Valuing the Protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites

© 2003. The Economic Society of Australia. ISSN 0013–0249.

THE ECONOMIC RECORD, VOL. 79, SPECIAL ISSUE, JUNE, 2003, S85–S95

S85

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKECORThe Economic Record0013-02492003 The Economic Society of AustraliaJune 2002791Original Article

aboriginal cultural heritage siteseconomic record

Valuing the Protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites

JOHN ROLFE and JILL WINDLE

Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland

In this paper, a stated value experiment is reported that assessesvalues held for protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage sites in centralQueensland. Choice Modelling, a stated preference non-market valuationtechnique, was used to estimate non-use values for protecting culturalheritage sites in the context of further water resource allocation andirrigation development. Three population groups were sampled, being anindigenous population, and regional centre and capital city populations.Results show that there are significant differences in values betweenindigenous and general population groups. The general populationgroups had negative values for high levels of cultural heritage siteprotection, but did have positive values for small increases in protectionabove current levels.

I Introduction

Development activities within the landscapeoften involve losses to Aboriginal cultural heritagesites and items. Some ‘spectacular’ sites, such asart sites and burial caves that are normallyassociated with Aboriginal cultural heritage arewell protected. However, the bulk of culturalheritage places and items relate to living patterns,such as camp sites, stone tools, stone working sites,marked trees, rock wells and middens along water-holes. Many of these items are not often recognisedas Aboriginal sites by landholders and commercialdevelopers, and hence, are susceptible to loss.

The physical cultural heritage sites may bevalued by Aboriginal people, who seek to maintainor re-establish links with their traditional lands.The sites also may be valued by the generalAustralian community, who wish to see cultural

heritage sites preserved. These sentiments havebeen reflected in a range of legislative and regula-tory measures across the Australian states thatseek to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage sitesin some form. For example, the

Cultural Record(Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate)Act 1987

is the relevant Act in Queensland for themanagement and protection of Indigenous culturalheritage values. As well, some important Aborigi-nal cultural heritage sites have been protectedthrough inclusion in National Parks.

The sentiments have also been reflected thoughthe requirement to consider cultural heritageimpacts in many development approval processes.For example, Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) statements for large development projectswill normally include impacts on cultural heritagesites and values as a part of the process. Detailedanthropological studies and consultation withtraditional owners may be a part of the EIA process.Cultural heritage impacts will often be consideredin other approval processes, such as those requiredfor main road and other infrastructure construction.

Correspondence: John Rolfe, Central QueenslandUniversity, PO Box 197, Emerald, Queensland 4720.Australia. Telephone: +61 07 4980 7081. E-mail:[email protected]

S86

ECONOMIC RECORD JUNE

These assessment requirements are not necessar-ily consistent across and within states. For example,many development activities that occur on privatelands do not involve any assessment of culturalheritage impacts, in contrast to major projects anddevelopments on public lands. It is not clear onceimpacts have been identified how they should betraded off against development goals. For example,the draft

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2002

released by the Queensland Government protectscultural heritage that is deemed to be significant,but does not define significance clearly or allowit to vary according to quality, quantity or otherfactors.

The assessment of costs and benefits is an impor-tant component in the assessment process for majordevelopments in Australia. Increasingly, environ-mental and social impacts of development arebeing included in the cost-benefit analysis frame-works because non-market valuation techniquescan be employed to provide value estimates forthose impacts. In some cases the impacts are valuedby transferring values estimated in other, similarsituations. However, the loss of Aboriginal culturalheritage sites is not assessed in this manner, partlybecause there is no prior history of cultural heritagevaluation in Australia. As a consequence, it isdifficult to evaluate potential losses in Aboriginalcultural heritage in economic terms.

In this paper, the use of a non-market valuation tech-nique termed Choice Modelling (CM) is describedin relation to assessing values for Aboriginal cul-tural heritage protection. It is the valuation stepfor cultural heritage impacts that has been missingwithin cost-benefit analysis frameworks. Hence,this paper describes an important and novel applica-tion of the valuation technique. If protection valuescan be established for Aboriginal cultural heritagesites, then it will become easier to assess and relatethem to other objectives.

This paper is structured as follows. Indigenousissues and the importance of cultural heritage arediscussed in the next section. In Section 3, theliterature on the use of non-market valuation, inrelation to valuing Aboriginal cultural heritageis examined. In Section 4, the CM case study inCentral Queensland is described, some results arepresented in Section 5, and conclusions are drawnin the final section.

II Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in Central Queensland

There is a wide variety of cultural heritageplaces in Central Queensland and a complex mix

of values associated with them. At Carnarvon Gorge,the Aboriginal rock art sites have high culturalheritage values associated with their archaeolog-ical, historical and anthropological importance andare a significant international tourist attraction. Assuch, the sites have value at a local/regional,national and international level. Other sites mayonly have significant value for a much smaller andspecifically defined section of the local community.Some sites may have spiritual significance to onlyone Aboriginal clan; other sites may have value toseveral clan groups in the area.

