Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 | P a g e
Toronto Host City: Mass Gatherings Risks and Perception
Applied Research and Innovation Centre
Applied Research Fellowship Project
Survey Results
Sowmya Kishore
School of Hospitality, Tourism, & Culture The Culture & Heritage Institute (CHI)
Ginette Soulieres
School of Community and Health Studies Emergency Management and Public Safety Institute (EMPSI)
July 2012
2 | P a g e
Acknowledgements
On behalf of Centennial College, Applied Research and Innovation Centre, ARIC Fellowship Program and
Principal Investigators, we would like to express our gratefulness and appreciation to our Industry
Partners, Data Analysts, Faculty, Staff and Students from both Schools.
Industry Partners
Toronto Police Service, Public Safety and Emergency Management
Unit Commander, Staff Inspector, William (Bill) Neadles
Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Commander, Peter Rotolo
Survey Data Analysis
Srinithi Raghavan
Centennial College Faculty/ Staff and Students
School of Tourism, Hospitality and Culture, The Culture & Heritage Institute (CHI)
Principal Investigator, Sowmya Kishore, Faculty/ Research Associate
Sandy Biback, Part-time Faculty, Festival, Events and Conferences Management
Jane Chevrier, Festival, Events & Conference Management, Post Grad Certificate
Shawn Shapiro, Festival, Events & Conference Management, Post Grad Certificate
School of Community and Health Studies, Emergency Management and Public Safety Institute
(EMPSI)
Principal Investigator, Ginette Soulieres, Manager, Emergency Management and Public Safety Institute
Rachel Thombs, RPN to BScN Bridging Program
Greg Watkinson, Paramedic Program
3 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements.…………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2
Project Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Introduction ……….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Methodology........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Respondent Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Response Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Survey Demographics ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Respondent Knowledge .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
General Perceptions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Number of Mass Gaterings Held in Toronto per Year................................................................................................... 11
The Biggest Challenges ............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Fields to Focus On ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Public Health Issues ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Health Services Issues .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Event Planning & Response Issues .................................................................................................................................. 15
Event Planning Deliverables .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Factors Influencing Crowd Behaviour ................................................................................................................................ 17
Increase in Risk of Unlawful behaviour ............................................................................................................................. 17
Police Approach ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Magnitude of Complexity ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Adequacy of Partnerships........................................................................................................................................................ 21
Impact .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Professional Impact ................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Personal Impact ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24
4 | P a g e
Personal vs. Professional ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
How people are Affected .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Factors that Negatively Impact our Image ........................................................................................................................ 29
Impact as a Tourist Destination ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Impact to Citizens of Toronto ................................................................................................................................................. 31
Mass Gathering Experiences ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Ease of Identifying Public Safety or Event Staff .............................................................................................................. 33
Alcohol vs. Safety......................................................................................................................................................................... 35
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
Secondary Research ....................................................................................................................................................................... 42
5 | P a g e
PROJECT OVERVIEW Mass gathering is a phenomenon that arises from the unique interactions of people, places and activities (Weed & Bull, 2004)i. It has attracted a lot of attention among scholars and practitioners. A number of literature reviews and surveys have been done with regards to event image perceptions, lessons learned, resident perceptions, risk management, risk perception, crowd behaviour, crowd management and public safety. In view of recent occurrences- ranging from Toronto’s G-20 insurgence to Vancouver’s Stanley Cup riots and the shocking London riots, cities around the world are increasingly falling prey to spontaneous mass gatherings that impact on public safety and crowd behaviour. It has become progressively obvious that the primary factor in assuring a safe and comfortable environment for crowds is planning, understanding the human behaviour dynamic and public perceptionii. This project will examine the dynamics of playing host to mega events and how it impacts all realms of life. Despite the growing importance accorded to mega event (from sports to mass gatherings), limited research has been carried out to understand and explain host perceptions of the impact of such events.iii Ultimately, this study will also engage relevant community partners playing an integral role in preparing for future event hosting, be it the 2015 Pan Am Games or ongoing socio-political , sporting and multicultural annual events that Toronto plays and will play host to, each year. Initial ground work undertaken in this area by both teams have shown that while several cities have their
‘event risk and emergency management and policies’ in place, research suggested that public concern and
perception can be managed through proper safety training and awareness, emergency response planning,
and corrective actions after safety review.iv
INTRODUCTION According to Festivals and Events Ontario’s “2011 Economic Impacts Fact Sheet”, Toronto hosts
approximately 1980 events each year; including the series of ‘special events’ produced by the City of
Toronto's Economic Development & Culture division and several bids that allow one time hosting
opportunities, yet significant hall mark eventsv of mass gatheringvi such as the recent IIFA (International
Indian Film Academy Awards).
The impactvii of events is a growing area of interest and study for sports, tourism events stakeholders, organizers, city planners, emergency management and public safety planners (frontline responders), practitioners and academicians. However, with the fast emerging trend of spontaneous human behaviours fuelled by social media (a latent force) viii and recorded across global cities (Vancouverix and Montreal), event crisis and subsequent crowd control has become both a flaming challenge and a matter of public safety and security concern.
Integrated planning and preparedness of mass gatherings provides an opportunity to identify at-risk crowds. Risk assessments within the events industry are an everyday occurrence. From an event organizer’s perspective, risk management is an essential part of event management because risk can directly cause a failed or unsuccessful event. Therefore considerations for risk management could be more important than planning and designing events.
6 | P a g e
The focus of this study remains on “mass gathering, crowd management and public perception” to host events, in view of recent occurrences, by using past instances as a means to identify gaps and better prepare and coordinate between stakeholders in the future.
OBJECTIVES Event Management Analysis: examine some of the hallmark events or events of mass gathering Toronto plays host to each year and their multi-dimensional impacts on Toronto. Create and carry out a structured survey to gauge awareness and perception of public and event organizers on risk and public safety settings as they relate to planning future hosting events. Research questions addressed -Define a ‘mass gathering’ with respect to a city like Toronto -What are the perceived risks, public perceptions, challenges, dynamics or levels or preparedness
METHODOLOGY Participants Approximately 3500 participants were approached: including event organizers, tourism practitioners, policy makers, event volunteers, risk, emergency and security forces, emergency management and business continuity practitioners, professional associations, engage community partners and relevant stakeholders, as well as Centennial College faculty and students within respective schools and programs. Methods and Measures A second phase of the literature review and studies was undertaken to determine the domain and key factors associated with risk/ resident perceptions to build the study design:
Systematic approach to explore the dynamics of a host city vis-à-vis event preparedness via secondary literature review and event analysis
Secondary research, review of published reports, previously conducted surveys or case studies, electronic articles
Survey Design
A structured survey was customized (from data / information obtained through secondary research) to suit the purpose of this study;
The survey was carried out online using ‘Survey Monkey’. Data Processing A sample size of 380 respondents was considered for this descriptive study designed to understand attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of the key stakeholders (public safety & emergency management forces, event planners, organizers) All clean survey data was compiled, reviewed and analyzed by the research team with the assistance of a data analyst (data compilation and generating basic reports). Data was analyzed using a combination of Survey Monkey Analytics, Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) and Microsoft Excel.
7 | P a g e
SURVEY RESULTS
Respondent Summary
Response Rate
The minimum response rate on a given question was 78%, and the average response rate was 81%. Hence, on
average, we can be 99% sure that 78-84% of the population would have picked the same answer.
Survey Demographics
Overall, the survey respondents have a relatively even distribution among gender, age, and place of residence.
58% of the populations were Female, and 36% were male. 90% of the survey respondents were between 20 and
60 years old.
8 | P a g e
The respondents of the survey were equally distributed across the GTA, with 27% of the population residing in
Scarborough. This ensures that the survey reflects views of a variety of individuals.
