Calls > Session 4

4 – Representing territories: revealed values of territories

Co-facilitators: Caroline TAFANI, Claudio DETOTTO & Dominique PRUNETTI (LISA)

When representing territories, one tacitly attributes different values to them. Sometimes these values are measured and expressed in terms of prices derived from territorial assets: for example, when attributing prices to land and real estate, we accord a certain market value to their use. For other territories, non-market values need to be taken into account, for which it is necessary to develop specific analyses like those relative to environmental, cultural or heritage amenities. These analyses are based on revealed preferences (hedonic prices and travel cost method. See Carlsson, 2011; Freeman III et al., 2014) or on stated preferences (contingent valuation method or choice experiment. See Alfness & Rickertsen, 2011; Freeman III et al., 2014). However, behind the commodification of the territory we find an ensemble of preferences and more or less implicit values that go beyond their economic evaluation. The territory is therefore the object of a symbolic valorization.

The given values reflect the level of interest that the agent has for the territory. How do you determine these values? If possible, different techniques can be employed to assign a value to each asset of a certain territory. How do you assess a territory’s global value? Gauging these values is the way to better understanding the operation and the collective construction of the territory. In this regard, if we go beyond the economic approach, determining the global value of a territory can only be apprehended by a pluri-disciplinary approach. Thus studies from disciplines such as territorial marketing, sociology, psychology or geography should be encouraged with a view to enriching this debate.

Bibliography

Alaux C., Serval S., Zeller C., 2015, « Le Marketing territorial des Petits et Moyens Territoires : identité, image et relations », Gestion et management public, 2015/4, n° 2, p. 142.
Alfness F., Rickertsen K., 2011, “Non-market Valuation: Experimental Methods”, in Lusk J.L., Roosen J., Shogren J.F. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the economics of food consumption and policy, vol. 10, pp. 215-242.
Carlsson F., 2011, “Non-market Valuation: Stated Preference Methods”, in Lusk J.L., Roosen J., Shogren J.F. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the economics of food consumption and policy, vol. 10, pp. 181-214.
Casanova L., Helle C., 2012, « Ce que les dynamiques foncières révèlent du devenir des territoires : éléments de prospective du sud-est français », L’Espace géographique, 2012/2, tome 41, p. 96.
Chamard C., Liquet J.-C., Mengi M., 2013, « L'image de marque des régions françaises : évaluation du "capital territoire" par le grand public », Revue française du Marketing, n° 244/245, décembre 2013, pp. 27-42.
Freeman III A.M., Herriges J.A., Kling C.A., 2014, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values (Theory and Methods), Third Edition, RFF Press.
Tiano C., 2010, « Quelles valeurs pour revaloriser les territoires urbains ? », Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography, Débats, Les valeurs de la ville, mis en ligne le 03 mai 2010.

Expected types of paper

Communications may be theoretical, applied and/or methodological. Communications associating theoretical aspects and empirical verification, particularly case studies, will however be given priority.