Analysing the Cost-Effectiveness of Heritage Conservation Interventions: A Methodological Proposal within Project STORM

References

• Ashley-Smith, J. 2000. Risk assessment for object conservation. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Báez, A., and H. C. Herrero. 2012. Using contingent valuation and cost-benefit analysis to design a policy for restoring cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 13 (3):235–45. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2010.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canoy, M., J. Rampton, J. Sennett, and M. Gossett. (2013). Study on cost-effectiveness of education and culture spending programmes. Final report to the European Commission. EC-DG Education and Culture, Brussels. doi:10.2766/3884.
   Google Scholar
• Cassar, M. 1998. Cost/benefits appraisals for collection care: A practical guide. London: Museums & Galleries Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, R. M., and L. H. J. Goossens. 2004. Expert judgement elicitation for risk assessments of critical infrastructures. Journal of Risk Research 7 (6):643–56. doi:10.1080/1366987042000192237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croasmun, J. T., and L. Ostrom. 2011. Using likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education 40 (1):19–22.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M., R. Coony, S. Gould, and A. Daly. 2005. Guidelines for life cycle cost analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University – Land and Buildings. https://sustainable.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Guidelines_for_Life_Cycle_Cost_Analysis.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dawes, J. 2008. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research 50 (1):61–104. doi:10.1177/147078530805000106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delegou, E. T., C. Kiranoudis, J. Sayas, and A. Moropoulou. (2012). Developing an integrated decision making system for the assessment of cleaning interventions on marble architectural surfaces. 12th International Congress on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, New York: Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Delgado Rodrigues, J., and A. Grossi. 2007. Indicators and ratings for the compatibility assessment of conservation actions. Journal of Cultural Heritage 8 (1):32–43. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2006.04.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EC. 2008. Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects: Structural funds and instrument for pre-accession. Brussels: EC-DG Regional Policy.
   Google Scholar
• EC. (2015). Tool #61: The use of discount rates. Better Regulation. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-61_en_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Edenhofer, O., et al. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, WGIII Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415416.
   Google Scholar
• English Heritage. 2008, Conservation principles, policies and guidance. In English heritage, ed. P. Drury, and A. McPherson., 1st. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-management-historic-environment/.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, S. 2013. Cost-benefit analysis of natural hazard mitigation. In Encyclopedia of natural hazards, ed. P. Bobrowsky, 121–25. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• IEC. 2009. IEC/ISO 31010:2009, risk management - risk assessment techniques. Geneve: International Electrotechnical Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, A., S. Kale, S. Chandel, and D. K. Pal. 2015. Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 7 (4):396. doi:10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975.
   Google Scholar
• Kayahan, B., and B. Vanblarcom. 2012. Cost benefit analysis of UNESCO World Heritage site designation in Nova Scotia. Review of Economic Analysis 4 (2):247–73.
   Google Scholar
• Klamer, A., and P. W. Zuidhof. 1998. The values of cultural heritage: Merging economic and cultural appraisals. In Economics and heritage conservation, ed. M. de la Torre, and R. Mason, 23–61. Los Angeles: GCI.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhfuss, L., N. Hanley, and R. Whyte. 2016. Should historic sites protection be targeted at the most famous? Evidence from a contingent valuation in Scotland. Journal of Cultural Heritage 20:682–85. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2016.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, R. 2002. Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices. In Assessing the values of cultural heritage, ed. M. de la Torre, 5–30. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Michalski, S., and J. L. Pedersoli. 2016. The ABC method: A risk management approach to the preservation of cultural heritage. Ontario: CCI; ICCROM.
