economic impacts of seven regular sport tourism events. Journal o f Sport Tourism, 8 (4), 214 222. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1991). The Relationship between Sense of Community and Subjective Well being: A First Look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19 (3) 246 253.

PAGE 136

136 De Knop, P. (1998). Sport tourism: A state of the art. European Journal of Sport Management, 5 (2) 5 20. De Villers, D. J. (2003). Presentation summaries: session 1 sport: new form of tourism: inter relationship between sport and tourism. Journal of Sport Tourism, 8 (2) 94 115. Deccio, C., & Baloglu, S (2002). Nonhost Community Resident Reactions to the 2002 Winter Games: The Spillover Impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 41 (1), 46 56. Delamere, T. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of community festi vals, Part 2: Verification of the scale. Event Management, 7 (1), 25 38. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55 (1) 34 43. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring Qua lity of Life: Economic, Social, and Subjective Indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40 (1/ 2) 189 216. Dissart, J. C., & Deller, S. C. (2000). Quality of Life in the Planning Literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 15 (1) 135 161. Dyer, P., Gursoy, D ., Sharma, B., & Carter, J. (2007). Structural modelling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management, 28 (2), 409 422. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social Exchange Theory. Annual Review of Soc iology, 2 (ArticleType: research article / Full publication date: 1976 / Copyright 1976 Annual Reviews), 335 362. Emptaz Collomb, J. G. J. (2009). Linking tourism, human wellbeing and conservation in the Caprivi Strip (Namibia). Unpublished doctoral disse rtation, University of Florida. Faulkner, B., & Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5 (1), 3 28. Florida Sports Foundation. (2011). About Florida's Sunshine State Games Website: http://www.flasports.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=5 9 Florida Youth Soccer Association. (2012). About FYSA and US Youth Soccer Websi te: http://www.fysa.com/AboutFYSA/index_E.html Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Resea rch, 18 (1), 39 50. Fredline, E. (2005). Host and Guest Relations and Sport Tourism. Sport in Society, 8 (2), 263 279.

PAGE 137

137 Fredline, E. (2006). Host and guest relations and sport tourism. In Gibson, H. (Ed.), Sport tourism: Concepts and theories (pp. 131 147). N ew York: Routledge. events: Why residents perceive the impacts of events differently. Event Management, 7 (2), 115 125. Garnham, B. (1996). Ranfurly Shield Rugby: An investigation into the impacts of a sporting event on a provincial city, the case of New Plymouth. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 4 (3/4), 145 249. Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation mo deling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20 (1), 33 57. Getz, D. (1998). Trends, strategies, and issues in sport event tourism. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 7 (2) 8 13. Getz, D. (2005). Event management and event tourism (2 ed.). New York: Cognizant. Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29 (3) 403 428. Gibson, H. (1998). Sport tourism: A critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review, 1 (1) 45 76. Gibson, H. (2004). Moving beyond the "what is and who" of sport tourism to understanding "why". Journal of Sport & Tourism, 9 (3), 247 265. Gibson, H., Kaplanidou, K., & Kang, S. (2012). Small Scale Event Sport Tourism: A Case Study in Sustainable Tourism. Sport Management Review, 15 (2), 160 170. Gibson, H. J., Willming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2003). Small scale event sport tourism: Fans as tourists. Tourism Management, 24 (2) 181 190. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25 (2) 161 178. Gratton, C., & Preuss, H. (2008). Maximizing Olympic Impacts by Building Up Legacies. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25 (14), 1922 1938. Grieve, J., & Sherry, E. (2012). Community benefits of major sport facilities: The Darebin International Sports Centre. Sport Management Review, 15 (2) 218 229. Guala, A., & Turco, D. (2009). Resident Perceptions of the 2006 Torino Olympic Games: 2002 2007. Sport Management International Journal, 5 (2), 21 42.

