ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE ■ 93
Th e ability of stated preference methods to identify quasi-market values for
non-market goods has one major down side: the hypothetical character of the
statements made by consumers raises questions about their methodological reliability
in investigating and assessing the willingness to pay of the consumers in
actual cases (Arrow et al. 1993; Hoevenagel 1994; Murphy et al. 2005; Snowball
2008). Several biases in stated preference methods have been identifi ed in the literature
(Kahneman and Knetsch 1992; Snowball 2008). In particular, it has been
observed that the stated willingness to pay oft en diff ers signifi cantly from the
willingness to accept, as paying and receiving are not necessarily symmetric due
to a ceiling caused by income availability (Kahneman et al. 1990, 1991; Morrison
1997a, 1997b).
Over the years, various amendments have been introduced that reduce the risk
of some strategic biases in preference statements. Snowball (2008) also identifi es
various potential problems in the literature with regard to the conjoint analysis
method, as there may be problems related to complexity and choice consistency
as well as to individual valuation and summation. Snowball also mentions in
the context of cultural goods two reasons why a mixed good—with both private
and public goods characteristics—could cause a bias. In the fi rst place, there is
an incentive for users to overstate its non-use value (Th rosby 1984). Secondly,
willingness-to-pay studies may also capture expected economic benefi ts that
do not only refl ect present earnings but also bequest earnings (Seaman 2003).
Nevertheless, it seems plausible that research conducted according to the United
States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recommendations
1 by Arrow et al. (1993) is more valid, more reliable, and reduces the size
of a number of biases (Noonan 2003; Snowball 2008). Benefi ts or value transfers
can be used if estimations in one context can be generalized to indicate values in
other similar contexts. It is thus clear that the validity and reliability of contingent
valuation methods—and stated preference methods in general—are still matters
of debate (Diamond and Hausman 1994), especially in situations in which benefi t
transfers are harder to realize.
Over the years, there have been various applied studies using stated preference
methods for the evaluation of cultural heritage assets. One of the fi rst contingent
valuations of cultural heritage is found in a study to value the Nidaros
Cathedral in Norway (Navrud and Strand 1992). Subsequently, stated preference
techniques for the evaluation of cultural heritage have been applied in numerous
evaluation studies. Noonan (2003) off ers a meta-analysis of this rich literature.
Snowball (2008) provides an update of the contingent valuation literature, in
which the application of conjoint choice experiments in the cultural economics
fi eld is also reviewed. More recent examples include a study by Alberini et al.
(2003) on the value of the cultural and historical dimensions of a square in a city,
done by comparing the actual square with a hypothetical square that is similar