Travel Cost Analysis of a Cultural Heritage Site: The Case of Historic St. Mary's City of Maryland

Poor, P. Joan; Smith, J.M.

doi:10.1023/b:jcec.0000038020.51631.55

Cited by 108 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The demand model yields a consumer surplus of $15 for follow-up survey respondents and $23 for other respondents. This exceeds Bedate et al's (2004) Spanish organ festival estimates, but aligns well with CS estimates for other cultural site visits (Poor andSmith 2004, Alberini andLongo 2006). Although not affecting the validity tests here, the potentially unrepresentative sample does warrant caution in generalizing from these CS estimates.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Recent contingent behavior models (e.g., Alberini and Longo 2006) still face validity concerns. Measures like planned visits (Poor and Smith 2004) or previous visits (Melstrom 2013) may suffer from undue optimism or inflated recall. This study directly tests SP data validity and combines RP and SP data to correct for this sort of inflation of visit data.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Criterion and predictive validity of revealed and stated preference data: the case of “Mountain Home Music” concert demand

Whitehead

Noonan

Marquardt

2014

Econom. bus. letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a robust literature on nonmarket valuation of cultural assets, serious validity concerns remain. We address this by estimating a demand model for a regional concert series. We survey concertgoers during and then again after the concert season to gather ex ante and ex post stated and revealed preference data. Comparing ex ante stated preference data to ex post revealed preference data we find respondents overstate their concert attendance behavior. An ex ante revealed-stated preference demand model with a stated preference adjustment helps calibrate the results and avoid bias from using solely hypothetical, stated preference data. The results demonstrate how to improve predictive accuracy in contingent behavior models and improve our understanding of demand for live music performances.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Criterion and predictive validity of revealed and stated preference data: the case of “Mountain Home Music” concert demand

Whitehead

Noonan

Marquardt

2014

Econom. bus. letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Poor and Smith (2004) use the travel cost method to value the historic city of St. Mary's in USA, Bedate et al (2004) to value two 5 The book edited by Navrud and Ready (2002) collects a number of studies prior 2002, to which we refer. More recent contributions using contingent valuation include the valuation of historical shipwrecks off the coast of North Carolina (Whitehead and Finney 2003), access to Machu Picchu site (Mourato et al, 2004), the restoration of an old Arab pirate tower in Valencia (Del Saz Salazar and Marques 2005) and conservation of preservation of the My Son World Heritage site in Vietnam (Tuan and Navrud, 2008) and of Armenian monuments (Alberini and Longo, 2009).…”

Section: Valuing Cultural Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Housing Market Reflect Cultural Heritage? A Case Study of Greater Dublin

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does the housing market reflect cultural heritage? We estimate several specifications of a hedonic price equation to establish whether distance to cultural heritage site is capitalised into housing prices in Greater Dublin, Ireland. The results show that distance to the nearest historic building has a significant and robust effect on housing prices. To our knowledge this is the first application of the hedonic price method to cultural heritage.

show abstract

“…14 In our initial runs, we experimented with including age squared, household size, and other variables, but the models were poorly behaved, so we decided to exclude these regressors from the specifications reported in this document. 15 Similar reasons drove Forrest et al (2000) and Poor and Smith (2004) to omit the travel cost to a substitute site in their applications of the travel cost method. lost because of missing observations on the covariates).…”

Section: A Actual Tripsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The method has been used previously to assess the use values of an urban museum (Martin, 1994), of attending performances at the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester (Forrest et al, 2000), of visiting the historic city of St. Mary, Maryland (Poor and Smith, 2004), and of four instances of cultural tourism in Spain (Bedate et al, 2004). All in all, Pearce et al (2002) point out that the majority of the studies that estimate the monetary value of cultural heritage sites and cultural goods (see Navrud and Ready, 2002) The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value of Cultural Heritage Sites in Armenia: Evidence from a Travel Cost Method Study

Alberini

Longo

2005

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Respondents intercepted at four cultural monuments provided information on their visitation patterns, experience at the site, perception of the state of conservation of the monuments, and rating of the quality of the services and infrastructures. We combine actual trips with stated trips under hypothetical programs that would enhance the conservation of the monuments and improve one of (i) the cultural experience at the site, (ii) the quality of the infrastructure, or (iii) the quality of the services, and use the combined actual and stated trips to fit a panel data model. Terms of use: Documents inOur study is one of the few applications of the travel cost method for valuing cultural heritage sites. Our investigation shows that (i) there are significant use values associated with the four study monuments, and (ii) conservation programs and initiatives that improve the cultural experience, or simply make it easier for the respondent to reach and spend time at the monument, are valued by domestic visitors and would encourage higher visitation rates. Actual and intended trips reported by the respondents exhibit good construct validity, in the sense that they are well predicted by price, location, hypothetical scenario and other individual characteristics of the respondents.

show abstract

Travel Cost Analysis of a Cultural Heritage Site: The Case of Historic St. Mary's City of Maryland

Cited by 108 publications

References 18 publications

Criterion and predictive validity of revealed and stated preference data: the case of “Mountain Home Music” concert demand

Criterion and predictive validity of revealed and stated preference data: the case of “Mountain Home Music” concert demand

Does the Housing Market Reflect Cultural Heritage? A Case Study of Greater Dublin

The Value of Cultural Heritage Sites in Armenia: Evidence from a Travel Cost Method Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About