The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Shaping event
Shaping the event portfolio portfolio
management field: premises management

and integration
Vassilios Ziakas 3523
Independent Scholar, Leeds, UK, and
Received 28 May 2020
Donald Getz Revised 28 July 2020
5 September 2020
University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Accepted 6 September 2020

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine how various academic disciplines shape the field of event portfolio
management. Given the complex nature of portfolios comprising different genres that are studied separately
from their respective disciplinary realms, the academic event portfolio landscape remains fragmented. This is
against the nature of portfolios, which requires inter-disciplinarity and novel integration of genres,
stakeholders and perspectives.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a scoping literature review, this conceptual paper sets up a
common ground for the academic study and industrial development of event portfolio management.
Findings – A comprehensive view of event portfolio literature across disciplines reveals its hypostasis as a
compound transdisciplinary field. The authors suggest a set of foundational premises whereby they identify
22 principal thematic areas that comprise this emerging field.
Practical implications – The establishment of event portfolio management as a distinct field will help in
the osmosis and diffusion of new ideas, models and best practices to run and leverage portfolios. The portfolio
perspective highlights the need for cohesive learning to design comprehensive systems of events, implement
joint strategies, solidify social networks, coordinate multiple stakeholders and develop methods of holistic
evaluation.
Originality/value – By examining comprehensively event portfolio management as a transdisciplinary
field, the authors have been able to identify principal research directions and priorities. This comprehensive
analysis provides a synergistic ground, which at this embryonic stage of development, can be used to set out
joint trajectories and reciprocal foci across the whole span of scholarship studying planned series of events.
Keywords Place-making, Event management, Destination management, Event leveraging,
Event portfolio, Eventfulness
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
The usage of event portfolios by host destinations is steadily increasing worldwide as cities
and regions assemble multiple events to serve multiple policy ends (Antchak et al., 2019;
Richards and Palmer, 2010). Event portfolios represent a new heuristic model and outlook
for event management that dictates a shift from the traditional focus on single events
toward managing a strategic array of events (Ziakas, 2019). However, there appears
ambiguity over the concept of event portfolio, especially regarding its relationship to International Journal of
financial (Markowitz, 1952) or product portfolios (Henderson, 1970), and the kind of Contemporary Hospitality
Management
approaches needed for the effective management and sustainable growth of event portfolios Vol. 32 No. 11, 2020
pp. 3523-3544
(Andersson et al., 2017; Getz and Page, 2016; Ziakas, 2014a). In other words, should event © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
portfolios be treated as financial and commercial assets or as socio-cultural constructs? The DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2020-0486
IJCHM truth seems to lie somewhere between these polar opposites if we consider the multi-
32,11 dimensional nature of events and their multifaceted impacts for communities. Consequently,
event portfolios need to be viewed as an exercise of integration to accommodate and
synergize multiple events, stakeholders, interests and perspectives (Antchak et al., 2019;
Ziakas, 2014a). In pragmatic terms, undoubtedly, to develop such comprehensive
management responses is an intricate endeavor.
3524 In addressing these concerns, a comprehensive attempt has emerged in the literature
defining the event portfolio phenomenon as:
the strategic patterning of disparate but interrelated events taking place during the course of a
year in a host community that as a whole is intended to achieve multiple outcomes through the
implementation of joint event strategies (Ziakas, 2014a, p. 14).
This perspective positions the event portfolio as a strategic tool to make host destinations
“eventful.” Eventfulness is a fundamental principle describing a holistic approach taken by
cities to develop comprehensive calendar programs of events for serving their different
policy ends (Richards and Palmer, 2010). Situating the event portfolio as a means to achieve
eventfulness provides a broader conceptualization than previous business-driven
approaches. This can also help reconcile the economic and socio-cultural tensions among
different events as their cumulative value coalesces to shape portfolios as a multi-purpose
policy tool (Ziakas and Costa, 2011a). This comprehensive take on portfolios is predicated on
a leveraging perspective intended to harness different types of events in pursuit of
accomplishment and amplification of particular purposes. Events included in a portfolio can
be either periodic or occasional one-off events of different types and magnitude to attract a
varied span of audience markets. In so doing, portfolio managers should cultivate synergies
among disparate events that can optimize the contribution of all events to the aggregate
value of the portfolio.
Nevertheless, the comprehensive treatment of event portfolios is inhibited by
disciplinary fragmentation. Although portfolios usually consist of a mix of sport, cultural
and business events, their study continues to derive primarily from the disciplinary confines
of either event tourism/hospitality- or sport-related fields. This innate division constrains
the cultivation of interdisciplinary and comprehensive approaches, which are necessary for
the thorough treatment and sustainable development of event portfolios (Antchak et al.,
2019). Also, the challenges of managing portfolios substantially escalate as the number of
multiple stakeholders, who might have antithetical interests, enlarges in total (Todd et al.,
2017; Van Niekerk and Getz, 2019). Furthermore, to comprehensively capture and evaluate
the multifarious impacts of multiple events and whole portfolios is an unexplored territory
and new methods are needed (Getz, 2018, 2019; Wallstam et al., 2020). As a result, it is not
surprising that the vast majority of event-related scholarship continues to focus on
individual events and not their assemblage to portfolios. This imbalance is a major setback
that still persists because of the established tradition of all disciplines to study single events.
Likewise, academic curricula are based on individual events with little integration of
portfolios.
In response to the above challenges, this conceptual paper examines how various
academic disciplines shape the emerging field of event portfolio management. The
particular goals are to build a common ground upon which comprehensive management
responses can be nurtured and unpack the foundational premises of a holistic perspective,
which is instrumental in portfolio management. We argue that the consolidative nature of
the event portfolio concept provides a flexible terrain, one transcending its parent disciplines
that construct it as a transdisciplinary field. Principal subject areas constituting the field are Shaping event
identified and a research agenda is put forth. portfolio
management
Event tourism and hospitality portfolio management
The first comprehensive application of the portfolio concept to the events realm is traced
back to 1997 with the introduction of the pyramid model by Getz who introduced the idea for
destinations to develop strategically a series of events like companies manage their line of
products. As such, the pyramid model built on product portfolio management (Henderson,
3525
1970) identifying a range of values and an events’ hierarchy based on both their function
and quantity with the aim to boost event-tourism product development (Getz, 1997). The
pyramid model for event portfolios was conceptualized to convey both the observed pattern
of events, with a base of many small, locally oriented events and only occasional mega-
events at the pinnacle, and the tourism-planning strategy of building competitiveness from
the ground up. In this model and subsequent revisions [as in the community-oriented
version found in Antchak et al. (2019, p. 54)], periodic hallmark and iconic events “owned” by
cities and destinations are advocated to both serve residents and attract tourists. Hallmark
events are defined as being traditional and co-branded with the destination, while iconic
events appeal to special-interest groups; these terms define functions, not types of event.
The hospitality literature related to portfolio management includes three themes, the first
being financial consideration of investments (Kizildag, 2015) and the second being tourism-
related papers such as that by Águas et al. (2000), who examined market segments for
Portugal. Van Niekerk (2017, p. 4), in a guest editorial for a special issue on events and
destination management, commented that “Tourism destinations should have a balanced
event portfolio [. . .],” thereby reflecting current thinking in both the events and tourism
management fields. The third theme pertains to hotel brand portfolios and includes studies
by Connell (1992) and by Wang and Chung (2015), who integrated corporate strategy and
marketing factors. The Wang and Chung approach demonstrates that hotel brand and event
portfolio strategies both have to consider scope (or balance), risk reduction, fostering
synergies and location. An additional factor for hotel brand portfolios is that of beneficial
internal competition, and this raises a question for event portfolio managers: To what degree
should constituent events be encouraged to share vs compete?
Event portfolios by nature can be very narrow (such as including only sports) or diverse,
incorporating [as per the typology of Getz and Page (2020, p. 59)] cultural celebrations (e.g.
festivals, carnivals and pilgrimage), business and trade (e.g. fairs, educational and scientific
markets and meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions), arts and entertainment,
sport and recreation and political, state and private functions (e.g. parties and weddings and
rites of passage and reunions). Hospitality venues such as hotels, resorts, restaurants and
convention/exhibition centers are critical to the event sector, alongside public parks, squares
and streets.

