Event and Quality of Life: A Case Study of Liverpoolas the 2008 European Capital of Culture

Yi-De Liu

Received: 21 August 2014 /Accepted: 29 January 2015# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies(ISQOLS) 2015

Abstract Events are emerging worldwide and are seen to have significant economic,cultural and social impacts on the host city. However, too often, the host cities focusedmost of their efforts on funding of events, with too little attention given to assess theimpacts of event on residents quality of life (QoL). Cultural events, with the EuropeanCapital of Culture (ECOC) as a prominent example, have emerged as a means ofimproving the QoL of host cities in Europe. Based on a case study of Liverpool as the2008 ECOC, this paper aims at conceptualising the articulation between cultural eventand its wider QoL effects. Methodologically, both objective and subjective measureswere used to provide a more complete evaluation of the impacts of cultural event,including economic impacts (i.e., the effects of tourism development and parallel urbanregeneration), cultural impacts (the effects of event programmes and volunteering aswell as the increase of cultural participation) and social impacts (the enhancement ofcivic pride, self-image and sense of place). It was done by drawing on a series ofofficial documents Impacts 08 research programme, supplemented by academicpublications. To transmit the value of case study, this research provides also somesuggestions for implementing effective event-led strategies for QoL improvement, andthe solutions for potential challenges.

Keywords Quality of life . Cultural event . European capital of culture . Liverpool

Introduction

Events have become an increasingly important policy tool for achieving a range ofdifferent objectives for cities and regions worldwide. Richards and Palmer (2010)argued that the overall aim of staging events should be to improve the quality of life(subsequently referred to as QoL) for all stakeholders involved. They said: Bif events

Applied Research Quality LifeDOI 10.1007/s11482-015-9391-1

Y.

can ensure that all residents can have their cultural needs met in an equitable way whileimproving residents sense of belonging, then they should contribute to QoL and besocially sustainable^ (p. 401). Cultural events, with the European Capital of Culture(subsequently referred to as ECOC) as a prominent example, have emerged as a meansof improving the QoL of host cities in Europe. Please see Table 1 for a comparisonbetween the ECOC and other well-known events.

The ECOC is an initiative launched by the European Union in 1985, with the titleawarded every year and on a rotating basis to respective European Union memberstates. Since then, more than 40 cities have been designated as ECOC. According toPalmer-Rae (2004), the ECOC program is arguably one of the most successful culturalprojects ever launched by the European Union. The origins of the ECOC were purelycultural; however, as the event has developed, it was used in different ways by thecities. Several researchers (e.g., OBrien 2011; Palmer-Rae 2004; Richards and Palmer2010) stressed that the ECOC has been a key catalyst for urban regeneration and had agenerally positive impact on the city overall.

In the UK, the improvement of QoL is one of the priorities of central and localgovernment. Culture and arts are also increasingly recognised as a means for promotingsocial inclusion and neighbourhood renewal (Belfiore 2002). Based on the rationalethat culture can help deliver improved QoL and local well-being, culture was beingintegrated into community planning processes across the UK (Creative Cultures 2004).For instance, the mission statement of Department for Culture, Media and Sport(DCMS) was clearly stated as to improve the QoL for all through cultural and sportingactivities, to support the pursuit of excellence and to champion the tourism, creative andleisure industries. Consequently, cultural policymakers have become interested insecuring evidence of the contribution made to QoL (Galloway 2012). QoL is, for them,a potentially valuable tool with which to assert the place of culture as a policy playerand to advocate for a greater share of public funding (Local Government Association2001). Also, some recent studies (e.g., Daykin et al. 2008; Grossi et al. 2011; Hackinget al. 2008; Michalos 2005; Michalos and Kahlke 2008) have tried to explore theimpact of culture on perceived or experienced QoL. These include studying the impacton QoL within the communities which organise the event, both looking at problems

Table 1 Comparisons between the ECOC and other well-known events

ECOC Olympics games / Football WorldCup

Size Major Mega

Content Culture Sport

Timing Every year Every 4 years

Location Staged in multiple dispersed venues oreven in public spaces with minimalphysical provision

Concentrated on large,purpose-built sites

Potential impacts on QoL Most cities pursue a more balanced effects,not only economic but also socio-culturalimpacts

Mainly economic, tourismand image impacts

Mega-event is generally defined as those attract over a million visitors (Getz 1997)

Y.-D. Liu

which may arise, e.g., crime, prostitution, etc. and positive effects such as increasedparticipation, social accessibility, image enhancement, social cohesion, and groupmembership (Fredline et al. 2003).

Situated in the northwest of England, Liverpool has always been a gateway to therest of the world and known globally as the hometown of the Beatles. However, the cityhas long suffered a poor reputation due to a period of economic and social decline bythe late 1970s and early 1980s. Liverpool has suffered the effects of national recessionwith high unemployment and a depleted business sector, and saw the opportunity ofholding the 2008 ECOC as a catalyst for wider regeneration (Impacts 08 2010a; Nobili2005). The aspiration to regenerate Liverpool was placed at the heart of the ECOCvision (Impacts 08 2010a). Liverpool considered the ECOC as one part of the longprocess of regeneration and took it as an ideal opportunity to launch a series ofregeneration initiatives. Although some studies (e.g., Chen et al. 2010; Kruger et al.2013) have linked events or festivals to the improvement of QoL, the articulationbetween cultural event and its wider QoL effects is not well researched. Most studiestend to concentrate on one type of event impact, particularly economic, but alsocultural, social and image impact. But these impacts do not necessarily contribute toimproving the QoL in the host city (Richards 2014). There is therefore a research gap inidentifying the QoL effects of cultural events. Based on a case study of Liverpool as the2008 ECOC, this paper aims at exploring the key effects of cultural event on residentswellbeing and QoL.

