Procedural versus substantive rationality in the economic valuation of urban heritage structures: Cartagena (Murcia)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37230/CyTET.2024.219.7Keywords:
Multicriteria valuation, Heritage valuation, Cartagena, MurciaAbstract
Urban heritage valuation techniques have been related to those used in environmental valuation, due to the concept of economic value (and not market value) with which they work and the intangible nature they share. The aim of this study is to analyse the techniques applied in the valuation of heritage assets and the new monetary approaches. The latter are emerging as a new field of study within the field of heritage, highlighting the multi-criteria valuation techniques. The methodology comprises four phases (establishing the nature of heritage assets, analysing the most commonly used methods, exploring new valuation techniques for these assets and applying them to the case study). Methodologies based on procedural rationality, applied to a very limited extent so far in the economic valuation of the assets mentioned, are presented.
References
AGNUS, J.M. (1989): L’Investissement pour le patrimoine. Paris, Francia, Ministère de la Culture.
ANTON, A. & FISK, M. & HOLMSTRÖM, N. (2000): Not for Sale: In Defense of Public Goods. Boulder, Estados Unidos, Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429037405
ARACA, J. & ESTRUCH, V. & AZNAR BELLVER, J. & YUFRA, S. (2021): Economic Valuation of the Goods and Services Offered by the High Relict High-Andean Ecosystem Located in the Districts of Chiguata, Characato and Pocsi, Arequipa, Peru. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 30(6), (pp. 5443-5452). https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/137371
AZNAR BELLVER, J. (2020): Valoración de activos por métodos multicriterio AHP, ANP y CRITIC. Colección Académica. Valencia, España, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
AZNAR BELLVER, J. & ESTRUCH, V. (2007): Valoración de activos ambientales mediante métodos multicriterio. Aplicación a la valoración del Parque Natural del Alto Tajo. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales, 7(13): (pp. 107–126). https://doi.org/10.7201/earn.2007.13.06
AZNAR BELLVER, J. & ARAGONÉS, P. (2011): Environmental asset valuation method using AMUVAM: Application to the assessment of the natural park of Ebro river delta. En Actas del Simposio Internacional sobre el Proceso Analítico Jerárquico 2011, pp. 1-6. Italia: ISAHP.
AZQUETA, D. (2007): Introducción a la economía ambiental. Madrid, España, McGraw-Hill.
BARREIRO, D. & PARGA DANS, E. (2013): El valor económico del patrimonio cultural: estrategias y medidas posibles para estimular la innovación social y los emprendimientos. En El patrimonio cultural: un aporte al desarrollo endógeno, Bolivia, Ecuador, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.
BLAUG, M. (1976): The economics of the Arts: Selected Readings. Londres, Reino Unido, Martin Robertson.
BLUESTONE, D. (2000): Challenges for heritage conservation and the role of research on values. En ERICA AVRAMI AND RANDALL MASON: Values and heritage conservation, (pp. 65-67), Los Ángeles, EEUU, The J. Paul Getty Trust.
BUCHANAN, J.M. (1965): An economic theory of clubs. Economica, 32(125), (pp. 1-14).
CEJUDO, R. (2014): Sobre el valor del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial: una propuesta desde la ética del consumo. Dilemata, 14, (pp. 189–209).
DEL SAZ SALAZAR, S. (1997): Los métodos indirectos del coste de viaje y de los precios hedónicos: Una aproximación. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales, 179, (pp. 167–190).
DEL SAZ SALAZAR, S. & GARCÍA MENÉNDEZ, L. (2002): Disposición a pagar versus disposición a ser compensado por mejoras medioambientales. Encuentro de Economía Pública (9), (pp. 1-15).
DESVOUSGES, W. & MATHEWS, K. & TRAIN, K. (2012): Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 84, (pp.121-128). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.003
EBERLE, D. & HAYDEN, G. (1991): Critique of Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Methods for Valuing Natural Resources and Ecosystems. Journal of Economic Issues, XXV (3), (pp. 649-685).
EE.UU. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. (1993): Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Washington, DC., EEUU, Federal Register.
GREFFE, X. (1990): La valeur économique du patrimoine: la demande et l'offre de monuments. Anthropos-Economica, Paris, Francia, FeniXX.
HELLERSTEIN, D. (1993): Intertemporal data and travel cost analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 3 (2), (pp. 193-207).
HUERGA-CONTRERAS, M., & MARTINEZ-FERNANDEZ, L. C. (2022). El espacio público en la ciudad: ensayo metodológico para su análisis e interpretación. Ciudad Y Territorio Estudios Territoriales, 54(212), 359–380. https://doi.org/10.37230/CyTET.2022.212.5
HUTTER, M. & RIZZO, I. (Eds.). (1997): Economic perspectives on cultural heritage. Londres, Reino unido, MacMillan Press LTD.
MARTÍN VARÉS, A.V. & CAMPOS, R.M.L. (2013): El papel del Catastro en la imposición inmobiliaria europea. 28 formas de entenderlo. CT: Catastro, (78), (pp. 29-82).
MASON, R. & DE LA TORRE, M. (2000): Valores y conservación del patrimonio en las sociedades en proceso de globalización. Informe mundial sobre la cultura, 2001, (pp. 164-179).
MITCHELL, R.C. & CARSON, R.T. (2013): Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future. Washington DC, EE.UU., RFF Press, (pp. 1-16).
MONSALVE, N.E. & GÓMEZ, J.D. (2011): Experimentos de elección: Una metodología para hacer valoración económica de bienes de no mercado. Ensayos de economía, 21(38), (pp. 211-242).
MORENO JIMÉNEZ, J.M. & AGUARÓN JOVEN, J. & ESCOBAR URMENETA, M.T. (2001): Metodología científica en valoración y selección ambiental. Pesquisa Operacional, 21(1), (pp. 1-16). https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-74382001000100001
MOSSETTO, G. (1994): The economic dilemma of heritage preservation. Cultural economics and cultural policies, (pp. 81-96).
NAVRUD, S. & READY, R.C. (2002): Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts. Northampton, EE.UU., Edward Elgar Publishing.
PEACOCK, A. (1978): Preserving the past: an international economic dilemma. Journal of cultural economics, 2 (2), (pp. 1-11).
PEACOCK, A. (1995): A future for the past: the political economy of heritage. Proceedings of the British Academy, 87, (pp. 189-243).
PEACOCK, A. & RIZZO, I. (Eds.). (1994): Cultural economics and cultural policies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
PEARCE, D.W. & MARKANDYA, A. (1989): Environmental policy benefits: monetary valuation, Paris, Francia, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
PEARCE, D.W. & WARFORD, J.J. (1993): Economic Values and the Natural World. London, Reino Unido, Earthscan Publications Limited.
RIPKA DE ALMEIDA, A. & DA SILVA, C. L. & HERNÁNDEZ SANTOYO, A. (2018): Métodos de valoración económica ambiental: instrumentos para el desarrollo de políticas ambientales. Revista Universidad y Sociedad, 10(4), (pp. 246-255).
RIVERO-MORENO, L. D. (2022). La ciudad compartida: el patrimonio cultural como herramienta para la re-creación del relato urbano. Ciudad Y Territorio Estudios Territoriales, 54(213), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.37230/CyTET.2022.213.4
SAATY, T.L. (1980): The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Lincoln, Reino Unido. McGraw-Hill.
SAATY, T.L. (2000): Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh, EE.UU., RWS Publications.
SAATY, T.L. (2005): The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision making. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, 78, (pp. 345–405). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_10
SERRANO, L.A.L. (2019): Tendencias actuales de la economía y su influencia sobre la teoría del consumidor. Revista de humanidades y ciencias sociales y multidisciplinaria, (pp.31-59).
SIMON, H.A. (1976): From substantive to procedural rationality. En SPIRO J. Latsis (Ed.) Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge, Inglaterra, Cambrige University Press.
SMITH, T. (1999): Value and form: formations of value in economics, art and Architecture. Ponencia presentada en la Conferencia “The Market and Visual Arts”, Duke University.
THROSBY, D. (2001): Economics and culture. Cambridge, Inglaterra, Cambridge University Press.
THROSBY, D. (2003): Determining the value of cultural goods: How much (or how little) does contingent valuation tell us? Journal of cultural economics, 27(3-4), (pp. 275-285). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026353905772
THROSBY, D. (2012): Cultura, economía y desarrollo sostenible. Cultura y Economía I. Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes. Santiago de Chile, (pp. 55-61).
TOWSE, R. (2012): ¿Cuánto vale la cultura? La contribución de las industrias creativas a la economía. Cultura y Economía I. Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes. Santiago de Chile, (pp. 63-71).
VARGAS SÁNCHEZ, G. (2006): Introducción a la teoría económica un enfoque latinoamericano. México, México, Pearson educación.
VARGAS, R. (2010): Utilizando el proceso analítico jerárquico (PAJ) para seleccionar y priorizar proyectos en una cartera. [Figura]. http://www.ricardo-vargas.com/articles/analytic-hierarchy-process/#spanish
WILLIS, K.G. & GARROD, G.D. (1991): An individual travel‐cost method of evaluating forest recreation. Journal of agricultural Economics, 42(1), (pp. 33-42).
ZANAZZI, J.L. (2003): Anomalías y supervivencia en el método de toma de decisiones de Saaty. Problemas del Conocimiento en Ingeniería y Geología, I, (pp. 148-170).
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Maria Dolores Pujol Galindo, Gema Ramírez pacheco
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Considering the provisions of the current legislation on Intellectual Property, and in accordance with them, all authors publishing in CyTET give -in a non-exclusive way and without time limit- to the Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda the rights to disseminate, reproduce, communicate and distribute in any current or future format, on paper or electronic, the original or derived version of their work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 license International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), as well as to include or assign to third parties the inclusion of its content in national and international indexes, repositories and databases, with reference and recognition in any case of its authorship.
In addition, when sending the work, the author(s) declares that it is an original work in which the sources that have been used are recognized, committing to respect the scientific evidence, to no longer modify the original data and to verify or refute its hypothesis. Author(s) also declare that the essential content of the work has not been previously published nor will it be published in any other publication while it is under evaluation by CyTET; and that it has not been simultaneously sent to another journal.
Authors must sign a Transfer of Rights Form, which will be sent to them from the CyTET Secretariat once the article is accepted for publication.
With the aim of promoting the dissemination of knowledge, CyTET joins the Open Journal Access (OA) movement and delivers all of its content to various national and international indexes, repositories and databases under this protocol; therefore, the submission of a work to be published in the journal presupposes the explicit acceptance by the author of this distribution method.
Authors are encouraged to reproduce and host their work published in CyTET in institutional repositories, web pages, etc. with the intention of contributing to the improvement of the transfer of knowledge and the citation of said works.