Introduction

Nowadays, strong competition exists between cities to host major events. Among several reasons why cities bid against each other to host major events, an improvement of the host community’s quality of life (subsequently referred to as QoL) is a main consideration. Local residents in the host city are not only the key audience but also the cores of event’s sustainability (Edizel 2014). Richards and Palmer (2010) argued that the overall aim of staging events should be to improve the QoL for all stakeholders involved. They said: “if events can ensure that all residents can have their cultural needs met in an equitable way while improving residents’ sense of belonging, then they should contribute to QoL and be socially sustainable” (p. 401). However, too often, the host cities focused most of their efforts on funding of events, with too little attention given to assess the impacts of event on residents’ QoL. In the academic field, while the topic of resident attitudes and perceptions toward event impacts has been adequately researched, there is a lack of empirical evaluation with respect to the impact of events on QoL (Kaplanidou et al. 2013). Additionally, the evaluation of event outcomes may not be static but rather dynamic, whereby residents’ evaluations change with the advent of time (Kaplanidou et al. 2013). Therefore, examining how event influence QoL and in turn how QoL influences resident support for the event is needed.

On the other hand, event legacy has been emerging as a key concept for bid and organising committees of major events and is generally tied to the outcomes associated with the hosting of an event (Veal et al. 2012). According to Gratton and Preuss (2008), there are three reasons that legacy of event is getting more important for the host cities. First, a positive legacy provides evidence to win local support. Second, it justifies the use of scarce public resources for a temporary event. Third, a positive legacy motivates other cities to bid for future events. On the other hand, in the academic field, there was also a paradigm shift - from pure event impacts studies towards the evaluation of legacy and sustainability dimensions of events. For instance, Edizel (2014) argued that sustainable development and legacy planning have become core components of event regeneration policies since the beginning of the 2000s. Although there is a growing literature on the impacts of major events, few studies focus specifically on legacy and its effects on residents’ QoL. Although some studies (e.g. Balduck et al. 2011; Kaplanidou 2012; Kaplanidou et al. 2013) have linked sport events to the improvement of QoL, the articulation between cultural event and its wider QoL effects is not well researched.

Based on a case study of Liverpool as the 2008 European Capital of Culture (subsequently referred to as ECOC), this paper aims at exploring the perceptions of residents regarding the legacy outcomes for their QoL. The ECOC is an initiative launched by the European Union in 1985, with the title awarded every year and on a rotating basis to respective EU member states. Since then, more than 40 cities have been designated as the ECOC and Extensive research has been conducted exploring the immediate impacts of hosting the ECOC events. However, in the early stages of the ECOC programme, practical plans for legacy beyond the year itself were not widespread (García and Cox 2013). With the introduction of Decision 1622/2006/EC in 2009, the EU started to place significant emphasis on the need for ‘sustainability’, namely the ECOC should be programmed in a farsighted way that it spawns long-term effect (Gomes and Librero-Cano 2014). It has also led to some examples of strategic legacy planning. In this context, there is therefore a research gap in identifying the articulation between ECOC and its wider and longer-term QoL effects. The aim of this study is to assess the legacy outcomes perceived by residents that benefit their QoL. The following section will provide a review of the literature on the notions of event legacy and QoL, as well as their articulations. Methodologically, this study offers a semi-longitudinal perspective, and is based on a combination of primary and secondary data. The paper concludes by expanding the findings of this case study to the theoretical literature.

Literature Review

QoL as Event Legacy

Growing emphasis on principles of sustainable urban development has focused greater attention on the social and economic legacy of events (Pacione 2012). Event legacy can provide a return on investment and a justification for public expenditure, obtain community support, and motivate other cites to bid for events (Matheson 2010). One of the earlier articles to consider event legacy outlined that “part of the justification for enormous capital investment in events is the promise of legacy for the host community” (Getz 1991, p. 30). More recently, Allen et al. (2008) highlighted the increased importance of legacy within the event management context, noting that legacy has become central to the decision of hosting an event. It is therefore believed that, when coordinated strategically, event can deliver economic, social and cultural legacies and have a lasting positive impact on residents’ QoL. Following a closer examination of the literature, it was identified that legacy has multiple definitions, meanings and interpretations and despite its widespread usage (Davies 2012). Several scholars have attempted to define and conceptualise legacy (e.g. Preuss 2007; Gratton and Preuss 2008; Cashman 2006; Chappelet and Junod 2006). One of the most popular definitions of legacy within the academic community is the one proposed by Preuss (2007): “legacy is all planned and unplanned, positive and negative, tangible and intangible structures created for and by a culture event that remain longer than the event itself” (p. 211). Moreover, the concept of legacy differs from that of ‘impact’, which is caused by a short-term impulse, whereas legacy can be achieved only if an event has changed the structure of a host city. That is to say, events can create a strong impact, but they do not necessarily create a legacy (Preuss 2007).

