Comments on: World heritage status losing its appeal to travellers

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:44:55 +0000

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 this comment

By: Mark H

Mark H — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:29:20 +0000

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 this comment

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:55:50 +0000

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 this comment

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:43:34 +0000

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 this comment

By: adil

adil — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:23:16 +0000

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 this comment