evaluate cultural impacts of events

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sjht20
Download by: [McMaster University] Date: 03 April 2016, At: 20:20
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
ISSN: 1502-2250 (Print) 1502-2269 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sjht20
How to evaluate cultural impacts of events? A
model and methodology proposal
Alba Colombo
To cite this article: Alba Colombo (2015): How to evaluate cultural impacts of events? A
model and methodology proposal, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, DOI:
10.1080/15022250.2015.1114900
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2015.1114900
Published online: 16 Dec 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 116
View related articles
View Crossmark data
How to evaluate cultural impacts of events? A model and
methodology proposal
Alba Colombo
Arts and Humanities, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
ABSTRACT
The increasing number of events has generated a growing research
interest in assessing impacts of the events. So far, most empirical
studies have analysed economic impacts, whereas social, political
or cultural impacts have been taken into consideration only to a
limited extent. The aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual
and methodological model to measure and analyse cultural
effects of events.
This article first examines how social and cultural impacts are
conceptualised and analysed by different disciplines, and then
proposes a new model to assess cultural impacts of events,
named Cultural Impact Perception (CIP). The model has been
designed using two steps, namely: (1) defining cultural impacts
and (2) proposing a new methodological model for the
assessment and analysis of these types of impact. The paper
concludes with reflections around the future implementation of
the model and underlines CIP’s contribution to the scientific
debate in this field.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 April 2014
Accepted 23 October 2015
KEY WORDS
Impacts; cultural impacts;
assessment; methodology;
events; cultural events
Introduction
Events are considered challenges and strategic tools for developing specific effects for
governments or private institutions (Evans, 2001; Gibson & Stevenson, 2004; Hannigan,
2003; Richards & Wilson, 2004). Therefore, during the last decades, there has been
increased interest in analysing the economic impact of events (Crompton & McKay,
1994; Devesa, 2006; Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2006). According to Douglas and Derrett
(2001), “[…] the success of a festival or event is commonly measured in terms of its economic contribution to event stakeholders, community and region”; in other words, events
“[…] are increasingly being regarded primarily as generators of financial benefits” (Snowball, 2008).
However, in this article I argue that the effect impacted on the community or the region
could be observed not only by economic aspects, but also by taking into consideration
social and cultural impacts that benefit or hinder the event-hosting society.
In relation to this idea, different researchers have put forward the need to analyse and
measure other types of impacts generated by events, such as environmental impacts
(Tyler Miller, 2002) and social impacts (Becker & Vanclay, 2003; Belfiore & Bennett, 2008;
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
CONTACT Alba Colombo [email protected]
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2015.1114900
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
Small, 2007; Small, Edwards, & Sheridan, 2005). In addition, other authors have considered
different types of event impacts, such as cultural, political or impacts on tourism, to
mention a few (Allen, O’Toole, Harris, & McDonnell, 2008; Bowdin, Allen, O’Toole, Harris,
& McDonnell, 2011).
Other researchers have attempted to measure and assess cultural impacts of events,
but most of the research proposes neither a clear epistemological definition nor methodological proposals specifically for cultural impacts (Delamere, Wankel, & Hinch, 2001;
Fredline, Jago, & Deery, 2003; Garcia, Melville, & Cox, 2010; Johnson, 1999; Small et al.,
2005; Waitt, 2003). Therefore, this paper presents a model that enables measuring and
analysing cultural impacts of events.
Model trends and definitions of event impact assessment
Several disciplines have different trends for effect evaluation, and some of them adapt the
definition of impacts according to their goals (Colombo, 2013). Some disciplines consider
impacts and outcomes to be synonyms, while others consider it important to assess
different typologies of effects generated by events, actions or activities. Consequently,
each discipline proposes a different methodology to measure and evaluate the impact
of events.
For instance, economic impact studies are not complex from a methodological point of
view, although they present numerous technical difficulties, which require the use of
different sources of information. Traditional models used for forecasting and evaluating
the economic impacts of tourism, can be applied to events, including computable
general equilibrium models, input–output analysis and cost–benefit analysis (Andersson,
Armbercht, & Lundberg, 2012; Colombo, 2009). Generally, these studies consider three
types of measurable impacts: direct, indirect and induced.
