DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES CULTURE … › RegData › etudes › etudes › join ›...
86
Transcript of DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES CULTURE … › RegData › etudes › etudes › join ›...
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 November 2013
PE 513.985 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:
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________
3
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
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
5
APPENDIX A:
FULL LIST OF EUROPEAN CITIES/CAPITALS OF CULTURE
• 1985: Athens
• 1986: Florence
• 1987: Amsterdam
• 1988: Berlin
• 1989: Paris
• 1990: Glasgow
• 1991: Dublin
• 1992: Madrid
• 1993: Antwerp
• 1994: Lisbon
• 1995: Luxembourg
• 1996: Copenhagen
• 1997: Thessaloniki
• 1998: Stockholm
• 1999: Weimar
• 2000: Avignon, Bergen, Bologna, Brussels, Helsinki, Kraków, Prague, Reykjavík,
Santiago de Compostela
• 2001: Rotterdam, Porto
• 2002: Bruges, Salamanca
• 2003: Graz
• 2004: Genoa, Lille
• 2005: Cork
• 2006: Patras
• 2007: Sibiu, Luxembourg and Greater Region
• 2008: Liverpool, Stavanger
• 2009: Vilnius, Linz
• 2010: Essen for the Ruhr, Istanbul, Pécs
• 2011: Turku, Tallinn
• 2012: Guimarães, Maribor
• 2013: Marseille-Provence, Košice
• 2014: Umeå, Riga
• 2015: Mons, Plzeň
• 2016: San Sebastián, Wrocław
• 2017: Aarhus, Paphos
• 2018: Valletta, Leeuwarden
To be selected:
• 2019: Italy, Bulgaria
• 2020: Croatia, Ireland and candidate or potential candidate country
• 2021: Romania, Greece
• 2022: Lithuania, Luxembourg
• 2023: Hungary, United Kingdom and candidate or potential candidate country
• 2024: Estonia, Austria
• 2025: Slovenia, Germany
• 2026: Slovakia, Finland and candidate or potential candidate country
• 2027: Latvia, Portugal
• 2028: Czech Republic, France
• 2029: Poland, Sweden and candidate or potential candidate country
• 2030: Cyprus, Belgium
• 2031: Malta, Spain
• 2032: Bulgaria, Denmark and candidate or potential candidate country
• 2033: Netherlands, Italy
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
6
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
7
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
8
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 2: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT 9
Chapter 2: Sources 9 Chapter 2: Data population rate, by ECoC phase 9 Chapter 2: Data overview 10
CHAPTER 3: BIDDING APPROACHES 12
Chapter 3: Sources 12 Chapter 3: Data population rate, by ECoC phase 12
CHAPTER 4: DELIVERY APPROACHES AND SUCCESS STRATEGIES 13
Chapter 4: Sources 13 Chapter 4: Data population rate, by ECoC phase 15 Chapter 4: Data overview 17
CHAPTER 5: SHORT- AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS 21
Chapter 5: Sources 21 Chapter 5: Data population rate, by ECoC phase 22 Chapter 5: Data overview 23
CONTEXTUAL DATA ABOUT PARTICIPATING CITIES 25
Contextual data: Sources 25 Contextual data: Overview 26
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
9
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 2007-
2012
Chapter 2: Data population rate, by ECoC phase
Indicator
Availability
1985-
1996
1997-
2004
2005-
2012
Entire
period
Level of European Union support
(€m) 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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
10
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
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
11
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
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
12
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
Indicator
Availability
1985-
1996
1997-
2004
2005-
2012
2013-
2018
Entire
period
% of successful bids
demonstrating particular strengths - - 100% 100% 100%
% of successful bids
demonstrating particular
weaknesses
- - 100% 100% 100%
Main aim or motivation of ECoC 100% 100% 93% - 98%
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
13
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)
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
14
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)
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
15
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
Indicator
Availability
1985-
1996
1997-
2004
2005-
2012
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%
Length of programme 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%
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
16
Indicator
Availability
1985-
1996
1997-
2004
2005-
2012
Entire
period
Programme themes 83% 100% 100% 96%
Programming for particular social groups 0% 100% 80% 72%
Project total 25% 84% 87% 70%
Sponsor count 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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
17
Chapter 4: Data overview
Year City
Indicator
Len
gth
of
pro
gram
me
Pro
ject
tota
l
Even
t to
tal
Sp
on
so
r c
ou
nt
In
fr.
sp
en
d (
€m
)
In
com
e (
€m
)
% i
ncom
e –
nat.
go
vt.
