The Economy of Preservation

World Heritage as economic value

Denis LeontievProject consultant: Sergey Sitar

2011

2The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) during the Great Depression in December 1933 library of Congress, 1934

© Educational program 2010-11

The economy of preservation

World Heritage as economic value

The Heritage market

Economy

Institutions

World Park

Methodology

Schemes:

Global Park

(Agri)culture

Copy-paste heritage

Junk locator

App. 1 Heritage criteria

5

5

6

15

19

21

23

25

30

31

Studio preservation next.Theme director: Rem Koolhaas.Theme supervisors: Anastasia Smirnova, Nikita Tokarev. Special thanx to: Sergey Sitar, Alexey Novikov, Stephan Peterman, Janna Bystrykh, Maria Kolma-kova.

BibliographyRuskin, John. A Joy Forever” and Its Price in the Market,

or The Political Economy of Art. London: Ballantyne, 1904.

Peacock, Alan and Rizzo, Ilde. The Heritage Game Eco-

nomics, Policy, and Practice. New York: Oxford, 2008.

Groys, Boris. The Total Art of Stalinism. Princeton Univ.

Press 1992.

Timothy, Dallen and Nyaupane, Gyan. Cultural Herit-

age and Tourism in the Developing World. New York:

Routledge, 2009

Mason, Randall. The Once and Future New York. Historic

Preservation and the Modern City. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota, 2009.

Train, Russel. Polution, Politics, & Pandas. Enviromental

memoir. Washington: Shearwater, 2003.

Burek, Cynthia, Prosser, Colin The History of Geoconser-

vation. Bodmin: MPG, 2008.

Abdulqawi, Yusuf. Standard-setting in UNESCO. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.Singh, J. P. United Nations Educational, Scientifi c, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): Creating Norms for a Complex World. Taylor & Francis, 2011 3

1945

2008

1970 Financial& oil crisis1971-1979

Currenteconomic

crisis

WW

II

Post WW II economic boom1945-1970

Juxtapositionof economic &

heritage periods

Washington consensus1979-2008

Unesco W

orld heritage convention 1972

World heritage Trust 1972

840,26 mln

2,19 mln

335

300 mln

200 mln

500 mln

700 mln

690275 mln $

911

3,5 mln

880 mln

Number ofWorld Heritageproperties

Number ofNational Trustof UKmembers

Number ofinternationaltourist

Dow Jonesindex

National Trustof Americatotal assets

29 mln $

1

2

3

4

5

heritage periods

d heritage convention 1972

ge Trust 1972

2,19 mln

500 mln

7707 0 mln

69022

9

3

8

NNWWpp

NNom

Ninto

NNoot

8400,26 mln

2

335

300 mln

200 mln

29 mln $$

22,19 mln22

Williamson, John «Review of Globalisation and its discontents» conference by Peterson Institute for International Economic, 1989

1

2

3

4

5

UWTO Statistic, 2009

UNESCO Statistic, 2010

National Trust Timeline (1895-2007)http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity/w-thecharity_our-past/w-history_trust-timeline.htm

NT for Historic Preservation USA Annual Report . 2009

Kennicott, Philip National Trust’s chief retiring, Washington Post, 4 November, 2009

4

1970’s pointed out the parallel growth of economy, tourism and world heritage list.

The Heritage market

The early 70s appear to be a crucial point in history for at least two fi elds: economy and heritage. Whether by coincidence or not but the eco-nomic crisis of the early 70s came roughly at the same time as launch of universalist plans for the protection of world heritage. Though both seem unrelated at fi rst glance this paper fi nds a relationship between the development of the free market and the developments in the fi eld of historic building preservation.

Economy

The failing of the Breton-woods fi nancial system in 1971, the oil crisis of 1973 and the banking crisis of 1974 all signalled the end of a long period of continuous growth in the Western world. It forced a radical rethink-ing of the economic paradigm which had prevailed since World War II.

Just before in the late 60s, concurrent initia-tives of the UNESCO and the White house laid the foundations for a World Heritage Convention. The idea of the protection of the world heritage had been discussed in various forms during the1960’s. In 1965 the UNESCO

supported the establishment of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and with its assistance started the prepara-tion of a draft convention on the protection of cultural heritage. In the same time (since 1965) the United States actively promoted the idea of establishing the World Heritage Trust which would protect natural and historic areas around the globe. In 1972, during the recession, UNESCO Convention was adopted.

Though the ideological foundations of this new world heritage organization had been developed during the economic conditions of Post World War II economic expansion, its implementation started in new economic reality - the period of Washington consensus.

The Washington consensus was coined by John Williamson in 1989 to summarize reforms which developing countries had to follow: macroeconomic discipline, a market economy, and openness to the world”.1

This label signals a new period of economic globalization which absorbed developing countries into a global economy. The Wash-ington Consensus is started in the 1980’s and arguably ended with the economic crisis of 2008. It has been fuelled many growing sectors of the service economy like tourism,

5

1 Later the term has been wider interpreted and argued. See Williamson, John, A Short History of the Washington Consensus. Conference “From the Washington Consensus towards a new Global Governance Barcelona: 24–25.09.2004.

6

Heritage as Commodity

«The evolution of the role that heritage plays in society, the appropriation of heritage by communities and the growing acceptance of heritage as a public commodity with economic value from which profi t can be derived have brought about deep changes in the way that the government and the public sector per-ceive and use their heritage resources. The nature and consequences of these changes have been enough to characterize the

cumulative results as a paradigm shift for heritage places.»

Mr. Gustavo F Araoz, ICOMOS International President“Preserving Heritage Places under a New Paradigm”, 2010

Heritage as Conservation

«We should stik to our fundamental principles and fi ght for cultural heritage in dramatic changing world . And in oder to cope with this Chalenge for ICOMOS we don’t need any fashionable paradigm shifts. Instead, what we need is seri-

ous work in conservation.»

Michael PetretGerman National Cometee for Icomos

«Conservation or managing change?» 2010

entertainment technology and information-based services.The introduction of the World Heritage List and subsequent listing of many heritage sites corresponded to the rapid increase of tourism and number of national heritage trusts members, partly enabled by the rise of wealth through the market economy.

In turn this mass tourism has inevitably transformed World Heritage Sites into economic assets and serves as a basis for a World Heritage monetization.

The preservation of UNESCO World Heritage generates annualy through its 911 sites at least 60 billion euro of income.1 Although this represents only 1% of the global tourist economy2, the potential economic benefi ts of the UNESCO World Heritage status inevi-tably compromises the cultural aspects of preservation.

“To get the World Heritage status is impor-tant,” revealed Gao Zhikai, an offi cial at the Yin ruins in Henan province. “In China, once you get the title, you get a large budget for protection”.3

With the estimated growth of tourism annual income of its sites will most likely double by

2020.4 This raises questions about the initial goals of World Heritage Convention, “to maintain, increase, and diffuse knowledge, by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s heritage“5 and to what extent they represent the economic reality of today.

The gradual increase of heritage into its growing presence in the market economy leads to the situation, when the economic benefi ts inevitably becomes an increased motivation for preservation of cultural monu-ments: as a result, preservation today can be compared to an industry.

Institutions

Today World Heritage is the main concern of national governments, non-governmental national and global trusts and of course UNESCO World Heritage Center.

The convention was adopted at UNESCO General Conference during its 17th session in Paris on 16 November 1972. Although the international nature of the convention implies that the nation State themselves remains primarily responsible for the preser-vation of the World Heritage sites.

7

1 It can be calculated as 420 mln international visitors * 140 euro (daily tourist expenses) = 58,1 bln euro. Even we will add local tourism: 200 mln local tourists * 30 euro (daily tourist expenses) = 6 bln euro. In total it will be 64 bln euros. See p. 19.2 World Bank, 2008 3 China spends billions on restoration as it touts for tour-ists. The Telegraph, 29 Jan 2011.4Tourism 2020 Vision Study, UNWTO, 2002. 5 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cul-tural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO: Paris, 1972.

World Heritage emblemdesigned by Michel Olyffadopted in 1978

circle of nature

square of humanity creation

UNESCO World Heritage emblem represents itself the compromise between american enviromen-talism movement and european concept of heritage preservation

8

“Each State Party to this Convention recog-nizes that the duty of ensuring the identifi ca-tion, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State.”

UNESCO World Heritage Convention

To fund its efforts the Convention decided to found the World Heritage Fund (WHF). The Fund is fi nanced by State parties and volun-tary contributions. Each state pays into the Fund a maximum 1 % of total of its annual contributions to UNESCO.1 In 2010 the annual budget of the World Heritage Fund was about 7 $ million.2

A comparison of the annual income of WHF with other mayor organizations in the fi eld of preservation shows a huge gap between their fi nancial possibilities. (fi g. 1)

This fi nancial gap is the result of strategic choice made by UNESCO in 1972. Six months before adoption of the Convention, the UnitedStates proposed to organize an alterna-tive World Heritage Trust. The concept was presented at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in June 1972. The proposal for preservation of unique

natural and cultural sites was widely sup-ported by countries.

For the fi rst time the idea of the World Heritage Trust was announced on the White House conference in 1965. Later it was in-voked by the American President Nixon in his speech to Congress in February 1971.

“It would be fi tting by 1972 for the nations of the world to agree to the principle that there are certain areas of such unique worldwide value that they should be treated as part of the heritage of all mankind and accorded special recognition as a part of a World Herit-age Trust.”

Richard Nixon3

From the beginning UNESCO authorities were skeptical to this proposal:

“I did not pay much attention to the proposal itself because of the word “Trust” not trans-latable in French, conveying to me a sort of private philanthropic foundation & not at all an intergovernmental mechanism based on an international conventions”

Michel Batisse Director of Natural Resources Research

Division UNESCO4

World Wild Life fund 489 mln euro

National Trust UK 440 mln euro

National Trust USA40 mln euro

UNESCO WHF7 mln euro

Figure 1 World preservation organizations annual revenue (Source: Annual reports 2009)

9

1 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO: Paris, 1972. Article 16.2 World Heritage – Challenges for the Millenium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2007. p.22.3 Train, Russel. Polution, Politics, & Pandas. Enviromental memoir. Washington: Shearwater, 2003. p. 142.4 World Heritage – Challenges for the Millenium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2007. p.22.

Site limits

National Trust property

StonehengeWorld Heritage Site (UK) Land ownership map

10

The concept of the Trust endorsed at the Stockholm conference now questioned the expediency of initiation of UNESCO World Heritage Convention. However, fi ve months later, after “a delicate negotiations” 1 be-tween the United States and the UNESCO, the World Heritage Convention was adopted and realised instead of the Trust.

Driving force behind the idea for the foun-dation of a trust was the American nature preservationist Russel E. Train. He was the chairman of Council on Environmental Qual-ity and the adviser of the American President Richard Nixon on environmental issues. Train believed that a global organization should be realized as a non-governmental organization based within the context of United Nations, but outside the context of UNESCO.2

“From the beginning, I have seen the purpose of the World Heritage as being something more than simply helping to assure protec-tion and quality management for unique natural and cultural sites around the world –as critically important as that goal is. Above and beyond that goal, I see the programme as an opportunity to convey the idea of a com-mon heritage among nations and peoples everywhere! I see it as a compelling idea that can help unite people rather than divide

them. I see it as an idea that can help build a sense of community among people through-out the world. I see it as an idea whose time has truly come.”

