MacDonald Heritage in the market driven economy: a tale from down under

8/8/2019 MacDonald Heritage in the market driven economy: a tale from down under

1/22

Heritage in the market driven

economy: a tale from down under


2/22

Context

7,682,300 sq. kms

21 million people

2.8 people p.sq km

9,161,966 sq. kms

307 million people

33.5 people p.sq km


3/22

Broken hill, Braidwood, haberfield, rock art site, port arthur


4/22

Context: World Heritage

2 cultural sites

1 mixed site

15 natural heritage sites


5/22

Context: Australias cultural

heritage 100 (approx.) nationally listed places

Over 13,000 State listed places

150,000 locally listed places


6/22


7/22

www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/heritage


8/22


9/22

The argument

1. Cultural heritage is important to Australians andshould be conserved and sustained.

2. The heritage system is over-reliant on legislation

and insufficient resources are applied to the other

components of a good system comprehensive

policy, incentives, and public education.

3. There is a market failure that needs to be

addressed through a variety of financial incentives.


10/22

Valuing cultural heritage

Hedonic pricing method the value consumersplace on cultural heritage place as it translates to

property prices

Travel cost method equates cost of travel to a

heritage site = willingness to pay

Stated preference method (contingent valuation,choice modeling) directly questions consumers

on willingness to pay for cultural heritage whether

they experience it or not


11/22

Yes about right(32%)

No, too little inbeing done (62%)

Too much is beingdone (3%)

Don't know (3%)

Do you think enough is being done toprotect historic heritage across Australia

Survey

From a survey of 2,024 Australians in 2005


12/22

If more money was spent on heritage,

which would you chose to spend it on?

From a survey of 2024 Australians, 2005

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Education about heritage

Looking after historic heritage

Protecting non-built heritage

Improving public access to heritage

Reusing historic heritage

Exploring the heritage of different cultures locally

Buying out/compensating owners who losedevelopment options through listing

Improved protection of post 1950 heritage


13/22


14/22

Value type Statement Strongly

agree/

agree

Strongly

disagree/

disagree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Direct use value Looking after heritage creates jobs &boosts the economy

56.18% 11.0% 32.9%

Indirect use value Life is richer for having visited or seeingheritage places78

.7

%4

.6%1

6.8

%

Option value Its important to protect heritage placeseven though I may never visit

93.4% 1.5% 5.0%

Existence value Heritage is part of Australias identityLocal historic houses are important to an

areas character and identity

92.3%

80.2%

5.3%

5.2%

2.3%

14.5%Other non-use

values

Its important to educate children about

heritage96.9% 0.3% 2.8%

Community views & perceptions of

heritage related values

From a survey of 2024 Australians, 2005


15/22

Choice modeling elicits peoples preferences for specific scenarios

Australians are willing to pay $109.90 per person for improved

conservation outcomes including:

tightening development controls

increasing the number of listed places

The aggregated willingness to pay for this scenario equates to an

additional $1.6 billion per annum.

Choice modeling


16/22

www.heritage.nsw.gov.au


17/22

Our property is our principle economic asset. Heritage listing

would unduly limit its utility as a financial asset by restricting

the ability of future purchasers to develop our property to theirtastes.

Owner of a 1960s prototype home in Sydney

Recently, my retired parents had their only investment property"heritage listed" by COS (City of Sydney), against their will and

without ANY compensation. The forced listing of my parents'

property and consequential expropriation of their property rights

has cost them their life savings in forgone development revenue. It

has also cost them tens of thousands of dollars in DA applicationfees to be directly lost too.

Owner or a rowof residential/commercial properties in Sydney


18/22

Cultural heritage is important to many Australians & they want it to

be adequately conserved and sustained

Governments should improve the management of their own sites &

identify the costs of conservation of government owned heritage

Productivity Commission findings

1


19/22

There is an overreliance on legislation and this is unfair and

inefficient to private owners because:

insufficient account has been taken of the cost of conservation

in some cases listing may have no financial impact on an owner, in

other cases it can if there is a loss of profit from potential

redevelopment

before protecting a place the cost of conservation & net community

benefit for conserving the place should be determined (cost benefit

analysis)

Productivity Commission findings

2..


20/22

Implications


21/22

Improved understanding on the economics of

cultural heritage and its preservation:

methods to identify the relationship between cultural heritage and

financial benefits that flow from it that are well targeted to the

heritage sectors resources

consensus on credible valuation tools for cultural heritage andconservation

agreement on when and how such methods can assist and when

then do not

good examples of economic modeling and how it has affected

decision making


22/22

www.heritage.nsw.gov.au

www.environment.gov.au/h

eritage

www.pc.gov.au/projects/

inquiry/heritage

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	united-states-national-committee-of-the-international-council-on-monuments-and-sites
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

MacDonald Heritage in the market driven economy: a tale from down under

Documents