Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015, 271-281
EUROPEAN CAPITAL OF CULTURE: RESIDENTS' PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL BENEFITS AND COSTS -MARIBOR 2012 CASE STUDY
EVROPSKA PRESTOLNICA KULTURE: MNENJE PREBIVALCEV O DRUŽBENIH KORISTIH IN STROŠKIH DOGODKA -PRIMER MARIBORA 2012
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bučic, Aleksandra Prodanovic
Maribor - European capital of culture. Maribor - Evropska prestolnica kulture.
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bucic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, European capital of culture: residents' perception ...
European capital of culture: residents' perception of social benefits and costs - Maribor 2012 case study
DOI: http://dx. doi. org/10.3 986/AGS. 747 UDC: 911.3:008(497.4MARIBOR) COBISS: 1.01
ABSTRACT: This study assessed Maribor residents' attitudes towards social impacts of the European capital of culture, using FSIAS scale. The results showed that residents perceived more social benefits than social costs of the event. They agreed that the event had positive impacts primary on the promotion of Slovenia, as well as on community cultural life and image in general, which is also consistent with the purpose and the aims of the event. In residents' opinion the event did not cause any negative impacts. The results provide residents, event organizers, and local authorities with important community perceptions pertaining to the event.
KEY WORDS: Slovenia, geography of tourism, events, European capital of culture, social impacts
The article was submitted for publication on February 24th, 2014.
ADDRESSES:
Vanja Dragicevic, Ph.D.
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21 000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: vanja.dragicevic@dgt.uns.ac.rs
David Bole, Ph.D.
Anton Melik Geographical Institute
Scientific Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: david.bole@zrc-sazu.si
Andela Bucic
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21 000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: andjela_90@yahoo.com
Aleksandra Prodanovic
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21 000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: aleksandra_prodanovic@yahoo.com
284
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
1	Introduction
Cultural events are an important motivator of tourism, and figure prominently in the development and marketing plans of most destinations (Getz 2008). They are being used more and more as a medium of urban transformation and as an element to attract economic activities, new residents (Herrero et al. 2006) and tourists. Cultural industry is a new form of economic activities, which has attracted much attention during the past years. It is seen as the main feature of modern urban economy (Montgomery 2007; Bole 2008). Just how important cultural industry can be is demonstrated by the evolution of the European cultural capital event sponsored by the European Union. The event has developed beyond its mainly cultural origins to form an important part of urban economic and cultural reconstruction strategies for deindustrialising cities in Europe (Richards 2000).
As events are seen as a key motivator of cities economy, there is an increasing interest in the various benefits as well as costs associated with cultural events. While there are a number of studies regarding the economic impact of cultural events on host communities (Anderson and Solberg 1999; Dwyeretal. 2000; Richards 2000; Herrero et al. 2006; Jackson et al. 2005; Dwyer, Forsyth and Spurr 2005; Dwyer, Forsyth and Spurr 2006), there is a small number of studies which focus on the social, cultural, and/or political impacts of events.
All events have a direct social and cultural impact on their participants, and sometimes on their wider host communities (Getz 2005). However, local governments and event organizers usually focus on the economic benefits of attracting as many visitors as possible. Many municipalities are concerned with event attendance and financial impacts as primary criteria for decisions relating to financial and other support. The economic impacts of events are important, but the social impacts may have an even more profound effect upon the local community (Delamere 1999). Sacco, Ferilli and Pedrini (2008) argue that measurement models need to take account of the impact that a given local development model brings about upon intangible local assets such as social and identity capital. Richards and Wilson (2004) noted that cultural events add life to city and give citizens renewed pride in their home city. Bowdinetal. (2006) also state that all events produce impacts, both positive and negative. They add that social and cultural impacts may involve a shared experience, increased pride, widening of cultural horizons and or new and challenging ideas. However, different social problems can be raised from events: loss of amenity owing to noise or crowds, resentment of inequitable distribution of costs and benefits, cost inflation of goods and services. The role of communities is often marginalized and governments often make the crucial decision of whether to host the event without adequate community consultation. In the Swedish city of Umea, the bid to stage the European capital of culture in 2014 was run on an open source principle, meaning that, instead of the programme designed by 'experts' in the cultural sector, the event was planned and programmed with direct involvement of local people. By implementing the bid, it was hoped that a multitude of stakeholders would come together in a network of »co-creation«, and enhance an image of the city as a creative place with endless development possibilities (Äkerlund and Müller 2012). Therefore, to achieve the best balance for all parties (local community, visitors and event organizers), it is suggested that organizers should not lose sight of community interests.
Therefore, the purpose of this research was to measure Maribor residents' attitudes toward the social impacts of European capital of culture 2012, which is a title awarded by the European Union for a period of one year to one or more cities that carry out number of cultural events throughout whole year.
The study has two objectives. The first objective, drawing on Delamere (1999 and 2001) and Delamereetal. (2001) is to develop a listing of social benefits and costs and then ask residents of Maribor to evaluate it, in order to determine the primary social impacts, positive and negative, of European capital of culture event. The second objective is to examine if there are any differences in attitudes toward the social impacts of European capital of culture among residents divided into groups according to socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education level, occupation, monthly income).
2	European capital of culture
The European capital of culture is a title awarded according to a certain procedure by the European Union for a period of one year to one or more cities. The city holding this prestigious title carries out number of important cultural events (Internet 1).
285
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bucic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, European capital of culture: residents' perception ...
The idea for the event was put forward in 1983 by the Greek minister for culture Melina Mercouri, and the project was introduced in 1985 by the Council of ministers of the European Union. The event was designed to 'help bring the peoples of the member states closer together' through the expression of a culture which, in its historical emergence and contemporary development, is characterized by having both common elements and a richness born of diversity' (European Commission 1985; Richards 2000).
The city is awarded the title mostly because of the preparation of special cultural events that should be an opportunity to strengthen European cultural cooperation and should encourage a sustainable dialogue at the European level (Internet 1). The event management generally implies the shared participation of several official bodies (institutions) and private economic agents, with interesting experiences of the business sponsorship context and the civil society's participation via voluntary-service organizations. Along with the creation of diverse and wide-ranging cultural program there is a need for an effort in creating new cultural facilities, urban redesign, tourist infrastructure and communications in the city (Herrero etal. 2006).
Richards (2000) stated that economic investment in the event has grown significantly since the event began, and particularly since 1990. Larger financial investments in the event are justified largely by the economic returns it is expected to generate, rather than the cultural benefits the event may produce. Richards and Wilson (2004) discussed that the European capital of culture event is also attractive not only as a means of developing the cultural infrastructure of a city, but as an economic development tool and a means of enhancing the image of the city. They added that these were also the basic arguments used by Rotterdam, when the city began bidding for the event. The city was European capital of culture in 2001.
