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. Leonardo Becchetti & Alessandra Pelloni & Fiammetta Rossetti, 2008. "Relational Goods, Sociability, and Happiness," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 343-363, August.
    6. 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.
    7. K. G. Willis, 2003. "Pricing Public Parks," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 3-17.
    8. Bohnet, Iris & Frey, Bruno S, 1994. "Direct-Democratic Rules: The Role of Discussion," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 341-354.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    15. 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.
    16. 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. repec:bla:ecorec:v:93:y:2017:i:301:p:302-313 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:kap:jculte:v:42:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10824-016-9286-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "A multiplicity of approaches to institutional analysis. Applications to the government and the arts," IEW - Working Papers 420, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. 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.
    8. Martin Falk & Tally Katz-Gerro, 2016. "Cultural participation in Europe: Can we identify common determinants?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 40(2), pages 127-162, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Cellini, Roberto & Cuccia, Tiziana, 2017. "How free admittance affects charged visits to museums: An analysis of the Italian case," MPRA Paper 78067, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    free entrance; visitor composition; museum; natural experiment; stated preferences;

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marie Andersson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.