BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF LAND ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

GENERAL BUILDING HERITAGE :

TERM PAPER

SUB. BY: SUB. TO:

OLEMI MEKONNEN Mr. TSEGAYE

ID.NO: 1103216

1|Page
Table of Contents
1. METHODOLOGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR URBAN
WORLD HERITAGE SITES ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING AND ACTION ............................................................. 3

1.2 MAIN STRATEGIC FIELDS AND GUIDELINES FOR ACTION .................................... 8

2. WORLD HERITAGE LIST NOMINATIONS ..............................................................................12

2.1 NOMINATION PROCESS ......................................................................................................12

2.1.1 Tentative List ..........................................................................................................................12

2.1.2 The Nomination File ...........................................................................................................12

2.1.3 The Advisory Bodies ...............................................................................................................13

2.1.4 The World Heritage Committee .................................................................................................13

2.1.5 The Criteria for Selection .......................................................................................................13

1.3 PROCEDURES FOR NOMINATION AND DESIGNATION: .............................................14

1.4 Objectives of nomination ......................................................................................................18

2. 3. Preservation and Adaptive Re-Use of Buildings ................................................................29

3.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................29

3.2 A Building .................................................................................................................................30

3.3 'Obsolescence' and the 'Adaptive Reuse Potential' of a built environment...............31

1. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................33

2|Page
 1. METHODOLOGY FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT PLANS
FOR URBAN WORLD HERITAGE SITES

1.1 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING AND ACTION

One of the first tasks of the elaboration of Management and Sustainability Plans for Urban

World Heritage Sites is the definition of its general methodological context.

Looking at the literature on planning, the need to an integrated, sustainable and

participatory approach, based on the construction of a Vision for the World Heritage Site

must be stressed.

In this sense, incorporating a strategic perspective of planning is about constructing

“challenging, coherent, and coordinated visions, to frame an integrated long-term spatial

logic (for land-use regulation, resource protection, sustainable development and spatial

quality)” (Albrechts & Balducci 2013).

It is meant, by basic principles for planning and action, both a set of values and agendas

that can inspire the plans and the institutional and implementational frameworks to be put

in place at the same time (Watson 2016). In a very general way, it can be said that the

definition of a Vision for the World Heritage Site (WHS) must integrate the following

concerns:

1) Protecting Outstanding Universal Value, adopting a ‘value-led’ approach to

conservation;
2) Taking into account a Sustainable Development Perspective;
3) Developing an integrated approach.

3|Page
As it was developed in the previous chapter, the first objective of management plans for

WHS is to protect their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). “Managing Cultural World

Heritage” (2013), a resource manual by UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, and IUCN,

distinguishes between ‘conventional’ and ‘value-led’ approaches to conservation. The

former, streaming from the Venice Charter (ICOMOS 1964), focuses on “conserving the

physical fabric and materials of a monument or site, usually under the leadership of

conservation experts”; while the latter “promotes conservation and management based on

values ascribed to the property by all stakeholders, not just experts” (Cameron & Rössler

2018, p. 10).

Although OUV was highlighted from the very beginning, it was during the 1990s that

general guidelines settled unequivocally on a value-based approach to the management of

heritage sites (see UNESCO 2013a, p. 2). UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines determine that

plans and management systems must explain how OUV should be preserved, underline the

need for an integrated approach characterized by flexibility, and the need to look beyond

OUV to include other (local, regional, national) values and dimensions, and an

understanding of the broader context of a management plan.

Accordingly, a Vision for the World Heritage Site must establish a clear link between the

definition and protection of the universal value of the WHS and its specific context of

development. This very general idea is proposed in a policy document (UNESCO, 2015a)

aiming at ensuring policy coherence with the UN sustainable development agenda. It

states that in “the current context of changing demographics and climate, growing

inequalities, diminishing resources, and growing threats to heritage, the need has become

apparent to view conservation objectives, including those promoted by the World Heritage

Convention, within a broader range of economic, social and environmental values and

needs encompassed in the sustainable development concept.” (UNESCO, 2015a, p. 1) The

document identifies four main dimensions of sustainable development, as follows:

4|Page
 • Environmental Sustainability

• Protecting biological and cultural diversity and ecosystem services and benefits

• Strengthening resilience to natural hazards and climate change

• Inclusive Social Development

• Contributing to inclusion and equity

• Enhancing quality of life and well-being

• Respecting, protecting and promoting human rights

• Respecting, consulting and involving indigenous peoples and local communities

• Achieving gender equality

• Inclusive Economic Development

• Ensuring growth, employment, income and livelihoods

• Promoting economic investment and quality tourism

• Strengthening capacity-building, innovation and local entrepreneurship

• Fostering Security and Peace

• The acknowledgement of different cultural identities, cultural diversity, within and

around World Heritage Sites

There are close links between the UNESCO’s document and the debate UN Sustainable

Development

Goals and on the UN Habitat’s New Urban Agenda. UN Habitat’s New Urban Agenda

(United Nations 2017) defines a “shared vision of cities and human settlements” that:

a) Fulfil their social function, including the social and ecological function of land;

b) Are participatory, promote civic engagement, engender a sense of belonging and

ownership among all their inhabitants;

c) Achieve gender equality;

d) Meet the challenges and opportunities of present and future sustained, inclusive

and sustainable economic growth;

e) Fulfil their territorial functions across administrative boundaries;

5|Page
 f) Promote age and gender-responsive planning and investment for sustainable, safe

and accessible urban mobility for all;

g) Adopt and implement disaster risk reduction and management, reduce vulnerability;

h) Protect, conserve, restore and promote their ecosystems, water, natural habitats

and biodiversity.

This perspective follows the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals, stressing

the importance of cities in sustainable development and the importance of planning in

achieving those goals.

Sustainable Development Goal 11 is titled Sustainable Cities and Communities. It aims at

making “cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”, defining

specific targets to be reached by 2030, including a specific target to “protect and safeguard

the world’s cultural and natural heritage”.

Those targets refer to different topics to be addressed (for example, “adequate, safe and

affordable housing and basic services”; “safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable

transport systems”; “inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces”, “integrated

policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to

climate change, resilience to disasters”).

UN targets refer also to general principles to be adopted in dealing with those proposed

topics. Formulating principles of cities for all, they also refer to distributional issues: the

special attention to be given to the needs of specific social groups (the poor. those in

vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities, older persons). It is about

the recognition of the values and criteria that must guide the action: for example, inclusion,

diversity, or justice.

6|Page
The consideration of values and the recognition of the different social groups involved can

bridge the various development topics. In this sense, an integrated development

perspective not only considers the different dimensions of sustainable development as is

able to perceive the main (critical) links between them.

In conclusion, the methodology of Management and Sustainability Plans, based on a Vision

for the World Heritage Site, must:

• Place heritage and protection concern in a broader development framework (see,

for example, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape),

• Specify the main qualities of place to be developed and understand the main topics

and dimension to be addressed in order to safeguard or build those qualities; and

• Affirm the general criteria/values to be adopted in action.

As mentioned before, this task also requires an adequate institutional and

implementational framework. UNESCO provides an extensive list of recommendations

regarding the purpose, role, and content of management plans (UNESCO et al. 2013,

p.122-145). Key elements of an effective management plan according to UNESCO

Operational Guidelines (UNESCO 2005, p.26) are:

a) A thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders;

b) A cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback;

c) The involvement of partners and stakeholders;

d) The allocation of necessary resources;

e) Capacity building; and

f) An accountable, transparent description of how the management system functions.

7|Page
1.2 MAIN STRATEGIC FIELDS AND GUIDELINES FOR
ACTION

This chapter will present the main strategic orientations to be developed in relation with

the following main strategic fields: (i) Tangible Cultural Heritage, (ii) Planning and

Legislative Instruments, (iii) Population and Housing, (iv) Tourism, Culture and

Economy, and (v) Capacity Building and Community Engagement. For each topic, the

mains problematics are explored, and a set of strategic objectives is proposed (see a

synthesis at the end of this introduction in Table 1), along with the respective measures

and potential actions. For each strategic field, some examples of best practices and of

monitoring indicators, related with specific strategic objectives, are also presented.

The choice for these five main strategic fields has, as a starting point, the results of the

previous studies developed by Santiago de Compostela in 2018, and the City of Florence in

2019. Respectively, the “Diagnosis study of urban World Heritage Sites in the Atlantic

Common Challenges” (AtlaS-WH 2018), and the “Thematic Study on Common Challenges”

(AtlaS-WH 2019). These studies pay special attention to the importance of issues related

to governance, tourism and population, which serve as evidence for the need to answer to

the strategic challenges explored in the “Capacity Building and Community Engagement”,

“Tourism, Culture and Economy” and “Population and Housing” strategic fields.

The selection of the main strategic fields looks to answer to a group of principles and

fundamental options in accordance with the foregoing chapter. In first place, it highlights

the need to secure a value-based and integrated approach, for the protection and the

development of World Heritage Sites, which has direct implications in strategic options

related both with the importance of the heritage values (Strategic Field “Tangible Cultural

Heritage”), and with the potential relevance of local dynamics with cultural and economic
character (Strategic Field “Tourism, Culture and Economy”), or, yet, with a demographic

and housing character (Strategic Field “Population and Housing”).

On the other side, the relationship of that perspective with sustainability challenges, due to

the strong support of UNESCO to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (with its

17 Development Goals), reinforces the nature of the strategic fields previously presented

and the responsibility of the various policy and planning instruments, as well as those with

a legislative character (Strategic Field “Planning and Legislative Instruments”), and it

implies the necessary and strong mobilization of concepts and instruments explored in the

“Capacity Building and Community Engagement” strategic field.

Finally, it is important to enhance that the configuration and organization of the different

strategic fields isn´t limited to the ones presented in here. The importance of

incorporating additional strategic fields, properly adapted to the specific contexts and

challenges present in the various World Heritage Sites is also considered. It is up to the

Management Plan of each WHS to define the most appropriate composition.

Table 1. Synthesis of the strategic objectives related to each Strategic Field.

S TRATEGICF IELD S TRATEGICO BJECTIVES

Disseminate and retain knowledge and respect for the cultural

heritage through activities that help avoid negative impacts in

WHS.

Promote an integrated approach to cultural heritage that build

social capital and contribute to social cohesion in WHS.

1.1 Tangible Cultural Protect, individually or collectively, through the use of proper

Heritage methods, the components of the WHS, in conformity with the

(pp. 29 – 36) competence and the legal procedures of each country.

Heritage management should be made considering the

constant balance between the need for development and the

need for preservation.

Member states should cooperate regarding the protection,

conservation and presentation of the cultural heritage.

Strengthen the link between the strategies contained in

different types of policy and planning instruments focusing on

the WHS and surrounding areas, and the values of the WHS.
1.2 Planning and Legislative
Develop mechanisms for overcoming tensions/conflicts
Instruments
associated with the action of different types of strategies in
(pp. 41 – 44)
the WHS.

Promote and ensure the importance of legislative instruments

in WHS and surrounding areas.

Securing the residential function of WH sites.

1.3 Population and Housing Maintaining local residents in place.

(pp. 52 – 55) Promoting differentiated housing forms.

Promoting community and social development.

 Managing visitor numbers and minimizing negative effects /

impacts of tourism.

Maximizing the benefits of tourism for local communities by

Tourism developing a sustainable destination.

1.4 Tourism, (pp. 62 – 66) Promoting an outstanding tourist experience.

Culture and Stimulating the development of sustainable tourism products

Economy and services.

Stakeholder engagement and participation.

Culture and Promote and expand cultural and creative activities.

Economy Promote culture and art.

(pp. 70 – 71) Encourage tradition, authenticity and integrity through

research, innovation and sustainability.

Participatory Harness the perspective of local communities.

Governance
Collaborate with local agents on a vision for the future.
1.5 (pp. 88 – 89)

Community Local Build local capacity for emergency response.

Engagement Adaptive

and Capacity Support citizen groups involved in community resilience.

Capacity
(pp. 90 – 91)
Building
Heritage Nurture local communities as stewards of local

Nurtured by knowledge and heritage.

Sense of Encourage local agents in the protection, determination,

Place diffusion and generation of heritage values.

(pp. 92 – 93)
 2. WORLD HERITAGE LIST NOMINATIONS

Only countries that have signed the World Heritage Convention, pledging to protect their

natural and cultural heritage, can submit nomination proposals for properties on their

territory to be considered for inclusion in UNESCO’s World Heritage List.

2.1 NOMINATION PROCESS

2.1.1 Tentative List

The first step a country must take is to make an ‘inventory' of its important natural and

cultural heritage sites located within its boundaries. This ‘inventory' is known as the

Tentative List, and provides a forecast of the properties that a State Party may decide to

submit for inscription in the next five to ten years and which may be updated at any time. It

is an important step since the World Heritage Committee cannot consider a nomination for

inscription on the World Heritage List unless the property has already been included on the

State Party's Tentative List.

2.1.2 The Nomination File

By preparing a Tentative List and selecting sites from it, a State Party can plan when to

present a nomination file. The World Heritage Centre offers advice and assistance to the

State Party in preparing this file, which needs to be as exhaustive as possible, making sure

the necessary documentation and maps are included. The nomination is submitted to the

World Heritage Centre for review and to check it is complete. Once a nomination file is

complete the World Heritage Centre sends it to the appropriate Advisory Bodies for

evaluation.
2.1.3 The Advisory Bodies
A nominated property is independently evaluated by two Advisory Bodies mandated by the

World Heritage Convention: The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)

and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which respectively provide

the World Heritage Committee with evaluations of the cultural and natural sites nominated.

The third Advisory Body is the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and

Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), an intergovernmental organization which

provides the Committee with expert advice on conservation of cultural sites, as well as on

training activities.

2.1.4 The World Heritage Committee

Once a site has been nominated and evaluated, it is up to the intergovernmental World

Heritage Committee to make the final decision on its inscription. Once a year, the

Committee meets to decide which sites will be inscribed on the World Heritage List. It can

also defer its decision and request further information on sites from the States Parties.

2.1.5 The Criteria for Selection

To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal value and

meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. These criteria are explained in the

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention which,

besides the text of the Convention, is the main working tool on World Heritage. The criteria

are regularly revised by the Committee to reflect the evolution of the World Heritage

concept itself.
1.3 PROCEDURES FOR NOMINATION AND
DESIGNATION:

A. Any application for designation or expansion of a historic preservation district or

landmark shall be filed with the HPC on prescribed forms and shall include the following

data:

1. Name and address of property owner(s) and assessor's parcel number(s) and

address(es) of property(ies) being nominated;

2. Description of the proposed landmark or district, including special aesthetic, cultural,

architectural, archaeological, or engineering interest or value of a historic nature, including

information about the architecture, notable features, construction, and other information

indicating the historical significance of the site or district;

3. Approximate date of construction of the property(ies) or time period of construction

within the district;

4. Boundaries of the proposed landmark or district;

5. Current sketches, photographs, or drawings;

6. Statement of condition of any structures;

7. Explanation of any known threats to the improvement on the site;

8. Other information which may be requested by the community development

department;

9. Signature(s) of owner(s) of nominated property(ies) for landmark designation.

District designations may submit a petition pursuant to subsection B of this section.

 B. If only one property is included in the proposed preservation district, that property

owner must consent to inclusion in the preservation district. If more than one property

owner is included in the proposed preservation district, consent of a majority of property

owners of record within the boundaries of the proposed district, based on linear street

frontage, must be submitted to the historic preservation commission before final inclusion

of the district is accepted. Such support shall be ascertained by a survey by the commission

of said property owners, or by written consent of fifty one percent (51%) of the property

owners within the district, based on street frontage.

C. Any property owner may initiate an application for designation of his/her property or a

structure or landscape feature as a historic preservation landmark by submitting a written

request for such designation with the application and data required under subsection A of

this section.

D. The historic preservation commission, the planning and zoning commission, or the city

council may initiate an application as described herein.

E. Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent by first class mail to the owner(s) of

each property proposed for designation, describing the property proposed and announcing a

public hearing by the historic preservation commission to consider the designation. Notice

shall also be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior

to the date of the public hearing. Once the historic preservation commission has issued

notice of a proposed designation, no building permits shall be issued by the building division

for the subject structure or within the subject area until the historic preservation

commission has made its decision.

 F. A public hearing shall be held before the historic preservation commission, whereby

the commission shall consider designating the boundaries of the proposed historic

preservation district or identifying and designating the proposed historic landmark(s). The

historic preservation commission shall give notice regarding the public hearing on the

application in accordance with the requirements listed above.

G. The historic preservation commission shall review the application and the testimony

presented in the public hearing and shall render a decision at the conclusion of, or within

thirty (30) days after the public hearing in the form of a written recommendation to the city

council and to the planning and zoning commission.

H. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the historic preservation commission, the

planning and zoning commission shall conduct a public hearing at which the property

owner, parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. After such

public hearing the planning and zoning commission shall make a report and

recommendation to the city council.

I. Upon receipt of the recommendations from the historic preservation commission and

the planning and zoning commission, the city council shall conduct the public hearing

wherein it shall review the proposed application and recommendation of the planning and

zoning commission and historic preservation commission and shall adopt the

recommendations, modify the recommendations, deny the application, or remand the

application to the planning and zoning commission or the historic preservation commission

for further proceedings.

J. Designation of landmarks or historic preservation districts by the city council shall be

shown on the official city of Tombstone zoning map. (Ord. 2015-01, 7-14-2015)
Short-Term Objectives: Knowledge Creation and Dissemination

While the World Heritage Convention is explicitly concerned with preserving tangible natural

and cultural heritage, interestingly, the Convention grants the World Heritage Committee

only limited power to affect such ambitious goals as cultural preservation, sustainable

development, and peacemaking. Rather, the Committee is only invested with the short-term

ability to create and diffuse alternative narratives concerning the universal value of heritage

sites by evaluating and inscribing a property onto the World Heritage and World Heritage in

Danger lists and by disseminating these lists through diverse channels and global networks.

These are fundamentally acts of knowledge creation and dissemination. Furthermore,

moneys can be disbursed from the relatively small World Heritage Fund primarily for use in

needs assessments and Advisory Body evaluations (necessary for the nomination of a site),

publicity campaigns by state ministries to raise awareness of a site’s World Heritage

designation, and capacity-building and technical assistance programs, such as exchanges

between site managers in developing countries with those in Europe (Di Giovine 2009a:

315–319; UNESCO 1972: 12–13). While it is believed that these awareness-raising

campaigns will inspire international conservation and tourism efforts in the medium term,

they are also directed towards locals, “to strengthen appreciation and respect…of the

cultural and natural heritage as defined in Article 1 and 2 of the Convention” (1972: 13).

Although UNESCO has some control over the knowledge they produce and diffuse, they

have little control over the way it is interpreted, used, and reproduced by state parties and

other actors. In particular, while each site is meant to reveal UNESCO’s claim of “unity in

diversity,” actors may emphasize a particular aspect of the place’s history to valorize certain
groups and marginalize others, as frequently occurs to minority or indigenous populations

living on or near the designated site and who may attribute alternative use values to it.

Designations, however, are intended to increase the “prestige factor” of a site (cf. Dure

1974) – important for the generation of preservation and tourism campaigns – but often lead

to emotionally charged competition between nation-states who quantify their value based

on the number of sites they have on the list. In some cases, this may even exacerbate

geopolitical tensions, leading to civil strife – such as periodic riots between Cambodians and

Thais over Angkor Wat or the political and military actions taken by these same countries

upon the designation of Preah Vihear as a Cambodian World Heritage site in 2008.

1.4 Objectives of nomination

Medium-Term Objectives: Preservation and Tourism Development

Safeguarding Cultural and National Properties

Although it is not invested in the direct ability to conduct historic preservation and natural

conservation projects, UNESCO’s Convention for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural

Heritage is first and foremost aimed at safeguarding cultural and natural resources deemed

to be of “universal value,” the “heritage of mankind” (1972: 1). UNESCO attempts to fulfill

this objective first through normative actions and second through coercive actions.

Normative actions involve the institution of norms, procedures, and requirements a state

party must satisfy before nominating their site for World Heritage status. These include

thorough research concerning the proposed site’s history, topography, universally valorized

qualities, authenticity, and integrity; the intervention of expert “Advisory Bodies” who

assess the site’s integrity and level of authenticity on behalf of UNESCO; and the drafting of

conservation and management plans. State parties in good standing to the World Heritage
Convention may receive some funding for these endeavors, although the Operational

Guidelines specify that the Fund should ultimately “be used to mobilize additional funds for

International Assistance from other sources” (UNESCO 2008a: 60). Such actions contribute

to UNESCO’s goal of knowledge creation while, at the same time, also induce the nation-

state to ensure the site’s preservation by cooperating with the international community (cf.

UNESCO 1972: 3). Furthermore, once a site is inscribed on the World Heritage List, state

parties are required to submit periodic assessments both on the site (“reactive monitoring”)

and on the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in its territory (“periodic

reporting”) as well as to make any modifications to the management of its site (2008a: 45–

47, 54–56).

Should these norms not be fulfilled, UNESCO may take coercive action by inscribing the

property on the List of World Heritage in Danger and calling for specific, time-sensitive

responses on the part of the state party in question. Noncompliance may result in the site’s

delisting (UNESCO 2008a: 28, 52–53). However, coercive actions should not simply be

understood as a means of compelling nation-states and groups to act through negative

reinforcement and threats of sanction, but also through the prospect of raising a group’s

symbolic capital in the international community. In its World Heritage Information Kit,

UNESCO makes clear its belief that such claims to prestige directly foster conservation

projects (2008b: 9).

While inscription on the World Heritage List in Danger is sometimes perceived by a state as

a penalty, it also is intended to serve as an extra awareness-raising mechanism directed

towards international communities, one that creates a sense of urgency for sites that are in

particular danger, as the cases of Abu Simbel and Venice successfully revealed. Further
underscoring the believed link between knowledge dissemination and preservation, in 2002

the World Heritage Committee adopted the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage, which

invited “all partners to support World Heritage conservation through key strategic objectives

known as the ‘Four Cs’: strengthen Credibility of the World Heritage List; ensure effective

Conservation of World Heritage properties; promote the development of effective Capacity-

building measures; increase public awareness and support through Communication”

(2008b: 8; see UNESCO 2002a).

Although grounded in egalitarianism, UNESCO’s emphasis on preservation, as well as its

tactics, has drawn criticism. On the one hand, while a World Heritage site is “supposed to

be protected by the world community, under normal circumstances it is directly managed by

the nation in whose political boundaries it is located” and who may not share in UNESCO’s

ideological interests (Di Giovine 2009a: 7); a site’s conservation is ultimately carried out at

the country’s discretion and is subject to national law (UNESCO 1972: 3–4). Should

UNESCO’s coercive power fail, it has little recourse but to delist a site, which does nothing

to directly protect it from further destruction. On the other hand, scholars have pointed out

that conservation often denies a monument’s total life history, taking the site back to an

idealized and historicized state that “tempts us to ignore our own influence on them”

(Lowenthal 1998: 114), conserving only one of many possible narratives embodied in the

structure through time and destroying or erasing others (Di Giovine 2009a: 359). In the

name of conservation, site managers often prevent alternative uses by indigenous

populations while at the same time paradoxically prohibiting those same populations to

“modernize” their technologies or living practices in the name of preserving authenticity

(see Di Giovine 2009b; Smith 2006). There also runs the risk of privileging the needs of
international tourists, rather than those of local communities. Indeed, it was only in 2007

that the World Heritage Committee officially recognized “the fact that conservation, capacity

building, credibility and communication are all intrinsically linked to the role of community”

(UNESCO 2008b: 8; cf. UNESCO 2007).

Heritage Tourism and Development: An Uneasy Alliance

UNESCO has historically expressed ambivalence towards tourism development, even while

conducting limited normative actions (requiring management plans to account for tourism

impacts), and promoting inspired actions among tourists by supporting publicity campaigns

by governmental ministries and industries involved in tourism. “Tourism” is not mentioned in

the World Heritage Convention, and the phrase “tourist development projects” appears only

among a list of possible threats to World Heritage sites that could provide the basis for

inscription on the World Heritage List in Danger (see UNESCO 1972: 6). Interestingly,

though, a majority of the early World Heritage sites were already well known to, if not also

well visited by, international audiences.

UNESCO’s ambivalence towards tourism seems to stem from the early failures by the UN

and other intergovernmental organizations in tourism development. The World Heritage

Convention was ratified when expectations of tourism as a means of peaceful economic

development were at their height. The United Nations granted the nascent International

Union of Tourism Officers (IUOTO) consultative status in 1954; the UN held its first

conference on international tourism in Rome in 1963, where it outlined a framework for

tourism development; it declared 1967 International Tourism Year (ITY) with the slogan

“Tourism: Passport to Peace”; and finally absorbed IUOTO into the newly created United

Nations’ World Tourism Organization in 1970 (UNWTO 1974; UNWTO 1975; Jafari 1975).
More concretely, in 1969 the World Bank had created a dedicated Tourism Projects

Department which lent over $525 million between 1970 and 1979 to “support tourism as an

economic growth tool” for 18 countries that met specific criteria (Hawkins and Mann

2007:354; Di Giovine 2009a: 216). It is important to note that UNESCO stayed on the

sidelines. Indeed, a study commissioned by UNESCO – which was published as the

monograph, Tourism: Passport to Development? (de Kadt 1979) – found that the predicted

