This study applies stated-preference methods to estimate the public good values of preservation and restoration of a local historic landmark in a medium-sized US city. The survey device centres on a referendum-style dichotomous-choice question regarding city participation in a restoration partnership. Use of a double-split sample allows analysis of the effect on valuation of both heritage information and willingness-to-pay versus willingness-to-accept constructs, where the latter is approached by the method of paired comparison, allowing a non-substitutability effect to be separated from any endowment effect. Econometric analysis using a standard binary logit model indicates the existence of a strong non-substitutability effect and a significant information effect that further suggests the importance of non-substitutability in valuation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ajzen, I., Brown, T. and Rosenthal, L. (1996) Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation , Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, pp. 43-57.
2.
Arrow, K., Solo, R. Portney ET AL. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, US Department of Commerce, Federal Register, 58(10), pp. 4602-4614.
3.
Beltrán, E. and Rojas, M. (1996) Diversified funding methods in Mexican archeology , Annals of Tourism Research, 23, pp. 463-478.
4.
Bergstrom, J., Stoll, J. and Randal, A. (1990) The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions, American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 72, pp.614-621.
5.
Bille Hansen, T. (1997) The willingness-to-pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a public good, Journal of Cultural Economics , 21, pp. 1-28.
6.
Blomquist, G. and Whitehead, J. (1998) Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation, Resource and Energy Economics , 20, pp. 179-196.
7.
Boyce, R., Brown, T., Mcclelland, G. ET Al. (1992) An experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source of the WTA-WTP disparity, American Economic Review, 82, pp. 1366-1373.
8.
Boyle, K. (1989) Commodity specification and the framing of contingent-valuation questions, Land Economics, 65, pp. 57-63.
9.
Brown, T. and Gregory, R. (1999) Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters, EcologicalEconomics, 28, pp. 323-335.
10.
Chambers, C., Chambers, P. and Whitehead, J. (1998) Contingent valuation of quasi-public goods: validity, reliability, and application of valuing a historic site, Public Finance Review, 26, pp. 137-154.
11.
Cummings, R., Brookshire, D. and Schulze, W. (1986) Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.
12.
Frey, B. (1997) The evaluation of cultural heritage: some critical issues, in: M. Hutter and I. Rizzo (Eds) Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage, pp. 31-;50. New York: St Martins.
13.
Frey, B. and Pommerehne, W. (1987) International trade in art: attitudes and behavior , Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali , 34, pp. 465-486.
14.
Grosclaude, P. and Soguel, N. (1994) Valuing damage to historic buildings using a contingent market: a case study of road traffic externalities, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 37, pp. 279-287.
15.
Hanemann, W.M. (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, pp. 1057-1061.
16.
Hanemann, M. (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ ?, American Economic Review, 81, pp. 635-647.
17.
Hoehn, J. and Randall, A. (1987) A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 14, pp. 226-247.
18.
Hoehn, J. and Randall, A. (2002) The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values, Resource and Energy Economics, 24, pp. 13-31.
19.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, pp. 263-291.
20.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. and Thaler, R. (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase Theorem, Journal of Political Economy, 98, pp. 1325-1348.
21.
Knetsch, J. (1995) Asymmetric valuation of gains and losses and preference order assumptions, Economic Inquiry, 33, pp. 134-141.
22.
Loehman, E. and Hu, V. de (1982) Application of stochastic choice modelling to policy analysis of public goods: a case study of air quality improvements, Review of Economics and Statistics, 64, pp. 474-480.
23.
Loomis, J. and Gonzales-Caban, A. (1994) Estimating the value of reducing fire hazards to old growth forests in the pacific northwest: a contingent valuation approach, International Journal of Wildland Fire,4, pp. 209-216.
24.
Loomis, J., Peterson, G., Champ, P. ET AL. (1998) Paired comparison estimates of willingness to accept versus contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35, pp. 1-15.
25.
Magat, W., Viscusi, K. and Huber, J. (1988) Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 115, pp. 395-411.
26.
Maggi, M. (1994) II valore dei beni culturali: un'applicazione empirica , in: G. Brosio (Ed.) Economia dei beni culturali. Torino: La Rosa .
27.
Mignosa, A. (2000) Attention given to the built heritage: an economic analysis. Paper presented to the Association for Cultural Economics International, Minneapolis, May.
28.
Park, T., Loomis, J.B. and Creel, M. (1991) Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies, Land Economics, 67, pp. 64-73.
29.
Peacock, A. (1998) The economist and heritage policy: a review of the issues, in: A. Peacock (Ed.) Does the Past have a Future? The Political Economy of Heritage, pp. 1-26. London : The Institute for Economic Affairs .
30.
Peterson, G. and Brown, T. (1998) Economic valuation by the method of paired comparison, with emphasis on evaluation of the transitivity axiom, Land Economics, 74, pp. 240-261.
31.
Randall, A. and Stoll, J.R. (1980) Consumer's surplus in commodity space, American Economic Review, 70, pp. 449-455.
32.
Randall, A., Ives, B. and Eastman, C. (1974) Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environment improvement, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 1, pp. 132-149.
33.
Samples, K., Dixon, J. and Gowen, M. (1986) Information disclosure and endangered species valuation , Land Economics, 62, pp. 307-312.
34.
Shogren, J., Shin, S., Hayes, D. and Klieben-Stein, J. (1994) Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept, American Economic Review, 84, pp. 255-270.
35.
Thaler, R. (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, pp. 39-60.
36.
Throsby, D. (1997) Seven questions in the economics of cultural heritage , in: M. Hutter and I. Rizzo (Eds) Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage , pp. 13-30. New York: St Martins :
37.
Tkac, J. (1998) The effects of information on willingness-to-pay values of endangered species, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, pp. 1214-1220.
38.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, pp. 1039-1061.
39.
Viscusi, W., Magat, W. and Huber, J. (1991) Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar tradeoffs for chronic bronchitis, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 21, pp. 32-51.
40.
Willis, K.G. (1994) Paying for heritage: what price for Durham Cathedral? , Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 3, pp. 267-278.
