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 E-mail: [email protected]

EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE

Lyna Pärt

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS

Original: EN Translation: DE, FR

ABOUT THE PUBLISHER

To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected]

Manuscript completed in November 2013. © , 2013.

This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

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

CONTENTS

APPENDIX A: FULL LIST OF EUROPEAN CITIES/CAPITALS OF CULTURE 5

APPENDIX B: LIST OF KEY INDICATORS AND SOURCES, BY CHAPTER 7

APPENDIX C: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY PER ECOC HOST CITY 28

APPENDIX D.1: EXPERT WORKSHOP I, (10 APRIL 2013) 50

APPENDIX D.2: EXPERT WORKSHOP II, BRUSSELS (21 JUNE 2013) 54

APPENDIX E: MEDIA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 56

APPENDIX F: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF ECOC HOST CITIES (2005-18) IDENTIFIED BY SELECTION PANEL AT BID STAGE 65

APPENDIX G: EVALUATING ASPECTS OF THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION 76

3

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

4

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

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

• 1985: • 1986: • 1987: • 1988: • 1989: • 1990: • 1991: • 1992: • 1993: • 1994: • 1995: • 1996: • 1997: • 1998: • 1999: • 2000: , , , Brussels, , Kraków, , Reykjavík, • 2001: , • 2002: , • 2003: • 2004: , • 2005: • 2006: • 2007: , Luxembourg and Greater Region • 2008: Liverpool, • 2009: , • 2010: for the Ruhr, , Pécs • 2011: , • 2012: Guimarães, • 2013: -Provence, Košice • 2014: Umeå, • 2015: , Plzeň • 2016: San Sebastián, Wrocław • 2017: , • 2018: Valletta,

To be selected:

• 2019: , • 2020: , Ireland and candidate or potential candidate country • 2021: , • 2022: , Luxembourg • 2023: , and candidate or potential candidate country • 2024: , • 2025: , • 2026: , and candidate or potential candidate country • 2027: , • 2028: , • 2029: , and candidate or potential candidate country • 2030: , • 2031: , • 2032: Bulgaria, and candidate or potential candidate country • 2033: , Italy

5

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

6

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

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

This Appendix presents information on the key indicators collated during the course of the study, including: the sources from which indicators were constructed; any important caveats that must be made in relation to particular data; the extent to which each indicator provides coverage of the three ECoC phases; and, finally, the actual data itself, where this of a quantitative or simple qualitative nature. With the exception of contextual data on ECoC host cities, which is given its own section at the end of the Appendix, all information is organised according to the Chapter in which it predominantly features.

Readers should note that, where data is provided, this cannot, in general, be assumed to be strictly comparable, and that care must be taken in its interpretation. Most commonly, barriers to comparability are erected by inadequate description within sources of the methodologies used to arrive at particular figures; or by the use of clearly very different methodologies to calculate figures, which might otherwise appear to be comparable due to the use of similar terms to denote data. The noticeable – and occasionally severe – contradictions which were discovered by the research team in the reporting of seemingly identical indicators by different sources are very likely to be a reflection of this methodological heterogeneity to some extent; although it is also possible that such discrepancies are symptomatic of the perceptibly low quality of certain sources.

From a review of the sources cited in this Appendix, it is clear that the majority of the data compiled for the study derives from three source clusters: the Myerscough (1994) report, which covered ECoC editions between 1985 and 1994; the report and appendices by Palmer/Rae Associates (2004a; 2004b), which reviewed ECoC editions between 1995 and 2004; and the ECORYS evaluations, which have been commissioned for every ECoC since Luxembourg GR and Sibiu in 2007 and are available up to Guimarães and Maribor in 2012. The dominance of these three sources of information is attributable, in part, to their relatively high quality and temporal breadth, as well as to the indissoluble fact that, for many ECoCs, these are the only data sources which are readily available online or in print.

The evidence base compiled for the study also incorporates data from a wide variety of other sources, however, including the reports by Palmer et al. produced under the banner of ATLAS, which have helped to fill in gaps for the two 2005 and 2006 hosts, as well as a number of other evaluations and host city reports; host city websites, where these are still available; online databases such as TourMIS; and a limited amount of relevant academic literature.

7

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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

8

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

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)

Gold and Gold (2005) for 1985-1999; Palmer/Rae Levels of European Union support Associates (2004a; 2004b) for 2000-2004; ECORYS (€m) (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a) for 2007- 2012

Chapter 2: Data population rate, by ECoC phase

Availability Indicator 1985- 1997- 2005- Entire 1996 2004 2012 period

Level of European Union support 100% 100% 100% 100% (€m)

As is evident from the second table, the extent of coverage for this indicator was found to be high, with data available for all ECoCs between 1985 and 2012. However, it should be noted that the data itself – presented in the third table – has not been collated in a strictly comparable way. Gold and Gold (2005), for instance, include supplementary EU contributions to specific projects, whilst Palmer/Rae Associates and ECORYS only include the main EU allocation (except in the case of Turku 2011, which includes an additional €39,000 towards specific projects). Figures for Guimaraes (2012) and Maribor (2012), meanwhile, were deduced from official guidelines due to the absence of reliable figures in the available literature.

Like other financial data in this report, the figures for EU funding have not been adjusted for inflation, due to the absence of readily-available historical inflation rate data for the range of countries required. In any case, the utility of such a transformation would be questionable, in this instance, given the nature of EU support, which is set at a fixed nominal rate and changed relatively infrequently.

9

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Chapter 2: Data overview

Year City EU Funding (€m)

1985 Athens 0.11

1986 Florence 0.14

1987 Amsterdam 0.14

1988 Berlin 0.20

1989 Paris 0.12

1990 Glasgow 0.12

1991 Dublin 0.12

1992 Madrid 0.20

1993 Antwerp 0.30

1994 Lisbon 0.40

1995 Luxembourg 0.40

1996 Copenhagen 0.60

1997 Thessaloniki 0.40

1998 Stockholm 0.60

1999 Weimar 0.60

2000 Avignon 0.22

2000 Bergen 0.22

2000 Bologna 0.22

2000 Brussels 0.22

2000 Helsinki 0.22

2000 Kraków 0.22

2000 Prague 0.22

2000 Reykjavík 0.22

2000 Santiago 0.22

2001 Porto 0.50

2001 Rotterdam 0.50

10

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

Year City EU Funding (€m)

2002 Bruges 0.50

2002 Salamanca 0.50

2003 Graz 0.50

2004 Genoa 0.50

2004 Lille 0.50

2005 Cork 0.50

2006 Patras 0.50

2007 Luxembourg GR 1.38

2007 Sibiu 1.40

2008 Liverpool 1.50

2008 Stavanger 1.40

2009 Linz 1.50

2009 Vilnius 1.32

2010 Essen for the Ruhr 1.50

2010 Istanbul 1.50

2010 Pécs 1.50

2011 Tallinn 1.50

2011 Turku 1.54

2012 Guimarães 1.50

2012 Maribor 1.50

11

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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 ICC content analysis of selection panel reports strengths

% of successful bids demonstrating particular ICC content analysis of selection panel reports weaknesses

DaCosta Holton (1998); ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; Main aim or motivation of 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates ECoC (2004a; 2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Rennen (2007)

Unfortunately, the nature of the data collated for these indicators does not lend itself well to presentation in a condensed form. However, the availability of the data for host cities in each of the three ECoC phases is summarised in the table below, and further details of the content analysis of selection panel reports are available in Appendix F. The data population rate for the indicators on strengths and weaknesses of successful bid cities must, however, be accompanied by a note explaining that: (i) selection panels were not used for ECoC designations before 2005; and (ii) that all available selection panels reports were consulted as part of the content analysis exercise.1

Data on the main aim or motivation of each ECoC was also gathered for most cities, with the only exception being Patras 2006.

Chapter 3: Data population rate, by ECoC phase

Availability

Indicator 1985- 1997- 2005- 2013- Entire 1996 2004 2012 2018 period

% of successful bids - - 100% 100% 100% demonstrating particular strengths

% of successful bids demonstrating particular - - 100% 100% 100% weaknesses

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.

12

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

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 Istanbul 2010 (2010); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates as part of (2004b); Patras 2006 (2006); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Tallinn programme 2011 (2010); Turku 2011 (2010)

ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2011c; 2012a; 2012b); European Commission (2009); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Heller and Artistic director, Fuchs (2009); Istanbul 2010 (2010); Lille 2004 (2005); Luxembourg origin / type GR 2007 (2008); Official ECoC websites; Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Patras 2006 (2006); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Stavanger 2008 (2009)

Balance between ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and professional and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1991; community / 1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); amateur projects Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)

Balance between projects from ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); within city and Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012) projects from outside

Axe Culture (2005); Bruges 2002 (2003); Deffner and Labrianidis (2005); ECORYS (2009b; 2010b; 2011c; 2011d; 2012b; 2013a); Event total Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Richards and Rotariu (2011); Richards and Wilson (2004)

Cork 2005 website; ECORYS (2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Expenditure Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough breakdown (1991; 1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Stavanger 2008 (2009)

Cork 2005 website; ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Expenditure total Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Myerscough (1991; 1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Stavanger 2008 (2009)

ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Income breakdown Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)

ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); Income total Palmer et al. (2007; 2011); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)

13

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Indicator Source(s)

ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Lille 2004 (2005); Linz 2009 (2010b); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates Infrastructure, key (2004a; 2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Richards and Rotariu projects (2011); Universidade do Minho (2013); Zentrum für Kulturforschung and IGC Culturplan (2011)

Cork 2005 website; ECORYS (2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Essen Infrastructure 2010 website; Palmer et al. (2007; 2011); Palmer/Rae Associates spend (2004b)

ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Length of Cox (2010); Guimaraes 2012 website; Myerscough (1994); programme Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Stavanger 2008 (2003); Turku 2011 (2010); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)

Location of ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); programme Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)

ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia (2004b); Main focus of the Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae communication Associates (2004b); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012); Zentrum für strategy Kulturforschung and IGC Culturplan (2011)

ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2010a; 2010b; 2011c; 2011d; 2012a; New commissions 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Luxembourg GR and / or 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); programming Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Stavanger 2008 (2009); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)

ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Programme Cox (2010); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); themes Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)

Programming for ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2011c; 2012a; 2013a); Lille 2004 (2005); particular groups Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b)

ECoC documentation centre website; ECORYS (2009a; 2010a; 2010b; 2011d; 2012a; 2013a); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates Project total (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006); Stavanger 2008 (2009); Zentrum für Kulturforschung and IGC Culturplan (2011)

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 Sponsor count GR 2007 (2008); Maribor 2012 (2013); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Sibiu 2007 website; Stavanger 2008 (2009); Tallinn 2011 (2010); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012)

14

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

As the table indicating data population rates shows, most indicators considered in Chapter 4 were populated for over 70% of ECoCs – with no indicators deployed with a population rate of less than 50%. However, the quality of this data was nevertheless found to be variable, and the discovery of a particular type of data for a particular ECoC cannot, of course, guarantee that all of the existing data that meets this description has been successfully collated. In the case of featured artforms, for instance, whilst as much data as possible was mined from the available literature, there is a high likelihood that more data could be extracted from sources of information that were not within the practical grasp of the study.

Chapter 4: Data population rate, by ECoC phase

Availability Indicator 1985- 1997- 2005- Entire 1996 2004 2012 period

Artforms featured as part of programme 42% 95% 33% 61%

Balance between professional and community / 42% 63% 60% 57% amateur projects

Balance between projects originating from within city 17% 53% 80% 52% and projects originating from outside

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%

15

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Availability Indicator 1985- 1997- 2005- Entire 1996 2004 2012 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.

16

European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies and Long-Term Effects ______Chapter 4: Data overview

Indicator

2

nat. nat.

EU

other

– – – - - -

Year City

- -

– –

Length of of Length programme total Project total Event count Sponsor (€m) spend Infr. (€m) Income income % govt. income % reg. and local govt. income % public other income % income % sponsorship income % other Expenditure spend % overheads spend % / promotion marketing spend % programme spend %

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). 17

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

2000 Avi 12-18 months 200 343 8.0 21.1 35% 32% 8% 1% 10% 13% 21.1

Indicator

nat. nat. local

EU

other

– – – - - -

e

Year City

- -

– –

amme

Length of of Length progr total Project total Event count Sponsor (€m) spend Infr. (€m) Income income % govt. income % govt. reg. and income % public other income % income % sponsorship income % other Expenditure notes) (see spend % overheads spend % / promotion marketing spend % programm spend %

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. 18

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

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%

Indicator

EU

– – – - - -

- - –

Year City –

tion / / tion

ct total ct

Length of of Length programme Proje total Event count Sponsor spend Infr. (€m) (€m) Income income % govt. nat. income % reg. and local govt. income % public other income % income % sponsorship income % other Expenditure notes) (see spend % overheads spend % promo marketing spend % programme spend % other

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. 19

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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%

20

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

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)

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

Axe Culture (2005); ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2010a; 2011c; Attendance at ECoC 2011d; 2012a; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox projects total (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Myerscough (1994); Palmer/Rae Associates (2004b); Quinn and O’Halloran (2006)

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

Levels of cultural ECORYS (2009b; 2010b; 2011d; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, participation during and Melville and Cox (2010); Helsinki (2000a); Palmer/Rae after ECoC Associates (2004a; 2004b); Universidade do Minho (2013)

ECORYS (2009b; 2010a; 2010b; 2011c; 2011d; 2012b; 2013a); Garcia, Melville and Cox (2010); Lille 2004 (2005); Linz 2009 (2010a; 2010b); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Media impacts 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)

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

ECORYS (2009a; 2009b; 2011d); Garcia, Melville and Cox Participation in ECoC (2010); Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008); Palmer/Rae Associates events by different social (2004a; 2004b); Turku 2011 Foundation (2012); Universidade groups do Minho (2013)

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

21 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

As the table below shows, most indicators used in Chapter 5 did not have a high degree of population, with ECoC attendance, media impacts and total overnights standing out as the most complete datasets available. In addition to this, the data for a number of indicators was especially noticeable for its low degree of comparability – including data on the total number of volunteers, the vagueness of which made it difficult to distinguish between ‘registered’ volunteers, ‘active’ volunteers and ‘ambassadors’.