The literature on events presents several classifications of legacies. First, researchers agreed that tangible and intangible outcomes are fundamental to legacy discussions (Kaplanidou et al. 2013; Kaplanidou and Karadakis 2010; Preuss 2007; Waitt 2003). The idea of tangible outcomes is similar to the term “hard” legacy (e.g. venues and infrastructure) coined by Preuss (2007), who also proposed the term “soft” legacy (e.g. cultural, educational, political, emotional benefits) to account for intangible legacy deliverables (Brownill et al. 2013; Kaplanidou et al. 2013). Second, legacy can be positive or negative. It is important to note that, in addition to identifying the positive aspects of legacy such as infrastructure, increased tourism, business opportunities, renewed community spirit and enhanced destination image, negative types of legacy can be associated to events including debts linked to the construction and production of the event, unused infrastructure after the event, overcrowding and strenuous use of local resources etc. (Leopkey and Parent 2012). Furthermore, as Preuss (2007) pointed out, the same legacy may be positive for one industry (e.g., tourism), and negative for another (e.g., the environment). The same legacy maybe viewed positively or negatively, depending on who is making the assessment. In addition, event legacy can be actual (objective) or perceived (subjective). The former approach is based on measurement of people’s objective circumstances of living or social indicators. The latter approach tends to evaluate peoples’ subjective experiences of their life or subjective well-being (Brajša-Žganec et al. 2011). Researchers define subjective well-being as a broad construct that includes people’s cognitive and affective reactions to their whole life (Diener et al. 1999). More precisely, subjective well-being consists of people’s emotional responses, satisfaction with specific life domains, and satisfaction with life as a whole (Diener et al. 1999).

According to above discussions, event legacy is a multi-dimensional and evolving concept (Ferraria & Guala, 2015). As a consequence, numerous typologies exist covering various types of legacies. Despite these variations, researchers agree that tangible and intangible outcomes are fundamental to legacy discussions (e.g. Kaplanidou and Karadakis 2010; Kaplanidou et al. 2015; Preuss 2007; Waitt 2003). Hard or tangible legacy is easily measured, and therefore gains more attention. On the other hand, softer or intangible legacy is less studied due to its complexity and difficulty of quantification and measurement (Ferraria & Guala, 2015). It is argued that both tangible (hard) and intangible (soft) event legacies should be addressed, as ‘hard’ physical legacy does not necessarily ‘trickle down’ to local people (Pacione 2012), and intangible outcomes can be recalled at any point during everyday life (Kaplanidou 2012). However, ‘soft’ legacies are often intangible and difficult to quantify objectively and to measure the real impacts (Ferraria & Guala, 2015). In this study, perceived (subjective) measures were therefore used to evaluate the impact of the ECOC event on residents’ QoL. Moreover, it is important to note that, in addition to identifying the positive aspects of legacy, negative types of legacy can be associated to major cultural events, and will be assessed.

The Dimensions of QoL

Multi-dimensional approaches have been adopted to distinguish different forms of legacy. For example, Cashman (2006) identified six fields of legacies: economics; infrastructure; information and education; public life, politics and culture; culture; symbols, memory and history. Chappelet and Junod (2006) argued that there are five categories: cultural, economic, infrastructural, urban, and social. The IOC’s’s’s (2009) definition of event legacies covers five Olympics legacies: sporting; social, cultural and political; environmental; economic; urban. Despite these variations, event legacies are normally framed around economic, environmental, social and cultural dimensions (Kaplanidou and Karadakis 2010; Matheson 2010). Introduced by Getz (2008), the ‘triple-bottom- line’ (TBL) approach has been widely incorporated into the field of event impact studies (e.g. Gibson et al. 2012; Andersson and Lundberg 2013; Tsaur et al. 2015). The TBL is a holistic approach that integrates the assessment of economic, social and environmental dimensions. The TBL principle advocates also a clear understanding of the components of various event legacies (Edizel 2014). Since the physical restructuring of the city is generally regarded as a core legacy and normally associated with the economic regeneration or tourism development of a city, it is incorporated in the economic legacy. Moreover, the nature of the ECOC event has less environmental interventions of the host city, but rather has a significant cultural impact. The event legacy indicators in this study encompass therefore the following three categories: economic / physical, social and cultural legacies.

Economically, major events may promote economic activities and create lasting economic benefits, which in turn prosper the local communities (Edizel 2014). Upon a closer examination of the economic legacy, relevant outcomes that are documented in the literature include tourism promotion, job creation, infrastructure improvement, tax returns, investment and economic growth generated by hosting an event etc. (DCMS 2010; Kaplanidou 2012; Tsaur et al. 2015). When the impacts of tourism on residents’ QoL is under discussion, tourism is considered as a means to make a community a better place to live (Choi and Sirakaya 2006) and a major industry that contributes to creation of local employment and increased tax revenues (Yu et al. 2011). Studies in the past (e.g. Liu et al. 1987; Liu and Var 1986; McCool and Martin 1994; Roehl 1999) have proved that perceived economic benefits, such as job opportunities, additional and improved infrastructure, and recreation/leisure opportunities, had a positive correlation with residents’ QoL. Physically, events may also provide an incentive to develop new tourism accommodations, attractions or amenities (Smith 2012), or accelerate the completion of infrastructure projects that would have either taken years to complete or would have never materialized in the hosting city (Terret 2008). The new infrastructures brought to the city benefit not only the tourists but also residents’ QoL (Kaplanidou and Karadakis 2010). However, events may generate negative economic effects, such as price inflation, unused facilities and financial burdens (Kim et al. 2006). Moreover, the economic growth from tourism does not always have a positive impact on residents’ well-being (Jeon et al., 2014). Tourism may result in a lower QoL, such as loss of cultural identity, environmental degradation, increased cost of living, friction between residents and tourists, and changes in residents’ ways of life etc. (Jeon et al., 2014; Yu et al. 2014). Smith (2012) also argued that events might privilege only the interests of outsiders or create insecure and poor-quality jobs.

Socially, hosting events are claimed to bring several benefits not only to individual’s personal development but also to the host communities as a whole. As such, more and more event organisers are adopting social sustainability approach and the social legacy of events has started to get more attention (Edizel 2014). Social legacy is enclosed in the so-called intangible legacy (Ferrari and Guala 2015), and sometimes more significant to local residents’ QoL than economic legacy (Gursoy and Kendall 2006). First, an essential aspect of event social legacy is the change in local resident perceptions of a host city or region (Hall 1992; Chappelet and Junod 2006; Getz 2008). Apart from the improvement of self-image, it is widely believed that event can contribute to the enhancement of sense of place and local identity (García 2004). For instance, as Richards and Palmer (2010, p. 418) noticed, “sense of place is one of the key elements of distinctiveness for cities, and cultural events can be an important means of underpinning a sense of belonging and local pride”. Also, Derrett (2003) and Council of Europe (1997) proposed that events could help to strengthen local identity and civic pride, especially when local people were given the ownership of event. On the other hand, major events have been incorporated in urban regeneration strategies, which sometimes aim to influence social renewal in terms of enhancing social networks, social cohesion and social capital, as well as alleviating social exclusion (e.g. Jones and Stokes 2003; Misener and Mason 2006; Ziakas and Costa 2011). For instance, Matarasso (1997) argued that extensive involvement in cultural activities had a positive effect on social cohesion, community empowerment and local identity. Although the term legacy has a positive connotation, hosting a cultural event can generate negative and long-term social impacts and negatively influence QoL, such as the breaking of social networks, community alienation and displacement, and the loss of affordable housing as a result of gentrification (Kavetsos 2012; Kaplanidou et al. 2013).

Culturally, access to cultural activities and amenities become one of key indicators of a city’s QoL (Evans 2005). A principal approach to achieve sustainable cultural impacts is to improve the accessibility to event projects and programmes for local population (Richards and Palmer 2010). Consequently, to yield sustainable cultural legacy, there should be a high level of community involvement and participation in the event programmes. Ferrari and Guala (2015) noticed that the spread of cultural activities, a greater passion for certain forms of art and the growth of cultural events supply are all capable of enhancing the QoL. Matarasso (1997) also highlighted many different ways in which cultural participation can contribute to social development, such as enhancing confidence, self-esteem and skills. Improvement in these areas can lead to improved health and well-being, creating QoL and civic pride. Additionally, according to Kwok et al. (2013), a considerable number of studies confirmed the positive effect of volunteering on QoL. Individuals who have performed volunteer work reported higher life satisfaction than non-volunteers (Stukas et al. 2008). People also consistently report an increased sense of life satisfaction and perceived improvement in QoL after participation in volunteer programs (Kwok et al. 2013). More involvement in volunteering and membership of voluntary associations are also related to an increase in subjective well-being (Aquino et al. 1996; Thoits and Hewitt 2001; Van Willigen 2000). Finally, the success of event-led regeneration lies in a more inclusive approach which considers the cultural values of the local (Edizel 2014). The event programme should therefore become an integral part of the cultural ecology of the city and make an important contribution to improving the QoL of all stakeholders (Richards and Palmer 2010). As found by Palmer-Rae (2004), raising the level of participation and interest in culture is an important target for many ECOC cities, and nearly all ECOC cities included at least some programmes aiming to enhance participation and volunteering.

Methodology

Researchers use various approaches to define and measure the complex and multidimensional constructs of QoL, such as social indicators, subjective well-being measures, and economic indices (Diener et al. 1999; Veenhoven 2000). In this study, subjective measures were used to evaluate the impact of the ECOC event on residents’ QoL, including economic, social and cultural dimensions. Moreover, the preceding discussion reveals that perceived changes in QoL may be part of the social exchange process, namely residents value the event legacies based on an exchange process during which the residents evaluate the benefits that influence their QoL (Kaplanidou 2012; Kaplanidou et al. 2013). Gursoy and Kendall (2006) also suggest that residents are likely to support events when they believe that the expected benefits of development will exceed the expected costs. Social Exchange Theory, introduced by Emerson (1976), was adopted thus to explore the relationships between event legacy, satisfaction with QoL and event support. Within this framework, economic, social and cultural indicators will be tested as contributing factors to residents’ perceived increase in QoL and support for event.

So as to the context of case studied, situated in the northwest of England, Liverpool has always been a gateway to the rest of the world and known globally as the hometown of the Beatles. However, the city has long suffered a poor reputation due to a period of economic and social decline, and saw the opportunity of holding the 2008 ECOC as a catalyst for wider regeneration (Impacts 08 2010a; Nobili 2005). An extensive study on the impact of Liverpool as the ECOC 2008 suggested that, whilst there has been evidence of positive impacts in the short-term (1–2 year on) (Impacts 08 2010a), subsequent research revealed also scepticism with regards to the event’s long-term impact on their neighbourhoods (Impacts 08 2010b; Tay and Coca-Stefaniak 2010). In order to understand how the residents of Liverpool evaluate the outcome of the legacies toward their overall QoL, data were collected from telephone survey carried out in June–August 2015. Following the sampling criteria of the neighbourhood survey (Impacts 08 2010b), quota sampling was used to explore the opinions of residents from a diverse selection of areas within Liverpool. It helps to give a comparison of how the ECOC impacts on a wide cross-section of the population. Four areas representing geographical and demographical variations of the population were chosen. The characteristics of areas chosen were presented in Table 1. Due to budget and distance constraints, the researcher contracted a market research company to conduct 150 questionnaires in each community. The sample was generated by utilising a phone list from the most current telephone book, selecting randomly three numbers from each page. The respondents also need to meet the criterion of residing in the selected area for at least 8 years prior to the study, thus ensuring their experience regarding the event’s legacies. In total, 600 questionnaires were collected, with 8 incomplete and hence dropped, resulting in 592 useable questionnaires for further analysis. Although the research sample is not representative of the larger population, it captured a good mixture of residents residing in various parts of Liverpool.

