This one’s a bit of a bugbear of mine too (I’ve blogged on the subject before – http://www.grumpytraveller.com/2009/07/14/the-increasing-meaninglessness-of-world-heritage-listing/).

I think the problem lies not with UNESCO – I’ve no doubt that these 890 sites are worth preserving for future generations – but with the travel industry. Somewhere along the line, the phrase ‘World Heritage-listed’ has been hijacked so that it means ‘place that is absolutely essential to visit’.

The World Heritage listing isn’t designed as a recommendation for tourists to go there – almost the opposite in fact. But it’s splashed all over the travel media, tourist board brochures and websites as if the World Heritage list is a must-see trail of attractions.

Report comment

Yep – as David says, don’t blame UNESCO! Its job is to identify sites worth preserving. Unfortunately it also gives journos and copywriters a kind of universal shorthand for ‘important’, and so over time it has come to be mistaken for a kind of ‘bucket list’ for travellers.

That said, I’m not sure tourists were ever that bothered. Would love to know how many commenters have:

- Checked whether a particular site is listed before visiting
- Been influenced by number of sites when choosing a destination
- Chosen a destination, then looked up the WH sites to plan itinerary

My guess is not many.

Report comment

I have to say error on the side of caution. This is because the optimum phrase missing is “commercial development.” If the only purpose of a UNESCO brand is to hold back the minions who would turn the Great Wall of China or other areas into Disney East it is worth it.

For those in the U.K. and Europe this may not seem important because these countries have scores of buildings over 500 years old. But in North America, especially the western regions, everything over 50 years old is bulldozed for a new building. Over here, a UNESCO designation helps to preserve areas whereas elsewhere it might not mean much. And places like Lunenburg, Nova Scotia and Quebec City, benefit both financially and culturally from the notation.

Report comment

I have to agree with some of the other comments here – the UNESCO list should be as long as necessary to preserve the world heritage, not a list of must-see places for travelers. With all of the damages that irresponsible tourism causes globally I am always heartened to know that some of the great places are saved from destruction by their UNESCO status! That being said, I do pick and choose which ones to see because I can’t get to them all…and dont really want to get to some!

Report comment

I spent a month this summer in Italy. While there, my boyfriend and I did a road trip around central and southern Italy, and we visited several UNESCO sites. He quite frequently looks up UNESCO sites when he travels, but me? I’d never even thought to do so before meeting him, so I think he’s one of the rare ones that uses the list to inspire visits to places.

Report comment

Stonehenge should absolutely be on the World Heritage list!

PS I agree with the commenters who say the term has been hijacked by the travel industry. That’s not what it’s about.

Report comment

Yeah, though tourism boards love to talk it up (and are sometimes involved in the process of trying to get a place designated), it’s not supposed to be a tourism draw or “must-see” designation. To me it just means a place that is well-preserved and is being looked out for by concerned parties. The funny thing is, the country (not the state/province) has to get involved in applying and lobbying for it, but the U.S. government thinks it’s a waste of time and effort (no matter who is president), so there is a big blank space for UNESCO in the whole U.S., no matter what a city or area has done preservation-wise.

Report comment

A touchy subject but really the status of being a “UNESCO” world heritage site is being abused (not necessarily UNESCO’s fault). It gives official license to charge astronomical entrance fees which (far too) many times is used for pocket lining instead of the stated maintence and repair of the site.

Report comment

I could not agrree more. Everywhere I go, whether in the UK or abroad there are heritage sites and their value decreases each year. The sad thing is the good sites are being devalued because of the sheer number of new sites. Its a bit like the ratings for hotels, I have all on to see the difference.

Report comment

Great points; I especially liked the point about entrnce charges increasing when a site receives the status.I do believe that some of these sites should be preserved for future generations

Report comment

If the UNESCO world heritage status is losing its appeal to travellers, then this is most likely a good thing for the sights in question. Less visitors means less wear and tear. Although of course, it might also reduce funding. Catch 22 there.

The list may be long, but it is still missing a lot of places that would be worthy. For instance, the ruins of Nan Madol in Micronesia would make a great addition, but as someone already pointed out – there is a lot involved in applying for it and for that reason alone it hasn’t been added.

The UNESCO list was never intended as a “Places to see before you die” kind of thing, so it’s actually a good thing if that attitude changes a bit.

Report comment

I have just taken a ‘reminder’ look at the list of UNESCO World Heritage sites and can find only a handful that are actively promoted as ‘must see’ destinations, though I do detect a fair amount of ‘political’ decisions. What I do disagree with is the growing flow of lobbying e-mails received from national and regional tourism boards seeking votes for a particular site that is in the running — which can lead to tourism ‘icons’ getting World Heritage status, while lesser known, and often more worthwhile, sites being left out in the cold.

Report comment

I like the list though have never seen it as a travel itinerary. It is there to encourage countries to preserve some of their culture and at around 900 entries for around 200 countries, it doesn’t strike me as overly long. Countries don’t want to “lose face” by having a location struck off the list for failing to look after it so I suspect it helps preserve some of these valued sites. While I am sure there is political lobbying for such status, it still seems the best system that we have to preserve some culturally special and sensitive sites. Mind you, being on the UNESCO list doesn’t make me want to necessarily go and visit the place – it depends what it is.

Report comment

Though I agree with you on the mani point you are making, I have to disagree with you about wanting to drop Stonehenge.

Just because you are a Brit and obviously don’t care about our own heritage (a weirdly and uniquely British thing) then I can see where you are coming from but Stonehenge is as deserving of UNESCO status as anything else on Earth. I don’t even need to make an argument as to why, anyone who knows their history knows why and anyone who disagrees needs some education, and I am not a teacher so why would I bother?

Report comment