Although the quality of data on arrivals and overnights, in contrast, was generally very good – due in large part to the data available through the TourMIS system – this, too, presented problems because of the imprecise use of relevant terminology within sections of the available literature, including the conflation, in some sources, of arrivals and overnights.

Chapter 5: Data population rate, by ECoC phase

Availability Indicator 1985- 1997- 2005- Entire 1996 2004 2012 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 58% 42% 73% 57% ECoC

Media impacts 42% 84% 80% 72%

Overnights total 92% 89% 73% 85%

Participation in ECoC events by different social 0% 21% 40% 22% groups

Volunteer count 0% 21% 93% 39%

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

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

Chapter 5: Data overview Indicator

% change in Year City % change in Total arrivals Volunteer arrivals attendance at (ECoC year count (ECoC year)16 ECoC projects +1)17

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.

23 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

2000 Brussels +5.3% -1.8%

2000 Helsinki +11.2% -1.0% 5,400,000

2000 Kraków

2000 Prague

2000 Reykjavík +1.0% +3.4% 1,473,724

2000 Santiago

2001 Porto 1,246,545

Indicator

% change in Year City % change in Total arrivals Volunteer arrivals attendance at (ECoC year count (ECoC year) ECoC projects +1)

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).

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

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

City size simplified (population) ICC assessment

Country -

EU positioning European Commission

Geographical location within Europe UN-Stats

Host city name and year of designation -

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

25 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Contextual data: Overview

City pop. Pop. Geogr. EU Year City ECoC phase Country (m)19 size20 region 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.

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

2002 Bruges II- 1997-2004 0.12 Small Belgium West EU-12

2002 Salamanca II- 1997-2004 0.15 Small Spain South EU-12

City pop. Geogr. EU Year Host city ECoC phase Pop. size Country (m) region 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

27 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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

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

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 , 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.

29 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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, School of Economics and Political Science.

Luxemburg 1995  Fontanari M., Faby K., Fontanari M., Johst R., Kern A., Ludwig C. and Sommer A., 2002. Überprüfung der Umsetzung des strategischen Tourismuskonzeptes aus dem Jahr 1992 und Ableitung neuer Ansätze für den kommenden Fünfjahresplan des Großherzogtums Luxemburg. Europäisches Tourismus Institut.

Copenhagen 1996  Davies T., 1998. European City of Culture Copenhagen '96, report 1998. Copenhagen ’96.  Davies T., 2012. The decade after: Copenhagen 1996. Bruges 2012 Conference - The Decade After: The Legacy of European Capitals of Culture, 22 May 2012, Brugge, Belgium.  Fridberg T., Koch-Nielsen I., 1997. Cultural capital of Europe Copenhagen '96. The Danish National Institute of Social Research, Report 97:22, Copenhagen.

Thessaloniki 1997  Deffner A., Labrianidis L., 2005. Planning culture and time in a mega-event: Thessaloniki as the European City of Culture in 1997. International Planning Studies 10/3-4, 241-264.  Kalogirou N., 2003. Public architecture and culture: The case of Thessaloniki as European City of Culture for 1997. In: A. Deffner, D. Konstadakopulos, Y. Psycharis (editors), Culture and Regional Economic Development in Europe, Thessaly University Press, Volos.  Labrianidis L., Deffner A., 2000. European cities of culture: Impacts in economy, culture and theory. In: P. Delladetsimas, V. Hastaoglou, C. Hatzimihalis, M. Mantouvalou, D. Vaiou (editors), Towards a Radical Cultural Agenda for European Cities and Regions, Kyriakidis Thessaloniki, 23-58.

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

 Labrianidis L., Ioannou D., Katsikas I., Deffner A., 1996. Evaluation of the anticipated economic implications from European City of Culture Thessaloniki 1997, European City of Culture Thessaloniki ’97.  Tzonos P., 1998. The projects of Thessaloniki, European City of Culture, as carriers of culture. Entefktirio 42/43, 77–88.

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

Weimar 1999  Hassenpflug D., 1999. Die Arena in der Arena. Weimar, Kulturstadt Europas 1999 (AidA), Analysen und Daten zur Politik des Events. Unpublished MA thesis, Bauhaus Universitat Weimar - Facultat Architektur.  Martinez, J.G., 2007. Selling avant-garde: How Antwerp became a fashion capital (1990-2002). Urban Studies 44/12, 2449-2464.  Roth S., Frank S., 2000. Festivalization and the media: Weimar, Cultural Capital of Europe 1999. International Journal of Cultural Policy 6/2, 219-41.  Weimar 1999, 1999. Weimar 1999 - Programme highlights. Weimar 1999.

Comparative work early period  Pápari A., 2011. The identity of the European city through the institution of cultural capital of Europe 1985-1997. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.  Patel K., 2012. Integration by interpellation: The European Capitals of Culture and the role of experts in European Union cultural policies. Journal of Common Market Studies 51/3, 538-554.  Rennen W., 2007. City events: Place selling in a media age. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.

2000 cities  Avignon 2000, 1998. Philosophie du programme: passage vers le troisieme millenaire. Avignon 2000.  Avignon 2000, 2000. Vision 2001 Avignon, Propositión d'Avignon pour Le Festival de la Phographie de Spectacle. Mission d'Avignon.  Brussels 2000, 1997. For a Contemporary City, Brussels, European Cultural City of the year 2000. Summary of the report on the preparatory phase - 18 November 1997. Brussels 2000.  Brussels 2000, 2001. Brussel 2000, rapport final, Tome 1: la programmation. Brussels 2000.  Cogliandro G., 2000. Neuf villes européennes de la culture de l'an 2000 réunies dans l'AECC/AVEC. Conference SITC2000, 28 April 2000, Barcelona, Spain.  Cogliandro G., online, 2001. European Cities of Culture for the Year 2000. A wealth of urban cultures for celebrating the turn of the century. European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/archive/ecocs/pdf_word/capital2000_report_en.pdf  De Munnynck M., 1998. Bruxelles 2000 Brussel 2000. Pôles culturel de quartier.  Heikkinen T., 2000. In from the margins: The City of Culture and the image transformation of Helsinki. International Journal of Cultural Policy 6/2, 201-18.  Helsinki 2000, 2000a. Helsinki, a European City of Culture in 2000: Report. Helsinki 2000.

31 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

 Helsinki 2000, 2000b. Helsinki 2000 - Year of culture, environmental and urban art. Helsinki 2000.  Hughes H., Allen D., Wasik D., 2003. The significance of European “Capital of Culture” for tourism and culture: the case of Kraków 2000. International Journal of Arts Management 5/3, 12-23.  Ingram M., 2010. Promoting Europe through ‘unity in diversity’: Avignon as European Capital of Culture in 2000. Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe 10/1, 14-25.  Krakow 2000, 2001. The Krakow 2000 European City of Culture Programme, final report. Biuro Kraków 2000.  Patteeuw V., 1998. Thinking the city, feasibility study - Brussel 2000. Brussels 2000 Office.  Reme E., 2002. Exhibition and experience of cultural identity: The case of Bergen – European City of Culture. Ethnologia Europaea 32/2, 37-46.  Sjøholt, P., 1999. Culture as a strategic development device: The role of “European Cities of Culture”, with particular reference to Bergen. European Urban and Regional Studies 6/4, 339–347.

Porto and Rotterdam 2001  Balsas, C.J.L., 2004. City centre regeneration in the context of the 2001 European Capital of Culture in Porto, Portugal. Local Economy 19/4, 396-410.  Porto 2001, 2001. Programa cultural. Porto 2001.  Richards G., Hitters E., Fernandes C., 2002. Rotterdam and Porto, Cultural Capitals 2001: Visitor research. ATLAS, Arnhem.  Santos M.L.L.Dos, Gomes R.T., Neves J.S. et al., 2003. Publicos do Porto 2001. Observatoril das Actividades Culturais, Lisbon.  Sucena S., 2004. Porto, capital europeia da cultura 2001. os elementos de um projecto urbano. o caso da baixa portuense. Revista de Arquitectura e Urbanismo da Universidade Fernando Pessoa 0, 5.  Hitters E., 2000. The social and political construction of a European Cultural Capital: Rotterdam 2001. International Journal of Cultural Policy 6/2, 183-199.

Bruges and Salamanca 2002  Boyko C., 2008. Are you being served? The impacts of a tourist hallmark event on the place meanings of residents. Event Management 11/4, 161-177.  Brugge 2002, 2003. Concise. Brugge 2002 - Impact Study summary. Brugge 2002.  Brugge 2002, 2012. Lasting effects of Bruges 2002. Bruges 2012 Conference - The Decade After: The Legacy of European Capitals of Culture, 22 May 2012, Bruges, Belgium.  Decoutere S., 2003. Cultural heritage - Some European social, educational and public awareness raising objectives of the cultural heritage policy and their implementation in Flanders. University of North London / Zuyd University of Applied Science.  Herrero L.C., Sanz J.A., Devesa M., Bedate A., del Barrio, M.J., 2006. The economic impact of cultural events: A case-study of Salamanca 2002, European Capital of Culture. European Urban and Regional Studies 13/1, 41-57.  Monte G., 2001. European Capitals of Culture. Assessment and case study, Culturele Hoofdstad van Europa, Brugge 2002. College of Europe Bruges.  Salamanca 2002, 2000. Salamanca 2002 programme. Salamanca 2002.

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

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, , 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.

33 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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

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

 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 , 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.

35 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Liverpool 2008  Anderson B., Holden A., 2008. Affective urbanism and the event of hope. Space and Culture 11/2, 142-159.  Boland P., 2008. The construction of images and people and place: Labelling Liverpool and stereotyping Scousers. Cities 25/6, 355-369.  Campbell P., 2011. Creative industries in a European Capital of Culture. International Journal of Cultural Policy 7/5, 510-522.  Campbell P., online, 2013. Imaginary success? The contentious ascendance of creativity. European Planning Studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ 10.1080/09654313.2012.753993#.Ucrhfvm0KSo  Churchill H., Homfray M., online, 2008. Whose culture? Gay culture in Liverpool. 2nd UNeECC Annual Conference, http://www.uneecc.org/userfiles/File/ Gay_Culture_in_Liverpool-Dr_Helen_Churchill_and_Dr_Mike_Homfray.pdf  Cohen S., 2012. Musical memory, heritage and local identity: Remembering the popular music past in a European Capital of Culture, International Journal of Cultural Policy 19/5, 576-594.  Connolly M.G., 2013. The ‘Liverpool model(s)’: Cultural planning, Liverpool and Capital of Culture 2008. International Journal of Cultural Policy 19/2, 162-181.  Cox T., O’Brien D., 2012. The "Scouse Wedding" and other myths and legends: Reflections on the evolution of a "Liverpool model" for culture-led regeneration. Cultural Trends 21/2, 93-101.  Department of Culture, Media and Sport, online, 2002. Six cities make short list for European Capital of Culture 2008. DCMS, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ +/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/2877.aspx  ENWRS and Impacts 08, 2010. The Economic Impact of Visits Influenced by the Liverpool European Capital of Culture in 2008. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  ERM Economics, online, 2003. European Capital of Culture 2008. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of Liverpool's Bid. ERM Economics, http://image.guardian.co.uk/ sys-files/Society/documents/2003/06/10/finalreport.pdf  Garcia B., 2006. Media impact assessment (Part I). Baseline findings on Liverpool press coverage before the European Capital of Culture (1996-2005). Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Garcia, B., 2008. Symbolic maps of Liverpool 2008. Capturing conflicting narratives to understand the meaning(s) of culture-led regeneration. Leisure Studies Association Annual Conference, 8-10 July, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool.  Garcia B., 2010. Media impact assessment (Part II). Evolving press and broadcast narratives on Liverpool from 1996 to 2009. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Garcia B., Melville R., Cox T., 2010. Creating an impact: Liverpool’s experience as European Capital of Culture. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Griffiths R., 2006. City/culture discourses: Evidence from the competition to select the European Capital of Culture 2008. European Planning Studies 14/4, 415-30.  Hunter-Jones P., Warnaby G., 2009. Student perceptions of the European Capital of Culture: University choice and Liverpool 08. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Impacts 08, 2008a. European Capital of Culture and Liverpool’s developer market. Impacts and interactions. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Impacts 08, 2008b. Local area studies – Baseline and 2007 results. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Impacts 08, 2008c. Local area studies – Key statistics and mapping of the four local areas. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Impacts 08, 2008d. Who pays the piper? Understanding the experience of organisations sponsoring the Liverpool European Capital of Culture, Liverpool. Impacts 08, Liverpool.

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

 Impacts 08, 2009a. Liverpool’s arts sector – Sustainability and experience: How artists and arts organisations engaged with the Liverpool European Capital of Culture. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Impacts 08, 2009b. Liverpool’s creative industries. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Impacts 08, 2010a. Volunteering for culture: Exploring the impact of being an 08 Volunteer. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Impacts 08, 2010b. Neighbourhood impacts. A longitudinal research study into the impact of the Liverpool European Capital of Culture on local residents. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Independent Advisory Panel for the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008, 2003. Report on the short-listed applications for the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008. Independent Advisory Panel for the UK nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008.  Jones P., Wilks-Heeg S., 2004. Capitalising culture: Liverpool 2008. Journal of Local Economy 19/4, 341-360.  Miah, A., Adi, A., 2009. Liverpool 08 Centre of the Online Universe: the impact of the Liverpool European Capital of Culture within social media environments. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Lashua B.D., 2011. An atlas of musical memories: Popular music, leisure and urban change in Liverpool. Leisure/Loisir 35/2, 133-152.  Lask T., 2011. Cognitive maps: A sustainable tool for impact evaluation. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 3/1, 44-62.  Little S., 2008. Liverpool ’08 – brand and contestation. In: L. Malikova, M. Sirak (editors), Regional and Urban Regeneration in European Peripheries: What Role for Culture? Institute of Public Policy Bratislava, 44–50.  Liverpool 2008, 2005. Strategic Business Plan 2005-2009. Liverpool 2008.  Liverpool 2008, 2007. 2008 Programme. Liverpool 2008.  Liverpool City Council, 2007. Creative learning networks - Coming of Age Programme, Liverpool City Council.  Liverpool City Council, 2008. Generation 21. Liverpool City Council.  Liverpool Culture Company Limited, 2002. The world in one city: Extract from Liverpool’s bid document. Liverpool Culture Company.  McEvoy D. and Impacts 08., 2009. Tourism and the business of culture: The views of small and medium sized tourism enterprises of Liverpool European Capital of Culture 2008. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Miles M., 2005. Interruptions: Testing the rhetoric of culturally led urban development. Urban Studies 42/5, 889-911.  O’Brien D., 2011. Who is in charge? Liverpool, European Capital of Culture 2008 and the governance of cultural planning. Town Planning Review 82/1, 45-59.  O'Brien D., Miles S., 2010. Cultural policy as rhetoric and reality: A comparative analysis of policy making in the peripheral north of England. Cultural Trends 19/1-2, 3-13.  Platt L., 2011. Liverpool 08 and the performativity of identity. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 3/1, 31-43.  Sapsford D., Southern A., 2007. Measuring the economic impacts of Liverpool European Capital of Culture: Baseline economic indicators and the Merseyside business base. Impacts 08, Liverpool.  Shukla P., Brown J., Harper D., 2006. Image association and European capital of culture: Empirical insights through the case study of Liverpool. Tourism Review 61/4, 6-12.

37 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

 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.

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

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 , 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

39 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

 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

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

Istanbul 2010  Akçakaya I., Özeçevık Ö., 2008a. Building the future by measuring cultural impacts: Istanbul ECOC 2010 urban regeneration theme. In: L. Malikova, M. Sirak (editors), Regional and Urban Regeneration in European Peripheries: What Role for Culture?, Bratislava Institute of Public Policy, 84-98.  Akçakaya I., Özeçevık Ö., 2008b. Urban regeneration and the impact of culture towards prospects for Istanbul ECoC 2010: The case of Zeytinburnu Culture Valley. 48th Congress of the European Regional Science Association.  Altinbasak I., Yalçin E., 2010. City image and museums: The case of Istanbul. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 4/3, 241-251.  Beyazıt E., Tosun Y., 2006. Evaluating Istanbul in the Process of European Capital of Culture 2010. 42nd ISoCaRP Congress, 2006.  Bilsel C., Arican T., 2010. Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture: An impetus for the regeneration of the historic city. Rivista di Scienze del Turismo 2, 215-241.  Bıçakçı A.B., 2012. Branding the city through culture: Istanbul, European Capital of Culture 2010. International Journal of Human Sciences 9/1, 994-1006.  Gümüs K., 2010. Creating interfaces for a sustainable cultural programme for Istanbul: An interview with Korhan Gümüs. Architectural Design 80/1, 70-75.  Gunay Z., 2010. Conservation versus regeneration?: Case of European Capital of Culture 2010 Istanbul. European Planning Studies 18/8, 1173-1186.  Hoyng R., 2012. Popping up and fading out: Participatory networks and Istanbul’s creative city project. Culture Machine 13, 1-23.  Initiative Group, 2005. Istanbul: A city of the four elements. European Capital of Culture bidding document.  Istanbul 2010, 2010. Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Program Contents. Istanbul 2010.  Kuzgun E., Göksel T., Özalp D., Somer B., Alvarez M.D., 2010. Perceptions of Local People Regarding Istanbul as a European Capital of Culture. Pasos: Revista de turismo y patrimonio cultural 8/3, 27-37.

Pécs 2010  Bakucz M., 2008. Pécs 2010 – European Capital of Culture on the periphery. In: L. Malikova, M. Sirak (editors), Regional and Urban Regeneration in European Peripheries: What Role for Culture?, Institute of Public Policy, Bratislava, 73-83.  Farago L., 2012. Urban regeneration in a City of Culture: The case of Pecs, Hungary. European Spatial Research and Policy 19/2, 103-120.  Lähdesmäki T., online, 2012b. Discourses of Europeanness in the reception of the European Capital of Culture events: The case of Pécs 2010. European Urban and Regional Studies (published online before print), 1-15.  Pécs 2010, 2005. Borderless city. Pécs European Capital of Culture 2010. Pécs 2010.  Pécs 2010, 2008. The marketing strategy of the Pécs 2010 European Capital of Culture program. Pécs 2010.  Pécs 2010, 2009a. Borderless city. Pécs European Capital of Culture 2010. Pécs 2010.  Pécs 2010, 2009b. Pécs2010 European Capital of Culture. Monitoring report. Brussels, 22 April 2009. Pécs 2010.  Zalaföldi A., 2013. Evaluation Report - To what extent did the objectives of Pécs as a European Capital of Culture (2010) fulfill the criteria laid down in Article 4 of Decision 1622/2006/EC. Unpublished MA thesis, Maastricht University.

41 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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.

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

 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.

43 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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, .  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, .

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

 Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2017, 2011d. Designation of the European Capital of Culture 2017 in Denmark. Pre-selection report. European Commission, Copenhagen.  Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2017, 2012a. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2017 in Cyprus. Final selection report. European Commission, Nicosia.  Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2017 in Denmark, 2012b. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2017 in Denmark. Final selection report. European Commission, Copenhagen.  Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2018, 2012c. Nomination of the European Capital of Culture 2018 in Malta. Pre-selection report. European Commission, Valletta.  Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture 2018, 2012d. Selection of the European Capital of Culture for 2018 in Malta. European Commission, Valletta.  Valletta 2018 Foundation, 2012. Final application for the title of European Capital of Culture 2018 in Malta. Valletta 2018 Foundation.  Zecková H., 2010. Pilsen Kulturhauptstadt Europas 2015 Ein Projekt für die Bewerbung. Unpublished MA thesis, Univerzita Pardubice.

Comparative and/or multiple ECoC city literature

EU policy documents

 Barroso, J.M., 2010. Plus de Culture pour plus D'Europe, 25e anniversaire des capitales européennes de la culture. European Commission.  Council of the European Union, 1985. Resolution of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs, meeting within the Council, of 13 June 1985 concerning the annual event 'European City of Culture'. 85/C 153/02.  Council of European Union, 1990. Conclusions of the Ministers of Culture meeting within the Council of 18 May 1990 on future eligibility for the 'European City of Culture' and on a special European Cultural Month event. 85/C 153/02.  Council of European Union, 1992. Conclusions of the Ministers of Culture meeting within the Council of 12 November 1992 on the procedure for designation of European cities of culture. 92/C 336/02.  Council of European Union, 2012. Progress report. 12558/12 CULT 102 CODEC 1903.  Council of the European Union, 2002. Council Resolution of 25 June 2002 on a new work plan on European cooperation in the field of culture. 2002/C 162/03.  Council of the European Union, 2003. Council Resolution of 19 December 2002, implementing the work plan on European cooperation in the field of culture: European added value and mobility of persons and circulation of works in the cultural sector. 2003/C 13/03.  ECoC Policy Group, 2010. An international framework of good practice in research and delivery of the European Capital of Culture programme. University of Liverpool, Liverpool.  European Commission, 1998. Ville Européenne de la culture et Mois culturel Européen. In: Direction Générale Information, Communication, Culture et Audiovisuel, Le Programme kaléidoscope Bilan 1996 - 1999, European Commission, 75-79  European Commission, 2009. European Capitals of Culture: The road to success. From 1985 to 2010. EU Publications Office.  European Commission, 2010. Summary of the European Commission conference “Celebrating 25 years of European Capitals of Culture”. Brussels, 23-24 March 2010.

45 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

 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.

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

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.

47 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

 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.

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

 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.

49 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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

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

Workshop participants

Name Organisation Biography

Franco Leeds Franco Bianchini is Professor of Cultural Policy and Planning Bianchini Metropolitan at Leeds Metropolitan University. He was appointed in June University, 2001 by the President of the European Parliament to the Professor of selection panel responsible for designating the European Cultural Capital of Culture for 2005. In 2007, he was part of the Planning and group of experts chosen by the Slovenian government to Policy 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 (, 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 for the 2019 ECoC title.

Constantin Sibiu Constantin Chiriac was the Vice President of Sibiu European Chiriac International Capital of Culture 2007. He continued to be involved in the Theatre ECoC programme as a member of the selection and Festival and monitoring committee for candidate cities considered during Lucian Blaga the period 2010-2012. University of Sibiu, General Manager and PhD Professor

Kris World Cities As General Manager for Marketing and Sponsorship for the Donaldson of Culture Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, Kris secured SA700 million in Organisation, private sector sponsorship, which remains the greatest Founder and amount per capita for an Olympic Games. He was also CEO involved in leading SOCOG’s marketing programme, which was considered the “best ever” by the IOC.

Kris moved to Liverpool in 2004 as part of the 'founding team' responsible for building the Liverpool Culture Company and orchestrating the development of Liverpool '08, in addition to running all of the events, tourism and marketing for Liverpool in the 4 preceding years. Kris began the journey there as Marketing Director and ultimately became the Director (CEO) in 2007.

As one of the projects that Kris took on after he left Liverpool in 2009, Kris began the development of the World Cities of Culture initiative as a result of the extraordinary experience in developing and implementing Liverpool, European Capital of Culture. The WCC initiative is led by a WCC Foundation that has just received charity status in the UK and Kris and

51 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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 Ulrich Fuchs is the Deputy Managing Director of Marseille- 2013, Provence 2013. After his studies in literature, history, Directeur sociology and theatre, he was awarded a PhD by the Free général University of Berlin. Between 1984 and 2005, he taught at adjoint/ Bremen and Universities. Between 1984 and 2003, he Deputy was also artistic advisor to the Bremen Municipal Theatre, Director 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 National Mary McCarthy’s previous experience includes being the first McCarthy Scultpture Executive Arts and Culture manager for Dublin Docklands Factory, Development Authority (September 2005 to March 2009). Director 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 Senior researcher Jukka Vahlo worked for the Turku 2011 University, project in 2005-2012. During the bidding process (2005- Senior 2007) Vahlo worked as a project planner and mostly with the Researcher Turku 2011 strategy. During 2008-2012, Vahlo worked as a R&D Manager in the Turku 2011 Foundation. Vahlo's main task was to plan and coordinate several research projects on Turku 2011 and support the Turku 2011 evaluation programme led by University of Turku. Currently, Vahlo works as a senior researcher at University of Turku, Urban Research Programme.

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

53 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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

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

55 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

APPENDIX E: MEDIA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Sources and periods of coverage

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

2001-2012:

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

June 2002-2012:

 Spain : El Pais, El Mundo

Criteria for source selection

The selection of sources was made first and foremost on the grounds of the coverage available for each country. Given the focus of the study on the long-term effects of the ECoC programme, it was considered preferable to prioritise the relatively small number of titles available through Lexis-Nexis that could offer extensive temporal coverage, as opposed to a broader range of sources that could only offer coverage for a limited period of time. However, a number of other criteria were also considered during the selection process, in order to ensure that the sources selected were not only extensive in terms of temporal coverage, but also as broadly comparable from country to country as practicable. These criteria included:

 Publication scope: Lexis-Nexis offers access to a number of local and regional titles, in addition to the better-recognised national titles. However, due to the inconsistent availability and coverage of these local and regional newspapers, it was decided that only national newspapers would be considered for analysis.

 Publication type: Although it would have been desirable to analyse a balanced selection of popular (tabloid) and quality (broadsheet) titles for each country, this was only feasible in a couple of instances, due to limited source availability. Nevertheless, the study was able to analyse at least one quality title (e.g. The Irish Times, Die Welt) for each country considered, including a number of Sunday editions.

 Editorial angle: For each country selected, the study attempted to achieve a balance between the political alignments of the newspaper titles available, although this was not possible for countries where long-term coverage was restricted to a single title (e.g. Italy).

