INTRODUCTION

Tourism started with the exploration of cultural and natural heritage. The ‘Great Tour’, a rite of passage for Europeans of means and education, began in the latter half of the seventeenth century (Trease, 1967). With the impact of globalization and rising levels of income and leisure time in the second half of the twentieth century, the scale of heritage tourism expanded from a trickle to a flood (Herbert, 1995). Heritage marketing has also progressed apace, growing from a ‘cottage industry’ based on word-of-mouth endorsements, to the circulation of popular guides, to modern mass-marketing efforts to ‘sell’ selected destinations. Countries, regions and cities across the world now compete aggressively for the attention and patronage of heritage tourists (Paskaleva-Shapira, 2007). The impulse to ‘grow tourism’, especially in emerging markets, has led to a surge in the number of natural and cultural sites submitted to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for inclusion on its list of World Heritage (WH) sites (UNESCO, 2009). The rapid growth of heritage tourism has also placed strain on fragile cultural and natural sites, some of which were virtually unknown and unvisited two or three decades ago, and highlights the need for more effective and comprehensive site management (Landorf, 2009).

Initially conceived as a preservation initiative to protect precious natural and cultural patrimony, the World Heritage (WH) List has evolved into a coveted brand and seal of approval. The WH List now includes 890 sites in 148 countries: 689 are cultural sites, 176 natural sites and 25 ‘mixed sites’ combining cultural and natural heritage (UNESCO, 2009). However, these numbers pale in comparison with the potential heritage and natural sites that Member States have placed on the so-called ‘Tentative List’: a total of 1466 sites (UNESCO, 2009). The vast majority of these potential sites have been nominated by the governments of developing nations (UNESCO, 2009).

A central contention of this article is that the WHS designation has, in effect, become a prestigious brand widely used by a variety of stakeholders in the promotion of tourism. As with any brand, there is an inherent obligation on those responsible for brand management to preserve and enhance its reputation and prestige. In the realm of heritage tourism, this means both ensuring the authenticity, integrity and preservation of sites and making them available for heritage tourists to visit and appreciate. As Morgan et al (2003) note, destination brands, including heritage sites, face particular branding challenges in that they typically have many stakeholders (for example, UNESCO, the National Government, Tourist Boards, merchants and so on), and limited and divided management control and accountability. UNESCO – and the WH Committee through which it works in the area of cultural and natural heritage – is committed by its mandate to make preservation its highest priority (UNESCO, 2009). Governments, especially in the developing regions of the world, however, are often under enormous pressure to encourage commercial exploitation of sites, sometimes to the detriment of their authenticity and integral preservation (Landorf, 2009). The fact that certain sites have become major contributors to under-developed economies has encouraged countries, especially impoverished nations, to look at ancient sites as possible sources of future revenues (Nana et al, 2006). This is has made sustainability and preservation an important concern (Nana et al, 2006). Hence, there are inherent and recurrent conflicts of interest that need to be resolved in order to manage the WHS brand with the interests of numerous stakeholders in mind and with the preservation of WH sites as the ultimate objective.

This article examines three inter-related issues: (1) the role of branding as it applies to destinations and, more particularly, heritage sites; (2) the evolution of WHS designation from its noble but modest origins as an emergency effort to save the Egyptian temples of Abu Simbel from the waters of the Nile to a worldwide campaign to preserve outstanding cultural and natural heritage; and (3) the parallel evolution of WHS designation from an exclusive focus on preservation to an awareness of the broader need to manage the WHS brand in a manner that takes into account the needs of diverse stakeholders: governments and their numerous agencies, local businesses, national and international tourist operators, heritage tourists, and, of course, UNESCO and the international community, which has charged the Organization with the safeguarding of cultural and natural heritage on behalf of humanity. The overall contention of the article is that WHS designation has become a highly valued brand that heritage tourists respect and use as a source of guidance in making their vacation plans and consumption decisions (Petr, 2009). In order to retain the reputation and prestige of the WHS brand and the confidence of those who rely upon it, the numerous stakeholders involved in the WHS enterprise – and UNESCO and the WH Committee in particular – have an obligation to manage the brand in a manner that respects the interests of clients and heritage tourists, and ensures the preservation and quality of WH sites and their environs.

