preference to economic performance of the event as the main success measure is also given by Silver (2008) and Tum et al (2006).
Getz (2000), a respected scholar in the events industry, addressed the different types of events and proposed the following event evaluation measures:
2.3.1 Economics and Tourism
2.3.1.1 Market share of specific event or events sector in a specific region needs to be analysed.
2.3.1.2 Economic impact of the event including the level of employment opportunities for the local community
2.3.1.3 People sustainability of events: self-supporting aspect of events can be stated to be the foundation of this specific event success measure
2.3.1.4 Competitive advantage of events compared to the events in different locations can also be stated as success measure
2.3.1.5 Image improvement side of the event, together with the scale and success of publicity that was attracted by the event
2.3.1.6 Rate of habitation of the event: this measure includes assisting hotel and transportation business in the region, as well as assistance provided to local residents
2.3.2 Community
2.3.2.1 The intensity of political support the event was able to pull off and the level of local attendance
2.3.2.2 Willingness of attendants/participants to pay for the event
2.3.2.3 The level of volunteer support that the event was able to generate
2.3.2.4 The accomplishment of the event in developing the spirit of community and pride in various stakeholders
2.3.3 Art and Culture
2.3.3.1 The accomplishment of the event in advertising and developing local talent 2.3.3.2 The success the event was able to achieve in providing cultural and/or artistic
experiences for the local community
2.3.3.3 The accomplishment of the event in fund-raising activities, as well as developing interest and understanding within the local community
2.3.4 Sport
2.3.4.1 The advantages that training and preparing for the event would offer the participants and other stakeholders
2.3.4.2 The accomplishment of the event in generating interest in sport
2.3.5 Business
2.3.5.1 The accomplishment of the event in generating new networks, increasing the level of sales for an involved company, as well as generating new business contacts 2.3.5.2 The accomplishment of the event in introducing new products and services to the
market place.
2.3.6 Facilities and Attractions
2.3.6.1 The amount of revenue an event was able to generate
2.3.6.2 The accomplishment of the event in promotion of new or existing facilities.
2.3.7 Political
Political measures refer to the capacity of the event in ensuring the efficiency of propaganda, and communicating a message of a relevant nature. Ensure that the organisation and network is able to adapt to changing conditions and renew itself periodically.
According to Kilkenny (2006) the amount of profit the event was able to generate and the number of people that attended the event remain to be the most effective evaluation measures. This particular viewpoint is supported by many other writers (Matthews, 2008; Parry, 2001) on the topic of special events.
Dwyer et al (2000), on the other hand stated that when evaluating the success of the special
events of any types, social and economic costs of the event need to be taken into account as well.
The following is a more detailed explanation of this event evaluation principle (Dwyer et al, 2000):
[A] Social Costs
Disruption to resident lifestyles
Unnecessary noise
Vandalism
Crowding
Crime
Property damage
[B] Economic Costs
Disruption to normal businesses trading
Under-utilised infrastructure
2.4 EVALUATION
The Oxford Dictionary defines evaluation as a systematic determination of the worth, value, quality, character or effectiveness of something. According to Davidson (2005), the “something”
can be the entire entity or aspects or components of the entity. Davidson (2005) elaborated by stating that the types of things that can be evaluated are broad and may include projects, programmes or organisations, personnel or performance, policies or strategies and products or services and identifies the reasons why evaluations are undertaken viz.:
To find areas for improvement; and/or
To produce an assessment of overall quality or value that is generally conducted for reporting or decision-making purposes.
Christiansen (2005) supported Davidson (2004) and confirmed that another reason for conducting evaluations was for accountability and that the purpose is to utilise the evaluation to reinforce support for continued support. Robson (2000) maintained that that there was an array of purposes for conducting an evaluation and that for each purpose there would be a set of likely questions that can be asked. In the case of this study, the most significant purpose would be to evaluate the outcome of the event. Likewise, a possible question that could be asked regarding event evaluation is: “What is the social impact of an event on the host community?” However, a question from a sponsor that provides financial support for the event might be: “Is it worth
continuing to support the event?”
Davidson (2004) highlighted the following two steps that are involved in conducting an evaluation:
Step 1: Establish a clear understanding of what is being evaluated and what types of questions need to be answered; and
Step 2: Identify the relevant values, collect appropriate data, and then systematically combine the values with the descriptive data to convey answers to the key evaluation questions that were asked.
Robson (2000) supported the above and maintained that a high-quality evaluation required a well-thought and thorough design phase as well as the collection, analysis and interpretation of data.
2.4.1 Evaluation Theory
Sherwood (2007) confirmed that the Evaluation Theory had progressed through four distinct phases. Robson (2000) stated that the initial focus of evaluation was on experimental or quasi- experimental types of evaluation but the second generation was where evaluations were used in the actual process or decision-making situations. He inferred that this change represented a shift from a knowledge-driven approach to a user-led approach (Robson, 2000). The third-
generation, on the other hand, was a period of conflict amongst the evaluation authors. Guba and Lincoln (1989) labelled the fourth generation as the responsive constructivist evaluation and concluded that the outcomes do not represent the way things are and that they are constructs that are formed by multiple actors in order to make sense of the world around them. Thus, evaluation findings are literally created through a process that includes the evaluator and other persons
involved in the evaluation. According to Guba and Lincoln (1989), the outcomes of this process could be regarded as the “realities” of the case.
2.4.1.1 Outcome Evaluations
Robson (2000) confirmed that an evaluation of the outcomes of an entity is a transparent and exploratory style of assessment in comparison to an evaluation of the achievement of pre- specified goals, and is a frequently requested evaluation task and that the task is largely the selection of appropriate outcome measures rather that the use of a particular research method.
Robson (2000) declared that the measures will be specific to the particular entity being evaluated.
Love (2001) argued that the catalyst for change in evaluation was the need for increased
accountability, effectiveness and efficiency. This, in turn, sparked a measurement revolution for many organisations. Robson (2000) supported this argument and added that there was an
increasing need for accountability and concern for value of money.
As regards this study, it has been confirmed that the event that will be evaluated is the 2010 Comrades Marathon. More significantly, one of the central aims of the study is to develop a set of indicators to evaluate the social outcome of this ultra-marathon in regard to its impact on the host communities.