The valuation of cultural capital: a case study1
Onur Ateş2
Abstract Although cultural capital is a relatively new concept in economics (Throsby 1999, 2001), there
has been a fast growing interest into the topic in recent years (Shockley 2004, Rizzo and Throsby 2006,
Cheng 2006, D‟Auria 2009, Dalziel et al 2009).
By definition, cultural capital is the only form of capital that can give rise to both economic and cultural
value simultaneously; hence its unique nature requires a special treatment. This study aims to throw light
on a possible way of valuing cultural capital not only in economic but also in cultural value.
The Hyde Park Barracks Museum, Sydney is one of the most important secular buildings surviving from
Australia‟s colonial development, and in this study it is used as a case study to investigate opportunities
and challenges in valuation of cultural capital. Cultural value is assessed by the application of a Likerttype assessment involving a series of questions relating to specific elements of cultural value, and
economic value is investigated by the application of contingent valuation methodology.
Key words: cultural capital, economic value, cultural value, valuation
1
Presented at the ACEI 2014: the 18th International Conference on Cultural Economics, Montreal,
Canada.
2
O. Ateş
Department of Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney
NSW 2109, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
1
1 Introduction
Cultural capital is the most recent form of capital in the literature of economics, a
concept that has been put forward just over a decade ago (Throsby 1999). The concept
of cultural capital is defined formally as “an asset that embodies a store of cultural
value, separable from whatever economic value it might possess; in combination with
other inputs the asset gives rise to a flow of goods and services over time which may
also have cultural value (i.e. which are themselves cultural goods and services)” (Rizzo
and Throsby 2006: 987). As this definition suggests, the fundamental difference
between cultural capital and any other form of economic capital is that the former can
give rise to both economic and cultural value at the same time, whereas the latter can
give rise only to economic value. The concept of economic value is, of course, wellestablished in orthodox neoclassical economics, but the concept of cultural value is
relatively new in economics and it needs to be elaborated both in theoretical and
empirical terms. Throsby set out to define cultural value more formally in Economics
and Culture (2001), but there is still a considerable way to go to define the concept in
concrete terms from an economic perspective and to reach a consensus on how to
measure it.
It is important to note in the beginning that the term “cultural capital” has been in
use for some time in sociology and cultural studies following Pierre Bourdieu (19302002). The economic concept of cultural capital which is the subject of this study
differs from that defined in sociology by Bourdieu in three respects. First, sociological
cultural capital stands at the crossroads of sociology and economics whereas cultural
capital in economics is a certain type of economic capital in the neoclassical sense, i.e.,
as a factor of production (Shockley 2005: 2). Second, Throsby (2001: 49) argues that
2
the concept of cultural capital defined by Bourdieu is, “in its individualistic form, very
close to, if not identical with, that of human capital in economics”. Bourdieu, however,
opposes the analogy between his cultural capital concept and human capital defined by
Gary Becker (1964) and writes that human capital is “a notion heavily laden with
sociologically unacceptable assumptions” (2005: 2). Third, sociological cultural capital
depends on class analysis and:
A characteristic feature of Bourdieu‟s sociology is the attempt to
transcend the opposition between objectivist and subjectivist modes of
analysis. The rationale for seeking to do so lies, according to Bourdieu, in
the fact that society is two-dimensional–a „system of relations of power
and relations of meaning between groups and classes‟. How this
transcendence is achieved will become clear when we discuss the links of
his theory of the symbolic with the method of relational structuralism
(conventionally part of objectivist analyses), and with phenomenology (a
typically subjectivist approach) (Jain 2006: 104).
In economic analysis of cultural capital, however, there is no reference to class
structure. From now on in this study the term “cultural capital” will be used to refer
exclusively to the economic concept unless otherwise stated.
In economics, traditionally three different types of capital are distinguished:
physical capital, human capital and natural capital. The concept of physical capital,
meaning the stock of real goods such as machines and buildings, which contribute to
the production of other goods and services, is the oldest form of capital and has been
known and discussed in economics since the very early days of the field. The second
and more recent form of capital is human capital which is the stock of knowledge and
skills embodied in the ability to perform labour in order to produce output in the
3
economy (Becker 1964). The third form of capital in economics is natural capital
which extends the concept of capital to include renewable and non-renewable resources
provided by nature. In addition to these three, social capital which refers to the
„features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate
coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit‟ has been formulated (Putnam 1995:
67). However, it is important to highlight that there is no general agreement that social
capital is a form of economic capital (Arrow 2000). More recently cultural capital has
been formulated as the fourth type of economic capital, in this case to link the cultural
world and the economic realm.
There are two main forms of cultural capital. The first one is tangible cultural
capital, such as “buildings, locations, sites, precincts, artworks such as paintings and
sculptures, artefacts and so on” (Throsby 2001: 46, 2003). Even though this definition
of tangible cultural capital is very similar to UNESCO‟s tangible cultural heritage
definition (1972), which is elaborated in the Burra Charter (1999), Throsby underlines
that his tangible cultural capital definition “includes, but is not limited to, tangible
cultural heritage”. The second form is intangible cultural capital which consists of
“ideas, practices, beliefs and values which are shared by a group”; one can easily
observe that Throsby‟s definition of intangible cultural capital is not significantly
different from UNESCO‟s intangible cultural heritage definition (2003). Tangible
cultural capital differs from intangible cultural capital in that the former often has both
economic and cultural value whereas the latter has “immense cultural value, but no
economic value since they cannot be traded as assets” (Throsby 1999: 8).
Cultural capital stock gives rise to a flow of capital services which may enter final
consumption directly, or which may be combined with other factors of production to
produce further goods and services having both economic and cultural value. These
4
further goods and services may either enter final consumption or may be used with
other inputs, and so on. At any point in this production sequence the cultural goods and
services produced may themselves add to and increase the cultural capital stock. Like
any form of economic capital, cultural capital is subject to depreciation. The net effect
of these additions and subtractions from the cultural capital stock within a given period
of time indicates the net investment in cultural capital, which is measurable both in
terms of economic value and cultural value. In short, it is important to keep in mind that
the definition of cultural capital depends on the definition of cultural value that is
discussed further below.
Several studies investigating different aspects of cultural capital have appeared in
the literature. An early study referring to cultural capital is that of Ulibarri (2000), who
developed a theory of rational philanthropy in forming cultural capital and aesthetic
preferences. He used a neoclassical investment theory to model rational philanthropy
and the formation of cultural capital that is defined in the model as “a mixed set of
aesthetic assets whose value is not necessarily reimbursed in the market” (p. 135). The
study concludes that changes in capital market opportunities provide investment
motives for private and public giving. The results of the study suggest that private
philanthropy increases in response to both lower real returns on capital market assets
and cuts in public funding.
Shockley (2004) focused on the theoretical shortcomings of the cultural capital
concept, arguing that it needed to be elaborated upon further for three reasons. First,
there are inherent problems with measurement. Second, Shockley argued that cultural
capital lacks a time dimension, which causes discounting problems. Third, Shockley
pointed to the difference between substitutability and complementarity of cultural
capital.
5
Since cultural capital is the only type of capital that can give rise to both
economic and cultural value at the same time, it cannot be substituted for any other type
of capital, that is, in the production of cultural value, there is zero substitution between
cultural capital and other forms of capital. The complementarity question, however, is a
very interesting one and has not been fully explored yet. The first attempt to analyse the
degree of complementarity between cultural capital and other types of capital examines
the mechanics of endogenous growth that can be generated by a culture-led local
development model, in which cultural capital can enrich economic growth via human
capital accumulation (Sacco and Segre 2009). This study indicates that there is
complementarity between cultural and human capital and examines how this
complementarity leads to higher economic growth. But the model does not say anything
about either the role of cultural value or how it accumulates. A further elaborated
discussion of the complementarity between cultural capital and human capital by Bucci
and Segre (2011) has drawn similar conclusions.
Rizzo and Throsby (2006) have taken into account that cultural capital is a stock
of both economic and cultural value and identified some sustainability conditions in a
theoretical model. Cheng (2006) also used a cultural capital model to prove that “the
continuous consumption of cultural services over time leads to an accumulation of
cultural atmosphere, which is an intangible and depreciable asset; and the continuous
creation of the cultural goods leads to an increase in the stock of cultural capital” (p.
265; emphasis in original). Cheng (2006) takes the “cultural appreciation parameter”
defined by Rizzo and Throsby (2006) one step further and tries to establish a
benchmark economy, in which an optimal intertemporal allocation is characterized by
introducing Lindahl prices to eliminate market failure. Wang (2007) also used a growth
model to determine optimal allocation and accumulation of cultural capital.
6
D‟Auria (2009) analysed the nexus between cultural tourism and urban
economies and investigated ways to foster heritage-based sustainable development. He
argued that “cultural capital, and therefore, the tangible and intangible cultural
resources shaped in a city, is a key-concept to understand a territory in a globalising
economy and it is evident how local (cultural) dimension is strongly influenced by
global dynamics, and how this relation is more and more new and reciprocal” (D‟Auria
2009: 281).
Dalziel et al (2009) analysed the role of cultural capital in sustainable
development. Although they cited works by Throsby, their idea of cultural capital is
essentially a combination of the cultural capital concepts defined by Throsby and
Bourdieu. They also put forward their own definition of the concept:
Cultural capital is a community‟s embodied cultural skills and values, in
all their community-defined forms, inherited from the community‟s
previous generation, undergoing adaptation and extension by current
members of the community, and desired by the community to be passed
on to its next generation (Dalziel et al 2009: 35).
As the quotation suggests, Dalziel et al (2009) defined a cultural capital concept which
is very similar to the one defined by Bourdieu.
Even though there is not a large body of literature on cultural capital interest in
the concept has increased, especially in the last five years.
Now we turn to examine what we mean by economic and cultural value and
discusses issues relating to measurement. All schools of economic thought have
attempted to explain the workings of the price mechanism in markets and the reasoning
behind the value of goods and services produced and consumed in a society. Whenever
7
revolutions have occurred in economic theory, theory relating to value has always been
the first and most important aspect to be questioned and subsequently to be replaced
(Dolfsma 1997: 400).
The value concept and market price converged over time in neoclassical
economic theory and it is proposed that the value converges with the market price.
Today in neoclassical economics value and price are used interchangeably. If there is no
real market for the good or service in question, then it is suggested that non-market
valuation methods could be used to determine the value of the good or service. Hence
orthodox neoclassical economics fails to recognise or deliberately ignores any type of
value beyond economic or financial value. However, it can be argued that there are
other forms of value besides economic value and valuation methods which ignore those
kinds of value underestimate the true worth of a good or service. As such, introducing a
new form of economic capital, i.e., cultural capital, which has a value component
different from economic value, is a direct challenge to orthodox neoclassical
economics.
Like many aspects of modern economics, economic valuation studies can be
dated back to Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith was, indeed, the
first person to distinguish between economic use-value and exchange-value. He made
an important distinction between natural value and market price. Smith theorised that
market prices would tend to approach natural prices. In his analysis, prices were
determined by production and cost conditions which reflected a centre of gravity
towards which actual prices would move, and prices in the long-run were free of shortterm distortions. The concept of natural value in Smith‟s analysis gave rise to the
intrinsic theory of value. According to this theory, the price of goods and services is not
a function of subjective judgements; rather, the value of an object is attached to a unit
8
of a commodity independent of any exchange through buying or selling and would be
invariant over time and space.
During the nineteenth century political economists such as David Ricardo and
Karl Marx elaborated upon Smith‟s theory of value and came up with a theory of costof-production. They asserted that the price of an object is determined by the sum of all
the inputs used in making it. The total cost is the aggregate of the costs of factors of
production and taxation. Ricardo also explained his theory of value in terms of labour.
He combined the cost-of-production theory of prices with the labour theory of value. In
his later writings he tried to explain why market prices were different from natural
values.
At the end of nineteenth century, the marginalist revolution occurred in
economics. It replaced cost-of-production theories of value, and the era of subjective
theory of value began. The early marginalists explained exchange value in terms of the
preference patterns of consumers towards commodities that were capable of satisfying
individual wants. The marginalists assumed that from the consumption of goods and
services individuals derive utility, which is the primary aspect of the commodity. After
establishing the concept of marginal utility they argued that economic value is most
often expressed in terms of price. Ultimately Gérard Debreu (1959) encapsulated the
concept of economic value in the marginalist school by using “value” synonymously
with market price times commodity volume. Relating marginal utility directly to price
is, however, problematic since all economic values are not measured in terms of market
price; therefore, at best prices are an indicator of value but not necessarily a direct
measure of it. Thus the price theory elaborates on but is not a replacement for a theory
of value in economics.
9
Currently in economics it is claimed that if a good or service makes a positive
contribution to human well-being, it has economic value (Bateman et al 2002: 15). It is
now generally agreed that for items such as environmental and cultural goods and
services the concept of economic value consists of the sum of use and non-use values.
Use values may be direct, such as visiting an art gallery or indirect, such as the
contribution of the art gallery to the neighbourhood through improved amenity or
aesthetics. In contrast, non-use values, also known as passive use values, arise in
contexts where an individual is willing to pay for a good or services even though he or
she does not derive utility from the consumption of a good or service directly or
indirectly. Non-use values are often classified further as:

