Official Statistics

Community and Engagement Survey 2025/26 - heritage: report

Updated 14 August 2026

Applies to England

This report summarises the key findings for the heritage sector in the Community and Engagement Survey (CES) for 2025/26.^{[footnote 1]} Reports for other sections within the CES are available on the annual web page. 

The CES asked about physical engagement with heritage sectors, such as visiting ancient monuments or archaeological sites, and digital engagement with the heritage sector such as taking virtual tours, or researching local history online. The full list of included heritage activities we asked about are in Annex A.

The CES is representative of people aged 16 and over in England. For simplicity, we will sometimes refer just to “people” in our reporting.

For information on how to use and interpret these statistics see the note available on the supplementary documents page.^{[footnote 2]}

1. Key Findings

1.1 Headline

65% of people aged 16+ in England engaged with the heritage sector physically or digitally at least once in the last 12 months, a 2 percentage point decrease from 2024/25 (67%).

62% of people aged 16+ engaged with the heritage sectors physically at least once in the last 12 months, a 2 percentage point decrease from 2024/25 (65%).

By local authority, there was a 49 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who physically engaged with the heritage sector, from 79% in Derbyshire Dales to 30% in the City of London. If we exclude the City of London, there is a 35 percentage point difference, from 79% in Derbyshire Dales to 44% in Barking and Dagenham. 

25% of people aged 16+ engaged with the heritage sectors digitally at least once in the last 12 months, a 1 percentage point increase from 2024/25 (24%).

By local authority, there was a 17 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who digitally engaged with the heritage sector, from 34% in Cambridge to 17% in the City of London. 

1.2 Physical and digital engagement

As shown in Figure 1, of the 65% of people who engaged with the heritage sector physically or digitally, 22% engaged both physically and digitally, 40% of people engaged exclusively physically, and 3% of people engaged exclusively digitally. 

Figure 1: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

1.3 Timeseries

As shown in Figure 2, overall engagement with heritage rose from 2021/22 (65%) to 2022/23 (69%) where it peaked and has since decreased in 2024/25 (67%) and again in 2025/26 (65%). 

Breaking this down by physical and digital engagement over time, physical engagement with the heritage sector peaked in 2023/24 (66%) and has since decreased in 2025/26 (65%). Digital engagement with the heritage sector was at its lowest in 2021/22 (16%), increasing to 25% in 2023/24, and remaining stable at this level in 2025/26 (25%).

Note: There are considerable changes in the confidence intervals between each year due to the sample size of the survey. Where the sample has been boosted, the confidence intervals will narrow to reflect higher confidence in the estimates.

Figure 2: Engagement with the heritage sector, England: 2021/22 to 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

1.4 Frequency of engagement^{[footnote 3]}

Respondents who engaged with heritage were asked about the frequency of their engagement with each event or activity. As shown in Figure 3, 38% of respondents reported that they engaged with a heritage form physically less often than once a month but at least three to four times a year. Similarly, 35% of respondents reported that they engaged with a heritage form digitally less often than once a month but at least three to four times a year. 

Figure 3: Most frequent level of physical and digital engagement with a heritage form, England: 2025/26 (Base: people aged 16 and over who physically or digitally engaged with the heritage)

1.5 Forms of physical engagement

As shown in Figure 4, the most popular type of heritage place to visit was a park or garden open to the public with historic or artistic features (39%). This was followed by a city or town visited specifically for its historic nature (36%) and visiting a historic landscape or habitat (34%). 

Figure 4: Forms of physical engagement with the heritage sector, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

1.6 Reasons for physical engagement^{[footnote 4]}

Respondents who had visited a heritage site were asked their reasons for visiting a heritage site or place of historic interest. As shown in Figure 5, 59% reported that it was to “spend time with family or friends”, and 53% said it was because they had “A general interest in the subject”.

Figure 5: Reasons for physical engagement with the heritage sector, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Respondents who had visited a heritage site were asked about the impact of the engagement. As shown in Figure 6, 66% reported that they “spent time with friends or family”, whilst 57% said “I learnt about the past, heritage, history or culture”.

Figure 6: Impact of physical engagement with the heritage sector, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

1.7 Forms of digital engagement

As shown in Figure 7, of those who engaged digitally with the heritage sector, the most popular digital heritage activity was researching local history online (14%). This was followed by engaging with digital content from heritage sites (9%). 