Methodology

Researchers use various approaches to define and measure a complex, multidimensionalconstruct of QoL, such as social indicators, subjective well-being measures, and eco-nomic indices (Diener and Suh 2000; Veenhoven 2000). Two scientific approaches tomeasuring QoL are usually applied: themeasurement of peoples objective circumstancesof living or social indicators, and measurement of peoples subjective experiences of theirlife or subjective well-being (Braja-ganec et al. 2011). Researchers define subjectivewell-being as a broad construct that includes peoples cognitive and affective reactions totheir whole life (Diener et al. 1999). More precisely, subjective well-being consists ofpeoples emotional responses, satisfaction with specific life domains, and satisfactionwith life as a whole (Diener et al. 1999). In this study, both objective and subjectivemeasures were used to provide a more complete evaluation of the impact of the ECOCevent on residents QoL, including economic, cultural and social dimensions.

It was done by drawing on a series of official documents Impacts 08 researchprogramme (Impacts 08 2010a, b, c, d, e), supplemented by academic publications andofficial websites. Impacts 08, commissioned by Liverpool City Council, is a jointresearch initiative of the University of Liverpool and Liverpool John MooresUniversity, which from 2005 to 2010 evaluated the social, cultural and economiceffects of Liverpools hosting the ECOC title in 2008. More precisely, the data sourceswere derived from the following four types of documents.

& Visitor survey (Impacts 08 2010b): There were two strands of work undertaken aspart of this project. First, visitor survey, constituting 2017 on-street interviews over

Event and quality of life

the course of 2008, was conducted to determine the motivations and behaviour ofvisitors to Liverpool in 2008. Second, bringing together the results of visitor surveyand a range of other data, the economic impact of the 2008 ECOC was established.

& Neighbourhood survey (Impacts 08 2010c): A longitudinal and multifaceted re-search was conducted into the impacts of the 2008 ECOC on local residents. Theaim is to explore the opinions of residents from a diverse selection of areas withinLiverpool. The research sample was based on four neighbourhoods, representingthe widest possible variations of the population. It helps to give a comparison ofhow the ECOC impacts on a wide cross-section of the population. Eachneighbourhood chosen was surveyed by a household survey, carried out in 2007,2008, and 2009. A total of 2252 people were surveyed over the 3 years.

& Volunteer survey (Impacts 08 2010d): two postal surveys were conducted inNovember 2007 and January 2009. The repeat survey allows comparison betweenlevels of cultural participation and interest in different types of activity before andafter the 2008 ECOC. It also provides an opportunity to look at volunteers reasonsfor volunteering, and whether the end of the programme had met their aspirations.There were 116 responses to the 2007 survey, and a further 196 responses to the2009 survey.

& Key stakeholders interviews (Impacts 08 2010d): This report outlines the investi-gation into the views and understandings of Liverpool ECOC, held by key stake-holders in Liverpool at the end of 2008 and early 2009. The research involvedInterviews with 18 organisations from three main groups, chiefly local developersand investors involved in regenerating the city centre, and those working in thestatutory and the voluntary sectors within the city.

Economic Impacts

QoL Effects of Tourism Development

Tourism is considered as a means to make a community a better place to live (Choi andSirakaya 2005) and a major industry that contributes to creation of local employmentand increased tax revenues (Uysal et al. 2012; Yu et al. 2011). Visitors coming to thecity for the event will contribute to visitor economy and cause a multiplier effect onincomes throughout related supply chains (Clark 2008). Events may also provide anincentive to develop new tourism accommodations, attractions or amenities (Smith2012). Numerous studies have examined impacts of tourism on residents QoL (eg.Nawijin 2011; Sirgy et al. 2011). Studies in the past found perceived economic benefits,such as job opportunities, additional and improved infrastructure, and recreation/leisureopportunities, had a positive correlation with residents QoL (e.g., Liu et al. 1987; Liuand Var 1986; McCool and Martin 1994; Roehl 1999). However, the economic growthfrom tourism does not always have a positive impact on residents well-being (Jeonet al. 2014). Tourism may result in a lower QoL when the costs exceed the benefits.Costs of tourisms economic benefits for residents QoL include loss of culturalidentity, environmental degradation, increased cost of living, friction between residentsand tourists, and changes in residents ways of life etc. (Jeon et al. 2014; Yu et al.

Y.-D. Liu

2014). Smith (2012) also argued that a sustained increase in tourism demand aftermajor event is not guaranteed. The visitor levels of many host cities return to pre-eventlevel. Even if an event city is successful in increasing tourism demand, tourismdevelopment may privilege only the interests of outsiders or create insecure andpoor-quality jobs.

