Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. A tale of two cities: Local government, community events and social capital building A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Studies (Communication) at Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand Joany Grima 2016 i Abstract This research project investigates the approaches to investment in the staging of community events, supporting strategies and availability of event management resources by two neighbouring local council authorities in the North Island of New Zealand. The perceived impacts of events on the host community and capacity of events to build social capital is also explored, primarily through data collected from interviews with council event organisers, councillors and non-council event organisers. The findings of this study indicate that both council authorities are supportive of the delivery of events by council and non-council event organisers, providing human, financial and physical capital to enable the output of events despite their being no explicit legal obligation for local government authorities to do so. Event impacts were considered to be positive in nature, falling into the areas of promotional, social and economic impacts. Social impacts were of primary interest, including community engagement and participation, celebrating community, building and fostering community spirit, giving back to the community and attracting new people to the area. For both councils, there is scope for greater strategic planning around event delivery both as individual authorities and collaboratively, including the establishment of formal monitoring and evaluation to assess the effectiveness of their events investments in meeting set objectives. There are opportunities to capture meaningful data on the impacts of events in the host communities, as well as the building and maintenance of social capital. Event organisers are primarily interested in providing a community asset through their events; motivated by how their events can enhance ii local well-being and contribute to social capital building. Understanding how and if social capital building occurs and is maintained as a result of community events can be further explored together by council and non-council event organisers. iii Acknowledgements The journey to completing this research project has been enriched by the encouragement and assistance of colleagues at Wellington Institute of Technology (WelTec) and Massey University, academics generously sharing resources and the enthusiasm of its participants. Special thanks to Dr Mimi Hodis, thesis supervisor, for walking alongside me, to WelTec for its ongoing support in nurturing my academic capability, and to those organising the community events peppering our lives with moments of joy that otherwise may not have been. iv Table of contents Abstract i Acknowledgements iii Table of contents iv Introduction 1 Background to research project 1 Research questions and objectives 3 Local government in New Zealand 4 The research setting 6 Key guiding documents 7 Events portfolio 8 Events resources for event organisers 9 Literature review 12 Background 12 Definition: Event 13 Mega and major events 13 Festivals 17 Community events 19 Event objectives & strategic planning 21 Stakeholders 29 Event organisers & the host community 35 Social capital 37 Social capital & events 43 Impacts 47 Social impacts 49 Social impact measures 53 Economic impacts 57 Methodology 60 Participants 60 Selection & recruitment 61 Data collection 63 v Data analysis 64 Findings 66 Strategic events objectives 66 Local government support & resources for non-council events 71 Social capital & events 74 Impacts 77 Discussion 81 Council investment in staging community events 81 Strategic objectives & investment in community events 84 Events & host community impacts 87 Community events & social capital 89 Comparison of councils’ approach to community events 93 Limitations 95 Conclusion 96 References 99 Appendix A 115 Appendix B 118 Appendix C 119 Appendix D 120 Appendix E 121 Appendix F 124 Appendix G 125 1 Introduction Background to research project Community events are frequently staged in cities and towns across New Zealand. Town halls, local libraries, recreation facilities, outdoor areas, schools, clubrooms and churches host attendees as they gather to partake in events ranging in scope and scale, including festivals, meetings, fairs and sporting events. Local government authorities play a key role in ensuring community events are organised, supported and facilitated, be it through providing venues, funding, skilled labour or access to resources, or by taking on event management responsibilities to deliver a public event. Local governments are known to develop event strategies that include a portfolio of events (O’Toole, 2011). The Local Government Act (2002) states that the purpose of local government is: to enable democratic decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities, and to meet the current and future needs of communities for good- quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses (Local Government New Zealand, 2013). Despite the suggestion in 2012 by then local government minister, Nick Smith, that councils should focus solely on providing core services such as waste, water and roads (Torrie, 2012), local government authorities in New Zealand have embedded community events in their day-to-day operations, continuing to invest in enabling such events to be delivered. While events may appear to be non-essential areas of a council’s services, events play a role in community cohesiveness, town branding and economic returns (New Zealand Association of Events Professionals, 2012). Cities worldwide have successfully used events to promote and brand themselves as desirable destinations 2 amidst changing political, economic and social climates. A strategic use of events can return long term benefits to a city or town, including urban regeneration, resident attraction and retention, community well-being and place promotion (Wood, 2009a). Events have the capacity to transform cities and communities, bringing people together in expressive ways to celebrate, collaborate and share. Events make cities better places to live by promoting diversity, bringing neighbours into dialogue and increasing creativity (Binder, 2012). Events help create and strengthen a sense of community, build social capital and improve the health and well-being of its members (Allen, O’Toole, Harris, & McDonnell, 2010). Local governments’ investment in major events can too provide a boost to the local economy and attract inward investment. Sporting and other events can help regions, towns and cities move forward with improving infrastructure and facilities and leave a legacy that benefits the whole community (Rhodes & Kaul, 2014). A strategic approach to events and community engagement is becoming commonplace as local governments use events to achieve a varied range of objectives. There are variations between councils in New Zealand and the input and investment each makes in community events, regardless of the documented benefits of doing so. The local landscape for local government in New Zealand is changing, with amendments made to the Local Government Act (2002) “to encourage and enable local authorities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations and processes” (Department of Internal Affairs, 2014). Amendments to the Act also allow for the reorganisation and amalgamation of local council authorities, similar to that which occurred in Auckland, when eight authorities were instructed to merge into one “super-city” from November 2010. Wellington was recently in the spotlight for potential local government restructure, with proposals for full and partial 3 amalgamation of eight local councils submitted to the Local Government Commission for consideration. The amalgamation proposal generated a mixed community response, with local residents and community organisations largely not in favour of any change; arguing local government works most effectively when it is genuinely local, governed by a council in touch with and connected to its community (Kedgley, 2015). Of the over 9,500 public submissions received on the proposal, 89% were opposed to any restructure (Chipp, 2015). Local government reform is rationalised by the claim it will “build a more productive, competitive economy and better public services” (Department of Internal Affairs, 2014). The concept of “localism”, where local people working with local government are considered best-placed to know and understand community issues is gaining popularity internationally (Mexted, 2014). Local governments allow the general public to be consulted and engaged in the governance of their communities. In June 2015, the Local Government Commission rejected the proposed change in local government structure for Wellington (Nichol, 2015). Despite this rejection, councils have been informed by the current minister of local government, Paula Bennett that councils cannot “all continue as you have”; encouraging councils to share resources, cooperate more closely and aim for growth and long term sustainability (Edwards, 2015). Research questions and objectives The research questions that this research project addressed were: RQ1: What investment do two neighbouring councils make in the staging of community events? RQ2: What are the strategic objectives behind two neighbouring councils’ investment in community events? 4 RQ3: What are the impacts of events staged on the communities of two neighbouring councils? RQ4: How do two neighbouring councils’ investments in community events build social capital? RQ5: How do two neighbouring councils’ approaches to community events compare to one another? The objectives for this research project were: RO1: To determine the investment made in community events by neighbouring councils. I.e.: Resources, staging of events, funding, venues, council funded people/dedicated roles, marketing platforms, strategic planning. RO2: To determine why neighbouring councils invest in community events. I.e.: Strategic plan, pride of place, community building and well-being, economic growth, visitor attraction, collaboration opportunities with other councils, attracting new residents. RO3: To determine the impacts of events staged on the communities of the neighbouring councils. RO4: To determine if council’s investments in community events contributes to building social capital. RO5: To determine how neighbouring councils compare in their approach to community events. Local government in New Zealand Local government in New Zealand is made up of 78 local, regional and unitary councils, with the average population per local council approximately 65,000 residents. Every three years, voters within a local government authority elect a mayor and members of the council (councillors) to represent their community. While 5 the mayor and councillors are publicly elected officials, a chief executive is employed to run the day to day operations of the council. In New Zealand, local authorities employ approximately 30,000 staff in diverse roles ranging from administrators and dog control to events managers and librarians. Councils provide the local public services and infrastructure required for the community’s need to be sustained. Primarily, council operations are funded through the provision of property tax – known as “rates” – payable by property owners. Local councils in New Zealand differ significantly from one another in terms of the activities they undertake, particularly where communities have been consulted in decision making and council outputs reflect the different circumstances of communities (Local Government New Zealand, 2014a). Likewise, property tax differs, and is set and collected by individual authorities. Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) represents the national interests of all local councils in New Zealand. LGNZ leads on and advocates for best practice in local government, provides training and gives policy development advice. The vision for local government in New Zealand is “local democracy powering community and national success” (Local Government New Zealand, 2014a). In 2014/15, LGNZ has seven strategic policy priorities: governance and performance excellence; a shared national approach to addressing regional development and growth across all of New Zealand; developing a sustainable funding model for local government; leading effective infrastructure development and funding policies; setting an agenda of regulatory reform and development of more effective policy-setting in areas impacting local government; sector-led policy on important environmental issues for effective management of natural capital; and strengthening local democracy and the value of local government (Local Government New Zealand, 2014b). 6 The research setting Councils A and B are neighbouring authorities in the North Island of New Zealand. Council B has the larger population and number of dwellings of the two councils, while council A possesses greater land mass, featuring large areas zoned as rural. Major ethnic groups residing within both councils include European, Maori, Pacific peoples and Asian. The median income for both councils is almost identical and just above the national average at $32,500 for council A and $31,500 for council B (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). Both councils A and B represent areas defined as cities. Council A is overseen by a mayor and 10 councillors. Councillors are members of a number of council committees, however there are no committees specific to events apart from one relating to temporary road closures for events. At the commencement of this research project, Council A employed a retail and events coordinator within its marketing and communications department under the business development services department, and also funds the salary of an events administrator based at a majority council funded venue. It is noteworthy that this venue has been the recent recipient of a three-year, $1.5M council grant to enable the development its events infrastructure. The retail and events coordinator role subsequently changed to become retail coordinator and a new marketing and events coordinator role was established. Council A’s community services department includes teams also responsible for community event and recreation outputs, however these are targeted at specific geographic or minority groups, therefore not considered community events in terms of being available for the entire community to engage with. 7 Council B is overseen by a mayor and 12 councillors who also sit on community boards and community committees. There are many council committees, working groups, special committees and sub-committees, none of which are specific to events activity. Council B is a shareholder in a number of council controlled organisations. Council B employs an events manager and an events coordinator within its community services group. The two events roles have existed within council B for a number of years, despite some restructuring having occurred. Council B also employs a CBD development manager as part of its city development group, a role which was established in 2012 with the aim to create a more vibrant and active central business district. This role includes event planning and delivery, and finding creative uses for vacant shop spaces in collaboration with landlords and rental agents. Main street decline is a concern for both councils A and B, with many shop sites on their respective main streets presently vacant. Faced with competition from malls and online shopping, many small retailers simply cease operating. Key guiding documents Council A is guided by key documents typical of all local government authorities in New Zealand. These key documents include a district plan, which councils are required to produce under the Resource Management Act (1991) (New Zealand Legislation, 2015). District plans outline the management of the built and natural environment and regulates the way land can be used or developed. A long term plan (2012-2022) is also a key document, as is the annual plan (2014-15). Council A also follows an urban growth strategy (2007), which is currently under review. Parallel to this process, a new rural strategy is being drafted, which will likely be incorporated into the updated urban growth strategy. Events are mentioned 23 8 times in the long term plan; however council A has no specific event management strategy, vision or related document. Like council A, council B is guided by a similar portfolio of key documents, supported by an additional integrated vision for the city. Key documents include the annual plan, district plan and long term plan (2015-2025). Events are mentioned 37 times in the long term plan. Unlike council A, council B also has a formal events strategy (2013-2023), which aims to provide a framework for the council’s events decision making process and role in delivering events. The existence of the strategy is rationalised by the community profile, social and economic benefits that can be gained through events. The strategy states “events enable people to have a sense of pride in the city, a connection with their community…events transform the negative into positive, prejudice to acceptance, isolation to connection” (City Events Strategy, 2013, p. 5). While opportunities for social capital are not explicitly stated in the events strategy, references such as the aforementioned identify with social capital building. The events strategy also makes reference to working alongside neighbouring councils to co-host multi venue events. Council B’s long term plan indicates a commitment to construct an events centre capable of hosting single and multi-day community and commercial events. The events centre is scheduled to open in 2017. Events portfolio Events feature prominently on both council websites. Council A’s website lists “festivals and events” among the core services delivered, and highlights 11 key annual events taking place in the city. Just one of the 11 events listed – a retail- based fair coinciding with the end of financial year – is entirely owned and delivered by council. Other events such as a summer festival, street fair and cycling events are 9 organised by non-council event managers though supported in some way by council. These events are mostly not-for-profit, though several are commercial. Council B’s events output significantly outweighs that of council A, with council B initiating, planning and delivering a number of regular “showcase” and “premier” events as defined in its events strategy. Council B regularly updates and reviews its events portfolio and strives to avoid duplicating similar events simultaneously offered by other councils. Both councils attract a wide range of events organised from outside council, particularly outdoor sporting events such as mountain biking, road biking and triathlon events. Each hosts a local i-SITE facility in a council property; staffed and managed by council employees or employees funded by council. I-SITEs support local events through promotion and coordinating accommodation and transport bookings for visitors. Events resources for event organisers Information for event organisers delivering events within each city varies. Council A provides detailed online information and resources on how to run an event. This includes event promotion, booking council venues and noticeboards, road closures, food and liquor licencing, permits and waste management. New event organisers are referred to guidelines for event organisers created by a larger council authority within the region as no guidelines specific to council A are available. Council B sees its role in events in a number of ways: as an owner and provider of venues and public spaces; as a direct supplier that initiates, plans and delivers events; as a facilitator, supporting events by playing a regulatory and advisory role; as a funder and champion of events; and as a promoter of events. Online information for event organisers by council B is available in regards to 10 booking venues, applying for relevant permits and seeking council advice. Nothing specific to running an event is on the website, though a toolkit is in development, as are plans to train community groups in event management best practice. Both councils provide a contestable pool of funds for event organisers to apply for, funded through the respective event operating budgets. Council A has a total annual events fund of $50,000 for council and non-council events, while council B has an annual events support fund solely for non-council events of $100,000 and a contestable fund of $150,000. To assess the merit of applications to the fund, council A asks applicants for comprehensive event details, including event scope, budget, marketing plan, community impact, contingency, health and safety, traffic, audience and waste management plans. Council A also provides a $93,000 community grants fund annually for community groups delivering community services in the city. One of the priority areas for funding is to assist community driven initiatives for events or programmes which promote a sense of community or contribute to community well- being. Council B provides a framework for funding assessment in its events strategy, breaking events into four categories: showcase, premier, city/local and economic/strategic. Each category has defined characteristics typical of events falling into each one. Event organisers applying for funding under $10,000 must submit a detailed budget supported by quotations and a brief event overview. Applications for funding over $10,000 must include more detailed event plans, such as objectives, risks, resources required and a marketing plan. No monitoring or evaluation systems are in place by either council to undertake a post-event analysis 11 of funding recipients’ actual outputs compared to what was outlined in their applications. Both councils A and B make a wide variety of resources available to events, such as venues, equipment, signage, promotion and informal advice enabling organisers to navigate council processes and meet regulatory obligations. Both councils dedicate space on their respective websites for events calendars highlighting local activities. Events organisers are able to submit event details to these calendars for inclusion at no cost. As well as a range of council venues, non- council venues such as maraes, meeting facilities and sporting arenas are also available within the cities. Neither council is situated within close proximity of significant hotel accommodation or modern convention style facilities. 12 Literature review Background Festivals and special events are common occurrences in cities and communities across New Zealand. Organised, hosted and supported by a range of stakeholders for varying purposes, festivals and special events are known to bring with them a wide range of impacts to the host community. Events play an important role in society, breaking up the routine of daily life (Shone & Parry, 2013) through celebrations, commemorations and special occasions. The events industry in New Zealand continues to grow. Not only has the number of major events being delivered on an annual basis in New Zealand increased, there have also been increases in events industry employment, membership to New Zealand’s sole association for events professionals, and programmes being offered at tertiary institutions with a focus on event management as a discipline. New venues enabling the expansion of the events industry are being constructed across the country, complemented by strategic plans looking to take full advantage of the benefits events can provide. Events are delivered in specific social, political, economic and environmental contexts with the ability to impact both positively and negatively (Holmes, Hughes, Mair, & Carlsen, 2015). Since the early 2000's, a large body of event management research has trended towards the investigation of the social impacts of events, rather than focusing for the most part on economic impacts as was previously the case (Buch, Milne, & Dickson, 2011). The impacts of events, both positive and negative, is becoming more detailed and better known as the body of knowledge expands. 13 Definition: Event Getz’s (2005, p 16) two-pronged definition of a special event is frequently cited in the literature: “a special event is a one-time or infrequently occurring event outside the normal program or activities of the sponsoring or organising body”; and "to the customer or guest, a special event is an opportunity for an experience outside the normal range of choices or beyond everyday experience". Festivals and special events mean life is not always the same (Harcup, 2000). Getz also provides an analysis of common dictionary definitions of ‘event’, which emphasises three key points on what an event is: an occurrence at a given place and time; a special set of circumstances; a noteworthy occurrence (2012, p. 37). Shone and Parry define events as “non-routine occasions set apart from the normal activity of daily life of a group of people” (2013, p. 8). Events are celebrations and catalysts for urban improvement opportunities (Sadd, 2010), gatherings of people for a purpose (Jones, 2014), and “a live occurrence with an audience” (Wood, 2009b, p 248). According to differences in their purpose and programme, special events fall into diverse categories (Bagiran & Kurgun, 2013), and the term “event” describes a wide range of event categories and characteristics (Fredline, Jago, & Deery 2003). Mega-events, hallmark events, major events and community events are terms used to describe events based on their size (Allen et al., 2011), though events can cross boundaries in terms of how they are categorised, depending on the perspective of the participant or spectator (Brewster, Connell, & Page, 2009). Mega and major events Mega-events such as the Olympic Games or Rugby World Cup have the capacity to impact considerably on the economic and social fabric of the host city. They are ‘mega’ in size in terms of attendance, financial commitment, media 14 coverage and facilities required (Hall, 1992). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) refers to ‘mega-events’ as ‘global’ events, grouping them into four categories: trade fairs and exhibition events; cultural events; sports events; and political summits and conference events (Clark, 2008). Examples of mega-events staged in New Zealand in recent years include the Rugby World Cup 2011 and Cricket World Cup 2015, which was co-hosted with Australia. More frequently occurring than mega-events, major events can attract media coverage, local and international visitors as well as economic benefits (Allen et al., 2011). The New Zealand government defines major events as an event with the capacity to: “generate significant immediate and long-term economic, social and cultural benefits to New Zealand; attracts significant numbers of international participants and spectators; has a national profile outside of the region in which it is being run; and generates significant international media coverage in markets of interest for tourism and business opportunities” (New Zealand Major Events, 2013a). Local examples of major events include the biennial New Zealand Festival and World Masters Games being hosted by New Zealand in 2017. Where mega and major events are international and relocatable rather than being home grown, fixed location events, cities are relied upon to provide a stage on which such events can be hosted. A bidding process is generally involved, where the prospective host city competes with others interested in securing the right to stage the event according to bidding guidelines provided by the event owner. The logistics concerned with hosting mega and major events are complex (Mackeller, 2013). The process of bidding for and then hosting major events has become increasingly complex, with prospective host cities needing to establish that the return on investment can be justified (Church, 2014). Some events have no official bidding 15 process, instead employing a series of negotiations between the event owners and government agencies (Mackeller, 2013), while other events, like the Olympic Games follow a structured bidding format. Despite its mega-event status, just two countries went ahead with their bids for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games hosting rights; Beijing, China and Almaty, Kazakhstan. Oslo, Norway, withdrew its bid, citing concerns with escalating costs, lack of public support and unreasonable demands from the International Olympic Committee. Stockholm, Sweden; Krakow, Poland and Lviv, Ukraine also withdrew bids (Zinser, 2014). The inaugural European Games 2015 attracted just one bid from Baku, Azerbaijan, and has not secured a host city for to stage a follow-up event in 2019 (Lee, 2012). For the host city, raising its international profile through the successful hosting of the event is a prime motivator to host (Brown, 2014). This was similarly the case for Sri Lanka when rationalising its hosting of the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, with the head of state describing the event as an opportunity to showcase the country internationally (Grima, 2014a). There is a growing awareness of the need for mega and major events to “create more than just good memories” (Olympic.org, 2013, p. 1) and leave a positive legacy. For example, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has in recent times reviewed the obligations of Olympic host cities, making the event less expensive to stage and taking into consideration the culture and values of the host community (Wilson, 2014). For Glasgow, Scotland, hosting the 2014 Commonwealth Games was a unique opportunity to promote the country’s cities, landscapes, history, culture, venues and people to the world (McArdle, 2014). Among the benefits listed for bidding and hosting its football tournaments, FIFA cites increased civic pride and 16 community empowerment, and increased cooperation between stakeholders (FIFA, 2015). In its publication Local development benefits from staging global events (Clark, 2008), the OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) programme highlights five primary benefits associated with staging major events based on the experiences of over 30 major event hosts, being: alignment of the event with sector and business growth strategies; private-public investment partnerships; image and identity impacts attracting increased population, investment, or trade; structural expansion of visitor economy and supply chain development and expansion; and environmental impacts, both built and natural. Mega and major events are most successful when delivered alongside a long term plan, becoming a catalyst for urban development and global attention (Olympic.org, 2013; Clark, 2008), however burdening small or undeveloped communities with mega and major events could do more harm than good (Shone & Parry, 2013). Despite this, cities bidding for and hosting major international sporting events are evolving to include more non-democratic and developing nations than ever before (Church, 2014). Hosting a mega or major event is a significant and expensive undertaking for the host community. The benefit of a mega-event is questionable if investment is limited to constructing new purpose-built venues and associated transport links (The Economist, 2010). Of all the event types, mega and major events tend to attract the most criticism, with observers challenging the rationale of hosting events such as the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia (Chowdhury, 2014; Wilson, 2014); 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil (Gibson, 2014; Hilton, 2013); 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka (Grima, 2014a); and 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, India (Siegel, 2010). 17 Cashman (2002) describes the impact of an Olympic Games on a host city as being limited in their consultation with both the host community and local government, impossible to know the true cost of and with stated benefits that are vague and inflated in value. In Greece, hosting the 2004 Athens Olympics saw the event portrayed as “an unmitigated public relations disaster” (Rawling, 2004). Years after the Athens Games, the host city was still yet to feel the full weight of benefits promised in return for hosting the event. Venues specially built for the Games and described as “needlessly grandiose” remain unused or have been demolished and the cost of the Games is said to have contributed to Greece’s debt crisis (Dale, 2012). As well as being associated with financial and infrastructural issues, major events can also find themselves the target of domestic or international politically motivated terrorist activity. The attack on the Israeli Olympic team at the 1972 Munich Games is a well- known example of such terrorist activity on a major event (Reeve, 2006). At the 2006 Atlanta Olympics, a pipe bomb injured over 100 people (Sack, 2006). Likewise, bombs were detonated near the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring 264 people (Levs & Plott, 2013). Festivals As well as by size, events are also classified by their form or content, such as festivals and sports events. Festivals evolve from and mirror, the values of the communities which create them (Getz & Frisby, 1988). Belghazi (2006) describes festivals as temporary public displays or ephemera, distinguishable by those festivals that have official governmental support and those that are private endeavours, as well as those that have combined support of both. Festivals vary considerably, and generally are about people—those producing and those attending them (Buch et al., 18 2011). Festivals are important for their social and cultural roles, with public and not- for-profit sectors being the most frequent hosts of festivals (Andersson & Getz, 2008). Festivals in New Zealand have become multimillion-dollar businesses, with significant economic, socio-cultural and political impacts on the host community (Arcodia & Whitford, 2006). While some festivals stagnate or fail, others achieve longevity and go on to become hallmark events (Andersson & Getz, 2008). Festivals are often considered hallmark events for their strong association with a place (Allen et al., 2011); are usually held annually or biennially and enjoy the on-going support of the local authority they operate within. Local examples of hallmark events include the Hokitika Wildfoods Festival, WOMAD Taranaki and Warbirds over Wanaka. Like mega and major events, hallmark events can bring both positive and negative impacts to the host community. The Edinburgh Fringe and International Festivals are examples of hallmark events that have contributed to the reputation and attraction of the host city (Dibdin, 2014). Like a city, events too may have a reputation that can subsequently be associated with the place it is held. The annual Notting Hill Carnival, for example, a two-day celebration of Caribbean culture in West London, has a history of conflict and violence while simultaneously being a well-attended event. Police describe the carnival as an event with two extremes, attracting people with the intention to have a good time or for the opportunity to commit crime (BBC News, 2014). There is local opposition to the event, with some residents claiming it brings more harm than good (Blundy, 2014). In 2014, 261 people were arrested at the event (Morgan, 2014). Festivals, by their communal nature, help to build and strengthen community ties, develop local infrastructure and provide spending channels for residents and visitors (Pegg & Patterson, 2010). It has been suggested that community festivals 19 have the potential to raise social capital and facilitate community engagement (Finkel, 2010), collecting people together in order to experience a range of events (Wilks, 2011). Festivals have the ability to shape a community’s image (Delamere, 2001), and play an important networking role, rather than just contributing to the community through direct economic returns (Pickernell, O'Sullivan, Senyard, & Keast, 2007). Festivals allow host communities to express themselves (Binder 2012), showing us a map of the world, a map of the city and a map of ourselves (Gardiner, cited in b-side multimedia arts festival, 2013). Festivals can provide a centre of orientation for a community (Yuen & Glover, 2005) and place or keep towns on the map (Brennan-Horley, Connell, & Gibson, 2007). Festivals are often seen as high points in the community calendar, building on and adding to a community's sense of place (Delamere, 1999). Public agencies with responsibilities for well-being outcomes are increasingly realising that festivals are a powerful tool for engaging effectively with communities (Phipps & Slater, 2010). Australian-based reports (Phipps & Slater, 2010; Gibson & Stewart, 2009; Mulligan, Humphery, James, Scanlon, Smith & Welch, 2006) investigating the impact and effectiveness of festivals, special events and cultural activities have positively and enthusiastically endorsed the use of local events to enable community building, community well-being, the building of social capital and re-invention of regions affected by urban decline and rural issues, such as internal migration and drought. Festivals can also be unique travel attractions without requiring substantial or semi-permanent infrastructure (Gursoy, Kim, & Uysal, 2003). Community events Community events provide an avenue for communities to host visitors and share activities representative of community values, interests and aspirations, while 20 outwardly manifesting community identity (Derrett, 2005). Community events primarily target local audiences, encompassing a wide range of themes such as food and wine and multicultural festivals (Small, Edwards, & Sheridan, 2005). Community events are generally organised by volunteers with support from local organisations, the local business community and local government authority (Allen et al., 2011), and commonly observe a free entrance policy, which some argue reduces the value of events (Capriello & Rotherham, 2011). Public scrutiny of community events can be high, and they are usually dependent on access to external funding and other resources (Getz, 2002). In their study of community run festivals in Ontario, Canada, Getz and Frisby (1998) found few participants mentioned profit making as a goal. Community events are occasions for people to celebrate their heritage, way of life, and the collective community memory (Finkel, 2010) and are representative of the locality in which they are hosted (Arcodia & Whitford, 2006). Community events are generally locally controlled, making use of existing infrastructure to stage (Gursoy et al., 2003). Community events can also come in the form of sports and recreation based events, which bring large numbers of people together and involve the local populace (Misener & Mason, 2006). Local sports events in New Zealand are predominately organised and run by volunteers, spanning a wide range of sports and activities (Grima, 2014b). Both spectating and participation at sports events can be as important to the community as the event itself (Jamieson, 2014) and contribute to community well-being. Community events provide a forum for community action, while potentially planting a seed for events that may grow to reach national status (Ryan, 1998) as a “hallmark” event. 21 Event objectives & strategic planning The objectives and strategic planning behind staging events are varied, depending on the stakeholders involved and the outcomes they wish to achieve. The strategic management processes involved in event management differs from other organisations due to an event's defined time span (Reid & Arcodia, 2002). Event strategy refers to developing a long-term plan of action to achieve organisation-wide goals through the design, implementation and evaluation of events (O’Toole, 2011). Governments at all levels play a leading role in employing and developing event strategies, consciously using events in tandem with other policies and strategies to achieve short and long-term goals (Allen et al., 2011). Governments also generously fund mega and major events and invest expenditure to upgrade and build the facilities required (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2005). For an organisation or city, events should be considered as assets, strategically organised and managed as other projects are developed and assessed (O’Toole, 2011). Due to the growth being experienced by the events industry, it is necessary for owners and organisers of events to develop strategies in order to optimise competitive advantages, provide value for the audience and are distinctive while mitigating vulnerability to external competitors (Pegg & Patterson, 2010). Strategic event planners should not be cautious in terminating events that do not meet their objectives. An event’s life cycle is not a paramount concern; rather, an effective portfolio of events is of most importance (Getz, 2002). Internationally, local governments have used sports and major events to boost the local economy and attract investors (Rhodes & Kaul, 2014). Though events can help raise the profile of a city, opportunities for local authorities to accomplish strategic objectives through events has often been overlooked. In their research into 22 the strategic use of events by London Borough councils, Pugh and Wood (2004) found that event strategies developed by local authorities should feature clear objectives that complement broader strategies for the area, and are allowed time to develop and produce long-term results. Governments now recognise that events can be part of the sociocultural glue binds communities and nations, therefore investing public money towards building portfolios of events can be rationalised (Jamieson, 2014). Including festivals and events into city planning has become a strategy to further local urban and economic development, provide consumer experiences and positively promote the image of the city (Jakob, 2013). Ideally, event objectives should be measurable. Promoting or showcasing a place, building community, educating, and generating income are examples of event objectives in a regional context (Gibson & Stewart, 2009). In New Zealand, a hierarchy of strategies exists around tourism and events. The national tourism strategy feeds into the New Zealand major events strategy which is drafted and managed by New Zealand Major Events (NZME), a publicly funded department based within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). NZME works in partnership with the event sector to support New Zealand’s growing reputation as an attractive destination for major events of global significance, providing access to central government actors as required to secure a nationally beneficial event through a bidding process. The major events strategy is supported by the major events development fund, a contestable fund investing in events which can demonstrate significant and measurable impact in areas such as tourism revenue, New Zealand brand promotion, business and trade opportunities and increased employment opportunities in the immediate and long- term (New Zealand Major Events, 2014). The overall purpose of the national events 23 strategy is to support events with national outcomes (New Zealand Major Events, 2013b). Regional and city event strategies managed by local government authorities are further down the hierarchy, supporting events with local outcomes. Local government authorities in New Zealand, too, are increasingly involved with events, basing their approach on strategic plans aligned with long-term and district plans. The roles of government in events commonly include venue owner and/or manager, consent authority/regulatory body, service provider, funding, event organising and event/destination marketing (Allen et al., 2011). Local governments develop event strategies that include a portfolio of events, in order to coordinate and facilitate their involvement with events and the effective use of required resources (O’Toole, 2011). Event portfolios may include both existing events known to the host community as well as the sourcing of new events, while an event strategy may include resources such as checklists and toolkits for event organisers to assist with event planning and delivery (Allen et al., 2011), as such resources for event organisers may reduce barriers to delivering events. Wood (2006) suggests that non- strategic use of events by local government is a missed opportunity to gather information on the effectiveness of their events, making it difficult to justify delivering a portfolio of events. In their research investigating the role festivals and events play in regional development, comparing two Finnish cities, Luonila and Johansson (2015) found that festivals and events occupied a significant role in the strategic development discourse of both cities. The study identified five overall themes defining the role of festivals and events, being: economic development, education, attractiveness and image building; and comfort and well-being (Luonila & Johansson, 2015). Local government authorities in New Zealand have been known to use events to stimulate retail activity, particularly in main streets experiencing a decline in foot 24 traffic and increased vacant shop sites. Small retailers such as those found in many New Zealand localities are most affected by reduction in consumption (Nueno, 2013) Developed by Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED), an Auckland Council organisation, the Auckland Major Events Strategy is arguably the most sophisticated strategic plan of its kind among local authorities in New Zealand. Major events are considered an enabler of the local and national economies and Auckland’s development culturally and socially (Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development, 2013). The Auckland strategy aims to compete with comparable, like-minded international cities for major events, recognising the importance of hosting major events and the opportunities to achieve a balance of social and economic objectives; while striving to ensure the city is globally competitive with the view to transforming Auckland into the world’s most liveable city. The four key outcomes of the strategy are to expand Auckland’s economy; to grow visitor nights; to enhance the city’s liveability and increase international exposure (Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development, 2013). Wellington City Council also employs an events strategy, describing its vision for the city as “Wellington – the events capital of New Zealand” (2012, p. 4). Wellington’s objectives are more numerous and less ambitious than the Auckland strategy, and includes making Wellington a great place to live, to encourage participation, to offer a diverse range of events and to deliver events that showcase Wellington. The strategy focuses in part on building on existing events and to introduce one new iconic event to the portfolio; aligning council operations to effectively support events and establishing and maintaining a volunteer base for events (Wellington City Council, 2012). 25 Nelson City Council, a significantly smaller local government authority than Auckland and Wellington, employs an Events Strategy supported by an Events Marketing and Development Programme. The events strategy aims to stimulate the city’s economy through new spending by visitors to the area attending distinct events during the shoulder and low season (Nelson City Council, 2014). While it does not have a specific events strategy, Venture Southland, the economic development agency for Southland funded by Invercargill City, Southland District and Gore District Councils has instead developed an event planning guide to be used as a free resource by local events organisers (Devlin, 2014). Bidding to host major events can form part of an event strategy, combined with staging locally produced events (Church, 2014). Auckland has an agenda to bid for major international events while producing home grown events (Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development, 2013) such as the National Rugby League Nines Tournament, first staged in 2014 (Deane, 2014). Likewise, the Wellington strategy aims to grow the portfolio of events to include regular international events in tandem with developing new, iconic local events (Wellington City Council, 2012). Hosting sporting events in particular is a means for cities to promote themselves in a competitive global market (Misener & Mason, 2006). Auckland Council use events with the aim of building its image as a vibrant and dynamic city (Buch et al., 2011). Public sector investment in events is widely accepted, given local, regional and national governments have utilised events as a key part of community development strategies (O’Sullivan, Pickernell, & Senyard, 2009). Internationally, the City of Edinburgh Council’s Inspiring Events Strategy (2006), places importance on events as they benefit the city's economy, create life and interest in the city and 26 reflect the kind of city Edinburgh is. Far from resting on its laurels as a world-leading event destination, Edinburgh continues to plan for the future sustainability, success and development of its festivals (Dibdin, 2014). In the City of Sydney’s Creative city cultural policy and action plan 2014-2024 (2014), events feature prominently in the vision, policies and strategic priorities for the city. In a review of seven comparable cities and their event strategy approach – Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne, Cape Town, Barcelona, Glasgow and Torino, the Auckland major events strategy highlights six common emerging themes: strategically planning and investing in major events is recognised; balancing social objectives with economic outcomes is important; mega- events are opportunities to transform a city socially and economically; major events are used to promote and enhance the city brand; a range of diverse events is hosted; and event portfolios are built around a number of ‘anchor events’ (Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development, 2013). Each event developed by a local authority or event producer will have its own set of objectives, which may be related to achieving economic, social, cultural or other outcomes (Lade & Jackson, 2004). Not all local authorities have documented strategic event plans. In her study on impact evaluation frameworks for local government community festivals, Wood (2009) found that limited time and money and a lax approach to the setting and evaluation of event objectives were obstacles to creating event strategies. O’Sullivan et al., (2009) explored 22 local government authorities in Wales to investigate their involvement with festivals and special events, and to understand how the value of events related activity is assessed. They found that while a high level of festival and special event activity occurred in Wales, detail on understanding whether and how objectives were achieved was not widely known (O’Sullivan et al., 2009). 27 Investing in infrastructure suited to local and global events by local authorities is rationalised by the potential to retain and increase market share of events (Ryan, 1998). New Zealand is presently experiencing a boom of sorts in the planning, approval and construction of convention and conference centre type venues, with plans for purpose-built facilities currently underway for Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown. Auckland is leading the charge with the $402M New Zealand International Convention Centre expected to open in 2018. In Wellington, the city council is a key stakeholder in a new $125M convention centre and hotel project, committed to providing financial support on an on-going basis (Gibson, 2014). As part of the earthquake recovery projects in Christchurch, a $284M convention centre is expected to be completed in 2017 (O’Connor & Stylianou, 2014). In Queenstown, the local council is behind the proposal for a $53M conference centre, anticipating construction to commence in 2016 (Williams, 2014). The long-term returns planners envision for staging major events do not often reach fruition, with host cities facing post-event issues regardless of any public relations success or otherwise (Siegel, 2010). When strategically approached, staging major events can deliver benefits to the host community, such as increasing investment and innovation, media coverage to a global audience and provide compelling reasons to simultaneously achieve other goals (Clark, 2008). Ahmed (1991) advocates the use of mega-events and bidding to host convention-type events as methods for offsetting the bad image or poor reputation of a city, as events can contribute to positive positioning and branding (Getz & Fairley, 2004). Events may also be used to draw domestic and international tourists to cities not in possession of iconic natural attractions (Lade & Jackson, 2004). Ultimately, local 28 communities are the end customers of any event strategy, whose needs should be identified and met (Pugh & Wood, 2004). If an event is to be deemed successful, it should leave the host location better off than it was prior (Clark, 2008). Only by completing purposeful and strategic evaluation can this be known. Evaluation is closely linked with event objectives, undertaken in order to measure the success or otherwise of an event (Allen et al., 2011) and any wider event strategy that is in place. Evaluation strives to improve event management processes, and to ascertain how the event objectives might be being achieved from the outset (O’Sullivan et al., 2009). Event evaluation is generally broken down into three areas: pre-event, event and post event. Post-event evaluation is most commonly undertaken, via methods such as visitor questionnaires or debriefing with management (Williams & Bowdin, 2007). In their study on public sector evaluation of events in Wales, O’Sullivan et al., (2009) found that evaluation work undertaken was not entirely fit for purpose; often occurring during or within one month of the event with little evaluation being completed before the event or in the longer term. Understanding audience needs and utilising feedback to further improve events is of prime importance (Lade & Jackson, 2004). Evaluation of events also plays a role in reporting on the impacts, both positive and negative and the importance placed on those impacts by the host community, thus enabling event organisers to develop strategies for future events to maximise positive impacts and minimise the negative impacts (Small et al., 2005). Event objectives are not always well-thought out and often not assessed via an evaluation process (Wood, 2009a). In his study on the publicly funded Year of Visual Arts event held in Northern England in 1996, Long (2000) found objectives for the event were broad and intangible, therefore difficult to evaluate with accuracy. 29 While some respondents agreed that, though difficult to quantify, the event had fulfilled its objectives; others felt the attempt to meet broad objectives had been the event’s biggest failing. For local government to demonstrate a return on the use of public funding, event portfolios should be reviewed regularly with input from stakeholders in order to ensure that the objectives for the event strategy are being met (Pugh & Wood, 2004). The benefits of events to a community need to be proven and quantified in order to rationalise a continuation of or increase in a local government events budget (Wood, 2006). To ensure the long-term survival of an event, processes like evaluation that can renew the event product are of great importance (Larson & Wikstrom, 2001). Stakeholders Events are generally delivered by a combination of stakeholders made up of public, private and voluntary associations (Larson, 2002), and can be planned and organised by government agencies, non-profit organisations or commercial entities (Manning, 2012). Cooperation and commitment among stakeholders involved with delivering events is vital to ensure the successful implementation of an event strategy. Event managers must be capable of effectively managing stakeholders in order to acquire the ongoing support of the community (Getz, Andersson, & Larson, 2007). Engaging stakeholders from the commencement of the event planning process will result in the host community be more supportive of the event (Reid & Arcodia, 2002). Managing the expectations and separate agendas of stakeholders can be challenging, and different strategies in liaising with stakeholders may be required (Andersson & Getz, 2008) to balance conflicting claims (Reid & Arcodia, 2002). Hartley (2009) suggests stakeholders can be a champion, advocate, liaison, subject matter expert, team member or sponsor. Each stakeholder's influence and 30 impact can vary, from low to high impact and low to high influence. This may influence how an events organiser will manage particular stakeholders in order to successfully deliver their event (Hartley, 2009). Governments are a key stakeholder in the delivery of events, and depending on the governance structure of the country, there are normally three levels of government involved in events projects: local authorities, regional or state governments and national governments (Smith, 2012). For mega and major events, coordination between the host city, regional or state and national governments is necessary to keep planning on schedule and stakeholders satisfied (Gibson, 2014). Legal support from central government is commonplace, coming in the form of amendments to existing legislation, or the introduction of new, event specific legislation. In New Zealand, the Major Events Management Act (2007) was enacted for the purpose of providing protection for major events, primarily to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation of the event and to protect the event’s sponsors, income streams and branding (New Zealand Legislation, 2013). Internationally, examples of changes in legislation passed to facilitate mega and major events delivery are commonplace. In South Korea, legislation was amended to allow logging of primeval forest to facilitate construction of facilities for the Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Olympics (Kim, 2014). In New South Wales (Australia), the state government enacted the Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 in order to ensure the rally event would proceed (Mackeller, 2013). This Bill allowed the rally event organisers to conduct usually unauthorised activities to deliver the event, such as constructing temporary works in national parks. It has been suggested that political vanity is generally a primary motivating factor for countries to host major or mega events (The Economist, 2010); with 31 politicians and planners struggling to remember why hosting was attractive when preparations go awry (Siegel, 2010). In his research paper exploring the festivalisation of urban spaces in Morocco, Belghazi (2006) explored the growing importance of festivals, including the use of festivals to uphold dominant political values. He argued that festivals may be utilised as a mechanism of social control and to undermine traditional Islamic values (Belghazi, 2006). An issue with public sector led event projects is that elections and changes in government leadership can disrupt plans (Smith, 2012). Changes in government occurred in New Zealand in 2008 after it was awarded hosting rights to the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Helen Clark, the prime minister at the time of the successful hosting bid, played a key role in New Zealand securing the rights to host the event (Snedden, 2012). Clark was subsequently defeated at the 2008 election by John Key (Chapman, 2008). Similarly, Ken