Uncovering the Cultural, Social and Economic Impact of Cultural Events on the Local Environment - Literature review Example

An Ever-Lasting Gala” Uncovering the Cultural, Social and Economic Impact of Comprehensive Cultural Events on the Local Environment and Community: A Case Study of China (Shenzhen) International Cultural Industry Fair (ICIF) Literature Review Getz (1991) and Mayfield et al (1995) agree that cultural events take place in form of concerts, street dances, fashion shows and expos through various practices like music, dance and drama with a major aim of promoting people’s way of life. China is known to for its cultural values the world over due to its distinctive over five thousand year culture (SIDA 2010, Shenzhen Post 2010 China, Shenzhen Party 2010 and Shenzhen Media Group 2006). Cal-Asia Events (2010) and BVents (2009) cite various cultural events have been held in China to include the 2008 Fourth China (Ningbo) International Vocal Competition, China Yiwu International Cultural Industry Fair and the China (Shenzhen) International Cultural Industry Fair (ICIF). ICIF is the only comprehensive national event in China because of its unique composition and state that draws attention from many people at home and internationally (ICIF 2010, News Guangdong 2004, Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China 2004, Delta Bridges 2009 and StartinChina 2010). Media Consulting Group (2009) and Rivera et al (2008, pp. 121-137) agree that cultural events have in them a lot of cultural and social values and they occasionally, they have been used as instruments of promoting tourism, expanding tourism seasonality and improving image of a city, region or country and all this in a bid to boost, grow and develop local, regional and national economies. According to ICIF (2010) International Cultural Industry Fair has been considered the only comprehensive cultural event in China and has been held in annually for the last six years (Ministry of Commerce 2008, ICSID 2010 and Dongsheng 2007). The event aims at building an exchange platform for the promotion of development of Chinese cultural industry (Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China 2004). As ICIF (2010) and News Guangdong (2004) indicate, colossal amount of money is invested with exhibitions, exchanges, forums, awards and celebration activities as auspices of the event. What is the impact of this on the local environment and community? This is the question that the study tries to answer. This literature review focuses on the evaluation of cultural events in terms of economic, cultural and social impact in relation to the empirical case of ICIF. In their book, ‘Realistic Evaluation’ Pawson and Tilley advance certain theories and framework to this effect. It is important to look at what other literature says about evaluation of cultural events. According to Robertson, Phil & Anna 2009, it is very important to measure outcome. This is geared towards knowing whether one is doing a good job or not. Evaluation of a program, action or intervention aims at assessing the outcome of the same so as to respond to changing times (Barrow 2000, Robertson, Phil & Anna 2009 and Katie 2005). Both individual and cognitive learning bind up evaluation and as a result, various models and theories of evaluation are largely based on learning. To this extent, various models that are adapted during evaluation include evaluation based on systems learning theory, evaluation based on cognitive learning theory, evaluation based on social learning theory and evaluation based on knowledge development theory (Evaluation Europe 2010). These theories of evaluation are applicable to the evaluation of cultural events. Burns, Hatch & Mules (1986), Crompton & Shuster (2001), Dwyer et al (2000), McCann & Thompson (1992) and Johnston (2001) agree that a lot of research has been conducted with a focus on assessing the economic impact of events. However, Ritchie & Lyons (1990), Soultar & McLeod (1993), Mhalik (2000), Fredline & Faulkner (2000) and Fredline & Faulkner (2002) argue that this there is limited research on how to measure socio-cultural impacts of events. Katie (2005) and Douglas et al (2001) give the reason for this as the tendency to measure only the economic contribution of these events to the event’s organisers, communities, regions and countries. To most event organisers, what they want are economic gains since most events are investments to make profits. Whereas the above is the case, there is a dire need to evaluate socio-cultural impact of events and this should be done along with evaluation of economic impact (Katie 2005). Katie (2005) goes on to state that there is a growing need amongst researchers and events organisers to measure socio-cultural impact of events because the future success of an event is threatened in case of community dissatisfaction of a present event even