Table 1 Summery demographics for areas surveyed
Full size table

The survey consisted of questions related to the rating of legacy outcomes related to the residents’ QoL and demographic questions at the end of questionnaire. The literature was screened for adequate measures that referred to economic, social and cultural legacies of major events. The most relevant ones were shown in Table 2. To refine the derived legacy items, the official evaluation reports – Impacts 08 ( 2010a) and Ecorys (2009) were reviewed. Finally, a total of 21 legacy items were developed which reflecting the planning and policy statements of the 2008 ECOC Liverpool (as shown in Table 2). Based on a 5-point Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of each for their QoL enhancement. One more dependent variable (i.e., event support) was measured with the statement as: “overall, I support the hosting of the 2008 ECOC in Liverpool”). Since it is argued that the individuals’ demographic characteristics can interact with perceived QoL evaluations, independent variables such as location of community, gender, age, ethnicity, education, occupation and whether attended the ECOC events were also incorporated in the survey. Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics of all the variables included in the survey. Among the 592 respondents, 52 % of them were female and the mean age was 44 years. Most of respondents (88 %) are White British and the majority of them (54 %) were high school educated. In terms of occupation, 48 % were employed, fellow by 34 % retired. 63 % of respondents have attended as least one ECOC event during 2008.

Table 2 Legacy items within the survey
Full size table
Table 3 Profiles of the residents surveyed (n = 592)
Full size table

Results

To delineate the dimensions underlying the perceived ECOC legacy, a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was undertaken. In accordance with Kaiser’s (1974) criterion, only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained, and only items with factor loadings equal to or above 0.5 were included in the final factor structure. The 21 impact items yielded six factors with eigenvalues greater than one. These factors explained 58.43 % of the variance. Reliability analysis was used to confirm the internal consistency of the resulting factors. Cronbach’s α values ranged from 0.71 to 0.84, greater than the standard of 0.6 (Hair et al. 2006). However, three items - “increase volunteerism”, “increase local cultural values” and “result in local culture dilution” did not meet the factor loading criteria, and therefore were excluded for further analyses. The factor solution along with the means and standard deviations of the variables is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Factor analysis of the legacies of 2008 ECOC
Full size table

To analyse descriptively the legacy outcomes, the items are presented from highest to lowest mean scores in Table 4 and the critical value of 3.5 from a 5-point Likert scale was adopted as the cut-off point. Among the 18 items, nearly all event legacy indicators were higher than the critical value of 3.5, except for one positive item - “increase job opportunities” and two negative items - “increase cost of living” and “deepen the problem of social exclusion”. The results indicated that hosting the 2008 ECOC Liverpool might have been less beneficial for economic and tourism legacy. The top four ranked items for Liverpool were primarily related to image and identity legacy. Improved city appearance / image and self-image / confidence were among the most significant outcomes. The six factors yielded were labelled, in rank order (i.e. the highest overall mean value first), as:

  • Factor 1: Image and identity legacy (4 items, mean = 4.32) refers to the symbolic legacy. The importance of image and identity legacy (means = from 4.14 to 4.50) was evidenced as the highest mean scores across six factors. It suggests that the ECOC designation and activity has helped to increase external image of the city and encouraged residents to feel that the city is viewed positively externally. Liverpool sought to use ECOC status to improve its image in the media and in the public’s perception, and to promote the city as a cultural destination (Ecorys 2009).

  • Factor 2: Cultural legacy (3 items, mean = 3.97) refers to more people taking part in cultural activities and increasing the cultural interests of residents. The survey results demonstrated that cultural participation (mean = 4.10) and the interest in culture (mean = 4.07) have been both increased through extensive and geographically spread local campaigns. The access of geographical peripheral and socially deprived communities in cultural activities has been also widened (mean = 3.73).

