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
"It is thought upon examination of the data that these issues arose from problems relating to the items 'interest in visiting museums' and assessments of pricing, and together they induced some errors of measurement , partly because of variance due to those visitors who attended the museum as part of a package tour. Some of these visitors had little idea of the museum entry price as a separate component of their tour, yet it is known that past studies have indicated that 'value for money' is a factor museum visitors take into account when assessing their experiences at a museum (Ashworth & Johnson, 1996). Consequently, the inclusion of this question led to some problems of consistency in response patterns that were arguably subtle and not properly caught in the items. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Museums have several functions as custodians of heritage and culture, disseminators of knowledge about heritage and as places that attract tourists as well as local residents. Arguably all these functions require visitors to be satisfied with the visit experience if museums are to achieve their objectives. This paper reports findings from 411 visitors to the Cham Museum, Danang, Vietnam. It describes the nature of the museum and argues that satisfaction involves the conative, which may be measured by the willingness of visitors to make recommendations to others. However, the study identifies that interpretation and displays are important determinants and simply adjuncts to the generation of satisfaction.
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 12/2013; 11(4):239-263. DOI:10.1080/14766825.2013.829481 · 0.17 Impact Factor
"Table 3 presents the mean WTP per each service as a function of income and, as expected, the marginal utility is decreasing. Some authors (Smith et al., 1983; Ashworth-Johnson, 1996) also mention the possibility of a negative correlation with income, when considering leisure activities, such the visit to a museum, because those who have higher income levels face also higher opportunity costs to visit the site. Table 4 Subsample with level of education "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This paper discusses ways of improving the management of cultural heritage sites and cities, focusing on new forms of involvement and public participation based on public preferences’ elicitation. The problem of city governance and of the appropriate level of democratic participation needs an integrated approach, capable of bridging the practice of urban design, conservation of the built environment and decision-making support system. This paper reports results from a survey using conjoint choice approach questions to elicit people’s preferences for cultural heritage management strategies for an outstanding world heritage site: the Temples of Paestum, in Italy. The potential of the above-mentioned methodologies’ within the current cultural heritage research scenario is also discussed.
"Jackson, 1988); demand analysis (e.g. Ashworth and Johnson, 1996; Darnell et al., 1998); economic impact studies (e.g. Johnson and Thomas, 1992); museum purchasing (Pommerehne and Feld, 1997); and pricing (e.g. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This paper examines the contribution economic analysis can make to the study of museums as productive organisations, and considers some related policy issues. The paper also suggests areas where research by economists might prove most fruitful. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998
Journal of Cultural Economics 01/1998; 22(2):75-85. DOI:10.1023/A:1007537500352 · 1.74 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.