Working Papers

The WNE Working Papers series has been published by the Faculty of Economic Sciences at the University of Warsaw since 2008.

The WNE Working Papers series provides a fast, open channel for disseminating research conducted at the Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw. The papers hosted here are working versions (pre-prints) and may evolve as authors refine their analyses, incorporate feedback, or progress through formal peer-review. What you read is the current version released by the authors, timestamped and assigned DOI/ISSN identifiers to ensure precise citation and version tracking. Copyright remains with the authors, who may, at any time, upload a revised file or add a note directing readers to a later, peer-reviewed publication.

The Working Papers series accepts articles by research employees of the Faculty and publications from conferences organised at the Faculty of Economic Sciences at the University of Warsaw. Articles should be original research papers which have not been previously published, on the subject of economics.

Please send your paper by e-mail: .CMORaeUm&#EfKpYcPVs571Jj-/]#[$/@78PMFOtk4ZbhHIYLkBwp@sxv 

Please send 2 files:

(1) the main text without the title of the article and the authors (DOC/DOCX file) and

(2) the title page including: the title of the paper, the authors and their affiliation (DOC/DOCX file).

Please read the detailed editing requirements before submitting your text. 

Number of Results 2

WP(27/2026)521. What Happens Without Conservation? The Prospect of Heritage Loss in Contingent Valuation

Authors: Jusypenko Bartosz
Economic valuation of heritage conservation depends on what respondents expect to happen without the implementation of a proposed intervention, yet this no-program counterfactual is often left implicit. We examine whether explicitly directing respond…

WP521. What Happens Without Conservation? The Prospect of Heritage Loss in Contingent Valuation

Economic valuation of heritage conservation depends on what respondents expect to happen without the implementation of a proposed intervention, yet this no-program counterfactual is often left implicit. We examine whether explicitly directing respondents to consider potential heritage loss affects stated willingness to pay (WTP) for renovation of a building and whether the contribution of information about adaptive reuse depends on whether such loss enters the valuation decision. A contingent valuation survey of 452 adult residents living near Pückler Palace, a deteriorating historic building in Poland, used a 2 × 2 randomized design combining a loss-consideration prompt with information about a genuine proposal to adapt the renovated palace as the new premises of the Museum of Ceramics. WTP was elicited as the maximum mandatory one-off levy respondents would support within an advisory-referendum framework. Among respondents not assigned to the loss-prompt treatment, a post-valuation question identified spontaneous consideration of heritage loss. Two-part models separated the probability of positive WTP from the amount stated among positive responses. Randomized treatment estimates indicated higher WTP under the loss prompt when reuse information was absent. The unconditional mean difference was positive but imprecisely estimated, while the corresponding difference among positive-WTP respondents was statistically significant. In the conditional models, respondents assigned to the loss prompt had approximately twice the odds of positive WTP and a 61% higher conditional geometric mean of positive WTP than that of unprompted respondents who did not report spontaneous loss consideration. Among unprompted respondents, spontaneous loss consideration—reported by 54%—was associated with a 92% higher conditional geometric mean of positive WTP than in unprompted respondents who did not report such consideration. Evidence that reuse information contributed more when loss was not considered was suggestive rather than conclusive. The findings show that common information about an asset’s current condition need not produce a common understanding of its expected future without the proposed intervention. Stated preference surveys should therefore specify this trajectory with sufficient clarity and credibility that respondents are evaluating a common underlying policy change.


DOI: https://doi.org/10.33138/2957-0506.2026.27.521
Jusypenko Bartosz
cultural heritage historic preservation adaptive reuse contingent valuation stated preferences prospect of loss

WP(11/2025)474. Breaking New Ground in Heritage Valuation: A Comprehensive Use of Discrete Choice Experiments

Authors: Czajkowski Mikołaj, Jusypenko Bartosz, Ben White
Heritage authorities must decide which places to protect, but valuation studies usually examine a single named site. We develop a common way to describe buildings, historic sites and landscapes, and test it in a choice experiment with 1,613 Victorian…

WP474. Breaking New Ground in Heritage Valuation: A Comprehensive Use of Discrete Choice Experiments

Heritage authorities must decide which places to protect, but valuation studies usually examine a single named site. We develop a common way to describe buildings, historic sites and landscapes, and test it in a choice experiment with 1,613 Victorian respondents. The results show higher mean willingness to pay for nineteenth-century age and excellent condition in all three categories, while the value attached to distance differs across them. Images also affect stated values in the later survey designs, although many individual image comparisons remain uncertain. We show how the estimated characteristics combine in an illustrative courthouse profile. A shared set of characteristics makes comparisons possible, but it does not make the monetary values interchangeable or establish that they transfer to new places. The framework can help structure heritage appraisal while making those limits explicit.


DOI: https://doi.org/10.33138/2957-0506.2025.11.474
Czajkowski Mikołaj, Jusypenko Bartosz, Ben White
cultural heritage historic preservation non-market valuation discrete choice experiment public preferences
  • 1