Book Chapter: Published in ‘The Heritage of Ireland’ by Neil Buttimer, Colin Rynne & Helen Guerin (eds.), Collins Press, Cork, 2000.
Investment Decision-Making and Heritage Management
by
Frank Allen
Finbarr Bradley
Introduction
Decisions about where resources are to be invested and what returns should be expected are not just the preserve of business managers in a commercial environment. Just as individuals decide whether to spend money now or later or how time should be allocated to one activity or another, people with responsibility for heritage management at any level must also make investment decisions. Investment managers would be considered negligent if they did not fully assess alternative opportunities, recognise market, credit and other risks associated with proposed projects, and take into account the timing of expected returns. The theory of finance and best market practice are essential tools in deciding whether to invest in a particular project and in projecting returns.
Heritage managers may have responsibility for less tangible resources and the returns are not as easily quantifiable as is the case for investment decision-making based exclusively on market-place criteria. Nonetheless, professionals in heritage management also need to be aware of the principles that underlie exclusively commercial investments, both for use in evaluating their own projects and in influencing market-based decisions. Put another way, those charged with heritage management must be aware of the cost of promoting initiatives that may run counter to satisfying market demands.
The distinction between decisions based solely on market rather than non-market criteria may not always be such a useful one as commercial investments almost always have an impact on the community in which they are located, just as most investments related to supporting or developing a community’s heritage should respond in some way to market considerations. Consider, for example:
- What restrictions should a planning authority impose on exploring for minerals in an area of archaeological or ecological significance and what would be the additional cost of compliance for the mining company?
- How many regular viewers does an Irish language television station need to attract to justify continued financial support?
- Does the construction of an interpretative centre, attracting more visitors to a location, enhance the heritage value of that location or could it lead to its destruction?
While the main focus of this paper is on how investment decision-making techniques can be an aid to professional heritage management, the limitations of such techniques should also be recognised. Heritage cannot be measured solely in terms of tourist numbers or potential for commercial development. Most people would recognise that a community is poorer if species of fish that swim in its rivers become extinct or if historic place-names for fields and hills are forgotten. However, such a loss is not quantifiable and financial analysis may at best, estimate the cost of preserving such aspects of its heritage.
The following section outlines the basic principles of investment decision-making. We then consider how those principles can be modified to accommodate broader concerns, such as those relating to heritage. The application of financial theory and practice to accommodate the needs of the broader community of stakeholders rather than just maximising the financial return to shareholders is now reasonably well-established, particularly as it relates to environmental issues. We will present examples of how the same approach can be used to enhance our understanding of the “value” of natural, man-made and cultural resources that are the responsibility of heritage management. We will also consider how economists regard the role of heritage in development, especially in the area of tourism. While the focus of the chapter is on how professionals in heritage management approach specific investment, both public and private, we will also suggest directions to improve broader policy-making.
Value
Finance concerns itself with assigning a monetary value to an asset. In some cases, an asset can be easily valued by reference to a market: the value of shares in AIB can be estimated with reference to quotations on the Irish Stock Exchange; quantities of copper or gold are easily valued by reference to the previous day’s quote on the London Metals Exchange; or the value of a typical apartment in Dublin today can be reasonably estimated by the price paid recently for a similar property.
Other assets are more difficult to value as the product is not standardised or there is not a market to provide a recent quote. It is easy to recognise the importance of sentiment and taste in determining the price for an asset and in explaining why that value can fluctuate so much over time. While these more subjective factors can be important in all asset valuation, their importance increases in estimating the value of items that are not traded. For example, no price might be high enough to tempt a family to sell its heirlooms although the items may have limited commercial or practical value to others. In a similar sense, it would be hard to imagine any price high enough to compensate the Irish people adequately for the loss of the Book of Kells or the destruction of the Rock of Cashel. Asset valuation almost inevitably requires a combination of analytical and subjective valuation in varying measures.
Investment Decision-Making
In considering investment decision techniques, it is useful to focus initially on commercial aspects, putting aside for later broader community considerations. In assessing new investment opportunities, financial analysts routinely prepare cash flow projections using different scenarios and “discount” these projections in order to obtain today’s value. It is important to realise that an investor would prefer to have £1,000 today rather than in a year’s time, even if only he or she could put that £1,000 in a bank account and earn interest for the year. Cash flow projections for any investment must therefore be discounted using a factor that takes into account investors’ preference for money today rather than in the future, and for the uncertainty associated with projections not being realised. Future returns that are subject to high risk are discounted at a high discount rate whereas the projected income from a government bond, for example, would be discounted at a low discount rate. In the case of an individual investment, much analysis is devoted to estimating the appropriate discount factor but for our purposes, we can use an interest rate that a bank would charge for a loan. Those interested in a comprehensive treatment of basic finance concepts should consult texts such Ross, Westerfield and Jaffe (1995) or Copeland and Weston (1992).
We consider in Box 1 a simple example to illustrate a number of different techniques for financial valuation named net present value (NPV), discounted cash flow (DCF) and internal rate of return (IRR), respectively.
Box 1
NPV, DCF and IRR
Suppose an investor is evaluating the desirability of a commercial project, say a new hotel overlooking the source of the Lee at Gougane Barra, Cork. The investor must estimate the initial cost of acquisition, the continuing operating costs, and with greatest uncertainty, the level of revenues that can reasonably be expected to be earned from guests. Investors estimate these future cash flows by carrying out market analysis, researching the performance of hotels in similar locations and applying their business acumen.
Our investor has prepared cash flow projections and believes that the new hotel can earn revenues of £500,000 in year 1, £1 million in year 2 and so forth as set out in the table below. He/she has also estimated the operating costs and after initial losses, while the business is being established, it will offer a steady income of £500,000 a year. These earnings can be projected forward indefinitely but the investor has decided that once the project has reached a steady level of profitability, he/she would prefer to sell. He/she estimates that hotel could be sold for £20 million at the end of the sixth year. Having considered the return he/she can earn on investing in other ventures with similar levels of risk, 12% is regarded as an appropriate discount rate. By using a technique called discounted cash flows (DCF) , in other words finding the present value equivalent of future money (at a compounded rate of 12% a year), we estimate the present value today of those cash flows to be £11,190,000. If our investor can acquire the hotel for less than that amount, and is confident that the cash flow projections are reasonable, he/she should invest. If for example, the hotel can be bought today for £10 million, the net present value (NPV) will be £1,190,000. This is the profit the investor will earn from the hotel project rather than by investing money elsewhere at 12%.
In ‘000s Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Revenues £500 £1,000 £1,200 £2,000 £2,000 £22,000 Costs -£700 -£700 -£1,000 -£1,500 -£1,500 -£1,500 -£200 £300 £200 £500 £500 £20,500 Discount Factor 0.893 0.797 0.712 0.636 0.567 0.507 Present Value of Future Cash Flows -£179 £239 £142 £318 £284 £10,386 Net Present Value (NPV) £11,190 Investors often like to think of projects offering a return. It follows from our analysis above that an investment of £11,190,000 would offer a return of 12%. Buying the asset for less than that amount would offer a higher return so an initial investment of £10 million would offer an internal rate of return (IRR), of a little over 14%. This can be calculated by finding what discount factor should be applied to the projected cash flows to get a present value of £10 million.
These techniques are very useful in assessing the profitability of proposed investments and in comparing one opportunity with another. However, their limitations are also obvious. The degree of uncertainty associated with cash flow projections is considerable: anticipated profits may not materialise or profitability may exceed initial expectations. Investors recognise these limitations in financial models but find the discipline of projecting cash flows and comparing one investment opportunity with another in an analytical way very useful in reaching a decision.
More significantly in the context of heritage management, standard finance techniques are useful only in evaluating inflows and outflows that have cash value. Clearly, in the example cited, the site of the hotel had a value before a developer considered building a hotel there. However, the enjoyment of that resource by walkers, day-trippers and local residents is not easily quantified. It follows therefore that the possible loss of that resource if a hotel is built on the site is not included in the investor’s cash flow analysis.
While financial models may not be very useful in assessing the value of resources that do not have intrinsic commercial value, they may help in estimating the cost of their protection. Preserving the site of our hotel in its original state would result in the private investors foregoing their net present value or well-being as described above and perhaps result in the community losing other benefits such as jobs created by the project. Finance helps us to quantify those losses, to some extent, and thus the value the public places on the heritage resource.
Public Perspective
Extending the decision framework on heritage projects to the public realm requires analysts to take society or the community as a whole into account rather than just private goals and profitability. Cost-benefit analysis is used to assess the net social advantage or disadvantage of undertaking a project. Its underlying theory and practice is outlined in Zerbe Jr. and Dively (1994). The technique is similar to the NPV and IRR methods discussed previously but social valuations rather than market prices are used. If proper cost-benefit analysis is performed on a heritage project, a positive result ensures that the project will be socially efficient. In other words, undertaking it and assuming that the outcome matches projections, it will confer a net benefit on society. Just as accepting only positive net present value projects leads to a company’s value or shareholder wealth increasing over time, public sector projects whose benefits outstrip costs should lead to a net improvement in society.
