 European Museum Organizations Connecting National Museum Association, as well as individual museums and interest groups from 40 countries. Being an ever-growing network, so far we count over 90 members. NIMO represents European museums to what's policymakers on national and EU level. Moreover, we share knowledge and train museum professionals in Europe through our training courses, learning exchanges and webinars. NIMO usually hosts around four webinars per year, facilitated by different museum experts in Europe about diverse topics in the museum field. Today, we are very happy to hear a webinar of Marie Vrigulio from Malta about the topic museums, markets and eudaimonia. After her popular keynote speech at NIMO's last conference in Valetta, Marie was invited to give this webinar focusing on how to learn more about the relationship between museums, economics and welcoming, and how to use this knowledge. Marie completed her PhD in economics at Stirling University, a master of science in environmental and resource economics at University College London, and an honors degree in economics at the University of Malta. She is a resident academic at the University of Malta's economics department. Much of Marie's published work lies in the fields of market failure, from externalities in the environmental domain to participation in the arts. Marie returned to academia after a distinguished career in policymaking, both in Malta and within the European Union. As an award-winning screenwriter and broadcaster, Marie also remains highly active in outreach projects. Please feel free to ask questions within the chat function during the webinar. We'll have a first Q&A round after 25 minutes. Soon after the webinar, you will find the video on NIMO's YouTube channel online. And I now give the words to Marie and wish you all an inspiring and fruitful webinar. Hello, everybody, and thank you for being here. That's a beautiful selection of countries I'm seeing in the chat. So I'm going to jump right in in the hope of keeping to the time that I have allotted to me. And what I'm going to talk about in this presentation, I've split it up into three main topics and then some place studies. The overall, I'm looking at the space between museum, their social economic context, some key economic insights on the assumption that museums endeavor to remain relevant within their social economic context and, moreover, on the assumption that they care about the end game of well-being. So before I actually give my talk, I'm going to give you my conclusions just in case you have to go. So this is a sneak preview all the way as though we're going right to the end. The first key message that I will give throughout this lecture is that it's important to understand market forces and to understand what we can term as economic misbehaviors. And this is important for museums, both because it's good to understand one's context, but also because one can use this knowledge as a lever to obtain some objective that museums might be on. The second key lesson that I want to give from this talk or key insight is that just as it's important to understand market forces, it's important to understand market failure. It's important to understand the value of intangibles and the value of well-being and that this is in itself an economic end game to which museums may contribute. In other words, it's not just straightforward market economics that is important to museums, but also the more recent knowledge that comes out of behavioral economics that ultimately the end game here is well-being to which museums can contribute. And thirdly, through the case studies, I will illustrate the importance for museums to engage in economic issues and vice versa. That is the importance of economics to engage in museum issues. Okay, I'm going to be drawing from three literatures, so it's not a long talk, but it's informed by three sort of sets of readings. The first, which you may think is not so relevant, but actually which I think is very relevant, standard neoclassical theory on market economics and market failure. The second, I'm going to look up at the scholarly works on the measurement of eudaimonic well-being and on what determines this well-being and how that relates to social economic development. And the third set of insights, which perhaps is the most fun, is the literature in economics which looks at misbehaviors, or rather, let's be fair, behavior that isn't exactly like economics predicts. And once again, I'll be looking at some insights for museums from this. We've heard from already who I am, but what I want to say also is that I am not a curator, a museologist, or a restorer. I'm an economist whose main interest is on those activities that fall outside the traditional market sectors, activities which usually don't come with a market price. And the arts, cultural participation museum, but also the environment and its protection are some of the areas that I look at. So let's start with museums. And because this is not where my forte is, I have only one slide to talk about museums. And this is inspired by the Nemo page, where I read a sort of declaration there, which I will share with you. Museums and their missions, responsibilities and their modes of engagement with communities are in a constant process of transformation in response to social and economic developments at local, national and global level. There is a need for museums to stay relevant and to be responsive to social and environmental issues. And it is with this background in mind that I'm now going to outline how markets, their failure, misbehaviours within and our quest for eudaimonic wellbeing can actually inform this quest to stay responsive to social and economic issues. So, of markets. And this is what I'm going to do in the next few minutes, is something like a crash course in essential economics or economics for the non-economists. And from this, I have tried to synthesize what I think are the most important, let's say, insights for people working in policy or in the management of museum. And these are then. My first insight is that when we're talking economics, the subject of economics is bigger than just what the economy is and does. So, I often hear comments like, ah, you know, the economics or economics is terrible for museums, it's just about money and so forth. What people sometimes confuse is what they observe in the economy, what's happening out there, ruthlessness, perhaps greed or profits or so forth with economics, which is the study of how to assess what's going on and how to intervene in what's going on. So, bearing in mind that economics as a subject gives us far more insights than just to sit back and observe what's going on in the economy, leaves us a little bit more open-minded to the tools that this discipline can offer even for the benefits of museum. So, one of the things that any first-year economics student would learn is that it is possible to understand and indeed to predict demand for almost any goods and service using a theory which seems to work quite, let's say, commonly across a range of goods and services. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to outline this theory because I believe that even here in this very simple first lesson, there are useful insights for museums. So, one of the things that this theory states is that if you're going to lower price for anything, you're going to get more sales. If you're going to get more people being able to afford to access your product or service and more people buying more of it. So, essentially what this theory says, the law of demand says that if you want more demand, you lower your price. It also says other things and I will draw lessons for museums from here. It says, for example, that in periods of higher income or income growth, the demand for almost anything is going to also peak. This is because people will have fewer constraints on what they can do with their limited income. Now, you might say, okay, fine, but it's not like museums can always influence their own price and neither is it for sure the case that museums can influence the income of the country. Perhaps not, perhaps influence isn't the case, but certainly responding to what's going on and being prepared for what's going on is a useful tool to have. So it might be useful to forecast that you raise the price, you raise interest fees, you're going to necessarily get a decline in demand. You might not observe that because in real life, things happen simultaneously, but you should be aware that a rise in price will suppress demand. Other things may happen in parallel, which offset that, but the pressure of price will be a downward one. Similarly with income, if you're observing your country or the country where your museum is positioned, experiencing a period of income growth, you should expect the demand for museums, just like the demand for any goods and service, to be on the increase. Preparedness would also be useful when we know that demand for anything responds to the price and availability of substitutes and the price and availability of complementary goods. So with a museum, for example, is served by the complementary goods of transport, public transport, accessibility, then we would expect the demand for museums to increase. And by corollary, if the museum is positioned next to competing goods and services, all if permits, for example, land use permits, development permits are given for competing goods to be positioned near a museum, then it is likely that the museum will experience a decline in demand, which kind of suggests to museums that it may be a good idea to remain vigilant on the goods and services that are offered close to, when I say close to, I mean, in the proximity of your museum. Finally, we also know that demand depends on consumer preferences, their tastes, their education level, their awareness, which kind of speaks to the possibility that what's going on in other domains like education and marketing can also influence what happens in the domain of museums. Now, I will recap on this at the end of this slide, but for the time being, just let's explore the notion that very standard economics already has some lessons to offer to us as people working in museums. What we know from the supply side of microeconomics is that supply also responds to price, tries to make profit and so forth, factors which may not always be relevant to museums, but we also know from the theory of production that it would be a good idea to mix and juggle your resources, your human resource, and your capital resource in a manner that results in the most cost-effective way to offer the service. We also know that supply in the private sector at least responds heavily to technology. Something which increasingly, as we will see in this talk, is relevant also to museums. Finally, to cut a long story short, we know that without government intervention, markets will somehow find a way to work, not always to the benefit of society, but they will just do it. And we also know that what comes out of these markets are a bunch of headline statistics which really make the news. Statistics like gross domestic product, which is really the sum total of all market activity, tourism growth, investment, and so forth. And that's all I've got from basic market economics and I'm going to recap on some insights for museums, or at least I'm going to ask some questions which can be explored beyond this webinar. Questions like, how can we lever the power of price? How can we brace ourselves for income changes? What is our competition? And what's coming out of planning permits? What complementary goods can help us like transportation, for example? How can policy in other fields, let's say education, or let's say social policy, complement our work? How can we forecast visitor preferences? How can we best mix human and capital resources? How will technology change the way we work? And how do we get to impact headline statistics? Now, in order of the, let's say assertion that museums care about this kind of market