PAGE 138

138 Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & D yer, P. (2009). An examination of locals' attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1) 79 105. Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1) 79 105. Gursoy, D., & Kenda ll, K. W. (2006). Hosting Mega Events: Modeling Locals' Support. Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (3), 603 623. Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host Attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3), 495 516. Ha gerty, M. R., Cummins, R., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., Sharpe, A., Sirgy, J., & Vogel, J. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and Agenda for Research. Social Indicators Research, 55 (1) 1 96. Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Hall, C. M. (1997). Mega events and their legacies. In Murphy, P. (Ed.), Quality management in urban tourism (pp. 75 87). Chichester: Wil ey. Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (3) 503 526. implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18 (3) 251 266. Higham, J., & Hinch, T. (2001). Sport and development at tourism destinations: Exploring mutually beneficial links. In Gibson, H., Willming, C. & Holdnak, A. (Eds.), Small scale event sport tourism : fans as tourists Higham, J., & Hinch, T. (2002). Tourism, sport and seasons: The challenges and potential of overcoming seasonality in the sport and tourism sectors. Tourism Management, 23 (2) 175 185. Higham, J. E. S. (1999). Commentary Sport as an Ave nue of Tourism Development: An Analysis of the Positive and Negative Impacts of Sport Tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 2 (1), 82 90. Hiller, H. (2006). Post event Outcomes and the Post modern Turn: The Olympics and Urban Transformations. European Sport M anagement Quarterly, 6 (4), 317 332. Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and Procedures in Adopting Structural Equation Modeling Technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3 (1), 76 83. Hoelter, D. R. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness of fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11 (3) 325 344.

PAGE 139

139 Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Horley, J., & Little, B. R. (1985). Affective and cognitive components of global subjective well being measures. Social Indicators Research, 17 (2) 189 197. Events. Leisure Studies, 26 (1), 81 96. Hritz, N., & Ross, C. (2010). The Perceived Impacts of Sport Tourism: An Urban Host Community Perspective. Journal of Sport Manag ement, 24 (2) 119 138. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity Under Parameterized Model Misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3 (4) 424 453. Huayhuaca, C., Cottrell, S. P., Gradl, S., & Mateev, P. (2010). Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development: Comparison of two European parks Website: http://www.ch.lu.se/fileadmin/files/msm/bilde r/Nordic16/Huayhuaca__Cottrell_et_al._08 30 07.pdf Jago, L. K., & Shaw, R. N. (1998). Special events: a conceptual and definitional framework. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 5 (1), 21 32. Jones, C. (2001). Mega events and host region impacts: deter mining the true worth of the 1999 Rugby World Cup. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3 (3), 241 251. Jones, L. V., & Thurstone, L. L. (1955). The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation The Journal of Applied Psychology, 39 (1), 31 36. Jurowski, C. (1994). The Interplay of elements Affecting Host Community Resident Attitudes toward Tourism: A Path Analytic Approach. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (2) 296 312. Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34 (2), 3 11. Kaplanidou, K., & Gib son, H. (2010). Predicting Behavioral Intentions of Active Sport Tourists: The Case of a Small Scale Recurring Sport Event. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 15 (2), 163 179. Kaplanidou, K., & Gibson, H. (2012). Event Image and Traveling Parents' Intentions to Attend Youth Sport Events: A Test of the Reasoned Action Model. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12 (1) 3 18