The example in Box 2 illustrates public commitment of resources to a project designed to preserve natural heritage under threat from modern agriculture techniques. Detailed analysis of expenditures on ensuring the continued survival of the corncrake in Ireland can be used to assess resources society is willing to pay to ensure the side effects of progress are counterbalanced to some extent.
Box 2
Corncrakes
The Corncrake, more often heard than seen, has long featured prominently in Irish country life. Stories of corncrakes’ warning song from throughout the country attest to the bird’s historical presence all over Ireland. However, changing agricultural practices, and especially increased mechanisation in mowing, have threatened the survival of the corncrake in Ireland as in other European countries. The 1993 Birdwatch Ireland/Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Corncrake Census recorded 174 singing male corncrakes in Ireland, a decline of over 80% since the previous survey in 1988. The decline continued further in 1994, with just 129 recorded. Following increases in 1995 and 1996, corncrake numbers fell from 184 in 1996 to 148 in 1997. The remaining national population was found to be concentrated in four main areas: the Moy Valley in County Mayo; the Shannon Callows in the midlands; North Donegal; and the Erne Catchment area in County Fermanagh. Extinction in face of the inevitable modernisation of agricultural practice appeared to be the corncrake’s fate.
Conservation measures introduced on a phased basis appear to have reversed the decline in corncrake numbers. A Corncrake Conservation Project and Grant Scheme funded by the Irish Government’s Heritage Service and by the RSPB offers an interesting example of how market forces can be influenced to accommodate the needs of heritage management.
The Scheme offers farmers with corncrakes on their land grants of £80 per hectare (Shannon Callows) or £120 per hectare (Mayo and Donegal) to delay mowing their land until August 1, after corncrake chicks have been hatched. A further £20 per hectare is paid to farmers who opt to mow fields from the centre outwards, to allow young corncrakes to escape under the cover of grass. A tiered Late Cover Grant Scheme was also offered in the Shannon Callows. A number of farmers were offered a grant of £110 per hectare to delay mowing until August 15 or £150 per hectare to delay mowing until September 1.
The co-operation of farmers, government agencies, NGOs and local media has been critical to the success of the conservation efforts. Participation in this voluntary scheme is high with over 80% of eligible farmers in the Shannon Callows opting to take part. According to the BirdWatch Ireland Annual Report (1997), the total cost of the Scheme in 1997 was Shannon Callows (£57,560), Mayo/West Connaught (£17,062) and Donegal (£17,356). The position of the corncrake in Ireland remains very fragile but their numbers have increased since introduction of the conservation scheme. Strong interest and support for the scheme have shown that market requirements and heritage considerations can be reconciled at modest cost. Careful planning and consultation with all interested parties succeeded in reaching consensus on the “value” to the community of protecting the habitat of an endangered species.
One useful classification in cost-benefit analysis is to make a distinction between projects that are privately beneficial and those that are socially beneficial. In privately beneficial projects, the economic benefits are directly obtainable by individuals, groups or firms and are larger than the associated costs or benefits of alternative uses. In the case of socially beneficial projects, the net benefits to society are large or positive, although no one individual may easily capture these benefits.
Defining precisely the correct decision-making focus, quantifying goals and objectives, examining alternatives and their consequences and the risks associated with all the possible outcomes are critical in public project appraisal work. Extending net present value analysis to take into account social benefits and costs is also essential. Because of the difficulty of such appraisal, comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is not extensively practiced in Ireland except by industrial development agencies such as IDA Ireland and by those evaluating certain projects dealing with the environment and forestry.
In the case of public sector projects, it is not only more difficult to define in operational terms the interests of decision-makers, but also to agree on how to satisfy the often-conflicting objectives of various interested parties. Some argue there may not necessarily be conflict between maximising shareholder value and satisfying the goals of all relevant parties, or stakeholders. The Shell Company’s recent contribution to this debate (1998) is noteworthy in this regard. It argues there is no evidence of a fundamental conflict between sustainable value creation and long-term shareholder value creation. For value creation to be sustainable. a company must acknowledge and manage the full range of relevant economic, social and environmental costs associated with its activities. It suggests adding together indicators based on three components of value added, namely, economic/market, environmental and social, in order to track a company’s total net value added over time.
For the heritage management professional, applying cost-benefit analysis is especially complex because of the need to quantify benefits and costs that often have no market or monetary values. Attributes such as landscape, wildlife and amenity areas must be assessed although their intangible benefits are not traded in any market-place and private property rights may not exist. The environment, for example, is often treated as a free good except perhaps where comprehensive environment impact statements are required.
It is useful in cost-benefit analysis to segregate the value of a project into two components, one that uses market prices and the other non-market prices to value resources. The net present value framework can be used to discount cash flows in the former case. Where market prices do not exist other approaches are necessary. Valuation is especially difficult where existence values are high, reflecting what the public believe something is worth having ‘in existence’ even if not everybody actually receives direct benefits from it. For example, knowing landscape of special natural characteristics will not be disturbed by development might be valued highly by individuals even if they themselves never intend visiting it in person. In addition, people derive value from the potential availability of a resource at some future stage. By not exploiting some element of the country’s physical heritage now, this presents a valuable option which may be exercised later.
From a valuation point of view, heritage shares many characteristics of protected areas such as national parks, scientific reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, natural monuments and landmarks. Dixon and Sherman (1990) provide a comprehensive analysis of methods to assess benefits and costs. They make the distiction between individual preferences which are expressed by market prices and those may may be inferred from experimental methods such as surveys.
Distinctions also need to be made between situations where market prices exist and those where they do not. In the latter case, classified by economists as market imperfections, surrogate or shadow prices may be used. These are prices paid for a closely associated good or service traded in the marketplace. To the extent that it is difficult to obtain a perfect substitute, adjustments often have to be made. Hedonic pricing techniques attempt to measure how the prices of market goods are influenced by non-market effects. For instance, valuation can be based on the effect of a heritage centre on property prices in the vicinity. Travel-cost methods are based on assessing the expenditures people are willing to commit to reach a heritage area in order to indicate its value to society.
If market or surrogate market prices cannot be obtained, it may be possible to question people directly about how they would react to the possible loss of part of their heritage. Willingness to pay for inprovement or willingness to accept compensation for damage to heritage can measure social benefits of some proposed action. Contingent valuation methods are based on asking individuals how much payment would be required to keep them at an certain initial level of satisfaction if the item under analysis were removed. Estimates can also be obtained by means of techniques based on simulated bidding or trade-off games. These type of approaches are now sometimes applied by US courts for environmental damage assessment.
In this country, it would have been intriguing if during the debate surrounding the establishment of TnaG (refer Box 3), such techniques were used to gauge the Irish public’s assessment of the value they placed on nurturing the Irish language. For instance, various scenarios linking the number of potential Irish speakers in the future to different levels of expenditures might suggest how serious the public really is about saving the language.
Box 3
Teilifis na Gaeilge (TnaG)
The Irish Government’s decision to provide resources for the development of an Irish-language television station offers an interesting example of how a decision to invest public money for heritage-related projects can expose differing views as to the value of such investment.
Irish speakers, both in Gaeltacht areas and elsewhere, have long complained about the inadequacy of Irish-language television programming. While RTE has broadcast some very high quality Irish language programmes over the years, their range has tended to be limited and hours of broadcasting minimal. Irish speakers have argued that as television has adopted an increasingly important role in contemporary life and that as the choice of programming otherwise available has broadened, there had been little development in Irish language broadcasting. The Government accepted the argument that an Irish-language television station could contribute to the survival of Irish as a vernacular. It was also thought to respond to the demands of children in Irish-medium education and a wider Irish-speaking community. Financial resources were provided for a new television station and TnaG went on air in 1997.
The decision to finance TnaG proved to be controversial before its launch and has remained so since then. This is despite apparent community goodwill towards the Irish language and generally favourable reviews for much of TnaG’s programming. Does this mean that TnaG has not been a success? It may be that in establishing TnG, the promoters were not sufficiently clear in the objectives and standards set for the station. This makes its performance difficult to measure and may also be the source of some of the controversy.
TnaG is criticised for its low “ratings” or numbers of viewers. The declining numbers of people for whom Irish is a vernacular or who can speak Irish fluently both makes it inevitable that Irish-language television viewers will be limited in number but also provides the basis for public support. If such programming had mass market appeal, it could derive greater financial support from associated advertising. On the other hand, if very few people watch TnaG, it cannot be thought to achieve its objectives. This argues strongly for the investment to have been justified on the basis of a defined and market and quantified targets set for market penetration. The discussion on TnaG in the Irish media was an argument about whether an Irish-language television station would be a white elephant. An alternative approach would have been to debate whether provision of Irish-medium television would respond to the real needs of communities and families who are endeavouring to maintain Irish as a vernacular, and whether the goodwill of the wider community towards Irish is sufficient to make the financial contribution necessary. Such a debate could have established performance standards by which the investment would be measured and forced people to realise that if heritage has an emotional value to them, it may also require a financial investment for its preservation.
As an alternative to attempting to assess benefits directly, it is sometimes possible to measure the costs that would be imposed if items or areas of heritage were converted to some other, perhaps commercial, use. Rather than attempting to measure the benefits of some action (such as protecting a natural heritage area), opportunity-cost approaches can be used to assess income foregone by protecting it from development. One could attempt to value the benefits of the best alternative use of land (say for housing) rather than trying to capture directly the benefits of a natural heritage area.
Policy Implications
There are essentially two different philosophical views on how heritage should be valued. One perspective is that heritage has intrinsic worth to a community or society apart from any potential it has to generate commercial revenues. The general view of economists, on the other hand, is that the value of heritage hinges on the benefits generated through its exploitation, say through enhanced tourism and leisure prospects. Accordingly, items of heritage are really only special if they are able to tap into or satisfy consumer demand. The role of heritage in stimulating tourism and thereby contributing to economic growth is used to indicate its net contribution to the welfare of society.
Culture and heritage are cited as major contributory factors stimulating Irish tourism. It is difficult, nevertheless, to grasp exactly what is meant by either term in official tourism reports. There is little doubt but that state tourism policy as it impacts heritage is largely driven by what might be described as a ‘utilitarian’ approach. Objectives such as maximising the profit of firms providing goods and services to tourists or generating an optimal level of direct and indirect tourist expenditures seem to supersede non-commercial considerations. The language used illustrates this way of thinking: heritage like any tourist ‘product’ must be branded, marketed or developed to garner as much as possible of tourist expenditures. Markets are prioritised in terms of spending power; those not making an adequate contribution must be abandoned in favour of more lucrative niches.
Economic indicators such as the contribution of tourism to the balance of payments, employment created, value-added and tourist numbers are used to track performance over time. In 1997, for example, total tourist spending in the Republic amounted to £2.8 billion, of which foreign tourists spent £2.1 billion. It accounted for 5.3% of exports, 6.3% of GNP and 8.8% of all jobs. It is not sufficient, moreover, to measure direct expenditures by tourists and employment created in the tourist industry to assess economic impact. Various other indirect economic effects result in employment creation in organisations serving the tourism sector and their multiplier effect must be calculated (as discussed by Eoin O’Leary elsewhere in this book).
Commentators who emphasise heritage’s positive value to the quality of life of a community regard the dominant role of economic objectives as flawed since they believe it not only underestimates the true worth but can lead to actions which result in losses to future generations. Moreover, little research has been conducted on the precise role of motivation in driving heritage tourism. More than half of overseas visitors, for example, are estimated to include a visit to at least one place described as of natural, cultural or historical interest during their stay. According to Bord Fáilte (1992), 60% of all overseas originating holidays taken in Ireland are classified as car touring/landscape and culture enjoyment. These tourists are probably motivated by an interest in heritage, running the gamut from none to very enthusiastic. The key challenge in analysing heritage tourism is attempting to link market segments with actual desires or motivations of tourists. A study might throw up some interesting results and policy implications. For instance, shifting policies to attract those with an educational or specialist cultural motivation might in the long-term prove more attractive. The key policy issue is time perspective and the trade-off between the perceived needs and tastes of present and future generations. Often, decisions are undertaken in order to satisfy present-day sectional interests which may not prove beneficial when evaluated in hindsight.
Various reports written by Bord Fáilte (for example, 1992 & 1996) exemplify a economics-led or short-term oriented perspective. According to the Bord, its objective is ‘to increase the level of economic activity in Ireland through increasing demand within the tourism sector’. Specifically, it sets out to create additional employment, attract foreign earnings, increase the level of value added, generate increased exchequer earnings and contribute to an improved regional distribution of income.
Under the Operational Programme for Tourism (1998), an unprecedented £652 million, 56% of which (£369 million) contributed by the EU, will be invested in Irish tourism between the years 1994 and 1999. In addition to support given to the product development of heritage projects, a total of £125 million is targeted at natural and cultural tourism in order, as the Programme states, to ‘make Ireland’s heritage and culture more accessible and attractive to overseas visitors’.
National/Regional Cultural activities (e.g., the National Museum) account for £71 million, while £27 million each is designated for National Monuments and Historic Properties (e.g., Castletown House) and the Natural Environment (e.g., Grand and Royal Canal extensions). The Programme leaves little doubt where its priorities lie. Money is spent for ‘further improving our tourist product to fill gaps in the market’ and to achieve this, ‘the product will be sold with sophisticated aggression on the world market’.
It is no surprise that other non-commercial considerations for supporting heritage or cultural appreciation are often overwhelmed by the Bord’s desire to achieve economic objectives. As a result, heritage projects, worthwhile supporting in themselves perhaps, because of their intrinsic significance or community benefit, often find it difficult to receive public funding if they cannot be justified using economic criteria. The reverse also holds true. Areas of special heritage value or historical significance may in the long-term prove to have far more attractive benefits if conserved but may be damaged in the short-term because more attractive private gains can be achieved through exploitation. While sustainability is now the catch-phrase in official tourism policy, an enhanced level of public debate is needed on whether narrow economic goals should play such a dominant role without proper assessment of the long-term implications for community life.
Conclusion
Investment decisions in heritage management possess all the complexity of purely commercial investment decision-making but with the added dimension of responsibility to protect resources that almost by definition, cannot adequately be valued by solely commercial criteria. That responsibility is exercised not only on behalf of a community that must be consulted and educated about the resources’ intrinsic worth but is also exercised in trust for past and future communities.
Decision-making techniques and practices that are well established for commercial investment can provide a useful framework for decisions relating to heritage management albeit accompanied by those caveats we have discussed. The limitations of financial models for dealing with uncertainty and in contexts where markets do not assign a value to an asset are well recognised. It follows that even with greater sophistication in analytical methods, such an approach will always result in a partial, although still useful, analysis.
Decisions relating to heritage management inevitably require policy-makers to make choices regarding what is worth preserving, what objectives are to be achieved, and what benefits people are willing to forego today to preserve a community’s heritage for future generations.
The challenge for professionals in heritage management is to use analytical tools from a range of disciplines, such as economics, finance and accounting, to improve the sophistication of decision-making in a non-commercial environment. There is a clear need for further refinement of financial models for such uses. The need to modify decision-making tools to cater for the special needs of the Irish context is also apparent.
The Government’s decision to develop an integrated national plan for the management of our national heritage offers an ideal opportunity to look again at trade-offs the community needs to make in preserving its heritage. These trade-offs must be made in deciding how much resources should be directed at heritage rather than other areas as well as the allocation of funds among various heritage categories.
In recent decades, Ireland has received generous EU support to develop heritage related projects. As the level of financial support available from the EU is substantially reduced in years to come, we are likely to face more debate on the choices we must make as a community. Our hope is that an enhanced degree of sophistication in investment analysis will facilitate this debate. The key issue is how we as a society integrate the democratic process with such analytical techniques in order to make decisions that prove optimal for this and future generations.
Bibliography
BirdWatch Ireland, ‘Annual Report 1997′, Dublin, 1998.
Bord Fáilte, ‘Tourism Marketing Plan 1993-1997′, Dublin, 1992.
Bord Fáilte, ‘The Fáilte Business: Tourism’s Role in Economic Growth’, Dublin, 1996.
Department of Tourism & Trade, ‘Tourism 2000: Guide to the Operational Programme for Tourism, 1994-1999′, Dublin, 1998.
Dixon, John A. & Sherman, Paul B., ‘Economics of Protected Areas: A New look at Benefits and Costs’, Earthscan Publications, London, 1990.
Ross, Stephen A., Westerfield, Randolph and Jordan, Bradford D., ‘Fundamentals of Corporate Finance’, 3rd. ed., Irwin, Chicago, 1995.
Shell Company, ‘The Shell Report-1998: Profits and Principles- does there have to be a choice?’, Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies, 1998.
Weston, J. Fred & Copeland, Thomas E., ‘Managerial Finance’, 9th. ed., Dryden Press, Fort Worth, 1992.
Zerbe Jr., Richard O. & Dively, Dwight D., ‘Benefit-Cost Analysis in Theory and Practice’, HarperCollins College Publishers, New York, 1994.