Next Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of Rankine Cycle Linear Fresnel Reflector and Solar Tower Plant Technologies: Techno-Economic Analysis for Ethiopia
Next Article in Special Issue
Airline CSR and Quality Attributes as Driving Forces of Passengers’ Brand Love: Comparing Full-Service Carriers with Low-Cost Carriers
Previous Article in Journal
Sustained Change: Design Speculations on the Performance of Fallow-Scapes in Time along the Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, (ECNHC), New York
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/su14031678
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identifying Key Elements for Establishing Sustainable Conventions and Exhibitions: Use of the Delphi and AHP Approaches

by
Insin Kim
1,*,
Soojung Kim
1,
Sooyoung Choi
1,
Dongjin Kim
2,
Yeol Choi
3,
Donghyun Kim
3,
Yensen Ni
4 and
Jie Yin
5,*
1
Department of Tourism and Convention, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea
2
Department of Trade, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea
3
Department Urban Planning and Engineering, College of Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea
4
Department of Management Sciences, Tamkang University, New Taipei 25137, Taiwan
5
Department of Exhibition Economy and Management, College of Tourism, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou 362021, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(3), 1678; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14031678
Submission received: 8 January 2022 / Revised: 28 January 2022 / Accepted: 29 January 2022 / Published: 1 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovation Strategies for Sustainable Tourism and MICE (Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, and Exhibitions) Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study was to explore, by employing the Delphi method, key indicators and factors for establishing sustainable conventions and exhibitions (C&E) events in a destination in lieu of holding one-off events. In addition, the identified factors for establishing sustainable C&E events were assessed using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with a multi-group approach. First, internal and external factors that impact continuous hosting of C&E events in a destination were identified in previous research and reviewed. Second, three stages of Delphi surveys were conducted with three groups of experts in the C&E industry (academic scholars, industry experts, and government agencies in Korea). Third, data were analyzed from 35 and 29 participants in the first and second Delphi rounds, respectively, as well as from 17 panelists in the subsequent AHP analysis. A total of 33 indicators were developed and categorized into five factors for continuity of regional C&E efforts: event contents and capabilities, organizers and support/sponsorship, impacts, facilities in venues and destinations, and the local event environment. Furthermore, all three participant groups reached agreement in rating event contents and capabilities as the most important factor, with the local event environment as the second most important factor in achieving sustainable regional C&E. However, the opinion of government agencies for the third and fourth most important factors differed from that of the other two groups. The current study contributes to the understanding of the under-investigated area of sustainable C&E. Based on these findings, host destinations can establish innovative strategies for sustaining C&E as a long-lasting legacy.

1. Introduction

The conventions and exhibitions (C&E) industry has grown explosively, making it a significant contributor to economic and social prosperity in host destinations [1,2]. Many countries have utilized C&E as a means of achieving a better economic and social future. For host destinations to enjoy and maximize the benefits of hosting, events should be held continuously [3]; however, little is known about the factors leading to the continuous hosting of C&E events in a destination.
In 2019, Korea ranked third in the world and second among Asian countries as a destination for meetings, incentives, conventions, and exhibitions (MICE), hosting a total of 1018 international meetings [4]. This high ranking was the result of the Korean government’s strong support for the MICE industry. For example, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism developed policy frameworks aimed at facilitating sustainable international C&E in 2019 [5]. Moreover, the Korean Tourism Organization [6] has implemented policies aimed at developing C&E through the utilization of local and authentic cultural resources, which ultimately promotes regional and international MICE destinations. In summary, considerable efforts have been made to improve the competitiveness of Korea as an event destination by holding C&E events continuously and sustainably.
A sustainable hosting of C&E events in a destination provides synergetic benefits to the event, the relevant industries in a city, and a city’s reputation. Many recent studies note the importance of the relationship between an exhibition’s theme and the industries in a host destination [1,7,8]. For example, He, Lin, and Li [7] demonstrated that the regional industry cluster of a city is the significant factor influencing exhibition survival. That is, the leadership of a particular industry in a host destination is important in cultivating C&E events for the industry sector [9]. In addition, a historical and recurring event enhances the awareness and profitability of a destination, which can consolidate the destination’s reputation; Getz et al. [10] called such an event a hallmark event. Both the event and the destination can become inextricably linked to an industry cluster, which provides a greater competitive advantage for the host destination.
It is critical to consider the benefits associated with the longevity of the events themselves. A continuous event in a destination, rather than a one-off event, provides greater potential benefits to host communities [3]. Hosting a specific event consistently in a destination can contribute to tourism development of the city. Moreover, hosting a specific event over several years can enhance the destination’s reputation and image [11]. For example, Busan in Korea has held The Busan International Film Festival since 1996, and Busan was named a UNESCO Creative City of Film in 2014 [12]. Considering these escalated benefits, the factors leading to continuous hosting of C&E events need to be investigated.
This study aimed to employ the Delphi method to arrive at a consensus among C&E experts regarding the key factors influencing the continuous hosting of C&E events. In addition, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied using a multi-group approach to assess the relative importance of the identified factors. The following literature review identified both internal and external factors that impact the continuous host of C&E events in a destination, based on the relevant literature. The Methods and Data section describes the process for selecting samples, collecting data, and the analytic processes, including the Delphi and AHP approaches. The Results section includes the results from the Delphi and AHP analyses as well as a sample profile. This article concludes with the Discussion and Conclusion sections that discuss the significance of the research and propose future studies based on the limitations of this study.

2. Literature Review

Hosting C&E events is considered one of the driving forces for generating a long-term or permanent legacy. Sustainable and successful C&E events benefit a host city by stimulating the local economy through the attraction of event visitors and a subsequent increase in visitor spending [2,13,14,15]. C&E can be sustainable if events are held without interruption. The continuity of C&E hinges on how the events successfully generate socio-economic outcomes before, during, and after the events [1]. Besides tangible economic impacts, C&E events provide a host city with social benefits, such as a positive image, and raise and reinforce the international profile of the host city [2,16].
The importance and relevance of the socio-economic impacts of sustainable events on local communities have been observed and emphasized in the context of hallmark events [2,17]. Incorporating earlier definitions [18,19], Getz, Svensson, Peterssen, and Gunnervall [10] proposed the concept of a hallmark event as the beginning of a tradition and a permanent institution in terms of the tourism-related functionality of the event, which attracts visitors; generates economic benefits; develops a positive image for, and co-branding with, the host community; and delivers socio-cultural benefits to residents. For example, Jucu [20] investigated a musical cultural festival and how it served local development by rebranding a communist tradition or cultural legacy from a different ideological perspective.
Hallmark events hold symbolic value for a host community; they are iconic events encompassing the identity and tradition of the host destination/community, which contributes to making the hallmark event a permanent institution with international stature [2,16]. Events that gain hallmark status hold significance in terms of functional and symbolic attributes; therefore, they are considered branded products that can positively engage and draw people to the events and host cities [16]. Creating and developing a successful strategy for developing hallmark events is still relatively new in the C&E industry [1]. It is important for existing C&E events, as well as for newly created ones, to be nurtured as hallmark events if they are to become institutionalized within the host city. In some cases, events can be deliberately designed and developed in an effort to make them hallmarks of the host city [10], thereby giving them increased legitimacy and value. Determining what makes a convention or an exhibition a hallmark event is a necessary step for the long-term survival of such events. C&E organizers need to learn from the successful achievement of existing hallmark events to achieve longevity and iconic status within a host city [16].
C&E events reflect the current social, cultural, and economics of a host city; therefore, they must consider specific stakeholders in order to gain enduring support [21]. Because C&E depends heavily upon stakeholders within the host city, stakeholder groups are usually closely related to the events and their outcomes. The quality of the relationships among stakeholders directly influences whether C&E events maintain viability as permanent institutions [20]. Moreover, an understanding and consideration of event stakeholders is crucial for gaining the hallmark status of C&E events, thereby increasing their continuity and assuring sustainable C&E development [2]. Stakeholder groups for primary events are particularly essential to the continuity, success, and survival of the events; these groups include employees, volunteers, suppliers, sponsors, attendees, and financial supporters, whereas secondary event stakeholders include the host community and its tourism organizations [22,23]. Therefore, C&E organizers must recognize the roles and relationships of such stakeholder groups.
Previous studies on event sustainability emphasized event site selection for gaining a sustainable competitive advantage for an event (e.g., [24,25,26,27]). The focus of such studies has mainly been twofold: (1) the appropriateness of a destination to host an event in terms of hospitality capacity, tourist attractions, and destination environment and (2) the availability of adequate event facilities within the host city and the efficiency and quality of services provided by an event. Meanwhile, some research has identified event success or survival factors from the event level to the industry or city/community level (e.g., [1,7,28]). Such factors reflect various interpretations of key event stakeholders who can impact sustainable C&E development. Therefore, sustainable event indicators must be characterized by the multidimensional aspects of C&E [29]. On the one hand, the hallmark event model explains how the notable elements of hallmark events interact as a system and how this system interacts with its environment in order for the hallmark event to be sustainable [2,10]. The model incorporates three main desired goals—attraction, image and branding, and community—and three planning and implementation processes of a hallmark event—marketing, organization and ownership, and sustainability [10]. On the other hand, the entrepreneur, resource, industry, and strategy (ERIS) model suggests that the success of startup businesses is determined by interactions among the following factors: entrepreneurs, resources, industry (market), and strategy [30,31,32].
Based on the hallmark event and ERIS models, this study identified the key elements of sustainable event development that can maximize the competitiveness and long-term continuity of C&E. This study focused on internal factors (the capabilities of the convention or exhibition) and external event factors, which generally include the C&E environment related to the host city and the physical event venue.

2.1. Internal Factors

Internal resources and capabilities are critical for any firm to gain a sustainable competitive advantage [33]. For survival and growth, organizers of C&E events need management and marketing skills as well as resources [34]. Adequate resources and skills for strategic planning and development are essential to a permanently institutionalized event such as a hallmark event [10]. The resource-based view of a firm suggests that the term firm resources include all physical and intangible assets, such as the attributes, knowledge, and capabilities a firm needs in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness [33]. According to the ERIS model, the entrepreneur factor includes experience, managerial and technological capacities, the knowledge needed to successfully lead a firm, and the ability to communicate with external stakeholders; resources include financial, human, and social factors [31]. A hallmark event model includes principal outcome goals and processes for developing an iconic hallmark event [10]. When an event is intended to achieve hallmark status within a host city, its resources should be utilized to be green, responsible, and financially sustainable. To that end, events need to develop unique quality programs that convey the destination’s strengths and that benefit the community. Conversely, they must avoid negative environmental impacts, maximize industry and community investment, and generate surplus revenues [2]. Additionally, a well-established connection with other organizations shows the abilities of the C&E organizers to secure external resources for C&E survival. Building and retaining positive relationships with primary external stakeholders is critical for sustainable C&E management [7]. Government support at the local and national levels is particularly salient for C&E in order to secure stakeholder commitment and protect the event from the risk of failure. Such support also enables C&E organizers to access critical resources, present a positive brand image, and make economic gains [7,8,16,35].

