Uploaded byBeatriz Garcia
Garcia- European Capitals Of Culture- A History of ECoC Evaluations
The EcoC programme has turned 40 in 2025. What do we know of the 83 cities being awarded the title so far? how do we know it? This keynote, delivered at the concluding Monitor 2024 Conference in Bodø, Norway, offers a history of the evaluation programmes, frameworks and reporting that have made our current understanding of ECoC impacts and legacy possible.
More Related Content
Similar to Garcia- European Capitals Of Culture- A History of ECoC Evaluations
![[DSC Europe 25] Michael Ikemann & Ozgur Yilmaz - Multimodal Document Processi...](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/3usis3qcqjexcnfzqd4k-4-251128093135-0344f920-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
![[DSC Europe 25] Ivan Popovic-E2E AI in Automotive.pdf](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/yuhhdbnnsaw6oml183zt-2-dsc-ivan-popovic-e2e-ai-in-automotive-251127093914-09d09072-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Garcia- European Capitals Of Culture- A History of ECoC Evaluations
- 1. European Capitals ofCulture What do we know? How do we know it? 40 years of data, soundbites & evaluation c Chair of the International Reference Group | Monitor 2024, Norland University Director | Impacts. 08 | European Capital of Culture Research Programme Former Member | European Capital of Culture Selection & Monitoring Panel Founder & Director | Institute of Cultural Capital, University of Liverpool Dr Beatriz Garcia
- 2.
- 3. 1985-1996 12 hosts All ECC MemberStates Athens 1985 Florence 1986 Amsterdam 1987 Berlin 1988 Paris 1989 Glasgow 1990 Dublin 1991 Madrid 1992 Antwerp 1993 Lisbon 1994 Luxembourg 1995 Copenhagen 1996 1997-2006 21 hosts Thessaloniki 1997 Stockholm 1998 Weimar 1999 2000 Avignon, Bergen, Bologna, Brussels, Kraków, Helsinki, Prague, Reykjavík, Santiago Compostela Rotterdam & Porto 2001 Bruges & Salamanca 2002 Graz 2003 Genoa & Lille 2004 Cork 2005; Patras 2006 2007-2019 27 hosts Luxembourg GR & Sibiu 2007 Liverpool & Stavanger 2008 Linz & Vilnius 2009 Essen-Ruhr, Pécs & Istanbul 2010 Tallinn & Turku 2011 Guimarães & Maribor 2012 Marseille-Provence & Košice 2013 Riga & Umeå 2014 Mons & Plzeň 2015 San Sebastián & Wrocław 2016 Aarhus & Paphos 2017 Valletta & Leeuwarden 2018 Plovdiv & Matera 2019 2020-2030 31 hosts Galway & Rijeka 2020 Esch-sur-Alzette, Kaunas & Novi Sad 2022 Elefsina, Timisoara, Veszprém 2023 Bad Ischl, Bodø & Tartu 2024 Chemnitz & Nova Gorica 2025 Oulu & Trenčin 2026 Liepaja & Evora 2027 Budveis, Skopje & Bourges 2028 Lublin & Kiruna in 2029 Leuven, Nikšić 2030 + Cyprus 3 85 ECoC awards 1985 – 2030 73 ECoC hosts 1985-2025
- 4. What we know… Extremelydiverse budgets… Data claims from 2008-2017 From 9m (Pafos) To 166m (Liverpool) and 289m (Istanbul) Average in this period: 60m (New Average in 2018-2025: 30m) What we (think we) know…
- 5. ECoC host populationsize (in million inhabitants) Ath 85 Am s 87 Par 89 Dub 91 Ant 93 Lux 95 The 97 W ei 99 Ber 00 Bru 00 Kra 00 Rey 00 Por 01 Bru 02 Gra 03 Lil 04 Pat 06 Sib 07 Sta 08 Vil 09 Ist 10 Tal 11 Gui 12 Koš 13 Rig 14 M on 15 San 16 Aar 17 Lee 18 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.8 Sources: Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a); Palmer and Richards (2007); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); online city census data History and development … 1 Widely diverse populations Many population sizes, uncomparable data… Data claims range from 6k (Valletta) to 13m (Istanbul) Up to 0.4m 0.4m to 1m 1m to 13m
- 6. Mar 12 Tur 11 Pec10 Ess 10 Lin 09 Liv 08 Lux 07 Lil 04 Gra 03 Bru 02 Por 01 Hel 00 Avi 00 Cop 96 Lis 94 Mad 92 Gla 90 Ams 87 Ath 85 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 4.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.9 12.0 10.5 1.5 3.5 2.0 18.3 1.0 3.3 1.1 9.0 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.6 2.3 1.2 1.5 5.4 2.2 1.5 1.5 6.9 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.3 Sources: Axe Culture (2005); ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2010a; 2011c; 2011d; 2012a; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia et al. (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006) Volume of attendance at ECoC activity 1985-2012 (in million attendances per ECoC year) * Liverpool data reflects 4 years of themed ECoC programming. ECoC year alone secured 9.8 million attendances Uncomparable numerical data… Widely diverse audience data Data claims range from 800k to 10m attendances a year