Russel E. Train3

However, the concept of a non-governmental global preservation organization didn’t disappear. Russell E. Train was involved in initiation and development of most fi nancially successful global preservation fund – the World Wild Life Fund (WWF). Today the WWF has the budget seventy times bigger than UNESCO World Fund and has fi ve million members world-wide, giving us an idea of how the World Heritage Trust could have looked like today.

The concept of the Trust was “modelled on the long-established models of the National Trust of Britain and the USA”.4 Today these trusts are very wealthy and highly infl uential non-governmental organizations.

The National Trust UK is the largest non-gov-ernmental heritage organization in the world. From the end of the 19th century, when it was founded, the Trust progressed through three main development stages:

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

Top 3 British landlords

Forestycomission

NationalTrust

Ministryof Defence

(ha)

11

1 Abdulqawi, Yusuf. Standard-setting in UNESCO. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007 p.269 note 9.2 Singh, J. P. United Nations Educational, Scientifi c, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): Creating Norms for a Complex World. Taylor & Francis, 2011 p.903 Burek, Cynthia, Prosser, Colin The History of Geoconser-vation. Bodmin: MPG, 2008. p.280-281.4 Train, Russel. World Heritage Convention 30th Anniver-sary speach, Venice, Italy, 16 November 2002.

In 1983, American Express launched a program to raise money for the res-toration of the Statue of Liberty. $ 1 from each new card issued, and 1 cent on each purchase, prepaid card went to the preservation fund. Today this scheme is a classic of Cause Related Marketing.

12

1.Establishment of the organizations aims;2.Acquisition of main heritage assets in the fi rst part of 20th century;3.Monetization of heritage assets in the sec-ond part of 20th century;

Today “with 630,000 acres, most of them in rural areas, it’s the second largest landowner in the country.” 1 These heritage assets as well as 60 million annual visitors and 3,6 mil-lion members generate income of 440 mln euro (2009) per year.2

In the end of the 19th century Robert Hunter, one of the Trust founders, formulated the social aim of the organization as: “The cen-tral idea is that of a Land Company, formed not for the promotion of thrift or the spread of political principles, and not primarily for profi t, but with a view to the protection of the public interest in open spaces in the coun-try.”3

In comparison, in 21st century The National Trust’s policy on heritage acquisition states: “The property should be, and should be expected to remain, fi nancially self-support-ing.”4

The fi nancial progress of non-governmental organizations like The National Trust of the UK and US, WWF or Global Heritage Fund (GHF) during the Washington Consensus period allow them to critisize UNESCO on its organizational structure.

“The biggest problem is UNESCO’s failure to tap philanthropists and corporations. If you’re Coca-Cola, you don’t want to sink money into the UNESCO bureaucracy”.

Jeff Morgan. Executive Director, GHF Fund5

In 70’s UNESCO developed a strategy which did not imply the monetization of the world heritage. But current UNESCO initiatives shed light on a new direction in which UNESCO is developing:

“Therefore the main possibility for providing support and increasing the system’s capac-ity to assist sites lies in the growth of other public and private contributions, and in the development of new forms of fund-raising and fi nancing.Examples include:• involvement of the tourism industry in in-forming the public and in supporting, directly and indirectly, conservation activities;

The American Postal Service has issued a new Statue of Liberty stamp, accidentally based on the replica at the New York-New York casino in Las Vegas.“We still love the stamp design and would have selected this photograph anyway,” said Roy Betts, a spokesman.

The New York Times, April 14, 2011

13

1 Who really owns Britain?. Counrtylife magazine Online: 16 November 2010. 19 June 2011 <http://www.countrylife.co.uk/arti-cle/506200/Who-really-owns-Britain-.html2 National Trust. 19 June 2011. <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity.htm3Hunter, Robert (sir). A suggestion for the better preserva-tion of open spaces, a paper. Oxforf university, 1884. 4 National Trust. 19 June 2011. <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity/w-acquisitions.htm5Is Unesco damaging the world’s treasures? The Inde-pendent Online: 29 April 2009, 19 June 2011 <http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/is-unesco-damaging-the-worlds-treas-ures-1675637.html

American Express cause related marketing compaignNew York Magazine 17 October 1983

Siem Reap-Angkor International Airport

International arrivals: 732 973 people (2010)

Distance 4,5 km

Angkor Wat, Cambodia

International tourists: 2 100 000 tourists (2009)

World Heritage HubHeritage Hub is a UNESCO World Heritage Site which ismonetized by mass culture, has intense tourist fl ow not less than 1 million visitors per year and has at least one replica in the world.

14

• increasing role of the Convention in the area of social and ethical investments of banks, insurances and corporations;• launching of public fund-raising and mem-bership programmes;• creation of regional or national funds – such as the recently established African World Heritage Fund.”

Francesco Bandarin, Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre1

This means that instead of contributions made by states, UNESCO will be fi nanced more and more by private and corporate donations.

This fundamental shift from public to private – will inevitably lead to a larger infl uence of the market economy’s opinion on the global heritage instead of shared cultural values. Accordingly, the concept of Russel Train which failed to be realized in the 70’s would be realized 40 years later. This means that the World Heritage Trust of Train is the UNESCO World Heritage Committee closest future.

Global Park

The concept of “world heritage” is one of the aspects of a continuing world globalization. By the middle of the 20th century the idea that national heritage is not only the national endowment any longer, but it refl ects the universal values which are now common for all mankind. This idea resulted in the adop-tion of the UNESCO convention which legally recognizes heritage as world heritage sites. The sites included in World Heritage List are now stated to have «outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selec-tion criteria».

