IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0298.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who visits the museums? A comparison between stated preferences and observed effects of entrance fees

Author

Listed:
  • Lampi, Elina

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Orth, Matilda

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

Abstract

This study investigates whether the introduction of an entrance fee affects visitor composition at a state funded museum in Sweden. While entrance to the museum was still free, we conducted a survey to collect information about visitor characteristics and used the Contingent Valuation (CV) method to measure visitors’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a visit. The results of the CV survey show that even a very low entrance fee level results in a significant reduction in several target groups that the museum has policy directives to reach. Additionally, we conducted another survey after the introduction of the fee. Thus, we have a unique opportunity to test the validity of CV in the context of a cultural good. The comparison between the predicted results from the CV and the observed change in visitor composition after the introduction of the fee implies that CV does predict a majority of the changes successfully.

Suggested Citation

  • Lampi, Elina & Orth, Matilda, 2008. "Who visits the museums? A comparison between stated preferences and observed effects of entrance fees," Working Papers in Economics 298, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/9927
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trine Hansen, 1997. "The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28, March.
    2. John Ashworth & Peter Johnson, 1996. "Sources of “value for money” for museum visitors: Some survey evidence," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 20(1), pages 67-83, March.
    3. Blanchflower, David G. & Oswald, Andrew J., 2004. "Well-being over time in Britain and the USA," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1359-1386, July.
    4. Edward Balistreri & Gary McClelland & Gregory Poe & William Schulze, 2001. "Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 275-292, March.
    5. Felix Schläpfer & Nick Hanley, 2006. "Contingent Valuation and Collective Choice," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 115-135, February.
    6. Leonardo Becchetti & Alessandra Pelloni & Fiammetta Rossetti, 2008. "Relational Goods, Sociability, and Happiness," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 343-363, August.
    7. Walter Santagata & Giovanni Signorello, 2000. "Contingent Valuation of a Cultural Public Good and Policy Design: The Case of ``Napoli Musei Aperti''," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 24(3), pages 181-204, August.
    8. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Valuing Public Goods: The Life Satisfaction Approach," IEW - Working Papers 184, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    9. K. G. Willis, 2003. "Pricing Public Parks," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 3-17.
    10. Bohnet, Iris & Frey, Bruno S, 1994. "Direct-Democratic Rules: The Role of Discussion," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 341-354.
    11. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    12. Throsby, C. D. & Withers, Glenn A., 1986. "Strategic bias and demand for public goods : Theory and an application to the arts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 307-327, December.
    13. Bengt Kriström, 1993. "Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 63-71, February.
    14. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    15. Faye Steiner, 1997. "Optimal Pricing of Museum Admission," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 21(4), pages 307-333, December.
    16. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    17. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    18. R.G.W. Anderson, 1998. "Is Charging Economic?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 22(2), pages 179-187, June.
    19. Tohmo, Timo, 2004. "Economic value of a local museum: Factors of willingness-to-pay," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 229-240, April.
    20. Frey, Bruno S, 1994. "Cultural Economics and Museum Behaviour," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 41(3), pages 325-335, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Morrison & Christine M Hill, 2017. "Understanding the Non-Market Value and Equity Implications of the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct Redevelopment," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(301), pages 302-313, June.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & Lasse Steiner, 2010. "Pay as you go: a new proposal for museum pricing," IEW - Working Papers 485, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Sharon Chang & Renuka Mahadevan, 2018. "To preserve or enhance precious memories: a segmented market analysis of the history museum in Singapore," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 42(1), pages 75-89, February.
    4. Roberto Cellini & Tiziana Cuccia, 2013. "Museum and monument attendance and tourism flow: a time series analysis approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(24), pages 3473-3482, August.
    5. Roberto Cellini & Tiziana Cuccia, 2018. "How free admittance affects charged visits to museums: an analysis of the Italian case," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(3), pages 680-698.
    6. Brida, Juan Gabriel & Monterubbianesi, Pablo Daniel & Zapata Aguirre, Sandra, 2012. "Análisis de los factores que afectan la repetición de la visita a una atracción cultural: una aplicación al museo de Antioquia [Analysis of factors affecting repeat visit to a cultural attraction: ," MPRA Paper 37622, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Harold E. Cuffe, 2018. "Rain and museum attendance: Are daily data fine enough?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 42(2), pages 213-241, May.
    8. JG. Brida & M. Pulina & E. Riaño, 2010. "Visitors' experience in a modern art museum: a structural equation model," Working Paper CRENoS 201026, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    9. Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "A Multiplicity of Approaches to Institutional Analysis. Applications to the Government and the Arts," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-12, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    10. Vincent G. Munley, 2018. "A Contingent Valuation Analysis of the Galway City Museum: Welfare Estimates for Attendance in the Absence of an Admission Fee," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 49(4), pages 489-514.
    11. He, Haoran, 2010. "Can Stated Preference Methods Accurately Predict Responses to Environmental Policies? The Case of a Plastic Bag Regulation in China," Working Papers in Economics 444, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    12. Juan Gabriel Brida & Marta Meleddu & Manuela Pulina & Vania Statzu, 2014. "Investigating informal learning at a cultural site," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(2), pages 634-650.
    13. Bart Neuts, 2020. "Mixed pricing strategies in museums: Examining the potential of voluntary contributions for capturing consumer surplus," Tourism Economics, , vol. 26(1), pages 115-136, February.
    14. Alexandros Apostolakis & Shabbar Jaffry, 2013. "An Analysis of Monetary Voluntary Contributions for Cultural Resources: The Case of the British Museum," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(3), pages 631-651, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vincent G. Munley, 2018. "A Contingent Valuation Analysis of the Galway City Museum: Welfare Estimates for Attendance in the Absence of an Admission Fee," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 49(4), pages 489-514.
    2. Felix Arnold & Ronny Freier & Magdalena Pallauf & David Stadelmann, 2015. "Voting for direct democratic participation: Evidence from an initiative election," CREMA Working Paper Series 2015-11, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    3. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    4. Felix Arnold & Ronny Freier & Magdalena Pallauf & David Stadelmann, 2014. "Voting for Direct Democracy: Evidence from a Unique Popular Initiative in Bavaria," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1435, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    6. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    7. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    8. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Bart Neuts, 2020. "Mixed pricing strategies in museums: Examining the potential of voluntary contributions for capturing consumer surplus," Tourism Economics, , vol. 26(1), pages 115-136, February.
    10. Anne-Kathrin LAST, 2008. "The Monetary Value of Cultural Goods: A Contingent Valuation Study of the Municipal Supply of Cultural Goods in Lueneburg, Germany," EcoMod2008 23800074, EcoMod.
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    12. Tiziana Cuccia, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Second Edition, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    15. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    16. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    17. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, 2007. "Calculating Tragedy: Assessing The Costs Of Terrorism," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 1-24, February.
    18. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    19. Marilena Pollicino & David Maddison, 2001. "Valuing the Benefits of Cleaning Lincoln Cathedral," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 25(2), pages 131-148, May.
    20. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    free entrance; visitor composition; museum; natural experiment; stated preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Z11 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economics of the Arts and Literature

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ann-Christin Räätäri Nyström (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.