2.2. External Factors

The birth, growth, change, and mortality of an organization constitute a natural selection process affected by environmental (social) forces—the capacity of the environment to support an organization or the degree to which an organization is willing to change within, and adapt to, the environment [36]. The C&E industry is sensitive to changes in external environments, economic conditions, and market demand. Therefore, C&E organizers need to monitor and forecast demand-influencing factors and trends for a sustained competitive advantage, and they must ensure that an event and its networks with key stakeholders adapt to changing environmental forces that may pose risks to continuity of the event [10,37].
Attractive host destinations as well as quality facilities and services may lead to the long-term sustainability of C&E initiatives. Competitive C&E events may provide visitors with tangible (e.g., an economic impact) and intangible (e.g., business networking) long-term benefits [38]. The attributes of the environment of a host destination include the physical and geographic settings, as well as stature and reputation in the tourism marketplace [2,16]. In addition, an integrated infrastructure (e.g., a convention/exhibition venue and facilities, quality accommodations, efficient transportation, interesting attractions, and ancillary services) makes C&E events a core element of a host city that can provide residents with a better environment [1]. C&E is a traditional method of connecting secondary stakeholders (i.e., related industries, institutions, academia, the host community, and the destination) and providing a venue for networking [28]. Building a quality relationship between an event and its stakeholders is a basic requirement for C&E activities to establish a brand and increase event preference [39]. Thus, relevant industry clusters within a host city and the surrounding area generate synergy and a close fit between C&E events and the local industries and associations, drawing more visitors to the events, and increasing networking capabilities (i.e., conventions and exhibitions create essential networks for visitors) [8,27,28,40].

3. Methods and Data

3.1. Methods

This study employed the Delphi and AHP approaches to identify indicators for the continuity of regional C&E efforts and their corresponding relative importance. First, based on existing studies, initial items were identified to develop indicators for sustainable C&E events that can maximize the competitiveness and long-term continuity of C&E [1,7,8,10,26,27,28,41,42]. The initial questionnaire was designed through extensive discussion among seven experts in C&E fields.
Second, identification of sustainable regional C&E attributes was conducted using two rounds of the Delphi method. The Delphi technique is a commonly used qualitative approach that enables the collection of expert opinions in order to reach consensus [43,44] This method generally utilizes several rounds of questionnaires [45]; this study obtained expert opinions from two rounds of Delphi surveys. Values for the coefficient of variation (CV) and the content validity ratio (CVR) were utilized as evaluation criteria. CV is a statistical measure to determine whether the modification is needed. If a CV value is lower than 0.5, an additional survey is not required [46]. The CVR indicates the degree of respondents’ agreement as to how an indicator is essential in the research context [47,48]. The CVR can be calculated as follows:
CVR = N e − N / 2 N / 2
where N e represents the number of responses that are considered “essential” indicators; and N represents the total number of participants.
Subsequently, the AHP method was adopted to evaluate the weighted scores of the obtained factors for sustainable C&E. The AHP was introduced by Saaty [49] and is a quantitative structured technique that allows the organization of multi-criteria decisions, building upon their respective priorities [50]. The application of AHP has been widely used in the areas of tourism planning, tourism development, and tourist destination choice [50,51], with a growing body of literature focusing on sustainability matters in the field [35,43,44,45,52]. This approach is considered a useful tool for analyzing and converting complicated issues into a simplified hierarchic framework based on pairwise comparisons of expert judgments of more-important versus less-important factors [35,53].
Although the relative importance identified by pairwise comparisons is useful for making decisions on achieving sustainable C&E, responses’ dependence on expert knowledge and perceptions may generate incongruities [45,54]. That is, items must be evaluated that are both subjective and objective, and the consistency of the indicators must be assessed through the AHP mechanism. This study calculated weights by using a pairwise comparison matrix to determine important factors for sustaining regional C&E. In addition, a consistency index (CI) and a consistency ratio (CR) were calculated to estimate congruence in the responses. According to Saaty [55], if the CR value is greater than 0.1, pairwise comparison should be redone.

