APPENDIXES: European capitals of culture ... - European Parliament

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

CULTURE AND EDUCATION

EUROPEAN CAPITALS OF CULTURE: SUCCESS STRATEGIES AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS

APPENDIXES

IP/B/CULT/IC/2012-082 PE 513.985

November 2013 EN

This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education. AUTHORS Beatriz Garcia, Tamsin Cox COLLABORATORS Matti Allam, Pete Campbell, Giannalia Cogliandro, Stephen Crone, Floris Langen, Dave O’Brien, Cristina Ortega Nuere RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Markus J. Prutsch Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Lyna Pärt LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: DE, FR ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in November 2013. © European Union, 2013. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects

____________________________________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

APPENDIX A: FULL LIST OF EUROPEAN CITIES/CAPITALS OF CULTURE

5

APPENDIX B: LIST OF KEY INDICATORS AND SOURCES, BY CHAPTER

7

APPENDIX C: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY PER ECOC HOST CITY

28

APPENDIX D.1: EXPERT WORKSHOP I, LIVERPOOL (10 APRIL 2013)

50

APPENDIX D.2: EXPERT WORKSHOP II, BRUSSELS (21 JUNE 2013)

54

APPENDIX E: MEDIA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

56

APPENDIX F: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF ECOC HOST CITIES (2005-18) IDENTIFIED BY SELECTION PANEL AT BID STAGE

65

APPENDIX G: EVALUATING ASPECTS OF THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

76

3

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

____________________________________________________________________________________________

4


____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A: FULL LIST OF EUROPEAN CITIES/CAPITALS OF CULTURE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

1985: 1986: 1987: 1988: 1989: 1990: 1991: 1992: 1993: 1994: 1995: 1996: 1997: 1998: 1999: 2000:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2001: 2002: 2003: 2004: 2005: 2006: 2007: 2008: 2009: 2010: 2011: 2012: 2013: 2014: 2015: 2016: 2017: 2018:

Athens Florence Amsterdam Berlin Paris Glasgow Dublin Madrid Antwerp Lisbon Luxembourg Copenhagen Thessaloniki Stockholm Weimar Avignon, Bergen, Bologna, Brussels, Helsinki, Kraków, Prague, Reykjavík, Santiago de Compostela Rotterdam, Porto Bruges, Salamanca Graz Genoa, Lille Cork Patras Sibiu, Luxembourg and Greater Region Liverpool, Stavanger Vilnius, Linz Essen for the Ruhr, Istanbul, Pécs Turku, Tallinn Guimarães, Maribor Marseille-Provence, Košice Umeå, Riga Mons, Plzeň San Sebastián, Wrocław Aarhus, Paphos Valletta, Leeuwarden

To be selected: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2019: 2020: 2021: 2022: 2023: 2024: 2025: 2026: 2027: 2028: 2029: 2030: 2031: 2032: 2033:

Italy, Bulgaria Croatia, Ireland and candidate or potential candidate country Romania, Greece Lithuania, Luxembourg Hungary, United Kingdom and candidate or potential candidate country Estonia, Austria Slovenia, Germany Slovakia, Finland and candidate or potential candidate country Latvia, Portugal Czech Republic, France Poland, Sweden and candidate or potential candidate country Cyprus, Belgium Malta, Spain Bulgaria, Denmark and candidate or potential candidate country Netherlands, Italy 5


____________________________________________________________________________________________

6


____________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

7


____________________________________________________________________________________________

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

9 9 9 10 12

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

12 12 13 13 15 17 21

Chapter 5: Sources Chapter 5: Data population rate, by ECoC phase Chapter 5: Data overview

21 22 23

CONTEXTUAL DATA ABOUT PARTICIPATING CITIES

25

Contextual data: Sources Contextual data: Overview

25 26

8


____________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

9


____________________________________________________________________________________________

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

10


____________________________________________________________________________________________

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

11


____________________________________________________________________________________________

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

1

These reports cover every city designated between 2005 and 2018, with the exception of Leeuwarden – the selection reports for which were not available at the time of writing.

12


____________________________________________________________________________________________

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) 13


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 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)

14


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 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

15


____________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

16


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 4: Data overview

Event total

Sponsor count

Income (€m)

% income – nat. govt.

% income – local and reg. govt.

% income – other public

% income - EU

% income sponsorship

% income other

Expenditure

% spend overheads

% spend – promotion / marketing

% spend programme

% spend – other

1985

Ath

< 12 months

776

4

7.4

88%

0%

0%

1%

10%

0%

690000.0

6%

0%

74%

20%

1986

Flo

< 12 months

284

10

21.9

73%

17%

0%

1%

9%

0%

29000.0

0%

3%

97%

0%

1987

Ams

< 12 months

848

29

3.0

40%

31%

0%

4%

24%

0%

5.1

23%

15%

63%

0%

1988

Ber

< 12 months

1181

42

24.3

5%

90%

0%

3%

2%

0%

54.5

30%

7%

70%

0%

1989

Par

< 12 months

1

0.5

0%

77%

0%

23%

0%

0%

1990

Gla

12-18 months

3502

260

52.4

1%

82%

0%

0%

17%

0%

32.7

3%

15%

82%

0%

1991

Dub

< 12 months

936

66

7.7

32%

32%

0%

3%

32%

0%

7.9

6%

6%

88%

0%

1992

Mad

12-18 months

1832

15

51.8

47%

29%

0%

0%

24%

0%

6946.0

11%

16%

73%

0%

1993

Ant

< 12 months

678

99

18.0

28%

43%

0%

4%

27%

0%

741.0

18%

13%

64%

3%

1994

Lis

< 12 months

490

957

33

30.2

43%

43%

0%

2%

12%

0%

4145.0

2%

2%

95%

1%

1995

Lux

12-18 months

500

1420

45

16.4

24.4

35%

32%

1%

2%

22%

8%

21.5

21%

10%

69%

0%

1996

Cop

12-18 months

670

19

219.7

54.0

25%

31%

0%

0%

0%

44%

58.7

11%

12%

77%

0%

1997

The

12-18 months

1271

2

232.6

60.8

99%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

67.4

28%

12%

60%

0%

1998

Sto

12-18 months

1218

13

54.8

29%

59%

0%

2%

7%

3%

54.7

6%

23%

71%

0%

1999

Wei

< 12 months

370

19

46.0

32%

50%

0%

2%

17%

0%

46.0

29%

0%

65%

5%

2

1271

411.2

2

City

Project total

Year

Length of programme

Infr. spend (€m)

Indicator

All figures are in Euro, with the exceptions of: Athens 1985 (drachma), Florence 1986 (lira), Amsterdam 1987 (guilder), Berlin 1988 (Deutsche mark), Glasgow 1990 (pounds), Dublin 1991 (punt), Madrid 1992 (peseta), Antwerp 1993 (Belgian franc), Lisbon 1994 (escudo), Liverpool 2008 (pounds) and Stavanger 2008 (krone).

17


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2000

Avi

12-18 months

343

200

8.0

21.1

35%

32%

8%

1%

10%

13%

21.1




% income - EU


% income other

Expenditure (see notes)

% spend overheads


% spend programme

% spend – other

2%

25%

5%

12.7

49%

7%

44%

0%

7.7

33.8

33%

50%

13%

0%

0%

4%

33.6

3%

24%

67%

6%

82.0

32.8

34%

19%

18%

1%

16%

13%

33.6

26%

9%

63%

1%

13

33.1

29%

51%

0%

0%

20%

0%

32.9

5%

20%

74%

0%

656

9

12.8

50%

34%

0%

0%

0%

16%

5.78

7%

24%

69%

0%

380

1768

23

10.4

23%

54%

0%

3%

17%

3%

10.0

14%

21%

65%

0%

284

2549

11

8.5

37%

43%

1%

12%

8%

0%

7.9

13%

17%

69%

0%

1210

27

22.9

0%

0%

30%

1%

69%

0%

350

1959

13

58.0

81%

2%

0%

0%

5%

11%

58.5

29%

20%

51%

0%

12-18 months

524

500

152

34.1

23%

23%

0%

1%

33%

20%

34.1

24%

8%

67%

1%

Bru

< 12 months

165

1227

46

68.8

27.2

18%

11%

18%

9%

23%

19%

27.2

17%

22%

61%

0%

2002

Sal

12-18 months

1100

33

46.5

39.2

0%

0%

58%

0%

38%

5%

39.2

19%

9%

59%

12%

2003

Gra

< 12 months

6000

35

56.0

59.2

25%

63%

0%

1%

5%

6%

59.2

9%

24%

61%

7%

2000

Ber

< 12 months

500

3380

13

2000

Bol

Multi-year4

551

3070

11

2000

Bru

< 12 months

350

22

2000

Hel

12-18 months5

503

2000

Kra

Multi-year6

1217

2000

Pra

12-18 months9

2000

Rey

12-18 months

2000

San

2001

Por

12-18 months10

2001

Rot

2002

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

108

Infr. spend (€m)

3%

Sponsor count

30%

Event total

36%

City

Project total

12.8

Year

Length of programme

Income (€m)

Indicator

168.5

Only represents ‘some’ of the sponsors of Avignon. Events began on a limited scale in 1998, with 25 per cent of the programme then taking place in 1999, a year ahead of the ECoC year. Official programme in 2000 was supplemented, during the previous year, by an introductory summer programme. Kraków, in essence, ran a five-year programme, beginning in 1996. Although Kraków ran a multi-year programme, this figure represents the total number of projects for 2000 only. This represents expenditure for 2000 only. Official programme in 2000 was supplemented by “prologue” events in 1999. The official programme began in 2001, but some projects did take place in 2000.

18


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2004

Gen

12-18 months

2004

Lil

12-18 months

2005

Cor

12-18 months

2006

10

200.0

30.5

56%

2%

0%

2%

21%

19%

30.4

12%

23%

64%

1%

61

70.0

73.7

19%

44%

17%

2%

16%

2%

73.7

10%

10%

80%

0%

244

230

196.0

21.6

36%

27%

0%

2%

0%

35%

17.0

0%

11%

89%

0%

Pat

151

10

100.0

36.0

2007

Lux

584

5000

10

57.0

67%

22%

0%

3%

0%

8%

57.0

11%

16%

71%

2%

2007

Sib

867

1447

18

16.9

24%

51%

0%

8%

0%

16%

12-18 months

130 2500

137.4

Sponsor count

Infr. spend (€m)

Income (€m)




% income - EU


% income other

Expenditure (see notes)

% spend overheads


% spend programme

% spend – other

35

900.0

142.0

8%

58%

2%

12%

17%

3%

129.9

15%

19%

60%

6%

160

1118

142

293.0

39.5

30%

37%

0%

4%

0%

28%

320.3

22%

18%

56%

4%

Multi-year13

220

7700

61

323.0

75.2

27%

53%

0%

2%

14%

4%

68.7

17%

19%

62%

2%

Vil

12-18 months

100

1500

300

44.3

19.8

80%

18%

0%

2%

0%

0%

19.8

15%

21%

63%

1%

2010

Ess

12-18 months

300

5500

42

500.0

81.0

22%

38%

18%

2%

20%

0%

81.0

15%

20%

62%

3%

2010

Ist

Multi-year14

586

10000

25

64.0

288.7

95%

0%

0%

1%

0%

4%

194.0

8%

22%

46%

25%

2010

Péc

Multi-year15

650

4675

140.0

36.4

42%

31%

17%

4%

6%

0%

35.4

20%

22%

41%

18%

2011

Tal

12-18 months

251

7000

13

195.0

14.4

31%

52%

0%

10%

0%

6%

13.7

22%

26%

51%

1%

2011

Tur

12-18 months

165

8000

18

145.0

56.1

31%

33%

6%

3%

12%

16%

55.5

17%

15%

65%

3%

City

2008

Liv

Multi-year11

2008

Sta

Multi-year12

2009

Lin

2009

11 12 13 14 15

Project total

7000

Year

Length of programme

Event total

Indicator

Liverpool decided to use themed years, which began in 2002 and ran up until 2010. Programme involved various “taster” activities that took place in the years building up to the ECoC year in 2008. Linz featured a substantial number of “pre-projects” during the period 2006-2008, to complement the official programme in 2009. ECORYS (2011c: 77) refer to “586 projects ... implemented in total during the years 2008-2011”, which suggests a multi-year approach. The Pécs organising body ran a number of themed years in advance of the title year in 2010.

19


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2012

Gui

12-18 months

2012

Mar

12-18 months

23 405

5264

15

41.7

41.8

25%

10%

12%

53%

0%

2%

41.6

17%

18%

66%

0%

28.4

54%

40%

0%

3%

0%

3%

28.4

14%

9%

77%

0%

20


____________________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER 5: SHORT- AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS In Chapter 5, the study examines the short and long-term effects of the ECoC Programme, using the following indicators and sources. Chapter 5: Sources Indicator

Source(s)

Arrivals total

Richards and Rotariu (2011); TourMIS database; Universidade do Minho (2013); Zentrum für Kulturforschung and IGC Culturplan (2011)

Attendance at ECoC projects total

Axe Culture (2005); ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2010a; 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)

Awareness of ECoC and perceived effects

Bruges 2002 (2003); ECORYS (2009b; 2010a; 2010b; 2011d; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Helsinki 2000 (2000a); Krakow 2000 (2001); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b); Richards and Rotariu (2011); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)

Levels of cultural participation during and after ECoC

ECORYS (2009b; 2010b; 2011d; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Helsinki (2000a); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b); Universidade do Minho (2013)

Media impacts

ECORYS (2009b; 2010a; 2010b; 2011c; 2011d; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Lille 2004 (2005); Linz 2009 (2010a; 2010b); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Maribor 2012 (2013); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Stavanger 2008 (2009); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012); Universidade do Minho (2013)

Overnights total

Axe Culture (2005); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b); Richards and Rotariu (2011); TourMIS database; Universidade do Minho (2013); Zentrum für Kulturforschung and IGC Culturplan (2011)

Participation in ECoC events by different social groups

ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2011d); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012); Universidade do Minho (2013)

Volunteer count

Axe Culture (2005); Bruges 2002 (2003); ECORYS (2009b; 2010b; 2011d; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Pallikarakis (2006); Palmer et al. (2012); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Stavanger 2008 (2009); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)

21


____________________________________________________________________________________________ As the table below shows, most indicators used in Chapter 5 did not have a high degree of population, with ECoC attendance, media impacts and total overnights standing out as the most complete datasets available. In addition to this, the data for a number of indicators was especially noticeable for its low degree of comparability – including data on the total number of volunteers, the vagueness of which made it difficult to distinguish between ‘registered’ volunteers, ‘active’ volunteers and ‘ambassadors’. Although the quality of data on arrivals and overnights, in contrast, was generally very good – due in large part to the data available through the TourMIS system – this, too, presented problems because of the imprecise use of relevant terminology within sections of the available literature, including the conflation, in some sources, of arrivals and overnights. Chapter 5: Data population rate, by ECoC phase Availability Indicator

19851996

19972004

20052012

Entire period

Arrivals total

50%

47%

53%

50%

Attendance at ECoC projects total

92%

63%

93%

80%

Awareness of ECoC and perceived effects

17%

37%

87%

48%

Levels of cultural participation during and after ECoC

58%

42%

73%

57%

Media impacts

42%

84%

80%

72%

Overnights total

92%

89%

73%

85%

Participation in ECoC events by different social groups

0%

21%

40%

22%

Volunteer count

0%

21%

93%

39%

The final table, below, presents a summary of some of the data underlying Chapter 5, excluding indicators such as media impacts and awareness and perceived effects – the data for which was too variegated to present in a coherent form. Also excluded is data on overnights, which is already listed extensively in Table 9 of the main report.

22


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5: Data overview Indicator % change in arrivals (ECoC year)16

% change in arrivals (ECoC year +1)17

Total attendance at ECoC projects

-16.4%

1,344,000

Year

City

1985

Athens

1986

Florence

799,000

1987

Amsterdam

916,000

1988

Berlin

868,000

1989

Paris

1990

Glasgow

1991

Dublin

1992

Madrid

1993

Antwerp

1994

Lisbon

+8.8%

+1.6%

1,144,00

1995

Luxembourg

-8.6%

-3.7%

1,170,000

1996

Copenhagen

6,920,000

1997

Thessaloniki

1,500,000

1998

Stockholm

+10.0%

-1.5%

1999

Weimar

+78.9%

-20.1%

2000

Avignon

2000

Bergen

2000

Bologna

16

17

Volunteer count

+6.7% -18.8%

-15.8%

1,879,000 960,000

-2.4%

-1.8%

1,000,000 1,143,000

650

1,500,000

+19.1%

+11.6%

2,150,000

This data shows the percentage change in tourist arrivals during the ECoC year, compared to the previous year. It is sourced predominantly from TourMIS but with support from other sources, where necessary. All of the figures stated represent the sum of foreign and domestic arrivals; however, the geographic coverage and types of accommodation included in the statistic vary from city to city. For Luxembourg 1995, Weimar 1999, Bologna 2000, Brussels 2000, Helsinki 2000, Reykjavik 2000, Graz 2003, Luxembourg 2007, Linz 2009, Tallinn 2011 and Maribor 2012, the stated figures represent arrivals in all paid forms of accommodation in the city area only. For Madrid 1992, the figure represents arrivals in all paid forms of accommodation in the greater city area. For Lisbon 1994, Stockholm 1998, Genoa 2004 and Vilnius 2009, the figures represent arrivals in hotels and similar establishments in the city area only. For Glagow 1990, the figure represents arrivals in all accommodation establishments, including people visiting friends and relatives, in the greater city area. For Sibiu 2007, the figure represents arrivals in Sibiu county, but the forms of accommodation covered by the statistic are not known. For Essen for the Ruhr 2010, the figure represents arrivals in Essen and the surrounding "portal" towns, but the forms of accommodation covered by the statistic are not known. Finally, for Guimarães 2012, both the geographic area and forms of accommodation included in the statistic are not known. This data shows the percentage change in tourist arrivals the year after the ECoC title year, in comparison with the title year itself. For all cities where a figure is available for the percentage change in arrivals during the ECoC year, the same source and statistic has been used in this column. For other cities, the following statistical definitions apply: arrivals in all paid forms of accommodation in city area only (Athens 1985, Bruges 2002); arrivals in hotels and similar establishments in city area only (Paris 1989). All of the figures stated represent the sum of foreign and domestic arrivals.

23


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2000

Brussels

+5.3%

-1.8%

2000

Helsinki

+11.2%

-1.0%

5,400,000

2000

Kraków

2000

Prague

2000

Reykjavík

+1.0%

+3.4%

1,473,724

2000

Santiago

2001

Porto

1,246,545 Indicator % change in arrivals (ECoC year +1)

% change in arrivals (ECoC year)

Total attendance at ECoC projects

Year

City

2001

Rotterdam

2002

Bruges

2002

Salamanca

2003

Graz

+19.1%

-11.0%

2,755,271

2004

Genoa

+17.4%

-8.1%

2,835,960

2004

Lille

9,000,000

2005

Cork

1,100,000

2006

Patras

2007

Luxembourg GR

+4.8%

-3.4%

3,327,67818

241

2007

Sibiu

+29.6

-12.4%

1,000,000

1200

2008

Liverpool

18,345,576

971

2008

Stavanger

1,975,316

486

2009

Linz

+8.4%

-3.1%

3,500,000

220

2009

Vilnius

-21.2%

+6.6%

1,500,000

500

2010

Essen for the Ruhr

+13.4%

10,500,000

1165

2010

Istanbul

12,000,000

6159

2010

Pécs

900,000

780

2011

Tallinn

2,000,000

1610

2011

Turku

2,000,000

422

2012

Guimarães

+29.2%

2,000,000

300

2012

Maribor

+16.1%

4,500,000

87

18

Volunteer count

2,250,000 -8.1%

1,600,000

85

1,927,444

200

17800

1400

+16.2%

+1.2%

Source states that this figure “is likely to be an underestimate, because only 275 projects actually reported visit figures” (Luxembourg 2007, 2008: 33).

24


____________________________________________________________________________________________

CONTEXTUAL DATA ABOUT PARTICIPATING CITIES Contextual data is one of the few areas where it has been possible for this study to look beyond former ECoC host cities, towards current host cities and the cities that have been designated with the title for the years to come. Data included in this category relates to indicators such as the size of the city (in terms of population), as well as its geographic position within Europe and its EU membership status. This data has been used to qualify findings and inform analysis throughout the report, but also serves as a stand-alone source of insight (including in Chapter 2). The main sources of information used to populate these indicators are presented in the following table. Contextual data: Sources Indicator

Source(s)

ECoC phase

ICC assessment

City size (population)

City census data as reported online; Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Palmer and Richards (2007); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b)

City size simplified (population)

ICC assessment

Country

-

EU positioning

European Commission

Geographical location within Europe

UN-Stats

Host city name and year of designation

-

Naturally, these indicators were much more straightforward to populate than many of those related to ECoC programme characteristics and impacts. Indeed, indicators related to city context were populated for the full range of past, present and future ECoCs. In the table below, this contextual data is itself presented.

25


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Contextual data: Overview Pop. size20

Country

Geogr. region

EU position

3.2

Large

Greece

South

EU-12

I-1985-1996

0.36

Small

Italy

South

EU-12

Amsterdam

I-1985-1996

0.76

Medium

Netherlan.

West

EU-12

1988

Berlin

I-1985-1996

3.44

Large

Germany

West

EU-12

1989

Paris

I-1985-1996

2.16

Large

France

West

EU-12

1990

Glasgow

I-1985-1996

0.64

Medium

UK

North

EU-12

1991

Dublin

I-1985-1996

0.52

Medium

Ireland

North

EU-12

1992

Madrid

I-1985-1996

3.12

Large

Spain

South

EU-12

1993

Antwerp

I-1985-1996

0.46

Small

Belgium

West

EU-12

1994

Lisbon

I-1985-1996

0.68

Medium

Portugal

South

EU-12

1995

Luxembourg

I-1985-1996

0.07

Small

Luxembou.

West

EU-12

1996

Copenhagen

I-1985-1996

1.1

Medium

Denmark

North

EU-12

1997

Thessaloniki

II- 1997-2004

0.8

Medium

Greece

South

EU-12

1998

Stockholm

II- 1997-2004

0.76

Medium

Sweden

North

EU-15

1999

Weimar

II- 1997-2004

0.06

Small

Germany

West

EU-12

2000

Avignon

II- 1997-2004

0.08

Small

France

West

EU-12

2000

Bergen

II- 1997-2004

0.25

Small

Norway

North

Non-EU

2000

Bologna

II- 1997-2004

0.42

Small

Italy

South

EU-12

2000

Brussels

II- 1997-2004

1

Medium

Belgium

West

EU-12

2000

Helsinki

II- 1997-2004

0.57

Medium

Finland

North

EU-15

2000

Kraków

II- 1997-2004

0.75

Medium

Poland

East

Accession

2000

Prague

II- 1997-2004

1.2

Medium

Czech Rep

East

Accession

2000

Reykjavík

II- 1997-2004

0.1

Small

Iceland

North

Non-EU

2000

Santiago

II- 1997-2004

0.09

Small

Spain

South

EU-12

2001

Porto

II- 1997-2004

0.27

Small

Portugal

South

EU-12

2001

Rotterdam

II- 1997-2004

0.6

Medium

Netherlan.

West

EU-12

Year

City

ECoC phase

1985

Athens

I-1985-1996

1986

Florence

1987

19

20

City pop. (m)19

Figures relating to population correspond with the area in which the ECoC programme took place (or is intended to take place, in the case of future ECoCs). For cities that organised (or will be organising) events predominantly within the urban city area, for example, the population figure for the urban city area has been given; whilst for cities that distributed (or plan to distribute) events within a wider area surrounding the city, the population for this area has been given (e.g. Friesland for Leeuwarden 2018 or Malta for Valletta 2018). The population figures for future ECoCs represent the most recently available figures, and do not, therefore, take into account possible future changes in the population of these cities and surrounding metropolitan areas. For the population size groupings, the categories have been defined as follows: Small = less than 0.5m people; Medium = between 0.5 and 2m; Large = more than 2m.

26


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2002

Bruges

II- 1997-2004

0.12

Small

Belgium

West

EU-12

2002

Salamanca

II- 1997-2004

0.15

Small

Spain

South

EU-12

Year

Host city

ECoC phase

Pop. size

Country

Geogr. region

EU position

2003

Graz

II- 1997-2004

0.35

Small

Austria

West

EU-15

2004

Genoa

II- 1997-2004

0.65

Medium

Italy

South

EU-12

2004

Lille

II- 1997-2004

1.2

Medium

France

West

EU-12

2005

Cork

III-2005-2019

0.09

Small

Ireland

North

EU-12

2006

Patras

III-2005-2019

0.12

Small

Greece

South

EU-12

2007

Lux GR

III-2005-2019

11.2

Large

Luxembou.

West

EU-12

2007

Sibiu

III-2005-2019

0.1

Small

Romania

East

EU-27

2008

Liverpool

III-2005-2019

0.5

Medium

UK

North

EU-12

2008

Stavanger

III-2005-2019

0.1

Small

Norway

North

Non-EU

2009

Linz

III-2005-2019

0.19

Small

Austria

West

EU-15

2009

Vilnius

III-2005-2019

0.55

Medium

Lithuania

North

EU-25

2010

Essen / Ruhr

III-2005-2019

5.2

Large

Germany

West

EU-12

2010

Istanbul

III-2005-2019

12.5

Large

Turkey

South

Non-EU

2010

Pécs

III-2005-2019

0.13

Small

Hungary

East

EU-25

2011

Tallinn

III-2005-2019

0.42

Small

Estonia

North

EU-25

2011

Turku

III-2005-2019

0.15

Small

Finland

North

EU-15

2012

Guimarães

III-2005-2019

0.08

Small

Portugal

South

EU-12

2012

Maribor

III-2005-2019

0.08

Small

Slovenia

South

EU-25

2013

Košice

III-2005-2019

0.24

Small

Slovakia

East

EU-25

2013

Marseille-PR

III-2005-2019

1.77

Medium

France

West

EU-12

2014

Riga

III-2005-2019

0.69

Medium

Latvia

North

EU-25

2014

Umeå

III-2005-2019

0.21

Small

Sweden

North

EU-15

2015

Mons

III-2005-2019

0.09

Small

Belgium

West

EU-12

2015

Plzeň

III-2005-2019

0.17

Small

Czech Rep

East

EU-25

2016

S. Sebastián

III-2005-2019

0.18

Small

Spain

South

EU-12

2016

Wrocław

III-2005-2019

0.63

Medium

Poland

East

EU-25

2017

Aarhus

III-2005-2019

0.25

Small

Denmark

North

EU-12

2017

Paphos

III-2005-2019

0.088

Small

Cyprus

South

EU-25

2018

Leeuwarden

III-2005-2019

0.63

Medium

Netherlan.

West

EU-12

2018

Valletta

III-2005-2019

0.418

Small

Malta

South

EU-25

City pop. (m)

27


____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX C: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY PER ECOC HOST CITY 1985-1999 cities

29

2000 cities

31

Porto and Rotterdam 2001

32

Bruges and Salamanca 2002

32

Graz 2003

33

Genoa 2004

33

Lille 2004

33

Cork 2005

34

Patras 2006

34

ECoC 2007 joint assessment

35

Luxembourg and Greater Region 2007

35

Sibiu 2007

35


35

Liverpool 2008

36

Stavanger 2008

38


38

Vilnius 2009

38

Linz 2009

39


39

Essen for the Ruhr 2010

39

Istanbul 2010

41

Pécs 2010

41


42

Tallinn 2011

42

Turku 2011

42

Guimarães and Maribor 2012

42

Košice 2013

43

Marseille-Provence 2013

43

2014 onwards

44

Comparative and/or multiple ECoC city literature

45

28


____________________________________________________________________________________________

1985-1999 cities Berlin 1988 

Berlin 1988, 1987. Berlin – European cultural city 1988. Berlin 1988.



Berlin 1988, 1988. Berlin – Cultural City of Europe 1988. List of Projects. Berlin 1988.



Berlin 1988, 1988. Berlin – Cultural City of Europe 1988. The Programme. Berlin 1988.

Glasgow 1990 

Booth P., Boyle R., 1993. See Glasgow, see culture. In: F. Bianchini and M. Parkinson (editors), Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: the West European Experience, Manchester University Press.



Boyle M., Hughes G., 1991. The politics of ‘the real’: Discourses from the Left on Glasgow’s role as European City of Culture 1990. Area 23/3, 217-228.



Garcia B., 2003. The Cities and Culture Project. Centre for Cultural Policy Research, University of Glasgow.



Garcia B., 2004a. Reinventando Glasgow como Ciudad Europea de la Cultura: Impactos en turismo cultural (1986-2000). In: J. Font (editor), Casos de turismo cultural: de la planificacion estrategica a la evaluacion de productos, Editorial Ariel Barcelona, 31–56.



Garcia B., 2005. Deconstructing the city of culture: The long-term legacies of Glasgow 1990. Urban Studies 42/5-6, 841-868.



Gomez M.V., 1998. Reflective images: The case of urban regeneration in Glasgow and Bilbao. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22/1, 106-121.



McLay, F. (editor), 1990. The reckoning. Public loss, private gain (Beyond the culture city rip off). Clydeside Press, Glasgow.



Mooney G., 2004. Cultural policy as urban transformation? Critical reflections on Glasgow, European City of Culture 1990. Local Economy 19/4, 327-340.



Myerscough J., 1991. Monitoring Glasgow 1990. Policy Studies Institute, Glasgow.



Myerscough J., 1992. Measuring the impact of the arts: The Glasgow 1990 experience. Journal of the Market Research Society 34/4, 323-34.



Reason M., 2006a. Cartoons and the comic exposure of the European City of Culture. In: G. Weiss-Sussex and F. Bianchini (editors), Urban Mindscapes of Europe, Rodopi Amsterdam, 179-196.



Reason M., 2006b. Glasgow’s Year of Culture and discourses of cultural policy on the cusp of globalisation. Contemporary Theatre Review 16/1, 73-85.



Reason M., Garcia B., 2007. Approaches to the newspaper archive: Content analysis and press coverage of Glasgow’s year of culture. Media, Culture and Society 29/2, 305332.



Tucker, M., 2008. The cultural production of cities: Rhetoric or reality? Lessons from Glasgow. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property 7/1, 21-33.

Dublin 1991 

Clohessy L., 1994. Culture and urban tourism: 'Dublin 1991' - European City of Culture. In: U. Kockel (editor), Culture, Tourism and Development: The Case of Ireland, Liverpool University Press, 189-195.



Dublin 1991, 1991. Report on Dublin 1991 – A Year of Culture. Dublin 1991.

29


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Antwerp 1993 

Antonis E., 1998. The Socio-Economic Impact of Antwerp Cultural Capital of Europe 1993. In: A. Kilday (editor), Culture and Economic Development in the Regions of Europe, Llangollen Ectarc, 133–136.



Corijn E., van Praet S., 1994. Antwerp 93 in the context of European Cultural Capitals: Art policy as politics. City Cultures, Lifestyles and Consumption Practices Conference, Coimbra.



De Morgen, 1993. Vlaams Blok: Antwerpen 93 is een diktatuur, De Morgen, 31 March.



Gazet van Antwerpen, 1993. Vlaams Blok tegen programma Antwerpen 93, Gazet van Antwerpen, 31 March.

Lisbon 1994 

Holton K.D., 1998. Dressing for success: Lisbon as European Capital of Culture. The Journal of American Folklore 111/440, 173-196.



Lopes T., 2007. Arte pública em lisboa 94: capital europeia da cultura: intenções e oportunidades. On the Waterfront 9, 89-95.



Roseta I., 1998. Cultural policy and Hallmark events as tools for urban regeneration: the case of Lisbon City of Culture 1994. Unpublished MA thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Luxemburg 1995 

Fontanari M., Faby K., Fontanari M., Johst R., Kern A., Ludwig C. and Sommer A., 2002. Überprüfung der Umsetzung des strategischen Tourismuskonzeptes aus dem Jahr 1992 und Ableitung neuer Ansätze für den kommenden Fünfjahresplan des Großherzogtums Luxemburg. Europäisches Tourismus Institut.

Copenhagen 1996 

Davies T., 1998. European City of Culture Copenhagen '96, report 1998. Copenhagen ’96.



Davies T., 2012. The decade after: Copenhagen 1996. Bruges 2012 Conference - The Decade After: The Legacy of European Capitals of Culture, 22 May 2012, Brugge, Belgium.



Fridberg T., Koch-Nielsen I., 1997. Cultural capital of Europe Copenhagen '96. The Danish National Institute of Social Research, Report 97:22, Copenhagen.

Thessaloniki 1997 

Deffner A., Labrianidis L., 2005. Planning culture and time in a mega-event: Thessaloniki as the European City of Culture in 1997. International Planning Studies 10/3-4, 241-264.



Kalogirou N., 2003. Public architecture and culture: The case of Thessaloniki as European City of Culture for 1997. In: A. Deffner, D. Konstadakopulos, Y. Psycharis (editors), Culture and Regional Economic Development in Europe, Thessaly University Press, Volos.



Labrianidis L., Deffner A., 2000. European cities of culture: Impacts in economy, culture and theory. In: P. Delladetsimas, V. Hastaoglou, C. Hatzimihalis, M. Mantouvalou, D. Vaiou (editors), Towards a Radical Cultural Agenda for European Cities and Regions, Kyriakidis Thessaloniki, 23-58.

30


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Labrianidis L., Ioannou D., Katsikas I., Deffner A., 1996. Evaluation of the anticipated economic implications from European City of Culture Thessaloniki 1997, European City of Culture Thessaloniki ’97.



Tzonos P., 1998. The projects of Thessaloniki, European City of Culture, as carriers of culture. Entefktirio 42/43, 77–88.

Stockholm 1998 

Backstrom A., 1998. Stockholm '98, Dokumentation av ett kulturhuvudstad. Europas Kulturhuvudstad, Stockholm.

Weimar 1999 

Hassenpflug D., 1999. Die Arena in der Arena. Weimar, Kulturstadt Europas 1999 (AidA), Analysen und Daten zur Politik des Events. Unpublished MA thesis, Bauhaus Universitat Weimar - Facultat Architektur.



Martinez, J.G., 2007. Selling avant-garde: How Antwerp became a fashion capital (1990-2002). Urban Studies 44/12, 2449-2464.



Roth S., Frank S., 2000. Festivalization and the media: Weimar, Cultural Capital of Europe 1999. International Journal of Cultural Policy 6/2, 219-41.



Weimar 1999, 1999. Weimar 1999 - Programme highlights. Weimar 1999.

Comparative work early period 

Pápari A., 2011. The identity of the European city through the institution of cultural capital of Europe 1985-1997. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.



Patel K., 2012. Integration by interpellation: The European Capitals of Culture and the role of experts in European Union cultural policies. Journal of Common Market Studies 51/3, 538-554.



Rennen W., 2007. City events: Place selling in a media age. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.

2000 cities 

Avignon 2000, 1998. Philosophie du programme: passage vers le troisieme millenaire. Avignon 2000.



Avignon 2000, 2000. Vision 2001 Avignon, Propositión d'Avignon pour Le Festival de la Phographie de Spectacle. Mission d'Avignon.



Brussels 2000, 1997. For a Contemporary City, Brussels, European Cultural City of the year 2000. Summary of the report on the preparatory phase - 18 November 1997. Brussels 2000.



Brussels 2000, 2001. Brussel 2000, rapport final, Tome 1: la programmation. Brussels 2000.



Cogliandro G., 2000. Neuf villes européennes de la culture de l'an 2000 réunies dans l'AECC/AVEC. Conference SITC2000, 28 April 2000, Barcelona, Spain.



Cogliandro G., online, 2001. European Cities of Culture for the Year 2000. A wealth of urban cultures for celebrating the turn of the century. European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/archive/ecocs/pdf_word/capital2000_report_en.pdf



De Munnynck M., 1998. Bruxelles 2000 Brussel 2000. Pôles culturel de quartier.



Heikkinen T., 2000. In from the margins: The City of Culture and the image transformation of Helsinki. International Journal of Cultural Policy 6/2, 201-18.



Helsinki 2000, 2000a. Helsinki, a European City of Culture in 2000: Report. Helsinki 2000.

31


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Helsinki 2000, 2000b. Helsinki 2000 - Year of culture, environmental and urban art. Helsinki 2000.



Hughes H., Allen D., Wasik D., 2003. The significance of European “Capital of Culture” for tourism and culture: the case of Kraków 2000. International Journal of Arts Management 5/3, 12-23.



Ingram M., 2010. Promoting Europe through ‘unity in diversity’: Avignon as European Capital of Culture in 2000. Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe 10/1, 14-25.



Krakow 2000, 2001. The Krakow 2000 European City of Culture Programme, final report. Biuro Kraków 2000.



Patteeuw V., 1998. Thinking the city, feasibility study - Brussel 2000. Brussels 2000 Office.



Reme E., 2002. Exhibition and experience of cultural identity: The case of Bergen – European City of Culture. Ethnologia Europaea 32/2, 37-46.



Sjøholt, P., 1999. Culture as a strategic development device: The role of “European Cities of Culture”, with particular reference to Bergen. European Urban and Regional Studies 6/4, 339–347.

Porto and Rotterdam 2001 

Balsas, C.J.L., 2004. City centre regeneration in the context of the 2001 European Capital of Culture in Porto, Portugal. Local Economy 19/4, 396-410.



Porto 2001, 2001. Programa cultural. Porto 2001.



Richards G., Hitters E., Fernandes C., 2002. Rotterdam and Porto, Cultural Capitals 2001: Visitor research. ATLAS, Arnhem.



Santos M.L.L.Dos, Gomes R.T., Neves J.S. et al., 2003. Publicos do Porto 2001. Observatoril das Actividades Culturais, Lisbon.



Sucena S., 2004. Porto, capital europeia da cultura 2001. os elementos de um projecto urbano. o caso da baixa portuense. Revista de Arquitectura e Urbanismo da Universidade Fernando Pessoa 0, 5.



Hitters E., 2000. The social and political construction of a European Cultural Capital: Rotterdam 2001. International Journal of Cultural Policy 6/2, 183-199.

Bruges and Salamanca 2002 

Boyko C., 2008. Are you being served? The impacts of a tourist hallmark event on the place meanings of residents. Event Management 11/4, 161-177.



Brugge 2002, 2003. Concise. Brugge 2002 - Impact Study summary. Brugge 2002.



Brugge 2002, 2012. Lasting effects of Bruges 2002. Bruges 2012 Conference - The Decade After: The Legacy of European Capitals of Culture, 22 May 2012, Bruges, Belgium.



Decoutere S., 2003. Cultural heritage - Some European social, educational and public awareness raising objectives of the cultural heritage policy and their implementation in Flanders. University of North London / Zuyd University of Applied Science.



Herrero L.C., Sanz J.A., Devesa M., Bedate A., del Barrio, M.J., 2006. The economic impact of cultural events: A case-study of Salamanca 2002, European Capital of Culture. European Urban and Regional Studies 13/1, 41-57.



Monte G., 2001. European Capitals of Culture. Assessment and case study, Culturele Hoofdstad van Europa, Brugge 2002. College of Europe Bruges.



Salamanca 2002, 2000. Salamanca 2002 programme. Salamanca 2002.

32


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Graz 2003 

Acconci V., 2008. Mur Island, Graz, Austria. Architectural Design 78/1, 100-101.



Gaulhofer, M., 2007. European Capital of Culture: Maximising the tourism potential – The case of Graz 2003. International Conference on Destination Management, Budapest, Hungary, February 2007.



Graz 2003, 2003. Press Conference Graz 2003 - That was the Cultural Capital of Europe 2003. Graz 2003.



Graz 2003, 2012. Presentation at Bruges 2012 Conference. Bruges 2012 Conference The Decade After: The Legacy of European Capitals of Culture, 22 May 2012, Brugge, Belgium.



Gruber M., Schleich P., Steiner M., Zakaris, G., 2004. Graz 2003: Retroperspektive Betrachtungen und laengerfristige Chancen. 1/2004, Institut fur Technologie und Regionalpolitik Graz.



Zakarias G., Gretzmacher N., Gruber M., Kurzmann R., Steiner M., Streicher G., 2002. An analysis of the economic impacts. Arts and economics – Graz 2003 Cultural Capital of Europe. Graz 2003. Evaluation



Institut fur Technologie und Regionalpolitik, 2004. Kunst und Wirtschaft - Graz 2003 Kulturhauptstad Europas. Eine Analyse der wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen. Institut fur Technologie und Regionalpolitik.

Genoa 2004 

Galdini, R., 2007. Tourism and the city: Opportunity for regeneration. Tourismos 2/2, 95-111.



Gastaldi, F., 2012. Mega events and urban regeneration in the years of the great transformation of Genoa: 1992-2004. Territorio Della Ricera su Insediamenti e Ambiente 9/1, 23-35.



Genoa 2004, 2003. Genoa 2004 – Press Kit. Genoa 2004.



Mazzucotelli Salice S., online, 2008. Strategie per la promozione dell'identità urbana e grandi eventi. TafterJournal 5, http://www.tafterjournal.it/2008/06/26/strategie-perla-promozione-dellidentita-urbana-e-grandi-eventi/

Lille 2004 

Colomb C., 2011. Culture in the city, culture for the city? The political construction of the trickle-down in cultural regeneration strategies in Roubaix, France. Town Planning Review 82/1, 77-98.



Leducq D., 2010. Aire métropolitaine et grand événementiel : une conscientisation différenciée et progressive du territoire. Etude du cas de Lille 2004, Capitale européenne de la Culture. Culture et Gouvernance Locale 2/2, 118-149.



Lemaire P., Dhondt C., Dejter J., 2003. Lille : la rénovation de la rue Faidherbe dans le cadre de "Lille 2004" capitale européenne de la Culture. Travaux- Revue technique des entreprises de Travaux Publics 801, 21-25.



Liefooghe C., 2010. Lille 2004, capitale européenne de la culture ou la quête d’un nouveau modèle de développement. Méditerranée 114, 35-45.



Lille 2004, 2012. Presentation at Bruges 2012 conference. Bruges 2012 Conference The Decade After: The Legacy of European Capitals of Culture, 22 May 2012, Bruges, Belgium.



Papanikolaou P., 2012. The European Capital of Culture: The challenge for urban regeneration and its impact on the cities. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2/17, 268-273.

33


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Paris D., Baert T., 2011. Lille 2004 and the role of culture in the regeneration of Lille métropole. Town Planning Review 82/1, 29-43.



Werquin T., online, 2006. Impact de l'infrastructure culturelle sur le développement économique local: élaboration d'une méthode d'évaluation ex-post et application à Lille2004 capitale européenne de la culture. Université Lille - Sciences et Technologies, http://ori-nuxeo.univ-lille1.fr/nuxeo/site/esupversions/820e8742-f09f-4de7-8a8e16ffbe0b8e5e Evaluation



Axe Culture, 2005. Indicateurs de Lille 2004. Axe Culture, Lille.

Cork 2005 

Bayliss D., 2004. Creative planning in Ireland: The role of culture-led development in Irish planning. European Planning Studies 12/4, 497-515.



Boumas E., 2005. Report of the Culture and Education Committee Delegation to Cork 13 - 15 July 2005. European Parliament.



Cork 2005, 2005. European City of Culture. Cork 2005.



Cork 2005, 2005. European Capital of Culture: Emerging shape. Cork 2005.



Keohane K., 2006. The accumulation of cultural capital in Cork: European City of Culture 2005. The Irish Review 34/1, 130-154.



Moloney R., online, 2006. An economic assessment of the contribution of tourism to Cork City and its hinterland 2005, http://ecoc-doc- athens.eu/attachments/ 425_Moloney,%20R.%20An%20Economic%20Assessment%20of%20the%20contributi on%20of%20tourism%20to%20Cork%20City%20and%20its%20hinterland.pdf



O’Callaghan C., 2012. Urban anxieties and creative tensions in the European Capital of Culture 2005: ‘It couldn’t just be about Cork, like’. International Journal of Cultural Policy 18/2, 185-204.



O’Callaghan C., Linehan D., 2007. Identity, politics and conﬂict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: European Capital of Culture 2005. Cities 24/4, 311-323.



Quinn B., 2010. The European capital of culture initiative and cultural legacy: An analysis of the cultural sector in the aftermath of Cork 2005. Event Management 13/4, 249-264.



Quinn B. and O’Halloran E., online, 2006. Cork 2005: An analysis of emerging cultural legacies. Dublin Institute of Technology, http://ecoc-doc-athens.eu/attachments/ 998_CORK%202005-%20AN%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20EMERGING%20CULTURAL.pdf



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2005 in Ireland, 2001. Report on the Irish nominations for the European Capital of Culture 2005. European Commission, Cork.

Patras 2006 

Leventi A., 2007. Patras 2006 - Cultural Capital of Europe: Aims, measures and results. Unpublished MA thesis, Hellenic Open University.



Pallikrakis F., online, 2006. Volunteers Program; a procedures description report. Patras 2006, http://www.ecoc-doc-athens.eu/attachments/657_PATRAS%202006% 20VOLUNTEERS'%20PRPOGRAM.pdf



Patras 2006, 2006. Patras 2006 artistic programme – General guide. Patras 2006.



Patras, 2006, 2001. Cultural capital of Europe – Candidate city. Municipality of Patras.



Patras 2006. Intital marketing plan. Patras 2006.