Event leveraging: theoretical underpinnings of the event portfolio outlook

Event management scholarship started to look more systematically at the event portfolio
concept with the introduction of the sport event leverage theoretical lens by Chalip in 2004.
Event leveraging brought a new strategic mindset that shifted the focus from an ex post
evaluation of event impacts predominant at that time toward an ex ante analytic and
relational account of identifying strategies and tactics in pursuit of obtaining and
amplifying desired outcomes (Chalip, 2004). The underlying logic of leveraging is to more
effectively integrate events into the host destination’s product mix to optimize intended
event outcomes (O’Brien and Chalip, 2008; Ziakas and Costa, 2011b). From this perspective,
IJCHM events are not ad hoc interventions in themselves. On the contrary, they are seen as
32,11 opportunities for undertaking wider leveraging interventions tailored to the specific needs
and context of the host destination.
In the pioneering work that spelled out the conceptual foundations of strategic
leveraging, Chalip (2004) presented a model for leveraging sport events; the model
presupposed and positioned at its core, a portfolio of events as a leverageable resource
3526 aimed at optimizing intended outcomes. This represented an explicit recognition of the often
overlooked inherent limitation of events: individual events, no matter their size, are
temporary and so their benefits are short-lived (Chalip, 2014). To overcome ephemerality,
Chalip and Costa (2005) with a focus on incorporating events into destination branding
suggested that the task is not to capitalize on individual events, but that instead, every event
has to be cross-leveraged with other events in the context of the host destination’s portfolio
and overall product mix. Subsequently, events of a portfolio should be scheduled across
various times of the year and reach a spectrum of targeted consumer markets with each
event complementing and/or reinforcing the positive outcomes obtained by other events
(Chalip, 2004).
Based upon leveraging logics, Ziakas and Costa (2011a) put forward a holistic
conceptualization of event portfolio as a multi-purpose development tool that bears the
potential to integrate multiple economic, social, sport and other policy objectives. They built
a comprehensive framework viewing an event portfolio as a dynamic space made by the
interchange of network relationships, event meanings, impacts and resident perceptions,
which are affected by event delivery and consequent outcomes. The framework places at its
core the need for genuine and inclusive representation of community concerns, worldviews,
interests and attached event meanings, upon which a synergistic founding logic can be
nurtured; thereby, embedding an event portfolio into the host community’s institutional
context and socio-cultural fabric.
Overall, this holistic approach was built on ethnographic work about the agrarian town
of Fort Stockton, Texas (Ziakas, 2007), and produced a series of studies that examined the
nature of its event portfolio and use in regional development (Ziakas, 2010, 2013; Ziakas and
Costa, 2010, 2011b). This work showed the event portfolio as a socially embedded
configuration in local life that facilitated the development of a holistic approach for
establishing synergy between sport and cultural events, serving multiple purposes and
enhancing residents’ quality of life (Ziakas and Costa, 2011b). Furthermore, Ziakas (2013)
applied the lens of dramaturgy to the portfolio context, examining how the symbolic
representations of multiple events enable synergies among them. This paper led to the
development of a multidimensional dramatological perspective regarding a series of events
as consecutive episodes of dramatic stories and sources of polysemy that convey versions of
the host community’s social order. In this manner, the event portfolio epitomized a symbolic
social context, hence enabling the mirroring of different aspects of community life. Thematic
continuities among events reconfirmed the symbolic meanings, with each one bolstering the
messages of the others. Outcomes of this work contributed to the conceptualization of events
as symbolic social spaces (Ziakas and Costa, 2012).
Ensuing research recognized portfolios as a strategic highly versatile policy tool, which
is contingent upon local destination needs and contexts. Specifically, Gibson et al. (2012)
illustrated in the instance of Gainesville, Florida, the value of a small-sized sport event
portfolio for sustainable tourism based on the local conditions of a small college town with a
passion for sport. Likewise, Clark and Misener (2015) observed in London, Ontario that local
conditions, favoring the popularity of winter sports, enabled the grouping of sport “ice”
events as a means for urban development. Further studies include the cases of a Portuguese
resort where local conditions assisted the development of a costal sport event portfolio Shaping event
(Pereira et al., 2015); an Italian highly seasonal 3S-mass destination that considered to use an portfolio
event portfolio for its tourism repositioning (Presenza and Sheehan, 2013); and a New
Zealand small city that targeted family audiences through a culturally inclusive portfolio to
management
enhance their quality of life, family flourishing and maintenance of indigenous culture
(Booth and Cameron, 2020).
The above studies illustrate a primary engagement of portfolio literature with
destination branding and sustainability providing support that effective portfolios should 3527
comply with a destination’s resources and infrastructure, but also integrate destination
experiences with the events. This line of inquiry highlights the importance of identifying the
means to cultivate integration of event portfolios with the host destination, including mixed
bundling, cross-promotion, co-branding and the establishment of strategic alliances between
destination marketers and event organizers (Boukas et al., 2013; Chalip and McGuirty, 2004).
An earlier study by Taks et al. (2009) set out foundations by examining the effects of a
medium-sized one-off event on a portfolio contributing to its sustainability by stimulating
repeat visitation and flow-on tourism. Moreover, Westerbeek and Linley (2012) stressed that
an event portfolio is important for destination branding as it can build enduring positive
impressions about the destination and its image. This study suggested that cities having
event portfolios increase their chances of being viewed as communities with richer quality of
life, and hence, more attractive to live. Place attractiveness was also studied by Dragin-
Jensen et al. (2016), who compared sport and cultural events in terms of their effects for
attracting new residents and did not find a significant difference.
Another study by Buning et al. (2016) adopted a demand-based view investigating visitor
spending and travel behavior within a portfolio of small-sized mountain bike events in
North America to appraise their effects on the sustainability of the regional economy. Their
findings revealed that while events significantly differed in terms of expenditure and travel
behavior, their overall effects within the portfolio attracted a wide range of participants and
the highest overall visitor spending. Along these lines, Salgado-Barandela et al. (2019)
undertook an economic impact study of a sport event portfolio in Spain developing a
quantitative method for estimating the generation of tourism income from the events of a
portfolio. This study indicated the portfolio’s substantial injection of money to the local
economy.
Going back to the roots of portfolio thinking, Pereira et al. (2015, 2020) scrutinized the
strategic leveraging processes of a sport event portfolio in the Portuguese tourist resort
Portimão that put together a specialized portfolio of coastal events to enhance its nautical
brand. Findings pinpointed the lack of a comprehensive deliberate vision to systematically
cultivate synergies among events and to foster their supplemental interrelations, which
limited cumulative benefits (Pereira et al., 2015). In extending this study, Pereira et al. (2020)
found the coexistence of multiple leveraging goals and a subsequent set of tactics to be
effectively executed via the coordination of the network of event-supporting organizations,
including both local and external actors. This corroborates previous claims (Ziakas, 2014a,
2014b, 2019) for the critical part of an exogenous to event organizers board tasked with the
coordination of portfolio leveraging actions. Similarly, Kelly and Fairley (2018) reported the
formation of an event board as being able to build and enhance interconnections among
public and private stakeholders who became members to monitor the progress and growth
of an event portfolio. Furthermore, Dickson et al. (2018) in examining the case of Cook
Islands’ event strategy substantiated that network relationships and synergies can be
developed by solidifying collaboration within a portfolio. Therefore, building suitable
conduits for collaborative exchanges and reciprocal relationships is essential for the
IJCHM effective implementation of portfolio leveraging (Chalip, 2004; Ziakas, 2014a; Ziakas and
32,11 Costa, 2010).
The event leveraging perspective has been recently extended to the tourism realm by
Ziakas (2020) who proposed a tourism leveraging model to thoroughly incorporate sport events
into destination place-making. The model brings forward the suite of interrelated destination
capitals (i.e. socio-cultural, human, environmental, financial, political and technological assets)
3528 as the foundation of portfolio leveraging (Sharpley, 2009). It suggests the fundamental task of
cross-leveraging them with the components of the event portfolio to obtain and magnify
sustainable tourism outcomes for the destination. It posits that the development of a discursive
public sphere is pivotal in the planning and leveraging processes to engage different
stakeholders in deliberation on for taking action to attain common ends (Dredge and Whitford,
2011); this requires the creation of a transparent governance system, which encourages the
participation of locals in portfolio planning processes. In this vein, portfolio governance should
safeguard coordination of cross-leveraging activities between event and destination entities as
well as assist the even distribution of profits among stakeholders (Ziakas, 2015). The model
adopts a systemic circular view to evaluate the impact of implemented strategies through a
triple-bottom-line cost-benefit analysis.
Another fundamental parameter of portfolio leveraging is the need to understand
residents’ perceptions, attitudes and support for implemented strategies. As has been found,
there is a robust link between locals’ perceptions about tourism growth and their viewpoints
of their extent of participation in the crafting of strategy (Presenza and Sheehan, 2013).
Consequently, it is critical to enable the engagement of locals in all the phases of portfolio
planning through all-encompassing participatory planning, hence making the portfolio a
cooperative space wherein stakeholders settle their individual expectations and collectively
act to accomplish common objectives. From this standpoint, appreciating locals’ perceptions
about an event portfolio and understanding how they value events provides a basis for
legitimizing policy and strategy (Gration et al., 2016). This stance coincides with the value
co-creation perspective engaging residents, consumers and other stakeholders in the
production of events (Della Corte et al., 2018; Orefice, 2018).
On the whole, the emerging portfolio literature brings primarily attention on strategic
leveraging, sustainability and place marketing with some research addressing portfolio
governance, community development and quality of life, tourism growth and residents’
valuation of events. It is noticeable that there is an inclination to focus on sport (Pereira et al.,
2015) or cultural (Viol et al., 2018) event portfolios. This reflects a disposition toward
homogenization in studying confined event portfolios, thus insulating the phenomenon
within the sport or tourism management disciplines. As a result, there is limited engagement
with inter-disciplinary approaches. Finally, most scholarship examines predominantly the
supply side of portfolio planning and delivery with far fewer studies focusing on the
demand side of consumer perspectives.