Respondent Knowledge
Survey respondents were asked to rate their knowledge level of mass gatherings hosted in Toronto each year. 23%
responded that they were directly involved with some of these events. Throughout the detailed analysis, we will
look into the responses of the ‘average’ person (Those who know a little, or none) vs. those who are directly
involved. It is not surprising that 75% of the respondents between ages 20-29 have knowledge that is influenced
by the media.
9 | P a g e
These 20-29 year olds amount to 34% of all of the respondents who claimed to have knowledge based on what
they heard in the media. High knowledge responedents were relatively equally split between all age groups.
10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
General Perceptions In the following sections, we will take a deeper look into perceptions that exist in the GTA regarding Mass
Gatherings in Toronto.
Number of Mass Gaterings Held in Toronto per Year
Overall, the number of Mass Gatherings held each year in Toronto was equally split between the three buckets.
It’s interesting to note that the 50% of individuals who have direct contact to the Mass Gathering industry believe
that Toronto has more than 100 events each year. This is completely opposite for the respondents between the
ages of 20 & 30, where only 27% of people felt that there were more than 100 respondents.
12 | P a g e
The Biggest Challenges
Between the 8 options that were provided, it was perceived by 47% of the respondents that the biggest challenge
is Safety and Security. When taking the average rating of each potential challenge, with 1 being the most complex,
and 8 being the least complex, we saw similar results. Following Safety & Security, Crowd & Group Behaviour came
as second both as the biggest challenge, as well ast he biggest overall challenge. The others had average ratings of
3.5-5.5, and <10% of the respondents rated it as their perception of a biggest challenge.
Fields to Focus On
74% of the respondents believed that event planning requires the greatest attention when planning for mass
gatherings. The other options were Public Health & Health Care. Of the “High Knowledge” population, this
percentage moved up to 82%, with only 7% importance placed in Health Care.
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
Public Health Issues
Public Health Issues was rated as the second most important field to focus attention on. Specific public health
issues were ranked in order of importance. Respondents were asked to rank the issues in order of importance,
with 1 being the most important and 4 being the least important. 57% of respondents ranked Food, Water &
Sanitation as #1, followed by a 19% rank of Environmental, physical, and technological hazards. As the “#1 ranking
percentage” went down, the average ranking went up proportionally, indicating that what people find ‘most’
important is also reflective of all the other possible ranks (2-4).
15 | P a g e
Health Services Issues
Health Services Issues were rated as least important. Over 60% of the respondents rated Emergency Medical
Services as the most important issue, and this corresponded with the lowest ranking. While only 14% of
respondents rated Alcohol & Drug control as the most important issue, the average ranking was the second
highest, meaning that on average, this isn’t as important an issue as first aid posts and medical services in the area.
Event Planning & Response Issues
Event Planning & Response was rated as the most important issue by nearly ¾ of the respondents. Of the 10 issues,
public safety and security was rated as the ‘most important’ by 30% of the respondents, and this corresponded
with the lowest average rating. Based on the average rating, “Risk/thread assessment” came second, followed by
“Emergency Response Plan” and “Spectator management”. The remaining issues were in line with the “most
important” rating. Public Media & Social Media were rated as the highest issue by only 8 respondents (3%), which
is definitely an interesting observation given the current usage of social media to spread awareness of group
gatherings.
16 | P a g e
Event Planning Deliverables
Of the event planning deliverables, 47% rated pre event planning as #1. Safety was a close second, with the
average score being only 0.3 away from event planning. Public Health, medical care, additional safety all had a
rating of <=4%. The psychological dimension, similar to earlier analysis was rated as the least important factor
overall.
17 | P a g e
Factors Influencing Crowd Behaviour
Respondents rated Drugs & Alcohol as the number one influencing factor for big crowds. This was followed closely
by unreasonable force by authority. In this case, the highest rating and the average rating were directly correlated.