Outstanding universal value is gained on the basis of UNESCO authority. Once the site gets a UNESCO WH status this adds to its fame and prestige, creating symbolic value and in conjunction with the tourism industry a direct economic value. Thus, the very basis which acknowledges the universal value of the site is being transformed. First universal value is acknowledged by UNESCO symbolic value, but after monetization it reaffi rms itself as an economic value. Analyses of tourists visits to the sites shows that 20% of monuments from 911 UNESCO

World Heritage Sites attract 80% of the tour-ists. Sites like Versailles (France), Tower of London (UK), Memphis (Egypt), The Great Wall (China) or Machu Picchu (Peru) be-come a part of mass culture and as a result confi rm their universal value by the market economy. Intense tourism fl ow transforms such sites into World Heritage Hubs. World Heritage Hub (WHH) is a UNESCO World Heritage Site which has intense international tourism fl ow more than 1 million visitors per year and has at least one replica in the world. Contemporary media, mass tourism and infrastructure connected such heritage sites into unifi ed global net – Global Park.

Global Park is a global cumulative brand which represents World Heritage in the market economy.

15

9 World Heritage – Challenges for the Millenium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2007. p.22.

News & Events The List About World Heritage Activities Publications Participate Resources

SearchUNESCO » Culture » World Heritage Centre » The List » World Heritage List

Description Maps Documents Gallery Video Indicators

Brief DescriptionThis outstanding archaeological area contains such magnificent monuments as theTemples of Ramses II at Abu Simbel and the Sanctuary of Isis at Philae, which weresaved from the rising waters of the Nile thanks to the International Campaignlaunched by UNESCO, in 1960 to 1980.

Other Languages:English French Arabic Chinese Russian Spanish

Long DescriptionThe open-air Museum of Nubia and Aswan brings together cultural properties closelyassociated with the unfolding of a long sequence of Egyptian Pharaonic history. Inaddition to the complexes of Abu Simbel and Philae the site includes the temples of

EgyptGovernorate of AswanN22 20 11.004 E31 37 33.996Date of Inscription: 1979Criteria: (i)(iii)(vi)Property : 374 haRef: 88

Media

Activities

News

Links

If you have been to NubianMonuments from Abu Simbel to Philaerecently, please give us feedbackthrough our partner TripAdvisor

Search the List Search Advanced search

Statistics

Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae

TripAdvisor is w orking inpartnership w ith UNESCO WorldHeritage Centre to help protect andpreserve the w orld's greatestlandmarks

Mail Print RSS

Global Strategy

Criteria

Tentative Lists

World Heritage List Nominations

World Heritage List

New Inscriptions

Interactive Map

World Heritage inDanger

The List in Danger

Success Stories

World Heritage Map is loading.. pleasewait

UNESCO World Heritage Convention websitehttp://whc.unesco.org/en/list/88

Tobu World Square Theme park website, Japanhttp://www.tobuws.co.jp/en/exhibit/world_1_1.html

16

Universal = Symbolic = Economic

If most of UNESCO World Heritage list rep-resents national cultures, the Global Park formulates new global supranational image of cultural identity and becomes a represen-tation of ongoing globalization process. Un-like 20th century UNESCO Global Park relies mainly on market mechanisms to confi rm the universal value of heritage.

In order to be included into Global Park the site should comply with the transformed UNESCO criteria. The criteria key words as Signifi cant, Outstanding and Exceptional are being replaced with Attractive, Spectacular and Extraordinary.

Universal value of the World Heritage Site is put in doubt by market economy if site does not correspond to the Global Park criteria.

«Most of the cultural and natural heritage sites on the list are nowhere as famous or impressive as the Taj, Great Wall or Petra in Jordan; in fact, many are little-known sites. If they can be on the list, surely Singapore has a shot».1

Continuing competition between scientifi c, bureaucratic and market approaches for the right to ascribe the universal value of herit-age sites is the key factor for the directions

of development of heritage institutions.

According to UMWTO prognosis by the year of 2020 there will be a double growth of in-ternational tourists – up to 1,5 billion people. Most of the tourism growth will concentrate on World Heritage Hubs as well as the sites which are to be included into the Global Park, like Mount Fuji which is still in the UNESCO Tentative list. The progressive growth of tourism will assure that the prerogative to attribute the universal value to the heritage sites will reside with market mechanisms.

The Global Park transforms the heritage into commodity. For the agricultural countries (with 30% of population occupied in agri-culture) tourism is the only large sector of global service economy where these coun-tries have consistently posted a surplus. In this situation global demand on the heritage from tourism became a main reason for such countries to apply for the UNESCO World Heritage List. This explains why today more than 60 % of World Heritage Sites in the Ten-tative list belong to (agri)cultural world. The Global Park is an obstacle for such countries to apprehend heritage as a part of their local culture.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

202020111995

mln. tourists/ WHS

According to UNWTO prognosis of growth of interbational tourism World Heritage list can grow up to 1361 site from 911 (max 45 sites per year).

17

1 Dawn Wei, Tan. World Heritage site in S’pore?, The Straits Times. Feb 20, 2009 19 June 2011. < http://www.asiaone.com/Travel/News/Story/A1Story20090220-123355.html

Heritage counts 2010 England18

The economic impact of historic sites

Visitors are attracted to area by historic sites

Visitors spend moneycreating employment

Leads tomore activityand employment byusinesses

Sites buy goods and servicesfrom local businesses

Visitors spend moneyin local hotels, shopsand restaurants

Source: English Heritage

Economic impact of the World Heritage Sites (WHS) per year is a 1% of tourism economy 2 per year.