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

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

Keyword searches

Using Lexis-Nexis, variations of the phrases ‘European City of Culture’ and ‘European Capital of Culture’ were applied to each selected source in its relevant language – with some modifications adopted in order to compensate for particular quirks inherent in the Lexis-Nexis system. The following core phrases were used, according to the language of the source concerned:

 English: ‘Capital of Culture’ OR ‘City of Culture’

 French: ‘Capitale Europeenne de la Culture’ OR ‘Capitale de la Culture’ OR ‘Ville Europeenne de la Culture’ OR ‘Ville de la Culture’

 German: ‘Kulturhauptstadt’ OR ‘Kulturstadt’

 Italian: ‘Capitale Europea della Cultura’ OR ‘Capitale della Cultura’ OR ‘Citta Europea della Cultura’ OR ‘Citta della Cultura’

 Dutch: ‘Culturele Hoofdstad’ OR ‘Cultuurstad’

 Spanish: ‘Capital Europea de la Cultura’ OR ‘Capital de la Cultura’ OR ‘Ciudad Europea de la Cultura’ OR ‘Ciudad de la Cultura’

57 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Yearly coverage per country (total volume)

France

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

Figure E1: French coverage of the ECoC programme – article frequency by year

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

Germany

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

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

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)

59 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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)

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

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)

61 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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)

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

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)

63 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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)

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

65 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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

Weaknesses identified and Successful city Strengths identified recommendations

Cork 2005 Vibrant cultural climate that Lack of ambition and quality for extends to deprived areas of city artistic programme, with inadequate focus on innovation Strong local political commitment and contemporary culture

Strong links with surrounding Capacity of city for holding high regions quality, innovative projects needs to increase and be better Adequate level of pre-existing exploited cultural infrastructure, with potential and ambition to Coherent and well-resourced increase this in longer term marketing plan required

International and European Dimension must be strengthened

Plans required for training of cultural personnel

Patras 2006 Level of political and financial Absence of detail made support perceived to be high evaluation of proposal difficult

Credible plan to attract tourists International and European that pass through Patras as Dimension lacking gateway to region Physical and human resources Major infrastructure projects necessary to host large-scale planned to boost capacity to hold events not present large-scale cultural events Incoherent artistic programme High level of local participation in that did not offer a diverse range cultural projects of content

Too little focus on the interests of young people

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

Luxembourg Inclusion of mobile events Confusing presentation of 2007 programme Recognition of potential of ECoC to achieve long-term impacts Panel recommended efficient cooperation with participating regions Liverpool 2008 Impressive level of investment Slightly more work required to refine overall ‘message’ of Comprehensive range of events programme

Clear focus on interests of International and European citizens and European visitors Dimension of programme requires strengthening Visible strategy for city development Clearer rationale required to explain programme decisions, with greater discussion of desired outcomes Stavanger High quality artistic programme Concerns over the density of the 2008 programme compared to the Authentic contribution to the regional population wider European cultural space City recommended to consider Programme reflects local, other possible means to regional, national, European and communicate with continent in global diversity order to boost tourist numbers, given its relatively small local Strong concept audience

High level of inclusion of ordinary people and young citizens

Intelligent focus on achieving lasting impacts both before and after ECoC year Linz 2009 Strong communication strategy Collaboration with groups within region needed to complement Well-organised finances collaboration with Vilnius

Possesses organisational capacity Panel encouraged city not to to host ECoC discount history of city in context of Third Reich Thoughtful and balanced artistic programme City advised to use ECoC to boost flagging tourist numbers

Greater emphasis needed on target audiences and the role of local people in the events

Consideration needed as to why the city was holding the event and what it hopes to achieve

67 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Vilnius 2009 Programme considered likely to Greater promotion of historic have positive long-term impact links needed on country 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

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

Pécs 2010 Strong concept and city branding Artistic programme requires further development Adequate infrastructure available in city and surrounding Appointment of artistic director should be made as soon as possible Programme featured innovative ideas

Turku 2011 High level of public involvement Unclear what anticipated long- term effects would be, for Strong partnerships with cities in example on creative industries the region Change required to ensure that ECoC programme integrated into challenging and daring art is long-term cultural development central to the programme and plan for city 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 Strong concept Vision and concept must now be 2012 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- High quality and innovative European Dimension must be Provence 2013 artistic programme strengthened

Strong concept Space should be made for possibility of new ideas or Highly capable management contributions team Participation of Provence area Broad political support in city and should be better developed surrounding region

69 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

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 Number of themes and slogans application needs to be reduced, with an increase in precision of the High degree of public programme involvement Need to differentiate between ECoC integrated into economic short-term and long-term goals and development strategy of city Need to build on international Position of city on the edge of the partnerships already developed Union seen as a possible chance to offer a new perspective European dimension requires strengthening Broad political commitment to event Although regional involvement is welcome, city must remain centre Well-organised governance of planning and programme structures Events of 2014 should be made High quality artistic programme more accessible to young people from across the continent Solid financial support

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

Riga 2014 Political commitment of city Public involvement in planning leadership and organisation weak

Strong cultural infrastructure and Little detail on proposed importance of the city within programme Latvia 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 Spending in years leading up to dimension and participation of ECoC should be higher disadvantaged groups European dimension requires High quality artistic programme strengthening

Innovative concept

Capable management team

Awareness of environmental impacts

Strong political commitment

Solid financial support

Strong public participation Plzeň 2015 Strong relationships with other European dimension requires parties at the regional and strengthening European level Concerns over quality of Clear and realistic budget programme

Private sponsor involvement Governance structures need developing further Excellent balance between cultural programme and More focus required on regeneration objectives evaluation

Broad political commitment to Lack of a clearly defined event communication strategy

71 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Well-organised governance More details on funding required structures, with experienced management team Private sponsor involvement has scope for expansion High quality artistic programme More resources for communication and marketing Wrocław 2016 Engagement of various groups, Greater explanation needed of including disadvantaged sections role of public in ECoC planning of society and organisation

Innovative environmental European dimension requires approach strengthening

Programme focus on intercultural Governance structures need and interreligious dialogue reform to make them more alongside cultural development efficient 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 San Sebastian High quality artistic programme Concerns over budget at pre- 2016 selection phase Strong level of public support and involvement in process Recommended to ensure that management structures are fit for Attempt to heal social divisions purpose through cultural intervention Recommendation that governing Sound finances bodies continue to involve wide range of political players Innovative artistic projects aimed at fostering cultural exchange at a European level

Broad political commitment to event Paphos 2017 Strong concept Feeling at pre-selection stage that concept required refinement High quality programme with and elaboration potential have lasting impacts Concern at pre-selection stage High degree of public that programme required further involvement, including those in developed, particularly to ensure the Turkish Cypriot and rural appropriate level of artistic communities excellence

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

Clear connection of ECoC year to Request at pre-selection stage for tourism strategy detail on how minority groups and wider population are to be Practical urban regeneration engaged projects, many of which were already underway 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 Overly complicated and 'abstract' event bid

Well-prepared and thoughtful Low financial commitment to application culture in city budget

Capable management team with Weak European Dimension experience necessary to organise event Clearer strategy needed to decide on goals of programme and Pre-existing cultural policy for the ensure its long-term legacy city Clearer explanation needed of the Discernible European aspect to role of surrounding cities, regions the bid and partners

Strong degree of public Review communication strategy participation, and involvement and increase its budget from a wide range of stakeholders during planning Recommendation for the city to stage consider the ECoC title as an opportunity to enhance local development

City recommended to concretise programme content Valletta 2018 Strong concept Further work required to develop and substantiate artistic Long-term structural approach programme and organisational aspects of project Location of city on periphery of Europe perceived to be a Lack of detail on main aims and strength intended legacy of the event - including the future of the Broad political commitment to Valletta 2018 Foundation after event the ECoC year

73 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Management team already in Central concept and artistic vision place in need of further refinement

Emphasis on younger generation European dimension requires strengthening

Request for further details on cooperation with surrounding local authorities

Request for more detail regarding budget

More information desired regarding public involvement, and greater efforts needed to stoke enthusiasm of citizens

Recommendation of full-time commitment of artistic director

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

Table F2: Themes and sub-themes used for the coding of city strengths and weaknesses at bid stage

Theme Sub-theme

Anticipated or potential On cultural activity impacts On country generally Potential for sustainable legacy Tourism potential

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

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

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

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

Other Accessibility to young people in other European countries

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

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

75 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

APPENDIX G: EVALUATING ASPECTS OF THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION

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

The Table below, based on Hoexum (2011), presents an overview of the aspects evaluated, the way in which they were operationalised, the indicators used and the way in which data was collected in the reports by Cogliandro (2001), Quinn and O’Halloran (2006), Luxembourg GR 2007 (2008), ECORYS (2009a, 2010a) and ECOC Policy Group (2010).

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

Table G1: Evaluating aspects of the European Dimension21

Aspects of European Operationalisation Indicators Method/source Dimension

Events dealing with famous Number of projects with a European theme Description of organised projects and their European artists that have been organised (ECORYS) objectives

Events with a European theme Activities with a Growth of participation in European activities Review of host city ECoC documents European theme (ECORYS) (policy documents, promotional material, (ECORYS) websites, internal documents)

Events dealing with European Number of activities with a European theme Stakeholder interviews and surveys heritage, the history and (ECORYS) identity of the city

Promoting European art Number of visitors Information on distributed funds provided movements and styles 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. 77 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Aspects of European Operationalisation Indicators Method/source Dimension

Cooperation, co-productions European cooperation, Number of European cooperation projects, co- Surveys carried out among cultural and tours involving artists and transnational activities productions, tours and exchanges (Quinn and organisations (Quinn and O’Halloran; organisations from other (ECORYS) O’Halloran) ECORYS) European countries

Engaging in specific Engaging in specific Origins of collaborating artists and Description of cooperation projects, co- partnerships European organisations / number of countries involved productions, tours and exchanges partnerships* (Quinn and O’Halloran; ECOC Policy Group) (Cogliandro; Quinn & O’Halloran)

Individuals and Number of individuals / organisations on Review of city ECoC documents organisations on exchange (ECORYS) (Luxembourg GR 2007; ECORYS) exchange (ECORYS)

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

Number of cultural organisations that have established lasting European / international contacts (Quinn and O’Halloran; ECORYS)

Number of transnational visits (ECORYS)

Cooperation with another ECoC in the same year (Luxembourg GR 2007)

Continued partnerships (ECORYS)

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

Aspects of European Operationalisation Indicators Method/source Dimension

Promoting European Increased visitor Reasons why tourists visit the city (cultural or Tourist surveys (Luxembourg GR 2007; (cultural) tourism numbers to cultural not) (Luxembourg GR 2007) ECORYS) institutions and touristic attractions (Luxembourg GR 2007)

Increased awareness Importance that tourists attribute to the Review of city ECoC documents (ECORYS) of the city as a European Dimension in comparison to the touristic destination regional dimension (Richards) among European tourists (ECORYS)

Origin of tourists* How well-known the city is among European Stakeholder interviews (ECORYS) tourists before and after the event (ECORYS)

Difference in number of hotel bookings per Data collected from hotels and tourist night before, during and after the ECoC year offices (Richards)

Number of requests for information at the Fluctuations in tourist tax income* tourist office (Richards)

Projects addressing social Organising cultural Number of people on [European] exchange Visitor survey with questions regarding cohesion events for specific derived from a specific social group (ECORYS) income, work and education level social groups* (ECORYS)

Number of projects targeting a specific social Information provided by the EU* group that have received additional European funds (Cogliandro)

Use of other European Use of other European Number of languages used to provide Review of city ECoC documents* languages languages during information about projects (in addition to the cultural events* language(s) spoken in the city) (Cogliandro)

79 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______

Aspects of European Operationalisation Indicators Method/source Dimension

Development of European Development of Number of countries participating in a network Description of the network’s activities networks European networks* (Cogliandro) (Cogliandro)

Geographical distribution of the countries in Description of interregional cooperation the network (Cogliandro) (Cogliandro; Richards)

Sustainability of the network*

80 European Capitals of Culture: Long-Term Effects ______

This Table, beyond providing more detailed guidance for actual implementation of research, also adds new aspects to the list of six key indicators found by Palmer/Rae (2004a), in particular the last three: projects addressing social cohesion, the use of other European languages, and the development of European networks, which points at the possibility for more sustainable initiatives than one-off collaborations and exchanges.

In addition to the indicators included in this Table, the evaluations looked into indicators that relate to the ‘European functioning’ of the ECoC as a whole. As noted by Hoexum (2011: 49), these include:

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

Hoexum (2011: 50) concludes that most evaluations published between 2000-2009 had shortcomings regarding the assessment of the European Dimension. While most did measure outcomes, they did not assess the societal effects of the ECoC. Evaluations often conclude that the European Dimension has received significant attention, and that the objectives were met, simply because many European projects were organised. However, whether these projects were measurably successful in achieving their European objectives is hardly ever discussed. The main issue appears to be that objectives are formulated in a very general manner, while operationalisation into concrete sub-goals remains lacking. Another important shortcoming is the fact that the opinions of stakeholders are given significant influence in many of the evaluations, as opposed to actual assessment of the opinions of the general population.

The above discussion underlines the problematic nature of measuring the somewhat intangible European dimension of the ECoC Programme. Providing clearer, measureable indicators would be an opportunity for the Programme, as noted within Chapter 7 of this study.

81