Roilos C., 2005. Speech of Patras 2006 Managing Director to General Assembly of the European Cultural Capitals and Months Network. 12 November 2006, Cork.

34


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Selection Panel for European Capitals of Culture 2006 in Greece, 2002. Report on the Greek nomination for the European Capital of Culture 2006. European Commission, Patras.

ECoC 2007 joint assessment 

ECORYS, 2009a. Ex-post evaluation of 2007 & 2008 European Capitals of Culture. Ecotec, Birmingham.



ECORYS, 2009b. Ex-post evaluation of 2007 & 2008 European Capitals of Culture. Annexes. Ecotec, Birmingham.

Luxembourg and Greater Region 2007 

Quack H., Hallerbach B., Tonnar J., online, 2006. Touristische Positionierung Luxemburgs im Zuge des Kulturhauptstadtjahres 2007. Europäische Tourismus Institut, http://www.mdt.public.lu/fr/publications/etudes/europaeisches-tourismus-institutunitrier/eti-studie-kulturhauptstadt07.pdf



Sohn C., 2009. Des villes entre coopération et concurrence. Analyse des relations culturelles transfrontalières dans le cadre de « Luxembourg et Grande Région, Capitale européenne de la Culture 2007. Annales De Géographie 667/3, 228-246. Evaluation



Luxembourg and Greater region 2007, 2008. Final Report. Luxembourg 2007.

Sibiu 2007 

Centrul de Cercetare si Consultanta in Domeniul Culturii, 2007. Impactul programului “sibiu 2007” asupra societãþilor comerciale din zona sibiului. Centrul de Cercetare si Consultanta in Domeniul Culturii.



Cosma S., Negrusa A., Popovici, C., 2009. Impact of Sibiu European Capital of Culture 2007 event on country tourism. Proceedings of the 2nd WSEAS International Conference on Cultural Heritage and Tourism.



Nicula V., 2010. The evaluation of the impact on Sibiu program European capitals of culture 2007 concerning the tourist consumer behaviour. Metalurgia International 15/4, 60-65.



Richards G., Rotariu I., 2009. Trends in tourism development after a European Cultural Capital programme. International Conference on Administration and Business.



Richards G., Rotariu I., 2011. Ten years of cultural development in Sibiu: The European Cultural Capital and beyond. ATLAS, Arnhem.



Rotariu I., 2007. An outline on how to boost the communication of a tourist destination by the European Cultural Capital program. Alma Mater, Sibiu.



Serban H.A., 2008. Cultural regeneration via 'the effect of visibility': Sibiu ECOC 2007. In: L. Malikova, M. Sirak (editors) Regional and Urban Regeneration in European Peripheries: What Role for Culture? Institute of Public Policy Bratislava, 64-72.


ECORYS, 2009a. Ex-post evaluation of 2007 & 2008 European Capitals of Culture. Ecotec, Birmingham.



ECORYS, 2009b. Ex-post evaluation of 2007 & 2008 European Capitals of Culture. Annexes. Ecotec, Birmingham.

35


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Liverpool 2008 

Anderson B., Holden A., 2008. Affective urbanism and the event of hope. Space and Culture 11/2, 142-159.



Boland P., 2008. The construction of images and people and place: Labelling Liverpool and stereotyping Scousers. Cities 25/6, 355-369.



Campbell P., 2011. Creative industries in a European Capital of Culture. International Journal of Cultural Policy 7/5, 510-522.



Campbell P., online, 2013. Imaginary success? The contentious ascendance of creativity. European Planning Studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ 10.1080/09654313.2012.753993#.Ucrhfvm0KSo



Churchill H., Homfray M., online, 2008. Whose culture? Gay culture in Liverpool. 2nd UNeECC Annual Conference, http://www.uneecc.org/userfiles/File/ Gay_Culture_in_Liverpool-Dr_Helen_Churchill_and_Dr_Mike_Homfray.pdf



Cohen S., 2012. Musical memory, heritage and local identity: Remembering the popular music past in a European Capital of Culture, International Journal of Cultural Policy 19/5, 576-594.



Connolly M.G., 2013. The ‘Liverpool model(s)’: Cultural planning, Liverpool and Capital of Culture 2008. International Journal of Cultural Policy 19/2, 162-181.



Cox T., O’Brien D., 2012. The "Scouse Wedding" and other myths and legends: Reflections on the evolution of a "Liverpool model" for culture-led regeneration. Cultural Trends 21/2, 93-101.



Department of Culture, Media and Sport, online, 2002. Six cities make short list for European Capital of Culture 2008. DCMS, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ +/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/2877.aspx



ENWRS and Impacts 08, 2010. The Economic Impact of Visits Influenced by the Liverpool European Capital of Culture in 2008. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



ERM Economics, online, 2003. European Capital of Culture 2008. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of Liverpool's Bid. ERM Economics, http://image.guardian.co.uk/ sys-files/Society/documents/2003/06/10/finalreport.pdf



Garcia B., 2006. Media impact assessment (Part I). Baseline findings on Liverpool press coverage before the European Capital of Culture (1996-2005). Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Garcia, B., 2008. Symbolic maps of Liverpool 2008. Capturing conflicting narratives to understand the meaning(s) of culture-led regeneration. Leisure Studies Association Annual Conference, 8-10 July, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool.



Garcia B., 2010. Media impact assessment (Part II). Evolving press and broadcast narratives on Liverpool from 1996 to 2009. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Garcia B., Melville R., Cox T., 2010. Creating an impact: Liverpool’s experience as European Capital of Culture. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Griffiths R., 2006. City/culture discourses: Evidence from the competition to select the European Capital of Culture 2008. European Planning Studies 14/4, 415-30.



Hunter-Jones P., Warnaby G., 2009. Student perceptions of the European Capital of Culture: University choice and Liverpool 08. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Impacts 08, 2008a. European Capital of Culture and Liverpool’s developer market. Impacts and interactions. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Impacts 08, 2008b. Local area studies – Baseline and 2007 results. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Impacts 08, 2008c. Local area studies – Key statistics and mapping of the four local areas. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Impacts 08, 2008d. Who pays the piper? Understanding the experience of organisations sponsoring the Liverpool European Capital of Culture, Liverpool. Impacts 08, Liverpool.

36


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Impacts 08, 2009a. Liverpool’s arts sector – Sustainability and experience: How artists and arts organisations engaged with the Liverpool European Capital of Culture. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Impacts 08, 2009b. Liverpool’s creative industries. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Impacts 08, 2010a. Volunteering for culture: Exploring the impact of being an 08 Volunteer. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Impacts 08, 2010b. Neighbourhood impacts. A longitudinal research study into the impact of the Liverpool European Capital of Culture on local residents. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Independent Advisory Panel for the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008, 2003. Report on the short-listed applications for the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008. Independent Advisory Panel for the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008.



Jones P., Wilks-Heeg S., 2004. Capitalising culture: Liverpool 2008. Journal of Local Economy 19/4, 341-360.



Miah, A., Adi, A., 2009. Liverpool 08 Centre of the Online Universe: the impact of the Liverpool European Capital of Culture within social media environments. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Lashua B.D., 2011. An atlas of musical memories: Popular music, leisure and urban change in Liverpool. Leisure/Loisir 35/2, 133-152.



Lask T., 2011. Cognitive maps: A sustainable tool for impact evaluation. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 3/1, 44-62.



Little S., 2008. Liverpool ’08 – brand and contestation. In: L. Malikova, M. Sirak (editors), Regional and Urban Regeneration in European Peripheries: What Role for Culture? Institute of Public Policy Bratislava, 44–50.



Liverpool 2008, 2005. Strategic Business Plan 2005-2009. Liverpool 2008.



Liverpool 2008, 2007. 2008 Programme. Liverpool 2008.



Liverpool City Council, 2007. Creative learning networks - Coming of Age Programme, Liverpool City Council.



Liverpool City Council, 2008. Generation 21. Liverpool City Council.



Liverpool Culture Company Limited, 2002. The world in one city: Extract from Liverpool’s bid document. Liverpool Culture Company.



McEvoy D. and Impacts 08., 2009. Tourism and the business of culture: The views of small and medium sized tourism enterprises of Liverpool European Capital of Culture 2008. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Miles M., 2005. Interruptions: Testing the rhetoric of culturally led urban development. Urban Studies 42/5, 889-911.



O’Brien D., 2011. Who is in charge? Liverpool, European Capital of Culture 2008 and the governance of cultural planning. Town Planning Review 82/1, 45-59.



O'Brien D., Miles S., 2010. Cultural policy as rhetoric and reality: A comparative analysis of policy making in the peripheral north of England. Cultural Trends 19/1-2, 3-13.



Platt L., 2011. Liverpool 08 and the performativity of identity. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 3/1, 31-43.



Sapsford D., Southern A., 2007. Measuring the economic impacts of Liverpool European Capital of Culture: Baseline economic indicators and the Merseyside business base. Impacts 08, Liverpool.



Shukla P., Brown J., Harper D., 2006. Image association and European capital of culture: Empirical insights through the case study of Liverpool. Tourism Review 61/4, 6-12.

37


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

West H., Scott-Samuel A., online, 2010. Creative potential: Mental well-being impact assessment of the Liverpool 2008 European capital of culture programme. Public Health 2010, http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=88365

Stavanger 2008 

Berg C., Rommetvedt H., 2009. Stavanger-regionen som europeisk kulturhovedstad slik innbyggerne ser det. International Research Institute of Stavanger.



Bergsgard N.A., Jøsendal K., Garcia B., 2010. A cultural mega event’s impact on innovative capabilities in art production: the results of Stavanger being the European capital of culture in 2008. International Journal of Innovation and Urban Development 2/4, 353-371.



Bergsgard N.A., Vassenden A., 2009. Stavanger-regionen som europeisk kulturhovedstad - slik kulturaktorene ser det. International Research Institute of Stavanger.



Bergsgard N.A., Vassenden, A., 2011. The legacy of Stavanger as Capital of Culture in Europe 2008: Watershed or puff of wind? International Journal of Cultural Policy 17/3, 301-320.



Fitjar R.D., 2011. European Capitals of Culture: Elitism or inclusion? The case of Stavanger 2008. International Research Institute of Stavanger.



Knudsen K., 2010. Can large-scale cultural events lead to cultural scepticism? Tracing unintended consequences of Stavanger 2008 - European Capital of Culture. Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift 13/1, 44-58.



Rommetvedt H. 2008. Beliefs in culture as an instrument for regional development: The case of Stavanger, European Capital of Culture 2008. In: L. Malikova and M. Sirak (editors), Regional and Urban Regeneration in European Peripheries: What Role for Culture?, Institute of Public Policy Bratislava, 59-63.



Stavanger 2008, 2007. Stavanger 2008: The programme. Stavanger 2008



Stavanger 2008, 2009. Stavanger 2008: Our story. Stavanger 2008.


ECORYS, 2010a. Ex-post evaluation of 2009 European Capital of Culture. Ecotec, Birmingham.



ECORYS, 2010b. Ex-post evaluation of 2009 European Capital of Culture. Annexes. Ecotec, Birmingham.



European Commission, 2010. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions: Ex–post evaluation of the 2009 European Capital of Culture event (Linz and Vilnius). EU Publications Office.

Vilnius 2009 

Crisafulli D., 2011. Cultural policy and politics of culture in Lithuania. Vilnius – European Capital of Culture 2009, an anthropological view. Santalka: Filosofija, Komunikacija 19/2, 60-69.



Lubyte E., 2011. Vieno Projekto Apkalta (Empeachment of one Project). Elona Lubyte. Vilnius, Lithuania.



Trilupaityte S., 2009. Guggenheim's global travel and the appropriation of a national avant-garde for cultural planning in Vilnius. International Journal of Cultural Policy 15/1, 123-138.



Vilnius 2009, 2005. Vilnius 2009 programme. Vilnius 2009.

38


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Linz 2009 

Heller M., Fuchs U., online, 2009. Linz09: Culture as a Source of Fascination for Everyone. Linz09, http://www.ecoc-doc-athens.eu/attachments/148_Linz09%20%20Culture%20as%20a%20Source%20of%20Fascination%20for%20Everyone.pdf



Iordanova-Krasteva E., Wickens E., Bakir A., online, 2010. The ambiguous image of Linz: Linz 2009 - European Capital of Culture. PASCOS, http://www.redalyc.org/ pdf/881/88112773007.pdf



Linz 2009, 2009a. Linz 2009 European Capital of Culture. Programme 1/3. Linz 2009.



Linz 2009, 2009b. Linz 2009 European Capital of Culture. Programme 2/3. Linz 2009.



Linz 2009, 2009c. Linz 2009 European Capital of Culture. Programme 3/3. Linz 2009.



Linz 2009, online, 2010b. Linz 2009 European Capital of Culture. A Stocktaking. (Press Release). Linz 2009, http://www.linz09.at/sixcms/media.php/4974/Press%20Release% 20_01.12.09_engl.pdf Evaluation



Linz 2009, online, 2010a. Linz 2009 European Capital of Culture. Taking stock. (Report) Linz 2009, http://www.linz09.at/sixcms/media.php/4974/163_linz09_bilanzbroschuere_eng_rz_screen.pdf


ECORYS, online, 2011c. Ex-post evaluation of 2010 European Capitals of Culture: Final report for the European Commission. ECORYS, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents /pdf/ecoc/ecoc_2010_final_report.pdf



ECORYS, online, 2011d. Ex-post evaluation of 2010 European Capitals of Culture. Annexes. ECORYS, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/culture /2011/annexes_en.pdf

Essen for the Ruhr 2010 

Betz G., 2011. Das Ruhrgebiet – europäische Stadt im Werden? Strukturwandel und Governance durch die Kulturhauptstadt Europas RUHR.2010. In: O. Frey, F. Koch (editors), Die Zukunft der Europäischen Stadt, Springer, 324-342.



Betz G., 2012. Mega-Event-Macher. Organisieren von Großereignissen am Beispiel der Kulturhauptstadt Europas RUHR.2010. In: C. Zanger (editor), Erfolg mit nachhaltigen Eventkonzepten, Gabler Verlag Wiesbaden, 162-179.



Betz G., Niederbacher A., 2011. Steuerung Komplexer Projeckte - Zur Institutionellen Einbindung Urbaner Mega-Event-Organisationen. In: G. Betz, R. Hitzler, M. Pfadenhauer (editors), Urbane Events, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden, 319-334.



Dreschel W., 2008. Wandel Durch Kultur? Forsa Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und statistische Analyse.



Essen 2010, 2005. Essen 2010 application: Transformation through culture – Culture through transformation. Essen 2010.



Essen 2010, 2009a. Essen for the Ruhr. 2010. European Capital of Culture. Monitoring. Essen 2010.



Essen 2010, 2009b. European Capital of Culture 2010 “Essen for the Ruhr”. Book two. Essen 2010.



Essen 2010, online, 2010a. Essen 2010 – Boosting the creative industries. Essen 2010, http://www.essen-fuer-das-ruhrgebiet.ruhr2010.de/fileadmin/user_upload /ruhr2010.de/scripts/download.php?file=uploads%2Fmedia%2F201003_Beilage_Kreativwirtschaft_Englisch.pdf

39


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Essen 2010, online, 2010b. TWINS Programme. Essen 2010, http://www.essen-fuerdas-ruhrgebiet.ruhr2010.de/fileadmin/ user_upload /ruhr2010.de /scripts/ download .php?file=uploads%2Fmedia%2FTWINS_Broschuere_2010_01.pdf



Essen 2010, 2011. Ruhr.2010 Volunteers. Essen 2010, http://www.essen-fuer-dasruhrgebiet.ruhr2010.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ruhr2010.de/scripts/download.php?file= uploads%2Fmedia%2FRUHR.2010_Volunteers_en.pdf



Frohne J., Langsch K., Pleitgen F., Scheytt, O., 2011. From the myth to the brand Marketing and PR for the European Capital of Culture Ruhr.2010. Essen for the Ruhr 2010.



Heinze R.G., Hoose F., 2011. RUHR. 2010 – Ein Event als Motor für die Kreativwirtschaft? In: G. Betz, R. Hitzler, M. Pfadenhauer (editors), Urbane Events, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden, 351-367.



Hennig M., Kuschej H., 2004. Kulturhauptstadt Europas - Ein kultur-ökonomisches Erfolgsmodell? Politik und Kultur 3/4.



Hitzler R., 2011. Eventisierung des Urbanen Zum Management multipler Divergenzen am Beispiel der Kulturhauptstadt Europas Ruhr 2010. In: R. Hitzler (editor), Eventisierung. Drei Fallstudien zum marketingstrategischen Massenspaß, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 45-67.



Hitzler R., 2013. Der Wille zum Wir. Events als Evokationen posttraditionaler Zusammengehörigkeit Das Beispiel der Kulturhauptstadt Europas Ruhr 2010. In: L. Pries (editor) Zusammenhalt durch Vielfalt?, Springer, 65-81



Leggewie C., 2011. Von der Kulturhauptstadt zur Klimametropole? In: G. Betz, R. Hitzler, M. Pfadenhauer (editors), Urbane Events, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden, 369-379.



Möll G., Hitzler R., 2011. Organisationsprobleme der kulturgetriebenen Transformation moderner Urbanität. Das Beispiel der europäischen Kulturhauptstadt RUHR.2010. In: G. Betz, R. Hitzler, M. Pfadenhauer (editors), Urbane Events, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden, 335-350.



Pachaly C., 2008. Kulturhauptstadt Europas Ruhr 2010 - Ein Festival als Instrument der Stadtentwicklung. Technische Universität Berlin.



Raedts G., Strijbosch T., 2010. From 'Kohlenpott' to high-ranking travel destination? Unpublished MA thesis, Tilburg University.



Raines A.B., 2011. Wandel durch (Industrie) Kultur [Change through (industrial) culture]: Conservation and renewal in the Ruhrgebiet. Planning Perspectives 26/2, 183207.



Scheytt O., Beier N., 2010. Begreifen, Gestalten, Bewegen – die Kulturhauptstadt Europas Ruhr. 2010. In: K. Volke (editor), Intervention Kultur, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden, 42-57.



Scheytt O., Domgörgen C., Geilert G., 2011. Kulturpolitik – Eventpolitik – Regional Governance Zur Regionalen Aushandlung von Events am Beispiel der Kulturhauptstadt Europas RUHR.2010. In: G. Betz, R. Hitzler, M. Pfadenhauer (editors), Urbane Events, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden, 297-317.



Zentrum fuer Kulturforschung, online, 2011. A Metropolis in the Making - Evaluation of the European Capital of Culture RUHR.2010. Zentrum fuer Kulturforschung, http://www.essen-fuer-das-ruhrgebiet.ruhr2010.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ruhr2010 .de/documents/1._Aktuelles/2011/07_Juli/Evaluationsbericht_Ruhr.2010.pdf

40


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Istanbul 2010 

Akçakaya I., Özeçevık Ö., 2008a. Building the future by measuring cultural impacts: Istanbul ECOC 2010 urban regeneration theme. In: L. Malikova, M. Sirak (editors), Regional and Urban Regeneration in European Peripheries: What Role for Culture?, Bratislava Institute of Public Policy, 84-98.



Akçakaya I., Özeçevık Ö., 2008b. Urban regeneration and the impact of culture towards prospects for Istanbul ECoC 2010: The case of Zeytinburnu Culture Valley. 48th Congress of the European Regional Science Association.



Altinbasak I., Yalçin E., 2010. City image and museums: The case of Istanbul. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 4/3, 241-251.



Beyazıt E., Tosun Y., 2006. Evaluating Istanbul in the Process of European Capital of Culture 2010. 42nd ISoCaRP Congress, 2006.



Bilsel C., Arican T., 2010. Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture: An impetus for the regeneration of the historic city. Rivista di Scienze del Turismo 2, 215-241.



Bıçakçı A.B., 2012. Branding the city through culture: Istanbul, European Capital of Culture 2010. International Journal of Human Sciences 9/1, 994-1006.



Gümüs K., 2010. Creating interfaces for a sustainable cultural programme for Istanbul: An interview with Korhan Gümüs. Architectural Design 80/1, 70-75.



Gunay Z., 2010. Conservation versus regeneration?: Case of European Capital of Culture 2010 Istanbul. European Planning Studies 18/8, 1173-1186.



Hoyng R., 2012. Popping up and fading out: Participatory networks and Istanbul’s creative city project. Culture Machine 13, 1-23.



Initiative Group, 2005. Istanbul: A city of the four elements. European Capital of Culture bidding document.



Istanbul 2010, 2010. Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Program Contents. Istanbul 2010.



Kuzgun E., Göksel T., Özalp D., Somer B., Alvarez M.D., 2010. Perceptions of Local People Regarding Istanbul as a European Capital of Culture. Pasos: Revista de turismo y patrimonio cultural 8/3, 27-37.

Pécs 2010 

Bakucz M., 2008. Pécs 2010 – European Capital of Culture on the periphery. In: L. Malikova, M. Sirak (editors), Regional and Urban Regeneration in European Peripheries: What Role for Culture?, Institute of Public Policy, Bratislava, 73-83.



Farago L., 2012. Urban regeneration in a City of Culture: The case of Pecs, Hungary. European Spatial Research and Policy 19/2, 103-120.



Lähdesmäki T., online, 2012b. Discourses of Europeanness in the reception of the European Capital of Culture events: The case of Pécs 2010. European Urban and Regional Studies (published online before print), 1-15.



Pécs 2010, 2005. Borderless city. Pécs European Capital of Culture 2010. Pécs 2010.



Pécs 2010, 2008. The marketing strategy of the Pécs 2010 European Capital of Culture program. Pécs 2010.



Pécs 2010, 2009a. Borderless city. Pécs European Capital of Culture 2010. Pécs 2010.



Pécs 2010, 2009b. Pécs2010 European Capital of Culture. Monitoring report. Brussels, 22 April 2009. Pécs 2010.



Zalaföldi A., 2013. Evaluation Report - To what extent did the objectives of Pécs as a European Capital of Culture (2010) fulfill the criteria laid down in Article 4 of Decision 1622/2006/EC. Unpublished MA thesis, Maastricht University.

41


____________________________________________________________________________________________


ECORYS, online, 2012a. Ex-post evaluation of 2011 European Capitals of Culture: Final report for the European Commission. ECORYS, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/ education_culture/evalreports/culture/2012/ecocreport_en.pdf



ECORYS, online, 2012b. Ex-post evaluation of 2011 European Capitals of Culture. Annexes to the final report. ECORYS, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/ evalreports/culture/2012/ecocannex_en.pdf



European Commission, 2012. Assessment of final [ECORYS 2011] evaluation report. EU Publications Office.



European Commission, 2013. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Ex–Post evaluation of the 2011 European Capitals of Culture (Tallinn and Turku). EU Publications Office.

Tallinn 2011 

Lassur S., Tafel-Viia K., Summatavet K., Terk E., online, 2010. Intertwining of drivers in formation of a new policy focus: The case of creative industries in Tallinn, http://www.idunn.no/ts/nkt/2010/01/art06



Sourris S., 2012. The impact of the European Capital of Culture on an emerging tourism economy: A case study of industry's attitudes to Tallinn 2011 European Capital of Culture. Unpublished MA thesis, Monash University.



Tallinn 2011, 2007. Tallinn 2011 - Everlasting fairytale. Tallinn 2011.



Tallinn 2011, 2008. Tallinn 2011 - Progress report. Tallinn 2011. Evaluation



Juvas L., Maijala A., Soini S., Wardi, N., 2012. The image of Tallinn 2011: Final report. University of Turku.

Turku 2011 

Ertiö T., 2013. Osallistuminen ja osallisuus Turun kulttuuripääkaupunkivuoteen 2011. Turun kaupunki Kaupunkitutkimusohjelma.



Lähdesmäki T., 2012a. Contention on the meanings and uses of urban space in a European Capital of Culture: Case Turku 2011. 3rd global conference, Space and Place: Exploring Critical Issues, 3–6 September 2012, Oxford UK.



Turku 2011, 2010. Turku 2011 programme. Turku 2011. Evaluation



Turku 2011 Foundation, 2012. European Capital of Culture Turku 2011. Final report of the Turku 2011 Foundation about the realisation of the European Capital of Culture Year. Turku 2011 Foundation.

Guimarães and Maribor 2012 

Correia, M.M., 2010. Capitais europeias da cultura como estratégia de desenvolvimento: o caso de Guimarães 2012. Unpublished MA thesis, Universidade de Coimbra.



Corte, D.P., 2012. O papel da Capital Europeia da Cultura Guimarães 2012: fator de atração do turista espanhol. Universidade do Minho.



Cruz Vareiro L., Cadima Ribeiro J., Remoaldo P., Marques, V., 2011. Residents' perception of the benefits of cultural tourism: The case of Guimarães. Paderborner Geographische Studien 23, 187-202.

42


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Freitas Santos J., Remoaldo P., Cadima Ribeiro J., Cruz Vareiro L., 2011. Potenciais impactos para Guimarães do acolhimento da Capital Europeia da Cultura 2012: Uma análise baseada em experiências anteriores. Revista Electronica de Turismo Cultural.



Guimarães 2012, 2008a. Guimarães 2012 European Capital of Culture Application Appendix Part 1. Guimarães 2012.



Guimarães 2012, 2008b. Guimarães 2012 European Capital of Culture Application Appendix Part 2. Guimarães 2012.



Maribor 2012, 2009a. A strategic framework of the investment orientation of the Municipality of Maribor within the activities regarding the implementation of the “European Capital of Culture 2012”’. Maribor 2012.



Maribor 2012, 2009b. Activities and programme highlights. Maribor 2012.



Remoaldo P., Cruz Vareiro L., Freitas Santos J., Cadima Ribeiro J., 2011. O olhar da populacao vimaranense atraves da imprensa local da Capital Europeia da Cultura 2012. Turismo: Diversificação, Diferenciação e Desafios II Congresso Internacional de Turismo.



Universidade do Minho, online, 2012. Guimarães 2012: Capital Europeia da Cultura Impactos Económicos e Sociais. Intercalar, http://www3.eeg.uminho.pt/economia/ nipe/docs/Policy%20Papers/2012/relatorio_maio_CEC_UMINHO_v02.pdf Evaluation



Maribor 2012, 2013. Rastimo Skupaj! Let’s grow! From challenges to results. Maribor 2012.

Košice 2013 

Košice 2013, 2007. Košice 2013 – Interface. Košice 2013.



Matlovičová K., Matlovič R., Némethyová B., 2010. City branding as a tool of the local development: Case study of Košice, Slovakia. The First Science Symposium with International Development - Business Economics in Transition, Educons University of Sremska Kamenica.



Selection Panel for European Capitals of Culture 2013, 2008b. Selection of a European Capital of Culture 2013 in Slovakia. Final Selection Report. European Commission, Košice.

Marseille-Provence 2013 

Andres L., 2011a. Alternative initiatives, cultural intermediaries and urban regeneration: the case of La Friche (Marseille). European Planning Studies 19/5, 795811.



Andres L., 2011b. Marseille 2013 or the final round of a long and complex regeneration strategy? Town Planning Review 82/1, 61-76.



Latarjet B., 2010. Marseille-Provence 2013: genèse, objectifs et enjeux d’un projet culturel métropolitain. Méditerranée 114, 27-29.



Marseille 2013, 2008. Marseille 2013: The ambitions of Marseille-Provence for 2013 and the benchmarks of the bid project. Marseille 2013.



Morel B., 2010. Marseille-Provence 2013, capitale européenne de la culture: la vision de l’urbaniste et du politique. Méditerranée 114, 2-6.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2013, 2008a. Selection of a European Capital of Culture 2013 in France. Final selection report. European Commission, Paris.

43


____________________________________________________________________________________________

2014 onwards 

Åkerlund U., Müller D., 2012. Implementing tourism events: The discourses of Umeå's bid for European Capital of Culture 2014. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 12/2, 164-180.



ECORYS, online, 2011b. The European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) Post-2019 Online Consultation - Analysis of the Results. ECORYS, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/ourprogrammes-and-actions/doc/ecoc/online_consultation_analysis_results.pdf



ECORYS, online, 2011a. The European Capital of Culture (ECoC) Post 2019 Public Consultation Meeting Summary of the Meeting. ECORYS, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc/ecoc/summary_public_ meeting_ECoC.pdf



Irmer T., 2010. Mapping a new type of Cultural Capital candidate: Lodz, Poland aspects of reemergence and symbolic return to Central Europe. Dialogi 3/4, 1-7.



Monitoring and Advisory Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2015, online, 2012. Report for the first monitoring and advisory meeting for the European Capitals of Culture 2015. European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmesand-actions/doc/ecoc/panel-report-first-monitoring-ecoc2015.pdf



Mons 2015, 2011. Mons 2015. Mons 2015.



Munsters, W., 2011. Malta’s candidature for the title of European Capital of Culture 2018: The cultural tourism perspective. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences.



Riga 2014, 2009. Riga 2014 European Capital of Culture application. Riga 2014.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2014, 2009a. Selection of the European Capital of Culture 2014 in Latvia. Final selection report. European Commission, Riga.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2014, 2009b. Selection of a European Capital of Culture 2014 in Sweden. Final selection report. European Commission, Umea.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2015, 2009c. Designation of a European Capital of Culture for 2015 in the Czech Republic. Pre-selection report. European Commission, Pilsen.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2015, 2010a. Selection of a European Capital of Culture for 2015 in Belguim. Final selection report. European Commission, Mons.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2015, 2010b. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2015 in the Czech Republic. Final selection report. European Commission.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2016, 2010c. Designation of the European Capital of Culture 2016 in Poland. Report on pre-selection. European Commission, Warsaw.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2016, 2010d. Designation of a European Capital of Culture for 2016 in Spain. Pre-selection report. European Commission, Madrid.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2016, 2011a. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2016 in Poland. Final selection report. European Commission, Warsaw.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2016, 2011b. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2016 in Spain. Final selection report. European Commission, Madrid.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2017, 2011c. Designation of the European Capital of Culture 2017 in Cyprus. Pre-selection report. European Commission, Nicosia.

44


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2017, 2011d. Designation of the European Capital of Culture 2017 in Denmark. Pre-selection report. European Commission, Copenhagen.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2017, 2012a. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2017 in Cyprus. Final selection report. European Commission, Nicosia.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2017 in Denmark, 2012b. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2017 in Denmark. Final selection report. European Commission, Copenhagen.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2018, 2012c. Nomination of the European Capital of Culture 2018 in Malta. Pre-selection report. European Commission, Valletta.



Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2018, 2012d. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2018 in Malta. European Commission, Valletta.



Valletta 2018 Foundation, 2012. Final application for the title of European Capital of Culture 2018 in Malta. Valletta 2018 Foundation.



Zecková H., 2010. Pilsen Kulturhauptstadt Europas 2015 Ein Projekt für die Bewerbung. Unpublished MA thesis, Univerzita Pardubice.

Comparative and/or multiple ECoC city literature EU policy documents 

Barroso, J.M., 2010. Plus de Culture pour plus D'Europe, 25e anniversaire des capitales européennes de la culture. European Commission.



Council of the European Union, 1985. Resolution of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs, meeting within the Council, of 13 June 1985 concerning the annual event 'European City of Culture'. 85/C 153/02.



Council of European Union, 1990. Conclusions of the Ministers of Culture meeting within the Council of 18 May 1990 on future eligibility for the 'European City of Culture' and on a special European Cultural Month event. 85/C 153/02.



Council of European Union, 1992. Conclusions of the Ministers of Culture meeting within the Council of 12 November 1992 on the procedure for designation of European cities of culture. 92/C 336/02.



Council of European Union, 2012. Progress report. 12558/12 CULT 102 CODEC 1903.



Council of the European Union, 2002. Council Resolution of 25 June 2002 on a new work plan on European cooperation in the field of culture. 2002/C 162/03.



Council of the European Union, 2003. Council Resolution of 19 December 2002, implementing the work plan on European cooperation in the field of culture: European added value and mobility of persons and circulation of works in the cultural sector. 2003/C 13/03.



ECoC Policy Group, 2010. An international framework of good practice in research and delivery of the European Capital of Culture programme. University of Liverpool, Liverpool.



European Commission, 1998. Ville Européenne de la culture et Mois culturel Européen. In: Direction Générale Information, Communication, Culture et Audiovisuel, Le Programme kaléidoscope Bilan 1996 - 1999, European Commission, 75-79



European Commission, 2009. European Capitals of Culture: The road to success. From 1985 to 2010. EU Publications Office.



European Commission, 2010. Summary of the European Commission conference “Celebrating 25 years of European Capitals of Culture”. Brussels, 23-24 March 2010.

45


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

European Commission, online, 2012. Application for the Title of European Capital of Culture, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc/ecoc/ecocproposition-candidature_en.pdf



European Commission, online, 2013. European Capital of http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc413_en.htm



European Parliament and Council, 1996. Decision No. 719/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 March 1996 establishing a programme to support artistic and cultural activities having a European dimension (Kaleidoscope). OJ L 099/20-26, 20/04/1996.



European Parliament and Council, online, 1999. Decision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999. European Council, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/pdf/doc740_en.pdf



European Parliament and Council, online, 2005. Decision No. 649/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005. European Council, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_117/l_11720050504en00200021.pdf



European Parliament and Council, online, 2006. Decision No. 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:304:0001:0006:EN:PDF



European Parliament, 2013. Draft report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033, COM(2012).



European Travel Commission and World Tourism Organization, 2004. City Tourism & Culture: The European experience. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain. [Various]



Monitoring and Advisory Panel for the European Capital of Culture 2010, online, 2007. Report of the First Monitoring and Advisory Meeting for the European Capitals of Culture 2010. European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmesand-actions/doc/ecoc/2010_panel_monitoring_report1.pdf

Culture,

Evaluations 

ECORYS, online, 2011e. Interim evaluation of selection and monitoring procedures of European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) 2010-2016 – Final report. ECORYS, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and- actions/doc/ecoc/ECoC_assignment _final_report_en.pdf



MKW GmbH, online, 2007. Case study on European Capitals of Culture (2003-2007) – Geppert/Nozar. MKW GmbH, http://ecoc-doc-athens.eu/attachments/415_Case %20Study%20on%20European%20Capitals%20of%20Culture%202003-2007.pdf



Myerscough J., 1994. European cities of culture and cultural months. The Network of Cultural Cities of Europe, Glasgow.



Palmer R., Richards G., 2007. European cultural capital report. Association for Tourism and Leisure Education, Arnhem.



Palmer R., Richards G., 2009. European cultural capital report 2. Association for Tourism and Leisure Education, Arnhem.



Palmer R., Richards G., Dodd, D., 2011. European cultural capital report 3. Association for Tourism and Leisure Education, Arnhem.



Palmer R., Richards G., Dodd, D., 2012. European cultural capital report 4. Association for Tourism and Leisure Education, Arnhem.



Palmer/Rae Associates, 2004. European Cities and Capitals of Culture. Palmer/Rae, Brussels.

46


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Academic publications 

Aiello G., Thurlow C., 2006. Symbolic capitals: Visual discourse and intercultural exchange in the European Capital of Culture scheme. Language and Intercultural Communication 6/2, 148-162.



Baier N., Scheytt O., 2011. Kulturhauptstadt. In: V. Lewinski-Reuter, S. Lüddemann (editors), Glossar Kulturmanagement, Wiesbaden VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 150-159.



Bekemans L., 1994. Culture. Building stone for Europe 2002: Reflections and perspectives. European Interuniversity Press, Brussels.



Besson E., Sutherland M., online, 2007. The European Capital of Culture process: Opportunities for managing cultural tourism. PICTURE position paper No 5, http://www.ecoc-doc-athens.eu/attachments/416_Besson,%20E.%20M.%20 Sutherland%20Opportunities%20for%20managing%20Cult.ural%20Tourism.pdf



Binns L., online, 2005. Capitalising on culture: An evaluation of culture-led urban regeneration policy. Futures Academy, http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent .cgi?article=1004&context=futuresacart



Brookes P., Bianchini F., 2006. Confessions of a place marketer. In: G. Weiss-Sussex, F. Bianchini (editors), Urban Mindscapes of Europe, Ropodi Amsterdam/New York, 287299.



Bullen C., 2013. European Capitals of Culture and Everyday Cultural Diversity: A Comparison of Liverpool (UK) and Marseille (France). European Cultural Foundation, Amsterdam.



Coudenys W. (editor), 2008. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the University Network of European Capitals of Culture. Whose culture(s)? 16-17 October 2008, Liverpool.



Evans G., 2005. Measure for measure: Evaluating the evidence of culture's contribution to regeneration. Urban Studies 42/5, 959-983.



Frey B., Hotz S., Steiner L., 2012. European Capitals of Culture and Life Satisfaction. CREMA, http://www.jace.gr.jp/ACEI2012/usb_program/pdf/7.6.4.pdf



Garcia B., 2004c. Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European cities: Lessons from experience, prospects for the future. Local Economy 19/4, 312–326.



Gold J.R., Gold M.M., 2005. Cities of culture: Staging international festivals and the urban agenda, 1851-2000. Ashgate Aldershot.



Gray C., Wingfield, M., 2011. Are governmental culture departments important? An empirical investigation. International Journal of Cultural Policy 17/5, 590-604.



Hakala U., Lemmetyinen A., 2013. ‘Culture is the message’: The status of Cultural Capital and its effect on a city’s brand equity. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 9/1, 5-16.



Hoexum, S.H., 2011. ‘A sense of pride and belonging’ ? De evaluatie van de Europese dimensie van Culturele Hoofdsteden van Europa. Published MA thesis, Kunsten, Cultuur & Media, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.



Hughson J., 2004. Sport in the “city of culture’’. International Journal of Cultural Policy 10/3, 319-330.



IFACCA and Arts Research Digest, 2006. Arts and culture in regeneration. D'Art Topics in Arts Policy, No.25.



Keuning M., 2012. Culturele Hoofdstad van Europa. Een onderzoek naar de communicatiestrategie en de langetermijneffecten. Unpublished MA thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.



Lähdesmäki T., 2010b. Researching European Capitals of Culture: Challenges and possibilities. Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift 13/1, 22-26.

47


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Lähdesmäki T., 2009. Concepts of Locality, Regionality and Europeanness in European Capitals of Culture. In: T. Rahimy (editor), Representation, Expression & Identity: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Inter-Disciplinary Press Oxford, 215-222.



Lähdesmäki T., 2011. Contested identity politics: Analysis of the EU Policy Objectives and the local reception of the European Capital of Culture program. Baltic Journal of European Studies 1/2, 134-166.



Lähdesmäki T., 2012c. Rhetoric of unity and cultural diversity in the making of European cultural identity. International Journal of Cultural Policy 18/1, 59-75.



Lähdesmäki T., online, 2010a. European Capitals of Culture as Cultural Meeting Places Strategies of representing Cultural Diversity, http://www.idunn.no/ ts/nkt/2010/01/art08



Langen, F.A.F., 2010. EU cultural policy 1974-2007. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.



Lanoue G., Mirza V., Pantaleon J., 2011. The impending collapse of the European urban middle class: The European Union's de-naturing of space and place. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology 2/1, 135-152.



Liu Y., Lin C., 2011. The development of cultural tourism: A review of UK experience. Tourismos 6/2, 363-376.



López-Sánchez Y., 2012. Estrategias para una gestión eficaz de la declaración de Capital Europea de la Cultura como reclamo para el turismo cultural. Revista de Análisis Turístico 14, 53-67.



Lück M., 2010. Zurück ins nirgendwo? Görlitz (2010) und die gescheiterten chancen einer Kulturhauptstadtbewegung. In: K. Volke (editor), Intervention Kultur, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden, 58-67.



Mazzucotelli Salice S., 2005. Comunicare l’Europa: iniziative culturali e creazione di un’identità transnazionale. Unpublished MA thesis, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.



McMahon J.A., 1995. Education and culture in European community law. Athlone Press, London.



Mittag J. (editor), 2008. Die Idee der Kulturhauptstadt Europas. Ausgestaltung und Auswirkungen europäischer Kulturpolitik. Klartext, Essen.



Mittag J., 2011. European Capitals of Culture as incentives for the construction of European identity? Biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association, 3-5 March 2011, Boston US.



Nemeth A., 2010. Mega-events, their sustainability and potential impact on spatial development: the European Capital of Culture. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 5/4, 265-278.



Nobili V., 2005. The role of European Capital of Culture events within Genoa’s and Liverpool’s branding and positioning efforts. Place Branding 1/3, 316-28.



Palmer R., 2004. The European Capitals of Culture: An event or process? Arts Professional, London, 1 November, 5.



Palonen E., 2010. Multi-level cultural policy and politics of European Capitals of Culture. Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift 13/1, 87-108.



Prado E. 2007. The candidacy to the European Capital of Culture: A tool for international dissemination. Real Instituto Elcano.



Richards G., 1996. Cultural Tourism in Europe. CAB International, Wallingford.



Richards G., 2000. The European cultural capital event: Strategic weapon in the cultural arms race? International Journal of Cultural Policy 6/2, 159-181.



Richards G., 2001. Cultural Attractions and European Tourism. CAB International, Wallingford.

48

Anfänge,


____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ruoppila S., Ponzini D., online, 2011. What’s the ‘city’ in the design and implementation of the European Capital of Culture? An open issue'. Tafterjournal 42, http://www.tafterjournal.it/2011/12/05/what%E2%80%99s-the%E2%80%9Ccity%E2%80%9D-in-the-design-and-implementation-of-the-europeancapital-of-culture-an-open-issue/



Sacco P., Blessi G., 2007. European Culture Capitals and local development strategies: Comparing the Genoa and Lille 2004 cases. Homo Oeconomicus 24/1, 111-141.



Sassatelli M., 2002. Imagined Europe. The shaping of European cultural identity through EU cultural policy. European Journal of Social Theory 5/4, 435-451.



Sassatelli M., 2008. European cultural space in the European Cities of Culture. European Societies 10/2, 225-245.



Sassatelli M., 2009. Becoming Europeans: Cultural identity and cultural policies. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.



Schlimok A.F., 2011. The role of public art in the regeneration of the former European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) Liverpool and the Ruhr Region. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Manchester.



Sutherland M. et al., 2006. Analysis of the mobilising role of the European Capital of Culture process. Deliverable D16, EU funded PICTURE project.



Sykes O., 2011. Introduction: European cities and capitals of culture – a comparative approach. Town Planning Review 82/1, 1-12.



Uraz A., 2007. Culture for regenerating cities: What can Istanbul 2010 learn from the European Capitals of Culture Glasgow 1990 and Lille 2004? Unpublished MA thesis, Erasmus University of Rotterdam.

49


____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX D.1: EXPERT WORKSHOP I, LIVERPOOL (10 APRIL 2013) Agenda 9:00

Registration Tea & coffees will be available for an informal gathering pre-workshop

9:30

Welcome and overview of study Long Term Effects of European Capitals of Culture

9:50

Introduction to the Workshop

10:00

Experts’ contribution Roundtable discussion over key research questions: 1) What are the main obstacles ‘European Capitals of Culture’ (ECoCs) have faced in the past, and which similarities and differences can be identified? 2) Which recommendations can be given to exploit the potential of the European Capital of Culture initiative more effectively, both at the level of programming and organisation? 3) Have any “best practices” been developed and used within or outside Europe for similar cultural events / initiatives which might be meaningfully applied?

11:00

4) Opportunities and challenges for ECoCs to offer a genuine European dimension in respective host cities 5) Is there any clearly discernible impact of the ECoC initiative on cultural life and exchange at the European level? (Coffee and nibbles brought in at 11.30, while discussion continues)

12:00 12:20 13:00

Summing up key discussion points and feedback by delegates Next steps Finish workshop with a lunch

50


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Workshop participants

Name

Organisation

Biography

Franco Bianchini

Leeds Metropolitan University, Professor of Cultural Planning and Policy

Franco Bianchini is Professor of Cultural Policy and Planning at Leeds Metropolitan University. He was appointed in June 2001 by the President of the European Parliament to the selection panel responsible for designating the European Capital of Culture for 2005. In 2007, he was part of the group of experts chosen by the Slovenian government to select Slovenia’s designation for the 2012 European Capital of Culture (ECoC). He collaborated from 2003-2009 with the Liverpool Culture Company in the development and delivery of “Cities on the Edge”, a cultural co-operation partnership involving Liverpool and five other European port cities (Bremen, Gdansk, Istanbul, Marseille and Naples), which formed part of the Liverpool 2008 European Capital of Culture programme. He is currently a member of a committee preparing the candidature of Matera for the 2019 ECoC title.

Constantin Chiriac

Sibiu International Theatre Festival and Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, General Manager and PhD Professor

Constantin Chiriac was the Vice President of Sibiu European Capital of Culture 2007. He continued to be involved in the ECoC programme as a member of the selection and monitoring committee for candidate cities considered during the period 2010-2012.

Kris Donaldson

World Cities of Culture Organisation, Founder and CEO

As General Manager for Marketing and Sponsorship for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, Kris secured SA700 million in private sector sponsorship, which remains the greatest amount per capita for an Olympic Games. He was also involved in leading SOCOG’s marketing programme, which was considered the “best ever” by the IOC. Kris moved to Liverpool in 2004 as part of the 'founding team' responsible for building the Liverpool Culture Company and orchestrating the development of Liverpool '08, in addition to running all of the events, tourism and marketing for Liverpool in the 4 preceding years. Kris began the journey there as Marketing Director and ultimately became the Director (CEO) in 2007. As one of the projects that Kris took on after he left Liverpool in 2009, Kris began the development of the World Cities of Culture initiative as a result of the extraordinary experience in developing and implementing Liverpool, European Capital of Culture. The WCC initiative is led by a WCC Foundation that has just received charity status in the UK and Kris and

51


____________________________________________________________________________________________ his small team are in discussions with several world cities interested in becoming the inaugural WCC, similar to the role that Athens played with both the Olympic Games and ECoC. The vision of the WCC is to inspire world cities to create the most recognised, respected and sought-after biennial cultural celebration in the world that engages the private sector to help resource culture similar to how the Olympic Movement has nurtured sport. Ulrich Fuchs

Marseille 2013, Directeur général adjoint/ Deputy Director

Ulrich Fuchs is the Deputy Managing Director of MarseilleProvence 2013. After his studies in literature, history, sociology and theatre, he was awarded a PhD by the Free University of Berlin. Between 1984 and 2005, he taught at Bremen and Mainz Universities. Between 1984 and 2003, he was also artistic advisor to the Bremen Municipal Theatre, then director of theatre for young audiences. Ulrich was in charge of Bremen’s application to become European Capital of Culture in 2003. In 2005, he became the deputy director and programme director for Linz, the European Capital of Culture in 2009.

Mary McCarthy

National Scultpture Factory, Director

Mary McCarthy’s previous experience includes being the first Executive Arts and Culture manager for Dublin Docklands Development Authority (September 2005 to March 2009). While in that role, she was responsible for the development and roll out to arts activities within a regeneration agenda. Previous to that, she was Director of Programmes and Deputy Director for Cork 2005, the company established to manage Cork's designation as European Capital of Culture. She was also part of the bid team that helped to secure Cork’s designation as European Capital of Culture. Mary is currently an expert committee member of Culture Ireland, the Irish Government's agency to promote Irish art and artists internationally. She is also a Board member of the Irish Museum of Modern Art (IMMA) and the Cork Film Festival. She previously was on an international expert panel to assess future Capitals of Culture on behalf of the European Commission and has chaired several conferences on Culture and the ECOC.

Jukka Vahlo

Turku University, Senior Researcher

Senior researcher Jukka Vahlo worked for the Turku 2011 project in 2005-2012. During the bidding process (20052007) Vahlo worked as a project planner and mostly with the Turku 2011 strategy. During 2008-2012, Vahlo worked as a R&D Manager in the Turku 2011 Foundation. Vahlo's main task was to plan and coordinate several research projects on Turku 2011 and support the Turku 2011 evaluation programme led by University of Turku. Currently, Vahlo works as a senior researcher at University of Turku, Urban Research Programme.

52


____________________________________________________________________________________________

53


____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX D.2 : EXPERT WORKSHOP II, BRUSSELS (21 JUNE 2013) Agenda 9:30 9:45 10:15 10:45

Arrivals 62 rue du Trône, Brussels Welcome and introduction to the workshop (Beatriz Garcia) Overview of study and Draft report Findings (Beatriz Garcia) Long Term Effects of European Capitals of Culture Experts’ contribution : Roundtable discussion Roundtable discussion addressing key Research Questions with experts. -

-

-

Knowledge Transfer - Impact of EC funded evaluations: Palmer/Rae Report (2004); ECORYS and ECOTEC ex-post evaluations (2009-2012) European dimension - Issues regarding evidence of impact on cultural exchange at European level Recommendations for policy and legislative action Priorities in the context of current ECoC programme revisions (2019 onwards)

12:15

Summing up key discussion points (Giannalia Cogliandro) Next steps (Beatriz Garcia)

13:00

Finish workshop with a lunch

Workshop participants Study team Beatriz Giannalia

Garcia Cogliandro

Institute of Cultural Capital, Liverpool University ENCATC

Guests Jordi Bernd James Steve Sylvain Ann Ana Maria

Pascual Fesel Rampton Green Pasqua Branch Nogueira

Agenda 21 for Culture ECCE ECORYS Prasino DG EAC DG EAC European Parliament

54


____________________________________________________________________________________________

55


____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX E: MEDIA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Sources and periods of coverage The Lexis-Nexis electronic newspaper database service was the only credible source of long-run press material spanning a range of European countries over the period relevant to this study. Using the Lexis-Nexis service, material was accessed and analysed from the following countries and newspaper titles for the period 2001-present, with the single exception of Spain, where analysis was restricted to materials published during the period 2002-present. 2001-2012:       

France: Aujourd'hui en France, La Croix, Le Figaro, Le Monde Germany: Die Welt, Die Welt am Sonntag, Die Tageszeitung Ireland: The Irish Times Italy: La Stampa Netherlands: De Telegraaf, De Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad Switzerland: Le Temps, SonntagsZeitung, Tages-Anzeiger United Kingdom: The Guardian/Observer, The Times/Sunday Times, Daily Mail

June 2002-2012: 

Spain : El Pais, El Mundo

Criteria for source selection The selection of sources was made first and foremost on the grounds of the coverage available for each country. Given the focus of the study on the long-term effects of the ECoC programme, it was considered preferable to prioritise the relatively small number of titles available through Lexis-Nexis that could offer extensive temporal coverage, as opposed to a broader range of sources that could only offer coverage for a limited period of time. However, a number of other criteria were also considered during the selection process, in order to ensure that the sources selected were not only extensive in terms of temporal coverage, but also as broadly comparable from country to country as practicable. These criteria included:  Publication scope: Lexis-Nexis offers access to a number of local and regional titles, in addition to the better-recognised national titles. However, due to the inconsistent availability and coverage of these local and regional newspapers, it was decided that only national newspapers would be considered for analysis.  Publication type: Although it would have been desirable to analyse a balanced selection of popular (tabloid) and quality (broadsheet) titles for each country, this was only feasible in a couple of instances, due to limited source availability. Nevertheless, the study was able to analyse at least one quality title (e.g. The Irish Times, Die Welt) for each country considered, including a number of Sunday editions.  Editorial angle: For each country selected, the study attempted to achieve a balance between the political alignments of the newspaper titles available, although this was not possible for countries where long-term coverage was restricted to a single title (e.g. Italy).

56


____________________________________________________________________________________________  Circulation: Whilst the circulation of each newspaper in absolute terms was largely irrelevant, the research team did consider the position that each available title occupies in the national marketplace relative to its competitors. For instance, the study recognised that some of the titles selected are market leaders within their respective countries (e.g. El País and El Mundo in Spain), but that others are a long way off competing with their country’s top newspaper(s). Although the limited availability of suitable sources through Lexis-Nexis, together with the differing media landscapes in each country, prevented a selection of newspapers that was finely balanced in terms of relative circulation, the data has nevertheless been useful to contextualise the findings of the exercise.

Keyword searches Using Lexis-Nexis, variations of the phrases ‘European City of Culture’ and ‘European Capital of Culture’ were applied to each selected source in its relevant language – with some modifications adopted in order to compensate for particular quirks inherent in the Lexis-Nexis system. The following core phrases were used, according to the language of the source concerned:  English: ‘Capital of Culture’ OR ‘City of Culture’  French: ‘Capitale Europeenne de la Culture’ OR ‘Capitale de la Culture’ OR ‘Ville Europeenne de la Culture’ OR ‘Ville de la Culture’  German: ‘Kulturhauptstadt’ OR ‘Kulturstadt’  Italian: ‘Capitale Europea della Cultura’ OR ‘Capitale della Cultura’ OR ‘Citta Europea della Cultura’ OR ‘Citta della Cultura’  Dutch: ‘Culturele Hoofdstad’ OR ‘Cultuurstad’  Spanish: ‘Capital Europea de la Cultura’ OR ‘Capital de la Cultura’ OR ‘Ciudad Europea de la Cultura’ OR ‘Ciudad de la Cultura’

57


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Yearly coverage per country (total volume)

France Figure E1 shows a clear peak in coverage in 2004 – the year of the Lille ECoC – which is followed, first, by an immediate decline in interest and then rising coverage in the lead-up to 2008-09, when the announcement of the French city to host the 2013 ECoC was made. During 2008, there are also a few stories about other ECoCs, including Liverpool, which was also taking place that year, and Lille, which held the title in 2004. In 2009, meanwhile, there are some stories about preparations beginning in Marseille, alongside some stories about contemporaneous ECoCs (i.e. Vilnius and Linz). After a trough in 2011, there is marked growth in 2012, presumably in relation to the build up for the next ECoC year in 2013. Figure E1: French coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year

Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2001-2012)

Germany The most marked peak in German coverage occurs in 2004, during the 2010 ECoC bidding process (see Figure E2, below). This is due to a single newspaper: Taz. A cursory investigation of two months’ worth of Taz stories (January and December) reveals, alongside articles about the bidding process, some ‘extraneous’ articles (i.e. about that year’s ECoCs in neighbouring countries, and other stories not directly related to ECoC 2010). However, based on just this initial sampling, it is not possible to identify any patterns in this respect that might account for, or be a significant contributory factor in, the peak of 2004.

58


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure E2: German coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year


If the paper Taz is excluded (as in Figure E3), the pattern is more closely aligned with other countries, where there is growth in coverage during the bidding process until the year of award, a peak which occurs during the ECoC year, and an immediate drop in coverage during the post-event years. Figure E3: German coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year (excluding Taz)


59


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Ireland As illustrated by Figure E4, there is a clear peak in Irish coverage of the ECoC programme in 2005 – the year of the Cork ECoC – and a growth in coverage prior to 2005, against the context of the bidding process and award announcement in 2002. Notably, there is no increase in coverage in 2008 – the year of the Liverpool ECoC in the UK – which suggests that papers tend to focus exclusively on their national hosting process and pay scant attention to foreign ECoC hosting, even in cases of strong cultural and geographical proximity. A similar pattern reoccurs after 2009. Figure E4: Irish coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year


Italy In similar fashion to other countries, Italian coverage of the ECoC programme peaks in the year that one of its own cities played host to the title (in this case, Genoa in 2004). Figure E5: Italian coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year


60


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Spain The Spanish coverage of the ECoC programme is unusual in that there is no discernible peak in coverage during its ECoC year in 2002 (although it should be noted that the press sample for 2002 was only able to cover from June onwards, and hence is likely to understate the number of ECoC-related articles published in that year). In other respects, however, the trends in Spanish coverage reflect those observed in the coverage of other countries. For example, there is a clear growth in coverage in the lead-up to 2011, which coincides with the culmination of the bidding process for the Spanish ECoC in 2016. Stories about the bidding process are particularly common during the May, June and July of 2011. San Sebastian received the award of ECoC in June, which is followed by some stories of (seeming) controversy about the decision (e.g. ‘Sinde investiga el proceso de elección de San Sebastián 2016’). Figure E6: Spanish coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year


61


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Netherlands Dutch press coverage of the ECoC programme also appears to peak in the year that one of its own cities hosted the ECoC title (Rotterdam in 2001), which is followed, once more, by an immediate collapse in coverage the following year. However, press coverage has increased in the lead-up to the decision on which Dutch city will host the title in 2018. Figure E7: Dutch coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year


62


____________________________________________________________________________________________

United Kingdom As Figure E8 shows, UK coverage of the ECoC programme does not deviate significantly from the pattern observed for a number of other countries: coverage increased in the year that the Liverpool award was announced, peaked in the ECoC year itself, and declined thereafter. Figure E8: UK coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year


63


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Switzerland Switzerland is the only country analysed which has never hosted an ECoC and it is interesting to compare differences in patterns. What the graph below shows is that there is a growth of interest in media which share a linguistic link with respective ECoC hosts. So, the French-speaking paper, Le Temps, peaks its ECoC related coverage in 2004 (the year of the Lille ECoC) and 2008 (the year of the nomination award for Marseille-Provence 2013); while the German-speaking Tages-Anzeiger clearly peaks in 2010, the year of Essen for the Ruhr. Figure E9: Swiss coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year


64


____________________________________________________________________________________________

65


____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX F: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF ECOC HOST CITIES (2005-18) IDENTIFIED BY SELECTION PANEL AT BID STAGE A content analysis of selection panel reports was undertaken for each hosting year between 2005 and 2018, with the aim of identifying the common strengths and weaknesses of successful applicant cities. In the first stage of this process, the reports were combed for statements relating to the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the cities which ultimately went on to the win an ECoC nomination. These statements, once located, were distilled into simpler and more concise paraphrases, which are presented in the table below. Table F1: Perceived strengths and weaknesses of successful applicant cities, 2005-2018 Successful city

Cork 2005

Strengths identified

Vibrant cultural climate that extends to deprived areas of city Strong local political commitment Strong links with surrounding regions Adequate level of pre-existing cultural infrastructure, with potential and ambition to increase this in longer term

Weaknesses identified and recommendations Lack of ambition and quality for artistic programme, with inadequate focus on innovation and contemporary culture Capacity of city for holding high quality, innovative projects needs to increase and be better exploited Coherent and well-resourced marketing plan required International and European Dimension must be strengthened Plans required for training of cultural personnel

Patras 2006

Level of political and financial support perceived to be high

Absence of detail made evaluation of proposal difficult

Credible plan to attract tourists that pass through Patras as gateway to region

International and European Dimension lacking

Major infrastructure projects planned to boost capacity to hold large-scale cultural events High level of local participation in cultural projects

Physical and human resources necessary to host large-scale events not present Incoherent artistic programme that did not offer a diverse range of content Too little focus on the interests of young people

66


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Luxembourg 2007

Inclusion of mobile events Recognition of potential of ECoC to achieve long-term impacts

Liverpool 2008

Impressive level of investment Comprehensive range of events Clear focus on interests of citizens and European visitors Visible strategy for city development

Stavanger 2008

High quality artistic programme Authentic contribution to the wider European cultural space Programme reflects local, regional, national, European and global diversity Strong concept

Confusing presentation of programme Panel recommended efficient cooperation with participating regions Slightly more work required to refine overall ‘message’ of programme International and European Dimension of programme requires strengthening Clearer rationale required to explain programme decisions, with greater discussion of desired outcomes Concerns over the density of the programme compared to the regional population City recommended to consider other possible means to communicate with continent in order to boost tourist numbers, given its relatively small local audience

High level of inclusion of ordinary people and young citizens

Linz 2009

Intelligent focus on achieving lasting impacts both before and after ECoC year Strong communication strategy Well-organised finances Possesses organisational capacity to host ECoC Thoughtful and balanced artistic programme

Collaboration with groups within region needed to complement collaboration with Vilnius Panel encouraged city not to discount history of city in context of Third Reich City advised to use ECoC to boost flagging tourist numbers Greater emphasis needed on target audiences and the role of local people in the events Consideration needed as to why the city was holding the event and what it hopes to achieve

67


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Vilnius 2009

Programme considered likely to have positive long-term impact on country

Greater promotion of historic links needed Involvement of outsiders in preparations could assist planning process European Dimension of programme should be emphasised, with care taken not to focus too much on Eastern Europe Sustainability could be built into programme from the start

Essen 2010

Strong concept Clear ‘story to tell’ for the city Strong financial planning Management structures for event already established Innovative and diverse programme that would attract tourists from all over Europe

Istanbul 2010

Efforts planned to integrate children from immigrant families and involve them in 2010 projects Strong communication strategy Careful preparation and reflection evident in application Understanding of the tools and methodologies needed to host the event successfully Strong European Dimension Innovative artistic programme High degree of civic involvement Sustainable programme that spans beyond ECoC year itself Plans to target sectors of local population that are not often targeted for cultural events

68


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Pécs 2010

Strong concept and city branding Adequate infrastructure available in city and surrounding municipalities

Artistic programme requires further development Appointment of artistic director should be made as soon as possible

Programme featured innovative ideas Turku 2011

High level of public involvement Strong partnerships with cities in the region ECoC programme integrated into long-term cultural development plan for city

Tallinn 2011

Unclear what anticipated longterm effects would be, for example on creative industries Change required to ensure that challenging and daring art is central to the programme and not lost among sea of details European Dimension must be strengthened Concerns over balance and quality of artistic programme Questions as to how minority populations would be included in activities ECoC year not integrated into long-term cultural development plan

Guimarães 2012

Steep decline in investment in 2012 undermines aspiration to achieve sustainable impact from ECoC year Vision and concept must now be translated into concrete projects

Strong concept

Maribor 2012

MarseilleProvence 2013

Concerns over city's capacity to implement its ambitious programme in full

High quality and innovative artistic programme Strong concept Highly capable management team Broad political support in city and surrounding region

69

Recommendation that the city prioritise a smaller set of high quality events European Dimension must be strengthened Space should be made for possibility of new ideas or contributions Participation of Provence area should be better developed


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Solid finances Desire to combine artistic excellence with appeal to disadvantaged groups Aspects of programme reflect a strong European Dimension Košice 2013

Good potential for tourism Strong participation of artists and public in ECoC bid design High degree of European cultural cooperation Financial support for artists and cultural sector Innovative environmental pillar of project High proportion of physical and human resources required to manage and host the event already in place Stable and realistic budget Cultural value and potential of city

Umeå 2014

Well-prepared and thoughtful application High degree of public involvement ECoC integrated into economic and development strategy of city Position of city on the edge of the Union seen as a possible chance to offer a new perspective Broad political commitment to event Well-organised governance structures High quality artistic programme Solid financial support

70

Number of themes and slogans needs to be reduced, with an increase in precision of the programme Need to differentiate between short-term and long-term goals Need to build on international partnerships already developed European dimension requires strengthening Although regional involvement is welcome, city must remain centre of planning and programme Events of 2014 should be made more accessible to young people from across the continent


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Riga 2014

Political commitment of city leadership

Public involvement in planning and organisation weak

Strong cultural infrastructure and importance of the city within Latvia

Little detail on proposed programme European dimension requires strengthening Communication strategy not sufficiently developed Cooperation with other candidate cities and wider region is welcome, but city should remain the centre of planning and programme for the year

Mons 2015

Emphasis on multicultural dimension and participation of disadvantaged groups High quality artistic programme

Events of 2014 should be made more accessible to young people from across the continent Spending in years leading up to ECoC should be higher European dimension requires strengthening

Innovative concept Capable management team Awareness of environmental impacts Strong political commitment Solid financial support

Plzeň 2015

Strong public participation Strong relationships with other parties at the regional and European level

European dimension requires strengthening Concerns over quality of programme

Clear and realistic budget Private sponsor involvement

Governance structures need developing further

Excellent balance between cultural programme and regeneration objectives

More focus required on evaluation

Broad political commitment to event

Lack of a clearly defined communication strategy

71


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Well-organised governance structures, with experienced management team

More details on funding required Private sponsor involvement has scope for expansion

High quality artistic programme

Wrocław 2016

Engagement of various groups, including disadvantaged sections of society

More resources for communication and marketing Greater explanation needed of role of public in ECoC planning and organisation

Innovative environmental approach

European dimension requires strengthening

Programme focus on intercultural and interreligious dialogue alongside cultural development and social inclusion

Governance structures need reform to make them more efficient

High quality artistic programme Long-term cultural strategy which has already involved important cultural investments Well-developed links with cities in neighbouring countries

San Sebastian 2016

Broad political commitment to event High quality artistic programme Strong level of public support and involvement in process Attempt to heal social divisions through cultural intervention

Concerns over budget at preselection phase Recommended to ensure that management structures are fit for purpose Recommendation that governing bodies continue to involve wide range of political players

Sound finances Innovative artistic projects aimed at fostering cultural exchange at a European level

Paphos 2017

Broad political commitment to event Strong concept High quality programme with potential have lasting impacts High degree of public involvement, including those in the Turkish Cypriot and rural communities

72

Feeling at pre-selection stage that concept required refinement and elaboration Concern at pre-selection stage that programme required further developed, particularly to ensure appropriate level of artistic excellence


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Clear connection of ECoC year to tourism strategy Practical urban regeneration projects, many of which were already underway

Request at pre-selection stage for detail on how minority groups and wider population are to be engaged Concerns, at pre-selection stage, over city's capacity to provide physical and human resources necessary to host such an event Request at pre-selection stage for clearer focus on desired outcomes of process European dimension requires strengthening

Aarhus 2017

Broad political commitment to event

Recommendation that artistic directorship of project remains stable Overly complicated and 'abstract' bid

Well-prepared and thoughtful application

Low financial commitment to culture in city budget

Capable management team with experience necessary to organise event

Weak European Dimension

Pre-existing cultural policy for the city Discernible European aspect to the bid Strong degree of public participation, and involvement from a wide range of stakeholders during planning stage

Valletta 2018

Strong concept Long-term structural approach Location of city on periphery of Europe perceived to be a strength Broad political commitment to event

73

Clearer strategy needed to decide on goals of programme and ensure its long-term legacy Clearer explanation needed of the role of surrounding cities, regions and partners Review communication strategy and increase its budget Recommendation for the city to consider the ECoC title as an opportunity to enhance local development City recommended to concretise programme content Further work required to develop and substantiate artistic programme and organisational aspects of project Lack of detail on main aims and intended legacy of the event including the future of the Valletta 2018 Foundation after the ECoC year


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Management team already in place

Central concept and artistic vision in need of further refinement

Emphasis on younger generation

European dimension requires strengthening Request for further details on cooperation with surrounding local authorities Request for more detail regarding budget More information desired regarding public involvement, and greater efforts needed to stoke enthusiasm of citizens Recommendation of full-time commitment of artistic director

To facilitate further study, these abbreviated statements were subsequently coded according to the themes and sub-themes set out in the table below. This process enabled the basic quantitative analysis – focused chiefly on prominent strengths and weaknesses of successful applicant cities – which is set out in Chapter 3. Table F2: Themes and sub-themes used for the coding of city strengths and weaknesses at bid stage

Theme

Sub-theme

Anticipated or potential impacts

On cultural activity On country generally Potential for sustainable legacy Tourism potential

Artistic programme

Concept and themes Diversity and balance Environmental approach European Dimension Inclusion of socially-disadvantaged groups Inclusion of young people Innovativeness Quality Sustainability Volume

City characteristics

City location Compelling “story to tell” for the city Cultural vibrancy of the city Skills base of local cultural sector Local political commitment

74


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Lack of detail

Artistic programme Expected outcomes Finances General absence of detail Links with partners in other European countries Links with surrounding cities and regions Motivations Organisational Public involvement Target audience of programme

Other

Accessibility to young people in other European countries

Partnerships

Links with partners in other countries in Europe Links with surrounding regions and / or cities

Strategy and management

Arrangements for evaluation Communication and marketing plan Financial organisation Financial resources Inclusion of citizens in planning and / or programming process Infrastructure capable of hosting large-scale cultural event, existing Infrastructure capable of hosting large-scale cultural event, insufficient Infrastructure capable of hosting large-scale cultural event, potential or planned Managerial ability Objective to use ECoC to achieve long-term aims or serve city development Organisational structure Overall strategic vision Tourism strategy

75


____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX G: EVALUATING ASPECTS OF THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION Proving the impact or added value of the European Dimension of respective ECoCs remains difficult, and very few studies have looked into this aspect upfront. A review of published evaluations on the ECoC Programme reveals that analysing the European Dimension does not feature prominently in dedicated research. Sassatelli (2009: 99), in discussing the official evaluations carried out by Myerscough and Palmer/Rae, finds them “rather dismissive of their ‘European dimension’ as it emerges from quantitative indicators; as a result they gloss over it as a negligible quantity”. Hoexum (2011) mentions studies by Cogliandro (2001), Quinn and O’Halloran (2006) and Luxemburg GR 2007 (2008) as examples of evaluations that have specifically taken the European Dimension into account, but concludes that all of these have limitations when it comes to substantiating the effects of the European Dimension of the Programme, partly due to the lack of long-term quantitative data and objective qualitative data. According to Hoexum (2011), the ex-post evaluations of 2007, 2008 and 2009 by ECORYS (2009a, 2010a) and the study by the ECOC Policy Group (2010) can be regarded as some of the few attempts to evaluate the European Dimension in a systematic way. The outcome of a dedicated assessment by Hoexum is explored below. The Table below, based on Hoexum (2011), presents an overview of the aspects evaluated, the way in which they were operationalised, the indicators used and the way in which data was collected in the reports by Cogliandro (2001), Quinn and O’Halloran (2006), Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008), ECORYS (2009a, 2010a) and ECOC Policy Group (2010).

76


____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table G1: Evaluating aspects of the European Dimension 21 Aspects of European Dimension

Operationalisation

Events dealing with famous European artists

Indicators

Method/source

Number of projects with a European theme that have been organised (ECORYS)

Description of organised projects and their objectives

Growth of participation in European activities (ECORYS)

Review of host city ECoC documents (policy documents, promotional material, websites, internal documents)

Events dealing with European heritage, the history and identity of the city

Number of activities with a European theme (ECORYS)

Stakeholder interviews and surveys

Promoting European art movements and styles

Number of visitors

Information on distributed funds provided by the EU*

Events with a European theme

Activities with a European theme (ECORYS)

(Long-term) growth of number of activities with a European theme (ECORYS) Extent to which stakeholders were satisfied with the projects* Number of projects that received additional European cultural funds* Quality of the projects*

21

If sources are specifically referred to in the Table, the indicators are specific to that report (or reports). If no specific source is mentioned, this indicates that the aspect has been taken into account in all five reports. Indicators followed by* have not been mentioned explicitly in the evaluations, but have been added by Hoexum.

77


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Aspects of European Dimension

Operationalisation

Indicators

Method/source

Cooperation, co-productions and tours involving artists and organisations from other European countries

European cooperation, transnational activities (ECORYS)

Number of European cooperation projects, coproductions, tours and exchanges (Quinn and O’Halloran)

Surveys carried out among cultural organisations (Quinn and O’Halloran; ECORYS)

Engaging in specific partnerships

Engaging in specific European partnerships*

Origins of collaborating artists and organisations / number of countries involved (Quinn and O’Halloran; ECOC Policy Group)

Description of cooperation projects, coproductions, tours and exchanges (Cogliandro; Quinn & O’Halloran)

Individuals and organisations on exchange (ECORYS)

Number of individuals / organisations on exchange (ECORYS)

Review of city ECoC documents (Luxembourg GR 2007; ECORYS)

Number of cultural organisations that have enlarged their European / international network in comparison to previous year (Quinn and O’Halloran; ECORYS; ECOC Policy Group)

Stakeholder interviews (ECORYS)

Number of cultural organisations that have established lasting European / international contacts (Quinn and O’Halloran; ECORYS) Number of transnational visits (ECORYS) Cooperation with another ECoC in the same year (Luxembourg GR 2007) Continued partnerships (ECORYS)

78


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Aspects of European Dimension Promoting European (cultural) tourism

Projects addressing social cohesion

Use of other European languages

Operationalisation

Indicators

Method/source

Increased visitor numbers to cultural institutions and touristic attractions (Luxembourg GR 2007)

Reasons why tourists visit the city (cultural or not) (Luxembourg GR 2007)

Tourist surveys (Luxembourg GR 2007; ECORYS)

Increased awareness of the city as a touristic destination among European tourists (ECORYS)

Importance that tourists attribute to the European Dimension in comparison to the regional dimension (Richards)

Review of city ECoC documents (ECORYS)

Origin of tourists*

How well-known the city is among European tourists before and after the event (ECORYS)

Stakeholder interviews (ECORYS)

Difference in number of hotel bookings per night before, during and after the ECoC year (Richards)

Data collected from hotels and tourist offices

Number of requests for information at the tourist office (Richards)

Fluctuations in tourist tax income*

Number of people on [European] exchange derived from a specific social group (ECORYS)

Visitor survey with questions regarding income, work and education level (ECORYS)

Number of projects targeting a specific social group that have received additional European funds (Cogliandro)

Information provided by the EU*

Number of languages used to provide information about projects (in addition to the language(s) spoken in the city) (Cogliandro)

Review of city ECoC documents*

Organising cultural events for specific social groups*

Use of other European languages during cultural events*

79


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Aspects of European Dimension Development of European networks

Operationalisation Development of European networks*

Indicators

Method/source

Number of countries participating in a network (Cogliandro)

Description of the network’s activities (Cogliandro)

Geographical distribution of the countries in the network (Cogliandro)

Description of interregional cooperation (Cogliandro; Richards)

Sustainability of the network*

80

European Capitals of Culture: Long-Term Effects

____________________________________________________________________________________________ This Table, beyond providing more detailed guidance for actual implementation of research, also adds new aspects to the list of six key indicators found by Palmer/Rae (2004a), in particular the last three: projects addressing social cohesion, the use of other European languages, and the development of European networks, which points at the possibility for more sustainable initiatives than one-off collaborations and exchanges. In addition to the indicators included in this Table, the evaluations looked into indicators that relate to the ‘European functioning’ of the ECoC as a whole. As noted by Hoexum (2011: 49), these include: 

       

The number of cultural organisations that expect that the ECoC-year will help improve the (inter-)national image of the sector (Quinn and O’Halloran); NB: for this indicator, Hoexum notes that the national and international dimension could not be analysed separately, since Quinn and O’Halloran used one combined question as an indicator. The number of articles in (inter-)national newspapers that deal with European components of the ECoC Programme (Quinn and O’Halloran; Richards). The tone of (inter-)national news reporting on European components of the ECoC (positive, negative, neutral) (Quinn and O’Halloran; ECORYS). Level of satisfaction experienced by locals regarding the ECoC Programme (Luxembourg GR 2007). Origin of website visitors (Luxembourg GR 2007). Expectations of the general public regarding the improvement of the European image of the ECoC (Luxembourg GR 2007). Perception of Europeanness among visitors, by asking the question ‘How European do you feel?’ (ECOC Policy Group). Increasing feelings of Europeanness among inhabitants and stakeholders (ECORYS). Recognition of the event as a ‘European flagship’ by locals and/or visitors (ECORYS).

Hoexum (2011: 50) concludes that most evaluations published between 2000-2009 had shortcomings regarding the assessment of the European Dimension. While most did measure outcomes, they did not assess the societal effects of the ECoC. Evaluations often conclude that the European Dimension has received significant attention, and that the objectives were met, simply because many European projects were organised. However, whether these projects were measurably successful in achieving their European objectives is hardly ever discussed. The main issue appears to be that objectives are formulated in a very general manner, while operationalisation into concrete sub-goals remains lacking. Another important shortcoming is the fact that the opinions of stakeholders are given significant influence in many of the evaluations, as opposed to actual assessment of the opinions of the general population. The above discussion underlines the problematic nature of measuring the somewhat intangible European dimension of the ECoC Programme. Providing clearer, measureable indicators would be an opportunity for the Programme, as noted within Chapter 7 of this study.

81