Yabancı Turistlerin Antik Gobeklitepe (Şanlıurfa-Türkiye) İçin Ödeme İstekliliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, antik Gobeklitepe-Şanlıurfa-Türkiye için giriş ücretini ve ödeme istekliliğini (WTP) etkileyen faktörleri şartlı değerleme yöntemi (CVM) kullanarak belirlemektir. Bu bağlamda, araştırmanın ana materyali rasgele seçilen 338 yabancı turisttir. Anket formuna göre kapalı uçlu (ya da ikili seçim) ve aynı anda açık uçlu iki tür soru kullanıldı. Çalışmanın amaçlarını belirlemek için probit modeli ve 2SLS (İki Aşamalı En Küçük Kareler) modelleri kullanılmıştır. Aynı zamanda, turistlerin ödeme istekliliğinini etkileyen faktörler, LSE (En Küçük Kare Tahmini) yöntemi yerine maksimum olasılık yöntemi (MLM) kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, probit modelinin ortalama ödeme istekliliğinin Gobeklitepe için 25 $ olduğu ve belirtilen  ödeme istekliliğinin 2SLS tarafından 22.04 $ olduğu tahmin edilmektedir. Buna göre, probit modeli ve 2SLS modelinden toplam kullanım değeri sırasıyla 1.042.500 $ / yıl ve 919.068 $ / yıl olarak tahmin edilmiştir. Bu çalışma, bölgedeki ilk örnek ankettir ve yüz yüze anket analizine dayanmaktadır. Çalışma, bir kültür bölgesinin optimal yönetimi için turistlerin  ödeme istekliliğini  etkileyen birincil faktörleri belirlemektedir. Sonuçlar, politika yapıcılar için son derece önemlidir ve Türkiye ve benzer arkeolojik kültürel miras özelliklerine sahip diğer ülkeler için yararlı bilgiler içermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ödeme istekliliği,probit model,2SLS model,Kültür ekonomisi,Şanlıurfa,Göbeklitepe

EVALUATING FOREIGN TOURISTS’ WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ANCIENT GOBEKLITEPE-SANLIURFA, TURKEY

Öz

The goal of this study is to determine entrance fee and factors that affecting willingness to pay (WTP) for ancient Gobeklitepe-Sanlıurfa-Turkey by using contingent valuation method (CVM). In this context, randomly selected 338 foreign tourists were the main material of the study. It was used two sorts of questions that were closed-ended (or dichotomous choice) and open-ended at the same time according to questionnaire format. The probit model and 2SLS (Two-Stage Least Squares) models were used to identify goals of the study. At the same time the factors that affect tourists’ WTP have been done by using maximum likelihood method (MLM) instead of LSE (Least Square Estimation) method. As a result the average WTP for the probit model is estimated the amount of 25 Dollar for Gobeklitepe and the stated WTP was estimated to be 22.04 Dollar by 2SLS. Accordingly, aggregate use value from probit model and 2SLS model were estimated 1,042,500 Dollar/year and 919,068 Dollar/year respectively. This study is the first of its type in the region and based on an analysis of face to face questionnaires. The study determines the primary factors influencing tourists’ WTP for the optimal management of a cultural site. The results are extremely important for policymakers and contain useful information for Turkey and other countries with similar archaeological cultural heritage characteristics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Willingness to pay,probit model,2SLS model,culture economy,Sanliurfa

Kaynakça

1. Anonymus(2016). Retrieved from http://www.gobeklitepe.org/, Access date: 16.03.2016
2. Barrio, M. J., Devesa, M., and Herrero, L. C. (2012). Evaluating intangible cultural heritage: The case of cultural festivals. City, Culture and Society, 3, 235-244.
3. Bateman, I. J. and Willis, K.G. (Eds.). (1999). Valuing environmental preferences: the theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 668
4. Bedate, A., Herrero, L. C., and Sanz, J. A. (2004). Economic valuation of the cultural heritage: Application to four case studies in Spain. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 5, 101-111.
5. Bjornstad, J., Kahn, J.R. (Eds.). (1996). The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issues and research needs. Brookfield, Vt. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK..
6. Bostedt, G., and Lundgren, T. (2010). Accounting for cultural heritage- A theoretical and empirical exploration with focus on Swedish reindeer husbandry. Ecological Economics, 69, 651-657.
7. Carson, T. R. (2000). Contingent Valuation: A user’s guide. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 1413-1418.
8. Chiam, C., Khalid, A.R., Rusli, Y., and Alias, R. (2011). Contingent Valuation Method: Valuing Cultural Heritage. In: Singapore Economic Review Conference (SERC), Singapore.

9. Choi, A., Ritchie, B., Papandrea, F., and Bennett, J. (2010). Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: choice modelling approach. Tourism Management, 31, 213-220.
10. Gomes, L. L., Pinto, L. M. C., and Rebelo, J. F. (2013). Visitors’ preferences for preserving the attributes of a world heritage site. Journal of Cultural Heritage, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2013.01.003
11. Haab, T., Interis, M. G., Petrolia, D. R. Whitehead, J. C. (2013). From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious to Hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Advance access, 1– 20. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppt029
12. Hanemann, M. (1984). Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332-341.
13. Hausman, J. A. (2012). Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26 (4), 43 –56.
14. Jia, H., Skaperdas, S., and Vaidya, S. (2013). Contest functions: Theoretical foundations and issues in estimation, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 31(3), 211-222.
15. Jun, E., Kim, W. J., Jeong, Y. H., and Chang, S. H. (2010). Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology. Energy Policy, 38, 1470-1476.
16. Kim, S. S., Wong K. F., and Cho, M. (2007). Assessing the economic value of a world heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants: A case of Changdeok Palace. Tourism Management, 28, 317-322.
17. Kinghorn, N., and Willis, K. (2008). Valuing the components of an archaeological site: An application of Choice Experiment to Vindolanda, Hadrian’s Wall. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9, 117-124.
18. Lavee, D., and Baniad, G. (2013). Assessing the value of non-marketable land: The case of Israel. Land Use Policy, 34, 276-281.
19. Loomis, J.B. (2011). What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(2), 363 –370.
20. Mitchell, R., and Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method, Resources for the Future, Washington, D. C.
21. Montenegro, A. B., Huaquin, M. N., and Herrero, L. C. (2009). The valuation of historical sites: a case study of Valdivia, Chile. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52, 97-109.
22. Necissa, Y. (2011). Cultural heritage as a resource: its role in the sustainability of urban developments. The case of Tlemcen, Algeria. Journal of Procedia Engineering, 21, 874-882. doi: 10.1016/j. proeng.1011.11.2089.
23. Poor, J., and Snowball, J. (2010). The valuation of campus built heritage from the student perspective: Comparative analysis of Rhodes University in South Africa and St. Mary’s College of Maryland in the United States. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11, 145-154.
24. Raheem, N., Colt, S., Fleishman, E., Talberth, J., Boyle, K. J., Rudd, M., Lopez, R. D. (2012). Application of non-market valuation to California’s coastal policy decisions. Marine Policy, 36, 1166-1171.
25. Salazar. S., and Marques J. (2005). Valuing cultural heritage: The social benefits of restoring and old Arab tower. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6, 69-77.
26. Sanz, J. A., Herrero, L. C., and Bedate, A. M. (2003). Contingent valuation and semiparametric methods: A case study of the National Museum of Sculpture in Valladolid, Spain. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 241-257.
27. Schkade, D. A. and Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26,88-109.
28. Tehrani, M., Verbic, M., and Chung J. Y. (2013). An analysıs of adoptıng dual pricing for museums the case of the national museum of Iran. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 58-80.
29. Tümay, A. B., and R. Brouwer (2007). Nonmarket valuation of water quality in a rural transition economy in Turkey applying a posteriori bid design. Water Resources. Research, 43, W05436, doi:10.1029/2006WR004869.
30. UNESCO, (2016a). World Heritage List. Dünya kültür mirası listesi (accessed: whc.unesco.org/en/list), access date: 12.03.2016
31. UNESCO, (2016b), Dünya kültür mirası geçici listesi (accessed: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5612/), access date: 12.03.2016
32. Venn, T., and Quiggin, J. (2007). Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Ecological Economics, 61, 334-344.
33. Voltaire, L., Pirrone, C., and Bailly, D. (2013). Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach. Ecological Economics, 88, 76-85.
34. Vossler, C.A., Kerkvliet, J. (2003). A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 631–649.
35. Yamane, T., (2009). Temel örnekleme yöntemleri. Literatür Yayıncılık, İstanbul, p528, ISBN: 9789758431342