MethodologyWorld Heritage List Total: 911 sitesCultural and mixed WHS: Cultural and mixed World Heritage sites are the bases for the calculation.

International visitorsInternational Visitors total: about 420 millionAt least 104 of 705 sites attract more than 1 million tourists - 304 million visitors. 14% sites attracts 235 million visitors;Suppose that the visitor’s distribution is based on the Pareto law:20% WHS attracts 80% visitors = 336 million visitors.X = 235 million*0,2/0,14 = 336 million visitors100% WHS attracts about 420 million visitorsX = 434,2 million/0,8 = 420 million visitors.

Local visitorsFrom site to site there a big different propor-tion of local and international tourists.In China the Great Wall visited by 16 million local visitors and 8 million international, in Jordan Petra the opposite 0,32 million local visitors and 1,28 million international tourist. Also for a lot of sites only statistic for total

amount of visitors can be found. Suppose that in addition to 420million inter-national visitors there are 210 million local.

Total amount of visitors:Total amount of visitors to WHS : 420+210 million = 630 million.

Tourist ExpensesLocal tourist expenses –30 euro.International tourists expenses – 140 euro2.

Ticket pricesAverage ticket price to WHS is 10 euro.I collect data on cost of entrance tickets for 30 % of WHS (237 sites). For the sites like Historic Centre of Florence or Paris, Banks of the Seine I used the price of 1 day tourist-pass, which allows getting into the muse-ums. For WHS which consist of few objects like Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis in Egypt cost of the ticket is a sum of single tickets to the sites. Calculations also in-cludes free entrance sites (which a very few).

Economic impactIncome generated by tickets: 630 million visitors*10 euro= 6 billion 300 million euro.Total economic impact:210 million * 30 euro = 6 billion 300 million

euro.420 million * 140 euro =58 billion 800 million euro.Total: 58,8 billion+6,3 billion = 65,1 billion euro.

Discussion notes:It should be noted that estimates of site rev-enues can be higher or lower than actual but spread over 911 World heritage Sites does not affect this analyses too much.

1 World bank data, 20082 from Global Heritage Fund «Economic Impact-Global

Heritage Tourism Revenues in Developing and Emerging

Countries and Regions», 2010 19

Web resources:

Data used in the poster was taken from:World Heritage Convention siteLonely planet guidesUnesco statisctic on World Heritage Properties National statisctic on World Heritage Properties

World Heritage Hub

Global Park formulates new global image of cultural identity and becomes a global cumula-tive brand which represents World Heritage in the market economy. Global park uses market mechanisms to confi rm the universal value of heritage.

Contemporary media, mass tourism and infra-structure connects World Heritage Hubs into unifi ed global net - Global Park.

20

Global Park

Web resources:

Data used in the poster was taken from:World Heritage Convention siteLonely planet guidesUnesco statisctic on World Heritage Properties

World Heritage Hub distribution Heritage Hub is a UNESCO World Heritage Site which is monetized by mass culture, has intense tourist ow not less than 1 million visitors per year and has at least one replica in the world.

Contemporary media, mass tourism and infrastructure connected such heritage sites into uni ed global net - Global Park.

Global Park formulates new global supernational image of cultural identity and becomes a global cumulative brand which represents World Heritage in the market economy. Global park uses market mechanisms to con rm the universal value of heritage.

Sydney Opera HouseEntrance fee: 7€Annual tourists ow: 7 mln.

World Heritage Hub

Borobudur Temple CompoundsEntrance fee: 14 €

Annual tourists ow: 2,5 mln

AngkorEntrance fee: 14 €

Annual tourists ow: 2,5 mln

Taj Mahal Entrance fee: 10 €

Annual tourists ow: 2,4 mln

Kremlin Entrance fee: 12 €Annual tourists ow: 2 mln

Cologne Cathedral Paris, Banks of the SeinePalace and Park of VersaillesMont-Saint-Michel and its BayPont du GardHistoric Centre of PragueAcropolis, AthensHistoric Areas of IstanbulHistoric Centre of ViennaHistoric Centre of RomeVenice and its LagoonVatican CityHistoric Centre of FlorencePiazza del Duomo, PisaAlhambra, Generalife and Albayzn, GranadaWorks of Antoni GaudiWestminster Palace, Westminster Abbey Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated SitesTower of LondonTotal entrance fee: 312,2 €Annual tourists ow: 65 mln

Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to PhilaeEntrance fee: 34 € Annual tourists ow: 2 mln

Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fieldsfrom Giza to DahshurEntrance fee: 8 € (ferry)Annual tourists ow: 5 mln

Brasilia

Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain RangeHistoric Monuments of Ancient NaraHistoric Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities)Itsukushima Shinto shrine Total entrance fee: 24,7€Annual tourists ow: 9 mln.

The Great WallImperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing DynastiesMount HuangshanTemple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacri cial Altar in BeijingLongmen GrottoesImperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing DynastiesTotal entrance fee: 65€Annual tourists ow: 37 mln

Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-ItzaEntrance fee: 44 € Annual tourists ow: 1,4 mln

Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-ItzaEntrance fee: 5 € Annual tourists ow: 2,6 mln

Grand Canyon National ParkEntrance fee: 17,5 € Annual tourists ow: 4,4 mln

Statue of Liberty Entrance fee: 12 € (ferry)Annual tourists ow: 3,8 mln

Saint PetersburgEntrance fee: 41 €Annual tourists ow: 2,5 mln

Global Park

21

de> strelka

Web resources

Data used in the poster was taken from:World Heritage Convention siteWorld travel and tourism councilCIA factbookWikipedia

% of total contribution of Travel & Tourism to employment, including jobs indirectly supported by the industry

Number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in (agri)cultural country

Number of Sites on the UNESCO Tentative list

% of population occupied in agriculture

T

Unesco Tentative List1524 sites total

940 sites

Unesco World Heritage List911 sites total

258 sites

World Heritage becomes a tool to replace the agricul-tural economy with the service economy.This explains why today more then 60 % of Heritage Sites in the Tentative list belong to (agri)cultural world.In agricultural countries like Cambodia more than 15% of population has jobs related to tourism.Tourism is the reason for such countries to apply to UNESCO Tentative list with new sites.

22

Global Heritage in developing

Cape Verde39,5%

1 5 T

Morocco17,3%

8 11

45%

Vanuatu37,7%

1 5 T

65%

38 mln 65 mln

Combodia17,1%

2 9

57 % T

T

World of (agri) cultureC

hina

Indi

a

Indo

nesi

a

Bur

kina

Fas

oC

amer

oon

Cen

tral

Afr

ican

Rep

.So

lom

on Is

land

sP

apua

New

Gui

nea

Moz

ambi

que

Gha

naP

akis

tan

Rom

ania

Hai

tiSr

i Lan

kaTu

rkey

Bot

swan

aH

aiti

Laos

Mad

agas

kar

Sene

gal

Taza

nia

Egyp

tP

hilip

ines

Thai

land

Sout

h A

fric

aH

ondu

ras

Cam

bodi

aM

oroc

coD

omin

ican

Rep

.C

ongo

Gab

onN

iger

Nig

eria

Suda

nTo

goB

oliv

iaB

angl

ades

hEt

hiop

iaK

enya

Mal

awi

Mal

iN

epal

Uga

nda

Yem

enZi

mba

bwe

Arm

enia

Aze

rbaj

anG

uate

mal

aK

yrgi

stan

Mon

golia

Viet

Nam

Cap

e Ve

rde

Vanu

atu

Mor

occo

Alb

ania

Unesco World Herita911 sites total

23

Web resources

Data used in the poster was taken from:heritage Theme park sitesWikipediaflickr photobank

Notice

The regions presented here are defined by UNESCO for its activities, and do not necessarily reflect the actual geographical location of countries.

24

Copies distribution by the UNESCO regions

World Heritage copiesfrom each region

number of copies ineach region

Asia

Arab states

Europe

South America

Asia

Europe

USA

Arab states

urces

in the poster was taken from:heme park sites

Arab states

Asia and Paci c Europe and Nort America

BrasiliaChichen-Itza

Machu Pichu

n America

Petra

Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae

Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur

5

5

Statue of Liberty

Historic Centre of Vienna

Works of Antoni Gaudi

Cologne CathedralAlhambra, Generalife and Albayzn

Palace and Park of Fontainebleau

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated SitesTower of London

Westminster Palace

Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg

Kremlin and Red Square, Moscow

Acropolis, Athens

Historic Centre of Rome

Venice and its Lagoon

Piazza del Duomo, Pisa

The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes

Palace and Park of Versailles

25

9

11

13

11

Paris, Banks of the Seine

Himeji-jo

Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto

Borobudur Temple Compounds

Sydney Opera House

The Great Wall Itsukushima shrine

Angkor

Meidan Emam, Esfahan

Temple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacri cial Altar in Beijing

Taj-Mahal

6

64

4

11

Tobu World Square (JP)

Aiins World (KR)

Window of the World (CHN)

Dhaka (BGD)

Islamic Civilization Park (MY)Tropical Village (MY)

Falconcity of Wonders (OAE)

Trump Taj Mahal (US) Tripoli Shrine Temple (US)

Minmundus (AU)

j g pyews 12:49 pm UK, Friday December 12, 2008

>50 copies

of World Heritage copies

25

13119

532

Notice

The regions presented here are defined by UNESCO for its activities, and do not necessarily

“Copy-Paste” heritageIndia Angry over fake Taj MahalA spokesman at the Indian High Commission in Dhaka fumed:“You can’t just go and copy historical monuments.”Sky News 12:49 pm UK, Friday December 12, 2008

25

Most visited World Heritage Site ( > 1 000 000 visitors per year)

Web resources

Data used in the poster was taken from:World Heritage Convention site http://whc.unesco.org/e nState of Conservation of World Heritage Properties reportsState parties tourism office reportsMcDonalds countries websitesWikipediaGoogle maps

ChinaRussiaCzechIndonesiaRomaniaLatviaLithuaniaEstoniaSlovakiaParaguayAzerbajanNicaraguaSuriname

SpainTurkeyHungaryMexicoBrazil

Notice

The regions presented here are defined by UNESCO for its activities, and do not necessarily reflect the actual geographical location of countries.

McDonald’s worldwide growth starts in 1971 with restaurants in Japan, Netherlands, Germany , Panama and Australia. One year later Convention Concerning the Protection of the W orld Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO. Juxtaposition of two processes occurred in 90’s, when state parties celebrated both: date of inscription to the world heritage list and to the McDonalds family simultaneously.Today World Heritage become global industry which can be also seen through the process of McDonaldization.1

2

1

Simultaneous appearence of McDonald’ s and WHS*

1970’s 1980’s 1990’s

maximum 3 years period delay

Ritzer, George: “The McDonaldization of Society”,1993, Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press

26

^#

Europe and North America

Asiaand

Pasific

ArabstatesAfrica

Latin

Amer

ica

and

Care

bean

Drive-thruFree admissionGuide tourAccessibilityFree Wifi internetPlay Place

Filter by:

5

km 1

km

10

km

Junk lokator

27

states World Heritage Site Name

date

of i

nscr

iptio

n

quan

tity

ofcr

iteria

s

Adm

issi

on

fee

euro

VisitorsNational

VisitorsInternational

Amazonbooks

J-StoreMentioned

Dis

tanc

e to

McD

km

Dis

tanc

e to

ai

rpor

t km Direct Flights

from 10 mosttourist active

countries

World Heritage replicas and copies(buildings and theme park copies)

GPD per capita

OccupationAG/IND/SE

RV

GDP:Tourism

TotalContribution

Employment:Total

Contribution(Tourism) Te

ntat

ive

list

freeticket

> 1000books

> 10000articles

< 4km

> 8 direct flights from countriestill the site

most copied sites Tourismdepended

Tourismdepended

>20

max Australia Sydney Opera House 2007 1 7€ 433 2866 3 17 CAN,CHN, US, JPN, GER, UK

Theme Park Shenzhen (CHN), Huaxi Village (CHN), Minimundus (AUS), Minisiam (TH), Aiins world(KR) $41 300 4/21/75 13,0% 16,2% 3

Austria Historic Centre of Vienna 2001 3 - 2456 44615 0,5 20 RUS,CAN,FR,NL,IT,UK,US,CHN, JPN,GER Aiins world (KR), Minimundus (AUS) $40 300 5/27/67 11,8% 12,7% 3

min France Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay 1979 3 9€ 408 891 8 376 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT Window of the World (CHN)

France Chartres Cathedral 1979 3 free 66 2867 0,5 114 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Aiins world (KR)

France Palace and Park of Versailles 1979 3 € 33 561 24194 0,7 45 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Window of the World (CHN) Tobu world square (JPN), Aiins world (KR), Los Angeles Theater (USA)

France Palace and Park of Fontainebleau 1981 2 € 11 127 5956 4 80 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Fontainebleau Hotel, Foshan (CHN), TIENS Palace (CHN), Beijing Laffitte Hotel (CHN), Aiins world (KR)

France Pont du Gard (Roman Aqueduct) 1985 3 € 12 202 1472 4,8 130 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT Window of the World (CHN)

France Paris, Banks of the Seine 1991 3 € 35 14628 359413 0,4 45 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Las Vegas(US), San Francisco City Hall (US)Eifel towers: Tokyo Tower (JPN), Window of the World (CHN), Mini Paris Tianducheng (CHN), New South China Mall Dongguan (CHN), Miinimundus (AUS), Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Fayetteville (US), Bloemfontein (ZA), Da Lat (VN), Parizh(RUS), Slobozia (ROM), Falconcity of Wonders Dubai (OAE),Dubai Global village(OAE), Genting Highlands (MY), Minisiam (MY), Filiatra (GR), Aktau (KZ), Tobu world square (JPN), , Ains World (KR).

France The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes 2000 3 € 10 211 2353 15 200 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT Tobu world square (JPN) , Aiins world(KR)

Germany Cologne Cathedral 1996 3 free 20 3808 0,1 16,3 RUS, FR,UK,NL, GER, IT Window of the world (CHN), Minisiam(TH) $35 900 2/30/68 4,6% 4,9% 15

Greece Acropolis, Athens 1987 5 12€ 206 6437 0,7 35 RUS, CAN, US, CHN, GER, IT, FR, UK, NL

Nashville, Tennessee (US), Walhalla temple(GER), Scottish Acropolis(UK), Window of the world(CHN), Minimundus (AUS), Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam(TH), Aiins world (KR).

$30 200 12/22/65 15.8% 8,0% 8

Italy Historic Centre of Florence 1982 5 50€ 2832 51748 0,9 20 RUS, FR, US, UK,NL,GER, IT Window of the world ( Piazza della Signoria )

Italy Venice and its Lagoon 1987 6 33€ 2 091 596 5 455 718 2745 35267 1,1 20 RUS, FR, US, UK,NL,GER, IT

Venetian Macao(CHN), New South China Dongguan (CHN), Window of the world (CHN)Daniels & Fisher Tower (US), Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Venetian hotel (US), St Mark's Campanile (US), Falconcity of Wonders (OAE), Genting Highlands (MY),Tobu world square (JPN),

Italy Early Christian Monuments of Ravenna 1996 4 9€ 247 5600 1 73 GER, FR, IT, UK Power house Taplin Gorge Dam (US)

Italy City of Verona 2000 2 8€ 340 8958 0,1 54 GRE, FR, IT, GB, RUS, NL St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church Wilmington, Delaware (US)

Holy See Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See 1980 5 25€ 5600 109 533 0,8 10 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Caesars Palace Las Vegas(US), minimundus(AUS), New South China Mall Dongguan (CHN), Tobu world square (JPN), Lote world korea (KR), Minisiam (TH), Aiins world (KR)

Holy See Vatican City 1984 4 15€ 160 17 569 0,8 10 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Walt Disney World’s Epcot(US), Tobu world square (JPN), Metropolitan Cathedral Brasilia (Pieta), Minimundus (AUS) no data no data no data no data 0

Japan Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities) 1994 2 10€ - 1 000 000 1313 24160 117 FR, CHN, IT, US, NL, GER,

JPN Byodo-in Temple, O'ahu, Hawaii (US)

Japan Itsukushima Shinto shrine 1996 4 2€ 2 135 5,1 79 CHN, JPN Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the World (CHN)

4 429 272

3 200 000

1 500 000

2 800 000

3 000 000

1 100 000

10 000 000

800 000

9 000 000

1 355 720

3 150 000

820 000

4 200 000

min 1 million

2 600 000

3,7% 41

7 000 000

$33 100 4/24/72 9.1% 10,2% 35

$30 700 4/32/65 8.6%

State filtersWorld Heritage Sites parametres

$34 200 4/26/70 6.8% 7,1% 14

> 5 mln visitors

10 000 000

App. 1 Heritage criteriaAnalyse of 911 World Heritage Sites. Example sheet.