% i
ncom
e –
local an
d r
eg
.
go
vt.
% i
ncom
e –
oth
er p
ub
lic
% i
ncom
e -
EU
% i
ncom
e -
sp
on
so
rsh
ip
% i
ncom
e -
oth
er
Exp
en
dit
ure
2
% s
pen
d -
overh
ead
s
% s
pen
d –
pro
moti
on
/
marketi
ng
% s
pen
d -
pro
gram
me
% s
pen
d –
oth
er
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 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 19 411.2 46.0 32% 50% 0% 2% 17% 0% 46.0 29% 0% 65% 5%
2 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).
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
18
2000 Avi 12-18 months 200 343 8.0 21.1 35% 32% 8% 1% 10% 13% 21.1
Year City
Indicator
Len
gth
of
pro
gram
me
Pro
ject
tota
l
Even
t to
tal
Sp
on
so
r c
ou
nt
In
fr.
sp
en
d (
€m
)
In
com
e (
€m
)
% i
ncom
e –
nat.
go
vt.
% i
ncom
e –
lo
cal
an
d r
eg
. g
ovt.
% i
ncom
e –
oth
er p
ub
lic
% i
ncom
e -
EU
% i
ncom
e -
sp
on
so
rsh
ip
% i
ncom
e -
oth
er
Exp
en
dit
ure
(see n
ote
s)
% s
pen
d -
overh
ead
s
% s
pen
d –
pro
moti
on
/
marketi
ng
% s
pen
d -
pro
gram
me
% s
pen
d –
oth
er
2000 Ber < 12 months 500 3380 13 12.8 36% 30% 3% 2% 25% 5% 12.7 49% 7% 44% 0%
2000 Bol Multi-year4 551 3070 11 7.7 33.8 33% 50% 13% 0% 0% 4% 33.6 3% 24% 67% 6%
2000 Bru < 12 months 350 22 82.0 32.8 34% 19% 18% 1% 16% 13% 33.6 26% 9% 63% 1%
2000 Hel 12-18 months5 503 13 33.1 29% 51% 0% 0% 20% 0% 32.9 5% 20% 74% 0%
2000 Kra Multi-year6 1217 656 9 12.8 50% 34% 0% 0% 0% 16% 5.78 7% 24% 69% 0%
2000 Pra 12-18 months9 380 1768 23 10.4 23% 54% 0% 3% 17% 3% 10.0 14% 21% 65% 0%
2000 Rey 12-18 months 284 2549 11 8.5 37% 43% 1% 12% 8% 0% 7.9 13% 17% 69% 0%
2000 San 1210 27 22.9 0% 0% 30% 1% 69% 0%
2001 Por 12-18 months10 350 1959 13 168.5 58.0 81% 2% 0% 0% 5% 11% 58.5 29% 20% 51% 0%
2001 Rot 12-18 months 524 500 152 34.1 23% 23% 0% 1% 33% 20% 34.1 24% 8% 67% 1%
2002 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 108 6000 35 56.0 59.2 25% 63% 0% 1% 5% 6% 59.2 9% 24% 61% 7%
3 Only represents ‘some’ of the sponsors of Avignon. 4 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. 5 Official programme in 2000 was supplemented, during the previous year, by an introductory summer programme. 6 Kraków, in essence, ran a five-year programme, beginning in 1996. 7 Although Kraków ran a multi-year programme, this figure represents the total number of projects for 2000 only. 8 This represents expenditure for 2000 only. 9 Official programme in 2000 was supplemented by “prologue” events in 1999. 10 The official programme began in 2001, but some projects did take place in 2000.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
19
2004 Gen 12-18 months 130 10 200.0 30.5 56% 2% 0% 2% 21% 19% 30.4 12% 23% 64% 1%
2004 Lil 12-18 months 2500 61 70.0 73.7 19% 44% 17% 2% 16% 2% 73.7 10% 10% 80% 0%
2005 Cor 12-18 months 244 230 196.0 21.6 36% 27% 0% 2% 0% 35% 17.0 0% 11% 89% 0%
2006 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 12-18 months 867 1447 18 137.4 16.9 24% 51% 0% 8% 0% 16%
Year City
Indicator
Len
gth
of
pro
gram
me
Pro
ject
tota
l
Even
t to
tal
Sp
on
so
r c
ou
nt
In
fr.
sp
en
d
(€
m)
In
com
e (
€m
)
% i
ncom
e –
nat.
govt.
