Article

Sources of “value for money” for museum visitors: Some survey evidence

Journal of Cultural Economics (Impact Factor: 1.36). 02/1996; 20(1):67-83. DOI: 10.1007/BF00148271
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT This paper provides an economic analysis of the survey responses of visitors who were asked to make a “ value for money” (VFM) assessment of a museum visit. The paper first interprets the notion of VFM from an economic perspective, and distinguishes between evaluations made before and after a visit. It then analyses the survey responses of visitors to a major museum in the North of England, using appropriate statistical techniques to identify the economic determinants of VFM rankings by visitors. The final section discusses the implications of the methodology and results for museum management, and for the design of museum visitor surveys. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

0 Bookmarks
 · 
29 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Corn ethanol produced in the US and sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil are the world's leading sources of biofuel. Current US biofuel policies create both incentives and constraints for the import of ethanol from Brazil and together with the cost competitiveness and greenhouse gas intensity of sugarcane ethanol compared to corn ethanol will determine the extent of these imports. This study analyzes the supply-side determinants of cost competitiveness and compares the greenhouse gas intensity of corn ethanol and sugarcane ethanol delivered to US ports. We find that while the cost of sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil is lower than that of corn ethanol in the US, the inclusion of transportation costs for the former and co-product credits for the latter changes their relative competitiveness. We also find that the relative cost of ethanol in the US and Brazil is highly sensitive to the prevailing exchange rate and prices of feedstocks. At an exchange rate of US$1=R$2.15 the cost of corn ethanol is 15% lower than the delivered cost of sugarcane ethanol at a US port. Sugarcane ethanol has lower GHG emissions than corn ethanol but a price of over $113 per ton of CO2 is needed to affect competitiveness.
    Energy Policy. 06/2010; 38(11):7404-7415.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Through a comparative survey based on a unique dataset, we highlight existing similarities and differences in the museum demand of two similar institutions located in two different European cities, Padua and Seville. While considering some of the peculiarities of the two museums, we examine the heterogeneity of their visitors' profiles and their factual, motivational, and evaluative stated behaviours. In particular, these characteristics are economet-rically regressed to explain the assiduousness of the two museums' audiences.
    01/2009;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Provision of most public goods (e.g., health care, libraries, education, police, fire protection, utilities) can be characterized by a two-stage production process. In the first-stage, basic inputs (e.g., labor and capital) are used to generate service potential (e.g., opening hours, materials), which is then, in the second-stage, transformed into observed outputs (e.g., school outcomes, library circulation, crimes solved). As final outputs are also affected by demand-side factors, conflating both production stages likely leads to biased inferences about public productive (in)efficiency and its determinants. Hence, this paper uses a specially tailored, fully non-parametric efficiency model allowing for both outlying observations and heterogeneity to analyse efficient public good provision in stage one only. We thereby employ a dataset comprising all 290 Flemish public libraries. Our findings suggest that ideological stance of the local government, wealth and density of the local population and source of library funding (i.e., local funding versus intergovernmental transfers) strongly affect library productive efficiency.
    Journal of Urban Economics 05/2011; 69(3):319-327. · 1.89 Impact Factor