The benefits and attractiveness of local theatres. Comedy or Shakespeare – does it matter?

Figures & data

Table 1. Use and non-use values of different types of performances.

		Entertain-ment	Drama	Children	Experi-mental
Benefits to audience	Enjoyment and recreation	x
	Psychological and emotional stimulation and fantasy		X
	Intellectual stimulation		X		x
	Articulation and interpretation of the individual’s own attitudes and experiences
	Active (physical) involvement of the audience				x
	Development of artistic taste (stimulation of future attendance)				x
Benefits to society	Attraction of new audiences (encouraging access especially amongst economically, socially or regionally disadvantaged, or having potential for media dissemination)	x
	Promotion of social evaluation (information, controversy, critical examination of society, development of public creative ideas and aesthetic standards)		X		x
	Cultural preservation (stressing the continuity of cultural life, the preservation and dissemination of cultural heritage, e.g. maintenance of classic works in performance)		X
	Promotion of regional or national (indigenous) identity and culture		X
	Promotion of international understanding		X
	Education, especially of the young			x
Benefits to the art form	Innovation (creativity, novelty, experimentation)				x
	Training (of performers, directors, designers, production staff, technical staff)		X		x
	Development of local creative artists (writers, choreographers, composers)		X		x
	Provision of examples of the best professional standards for the encouragement of future artists		X
	Potential for touring interstate or overseas.		X

Source: Throsby (1990, pp. 68–69) and Wisniewska and Zawojska (2023).

Table 2. Variables used in analysis.

	Variable	Type	Description
Individual background variables (micro data)	Gender	Dummy	Male, female
	Age	Continuous	Age 18 <
	Education	Dummy	(1) Basic school and upper secondary (2) higher education
	Income	Continuous	Personal income, 1,000 DKK
	Marital status	Dummy	(1) Unmarried, divorced, widowed (2) married/partnership
	No. of children	Continuous	Number of children in family
	Distance	Continuous	Distance to the Capital Region, measured as the shortest distance (straight line) in kilometers between the centre of the municipality and the centre of Copenhagen^11
Survey questions	User status	Dummy	(1) Have visited a theatre (the local theatre) in the past 12 months (recent users), (2) it has been more than 12 months since last visit (past users), (3) never visit the theatre (non-users)
	WTP	Continuous	Response in DKK to the question
	Attractiveness	Dummy	Scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree with the statement: The theater(s) in my municipality contributes to making the municipality attractive to live in.
	Elicitation format	Dummy	Open-ended/payment card
Theatres in municipality (register data)	Number of theatres	Continuous	Number of theatres in municipality
	Repertoire	Dummy	Repertoire of theatre (drama, children, dance, experimental, comedy, not categorized)
	Category	Dummy	Category of theatre (small, theatre association, large, local theatre)

Table 3. Repertoire of Danish theatres.

Repertoire	No. of theatres	No. of municipalities	% of sample
Drama	182	64	80.8
Childrens’	51	20	36.8
Dance	19	5	21.5
Experimental	17	3	18.5
Comedy	10	6	15.7
Not categorized	17	8	21.5
Total	296	64

Source: Statistics Denmark.

Figure 1. Allocation of theatres in Denmark.

Table 4. Categories of theatres in Denmark.

Category	No. of theatres	No. of municipalities	% of sample
Small theatres	187	35	54.5
Theatre associations	65	61	75.6
Large theatres	10	5	25.8
Local theaters	32	30	30.7
Total	296	64

Source: Statistics Denmark.

Table 5. WTP for local theatres and user status, DKK. Weighted average.

	Min	Mean	Median	Max	Std Dev	N
WTP recent users	0	153	75	875	203	44
WTP past users	0	122	75	2,000	247	88
WTP non-users	0	76	30	650	127	137

Table 6. Willingness-to-pay for local theatres, DKK.

	All
Attractiveness: Strongly disagree	−233.3** (95.1)
Attractiveness: Disagree	−99.8** (49.7)
Attractiveness: Neither agree nor disagree	-
Attractiveness: Agree	106.8** (51.3)
Attractiveness: Strongly agree	212.6*** (62.6)
User: Recent	-
User: Past	−26.4 (37.8)
User: Non	−159.0*** (59.0)
Number of theatres	−8.9 (6.5)
Elicitation format (open ended)	−5.8 (46.0)
Gender (male)	−81.8** (37.3)
Age	4.0*** (1.4)
Education (higher)	98.0*** (35.5)
Income (1,000 DKK)	0.1 (1.8)
Marital status (married/partnership)	−23.8 (32.4)
No. of children	23.5 (22.6)
Distance to Copenhagen	−260.5 (248.0)
Constant	−364.9** (155.8)
Log-likelihood	93,736.6*** (28,420.2)
N	509
Pseudo R^2	0.05

Notes: Dependent variable: WTP in DKK (What is the maximum amount you are willing to pay per year via your personal income tax for the theatre in your municipality?) Tobit estimates. Huber-White robust SEs in parentheses allow for arbitrary correlation of residuals within each municipality. Level of significance indicated by asterisks: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

Table 7. Attractiveness of municipality and theatre repertoire.

