04 2012 Paolini Et Al Petra Risk Management-Libre

A CASE STUDY OF THE PETRA WORLD HERITAGE SITE
RISK MANAGEMENT AT HERITAGE SITES
RISK MANAGEMENT AT HERITAGE SITES A CASE STUDY OF THE PETRA WORLD HERITAGE SITE
RISK MANAGEMENT AT HERITAGE SITES:

A CASE STUDY OF THE PETRA WORLD HERITAGE SITE
Authors from UNESCO Amman Oice

Anna Paolini
Azadeh Vafadari
Giorgia Cesaro
Authors from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Mario Santana Quintero
Koen Van Balen
Ona Vileikis
Consultant for the UNESCO Amman Oice
Leen Fakhoury
Published in 2012 by the United Nations Educational,

Scientiic and Cultural Organization
7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France
and
UNESCO Amman Oice
247, Queen Rania Al-Abdullah street
PO Box 2270 - Amman 11181 Jordan
Tel: +962 (6) 5340891
Fax: +962 (6) 5340896
Email: [email protected]
http://www.unesco.org/en/amman/
UNESCO and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Engineering, Raymond Lemaire International Centre
for Conservation, 2012
All rights reserved
ISBN 978-92-3-001073-7
The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of
UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.
Cover photo: Petra, Tomb no. 609 UNESCO
Copy editor: Curran Publishing Services Ltd
Arabic translation: Lingo Shack Translation Services, Amman
Cover design and printed by: Raidi Print, Amman
Printed in Jordan
Contents
Preface and acknowledgements
List of igures and tables
List of abbreviations
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
Risk management at heritage sites
10
10
12
13
What is risk?
What is risk management?
Approach and methodology
Understanding and assessing values
Condition assessment
16
16
16
18
19
20
2.5.1
Risk management context assessment
21
2.5.2
Risk identiication
26
2.5.3
Assessing the impact of the risk
28
2.5.4
Possible mitigation strategies
36
2.5.5
Risk evaluation
40
2.5.6
Implementation of the strategy
42
Risk management at the Petra World Heritage site - a case study
44
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Historic and geographic context

Institutional and management framework
Introducing the risk management approach for Petra
Mapping boundaries and outlining a bufer zone
44
45
48
49
3.4.1
Introduction
49
3.4.2
Petra Archaeological Park: boundaries and bufer zone, the
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Risk management methodology for heritage sites

A risk management methodology for Petra
The risk mapping project in Petra
5
7
9
general context
3.4.3
Management and local governance in relation to boundaries

and the bufer zone
3.4.4
52
The Petra Archaeological Park boundaries: results of the study
57
62
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.5
Bufer zoning scenarios focusing on Um Sayhun/Beidha area

Proposals for bufer zoning based on scenario c
Application of the risk assessment at Petra
74
3.5.1
Risk assessment application phases
74
3.5.2
Fieldwork workflow
76
3.5.3
Selection of the pilot area for the ieldwork
78
3.5.4
Risk identiication approaches in the pilot area
81
3.5.5
Documentation
82
3.5.6
Preliminary value assessment
83
3.5.7
Identiication of possible mitigation strategies
89
3.5.8
A heritage information platform and a geographic information

system for risk assessment
3.5.9
92
Overall ieldwork conclusion: lessons learned from the pilot

area assessment
67
71
93
Conclusion
96
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
96
97
97
97
Desired competences
Recommended assessment timeline
Monitoring and evalution
Information system platform
Assessing risk by detecting the rate of deterioration and its relation
with the stakeholders and nature of Petra
97
Appendix 1: MEGA-J site and code cards

Appendix 2 : MEGA-J monitoring code card with the agents of deterioration
Appendix 3: Petra Retrospective Inventory Report (2006)
Appendix 4: Example of completed MEGA-J monitoring card
99
110
116
118
Glossary of key terminology

References
About the authors
121
123
127
Arabic version of chapters 1 and 2 (Start from the opposite side of the book)
Preface and acknowledgements

This publication and development of a risk management methodology is the result of the Risk
Mapping Project in Petra, a project of the UNESCO Amman Oice in partnership with the
Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation (RLICC) at the Katholieke Universiteit
(KU) Leuven in Belgium and in cooperation with the Petra Development and Tourism Regional
Authority (PDTRA) and the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (DoA). This collaborative
project started in February 2011 for a period of ifteen months in response to the increasing
risks for loss of heritage values at the site and a need for their assessment and proposing
responses to reduce their impact.
Petra Archaeological Park (PAP), the most signiicant World Heritage site in Jordan, with its
unique landscape, monuments and natural gorges, is a fragile property. Further to its inherent
fragile characteristics, Petra is endangered by natural and human-made threats and impacts.
Lack of an implemented management plan coupled with no clear property boundaries and an
absence of bufer zones as recommended by the World Heritage Committee, and weak visitor
management strategies, result in major gaps in the management of the property and increasing risks to the site. Accordingly, risk assessment and research to better address the challenges
of the management of Petra World Heritage site have been identiied as the most appropriate
tools for mitigation of risks and protection of the values of the property. This publication
examines a systematic approach in order to identify threats, their causes, and understand and
assess their efects, and proposes ways to choose responses and mitigation strategies in order
to reduce the impact of threats.
The realization of this project and the publication of this book would not have been possible
without the generous support of the Annenberg Foundation. UNESCO wishes to express deep
appreciation for this support.
UNESCO Amman Oice would also like to acknowledge and thank the continuous support of
the PDTRA, Dr Emad Hijazeen, Commissioner of the PAP, Eng. Tahani Al Salhi, Director of the
Cultural Resource Management unit at the PAP. We would also like to thank the rest of the PAP
staf for their continuous coordination and for making this possible, as well as the DoA for
applying the risk management methodology in the pilot area of Petra during the second phase
of ieldwork. The outcomes of this pilot testing were crucial in the improvement of the study.
This publication presents a risk management methodology to be used as a systematic tool for
the better management of heritage sites. The methodology developed incorporates similar
approaches used by the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration
of Cultural Property (ICCROM), and the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI)-Institute for
Cultural Heritage of the Netherlands (ICN), which are embodied in the
Australian/New Zealand Standard for Risk Management. The authors wish to thank and
acknowledge the cooperation with ICCROM, CCI-ICN and their courses in preventive conservation and risk reduction. Also, we would like to thank Dr Robert Waller of the Canadian Museum
of Nature whose risk analysis model for cultural properties and museums has been an essential
reference for the development of the methodology.
For the Petra case study the authors have utilized a variety of research and scientiic
documents, including published and unpublished sources, master plans, scientiic articles,
legal documents and planning regulations for the areas surrounding the PAP, supported by
meetings and workshops. Furthermore, stakeholders, local authorities, national and international experts have been extensively involved in various meetings, workshops and ield
activities.
To assess categories of threats and disturbances afecting the monuments under analysis, the
Middle Eastern Geodatabase for Antiquities Jordan (MEGAJ) deined the categories that
have been used. The authors would like to thank the DoA, the Getty Conservation Institute,
and the World Monument Fund, for developing such a system and supporting its use.
Embarking on this work has also been a unique opportunity to contribute to the capacitybuilding of Jordanian experts in the ields of risk assessment, condition survey and preventive
conservation, as well as to contribute to the protection of the uniqueness of Petra. We wish
also to thank the local community in Petra for their support and hospitability.
During the ieldwork application and testing of the methodology, two workshops were organized. The hard work and important contribution of the RLICC class of 2011 students, and the
coordinative eforts of RLICC staf are gratefully acknowledged.
We are also grateful to The World Heritage Centre Publication Unit, which without, this publication would have not been possible. Finally, we would like to thank all those individuals and
institutions that in one way or another helped with the completion of this publication.
Figures and tables

Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Managing change at heritage sites

A risk management approach
Levels of detail for risk assessment
Risk assessment timeline example
Risks and agents of deterioration potentially afecting the integrity of
heritage sites
Threats and disturbances from MEGAJ linked to agents of deterioration
The ranges of frequency and severity of the types of risk 1, 2 and 3
Magnitude of risks
Table A - probability
Table B - degree of loss of signiicance and integrity
Table C - area afected
Table of magnitude
Risk mitigation strategy and methods of control applied at diferent
levels of control
Steps to prepare the reports
Map of Jordan
Governance time line in Petra
Flow chart of governmental sectors responsible for the management of
PAP
Plans and strategies for Petra
Map of Petra park, as produced for the Master Plan of 1968
Boundary map submitted with nomination dossier in 1985
Petra Archaeological Park (PAP) boundaries delineated in 1993
Petra National Park (PNP) boundaries and bufer zone as demarcated by
the Ministry of Agriculture
The zoning and buffer zone proposal in the UNESCO Management Plan 1994
The priority area and communities surrounding the PAP: proposed zoning
The PAP boundary polygon as mapped in 2011 and the existing PDTRA
boundary polygon
Representation of deined areas for boundary study
The urban development of Um Sayhun in relation to the PAP and Wadi
Musa town
Plot parcellation and type of ownership
Field work areas for May 2011 workshop (based on satellite image)
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
Figure 37
Risk management ieldwork wrap-up

The boundaries of the Temple of Winged Lions
Plan of the Turkmaniyya tomb
The boundaries of the Basin
Petras OUV and aspects related to the statement of signiicance and integrity
Pie chart of identiied threats for the Monastery trail
An example of the use of a probability and efect matrix at PAP
Attributes table and disturbances/threats layers for the Basin area
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Matrix of priority based on level of risk magnitude and level of uncertainty

Building regulations for lands outside the municipal and village regulation
Value assessment results for PAP boundary sectors
Overview of the component groups and their sub-components
Risk magnitude calculation and comparison table
Matrix of priority based on level of risk magnitude and level of uncertainty
A bbreviations
CA D
CCI
DoA
GCI
GIS
GNPSS
ICCROM
ICN
IUCN
JA DIS
MAB
M EGA -J
M oTA
OUV
PA P
PDTRA
PRA
PRC
PRPC
RLICC
USNPS
W HC
WMF
computer aided-design
Canadian Conservation Institute
Department of Antiquities of Jordan
Getty Conservation Institute
geographic information systems
global network positioning satellite systems
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of
Cultural Property
Institute for Cultural Heritage of the Netherlands
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System
UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme
Middle Eastern Geodatabase for Antiquities Jordan
Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities of Jordan
outstanding universal value
Petra Archaeological Park
Petra Development and Tourism Regional Authority
Petra Regional Authority
Petra Regional Council
Petra Regional Planning Council
Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation
United States National Parks Service
UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Committee
World Monuments Fund
1. Introduction
1.1
Risk management methodology for heritage sites
A large number of signiicant heritage sites around the world are fragile properties, and they
are faced with diferent challenges. Cultural heritage is always under pressure from a variety of
risks. Natural disasters, development, tourism, pollution, inappropriate site management,
looting and conflict are just some examples of the risks faced by these sites.
Risks to heritage sites are dependent on the nature, speciic characteristics, inherent vulnerability and geographical environment of the site. From another perspective they are dependent
on the nature of the external threats afecting the heritage itself.
The threats can be either natural or anthropogenic: that is, human-made. Natural risks can be
divided into two categories: catastrophic and sudden occurrences, such as a flood or an
earthquake, which have an immediate impact on heritage sites, and continuous threats with
cumulative and slow efects, such as erosion and material decay. Anthropogenic risks result
from a number of diferent human activities, including development in general and tourism in
particular, and inappropriate management, lack of maintenance and neglect. The sites vulnerability depends on the environmental, economic, social and political context. The vulnerability
of heritage sites increases when there are no maintenance approaches, there is inappropriate
excavation and/or restoration, the site is afected by uncontrolled development and urbanization, there is a loss of local and traditional knowledge, and there is a lack of management
systems for the site.
In order to reduce the risks, it is recommended to develop an institutional approach and deine
a strategy collaboratively with local authorities and staf. It is also recommended to plan appropriate training for diferent target groups for the methodology to be successful. It is suggested
that guidelines, guiding principles and standards are produced for risk assessment and
ultimately risk management. Risk management needs to be an integral part of conservation
practices and conservation and management plans. When (or if) the threats and causes of
deterioration are identiied, assessed and prioritized through a management planning process,
their efects can be minimized or mitigated. When such an approach is deined, institutionalized
and implemented, the values and integrity of sites can better be protected.
The aim of Risk Management at Heritage Sites: A Case Study of the Petra World Heritage Site is
to outline how to design a risk management methodology that will enable the systematic
identiication of disturbances and threats to a site, assessing their impact and the vulnerability
of the monuments and other features of the site. The heritage at risk could be prioritized based
on an assessment of its importance or signiicance, and the magnitude of risk. This would then
enable site managers and concerned authorities to plan more in-depth assessment for the
most signiicant monuments or areas at risk. This process provides a framework for deciding on
appropriate mitigation strategies, based on cost-beneit analysis.
10