Foundational premises of event portfolio management

Although basic principles and frameworks of event portfolio theory have been suggested in the
literature, they remain fragmented, thus constraining the shaping of an emergent field. Here we
articulate the foundational premises that epitomize the event portfolio management field.

Premise 1: event portfolio management is characterized by relatedness, multiplicity and

opportunities for cross-leverage
The notions of relatedness, multiplicity and cross-leverage demarcate the event portfolio
phenomenon. Relatedness within a portfolio context denotes how events complement each
other, which can take place through capitalizing on organizational capacity, resources, Shaping event
theming, volunteer pools or markets that might be generated and sustained by the range of portfolio
events (Ziakas, 2010, 2013; Ziakas and Costa, 2011a, 2011b). Multiplicity for an event
portfolio concerns its ability to create and express multiple meanings and achieve multiple
management
ends (Ziakas, 2013, 2014a, 2014b) through cross-leveraging events with one another
(Antchak et al., 2019). The underlying principle of this definition is to enable the creation of
synergies among a series of events based on the premise of event portfolios as tools that can
be leveraged for multipurpose development (Ziakas and Costa, 2011a). Cross-leverage of 3529
events with one another and with the host community’s product mix dictates the route for
optimizing multiple portfolio benefits. This requires appreciating interrelationships,
nurturing synergies and augmenting complementarities of events with one another and
identifying the ways they can be supplemented by the attractions, amenities and services of
a host community.

Premise 2: the synergistic dynamics of event portfolio management are enabled by

integrating its contextual, operational and sociocultural aspects
To shed light on the dynamics that can enable synergies within a portfolio, Ziakas (2013)
developed a multi-dimensional model. According to this model, portfolio managers should
be able to associate events both conceptually and functionally, hence nurturing their
interrelations, which comprises the contextual, operational and sociocultural grounds of the
portfolio. The model discerns the “conceptual connectivity” encompassing and expressing
different local viewpoints through metaphoric discourse of attached event meanings and
symbolisms (Handelman, 1990; Turner, 1974), and “instrumental connectivity” including the
policy setting, market/economic conditions, events network, resource capacity and
community idiosyncrasies that influence the implementation of the portfolio. The model
puts forward that the synergistic outlook in the planning of event portfolios has to do
principally with their design process in terms of what events should be selected for inclusion
in the portfolio and their reach, frequency, timely placement and fit as well as the size
(number of events) of the portfolio.

Premise 3: event portfolio management entails processes for integrative strategic planning
and coordination of attendant inter-organizational networks
Ziakas (2014b) built a framework identifying the factors that have an effect on event
portfolio planning and leveraging, namely, the institutional structures, patterns of social
relations, local resources and market demand. As suggested, host communities should base
upon these factors their event portfolio strategies and set to achieve common purposes
across different policy domains (leisure, culture, sport, tourism, etc.). In this process, an
events network is instrumental for integrated portfolio policy-making, planning and
management. The concept is defined as:
the non-institutionalized array of organizations that make decisions and take actions regarding
planning and implementation of events in a host community as well as tend to engage in
relationships that facilitate their goals (Ziakas and Costa, 2011a, p. 414).
The conceptualization of an events network grounded the construction of an inter-
organizational model delineating the event portfolio network as a practical mechanism that
can be quantified and evaluated (Ziakas, 2014b). The model specifies that collaboration
among different organizations within the events network of a portfolio is generally enacted
through information exchange, resource sharing, joint initiatives and joint problem-solving.
These exchanges exemplify links that can be appraised to elucidate the inter-organizational
IJCHM ties and collaboration configurations, including reciprocity and trust across time and
32,11 different conditions (Antchak et al., 2019).

Premise 4: event portfolio management applies to both organic and formalized portfolios
In terms of structuring an event portfolio, there are two archetypal types of event portfolios:
organic and formalized. An organic portfolio is not an explicit structure or the outcome of a
3530 deliberate strategy, but nevertheless its make-up and fabric exemplify emergent portfolio
properties. A formalized portfolio constitutes intentional arrangements methodically
ordered and controlled by a deliberate portfolio strategy. As the event portfolio is a
relatively new phenomenon, the majority of portfolios found worldwide are organic (Clark
and Misener, 2015; Gibson et al., 2012; Pereira et al., 2015; Presenza and Sheehan, 2013;
Ziakas, 2007), while formalized ones gradually increasing with notable examples, such as
the cities of Auckland, Edinburgh, Gold Coast and Gothenburg, or even entire national
regions and countries, such as New Zealand, Scotland and Wales (Antchak et al., 2019). By
developing knowledge and acumen on managing this phenomenon, it is expected that
formalized portfolios will become the norm in the near future.

Premise 5: event portfolio design is the management function that determines the
composition and synergistic quality of portfolios
A comprehensive model of portfolio design was provided by Antchak et al. (2019). As shown
in Figure 1, portfolio design involves the interplay of “composing” and “synergizing”
strategies. Composing includes a set of strategies divided in two groups, namely:
(1) community-oriented ones of owning, growing and creating events; and
(2) market-oriented strategies of sponsoring and bidding for events.

Composing involves deciding what events to select, assigning roles to them and considering
the determinants of portfolio composition, including four critical design factors:
(1) geographical location and seasonality;
(2) local resources;

Figure 1.
Event portfolio
design
 (3) market demand; and Shaping event
(4) industry capability and community capacity. portfolio
management
The event roles can be functional (i.e. image-maker, core attraction, focal celebration and
catalyst) and/or qualitative, which are of iterative and pulsar nature. According to Richards
(2015), iterative events are typically yearly community-embedded events that strengthen
social networks and bonding social capital. Pulsar events, on the other hand, are large-scale
usually one-time occurrences that deliver dynamic changes in terms of developing new
3531
structures, links and opportunities. A symmetrically poised combination of pulsar and
iterative events in a portfolio can offer a varied range of experience for both residents and
visitors and cultivate eventfulness (Richards, 2015). The task for portfolio managers is to
oversee and adapt the compositional formation of the portfolio to harmonize the effects of
functional and qualitative event roles, the contribution of sport, cultural and business events
and the role of hallmark periodic events or one-time major events. A diversity of composing
strategies ensures the addition of varied events in a portfolio. Each event can take its own
strategic part and add to the whole portfolio more substance and wider reach.
Synergizing focuses on the unity and coherence of the overall portfolio. Portfolio synergy
brings to the fore a mindset of balancing events and their benefits, managing the portfolio
calendar and formulating leveraging actions. Thus, portfolio synergizing entails the
detection of strategic means that increase synergy among events in the portfolio. There are
three constituents of portfolio synergizing: balance, scheduling and leveraging. Portfolio
balance concerns the correlation between selected events and associated outcomes. Portfolio
scheduling concerns programming choices that fix the timetabling and congruency of
events. Portfolio leveraging optimizes the portfolio utility and integrates events into the
broader business and community environment.

Premise 6: meta-events expand opportunities for cross-leverage between adjacent

destinations and multiple portfolios
Portfolio design may be expanded and enhanced through cooperation with neighboring
regional portfolios, thereby creating an additional opportunity for cross-leverage of multiple
portfolios. In this regard, Mariani and Giorgio’s (2017) concept of meta-event is particularly
useful. A meta-event transcends current event taxonomies in terms of magnitude and
spatiality comprising compound strata of administrative and inter-regional cooperation
between contending destinations. It is thus possible to conjointly leverage one or multiple
event portfolios by two or more competing host communities. In this fashion, a meta-event
brings forward the prefigured combined effects and supplemental functions that can be
generated, as the interlinked events are congruent. From this standpoint, several contiguous
regions can strategically harness their own event portfolios conjointly, thus exceeding the
spatial borders of a host community’s portfolio, and extending the effects of cooperative
portfolios to broader surrounding locales. This makes possible the establishment of
coalitions among cities or regions to create conjoint event portfolios and attain
diversification through events contained within cooperative portfolios.

Premise 7: different destination contexts generate a variety of event portfolio approaches

and configurations
The study of portfolio design reveals different planning and compositional approaches
taken by cities to develop event portfolios (Antchak and Pernecky, 2017; Richards, 2017a).
For example, in the case of Auckland, Antchak (2017) reports an economic outcomes-driven
approach focusing on a portfolio of major events and an intensive bidding campaign.
IJCHM Conversely, Edinburgh follows a more balanced approach incentivizing locally grown
32,11 festivals, while Gold Coast has a comprehensive portfolio strategy as a means for place
branding (Ziakas, 2019, 2020). A consideration of portfolio design also helps to understand
the role of events in broader place-making strategies (Richards, 2017b). For instance,
Sanders et al. (2015) explored the role and importance of event portfolio for post-disaster
discovery. Walters and Insch (2018) investigated how event portfolio narratives enhance
3532 place marketing, while Viol et al. (2018) examined the emergence of a commemorative
portfolio in event tourism. Further, Almeida et al. (2019) looked at visitor’s satisfaction
within a tourism portfolio and pinpointed common features among events in terms of
tourists’ profiles, market orientation, themes and resources that can enable cross-leverage
for destination development. Clearly, there is an extensive variety of roles that event
portfolios can take contingent upon local needs, physiognomies and characteristics.

Premise 8: event portfolio management sets up generic courses of action and structural
trajectories
Four strategies are identified by Antchak et al. (2019) and Ziakas (2019) for setting the
direction and development of an event portfolio, including symmetrization,
specialization, multi-constellation and macro-expansion. Symmetrization focuses on
the symmetrical grouping of events using a pyramid model to craft a balanced portfolio
by categorizing events in terms of their type and size. In contrast, specialization focuses
primarily on certain kinds of events and attendant aims that they can accomplish.
Multi-constellation concentrates on creating event variety by incorporating a widely
varied spectrum of events. Macro expansion seeks regional enlargement and dispersal,
with the portfolio broadening its spread and magnitude, dispersing its effects to larger
geographic regions. A variant type of this strategy is the formation and coordination of
multiple or overlapping portfolios within one city or region. Multiple portfolios can also
encourage collaboration among neighboring regions through the hosting of meta-
events, enabling them to leverage their own event portfolios conjointly, and thereby
spread out their benefits to larger areas.

Premise 9: event portfolio management depends on the state of a destination’s whole

population of events
An important distinction is between the concepts of event portfolios and whole populations
of events that exist in a community (Getz and Andersson, 2016). Event portfolios are
different from whole populations in that they are managed structures. Still, analyzing the
organizational ecology of event populations is fundamental for portfolios to understand
processes and conditions relating to the birth, growth, health or death of whole populations
within their environment, which provide the vital source of locally grown events for
selecting to include in a strategic portfolio.

Ontological mapping: shaping the event portfolio management field

Theoretical implications: situating the field
Event portfolio management takes a comprehensive stance spanning over planning,
delivery, stakeholder networks, resident attitudes, market demand, leveraging, design and
evaluation. It is, however, at its beginning and there remains a lot of work to be done in the
next years looking thoroughly at the above matters to gain empirical insights and generate
expert know-how. To move forward, it is imperative to delineate event portfolio
management and the associated activity it attracts as an emerging field.
 Considering the compound character of the event portfolio, we can claim that its nature Shaping event
and exigencies demand a holistic treatment, one across and beyond existing disciplinary portfolio
perspectives. This essentially warrants the shaping of event portfolio management as a new management
distinctive and transdisciplinary field of theory and praxis. Accordingly, Figure 2 locates
the field of event portfolio management as an emergent terrain that results from
interchanges among general disciplines and the core parent disciplines of tourism and
hospitality, sport and recreation and event management. This logic leads to the following 3533
propositions for conceptualizing the field:

General Disciplines
(Management, Marketing, Finance,
Anthropology, Sociology, Planning,
Policy, Leisure, Communication)

Sport & Recreation Tourism & Hospitality

Management Management

Sport Fesvals &

Event Porolio
Events Business
Management Field
Events

Figure 2.
Event Management Event portfolio
management as a
transdisciplinary
field
IJCHM P1. Based on the integral role of festivals, sport and business events in portfolio design,
32,11 a comprehensive perspective stems from, and oscillates between, the disciplines of
tourism/hospitality management and sport management.
P2. The extent of cross-disciplinary integration and influence on the event management
domain constitutes the ontogenesis of event portfolio management as a
transdisciplinary field.
3534
Practical implications: creating synergistic portfolio effects
The conceptualization and establishment of the event portfolio management field is
fundamental for the sustainable growth and development of portfolios, allowing osmosis of
ideas to take place and facilitating multi-disciplinary cooperation. This can help transcend
the limited focus on individual events that has been dominant in parent disciplines to date.
A firm transdisciplinary foundation is incumbent to integrate different academic fields and
study comprehensively multiple events. The managerial implications of portfolio thinking
shift attention on fostering complementarities and synergies among different events and
their stakeholders. Simply put, the central task turns from merely designing the marketing
mix of single events to configuring the compound mix of a portfolio by interconnecting all
events and their elements with the host destination’s service ecosystem. In this manner,
events become interrelated components of a portfolio configuration that yields aggregate
value through synergistic effects. Therefore, a portfolio reorientation of event management
praxis stipulates a focus on implementing comprehensive cross-leverage among events
themselves and destination assets.