The Bowen Basin Aboriginal Cultural HeritageProject (L’Oste-Brown

et al

. 1998) has recordedAboriginal cultural heritage sites in the region ofinterest.

1

Of these sites, 7.7 per cent are located inNational Parks and 7.8 per cent in State Forestsand Timber Reserves. This means that 15.5 percent of sites have some form of protection. All theother sites are located on private property and bothaccess to, and protection of, these sites are at thediscretion of the landowners.

A total of 2724 places containing Aboriginalheritage values have been identified, includingplaces and values spanning periods prior to Euro-pean contact to more recent times. While there area number of sites of high significance, such as 312rock art places, there are also many sites of lowersignificance such as 807 isolated stone artifactsand 938 stone artifact scatters (Rolfe and Windle2002). These figures are unlikely to be fully accu-rate as they are derived from the Bowen Basinstudy and do not include all places in the Fitzroycatchment. As well, most of the basin has not beensystematically examined for artifacts.

Many sites are located on private property, havenot been formally recognised, and are being lost todevelopment. There are several issues relating tothe location of cultural heritage places on privateland. If these sites remain unrecognised and notaccessible to the general community, then the non-Aboriginal use-value of such a place will be lowerthan if sites were recognised and accessible. How-ever, if such a site did become officially recognised,the landowners would incur a private loss as theybecome guardians of public property. This raisesissues of multiple use and how different uses mayinteract and impact on associated values.

There are a variety of views about the extentto which Indigenous people might trade-off deve-lopment opportunities against losses in Aboriginal

1

Information on the GIS database is accessible on theInternet at http://rsu2.cqu.edu.au/BowenBasin2/index.html

http://rsu2.cqu.edu.au/BowenBasin2/index.html

2003 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES

S87

cultural heritage sites. One common argument isthat cultural heritage is so important for Aboriginalpeople that it cannot be traded-off for pure com-mercial gains. This type of argument was successfulin protecting Coronation Hill from mining, and incor-porating it into Kakadu National Park. However,there are also many examples where Indigenouspeople have negotiated with mining companiesand other groups for access and impacts on theirlands to be compensated with financial packages,employment and training opportunities, and otherbenefits. These examples suggest that not all culturalheritage sites are sacrosanct, and that trade-offs canbe made in some circumstances.

III Non-market Valuation

Cost-benefit analysis has become a standardtool for assessing public investment projects. Whileincreased awareness of the environmental and socialcosts of development has led to their recognitionin cost-benefit analysis, these factors are oftentreated as intangibles and as such, are frequentlymentioned but not quantified. Increasingly,attempts are being made to measure the value ofsuch non-market goods so they can be formallyincluded in cost-benefit analysis. A number oftechniques are available for this purpose. Thesecan generally be grouped as surrogate marketor ‘revealed preference’ approaches (travel cost,hedonic pricing, property value techniques, etc.) andsimulated/hypothetical market or ‘stated preference’approaches (contingent valuation, choice modelling,contingent ranking, etc.).

Stated preference techniques have advantagesbecause they are often the only methods availablefor use (surrogate markets do not always exist),they directly measure willingness to pay (WTP),and they provide estimates of total economic value(including non-use values). Choice Modelling(CM) is one technique that can be used, and inrecent years, the technique has become popular foreliciting values for environmental goods with mul-tiple attributes (Adamowicz

et al

. 1998b; Blamey

et al

. 1999). The technique has several advantagesover the contingent valuation method (CVM)(Morrison

et al

. 1996; Adamowicz

et al

. 1998b;Hanley

et al

. 1998; Rolfe

et al

. 2000).Choice Modelling involves asking survey respon-

dents to make a series of choices about alterna-tive options for environmental management. Eachchoice set involves a number of profiles describ-ing the alternatives on offer. One of the profilesdescribes a current or future status quo option,and remains constant between the choice sets. The

other profiles vary, so that respondents are beingasked to make a series of similar, but differentchoices.

The profiles are made up of a number of attri-butes that describe the issue in question. For example,profiles about environmental issues in floodplainmanagement might be described in terms of thehealth of the waterways, the amount of remnantvegetation in good condition on floodplains, andthe proportion of stream flows that are reserved forenvironmental purposes. To generate differencesbetween profiles, these attributes are allowed to varyacross a number of different levels (e.g. 30 per cent,40 per cent or 50 per cent of healthy vegetationin floodplains). These profiles then represent differentoptions for future development and protection of theissue in question.