economy. I have for you a quote once again from the Nemo website which says, museums are a key factor in culture and tourism. One of the most rapidly growing economic sectors. They're an important source of direct and indirect job creation, and so on and so forth. So here we have museums trying to access this sort of market model of the economy and doing a fairly good job of pitching themselves with traditional economic jargon. But if only things were that simple that the economy worked wonderfully with this free market, demand and supply, profit making and so forth. It would be great because really in the absence of intervention, what we have is consumers having lots of choice. We have business not having too much bureaucracy. We have not too much taxes needing to go to finance the government, so as to regulate. Unfortunately, however, the market doesn't always work as well as we'd like it to, which means we have to start thinking of regulation. So how do markets fail? Markets fail to allocate resources well. GDP fails to account for what we're doing in terms of whether we're doing well or not. It fails to really account for well-being and the assumption that people are rational consumers and producers are rational profit makers sometimes fails as well. So let's explore these one by one and see what that says for museums. First of all, the first insight is it's a little more complicated than just trying to understand the theory of demand and supply. Let's examine market failure. So one thing we know and people familiar with working in the arts will understand this very well is that price or what goes on in the market doesn't always reveal people's preference for intangibles. You may not always be able to buy that which you enjoy. Markets also fail to provide public goods, those kind of goods that nobody can make profit from providing goods like gardens, goods like museums, goods like landscape, protection of the environment. They also fail to make polluters fail. They fail to signal the damage that certain activities have on goods that we enjoy commonly. Now it's quite simple why markets fail to do this and the reason is that many of these common property goods don't have an owner by definition. And so there's nobody making the polluter pay for that kind of damage. And of course we've known for a long time that markets by themselves don't really care about inequalities, that's government jobs, that's government's job. So if markets are this inept at addressing certain things at addressing certain things, they're particularly inept at addressing the issue of intangibles, public goods, married goods and externalities. They're also inept at addressing inequalities. What insights does this give us as people interested in museums? Well, first of all, can museums help to reveal these hidden preferences and values? If the market can't do it through the pricing system, can museums do it through mechanisms that help people express their preferences? Now we generally express our preference in the market through a very simple action, we buy stuff. But can we express our preferences for art, environmental quality, through the stated word, through our presence, through our footfall, through our voice? Furthermore, if economics itself acknowledges that there is such a thing as a public good, that the free market economy fails to provide for it, but that it nonetheless is an economic function, why don't museums perhaps not focus so much on positioning themselves as a private good, but rather just focus on this very meritorious function that they have as a public good? Thirdly, given that we are now increasingly worried in economics about these spillover costs, these externalities which polluters don't pay and which cause a reduction in well-being, can museums perhaps focus increasingly on reducing their own spillover costs? Their transportation, externalities, perhaps their travel costs, any pollution that they might generate? More ambitiously, can museums help resolve market failure by addressing spillover issues more generally by documenting this, by showcasing this issue, by talking about this? And of course, can museums help to mitigate the inequality that markets impose or that markets rather, I wouldn't say markets impose inequality but markets don't really care about inequality. Can they do this by having pricing mechanisms which are fairer? And I think this is one area where museums are already quite active in the market failure field because you do see price mechanisms which are, let's say cheaper for the elderly or for children or all sorts of pricing mechanisms that are somehow designed to cater for inequality. Now, we see examples of museums positioning themselves as the public good rather than a private market good. For example, here's a quote once again from the Nemo website which says, museums are institutions offering formal and informal learning to people of all ages. They're clearly positioning themselves in the public good sphere. And here again, the aim of the highlight value of museum to society by contributing to agendas on health, social justice, poverty, and so forth. Okay, so I take a quick breather and I take you through what we know now about eudaimonia and what this has to do with it. Well, the second failure of markets was what we said that the GDP fails to capture whether we are doing well. This is the definition of eudaimonia, human flourishing, human wellbeing. So are we actually in measuring our economic activity through gross domestic product, measuring whether we are doing well? Well, I suppose you can guess that the answer is no because if GDP measures the sum total of market activities then it's failing to capture intangible goods and bads, depreciation of our natural resource inequalities and so forth. Now, there's a bunch of more complete measures than GDP measures like the human development index, the OECD has a suite of measurements, Canada's one of the most advanced countries in measuring beyond GDP. But one measure that I'd like to tell you about also because if I'll have time I'll show you a study on this of my own on this is the measure which simply tries to assess a country's extent of wellbeing, not by trying to measure the market, not by very fancy studies, but simply by asking people how well are you doing? And this type of measurement has achieved a lot of traction in economics. In fact, it's also achieved a lot of interest in the media. So we see a lot of headlines about mortar ranking this way or that way or some other country. Eurostat has these headlines, Gallup has these headlines and so forth. So that you can get a better feel of what this kind of study involves as a question. It asks people something like this, on a scale from zero to 10, how well do you feel about your life at the moment? Or how good do you feel or how satisfied do you feel with your life? And so forth. Typically people report this kind of histogram. Most people are happy seven or happy eight, fewer happy six or nine. And the problem areas which we need to address are the ones that are happy between zero and five. Now, what we know about what matters to wellbeing and this could be a sort of agenda or a checklist of what museums could get involved in if this is what they're interested in. We could look at income and we know of course that that matters. That's what GDP is all about. That's what the free market is all about. Surprisingly, it doesn't matter as much as we thought it did. Employment matters a lot, health matters a lot and mental health matters a lot. As does sport. Social interactions, so the possibility for people to interact with one another, the quality of the environment, trust in politicians and political interest and religion. And these are all factors which can populate an agenda for the museum interested in being relevant to wellbeing. Other factors which are perhaps less of an agenda but just more of a for information, age, gender, having children, once married to status and personality. Good news for museums and the cultural sector in general is that studies increasingly find that cultural participation itself and indeed volunteering can contribute to a better wellbeing. The kind of studies we do in order to parse out the effects of all these phenomena involve some mathematics and some statistics. Probably some of you are reeling in horror upon seeing an equation for happiness. But if you want a simpler rendition of that, you could say that happiness is a function of money, employment, education, health and exercise, freedom of speech and spirituality, the quality of the environment and the status of relationships and so forth. So here's our conclusion from Market Failure. GDP measures markets not wellbeing but we do have measures that measure wellbeing. And if museums are interested in being relevant, perhaps it's time to not focus so much on GDP itself and contributions to GDP but rather jump on this new bandwagon about assessing wellbeing. And here we know that there are certain factors which matter constantly. Concretely, we can see entities like the New Economics Foundation suggesting to governments to promote these types of activities, more exercise, more adult learning, improve emotional awareness. Please notice that all of these could be part of an agenda of what a museum also offers. The Happy Museums project has actually gone about measuring the extent to which museums contribute to happiness in pounds, shillings and pens, finding that they contribute over 3,000 pounds worth of wellbeing using that equation which unfortunately I don't have time to elaborate on. We have an understanding that museums can actually contribute directly to evaluative and eudaimonic wellbeing but also to just sheer joy. We have museums which have tested how happy people feel even within the museum experience if not through the museum's effort to advocate for the determinants to improve in every country. Have some examples here. We have some examples of museums which actually set out not to improve human flourishing but simply human joy. And so I sum up this section on eudaimonia. I know I'm giving a lot of suggestions here but fortunately the presentation will be available so you can go through it and discuss better. The questions we might ask are how can museums enhance eudaimonia if this is indeed such an important agenda now? Can they improve it directly as they are part of the culture offer which we know matters? Or can they also influence the other variables? Human health, socializing, speech and so forth that we know also affect wellbeing. Can museums measure their impact on wellbeing and we have some museums trying this? Can museums talk of wellbeing itself? And can't this be seen as their economic contribution? Recognizing that I should be stopping for questions I'm just going to rush through this last section and then let you have questions after that. I promise to speak a little bit about misbehavior and I also told you this is the most fun part of the talk at least for me. So we kind of assume as economists or assumed that people would make rational decisions. This doesn't always happen. People tend to rationalize or stop and think about their costs, benefits, present and future not all the time. I'll give you an example of what it feels to think about costs and benefits and what it feels to think about intuitively. On the one hand, you've got a smiley face which is something your brain kind of absorbs intuitively. You understand that's a smiley. On the other hand, you've got 24 times 18 which obliges your brain to think and rationalize and which is how we often imagine people to be functioning as economic creatures. Well, the truth is they don't, at least not always. The truth is that most people are rather moving on the basis of intuition. What that means is that people have limited attention spans. They tend to operate what is called the system one with the more intuitive part of their brain. They care about social preferences. They care about other people. They have time preferences. The present matters