3.2. Sampling

A Delphi study does not depend on a statistical sample of a population. Because it is operated using a group judgment mechanism, the samples should consist of qualified experts who have a comprehensive understanding of the relevant issues [56]. Thus, the samples for this study were experts in the C&E industry. More specifically, the samples were classified into three categories: (1) academic scholars of convention, exhibition, event and/or comparable areas; (2) industry experts from convention centers and hotels and from among professional convention organizers (PCOs); and (3) government agencies, such as destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) in Korea.
This study comprised three survey stages including Delphi and AHP, which are summarized in Figure 1. In the first stage, experts were recruited using snowball sampling. Snowball sampling is effective in recruiting respondents with the desired characteristics [57]. A researchers’ network was used to generate the initial panelists with the desired characteristics, and each panelist identified potential respondents with the desired characteristics. Experts were contacted by email or phone. When they agreed to participate in this study, they were sent a link to an online survey. Before the experts participated in the web-based survey, we assured them their anonymity and confidentiality would be preserved, by obtaining informed consent. The questionnaires asked them to rate the importance of indicators on a five-point Likert scale and included open-ended questions to gain deeper and more-comprehensive opinions.
A total of 35 panelists participated in the first Delphi survey. The collected surveys were analyzed to develop a questionnaire for the second round. Based on the experts’ opinions in the collected data, indicators were revised, deleted, and added to compile the questionnaire for the second Delphi survey [58].
In the second stage, the panelists that participated in the first stage were contacted and invited to participate in the second survey with the revised indicators. A total of 29 panelists participated in the second round. As in the first stage, the collected surveys were reviewed and analyzed to revise the questionnaire for the subsequent survey. In the third stage, an AHP survey was conducted. The expert panels that participated in the second-round Delphi survey were invited to participate in the third stage. A total of 17 panelists participated in this stage. Through the AHP, the priorities and importance of factors to establish sustainable C&E were determined.

4. Results

4.1. Expert Profile

Table 1 describes the respondents’ demographic profiles (gender, tenure in their chosen field, education, and expert classification) for the first, second, and third rounds. Of the 35 panelists in the first survey, 21 were male and 14 were female with an average tenure in C&E-related work of 11 years. A total of 19 panelists had worked for more than 10 years in their respective areas. In total, 13 experts worked in industries including convention centers, hotels, and PCOs; 13 experts were from DMOs involving CVBs and had accumulated their experience working in managerial positions for planning and implementing event tourism; and nine academic professors had conducted research in their fields. Of the 35 participants in the first survey, 29 responded to the second survey, and 17 from the second round participated in the third round’s AHP.

4.2. Delphi Results

Through the first and second Delphi rounds, items were purified as presented in Table 2. From the 35 panelists who participated in the first round, 15 items that did not satisfy the criteria were deleted. The CVR and CV were the criteria for validity and stability. First, for a sample size of 35 (p = 0.05), the minimum CVR value is 0.31, according to Wilson, Pan and Schumsky [47]. Thus, six indicators with a CVR value lower than 0.31 were eliminated. However, CV values for all indicators in the first Delphi questionnaire were less than 0.5, showing acceptable stability. Additionally, nine items that more than two panelists considered dispensable were deleted. To clarify the meanings of the indicators, seven items were revised, and 15 were added based on feedback from the experts.
In the second round, in which 29 participants completed the Delphi survey, seven indicators with less than the CVR cut-off value of 0.37 from 25 participants at the 0.05 level of significance were discarded [47]. Accordingly, the CVR value was improved from 0.638 to 0.784 after removing the deleted items, and 33 indicators remained.
Table 3 displays the results of the descriptive analysis for the 33 indicators. Willingness of organizers had the highest mean value (4.76) followed by event differentiation strategy (mean = 4.72), local support for hosting events (mean = 4.62), cohesion between event theme with city-specific industry/image (mean = 4.59), and clear objectives (mean = 4.52).

4.3. AHP Results

The AHP analysis was conducted to determine the relative importance of the five factors affecting sustainable C&E. Through pairwise comparisons from 17 participants, the weight and importance of each factor was determined. The value of CR was lower than the cut-off value of 0.1 [57], confirming acceptable consistency. The results revealed that across the five factors, event contents and capability was the most important category for sustainable C&E (weight = 0.3943). The second most important factor was the local event environment (weight = 0.1824). Facilities in venue and destination was ranked third (weight = 0.1596), followed by organizer and support/sponsorship (weight = 0.1527) and impacts (weight = 0.1017). Table 4 and Figure 2 show the weights of dimension and the relative importance across factors for achieving sustainable C&E.
Although the panelists had congruent opinions regarding the need for a variety of efforts to sustain regional C&E in their host destinations, the comparative priority based on their interests varied. Thus, it was necessary to evaluate whether the relative importance across cohorts of panelists differed. Accordingly, the panelists were divided into three groups: professors, industry professionals, and DMOs.
As shown in Table 5, the results from the comparison across the cohorts indicated that all groups reached agreement in rating event contents and capability as the most important factor and the local event environment as the second most important factor for achieving sustainable regional C&E. As the third most important factor, both professors and industry experts selected facilities in venue and destination, whereas DMOs rated organizer and support/sponsorship as the third most important factor for sustaining regional C&E. However, the difference in weight between the factors ranked third and fourth was insignificant. The CR values for all three groups ranged from 0.0105 to 0.0246, indicating significant consistency. Interestingly, in the group of DMOs, the CI and CR were somewhat higher than other groups, in spite of the acceptable levels. DMOs/CVBs play a role in hosting numerous C&E events, and they boost the MICE image in a destination. These results imply that each DMO may have distinctive strategies for establishing sustainable events, because each region in Korea varies in its degree of C&E development. Although there were some differences among the cohorts, the results show a similar pattern in their perceptions regarding priority and other factors, highlighting the importance of a convention’s or an exhibition’s own characteristics and capabilities for becoming a continuous regional event.

