valuing ch
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
1/30
ValuingCult
ur
alHer
it
age
ApplyingEnvironmentalValuationTechniquesto HistoricBuildings,MonumentsandArtefacts
EditedbyStleNavrudandRichardC. Ready
Valuing
CulturalHerit
age
StleNavrudand
RichardC.Ready
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
2/30
An excellent introduction to an important, and often neglected, topic. Valuing Cultural Heritage
combines a useful primer on the theory of economic valuation followed by a dozen interesting
case studies from eight different countries. The cultural resources studied include traditional
cultural monuments and assets such as castles and cathedrals in Norway and the UK, a royal
theatre in Denmark, monasteries in Bulgaria, and marble monuments in Washington D.C.
However, the volume also includes studies on less commonly considered assets such as the value
of an entire historic quarter in Fez, Morocco, cultural services of Italian museums, or rock
paintings in the Canadian woods, and, in a very interesting application of the approach, the
benefits from reducing visual and noise pollution near Stonehenge by burying a nearby highway.
Although contingent valuation techniques (CVM) predominate, other approaches are also
illustrated. The volume is made even more valuable by an exceptionally good summary chapter
that provides clear guidance on lessons learned and best practice to guide future work. I highly
recommend this book for both researchers and policymakers.
John A. Dixon, The World Bank, USA
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
3/30
VALUING CULTURAL HERITAGEApplying Environmental Valuation Techniques toHistoric Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts
Editors: Stle Navrud and Richard C. Ready
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., UK, June 2002
PART I: INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1Why Value Cultural Heritage?Richard C. Ready and Stle Navrud
Chapter 2Methods for Valuing Cultural Heritage
Richard Ready and Stle Navrud
PART II: CASE STUDIES
Chapter 3Social Cost and Benefits of Preserving and Restoring the Nidaros CathedralStle Navrud and Jon Strand
Chapter 4Northumbria: Castles, Cathedrals and TownsGuy Garrod and Kenneth G. Willis
Chapter 5Valuing the Impacts of Air Pollution on Lincoln CathedralMarilena Pollicino and David Maddison
Chapter 6Preserving Cultural Heritage in Transition Economies: A Contingent Valuation Studyof Bulgarian MonasteriesSusana Mourato, Andreas Kontoleon, and Alexi Danchev
Chapter 7Valuing Different Road Options for Stonehenge
David Maddison and Susana Mourato
Chapter 8The Contribution of Aboriginal Rock Paintings to Wilderness Recreation Values inNorth AmericaPeter Boxall, Jeffrey Englin and Wiktor Adamowicz
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
4/30
Chapter 9Economic Benefits to Foreigners Visiting Morocco Accruing from the Rehabilitation ofthe Fes MedinaRichard T. Carson, Robert C. Mitchell and Michael Conaway
Chapter 10
Component and Temporal Value Reliability in Cultural Goods: the Case of RomanImperial Remains near NaplesPatrizia Riganti and Kenneth G. Willis
Chapter 11Valuing Reduced Acid Deposition Injuries to Cultural Resources: Marble Monumentsin Washington, D.C.Edward R. Morey, Kathleen Greer Rossmann, Lauraine Chestnut and Shannon Ragland
Chapter 12Valuing Cultural Services in Italian Museums: A Contingent Valuation StudyMarina Bravi, Riccardo Scarpa and Gemma Sirchia
Chapter 13A Contingent Valuation Study of the Royal Theatre in CopenhagenTrine Bille
Chapter 14Individual preferences and allocation mechanism for a Cultural Public Good:Napoli Musei ApertiWalter Santagata and Giovanni Signorello
PART III REVIEW OF STUDIES
Chapter 15Review of existing studies, their policy use and future research needsDavid Pearce, Susana Mourato Stale Navrud and Richard Ready
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
5/30
!h#pte' )
*hy ,#lue !ultu'#l /e'it#1e2
"#$%&'( ")&(* &+( ,-./) 0&1'2(
3%) ')&()'4 56 -%#4 7558 &') 9)// &9&') 56 -%) $%&//)+:)4 6&$#+: 52' 72#/- $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:);
?5'-&+- 72#/(#+:4@ >5+2>)+-4@ &+( &'-#6&$-4 6'5> -%) '&1&:)4 56 9)&-%)'@ ?5//2-#5+@ ()1)/5?>)+-@
&+( )1)+ 24) 7* -%) :)+)'&/ ?27/#$ >24- $5>?)-) 65' +))()( ')452'$)4 9#-% 5-%)' 45$#&/ :5&/4;
,%52/( 9) ') -&A)4 -5 #+$')&4) 4?)+(#+: 5+ $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:)@ 5' 4%52/( 9) (#1)'- ')452'$)4 &9&*
6'5> 45>) 5-%)' 95'-%* $&24) 42$% &4 )(2$&-#5+@ %)&/-% $&')@ 5' ( -5 -%) ?55'B C%&- #4 -%) ?'5?)'
/)1)/ 56 )A?)+(#-2')4 5+ $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:)B D#1)+ /#>#-)( ')452'$)4@ ?'#5'#-#)4 >24- 7) 4)- &>5+:
$5>?)-#+: ?')4)'1&-#5+ &+( ')4-5'&-#5+ :5&/4; D#1)+ -%) >*'#&( (#66)')+- -*?)4 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:)
&+( -%) >*'#&( ?')44#+: ?'57/)>4@ 9%#$% ?'57/)>4 4%52/( 7) &((')44)( 6#'4-B ) -#>)@ 45>)
E2)4-#5+ -%) ?'5?)' '5/) 56 :51)'+>)+- #+ ?'51#(#+: $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; ,%52/( ?')4)'1&-#5+ &+(
')4-5'&-#5+ )665'-4 7) 42??5'-)( 7* -&A ')1)+2)4@ 5' 4%52/( $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 7) 4)/6F42??5'-#+:@
)#-%)' -%'52:% 24)' 6))4 5' (5+&-#5+4 &+( 4274$'#?-#5+4B
3%)4) $%&//)+:)4 &+( E2)4-#5+4 &') ')>&'8&7/* 4#>#/&' -5 -%54) 6&$)( #+ &+5-%)' &')& 56 ?27/#$
?5/#$* G )+1#'5+>)+-&/ ?5/#$*; H+ -%&- &')+& &4 9)// -%)') &') #442)4 56 %59 >2$% ')452'$)4 -5
()(#$&-) -5 ?'5-)$-#+: &+( )+%&+$#+: )+1#'5+>)+-&/ E2&/#-*@ 9%#$% &4?)$-4 56 )+1#'5+>)+-&/ E2&/#-* -5
4?)+( -%54) ')452'$)4 5+@ &+( 9%5 4%52/( ?'51#() -%54) ')452'$)4@ &+( %59; 3%) 6#)/( 56
I+1#'5+>)+-&/ I$5+5>#$4 %&4 ()1)/5?)( -5 &((')44 -%)4) #442)4@ &+( ?'51#()4 & $5+4#4-)+-@ $5%)')+-
9&* -5 6'&>) -%)4) E2)4-#5+4; J5+4#()'&-#5+ 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 $52/( 7)+)6#- 6'5> &??/*#+:
42$% & 6'&>)95'8@ #6 5+/* 7)$&24) #- ?'51#()4 &+5-%)' ?)'4?)$-#1) 5+ -%)4) #442)4;
!ultu'#l /e'it#1e #s # Public Goo9
J2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 &') 4#>#/&' -5 )+1#'5+>)+-&/ :55(4 #+ -%&- -%)* &') -*?#$&//*public
goods; I$5+5>#4-4 %&1) & 1)'* ?')$#4) ()6#+#-#5+ 56 9%&- & ?27/#$ :55( #4; H+ 5'()' -5 7) & ?2')
?27/#$ :55(@ -%) :55( >24- %&1) -95 ?'5?)'-#)4; K#'4-@ ?27/#$ :55(4 &') non-excludible; 3%&- >)&+4
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
6/30
-%&- #- #4 -)$%+#$&//* #+6)&4#7/) -5 8))? 24)'4 6'5> )+L5*#+: -%) :55(; J2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 1&'* #+
-%)#' ():')) 56 )A$/2(#7#/#-*; M#)9#+: &+ &'-#6&$- #+ & >24)2> #4 &+ )A$/2(#7/) &$-#1#-* G #- #4 )&4* 65'
-%) >24)2> -5 8))? *52 52- #6 *52 (5+N- ?&*; O59)1)'@ 4#:%-4))#+: #+ &+ %#4-5'#$ &')& 56 &+ 5/( $#-*
#4 -*?#$&//* +5- &+ )A$/2(#7/) &$-#1#-* G #- #4 #>?'&$-#$&/ -5 -'* -5 $%&':) &(>#44#5+ -5 & /#1#+: ?&'- 56 &
$#-*; H+ 7)-9))+ -%)4) -95 )A-')>)4 &') & '&+:) 56 ?544#7#/#-#)4@ 9%)') #- #4 6)&4#7/) -5 )A$/2() 24) 56
-%) $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(@ 72- >&* 7) $54-/* -5 (5 45;
IA$/2(#7/#-* #4 &+ #>?5'-&+- $5+4#()'&-#5+@ 7)$&24) )$5+5>#$ -%)5'* -)//4 24 -%&- ?'#1&-)@
?'56#-F('#1)+@ >&'8)-4 9#// +5- ?'5(2$) )+52:% +5+F)A$/2(#7/) :55(4; H- #4 )&4* -5 4)) 9%*; H6 *52
$&++5- 8))? ?)5?/) 6'5> )+L5*#+: -%) :55( *52 ?'51#()@ -%)+ *52 $&++5- 65'$) -%)> -5 ?&* 65' #-; H6
*52 $&++5- :)- *52' $24-5>)'4 -5 ?&* *52@ -%)+ *52 $&++5- >&8) & ?'56#-; H6 *52 $&++5- >&8) &
?'56#-@ -%)+ *52 (5 +5- ?'51#() -%) :55( #+ -%) 6#'4- ?/&$); H6 9) ')/* 5+ ?'#1&-) ?'51#()'4 -5 ?')4)'1)
52' $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:)@ 5+/* -%54) :55(4 9#-% %#:% >&'8)- ()>&+( 9#// 7) ?'5-)$-)(;
3%#4 ')42/- #4 6'/* 4-':%-F65'9&'(@ 72- #- $&+ %&1) 427-/) #>?/#$&-#5+4; J5+4#()' & /&+(F
59+)' 9%5 %&4 & 7)&2-#62/ )A&>?/) 56 ?)'#5( 72#/(#+:4 5+ %#4 6&'>; 3%) /&+(F59+)' 8+594 -%&-
?&44)'4F7* 5+ -%) '5&( )+L5* /558#+: &- -%)4) 72#/(#+:4@ 72- %) $&++5- )A-'&$- &+* ?&*>)+-; 3%)
72#/(#+:4 &') :)+)'&-#+: 45$#&/ 7)+)6#-4@ 72- -%54) 7)+)6#-4 &') &$$'2#+: -5 -%) ?&44)'4F7*@ +5- -5 -%)
59+)'; 3%&- 59+)' %&4 +5 #+$)+-#1) -5 ?')4)'1) -%) 72#/(#+:4@ &+( #+())( >&* +5- %&1) -%) ')452'$)4
+)$)44&'* -5 (5 45;
I1)+ 9%)') & ?'#1&-) ?'51#()' $&+ $%&':) 45>) 6))4@ -%54) 6))4 >&* +5- ')?')4)+- &// 56 -%)
7)+)6#-4 7)#+: :)+)'&-)( 7* -%) :55(; J5+4#()' & $&4-/) 5+ & %#//4#() 51)'/558#+: & -59+; 3%) 59+)'
56 -%) $&4-/) >&* 7) &7/) -5 $%&':) -52'#4-4 9%5 9&+- -5 :5 #+-5 -%) $&4-/) &+ )+-'* 6))@ &+( -%)')65')
>&* %&1) 45>) #+$)+-#1) -5 ?')4)'1) -%) $5+(#-#5+ 56 -%) $&4-/); P2- )1)+ -%52:% %) $&+ $&?-2')
45>) 56 -%) 1&/2) -%&- -%) $&4-/) :)+)'&-)4@ %) 9#// +5- 7) &7/) -5 $%&':) ?)5?/) 9%5 )+L5* /558#+: &-
-%) 52-4#() 56 -%) $&4-/); H+())(@ #6 -%) $&4-/) #4 4266#$#)+-/* #>?5'-&+-@ -%)') >&* 7) ?)5?/) 6&' &9&*
-%&- :+ 45>) )+L5*>)+- L24- 6'5> 8+59#+: -%&- -%) $&4-/) #4 #+ & :55( $5+(#-#5+; 3%) 59+)' 9#// +5-
7) &7/) -5 $&?-2') -%54) 1&/2)4@ &+( >&* &//59 -%) $&4-/) -5 ()-)'#5'&-) )1)+ -%52:% -%) 7)+)6#-4@ -5 &//
-%54) 9%5 ')$)#1) -%)>@ &') 4266#$#)+- -5 L24-#6* -%) $54-4 56 ?')4)'1#+: -%) $&4-/);
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
7/30
3%) 4)$5+( $%&'&$-)'#4-#$ 56 & ?27/#$ :55( #4 -%&- #- #4 non-rival#+ $5+42>?-#5+; 3%&- >)&+4
-%&- -95 (#66)')+- ?)5?/) $&+ )+L5* Q$5+42>)R -%) ?27/#$ :55( &- -%) 4&>) -#>) 9#-%52- #+-)'6)'#+:
9#-% )&$% 5-%)'N4 )+L5*>)+-; < ?)'6)$- )A&>?/) 952/( 7) & 4-&-2) #+ & ?27/#$ 4E2&'); H $&+ /558 &- &
4-&-2)@ &+( )+L5* #-@ &- -%) 4&>) -#>) -%&- *52 (5 -%) 4&>); &+* 56 24
-'*#+: -5 (5 -%) 4&>) -%#+: &- -%) 4&>) -#>)@ 9) $&+ $5+42>) -%) :55( 4#>2/-&+)524/* 9#-%52-
(#>#+#4%#+: -%) 1&/2) -%&- )&$% ')$)#1)4 6'5> -%) :55(; 3%#4 &4?)$- 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) #4 #>?5'-&+-
7)$&24) #6 & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55( #4 +5+F'#1&/ #4 $5+42>?-#5+@ -%)+ #- 9#// &/9&*4 7) 7)--)' -5 &//59
>5') ?)5?/) -5 )+L5* #- -%&+ -5 &//59 6)9)'; I1)+ #6 )A$/24#5+ #4 6)&4#7/)@ #- #4 +5- ()4#'&7/) &4 #-
')(2$)4 -%) -5-&/ +2>7)' 56 ?)5?/) )+L5*#+: -%) :55(@ &+( 45 -%) -5-&/ )+L5*>)+- -%&- -%) :55(
?'51#()4;
S&+* $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 )A%#7#- #+-)'>)(#&-) /)1)/4 56 '#1&/+)44; < $&-%)('&/ -%&-
')$)#1)4 >&+* 1#4#-5'4 >&* 7)$5>) 45 $'59()( -%&- )&$% 1#4#-5'N4 )+L5*>)+- 56 -%) )A?)'#)+$)
7)$5>)4 (#>#+#4%)(; ,2$% & $&-%)('&/ 952/( 7) & congestible ?27/#$ :55(; T'@ -%) ?')4)+$) 56 -%)
1#4#-5' >&* &$-2&//* (&>&:) -%) $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55( #-4)/6; H+ )#-%)' $&4)@ #+ $5+-'&4- -5 -%) ?2')
?27/#$ :55( $&4)@ #- >&* 7) ()4#'&7/) -5 /#>#- -%) +2>7)' 56 ?)5?/) 9%5 1#4#- -%) 4#-); T+) 9&* -5
/#>#- 1#4#-&-#5+ #4 7* $%&':#+: &+ )+-'* 6)); ?&')( -5 5-%)' >)&+4 56 /#>#-#+: )+-'*@ 42$% &4
$2)#+:@ &+ )+-'* 6)) %&4 & $52?/) 56 &(1&+-&:)4; H- :)+)'&-)4 ')1)+2)4 -%&- $&+ 7) #+1)4-)( #+ -%)
$2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(@ &+( #- &442')4 -%&- -%) /#>#-)( +2>7)' 56 )+-'* 4/5-4 :5 -5 -%54) 9%5 ?/&$) -%)
%#:%)4- 1&/2) 5+ -%) )A?)'#)+$);
H6 9) (5 +5- -'24- ?'#1&-) 65'F?'56#- ?'51#()'4 -5 42??/* )+52:% $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4@ -%)+ #-
#4 2? -5 -%) :51)'+>)+- &+( +5-F65'F?'56#- 5':&+#=&-#5+4 -5 (5 45; P2- %59 >2$% $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:)
:55(4 #4 -%) '#:%- &>52+-B C) /#1) #+ & 95'/( 9#-% /#>#-)( ')452'$)4@ &+( >24- >&8) -'&()5664 &>5+:
$5>?)-#+: 57L)$-#1)4; O)')@ &:+@ -%) -%)5'* 56 ?27/#$ :55(4 $&+ %)/? :2#() 24; 3%&- -%)5'* 4-&-)4
-%&- -%) $5'')$- &>52+- 56 & ?27/#$ :55( #4 ()-)'>#+)( 7* $5>?&'#+: -%) >&':#+&/ $54- 56 ?'51#(#+:
>5') 56 -%) :55( -5 -%) >&':#+&/ 45$#&/ 7)+)6#- 56 ?'51#(#+: >5') 56 -%) :55(; O59 952/( -%#4 95'8
#+ ?'&$-#$)B ,2??54) -%)') &') UVV $2/-2'&//*F4#:+#6#$&+- 4#-)4 #+ & $#-*@ &+( -%&- 9) (5+N- %&1) >5+)*
-5 ?'5-)$- -%)> &//; C) 952/( $&/$2/&-) -%) $54- 56 ?'5-)$-#+: 5+) 4#-)@ 56 ?'5-)$-#+: -95 4#-)4@ &+( 45
5+; C) 952/( -%)+ $5>?&') -%54) $54-4 -5 -%) 7)+)6#-4 56 ?'5-)$-#+: 5+) 4#-)@ 56 ?'5-)$-#+: -95 4#-)4@
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
8/30
&+( 45 5+; 3%) 45$#&//*F5?-#>&/ +2>7)' 56 4#-)4 -5 ?'5-)$- #4 -%) +2>7)' 9%)') -%) &((#-#5+&/ $54- 56
?'5-)$-#+: 5+) >5') 4#-) #4 )E2&/ -5 -%) &((#-#5+&/ 7)+)6#- 6'5> ?'5-)$-#+: 5+) >5') 4#-)@ 45 -%&- -%)
$54-F7)+)6#- '&-#5 65' -%) /&4- 4#-) $5+4#()')( #4 )E2&/ -5 5+); 3%) 4&>) -*?) 56 &+&/*4#4 $&+ &/45 %)/?