PAGE 140

140 Kaplanidou, K., Gibson, H., Karadakis, K., Walker, M., Thapa, B., Geldenhuys, S., & Coetzee, W. (2011). The mediating role of quality of life between event impacts and mega event support among South African residents: The 2010 World Cup Case, TTRA London, Ontario. Kaplanidou, K., & Karadakis, K. (2010). Understanding the Legacies of a Host Olympic City: The Case of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Ga mes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19 (2) 110 117. Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2010). The Meaning and Measurement of a Sport Event Experience Among Active Sport Tourists. Journal of Sport Management, 24 (5) 544 566. Karadakis, K., & Kaplanidou, K. ( 2012 ). Leg acy perceptions among host and non host Olympic Games residents: A longitudinal study of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12 (3), 243 264 Kendall, K. W., & Var, T. (1984). The perceived impact of tourism: the state of the art Vancouver: Simon Fraser University. Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (6) 1007 1022. Kim, H. J., Gursoy, D., & Lee, S. B. (2006). The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South Korea: comparisons of pre and post games. Tourism Management, 27 (1) 86 96. Kim, K. (2002). The effects of tourism impacts upon Quality of Life of residents in the community. Virginia Polytechnic Ins titute and State University. Kim, N. S., & Chalip, L. (2004). Why Travel to FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives, background, interest, and constraints. Tourism Management, 25 (6), 695 707. Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation mode ling (2 nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Kline, R. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3 ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. tourism d evelopment. Tourism Management, 23 (5), 521 530. Kousis, M. (1989). Tourism and the family in a rural Cretan community. Annals of Tourism Research, 16 (3), 318 332. Kurtzman, J., & Zauhar, J. (2003). A wave in time the sport tourism phenomena. Journal of S port Tourism, 8 (1) 35 47.

PAGE 141

141 Landis, R., Edwards, B., & Cortina, J. (2009). On the Practice of Allowing Correlated Residuals Among Indicators in Structural Equation Models. In Lance, C. & Vandenberg, R. (Eds.), Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences New York: Routledge. Lankford, S., & Howard, D. (1994). Developing a tourism attitude impact scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (1) 21 139. Lindberg, K., & Johnson, R. L. (19 97). Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 2 4 (2) 402 424. Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1987). Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 14 (1) 17 37. Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes towards tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13 (2) 193 214. Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11 (6) 459 475. Lorde, T., Gre enidge, D., & Devon ish, D. (2011 ). Local residents' perceptions of the impacts of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 on Barbados: Comparisons of pre and post games. Tourism Management 32 (2), 349 356 Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melansian New Guinea London: Routledge. Mason, D., & Duquette, G. (2008). Exploring the relationship between local hockey franchises and tourism development. Tourism Management, 29 (6), 1157 1165 Mattson, smaller cities: A comparison by public officials. National Civic Review, 79 (5) 436 445. McCool, S., & Martin, S. (1994). Community Attachment and Attitdues towards Tourism Dev elopment. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (3), 29 34. McCrea, R., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (2005). Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data from Brisbane South East Queensland, Australia. Social Indicators Research, 72 (2) 121 152. McGehee, N., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors Predicting Rural Residents' Support of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43 (2) 131 140. McKennell, A., & Andrews, F. (1983). Components of perceived quality of life. Journal of Community Psychology, 1 1 (2) 98 110.

PAGE 142

142 Meyer, L. (2011). An exploratory investigation of perceived tourism impacts on resident quality of life and support for tourism in Cologne, Germany. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Nicholas, N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Residents' Perspectives of a World Heritage Site. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3) 390 412. Nichols, M., Giacopassi, D., & Stitt, G. (2002). Casinos gambling as a catalyst of economic development: perceptions of residents in new casino jurisdi ctions. Tourism Economics, 8 (1) 59 75. Current Issues in Tourism, 13 (1) 37 60. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2 nd ed.) New York: McGraw Hill. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Osborne, S. (1992). The quality dimension: Evaluating quality of service and quality of life in human services. British Journal of Social Work, 22 (4) 437 453. Ott, J. C. (2010). Good governance and happiness in nations: Technical quality precedes democracy and quality beats size. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11 (3) 353 368. Oviedo Ruiz, D. (2008). Gaining residents suppo rt for tourism and planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10 (2), 95 109. Owen, J. G. (2005). Estimating the Cost and Benefit of Hosting Olympic Games: What Can Beijing Expect from Its 2008 Games? The Industrial Geographer, 3 (1), 1 18. Pacheco G., & Lange, T. (2010). Political participation and life satisfaction: a cross European analysis. International Journal of Social Economics, 37 (9), 686 702. Pearce, P. L. (1998). The relationship between residents and tourists: The research literature an d management directions. In Theobald, W. F. (Ed.), Global Tourism (2nd ed., pp. 129 149). Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann. Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Kang, Y. S. (1999). Boomtown Tourism and Resident Quality of Life: The Marketing of Gaming to Host Co mmunity Residents. Journal of Business Research, 44 (3), 165 177. Perdue, R. R., Long, T. L., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (4) 586 599. Preuss, H., & Solberg, H. (2006). Attracting Major Sporti ng Events: The Role of Local Residents. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6 (4), 391 411.

PAGE 143

143 Renn, D., Pfaffenberger, N., Platter, M., Mitmansgruber, H., Cummins, R., & Hofer, S. (2009). International Well being Index: The Austrian Version. Social Indicator s Research, 90 (2) 243 256. Can it be accounted for by psychological or subjective well being? Social Indicators Research, 82 (3) 443 461. Ritchie, B. (1984) Assessing the impacts of hallmark events: conceptual and research issues. Journal of Travel Research, 22 (1), 2 11. Ritchie, B. (2004). Exploring Small scale Sport Event Tourism: The Case of Rugby Union and the Super 12 Competition. In Ritchie, B. & Adair D. (Eds.), Sport Tourism: Interrelationships Impacts and Issues (pp. 135 154). Clevedon: Channel View. Ritchie, B., & Smith, B. H. (1991). The Impact of a Mega Event on Host Region Awareness: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Travel Research, 31 (1), 3 10. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1) 141 166. Samli, A. C. (1995). QOL research and measurement: Some parameters and dimension s. In H. Lee Meadow, M. Joseph Sirgy & Rahtz, D. R. (Eds.), Developments in Quality of Life Studies in Marketing (Vol. 5, pp. 173 180). DeKalb, Illinois: Academy of Marketing Science and the International Society for Quality of Life Studies. Sautter, E. T. & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders a Tourism Planning Model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2), 312 328. Schalock, R. L., Brown, I., Brown, R., Cummins, R., Felce, D., Matikka, L., Keith, K., & Parmenter, T. (2002). Conceptualization, measurement and application of quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities: Report of an international panel of experts. Mental Retardation, 40 (6) 457 470. Schofield, P. (2011 ). City resident attitudes to proposed tourism development and its impacts on the community. International Journal of Tourism Research 13 (3), 218 233 Schumacher, D. (2007). The sports event travel Market...Getting your share, Paper presented at the National Recreation and Parks Association Congress Sethi, V., & King, W. (1994) Development of measure to assess the extent to which an information technology application provides competitive advantage. Management Science, 40 (12) 1601 1624. Shen, F., & Cottrell, S. P. (2008). A sustainable tourism framework for monitoring residents satisfaction with agritourism in Chongdugou Village, China. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 1 (4), 368 375.

PAGE 144

144 development in the central region of Ghana. Jou rnal of Travel Research, 41 (1), 57 67. Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of Quality Of Life research: An ethical marketing perspective Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Solberg, H. A., & Preuss, H. (2007). Major Sport Events and Long Ter m Tourism Impacts. Journal of Sport Management, 21 (2), 213 234. Sutton, W. (1967). Travel and understanding: Notes on the social structure of touring. Journal of Comparative Sociology, 8 (2) 217 223. Terret, T. (2008). The Albertiville Winter Olympics: Une xpected Legacies Failed Expectations for Regional Economic Development. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25 (14), 1903 1921. Toohey, K. (2008). The Sydney Olympics: Striving for Legacies Overcoming Short Term Disappointments and Long T erm Deficiencies. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25 (14), 1953 1971. Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1), 231 245. Twynam, D. g., & Johnston, M. (2004). Changes in Host Community Reactions to a Special Sporting Event. Current Issues in Tourism, 7 (3), 242 261. Urry, J. (2002). Mobility and Proximity. Sociology 36 (2), 255 74. Vargas Sanchez, A., Plaza Bueno, N. (2009). Understanding residents attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a former mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47 (3), 373 387. Vargas Sanchez, A., Porras Bueno, N. & Plaza Attitudes towards Tourism: Is a universal model possible? Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (2), 460 480. Veltri, F., Miller, J., & Harris, A. (2009). Club sport national tournament: Economic impact of a small event on a mid size community. Recreational Sports Journal, 33 (2) 119 128. Vemuri, A. W., & Costanza, R. (2006). The role of human, social, built, and natural capital in explaining life satisfaction at the country level: Toward a National Well Being Index (NWI). Ecological Economics, 58 (1) 119 133. Vemuri, A. W., Grove, M. J., Wilson, M. A., & Burch Jr., R. (2011). A tale of two scales: Evaluating the relationship among life satisfaction, social capital, income and the natural environment at individual an d neighborhood levels in metropolitan Baltimore. Environment and Behavior, 43 (1), 3 25.

PAGE 145

145 Walo, M., Bull, A., & Breen, H. (1996). Achieving economic benefits at local events: A case study of a local sports event. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 4 (3/4) 95 106. benefits in a rural community. Journal of Travel Research, 47 (1) 84 93. Weed, M. (2005). Sports tourism theory and method: Concepts, issues and epistem ologies. European Sport Management Quarterly, 5 (3), 229 242. Soccer and Society, 8 (2/3), 399 414. Weed, M. (2009). Progress in sports tourism research? A meta review and exploration of futures. Tourism Management, 30 (5) 615 628. Weed, M., & Bull, C. (2004). Sports tourism: Participants, policy and providers Oxford: Elsevier. Weitz Shapiro, R., & Winters, M. S. (2008). Political participation and quality of lif e. Washington, DC: Paper by the Inter American Development Bank. Whitson, D., & Horne, J. (2006). Underestimated costs and overestimated benefits? Comparing the outcomes of sports mega events in Canada and Japan. Sociological Review, 54 (2), 71 89. Williams S. (2003). Tourism and Recreation Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall. Witt, S. F. (1988). Mega events and mega attractions. Tourism Management, 9 (1), 76 77. World Health Organization. (1997). WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life Geneva, Switzerland. Yoon, Y., Gurs oy, D., & Chen, S. J. (2001). Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling. Tourism Management, 22 (4), 363 372 Ziakas, V. (2010). Understanding an event portfolio: The uncovering of interrelationships, synergies, and leveragin g opportunities. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 2 (2) 144 164.

PAGE 146

146 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kostas Karadakis was born in Canada to Greek parents, George and Athena Karadakis He earned his Baccalaureate in Social Sciences in 2004 f rom the University of Ottawa. Kostas rsity and completed his Master in Business S tudies in 2008. During this time he came into contact with his now advisor Dr. Kaplanidou who helped him pursue his Ph.D in Sport Management. At the annual Sport Marketing Association Conference Kostas and two fellow doctoral students won the graduate level case study competition for students. Also, Kostas was awarded with the 2010 Outstanding Student Award, from the Univer sity of Florida International Center presented at the 16th Annual International Student Academic Awards Ceremony. Kostas has also been involved in a number of international research projects dealing with the Vancouver Olympic Games and the 2010 World Cup w here he assisted with the preparation and writing of a technical report related to spectator behaviors of the 2010 FIFA WORLD CUP TM This report was submitted to city of Pretoria in South Africa. The third international project Kostas has worked on involves the examination of legacy aspects among the residents of the four latest Olympic Summer cities: Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, and Beijing. For this project, Kostas has been assisting his advisor Dr. Kaplanidou with data analysis and repor t writing and the final report was submitted to the International Olympic Committee (I O C) in December, 2010. Together Dr. Kaplanidou and Kostas have published three manuscripts and continue to work closely together on research focusing on sport tourism, mega event impacts and legacies