Increase in Risk of Unlawful behaviour
63% of the respondents agree or strongly agree that mass gatherings incrase the risk of unlawful behaviour
18 | P a g e
Police Approach
43% of the respondents agree or strongly agree that police should take a zero tolerance approach in crowd
management or control . Those who agree & strongly agree are split relatively evenly between the different age
groups, but 70% of those who agree & strongly agree fall in the medium knowledge category.
19 | P a g e
The high knowledge population was relatively even split between the five responses, with 39% leaning towards
agree/strongly agree. 43% of Medium Knowledge respondents leaned towards “Agree”
20 | P a g e
Magnitude of Complexity
76% of the respondents feel that mass gatherings present the most complex management challenges (Agree or
Strongly Agree). High knowledge respondents agree with the overall method.
21 | P a g e
Adequacy of Partnerships
Overall, 65% of the population either Agree or Strongly Agree that the partnerships are adequate.
These ratios remained the same for the ‘average’ population with little or no knowledge.
22 | P a g e
However, for people with high knowledge, while the ratio of strongly agree & agree remained similar, less people
were on the fence (Neither agree nor disagree). There were more respondents in the ‘disagree’ category.
Impact
Professional Impact
The overall impact professionally was only 35.6%, presumably those who worked in Toronto.
23 | P a g e
It is interesting to note that for those who aren’t directly involved with mass gatherings (Knowledge level of low or
medium), the professional impact was a mere 29%. This is low in comparison to those who are involved
(Knowledge level high), where the professional impact was 57%.
The respondents who were impacted professionally by mass gatherings were relatively evenly split between the
age groups.
24 | P a g e
Personal Impact
The personal impact from mass gatherings in Toronto was evenly split between “Yes” and “No”
To those individuals who are involved directly with mass gatherings, the impact to their personal life was 72%.
25 | P a g e
Of those who were personally impacted, 31% were 20-29 year olds. 100% of these respondents fell in the “little”
category, indicating that their invovlement with media may be may be related to their personal impact
26 | P a g e
Personal vs. Professional
For those who are directly involved, their personal and professional impact is correlated. However, for an ‘average’
person with little or no knowledge, over 50% of the respondents with personal impact didn’t have any professional
impact.
Knowledge- High
Personal Impact
Yes No
Professional Impact
Yes 47% 10%
No 24% 19%
Knowledge- Medium/ Low
Personal Impact
Yes No
Professional Impact
Yes 21% 8%
No 25% 46%
How people are Affected
Lack of security and safety effected 70% of the respondents who were effected personally or professionally by
mass gatherings. This was closely followed by lack of access to transportation and traffic density.
27 | P a g e
The severity of negative impact caused by mass gatherings was rated as “high” only by 5% of the population.
Of the 37% who rated it as “Medium Impact”, 70% came from the respondents with little or no knowledge of mass
gatherings. This could indicate that those who do have knowledge may be more prepared to deal with potential
negative impacts. The age groups that were moderately impacted were relatively evenly split.
28 | P a g e
29 | P a g e
Factors that Negatively Impact our Image
Riots were rated as the biggest factor to negatively impact our image by 50 % of the respondents. This was also
given the overall lowest rating (Where a rating of 1 is highest impact, and 6 is lowest impact). While casualties &
injuries and disease & outbreak were nearly tied as the #1 biggest factor, casualties and injuries had a much lower
overall rating. It is interesting to note that social media and mob mentality had a low overall rating.
Impact as a Tourist Destination
76% of the respondents believe that a mass gathering raises the profile of the city as a tourist destination. In
comparison, only 9% of the people disagree or strongly disagree of the same. This % carried through to the high
knowledge population. 83% of respondents feel that hosting mass gatherings would secure bids to host mega
events in the future.
30 | P a g e
31 | P a g e
Impact to Citizens of Toronto
66% of respondents agree or strongly agree that mass gatherings have a positive impact to the City of Toronto.
