Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 119–140 | Cite as

On the Use of Life Satisfaction Data for Valuing Cultural Goods: A First Attempt and a Comparison with the Contingent Valuation Method

  • Salvador del Saz-SalazarEmail author
  • Ana Navarrete-Tudela
  • José Ramón Alcalá-Mellado
  • Daniel Carlos del Saz-Salazar
Research Paper
  • 264 Downloads

Abstract

This article shows how life-satisfaction data can be used as a novel approach to value cultural goods since the contingent valuation method, although widely used, is still the subject of an intense controversy. The cultural good object of valuation is the Contemporary Art Archives and Collections of the Faculty of Fine Arts of the city of Cuenca (Spain) that constitutes a cultural legacy of great value for the community at large. Both methodologies are compared and results provide evidence that the Life Satisfaction Approach can generate meaningful values of cultural goods of use nature and non-use nature. Thus, adding a new tool of analysis expands the scope for the economic valuation of cultural goods. Finally, the pros and cons of this novel approach are discussed.

Keywords

Life Satisfaction Approach Happiness Subjective well-being Contingent valuation Cultural goods Non-market valuation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Reference: HAR2013-48604-C2-1-P). We also want to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Funding

This study was funded by Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Reference: HAR2013-48604-C2-1-P).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

All the respondents consented to participate in the research. Confidentiality and anonymity was also preserved.

References

  1. Báez-Montenegro, A., Bedate, A. M., Herrero, L. C., & Sanz, J. A. (2012). Inhabitants’ willingness to pay for cultural heritage: A case study in Valdivia, Chile, using contingent valuation. Journal of Applied Economics, 15, 235–258.Google Scholar
  2. Báez-Montenegro, A., & Herrero, L. C. (2012). Using contingent valuation and cost–benefit analysis to design a policy for restoring cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 13, 235–245.Google Scholar
  3. Bateman, I., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M. W., Hanley, N., & Hett, T. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Bedate, A., Herrero, L. C., & Sanz, J. A. (2009). Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: Correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question. Journal of Cultural Economics, 33, 185–199.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1359–1386.Google Scholar
  6. Brenig, M., & Proeger, T. (2016). Putting a price tag on security: Subjective well-being and willingness-to-pay for crime reduction in Europe. Journal of Happiness Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9814-1.Google Scholar
  7. Carson, R. T. (1997). Contingent valuation: Theoretical advances and empirical tests since the NOAA panel. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, 1501–1507.Google Scholar
  8. Carson, R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 1413–1418.Google Scholar
  9. Carson, R. T., Mitchel, R. C., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S., & Ruud, P. A. (2003). Contingent valuation and loss passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental & Resource Economics, 25, 257–286.Google Scholar
  10. Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C., Brown, T. C., & McCollum, D. W. (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 151–162.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 95–144.Google Scholar
  12. DeJonge, T., Veenhoven, R., & Arends, L. (2015). ‘Very happy’ is not always equally happy on the meaning of verbal response options in survey questions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 77–101.Google Scholar
  13. del Saz-Salazar, S., García-Rubio, M. A., Gózalez-Gómez, F., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2016). Managing water resources under conditions of scarcity: On consumers’ willingness to pay for improving water supply infrastructure. Water Resources Management, 30, 1723–1738.Google Scholar
  14. del Saz-Salazar, S., & Montagud-Marqués, J. (2005). Valuing cultural heritage: The social benefits of restoring and old Arab tower. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6, 69–77.Google Scholar
  15. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.Google Scholar
  16. Dolan, P. & Metcalfe, R. (2008). Comparing willingness-to-pay and subjective well-being in the context of non-market goods. CEP Discussion Paper No 890. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  17. Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94–122.Google Scholar
  18. Epstein, R. A. (2003). The regrettable necessity of contingent valuation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 259–274.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2014). Guide to cost–benefit analysis of investment projects. Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2017.
  20. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114, 641–659.Google Scholar
  21. Frey, B. S. (2009). Cultural economics. CESifo DICE Report, 1, 20-26.Google Scholar
  22. Frey, B. S., Luechinger, S. & Stutzer, A. (2009). The life satisfaction approach to environmental valuation. CESifo working paper No. 2836.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, C. M. (1998). Hope for the future? Early exposure to the artsand adult visits to art museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22, 87–98.Google Scholar
  24. Grosi, E., Blesi, G. T., Sacco, P. L., & Buscema, M. (2012). The interaction between culture, health and psychological well-being: Data mining from the italian culture and well-being project. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 129–148.Google Scholar
  25. Growiec, K., & Growiec, J. (2014). Trusting only whom you know, knowing only whom you trust: The joint impact of social capital and trust on happiness in CEE countries. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1015–1040.Google Scholar
  26. Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources. The econometrics of non-market valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  27. Hand, C. (2017). Do the arts make you happy? A quantile regression approach. Journal of Cultural Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-017-9302-4.Google Scholar
  28. Hanemann, M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332–341.Google Scholar
  29. Hanley, N., Colombo, S., Kriström, B., & Watson, F. (2009). Accounting for negative, zero and positive willingness to pay for landscape change in a national park. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60, 1–16.Google Scholar
  30. Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 43–56.Google Scholar
  31. Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Economic Modelling, 20, 331–360.Google Scholar
  32. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2016). World happiness report 2016. Update (Vol. I). New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
  33. Joung, I. M. A., Stronks, K., van de Mheen, H., van Poppel, F. W. A., van der Meer, J. B. W., & Mackenbach, J. P. (1997). The contribution of intermediary factors to marital status differences in self-reported health. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 476–490.Google Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 3–24.Google Scholar
  35. Krinsky, I., & Robb, A. L. (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economic and Statistics, 68, 715–719.Google Scholar
  36. Kristoffersen, I. (2015). The metrics of subjective wellbeing data: An empirical evaluation of the ordinal and cardinal comparability of life satisfaction scores. Social Indicators Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1200-6.Google Scholar
  37. Kriström, B. (1990). A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete-response contingent valuation studies. Land Economics, 66, 135–139.Google Scholar
  38. Kriström, B. (1997). Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, 1013–1023.Google Scholar
  39. Kuhfuss, L., Hanley, N., & Whyte, R. (2016). Should historic sites protection be targeted at the most famous? Evidence from a contingent valuation in Scotland. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 20, 682–685.Google Scholar
  40. Lee, J.-S. (2015). Measuring the benefits of the intangible cultural heritage hall in Jeonju Korea: Results of a contingent valuation survey. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16, 236–238.Google Scholar
  41. MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2009). Life satisfaction and air quality in London. Ecological Economics, 68, 1441–1453.Google Scholar
  42. Mahasuweerachai, P., & Pangjai, S. (2017). Does piped water improve happiness? A case from Asian rural communities. Journal of Happiness Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9875-9.Google Scholar
  43. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2016). Anuario de Estadísticas Culturales 2016. http://es.calameo.com/read/00007533581346845eda1. Accessed 6 February 2017.
  44. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  45. Mourato, S., & Mazzanti, M. (2002). Economic valuation of cultural heritage: Evidence and prospects. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage (pp. 51–76). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.Google Scholar
  46. Noonan, D. S. (2003). Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 159–176.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. OECD. (2015). How’s life? 2015. Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Santagata, W., & Signorello, G. (2000). Contingent valuation of a cultural public good and policy design: The case of “Napoli Musei Aperti”. Journal of Cultural Economics, 24, 181–204.Google Scholar
  50. Schuster, J. M. (2003). Introduction. Journal of Cultural Economics, 3(4), 155–158.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, E., Berger, M., Blomquist, G., & Allen, S. (2002). Valuing the arts: A contingent valuation approach. Journal of Cultural Economics, 26, 87–113.Google Scholar
  52. Throsby, D. (2003). Determining the value of cultural goods: How much (or how little) does contingent valuation tell us? Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 275–285.Google Scholar
  53. Throsby, D., & Zednik, A. (2014). The economic and cultural value of paintings: Some empirical evidence. In V. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of arts and culture (Vol. 2, pp. 81–100). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  54. Tiefenbach, T., & Kohlbacher, F. (2015). Happiness in Japan in times of upheaval: Empirical evidence from the national survey on lifestyle preferences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 333–366.Google Scholar
  55. Tsurumi, T., & Managi, S. (2016). Monetary valuations of life conditions in a consistent framework: The life satisfaction approach. Journal of Happiness Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9775-4.Google Scholar
  56. Tuan, T. H., & Navrud, S. (2007). Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: Comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates. Environmental & Resource Economics, 38, 51–69.Google Scholar
  57. Van den Berg, B., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2007). Monetary valuation of informal care: The well-being valuation method. Health Economics, 16, 1227–1244.Google Scholar
  58. Veenhoven, R. (2012). Happiness: Also known as ‘life-satisfaction’ and ‘subjective well-being’. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Kühling handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 63–77). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Veenhoven, R. (2015). Informed pursuit of happiness: What we should know, do know and can get to know. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 1035–1071.Google Scholar
  60. Veenhoven, R. (2017). Happiness in Spain (ES). World Database of Happiness, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Viewed on 2017-05-03 at http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl.
  61. Vossler, C. A., & Watson, S. B. (2013). Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 86, 137–147.Google Scholar
  62. Welsch, H. (2006). Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data. Ecological Economics, 58, 801–813.Google Scholar
  63. Welsch, H. (2009). Implications of happiness research for environmental economics. Ecological Economics, 68, 2735–2742.Google Scholar
  64. Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2009). Using happiness data for environmental valuation: Issues and applications. Journal of Economic Surveys, 23, 385–406.Google Scholar
  65. Wheatley, D., & Bickerton, C. (2017). Subjective well-being and engagement in arts, culture and sport. Journal of Cultural Economics, 41, 23–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-016-9270-0.Google Scholar
  66. Wright, W. C., & Eppink, F. V. (2016). Drivers of heritage value: A meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage. Ecological Economics, 130, 277–284.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Economics IIUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of ArtsUniversity of Castile-La ManchaCuencaSpain
  3. 3.Cultural Interfaces, Art and New Media Research GroupUniversity of Castile-La ManchaCuencaSpain

Personalised recommendations