Livingstone was mayor of London when the city was awarded the rights to host the 2012 Summer Olympics in 2005 (Oliver, 2005). Livingstone later lost the mayoralty to Boris Johnson in 2008 (Prince, 2008). Likewise, Tony Blair was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2005 (Oliver, 2005) before resigning in 2007 (Tempest, 2007) and succeeded by Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown subsequently lost the national election in 2010 to David Cameron. Local government is a particularly important player in the delivery of events, as consent from the local authority is usually a prerequisite for a festival or special event to be staged (Larson, 2002). Local governments strategically support events for four broad reasons: strengthening the community, event sustainability, economic development and to increase tourism to the area (O’Toole, 2011). The local authority is a regulator, and sometimes also a facilitator and partner (Getz et al., 2007), with a role to play in supporting the sustainable operation of local events (Jones, 2014). For 32 event managers, positive relationships with local authorities are especially important where financial support is sought (Andersson & Getz, 2007). Derrett (2005) outlines the stakeholder role of local government to include policy and planning frameworks, events officers and project management personnel, infrastructure support and in- kind and financial investment. In their study on the annual Auckland Pasifika Festival, Buch et al., (2011) note the involvement of paid staff provided by Auckland City Council, thereby cementing the local authority’s role as a major stakeholder. It can be difficult to accurately map all stakeholders claiming to be impacted by an event (Larson & Wikstrom, 2001). In her study of the Storsjoyran Festival in Sweden, Larson (2002) found that many stakeholders were part of producing and marketing the festival, categorising them into eight groups: the festival organiser, the artist industry, the media industry, the local trade industry, sponsors, public authorities, association and clubs; and ‘free-riders’ . In Reid’s study on the social impacts of events in three communities within the Southern Downs region of Queensland, Australia, stakeholders were classified as people who have an interest in the event; were involved in the actual planning and organisation of the event; were financially involved with the event; derived benefit from the event taking place; and the community (2007). Organisers and staff directly involved with an event are often temporary, freelance or transient labour (Thomas & Wood, 2015). In her study into the longevity of regional community festivals in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales (Australia), Derrett (2005) found that stakeholders included local government, regional and state government agencies, the local business community, special interest groups, regional and local media, individual community champions, festival organisers, residents and visitors. In their 2007 study of festival stakeholders in Canada and Sweden, Getz et al. categorised stakeholders 33 into seven groups: festival organisation, allies and collaborators, regulators, the audience and the impacted, suppliers and venues, facilitators, and co-producers. Andersson & Getz (2008) identified 15 likely stakeholders in their research into festivals’ perceived dependence on stakeholders, which included paying customers, the local authority, the police and other public services, and artists being paid to perform. There is an expectation that local government will support local events, despite finite budgets. For example, in their study on the Foca Rock Festival in Turkey, Bagiran and Kurgan (2013) recommended that the local authority should invest more heavily in many aspects of the event by contributing additional resources towards promotion, management of the event site, and improving the relationship between the event audience and the local community. Given the scope of responsibility of local authorities combined with budgetary and resource restrictions (Wood, 2009a), this may not always be feasible. If a local government authority invests in an event, it may forgo investing in something else (Shone & Parry, 2013). In their report investigating the role of rural and regional festivals in Australia, Gibson and Stewart (2009) found that almost three-quarters of festivals surveyed were supported by their local authority. The authors recommended that to better ensure the ongoing viability of festivals in particular, addressing increasing public liability insurance costs could be considered (2009). Without an audience, it is difficult to rationalise the staging of events, therefore audiences are considered a key event stakeholder. An experience, such as an event is as real an offering as goods, services or commodities (Pegg & Patterson, 2010). Audiences attend events to participate and be entertained and to have a social experience beyond their daily routine (Allen et al., 2011). For event organisers, 34 attendance is usually accepted as the best measure of demand (Getz, 2002) with audience size the primary method by which the success of events is evaluated (Williams & Bowdin, 2007), however the success of an event should not solely be judged by the number of attendees (Ryan, 1998). The motivation to attend an event varies. In their study on the annual Auckland Pasifika Festival attendees, Buch et al., (2011) found the audience attended the Festival to experience diverse cultures; experience Pacific Island food; view performances and music; have a family day out to catch up with friends and relatives; and experience the enjoyable atmosphere. In their study on the audience motivations of attendees to the Tamworth Country Music Festival, Pegg & Patterson (2010) found that their love of country music was the principal reason for attending the festival. The study also found that it was the “atmosphere” that was considered by visitors as being the most important overall aspect of the festival (Pegg & Patterson, 2010). In her preliminary research into the future of arts festivals in New Zealand, Goh (unpublished, 2014) found that festival directors had concerns regarding the sustainability of audiences. Nicholson and Pearce (2001) conducted a study examining audience motivations to attend four New Zealand events: the Marlborough Wine, Food and Music Festival, Hokitika Wildfoods Festival, Warbirds over Wanaka and the New Zealand Gold Guitar Awards. The study found that the dominant reason for attending the events related directly to the theme and to specific activities or attractions being offered. A novelty or curiosity element also emerged strongly across the four events as being a motivator to attend (Nicholson & Pearce, 2001). With the number of events on offer for audiences to choose from, other events or leisure activities can easily attract the audience if the event loses its appeal (Getz, 35 2002). A local example of this occurring is the Big Day Out music festival, an annual feature on the Auckland summer events calendar for 18 years. In 2013, the Big Day Out was cancelled (New Zealand Herald, 2012), returned in 2014 and cancelled again for 2015 due to low ticket sales (Shulz, 2014). Event organisers & the host community Festivals and special events may have both positive and negative impacts on the host community. In order to constructively manage such impacts, event organisers should continually be aware of community interests and concerns (Delamere, 1999, Small, 2007). Often, the positive social impact on the host community is why event organisers become involved to begin with (Finkel, 2010). Event organisers need to know what impacts their events will have on a host community, recognise the importance of host community support, and realise that any dissatisfaction may threaten long-term viability (Small et al., 2005). There is often room for improvement in how events are organised, particularly in regards to host communities (Jamieson, 2014). Both residents of a host community and event organisers have a stake in maximising social benefits and minimising social costs of an event (Delamere, 2001). Event organisers must interact with the local businesses and the general community to plan the event; interaction which can lead to new social links and identification of valuable community-based resources (Arcodia & Whitford, 2006). In their research into event organiser’s perceptions of the impacts of festivals and special events on host communities completed by Gursoy et al. (2003), results indicated that event organisers felt that events contributed positively to community cohesiveness. 36 Employing a dedicated event organiser is seen by some as being crucial to the logistical success of an event (Hilbers, 2005), although large numbers of events are managed by volunteers (Gibson & Stewart, 2009; Grima, 2014b) which can hamper professional event management practice (Brennan-Horley et al., 2007). In Getz's (2002) study on why festivals fail, incompetent event organiser or staff and volunteer burnout were considered problems respondents indicated to be "very important right now". In their research into the Highland Games’ role as a community event in Scotland, Brewster, Connell and Page note that professional event organisers may pose a danger to the cultural heritage of events accustomed to being convened by community volunteers (2009). Community-run events may resist growth or sophisticated event management in order to keep their events small and uncomplicated, maintaining community control and benefits (Getz & Frisby, 1988). Overwhelmingly, attendees at most events are local community members, therefore ensuring events are in alignment with community needs is crucial (Fredline et al., 2003). In a study on the event consumption experience, Jakob (2013) found that at events in Berlin and New York City, the local population was largely excluded in favour of attracting a wealthier, middle-class audience. Discrepancies between event organisers understanding of the benefits and purpose of an event and the views of the local community could be problematic (Gursoy et al., 2003). Festivals and special events harbour valuable potential for community engagement (Finkel, 2010). Harris defines community engagement in an event management context as “interactions of a formal or informal nature between an event and its host community that span a range of activities from information sharing and consultation, to active participation and involvement” (2005, p. 291). Public events are generally community events or major events that take place within a host community, therefore the community is a 37 major stakeholder in events and the community perspective should be considered in the event planning process to avoid a backlash (Allen et al., 2011). In his study on the event management of the Tour Down Under event and its effect on community building in South Australia, Jamieson (2014) found that there was a greater need for host communities to be engaged by event organisers in order to feel more valued. Interacting with local producers to highlight the region, providing volunteer training, using local suppliers and providing work experience were ways Jamieson (2014) recommends event organisers can give back to the community. Harris’ (2005) exploratory study on how event organisers strategize engagement with host event communities identified community engagement strategies utilised by 21 organisers of Australian events, which he classified into six categories: participation facilitation; community input and feedback facilitation; inclusive programming; incentives; outreach; community development and capacity building; and local business engagement. The ultimate aim for event organisers in regards to community engagement should be to encourage a sense of local ownership, or ‘buy- in’. This means removing constraints to community participation in the event (Smith, 2012), which may have a positive community building