  • Factor 3: Infrastructure and amenities legacy (3 items, mean = 3.94) refers to improving the infrastructure (mean = 4.02) and cultural provision associated with an event, including both cultural facilities/space (mean = 3.95) and events/activities (mean = 3.85). Events such as the ECOC typically involve a large-scale investment, such as event-related construction, building new venues or tourist and leisure facilities. The main driver of Liverpool becoming ECOC was to achieve the city’s regeneration aims, and provide a focus for bringing forward and combined with future projects.

  • Factor 4: Community development legacy (2 items, mean = 3.77) refers to enhanced sense of community (mean = 3.79) and social network (mean = 3.75). Previous studies have suggested that hosting events enhances community consciousness and strengthen social network (Ritchie et al. 2009). The survey results showed that the residents did believe that hosting the ECOC contributed to the community development. However, volunteerism has not been increased significantly (mean = 3.31) and did not meet the factor loading criteria.

  • Factor 5: Economic and tourism legacy (3 items, mean = 3.65) refers to the economic and tourism development benefits that remain after an event, including the promotion of economic activities (mean = 3.74), benefits from new tourism attractions/amenities (mean = 3.71), and increased job opportunities (mean = 3.49). The 2008 ECOC Liverpool provided a vital incentive for physical regeneration and driver of tourism development. However, in this study, economic and tourism legacy was evaluated relatively lower than other dimensions by the respondents, especially the influence on job creation.

  • Factor 6: Negative legacy (3 items, mean = 3.34) refers to negative economic and social effects of the ECOC, including privileging only certain people (mean = 3.54), deepening the problem of social exclusion (mean = 3.34), increasing cost of living (mean = 3.14) and. According to the survey results, although the majority of residents supported the ECOC, but still not everyone felt included.

To explore the influence of demographic variables (i.e. location, gender, age, ethnicity, education, occupation and attendance at the ECOC) on the legacy outcomes, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and t-tests were estimated and presented in Table 5 (only variables with significant influence were shown). Gender, age, ethnicity, education and occupation did not have any significant influence. The location of community and the attendance at the ECOC events were the only two variables deemed important for the QoL. Proximity, as measured by location of residence in Liverpool, has significantly statistical influence on residents’ perceptions of legacy. Differences were also found in the variable - attendance at the ECOC. Post hoc tests (Tukey’s HSD) were then conducted to identify whether certain group(s) outperformed significantly others.

Table 5 Influence of demographics on the legacy factors
Full size table

In terms of the variable - location, significant differences were found in three factors, i.e. cultural legacy, infrastructure / amenities legacy, and community development legacy. For both cultural and infrastructure / amenities legacies, Aigburth (means =4.53 & 4.43) and City Centre (means =4.43 & 4.55) were significantly higher than Kirkdale (means =3.47 & 3.44) and Knotty Ash (means =3.46 & 3.23). By contrast, Kirkdale (mean = 4.32) outperformed the other three communities while community development legacy was considered. The proximity of Aigburth and City Centre to the cultural amenities (e.g. museums and galleries) in Liverpool centre may explain this gap. This result may also result from the fact that Aigburth has gained the most from ECOC in terms of cultural programming and new leisure and retail facilities than residents of other neighbourhoods (Impacts 08 2010b).

On the other hand, the lowest mean values across most of the factors (apart from economic and tourism legacy) were found in Knotty Ash. According to previous research (Impacts 08 2010b; Liu 2015), Knotty Ash had very limited community involvement in ECOC, very negative about the benefits and long term impacts of ECOC, and least likely to see positive legacy resulted from ECOC, either in their community or the whole city. The findings from Kirkdale were somewhat contradictory. Although cultural and infrastructure / amenities legacies ranked as the third across four communities, it had the highest community development legacy, mainly due to the presence of community organisations in promoting and encouraging cultural participation helped to strengthen the sense of community and social networks (Liu 2015).

So as to the influence of ECOC’s attendance, for three factors - image / identity and cultural legacies, the attendants (i.e. those who have attended as least one ECOC event during 2008) evaluated the legacy outcomes consistently higher than the non-attendants. Finally, all five legacy factors were entered into a multiple regression analysis to examine the overall attitude and support for the 2008 Liverpool ECOC. As shown in Table 6, the results revealed that three out of the six factors (R 2 = 0.374; F = 43.27; p < 0.005) predictive of attitude towards the 2008 Liverpool ECOC with a total of 31 % variance explained. Community development legacy, economic and tourism legacy, and negative legacy did not affect residents’ support for the 2008 ECOC. It is suggested that in the long run, the intangible benefits - image/identity and cultural legacies, and the tangible benefit - infrastructure & amenities legacy would stand out and outweigh other benefits as key determinants of residents’ support for the 2008 ECOC.

