Cultural Heritage: Values and Measures. What Insurance Value?

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the assessment of the cultural heritage value to be transferred though the insurance mechanism, which represents one important activity of the use of insurance instruments to protect cultural heritage against catastrophic risks. To this end, the paper offers a review of the literature in the field of the economic value of cultural heritage and its assessment according to a monetary-analysis approach. Results show that this approach is inevitably problematic, highlighting the need for a research agenda to develop a coherent framework that pays due attention to the specific nature of cultural heritage.

Headnote

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the assessment of the cultural heritage value to be transferred though the insurance mechanism, which represents one important activity of the use of insurance instruments to protect cultural heritage against catastrophic risks. To this end, the paper offers a review of the literature in the field of the economic value of cultural heritage and its assessment according to a monetary-analysis approach.

Results show that this approach is inevitably problematic, highlighting the need for a research agenda to develop a coherent framework that pays due attention to the specific nature of cultural heritage.

Keywords: cultural heritage, total economic value, economic evaluation, insurance value

Introduction

Tangible cultural heritage can be the subject of different evaluations that are, at times, in conflict with one another. The cultural significance,1 or rather the multiple values linked to a cultural object - its economic, aesthetic, cultural, political, educational value, etc. - is assessed from the perspective of the numerous stakeholders taking part in the heritage conservation process. Establishing these values when it is time to take decisions regarding an object's conservation and, therefore, meeting the needs of multiple stakeholders is no simple task. What should be preserved? How? For whom? For how long? And so on. (Throsby, 2013, 1997; Benhamou, 2011; Peacock, Rizzo, 2008; Vecco, 2007; Mossetto, Vecco, 2001). These questions have to be answered in the context of each different value system.

This chapter explores the concept of a number of possible values of cultural heritage before analysing the main monetary measurement methods the literature suggests. Its goal is to show how problematic the assessment of interrelated values is when it must be transferred through the insurance (i.e., monetary) mechanism.

Its structure is as follows: We present in Section 1 a review of the typologies of value related to cultural heritage, providing a taxonomy of these values, while in Section 2, we analyze the paradigm of the total economic value within the evaluation process. In Section 3, we present the main measurement methods based on a monetary-approach. Building on this last section, we conclude by hightlighting the main challenges affecting the assessment activity of cultural heritage for insurance purposes.

Values of Cultural Heritage

There exist a vast number of different types of values, and the interactions between them can be highly complex. Any description of the values related to cultural heritage comes up against difficulties of both a conceptual and practical nature that hide the diverse expressions of the values of heritage (cultural, economic, social dimension, etc.). These are expressions of what are essentially the same qualities evaluated from different perspectives. Nevertheless, they are incomparable with one another (Mason, 2008; Vecco, 2007). Furthermore, one also must bear in mind that these values are relative and change in time and space. Values do not exist in themselves, but they are culturally and historically constructed.

The creation of a value typology could facilitate an understanding of the different evaluation processes involved in the preservation process of heritage while, at a later stage, allow a comparative evaluation of diverse heritage projects (see Table 1).

Each value assessment corresponds to the different positions of the stakeholders involved in the process of the decision-taking, organization, and conservation of cultural heritage. If one studies Table 1, which summarises the key value systems in the major literature in reference to heritage, one can observe that the object being described remains the same whilst the approach and at times the descriptive levels change. It must be pointed out that several authors, for example Randall (1987), Allison et al. (1996), or Navrud and Ready (2002), analysed only the purely economic values of the heritage.

In contrast, in the Burra Charter principles (1979, 1998), the economic values are minimized as they are either regarded as derivations of cultural and historic values, or simply from a historic and artistic perspective (Riegl, 1902). Additionally, the focus can be weighted on the social benefits of restoring cultural heritage (Salazar & Marques 2005) or to its sustainable development (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012).

Later, a classification of the values founded on the distinction between the economic and cultural fields was put forward as it is these dimensions that are considered a semiotic asset of cultural heritage (Barrere & Santagata, 1999). Similarly, one must bear in mind that owing to the existence of cultural values and the fact that these goods produce externalities (that usually lead to the market collapsing), the exchange of cultural goods on the market is problematic.

It should be observed that another two categories of values have been introduced (Table 2): the values of communication, which have a cultural matrix, and ecosystemic values (Carter & Brambley, 2002, 175-199).

Given the importance they have acquired in our society as expressions of stakeholder interests, it was decided each of the four values in Table 2 should be treated as independent categories. In particular, the ecological values that play a role in the definition of the sustainability of cultural heritage can play an important role in conservation decisions and, at times, may actually be in conflict with the economic field. This classification proposes values that most often are referred to heritage (via scientific or subjective assessment), but it is important to point out that each cultural heritage asset does not necessarily represent all the values mentioned above.

These four categories represent different ways of valuing heritage; what changes is the conceptual context and the methodology used for its expression.

The Economic Values

The use value is the value derived from the possible commercial use of the resource, whether present or future. The (direct and indirect) use values of a constructed heritage asset refer to the goods and services derived from its exploitation. It is easy to give them a price because they can be exchanged on the market. The option value is more complex to express in terms of price since it attributes an economic value despite lacking a traditional transaction on the marketplace. The economic value is assessed according to the value of the future 'option' of consuming the heritage asset, attributed by an individual who does not benefit from cultural or heritage activities, but he or she can in the future.

Some of the values classified above as cultural values are also non-use values. If use values usually are categorised as economic values (since individuals are willing to pay to acquire or protect them), non-use values (where existence is known but not used or exploited economically) must be classified in sub-categories to highlight the characteristic that could motivate the economic decision to conserve the heritage.

The existence value. The heritage asset is evaluated for its existence. This is the value given to a site/heritage asset based on an individual's knowledge of it, regardless of comsumption or visitation.

The bequest value. It expresses the desire to protect and make the heritage asset available to future generations, for whom one must guarantee the possibility of "consuming" heritage assets and services. This approach can stand only if one assumes the conservation of cultural heritage is a value felt by all generations and does not change over time. Likewise, in conditions of uncertainty, the present generation may deem its options (between conservation and the other uses of cultural heritage) as less important than the possibility of the option transmitted to future generations. If these two suppositions are removed, conservation, paradoxically, could be a cost for the current generation that sacrifices alternative uses of public resources without producing the expected benefits for future generations.

The Cultural Values

The historic value is the capacity of the heritage asset to represent or stimulate a relation to the past, its testimonies to a period, and the stratifications of the traces left by time. This value is founded on the norms of antiquity and authenticity. Heritage reflects the culture of a given society; it is the social and cultural expression of a specific period in a specific context. Heritage without social or cultural value cannot exist.2

The aesthetic value is the result of the pleasure and emotion one feels when looking at a cultural heritage asset - it is a subjective dimension. The artistic value, in contrast, can be regarded as the item's contribution to the development of an artistic movement and, according to set norms, the perfection of its style. It has an objective dimension.

The spiritual value refers to the fact that the heritage asset is embued with spiritual or religious meaning. The cognitive or educational value is dependent on the heritage item teaching us something and, therefore, contributing to societal development.

From the Total Economic Value to the Assessment Approach

The economic evaluation of assets and services is a science in continuous evolution. For certain goods, such as a kilo of tomatoes or a litre of petrol, the market fixes the price that expresses its economic value. This operation of determining the price of the good on the market is not possible for other categories of assets since this price, if it existed, could only ever be a partial expression of their total value.

