Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 424–439 | Cite as

Protection of architectural heritage: attitudes of local residents and visitors in Sirako, Greece

  • Stella GiannakopoulouEmail author
  • Dimitris Kaliampakos
Article

Abstract

Architectural heritage comprises one of the most important elements of mountain settlements in Greece. It holds high cultural value, represents the tangible continuation of the past and forms the unique character and identity of each mountain region. Yet, controversy regarding funding for its preservation often arises. In this paper, we used two Contingent Valuation surveys to estimate the social benefit deriving from protecting the traditional architecture in the mountainous village of Sirako and, through it, to examine perceptions and attitudes of local residents and visitors. Research findings revealed a strong social will in favor of the good’s protection followed by high percentages of positive willingness to pay (WTP). However, WTP is significantly higher among residents. Cultural heritage value, of the good, appears to prevail, along with the environmental one. However, both residents and visitors pointed out that local heritage, if well-preserved, will boost tourism development. Residents appeared to better recognize the true level of architectural decay, expressed higher apprehension for its protection and were willing to pay higher amount of money. Tourists, on the other side, expressed high satisfaction for their visit, appreciated the beauty and serenity emerging from local built and natural environment and spent several days visiting the surrounding area. The longer they stayed and got familiar with the village, the more willing they were to contribute to local heritage’s protection. Percentages reflecting indifference for protecting architecture were extremely low. Yet, they were higher among tourists. Traditional architecture is considered as public good; an opinion resulting in an important percentage of visitors stating that national government should provide the necessary funding. In addition, the architecture appears to hold a high level of topicality. Those descending from Sirako or emotionally connected to it, of both social groups, turned out to be more concerned about the good and with a stronger sense of responsibility for it. Use-value of the good holds high economic value, as well, while higher percentages of zero WTP appeared among non-users. Research findings revealed social attitudes and perceptions on what constitutes architectural heritage, in its cultural and economic frame. If taken under consideration, they may form useful drivers for local, heritage-based, sustainable development.

Keywords

Architectural heritage Contingent valuation Mountains Cultural goods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamowicz WL, Garrod GD, Willis KG (1995) Estimating the Passive Use Benefits of Britain’s Inland Waterways. Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Alberini A, Riganti P, Longo A (2003) Can people value the aesthetic and use services of urban sites? Evidence from a survey of belfast residents. Journal of Cultural Economics 27(3-4): 193–213. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026317209968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altman I, Low S (eds.), (1992) Place Attachment. Series: Human Behavior and Environment (12), Springer US Publications. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4Google Scholar
  4. Apostolakis A, Jaffry S (2005) A choice modelling application for greek heritage attractions. Journal of Travel Research 43(3): 309–318. DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apostolakis A, Jaffry S (2012) Measuring the Effect of Attitudes, Social Norms and Perceived Behavioral Control Variables on Individual Willingness to Pay for Cultural Resources. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACEI International Conference, Kyoto, Japan, 21-24 June 2012.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Leamer E, et al. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58(10): 4602–4614.Google Scholar
  7. Avrami E, Mason R, De la Torre M (2000) Values and Heritage Conservation: Research Report. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Báez A, Herrero LC (2011) Using contingent valuation and costbenefit analysis to design a policy for restoring cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 13(3): 235–245. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2010.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bedate A, Herrero LC, Sanz JA (2004) Economic valuation of the cultural heritage: Application to four case studies in Spain. Journal of Cultural Heritage 5(1): 101–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2003.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonaiuto M, Aiello A, Perugina M, et al. (1999) Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 331–352. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breakwell GM (1986) Coping with Threatened Identities. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  13. Breakwell GM (1992) Processes of self-evaluation: Efficacy and estrangement. In Breakwell GM (ed.), Social Psychology of Identity and the Self Concept. Surrey University Press, London, UK. pp 35–55.Google Scholar
  14. Brown G, Reymond C (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography 27: 89–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown J (2004a) Economic Values and Cultural Heritage Conservation: Assessing the Use of Stated Preference Techniques for Measuring Changes in Visitor Welfare. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  16. Brown J (2004b) Economic Values and Cultural Heritage Conservation: Assessing the Use of Stated Preference Techniques for Measuring Changes in Visitor Welfare. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, Chapter 7.Google Scholar
  17. Brown J (2004c) Economic Values and Cultural Heritage Conservation: Assessing the Use of Stated Preference Techniques for Measuring Changes in Visitor Welfare. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, Chapter 8.Google Scholar
  18. Butterworth I (2000) The relationship between the built environment and wellbeing: a literature review. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Economics. Valuing Environmental changes. Elsevier (2), Amsterdam. pp. 821–936.Google Scholar
  20. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Conaway MB (2002) Economic benefits to foreigners visiting Morocco accruing from the rehabilitation of the Fes Medina. In: Navrud S, Ready RC (eds.), Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 118–141.Google Scholar
  21. Chambers CM, Chambers PE, Whitehead JC (1998) Contingent valuation of quasi-public goods: validity, reliability and application to valuing a historic site. Public Finance Review 26: 137–154. DOI: 10.1177/109114219802600203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cuccia T, Signorello G (2000) A contingent valuation study of willingness to pay for visiting the Baroque City of Noto, Italy. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACEI International Conference, Minneapolis, USA, May 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Dutta M, Banerjee S, Husain Z (2007) Untapped demand for heritage: A contingent valuation study of Prinsep Ghat, Calcutta. Tourism Management 28(1): 83–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.07.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Economics for the Environment Consultancy-EFTEC (2005) Valuation of the historic environment. The scope for using results of valuation studies in the appraisal and assessment of heritage-related projects and programmes, Final Report. Available online: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/valuation-historic-environment/valuation-historic-environment-final-rep.pdf/(Accessed on 5 June 2015)Google Scholar
  25. European Union (2015) Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe. In: Proceedings of the 111th plenary session of the Committee of the Regions, held in Brussels, Belgium, 16-17 April 2015.Google Scholar
  26. Galí-Espelt N (2012) Identifying cultural tourism: a theoretical methodological proposal. Journal of Heritage Tourism 7(1): 45–58. DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2011.632480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garrod GD, Willis KG, Bjarnadottir H, et al. (1996). The non–priced benefits of renovating historic buildings. A case study of Newcastle’s Grainger Town. Cities 13(6): 423–430. DOI: 10.1016/0264-2751(96)00029-7Google Scholar
  28. Giannakopoulou S, Damigos D, Kaliampakos D (2011) Assessing the economic value of vernacular architecture of mountain regions using contingent valuation. Journal of Mountain Science (8): 629–640. DOI: 10.1007/s11629-011-2005-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grosclaude P, Soguel N (1994) Valuing damages to historic buildings using a contingent market: A case study of road traffic externalities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 37(3): 279–287. DOI: 10.1080/0964056940 8711976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guiliani MV (1991) Towards an analysis of mental representations of attachment to the home. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 8(2): 133–146.Google Scholar
  31. Gustafson P (2007) Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 5–16. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 19–43. DOI: 10.1257/jep.8.4.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harpman DA, Welsh MP, Bishop RC (1994) Nonuse economic value: emerging policy analysis tool. Bureau of Reclamation’s General Investigation Program Research, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Hawke SK (2010) Belonging: the contribution of heritage to sense of place. International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, Newcastle upon Tyne UK: University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
  35. Hay B (1998) Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology (18): 5–29. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1997.0060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hernandez B, Hidalgo MC, Salazar-Laplace ME, et al. (2007) Place attachment and place identity in natives and nonnatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology (27): 310–319. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hidalgo MC, Hernandez B (2001) Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology (21): pp. 273–281. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoyos D, Mariel P (2010) Contingent valuation. past, present and future. Prague Economic Papers 4/2010, University of Economics, Prague. pp.329–343.Google Scholar
  39. Hull RB, Lam M, Vigo G (1994) Place identity: symbols of self in the urban fabric. Landscape and Urban Planning, (28): 109–120. DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046(94)90001-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim SS, Wong KKF, 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(1): 317–322. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kling RK, Revier CF, Sable K (2004) Estimating the public good value of preserving a local historic landmark: the role of nonsubstitutability and citizen information. Urban Studies 41(10): 2025–2041. DOI: 10.1080/0042098042000256369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Korpela KM (1989) Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9(3): 241–256. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80038-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Koukoudis AI (2000) Metropolis cities and dispersion of Vlachs. Book series: Studies about Vlachs, vol. B, Zitros Publications, Thessaloniki. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  44. Krutilla JV (1967) Conservation Reconsidered. American Economic Review 57(4): 777–786.Google Scholar
  45. Maddison D and Mourato S (2002) Valuing Different Road Options for Stonehenge. In: Navrud S, Ready R (Eds.) Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Mantzilas ID (2004) Geography–Bounders–Settlement. In: Sirako. Stone, Memory, Light. Vol.1. Literary Centre of the Community of Sirako publication, Ioannina. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  47. Manzo LC (2003) Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology (23): 47–61. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Manzo LC (2005) For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology (25): 67–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mazzanti M (2003) Valuing cultural heritage in a multiattribute framework microeconomic perspectives and policy implications. Journal of Socio-Economics (32): 549–569. DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2003.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  51. Montenegro-Báez A, Huaquin M, Herrero LC (2009) The valuation of historical sites: a case study of Valdivia, Chile. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52(1): 97–109. DOI: 10.1080/09640560802504696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mourato S, Kontoleon A, Danchev A (2002) Preserving cultural heritage in transition economies: a contingent valuation study of Bulgarian monasteries. In: Navrud S, Ready R (Eds.), Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artefacts. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. pp 68–86.Google Scholar
  53. Mourato S, Mazzanti M (2002) Economic valuation of cultural heritage: evidence and prospects. In: Avrami E, Mason R, De la Torre M (Eds.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Murzyn-Kupisz M (2012) Cultural, economic and social sustainability of heritage tourism: issues and challenge. Economic and Environmental Studies, 12(2): 113–133. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/2624677/Cultural_economic_and_social_sustainability_of_heritage_t ourism_issues_and_challenges (Accessed on 5 June 2015)Google Scholar
  55. Nanisora E, Mesarosova B (2000) The analysis of place attachment and its relations to environmental dispositions of rural and urban children. Psychologia a Patopsychologia Dietata 35(1): 3–22. (In Slovak)Google Scholar
  56. Navrud S, Ready RC (eds) (2002) Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artefacts. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  57. Navrud S, Strand J (2002) Social costs and benefits of preserving and restoring the Nidaros Cathedral. In: Navrud S, Ready R (Eds), Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artefacts. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Noonan D (2003) Contingent valuation and cultural resources: a meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics 27(3-4): 159–176. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026371110799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pagiola S (2001) Valuing the benefits of investments in cultural heritage: The historic core of Split. Environmental Department. Paper presented at: The International Conference on Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage, Cagliari, 19-21 October, 2001. Available online: https://www. researchgate.net/profile/Stefano_Pagiola/publication/25091 7239_Valuing_the_Benefits_of_Invest ments_in_Cultural_ Heritage_The_Historic_Core_of_Split/links/00b7d51edbfe2 cd84b000000.pdf (Accessed on 5 June 2015)Google Scholar
  60. Patuelli R, Mussoni M, Candela G (2013) The Effects of world heritage sites on domestic tourism: A spatial interaction model for Italy. Journal of Geographical Systems 15 (3): 369–402. DOI: 10.1007/s10109-013-0184-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pearce D, Mourato S (1999) The Economics of Cultural Heritage. World Bank Report, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  62. Pearce D, Mourato S, Navrud S, et al. (2002) Review of existing studies, their policy use and future research needs. In: Navrud S, Ready R (Eds). Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques toHistoric Buildings, Monuments and Artefacts. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  63. Pollicino M, Maddison D (2001) Valuing the benefits of cleaning Lincoln Cathedral. Journal of Cultural Economics 25(2): 131–148. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007653432745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Poria Y, Butler R, Airey D (2003) The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30(1): 238–254. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Powe N, Willis K (1996) Benefits received by visitors to heritage sites: A case study of Warkworth Castle. Leisure Studies 15(4): 259–275. DOI: 10.1080/026143696375558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pretty GH, Chipuer HM, Bramston P (2003) Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology (23): 273–287. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00079-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Randall A (1993) Passive-use values and contingent valuationvalid for damage assessment. Choices, Second Quarter 8(2): 12–15.Google Scholar
  68. Ready RC (1993) The choice of a welfare measure under uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(4): 896–904. DOI: 10.2307/1243977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Salazar S, Marques J (2005) Valuing cultural heritage: The social benefits or restoring and old Arab tower. Journal of Cultural Heritage 6(1): 69–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2004.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sarbin TR (1983) Place identity as a component of self: an addendum. Journal of Environmental Psychology (3):337–342. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80036-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scarpa R, Sirchia G, Bravi M (1998) Kernel vs. logit modeling of single bounded CV responses: Valuing access to architectural and visual arts heritage in Italy. In: Bishop RC, Romano D (Eds.), Environmental Resource Valuation: Applications of theContingent Valuation Method in Italy. Kluwer Academic Publication, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  72. Steiner L, Frey BS (2012) Correcting the imbalance of the world heritage list: Did the UNESCO strategy work? Journal of International Organizational Studies 3(1): 25–40. Available online: http://www.bsfrey.ch/articles/C_549_2012.pdf (Accessed on 5 June 2015)Google Scholar
  73. Throsby D (2001) Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Throsby D (2008) The value of heritage. In: Proceedings of Heritage Economics Workshop Canberra, 11-12 October 2007, Canberra: Department of Water, Heritage and the Arts.Google Scholar
  76. Throsby D, Deodhar V, Hanna B, et al. (2010) Measuring the Economic and Cultural Values of Historic Heritage Places. Environmental Economics Research Hub, Research Report n.85. Available online: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR85.pdf (Accessed on 5 June 2015)Google Scholar
  77. Tuan TH, Navrud S (2008) Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 9(3): 326–337. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2008.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tuan YF (1980) Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape (24): 3–8.Google Scholar
  79. Twigger-Ross CL, Uzzell DL (1996) Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology (16): 205–220. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. UNESCO (1972) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage. Adopted on 16 November 1972 by the General Conference of UNESCO. UNWTO–United Nations World Tourism Organization. Annual Report 2013.Google Scholar
  81. Vecvagars K (2006) Valuing damages and losses in cultural assets after a disaster: concept paper and research options. CEPAL–SERIE Estudios y perspectivas, United Nations Publication, Mexico.Google Scholar
  82. Willis KG (1994) Paying for heritage: what price for Durham Cathedral? Journal of Environmental Management 37(3): 267–277. DOI: 10.1080/09640569408711975Google Scholar
  83. Ziogas ID (2004) History. In: Sirako. Stone, Memory, Light. Vol1, Literary Centre of the Community of Sirako publication, Ioannina. (In Greek)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architectural EngineeringNational Technical University of Athens, Metsovion Interdisciplinary Research CenterAthensGreece
  2. 2.School of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringNational Technical University of Athens, Metsovion Interdisciplinary Research CenterAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations