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.