IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v15y2010i01p39-57_99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit-transfer valuation of a cultural heritage site: the Petroglyph National Monument

Author

Listed:
  • ULIBARRI, CARLOS A.
  • ULIBARRI, VICTOR C.

Abstract

This paper applies a household production framework (Becker, 1971) to infer the economic value of a cultural heritage site, namely, the Petroglyph National Monument, situated in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. The empirical analysis uses benefit-transfer techniques from three source studies: those of Bergstrom and Cordell (1991) and Boxall et al. (2003), which concern willingness-to-pay to hike and view rock art sites; and those of Rolfe and Windle (2003, 2006), which concern willingness-to-pay by Aboriginal and general populations to preserve a cultural heritage site containing rock art. The benefit-transfer analysis estimates recreational values between 3.75 million and 7 million dollars per year (depending on perceptions of the cultural attribute quality) and a nonuse value of approximately 12.5 million dollars per year. By comparison the annualized costs of developing/operating the study site are 8.5 million dollars per year. Thus a partial cost-benefit analysis suggests the study site yields net economic benefits upwards of 7.8 million dollars per year.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulibarri, Carlos A. & Ulibarri, Victor C., 2010. "Benefit-transfer valuation of a cultural heritage site: the Petroglyph National Monument," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 39-57, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:15:y:2010:i:01:p:39-57_99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X0999009X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Dale Whittington, 2020. "The Existence Value of a Distinctive Native American Culture: Survival of the Hopi Reservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 931-951, April.
    2. Manero, Ana & Taylor, Kat & Nikolakis, William & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Marshall, Virginia & Spencer-Cotton, Alaya & Nguyen, Mai & Grafton, R. Quentin, 2022. "A systematic literature review of non-market valuation of Indigenous peoples’ values: Current knowledge, best-practice and framing questions for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    3. Aleksandra Wiśniewska & Ewa Zawojska & Andrea Baldin & Joanna Rachubik, 2023. "Reliability of international benefit transfer in cultural economics: Non-market valuation of theater in Denmark and Poland," Working Papers 2023-19, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Dani Aoun, 2015. "Who pays more to preserve a natural reserve, visitors or locals? A confidence analysis of a contingent valuation application," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(4), pages 471-486, October.
    5. Jiahui Ji & Tim Heath, 2023. "The Spatial Transformation of the Villages around Chang’an Cultural Heritage Site Based on Actor Network Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-25, July.
    6. Richard Melstrom, 2014. "Valuing historic battlefields: an application of the travel cost method to three American Civil War battlefields," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(3), pages 223-236, August.
    7. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V., 2016. "Drivers of heritage value: A meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 277-284.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:15:y:2010:i:01:p:39-57_99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.