Tourism Management at

UNESCO World Heritage Sites

Volume 3

UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Site Management Systems

Tools for Managing World Heritage Sites: Site

Management Systems and Plans Assessed

Dominique Vanneste
KU Leuven (Leuven, Belgium)

with the collaboration of

Marie Permingeat, Naiké Delferrière,
Maryna Romanenko, Majda Mansory
KU Leuven (Leuven, Belgium)
Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

© 2021. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International License. To view a copy of this license, visit [Link]
sa/4.0/.

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license
terms.

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the

license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
endorses you or your use.

NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial

purposes.

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you

must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological

measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 1

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

SUMMARY
Management systems and management plans are asked for, or become even compulsory (since 2005),
for sites to be listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. They are an attempt to formalize the
protection of World Heritage Sites and to cope with pressure provoked by the use and
commodification of the sites, e.g. for tourism. Especially Management plans are static (for a certain
period) while they aim at ensuring that the site’s “Outstanding Universal Value, including the
conditions of integrity and/or authenticity at the time of inscription are sustained or enhanced over
time” (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2017, par. 96). Management systems are very diverse while
management plans – being formalized tools – are more comparable since a frequently used Practical
Guide proposes seven modules to be elaborated.
In the past, tourism was not mentioned in the Operational Guidelines of UNESCO. In recent versions
tourism is explicitly present, which does not imply that tourism is fully elaborated in Management
plans on specific World Heritage Sites, e.g. in terms of visitors management and zoning. In all cases, it
is of utmost importance that positive as well as negative links between (world) heritage and tourism
are considered and provided with measures and monitoring since the ideal of a perfect sustainability
does not exist. Therefore, Management Systems and Management Plans are key to successful
synergies between (world) heritage and tourism. Therefore most recent Management Systems and
Management Plans pay thorough attention to this relationship.

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 2

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

INTRODUCTION
World Heritage Sites need to be managed by the site authorities and management structures must be
put in place, in order not only to preserve the site but to prevent it from falling in misuse or overuse
(Jansen-Verbeke & McKercher, 2010). Hence, the tools that UNESCO recommends for a proper site
management will be introduced to attempt to render precisely what is expected from these sites.
Originally, the focus was on conservation only, while recently, proper use and sharing with the (local
and remote) community is at stake as well. This is why ‘tourism’ becomes an item in MPs since it is a
double-edged sword: development and sharing on the one hand while growing numbers represent
pressure, possibly threatening conservation and the OUVs on the other. We will reflect on the benefits
of management structures as thought by UNESCO but also on their limitations and different
stakeholder needs, and ways forward to tackle eventual tensions that arise because of those rules.

TOOLS FOR MANAGEMENT OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES

The 1972 convention established, after defining what heritage is and which types of properties can
claim a World Heritage recognition, the need for a management system and framework for World
Heritage Sites (article 51). The purpose of such a system or framework is to standardize the way to
define heritage, place it in a context, highlight the need for an integrated approach, and to create a
way to assess and compare management strategies (UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, & IUCN, 2013). Back
then, the responsibility for management was attributed to the national level.
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972,
Article 5

“To ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation
and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory, each State
Party to this Convention shall endeavor, in so far as possible, and as appropriate for each
country:

(a) to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function
in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into
comprehensive planning programmes;

(b) to set up within its territories, where such services do not exist, one or more services
for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage with
an appropriate staff and possessing the means to discharge their functions;

(c) to develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out such operating
methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the dangers that threaten its
cultural or natural heritage;

(d) to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial
measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and
rehabilitation of this heritage; and

(e) to foster the establishment or development of national or regional centres for training
in the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage and
to encourage scientific research in this field.”
(UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, & IUCN, 2013, art. 5)

1
[Link]

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 3

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

Operational Guidelines (OGs) written by UNESCO serve as a guiding thread for site authorities and are
updated every one to four years.
Between 1977 and 1997, UNESCO did not give recommendations on management and protection of
nominated properties but rather asked for information regarding projects and means for conservation
and preservation, already existing at sites, to be included in the nomination files. In 1997, UNESCO
started requiring more details on management processes, including existing management plans of the
nominated sites. Still, this was related to plans formerly created on the area and did not ask for the
design of new plans as a condition for the nomination. It was in 2005 that the idea of designing and
implementing systems for the protection and management of sites recognized as World Heritage,
became compulsory. Indeed, in the 2005 OGs, UNESCO included a whole new section on “protection
and management”, asking for the existence or drawing of legislation, regulations and contractual
measures for protection, boundaries, buffer zones, a reflection on the sustainable use of the site, and
more (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005).
Compulsory Management Systems (MS) were understood as the description of: authorities,
ownership, coordination, monitoring, mediation measures, that are implemented on site. They were
defined as “a series of processes which together deliver a set of results, some of which feed back into
the system to create an upward spiral of continuous improvement of the system, its actions and
achievements” (UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, & IUCN, 2013, p.23). Those systems are dynamic and
subject to change, reflecting processes occurring in communities (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018).
In 2008, the OGs asked for the formalization of MSs into Management Plans (MPs). Those “should
specify how the OUV of a World Heritage Site should be preserved, preferably through participatory
means and promoted to ensure the effective protection of the site for present and future generations”
(UNESCO 2008, par. 108-109). A practical Guide, written by the German Commission for UNESCO, gave
a more detailed idea of what a MP should include. This plan proposes seven modules:
1. Introduction to the fundamental concern, contents and objectives;
2. Statement of OUV. Considerations on authenticity and integrity;
3. Subject of protection, protection goal and instruments of protection;
4. Description of the protected area (physical characteristics);
5. Description of the management system (authorities and their mandates, how they are involved
in creating the MP, detailed responsibilities and planning);
6. Considerations on sustainable development and use;
7. Resources (staff and budget).
This MP can incorporate real cartographic plans or maps, delimiting e.g. core and buffer areas.
Therefore, MPs are not just MSs put into a formalized book with chapters. These modules can be
adapted to each site and their natural and cultural contexts (Ringbeck, 2018), but MPs are outlined
tools that are static for a certain period of time (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018). Some processes that
stakeholders have to consider when designing a MP are: short term and long term objectives (2, 5, 10
and up to 30 years), concrete methods for protection, scientific and technical supervision, assessment
of the needs for restauration, the question of security, use, traffic, protection of the environment, past
and potential threats, existing pressures, climate change and its effects, overpopulation or over-use if
it is the case, conflict management mechanisms, education, and reporting and advertisement
(Ringbeck, 2008).
Nonetheless, this template does not constitute a legal requirement and therefore its use remains quite
flexible after all. Indeed, such a wide variety of sites exists that it would be counterproductive to
normalize MPs.
Even today, a MP is not an obligation if a detailed MS is provided in the nomination file. One can see
that sometimes a MP is created afterwards, to provide a clear, fully discussed and broadly supported

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 4

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

agenda. This was the case in Bruges (Belgium) which entered the World Heritage List in different stages
(its Beguinage in 1998; its Belfry in 1999; the whole historical center in 2000 and finally the Holy Blood
Procession as Intangible World Heritage in 2009). Up to that moment, Bruges was relaying on an older
Master Plan. A real Management Plan according to UNESCO recommendations was put together in
2012 only, fueled by conflicting visions and opinions by different stakeholder groups.
Tourism is seldom mentioned in the 2017 OGs. It is regarded as a potential development pressure
which should be elaborated in the nomination file and monitored in the periodic reporting addressed
to UNESCO. According to the German Practical Guide though, the issue has to be addressed, as well as
strategies for sustainable use:
“[…] the extent of tourism-related use a World Heritage site can tolerate, the necessary
infrastructure to do so and limits to tourism development and marketing have to be
determined. If a tourism concept or something similar for the site already exists, it should
be outlined. Visitor guidance concepts should also be integrated early into both the master
plan and the management plan.”
(Ringbeck, 2008, p.37)

“It is very important to have set up the necessary infrastructure to receive, host and guide
large numbers of visitors. Existing tourism concepts should, within the framework of the
management plan, be orientated toward attracting additional visitors, including foreign
visitors (especially from the cultural and educational tourism sector) and developing
further offers for tourists.”
(Ringbeck, 2008, p.47)

MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES ASSESSED

While having a management system was made compulsory in 2005 and a MP asked for in 2008, a large
number of sites do not have a formalized MP (Jansen-Verbeke & McKercher, 2010). In parallel, some
sites which have MPs wind up considering them as obstacles for their development. Sometimes one
decides to take measures that seem not to work in synergy with the preservation of the OUV,
eventually leading them to renounce to their nomination (e.g. Dresden in Germany). The strengths and
weaknesses of having formalized MPs for World Heritage Sites will be outlined to unravel the implicit
managing dynamics stemming from World Heritage Sites nomination.
The drafting of MPs is a formal tool but its structure and content can differ from site to site because of
the broad range of categories of World Heritage Sites and the variety of MSs. This highlights the
freedom sites have in organizing strategies, defining priorities, adopting participatory approaches and
distributing management competencies. For sure, comparing MSs and/or MPs created by different
sites opens considerable opportunities for research and knowledge sharing on management trends,
participatory methods, priorities for World Heritage Sites, good and poor practices. This also facilitates
the identification of paths to help sites with reaching their objectives, and ensures a coherent follow-
up of activities. In a broader sense, MSs and MPs are tools that enable sites to integrate conflicting
logics such as environment and culture, preservation and promotion (Lusiani et al., 2018) among
composing elements and stakeholders and harmonize the activities and strategies already in place on
the sites’ properties.
Yet, those plans might be considered by some as a concept too ideal to become a reality and which
could never be implemented as such (Lusiani et al., 2018); or simply even never drafted because they
are considered as an extra workload in a bureaucratic context (Jansen-Verbeke & McKercher, 2010)
with a western approach to heritage management (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018). Indeed, a discordance or
implementation gap might pop up between the contents of MPs and what can be seen in reality. In
the case of World Heritage Sites, this discordance between MPs and practice is not exceptional since

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 5

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

it can be observed in the broader field of development and planning, while “implementation in practice
[is] a universal concern” (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018, p. 251).
The most reported criticism of MPs regards their static character. Indeed, we saw that contrarily to
MSs, MPs are expected to be stable for a certain period of time. Their main mission is to protect sites’
OUVs from the risk of impairing developments which are fueled by dynamics. Indeed, article 11 of the
1972 Convention bluntly considers “large-scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourism-
development projects” as specific dangers, while considering tourism as a threat (UNESCO, 1972, art.
11.4). In the 2017 OG’s the formulation changed and such large-scale projects are not directly
mentioned, but referred to broadly as “human-made factors” (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2017,
p.51). Any action taken, or strategy foreseen for the site “should ensure that their OUV, including the
conditions of integrity and/or authenticity at the time of inscription are sustained or enhanced over
time” (UNESCO, World Heritage Centre, 2017, par. 96), and this also applies to actions taken regarding
the sustainable use of sites (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2017, par. 119). To be certain that
management is in line with that goal, “legislative and regulatory measures at national and local levels
should assure the protection of the property from social, economic and other pressures or changes
that might negatively impact the OUV, including the integrity and/or authenticity of the property”
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2017, par. 98). Hence, even if UNESCO’s vision on heritage
management changed since 1972, current guidelines might be unable to adapt to unforeseen events
and to the changing aspirations of local populations regarding their heritage.
Academic literature and popular press have been raising these questions in the last decades. Marco
D’Eramo coined the term ‘Unescocide’, assimilating nominations with “the kiss of death”, that freezes
sites (D’Eramo, 2014). D’Eramo argues that UNESCO would have been horrified by the Rome of the
16th and 17th century in view of the conservation of the heritage from Antiquity (D’Eramo, 2014). He
bases his thoughts on the fact that traditional people will always dislike what is new, to the same title
that the Eiffel tower was very much disliked by locals when it was built. By wanting to preserve the
OUVs of sites, management plans might block the way for further development: this is how cities like
Barcelona, Xian or Quito may feel. The Dresden Elbe Valley is indeed the first World Heritage Site that
renounced its nomination. Building the Waldschlösschen bridge (needed for connection with
neighboring cities and as a way to reduce congestion) went against its OUVs and therefore the site lost
its title of cultural landscape. The decision was taken following a consultation of citizens through a
referendum. Jan Mücke, city councilman, stated “in a democracy, we cannot have a dictatorship of a
minority that, acting out of culture or aesthetic grounds, thinks they know more than the
overwhelming majority of citizens” (Eco, 2007). In some cases, the persistence to preserve is
considered to favor the wishes of tourists to the detriment of locals. Cities that were created to link
people end up divided in zones as an answer to tourist influx, and sometimes “die out, becoming the
stuff of taxidermy, a mausoleum with dormitory suburbs attached” (D’Eramo, 2014; Gray, 2015, p.47-
48). On the other hand, one cannot deny that (uncontrolled) use (e.g. tourism) often has destructive
effects on natural environments as well as on cultural heritage (tangible and intangible). Growth
oriented activities (for development) are ‘resource exploitative’ while ‘resource preservationism’
might deny indeed the needs of local communities and, thus, a fundamental paradox pops up in terms
of sustainability. Therefore Burns (2004) pleads for a ‘Third way’ based on planning and management.
This implies that one tries to find compromises, and build the future through ideas that rise from the
inhabitants themselves (Janusz et al., 2017).

