The Value of Cultural Heritage Sites in Armenia: Evidence From a Travel Cost Method Study

13

20% increase in the cost of a visit. By contrast, over 30% of the respondents at the other
sites would visit the site more often under the same hypothetical circumstances, although
Tatev visitors would increase their visits to this destination less than visitors to the other
9

sites.

Table 3. Hypothetical visitation patterns by site. All questions posit that a program would

improve the quality of the site.

Does the fraction of the sample who wishes to visit the site more often if the
program is implemented vary across the variants of the program? As shown in table 4,
there are negligible differences across locales in the percentages of people who would
visit more if the program was implemented. Pairwise t-tests fail to reject the null that
there are no differences in the respective percentages across the groups of respondents
that were assigned to the different scenarios.

⁹ We conjecture that this is because Tatev is far from the capital, Yerevan, where most of our respondents
come from. It is difficult to visit Tatev on a daily trip from the capital because of the time it takes to reach
it. Matters are further complicated by the lack of accommodations. We may reasonably expect that an
improvement of the quality of the roads and of the services at the site might enhance the enjoyment of the
visit.

<<   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >>

More intriguing information