Some examples of economic impact assessment for cultural events have shown that, in
general, economic impact studies (known as the effect method) estimate the economic
relevance of culture and also analyse the activities and earning flows related to the existence of a particular cultural activity (Çela, Knowles-Landkford, & Landkford, 2009; Martinello & Minnon, 1990; Seaman, 2003; Snowball & Antrobus, 2002).
Furthermore, recent publications focus on the definition and measurement of social
and cultural impacts (Richards, De Brito, & Wilks, 2013), but when analysing cultural
impacts, authors generally relate them to other impacts, such as social, educational or political (Delamere et al., 2001; Fredline et al., 2003; Small et al., 2005).
Delamere et al. (2001), for example, published research on the delimitation of the
social impacts of an event, dividing them into costs and benefits, and identifying 47
social impacts. These authors put forward the idea of beneficial or non-beneficial social
impacts, considering costs, not so much in economic terms, but related to services or
resources in the community. In this proposal the cultural impacts are grouped with educational ones and are not considered to be costs but only benefits. The authors introduced
the need to make a delimitation of cultural impacts (even these authors grouped them
with other ones) as well as to consider the impacts benefits or costs. Later, Delamere
(2001) proposed the Festival Social Impact Attitude Scale (FSIAS), a model that refers to
the 47 items proposed by the previous study but cuts them down to 25 items. This
research is relevant for the academic debate on the cultural impacts of events due to
2 A. COLOMBO
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
two special approaches: (1) the process proposed for identifying the impacts by using perceptions of residents and (2) the consideration of cultural impacts as benefits for the host
society.
Fredline et al. (2003) share the same definitions of impact as Hall (1992) and Ritchie
(1984) but adapt the classifications and group impacts into six categories, as follows: economic, tourism and commercial, physical, socio-cultural, psychological and political impacts.
These authors consider positive and negative impacts but do not identify costs and
benefits. They consider positive, socio-cultural impacts, social opportunities for the
residents, local interest and intercultural contact, among others. By contrast, dissatisfaction, commercialisation and intercultural misunderstanding are considered negative.
These authors (Fredline et al., 2003) propose a survey in the local community divided
into three thematic blocks: (1) the impacts of the event; (2) the measurement of the
impacts on a scale and (3) the socio-demographic information of the respondents. The
paper highlights three aspects. The first aspect is the consideration that the same
survey could be used to analyse different events in the same community, making it possible to develop a comparative analysis. The second aspect is the proposal of analysing the
cultural and social impacts of an event through the perception of members of the eventhosting community. The third is that these authors reopen the discussion about the need
to collect information from independent variables, making it possible to identify smaller
groups or profiles within the larger group of informants. Therefore the relevance of this
paper lies in its underlining of the need to identify positive and negative impacts as
well as to propose a model introducing socio-demographic variables identifying profiles.
However, it should also be noted that cultural impacts are also grouped with social ones.
Taking this one step further, other authors have proposed an analysis model called
Social Impact Evaluation (SIE), made up of different analysis processes, one of which is
Social Impact Perception (SIP), (Small et al., 2005). In order to apply SIE and SIP, the
authors identify items to be analysed as social impacts. These impacts are grouped into
five different categories: impacts in the community, leisure, infrastructure, health and
safety as well as cultural impacts. It is interesting to note that these authors consider different categories of impacts, specifying cultural impacts without grouping them with other
kinds of impacts.
SIE is composed of a complex analysis system, which includes different aspects that
need to be analysed in a series of stages. The first stage, description, is where the event
is described in general terms; the second stage, profile, describes the profile of the
hosting community; identity focuses on the identification of the potential social and cultural impacts of the event; project is where the projection of the impacts is analysed in
an anticipatory way; evaluate focuses on the evaluation of the impacts; and the final
stage, feedback, is where the researchers provide the organisers with information, thus
making it possible to consider this information when making decisions in the future.