% i
ncom
e –
local an
d r
eg
.
go
vt.
% i
ncom
e –
oth
er p
ub
lic
% i
ncom
e -
EU
% i
ncom
e -
sp
on
so
rsh
ip
% i
ncom
e -
oth
er
Exp
en
dit
ure
(see n
ote
s)
% s
pen
d -
overh
ead
s
% s
pen
d –
pro
moti
on
/
marketi
ng
% s
pen
d -
pro
gram
me
% s
pen
d –
oth
er
2008 Liv Multi-year11 7000 35 900.0 142.0 8% 58% 2% 12% 17% 3% 129.9 15% 19% 60% 6%
2008 Sta Multi-year12 160 1118 142 293.0 39.5 30% 37% 0% 4% 0% 28% 320.3 22% 18% 56% 4%
2009 Lin Multi-year13 220 7700 61 323.0 75.2 27% 53% 0% 2% 14% 4% 68.7 17% 19% 62% 2%
2009 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%
11 Liverpool decided to use themed years, which began in 2002 and ran up until 2010. 12 Programme involved various “taster” activities that took place in the years building up to the ECoC year in 2008. 13 Linz featured a substantial number of “pre-projects” during the period 2006-2008, to complement the official programme in 2009. 14 ECORYS (2011c: 77) refer to “586 projects ... implemented in total during the years 2008-2011”, which suggests a multi-year approach. 15 The Pécs organising body ran a number of themed years in advance of the title year in 2010.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
20
2012 Gui 12-18 months 23 41.7 41.8 25% 10% 12% 53% 0% 2% 41.6 17% 18% 66% 0%
2012 Mar 12-18 months 405 5264 15 28.4 54% 40% 0% 3% 0% 3% 28.4 14% 9% 77% 0%
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
21
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)
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
22
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
Indicator
Availability
1985-
1996
1997-
2004
2005-
2012
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
23
Chapter 5: Data overview
Year City
Indicator
% change in arrivals
(ECoC year)16
% change in arrivals
(ECoC year +1)17
Total attendance at ECoC projects
Volunteer count
1985 Athens -16.4% 1,344,000
1986 Florence 799,000
1987 Amsterdam 916,000
1988 Berlin 868,000
1989 Paris +6.7%
1990 Glasgow -15.8% -18.8% 1,879,000
1991 Dublin 960,000
1992 Madrid -2.4% -1.8% 1,000,000
1993 Antwerp 1,143,000
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% 650
1999 Weimar +78.9% -20.1%
2000 Avignon 1,500,000
2000 Bergen
2000 Bologna +19.1% +11.6% 2,150,000
16 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.
17 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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
24
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
Year City
Indicator
% change in arrivals
(ECoC year)
% change in arrivals
(ECoC year +1)
Total attendance at ECoC projects
Volunteer count
2001 Rotterdam 2,250,000
2002 Bruges -8.1% 1,600,000 85
2002 Salamanca 1,927,444 200
2003 Graz +19.1% -11.0% 2,755,271
2004 Genoa +17.4% -8.1% 2,835,960
2004 Lille 9,000,000 17800
2005 Cork 1,100,000
2006 Patras 1400
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 +16.2% +1.2% 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 Source states that this figure “is likely to be an underestimate, because only 275 projects actually reported
visit figures” (Luxembourg 2007, 2008: 33).
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
25
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
26
Contextual data: Overview
Year City ECoC phase City pop. (m)19
Pop. size20
Country Geogr. region
EU position
1985 Athens I-1985-1996 3.2 Large Greece South EU-12
1986 Florence I-1985-1996 0.36 Small Italy South EU-12
1987 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
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. 20 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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
27
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 City pop. (m)
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
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
28
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
ECoC 2008 joint assessment 35
Liverpool 2008 36
Stavanger 2008 38
ECoC 2009 joint assessment 38
Vilnius 2009 38
Linz 2009 39
ECoC 2010 joint assessment 39
Essen for the Ruhr 2010 39
Istanbul 2010 41
Pécs 2010 41
ECoC 2011 joint assessment 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
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
29
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, 305-
332.
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
30
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
31
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
32
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
33
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-per-
la-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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
34
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-4de7-8a8e-
16ffbe0b8e5e
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
35
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-institut-
unitrier/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.
ECoC 2008 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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
36
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
37
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
38
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.
ECoC 2009 joint assessment
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
39
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_bilanz-
broschuere_eng_rz_screen.pdf
ECoC 2010 joint assessment
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%2F2010-
03_Beilage_Kreativwirtschaft_Englisch.pdf
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
40
Essen 2010, online, 2010b. TWINS Programme. Essen 2010, http://www.essen-fuer-
das-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-das-
ruhrgebiet.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, 183-
207.
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
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
41
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
42
ECoC 2011 joint assessment
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
43
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, 795-
811.
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
44
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/our-
programmes-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-programmes-
and-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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
45
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
46
European Commission, online, 2012. Application for the Title of European Capital of
Culture, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc/ecoc/ecoc-
proposition-candidature_en.pdf
European Commission, online, 2013. European Capital of Culture,
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://eur-
lex.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://eur-
lex.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-programmes-
and-actions/doc/ecoc/2010_panel_monitoring_report1.pdf
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
47
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, 287-
299.
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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
48
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. Anfänge,
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
49
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-european-
capital-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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
50
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 Summing up key discussion points and feedback by delegates
12:20 Next steps
13:00 Finish workshop with a lunch
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
51
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
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
52
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 Marseille-
Provence 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 (2005-
2007) 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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
53
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
54
APPENDIX D.2 :
EXPERT WORKSHOP II, BRUSSELS (21 JUNE 2013)
Agenda
9:30 Arrivals
62 rue du Trône, Brussels
9:45 Welcome and introduction to the workshop (Beatriz Garcia)
10:15 Overview of study and Draft report Findings (Beatriz Garcia)
Long Term Effects of European Capitals of Culture
10:45 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 Garcia Institute of Cultural Capital, Liverpool University
Giannalia Cogliandro ENCATC
Guests
Jordi Pascual Agenda 21 for Culture
Bernd Fesel ECCE
James Rampton ECORYS
Steve Green Prasino
Sylvain Pasqua DG EAC
Ann Branch DG EAC
Ana Maria Nogueira European Parliament
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
55
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
56
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).
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
57
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’
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
58
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.
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
59
Figure E2: German coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year
Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2001-2012)
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)
Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2001-2012)
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
60
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
Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2001-2012)
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
Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2001-2012)
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
61
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
Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2002-2012)
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
62
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
Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2001-2012)
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
63
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
Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2001-2012)
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
64
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
Source: ICC analysis, Lexis Nexis digital clippings (2001-2012)
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
65
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
66
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
Strengths identified Weaknesses identified and
recommendations
Cork 2005
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
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
Credible plan to attract tourists
that pass through Patras as
gateway to region
Major infrastructure projects
planned to boost capacity to hold
large-scale cultural events
High level of local participation in
cultural projects
Absence of detail made
evaluation of proposal difficult
International and European
Dimension lacking
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
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
67
Luxembourg
2007
Inclusion of mobile events
Recognition of potential of ECoC
to achieve long-term impacts
Confusing presentation of
programme
Panel recommended efficient
cooperation with participating
regions
Liverpool 2008 Impressive level of investment
Comprehensive range of events
Clear focus on interests of
citizens and European visitors
Visible strategy for city
development
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
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
High level of inclusion of ordinary
people and young citizens
Intelligent focus on achieving
lasting impacts both before and