This # corresponds to 61% of the high knowledge respondents, and 67% of the medium population. This trend
also carried through to the 20-29 year old age group.
32 | P a g e
33 | P a g e
Mass Gathering Experiences
Ease of Identifying Public Safety or Event Staff
57% of the respondents agree or strongly agree that event staff is easily identifiable. However, 69% of the high
knowledge population has the same understanding, compared to only 56% of those with little knowledge and 55%
of those within the ages of 20-30.
34 | P a g e
35 | P a g e
Prescence of Alcohol vs. Safety
61% of the respondents believe that the presence of alcohol negatively affects event safety. However, 72% of the
respondents agree or strongly agree that the alcohol related preventative measures are adequate. Respondents
between the ages of 20-29 most believed that alcohol affected event safety (“Agree” or “Strongly Agree”). This age
group also most believed that there was sufficient preventative measures are being taken.
36 | P a g e
37 | P a g e
38 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1. Betlehem, J., & Schaefer, J. (2010). Emergency medical preparedness during the 2006 World Cup in
Frankfurt, Germany. Disasters, 34(1), 155-163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01119.x
2. Blyth, C. C., Hong, F., van Hal, S. J., Hurt, A. C., Barr, I. G., McPhie, K., & ... Dwyer, D. E. (2010). Influenza
outbreaks during World Youth Day 2008 mass gathering. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16(5), 809-815.
doi:10.3201/eid1605.091136
3. Dutch, M., Senini, L., & Taylor, D. (2008). Mass gathering medicine: The Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth
Games experience. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 20(3), 228-233. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
4. Filo, K., Funk, D., & O'Brien, D. (2010). The antecedents and outcomes of attachment and sponsor image
within charity sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 24(6), 623-648. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
5. Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., Jin, A., & Chen, B. T. (2011). Temporal change in resident perceptions of a mega-event:
The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. Tourism Geographies, 13(2), 299-324.
doi:10.1080/14616688.2010.529935
6. Gutman, S. J., Lund, A., & Turris, S. A. (2011). Medical support for the 2009 World Police and Fire Games: A
descriptive analysis of a large-scale participation event and its impact. Prehospital & Disaster Medicine, 26(1),
33-39. doi:10.1017/S1049023X10000117
7. Hadjichristodoulou, C., Mouchtouri, V., Soteriades, E. S., Vaitsi, V., Kolonia, V., Vasilogiannacopoulos, A. P., &
Kremastinou, J. (2005). Mass gathering preparedness: The experience of the Athens 2004 Olympic and Para-
Olympic Games. Journal of Environmental Health, 67(9), 52-57. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
8. Hall, S. (2010). An examination of British Sport Security strategies, legislation, and risk management
practices. Sport Journal, 13(2), Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
9. Hall, S. (2006). Effective security management of university sport venues. Sport Journal, 9(4), Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
10. Hall, S., Marciani, L., Phillips, D., & Cunningham, T. (2009). Spectator perceptions of security management at
a NASCAR (Natiosprnal Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) event. Sport Journal, 12(1), Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
39 | P a g e
11. Hallmann, K., Kaplanidou, K., & Breuer, C. (2010). Event image perceptions among active and passive sports
tourists at marathon races. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 12(1), 37-52. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
12. Hoon Chin, L. (2010). The influenza A (H1N1-2009) experience at the inaugural Asian Youth Games
Singapore 2009: Mass gathering during a developing pandemic. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(7),
528-532. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
13. Hutton, A., Roderick, A., & Munt, R. (2010). Lessons learned at World Youth Day: Collecting data and using
postcards at mass gatherings. Prehospital & Disaster Medicine, 25(3), 273-277. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
14. Jie, Y., Xuehui, Z., & Yingkang, G. (2010). Local residents' perceptions of the impact of 2010 EXPO. Journal of
Convention & Event Tourism, 11(3), 161-175. doi:10.1080/15470148.2010.502030
15. Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2010). The meaning and measurement of a sport event experience among active
sport tourists. Journal of Sport Management, 24(5), 544-566. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
16. Kerr, G. W. (2003). Emergency medical planning at soccer matches. International SportMed Journal, 4(1), 1-5.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
17. Khan, K., Freifeld, C. C., Wang, J., Mekaru, S. R., Kossowsky, D., Sonricker, A. L., & ... Brownstein,
18. J. S. (2010). Preparing for infectious disease threats at mass gatherings: The case of the Vancouver 2010
Olympic Winter Games. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(6), 579-583.
