Contents
Open the final report of almost any festival, congress or sports event and the pages follow a familiar order. Attendance on the first page, then social media reach, press clippings, a satisfaction score from an online form, a gallery of photographs, a slide of sponsor logos and a thank-you to the team. It is a perfectly honest document. It is also, in most cases, the only evaluation the event will ever get, and it says almost nothing about what the event did to the place that hosted it.
An event impact assessment is something else. It is a structured look at the economic, social and environmental effects of an event on its host place and its people, and it starts before the event: which effects matter, who is likely to be affected, what the situation looks like now, and how the change will be checked afterwards. The report at the end is only the last part of it. Without the earlier parts, it can describe the event, but it cannot say what the event changed.
I think this is one of the clearest gaps between how our industry talks and how it works. Everyone agrees that events have impacts. Very few events decide in advance how they will know.
A report written after the event can only describe what someone happened to count
The trouble with evaluating at the end is not laziness. By the time the last truck leaves, the team is exhausted, the budget is spent and the next project is already calling. Whatever was not counted during the event is gone. Nobody recorded how busy the surrounding shops were on a normal weekend, so nobody can say whether the festival brought them customers or kept their regulars away. Nobody asked hotels about their occupancy for the same dates in an ordinary year, so the claim that the congress filled the city rests on a feeling. Nobody wrote down how the park was used before the build began, so nobody can show it was returned in better shape.
This is why so many reports fall back on attendance. It is the number that is always there. But attendance mostly tells you that people came, and an assessment is supposed to tell you what their coming did.
The same gap shows when organizers try to measure event ROI for a client or a sponsor. The return was never defined at the start, so the report searches for anything that looks positive and presents it as the result. I don’t blame the people who write these reports; they are working with what they have. The fix lies earlier, in the planning documents, where the questions should have been written down next to the budget.
The discipline of impact assessment, as it is practiced for large projects and infrastructure, has always insisted on this order. Effects are predicted first, then checked, and the difference between the two is where the learning happens. Researchers at Sheffield Hallam University, whose work underpins a widely used event evaluation framework, describe comparing pre-event forecasts with what primary research found afterwards and refining the model over time. That loop of forecast, measure and correct is the heart of the method, and it simply cannot start once the event is over.
The questions are agreed while the plan can still change
An assessment begins with a short list of effects that genuinely matter for this event in this place. Not every possible impact, and not a generic template. A city marathon, a medical congress and a three-day music festival affect a place in very different ways, and the assessment should look different for each.
For most events, I find it helps to set the questions out side by side before anything is booked, because the table makes it obvious when a baseline is missing.
| Area | Question agreed before the event | What to record beforehand | How to check afterwards |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local economy | Who in the city earns from the event, and who loses trade because of it? | Ordinary trading and hotel occupancy for the same period | Supplier invoices by location, hotel figures, a few calls to nearby businesses |
| Residents | How does the event change daily life around the site? | How the site and surrounding streets are used on a normal week | Complaints log, a short resident survey, the state of the site after breakdown |
| Participation | Who takes part, not just who attends? | Which local groups, schools and clubs are already active in the area | Number of local participants and whether they want to return |
| Workforce | What kind of work does the event offer? | Planned local hiring and staffing terms | Payment dates, briefings held, how many staff came back from last year |
| Environment | What does the event consume and leave behind? | Expected waste, energy and transport use | Actual figures from venue and suppliers, compared with the plan |
Every row has a question that can be answered and a baseline that has to be recorded before the gates open. That is the point. The residents and participation rows are where the social side of an event is decided. The environment row asks for the same habit that sustainable events depend on, which is writing down the starting point before anything can be compared.
The table also changes the plan itself. Once the team has written that it will check whether nearby businesses gained or lost trade, it starts thinking about where the food stalls go and whether local vendors are invited. Once it has written that it will count how many staff return next year, it pays more attention to how they are treated this year, and the way staff are treated is part of the social impact of events too. An assessment planned early is not only a measuring tool. It quietly improves the event it measures.
The indicators themselves are rarely exotic. Most of them overlap with the event KPIs a good organizer would track anyway; the difference is that they are pointed at the place and its people as well as at the event’s own goals. A post-event survey can carry two or three questions for residents and local businesses, not only for attendees. A registration system can record where guests stay and how long. Supplier contracts can ask for the figures the assessment will need, so that nobody has to chase them in the days that follow the closing.
A two-day congress needs a smaller assessment, not none
The usual objection is that all this belongs to mega events with research budgets, not to a regional festival or a two-day association congress. I understand the reaction. Full studies of the economic impact of events, with modelling and large surveys, are expensive, and for most events they would cost more than they could ever justify.
But a lighter assessment and no assessment are very different things. A small event can agree its three or four questions on a single page, record its baseline with a few phone calls and a walk around the site, and check the results with data it already produces. That takes a day or two of someone’s time spread over several months. It also puts the organizer in a far stronger position when the next edition is discussed with a city, a venue or a sponsor, because it can show what changed rather than repeat what happened.
Funders are moving in this direction too. Sheffield Hallam’s own page on its event impact research notes that several public event funders require organizers to use the methods of its evaluation toolkit when they apply for funding. Whatever one thinks of any particular toolkit, the expectation is clear: the method has to be in place at the application stage, not discovered at the closing report.
Agencies and organization companies have a role here that they often avoid. The assessment rarely appears in the brief, so it rarely appears in the proposal, so it rarely appears in the event budget. Nobody is paid to do it, and so nobody does. I think a proposal that includes a modest assessment line, honestly scoped, says more about an agency’s seriousness than another page of creative concepts. Some clients will cut it. Others will notice that this is the first agency that asked what the event is supposed to change.
The other half of the work is using the results. An assessment that ends in a file is a report with extra steps. Its findings belong in the post-event debrief with the client and the suppliers, especially the uncomfortable ones: the street that was blocked longer than planned, the local vendors who were priced out of the stall fee, the staff who waited too long for payment. Those are the findings that make the next edition better, and they are also the ones most often quietly left out of the version that goes to the client.
For cities and destinations, the value grows over time. One assessment is a snapshot. Several editions assessed with the same simple questions begin to show whether an event is becoming part of the place or only passing through it, which is the kind of evidence destination development needs and rarely gets from events.
Who reads the assessment once the event is over?
Usually fewer people than it deserves. The client looks at the summary, the sponsor looks at its own page, and the rest stays with the organizer. That is a pity, because the people who could use it most are the venue that will host the next event, the neighborhood association that lived beside this one and the team that will plan the following edition.
Sharing a short, plain version with them costs almost nothing. Where it is done, the next planning meeting tends to open with last year’s findings on the table instead of last year’s photographs.