- 7. Volume of eventswithin the official ECoC programme (1985-2012) (per ECoC year & budget scales) Uncomparable numerical data… Widely diverse event volumes Data claims range from 500 events to 10,000 events Other terms used include Projects (100 to 1.5k) Activities (20k to 50k) Metrics / definitions are not comparable
- 8. But similar storiesto tell… “Success Factors”
- 9. But similar storiesto tell… “Success Factors”
- 10. • Significant impacton the city’s cultural vibrancy by • strengthening formal & informal networks, • opening up possibilities for new collaborations, • encouraging new work to continue • raising the capacity and ambition of the cultural sector • Image renaissance for low (or negative) profile cities • attracting considerable media attention enhancing local, national and international perceptions. 10 Cultural & image impacts Social impacts • Improved local perceptions of city • Many editions claim that 50% to 90% of their local population felt their city is a ‘better place’ after the ECoC. • Fostering local pride and a ‘can do’ attitude • Increasing the volume & diversity in cultural audiences during ECoC year. • Hosts claim that over half of their local population engaged with their ECoC programme. Immediate impacts • Considerable effect on immediate to medium- term tourism trends, which, in turn, can have a significant impact on the city’s economy. Long-term effects • Cities undergoing major repositioning during or post ECoC can sustain growth in tourism visits and expenditure in the long term. Economic
- 11. How we knowit Models for ECoC evidence capture
- 12. • Mixed bag(1985-1987) • Ad hoc research, last minute • No baselines, no legacy • No expertise to capture / understand the value and impact of culture • The very first studies, first layers of reliable data • John Myerscough, Economic value of the Arts (1988) • Monitoring Glasgow 1990 (1988-1991) • The Myerscough Report (1994) Network of European Cities of Culture • The Palmer / Rae Report (1995-2005) European Commission A pre-history (1985-2015)
- 13. The first longterm legacy study (1990-2001-2004) The 10 year legacy of Glasgow 1990 Cities & Culture Project 2001
- 14. The first comprehensive(transversal + long term) evaluation Baseline Build up Hosting and Legacy of Liverpool 2008 Impacts 08 programme
- 15. Intended Impacts Liverpool CultureCompany Aims • To create and present the best of local, national and international art and events in all genres • To build community enthusiasm, creativity and participation • To maintain, enhance and grow the cultural infrastructure of Liverpool • To increase the levels of visitors and inward investment in Liverpool • To reposition Liverpool as a world class city by 2008 2008 European Capital of Culture Vision • To positively reposition Liverpool to a national and international audience • To encourage and increase participation in cultural activity by people from communities • To create long term growth and sustainability in the city’s cultural sector • To develop greater recognition nationally and internationally for the role of arts and culture in making our cities better places to live, work and visit Impacts 08 | Understanding ECoC vision & goals
