OPERACIONALIZACIÓN DE VARIABLES

Crompton‟s 1995 paper entitled “Economic Impact Analysis of Sports Facilities and Events:

Eleven Sources of Misapplication” highlighted some of the flaws of economic impact studies, and drew particular attention to those relating to the multiplier. Recently, Lind and Gronstad (2010:12), and before that Snowball and Antrobus (2002:1299), listed the definition of the area

38

of study as one of the possible areas of misrepresentation or error, and went on to note that in each of the Edinburgh (1996), Adelaide (1990), Melbourne (1996), and Grahamstown (1997) case studies, the area of study was carefully defined. Indeed, all the studies, except for the one conducted in Grahamstown, defined separately the city and the regional impact area (Snowball and Antrobus, 2002:1299).

Generally speaking, the greater the size of the sample area, the fewer leakages should occur, and as a result, there will be a larger multiplier effect, as was noted by Baaijens and Nijkamp (2000:844), who also suggested other variables which might affect the size of the multiplier:

“a positive contribution to the tourist multiplier is also offered by the population size, the number of tourists, and the tourist market share of the major country of origin”.

Snowball and Antrobus (2005:9) suggested that ideally each economic impact study should calculate its own multiplier in order to capture the specific “combination of business interrelationships” which exists in the host community and more importantly, affects the level of leakages from the defined area. This is not only expensive, but time-consuming to carry out, and as previously mentioned studies thus rather tend to estimate the multiplier based on figures and situational characteristics of similar economic impact studies. Vogelsong and Graefe (2001:32) stated that estimating an economic impact multiplier from a secondary source is a three-step process: firstly, previous studies are to be reviewed, using only those which have been compiled at sites which are as similar as possible to that of the proposed project; secondly, the analysts are to determine the average expenditures which were recorded in the previous studies; and thirdly, the average spending data from the previous studies should be used to estimate the number of visitors expected to exist for the specific event or festival.

Further important factors to consider when estimating a multiplier, are the relative size of the two regions being compared, as well as the types of events which are being held. For example, a mega-sporting event cannot be compared to an annual arts festival in terms of the number of visitors it attracts, or indeed in terms of the relative wealth the respective visitors possess.

Heaney and Heaney (2003:259) summed up this point succinctly in saying that refining the estimated multiplier to a workable degree will “require a complete survey of the affected

39

business”. Economic impact analysts are to decide whether they would prefer to calculate an original multiplier, which is only possible if the relevant data exists and is freely accessible, or whether they would rather spend the time and funding available on estimating a „borrowed‟

multiplier, which is likely to contain a small degree of inaccuracy.

Crompton (1995:25) stated that the size of the multiplier depends on the host city‟s structure; if the area under scrutiny has a large economic base, then it is probable that the value added from the direct expenditure related to the festival will be high (with only a small leakage from the system). This is illustrated in Figure 2.3, which shows that as the size of the impact area around Salamanca is increased, so the size of the multiplier becomes greater too. This can unfortunately lend itself to the manipulation of an economic impact study‟s results, as analysts wishing to attract the necessary public or private funding can define a large impact area, which could distort and inflate the overall impact figures for the event. This is one reason why critics have questioned the validity of such studies as, potentially, there could be very different conclusions drawn from studies conducted on the same event. Special mention of this very phenomenon was made by Crompton (2006:67), who stated that it is regularly the case that economic impact studies are commissioned to validate a certain political position, rather than to search for the truest economic estimate.

The Grahamstown (1997) studies referred to by Snowball and Antrobus (2002:1305) show no indication of how the multiplier was calculated, and this figure seems to have been an educated guess without much further support. It was estimated to be a modest 0.18 due to there being very few exports from Grahamstown, and also because a large proportion of locally consumed goods were imported. The multiplier used in the Edinburgh (1990) study was not supported by any clearly stated reasoning, but a later multiplier used in Edinburgh (1996) was based on a Scottish Tourism study and took into account several assumptions regarding the size of the defined area and resultant leakages therein. The Melbourne (1996) study derived its figures for the calculation of the multiplier from Price Waterhouse (used for the Adelaide Formula One Grand Prix), which as was pointed out by Snowball and Antrobus (2002:1306), at least a reputable economic source.

The multiplier used in the Adelaide (1990) study was taken from a government report, but questions were raised as to its applicability to the defined area.

40