Stavanger. 1.40 ... the nature of the data collated for these indicators does not lend itself well ... (1991; 1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Stavanger 2008.
APPENDIX B: LIST OF KEY INDICATORS AND SOURCES, BY CHAPTER This Appendix presents information on the key indicators collated during the course of the Study, including: the sources from which indicators were constructed; any important caveats that must be made in relation to particular data; the extent to which each indicator provides coverage of the three ECoC phases; and, finally, the actual data itself, where this of a quantitative or simple qualitative nature. With the exception of contextual data on ECoC host cities, which is given its own section at the end of the Appendix, all information is organised according to the Chapter in which it predominantly features. Readers should note that, where data is provided, this cannot, in general, be assumed to be strictly comparable, and that care must be taken in its interpretation. Most commonly, barriers to comparability are erected by inadequate description within sources of the methodologies used to arrive at particular figures; or by the use of clearly very different methodologies to calculate figures, which might otherwise appear to be comparable due to the use of similar terms to denote data. The noticeable – and occasionally severe – contradictions which were discovered by the research team in the reporting of seemingly identical indicators by different sources are very likely to be a reflection of this methodological heterogeneity to some extent; although it is also possible that such discrepancies are symptomatic of the perceptibly low quality of certain sources. From a review of the sources cited in this Appendix, it is clear that the majority of the data compiled for the Study derives from three source clusters: the Myerscough (1994) report, which covered ECoC editions between 1985 and 1994; the report and appendices by Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b), which reviewed ECoC editions between 1995 and 2004; and the ECORYS evaluations, which have been commissioned for every ECoC since Luxembourg GR and Sibiu in 2007 and are available up to Guimarães and Maribor in 2012. The dominance of these three sources of information is attributable, in part, to their relatively high quality and temporal breadth, as well as to the indissoluble fact that, for many ECoCs, these are the only data sources which are readily available online or in print. The evidence base compiled for the Study also incorporates data from a wide variety of other sources, however, including the reports by Palmer et al. produced under the banner of ATLAS, which have helped to fill in gaps for the two 2005 and 2006 hosts, as well as a number of other evaluations and host city reports; host city websites, where these are still available; online databases such as TourMIS; and a limited amount of relevant academic literature.
1
CONTENTS CHAPTER 2: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT Chapter 2: Sources Chapter 2: Data population rate, by ECoC phase Chapter 2: Data overview CHAPTER 3: BIDDING APPROACHES
3 3 3 4 6
Chapter 3: Sources Chapter 3: Data population rate, by ECoC phase CHAPTER 4: DELIVERY APPROACHES AND SUCCESS STRATEGIES Chapter 4: Sources Chapter 4: Data population rate, by ECoC phase Chapter 4: Data overview CHAPTER 5: SHORT- AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS
6 6 7 7 9 11 14
Chapter 5: Sources Chapter 5: Data population rate, by ECoC phase Chapter 5: Data overview
14 15 16
CONTEXTUAL DATA ABOUT PARTICIPATING CITIES
18
Contextual data: Sources Contextual data: Overview
18 19
NOTES
21
2
CHAPTER 2: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT The second Chapter of the Study explores the origins and evolution of the ECoC Programme, with particular reference to significant legislative developments and contextual data relating to ECoC host cities (for more details of which see the final section of this Appendix). Included in the Chapter is an examination of EU financial support for ECoC host cities (in the form of grants or prizes), the sources for which are listed below.
Chapter 2: Sources Indicator
Source(s)
Levels of European Union support (€m)
Gold and Gold (2005) for 1985-1999; Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b) for 2000-2004; ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a) for 20072012
Chapter 2: Data population rate, by ECoC phase Availability Indicator
Level of European Union support (€m)
19851996
19972004
20052012
Entire period
100%
100%
100%
100%
As is evident from the second table, the extent of coverage for this indicator was found to be high, with data available for all ECoCs between 1985 and 2012. However, it should be noted that the data itself – presented in the third table – has not been collated in a strictly comparable way. Gold and Gold (2005), for instance, include supplementary EU contributions to specific projects, whilst Palmer/Rae Associates and ECORYS only include the main EU allocation (except in the case of Turku 2011, which includes an additional €39,000 towards specific projects). Figures for Guimaraes (2012) and Maribor (2012), meanwhile, were deduced from official guidelines due to the absence of reliable figures in the available literature. Like other financial data in this report, the figures for EU funding have not been adjusted for inflation, due to the absence of readily-available historical inflation rate data for the range of countries required. In any case, the utility of such a transformation would be questionable, in this instance, given the nature of EU support, which is set at a fixed nominal rate and changed relatively infrequently.
3
Chapter 2: Data overview Year
City
EU Funding (€m)
1985
Athens
0.11
1986
Florence
0.14
1987
Amsterdam
0.14
1988
Berlin
0.20
1989
Paris
0.12
1990
Glasgow
0.12
1991
Dublin
0.12
1992
Madrid
0.20
1993
Antwerp
0.30
1994
Lisbon
0.40
1995
Luxembourg
0.40
1996
Copenhagen
0.60
1997
Thessaloniki
0.40
1998
Stockholm
0.60
1999
Weimar
0.60
2000
Avignon
0.22
2000
Bergen
0.22
2000
Bologna
0.22
2000
Brussels
0.22
2000
Helsinki
0.22
2000
Kraków
0.22
2000
Prague
0.22
2000
Reykjavík
0.22
2000
Santiago
0.22
2001
Porto
0.50
2001
Rotterdam
0.50
4
Year
City
EU Funding (€m)
2002
Bruges
0.50
2002
Salamanca
0.50
2003
Graz
0.50
2004
Genoa
0.50
2004
Lille
0.50
2005
Cork
0.50
2006
Patras
0.50
2007
Luxembourg GR
1.38
2007
Sibiu
1.40
2008
Liverpool
1.50
2008
Stavanger
1.40
2009
Linz
1.50
2009
Vilnius
1.32
2010
Essen for the Ruhr
1.50
2010
Istanbul
1.50
2010
Pécs
1.50
2011
Tallinn
1.50
2011
Turku
1.54
2012
Guimarães
1.50
2012
Maribor
1.50
5
CHAPTER 3: BIDDING APPROACHES Chapter 3, which focuses on bidding approaches, includes data on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of successful cities at bid stage (which was generated through a content analysis of selection panel reports), as well as data on the main aims and motivations of ECoC host cities. The sources for this data are listed below. Chapter 3: Sources Indicator
Source(s)
% of successful bids demonstrating particular strengths
ICC content analysis of selection panel reports
% of successful bids demonstrating particular weaknesses
ICC content analysis of selection panel reports
Main aim or motivation of ECoC
DaCosta Holton (1998); ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Rennen (2007)
Unfortunately, the nature of the data collated for these indicators does not lend itself well to presentation in a condensed form. However, the availability of the data for host cities in each of the three ECoC phases is summarised in the table below, and further details of the content analysis of selection panel reports are available in Appendix F. The data population rate for the indicators on strengths and weaknesses of successful bid cities must, however, be accompanied by a note explaining that: (i) selection panels were not used for ECoC designations before 2005; and (ii) that all available selection panels reports were consulted as part of the content analysis exercise.1 Data on the main aim or motivation of each ECoC was also gathered for most cities, with the only exception being Patras 2006. Chapter 3: Data population rate, by ECoC phase Availability Indicator
19851996
19972004
20052012
20132018
Entire period
% of successful bids demonstrating particular strengths
-
-
100%
100%
100%
% of successful bids demonstrating particular weaknesses
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
93%
-
98%
Main aim or motivation of ECoC
6
CHAPTER 4: DELIVERY APPROACHES AND SUCCESS STRATEGIES Chapter 4, which considers delivery approaches and success factors, features a very wide variety of indicators, including data on programme themes, project totals, income, expenditure and infrastructure. In the table below, the sources used to collate this data are listed. Chapter 4: Sources Indicator
Source(s)
Artforms featured as part of programme
Istanbul 2010 (2010); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Patras 2006 (2006); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Tallinn 2011 (2010); Turku 2011 (2010)
Artistic director, origin / type
ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2011c; 2012a; 2012b); European Commission (2009); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Heller and Fuchs (2009); Istanbul 2010 (2010); Lille 2004 (2005); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Official ECoC websites; Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Patras 2006 (2006); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Stavanger 2008 (2009)
Balance between professional and community / amateur projects
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1991; 1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)
Balance between projects from within city and projects from outside
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)
Event total
Axe Culture (2005); Bruges 2002 (2003); Deffner and Labrianidis (2005); ECORYS (2009b; 2010b; 2011c; 2011d; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Richards and Rotariu (2011); Richards and Wilson (2004)
Expenditure breakdown
Cork 2005 website; ECORYS (2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1991; 1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Stavanger 2008 (2009)
Expenditure total
Cork 2005 website; ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Myerscough (1991; 1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Stavanger 2008 (2009)
Income breakdown
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)
Income total
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); Palmer et al. (2007; 2011); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)
7
Indicator
Source(s)
Infrastructure, key projects
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Lille 2004 (2005); Linz 2009 (2010b); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Richards and Rotariu (2011); Universidade do Minho (2013); Zentrum für Kulturforschung and IGC Culturplan (2011)
Infrastructure spend
Cork 2005 website; ECORYS (2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Essen 2010 website; Palmer et al. (2007; 2011); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b)
Length of programme
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Guimaraes 2012 website; Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Stavanger 2008 (2003); Turku 2011 (2010); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)
Location of programme
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)
Main focus of the communication strategy
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia (2004b); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012); Zentrum für Kulturforschung and IGC Culturplan (2011)
New commissions and / or programming
ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2010a; 2010b; 2011c; 2011d; 2012a; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Stavanger 2008 (2009); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)
Programme themes
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)
Programming for particular groups
ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Lille 2004 (2005); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b)
Project total
ECoC documentation centre website; ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2010b; 2011d; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Stavanger 2008 (2009); Zentrum für Kulturforschung and IGC Culturplan (2011)
Sponsor count
Bruges 2002 (2003); Cork 2005 website; ECoC documentation centre website; ECORYS (2009b; 2010a); Essen 2010 website; Guimaraes 2012 website; Istanbul 2010 (2010); Linz 2009 (2010a); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Maribor 2012 (2013); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Sibiu 2007 website; Stavanger 2008 (2009); Tallinn 2011 (2010); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)
8
As the table indicating data population rates shows, most indicators considered in Chapter 4 were populated for over 70% of ECoCs – with no indicators deployed with a population rate of less than 50%. However, the quality of this data was nevertheless found to be variable, and the discovery of a particular type of data for a particular ECoC cannot, of course, guarantee that all of the existing data that meets this description has been successfully collated. In the case of featured artforms, for instance, whilst as much data as possible was mined from the available literature, there is a high likelihood that more data could be extracted from sources of information that were not within the practical grasp of the Study. Chapter 4: Data population rate, by ECoC phase Availability Indicator
19851996
19972004
20052012
Entire period
Artforms featured as part of programme
42%
95%
33%
61%
Balance between professional and community / amateur projects
42%
63%
60%
57%
Balance between projects originating from within city and projects originating from outside
17%
53%
80%
52%
Event total
83%
68%
80%
76%
Expenditure breakdown
92%
89%
87%
89%
Expenditure total
92%
95%
87%
91%
Income breakdown
100%
100%
93%
98%
Income total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Infrastructure, key projects
25%
100%
93%
78%
Infrastructure spend
33%
58%
87%
61%
100%
95%
87%
93%
Location of programme
42%
100%
80%
78%
Main focus of the communication strategy
50%
95%
80%
78%
New commissions and / or programming
92%
53%
87%
74%
Length of programme
9
Availability Indicator
Programme themes Programming for particular social groups Project total Sponsor count
19851996
19972004
20052012
Entire period
83%
100%
100%
96%
0%
100%
80%
72%
25%
84%
87%
70%
100%
100%
93%
98%
The data on project and event totals also presented particular problems, due to the elasticity and apparent interchangeability of these terms. A striking example of this is provided by the case of Helsinki 2000, for which there were 503 ‘projects’ (Palmer/Rae Associates, 2004b), 500 ‘programme events’ (Helsinki 2000, 2000a), 500 ‘projects’ (ibid.) or 500 ‘events’ (Cogliandro, 2001), depending on which source one preferred. Again, please note that although the indicators presented in the table below include data on income and expenditure, these figures have not been adjusted for inflation for reasons aforementioned. Data relating to income and expenditure categories should also be treated cautiously, due to the myriad ways in which ECoCs have accounted for and presented revenues.
10