For Liverpool, attracting more visitors to the city was a key aim of the 2008 ECOC.The ambition is to use tourism as a driver for economic regeneration, both directlythrough visitor spend, and indirectly through changing the image of the city in order toattract inward investment and emphasise the quality of the citys offer for potentialresidents (Impacts 08 2010a). From a tourism volume perspective, the ECOC triggereda huge visitor economy growth, with nearly 10 million in 2008 and over 18 millionacross the 4 years of programme (20052008), contributed more significantly to localeconomy and helped the city to foster a cultural image (Impacts 08 2010a). Accordingto the estimation of Impacts 08 (2010b), the additional visits driven by the LiverpoolECOC generated 754million of direct visitor spend and 14,912 full-time equivalentjobs. From the perspectives of local residents (Impacts 08 2010c), increased numbers oftourists visiting Liverpool was ranked as one of the top three positive outcomes ofECOC. Residents confidence in new investment has also remained strong. In 2007,77 % agreed that there would be a lot of new investment in Liverpool; by 2009 this hadfallen slightly to 76 %. There was also a notable increase in confidence in the value ofLiverpool ECOC as a worthwhile investment, with the percentage of residents feelingthat money would be wasted dropping from 48 % in 2007 to 23 % in 2009. Thisindicates a much greater level of confidence in the management and delivery of ECOCand its potential outcomes. However, peoples hopes for new jobs as a result of ECOChave fallen sharply. Residents have lost confidence in the ability of ECOC to attract andgenerate jobs in Liverpool, and this having declined considerably from 62 % in 2007 to33 % in 2009.

Parallel Urban Regeneration and QoL

It is commonly believed that urban regeneration can contribute to regional redevel-opment, cultural renewal and tourism development (e.g., Bianchini and Parkinson1993; Prentice and Andersen 2003; Smith 2003). Events are seen as a particularlyeffective catalyst for urban regeneration processes, which then can boost theconfidence and pride of the local community (Garca 2004). According to Smith(2012), events can help to instigate, accelerate and showcase urban regeneration inthe following ways, including: stimulate future development, overcome establishedstructure imbalances, accelerate or extend existing plans, provide narratives forwider development and showcase completed projects. For many European cities, akey motivation in developing event strategies is to stimulate physical redevelop-ment, add animation to the city and generate economic and cultural benefits(Richards and Wilson 2006, 2007; Sacco and Blessi 2007). The possibilities offeredby ECOC to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration were established by Glasgow the 1990 ECOC (Garca 2004), where the city attempted to boost its culturalinfrastructure, tourism offer and to rebrand itself with a new deindustrialised image(Cox and OBrien 2012). Glasgows success was highly influential in culture-ledregeneration within the UK and across Europe.

Event and quality of life

Similar to Glasgow, Liverpools ECOC was seen as a crucial signpost for the citysphysical and symbolic regeneration (Evans 2011; Cox and OBrien 2012; OBrien2010). Jones and Wilks-Heeg (2004) argued that the ECOC award in 2003 became acatalyst for further public and private investments, and projects concerned with theredevelopment of central Liverpool gained increased prominence and urgency.According to Impacts 08 (2010a), the overall regeneration process was particularlysupported by the following two developments: the Arena and Convention CentreLiverpool (AACL, housing the BT convention centre and the Echo Arena) and theLiverpool ONE shopping complex. A large arena and conference centre and a shoppingcentre were seen as a vital development to fill the gap of Liverpools city offer.According the investigations of Impacts 08 (2010e), some key stakeholders, includingindividuals from the statutory and voluntary sectors, local investors and developers,stressed the importance of the ECOC to the completion of AACL and Liverpool ONE.However, other stakeholders felt that the ECOC had added value to, but not drivenregeneration programmes. Although there was a distinction between two narratives, aconsensus was detected that Liverpool ECOC had added value to already existingdevelopments, or had acted as a focal point or catalyst for trends already occurring inLiverpool.

Evidence from the neighbourhood survey Impacts 08 (2010c) revealed the effects ofthe above two flagship projects on residents QoL. Regeneration and shopping wereranked by the residents as the 1st and 6th in the Bbest things^ list of ECOC. There wereseveral general references to Liverpools improved shopping facilities and especiallythe opening of Liverpool One. More precisely, by 2009, only 8 % of respondentsbelieving that Liverpools shopping facilities were worse than those of other cities, and44 % actively identifying them as better. This suggested that residents both valued theregeneration of the city centre (better shops; more places to eat; more to do etc.), andsaw the improvement of the amount, range and quality of leisure provisions as anoutcome of ECOC.

Cultural Impacts

Cultural Accessibility and QoL

Richards and Palmer (2010) proposed that a principal approach to achieve socio-cultural objectives of major event has been to improve the accessibility to culturalprojects and programmes for local population who will not otherwise participate. Theysaid: Bthe event programme should become an integral part of the cultural ecology ofthe city, with events making an important contribution to improving the QoL of allstakeholders (pp.473474). Berman and Phillips (2000) and Duhaime et al. (2004) alsopointed out that the distribution of access to leisure provisions and neighbourhoodservices is an important indictor to evaluate the degree of social inclusion. For manyECOC cities, socio-economic problems resulted from post-industrial restructuring andglobalisation have made event programmes as vehicle to achieve wider social purposes,such as community development and social inclusion. Access development can beundertaken in different ways by ECOC cities, but nearly all ECOC cities included atleast some programmes aiming to enhance the accessibility of events. An essential

Y.-D. Liu

aspect of improving the accessibility is through reaching out to local minority groups orconnecting community initiatives with mainstream event programmes (Palmer-Rae2004).