:2#() -%) ()$#4#5+ 56 %59 >2$% -5 4?)+( 5+ )&$% 4#-);
J/)&'/*@ #+ 5'()' -5 24) -%#4 6'&>)95'8@ 9) +))( -5 7) &7/) -5 )4-#>&-) -%) 7)+)6#-4 &+( $54-4
56 ?'51#(#+: $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; 3%#4 7558 (5)4 +5- $5+4#()' #+ ()-/ -%) #442) 56 )4-#>&-#+:
$54-4; 3%&- #4 7)4- (5+) 7* )A?)'-4 #+ -%) ?'51#4#5+ 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; 3%#4 7558 #4 $5+$)'+)(
9#-% )4-#>&-#+: -%) 1&/2)4 :)+)'&-)( 7* $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4@ #;); -%) 7)+)6#-4; 3%)') #4 & /&':)
75(* 56 /#-)'&-2') &+( )A?)'#)+$) #+ )4-#>&-#+: 1&/2)4 65' )+1#'5+>)+-&/ ?27/#$ :55(4; P)$&24) -%)4)
:55(4 &') +5- -'&()( #+ >&'8)-4@ -%) >)-%5(4 ()1)/5?)( 65' 1&/2#+: -%)> &') ')6)'')( -5 $5//)$-#1)/*
&4 +5+F>&'8)- 1&/2&-#5+ -)$%+#E2)4; 3%) ?2'?54) 56 -%#4 7558 #4 -5 )A?/5') %59 -%)4) >)-%5(4@
()1)/5?)( 65' )4-#>&-#+: )+1#'5+>)+-&/ 1&/2)4@ $&+ 7) &??/#)( -5 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4;
3%)4) >)-%5(4 ?'51#() #+65'>&-#5+ -%&- $&+ 7) 56 24) 9%)+ &((')44#+: & 1&'#)-* 56 ?5/#$*
#442)4 ')/&-)( -5 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:); K#'4-@ 1&/2)4 )4-#>&-)( 24#+: -%)4) >)-%5(4 $&+ %)/? #+65'>
()$#4#5+4 51)' -%) /)1)/ 56 62+(#+: 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:); W27/#$ 1&/2)4 65' $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 $&+
?'51#() & 4-'5+: &':2>)+- #+ 6&15' 56 ?27/#$ 62+(#+: 65' -%54) :55(4; ,)$5+(@ ?27/#$ ?')6)')+$)4 $&+
%)/? 9%)+ >&8#+: ()$#4#5+4 &>5+: $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; C%#/) -%)') #4 &/9&*4 & $)+-'&/ '5/) 65'
)A?)'- 5?#+#5+ #+ ()$#(#+: 9%#$% -*?)4 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 9#// ')$)#1) &--)+-#5+@ #+65'>&-#5+
&752- -%) :)+)'&/ ?27/#$N4 ?')6)')+$)4 51)' 42$% ()$#4#5+4 #4 & 24)62/ $5>?/)>)+- -5 )A?)'-
L2(:)>)+-; 3%) >)-%5(4 (#4$244)( #+ -%#4 7558 &//59 >)&42')>)+- 56 -%54) ?')6)')+$)4; K#+&//*@
-%54) 4&>) >)-%5(4 $&+ %)/? #+65'> ()$#4#5+4 &752- 62+(#+: 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; 3%)* $&+
4%59 -%) ?544#7#/#-#)4 &+( /#>#-&-#5+4 56 ')/*#+: 5+ $5+-'#72-#5+4 5' &$$)44 $%&':)4 #+ 42??/*#+: &
:55( -%&- :)+)'&-)4 1&/2)4 -5 & >2$% 7'5&()' 4)- 56 ?)5?/) -%&+ L24- -%54) 6)9 9%5 $%554) -5 1#4#- -%)
:55( 5' (5+&-) -5 #-4 ?')4)'1&-#5+;
*h#t is :,#lue2;
H+ -%) ?')$)(#+: 4)$-#5+@ -%) -)'>4 X1&/2)Y &+( X7)+)6#-4Y 9)') 24)( #+ & 1)'* /554) 9&*; P2-
)$5+5>#$4 %&4 >5') ?')$#4) ()6#+#-#5+4 56 -%)4) -)'>4; H+ J%&?-)' Z@ -%)4) -)'>4 9#// 7) ()6#+)(
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
9/30
65'>&//*; O)')@ 9) 9#4% -5 :#1) -%) ')&()' &+ #+-2#-#1) 2+()'4-&+(#+: 56 %59 )$5+5>#4-4 ()6#+) -%)
X1&/2)Y -%&- 45>)5+) ')$)#1)4 6'5> & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(;
3%) :2#(#+: ?'#+$#?/) #+ ()6#+#+: 9%&- #4 -%) 1&/2) 56 & ?27/#$ :55( 42$% &4 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:)@
#4 -%&- -%) ()6#+#-#5+ 4%52/( 7) /5:#$&//* $5+4#4-)+- 9#-% %59 9) >)&42') 1&/2) 65' & ?'#1&-)@ >&'8)-
:55(; S&'8)- :55(4 %&1) & >&'8)- ?'#$)@ 72- -%&- ?'#$) #4 +5- &/9&*4 & :55( #+(#$&-5' 56 1&/2); 3%)')
&') >&+* ')&45+4 9%* -%) ?'#$) >&* 51)'4-&-) 5' 2+()'4-&-) 1&/2)@ #+$/2(#+: -%) #>?54#-#5+ 56
(#4-5'-#5+&'* -&A)4@ E25-&4 -%&- /#>#- -%) E2&+-#-* 42??/#)( 5' ?2'$%&4)(@ &+( ?'#$) $5+-'5/4; S5')
:)+)'&//*@ 9) ()6#+) -%) 1&/2) -%&- & $5+42>)' :)-4 6'5> 24#+: & >&'8)- :55( -5 7) -%) /&':)4- &>52+-
56 >5+)* -%&- -%) $5+42>)' 952/( 9#//#+:/* ?&* -5 :)- -%) :55(; ,5 #6 & $5+42>)' #4 9#//#+: -5 ?&*
[UV@VVV 65' & +)9 $&'@ 72- -%) ?'#$) #4 [UZ@VVV@ -%) 1&/2) -5 -%&- $5+42>)' #4 %#4 9#//#+:+)44 -5 ?&*
QC3WR 65' -%) $&'@ +5- #-4 ?'#$); H6 45>)5+) )/4) ()$#()( -5 :#1) %#> -%) $&' 65' 6'))@ -%) 7)+)6#- -5 -%)
')$#?#)+- 56 ')$)#1#+: -%) $&' 952/( 7) [UV@VVV@ +5- [UZ@VVV Q&442>#+: %) #4 ')4-'#$-)( 6'5> 4)//#+:
-%) $&'R;
K5' & ?27/#$ :55( 42$% &4 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:)@ 9) &(5?- -%) 4&>) :)+)'&/ ()6#+#-#5+; 3%) 1&/2)
-%&- & ?)'45+ :)-4 6'5> 7)#+: &7/) -5 )+L5* & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55( #4 ()6#+)( &4 -%) /&':)4- &>52+- 56
>5+)* -%&- -%&- ?)'45+ 952/( 9#//#+:/* ?&* -5 %&1) -%&- 5??5'-2+#-*; K5' & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) 4#-)@ -%)+@
-%) 24) 1&/2) -%&- & 1#4#-5' ')$)#1)4 952/( 7) ()6#+)( &4 -%) /&':)4- &>52+- 56 >5+)* -%&- -%) 1#4#-5'
952/( 7) 9#//#+: -5 ?&*@ 51)' &+( &751) &+* &$-2&/ )+-'* 6))@ -5 :+ &$$)44 -5 -%) 4#-); C) 6#+( -%)
-5-&/ 24) 1&/2) :)+)'&-)( 7* -%) 4#-) &4 -%) 42> 56 &// 56 -%) #+(#1#(2&/ 1#4#-5'4N C3WN4;
Use Value vs Non-use Value
H+ -%) &751) ?&'&:'&?%@ use value #4 ()6#+)( &4 -%) >&A#>2> C3W -5 :+ &$$)44 -5 -%) 4#-);
O59)1)'@ & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) 4#-) >#:%- :)+)'&-) 1&/2)4 )1)+ -5 -%54) 9%5 (5 +5- 1#4#- -%) 4#-); Non-
use value #+$/2()4 7)+)6#-4 -%&- ?)5?/) )+L5* 7)$&24) -%)* 8+59 -%&- -%) 4#-) #4 7)#+: ?')4)'1)(;
3%)4) 7)+)6#-4 >#:%- 7) >5-#1&-)( 7* & ()4#') -%&- -%) 4#-) 7) &1/&7/) 65' 5-%)'4 -5 1#4#- Qaltruistic
valuesR@ -%&- -%) 4#-) 7) ?')4)'1)( 65' 62-2') :)+)'&-#5+4 Qbequest valuesR@ -%&- -%) $2'')+- +5+F1#4#-5'
>&* ()$#() -5 7)$5>) & 1#4#-5' #+ -%) 62-2') Qoption valueR@ 5' 4#>?/* -%&- -%) 4#-) 7) ?')4)'1)(@ )1)+
#6 +55+) )1)' &$-2&//* 1#4#-4 #- Qexistence valuesR; 3%#4 /&4- $&-):5'* 56 +5+F24) 7)+)6#-4 >#:%-
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
10/30
>5-#1&-) 9%*@ 65' )A&>?/)@ 9) >#:%- 9&+- -5 )A?)+( ')452'$)4 -5 ?'5-)$- $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 -%&-
&') $5+4#()')( -55 6'&:#/) -5 7) 5?)+)( 65' 1#)9#+: 7* -%) :)+)'&/ ?27/#$;
52+- -%&- %) 952/( 9#//#+:/* ?&* -5 7) &442')( -%&- -%) $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55( #4
?')4)'1)(; 3%#4 #4 +5- -%) 4&>) &4 -%) &>52+- -%&- %) 952/( (5+&-) -5 #-4 ?')4)'1&-#5+; C%)+ -%)
')452'$)4 65' ?'51#4#5+ 56 & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55( &') 7)#+: :)+)'&-)( -%'52:% (5+&-#5+4@ -%)') #4 &
4-'5+: #+$)+-#1) -5 6'))F'#() 5+ -%) (5+&-#5+4 56 5-%)'4; I$5+5>#$ -%)5'* -)//4 24 -%&- -%) &>52+- 56
-%) (5+&-#5+ 9) 574)'1) 9#// 7) /59)' -%&+ -%) 62// 1&/2) -%&- -%) ?)'45+ ')$)#1)4 6'5> -%) :55(; 3%)
$%&//)+:) #4 -5 >)&42') -%) 62// C3W 65' -%) :55( #+ 4#-2&-#5+4 9%)') -%) 24)' 5' +5+F24)' #4 +5-
')E2#')( -5 ?&* &+*-%#+:; C) (#4$244 -%#4 $%&//)+:) >5') #+ J%&?-)' Z;
Extent of the Market
3%) -5-&/ 1&/2) 56 & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55( 9#// -%)+ #+$/2() 75-% 24) 1&/2)4 &+( +5+F24)
1&/2)4; 3%) ')/&-#1) #>?5'-&+$) 56 -%)4) -95 $&-):5'#)4 56 1&/2)4 9#// 1&'* 9#()/* &>5+: $2/-2'&/
%)'#-&:) :55(4; #-* -5 -%) :55(; ?/) >#:%- 7) &+ %#4-5'#$ 72#/(#+: #+ & 4>&//
-59+; C%#/) 42$% & :55( >#:%- :)+)'&-) 75-% 24) &+( +5+F24) 1&/2)4 65' -%) ')4#()+-4 56 -%&- -59+@
5' 1#4#-5'4 -5 -%) -59+@ 9) 952/( +5- )A?)$- /&':) 1&/2)4 65' ?)5?/) 9%5 /#1) 45>) (#4-&+$) 6'5> -%&-
-59+; H+ $5+-'&4-@ & +&-#5+&/ $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55( >&* %5/( 45>) #>?5'-&+$) 65' &// $#-#=)+4 56 &
$52+-'*; ?/) >#:%- 7) -%) 72#/(#+: 9%)') &+ #>?5'-&+- +&-#5+&/ (5$2>)+- 9&4 4#:+)(; ,2$%
& 4#-) $52/( &/45 :)+)'&-) 75-% 24) &+( +5+F24) 1&/2)4@ 72- %)') 9) $52/( )A?)$- +5+F24) 1&/2)4 65'
?')4)'1&-#5+ 56 -%) 72#/(#+: )1)+ &>5+: -%54) 9%5 /#1) 45>) (#4-&+$) 6'5> -%) 72#/(#+:@ &+( 9%5
+)1)' ?/&+ -5 1#4#- #-; K#+&//*@ -%)') &') 45>) :/57&/ $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; S&+* 56 -%)4)@ 72-
$)'-+/* +5- &//@ %&1) 7))+ ()4#:+&-)( &4 95'/( %)'#-&:) 4#-)4; D55(4 42$% &4 -%) P2$8#+:%&> ?&/&$)@
5' S&$%2 W#$$%2@ 5' -%) D')&- C&// 56 J%#+& :)+)'&-) 1&/2)4 65' ?)5?/) 9%5 /#1) #+ (#4-&+- $52+-'#)4
&+( 9%5 +)1)' ?/&+ -5 1#4#- -%54) 4#-)4;
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
11/30
J5+4#()'&-#5+ 56 -%) )A-)+- 56 -%) >&'8)- #4 #>?5'-&+- 7)$&24)@ 9%)+ >)&42'#+: -%) 1&/2)
&445$#&-)( 9#-% & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(@ 9) >24- ()$#() 9%5N4 1&/2)4 -5 #+$/2(); S54- $54-F7)+)6#-
&+&/*4)4 &') $5+(2$-)( )#-%)' &- -%) +&-#5+&/ /)1)/ 5' 45>) '):#5+&/ /)1)/; 3%#4 #4 (5+) -5 >&-$% -%)
L2'#4(#$-#5+ 56 -%) 75(* >&8#+: -%) ()$#4#5+ &+( 4?)+(#+: -%) >5+)*; H6 #- #4 & +&-#5+&/ :51)'+>)+-
-%&- #4 $5>>#--#+: >5+)* -5 ?')4)'1&-#5+ 56 & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(@ -%)+ -%&- :51)'+>)+- 9#// 9&+-
-5 $5+4#()' -%) 7)+)6#-4 )+L5*)( 7* &// 56 #-4 $#-#=)+4@ 72- 9#// /#8)/* +5- $&') &4 >2$% &752- 7)+)6#-4
)+L5*)( 7* $#-#=)+4 56 5-%)' $52+-'#)4 Q)A$)?- -5 -%) )A-)+- -%&- -%54) 7)+)6#-4 6/59 7&$8 -5 -%) %54-
$52+-'* &4 -52'#4> ')1)+2)4R; \#8)9#4)@ & /5$&/ :51)'+>)+- -%&- %&4 ?59)' -5 -&A 5+/* -%) /5$&/
?5?2/&-#5+ 9#// 9&+- -5 7) 42') -%&- -%) 7)+)6#-4 -5 -%) /5$&/ ?5?2/&-#5+ )A$))( -%) $54-4 56 &+
#+1)4->)+-; 3%#4 +&-2'&/ -)+()+$* 56 62+(#+: &:)+$#)4 $&+ /)&( -5 ?'57/)>4@ -%52:%@ 9%)+
$5+4#()'#+: :/57&/ $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; H6 & +&-#5+&/ :51)'+>)+- 56 & /)44F()1)/5?)( $52+-'* -%&-
$5+-+4 & :/57&//* 4#:+#6#$&+- $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55( ()$#()4 #442)4 56 ?')4)'1&-#5+ 7&4)( 5+/* 5+
7)+)6#-4 -5 -%) $#-#=)+4 56 -%&- $52+-'*@ #- >&* $5+$/2() -%&- ?')4)'1&-#5+ #4 -55 $54-/*; H+ 42$% &
4#-2&-#5+ -%)') #4 & $/)&' +))( 65' 75-% &+ &+&/*4#4 -%&- #+$/2()4 1&/2)4 &$$'2#+: 52-4#() -%) $52+-'*@
&+( 65' #+1)4->)+- #+ -%) :55( 6'5> 452'$)4 52-4#() -%) $52+-'*; ,-2(#)4 42$% &4 -%54) $5+-+)( #+
-%#4 15/2>) $&+ %)/? #+-)'+&-#5+&/ 5':&+#=&-#5+4 ()$#() %59 >2$% ')452'$)4 -5 )A?)+( 5+ 42$% :/57&/