Herrero et al. (2006) discussed that European capital of culture represents an event of remarkable importance as city nomination makes headlines on national and European level, so that cities and countries compete for this designation, with the aim of confirming their cultural image and their position on European (tourist) map. Herrero et al. (2006) stated that economic return on the medium and long run of city nomination is of great importance.
2.1 Maribor 2012 European capital of culture
Maribor is the second largest city in Slovenia and regional capital, with more than 100,000 inhabitants. The city is cultural and economic centre of the north-eastern Slovenia. For many years Maribor was one of the leading industrial cities in ex Yugoslavia. But now it faces structural changes, above average unemployment rates and deindustrialization, so policy-makers are putting more focus on tourism and culture.
In 2012 Maribor held the title of the European capital of culture and in 2013 the city is the European capital of youth (Internet 2). The European capital of culture event had three main dimensions: European dimension (networking and cooperation at the European level), sustainable dimension (positive economic, socio-cultural and environmental effects are expected after 2012) and innovativeness (based on »digital culture«). The event was based on the integrated approach, combining creativity, heritage, education, research, digital literacy, cultural tourism, economy and ecology. Some of basic goals of this event were:
•	the sustainable development of the region,
•	the enhancement of local identities,
•	the promotion of European cultural cooperation, international recognition of Maribor and of Slovenia itself,
•	the renovation of cultural and industrial heritage,
•	the upgrading of the existing and building of a new tourism, recreational and transport infrastructure,
•	the integration of all social groups of people, especially the vulnerable ones (Internet 1).
The European capital of culture event was supported by over 87 volunteers, between 16 and 68 years old, among them high school students, college students, employed, unemployed, and retirees. Throughout whole 2012 there has been over 5230 events that were visited by over two million guests and even more participants. Domestic guests lead the numbers with 54% over the foreigners with 45%, among them Austrians have shown the most interest (other guests include French, Brits, Spaniards, Americans, New Zealand, Vietnam, and Australians) (Internet 1).
286
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
3 Methodology
The study was comprised of two stages. First, a comprehensive listing of the social benefits and costs of European capital of culture was generated based on Festival social impact attitude scale (FSIAS) developed by Delamere (1999 and 2001) and Delamereetal. (2001). The result of this first stage ofthe study was the questionnaire composed of two parts. In the first part socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents were examined and the second part of the questionnaire consists of 32 items, thus extending the 25 item FSIAS scale. The items were grouped into two categories: social benefits (Figure 1) and social costs (Figure 2), as proposed by Delamere (1999 and 2001) and Delamere et al. (2001).
Table 2 presents the reliabilities for the social benefits and social costs scales. The high alpha values a>0.7 (DeVellis 2003; Pallant 2011) indicate good internal consistency among items within each category.
Table 1: Reliabilities (a) for the social benefits and social costs.
Variables	Number of items	a
Social benefits	23	0.955
Social costs	9	0.581
Second stage ofthe study refers to testing the scale on residents of Maribor in December 2012. A Slovenian version of the questionnaire was used to measure the residents' attitudes regarding each identified social benefit and cost based on a 5 point Likert scale (i.e., from 1 »strongly disagree« to 5 »strongly agree«).
An on-line survey was designed and sent to residents of Maribor with the help of students from the University of Maribor. The survey resulted in 71 valid questionnaires that were used in the statistical procedure. Some authors believe that the assessment will be good only if the sample contains a minimum of 51 units (Bagozzi 1981), while other think that at least 30 observations will be sufficient (Pallant 2011).
In order to explore social benefits and costs of Maribor 2012 European capital of culture descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were employed.
To examine if certain groups of respondents differ in their attitudes the authors divided the respondents into groups according to socio-demographic characteristics trying to provide groups of similar size. The data was processed with the statistical package SPSS 20.
4 Study results
4.1	Sample characteristics
The sample taken for this research consists of 71 respondents. Their other socio-demographic characteristics are shown in more details in Table 2.
4.2	Descriptive statistics
The community attitudes toward the social benefits and social costs of the Maribor 2012 European capital of culture are presented at Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Respondents assigned the highest rating to the following social benefits: promotion of the city outside Slovenia, festival acts as a showcase for new ideas, variety of cultural experiences, sense of community well-being, visitors behave properly. Also, they agree that the event brought opportunities to experience new activities, to learn new things, and it had positive cultural impact in the community. Surprisingly, items improved quality of life in the community was rated relatively low (M = 3.15). Also, respondents were undecided when asked about positive effects of the event on their personal health and well-being (M = 3.20) and they were not sure that city infrastructure was improved thanks to the event.
When residents of Maribor were asked about social costs of the European capital of culture, they disagreed with all of the statements (Figure 2). The lowest rating (M = 1.75) was assigned to item increased crime rate. Therefore, it can be concluded that in residents' opinion the event did not cause increase in
287
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bucic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, European capital of culture: residents' perception ...
Table 2: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.		
Characteristic	Frequency	%
Gender Female Male	41 30	58 42
Age Up to 20	27	38
21-30	25	35
31-40	8	11
41-50	5	7
over 50	6	9
Occupation Student	46	65
Employee	22	31
Unemployed	2	3
Pensioner 1 1		
Education High school 48 68		
College	18	25
Master/Phd degree	5	7
Monthly income Up to 200 €	30	42
201—400 €	13	18
401—600 €	7	10
More than 600€	21	30
crime rates, noise, litter, nor disruption of normal routine, traffic jams, crowd. However, residents were somewhat undecided when asked about increase of prices of services and goods (M = 2.69).
In general, respondents perceived that the event had more social benefits than social costs. Category social benefits composed of 23 items was rated relatively good (M = 3.54) with small standard deviation (Z = 0.69), which indicates quite a high level of agreement between the respondents. Regarding social costs (9 items), respondents disagreed that the event had negative impacts on community (M = 2.20, Z = 0.64).
4.3 Results of T-test independent samples and one-way ANOVA
T-test independent samples was used for testing differences in mean values of social impacts between the respondents regarding their gender. The results (Table 3) indicate that there are no statistically relevant differences in mean values of social impacts between two groups of respondents of different gender (for social benefits t = 0.234, p = 0.815; for social costs t= 1.557, p = 0.124), meaning that female and male respondents share same attitudes regarding social impacts of the European capital of culture.
Table 3: Results of T-test independent samples. Test variables: social benefits and social costs. Grouping variable: gender.
Variable	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	p
Social benefits	Female	41	3,561	0,597	0,234	0,815
	Male	30	3,522	0,815		
Social costs	Female	41	2,295	0,664	1,557	0,124
	Male	30	2,059	0,583		
N - number of respondents, t - value t statistics, p - significance of p statistics - if lower than 0.05 - there is 95% of certainty that there is statistically significant difference between the groups
288
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
Promotion of the city outside Slovenia Festival acts as a showcase for new ideas Variety of cultural experiences Sense of community well-being Visitors behave properly Opportunity to experience new activities Having the opportunity to learn new things Positive cultural impact in the community High level safety of visitors
Enhanced image of the community
The event is of great importance to know the local customs and culture
Community gains positive recognition
Community is unique and special
The content of the program of the event is extremely rich and varied
Opportunities for residents to gain additional income
Community identity enhanced
Opportunities to create new jobs for residents
Personal sense of pride and recognition through participating in the festival
Residents are involved in the organization of the program
Positive effects on residents' personal health and well-being
Improved quality of life in the community
Quality of products and services is excellent
City infrastructure is improved ■ Mean ■ Std. deviation
4,03 4,01 3,92 86 86 77 75
5
Figure 1: Mean values and standard deviations for social benefits of Maribor 2012 European capital of culture.
289
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bucic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, European capital of culture: residents' perception ...
Prices of goods and services increased
Local traffic overloaded
Community overcrowded City cleanliness impared - litter increased
Noise levels increased
Community recreation and cultural facilities overused
Disruption of normal routines of community residents
Influx of visitors reduces privacy within the community
Increased crime rates
Mean ■ Std. deviation
Figure 2: Mean values and standard deviations for social costs of Maribor 2012 European capital of culture.
Regarding their occupation, the respondents were divided into two groups: students and non students. From the results in Table 4, it can be concluded that there are statistically significant mean differences (p<0.05) between students and non students.
Non students assigned higher ratings to social benefits, indicating they agreed that the event had positive social impacts on community, while students were more undecided about it. Non students perceived less social costs of the event compared to students. Consequently, the results in table 5 show statistically significant mean differences (p < 0.05) between group of respondents regarding their education level.
Regarding their age, the respondents were divided into three groups: up to 20, 21-30 and over 30 years, in order to provide groups of quite the same size. Using the one-way ANOVA method for investigation of significance of mean value differences, it can be concluded with 95% accuracy that, between three groups of respondents of different age, there are statistically significant dissimilarities in their attitudes towards social benefits (F = 3.840, p = 0.026) and social costs (F = 4.755, p = 0.012). Post-hoc Scheffe test was applied in order to find out which groups are significantly different from others. The results show that respondents over 30 years assigned higher ratings to social benefits compared to residents in 21-30 age group. Regarding social costs, respondents over 30 years perceived less negative impacts compared to the youngest respondents (up to 20 years).
The results of one-way ANOVA in Table 7 show that there are statistically significant differences between groups of respondents according to their monthly income in their attitudes towards social benefits and social costs of the European capital of culture. Post-hoc Scheffe test show that respondents with more than 600 € monthly income assigned higher ratings to social benefits and were less aware of negative impacts compared to other two groups.
290
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
Table 4: Results of T-test independent samples. Test variables: social benefits and social costs. Grouping variable: occupation.						
Variable	Occupation	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	P
Social benefits	Student	46	3,396	0,647	-2,544	0,013
	Non student	25	3,817	0,701		
Social costs	Student	46	2,394	0,542	3,894	0,000
	Non student	25	1,831	0,649		
N - number of respondents, t - value t statistics, p -between the groups		- significance of p statistics	- if lower than J.J5 -	- there is 95% of certainty that there is statistically significant difference		
Table 5: Results of T-test independent samples. Test variables: social benefits and social costs. Grouping variable: education.						
Variable	Education	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	p
Social benefits	High school	48	3,374	0,671	-3,185	0,002
	College, Master, PhD	23	3,899	0,605		
Social costs	High school	48	2,357	0,576	3,278	0,002
	College, Master, PhD	23	1,860	0,641		
N - number of respondents, t - value t statistics, p -between the groups		- significance of p statistics	- if lower than J.J5 -	there is 95% of certainty that there is statistically significant difference		
Table 6: Compare means - one-way ANOVA. Dependent list: social benefits and social costs. Factor: age of the respondents.						
Variable	Age	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F*	p*
	to 20	27	3,443	0,622		
Social benefits	21-30	25	3,381	0,674	3,840	0,026
	more than 30	19	3,904	0,713		
	to 20	27	2,440	0,565		
Social costs	21-30	25	2,169	0,062	4,755	0,012
	more than 30	19	1,883	0,648		
*p<j,05; F>3,19						
Table 7: Compare means - one-way ANOVA. Dependent list: social benefits and social costs. Factor: monthly income.						
Variable	Income	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	F*	p*
	up to 200 €	30	3,581	0,562		
Social benefits	201-600€	20	3,117	0,649	7,900	0,001
	more than 600 €	21	3,899	0,708		
	up to 200 €	30	2,322	0,598		
Social costs	201-600€	20	2,417	0,488	6,684	0,002
	more than 600 €	21	1,804	0,667		
*p<J,J5; F>3,19
291
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bucic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, European capital of culture: residents' perception ...
5	Conclusion
This study assessed Maribor residents' attitudes towards social impacts of the European capital of culture, using FSIAS scale. The results showed that residents expected more social benefits than social costs of the event. They agreed that the event had positive impacts primary on the promotion of Slovenia, which was one of the event's aims, as well as on community cultural life and image in general, which is also consistent with the purpose of the event. However, the respondents did not agree that the event improved quality of their life or city infrastructure. In years to come maybe they will be more aware of the event effects on life quality in the community. Also, they were undecided about positive impacts on employment, on opportunities for gaining additional income, on personal sense of pride, enhancement of community identity. In residents' opinion the event did not cause any negative impacts such as increase in crime rates, noise, litter, disruption of normal routine, traffic jams, overcrowded streets and facilities.
Although the sample is small, this study makes a significant contribution in understanding of residents' attitudes toward the social impacts of the European capital of culture. The results provide residents, event organizers, and local authorities with important community perceptions pertaining to the event. Also, the results could be valuable for cities which are in the bidding process for European capital of culture title. In the case of Maribor, it can be confirmed that cultural investment (European capital of culture) proved to have desired positive effects on the perceived quality of life of residents. There are significant differences of this perception among the population, since older and non-student residents perceive positive effects to a stronger degree.
Social and cultural impacts of the events should be assessed continuously in order to enable constructive decisions to be made during the future event planning and management. Residents and organizers both have a role in maximizing the social benefits and minimizing the social costs of the event, in order to provide sustainable development of the event and community.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This research is part of the project 114-451-3602/2013-01 financed by the Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development of the Vojvodina Province, Serbia.
6	References
Âkerlund, U., Müller D. K. 2012: Implementing tourism events: the discourses of Umeâ's Bid for European
capital of culture 2014. Scandinavian journal of hospitality and tourism 12-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2011.647418
Anderson, T. D., Solberg, H. A. 1999: Leisure events and regional economic impact. World leisure and recreation 41-1.
Bagozzi, R. P. 1981: Evaulating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: a comment. Journal of marketing research 18-1. Bole, D. 2008: Cultural industry as a result of new city tertiarization. Acta geographica Slovenica 48-2. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS51204 Bowdin, G., Allen J., O'Toole, W, Harris R., McDonnell, I. 2006: Events managements, second edition. Oxford. Delamere, T. A. 1999: Development of a scale to measure local resident perceptions of the social impacts of community festivals. Abstracts of papers presented at the Ninth Canadian congress on leisure research. Wolfville.
Delamere, T. A., Wankel, L. M., Hinch, T. D. 2001: Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of community festivals 1, Item generation and purification of the measure. Event management 7-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599501108751443 Delamere, T. A. 2001: Development of a scale to measure resident attitudes toward the social impacts of community festivals 2, Verification of the scale. Event management 7-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/ 152599501108751452 DeVellis, R. F. 2003: Scale development: theory and application. Thousand Oaks. Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N., Mules, T. 2000: Forecasting the economic impacts of events and conventions. Event management 6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.0000/096020197390266
292
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R. 2005: Estimating the impacts of special events on the economy. Journal
of travel research 43-4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274648 Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R. 2006: Assessing the economic impacts of events: a computable general equilibrium approach. Journal of travel research 45-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287506288907 European Commission 1985: Resolution of the ministers responsible for cultural affairs concerning the annual event 'European city of culture', 7081/84. Brussels. Getz, D. 2005: Event management & event tourism. New York.
Getz, D. 2008: Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research. Tourism management 29-3. DOI:
http://dx. doi. org/ 10.1016/j .tourman.2 007.07.017 Herrero, L. C., Sanz, J. Á., Devesa, M., Bedate, A., del Barrio, M. J. 2006: The economic impact of cultural events: a case-study of Salamanca 2002, European capital of culture. European urban and regional studies 13-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969776406058946 Internet 1: http://www.maribor2012.eu (10.8.2013). Internet 2: http://maribor-pohorje.si/culture.aspx (10.8.2013).
Jackson, J., Houghton, M., Russell, R., Triandos, P. 2005: Innovations in measuring economic impacts of regional festivals: a do-it-yourself kit. Journal of travel research 43. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287505274649
Montgomery, J. 2007: The new wealth of cities: city dynamics and the fifth wave. Aldershot. Pallant, J. 2011: SPSS Survival Manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Melbourne. Richards, G. 2000: The European cultural capital event: strategic weapon in the cultural arms race? Journal
of cultural policy 6-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286630009358119 Richards, G., Wilson, J. 2004: The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam, cultural capital of
Europe 2001. Urban studies 41-10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000256323 Sacco, P. L., Ferilli, G., Pedrini, S. 2008: System-wide cultural districts: an introduction from the Italian viewpoint. Sustainability: A new frontier for the arts and cultures. Frankfurt.
293
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bučic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, Evropska prestolnica kulture: mnenje prebivalcev ...
Evropska prestolnica kulture: mnenje prebivalcev o družbenih koristih in stroških dogodka - primer Maribora 2012
DOI: http://dx. doi. org/10.3 986/AGS. 747 UDK: 911.3:008(497.4MARIBOR) COBISS: 1.01
IZVLEČEK: V raziskavi smo ocenili razmerje prebivalcev Maribora do družbenih vplivov, izhajajočih iz naziva Evropska prestolnica kulture, in sicer po lestvici FSIAS. Raziskava je pokazala, da anketiranci menijo, da je projekt mestu prinesel večje družbene ugodnosti kot pa stroške. Anketiranci so se strinjali, da je projekt primarno pozitivno vplival zlasti na promocijo Slovenije, kot tudi na kulturno razvitost skupnosti in ugled mesta na splošno, kar je skladno z vsemi cilji in namenom samega projekta. Po mnenju anketirancev projekt ni imel negativnih vplivov. Rezultati raziskave nudijo prebivalcem, organizatorjem projekta in lokalni skupnosti vpogled v pomembne podatke o odnosu skupnosti do tega projekta.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: geografija, geografija turizma, dogodki, Evropska prestolnica kulture, družbeni vplivi, Slovenija
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 24. februarja 2014.
NASLOVI:
dr. Vanja Dragicevic
Naravoslovno-matematična fakulteta Univerze v Novem Sadu Oddelek za geografijo, turizem in hotelski menedžment Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21 000 Novi Sad, Srbija E-pošta: vanja.dragicevic@dgt.uns.ac.rs
dr. David Bole
Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Gosposka ulica 13, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: david.bole@zrc-sazu.si
Andela Bučic
Naravoslovno-matematična fakulteta Univerze v Novem Sadu Oddelek za geografijo, turizem in hotelski menedžment Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21 000 Novi Sad, Srbija E-pošta: andjela_90@yahoo.com
Aleksandra Prodanovic
Naravoslovno-matematična fakulteta Univerze v Novem Sadu Oddelek za geografijo, turizem in hotelski menedžment Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21 000 Novi Sad, Srbija E-pošta: aleksandra_prodanovic@yahoo.com
294
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
1	Uvod
Kulturni dogodki so pomemben motivacijski dejavnik za turizem ter imajo pomembno vlogo v razvojnih in tržnih načrtih večine turističnih destinacij (Getz 2008). Kulturni dogodki se v čedalje večji meri uporabljajo kot sredstva za preobrazbo mest ter dejavniki, s katerimi želijo mesta pritegniti nove gospodarske dejavnosti, novo delovno silo (Herrero s sod. 2006) in turiste. Kulturna industrija je nova oblika gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki je v zadnjih nekaj letih precej pridobila pomen. Mnogi jo označujejo kot poglavitno značilnost sodobnega urbanega gospodarstva (Montgomery 2007; Bole 2008). Pomen kulturne industrije odseva tudi v projektu Evropske unije Evropska prestolnica kulture. Projekt je presegel kulturne okvire in postal pomemben del urbanih gospodarskih in kulturnih strategij v procesu deindustrializacije evropskih mest (Richards 2000).
Tovrstni dogodki so eden od ključnih elementov mestnih gospodarstev, zato zanimanje širše javnosti budi vprašanje dobičkov in stroškov, povezanih z njihovo pripravo. Na voljo je veliko raziskav o gospodarskih učinkih kulturnih dogodkov na skupnost, ki tak dogodek gosti (Anderson in Solber 1999; Dwyer s sod. 2000; Richards 2000; Herrero s sod. 2006; Jackson s sod. 2005; Dwyer, Forsyth in Spurr 2005; Dwyer, Forsyth in Spurr 2006), manj pa je raziskav, ki se osredotočajo na družbene, kulturne in/ali politične vplive.
Vsak dogodek ima neposreden družbeni in kulturni vpliv na udeležence, včasih pa tudi na širšo okolico prireditelja (Getz 2005). Kljub temu krajevne oblasti in organizatorji dogodka večino pozornosti posvetijo gospodarskim koristim, ki so odvisne od čim večjega števila obiskovalcev. V mnogih občinah je glavno merilo odločanja o finančnih in drugih oblikah podpore obiskanost dogodka in njegov finančni učinek. Gospodarski učinek, ki spremlja dogodek, je vsekakor pomemben, toda družbeni vplivi na lokalno skupnost so lahko dosti močnejši (Delamere 1999). Sacco, Ferilli in Pedrini (2008) menijo, da bi morali meritveni modeli upoštevati vpliv, ki ga posamezen model lokalnega razvoja povzroči na neotipljive lokalne dobrine, kot sta socialni in osebnostni kapital. Richards in Wilson (2004) trdita, da kulturni dogodki vdahnejo mestu svežo življenjsko energijo, prebivalcem pa občutek ponosa na domače mesto. Bowdin in ostali (2006) prav tako pritrjujejo dejstvu, da vsak dogodek povzroča pozitivne ali negativne učinke, hkrati pa poudarjajo, da socialni in kulturni učinki lahko prinašajo skupne izkušnje, ponos, širjenje kulturnih obzorij ter/ali nove ideje in izzive. Kljub temu pa razne dogodke spremljajo različne socialne težave, kot so izguba privlačnosti zaradi hrupa ali gneče, nezadovoljstvo zaradi nepravične delitve stroškov in koristi, napihovanje cen storitev in izdelkov. Vloga skupnosti je velikokrat potisnjena v ozadje, ključno odločitev o organizaciji dogodka pa brez ustreznega posvetovanja s skupnostjo prevzame javna oblast. V švedskem mestu Umea je bila nominacija za Evropsko prestolnico kulture organizirana po načelu odprte kode, kar pomeni, da programa niso zasnovali »strokovnjaki« s področja kulture, temveč je nastal z neposredno udeležbo domačinov. S takšno izvedbo nominacije so želeli številne deležnike povezati v mrežo, v kateri bi soustvarjali podobo mesta kot ustvarjalnega kraja z neomejenimi možnostmi razvoja (Âkerlund in Müller 2012). Da bi dosegli najboljši izid za vse vpletene (lokalna skupnost, obiskovalci in organizatorji dogodka) naj organizatorji ne zanemarijo interesov skupnosti.
Namen te raziskave je bil ugotoviti odnos prebivalcev Maribora do družbenih vplivov, nastalih s podelitvijo naziva Evropske prestolnice kulture 2012 Mariboru, ki ga Evropska unija podeli za obdobje enega leta enemu ali več mestom, ki skozi celo leto izvedejo več kulturnih dogodkov. Raziskava vključuje dva cilja. Prvi cilj, ki se nanaša na Delamera (1999 in 2001) in Delamera in ostali (2001), načrtuje pripravo seznama družbenih koristi in stroškov, ki bi ga prebivalci Maribora nato ocenili, s tem pa bi se določili poglavitni pozitivni in negativni družbeni vplivi programa Evropske prestolnice kulture. Drugi cilj je ugotoviti, če med prebivalci, glede na družbeno-demografske lastnosti (spol, starost, stopnja izobrazbe, poklic, mesečni dohodek), obstajajo različni odnosi do družbenih vplivov projekta Evropske prestolnice kulture.
2	Evropska prestolnica kulture
Evropska prestolnica kulture je naziv, ki ga na podlagi posebnega postopka Evropska unija za obdobje enega leta podeli enemu ali več mestom. V mestu, ki mu pripade ta laskavi naziv, se odvije več pomembnih kulturnih dogodkov (Internet 1).
295
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bučic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, Evropska prestolnica kulture: mnenje prebivalcev ...
Idejo programa je leta 1983 začrtal grški minister za kulturo Melina Mercouri, projekt pa je leta 1985 predstavil Svet ministrov Evropske unije. Program so zasnovali, da bi 'združil ljudi držav članic' s pomočjo kulturnega izražanja, kjer sta zgodovina in sodobni razvoj označena s skupnimi prvinami in bogastvom, ki izhaja iz raznolikosti' (Evropska komisija 1985; Richards 2000).
Mesto pridobi naziv zaradi priprave posebnih kulturnih dogodkov, ki predstavljajo priložnost za krepitev evropskih kulturnih vezi in obenem spodbujajo trajnostni dialog na evropski ravni (Internet 1). Pri organizaciji programa običajno sodeluje več uradnih ustanov in zasebnih gospodarskih subjektov z bogatimi izkušnjami na področju poslovnega sponzorstva, prebivalstvo pa sodeluje prek prostovoljnih organizacij. Običajno se z raznolikima in obširnima kulturnim programom pojavi potreba po novih kulturnih objektih, mestni prenovi, turistični infrastrukturi in nadgradnji komunikacij znotraj mesta (Herrero s sod. 2006).
Richards (2000) poudarja, da se je gospodarska naložba v projekt od začetka, predvsem pa po letu 1990, občutno povečala. Večje finančne naložbe so upravičene predvsem s pričakovanim gospodarskim donosom in ne z morebitnimi kulturnimi koristmi programa. Richards in Wilson (2004) menita, da je program Evropske prestolnice kulture privlačen in sicer ne le z vidika sredstev za razvoj kulturne infrastrukture mesta, temveč tudi z vidika gospodarskega razvoja ter sredstev za izboljšanje podobe mesta. Dodajata, da so bili to tudi temeljni argumenti mesta Rotterdam, ko se je potegovalo za naziv, ki ga je tudi osvojilo leta 2001.
Herrero in ostali (2006) trdijo, da je Evropska prestolnica kulture izredno pomemben program, saj dodelitev naziva mestu odzvanja na naslovnicah državnih in evropskih časopisov, s tem pa spodbuja tekmovanje za laskavi naziv med mesti in državami, ki si želijo potrditve svoje kulturne podobe in položaja na evropskem (turističnem) zemljevidu. Herrero in ostali (2006) pripisujejo na srednji in dolgi rok velik pomen gospodarskemu prihodku ob nominaciji mesta.
2.1 Maribor Evropska prestolnica kulture 2012
Maribor je drugo največje mesto v Sloveniji in regionalna prestolnica z več kot 100.000 prebivalci. Je kulturno in gospodarsko središče severovzhodne Slovenije. Dolgo je bil vodilno industrijsko mesto nekdanje Jugoslavije, danes pa se sooča z strukturnimi spremembami, nadpovprečno stopnjo brezposelnosti in dein-dustrializacijo, zato lokalni politiki posvečajo vse več pozornosti turizmu in kulturi.
Leta 2012 je Maribor pridobil naziv Evropske prestolnice kulture, leta 2013 pa je mesto postalo Evropska prestolnica mladih (Internet 2). Program Evropske prestolnice kulture so sestavljale tri razsežnosti, in sicer evropska (povezovanje in sodelovanje na evropski ravni), trajnostna (pozitivni ekonomski, druž-beno-kulturološki in okoljski vplivi so pričakovani po letu 2012) in inovativnost (temelji na »digitalni kulturi«). Program je bil zasnovan na integriranem pristopu, ki sestoji iz ustvarjalnosti, dediščine, izobrazbe, raziskovanja, digitalne pismenosti, kulturnega turizma, ekonomije in ekologije. Nekaj osnovnih ciljev tega programa:
•	trajnostni razvoj regije,
•	okrepitev lokalnih identitet,
•	promocija evropskega kulturnega sodelovanja, mednarodna prepoznavnost Maribora in Slovenije,
•	obnova kulturne in industrijske dediščine,
•	nadgradnja obstoječe in postavitev nove turistične, rekreacijske in prometne infrastrukture,
•	integracija vseh družbenih skupin, predvsem najbolj ranljivih (Internet 1).
Program Evropske prestolnice kulture je podprlo več kot 87 prostovoljcev od 16. do 68. leta starosti, med katerimi so srednješolci, študenti, zaposleni, brezposelni ter upokojenci. Skozi celotno leto 2012 se je odvilo več kot 5230 dogodkov, ki jih je obiskalo več kot dva milijona gostov in veliko sodelujočih. V udeležbi s 54 % prevladujejo domači obiskovalci pred 46 % tujih, izmed katerih so največ zanimanja pokazali Avstrijci pred Francozi, Britanci, Španci, Američani, Novozelandci, Vietnamci in Avstralci (Internet 1).
3 Metodologija
Raziskava obsega dve stopnji. Na prvi stopnji je bil narejen obširen seznam družbenih koristi in stroškov programa Evropske prestolnice kulture na podlagi ocenjevalne lestvice družbenih vplivov festivalov FSIAS, ki jo je razvil Delamere (1999 in 2001) in Delamere in ostali (2001). Rezultat prve stopnje raziskave je bil dvodelni vprašalnik. Prvi del vprašalnika je obsegal raziskavo družbeno-demografskih lastnosti anketi-
296
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
rancev, drugi del pa 32 vprašanj, s katerimi smo dodatno razširili 25 točk FSIAS lestvice. Točke smo razdelili v dve kategoriji: družbene koristi (Slika 1) ter družbeni stroški (Slika 2), kot predlagajo Delamere (1999 in 2001) ter Delamere s sod. (2001).
Preglednica 1 prikazuje zanesljivost lestvice družbenih koristi in družbenih stroškov. Visoke alfa vrednosti (> 0,7) (DeVellis 2003; Pallant 2011) nakazujejo dobro notranjo skladnost med točkami vsake kategorije.
Preglednica 1: Zanesljivost (a) družbenih koristi in stroškov.
spremenljivke	število točk	a
družbene koristi	23	0,955
družbeni stroški	9	0,581
Druga stopnja raziskave je obsegala testiranje lestvice na prebivalcih Maribora decembra 2012. Za raziskavo stališč prebivalcev do vsake posamezne družbene koristi in stroška smo uporabili slovensko različico vprašalnika na podlagi 5-stopenjske Likertove lestvice (od 1 »sploh se ne strinjam« do 5 »popolnoma se strinjam«).
V spletni raziskavi med prebivalci Maribora, ki smo jo izvedli s pomočjo študentov Univerze v Mariboru, je bilo pridobljenih 71 veljavnih vprašalnikov, ki so bili statistično obdelani. Nekateri avtorji predvidevajo, da je ocena merodajna le, če je vzorec sestavljen iz najmanj 51 enot (Bagozzi 1981), medtem ko drugi menijo, da zadošča že vsaj 30 opazovanj (Pallant 2011).
Za oceno družbenih koristi in stroškov programa Maribor Evropska prestolnica kulture 2012 smo uporabili metode opisne statistike ter samostojne vzorce, t-test in enosmerno analizo variance ANOVA. Z delitvijo anketirancev v podobno velike skupine in glede na njihove družbeno-demografske lastnosti, so avtorji želeli ugotoviti, če se določene skupine anketirancev med seboj razlikujejo glede na stališča. Podatki so bili obdelani s pomočjo programa za obdelavo podatkov SPSS 20.
4 Rezultati raziskave
4.1	Lastnosti vzorca raziskave
Vzorec raziskave vključuje 71 anketirancev. Družbeno-demografske značilnosti so podrobneje predstavljene v preglednici 2.
4.2	Opisna statistika
Mnenje skupnosti o družbenih koristih in stroških projekta Maribor 2012 - Evropska prestolnica kulture predstavljata sliki 1 in 2.
Anketiranci so največji pomen pripisali naslednjim družbenim koristim: promocija mesta zunaj Slovenije, dogodek kot odskočna deska za nove ideje, raznolikost kulturnih izkušenj, občutek pripadnosti skupnosti, blagostanjeprebivalstva,kulturno obnašanje obiskovalcev. Strinjali so se tudi, da je bil dogodek priložnost za nove aktivnosti in pridobivanje novega znanj a ter da je imel pozitiven vpliv na kulturo in na celotno skupnost. Nenavadno je, da so anketiranci relativno nizko ovrednotili izboljšanje kakovosti bivanja v skupnosti (M = 3,15). Prav tako so bili neodločeni, ko smo jih povprašali o pozitivnih učinkih dogodka na njihovo osebno zdravje in dobro počutje (M = 3,20) in niso bili prepričani, da je dogodek pripomogel k izboljšanju mestne infrastrukture.
Ko smo prebivalce Maribora povprašali o družbenih stroških projekta Evropska prestolnica kulture, so izrazili nestrinjanje z vsemi trditvami (Slika 2). Najnižjo vrednost (M =1,75) so pripisali povečani stopnji kriminala. Sklenemo lahko torej, da po mnenju prebivalcev dogodek ni povzročil povečanja kriminala, hrupa, smetenja, prav tako pa ni posegel v vsakdanjo rutino prebivalstva, povzročil prometnih zastojev in gneče. Po drugi strani so bili prebivalci nekoliko neodločeni, ko smo jih povprašali o povišani ceni storitev in dobrin (M = 2,69).
297
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bučic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, Evropska prestolnica kulture: mnenje prebivalcev ...
Preglednica 2: Družbeno-demografske lastnosti anketirancev.		
lastnost	število	%
spol ženski	41	58
moški	30	42
starost		
do 20	27	38
21-30	25	35
31-40	8	11
41-50	5	7
nad 50	6	9
poklic študent	46	65
zaposleni	22	31
nezaposleni	2	3
upokojenec 1 1		
izobrazba		
srednja šola	48	68
visokošolska ali univerzitetna izobrazba 1. stopnje	18	25
magisterij ali doktorat	5	7
mesečni dohodek		
do 200€	30	42
201-400 €	13	18
401-600 €	7	10
nad 600€	21	30
V splošnem so anketiranci menili, da je imel dogodek več družbenih koristi kot stroškov. Kategorija družbenih koristi, ki jo je sestavljalo 23 točk, je bila ocenjena relativno visoko (M = 3,54), z nizko standardno deviacijo (Z = 0,69), kar kaže na visoko stopnjo strinjanja med anketiranci. Kar se tiče družbenih stroškov (9 točk), se anketiranci niso strinjali, da je dogodek negativno vplival na skupnost (M = 2,20, Z = 0,64).
4.3 Rezultati T-testa neodvisnih vzorcev in enosmerne analize variance ANOVA
T-test neodvisnih vzorcev je bil opravljen za testiranje razlikovanja aritmetičnih sredin družbenih vplivov glede na spol anketirancev. Rezultati (preglednica 3) kažejo, da ni prišlo do statistično pomembnih razlik v aritmetičnih sredinah družbenih vplivov med dvema skupinama anketirancev različnih spolov (za družbene koristi t = 0,234, p = 0,815; za družbene stroške t = 1,557, p = 0,124), kar pomeni, da imajo anketiranci ženskega in moškega spola enake poglede na družbene vplive projekta Evropska prestolnica kulture.
Preglednica 3: Rezultati T-testa neodvisnih vzorcev za testne spremenljivke družbene koristi in družbeni stroški ter spol kot skupinsko spremenljivko.
spremenljivka	spol	N	aritmetična sredina	standardni odklon	t	p
družbene koristi	ženski	41	3,561	0,597	0,234	0,815
	moški	30	3,522	0,815		
družbeni stroški	ženski	41	2,295	0,664	1 557	0,124
	moški	30	2,059	0,583		
N - 'število anketirancev, t - statistična vrednost t, p - statistična vrednost p - če je nižja od 0,05 - 95% verjetnost, da obstaja statistično pomembna razlika med skupinama
Po poklicih smo anketirance razvrstili v dve temeljni skupini: študente in neštudente. Glede na rezultate iz preglednice 4 sklepamo, da so med študenti in neštudenti statistično pomembne razlike med aritmetičnima
298
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
promocija mesta v tujini dogodek kot odskočna deska za nove ideje raznovrstnost kulturnih izkušenj občutek blagostanja v skupnosti kulturno obnašanje obiskovalcev možnost sodelovanja v novih dejavnostih možnost pridobivanja novih znanj pozitivni kulturološki učinki v skupnosti visok nivo varnosti obiskovalcev
povečanje ugleda skupnosti
pomembnost dogodka za spoznavanje lokalnih običajev in kulture
povečanje prepoznavnosti skupnosti
skupnost je edinstvena in izjemna
vsebina programa je izredno bogata in raznovrstna
možnosti dodatnega zaslužka za prebivalce krepitev identitete skupnosti
možnosti novih delovnih mest za prebivalce
občutek ponosa in zadovoljstva ob sodelovanju pri projektu
prebivalci so vključeni v pripravo programa
pozitivni učinki na zdravje in blagostanje prebivalstva
izboljšanje kakovosti življenja v skupnosti kakovost dobrin in storitev je izredno visoka izboljšanje mestne infrastrukture
aritmetična sredina
standardni odklon
Slika 1: Aritmetične sredine in standardni odkloni za družbene koristi projekta Maribor 2012 - Evropska prestolnica kulture.
299
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bučic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, Evropska prestolnica kulture: mnenje prebivalcev ...
rast cen dobrin in storitev
preobremenjenost lokalnega prometa
prenatrpanost v skupnosti
zmanjšanje čistoče v mestu -povečanje količine odpadkov
povečanje hrupa
preobremenjenost rekreacijskih in kulturnih prostorov
motenje ustaljenih aktivnosti prebivalcev skupnosti
zmanjšanje zasebnosti zaradi velikega števila obiskovalcev
povečana stopnja kriminala
2,45
2,41
aritmetična sredina
standardni odklon
2,69
3
4
5
Slika 2: Aritmetične sredine in standardni odkloni za družbene stroške projekta Maribor 2012 - Evropska prestolnica kulture.
sredinama (p < 0,05). Neštudenti so višje vrednosti pripisali družbenim koristim, kar pomeni, da so izrazili strinjanje o pozitivnem vplivu dogodka na skupnost, medtem ko so bili študenti bolj neodločeni. Neštudenti so v primerjavi s študenti zaznali manj družbenih stroškov dogodka. Posledično rezultati v preglednici 5 prikazujejo statistično pomembno razlikovanje aritmetičnih sredin (p < 0,05) med skupinama glede na stopnjo izobrazbe.
Glede na starost smo anketirance razvrstili v tri skupine, in sicer do 20, 21-30 in nad 30 let, da bi dobili skupine približno enakih velikosti. S pomočjo enosmerne analize variance ANOVA za določanje pomembnosti razlik med aritmetičnimi sredinami lahko s 95 % gotovostjo sklepamo, da so med tremi skupinami anketirancev različnih starosti statistično pomembna razhajanja v njihovem pogledu na družbene koristi (F = 3,840, p = 0,026) in družbene stroške (F = 4,755, p = 0,012) dogodka. S post-hoc Scheffejevim testom smo še ugotavljali, katere skupine se bistveno razlikujejo od drugih. Anketiranci, starejši od 30let, so v primerjavi s skupino anketirancev, starih od 21 do 30let, pripisali višje vrednosti družbenim koristim. Kar se tiče družbenih stroškov, so anketiranci, starejši od 30let, v primerjavi z mlajšimi anketiranci (do 20 let) zasledili manj negativnih učinkov.
Rezultati enosmerne ANOVA v preglednici 7 kažejo, na statistično pomembna razhajanja v pogledih na družbene koristi in družbene stroške projekta Evropska prestolnica kulture med skupinami anketirancev, razvrščenimi glede na mesečni dohodek. Post-hoc Scheffejev test je pokazal, da so anketiranci z mesečnim dohodkom nad 600 EUR v primerjavi z ostalima dvema skupinama pripisali višje vrednosti družbenim koristim in so se manj zavedali negativnih učinkov projekta.
300
Acta geographica Slovenica, 55-2, 2015
Preglednica 4: Rezultati T-testa neodvisnih vzorcev za testne spremenljivke družbene koristi in družbeni stroški ter za skupinsko spremenljivko poklic.
spremenljivka	poklic	N	aritmetična sredina	standardni odklon	t	p
družbene koristi	študent	46	3,396	0,647	-2,544	0,013
	neštudent	25	3,817	0,701		
družbeni stroški	študent	46	2,394	0,542	3,894	0,000
	neštudent	25	1,831	0,649		
N - 'število anketirancev, t - statistična vrednost t, p - statistična vrednost p - če je nižja od 0.05 - 95% verjetnost, da obstaja statistično pomembna razlika med skupinama
Preglednica 5: Rezultati T-testa neodvisnih vzorcev za testne spremenljivke družbene koristi in družbeni stroški ter za skupinsko spremenljivko izobrazba.
spremenljivka	izobrazba	N	aritmetična sredina	standardni odklon	t	p
družbene koristi	srednja šola	48	3,374	0,671	-3,185	0,002
	visokošolska, magisterij, doktorat 23		3,899	0,605		
družbeni stroški	srednja šola	48	2,357	0,576	3,278	0,002
	visokošolska, magisterij, doktorat 23		1,860	0,641		
N - število anketirancev, t - statistična vrednost t, p ■ skupinama		- statistična vrednost p - če je nižja od 0.05 -		■ 95 % verjetnost, da obstaja statistično pomembna razlika med		
Preglednica 6: Primerjava aritmetičnih sredin -stroški ter faktorjem starost anketirancev.		- enosmerna analiza variance ANOVA z odvisnima spremenljivkama družbene koristi ii				n družbeni
spremenljivka	starost	N	aritmetična sredina	standardni odklon	F*	p*
	do 20	27	3,443	0,622		
družbene koristi	21-30	25	3,381	0,674	3,840	0,026
	nad 30	19	3,904	0,713		
	do 20	27	2,440	0,565		
družbeni stroški	21-30	25	2,169	0,062	4,755	0,012
	nad 30	19	1,883	0,648		
*p<0,05; F>3,19						
Preglednica 7: Primerjava aritmetičnih sredin -mesečni dohodek.		- enosmerna Al	NOVA z odvisnima spremenljivkama družbene koristi in družbeni stroški ter faktorjem			
spremenljivka	dohodek	N	aritmetična sredina	std. deviacija	F*	p*
	do 200€	30	3,581	0,562		
družbene koristi	201-600 €	20	3,117	0,649	7,900	0,001
	nad 600 €	21	3,899	0,708		
	do 200 €	30	2,322	0,598		
družbeni stroški	201-600 €	20	2,417	0,488	6,684	0,002
	nad 600 €	21	1,804	0,667		
*p<0,05; F>3,19
301
Vanja Dragicevic, David Bole, Andela Bučic, Aleksandra Prodanovic, Evropska prestolnica kulture: mnenje prebivalcev ...
5	Sklep
V raziskavi smo ocenjevali stališča prebivalcev Maribora do družbenih vplivov projekta Evropska prestolnica kulture s pomočjo lestvice FSIAS. Glede na rezultate lahko sklepamo, da so prebivalci od dogodka pričakovali več družbenih koristi kot družbenih stroškov. Strinjali so se, da je dogodek v prvi vrsti pozitivno vplival tako na promocijo Slovenije, kar je bil tudi eden od ciljev dogodka, kot tudi na kulturno življenje skupnosti in njeno splošno javno podobo, kar je prav tako skladno z namenom dogodka. Vendar se anketiranci niso strinjali z oceno, da je dogodek izboljšal njihovo kakovost življenja ali mestno infrastrukturo. Prav tako so bili neodločeni o pozitivnih učinkih na zaposlovanje, priložnosti za dodaten zaslužek, osebni ponos in krepitev identitete skupnosti. Po mnenju anketirancev dogodek ni imel negativnih učinkov v smislu povečanja kriminala, hrupa, smetenja, motenja vsakdanje rutine, prometnih zastojev, gneče na ulicah in v objektih.
Kljub majhnosti vzorca je raziskava pomembno prispevala k razumevanju mnenj a prebivalcev o družbenih vplivih projekta Evropska prestolnica kulture. Njeni rezultati so pomemben vir informacij o dojemanju tega dogodka s strani skupnosti za prebivalce, organizatorje dogodkov in lokalne oblasti. Rezultati so koristni tudi za mesta, ki se potegujejo za naziv Evropska prestolnica kulture. V primeru Maribora lahko potrdimo, da je kulturna investicija (Evropska prestolnica kulture) dosegla želene pozitivne učinke na zaznano kvaliteto življenja prebivalcev. V tem pogledu sicer prihaja do pomembnih razlik med prebivalstvom, saj starejši prebivalci in neštudenti močneje zaznavajo pozitivne vplive.
Da bi lahko zagotovili konstruktivno sklepanje odločitev ob prihodnjem načrtovanju in izvedbi dogodkov, se morajo družbeni in kulturni vplivi dogodka ocenjevati kontinuirano. Tako prebivalci kot organizatorji igrajo pomembno vlogo pri maksimiranju družbenih koristi in minimaliziranju družbenih stroškov dogodkov, da bi zagotovili trajnostni razvoj dogodka in celotne skupnosti.
ZAHVALA: Raziskava je potekala v sklopu projekta 114-451-3602/2013-01, ki ga financira Provincialni sekretariat za znanost in tehnološki razvoj province Vojvodina, Srbija.
6	Literatura
Glej angleški del prispevka.
302