to this site over the last twelve months. We also inquire about travel mode, the purpose of
the present visit, the use of restaurants, shops and accommodations, and the length of
time spent on-site and in the vicinity of the monument. To obtain the key inputs for the
travel cost model, we ask respondents (i) how far they live from the site, and (ii) the cost
of the trip, along with the size of the party they are traveling with.4
Finally, we ask the respondent to rate his level of satisfaction with the current
visit and perception of the state of conservation of the cultural heritage site on a scale
from 1 to 5, where 1 means “worse possible experience” (“very poor”) and 5 means “best
possible experience” (“very good”).
In the second major section of the questionnaire, we propose a hypothetical
program that would improve the quality of the site and/or the quality of the experience.
People are randomly assigned to one of three hypothetical programs. These programs
share a common part—conservation interventions at the site—and then branch into (a)
initiatives that would enhance the cultural experience at the site (interpretive materials,
small museum), (b) infrastructure improvements, such as repairing local roads to the
cultural heritage site, building bathrooms and rest facilities, providing waste management
services, and (c) tourism-related services, such as restaurant, cafes, shops, recreational
activities and tourism information centers. Variants (a), (b) and (c)—which we dub
CULTURE, INFRASTR and SERVICES—are mutually exclusive.
Were the program implemented, we ask, and assuming that the cost of a trip were
the same, would the respondent visit the site more often? If so, how many times over the
next year? What if the cost of a trip increased by 20%?
4 If the respondent mentioned other destinations visited or to be visited on this trip, we urged him to
consider, to the best of his ability, only the costs associating with visiting this site and town/village.