For some of these stages (project and evaluate) the authors (Small et al., 2005), propose
using SIP, which examines the residents’ perception of the impacts. SIP involves measuring
social impacts by means of a scale adapted by Green, Hunter, and Moore (1990), who analysed the environmental impacts of tourism in three stages: the first is based on the
respondents’ affirmation of the existence of the impacts; the second asks whether they
believe the impact to be positive or negative; and, in the third stage, they are given a
scale in order to rate the level of impact generated. This proposal is valuable for our
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 3
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
research, as it presents a model by perceptions of the community using a scale, about
existence, rating and intensity of the impact.
According to Pasanen, Taskinen, and Mikkonen (2009), “[ … ] there was a need for
extensive research and the creation of a model that could be used for assessing various
impacts of events [ … ]”. These authors proposed the Finnish Event Evaluation Tool
(FEET), a tool that produces information about several impacts of events, thus allowing
them to be compared. The FEET proposed a three-part analysis: research into the customer
profile; the economic impacts and the socio-cultural impacts. These were observed
through surveys on five profile groups: event organisers, visitors, local entrepreneurs, residents and policy-makers. This proposal considered some of the previous models such as
SIP and FSIAS in terms of the scale definition for the socio-cultural impact assessment.
After testing FEET on 12 festivals, culture and sport events, the authors concluded that
the innovative aspect of the FEET model was that it made it possible to investigate
several stakeholder groups at the same time, highlighting the challenge of combining
the evaluation of economic, social and cultural impacts in a single study.
After observing all those proposals, it could be considered that cultural impacts are generally grouped with other impacts, they are also sub-divided into different items and they
are identified as beneficial or costs for the hosting society. In terms of the methodology
used, as it has been seen most of the models use community perceptions, and generally
observe the existence, the rating, the perception of the effect and the intensity of the
impact on a scale.
Therefore, as has already been pointed out, even though there is increasing interest in
analysing impacts generated by events, there is not a consensus proposal for impact definition as well as for methodological approaches to observe impacts of event, as well to
observe cultural impacts in their own right.
The complexity of the cultural impacts of events
Events have become increasingly popular and greater in number in Europe over the last
few decades, however, not all events are similar. Different types of events can be categorised based on their size, theme and the type of participation they generate. Getz
(2010) proposes a classification of events into different types, such as cultural celebrations,
religious, political and state, arts and entertainment, business and trade, education and
scientific and sports events, among others. Consequently, it can be assumed that each
kind of event will generate different type of impacts, and probably not only those
effects related to the theme or type of event. For example, a business event may generate
not only economic impacts, but also social and cultural ones.
Focusing on cultural events, Snowball (2008) stresses that there is a seemingly endless
list of different types of cultural celebrations, festivals and events. Thus, it could be said
that at this type of event the representation of culture also takes place differently. In
that sense, as Delanty (2011) claims, cultural celebrations, carnivals or festivals provide
examples for debate on issues of representativeness, inclusion, access to resources, ownership and citizenship. Therefore, it should also be understood that distinct cultural events
also generate different kinds of impacts, related to culture, to the region or to the host
society.
4 A. COLOMBO
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
Following the idea that different kinds of events may generate several impacts, in a previous study (Colombo, 2008) I proposed the thesis that each event generates an action,
which stimulates social changes and effects, including political, economic and cultural
impacts. The cultural ones may differ from the political and economic ones, basically in
terms of their content, as they are related to culture, such as knowledge of culture, interest
in culture, respect and cultural acceptance, among others.
Figure 1 maps out the framework of the different changes generated by an activity,
assuming that this activity provokes social changes (including political, economic and cultural), and affects the region or the society in different ways (direct, indirect or induced).
But this proposal, does not specifically define the impacts, but instead gives some indications. Therefore, as a result, some components of cultural impacts such as cultural representation, cultural transmission, creation of cultural identity or preservation of culture,
may not be included in this proposal.
However this proposal, illustrates the idea that each event may generate different kind
of impacts, affecting in different ways. Therefore it may be important to observe each
impact in its own way, describing and delimiting the impacts and also using the correct
methodology for each type.
Focusing on cultural impacts, as has been pointed out, the actual academic debate does
not find a consensus about the definition and the methodology to analyse them. Generally
they are not delimited and defined as a category in their own right, and there are different
models proposals to measure them (Delamere et al., 2001; Fredline et al., 2003; Small et al.,
2005). Thus, different authors, using the insights from diverse disciplines, put forward
research to find a definition and methodology. Thus, it can be claimed that the assessment
and measurement of the cultural impacts of events is still a challenge for scholars.
The need for a new proposal
Having established an overview of the different definitions of cultural impacts as well as
the methodological proposals made so far, it becomes apparent that there are no specific
Figure 1. Action-generated social impacts. Source: Colombo (2008), modified based on Slootweg, Van
Schooten and Vanclay, Interconnection of biophysical and social impact model proposed in Vanclay
(1999).
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 5
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
definition and methodology focused only on cultural impacts. The complexity of these
impacts has most likely generated the tendency to lump them in with other impacts
instead of isolating them when implementing an evaluation process.
As has been seen, different types of events and impacts may affect the host society in
different ways. Therefore, aspects such as the intensity of the impact, rating, existence and
intentionality will be different for each type of impact and probably for each kind of event.
Even though there is a tendency to measure all types of impacts generated by an event,
the isolation of each type would allow the assessment to be more focused and efficient,
relying on a specific definition and methodology.
Furthermore, as different authors consider events as strategic tools to implement
specific goals (Evans, 2001; Gibson & Stevenson, 2004; Hannigan, 2003; Richards &
Wilson, 2004), I understand that the analysis of the cultural impacts of an event might
be as important to stakeholders as the economic effects analysis. Therefore, event organisers, policy-makers or sponsors could be interested in observing cultural effects when
evaluating their participation in the event, viewing the event capacity as a strategic tool
for implementing their goals.
Consequently, cultural impacts may be as relevant and significant as economic and
social ones. Thus, recommending a definition and a methodological proposal for assessing
the cultural impacts of events is considered of great importance. Therefore, an evaluation
tool has been configured with concrete variables, profiles and definitions.
A new model proposal: The cultural impact perception
In this article, I propose a new methodological tool named Cultural Impact Perception (CIP),
which has the goal to allow measure and analyse cultural impacts generated by events.
This adapts a delimitation of cultural impacts, selecting some items and proposals from
the existent literature. Moreover, it proposes a methodology for collecting information
about the following aspects of a specific impact: existence, rating, intensity and intentionality, as well as generating enough information about the informants to be able to create
profiles. Therefore, CIP proposes a model by creating a definition of cultural impact as well
by delimitating a methodological process.
Defining cultural impacts of CIP
To define a list of impacts and items for CIP, my starting point was to select items
suggested in previous studies (Allen et al., 2008; Delamere et al., 2001; Fredline et al.,
2003; Getz, 2010; Hall, 1992; Small et al., 2005). The impacts are selected according to
two different criteria, those grouped with other kinds of impacts, and those impacts
clearly related to culture. After this selection I have grouped the items under an impact
name, as well as if is considered a cost or benefit.
Table 1 presents the five impacts, proposed by CIP, with their descriptors and items and
also classified as benefits and costs.
As shown in Table 1, the five impacts proposed by CIP, their benefit and cost, are related
to different aspects; namely cultural information; cultural traditions; cultural identity; to the
capacity to acquire rights and responsibilities as well as related to the communal activities
aiding cohesion or exclusion.
6 A. COLOMBO
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
All these impacts are considered to be cultural, although they can be classified on two
levels. The first three impacts are related specifically with culture, while the last two, “integration” and “social cohesion”, are understood as the contribution of culture to a wider
impact in which other dimensions are involved, such as social, economic and political ones.
