ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE ■ 87
of accurate physical-biological indicators, should be assessed. Biodiversity
changes must be marginal or small for economic valuation to make sense.
Th e economic valuation of biodiversity changes is based on a reductionist
approach to value. Th is means that the total economic value is regarded as
the result of aggregating various use and non-use values, refl ecting a variety
of human motivations, as well as aggregating local values to attain a global
value, in a bottom-up approach (Nunes and Schokkaert 2003).
Moreover, the economic valuation of biodiversity starts from the premise that
social values should be based on individual values, independently of whether the
individuals are knowledgeable about biodiversity-related issues or not. Th is can
be considered consistent with the democratic support of policies.
Biodiversity—like cultural heritage—describes a complex system. Hence, it
is not plausible that an unambiguous value indicator can be derived. Nevertheless,
several partial studies help to reveal aspects of this multidimensional whole
(Nunes and Nijkamp 2011).
Which lessons can we draw from a comparison with the biodiversity valuation?
It is striking that the nature of the underlying issues are largely similar—
such as long-term perspective, economic externalities, and psychological or
spiritual attachment. In economic terms, it comes as no surprise that the array
of evaluation methods used in both domains is quite similar. Th e costs of policy
interventions in these domains are made up by direct capital outlays for
the implementation, necessary wage costs, factor supply costs, overhead costs,
opportunity costs, and social costs. Social costs may either be quantifi able or not,
but refer to all costs incurred that are not refl ected in the usual market mechanism.
In all cases it is desirable to measure costs in terms of current factor input
prices, among others, due to information comparison.
In the case of public projects, market prices for goods and services are usually
not easily available, although for such cases proxy values for costs may be
imagined and used, such as social marginal costs (for instance, a charge to the
user of an output equal to the benefi t received), shadow prices (based on a linear
programming approach), and marginal costs (based on standard economic equilibrium
assumptions). It is plausible to derive some important lessons from biodiversity
economics, but it is also clear that cultural heritage has its own indigenous
features that call for tailor-made valuation methods. Th ese are discussed next.
The Economist’s Toolbox
Th e economic valuation of cultural heritage projects essentially fi nds its roots
in the evaluation of non-priced goods, in particular arising from evaluation of
environmental goods. Th e overarching aim is to attach a price tag to such goods.