As far as the evaluation of cultural heritage is concerned, a total economic value (TEV) approach could be used effectively. The TEV is based on the idea that every asset and service is made up of different attributes: some are easy to assess, others less so. According to Pagiola (1996), the TEV is founded on two main categories: the use value (Uv) and the non-use value (Nuv). The option value is somewhere between the two. The use value, which regards the effective use of the resource, can be divided into the direct use value (Duv), the indirect use value (Iuv), and the option value (Ov). The non-use values are the bequest value (Bv) and the existence value (Ev). The TEV can be expressed by the following equation:

TEV = Uv + Nuv = (Duv + Iuv + Ov) + (Bv + Ev) (1)

The use value (Figure 1) can be either indirect or direct. The latter is differentiated into the extractive use value and non-extractive use value (Serageldin, 1999). The extractive use values of an asset are the values that can be derived from a site; Serageldin gives the example of an historic city in which a direct use is made of the buildings such as the houses or commercial premises. In contrast, the non-extractive use values are derived from the heritage site services. If we go back to the previous example of the historic city, people can only walk through it and enjoy it, without paying any price; their use of the city is not determined by any economic or financial transaction (Tirendi, 2003:12). Measuring the non-extractive use value is much more complicated than determining the extractive use value.

In the category of the non-extractive use values (Pagiola, 1996), the most important are the aesthetic and recreational values. The indirect use value concerns benefits that an asset may create and that individuals may experience "unconsciously." For example, the restoration of a monumental complex may contribute to the improvement of the quality of life in the district where it is located.

The option value is linked to the willingness to pay for future use, even if not clearly defined from a temporal perspective. For individuals, this benefit is comparable to an "insurance premium" that they are willing to pay to ensure they will have the asset at their disposal in the future. The idea of the existence of an option asset goes back to Weisbrod who, in 1964, suggested the existence of a use value that was unrelated to the number of actual visits made. In 1967, referring to Weisbrod's idea, Krutilla focussed on the idea of a willingness to pay that was unrelated to the use of the resource but instead, to its simple existence (existence value) or the possibility to guarantee its consumption for future generations (bequest value).

Walsh and Mckean (1998) have claimed that willingness exists to pay for the anticipation of visiting a specific site as well. Anticipation value (Av) expresses the benefit to certain subjects from the anticipation of the visit, for example, by purchasing an informative CD-ROM, thematic maps, or books and magazines.

According to Fusco Girard (1994) and Fusco Girard and Nijkamp (2009), the TEV still represents an anthropocentric approach that is slightly bio-eco-centric, in the sense that the TEV refers to individual willingness to pay, excluding all those who do not have this willingness. First and foremost, it excludes future generations, followed by the more marginalized subjects such as the less well off, the natural environment, etc.

The expression of the TEV, therefore, can be written as follows:

TEV = Uv + Nuv + Av = (Duv + Iuv + Ov) + (Bv + Ev) + Av (2)

The problem is understanding whether the TEV makes it possible to "capture" the entire economic value of an asset. According to Margolis (1982) and Etziani (2010; 1988) the individual has two sources of value: the utility and ethics that are expressed via participation in the polis. On the one hand, the subject acts according to its interests and personal profit (it is the real "consumer"); on the other, they seek solutions that also can benefit others. According to Page (1991), the evaluation of social foundations, linked to individual behaviour, is of great importance because it is aimed at satisfying not only consumption needs but also social and relational needs, as Maslow (1970) suggested.

As early as 1992, Turner already had spoken of glue value as all the values that the TEV does not "capture." According to Turner, the autopoi'etic system has a primary value because it is the foundation that allows the system to distribute services and functions that are useful to people. This primary valaue is the value of the latent functions underlying the values that usually are appreciated; moreover, it expresses the system value as a whole. This primary value underlies the heteropoi'etical activities that define the total secondary value (TSV). The premise for the distinction between use and non-use values is the existence of an ecosystem that is in good condition. From this perspective, these values represent secondary values. The TEV includes the differences that make up the TSV (Girard, 1995), but not the primary value of the aggregate system (the glue value).

It is only this total secondary value that can be defined in monetary terms through the total economic value (TEV). A total value (TV) is recognized in an ecosystem and is represented as follows:

TV = (TEV, i) (3)

where i represents the intrinsic value. The total value is annulled only if this value equals zero, but if i is different to zero, one gets the following:

TV = (TEV, i) > 0 (4)

The TV is unable to express the whole value; it has two limits. The first regards the difficulty in expressing all assets and services in economic terms, the second the structural impossibility of expressing the intrinsic value i in monetary terms.

Methods to Measure the Economic Value of Cultural Heritage

Cultural heritage can be considered as a consumption good and as an investment good (Mossetto & Vecco, 2001). According to the latter, cultural heritage becomes an asset that needs to be assessed, even if it is not in the market. The existing literature focusing on the assessment of the TEV of heritage as an asset suggests several methods based on a monetary analysis approach. These are methods based on the notion of the consumer surplus and the assessment of the so-called individual's willingness to pay (WTP), or willingness to accept (WTA) some kind of compensation if the asset is not available anymore. These two approaches express individual utility and preference satisfaction for a specific good or service (Nijkamp, 2012, 83-84). Consequently, in this frame, the individual preferences generated in response to hyphotetical scenarios are "converted' into monetary terms. The WTP is the most frequently applied approach, which uses a range of survey formats to generate measurable pseudo-market values.

Under this approach, indeed, in presence of markets for the acquisition of services related to the use of cultural property, the price can be assumed as a more or less fair proxy of its value (e.g., the contribution in the form of rental value, when a monument is used for commercial activities; or entry price, when for example a museum provides an entry ticket to visit the collections). Conversely, cultural goods are rarely under a market regime. It follows that the measurement methods are based mainly on individual WTP estimated by referring to alternative markets (so called indirect methods or methods based on revealed preferences) or to specific groups of beneficiaries under hypothetical or real scenarios (so called direct methods or methods based on stated preferences).

Table 3 presents in more detail a classification of the assessment methods applicable to cultural heritage, elaborated by Moreschini (2003, 8) using two criteria:

(a) the method used: direct methods - based on explicit statements of the observed individuals - and indirect methods - based on the analysis of their behavior; and

(b) the scenario: a real or hypothetical scenario.

The travel cost method and the hedonic price method are the most used indirect methods, both of them deriving the value of a cultural asset from the selling price of surrogate markets.

The former analyses the consumer's behavior to capture his or her preferences for a cultural asset by considering the time and the travel costs to visit it. The number of visits per year, the distance travelled as well as the value of time (in terms of opportunity cost) spent in travelling and enjoying the site - commonly valuated by using the hourly wage of the respondent-serve for calculating its value. In absence of clear value, an aggregate of variables is used as a proxy of the recreational value of the cultural asset (Bedate et al., 2004).

The hedonic price method considers the real estate prices as a proxy of the use value of a cultural asset, assuming those prices are affected by characteristics of the environment in which the property is located (Navrud & Ready, 2002). Practically, the total value of a good is broken down into constituent parts to see to what extent individual aspects of the good or service contribute to the overall value (Rosen, 1974). Then, regression techniques are used to develop a model that would explain differences in housing unit prices, aiming to reveal the price variations by comparing properties with same attributes in environments without the equivalent of the cultural asset under evaluation. The resulting price variation is considered as the value that the real estate market attributes to that heritage asset (Moreschini, 2003).

Among the stated preference methods, the contingent valuation method (CV) is the best known and most used, as it is the only one that can estimate the non-use values (Tuan & Navrud, 2008, 326). It constructs a hypothetical market for the goods or services to be valued and then attaches prices to them by asking directly a random sample of people about their maximum WTP (or minimum WTA) for a change in the level of provision of that good or service (Mourato et al., 2000, 89), by means of an appropriately designed questionnaire.

Carson (2012) offers a comprehensive bibliography on the history, application, and evolution of this method, and several case studies in the cultural sector can be found in Noonan (2003) and Srakar and Vecco (2017) papers.

Conjoint analysis or choice modelling is an attribute-based method (Holmes & Adamowicz, 2003). As with the contingent valuation method, it is based on extensive surveys. It requires describing different ensembles of scenarios expressing policy options regarding attributes and characteristics of a good or service. Individuals are requested to rank them in order of preference (Pearce & Ozdemiroglu, 2002, 54). Rather than directly asking how much individuals want to pay to preserve a cultural asset, they are asked to choose among clear options, avoiding many of the technical and practical criticisms of the contingent valuation method (Tuan & Navrud, 2008; Snowball, 2008).

Unlike other methods discussed above, the Delphi Technique and focus groups use the opinions of a panel of experts and non-experts respectively as primary data (Sackman, 1975).

Compensation methods base the final results on the assumption that the economic value of a cultural good can be estimated by observing a real consumer's behavior in relation to alternative choices. According to this approach, individuals express their willingness to pay for a good or service (that is no longer available) through the purchase of alternative (available) goods. The selling price of those alternative goods can be considered as the proxy of the economic value recognized for the cultural good under evaluation (Klamer & Zuidhof, 1999). Substantially, they seek to find the sacrifices and revenues involved with a change in the availability or quality of a cultural asset (Nijkamp, 2012, 89). Among others, the most used methods are those based on a cost compensation approach, assuming that the value of cultural goods or services is equal to costs of replacing, substituting, or restoring goods or services (Vecvagars, 2006, 34).

All the above methods are characterized by important biases in capturing the economic value of a heritage asset. Even if contingent valuation seems to be the best method to translate total economic value in monetary terms, literature (Srakar & Vecco, 2017; Seaman, 2003; Throsby 2003; Mitchell & Carson, 1989; among others) has discussed the numerous biases affecting the data validity of this method. The main biases are related to the underlying assumptions and choices on how the method is applied. Practically, we have to mention that it is costly as it requires significant expertise, without which can lead to misleading results (Pearce & Ozdemiroglu, 2002, 29).

Moreover, the travel cost and the hedonic price methods (indirect methods) present two main limitations. Firstly, they are not able to capture and measure the non-use values; secondly, the results strongly depend on the quality of statistical data processing and mining.

Assuming the substitutability of the goods concerned, compensation methods are rarely used in the field of cultural heritage assessment as the main feature of cultural assets is usually their exclusivity or uniqueness. However, unlike the previous direct and indirect methods, these are considered less expensive and time consuming and can be more easily applied for very approximate estimates (Vecvagars, 2006, 34).

What Insurance Value? Some Remarks for not Concluding

Within the debate of the opportunity-possibility to use insurance as a instrument to protect cultural heritage against catastrophic risks, this chapter had the aim to introduce to the reader a critical aspect of the whole insurance workflow process applied to tangible heritage assets. This workflow may be complex as it includes the assessment of the insurance amount required for the purpose of establishing an insurance cover.

The assessment represents a crucial component of the insurance mechanism as this activity has to set up the monetary value actually insured against the occurrence of a risky event. This monetary value defines the basis to calculate both the counterpart insurance premium and the maximum refundable amount to the insured in case of partial damages or full loss of the good insured.

In other words, when we subscribe to an insurance policy - of course, considering the non-life insurance field - it means we pay annual premiums to an insurance company that will pay us back in case of damaged incurred because of a specific risk. This sum paid back by the insurance company is meant as compensation to repair, or rebuild, or both, from the damage or loss suffered. Clearly, the insurance mechanism rationale is based on a compensation approach, helping the insured to reinstate the damaged property (repairing, rebuilding, restoring, replacing, etc., in a condition equal to, but not better or more extensive than, its condition when new, according to the value that has been assessed); or settling an equivalent cash reimbursement if the insured will not reinstate.

Therefore, the insurance mechanism involves an ex-ante and an ex-post monetary evaluation of the insured object/damage/loss and assumes each insured object is replaceable with an object having similar features. This perspective refers to the value to the owner, assuming that the economic value under appraisal is measurable in terms of the total cost suffered by the owner as consequence of a total or partial loss of the object concerned, in turn being estimated according to market/selling prices of substitute goods. In other terms, the use values of the insured items are the main object of the monetary estimation process.