Cultural impact assessment and measurement of CIP
CIP proposes a method including different variables. As can be observed in Table 2, this
model has been designed using three groups of variables: the dependent variables, considering the proposed impacts, described above; the independent variables relative to the
different types of perception; and, finally, the independent variables relative to the profiles
of the respondents, which are divided into the socio-demographic, the socio-cultural and
involvement.
Table 1. The cultural impacts proposed by CIP.
Benefits Costs
Impact Items Impact Items
Information about
culture
Exposure to a variety of cultural
experiences through the community
festival
Shared experience
Disinformation about
culture
Negative community image
Preservation of
cultural traditions
Revitalisation of traditions
Traditions preserved
Loss of cultural
traditions
Loss of language
Loss of heritage
Traditions altered
Construction of
cultural identity
Validation of community groups
Impacts on the region’s cultural identity
Building of community pride
Opportunity to develop new cultural
skills and talents
Celebration of community
Impacts on the local character of the
community
Increased local interest in the region’s
culture and history
Loss of cultural identity Cultural profanation
Loss of cultural amenities
Integration by cultural
effects
Community pride and integration
Cultural integration
Creation of ghettos by
cultural effects
The experience of being
culturally marginalised
Community alienation
Social cohesion by
means of culture
Opportunity for intercultural contact
Community groups work together to
achieve common goals through the
festival
Variety of cultural experiences
Social exclusion by
means of culture
Cultural offence
Community pride in
divisiveness
Social dislocation
Potential for intercultural
misunderstanding
Table 2. The model of analysis for CIP.
Dependent variables Independent variables
Impact
(description of impact)
Perception Existence Perceived or not
Rating Considered positive or negative
Intensity The intensity of the impact on individuals and on the
community is evaluated
Intentionality Considered intentional or not
Profile Socio-demographic Age, gender, place of birth
Socio-cultural Level of studies, native language, nationality
Involvement Participation, place of residence
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 7
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
Perception considers three aspects from several methodological models (Green et al.,
1990; Small et al., 2005), such as: existence (observing whether the impact is perceived
or not); rating (identifying whether the impact is considered negative or positive) and
the intensity of the impacts. In addition, this proposal adds a new perception category,
intentionality, observing whether the impact is considered intentional or not by the organisers or supporters of the event.
The profile includes a further socio-demographic profile, based on the respondents’
characteristics of gender, age, place of birth and level of education, and a socio-cultural
profile, based on the cultural background of the individual, the inheritance received and
the cultural heritage that the person has acquired throughout his/her lifetime. The latter
one is built around two indicators: the native language and nationality, discarding the
inclusion of the level of education in this profile to avoid an elitist deviation. The profile
includes a third involvement profile, which indicates whether the individual is in any way
involved in the act or event. Both voluntary and involuntary participation are considered
for this effect. The involuntary part is identified using the place of residence indicator,
understanding that respondents who live where the act takes place are involved involuntarily. Voluntary involvement is measured by means of participation.
The distribution of variables between the socio-demographic and the socio-cultural
profile (rather than cultural identity) also adopts an open, complex and dynamic
concept of individuals and stems from the wish to avoid a model in which culture is understood in a deterministic way1. Hence I contemplate the need to justify these options by
examining them from a slightly broader perspective.
Thus, I considered that CIP contributes to the definition of a detailed people profile,
allowing not only the empirical analysis of different profiles, but also the observation of
differences in each profile’s perception of several impacts.
Discussion and challenges when implementing CIP
The construction of CIP is inspired by the models used in previous research, especially by
Green et al. (1990) and the SIP of Small et al. (2005). The latter work, although forming part
of a more complex analysis (SIE), is considered to be the methodological basis, as it permits
sufficient information to be gathered on each impact.
However, CIP differentiates itself from SIP (Small et al., 2005) through three aspects.