The publication is intended primarily to support site managers and their teams, as well as
authorities and agencies responsible for the management of both Petra and other heritage
sites, to assess, monitor and reduce risks to their sites. Second, it can assist researchers,
stakeholders and other professionals in contributing to the preservation of sites.
Some of the threats could be reduced and mitigated through planning legislation, delineation
of property boundaries, outlining guidelines and regulations for land use, and deining a
bufer zone, and these aspects are explored through the Petra case study.
The publication also suggests how the risk management process could be integrated into the
overall management planning process. It is designed to help put in place a more systematic
approach to conservation and management planning.
The diferent steps presented and the emphasis on the need for planning, prevention and
monitoring are at the root of all heritage conservation and management planning approaches.
The risk management model presented here also involves a speciic method that will allow for
a more systematic path to the maintenance and preservation of sites. If the causes of risks are
identiied, their possible impact assessed, and responses are planned to minimize their impact,
risks can be managed - if not eliminated - and ultimately better results can be achieved.
Our extensive review of the existing literature has revealed that there is a vast number of
publications about the identiication of risk categories and the nature of risks at heritage sites.
Furthermore, many studies have been carried out on the management and prevention of
disasters. Some disasters are unavoidable and can lead to considerable destruction, but other
potential disasters, can be avoided with careful planning thus their impact can be mitigated.
The increasingly frequent and extreme natural events such as floods, mudslides and
earthquakes, plus ire and other threats, are a major source of harm to the integrity of our
heritage. The Heritage Resource Manual on Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage
(UNESCO WHC, 2010b) and Risk Preparedness: A Management Manual for World Heritage
(Stovel, 1998) are only two examples of disaster risk management studies with the aim of
raising awareness among site managers and local communities of the challenges faced by
heritage sites.
Although it is acknowledged that disaster risk management is a very important topic in managing risk at heritage sites, this publication intends to provide a systematic approach for heritage
managers to assess and eventually manage all diferent kinds of risk, not only disastrous ones.
The methodology proposed takes into consideration natural and anthropogenic risks that
operate on all timescales from the sudden and catastrophic to the slow and cumulative.
11
RISK MANAGEMENT AT HERITAGE SITES: A CASE STUDY OF THE PETRA WORLD HERITAGE SITE
The publication has been prepared by a group of cultural heritage experts and professionals,
and the approach to risk is a cultural heritage safety approach. While many aspects of this
proposal are focused on the safety of heritage, the aim has been where possible to take a
holistic approach and take into consideration risks to visitors and the landscape as part of the
process.
The book is structured in two main sections. The irst section is the theoretical part where the
risk methodology is described and its steps are outlined. The second section is a case study
presenting the application of the methodology at Petra World Heritage Park in Jordan.
Because of time and resource constraints the risk assessment part of the methodology could
be applied to only a selected pilot area of the Petra World Heritage site. However developing
this methodology, and partially testing it at the PAP, is intended as the irst tranche of a bigger
set of objectives: testing and applying the methodology at the level of PAP as a whole as well
as at other heritage sites, relying on the capabilities of diferent experts, and trying to reine the
methodology during the process.
It is recognized that the proposed approach applies a numerically based model, and that
training is required before it can be used successfully. The ieldwork of applying the methodology to Petra as will be explained at the case study section was preceded by lectures and
training sessions for the ieldwork team. These included both training in the proposed
ieldwork methodology and background lectures from relevant experts on Petra. However, it
should be acknowledged that two days of training is not really enough to enable a novice to
master this kind of methodology. Ideally a well-structured and more extended period of
training should be provided for the ieldwork teams, managers and their staf, to enable participants to grasp the theoretical approach and application, and in addition to have a better
overview of the complex risks and related assessments proposed in the methodology.
1.2
A risk management methodology for Petra
A World Heritage site since 1985 and the most visited archaeological site in Jordan, Petra is
currently threatened by risks of many diferent kinds and at a number of levels. Because both
natural and anthropogenic impacts are progressively threatening its integrity, and it is very
fragile, Petra appeared on four consecutive World Monuments Fund lists of the most endangered sites in the world (in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002).
As well as the increased level of external threats - both natural and anthropogenic - afecting
the property, there are two factors that increase Petras inherent vulnerability. First, the monuments are sculpted from sandstone, a relatively fragile rock that is subject to natural erosion
through water and wind action. And second, the development of tourism and an interest in
Jordans heritage has led to an increased number of visitors, touristic development and related
human activities on site, and this too leads to wear and deterioration. In recent
12

years, the number of visitors per month has considerably exceeded the advisory carrying
capacity of the site as deined in the 1994 UNESCO Management Plan. As well as the number
of visitors, there is insuicient regulation of their movements. Visitors uncontrolled access
compounds the risks to the monuments. There has not as yet been an adequate assessment of
the value of the individual monuments and archeological areas, and no appropriate mitigation
strategies have been developed.
The lack of technically mapped and visualized boundaries, and the absence of a clear strategy
for a deined bufer zone or zoning regulation of the property, represent further threats to the
site integrity. This is in large part because the site was entered in the World Heritage List at an
early stage of its development, when no clear requirements were set for the outline of property
boundaries and the deinition of a bufer zone. The Retrospective Inventory process is aimed at
identifying gaps and omissions in nomination iles of sites that were inscribed early on in the
World heritage List (UNESCO WHC, 2004), but as yet only scattered eforts have been made to
provide the property with boundaries, to date no delineation has been carried out for the
bufer zone, and no clear frameworks have been enforced for the right of use of lands by local
tribes and communities.
To address these issues, several agreements and strategies have been developed and
proposed for the management of the property. However, because of insuicient funding
and/or the lack of long-term planning and initiatives, none of the management and tourism
strategies drafted for the PAP have been adopted oicially and implemented in their totality.
Only limited measures have been put into efect. To deal properly with these phenomena, a
number of activities could be developed, such as the design of a baseline map for the property,
and setting up adequate management regulations that aim to improve site conservation,
manage tourism sustainably, and strengthen the involvement of the local community.
These issues of an unimplemented management plan, insuicient visitor management
strategies and a lack of a clear on-the-ground deinition of property boundaries, can be
identiied as major gaps in the management of the property, and they also result in increasing
risk to the site. A systematic and comprehensive method for the management and conservation of the property is needed. The irst steps to take towards the better preservation and
systematic conservation of the property as a whole, and protection of its values and integrities,
are to start from research in the ield of risk management and carry out the identiication,
mapping and monitoring of risks.
1.3
The risk mapping project in Petra
Given the diversity of problems faced by the PAP, it is appropriate and recommended to
develop and implement a common strategy in order to provide solutions at diferent levels.
Risk assessment and research in the ield of risk management in Petra have been identiied
13
as the most appropriate tools for mitigation of risks and protection of the values of the
property. At the same time, the risk assessment when integrated into the existing plan for the
management and conservation of the property, will take care of cross-referencing various
stand-alone plans for the property. The development of a risk management methodology is
considered a preliminary step to feed into an overall management plan for a property
(UNESCO WHC, 2011b). This approach was welcomed by the local authorities, recognizing the
gap in the management of the site and the urgent need to address it.
From this perspective, the UNESCO Oice in Amman carried out a project for the identiication
and assessment of risks at the PAP and partnered with the Raymond Lemaire International
Centre for Conservation (RLICC) at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven), Petra
Development and Tourism Regional Authority (PDTRA) and the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan (DoA) to carry out this project.
The project consists of diferent phases with three main objectives:
t technical ield mapping of the boundaries of the World Heritage site
t outline of guidelines and usage regulations for a proposed bufer zone
t deinition of risk criteria and risk categories and delineation of a proposal for a
risk management strategy.
A risk management methodology was proposed, to be used as a tool to contribute to the
conservation, management and preservation of heritage sites, and it was employed to outline
a risk management strategy for Petra. The publication of this book is an important result. It is
an indication of how this project has sought to achieve its goal of providing a framework in
which the risk, impact, vulnerability and rate of deterioration of the heritage site are consistently identiied and monitored.
As a irst stage, bibliographic research was carried out to identify the systematic approaches
that have been developed for the assessment and management of risks, and select a basis for
developing a risk management methodology. The draft methodology was reviewed by the
authorities responsible for the management of Petra and national and international experts in
the ield of heritage conservation during several meetings and round-table discussions.
Comments and remarks were added to the methodology, and ultimately the revised
document was endorsed by the PAP authority at a validation workshop. The validated methodology was then applied to the pilot area in Petra during two weeks of ieldwork in autumn 2011
in order to evaluate its efectiveness and relevance.
The risk assessment approach presented in this document is mainly based on two concepts
developed for assessing and reducing risks to collections and artefacts, the Cultural Property
Risk Analysis Model: Development and Application to Preventive Conservation at the
Canadian Museum of Nature by Waller (2003), and a similar approach proposed in the Risk
14

Management Australian/New Zealand Standard (2004) and adopted by the International

Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) and
and the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI)Institute for Cultural Heritage of the Netherlands (ICN), for their courses in preventive conservation and risk reduction to collections. These
approaches have been adapted and enhanced to be applied to Petra and possibly to other
similar heritage environments.
In terms of documentation methodology, the Middle Eastern Geodatabase for Antiquities Jordan (MEGA-Jordan), a hybrid geographic information system (GIS) and database, and
Jordans national inventory and management system, was used as a tool in the ieldwork in
order to provide geographic data (maps) and to map monuments under assessment with their
exact coordinates.1
More information on MEGAJ can be found at www.megajordan.org
15
2. Risk management at heritage sites

2.1
What is risk?
Risk is deined as the probability that a certain kind of damage will be realized (Ball and Watt,
2001). Risks are the result of natural or human-made threats. Natural risks include both the
catastrophic and sudden, such as a flood or an earthquake, and continuous, cumulative and
slow processes such as erosion. Anthropogenic risks are the result of diferent human activities,
which include development in general and tourism in particular, inappropriate management,
and the lack of maintenance and neglect. Risks to heritage sites are also dependent on the
speciic characteristics of each site and its inherent vulnerability.
2.2
What is risk management?
Risk management is the process of identifying, assessing and analysing expected and possible
damage - in this context, to heritage sites - and of developing mitigation strategies in order to
reduce the risk of damage. Decision-makers in many ields use this approach in order to reduce
losses. An alternative way of saying this is that risk management is the decision-making
process following a risk assessment (Ball and Watt, 2001). It is the process that involves managing losses and impacts (on the signiicance of a historic site) in order to minimize them and to
reach a balance between opportunities gained and lost. The adoption and application of the
risk management approach by the organizations and institutions involved in the management
of heritage sites will provide them with a well-organized tool to assist them in their conservation and management planning decisions.
Planning is the key element for decision-making in this process. As shown in Figure 1, the
protection and conservation of heritage sites for future generations involves making good
decisions as the result of careful planning (Demas, 2002). This process makes it possible to
prevent changes, or if this is not practicable slow the impact, if they might afect the signiicance and integrity of the monuments and therefore the experience of visitors at heritage
sites.
16
Figure 1 Managing change at heritage sites
A planning process makes it possible to sort through the multiple layers on which heritage is
evaluated and the variety of issues facing heritage sites, to set priorities, to explain and to
justify decisions, and inally to ensure that the results of decisions are sustainable. As was
stated by Demas (2002), in brief this process is an opportunity to bring together diferent
actors and stakeholders related to the heritage site to assess its signiicance and condition, and
establish management priorities to protect the site for future generations. It has increasingly
become clear that heritage gains meaning and will only survive if there is carrying capacity and
the means for stakeholders to take on this responsibility.
In order for managers and authorities to plan more in-depth assessment for highly signiicant
monuments or areas at risk, a risk assessment carried out in the context of the site could be a
tool for prioritizing monuments at risk. Based on these priorities, decisions could be made by
identifying appropriate mitigation strategies and evaluating their costs and beneits. Hence, a
risk management strategy could provide a decision-making tool for the reduction of possible
damage and the better conservation of the property. Such a strategy, when it becomes part of
the overall management and conservation plan for a heritage site, can also assist site managers in the efective use of their resources.
17
2.3
Approach and methodology
As mentioned before, this risk management proposal is based on two approaches for assessing
and reducing risks to collections and artefacts, Wallers Cultural Property Risk Analysis Model
(2003) and the Risk Management Australian / New Zealand Standard (Standards
Australia/Standards New Zealand,2004), as applied by CCIICN and ICCROM. These approaches
have been enhanced here so they can be applied to heritage sites in order to develop and
provide a systematic tool to identify, assess and manage risks. The risk management methodology is an integral part of the management plan, with the aims of improving site conservation
and tourism management, and strengthening the involvement of the local community.
In this proposal the systematic application of the risk management process (Figure 2) includes
six steps:
1) Deining the context and scope, including a documentation review as well as a
values, condition and management context assessment.
2) Identifying the risks.
3) Assessing the impact of each risk.
4) Identifying possible mitigation strategies.
5) Evaluating risks and mitigation strategies based on costbeneit analysis.
6) Implementation of the strategies (preventively or actively) to treat risks.
There are also two permanent components of the risk management process: monitoring, and
communication and consultation with the diferent stakeholders.
Looking at diferent management plans based on the Burra Charter, and in particular the
Demas Management Planning Chart (2002), we identiied two further elements of the
planning process which are also necessary in the risk management process: the assessment of
values, and a condition assessment of the site. These are sometimes underestimated, but they
are also necessary steps to be taken before starting the core part of risk assessment process.
These are basic elements that help to identify the condition of integrity of the heritage site.
Success in assessing and evaluating the risks will be based on the capacity to understand and
recognize both the values and the actual condition of the site, its site elements2 and features.
It should be noted that condition assessment is not necessarily a step to be taken before the
risk assessment, as it could be done at the same time as the risk assessment. This will be made
clearer in the Petra case study section.
For the deinition of sites and site elements in this publication please refer to the glossary on pages 120 and 121.
18
Figure 2 A risk management approach

UNESCO
2.4
Understanding and assessing values
Heritage, whether it is cultural, natural or a cultural landscape, is so regarded because of the value
that people - stakeholders or interest groups3 - give to an object, place or landscape. In order to ind
the best way to protect heritage, it is important to know what that value represents, and who the
stakeholders are who invest the heritage with this added value.
The assessment of heritage values has become an essential part of heritage preservation in
practice. A number of documents exemplify this: for example, the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994) highlighting the importance of cultural and social values and tangible and intangible heritage; the Declaration of Saint Antonio (1996) stressing the role of the social value of the
site, not just the material fabric, and the connection between cultural identity and authenticity; and the ICOMOS Burra Charter (1999) deining cultural signiicance and its importance in
managing and conserving heritage. Moreover, the values and participation of stakeholders are
placed at the centre of the planning and decision-making process, as proposed by Demas
(2002), Mason and Avrami (2000) and Sullivan (1997). Based on these planning and decisionmaking processes, after the collection of information, a necessary step in the assessment stage
is to understand and establish the values associated with the site. These values are the ones
that will need to be known and preserved by all
3
The terms stakeholders and interest groups have the same meaning here: an individual or a group of
people who have interests in the protection of a site (regardless of whether or not they own the site) and its
development, preservation and interpretation.
19
stakeholders including the site managers. A manager must know why a place is worth being
conserved. This is a necessary part of the decision-making process, since knowing what needs
to be conserved and preserved is necessary in order to decide how to allocate and prioritize
resources for further conservation works.
Diferent sources of information may be used for the value assessment of heritage sites. Each
aspect of our heritage has a diferent meaning and potential value depending on who is
looking at it. Knowing these diferent perspectives helps us to understand and interpret the
site better. Decisions about managing and presenting a site should not be taken based on the
interests of small groups. Instead, better results can be achieved when all interest groups for
example, local and national authorities, experts in archaeology and conservation, researchers,
the local community, the tourism industry cooperate with each other and agree on compromises that reflect their diverse interests and priorities. As De la Torre (2005) argues, involving
more stakeholders and trying to balance their diferent interests makes it possible to prevent
or minimize conflicts of interest and to better protect and interpret the site. The value assessment also needs to take a comparative approach, to assess the signiicance of a selected monument in the context of other monuments and the whole site, and also other sites in the region.
Values attributed to monuments, places and landscapes are at the core of conservation plans,
and accordingly of this risk management methodology. Risks involve threats to outcomes that
we value. Deining risk means specifying those valued outcomes clearly enough to make
choices about them (Fischhof and Kadvany, 2011). Consequently, a values-based study is the
preliminary step for the assessment of the risk impact, identiication of priorities, and application of mitigation strategies. The outcome of such a study, using internationally recognized
value assessment systems, could provide an indication of the required level of integrity to
preserve an important heritage property.

