Can we put a value on our cultural heritage? Economists are currently developing techniques to sound out public opinion on how much people are really prepared to “spend” on preserving historic remains. Within the past few years these surveys have investigated attitudes towards aboriginal rock paintings in Canada, the Campi Flegrei antiquities of Naples, Bulgaria’s monasteries, the Fes Medina in Morocco, the monuments of Washington DC, Nidaros cathedral in Norway and the historic centre of Neuchâtel in Switzerland.
Most recently, English Heritage commissioned a study on protecting Stonehenge from the damaging effect of the A303 road, which runs within one hundred yards of the prehistoric stone circle. This is the first major “contingent valuation” survey undertaken for policy-making, rather than academic purposes.
The basic problem is to analyse the importance of a cultural asset to society. Although some sites are barred from those who do not buy an entrance ticket, many are “non-market” assets, in that they can be enjoyed without charge. This often leads to neglect: no funds are generated to finance conservation and the lack of a charge encourages over-use. When cultural assets are not marketed, economists need to use non-market valuation techniques to find out what individuals are willing to pay for conservation. This is now possible, thanks to recent developments in environmental economics and social survey methodology. The key is to determine people’s “willingness to pay” for a benefit, using the contingent valuation method. By means of an appropriately designed questionnaire, a random sample of people are asked to express their maximum willingness to pay for a hypothetical change, perhaps through their taxes. This forces respondents to take into account that they are being asked to sacrifice some of their limited income, and willingness to pay is a much more powerful measure of value than general attitudinal questions.
In the case of Stonehenge, English Heritage (which runs the site) wanted to produce objective evidence to demonstrate that the UK population appreciates the importance of preserving the environment around the stones, and would be willing to accept the tax burden of funding the proposed road tunnel. English Heritage therefore commissioned a study from Dr David Maddison of University College London and Dr Susana Mourato of Imperial College.
Respondents in the survey were presented with a description of the different route options for the A303 road and their impacts on the environment. They were then asked how much extra tax they would be willing to pay in order to secure the different outcomes. The questions were put to a random representational sample of the UK population (525 people), as well as national visitors to Stonehenge (271 people) and foreign visitors (116 people). Maddison and Mourato found that 42% of respondents would not be willing to pay any additional tax, agreeing with the proposition that “I have more important things to think about than a pile of old stones.” An astonishing 16% of the UK sample claimed never to have seen Stonehenge, not even in photographs. But the majority, 58%, said they would be willing to pay up to £13 per household in extra taxes over the next two years in order to divert the road. “I was surprised that the sum was as large as £13,” said Dr Mourato. If the 58% is translated into national taxpayers, this sum would bring in a total of £183 million. This figure is slightly more than the actual cost of a two-kilometre tunnel, which would cost £125 million. The Maddison-Mourato study was presented to English Heritage late last summer and played a key role in leading to the decision, announced last September, to push for a Master Plan which involves diverting the A303 into a tunnel. The Government’s Highways Agency is currently engaged in a formal consultation process in the region and the results are likely to be released next month. Work on the new road could begin in 2004.
Valuing the heritage: overview of studies
(US$ sums are those derived from the surveys)
o The impacts of road improvements upon Stonehenge, UK: $20-23: on-site, nationals; $6-11 off-site nationals; $0.3-2: on-site, foreigners (per household, annual sum for two years). Source: Maddison and Mourato, Report for English Heritage, 1998
o Aesthetic changes in Lincoln Cathedral due to air pollution, UK: $51: Lincolnshire residents; $85 Lincoln residents (per household, annual). Source: Pollicino and Maddison, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College, London, 1998
o Non-Moroccan values for rehabilitating the Fes Medina, Morocco $38-70: Fes visitors; $22-31: Morocco visitors; $6-17: Europe non-visitors (per individual).
Source: Carson et al., Fes Cultural Heritage Rehabilitation Project, World Bank, 1997
o The preservation of monasteries, Bulgaria: $0.6-1 (per household, one year).
Source: Mourato and Danchev, DGXII, European Commission, 1997
o Acid deposition injuries to monuments in Washington DC, USA: $16: low impact; $23: medium impact; $33: high impact (per household, annual). Source: Morey et al., National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, 1997
o Renovation of historical building in Grainger City, Newcastle, UK: $16-22 (per household, annual).
Source: Garrod et al., “Cities” 13(6), 1996
o Recreational value of pristine and defaced aboriginal rock paintings, Nopiming Park, Manitoba, Canada: $3-5: pristine; $0.3-0.4: defaced (per individual, per visit).
Source: Boxall et al., World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Venice, 1998
o The right to access at present charges to Rivoli Castle, Turin, Italy $28-33 (per individual, annual).
Source: Scarpa, et al., in Bishop and Romano (eds), “Environmental Resource Valuation”, 1997
o Visitor benefits to Warkworth Castle, Northumberland, UK: $4 (per individual, per visit).
Source: Powe and Willis, “Leisure Studies” 15, 1996
o Continuing activities of the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark $9-$24 (per individual, annual).
Source: Hansen, Joint European Conference on Non-market Values, Oslo, 1995
o Access to Durham Cathedral, UK $1.4 (per individual, per visit).
Source: Willis, “Journal of Environmental Management” 37(3), 1994
o Damage from traffic-caused air pollution to historic buildings in Neuchâtel, Switzerland: $77-86 (per individual, annual).
Source: Grosclaude and Soguel, “Journal of Environmental Planning and Management” 37 (3), 1994
o Damage from air pollution to Nidaros Cathedral, Trondheim, Norway $51: originals preserved; $45 restoration losing originals (per individual, annual).
Source: Navrud et al., Centre for Research in Economics and Business Administration, Oslo, 1992
o Arts support (theatre, opera, ballet, music, visual arts, crafts), Sydney, Australia: $18-111 (per individual, annual).
Source: Throsby and Withers, “Journal of Public Economics” 31, 1986
Source for full table: David Pearce and Susana Mourato, “The Economics of Cultural Heritage”, unpublished report for World Bank, November 1998.
Originally appeared in The Art Newspaper as 'What's it worth to you?'