DOMESTIC VISITORS’ WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) FOR THE PRESERVATION OF WORLD HERITAGE SITE, STADTHUYS, MELAKA, MALAYSIA
-
Published:2020-04-30
Issue:2
Volume:2
Page:93-100
-
ISSN:2637-1138
-
Container-title:Universiti Malaysia Terengganu Journal of Undergraduate Research
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:UMT JUR
Author:
RAZALI MUHD AZRIN SHAH,KAMALUDIN MAHIRAH
Abstract
This research explores the issue of local management system governing the heritage preservation in UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS) Stadthuys, Melaka. Thus far, there is no clearly defined value of cultural heritage that justifies the benefits of preserving cultural heritage as a tourism product and as a sustainable heritage site. Most studies have proven that visitors in general are less interested in visiting cultural heritage sites due to the lack of information available there. Another issue identified in the recent research on cultural heritage assessment is the lack of empirical references on the economic valuation of cultural heritage preservation. This study used contingent valuation method (CVM) and questionnaire for data collection. Four sets of questionnaires were designed and distributed to a total of 100 respondents consisting of local community and domestic tourists. On average, respondents are willing to pay RM8.82, in which this value is higher than the current fee, RM5.00, showing that visitors have the awareness to value cultural heritage through preservation in Stadthuys, Melaka, WHS. Finally, this research has established a framework to be considered by the management regarding the WTP value of the cultural heritage in order to create a more sustainable Melaka Historical City.
Publisher
Penerbit UMT, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
Reference53 articles.
1. Ahmad, S. A., (2009). Visitors’ Willingness-topay for an Entrance Fee: A Case Study of Marine Parks in Malaysia. University of Glasgow, Glasgow. 2. Amirnejad, H., Khalilian, S., Assareh, M. H., & Ahmadian, M. (2006). Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecological Economics, 58(4), 665-675. 3. Avrami, E., Mason, R., & de la Torre, M. (2000). Report on research. Values and Heritage Conservation: research report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 3-11. 4. Báez, 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(3), 235-245. 5. Balmford A., A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. E. Green, M. Jenkins, P. Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, J. Madden, K. Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola, M. Rayment, S. Rosendo, J. Roughgarden, K. Trumper, R. K. Turner 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297, 950-953.
|
|