Table 6 Regression analysis on perceived legacy factors on support of 2008 ECOC
Full size table

Conclusion

Local residents are often seen as one of the key stakeholders of an event. They are not only the main target audience, but also play a key role as event initiators and as a vital source of event’s sustainability (Nobili 2005; Richards and Palmer 2010). The growing importance of legacy within major events has resulted in a heightened interest in the concept of legacy by various ECOC host cities. Previous studies on the event legacy have primarily identified the categories of event legacy. However, few empirical studies have examined the way these legacies affect individual QoL, such as satisfaction with community, neighbourhoods and personal satisfaction. This study contributes to this line of inquiry by conceptualising the significance of event legacy for inhabitants’ QoL. To transmit the value behind the findings, the paper concludes by expanding the findings of this case study to the theoretical literature, including a critical discussion of the found results and an insight into the reasons behind different locations’ perceptions. Furthermore, since the 2008 ECOC was not the only one variable of the changes in Liverpool’s QoL, additional data was incorporated to better understand the convergence or mismatch between net and gross event legacy.

When Liverpool won the bid to host the ECOC, one major vision was to leave a legacy benefiting local community. Exploring the legacy outcomes for residents’ QoL in Liverpool, the results indicate that the ECOC has stimulated many important legacies and the residents perceived generally that hosting the 2008 ECOC was beneficial for their QoL. Overall, the results suggest that intangible legacy relates more to people’s satisfaction with QoL and event support. Especially, the most highly perceived benefits were image / identity and cultural legacies. The results coincide with several previous studies (e.g. Kaplanidou 2012; Kim and Petrick 2005; Kim et al. 2006), which have shown that psychological benefits or symbolic legacy are frequently higher than other benefits, and may be rated as the most important event legacy. The evidence here reflects also the finding of García (2005), who found that local images and identities were the strongest and best-sustained legacy of Glasgow’s reign as the 1990 ECOC 15 years on.

According to García (2004), two aspects widely criticised were the failure of the event to assist widening the access and involvement of geographical peripheral and socially deprived communities in cultural activities, and its inability to act as a platform for representing local cultures. In the case of Liverpool, to stimulate participation across the population as a whole, a dedicated organisation - Liverpool Culture Company was established, in charge of coordinating a branded programme of events over eight themed years (Impacts 08 2010a). Also, due to the implementation of extensive community programmes, the 2008 ECOC enhanced the cultural vitality of the city and resulted in a significant cultural legacy. In addition, an associated legacy of ECOC was arguably the physical restructuring of a wide area in Liverpool.

The literature mainly suggests that hosting events increases community cohesion and the tendency to engage in voluntary work (Misener and Mason 2006; Nichols 2012; Smith 2012). During the period of hosting the 2008 ECOC, community development and volunteer programmes were developed, such as the 08 Welcome and 08 Volunteer projects. These programmes aim at engaging people from more disadvantaged backgrounds (Impacts 08 2010a). Moreover, to improve access to culture and build community enthusiasm, two main programmes were launched and implemented in outlying and deprived areas of the city - Creative Communities and Four Comers community programme (Ecorys 2009). Apart from the volunteerism, the findings demonstrated that the residents of Liverpool perceived that hosting the ECOC did result in a legacy of community development.