Subject domains and thematic areas

In view of the complexity and ever-evolving configurational dynamics of the event portfolio
phenomenon, which is intertwined with a broad range of policy agendas, planning issues
and inter-organizational topics, there appears a considerable subject breadth that overall
comprises event portfolio management. While it is challenging to provide an all-
encompassing list of themes and matters relating to portfolio management, an attempt is
being made to identify and categorize foremost loci of topical patterns that epitomize the
lifeblood of this emerging field. Based on the aforementioned premises, we describe in Table
1 the primary subject realms distinguishing thematic domains alongside the general areas
they derive from and the portfolio angle taken on these areas. This account provides a
synergistic ground, which especially at this embryonic stage of event portfolio management
as a distinct field, can be used to set out joint trajectories and reciprocal foci across the whole
span of scholarship studying planned series of events or whole populations. Below, we
briefly outline each subject realm.
Configurational dynamics and design patterns. Host destinations pursue different
approaches in portfolio development (Antchak and Pernecky, 2017) that can be understood
through systems theory. A systems design perspective views event portfolios as living
organisms with the capacity to evolve and adapt to change. Consequently, the design of
portfolios as complex adaptive systems can produce a plethora of dynamics and ever-
evolving configurational patterns (Ziakas, 2019). Main patterns include structure (organic vs
formalized portfolios and top-down vs bottom-up planning), form (composition of large-scale
one-off vs small-scale periodic events and homogeneous specialized vs heterogeneous
diversified portfolios), programming (hosting overlapping vs distinct events and scheduling
at high-peak vs off-peak season) and magnitude (high pace vs low pace frequency of events
and small vs large volume of portfolio). Further patterns and configurations will emerge as
No. Thematic domain General area Portfolio angle
Shaping event
portfolio
1 Configurational dynamics and Systems design Complex adaptive systems management
design patterns
2 Inter-organizational events Stakeholder management Events network mechanism
networks and collaboration
3 Planning processes and Strategic planning Participatory growth tactics
development strategies 3535
4 Policy and politics Inter-sectoral policy- Cross-sectoral cooperative linkages
making
5 Governing schemes and Multi-stakeholder Hybrid pluralized forms
coordination governance
6 Place-making approaches and Place marketing Multi-purpose joint cross-
leveraging practices leveraging
7 Community quality of life and Resident perceptions Perceived local welfare
subjective well-being
8 Sustainability and community Sustainable development Triple-bottom-line longevity
capacity-building
9 Polysemic structures and Performative semiotics Episodic series of dramatic stories
dramaturgy
10 Value co-creation and innovation Sharing-economy Multi-stakeholder event ecosystem
entrepreneurship
11 Authenticity and experience Experiential marketing Unique bundles of products and
services
12 Operations and supply chain Asset management Integrated sets of resources
management valuation
13 Evaluation models and impact Appraisal methods Cumulative outcomes of
assessment interaction effects
14 Project management and Risk management Systemic patterns and structures
contingency planning
15 Land management and Spatial planning Inter-connecting spaces
regeneration
16 Cultural management and Cultural heritage Multi-dimensional living legacy
preservation traditions
17 Popular culture and leisure Entertainment Compound niches
pursuits management
18 Alternative cultures and anti- Critical studies Polyphonous inclusivity
consumerism
19 Event ownership and support Property rights and Mixed types
funding financing
20 Media and technology Communication and Comprehensive multi-scopic
science intelligence Table 1.
21 Commerce and business meetings Trade and enterprising Inter-industry networks Delimitation of the
22 Whole populations and Population ecology Ecosystem population evolution event portfolio
legitimation subject realms

portfolios grow, while the principal challenge will be to capture their dynamics as they
evolve and adapt over time, as well as identify the most effective portfolio design
prototypes.

Inter-organizational events networks and collaboration. Stakeholder management can be

comprehensively applied within inter-organizational events networks fostering mutually
beneficial relationships, trust and collaboration (Van Niekerk and Getz, 2019). The events
network is viewed as a mechanism that supports portfolio planning and management
IJCHM (Ziakas and Costa, 2010). Explication of relationships and assessment of operating events
32,11 networks are essential to cultivate and maintain collaboration (Dickson et al., 2018).
Planning processes and development strategies. Strategic planning for portfolios involves
determining the extent of organizational centralization, formalization and complexity, which
can lead to different planning models (Richards, 2017a). It also entails the selection of
strategies (i.e. symmetrization, specialization, multi-constellation and macro-expansion) for
3536 the direction and development of portfolios (Antchak et al., 2019). It is critical to better
understand which strategies and planning models are most effective and under what
conditions (Ziakas, 2019). The establishment of participatory planning practices using
suitable stakeholder engagement tactics constitutes a fundamental precondition for the
sustainable growth of portfolios (Ziakas, 2020).
Policy and politics. Inter-sectoral policymaking is based on the integrative portfolio
mandate to serve a multiplicity of objectives cutting across different sectors (Ziakas, 2014a).
Thus, cross-sectoral cooperative linkages can be nurtured to support joint initiatives and
strategies (Bell and Gallimore, 2015; Boukas et al., 2013; Mackellar and Nisbet, 2017). The
political contexts and conditions that facilitate cross-sectoral, holistic and comprehensive
approaches remain to be better understood (Sant et al., 2019; Ziakas and Boukas, 2012).
Governing schemes and coordination. Multi-stakeholder governance enabling portfolio
coordination and fair distribution of benefits is fundamental for effective portfolio
management (Clark and Misener, 2015; Kelly and Fairley, 2018). It is imperative to know
what governing schemes are most effective identifying components and parameters that
make up new hybridized and pluralized forms of portfolio governance (Ziakas, 2015, 2019).
Place-making approaches and leveraging practices. The incorporation of event portfolios
into place marketing is subject to destination place-making approaches (Jarman, 2018;
Richards, 2017b; Richards and Duif, 2018). Conditions enabling synergy for portfolio cross-
leveraging need to be cultivated and thoroughly understood (Pereira et al., 2015, 2020;
Ziakas, 2010, 2014b; Ziakas and Trendafilova, 2018).
Community quality of life and subjective well-being. Knowing resident perceptions is a
useful predictor of community support and participation in portfolio processes (Gration
et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2019). Hence, the portfolio should be substantially
relevant to residents, contributing to their quality of life, subjective well-being (happiness)
and overall perceived local welfare (Booth and Cameron, 2020; Presenza and Sheehan, 2013).
Sustainability and community capacity-building. The contribution of event portfolios to
sustainable development is contingent upon serving multiple purposes across the social,
economic and environmental pillars, and sustaining benefits bestowed among the array of
events (Getz, 2017; Gibson et al., 2012). Therefore, a triple-bottom-line longevity perspective
is endogenous to portfolio sustainability (Antchak et al., 2019; Taks et al., 2009). From this
standpoint, processes and conditions of community capacity-building need to be grasped
(Ziakas, 2019).
Polysemic structures and dramaturgy. Sources of polysemy are instantiated and
performed in events, such as symbols and narratives across a portfolio to enhance extracted
meanings (Walters and Insch, 2018; Ziakas and Boukas, 2014). A performative semiotic
perspective analyzing the enacted portfolio dramaturgy (i.e. instantiation of events’
symbolic representations) and metaphoric discourse is heuristically useful by interpreting
the array of events as consecutive episodes of a larger story (Ziakas, 2013). In this regard,
events are viewed as episodic series of dramatic stories that make statements about issues of
public concern (Ziakas, 2014a).
Value co-creation and innovation. Sharing economy platforms and attendant
entrepreneurship are applicable on portfolio delivery (Lundberg and Ziakas, 2018a;
Orefice, 2018). The adoption of value co-creation practices can heighten the engagement Shaping event
and participation of different stakeholders (Della Corte et al., 2018; Erhardt et al., 2019) portfolio
in portfolio processes with the potential to also foster new ideas and innovation. A
portfolio, hence, is seen and treated as a multi-stakeholder event ecosystem.
management
Authenticity and experience. Experiential marketing techniques are germane to render
perceptions of authenticity in the lived experiences an event portfolio provides (Getz and
Page, 2016; Ziakas and Boukas, 2013). In so doing, portfolio managers can create unique
bundles of products and services that combine the array of events with authentic destination 3537
experiences (Chalip and McGuirty, 2004; Ziakas and Boukas, 2016).
Operations and supply chain management. Asset management is necessary to enable
efficient portfolio operations and supply chain running (Andersson et al., 2017; Getz and
Page, 2016). Subsequently, integrated sets of resources have to be brought together
alongside their meticulous valuation to ensure optimal deployment of resources in portfolio
delivery (Ziakas, 2014a).
Evaluation models and impact assessment. Comprehensive portfolio appraisal methods
should be developed to capture aggregate impacts and consequences of events to one
another (Getz, 2018, 2019; Wallstam et al., 2020). The focus of new portfolio evaluation
models and impact assessment tools is on assessing cumulative outcomes of interaction
effects (Antchak et al., 2019).
Project management and contingency planning. Risk management techniques and
contingency planning are required both for individual events and at portfolio level
(Andersson et al., 2017). While the hosting of consecutive events brings about increased
probability of different hazards, portfolio diversification may enhance its value and reduce
the risk of failure (Getz and Andersson, 2016). Attention is needed on systemic patterns and
structures that involve risk for project delivery of the whole portfolio as well as on balancing
value and risk (Andersson et al., 2020).
Land management and regeneration. A geographic perspective shedding light on the
spatial planning of event portfolios is pivotal for integrating them into regeneration
strategies (Getz and Page, 2016; Smith, 2016). How the array of events will impact the use of
space in the host destination and its land management methods need to be clarified and
delineated (Smith, 2017). As the number of events increases, the space requirements also
increase, especially when a macro-expansion strategy is pursued (Antchak et al., 2019).
Considering portfolio connectedness, the development of inter-connecting spaces is vital for
establishing activity continuity and joint use of facilities across the portfolio.
Cultural management and preservation. Cultural heritage provides to portfolios a source
of destination experiences linked to authenticity (Richards and Palmer, 2010; Viol et al.,
2018). At the same time, the portfolio itself will become part of the destination living heritage
(Ziakas, 2014a). Therefore, event portfolios require cultural management to be applied
catering for the preservation of multi-dimensional living legacy traditions enacted at the
interface of events and the destination.
Popular culture and leisure pursuits. Event portfolios provide a range of entertainment
opportunities that emanate from popular culture and common leisure pursuits (Lundberg
and Ziakas, 2018b; Ziakas, 2014a). A comprehensive entertainment management
perspective for a portfolio can establish linkages among different forms of popular culture
(e.g. film, music, literature, fashion and sport), thereby creating amalgams of activities that
intensify event experiences and appeal to a spectrum of compound market niches (Boukas
et al., 2013; Lundberg et al., 2018).
Alternative cultures and anti-consumerism. Applications of critical studies on portfolios
can examine alternative cultures to mainstream or conspicuous consumption. If portfolios
IJCHM are to be inclusive, then alternative worldviews should be allowed to co-exist (Dredge and
32,11 Whitford, 2011; Ziakas, 2016). Encompassing non-conformist expressions and anti-
consumerist attitudes can cultivate true polyphonous inclusivity conducive to diversity,
equity, social change and emancipation of under-represented groups (Walters and Jepson,
2019).
Event ownership and support funding. Typically, portfolios consist of events with mixed
3538 ownership (i.e. government, non-profit and private organizations), thus increasing the
complexity of systemic governance and stakeholder management (Andersson et al., 2020;
Todd et al., 2017). In addition, property rights and financing sources depend on event
ownership (Antchak, 2017). The actuality of mixed ownership types gives different choices
over support funding, while also raises the question which one would be more
advantageous.
Media and technology. The progress of communication and science offers novel
advanced media devices and high-tech tools that can enhance event experiences. Social
media, online communities, virtual and augmented reality are now common patterns
reshaping events, hospitality and tourism (Gyimothy and Larson, 2015; Simons, 2019; Yung
and Khoo-Lattimore, 2019). A comprehensive multi-scopic intelligence is needed in
embedding media and technology effectively into a portfolio without sacrificing the
authentic character of event and destination experience.
Commerce and business meetings. The growth of trade and enterprising activities taking
place around a portfolio can yield a substantial return on investment to destinations (Chalip,
2004; Getz and Page, 2020). Commerce can be enhanced by building local supply chains,
cross-leveraging events to increase visitor expenditure, fostering business and sponsor
relationships as well as capitalizing on the variety of corporate events, including meetings,
incentives, conferences and exhibitions (O’Brien and Chalip, 2008). To this end, the
formation of inter-industry networks and multi-part alliances is crucial for portfolio
management and leveraging (Ziakas, 2019, 2020).
Whole populations and legitimation. Organizational population ecology provides a
comprehensive perspective for studying whole populations of events, how they evolve,
legitimized, grow or cease to exist within their environmental ecosystem (Getz and
Andersson, 2016). Whole populations supply selected events to portfolios and so the
ecosystem population evolution should be facilitated to build a fertile ground upon which
portfolios can flourish (Andersson et al., 2013; Antchak et al., 2019).

Conclusion, limitations and research agenda

Given the early stage of theory development and praxis regarding event portfolios, it is not
surprising that there have been many questions raised that constitute an ambitious research
agenda. Detailed portfolio research directions can be found in Antchak et al. (2019) and
Ziakas (2014a, 2019, 2020). At the same time, the infancy of event portfolio theory begets
inherent limitations to the propositions and arguments of this paper, which need to be
substantiated by future research. Likewise, the complexity and recent emergence of the
subject bring about a lot of issues and themes that need to be explored. Each thematic
domain merits considerable research attention. A comprehensive account of particular
research questions would exceed the scope of this paper. Instead, based on the insights
obtained from this review of the literature, we provide below suggestions and priorities for
advancing scholarship in the field.
Populations of events are one starting point, given that how they behave and evolve
within the organizational ecology frame, both affects portfolio management and responds to
it. We do not know how long-term, cumulative impacts occur, let alone can be managed, at
either the portfolio or population level. With increasing emphasis placed on events as agents Shaping event
of systemic change, within a sustainability paradigm, this is a major knowledge gap. portfolio
Measuring impacts and evaluating outcomes is an essential part of portfolio planning, and
theory of change modeling offers an appropriate concept and process; new methods and
management
measures are needed, especially when the current emphasis on single-event outputs (such as
economic contribution or creation of social capital) is replaced by concern for interactive,
cumulative impacts and continuous improvement. A related issue is that of legacy, being an
ambiguous and often misused term, which should be replaced by comprehensive impact or 3539
outcomes research and evaluation.
Networking and collaboration are absolutely essential to event portfolio management, so
researchers should place more emphasis on stakeholder reengagement, interaction and roles,
on the effectiveness of various forms of portfolio governance and potential new models. Is
there a need for new organizations, or are destination management organizations or local-
authority agencies effective focal organizations for convening and managing event
portfolios? Events themselves can provide the collaborative mechanisms, such as
Edinburgh’s festival network as profiled in Antchak et al. (2019). Moving to the scale of
overlapping portfolios, the challenges become even more complex, so research is needed on
how tourism, cultural, social and environmental policy domains can work together in
managing a single, comprehensive event portfolio, or how their individual portfolios – each
established to attain quite different goals – can find common ground. The use of meta-
events to network cities and destinations is also challenging, as so far, research on events
and portfolios has mostly pertained to single cities or destinations. When event-related
networks are expanded, we can start theorizing about the network society at regional,
national and international levels.
Cross-case evaluation of event portfolios will become more important in revealing the
nature and effectiveness of synergies and leveraging strategies, as these are critical in
portfolio management. So too is diversification and balance, yet we have little empirical
evidence on what these mean, the variations possible and measurement of effectiveness.
Likewise, we need to know more about portfolio design processes and structural patterns,
including organic vs formalized portfolios, top-down vs bottom-up planning, heterogeneous
vs homogeneous composition and large-scale vs small-scale events: What arrangements and
configurations can better work and how? Portfolio programming establishing optimal
sequencing and periodicity of events is another critical area for research as is deciding on
what should be the magnitude of a portfolio in terms of resource usage and market reach.
The social effects of portfolios to local communities have yet to be demonstrated and the
means for building local capacities need to be identified. Fundamentally, portfolio
evaluation should treat the whole portfolio as a system that is more than the sum of its parts.
This means that we need evaluation methods able to capture both the effects of events to one
another as well as their contribution to the whole portfolio.
Within a tourism context, competitiveness becomes a primary consideration. Can
research demonstrate how event portfolios of different kinds increase destination
competitiveness, or in the case of crises best contribute to recovery? Cities can pursue a
generalist strategy, with one or more event portfolios pursuing a wide range or market
segments, or specialize with a sport, culture, entertainment or business-focused portfolio –
which performs better? An important issue to face within the tourism context is the common
practice of bidding on one-time and mega-events. Are these cost-effective and sustainable
strategies, or should cities and destinations focus on ownership and permanence? Therefore,
comparing portfolios against mega-events is essential to substantiate the value of each and
under what conditions they can be synergized. Last, but not least, we know very little on
IJCHM how to achieve coordination between event portfolios and destination organizations as well
32,11 as how to equally distribute benefits among destination stakeholders. Simply put, is the
event portfolio for the benefit of all?