In Liverpool, the 2008 ECOC programme was strong in its concept and imple-mentation of social inclusion, based on a commitment to cultural democracy in acity of great diversity (Impacts 08 2010a). As a result, the neighbourhood survey(Impacts 08 2010c) revealed that the percentage of respondents who agreed that theECOC wont be things for ordinary people dropped from 37 % in 2007 to 21 % in2009. The other indicator to detect the inclusion effect of ECOC was to ask whetheronly the city centre has benefited from ECOC. There was a dramatic drop from2007 (66 %) to 2009 (56 %). Moreover, it was found that Go Superlambananasand La Princesse were the best examples of delivering unique cultural experiencesto the visitors. For the former activity, the replicas of Liverpools Superlambananawere decorated by artists and community groups and placed around the city. LaPrincesse was a 50-ft mechanical spider, which travelled around the city andallowed audiences to follow the spiders activity. The above two examples illustratethat those free of charge, mass audience, open air/street, and innovative eventsstood out in achieving accessibility. It echoes also the concept of sharing economy(KEA 2009), by transforming ordinary space into event space and involving aprocess of co-creation. However, for the 2008 ECOC, one major criticism remainedwas the focus and concentration of events in city centre and the lack of activitiestaking place in the suburbs. The survey revealed a strong sense that the ECOCprogramme focused too heavily on the city centre, and 56 % felt that only the citycentre would benefit from ECOC (Impacts 08 2010c).

Effects of the ECOC on Cultural Participation

Matarasso (1997) highlighted many different ways in which cultural participationcan contribute to social development, such as enhancing confidence, self-esteemand skills. Improvement in these areas can lead to improved health and well-being,creating QoL and civic pride. Richards and Palmer (2010) also argued that thesuccessful event city must nurture the cultural ecology of the host city. Culturalevents should be an integral part of the host cities cultural life and with deeprelationships with their local communities. As such, to attain the objective ofcultural regeneration, there should be a high level of community involvement andparticipation in the events programme. For many ECOC cities, raising the level ofparticipation and interest in culture is an important target (Palmer-Rae 2004). Themajor aim of 2008 ECOC Liverpool is both encouraging more people to take part incultural activities and increasing the cultural interests of residents, and thus en-hancing the sustainability of the ECOC. To stimulate participation across thepopulation as a whole, Liverpool established a dedicated organisation - LiverpoolCulture Company, in charge of coordinating a branded programme of events overeight themed years. The full Liverpool ECOC programme totalled over 7000activities in 2008 and over 41,000 activities across 4 years (20052008) (Impacts08 2010a).

As a result, 66 % of residents in Liverpool have taken part in at least one ECOCevent during 2008, and 14 % have also tried some new cultural activities, such as

Event and quality of life

visiting a cultural venue or attending a different type of event (Impacts 08 2010c).Moreover, the ECOC played a role as catalyst for increasing cultural interest. TheECOC has made 37 % of respondents more interested in cultural activities. Apart fromevent attendance, the percentage of Liverpool residents who have attended othercultural amenities rose between 2007 and 2009, from 60 to 69 % for gallery and from42 to 52 % for museum attendances respectively. Especially, participation in live eventsrose significantly, from 35 % in 2007 to 53 % in 2009. These results indicated thatECOC did change residents attitudes to culture, and coincide with the finding ofRichards and Palmer (2010); that is, the ECOC has in most cases boosted culturalaudiences quite significantly compared to previous years. However, although there wasgood engagement in the ECOC across the city, a noticeable variation was found. Lowerlevel of cultural participation was found in some disadvantaged communities, attribut-ing to both the cultural distance (lower cultural capital resulted from lower socio-economic status) and physical distance (travelling distance and cost) (Impacts 082010c).

Volunteering and QoL

According to Kwok et al. (2013), a considerable number of studies confirmed thepositive effect of volunteering on QoL. Individuals who have performed volunteerwork reported higher life satisfaction than non-volunteers (Stukas et al. 2008).People also consistently report an increased sense of life satisfaction and perceivedimprovement in QoL after participation in volunteer programs (Kwok et al. 2013).More involvement in volunteering and membership of voluntary associations arealso related to an increase in subjective well-being (Aquino et al. 1996; Thoits andHewitt 2001; Van Willigen 2000). In Liverpool, as a key element of the Liverpools08 Welcome programme, the 08 Volunteer programme was established in order todeliver better customer service for the year 2008. Managed by the LiverpoolCulture Company, there were 971 active volunteers and over 4000 registrations ofinterest and gave 6974 days of volunteering over the 20052008 period. Theprogramme also used volunteering as one way of engaging people from moredisadvantaged backgrounds in building confidence and gaining skills (Impacts 082010a).

So as to the outcomes of being a 08 Volunteer, the survey results reported a rangeof social and cultural impacts from the involvement. According to the volunteersurvey (Impacts 08 2010d), during 2008, volunteers visited museums, galleries, andlive music events more often than in the previous year, while the largest drop inattendance has been in clubs and night life. Moreover, given the emphasis placed in08 volunteering training programme on the heritage buildings of Liverpool, thevolunteers have greatly increased their knowledge of Liverpools history, heritageand cultural offer, and developed their confidence and the skills necessary fordealing with members of the public. Third, being a 08 Volunteer gave people theopportunity to meet people from all over the world, reach out to others and makeconnections and friendships. The sense of working together also gave peopleconsiderable personal satisfaction. Finally, people were confident and proud thatthey had made a positive contribution to improving external perceptions ofLiverpool, and in turn, enhanced their own pride in the city.

