ACTA GEOGRAPHICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK SLOVENICA 2020 60 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 60-1 • 2020 Contents Mojca POKLAR Comparison of the sonar recording method and the aerial photography methodfor mapping seagrass meadows 7 Vanja PAVLUKOVIĆ, Uglješa STANKOV, Daniela ARSENOVIĆ Social impacts of music festivals: A comparative study of Sziget (Hungary) and Exit (Serbia) 21 Péter János KISS, Csaba TÖLGYESI, Imola BÓNI, László ERDŐS, András VOJTKÓ,István Elek MAÁK, Zoltán BÁTORI The effects of intensive logging on the capacity of karst dolines to provide potential microrefugia for cool-adapted plants 37 Radu SĂGEATĂ Commercial services and urban space reconversion in Romania (1990–2017) 49 Kristina IVANČIČ, Jernej JEŽ, Blaž MILANIČ, Špela KUMELJ, Andrej ŠMUC Application of a mass movement susceptibility model in the heterogeneous Miocene clastic successions of the Slovenj Gradec Basin, northeast Slovenia 1 Andrej GOSAR Measurements of tectonic micro-displacements within the Idrija fault zone in the Učjavalley (W Slovenia) 79 Piotr RAŹNIAK, Sławomir DOROCKI, Anna WINIARCZYK-RAŹNIAK Economic resilienceofthe command andcontrolfunctionof citiesin Centraland EasternEurope 95 Mateja FERK, Rok CIGLIČ, Blaž KOMAC, Dénes LÓCZY Management of small retention ponds and their impact on flood hazard prevention in the Slovenske Gorice Hills 107 Gregor KOVAČIČ Sediment production in flysch badlands: A case study from Slovenian Istria 127 Vesna LUKIĆ, Aleksandar TOMAŠEVIĆ Immigrant integration regimes in Europe: Incorporating the Western Balkan countries 143 Mitja DURNIK Community development: LocalImmigrationPartnershipsin Canadaand implications forSlovenia 155 ISSN 1581-6613 9 771581 661010 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF MUSIC FESTIVALS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SZIGET (HUNGARY)AND EXIT (SERBIA) Vanja Pavluković, Uglješa Stankov, Daniela Arsenović The main stage of the Exit festival, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.6514 UDC: 911.3:78.079(497.11+439) COBISS: 1.01 Vanja Pavluković1, Uglješa Stankov1, Daniela Arsenović1 Social impacts of music festivals: A comparative study of Sziget (Hungary) and Exit (Serbia) ABSTRACT: Music festivals are often seen as a key driver of the city’s economies. Therefore, there is an increasing interest in the impacts associated with them. The aim of this research is to examine residents’ perceptions of the social impacts of two European music festivals, Sziget (Budapest, Hungary) and Exit (Novi Sad, Serbia), applying the modified Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale and to compare the results using Importance–Performance Analysis. Similarities and differences in perceptions of social impacts of two festivals are discussed with the proposition of priorities for destinations. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of residents’ attitudes toward the impacts of festivals and can be utilized by local authorities to increase the positive and reduce the negative impacts of the festival. KEYWORDS: social impact, music festival, residents’ perception, Serbia, Hungary Družbeni vplivi glasbenih festivalov: Primerjalna študija festivalov Sziget na Madžarskem in Exit v Srbiji POVZETEK:Glasbenifestivalipogostoveljajozaglavnagonilamestnegagospodarstva,zatoseraziskovalci čedaljeboljzanimajoza vplive,povezanez njimi.Ciljteraziskavejena podlagiprilagojenerazličiceocen­jevalne lestvice družbenih vplivov festivalov (angl. Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale) preučiti stališča prebivalcev glede družbenih vplivov dveh evropskih glasbenih festivalov – Szigeta v Budimpešti in Exita v Novem Sadu – ter primerjati rezultate z uporabo analize pomembnosti in uspešnosti (angl. importance-performance analysis). Avtorji predstavijo podobnosti in razlike v stališčih glede družbenih vplivov obeh festivalovterpredlagajoprednostnenalogezaobemesti.Izsledkiraziskaveomogočajoboljšerazumevan­jeodnosovprebivalcevdovplivovfestivalov,lokalneoblastipajihlahkouporabijozaizboljšanjepozitivnih in zmanjšanje negativnih vplivov festivalov. KLJUČNE BESEDE: družbeni vpliv, glasbeni festival, stališča prebivalcev, Srbija, Madžarska The paper was submitted for publication on 23rd November, 2017. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 23. novembra 2017. 1 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourismand HotelManagement, Novi Sad, Serbia vanja.dragicevic@dgt.uns.ac.rs, ugljesa.stankov@dgt.uns.ac.rs, daniela.arsenovic@dgt.uns.ac.rs 1 Introduction Theorganizationoffestivalsisoneofthefastest-growingsegmentsofthetourismindustry(Getz2010;Lashua, SpracklenandLong2014;Kim,DuncanandChung2015;BagiranandKurgun2016;GetzandPage 2016). Consequently,thereisanincreasinginterestinresearchonthethemeoffestivals,specificallyintermsofmea­suringtheimpactsoffestivalsonhostcommunities.GetzandPage(2016)highlightthateventtourism,and festivalsaspartofit,areprimarilydrivenbytheeconomicbenefits(Dwyer,ForsythandSpurr2006;Herrero et al. 2006; Dwyer, Jago and Forsyth 2016), and so much research has been devoted to economic impacts, while other outcomes were neglected for many years. In addition, local authorities and festival organizers focus on the economic benefits of the event, and there is no doubt that they are important, but the social impacts may have an even more profound effect on the local community (Delamere 2001). Recently a fair amount of research (Delamere 2001; Delamere, Wankel and Hintch 2001; Fredline, Jago and Deery 2003; SmallandEdwards2003;Small,EdwardsandSheridan2005;Small2007;RollinsandDelamere2007;Woosnam, VanWinkleandAn2013;Dragićevićetal.2015;BagiranandKurgan2016;Woosnametal.2016;Pavluković, ArmenskiandAlcantara-Pilar2017)hasbeenconductedconcerningthesocialimpactsoffestivals.However, Pavluković,Armenski,andAlcantara-Pilar(2017)highlightedthattherewasalackofstudiescomparingthe socialimpactsofsimilareventsbetweenhostdestinations.Moreover,inmanycountries,especiallyinemerg­ingones,suchinthecaseofSerbiaandHungary,socialimpactsofevents,andspecificallyfestivals,areempirically stillunderresearched (except the work of Pavluković, Armenskiand Alcantara-Pilar 2017). Oneofthefirstscalesusedtomeasureresidents’perceptionofsocialimpactsoffestivalswastheFestival SocialImpactAttitudeScale(FSIAS),developedbyDelamere(2001)andDelamere,WankelandHintch(2001). While FSIAS was firstly used on small community festivals, there was a need to further validate it by test­ing it in other community types and with different types of festivals (Delamere 2001). Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the local residents’ perceptions of the social impacts of two large-scale and worldwide popular music festivals, Sziget (Budapest, Hungary) and Exit (Novi Sad, Serbia), using the modified FSIAS. Exploratory factor analysis was carried out in order to determine the underlying factor structure of modified FSIAS. In addition, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) was employed to compare the results and to examine the implications of the findings for both festivals’ man­agementanddestinationsthatcanassistthemtodevelopafocusedactionagendatoachieveandmaintain festivals’ sustainability and community support. As these two festivals take place annually in summer months, attract similar music performers and visitors,theyareoftenseenascompetitors.Moreover,thefestivalsareheldinEurope,inneighboringcoun­triesthathavesomesimilarpoliticalandeconomicsettings–post-communistcountriesthatexperienced a transition to a market-based economy (Stankov and Dragićević 2015). In this context, the comparative study is of importance. 2 Literature review 2.1 Social impact of festivals »Festivalsareemergingasgrowingandvibrantsectorofthetourismandleisureindustriesandareseentohave significant economic, sociocultural, and political impacts on the destination area and host groups« (Arcodia and Whitford 2007, 1). According to Getz (2008) festivals produce various outcomes and managers can-notconcentrateonlyoneventprofitabilityasameasureofsuccess.Instead,socialandenvironmentalimpacts of an eventshouldbe equally considered(Smalletal. 2005; Wood2005; Reid2007; Kimand Petrick2005; Delamereetal.2001;Fredline,JagoandDeery2003).However,therearedifficultiesinvolvedindistinguishing between social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts of the events all of which can have politi­cal repercussions (Getz and Page 2016) and affect the quality of life of the host community. Park (2007) definessocialimpactsaspositiveornegativechangesinsocialandculturalconditionsdirectlyorindirectly resulting from an activity, project,or program. Forthepurpose ofthispaper, socialimpactsare definedas anyimpactsthatpotentiallyaffectthequalityoflifeforlocalresidents(Fredline,JagoandDeery2003).Similarly, Sharpley and Stone (2012) pointed out that the social impacts of events refer to effects on people’s life. There have been significant efforts to create measurement scales in order to assess how residents per-ceivethesocialimpactsofevents. Delamere,WankelandHintch(2001),Fredline,JagoandDeery(2003), andSmallandEdwards(2003)developedthemostcommonlyusedscales.Fredline,JagoandDeery(2003) developedascalesimilartoFSIAStomeasurethesocialimpactsofavarietyofmediumtolarge-scaleevents.Small and Edwards (2003) created the Social Impact Perception (SIP) scale with 35 items across six fac­torswhicharecomparablewithfactorspresentedbyDelamere(2001)andFredline,JagoandDeery(2003). Delamere,WankelandHintch(2001)developedFSIAStobeusedforthemeasurementandinterpretationof residents’ perceptions of the social impacts of community-based festivals. Through exploratory factor analysis and removal of cross loading and low loading items (from 70 to 47 items), two main factors ofthe scale were determined: social benefits (comprising 21 items – positive impacts) and social costs (26 items – negative impacts) of festivals. Delamere (2001) further refined FSIAS and verified the two-factor scale across 25 items. The social benefits factor comprised items relating to community image, identity,wellbeing, experiencing new things, opportunities to develop new skills. The second factor (social costs) explained a range of items related to overcrowding, traffic, litter, noise and disruption and intrusion intothe lives of local residents. Recently, there has been an increase in the utilization of FSIAS in different community settings and typesoffestivals.BagiranandKurgan(2016)appliedoriginalFSIASintheirresearchontheresidents’per­ceptionsoftheFocaRockFestivalinIzmir,Turkey.Theyconfirmedthetwo-dimensionalnatureofFSIAS (social benefits and social costs) with 35 items in total. Similarly, Woosnam, Van Winkle and An (2013)confirmedthefactorstructureoftheFSIASutilizingthecontextofaculturalheritagefestivalinruralTexas.Theyfoundthatresidents’perceptionsofimpactsdifferedacrossthelengthofresidencyandannualhouse­hold income. Dragićević et al. (2015) assessed Maribor residents’ attitudes towards the social impacts ofthe European capital of culture, using modified FSIAS. They found that residents perceived more posi­tive than negative impacts of the event. Woosnam et al. (2016) examined perceived social impacts of the annual harvest festival in the ruraltown of Morden, Manitoba (Canada) on the community as well as the underlying structures of motiva­tions to attend the festival among residentsand visitors through modified FSIAS and a newly developedfestival–attending motivation scale. Their modified FSIAS had a four-factor structure: social costs (com­prisedofthesameitemsasinoriginalFSIAS),communitybenefits,individualbenefits(thesameasfactorsocial benefits in original FSIAS) and new factor labeled new opportunities. In addition, this was the firststudy to consider motivations as a predictor of perceived impacts. Pavluković, Armenski and Alcantara-Pilar(2017)utilizedmodifiedFSIAStoidentifytheunderlyingdimensionsofsocialimpactsoftwolarge-scalemusicfestivals,Exit (Serbia)andSziget (Hungary),andtoexploremoderationeffect ofHofstede’s nation-alculturaldimensionsonresidents’perceptionsofimpactsofthesefestivalsontheircommunities.Results reveal the six-factor substructure of FSIAS that represents two main, positive and negative, dimensionsof social impacts of large–scale music festivals. In addition, they found that national culture significant­ly influenced residents’ perception of the impacts of the festival on their community. All the above–mentioned studies call for further testing and modification of FSIAS in order to con­tribute to the academic literature on the social impacts of the events and on a practical basis to improvethe management of festivals. Therefore, this research is of importance. 2.2 Importance–Performance Analysis Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) introduced by Martilla and James (1977) is a widely used tech­nique for developing management strategies. IPA identifies attributes for which, given their importance, a product or service underperforms or over-performs. It combines measures of attribute importance andperformanceintoatwo–dimensionalgridinordertofacilitatedatainterpretationandattainpracticalrec­ommendations (Dwyer et al. 2016). Figure1illustratestheIPAgrid.TheY-axisshowstheperceivedimportanceofspecificattributeswhile the X-axis reflects the performance when compared with these attributes. The four quadrants are labeled asfollows:Concentratehere,Keepupthegoodwork,LowpriorityandPossibleoverkill.IntheConcentrateherequadrant,attributesareconsideredtobeveryimportant,butoflowperformance,meaningthatimprove­ment efforts should be concentrated here. In the quadrant labeled Keep up the good work very important attributes with high levels of performance in relation to these activities are concentrated. In the Low pri­ority quadrant, attributes have both low importance and low performance and therefore should not be of managementconcern.Possibleoverkillquadrantgathersattributesoflowimportanceandofrelativelyhigh performance meaning managers should consider their efforts on these attributes as being overexploited Figure 1: Importance–performance grid (Dwyer et al. 2016). (Chu and Choi 2000). The standard four quadrants matrix helps stakeholders/managers to identify the areas for improvement and actions for minimizing the gap between importance and performance. Importance-Performance Analysis has increasingly been applied in tourism contexts, including the hotelindustry(BeldonaandCobanoglu2007;ChuandChoi2000),travelmarkets(MurdyandPike2012), leisure and recreation (Deng 2007; Chen 2014), tourism destination competitiveness (Dwyer et al. 2013; Dwyeretal.2015;Dwyeretal.2016),festivalqualityandattractiveness(Kim,AhnandWick2014;Choi2015), transportation (Huang, Wu and Hsu 2006). 3 Methods 3.1 Study site Exit festival is a summer music festival held annually since 2000 in the city of Novi Sad, Serbia. It started as a student movement fighting for democracy in Serbia, but already in 2001, it became one of the most important music festivals in Europe. The four-day festival takes place on the first weekend of July. It was rankedtop10bestmajorfestivalsatEuropeanFestivalAwardsfrom2009to2013,oneofthe10BestOverseas Festivals at UK Festival Award 2014 and Best Summer Music Festival in Europe for 2016 by travel portal »EuropeanBestDestinations«incooperationwiththeEuropeanCommission.Morethan2.5millionpeo­plefromover60countriesaroundtheworldhavevisitedthefestivalsofar(Internet1;Pavluković,Armenski and Alcantara-Pilar 2017). From a student event in 1993 Sziget Festival has become one of the largest summer music events in Europe, held every August in Budapest, Hungary. This seven days festival hashad more than 500,000 vis-itorsfromover100countriesin2016.ItwasrankedoneofthefivebestfestivalsinEuropebyTheIndependent in 2011 and is a two–time winner at the European Festivals Awards in the category Best Major European Festival in 2012 and 2015 (Internet 2). 3.2 Research instrument, sampling and data collection To achieve the objective of the study, a two-step procedure was conducted. First, in order to adopt origi­nal FSIAS to the research setting of large–scale music festivals, five academics from Serbia and Hungary who have research experience in tourism and event management were asked to discuss on FSIAS. Based on this discussion, the original scale was refined to suit specific cases of Exit and Sziget festivals. Namely, 20originalitemsfromFSIASwerekeptand11newitemswereproposed.Thefinalscaleconsistsof31items with good internal consistency (.=0.88). Second, by using the refined scale, the main survey was conducted among residents of Novi Sad and Budapest, host destinations of Exit and Sziget, in summer months June–September 2014, when festivals areheld.Thequestionnaireusedwascomposedofthreesections.Thefirstpartincludedbackgroundinfor­mation of participants. The second part consisted of 31 items – social impacts, for which local residents of Novi Sad/Budapest were asked to evaluate the perceived importance of the impacts when organizing any festival in their community on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important).Inthethirdpartresidentsevaluatedthesame31itemsinrespectofactualfestivalperformance using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questionnaire was prepared in two languages: Hungarian (for respondents from Budapest) and Serbian(for respondents from Novi Sad). It was created using Google Docs and distributed electronically. In total 505 usable ques­tionnaires were obtained (301 from Novi Sad and 204 from Budapest). Some authors believe that the assessmentwillbegoodonlyifthesamplecontainsaminimumof51units(Bagozzi1981;BarrettandKline 1981),whileothersthinkthat150–300observationswillbesufficient(Pallant2011).AccordingtoMacCallum etal.(2001),asamplesizebetween100and200isacceptable.Therefore,thesamplesizeusedinthisstudy is adequate for the analyses conducted. The data was processed with the statistical package SPSS 2.0. 4 Results 4.1 Respondents’ profile TherespondentscharacteristicsareshownindetailinTable1.Inbothsubsamples,females,youngerresidents (lessthan31)andthosewhoattendedthefestivalevidentlyshowhigherinteresttotakepartintheresearch. Table 1: Respondents’ characteristics. City/Festival Novi Sad/EXIT Budapest/SZIGET Characteristics Absolute frequencies (%) Absolute frequencies (%) Female 200 66.4 120 58.8 Male 101 33.6 84 41.2 Less than 31 167 55.5 111 54.4 Between 31–41 92 30.5 56 27.5 More than 41 42 14.0 37 18.1 Less than 10 years Between 10 and 20 years More than 20 years 76 78 147 25.3 25.9 48.8 68 42 94 33.3 20.6 46.1 Level of Education High school 70 23.2 50 24.5 2–years higher education 31 10.3 59 28.9 Graduate studies 133 44.2 54 26.5 Post graduate studies 67 22.3 41 20.1 Yes 216 71.8 147 72.1 No 85 28.2 57 27.9 Never 85 28.2 57 27.9 Once 34 11.3 27 13.3 Two times 27 9.0 32 15.7 Three times 25 8.3 19 9.3 More than three times 130 43.2 69 33.8 4.2 Exploratory factor analysis To explore dimensions of modified FSIAS exploratory factor analysis was carried out, using the principal componentmethodandObliminrotation.TheKaiser–Meyer–Olkin(KMO)overallmeasureofsampling adequacy (KMO=0.927) and Barlett’s test of sphericity (p=0.000) suggested that the data were suitable for factor analysis. In this study, all factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 and with factor loadings of morethan0.5wereretained.Theresultsofthefactoranalysissuggestedatwo-factorsolution,whichexplained 46.35% of the total variance. The results produced a clean factor structure with relatively higher loadings on the appropriate factors. Most variables were loaded heavily on one factor and this reflected that there was minimal overlap among factors and that all factors were independently structured. Cronbach’s . val­ues for each factor were greater than recommended 0.7 (DeVellis 2003), suggesting that the scale used in the survey has considerable reliability (Nunnally 1978). Table 2: Results of exploratory factor analysis for modified FSIAS. Factors Variance explained Eigen value Parallel analysis 95 percentile of random Eigenvalues Cronbach’s alfa Number of items F1 Social benefits – Positive impacts 32.35 10.027 1.538 0.937 22 F2 Social costs – Negative impacts 14 4.342 1.472 0.863 9 The factors are labeled as in the original FSIAS scale (Delamere 2001): first factor »social benefits«, as it involves 22 items referring to positive impacts of a music festival on the local community, and sec­ond factor »social costs« consists of nine items – negative impacts of a festival on the local community. Inthefollowingsections,wewilldiscusseachoftheitems–socialimpactsoftwofestivalsacrosstwodimen­sions of scale, positive and negative. 4.3 IPA results Table 3 shows the mean values of social impacts of music festivals on local communities in relation to importance and performance. For almost each of the impacts, the respondents rated importance rela­tivelyhighlyandconsistentlyhigherthanperformance.Inaddition,t-testofpairedsampleswasemployed in ordertotestthedifference betweeneach festivalimpactperformanceandimportance mean. Almost allimportanceandperformancemeansforbothfestivalswerefoundtobesignificantlydifferent(p<0.05) (seeTable 3). Interestingly,forbothgroupsofrespondents,thereisnostatisticallysignificantdifference in evaluating the importance and performance of impact labeled P3. In addition, this social impact of both festivals demonstrates strong performance. Further, the data were transferred to the IPA grid pre­sentation in order to provide easier interpretation and discussion of the results and comparison of the festivals. Figure2andFigure3areconstructedusingdatameans(themeanscoresofimportanceandperformance across all 31 social impacts) as theintersection point of the x (performance) and y (importance) axes. For easier interpretation, positive impacts are labeled P1–P22 and negative impacts N1–N9 (see Table 3). Almostallofthenegative impacts(except two)of Exitfestivalare located in Lowpriorityor Possible overkill quadrants, while most of the positive impacts are in Keep up good work and Concentrate here area, meaning that respondents from Novi Sad are more focused on positive impacts of the festival. This is consistent with the literature in general, which emphasizes that local communities are more aware of festival benefits to the community. In the case of the Sziget festival, the benefits and costs are more dispersed among quadrants, and we assume a higher level of tourism development and event industry. Table 3: Descriptive statistics of the importance and performance of social impacts of festivals and t-test paired samples. Impacts EXIT SZIGET I P t p* I P t p* P1 Festival enhances image of the community 4.59 4.40 –3.828 0.000 3.64 3.57 –0.729 0.467 P2 Community identity is enhanced through festival 4.47 3.89 –8.825 0.000 3.41 2.87 –6.512 0.000 P3 Hosting festival improves promotion of the city internationally 4.66 4.73 1.803 0.072 4.42 4.44 0.291 0.771 P4 Festival enables local community to present itself to others (visitors) as special and unique 4.38 4.09 –4.430 0.000 3.78 3.64 –1.601 0.111 P5 Festival acts as a showcase for new ideas for the locals 4.46 3.76 –11.116 0.000 4.00 3.36 –7.246 0.000 P6 Festival contributes to sense of community well-being 4.24 2.89 –19.271 0.000 4.00 3.11 –6.166 0.000 P7 Community feels a sense of pride due to hosting festival 4.37 3.75 –10.224 0.000 3.70 3.50 –7.367 0.000 P8 Festival has ongoing positive cultural impact on community 4.41 3.81 –11.594 0.000 4.18 3.51 –6.462 0.000 P9 Festival improves the quality of life in community 4.57 3.03 –16.970 0.000 4.13 2.57 –11.810 0.000 P10 Festival provides residents with opportunity to learn new things 4.33 3.58 –9.936 0.000 3.64 3.05 –6.498 0.000 P11 The local community has a chance to meet festival performers 4.30 3.04 –8.325 0.000 3.75 3.11 –3.911 0.000 P12 Local community is exposed to a variety of cultural experiences through festival 3.69 3.92 –6.576 0.000 3.50 3.65 –3.136 0.002 P13 Local community gains positive recognition as a result of festival 4.35 3.70 –7.847 0.000 3.96 3.26 –9.043 0.000 P14 Festival provides new job opportunities for residents 4.45 3.63 –11.702 0.000 4.41 3.72 –7.725 0.000 P15 Due to hosting the festival, residents have the opportunity for additional income 4.53 4.31 –4.230 0.000 4.52 3.75 –9.022 0.000 P16 Festival is of great importance for exploring the local culture by visitors 4.60 3.95 –10.365 0.000 4.13 3.13 –9.593 0.000 P17 There is high security level of festival visitors 4.81 3.60 –18.475 0.000 3.36 3.58 2.214 0.028 P18 There is high security level of residents during the festival 4.82 3.55 –19.135 0.000 4.48 3.38 –12.415 0.000 P19 Festival visitors behave properly 4.70 3.28 –20.716 0.000 4.49 3.15 –15.091 0.000 P20 Festival program is rich and diverse 4.71 3.83 –13.407 0.000 4.63 3.79 –10.347 0.000 P21 Local community is involved in the organisation of the festival 4.32 3.21 –15.327 0.000 3.46 2.79 –7.153 0.000 P22 Local community attitudes toward organi­ zation of the festival are acknowledged 4.28 2.79 –18.731 0.000 3.98 2.78 –12.354 0.000 N1 Festival leads to disruption in normal routine of residents 3.95 3.18 –7.911 0.000 3.85 3.27 –5.586 0.000 N2 Community facilities are overused 3.38 3.45 0.720 0.472 3.57 3.39 –1.796 0.074 N3 The influx of festival visitors reduced privacy in community 3.56 2.61 –11.142 0.000 3.99 3.18 –9.479 0.000 N4 Community is overcrowded during festival 3.08 3.68 6.266 0.000 3.34 3.11 –2.131 0.034 N5 Local traffic increases to unacceptable levels 3.52 3.01 –5.865 0.000 3.48 2.90 –5.837 0.000 N6 Noise levels increase to an unacceptable level 3.33 3.71 4.599 0.000 3.77 2.84 –9.136 0.000 N7 Litter increases to unacceptable levels 4.52 3.44 –12.915 0.000 4.10 2.99 –11.935 0.000 N8 Prices of products and services increases 4.16 3.69 –5.404 0.000 4.14 3.11 –9.644 0.000 N9 Crime in community increases 4.78 2.59 –28.928 0.000 4.59 2.25 –24.708 0.000 Mean value of whole scale (for all items) 3.55 Note: I –mean value of Importance, P –mean value of Performance, *p<0.05 5 45. 4 35. Concentrate here Performance N9 N3 P22 P6 P9 P11 N5 Keep up good work P18 P19 P20 P3 P17 P16 P1 N7 P5 P15 P14 P2 P21 P10 P13 P7 P8 P4 N8 N1 P12 N2 N6 3 N4 25. 2 15. Low priority Importance Possible overkill 1 1 15. 2 25. 3 35. 4 45. 5 Figure 2: IPA grid for the Exit festival. 5 Concentrate here Keep up good work 45. 4 35. Performance N9 P9 P20 P19 P18 P15 P14 N8 N7 P16 P8 P22 P6 N3 P13 P5 N1 N6 P11 P4 P10 P7 P1 N5 N2 P21 P12 P2 N4 P17 P3 3 25. 2 15. Low priority Importance Possible overkill 1 1 15. 2 25. 3 35. 4 45. 5 Figure 3: IPA grid for Sziget festival. 5 Discussion 5.1 Social impacts of Exit and Sziget in common Inthissection,thesocialimpactsofExitandSziget,whicharelocatedinthesameIPAquadrants(seeTable4), will be discussed in order to highlight festivals’ similarities. Both sets of respondents from Novi Sad and Budapest nominated eight positive impacts of festivals as combining relatively high importance and per­formance. Table 4: Social impacts of Exit and Sziget located in the same IPA quadrants. IPA Quadrant Impact of festival Keep up the good work P3 Hosting festival improves the promotion of the city internationally P5 Festival acts as a showcase for new ideas for the local community P8 Festival has an ongoing positive cultural impact on the community P13 Local community gains positive recognition as a result of the festival P14 Festival provides new job opportunities for residents P15 Due to hosting the festival, residents have the opportunity for additional income P18 There is the high-security level of residents during the festival P20 Festival program is rich and diverse Concentrate here P9 Festival improves the quality of life in the community P19 Festival visitors behave properly P22 Local community attitudes toward the organization of the festival are acknowledged N7 Litter increases to unacceptable levels during festival N9 Crime in community increases during the festival Low priority N5 Local traffic increases to unacceptable levels Possible overkill P12 Local community is exposed to a variety of cultural experiences through the festival That festival program is rich and diverse and adds entertainment opportunities for the community is consistentwithrecentawardsbothfestivalsgotanincreasednumberofvisitors.Inthisfield,festivalorga­nizersshouldkeepupthegoodwork.Respondentsinbothdestinationsaffirmedtheimportanceofresidents’ safety during the festival, which was expected as safety risks are associated with outdoor music festivals. Research suggests that safety and security are fundamental requirements for tourism destination com-petitiveness(DwyerandKim2003)aswellasforfestivals’sustainability.ItseemsthatsofarExitandSziget have performed well with respect to residents’ safety and should continue in the same manner. Affirmation by both sets of respondents that Exit and Sziget festivals provide new jobs and addition­alincomeopportunitiesisconsistentwithresearchliteratureemphasizingthecapacityoffestivalstogenerate increased revenues and job opportunities for locals (Dwyer, Forsyth and Spurr 2006). This is specifically important for countries like Serbia and Hungary where average wages are among the lowest in Europe (Stankov and Dragićević 2015; OECD 2016). That hosting festival improves the promotion of the city internationally was another benefit of festi­vals. Both festivals have been attracting an increasing number of people from different parts of Europe as well as from other continents in the past decade (Nagy and Nagy 2013). Namely, the number of foreign visitorsinboth,NoviSadandBudapestincreasedinJulyandAugust,monthswhenfestivalsareheld.Both festivalsemergedfromsmalllocaleventstomulticulturalEuropeanmusicfestivals.Inaddition,theimpact of festivals on the promotion of cities and consequently tourism development is well documented in the literature on festivals (Getz 2008; Montgomery 2007). Findings that local communities gain positive recognition as a result of festivals and that both festi­vals have an ongoing positive cultural impact on host communities are consistent with research literature (Bowdin et al. 2006; Gursoy, Kim and Uysal 2004). FiveimpactsoffestivalsfallintoConcentrateherecategoryforbothExitandSziget.Itseemsthatboth festivals management together with local authorities should focus on decreasing crime rates during fes­tivals,solvingenvironmentalissues(increasedgarbageinpublicareas)andcontrollingthebehavioroffestival visitors.Theliteratureemphasizesthatthedelinquentbehavioroffestivalvisitorsinthelong-termimpacts residents’ support for the festivaland the image of destination (Deeryand Jago 2010), as well as thequality of life in the community. Residents’ attitudes toward festivals are of great importance as the local com­munity is directly involved in creating an experience for visitors and furthermore, their support for the eventwillprobablyaffectthefestivalsustainability(GursoyandKendall2006).Festivals’managementand local authorities should acknowledge that there could not be a successful festival unless the community is involved in it (Mason 2015). Bothsetsofrespondentsaccordedlow-prioritytotrafficjamsduringthefestival.SinceExitandSziget last a few days, the residents of both cities may not think that festivals can create any major traffic prob­lems in a few days period. Local residents are willing to accept short-term irritation (such as traffic and parking problems) as they are aware of numerous benefits that festivals generate (Deery and Jago 2010). 5.2 Differences in social impacts priorities of Exit and Sziget There are a large number of benefits and costs of Exit and Sziget festivals valued differently by the two sets of respondents. We herein focus on Keep up the good work and Concentrate here categories since these have important implications for the action agenda of festival management and tourism leaders in each destination. RespondentsfromNoviSadconsiderthatExitisperformingwellinrespectofseveralimpactsofrel­atively high importance. They identified high performance in the enhancement of community image, which is consistent with literature that emphasizes the role of the festival in improving the place’s image (Getz2008;VandenBerg2012).Incontrast,respondentsfromBudapestplacedthisimpactinaPossible overkill quadrant, which was expected as Budapest has already created an image as a travel and event destination. Inaddition,respondentsfromNoviSadallocatedseveralbenefitsofthefestival(enhancementofcom­munityidentity,senseofpride,opportunitytolearnnewthings,thehigh-securityleveloffestivalvisitors) toKeep up good work quadrant while respondents from Budapest placed them into Possible overkill and Low priority quadrant. Thesedifferencescouldbeduetoslightlydifferenttourismdevelopmentstagesofhostingdestinations. Budapest is the most populous city in Hungary, with about 1.7 million inhabitants and more than 3 mil­lion tourists in 2017, while Novi Sad is a smaller community with about 300,000 residents and 130,000 touristsin2014. AccordingtoPizam(1978),tourismconcentrationonadestinationarealeadstonegative attitudestowardtouristsandtourismingeneral.Thedifferencesinpopulationandinthenumberoftourists in Budapest and Novi Sad could affect both communities’ attitudes towards benefits of festivals, meaning residents of Novi Sad perceived more benefits of festivals than residents of Budapest. Respondents from Budapest think more efforts should be made towards presenting the local culture to the festival visitors. Respondents from Novi Sad indicated two impacts of the festival that deserve priority: the local com­munity should be involved in the organization of the festival and should have a chance to meet festival performers. However, these are low priorities for respondents from Budapest. In the case of Serbia, these results are not surprising as younger respondents with less than 31 years old make more than half of the sample in this research, and they are usually willing to socialize and meet new people, specifically festi­valperformers,whichbringexcitementtotheireverydaylifeandcreatepositivememoriesrelatedtofestival. Interestingly,therespondentsfromNoviSadaffirmedthatExitfestivalmanagementandlocalauthor-itiesshouldconcentrateoninvolvingthelocalcommunityinthefestivalorganizationandshouldacknowledge community’s attitudes, which is consistent with general opinion in the research literature (Arcodia and Whitford 2007; Gursoy and Kendall 2006; Mason 2015). Both festivals’ management should concentrate on collaboration with community and consultation before, during and after the festival, in order to pro­vide community well-being and its support for the festival in long terms (Arcodia and Whitford 2007). RespondentsfromBudapestemphasizedaspriorityareathefestival’scontributiontothesenseofcom-munitywell-being.However,respondentsfromNoviSadregarditasalowpriority,whichisnotinaccordance with the positive impacts of the Exit festival located in Keep up good work quadrant that altogether con-tributetocommunitywell–being.Inaddition,itisinconsistentwiththegrowingevidenceintheliterature that festivals have public good aspect beyond generating revenue (Getz and Page 2016). RespondentsfromHungaryindicatedtwonegativeimpactsofthefestival,whichshouldbeinthefocus of local authorities. The research literature indicates that like any other type of tourism development, fes­tivals generate an increase in prices of goods and services and overcrowding in streets and public places, whichaffectsresidents’privacy(Gursoy,JurowskiandUysal2002;Tosun2002).FortheExitfestival,these impacts are located in Low priority and Possible overkill category. A number of researchers who exam­inedthelinkbetweentheperceptionofnegativeimpactsandthesupportfortourismdevelopmentreported thattherewasanegativerelationshipbetweennegativeimpactsandresidents’perceptionsoftourismdevel­opment (Gursoy, Jurowski and Uysal 2002; Tosun 2002). 6 Conclusion This study has presented and discussed the social impacts of two famous European music festivals Exit and Sziget on their communities using modified FSIAS and IPA. So far, there was a lack of studies com­paring the social impacts of similar events between host destinations with an exception to the work of Pavluković,ArmenskiandAlcantara-Pilar(2017).Moreover,thisstudywasconductedinresponsetorecent calls for further testing and modification of FSIAS in different settings. The paper has theoretical and practical contributions. First, it expands the body of knowledge on the social impacts of festivals. Then, it validates the usage of FSIAS in a novel context of large-scale festivals in urban communities. The scale can still produce reliable results even if slightly modified and utilized in differentenvironments.Theresultsofexploratoryfactoranalysisshowtheacceptableandmeaningfultwo-factorstructureofmodifiedFSIAS,asinDelamereetal.(2001)originalFSIAS.Inaddition,thisstudyseeks to encourage the use of IPA in geography, specifically urban and social, as this technique is widely used in a tourism context. Also, within urban social geography,considerable effort has been directed to assess-ingthequalityoflifeandurbanenvironmentalquality(Pacione2003).Giventheimportanceofsocialimpacts offestivalsonthequalityofevery-daylifeforlocalresidentsandontheurbanspace,thispapercontributes to the body of knowledge in urban social geography field. The results have practical implications for festival/urban destination management in each community. Namely,thepaperdiscussedsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweentwofestivalsproposingtheprioritiesfor eachfestival/destinationmanagementimpliedbyIPAresults.Strongareasofbothfestivalsweredetermined as well as those that should be improved by festivals’ management and local authorities in order to max­imize benefits and minimize the costs of hosting thefestival. In addition, low priority or possible overkill pointsaredefinedandshouldnotbeignoredastheycanlargelyinfluencebothcommunitywellbeingand the sustainability of the festival itself. It is the social impact in Concentrate here quadrant that deserves special emphasis by festival organizers. As with any research, limitations exist that need to be discussed. Although two countries havea com­mon history of being communist countries, differences exist in their level of economic and tourism development, and in the transition to a market-based economy, which affects the respondents’ percep­tions of festival impacts. Cultural differences also exist and may well impact on the study results (see Pavluković, Armenski and Alcantara-Pilar 2017). Although it was not the purpose of this study to examine whether sociodemographic variables and previous attendance at the festival affect residents’ perceptions of social impacts, a description of survey samples from Novi Sad and Budapest may potentially shed light on the findings. For instance, more than 50% of the respondents in both samples are females and younger (under the age of 31), and more than 70%oftherespondentsinbothsamplesattendedthefestival.Perhapssucha highleveloftherespondents who attended the festival, and specifically younger respondents who are usually in favor of music festi­vals,affecttheperceptionofpositiveandnegativeimpactsofthefestival.Therefore,futureresearchwould need to examine this speculation. In addition, Small (2007) and Woosnam, Van Winkle and An (2013) note that within any given community residents will perceive the same impact in different ways based on theirpersonalbackgroundwhetheritisfrompreviousfestivalparticipation,sociodemographicandsocio-economic classification. Sincemostoftheresearchersusethequantitativeapproachinexaminingperceptionsofsocialimpacts of festivals, further research orientations could be towards a qualitative approach (e.g. interviews with the representative stakeholders and/or focus groups). As perceptions of the impacts of the festival are not static and the festival itself changes, it would be interestingtoseehowperceptionsoffestivalimpactschangeovertimeinalongitudinalstudy.Totheauthors’ knowledge, this has rarely been done by researchers and festival organizers, although it can provide valu­able information for the festival and destination management. Despitetheabovementionedlimitationsofthework,findingsfromthisstudysupporttheuseofFSIAS andmakeasignificantcontributiontounderstandingresidents’attitudestowardthesocialimpactsoflarge- scale music festivals. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This research is part of the project Naselja I stanovništvo Vojvodine, financed by the Matica Srpska, Serbia. 7 References Arcodia,C.,Whitford,M.2007:Festivalattendanceandthedevelopmentofsocialcapital.JournalofConvention and Event Tourism 8-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J452v08n02_01 Bagiran, D., Kurgun, H. 2016: A research on social impacts of the Foça Rock Festival: the validity of the Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale. Current Issues in Tourism 19-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13683500.2013.800028 Bagozzi,R.P.1981:EEvaluatingstructuralequationmodelswithunobservablevariablesandmeasurement error: A comment. Journal of Marketing Research 18-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3150979 Barrett,P.T.,Kline,P.1981:Theobservationtovariableratioinfactoranalysis.PersonalityStudyandGroup Behavior 1-1. Beldona, S., Cobanoglu, C. 2007: Importance–performance analysis of guest technologies in the lodging industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 48-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0010880407304023 Bowdin, G., Allen, J., O’Toole, W., Harris, R., McDonnell, I. 2006: Events managements. Oxford. Chen, K.-Y. 2014: Improving importance-performance analysis: The role of the zone of tolerance and competitor performance. The case of Taiwan’s hot spring hotels. Tourism Management 40-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.009 Choi, S. S. 2015: Importance–Performance Analysis of attractiveness assessment for festival: a case of SobaeksanRoyalAzaleaFestival.IndianJournalofScienceandTechnology8-18.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i18/83947 Chu, R. K. S., Choi, T. 2000: An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the Hong Konghotelindustry:Acomparisonofbusinessandleisuretravellers.TourismManagement21-4.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00070-9 De Vellis, R. F. 2003: Scale development: Theory and application. Thousand Oaks. Deery,..,..g.,L.2010:Socialimpactsofeventsandtheroleofanti-socialbehaviour.InternationalJournal of Event and Festival Management 1-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17852951011029289 Delamere, T. A., Wankel, L. M., Hinch, T. D. 2001: Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes towardthesocialimpactsofcommunityfestivals,PartI:Itemgenerationandpurificationofthemeasure. Event Management 7-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/152599501108751443 Delamere, T. .. 2001: Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of communityfestivals,PartII:verificationofthescale.Eventmanagement7-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3727/ 152599501108751452 Deng,W.2007:Usingarevisedimportance-performanceanalysisapproach:thecaseofTaiwanesehotsprings tourism. Tourism Management 28-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.010 Dragićević,V.,Bole,D.,Bučić,A.,Prodanović,A. 2015:EuropeanCapitalofCulture:residentsperception of social benefits and costs – Maribor 2012 case study. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.747 Dwyer, L., Armenski, T., KneževićCvelbar, L., Dragićević, V., Mihalic, T. 2015: Modified Importance– Performance Analysis for evaluating tourism businesses strategies: comparison of Slovenia and Serbia. International Journal of Tourism Research 18-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2052 Dwyer, L., Dragićević, V., Armenski, T., Knežević Cvelbar, L., Mihalič, T. 2016: Achieving destination competitiveness: an Importance–Performance Analysis of Serbia. Current Issues in Tourism 19-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.944487 Dwyer, L., Dragićević, V., Armenski, T., Mihalič, T., Knežević Cvelbar, L. 2016: Achieving destination competitiveness: an Importance–Performance Analysis of Serbia. Current Issues in Tourism 19-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.944487 Dwyer,L.,Forsyth,P.,Spurr,R.2006:Assessingtheeconomicimpactsofevents:acomputablegeneralequi­librium approach. Journal of Travel Research 45-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287506288907 Dwyer,L.,Jago,D.,Forsyth,P.2016:Economicevaluationofspecialevents:Reconcilingeconomicimpact andcost-benefitanalysis.ScandinavianJournalofHospitalityandTourism16-2.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15022250.2015.1116404 Dwyer, L., Kim, C. W. 2003: Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism 6-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667962 Dwyer,L.,KneževićCvelbar,L.,Edwards,D.,Mihalič,T.2013:Tourismfirms’ strategic flexibility:thecase of Slovenia. International Journal of Tourism Research 16-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1931 Fredline, L., Jago, L., Deery, M. 2003: The development of a generic scale to measure the social impacts of events. Event Management 8-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/152599503108751676 Getz, D. 2008: Event tourism: Definition, evolution and research. Tourism Management 29-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017 Getz, D. 2010: The nature and scope of festival studies. International Journal of Event Management Research 5-1. Getz, D., Page, S. J. 2016: Progress and prospects for event tourism research. Tourism Management 52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.03.007 Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. 