doi:10.1503/cmaj.100093
19. Ko, Y., Zhang, J., Cattani, K., & Pastore, D. (2011). Assessment of event quality in major spectator sports.
Managing Service Quality, 21(3), 304-322. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
20. Konstantaki, M., & Wickens, E. (2010). Residents' perceptions of environmental and security issues at the
2012 London Olympic Games. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(4), 337-357.
doi:10.1080/14775085.2010.533921
21. Lars, E. (2010). Sports injuries and illnesses during the Winter Olympic Games 2010. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 44(11), 772-780. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
22. Leonard, R., Winslow, J., & Bozeman, W. (2007). Planning medical care for high-risk mass gatherings. Internet
Journal of Rescue & Disaster Medicine, 6(1), Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
40 | P a g e
23. Lund, A. A. (2011). Mass gathering medicine: A practical means of enhancing disaster preparedness in
Canada. CJEM: Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(4), 231-236. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
24. Ranse, J., & Zeitz, K. (2010). Chain of survival at mass gatherings: A case series of resuscitation events.
Prehospital & Disaster Medicine, 25(5), 457-463. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
25. Ritchie, B. W., Shipway, R., & Cleeve, B. (2009). Resident perceptions of mega-sporting events: A non-host city
perspective of the 2012 London Olympic Games. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14(2/3), 143-167.
doi:10.1080/14775080902965108
26. Shelton, S., & Haire, S. (1997). Medical care for mass gatherings at collegiate football games. Southern
Medical Journal, 90 (11), 1081. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
27. Smith, W. P., Wessels, V., Naicker, D., Leuenberger, E., Fuhri, P., & Wallis, L. A. (2010). Development of a mass
mass-gathering medical resource matrix for a developing world scenario. Prehospital & DisasterMedicine,
25(6), 547-552. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
28. Soyoung, B., & Huimin, G. (2010). Risk perception of mega-events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(2), 139-
161. doi:10.1080/14775085.2010.498257
29. Steven H., A., Ethan, A., & Jake, H. (2005). Management of sports facilities: Stress and terrorism since 9/11.
Management Research News, 28(7), 69-83. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
30. Stott, C. (2008). Policing football crowds in England and Wales: a model of 'good practice'? Policing & Society,
18(3), 258-281. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
31. Thackway, S., Churches, T., Fizzell, J., Muscatello, D., & Armstrong, P. (2009). Should cities hosting mass
gatherings invest in public health surveillance and planning? Reflections from a decade of mass gatherings in
Sydney, Australia. BMC Public Health, 9324-333. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-324
32. Warren, I., & Hay, R. (2009). 'Fencing them in': the A-League, policing and the dilemma of public order. Soccer
& Society, 10(1), 124-141. doi:10.1080/14660970802472726
33. P, Willick, S., Ferrer, O., Wilkinson, M., Stewart, R., Sasyniuk, T., & ... Taunton, J. (2011). The Vancouver 2010
paralympic winter games medical care programme: facts, figures and recommendations. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 45(4), 311. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
41 | P a g e
34. Woodall, J., Watt, K., Walker, D., Tippett, V., Enraght-Moony, E., Bertolo, C., & ... Morrison, G. (2010). Planning
volunteer responses to low-volume mass gatherings: do event characteristics predict patient workload?
Prehospital & Disaster Medicine, 25(5), 442-448. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
35. Yong, Z., & Ap, J. (2009). Residents' perceptions towards the impacts of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 78-91. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
36. Zeitz, K., Tan, H., Grief, M., Couns, P., & Zeitz, C. (2009). Crowd behavior at mass gatherings: A literature
review. Prehospital & Disaster Medicine, 24(1), 32-38. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
37. Zekulin, M. (2009). Olympic security: Assessing the risk of terrorism at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Games.
Journal Of Military And Strategic Studies, 12(1). Retrieved from
http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/286
38. Zhou, J. (2010). Resident perceptions toward the impacts of the Macao Grand Prix. Journal of Convention &
Event Tourism, 11(2), 138-153. doi:10.1080/15470148.2010.485179
42 | P a g e
SECONDARY RESEARCH
1. ARD Inc. (2008). Public Perception Survey: Jordan Customs Administration Modernization Program. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK957.pdf
2. Boo, S., Gu, Huimin. (2010). Risk Perception of Mega-events. Journal of Sports & Tourism, 15(2), 139-161.
3. Department of Disaster Management, British Virgin Islands. (2005). Mass Gathering Plan, Jost Van
Dyke, New Year's Eve Celebration 2005. Retrieved from http://www.bviddm.com/document-center/Mass%20Gathering%20Plan.pdf
4. Fast Consulting. (2009). Saskatoon Health Region 2009 Health Survey: Report Summary.
http://www.saskatoonhealthregion.ca/about_us/documents/shr_public_perception_survey_2009.pdf
5. Federal Signal, Safety and Security Systems. (2011). Diving deeper into America's Greatest Public Safety Concerns, 2011 Annual Public Safety Survey: http://www.alertnotification.com/pdf/Diving_deeper_into_Americas_greatest_public_safety_concerns_web.pdf
6. Lysyshyn, M. (2010). 2010 Retrospective: Canada's Mass Gathering and Special Event Challenges.
2010 Emergency Preparedness Forum. http://www.goldenplanners.ca/2010Forum/presentations/LysyshynMarkEN.pdf
7. The European Opinion Research Group. (2003). Public Safety, Exposure to Drug Related Problems and Crime:
Public Opinion Survey. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_181_en.pdf
8. Zielinski, A., Pawlak, B.J. (DATE?). Toolbox for Implementation of Surveillance at Mass Gatherings. National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene. Retrieved from http://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Prevention/React/Work/wp4/WP_4_ToolBox.pdfblob=publicationFile
43 | P a g e
Citations i Hallmann, K. Kaplanidow, K : Event Image perceptions among active and passive sports tourists at marathon races. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, October 2010; 37 - 51 ii Zeitz, K. M., Tan, H. T: Crowd Behavior at Mass Gatherings: a Literature Review. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine. 2009:24, no. 1.
http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu iii Ritchie, Brent W. Shipway Richar & Cleeve, Bethany: Resident Perceptions of Mega Sporting Events: A Non-Host City Perspective of
the 2012 London Olympic games. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 2009: 14, nos. 2 -3, pp.143-167 iv Boo Soyoung & Gu Huimin: Risk Perception of Mega-events: Journal of Sport & Tourism, 2010: 15, NO. 2, pp. 139 – 161.
v Definition of ‘hallmark events’
vi GeoJournal Volume 19, Number 3, 263-268, DOI: 10.1007/BF00454570 Geography of Tourism and Recreations, The definition and
analysis of Hallmark Events by Colin. M. Hall
vii Mass Gathering Article by WHO, health focus/ impacts
http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/MassGatheringflyer_EN.pdf
vii Resource Guide: The Impact of Events
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/resource_guides/the_impact_of_events.pdf
viii Negative Network effect: Social Media being ‘accelerants’ for event crisis
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/network-effects-social-medias-role-in-the-london-riots-08082011.html
ix Vancouver slips from top spot of ‘livable city’ Stanley Cup riots a factor for future ratings?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/vancouver-slips-down-economist-livability-list-over-island-182317391.html