affect. Social capital Capital is defined as an investment of resources with expected returns in the marketplace (Lin, 2001). Various conventional forms of capital exist in society. Economic capital and physical capital considered stocks of resources controllable by an actor or owner of that capital, which may have been acquired or inherited. Cultural capital, institutional capital and political capital come from belonging to a specific culture, institution or political party (Esser, 2008). Intellectual capital refers to the knowledge embedded in human capital, structural capital and relational capital in 38 an organisational context (Veltri & Bronzetti, 2015). Relational capital is the value of relationships with stakeholders within an organisation. Relational capital shares characteristics similar to social capital, and is considered a valuable resource (Mom, van Neerijnen, Reinmoeller, & Verwaal, 2015). Structural capital is defined by the Cambridge Business English Dictionary as the value of all of a company’s or organisation’s intellectual property including software, patents, etc. (Cambridge Dictionaries Online, 2016). The qualities, capabilities and well-being of a person are regarded as personal capital (Belton, 2014). Natural capital is defined by the World Natural Capital Forum as “the world’s stocks of natural assets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things” (2015, par. 1). The term ‘social capital’ has been in use for almost a century, while the ideas behind the concept go back even further (Keeley, 2008). Social capital describes intangible community resources, shared values and trust (Field, 2008). People easily grasp the meaning of social capital and generally positively interpret it, as the concept suggests that collective actions via collaborative efforts are facilitated by trust, reciprocity and cooperation of the individuals involved (Kreuter & Lezin, 2009). Social capital refers to an individual’s ability to leverage advantage from their relationships (Pickernell et al., 2007), the “core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value” (Putnam, 2000, p. 19). In Te Reo Maori, the term whanaungatanga can be connected to Western definitions of social capital. Whanaungatanga is defined as “a relationship through shared experiences and working together which provides people with a sense of belonging. It develops as a result of kinship rights and obligations, which also serve to strengthen each member of the kin group. It also extends to others to whom one 39 develops a close familial, friendship or reciprocal relationship” (Maori Dictionary, 2011). Kreuter & Lezin (2009) summarise the central themes emerging from definitions of social capital offered by theorists’ James Coleman, Pierre Bourdieu, Alejandro Portes, Robert Putnam, and Francis Fukuyama; concluding that social capital: is defined by its function; is a property of the individual’s network of relationships; facilitates certain actions of the individuals within the relationship network to pursue shared objectives; is enabled by the networks, norms, and trust on the individuals in the network; and is able to provide access to potentially scarce resources simply by being a member of certain networks. Literature on social capital emphasises how social relationships can accumulate resources for an individual and community (Castiglione, Van Deth, & Wolleb, 2008), with social capital being used to describe elements related to social embeddedness (Esser, 2008). Social capital enables communities to more readily resolve collective problems, smoothing the way to allow community advancement and development, however the external impact of social capital beyond a network is not always positive (Putnam, 2000). Social capital may be unhelpful or even harmful for some (Coleman, 1990); while it can be used to access resources, it can prevent others trying to access the same resources (Field, 2008). When industry closes down, communities not only experience unemployment, but also a potential decline in social capital that was built around the workplace (Fine, 2010). Warren (2008) cautions that social capital enables a disproportionate return on investment in excess of what might have been achieved by an individual acting alone; and can be used to further terrorism, organised crime, ethnic rivalries and inequitable distribution of resources. 40 Coleman (1990) describes social capital as being defined by its function. Social capital is a variety of entities with two common characteristics: firstly, they are all part of some aspect of a social structure; secondly, they facilitate individuals’ actions that are within the structure. Lin describes the foundation of social capital as being straightforward: “investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace. Capital is seen as a social asset by virtue of actors' connections and access to resources in the network or group of which they are members” (Lin, 2001, p. 19). Lin offers four explanations as to why social capital works: firstly, the flow of information is facilitated; secondly, social ties may exert influence; thirdly, social ties may be interpreted as social credentials held by an individual; and lastly, these three factors combined are necessary for mental well-being and access to resources (2001). Putnam can claim credit for popularising the concept of social capital (Field, 2008). Putnam offers four explanations of how social capital works: firstly, it allows people to more easily resolve collective problems, secondly, social capital lubricates the path for community advancement; thirdly, it makes us more aware of our intertwined fates; and fourthly, social capital improves lives through the psychological and biological processes involved (2000, p. 289). As most individuals have limited human and economic capital resources, accessing additional resources through social ties makes it possible to achieve objectives that may not have otherwise been possible (Yuen & Glover, 2005). Arneil defines social capital as “an investment made by individuals today that will create a quantifiable benefit tomorrow” (2006, p. 224). Social capital, as a concept, represents a “shift in focus within, Western political theory from either the state or citizen to the civic space in between” (Arneil, 2006, p. 1). Social capital 41 increases productivity, well-being, proclivity to volunteer, makes government agencies more responsive, efficient and innovative (The Saguaro Seminar, 2001). Communities are stronger when reliant their own resources, including individual assets (Diers, 2004), or capital, with individuals recruiting one another for ‘good deeds’ through social networks (Putnam, 2000). The OECD defines social capital as “networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate co-operation within or among groups” (Keeley, 2008). Indicators of social capital include levels of giving, civic engagement, voluntary activity, participation, meeting obligations, community reciprocity and trust; including trust towards public institutions such as local government (Spellerberg, 2001). Community participation is a commonly used measure of social capital stock (Grimes, McCann, Poot, & Roskruge, 2011). Local governments can engage with community organisations in ways that encourage social capital formation by providing opportunities for citizens to provide feedback on decision making, giving voice and legitimacy to community concerns and collaborating to provide community services (Dollery & Wallis, 2002). Field summarises the findings of a wide variety of social capital research, concluding that “people who are able to draw on others for support are healthier than those who cannot; they are also happier and wealthier; their children do better at school and their communities suffer less from antisocial behaviour” (2008, p. 49). Social capital is a resource born from our relationships; enabled and embodied in social networks. Spellerberg describes social capital as ‘capital’ “because it can be accumulated over time and then drawn on for future use in achieving certain goals” (2001, p. 10). Existing relationships spanning organisations and networks can be utilised to get things happening (Hilbers, 2005), and formal systems and protocols 42 for getting things done can be bypassed where social capital is present; making who you know not what you know what counts (Field, 2008). Social capital occurs in two forms: bridging and bonding. Bonding social capital exists within and further strengthens the ties between individuals or collective groups, such as families and ethnic groups. Bridging social capital creates a connection between individuals or groups where one did not already exist (Jamieson, 2014). Bonding social capital reinforces alliances between people who are more alike than not (The Saguaro Seminar, 2001). Keeley divides social capital into three categories, being bonds: which are links to people based on common ground; bridges: being links that go beyond common ground; and linkages: connections to people or networks further up or down the social ladder (2008). Bridging social capital fosters new relations in a community (Kreuter & Lezin, 2009). Many event strategies feature objectives toward achieving building bridging social capital for greater community cohesion (Smith, 2012). In his bestselling book, Bowling Alone, Putnam (2000) investigated the alleged decline of social capital in the USA based on participation rates in organisations, associations, volunteering and voting. Suggested reasons for disengagement in these sorts of activities are: time pressure, economic hard times, television, disruption of family ties and growth of welfare dependence. Putnam provides evidence that schools and communities are less effective when social bonds slacken, and that the economy, health, democracy and happiness also depend on adequate reserves of social capital. Social capital will only develop in a positive social environment (Arcodia & Whitford, 2006) and depends on trust, without which, community networks and relationships are diminished (Reid, 2007). Theoretically, cities striving to ensure active community involvement should be more 43 abundant in social capital than those that do not (Misener & Mason, 2006). Drawing on the work of Coleman and Putnam, Statistics New Zealand developed a framework for the measurement of social capital (2001), defining social capital as “relationships among actors that create a capacity to act for mutual benefit or a common purpose” (Spellerberg, 2001, p. 9). Despite the popularity of Putnam’s Bowling Alone (2000), Diers (2004) dismisses Putnam’s analysis, maintaining that the data Putnam used to make his argument was based on many organisations and activities that are losing their relevance. Like Diers (2004), Arneil (2006) challenges Putnam’s social capital theories, arguing that decreased community organisation participation is better understood as change rather than decline. Fine (2010), a critic of social capital theory, claims that social capital is chaotic in definition and theory and is “self-help” elevated from an individual to community level (Fine, 2010). Social capital & events When managed correctly, events have a role to play in building social capital (Jamieson, 2014). Prior knowledge of the social capital existing within a community, and working within established social networks are recommended in order to guide the requirements and considerations required to make the event a social capital success (Crump, 2005). Events can provide opportunities for bridging and bonding social capital; such as when local residents work with stakeholders perceived as ‘outsiders’ to achieve a common goal (Reid, 2007). The personal networks of event stakeholders can positively contribute to the successful delivery of an event (Capriello & Rotherham, 2011; Getz et al., 2007). In the 2001 Saguaro Seminar report Better Together, a list of “150 things you can do to build social capital” suggests 29 event-based actions with the capacity to build connections to people 44 and, thus, social capital. Organising social gatherings to welcome new neighbours, hosting and attending events and going to local events, such as festivals, feature prominently in the list (The Saguaro Seminar, 2001). In New Zealand, Aotearoa Neighbours Day is an event supported by local government to connect neighbours and communities; thus strengthening connections and relationships in social networks (Colidcott, 2014). Christakis (2010) argues social networks are a kind of social capital fundamentally related to goodness. In his 2014 study, Jamieson found that organising and delivering events is an enjoyable way a community can draw on and build social capital. The Tour Down Under event contributed to the building of bonding social capital, as it provided a setting for community groups to work together (Jamieson, 2014). Rural Australian towns, such as Tamworth, New South Wales and Port Fairy, Victoria credit successful annual festivals for improvements in social capital (Gibson & Davidson, 2004 cited in Brennan-Horley et al., 2007). Events can enhance social capital, which in turn creates a productive and lively community (Sadd, 2010). Strong communities already experiencing high levels of social capital are more likely to benefit from the staging of major events (Smith, 2012). In her study exploring linkages between community events and a rise in community social capital, Finkel (2010) found that without the annual Up Helly Aa festival, the host community of Lerwick, Scotland, would feel a void in their community and in their lives. In their 2005 study into the Festival of Neighbourhoods in the City of Kitchener, Canada, a festival supported by the local authority, Yuen and Glover found that festivals were used intentionally to create a vehicle through which relationships could be fostered or renewed, thus facilitating the creation of social capital. Yuen and Glover (2005) highlight six guidelines for public agencies to 45 consider should they intend to address social capital development: have a common purpose for people to gather around; focus on people relationship development; recognise people’s efforts and successes; be a facilitator; be flexible; and be responsive. The Victorian government funded health promotion foundation, VicHealth, commissioned a multisite evaluation of 20 festivals; finding evidence that community events positively contribute to the mental health and well-being of communities. The study found that there were positive opportunities for community collaboration and engagement; create new networks and groups and the building of bonding social capital building (Hilbers, 2005). Events with negative impacts on the host community can potentially destroy the development of social capital (Arcodia & Whitford, 2006); however where there is collective opposition to an event, such as the Toronto based ‘Bread Not Circuses’ movement protesting Toronto’s 2008 Olympic Games bid, bonding social capital can be built (Misener & Mason, 2006). Though the 2009 World Rally Championship event experienced issues of concern to the host community, it provided unique opportunities for interaction and development of the social capital, strengthening social networks and enhancing trust (Mackeller, 2013). Cities work most effectively when local government and the community work in tandem as partners, benefiting from the resources, skills and relationships a community can mobilise (Diers, 2004). Capriello & Rotherham (2011) proposed a preliminary model illustrating event problem solving processes and stakeholder relationships, placing importance on building a sense of belonging and event ownership in host communities. Events supported by local government can encourage a positive attitude to the local authority by its constituents (Wood, 2009a). 46 Misener and Mason (2006) propose four ways in which host communities can be engaged with event planning: make community values central to decision-making processes; involve community stakeholders, such as interest groups; empower local communities to become agents of change and maintain open communication. They argue that host cities of major events that have tried to ensure active community involvement should theoretically be richer in social capital than those that do not engage with the community (Misener & Mason, 2006). In their study on celebrations, the arts and community well-being, Mulligan et al., (2006) make recommendations for community building, which include the support and delivery of community based events and projects. Community events can increase community capacity at an individual, organisational and community level (Hilbers, 2005). In their conceptual model of festivals and the development of social capital, Arcodia and Whitford (2009) illustrate that while there are positive and negative impacts associated with festivals for the host community, relationships, engagement, values, trust and networks can result from the festival experience, thus contributing to the building of social capital. In their study on building social capital through festivals and events in Wales, Pickernell et al., (2007) found that local authorities in rural areas committed fewer resources to festivals and events than authorities in metropolitan areas. This is despite the economic importance of festivals to rural areas and the potential for festivals to “be a vehicle for vital social capital building which underpins the economic health of localities” (Pickernell et al., 2007, p. 15). Wilks (2011) selected three publicly-funded UK-based festivals in order to explore the role of social capital in the music festival experience. Wilks found that demographically, attendees of each festival were socio-demographically similar. Contrary to Arcodia and Whitford’s (2009) suggestion that community events can 47 contribute to the development of social capital, Wilks (2011) found that while festivals provided opportunities for social interactions, the majority of attendees did so with existing groups of friends and acquaintances rather than building new social relationships or bridging social barriers, suggesting that social exclusion rather than inclusion was a music festival feature. In their 2010 study on the role of social capital in ritual community events such as the annual Danjiri Matsuri festival and building disaster resilient communities in Osaka, Japan; Bhandari, Okada, Yokomatsu and Ikeo found that bridging and bonding social capital enhanced self-reliance and disaster awareness. The authors argue there exists a tripartite relationship between event based rituals, social capital and disaster risk reduction; and suggest that events organisers could be sources through which disaster risk information could be communicated to the public (Bhandari, Okada, Yokomatsu, & Ikeo, 2010). “What is clear, however, is that the form of the event, the type of participation and the way in which events are managed can all have a significant impact on social capital growth” (Richards & de Brito in G. Richards, de Brito, & Wilk 2013, p. 224). Impacts The political, environmental, social and economic context in which events take place varies, creating impacts both positive and negative (Holmes et al., 2015). The literature on event impacts covers a broad range of potential impacts events can have on a host community, both positive and negative. Unlike other industries, the events sector is not always for-profit driven, and many events have little or no economic or other impacts at all (Shone & Parry, 2013). For a host city of a major or mega event, events can increase investor confidence, provide a global audience, increase visitation and foster engagement between stakeholders (Clark, 2008). Major and mega events can bring a bitter-sweet mix of costs and benefits. Positive 48 benefits and subsequent long-term legacies for cities hosting the Olympic Games include participation in sport, transport, construction, environment and volunteering (London 2012); education, public health, accessibility and cultural preservation projects (Beijing 2008); and improved image worldwide (Barcelona 1992) (Olympic.org, 2013). Event impacts are outcomes from the planning and delivery of the event – some of which are beyond the control of event organisers – whether or not they were expected to occur (Wood, 2009a). Seigel (2010) warns against the allure of "shiny new stadiums" for developing countries looking to prove itself on the international stage. Seigel cites New Delhi’s hosting of the 2010 Commonwealth Games, which cast light on disorganised planning and corruption (Siegel, 2010). Contrary to New Delhi’s Commonwealth Games experience, Glasgow City Council announced the city will "never be the same again" after hosting the same event in 2014, emerging as the Games’ "biggest winner" and leaving its mark on the world (McArdle, 2014). There is a broad spectrum of benefits events can have for a council, a region, the host community and visitors to the community (Pugh & Wood, 2004). Fredline et al., (2003) classify potential event impacts into six areas: economic, tourism/commercial, physical, sociocultural, psychological and political. Event Impacts UK measures the impacts of events according to five broad categories: attendance, economic, environmental, social, media (Event Impacts, 2014). Social impacts are defined as anything potentially having an impact on the quality of life for the host community (Fredline et al., 2003). Event impacts can be both direct and indirect, with the potential to permeate the host community; therefore the study of social impacts in particular is an important aspect of event management (Mackeller, 49 2013). Even when divided on their support for hosting an event; a community can still gain substantially (Brennan-Horley et al., 2007). Many events have left places worse off, constructing facilities with no plan for future usage and large debts post-event (Clark, 2008). Most literature written regarding the organisation and management of festivals and special events highlights the importance of their social and economic impacts (Bagiran & Kurgun, 2013). The closer a resident lives to site of an event, the greater the impact will be on them, both positively and negatively (Small et al., 2005). Awareness of social impacts and of host community attitudes toward those impacts may enable event organisers to mitigate the impact on the community (Delamere, 2001). The impacts of many community events can be diverse, far reaching and long term (Wood, 2009a). Some impacts may be experienced on a personal level, while others have a more widespread effect on the entire host community (Small, 2007). Event impact assessments solely focusing on economic impacts is too narrow in scope (Dwyer & Forsyth, 2009). Social impacts As well as the potential to grow and develop social capital, the social impacts of events are broad. Social implications of events include positive social interaction, community cohesion development and improving the community’s identity and confidence (Shone & Parry, 2013). Community events foster education and involvement among local populations, encouraging participation and strengthening community connections (Finkel, 2010). Events have the capacity to mobilise large numbers of people and create meaningful social impacts in numerous ways, which can be quantified and qualified by event organisers (Event Impacts, 2014). Measuring social impacts is connected to event objectives of stakeholders involved. 50 Event Impacts UK identifies five areas of social impacts: satisfaction; identity, image and place; participation; and volunteering and skills (Event Impacts, 2014). The host community and event organisers have an interest in maximising the social benefits and minimising the social costs that result from events (Delamere, 2001). Host community support is gained for events that have perceived positive socio-cultural impacts for residents (Small et al., 2005). Small and Edwards (2003, cited in Small et al., 2005) found that prior to