:55(4@ &+( 9%)');
,#lues in Decision A#Bin1
3%) -)$%+#E2)4 &+( ')42/-4 ()4$'#7)( #+ -%#4 7558 ?'51#() & $5+4#4-)+- 9&* -5 >)&42') -%)
7)+)6#-4 ?'51#()( 7* $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; 3%)4) $&+ -%)+ 7) $5>?&')( -5 -%) $54-4 56 ?'51#(#+:
-%54) :55(4; O59)1)'@ -%&- $5>?&'#45+ #4 +5- 4266#$#)+- 65' >&8#+: ?5/#$* ()$#4#5+4; H6 & $54-F7)+)6#-
&+&/*4#4 -%&- 24)4 +5+F>&'8)- 1&/2&-#5+ 4%594 -%&- & 4?)$#6#$ #+1)4->)+- #+ & $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(
%&4 & ?54#-#1) +)- 7)+)6#- Q7)+)6#-4 )A$))( $54-4R@ -%&- #4 & 24)62/ ?#)$) 56 #+65'>&-#5+ -5 -%) ()$#4#5+
>&8)'@ &+( & ?59)'62/ &':2>)+- #+ 6&15' 56 $5>>#--#+: 62+(4 -5 -%) ?'5L)$-@ 72- #- #4 +5- 4266#$#)+-
#+65'>&-#5+ 65' >&8#+: -%) ()$#4#5+; \#8)9#4)@ & +):&-#1) +)- 7)+)6#- #4 +5- 4266#$#)+- 65' ()-)'>#+#+:
-%&- &+ #+1)4->)+- 4%52/( +5- 7) >&(); 3%)') >&* 7) :55( ')&45+4 65' #+1)4-#+: #+ -%) ?27/#$ :55(
)1)+ -%52:% #- (5)4 +5- :)+)'&-) ?54#-#1) +)- 7)+)6#-4; C) >&* 9#4% -5 ?'51#() -%) :55( 45 -%&- /)44F
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
12/30
&(1&+-&:)( >)>7)'4 56 45$#)-* $&+ )+L5* #-@ )1)+ -%52:% -%54) >)>7)'4 %&1) /59 C3W 65' -%) :55(
(2) -5 -%)#' /#>#-)( ')452'$)4; C) >&* 9#4% -5 ?')4)'1) $)'-+ -*?)4 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) )1)+ -%52:%
-%) -&4-)4 56 -%) $2'')+- :)+)'&-#5+ (5 +5- 6&15' -%&- ?&'-#$2/&' -*?) 56 :55(; K#+&//*@ 9) >&* 6))/
$5>?)//)( -5 ?')4)'1) $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 52- 56 & 4)+4) 56 (2-* &+( >5'&/ ?2'?54)@ '):&'(/)44 56
-%) ?')6)')+$)4 56 -%) :)+)'&/ ?5?2/&-#5+; I1)+ 45@ #+65'>&-#5+ &752- -%&- ?5?2/&-#5+N4 ?')6)')+$)4
$&+ 5+/* #>?'51) ()$#4#5+ >&8#+:;
05' #4 -%) &1/&7#/#-* 56 -)$%+#E2)4 65' >)&42'#+: -%) 1&/2)4 56 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 &
4274-#-2-) 65' )A?)'- &+&/*4#4 &+( 5?#+#5+; 3%) :)+)'&/ ?5?2/&-#5+ 1&/2)4 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 #+
-%) $5+-)A- 56 9%&- -%)* 8+59 &752- #-; IA?)'- 5?#+#5+ 56 -%) ')/&-#1) #>?5'-&+$) 56 (#66)')+- :55(4
9#// #+65'> ?27/#$ ?')6)')+$)4@ &+( ?27/#$ 1&/2)4; \#8)9#4)@ -%) )A?)'- %&4 &+ #>?5'-&+- '5/) #+
6'&>#+: -%) ()$#4#5+4 G ()-)'>#+#+: 9%&- -%) 5?-#5+4 &') &+( 9%)') &+( 9%)+ -%) ()$#4#5+ ?5#+-4 /#);
K#+&//*@ -%) )A?)'- #+65'>4 -%) ()$#4#5+ (#')$-/*; 3%) ()$#4#5+ >&8)' 4%52/( -')&- -%) )A?)'-N4
L2(:>)+- &+( -%) ?27/#$N4 ?')6)')+$)4 75-% &4 1&/#( ?#)$)4 56 #+65'>&-#5+ 9%)+ >&8#+: ()$#4#5+4
&752- $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4;
Ce'ieE o> the FooB
3%) ')>+()' 56 -%#4 7558 /5584 #+ ()-/ &- %59 +5+F>&'8)- 1&/2&-#5+ -)$%+#E2)4 $&+ 7)
&??/#)( -5 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4; H+ J%&?-)' Z@ 9) ?')4)+- -%) >54- #>?5'-&+- -)$%+#E2)4 24)( #+
1&/2#+: ?27/#$ :55(4@ &+( (#4$244 45>) 56 -%) $%&//)+:)4 &+( 5??5'-2+#-#)4 &445$#&-)( 9#-% &??/*#+:
-%54) -)$%+#E2)4 -5 $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:); H+ J%&?-)'4 ] -%'52:% U^@ 9) ?')4)+- $&4) 4-2(#)4 9%)') -%)4)
-)$%+#E2)4 %&1) 7))+ 24)( -5 1&/2) 4?)$#6#$ $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) :55(4 #+ & 9#() 1&'#)-* 56 $5+-)A-4 &+(
$52+-'#)4; J%&?-)' U_ ')1#)94 >54- 56 -%) $2/-2'&/ %)'#-&:) 1&/2&-#5+ 4-2(#)4 -%&- %&1) 7))+ (5+) -5
(&-)@ &+( &--)>?-4 -5 ('&9 45>) :)+)'&/ $5+$/24#5+4 &752- 75-% -%) ')42/-4 56 -%54) 4-2(#)4 &+( &752-
-%) 2-#/#-* 56 1&/2&-#5+ 56 -%)4) -*?)4 56 :55(4;
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
13/30
Chapter 15
Review of existing studies, their policy use and future research needs
David Pearce+ Susana Mourato+ St3le 5avrud and Richard C. Ready
Review and classification of cultural heritage studies
;n spite of the obvious lin?s between Auestions of the conservation of natural and
cultural goods there have been surprisingly few applications of non-mar?et valuation
techniAues to cultural assets. Only a small number of studies+ using almost eFclusively stated
preference techniAues+ have been applied to cultural heritage goods. Many of these studies
are described in detail in the previous chapters.
Table 1.1 present an overview of 27 studies valuing mainly historical buildings+
monuments and artefacts. We have also included a few eFamples of contingent valuation
studies of other cultural goods and services such as museums and performing and visual arts.
ll of these studies apply stated preference techniAues+ which are uniAue in their capability of
measuring both use and non-use values arising from cultural capital. s is evident from the
table+ not only the number of eFisting studies is small but also the studies span a wide range
of goods and situations. SiF of the sites studied are part of N5ESCOs World Heritage Qist.