after ECoC year
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
Linz 2009 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
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
68
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
Efforts planned to integrate
children from immigrant families
and involve them in 2010
projects
Istanbul 2010 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
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
69
Pécs 2010 Strong concept and city branding
Adequate infrastructure available
in city and surrounding
municipalities
Programme featured innovative
ideas
Artistic programme requires
further development
Appointment of artistic director
should be made as soon as
possible
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
Unclear what anticipated long-
term 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
Tallinn 2011 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
Steep decline in investment in
2012 undermines aspiration to
achieve sustainable impact from
ECoC year
Guimarães
2012
Strong concept Vision and concept must now be
translated into concrete projects
Maribor 2012 Concerns over city's capacity to
implement its ambitious
programme in full
Recommendation that the city
prioritise a smaller set of high
quality events
Marseille-
Provence 2013
High quality and innovative
artistic programme
Strong concept
Highly capable management
team
Broad political support in city and
surrounding region
European Dimension must be
strengthened
Space should be made for
possibility of new ideas or
contributions
Participation of Provence area
should be better developed
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
70
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
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
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
71
Riga 2014 Political commitment of city
leadership
Strong cultural infrastructure and
importance of the city within
Latvia
Public involvement in planning
and organisation weak
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
Events of 2014 should be made
more accessible to young people
from across the continent
Mons 2015 Emphasis on multicultural
dimension and participation of
disadvantaged groups
High quality artistic programme
Innovative concept
Capable management team
Awareness of environmental
impacts
Strong political commitment
Solid financial support
Strong public participation
Spending in years leading up to
ECoC should be higher
European dimension requires
strengthening
Plzeň 2015 Strong relationships with other
parties at the regional and
European level
Clear and realistic budget
Private sponsor involvement
Excellent balance between
cultural programme and
regeneration objectives
Broad political commitment to
event
European dimension requires
strengthening
Concerns over quality of
programme
Governance structures need
developing further
More focus required on
evaluation
Lack of a clearly defined
communication strategy
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
72
Well-organised governance
structures, with experienced
management team
High quality artistic programme
More details on funding required
Private sponsor involvement has
scope for expansion
More resources for
communication and marketing
Wrocław 2016 Engagement of various groups,
including disadvantaged sections
of society
Innovative environmental
approach
Programme focus on intercultural
and interreligious dialogue
alongside cultural development
and social inclusion
High quality artistic programme
Long-term cultural strategy which
has already involved important
cultural investments
Well-developed links with cities in
neighbouring countries
Broad political commitment to
event
Greater explanation needed of
role of public in ECoC planning
and organisation
European dimension requires
strengthening
Governance structures need
reform to make them more
efficient
San Sebastian
2016
High quality artistic programme
Strong level of public support and
involvement in process
Attempt to heal social divisions
through cultural intervention
Sound finances
Innovative artistic projects aimed
at fostering cultural exchange at
a European level
Broad political commitment to
event
Concerns over budget at pre-
selection phase
Recommended to ensure that
management structures are fit for
purpose
Recommendation that governing
bodies continue to involve wide
range of political players
Paphos 2017 Strong concept
High quality programme with
potential have lasting impacts
High degree of public
involvement, including those in
the Turkish Cypriot and rural
communities
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
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
73
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
Recommendation that artistic
directorship of project remains
stable
Aarhus 2017 Broad political commitment to
event
Well-prepared and thoughtful
application
Capable management team with
experience necessary to organise
event
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
Overly complicated and 'abstract'
bid
Low financial commitment to
culture in city budget
Weak European Dimension
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
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
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
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
74
Management team already in
place
Emphasis on younger generation
Central concept and artistic vision
in need of further refinement
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
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
75
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
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
76
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).
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
77
Table G1: Evaluating aspects of the European Dimension21
Aspects of European
Dimension Operationalisation Indicators Method/source
Events dealing with famous
European artists
Number of projects with a European theme
that have been organised (ECORYS)
Description of organised projects and their
objectives
Events with a European theme Activities with a
European theme
(ECORYS)
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* (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.
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
78
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, co-
productions, 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, co-
productions, 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)
European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
79
Aspects of European
Dimension Operationalisation Indicators Method/source
Promoting European
(cultural) tourism
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*
Projects addressing social
cohesion
Organising cultural
events for specific
social groups*
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*
Use of other European
languages
Use of other European
languages during
cultural events*
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*
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
80
Aspects of European
Dimension Operationalisation Indicators Method/source
Development of European
networks
Development of
European networks*
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*
European Capitals of Culture: Long-Term Effects
____________________________________________________________________________________________
81
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.