“multiplier effect” of direct and indirect employment that could revitalize developing

countries did not materialize (UNESCO 1976: 81); rather, the industry’s proclivity to vertical

and horizontal integration created foreign monopolies that largely relegated locals to the

sidelines and allowed for notable “leakages” – the proportion of monies invested or earned

in the tourism sector that ended up overseas (Markandya et al. 2005: 231), mostly in the

hands of the tourists’ countries of origin (Bryden 1973). Furthermore, it did not stave off a

“flight from the land” by farmers who continued to move to cosmopolitan urban centers in

search of work (UNESCO 1976: 81). In 1979, the World Bank followed suit, issuing its own

study, which acknowledged drawbacks to tourism development in the absence of adequate

planning on the part of the developing nation (Norohona 1979), and by the mid-1980s, it

ceased taking on tourism-related projects (Hawkins & Mann 2007: 356); responsibility was

ceded to multilateral corporations and NGOs. Meanwhile, some academics argued that

tourism creates inauthenticity, museumification, “stress,” and socio-cultural imbalance akin

to imperialism (cf. MacCannell 1976; Nash 1977; Murphy 1985: 1,3).

While the UN’s top-down, economics-heavy focus on tourism was problematic to the

peacemaking and safeguarding rhetoric of the World Heritage Convention, the Convention

found resonances in the UN’s Millennium Development Project and the “sustainable
tourism” turn of the mid-1990s, which focused on preserving a destination’s structural and

contextual integrity, facilitating a closer engagements with local stakeholders, fostering a

better understanding of the multiplicity of meanings and values attributed to a tourist

destination, and ensuring a more equitable distribution of economic and social benefits

from tourism development initiatives (Smith & Eadington 1994; Stronza 2001; Telfer 2002;

Mbaiwa & Stronza 2009). Revealing a rapprochement with the tourism industry, in 1999

UNESCO hosted its first workshop at the International Tourism Exchange (ITB), one of the

tourism industry’s largest trade fairs, and in 2001 the World Heritage Committee in Helsinki

founded what would become the World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme, whose

aims would be to “engage in dialogue and actions with the tourism industry to determine

how the industry may contribute to help safeguard these precious resources” (UNESCO

n.d.; see UNESCO 2001: 63). Reflecting the program’s mission of “using tourism as a

positive force to retain WH site values and to help mitigate site threats,” it pursues a

threefold strategy of raising awareness, developing partnerships, and providing technical

support to aid the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO field offices, and site managers in

assessing and managing tourism-related issues at World Heritage sites. In particular, the

World Heritage Centre offers a seven-point “framework for utilizing tourism to benefit site

protection” (UNESCO n.d.: 1):

1.Building the capacity of the site management to deal with tourism

2.Training local community members in tourism-related activities so that they can

participate and receive tourism’s benefits

3.Helping to market these products through their promotion at the local, regional, country,

and international levels

4.Raising public awareness and building pride in the World Heritage site with local

communities and visitors through a conservation education campaign using a symbolic

specie upon which to base a social marketing and public awareness campaign (e.g., a

Manta Ray in Komodo National Park, a Toucan in Sian Ka’an Reserve)

5.Using tourism generated funds to supplement unmet conservation and protection costs at

the sites

6.Spreading the lesson learned to other sites and other protected areas

7.Building an increased awareness of World Heritage and its activities and policies in the

tourism industry and to the clients of the industry

These statements also reveal an articulated shift from considering tourism as a threat to

socioeconomic stability to embracing tourism’s perceived communicative and awareness-

raising abilities. Indeed, in UNESCO’s action plan of sustainable tourism development for

poverty alleviation in the Sahara Desert – which draws on the cooperation between nation-

states, international organizations, travelers, the tourism industry, and local populations

(2003a: 5) –UNESCO pointedly reveals its change in position: “There is no contradiction

between an economically efficient tourism and an ethical and qualitative tourism, respectful

of societies, cultural diversity and environment” (2003a: 2).

Long-Term Objective: Peacemaking

“UNESCO’s mission is to contribute to the building of a culture of peace, the eradication of

poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the

sciences, culture, communication and information” (UNESCO 2010: 2). To satisfy this

peacemaking objective, its World Heritage Convention relies on the prospect of what can be

considered inspired action – long-term, often subtle changes in the ways in which
individuals and groups perceive the meaning and value of not only World Heritage sites, but

the universality of cultural diversity for which these monuments illustratively stand. In line

with some globalization theories’ emphasis on individuality over that of collectivities, in

which one’s imagination negotiates between individuals and “globally defined fields of

possibility” (Appadurai 1996: 31; cf. Robertson 1992: 8), UNESCO seems to posit that

“peace in the minds of men” can emerge through the reordering of individuals’ sense of

place; rather than identifying exclusively with sites of local or national interest, individuals

may also entertain a “common recognition and identification with the world’s shared

cultural heritage” as exemplified in these monuments (Di Giovine 2009a: 34) and enacted

through collective participation in their preservation and touristic visitation.

