Abstract
The value of the general good is usually formed by market price. However, the cultural heritage sites are not only judged by market price, since the cultural heritage sites have the features of public goods like environmental goods, which also have a non-market valuation. Hence, the value of cultural heritage should be evaluated through non-market evaluation methods. The aim of this study is to examine the particular characteristics of cultural heritage resources, which is distinct from natural resources, by calculating recreational demand and value through evaluation methods. The evaluation methods which have been studied so far were examined in this study in order to select the most appropriate one and finally 'Zonal Travel Cost Method', 'Individual Travel Cost Method', 'Hypothetical Travel Cost Method' and 'Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Method' were selected. Linear regression with Estimated Generalised Least Square, Count Data Model (i.e. POISSON and Negative Binomial model), and Linear and Log-Logit model were used to derive the demand model of evaluation method. For the main study, two heritage sites were selected: one is a cultural heritage: Hahoe historic village (HHV), the other is a natural heritage: Juwang mountain national park (JMP), used to compare the site of a cultural heritage. These sites are very similar, except that the former has historic characteristics and the latter has natural characteristics. According to the results of this study, the particular characteristics of recreation demand and recreation non-market value of cultural heritage, which are distinct from those of natural heritage were summarised as follows: Firstly, the travel cost has more effect on the recreational demand of a natural heritage site than that of a cultural heritage site. Secondly, the visiting demand of cultural heritage site is less sensitive to the variation of the quality of the recreational environment than the visiting demand of a natural heritage site. Thirdly, the model fit of demand models in cultural heritage resource is not good, compared with that in natural heritage. Finally, the non-market recreational value per capita (per adult) of a cultural heritage resource is larger than that of a natural visiting resource. These characteristics result from two causes: (i) visiting purposes of cultural and natural heritage differ each other, (ii) cultural heritage has the strong characteristics of originality and peculiarity. Therefore, substitute destinations, if any, are few. On the other hand, there are more substitute places for 'natural visiting resources', given similar travel cost being concerned. Based on these findings, the following suggestions were made: Firstly, in the case of cultural heritage, unlike natural resources, the number of visitors is not raised even if the quality of recreational environment of cultural heritage site has been increased. As a consequence, restoration as well as extension of facilities in cultural heritage should be considered carefully and avoided, if the intention is simply to increase visitor numbers. Secondly, it is suggested that events, education or exhibition programmes should be progressively developed in an attraction so as to highlight its originality. Thirdly, the scope of promotion must be enlarged, as cultural heritage is less affected by distance than by natural heritage is. Finally, the results of this study provide several conceptual and theoretical contributions as well as practicalities to decision makers in the tourism industry. There are three main contributions in theoretical terms: (i) the results of the study verified that travel time is appropriate, as a proxy variable of travel cost in deriving TCM model. This research proved that the existing model which uses travel distance seems imprecise, (ii) it was empirically verified that the recreational values of a site are very different depending on evaluation methods in the study. So far there has been no systematic comparison and evaluation of different methods based on the same dataset. (iii) this research broadens the HTCM study. The previous studies have estimated the demand models under the only assumption if the quality of recreational environment (QRE) has improved so far, this research estimated those under the assumption that current QRE is stable and has decreased as well. By doing this, the answer to 'how do the variations of QRE affect on demand and value' was verified. Besides this, in practical terms, the findings provide crucial information for decision-making for a controlled number of visitors in HHV, entrance fee, and a marketing strategy to increase profits in HHV.