A values-centred study of heritage sites goes hand in hand with the condition assessment,
which is focused on assessing the physical state of conservation of the site, its elements and
features. As underlined by Demas, the outcome of a condition survey is an archive of valuable
graphic and written documentation representing baseline data about the site, which can be
used to make recommendations for its future use and treatment and to monitor change over
time (2002, p. 39). As she also suggests, the condition assessment consists of three basic
stages:
1) Collection of information and historical documentation.
2) Visual assessment and condition recording of the current physical condition.
3) Analysis and diagnosis of the condition.
20
Documentation and collection of existing information is the initial phase of the condition
assessment. Given old images of the site, the previous monitoring and condition record,
excavation reports and all other relevant archived documents, one can better understand and
identify any change over time. The second stage, recording the current condition, involves
elaborating an assessment of what exists, primarily based on a visible assessment of the actual
condition. At this stage the cause is not relevant but the efect is. Disturbances, as visible and
detectable negative efects, are what need to be recorded at this stage. Finally, the analysis and
diagnosis is related to the examination and analysis of the current condition to determine the
probable causes of the deterioration of the site what we call here the agents of deterioration.
This phase requires an interdisciplinary approach through analysis of the whole monument or
site, using the knowledge and experience of specialized experts in related ields such as
geology, hydrology, conservation and architecture.
As part of the risk assessment, the condition assessment helps to identify the existing
disturbances as present efects and provide information about the actual condition of
elements or sites. Moreover, it helps to identify the past agents which resulted in (caused) the
disturbances, while the risk assessment forecasts future threats and future possible negative
efects from potential agents (Taylor, 2005). Thus, future threats could not be identiied easily
without assessing the actual disturbance and condition of site and its elements. In other words,
the visible efect of risk can be viewed and assessed in terms of current condition. This makes
the condition assessment an integrated and important part of the risk assessment.
One further important point that needs to be kept in mind in the planning process of the
assessment is to determine the level of detail needed in the recording of the condition of a site
or an area under study. For large sites it might be feasible only to study selected areas or monuments that need more detailed assessment, and to extrapolate the results to other parts of the
site. This is relevant to the risk management of sites, as this approach seeks prioritization of
actions based on identiication of indicators. This approach was used to deine the pilot area
for the Petra case study, which is discussed in Chapter 3.
2.5.1 Risk management context assessment

Before carrying out any risk management assessment activity, the available documentation on
the heritage site, including the context and parameters, should be collected and assessed in
order to help identify external risks to the risk assessment project and set up the scope for the
rest of the risk management process. First, the organizational monitoring and maintenance
systems and approaches (if any) and their efectiveness should be identiied. All relevant
documentation should be identiied, including maps, plans, and published or unpublished
documents that can give the historical and legal background. At this stage any possible gaps
in knowledge about the site can be identiied as areas in need of further research.
21
In addition to the assessment of the condition and values of the site, there needs to be a
comprehensive study of the site management context to identify all relevant factors other
than physical condition of the heritage that might afect the future conservation and management of the site or jeopardize the sustainability of the approach. This involves the identiication and understanding of governance, social, economic and environmental issues (both
internal and external to the organization) such as:
t organizational policies and goals

t structure of the organization
t legal context of the site regarding boundaries, protected areas and land
uses, zoning systems and regulations, and policies regarding the bufer area
t inancial capabilities of the organization
t staf of the organization and their level of technical expertise
t identiication of stakeholders and local communities
t infrastructure and development plans.
These organizational points will help in understanding the needs of the risk project, and in
ensuring that the organizational system has the capacity to apply the proposed measures to
mitigate identiied risks. This will ensure the sustainability of the risk project from its beginning.
Risk management happens in the context of the goals and policies of the organization. The
decision on whether a mitigation strategy and treatment are needed or not depends not just
on the physical integrity of sites and elements, but on goals, inancial, technical, social,
political, environmental and other criteria.
The risk management context and identiication of the scope and extent of project activities,
extent of the area under study, level of detail of the risk assessment, time line of the project,
and the proile of the team carrying out the assessment and the roles and responsibilities of
diferent actors taking part in the risk management process are other points that need to be
established.

The scope and extent of the projects activities should be deined before the start of the risk
assessment. The risk management scope needs to be deined in terms of the extent of the area
and monuments and structures that will be included in the assessment, the level of detail, the
time period and the proile of people involved.
Extent of the area

The extent of the area to be assessed depends on the time available and the objectives of the
risk management project. If the objective is to do a very detailed risk management of selected
structures, then the extent of the area will be those selected structures. If the
22
objective is to carry out risk management for the whole site, and to use more a holistic
approach, then the extent will be the whole site. However, depending on the size and complexity of the site, the assessment might need to be less detailed. If the site covers a vast area,
sections of the site could be chosen to provide representative samples, which will make it
possible to identify imminent risks and provide suicient information to develop a risk management strategy for other areas of the site.
Level of detail
Diferent levels of detail have been provided in this proposal to stream the type of threats and
disturbances afecting heritage sites. These levels are depicted in Figure 3. Based on the
deinition provided by MEGAJ and the project partners, the following levels have been
deined:
t
Site: a spatially deined area and location of a signiicant event, that contains
physical remains of past occupation and human activity including human-built
and human-used features (houses, shelters, tombs, earthworks, mounds,
quarries, canals, roads, workshops and so on), artifacts and any other physical
remains whether standing, ruined or vanished that contribute to the historical
and cultural identity of a group of people.
t World Heritage property: as described in Articles 1, 2 of the World Heritage
Convention, a World Heritage property is inscribed on the World
Heritage List on the basis of its outstanding universal value (OUV), which
is fulilled when criteria (i) to (x) are met. A World Heritage property can
be cultural, and in this case include sites, groups of buildings and monuments; natural; or mixed (UNESCO WHC, 2010 c, p. 58).
Area: this level relates to assessment areas, which will be defined by the
project staff to carry out the risk assessment. This level could cover the
whole site, selected site element(s), landscape area(s) or both.
t Site elements: this level relates to a distinct component of an archaeological site
which has any evidence of human activity (MEGAJordan guideline) such as
monuments, standing structures, caves or natural features.
t
Site element feature: this level relates to features in each site element, such as walls,
carvings, entrance, floor or roof.
23
Figure 3 Levels of detail for risk assessment

UNESCO
Timeline
In order to determine accurate risks at the site, it is advised to carry out assessment periodically
at diferent times of the year (climatic and/or visitor seasons), taking into consideration the
weather conditions in diferent seasons and their impact on the site and site elements. The
number of visitors and their impacts also need to be assessed in high and low seasons.
Below igure shows this relationship, and the importance of continuous monitoring in risk
assessment of the property and its elements.
Figure 4 Risk assessment timeline example

UNESCO
24

In general the team carrying out the ieldwork should take an interdisciplinary approach.
Therefore it is important that professionals, both men and women, from diferent background
and ields be part of the team, such as archaeologists, historians, geologists, architects,
landscape archaeologists and/or architects, conservators, engineers and hydrologists. A site
manager or representative of the local authorities should also be part of the team. These
members need to be selected carefully, and they need to perform as a team at all stages in the
risk assessment process. Also if relevant, having a member of the local community in the team
will improve the assessment, as the locals have the best live memory of the past and history of
the site and the condition of its elements over the time.
At least jointly the members of the team should be able to cover the following knowledge and
it the mentioned criteria:
t general knowledge of heritage sites
t thorough understanding of the OUV of the World Heritage property, local
heritage site values and the statement of signiicance
t understanding of typologies and site elements (such as standing structures,
carved facades, landscape features)
t comprehensive knowledge of the risk methodology including the following:
- disturbances, threats and agents of deterioration
- condition assessment and its relation to the loss of integrity
- risk assessment and risk magnitude assessment
- preliminary mitigation strategies: methods of controls
t technical knowledge:
- inventory skills
- moderate knowledge of features of geographic information systems
(GIS) applications
- basic knowledge of surveying techniques, for example use of total
station and moderate understating of global network positioning
satellite systems (GNPSS) and their use
- digital photography, especially use of panoramic photography (360degree georeferenced photography)
- literate in standard (such as Microsoft Oice) software packages.
25

To identify risks two elements need to be identiied: what might happen in terms of potential
damage (the threat), and the probable cause (the agent(s) of deterioration). Risk categories, such
as natural impact, and the main types of threat, such as erosion and wind, when deined, make it
easier to identify threats on site and record them. For this publication, since the risk methodology
has been mainly developed, tested and implemented in Petra, from the beginning it was decided
to use the predeined categories of threats and disturbances developed and standardized by
MEGA-J for archaeological sites in Jordan. These categories were used for identifying and recording the condition of and risk to the sites and site elements, and to link geographic data to the
condition of monuments.
As deined by MEGAJ, disturbances are current detectable, negative efects on the site or site
element by natural forces or human activities and threats are detectable phenomena, whether
natural forces or human activities, that appear to predict a future disturbance to a site or
element. Threats and disturbances as classiied and deined in MEGAJ fall into six main categories: agricultural, development, human, natural, site management and other impacts, as
depicted in Figure 5. For more details on threats falling in each category please refer to Appendix 1.
These categories could be used as indicators relevant to each heritage site, or developed for
other heritage sites in other countries. They could be also complemented by the similar ones
listed in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(UNESCO WHC, 2011a), as factors threatening the OUV of a property: development pressures
(such as encroachment, adaptation, agriculture, mining); environmental pressures (such as
pollution, climate change, desertiication); natural disasters and risk preparedness (earthquakes,
floods, ires and so on); responsible visitation at World Heritage sites; and number of inhabitants
within the property and the bufer zone.
As shown in Figures 5 and 6, the disturbances and threats from MEGAJ, as detectable impacts,
are linked to ten agents of deteriorations used by Monuments Watch Flanders4 (based on
Waller, 1995) , in order to identify what caused those disturbances or threats. Agents of deterioration are therefore mechanisms and processes that separately or jointly cause damage or
threaten heritage. For example, once a threat, as a consequence of an agent, is identiied and
its probability and severity have been assessed, its magnitude of risk could be deined.
Recorded agents on the other hand, as the causes of threats, will help to identify methods of
mitigation and treatment, as will be explained in the following sections.
26
Figure 5 Risks and agents of deterioration potentially afecting the integrity of heritage sites
UNESCO
More information can be found at: http://www.monumentenwacht.be/.
27
Figure 6 Threats and disturbances from MEGA-J linked to agents of deterioration. For the MEGA-J threat
and disturbances code cards as well as the combined threats with the deterioration agents, please refer to
Appendix 2.
Source: based on MEGA-J ield cards
2.5.3 Assessing the impact of the risk

Risk assessment forecasts future threats from potential agents (Taylor, 2005). Once threats and
their agents are identiied, the risk impact and its level can be assessed based on the probability
of the identiied threat happening and the severity of its impact (Waller, 2003). The risk impact
increases when the frequency or strength of threat increases. Therefore, in order to be able to
assess the impact, the frequency of occurrence or probability of threats and the severity and
impact of their efects should be assessed.
The level of risk can be assessed based on both qualitative and quantitative approaches and
criteria. In this risk management methodology both qualitative and quantitative approaches
are presented. The qualitative approach uses words to describe the magnitude of severity
(efect of damage) and the probability (likelihood) of a damage occurring. The quantitative
28
approach uses numerical values for the risk criteria, and the magnitude is based on a scoring
system. The quality of the quantitative analysis depends on the accuracy of the numerical
values. Both methods are valid and could be used depending on the risk assessment projects
and their targeted objectives, and the amount of data, time and resources available, as not
everything can be grasped by numbers.
In the qualitative approach level of risks are identiied based on the severity of efect (mild,
severe, catastrophic) and frequency and probability of the damage happening (rare, sporadic,
continuous). Three main types of risks can be deined according to their severity of efect and
frequency:
t Type 1: catastrophic and rare

t Type 2: medium and sporadic
t Type 3: mild and constant.
Figure 7 shows the matrix of severity and frequency and these three types of risks. Using this
matrix, each agent and threat can be manifest in one or more of the three types of risks.
Figure 7 The ranges of frequency and severity of the types of risk 1, 2 and 3
Source: based on Waller (1995).
Usually Type 3, continuous risks, have a mild efect in the short term, but over long spans of time
they can have really serious consequences. An example of Type 3 risk is damage caused by weathering afecting rocks and thus also rock-built monuments. The continuation of this
29
efect over a long period of time will afect the structural strength of the monument. This
reduction in structural strength could become more serious and have immediate consequences
if there is a rare but dangerous event such as an earthquake or flash flood (a Type 1 risk).
The types of risk serve as indicators of the degree of impact and its frequency, which is needed
in order to prioritize actions required in a speciic site, element and/or area to mitigate and
reduce risks.
In the quantitative approach, the level and magnitude of risk can be calculated based on three
criteria:
A
B
C
probability or extent of damage happening

degree of loss of value and integrity as a result of the impact
fraction of the assessed area susceptible to the threat, and the extent of its
vulnerability.
One factor that plays a role in risk assessment with the ABC criteria is the inclusion of loss in value
in the equation. Risk assessment relates directly to values and loss in integrity. As mentioned
earlier, values of the site and OUVs of the properties should be taken into consideration in order
to assess the impact of risks to the values and integrity of the site as a whole. At the area and site
element level, it is recommended to carry out a value-centred assessment covering individual
elements under assessment. The signiicance of the whole site needs to be taken into account.
This way of assessing the relative value of the studied area will show the priority areas for mitigation decision-making and action later in the risk assessment process.
Based on the ICCROMCCIICN risk assessment course held in Sibiu, Romania (ICCROM-CCIICN, 2007), Figure 8 provides guidance on how to calculate and quantify the magnitude of
speciic risk and make the risk comparison easier.
A (probability) + B (loss in value) + C (fraction susceptible) = magnitude of risk
Each of these criteria (A, B and C) is evaluated based on a scoring system from 0.5 to 5, as
shown in Figures 8 to 11. Adding the scores for A, B and C gives a number representing the
magnitude of risk for the speciic threat. The advantage of this approach is that the scoring
system provides a base of comparison for diferent threats, and this makes the comparison of
impact and prioritization of threats easier. It provides a tool for comparing diferent risks.
However, this approach depends considerably on the accuracy of the scores given for A, B and
C based on the knowledge of the experts conducting the assessment and analysing the risks.
Because of its detailed and numerical approach, using a quantitative method to deine the
magnitude of risk calls for understanding and a clear deinition of the diferent factors, and
training in performing the calculations.
30
The calculated risk magnitude can be categorized into one of ive classes of priority: extremely
high, very high, high, medium/high and low.
Figure 8 Magnitude of risks

Source: based on ICCROMCCIICN (2007).
In order to establish the risk magnitude, this ABC framework provides the following indications.
Note that the framework has been adapted to assess areas and site elements at heritage sites by
quantifying the impact on loss of signiicance of site elements.
31
Figure 9 Table A probability

A. This criterion is the estimation of the probability that a speciic risk will happen. This
deinition is for drastic changes and threats. As an example, the answer to the question How
often is there a flood at the site? is an A value. For continuous changes on the other hand the
A value is the probability of the damage should the identiied threat occur. In this case the
question to be asked is How soon would damage occur? For example there could be vibration
from cars on the site on a daily basis, but a noticeable physical efect on the site elements will
not be found daily. The A value in this example is the estimation of the damage that could
occur, and the risk that this will take place, as the result of this daily physical force.
For the risk assessment ieldwork it was decided and agreed at one of the experts meetings
to adjust and compress the intervals for A to match them to the time range of management
plans, from six months to 100 years, for the purpose of application at Petra. It should be noted
that this adjustment to the intervals needs more time and study, and also needs to be further
analysed based on its application on the site and the results. It is therefore advisable that the
efective table be revised in consultation with diferent experts including mathematicians, and
the intervals be recalculated to reflect the typology of both drastic and continuous risks, as in
the Petra case.
32
Figure 10 Table B degree of loss of signiicance and integrity

B. In the process of risk assessment, an estimation of possible total loss of value as a result of
risk needs to be calculated. The B value represents the degree of loss of signiicance and
integrity of the studied area, whether it is the whole site or a site element. The degree of loss of
value is the direct efect of a risk on the overall signiicance of the site element or the site. This
loss might be evaluated based on the structural damage and loss of the aesthetic, historic and
scientiic value of the element, or based on the loss in economic, social or environmental
terms.
33
Figure 11 Table C area afected

C. The C value represents the fraction of the studied area afected by the severity of the
damage. For example, the number of site elements that might be damaged because of the
speciic risk is the C value. It should be noted that the same measurement unit should be
applied for diferent threats in the same risk assessment project. The measurement unit and
the way of calculating the afected area could be identiied and indicated by the assessment
team from the beginning of the process.
34
In terms of the magnitude, each of the priority levels can be deined as follows.
Figure 12 Table of magnitude

t
t
t
13 15. Extremely high priority: all or an extensive degree of signiicance (and

integrity) is likely to be lost in a few years or less. An example is sites, areas and site
element(s) exposed to high threats, for instance an area with exposed archaeology
and a high volume of visitors.
11 13 : Very high priority: in a decade or less than a decade, significance
damage to all site elements in the studied area, or total loss of a very significant
fraction of the area, is possible.
9 11 : High priority: relevant loss of signiicance in a small fraction of the area
is possible in a decade, or relevant loss of most of the areas signiicance is possible
in a century.
7 9 : Medium/high priority: moderate damage or likelihood of loss over many
decades. Or signiicant loss over most of the area in many millennia.
7 and below: Low priority: tiny or minuscule damage is likely to occur to a small
portion of the areas signiicance in centuries.
35
This assessment of magnitude should take into consideration the impact of these risks not only
to the site and site elements physical attributes, but also to visitors, researchers and stakeholders as well as the landscape of sites. However, the model and most of the forms used have been
designed to assess the magnitude of risks on physical aspects of the property, and assessing
the risk to people and nature might need to be tackled diferently and separately. For the Petra
case study one of the pilot areas was chosen because nature and landscape were under risk
there.

Risk mitigation strategies or responses can be reviewed once all risks have been identiied and
their magnitude has been assessed. When risks are high, and their signiicance is high as well,
inding a strategy for risk mitigation should be prioritized. As Figure13 shows, a risk mitigation
strategy involves identifying a method of control and the level of control at which it is to be
applied (Waller, 2003, p. 104). It provides a control matrix, which was originally designed for
collections and museums, and which has been adapted to the risk management methodology,
where site/property, area (covering monuments and landscape), site element (cultural or
natural), site element feature, policy and procedure are deined as the levels of control.
This model provides a tool for site managers to consider risk mitigation tactics and decide on the
method of control, whether preventive or active, at each relevant level of control.
Figure 13 Risk mitigation strategy and methods of control applied at diferent levels of control
UNESCO
36

Five methods of control have been deined: avoid, block, detect, respond and recover.
Avoid (eliminate)
The aim here is to avoid sources and attractants of the agent of deterioration.
Signs such as Do not climb on the archaeological remains are one procedure designed to
eliminate a threat without any intervention.
In most cases, eliminating the threat is the preferred method of control.
Block (establish a barrier)

The purpose here is to block all access and paths of the agent of deterioration (since
sometimes the method of avoiding the occurrence does not entirely prevent it).
Closing access to a deined area is a way of establishing a barrier. The risk to exposed archaeological remains can serve as an example of how each strategy could be applied to the same
problem. If the problem is caused by erosion of structures, this can be prevented by backilling
the exposed ruins. Alternatively, if the problem involves rain damage, the exposed ruins could
be protected by adding a waterproofed layer on top of each structure, or providing a shelter
with a roof. However, in this example, creating the new protective layer might afect the signiicance of the site element.
Detect
Here the aim is to detect threats before the event happens, so that immediate protective
action can be taken. One example is installing monitoring and early warning systems for floods
and earthquakes.
Respond (act on agent)

This method involves responding to the agent of deterioration after presuming or detecting its
presence. This is usually done when the other methods of control have failed to reduce the risk
suiciently.

The inal method is to recover from the agents efect on the site or site element by doing
actual conservation work on the site or site elements in order to maintain them.
An associated element is to reconsider what went wrong and plan improvements.
37
The avoid, block and detect control methods are methods of preventive conservation. The last
two stages, respond and recover, are methods of active conservation. In some cases, efective
control of the risk might require the combined use of diferent methods. Remedial conservation and restoration would be necessary only when the preventive stages have failed. In the
scope of risk assessment and identiication of mitigation strategies at heritage sites, the irst
three methods of control are relevant for the preparation of preventive maintenance
strategies. However the last two methods should be considered for an area and site elements
whose integrity has been substantially afected by disturbances and potential threats.
One thing that should be borne in mind before choosing a method of control and a mitigation
strategy is the importance of the long-term consequences of the choice of methods of control.
To return to the example of exposed archaeology, backilling the ruins is a method of acting on
the agent. It is worth noting that while this direct approach is often considered irst, depending on the source and extent of the problem, it could prove to be the worst choice when all
long-term costs and risks are considered. Backilling could increase the risks of ire and of local
flooding, particularly if maintenance and servicing requirements could not be met.
The selection of methods of control is directly related to the identiied agents of deterioration
that is, to the causes of the risk. The terms disturbances and threats relate to the damage
and risk of damage. However the cause (agents of deterioration) is what will lead to the identiication of the correct mitigation strategy.

Each of the ive methods of control deined above can and should be considered at each of the
levels of control: site, area, site element, site element feature, policy and procedure.
Site/property/area
Many risks to site elements can be signiicantly afected by the location and orientation of the
site.
Site element
Site elements can be substantially afected by agents of deterioration. The values-centred
assessment is also carried out at this level. This is probably the most important level for controlling risks from most agents of deterioration.
Site element feature

Agents of deterioration can afect each feature. This level is important for controlling that the
signiicance of a site element is not substantially afected.
38
Policy
The policy level of risk mitigation is especially important for reducing risks from custodial
neglect. For example, needless damage to site elements from inappropriate impact from
visitors can be controlled by establishing and enforcing a policy that deines the required
carrying capacity.
Procedure
Finally, proper and well-established procedures are essential to an efective overall risk
management strategy. In many cases such procedures will, by themselves, provide the most
cost-efective manner of reducing a risk.
Identifying a method for the mitigation strategy involves considering the range of options for
treating and mitigating risk, bearing in mind the timeframe of the strategy short, medium or
long term and assessment of the risk-mitigation options.
Selecting the most appropriate mitigation option involves balancing the implementation cost
of each strategy against the beneits derived from it. All possible methods of control should be
considered for mitigating each signiicant risk. One of the methods will be the most appropriate and provide the best costbeneit ratio for mitigation of the risk.
After selecting a mitigation strategy, an action plan should be drafted on how the selected
option will be implemented. Such a plan for each risk should include:
t summary of the methods of control option(s) and expected result(s)
t proposed preservation and/or conservation work
t required resources (in terms of staf, budget, research and documentation)
t timeframe of the work.
It should be noted that monitoring and reporting needs to be an integral part of the process.

A general reflection should be made about uncertainty, its meaning and its efect on the risk
management and decision-making process. When determining and assessing risks to heritage
sites, a very important factor in this assessment is to recognize and be upfront with the
existence of uncertainty during the process.
Uncertainty is related to the reliability of the information on risk and accuracy of the quantitative values assigned to criteria. This means the reliability of information on the probability of
the event (damage) happening, its impact on values, and the extent of damage and magnitude of risk. Thus, in order to make better mitigation decisions, it is necessary to include
information on the level of uncertainty in the assessment process and decision-making. The
39
recognition of uncertainty helps the decision-makers assess the limitations and accuracy of
the information available, make the wisest decision and prioritize allocation of resources for
the application of risk mitigation measures, or further documentation and research.
The more impact uncertainty has on the result of risk evaluation, the more important
additional research is to reduce the uncertainty. It might, for example, be very unwise to decide
on drastic measures based on highly unreliable information, resulting in a large impact on
heritage values. Many examples show that this happens, unfortunately. But similarly if for a
speciic threat, the estimated high risk is underestimated, the risk will be judged to be moderate and this will afect the risk management decision on not to take mitigation measures. And
as a result the high risk will continue. Therefore decision-makers need to know the level of
knowledge and degree of belief in the accuracy of the risk assessment results, as well as the
degree of certainty of each of the results, prior to studying the risks and deciding on any mitigation strategies. Recognition, explanation and recording of the level of (un)certainty and its
efect on the process of risk assessment is fundamental in the risk management approach.
Levels of uncertainty also apply to estimating the impact of possible solutions and methods of
control.
There are diferent ways of trying to reduce uncertainty. Further information and a higher level
of knowledge may reduce the uncertainty. However, as will be seen in the risk evaluation
section, the amount of efort, time and resources needed to reduce uncertainty should be
balanced with the added value of the information to the risk assessment and decision-making
process.

The goal of risk evaluation is to evaluate and stream the outcome of risk assessment risk
identiication and estimation in order to manage risks and decide which risks need to be
treated (mitigated) and in what priority. The decision is intended to prevent (or slow) the
negative impact of deterioration. At this stage, criteria identiied for making decisions about
the risk management process at the risk management context assessment step need to be
revisited in order to make sure the decisions taken at this stage are aligned with the deined
internal and external institutional context.
Some important elements in the evaluation process are level of risk magnitude, costbeneit
analysis of the mitigation strategies, and criteria against which risk needs to be evaluated, such
as objectives of the organization, gain or loss of the local community, economic beneits (or
loss), and inancial, technical, social and other criteria.
40
! "#

As explained previously, the level of uncertainty plays a very important role in the accuracy of
the risk assessment. In order to prioritize risk management decisions, the site manager and/or
the decision-maker need to know the level of risk and degree of uncertainty. The degree of
certainty of each of the risk assessment results needs to be known by the decider. It is for this
reason that risk management decisions depend on the level of risk magnitude combined with
the level of the uncertainty. Using a table like the priority-setting table (Table 1) to assess the
magnitude of risk and the uncertainty is an efective way to record the level of uncertainty and
with that in mind, prioritize the decision. This table shows the dependency of the risk decision
on risk magnitude and uncertainty, combined with the feasibility and costs of reducing the risk
through mitigation or reducing the uncertainty. When uncertainty is low, as shown in Table 1,
the strategy is risk mitigation, and when uncertainty is high, further risk research and analysis
to reduce the uncertainty has been proposed as a strategy. Decision-makers at heritage sites
are responsible for taking the inal decision on what strategy to take. Table 1 will help them to
analyse and rationalize part of this decision-making process. However, in cases when both risk
magnitude and uncertainty are high, and the table suggests the highest priority for both
mitigation strategy and research, and when the costs for both are comparable, it is up to the
site manager and decision-maker to decide which approach to follow.
Table 1 Matrix of priority based on level of risk magnitude and level of uncertainty
41
$
%

The inal phase in the risk assessment, after identifying all risks, assessing their magnitude and
identifying the mitigation strategies, is evaluating options for risk mitigation and assessing the
costs and beneits associated with each strategy in order to be able to select the most appropriate options. The efect of each strategy on each and every agent of deterioration and threat
should be taken into consideration. Costbeneit analysis should also be associated with the
implementation and maintenance stages. The efect of the strategy on factors at risk other
than the heritage places and their signiicance, as well as risks to visitors, researchers, stakeholders and the landscape, should also be taken into consideration.
!"#
Implementation of the mitigation strategy to treat the risks is based on the results of the risk
assessment, and should be validated by a technical committee (as deined in the next point).
These actions could be preventive or active. Preventive methods of control are the most
cost-efective way to reduce risks in the long term. For example, at the policy and procedure
level a large number of risks could be blocked or avoided.
Decisions concerning the mitigation strategies (risk control and risk management decisions)
might be based on inancial, operational, legal, political, environmental, social or other criteria.
The reasons that these actions were taken should also be documented in a form of risk
treatment (mitigation) report. Diferent options for mitigating and treating risk should be
clearly identiied in this report. Each of the options needs to be assessed clearly, and moreover
the implementation of each mitigation strategy needs to be explained clearly.