if the event is economically successful. Remember that the one of the goals of evaluation is to address any shortcomings of a program. Cultural events attract a lot of local and international tourists especially the case of ICIF. According to News Guangdong (2004), the ICIF is a dazzling cultural feast. More than half a million Chinese from home attend the event not to mention many international visitors (News Guangdong 2004 and Shenzhen Party 2010). Consequently, socio-cultural impacts take place as tourists interact with the locals. Katie (2005) sees it prudent to briefly look at socio-cultural impacts that cultural events can have on the local community. Social impacts are experienced by both the locals and the tourists but the former feels them the more and they include traffic congestion, crime rates and overcrowded local facilities and they make the local populace vulnerable which might make them hostile to visitors who attend the event because these visitors may prove to be symbols of negative change (Delamere et al 2001and Douglas et al 2001). Delamere et al (2001), Douglas et al (2001) and Getz (1997) add that cultural impacts such as destruction of cultural heritage by giving way to commoditisation of culture as a way of meeting the needs of the increasing number of visitors and challenges to traditional morals may occur as a result of events. According to Katie (2005), there are more socio-cultural impacts of cultural events, with some being positive but the examples above are given to justify the need for integrating evaluation of economic impacts with that of socio-economic impacts. According to Katie (2005), Douglas et al (2001) and Getz (1997) the problem is not that there are socio-cultural impacts of cultural events, but the fact that these indicators are considered intangible and immeasurable and therefore ignored during evaluation of impacts of cultural events. Hence, Katie (2005) develops a Socio-cultural Impact Measurement Framework to address this. There are no readily applicable measurement frameworks to evaluate socio-cultural impacts of cultural events due to the challenge of quantifying socio-cultural impacts. However, the field of social research use social impact assessment to anticipate social impacts before they take place by collecting data on the most likely impacts of a number of alternative development options and use the results to decide on the best alternative to implement (Finsterbusch, Llewellyn & Wolf 1983). This entails evaluation of a number of different development proposals for their feasibility so as to decide on the best course of action. As a matter of fact, it is a pre-event evaluation approach. Katie (2005) gives an alternative impact assessment approach as the post-event evaluation. This approach is drawn upon learning from mistakes. It is important at this juncture to remember an earlier discussion of theories of evaluation being based on learning as asserted by Evaluation Europe (2010). Therefore, Katie (2005) serves to compliment this discussion. Katie (2005) compliments this by indicating that usually, impacts during and after the event are documented. This approach is built on the auspices of clarifying what has already happened and this is used to plan for the future (Barrow 2000). According to Barrow (2000) and Katie (2005), this approach combines various aspects namely the post-event analysis and conclusions, lessons learnt and the association of an event to specific impacts. Barrow (2000) adds that the approach identifies what happened and documents how change has taken place so that impact assessment and management can take place over time. Barrow (2000), Wolf (1983) and Katie (2005) agree that evaluation of cultural events plays a key role when reporting on both positive and negative impacts and their importance to the community. This is for the reason that the information comes in handy in promoting a deeper understanding of issues that concern the community by event organisers (Katie 2005). Barrow (2000) and Katie (2005) adds that the information gathered from impact evaluation of cultural events further helps event organisers to develop future strategies that minimise the negative impacts and maximise the positive impacts of an event in future. Pawson and Tilley (1997) advance the theory of “realistic evaluation” which explains how a particular program causes certain change. This theory seeks to establish that it is the actual program that causes certain change and not some other unidentified variable. The theory explains the overall context in which a particular program, action or intervention takes place determines the outcome of the same (Pawson and Tilley 1997). Therefore, it is important to look at the context, mechanism and outcome of a program or intervention when during evaluation. This is done by looking at the features of contexts that allow working of different