Heritage Economics

November 13, 2011

Valuing Cultural Heritage in Developing Countries: Comparing and Pooling Contingent Valuation and Choice Modelling Estimates
Tran Huu Tuan and Stale Navrud

This paper talks about the United Nations World Heritage Sites (WHSs), which are found, large numbers, in developing countries; but many of them are in bad state. Therefore he suggests a need to document the social benefits of these global goods in order to justify the costs of restoration and preservation programs (RPPs). Here, justification for cost of restoration and preservation programs has been attempted by two methods, those are: - Cost Valuation Method and Choice Modelling Estimates. My Son at Vietnam, a temple complex of about 70 temples out of which 25 still remains is chosen and evaluated. The whole paper is divided into four parts. First part describes the need to do CV and CM methods for WHSs in developing countries taking case example of My Son. Second part talks about the various processes involved in the methods. Calculations, methodologies etc involved in the process are described. Third part describes the questionnaire design. Herein, different format were designed for CV and CM methods. Under CV method first section describes the general understanding among the international tourists and their attitude towards Vietnam and My Son site. Section II contained the scenario of the site which consisted of a clear description of My Son through text, maps, and photos; that is the good that the respondents are asked to value. The purpose of this text is to provide each respondent with the same set of information about the characteristics and the condition of My Son today. Respondents are provided with background information on My Son which is presented as the status quo, i.e., the current condition in that the deterioration continues due to insufficient resources for preservation. This section also talks about the preservation plan and resultant conservation of the cultural heritage for future generations. Section 3 explains the condition of Willingness To Pay (WTP) even after escalating the entry fee to visit the monument and reminding the visitors the other option to be visited. Section IV included debriefing questions to detect the prevalence of embedding or strategic behaviour when answering the WTP questions. Section V collected socioeconomic data such as sex; age; education; employment status; and income level, which are used in the regression analysis. Section VI contained evaluation questions to be filled in by the interviewer. They were designed to provide us with feedback from all interviewers about the interview situation; how attentive the respondent was during the interview; the difficulties the respondent may have had. Similarly formats were prepared for CM methods and here they were two different formats for locals and international tourists. Section I contained information about general attitudes of the foreign visitors to Vietnam and My Son; Section II contained My Sons scenario; Section III contained CM questions; Section IV included debriefing questions; Section V contained questions on socioeconomic variables; and Section VI
Vaibhav Prakash Conservation Department of Architectural

Heritage Economics

November 13, 2011

contained evaluation questions by the interviewer. Section I, II, V, and VI of the CM are identical to those of the CV. In the CM framework, the study focuses on identifying attributes of preservation for My Son that respondents think are important. More precisely, we try to estimate respondents marginal WTP for different attributes of My Sons preservation. Four attributes are designed: Price (entrance fee is used for foreign visitors, and preservation fee via an increase in tax is used for local residents), proposed preservation plan, infrastructure upgrading, and additional services. To obtain a fair comparison between CM and CV, the Question is posed in the same framework as the CV question. An example of choice set used for interviewing foreign visitors. The aim of the final survey was to interview (in-person) a total numbers of 930 persons; of which 484 for the CV (i.e., 243 for foreign visitors and 241 for local residents) and 446 (i.e., 225 for foreign visitors and 221 for local residents) for the CM surveys. Few of the respondents who were approached for an interview refused to participate. However, for foreign visitors because they are limited in time for answering the interview, there is relatively high rate of interview refusing and incomplete questionnaires (about 20%). As result to above conduct survey, for CV method; international tourists are willing to pay more after experiencing the site and their willingness to conserve the cultural heritage is appreciable. With the local residents, variables of having high income (Tinc); having attended college (Ugo); having visited My Son before (Visit); and considering visiting My Son in the future (Ftrip) have expected signs and significantly increase the probability of paying. CM method shows that:1. Improving the services does not seem to increase the utility of the respondents. 2. Younger respondents are more likely to support the preservation for My Son. 3. Respondents are more likely to support the preservation of My Son if they have more knowledge about it and are satisfied with their visit. The comparison of the two data confirms that instead of having data in two sets of parametric and non parametric, one can successfully merge both studies as they conclude similarly. CV method has two parameters - Price and Preservation whereas CM has 4 parameters Price, Preservation, Infrastructure and Services. This paper concludes that CV and CM methods can be successfully applied to evaluate WHSs in developing country taking in account both international and local tourists. Results obtained from both methods are pool able as well as can be analysed together as they conclude similarly.

Vaibhav Prakash Conservation

Department of Architectural