IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iacpro/2704849.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Valuation Of Cultural Heritage In Surakarta City, Central Java-Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Karnowahadi Karnowahadi

    (Department of Business Administration, Semarang Polytechnic State (Polines))

  • Indah Susilowati

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Diponegoro University (UNDIP))

  • Purbayu Budi Santosa

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Diponegoro University (UNDIP))

Abstract

Surakarta city has various types of cultural heritage, both physical and non-physical, and has a great potential in improving the tourism sector. Surakarta is located at the southern part of Central Java bearing economic functions as a surviving historic city of the country. Despite the great opportunities for cultural heritage in Surakarta, the city is currently facing threats of high traffic, excessive depletion of the natural environment in the city. This is due to underestimation on the market values of cultural heritage indevelopment decisions. Surakarta require an additional source of income for the maintenance and preservation of cultural heritage. The research of willingness to pay (WTP) of the visitor of the Surakarta cultural heritage is needed. Cultural heritage is something that must be preserved, because it is a public good that can carry the name of Surakarta city in the arena of world culture. The aim of this study is to estimate the economic benefit of cultural heritage in Surakarta city as the results would be able to provide insight to the value of this unique heritage society. The methods employed is contingent valuation method (CVM). The payment vehicle opted in this study is via accomodation, where a fixed heritage charge per night was included in the total accomodation bill in Surakarta. In CVM, the logit model was defined based on dichotomous choice method to estimate the WTP randomly with different starting bid value. A total of 225 respondents were interviewed in person, using random stratified sampling method. Utility preservation of cultural heritage Surakarta influenced by several factors, such as gender, age, level of visit frequent, type of work, and the amount of WTP. Gender, age, and type of work affect the utility respondent preservation of Surakarta cultural heritage is a significant positive. Level of visit frequent variable been negatively affect utility. WTP of respondents is greater than the status quo. Variable income, national origin, marital status, and education level influence the utility of Surakarta cultural heritage preservation is not significant. How to withdraw funds for the preservation of Surakarta cultural heritage can be done by adding to the hotel and restaurant taxes, adding to the ticket of admission, or added to the retribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Karnowahadi Karnowahadi & Indah Susilowati & Purbayu Budi Santosa, 2015. "Economic Valuation Of Cultural Heritage In Surakarta City, Central Java-Indonesia," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 2704849, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:sek:iacpro:2704849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iises.net/proceedings/18th-international-academic-conference-london/table-of-content/detail?cid=27&iid=058&rid=4849
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herath, Gamini, 1999. "Estimation of Community Values of Lakes: A Study of Lake Mokoan in Victoria, Australia," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 31-44, March.
    2. Carson, Richard T & Wilks, Leanne & Imber, David, 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 727-749, Supplemen.
    3. Tran Tuan & Stale Navrud, 2007. "Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 51-69, September.
    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. Isabel Mendes, 2013. "Mining Rehabilitation Planning, Mining Heritage Tourism, Benefits and Contingent Valuation," Working Papers wp032013, SOCIUS, Research Centre in Economic and Organisational Sociology at the School of Economics and Management (ISEG) of the University of Lisbon.
    2. Manero, Ana & Taylor, Kat & Nikolakis, William & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Marshall, Virginia & Spencer-Cotton, Alaya & Nguyen, Mai & Grafton, R. Quentin, 2022. "A systematic literature review of non-market valuation of Indigenous peoples’ values: Current knowledge, best-practice and framing questions for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    3. Jagoda Adamus, 2023. "How Much Are Public Spaces Worth? Non-Market Valuation Methods in Valuing Public Spaces," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 2, pages 66-89.
    4. Alhassan, Mustapha & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Schoengold, Karina, 2017. "Effects of Information Framing on Smallholder Irrigation Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Groundwater Protection: The Case of Vea Irrigation Scheme in Ghana," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. 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).
    6. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    7. Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John B. & Nahuelhual, Laura, 2004. "A comparison of a parametric and a non-parametric method to value a non-rejectable public good," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 61-74, September.
    8. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    9. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    11. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    12. Sandra Fatorić & Erin Seekamp, 2017. "Are cultural heritage and resources threatened by climate change? A systematic literature review," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 227-254, May.
    13. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    15. Samal Kaliyeva & Francisco Jose Areal & Yiorgos Gadanakis, 2021. "Would Kazakh Citizens Support a Milk Co-Operative System?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    17. Prabha Prayaga & John Rolfe & Jack Sinden, 2006. "A Travel Cost Analysis of the Value of Special Events: Gemfest in Central Queensland," Tourism Economics, , vol. 12(3), pages 403-420, September.
    18. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    19. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    20. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economic-valuation; heritage; CVM; Surakarta;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sek:iacpro:2704849. 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: Klara Cermakova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iises.net/ .

    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.