過去研究對於文化遺產價值的討論多為專家學者在專業上之判定,而鮮少利用實證方式來檢視文化遺產所具備的價值面向。此外,對於不同社會行動者在文化遺產價值差異之探討、以及文化遺產認知價值與願付價格間關係之研究亦較少見。有鑑於此,本研究研擬如下三個目的:(1)建立文化遺產價值模式、(2)探討不同社會行動者對於文化遺產價值所存在之差異、(3)透過願付價格的經濟評價來了解文化價值對經濟價值之影響。本研究首先利用文獻回顧及專家訪談建構文化遺產價值項目,接著透過專家問卷檢視各衡量問項之適宜性並確定文化遺產價值問項;在願付價格方面則採用條件評估法(CVM)來進行文化遺產之經濟價值評估。針對遊客、居民、以及專家三類對象進行問卷調查,共獲得有效問卷600份。在分析方面,首先運用結構方程模式之驗證性因素分析,進行模式適配度之檢測,以確立文化遺產價值模式之建構是否完善;接著再以多群組分析來評估理論模式在不同樣本群體間是否具恆等性,並檢視不同群體對文化遺產價值之差異;最後再運用徑路分析探討文化遺產價值對願付價格之影響。研究結果顯示:(1)文化遺產價值模式的七個構面具有良好的聚歛效度和區別效度,包含「環境價值」、「社會價值」、「觀光價值」、「經濟價值」、「精神價值」、「歷史價值」、以及「象徵價值」,整體模式均達適配標準(RMR= .023, RMSEA = .050, GFI= .932, AGFI= .914, SRMR = .043, NFI = .918, RFI = .906, IFI = .950, TLI = .942, CFI = .950, PGFI = .734, PNFI = .796, PCFI = .823),顯示模式與樣本資料具備良好適配度。(2)多群組分析結果顯示遊客、居民、以及專家對於文化遺產價值具有異同之處。相同的是,遊客、居民和專家對於「環境價值」認同普遍較低,而「社會價值」和「象徵價值」較能達到一致的價值共識,其次是「觀光價值」。不同的是,遊客較認為文化遺產具有「象徵價值」(λ= .98)、「精神價值」(λ= .90)、以及「觀光價值」(λ= .90);居民較認為文化遺產具有「象徵價值」(λ= .97)、「社會價值」(λ= .97)、「歷史價值」(λ= .94);專家則較認為文化遺產具有「社會價值」(λ= .99)。(3)在願付價格部分,遊客和居民較願意透過「捐款」來支持文化遺產,而居民和專家在「門票」的支付意願較低,專家則較傾向透過「增稅」來支持文化遺產。(4) 就遊客、居民以及專家而言,文化遺產價值對於願付價格的影響程度均未達顯著(p> .05),亦即文化遺產本身的價值並不會影響受訪者對於願付價格的支付。
The past researches concerning the value of cultural heritages were all based on each scholar’s judgment and opinion. Seldom research has employed the survey technique to testify the dimensions of the value of cultural heritages. Moreover, the discussion of the social actors’ differences toward the value of cultural heritages and the relationship between the value of cultural heritages and the willing to pay were rare, too. As a result, this study drew up three research purposes: (1) Establishing the cultural heritages value framework. (2) Exploring the differences of three different social actors’ perception toward the cultural heritages value. (3) Applying the contingent valuation method (CVM) to explore how the perceptive value of cultural heritages influenced the economic value. First of all, this study used literature review and in-depth interviews to construct the cultural heritages value framework; following by consulting the scholars to examine the suitability of each item in the value framework. The CVM was used to understand the social actors’ willing to pay toward the development of cultural heritages. 600 valid questionnaires were collected from the tourists, residents, and experts. The fitness of the cultural heritages value framework was tested by using the “Confirmatory Factor Analysis”. The “Simultaneous Analysis of Several Groups” was adopted to check the measurement invariance of the framework across different groups. At the end, the “Path Analysis” was used to explore the relationship between the perceptive values and the willing to pay. The results showed: (1) the cultural heritages value framework contained seven dimensions which were “environmental value”, “social value”, “tourism value”, “economical value”, “spiritual value”, “historical value”, “symbolic value” (The fitness index were RMR= .023, RMSEA = .050, GFI= .932, AGFI= .914, SRMR = .043, NFI = .918, RFI = .906, IFI = .950, TLI = .942, CFI = .950, PGFI = .734, PNFI = .796, PCFI = .823 which indicated the overall framework fit the data.) (2) In the value framework, the tourists, residents, and experts all tended to consider the “environmental values” had the lowest contribution to the cultural heritages value. The “social value”, “symbolic value”, following by the “tourism value” contributed significantly to the cultural heritages value. The tourists’ cultural heritages value based mainly on the “symbolic value (λ= .98)”, “spiritual value (λ= .90)”, and “tourism value (λ= .90)”. The residents’ cultural heritages value based mainly on the “symbolic value (λ= .97)”, “social value (λ= .97)”, and “historical value (λ= .94)”. The experts’ cultural heritages value based mainly on the “social value (λ= .99)”. (3) The tourists and residents were more likely to use the donation to support the development of the cultural heritages. Comparing the tourists to the other two social actors, tourists tended to pay more on the ticket price. The experts were more likely to utilize the tax to support the development of the cultural heritages. (4) For tourists, residents and experts, the perceptional value of the cultural heritages does not significantly affect (p> .05) their willingness to pay for the cultural heritages.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。