5. Discussion

Host destinations benefit socially and economically from successfully hosting C&E events in the long-term. An understanding of key factors of successful C&E efforts is critical for the sustainability and long-term continuity of the C&E industry. In order to identify the factors affecting continuous C&E events, rather than one-off events in a destination, this study conducted Delphi and AHP analyses with a sample of 35 C&E industry experts and scholars. The statistical analyses revealed key sustainability indicators sorted into five categories and the relative importance of internal and external factors for establishing repeatable C&E. This research contributes to the literature by developing crucial indicators and dimensions for establishing continuous C&E in a host destination.
Specifically, the Delphi results identified a total of 33 indicators for continuity of regional C&E, which were sorted into five main categories: event contents and capability, organizer and support/sponsorship, impacts, facilities in the venue and destination, and the local event environment. Among the five categories identified, event contents and capability, organizer and support/sponsorship, and impacts correspond to an event’s own characteristics (internal factors), whereas facilities in venue and destination and the local event environment represent C&E-related facilities and infrastructure and a host destination’s C&E environment (external factors). Such results reflect existing research by Kim et al. [59] and Viale Pereira and Schuch de Azambuja [60] that highlight the importance of event planning and operations and confirm the findings of An et al. [61] and Oh, Nam-Jo, and Kim [28], which demonstrated the importance of facilities, infrastructure, and local support as sustainable MICE factors. Particularly, in the current results, the top five indicators with the highest mean values were: (1) willingness of organizers (to hold succeessful C&E), (2) event differentiation strategy, (3) local support for hosting events, (4) cohesion between event theme with city-specific industry/image, and (5) clear (C&E) objectives.
Additionally, the AHP results revealed that among the five categories of sustainable C&E, event contents and capability demonstrated the highest relative weighted score, followed by the local event environment, facilities in venue and destination, organizer and support/sponsorship, and impacts. Such findings are consistent with previous research highlighting the importance of an event itself and its capabilities [7,10,41], the role of organizers [27,42], and external supports for C&E resources [8]. Further, one important category that deserves attention is the “local event environment”, which suggests that agglomeration economies should be a driving force in developing and sustaining C&E, as reflected in the findings of prior C&E studies [25,26]. This study also identified C&E impact on the development of industry or academia and their financial performance as a key sustainability factor, implying that sustainable C&E should contribute to the flourishing of a city-specific industry and improve the reputation for academic excellence as well as economic development in the host community.
In regard to the cohort comparison of categories for sustainable C&E, all three expert groups reached agreement in rating event contents and capability as the most important factor, with the local event environment as the second most important factor for establishing sustainable regional C&E. Notably, as the third most important factor, both professors and industry experts selected facilities in the venue, whereas DMOs selected organizer and support/sponsorship. From the DMOs perspective, “organizer and support/sponsorship” was rated as a more important factor for sustaining regional conventions and exhibitions compared with the other two groups. DMOs or CVBs have made efforts to boost the MICE image in their destinations and are greatly aware of organizers who play the role of final decision-makers in selecting host destinations. Moreover, because organizers are granted testimonials from government agencies that are involved in their list of sponsors [32], DMOs may perceive the factor of “organizer and support/sponsorship” as more essential.

6. Conclusions

A methodological implication for this study was found in the process of indicator development to identify the comparative priorities of sustainable C&E elements needed to anchor regional C&E. An AHP analysis is considered the most used technique for analyzing expert decisions [62]. Employing the Delphi and AHP techniques, this study identified previously undisclosed items for continuity in a convention or exhibition and revealed the relative importance of the items sorted by category.
Practical implications of the study exist with regard to the C&E operations and management. First, the C&E organizers should pay special attention to improving event contents and maximizing the capabilities of C&E for the competitiveness and long-term sustainability of C&E initiatives. Event contents and capability is the most essential dimension to be established for continuously held regional C&E. For continuity in a host destination, Getz, Svensson, Peterssen, and Gunnervall [8] highlighted how hallmark events should have “drawing power” (e.g., uniqueness, an attractive event program, and theme effectiveness) in comparison with other successful events and destinations. Therefore, strengthening an event that has drawing power is fundamental for a sustainable event in a host destination. If the event itself is a differentiated and inimitable resource in a host destination, even if other factors, such as facilities, infrastructure, or environment, are somewhat inadequate, exhibitors and visitors will come to participate in the regional event. Second, when decision-makers should concentrate on just one strategy, AHP could be a useful tool for sorting out the priorities by providing weights for diverse dimensions.
Although this study attempted to provide valuable insights into the sustainable development and operations of C&E, some limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the indicators developed were extracted based on expert knowledge and experience. Although the identified factors may be widely used for further new and innovative studies of the MICE industry, future studies must discover essential antecedents for event sustainability. Second, the panelists participated in this study were limited to academic scholars, industry experts, and government agencies. Future research may include more expert categories such as exhibitors for more diverse and broad expert opinions. Third, because this study was conducted after the outbreak of COVID-19, anticipations of the risk solutions related to COVID-19 were widely discussed. However, due to the low importance scores achieved from the panelists, some items that are deemed to be critical during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., on/offline hybrid C&E) were not included in this study. Future studies could aim to conduct in-depth research to identify C&E attributes that are necessary to respond to risks and adapt to unpredictable circumstances such as pandemic situations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.K., D.K. (Dongjin Kim), Y.C., D.K. (Donghyun Kim), Y.N. and J.Y.; methodology, I.K., S.K., S.C., Y.C. and D.K. (Donghyun Kim); validation, I.K., S.K., S.C., Y.N. and J.Y.; formal analysis, D.K. (Dongjin Kim), Y.C. and D.K. (Donghyun Kim); investigation, S.K., D.K. (Dongjin Kim), Y.C. and D.K. (Donghyun Kim); writing—original draft preparation, I.K., S.K., S.C. and D.K. (Dongjin Kim); writing—review and editing, I.K., Y.N. and J.Y.; visualization, Y.N. and J.Y.; supervision, I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by PNU-RENovation(2020-2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares there are no conflict of interest from publication of this study.

References

  1. Lu, S.; Zhu, W.; Wei, J. Assessing the impacts of tourism events on city development in China: A perspective of event system. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1528–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Getz, D.; Page, S.J. Progress and prospects for event tourism research. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 593–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Daniels, M.J.; Norman, W.C. Estimating the economic impacts of seven regular sport tourism events. J. Sport Tour. 2003, 8, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. UIA. UIA International Meetings Statistics Report. 61st Edition. Available online: https://uia.org/system/files/am-downloads/UIA_International_Meetings_Statistics_Report_ed61_0.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2021).
  5. Ministry of Culture, S.a.T. Announcement of Basic Plan for the 4th International Conference Industry Promotion. Available online: https://www.mcst.go.kr/kor/s_notice/press/pressView.jsp?pSeq=17091 (accessed on 14 October 2021).
  6. Korea Tourism Organization. Announcement of Supporting Plan to the Regional Specialized International Event. Available online: https://kto.visitkorea.or.kr/kor/notice/news/nma/board/view.kto?id=423379&instanceId=126 (accessed on 7 October 2021).
  7. He, H.; Lin, Z.; Li, H. Key survival factors in the exhibition industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 89, 102561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jin, X.; Weber, K.; Bauer, T. Impact of clusters on exhibition destination attractiveness: Evidence from Mainland China. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 1429–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Butler, S.; Bassiouni, Y.; El-Adly, M.; Widjaja, A. Revamping the value chain in exhibition facilities: The case of the Dubai exhibition industry. Facilities 2007, 25, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Getz, D.; Svensson, B.; Peterssen, R.; Gunnervall, A. Hallmark events: Definition and planning process. Int. J. Event Manag. Res. 2012, 7, 47–67. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kirchgeorg, M.; Jung, K.; Klante, O. The future of trade shows: Insights from a scenario analysis. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2010, 25, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. UNESCO. Busan. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/busan (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  13. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Spurr, R. Estimating the impacts of special events on an economy. J. Travel Res. 2005, 43, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kim, K.; Ko, D. How to Build a Sustainable MICE Environment Based on Social Identity Theory. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mackellar, J.; Reis, A.C. World Rally Championships 2009 and 2011: Assessing the tourism value in Australia. J. Vacat. Mark. 2014, 20, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Todd, L.; Leask, A.; Ensor, J. Understanding primary stakeholders’ multiple roles in hallmark event tourism management. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 494–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Frost, W. Events and tourism. In The Routledge Handbook of Events; Connell, S.J.P.J., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. Getz, D. Festivals, Special Events, and Tourism; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hall, C.M. The definition and analysis of hallmark tourist events. GeoJournal 1989, 19, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jucu, I.S. Rebranding the cultural legacy of communism: The golden stag festival (Braşov, Romania) and local placemaking. J. Balk. Near East. Stud. 2020, 22, 478–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dolasinski, M.J.; Roberts, C.; Reynolds, J.; Johanson, M. Defining the field of events. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2021, 45, 553–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Reid, S. Identifying social consequences of rural events. Event Manag. 2007, 11, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Reid, S. Event Stakeholder Management: Developing Sustainable Rural Event Practices; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2011; Volume 2, pp. 20–36. [Google Scholar]
  24. Crouch, G.I.; Louviere, J.J. The determinants of convention site selection: A logistic choice model from experimental data. J. Travel Res. 2004, 43, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Crouch, G.I.; Del Chiappa, G.; Perdue, R.R. International convention tourism: A choice modelling experiment of host city competition. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 530–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jin, X.; Weber, K. Exhibition destination attractiveness–organizers’ and visitors’ perspectives. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 2795–2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, H.; Lee, J.-S. An exploratory study of factors that exhibition organizers look for when selecting convention and exhibition centers. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 1001–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Oh, C.; Nam-Jo, S.K.; Kim, K.-B. Convergence and Integration of the MICE and Maritime Industries: An Analysis of the MICE Industry of Busan. J. Coast. Res. 2021, 114, 365–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Choi, H.C.; Sirakaya, E. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 1274–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lerner, M.; Haber, S. Performance factors of small tourism ventures: The interface of tourism, entrepreneurship and the environment. J. Bus. Ventur. 2001, 16, 77–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, M.; Park, S.; Lee, K.