mechanisms in achieving certain outcomes (Pawson and Tilley 1997). Pawson and Tilley (1997) state that evaluations are meant to justify decisions. However, they do not forget to cite the fact that the world is experiencing an era of mass cynicism and cultural relativism. Precisely, realistic evaluation shows how evaluation of a program should be conducted and improved. It critiques current practice of evaluation and introduces a fresh approach to carry out the same. Pawson and Tilley (1997) refer to the new approach to evaluation as ‘Realistic Evaluation’ to reflect the paradigm which has its foundation on scientific ‘realist’ philosophy. It is based on the fact that programs deal with real issues and it seeks to inform realistic developments in policy making processes that benefit participants and the public. They argue that scientific evaluation needs cautiously blend aspects of theory and method, quality and quantity, ambition and realism. The most important tenet of realistic evaluation is the overall context which a program takes place as it addresses real issues. This takes us back to the matrix of context, mechanism and outcome. Each part of the matrix takes place in a real situation as advanced by Pawson and Tilley (1997). The context refers to the circumstances in which a particular action takes place. The mechanism refers to the way in which the action works in a given context. The outcome refers to the result or consequence of applying a certain mechanism in a particular mechanism. Precisely, for a program to produce the desired results, the conditions in its context must be correct to allow the mechanism to produce the right outcome. In regard to the empirical case, the ICIF is the program. The conditions in its context are increased the level of internalisation, market orientation, specialisation, high level of standardisation and high quality with deepened features and orientation of Chinese cultural products (Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China 2004 and Hanneng 2007). The mechanisms in which the above conditions work include planning, development and organisation of various professional exhibitions and conventions; design, production, agency and publishing of advertisements; design and construction of exhibitions; corporate image design, enterprise marketing planning and consulting; development of cultural products; E-commerce; domestic commerce and material supply and sales which excludes products under exclusive sales, exclusive control and exclusive distribution (ICIF 2010, StartinChina 2010, Ministry of Commerce 2008, ICSID 2010 and Dongsheng 2007). The impact is that ICIF creates a good opportunity for promotion of exports of cultural products, networking amongst purchasers, sellers and agents, creation of jobs to the local community and elevates China’s image at home and internationally and this gives ICIF far reaching strategic significance to China (Ministry of Commerce 2008, Mayfield et al 1995, Getz 1991 and ICIF 2010). This is as a result of the interplay in the matrix of context, mechanism and outcome as maintained by Pawson and Tilley (1997). References Barrow, C 2000, Social impact assessment: An introduction. Britain: Arnold Publishers. Burns, J Hatch, J & Mules, T 1986. The Adelaide Grand Prix: The impact of a special event. Adelaide: The Centre for South Australian Economic Studies. Crompton, L Lee, S & Shuster, J 2001. “A guide for undertaking economic impact studies: the Springfest example.” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40. No. 1, pp. 79-87. Delamere, T Wankel, M & Hinch, T 2001. “Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of a community festival,” Event Management. Vol. 7. pp. 11-24. Delta Bridges 2009, Shenzhen cultural fair booths almost booked out, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://deltabridges.com/news/shenzhen-news/shenzhen-cultural-fair-booths-almost-booked-out. Dongsheng Zheng May 17th, 2007, SZ News: ICIF a temptation to fans of culture, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.sznews.com/english/content/2007-05/17/content_1133661.htm. Douglas, N Douglas, N & Derett, R (Eds). 2001. Special interest tourism: Context and cases. Australia: John Wiley and Sons. Dwyer, L Mellor, R Mistilis, N & Mules, T 2000. “A framework for assessing ‘tangible’ and ‘intangible’ impacts of events and conventions.” Event Management. Vol. 6. pp. 175-189. Embassy of the People’s Republic of China 2010, The 3rd China (Shenzhen) International Cultural Fair, Retrieved September 4, 2010 from http://nl.china-embassy.org/eng/zhgx/whjl/zgwhhd/. Evaluation Europe 2010, Evaluation theories. Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.evaluate-europe.net/training/evaluation-training-program/theories/index.html. Finsterbusch, K Llwellyn, G & Wolf, C 1983. Social impact assessment methods. USA: Sage Publications. Fredline, E & Faulkner, B 2000. “Host community reactions: A cluster analysis,” Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 23. No. 3. pp. 763-784. Fredline, E & Faulkner, B 2002. “Residents’ reactions the staging of a major motorsports event within their communities: A cluster analysis,” Event Management. Vol. 7. No. 1. pp. 103-114. Getz, D 1991, “Assessing the Economic Impacts of Festivals and Events: Research Issues.” Journal of Applied Recreational Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 61-77. Getz, D 1997. Event management and event tourism. USA: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Hanneng Deng May 21st, 2007, SZ News: ICIF nets 4b overseas dollars, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.sznews.com/english/content/2007-05/21/content_1144253.htm. ICIF 2010, Exhibitors Manual, The 6th China (Shenzhen) International Cultural Industries Fair. ICSID 2010, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Shanghai to Hold Joint Exhibitions Next Month, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.icsid.org/news/year/2010_news/articles1056.htm. Katie, S 2005, “A flexible framework for evaluating the socio-cultural impacts of a festivals.” The International Journal of Event Management Research Vol. 1. No. 1, pp. 66-77. Mayfield, TL and Crompton, JL 1995, “Development of an Instrument for Identifying Community Reasons for Staging a Festival.” Journal of Travel Research, Winter, pp. 37-44. McCann, C & Thompson, G 1992. “An economic analysis of the first Western Australian State Masters Game.” Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 3. No. 1. pp. 28-34. Media Consulting Group 2009, The potential for cultural exchanges between the European Union and third countries: The case of China, European Union. Mhalik, B 2000. Host population perceptions of 1996 Atlanta Olympics: Attendance, support, benefits and liabilities. In Allen, J Harris, R. Jago, L & Vael, A (Eds). Events beyond 2000: Setting the Agenda, Proceedings of Conference on Event Evaluation, Research and Education (pp 134-140). Sydney: Australian Centre for Event Management, School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism, Universuty of Technology, Sydney. Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China 2004, The3rd China (Shenzhen) International Cultural Industries Fair, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://toronto2.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/bilateralvisits/200704/20070404529838.html. Ministry of Commerce 2008, Strategic cooperation memorandum between Ministry of Commerce, PRC and Bertelsmenn AG signed, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://tradeinservices.mofcom.gov.cn/en/s/2008/icif/36009.shtml. News Guangdong 2004, Culture news: A trading platform for culture, Retrieved September 4, 2010 from http://www.newsgd.com/culture/culturenews/200501140228.htm Pawson, R and Tilley, N (1997), Realistic evaluation, London: Sage Publications. Ritchie, J & Lyons, M 1990. “Olympulse VI: A post-event assessment of resident reaction to XV Olympic Winter Games.” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 14-24. Rivera, M Tadayuki, H and Gerald, K 2008, “Economic Impact of Cultural Events: The Case of the Zora! Festival.” Journal of Tourism. Vol. 3, Issue 2. pp. 121-137. Robertson, M. Phil, R. & Anna, L 2009. “Progressing socio-cultural impact evaluation for festivals.” Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events. Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 156-169. Shenzhen Media Group 2006, ICIF 2006, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.szicie.com/en/dispshow1.asp?n_id=5. Shenzhen Party 2009, The 5th China (Shenzhen) International Cultural Industries Fair, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.shenzhenparty.com/events/icif. Shenzhen Party 2010, Your free ticket for ICIF (International Cultural Industries Fair), Retrieved September 4, 2010 from http://www.shenzhenparty.com/blogs/admin/65079-your-free-ticket-icif-international. Shenzhen Post 2010, Shenzhen ICIF attracts investment with cultural resources, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.szcpost.com/2010/05/shenzhen-icif-attracts-investment-with-cultural-resources.html. Shenzhen Post 2010, China (Shenzhen) International Cultural Industries Fair (ICIF), Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.szcpost.com/2010/05/china-shenzhen-international-cultural-industries-fairicif.html. SIDA 2010, Anniversary retrospection of SIDA, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.szida.org/en/index.asp?bianhao=87. Soutar, G & McLeod, P 1993. “Residents perceptions on impact of America’s Cup.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 20, pp. 571-582. StartinChina 2010, What is Start in China?, Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.startinchina.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/. Read More