First, the definition of the impacts to be analysed is different, since CIP is only based on
cultural impacts, while SIP is based on a broader concept of social impacts. Second, CIP
adds an element, namely intentionality, giving this methodological proposal a new functional perspective relating to the evaluation of the effectiveness of the event. Third, CIP
contributes to the definition of the socio-demographic profile of the people, which
allows the empirical analysis of the different profiles of respondents, thus making it possible to observe the differences in perception of different audiences.
With regard to the implementation and the operationalisation of the CIP to a specific
event, I consider different suggestions. First of all it should be understood that CIP proposes an impact definition and delimitation, but it also constitutes a generic proposal
to guide researchers and analysts in their work. Similarly, as Vanclay (1999) has proposed,
it is recommended that these impacts should be adapted and selected depending on each
study or event, since there will have different characteristics and specific items on each
8 A. COLOMBO
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
case. Adapting the CIP model to the case should be done using a methodological process
that permits an objective adaptation and a selection of a correct list of impacts to be
analysed.
The profiles have been created using variables considered to influence significantly the
perceptions of the respondents. In other words, the profiles identify not only the involvement of the respondents in the event, but also whether they are locals or foreigners with
regard to the place where the act takes place. Therefore, I recommend that also some
other aspects should be taken into account when implementing CIP in a certain study.
For example, the degrees of perception should be carried out using a numerical index
that permits the greater and lesser degrees of perception to be seen. Also this numerical
index, for those impacts considered to be beneficial, should be drawn up in the same way
as for those considered to be a cost.
In general terms, CIP could be considered well-suited for use as an element for analysing and measuring the cultural impacts generated by an event. However, it is important to
emphasise that the adaptation of the CIP model is a process that will affect the posterior
analysis. Therefore, this process needs to be carried out in a careful and suitable way in
order to ensure that the posterior analysis can still be useful.
Concluding remarks
The objective of this study was to propose a model to facilitate researchers to be able to
asses and analyse cultural impacts of events. The paper suggests a proposal called CIP
designed by two steps: the definition of cultural impacts by considering some proposals
from the existing literature and proposing a methodological model to asses explicitly cultural impacts of events.
It is important to underline that this proposal was originally designed to evaluate effects
from cultural events, such as festivals and carnivals. However, after drawing up this proposal, and as CIP provides a definition of cultural impacts as well as a methodological proposal for their evaluation, I consider that CIP could also be used to evaluate cultural impacts
generated by other kind of events, such as sports, business or political events, among
others.
Several aspects of the model proposed should be taken into consideration. For
example, regarding the definition of cultural impacts, it is important to identify a rating
for benefits and costs in order to compare it with the ratings of the informants. CIP proposes that the rating of impacts should be defined as either a benefit or cost during
the delimitation of the impacts, although the informants should be asked whether they
considered the impact to be negative or positive. This will allow to compare what has
been proposed beforehand and the rating perceptions of the individuals.
The analysis of intentionality provides information about the perception of the
intentions of the organisers and administration conducting the event, aspects that
could also be used in other kinds of analysis, such as the analysis of the effectiveness
of an event in relation to a strategic policy. This aspect could open up the possibility of
observing certain relationships between the event and the stakeholders’ intentions
and goals. Thus, the analysis of intentions could examine correlations between the perception of the impacts considered by the hosting society and the initial goals of the
actors.
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 9
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
Also, it must be highlighted that CIP proposes a methodology based on the perceptions
of individuals from a host society, and therefore the results are based on subjective and
personal perceptions. Thus individual perceptions are the most appropriate indicator by
which to measure cultural impacts, since these impacts, due to their specific characteristics, are more subjective than other impacts such as the economic ones.
The model proposed in this article aspires to contribute to scientific debate in the field
by addressing the following aspects: (1) defining cultural impacts in a specific and isolated
way; (2) proposing to assess the cultural impacts based on the perceptions of residents;
(3) validating the existence, or not, of cultural impacts in the eyes of the host society;
(4) identifying the rating of cultural impacts; (5) developing a methodology that permits
the intensity of cultural impacts to be measured; (6) observing the perception of the intentionality of these impacts and (7) proposing profiles of respondents by defining social
groups that allow different degrees of perception to be defined.