The choice information is analysed using alogistic regression model. The probability that a res-pondent would choose a particular option can berelated to the levels of each attribute making upthe profile (and the alternative profiles on offer),the socio-economic characteristics of the respond-ent, and other factors. The latter might include theways in which the choices are framed to respond-ents through background information and structureof the survey, and the way in which the surveysare collected (Bennett and Blamey 2001; RolfeBennett and Louviere 2002).

The logistic regression function can be used togenerate probabilities of choice, and estimates ofvalue (compensating surplus) differences betweendifferent choice profiles. Most interest usually liesin finding the difference in value between the sta-tus quo option and specific policy-relevant profiles.As well as these estimates of value, the models canalso be used to generate estimates of marginalvalue changes for each attribute (Rolfe

et al

.2000). Known as part-worths, implicit prices, orattribute values, these provide an indication of thevalue to respondents of each unit change in theprovision of an attribute. Both the part-worth andthe compensating surplus estimates can be used fortesting the equivalence of different models. Theymay also be used for transferring values (benefittransfer) to other case studies (Morrison andBennett, 2000; Rolfe, Bennett and Louviere, 2000).

(i) Assessing Cultural Heritage Values

Market valuation of tangible cultural heritageassets such as buildings and paintings can often beassessed through related market techniques such ashedonic pricing and the travel cost method. Incases where there is direct commercial income

S88


and clear property rights, values can be assessedfrom market data. The small number of valuationsof Aboriginal cultural heritage have evaluatedcommercial benefits, e.g. Janke (1998), and Zeppel(2001). There has been little attention paid tovaluing the protection of Aboriginal heritage sites.For many cultural heritage sites, an importantcomponent of values are non-use values, such asexistence values. While the estimation of non-usevalues provide greater challenges, heritage assetswill remain under-valued unless such values areconsidered alongside use values.

There are a growing number of applications ofnon-market valuation techniques to assessing non-use values for cultural heritage sites (Navrud andReady 2002). Many of these have employed theCVM to assess values for historic buildings andart objects in Europe and North America. Forexample, Bille (2002) used the technique to esti-mate total value of the Royal Theatre to the Danishpopulation, and Navrud and Ready (2002) used thetechnique to assess preservation values for theNidaros Cathederal in Norway. A choice modellingapproach was adopted by Morey

et al

. (2002) toascertaining values for reducing acid deposition onmarble monuments in Washington DC.

Adamowicz

et al

. (1998a) have discussed sometheoretical issues relating to the non-market assess-ment of Indigenous values, and a subsequent appli-cation of CM to value attributes of subsistencehunting by Aboriginal people in Canada is des-cribed in Haener

et al

. (2001). That study foundthat both age and Aboriginal status (First Nationvs. Metis) may result in different responses tochanges in hunting attributes. Boxall

et al

. (2002)report the use of a stated preference experimentto assess the recreational values associated withaboriginal rock paintings in a region of centralCanada. They surveyed wilderness canoeists toascertain the additional values that might be asso-ciated with knowledge of, and access to rock artsites in the region, and showed that increasedaccess had positive values for canoeists.

IV The Choice Modelling Experiment

The CM survey was designed to assess the trade-offs between the development of water resourcesand associated impacts on environmental and culturalheritage protection. The Fitzroy basin is Australia’ssecond largest externally draining basin after theMurray-Darling system. There is a substantial irrigationindustry in the basin, particularly for growingcotton. There have been some environmental lossesin the basin associated with vegetation loss, reduced

water flows, and lower levels of water quality. Theserelate mostly to agricultural use, from pastoral,dryland farming and irrigation activities.

There are proposals to allocate more water toirrigation from the basin. Increased irrigation activ-ities will have beneficial effects on the regional eco-nomy and employment prospects, but may involve someenvironmental losses. While the productive gainsfrom increased irrigation are relatively simple tomeasure from market data, assessment of social andenvironmental impacts are more difficult to assess. TheCM technique has been employed for that purpose.

The core component of a choice modelling surveyis a set of choices that respondents are asked to makebetween different levels of certain ‘attributes’ usedto represent these trade-offs. The trade-off scenarioin this survey was described by four attributes:

•

Healthy vegetation left in the floodplain

•

Kilometres of waterways in good health

•

Protection of Aboriginal cultural sites

•

Unallocated water.

A cost attribute (increase in local rates) was alsoincluded, which was used to assess the valuesrespondents placed on the different attributes.

The survey attributes were developed through theuse of focus groups. A series of four focus groupswere held; three with Aboriginal participants only,and one with a selection from the general community.As both the Aboriginal and general communitywere being sampled, it was important that theinformation provided would be acceptable to bothcommunities and not induce any ‘non-response’bias. Any discussion of Aboriginal cultural heritagewould need to include reference to native title, anissue that sparks an emotional response from manypeople in the community. Considerable effort wasmade to provide sufficient, factual information thatwould avoid generating any emotional response.

Details of the

vegetation

,

waterways

and

unallo-cated water

attributes had been developed in aseries of focus groups (Loch

et al

. 2001), associatedwith an earlier study of water resource develop-ment in the Fitzroy Basin (Rolfe, Loch and Bennett2002). Consequently, focus group discussion concen-trated on the development of the

cultural heritage

attribute and improving the survey design.The advantages about describing scenarios in

terms of three environmental attributes and onecultural heritage attribute were that respondents weremade directly aware of the variety of trade-offsthat were possible and a single focus on culturalheritage items was avoided. The key choice inpresenting the cultural heritage attribute to Aboriginal


S89

people was to identify whether a protection oran access context should be presented. ManyAboriginal people focus on access to cultural herit-age sites as a key aspiration. However, accesspresents a number of logistical problems. Theseinclude questions about who has access, when andhow it is available, and how it impacts on theproperty rights of existing landholders. To mini-mise these problems, the attribute was presented interms of the proportion of Aboriginal culturalheritage sites that could be protected.

Part of the information presented to surveyrespondent is shown as follows.

Using the best information available, 2724 Aboriginalcultural heritage places are currently recorded in theFitzroy Basin. This includes places and values spanningperiods prior to European contact to more recent times.Fifteen and one-half per cent of these sites are locatedin National Parks (7.7 per cent) and State Forests andTimber Reserves (7.8 per cent), and have some form ofprotection. An unknown small percentage of the remain-ing sites, located on private land, are well protected andaccessible to traditional owners. Most Aboriginalcultural heritage sites are located on private propertyand are not well protected. Some may be lost todevelopment in the future.

Current trend

This survey assumes that 25 per cent of Aboriginalcultural heritage sites will have some form of protectionin 15 years’ time.

The survey presented respondents with theexpected level of environmental and culturalheritage factors in 15 years’ time under currentpolicy conditions.

2

This alternative was presentedin each choice, together with two other optionswhere respondents could potentially pay to achievemore desirable outcomes. Increases in local rateswere chosen as the payment vehicle. Reasons forchoosing rates over other payment vehicles such astaxes include the direct association between catch-ment health and water treatment costs by localgovernment, the unsuitability of income tax forrespondent groups that have low income levels, andthe difficulties involved in using state or national-level payment vehicles to achieve a regional outcome.

The levels in the two alternative options variedaccording to an experimental design process. Levelswere chosen to span the range of environmentaland policy outcomes possible, and to identify costtrade-offs that would influence choice behaviour.An example of the choice set presented to respond-ents is presented in Figure 1 and attribute levelsfor the survey are outlined in Table 1.

Adult literacy levels can be lower in some Indig-enous communities than in general communities.Several techniques were used to minimise com-prehension and collection problems that may haveexacerbated differences between Indigenous andgeneral community groups. Icons were used in thesurvey to help respondents identify the attributesand assimilate complex information. The surveywas presented in a large format with text well-spaced and easy to comprehend.

The survey was conducted in a drop-off andcollect form. This allowed respondents to completethe survey in their own home and without timepressures. The initial face-to-face contact betweencollector and respondent helps to increase trust andparticipation. An Aboriginal collector was employedto sample the Indigenous community to address theproblem of trust outlined in Haener

et al

. (2001).Options of face-to-face interviews were offered forrespondents who had difficulties in reading thesurvey, although these were not taken up.

V Results and Analysis

To generate comparative information, the Indige-nous community and the general communities weresampled at the same time. In November and De-cember 2001, the survey was delivered to samplesof the Indigenous community in Rockhampton; thegeneral community in Rockhampton and the generalcommunity in Brisbane. The general communitieswere selected at random based on a cluster samplingtechnique. The Indigenous respondents were selectedat random from a compiled list of Aboriginal house-holds in Rockhampton, based on the best availableinformation. Addresses were supplied by variousorganisations such as the Aboriginal HousingCooperative, the Fitzroy Basin Elders Committee,and educational institutions. The Indigenous surveywas conducted independently and was notassociated with any Aboriginal organisation.

(i) Social Demographics

One hundred and twelve surveys were hand-delivered to an Indigenous sample of the Rock-hampton area. Sixty-three responses were collected,yielding a response rate of 56 per cent. There

2

It would also be possible to frame the survey interms of willingness to pay to achieve greater protectionlevels from the current situation, or willingness to acceptcompensation for losses arising from further development(Rolfe and Bennett, 2003).

S90


was a response rate of 83 per cent for the generalcommunity sample in Rockhampton where 120 sur-veys were hand-delivered and 100 were collected.A total of 58 surveys were collected from Brisbane,and collectors reported a general response rate ofaround 70 per cent.

The socio-economic characteristics indicated thatthe three sample groups were similar and includeda broad cross section of the population (Table 2).However, it would appear that more Indigenousrespondents are in higher income categories thanmight be expected. Ecologically SustainableDevelopment Working Group Chairs (1992) reportthat mean income levels for Indigenous peopleare about two-thirds those of other Australians.

Eighteen per cent of Indigenous respondents did notprovide information about their income and it ispossible these were from lower income groups. Asthere was some difficulty in collecting completedsurveys from some households, it is possible thesewere also from lower income groups, and mightindicate a non-response bias. As would be expectedin a regional area, both the Rockhampton groupshad lower educational levels than the state average,and Indigenous education levels were lower thanthe general community.

(ii) Choice Modelling Results

The orthogonal experimental design generatedfor the survey had 64 different choice sets. These

FIGURE 1Example Choice Set used in the Survey

TABLE 1Base and Attribute levels for the CM Survey

Attribute Base Levels Choice Set Levels

Payment ($) 0 10, 20, 50, 100Healthy vegetation in the floodplain (per cent) 20 20, 30, 40, 50Kilometres of waterways in good health 1500 1500, 1800, 2100, 2400Protection of Aboriginal cultural sites (per cent) 25 25, 35, 45, 55Unallocated water (per cent) 0 −15, −10, −5, 0, 5, 10, 15, 20


S91

were blocked into groups of eight so that eachrespondent was presented with eight choice sets ina survey. This meant there were 504 choice setscompleted by the Indigenous sample, 800 choicesets completed by the Rockhampton generalpopulation sample and 464 choice sets completedby the Brisbane general population sample. Thechoice data were analysed and modelled using theLIMDEP program. Each of the variables used inthe models is specified in Table 3.

Model results for the three data sets are shownin Table 4. The models appear robust, with mostattributes significant and signed as expected.

The key difference in results between the modelsis that the

Cultural Heritage

attribute is positivefor the Indigenous sample (indicating that pro-

bability of choice increased with the increasedpercentage of sites that would be protected), butnegative for both the general community samples(indicating that the probability of choice decreasedwith the increased percentage of sites that wouldbe protected).

To assess the values each group attached to thedifferent attributes and to test if there were signifi-cant differences between the groups, part-worthsand confidence intervals

3

have been calculatedfrom the three models (Table 5). A part-worth is thevalue of a one-unit change in a particular variable.

TABLE 2Social Demographic Details of the Survey Respondents

VariableRocky

Indigenous

Rocky General

Community

Brisbane General

CommunityState

Average*

Average Age (>17 years) 38 years 45 years 46 years 42 yearsGender (per cent Female) 59 per cent 47 per cent 41 per cent 50 per centEducation (per cent > year 12) 30 per cent 39 per cent 46 per cent 46 per centIncome (household) $42,062† $39,882† $35,308† $27,500‡per cent agree that environ Declined 38 per cent 46 per cent 43 per cent 42 per cent

Figures taken from Rolfe, Loch and Bennett (2002: Table 4) and use 1996 Census data.† Before tax, ‡ After tax.

TABLE 3Variables Used in the CM Application

Variable Description

Cost Amount that households would pay in extra rates (or rent) each year to fund improvementsVegetation per cent of healthy vegetation remaining in floodplainsWaterways Kilometers of waterways in catchment remaining in good healthCultural Heritage per cent of Aboriginal cultural sites protectedReserve per cent of water resources in catchment not committed to the environment or allocated

to industry/urban/irrigation usesASC Constant value – reflects the influence of all other factors on choiceEnvironment Concern about ‘Environmental problems’ were ranked 1st or 2nd. List included

Crime prevention, Education, Health, Interest rates UnemploymentMisunderstood Asked if understood survey 1 = strong agree to 5 = strongly disagreeInformation Asked if needed more information 1 = strong agree to 5 = strongly disagreeAge Age of respondent (in years)Gender Male or femaleChildren Respondent has children, Yes or NoEnviron Org Respondent is a member of an organisation associated with environmental conservationFarming Respondent’s family has close associating with farmingEducation Education (ranges from 1 = never went to school to 6 = tertiary degree)Income Income of household in dollar terms

3

Confidence intervals were calculated by taking a randomdraw from the covariance matrix and selection of the upperand lower tails to replicate a 95 per cent band of values.

S92


The results show very close similarities betweenthe Rockhampton and Brisbane populations in thevalues held. Both communities have negative co-efficients for protecting more cultural heritage sites,

although the coefficient is lower for the Brisbanecommunity. There is no significant differencebetween the two general communities for any ofthe part-worths. The confidence intervals for the

TABLE 4Results of Multinomial Logit Models

VariableRocky Indigenous

Community

Rockhampton General

Community

Brisbane General Community

S. Error

Coeff. S. Error Coeff. S. Error Coeff. S. Error

Utility VariablesCost −0.010*** 0.002 −0.012*** 0.002 −0.012*** 0.002Vegetation 0.005 0.007 0.030*** 0.006 0.033*** 0.008Waterways 0.000* 0.000 0.001*** 0.000 0.001** 0.000Cultural Heritage 0.034*** 0.007 −0.025*** 0.006 −0.022*** 0.008Reserve 0.038*** 0.007 0.038*** 0.006 0.041*** 0.008ASC 0.297** 0.118 0.159 0.103 0.078 0.140Environment 0.029 0.327 0.309 0.225 1.138** 0.500Misunderstood 0.801* 0.472 −1.899*** 0.321 0.793** 0.358More Information 1.660*** 0.464 0.145 0.212 −0.783** 0.307Gender 1.267*** 0.262 −0.310* 0.169 1.187*** 0.290Children 0.951*** 0.300 −0.220 0.237 −0.298 0.338Environment Organisation −1.638*** 0.390 −0.488* 0.264 −1.326** 0.611Farming 0.155 0.383 −0.023 0.215 −0.538 0.372Education −0.086 0.095 0.390*** 0.080 0.448*** 0.110Income 0.000*** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Age −0.045*** 0.011 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.009

Model StatisticsN (Choice Sets) 496 (16 skipped) 768 (64 skipped) 464 (88 skipped)Log L −439.42 −639.53 −338.67Adj. Rho-square 0.153 0.154 0.162

*** Significant at the 1 per cent level, ** Significant at the 5 per cent level, * Significant at the 10 per cent level.

TABLE 5Part Worth (P/W) & Confidence Interval (CI) Estimates

P/W Vegetation

P/W Water

P/W Cultural Heritage

P/W Reserve

P/W Asc1

Rockhampton Indigenous communityExpected value Not sig 0.05 3.22 3.62 28.38Lower CI 0.00 1.89 2.15 7.36Upper CI 0.11 5.43 6.11 56.09

Rockhampton general communityExpected value 2.45 0.06 −2.08 3.12 Not sigLower CI 1.27 0.02 −3.29 2.09Upper CI 3.93 0.11 −1.12 4.83

Brisbane general communityExpected value 2.68 0.06 −1.78 3.33 Not sigLower CI 1.36 0.01 −3.43 1.94Upper CI 4.53 0.14 −0.48 5.97


S93

Cultural Heritage

attribute in the general commu-nity samples and the Indigenous sample do notcross over, demonstrating that there is a significantdifference between the Indigenous and generalcommunity groups in the values held for changesin this attribute.

Evidence about how important the respondentsviewed the different attributes used in the experi-ment can be gained from another question pre-sented in the survey. In that question, respondentswere asked whether or not they had a consistentpreference for the different attributes, and if so,what their rankings were. The majority of theIndigenous (62 per cent) and general populationgroups (Rockhampton 69 per cent and Brisbane72 per cent), indicated that they had a consistentranking for the attributes used. For the Indigenoussample, the

Cultural Heritage

attribute was themost important, and the

Vegetation

attribute wasthe least important. This is consistent with the

Veg-etation

attribute being non-significant in the model.The ranking of the attributes in importance by thethree groups is shown in Figure 2.

Further detail on the values that were held forthe cultural heritage attribute by the different groupswas gained by estimating more specific models.Under this approach, the cultural heritage attributewas split into four separate variables, one for eachlevel. The variables were effects coded (0, 1) toreflect the possibility that respondents may havefocused more on the overall direction and positionof each level rather than translate the percentageterms to actual sites protected. In other words, the

effects code allowed for tests for differences invalue between each separate level for the attribute,as if the attribute was coded in an ordinal manner as:

•

Current level – Cultural Heritage 1

•

Some more sites protected – Cultural Heritage 2

•

More sites protected – Cultural Heritage 3

•

Maximum sites protected – Cultural Heritage 4.

This compares to the previous models reported,where the cultural heritage variable has been treatedas a single continuous variable, with an implicit assum-ption that there is a linear relationship between the levelsand the responses made. By breaking the variable upinto separate variable, it allows testing of whetherresponses have followed some non-linear pattern.

One of the levels (maximum sites protected) hadto be dropped from the model for use as a base inthe estimation process. The relevant models arereported in Table 6. For the Indigenous sample, thenegative coefficients for the three estimated levelsindicate that these are less preferred levels, andthat these respondents would prefer maximumprotection levels. The least preferred level is thecurrent situation, and there was little difference inthe impact on choices between the second andthird levels of protection. For the general popula-tion groups, the positive coefficients mean that themaximum protection level is least preferred. Pre-ference ordering for the levels is non-linear for bothgeneral populations. Both the 10 per cent and 20per cent increases in protection levels from thebase are preferred by both groups, but the 30 percent increase (to the maximum level) is a majordisincentive on choice.

VI Conclusions

If additional water resources are allocated toirrigation development in the Fitzroy basin therewill be clearly identifiable economic benefits. Onthe other hand there will be associated costs interms of the impact on the environment. A furthercost will be the potential impact on Aboriginalcultural heritage sites. However, unless the valueof these sites can be assessed, it is hard to determinewhether or not the benefits of development offsetthe negative impact on Aboriginal cultural heritagesites. In addition, some assessment of the differentvalues associated with various sites is needed todetermine which sites need protecting.

In this paper, a choice modelling study that exploresthe values held by Indigenous (Rockhampton) andgeneral communities (Rockhampton and Brisbane)for environmental and cultural heritage protec-tion has been detailed. The models that have been

FIGURE 2 Percentage of Samples Ranking Attribute as Most Important

S94


estimated have high explanatory power, and indicatethat people are able to make trade-offs betweenissues, including ones that involve a cost. It alsoindicates that with careful development and design,CM can be a useful tool in the assessment of thesetrade-offs.

The study indicates that the general communitiesin Rockhampton and Brisbane have significantlydifferent values from those of the Indigenouscommunity about the protection of Aboriginal cul-tural heritage. This does not mean that Aboriginalcultural heritage is not valued by the generalcommunity, but in terms of the trade-offs betweeneconomic development, the general community aremore concerned about environmental issues.

This study has explored the trade-off in valuesfor different attributes of water development, ofwhich the protection of Aboriginal cultural herit-age was but one aspect. The significant differencesin values held by the three communities for this

attribute warrants further investigation. It would beuseful to explore the relevant attributes of the pro-tection of Aboriginal cultural heritage places, froma general community and Indigenous perspective,when more information is provided about the typesof sites that might be protected. While the descrip-tion of cultural heritage used in this research isin keeping with the definitions used in the draft

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2002 (Qld)

, theresults do not indicate how values change withthe quality of the items being protected. Furtherwork is needed to generate results that are fullysuitable for inclusion in cost-benefit analysisstudies.

Acknowledgements

The research discussed in this report has beensupported by Central Queensland University, theAustralian Research Council and the QueenslandDepartment of Natural Resources and Mines.

TABLE 6Models with Cultural Heritage attibute split into levels

VariableRocky Indigenous

Community Rockhampton

General CommunityBrisbane

General Community

Coeff. S. Error Coeff. S. Error Coeff. S. Error

Utility VariablesCost −0.009*** 0.002 −0.013*** 0.002 −0.013*** 0.003Vegetation 0.003 0.007 0.028*** 0.006 0.030*** 0.008Waterways 0.000 0.000 0.001*** 0.000 0.001** 0.000Cult. Heritage 1 −0.866*** 0.206 0.523*** 0.157 0.708*** 0.220Cult. Heritage 2 −0.555** 0.267 0.772*** 0.230 0.774** 0.318Cult. Heritage 3 −0.594** 0.287 0.682*** 0.248 0.734** 0.343Cult. Heritage 4 0.000 0.000 0.000Reserve 0.037*** 0.007 0.040*** 0.006 0.043*** 0.008ASC 0.550*** 0.173 −0.202 0.148 −0.281 0.202Environment 0.185 0.360 0.319 0.225 1.169** 0.501Misunderstood 0.643 0.471 −1.974*** 0.325 0.794** 0.362Information 1.592*** 0.470 0.111 0.213 −0.824*** 0.310Gender 1.407*** 0.276 −0.316* 0.170 1.201*** 0.290Children 0.844*** 0.306 −0.210 0.239 −0.284 0.335Environment organisation −1.591*** 0.397 −0.451* 0.265 −1.169* 0.600Farming 0.171 0.387 −0.013 0.216 −0.578 0.374Education −0.079 0.101 0.389*** 0.081 0.439*** 0.110Income 0.000*** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000* 0.000Age −0.051*** 0.011 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.009

Model StatisticsN (Choice Sets) 496 (16 skipped) 768 (64 skipped) 464 (88 skipped)Log L −417.29 −641.30 −338.67Adj. Rho-square 0.150 0.150 0.162

2003 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES S95

REFERENCES

Adamowicz, W., Beckley, T., Hatton-MacDonald, D., Just,L., Luckert, M., Murray, E. and Phillips, W. (1998a), ‘Insearch of Forest Resource Values of Indigenous Peoples:Are Non-Market Valuation Techniques Applicable?’,Society and Natural Resources, 11, 51–66.

Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M. and Louviere, J.(1998b), ‘Stated Preference Approaches for MeasuringPassive use Values: Choice Experiments and ContingentValuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,80, 64–75.

Bennett, J.W. and Blamey, R.K. (2001), The Choice Mod-elling Approach to Environmental Valuation, EdwardElgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK.

