Advertisement

More than a good book: contingent valuation of public library services in England

  • Daniel Fujiwara
  • Ricky N. LawtonEmail author
  • Susana Mourato
Original Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Libraries in England have an important role as providers of a range of services, from book-lending and computer access to children’s activities, training courses and meeting spaces. Understanding the value of libraries is a complex issue due to the wide-ranging services that libraries provide and their inherently non-market nature. This study estimates the value of engagement in library services through a large contingent valuation study of around 2000 library users and non-users. We find that average willingness to pay (WTP) to maintain current library services (above the core book-lending and computer/Internet services) among library users in England is £19.51/annum and £10.31/annum for non-users. This provides a combined annual WTP for these local library services of £723.4 million. This is the first study to disaggregate WTP values by the services that respondents report having used. Those using health services, attending lectures and using library space for socialising are willing to pay more on average to maintain all services at their local library. Library use is also positively associated with subjective well-being, suggesting that libraries have an important role in users’ quality of life. This provides supporting evidence that the values for public libraries can be interpreted as reflecting primary benefits stemming from welfare changes associated with library engagement.

Keywords

Contingent valuation Stated preference Willingness to pay Cultural value Public goods Public libraries 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Iulian Gramatki for his assistance in final drafting of this manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Arts Council England.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Aside from the funding received from Arts Council England by Daniel Fujiwara, the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Primary data were collected from a population aged 16 and above following ethical standards set by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK.

Supplementary material

10824_2019_9369_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. Aabø, S. (2005). Are public libraries worth their price? A contingent valuation study of Norwegian public libraries. New Library World, 106(11/12), 487–495.  https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800510634973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, G., Braathen, N. A., Groom, B., & Mourato, S. (2018). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment - further developments and policy use (p. 458). Berlin, Germany: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved 25 October, 2018 http://www.oecd.org/environment/cost-benefit-analysis-and-the-environment-9789264085169-en.htm.
  3. Bakhshi, H., Fujiwara, D., Lawton, R. N., Mourato, S., & Dolan, P. (2015). Measuring economic value in cultural institutions (Cultural Value Project) (p. 103). London, UK: Arts and Humanities Research Council. Retrieved 24 July, 2019 https://ahrc.ukri.org/documents/project-reports-and-reviews/measuringeconomicvalue/.
  4. Bateman, I., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlin, M. (2017). Do OLS and ordinal happiness regressions yield different results? A quantitative assessment. Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved 24 July, 2019 http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1092457&dswid=3733.
  6. Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DCMS. (2014). Taking Part 2013/2014 quarter 4 statistical release. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.Google Scholar
  8. Dolan, P., & Metcalfe, R. (2012). Measuring subjective wellbeing: Recommendations on measures for use by national governments. Journal of Social Policy, 41(02), 409–427.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279411000833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fanner, D., & Urquhart, C. (2008). Bibliotherapy for mental health service users Part 1: A systematic review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 25(4), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114(497), 641–659.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00235.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, B. (2013). Libraries and learning resource centres. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fujiwara, D., & Campbell, R. (2011). Valuation techniques for social cost-benefit analysis: Stated preference, revealed preference and subjective well-being approaches. A discussion of the current issues (pp. 1–76). London, UK: HM Treasury. Retrieved 13 April, 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209107/greenbook_valuationtechniques.pdf.
  13. Griffiths, J.-M., King, D. W., & Aerni, S. E. (2006). Taxpayer return-on-Investment in Pennsylvania public libraries. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  14. Griffiths, J. M., King, D., Harrington, J., Lynch, T., & Tomer, C. (2004). State of Florida taxpayer return on investment in public libraries. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  15. Hájek, P., & Stejskal, J. (2014). Modelling public library value using the contingent valuation method: The case of the Municipal Library of Prague. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 47(1), 43–55.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614525217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hicks, J. R. (1939). Value and capital (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jura Consultants. (2005). Bolton’s Museum, library and archive services; An economic valuation (p. 85). London, UK: Museums Libraries and Archives Council. Retrieved 24 July, 2019 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120215211622/https://research.mla.gov.uk/evidence//view-publication.php?pubid=423.
  18. Kim, G. (2011). A critical review of valuation studies to identify frameworks in library services. Library & Information Science Research, 33(2), 112–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawton, R. N., & Fujiwara, D. (2016). Living with aircraft noise: Airport proximity, aviation noise and subjective wellbeing in England. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 42, 104–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maddison, D., & Foster, T. (2003). Valuing congestion costs in the British Museum. Oxford Economic Papers, 55(1), 173–190.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/55.1.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maddison, D., & Mourato, S. (2001). Valuing different road options for Stonehenge. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 4(4), 203–212.  https://doi.org/10.1179/135050301793138182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McClure, C. R., Fraser, B. T., Nelson, T. W., & Robbins, J. B. (2001). Economic benefits and impacts from public libraries in the State of Florida. Final report. Retrieved 12 December, 2014 http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449805.
  23. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  24. Morris, A., Sumsion, J., & Hawkins, M. (2002). Economic value of public libraries in the UK. Libri, 52(2), 78–87.  https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2002.78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mourato, S., Kontoleon, A., & Danchev, A. (2002). Preserving cultural heritage in transition economies: A contingent valuation study of Bulgarian Monasteries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Mourato, S., & Mazzanti, M. (2002). Economic valuation of cultural heritage: Evidence and prospects. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage (pp. 51–76). Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.Google Scholar
  27. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Recent Developments.Google Scholar
  28. Pennebaker, J. W., & Seagal, J. D. (1999). Forming a story: The health benefits of narrative. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(10), 1243–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pung, C., Clarke, A., & Patten, L. (2004). Measuring the economic impact of the British library. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 10(1), 79–102.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13614530412331296826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vaughan, W. J., Russell, C. S., Rodriguez, D. J., & Darling, A. C. (2000). Uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis based on referendum contingent valuation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(2), 125–137.  https://doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Welsch, H. (2007). Environmental welfare analysis: A life satisfaction approach. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 544–551.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Fujiwara
    • 1
  • Ricky N. Lawton
    • 1
    Email author
  • Susana Mourato
    • 2
  1. 1.Simetrica Research ConsultancyLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Geography and EnvironmentLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations