land
Article
Neighborhood Spatio-Temporal Impacts of SDG 8.9: The Case
of Urban and Rural Exhibition-Driven Tourism by
Multiple Methods
Gangwei Cai 1,2,3,4,5 , Baoping Zou 1 , Xiaoting Chi 6 , Xincheng He 4 , Yuang Guo 7 , Wen Jiang 8 , Qian Wu 1, *,
Yujin Zhang 9, * and Yanna Zhou 10, *
Citation: Cai, G.; Zou, B.; Chi, X.; He,
X.; Guo, Y.; Jiang, W.; Wu, Q.; Zhang,
Y.; Zhou, Y. Neighborhood
Spatio-Temporal Impacts of SDG 8.9:
The Case of Urban and Rural
Exhibition-Driven Tourism by
Multiple Methods. Land 2023, 12, 368.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020368
Academic Editors: Antonio Sianes
and Luis A. Fernández-Portillo
Received: 5 January 2023
Revised: 24 January 2023
Accepted: 25 January 2023
Published: 29 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Land 2023, 12, 368. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020368
1 School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology,
Hangzhou 310023, China
2 Baoye Group Company Limited, Shaoxing 312030, China
3 College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
4 Faculty of Environmental Engineering, University of Kitakyushu, Fukuoka 8080135, Japan
5 Institute of Anji-Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Huzhou 313300, China
6 School of Tourism and Geography Science, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
7 School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266033, China
8 Zhejiang Architectural Science Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 310028, China
9 Shanghai Nonzero Architectural Design Consulting Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200092, China
10 Hangzhou International Urbanology Research Center, Center for Urban Governance Studies,
Hangzhou 311100, China
* Correspondence: wuqian@zust.edu.cn (Q.W.); zyj303@alumni.tongji.edu.cn (Y.Z.);
nananana0519@163.com (Y.Z.)
Abstract: Rural arts events (triennials/festivals) are mainly aimed at local and regional revitalization.
This exhibition-driven tourism (unlike traditional festivals, conferences, and exhibitions) has existed
for more than 20 years in Japan. The curators of exhibition-driven tourism hope that these events can
promote the economy and stop population decline as a result of the aging population. Therefore, this
paper attempts to evaluate the effects of urban and rural arts event tourism in local and neighborhood
areas in Niigata, Japan from the perspective of SDG 8.9. The Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial and
Water and Land Niigata Art Festival were chosen as case studies. Panel data (1997–2019) concerning
tourists, income, and population in Niigata were evaluated using multiple empirical methods with
descriptive correlation statistics (simple linear regression (SLR) and one-way ANOVA) and spatial
analysis (Moran’s I). Through multiple-method analysis, the positive impacts of urban and rural arts
event tourism in local and neighborhood areas in relation to Sustainable Development Goal 8.9 were
evaluated. The findings presented herein have meaningful implications for tourism academia and
the industry in general.
Keywords: event tourism; sustainable tourism; urban tourism; rural tourism; exhibition; local
economic; local population; sustainable development goals (SDGs); Moran’s I; Echigo-Tsumari Art
Triennial (ETAT)
1. Introduction
Rural arts events (triennials/festivals) are mainly aimed at local and regional revital-
ization. The curators of exhibition-driven tourism hope to develop the economy and reduce
population decline as a result of the aging population. Moreover, urban arts events (trien-
nials/festivals) mainly focus on cultural development and revitalization [1]. In previous
studies, the different economic, policy, human, social culture, and environmental protection
scenarios were taken as the principal impact items of festivals [2,3]. Moreover, sustainable
development has become the main focus of tourism policymakers and researchers [4].
Sustainable development, combined with mainstreaming tourism, economic, and social
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land 2023, 12, 368 2 of 37

responsibility, has become one of the main headings of the World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO) targets [5]. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an urgent call
for action by all countries, with No. 8.9 stating: “By 2030, devise and implement policies to
promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products”. Therefore,
this paper attempts to evaluate the effects of urban and rural arts event tourism in local
and neighborhood areas from the perspective of SDG 8.9.
However, various empirical papers show that tourism is less sustainable than expected
(e.g., the adverse reactions to tourism growth in Venice in relation to Venice Biennale, one of
the most comprehensive examples of exhibition-driven arts event tourism) [6,7]. However,
the SDGs and millennium development goals (MDGs) have become the main focus when
studying the contribution of tourism to the sustainability of the entire tourism industry [5,8].
Despite this conflict, more positive samples for empirical analyses focused on sustainable
tourism are needed.
As an SDG-response study, using quantitative empirical analysis for arts-event-driven
tourism (unlike traditional conferences and exhibitions or festivals), the current paper is
a new attempt to study the tourism industry and sustainable cities. After the economic
recession in the 1990s, more than 120 art exhibitions aimed at revitalizing the areas in
which they took place through art and local resources (attracting tourists) began appearing
throughout the Japanese territory. Niigata is one of Japan’s earliest and most important
art-exhibition-hosting regions [9,10]. In addition, Niigata is the only prefecture in Japan in
which two arts events, a rural event and an urban event, are held simultaneously. Thus, the
Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial (ETAT) (in Tokamachi and Tsunan) and the Water and Land
Niigata Art Festival (WLNAF) in Niigata city were selected for the empirical evaluation.
The concept of a triennial is that exhibitions are hosted once every 3 years [11]. Figure 1
shows the structure of the current paper. Through the multiple-method analysis, the
positive impacts of urban and rural arts event tourism in local and neighborhood areas
from the perspective of SDG 8.9 were evaluated. Although this process is controversial,
a new evaluation for exhibition-driven tourism must be established. The current paper
attempts to fill the gaps in the assessment of spatio-temporal impacts as related to the
exhibition-driven tourism industry.

Figure 1. The structure. ANOVA = analysis of variance; SLR = simple linear regression; SDGs = sustainable
development goals.
Land 2023, 12, 368 3 of 37

2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Sustainable Tourism
Recently, various empirical papers showed that tourism is “less sustainable” than
expected [6,7]. Hall [6] provided an anti-institutional perspective on the tourism sec-
tor’s approach to the sustainable development goals and sustainable tourism framework.
Ahmad et al. [12] studied the correlations between tourism and lower-middle-income
economies. Rutty et al. [7] found that there was less emphasis on the environmental
and social consequences than the positive economic impacts of tourism. After destinations
such as Venice (e.g., with Venice Biennale representing a key example of exhibition-driven
tourism) produced a series of adverse reactions to tourism growth, concerns about the
contribution of tourism to sustainable development have also become local-scale issues
(e.g., World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC)).
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) refers to sustainable tourism and its
economic significance. The SDGs have become the main focus when researching the
tourism contribution to the sustainability of the entire tourism industry [5,8]. There are
designated journals specifically related to sustainable tourism and many texts and journal
articles, which account for as much as 5% of journal output [13]. Sustainable tourism is the
concept of visiting places without damaging local communities and nature and positively
impacting health, the environment, technological methods, and the economy [14]. Various
researchers have studied the relationship between sustainable tourism and the attitudes of
tourists/residents [15]. Other scholars have studied the relationship between sustainable
tourism with ecotourism [16]. Although this remains controversial, more positive samples
for empirical analyses focused on sustainable tourism are needed.

2.2. Urban and Rural Arts Event Tourism

First, events depend on positive perceptions of the destination and tourism prod-
ucts [17], including the art triennial and festival studied herein. Event tourism may be
associated with specific spatial resources, e.g., with attracting and planning the event in
relation to natural and other tourist values [18]. The first article we reviewed is specifically
related to event tourism in JTR and was published by J.R.B. Ritchie and Beliveau in 1974 [18].
Kersulić et al. [19] reviewed the strategic planning sustainability elements in relation to
broader sport tourism events. Recently, leading arts festivals have emerged “bottom-up”,
developing organically in urban and rural areas [20]. Therefore, certain scholars have
studied rural tourism through lifestyle, livelihood, and artistic careers [21]. For example,
Wise et al. [22] studied the local tourism economy via a sense of rural community, potential
industry opportunities, and social impacts.
Second, the attitude of tourists is seen as the main positive force in promoting the
tourism economy [23,24]. Andersen et al. [25] considered the image of Denmark held by the
visitors to the art exhibition in their study. Camarero et al. [26] analyzed the four elements
of brand equity, brand image/value, loyalty, and perceived quality in the art exhibition.
They evaluated the state of art exhibitions in Spain. Chen et al. [27] studied satisfaction
and service quality for event promotion. Liu et al. [28] and Ruan et al. [29] examined
the relationship between natural capital and tourism image. Fu et al. [26] examined the
basic dimensions of place attachment in the exhibition environment and their impact on
participant satisfaction.
Third, the relationship between tourism and the economy has been studied in many
previous papers [30–32]. According to the report of the WTO (World Tourism Organization),
tourism consumption was USD 462 billion per day in 2018, while it was only USD 1.3 billion
in 2001 [33]. The majority of studies are focused on tourism demand and the impact of
exchange rates on tourism income [34]. Others have studied political and economic impacts
using time series analyses [35]. However, few previous papers have studied exhibitions’
direct spatio-temporal impact on tourism.
Land 2023, 12, 368 4 of 37

2.3. Art Event Tourism and Economics: Total Income, Tertiary industry Income, and Per
capita Income
Art event tourism (exhibition-related triennials and festivals)-related impact on eco-
nomic growth has been studied in previous papers. One of the earliest studies, by
Della et al. [36] in 1977, assessed the economic impact of the Rhode Island high mast
sailing ceremony. Kim et al. [37] studied the overall exhibition industry’s economic im-
pact. Rephann [38] assessed the impact of economic activities during the construction
and operation of exhibition venues. Nesticò et al. [39] studied the economic evaluation
of sustainable indicators. Zhang [40] also used a process–goal method to study tourism
development in relation to environmental, economic, and social goals. Chhabra et al. [38]
demonstrated that festivals are usually a strategic choice for rural economic growth. How-
ever, the economic impact of festivals depends on the characteristics of the festival, such as
the number of days the festival is held and the parts of the local economy that are brought
together (the different products from rural areas that can be sold during the festival).
Hwang et al. [41] studied elderly tourism in relation to promoting South Korea’s economic
growth. Vasiliev et al. [42] examined the relationship between sustainable development’s
economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Ying et al. [43] studied the correlations
between the circular economy and green exhibition. Cai et al. [10] analyzed the influence
of the exhibition industry on sustainable local development. Other researchers studied the
motivation and purpose behind the consumption of conferences and exhibitions [44,45].
An event may significantly increase local economic activity. However, the net impact
in neighboring areas and cities may be more significant than the local (the hosting areas)
impact (e.g., the big/national effect often exceeds the small/state effect), with the impact on
the local/hosting areas even sometimes being negative [46,47]. However, the impact format
of these exhibitions is mainly related to transactions [48,49]. Thus, accurately measuring
the economic contribution of art exhibitions or exhibition-driven tourism is challenging.
The earliest mention of the concept of “rising tide” in the tourism industry was in 1996 in
a study by Mason and Mowforth [50]. They studied a rising tide in relation to codes of
conduct in tourism.
The correlations between tourism and total income have been studied in many papers
from the 1990s [51–53]. Saint Akadiri et al. [54] examined the role of real total income,
globalization, and tourism in sustainable targets using autoregressive distributed lag and
the vector error correction model with the Granger test. Wagner et al. [55] examined the
economic effects of tourism using a social accounting matrix for the evaluation of tourism
policies in eight disaggregated levels of income, two governments, and four types of taxes.
Louca et al. [56] analyzed the existence and nature of long-term relationships between
income derived from the tourism industry and tourist arrivals.
The correlations between tourism and tertiary industry income have been studied
in previous papers [57]. Lee and Kang [58] reported that tourism from tertiary industries
improves the lower-income class more than the primary- and secondary-income classes.
Hung et al. [59] described a positive relationship between household income, household
head age, and car ownership. Li et al. [60] demonstrated that on-screen tourism had positive
impacts on the tertiary industry but negative impacts on the primary and secondary sectors.
The correlations between tourism and per capita income have been studied in previous
papers [61]. Garin-Munoz et al. [62] tested the effects of real per capita income, exchange
prices, and rates using tourist services panel data (1985–1995). Brau et al. [63] analyzed the
relationship between growth, size, and tourism by controlling for initial per capita income
using panel data (1980–2003). Zaman et al. [64] studied the relationship between economic
growth, carbon dioxide emissions, and tourism development using hypothesis panel data
(2005–2013) to verify per capita income and tourism carbon emissions.
Land 2023, 12, 368 5 of 37

2.4. Art Event Tourism and Population: Total Population, Labor Population, and
Household Number
The correlation between population growth and economic development is a constantly
changing issue (with different methods being used in different periods) in demographic eco-
nomics. One of Malthus’s most influential studies is “Population” [65]. You et al. [66] studied
the factors of settlement intention in floating populations in Chinese cities. Tamura et al. [67]
studied a small Japanese town by comparing spatial population distribution patterns with
environment and infrastructure costs. Egidi et al. [68] studied worldwide urban and city
size population trends from 1950 to 2030. However, there are few studies on the direct
connections between exhibitions and population. Cai et al. [10] found a positive correla-
tion between exhibition-driven tourism and population. Getz [69] studied the long-term
impacts of change in tourism and population in the Scottish Highlands. Khalid et al. [70]
and Nam et al. [71] used empirical tests to show that the local community in their study
wanted a thriving sustainable tourism.
On the other hand, with the aging of Japanese society and the low fertility rate,
urban shrinkage has had a negative impact on the sustainable development of Japanese
cities. Mallach et al. [72] believe that Japan’s urban shrinkage is due to demographic
change. Martinez-Fernandez et al. studied shrinking cities in Australia, Japan, Europe,
and the USA in relation to economic development, greening, revitalization, and social
inclusion [73]. Japanese population shrinkage moves from urban centers towards the
countryside [74,75]. Events or green events are entertainment-focused economic drivers
with the local community and cultural identity at their core [76]. Although many scholars
have conducted long-term and extensive research on population issues in various fields,
this remains a critically underexplored issue.

3. Exhibition-Driven Tourism in Niigata

3.1. Japanese Arts Events: Festival and Exhibition
Rural arts events (Triennials/festivals) are mainly aimed at local and regional revital-
ization. They aim to develop the economy and reduce population shrinkage as a result
of the aging population. Moreover, urban arts events (Triennales/festivals) focus on cul-
tural development and revitalization [1]. From 1961 to 2019, especially after the recession
in the 1990s, hundreds of Japanese art exhibitions were established with the purpose of
revitalizing sustainable development in the host areas [10]. In this study, exhibitions in
Niigata (the Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial (ETAT) and the Water & Land Niigata Art Fes-
tival (WLNAF)) were selected for the empirical analysis. Every three years, artists from
all countries are invited to create specific artworks related to the Niigata region’s environ-
mental, social, and cultural background. Since the first ETAT event in 2000, thousands
of works of art have been displayed, including sculptures, sound works, theater works,
art installations, performances, musical performances, landscape design, urban design
projects, and architectural structures.

3.2. Urban and Rural Arts Events: ETAT and WLNAF in Niigata
From 2000 to 2018 (once every three years), more than JPY 65,279.671 million were
obtained, and more than 132,577.645 million tourists visited the host areas (Tokamachi
(No.5), Tsunan (No.4), and Niigata City (No.21)). The creative city calls on people to
engage in imaginative activities to help develop and manage urban life, encouraging
the population to plan, think, and creatively solve urban problems [77]. Scholars have
attempted to understand the potential of creative art and culture in rural environments [78].
However, more in-depth research is required to enhance our general understanding of the
topic as this field is in its infancy [79,80].
Rural arts event tourism: Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial (ETAT) was hosted in Toka-
machi (No.5) and Tsunan (No.4) in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2012, and 2018. ETAT stemmed
from a county-level incentive that encourages regions to overcome the socio-economic
recession by profiting from the particularity of their environment [10]. However, there
Land 2023, 12, 368 6 of 37

are almost no previous papers that study the quantitative economic impact of ETAT. For
example, Ahn [69] studied the ETAT’s cultural and artistic impact on the hosting areas. In
addition, Klien [4] and Kitagawa [81,82] explored the correlations between art and nature
in this setting. Favell and Boven et al. [83,84] studied abandoned schools and their reuse to
promote sustainable goals in ETAT. However, these papers lack empirical data, i.e., they
only focus on descriptive statistics. Cai et al. [10] showed that the ETAT positively impacted
sustainable tourism in the hosting areas. This paper selected panel data and assessed
them from a new perspective to study the impacts of the ETAT. Therefore, exploring the
relationship using a quantitative analysis of ETAT is essential.
Urban arts event tourism: the Water and Land Niigata Art Festival (WLNAF) was
held in Niigata City (No.21) in 2009, 2012, and 2018. Similarly, since 2009, WLNAF has
aimed to explore how Niigata’s local culture is equally affected by the region’s land and
water resources. It also requires participants to reflect on the relationship between nature
and the humanities. Koizumi [85] examined the “social roles” of WLNAF in a shrinking
society with a decreasing population in the hosting areas. However, there are almost no
previous papers regarding the quantitative economic impact of WLNAF.
According to previous research [10], exhibitions are rarely used as social forces to
comprehensively evaluate and demonstrate their role in exhibition-driven tourism. These
two exhibitions have been described by the foreign media as unique in quality and scale
and are regarded as a new model for art exhibitions. Community building through art has
attracted the attention of curators and people in the art world in the United States, Europe,
and Asia and from local government delegations. [86]. Thus, the current research attempts
to fill the gap related to the correlation between exhibition-driven impact and sustainable
tourism economics via an empirical investigation.

4. Methods
Panel data were selected from the statistical yearbook and county survey of Niigata
(1997–2019) and include: (1) tourist number and its growth rate; (2) total income/tertiary
industry income/per capita income and their growth rate; and (3) total population/labor
population/household number and their growth rate. The panel data (1997–2019) of
tourists, income, and population in Niigata were evaluated using multiple empirical
methods with descriptive correlation statistics (simple linear regression (SLR) and one-way
ANOVA) and spatial analysis (Moran’s I). The positive impacts of urban and rural arts
event tourism in local and neighborhood areas were evaluated from the perspective of
SDG 8.9 (Figure 1). Panel data are complex and require a multiple methods analysis [10].
Therefore, the current paper selected descriptive statistics, simple linear regression (SLR),
one-way ANOVA analysis, and Moran’s I for the assessment. Simple linear regression
(SLR) and one-way ANOVA analysis were used for the time series data from the panel data.
Moran’s I was used for the spatial sequence data. The positive impacts of urban and rural
arts event tourism in local and neighborhood areas were evaluated from the perspective of
SDG 8.9 (Figure 1).

4.1. Panel Data

Panel data contain observations of multiple phenomena obtained for the objects over
multiple periods. Thus, panel data clustering is an essential part of decision-making
and expert analysis [87,88]. Di Lascio et al. [89] used panel data analysis to study the
relationship between cultural tourism and temporary art exhibitions. Moreover, panel data
are more informative than other types of data because they provide more variability, so the
estimation is more efficient [89]. Many studies use panel data to analyze tourism’s impact
on the economy. Naudé and Saayman [90] identified five main areas for empirical research
in tourism. There are many different estimation methods available [91]. Bhattarai [92]
found that fixed and random effects estimates indicate that investment, rather than aid, is a
factor that promotes growth when reviewing important applications of panel data models.
Land 2023, 12, 368 7 of 37

In the current study, we collected data on tourist number and its growth rate/tertiary
industry/per capita income. Table 1 shows the following: (1) categorical data, including the
year before the exhibition (hereafter NO)—for example, the years before 2000 are denoted
as NO; (2) the hosting year of the ETAT (hereafter Y1)—for example, the years 2000, 2003,
and 2006 are denoted as YES; (3) the years between the hosting of the ETAT (hereafter
B1)—for example, the years 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 are denoted as B1;
(4) categorical data, including the hosting year of the ETAT and WLNAF (hereafter Y2)—for
example, the years 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 are denoted as Y2; (5) the years between
the hosting of the ETAT and WLNAF (hereafter B2)—for example, the years 2010, 2011,
2013, 2014, 2016, and 2017 are denoted as B2. Table 2 shows the future tourist number
and the total/tertiary industry/per capita income for the hosting areas and other cities in
the Niigata area. Figure 2 shows the locations of the hosting areas and other cities in the
Niigata area.

Table 1. Categorical variables.

Abbreviation Variables Year Name Sources

the year before the
NO NO Before 2000
hosting of the ETAT
the hosting year of
Y1 YES1 2000/2003/2006
the ETAT
the year between the ETAT Official
B1 BETWEENNESS1 2001/2002/2004/2005/2007/2008
X hosting of the ETAT website
the hosting year of the
Y2 YES2 2009/2012/2015/2018
ETAT+WLNAF
the year between the
B2 BETWEENNESS2 2010/2011/2013/2014/2016/2017 hosting of the
ETAT+WLNAF

Table 2. Continuous variables 1.

Tourism Economic
Tertiary
Tourist Total Per capita
Tertiary Industry
NO. Areas 1 Tourist Number Total Income Per capita Income
Industry Income
Number Growth Income Growth Income Growth
Income Growth
(TN) Rate 2 (TI) Rate (PCI) Rate
(TII) Rate
(TNGR) (TIGR) (PCIGR)
(TIIGR)
0 Niigata Areas 3 TN0 TNGR0 TI0 TIGR0 PCI0 PCIGR0 TII0 TIIGR0
1 Itoigawa City TN1 TNGR1 TI1 TIGR1 PCI1 PCIGR1 TII1 TIIGR1
2 Myoko TN2 TNGR2 TI2 TIGR2 PCI2 PCIGR2 TII2 TIIGR2
3 Joetsu City TN3 TNGR3 TI3 TIGR3 PCI3 PCIGR3 TII3 TIIGR3
4 Tsunan TN4 TNGR4 TI4 TIGR4 PCI4 PCIGR4 TII4 TIIGR4
5 Tokamachi TN5 TNGR5 TI5 TIGR5 PCI5 PCIGR5 TII5 TIIGR5
6 Yuzawa Town TN6 TNGR6 TI6 TIGR6 PCI6 PCIGR6 TII6 TIIGR6
7 Minamiuonuma TN7 TNGR7 TI7 TIGR7 PCI7 PCIGR7 TII7 TIIGR7
8 Uonuma City TN8 TNGR8 TI8 TIGR8 PCI8 PCIGR8 TII8 TIIGR8
9 Ojiya City TN9 TNGR9 TI9 TIGR9 PCI9 PCIGR9 TII9 TIIGR9
10 Nagaoka TN10 TNGR10 TI10 TIGR10 PCI10 PCIGR10 TII10 TIIGR10
11 Kashniwazaki TN11 TNGR11 TI11 TIGR11 PCI11 PCIGR11 TII11 TIIGR11
12 Kariwa Village TN12 TNGR12 TI12 TIGR12 PCI12 PCIGR12 TII12 TIIGR12
13 Izumozaki Town TN13 TNGR13 TI13 TIGR13 PCI13 PCIGR13 TII13 TIIGR13
14 Mitsuke City TN14 TNGR14 TI14 TIGR14 PCI14 PCIGR14 TII14 TIIGR14
15 Sanjo City TN15 TNGR15 TI15 TIGR15 PCI15 PCIGR15 TII15 TIIGR15
16 Tsubame City TN16 TNGR16 TI16 TIGR16 PCI16 PCIGR16 TII16 TIIGR16
17 Yahniko Village TN17 TNGR17 TI17 TIGR17 PCI17 PCIGR17 TII17 TIIGR17
18 Kamo City TN18 TNGR18 TI18 TIGR18 PCI18 PCIGR18 TII18 TIIGR18
19 Tagami Town TN19 TNGR19 TI19 TIGR19 PCI19 PCIGR19 TII19 TIIGR19
20 Gosen TN20 TNGR20 TI20 TIGR20 PCI20 PCIGR20 TII20 TIIGR20
Land 2023, 12, 368 8 of 37

Table 2. Cont.

Tourism Economic
Tertiary
Tourist Total Per capita
Tertiary Industry
NO. Areas 1 Tourist Number Total Income Per capita Income
Industry Income
Number Growth Income Growth Income Growth
Income Growth
(TN) Rate 2 (TI) Rate (PCI) Rate
(TII) Rate
(TNGR) (TIGR) (PCIGR)
(TIIGR)
21 Niigata City TN21 TNGR21 TI21 TIGR21 PCI21 PCIGR21 TII21 TIIGR21
22 Agano City TN22 TNGR22 TI22 TIGR22 PCI22 PCIGR22 TII22 TIIGR22
23 Aga Town TN23 TNGR23 TI23 TIGR23 PCI23 PCIGR23 TII23 TIIGR23
24 Shibata City TN24 TNGR24 TI24 TIGR24 PCI24 PCIGR24 TII24 TIIGR24
25 Seiromachni TN25 TNGR25 TI25 TIGR25 PCI25 PCIGR25 TII25 TIIGR25
26 Wombai city TN26 TNGR26 TI26 TIGR26 PCI26 PCIGR26 TII26 TIIGR26
27 Sekikawa TN27 TNGR27 TI27 TIGR27 PCI27 PCIGR27 TII27 TIIGR27
Land28
2023, 12, x FOR PEER
Murakami CityREVIEWTN28 TNGR28 TI28 TIGR28 PCI28 PCIGR28 TII28 9 of 41
TIIGR28
29 Awashnimaura TN29 TNGR29 TI29 TIGR29 PCI29 PCIGR29 TII29 TIIGR29
30 Sado City TN30 TNGR30 TI30 TIGR30 PCI30 PCIGR30 TII30 TIIGR30
1 From the Niigata Statistical Yearbook; 2 Compared with the previous year; 3 Niigata area including 30 areas.

307
Figure
Figure2.2.Spatial
Spatial30
30cities
citiesininthe
theNiigata
Niigataarea.
area. 308

4.2.The
4.2. TheDescriptive
DescriptiveStatistics
Statistics 309
Descriptivestatistics
Descriptive statisticswere
wereused
usedforfor data
data analysis
analysis as as they
they areare an easy,
an easy, visual
visual waywayto 310
to understand
understand the data
the data [93,94].
[93,94]. Hwang Hwang et al.
et al. [95] used[95]descriptive
used descriptive
statisticsstatistics
to studyto study
elderly 311
elderly tourism
tourism wellbeing wellbeing
perceptionperception and its outcomes.
and its outcomes. VariousVarious scholars
scholars have studied
have studied the
the rela- 312
relationship
tionship between
between tourism
tourism andand sustainability
sustainability using
using descriptive
descriptive statistics[33,96,97],
statistics [33,96,97],and
and 313
othershave
others havestudied
studiedthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweeneconomics
economicsand andtourism
tourismusing
usingdescriptive
descriptive 314
statistics [29,33,98].
statistics [29,33,98]. 315

4.3.Simple
4.3. SimpleLinear
LinearRegression
Regression(SLR)
(SLR) 316
The paper used the SPSS26 software (IBM, New York, United States). A correlation
The paper used the SPSS26 software (IBM, New York, United States). A correlation 317
analysis is commonly used to evaluate the relationship between two variables. A high
analysis is commonly used to evaluate the relationship between two variables. A high 318
correlation means the relationship between variables is vital [99–101]. Two random vari-
correlation means the relationship between variables is vital [99–101]. Two random vari- 319
ables (X and Y) are usually tested in simple linear regression (SLR) [102]. The p-value helps
ables (X and Y) are usually tested in simple linear regression (SLR) [102]. The p-value 320
researchers to reject or fail to reject a hypothesis. If the p-value is < 0.05, the analysis is
helps researchers to reject or fail to reject a hypothesis. If the p-value is < 0.05, the analysis 321
considered significant for the next step. The least square method was used to calculates
is considered significant for the next step. The least square method was used to calculates 322
simple linear regression and the Pearson’s correlation model (Y = a + bx). The following
simple linear regression and the Pearson’s correlation model (Y = a + bx). The following 323
formula was used for the slope (b) and the Y-intercept (a) (Y = linearly related to x; r2 = the
formula was used for the slope (b) and the Y-intercept (a) (Y = linearly related to x; r2 = the 324
proportion of the total variance (s2) of Y that the linear regression of Y can explain on x; 325
1–r2 = the balance that is not defined by the regression; thus, 1–r2 = s2xY / s2Y): 326

∑n ̅ )(Yi −Y
i=1(xi −x
̅)
b= ∑n
(1)
i=1(xi −x̅ )2

a=̅
Y − bx̅ (2)
n ̅
Land 2023, 12, 368 9 of 37

proportion of the total variance (s2 ) of Y that the linear regression of Y can explain on x;
1 − r2 = the balance that is not defined by the regression; thus, 1 − r2 = s2 xY/s2 Y):
 –
 –
∑ni=1 xi − x Yi − Y
b= (1)
– 2
 
∑ni=1 xi − x

– –
a = Y − bx (2)
 –
 –
∑ni=1 xi − x Yi − Y
b= r (3)
 – 2
  – 2
∑ni=1 xi − x ∑ni=1 Yi − Y

Using Fisher’s z, the transformation was constructed for r using confidence limits. The
null hypothesis that r = 0 (i.e., no association) was evaluated using a modified t-test [103,104].
These belts represent the reliability of the regression estimate (the tighter/belt, the more
reliable/estimate) [105].

4.4. The One-Way ANOVA Analysis

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were
any statistically significant differences between the means of the three or more independent
(unrelated) groups. An F distribution can be used to compare this technique. A one-way
ANOVA compares the means between related groups and determines whether these means
are statistically significantly different from each other [106].
Step 1: ANOVA. Independent elements in the sum of squares are indicated by de-
grees of freedom (DF). The degrees of freedom for each component of the model are
DF (Factor) = r − 1, F Error = nT − r, and Total = nT − 1 (nT = total number of observa-
tions; r = number of factor levels). The F-value means that the degrees of freedom for the
numerator are r − 1. The degrees of freedom for the denominator are nT − 1. The mean
squares (MS) calculation for the factor/error is as follows (MS = mean square; SS = sum of
squares; DF = degrees of freedom):

SS Factor
MS Factor = (4)
DF Factor
SS Error
MS Error = (5)
DF Error
Step 2: Post hoc tests—multiple comparisons and LSD. Post hoc tests are used for
multiple comparisons with a control. Minitab offers four different confidence interval
methods for comparing various factor means in a one-way analysis of variance with equal
variances between the groups: Tukey’s, Fisher’s, Dunnett’s, and Hsu’s MCB. Fisher’s least
significant difference (LSD) was used in the current paper for the individual error rate and
the number of comparisons to calculate the simultaneous confidence level for all confidence
–
intervals (Yi = sample mean for the ith factor level; ni = number of observations in level i;
r = number of factor levels; s = pooled standard deviation or sqrt (MSE); nT = total number
of observations; α = probability of making α Type I error).
s
– –  α  1 1
Yi − Yij ± t 1 − ; ni − r s + (6)
2 ni nj

Step 3: Mean plots. Mean: the average of the observations at a given factor level
(ni = number of observations at factor level i; yji = value of the jth observation at the jth
factor level).
n
– ∑j=i 1 yji
xi = (7)
ni
 5 Institute of Anji-Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Huzhou, 313300, China
6 School of Tourism and Geography Science, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China;
xiaoting.chi1@gmail.com
7 School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266033, China;

guoyuang@qut.edu.cn
Land 2023, 12, 368 8 Zhejiang Architectural Science Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd., 10 of 37
Hangzhou 310028, China; jk.jiangwen@zjsjky.com
9 Shanghai Nonzero Architectural Design Consulting Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200092, China

10 Hangzhou International Urbanology Research Center, Center for Urban Governance Studies,

Figure310000,
Hangzhou 3 shows the sample of mean plots. The X axis represents the categorical variable
China
*X (time held), and
Correspondence: the Y axis represents
wuqian@zust.edu.cn the continuous variable.(Y.Z.);
(Q.W.); zyj303@alumni.tongji.edu.cn
nananana0519@163.com (Y.Z.)

Citation: Cai, G.; Zou, B.; Chi, X.;

He, X.; Guo, Y.; Jiang, W.; Wu, Q.;
Zhang, Y.; Zhou, Y. Neighborhood
Spatio-Temporal Impacts of SDG 8.9:
The Case of Urban and Rural
Exhibition-driven Tourism by
Multiple Methods. Land 2023,
volume number, x.
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx

Academic Editor: Antonio Sianes,

Luis A. Fernández-Portillo

Received: 5 January 2023

Revised: 24 January 2023
Accepted: 25 January 2023
Published: 28 January 2023

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Li-

censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
Figure 3. Sample of mean plots.
Abstract: Rural arts events (triennials/festivals) are mainly aimed at local and regional revitaliza-
distributed under the terms and con- –
ditions of the Creative Commons At- tion. This
Stepexhibition-driven
4: Descriptions.tourism
Standard(unlike traditional
deviation (SD)festivals, conferences,
(Yi = mean and exhibitions)
of observations ith
at thehas
th
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre- existed for more
factor level; ni =than 20 years
number in Japan. The curators
of observations at the i offactor
exhibition-driven tourism hope that
level; yji = observations ith
these
at the
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
factor level) was calculated as follows:
v
u ni y − y– 2
u  
Land 2023, 12, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx t ∑j=1 ji i www.mdpi.com/journal/land
si = (8)
ni − 1

4.5. Moran’s I
Moran’s I is one of the most frequently used methods for spatial cluster analysis [107–109].
Various previous papers studied geographic information systems (GIS) in relation to
tourism. Yang et al. [110] studied the spatial tourist flows with cities and its growth
rates using Moran’s I in China. Sarrión-Gavilán et al. [111] studied tourism flows using
exploratory spatial data analysis (ESDA) and GIS in Andalusia. The range of Moran’s I
is between −1 and 1 (1 = perfect positive autocorrelation; −1 = negative autocorrelation;
0 = no autocorrelation). This statistic was calculated for each year as follows (W = spatial
weighting matrix; Wii on the diagonal were set to zero; zt = (z1t , z2t , z3t , . . . , znt ) = tourist
arrivals’ observation vector (from the mean) for the year t to the n cities in deviation;
Wij = the way in which city I spatially connects to city j):

n zt0 Wzt
It = · (9)
So zt0 zt

Moreover, a Moran’s scatterplot was used to measure the local spatial correlation
and the local spatial correlation indicator in order to establish the importance of local
spatial autocorrelation and hot spots. The local spatial association was studied by means of
Moran’s scatterplot [112]. In addition, local indicators of spatial association (LISA) were
 Land 2023, 12, 368 11 of 37

used to test the hot spots’ significance via Moran’s scatterplot. Local Moran’s I was chosen
as the LISA (ut = the mean value across cities (year t); wij = the spatial weighting matrix W
factor; zit = the number of tourist arrivals (year t) to city i; Iit (positive value) = a city and
and 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW its neighbors for the spatial clustering of similar values): 12 of 41
(zit − ut )
Iit =
mo ∑ wij (zit − ut ) (10)
j

mo = ∑(zit − ut ) /n 2
significant fluctuation in these three stages.
j
This shows the following points: (1)(11) the exhi-
bition has a “rising tide” impact on tourism in the area and (2) the double exhibition pe-
Negative values indicate the spatial clustering of different values. In this article, the
riod has a more significant “rising tide” effect on the growth rate of tourists than the single
I value of the local Moran is used as LISA statistics. To further visualize the tourist flow
exhibition period.
in hotspots (HHThis shows
clusters), thatimportance
Moran different maps exhibitions complement
were used. These contain each other and can
information
betterfrom
stimulate
Moran and drive
scatter plotstourism.
and LISA, showing cities with important LISA statistics and
Figure
indicating5 shows
hotspotthe economic
areas ripple effect
with color-coded of ETAT
quadrants in the and
Moran WLNAF fromto2000
scatter plots whichto 2018.
these cities belong [113].
Overall, the financial spread between 2000 and 2003 was the largest from the years stud-
ied. The ripple effect often colloquially denotes what would be called a multiplier in mac-
5. Results
roeconomics [114]. Infrastructure
5.1. The Descriptive Statistics can influence the event tourism economics [115]. Be-
cause most of the
Figure ETATthe
4 shows hosting
changes areas
in theare located
number in ruraland
of tourists areas, much of
the growth the
rate of infrastructure
tourists.
is initially required. Tamura et al. [67] studied a small Japanese town
These changes can be divided into three stages: (1) the fixed period before the exhibition; with spatial popu-
lationthe
distribution patterns
number of tourists in relation
declined to environment
before 2001, and there was and infrastructure
a slight fluctuation in costs. However,
the growth
rate of tourists. (2) The fluctuation period of a single exhibition;
the infrastructure costs are not a SDGs engine. On the other hand, the WLNAF was hosted the number of tourists
fluctuated
in Niigata from areas)
(urban 2001 to with
2008, while
no needthe growth rate of tourists The
for infrastructure. also began to fluctuate.
polynomial (3) A
regression (di-
double exhibition growth period; since 2009, the number of tourists has been increasing
vided into six stages: 2000–2003, 2003–2006, 2006–2009, 2009–2012, 2012–2015, and 2015–
throughout the Niigata area; at the same time, the growth rate was the most significant
2018)fluctuation
shows that afterthree
in these experiencing
stages. Thistheshows tourism-based economic
the following points: growth
(1) the driven
exhibition has a by the
investment in exhibition infrastructure in the early stages, the tourism
“rising tide” impact on tourism in the area and (2) the double exhibition period has a more economy entered a
sustainable growth
significant “risingstate in 2009
tide” effect (two
on the exhibitions
growth werethan
rate of tourists held theat the exhibition
single same time, which no
period.
This shows that different exhibitions
longer relied purely on exhibition infrastructure). complement each other and can better stimulate and
drive tourism.

25,000,000 60.0%

Rural Art Event

40.0%
GROTH RATE

20,000,000

20.0%
TOURIST NUMBER

15,000,000 TN21
0.0% TN5
10,000,000 TN4
-20.0%
TNGR4

5,000,000 TNGR5
-40.0%
TNGR21

0 -60.0%
2004

2017
1997

1998

1999

2001

2002

2005

2007

2008

2010

2011

2013

2014

2016
2000/ETAT

2003/ETAT

2006/ETAT

2009/ETAT+WNLF

2012/ETAT+WNLF

2015/ETAT+WNLF

2018/ETAT+WNLF

Urban Art
Event

Figure
Figure 4. Tourist
4. Tourist number
number andandgrowth
growth rate
rate of
ofthe
theETAT
ETATand WLNAF
and fromfrom
WLNAF 2000 to 2018to[10].
2000 2018 [10].
Figure 5 shows the economic ripple effect of ETAT and WLNAF from 2000 to 2018.
25,000 Overall, the financial spread between 2000 and 2003 was the largest from the years studied.

20,000

15,000
 25,000,000 60.0%

Rural Art Event

40.0%

GROTH RATE
20,000,000

20.0%
TOURIST NUMBER
Land 2023, 12, 368
15,000,000 12 of 37
TN21
0.0% TN5
10,000,000 TN4
The ripple effect often colloquially denotes what would be called a multiplier in macroe-
-20.0%
conomics [114]. Infrastructure can influence the event tourism economics [115]. TNGR4 Because
5,000,000 most of the ETAT hosting areas are located in rural areas, much of the infrastructure
TNGR5 is
-40.0%
initially required. Tamura et al. [67] studied a small Japanese town with spatial population
TNGR21

0
distribution patterns in relation to environment and infrastructure-60.0%
costs. However, the
infrastructure costs are not a SDGs engine. On the other hand, the WLNAF was hosted in

2004

2017
1997

1998

1999

2001

2002

2005

2007

2008

2010

2011

2013

2014

2016
2000/ETAT

2003/ETAT

2006/ETAT

2009/ETAT+WNLF

2012/ETAT+WNLF

2015/ETAT+WNLF

2018/ETAT+WNLF
Niigata (urban areas) with no need for infrastructure. The polynomial regression Urban(divided
Art
Event
into six stages: 2000–2003, 2003–2006, 2006–2009, 2009–2012, 2012–2015, and 2015–2018)
shows that after experiencing the tourism-based economic growth driven by the investment
in exhibition infrastructure in the early stages, the tourism economy entered a sustainable
growth state in 2009 (two exhibitions were held at the same time, which no longer relied
Figure 4. Tourist number and growth rate of the ETAT and WLNAF from 2000 to 2018 [10].
purely on exhibition infrastructure).

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
2000ETAT 2003ETAT 2006ETAT 2009ETAT+WLNAF 2012ETAT+WLNAF 2015ETAT+WLNAF 2018ETAT+WLNAF

Total: ripple effect (ETAT) Infrastructure: ripple effect(ETAT) Consumption: ripple effect(ETAT)

Total: ripple effect (WLNAF) Total: ripple effect (ETAT+WLNAF) Polynomial regression of total ripple effect

Figure 5. The economic ripple effect of one and two exhibitions in Niigata. Note: The ripple effect
(based on the related calculation table for Niigata) is often used colloquially to denote what would be
called a multiplier in macroeconomics.

5.2. Simple Linear Regression (SLR) between Hosting Areas and Niigata Areas
The SLR was used for the next analysis (Table 3, Figure 6). The p value is <0.05, which
shows that the results are significant.

Table 3. SLR: Model Summary.

Std. Error Change Statistics

a Adjusted
Model R b R Square of the R Square
R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig.
Estimate Change
TN 0.824 0.679 0.615 0.529 0.679 10.593 3 15 0.001
TI 0.624 0.390 0.275 37,318 0.390 3.405 3 16 0.043
TII 0.989 0.978 0.972 99,244 0.978 151.364 3 10 0.000
PCI 0.979 0.959 0.951 22 0.959 123.518 3 16 0.000
TP 0.993 0.986 0.984 11,328 0.986 447.687 3 19 0.000
LP 0.999 0.999 0.999 4093 0.999 5218.00 3 19 0.000
HN 0.972 0.945 0.937 10,070 0.945 109.318 3 19 0.000
a. Predictors: (Constant), TN4/5/21, TI 4/5/21, TII 4/5/21, PCI 4/5/21, TP 4/5/21, LP4/5/21, HN4/5/21;
b. Dependent Variable: TN/TI/TII/PCI 0.
Land 2023, 12, 368 13 of 37

Figure 6. Normal P-P plot regression standardized residual.

First, the adjusted R square of TN was 0.615 (>0.5). This shows that the hosting areas
(TN21, TN5, and TN4) had a high positive impact on the Niigata area (TN0). Second,
the adjusted R square of TI was 0275 (<0.3). This shows that the hosting areas (TI 21,
TI 5, and TI 4) had an insignificant positive impact on the Niigata area (TI 0). Third,
the adjusted R square of TII/PCI/TP/LP/HN was >0.8. This shows that the hosting
areas (TII/PCI/TP/LP/HN 21, TII/PCI/TP/LP/HN 5, and TII/PCI/TP/LP/HN 4) had
a very strong positive impact on the Niigata area (TII/PCI/TP/LP/HN 0). That is to
say that (1) tourist number, (2) total income/tertiary industry income/per capita income,
and (3) total population/labor population/household number in the hosting areas had
a positive impact on the Niigata area. The impacts of arts event tourism go beyond the
hosting areas. The next step was to test their impact on their local and neighborhood areas.

5.3. One-Way ANOVA: Total Income

5.3.1. Total Income
First, Table 4 shows that the p-value (>0.5) of TI3/10/14/21/22/24/25/26 was not
a significant fit. An event may significantly increase local economic activity, but the net
impact within neighboring areas and cities may be more significant than the local (hosting
areas) impact (e.g., the big/national effect often exceeds the small/state effect). In addition,
the impact on the local/hosting areas can even be negative [46]. That is why the total
income of the hosting area in Niigata City (T21) was negative. However, 73% of the cities
(22 cities and the Niigata area) in Niigata passed the one-way ANOVA analysis. Second,
the 22 cities and the Niigata area were selected for multiple comparisons testing using LSD
(Table A1) and mean plots (Figure 7). Table A1 shows the descriptive statistics. Here, we
can see that the hosting of double exhibitions positively impacted the neighborhood areas
and the whole Niigata area. In addition, the rising tide process for 95% of the fitting areas
was the same (excepting TI28). Parts of the mean total income plots exhibited a positive
growth trend, but the majority exhibited a negative growth trend.

1
Land 2023, 12, 368 14 of 37

Table 4. ANOVA (Total Income).

df MS F Sig. MS F Sig. MS F Sig.

a 4 656,415,244,879 17.516 0.000
TI0
b 18 37,475,971,024
a 4 1,210,085,983 8.171 0.001 28,895,330,302 11.841 0.000 2,946,305,756 1.182 0.377
b 18 TI1 148,099,707 TI11 2,440,224,174 TI21 2,580,796,734
a 4 8,273,877,931 15.434 0.000 1,357,891,695 7.824 0.002 5,031,478 0.111 0.977
b 18 TI2 536,079,989 TI12 173,544,468 TI22 45,372,332
a 4 2,544,811,438 2.428 0.097 16,303,468 16.769 0.000 334,226,911 14.022 0.000
TI3 TI13 TI23
b 18 1,047,993,256 972,247 23,835,344
a 4 101,059,294 10.033 0.000 32,066,970 0.502 0.735 226,598,415 2.351 0.104
b 18 TI4 10,073,133 TI14 63,873,350 TI24 96,376,084
a 4 690,228,981 12.893 0.000 615,334,483 3.489 0.035 201,890,786 0.436 0.781
TI5 TI15 TI25
b 18 53,533,123 176,357,993 463,442,867
a 4 928,871,622 7.313 0.002 1,338,954,477 13.590 0.000 167,400,453 1.707 0.204
TI6 TI16 TI26
b 18 127,010,165 98,527,695 98,063,293
a 4 427,438,014 3.734 0.029 28,914,694 13.248 0.000 35,925,215 6.622 0.003
b 18 TI7 114,486,226 TI17 2,182,521 TI27 5,425,128
a 4 1,507,644,034 16.934 0.000 209,312,770 13.320 0.000 5,461,628,820 3.147 0.048
TI8 TI18 TI28
b 18 89,030,682 15,713,655 1,735,666,800
a 4 2,553,681,975 34.620 0.000 14,349,980 8.350 0.001 1,769,860 5.319 0.008
Land TI9 TI19 TI29
b 2023,
1812, x FOR PEER73,763,483
REVIEW 1,718,472 332,763 15 of 41
a 4 2,828,820,421 1.680 0.210 165,474,567 5.073 0.010 4,258,672,838 13.087 0.000
TI10 TI20 TI30
b 18 1,683,574,885 32,620,003 325,405,173
a = between groups; b = within groups. Note: MS = mean square.

457
Figure
Figure 7.
7. Mean
Mean plots
plots (TI,
(TI, TIGR):
TIGR): other
other areas
areas in
in Niigata.
Niigata. 458

5.3.2. Tertiary
5.3.2. Tertiary Industry
Industry Income
Income 459
First, Table
First, Table 55 shows
shows that thep-value
that the p-value(>0.5)
(>0.5)of
ofTII5/11/12/28
TII5/11/12/28 was wasnotnotaasignificant
significantfit.
fit. 460
However, 87% (26 cities and the Niigata area) of the cities in Niigata passed
However, 87% (26 cities and the Niigata area) of the cities in Niigata passed the one-way the one-way 461
ANOVA analysis.
ANOVA Second, the
analysis. Second, the 26
26 cities
cities and
and the
the Niigata
Niigata area
area were
were selected
selected for
for multiple
multiple 462
comparisons testing using LSD (Table A2) and mean plots (Figure
comparisons testing using LSD (Table A2) and mean plots (Figure 8). Table A2 shows 8). Table A2 shows
the 463
the descriptive
descriptive statistics.
statistics. This This
shows shows
that that the hosting
the hosting of double
of double exhibitions
exhibitions positively
positively im- 464
impacted
pacted the the tertiary
tertiary industry
industry incomeincome (TII)
(TII) in thein the neighborhood
neighborhood areas andareas
theand theNiigata
whole whole 465
Niigata area. In addition, the rising tide process for 73% of the
area. In addition, the rising tide process for 73% of the fitting areas (exceptingfitting areas (excepting 466
TII1/6/9/16/22/23/25)
TII1/6/9/16/22/23/25) was was the same.
the same. PartsParts of mean
of the the mean tertiary
tertiary industry
industry income
income plotsplots
ex- 467
hibited a negative growth trend. In total, 100% of the local areas (the hosting areas) and 468
52 of neighborhood areas exhibited a positive growth trend in relation to tertiary industry 469
income. The Niigata area also exhibited a positive growth trend. 470

Table 5. ANOVA (Tertiary Industry Income). 471

Land 2023, 12, 368 15 of 37

exhibited a negative growth trend. In total, 100% of the local areas (the hosting areas) and
52 of neighborhood areas exhibited a positive growth trend in relation to tertiary industry
income. The Niigata area also exhibited a positive growth trend.