Bille, T. (2002), ‘A Contingent Valuation Study of the RoyalTheatre in Copenhagen’, S. Navrud and R.C. Ready (eds)In: Valuing Cultural Heritage, Edward Elgar Publishing,Cheltenham, UK; 200–37.

Blamey, R.K., Gordon, J. and Chapman, R. (1999), ‘Choicemodelling: assessing the environmental values of watersupply options’, Australian Journal of Agricultural andResource Economics, 43, 337–58.

Boxall, P., Englin, J. and Adamowicz, W. (2002), ‘TheContribution of Aboriginal Rock Paintings to WidernessRecreation Values in North America’, S. Navrud and R.C.Ready (eds) In: Valuing Cultural Heritage, Edward ElgarPublishing, Cheltenham, UK; 105–17.

Ecologically Sustainable Development Working GroupChairs (1992), Intersectoral Issues Report, AustralianGovernment Publishing Service, Canberra.

Haener, M.K., Dosman, D., Adamowicz, W.L. and Boxall,P.C. (2001), ‘Can Stated Preference Methods be used toValue Attributes of Subsistence Hunting by AboriginalPeoples? A Case study in Northern Saskatchewan’, Amer-ican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83, 1334–40.

Hanley, N., Wright, R. and Adamowicz, W. (1998), ‘UsingChoice Experiments to Value the Environment: DesignIssues, Current Experience, and Future Prospects’, Envi-ronmental Resource Economics, 3–4, 413–28.

Janke, T. (1998), Our Culture: Our Future. Report onAustralian Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual PropertyRights, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Studies; Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Commission, Canberra.

L’Oste-Brown, S., Godwin, L. and Porter, C. (1998),‘Towards an Indigenous Social and Cultural Landscapeof the Bowen Basin’, Bowen Basin Aboriginal CulturalHeritage Project. Cultural Heritage Monograph Series,2. Queensland Department of Environment, Brisbane.

Loch, A.J., Rolfe, J. and Windle, J. (2001), ‘Using FocusGroups to Design Choice Modelling Valuation Frame-

works for Floodplain Development’, Valuing FloodplainDevelopment in the Fitzroy Basin Research Report no. 3,Central. Queensland University, Emerald.

Morey, E.R., Rossmann, K.G., Chesnut, L.G. and Ragland, S.(2002), ‘Valuing reduced acid deposition injuries tocultural resources. Marble Monuments in WashingtonD.C.’, S. Navrud and R.C. Ready (eds) In: Valuing Cul-tural Heritage, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham,UK; 159–83.

Morrison, M.D. and Bennett, J.W. (2000), ‘Choice Model-ling, Non-use Values and Benefit Transfer’, EconomicAnalysis and Policy, 30, 13–32.

Morrison, M.D., Blamey, R.K., Bennett, J.W. and Louviere, J.J.(1996), ‘Comparison of State Preference Techniques forEstimating Environmental Values’, Choice ModellingResearch Report no. 1. The University of New SouthWales, Sydney.

Navrud, S. and Ready, R.C. (eds) (2002), Valuing CulturalHeritage, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.

Navrud, S. and Strand, J. (2002), ‘Social Costs and Benefitsof Preserving and Restoring the Nidaros Cathedral’,S. Navrud and R.C. Ready, (eds) In: Valuing CulturalHeritage, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK;31–9.

Rolfe, J.C. and Bennett, J.W. (2003), ‘WTP and WTA inrelation to irrigation development in the Fitzroy Basin,Queensland’, Proceedings of the 47th Annual Conferenceof the Australian Agricultural and Resource EconomicsSociety, 12th−14th February, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Rolfe, J.C., Bennett, J.W. and Louviere, J.J. (2000), ‘ChoiceModelling and its Potential Application to TropicalRainforest Preservation’, Ecological Economics, 35,289–302.

Rolfe, J.C., Bennett, J.W. and Louviere, J.J. (2002), ‘StatedValues and Reminders of Substitute Goods: Testing forFraming Effects with Choice Modelling’, AustralianJournal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 46, 1–20.

Rolfe, J., Loch, A. and Bennett, J. (2002), ‘Tests of BenefitTransfer Across Sites and Population in the FitzroyBasin’, Valuing Floodplain Development in the FitzroyBasin Research Report no. 4, Central Queensland Uni-versity, Emerald.

Rolfe, J.C. and Windle, J. (2002), ‘Valuing aboriginal cul-tural heritage sites in Central Queensland’, AustralianArcheology, (in press).

Zeppel, H. (2001), ‘Indigenous Heritage Tourism and itsEconomic Value in Australia’, Proceedings of AustralianHeritage Commission Conference, 4th July 2000, Herit-age Economics – Challenges for heritage conservationand sustainable development in the 21st Century, Aus-tralian Heritage Commission, Canberra; 108–18.

Valuing the Protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites

Documents

Transcript of Valuing the Protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites