World Heritage cities management

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235260337 World Heritage cities management Article in Facilities · May 2011 DOI: 10.1108/02632771111130898 CITATIONS READS 11 484 2 authors, including: Ana Pereira Roders Technische Universiteit Eindhoven 67 PUBLICATIONS 151 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: [Book] HUL: 1 recommendation, 5 years, 25 cities, 100 lessons View project Managing Historic Urban Landscapes: Portuguese Municipal Master Plans View project All content following this page was uploaded by Ana Pereira Roders on 22 November 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm F 29,7/8 GUEST EDITORIAL World Heritage cities management 276 Ana Pereira Roders Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, and Ron van Oers UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, France Abstract Purpose – This article aims to introduce the special issue of the journal Facilities on “World Heritage cities management”, together with the respective articles. Design/methodology/approach – This introduction addresses the topic of world Heritage cities management and its relevance to science and society. In so doing, it indirectly points to the emerging field of cultural heritage management within facilities management. Findings – Even though the management of cultural heritage assets is nothing new for facilities managers, cultural heritage management as a field of research can be considered at a younger stage of development than other related studies, such as the discipline of architectural conservation, which originated in the nineteenth century with the advent of modernity. The application of management practices to immovable cultural heritage assets emerged as recently as the 1990s. At a time in which the role of culture and heritage in processes of sustainable development is gaining more ground, this special issue can be seen as the first of more contributions to come, which aim to enhance the conservation and management of cultural heritage assets for the benefit of present and future generations. Originality/value – This paper aims to make a contribution to the growing field of cultural heritage management and is of use to facilities managers, scholars and consultants who have responsibilities but limited knowledge in this field. Keywords Heritage, Sustainable development, Urban areas, Culture Paper type Research paper Facilities Vol. 29 No. 7/8, 2011 pp. 276-285 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-2772 DOI 10.1108/02632771111130898 Introduction Internationally acknowledged for its broad and multidisciplinary view on facilities management, the journal Facilities was a pioneer in recognizing the need to pay particular attention to the management of facilities that are legally designated as cultural heritage. This special designation is attributed to facilities whose cultural significance has led governments to distinguish them from other facilities, in order to arrange for and manage their protection. Some facilities may be considered of outstanding value at the local level, others at national level. However, only 911 sites (704 cultural, 180 natural and 27 mixed) have so far been designated by the international community as properties of outstanding universal value (hereinafter OUV), appearing on the UNESCO World Heritage listing. Whether local, national or international, governments share the responsibility for the protection of these facilities for present and future generations. Thus, it seems only fitting that due attention is paid to their proper management. Where in former times this task was centered on the conservation of these facilities, primarily as individual buildings or structures, nowadays it entails complex processes of management to deal with change of uses, changes in the surroundings, a widening circle of stakeholders and competing demands as regards environmental, economic, social and cultural requirements. As such, management practices have been progressing towards a more holistic approach, where the cultural significance (i.e. range of values attributed to these facilities, from existence to use values and from socio-economic to environmental and cultural values) is taken into account, whenever changes need to be applied to these or other surrounding facilities (Pereira Roders, 2007). As key resource, cultural heritage has become a driver for development, which when properly managed can enhance the livability of their surrounding areas and sustain productivity in a changing global environment. However, governments need to have clear strategies and effective methods for planning, designing, executing and managing these facilities in order to optimize their production and consumption potential, while preserving and where possible enhancing their cultural significance. Unfortunately, there is still a gap between the practice and theory of cultural heritage management. In practice there is a significant delay in shifting to a more holistic approach, where planning and management is concerned, most certainly by local governments. In theory, there is a lack of research to identify and design innovative approaches, and to document and disseminate best practices for the management cultural heritage facilities – whether in various parts of the world, or within the same geo-cultural regions. Dr Ana Pereira Roders and Dr Ron van Oers have dedicated this issue to the management of very particular facilities, namely World Heritage cities. As this is a rather complex notion, further elaboration on this notion follows below. The main aim was to offer a broader range of authors – next to scholars also facilities managers, other professionals, researchers and students – the opportunity to submit articles on their experiences embracing the challenging field of cultural heritage management. The objective has been to provide the international scientific community and the stakeholders concerned with a few examples of management practices being implemented in these facilities presented from different angles. Authors from all regions and nationalities were invited to present a particular World Heritage city as case study and address, where possible: . the relationship between its international, national and local designation; . the progress or obstacles when comparing management approaches pre- and post-designation; . the variety of stakeholders involved in the property’s management (e.g. governmental institutions, NGOs, owners’ associations, citizen advocacy groups, etc); . the management tools employed (e.g. specific legislation, master plans, impact assessments, software programmes, others) to identify, monitor and evaluate changes, in the physical environment as well as the social perception, i.e. the assigned values with their indicators, priorities and weights; and . the sustainability of current management practices and ways to improve them. The submission of articles to the special issue came from all corners of the world and although many merited attention and publication, it apparently proved a challenge for World Heritage cities management 277 F 29,7/8 278 the authors to address all the above-mentioned considerations in a comprehensive manner. It was evidence to the guest editors that the practice and theory of cultural heritage management still shows a significant gap – all the more reason to justify this special edition. Preference has been given to those articles, which gave ample information and insights on the impact of the management practices being implemented in the chosen World Heritage cities, instead of theoretical reflections, research propositions or academic surveys. In other words, the onus was put on the view from the playing field of the practitioner more than the scholar, also because the experiences of this key stakeholder group are not often presented in academic journals; at least not as much as those of scholars. While obviously this has repercussions as regards the scientific content and value of the individual papers, the editors hope that this view will initiate further scholarly reflections and fine-tune academic research – at least it will do so with regard to the guest editors’ own research into the subject (Pereira Roders and Van Oers, 2009). World Heritage cities Under the World Heritage Convention’s article 1 three types of immovable cultural heritage are distinguished, being monuments, groups of buildings, and sites (UNESCO, 2008). While recently debates have flared up over the inappropriateness of this classification when considering the nature and value of historic cities (Van Oers, 2006), for the time being the Operational Guidelines to the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, in paragraph 14 of Annex 3, recognize three categories of “historic towns and town centers”. Those are respectively: (1) towns no longer inhabited, meaning urban archaeological sites such as Palmyra in Syria, Angkor in Cambodia, or Tikal in Guatemala; (2) inhabited historic towns, such as Djenne in Mali, Macau in China, or Baku in Azerbaijan; and (3) new towns of the twentieth century, such as Brasilia in Brazil, Le Havre in France, or Tel Aviv in Israel. The reason for this rather odd distinction of typologies in the Convention’s Operational Guidelines is historical, as it was included right after inscription of Brasilia (Brazil) on the World Heritage List, in 1987, as part of discussions in the framework of the management of this new type of property, the first of its kind related to the modern era. As such there is no officially recognized category of “World Heritage cities” under the World Heritage Convention, and neither UNESCO, nor the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), nor the Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC) has put forward any comprehensive definition. When taking a closer look at the inscribed properties commonly labeled as World Heritage cities, we find that some are actually historic towns or even villages; that urban archeological sites are seldom considered; that there are World Heritage properties which include various urban settlements or parts of them; that there are World Heritage properties which include a network of assets within several urban settlements; and that there are urban settlements which include one or more World Heritage properties. It turns out that the notion World Heritage city is much broader in nature and harbors a plethora of typologies, from cultural landscapes with cities in them, to cities and large urbanized territories, to monumental ensembles within cities, to towns and clusters of towns, and eventually to secluded villages in a rural landscape (UNESCO, 2010). In a recent research project, the definition of “World Heritage city” was detached from the notion of one single World Heritage property of urban nature, but related to the urban settlement where one or more World Heritage properties would be located. Meaning that, for example, town centers would no longer be considered as World Heritage cities. Instead, the whole town would be considered a World Heritage city, because it involved a town centre inscribed on the World Heritage List (Pereira Roders, 2010). When looking from this angle, the number of World Heritage