While acts of violence include both ethnic cleansing and the destruction of a group’s

cultural property (UNESCO 1996), activities linking “peace and cooperation” (cf. Sandwith et

al. 2001), which are marked by “mutual understanding [and] a plural approach to history,”

can create a global “culture of peace” (UNESCO 2008a: 90). This notion is made most

explicit in UNESCO’s 2001 Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity, which, defining

culture as the “distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual, and emotional features of a society

or group,” argued that “respect for the diversity of cultures…[and] an awareness of the

unity of humankind, and of the development of intercultural exchanges…are among the best

guarantees of international peace and security” (UNESCO 2002b: 1). Ratified shortly after

the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC, the Declaration

further acknowledges that UNESCO’s “specific mandate” within the UN system was to

“ensure the preservation and promotion of the fruitful diversity of cultures” (2002b: 1), “as

necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature” (2002b: 2). Acknowledging that
“diversity is the essence of identity” (Matsura 2002a: 3), UNESCO’s then-director general,

Koïchiro Matsura, comments that the Declaration “makes it clear that each individual must

acknowledge not only otherness in all its forms but also the plurality of his or her own

identity, within societies that are themselves plural” (2002b: i). By simultaneously

celebrating the differences that mark human life and yet positing some unanimously

recognizable (and valued) universal culture, UNESCO proposes a peaceful world system

based on the structural unity of difference – a “culture of cultures” (Sahlins 2000: 488) that

Di Giovine terms a world “heritage-scape” (2009a; 2010; 2011). “If a heritage object

temporally connects individuals with the socio-spatial milieu from which they came,

UNESCO’s World Heritage objects are intended to transcend the temporal and spatial

situatedness of one culture’s heritage claims, ensuring that everyone equally possesses

each World Heritage site; rather than basing identities on collective antagonism toward

difference, tourists consuming the World Heritage narrative can celebrate and internalize

diversity” (Di Giovine 2010: 9).

This ultimate objective is clearly utopian, and while UNESCO and its representatives talk of

peacemaking in some of their documents and decrees, it is clear that such a lofty goal is

largely implicit and contingent on the successful outcomes of multiple medium-term

objectives that are themselves difficult to fulfill. While only time will tell if such a broad plan

can work, UNESCO’s major challenge – other than ensuring success in the equally idealistic

aims of creating sustainable and inclusive preservation and tourism development initiatives

– is ensuring that the list remain current and representative of the heritage-scape’s

audience, which is ever expanding as new populations enjoy greater mobility, global

communication, and connectivity. Through the 1994 Global Strategy for a Balanced,
Representative and Credible World Heritage List, the periodic updates to its Operational

Guidelines, and the passing of associated Conventions protecting other forms of tangible

and intangible heritage, UNESCO has demonstrated that it is capable of, and willing, to

make changes in the forms and meanings of “world heritage” while maintaining its meta-

narrative of “unity in diversity” (cf. Rössler 2010).

Future Directions

The objectives of UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention are ambitious and far-reaching: to

ensure the protection of endangered cultural and natural resources, to enhance sustainable

development primarily through heritage tourism, and, ultimately, to fulfill UNESCO’s “unique

mandate” (2001: 1; cf. 2011), established in the Preamble of UNESCO’s Constitution, of

fostering “peace in the minds of men” (1945: 1). Yet because UNESCO is an

intergovernmental organization that derives its legitimacy from nation-states and its World

Heritage program is based on an international convention to which state parties voluntarily

adhere, UNESCO has limited ability to affect real policy change in these areas; direct action

is limited to creating and disseminating information concerning World Heritage sites in the

short term. Instead, UNESCO depends on normative and coercive actions to contribute to

safeguarding cultural and natural resources in the medium term, which are believed to lead

to inspired action towards tourism development and, ultimately, to peacemaking among

global publics in the long term. But since UNESCO relies on the interpretation of its

Convention by individual state parties, who have different needs, goals, and understandings

of “heritage,” unintended consequences often arise. This entry has traced the historical

context of UNESCO’s logic, examined its various and contingent objectives, and described

the major outcomes of each.

“The World Heritage Convention is a noble, vital force in the world, fostering peaceful

coexistence and honoring our past in equal measure with our future,” remarked Koïchiro

Matsura at UNESCO’s celebration in Venice honoring the thirtieth anniversary of the

Convention’s ratification (UN News Service 2002). Paying particular attention to the

Convention’s historical and cultural context, this entry has argued that UNESCO’s primary

objectives are linked in a complex chain of logic that is contingent upon the successful

fulfillment of each short- and medium-term goal: UNESCO’s direct act of designating World

Heritage sites can increase prestige, thereby fostering preservation and tourism

development, which, if implemented correctly, can create a peacemaking understanding of

“unity in diversity” in the myriad “minds of men” who interact with, or otherwise consume,

these sites and their representations. It is “inevitable” that tourism, preservation, and

peacemaking are interlinked, writes Francesco Bandarin, the longtime director of UNESCO’s

World Heritage Centre in Paris:

It is an inevitable destiny: the very reasons why a property is chosen for inscription on the

World Heritage List are also the reasons why millions of tourists flock to those sites year

after year. In fact, the belief that World Heritage sites belong to everyone and should be

preserved for future generations is the very principle on which the World Heritage

Convention is based (Pedersen 2002: 3).

Bandarin’s quote is telling, for it equates tourism and preservation with the mutual

identification with cultures that are not immediately one’s own. UNESCO believes it is this

celebration, internalization, and preservation of cultural diversity that can ultimately create

peace, at least in the minds of men. This is arguably a slow process, one akin to
acculturation and which is constantly complicated by inter- and intrastate politics, but only

time may tell of its ultimate success.

2. 3. Preservation and Adaptive Re-Use

of Buildings

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This topic discusses 'adaptive reuse' of old buildings which may or may not be listed as

heritage, 'Heritage building means and includes any building of one or more

premises or any part thereof and/or structure and/or artifact which requires conservation

and / or preservation for historical and / or architectural and / or artisanry and /or

aesthetic and/or cultural and/or environmental and/or ecological purpose and includes

such portion of land adjoining such building or part thereof as may be required for fencing

or covering or in any manner preserving the historical and/or architectural and/or aesthetic

and/or cultural value of such building.' Adaptive reuse is the process of repurposing an

existing building for new, modern, uses, in a manner that retains the original structure of

the building. The economic and cultural aspects behind buildings that have adopted the

tool of adaptive reuse will be examined. The Cultural Heritage can be thought of as an

expression of the ways of living developed, and adopted, by a community, that have been

passed down through multiple generations. Cultural heritage includes the customs,

practices, places, objects, artistic expressions, and values, of the community it belongs to.
It is possible to express cultural heritage as either Intangible or Tangible Cultural Heritage.

One of the objectives of adaptive reuse is to preserve most of the original fabric of the

structure. This is done by identifying the defining characteristics of the building, and then

imaging how those characteristics may creatively serve new pumices. Seeking the best

ways to respect the building's original design through the process of making changes is

done. When applied to heritage sites, this ensures that as much of the historical context,

cultural significance and aesthetic value of the building is left intact. Different theories in

support of employing adaptive reuse and the factors that must be taken into consideration

when choosing whether it is viable for a particular building or not, will be examined.

Physical condition of the building, environmental impact, economic viability, functional

aspect, technological advancements, social connotations, legal issues, and political

implications, which help to determine the obsolescence of a structure, will be examined.

3.2 A Building

In the article written by Dr. Langston, 'The Sustainability Implications of Building Adaptive

Reuse", obsolescence of a building is explained in depth. Buildings are constructed with a

certain function in mind, which is the result of demand from the people, or the situation,

prevailing in that period. They are considered assets, and significant amounts of capital,

energy, and time, are invested in their construction, in order to ensure that they carry out

the purpose for which they were built. In order for a building to carry out its function in a

sustained manner, through the years, it has to undergo periodic maintenance of its physical
structure, and one must ensure that it is kept up to date with the technological advances,

and utilities or services, of the time. Eventually, either due to fulfillment of the objective for

which the building was originally built, or due to the eventual stoppage of proper

maintenance, the building will start to decay, structurally, and will he have deemed as

redundant, or obsolete. Decay is not the only factor that leads to this kind of obsolescence.

A building located in a sparsely populated area is far more likely to fall to disuse than one

located in the city. When a building is declared obsolete, that is the point at which the

demand for new constructions or restoration arises. Some buildings are better candidates

for restoration, however, and it is economically prudent to attempt restoration for those

buildings that show better potential for such conversion. A good measure of this is the

Adaptive Reuse Potential of the building, which uses the building's estimated physical life,

along with the building's Obsolescence ratings, (Langston 2010)

3.3 'Obsolescence' and the 'Adaptive Reuse Potential'

of a built environment

Obsolescence, as applied to buildings, is divided into seven independent factors, for each, a

value of 0% to 20% is assigned, by estimation of the extent to which the building is

considered obsolete in that regard. These factors are

Physical, which is estimated by checking the maintenance policy, and adherence to policy,

for the building, it is safe to say that improper maintenance has a negative impact on
building longevity. Economic, a good measure of which, is the proximity of the building to a

major city, central business district, primary market, or other major economic zone Buildings

that are far from such economic hotspots tend to fall into disuse faster than their

counterparts within the hotspots.

Functional, the extent to which a building is receptive to changes in its design. Buildings

that are planned, and constructed, with modification and extension in mind are far more

suitable for conservation activities than those that were not.

Technological, the extent to which a building relies on natural sources of heat, wind, and

light. Buildings that are designed to admit large amounts of natural light, and rely less on

central heating or ventilation tend to be more suited to conservation.

Social, which is measured by the relationship the building enjoys with the marketplace.

Any building that is central to the functioning of the market will have a far greater push

for conservation that one that is not as important.

Legal, the degree to which the building complies with building norms, and the quality of

design, for obvious reasons, a building that adhered to all the building laws of that period,

and was built with quality in mind would fare much better than a building that was shoddily

built

Political, the level of public or community interest. Any building that is seen by the

community as important will have a strong push towards being conserved. In this category,

a building may be given a factor of -20%, in case there is significant interest.

Dividing the physical life of the building, with the sum of the obsolescence factors, to the

power of the physical life, we may obtain an expression for the useful life of the building.
This, in turn, allows us to determine the Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) of the building.

(Langston 2010)

With these definitions of the term’s "heritage" and "adaptive reuse", along with the

concept of obsolescence, they may be applied in cases of the Melbourne General Post

Office, and the Utah State Historical Society, among others.

1. REFERENCES
http://www.atlaswh.eu/files/publications/20_1.pdf

https://view.officeapps.live.com/

https://services.anu.edu.au/

https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/?action=list&category=management_plans

https://www.icomos.org/centre_documentation/bib/Management_plans_bibliography.
pdf