   Google Scholar
• MMC/NIBS. 2005. Natural hazard mitigation saves: An independent study to assess the future savings from mitigation activities. Vol.II: Study documentation. Washington, DC: NIBS - National Institute of Building Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Mourato, S., E. Fimereli, D. Contu, C. Gaskell, and C. Boniatti-Pavese. (2014). The economic benefits of cultural built heritage interiors conservation from climate change damages in Europe. Climate for Culture Project WP6 Final Report, LSE, London.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Viñas, S. 2005. Contemporary theory of conservation. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Murzyn-Kupisz, M. 2015. Selected cultural heritage valuation methods applied by economists. In Heritage value assessment systems – The problems and the current state of research, ed. B. Szmygin, 165–82. Lublin-Warsaw: Lublin University of Technology and Polish ICOMOS Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Nara+20. 2016. Nara+20: On heritage practices, cultural values, and the concept of authenticity. Heritage & Society 8 (2):144–47. doi:10.1080/2159032X.2015.1126115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nesticò, A., P. Morano, and F. Sica. 2018. A model to support the public administration decisions for the investments selection on historic buildings. Journal of Cultural Heritage 33:201–07. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2018.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersoli, J. L., Jr., C. Antomarchi, and S. Michalski. (2016). A guide to risk management of cultural heritage. CCI; ICCROM. http://www.iccrom.org/wp-content/uploads/Guide-to-Risk-Managment_English.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pombo, O., B. Rivela, and J. Neila. 2016. The challenge of sustainable building renovation: Assessment of current criteria and future outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production 123:88–100. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revez, M. J., and J. Delgado Rodrigues. 2016. Incompatibility risk assessment procedure for the cleaning of built heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 18:219–28. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2015.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riganti, P. (2006). ‘Tourists’ satisfaction vs. residents’ quality of life in medium sized European cities: A conjoint analysis approach for cultural tourism’s impact assessment’. 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Volos, Greece, August 30–September 3
   Google Scholar
• Riganti, P., and P. Nijkamp. (2005). Benefit transfers of cultural heritage values-how far can we go?. Paper presented at the 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association “Land Use and Water Management in a Sustainable Network Society”, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 23–27.
   Google Scholar
• Rudokas, K., M. Landauskas, I. Gražulevičiūtė-Vilneiškė, and O. Viliūnienė. 2019. Valuing the socio-economic benefits of built heritage: Local context and mathematical modeling. Journal of Cultural Heritage (in press) 39:229–37. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2019.02.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruijgrok, E. C. 2006. The three economic values of cultural heritage: a case study in the Netherlands. Journal of Cultural Heritage 7 (3):206–13. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2006.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanna, U., C. Atzeni, and N. Spanu. 2008. A fuzzy number ranking in project selection for cultural heritage sites. Journal of Cultural Heritage 9:311–16. doi:10.1016/j.culher.20070.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasse, H. R., and R. Snethlage. 1997. Methods for evaluation of stone conservation treatments. In Saving our architectural heritage: Conservation of historic stone structures, ed. N. S. Baer, and R. Snethlage, 223–43. Chichester: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Sestini, S., M. Sammartino, and M. Laurenzi Tabasso. 2013. Monitoring the performance of stone conservation treatments: technical and economic aspects. In Built heritage 2013 monitoring conservation management, ed. M. Boriani, R. Gabaglio, and D. Gulotta, 1013–21. Milan. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08533-3.
   Google Scholar
• Shreve, C. M., and I. Kelman. 2014. Does mitigation save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (PA):213–35. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.004.
   Google Scholar
• Svensson, M. 2010. Cost-Benefit Analysis. In 21st century economics: A reference handbook, ed. R. C. Free, 275–83. Los Angeles: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Thiebat, F. 2016. An evaluation tool to support strategical evaluations for the reclamation and reuse of dismissed sites. TECHNE-Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment (12):238–44. doi:10.13128/Techne-19358.
   Google Scholar
• Throsby, D. 2016. Investment in urban heritage conservation in developing countries: concepts, methods and data. City, Culture and Society 7 (2):81–86. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2015.11.002.
   Google Scholar
• Tourkolias, C., T. Skiada, S. Mirasgedis, and D. Diakoulaki. 2015. Application of the travel cost method for the valuation of the Poseidon temple in Sounio, Greece. Journal of Cultural Heritage 16 (4):567–74. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2014.09.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuan, T. H., and S. Navrud. 2008. Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 9:326–37. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2008.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UN. 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO-WHC, ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN. 2010. Managing disaster risks for world heritage. Paris: UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-630-1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Vaz Pinto, I., A. P. Magalhães, and P. Brum. 2010. Sondagem junto ao poço da oficina de Salga 1 de Tróia. Conímbriga XLIX:133–59. doi:10.14195/1647-8657_49_8.
   Google Scholar