Can People Value the Aesthetic and Use Services of Urban Sites? Evidence from a Survey of Belfast Residents

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the position of Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may Can People Value the Aesthetic and Use Services of Urban Sites? Evidence from a Survey of Belfast Residents SummaryThis study explores the potential of conjoint choice analysis for planning decisions in urban sites. We elicit people's preferences for regeneration projects that change the aesthetic and use character of specified urban sites. We focus on two sets of regeneration projects. The first set entails hypothetical transformations of an actual square with an important cultural and historical dimension. The other set of projects consists of hypothetical transformations of an abstract square. Each regeneration project is defined by aesthetic and use attributes. Our results suggest that people behaved in a way that is consistent with the Random Utility Model for the abstract square, and that there are both similarities and differences between preferences for the actual and the abstract square. Keywords IntroductionWhen planning decisions have to be made about urban areas, and about projects for the regeneration and reuse of existing sites and public spaces in urban areas, economists would suggest that at least some consideration be given to the costs and the benefits associated with these projects.It is, however, sometimes difficult to compute the monetary benefits of urban regeneratio n and restoration projects, because many of the services that they provide to the public -including aesthetic quality, comfort, sense of neighborhood identity, town character, preservation of cultural and historical heritage, access to outdoor space-are non-market goods. Lacking markets where these services are traded, economists have devised a number of methods to place a monetary value on them.Contingent valuation is one such method. The contingent valuation approach (see Mitchell and Carson, 1989) surveys individuals, asking them directly to report their willingness to pay (WTP) for a specified (change in the provision of a) public or private good. Conjoint analysis is a variant of contingent valuation where respondents are asked to rate, rank, or choos e between hypothetical public programs or commodities described by a set of attributes (see Hanley et al. 2001). Respondents trade off the attributes of the programs or goods, one of which is usually its cost to the respondent. Recent high-quality valuation efforts based ...

Is cultural heritage really important for tourists? A contingent rating study

“…3 Two further reasons exist to omit price from the list of attributes: first, we do not aim at estimating implicit price of attributes, so that we do not need the presence of price among the explanatory factors; second, in similar exercises, price typically emerges to have a positive marginal coefficient in the evaluation system of a package -see, e.g., Roe et al (1996) or Alberini (2003) among many others; the reason is that respondents interpret price as an indirect indicator for quality. The absence of price avoids this source of confusion.…”

“…11 We have also investigated the relevance of the individual demographic variables upon the marginal effect of attribute levels, by inserting, in the regression, explanatory variables capturing the cross-combination of attribute levels and demographic characteristics (see, e.g., Alberini et al, 2003, andBegona et al, 2001, among many consider demographic variables per se and attribute levels, so that we omit the results for the sake of brevity. For a recent study concerning the role of socio-economic variables in the demand for cultural goods see Borgonovi (2004).…”

Smart Cities and Heritage Conservation: Developing a Smartheritage Agenda for Sustainable Inclusive Communities

“…This exercise requires people to make trade-offs between attributes, one of which is typically the cost of the commodity to the respondent (Louviere & Hensher, 1982;Louviere & Woodworth, 1983). Though the applications of such approach to heritage are still limited, it has been successfully implemented to value urban transformations and assess management strategies for tourism purposes (Alberini et al, 2003;Alberini et al, 2006;Riganti, Nese & Colombino, 2006;Riganti & Nijkamp, 2008).…”

The valuation of campus built heritage from the student perspective: Comparative analysis of Rhodes University in South Africa and St. Mary's College of Maryland in the United States

“…However, research has not borne out initial fears that hypothetical bias would make the WTP method unusable [24][25][26]. Effective methods for controlling and detecting this form of bias through questionnaire design, such as follow-up questions or debriefing about the reasons for being (un)willing to pay [27] and postdecision confidence measures [28,29], have proved to be mostly successful [30,31].…”