128
cultural heritage counts for europe
�
table of contents
(p. 325). Quite unsurprisingly, the research conducted in 2011 revealed significant improvement of the way the city was perceived: The evaluation of Pécs improved thanks to the ECoC events, both locally and nationally. In the national average, respondents reporting a positive change were at 61.7%, while in the local context it was 66.4%. […] The image of the city was significantly more positive among the active participants in the events as opposed to those who did not attend any parts of the program. Our hypothesis remained partially unconfirmed, since the highest value of the rating scale (5 = “the city’s image improved significantly”) was less frequent among the respondents from Pécs (16.1%) than it was nationally (19.8%) (Koltai, 2014, p. 333).
Unfortunately, the survey did not contain questions about the role of cultural heritage, especially architecture. Neither was any other research conducted that would indicate the residents’ view of its significance for the entire project. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the revitalisation of the aforementioned Zsolnay Factory buildings, the restoration of the historic buildings in the Old Town as well as investment in the new wing of the art museum were central in the realised programme, one might assume that the numbers in question can also be applied to these initiatives to a large extent. Especially that 94% of the respondents thought that the 2010 ECoC programme was highly beneficial for the city of Pécs (p. 338). The ECoC evaluation involves all capitals of culture and the results are always positive. However, examining cultural heritage as a separate research category would be of great value. Pécs was referred to merely as an example, especially that in this case the investment in the immovable heritage constituted an important element of the realised programme.
3.8.2 Built heritage and the real estate market From a real estate economic perspective, the value of a building lies in its being a source of revenue. In theory some built heritage, or at least some historical monuments, may be traded in a real estate market. In such cases their price is determined by demand and supply of the good. What about its value? Value here would be understood as the largest amount of money a consumer would be willing to pay to get a particular good (it might be lower or higher than the actual market price). This value is estimated based on both use and non-use values and in the case of public and merit goods (among which cultural heritage is numbered) could be determined by using non-market valuation techniques. It is worth referring to Ready and Navrud (2002b, pp. 7-8) who point out the extent of the market of heritage goods: while local cultural heritage good brings value only for the local community, national cultural heritage has importance for most citizens of a country and world heritage sites generate value for people from distant countries.