ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

Recommendations

Info

102 ■ THE <strong>ECONOMICS</strong> OF <strong>UNIQUENESS</strong> Th is study (Lazrak et al. 2011b) has clearly demonstrated that: (1) dwellings on a heritage list capture a positive premium for their own value, (2) these heritage houses also generate positive premium eff ects for other dwellings in the 50-meter vicinity, and (3) dwellings located in a “historic-cultural ensemble” also capture an additional property value. Conclusion Cultural heritage is a broad concept that may have a multiplicity of meanings and perceptions. Sometimes it is conceived of as a nation’s or city’s collection of historic buildings, monuments, countryside, and landscapes that are—because of their socio-cultural and historical importance—worthy of preservation. Others may be inclined to interpret also a typical local ambience or atmosphere, a recognized cultural environment, or an artistic neighborhood as cultural heritage—all based on the concept of historic endowment that forms the historic environment. Th ese two interpretations come close to the concept of cultural capital, as advocated by Bourdieu (1984). Th e societal role attached to cultural heritage designation is refl ected in the economic surplus value that accrues to urban land rent in a competitive urban economy. In particular, the premium on real estate located in historic-cultural districts or the direct premiums accrued for a house as a result of being listed as heritage off er a promising departure for a solid economic analysis of value capturing in historic sites. From the perspective of a market evaluation of cultural heritage, the hedonic pricing model off ers great potential to assess the additional economic value of real estate in the case of its location being adjacent to cultural assets. Th is approach also off ers many opportunities for value transfer of fi ndings from a given case study to comparable sites or monuments. Needless to say, conducting a thorough economic investigation into the market aspects of cultural heritage—through advanced spatial hedonic price models—will pose a formidable challenge in the years to come. Notes 1. Th e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reviewed the use of contingent valuation and concluded that, if its guidelines and recommendations were followed, “contingent valuation studies can produce estimates reliable enough to be the starting point of a judicial process of damage assessment, including lost passiveuse values” (NOAA, 1993, 24). 2. In this chapter it is presented in a summary form with the main methodology and results.
References ECONOMIC VALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE ■ 103 Alberini, A., and A. Longo. 2006. “Combining the Travel Cost and Contingent Behavior Methods to Value Cultural Heritage Sites: Evidence from Armenia.” Journal of Cultural Economics 30 (30): 287–304. Alberini, A., P. Riganti, and A. Longo. 2003. “Can People Value the Aesthetic and Use Services of Urban Sites? Evidence from a Survey of Belfast Residents.” Journal of Cultural Economics 27: 193–213. Arizpe, L., A. B. Preis, and M. Taurus. 2000. World Culture Report 2000: Cultural Diversity, Confl ict and Pluralism. Paris: UNESCO. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58: 4601–4614. Baaijens, S., and P. Nijkamp. 2000. “Meta-Analytic Methods for Comparative and Exploratory Policy Research: An Application to the Assessment of Regional Tourist Multipliers.” Journal of Policy Modeling 22: 821–858. Bajari, P., and C. L. Benkard. 2005. “Demand Estimation with Heterogeneous Consumers and Unobserved Product Characteristics: A Hedonic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 113: 1239–1276. Bedate, A., L. C. Herrero, and J. Sanz. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Cultural Heritage: Application to Four Case Studies in Spain.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 5: 101–111. Beer, S. 1971. “Questions of Metric.” Operations Research Quarterly 22: 133–144. Boter, J., R. Rouwendal, and M. Wedel. 2005. “Employing Travel Time to Compare the Value of Competing Cultural Organizations.” Journal of Cultural Economics 29: 19–33. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brueckner, J. K., J. F. Th isse, and Y. Zenou. 1999. “Why Is Central Paris Rich and Downtown Detroit Poor?” European Economic Review 43: 91–107. Buchanan, J. M. 1965. “An Economic Th eory of Clubs.” Economica 32: 1–14. Carroll, T. M., T. M. Clauretie, and J. Jensen. 1996. “Living Next to Godliness: Residential Property Values and Churches.” Th e Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 12: 319–330. Carruthers, J., and B. Mundy. 2006. Environmental Valuation: Interregional and Intraregional Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate. Choi, A. S., B. W. Ritchie, F. Papandrea, and J. Bennett. 2010. “Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage Sites: A Choice Modeling Approach.” Tourism Management 31 (2): 213–220. Churchman, C. W. 1972. “On the Facility, Felicity, and Morality of Measuring Social Change.” In Accounting for Social Goals, ed. J. L. Livingstone and S. C. Gunn, 17–22. New York: Harper & Row. Coccossis, H., and P. Nijkamp, eds. 1995. Planning for our Cultural Heritage. Aldershot: Ashgate. Coulson, N. E., and M. L. Lahr. 2005. “Gracing the Land of Elvis and Bells Street: Historic Designation and Property Values in Memphis.” Real Estate Economics 33 (3): 487–507. Deodhar, V. 2004. “Does the Housing Market Value Heritage? Some Empirical Evidence.” In Research Papers from Macquarie University, Macquarie University no. 403. Sydney: Macquarie University.
Page 1:
Public Disclosure Authorized Public
Page 4 and 5:
Th e Urban Development Series discu
Page 6 and 7:
© 2012 International Bank for Reco
Page 8 and 9:
vi ■ CONTENTS Project Appraisal i
Page 10 and 11:
viii ■ CONTENTS Appendix II: Addi
Page 12 and 13:
x ■ CONTENTS 7.4 Tourism Is Coupl
Page 14 and 15:
xii ■ CONTENTS 9.1 How to Organiz
Page 17 and 18:
Exegi monumentum aere perennius reg
Page 19:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ■ xvii Cultural O
Page 22 and 23:
xx ■ OVERVIEW What Are the Object
Page 24 and 25:
xxii ■ OVERVIEW and captures the
Page 26 and 27:
xxiv ■ OVERVIEW periphery, especi
Page 28 and 29:
xxvi ■ OVERVIEW tourism—by impr
Page 30 and 31:
xxviii ■ OVERVIEW 3. Institutiona
Page 33 and 34:
1 Livable Historic City Cores and E
Page 35 and 36:
LIVABLE HISTORIC CITY CORES AND ENA
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
2 Investing in the Sense of Place:
Page 49 and 50:
INVESTING IN THE SENSE OF PLACE ■
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
0 45° INVESTING IN THE SENSE OF PL
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
FIGURE 2.4 continued INVESTING IN T
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
A Dubious Alternative: Property Rec
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75:
Page 78 and 79:
46 ■ THE ECONOMICS OF UNIQUENESS
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85: 52 ■ THE ECONOMICS OF UNIQUENESS
Page 130 and 131: TABLE 4.1 Overview of Hedonic Price
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
FIGURE 6.5 Quito and Oaxaca: Timeli
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
TABLE 6.5 Quito Investments in the
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 215 and 216:
7 UNESCO World Heritage List, Touri
Page 217 and 218:
UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST, TOURISM
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
TABLE 7.1 Regional and Historical D
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
TABLE 7.3 Benchmark Regressions Fir
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
TABLE 7.10 Robustness to Using Diff
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
8 Financial Mechanisms for Historic
Page 247 and 248:
FINANCIAL MECHANISMS FOR HISTORIC C
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
BOX 8.2 FINANCIAL MECHANISMS FOR HI
Page 255 and 256:
BOX 8.3 FINANCIAL MECHANISMS FOR HI
Page 257 and 258:
TABLE 8.1 Local Financial Tools Use
Page 259 and 260:
FIGURE 8.4 Brownfi eld Concession T
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 317 and 318:
Boxes, fi gures, maps, notes, and t
Page 319 and 320:
China. See also specifi c cities ac
Page 321 and 322:
public sector role, 222-26, 223b, 2
Page 323 and 324:
Kraay, A., 198 Kratz, C. G., 96 L l
Page 325 and 326:
Pine Ridge Reservation (U.S.), 238
Page 327 and 328:
Shaoxing, China, local residents re
Page 329 and 330:
urban economics appraisal approach,
Page 332:
ECO-AUDIT Environmental Benefits St
show all

ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?