Table 5. ANOVA (Tertiary Industry Income).

df MS F Sig. MS F Sig. MS F Sig.

a 4 1,342,753,512,113 83.599 0.000
TII0
b 18 16,061,887,716
a 4 604,895,005 33.164 0.000 8,893,164,576 2.451 0.114 192,877,319,781 9.653 0.002
b 18 TII1 18,239,409 TII11 3,627,656,709 TII21 19,980,050,156
a 4 356,764,030 63.426 0.000 497,009,534 2.488 0.110 247,337,672 87.687 0.000
b 18 TII2 5,624,929 TII12 199,722,627 TII22 2,820,700
a 4 10,625,978,362 59.464 0.000 3,489,956 16.659 0.000 88,216,224 15.081 0.000
TII3 TII13 TII23
b 18 178,697,467 209,492 5,849,310
Land
a 2023,412, x FOR PEER REVIEW
83,230,682 5.158 0.016 404,983,310 149.886 0.000 1,948,667,310 361.804160.000
of 41
b 18 TII4 16,136,347 TII14 2,701,935 TII24 5,385,971
a 4 123,196,734 0.130 0.968 2,531,481,017 82.470 0.000 1,537,895,068 15.237 0.000
TII5 TII15 TII25
b 18 946,397,616 30,695,961 100,933,115
a 4 298,309,518 6.329 0.008 1,761,355,407 331.565 0.000 113,212,883 32.277 0.000
TII6 TII16 TII26
b 18 47,132,916 5,312,249 3,507,562
ba 18 4 11,670,906
1,599,530,277 137.053 0.000
151,974
15,585,059 102.551 0.000
545,143
5,898,076 10.819 0.001
ab 4 18 TII7 633,321,292
11,670,906 71.193 0.000 TII17 141,213,761
151,974 62.679 0.000 TII27 1,102,284,497
545,143 0.774 0.567
TII8 TII18 TII28
ba 18 4 TII8
633,321,292
8,895,780 71.193 0.000
TII18
141,213,761
2,252,971 62.679 0.000
TII28
1,102,284,497
1,424,808,7760.774 0.567
ab 4 18 8,895,780
375,855,603 96.340 0.000 2,252,971
20,039,870 112.971 0.000 1,424,808,776
1,179,623 55.907 0.000
a 4 TII9 375,855,603 96.340 0.000 TII19 20,039,870 112.971 0.000 TII29 1,179,623 55.907 0.000
bb 1818 TII9 3,901,342 TII19 177,390 TII29 21,100
3,901,342 177,390 21,100
aa 4 4 30,587,378,331
30,587,378,331 194.814
194.814 0.000
0.000 405,722,020
405,722,020 55.925
55.925 0.000
0.000 1,020,896,820
1,020,896,820 43.16543.165
0.000 0.000
TII10 TII10 TII20
TII20 TII30TII30
bb 1818 157,008,447
157,008,447 7,254,778
7,254,778 23,651,042
23,651,042
a = between
betweengroups;
groups;b =bwithin groups.
= within Note:Note:
groups. MS =MS
mean square.square.
= mean 472

473
Figure 8. Mean plots (TII, TIIGR): other areas in Niigata. 474

5.3.3. Per Capita Income 475

First, Table 6 shows that the p-value (<0.5) of PCI6/10/14/15/16/18/20/22/26 was not a 476
significant fit. However, 70% (21 cities and the Niigata area) of the cities in Niigata passed 477
the one-way ANOVA analysis. Second, the 21 cities and the Niigata area were selected for 478
multiple comparisons testing using LSD (Table A3) and mean plots (Figure 9). Table A3 479
shows the descriptive statistics. This shows that the hosting of double exhibitions posi- 480
Land 2023, 12, 368 16 of 37

5.3.3. Per Capita Income

First, Table 6 shows that the p-value (<0.5) of PCI6/10/14/15/16/18/20/22/26 was
not a significant fit. However, 70% (21 cities and the Niigata area) of the cities in Niigata
passed the one-way ANOVA analysis. Second, the 21 cities and the Niigata area were
selected for multiple comparisons testing using LSD (Table A3) and mean plots (Figure 9).
Table A3 shows the descriptive statistics. This shows that the hosting of double exhibitions
positively impacted tertiary industry income (TII) in the neighborhood areas and the whole
Niigata area. In addition, the rising tide process for 73% of the fitting areas (excepting
PCI12) was the same. Only one of the mean per capita income plots exhibited a positive
growth trend. The majority exhibited a negative growth trend.
Land 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 41
Table 6. ANOVA (Per Capita Income).

df MS F Sig. MS F Sig. MS F Sig.

a 4 28,133 3.541 0.03
a 4 PCI0 197,425 9.466 0.000 125,264 4.354 0.014 11,229 1.321 0.305
b 18 PCI2 7946 PCI12 PCI22
a b 4 18 20,856
57,229 4.298 0.015 28,767
36,112 3.273 0.039 8,499
24,928 3.587 0.029
PCI1 PCI11 PCI21
b a 18 4 13,316
43,692 3.733 0.025 11,034
27,183 4.145 0.017 6949
188,472 14.439 0.000
a 4 PCI3 197,425 9.466 0.000 PCI13 125,264 4.354 0.014 PCI23 11,229 1.321 0.305
b 18 PCI2 11,704 PCI12 6,559 PCI22 13,053
b 18 20,856 28,767 8499
a 4 102,938 5.764 0.005 18,779 0.742 0.577 51,513 6.853 0.002
a 4 PCI4 43,692 3.733 0.025 PCI14 27,183 4.145 0.017 PCI24 188,472 14.439 0.000
b 18 PCI3 17,858 PCI13 25,307 PCI23 7,517
b 18 11,704 6559 13,053
a a 4 4 66,873
102,938 8.407 0.001
5.764 0.005 11,398
18,779 1.145
0.742 0.371
0.577 153,565
51,513 3.782
6.853 0.024
0.002
b 18
PCI5
PCI4
17,858
PCI15
PCI14
25,307
PCI25
PCI24
7517
b 18 7,954 9,953 40,604
a a 4 4 66,873
404,902 8.407 0.001
2.427 0.091 11,398
14,456 1.145
0.842 0.371
0.519 153,565
26,376 3.782
1.332 0.024
0.301
PCI5 PCI15 PCI25
b 18 PCI6 7954 PCI16 9953 PCI26 40,604
a b 4 18 166,819
404,902 2.427 0.091 17,175
14,456 0.842 0.519 19,805
26,376 1.332 0.301
a 4 PCI6 26,872 4.892 0.009 PCI16 81,863 5.88 0.004 PCI26 79,889 5.555 0.005
b 18 166,819 17,175 19,805
PCI7 PCI17 PCI27
a b 4 18 5,493
26,872 4.892 0.009 13,921
81,863 5.88 0.004 14,381
79,889 5.555 0.005
PCI7 PCI17 PCI27
b a 18 4 5493
79,044 7.936 0.001 13,921
16,463 2.754 0.064 14,381
145,313 10.623 0.000
a 4 PCI8 79,044 7.936 0.001 PCI18 16,463 2.754 0.064 PCI28 145,313 10.623 0.000
b 18 PCI8 9,960 PCI18 5,977 PCI28 13,679
b 18 9960 5977 13,679
a a 4 4 59,046
59,046 5.935 0.004
5.935 0.004 PCI19 47,729
47,729 10.816
10.816 0.000
0.000 336,389
336,389 4.496
4.496 0.013
0.013
PCI9
PCI9 PCI19 PCI29
PCI29
b b 18 18 9,948
9948 4,413
4413 74,825
74,825
a a 4 4 18,019
18,019 1.599 0.223
1.599 0.223 24,966
24,966 2.89
2.89 0.056
0.056 255,331
255,331 12.197 0.000
12.197 0.000
PCI10
PCI10 PCI20
PCI20 PCI30
PCI30
b b 18 18 11,267
11,267 8639
8,639 20,933
20,933
aa
= =between
betweengroups; b =bwithin
groups; groups.
= within Note:
groups. MS =MS
Note: mean square.
= mean square. 486

487
Figure9.9.Mean
Figure Meanplots
plots (PCI,
(PCI, PCIGR):
PCIGR): other
otherareas
areasininNiigata.
Niigata. 488

5.4. One-Way ANOVA: Population 489

5.4.1. Total Population 490
First, Table 7 shows that the p-value (>0.5) of TP10/17 was not a significant fit. How- 491
Land 2023, 12, 368 17 of 37

5.4. One-Way ANOVA: Population

5.4.1. Total Population
First, Table 7 shows that the p-value (>0.5) of TP10/17 was not a significant fit. How-
ever, 93% (28 cities and the Niigata area) of the cities in Niigata passed the one-way ANOVA
analysis. Second, the 28 cities and the Niigata area were selected for multiple comparisons
Land 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
testing using LSD (Table A4) and mean plots (Figure 10). Table A1 shows the18descriptive
of 41

statistics. Only two of the total population plots exhibited a positive growth trend. The
majority exhibited a negative growth trend.

df MS
Table 7. ANOVAF Sig.
(Total Population). MS F Sig. MS F Sig.
a 4 38,242,857,927 13.606 0.000
TP0
dfb 19 2,810,822,930
MS F Sig. MS F Sig. MS F Sig.
a 4 64,469,522 16.328 0.000 120,552,719 14.499 0.000 181,562,716 7.099 0.001
a 4 TP138,242,857,927 13.606 0.000 TP11 TP21
19b 19 3,948,516 8,314,793 25,575,465
TP0
b 2,810,822,930
a 4a 4 37,456,965
TP2 64,469,522
18.530
16.328 0.000 0.000 309,797
TP12 120,552,719
11.366 0.000
14.499 0.000 TP22 24,720,539
181,562,71614.885 7.099
0.000 0.001
b 19b TP1
19 2,021,369
3,948,516 TP11 27,256
8,314,793 TP21 1,660,783
25,575,465
a 4a 4 37,456,965
197,172,852 18.530
12.5270.000
0.000 309,797
1,497,464 11.366 0.000
19.904 0.000 24,720,53917.031 14.885
15,459,175 0.000 0.000
b 19b TP2 TP3 2,021,369 TP12
TP13 27,256 TP22
TP23 1,660,783
19 15,740,076 75,233 907,733
a 4a 4 197,172,852
5,440,750 12.527
18.3020.000
0.000TP13 1,497,464
7,858,503 19.904 0.000
15.275 0.000 15,459,17514.714 17.031 0.000
TP3 TP4 15,740,076 TP14 TP23 53,353,977
TP24
0.000
b 19 75,233 907,733
b 19 297,279 514,469 3,625,992
a 4 5,440,750 18.302 0.000 7,858,503 15.275 0.000 53,353,977 14.714 0.000
b 19a TP4
4 96,658,471 15.440 0.000TP14 72,987,681 17.580 0.000 TP24 476,8983,625,99227.672 0.000
TP5 297,279 TP15 514,469 TP25
a 4b 19 6,260,177 15.440 0.000
96,658,471 4,151,862
72,987,681 17.580 0.000 17,234476,898 27.672 0.000
TP5 21.408 0.000TP15 TP25 16,200,960
b 19a 4 942,279
6,260,177 17,428,149
4,151,862 9.776 0.000 17,234 20.658 0.000
TP6 TP16 TP26
a 4b 19 942,279
44,016 21.408 0.000 17,428,149
1,782,738 9.776 0.000 16,200,960
784,254 20.658 0.000
TP6 TP16 TP26
b 19a 4 44,016
40,717,060 13.293 0.000 1,782,738
93,722 1.903 0.151 784,254 17.676 0.000
2,469,633
a 4 TP7 40,717,060 13.293 0.000 TP17 93,722 1.903 0.151 TP27 2,469,633 17.676 0.000
b 19
TP7 3,063,006 TP17 49,257 TP27 139,720
b 19 3,063,006 49,257 139,720
a 4a 4 58,453,611 16.084
TP8 58,453,611
16.0840.000
0.000
TP18
24,626,076
24,626,076 15.977
15.977 0.000
0.000 TP28 2,802,885,271 13.572 13.572
2,802,885,271 0.000 0.000
TP8 TP18 TP28 206,519,346
b 19b 19 3,634,193
3,634,193 1,541,380
1,541,380 206,519,346
a 4a 4 22,732,489 13.807
22,732,489 13.8070.000
0.000 2,410,253
2,410,253 15.201
15.201 0.000
0.000 5,0455045 14.150 14.150
0.000 0.000
TP9 TP9 TP19
TP19 TP29
TP29
b 19b 19 1,646,498
1,646,498 158,557
158,557 357 357
a 4a 4 23,219,140
23,219,140 1.377 1.3770.279
0.279TP20 52,097,693
52,097,693 14.473 0.000
14.473 0.000 192,168,084 18.898 0.000
TP10 TP10 16,857,229 TP20 TP30 192,168,084 18.898 0.000
TP30
b 19b 19 16,857,229 3,599,749
3,599,749 10,168,506
10,168,506
a = between groups;
a = between b = within
groups; groups.
b = within Note:
groups. MS MS
Note: = mean square.
= mean square. 498

499
Figure
Figure 10.10. Mean
Mean plots(TP,
plots (TP,TPGR):
TPGR): other
other areas
areasininNiigata.
Niigata. 500

5.4.2. Labor Population 501

Land 2023, 12, 368 18 of 37

5.4.2. Labor Population

First, Table 8 shows that the p-value (>0.5) of LP25/28 was not a significant fit. How-
ever, 93% (28 cities and the Niigata area) of the cities in Niigata passed the one-way ANOVA
analysis. Second, the 28 cities and the Niigata area were selected for multiple comparisons
testing using LSD (Table A5) and mean plots (Figure 11). Table A1 shows the descriptive
statistics. All parts of the mean labor population plots exhibited a negative growth trend.

Table 8. ANOVA (Labor Population).

df MS F Sig. MS F Sig. MS F Sig.

a 4 59,308,416,492 15.111 0.000
LP0
b 19 3,924,942,746
a 4 65,920,441 18.533 0.000 142,602,155 14.431 0.000 4,074,518,569 15.284 0.000
b 19 LP1 3,556,895 LP11 9,881,935 LP21 266,587,308
a 4 31,229,521 17.364 0.000 320,266 13.180 0.000 24,725,157 11.645 0.000
b 19 LP2 1,798,499 LP12 24,300 LP22 2,123,244
a 4 467,260,853 18.088 0.000 676,597 16.151 0.000 9,497,889 19.553 0.000
LP3 LP13 LP23
b 19 25,832,996 41,893 485,752
a 4 2,728,448 17.360 0.000 19,647,008 16.526 0.000 102,413,697 13.960 0.000
b 19 LP4 157,169 LP14 1,188,826 LP24 7,336,351
a 4 98,798,611 17.548 0.000 160,522,118 20.311 0.000 5052 0.208 0.931
LP5 LP15 LP25
b 19 5,630,303 7,903,370 24,311
a 4 1,526,743 22.534 0.000 74,452,415 17.526 0.000 23,013,872 20.652 0.000
LP6 LP16 LP26
b 19 67,754 4,248,176 1,114,374
a 4 36,435,378 11.114 0.000 499,814 6.391 0.002 1,392,328 16.224 0.000
b 19 LP7 3,278,454 LP17 78,207 LP27 85,821
a 4 42,832,982 16.146 0.000 25,547,365 17.914 0.000 10,939,589 2.144 0.115
LP8 LP18 LP28
b 19 2,652,920 1,426,080 5,102,115
a 4 29,300,613 15.746 0.000 3,668,188 13.684 0.000 4420 22.696 0.000
LP9 LP19 LP29
b 19 1,860,885 268,060 195
Land 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 41
a 4 422,125,699 10.047 0.000 63,616,834 15.299 0.000 121,186,584 21.249 0.000
LP10 LP20 LP30
b 19 42,016,840 4,158,202 5,703,272
a = between groups; b = within groups. Note: MS = mean square.

510
Figure11.
Figure 11.Mean
Meanplot
plot (LP,
(LP, LPGR):
LPGR): other
other areas
areas in
inNiigata.
Niigata. 511

5.4.3. Household Number 512

First, Table 9 shows that the p-value (>0.5) of HN28/29 was not a significant fit. How- 513
ever, 93% (28 cities and the Niigata area) of the cities in Niigata passed the one-way 514
ANOVA analysis. Second, the 28 cities and the Niigata area were selected for multiple 515
comparisons testing using LSD (Table A6) and mean plots (Figure 12). Table A1 shows 516
Land 2023, 12, 368 19 of 37

5.4.3. Household Number

First, Table 9 shows that the p-value (>0.5) of HN28/29 was not a significant fit.
However, 93% (28 cities and the Niigata area) of the cities in Niigata passed the one-way
ANOVA analysis. Second, the 28 cities and the Niigata area were selected for multiple
comparisons testing using LSD (Table A6) and mean plots (Figure 12). Table A1 shows
the descriptive statistics. Only one of the mean household number plots exhibited a
negative growth trend. Approximately 67% of local areas (the hosting areas) and 100% of
neighborhood areas exhibited a positive growth trend in relation to household number
(HN). The Niigata area also exhibited a positive growth trend.

Table 9. ANOVA (Household Number).

df MS F Sig. MS F Sig. MS F Sig.

a 4 8,065,587,979 22.458 0.000
HN0
b 18 359,133,120
a 4 463,929 20.976 0.000 7,713,658 24.666 0.000 2,281,557,957 18.864 0.000
HN1 HN11 HN21
b 18 22,117 312,722 120,946,518
a 4 462,189 21.303 0.000 8621 19.845 0.000 1,852,761 20.861 0.000
HN2 HN12 HN22
b 18 21,696 434 88,817
a 4 68,240,679 25.286 0.000 13,958 12.588 0.000 232,285 8.512 0.000
HN3 HN13 HN23
b 18 2,698,732 1109 27,290
a 4 19,928 9.251 0.000 3,547,127 19.697 0.000 15,509,385 19.284 0.000
HN4 HN14 HN24
b 18 2154 180,080 804,268
a 4 252,088
Land 7.932
2023, 12, x FOR 0.001
PEER REVIEW 14,477,563 21.691 0.000 862,771 16.388 0.00021 of 41
HN5 HN15 HN25
b 18 31,781 667,450 52,648
a 4 186,192 6.872 0.002 14,773,235 20.624 0.000 960,011 22.296 0.000
HN6 HN16 HN26
b 18 27,093 716,328 43,058
a 4 3,278,312 18.224 0.000 112,066 46.289 0.000 16,720 9.89 0.000
HN7 HN17 HN27
b 18 179,885
b 18 179,885 2421 2,421 1691 1,691
a 4 377,603
a 4 15.39 377,603
0.000 15.39 431,793
0.000 25.545
431,7930.000 25.545 0.000121,389,622121,389,622
2.71 2.71
0.063 0.063
HN8 HN8 HN18 HN28
b 18 b24,53518 24,535 16,903 HN18 16,903
HN28
44,786,751 44,786,751
a 4 513,973
a 4 24.351 513,973
0.000 24.351 104,182
0.000 20.434
104,1820.000 20.434 0.000 257 2572.493 2.493
0.080 0.080
HN9 HN9 HN19 HN29
b 18 b21,10718 21,107 5098 HN19 5,098
HN29
103 103
a 4 263,777,661 24.402 0.000 2,964,408 25.616 0.000 1,192,474 9.675 0.000
HN10 a 4 263,777,661 HN20
24.402 0.000 2,964,408 25.616
HN300.000 1,192,474 9.675 0.000
b 18 10,809,744 HN10 115,724HN20 , 123,259
HN30
b 18 10,809,744 115,724 , 123,259
a = between groups; ba==within groups.
between groups;Note: MS = groups.
b = within mean square.
Note: MS = mean square. 52

52
Figure
Figure 12. Mean plots 12.HNGR):
(HN, Mean plots (HN,areas
other HNGR):
in other areas in Niigata.
Niigata. 52

5.5. Spatial Impact 52

5.5.1. Moran’s I Test of Tourism Indicators 52
The current paper continues to study the spatial autocorrelation of these 30 areas in 52
the Niigata area. Some of the statistics are as follows: a z-Value > 1.65 (positive) or a z- 52
Land 2023, 12, 368 20 of 37

5.5. Spatial Impact

5.5.1. Moran’s I Test of Tourism Indicators
The current paper continues to study the spatial autocorrelation of these 30 areas
in the Niigata area. Some of the statistics are as follows: a z-Value > 1.65 (positive) or a
z-Value < 1.65 (negative) indicate the significance of spatial autocorrelation (10%, 5%, 1%)
(Table 10). The four quadrants of the scatter plot indicate the local spatial (between the city
and its neighbors) associations: HH (a high-value city surrounded by high-value cities);
LH (a low-value city surrounded by low-value cities); LL (a low-value city surrounded
by low-value cities); a HL (a high-value city surrounded by low-value cities). Moran’s
scatterplot can be used to determine the correlations between cities and neighbors.

Table 10. Different standards of Moran’s I value.

z-Value p-Value p-Value

<−1.65 or >+1.65 <0.10 90%
<−1.96 or >+1.96 <0.05 95%
<−2.58 or >+2.58 <0.01 99%

5.5.2. Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA)

On the basis of ANOVA, the majority of tertiary industry income (PCI) and household
number (HN) areas exhibited a positive growth trend. Thus, LISA statistics were used to
further examine arts event tourism flows (PCI and HN) in meaningful clusters and hot
spots in the Niigata area. A significant collection of hosting year data was also utilized.
Local indicators of spatial association (LISA) show the spatial cluster effect in 30 Niigata
areas in the hosting year of 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018. It was divided into
two periods: (1) only rural arts event (ETAT) tourism was hosted in 2000, 2003, and 2006;
(2) rural/urban arts event (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism was hosted at the same time in 2009,
2012, 2015, and 2018.
• Tertiary Industry Income
First, in the first period (only rural arts events (ETAT) tourism), a spatial cluster began
to form in the local/hosting areas and the neighborhood areas (Figures 13 and 14). However,
the scale of the spatial set was small and low in 2000, the first hosting year. After that, the
scale of the spatial collection became more significant. In 2006 (the third hosting year) in
particular, the most significant spatial clusters were both in the local/hosting areas and
the neighborhood areas. This shows that hosting rural arts event (ETAT) tourism had a
positive spatial impact on both the local/hosting areas and the neighborhood areas.
Second, in the period (rural/urban arts event (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism), the most
significant spatial clusters were surrounded by the urban local/hosting areas and the
neighborhood areas. This shows that hosting urban arts event (WLNAF) tourism had a
more substantial positive spatial impact on both the local/hosting areas and the neigh-
borhood areas than rural arts event (ETAT) tourism. Moreover, in 2018, there were no
spatial clusters in the rural and urban arts event (ETAT+WLNAF)-tourism-hosting areas.
An event can significantly increase local economic activity, yet the net impact within the
neighboring areas and cities may be more significant than the local (hosting areas) impact
(e.g., the big/national effect often exceeds the small/state effect). In addition, the impact
on the local/hosting areas can even be negative [46,47]. This shows that after encouraging
rural and urban arts event (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the surrounding
neighborhood areas also demonstrated solid economic development potential. This finding
can be used to drive positive change in the future.
Land 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 41
Land 2023, 12, 368 21 of 37

568
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Moran’s
Moran’s II statistics
statistics for
for the
the tertiary
tertiary industry
industry income
income growth
growth rate
rate(TIIGR).
(TIIGR). 569

Figure 14. Local indicators of spatial association (LISA) of the tertiary industry income growth
570
rate (TIIGR).
Figure 14. Local indicators of spatial association (LISA) of the tertiary industry income growth rate 571
•(TIIGR).
Household Number 572

First, in the first period (only rural arts event (ETAT) tourism), the spatial cluster
• Household Number 573
began to form in the local/hosting areas’ neighborhood areas (Figures 15 and 16). However,
First,ofinthe
the scale the first period
spatial (only
collection wasrural
not arts event (ETAT)
significant in 2000, tourism), the spatial
the first hosting year.cluster
After 574
began to form in the local/hosting areas’ neighborhood areas (Figure 15 &
2003, the scale of the spatial cluster became more significant in the local/hostingFigure 16).
areas and 575
the neighborhood areas. This shows that hosting rural arts event (ETAT) tourism had a
 ing areas and the neighborhood areas. This shows that hosting rural arts event (ETAT) 578
tourism had a positive spatial impact on both the local/hosting areas and the neighbor- 579
hood areas. On the other hand, from 2003, the areas hosting urban arts event (WLNAF) 580
tourism had a spatial cluster that was more significant than the areas hosting rural arts 581
event (ETAT) tourism even though the urban arts events (WLNAF) had not been held yet. 582
Land 2023, 12, 368 Second, during the period (rural/urban arts events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism), 22 ofthe
37 583
most significant spatial clusters were surrounded by the urban local/hosting areas and 584
their neighborhood areas. This shows that hosting urban arts event (WLNAF) tourism had 585
positive spatial impact
a more substantial on both
spatial the on
impact local/hosting areas and
both local/hosting the and
areas neighborhood areas. On
the neighborhood the
areas 586
other hand, from
as compared 2003,arts
to rural theevent
areas(ETAT)
hostingtourism.
urban arts event (WLNAF)
Moreover, tourism
this shows had a or
that before spatial
after 587
cluster that
the rural andwas morearts
urban significant than the areas hosting
events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourismrural arts
drive event
over (ETAT)
these years,tourism
people 588
even though
remained theattracted
more urban artstoevents
urban (WLNAF)
areas than had not been
to rural areas.held yet. 589

590
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Moran’s
Moran’s II statistics
statistics of
of household
household number
number growth
growthrate
rate(HNGR).
(HNGR). 591

Figure 16. Local indicators of spatial association of household number growth rate (HNGR).

Second, during the period (rural/urban arts events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism), the
most significant spatial clusters were surrounded by the urban local/hosting areas and
their neighborhood areas. This shows that hosting urban arts event (WLNAF) tourism had
Land 2023, 12, 368 23 of 37

a more substantial spatial impact on both local/hosting areas and the neighborhood areas
as compared to rural arts event (ETAT) tourism. Moreover, this shows that before or after
the rural and urban arts events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism drive over these years, people
remained more attracted to urban areas than to rural areas.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

As a result of population shrinkage in both rural and urban areas throughout Japan
and the loss of population in the Niigata area, total income and per capita income began
to decline after reaching their highest values in the 1980s [116,117]. However, this decline
started to slow after these areas began hosting two arts events, with certain economic and
population aspects beginning to show positive growth.

6.1. Implications for Theory

First, an event may significantly increase local economic activity, yet the net impact
within the neighboring areas and cities may be more significant than the local (hosting
areas) impact (e.g., the big/national effect often exceeds the small/state effect). In addition,
the impact on the local/hosting areas can even be negative [46,47]. This shows that after the
rural and urban arts event (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism drive over these years, the surrounding
neighborhood areas also demonstrated solid economic development potential. This finding
can be used to drive positive change in the future. It shows that hosting urban arts event
(WLNAF) tourism has a more substantial positive spatial impact on both local/hosting
areas and its neighborhood areas than rural arts event (ETAT) tourism. Moreover, it shows
that before and after the rural and urban arts event (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism drive over
these years, people remained more attracted to urban areas than to rural areas.
Second, the economic results from spatial Moran’s I show that after the rural and urban
arts events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism drive over these years, the surrounding neighborhood
areas also demonstrated solid economic development potential. This finding can also be
used to drive positive change in the future. The population results from spatial Moran’s
I show that hosting urban arts event (WLNAF) tourism had a more substantial positive
spatial impact on both local/hosting areas and its neighborhood areas than hosting rural
arts event (ETAT) tourism. Moreover, it shows that before or after the rural and urban arts
event (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism drive over these years, people remained more attracted to
urban areas than to rural areas.
Third, from the perspectives of tourism, economics, and the population from SLR,
ANOVA, and spatial Moran’s I, hosting rural and urban arts events was shown to positively
impact local and neighborhood areas. This shows that holding an exhibition positively
increased the local population’s income. This achieves the goal of “promoting local by
sustainable tourism” in the SDGs. Moreover, the panel data were studied using multiple-
method analysis, which brings a certain validity to the paper, making its analysis of the
spatio-temporal impacts more valuable from a scientific point of view.

6.2. Implications for Practitioners and Policy Makers

The current paper shows the positive impacts of exhibition-driven tourism using
quantitative analysis. The following conclusions were drawn: (1) the rural arts events
were mainly aimed at local and regional revitalization and developing the economies
there, which can have a positive effect on population shrinkage; (2) urban arts events have
more potential to affect population shrinkage. SDG 8.9 was also empirically confirmed
in the results. The changes in the world have exceeded our expectations. Therefore, a
new evaluation of exhibition-driven tourism must be established. Although this process
may be controversial, this study adds to our knowledge regarding the spatio-temporal
impacts of the exhibition-driven tourism industry. The findings in this paper will help to
guide operators/practitioners in the tourism industry to obtain market research support
aimed at improvement measures. Moreover, these findings also is a policy support role for
governmental or non-governmental policymakers in the tourism industry.
Land 2023, 12, 368 24 of 37

6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

It is well known that the factors affecting the economy and population are very
complex. Thus, the current study has certain limitations. For example, in this study, we
only conducted empirical research on two arts events from three perspectives. The scope
must be expanded in further investigations. Moreover, similar and different impacts related
to rural arts event and urban arts event tourism are an essential research direction for the
future with sustainable development goals in mind.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.C.; data curation, G.C.; formal analysis, G.C.; funding
acquisition, G.C., Y.Z. (Yujin Zhang), Y.Z. (Yanna Zhou), B.Z., W.J. and Q.W.; investigation, G.C.;
methodology, G.C.; project administration, G.C., Y.Z. (Yujin Zhang), Y.Z. (Yanna Zhou), B.Z., X.C.,
X.H., Y.G., W.J. and Q.W.; resources, G.C.; software, G.C.; supervision, G.C., Y.Z. (Yujin Zhang), Y.Z.
(Yanna Zhou), B.Z., X.C., X.H., Y.G. and Q.W.; validation, G.C.; visualization, G.C., X.C. and Q.W.;
writing—original draft, G.C.; writing—review and editing, G.C. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Shaoxing “Home of Celebrities” Talent Program (Gangwei
Cai); Zhejiang Provincial Construction Research Project, grant number 2021K035; Zhejiang Provin-
cial Construction Research Project, grant number 2021K131; and Zhejiang Provincial Construction
Research Project, grant number 2022K049.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available on request due to restrictions, e.g., privacy or ethics.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are
not publicly available due to comments from the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Land 2023, 12, 368 25 of 37

Appendix A

Table A1. Total income—post hoc tests—multiple comparisons using LSD.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 TI0 368,697 0.035 TI5 8963 0.156 TI9 4579 0.524 TI15 8638 0.439 TI19 1265 0.257 TI28 −27,532 0.432
B1 499,675 0.003 16,832 0.006 18,499 0.009 18,076 0.075 1700 0.088 −26,258 0.388
Y2 1,032,318 0.000 33,075 0.000 55,381 0.000 29,131 0.018 4487 0.001 −88,540 0.021
B2 1,037,094 0.000 32,726 0.000 57,300 0.000 32,666 0.006 4651 0.000 −87,016 0.016
Y1 B1 130,979 0.355 7869 0.151 13,920 0.038 9437 0.332 434 0.647 1273 0.966
Y2 663,621 0.001 24,112 0.001 50,802 0.000 20,493 0.080 3222 0.009 −61,009 0.095
B2 668,398 0.000 23,763 0.001 52,720 0.000 24,028 0.033 3385 0.004 −59,484 0.083
B1 Y2 532,643 0.002 16,244 0.007 36,882 0.000 11,056 0.259 2787 0.009 −62,282 0.053
B2 537,419 0.001 15,895 0.005 38,801 0.000 14,591 0.111 2951 0.004 −60,758 0.040
Y2 B2 4777 0.975 −349 0.951 1919 0.774 3535 0.733 164 0.873 1524 0.962
NO Y1 TI1 31,152 0.007 TI6 20,488 0.043 TI11 87,731 0.047 TI16 9601 0.256 TI20 11,730 0.025 TI29 649 0.190
B1 38,015 0.001 24,254 0.009 98,712 0.013 15,898 0.040 17,046 0.001 620 0.151
Y2 52,347 0.000 40,538 0.001 222,228 0.000 42,672 0.000 10,628 0.039 1663 0.003
B2 41,769 0.001 41,363 0.000 214,491 0.000 44,040 0.000 16,286 0.002 1649 0.002
Y1 B1 6863 0.438 3766 0.644 10,981 0.758 6297 0.385 5317 0.209 −30 0.943
Y2 21,196 0.051 20,049 0.047 134,497 0.005 33,070 0.001 −1102 0.817 1014 0.049
B2 10,618 0.272 20,874 0.029 126,761 0.005 34,438 0.000 4556 0.314 1000 0.040
B1 Y2 14,333 0.118 16,283 0.060 123,516 0.003 26,773 0.002 −6418 0.134 1044 0.023
B2 3755 0.640 17,108 0.034 115,779 0.003 28,141 0.001 −761 0.840 1029 0.015
Y2 B2 −10,578 0.274 825 0.925 −7737 0.840 1368 0.859 5658 0.216 −14 0.975
NO Y1 TI2 −3636 0.850 TI7 17,011 0.072 TI12 21,189 0.069 TI17 −2321 0.075 TI23 15,027 0.002 TI30 28,740 0.071
B1 −613 0.971 19,581 0.021 23,113 0.026 −70 0.948 16,305 0.000 42,350 0.005
Y2 76,648 0.001 30,317 0.004 49,754 0.000 4488 0.002 24,038 0.000 84,034 0.000
B2 90,940 0.000 26,580 0.006 46,569 0.000 4031 0.003 25,775 0.000 83,113 0.000
Y1 B1 3023 0.856 2570 0.739 1924 0.839 2251 0.049 1278 0.717 13,610 0.304
Y2 80,284 0.001 13,307 0.150 28,565 0.019 6809 0.000 9011 0.040 55,295 0.002
B2 94,576 0.000 9569 0.261 25,380 0.024 6352 0.000 10,747 0.012 54,373 0.001
B1 Y2 77,261 0.000 10,736 0.178 26,641 0.013 4558 0.001 7733 0.042 41,685 0.006
B2 91,553 0.000 6999 0.328 23,456 0.015 4101 0.001 9469 0.009 40,763 0.004
Y2 B2 14,292 0.433 −3738 0.654 −3185 0.756 −456 0.692 1736 0.649 −922 0.948
Land 2023, 12, 368 26 of 37

