Health benefits of cultural engagement valued at £8bn

 The improvements to people’s health and wellbeing that come from engagement with arts and culture are worth more than £8bn a year, according to new government-commissioned research.
 
The estimate is included in a report by the Frontier Economics consultancy, published this week, which quantifies the benefits of cultural engagement in terms of improved quality of life, reduced use of health and social care services and increased productivity.
 
The effects came from attending cultural venues and performances as well as taking part in arts and music-based activities, and a combination of these.
 
The researchers reviewed existing evidence for the impact of culture on well-being and then applied monetary values to these links using quantitative models covering different age groups, health outcomes, and types and frequencies of engagement.
 
The benefits of general cultural engagement – such as visiting museums, cinemas or concerts at least every few months – to the general health of adults aged between 30 and 49 was found to be £8bn.
 
Just under £7bn of this value came from improved quality of life – calculated using the concept of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the Treasury’s valuation of one QALY (representing one year of perfect health) at £70,000. The remaining £1bn came from improved productivity.
 
If this finding were applied across the adult population (those aged 18 to 65), the society-wide benefit would be worth £18.6bn, the report says.
 
The research also found that general cultural attendance (such as at exhibitions, films and musical performances) led to more than £2bn worth of mental health benefits for people aged between 30 and 49.
 
And general participation in cultural activities (such as music, crafts and drawing) created £4.4bn of value for the same group.
 
Financial benefits were also found in models that concerned the impact of museums on dementia in adults over 50 (£1.5bn) and of cultural venues on depression in the same age group. Both art (£122m) and music (£162m) were found to have quantitative value in terms of children’s self-esteem.

Making the case for investment
 
The report says that the research, carried out in partnership with University College London (UCL), helps to demonstrate the value of culture and heritage beyond what is measured in GDP.
 
Cultural assets sustain future wealth generation “by supporting a healthier, happier and more productive population”, it says. “If the assets are degraded, that impact will be felt over time.”
 
The authors say their estimates can be used to “more robustly make the case for investment in culture and heritage assets”.
 
In the report’s foreword, Frontier Economics Chair Lord Gus O’Donnell, a former Cabinet Secretary, writes that putting a monetary value on the health and wellbeing impact of culture “enhances government’s ability to make informed decisions about resource allocation”.


“The new government has the opportunity to leverage these insights to shape policies that will preserve and develop our rich cultural heritage and also act as a catalyst for improved national wellbeing and new economic growth,” he adds.
 
Sarah Karlsberg of Frontier Economics said the research was important because “decisions made in the absence of appropriate evidence may assume that the monetary value of some investments is zero”.

“This has historically encouraged investment away from areas such as culture and heritage where the wider impact on the economy has been difficult to monetise.”

Professor Daisy Fancourt, head of UCL’s Social Biobehavioural Research Group, said that increasingly research is “demonstrating that the arts are a fundamental health behaviour, just like physical activity, diet and sleep”.

“As individuals, if we want to live happier and healthier lives, engaging in the arts is an evidence-based way of achieving this aim,” said Fancourt. “As a society, when we’re thinking about how to shift to preventative models of health, investing in arts and cultural training, activities and community venues should be considered a priority.”