Table 1.2 classifies the studies according to the type of benefit estimated and the
type of cultural good/activity studied. Here we have differentiated among different types of
cultural heritage goods including single buildings+ groups of building+ monuments+
archaeological areas and artefacts+ and other goods including performing arts and museums.
;t is apparent from this table that cultural heritage is a compleF+ multifaceted good. 5ot only
is there a diversity of physical assets involved (the columns in Table 1.2)+ there is a diversity
of services+ Aualities+ and policy issues for each (the rows in Table 1.2). The studies listed
represent Uust the first small steps in considering the breadth of cultural heritage goods.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
14/30
2
------------------------------TBQES 1.1 5D 1.2 BONT HERE--------------------------------
Main lessons from existing empirical evidence
While the conclusions of each study are different+ some consistent findings emerge from
the studies that have been conducted to date
(a) Few economic valuation studies have been underta?en in the area of cultural heritage
(either built or movable heritage). ll studies reviewed here use stated preference
methods+ mainly contingent valuation+ and there eFist very few applications of revealed
preference methods1.
(b) The existing studies vary widely both in terms of the type of good or activity being
analysed and the type of benefit being evaluated. There are some instances where similar
goods were evaluated. However+ the type of benefit estimated is usually different as is
the sample frame used+ ma?ing it difficult to ma?e meaningful comparisons among
studies.
(c) Generally+ the findings suggest that people attribute a significantly positive value to the
conservation or restoration of cultural assets. The implication is that damages to cultural
goods are undesirable and that the public would be willing to pay positive amounts to
avoid them or to slow the rate at which they occur.
(d) Several of the studies show a relatively large proportion of respondents stating a zero
WTP (up to 89[). Some of these responses can be considered protests against some
1 \or applications of the travel cost method on performing arts+ see e.g. Martin (1994) and \orrest et al (2000)
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
15/30
aspect of the survey instrument (i.e. a disli?e of paying taFes or a reUection of the
contingent scenario) and thus are not a reflection of people`s true preferences. Others+
however+ are genuine` ero values arising from budget constraints+ lac? of interest in
cultural issues and from the fact that cultural heritage preservation is typically ran?ed
low amongst competing public issues+ as is shown consistently by attitudinal Auestions.
Hence+ the welfare of a significant proportion of the population seems to be unaffected
by changes in cultural goods/activities. ;n some instances+ the positive estimated values
are driven by a minority of the population+ typically+ the users of the cultural good and
the richer and more educated segments of the population. This finding has important
implications for the funding of cultural heritage goods. \or eFample+ in instances where
more than two thirds of the population eFpress a ero WTP+ the imposition of a taF may
be infeasible targeted voluntary donations or entry fees may provide more appropriate
means of eFtracting eFisting values (although the former invites free-riding behaviour)
or+ if a taF mechanism is used care must be ta?en to ensure that the distributional effects
are ta?en into account with off-setting eFpenditures
(e) Values for users (visitors or residents) are invariably higher than for non-users. This
indicates that there can be significant values from recreation and education visits.
number of issues should be ta?en into account when designing pricing mechanisms the
implications of the current focus on ma?ing heritage available to the general public and
the possible trade-off between access and conservation that suggests the importance of
calculating congestion costs and tourist carrying capacity` of a site. However+ user
values alone may not be enough to deliver sustainability for the large maUority of cultural
goods and services
(f) Non-visitor benefits are positive. ;n cases where the relevant population benefiting from
improvement or maintenance of the cultural good is thought to be very large+ possibly
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
16/30
4
crossing national borders+ the total aggregated benefit can be very large. This is the case
when uniAue and charismatic cultural heritage goods are at sta?e. However+ the available
evidence also suggests that the proportion of those stating ero WTP is largest amongst
non-users
(g) The issue ofcompeting cultural goods and of part-whole bias (when the value of a group
of cultural goods is not significantly different from a smaller subset of those goods) has
been insufficiently addressed by the eFisting studies. This issue may be less of a problem
for flagship cultural goods with no substitutes (e.g. the Pyramids in Egypt)+ but may be
very severe when cultural goods perceived as being non-uniAue are being evaluated (e.g.
historical buildings+ castles+ churches and cathedrals). ;f this bias eFists+ the estimated
values for a particular cultural good may reflect a desire to preserve all similar goods+
and thus overstate the value of the good
(h) Qittle attention has been given to theperiodicity of the elicited WTP values. While it is
difficult to compare values across studies of different goods+ there appears to be a pattern
where less periodic payments result in lower WTP amounts. This could be an indication
of temporal embedding+ where respondents may give lump-sum amounts that are lower
than the present value of periodic WTP values using mar?et discount rates. Tests for this
?ind of bias should be incorporated in studies using one-off or very periodic payments.
(i) \inally+ we see authors dedicating a great deal of attention to presenting an accurate
description of the good to be valued+ presented in a form that meaningful to the
respondent. This has two components. \irst+ it is of critical importance that the level of
provision of the good match eFpert assessments of the with-proUect situation. \or
eFample+ when valuing impacts from air pollution+ it is necessary to match up the
valuation scenarios with proUections made by atmospheric and materials scientists.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
17/30
Second+ these differing levels of Auality must be presented in a way that respondents can
understand. Several of the studies included photographs and maps to help in this regard.
;t is stri?ing to note that all of these conclusions apply eAually to studies that value
environmental goods. There+ we have an eAually diverse set of goods that can have values
that are highly site-specific+ though far more environmental valuation studies have been
conducted to date than cultural heritage valuation studies. There too we often see a
combination of large use values per person held by a few visitors and small non-use values
per household held by a large population of non-visitors. Qi?ewise+ in environmental
valuation+ we face part-whole and embedding issues reAuiring careful construction and
pretesting of the survey instrument. \inally+ presenting an accurate and meaningful
description of the good to be valued is eAually important when valuing environmental goods+
and we see many of the same types of visual aids in use.
While the valuation of cultural heritage goods is certainly challenging+ it is no more
challenging+ or fundamentally different from+ the valuation of an environmental good that has
a significant non-use component. ;ndeed+ in one of the studies listed (Blling and ;versen
1999)+ the authors valued both a cultural heritage good and an environmental good in the
same survey. We eFpect non-mar?et valuation techniAues to perform eAually well for
cultural heritage goods as they have for environmental goods+ where literally thousands of
studies of been conducted.
Still+ it is somewhat surprising that more studies have not been conducting using
either the Travel Cost Method or the Hedonic Pricing Method. Chapter 2 discusses the
challenges of applying these techniAues to cultural heritage goods+ but we do see some
potential for their use.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
18/30
6
Policy use of cultural heritage values
There are clear potential policy uses of the value estimates generated by the studies
discussed here. \irst+ valuation estimates are useful for evaluating whether to underta?e
proUects to protect or restore cultural heritage goods. \or eFample+ the study valuing road
removal at Stonehenge (Chapter 7) provided benefit estimates that could then be compared to
estimates of the cost of road construction and removal. ;t is interesting to note that after
completion of that valuation study+ the decision was indeed made to go ahead with that
proUect. Both the valuation study of the \es Medina and of buildings in Split+ Croatia were
conducted as part of proUect analyses conducted by the World Ban?+ and will be used to
evaluate continued funding for those proUects.
Second+ valuation estimates are also useful for determining the level of investment in
ongoing activities to provide or protect cultural heritage goods. Here+ the studies of the
5idaros and Qincoln Cathedrals (Chapters and ) are good eFamples+ where the study
results can be used to determine how much effort and resources should be devoted to
restoring and preserving the appearance of the cathedrals. Similarly+ the study of marble
monuments in Washington+ D.C. helps inform EP decisions about air Auality regulation.
More studies are needed that value different levels of provision or Auality of cultural heritage
goods.
Third+ valuation results can inform decisions when choices have to be made among
competing obUectives within cultural heritage. The 5idaros Cathedral study (Chapter )
provides information about public preferences over the aesthetics of the building and the
degree to which the outside of the building is original. The Stonehenge study (Chapter 7)
contrasts values of on-site users and values of passing motorists.
\ourth+ valuation results can be very useful in informing decisions about the funding
of cultural heritage goods. 5ot only do the study results show the diversity in values held by
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
19/30
7
the population+ they can also be used to predict what will happen if increased reliance is
placed on entrance fees. Two of the studies (Durham Cathedral+ Chapter 4 and 5apoli Musei
perti+ Chapter 14) found that revenues from access fees might be lower than revenues from
voluntary donations+ because they eFclude a large number of users with low WTP.
Future research needs
Table 1.2 shows clearly the most pressing research need in this area more studies
are needed on the diverse array of cultural heritage goods. Still+ we are not hopeful that we
will ever reach a point where enough studies have been conducted. One lesson we can ta?e
from the environmental valuation literature is that benefit transfer+ that is the application of
values estimated at one site to policy issues at a geographically different but similar type of
site+ is often unreliable. Environmental values and cultural heritage values are naturally
highly site- and good-specific. We do not anticipate that there will ever be a catalogue of
values from which decision ma?ers can select an appropriate number for the new policy issue
they face.
;t may turn out that groups of cultural heritage goods have similar values. To date+
there are too few studies to Uudge the eFtent to which values for cultural heritage vary.
Whether value estimates will vary much from site to site and good to good is still an open
empirical Auestion. We can state+ however+ that for benefit transfer to wor? at all+ it must be
between sites that are very similar+ both in the physical good being valued+ the change in the
good and the population holding the values.
We would li?e to see new valuation studies designed to address specific policy
problems+ rather than provide general values for the goods. nowing the amount that a
visitor is willing to pay to gain entry into a cathedral does not help us decide whether to
restore damaged portions. Similarly+ we would li?e to see more emphasis on research into
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
20/30
8
tradeoffs among competing obUectives+ for eFample tradeoffs between access and
deterioration due to that access. 5on-mar?et valuation techniAues are uniAuely well suited
for considering issues that involve tradeoffs between use values and non-use values.
Conclusion
The valuation studies described in previous chapters were selected to show the
heterogeneity of our cultural heritage and the policy issues that arise regarding its preservation.
Together with the other studies listed in table 1.1 they clearly show that non-mar?et
valuation techniAues can be successfully applied to cultural heritage obUects of local+ national
and even global significance (e.g. N5ESCO World Heritage Sites)+ and obUects that have
different functions including obUects with multiple functions (e.g. churches and monasteries
which are both tourist attractions and have important religious functions). The eFisting studies
also cover both developed and less developed countries+ and transition economies. Some of the
studies were conducted to inform policy decisions+ and have proved useful in cost-benefit
analyses of restoration and preservation programs for cultural heritage+ as well as infrastructure
proUects and air pollution policies with impacts on cultural heritage. The information generated
by such studies can be a valuable complement to eFpert Uudgement. We eFpect to see an
increased use of these non-mar?et valuation techniAues to help inform policies regarding cultural
heritage in the future+ in much the same way as these techniAues are now contributing to
formulating environmental policy.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
21/30
9
References
Blling+ jrgen+ and kiggo ;versen. 1999. Tourists Willingness to Pay for Restoration of
Stone Town to its Original State and Stopping Habitat Destruction in Jozani Forest Reserve,
Zanzibar. Masters Thesis+ Department of Economics and Social Sciences+ gricultural
Nniversity of 5orway+ s+ 5orway.
Coulton+ j.C. 1999 Optimal Cultural Heritage llocation Model and Contingent
kaluation Study. M.Sc. thesis Environmental and Resource Economics Program+ Nniversity
College Qondon+ September 1999+ 8 pp appendices.
E\TEC (Economics for the Environment Consultancy)+ 2000.Valuing Our Recorded
Heritage, Final Report, Reportto the Museums and Galleries Commission+ Qondon.
\orrest+ D.+ Grime+ and Woods+ R. (2000). ;s it worth subsidising regional repertory
theatre+ Oxford Economic Papers+ 52+ 81-97
Grosclaude+ P. and 5. Soguel. 1994. kaluing damage to historic buildings using a contingent
mar?et a case study of road traffic eFternalities+ Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management+ 37()+ 279-87.
Hett+ T and Mourato+ S. 2000. Sustainable Management of Machu Picchu: a Stated
Preference Approach+ Paper submitted to Conference on Sustainability+ Tourism and the
Environment+ Dublin.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
22/30
10
ling+ R.+ Revier+ C. and Sable+ . (2000). Estimating the Public Good kalue of Preserving
Qocal Historic Qandmar? The Role of 5on-Substitutability and ;nformation in Contingent
kaluation. Paper presented to the ssociation for Cultural Economics Conference in
Minneapolis.
Maddison+ D. and \oster+ T. 2001. Valuing Congestion in the British Museum+ Mimeo.
Department of Economics+ Nniversity College Qondon.
Martin \. 1994 Determining the Sie of Museum Subsides+Journal of Cultural Economics+
18+ pp.2-270.
Pagiola+ S. 1999 kaluing the Benefits of ;nvestments in Cultural Heritage The Historic Core
of Split. Paper presented at the World Ban? Economists\orum+ leFandria+ May -4+ 1999.
Pearce+ D.W and Mourato+ S. 1999. The Economics of Cultural Heritage+ Report to the
World Ban?+ Washington DC.
Pearce+ D.+ D. Maddison and M. Pollicino 2001 Economics and Cultural Heritage. Towards
an economic approach to valuing and conserving cultural assets. Centre for Cultural
Economics and Management+ Nniversity College Qondon+ Qondon.
Roche Rivera+ H. 1998 The willingness-to-pay for a public miFed good the Colon theatre in
rgentina. Paper presented at the tenth international conference on cultural economics+ 14-17
june 1998+ Barcelona.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
23/30
11
Throsby+ C. and Withers+ G. (1986) Strategic Bias and the Demand for Public Goods+
Journal of Public Economics 1+ pp. 07-27.
Whitehead j.+ C.M. Chambers and P.E. Chambers 1998 Contingent kaluation of uasi-
Public Goods kalidity+ Reliability+ and pplication to kaluing a Historic Site+Public
Finance Review+ 26+ 17-14.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
24/30
12
Table 15.1. Review of cultural heritage valuation studies. Studies presented in this boo? arenumbered according to their chapter number. Other studies are assigned a letter+ for use inTable 1.2.
Study and nature of the asset WTP
(NS)1
WTP
definition2
nnuity
(NS)
[ ero
WTP
[ of stated
income4
kaluing the impacts of roadimprovements uponStonehenge+ N. Contingentvaluation q (Chapter 7)
20-2 on-site+nationals
6-11 off-site+nationals
0.-2 on-site+foreigners
Household+annual+2 years+
PC/C+ taF+(entry fee forforeigners)
2.-2.7
0.7-1.
0.02-0.1
[6[
0.08-0.090.0-0.06
0.0001-0.000
kaluing aesthetic changes inthe Qincoln Cathedral due toair pollution+ N. Contingentvaluation. (Chapter )
1-2 per year ofsoiling+ residents of
Qincolnshire
Household+annual+ DB
DC+ taF
1-2 19[ 0.00-0.01
5on-Moroccan values forrehabilitating the \es Medina+Morocco q. Contingentvaluation. (Chapter 9)
5on-Moroccan values forrehabilitating the \es Medina+Morocco q.Carson et al 2001 - MDelphi - Contingent kaluationSurvey of 0 Europeanenvironmental economists
8-70 \es visitors
22-1 Moroccovisitors
6-17 Europeannon-visitors
;ndividual+per trip+SB DC
taF
HouseholdOne-timePayment+
OEnone
2.4-4.4
1.4-2.0
0.4-1.1
pproF.17[
pproF.19[
1 [
n.a.
n.a.
kaluing access to DurhamCathedral+ N q. Contingentvaluation. (Chapter 4)
1.4 ;ndividual+per visit+OE+ fee
6(average
no.visits 41)
6[ 0.2
kaluing the preservation ofBulgarian monasteries+Bulgaria q. Contingentvaluation (Chapter 6).
0.6-1 Household+annual+ OE+
taF
0.6-1 9[ 0.1-0.2
kaluing acid depositioninUuries to marble monumentsin Washington+ DC+ NSContingent valuation.(Chapter 11)
16 low impact2 medium impact
high impact
Household+one-timeonly+ C+
none
1.01.2.1
8[(approF.)
0.00-0.006
kaluing the conservation of 216 ;ndividual+ 8 18[ 0.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
25/30
1
Study and nature of the asset WTP(NS) 1
WTPdefinition2
nnuity(NS)
[ eroWTP
[ of statedincome 4
Campi \legrei archaeologicalpar? in 5apoli+ ;taly.Contingent valuation.(Chapter 10)
nnual+ years+SB DC+donation
(approF.)
Renovation of historicalbuildings in Grainger City+5ewcastle+ N. Contingentvaluation. (Chapter 4)
16-22 Household+annual+ OE+
taF
16-22 47[ n.a.
Recreational value ofaboriginal roc? paintings+
5opiming Par?+ Canada.Contingent valuation(Chapter 8)
14 ;ndividual+annual+ CB+travel cost
14 n.a. n.a.
kaluing the right to accesstwo ;talian art museums at
present charges. Contingentvaluation. (Chapter 12)
28- ;ndividual+annual+ SB
DC+donation
28- 18[(approF.)
n.a.
kaluing visitor benefits toWar?worth Castle. N.Contingent valuation.(Chapter 4)
4 ;ndividual+per visit+OE+ fee
4 (averageno. of
visits 1)
n.a. 0.01
kalue of continuing current
activities of the Royal Theatrein Copenhagen. Contingentvaluation. (Chapter 1)
9-24 ;ndividual+
annual+ OE+taF
9-24 18[ n.a.
Maintaining the 5apoliMusei perti.Contingent kaluation(Chapter 14)
11 (users)4 (non users)
Household+annual
OEdonation
114
4[(users)67[(non-users)
n.a.
Damages from air pollution onthe 5idaros Cathedral+
5orway. Contingentvaluation. (Chapter )
1 originalitypreserved
4 restoration -losing originality
;ndividual+annual+ OE+
taF anddonation
1
4
9-20 [(domestic
visitors)8-49 [(foreignvisitors)
n.a.
Damages from traffic-causedair pollution on historical
buildings in 5euchatel+
77-86 ;ndividual+annual+ BG+
donation
77-86 4[ n.a.
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
26/30
14
Study and nature of the asset WTP(NS) 1
WTPdefinition2
nnuity(NS)
[ eroWTP
[ of statedincome 4
Switerland. Contingentvaluation. Grosclaude andSoguel+ 1994 -
rts support (theatre+ opera+ballet+ music+ visual arts+crafts)+ Sydney+ ustralia.Contingent valuation.Throsby and Withers+ 1986 -B
18-111 ;ndividual+annual+ OE+
taF
18-111 n.a. n.a.
Prehistoric cave paintingspreservation programs (twohypothetical new cavesdiscovery in Pea? District+N.). Contingent kaluationCoulton 1999- C
1 (two caves open topublic+ none eFist in
0 years)14 (one cave open to
public+ one caveprotected and eFist in
0 years)
;ndividual+One time+
OEtaF
0-1 8 [
29 [
0-0.0000
Restoring historic core of thecity of Split+ Croatia+Contingent kaluationPagiola 1999 - D
44 (domestic andforeign tourists)
168 (local residents)
;ndividual+per visit
;ndividual+annual
DB DC+ taF
n.a.
168
n.a.
n.a.
n.a
Machu Picchu+ q Peru.Contingent valuation.Hett and Mourato+ 2000 - E
47 (foreign tourists)26 (Peruvians)
;ndividual+per visit+ PC
entry fee
4726
n.a 0.070.26
Picture library+ N.Contingent valuation.E\TEC+ 2000 - \
12 ;ndividual+annual
PC
12 10[ n.a
History (recorded heritage)centre. .Contingent kaluation+E\TEC+ 2000 - G
4 (users+ loss ofaccess+ but collection
protected)48 (users+ loss of
access and collection)18 (non-users+ loss of
access and loss of
collection)
;ndividual+annual
PC
4
48
18
n.a n.a
Preservation of the St.Genevieve cademy.Contingent kaluationWhitehead et al+ 1998 - H
-6 Household+one-time
PCdonation
0.-0.6 61[ 0.001
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
27/30
1
Study and nature of the asset WTP(NS) 1
WTPdefinition2
nnuity(NS)
[ eroWTP
[ of statedincome 4
Preservation of the 5orthernHotel in \ort CollinsContingent kaluation.ling et al+ 2000 ;
86 (taF+ lowinformation)
126 (taF+ highinformation)
19 (foregone rebate+low information)
44 (foregone rebate+low information)
Household+one-time
DC
8
12
26
n.a. n.a.
Congestion in the BritishMuseum.+ ConUoint nalysisMaddison and \oster+ 2001 - j
9 (marginalcongestion cost per
visitor)
;ndividualPer visit
Centry fee
n.a. n.a. 0.01
Restoring Stone Town q+anibarContingent kaluation.Blling and ;versen+ 1999
20 (tourists) ;ndividualPer visit
OE / SB DCarrival fee
n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rehabilitating Colon Theatre+Buenos ires+ rgentinaConUoint nalysisRoche Rivera (1998) - Q
8 (Qocal residents) ;ndividual+nnualSB DC
taF
8 n.a. n.a.
Source Based partly on Pearce and Mourato (1999) and Pearce+ Maddison and Pollicino (2001)
Notes q ;s or includes a site listed in the N5ESCO`s World Heritage Qist n.a. data not available 1 Nsingaverage eFchange rates for the year of the study 2 ;ndividual or household periodicity elicitation format (OEopen-ended PC payment card BG bidding game SB DC single-bounded dichotomous choice DB DCdouble-bounded dichotomous choice C conUoint analysis CB contingent behaviour) payment vehicle (taF+donation+ entry fee+ arrival fee+ travel cost) Estimated annuities were calculated for a time horion of 0 yearsusing a discount rate of 6[ 4 Gross annual household returns
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
28/30
Table 15.2. Cultural heritage studies classification. Studies that fit in two categories are listed in both. The number or letter assigned to eachstudy refers to table 1.1. Studies mar?ed with q is or includes a site listed in the N5ESCO`s World Heritage Qist.
Type of GoodType of Benefit Single building Group of buildings Monuments Archaeological areas
and
artefacts
Other
Protect from air pollution damages - Qincoln Cathedral
- 5idaros Cathedral
Historical
buildings in 5euchatel
11 - Washington D.C
MonumenentsRestore or preservefrom degradation - 5idaros Cathedral
- Qincoln CathedralH 5orthern Hotel+
\ort Collins
6 - BulgarianMonastriesq
9+ M - \es Medinaq4 - Grainger City
D - Historic Core ofSplit
E- Machu Picchuq Stone Town of
aniibarq
C Prehistoric cavepaintings in N
Q- Colon Theatre
Protect from urban development/
infrastructure
7 Stonehenge10 Campi \legrei
rchaeological Par?Gain access 4 War?worth Castle
4- Durham Cathedral8 Roc? Paintings+5opiming Par?
C Prehistoric cavepaintings in N
12 rt galleries inTurin
Maintain at present level ; St. Genevieve
cademy
1- Royal Theatre+
Copenhagen14 5apoli Museuiperti
B Performing andvisual arts in Sydney\- Picture library+ NG-History (recordedheritage) Centre+ N
Reduction of congestion j - British Museum
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
29/30
17
-
8/3/2019 Valuing CH
30/30
CONTRIBUTORS:
Wiktor L. Adamowicz, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Canada
Trine Bille, Institute of Local Government Studies (AKF), Copenhagen, Denmark
Peter C. Boxall, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Canada
Marina Bravi, DICAS, Politechnico di Torino, Italy
Lauraine Chestnut, Stratus Consulting, Boulder, Colorado, USARichard T. Carson, Department of Economics, University of California - San Diego, USA
Michael B. Conaway, Institute for Social Science Research, University of Alabama, USA
Alexi Danchev, Department of Economics, University of Portsmouth/International University
Franchise in Bulgaria.
Jeffrey Englin, Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, University of Nevada -
Reno, USA
Guy Garrod, Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal and Management, Department,
of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Andreas Kontoleon, Centre for Cultural Economics and Management, University College
London, UK
David Maddison, Centre for Cultural Economics and Management, University College
London, UK and University of Hamburg, GermanyRobert C. Mitchell, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, USA
Edward R. Morey, Department of Economics, University of Colorado - Boulder, USA
Susana Mourato, Environmental Policy and Management Group, Imperial College
of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK and Centre for Cultural
Economics and Management, London, UK
Stale Navrud, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of
Norway, Norway
David W. Pearce, Centre for Cultural Economics and Management, University College
London, UK
Marilena Pollicino, Centre for Cultural Economics and Management, University College
London, UK
Shannon Ragland, Science Applications International Corporation, Denver, Colorado, USA
Richard C. Ready, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania
State University, USA
Patrizia Riganti, School of Architecture, Queen's University of Belfast, UK.Kathleen Greer Rossmann, Department of Economics, Birmingham-Southern College,
Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Walter Santagata, Department of Economics, University of Turin, Italy
Riccardo Scarpa, Universita della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy and CREAM, University of
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.Giovanni Signorello, Dipartimento di Scienze Economico-agrarie ed Estimative, University of
Catania, Italy
Gemma Sirchia, DICAS, Politechnico di Torino, Italy
Jon Strand, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Norway
Ken Willis, Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal and Management, Department
of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.