	All	Users	Past users	Non-users
Repertoire: Drama	0.77*** (0.18)	1.11*** (0.23)	0.89*** (0.28)	0.25 (0.34)
Repertoire: Children’s	0.08 (0.15)	0.02 (0.26)	0.31* (0.19)	0.10 (0.36)
Repertoire: Dance	−0.09 (0.14)	0.22 (0.36)	−0.62 (0.38)	0.53 (0.40)
Repertoire: Comedy	0.50*** (0.16)	0.99*** (0.33)	0.79* (0.46)	−0.63 (0.41)
Repertoire: Experimental	0.80*** (0.14)	0.65** (0.31)	1.33*** (0.29)	−0.63 (0.54)
Number of theatres	0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)	0.01** (0.01)
Gender (male)	−0.50*** (0.10)	−0.43*** (0.14)	−0.55*** (0.19)	−0.37* (0.21)
Age	0.02*** (0.00)	0.02*** (0.01)	0.04*** (0.01)	0.02*** (0.01)
Education (higher)	0.12 (0.10)	0.10 (0.13)	0.36** (0.17)	0.02 (0.33)
Income (1,000 DKK)	−0.01 (0.02)	−0.00 (0.02)	−0.15*** (0.05)	0.06 (0.11)
Marital status (married/partnership)	−0.01 (0.10)	−0.24 (0.15)	0.38** (0.18)	−0.02 (0.24)
No. of children	0.01 (0.06)	−0.04 (0.08)	0.08 (0.09)	0.14 (0.12)
Distance to Copenhagen	3.00** (0.87)	4.81*** (1.14)	2.04*** (1.19)	0.57 (1.91)
User: Recent	-
User: Past	−0.40*** (0.11)
User: Non	−1.34*** (0.17)
N	1,503	742	475	286
Pseudo R^2	0.08	0.07	0.08	0.02

Note. Dependent variable: Scale from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree with the statement The theatre/s in my municipality contributes to making the municipality attractive to live in. Ordered logit estimates. Huber-White robust SEs in parentheses allow for arbitrary correlation of residuals within each municipality. Level of significance indicated by asterisks: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

Table 8. Attractiveness of municipalities and category of theatre.

	All	Users	Past users	Non-users
Category: Small theatres	0.18 (0.16)	0.18 (0.20)	0.16 (0.20)	0.28 (0.40)
Category: Large theatres	0.76*** (0.28)	1.10*** (0.36)	0.78** (0.39)	−0.21 (0.52)
Category: Theatre associations	0.37** (0.19)	0.43* (0.23)	0.56** (0.25)	0.27 (0.30)
Category: Local theatres	0.25 (0.17)	0.27 (0.24)	0.21 (0.22)	0.14 (0.36)
Number of theatres	0.01** (0.00)	0.01 (0.00)	0.01 (0.00)	0.01 (0.01)
Individual characteristics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Distance	2.27** (0.96)	3.16** (1.26)	1.69 (1.36)	1.15 (2.10)
User: Recent	-
User: Past	−0.43*** (0.11)
User: Non	−1.35*** (0.16)
N	1,503	742	475	286
Pseudo R^2	0.07	0.06	0.07	0.02

Note: Dependent variable: Scale from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree with the statement. The theatre/s in my municipality contributes to making the municipality attractive to live in. Ordered logit estimates. Huber-White robust SEs in parentheses allow for arbitrary correlation of residuals within each municipality. Level of significance indicated by asterisks: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Yes/No indicates dummies.

Table A1. Descriptive statistics of the sample.

	Total	Recent users	Past users	Non-users
Age distribution (%)
18–34	26.6	27.5	28.6	22.1
35–54	31.8	30.2	35.5	29.4
55–74	30.2	31.7	25.6	34.1
75 <	11.4	10.6	10.4	14.4
Educational distribution (%)
Basic school	25.1	20.2	23.6	36.5
Secondary education	41.9	38.4	44.3	45.5
Higher education	33.0	41.5	32.1	18.1
Gender (%)
Women	52.0	56.5	51.9	43.4
Men	48.0	43.5	48.1	56.6
Marital status (%)
Unmarried	34.0	32.7	37.7	31.1
Married/registered partnership/separated	52.6	47.1	50.0	50.2
Divorced	10.4	10.2	10.2	11.3
Widowed	4.5	5.0	7.7	5.4
Average income 2018, DKK	334,015.8	386,463.5	308,183.4	270,398.3
Average no. children living at home	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.6
Sample size	1,929	864	576	378

Table A2. Correlation table.

	WTP	Attract.	Number of theatres	Payment option	Gender	Age	Education	Income	Marital status	No.of. children	Distance	User status
WTP	1.00
Attractiveness	0.24*	1.00
Number of theatres	−0.06	0.17*	1.00
Payment option	−0.01	−0.01	−0.02	1
Gender	−0.08*	−0.14*	0.05*	−0.01	1
Age	0.14*	0.14*	−0.16*	−0.03	0.00	1
Education	0.14*	0.11*	0.13*	0.02	−0.08*	0.00	1
Income	0.05	0.01	0.05*	0.04	0.12*	0.08*	0.25*	1
Marital status	0.06	0.00	−0.14*	−0.04	0.05*	0.33*	0.08*	0.11*	1
No. of children	−0.01	−0.09*	−0.06*	0.03	−0.02	−0.43*	0.11*	0.07*	0.09*	1
Distance	−0.02	−0.02	−0.44*	−0.02	0.01	0.02	−0.11*	−0.09*	0.01	−0.03	1
User status	−0.19*	−0.28*	−0.10*	−0.03	0.12*	0.03	−0.22*	−0.14*	−0.04	−0.01	0.14*	1

Table A3. Attractiveness of municipality and repertoire of theatre (excluding Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, and Aarhus).

Attractiveness	All	Users	Past users	Non-users
Repertoire: Drama	0.69*** (0.19)	0.96*** (0.23)	0.76** (0.30)	0.38 (0.37)
Repertoire: Childrens’	−0,14 (0.22)	−0,32 (0.34)	0,01 (0.24)	0,17 (0.43)
Repertoire: Dance	−0.16 (0.17)	0.17 (0.41)	−0.70* (0.40)	0.22 (0.40)
Repertoire: Comedy	0.53*** (0.16)	0.92*** (0.28)	0.95* (0.57)	−0.40 (0.36)
Repertoire: Experimental	-	-	-	-
Number of theatres	0.06** (0.03)	0.10*** (0.04)	0.08* (0.04)	−0.05 (0.06)
Individual characteristics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Distance to Copenhagen	2.93*** (0.92)	4.85*** (1.19)	1.94 (1.25)	0.07 (2.00)
User: Recent	-
User: Past	−0.33*** (0.13)
User: Non	−1.18*** (0.17)
N	1,194	543	400	251
Pseudo R^2	0.06	0.06	0.08	0.01

Notes: Dependent variable: Scale from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree with the statement. The theatre/s in my municipality contributes to making the municipality attractive to live in. Ordered logit estimates. Huber-White robust SEs in parentheses allow for arbitrary correlation of residuals within each municipality. Level of significance indicated by asterisks: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Yes/No indicates dummies. Respondents living in Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, and Aarhus excluded from the sample.

Table A4. Attractiveness of municipality and categories of theatres (excluding Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, and Aarhus).

	All	Users	Past users	Non-users
Category: Small theatres	0.15 (0.17)	0.19 (0.20)	−0.05 (0.20)	0.28 (0.40)
Category: Large theatres	0.27 (0.25)	0.54* (0.31)	−0.35 (0.33)	−0.21 (0.52)
Category: Theatre associations	0.47** (0.20)	0.65*** (0.24)	0.67*** (0.26)	0.27 (0.30)
Category: Local theatres	0.13 (0.29)	0.09 (0.26)	−0.08 (0.25)	0.14 (0.36)
Number of theatres	0.05** (0.03)	0.06 (0.04)	0.17*** (0.04)	−0.09** (0.04)
Individual characteristics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Distance	2.98*** (0.90)	4.53*** (1.17)	2.59** (1.25)	0.46 (2.11)
User: Recent	-
User: Past	−0.34*** (0.13)
User: Non	−1.19*** (0.17)
N	1,194	543	400	251
Pseudo R^2	0.06	0.05	0.08	0.02

Notes: Dependent variable: Scale from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree with the statement The theatre/s in my municipality contributes to making the municipality attractive to live in. Ordered logit estimates. Huber-White robust SEs in parentheses allow for arbitrary correlation of residuals within each municipality. Level of significance indicated by asterisks: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Yes/No indicates dummies. Respondents living in Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, and Aarhus excluded from the sample.

Throsby, C. D. (1990). Perception of quality in demand for the theatre. Journal of Cultural Economics, 14(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02268198

 Google Scholar

Wisniewska, A., & Zawojska, E. (2023). Use and Non-Use Values of Performing Arts: Measurement and Sources Identification: Working Paper. [Working Paper].

 Google Scholar