-S. What are the features of successful medical device start-ups? Evidence from Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sandberg, W.R.; Hofer, C.W. Improving new venture performance: The role of strategy, industry structure, and the entrepreneur. J. Bus. Ventur. 1987, 2, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Han, S.-H.; Lee, Y.-C.; Yoon, J.-H. An analysis on the determinants of success for tourism start-ups: Application of the ERIS model. J. Tour. Sci. 2021, 45, 101–123. [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu, C.-R.; Lin, W.-R.; Wang, Y.-C.; Chen, S.-P. Sustainability indicators for festival tourism: A multi-stakeholder perspective. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2019, 20, 296–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hannan, M.T.; Freeman, J. Organizational Ecology; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  37. Perna, F.; Custódio, M.J.; Oliveira, V. Local communities and sport activities expenditures and image: Residents’ role in sustainable tourism and recreation. Eur. J. Tour. Hosp. Recreat. 2019, 9, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Mackellar, J. Conventions, festivals, and tourism: Exploring the network that binds. J. Conv. Event Tour. 2006, 8, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Jin, X.; Weber, K. Developing and testing a model of exhibition brand preference: The exhibitors’ perspective. Tour. Manag. 2013, 38, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Alberca-Oliver, P.; Rodríguez-Oromendía, A.; Parte-Esteban, L. Measuring the efficiency of trade shows: A Spanish case study. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yusoff, W.Z.; Ismail, M.F.; Rahman, I.A. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of Meeting, Incentive, Convention and Exhibition (MICE) Event Management. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2015, 21, 1317–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yi, X.; Fu, X.; Jin, W.; Okumus, F. Constructing a model of exhibition attachment: Motivation, attachment, and loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2018, 65, 224–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Park, D.B.; Yoon, Y.S. Developing sustainable rural tourism evaluation indicators. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 13, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cheng, Q.; Su, B.; Tan, J. Developing an evaluation index system for low-carbon tourist attractions in China–A case study examining the Xixi wetland. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wong, A.K.F.; Kim, S.; Lee, S.; Elliot, S. An application of Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process in understanding hotel corporate social responsibility performance scale. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1153–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dajani, J.S.; Sincoff, M.Z.; Talley, W.K. Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1979, 13, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wilson, F.R.; Pan, W.; Schumsky, D.A. Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2012, 45, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Kim, M.; Jang, Y.C.; Lee, S. Application of Delphi-AHP methods to select the priorities of WEEE for recycling in a waste management decision-making tool. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 128, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hsu, T.-K.; Tsai, Y.-F.; Wu, H.-H. The preference analysis for tourist choice of destination: A case study of Taiwan. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mohamad, D.; Jamil, R.M. A preference analysis model for selecting tourist destinations based on motivational factors: A case study in Kedah, Malaysia. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 65, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Kim, J.H.; King, B.E.M.; Kim, S. Developing a slow city tourism evaluation index: A Delphi-AHP review of Cittaslow requirements. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Renfors, S.-M. Developing the curriculum content of coastal and maritime tourism: Stakeholders’ perspective of the sector-specific skills and knowledge in Finland. Tour. Mar. Environ. 2018, 13, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1996; Volume 4922. [Google Scholar]
  56. Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 2004, 42, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Crouch, D. 7 Tourism Research Practices and Tourist Geographies. Tour. Res. Methods 2005, 73. Available online: https://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=ko&lr=&id=KHSBCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA73&dq=Crouch,+D.+7+Tourism+Research+Practices+and+Tourist+Geographies&ots (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  58. De Urioste-Stone, S.; McLaughlin, W.J.; Sanyal, N. Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building programme. Int. J. Rural Manag. 2006, 2, 191–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, M.; Moon, H.; Chu, M.; Yoon, Y. A Study on the Complementary Direction of Guidelines for Developing Green Conventions in Korea: Using Comparative Analysis among Domestic and Overseas Cases. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Viale Pereira, G.; Schuch de Azambuja, L. Smart Sustainable City Roadmap as a Tool for Addressing Sustainability Challenges and Building Governance Capacity. Sustainability 2022, 14, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. An, J.; Kim, H.; Hur, D. Keeping the Competitive Edge of a Convention and Exhibition Center in MICE Environment: Identification of Event Attributes for Long-Run Success. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Cavallaro, F.; Khalifah, Z. Sustainable and renewable energy: An overview of the application of multiple criteria decision making techniques and approaches. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13947–13984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 01678 g001 550