Taking into account these considerations, the CIP model represents a proposal that
aims to contribute to the complex methodological processes involved in evaluating the
cultural impacts of an event. Nevertheless, it is a proposal and should be reviewed,
tested empirically, and evaluated against future research in order to ensure its reliability
and functionality.
Note
1. Are considered proposals from authors such as Maalouf (1999), who claim that an identity is
formed by belonging to multiple communities, as well as from Touraine (1997), who positions
cultural identity in modern times as a complex analysis, among others.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on the contributor
Alba Colombo is lecturer and researcher at the Open University of Catalunya, in Barcelona, and has
experiences in events research and education with previous posts at Universidad Menéndez y Pelayo
(Santander) and the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya. She holds a PhD in Social Sciences (2012)
from the University of Girona. Her main research areas concern cultural and creative industries,
events, and tourism, the relationship between those industries and events and tourism.
ORCID
Alba Colombo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8519-5203
References
Allen, J., O’Toole, W., Harris, R., & McDonnell, I. (2008). Festival and special event management (356 pp).
Milton: John Wiley and Sons.
Andersson, T. D., Armbercht, J., & Lundberg, E. (2012). Estimating use and non-use values of music
festivals. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12(3), 215–231. doi:10.1080/15022250.
2012.755276
10 A. COLOMBO
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
Becker, H. A., & Vanclay, F. (Eds.). (2003). The international handbook of social impact assessment.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781843768616
Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2008). The social impact of the arts: An intellectual history (248 pp).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230227774
Bowdin, G., Allen, J., O’Toole, W., Harris, R., & McDonnell, I. (2011). Events management (774 pp).
Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Çela, A., Knowles-Landkford, J., & Landkford, S. (2009). Local food festivals in Northeast Iowa communities: A visitor and economic impacts study. In M. Robertson & E. Frew (Eds.), Events and festivals.
current trends and issues (pp. 70–102). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.1080/13606710701406485
Colombo, A. (2008). The social and cultural impacts of film festivals. Paper presented at Arts, Culture
and the Public Sphere. Expressive and Instrumental Values in Economic and Sociological
Perspectives, IUAV University, Venice.
Colombo, A. (2009). Expansive waves of festivals: Approaches in economic impact studies of arts festivals. La revista d’economia della cultura, 3, 351–359.
Colombo, A. (2013). Efectos, impactos y outcomes: variantes tipológicas versus metodologías de
análisis [Effects, impacts and outcomes: typological variants versus analysis methodologies]. In
A. Martinell (Ed.), Impactos de la dimensión cultural al desarrollo (pp. 20–37). Girona: Documenta
Universitaria.
Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1994). Measuring the economic impact of festivals and events: Some
myths, misapplications and ethical dilemmas. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 2, 33–43.
doi:10.3727/106527094792335782
Delamere, T. (2001). Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes towards the social impact
of community festivals: Part II: Verification of the scale. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 7,
25–38. doi:10.3727/152599501108751452
Delamere, T., Wankel, L. M., & Hinch, T. D. (2001). Measuring resident attitudes toward the social
impacts of community festivals. Pretesting and purification of the measure. Festival
Management and Event Tourism, 7, 11–24.
Delanty, G. (2011). Conclusion: On the cultural significance of arts festivals. In L. Giorgi, M. Sassatelli, &
G. Delanty (Eds.), Festivals and the cultural public sphere. Routledge advances in sociology (pp.
190–199). Abingdon: Routledge.
Devesa, M. (2006). El Impacto económico de los festivales culturales: el caso de la semana internacional
de cine de Valladolid [The economic impact of cultural festivals: The case of the Valladolid
International Film Festival] (469 pp). Madrid: Fundación Autor.
Douglas, N., & Derrett, R. (2001). Special interest tourism: Context and cases. Brisbane: John Wiley and
Sons.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2006). Estimating the impacts of special events on an economy.
Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 351–359. doi:10.1177/0047287505274648
Evans, G. (2001). Cultural planning: An urban renaissance? (352pp) London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/
9780203459744
Fredline, E., Jago, L., & Deery, M. (2003). The development of generic scale to measure the social
impacts of events. Event Management, 8(1), 23–37. doi:10.3727/152599503108751676
Garcia, B., Melville, R., & Cox, T. (2010). Impacts 08. Creating an Impact: Liverpool’s Experience as
European Capital of Culture (64 pp). Retrieved April 2015, from http://www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/
publications/
Getz, D. (2010). Event studies. Theory, research and policy for planned events (480pp). Oxford: Elsevier.
Gibson, L., & Stevenson, D. (2004). Urban space and the uses of culture. International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 10(1), 1–4. doi:10.1080/1028663042000212292
Green, H., Hunter, C., & Moore, B. (1990, June). Assessing the environmental impact of tourism development: Use of the Delphi technique. Tourism Management: 111–120. doi:10.1016/0261-5177(90)
90026-6
Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark tourist events: Impacts, management and planning (215 pp). London:
Belhaven Press.
Hannigan, J. (2003). Symposium on branding, the entertainment economy and Urban place building:
Introduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), 352–360.
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM 11
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016
Johnson, C. (1999). Social impact assessment of gay hallmark events: The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi
Gras (p. 89). Paper presented at the 19th International Association for Impact Assessment
Conference, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Maalouf, A. (1999). Las identidades asesinas [Killer Identities]. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. p. 197.
Martinello, M., & Minnon, M. (1990) Les études d’impact: objectifs et methods [Impact assessments:
Objectives and methods]. In R. Wangermee, (coord.), Les malheurs d’Orphée. Culture et profit dans
l’économie de la musique (pp. 127–141). Brussels: Pierre Mardarga Editeurs.
Pasanen, K., Taskinen, H., & Mikkonen, J. (2009). Impacts of cultural events in eastern Finland –
Development of a Finnish event evaluation tool. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 9(2–3), 112–129. doi:10.1080/15022250903119546
Richards, G., De Brito, M., & Wilks, L. (Eds.). (2013). Exploring the social impacts of events (238 pp).
London: Routledge.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2004). The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam. Cultural
capital of Europe 2001. Urban Studies, 41, 1931–1951. doi:10.1080/0042098042000256323
Ritchie, J. (1984). Assessing the impact of Hallmark events: Conceptual and research issues. Journal of
Travel Research, 23(1), 2–11.
Seaman, B. (2003). Economic impact of the arts. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics
(pp. 224–231). Glos: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781781008003
Small, K. (2007). Social dimensions of community festivals: An application of factor analysis in the
development of the Social Impact Perception (SIP) scale. Event Management, 11(1), 45–55.
doi:10.3727/152599508783943219
Small, K., Edwards, D., & Sheridan, L. (2005). A flexible framework for evaluating the socio-cultural
impacts of a (small) festival. International Journal of Event Management Research, 1(1), 66–77.
Snowball, J. (2008) Measuring the value of culture: Methods and examples in cultural economics.
Leipzig: Springer Verlag. p. 230.
Snowball, J., & Antrobus, G. (2002). Valuing the arts: Pitfalls in economic impact studies of arts festivals
(21pp). International Jubilee Conference, Economic Society of South Africa, Johannesburg. doi:10.
1111/j.1813-6982.2002.tb00067.x
Touraine, A. (1997) Podremos vivir juntos? Iguales y diferentes [Can we live together? Likenesses and
differences] (445 pp). Madrid: Editorial PPC.
Tyler Miller, G. (2002). Ciencia ambiental: preservemos la tierra [Environmental Science: Let’s Preserve
the Earth] (456 pp). Mexico: Thomson.
Vanclay, F. (1999). Social impact assessment. In J. Petts (Ed.), International handbook of environmental
impact assessment (pp. 301–326). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Waitt, G. (2003). Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 194–215.
doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00050-6
12 A. COLOMBO
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 20:20 03 April 2016