Journal of Cultural Economics

, Volume 27, Issue 3–4, pp 159–176 | Cite as

Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature

  • Douglas S. Noonan


Contingent valuation methodology (CVM) has been increasingly applied to cultural resources. CVM employs survey methods to gather stated preference information, which can be used to estimate economic values of various cultural resources and projects. Although popular in other fields, the application of CVM in the cultural arena is relatively recent. This article summarizes this growing body of empirical literature and its range of findings. A meta-analysis gives a statistical view of the ``state of the art'' of the literature. This preliminary analysis sheds light on the consistency and validity of the use of this method in cultural applications.

contingent valuation heritage meta-analysis willingness to pay 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., and Schuman H. (1993) “Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation”. Federal Register 58(10): 4016–4614.Google Scholar
  2. Bégin, D., Colbert, F., and Dupré R. (2000) “Comparative Analysis of French and French-Canadian Willingness to Support the National Film Industry”. International Journal of Cultural Policy 7(2): 355–368.Google Scholar
  3. Beltrán, E. and Rojas, M. (1996) “Diversified Funding Methods in Mexican Archeology”. Annals of Tourism Research 23(2): 463–478.Google Scholar
  4. Bille Hansen, T. (1997) “The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good”. Journal of Cultural Economics 21(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, R.C. and Romano, D. (eds.) (1998) Environmental Resource Valuation: Applications of the Contingent Valuation Method in Italy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, K.J., Poe, G.L., and Bergstrom, J.C. (1994) “What Do We Know about Groundwater Values? Preliminary Indications from a Meta Analysis of Contingent-Valuation Studies”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(5): 1055–1061.Google Scholar
  7. Carson, R.T. (forthcoming) Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M., and Wright, J.L. (1996) “Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods”. Land Economics 72(1): 80–99.Google Scholar
  9. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., and Meade, N.F. (2001) “Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence”. Environmental and Resource Economics 19(2): 173–210.Google Scholar
  10. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., and Conaway M.C. (2002) “Economic Benefits to Foreigners Visiting Morocco Accruing from the Rehabilitation of the Fés Medina”, in S. Navrud and R.C. Ready (eds.), Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Frey, B.S. (2000) Arts and Economics: Analysis and Cultural Policy. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Giraud, K.L., Loomis, J.B., and Cooper, J.C. (2001) “A Comparison ofWillingness to Pay Estimation Techniques from Referendum Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 331–346.Google Scholar
  13. Glass, R.H. et. al. (1999) “Economic Scope, Impact and Marketing Study of the Kansas Arts Commission”. The University of Kansas, Institute for Public Policy and Business Research Report No. 257, 28 July 1999.Google Scholar
  14. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., and Wright, R.E. (2001) “Choice Modeling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?” Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3): 435–462.Google Scholar
  15. Holt, G.E., Elliott, D., and Moore, A. (1999) “Placing a Value on Public Library Services”. Public Libraries 38(2): 98–108.Google Scholar
  16. Horowitz, J.K. and McConnell, K.E. (2002) “A Review of WTA/WTP Studies”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(3): 426–447.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, B.K. and Whitehead J.C. (2000) “Value of Public Goods from Sports Stadiums: The CVM Approach”. Contemporary Economic Policy 18(1): 48–58.Google Scholar
  18. Kling, R., Revier, C., and Sable, K. (2001) “Estimating the Public Good Value of Preserving a Local Historic Landmark: The Role of Non-Substitutability and Information in Contingent Valuation”. Paper presented at the Cultural Policy Workshop at the University of Chicago, November 15, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. Lockwood, M., Tracey, P., and Klomp, N. (1996) “Analysing Conflict between Cultural Heritage and Nature Conservation in the Australian Alps: A CVM Approach”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39(3): 357–370.Google Scholar
  20. Maddison, D. and Foster T. (2001) “Valuing Congestion Costs in the British Museum”. Paper presented to the Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage Conference in the Department of Economics of University College London.Google Scholar
  21. Maddison, D. and Mourato, S. (2001) “Valuing Different Road Options for Stonehenge”. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 4(4): 203–212.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, F. (1994) “Determining the Size of Museum Subsidies”. Journal of Cultural Economics 18(4): 255–270.Google Scholar
  23. Mazzanti, M. (2002) “Valuing Cultural Heritage Services by Choice Modeling Experiments: Visitor Study at the Galleria Borghese in Rome”. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial ACEI Conference June 13–15, 2002, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  25. Noonan, D.S. (2002) “Contingent Valuation Studies in the Arts and Culture: An Annotated Bibliography”. Cultural Policy Center (University of Chicago) Working Paper No. 11.Google Scholar
  26. Papandrea, F. (1999) “Willingness to Pay for Domestic Television Programming”. Journal of Cultural Economics 23(3): 147–164.Google Scholar
  27. Portney, P.R. (1994) “The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 3–17.Google Scholar
  28. Riganti, P. and Scarpa, R. (1998) “Categorical Nesting and Information Effects onWTP Estimates for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Campi Flegrei”, in Richard C. Bishop and D. Romano (eds.), Environmental Resource Valuation: Applications of the Contingent Valuation Method in Italy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenberger, R.S. and Loomis, J.B. (2000) “Panel Stratification in Meta-Analysis of Economic Studies: An Investigation of Its Effects in the Recreation Valuation Literature”. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(3): 459–470.Google Scholar
  30. Schwer, R.K. and Daneshvary, R. (1995) “Willingness to Pay for Public Television and the Advent of Look-Alike Cable-Television Channels – A Case Study”. Journal of Media Economics 8(3): 95–109.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, V.K. and Pattanayak, S.K. (2002) “Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation?” Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 271–296.Google Scholar
  32. Stigler, G.J. and Becker, G.S. (1977) “De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum”. American Economic Review 67(2): 76–90.Google Scholar
  33. Thompson, E., Berger, M., Blomquist, G., and Allen, S. (2002) “Valuing the Arts: A Contingent Valuation Approach”. Journal of Cultural Economics 26(2): 87–113.Google Scholar
  34. Throsby, C.D. and Withers, G.A. (1986) “Strategic Bias and Demand for Public Good: Theory and an Application to the Arts”. Journal of Public Economics 31(3): 307–321.Google Scholar
  35. Woodward, R.T. and Wui, Y. (2001) “The Economic Value of Wetland Services”. Ecological Economics 37: 257–270.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas S. Noonan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaU.S.A

Personalised recommendations