|dc.description.abstract||In general, the contingent valuation studies applied to the valuation of cultural
heritage sites are usually carried out for the purpose of physical conservation.
However, to conserve the heritage site sustainably, heritage interpretation is one of the
main factors that cannot be neglected. As a result, this study was conducted to elicit
the value of the restoration and improvement of heritage interpretation (information
board, exhibits, booklets, pamphlets, tourist guide services, etc.) with the selection of
the Historic City of Ayutthaya as a study site.
A contingent valuation (CV) survey with 2 hypothetical programs was
employed and the payment vehicle used in this study was the one-day package
entrance fee. According to this study, firstly, it is interesting to explore whether the
heritage interpretation’s value of three historic sites is different to the values of fifteen
historic sites or not. It was found that the scope test was qualified. The respondents
can distinguish the values of two hypothetical programs whose scope are different.
The respondents are willing to pay more for the larger project that contains more
historic sites. This can reflect that the respondents did not pay for the improvement of
heritage interpretation because they would just like to express good citizenship or an
altruistic mind which is called warm glow giving phenomenon.
Secondly, due to two hypothetical programs being assumed in this study, it is
interesting to scrutinize whether the elicited value of the first hypothetical project
affected the elicited value of the second hypothetical project or not. It was found that
the anchoring bias did not have any statistically significant influence in this study.
Single bounded dichotomous choice, double bounded dichotomous choice and
open ended questions were used to find the expected willingness to pay. With regard
to single bounded dichotomous choice question, in cases where simple linear utility
function with logistic regression is assumed, the individual’s willingness to pay for
three historic sites and fifteen historic sites are 137.44 Baht and 422.44 Baht respectively
as well as in cases are log-normal utility function with logistic regression is assumed,
the individual’s willingness to pay for 3 historic sites and 15 historic sites are 229.24
Baht and 1,404.71 Baht respectively.
For double bounded dichotomous choice questions, in cases where the utility
function is considered simple linear with logistic regression, the individual’s willingness
to pay for three historic sites and fifteen historic sites are 220.77 Baht and 484.23
Baht respectively as well as in cases are log-normal utility function with logistic
regression is assumed, the individual’s willingness to pay for three historic sites and
fifteen historic sites are 411.28 Baht and 933.07 Baht respectively. By the way, in the
case of open ended questions, the expected willingness to pay for three historic sites
and fifteen historic sites are 126.50 Baht and 317.11 Baht respectively.
Belief in Buddhism, educational level and income are the statistically significant
positive determinant of willingness to pay. Unfortunately, the distance decay that was
previously expected to be seen in this study did not play any statistically significant
role on the respondent’s willingness to pay. This means that the locality or the distance
between the respondent’s residence province and Ayutthaya province is not a statistically
significant variable. So, the ownership and sense of belonging of local people or Thai
visitors who live near the Historic City of Ayutthaya is supposed to be no more or less
of a concern.||th