- 16. 2008 European Capitalof Culture Vision • To positively reposition Liverpool to a national and international audience • To encourage and increase participation in cultural activity by people from communities • To create long term growth and sustainability in the city’s cultural sector • To develop greater recognition nationally and internationally for the role of arts and culture in making our cities better places to live, work and visit Liverpool Culture Company Aims • To create and present the best of local, national and international art and events in all genres • To build community enthusiasm, creativity and participation • To maintain, enhance and grow the cultural infrastructure of Liverpool • To increase the levels of visitors and inward investment in Liverpool • To reposition Liverpool as a world class city by 2008 cultural vibrancy | participation | image Impact clusters economy Impacts 08 | Identifying impact clusters
- 17. Impact clusters cultural vibrancy| participation | image economy beatrizgarcia.net | [email protected] Impacts 08 | Identifying impact clusters
- 18. cultural vibrancy access & participation image & perceptions Impactclusters economy & tourism beatrizgarcia.net | [email protected] Impacts 08 | Identifying impact clusters
- 19. economy & tourism cultural vibrancy access & participationimage& perceptions governance & delivery employment visitor trends investment creativity production consumption inclusion, outreach, diversity media coverage people’s views aims+objectives policy, strategy social capital physical environment equalities well-being quality of life infrastructures public realm sustainability Impacts 08 Impact research model
- 20. The first comparativeframework for ECoC evaluation
- 21. The first jointassessment of ECoC evidence | 30 years beatrizgarcia.net | [email protected] ECoC Success Factors & Long Term Effects European Parliament, 2013
- 22. Image impacts Social impacts Economicimpacts Governance & Financing Cultural impacts Cultural programming Communications strategy Public engagement approach Physical infrastructure plans Legacy planning Physical impacts Policy & strategy impacts Vision Bidding + Delivery approaches & success strategies Short + long term impacts & legacies
- 23. The first ECoCevaluation guidelines, European Commission Guidelines for the cities’ own evaluations European Commission, 2018
- 24. The first ECoCevaluation guidelines, European Commission
- 26. ECoCs as akey referent for cultural evaluation modelling
- 27. • We tendto understand change = impacts • But to make sense of our impact, we must understand first the Wheel of Change ECoC impacts x change www.beatrizgarcia.net
- 28.
- 29. Ty p es o f C h a n g e • Economic • More investment • More visitors • More skills & Capacities Cultural • More shows • More artists • More quality Governance • More strategy • More sustainability • More evaluation • More accountability • Social • More engagements • More wellbeing • More diversity • More equity • Urban • More infrastructure • More public space • More physical access
- 30. image & identity 177k activities 40k artists 43.4m publicengagement 45k volunteers 5k UK press clips, 91% positive or neutral 204m UK broadcast & online views or hits Changes in numbers… economy & tourism London Cultural Olympiad 4 years, 2008-2012 | Nationwide Budget | £126.6m 126k foreign 1.6m national social engage ment cultural vibrancy 41k activities 794m direct spend, region 1k volunteers 60% of residents 18m visits 9.7m additional tourists 140k attendees 130k attendees 2.6m foreign tourists Liverpool ECoC 4 years | 2004-2008 One city £130m budget Music Festival examples | Primavera Sound ‘24 | Fest site, weekend, 38m budget Glastonbury ‘23 | Fest site, weekend, 62m budget 168m economic impact across UK businesses 150m economic impact on host city gover nance
- 31. So… Where arewe now?
- 32. Evaluation becomes key… …tothe bidding process (or at least ‘relevant’!) Where are we now?
- 34. Diversity * Belonging* Identity * Legacy Cultural Heritage * City Development *Transformation * Innovation Artistic Quality, Excellence European Cooperation European programming Citizen co- creation. Stakeholder involvement Citizen attendance Citizen participation Infrastructure development Sector skills Sector governance Cross-sectoral cooperation Partnerships City image International profile International outlook
- 35. Evaluation becomes key… …tothe legacy story Where are we now?
- 36. Stronger ECoC evaluations… oECoC editions getting better at linking their vision with their evaluation framework o But ongoing challenges o No shared indicators o Data of varied quality and reliability o Resources far too limited in most cases : rigour vs visibility of results o Reasons to be hopeful… o The first ECoC evaluation peer group is up and running o Culture Next – Candidate Cities Network, SDG Lab…
- 37. [email protected] This is whytoday matters Monitor 2024 team + Reference Group
Editor's Notes
- #4 Maybe include SOCIAL CAPITAL – reference – we have had to exclude it to make our SCOPE MANAGEABLE
- #6 Sources: Axe Culture (2005); ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2010a; 2011c; 2011d; 2012a; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia et al. (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)
- #7 Sources: Axe Culture (2005); ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2010a; 2011c; 2011d; 2012a; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia et al. (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)
- #8 Maybe include SOCIAL CAPITAL – reference – we have had to exclude it to make our SCOPE MANAGEABLE
- #9 Maybe include SOCIAL CAPITAL – reference – we have had to exclude it to make our SCOPE MANAGEABLE
- #10 Examples of cities that provide strong evidence of cultural vibrancy Glasgow 1990, Cork 2005, Stavanger 2008, Essen for the Ruhr 2010, Turku 2011, Tallinn 2011 Guimarães 2012. New work Lille 3000 Image - Glasgow, Liverpool, Marseille,Matera
- #12 LINK TO E Parliament MODEL 2.3.2 Economic – Multipliers (jobs, income/expenditure – direct, indirect, induced), cost benefit analysis, contingent valuation (i.e. willingness to pay for ‘free’ activities such as parks, museums, libraries), inward investment and leverage, distributive effects Tests – e.g. Employment/unemployment rates, income/spending and wealth in an area, and distribution by social group and location, employer location, public-private leverage 2.3.1 Environmental (physical) – Land values and occupancy (versus vacant premises/voids), design quality, environmental/quality of life, e.g. air/water pollution, noise, liveability, open space, diversity, sustainable development Tests – e.g. Quality of Life (ODPM’s local quality of life indicators), Design Quality Indicators (DQI - CABE/CIC), Re-use of brownfield land 2.3.3 Social – Cohesion, inclusion, capacity, health and well-being, identity Tests – e.g. Participation (penetration rates – catchment, profile, frequency), perceptions, networks, selfhelp, crime rates/fear of crime, health/referrals Researchers and writers in this field have begun to look also at a fourth type of impact – cultural impact. This term is already being used to describe two rather different effects. One is the impact on the cultural life of a place. For example, the opening of a gallery where there was none before has an impact on the cultural life of that place. The other use refers to the impact of cultural activity on the culture of a place or community, meaning its codes of conduct, its identity, its heritage and what is termed ‘cultural governance’ (i.e. citizenship, participation, representation, diversity).
- #13 LINK TO E Parliament MODEL 2.3.2 Economic – Multipliers (jobs, income/expenditure – direct, indirect, induced), cost benefit analysis, contingent valuation (i.e. willingness to pay for ‘free’ activities such as parks, museums, libraries), inward investment and leverage, distributive effects Tests – e.g. Employment/unemployment rates, income/spending and wealth in an area, and distribution by social group and location, employer location, public-private leverage 2.3.1 Environmental (physical) – Land values and occupancy (versus vacant premises/voids), design quality, environmental/quality of life, e.g. air/water pollution, noise, liveability, open space, diversity, sustainable development Tests – e.g. Quality of Life (ODPM’s local quality of life indicators), Design Quality Indicators (DQI - CABE/CIC), Re-use of brownfield land 2.3.3 Social – Cohesion, inclusion, capacity, health and well-being, identity Tests – e.g. Participation (penetration rates – catchment, profile, frequency), perceptions, networks, selfhelp, crime rates/fear of crime, health/referrals Researchers and writers in this field have begun to look also at a fourth type of impact – cultural impact. This term is already being used to describe two rather different effects. One is the impact on the cultural life of a place. For example, the opening of a gallery where there was none before has an impact on the cultural life of that place. The other use refers to the impact of cultural activity on the culture of a place or community, meaning its codes of conduct, its identity, its heritage and what is termed ‘cultural governance’ (i.e. citizenship, participation, representation, diversity).
