Capturing Heritage Value Through Innovative Mechanisms (Gambaran Nilai Warisan Melalui Mekanisme Inovatif)

AHMAD SHUIB, NITHANAN KOSHY MATHEW

Abstract


ABSTRACT: Cultural heritage (CH) is a public good which is not traded in the market, thus market fails to indicate the true value of the CH, giving the impression that CH has zero or minimal economic value. Furthermore, the public good nature of CH has made the consumption of most CH to be FOC or at the minimum price; thus the revenues generated from consumption of CH is insufficient to maintain, what more to finance conservation of the CH. Without strong supports from government and public subsidy, the conservation of many important cultural assets are neglected or at best given lip service. People obtain significant benefits from CH in many forms, yet CH is threatened with degradation and destruction. Although several techniques to capture the economic value of the changes in CH, which are external to the market, have been developed but the validity and reliability of the values are often questioned. The present paper will discuss the use of the stated preference approach (CVM) to assess the economic value of CH and to deliberate on the issues and limitation of the approach. New innovative techniques are being further developed that take into account preferences for cultural assets that have wider ranging multifaceted concepts and different motivational concerns.

Keywords: Cultural heritage; innovative mechanisms; motivational concerns

 

ABSTRAK: Warisan budaya atau Cultural heritage (CH) merupakan harta awam yang tidak diniagakan dalam pasaran, dengan itu pasaran gagal untuk menunjukkan nilai sebenar CH, memberi gambaran bahawa CH mempunyai nilai ekonomi sifar atau minimum. Tambahan pula, sifat barangan awam CH telah menjadikan penggunaan CH secara percuma atau dengan harga yang minimum; dengan itu pendapatan yang dijana daripada penggunaan CH tidak mencukupi untuk melestarikannya, apatah lagi untuk membiayai pemuliharaan CH. Tanpa sokongan kuat daripada kerajaan dan subsidi awam, pemuliharaan banyak aset kebudayaan yang penting diabaikan atau paling kurang pun diberi janji kosong untuk pemeliharaannya. Orang mendapatkan manfaat yang besar dari CH dalam pelbagai bentuk, namun CH diancam dengan kemusnahan dan kehancuran. Walaupun beberapa teknik untuk mendapatkan nilai ekonomi untuk CH, yang berada di luar daripada pasaran, telah dibangunkan tetapi kesahihan dan kebolehpercayaan nilai sering dipersoalkan. Kertas ini akan membincangkan penggunaan pendekatan keutamaan yang dinyatakan (CVM) untuk menilai nilai ekonomi CH dan membincangkan isu-isu dan kelemahan pendekatan yang digunakan. Teknik inovatif baru sedang dibangunkan lagi yang mengambil kira keutamaan bagi aset budaya yang mempunyai konsep yang lebih luas antara pelbagai rupa dan keprihatinan motivasi yang berbeza.

Kata kunci: Warisan budaya; mekanisme inovatif; kebimbangan motivasi


Full Text:

PDF

References


Ai Yunsheng, GaoLan, QiuJunqi. 1996. Study on the recreational benefits of Wuyishan national scenic spot. Journal of Beijing Forestry University 18(3): 89-97.

Azhar Abdul Latiff. 2010.Cultural Arts and Heritage Education: Current Framework in Malaysia. Pusat Pengajian Bahasa, Budaya dan Kebudayaan Melayu Fakulti Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Retrieved on: 20 Oct 2013. http://www.scribd.com

Becker, G.S. 1994. Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bedate A., Herrero, L. C., & Sanz, J. 2004. Economic valuation of the cultural heritage: Application to four case studies in Spain. Journal of Cultural Heritage 5: 101-111. Retrieved on: 23 March 2013. 10.1016/j.culher.2003.04.002.

Bille, H. T. 1997. The willingness to pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a public good. Journal of Cultural Economics 21: 1-28.

Chiam, Chooi Chiam and A. R. Khalid, and Y. Rusli, and R. Alias. 2011.Contingent Valuation Method: Valuing Cultural Heritage. Singapore Economic Review Conference (SERC) 2011, 4-6 August 2011, Singapore.

Griliches, Z. 1971. Introduction: Hedonic price indexes revisited. In Price Indexes and Quality Change, edited by Z.Griliches, 3-15. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Guo Jianying & Wang Naiang. 2004. Assessing the tourism value of tourism resources: A case study of Dunhuang. Journal of Natural Resources 19(6): 811-817.

Hicks, J. 1974. Capital controversies: Ancient and modern. American Economic Review 64: 302-316.

Jannson, A. and Jansson, B. 1994. Ecosystem Properties as a Basis for Sustainability. In Investing in Natural Capital, edited by Ann Mari Jansson et al. Washington: Island Press.

Kinghorn N. Willis, K. 2008. Valuing the components of anarchaeological site: An application of choice experiment to Vin-dolanda, Hadrian′s Wall. Journal of Cultural Heritage 9: 117-124. Retrieved on: 6 April 2013. 10.1016/j. culher.2007.05.006.

Kim, S. S., Wong, K. K. F., & Cho, M. 2007. Assessing the economic value of a world heritage site and willingness to pay determinants. A case of Changdeok Palace. Tourism Management 28: 317-322. Retrieved on: 23 March 2013. http://www:j.tourman.

Li Wei, Li. 2003. Using a modified travel cost method to evaluate the recreational benefits of Jiuzhaigou nature reserve. Acta Scicentiarum Naturalium Universitis Pekinesis 39(4): 548-555.

Lilian Chan M.L. 2009. The conservation of a living heritage in inner George Town, Penang Island, PhD thesis submitted to School graduate Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Maddison, D. & Foster, T. 2003. Valuing congestion costs in the British Museum. Oxford Economic Papers 55(1): 173-190.

Martin, F. 1994. Determining the size of museum subsidies. Journal of Cultural Economics 18: 22.

Mazzanti, M. 2002. Cultural heritage as multi-dimensional, multi value and multi-attribute economic good: toward a new framework for economic analysis and valuation. Journal of Socio-Economics 31: 529-558.

Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. 1989. Using Surveys To Value Public Goods The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington DC: Resources for the future.

Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G., &Nunes, P. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study. Ecological Economics 67: 217-231.

Noonan, D.S. 2003. Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature, Journal of Cultural Economics 27: 159-176.

Pearce D. and O¨zdemiroglu E. et al. March 2002 Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques Summary Guide Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: London. Retrieved on: 23 April 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads

Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. 2003. Valuing the protection of aboriginal cultural heritage sites. Economic Record 79: S85-S95.

Ruijgrok, E. C. M. 2006. The three economic values of cultural heritage: A case study in the Netherlands. Journal of Cultural Heritage 7: 206-213. Retrieved on: 16 May 2913. 10.1016/j.culher.2006.07.002.

Santagata, W., and. Signorello, G. 2000. Contingent valuation of a cultural public good and policy design. Journal of Cultural Economics 24: 181-204.

Schaeffer, P., and C. Millerick. 1991. The impact of historic district designation on property values: An empirical study. Economic Development Quarterly 5(4): 301-12.

Schuster, M. 2003. Introduction. Journal of Cultural Economics 27: 155-158.

Snowball, J. D. 2008. Measuring the Value of Culture: Methods and Examples in Cultural Economics. Berlin, Springer.

Thurley, S. 2005. Sustainable tourism and cultural heritage. Retrieved on: 15 March 2013. http://www.nwhf.no.

Throsby, D. 1997. Seven questions in the economic of cultural heritage. In Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage, edited by Michael Hutter and Ilde Rizzo, 13-30. St. Martins Press Inc., New York.

Throsby, D. 2001. Economics and Culture. U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Tuan, T. H, & Navrud, S. 2008. Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 9: 326-337. Retrieved on: 23 March 2013. 10.1016/j.culher.2008.05.001.

Verbic, M., Slabe-Erker, R. 2009. An econometric analysis of willingness to pay for sustainable development: A case study of the VolcjiPotok landscape area. Ecological Economics 68: 1316-1328. Retrieved on: 23 May 2013. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 


ISSN 2289-1706 | e-ISSN : 2289-4268 

Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu (ATMA)
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan
MALAYSIA

© Copyright UKM Press, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia