Evaluation of San Sebastian European Capital of Culture

Evaluation of San Sebastiรกn 2016 European Capital of Culture Executive summary compiled by lks / prospektiker

Executive summary May 18th 2017

executive summary

contents

1.

2.

3.

4.

purpose of the document: what it is and what it covers significant moments in the capital of culture project methodology the capital of culture in figures

03 04 05 07

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4. 10

07 08 10 12 13 13 14 15 16 16

4. 11

Projects in the cultural programme Activities in the Capital of Culture project Audience / event attendees Volunteers Participants in the Ardora citizens’ committee Participating agents in the capital of culture Management of the Capital of Culture Impact of the Capital of Culture on the local economy General satisfaction with the Capital of Culture Level of satisfaction with the cultural experience Communication in relationship with the Capital of Culture

5.

6.

challenges, aims and degree of achievement analysis by areas

18 24

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

Impact on culture and the city's image Physical impact Economic impact Social impact Management of the Capital of Culture and institutional perception European dimension Knowledge transfer

24 25 26 27 28

7.

synthesis

17

29 30

31

executive summary

1.

Purpose of the document: what it is and what it covers

purpose of the document

After briefly setting out the main milestones of the Capital of Culture, as well as a methodological description of the tools used in the multidisciplinary evaluation and the main figures for the project, this report summarises the challenges and aims, their degree of achievement and the areas defined by dss2016eu, and finishes by setting forth the conclusions reached.

This summary of the San SebastiĂĄn European Capital of Culture 2016 evaluation covers the main results of the process carried out by the temporary joint venture formed between LKS and Prospektiker within the framework of the integral evaluation model designed by the San SebastiĂĄn 2016 Foundation.

Ever since the nomination was conceived, evaluation has played an important role in defining the activities scheduled in all areas of the Capital of Culture. This document summarises the main results from said cross-discipline evaluation of the Capital of Culture, which are likewise set out in the Ex-post Evaluation Report. The information in this document is supplemented by a series of additional studies on projects, programmes and more specific aspects that have been the focus of reports by various external agents.

This document presents the results from the analysis of the challenges, aims and areas that constitute the basic pillars of the activities undertaken through dss2016eu. Said analysis is based on results from a system of 117 indicators that were defined for the Capital of Culture. As mentioned earlier, this evaluation is limited to the relevant parts of the integral model designed by the Foundation, and it estimates the impact of the Foundation’s activities.

3

executive summary

significant moments

2.

Significant moments in the capital of culture project

2009 july 2010 september 2010 2010 - 2011 2011 june 28th 2011

Nomination Project, Victoria Eugenia Conference and first laboratories First pre-selection: 15 cities Second pre-selection: 6 cities Preparing the second proposal and laboratories: Change of governing body: Town Hall and Regional Government of Gipuzkoa Designation of San Sebastian 2016, European Capital of Culture

may 10th 2012

Confirmation of the Capital of Culture

september 2012

Creation of the dss2016eu Foundation

march 2015 april 2015 2015 october 30th 2015 january 20th-24th 2016 december 2016

Last European Commission monitoring meeting Awarding of the Melina Prize by the European Commission Change of governing body: Town Hall and Regional Government of Gipuzkoa Official unveiling of the Capital of Culture programme Inauguration of the Capital of Culture Closure of the Capital of Culture

4

executive summary

methodology

3.

Methodology Given the transversal nature of the evaluation set forth in this document, several research techniques have been used to obtain the information needed for analysis. Said techniques ranged from gathering documentation and street surveys to studying participants at various events that had been selected for that purpose. In order to gather relevant information, each of the techniques used was geared towards a different target audience.

The evaluation process involved three interrelated phases. A snapshot of the situation prior to the inauguration of the Capital of Culture was obtained during an ex-ante phase. Throughout 2016, several surveys were carried out to gauge the opinions of local people, agents and institutions. Lastly, further surveys were carried out following the closure of the Capital of Culture.

Said surveys were based on those carried out during the ex-ante phase, in order to try and compare the impression at the end of the year with that of the year 2015.

The following is a summary of the techniques used by each agent and the phase in which they were implemented.

5

executive summary

tools

methodology

ex-ante 2015 ongoing 2016 ex-post 2017 observations

gathering documentation digital survey of the cci sector (businesses and foundations) universe: 945

n: 102

n: 123

digital survey of organised civil society (associations and federations) universe: 1,558

n: 116

n: 96

General online questionnaire using a list of all those existing in Gipuzkoa. Many of these have little or no activity or work in areas unrelated to the Capital of Culture. The actual survey universe is much smaller.

Guideline value.

n: 507

Ex-ante survey of the population of Gipuzkoa with a confidence level of 95.5% and an error margin of +/-4%. For the ex-post survey, a panel was established to follow-up on the people surveyed previously (i.e. a survey universe of 1,200). With the support of the Department of Psychology at the the University of the Basque Country.

telephone survey of citizens’ values universe: 605,387

n: 1,200 digital survey of sponsors universe: 71

n: 17

digital survey of artistic managers involved in the capital of culture universe: 134

n: 15

n: 48

n: 40

face-to-face survey of event attendees

Includes dssinnova2016 sponsors separately.

29.8% returned. With the support of the Department of Psychology at the University of the Basque Country.

Quota sampling based on estimated attendance.

Extrapolating estimated error of +-2.7% with a confidence level of 95%. With the support of the Department of Psychology at the University of the Basque Country.

n: 1354 in-person observations at events

Qualitative. With the support of the Department of Psychology at the University of the Basque Country.

n: 10 focus group with values experts

General online questionnaire using a list of all those existing in Gipuzkoa. 13% returned.

Satisfaction above 10%.

Qualitative. With the support of Huhezi – Mondragon University

n: 10

citizens contrast group n: 20

n: 10

focus group with agents participating in the capital of culture

n: 29

face-to-face interviews with institutional agents

n: 4

Qualitative. With the support of Huhezi – Mondragon University Qualitative. With the support of Huhezi – Mondragon University Qualitative.

6

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

4.

The Capital of Culture in figures This section sets forth the main figures from the Capital of Cultural in terms of the number of projects and activities, participants or attendees at events, and volunteers and agents, as well as data on project management, the impact on the local economy and the general satisfaction level amongst the different groups involved.

4.1. PROJECTS IN THE CULTURAL PROGRAMME cultural programme

area

name

number of projects

%

lighthouses

Voices

25

25.3 %

Life

21

21.2 %

Peace

16

16.2 %

Total lighthouses

62

62.6 %

Hirikia

9

9.1 %

Hazitegiak

7

7.1 %

Pagadi

7

7.1 %

Bestelab

7

7.1 %

284+

4

4%

Total quays

34

34.3 %

3

3%

total projects

99

100 %

conversations

64 strategic alliances

quays

embassies

waves of energy

132

7

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

4.2. ACTIVITIES* IN THE CAPITAL OF CULTURE PROJECT Of the 3,475 activities that took place within the Capital of Culture project, 2,358 (67.8%) were part of the cultural programme. That is to say, they were part of the projects brought forth by the lighthouses, quays or embassies.

year no. of activities

2012

2013 227

2014 370

2015 583

2016 693

2017 3,475

82

Voices

509 (14.6 %)

Lighthouses 1,640 (47.1 %)

Activities managed directly by dss2016eu 2,558 (73.6 %)

total activities 3,475*

Activities within the cultural programme 2,358 (67.8 %)

Activities outside of the cultural programme

Quays

524 (15.1 %)

Peace

459 (13.2 %)

Life

672 (19.3 %)

Embassies 194 (5.6 %)

200 (5.8 %)**

Activities managed jointly by dss2016eu

Conversations

2,558 (73.6 %)

693 (19.9 %)

Activities funded by dss2016eu

Waves of Energy 224 (6.5 %)

*Activities such as public events that have a specific date, time and place. Therefore, this count excludes internal design, development and project implementation processes, as well as internal meetings of specific forums and committees. **This figure represents the number of activities that took place between October 30th 2015 and December 31st 2016.

8

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

Activity types activity types

no. of activities

%

workshop

701

20.2 %

walk / guided visit

379

10.9 %

concert / recital

342

9.8 %

conference / talk / seminar

337

9.7 %

screening

323

9.3 %

theatrical work

295

8.5 %

exhibition

167

4.8 %

meeting

121

3.5 %

dance show

105

3%

presentation

57

1.6 %

intervention

53

1.5 %

course

50

1.4 %

mediation

42

1.2 %

reading

37

1.1 %

laboratory

36

1%

festival

35

1%

undefined

225

6.5 %

other activities

170

4.9 %

3,475

100 %

total

Cultural programme activity types (2,358 activities)* by area and discipline

More than one discipline

Media

Literary

2%

4.9 %

2.5 %

Theatrical Others 56.2 %

Arts

12.2 %

Musical 8.3 %

36.9 %

Visual Audiovisual

5.9 %

6.5 %

Other arts 1.5 %

*Groups defined by dss2016 in terms of activity area: Other, Arts, Media, More than one artistic discipline. "Other" includes courses and workshops, walks, talks, conferences and forums, participative processes and other activities. "Arts" includes theatre, musical arts, audiovisual arts, visual arts, literary arts and others. "Media" covers dissemination.

9

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

Activity locations

Gipuzkoa 11.6 %

Geopoetic territory of the Basque Language* 5.6 %

TV / Online 1.8 % Spain

Europe

1.8 %

San Sebastián

Unclassified

1.8 %

1.8 %

74.3 %

4.3. AUDIENCE / EVENT ATTENDEES Voices Lighthouses 507,319 (46.9 %)

Activities within the cultural programme Activities managed directly by dss2016eu 807,060 (74.6 %)

total attendees / audience 1,081,140**

714,985 (66.1 %)

Activities outside of the cultural programme

Quays 44,068 (41.1 %)

Embassies

150,470 (13.9 %)

Peace

170,021 (15.7 %)

Life

186,828 (17.3 %)

163,598 (15.1 %)

92,075 (8.5 %)**

Activities managed jointly by dss2016eu with other agents

Activities funded by dss2016eu

Conversations 272,743 (25.3 %)

Waves of Energy 1,337 (0.1 %)

*Note: “Geopoetic territory of the Basque Language” includes activities in towns in the provinces of Álava, Biscay, Navarre and Iparralde (French Basque Country). **The number of attendees/size of the audience is the minimum number of people at a Capital of Culture event, counted by dss2016eu. A series of activities were held outdoors or in open spaces for which these data could not be obtained. This figure includes attendee data from October 30th 2015 to December 31st 2016.

