Earlier, I wrote about how to best avoid crowds when visiting Angkor Wat in Cambodia. The millions of visitors who flock to the ancient Khmer capital city are a poignant reminder that a UNESCO World Heritage designation can be both a blessing and a curse.
UNESCO World Heritage Designation: Blessing Or Curse?
I’m sure I am not alone, but if I am in a region or country and wondering how to prioritize my time in terms of touristic activity, I will first check for UNESCO World Heritage sites. These sites were not set up with tourism in mind, but to preserve structure, art, or even ecosystems deemed historically significant and valuable.
The result, however, is crowds…and a lot of them. Sometimes the crowding is so bad and you really have to question whether it is worth the effort (i.e. The Trevi Fountain in Rome…no thank you).
Dig deeper and you also have, in many places like Old Town in Mombassa, Kenya, an unfunded mandate. UNESCO designates sites, but it does not have a body to maintain them or a police force to monitor them. That falls upon governments or charity. And the designation of a UNESCO site may bring with it strict limitations on the development and even maintenance of existing structures:
“We could be as good as Zanzibar, as good as Lamu for tourism,” said Peter Tolle, a local historian who guides tours in French, English and German. “Locals don’t want to talk about being a World Heritage site anymore and they feel shortchanged. Our houses are shabby, we have the money, but we cannot fix them.”
“We are trapped by their rules but there are no funds,” he continued, referring to UNESCO regulations around the changes that can and cannot be made at and near World Heritage sites.
In Egypt, the Pyramids of Giza are falling apart (I guess we all are over time) but people take pieces without consequence or climb up them without regard for their preservation.
Ask UNESCO sites if they’d give it up and I would suspect most say no…it brings in tourism which helps the economy. But it’s not purely a benefit…local economies overrun with tourists do not always result in a better life for locals or even preservation of these historic sites.
I’ll continue to visit UNESCO sites, but I also recognize that visiting a place like Machu Picchu with thousands of others puts the beauty of that site into a different context. With Pandora’s Box opened, however, there is no going back…and like everyone else, I’m not willing to let crowds deter me from visiting. The long-term result will only be more crowding.
Very good article.
The reality is that while Unesco ensures a level of preservation to the actual site the crowds become so out of control that the surrounding areas become devastated from the effects of over tourism. So, sure, the actual spot is fine (if not crowded – which it is) but the town or environment around the designation becomes a disaster. The money did not bring proper development outside the walls. Governments need to better control what kind of development is introduced to the entire region, not just the site. Otherwise a Galle or Ella it will become.
I have my own list of derek sites. They don’t all have Unesco designation. Example, fortress at Halden, Norway and German bunkers on Jersey.
I was in Valletta , Malta yesterday and the whole downtown is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Crazy scenic place but apparently it has a whole lot of empty buildings because such sites are almost impossible to modernize a building. A mixed blessing for sure.