IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i8p4484-d790364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Intangible Cultural Heritage in Developing Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Godwin Kofi Vondolia

    (School of Economics, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast CC-075-8216, Ghana
    Centre for Coastal Management-Africa Centre for Excellence in Coastal Resilience (ACECoR), University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast CC-075-8216, Ghana)

  • Albert Mensah Kusi

    (Interdisciplinary Doctoral School, University of Warsaw, 00-312 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Sylvana Rudith King

    (Centre for Settlement Studies, College of Architecture and Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi AK-039-5028, Ghana)

  • Ståle Navrud

    (School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Ås, Norway)

Abstract

The disappearance of intangible cultural heritages (ICHs) together with associated symbols and meanings in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) undermines 2003 UN Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. To contribute to reversing this trend, the present study estimates the economic value of preserving traditional kente weaving and interpretation of kente symbols by establishing national demonstration centers in Ghana. Contingent valuation (CV) surveys of both the public and kente weavers are used to elicit their preferences for these national centers. As CV surveys of cultural heritage have often been criticized for lacking both policy and payment consequentiality, we have used a specific preservation measure and a non-voluntary payment vehicle to make the decision context realistic and consequential. Households show significant, positive mean willingness-to-pay (WTP) for establishing national centers to preserve both the kente weaving technique and the interpretation of kente symbols. Furthermore, we find no distance decay in WTP for preservation of this ICH; indicating that people have strong preferences for preserving this ICH independent of how far they live from the center of kente weaving activities. This leads to larger aggregated benefits of preservation compared to built cultural heritage and local environmental goods, for example, where strong distance decay occurs in many cases. This makes the net present value of centers for demonstration of kente weaving and interpretation of kente symbols positive and an economically worthwhile investment. The policy implication of these results is that higher investments in preserving ICHs can be justified not only from a cultural heritage perspective, but also from an economic point of view.

Suggested Citation

  • Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Albert Mensah Kusi & Sylvana Rudith King & Ståle Navrud, 2022. "Valuing Intangible Cultural Heritage in Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4484-:d:790364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4484/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4484/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    2. Bostedt, Göran & Lundgren, Tommy, 2010. "Accounting for cultural heritage -- A theoretical and empirical exploration with focus on Swedish reindeer husbandry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 651-657, January.
    3. Hoehn John P. & Loomis John B., 1993. "Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 56-75, July.
    4. Ludovico Alcorta & Morgan Bazilian & Giuseppe De Simone & Ascha Pedersen, 2012. "Return on Investment from Industrial Energy Efficiency: Evidence from Developing Countries," Working Papers 2012.35, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Rizzo, Ilde & Throsby, David, 2006. "Cultural Heritage: Economic Analysis and Public Policy," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 28, pages 983-1016, Elsevier.
    6. J. Snowball, 2005. "Art for the Masses? Justification for the Public Support of the Arts in Developing Countries – Two Arts Festivals in South Africa," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 29(2), pages 107-125, May.
    7. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2015. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Disentangling impacts of payment and provision consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258602, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Pamela Wicker & John C Whitehead & Daniel S Mason & Bruce K Johnson, 2017. "Public support for hosting the Olympic Summer Games in Germany: The CVM approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(15), pages 3597-3614, November.
    3. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    4. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. YAMADA Keigo, 2024. "Literature Review of Cultural Heritage Economics - Focus on theoretical research of built heritage - (Japanese)," Discussion Papers (Japanese) 24014, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    8. Haoying Wang & Guohui Wu, 2022. "Modeling discrete choices with large fine-scale spatial data: opportunities and challenges," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 325-351, July.
    9. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    10. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    11. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Bruno S. Frey & Paolo Pamini & Lasse Steiner, 2011. "What Determines The World Heritage List? An Econometric Analysis," CREMA Working Paper Series 2011-01, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    13. Bertacchini, Enrico & Dalle Nogare, Chiara, 2014. "Public provision vs. outsourcing of cultural services: Evidence from Italian cities," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 168-182.
    14. Chenavaz, Régis Y. & Leocata, Marta & Ogonowska, Malgorzata & Torre, Dominique, 2022. "Sustainable tourism," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    15. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    16. Jacob LaRiviere & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Katherine Simpson, 2016. "What is the Causal Impact of Knowledge on Preferences in Stated Preference Studies?," Working Papers 2016-12, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. Hermine Vedogbeton & Robert J. Johnston, 2020. "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 835-865, April.
    18. John C. Whitehead & Alicia Louis Cornicelli & Gregory Howard, 2024. "Total Economic Valuation of Great Lakes Recreational Fisheries: Attribute Non-attendance, Hypothetical Bias and Insensitivity to Scope," Working Papers 24-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    19. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2015. "Reference dependence, consequentiality and social desirability in value elicitation: A study of fair labor labeling," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Zawojska, Ewa, 2018. "Is there really a difference between “contingent valuation” and “choice experiments”? Evidence from an induced-value experiment," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274015, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4484-:d:790364. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.