2002: Residents attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research 29-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00028-7 Gursoy,D.,Kendall,K.2006:Hostingmegaevents:modellinglocals’support.AnnalsofTourismResearch 33-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.01.005 Gursoy,D.,Kim,K.,Uysal,M.2004:Perceivedimpactsoffestivalsandspecialeventsbyorganizers:Anexten­sionandvalidation.TourismManagement25-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00092-X Herrero, L. C., Sanz, J. Á., Devesa, M., Bedate, A., del Barrio, M. J. 2006: The economic impact of cultural events: a case-study of Salamanca 2002, European Capital of Culture. European Urban and Regional Studies 13-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776406058946 Huang, Y. C., Wu, C. H., Hsu, C. J. 2006: Using Importance-Performance Analysis in evaluating Taiwan medium and long distance national highway passenger transportation service quality. The Journal of American Academy of Business 8. Internet 1: www.exitfest.org (10.03.2016). Internet 2: www.szigetfestival.com (10.03.2016). Kim, N., Ahn, Y. J., Wick, B. E. 2014: Local festival quality and the application of a revised Importance– Performance Analysis: The Case of the JirisanCheon–Wang Festival. Event Management 18-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/152599514X13947236947266 Kim, S. S., Petrick, J. F. 2005: Residents’ perceptions on impacts of the FIFA 2002 World Cup: the case of Seoul as a host city. Tourism Management 26-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.013 Kim, Y. H., Duncan, J., Chung, B. W. 2015: Involvement, satisfaction, perceived value, and revisit inten­tion:Acasestudyofafoodfestival.Journalofculinaryscience&technology13-2.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15428052.2014.952482 Lashua,B.,Spracklen,K.,Long,P.2014:Introductiontothespecialissue:Musicandtourism.TouristStudies 14-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797613511682 MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., Hong, S. 2001: Sample size in factor analysis: The role ofmodelerror.MultivariateBehavioralResearch36-4.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3604 Martilla, J. A., James, J. C. 1977: Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing 41-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495 Mason,P.2015:TheCommercializationofmusicfestivalsandtheriseofsuperconcerts.Internet:www.huff­ ingtonpost.com/pete-mason/the-commercialization-of-_1_b_7873236.html (10.12.2015). Montgomery, J. 2007: The new wealth of cities: city dynamics and the fifth wave. Aldershot. Murdy, S., Pike, S. 2012: Perceptions of visitor relationship marketing opportunities by destination mar­ keters:Animportance-performanceanalysis.TourismManagement33-5.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2011.11.024 Nagy,A.,Nagy,H.2013:TheimportanceoffestivaltourismintheeconomicdevelopmentofHungary.Visegrad JournalonBioeconomyandSustainableDevelopment2-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.2478/vjbsd-2013-0011 Nunnally, J. C. 1978: Psychometric theory. New York. OECD 2016. OECD better life index Hungary. Internet: www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/hungary (1.3.2016). Pacione,M.2003:Urbanenvironmentalqualityandhumanwellbeing–asocialgeographicalperspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 65, 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00234-7 Pallant,J.2011:SPSSsurvivalmanual:AstepbystepguidetodataanalysisusingtheSPSSprogram.Berkshire. Park, C. 2007: A dictionaryof environment and conservation. Oxford University Press. Oxford Reference Online. Goteborg University Library (5. 3. 2016). Pavluković, V., Armenski, T., Alcantara-Pilar, J. M. 2017: Social impacts of music festivals: Does culture impactlocals’attitudetowardeventsinSerbiaandHungary?TourismManagement63.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.006 Pizam, A. 1978: Tourism’s impacts: the social costs to the destination community as perceived by its res­idents. Journal of Travel Research 16-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004728757801600402 Reid, S. 2007: Identifying social consequences of rural events. Event Management 11, 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/152599508783943192 Rollins, R., Delamere, T. 2007: Measuring the social impact of festivals. Annalsof TourismResearch 34-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.01.004 Sharpley,R.,Stone,P.2012:Socio-culturalimpactsofevents:meanings,authorisedtransgressionandsocial capital. The Routledge handbook of events. London. Small, K. 2007: Social dimensions of community festivals: An application of factor analysis in the devel­opment of the social impact perception (SIP) Scale. Event Management 11-1. Small,K.,Edwards,D.2003:Evaluatingthesocioculturalimpactsofafestivalonahostcommunity:Acase studyoftheAustralianFestivaloftheBook.Proceedingsofthe9th AnnualConferenceoftheAsiaPacific Tourism Association. Sydney. Small, K., Edwards, D., Sheridan, L. 2005: A flexible framework for socio-cultural impact evaluation of a festival. International Journal of Event Management Research 1-1. Internet: http://hdl.handle.net/ 10453/10173 (14. 12. 2018). Stankov,U.,Dragićević,V.2015:Changesinthespatialpatternofnetearnings:evidencefromSerbia.Acta Oeconomica 65-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/032.65.2015.3.1 Tosun, C. 2002: Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research 29-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00039-1 VandenBerg,M.2012:FemininityasacitymarketingstrategygenderbendingRotterdam.UrbanStudies 49-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010396240 Wood,E.H.2005:Measuringtheeconomicandsocialimpactsoflocalauthorityevents.InternationalJournal of Public Sector Management 18-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550510576143 Woosnam, K. M., Jiang, J., Van Winkle, C. M., Kim, H., Maruyama, N. 2016: Explaining festival impacts onahostingcommunitythroughmotivationstoattend.EventManagement20-1.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.3727/152599516X14538326024919 Woosnam, K., Van Winkle, C., An, S. 2013: Confirming the festival social impact attitude scale in the contextofaruralTexasculturalfestival.EventManagement17-3.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3727/152599513 X13708863377917