Figure 1. Survey process.
Figure 1. Survey process.
Sustainability 14 01678 g001
Sustainability 14 01678 g002 550
Figure 2. Relevant importance and weight of each identified factor for developing sustainable conventions and exhibitions.
Figure 2. Relevant importance and weight of each identified factor for developing sustainable conventions and exhibitions.
Sustainability 14 01678 g002
Table
Table 1. Profile of the participants.
Table 1. Profile of the participants.
Demographic InformationFirst Survey
(n = 35)		Second Survey
(n = 29)		Third Survey
(n = 17)
GenderMale211911
Female14106
Professional experience (years)<5952
5–10753
≥10191912
Highest education≤Bachelor’s952
Master’s/doctorate 262415
Expert classificationProfessor997
Industry expert (convention center/hotel/PCO)13105
DMO13105
Notes: PCO = professional convention organizer; DMO = destination marketing organization.
Table
Table 2. Delphi survey results for the first and second rounds.
Table 2. Delphi survey results for the first and second rounds.
CategoryFirst Delphi SurveySecond Delphi SurveyRemainder
CVR = 0.551CVR = 0.638CVR = 0.784
MeanNumber of ItemsDeleted ItemsRevised ItemsAdded ItemsMeanNumber of ItemsDeleted ItemsMeanNumber of Items
InternalEvent contents and capability3.9684354.2661114.32110
Organizer and support/sponsorship3.9471314.029514.1434
Impacts-00033.857314.0542
ExternalFacilities in venue and destination4.13157114.013814.1037
Local event environment4.07103054.0191334.18610
Total 4015715 407 33
Note: CVR = content validity ratio.
Table
Table 3. Descriptive data on the indicators for sustainable conventions and exhibitions.
Table 3. Descriptive data on the indicators for sustainable conventions and exhibitions.
CategoryIndicatorMeanSDCVCVR
Event contents and capability1. Cohesion between event theme and city-specific industry/image4.590.5680.1240.93
2. Clear objectives4.520.5740.1270.93
3. Highlighting a person/product4.100.6180.1510.72
4. Key exhibitors4.550.5720.1260.93
5. Event program and content4.410.6280.1420.93
6. Extra-event opportunities3.760.5110.1360.45
7. Overall event cost4.030.6260.1550.66
8. Financial resources4.140.5810.1400.79
9. Event differentiation strategy4.720.4550.0961.00
10. R&D capability for industry (e.g., industry trend)4.380.6220.1420.86
Organizer and support/sponsorship1. International organizations as event organizers3.720.5280.1420.38
2. Government support/sponsorship at local/national levels4.030.5660.1400.72
3. Industry support/sponsorship4.030.6260.1550.79
4. Willingness of organizers4.760.4350.0921.00
Impacts1. Impacts on related industries and academia4.000.5980.1490.66
2. Profitability of events4.100.7720.1880.52
Facilities in venue and destination1. Space availability for events4.170.7110.1700.66
2. Innovation in facility and equipment3.660.8140.2230.38
3. Competence of staff4.100.4890.1190.86
4. Safety and hygiene4.170.6580.1580.72
5. Accessibility by air4.100.7720.1880.66
6. Transportation4.280.7510.1760.79
7. Variety of hotels and accommodation4.240.6360.1500.93
Local event environment1. Attractive tourism resources4.070.7040.1730.72
2. Local security and safety4.280.6490.1520.93
3. Awareness of the importance of MICE industry4.340.4840.1111.00
4. Cooperation between NTO and local DMOs/CVBs4.410.5680.1290.93
5. Cooperation among local MICE industries4.340.4840.1111.00
6. Education for local MICE professionals 4.030.6260.1550.66
7. Synergy between the local major industry and academia3.900.6730.1730.45
8. Local support for hosting events4.620.4940.1071.00
9. Residents’ perceptions regarding MICE3.790.6200.1630.38
10. Industrial environment (e.g., relevant industry clusters)4.070.5930.1460.72
Notes: SD = standardized deviation; CV = coefficient of variation; CVR = content validity ratio; MICE = meetings, incentives, conventions, and exhibitions; NTO = National Tourism Organization; DMOs = destination marketing organizations; CVBs = convention and visitors bureaus.
Table
Table 4. Results for relative importance.
Table 4. Results for relative importance.
CategoryWeight of DimensionImportance Ranking
Event contents and capability0.39431
Organizer and support/sponsorship0.15274
Impacts0.10175
Facilities in venue and destination0.15963
Local event environment0.18242
CI = 0.0107; CR = 0.0096
Notes: CI = consistency index; CR = consistency ratio.
Table
Table 5. Comparison of panelist cohorts.
Table 5. Comparison of panelist cohorts.
CategoryProfessors (n = 7)
CI = 0.0118; CR = 0.0105		Industry Professionals (n = 5)
CI = 0.0153; CR = 0.0136		DMOs (n = 5)
CI = 0.0275; CR = 0.0246
WeightRankWeightRankWeightRank
Event contents and capability0.471810.415210.26931
Organizer and support/sponsorship0.116840.144840.21603
Impacts0.104750.094950.09655
Facilities in venue and destination0.147730.152430.17194
Local event environment0.149120.82520.22272
Note: DMOs = destination marketing organizations.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, I.; Kim, S.; Choi, S.; Kim, D.; Choi, Y.; Kim, D.; Ni, Y.; Yin, J. Identifying Key Elements for Establishing Sustainable Conventions and Exhibitions: Use of the Delphi and AHP Approaches. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1678. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14031678

AMA Style

Kim I, Kim S, Choi S, Kim D, Choi Y, Kim D, Ni Y, Yin J. Identifying Key Elements for Establishing Sustainable Conventions and Exhibitions: Use of the Delphi and AHP Approaches. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3):1678. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14031678

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Insin, Soojung Kim, Sooyoung Choi, Dongjin Kim, Yeol Choi, Donghyun Kim, Yensen Ni, and Jie Yin. 2022. "Identifying Key Elements for Establishing Sustainable Conventions and Exhibitions: Use of the Delphi and AHP Approaches" Sustainability 14, no. 3: 1678. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14031678

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop