Assessing the economic value of vernacular architecture of mountain regions using contingent valuation

  • Stella Giannakopoulou
  • Dimitris DamigosEmail author
  • Dimitris Kaliampakos


Human pressure on mountain resources poses certain threats to their natural and man-made environment. Although there are many parameters involved, one of the driving forces behind this situation is the emphasis given so far only to the market value of mountain goods and services, ignoring the true social and environmental costs of using mountain resources. Towards this direction, the use of non-market valuation techniques could prove to be beneficial. Bearing in mind the above remarks, the paper presents an application of the Contingent Valuation Method, which aims at estimating the monetary value of a mountain settlement’s vernacular architecture, namely Metsovo. For this purpose, the survey focuses on Metsovo visitors’ willingness to pay a single annual voluntary contribution to an institution that would be founded in order to undertake all necessary actions required to preserve the town’s traditional character. The results are very promising and indicate that vernacular architecture holds a significant economic value that could justify the implementation of appropriate policies towards the protection of vernacular settlements in mountain areas.


Non-market valuation Vernacular architecture Contingent valuation 


  1. Apostolakis A, Jaffry S (2005) A Choice Modeling Application for Greek Heritage Attractions. Journal of Travel Research 43(3): 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman I, Willis K (1996) Introduction and Overview. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation method in the US, EU and Developing countries, Oxford University Press, New York. pp 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual, Department for Transport. UK and Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bator FM (1958). The anatomy of market failure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 72(3): 351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedate A, César H, Ángel S (2004) Economic valuation of the cultural heritage: application to four case studies in Spain. Journal of Cultural Heritage 5(1): 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowitz E, Ibenholt K (2009) Economic impacts of cultural heritage — research and perspectives. Journal of Cultural Heritage 10(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson R (1997). Contingent valuation: theoretical advances and empirical tests since the NOAA panel. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(5): 1501–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37(1): 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson R (2004) Contingent valuation — A comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  10. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Conaway MB, Navrud S (1997) Non-Moroccan Values for Rehabilitating the FES Medina. Report to the World Bank on the FES Cultural Heritage Rehabilitation Project.Google Scholar
  11. Cho SH, Newman D, Bowker J (2005) Measuring rural homeowners’ willingness to pay for land conservation easements. Forest Policy and Economics 7(5): 757–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coller M, Harrison GH (1995) On the use of the contingent valuation method to estimate environmental costs. In: Reckers PMJ, (ed.), Advances in accounting, vol. 13. Greenwich. CT: JAP Press.Google Scholar
  14. Denniston D (1995) High Priorities: Conserving Mountain Ecosystems and Cultures. World Watch Paper 123, World Watch Institute, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Economics for the Environment Consultancy — EFTEC (1999) The Economic and Financial Sustainability of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Final report presented to the Finnish Forest and Park Service, Economics for the Environment Consultancy, London.Google Scholar
  17. 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 at: (Accessed: March 2010).
  18. Giannakopoulou S, Kaliampakos D (2010) Valuing vernacular architecture: An innovative tool in sustainable tourism and development in mountain regions. International Conference on Global Change and the World’s Mountains, 26–30 September, Perth, Scotland.Google Scholar
  19. Godde P, Price MF, Zimmermann F (eds.) (2000) Tourism and development in mountain regions, CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
  20. Greene WH (2000) Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  21. Grêt-Regamey A, Kytzia S (2007) Integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into input output economics of an Alpine region. Ecological Economics 63(4): 786–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groothuis P, Groothuis J, Whitehead J (2008) Green vs. Green: Measuring the Compensation Required to Site Electrical Generation Windmills in a Viewshed. Energy Policy 36(4): 1545–1550.Google Scholar
  23. Hampton MP (2005) Heritage, Local Communities and Economic Development. Annals of Tourism Research 32(3): 735–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanemann M (1996) Theory versus data in the contingent valuation debate. In: Bjornstad DJ and Kahn JR (Eds.), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  25. Hardin G (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162:1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harisis V (1995) Metsovo. In: Filippidis D (ed.), Greek vernacular architecture. Thessaly — Epirus (vol. 6), Melissa, Athens. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  27. Hellenic Statistical Authority — ELSTAT (2010) Statistical Database. Available at: (Accessed on March 2010). (In Greek)
  28. ICOMOS (1999) Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage, Mexico.Google Scholar
  29. Karanikolas N, Lafazani P, Myridis M, Ramnalis D (2001) The Depopulation of the Northern Greece Mountainous Settlement: Planning an Observatory for the Residential Network vitiations of the Balkans. International Congress “Economic, Social, Environmental and Urban Re-Planning of Degrading or Destroyed European Areas”, 1–5 September, Thessaloniki, Greece. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  30. Keppa C (2007) The traditional settlements of East Macedonia and Thrace. Texnografima 12/336: 12–13. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koch-Weser MR, Kahlenborn W (2004). Legal, economic and compensation mechanisms in support of sustainable mountain development. In Price MF, Iatsenia A and Jansky L (Eds.), Key Issues for the World’s Mountain Regions: 63–85, UNU Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  33. Maddison D, Mourato S (2002). Valuing different road options for Stonehenge. In: Navrud S and Ready R (eds.), Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artefacts: 87–104, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  34. Maddala GS (1999). Limited-dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Moran D, Tresidder E, McVittie A (2006). Estimating the recreational value of mountain biking sites in Scotland using count data models. Tourism Economics 12(1): 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mountain Forum (1997). Investing in Mountains: Innovative Mechanisms and Promising Examples for Financing Conservation and Sustainable Development. E-conference report. Available at: (Accessed: March 2010).
  37. Mountain Partnership (2002). Tourism. Fact sheet. Available at: (Accessed: March 2010).
  38. Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Hett T, Atkinson G (2004). Pricing cultural heritage: A new approach to managing ancient resources. World Economics 5(3): 1–19.Google Scholar
  39. Noonan DS (2003). Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics 27(3–4): 159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poor PJ, Smith JM (2004). Travel Cost Analysis of a Cultural Heritage Site: The Case of Historic St. Mary’s City of Maryland. Journal of Cultural Economics 28(3): 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Price MF, Jansky L, Iatsenia AA (2004). Key issues for Mountain Areas. United Nations University Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  42. Riganti P, Nijkamp P (2004). Valuing Cultural Heritage Benefits to Urban and Regional Development. 44th European Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Regions and Fiscal Federalism, August 25–29, University of Porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
  43. Ruijgrok CME (2006). The three economic values of cultural heritage: a case study in the Netherlands. Journal of Cultural Heritage 7(3): 206–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scarpa R, Thiene M (2004). Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeast Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Participation. FEEM Working Paper No. 131.04.Google Scholar
  46. Tietenberg T (1992). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 3rd Ed., HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  47. Tuan TH, Navrud S (2008). Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 9(3): 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stella Giannakopoulou
    • 1
  • Dimitris Damigos
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dimitris Kaliampakos
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Architectural EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.School of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations