There is no doubt that the aims of UNESCO’s World Heritage List are entirely laudable. The preservation of sites and areas of great significance is noble, and should be encouraged as much as possible.
The problem is that way that the tourism industry has hijacked the World Heritage tag. Guide books abuse it, travel writers abuse it, and tourist boards milk it to the high heavens. Unfortunately “World Heritage-listed” has morphed into meaning “brilliant tourist attraction.”
Must-see sights?
It’s as if you’re not allowed to go to a World Heritage-listed site and not find it interesting. Almost as though slapping a World Heritage tag on something makes it an absolute must-see. It also gives a guise of equality – as if all World Heritage sites are equally worth seeing. They’re not.
For example, there is absolutely no way that the Imperial Roman Baths in Trier, Germany, are as good as, say, the Great Barrier Reef. Yes, they make for a vaguely interesting ruin, but, they’re not even the best ancient Roman baths in Trier, let alone one of the wonders of the world that it would be truly devastating to lose.
The same designation is also applied to scores of frankly dull cathedrals with unique 13th century naves or obscure industrial sites that may be historically significant but are hardly worth flying to the other side of the world to see.
It’s OK to feel unimpressed by things such as the Derwent Valley Mills in England or the Royal Saltworks of Arc-et-Senans in France; most of us are. Just because something’s World Heritage-listed, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily worth seeing.
Stop hijacking World Heritage
We – and by that I mean all of us in the travel industry – need to stop hijacking World Heritage, and let the tag revert to its intended meaning.
Everybody has that one irritating friend who, after going to the cinema or a concert, will declare whatever they’ve seen or heard as the best ever. If they did it just occasionally, you would probably pay heed to their opinion, but when things that are quite frankly mediocre are continually lumped into the same bracket, all respect for their point of view is destroyed.
Something similar is in severe danger of happening to UNESCO’s list. There are now 890 ‘properties’ on the list, although that barely scratches the surface as often a lot of separate places in one city will be lumped together under one bracket for the sake of convenience.
Alas, ‘World Heritage-listed’ is used as shorthand to mean “if you don’t regard this as one of the top five things you’ve ever seen, then you must be some kind of uncultured Philistine.” This is dangerous, and people will eventually stop caring – if they haven’t already.
And when people stop caring about World Heritage status, they’ll stop caring about the good that status does for some of the most important places on earth.
Tags: guidebooks, marketing, PR, travel writer clichés, World Heritage
“… let the tag revert to its intended meaning” ‘
and what is the intended meaning?
I agree that it can be over used . but it’s as good a ‘flag’ as any to say , how about looking at this? your heritage site and mine could often be differnt . but both places equally important and a ‘heritage’ site
Original meaning? My interpretation is that it’s a site of huge importance, and worthy of preservation. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s worth SEEING.
As Darren Cronian at Travel Rants mentioned on Twitter – perhaps there are just too many sites these days?
Great post, David. I agree with your main point: World Heritage Sites do not equal World’s Best Sites – and should not. For heaven’s sake, the travel industry needs to back off sometimes! We take over art, archaeology, architecture, music, wildlife conservation… next thing there’ll be Heavy Industry Tours: Come And Enjoy The World’s Finest Steelworks. Give it a rest: the world exists outside the realm of tourism.
And that’s what the Unesco list should be for – focusing attention on preserving the common heritage of humankind, regardless of whether tourists find it interesting or not.
Instead, this obsession with lists that the travel industry has got itself into in the last few years – Top 10 This, Best 5 That, 297 Things To Do Before You Feed The Cat – has just eaten up the World Heritage listing and spat it out, and simultaneously fuelled the revoltingly commercial New 7 Wonders rubbish as well.
(“But it’s what people want,” whines Commissioning Travel Ed, “Just look at the page impressions…”)
Having said that, it seems obvious that you can’t just go on & on adding new sites to World Heritage without eventually reaching the stage where my back garden merits inclusion. How about imposing the condition for acceptance in future that all tourism to any new site must be prohibited for a period of five years from the date of its inclusion? That would stop government manipulation of the list to fuel tourism, and might bring some meaning back to the whole circus.
Be careful what you joke about, Matthew.
Lo, may I present a tour of the world’s biggest open cut gold mine: http://www.finderskeepersgold......fault.aspx
And tours to Australia’s biggest alumina smelter: http://www.gladstoneregion.inf.....try-tours/
God, you’re right. Absolutely overused by journalists, PRs and copywriters.
I don’t think it is in danger of being devalued, though – mainly because I don’t think travellers paid much attention to it in the first place. People visit a sight based on descriptions, pictures, recommendations, and I doubt ‘it’s a UNESCO site’ even registers. If Joe Holidaymaker does agree that the Imperial Roman Baths aren’t as good as the Great Barrier Reef – quite a benchmark, that
– it’ll put him off the Imperial Roman Baths, not UNESCO.
It’s more to do with good writing. As you say, UNESCO listing doesn’t tell you a thing about the place in question, so there should be very few instances in which travel writers need to use it.
Agree with Matthew…
And that’s what the Unesco list should be for – focusing attention on preserving the common heritage of humankind, regardless of whether tourists find it interesting or not.
And here’s a classic example of what should be a Unesco site… although they seem to feel it lies outside their jurisdiction!