THE MAKING OF THE WHS BRAND

In this article it is argued that that the WHS designation has, in effect, become a brand, an endorsement and a certification of quality. As most tourists are not deeply versed in the artistic, cultural and historical traditions of faraway cultural and/or natural sites – or able to compare and rank thousands of competing sites – labels such as the WHS designation exercise an important influence on ‘consumption’ decisions (Keller, 1993; Hellofs and Jacobson, 1999). As Rao and Monroe (1989) further emphasize, labels or recommendations that suggest or imply quality are especially important in situations where more familiar sources or intrinsic cues are scarce, difficult to obtain or hard to interpret. One must, of course, be cautious in referring to WHS designation as a ‘brand’. It does not necessarily meet all the tests that one would traditionally associate with branding. It does, however, offer a promise of value and differentiation, which, according to Kotler and Gertner (2002), represents the main purpose of a brand.

It could be argued that the WHS designation is best perceived as a quality-assurance measure or ‘seal of approval’. While most tourists will not be able to judge the cultural uniqueness and importance of WH sites for themselves, they can be assured that WH sites have received expert scrutiny and have been found to be of exemplary importance. Research suggests that endorsements or seals of approval reduce consumer search costs and provide a competitive advantage for a recommended product or service (Ohanian, 1991). They have been proven effective in persuading consumers to use the approved product rather than an uncertified substitute (Sternthal et al, 1978; Aaker, 1991).

Place brands, of course, have special characteristics and confront specific challenges. According to Hankinson (2009), the ‘place product is a unique combination of buildings, facilities and venues which represent production by a multiplicity of autonomous services businesses, both public and private’. The WHS designation can serve as a unifying theme assisting destinations to articulate more effective brand architecture and avoid brand conflicts or miscommunication with clients (Hankinson, 2009). Clarke (2000) notes that tourism is a ‘high involvement purchase decision’ in which branding can serve to simplify the choices available to consumers. Heritage tourism actively involves individuals in a decision process – often a protracted one – rather than a simple choice. The sophisticated heritage tourist is seeking sites that are not only visually interesting and spectacular, but also authentic and representative of intellectually significant milestones in the development of human history, art and culture (Petr, 2009).

The development of WHS status from a technical designation of a location deemed to contain precious cultural or natural patrimony that humanity as a whole has an interest in preserving to a brand capable of attracting tourists was a natural and perhaps unavoidable process. Indeed, the very reason for preserving heritage and natural sites is to enable people to view and benefit from them in ways that enhance preservation and sustainability (UNESCO, 2009). It is thus hardly surprising that WH sites are often described as magnets for tourists (Shackley, 1998). Although there is considerable anecdotal information with regard to the role and importance of WHS designation in attracting tourists (for example, Pocock, 1997; Hall and McArthur, 1998; Shackley, 1998; Carter et al, 2000; Thorsell and Sigaty, 2001), Hall and Piggin (2002) have argued that its impact may be overstated. Given the diversity of sites – which vary enormously in size, nature and location – it is not easy to generalize the overall impact of WHS designations in attracting tourists. Indeed, many of the new heritage sites lack facilities to accommodate visitors and/or are difficult or dangerous to reach because of inadequate travel facilities or, in some cases, security concerns. Uganda, for instance, does not promote the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, a WH site, as a tourism destination on its official tourism website (Visit Uganda, 2009).

Possibly the greatest factor in drawing tourists to WH sites derives not from any conscious efforts, but from an ‘association effect’. Many of the world's most important tourist attractions have been designated as WH sites. These would include, to mention only a few, the Acropolis in Athens, the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, the Coliseum in Rome, the pyramids of Egypt, the Taj Mahal in India and the Grand Canyon in the United States. To be placed in this ‘premier league’ alongside such world-renowned attractions is an obvious and important honor and a powerful ‘draw’ for visitors. Although many people may have little direct knowledge of the extraordinary histories of Angkor Wat in Cambodia or Persepolis in Iran, the WHS designation is widely accepted as an assurance of the historical and cultural importance of these and other sites. Indeed, the less that is known directly about a site, the more important the WHS designation becomes. As the promotional campaigns for various countries makes clear, countries and tour organizations fully understand the importance of the WHS designation and feature it prominently – often it is a major argument put forward – in their publicity and advertisements. The appeal of the WHS brand is, at once, obvious and subtle. To the average tourist, the fame of the site is itself the main reason for a visit. To the more sophisticated heritage tourist, the deeper ‘meaning’ of the site (what it represents in the emergence of civilization or in the evolution of the planet) is even more important than its fame or renown (Petr, 2009). Cultural sites embody not only edifices and landscapes that one can directly observe and appreciate, but also conceptions, beliefs, values, and historic and intellectual developments that are not immediately apparent to the uninitiated eye. The WHS designation is not only based on what is tangible or visible, but also takes account of the human motives and circumstances that give rise to cultural expressions. The careful research on which the sites-selection was based is also easily available to visitors or potential visitors. In effect, the WHS designation has become a widely accepted stamp of quality and authenticity. It attests to the artistic, cultural and historic importance of the site, and spares the tourist or tour organizer the challenging task of judging and sorting out potential sites on the basis of their intrinsic artistic and cultural merits and historic meanings.

The marketing of heritage destinations differs substantially from site to site and from country to country. Kotler and Gertner (2002) suggest that the best way for a country to improve its image is to create new associations. The WHS designation can help in this process by focusing attention on important natural and/or cultural endowments. Angkor Wat, for example, is a spectacular setting of magnificent temples and other cultural monuments. Cambodia, the country in which this vast historical site is located, was, until quite recently, best known as the scene of the ‘killing fields’, the site of one of the twentieth century's most horrible crimes. Thus, Cambodia's early marketing efforts tended to focus more on the glories of Angkor Wat than on the country as a whole. In doing so, Cambodia, was instinctively abiding by the counsel subsequently formalized by Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2001) that cultural and economic development are important factors in shaping or re-shaping the image of a country.

Marketing sites in a developed country is likely to require a very different approach. France, for example, has 33 WH sites, but these are not the focus of international marketing efforts by either the national government or major travel agencies and tour organizers. The focal point of such marketing could be summarized as selling ‘the glory that is France’. The approach is deductive, from the whole to the parts: France, Paris and, quite a distance down the list, the different WH sites that serve as illustrations of the nation's glories. Although full information on the heritage sites is easily available in any of several hundred published guides, they normally do not figure in major national efforts to promote tourism, unless the site is celebrating its millennium or some other major event. On the other hand, the regions of France highlight WH sites located within their borders. For example, the Cistercian Abbey of Fontenay, a splendid monastery in a serene setting founded early in the twelfth century that has come through the centuries in something close to its original condition and was placed on the WH List in 1981, is featured in tourist and promotional information issued by the city of Montbard, near which it is located, and the Department of Cote-d’Or, in which it is situated (L’Abbaye de Fontenay, 2009).

The Michelin Guide classifies recommended restaurants into three categories: ‘worth a trip’, ‘worth a detour’ and ‘worth a stop’ (Michelin Travel Publications, 2008). If one were to classify WH sites in a similar manner, those in developing countries would have to be ‘worth a trip’ if they are to attract tourists, whereas those in developing countries, with large numbers of foreign and domestic tourists about, can flourish by being ‘worth a detour’ or simply ‘worth a stop’. On the other hand, the economic returns to tourism in poorer developing countries tend to be disproportionately greater, especially when compared with other available sources of revenue. According to the International Monetary Fund, tourism accounted for 13.1 per cent of Cambodia's GDP in 2007 (IMF, 2009). In Cambodia, Angkor Wat is the most important tourist destination. By contrast, a visit to the Abbey of Fontenay for the typical tourist is probably going to be only one event, of 3 or 4 hours, in a day packed with tourism, recreation and dinning. In France, tourism receipts account for a mere 2 per cent of GDP (UNECE, 2005). The economics are also very different. For the French State, however, Fontenay, in all but very exceptional years, will most likely lose money and require a national subsidy for upkeep. It also earns its keep by sustaining pride in the national heritage and the spirit of common purpose that derives from it. The benefits of heritage are not to be measured in dollars and cents alone.

The foregoing section has sought to highlight the emergence of WHS designation as a brand. Given the growth of tourism during recent decades and the resulting need to identify sites that could serve as rewarding venues for visits, it is not surprising that WH sites would became important points of attraction. The fact that tourism is a ‘high involvement consumption decision’ (Clark, 2000) provides additional advantage to WH sites that possess international certifications of their authenticity and importance supported by careful research and reflection by an expert panel.

ORIGINS AND OPERATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE PROGRAM

The idea of creating an international movement for protecting heritage emerged after World War I (UNESCO, 2009). UNESCO's substantial involvement in heritage sites began as an ad hoc response to an emergency. In the early 1950s, Egypt began construction of the High Dam at Aswan on the Nile to expand the number of acres under cultivation in the lower river valley (UNESCO, 2009). One of the consequences of this immense project would have been the loss of the famous Abu Simbel temples beneath the waters of the lake that would form behind the dam. UNESCO responded by leading an international effort to rescue the temples from the river by taking them apart, stone by stone, and assembling them on high ground above the river (UNESCO, 2009) The success of this spectacular operation, which cost US$80 million, led to pressure for more systematic measures to preserve cultural heritage. Important sites are considered not only to belong to the countries in which they are located – which maintain full sovereignty over them – but to be part of the patrimony of humanity as a whole (UNESCO, 2009). To achieve the preservation of precious cultural and natural heritage sites on a global basis, a Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972, and subsequently ratified by nearly all nations (UNESCO, 2009). The list of WH sites was instituted in 1978 as a means of implementing the Convention by identifying and preserving sites of great cultural or natural value (UNESCO, 2009).

As a first step in forming a list of WH sites, countries were invited to compile a national inventory of significant cultural and natural properties (UNESCO, 2009). In most developed countries, such lists already existed. In such cases, it was necessary only to slim down the list to those sites that were not only significant nationally, but also held global importance. The United States, for example, included Independence Hall in Philadelphia on the list it proposed for WHS status, contending that not only was it the birthplace of the American republic, but that the events that took place in Philadelphia (the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) had a continuing global impact in promoting democracy and self-government around the world. These national inventories were consolidated by UNESCO into what became known as the Tentative List of World Heritage Sites. Being placed on the Tentative List is an important step because countries are not allowed to nominate sites for inclusion on the WH List that are not already included on the Tentative List (UNESCO, 2009). All sites placed on the Tentative List are evaluated by the International Council on Monuments and Sites and/or the World Conservation Union, which makes recommendations concerning them to the WH Committee (UNESCO, 2009). The decision to place a site on the WH List depends not only on its intrinsic value and interest, but also on the readiness and ability of the nominating Government to take appropriate measures to protect and preserve the site (UNESCO, 2009). The 10 selection criteria for inclusion on the WH List are shown in Chart I.Footnote 1illustration

figure a

In 1980, more than a decade after the establishment of the WH List, approximately half of the WH sites were situated in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Member States (UNESCO, 2009). The most sites were in Italy, with 43 WH sites (UNESCO, 2009). This situation began to evolve in the 1980s as more and more developing countries discovered the economic benefits of having national sites included on the WH List. Today, there are 435 sites in the 30 OECD member countries on the WH List and 443 sites in the 162 non-OECD countries.

Figure 1 shows the overall growth of sites on the WH and Tentative Lists during the 30-year period between 1978 and 2008. As will be discussed, since 2000 the number of WH sites approved each year has remained relatively stable, whereas the number on the Tentative List has expanded significantly. In large part, this reflects the initiatives of developing countries, recognizing the economic value of heritage venues, to put forward more candidate sites. Although this is viewed as a positive development, the resources – mainly money and expertise – needed to ensure the evaluation, protection and preservation of sites in developing countries are often unavailable domestically. As a result, the WH Committee has to seek international support – a slow and uncertain process in these difficult economic times – to meet such needs before approving the placement of new sites on the WH List (UNESCO, 2009). Thus, the Tentative List has, in effect, become a ‘waiting list’, as well as a means for focusing the attention of potential donors on the work that needs to be completed before approving additional candidate sites.

Figure 1
figure 1

Growth in World Heritage Sites and Tentative Sites. Source: Unesco, 2009.

Full size image

The total number of sites on the Tentative List now totals 1466 (UNESCO, 2009). Some countries have put forward substantial numbers of sites: Iran, for example, a country with an admittedly rich cultural heritage has 59 pending sites (UNESCO, 2009). The likelihood that all or even most of the sites on the Tentative List will eventually find places on the WH List seems extremely low. To date, the WH Committee has been exigent in its review of sites and relatively stringent regarding the measures that must be taken by countries to safeguard future WH sites. The approval of large number of sites that have not been carefully screened would represent a serious blow to the credibility of the WH Committee and to the reputation of the WHS brand. Older sites that have independent standings – for example, Notre Dame de Paris, the Taj Mahal and the Grand Canyon – might not be seriously impacted by such a development, but newer sites that depend for their reputation and patronage on the credibility of the WHS brand could be seriously affected. It is the awareness of this danger that provides some assurance that the WHS brand will not be sacrificed to political expediency by the UNESCO or the WH Committee.

THE CHALLENGES OF MANAGING AN INTERNATIONAL BRAND

International level

As noted in the introduction, the management of destination brands poses unique challenges resulting from the variety of stakeholder interests that must be taken into account and the situation of limited and divided management authority that often prevails (Hankinson, 2009). This is a problem that is especially acute in developing countries where institutional structures for managing heritage sites are poorly developed or challenged by opposing interests.

As WH sites remain under the sovereignty of national governments, neither UNESCO nor the WH Committee exercises any form of legal or administrative control over WH sites (UNESCO, 2009). This is not to say, however, that the absence of legal status or control implies an absence of influence. The first point of influence exercised by the WH Committee is the power to confer – or refuse to confer – the WHS designation. In most cases, this influence does not cease with the conferral of WHS status upon a single site, as many countries continue to seek multiple designations. Thus, the Committee is in a position to refuse future designations until the agreements entered into for existing sites are being faithfully implemented. In addition, the WH Committee has established an Endangered List of sites that are under threat from natural or man-made conditions that could damage or destroy them. At present, there are 30 sites on the UNESCO List of World Heritage in Danger (UNESCO, 2009). Five of these sites are located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and are endangered by both war and neglect. The Galapagos Islands, made famous by Charles Darwin, are also considered at risk from the growing number of tourists and developments to accommodate them. Two endangered sites are in Afghanistan. One of these, the magnificent Bamiyan Valley site, featuring huge statues of Buddha in sanctuaries carved out of the mountains, was deliberately dynamited by the Taliban, who reportedly resented it both as an inducement to idol worship and as an example of misplaced foreign influences and values. Numerous other sites are also confronting challenges or dangers, but have not been placed on the Endangered List. In general, if national efforts to deal with problems are judged sufficient, the site is not formally designated as endangered. An example is the WH site at Lascaux featuring Palaeolithic (circa 30 000 BC) cave paintings, which has been closed by French authorities because moisture from the breath of visitors has caused the growth of fungus on the delicate paintings and threatens to destroy them. While clearly endangered, this site is not on the Endangered List, as it is unlikely that any useful purpose would be served by listing it. The measures that French authorities have taken, closing the caves to visitors, are more stringent than the WH Committee would have felt comfortable taking on its own. The Endangered List is used mainly in cases where national authorities are unable or unwilling to take the required preventive measures or where national authorities consider that an international warning will serve to give added urgency to national action. Yellowstone National Park in the United States is an example of the latter circumstance. The park was placed on the Endangered List for a number of years because the wear and tear from crowds of visitors was damaging this natural sanctuary. It was removed from the list after the United States Park Service developed plans and facilities to better handle the pressure of visitors. In this case, while there was an international warning of the danger, the remedial action was taken by national authorities alone.

While the WH Committee possesses the power to place sites on the Endangered List and to prescribe remedial measures that must be taken to preserve them, its usual mode of operation is through negotiation and consensus-building (UNESCO, 2009). In the case of sites in developing nations, remedying serious problems often involves an appeal to the international community for monetary and/or material support. In principle, the Committee could withdraw WHS status from delinquent sties, but in practice it has very seldom done so.

The work of the WH Committee – an inter-governmental structure – is regularly reviewed by the Committee itself, by UNESCO and its Member States, and by numerous specialized bodies (UNESCO, 2009) interested in preservation. The United Nations Foundation, for example, which has contributed to the work of the Committee, particularly in assisting the preservation of natural sites in Africa, is present as an Observer at Committee meetings, and carefully monitors the work of the Committee in the areas of its special concern. It would be difficult, and is probably unnecessary, to provide the WH Committee with added powers and authority. The current arrangement reflects the prevailing situation within the United Nations System, which does not challenge the sovereign authority of Member States. Nonetheless, in the area of heritage there is a broad consensus among Member States on the actions to be taken. One of the factors in this consensus is awareness that it is in the interest of all states – and particularly developing nations – to preserve the value and prestige of WHS designations. Hence, while the institutional and structural arrangements that have evolved may be criticized for an absence of strong managerial control, in reality most observers feel the current arrangements work reasonably well given the complex international context in which they operate.

National level

At the level of Member States, especially among developing nations, pressure is certainly felt to maximize the economic return on heritage sites from tourism. In Cambodia, for example, one site, Angkor Wat, is the prime destination of more than half of all tourists visiting the country (Cambodian Ministry of Tourism, 2005).

Of all sites, Angkor has experienced the fastest rate of growth. In 2007, the site attracted nearly one million visitors, an increase of nearly 20 per cent over 2006 (Cambodian Ministry of Tourism, 2008). By contrast, in the first year it opened as a WH site, 1993, it received a total of only 7650 visitors (Cambodian Ministry of Tourism, 2008). The first and foremost cause of this success is the appeal of the vast Angkor complex, an area of over 400 km2 built in the early twelfth century by King Suryavarman as a state temple dedicated to the Hindu god Vishnu and a capital city. It was converted to a Buddhist temple in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The site first became known in the West through the exploration and writings of the Frenchman Henri Mouhot, in the mid-nineteenth century. Mouhot described the site in the following flattering terms:

One of these temples – a rival to that of Solomon and erected by some ancient Michelangelo – might take an honourable place beside our most beautiful buildings. It is grander than anything left to us by Greece or Rome … . (Mouhot, 1989)

In 1992, UNESCO designated Angkor as a WH site and immediately placed it on its Endangered List (UNESCO, 2009). The danger to heritage sites comes from overuse, but even more so from neglect. Sites, especially in developing countries, that are unable to generate enough revenue to pay for their upkeep and management are particularly at risk. While many developing nations optimistically think of heritage sites as actual or potential revenue sources, developed countries, sobered by the experience of many decades, take a more cautious view, seeing them rather as ‘revenue drains’ that require preservation because they reflect what is best in the nation's history and heritage. The WH Committee has sought to mobilize the international community and world public opinion to support drives for the protection of various WH sites in developing countries, with modest success. Such appeals for funds are constant and ongoing, but of course have to compete with countless other appeals for assistance to prevent hunger, homelessness and calamities.

Site level

The WH Committee is an inter-governmental structure that does not deal with issues at sites directly, but only through the governments legally responsible for them (UNESCO, 2009). National governments are held responsible for management of sites, including setting and enforcing the rules under which service providers and vendors work on WH sites. Tour operators and others are also part of the extended ‘heritage site family’ that governments are expected to regulate. It is impossible to generalize regarding how well these diverse actors performed their respective functions in the management and preservation of sites. Independent organizations such as the National Geographic Society and its publication National Geographic Traveller publish surveys rating the WH sites on the basis of preservation and stewardship (National Geographic Traveller, 2006).

Overall, available information does not reveal a systematic judgment of how seriously countries take their trusteeship of heritage sites or how able they perform it. Where sites are part of strong national administrative structures, as is the case in nearly all developed countries, the evidence suggests that serious attention is given to balancing openness to the public with the needs of good management and site preservation. In poorer countries where fewer resources are available, it is likely that the situation is less favorable. In large part, the build-up of sites on the Tentative List, the majority of which are in developing countries, reflects the serious concerns of the WH Committee over the willingness and capacity of the countries responsible to take the necessary measures to protect and manage the sites they have submitted for approval. The care with which sites are evaluated and the caution with which new WHS designations are being conferred is a positive sign that brand management – though the Committee would certainly not refer to it as such – is being given thoughtful attention. The growing use of the Endangered List by Unesco as a means of sounding an alarm and alerting governments and the international community to their respective responsibilities is another promising indicator the responsibilities conferred upon the WH Committee is making good use of the limited means and resources available to it.

SUMMING UP

Since its creation in 1978, as a means for the preservation of cultural and natural patrimony, the WHS designation has taken on the main aspects of an acclaimed worldwide brand (UNESCO, 2009). This development was neither planned nor intended. The designation was originally intended as a technical means for safeguarding outstanding cultural and natural sites in countries around the world that were considered to be a part of the common heritage of humanity. With the steady growth of the WH List – which now includes 890 sites in 148 countries – and the concomitant growth in the number of heritage tourists, especially in developed countries, a brand was born.

This article first explores the nature and special challenges confronting destination brands, including WH sites. It then examines in some detail the emergence, growth and governance of the World Heritage Programme and the mechanisms it has established to facilitate its work, for example the development of a Tentative List for screening sites and an Endangered List for safeguarding those in particular danger of damage or destruction. Lastly, it seeks to assess the skill and success with which the WHS brand is being managed at the international, national and site levels. The emphasis in this assessment is on the role that UNESCO – through the WH Committee – is playing in preserving and enhancing the WH brand. The conclusion is that international authorities are playing a relatively weak hand with a good deal of skill and fidelity to their mandate. At the national government and site levels, the paucity of useful data makes the situation more difficult to assess. What is evident is that poor states often lack the resources – both money and, in some cases, expertise – to protect and preserve heritage sites from a wide range of man-made and natural threats, including war, civic disorder and climate change. In this world beset by endless woes, the WH Committee is evidently engaged in a long-term and difficult struggle to preserve the heritage of humanity for future generations. In this quest, the growing prominence and prestige of the World Heritage ‘brand’ can be seen as both an important asset and as an indicator of significant progress. The millions of heritage tourists who visit sites each year are a constituency for preservation and the dollars they spend a means to that end.