28

states World Heritage Site Name

date

of i

nscr

iptio

n

quan

tity

ofcr

iteria

s

Adm

issi

on

fee

euro

VisitorsNational

VisitorsInternational

Amazonbooks

J-StoreMentioned

Dis

tanc

e to

McD

km

Dis

tanc

e to

ai

rpor

t km Direct Flights

from 10 mosttourist active

countries

World Heritage replicas and copies(buildings and theme park copies)

GPD per capita

OccupationAG/IND/SE

RV

GDP:Tourism

TotalContribution

Employment:Total

Contribution(Tourism) Te

ntat

ive

list

freeticket

> 1000books

> 10000articles

< 4km

> 8 direct flights from countriestill the site

most copied sites Tourismdepended

Tourismdepended

>20

State filtersWorld Heritage Sites parametres

> 5 mln visitors( )

Peru Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu 1983 4 44€ 600 000 800 000 232 660 200 - Aiins world (KR) 10,4% 8,8% 6

Spain Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzn, Granada 1984 3 11€ 222 2128 27 140 RUS, UK, GER, NL, IT, FR Islamic Civilization Park (MY), Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the world (CHN)

Spain Works of Antoni Gaudi 1984 3 11€ 21 348 1,5 17 RUS,NL, FR, IT, UK, US, GER, CAN

Tobu world square (JPN) Window of the world(CHN), Aiins world (KR) Minimundus (AUS)

UK Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites 1986 3 10€ 227 2031 15 116 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK, NL, JPN, GER, IT

Stonehenge Kerville (US), Maryhill Stonehenge Washington (US), Foamhenge, Virginia (US), Stonehenge Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), Window of the World (CHN), Aiins world (KR)

UK Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church 1987 3 10€ 74 9380 0,7 27 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US,

UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the world (KR), Aiins world (KR).

Cambodia Angkor 1992 4 14€ 400 000 2 100 000 352 232 NO 10 CHN Window of the world (CHN), Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam (TH), Aiins world (KR) $9 800 18/13/68 19,7% 17,1% 9

Egypt Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur 1979 3 48€ 400 000 4 600 000 282 2575 3,2 51 RUS, GER, FR, IT, UK, CHN,

USFalconcity of Wonders (OAE), Window of the world (CHN), Las Vegas (US), Tobu world square (JPN) Aiins world (KR) $6 200 32/17/51 15,8% 13.9% 32

India Taj Mahal 1983 1 10€ 1 200 000 1 200 000 141 843 2,6 218 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Minmundus (AUS), Falconcity of Wonders(OAE), Dhaka (BD), Window of the world (CHN), Tripoli Shrine Temple (USA),Trump Taj Mahal (USA), Islamic Civilization Park(MY), Tobu world square (JPN), Ains World (KR) Johor(MY) $3 400 52/14/34 4,5% 7,5% 32

Indonesia Borobudur Temple Compounds 1991 3 14€ 2 468 864 111 136 56 263 37 540 CHN, JPN, NL, GER Window of the world (CHN), Minimundus (AUS) $4 300 39/13/49 9,1% 8,1% 27

Iraq Samarra Archaeological City 2007 3 - 55 886 No 100 - Samarra Mosque (Islamic Civilization Park) $3 600 22/19/60 no data no data 11

Jordan Petra 1985 3 39€ 320 000 1 280 000 139 2187 128 214 NL, FR, IT, UK, US, GER,CHN, RUS, CAN

Aiins world (KR), minimundus (AUS) $5 300 3/20/78 20.3% 18.1% 16

Morocco Medina of Marrakesh 1985 4 4€ 200 000 900 000 27 793 2,7 5 FR,IT,UK,GER,NL Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US) $4 900 45/20/35 19,5% 17,3% 11

China The Great Wall 1987 5 € 32 16 000 000 8 200 000 519 37293 30 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Falconcity of Wonders OAE, Minimundus AUS, Cebu Taoist Temple PH, Huaxi Village CHN, Tobu world square JPN, Aiins world KR

China Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing and Shenyang 1987 4 6€ 5 200 000 1 800 000 132 7736 2,6 30 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US,

UK,NL, JPN, GER, ITAiins world (KR), Forbidden Gardens Texas (US) Bryant University Rhode Island (US)

China Temple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacrificial Altar in Beijing 1998 3 2€ 18 6223 3 30 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Walt Disney World’s Epcot US, Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam (TH) Toronto (CAN)

Iran Meidan Emam, Esfahan 1979 3 free 43 2 NO 450 JPN, CHN, GER, IT, NL, UK, RUS, FR

Islamic Civilization Park, Tobu world square, Aiins world korea $11 200 25/31/45 6.2% 5,60% 57

Mexico Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza 1988 3 5 € 1 200 000 1 400 000 165 1640 32 155 US, IT Minimundus (AUS), La Isla Dorado, Quintana Roo, MX, Window to the world (CHN), Aiins world (KR) $13 800 14/23/63 13,00% 14.8% 31

Russia Kremlin and Red Square, Moscow 1990 4 12 € 72 5699 0,3 42 RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Window of the world CHN, Wow Kremlin Palace Hotel TR, Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam TH, Aiins world KR $15 900 10/32/58 5,5% 5,90% 26

$9 200 1/24/76

24min 2 000 000

$29 500 4/24/72 14.4% 12,7%2 900 000

1 100 000

15

1 394 427

$35 100 1/18/80 6.9% 7,6%

53

around 12 000 000

$7 400 38/28/34 8,60% 8,20%

no visitors statistic

1 00 673

0

29