Appendix Publications

The venue owners‟ results regarding measures to make the Festival more environmentally sustainable were mixed, as 50.0% of the venue owners made use of measures, 40.0% did not implement measures, and 10.0% were unsure. Not all venue owners or even established businesses for that matter will view environmental conservation/sustainability as an important consideration as they may suffer from a myopic business mind. This highlights the need to educate businesses on the importance of environmental conservation/sustainability and on how to minimise harmful impacts caused by daily business operations.

By incorporating sustainable planning into an event, event organisers have the potential to decrease harmful impacts; simultaneously they are able to persuade stakeholders to adopt similar practices, thus living more sustainably and leaving behind a positive legacy (UNEP, 2012:1). The implementation of environmental practices can save businesses large sums of money when energy, waste disposal, sewage treatment and water costs are lessened (Greening the WSSD & DEAT, 2003:19).

The measures that were implemented to make the Festival more environmentally sustainable ranged from recycling/waste reduction (40.0%), sourcing more environmentally friendly inputs (40.0%) or even an amalgamation of the two (20.0%).

The event organiser argued that there were no direct measures implemented to make the Festival more environmentally sustainable; rather measures were indirect, since the MTB Race hosted at Slanghoek Cellar uses routes that are conserved under Cape Nature. The organiser also mentioned that more environmentally friendly inputs were indeed sourced.

The environment is a vital component of any event. Since most events rely on their surroundings as event venues, taking cognisance of the environment is equally important for the success of an event. “Even less attention has been paid to environmental impacts of events” (Ukwayi et al., 2012:75). An event‟s success may be questioned if the environment is not used responsibly. The event‟s commitment towards environmental sustainability provides it with a unique competitive advantage. The venue owners and event organiser were the organisers of the BOWF. It was therefore their responsibility to enforce environmentally sustainable practices to ensure a sustainable event. No direct measures were implemented by the event organiser but environmentally friendly inputs were sourced.

The venue owners had mixed views as five implemented measures but four didn‟t, and one was uncertain. Unlike the event organiser, the venue owners also implemented recycling/waste reduction.

A greater effort is therefore recommended for both stakeholders to implement measures to improve the environmental sustainability of the BOWF. The current effort is inadequate and requires a more sustained effort.

4.14 Chi-square analysis: TBL aspects vs. demographic variables

Based on the previously discussed and cited TBL essentials and demographic variables, this section uses the chi-square test to show which demographic variables have significant relationships with the TBL variables, using the results from residents and event attendees.

The chi-square statistical test checks for associations between two variables (Garczynski, n.d:1). If there is no relationship between two variables, the results are not statistically significant but if there is an association, then the results are indeed statistically significant.

The chi-square analysis is used “to make inferences when the data can be divided into different categories” (Welman et al., 2005:236) and therefore tests for independence between two categorical variables (Turner, 2014:slide 4). If the value is greater than 0.05, there is no significant relationship but a value equal to or below 0.05 confirms a statistically

significant relationship and therefore the association that exists between the two variables did not happen by mere chance (Garczynski, n.d:1).

Table 4.15 demonstrates the relationships that are significant (ƿ<0.05). It should be noted that for the purpose of this study, a p-value of 0.000 is referred to as <0.001. This is because writing the p-value as 0.000 implies that the chance of something happening is exactly zero;

and this is not true. The SPSS program also rounds the value to 3 decimal digits – so there may have been any digit less than 5 as the 4^th digit. It is thus more correct to modify the statement to p-value <0.001.

The following results reflect those of residents with relationships that are significant (ƿ<0.05):

 Employment vs. awareness of the BOWF (<0.001).

 Education vs. awareness of the BOWF (<0.001).

 Historical racial classification vs. awareness of the BOWF (<0.001).

 Historical racial classification vs. previous attendance (<0.001).

 Education vs. whether Festival can be improved (0.006).

 Age vs. worked or volunteered at the Festival (0.018).

 Historical racial classification vs. worked or volunteered at the Festival (0.032).

 Education vs. contribution to growth and sustainability (0.036).

 Gender vs. contribution to growth and sustainability (0.039).

Table 4.15 shows that residents‟ employment status had a significant relationship with their overall awareness of the BOWF (c²=47.777, df=11, p-value <0.001). Employment status is a strong indicator of education; as a result the findings show that residents‟ education also had a significant relationship with their overall awareness of the event (c²=44.676, df=6, p-value

<0.001). It is thus believed that residents that were more educated tended to be more aware of the BOWF than those that were less educated. Similarly, residents that were employed, and particularly in higher positions, were more aware of the BOWF.

Race also played a vital role in the overall awareness of the BOWF. Residents‟ historical racial classification had a significant relationship with their overall awareness of the BOWF (c²=19.589, df=3, p-value <0.001). There also appeared to be a significant relationship between the race of residents and their attendance at the BOWF (c²=18.331, df=3, p-value

<0.001).

Table 4.15: Chi-square test (p-value) results of resident TBL and demographic factors with

Table 4.16 shows the results of event attendees. The following are all the relationships that were significant (ƿ<0.05):

 Employment vs. previous attendance (<0.001).

 Gender vs. previous attendance (0.029).

 Historical racial classification vs. previous attendance (0.002).

 Employment vs. money spent/planning to spend (<0.001).

 Education vs. money spent/planning to spend (<0.001).

 Historical racial classification vs. money spent/planning to spend (<0.001).

 Employment vs. problems experienced with the BOWF (<0.001).

Table 4.16 shows that the employment status of event attendees had a significant relationship with their previous attendance at the BOWF (c²=34.498, df=11, p-value <0.001).

The historical racial classification of attendees also had a significant relationship with previous attendance. (c²=12.813, df=2, p-value 0.002).

Furthermore, the employment status (c²=82.423, df=11, p-value <0.001), education (c²=79.281, df=6, p-value <0.001) and historical racial classification (c²=61.926, df=2, p-value <0.001) of event attendee respondents all had significant relationships with money spent or money planned to spend at the BOWF (c²=12.813, df=2, p-value 0.002). Attendees who were employed and who had higher positions spent or planned to spend more at the Festival. Similarly, the more educated the attendee respondents were, the more they spent or planned to spend at the event. Race also played a key role in expenditure levels; thus the historical racial classification of event attendee respondents had a significant relationship with money either spent or planned for spending at the event.

Lastly, there is a significant relationship between an event attendee‟s employment status and the problems experienced with the BOWF (c²=43.529, df=11, p-value <0.001), as attendee respondents that were more educated experienced fewer problems with the BOWF.

Table 4.16: Chi-square test (p-value) results of event attendee TBL and demographic factors with statistical significance at 0.05 (n=322)

Employment Education Gender Age

Historical racial classification Previous

attendance <0.001 0.076 0.029 0.061 0.002

Money spent/

planning to spend <0.001 <0.001 0.904 0.458 <0.001 Problems

experienced with the BOWF

<0.001 0.983 0.410 0.617 0.723

Contribution to growth and sustainability

0.755 0.276 0.650 0.769 0.231