10

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

Profile of event attendees

sex

level of education

Vocational Qualification 14.4 %

Degree 38.8 %

Men Women

41.8 %

58.2 %

Secondary Education / Professional Training / Similar 21.8 %

Postgraduate Studies

Primary Education 4.6 %

10.9 %

No Answer 9.2 %

age (average age 43 years)

place or type of audience

Europe

Unknown / No answer 3%

21,438

Under 25 years

Gipuzkoa 2 % Unclassified

14.3 %

33,089 3.1 %

Older than 65 years

10,074 0.9 %

Spain

10.2 %

73,193 6.8 %

25-39 40-64 43.4 %

29.2 %

Geopoetic Territory of the Basque Language 138,506 12.8 %

San Sebastiรกn TV / Online 138,506 12.8 %

689,889 63.8 %

11

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

Origin of attendees at Capital of Culture events*

Foreign Spain (not the Basque Country)

7.6 %

3.4 %

Unknown / No answer 0.2 %

Araba 1%

Biscay 2.9 %

Gipuzkoa 84.9 %

4.4. VOLUNTEERS

2,373

Number of Volunteers in dss2016eu activities

2,000

Around 2,000 people from other organisations

513

In the volunteer circuit

830 373

People registered for the dss2016eu grant

Actively participated in activities (41 % with no previous experience)

4,142 10,493 Volunteer actions

Volunteering hours

* Source: event attendee survey. The surveyed events were held in their entirety in Donostia-San Sebastiรกn.

12

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

4.5. PARTICIPANTS IN THE ARDORA CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE Breakdown of participants in Ardora based on age

Over 65 14.4 %

194

16-24 5.1 %

25-39

Total participants, of which

19.5 %

55.6 %

40-65 61 %

were women

4.6. PARTICIPATING AGENTS IN THE CAPITAL OF CULTURE

participating agents 1,081,140**

Local individuals, Basques, from the remaining Autonomous Communities and State and from Iparralde

387 (12.1 %)

ForeignÂ

Type of agents connected with the Capital of Culture

2,798 (87.9 %)

Breakdown of cooperation by level* 1st level

Private Enterprises Organised Professional Partnerships 19.2 %

485 13.2 %

6.1 %

Autonomous Artists 33.5 %

Other Independent Individuals 20.4 %

3rd level 1,817 49.4 %

2nd level 1,375 37.4 %

Institutions or Public Bodies 20.8 %

*Definitions of level of cooperation in accordance with dss2016eu: First level: directly hired or those who had a direct relationship with the Capital of Culture to run or design a project. / Second level: those with no direct relationship with dss2016eu and who have run most of the project, or have been taken on by first-level agents to that effect. / Third level: related to specific aspects of the project.

13

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

4.7. MANAGEMENT OF THE CAPITAL OF CULTURE financial contributions

amount (€)

%

€40,544,993.88

81.6 %

trustee contributions. legacy plan.

€1,200,000

2.4 %

indirect trustee contributions (town hall)

€52,340.00

0.1 %

non-trustee contributions. eu.

€1,500,000

3%

€2,764,286.35

5.6 %

non-trustee contributions. sales.

€336,835.99

0.7 %

non-trustee contributions. grants.

€396,220.51

0.8 %

non-trustee contributions. others*.

€475,942.81

1%

non-trustee contributions. indirect contributions from third parties to the programme / co-productions.

€2,391,139.98

4.8 %

€49,661,759.52

100 %

trustee contributions. donations to the foundation.

non-trustee contributions. sponsorship.

total

37

Financial contributions from non-trustees

Sponsors

34

Business which were part of dssinnova2016

7,864,425.60 15.9 %

Trustee contributions 41,797,333.9 84.1 %

Capital of Culture expenditure for the 2012-2017 period.

expenditure items

amount (€)

%

cultural programme

€31,168,359.18

62.8 %

communication

€3,590,947.92

7.2 %

management and general services

€5,452,705.52

11 %

participation and evaluation

€1,154,217.61

2.3 %

production

€1,151,154.33

2.3 %

institutional relationships

€2,698,216.35

5.4 %

repayments

€944,063.52

1.9 %

€2,302,095.09

4.6 %

€1,200,000

2.4 %

€49,661,759.52

100 %

legacy fund (management by foundation) legacy plan (direct management by trustees) total

*Grants, donations and legacies transferred at the end of the financial year, + provision of services + extraordinary income (various).

14

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

Evolution of the dss2016eu workforce - number of equivalent full-time workers, annualised*

70 60 50 40 61

30 39.52

20 10 0

0.64

4.79

13.47

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

4.8. IMPACT OF THE CAPITAL OF CULTURE ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY**

capital of culture impacts in donostia / san sebastián 2016 direct impact

€18.6 million

direct impact

€28.5 million

induced impact

€70.6 million

gdp

€37.6 million

added value

€33.6 million

estimated number of jobs

612

*In 2017 this number reached 13.23 (as of March 31st). **Evaluation of Capital of Culture's Economic Impact. Promotion of San Sebastián (2017).

15

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

4.9. GENERAL SATISFACTION WITH THE CAPITAL OF CULTURE* Average satisfaction level of each of the groups involved

Local People

5.91

CCI Sector

5.65

Organised Professional Partnerships

5.55 0

2

4

6

8

10

Average satisfaction level of each of the groups based on participation in the Capital of Culture

5.7

Local People

6.1 6.6

CCI Sector 3.9 Organised Professional Partnerships

6.4 4.2 0

2

Participants 4

6

8

10

Non-participants

4.10. LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE CULTURAL EXPERIENCE

6.6

Level of satisfaction with the cultural experience

* Source: ex-post values survey of local people, ex post survey of the CCI sector, ex post survey of organised professional partnerships.

16

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

4.11. COMMUNICATION IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CAPITAL OF CULTURE Communication activities

554 271

Number of press releases*

Number of press briefings**

Social networks - number of followers

Communication media TV

Radio 3.8 %

23,300

9.2 %

Twitter

35,198

Press

26.6 %

Internet 60.5 %

Facebook

7,822 Instagram

759 YouTube subscribers

509,660 YouTube videos watched

18,604 Number of national media appearances***

â‚Ź44,113,382 Estimated economic value generated by national media appearances in 2016

*Period: October 30th 2015 to December 31st 2016. **Period: October 30th 2015 to December 31st 2016. ***Period: January 1st to December 31st 2016. Source: Kantar Media. Not counting the number of international media appearances. Data limited to media outlets in Spain.

17

executive summary

5.

Challenges, aims and degree of achievement In December 2013, the Foundation's board approved the Strategic Plan for dss2016eu. It defined the main milestones for the project throughout its development, and their associated challenges and aims. The following is a summary of the evaluation of these challenges and their corresponding aims.

CHALLENGE 1: EXPLORE NEW WAYS OF COEXISTING AND RELATING The first challenge for the Capital of Culture was to explore new ways of coexisting and relating which help to build a new social model based on coexistence and relationships amongst different people. The goal was to empower local people and give them the tools to overcome conflicts, coexist peacefully and participate in a solidary community.

aim 1. Use education and culture to develop, cooperatively, an all-encompassing range of themes around coexistence which constitute a critical reflection, a constructive viewpoint and a collective task. aim 2. Promote and showcase diversity as a source of richness: diversity of agents, awareness, formats, disciplines, types of projects, locations, languages, audiences, etc.

challenges, aims and degrees of achievement

aim 3. Encourage meeting and cooperation (hybridisation of knowledge and awareness, interdisciplinary and intergenerational working) as a formula for facilitating shared knowledge, respect and trust, and as a source of new energy and new connections between unlikely results. aim 4. Apply creativity and innovation to do things differently: new backdrops, new methodologies, constructive questioning and breaking past unnecessary boundaries. aim 5. Promote an open-source, publicdomain culture which is the result of shared learning and knowledge.

Main actions 1. The capital of culture has gone to greater lengths than those planned for in the nomination in terms of coexistence and reconciliation, allocating 700 thousand euros instead of 150 thousand, resulting in a greater number of projects and activities.

2. Coexistence and reconciliation, in their broadest sense, have been one of the most prominent themes, being featured in 3 out of 10 projects in the cultural programme.

3. All the aims linked to this challenge have been addressed in project content and also during project creation by encouraging exchange and strengthening diverse hybridisations of knowledge, culture, religions, languages, etc.

4. Creativity has been specifically encouraged through the application of new work methodologies and through event formats or settings.

5. Cultural activities have taken place in unusual spaces, such as in neighbourhood venues or in locations around the Urumea river.

6. These actions have been transferred to local people and to the culture sector in diverse

18

executive summary

ways, and in all cases they have fostered and strengthened the exchange of knowledge.

7. Diversity has been handled in different ways, in both multi-disciplinary and specific projects which have addressed gender, sexuality, religion, function, language, identity, etc.

8. Besides using venues without architectural barriers, the capital of culture has tried to facilitate universal access by installing additional accessibility measures.

Identified effects 1. It is very difficult to evaluate the short-term effects in these areas.

2. The changes detected in the values of the local community as a whole are barely noticeable.

Any changes which may have occurred will most likely not materialise in the same year as the Capital of Culture but instead they will appear further down the line.

3. The acceptance of values such as diversity and multiculturalism amongst people who have attended events is noticeably greater than the level of acceptance recorded for the local community as a whole. However, this is linked to the profile of the people attending events, who are more inclined to demonstrate these baseline values.

4. Many of the activities and projects were aimed at the cultural sector in its different forms.

Most agents came from the surrounding area (Gipuzkoa, the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country and Iparralde).

5. Foreign agents were involved in developing activities for the cultural programme (387 agents) and in running artistic residencies and international co-creation spaces.

6. The most highly valued aims of this challenge, based on the views of the cultural agents who were surveyed, were those linked to citizen participation and knowledge transfer.

7. There are clear differences in views between agents in terms of the effect of the Capital of Culture on strengthening connections or encouraging the use of new technologies.

challenges, aims and degrees of achievement

Those agents who have participated are the ones who perceived a greater impact.

CHALLENGE 2: OPEN OURSELVES TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND SUPPORT THE EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK The second challenge for the Capital of Culture was to open up to the world beyond our borders in order to encourage a more cosmopolitan society, to connect as closely as possible with Europe and the world, to share our own knowledge and experiences beyond our borders, and to be receptive in the other direction.

aim 6. Promote alliances, collaborations, exchanges and networking between cultural agents and artists at the European level in order to share knowledge, generate synergies, take advantage of flows and optimise resources. aim 7. Encourage a Europeanist consciousness and readiness amongst local people based on the knowledge and celebration of what unites us. aim 8. Welcome an international audience to dss2016eu in terms of the virtual, linguistic and physical aspects of the project, and increase the reach of the Capital of Culture in concentric circles that cross borders and extend throughout Europe. aim 9. Disseminate initiatives, values and learning to other European countries and realities, and receive and learn in turn from the countries of others.

19

executive summary

Main actions 1. Europeanism has been a transversal focus of the programme.

2. The three embassies in the cultural programme have worked specifically on the diversity and richness of European culture.

3. Most of the cultural programme has taken place through regional (89%) and international (24%) collaboration efforts.

4. Two of the channels (though not the only ones) used by dss2016eu to generate new networks were the design phase of the cultural programme (when contact was established with a number of important agents) and relationships with other ECoCs. 5. The use of various languages other than Basque and Spanish has drawn international audiences to events.

6. Actions from the cultural programme have been carried out beyond our borders.

Intercultural dialogues have also been established with European countries via agent exchanges.

7. Issues relating to a sense of European belonging have been addressed in 3 out of 10 projects.

Identified effects 1. Existing relationships within the CCI sector have been strengthened, and to a lesser extent, in organised civil society.

2. Some 7.6% of audiences were international.

3. There is a general consensus that collaboration networks have been strengthened, including between local agents, resulting in the generation of collaborative projects between local agents who hadn't worked together previously. This aspect has been assessed positively.