Figure 7: Forms of digital engagement with the heritage sector, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

1.8 Forms of digital payment^{[footnote 5]}

Respondents were asked how they paid for digital heritage content. Of the 25% who engaged digitally with the heritage sector, the most common response was “Access free content” (66%). This was followed by “Content is paid for through TV licence fee” (16%), “Pay a one-time fee” (15%), and “Pay a monthly or annual subscription” (13%).

1.9 Barriers to engagement

Respondents who did not engage with the heritage sector were asked about the barriers preventing them from engaging. As shown in Figure 8, for physical engagement, “No reason in particular” (32%) and “I’m not interested” (24%) were the most common barriers identified. For digital engagement, “I’m not interested” (35%) and “No reason in particular” (33%) were the most common barriers identified.

Figure 8: Barriers to engagement with the heritage sector by reason, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

People who had responded that they “were not interested” were asked the reasons for not being interested in visiting heritage sites or places of historic interest. As shown in Figure 9, the most popular reason was “These places do not match my own interests or preferences” (43%), “I’m just not interested in visiting these places” (39%) and “No reason in particular (23%).

Figure 9: Reasons for not engaging with the heritage sector by reason, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2. Demographics: Who engaged with the heritage sector?

Demographic questions in the survey are voluntary and self-reported by the respondent.

2.1 Age

As shown in Figure 10, compared with the average for people in England (62%), people aged 35 to 39 (64%), 40 to 44 (66%), 45 to 49 (67%), 50 to 54 (67%), 55 to 59 (68%), 60 to 64 (70%), 65 to 69 (71%) and 75 to 79 (66%) were more likely to physically engage with the heritage sector. People aged 16 to 19 (48%), 20 to 24 (51%), 25 to 29 (57%), 80 to 84 (58%) and 85 or over (42%) were less likely to physically engage with the heritage sector compared with the average for people in England (62%).

Compared with the average for people in England (25%), people aged 25 to 29 (26%), 35 to 39 (26%), 40 to 44 (26%), 45 to 49 (26%), 60 to 64 (26%), 65 to 69 (26%) and 70 to 74 (26%) were more likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector, while people aged 75 to 79 (23%), 80 to 84 (20%) and 85 or over (14%) were less likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector compared with the average for people in England. 

Figure 10: Physical engagement with heritage sector, by age, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.2 Disability status

As shown in Figure 11, non-disabled people (67%) were more likely to physically engage with the heritage sector than disabled people (59%). There were no significant differences observed between the proportion of disabled people and non-disabled people who digitally engaged with the heritage sector.

Figure 11: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, by disability status, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.3 Sex^{[footnote 6]}

As shown in Figure 12, there were no significant differences observed between the proportion of males (63%) and females (63%) who physically engaged with the heritage sector.

Males (28%) were more likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector than females (22%).

Figure 12: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, by sex, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.4 Gender Identity^{[footnote 7]}

As shown in Figure 13, people whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (64%) were more likely to physically engage with the heritage sector than people whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (63%).

People whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (36%) were more likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector than people whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (25%). 

Figure 13: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, by gender identity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.5 Sexual Orientation^{[footnote 8]}

As shown in Figure 14, bisexual people (71%), gay or lesbian people (69%) and heterosexual or straight people (64%) were more likely to physically engage with heritage than people from the “Other sexual orientation” classification (62%). 

People from the “Other sexual orientation” classification (38%), bisexual people (37%) and gay or lesbian people (33%) were more likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector than heterosexual or straight people (25%).

Figure 14: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, by sexual orientation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.6 Religion

As shown in Figure 15, compared with the average for people in England (62%), Buddhist people (73%), people from the Any other religion classification (71%), Jewish people (68%) and Christian people (66%) were more likely to physically engage with the heritage sector, while Muslim people (43%), Sikh people (47%) and Hindu people (60%) were less likely to physically engage with the heritage sector. 

Compared with the average for people in England (25%), Buddhist people (39%), people from the Any other religion classification (39%), Jewish people (32%), Hindu people (30%) and Muslim people (26%) were more likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector, while Sikh people (22%) and people who reported having no religion (24%) were less likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector. 

Figure 15: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, by religion, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.7 Ethnicity

As shown in Figure 16, people from the Any other White background (73%), Any other Mixed or Multiple ethnic background (71%), Any other ethnic group (70%), White Irish (69%), Chinese (68%), White and Asian (66%), White British^{[footnote 9]} (65%) and Any other Asian background (64%) ethnic groups were more likely to physically engage with the heritage sector compared with the average for people in England (62%). People from the Pakistani (41%), Bangladeshi (42%), Any other Black or African or Caribbean background (46%) Black Caribbean (45%), White and Black Caribbean (48%), Black African (50%), Arab (54%), Indian (55%), White and Black African (56%) and White Gypsy or Irish Traveller (58%) ethnic groups were less likely to physically engage with the heritage sector compared with the average for people in England (62%). 

People from the White Gypsy or Irish Traveller (51%), Arab (36%), White Irish (34%), Any other White background (33%), Any other Mixed or Multiple ethnic background (33%), White and Black African (32%), Chinese (32%), Any other Asian background (31%), Any other ethnic group (31%), White and Asian (30%), Black African (30%) and Indian (26%) ethnic groups were more likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector compared with the average for people in England (25%). People from the Any other Black or African or Caribbean background (20%), Black Caribbean (21%), White and Black Caribbean (23%), White British (24%) and Pakistani (24%) ethnic groups were less likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector compared with the average for people in England (25%).

Figure 16: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, by ethnicity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.8 Socio-economic classification^{[footnote 10]}

As shown in Figure 17, people from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (75%) were more likely to physically engage with heritage. This was followed by people from the intermediate occupations classification (66%) and people from the routine and manual occupations classification (56%). People from the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (45%) were less likely to physically engage with the heritage sector compared to the other socio-economic classifications. 

People from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (30%) were more likely to digitally engage with heritage. People from the intermediate occupations classification (24%) were less likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector. This was followed by people from the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (23%) and people from the routine and manual occupations classification (22%).

Figure 17: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, by socio-economic classification, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.9 Index of Multiple Deprivation^{[footnote 11]}

As shown in Figure 18, people from the most deprived areas (1st decile, 45%) were less likely to physically engage with the heritage sector compared to people from the least deprived areas (10th decile, 74%). 

People from the most deprived areas (1st decile, 22%) were less likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector compared to people from the least deprived areas (10th decile, 26%).

Figure 18: Physical and digital engagement with the heritage sector, by Index of Multiple Deprivation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3. Physical engagement with Heritage by ITL1 and Local Authority area

3.1 Regional Differences^{[footnote 12]}

As shown in Figure 19, compared with the average for people in England (62%), people living in the South West (69%) and the South East (67%) ITL1 areas were more likely to physically engage with the heritage sector. People living in the West Midlands (58%), North East (58%), North West (59%), and Yorkshire and the Humber (60%) ITL1 areas were less likely to physically engage with the heritage sector compared with the average for people in England (62%).

3.2 Local Authority Differences^{[footnote 13]}

By local authority, there was a 49 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who physically engaged with the heritage sector, from 79% in Derbyshire Dales to 30% in the City of London.

If we exclude the City of London^{[footnote 14]}, there is a 35 percentage point difference, from 79% in Derbyshire Dales to 44% in Barking and Dagenham. 

The proportion of people who engaged with the heritage sector was in line with the England average in 140 (47%) local authorities, higher than the England average in 87 (29%) local authorities, and lower than the England average in 68 (23%) local authorities.

Figure 19: Physical engagement with the heritage sector, by ITL1 area and LA, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

4. Digital engagement with Heritage by ITL1 and Local Authority area

4.1 Regional Differences^{[footnote 12]}

As shown in Figure 20, compared with the average for people in England (25%), people living in the London (27%) and South West (26%) ITL1 areas were more likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector. People living in Yorkshire and the Humber (24%), the East Midlands (24%) and the North East (23%) ITL1 areas were less likely to digitally engage with the heritage sector compared with the average for people in England (25%). 

4.2 Local Authority Differences^{[footnote 13]}

By local authority, there was a 17 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who digitally engaged with the heritage sector, from 34% in Cambridge to 17% in the City of London. 

The proportion of people who engaged with the heritage sector was in line with the England average in 244 (83%) local authorities, higher than the England average in 26 (9%) local authorities, and lower than the England average in 25 (8%) local authorities.

Figure 20: Digital engagement with the heritage sector, by ITL1 area and LA, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

5. Annex A

Physical engagement: 

Respondents were asked whether they had visited any of the following historic places in person (not including paid work, school or college or structured academic activities). 

By historic we mean a place of exceptional cultural or heritage value: 

• a city or town that you visited specifically for its historic nature
• a historic, non-religious building open to the public 
• a historic place of worship attended as a visitor (not to worship)
• a park or garden open to the public with historic or artistic features
• a place connected with industrial history (such as an old factory, mine or railway)
• an ancient monument or archaeological site (such as a castle, fort, burial site)
• a site connected with sports visited for its heritage
• a site connected with maritime or underwater heritage (such as shipwrecks)
• a historic landscape or habitat (such as coastline, countryside)
• some other heritage site or historic place

Digital engagement: 

Respondents were asked which of these virtual or online activities they had done (not including paid work, school or college or structured academic activities): 

• taken a virtual walking tour of a historic town or city, heritage site, castle or monument in England (Not including drone flights)
• researched your local history online
• viewed documents from an archive in England online
• engaged with text, image, audio, video, or animation, games, or podcast content from heritage sites in England

1. The headline physical and digital heritage engagement estimates are based on data collection from April 2025 to March 2026 through the Participation Survey (April to September 2025) and the Community and Engagement Survey (October 2025 to March 2026). However the sample size is considerably larger for the latter 6 months through the Community and Engagement Survey and therefore the estimates are biased towards responses collected from October 2025 to March 2026.  ↩

2. The majority of estimates in this report are rounded to the nearest whole number. As data are rounded, some changes may appear bigger or smaller than they are. The unrounded numbers are available in the corresponding data tables. ↩

3.  This denotes the most frequent level at which people engaged with a sector. For example, if a respondent engaged in three types of activities or events “Less often than once a month but at least 3 or 4 times a year”, and in a fourth activity or event “Less often than once a week but at least once a month”, then that person’s frequency of engagement is counted as “Less often than once a week but at least once a month”. ↩

4. This question was not included in the paper questionnaire and was asked of respondents online, so the results are only representative of the online population. Respondents are able to select multiple reasons for engagement. ↩

5. This question was not included in the paper questionnaire and was asked of respondents online, so the results are only representative of the online population. Respondents are able to select multiple reasons for forms of engagement. ↩

6. This data is based on the respondent’s sex. The Community and Engagement Survey respondents were asked the question “What is your sex?”. The response options were ‘Male’, ‘Female’ and ‘Prefer not to Say’. This closely follows the ONS Census 2021 question for sex, where the target concept was certificated sex meaning a person’s sex at birth or as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), but has been slightly amended to include a ‘Prefer not to Say’ option as we do for all demographic questions in the Community and Engagement Survey. ↩

7. This data is based on the respondent’s gender identity. The Community and Engagement Survey respondents were asked the question ‘Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?. The response options were ‘Yes’, ‘No, type in gender identity’ or ‘Prefer not to say’. This closely follows the ONS Census 2021 question for England and Wales, but has been slightly amended to include a ‘Prefer not to Say’ option as we do for all demographic questions in the Community and Engagement Survey. It should be noted that in the Census 2021 data for England and Wales, patterns were identified that suggest that some respondents may not have interpreted the question as intended, notably those with lower levels of English language proficiency. Analysis of Scotland’s Census 2022, where the gender identity question was different, has added weight to this observation. More information can be found in the ONS sexual orientation and gender identity quality information report and the additional guidance and quality information for users of gender identity estimates from Census 2021 in England and Wales. Similar respondent error may have occurred during the data collection for these statistics so comparisons between subnational and other smaller group breakdowns should be considered with caution. ↩

8. Sexual orientation is an umbrella term covering sexual identity, attraction, and behaviour. For an individual respondent, these may not be the same. For example, someone in an opposite-sex relationship may also experience same-sex attraction, and vice versa. This means the statistics should be interpreted purely as showing how people responded to the question, rather than being about whom they are attracted to or their actual relationships. ↩

9. The White British ethnic group includes people from an English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British ethnic group ↩

10. This is a form of socio-economic classification based on the employment status and occupation of the respondent. ↩

11. The Index of Multiple Deprivation is a geographical measure which classifies the relative deprivation of an area. It combines seven indices to produce one overall measure for the area (rather than the individual). It takes into account income, employment, education, skills and training, health and disability, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment. For this commentary, the most and least deprived deciles have been compared. There may be some other significant differences between deciles in between which have not been commented on here. The analysis of the index of Multiple Deprivation was conducted using the 2025 Index of Multiple Deprivation. ↩

12. Data are also available by ITL2 area level and combined authority level in the corresponding data tables. ↩ ↩²

13. The 2025/26 Community and Engagement Survey includes over 175,000 responses, so confidence intervals are generally very narrow. Whilst this reflects a strength of the data, when highlighting differences, some local authorities may be shown to be above/below the England average, but are only a percentage point more or less than the average. There will be other local authorities who are much higher or lower than the England average, but will both be shown in the same shading within the map. ↩ ↩²

14. We have noted these where removing one single local authority makes a substantial difference to the reported range. ↩