References
ÁGuas, P., Costa, J. and Rita, P. (2000), “A tourist market portfolio for Portugal”, International Journal
3540 of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 394-401.
Almeida, A., Teixeira, S. and Franco, M. (2019), “Uncovering the factors impacting visitor’s satisfaction:
evidence from a portfolio of events”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 217-247.
Andersson, T., Getz, D., Gration, D. and Raciti, M.M. (2017), “Event portfolios: asset value, risk
and returns”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 226-243.
Andersson, T., Getz, D. and Jutbring, H. (2020), “Balancing value and risk within a city’s event portfolio:
an explorative study of DMO professionals’ assessments”, International Journal of Event and
Festival Management, 10.1108/IJEFM-01-2020-0005.
Andersson, T., Getz, D. and Mykletun, R. (2013), “Sustainable festival populations: an application of
organizational ecology”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 621-634.
Antchak, V. (2017), “Portfolio of major events in Auckland: characteristics, perspectives and issues”,
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 280-297.
Antchak, V. and Pernecky, T. (2017), “Major events programming in a city: comparing three
approaches to portfolio design”, Event Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 545-561.
Antchak, V., Ziakas, V. and Getz, D. (2019), Event Portfolio Management: Theory and Practice for Event
Management and Tourism, Goodfellow, Oxford.
Bell, B. and Gallimore, K. (2015), “Embracing the games? Leverage and legacy of London 2012
Olympics at the sub-regional level by means of strategic partnerships”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 34
No. 6, pp. 720-741.
Booth, A.S. and Cameron, F.M. (2020), “Family event participation: building flourishing communities”,
International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 223-238.
Boukas, N., Ziakas, V. and Boustras, G. (2013), “Olympic legacy and cultural tourism: exploring the facets of
Athens’ Olympic heritage”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 203-228.
Buning, R.J., Cole, Z.D. and McNamee, J.B. (2016), “Visitor expenditure within a mountain bike event
portfolio: determinants, outcomes, and variations”, Journal of Sport and Tourism, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 103-122.
Chalip, L. (2004), “Beyond impact: a general model for sport event leverage”, in Ritchie, B.W. and Adair,
D. (Eds), Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, Channel View, Clevedon,
pp. 226-252.
Chalip, L. (2014), “From legacy to leverage”, in Grix, J. (Ed.), Leveraging Legacies from Sports Mega-
Events: Concepts and Cases, Palgrave, London, pp. 2-12.
Chalip, L. and Costa, C.A. (2005), “Sport event tourism and the destination brand: towards a general
theory”, Sport in Society, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 218-237.
Chalip, L. and McGuirty, J. (2004), “Bundling sport events with the host destination”, Journal of Sport
and Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 267-282.
Clark, R. and Misener, L. (2015), “Understanding urban development through a sport events portfolio: a
case study of London, Ontario”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Connell, J. (1992), “Branding hotel portfolios”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-32.
Della Corte, V., Sepe, F., Storlazzi, A. and Savastano, I. (2018), “Citizen co-creation in tourist and cultural Shaping event
events”, Event Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 643-654.
portfolio
Dickson, G., Milne, S. and Werner, K. (2018), “Collaborative capacity to develop an events portfolio
within a small island development state: the Cook Islands”, Journal of Policy Research in
management
Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 69-89.
Dragin-Jensen, C., Schnittka, O. and Arkil, C. (2016), “More options do not always create perceived
variety in life: attracting new residents with quality- vs quantity-oriented event portfolios”,
Cities, Vol. 56, pp. 55-62. 3541
Dredge, D. and Whitford, M. (2011), “Event tourism governance and the public sphere”, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 479-499.
Erhardt, N., Martin-Rios, C. and Chan, E. (2019), “Value co-creation in sport entertainment between
internal and external stakeholders”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 4192-4210.
Getz, D. (1997), Event Management and Event Tourism, 1st ed., Cognizant, New York, NY.
Getz, D. (2017), “Developing a framework for sustainable event cities”, Event Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 575-591.
Getz, D. (2018), Event Evaluation: Theory and Methods for Event Management and Tourism,
Goodfellow, Oxford.
Getz, D. (2019), Event Impact Assessment: Theory and Methods for Event Management and Tourism,
Goodfellow, Oxford.
Getz, D. and Andersson, T. (2016), “Analyzing whole populations of festivals and events: an application
of organizational ecology”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 249-273.
Getz, D. and Page, S. (2016), “Progress and prospects for event tourism research”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 52, pp. 593-631.
Getz, D. and Page, S. (2020), Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events, 4th ed.,
Routledge, Abingdon.
Gibson, H.J., Kaplanidou, K. and Kang, S.J. (2012), “Small-scale event sport tourism: a case study in
sustainable tourism”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 160-170.
Gration, D., Raciti, M., Getz, D. and Andersson, T.D. (2016), “Resident valuation of planned events: an
event portfolio pilot study”, Event Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 607-622.
Gyimothy, S. and Larson, M. (2015), “Social media co-creation strategies: the 3Cs”, Event Management,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 331-348.
Henderson, B. (1970), The Product Portfolio, The Boston Consulting Group, Boston.
Handelman, D. (1990), Models and Mirrors: Towards an Anthropology of Public Events, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Jarman, D. (2018), “Festival community networks and transformative place-making”, Journal of Place
Management and Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 335-349.
Kelly, D.M. and Fairley, S. (2018), “The utility of relationships in the creation and maintenance of an
event portfolio”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 260-275.
Kizildag, M. (2015), “Financial leverage phenomenon in hospitality industry sub-sector
portfolios”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 8,
pp. 1949-1978.
Li, X., Wan, Y.K.P. and Uysal, M. (2020), “Is QOL a better predictor of support for festival development?
A social-cultural perspective”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 990-1003.
Lundberg, C. and Ziakas, V. (2018a), “Fantrepreneurs in the sharing economy: co-creating neo-tribal
events”, Event Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 287-301.
IJCHM Lundberg, C. and Ziakas, V. (Eds) (2018b), The Routledge Handbook of Popular Culture and Tourism,
Routledge, Abingdon.
32,11
Lundberg, C., Ziakas, V. and Morgan, N. (2018), “Conceptualising on-screen tourism destination
development”, Tourist Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Mackellar, J. and Nisbet, S. (2017), “Sport events and integrated destination development”, Current
Issues in Tourism, Vol. 20 No. 13, pp. 1320-1335.
3542 Mariani, M.M. and Giorgio, L. (2017), “The “pink night” festival revisited: meta-events and the role of
destination partnerships in staging event tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 62,
pp. 89-109.
Markowitz, H. (1952), “Portfolio selection”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 77-91.
O’Brien, D. and Chalip, L. (2008), “Sport events and strategic leveraging: pushing towards the triple
bottom line”, in Woodside, A. and Martin, D. (Eds), Tourism Management: Analysis, Behaviour
and Strategy, CABI, Wallingford, pp. 318-338.
Orefice, C. (2018), “Designing for events – a new perspective on event design”, International Journal of
Event and Festival Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 20-33.
Ouyang, Z., Gursoy, D. and Chen, K.C. (2019), “It’s all about life: exploring the role of residents’ quality
of life perceptions on attitudes toward a recurring hallmark event over time”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 75, pp. 99-111.
Pereira, E., Mascarenhas, M., Flores, A. and Pires, G. (2015), “Nautical small-scale sports events
portfolio: a strategic leveraging approach”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 27-47.
Pereira, E., Mascarenhas, M., Flores, A., Chalip, L. and Pires, G. (2020), “Strategic leveraging: evidences
of small-scale sport events”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 69-88.
Presenza, A. and Sheehan, L. (2013), “Planning tourism through sporting events”, International Journal
of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 125-139.
Richards, G. (2015), “Events in the network society: the role of pulsar and iterative events”, Event
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 553-566.
Richards, G. (2017a), “Emerging models of the eventful city”, Event Management, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 533-543.
Richards, G. (2017b), “From place branding to placemaking: the role of events”, International Journal of
Event and Festival Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 8-23.
Richards, G. and Duif, L. (2018), Small Cities with Big Dreams: Creative Placemaking and Branding
Strategies, Routledge, Abingdon.
Richards, G. and Palmer, R. (2010), Eventful Cities: Cultural Management and Urban Revitalisation,
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Salgado-Barandela, J., Barajas, Á. and Sanchez-Fernandez, P. (2019), “Sport-event portfolios: an
analysis of their ability to attract revenue from tourism”, Tourism Economics, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619884448
Sanders, D., Laing, J. and Frost, W. (2015), “Exploring the role and importance of post-disaster events in
rural communities”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 82-94.
Sant, S.L., Misener, L. and Mason, D.S. (2019), “Leveraging sport events for tourism gain in host cities: a
regime perspective”, Journal of Sport and Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 203-223.
Sharpley, R. (2009), Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability?, Earthscan,
London.
Simons, I. (2019), “Events and online interaction: the construction of hybrid event communities”,
Leisure Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 145-159.
Smith, A. (2016), Events in the City: Using Public Spaces as Event Venues, Routledge, Abingdon.
Smith, A. (2017), “Animation or denigration? Using urban public spaces as event venues”, Event Shaping event
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 609-661.
portfolio
Taks, M., Chalip, L., Green, B.C., Kesenne, S. and Martyn, S. (2009), “Factors affecting repeat visitation
and flow-on tourism as sources of event strategy sustainability”, Journal of Sport and Tourism, management
Vol. 14 Nos 2/3, pp. 121-142.
Todd, L., Leask, A. and Ensor, J. (2017), “Understanding primary stakeholders’ multiple roles in
hallmark event tourism management”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, pp. 494-509.
Turner, V. (1974), Dramas, Fields and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society, Cornell University
3543
Press, Ithaca, NY.
Van Niekerk, M. (2017), “Contemporary issues in events, festivals and destination management”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 842-847.
Van Niekerk, M. and Getz, D. (2019), Event Stakeholders, Goodfellow, Oxford.
Viol, M., Todd, L., Theodoraki, E. and Anastasiadou, C. (2018), “The role of iconic-historic
commemorative events in event tourism: insights from the 20th and 25th anniversaries of the
fall of the Berlin wall”, Tourism Management, Vol. 69, pp. 246-262.
Wallstam, M., Ioannides, D. and Pettersson, R. (2020), “Evaluating the social impacts of events: in
search of unified indicators for effective policymaking”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure and Events, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 122-141. No
Walters, T. and Insch, A. (2018), “How community event narratives contribute to place branding”,
Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 130-144.
Walters, T. and Jepson, A.S. (Eds) (2019), Marginalisation and Events, Routledge, Abingdon.
Wang, Y.-C. and Chung, Y. (2015), “Hotel Brand portfolio strategy”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 561-584.
Westerbeek, H. and Linley, M. (2012), “Building city brands through sport events: theoretical and
empirical perspectives”, Journal of Brand Strategy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 193-205.
Yung, R. and Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2019), “New realities: a systematic literature review on virtual reality and
augmented reality in tourism research”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 17, pp. 2056-2208.
Ziakas, V. (2007), “An event portfolio in rural development: an ethnographic investigation of a
community’s use of sport and cultural events”, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin.
Ziakas, V. (2010), “Understanding an event portfolio: the uncovering of interrelationships, synergies,
and leveraging opportunities”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 144-164.
Ziakas, V. (2013), “A multi-dimensional investigation of a regional event portfolio: advancing theory
and praxis”, Event Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27-48.
Ziakas, V. (2014a), Event Portfolio Planning and Management: A Holistic Approach, Routledge,
Abingdon.
Ziakas, V. (2014b), “Planning and leveraging event portfolios: towards a holistic theory”, Journal of
Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 327-356.
Ziakas, V. (2015), “For the benefit of all? Developing a critical perspective in mega-event leverage”,
Leisure Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 689-702.
Ziakas, V. (2016), “Fostering the social utility of events: an integrative framework for the strategic use
of events in community development”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1136-1157.
Ziakas, V. (2019), “Issues, patterns and strategies in the development of event portfolios: configuring
models, design and policy”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 121-158.
Ziakas, V. (2020), “Leveraging sport events for tourism development: the event portfolio perspective”,
Journal of Global Sport Management, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2020.1731700
IJCHM Ziakas, V. and Boukas, N. (2012), “A neglected legacy: examining the challenges and potential for sport
tourism development in post-Olympic Athens”, International Journal of Event and Festival
32,11 Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 292-316.
Ziakas, V. and Boukas, N. (2013), “Extracting meanings of event tourist experiences: a
phenomenological exploration of Limassol carnival”, Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 94-107.
Ziakas, V. and Boukas, N. (2014), “Contextualizing phenomenology in event management research:
3544 deciphering the meaning of event experiences”, International Journal of Event and Festival
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
Ziakas, V. and Boukas, N. (2016), “The emergence of ‘small-scale’ sport events in ‘small island’
developing states: towards creating sustainable outcomes for island communities”, Event
Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 537-563.
Ziakas, V. and Costa, C.A. (2010), “Explicating inter-organizational linkages of a host community’s
events network”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 132-147.
Ziakas, V. and Costa, C.A. (2011a), “Event portfolio and multi-purpose development: establishing the
conceptual grounds”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 409-423.
Ziakas, V. and Costa, C.A. (2011b), “The use of an event portfolio in regional community and tourism
development: creating synergy between sport and cultural events”, Journal of Sport and
Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-175.
Ziakas, V. and Costa, C.A. (2012), “The show must go on’: event dramaturgy as consolidation of
community”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 28-47.
Ziakas, V. and Trendafilova, S. (2018), “Event planning and leveraging for sport tourism development:
the case of a rural motorcycle event”, Case Studies in Sport Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-16.

About the authors

Dr Vassilios Ziakas studies sport and leisure policy through an interdisciplinary lens that explores
strategic linkages among sport, recreation, leisure, tourism and events. His primary emphasis is on
strategic planning for obtaining a range of sustainable community benefits. His research has been
published in a range of peer-reviewed journals and is widely cited. Dr Ziakas is the author of the
monograph “Event Portfolio Planning and Management” (Routledge, 2014), co-author of “Event
Portfolio Management” (Goodfellow, 2019) and co-editor of the “Routledge Handbook of Popular
Culture and Tourism” (2018) as well as “Creating and Managing a Sustainable Sporting Future”
(Routledge, 2019). Vassilios Ziakas is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: v_ziakas@
yahoo.co.uk
Professor Donald Getz is a leading international researcher, author and consultant in the fields of
tourism and event studies. Dr Getz is Professor Emeritus, the University of Calgary, where he worked
in the Haskayne School of Business from 1991 to 2009. Following his retirement, he held part-time
research positions at the University of Queensland (Australia), University of Stavanger (Norway) and
the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and he was a Visiting Professor at Linnaeus University in
Sweden. Today, he is a Visiting Professor at the University of Derby, UK. He has authored a number
of relevant books including Event Management and Event Tourism, Event Studies, Event Tourism,
Event Evaluation and Event Impact Assessment, and co-authored Event Stakeholders.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com