4. The Europeanist outlook of society has experienced a slight setback, probably caused by the negative effects of the recent situation in Europe.

challenges, aims and degrees of achievement

CHALLENGE 3: ACTIVATE (INSPIRE, ENABLE, EMPOWER) PEOPLE TO ACCEPT, LEAD AND DEVELOP TRANSFORMATIONS A social transformation based on coexistence cannot take place without the involvement and participation of all members of society. It requires a more active and responsible citizenry which participates in the common cause, and thus exercises a more real democracy.

aim 10. Sharing knowledge, and making the process visible and accessible to citizens at all times. aim 11. Empowering people so that they have the necessary tools to participate/ collaborate/transform: training, comanagement and co-financing initiatives, self-organisation experiences, integration into networks, etc. aim 12. Celebrating and showcasing the human energy which is channelled into organisation to achieve objectives which are linked to a collective challenge. aim 13. Creating an opportunity to rethink what is public and what belongs to the community in terms of people’s responsibility, especially within the cultural sphere.

Main actions 1. Specific tools have been developed to make the process visible and disseminate content: a monthly newsletter, press releases, presentations, social networks, website, app, etc.

20

executive summary

2. A number of actions have been undertaken via the cultural programme to encourage responsible participation and to actively involve local people. These include the Bestelab quay for empowering citizens, initiatives such as Ardora, the volunteer programme and activities from the training programme.

3. Open-access publications have been made available to the public on the Internet.

Identified effects 1. Significant level of participation, with a minimum audience/number of attendees at events of 1,081,140. Amongst these people, 6.6% can be considered active participants who provided input to the event, amounting to 71,259 people.

2. The agents have positively assessed participation.

3. The number of attendees from associations has increased, although this has not led to membership recruitment by these agents.

4. Information has not always been delivered efficiently to citizens, making it harder for them to identify with the project and make it their own.

5. A quarter of event attendees stated that they did not regularly attend cultural events.

CHALLENGE 4: LONG-TERM RESULTS OF THE PROCESS: SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATION AND TRANSFERABLE LEARNING A fundamental challenge in building the new coexistence and relational model that the Capital of Culture has as its goal has been to articulate the mechanisms for its sustainability and future continuity, as well as those necessary for passing it on to future generations.

challenges, aims and degrees of achievement

Aim 14. Involve institutions and agents in the project and its philosophy which will still be here after 2016, ensuring that learning based upon collaboration, diversity, participative governance, new technologies and open culture is strengthened and grows.

Aim 15. Encourage research and differential training in cultural and economic areas, supporting the local creative community, encouraging its international connections, and paying attention to emerging sectors and to social innovation.

Aim 16. Gather, document, evaluate and research methodologies, processes, activities and their effect over time so that the experience can be modelled and transferred.

Aim 17. Take particular care to ensure the involvement of children and young people, educators, behavioural models and other influential persons.

Main actions 1. Institutions on the board have been an active part of the project’s development.

2. They have helped to generate publications in two fundamental ways: funding, and provision of information for preparing other publications which are not reliant on the Capital of Culture.

This information is available on the internet, where applicable.

3. Events were held for young audiences, although only 13% of events were of this nature as opposed to the 50% in the Strategic Plan.

4. Aside from specific events, young audiences were involved in projects run in schools and similar venues.

21

executive summary

Identified effects 1. The Capital of Culture has driven a considerable increase in current spending on cultural policies in public administrations, both in terms of the absolute value and the relative value against the total spending for each entity.

2. Institutions have a positive view of the project’s innovative strategies, participation and transformation.

3. Children and young people factor into the results for active participation to a greater degree than they do in terms the overall number of attendees, at 35.2% and 2.1% respectively.

CHALLENGE 5: EFFICIENCY AND QUALITY IN MANAGEMENT The Capital of Culture project has taken place against the backdrop of a serious economic crisis.

For that reason, one of the biggest challenges faced has been to manage the project efficiently in order to ensure that it stayed within the available budget.

aim 18. Ensure that project management is operational and efficient and that it draws on the strengths of the team.

challenges, aims and degrees of achievement

2. A proportion of private funding was obtained via dssInnova2016, an innovative structure which was set up to channel smaller contributions from local and Gipuzkoan agents.

3. There were no significant budget deviations in executing the project.

4. The structure proposed during the nomination phase was maintained while running the programme, despite the appreciable reduction in the budget.

5. No planning was carried out on the procedure for transferring the know-how acquired by the staff at the Foundation.

Identified effects 1. The programme has been executed under adverse economic conditions and with a 50% reduction in the initial trustee contributions planned at the start of the project.

2. The incorporation of private enterprise at cultural events could be assessed by the businesses themselves, as stated by 60% of the sponsors who responded to the questionnaire.

3. Commitment to the region as the main motivation for private sponsorship.

4. The overall economic impact was lower than had been planned for with a budget that was originally double the size.

5. The agents involved have not noticed a significant impact from the Capital of Culture on their net income.

aim 19. Retain and maximise the human capital generated within the team. aim 20. Guarantee the viability and economic sustainability of the project.

Main actions 1. Most of the funding for the Capital of Culture has come from trustee contributions (84.1%).

Private sponsorship represented 5.6% of the Foundation’s income.

22

executive summary

6.

Analysis by area This section brings together the main evaluations extracted from analysis of the project areas. For each one, the elements that have worked well are identified, as well as those that could have been done differently to achieve a greater impact.

6.1. IMPACT ON CULTURE AND THE CITY'S IMAGE One feature of Donostia-San Sebastián from a cultural perspective was that a significant number of local and international events had already been set up. This meant that the Capital of Culture programme had to be adapted to a year-long distribution of events. dss2016eu has been planning cultural events in the city since 2012, using the effervescence concept. That is, the schedule intensified as we approached 2016, especially during the fourth quarter of 2015.

The project's presence throughout the city has therefore been prolonged and of unequal intensity.

A total of 5,430 activities have taken place from 2012 until now, of which 3,475 were held between October 30th 2015 and December 31st 2016.

The impact on local people is difficult to assess in the short term. That said, people who are not in the habit of attending these types of events have been drawn in (although most attendees were already accustomed to cultural consumption).

Whilst the impact on the national media has been relatively low, the image of the city has been strengthened by its being positioned in the cultural sphere and through international media coverage.

analysis by area

The capacity of the sector itself has been reinforced with an improvement in how it acts and better-developed contact networks. However, this effect has been limited to the participating agents.

Another group of agents on the fringes of the project have not been involved and have felt that they remained on the fringe.

The overall evaluations made by all groups are positive. However, there has been a more critical evaluation from those who did not participate (except for local people).

The number of national media appearances was 18,604, with an estimated economic value of some 44 million euros*.

What worked?

1. The Capital of Culture facilitated a total of 3,475** events in 2016, which works out to 8.1 daily events on average, most of which were highly innovative. The cultural programme submitted during the nomination phase has therefore been fulfilled to a high degree.

This resulted in Donostia-San Sebastián holding fourth place (for the first time) in the Cultural Observatory’s innovation ranking of the cultural programme, and third place in the national ranking, with specific mentions for Peace Treaty and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

2. Strengthening and generating networks between agents in the cultural sector (both CCIs and organised civil society) which took part in the Capital of Culture. A total of 3,180 different agents have taken part in Capital of Culture activities, of which 387* were from abroad.

3. There is now a stronger debate on culture and its role as a tool for transformation, and the role of event attendees.

4. There is a noticeable shift in the perception among local people of what culture is. It is

* Source: Kantar Media. Media hits between January 1st and December 31st 2016. ** Activities carried out between October 30th 2015, the date on which the cultural programme was officially unveiled, and December 31st 2016. The period is comprised of a total of 429 days.

23

executive summary

viewed as a movement in which what and how things are done is important, beyond passive attendance at events.

5. The Capital of Culture has enabled and facilitated cultural projects between agents in the sector, and improved methodologies and processes.

6. Ardora was selected in 2015 for the shortlist of 16 initiatives for the NICE award (Network for Innovation in Culture and Creativity in Europe).

What could have been done better?

1. The Strategic Plan projected the cultural programme beyond our borders to a greater degree than reality. It envisaged a greater number of activities being held outside of the city, particularly in the rest of Europe and Spain (10%). In the end, 3 out of 4 events were held in San Sebastián when the initial plans were for 60%, and 4% were held in the rest of Europe and Spain.

2. A greater number of important events in neighbourhoods across the city.

3. The data on national media exposure highlight that the project’s media reach has largely been limited to the local region. Coverage on national radio and TV was 7%, whilst 1 in 5 press appearances were in communication media outside of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country.

4. The Strategic Plan for the Capital of Culture highlighted unmanaged high expectations as a threat to the project. In the end, this did materialise. The perceptions gathered from the ex-ante and ex-post questionnaires show that the effects expected by agents in a range of areas — mainly revenue, new strategy development, business model innovation and activity generation — were much lower than those originally identified.

5. A proportion of local cultural agents which did not participate actively in the Capital of Culture state having experienced difficulties (lack of communication and information,

analysis by area

proposals being overlooked, etc.) and ended up feeling on the margin of a project that they originally thought they could be part of.

6.2. PHYSICAL IMPACT The Strategic Plan did not set any goal to generate physical impacts on the city. This differs from the approach of other Capital of Culture which included among their aims the revitalisation and regeneration of specific urban areas or neighbourhoods by building new cultural infrastructure.

In our case, the project sought to achieve a physical impact by showcasing new spaces that could be put to cultural use, such as the Urumea River backbone and the strengthening of initiatives which were already under way. Work was done to increase the number of cultural activities in neighbourhoods, for example. Whilst this has been achieved, most activity has taken place in the city’s most central zone. The bulk of the activities have taken place in the Parte Vieja (Old Town), Centro (Centre) and Amara Zaharra districts.

What worked?

1. The Capital of Culture has helped to showcase new spaces for holding cultural activities, both public (Cristina Enea, the bridges, plazas and streets) and private (unused commercial premises), or spaces used by a specific group (schools, haurtxokos, gaztelekus, etc.)

2. Some 444 (12.8%) activities in the cultural programme were held in Tabakalera, thus helping to energise this space and integrate it within the city’s cultural infrastructure.

* The figure of 387 foreign agents does not count those from Iparralde.

24

executive summary

analysis by area

What could have been done better?

1. Strengthen activities in neighbourhoods. The activities in Donostia – San Sebastiån mainly took place in three neighbourhoods: Centro (41,8%), Egia (22,5%) and Gros (10,9%), although there were activities in all parts of the city.

3.

4.

5.

6.3. ECONOMIC IMPACT The economic impact should be assessed from different perspectives. On one hand, there is a direct and induced impact from the Capital of Culture itself, which is closely linked to the budget allocated to implement the project. This impact has therefore been somewhat lower than planned due to the reduction in the budget.

Attracting tourists to the city is another way of generating an economic impact. This was not one of the specific objectives of the Capital of Culture, although one of the impacts of the project has been to make tourism less dependent on seasonal factors.

Another much-sought-after impact was to strengthen the cultural fabric of the city. Overall, the cultural sector has experienced a stronger presence in terms of activity throughout the city.

However, according to the agents surveyed, there has been no major impact on revenue. That said, there is a noticeable improvement in the ability to tackle projects that would not have been able to be taken on otherwise.

What worked?

1. Expenditure* on the Capital of Culture was 47 million euros, with an induced impact of 70.6 million euros in the local economy and with the creation of 612 new jobs.

2. The number of production enterprises linked to CCIs has increased, as has their influence

6.

within the local production structure. The Capital of Culture has encouraged enterprise in this sector.

The budget for the Capital of Culture has provided additional funding to the budget normally allocated for cultural projects.

The acceptance and replicability of some of the projects will generate future economic activities for the agents involved.

Through the training plan (aimed at local people and cultural agents such as businesses and foundations from the CCI sector and organised professional partnerships), the Capital of Culture has delivered an increase in skills in the culture sector and provided guidance and support in seeking financial support through the Creative Europe programme.

In 2016,the tourist traffic in the city’s hotels was less seasonal. This was specially noticeable during the low season (the first and fourth quarter).

What could have been done better?

1. Consolidate budgets and initial contributions for the nomination from supporting institutions for developing the project under the planned conditions.

2. Generate resources in the face of the prospect of a reduction in contributions from supporting administrations. Funding for the Capital of Culture from private sponsorship was 5.6% and came late.

3. Attracting foreign visitors. Some 2.25% of visitors in tourist information offices stated that the main reason for their visit was the Capital of Culture.

4. The Capital of Culture has had an uneven impact on the CCI sector in terms of participation in the project. Even amongst those who have taken part, the effect of the Capital of Culture on revenue, business model innovation and the use of new technologies was perceived as lower than expected.

* This figure includes the direct impact (expenditure from the DSS2016EU operational budget) and the indirect impact (overall tertiary expenditure by tourists and travellers on visits generated directly by the Capital of Culture). ** Induced impact: total production resulting from this expenditure through GDP, added value, jobs and returns via taxation.

25

executive summary

6.4. SOCIAL IMPACT The social impact takes into account the local people in general and event attendees in particular.

The Capital of Culture's objectives for the community were to impact the civic values held by local people and other intangible variables such as diversity, multilingualism and the generation of a more participative citizenry. Overall, the general impact on local people in terms of these values has been imperceptible in the short term with no cause-effect relationship having been identified. Though the people attending events displayed these values, this is more due to their individual profile than any effect of the event itself.

All these elements are hard to quantify and their transformation requires a longer timeframe, as they impact and influence other elements.

What worked?

1. The number of attendees or the size of the audience at Capital of Culture events was 1,081,140*, of which 689,889 were attendees at events held in Donostia-San Sebastián.

Some 71,259 (6.6%) attendees were active participants at the event (that is, they made a valuable contribution), whilst 8,568 people (0.8%) were active members.

2. The level of satisfaction with the cultural experience among event attendees was high (6.6)** and greater than the general level of satisfaction with the Capital of Culture among this same group (5.4)***.

3. People who attended many events stated a greater level of satisfaction than those who attended few.

4. In general, the events that took place caused a positive emotional response in attendees.

The average measure of positive emotions was 7.25 on a scale of 10 versus 2.8 for negative emotions.

analysis by area

5. The willingness to bring in all types of audiences means that the Capital of Culture tried to ensure that all groups were included in the scheduled events and integrated in the projects in the cultural programme as far as possible.

6. Surveys of the cultural sector (CCIs and organised civil society) highlight that amongst all variables, the cultural capital has had the greatest effect on encouraging participation. dss2016eu has tried to encourage participation through several channels, the most prominent being: (i) the cultural programme itself, (ii) the volunteering programme, and (iii) the Energia Olatuak/Ardora grants.

What could have been done better?

1. Although the Capital of Culture programme included a diverse range of events aimed at different types of audiences, the profile of the attendees suggests that the impact on attracting new audiences — while there was one — has been low.

2. Establish and ensure a longer timeframe for the evaluation process, with longer-term measurements (2018-2020).

3. Improve the conditions for bringing content to local people: content, aims, channels, tools, context, etc.

* This figure represents the minimum number of event attendees counted by dss2016eu between October 31st 2015 and December 31st 2016.

This figure should be taken as a minimum number since it was not possible to count the number of attendees at certain outdoor events or those held in open spaces. ** Source: event attendee questionnaire. *** Source: ex post survey of citizens’ values.

26

executive summary

6.5. MANAGEMENT OF THE CAPITAL OF CULTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL PERCEPTION The Capital of Culture has been managed by dss2016eu, a public foundation subject to private law and publicly funded by the main cultural institutions in the region: the Town Hall of Donostia-San Sebastián, the Regional Government of Gipuzkoa, the Government of the Basque Country and the national Ministry of Culture. Most funding (84.1%) came from these entities, whilst 15.9% was from non-trustees, including 5.6% from private sponsors.

What worked?

1. The complex Capital of Culture project has been run against the backdrop of a financial crisis that led to the budget in the nomination being cut by around half. The structure of the cultural programme presented in the nomination was maintained.

2. According to the survey data, the participating public institutions believe that the Capital of Culture has influenced the application of new technologies and instruments in developing culture policies based on involving local people. The Department of Culture, Tourism, Youth and Sport of the Regional Government of Gipuzkoa has partially applied the Capital of Culture’s philosophy to the open call for applications for culture grants.

3. The Ardora citizens’ committee was set up to select the projects that would later be funded through the Waves of Energy programme.

Some 194 local people took part.

4. Some initiatives have been applied to subsequent work by trustee organisations.

What could have been done better?

1. Stabilise the management structure of the Foundation.

2. The legal nature of dss2016eu as a public

analysis by area

foundation has brought with it a series of administrative requirements which have reduced flexibility in terms of some decisions and actions.

3. Various institutional agents have noticed coordination and collaboration gaps between dss2016eu and other local cultural bodies.

4. Some cultural agents lack a legacy plan for building on the positive inputs derived from the process, such as boosting the networks generated, funding existing projects and applying learning, amongst others.

6.6. EUROPEAN DIMENSION This is one of the central aspects of the Capital of Culture and has been a feature since the beginning of the process. This dimension of the cultural programme has been integrated via the following channels: 1. Collaboration between cultural agents, artists and cities from Spain and the rest of Europe, with 1 in 4 Capital of Culture projects being run as a European collaboration.

2. The richness of cultural diversity has been underscored by the three travelling embassies (Biziz, Tosta and Europa Transit). Their mission was to “defend Europe’s great cultural mosaic, encourage understanding amongst its different peoples and represent the Capital of Culture project in other countries”.

3. The shared aspects of European cultures have been highlighted. A third of the projects have directly addressed European sentiment and consciousness, although other projects which did not work on this specific theme incorporated the European dimension throughout their creative processes, such as the artistic residencies and the international co-creation spaces.

This dimension has had a clear effect on cultural agents (mainly amongst those who participated)

27

executive summary

analysis by area

due mainly to the establishment of networks and contacts. This sentiment has not increased amongst the general population, however, mainly because of the negative messages from Europe on immigration, economic policy and other issues.

number of workshops, this being one of the most favourable formats for such a transfer to take place. The Capital of Culture has tried to encourage greater access to cultural content with specific clauses to that effect in contracts.

What worked?

What worked?

1. The Capital of Culture has encouraged cooperation between European agents. A total of 387 foreign entities or artists have taken part, most of which were European.

2. The initiative has strengthened existing links and generated new networks, particularly amongst participants.

3. The above has been achieved through several channels: the projects carried out; artistic residencies; the generation of international co-creation spaces; and through training, guidance and support provided to entities to secure European funding, particularly through the Creative Europe programme.

1. dss2016eu has been in touch with 45 of the 65* ECoCs, both predecessors and ongoing, to share knowledge and experiences with these cities.

2. One aspect which has been highly-valued by agents is the transfer of knowledge to local people and different agents via the cultural programme itself.

3. A total of 19 studies were carried out.

Dss2016eu has funded 7 academic studies linked to Capital of Culture themes, and another 12 unfunded studies were conducted.

4. A total of 70 publications and other materials linked to the cultural programme and to other fields have been released. Of those, 40 publications are available on the Internet in pdf format.

5. A documentation and archive plan has been put together for the programme to ensure that all the processes and experiences from the Capital of Culture are transferable. There are currently around 1,500 documents in storage, and the archive will be held in the Makusi or Ubik facilities at Tabakalera.

What could have been done better?

1. The Strategic Plan stated that 10% of events would take place in the rest of the country and in other European cities. The final figure was 4%, meaning the Capital of Culture activities have not rippled beyond our borders to the extent planned.

2. Generate a more international audience at events. Some 7.6% of event attendees were from abroad, with most coming from the local area (84% from Gipuzkoa).

6.7. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER The Capital of Culture has taken a unique approach in this area, and it is one aspect of the project for which the impact is most clearly noticeable. This approach runs through the cultural programme, where 1,465 of the 3,475 scheduled activities sought knowledge transfer as part of their aim. There were a significant

What could have been done better?

1. No planning was carried out on the procedure for transferring, to the other agents, the know-how acquired by the staff at the Foundation in terms of running the Capital of Culture project.

28

executive summary

7.

Synthesis The main results of the analysis are set forth below: A complex backdrop

• The project took place against a complex sociopolitical backdrop.

• It has taken place during a time of severe economic crisis.

• The conditions surrounding the early development of the idea and its realisation differ substantially.

A project which is difficult to interpret and evaluate

• dss2016eu has been an innovative, risky and

• • • •

•

brave initiative which has faced the challenges to its being realised under the project terms, despite the cluster of difficulties it has had to overcome.

This ambitious and complex project has drawn on intangible values, thus, putting extra demands on the communication strategy.

Not one tangible element remains following the year of the Capital of Culture.

This makes communication a complex task.

The fact that intangible values were so central to the programme’s mission means it is difficult to undertake a short-term evaluation of their effects — the processes are more drawn-out and depend on a multitude of factors linked to changes in civic values.

Overall, the events in the programme were demanding on the audience. In many cases they sought audience participation, and a level of emotional involvement was essential in almost all of them.

synthesis

Overall, a satisfactory project

• The overall assessment is positive, and the

Capital of Culture has therefore met its aims.

• For all of the aims set, specific activities in

line with the project plans have been brought forward and generally been well received.

• In terms of event attendees, the evaluation has shown a positive influence on the values which were assessed and on central aspects of the Capital of Culture.

• However, there is a huge difference in perception between people who have attended events and those who have not.

• This is most evident amongst agents, since those who have not been involved have stated their discontent often.

Managing expectations

• Though the project has been assessed

positively, it has not meet the expectations that some groups had for the Capital of Culture (mainly agents from the culture sector).

• This creates the impression that the project has not been carried out to the extent planned, although for the most part this is not the case.

A collaborative project

• Collaboration has taken place within the

organisation and with the agents involved, as well as with other parties.

• One of the most positively assessed aspects of the project are the networks which have been developed as a result, and which will be important from here on.

29

executive summary

the capital of culture in figures

A boost for the culture sector

• There has been an increase in capacity

amongst cultural agents and an improvement in their ways of working; likewise, contact networks are more consolidated. That said, these improvements have not rippled throughout the entire sector. • The project was run from a publicly-funded foundation subject to private law in order to bring together the institutional agents which have funded the project. This structure created a series of administrative restrictions at key points in the process, such as when staff was hired and services were contracted to third parties.

30