IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

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

Listed author(s):

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: link to article abstract page
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Cambridge University Press in its journal Environment and Development Economics.

Volume (Year): 15 (2010)
Issue (Month): 01 (February)
Pages: 39-57

in new window

Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:15:y:2010:i:01:p:39-57_99
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK

Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.