Table A1. Cont.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 TI4 6930 0.018 TI8 22,350 0.012 TI13 2633 0.006 TI18 8694 0.018 TI27 2704 0.177
B1 8792 0.002 29,952 0.001 2152 0.008 13,969 0.000 4016 0.029
Y2 13,769 0.000 50,716 0.000 5494 0.000 18,667 0.000 7425 0.002
B2 13,477 0.000 52,020 0.000 4926 0.000 19,577 0.000 7899 0.001
Y1 B1 1862 0.421 7601 0.274 −481 0.502 5275 0.081 1311 0.439
Y2 6839 0.019 28,366 0.002 2861 0.003 9974 0.008 4721 0.026
B2 6546 0.017 29,670 0.001 2293 0.009 10,884 0.003 5195 0.011
B1 Y2 4977 0.044 20,764 0.008 3342 0.000 4699 0.116 3410 0.057
B2 4684 0.038 22,069 0.003 2774 0.001 5609 0.046 3883 0.022
Y2 B2 −292 0.906 1304 0.859 −567 0.464 910 0.768 474 0.794

Table A2. Tertiary industry income—post hoc tests—multiple comparisons using LSD.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 TII0 −1,387,250 0.000 TII4 −12,260 0.003 TII9 −26,337 0.000 TII15 −60,416 0.000 TII19 −5622 0.000 TII23 −12,459 0.000
B1 −1,473,547 0.000 −10,549 0.004 −22,391 0.000 −59,950 0.000 −5404 0.000 −9798 0.000
Y2 −1,104,793 0.000 −8083 0.043 −15,628 0.000 −53,109 0.000 −4254 0.000 −2905 0.196
B2 −1,102,233 0.000 −8520 0.034 −15,805 0.000 −58,273 0.000 −4737 0.000 −4146 0.076
Y1 B1 −86297 0.394 1711 0.589 3946 0.026 466 0.915 218 0.513 2661 0.180
Y2 282,457 0.035 4177 0.281 10,709 0.000 7307 0.179 1368 0.005 9554 0.001
B2 285,017 0.033 3740 0.332 10,532 0.000 2143 0.681 885 0.044 8313 0.004
B1 Y2 368,754 0.007 2466 0.495 6763 0.003 6841 0.184 1150 0.010 6893 0.008
B2 371,314 0.007 2030 0.573 6586 0.003 1677 0.734 667 0.097 5652 0.022
Y2 B2 2560 0.984 −437 0.916 −178 0.930 −5164 0.373 −483 0.279 −1241 0.619
NO Y1 TII1 −31,655 0.000 TII6 −24,428 0.001 TII10 −198,932 0.000 TII16 −51,674 0.000 TII20 −25,494 0.000 TII24 −52,867 0.000
B1 −29,380 0.000 −16,389 0.007 −216,664 0.000 −51,694 0.000 −25,021 0.000 −53,023 0.000
Y2 −15,695 0.002 −5919 0.343 −186,900 0.000 −39,084 0.000 −17,284 0.000 −43,875 0.000
B2 −13,776 0.004 −9879 0.128 −198,395 0.000 −44,050 0.000 −16,726 0.000 −51,922 0.000
Y1 B1 2275 0.501 8039 0.156 −17,732 0.094 −20 0.991 473 0.823 −156 0.932
Y2 15,961 0.002 18,509 0.014 12,032 0.318 12,590 0.000 8210 0.008 8992 0.002
B2 17,879 0.001 14,549 0.043 537 0.963 7624 0.005 8768 0.005 945 0.665
B1 Y2 13,686 0.004 10,470 0.109 29,764 0.021 12,610 0.000 7737 0.008 9149 0.001
B2 15,604 0.002 6510 0.299 18,269 0.123 7645 0.003 8295 0.005 1101 0.596
Y2 B2 1919 0.663 −3960 0.577 −11,495 0.381 −4966 0.057 558 0.840 −8048 0.006
Land 2023, 12, 368 27 of 37

Table A2. Cont.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 TII2 −23,899 0.000 TII7 −48,607 0.000 TII13 −2579 0.000 TII17 −5170 0.000 TII21 −360,834 0.007 TII25 −57,498 0.000
B1 −21,321 0.000 −49,990 0.000 −2074 0.000 −4697 0.000 −577,842 0.000 −31,931 0.001
Y2 −6733 0.008 −38,916 0.000 −1380 0.006 −2411 0.000 −482,311 0.003 −41,433 0.001
B2 −8345 0.002 −39,750 0.000 −1145 0.016 −3056 0.000 −489,660 0.003 −31,937 0.004
Y1 B1 2578 0.185 −1382 0.608 506 0.179 473 0.143 −217,009 0.072 25,566 0.008
Y2 17,165 0.000 9692 0.011 1199 0.017 2759 0.000 −121,478 0.369 16,065 0.110
B2 15,554 0.000 8857 0.018 1435 0.006 2114 0.000 −128,827 0.342 25,561 0.019
B1 Y2 14,588 0.000 11,074 0.004 694 0.111 2286 0.000 95,531 0.453 −9501 0.300
B2 12,976 0.000 10,240 0.006 929 0.041 1641 0.001 88,182 0.488 −5 1.000
Y2 B2 −1612 0.512 −835 0.812 236 0.618 −645 0.129 −7349 0.960 9496 0.367
NO Y1 TII3 −114,203 0.000 TII8 −30,797 0.000 TII14 −21,259 0.000 TII18 −15,040 0.000 TII22 −19,366 0.000 TII26 −14,246 0.000
B1 −112,225 0.000 −31,882 0.000 −24,050 0.000 −14,735 0.000 −19,525 0.000 −12,136 0.000
Y2 −115,113 0.000 −18,074 0.000 −24,652 0.000 −9703 0.000 −15,332 0.000 −10,555 0.000
B2 −141,230 0.000 −17,005 0.000 −23,850 0.000 −8402 0.000 −15,353 0.000 −10,116 0.000
Y1 B1 1978 0.850 −1085 0.644 −2792 0.050 305 0.796 −159 0.904 2110 0.171
Y2 −910 0.942 12,723 0.001 −3394 0.047 5336 0.003 4034 0.025 3691 0.056
B2 −27,027 0.051 13,792 0.000 −2592 0.115 6637 0.001 4013 0.026 4131 0.036
B1 Y2 −2888 0.808 13,809 0.000 −602 0.681 5032 0.003 4193 0.016 1581 0.353
B2 −29,005 0.031 14,877 0.000 200 0.891 6333 0.001 4172 0.017 2020 0.241
Y2 B2 −26,117 0.079 1069 0.728 802 0.636 1301 0.406 −21 0.990 440 0.819

Table A3. Per capita income—post hoc tests—multiple comparisons using LSD.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 PCI0 128 0.078 PCI4 202.333 0.065 PCI9 38 0.628 PCI17 148 0.119 PCI24 155 0.033 PCI29 338.3 0.125
B1 165 0.011 281.5 0.005 154 0.029 154 0.060 193 0.003 561.4 0.006
Y2 228 0.004 399.667 0.001 296 0.001 365 0.001 299 0.000 721.3 0.003
B2 176 0.009 378.6 0.001 244 0.002 315 0.001 259 0.000 654.7 0.003
Y1 B1 37 0.564 79.167 0.414 116 0.119 6 0.947 38 0.549 223.2 0.266
Y2 100 0.188 197.333 0.089 259 0.006 216 0.039 144 0.059 383.0 0.106
B2 48 0.469 176.267 0.09 206 0.012 167 0.070 104 0.120 316.4 0.133
B1 Y2 63 0.334 118.167 0.229 142 0.061 211 0.023 107 0.102 159.8 0.421
B2 11 0.840 97.1 0.248 90 0.156 162 0.038 67 0.223 93.2 0.581
Y2 B2 −52 0.438 −21.067 0.832 −53 0.481 −49 0.576 −40 0.536 −66.6 0.743
Land 2023, 12, 368 28 of 37

Table A3. Cont.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 PCI1 192 0.044 PCI5 176.333 0.02 PCI11 −1 0.994 PCI19 109 0.047 PCI25 194 0.225 PCI30 295.3 0.017
B1 206 0.014 226.667 0.001 38 0.587 147 0.004 229 0.098 393.8 0.001
Y2 303 0.003 324 0 203 0.022 268 0.000 494 0.006 621.7 0.000
B2 286 0.002 307 0 173 0.026 255 0.000 441 0.005 602.2 0.000
Y1 B1 14 0.864 50.333 0.436 38 0.614 37 0.438 35 0.812 98.5 0.350
Y2 110 0.259 147.667 0.06 203 0.031 159 0.010 299 0.088 326.3 0.014
B2 94 0.282 130.667 0.062 174 0.038 146 0.008 246 0.114 306.9 0.010
B1 Y2 96 0.256 97.333 0.142 165 0.041 122 0.020 265 0.082 227.8 0.041
B2 80 0.271 80.333 0.156 136 0.049 108 0.016 212 0.102 208.4 0.030
Y2 B2 −17 0.847 −17 0.797 −30 0.705 −13 0.785 −53 0.723 −19.5 0.856
NO Y1 PCI2 192 0.101 PCI7 124.167 0.043 PCI12 −192 0.158 PCI21 142 0.041 PCI27 222 0.027
B1 245 0.018 162.833 0.004 −53 0.638 173 0.005 262 0.004
Y2 537 0.000 214.167 0.002 187 0.168 206 0.005 379 0.001
B2 504 0.000 181.9 0.002 249 0.044 159 0.012 314 0.001
Y1 B1 53 0.609 38.667 0.471 139 0.262 32 0.597 40 0.644
Y2 346 0.010 90 0.156 379 0.015 64 0.359 157 0.128
B2 312 0.009 57.733 0.302 440 0.003 18 0.776 92 0.311
B1 Y2 292 0.011 51.333 0.342 240 0.063 33 0.589 117 0.187
B2 259 0.009 19.067 0.677 301 0.010 −14 0.782 52 0.487
Y2 B2 −33 0.756 −32.267 0.559 61 0.627 −47 0.454 −65 0.466
NO Y1 PCI3 82 0.336 PCI8 221.167 0.01 PCI13 181 0.01 PCI23 347 0.001 PCI28 292 0.005
B1 171 0.026 274.5 0.001 184 0.003 400 0.000 346 0.000
Y2 294 0.003 365.167 0 208 0.004 542 0.000 488 0.000
B2 185 0.021 318.3 0 143 0.018 519 0.000 447 0.000
Y1 B1 89 0.261 53.333 0.461 3 0.961 54 0.517 55 0.519
Y2 212 0.029 144 0.096 27 0.685 195 0.053 197 0.056
B2 104 0.209 97.133 0.201 −38 0.526 172 0.055 155 0.088
B1 Y2 123 0.128 90.667 0.217 25 0.674 142 0.099 142 0.105
B2 14 0.829 43.8 0.479 −41 0.414 119 0.105 101 0.174
Y2 B2 −108 0.189 −46.867 0.529 −66 0.283 −23 0.790 −41 0.634
Land 2023, 12, 368 29 of 37

Table A4. Total population—post hoc tests—multiple comparisons using LSD.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 TP0 4060 0.926 TP5 708 0.733 TP11 915 0.702 TP16 −625 0.573 TP22 68 0.949 TP27 142 0.648
B1 27,691 0.469 1758 0.333 2125 0.310 −478 0.618 620 0.505 290 0.286
Y2 158,290 0.001 8122 0.000 9175 0.001 2448 0.027 3878 0.001 1316 0.000
B2 180,083 0.000 9392 0.000 10,587 0.000 3214 0.002 4569 0.000 1511 0.000
Y1 B1 23,631 0.536 1050 0.560 1210 0.560 147 0.878 552 0.552 149 0.580
Y2 154,230 0.001 7414 0.001 8261 0.001 3073 0.007 3810 0.001 1174 0.001
B2 176,023 0.000 8684 0.000 9672 0.000 3839 0.000 4501 0.000 1369 0.000
B1 Y2 130,599 0.001 6364 0.001 7050 0.001 2926 0.003 3258 0.001 1025 0.000
B2 152,392 0.000 7634 0.000 8462 0.000 3692 0.000 3949 0.000 1220 0.000
Y2 B2 21,794 0.510 1270 0.418 1412 0.434 766 0.361 691 0.392 195 0.405
NO Y1 TP1 614 0.709 TP6 78 0.654 TP12 290 0.045 TP18 198 0.847 TP23 341 0.666 TP28 11,893 0.324
B1 1565 0.279 239 0.123 419 0.002 664 0.459 712 0.304 15,663 0.140
Y2 6693 0.000 847 0.000 645 0.000 3973 0.000 3275 0.000 52,188 0.000
B2 7734 0.000 949 0.000 677 0.000 4599 0.000 3773 0.000 53,492 0.000
Y1 B1 951 0.507 161 0.290 129 0.283 466 0.602 371 0.589 3769 0.715
Y2 6079 0.001 769 0.000 355 0.011 3775 0.001 2934 0.001 40,295 0.002
B2 7120 0.000 871 0.000 387 0.003 4401 0.000 3431 0.000 41,598 0.000
B1 Y2 5128 0.001 607 0.000 226 0.047 3310 0.001 2563 0.001 36,526 0.001
B2 6169 0.000 710 0.000 258 0.009 3936 0.000 3061 0.000 37,829 0.000
Y2 B2 1041 0.403 103 0.434 32 0.757 626 0.421 498 0.404 1303 0.884
NO Y1 TP2 131 0.911 TP7 371 0.798 TP13 175 0.444 TP19 −21 0.949 TP24 −477 0.762 TP29 −3 0.831
B1 719 0.483 992 0.433 331 0.104 152 0.596 90 0.947 −3 0.834
Y2 4856 0.000 5091 0.001 1110 0.000 1171 0.001 5192 0.002 51 0.002
B2 5588 0.000 6042 0.000 1225 0.000 1400 0.000 6171 0.000 58 0.000
Y1 B1 588 0.566 621 0.622 156 0.431 173 0.547 568 0.678 1 0.971
Y2 4725 0.000 4721 0.002 935 0.000 1192 0.001 5670 0.001 54 0.001
B2 5456 0.000 5671 0.000 1050 0.000 1421 0.000 6648 0.000 61 0.000
B1 Y2 4137 0.000 4100 0.002 779 0.000 1019 0.001 5102 0.001 53 0.000
B2 4868 0.000 5050 0.000 894 0.000 1248 0.000 6081 0.000 61 0.000
Y2 B2 731 0.411 951 0.386 115 0.504 229 0.359 979 0.412 8 0.524
Land 2023, 12, 368 30 of 37

Table A4. Cont.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 TP3 −1840 0.577 TP8 408 0.796 TP14 −211 0.722 TP20 167 0.915 TP25 −294 0.013 TP30 982 0.710
B1 −605 0.832 1031 0.454 84 0.871 906 0.508 −322 0.003 2364 0.308
Y2 9189 0.007 6235 0.000 2011 0.002 5700 0.001 −712 0.000 11,543 0.000
B2 11,274 0.000 7087 0.000 2382 0.000 6638 0.000 −788 0.000 13,140 0.000
Y1 B1 1235 0.665 624 0.649 295 0.568 738 0.589 −28 0.769 1382 0.547
Y2 11,029 0.002 5827 0.001 2222 0.001 5533 0.001 −417 0.001 10,561 0.000
B2 13,114 0.000 6680 0.000 2593 0.000 6470 0.000 −493 0.000 12,158 0.000
B1 Y2 9793 0.001 5204 0.000 1927 0.001 4795 0.001 −390 0.000 9178 0.000
B2 11,879 0.000 6056 0.000 2298 0.000 5732 0.000 −466 0.000 10,775 0.000
Y2 B2 2085 0.401 852 0.474 371 0.409 937 0.430 −76 0.357 1597 0.424
NO Y1 TP4 257 0.570 TP9 355 0.739 TP15 −176 0.917 TP21 −11337 0.013 TP26 −106 0.885
B1 528 0.187 764 0.410 966 0.511 −11991 0.003 348 0.585
Y2 2021 0.000 3936 0.001 6657 0.000 −1714 0.662 3131 0.000
B2 2288 0.000 4510 0.000 7682 0.000 −46 0.989 3548 0.000
Y1 B1 270 0.492 410 0.657 1142 0.438 −653 0.857 454 0.477
Y2 1763 0.000 3582 0.002 6833 0.000 9623 0.022 3237 0.000
B2 2030 0.000 4155 0.000 7858 0.000 11,291 0.004 3654 0.000
B1 Y2 1493 0.000 3172 0.001 5691 0.000 10,276 0.005 2783 0.000
B2 1760 0.000 3746 0.000 6716 0.000 11,944 0.000 3200 0.000
Y2 B2 267 0.434 574 0.474 1025 0.421 1668 0.596 417 0.451