- #14 Impacts 08 2.3.2 Economic – Multipliers (jobs, income/expenditure – direct, indirect, induced), cost benefit analysis, contingent valuation (i.e. willingness to pay for ‘free’ activities such as parks, museums, libraries), inward investment and leverage, distributive effects Tests – e.g. Employment/unemployment rates, income/spending and wealth in an area, and distribution by social group and location, employer location, public-private leverage 2.3.1 Environmental (physical) – Land values and occupancy (versus vacant premises/voids), design quality, environmental/quality of life, e.g. air/water pollution, noise, liveability, open space, diversity, sustainable development Tests – e.g. Quality of Life (ODPM’s local quality of life indicators), Design Quality Indicators (DQI - CABE/CIC), Re-use of brownfield land 2.3.3 Social – Cohesion, inclusion, capacity, health and well-being, identity Tests – e.g. Participation (penetration rates – catchment, profile, frequency), perceptions, networks, selfhelp, crime rates/fear of crime, health/referrals Researchers and writers in this field have begun to look also at a fourth type of impact – cultural impact. This term is already being used to describe two rather different effects. One is the impact on the cultural life of a place. For example, the opening of a gallery where there was none before has an impact on the cultural life of that place. The other use refers to the impact of cultural activity on the culture of a place or community, meaning its codes of conduct, its identity, its heritage and what is termed ‘cultural governance’ (i.e. citizenship, participation, representation, diversity).
- #15 To positively reposition Liverpool to a national and international audience and to encourage more visitors to the city and the North West:- special 2008 programme that attracts national and international attention high profile arts and sporting events improved cultural and arts marketing and media presentation To encourage and increase participation in cultural activity by people from communities across Merseyside and the wider region:- Building on partnerships ( themed years - Creative Communities - arts partners ) supporting local people and community groups (community grants programme); using the public realm; ensuring opportunities to participate. To create a legacy of long term growth and sustainability in the city’s cultural sector:- capitalise on the opportunities to attract new audiences and participants and to develop new partnerships; international programme | stimulate interest, aspiration and ambition in the sector; arts and culture at the heart of the city’s longer term regeneration | cultural strategy To develop greater recognition nationally and internationally for the role of arts and culture in making our cities better places to live, work and visit:- robust evaluation programme – Impact 08; opportunities for debate and discussion; opportunity to share models of good for the country to build towards the cultural Olympiad in 2012.
- #16 To positively reposition Liverpool to a national and international audience and to encourage more visitors to the city and the North West:- special 2008 programme that attracts national and international attention high profile arts and sporting events improved cultural and arts marketing and media presentation To encourage and increase participation in cultural activity by people from communities across Merseyside and the wider region:- Building on partnerships ( themed years - Creative Communities - arts partners ) supporting local people and community groups (community grants programme); using the public realm; ensuring opportunities to participate. To create a legacy of long term growth and sustainability in the city’s cultural sector:- capitalise on the opportunities to attract new audiences and participants and to develop new partnerships; international programme | stimulate interest, aspiration and ambition in the sector; arts and culture at the heart of the city’s longer term regeneration | cultural strategy To develop greater recognition nationally and internationally for the role of arts and culture in making our cities better places to live, work and visit:- robust evaluation programme – Impact 08; opportunities for debate and discussion; opportunity to share models of good for the country to build towards the cultural Olympiad in 2012.
- #20 ECoC policy network 2.3.2 Economic – Multipliers (jobs, income/expenditure – direct, indirect, induced), cost benefit analysis, contingent valuation (i.e. willingness to pay for ‘free’ activities such as parks, museums, libraries), inward investment and leverage, distributive effects Tests – e.g. Employment/unemployment rates, income/spending and wealth in an area, and distribution by social group and location, employer location, public-private leverage 2.3.1 Environmental (physical) – Land values and occupancy (versus vacant premises/voids), design quality, environmental/quality of life, e.g. air/water pollution, noise, liveability, open space, diversity, sustainable development Tests – e.g. Quality of Life (ODPM’s local quality of life indicators), Design Quality Indicators (DQI - CABE/CIC), Re-use of brownfield land 2.3.3 Social – Cohesion, inclusion, capacity, health and well-being, identity Tests – e.g. Participation (penetration rates – catchment, profile, frequency), perceptions, networks, selfhelp, crime rates/fear of crime, health/referrals Researchers and writers in this field have begun to look also at a fourth type of impact – cultural impact. This term is already being used to describe two rather different effects. One is the impact on the cultural life of a place. For example, the opening of a gallery where there was none before has an impact on the cultural life of that place. The other use refers to the impact of cultural activity on the culture of a place or community, meaning its codes of conduct, its identity, its heritage and what is termed ‘cultural governance’ (i.e. citizenship, participation, representation, diversity).
- #21 ECoC policy network 2.3.2 Economic – Multipliers (jobs, income/expenditure – direct, indirect, induced), cost benefit analysis, contingent valuation (i.e. willingness to pay for ‘free’ activities such as parks, museums, libraries), inward investment and leverage, distributive effects Tests – e.g. Employment/unemployment rates, income/spending and wealth in an area, and distribution by social group and location, employer location, public-private leverage 2.3.1 Environmental (physical) – Land values and occupancy (versus vacant premises/voids), design quality, environmental/quality of life, e.g. air/water pollution, noise, liveability, open space, diversity, sustainable development Tests – e.g. Quality of Life (ODPM’s local quality of life indicators), Design Quality Indicators (DQI - CABE/CIC), Re-use of brownfield land 2.3.3 Social – Cohesion, inclusion, capacity, health and well-being, identity Tests – e.g. Participation (penetration rates – catchment, profile, frequency), perceptions, networks, selfhelp, crime rates/fear of crime, health/referrals Researchers and writers in this field have begun to look also at a fourth type of impact – cultural impact. This term is already being used to describe two rather different effects. One is the impact on the cultural life of a place. For example, the opening of a gallery where there was none before has an impact on the cultural life of that place. The other use refers to the impact of cultural activity on the culture of a place or community, meaning its codes of conduct, its identity, its heritage and what is termed ‘cultural governance’ (i.e. citizenship, participation, representation, diversity).
- #22 The broad model – I will offer some examples of the EP work
- #23 LINK TO E Parliament MODEL 2.3.2 Economic – Multipliers (jobs, income/expenditure – direct, indirect, induced), cost benefit analysis, contingent valuation (i.e. willingness to pay for ‘free’ activities such as parks, museums, libraries), inward investment and leverage, distributive effects Tests – e.g. Employment/unemployment rates, income/spending and wealth in an area, and distribution by social group and location, employer location, public-private leverage 2.3.1 Environmental (physical) – Land values and occupancy (versus vacant premises/voids), design quality, environmental/quality of life, e.g. air/water pollution, noise, liveability, open space, diversity, sustainable development Tests – e.g. Quality of Life (ODPM’s local quality of life indicators), Design Quality Indicators (DQI - CABE/CIC), Re-use of brownfield land 2.3.3 Social – Cohesion, inclusion, capacity, health and well-being, identity Tests – e.g. Participation (penetration rates – catchment, profile, frequency), perceptions, networks, selfhelp, crime rates/fear of crime, health/referrals Researchers and writers in this field have begun to look also at a fourth type of impact – cultural impact. This term is already being used to describe two rather different effects. One is the impact on the cultural life of a place. For example, the opening of a gallery where there was none before has an impact on the cultural life of that place. The other use refers to the impact of cultural activity on the culture of a place or community, meaning its codes of conduct, its identity, its heritage and what is termed ‘cultural governance’ (i.e. citizenship, participation, representation, diversity).
- #24 ADD: CulTourDATA – the other study
- #25 ADD: CulTourDATA – the other study
- #27 ADD: CulTourDATA – the other study
- #31 Maybe include SOCIAL CAPITAL – reference – we have had to exclude it to make our SCOPE MANAGEABLE
- #39 FOTO MONITOR GROUP