Existence values which arise purely because of the existence of the good.

Altruistic values which arise when people value a good or service because
they wish it to be available for others in the current generation.

Bequest values arise when people value a good or service because they wish
it to be available to future generations.

Option values arise when people value a good or service because they may
wish it to be available for themselves in the future.
Even though there is a consensus on the importance of existence and option
values especially in cultural heritage preservation, some economists are sceptical about
the role of bequest value. For example, Brooks (2004) argues that we cannot reject the
hypothesis that people do not consider future generations in their current support for the
arts. Even though Brooks (2004) may be correct in assuming that some–but not
necessarily all, art patrons do not take into account bequest value when they make
decisions about their current support for the arts or their current art consumption, there
is significant survey evidence indicating that at least some people do have concern for
10
future generations which is often a motivation of philanthropy in cultural sector (Katz
2006). Moreover, even those who do not consider future generations in their support for
the arts may still take bequest value into account for existing cultural heritage items.
For instance, an art patron may buy a contemporary painting in order to maximize her
utility but she may agree also that we should safeguard Goya‟s Black Paintings for the
sake of future generations. In short, determining the value of cultural heritage is not
easy nor is it a straightforward process. Still, one can argue that non-use values attached
to cultural heritage can be classified under economic value because people may be
willing to allocate resources to protect, to renovate and to safeguard cultural heritage
items.
Defining different types of values related to a good or service in question helps us
to understand the relative roles of value components and to decide on a suitable
valuation technique. Economic valuation in this context means assigning monetary
values to non-marketed goods and services (because the money values have a particular
and precise meaning). Non-marketed goods and services refer to those which are not
directly traded in the market; non-market valuation techniques can be used to estimate
non-use values for goods including environmental and cultural goods and services. The
absence of markets is solved by the use of either stated preference or revealed
preference techniques. Mourato and Mazzanti (2002:54) summarize the methods that
can be used to value cultural goods:
11
Table 1:
Revealed and Stated Preferences
Revealed Preferences
Stated Preferences
Hedonic price method
Contingent valuation method
Travel cost method
Choice modelling
Maintenance cost method
Revealed preferences method examines surrogate markets in order to analyse
consumers‟ preferences for non-market goods and investigates their willingness to pay
for them. There are three popular revealed preference techniques: the hedonic price
method, the travel cost method, and the maintenance cost method. However the
revealed preferences methods have limited usefulness in the assessment of the nonmarket values of cultural goods and services for two main reasons: first, they measure
use values rather than non-use values; second, in many cases there is no surrogate
market for a cultural good or service.
For valuation of the non-market values attached to cultural goods and services,
the more plausible approach is the use of stated preference methods. Instead of
assuming the existence of surrogate markets, hypothetical markets are used, described
by means of a survey in order to elicit the values that people attach to the good or
service under study. The most popular stated preference method is contingent valuation
(CV), which has been used widely to assess the economic feasibility of public policies.
In order to overcome both the theoretical and empirical deficiencies of the CV method,
the choice modelling (CM) method has been introduced to the valuation of cultural
goods and services.
In contingent valuation method, a hypothetical market is described in which the
good or services in question can be traded (Bateman et al 2002). After providing
12
relevant information, a random sample of people is directly asked to express their
willingness to pay (WTP) towards a tax or levy to pay for an improvement, or their
willingness to accept (WTA) compensation to endure a decline in the level of provision
of the good. Willingness-to-pay studies have been used in the valuation of a wide
variety of cultural goods and services. One of the first WTP studies was conducted by
Thompson, Throsby and Withers (1983) in Australia to investigate the WTP of
Sydneysiders for public support for the arts. After this pioneering study, in almost three
decades WTP studies have been used to value items such as theatres (Bille Hansen
1997, Roche Rivera 1998), museums (Martin 1994, Santagata and Signorello 2000,
Maddison and Foster 2002), historical sites and heritage buildings (Willis 1994, Carson
et al 1997, Tuan and Navrud 2008), archaeological sites (Beltran and Rojas 1996),
public broadcasting (Papandrea 1999), libraries (Harless and Allen 1999, Aabo 2005)
and art festivals (Snowball and Antrobus 2003). CVM can also be used to evaluate
cultural policy instruments because it makes it possible to assess to what degree social
welfare is improved by the regulation but it has attracted little interest from cultural
policy analysts (Papandrea 1999: 149).
Although this method has been used widely in environmental and cultural
economics for the valuation of non-market goods and services, it is still not perfect or
immune to criticism. The main criticisms of CV are, briefly:
(i) Hypothetical markets and free rider problem: hypothetical markets tend to
overestimate WTP (Snowball 2008: 87).
(ii) The embedding effect: this effect suggests that CVM is not an unbiased
approach for assessing government policies because very few government
policies are independent of any other governmental policy.
13
(iii) Disparities between WTP and WTA: There is likely to be a large difference in
the outcome of a survey depending on whether respondents are asked their
WTP to avoid a decline in some good or service or if they are asked their
WTA compensation for the same proposed decline (Snowball 2008: 107).
(iv) The mixed good bias: Most cultural goods and services have private and
public good characteristics; therefore, separating the non-market externalities
from the financial benefits of a mixed good in a WTP study is not always an
easy task.
Because of the deficiencies of the CV method, more recently a new valuation method,
namely choice modelling, has been introduced to the literature.
Choice modelling (CM) is based around the idea that any good can be described
in terms of its attributes or characteristics. For example, an art gallery can be described
in terms of its collections, its location, its entrance fee and its reputation. The idea that
utility is derived from characteristics which goods possess rather than the goods per se
was first formulated in the now classical work of Lancaster (1966). Changing attribute
levels will essentially result in a different good being produced, and it is on the value of
such changes in attributes that CM focuses.
Even though Choice Experiments (CE)–a certain type of CM, has certain
advantages over the CV method, its application to the valuation of cultural goods and
services has so far been limited. Mazzanti (2003), Maddison and Foster (2003),
Alberini et al. (2003), Boxall et al. (2003), Morey and Rossmann (2003), Tuan and
Navrud (2007) and Choi et al. (2010) are some examples of cultural heritage valuation
studies in which CM was applied. Choice experiments have also been used to evaluate
archaeological sites (Apostolakis and Jaffry 2005), museums and monuments (Morey et
14
al. 2002, Mazzanti 2003), broadcast and broadband services (Finn et al. 2003) and art
festivals (Snowball and Willis 2006a, 2006b).
There are four main advantages of CE in relation to other stated preference
techniques. First, a binary choice CV study (change or no change) cannot value the
attributes of the change (or the attributes of the policy or project leading to the change).
The only way that a CV study can estimate these attributes is to design different
valuation scenarios for each level of attributes, which is of course very costly. Choice
experiments, because they involve more than two alternatives, provide a natural way to
do this. Second, in the environmental economics literature it is clearly stated that CE
does a better job than CV in measuring the marginal value of changes in the
characteristics of environmental goods (Bateman et al, 2002: 273). The same logic can
be applied to the valuation of cultural goods and services. Third, CE designs can reduce
the extreme multicollinearity problems based on variations in actual attribute values
across sites which troubles revealed preferences analysts. In CE designs attribute levels
are usually designed as orthogonal, i.e., independent. Finally, CE may avoid some of
the response difficulties in CV, e.g. yea-saying. Open-ended CV designs avoid the yeasaying problem but are viewed as presenting respondents with a mental task which may
be very difficult; therefore, respondents may prefer not to give an answer or their
answers could be random. In contrast, CE respondents face with a relatively easier
problem: do I prefer A, B or neither?
Choice experiments have improved the theoretical and empirical quality of
Willingness-to-pay studies in the ways mentioned above, yet, like any other valuation
method such as CV, choice experiments are not immune to forms of bias. Three forms
of bias may affect a choice experiment:
15
(i) The status quo and endowment effect: If it is found that “the utility associated
with moving away from the current situation [the good as it exists at present] is
negative and significant” this shows either a status quo or endowment effect
bias (Adamowicz et al. 1998: 73).
(ii) Complexity and choice consistency: If respondents are given too many choices
or too many attributes are surveyed, they will get tired of answering the tradeoff questions and then choice consistency will be lost (Snowball 2008: 197).
(iii) Individual valuation and summation issues: If there is significant
substitutability between attributes, it is not valid to assume that the total value
of a good is equal to the sum of its parts in calculating overall WTP (Snowball
2008: 199).
However, a carefully designed survey tool helps reduce these problems.
Stated preferences methods have been successful in capturing both the use and
non-use values of non-market goods in general and cultural goods in particular. Yet,
cultural goods have also other values.
Since both “value” and “culture” have a variety of meanings, “cultural value” has
various interpretations (Mason 2002: 8, Klamer 2002: 465), and one can argue that the
origins of theories of value in the humanities and cultural disciplines in academia are
quite different from those in economics. For example, Steven Connor is one of the first
scholars to investigate the theory of cultural value. Connor argues that:
Value is inescapable. This is not be taken as a claim for the objective
existence or categorical force of any values or imperatives in particular;
but rather as a claim that the process of estimating, ascribing, modifying,
16
affirming and even denying value, in short, the process of evaluation, can
never be avoided (1992: 8; emphasis in the original).
Connor underlines the subjective nature of the evaluation of culture and he uses the
terms “cultural value” and “value of culture” interchangeably. In short, Connor focuses
on the value of culture in general and discusses the value of literature from a cultural
studies perspective. He does not make a distinction between economic and cultural
value.
Similarly Holden (2004, 2009) uses both “cultural value” and “value of culture”
to indicate the sum of the financial and non-financial values of culture. By including all
the norms of value generated into the one concept, Holden does not ultimately
demarcate a clear distinction between economic and cultural value.
Unlike Connor and Holden, Arjo Klamer recognises that “the values of cultural
goods are more than economics can account for” and he goes on to distinguish between
economic and cultural values (Klamer 2002: 455). He also defines a certain form of
cultural capital:
Cultural capital is, in short, the capacity to inspire and be inspired. This,
too, can be in the possession of organizations, cities, and nations as well.
We may recognize cultural capital in the capacity to find meaning in a
walk through the woods, a visit to a museum, or during a church service.
Cultural capital enables us to award meanings to so-called symbolic
goods, and to lift us up from the drudgery of daily life. It enables
intellectuals to have those energizing sparks of insight and, if I
understand the theologians well, enables us to generate the most
important values of all, the values that can give meaning to our life
(Klamer 2002:467).
17
This definition of cultural capital is very similar, if not identical, to the concept
proposed by Bourdieu. Nevertheless Klamer is one of the few researchers who clearly
indicate that cultural goods are repositories of social and cultural values in addition to
economic value:
When the market for a particular good, like a museum, does not work
properly, economists can be called in to determine what the market price
would have been. By focusing on price and pricing, however,
economists, overlook the valuations that occur outside the sphere of
exchange. Nobody will determine the value of friendship by trying to
establish a monetary equivalent. You rather weigh in values like warmth,
openness, honesty, joyfulness, sincerity, and trustworthiness. Likewise,
in the case of the art museum, cultural and social values make an impact
even if they do not allow a comparison in terms of monetary equivalent.
Much deliberation takes place outside the sphere of exchange (Klamer
2003: 18).
Klamer argues that understanding the role of social and cultural values directs us to
follow a cultural-economic perspective, with an emphasis on the various values
generated by cultural goods and services. He also claims that “the strictly economic
perspective can be a helpful framework, but it is a limiting one”; therefore, instead of
using existing valuation methods after some modifications and elaborations in order to
measure social and cultural values, new measurement methods must be introduced
(Klamer 2003: 19).
Assessment of a type of value that can be taken as an equivalent to cultural value
has been occurring for some time in the heritage sector. The principal approach has
been put forward in the Charter for Places of Cultural Significance known as the Burra
18
Charter. In this document the importance of the concept of significance for heritage
items is highlighted. Cultural significance is defined as “aesthetic, historic, scientific,
social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations” (Australia ICOMOS
1999: 2). The numbers of cultural significance categories are increased in CemeteriesGuidelines for Their Care and Conservation, with the additions of archaeological and
architectural significance criteria (Heritage Council of NSW and Department of
Planning 1992). Today, according to the Burra Charter, the key categories of cultural
significance are (Marquis-Kyle and Walker 2004):
(a) Archaeological value: Certain heritage places such as the Stonehenge or the
Ephesus have significant archaeological importance. Some people may feel
that these places are important since they are bridges between the past and
today.
(b) Architectural value: Buildings such as the Sydney Opera House or the Eiffel
Tower are recognised easily because of their unique architectural style. People
may attach value to this distinctive architectural structure and history.
(c) Aesthetic value: This value is a composition of beauty, harmony, form and/or
other aesthetic features of heritage goods and services.
(d) Historical value: People may accord a high value to a cultural heritage item
since they may think that this cultural heritage good or service is the symbol of
a historically important event in their history. For instance, Delacroix‟s famous
painting Liberty Leading the People is identified with the French Revolution.
(e) Social value: Since human beings are social creatures, we have connections
with others and we are curious to explore the bridge between our identity and
history of the landscape. For example, despite the fact that Alhambra is the
19
best example of cultural heritage left behind by the Arabs in Spain, today it is a
part of Spanish heritage.
(f) Spiritual value: Several cultural heritage goods and services have particular
significance to members of a religious faith, sect or group. For example, every
year millions of Muslims make a pilgrimage to Mecca and they visit the
Kaaba. For them, the Kaaba is far more than an ordinary building; it is the
most sacred site in Islam.
Depending on the features of a specific cultural heritage item, the number of cultural
significance categories can be increased or decreased.
According to the Burra Charter the assessment of a cultural heritage item involves
the collection of relevant data and information to check which cultural significance
criteria mentioned above exist and to what extent these criteria can be applied. Yet,
even though the Burra Charter is an important attempt to value cultural heritage, its
usefulness is limited because it does not make clear how much or to what degree it is
significant; therefore, it is impossible to compare two heritage items in terms of
significance.
As noted above, cultural capital theory proposes that the value of a heritage item
cannot be explained fully in financial terms (economic value) and for a full assessment
of the heritage item non-financial (cultural) value must be taken into account. It is
argued that cultural value has multiple faces and will evolve over time; therefore, it
cannot be understood in a single domain (Mazzanti 2002). Hence the only reasonable
way to evaluate it will be trying to disaggregate the concept of cultural value into at
least some of its more important constituent elements (Throsby 2001: 28-29, Rizzo and
Throsby 2006: 998). Throsby (2001) suggests that those elements might include:
20

aesthetic value: beauty, harmony;

spiritual value: understanding, enlightenment, insight;

social value: connection with others, a sense of identity;

historical value: connection with the past;

symbolic value: objects or sites as repositories or conveyors of
meaning; and

authenticity value: integrity, uniqueness.
As with cultural heritage items specifically, depending on the nature of a cultural good
or service more broadly, the number of cultural value categories can be increased. For
example, some cultural goods may play an important role in educating children
(educational value) or represent a distinctive architectural style (architectural value). In
any cultural valuation study carefully determining all the relevant components of
cultural value is vital.
In deciding on the components of cultural value, Shusterman (2008: 42) pays
particular attention to aesthetic value, emphasising the experimental quality of aesthetic
value and arguing that such value cannot be measured by quantitative calculation
methods; therefore, this value is often described as being subjective:
One prominent aspect of aesthetic value is its experiential quality. Such
value does not lend itself to quantitative calculation or discursive proof
but is realized or made evident in direct experience. It is in the
experience of an appreciating subject that this value comes to life and is
demonstrated; that is why aesthetic value is often described as being
subjective in some sense, even when it is argued that such judgements
also exhibit some objectivity of consensus and criteria of evaluation. In
this experiential value, it does not really make sense to speak of
21
appreciating the aesthetic value of an artwork merely having read or
heard about it but without ever having experienced it, either in its original
form or in an adequate reproduction.
The measurement of cultural value remains an unresolved challenge, since
cultural value is “multidimensional, unstable, contested, lacks a common unit of
account, and may contain elements that cannot be easily expressed according to any
quantitative or qualitative scale” (Throsby 2003: 279-280). In the context of heritage
studies, Mason (2002) argues that the assessment of cultural heritage items can be
broken down into three processes: identification; elicitation and elaboration (including
exploring connections and overlaps); and ranking and prioritization. He also highlights
that because of the evolutionary nature of cultural value, a full assessment will require a
diverse suite of methods and a flexible approach. Mason (2002: 16) proposes that a
toolbox approach can be suitable, in which the aim is to get all relevant cultural value
on the table, building the fullest practicable account to inform policy and decision
making.
Assessment of cultural value is not an easy task because of the reasons mentioned
above. Throsby (2001: 29-30) suggests a range of assessment methods including:

Mapping: Physical, geographical, social, anthropological, and any other
types of mapping can supply extra information about each element of
cultural value.

Thick Description: Interpretive description of a cultural object,
environment or process can deepen the understanding of the context
and meaning of observed behaviour.
22

Attitudinal Analysis: Using different survey methods and psychometric
measurement techniques can help in identifying social and spiritual
values associated with heritage items.

Content Analysis: This group of techniques is used in identifying and
codifying meaning in order to measure symbolic value.

Expert Appraisal: Cultural value is assessed by professionals such as
art historians, anthropologists, and architects especially in order to
determine aesthetic, historical and authenticity value.
If cultural goods and services are a repository of both economic and cultural
value, it is worthwhile to explore the relationship between these two forms of value. As
mentioned earlier, methods for the economic valuation of the non-market values
attaching to cultural goods and services have been elaborated over time, applied to
different areas in the cultural sector and can give us a better understanding about the
value of an item or service, but they still use monetary valuation methods. As such, they
do not explicitly say anything about the dimensions of cultural value. In these valuation
studies, it is assumed that if the heritage item is culturally important or significant,
people are willing to pay higher amounts of money. However, the relationship between
economic and cultural value is not straightforward. For example, recently the director of
the UK‟s National Gallery, Nicholas Penny, announced the gallery‟s first exhibition of
40 fakes, copies and imitations in its permanent collection. Those 40 art-fake works
have by definition no authenticity value; therefore, they have relatively low cultural
value. Yet, in June 2010, they were staged in an exhibition called Close Examination:
Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries. Thus it is reasonable to question that if a valuation
study had been conducted to determine the value of this exhibition, what it would
measure.
23
Although cultural value cannot be expressed in monetary terms, it does not mean
that the implicit cultural value assigned to a cultural good in an economic study is zero.
The relationship between economic and cultural value is not clear-cut. In some cases
cultural value can lead to a higher economic value. For example, one can observe that
in the market for paintings, if the consumers can understand and appreciate aesthetic
qualities, i.e., cultural value of the paintings – they may pay a higher price for the one
which has relatively more cultural value. On the other hand, some goods and services
which are culturally valuable have no or very little economic value. Thompson (1979)
focuses on this dynamic nature of heritage and defines Rubbish Theory: anything that is
economically very valuable but culturally rubbish may turn into something
economically rubbish but culturally valuable over time. The best example is the
windmills in the Netherlands. In the beginning, they had a huge economic value and no
or very little cultural value, but in time they turned into cultural icons of the country
with cultural value but relatively less economic value.
If we cannot measure cultural value in monetary terms, what can be done? Two
options can be suggested: either we need to bring new measurement methods from
other research areas such as psychology or anthropology, or we can modify and
elaborate existing economic valuation methods to capture both economic and cultural
value. If we choose the first option – bringing measurement methods from psychology
or anthropology – without any doubt we can learn a lot from other social sciences since
there are several studies on the measurement of cultural values such as Knight and
Sayegh (2009) and Steel et al (2010). We can modify and elaborate these methods to
measure cultural value in economics.
Alternatively instead of bringing new methods across from the social sciences, it
can be argued that there is no need because economic valuation methods may be
24
adaptable to assess elements of cultural value as well as measuring WTP. For example,
a modified version of CE might be used to capture cultural value. For instance, let us
say there is a renovation project of a historical building and there are two possible
approaches to how the renovation project will be carried out. One approach takes into
account the cultural significance of the building and tries to preserve everything as it is.
The other approach is more commercial and wants to equip the building with modern
facilities, and therefore proposes significant changes in the structure of the building.
Respondents are given different choice sets and are asked to indicate their preferences.
They may choose the first approach, or the second approach, or something in between,
or they may prefer no renovation project (the status quo option).
Nevertheless, using CE in cultural valuation is very difficult even if it is possible
for two reasons. First, only a limited number of attributes can be used in an evaluation
study and if the number is increased, the duration of the study gets longer and
respondents may start to make choices randomly (complexity and choice consistency
bias); therefore, if the heritage item in question has several cultural value
characteristics, not all of them can be measured by using CE. Second, it is very difficult
to indicate changes in the characteristics of cultural value. For instance, let us say we
are trying to capture the aesthetic value of a heritage building. We need to show a
change in the quality or quantity of the aesthetic value. It is possible to use photographs,
maps, videos and other similar visual tools to provide reasonably precise information of
the proposed change in the valuation question along the precise statements about what
is being valued. Yet giving a typical statement used in CE studies such as “Option A
makes the building more beautiful than Option B” would not make sense to respondents
because basically beauty or aesthetic qualities are judged subjectively and it would not
be clear to respondents how much Option A is more beautiful than Option B.
25
Alternatively a modified version of a CV survey can overcome these problems.
But first, in order to capture cultural value in a CV study, all the components of cultural
value valid for the item in question must be determined. Literature reviews and expert
opinions can help to identify the characteristics of cultural value of an item. Then in the
CV survey respondents can be given certain statements about the characteristics of the
cultural value of the item and asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree on a
Likert-type (strength of agreement) scale. For example, the respondents may be given a
statement such as “This building has a distinctive architectural style” in order to capture
architectural value or “This building is an important building in educating children” in
order to capture educational value, and they can choose an answer among strongly
agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree and strongly disagree.
These norms of cultural valuation are not expressed in financial terms; rather,
they capture social values that people attach to heritage item in question and they may
be one way to assess cultural value. An example of this kind of CVM is used to
evaluate the Hyde Park Barracks Museum in Sydney.
2. An Economic and Cultural Valuation of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum
Building
It has been emphasised already that cultural capital is unique in the sense that only it
can give rise to economic and cultural value at the same time while any other form of
capital can give rise to only economic value. It has been also noted that economic value,
whether arising in real or contingent markets, is measurable in financial terms, but
cultural value is multidimensional and lacking in an agreed unit of account. In addition
26
to all the measurement problems inherent in capital theory in economics, this duality of
value makes an assessment of the value of cultural capital stock even more difficult.
Any effort to evaluate the stock value of a given item of cultural capital in economic or
cultural value terms faces a range of challenges. One possibility that is followed with all
types of capital is to evaluate the flow of capital services rather than the value of the
capital stock. This approach is likely to be operationally feasible to assess the economic
and cultural value flows generated by an item of cultural capital, applying the
measurement methods discussed earlier.
Accordingly this study aims to investigate the problems and possibilities for
assessment of the economic and cultural value of the flow of services provided by a
particular item of cultural capital, a historic building in Sydney which is used as a
museum. This research investigates in particular whether the visitors recognise the
components of cultural value. Are these values quantifiable and measurable? Is there a
link between economic and cultural valuation by the visitors?
The Hyde Park Barracks Museum
The Hyde Park Barracks, built in 1817-1819, is one of the most important secular
buildings surviving from early European settlement in New South Wales and
Australia‟s colonial development in Sydney. As the first convict barracks in the colony,
it exhibits vividly the living and working conditions of male convicts in Sydney. The
building was designed and built by the first notable architect in the colony, Francis
Greenway who himself was a convict.
27
Illustration 1: Entrance to the Hyde Park Barracks Museum, Sydney
Between 1819 and 1848 the building provided accommodation to for male
convicts and from 1848 to 1886 the building was used as a female immigration depot.
Young women, mostly Irish orphans, stayed in the building from their arrival until their
services were hired out. Later the building was used by several government bodies until
the late twentieth century. In 1990 the Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales took
over control of the Barracks and after extensive conservation and renovation works, the
Barracks opened its doors as a museum. The Hyde Park Barracks Museum is a small
but a very good example of a migration museum and its importance is recognised not
only nationally but also internationally. It has become a significant building for many
Sydneysiders, particularly Irish Australians. A monument to the Great Irish Famine was
installed in 1998-99 and since then this part of the Museum has become a place for Irish
Australian community gatherings. In 2010, the Museum was declared a World Heritage
site alongside other Australian convict sites.
28
Illustration 2: The Hyde Park Barracks, Sydney
The Hyde Park Barracks Museum visitor numbers are reported in Table 2:
Table 2: Visitor Numbers
2012
Paid admission
General public
44,796
Education
13,964
Public programs
184
Venue hire
19,888
Subtotal
78,832
Free entry
Complimentary tickets
3,855
Free public programs
300
3
Free events
40
Other (site and shop visits)
26,914
Subtotal
65,631
Total
144,463
Source: Historic Houses Trust Annual Report 2011-2012
3
In previous years, this category was included in free public programs.
29
2011
2010
51,727
15,037
1,004
57,417
125,185
42,061
15,817
426
64,446
122,750
4,124
398
1,262
27,253
68,689
193,874
4,928
2,902
24,634
62,776
185,526
Unfortunately it was not possible to get relevant financial information about the
Museum such as museum budget and its composition. Yet as mentioned above since
1990 the Museum has been managed by the Historic Houses Trust alongside other
eleven historical sites, and it is reported that the Trust‟s expenditure is $31.340 million,
its self-generated revenue is $11.993 million and its total assets are $326.681 million
(Annual Report 2011-2012: 8).
Hypotheses to be tested
Two hypotheses have emerged from the theoretical investigations that can be tested
empirically in this study of economic and cultural valuation of the Hyde Park Barracks
Museum. The hypotheses are specified as follows:
H1: The cultural value of services provided by the Hyde Park Barracks Museum
building as experienced by museum visitors can be quantitatively assessed by
disaggregating cultural value into its components.
H2: The economic value of services provided by the Hyde Park Barracks Museum
building as experienced by museum visitors can be quantitatively assessed, including
their willingness-to-pay for specified improvement in its services. This willingness-topay (WTP) may be partially but not fully explained by individuals’ cultural valuations.
With regard to H1, cultural value is assessed by the application of a Likert-type
assessment involving a series of questions relating to specific elements of cultural value
to be detailed further below.
H2 is tested by the application of contingent valuation methodology. The visitors
of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum building were presented payment cards and asked
to indicate their willing-to-pay for a hypothetical renovation and refurbishment project
30
to capture their public benefit valuation, and their willing-to-pay for visiting a special
exhibition assuming that entry to the museum is free to capture their private benefit
valuation of the services provided by the building.
In order to explore the link between economic and cultural valuations by the
visitors, a WTP function is used:
(1)
where
represent various explanatory variables and
is an error term.
The explanatory variables to be investigated comprise the visitors‟ cultural valuations
and their socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, income, education and
location of residence).
The Survey
An assessment of the economic and cultural valuations of individuals visiting the Hyde
Park Barracks Museum building was undertaken by means of a survey carried out in
August 2012. Details of the sample used, questionnaire design, and survey
administration are as follows:
Sample
In this study the questionnaire was given to the actual visitors to the Hyde Park
Barracks Museum. Alternatively we could have given the survey to people who were
passing by, or to a sample of residents of Sydney, or to a sample of all Australians from
different cities, because the Museum generates some public-good characteristics. Nonuse values of the Museum such as existence value, bequest value and option value are
likely felt by all of Sydney, if not by all Australians. Surveying visitors was used here
31
because of restrictions on research fund availability; therefore, surveying any of the
broader samples mentioned above was beyond the research scope.
Handing out the survey to actual visitors is subject to some sampling bias, yet it is
important to note that the Hyde Park Barracks Museum is small and without visiting it,
it is difficult to understand and appreciate certain characteristics. Therefore the
responses can be regarded as being better informed than those to be expected from a
wider sample. Overall we might expect that our cultural valuations and WTP results
will be higher than from other samples. Our aim is not to derive results that can be
applied to the whole population of Sydney or Australia; rather it is simply to test
methodologies and derive some valid results for the more limited population of
Museum visitors.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was modified and elaborated through several drafts to reflect clearly
the survey‟s aims and the hypotheses to be tested. In presenting the survey, the aims of
the study were explained to the potential respondents as follows:
You are invited to participate in a research project which aims to
investigate the value people place on the Hyde Park Barracks Museum.
The purpose of the study is to discover what kinds of values are attached
to the Museum in economic and cultural value terms.
Later, after giving some information about the Museum, the potential respondents were
also informed that:
Now we will ask you questions about how significant you think the
historical building itself is, and how you value the services provided by
the Hyde Parks Museum.
32
The questionnaire itself has three main parts. After some warm up questions, the first
part aimed to investigate the cultural valuations by respondents. The visitors were
provided an information sheet about why some people may think the building is
valuable while some others may believe it is not valuable. The second part asked about
the willingness-to-pay of respondents for a hypothetical renovation and refurbishment
project, and for visiting a special exhibition. The last part obtained information about
their socio-demographic variables of gender, age, income, education, and occupation.
Survey Administration
The main survey was administered in August 2012. A total of 163 usable questionnaires
were completed. As mentioned before limitations of research resources restricted the
sample size. Nevertheless, the sample is sufficiently large for us to draw broad
conclusions in regard to the hypotheses to be tested.
Results
Sample Profile
The characteristics of the sample are summarised in Table 3.
33
Table 3: Characteristics of the sample
Characteristic
Number of Respondents
Responses (%)
Residence
a resident of Sydney
a resident of New South Wales
a resident elsewhere in Australia
a resident from overseas
38
14
29
82
23.30
8.60
17.80
50.30
Gender
Male
Female
70
93
43.00
57.00
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85 or older
21
46
20
29
33
10
4
0
12.90
28.20
12.30
17.80
20.20
6.10
2.40
0
Annual Gross Household Income (AUD)
0 to $19,999
$20,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $69,999
$70,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
Prefer not to say
9
29
30
24
32
39
5.50
17.80
18.40
14.70
19.60
23.90
Level of Education
Primary School
Junior Secondary School
HSC or equivalent
Post-secondary diploma, certificate, etc.
Bachelor‟s degree
Postgraduate degree
1
11
27
18
52
54
0.60
6.70
16.50
11.00
31.90
33.10
Occupation
Professional
Managerial, executive
Self-employed
White collar
Skilled/semi-skilled
Unskilled
Civil servant
Artist
Home duties
Unemployed
Student
Other
56
21
20
14
8
2
8
1
3
2
21
7
34.40
12.90
12.30
8.60
4.90
1.20
4.90
0.60
1.80
1.20
12.90
4.30
Total
163
100
Age group (years)
(a)
Note: (a) Current occupation or former occupation if the respondent is retired.
34
The main characteristics of the sample can be summarised as follows: predominantly
female, evenly distributed among age groups, not necessarily high level annual
household income earners, mostly (65 per cent) higher degree holders and almost half
of the sample is visitors from overseas.
Cultural Valuation: Testing H1
Hypothesis 1 explores whether or not it is possible to disaggregate the multidimensional
concept of cultural value into its components following Throsby (2001). Before asking
visitors their cultural valuation of the historical building and the services provided by
the Museum, they were provided an information sheet to clarify why some people may
think the Hyde Park Barracks Museum building is valuable while some others may
believe it is not valuable. Then, respondents were given twenty one statements and
asked to consider their own experience of visiting the Museum and then to indicate to
what extent they agreed or disagreed with them. As is usual in much attitudinal
research, two separate statements are provided as far as possible in each attribute.
Responses to this question were coded according to a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and 3 indicating neutrality. The statements and their
interpretations are given in Table 4 as follows:
35
Table 4: Cultural value statements and their interpretations
Q2
a
Statement
Cultural value component
The HPB is a beautiful building.
Aesthetic value
l
The HPB is visually unattractive.
g
The Museum has a very distinctive architectural style.
Architectural value
p
It would be better replaced by modern buildings.
b
It has historical connections that link us to our past and history.
k
The Hyde Park Barracks helps people to understand Australian
culture.
c
It plays a role in community life today.
Historical value
Social value
d
The HPB provides a space where people can come together.
h
The Museum is an important building for educating children about
Sydney‟s history.
i
It tells stories about our past.
j
Visiting the HPB touched my soul and moved my heart, it was an
uplifting experience.
e
It represents what being Australian is.
f
It is one of the most important symbols from Australia‟s colonial
development.
u
It is important that the Museum is listed in the UNESCO World
Heritage List.
Educational value
Spiritual value
Symbolic value
Superstar value
As indicated in Table 4, statements Q2 (a and l), (g and p), (b and k), (c and d), (h
and i), (j), (e and f) and (u) aimed to capture aesthetic, architectural, historical, social,
educational, spiritual, symbolic and superstar value respectively of the Museum.
Superstar value can be interpreted as whether or not visitors to the Museum think it is
important that the Museum is part of the World Heritage list.
36
In Q2 (n), (o) and (p) we gave the following three statements: “It occupies land
that could be put to better use”; “I would support a project aiming to demolish the HPB
to make way for development”; and “It would be better replaced by modern buildings”
and asked the visitors to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with it. They
clearly indicated that they want the HPB to continue to operate and to exist. Also it is
found that there is no significant difference between valuation of visitors from Australia
and visitors from abroad. The results are given in Table 5.
Table 5: Commercial vs. cultural use of the building
Characteristic
Mean
Value
Responses (%)
Cultural use vs.
Commercial use
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total Sample
0.4
0.8
7.2
29.4
62.2
1.48
Residents in
Australia
0.8
0.8
7.8
25.5
65
1.47
Visitors from
abroad
0.4
0.4
6.1
33.3
59.8
1.48
The responses of the total sample in regard to their cultural valuation of the Hyde
Park Barracks Museum are summarised in Table 6.
37
Table 6: Cultural valuation of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum (total sample)
Characteristic
Mean
Value
Responses (%)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Aesthetic value
(Q2a and l)
43.3
43.3
9.5
2.8
1.2
4.25
Architectural
value (Q2g and p)
54.3
41.1
3.7
0.9
0
4.49
Historical value
(Q2b and k)
63.8
31.3
3.9
0.6
0.3
4.58
Social value
(Q2c and d)
26
38
30.7
5.3
0
3.85
Educational Value
(Q2h and i)
66.9
32.2
0.9
0
0
4.66
Spiritual value
(Q2j)
17.8
41.1
33.1
6.1
1.8
3.67
Symbolic value
(Q2e and f)
37.4
36.8
23.4
0.6
0.9
4.08
Superstar value
(Q2u)
47.8
31.9
16.5
2.4
1.2
4.26
The mean values indicate that visitors could identify, recognise and appreciate
these components of cultural value. In short, this exercise indicates that the visitors to
the Hyde Park Barracks Museum value it in cultural terms and that disaggregating
cultural value throws light on the nature of the concept.
One can argue that the higher the mean value, the higher the cultural value. Hence
we can say that the most important component of cultural value for the visitors is
educational value. This point is not surprising because almost every day there are
school excursions to the Museum and it is usual to see school children around.
Aesthetic, architectural, symbolic and superstar value have more or less the same mean
value. It is possible to conclude that the visitors to the Museum appreciate highly these
values. On the other hand, it is worth noting that spiritual value and surprisingly social
38
value have relatively low mean values. This may be because of the wording of the
statements. Still, visitors understood and appreciated those values.
In order to investigate whether there is a difference between cultural valuation of
residents in Australia and visitors from abroad, the general sample is divided into two
and results are reported in Table 7 and 8.
Table 7: Cultural valuation of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum (residents in
Australia)
Characteristic
Responses (%)
Mean Value
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Aesthetic value
(Q2a and l)
52.5
38.3
6.2
1.8
1.2
4.39
Architectural
value (Q2g and p)
60.5
36.4
1.8
0.6
0.6
4.55
Historical value
(Q2b and k)
68.5
25.3
4.9
0.6
0.6
4.60
Social value
(Q2c and d)
31.5
35.2
27.8
5.5
0
3.93
Educational Value
(Q2h and i)
75.3
22.2
2.5
0
0
4.73
Spiritual value
(Q2j)
23.5
38.2
33.3
5
0
3.80
Symbolic value
(Q2e and f)
43.2
37
17.3
1.2
1.2
4.20
Superstar value
(Q2u)
58
19.8
18.5
1.2
2.5
4.30
39
Table 8: Cultural valuation of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum (visitors from
abroad)
Characteristic
Responses (%)
Mean Value
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Aesthetic value
(Q2a and l)
34.2
48.2
12.8
3.6
1.2
4.10
Architectural value
(Q2g and p)
48.2
45.7
5.5
0.6
0
4.41
Historical value
(Q2b and k)
59.1
37.2
3.1
0.6
0
4.55
Social value
(Q2c and d)
20.7
40.9
33.5
4.9
0
3.77
Educational Value
(Q2h and i)
58
42
0
0
0
4.58
Spiritual value
(Q2j)
12.2
43.9
32.9
7.3
3.7
3.54
Symbolic value
(Q2e and f)
31.7
36.6
29.3
1.8
0.6
3.97
Superstar value
(Q2u)
37.8
43.9
14.6
3.7
0
4.16
The results show that even though cultural valuation of the residents in Australia is
slightly higher than the rest of the sample, there is no significant difference between
cultural valuation of the residents in Australia and the visitors from abroad. Both groups
of visitors can clearly understand and appreciate different components of cultural value.
Thus only the total sample results could be used. Nevertheless, in this study we report
both.
Economic Valuation: Testing H2
In this section the results for establishing indicators of some non-use values of the
Museum, estimates of WTP for public and private benefit, and investigation of the
relationship between economic and cultural value will be investigated.
40
Non-use values
Two statements in the survey aimed to investigate to what extent the visitors understood
and appreciated non-use values of the Museum. The statements and their interpretations
are given in Table 9:
Table 9: Non-use value statements and their interpretations
Q2
Statement
Non-use Value
s
I would like the Museum to operate in case I would like to
visit it at some time in the future.
Option value
t
It is important to the Museum to operate for future
generations.
Bequest value
As noted in Table 9, Questions 2 (s) and (t) aimed to capture option and bequest
value respectively. Responses of the visitors for non-use value are given in Table 10.
Table 10: Non-use valuation of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum
Non-use
Value
Total
Sample
Option
value (Q2s)
Bequest
value (Q2t)
Residents
in
Australia
Option
value (Q2s)
Bequest
value (Q2t)
Residents
from
abroad
Option
value (Q2s)
Bequest
value (Q2t)
Mean
Value
Responses (%)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
53.4
39.3
5.5
1.2
0.6
4.44
73.6
24.5
1.8
0
0
4.71
64.1
28.4
4.9
1.2
1.2
4.53
80.3
18.5
1.2
0
0
4.79
42.7
50
6.1
1.2
0
4.34
67.1
30.5
2.4
0
0
4.65
41
High mean values indicate that the visitors to the Hyde Park Barrack Museum
identify, understand and appreciate non-use values of the Museum. Also, as one may
expect, residents in Australia have slightly higher valuation of option and bequest
values. Still there is no significant difference between residents in Australia and
residents from abroad in terms of their non-use valuation of the Museum.
Estimation of Willingness-to-pay
The results of the willingness-to-pay of the public-good characteristics of the Hyde Park
Barracks Museum building are shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Willingness to pay for public-good characteristics
Total Sample
Residents in Australia
Visitors from Abroad
Number of
Respondents
%
Number of
Respondents
%
Number of
Respondents
%
$0
9
5.5
4
4.9
5
6.1
$1-$5
14
8.6
5
6.2
9
10.9
$6-$10
44
26.9
24
29.6
20
24.4
$11-$15
24
14.7
6
7.4
18
21.9
$16-$20
23
14.1
10
12.4
13
15.8
$21-$25
19
11.6
13
16
6
7.3
$26-$30
4
2.5
3
3.7
1
1.2
$31-$40
5
3.1
2
2.5
3
3.7
$41-$50
11
6.7
7
8.6
4
4.9
More than $50
10
6.1
7
8.6
3
3.6
Total
163
100
81
100
82
100
The mean WTP is calculated by using a mid-range method and we found that the
mean value of the WTP of the total sample is $17.41. These results indicate that the
42
visitors have a positive and high WTP for a proposed renovation and refurbishment
project.
The mean value of the WTP of the visitors who are residents in Australia is
$19.54. Not surprisingly the residents in Australia have a positive and slightly higher
WTP than the total sample.
The mean value of the WTP of the visitors who are residents from abroad is
$15.31. It is found that the residents from abroad have a positive but slightly lower
WTP than the total sample.
In addition to their WTP for public benefits, the respondents are asked to indicate
their WTP for private benefits. The visitors were given a hypothetical scenario and told
to assume that visiting the Hyde Park Barracks Museum was free but in order to see a
special exhibition they were supposed to pay an entrance fee. Then they were asked to
specify the maximum entry price they would be willing-to-pay to see that special
exhibition. The results of the willingness-to-pay for the private benefits of the Hyde
Park Barracks Museum building are shown in Table 12.
43
Table 12: Willingness to pay for private benefits
Total Sample
Residents in Australia
Visitors from Abroad
Number of
Respondents
%
Number of
Respondents
%
Number of
Respondents
%
$0
3
1.8
1
1.2
2
2.4
$1-$5
18
11
8
9.9
10
12.2
$6-$10
81
49.7
39
48.2
42
51.2
$11-$15
41
25.1
22
27.2
19
23.2
$16-$20
15
9.2
10
12.4
5
6.1
More than $20
5
3.1
1
1.2
4
4.9
163
100
81
100
82
100
Total
By using a mid-range method and we found that the mean value of the WTP of
general sample for private benefit valuation of the Museum is $9.85. These results
indicate that the visitors have a positive WTP for seeing a proposed special exhibition.
The mean value of the WTP of the visitors who are residents in Australia is
$10.15. The residents in Australia have a positive and slightly higher WTP than the
total sample.
The mean value of the WTP of the visitors who are residents from abroad is
$9.55. It is found that the residents from abroad have a positive but slightly lower WTP
than the total sample.
In short, this exercise shows that all the visitors have a positive and high WTP for
both public and private benefits generated by the historical building itself and the
Museum, and residents in Australia have slightly higher WTP.
44
The Relationship between Economic and Cultural Valuation
In this section the second component of H2, namely the extent to which individuals‟
cultural valuations explain or fail to explain their WTP. To test this hypothesis the
following WTP function is estimated:
(2)
where
is gender (male=1, female=0);
is age group, specified as dummy variables
years,
: visitors between 35 and 44 years,
years,
: visitors 55 years or older.
, visitors between 25 and 34
: visitors between 45 and 54
(visitors between 18 and 24 years old)
is used as a reference group.
is annual household income level, specified as dummy variables,
annual gross household income between $70,000 and $99,999,
gross household income of $100,000 or more and
answers.
is the
is the annual
indicate “prefer not to say”
(the annual gross household income between $0 and $19,999),
(the annual gross household income between $20,000 and $39.999) and
(the
annual gross household income between $40,000 and $69,999) are used as a reference
group.
is education level, specified as dummy variables
certificate, etc.,
(primary school),
bachelor‟s degree,
(junior secondary school) and
suppressed.
45
post-secondary diploma,
postgraduate degree.
(HSC or equivalent) are
is where the respondent lives, specified as dummy variables
New South Wales,
overseas.
a resident elsewhere in Australia and
a resident of
a visitor from
(a resident of Sydney or suburbs) is suppressed.
is the cultural valuation of the visitors as discussed above. We merged Q2 (a and l),
(g and p), (b and k), (c and d), (h and i), (j) and (e and f) and (u) in order to calculate the
variable. Similarly we aggregated Q2 (s) and (t) to obtain the non-use value
variable
.
Since WTP, age and income are in ranges rather than precise values, interval
regression method and right-censoring were used. Also, to obtain Huber-White robust
standard errors, the model was run using the robust option.
Model estimates for general sample are shown in Table 13.
46
Table 13: Willingness-to-pay estimation for the public good properties of the Hyde
Park Barracks Museum building
Total Sample
Residents in Australia
Visitors from Abroad
CV
.22***
(.11)
.31
(.19)
.19
(.14)
NUV
-.30
(2.38)
-8.03
(4.94)
-.88
(2.98)
GEN
.59
(5.5)
3.97
(2.77)
-1.68
(1.81)
AGE_2
.58
(2.46)
-.83
(4.35)
3.87
(2.83)
AGE_3
1.48
(2.94)
3.06
(4.88)
2.92
(3.65)
AGE_4
5.03
(2.90)
5.03
(2.90)
3.32
(3.66)
AGE_5
3.42
(2.62)
7.02
(4.92)
3.94
(3.05)
INC_4
-2.25
(2.29)
-1.85
(3.64)
-3.78
(3.16)
INC_5
4.58***
(2.15)
7.02
(3.89)
4.83
(2.73)
INC_6
-1.87
(1.89)
-3.71
(3.26)
-.62
(2.26)
EDU_4
8.38***
(2.81)
10.39***
(4.26)
6.14
(4.31)
EDU_5
3.65
(2.15)
7.30***
(3.43)
-1.16
(2.74)
EDU_6
1.89
(2.16)
5.80
(3.39)
-3.19
(2.73)
RES_2
4.05
(3.21)
RES_3
-3.64
(2.37)
RES_4
-3.04
(1.89)
_cons
2.98
(5.12)
-4.78
(8.17)
3.39
(6.62)
163
44.29
-261.92
0.0005
81
23.34
-129.68
0.773
82
30.30
-124.46
0.0109
Number of
observations
Wald-test
Log-likelihood
chi2
***: Statistical significance at 95 per cent confidence interval.
There are five main results of the regression for the total sample. First, there is a
strong positive relationship between WTP and the cultural valuation of the visitors to
the Hyde Park Barracks Museum building. One may argue that if there is a one-to-one
47
relationship between cultural valuation and economic valuation–as such that a separate
category of cultural valuation is unnecessary because all cultural valuations are
captured in an economic valuation study–a strong positive relationship between
economic value and cultural value would be expected. We found a positive relationship
between WTP and CV of the visitors for the public good characteristics of the Museum
and the historical building itself, hence to what extent WTP can be explained by
cultural valuation is discussed later.
Second, there is a mildly positive and statistically significant relationship between
WTP and
(the annual gross household income of $100,000 or more) which is not
unusual because it is expected that, in most cases, WTP is significantly and positively
correlated with income.
Third, there is a statistically significant relationship between WTP and
(post-secondary diploma, certificate, etc.). This result is slightly surprising because 65
per cent of the sample is higher degree holders and it is reasonable to expect a positive
and significant relationship between CV and education. Yet in this study this was not
the case.
Fourth, there is no relationship between WTP and the residence of the visitor.
Almost 50 per cent of visitors are from abroad but still they have a positive WTP. It is
safe to conclude that in case of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum, the free rider problem
is negligible.
Finally, even though a positive relationship would be expected, there is a negative
relationship between WTP and NUV. However we do not observe a statistically
significant relationship between them. It is most likely because of the sample size that
this point is not captured in this study.
48
To check whether there is a difference in the WTP for the public good
characteristics of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum between residents in Australia and
visitors from abroad, we ran the WTP regression only for residents in Australia. The
results indicate that only
and
indicate a statistically significant
relationship between WTP and CV of the residents in Australia.
When WTP is estimated for only visitors from abroad it is found that there is no
statistically significant relationship between their WTP and CV. In short, in this study
we could not find any difference between residents in Australia and visitors from
abroad in terms of their WTP for the public good characteristics of the Museum.
As discussed above we found a positive and statistically significant relationship
between WTP for public benefits generated by the Hyde Park Barracks Museum and
the historical building itself, and cultural valuation of the visitors. Following Throsby
(2001) one way of understanding cultural value is to disaggregate it into its
components. Hence we disaggregated cultural value and re-estimated the WTP for
public good characteristics of the Museum and the building itself. The model estimates
are reported in Table 14.
49
Table 14: Willingness-to-pay estimation with disaggregated cultural value for the
public good properties of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum building
Total Sample
Residents in Australia
Visitors from Abroad
AestV_2
3.86
(6.39)
-.2.56
(5.75)
6.38
(5.77)
AestV_3
3.80
(2.86)
-2.67
(5.59)
-1.53
(2.70)
AestV_4
3.63
(3.44)
-5.91
(7.23)
1.95
(3.34)
AestV_5
2.49
(3.80)
.98
(6.11)
13.12
(6.96)
AestV_6
4.42
(3.26)
-.17
(6.72)
.44
(3.32)
Arch_2
-.54
(2.35)
9.21
(5.69)
-5.07***
(2.26)
Arch_3
-2.78
(4.09)
8.88
(7.60)
-7.18
(4.55)
Arch_4
2.77
(3.07)
17.13
(5.97)
-12.68***
(4.10)
SocV_6
3.62
(2.24)
.59
(3.92)
3.28
(2.70)
SocV_7
.08
(3.03)
7.13
(4.86)
6.23
(3.72)
SocV_8
3.28
(2.59)
11.07***
(4.55)
6.22***
(2.84)
SocV_9
4.31
(2.98)
14.35***
(5.37)
-3.31
(3.44)
SocV_10
3.01
(3.08)
10.26***
(4.78)
2.91
(3.82)
EduV_8
1.33
(2.71)
3.61
(6.35)
-2.16
(2.68)
EduV_10
-2.62
(3.21)
-7.61
(6.52)
-7.16
3.38
SymV_5
1.91
(3.35)
10.15
(6.00)
-3.05
(3.46)
SymV_6
.32
(2.97)
1.19
(5.69)
-4.20
(3.53)
SymV_7
1.42
(4.36)
1.21
(5.73)
1.47
(4.00)
SymV_8
.50
(2.89)
-2.17
(5.07)
1.53***
(3.07)
SymV_9
-3.16
(3.38)
-.26
(6.34)
-9.20
(4.00)
SymV_10
-2.24
(3.31)
-4.64
(6.30)
-1.19
(3.65)
HisV_6
-2.55
(3.10)
-8.78
(6.07)
1.13
(3.40)
HisV_8
-.95
(3.97)
-7.95
(8.64)
-4.32
(3.83)
HisV_10
-.05
(3.09)
-4.31
(6.28)
5.41
(3.59)
50
Total Sample
Residents in Australia
Visitors from Abroad
SprV_4
-.30
(1.70)
-6.52***
(3.09)
1.73
(1.91)
SprV_5
3.43
(2.65)
-1.49
(3.80)
11.88***
(3.12)
SupV_4
7.45***
(2.39)
15.55***
(3.75)
-.69
(2.92)
SupV_5
3.87
(2.54)
4.67
(3.73)
4.04
(3.60)
NUV_6
3.42
(2.63)
-2.21
(5.54)
6.44***
(2.72)
NUV_8
-5.30
(5.71)
-9.75
(10.20)
-9.00
(6.61)
NUV_10
.80
(3.04)
-.001
(5.68)
4.93
(3.58)
GEN
.89
(1.49)
8.14***
(2.70)
-.15
(1.96)
AGE_2
.60
(2.54)
-6.31
(5.07)
7.08***
(2.63)
AGE_3
2.82
(3.05)
1.69
(5.91)
4.14
(3.45)
AGE_4
6.84***
(2.98)
4.67
(5.46)
3.26
(3.40)
AGE_5
6.10***
(2.78)
1.83
(6.10)
7.31***
(3.06)
INC_4
-2.84
(2.34)
-3.49
(3.38)
-4.40
(3.21)
INC_5
4.02
(2.22)
6.89
(4.37)
5.52***
(2.77)
INC_6
-2.69
(1.96)
-9.10***
(3.13)
2.68
(2.33)
EDU_4
8.69***
(2.78)
9.61***
(3.90)
2.40
(4.45)
EDU_5
4.60***
(2.15)
4.99
(3.35)
-5.27
(2.92)
EDU_6
1.15
(2.13)
.74
(3.32)
-6.92***
(2.86)
2.89
(4.89)
2.00
(7.95)
10.14
(6.42)
163
67.96
-250.08
0.0151
81
62.62
-129.68
0.0126
82
68.24
-105.45
0.0064
RES_2
RES_3
RES_4
_cons
Number of
observations
Wald-test
Log-likelihood
chi2
2.29
(3.24)
-6.52***
(2.44)
-5.65***
(2.06)
***: Statistical significance at 95 per cent confidence interval.
51
There are four main results of the regression for the total sample. First, when we
disaggregated cultural value into its components we found that there is a positive and
statistically significant relationship between assessment of superstar value and WTP.
Even though the other components of cultural value indicate also a positive relationship
between WTP and CV of the visitors, they are not statistically significant. Hence one
can argue that this study shows that there is a positive relationship between economic
and cultural valuations of the visitors of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum but not all
components of cultural value are captured within economic value. Hence it is
reasonable to state that cultural value does exist and at least some components of it are
independent from economic value.
Second, there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between WTP
and CV of the middle aged visitors. Third, in addition to
diploma, certificate, etc.),
(post-secondary
(bachelor‟s degree) is also statistically significant.
Lastly, for residents from another state in Australia and visitors from abroad there
is a negative and statistically significant relationship between their WTP for the public
good characteristics of the Museum and their cultural valuation.
In order to investigate whether some components of cultural value are related to
WTP of the residents in Australia for public good characteristics of the Museum, we
disaggregated cultural value and re-estimated the model. There are four main results
coming from this regression. First, visitors who are a resident in Australia indicate a
strong, positive and statistically significant relationship between their WTP and
appreciation of social value. Second, surprisingly people who think that the fact that
Museum is listed in the UNESCO World Heritage List is somewhat important do not
want to pay for the public characteristics of the building. They might believe that the
52
Museum is internationally recognised and taking care of the building is the
responsibility of both national and international organisations. Third, male visitors are
more generous than female visitors. Lastly, visitors who preferred not to indicate their
income level have a negative relationship between their WTP and CV. That point may
be interpreted as that they want to appreciate and enjoy the Museum but they do not
want to pay for it.
Similarly we investigated whether some components of cultural value are related
to WTP of the visitors from abroad and we disaggregated cultural value and reestimated the model. There are six main results here. First, visitors who do not think the
historical building is a beautiful one clearly stated that there is a negative relationship
between their WTP and aesthetic value appreciation which is not surprising. Second,
even the visitors from abroad can recognise social value generated by the Museum and
they have a positive WTP for that. Third, even though the visitors from abroad clearly
understand and highly appreciate educational value created by the Museum, they are
not willing to pay for it. They may believe that it is the Australian government‟s duty to
pay for educational value. Fourth, visitors from abroad do not want to pay for symbolic
value. They may think that the Museum represents the Australian history and culture
and Australians are the ones who need to pay for it. Fifth, they are willing to pay for
spiritual value. This point is expected since if they have a nice experience at the
Museum, their WTP will be affected positively. Lastly, high income level visitors from
Australia have a positive relationship between their WTP and CV while visitors who
preferred not to say their income level have a negative one.
As mentioned before WTP is investigated not only for public but also private
good properties of the Museum and the historical building itself. The estimates are
reported in Table 15.
53
Table 15: Willingness-to-pay estimation for the private good properties of the
Hyde Park Barracks Museum building
Total Sample
Residents in Australia
Visitors from Abroad
CV
.044
(.048)
.15
(.06)
.09
(.07)
NUV
1.24
(1.03)
-2.10
(1.75)
3.17
(1.24)
GEN
.61
(.64)
.52
(.94)
.31
(.87)
AGE_2
.39
(1.05)
.93
(1.48)
.78
(1.38)
AGE_3
-.47
(1.25)
.71
(1.70)
.12
(1.75)
AGE_4
1.21
(1.25)
4.70***
(1.87)
-.83
(1.78)
AGE_5
-1.72
(1.11)
-2.29
(1.60)
-1.01
(1.49)
INC_4
.29
(.98)
-1.27
(1.34)
-.38
(1.53)
INC_5
1.36
(.90)
.83
(1.29)
1.53
(1.36)
INC_6
1.28
(.81)
.31
(1.16)
1.77
(1.10)
EDU_4
-.25
(1.16)
.89
(1.50)
-1.02
(2.09)
EDU_5
.24
(.92)
.43
(1.21)
-.11
(1.38)
EDU_6
-1.02
(.92)
-1.07
(1.18)
-1.51
(1.36)
RES_2
1.33
(1.33)
RES_3
.06
(1.01)
RES_4
-.13
(.79)
_cons
6.58
(2.16)
8.53***
(2.78)
4.02
(3.27)
163
81
82
23.70
29.62
18.18
-178.46
-77.91
-88.00
0.1652
0.0134
0.2532
Number of
observations
Wald-test
Loglikelihood
chi2
***: Statistical significance at 95 per cent confidence interval.
54
When WTP for the private good characteristics of the Hyde Park Barracks
Museum was estimated for total sample, it was found that overall the model was not
significant.
The regression results only for the residents in Australia show that even though
the model itself is statistically significant only
has statistical significance while
rest of the variables are not significant. The relationship between WTP of the residents
in Australia for the private good properties of the Museum is not statistically
significant.
The WTP for the private good characteristics of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum
was estimated for the visitors from abroad and it is found that overall the model is not
significant.
Again we disaggregated cultural value and re-estimated the WTP for private good
characteristics of the Museum and the building itself. The model estimates are reported
in Table 16.
55
Table 16: Willingness-to-pay estimation with disaggregated cultural value for the
private good properties of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum building
AestV_2
AestV_3
AestV_4
AestV_5
AestV_6
Arch_2
Arch_3
Arch_4
SocV_6
SocV_7
SocV_8
SocV_9
SocV_10
EduV_8
EduV_10
SymV_5
SymV_6
SymV_7
SymV_8
SymV_9
SymV_10
HisV_6
HisV_8
HisV_10
SprV_4
SprV_5
SupV_4
Total Sample
Residents in Australia
Visitors from Abroad
-2.69
(2.54)
2.76***
(1.15)
2.48
(1.35)
6.46***
(1.75)
2.39
(1.34)
-.02
(.95)
-1.55
(1.60)
.69
(1.24)
2.03***
(.95)
-.30
(1.21)
.45
(1.07)
2.12
(1.26)
-.21
(1.23)
.40
(1.09)
1.11
(1.31)
-.85
(1.34)
-.79
(1.22)
-3.52***
(1.78)
-1.26
(1.19)
-4.09***
(1.38)
-3.53***
(1.36)
-.08
(1.25)
-3.78***
(1.61)
.92
(1.25)
-.03
(.71)
-.28
(1.08)
2.31***
(.95)
2.85
(1.97)
2.90
(1.95)
2.96
(2.51)
7.92***
(2.52)
2.27
(2.34)
3.61
(2.17)
-.87
(2.43)
5.94***
(2.37)
7.24
(2.09)
2.35
(1.72)
3.14
(1.81)
4.62***
(2.14)
2.48
(1.64)
1.01
(2.40)
.78
(2.19)
-4.69***
(2.16)
-4.56***
(2.07)
-4.53***
(2.08)
-4.55***
(1.92)
-8.93***
(2.45)
-8.10***
(2.31)
2.64
(2.33)
-2.73
(3.23)
2.03
(2.29)
-3.70***
(1.33)
-2.76***
(1.37)
2.48
(1.56)
-1.08
(2.34)
1.87
(1.11)
1.39
(1.40)
5.52
(2.88)
2.20
(1.49)
-.038
(.95)
1.59
(1.87)
-.62
(1.72)
.80
(1.15)
2.74
(1.66)
.042
(1.22)
3.12***
(1.51)
-2.59
(1.65)
-.43
(1.10)
2.19
(1.46)
1.31
(1.51)
2.15
(1.49)
-2.55
(1.67)
1.34
(1.27)
-1.05
(1.59)
-2.53
(1.49)
.85
(1.41)
-4.95***
(1.55)
.35
(1.44)
2.57***
(.83)
2.07
(1.43)
1.11
(1.21)
56
SupV_5
NUV_6
NUV_8
NUV_10
GEN
AGE_2
AGE_3
AGE_4
AGE_5
INC_4
INC_5
INC_6
EDU_4
EDU_5
EDU_6
RES_2
RES_3
RES_4
_cons
Number of
observations
Wald-test
Log-likelihood
Total Sample
Residents in Australia
Visitors from Abroad
1.49
(1.04)
1.60
(1.10)
-.73
(2.21)
.61
(1.26)
.63
(.60)
1.05
(1.05)
.78
(1.25)
2.51***
(1.23)
-.40
(1.12)
.14
(.97)
.55
(.89)
1.64***
(.80)
.92
(1.11)
1.28
(.88)
-.32
(.87)
1.26
(1.29)
-.55
(.99)
-.07
(.82)
3.30
(.08)
2.51***
(1.43)
-2.98
(2.12)
-8.22***
(3.75)
-3.12
(2.69)
.85
(.95)
3.40
(2.01)
5.13***
(2.35)
9.13***
(2.48)
3.03
(2.38)
-1.59
(1.30)
-2.63
(1.50)
.06
(1.06)
3.70***
(1.50)
1.24
(1.23)
.55
(1.14)
1.32
(1.70)
2.93***
(1.25)
-3.93
(2.67)
.89
(1.53)
.56
(.92)
2.82***
(1.14)
.46
(1.39)
-1.98
(1.41)
-.94
(1.29)
-1.19
(1.44)
.38
(1.17)
2.25***
(1.04)
2.03
(2.20)
.55
(1.36)
-1.69
(1.26)
1.62
(3.12)
2.00
(2.79)
163
81
82
68.53
81.02
78.02
-156.04
-52.21
-58.08
0.0001
0.0006
0.0134
chi2
***: Statistical significance at 95 per cent confidence interval.
There are five main results of the regression for the total sample to be discussed
here. First, there is negative and statistically significant relationship between WTP and
appreciation of aesthetic value of the Museum. Second, the total sample understands
and appreciates social value and this component of cultural value has a negative effect
57
on their WTP. Third, although total sample has a high mean value for symbolic value of
the Museum, there is a negative but statistically significant relationship between
symbolic value and their WTP. Fourth, there is a negative but significant relationship
between historical value and WTP. As discussed before the total sample clearly thinks
that the Museum and the building itself have historical importance but visitors do not
want to pay for it. They may think that the Barracks belongs to Australians so it is their
duty to care for it. Lastly, the total sample is ready to pay for superstar value generated
by the Museum. The results show that visiting the World Heritage site, i.e., the
Museum, has a positive contribution towards their WTP.
The WTP estimation with disaggregated cultural value for the private good
properties of the Hyde Park Barracks Museum building only for the residents in
Australia is indicating four main points. First, residents in Australia have a positive and
statistically significant relationship between their assessment of aesthetic and social
value and their WTP. Second, they appreciate symbolic value of the Museum but they
do not want to pay for it. They may be expecting local or federal government to
intervene and provide financial support to the Museum. Third, they think that spiritual
value does exist and is important according to their cultural valuation but there is a
negative but statistically significant relationship between their spiritual value
assessment and WTP. Lastly, they are ready to pay for superstar value. As discussed in
the cultural valuation section, people think that superstar value is an important
component of cultural value and it is positively and significantly related to their WTP.
The results for the WTP estimation with disaggregated cultural value for the
private good properties of the Museum for the visitors from abroad indicate that while
social and spiritual values of the visitors from abroad affect their WTP positively, there
is a negative relationship between their assessment of historical value and WTP.
58
Limitations of the Study
In this section a brief discussion of the two main limitations of this research and
problems encountered in its conduct will be provided. First, due to restrictions on
research fund availability, the sample size used for the second valuation study was
small. As discussed before sample sizes of at least 500 are recommended for the
dichotomous choice elicitation format to encounter the large variances observed in this
format (Pearce et al 2002: 46). A small sample size as the one used here (n=163) can
lead to wide confidence intervals for welfare estimates.
Second, our survey data are limited by the high non-response rate to the income
question. This has prevented a key form of validation testing, i.e., testing WTP data for
income effects. The same problem affected the first valuation study as well.
3 Conclusion
The measurement of cultural capital stock is difficult for two reasons: first, cultural
capital, like any other form of economic capital, has inherent aggregation problems;
second, the cultural value component of cultural capital is not easy to capture. As an
alternative we can evaluate the flow of capital services rather than the stock value of the
capital. We used this approach here in order to throw some light on the measurement of
cultural capital, using a tangible cultural capital item as a case study.
The Hyde Park Barracks Museum is an important building in the history of
Sydney. A survey which aimed to evaluate the Museum in economic and cultural terms
was given to the visitors and in the first study it was found that first, cultural value does
exist and that visitors understand and appreciate certain components of cultural value;
59
second, they also value the Museum in economic terms, i.e., they have a positive
willingness to pay for the Museum to make sure that it would continue to operate in the
future; however, there is no significant relationship between the economic and cultural
valuation of the respondents. Hence we can tentatively conclude that in this case
cultural value is independent from economic value. We also demonstrated that visitors
to the Museum discount expected future cultural benefits according to a cultural
discount rate.
The valuation study of the Museum confirmed the existence of cultural value. It
showed that all the visitors of the Museum regardless of whether they are a resident in
Australia or a visitor from abroad, understand and appreciate components of cultural
value. The second study also underlined that the visitors have a positive WTP for both
public and private benefits generated by the Museum and the historical building itself.
The study also highlighted the fact that the relationship between economic and
cultural value is not straightforward. The WTP estimates illustrated that some but not
all components of cultural value are captured in economic value and these two different
forms of values are not always positively and significantly related to each other as one
may expect. Hence this study not only confirmed the existence of cultural value but also
it proved that it cannot and should not be measured in financial terms.
60
References
Aabo, S. (2005). „Are Public Libraries Worth Their Price?: A Contingent Valuation
Study of Norwegian Public Libraries‟, New Library World, 106 (11/12): 487-495
Adamowicz, W., Bhardwaj, V. and Macnab, B. (1993). „Experiments on the Difference
between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept, Land Economics, 69 (4):
416-427
Alberini, A., Riganti, P. and Longo, A. (2003). „Can People Value the Aesthetic and
Use Services of Urban Sites? Evidence from a Survey of Belfast Residents‟,
Journal of Cultural Economics, 27 (3-4): 213-230
Apostolakis, A. and Jaffr, S. (2005). „A Choice Modeling Application for Greek
Heritage Attractions‟, Journal of Travel Research, 43 (3): 309-318
Arrow, K.J. (2000). „Observations on Social Capital‟ in Social Capital: A Multifaceted
Perspective, P. Dasgupta and I. Serageldin (eds.), Washington, DC: World Bank
Australia ICOMOS (1999). The Burra Charter.
http://www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html
Bateman I.J., Carson, R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M.,
Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R. and
Swanson, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques, A
Manual, Department of Transport, UK, Edward Elgar
Beltran, E. and Rojas, M. (1996). „Diversified Funding in Mexican Archaeology‟,
Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2): 463-478
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital, New York, Columbia University Press
61
Bille Hansen, T. (1997). „The Willingness to Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen
as a Public Good‟, Journal of Cultural Economics, 21:1-28
Boxall, P.C., Englin, J., and Adamowicz, W. (2003). „Valuing Aboriginal Artifacts: A
Combined Revealed-Stated Preference Approach‟, Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, 45: 213-230
Bourdieu, P. (2005). The Social Structures of the Economy, Cambridge, UK, Polity
Press
Brooks, A. (2004). „Do People Really Care About the Arts for Future Generations?‟,
Journal of Cultural Economics, 28: 275-284
Bucci, A. and Segre, G. (2011). „Culture and Human Capital in a Two-sector
Endogenous Growth Model‟, Research in Economics, 65: 279-293
Carson, R., Mitchell, R., Conway, M. and Navrud, S. (1997). „Non-Moroccan Values
for Rehabilitating the Fes Medina‟, World Bank Report: Washington
Cheng, S.W. (2006). „Cultural Goods Creation, Cultural Capital Formation, Provision
of Cultural Services and Cultural Atmosphere Accumulation‟, Journal of Cultural
Economics, 30: 263-286
Choi, A., Ritchie, B.W., Papandrea, F. and Bennett, J. (2010). „Economic Valuation of
Cultural Heritage Sites: A choice Modeling Approach‟, Tourism Management,
31: 213-220
Connor, S. (1992). Theory and Cultural Value, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK
Dalziel, P., Saunders, C., Fyfe, R. and Newton, B. (2009). „Sustainable Development
and Cultural Capital‟, Official Statistics Research Series, 5 (6)
62
D‟Auria, A. (2009). „Urban Cultural Tourism: Creative Approaches for Heritage-based
Sustainable Development‟, International Journal of Sustainable Development, 12
(2-3-4): 275-289
Debreu, G. (1959). Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium,
Wiley, New York
Dolfsma, W. (1997). „The Social Construction of Value: Value Theories and John
Locke‟s Framework of Qualities‟, The European Journal of the History of
Economic Thought, 4: (3), 400-416
Finn, A., McFadyen, S. and Hoskins, C. (2003). „Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation‟, Journal of Cultural Economics, 27:177-192
Harless, D.W. and Allen, F. (1999). „Using the Contingent Valuation Method to
Measure Patron Benefits of Reference Desk Service in an Academic Library‟,
College & Research Libraries, 60 (1): 56-69
Heritage Council of NSW and Department of Planning (1992). „Cemeteries-Guidelines
for Their Care and Conservation‟
Historic Houses Trust, Annual Report 2011-2012:
http://www.hht.net.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/141149/2011-2012-AnnualReport.pdf
Holden, J. (2004). ‘Capturing Cultural Value–How Culture Has Become a Tool of
Government Policy’, DEMOS, London
Holden, J. (2009). „How We Value Arts and Culture‟, the Asia Pacific Journal of Arts
and Cultural Management, 6 (2): 447-456
63
Jain, S. (2006). „Bourdieu‟s Theory of the Symbolic: Traditions and Innovations‟ in R.
Lardinois and M. Thapan (eds), Reading Pierre Bourdieu in a Dual ContextEssays from India and France, New Delhi, Routledge
Katz, S.N. (2006) „Philanthropy‟, in Ginsburgh, A. and Throsby, D. (eds.), Handbook of
the Economics of Art and Culture, volume 1, Elsevier B.V.
Klamer, A. (2002). „Accounting for Social and Cultural Values;, De Economist, 150
(4): 453-473
Klamer, A. (2003). „A Pragmatic View on Values in Economics‟, Journal of Economic
Methodology, 10(2): 1-24
Knight, B.G. and Sayegh, P. (2010). „Cultural Values and Caregiving: The Updated
Sociocultural Stress and Coping Model‟, Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B (1): 5-13
Lancaster, K.J. (1966). „A New Approach to Consumer Theory‟, The Journal of
Political Economy, 74 (2): 132-157
Maddison, D. and Foster, T. (2002) „Valuing Congestion Costs in the British Museum‟,
paper presented at the Contingent Valuation of Culture Conference, Cultural
Policy Center at the University of Chicago, Chicago, February 1-2, 2002
Maddison, D and Foster, T. (2003). „Valuing Congestion Costs in the British Museum‟,
Oxford Economic Papers, 55 (1): 173-190
Marquis-Kyle, P. and Walker, M. (2004). „The Illustrated Burra Charter: Making Good
Decisions about the Care of Important Places’, Sydney, Australia ICOMOS
64
Martin, F. (1994). „Determining the Size of Museum Subsidies‟, Journal of Cultural
Economics, 18 (4): 255-270
Mason, R. (2002). „Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues
and Choices‟, Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, Getty Conservation
Institute‟ Los Angeles, US
Mazzanti, M. (2002). „Cultural Heritage as Multi-dimensional, Multi-value and Multiattribute Economic Good: Toward A New Framework for Economic Analysis and
Valuation‟, Journal of Socio-Economics, 31; 529-558
Mazzanti, M. (2003). „Valuing Cultural Heritage in a Multi-attribute Framework –
Microeconomic Perspectives and Policy Implications‟, Journal of SocioEconomics, 32: 549-569
Morey, E., Rossmann, K., Chestnut, L. and Ragland, S. (2002). „Modelling and
Estimating WTP for Reducing Acid Deposition Injuries to Cultural Resources:
Using Choice Experiments in a Group Setting to Estimate Passive-Use Values‟, in
Navrud, S. and Ready, R. (eds.), Valuing Cultural Resources, Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Morey, E. and Rossmann, K. (2003). „Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate
Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic
Heterogeneity, Random Parameters and Mixture Models‟, Journal of Cultural
Economics, 27: 215-229
Mourato, S. and Mazzanti, M. (2002). „Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage:
Evidence and Prospects‟, Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, Getty
Conservation Institute‟ Los Angeles, US
65
Papandrea, F. (1999). „Willingness to Pay for Domestic Television Programming‟,
Journal of Cultural Economics, 23 (3): 147-164
Putnam, R.D. (1995). „Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital‟, Journal of
Democracy, 6: 65-78
Rizzo, I. and Throsby, D. (2006). „Cultural Heritage: Economic Analysis and Public
Policy‟, in V. A. Ginsburgh and D. Throsby (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of
Art and Culture, volume 1., Elsevier B.V.
Roche Rivera, H. (1998). „The Willingness-to-Pay for a Public Mixed Good: The Colon
Theatre in Argentina‟, paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on
Cultural Economics, Barcelona, June 14-17, 1998
Sacco, P.L. and Segre, G. (2009). „Creativity, Cultural Investment and Local
Development: A New Theoretical Framework for Endogenous Growth‟, in U.
Fratesi and L. Senn (eds.), Growth and Innovation of Competitive Regions–The
Role of Internal and External Connections, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heilderberg
Shusterman, R. (2008). „Entertainment Value: Intrinsic, Instrumental, and
Transactional‟ in Hutter, M. and Throsby, D. (eds.), Beyond Price, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Santagata, W. and Signorello, G. (2000). „Contingent Valuation of a Cultural Public
Good and Policy Design: The Case of “Napoli Musei Aperti”‟, Journal of
Cultural Economics, 24 (3): 181-204
Shockley, G. E. (2004). „Government Investment in Cultural Capital: A Methodology
for Comparing Direct Government Support for the Arts in the U.S. and the U.K.‟,
Public Finance and Management, 4 (1): 75-102
66
Shockley, G. E. (2005). „Whither Bourdieuan Cultural Capital? At the Crossroads of
Sociology and Economics‟ paper presented at the 37th World Congress of the
International Institute of Sociology, Stockholm, Sweden,
http://www.scasss.uu.se/IIS2005/total_webb/tot_html/papers/whither_bourdieuan_cultu
ral_capital.pdf
Smith, A. ([1776] 1976). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Snowball, J. D. (2008). Measuring the Value of Culture – Methods and Examples in
Cultural Economics, Springer
Snowball, J. and Antrobus, G. (2003). „Results of the WTP Household Survey at the
Klein Karoo Nationale Kunstefees‟, Unpublished Research Paper, Rhodes
University: South Africa.
Snowball, J. and Willis, K. (2006a). „Estimating the Marginal Utility of Different
Sections of An Arts Festival: the Case of Visitors to the South African National
Arts Festival, Leisure Studies, 25 (1): 43-56
Snowball, J. and Willis, K. (2006b). „Building Cultural Capital: „Transforming the
South African National Arts Festival‟, South African Journal of Economics, 74
(1): 1-14
Steel, P., Taras, V. and Kirkman, B.L. (2010). „Examining the Impact of Culture‟s
Consequences: A Three-Decade, Multi-Level Analytic Review of Hofstede‟s
Cultural Value Dimension‟, Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3): 405-439
67
Thompson, M. (1979). Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value, Oxford
University Press, Oxford
Thompson, B., Throsby, D. and Withers, G. (1983). „Measuring Community Benefits
from the Arts‟, Research Paper 261, School of Economic and Financial Studies:
Macquarie University, Sydney.
Throsby, D. (1999). „Cultural Capital‟, Journal of Cultural Economics, 23: 3-12
Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Throsby, D. (2003). „Determining the Value of Cultural Goods: How Much (or How
Little) Does Contingent Valuation Tell Us‟, Journal of Cultural Economics, 27:
275-285
Tuan, T.H. and Navrud, S. (2007). „Valuing Cultural Heritage in Developing Countries:
Comparing and Pooling Contingent Valuation and Choice Modelling Estimates‟,
Environmental and Resource Economics, 38: 51-69
Tuan, T.H., and Navrud,S. (2008). „Capturing the Benefits of Preserving Cultural
Heritage‟, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9: 326-337
Ulibarri, C.A. (2000). „Rational Philanthropy and Cultural Capital‟, Journal of Cultural
Economics, 24: 135-146
UNESCO (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage, Paris: UNESCO document 17 C/106
UNESCO (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,
Paris: UNESCO document MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14
68
Wang, X. (2007). „An Analysis of Optimal Allocation and Accumulation of Cultural
Capital‟,
http://doors.doshisha.ac.jp/webopac/bdyview.do?bodyid=BD00011738&elmid=B
ody&lfname=019009010014.pdf&loginflg=on
Willis, K. (1994). „Paying for Heritage: What Price for Durham Cathedral?‟, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 37 (3): 267-278
69