Y.-D. Liu

Social Impacts

Civic Pride and Self-Image

Cultural events are seen as a particularly effective catalyst for city regenerationprocesses because they are able to boost the confidence and pride of the localcommunity (Garca 2004). Other studies e.g., Getz 2008; Hall 1992; Quinn 2009) alsodemonstrated that cultural events have the potential in improving local residents self-image. Derrett (2003) and Council of Europe (1997) further argued that cultural eventscould help to strengthen local identity and civic pride, especially when local peoplewere given the ownership of event. As Lee (2007, p. 21) emphasised, Bevents are usedto develop the brand of a city, get it noticed and help it stand out. But the most effectiveevents are those that galvanise local people behind a shared vision or identity .^ The1990 ECOC Glasgow has been widely cited (e.g., Garca 2005; Quinn 2009; Palmer-Rae 2004; Richards and Palmer 2010; Richards and Wilson 2004) as a role model ofimage reconstruction. The study of Garca (2005) and Palmer-Rae (2004) revealed thatthe changes to image and local identity in Glasgow are the most important long-termlegacy of the 1990 ECOC. Measuring the change of civic pride and self-image is thus agood reference point for understanding the effects of events on inhabitants perceivedQoL.

In Liverpool, according to the neighbourhood survey (Impacts 08 2010c), theresidents ranked image change as the second most significant impact of ECOC,followed by regeneration. The responses suggested that citizens of Liverpool have agenerally positive view of their city due to the ECOC and there is a strong link betweenECOC and city image change. Furthermore, 85 % respondents agreed that Liverpool isimproving and has a positive future. There was also an increasing confidence inexternal perceptions. People believed that the view of Liverpool held by people outsidethe city has improved as a result of ECOC. In 2007, 53 % respondents felt that peopleoutside Liverpool generally tended to view the city negatively. By 2009, the percentageof respondents who felt that people outside Liverpool had a negative view of the cityhad dropped to 38 % (a drop of 15 %). This improvement was seen as the result of newcity centre developments and publicity arising from the Liverpool ECOC, and from thepositive word of mouth being spread by visitors to the city. Although residentsgenerally had a positive feeling toward the city's future, a minority of respondents feltthat attitudes to Liverpool outside the city were entrenched by continuing high levels ofpoverty and unemployment, and by Liverpools history of racial division. Crime andanti-social behaviour were still described by Liverpools residents as the key issuesabout the city (Impacts 08 2010c).

Effects of the ECOC on Sense of Place

Apart from the improvement of self-image, it is widely believed that event cancontribute to the enhancement of sense of place and local identity. According toCicognani et al. (2008), the concept of sense of place is used to describe feelings ofbelonging to different kinds of communities and it can be considered as a catalyst forsocial involvement and participation in the community. Matarasso (1997) showed thatextensive involvement in cultural activities had a positive effect on social cohesion,

Event and quality of life

community empowerment and local identity. Later studies (e.g., Derrett 2003; Jagoet al. 2003; Lade and Jackson 2004; Moscardo 2008) argued that community involve-ment, including support for an event, is an important factor in predicting the strength ofa persons attachment to a community or place. Derrett (2003) also found that eventscould help to create communities of values by forging strong and distinct identities.Richards and Palmer (2010, p. 418) noticed, Bsense of place is one of the key elementsof distinctiveness for cities, and cultural events can be an important means of under-pinning a sense of belonging and local pride^.

Throughout the programme, Liverpool placed a continued emphasis on the ECOCspotential role in strengthening the sense of place. For instance, prior to 2008 the citylaunched a campaign to encourage the support of the local community- Our Time, OurPlace (Platt 2011). Moreover, in 2005, Liverpool Culture Company held a campaign- 08Welcome, with an aim of building on the friendly welcoming image of Liverpool people(Impacts 08 2007). The other initiative, known as Creative Communities, aims atengaging the local community in the cultural life of the city and reversing the perceptionsof those who see the ECOC as only relevant to visitors. It was achieved by encouragingdisadvantaged communities to participate in projects that allow them to represent the cityand thus become active agents in the production of the citys image (Kokosalakis et al.2006). As a result, the neighbourhood survey (Impacts 08 2010c) revealed that, in general,there was a positive feel about the impacts of Liverpool ECOC on the city as a whole, Amajority of respondents, 56 % in 2007 and 57 % in 2009, agreed with that the city is amuch better place after ECOC, although the difference was not significant.

Although there was, in general, a positive feel about the impacts of Liverpool ECOCon the city as a whole, larger scepticism existed with the direct impact of ECOC toindividual community. According to the neighbourhood survey (Impacts 08 2010c), allfour neighbourhoods surveyed experienced a decrease in the sense of community, witha significant drop of 12 from 58 % in 2007 to 47 % in 2009 on average. It demonstratedthat the ECOC had no influence and even negative impact on the enhancement of senseof community. There was also a stark gap between Liverpools advantaged anddisadvantaged communities. Those disadvantaged communities were less likely toagree with the impacts of sense of community than the advantaged communities anissue related probably to the accessibility of events.

Conclusion

Events are emerging worldwide and are seen to have significant economic, cultural andsocial impacts on the host city. However, too often, the host cities focused most of theirefforts on funding of events, with too little attention given to the enhancement ofresidents QoL. Local residents are often seen as one of the key stakeholders of anevent. They are not only the main target audience, but also play a key role as eventinitiators and as a vital source of events sustainability (Nobili 2005; Richards andPalmer 2010). This research contributes to conceptualise the significance of culturalevent for inhabitants QoL. A summary of lessons learned from Liverpool could befound in Table 2. To transmit the value behind the findings, this research provides thefollowing suggestions, as well as challenges considered, for those cities attempting toadopt an effective event-led strategy for QoL enhancement.

Y.-D. Liu

Table2

Summaryof

lessonslearnedfrom

Liverpool

Effectivestrategies

Positiveoutcom

esChallenges

Economicimpacts

-Tourism-led

regeneration:

focuson

attracting

visitorsandinwardinvestmentas

wellas

changing

city

image

-IntegratetheECOCinto

theoverallurban

developm

entplan

-Hugedirectvisitorspend

-Confidencein

newinvestment

-Perceivedvalueformoney

inhostingtheECOC

-Acceleratetheentireregenerationprocess

-Im

provem

entof

leisureprovisions

-Unsatisfactoryability

ofECOCin

creatingnewjobs

Culturalimpacts

-Aim

atreducing

thebarriersof

participation

-Aim

atrealisingthespiritof

culturaldemocracy

-Im

plem

entvolunteerprojectto

achievewider

socio-culturalimpacts

-Increasedparticipation,interestandunderstanding

inculture

andcity

sculture

offers

-So

cialcapitalenhancem

entof

volunteers,suchas

personalskills,networks

andcivicpride

-Variationbetweenadvantaged

anddisadvantaged

communities

inculturalengagement

Socialim

pacts

-Launchaseries

ofcampaigns

toencourage

thesupportof

localcommunities

-Highlight

theinvolvem

entof

disadvantaged

communities

-Increasedconfidence

incity

sfuture

andexternal

perceptions

-Perceivedpositiveimpactsof

ECOCon

thecity

asawhole

-Unableto

getridof

thestereotype

images,e.g.,

crime,povertyandanti-socialbehaviours

-Scepticism

with

thedirectim

pactson

individual

community

Event and quality of life

Economically, the 2008 ECOC not only had considerable economic impact createdby visitor spending, but also accelerated the entire urban regeneration process.Although residents hope in job creation as a result of ECOC decreased, the confidencein the parallel physical regeneration, the improvement of leisure provisions and thevalue of money of hosting the ECOC all increased significantly. The major lessonlearned from Liverpool is its long-term planning and efforts made to integrate theECOC into the overall urban development strategy. However, the ECOC, in general, isonly one part of the long process of regeneration. As suggested by Evans (2011, p.6),Bone event alone is seldom enough to elevate or sustain regeneration investment toachieve competitive city or cultural city status and the social and economic benefits thatare pursued^. As such, only if a long-term regeneration plan is envisaged, could theimprovement of QoL be guaranteed.

Culturally, to realise the spirit of cultural democracy and to reduce the barriers ofparticipation, Liverpool treated access development as a policy guideline and adoptedmany measures. The research indicates that residents, including volunteers, partici-pation in the events, visit to the rest of the cultural facilities, and interest in culturalactivities all enhanced at a certain level. Moreover, volunteering contributed to thenutrition of social capital, such as enhanced skill, personal networks and civic pride.However, the task of increasing event accessibility was not without difficulties. Assuggested by Willems-Braun (1994), events, like other forms of cultural capital, areconsumed as part of the means of distinguishing self and others, and that participationis often limited to specific groups. That is to say, inclusion of one group often impliesthe exclusion of others. The research findings revealed that a stark gap was detectedbetween Liverpools advantaged and disadvantaged communities in cultural engage-ment. As suggested by Palmer-Rae (2004), due to the geographical location thosedisadvantaged communities and centralised cultural facilities in the city centre, a goodconnection should be built between specialist projects and the mainstream of the eventand the citys cultural life.

Socially, the staging of events can influence the social life and structure of acommunity (Arcodia and Whitford 2007). Liverpool suffered from serious socialproblems brought by the economic recession, and therefore considered the ECOC asan opportunity to promote social integration and enhance the sense of place. Generallyspeaking, there was an increasing confidence in self-image, external perceptions, andthe impacts of ECOC on the city as a whole. However, significant scepticism remainedwith the impacts of ECOC on individual community, which resulted in a lower level ofsense of community. As proposed by Richards and Palmer (2010) community goalsneed to be built into the planning of the events so as to maximise the social impact ofevents. The implementation of the community involvement strategies is arguably theprerequisite of improving local wellbeing and QoL. Palmer-Rae (2004) alsoemphasised the importance of community projects to the social sustainability of eventbecause they can often root well locally and are relatively inexpensive. Meanwhile, theresearch also noted that the activities with co-creation characteristics had significantimpacts on stimulating community engagement.

Although the Liverpool model has done much to advance our understanding to thearticulation between cultural event and its QoL effects, it is important to be aware of thelimitations of this research. First, this research indicates that while factors presented inthe analytical framework are significant, people may question the potential replicability

Y.-D. Liu

by other cities. Unfortunately, seldom ECOC cities collected and providedsystematically the measures of QoL as the Impacts 08 project has done, so it isunlikely to conduct comparative analyses at this stage or to judge the relative successor failure of Liverpool. Future studies may move into a direction to provide moreempirical evidence about the interrelationship and possible mediating effects of thesefactors. Second, the data of this study were derived from the research of Impacts 08, sothe QoL measures used here were confined to the availability of data. Other QoL effectsof events proposed by Richards (2014) are unable to test within this paper, such as therelationships between physical and virtual communities as mediated by events, theeffects of events on creativity, and interaction between different social groups, includ-ing residents and visitors, during events and their effect on quality of life etc. Finally, inunderstanding whether Liverpool ECOC 2008 is successful in enhancing residentsQoL, longitudinal study is necessary to identify any long-term gains or losses. Thisstudy provides therefore some points for future research.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive comments andinsightful suggestions. A special thank should also go to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwanfor the grant, numbered MOST103-2410-H- 003-093-MY2.

References

Aquino, J. A., Russell, D. W., Cutrona, C. E., & Altmaier, E. M. (1996). Employment status, social support,and life satisfaction among the elderly. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 480489.

Arcodia, C., & Whitford, M. (2007). Festival attendance and the development of social capital. Journal ofConvention and Event Tourism, 8(2), 118.

Belfiore, E. (2002). Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: does it really work? A critique ofinstrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK. International Journal of CulturalPolicy, 8(1), 91106.

Berman, Y., & Phillips, D. (2000). Indicators of social quality and social exclusion at national and communitylevel. Social Indicators Research, 50(3), 329350.

Bianchini, F., & Parkinson, M. (1993). Cultural policy and urban regeneration: The West Europeanexperience. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Braja-ganec, A., Merka, M., & verko, I. (2011). Quality of life and leisure activities: how do leisureactivities contribute to subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 102(1), 8191.

Chen, L. H., Ye, Y. C., Chen, M. Y., & Tung, I. W. (2010). Alegra! Flow in leisure and life satisfaction: themediating role of event satisfaction using data from an acrobatics show. Social Indicators Research, 99(2),301313.

Choi, H. S., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents attitude toward sustainable tourism: developmentofsustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 380394.

Cicognani, E., Pirini, C., Keyes, C., Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2008). Social participa-tion, sense of community and social well-being: a study on American, Italian and Iranian universitystudents. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 97112.

Clark, G. (2008). Local development benefits from staging global events. Paris: lOCDE.Council of Europe. (1997). In from the Margins A contribution to the debate on culture and development in

Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Cox, T., & OBrien, D. (2012). The Bscouse wedding^ and other myths: reflections on the evolution of a

BLiverpool model^ for culture-led urban regeneration. Cultural Trends, 21(2), 93101.Creative Cultures. (2004). Leading the Good Life: Guidance on Integrating Cultural and Community

Strategies. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.Daykin, N., Orme, J., Evans, D., Salmon, D., McEachran, M., & Brain, S. (2008). The impact of participation

in performing arts on adolescent health and behavior: a systematic review of the literature. Journal ofHealth Psychology, 13(2), 251264.

Event and quality of life

Derrett, R. (2003). Making sense of how festivals demonstrate a communitys sense of place. EventManagement, 8(1), 4958.

Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (Eds.). (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge: MIT Press.Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress.

Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276302.Duhaime, G., Searles, E., Usher, P., Myers, H., & Frchette, P. (2004). Social cohesion and living conditions in

the Canadian Arctic: from theory to measurement. Social Indicators Research, 66(3), 295317.Evans, G. L. (2011). Cities of culture and the regeneration game. London Journal of Tourism, Sport and

Creative Industries, 5(6), 518.Fredline, L., Jago, L., & Deery, M. (2003). The development of a generic scale to measure the social impacts

of events. Event Management, 8(1), 2337.Galloway, S. (2012). Cultural participation and individual quality of life: a review of research findings.

Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(3/4), 323342.Garca, B. (2004). Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European Cities. Local Economy, 19(4),

312326.Garca, B. (2005). Deconstructing the city of culture: the long-term cultural legacies of Glasgow 1990. Urban

Studies, 42(5/6), 841868.Getz, D. (1997). Event management and event tourism. New York: Cognizant Communication.Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29(3), 403428.Grossi, E., Sacco, P. L., Blessi, G. T., & Cerutti, R. (2011). The impact of culture on the individual subjective

well-being of the Italian population: an exploratory study. Applied Research Quality Life, 6(4), 387410.Hacking, S. S., Spandler, J., & Shenton, J. (2008). Evaluating the impact of participatory art projects for

people with mental health needs. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16, 638648.Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark tourist events: impacts, management and planning. London: Belhaven Press.Impacts 08. (2007). Re-telling the city: exploring local narratives of Liverpool. Liverpool: Impacts 08.Impacts 08. (2010a). Creating an impact: Liverpools experience as European Capital of Culture. Liverpool:

Impacts 08.Impacts 08. (2010b). The economic impact of visits influenced by the Liverpool European Capital of Culture

in 2008. Liverpool: Impacts 08.Impacts 08. (2010c). Neighbourhood impacts: A longitudinal research study into the impact of the Liverpool

European Capital of Culture on local residents. Liverpool: Impacts 08.Impacts 08. (2010d). Liverpool on the map again: Liverpool stakeholders reflections on Liverpools year as

European Capital of Culture 2008. Liverpool: Impacts 08.Impacts 08. (2010e). Volunteering for culture: Exploring the impact of being an 08 Volunteer. Liverpool:

Impacts 08.Jago, L., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T., & Ali, S. (2003). Building events in destination branding: insights

from experts. Event Management, 8(1), 324.Jeon, M.M., Kang, M.M., & Desmarais, E. (2014). Residents perceived quality of life in a cultural-heritage

tourism destination. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 119. [on-line first article]Jones, P., & Wilks-Heeg, S. (2004). Capitalising culture: Liverpool 2008. Local Economy, 19(4), 341360.KEA. (2009). The Impact of Culture on Creativity, Brussels: KEA European Affairs.Kokosalakis, C., Bagnall, G., Selby, M., & Burns, S. (2006). Place image and urban regeneration in Liverpool.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(4), 389397.Kruger, S., Rootenberg, C., & Ellis, S. (2013). Examining the influence of the wine festival experience on

tourists quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 111(2), 435452.Kwok, Y. Y., Chui, W. H., & Wong, L. P. (2013). Need satisfaction mechanism linking volunteer motivation

and life satisfaction: a mediation study of volunteers subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research,114(3), 13151329.

Lade, C., & Jackson, J. (2004). Key success factors in regional festivals: some Australian experiences. EventManagement, 9(1), 111.

Lee, N. (2007). Distinctiveness and cities - Beyond Find and Replace economic development? London: TheWork Foundation.

Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research,13(2), 193214.

Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1987). Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), 1737.

Local Government Association. (2001). Realising the potential of cultural services, making a difference to thequality of life. London: Local Government Association. Online at http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/ culture/Advocacy.pdf.

Y.-D. Liu

Matarasso, F. (1997). Use or ornament? The social impact of participation in the arts. Stroud: Comedia.McCool, S. F., & Martin, S. R. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development.

Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 2934.Michalos, A. C. (2005). Arts and the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 71(13), 1159.Michalos, A. C., & Kahlke, P. M. (2008). Impact of arts-related activities on the perceived quality of life.

Social Indicators Research, 89, 193258.Moscardo, G. (2008). Analyzing the role of festivals and events in regional development. Event Management,

11(1/2), 2332.Nawijin, J. (2011). Determinants of daily happiness on vacation. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 559566.Nobili, V. (2005). The role of European Capital of Culture events within Genoas and Liverpools branding

and positioning efforts. Place Branding, 1(3), 316328.OBrien, D. (2010). No cultural policy to speak of: Liverpool 2008. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,

Leisure and Events, 2(2), 113128.OBrien, D. (2011). Who is in charge? Liverpool, European Capital of Culture 2008 and the governance of

cultural planning. Town Planning Review, 82(1), 4559.Palmer-Rae. (2004). European Cities and Capitals of Culture. Brussels: Palmer-Rae Associates.Platt, L. (2011). Liverpool 08 and the performativity of identity. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,

Leisure and Events, 3(1), 3143.Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2003). Festival as creative destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 730.Quinn, B. (2009). Festivals, events and tourism. In T. Jamal & M. Robinson (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of

Tourism Studies (pp. 483503). London: Sage.Richards, G. (2014). Eventfulness and the quality of life. Paper presented at the ATLAS Conference, Budapest,

October 2014, Special Track on Events and the Quality of Life.Richards, G., & Palmer, R. (2010). Eventful cities: Cultural management and urban revitalization.

Amsterdam: Butterworth- Heinemann.Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2004). The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam, Cultural Capital of

Europe 2001. Urban Studies, 41(10), 19311951.Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a solution to the serial

reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27(6), 12091223.Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2007). Tourism, creativity and development. London: Routledge.Roehl, W. S. (1999). Quality of life issues in a casino destination. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 223

229.Sacco, P. L., & Blessi, G. T. (2007). European Culture Capitals and local development strategies: comparing

the Genoa and Lille 2004 cases. Homo Oeconomicus, 24(1), 111141.Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, P. S., Lee, D. J., & Yu, G. B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect tourists life

satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261275.Smith, M. K. (2003). Issues in cultural tourism studies. London: Routledge.Smith, A. (2012). Events and urban regeneration: the strategic use of events to revitalise cities. London:

Routledge.Stukas, A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. (2008). The social marketing of volunteerism: A functional approach. In

C. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology. Marketing and consumerpsychology series (pp. 959979). New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thoits, P., & Hewitt, L. (2001). Volunteer work and well being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42,115131.

Uysal, M., Woo, E., & Singal, M. (2012). The Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) and Its Effect on the Quality-of-Life (QOL) of destination community. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourismand quality-of-life research (pp. 115135). Netherlands: Springer.

Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. Journal of Gerontology:Social Sciences, 55, 308318.

Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life: ordering concepts and measures of the good life. Journal ofHappiness Studies, 1, 139.

Willems-Braun, B. (1994). Situating cultural politics: fringe festivals and the production of spaces ofintersubjectivity. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(1), 75104.

Yu, C. P., Chancellor, H. C., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Examining the effects of tourism impacts on resident qualityof life: evidence from rural midwestern communities in USA. International Journal of Tourism Sciences,11(2), 161186.

Yu, C.P., Cole, S.T., & Chancellor C. (2014). Assessing community quality of life in the context of tourismdevelopment. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 116. [on-line first article]

Event and quality of life

Event and Quality of Life: A Case Study of Liverpool as the 2008 European Capital of CultureAbstractIntroductionMethodologyEconomic ImpactsQoL Effects of Tourism DevelopmentParallel Urban Regeneration and QoL

Cultural ImpactsCultural Accessibility and QoLEffects of the ECOC on Cultural ParticipationVolunteering and QoL

Social ImpactsCivic Pride and Self-ImageEffects of the ECOC on Sense of Place

ConclusionReferences