IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v142y2019icp301-311.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public art in their city

Author

Listed:
  • Tanguy, Marine
  • Kumar, Vishal

Abstract

Contemporary research into future cities tends to focus on technology, architecture and infrastructure. However, this study highlights the importance of public art projects for our future cities. Very little empirical evidence and academic studies exist to determine whether or not public art is core to the life and demand of citizens. Using a hybrid contingent valuation (CV) and wellbeing valuation (WV) survey approach (Bakhshi et al., 2015), we collected data at two public art initiatives organised by MTArt Agency. 60% of our sample audience were willing to pay at least £5 for the implementation of more public art in their local area, with 84% willing to pay at least £2, and 84% of our sample said regular public art initiatives would increase their wellbeing. A binary logistic regression model was then used to measure the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public art and which factors influenced their decision. This paper evaluates the potential financial support and desire from citizens towards public art in their cities. We find evidence to suggest that Londoners are willing to pay for more public art in their local area and discover a range of explanatory variables which influenced their decisions. We hope to add to the existing academic research by demonstrating a core need from the audience towards public art, particularly, a willingness to pay for public art projects to become an integral part of their city experience. It is important to understand the economic value of public art initiatives within smart cities context because it will allow policy makers, urban planners and developers to implement such initiatives in the future. With this innovative multi-disciplinary approach, we hope to enable arts projects to engage wider demographics, obtain stronger financial support and become a more meaningful integration into our urban realm.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanguy, Marine & Kumar, Vishal, 2019. "Measuring the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public art in their city," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 301-311.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:142:y:2019:i:c:p:301-311
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518318249
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    2. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    3. Joanne Sharp & Venda Pollock & Ronan Paddison, 2005. "Just Art for a Just City: Public Art and Social Inclusion in Urban Regeneration," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(5-6), pages 1001-1023, May.
    4. Graeme Evans, 2009. "Creative Cities, Creative Spaces and Urban Policy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(5-6), pages 1003-1040, May.
    5. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    6. Hervani, Aref Agahei & Sarkis, Joseph & Helms, Marilyn M., 2017. "Environmental goods valuations for social sustainability: A conceptual framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 137-153.
    7. Graeme Evans, 2005. "Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Culture's Contribution to Regeneration," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(5-6), pages 959-983, May.
    8. Guo, Xiurui & Liu, Haifeng & Mao, Xianqiang & Jin, Jianjun & Chen, Dongsheng & Cheng, Shuiyuan, 2014. "Willingness to pay for renewable electricity: A contingent valuation study in Beijing, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 340-347.
    9. David Maddison & Terry Foster, 2003. "Valuing congestion costs in the British Museum," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 55(1), pages 173-190, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. HaeRan Shin & Quentin Stevens, 2013. "How Culture and Economy Meet in South Korea: The Politics of Cultural Economy in Culture-led Urban Regeneration," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 1707-1723, September.
    2. Irene Mussio & Sylvia Brandt & Michael Hanemann, 2021. "Parental beliefs and willingness to pay for reduction in their child's asthma symptoms: A joint estimation approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 129-143, January.
    3. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Model Selection in Iterative Valuation Questions," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 853-865.
    4. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.
    5. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    6. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    7. Kofi Britwum & Amalia Yiannaka, 2019. "Labeling food safety attributes: to inform or not to inform?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Nicholson, Charles F., 2020. "Revisiting money and labor for valuing environmental goods and services in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    9. Michael Farmer & Eric Belasco, 2011. "A finite mixture model of heterogeneous anchoring with distinct anchoring patterns," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 137-141.
    10. Mustapha Alhassan & Christopher R. Gustafson & Karina Schoengold, 2022. "Effects of information on smallholder irrigation farmers’ willingness to pay for groundwater protection," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 191-203, March.
    11. Jacopo Bonan & Philippe LeMay-Boucher & Michel Tenikue, 2014. "Households' Willingness to Pay for Health Microinsurance and its Impact on Actual Take-up: Results from a Field Experiment in Senegal," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(10), pages 1445-1462, November.
    12. Chien, Yu-Lan & Huang, Cliff J. & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 362-377, September.
    13. Champonnois, Victor & Chanel, Olivier & Makhloufi, Khaled, 2018. "Reducing the anchoring bias in multiple question CV surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    15. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2008. "Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 12-20, January.
    16. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Une approche comportementale de l'évaluation contingente," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 315-329.
    17. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2008. "Individual sensitivity to framing effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 296-307, July.
    18. Brian Roach & Kevin J. Boyle & Michael Welsh, 2002. "Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 121-131.
    19. Takaaki Kato & Noboru Hidano, 2007. "Anchoring Effects, Survey Conditions, and Respondents' Characteristics: Contingent Valuation of Uncertain Environmental Changes," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 773-792, September.
    20. Aadland, David & Anatchkova, Bistra & Grandjean, Burke & Shogren, Jason & Simon, Benjamin & Taylor, Patricia, 2008. "Valuing Access to U.S. Public Lands: A Unique Pricing Experiment," MPRA Paper 8724, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:142:y:2019:i:c:p:301-311. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.