WAYS FORWARD
Those examples seem to point to the fact that the balance between preservation and (sustainable)
development is not easy and has still to be found and integrated into management plans. Indeed, as
flexible as those might be in terms of content integration, most research on the topic converges in

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 6

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

advising for a greater consideration of territorial contexts in traditional management systems, and a
redefinition of visitors’ ‘rights’ (Janusz et al., 2017).
Some concrete solutions proposed so far include:
• To communicate better about tourism and World Heritage in order to break myths such as
“nomination increases dramatically tourism” and “tourism is only a danger for sites” (Jansen-
Verbeke & McKercher, 2010);
• Expanding the body of knowledge in different contexts, including accounting conditions for
sustainable development and then communicate findings to governments in order to integrate
them in new policies/guidelines for management (Jansen-Verbeke & McKercher, 2010, Jansen-
Verbeke & Vanneste, 2018);
• This body of knowledge also includes research on the human factor as the key to stakeholder
mediation, visitors’ management and on local governance in specific contexts (Ripp & Rowell,
2018, p.251);
• To redefine the goal of drafting MPs and use them for example as tools “to significantly improve
community engagement at local level and also to be aware of their limitations” (Ripp & Rowell,
2018, p.251);
• Extreme but worth considering: to create tourist-lands and heritage parks, reproducing the
preserved heritage outside of the city or next to the original site, to allow tourists to experience,
and touch reproductions without neither harming the site nor diminishing the quality of life of
locals (Eco, 2007).
A good MS or MP allows the preservation of heritage through modern practices. It illustrates the
delicate balance between preserving a building, site, landscape while implementing new concepts for
use, which in the end do not impair its quality, but rather improve it while respecting its original
characteristics. It allows sharing the World Heritage Site and all kinds of heritage for that matter, with
present and future generations, contributing to their identity or, at least, creating empathy while
avoiding over-use and over-consumption by over-commodification. The (managed) visitor is not an
enemy but an ally who can contribute to the conservation rather than to the destruction of the World
Heritage Site (Magosse et al., 2008). Another paradox can develop between market appeal and
robusticity (du Cros, 2001; McKercher & Ho, 2006). Some sites with a high market appeal (eventually
fueled by their World Heritage designation) can be vulnerable from a cultural value and/or from a
physical value perspective. In such cases the MS and/or MP have to channel its product value and/or
its experiential value (activities) by creating indicators for assessment and preventive actions and rules
of conduct. One of the components of visitors’ conduct is the use of space. A MP can be very detailed
in the way visitors can use space by creating routes that guide visitor flows and zones that regulate
accessibility. Of course, this can be subject of additional strategic tourism planning as well. The same
goes for the local community and external stakeholders (e.g. investors in tourism facilities such as
accommodation). A MP makes clear, in quantitative and qualitative terms, what kind of building and
commodification is allowed in the core zone and in the buffer zone. Again, this can be elaborated in
other spatial planning documents that are in conformity with the MS. The OGs leave it open and
delimitation of the area is the only request (Vahtikari, 2017). In some cases, a conventional buffer zone
is lacking but other measures are taken such as in Edinburgh where a skyline policy has been put in
place (City of Edinburgh Council et al., n.d.). Inevitably, MSs and MPs are compromise documents that
take into account the needs and wants of many stakeholders. Therefore, the participative approach is
very important to create a firm and broad basis of support which avoids conflicts and implementation
gaps.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN WORLD HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Recent documents, in general, and the UNESCO 2019 Operational Guidelines, in particular, witness
that management of World Heritage Sites is taken very seriously:

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 7

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

“Management: An appropriate management plan or other management system is

essential and shall be provided in the nomination. Assurances of the effective
implementation of the management plan or other management system are also expected.
Sustainable development principles should be integrated into the management system,
for all types of natural, cultural and mixed properties, including their buffer zones and
wider setting.

A copy of the management plan or documentation of the management system shall be

annexed to the nomination. If the management plan exists only in a language other than
English or French, an English or French detailed description of its provisions shall be
annexed.

A detailed analysis or explanation of the management plan or a documented management

system shall be provided in Section 5.e of the nomination.

A nomination which does not include the above-mentioned documents is considered

incomplete unless other documents guiding the management of the property until the
finalization of the management plan are provided.”
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2019, p. 37)

“General criteria for protection and management are equally applicable to cultural
landscapes [as for natural landscapes]. It is important that due attention be paid to the
full range of values represented in the landscape, both cultural and natural. The
nominations should be prepared in collaboration with and the full approval of local
communities.”
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2019, Annex 3, p. 84)

According to the 2019 OGs (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2019, p.29-33), the management plan
should cover the following aspects:
1. Legislative, regulatory and contractual protection measures;
2. Boundaries for effective protection;
3. Buffer zones;
4. Management systems;
5. Sustainable use.
These components should be properly identified, highlighted, and elaborated, but the final structure
of the MP is still not strictly formulated due to the vast variety of World Heritage Sites. The MP
establishes relationships with the site and itineraries denoted by MPs reveal the important
components for developing further guidance and ways to building upon the former experiences of the
sites in case the MP is not the first one. It also makes clear which place the MP and/or management
system occupy. Conscious about the issues of the paradoxical relationship between Tourism and
Heritage, UNESCO pointed out in its OGs that tourism represents a potential development pressure
that should be elaborated in the nomination file and monitored in the periodic reporting addressed to
UNESCO.
The present day MPs’ mention of tourism is framed by the wish to maintain a sustainable
commodification and capitalization on heritage. Nevertheless, some of the plans admit that it is not
clear what sustainable tourism truly is and that one needs to take action to understand its nature and
how to best promote it (Edinburgh World Heritage et al., 2017). MPs start to look outward instead of
inward suggesting e.g. benchmarking and engagement with the world heritage community and
universities in order to understand the concept better. Over-tourism goes in pair with a growing
concern about the fact that the impact of tourism is endangering the reputation of some World

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 8

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

Heritage Sites and therefore MPs (e.g. Edinburgh, Management Plan 2017-2022) deal with finding the
balance between tourism, local residents and businesses and address the issues, among others, of day-
visitors, the amount of touristic shops (City of Edinburgh Council et al., n.d.). Nevertheless the tricky
part, being the measurement of the carrying capacity of the site or concrete regulations of tourists
flow and impacts on the site, is still lacking. In other words, there are still limits to turning a MP into
plan for sustainability (Badia, 2018) and to adapt MPs to the Sustainable Development Goals (Larsen
& Logan, 2018).
A great emphasis is put on participation, starting with creating awareness among the stakeholders.
The philosophy behind this is the aiming for a trustful relationship with the stakeholders, expecting
stakeholders to share a common goal towards sustainable development of the site and a willingness
to work with the management in order to protect and preserve it. This shows that authors of an MP
are increasingly aware that the management of a World Heritage Site is extremely complex, especially
in the case of a living and dynamic system such as an entire city or a natural region.
Therefore, especially the concept of World Heritage Cities has evolved throughout time. It moved from
what was considered as “Historic Centres”, a mainly European based approach and a reminiscence of
a certain historic era, to a slightly more holistic and dynamic concept of Urban Heritage, integrating
the development of the urbanization of the city (Gravari-Barbas, 2019).
Because of the high concentration of attraction within a small area, the management strategy is to
spread (redistribution). A well-thought, comprehensive and integrated approach sustains the MP as a
necessary instrument, aimed at establishing a clear framework not only for the present but also for
the future management of the World Heritage Site. The participatory techniques used during different
stages of the MP creation and implementation, and stakeholders involvement in the process, are
demonstratively underlined in the MP. However the power relations are seldom not openly addressed
but, in line with literature (Parga Dans & Alonso González, 2019) focus is increasingly on the social
value of (World) Heritage.
World Heritage Sites with several successive MPs are very interesting as they show how the vision on
world heritage management has evolved. The MP for the Historic City of Florence is an example with
a first MP created in 20062 and a second in 20163 (Firenze Patrimonio Mondiale, 2016). At the time of
designation in 1982 a MP was not even required, and therefore the MP for the Historical city of
Florence, as in many cases, was developed significantly later.
The MP of 2006-2008 was largely presenting the descriptive overview of the site related domains, with
inclusion and description of projects and plans meant to be implemented. It incorporated the SWOT
analysis of the site, presentation of tourism indicators as general concepts and activities related to
providing a decent experience on the site notwithstanding the high demand and the overuse
characteristics, already present at that time.
The 2016 MP introduces the buffer zone and the commerce regulations. Its creation has been
characterized by conducting extensive research, analysis, application of participatory communication
strategies aimed at including the vast majority of stakeholders (international, national and local policy,
academia, residents, etc.). Its strong part is the incorporation of an action plan with well-defined
indicators. Climate change is now presented as a challenge to deal with. This transition from a rather
vague first plan to a follow-up plan(s) which is, in general, a much more concrete strategical document,
can be observed in other cases as well.
The integrity of the MP is stressed as a foundation for its successful implementation and further
development of the site, the processes of conservation, preservation, and tourism management.

2
[Link]
3
[Link]

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 9

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

Whether a MP is always and/or completely turned into practice, is debatable. The COVID-19 crisis will
most likely have quite an impact on World Heritage Sites, especially on the demand site as travel is put
on hold. This could be a great opportunity for sites’ management to have a deeper look at how to best
manage tourism in order to be able to implement the MP better or quicker. Whether there will be
more or less tourism than before is not certain, but the site will have to comply to new hygiene
requirements in order to ensure the safety of all visitors and locals. A limitation of the number of
allowed visitors on site will most likely have to be and stay implemented in order to guarantee hygiene
and health safety of all. This can be a major breakthrough or acceleration of the implementation of
visitor management measures and tools foreseen in MPs.
By redefining the goal of drafting MPs and by using them for example as tools “to significantly improve
community engagement at local level and also to be aware of their limitations” (Ripp & Rowell, 2018,
p.251), one cannot deny that this evolution in MPs blurs to some extent the difference between
UNESCO World Heritage Sites, UNESCO Biosphere reserve areas and UNESCO Geoparks. Since the
former is focused on protection and conservation with strict management implications and protection
mechanisms while the latter two are aimed at fostering a dynamic development which is adaptive,
participative and future oriented (Bontenbal, 2020). Therefore, some pleads can be detected to
integrate (Natural) World Heritage Sites into Biosphere Reserves with a particular focus on
management and monitoring (Job et al., 2017).

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 10

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

REFERENCES
Badia, F. (2018). The Management Plan for the World Heritage Site as a Tool of Performance
Measurement and Sustainability Reporting: Opportunities and Limits in the Italian Context. In
S. Makuvaza (ed.). Aspects of Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites:
Principles, Approaches and Practices (25-36). Cham (Sw): Springer
Badia, F. (2018). The Management Plan for the World Heritage. In S. Makuvaza (Ed.). Aspects of
Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites: Principles, Approaches and Practices.
Springer International Publishing.
Bontenbal, M. (2020). UNESCO werelderfgoed, biosfeergebieden en geoparken: verschillen en
overeenkomsten. Vlaamse UNESCO Commissie (7/9/2020). Webinar UNESCO-
gebiedserkenningen: Keuzestress in Vlaanderen. Vlaamse UNESCO Commissie (7/9/2020).
[Link]
gebieden_Vergelijking.pdf?v=1&inline=1
Burns, P.M. (2004). Tourism Planning: A Third Way? Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 24-43.
City of Edinburg Council, Historic Environment Scotland, & Edinburgh World Heritage (n.d.). The Old
and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage. Management Plan 2017-2022. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]; [Link]
[Link]
D’Eramo, M. (2014). UNESCOcide. New Left Review, 88, 47-53.
Du Cros, H. (2001). A New Model to Assist in Planning for Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 165-170.
Eco, U. (2007, April 2). Temples for the tourists. The New York Times. Retrieved from
[Link]
Edinburgh World Heritage, UNESCO, Historic Environment Scotland, & City of Edinburgh Council
(2017). Summary for Public Consultation Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site
Management Plan. 3 April – 5 June 2017. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]
Firenze Patrimonio Mondiale – Comune di Firenze City of Florence, (2016). The Management plan of
the Historic Centre of Florence – UNESCO World Heritage. approved by the City Council on the
19th January 2016, with deliberation No.8. Florence: UNESCO Office of the Service for City
Museums and Events of the Department for Culture and Sport of the Florence Municipality.
Retrieved from [Link]
content/uploads/2015/12/[Link]
[Link]
content/uploads/2015/12/Management_plan_2006_2008.pdf
Fontenelle, B. (1683). Nouveaux dialogues des morts. Paris: C. Blageart.
Gravari-Barbas, M. (2021). Tourism in World Heritage Cities. World Heritage Cities Faced with the
Challenge of Tourism. In De Ascaniis, S., Gravari-Barbas, M., & Cantoni, L. (Eds.). Tourism
Management at UNESCO World Heritage Sites (vol. 2). Università della Svizzera italiana,
Lugano. Retrieved from [Link]