cities reaches the amazing number of 832 urban settlements. This high number is mainly due to three factors. First, all urban settlements are considered, such as towns and villages, and not just cities. Second, there are several serial nominations, which include buildings, groups of buildings and/or sites located in various urban settlements. Third, a large sum of the World Heritage properties, numbering 890 in total (as per May 2010 at the time of the survey), was found currently located in or nearby urban settlements. More than the definition in itself, this research outcome has important implications with regards to the management of these World Heritage properties, as generally they may be more vulnerable to the pressures of urbanization and urban development than other World Heritage properties. Depending on the viewpoint taken, whether it is for marketing and tourism purposes, for site management and monitoring purposes, or for urban planning and development purposes, to name a few, the definition of what is considered to be a World Heritage city will differ, which in turn can influence the choice of management strategies and consequently the work of their facilities managers. As the reader will notice, a few of the papers presented in this issue vividly illustrate this. World Heritage cities and their outstanding universal value Only properties that are considered to be of outstanding universal value can be inscribed on the World Heritage List, the decision of which is taken by the intergovernmental World Heritage Committee (not UNESCO), an independent body of 21 elected officials representing countries that have ratified the World Heritage Convention (i.e. the States Parties). Outstanding universal value, or OUV, characterizing cultural heritage should be interpreted as an outstanding response to issues of universal nature common to or addressed by all human cultures (UNESCO, 1998). In response to the many challenges that local authorities and facilities managers face in the protection and management of World Heritage cities, the World Heritage Committee is requesting States Parties to prepare a statement of outstanding universal value as part of the nomination requirements, which should identify precisely what is considered to be of value, including the attributes that carry these values. The reasoning is that it will facilitate the assessments of impacts on the designated property and the decision making process as to what course to take. Upon adoption by the Committee and inscription of the site on the World Heritage List, sustaining, and where possible enhancing, OUV will become the overriding objective for the property’s conservation and management. As such, getting on the World Heritage List constitutes only the first, and arguably easiest, phase as maintaining the values for which the World Heritage cities management 279 F 29,7/8 280 property was inscribed, in particular its OUV, requires a continuous effort that in principle never ceases. A statement of outstanding universal value (SOUV) “encapsulates why the property is considered to be of OUV, how it satisfies the relevant criteria, the conditions of integrity and (for cultural properties) authenticity, and how it meets the requirements for protection and management in order to sustain OUV in the long-term” (UNESCO, 2010). The SOUV is arrived at through: . an identification of the meanings of the site (taking into account conflicting perceptions also), establishing the site’s integrity (social-functional, historical-structural, visual-aesthetic) and authenticity (artistic, historical, socio-cultural); . the preparation of a thematic study for the identification of comparable sites in relevant cultural regions; . the preparation of a comparative study for the identification of the relative value based on comparison with similar sites; . a description of the category of property (monument, group of buildings, site; single or serial) and its significance (the principal theme/story of the nominated property); and last but not least . a selection of one or more of the ten World Heritage criteria. World Heritage cities and their management challenges World Heritage cities vary in nature as in their conditions. Some are in a good state of conservation, such as Cusco in Peru, Safranbolu in Turkey or Cracow in Poland; others are threatened by processes of urbanization and urban development, with alteration or disfigurement of their urban fabric or environmental setting, such as Damascus in Syria, Riga in Latvia, or Timbuktu in Mali. Again others are suffering from decay and neglect and require major conservation interventions, such as Zabid in Yemen, Coro and La Vela in Venezuela, or Ilha de Mocambique in Mozambique. The 1972 World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972) has been a major driver behind the development of effective practices of urban heritage conservation and management. With the growing amount of World Heritage properties located in or nearby urban settlements the World Heritage Committee has invested a considerable amount of time and effort over the past few years in identifying the challenges to the conservation of urban heritage and to develop appropriate policy orientations, management strategies and associated tools. In the last decade particular concerns were raised by the World Heritage Committee with regard to the damaging effects of high-rise buildings and modern architectural design solutions that are considered incompatible with the historic fabric and context of the World Heritage cities. Often intense and controversial debates surrounded the cases of Vienna in Austria, St Petersburg in the Russian Federation, London and Liverpool in the UK, Macau in China and George Town in Penang, Malaysia, to name but a few, while the insertion of a new infrastructure element that was in conflict with the property’s OUV resulted in the delisting of Dresden and the Elbe Valley in Germany in 2009 – the second site being delisted, but the first involving a World Heritage city, in the nearly 40 year history of the World Heritage Convention. The first was the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, a natural site in Oman, which was delisted in 2007 due to a 90 percent reduction in the area under protection to facilitate oil prospecting and drilling. Next to the management challenges posed by urban development and contemporary architecture, over the last three decades and in tandem with the explosive growth of tourism, World Heritage cities have become the icons of visitor destinations. As the tourism industry expands, often the social and physical fabric of these cities becomes subject to enormous market pressures, leading to physical alterations or distortions, with incompatible building forms and styles, improper infrastructures, and an exclusion of the weaker and unorganized parts of the local population. Examples of the disruptive impact of mass tourism are cities like Venice in Italy, Marrakesh in Morocco, and Lijiang in China. By that same token, tourism can be a major economic resource enabling local authorities to contribute to the city’s conservation and management, as can be seen in places such as Dubrovnik in Croatia, Quebec in Canada, or Paris in France. The issue of a balanced and harmonious integration of tourism development and traditional life remains a major challenge in World Heritage cities management. World Heritage cities and their management practices To preserve World Heritage properties and their OUV, the establishment of an effective management system is required under the World Heritage Convention, as set out in articles 108 to 118 of the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2008). Common elements of an effective management system should include, but are not limited to, a thorough understanding of the property by all stakeholders; a cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback; the involvement of partners and stakeholders; the allocation of necessary resources; capacity building; and an accountable, transparent description of how the management system functions, put down in a commonly agreed management plan. A management plan is intended to guide the day-to-day decision-making process with regards to management of the World Heritage property, while a conservation plan sets out the planning and design of the interventions needed for the conservation of the individual monuments and the historic fabric of the city. However, as Gustavo Araoz has remarked, management plans are not expected to propose processes for meeting the socio-economic needs of community development, only for conservation. The social and economic conditions of the population in and around World Heritage sites are not a prioritary element in the content of nomination dossiers, nor in the monitoring process that follows inscription (Araoz, 2008). This is an important lacuna that needs to be addressed in the near future. Further requirements include that a core zone be identified, with clear guidelines for its conservation and development, and that a buffer zone be established around the core zone in order to prevent improper development in the vicinity, which may adversely have impact on the site’s integrity. The management and conservation principles for World Heritage cities are embodied in the main documents pertaining to cultural heritage conservation, such as the ICOMOS (1964) Venice Charter, the UNESCO (1976) Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (Nairobi Recommendation), the ICOMOS (1987) Charter on the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter) and the 1998 ICCROM revised Management Guidelines for World Heritage cities management 281 F 29,7/8 282 World Cultural Heritage Sites. While these documents have provided general guidance and established best practices over the last decades, World Heritage cities are increasingly threatened by urbanization processes, demolition and renewal programmes, modern constructions that do not respect the traditional fabric, and tall building policies that affect the integrity of the historic urban landscape. In the past decade, the World Heritage Committee has discussed several critical cases, some of which were pointed out above, and it has recently requested the development of new tools to better cope with these challenges (UNESCO, 2009). Following the series of debates on the conservation of the historic urban landscape that were held at the World Heritage Committee since its 29th session, in Durban in July 2005, and at the General Assembly of States Parties at its 15th session, at UNESCO in October 2005, which recommended that the General Conference should adopt a new Recommendation to complement and update the existing ones of the conservation of Historic Urban Landscape, UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre initiated a process aimed at updating the 1976 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas. This process, taking up six years already, is nearing its completion with the aim of providing the General Conference of UNESCO with a Final Draft text for a new UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (provisional title) for adoption at its 35th session in October 2011. The Historic Urban Landscape is the urban area understood as a historic layering of cultural and natural values, extending beyond the notion of “historic centre” or “ensemble” to include the broader urban context and its geographical setting. This wider context includes the site’s topography, geomorphology and natural features; its built environment, both historic and contemporary; its infrastructures above and below ground; its open spaces and gardens; its land use patterns and spatial organization; its visual relationships; and all other elements of the urban structure. It also includes social and cultural practices and values, economic processes, and the intangible dimensions of heritage as related to diversity and identity. The historic urban landscape approach, specifically developed for dynamic, living historic cities but basically applicable to all cultural properties, aims at preserving the quality of the human environment and enhancing the productivity of urban spaces. It integrates the goals of urban heritage conservation with the goals of social and economic development. It is rooted in a balanced and sustainable relationship between the built and natural environment. This approach further considers cultural creativity as a key asset for human, social and economic development and provides tools to manage physical and social transformation and to promote harmonious integration of contemporary interventions. When historic cities are viewed as socio-economic assets, all countries of the world are richly endowed with resources. The case studies The articles included in this special issue have been selected due to their relevance and varied methodological approaches when surveying the management practices being implemented in World Heritage cities and in what way or with what means these practices and impact can be understood and dealt with. These five case studies are located in three distinct geo-cultural regions of world as recognized by UNESCO: (1) Asia and the Pacific: China; (2) Europe and North America: Salamanca in Spain, and Regensburg in Germany; and (3) Latin America and the Caribbean: Havana in Cuba, and Ouro Preto in Brazil. The articles on Regensburg (Germany) and Havana (Cuba) have been written by facilities managers, working in the field and dealing with the implementation of management practices on a daily basis. The article on China’s World Heritage was written by scholars with a wide ranging experience in the field, applying theoretical concepts to the practice of cultural heritage conservation. Instead, students have written the articles on Salamanca (Spain) and Ouro Preto (Brazil). Assisted by their professors, they choose to contribute with the results of their MSc theses to the field of World Heritage cities management. The article on Regensburg (Germany) outlines the strategies, policies and network of stakeholders used in the integral World Heritage management system specifically set up by the local and national governments to handle all World Heritage-related issues concerning the property “Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof” (2006), Germany. According to the authors, such management system has proven to work very successfully, managing to raise public awareness, optimizing resources (time, manpower, etc), as well as facilitating agreements. However, they have signaled a need of support tools to cope with the multidisciplinary nature and complexity of World Heritage management, as well as the creation of networks where facilities managers could learn from each other’s experiences. Instead, the article on Havana (Cuba) provides a more historic overview on the management strategies implemented at the World Heritage property “Old Havana and its fortifications” (1982) while focusing at the Plaza Vieja. As in the article of Regensburg, the author also demonstrates the benefits of an independent management institution to plan, develop, manage and monitor the World Heritage-designated historic core of the city. In fact, the author reinforces the importance of a long term management strategy and the contribution of debate and public participation to the success of an intervention. Last, it also evidences that the maintenance of residential facilities within the historic centre, despite tourism pressures, ensures the continuity of traditions and lifestyles and contributes to its protection. The article on the World Heritage sites in China does not focus specifically on one case study, or exclusively on World Heritage cities; but provides a brief overview of the results of an academic research undertaken with several case studies. It provides a more economical perspective on the impact of the inscription of sites in China on the World Heritage List. The authors emphasize the strong impact of the World Heritage status on the surveyed properties and alert for World Heritage cities such as Lijiang, Tulou and Pingyao which accordingly, require a broader heritage protection system. As in Regensburg and Havana, the participatory management approach is emphasized. Also, the authors verified that local governments, each on their own way, were struggling to conform to the international standard and to keep the local characteristics in everyday practice; for which they recommend specific training and effective communication. The article on Salamanca reports the state of conservation of the World Heritage property “Old City of Salamanca” (1988), mainly as reflected in the official documents World Heritage cities management 283 F 29,7/8 284 and respective decisions. It sustains with evidences that there are more properties being threatened by development than the ones on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Moreover, it exemplifies the dangers a World Heritage property can be exposed to, particularly to the negative impact of new developments, when there are already evidences that the policies and management practices are considered deficient before nomination and the property still gets inscribed on the World Heritage List. To prevent delays implementing UNESCO’s suggestions, as noticed in this case, the authors argue the implementation of a strict deadline for legal purposes, which noncompliance could result in delisting rather than the perpetual inclusion on the Danger List. Last, with a much more urban planning perspective, the article focuses on the morphological evolution of Ouro Preto – Brazil and the respective relation to the management strategies being implemented throughout the last centuries, before and after becoming the World Heritage property “Historic town of Ouro Preto” (1980). The authors also alerted for the fact that the current policies do promote the city’s growth, but neglect its impact on the urban and surrounding landscape of Ouro Preto. Furthermore, they sustain that the public policies are still much more single building-based and are contributing to an environmental damage and the loss of the city’s character. Conclusion World Heritage cities are among the most abundant and diverse manifestations of our common cultural heritage. When considering their sheer abundance, worldwide distribution and stunning diversity, their properties of outstanding universal value can be regarded as the apex of humankind’s built cultural expressions. World Heritage properties comprise a key resource for the enhancement of the livability of their urban areas and for sustaining productivity in a changing global environment. The case studies presented evidence the importance of having the World Heritage properties properly managed, their production and consumption potential, which in turn can provide many opportunities for social and economic development, both within the World Heritage city as also for their wider geographical setting. However, the case studies also made clear that there is still a gap between theory and practice of cultural heritage management in World Heritage cities. Not only do these practices differ considerably in various parts of the world, they also vary within the same geo-cultural regions. At a time in which the role of culture and heritage in processes of sustainable development is gaining more ground, this special issue can be regarded as the first of many fruitful contributions to enhance conservation and management of cultural heritage for the benefit of present and future generations. References Araoz, G. (2008), “World Heritage, public works, development cooperation and poverty reduction”, paper presented at the International Symposium World Heritage and Public Works, United Nations University in Tokyo, Tokyo, 29 August. ICOMOS (1964), Venice Charter, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, available at: www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html (accessed 3 February 2011). ICOMOS (1987), Charter on the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter), Paris, available at: www.international.icomos.org/charters/towns_e.htm (accessed 3 February 2011). Pereira Roders, A.R. (2010), “Revealing the World Heritage cities and their varied natures”, Heritage and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, Greenlines Institute for the Sustainable Development, Barcelos, pp. 245-53. Roders, A.R. (2007), Re-architecture: Lifespan Rehabilitation of Built Heritage, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven. UNESCO (1972), “Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage”, UNESCO, Paris, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext (accessed 2 February 2011). UNESCO (1976), “Recommendation concerning the safeguarding and contemporary role of historic areas (Nairobi Recommendation)”, UNESCO, available at: www.icomos.org/ unesco/areas76.html (accessed 3 February 2011). UNESCO (1998) in von Droste, B., Rossler, M. and Titchen, S. (Eds), Linking Nature and Culture, Report of the Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting in Amsterdam, UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO (2008), “Operational guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention”, UNESCO, Paris, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en. pdf (accessed 2 February 2011). UNESCO (2009), “Decision 33 COM 7.1 (9)”, Report of Decisions (adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 33nd Session), UNESCO, Paris, p. 10, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/ en/sessions/33COM (accessed 3 February 2011). UNESCO (2010), “Managing historic cities”, in van Oers, R. and Haraguchi, S. (Eds), World Heritage Papers, No. 27, UNESCO, Paris, September. Van Oers, R. (2006), “Preventing the goose with the golden eggs from catching bird flu – UNESCO’s efforts in safeguarding the historic urban landscape”, Cities between Integration and Disintegration: Opportunities and Challenges, ISoCaRP Review 02, Sitges. Further reading Feilden, B.M. and Jokilehto, J. (1998), Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, 2nd ed., ICCROM, Rome. Pereira Roders, A.R. (2009), “OUV, WH cities and sustainability: surveying the relationship between outstanding universal value (OUV) assessment practices and the sustainable development of World Heritage (WH) cities”, research program, Working Paper 5, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints View publication stats World Heritage cities management 285