much more than the future. And so beyond information and beyond using price and rational tools, museums might want to consider the new tool set which recognizes that people are not always rational. These tool sets are called nudges and they involve the deployment of norms showing people what other people are doing and salience. The use of primes, so facts like a warm cup of tea or nice smells or nice sounds, emotion, commitment devices, so telling people to commit themselves to say visit or whatever, and default options. So putting people where you want them to be by default and giving them the option to opt out. That normally means that most people stay where you put them. Because life is more complicated than we predicted as economists, we might also want to test our interventions to see how real humans and not just rational humans function. I have some example here of museum or a museum app that is using social norms. So not information based on what's inside the museum or how important or relevant this is to the arts, but rather who's in the museum because that's what people, well, that's one of the things that people care about. Season tickets, work to commitment devices, coffee, visibility in the street, not just on the side and not just in information, leaflets and so forth. Mozart and Moussa has an example of this with its taste history and initiative where people experience parts of our history through the food that we used to eat. To recap, now it's time to ask questions before I proceed, we take these lessons. We need to understand the market to work with it. Remember that incomes, tastes, competition, substitutes and so forth will matter. We also need to understand that it fails and to position as public good. We also need to value intangibles. Insights from Eudaimonia, it's possible to measure it. It's possible to work to enhance it. It's possible to enhance it directly as a cultural offer because we know that matters and then directly through advocacy by working on the other aspects of the determinants of Eudaimonia. It's possible to consider it in collections and to consider it as the economic output of the museum and not just the GDP output, but we work directly towards what after all well-being is trying, what after all GDP is trying to promote itself, which is well-being. We, the museums, promote that directly. And also some insights from misbehavior. It's good to understand that people are not always rational. It's good to nudge it using instruments that go beyond price and information, particularly important to test it and to communicate for it. So now I will take a deep breath and ask you for any of your questions and then perhaps I can continue with the rest of the presentation if there is any time. So I'm seeing a big chat here full of questions. Do you have concrete examples of museums that have launched successful initiatives to reduce spillovers? Do I have any more questions than this? I have a lot of hellos from a lot of countries. Okay, so yes, so you know, when it comes to reducing spillover costs, very often many museums are kind of obliged to consider this in the process of the building or restoration of the very building where they function. So the very building where a museum functions can be one which contributes more or less to environmental pollution. So going through the process of the planning application is concretely a really good moment when you actually are forced to face the music of your spillovers. However, even in day-to-day operations, really mundane examples, things like offering group transport for employees rather than having all the employees coming in by private cars. The most systematic way to do this would be to undertake what is called an environmental audit of oneself, of the museum itself. And there you can find the best low-lying fruits for your particular museum to address the spillovers that could be meaningful, let's say. So you try to intervene where you have the worst impact but where you can achieve the best results without too much changing of the operation. And I'm not sure there's more questions at this stage. I'm just browsing through here. Okay, so I'm going to, what I'm going to do is I'm going to also give a few more minutes at the end of my talk. So now I will proceed having outlined the main pillars of this talk. I will proceed to give you two studies specifically. So moving on to projects. So these two projects, which I will present to you now very briefly, I will try to do so in five minutes each if I manage. The first pertains to economics trying to value or trying to measure the value of art or the value of engagement in the art. The second does the opposite. It's art trying to explain economics. So with the first one, the key words here are market failure. Once again, all the things we've spoken about with the difference that we're doing this in Malta. So the research question we set out to explore was does cultural participation in Malta enhance wellbeing? Did the literature review? It's beautiful how much work there is on this now. We collected our data and we ran statistical and econometric analysis. It's good for you to know something about the context where the study was carried out. So out of 145 Gallup countries, Malta ranks 42nd. We do pretty well for social and supportive relationships, pretty well on finance, very well on also on feeling safe and in the communities we live in. In terms of purpose, we don't do so well and neither on physical wellbeing. On the Eurobarometer, we score similar to the happier Europeans like Sweden and Denmark. In terms of cultural participation, the country where I'm studying now, this where the study is carried out, is one which exhibits low public participation, the least of all in art and dance, although there is some activity in village festas, still active participation in particular is lower than the EU average. And what we understand is mainly it's due to lack of time and interest. And against this, we have a very high public sector effort trying to get people to engage with the arts. We hosted the European capital of culture, other national culture policy and a good amount of public funds. So in this context, we collected data on wellbeing, on cultural participation and on all the other determinants that I told you about previously. And using the formula, we utilized our data to calculate the algorithm. Our key question was not whether X1, which is income, employment and education, mental health or social and so forth, we knew all of these matter. Our key question was, does cultural participation matter? We conducted over a thousand face-to-face interviews, actually, Malta's National Statistics Office did this. Once again, this is our histogram of happiness. So once again, it's mainly number eight that people report on their life satisfaction ladder, but we see quite a lot of variation. And when we ran our regression using econometric techniques, cutting straight to the chase because we don't have much time, this is what we found. We found that unemployment returns quite a low score on wellbeing or suppresses the average wellbeing, being ill, not surprisingly, having lived abroad. So being a migrant effectively returns a lower average wellbeing. And in the context where this was carried out, Malta, which is quite a politically divided country, political interest returns a low score on wellbeing too. On the other hand, people who engage in environmental quality or people who go to the countryside, people who garden, people who spend time with nature have a higher wellbeing. Religion, people who engage in the spiritual, religion also counts for social because much of the religious activities are actually also social. People who engage in sports regularly, people who live in the smaller island of Malta, which is more rural, and to our research question, people who participate in the arts. These are the determinants of happiness in Malta. So if we want to encourage wellbeing as museums, one thing we can do very simply is have people engage with us more. Please note that it's not footfall, it's not mere attendance that returns an increase in wellbeing. It is active participation that does so. Hence the more opportunity we offer for people to actively engage with us, the more likely we are to improve wellbeing. So the question of how, which I'm seeing here now, how can museums contribute to say social wellbeing? Museums can increase the potential for people to socialize merely in the manner in which they set up their offer. So even in the musing app, where people are telling each other, I'm at the museum or I will be at the museum, or having the possibility to actually talk in the museum or to socialize in the museum, could actually be one way, obviously not for every case, but perhaps in some cases it could be considered as one way to contribute to the wellbeing outcome through the social promotion. I think it's worth telling you what we also found in the study about museum participation in itself. We found that 30% visit a museum once a year, mainly one time, and while abroad about 24% visit a museum, and that in their whole entire life, 36% had never ever visited a museum. So there's some good potential there to increase wellbeing through increasing the potential to visit and engage. We also found that visiting museum correlates with education, no surprises there, with employment, once again, no surprises there, as you will recall, having income tends to boost engagement in most things, and being foreign. So that's not great news for the footfall by our multis citizens. It correlates unsurprisingly with a willingness to donate to the art, with being self-confident in the arts, with early involvement, childhood involvement in the arts, and with a propensity to not only be an audience, but also to engage, no surprises there. What I thought was a little bit more surprising was that people who visit museums are also more likely to have preferences for the outdoors, to do sports, to be sociable, to be open to new ideas. So this kind of social demographic profiling, which goes beyond their preferences for the arts, but actually tries to explore complimentary activities, I thought was quite interesting. And once again, we conclude from this study that it is possible to measure wellbeing and participation. It is possible to scientifically assess relationships, that culture participation and wellbeing are indeed positively related, and that economic analysis offers some useful insights to audience, drivers, and profiles. I'm vigilant to questions, so I'm seeing if there's anything I'm missing, but if not, I'll tell you few minutes. I know we started late, so perhaps we can end later as well. A few minutes on my Art on Economics project now. So this is an art project that's rather than focusing on how economics can valorize the arts. It has art talking about the economy. What we did here was, we documented three decades of economic growth, three decades of environmental spillover, with three decades of cartoons. And they're all collated in this book called No Man's Land, and which you can access here on Kite Group. So this is the only extract, which comes from various chapters, which I've put together from this book, in which I write, in a country that is so tiny that on most printed maps, a mere dot overrepresents its size. Bizarrely, the Maltese are the Europeans most likely to walk, or least likely, excuse me, to walk, or to ever cycle anywhere, and the most likely to drive. And in another case of the tragedy of the commons, even as themselves, as they themselves build new blocks in place of houses, the Maltese repeatedly flag over, building by others, of course, as the problem. And I'm going to show you some of the illustrations from this book. And at the same time, give you time to think of any final questions, which you might like to ask. So here's one where the top floor residence says gorgeous sunset, pass it on, and it's the spillover effect of yet more buildings on existing buildings, and the consequent loss of sunshine there. This one is particularly poignant as it shows our desire to promote our beautiful islands. Meanwhile, in real life, there's so much spillover effect from building that we risk losing the very thing we are promoting. Here we have another spillover effect where we're moving with building so much that we're basically run out of space. Here we have the spillover effect each driver puts on other drivers. Here we have an economic activity that is very common, at least in islands like Malta, which is tourism, but it's at Costa del Quickback. And so there's a lot of spillovers resulting in a reduction of wellbeing, though life's not really a beach. What I wanted to say about this endeavor is that in all the research that I've been involved in as an economist, never has anything received such attention. These are all the magazines, book fairs, television interviews and so forth that this project has received, leading to conclude that if art can communicate key economic issues and spillovers, perhaps museums can too. I come back to my first quote before this marathon hour of talking, which was that museums and their missions, responsibilities and modes of engagement are in a constant process of transformation and that there is a need for museums to stay relevant and to be responsive to social and environmental issues. This is indeed an important agenda for museums and I recap by showing you, as I promised at the very start of this talk, the lessons or the insights that I said I would conclude with, which are, for museums it's important to be vigilant of market forces and to be informed of this phenomenon of misbehavior, both to inform the context and to leave it. Markets fail, intangibles matter and wellbeing is the economic end game to which museums may contribute and it's important or useful or at least I think so for museums to engage in economic issues and vice versa. So with that, I'll leave that slide there. I believe we have a few minutes for more questions. There's a technical question from Baku, Azerbaijan. Is there multi-coloniality possibility in the relationship between wellbeing and cultural activities? Well, the process of understanding how one factor contributes to another is not a simple process and there's plenty of tests and also plenty of caveats when we do such studies. There is colinearity, but when we run a multiple regression, we try to parse out the effects of every single component to give you an example. It may be that people who attend cultural activities are happier not because they attend cultural activities but because they are healthier and able to attend cultural activities. So to parse out that effect, we control for the health effect too. Do you think museums on web are interested in wellbeing? I'm not sure what to make of that question. I think that I'll turn that question around a little bit and say, I think that wellbeing is an agenda that is increasingly important, particularly in countries where income objectives have been met. So now we're trying to aspire to a better state of human flourishing. Nice question by Melissa Lucia Diaz and she asks me, cultural participation is a determinant, but what about the determinants of cultural participation itself? Indeed, that might be the best way to start if we want to promote participation, then we need to understand what propels participation and the first clue which I would go to as an economist as mentioned earlier is the theory of demand. So what do we know about what propels the consumption or the participation in anything really? So we know that it's a factor of tastes and preferences, compliments and substitutes, income and prices, but of course we can unpack those even further and we can ask ourselves, why do some people not have a preference for cultural participation? Why do complementary goods like transport not offer the facility to access culture? So we do know quite a lot actually about the determinants of cultural participation. Sometimes these are proxied by demographics, but if you want to go back to the sort of principles of what determines participation, I think the simple way to look at it is enablers and barriers. More enablers and less barriers would probably enhance cultural participation. Simona asks me, how can museums promote social and psychological well-being? I think I have answered that, but just by way of concluding, I think that the first thing that can be done is to think of the prospect that this is an important agenda and therefore to design not just advocacy and not just the sort of the impact of museums or the negative impact of museums on their spillovers, but the actual offer to think and consider how can we contribute to psychological and social well-being? How can we tweak our product? How can we conceive of our product in a manner that reaches this objective? Of course, if this objective forms part of the museum's intent. So Mira's asking for the last question. So yes, so one question, when I spoke about Canada, what Canada's doing perhaps better than many other countries in the world is its ability to measure well-being generally. So there is a capacity in Canada through its national accounts to measure not just GDP, but the various domains that contribute to GDP. And when your country has that headline statistics as the key statistic that it promotes, that should spill down into policy, into the offer, into the public good and into what gets rewarded as contributing to the agenda of our people doing well. So I'm going to conclude this talk by thanking everybody that has made this possible. If you would like to collaborate with me, ask me questions, send me suggestions. Of course, I would welcome that. One hour is hardly enough to say everything that there is to say, of course, and least of all to mention all the caveats of these studies, which I'm sure you appreciate, but my intent here was to give you a little bit of flavor, maybe inspiration of the kind of things that we can think about in order to improve well-being in our context. Thank you.