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 11

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

Gray, D. D. (2016, January 29). UNESCO listing a curse for town in Laos said to have lost soul. The Japan
Times. Retrieved from [Link]
listing-curse-town-laos-said-lost-soul/#.Wzo3sqczbct
Gullino, P. & Larcher, F. (2013). Integrity in UNESCO WHS. A comparative study for rural landscapes.
Journal of Cultural Heritage, 14, 389-395.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. & McKercher, B. (2010). The tourism destiny of cultural World Heritage sites. In
D.G. Pearce & R.W. Butler (Eds.). Tourism research: a 20-20 vision. Oxford: Goodfellow
Publishers.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. & Vanneste, D. (2018). Managing Built Heritage Resources. In C. Cooper, S. Volo,
B. Gartner, & N. Scott (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Management: Applications of
Theories And Concepts to Tourism. SAGE.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2007). Cultural Resources and the Tourismification of Territories. Acta Turistica
Nova, 1(1), 21-41.
Janusz, K., Six, S., & Vanneste, D. (2017). Building tourism-resilient communities by incorporating
residents’ perceptions? A photo-elicitation study of tourism development in Bruges. Journal of
Tourism Futures, 3(2), 127-143.
Job, H., Becken, S. & Lane, B. (2017). Protected Areas in a neoliberal world and the role of tourism in
supporting conservation and sustainable development: an assessment of strategic planning,
zoning, impact monitoring, and tourism management at natural World Heritage Sites. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 25(12), 1697-1718.
Larsen, P.B. & Logan, W. (Eds.) (2018). World Heritage and sustainable development: new directions in
World Heritage management. London- New York: Routledge.
Lusiani, M., Ferri, P., & Zan, L. (2018). Making sense of Site Management. In S. Makuvaza (Ed.). Aspects
of Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites: Principles, Approaches and
Practices. Springer International Publishing.
Magosse, R., Govers, R., & Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2008). Policy, cultural heritage and Tourismscapes: a
case study of Brussels. In M. Jansen-Verbeke, G.K. Priestley, A.P. Russo (Eds.). Cultural
resources for tourism: patterns, processes and policies. New York: Nova Science.
McKercher, B. & Ho, P.S.Y. (2006). Assessing the Tourism Potential of Smaller Cultural and Heritage
Attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 473-488.
Parga Dans, E. & Alonso González, P. (2019). Sustainable tourism and social value of World Heritage
Sites: Towards a conservation plan for Altamira, Spain. Annals of Tourism Research, 74, 68-80.
Ringbeck, B. (2008). Management Plans for World Heritage Sites: A Practical Guide. Bonn: German
Commission for UNESCO.
Ringbeck, B. (2018). The World Heritage Convention and its Management Concept. In S. Makuvaza
(Ed.). Aspects of Management Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites: Principles,
Approaches and Practices. Springer International Publishing.
Ripp, M. & Rodwell, D. (2018). Governance in UNESCO World Heritage Sites: Reframing the role of
Management Plans as a Tool to Improve. In S. Makuvaza (Ed.). Aspects of Management
Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites: Principles, Approaches and Practices. Springer
International Publishing.
Stadt of Regensburg, (2012). Management Plan: UNESCO World Heritage Site “Old Town of
Regensburg with Stadtamhof.” Retrieved from

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 12

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

[Link]
[Link]
UNESCO (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre (1977-2019). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from
[Link]
UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, & IUCN (2013). Managing Cultural World Heritage. Paris: UNESCO.
Vahtikari, T. (2017). Valuing World Heritage Cities. Routledge Cultural Heritage and Tourism Series.
Vanneste, D. (n.d.). Course handouts from the courses “Tourism, globalization and sustainable
development” and “Heritage and sustainable tourism development”. Leuven, Belgium: Master
of Tourism, University of Leuven.

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 13

Tourism Management at World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Site Management…
Vol. 3

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

DOMINIQUE VANNESTE

Dominique Vanneste is Full Professor at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Department of Earth &
Environmental Sciences, Division of Geography & Tourism. She is involved in the research groups of Human
Geography and Tourism and is the director of a Research and Development Unit ‘ASTOR’ (Association for Tourism
Research) as well as program director for the Erasmus Mundus Master in Sustainable Territorial Development.
She is one of the representatives for KU Leuven with the UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Tourism, Culture,
Development”.
Her main research interests and lecturing topics are: Economic geography (regional development, networking
and location factors), Historical geography (relationship between landscape, heritage, identity and conservation)
and Tourism (sustainable tourism and governance, heritage tourism, geo-tourism). Her research approach
combines these elements looking at tourism and heritage as a lever for local and regional development and the
role of stakeholders in general and networks in particular. As for heritage, she is particularly interested in the
spatial component of sites (structure, appearance, use, organization, encounters of hosts and guests, visitors and
locals) and therefore in the sense of place.

UNESCO UNITWIN Network “Culture Tourism and Development” 14