CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cultural heritage as multi-dimensional, multi-value and multi-attribute economic good: toward a new framework for economic analysis and valuation

Mazzanti, Massimiliano·2002·The Journal of Socio-Economics
DOI 10.1016/s1053-5357(02)00133-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1053-5357(02)00133-6

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The multi-dimensional hierarchical system proposed in this paper makes up for the lack of cultural value stratification in the double-main-ring-and-multiple-branches structure of the Taihu heritage network and provides a scientific basis for differentiated protection strategies.

    “The multi-dimensional hierarchical system proposed in this paper makes up for the lack of cultural value stratification in the “double main ring and multiple branches” structure of Taihu heritage network 35,36 , and provides a scientific basis for differentiated protection strategies.”

    From Circuit theory-based cultural heritage corridor network development in qin river basin (2025) · cites this paper as [35]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Adamowicz, 1998, Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 64, 10.2307/3180269 · DOI
  2. Adamowicz, 1994, Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271, 10.1006/jeem.1994.1017 · DOI
  3. Bariletti, A., 1993. Paternalismo, Libertà e beni di merito. In: Chiancone, A., Osculati, F. (Eds.), Il Merito Della Spesa Pubblica, Franco Angeli, Milano.
  4. Bariletti, A., Causi, M., 1998. Cultural Heritage, Resources and Employment: An Italian Perspective. In: Proceedings of the Paper Presented at the International Conference on Cultural Economics, Barcelona, 1998.
  5. Basu, K., 1975. Retrospective Choice and Merit Good, Finanz Archiv, Vol. 34.
  6. Baumol, H., Baumol, W.G., 1985. On the cost disease and its true policy implications for the arts. In: Greenaway, D., Shaw, K.G. (Eds.), Public Choice, Public Finance and Public Policy. Blackwell (Basil), Oxford.
  7. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1992. A system perspective on the interrelations between natural, human made and cultural capital. Ecological Economics 5 (1), 1–8. · DOI
  8. Besley, 1988, A simple model for merit good arguments, Journal of Public Economics, 35, 371, 10.1016/0047-2727(88)90038-2 · DOI
  9. Boorma, P.B., Van Hemel, A., Van der Wielen, N. (Eds.), 1998. Privatisation and Culture. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht. · DOI
  10. Casoni, G., 1998. Cognitive representation of total value in a cvm framework: a critical review of the literature. In: Bishop, R.C., Romano, D. (Eds.), Environmental Resource Evaluation: Applications of the CVM to Italy. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht. · DOI
  11. Creigh-Tyte, 1998, Museums in the U.K.: some evidence on scale and activities, Journal of Cultural Economics, 22, 151, 10.1023/A:1007562103987 · DOI
  12. Cwi, 1980, Public support for the arts three arguments examined, Journal of Cultural Economics, 4, 39, 10.1007/BF02580849 · DOI
  13. Darnell, 1998, Some simple analytic of access and revenue targets, Journal of Cultural Economics, 22, 89
  14. Deacon, 1998, Research trends and opportunities in environmental and natural resource economics, Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 383, 10.1023/A:1008247412458 · DOI
  15. Duffy, C.T., 1992. The rationale for public funding of a national museum. In: Towse, R., Khakee, A. (Eds.), Cultural Economics. Springer, Berlin. · DOI
  16. Dworkin, G., 1971. Paternalism. In: Wassertsarom, R. (Eds.), Morality and the Law. Wadsworth, Belmont.
  17. Else, 1988, Further thoughts on public goods, private goods and mixed goods, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 35, 115, 10.1111/j.1467-9485.1988.tb01037.x · DOI
  18. Feehan, 1990, A simple model for merit good argument, Journal of Public Economics, 43, 127, 10.1016/0047-2727(90)90055-M · DOI
  19. Grampp, 1989a. Rent-seeking in art policy. Public Choice 60 (2), 113–121. · DOI
  20. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., 1999. Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation? In: Proceedings of the Presentation at the EAERE Conference 1999, Oslo.
  21. Hanley, 1998, Using choice experiments to value the environment, Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 413, 10.1023/A:1008287310583 · DOI
  22. Hansen, 1997, The willingness to pay for the royal theatre in Copenaghen as a public good, Journal of Cultural Economics, 21, 1, 10.1023/A:1007303016798 · DOI
  23. Head, J., 1974. Public Goods and Public Welfare. Duke University Press.
  24. Holtmann, 1999, Samuelsonian and Weisbrodian public goods, Public Finance Review, 27, 187, 10.1177/109114219902700402 · DOI
  25. Husak, D., 1981. Paternalism and Autonomy. American Philosophical Quarterly 10 (1).
  26. ICCROM, 1999. Summary Report of Thematic Group 7: Valuing Heritage—Beyond Economics. In: Proceedings of the Florence Conference, Culture Counts, Florence.
  27. Koboldt, C., 1997. Optimising the use of cultural heritage. In: Hutter, M., Rizzo, I. (Eds.), Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. Mcmillian, London. · DOI
  28. Kornai, J., 1979. Evaluation de l’evaluation des projets. In: Ministere de la Cooperation, Republique Francaise (Eds.), Analyses critiques des methodes d’evaluation des projets. Tome II, Paris.
  29. Lazo, J.K., McClelland, Schulze, W.D., 1997. Economic theory and psychology of non-use values. Land Economics 73 (3) 358–371. · DOI
  30. Martin, 1994, Determining the size of museums subsidies, Journal of Cultural Economics, 18, 255, 10.1007/BF01079759 · DOI
  31. Mazzanti, M., 2001. In: Proceedings of the Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Italian Society of Public Economics (SIEP) on Discrete Choice Models and Valuation Experiments: An application to Cultural Heritage. Pavia, Italy, 5–6 October (http://www.unipv/websiep.it).
  32. McCain, 1982, Optimal subsidies in a short-sighted world, Journal of Cultural Economics, 6, 15, 10.1007/BF00162291 · DOI
  33. McConnell, 1995, Consumer surplus from discrete choice models, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 263, 10.1006/jeem.1995.1046 · DOI
  34. McConnell, 1997, Does altruism undermine existence value?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 22, 10.1006/jeem.1996.0944 · DOI
  35. Mittone, 1992, Politica tariffaria e politica informativa nell’offerta di servizi pubblici, Economia Politica, 9, 425
  36. Musgrave, 1956, A multiple theory of budget determination, Finanzarchiv, XVII, 333
  37. Musgrave, R.A., 1987. Merit Good. The New Palgrave Dictionary. · DOI
  38. Netzer, D., 1978. The Subsidised Muse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  39. Norton, 1998, The evolution of preferences. Why Sovereign preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it, Ecological Economics, 24, 193, 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00143-2 · DOI
  40. Nuti, F., 1998. Paternalism vs. Consumer Sovereignty. In: Bishop, R.C., Romano, D. (Eds.), Environmental Resource Evaluation: Applications of the CVM to Italy. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.
  41. Pazner, 1972, Merit wants and the theory of taxation, Public Finance, 27, 460
  42. Powe, 1996, Benefits received by visitors to heritage sites: a case study of Warkworth castle, Leisure Studies, 15, 259, 10.1080/026143696375558 · DOI
  43. Roskamp, 1975, Public goods private goods: pareto optimum and social optimum, Public Finance, 30, 61
  44. Rushton, 1999, Methodological individualism and cultural economics, Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 137, 10.1023/A:1007556402981 · DOI
  45. Sable, K.A., 1996. Historic built resources: an example of the double public good In: Proceedings of the Relazione Presentata Alla 9th International Conference On Cultural Economics, Boston, MA.
  46. Sable, 2001, The double public good: a conceptual framework for “Shared Experience” values associated with heritage conservation, Journal of Cultural Economics, 25, 77, 10.1023/A:1007675701979 · DOI
  47. Sandmo, 1983, Ex-post welfare economics and the theory of merit goods, Economica, 50, 19, 10.2307/2554118 · DOI
  48. Santagata, 2000, Contingent valuation and cultural policy design: the case of Napoli Musei aperti, Journal of Cultural Economics, 24, 315, 10.1023/A:1007642231963 · DOI
  49. Seaman, B.A., 1987. Arts impact studies: a fashionable excess. In: Economic Impact of the Arts, A Source Book. National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver.
  50. Stigler, 1977, De Gustibus non est Disputandum, American Economic Review, 67, 76
  51. Throsby, 1985, What price culture?, Journal of Cultural Economics, 9, 1, 10.1007/BF00187742 · DOI
  52. Twight, 1993, Urban amenities, demand revelation, and the free rider problem: a partial solution, Public Choice, 77, 835, 10.1007/BF01047998 · DOI
  53. Ver Eecke, 1998, The concept of a “merit good”, Journal of Socio-Economics, 27, 133
  54. Ver Eecke, 1999, Public goods: an ideal concept, Journal of Socio-Economics, 28, 139
  55. Willis, 1994, Paying for heritage: what price for the durham cathedral?, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 37, 267, 10.1080/09640569408711975 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mazzanti, M.
Venue
The Journal of Socio-Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
529-558
ISSN
1053-5357
DOI
10.1016/s1053-5357(02)00133-6
Cited by
87
References
0
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review