Entrance Fees as a Subjective Barrier to Visiting Museums
In a 1995 representative survey, 1,080 Germans were asked by standardized questionnaire to assess the subjective significance of 23 motives and barriers to visiting art museums, history museums and technology museums on a scale from 1 (very unimportant motive/barrier) to 5 (very important motive/barrier). An analysis of the results of the survey revealed entrance fees to be the only significant subjective barrier. In contrast to recent price elasticity studies of cultural demand, this study uses a micro-level approach – comparing individual socioeconomic and geographic characteristics with individual and subjective assessments of museum entrance fees as a barrier. The results of an ordered-probit analysis suggest income to be the only significant individual characteristic which can explain this subjective assessment. However, using correspondence analysis, several other individual characteristics such as education and professional status also appear to have a relative impact on the subjective assessment of entrance fees. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 22 (1998)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: http://www.culturaleconomics.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10824/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- William Luksetich & Mark Partridge, 1997. "Demand functions for museum services," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(12), pages 1553-1559.
- Michael Greenacre, 2008. "Correspondence analysis of raw data," Economics Working Papers 1112, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jul 2009.
- John W. O'Hagan, 1996.
"Access to and Participation in the Arts: The Case of Those with Low Income/Educational Attainment,"
Economics Policy Papers
961, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
- John O’Hagan, 1996. "Access to and participation in the arts: The case of those with low incomes/educational attainment," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 20(4), pages 269-282, December.
- John W. O'Hagan, 1995. "National Museums: To Charge or not to charge?," Economics Policy Papers 952, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:22:y:1998:i:1:p:1-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.