Although Karadakis and Kaplanidou (2012) argued that increasing investment and changing the built environment through major event are considered as important factors for potential employment opportunities, respondents of Liverpool were less likely to perceive the impacts of economic and tourism development on their QoL, especially the influence on job creation. The result reveals the argument of Owen (2002), that is, economic legacy is good as long as it protects the interests and rights of the local community. Mooney (2004) and Jones and Wilks-Heeg (2004) proposed also that jobs generated by major events are normally in leisure and hospitality sectors with poor paid and irregular forms of work. The relatively lower perceived legacy on economic dimension may be associated with the negative legacy. As argued by Davies (2012), economic regeneration legacies are often contrasted with negative impacts of local inflation and gentrification. The findings of García and Cox (2013) may also used to explain these negative legacies. They argued that, although physical developments are often regarded as some of the most tangible indicators of long-term impact in ECOC cities, this is one of the more contentious areas of legacy. Since most of the infrastructure and cultural amenities are concentrated in the city centre, not every resident could gain the benefits in the long run.

For Liverpool residents, the location of community and the attendance at the ECOC events were the main variables of differences in most legacy outcomes. In terms of image / identity, cultural, and infrastructure / amenities legacies, a noticeable variation was found between communities. Overall, for the two disadvantaged neighbourhoods (i.e. Kirkdale and Knotty Ash), lower cultural impacts of ECOC can attribute to both the cultural distance (lower cultural capital resulted from lower socio-economic status) and physical distance (travelling distance and cost). On the other hand, for the two advantaged neighbourhoods (i.e. Aigburth and City Centre), higher socio-economic status, geographical proximity and excellent transport links to central Liverpool are arguably the main contributors to cultural and infrastructure / amenities legacies. In addition, as the furthest neighbourhood from city centre and with limited transport, the residents of Knotty Ash were less likely to attend cultural or leisure activities and benefit from the infrastructure and amenities. Consequently, it is hard for people to see the positive legacy resulted from ECOC. However, for Kirkdale, the socio-cultural legacy of ECOC was maximised due to the presence of community organisations in promoting and encouraging cultural participation. As a result, the residents of Kirkdale became much more confident with the ECOC positive legacy in improving local wellbeing and QoL.

It should be noted that the measurement of legacy over time is challenging because legacy cannot be identified in isolation from the general development or other on-going regeneration initiatives in the city (Preuss 2007; Minnaert 2012; Preuss 2015). For the residents, event-related changes (i.e. the net legacy) may be confused with non-event-related development (i.e. the gross legacy). It is especially the case for Liverpool in the two dimensions - ‘infrastructure & amenities legacy’ and ‘economic & tourism legacy’. Evans (2011) argued that Liverpool has benefited from over two decades of continued regeneration and cultural investment, and the change of the city should be seen as a long-term regeneration rather than the outcomes of a one-off event. According to the evidence provided by two official assessment reports - Ecorys (2009) and Impacts 08 ( 2010a), many plans and projects associated with the 2008 ECOC had already been generated before the nomination and they were not developed purely for the event, such as Liverpool ONE shopping centre, the Arena and Convention Centre Liverpool, the new Museum of Liverpool, regenerated World Heritage Waterfront, and the refurbished Bluecoat Arts Centre (Ecorys 2009). It is therefore argued that the changes in QoL should not attribute solely to the ECOC status, and some of the outcomes could only be treated as indirect event legacy.

Finally, event legacy has shifted from being an unknown outcome of the event to something that should be considered and planned in the early stages (Edizel 2014). Karadakis and Kaplanidou (2012) also argued that only if a long-term legacy plan is envisaged and considered during the planning phase for hosting an event, could the improvement of QoL be guaranteed. Indeed, there has been a shift to implement legacy planning within a number of recent ECOCs. However, the temporal nature of the event is acknowledged by many cities as a particular challenge (García and Cox 2013). This study underlines the importance of planning legacy as a holistic programme from the early stages of event process. Liverpool is one of the few cities, which considered the legacy before staging the ECOC. For instance, to increase external and internal image of the city, Liverpool established a dedicated organisation - Liverpool Culture Company at an early stage, in charge of marketing and coordination. It demonstrates also that the implementation of the community involvement strategies during major event is the prerequisite of enhancing social and cultural legacies. To improve access to culture and build community enthusiasm, a branded programme of events over eight themed years was established, associated with a series of community development initiatives, such as Creative Communities, Four Comers, 08 Welcome and 08 Volunteer programmes. Local authority was also committed to sustaining increased funding of culture for two more years after the ECOC. Moreover, to have a lasting legacy, Liverpool tried as much as possible to integrate the event regeneration with other planned and long-term developments within the city.