This process can be applied without challenge to a range of goods, but it can face some limitations with regard to cultural goods. As we have pointed out, cultural and economic values, and a non-market nature position, essentially make cultural goods somewhat irreplaceable.

If we consider the insurance mechanism presently in use, the TEV evaluation process as described in section 3, and the main bias affecting its monetary estimation (section 4), we could conclude that it can be feasible to transfer under an insurance policy only the direct use values of a cultural asset, namely the extractive use ones, which relate to service potential easily exchangeable on the market.

Based on the intergenerational argumentations and the relevance of the option and nonuse values, we are not in the position to accept such a kind of conclusion. The debate should be about the use of insurance as a tool to protect cultural heritage against any risks for total or partial loss, not to commodify cultural goods. We can affirm that the loss assessment approaches in use for ordinary goods in the insurance market are not suitable for cultural or natural heritage as they do not take into consideration the specific nature of these goods. More research is needed in this field in order to develop a suitable and consistent framework with specifically cultural and natural good focused approaches.

Sidebar

About the Authors

Marilena Vecco ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor of Cultural Economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam. In the Department for the Study of the Arts and Culture, she lectures in the M.A. Cultural Economics & Cultural Entrepreneurship.

Francesca Imperiale ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor of Management of Cultural Organizations and Ph.D. in Business Administration at the Department of Management and Economics of the University of Salento (Lecce), Italy.

Discussion Questions

1. What are the values of cultural heritage to be protected against the catastrophic risks?

2. Are the assessment methods presently in use for insurance purposes suitable to measure cultural heritage?

3. What insurance value for cultural heritage?

To Cite this Article

Vecco, M., & Imperiale, F. (2017, Spring). Cultural heritage: Values and measures. What insurance value? Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 9(1), 7-22.

Footnote

1 "Cultural significance is the term that the conservation community has used to encapsulate the multiple values ascribed to objects, buildings, or landscapes" (Avrami, E., Mason, R., & Torre, M. de la, eds (2000), Values and heritage conservation, Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, p. 7).

2 One also can consider the social value as the capacity to establish and facilitate social relations, ties, and other relations that are not necessarily linked to the historical dimension of the heritage.

References

References

Avrami, E., Mason, R., & de la Torre, M. (2000). Values and heritage conservation (Research report). Los Angeles, CA: The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Baer, N. S., & Snickars, F. (2001). Rational decision-making in the preservation of cultural property. Berlin, Germany: Dahlem University Press.

Barrere, C., & Santagata, W. (1999). Defining art. From the Brancusi trial to the economics of artistic semiotic goods. International Journal of Arts Management, 1 (2), 28-38.

Bedate, A., Herrero, L. C., & Sanz, J. A. (2004, January). Economic valuation of the cultural heritage: Application to four case studies in Spain. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 5(1), 101-111.

Benedikt, M. (Ed.). (1997). Center 10/value. Austin, TX: Centre for Architecture and Design, School of Architecture, University of Texas.

Bok, S. (1995). Common values. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A comprehensive bibliography and history. Cheltenham, UK, and Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Carter, R. W., & Brambley R. (2002). Defining heritage values and significance for improved resource management: An application to Australian tourism. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8(3), 175-199.

Coccossis, H., & Nijkamp, P. (1995). Planning for our heritage. Aldershot, England; Brookfield, VT; Hong Kong; Sydney, Australia: Avebury.

De La Torre, M. (Ed.). (2002). Assessing the values of cultural heritage (Research report). Los Angeles, CA.: The Getty Conservation Institute.

Del Saz Salazar, S., & Marques, J. M. (2005). Valuing cultural heritage: The social benefits of restoring an old Arab tower. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6(1), 69-77.

Etzioni, A. (2010). Moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Fladmark, J. M. (Ed.). (1993). Heritage. Conservation, interpretation, enterprise. Shaftesbury, UK: Donehead Publishing Ltd.

Fusco Girard, L. (1987). Risorse architettoniche e culturali: valutazioni e strategie di conservazione. Unanalisi introduttiva. Milano, Italia: F. Angeli.

Fusco Girard, L. (1994). I beni ambientali: Valutazioni e strategie di conservazione, tra conflitto e cooperazione. Genio rurale - Estimo e Territorio, 5, 35-44.

Fusco Girard, L., & Nijkamp, P. (2004). Energia, bellezza, partecipazione: La sfida della sostenibilitä. Milano, Italia: F. Angeli.

Fusco Girard, L., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.). (2009). Cultural tourism and sustainable local development. Furnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Greffe, X. (1999). La gestion du patrimoine culturel. Paris, France: Anthropos.

Greffe, X. (2001). Les activités culturelles: Un levier de développent et d'emploi pour les territoires. In 3e Jornadas sobre Iniciativa Privada y Sector Publico en la Gestion de la Cultura, Malatzaren, 23-25 de mayo de 2001 (pp. 149-166). Vitoria Gasteiz, España: Xabide Sociedad Cooperativa.

Greffe, X. (2003). La valorisation économique du patrimoine. Paris, France: Ministere de la culture et de la communication, Département des études et de la perspective.

Holmes, T P, & Adamowicz, W. L. (2003). Attribute-based methods. In P Champ, K. Boyle & T. Brown (Eds.), A primer on non-market valuation (pp. 171-219). Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Publishing.

Howe, C. W. (1993). Le frontiere nella valutazione di risorse prive di mercato: problemi e prospettive. In L. Fusco Girard (a cura di), Estimo ed economia ambientale: Le nuove frontiere nel campo della valutazione. Studi in onore di Carlo Forte (pp. 57-83). Milano, Italia: F. Angeli.

Hutter, M., & Rizzo, I. (Eds.). (1997). Economic perspectives on cultural heritage. London, UK: MacMillan Press.

Ingarden, R. (1983). Man and value. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Johnston, Ch. (1992). What is social value? A discussion paper. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Kermal, S., & Gaskell, I. (1993). Explanation and value in the arts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Kermode, F. (1988). History and value. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Klamer, A. (Ed.). (1996). The value of culture: On the relationship between economics and arts. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

Klamer, A., & Zuidhof, P. W. (1998). The value of cultural heritage: Merging economic and cultural appraisals. In Getty Conservation Institute, Economics and heritage conservation (pp. 23-61). Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute.

Mason, R. (2008). Be interested and beware: Joining economic valuation and heritage conservation. International Journal for Heritage Studies, 14(4), 303-318.

Meynell, H. A. (1986). The nature of aesthetic value. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Mitchell, R. C., & Carson R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Moreschini, L. (2003). Metodi di valutazione economica di beni pubblici culturali (Working paper No. 01). Torino, Italia: Dipartimento di Economia "S. Cognetti de Martiis," International Centre for Research on the Economics of Culture, Institutions, and Creativity (EBLA).

Mossetto, G., & Vecco, M. (2001). Economia del patrimonio monumentale. Milan, Italia: F. Angeli.

Mourato, S., & Mazzanti, M. (2002). Economic valuation of cultural heritage: Evidence and prospects. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage (pp. 51-76). Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute.

Mourato, S., Pearce, D., Ozedemiroglu, E., & Howarth, A. (2000). Beyond 'Dusty Archives': The economics of preserving recorded heritage. Cultural Trends, 39, 87-121.

Navrud, S., & Ready R. C. (Eds.). (2002). Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts. Cheltenham, UK, and Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Nijkamp, P. (1993). Lo sviluppo sostenibile e la valutazione socio-economica ed ambientale. In L. Fusco Girard (a cura di), Estimo ed economia ambientale: Le nuove frontiere nel campo della valutazione. Studi in onore di Carlo Forte (pp. 281-304). Milano, Italia: F. Angeli.

Niikamp, P (2012). Economic valuation of cultural heritage. In G. Licciardi & R. Amirtahmasebi (Eds.), The economics of uniqueness: Investing in historic city cores and cultural heritage assets for sustainable development (pp. 75-106). Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

Noonan, D. S. (2003, November). Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3), 159-176.

Page, T. (1992). Intergenerational justice as opportunita. In D. Maclean & P. Brown (Eds.), Energy and the future (pp. 34-49). Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.

Pagiola, S. (1996). Economic analysis of investment in cultural heritage: Insights from environmental economics (paper). Washington, DC: Environment Department, World Bank.

Peacock, A., & Rizzo I. (2008). The heritage game: Economics, policy, and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pearce, D., Maddison, D., & Pollicino, M. (2001). Economics and cultural heritage. Toward an economic approach to valuing and conserving cultural assets. London, England: University College.

Pearce, D., & Ozdemiroglu, E. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: Summary guide. London, England: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR).

Riegl, A. (1903). Der moderne Denkmalkultus (Entwurf einer gesetzlichen Organisation der Denkmalpflege in Österreich). Wien, Deutschland: Zentral Kommission.

Riegl, A., & Bacher, E. (1995). Kunstwerk oder Denkmal? Wien, Köhl, Weimar, Deutchsland: Böhlan Verlag.

Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 34-55.

Sackman, H. (1975). Delphi critique: Expert opinion, forecasting, and group process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Scarrocchia, S. (a cura di). (1995). Alois riegl: Teoria e prassi della conservazione dei monumenti. Antologia di scritti, discorsi, rapporti 1898-1905, con una scelta di saggi critici. Saggi, Studi, Ricerche/Accademia Clementina di Bologna, 4. Bologna, Italia: CLUEB.

Seaman, B. A. (2003). Economic impact of the arts. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics (pp. 224-31). Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Seaman, B. A. (2006). The relationship among regional economic impact models: Contingent valuation versus economic impact in the case of cultural assets (Working paper). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.

Seaman, B. A. (2012). Economic impact in the arts: An updated methodological assessment. PowerPoint presentation presented at the International Conference Culture - Potentials for Development? Maribor 2012, Maribor, Slovenia.

Serageldin, I. (1999). Very special places: The architecture and economics of intervening in historic cities. Culture in Sustainable Development Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Snowball, J. (2008). Measuring the value of culture: Methods and examples in cultural economics. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Srakar, A., & Vecco, M. (2017, May). Ex-ante vs. ex-post: Comparison of the effects of the European Capital of Culture Maribor 2012 on tourism and employment. Journal of Cultural Economics, 41, 197-214. doi: 10.1007/s10824-017-9294-0.

Throsby, D. (1997). Seven questions in the economics of cultural heritage. In M. Hutter & I. Rizzo (Eds.), Economic perspectives of cultural heritage (pp. 13-30). New York, NY: St. Martin Press.

Throsby, D. (1999). Cultural capital. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(1-2), 3-12.

Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Throsby, D. (2003). Determining the value of cultural goods: How much (or how little) does contingent valuation tell us? Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 275-285.

Throsby, D. (2013). Assessment of value in heritage regulation. In I. Rizzo & A. Mignosa (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of cultural heritage (pp. 456-469). Cheltenham, UK, and Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Tighman, B. R. (1984). But is it art? The value of art and the temptation of theory. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Tirendi, D. (2003). Valutazione di contingenza per la stima delle risorse culturali ed ambientali. Genio rurale - Estimo e territorio, Il Sole 24 Ore, LXVI(5), 12-22.

Tuan, T H., & Navrud, S. (2008). Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9(3), 326-337.

Vecco, M. (2007). Economie du patrimoine monumental. Paris, France: Economica.

Vecvagars, K. (2006). Valuing damage and losses in cultural assets after a disaster: Concept paper and research options. Serie estudios y perspectivas, 56. Ciudad México, México: United Nations Publication.

Walsh, R. G., & Mckean, J. R. (1998). Option and anticipatory values of US wilderness. Unpublished mimeograph.

Zuidhof, I. P. W. (1999). The values of cultural heritage. Paper presented at ICARE Summer School, The Economics of Built Heritage, 11-17 July 1999, Venice, Italy.