Table A5. Labor population post hoc tests—multiple comparisons using LSD.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 LP0 52,509 0.318 LP5 2342 0.242 LP10 4385 0.418 LP15 2894 0.223 LP20 1747 0.307 LP26 761 0.389
B1 76,059 0.102 3474 0.052 6289 0.186 4298 0.044 2533 0.095 1221 0.118
Y2 223,150 0.000 9341 0.000 18,643 0.001 11,930 0.000 7391 0.000 4269 0.000
B2 254,377 0.000 10,547 0.000 21,445 0.000 13,342 0.000 8332 0.000 4819 0.000
Y1 B1 23,550 0.601 1133 0.508 1904 0.682 1404 0.489 787 0.592 460 0.545
Y2 170,641 0.002 7000 0.001 14,258 0.010 9036 0.000 5645 0.002 3508 0.000
B2 201,867 0.000 8206 0.000 17,061 0.001 10,448 0.000 6585 0.000 4059 0.000
B1 Y2 147,091 0.002 5867 0.001 12,354 0.008 7632 0.000 4858 0.002 3049 0.000
B2 178,317 0.000 7073 0.000 15,156 0.000 9044 0.000 5798 0.000 3599 0.000
Y2 B2 31,227 0.426 1206 0.417 2803 0.489 1411 0.423 940 0.461 550 0.405
Land 2023, 12, 368 31 of 37

Table A5. Cont.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 LP1 1927 0.226 LP6 337 0.129 LP11 3131 0.237 LP16 2283 0.191 LP21 13,764 0.315 LP27 307 0.214
B1 2903 0.042 531 0.009 4376 0.064 3129 0.045 18,539 0.125 426 0.054
Y2 7711 0.000 1225 0.000 11,322 0.000 8254 0.000 58,084 0.000 1121 0.000
B2 8622 0.000 1349 0.000 12,838 0.000 9241 0.000 66,103 0.000 1264 0.000
Y1 B1 975 0.473 194 0.304 1244 0.582 846 0.568 4775 0.684 118 0.575
Y2 5783 0.001 888 0.000 8191 0.003 5972 0.001 44,319 0.002 814 0.002
B2 6695 0.000 1012 0.000 9706 0.000 6958 0.000 52,339 0.000 957 0.000
B1 Y2 4808 0.001 694 0.001 6947 0.003 5126 0.001 39,544 0.001 695 0.002
B2 5719 0.000 817 0.000 8462 0.000 6112 0.000 47,564 0.000 838 0.000
Y2 B2 911 0.440 124 0.447 1515 0.441 986 0.444 8020 0.432 143 0.436
NO Y1 LP2 1011 0.367 LP7 1554 0.306 LP12 341 0.015 LP17 166 0.476 LP22 989 0.416 LP29 10 0.376
B1 1541 0.121 1945 0.145 438 0.001 208 0.306 1434 0.180 19 0.067
Y2 5049 0.000 5479 0.001 642 0.000 627 0.008 4371 0.001 62 0.000
B2 5692 0.000 6433 0.000 710 0.000 743 0.001 5169 0.000 67 0.000
Y1 B1 530 0.583 391 0.763 97 0.391 42 0.835 445 0.671 9 0.382
Y2 4038 0.001 3924 0.011 301 0.021 461 0.044 3382 0.007 51 0.000
B2 4681 0.000 4879 0.001 368 0.002 577 0.007 4180 0.000 57 0.000
B1 Y2 3508 0.001 3533 0.007 204 0.057 420 0.031 2938 0.006 42 0.000
B2 4151 0.000 4488 0.000 272 0.004 535 0.002 3735 0.000 48 0.000
Y2 B2 643 0.443 955 0.400 68 0.488 116 0.507 798 0.383 5 0.537
NO Y1 LP3 3823 0.368 LP8 1346 0.324 LP13 218 0.208 LP18 1005 0.316 LP23 856 0.149 LP30 2097 0.296
B1 6057 0.108 1894 0.117 311 0.045 1504 0.091 1229 0.022 3341 0.063
Y2 19,427 0.000 5958 0.000 792 0.000 4599 0.000 3014 0.000 10,141 0.000
B2 22,076 0.000 6752 0.000 885 0.000 5225 0.000 3342 0.000 11,335 0.000
Y1 B1 2234 0.542 547 0.640 93 0.529 499 0.561 374 0.458 1244 0.470
Y2 15,604 0.001 4611 0.001 574 0.002 3594 0.001 2158 0.001 8045 0.000
B2 18,253 0.000 5405 0.000 667 0.000 4220 0.000 2486 0.000 9238 0.000
B1 Y2 13,370 0.001 4064 0.001 481 0.002 3095 0.001 1784 0.001 6801 0.000
B2 16,019 0.000 4858 0.000 574 0.000 3721 0.000 2113 0.000 7994 0.000
Y2 B2 2649 0.405 794 0.436 93 0.466 626 0.403 328 0.451 1194 0.424
Land 2023, 12, 368 32 of 37

Table A5. Cont.

I J MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig. MD (I–J) Sig.
NO Y1 LP4 433 0.197 LP9 1329 0.247 LP14 996 0.277 LP19 325 0.451 LP24 2030 0.370
B1 660 0.030 1807 0.077 1368 0.092 497 0.191 2816 0.158
Y2 1601 0.000 5080 0.000 4070 0.000 1674 0.000 9014 0.000
B2 1788 0.000 5723 0.000 4632 0.000 1947 0.000 10,435 0.000
Y1 B1 227 0.428 478 0.626 372 0.635 172 0.644 786 0.686
Y2 1168 0.001 3751 0.002 3074 0.002 1349 0.003 6984 0.003
B2 1355 0.000 4394 0.000 3636 0.000 1622 0.000 8405 0.000
B1 Y2 942 0.002 3273 0.001 2702 0.001 1177 0.002 6197 0.002
B2 1128 0.000 3916 0.000 3264 0.000 1450 0.000 7618 0.000
Y2 B2 187 0.451 642 0.451 562 0.411 273 0.399 1421 0.402

Table A6. Household number—post hoc tests—multiple comparisons using LSD.

I J MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig.
NO Y1 HN0 −63,893 0.002 HN5 −440 0.014 HN10 −6453 0.045 HN15 −2271 0.007 HN20 −1211 0.001 HN25 −363 0.101
B1 −51,060 0.004 −431 0.008 −8073 0.008 −2527 0.001 −1339 0.000 −471 0.022
Y2 −107,511 0.000 −707 0.000 −17,946 0.000 −4657 0.000 −2246 0.000 −1017 0.000
B2 −116,484 0.000 −703 0.000 −19,571 0.000 −4993 0.000 −2351 0.000 −1125 0.000
Y1 B1 12,834 0.351 9 0.943 −1620 0.495 −255 0.664 −128 0.601 −109 0.512
Y2 −43,618 0.007 −267 0.066 −11,492 0.000 −2386 0.001 −1035 0.001 −655 0.002
B2 −52,591 0.001 −263 0.043 −13,117 0.000 −2722 0.000 −1140 0.000 −763 0.000
B1 Y2 −56,452 0.000 −276 0.028 −9873 0.000 −2131 0.001 −907 0.001 −546 0.002
B2 −65,424 0.000 −272 0.011 −11,498 0.000 −2467 0.000 −1012 0.000 −654 0.000
Y2 B2 −8973 0.449 4 0.972 −1625 0.430 −336 0.510 −105 0.621 −108 0.451
NO Y1 HN1 −1039 0.000 HN6 −147 0.340 HN11 −1943 0.001 HN16 −1941 0.022 HN21 −22,450 0.038 HN26 −684 0.002
B1 −972 0.000 −138 0.317 −2118 0.000 −2261 0.004 −25,634 0.011 −748 0.000
Y2 −1033 0.000 −409 0.010 −3603 0.000 −4479 0.000 −54,355 0.000 −1274 0.000
B2 −1002 0.000 −491 0.001 −3779 0.000 −4871 0.000 −59,178 0.000 −1332 0.000
Y1 B1 66 0.536 9 0.939 −175 0.663 −320 0.599 −3184 0.687 −64 0.670
Y2 6 0.957 −262 0.052 −1661 0.001 −2538 0.001 −31,906 0.001 −590 0.002
B2 37 0.720 −343 0.006 −1836 0.000 −2930 0.000 −36,728 0.000 −648 0.000
B1 Y2 −60 0.539 −271 0.020 −1486 0.001 −2218 0.001 −28,722 0.001 −527 0.001
B2 −30 0.716 −352 0.001 −1661 0.000 −2610 0.000 −33,544 0.000 −584 0.000
Y2 B2 31 0.742 −82 0.429 −175 0.615 −392 0.460 −4823 0.483 −58 0.656
Land 2023, 12, 368 33 of 37

Table A6. Cont.

I J MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig. MD (I−J) Sig.
NO Y1 HN2 −790 0.000 HN7 −1190 0.007 HN12 −4 0.822 HN17 −171 0.001 HN22 −939 0.003 HN27 −21 0.580
B1 −795 0.000 −1223 0.002 12 0.508 −210 0.000 −991 0.001 −4 0.918
Y2 −1009 0.000 −2250 0.000 −65 0.002 −410 0.000 −1717 0.000 88 0.024
B2 −1035 0.000 −2405 0.000 −75 0.000 −423 0.000 −1846 0.000 105 0.005
Y1 B1 −5 0.961 −33 0.913 16 0.297 −39 0.283 −52 0.810 18 0.551
Y2 −219 0.067 −1061 0.004 −61 0.001 −239 0.000 −778 0.003 109 0.003
B2 −245 0.024 −1215 0.001 −70 0.000 −252 0.000 −906 0.000 126 0.000
B1 Y2 −214 0.037 −1027 0.001 −77 0.000 −201 0.000 −727 0.001 91 0.003
B2 −240 0.007 −1182 0.000 −86 0.000 −214 0.000 −855 0.000 108 0.000
Y2 B2 −26 0.773 −155 0.559 −10 0.455 −13 0.668 −128 0.491 17 0.502
NO Y1 HN3 −4934 0.004 HN8 −877 0.000 HN13 −73 0.028 HN18 −570 0.000 HN23 −271 0.089 HN30 −1179 0.002
B1 −5679 0.000 −883 0.000 −38 0.179 −574 0.000 −207 0.142 −1143 0.001
Y2 −10,292 0.000 −939 0.000 45 0.140 −902 0.000 131 0.371 −383 0.224
B2 −10,863 0.000 −918 0.000 56 0.048 −934 0.000 219 0.110 −232 0.414
Y1 B1 −745 0.530 −6 0.957 35 0.160 −5 0.960 64 0.591 36 0.887
Y2 −5358 0.000 −62 0.611 117 0.000 −332 0.004 402 0.005 796 0.008
B2 −5929 0.000 −41 0.704 128 0.000 −365 0.001 490 0.000 947 0.001
B1 Y2 −4613 0.000 −56 0.586 83 0.001 −327 0.001 338 0.005 761 0.004
B2 −5184 0.000 −35 0.685 94 0.000 −360 0.000 426 0.000 911 0.000
Y2 B2 −571 0.577 21 0.828 11 0.588 −33 0.685 88 0.396 151 0.492
NO Y1 HN4 −38 0.386 HN9 −687 0.000 HN14 −962 0.023 HN19 −293 0.000 HN24 −2245 0.013
B1 8 0.842 −657 0.000 −1071 0.006 −300 0.000 −2442 0.004
Y2 94 0.031 −972 0.000 −2160 0.000 −442 0.000 −4730 0.000
B2 115 0.006 −1049 0.000 −2384 0.000 −469 0.000 −5083 0.000
Y1 B1 45 0.184 30 0.777 −108 0.722 −7 0.886 −198 0.759
Y2 132 0.002 −285 0.019 −1198 0.002 −149 0.014 −2486 0.002
B2 152 0.000 −363 0.002 −1421 0.000 −177 0.002 −2839 0.000
B1 Y2 86 0.010 −315 0.004 −1090 0.001 −142 0.006 −2288 0.001
B2 107 0.000 −392 0.000 −1313 0.000 −169 0.000 −2641 0.000
Y2 B2 21 0.477 −78 0.393 −224 0.401 −27 0.539 −353 0.529
Land 2023, 12, 368 34 of 37

References
1. Takahashi, N. The Role of Arts Festivals in Contemporary Japan; De Montfort University: Leicester, UK, 2015; ISBN 9781857214260.
2. Fletcher, R. Five Capitals for Festivals: Integrated Reporting of Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts; De Montfort University:
Leicester, UK, 2004.
3. Wise, N. Focus on world festivals: Contemporary case studies and perspectives. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2018, 16, 105–106. [CrossRef]
4. Hens, L.; Block, C.; Cabello-Eras, J.J.; Sagastume-Gutierez, A.; Garcia-Lorenzo, D.; Chamorro, C.; Mendoza, K.K.; Haeseldonckx,
D.; Vandecasteele, C. On the evolution of “Cleaner Production” as a concept and a practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3323–3333.
[CrossRef]
5. Saarinen, J.; Rogerson, C.M. Tourism and the millennium development goals: Perspectives beyond 2015. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16,
23–30. [CrossRef]
6. Hall, C.M. Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism.
J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1044–1060. [CrossRef]
7. Rutty, M.; Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C. The Global Effects and Impacts of Tourism; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2015.
8. Saarinen, J.; Rogerson, C.; Manwa, H. Tourism and Millennium Development Goals: Tourism for Global Development? 2011.
Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13683500.2011.555180 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
9. Ryan, C. Equity, management, power sharing and sustainability—Issues of the ‘new tourism’. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23, 17–26.
[CrossRef]
10. Cai, G.; Xu, L.; Gao, W.; Hong, Y.; Ying, X.; Wang, Y.; Qian, F. The Positive Impacts of Exhibition-Driven Tourism on Sustainable
Tourism, Economics, and Population: The Case of the Echigo–Tsumari Art Triennale in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2020, 17, 1489. [CrossRef]
11. Mainardi, P. The double exhibition in nineteenth-century France. Art J. 1989, 48, 23–28. [CrossRef]
12. Mo, Z.; Gao, T.; Qu, J.; Cai, G.; Cao, Z.; Jiang, W. An Empirical Study of Carbon Emission Calculation in the Production and
Construction Phase of A Prefabricated Office Building from Zhejiang, China. Buildings 2022, 13, 53. [CrossRef]
13. Cai, G.; Xu, L.; Gao, W. The green B&B promotion strategies for tourist loyalty: Surveying the restart of Chinese national holiday
travel after COVID-19. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102704.
14. Chi, X.; Meng, B.; Lee, H.; Chua, B.-L.; Han, H. Pro-environmental employees and sustainable hospitality and tourism businesses:
Exploring strategic reasons and global motives for green behaviors. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023; in press. [CrossRef]
15. Hsu, C.-Y.; Chen, M.-Y.; Yang, S.-C. Residents’ Attitudes toward Support for Island Sustainable Tourism. Sustainability 2019,
11, 5051. [CrossRef]
16. Ruan, W.; Li, Y.; Zhang, S.; Liu, C.-H. Evaluation and drive mechanism of tourism ecological security based on the DPSIR-DEA
model. Tour. Manag. 2019, 75, 609–625. [CrossRef]
17. Wise, N.; Mulec, I. Aesthetic awareness and spectacle: Communicated images of Novi Sad (Serbia), the exit festival, and the
petrovaradin fortress. Tour. Rev. Int. 2015, 19, 193–205. [CrossRef]
18. Getz, D. Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 403–428. [CrossRef]
19. Kersulić, A.; Perić, M.; Wise, N. Assessing and Considering the Wider Impacts of Sport-Tourism Events: A Research Agenda
Review of Sustainability and Strategic Planning Elements. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4473.
20. Quinn, B. Arts festivals, urban tourism and cultural policy. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2010, 2, 264–279. [CrossRef]
21. Prince, S. Craft-art in the Danish countryside: Reconciling a lifestyle, livelihood and artistic career through rural tourism. J. Tour.
Cult. Chang. 2017, 15, 339–358. [CrossRef]
22. Wise, N.; Mulec, I.; Armenski, T. Towards a new local tourism economy: Understanding sense of community, social impacts and
potential enterprise opportunities in Podgrad̄e Bač, Vojvodina, Serbia. Local Econ. 2017, 32, 656–677. [CrossRef]
23. Ren, T.; Can, M.; Paramati, S.R.; Fang, J.; Wu, W. The Impact of Tourism Quality on Economic Development and Environment:
Evidence from Mediterranean Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2296.
24. Wang, X.; Liu, D. The Coupling Coordination Relationship between Tourism Competitiveness and Economic Growth of Develop-
ing Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2350. [CrossRef]
25. Andersen, V.; Prentice, R.; Guerin, S. Imagery of Denmark among visitors to Danish fine arts exhibitions in Scotland. Tour. Manag.
1997, 18, 453–464. [CrossRef]
26. Hong, Y.; Cai, G.; Mo, Z.; Gao, W.; Xu, L.; Jiang, Y.; Jiang, J. The Impact of COVID-19 on Tourist Satisfaction with B&B in Zhejiang,
China: An Importance–Performance Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3747. [PubMed]
27. Chen, L.H.; Chen, M.-Y.; Ye, Y.-C.; Tung, I.-W.; Cheng, C.-F.; Tung, S. Perceived service quality and life satis-faction: The mediating
role of the actor’s satisfaction-with-event. Int. J. Sport. Mark. Spons. 2012, 13, 249–266.
28. Liu, C.-H.; Huang, Y.-C. An integrated structural model examining the relationships between natural capital, tourism image and
risk impact and behavioural intention. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1357–1374. [CrossRef]
29. Ruan, W.-Q.; Li, Y.-Q.; Liu, C.-H.S. Measuring Tourism Risk Impacts on Destination Image. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1501. [CrossRef]
30. Moreno-Gené, J.; Sánchez-Pulido, L.; Cristobal-Fransi, E.; Daries, N. The Economic Sustainability of Snow Tourism: The Case of
Ski Resorts in Austria, France, and Italy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3012. [CrossRef]
31. Kozhokulov, S.; Chen, X.; Yang, D.; Issanova, G.; Samarkhanov, K.; Aliyeva, S. Assessment of Tourism Impact on the Socio-
Economic Spheres of the Issyk-Kul Region (Kyrgyzstan). Sustainability 2019, 11, 3886. [CrossRef]
Land 2023, 12, 368 35 of 37

32. Khan, A.; Bibi, S.; Ardito, L.; Lyu, J.; Hayat, H.; Arif, A.M. Revisiting the Dynamics of Tourism, Economic Growth, and
Environmental Pollutants in the Emerging Economies—Sustainable Tourism Policy Implications. Sustainabiity 2020, 12, 2533.
[CrossRef]
33. Manzoor, F.; Wei, L.; Asif, M.; Ul Haq, M.Z.; Ur Rehman, H. The contribution of sustainable tourism to eco-nomic growth and
employment in Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3785. [CrossRef]
34. Lim, C. Review of international tourism demand models. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 835–849. [CrossRef]
35. Joun, H.-J.; Kim, H. Productivity Evaluation of Tourism and Culture for Sustainable Economic Development: Analyzing South
Korea’s Metropolitan Regions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2912. [CrossRef]
36. Della Bitta, A.J.; Loudon, D.L.; Booth, G.G.; Weeks, R.R. Estimating the Economic Impact of a Short-Term Tourist Event. J. Travel
Res. 1977, 16, 10–15. [CrossRef]
37. Cai, G.; Hong, Y.; Xu, L.; Gao, W.; Wang, K.; Chi, X. An Evaluation of Green Ryokans through a Tourism Ac-commodation Survey
and Customer-Satisfaction-Related CASBEE–IPA after COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 145. [CrossRef]
38. Kim, S.S.; Chon, K. An economic impact analysis of the Korean exhibition industry. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2009, 11, 311–318. [CrossRef]
39. Nesticò, A.; Maselli, G. Sustainability indicators for the economic evaluation of tourism investments on islands. J. Clean. Prod.
2020, 248, 119217. [CrossRef]
40. Zhang, J. Weighing and realizing the environmental, economic and social goals of tourism development using an analytic network
process-goal programming approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 262–273. [CrossRef]
41. Cai, G.; Xu, L.; Gao, W.; Wang, K.; Hong, Y.; Wang, Y. Knowledge archaeology on relations between the Venice Architecture
Biennale (1980–2018) and the Pritzker Architecture Prize (1979–2019). J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2021, 21, 224–233. [CrossRef]
42. Vasylieva, T.; Lyulyov, O.; Bilan, Y.; Streimikiene, D. Sustainable economic development and greenhouse gas emissions: The
dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption, GDP, and corruption. Energies 2019, 12, 3289. [CrossRef]
43. Ying, J.; Li-jun, Z. Study on green supply chain management based on circular economy. Phys. Procedia 2012, 25, 1682–1688.
[CrossRef]
44. Jin, X.; Weber, K. Developing and testing a model of exhibition brand preference: The exhibitors’ perspective. Tour. Manag. 2013,
38, 94–104. [CrossRef]
45. Rittichainuwat, B.; Mair, J. Visitor attendance motivations at consumer travel exhibitions. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 1236–1244.
[CrossRef]
46. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Spurr, R. Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: New and old approaches. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 307–317.
[CrossRef]
47. Aquilino, L.; Wise, N.A. Evaluating the competitiveness of the northern and southern macro-regions of Italy. AlmaTourism J. Tour.
Cult. Territ. Dev. 2016, 7, 23–47.
48. Crompton, J.L.; Lee, S.; Shuster, T.J. A guide for undertaking economic impact studies: The springfest example. J. Travel Res. 2001,
40, 79–87. [CrossRef]
49. Kim, S.S.; Park, J.Y.; Lee, J. Predicted economic impact analysis of a mega-convention using multiplier effects. J. Conv. Event Tour.
2010, 11, 42–61. [CrossRef]
50. Mason, P.; Mowforth, M. Codes of conduct in tourism. Prog. Tour. Hosp. Res. 1996, 2, 151–167. [CrossRef]
51. Ghali, M.A. Tourism and economic growth: An empirical study. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 1976, 24, 527–538. [CrossRef]
52. Archer, B.; Fletcher, J. The economic impact of tourism in the Seychelles. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 32–47. [CrossRef]
53. Tooman, L.A. Tourism and development. J. Travel Res. 1997, 35, 33–40. [CrossRef]
54. Saint Akadiri, S.; Alola, A.A.; Akadiri, A.C. The role of globalization, real income, tourism in environmental sustainability target.
Evidence from Turkey. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 423–432. [CrossRef]
55. Wagner, J.E. Estimating the economic impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 592–608. [CrossRef]
56. Louca, C. Income and expenditure in the tourism industry: Time series evidence from Cyprus. Tour. Econ. 2006, 12, 603–617.
[CrossRef]
57. Jianjun, S.U.; Gennian, S.; Lifang, W. Driving and pulling simulation of tourism on the tertiary industry in China since 1982. Prog.
Geogr. 2011, 30, 1047–1055.
58. Lee, C.-K.; Kang, S. Measuring earnings inequality and median earnings in the tourism industry. Tour. Manag. 1998, 19, 341–348.
[CrossRef]
59. Hung, W.-T.; Shang, J.-K.; Wang, F.-C. A multilevel analysis on the determinants of household tourism ex-penditure. Curr. Issues
Tour. 2013, 16, 612–617. [CrossRef]
60. Li, S.; Li, H.; Song, H.; Lundberg, C.; Shen, S. The economic impact of on-screen tourism: The case of The Lord of the Rings and
the Hobbit. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 177–187. [CrossRef]
61. Dritsakis, N. Tourism development and economic growth in seven Mediterranean countries: A panel data approach. Tour. Econ.
2012, 18, 801–816. [CrossRef]
62. Garin-Munoz, T.; Amaral, T.P. An econometric model for international tourism flows to Spain. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2000, 7, 525–529.
[CrossRef]
63. Brau, R.; Lanza, A.; Pigliaru, F. How fast are small tourism countries growing? Evidence from the data for 1980–2003. Tour. Econ.
2007, 13, 603–613. [CrossRef]
Land 2023, 12, 368 36 of 37

64. Zaman, K.; Shahbaz, M.; Loganathan, N.; Raza, S.A. Tourism development, energy consumption and Envi-ronmental Kuznets
Curve: Trivariate analysis in the panel of developed and developing countries. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 275–283.
65. Malthus, T.R.; Bonar, J. First Essay on Population, 1798; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1926.
66. You, Z.; Yang, H.; Fu, M. Settlement intention characteristics and determinants in floating populations in Chinese border cities.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 39, 476–486. [CrossRef]
67. Tamura, S.; Iwamoto, S.; Tanaka, T. The impact of spatial population distribution patterns on CO2 emissions and infrastructure
costs in a small Japanese town. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 40, 513–523. [CrossRef]
68. Egidi, G.; Salvati, L.; Vinci, S. The long way to tipperary: City size and worldwide urban population trends, 1950–2030. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102148. [CrossRef]
69. Getz, D. Tourism and population change: Long-term impacts of tourism in the Badenoch and Strathspey district of the Scottish
Highlands. Scott. Geogr. Mag. 1986, 102, 113–126. [CrossRef]
70. Khalid, S.; Ahmad, M.S.; Ramayah, T.; Hwang, J.; Kim, I. Community empowerment and sustainable tourism development: The
mediating role of community support for tourism. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6248. [CrossRef]
71. Nam, M.; Kim, I.; Hwang, J. Can Local People Help Enhance Tourists’ Destination Loyalty? A Relational Per-spective. J. Travel
Tour. Mark. 2016, 33, 702–716. [CrossRef]
72. Mallach, A.; Haase, A.; Hattori, K. The shrinking city in comparative perspective: Contrasting dynamics and responses to urban
shrinkage. Cities 2017, 69, 102–108. [CrossRef]
73. Martinez-Fernandez, C.; Weyman, T.; Fol, S.; Audirac, I.; Cunningham-Sabot, E.; Wiechmann, T.; Yahagi, H. Shrinking cities in
Australia, Japan, Europe and the USA: From a global process to local policy responses. Prog. Plann. 2016, 105, 1–48. [CrossRef]
74. Nishino, T. Present conditions and types of mountain villages of Japan in the Early 21st Century. Tak. City Univ. Econ. J. 2012, 54,
41–57.
75. Boven, T. Assessment of Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennale’S Repurposing of Schools:For a locally designed cul-ture-led revitalization
of assets in declining rural areas. J. Archit. Plan. 2016, 81, 2693–2700. [CrossRef]
76. Zhao, Y.; Wise, N. Evaluating the intersection between “green events” and sense of community at Liverpool’s Lark Lane Farmers
Market. J. Community Psychol. 2019, 47, 1118–1130. [CrossRef]
77. Miller, C. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2001; Volume 36, ISBN 1136554483.
78. Bell, D.; Jayne, M. The creative countryside: Policy and practice in the UK rural cultural economy. J. Rural Stud. 2010, 26, 209–218.
[CrossRef]
79. Duxbury, N.; Campbell, H. Developing and Revitalizing Rural Communities Through Arts and Creativity. Small Cities Impr. 2011,
3, 111–122.
80. Ahn, E. An Island of Art, Optimism and Hope: Setouchi International Art Festival. Art Mon. Aust. 2010, 235, 25–27.
81. Kitagawa, F. Art place Japan: The Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennale and the vision to reconnect art and nature. CAA News 2016, 303.
82. Klien, S. Collaboration or confrontation? Local and non-local actors in the Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennial. Contemp. Jpn. 2010, 22,
153–178. [CrossRef]
83. Favell, A. Before and After Superflat-A Short History of Japanese Contemporary Art 1990–2011; Blue Kingfisher: Hong Kong, China,
2011; Volume 34, ISBN 0231119585.
84. Boven, T.; Ariga, T.; Worrall, J. Culture-led reuse of former elementary schools: A survey of Echigo-Tsumari art Triennial’s
involvement in Tokamachi, Japan. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2017, 16, 61–66. [CrossRef]
85. Koizumi, M. Creativity in a shrinking society: A case study of the Water and Land Niigata Art Festival. Cities 2016, 56, 141–147.
[CrossRef]
86. About Triennale.
87. Islam, N. Growth empirics: A panel data approach. Q. J. Econ. 1995, 110, 1127–1170. [CrossRef]
88. Baltagi, B. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; ISBN 0470518863.
89. Di Lascio, F.M.L.; Giannerini, S.; Scorcu, A.E.; Candela, G. Cultural tourism and temporary art exhibitions in Italy: A panel data
analysis. Stat. Methods Appl. 2011, 20, 519–542. [CrossRef]
90. Naudé, W.A.; Saayman, A. Determinants of tourist arrivals in Africa: A panel data regression analysis. Tour. Econ. 2005, 11,
365–391. [CrossRef]
91. Hsiao, C. Analysis of Panel Data; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; ISBN 1107038693.
92. Bhattarai, K. Application of Panel Data Models for Empirical Economic Analysis; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019;
ISBN 9780128158593.
93. Oja, H. Descriptive statistics for multivariate distributions. Stat. Probab. Lett. 1983, 1, 327–332. [CrossRef]
94. Reid, L.J.; Andereck, K.L. Statistical analyses use in tourism research. J. Travel Res. 1989, 28, 21–24. [CrossRef]
95. Hwang, J.; Kim, J.J.; Lee, J.S.-H.; Sahito, N. How to Form Wellbeing Perception and Its Outcomes in the Context of Elderly
Tourism: Moderating Role of Tour Guide Services. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1029. [CrossRef]
96. Han, H.; Lee, S.; Hyun, S.S. Role of Internal and External Museum Environment in Increasing Visitors’ Cogni-tive/Affective/Healthy
Experiences and Loyalty. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4537. [CrossRef]
97. Kanwel, S.; Lingqiang, Z.; Asif, M.; Hwang, J.; Hussain, A.; Jameel, A. The influence of destination image on tourist loyalty and
intention to visit: Testing a multiple mediation approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6401. [CrossRef]
98. Maughan, J. Echigo-Tsumari: Public art as regenerating force. Artlink 2010, 30, 26.
Land 2023, 12, 368 37 of 37

99. Liang, B.; Han, G.; Zeng, J.; Qu, R.; Liu, M.; Liu, J. Spatial variation and source of dissolved heavy metals in the lancangjiang river,
Southwest China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 732. [CrossRef]
100. Yu, W.; Ye, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, X.; Wang, T. Evaluation Indexes and Correlation Analysis of Origination–Destination Travel Time of
Nanjing Metro Based on Complex Network Method. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1113. [CrossRef]
101. Franzese, M.; Iuliano, A. Correlation Analysis. Encycl. Bioinforma. Comput. Biol. 2019, 706–721.
102. Pearson, K. The Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; ISBN 1108072429.
103. Armitage, P.; Berry, G.; Matthews, J.N.S. Statistical Methods in Medical Research; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008;
ISBN 0470775343.
104. Altman, D.G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1990; ISBN 1000228819.
105. Altman, D.; Machin, D.; Bryant, T.; Gardner, M. Statistics with Confidence: Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines; John Wiley
& Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; ISBN 1118702506.
106. Howell, D.C. Statistical Methods for Psychology; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2009; ISBN 0495597848.
107. Cliff, A.D.; Ord, J.K. Spatial Processes: Models & Applications; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 1981; ISBN 0850860814.
108. Suárez-Vega, R.; Santos-Peñate, D.R.; Dorta-González, P.; Rodríguez-Díaz, M. A multi-criteria GIS based procdure to solve a
network competitive location problem. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 282–291. [CrossRef]
109. Dorta-González, P.; Santos-Peñate, D.R.; Suárez-Vega, R. Spatial competition in networks under delivered pricing. Pap. Reg. Sci.
2005, 84, 271–280. [CrossRef]
110. Yang, Y.; Wong, K.K.F. Spatial Distribution of Tourist Flows to China’s Cities. Tour. Geogr. 2013, 15, 338–363. [CrossRef]
111. Sarrión-Gavilán, M.D.; Benítez-Márquez, M.D.; Mora-Rangel, E.O. Spatial distribution of tourism supply in Andalusia. Tour.
Manag. Perspect. 2015, 15, 29–45. [CrossRef]
112. Anselin, L.; Fischer, M.; Scholten, H.J.; Unwin, D. Spatial Analytical Perspectives on GIS; Fischer, M.M., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK,
1996; pp. 111–125.
113. Anselin, L.; Bao, S. Exploratory spatial data analysis linking SpaceStat and ArcView. In Recent Developments in Spatial Analysis;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1997; pp. 35–59.
114. Iso, K.; Mishina, T.; Shimazaki, Y.; Ishibashi, T. Regional economic effect and ideal economic scale of tourism. In Proceedings of
the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Manage-ment, Singapore, 8–11 December
2008; pp. 857–861.
115. Wise, N. Towards a More Enabling Representation: Framing an Emergent Conceptual Approach to Measure Social Conditions
Following Mega-Event Transformation in Manaus, Brazil. Bull. Lat. Am. Res. 2019, 38, 300–316. [CrossRef]
116. Elis, V. Rural Depopulation and Economic Shrinkage in Japan: What Can Affected Municipalities Do About It? In Imploding
Populations in Japan and Germany; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 443–460.
117. Oda, K.; Rupprecht, C.D.D.; Tsuchiya, K.; McGreevy, S.R. Urban Agriculture as a Sustainability Transition Strategy for Shrinking
Cities? Land Use Change Trajectory as an Obstacle in Kyoto City, Japan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1048. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.