It is crucial to monitor the diferent steps of the risk assessment, and review the risk magnitude
and the suitability of the mitigation strategies adopted to ensure that they are still valid. The
factors afecting the property as well as the actions taken are prone to change over time.
Therefore, the risk assessment cycle should be carried out on a regular basis.
Diferent controls or veriications are introduced to ensure the accuracy of the risk assessment
reports and information taken in the ield. First, a follow-up team (or oice team) should be
established to review and verify the work and report of the ieldwork team through consensus
meetings before drafting the report and proposing any mitigation strategies. All actions taken
during diferent stages of the risk assessment by the ieldwork team should be supported and
cleared by this follow-up team at diferent stages of the assessment. A second veriication
process is through the establishment of round tables and
42
meetings advisory meetings with experienced and interdisciplinary experts to provide

feedback and advice on the reports and results of the work. The inal method is the creation of
a technical committee, as part of a managerial committee, composed of experts from diferent
ields and representatives of local authorities and site managers, to review the inal reports,
and to make decisions and carry out prioritized mitigation strategies and treatments. This
process could also help to acknowledge best practices implemented at the heritage site, which
might later be repeated, or could enable learning from the less successful measures. Keeping a
record of all the actions taken could help later in improving management performance.
Figure 14 Steps to prepare the reports

UNESCO
43
3. Risk management at the Petra World Heritage site a case

study
3.1
Historic and geographic context
Petra was a caravan city, known as the capital of the Nabatean kingdom. Located in south-west
Jordan, at an important crossroads between Arabia, Egypt and Syria, and lying between the
Red Sea and the Dead Sea, the city acquired a dominant position early in its history.
Figure 15 Map of Jordan

UNESCO
The site has been inhabited since the Paleolithic period, and remains of Neolithic settlements
have been discovered from about the seventh millennium BC. The Edomites occupied the area
in the irst millennium BC, and from the third century BC Edom became a centre of the
Nabataean kingdom.
Because of its location on the axis of a network of ancient trade routes from the north to the
Silk Road and from the south to the Incense and Spice Road Petra soon acquired a very prominent position as a major caravan centre.
In the second century BC, the Nabataean kingdom increased in strength due to its major role in
trade. By the irst century BC the kingdom extended from Damascus in the north to the Red Sea
in the south. During the Hellenistic period, the Nabataeans were able to maintain their
independence and political autonomy, as their art, architecture and hydraulic technology can
testify. In 106 AD the Roman emperor Trajan annexed the Nabataean kingdom as part of a
major military campaign on Romes eastern frontiers.
44
$"% &'

#
Christianity reached Petra in the fourth century, when a Byzantine church and a Chapel were
built, and various tombs and temples at Petra were used as churches. At this time, Petra still
kept its importance as administrative centre of the Byzantine province of Palaestina Tertia.
However, changing trade routes to prioritize sea routes and redirect trade through the
northern lands led to a gradual decline in Petras importance, and after an earthquake in 551
AD the city declined even further. From archaeological research, it seems that there is no sign
of habitation of the city in the years following the arrival of Islam in the region, at least not until
the twelfth century when fortresses were built by the crusaders in the mountains of Petra in
order to defend their eastern border. Again after the crusades, Petra became a lost city, known
only to locals, and it was not until 1812 that Petra was rediscovered for the western world by a
Swiss traveller, Johann Ludwig Burckhardt.
Nowadays Petra is one of the most famous archaeological sites in the world, thanks to its
unique architecture, including structures half-built and half-carved into the rock, and its
setting among mountains riddled with passages and gorges.5 Its outstanding archaeological
heritage and the combination of monumental, natural, hydrological and landscape treasures
led to its inscription in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1985, according to the irst, third and
fourth criteria of OUV.

Since 2009 the Petra Development and Tourism Regional Authority (PDTRA) has been responsible for the management of the Petra region, which extends over an area of 755 sq km. The
PDTRA includes a speciic entity, the Petra Archaeological Park (PAP), primarily devoted to the
management of the World Heritage property. The management of the site is shared with the
DoA, deined by the Jordanian Law of Antiquities6 as a national (and governmental) sector,
whose jurisdiction encompasses archaeology, research, conservation, preservation and
management of all archaeological sites and antiquities in Jordan. The archaeological heritage
of Jordan, including Petra, has been protected under the irst Antiquities Law since 1924, soon
after the establishment of the DoA in 1923. Protection of the heritage continued under the
Emirate of Transjordan (192146) and later on with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Since
the Jordanian Law of Antiquities of 1988, the DoA has been the only body responsible for the
protection and conservation of the site (law no. 21, art. 5).
A protected area for the site of Petra was deined in 1993, with the issue of a justiication by-law
for the establishment of the park.7 In 2007, with a further by-law, the PAP was oicially
established over an area of 26,400 ha,8 and the limits of the PAP as such were oicially acknowledged as limits of the Petra World Heritage property.
5
6
7
8
UNESCO, WHC Brief description of Petra. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/326 (Accessed 10 January 2012.)

The Jordanian Law of Antiquities is the Jordans primary law governing archaeological sites.
Council of Ministers decree no. 513/86, 1993.
Petra Archaeological Park, by-law no. 78, 2007.
45
The establishment of a governmental body devoted to the management and conservation of

the World Heritage site stemmed initially from the recommendations included in the UNESCO
Management Plan of 1994, which instead led to the establishment of the Petra Regional
Council (PRC) in 1995. This entity later became the Petra Regional Planning Council (PRPC).
Nevertheless, the mandate of the Council included not only the management of the World
Heritage area but also the development of tourism and economic activities within and beyond
the World Heritage property. With a similar function, the Petra Regional Authority (PRA) was
then established in 2005.9 Later on, the Petra Devolpment and Tourism Regional Authority
(PDTRA) was established in 2009,10 playing the same role, but has also inancial and administrative independence as it reports directly to the prime minister and has its own legislative set-up.
The mandate of the PDTRA encompasses support to the protection of the PAP, tourism
management and development, zoning and land use, investment, improvement of the socioeconomic conditions of local communities, and sustainable development. The PDTRAs role is
the development of the Petra region economically, by capitalizing on its potential for tourism,
among other areas such as local community development, heritage management and protection, and environmental protection.
Figure 16 Governance time line in Petra

UNESCO
The PDTRA is headed by a chief commissioner who is assisted by four deputy commissioners,
including the commissioner for the PAP and cultural heritage afairs, who reports to the chief
commissioner, the head of the PDTRA, who in his turn reports directly to the prime minister.
The DoA directly reports to the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MOTA). Therefore, there
can be overlapping responsibilities for the governmental organizations involved in the
decision-making process, and in the control of management and conservation work in Petra,
which could cause risk to the site.
9
10
Petra Regional Authority, Law no. 15, 2005.

Petra Development and Tourism Regional Authority, Law no. 15, 2009.
46
$"% &'

#
Figure 17 Flow chart of governmental sectors responsible for the management of PAP
UNESCO
In terms of management of the property over the past four decades, Petra has been governed
by several agreements and strategies. Because of the lack of funding, long-term planning and
initiatives, none of the four tourism and management plans and strategies elaborated (the
United States National Parks Service (USNPS) plan 1968 (USNPS, 1968), UNESCO Management
Plan 1994 (UNESCO, 1994), ICOMOS Management Recommendations 1996 (US/ICOMOS,
1996), and the Operating Plan 2000 (USNPS, 2000), have been oicially adopted and
implemented in their totality by the government by decree.
More recently, the PDTRA commissioned the preparation of a Strategic Master Plan for the
Petra Region to the Austrian Tourism Consultants (ACT) 2011. This had per objective the
determination of appropriate development zones and land uses, develop sustainable tourism,
stimulate domestic and foreign investment, and improve the socio-economic conditions of
the local communities. The protection of the PAP was not the main scope of this plan but it fell
within the overall management of the region.
Figure 18 Plans and strategies for Petra

UNESCO
47
3.3
Introducing the risk management approach for Petra
As mentioned in the introduction, Petra is threatened by a number of diferent risks. Natural

causes such as weathering, flash floods and biological damage particularly afect the monuments in Petra because of the speciic and vulnerable characteristics of the rock from which
they are carved and built. Anthropogenic impacts such as vandalism and theft, and tourism
development, are other major factors threatening the integrity of the property. One of the
main causes of risk to the monuments is the lack of regulation concerning visitors accessibility
to paths and monuments, resulting in an increased movement of tourists on the site. With a
growth rate of 59% in tourist numbers from 2004 to the irst half of 2010, according to statistics
from the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities of Jordan (MoTA),11 the needs for a visitor management strategy to be implemented, and for visitor flow to be regulated, have become crucial.
The current number of visitors per month considerably exceeds the advisable carrying capacity of the site, which was deined as 3,0003,500 visitors per day in the UNESCO Petra National
Park Management Plan (1994, p. 191).
In addition to the above threats, the lack of technically mapped and visualized boundaries and
a holistic deined strategy for a bufer zone or zoning regulations also represents a threat to the
physical integrity of the site. At the time of Petras inscription in the World Heritage List,
property boundaries were deined inaccurately and no bufer zone was created, since no clear
regulations then existed. Despite the call by the Retrospective Inventory (WHC, 2004), no
technical delineation of boundaries and bufer zones has been provided for the PAP to date.
Accordingly, most of the relevant international organizations have shown concern about the
state of conservation of the property and the considerable risks to which it is exposed. The
World Monuments Fund (WMF) placed the PAP on its watch list12 on four consecutive
occasions (in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002), in a sustained efort to draw attention to the need to
improve tourist management at the location. Petra was also included in the ICOMOS World
Report 2004/2005 (Wedekind, 2005), where water erosion, salt weathering and shortcomings
due to incorrect restoration interventions on the rock-cut facades were acknowledged as
major threats to Petra conservation.
The World Heritage Centre requested the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage
Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to Petra to assess the state of conservation of the
property, the advancement of the works in the Petra Siq and to discuss the planned actions, as
well as the progress, in the inalization of the Management Plan (UNESCO WHC, 2010a). The
latest decisions by the World Heritage Committee urged the State Party to inalize the process
leading to the establishment of functioning management arrangements for the site, expressed
deep concern about the state of conservation of the property, and requested the development
of an integrated conservation plan (UNESCO WHC, 2011b).
11
According to MoTA (www.mota.gov.jo/Home/index.htm), visitor numbers increased from 310,271 in 2004

to 493,379 in the irst half of 2010.
12
WMF webpage: www.wmf.org/project/petra-archaeological-site (Accessed 23 November 2011.)
48
$"% &'

#
As a result of the risks mentioned above, coupled with the vulnerability of the site, a risk
management approach incorporated in a management plan for Petra has been identiied as
the most appropriate tool for a mitigation of risks and protection of values of the property. The
main objective of such a plan will be maintaining the values of the site and safeguarding its
historic monuments and its landscape from external threats. From this perspective, in the
following sections we examine the risk mapping projects main activities at Petra, aimed at
reducing the risks to the property. The irst part gives a summary of the boundary-mapping
ieldwork and looks at the issues of outlining guidelines and regulations for the bufer zone of
the park. In the second section the application of the proposed risk assessment approach in
Petra is examined.

$

A substantial risk factor to heritage properties is the absence of deined boundaries and a
bufer zone, or their unclear deinition. Boundaries and a bufer zone, far from being a purely
formal requirement for heritage sites, are essential tools for assuring better management and
protection to a property. The lack of well-deined boundaries represents a major threat to a
sites integrity. A bufer zone serves to provide a stronger level of protection to a heritage
property, and should include its immediate setting, important views, and other areas or
attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection.
In the planning process methodology deined in Chapter 2, the delineation of property
boundaries is part of the identiication and description of the site, and deining a bufer zone
and zoning regulations forms part of the assessment of the legal and legislative context (step
one of the methodology: documentation and deining context).
Looking at the broader context of disaster risk management, a bufer zone comes to play an
even more relevant role, as the risks to cultural and natural heritage might originate either
inside the property or in the surrounding environment. This should lead to direct action,
mainly in bufer areas, to ensure that they represent an added layer of protection. Various
measures, mainly to protect against natural hazards (concerning for example water catchment
areas, ire hazards and landslide probabilities based on geological surveys) could help in
developing appropriate risk management guidelines.
In the case of the PAP, the early nomination of the site in the World Heritage List in 1985, with
minimal documents, accounts for the lack of physical deinition and full mapping of the
boundaries of the property, as well as the lack in the deinition of its bufer zone and related
strategies. This gap has not been illed in the past few years, and although scattered measures
have been taken in terms of boundary deinition, no holistic action has been implemented to
ensure the full protection of the Petra site by means of a bufer zone.
49
The scope of the present work as part of the risk management process was to identify strategies
for the better protection of the park at the level of both boundaries and a bufer zone. In terms of
boundaries, a technical mapping of the PAP government boundaries established in 1993 was
carried out to ix clearly and oicially the limits of the property. The work included:
1) A review of existing planning regulations in terms of boundaries at the PAP, and
data collection from concerned authorities (GIS vector layers, and the coordinates
of current boundary points).
2) Field survey and identiication of the existing boundary points on the ground,
physical marking of new boundary points on the ground, registration of precise
GPS coordinates, and photographic documentation of each boundary point.
3) Handover of all data gathered to Jordanian authorities, for veriication and validation, after which they will be submitted to the World Heritage Centre.
In terms of a bufer zone, criteria have been set for a bufer zone/zoning of the park. Because of
the time limitations of the project, based on a value assessment study and analysis, the study
focused on the examination of the north-eastern PAP boundary section including Um Sayhun
and Beidha as a priority action. The work included:
1)
Literature review, data collection related to the boundaries mapping initiative,

review of zoning and recommendations for a bufer zone in relation to the management plans for the PAP.
2) Review of existing land use, building regulations and present building permits and
practices for the areas surrounding the PAP, with an emphasis on the north-eastern
section of the PAP, and including a review of the indings of the latest Strategic
Master Plan for the Petra Region (ATC, 2011).
3) Developing guidelines for a bufer zone between Um Sayhun and Beidha, and
recommendations for the land-use regulation in the areas surrounding the PAP.
&
'
By deinition, boundaries serve to deine a space and its use. Accordingly, the boundaries of
heritage sites should include all elements which bear signiicance and that contribute to the
integrity of a heritage site, whatever its nature (such as cultural, natural or urban).13
Criteria for outlining heritage boundaries aim at identifying a clearly deined area with
common heritage values and determining how the delimitation of such an area should be
carried out for enhancement of the protection of a heritage site. There are a number of
guidelines for adequately deining the boundaries of heritage properties, depending on the
type of heritage to be preserved. Diferent types of boundaries can be identiied, such as
natural, ecological, scenic and non-continuous, depending on the type of landscape in which
the site is located.
13
A number of organizations have developed guidelines for this, among the most signiicant being the United States
National Park Service, ICOMOS, ICCROM, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), WHC and the
UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme. National legislation concerning heritage sites is also relevant
here.
50
$"% &'

#
&
() '
Bufer zone is a military term used to deine a neutral area set between hostile or belligerent
forces that serves to prevent conflict. In urban planning, bufer zone is a tract of land between
two diferently zoned areas.
The term, once transferred to the heritage context, deines a clearly delineated area outside a
heritage property or adjacent to its boundaries, in which land uses and development are
regulated, and which contributes to the protection, management, integrity, authenticity and
sustainability of the values of the heritage property. The concept of bufer zone was brought to
cultural heritage from the natural sciences, natural heritage and biosciences. Nowadays, both
at the international level ( organizations such as USNPS, ICOMOS, ICCROM, the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), WHC, and the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere
(MAB) programme) and at the national level (through national legislation), guidelines have
been developed to set bufer zones for heritage sites.
* () & +

According to the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO WHC, 2011a, 99102), the delineation of
boundaries is an essential requirement in the establishment of efective protection for
nominated properties. They should be drawn to ensure the full expression of the OUV and the
integrity and/or authenticity of the property. They may coincide with one or more existing or
proposed protected areas, such as national parks or nature reserves, biosphere reserves or
protected historic districts.
In addition, it is advisable not to give primary consideration to administrative convenience in
establishing boundaries, but have as main criterion the fact to separate the property from the
wider area, in relation to which the property will appear to be distinctly of potential OUV.
Boundaries need also to be logical and defensible in relation to the legal protection and
management of the property. Thus, it is recommended for boundary deinition to be carried
out at the same time as the deinition of management priorities and requirements for the
property, with the involvement of all stakeholders. Furthermore, it is of primary importance for
boundaries to be readily identiiable, thus they can be based on physical, natural or human
features (such as roads). It is advisable to use topographic maps annotated to show the
property boundaries, complemented if possible by a GIS application to show the protected
area.
According to the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO WHC, 2011a, 1037), a World Heritage
bufer zone is a summary term used by the World Heritage Committee for a diverse range of
bufer zone typologies that are used to provide additional protection to an inscribed World
Heritage property, or to support its sustainable use. It should include:
51
t the immediate setting of the nominated property

t important views
t areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property
and its protection.
In certain cases, the presence of existing well-deined legislation and/or zoning could make
deining a bufer zone unnecessary, but its absence should be strongly justiied. The bufer
zone is therefore a legal tool contributing to the preservation of the integrity and authenticity
of a property beyond heritage boundaries, and operating with other management and legal
instruments already in place. It does not imply land expropriation.
It is worth noting that initially, the deinition of boundaries at the time of inscription of a site in
the World Heritage List was not mandatory. Thus, many properties nominated in the 1980s
were not provided with clear boundaries or a bufer zone. More recently14, providing a site with
a bufer zone has been seen as an integral component of the State Partys commitment to the
protection, conservation and management of a World Heritage property. Also, nominations to
the World Heritage List are considered incomplete if the boundaries of the property are not
delineated, making clear and unambiguous the distinction between the nominated property
and the bufer zone.
$ (" )

* +, "
context
! ,
!
At the time of inscription of Petra in 1985, providing clear topographic maps of the area to be
inscribed was not mandatory, and the Petra map submitted with the nomination dossier
lacked clarity. During the following years, limited eforts were made by park authorities to
better delineate the area, but until the beginning of the risk mapping project a full physicaltechnical delineation of the property boundaries seems not to have taken place.
The irst maps outlined for the park are the ones included in the 1968 Master Plan for Petra and
the map submitted with the Nomination Dossier in 1985 (Figures 19 and 20). The criteria
applied in the delineation of park boundaries in 1968 included consideration of historical and
archaeological features, scenic views, areas that show historic conservation practices, and the
presence of unobtrusive sites for development necessary for public use and management
facilities. Despite being inaccurate, the map submitted with the nomination dossier of 1985 is
useful to roughly understand which areas were considered as being within the park at the time
of the nomination.
14
The section in the Operational Guidelines 2008 (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf) on boundaries

is the result of the latest revisions and was included only in 2005.
52
$"% &'

#
Figure 19 Map of
Petra park, as
produced for the
Master Plan of 1968
Source: based on
USNPS (1968).
In 1993, the boundaries of the archaeological site of

Petra15 were oicially delineated by the Jordanian
government, with an overall park area of 264 sq km.
However, no clear topographic maps exist that
could conirm a full physical mapping. Probably,
only few points were mapped and in the only map
available boundaries were drawn only on paper
(Figure 21).
The same map was later included in the UNESCO
Management Plan 1994 with the title Petra
National Park boundaries and bufer zone as demarcated by the Ministry of Agriculture, but with no
date indicated (Figure 22). Also, a proposal for
modiication of park boundaries as established in
1993 (Figure 21) was included, as it was acknowledged for the limits set up by the DoA (in 1993) to
have several major drawbacks (UNESCO, 1994, p.
135).
Figure 20 Boundary map submitted with nomination dossier in 1985
Source: based on UNESCO WHC (1985).
15
The park as established in 1993 is known under two diferent names: Petra National Park and Petra Archaeological
Park. The latter is closer to the Jordanian reality and systems than the irst, Comer argues (2012, pp. 1921). Hence,
this is how it is referred to in this publication.
53
Figure 21 Petra Archaeological Park

(PAP) boundaries delineated in 1993
Source: based on UNESCO WHC (2004).
In 2007, the boundaries delineated

by the Jordanian government in
1993 were adopted as oicial
World Heritage property boundaries, and the PAP emerged as an
autonomous legal entity.
In the framework of the Retrospective Inventory project, aimed at
identifying gaps and omissions in
the nomination iles of sites
inscribed in the World Heritage List
between 1978 and 200416 and
collecting
additional
missing
baseline data, a selection of maps was

gathered at the World Heritage Centre.
Among these were the ones on Petra
submitted by the Government of Jordan
from 1985 onwards (Appendix 3).
However, no oicial clariication on
Petra property boundaries as detailed in
the Retrospective Inventory (WHC0630COM-11A2, WHC07-31COM-11A2 and
following committees) was ever submitted to the World Heritage Centre, nor
was an accurate topographic map of the
Petra property inclusive of GIS coordinates. Until the beginning of the risk
mapping project, it was not clear which
were the boundaries applicable at the
time of inscription, and the boundaries
of the park, whereas not close to any
major urban areas, seemed to follow
arbitrary criteria in several sections.
16
54
Figure 22 Petra National Park (PNP) boundaries and

bufer zone as demarcated by the Ministry of Agriculture. No date. Source: based on UNESCO WHC (1994).
The programme was elaborated in 2004 (approved by the 7th Extraordinary Session Decision 7EXT.COM 7.1) and
implemented in Europe, North America and the Arab States from 2006; in Africa since 2009. The other regions
of the world have not gone through this process yet.
$"% &'

#
More recently, the Strategic Master Plan for the Petra Region (ATC, 2011) has proposed an
extension to the current 1993 boundaries following natural land characteristics, leading to the
inclusion of the naturally sensitive Masoudha and Dana conservation areas (south and north of
the PAP respectively),17 and beyond the western boundary of the park toward the Wadi Araba
road, but no extension has been proposed to the eastern section of the PAP.
! ,
!()
The establishment of a bufer zone in Jordan follows the regulations established by the
Jordanian Law of Antiquities (Law no. 21, 1988, amended under Law no. 23, 2004), which
foresees the establishment of an area outside any archaeological site boundaries at about
525 m distance from the antiquities, where no construction can happen and where the land
should be expropriated. This is quite distinct from the World Heritage regulations, which see a
bufer zone as a protected (but not expropriated) area. Normally, this 25 m band is considered
to act as a bufer zone, or additional layer of protection that surrounds the boundaries of the
site, where no activity whatsoever can take place. Apart from this, land-use and master plans
with restricted or special building regulations are the basis for regulating uses of areas that
need protection or building control.18
Since the inscription of Petra on the World Heritage List, no clear bufer zone for the site as
deined by the World Heritage Convention has been put in place. Proposals were made in the
past years to provide the property with a bufer zone/zoning system, but they never reached
the implementation phase. As will be explained in the following sections, at present there are
some special land use/zoning and building regulations in place in areas adjacent to the PAP.
-$./0 !1223
A comprehensive zoning system was delineated in 1994, as part of the UNESCO Management
Plan. It was based on the distribution and importance of the archaeological remains, natural
values, land tenure and land use. Eight zones were identiied, as illustrated in Figure 23: Archaeological Sanctuary (I), Natural Reserve (II), Hisha Forest Reserve (III), Intensive Grazing Management Area (IV), Extensive Grazing Management Area (V), Sustainable Cropping Area (VI),
Catchment Area Protection (VII) and Village Control Area (VIII). This zoning is included in the
proposal for extension of park boundaries mentioned above (page 53) but it is concurrently
stated that all zones except zone I (Petra Sanctuary) are in fact bufering areas(UNESCO, 1994,
p.136). This deinition remains arbitrary and unclear.
17
18
This may indeed require political decisions, because it would change political boundaries in the region.
Article 13 (b) of Cities, Villages and Buildings Planning Law no. 79 for 1966 and its amendments.
55
Figure 23 The zoning and bufer zone

proposal in the UNESCO Management
Plan 1994
Source: based on UNESCO Management
Plan (1994).
. !

!
More recently, the new Strategic Master Plan for the Petra Region (ATC, 2011), released in 2011,
although it primarily addresses the entire Petra region, with a focus on the main urban areas, key
natural landscape, environmental and archaeological areas, it also addresses urban eiciency,
economic and social development for the six communities surrounding the PAP. In order to
identify areas most suitable for development, a model generated in a GIS environment was
developed combining layers indicating sensitivities around the PAP (land sensitivity) and
infrastructure, utilities and public facilities in the region (growth eiciency).
The proposed land sensitivity model was obtained from the superimposition of:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
56
slope analysis
hydrology: wadis, drainage system
geology: fault lines
vegetation types and vegetation zones
forested areas
6)
7)
8)
9)
archaeological sites
agricultural soils
signiicant views
reserves and protected areas.
$"% &'

#
The proposed growth eiciency model was obtained from the superimposition of:
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
transportation infrastructure
water and sewer infrastructure
zoning/existing development
public services
proximity to schools.
In order to develop an applicable approach for establishing a guideline for land use, activity and
special building regulation concurrent with the OUV of the PAP, the almost equal weight of each
component resulted in a planning framework geared towards priority for development areas,
when superimposed with the availability of services and amenities. The inal zoning and
priorities map derived from the overlay of the diferent GIS layers serves as a road map for the
protection/conservation area and future development scenarios in the Petra region.
Sensitivities within the PAP left the issues of its boundaries and the deinition of a bufer zone
surrounding the protected World Heritage property still to be fully inalized. Some of the
development priority areas identiied in the ATC master plan are located adjacent to the park,
in sensitive areas, which shall be designed for the bufer zone. Most importantly, areas close
to Beidha have become potential areas for development. In addition, for the Strategic Master
Plan there was no research into the mitigation of foreseeable threats, which should necessarily
impact the main functions of the immediate areas surrounding the PAP, and which could be
addressed in the bufer zone. Considerations of visual connectivity for instance were limited to
the relation with the main monuments of the basin/core area. The higher priority for development was considered in relation to growth eiciency, and the plan did not necessarily focus on
the function or setting of the immediate areas surrounding the PAP, or respond to the need for
clear criteria for the bufer zone in relation to the OUV of the park. Thus, when the growth
eiciency model was created through this process, the results lacked sensitivity to the park.
This can especially be seen in the section between Um Sayhun and Beidha, the subject areas of
this study.
Although the GIS layers developed for this plan and its inal recommendations could still
contribute to the zoning of the bufer, further in-depth analysis is needed, and itis recommended this to be in accordance with best practices for the protection of the OUV of the park.
$$-

"

*+
Boundaries and bufer zones in Petra have always been associated with managing local
communities. The Jordanian government has taken several initiatives since the inscription of
Petra in 1985 to this end. The Bdul and Al Ammarin tribes were relocated outside the
57
archaeological site, following the recommendation by USNPS in 1968 and a UNESCO consultant in 1978 to preserve the monuments. The recommendation also stressed on the need to
accommodate the diferent socio-economic needs of the relocated communities (Akrawi,
2012, p. 32).
As early as 1970 (Farajat, 2012, p. 151), a defence order was issued to evacuate all archaeological sites in Jordan, and local committees were formed in Maan district to enforce the decision
in Petra. Because of budgetary constraints and lack of political will, no action was taken.
In1985 and 1986, the Jordanian government relocated the Bdul and Al Ammarin in the nearby
lands of Um Sayhun and Beidha by establishing two housing projects to accommodate them
outside the archaeological site.
In 1993, the proposals for boundaries have been negotiated to accommodate the needs of the
adjacent local communities to the east. When delinating the PAP, the Jordanian government
gave rights to the diferent tribes of Wadi Musa, Bdul and Al Ammarin, amongst others, to use
the agricultural lands located within the existing park area which they had previously
exploited. The management decisions, and the processes by which they were taken, still had
repercussions for the local communities.
The establishment of the PRPC in 1995 was the Jordanian reaction to protect and develop the
PAP and take into consideration the surrounding local communities. Hence, at the theoretical
level governance and management decisions were always taken hand in hand. However,
rivalry over land and resources between tribes was extended to rivalry over their access to the
beneits from tourism.
The PRA later on (it was established in 2005) emphasized the role of engaging the local communities with the beneits of tourism. Under the PRA mandate, in 2007 the governmental boundaries were recognized as coinciding with the limits of the Petra World Heritage site. In 2009
PDTRA, a decentralized autonomous body, and the latest governance structure for the region,
was established and the PAP was included in a broader area, the Petra region (755 sq km),
which could potentially work as a wider protection area to the park.
In 2000 the government transferred all government-owned lands for the proposed zoning of the
1994 UNESCO Management Plan to the local communities of Wadi Musa and Beidha. The
decision to placate the traditional owners of these Mirri lands was taken at the expense of
protecting the park, wrote Dr Farajat, a former PAP director (Farajat, 2011, p. 153). In reality, the
lack of a uniied vision and the limited understanding of the necessary regulatory framework for
a bufer zone with a restricted land-use policy resulted in this piecemeal approach to solving
problems, which only delayed the issue of regulating uses around PAP. Even the inalizing of the
latest Strategic Master Plan (ATC, 2011) was afected. Currently, the main owners of the lands east
of the park are investors from outside the region, reports Farajat
58
$"% &'

#
$4 %

As a irst step to deine a bufer zone, the regulatory frameworks already in place were analysed
to see whether they ensure a suicient level of protection to the property. The main land use
plans and zoning regulation for the areas surrounding the PAP have been reviewed in detail.
There follow the major relevant indings of research into land-use and zoning regulations
undertaken for the scenic road between Wadi Musa and Taibeh and the Darah area. With
regard to the regulations related to the urban areas, the scope of this work could not cover the
collection of data for all settlements or communities surrounding the PAP, but focused mainly
on the current building regulations and land use for both Um Sayhun and the Ammarin village
of Beidha, and the road between them (Figure 24).
Figure 24 The priority area and communities surrounding the PAP: proposed zoning
Source: baseline data from PDTRA and Department of Land and Survey registers.
4

The main urban development regulatory instrument in Jordan is the master plan, which
addresses the organization of master/land use plans, taking into consideration the protection
of sites, caves, buildings, and relics of historic, archaeological or architectural value, as reported
in Law no. 79, 1966 and its amendments.19 This law also addresses the organiza
19
Article 19(2) Cities, Villages and Buildings Planning Law no.79 for the year 1966 (published in Oicial
Gazette no. 1952 (25/9/1966).
20
Law no. 15, 2009, Article 8, i for the year 2009: Petra Tourism Development Zone Authority Law.
59
tion of master/land use plans by the Ministry of Municipal Afairs, whose role was later
transferred to PDTRA based on Law no. 15, 2009,20 which determines the specializations of the
Higher Regulatory Council along with the district and local committees according to the Cities,
Villages and Buildings Regulation Law in efect and the regulations issued therewith.
Land use and main building and zone regulations are approved and implemented by PDTRA for
sensitive areas regulated outside the PAP to enhance the protection of visual shed areas. These
regulations were based on the Petra Priority Action Plan Study undertaken by the Dar Al Handasah group and funded by the World Bank (Dar Al Handasah, 1996).21 This study was carried out
following the concerns expressed in the UNESCO Management Plan (UNESCO, 1994) about the
rapid urbanization and uncontrolled development happening in the urban areas encroaching
on the park to the east, and the need to establish bufer zoning in that area.
The objective of the Petra Priority Action Plan Study was to develop an outline for a development and growth scenario for the Petra region, including the preparation of urban development plans for the towns surrounding the PAP, the scenic road between Taybeh, Wadi Musa
and Um Sayhun, and the identiication of priority actions and preliminary designs. The area
between Um Sayhun and Beidha was not developed under this study.
The area along the scenic road was zoned into three zones with diferent levels of protection:
zone A (scenic road, northern section) as a no-building zone; zone B (scenic road, central
section), with stricter measures and detailed regulations in subzones B1 and B2; and zone C,
subject to less development controls. Within zone A, in an area called Darah, despite its
no-construction status, the Ministry of Planning obtained approval from the World Bank,
previously involved in the Dar Al Handasah study, in 1997 to allow 25% development, with the
condition that the area be used for light tourism activities and recreation. In 2003 the Petra
Authority through a loan issued by Jordan Social Security purchased 88% (63 dunums) of the
land; the remaining area (7 dunums) still belongs to private owners who refused to sell. Most
recently, a Royal initiative has been issued to increase the land usage from 25% to 75%, thus
exposing the area to high developments encroaching on the PAP site.
In relation to the area under study between the villages of Um Sayhun and Beidha, and the
area between them, a quick review of existing building land-use regulations and current restrictions or (khala muqaiid) (freezing building activities) has been undertaken. The main results
indicated that:
t
t
21
First, land-use and speciic building regulations are deined for lands within towns
and villages around the PAP, in addition to the Ammarin housing of the Beidha area
and Um Sayhun, which also have special building regulations and zoning for land
uses;
Second, speciic building regulations and limited uses are deined for lands outside
municipal regulation (see Table 2). This issue is settled, and a registry of these
The study was undertaken by Dar Al Handasah Group, inanced by the World Bank and later developed
and detailed by Sigma Consulting Engineers and Bittar Consulting Engineers.
60
$"% &'

#
lands has been inalized. Land ownership, especially for the deined study areas
surrounding the PAP, has also been settled;
t Third, speciic building regulations for camp sites and activities outside the PAP
boundaries have been developed. Three camps have been initiated: Seven Wonders
Camp, Helali Camp and Rock Camp.
Table 2 Building regulations for lands outside the municipal and village regulation
Source: based on PDTRA documentation.
*
() 5

The various management and protection plans and strategies developed for Petra over the
past forty years have made diverse attempts to address the issue of adequately protecting the
PAP by means of boundaries and a bufer zone. An overview is given for the area under study
within the risk mapping project, comprised between the villages of Um Sayhun and Beidha in
relation to the existing plans:
The 1968 Master Plan for the Protection and Use of the Petra National Park (USAID, 1968, pp.
212): The area within the park boundaries takes into consideration historical and archaeological features, scenic views, areas that show historic conservation practices, and the presence of
unobtrusive development sites for necessary public use and management facilities. The
proposed north boundary extends to include the Neolithic site of Beidha and Siq al Barid.
The 1994 UNESCO Petra National Park Management Plan: This recognizes the weaknesses of
the Petra National Park boundaries and proposes a revision of the park boundaries in all
directions, an extension of the 1993 boundaries based mostly on topography and landscape
criteria, and site spatial zoning and a bufer zone to provide a considerable level of protection
to the site (UNESCO, 1994, pp. 13544).
61
The 1996 ICOMOS Management Analysis and Recommendations for the Petra World Heritage
Site: The scope and schedule of the study did not allow the authors to carry out a survey of the
protected area. It expressed agreement with the proposals in the UNESCO Management Plan
(1994) and the Master Plan of 1968 (ICOMOS, 1996, p. 12).
The 2000 USNPS Petra Archaeological Park Operating Plan: Upon authorization by law, three
categories of adjustments are identiied for PAP boundaries: revisions to include adjacent real
properties (1) acquired by donation, (2) purchased with donated funds, and (3) transferred
from any other government agency, or exchange. This plan also favours adjustments, and
presents the need for boundaries to correspond to logical delineations such as topographic or
other natural features or roads.
$/"("

)
!"
#
The precise deinition of park boundaries implies:
t
Better protection and management of the park. The area would be managed in its
complete extension rather than being accounted for the sole core area.
t A reduction in the risk from external agents.
t Inclusion within the park of all areas of OUV, for which better protection can be
provided.
Availability
of a comprehensive base map for Petra, as a reference for all managet
ment, touristic and conservation activities undertaken on site.
For these reasons, in this study the PAP boundaries were technically mapped and analysed.

The technical mapping of the boundaries of the PAP that was carried as part of the risk management process for Petra was intended to establish a clear and oicially acknowledged delimitation of the property, something that had not been in place since the establishment of the park.
A preparatory phase gathered relevant GIS data from the appropriate relevant (or concerned)
authorities, including GIS vector layers and coordinates of the 1993 government boundaries.
The boundary polygon was received from the PDTRA in the JTM (Jordan Transverse Mercator)
coordinate system, and was transformed into the UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) system
using Arc Map 10 JTM to make it compatible with the ield instrumentation used. The resulting
digital layer ile, representing the outline of the park as deined in 1993, was transferred to a
hand-held GeoXH 2008 GPS device, using DGPS with SBAS (EGNOS) corrections (on WGS84
coordinates), which made it possible to control precision directly in the ield with measurements accurate to less than 1 m.
62
$"% &'

#
A ield survey was then carried out from April to September 2011, and included the following
phases:
tDivision of the PAP boundaries into diferent sections to make the ieldwork more efective
and more organized.
t Identiication of boundary coordinates on the ground, where possible.
t Where no boundary points could be retrieved in the ield (which was true in the majority
of cases), new boundary points were physically marked on the ground with an iron stake
stabilized with concrete and the point number written on top of the mark.
t A new boundary polygon was drawn in AutoCAD and input into the GIS database. This
polygon difered from the coordinates of the polygon provided by PDTRA in three points in
the Wadi Araba area (points 21, 22 and 25 in Figure 25). Another two points (30 and 31 in
Figure 25) were located in unreachable terrain, so they could not be mapped on the
ground and the original coordinates provided by PDTRA were used as the reference.
A
t set of three photographs was taken for each of the points, one each looking from
within and from outside the boundary, and one looking at the materialized point.
All data gathered were handed over
to Jordanian authorities and upon
their veriication and validation
oicial PAP boundaries could eventually be identiied and recognized by
the World Heritage Centre as oicial
boundaries of the World Heritage
property.
The GPS measurements and photographs taken were integrated into the
GIS system, and the resulting iles
were transmitted to the local authorities. The mapped points are currently
being materialized using more solid
construction materials, in compliance
with the standards of the Royal
Jordanian Geographic Centre and in
agreement with the Jordan Department of Land and Survey
Figure 25 Map produced by F. Ishakat in the
framework of the Petra risk mapping
project and included in Mapping the Petra
Archaeological Park (PAP) boundaries
(2011), unpublished UNESCO report.
63
,

In order to understand whether the current boundaries satisfy the requirements for which they
were established and adequately protect the PAP, a value analysis by area was carried out.
Based on the boundary mapping, boundaries (and areas located in their proximity) were
divided by areas and described at macro, meso and microlevel , as detailed below.
Macro: the boundaries a are one entity in relation to their surrounding landscape (esh-Shera
mountains) and the six communities of Wadi Musa, Um Sayhun, Beidha, Taybeh, Rajif
and Dlagha.
Meso: the boundaries are divided into nine subareas, according to terrain, environment,
proximity to urban areas, use by local communities, vegetation and similar factors
(Figure 26).
Micro: the surrounding of each boundary point is considered as an individual entity (Figure 25).
Because of the size and complexity of the PAP, the study started at the micro level (boundary
points), but a value analysis was conducted at the meso level (boundary areas) to pinpoint
areas of outstanding value. The meso level works as a connection between the micro
(boundary points) and macro (PAP whole boundary extent) levels of analysis, and eases the
decision-making process.
Based on this approach, the nine areas identiied are 1) Wadi Musa, 2) Wadi Musa to Umm
Sayhun, 3) Umm Sayhun to Beidha, 4) Beidha to Namalah, 5) Namalah to Wadi Araba, 6) Wadi
Araba north, 7) Wadi Araba south, 8) Massouda road and Wadi Sabra, and 9) Scenic road (Figure
26).
Figure 26 Representation of
deined areas for boundary study (Cesaro, 2011)
64
$"% &'

#
Each area was located with reference to the boundary points and boundary line passing
through it, and the speciic characteristics that contribute to the OUV of the property were
identiied. The value analysis (extensively described in Cesaro, 2011) took into account cultural
value (archaeology), natural value (geology/hydrology/vegetation), social value (social aspect
and use), views, and threats to these values.
The evaluation was mostly based on visual inspection, further readings and acquisition of
information from the persons concerned. Values and threats were respectively rated from 1
(not present) to 5 (considerably present) and weighted following two distinct categories:
values and values/threats as reported in Table 3.
Table 3 Value assessment results for PAP boundary sectors (Cesaro, 2011)
Based on the results gathered through both the area evaluation and the boundary mapping
carried out as part of the ieldwork, it was possible to examine the efective protection
provided by the current PAP boundaries and to propose a best solution for PAP boundary
adjustments, outlining the priority areas where necessary.
6
%.
*

Based on the value analysis mentioned above, the area along the north-east PAP boundary,
between the villages of Um Sayhun and Beidha (Figure 26, area III), was identiied as the richest
in terms of values, but equally an area exposed to threats from future development. Hence it
was chosen as a priority area, to bring forward further recommendations and guidelines for a
bufer zoning approach.
65
The speciic criteria applied for the selection of the area were:
tsensitivity of the area in relation to future touristic development and to the new
visitors exit from the PAP
t identiication as a highly suitable area for development in the Strategic Master Plan,
although this appeared contrary to indicators of the richness of the archaeological
remains conirmed by recent archaeological surveys (the Brown University Petra
Archaeological Park mission 2010 and 2011)
t proximity to the PAP boundary, with the presence of urban and tourism development
pressure, and a lack of regulatory framework for the future zoning of these adjacent
lands
t rapid urbanization and community growth in Um Sayhun and Beidha
t a strong visual connection with the PAP
tthe surrounding cultural landscapes and the abundance of archaeological sites
spread in the area of study and adjacent to the current boundaries.
Figure 27 The area between Um Sayhun and Beidha and the urban development of Um Sayhun in relation
to the PAP and Wadi Musa town
66
$"% &'

#
$0
*+!
"46#"
70 "
The identiication of a bufer zoning approach was closely related to the steps detailed in the
previous sections: the mapping of PAP boundaries, the assessment of the Strategic Master Plan
for the Petra Region (ATC, 2011) and the recommendations for already existing land use.
In order to ensure the protection of the OUV of the site, diferent scenarios for the identiication
of a bufer or extension of the PAP boundaries for the priority area were identiied in accordance with:
tJordanian legislation and/or possibility of implementation at the level of land-use and
building regulations
tobservations for viable extension of the boundaries, in line with several recommenda
tions in the UNESCO Management Plan 1994 and the Operational Management Plan
2000
tcriteria for proposals and guidelines for a bufer zone as set by the UNESCO WHC
Operational Guidelines (2011a), where site spatial zoning and a bufer zone are
intended to guarantee a considerable level of protection to the site and its OUV
t responding to local community aspirations and needs
t research on best practices and solutions that have been found in similar case studies of
World Heritage sites, in relation to zoning and bufering.
These criteria led to three diferent scenarios:
a ) boundary extension to include Um Sayhun, Beidha and the Hisheh forest
b ) bufer zone and boundary adjustments.
c ) bufer-zoning system and limited boundary adjustments
These three scenarios are discussed below, and it is explained why in our opinion, option C is
the best scenario. The analysis has been based on a detailed assessment in relation to the
priority area, taking into account a general understanding of the boundary sensitivities.
! 7 4 .

*

+

The scope of this section of the study (area of Um Sayhun/Beidha) prevented a full consideration of the topic of extension of the PAP boundaries and the tools that could be used to realize
it. However it did consider several questions on this general theme.
The aim was to encourage investigation of whether better protection of areas with the same
OUV as the overall property could best be achieved by including them in the PAP, particularly
when these areas are adjacent to the PAP and contain relevant archaeological sites. We also felt
desirable to consider whether it is necessary to include further areas in order to ensure protection of the visual shed area and provide connectivity to the site.
67
The diferent management plans that have been drawn up address the issues of adjustments
to boundaries and inclusion of lands, in addition to zoning practices by extending restricted
zones around the PAP. The UNESCO Petra National Park Management Plan (1994) recommended an extension on the eastern boundary (1) including the eastern paved roads (to Umm
Sayhun, Beida, Hisheh in the north and Taybeh in the south), allowing PAP control over any
further development which could occur along these roads; (2) including the Hisheh oak forest;
and (3) incorporating state-owned lands (see page 56). The USNPS Petra Archaeological Park
Operating Plan (2000) recommended three categories of adjustments to the PAP boundaries:
technical revisions; minor revisions based on statutorily deined criteria; and revisions to
include adjacent real property acquired by donation, purchased with donated funds,
transferred from any other government agency, or acquired through exchange.22
Opportunities:
tInclusion of lands adjacent to the PAP boundaries would ensure better protection of
the OUV of the property as well as a more logical delineation of the boundaries.
tThe WHC would consider positive the extension to include also natural features as
recommended in the UNESCO Management Plan 1994, as these measures would
beneit the conservation and protection of the PAP.
Challenges:
tThe private and public ownership of the surrounding lands, in addition to current
Jordanian legislation make the inclusion of lands within the PAP a diicult process.
tOwners and local communities with lands along the road from Um Sayhun to
Beidha and beyond are anticipating beneits and investment opportunities from
the new land use proposals in the Strategic Master Plan for the Petra Region (ATC,
2011). They could be expected to resist the appropriation and incorporation of
their land holdings. The Bdul and Al Ammarin tribes, among other stakeholders,
would generally prefer to maintain their ownership.
tThe WHC only permits a 10% extension of property boundaries without the need for
initiating a new procedure of nomination (UNESCO WHC, 2011a, 1635).
t Re-submit the nomination dossier as mixed site (the Hisheh is the most southern oak
forest in the Middle East).
tThe recommendation to not deine an institutionalized bufer zone would need to
be justiied in depth to the WHC.
! 7() 8

This scenario envisages the identiication of an institutionalized bufer zone to enhance the
protection of the park by regulating urban development and touristic use of the area surround
22
The following two criteria should also be satisied: 1. the added lands should be feasible to be administered considering their size, coniguration, ownership, and cost, the presence of hazardous substances, the view of and impacts on
local communities and surrounding jurisdictions, and other factors; 2. other alternatives for management and
resource protection are not adequate. These criteria can apply also to any proposal for deletion of lands from Park
boundaries (USNPS, Appendix A34).
68
$"% &'

#
ing the PAP. The boundary adjustments

could be performed after checking the
status of boundaries on the ground and
carrying out technical mapping. It would
involve minimal extensions to the PAP
area where necessary but would
maintain the existing land ownership.
In fact, most parcels of land located
along the eastern PAP boundary are
state treasury/public lands, known
locally as Khazina (Figure 28). There is a
considerable spread of these in the
selected area. The inclusion of Khazina
parcels in the PAP could contribute to a
better alignment of the boundary in
several sections, along the road to
Beidha, and especially between points 8
and 11 as shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28 Plot parcellation and type of ownership in the

Um Sayhun / Beidha area. Source: baseline data from
from PDTRA and Department of Land and Survey
registers.
The section between points 5 and 8 is

probably also Khazina (Figure 28). Its
inclusion within the PAP could contribute to the protection of the visual
context, since this area is closely related
to the sanctuary area and Qasr
al-Bint/Basin area.
Opportunities:
tPrivate and public ownership for surrounding lands would remain untouched from the
present situation, and this would respect the sensitivities of the local communities.
t Inclusion of few parcels adjacent to the PAP boundaries would ensure a better protection of
the OUV of the property as well as a more logical delineation of park boundaries.
tApproval would be granted by WHC as these measures would beneit the conservation and
protection of the PAP and would be in compliance with the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO
WHC, 2011a).
tThe boundary adjustments would fall within the 10% extension that is allowed by the
WHC without the need for initiating a new nomination procedure (UNESCO WHC,
2011a, 1635).
69
Challenges:
tThe criteria for selection and extension of boundaries would need to be clariied, It
would be necessary to assess previous studies and recommendations for boundary
extension, zoning, protection of visual shed areas, related site management plans,
and adopt related criteria for minimum extension of the boundaries. In addition, it
is important to evaluate the new archaeological indings from sites that contribute
to the OUV of PAP, and recommend inclusions, if necessary.
t Compliance with the Jordan Antiquities Law (expropriation up to 25m from
the site boundaries) could not be applied to the surrounding lands.
! 7(") 8

This scenario has been chosen because it is compatible with Jordanian legislation and practice
on developing planning, building and land-use regulations. The PAP boundaries would be
redeined, but keeping closely to the existing boundaries and only after proper assessment of
the latest proposals for boundary extension (in ATC, 2011). In place of an institutionalized
bufer zone as described in the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO WHC, 2011a), a bufer-zoning
system would be developed using planning, land-use and building regulations. Diferent
zones could be deined in which diferent development regulations applied.
Opportunities:
tDeveloping a land-use/bufer zoning to include Um Sayhun, Beidha and the road
between them. This would provide the site with better protection and lead to
approval by the WHC.
tSpecial zoning regulations could be developed for agricultural land use, green land
use, low-density building regulation, light tourism activities and areas requiring
special regulation.
tAn opportunity to reassess the Strategic Master Plan recommendations for land use
to take better account of sensitivities, criteria and values (see page 56 and 57).
t Inclusion of lands adjacent to the PAP boundaries would ensure better protection of
the OUV of the property as well as a more logical delineation of park boundaries.
tApproval would be granted by the WHC as the measures would beneit the conservation and protection of the PAP.
Challenges:
23
tA situation similar to that in the Darah area could arise.
tThe process is likely to obtain acceptance from the local community and other
stakeholders.
23
70
In that case, the pressure of the local community in Wadi Musa led to a 90% appropriation of the land under a
compensation act, although low-density and limited land use was initially proposed by the studies and scenic road
zoning and regulation were enforced.
$"% &'

#
tThe recommendation to not deine an institutionalized bufer zone would need to

be justiied in depth to the WHC.
tThe fact that the Strategic Master Plan has been approved, although it has not
been implemented as a strategy or guiding policy for implementation of
future decisions, is a strong limitation to this scenario.
tIn spite of the challenges identiied, we feel that scenario C is the most realistic.
Guidelines for its implementation are suggested in the next section.
$!
*+
Deining minor boundary adjustments to the PAP without exceeding the 10% extension
(UNESCO WHC, 2011a, paras 1635) is considered a feasible issue; the main challenge of
scenario c would be to establish and enforce an overall regulatory framework for land use,
restriction of uses and building regulation in the bufer zone. This is further discussed below.
/ ()

Bufer zoning is a planning tool which contributes to the preservation of the integrity and
authenticity of a property by ensuring actions are taken beyond the heritage boundaries,
which rely on management and legal instruments that are already in place.
The main source on the issues for deining bufer zoning regulations in areas adjacent to PAP
boundaries are the UNESCO Operational Guidelines, which for the section on WH bufer zone
are mostly based on the outcomes of the experts meeting on World Heritage and bufer zones
held in Switzerland in 2008 (UNESCO, 2008) . Here we summarize how these could be applied
in the Petra case.

Areas of influence, attributes and wider setting around the property need to be identiied as
they can be functionally important for the long-term protection of the park.
Areas of influence include wadis and water sheds, geological strata and view shed areas, which
should be adequately protected and managed, after thorough studies have been conducted.
Wider setting: the cultural landscapes surrounding the park need to be revisited, to reassess
their contribution to the OUV of the PAP. The agricultural land around Petra is of importance to
the OUV of the PAP, and present agricultural practices, both within and outside the park need
to be assessed and negotiated.24 Overall, further research is needed to deine and link the
cultural landscape and the intangible heritage values with the OUV of the PAP, in light of ownership patterns and future tourism attractions that could beneit or contribute to this
24
W ith the establishment of the PAP in 1993, the use of lands within the park was allocated to the traditional local
tribes, while in the year 2000 the government transferred all surrounding Miri lands to the ownership of the
Bedouin tribes. However, further assessment and management frameworks need to be reinforced to successfully
manage the use of land for the tribes inside and adjacent to PAP.
71
understanding. The cultural landscapes located in the visual shed zone, around Um Sayhun
and Beidha, need to undergo land use zoning to protect the OUV of the PAP. Such regulation
could be based on maintaining existing land uses, such as agriculture uses and/or ecotourism
opportunities linked with the intangible heritage of the Bdul and Al Ammarin tribes among
others. This is regarded as the only foreseeable option concerning these sensitive visual
sections and possible functions, in relation to PAP. In this respect, it is also suggested that a
forum of experts revise the land sensitivity model proposed by ATC, in order to address the
OUV of the park, and not focus only on areas for development.

Important views to and from the property are used to determine bufer zones for cultural
properties and can lead to the deinition of visual corridors (UNESCO WHC, 2008). Hence, the
visual connectivity and setting of surrounding landscapes need to be analysed in relation to
the OUV of the PAP. To this end, a visual survey was undertaken all along PAP boundaries to
document views towards the site and views from site boundaries. This type of documentation
can contribute to building a better sensitivity when analysing the topography through
research, computer modelling or GIS, as well as allocating priorities to visually sensitive zones
of high visual connectivity towards and outside the PAP. This analysis cannot therefore be
restricted to the visual shed areas in relation to the main archaeological monuments as
proposed in the latest Strategic Master Plan for Petra (ATC, 2011, Map Atlas, pp. 1920).
!!

Lands that do not fall within the viewshed area, and do not contribute to the OUV of the PAP,
could be regulated, where the landscape of the terrain allows, with creative solutions for light
interventions to celebrate the intangible heritage of the surrounding local communities.
A link with the local communities could also be built on inside the site, where some caves are
still inhabited by local people. Introducing visitors to these living realities would link visitors
with the place as both a living memory and a link to a distant past.
Foreseeable threats or impacts

The main function of a bufer zone is to protect a World Heritage property from external
threats that could undermine its status. This is therefore one of the most relevant criteria for
deining bufer zones.
In the Petra case and more speciically in the section from Um Sayhun to Beidha, the main
foreseeable threats are related to tourism development pressure, and further spread of urbanization. These threats may increase when and if the new visitors exit route proposed for the
PAP, which runs through Wadi Turkamania and Um Sayhun, is implemented. The proposed use
of ecologically friendly vehicles to take tourists from the basin area via Wadi
72
$"% &'

#
Turkamania and Um Sayhun to Wadi Musa with no stop in Um Sayhun would not bring
suicient management tools and alternative economic gains to the surrounding local communities (al Bdul for instance). It is also anticipated that there will be added competition between
the diferent stakeholders for new tourist gains. The proposed exit might also contribute
signiicantly to the attraction of new tourism projects and expansion of existing settlements.
Hence there is a necessity to engage as soon as possible with a land-use and spatial plan with
regulatory frameworks protecting the visual shed area and other valuable archaeological sites
and cultural landscapes, contributing to the OUV of the PAP in the area and responsive to the
challenge at hand.
"#

$%%

The regulation of allowable use or activity needs necessarily to provide beneits to the local
communities, while still maintaining their sense of ownership. This way, efective protection,
management and sustainable use within the bufer zone can create new partnerships to
strengthen community-based tourism initiatives and to establish more efective protection
within the PAP. This process should be in line with the current tourist camp regulations (see
page 49), but with additional detailed guidelines for the location, design and implementation
of sensitive camps or eco-lodges.
9

Scenario c forms the essence of planning regulation provided by the Jordanian by-laws. It also
deines uses in areas adjacent to archaeological and traditional sites of rural villages and
related landscapes. This will and can difer from area to area so as to safeguard and regulate the
diferent activities taking place in each of them and protect their varied landscapes.
In addition, the existing bufer zone, deined by Jordanian legislation as a 25m expropriated
area with zero development surrounding the park along all its perimeter, is not suicient.
In the speciic case of Petra, we recommend that bufer zoning be considered as:
ta regulatory and planning tool that can prevent threats to areas along the boundary or can help manage existing threats
t a means to further protect the OUV of the property whereas property boundaries
alone cannot satisfy this requirement
ta means to protect view sheds and view corridors towards and from the PAP, in
which case evaluation of the areas identiied should be improved to reach a higher
level of detail
t a means to beneit the local communities and maintain their sense of ownership.
When deining a zoning and related regulatory frameworks, much broader research needs to
be carried out, in order to regulate land uses and inalize building restrictions and regula
73
tions. It is expected that since the area has not been regulated before, inalizing a land-use plan
will not be a diicult task.
Local tribes and communities have been waiting for a long time to be given opportunities to
engage further in acceptable and diversiied tourism activities. It is also anticipated that other
stakeholders, from inside or outside the area, could be interested in promoting high-impact
tourism attractions or projects. Any future planning needs to concentrate irmly on the
long-term protection of the PAP, for the local communities and Jordanians for generations to
come.

!
"#

$
$"
In April 2011 a irst set of meetings took place between experts in heritage conservation from
UNESCO, RLICC, and Jordanian experts. The goal was to outline risk criteria and categories and set
up a plan for the future phases of the project. MEGAJ, as the Jordan national database owned
and used by the DoA to protect, conserve and manage archaeological sites in Jordan, has
standardized categories for threats and disturbances. During these irst meetings it was agreed to
adopt and use these predeined categories. In addition, the database was considered a useful
tool to map site elements within Petra, their subsequent attributes, and threats and disturbances
in order to assess their overall condition and threat ratings.
Another decision following from these meetings relates to the assessment of risks. In order to
conduct an in-depth study of risks it is necessary to deine agents of deterioration as causes of
threats. As mentioned in the section on risk identiication, a set of ten agents of deterioration
adopted and used by Monuments Watch Flanders was linked to the MEGAJ threat categories.
Related agents were introduced next to the noted threats on the MEGAJ monitoring cards.
Consequently a site investigator can identify both threats and their causative agents (see
Appendix 2).
It was also decided that the risk assessment should be tested at diferent levels deined for the
scope of the methodology: the site (property), area, site element and site element feature
levels. However, because of the time constraints of the project and ieldwork time, the assessment was only applied at the area and the site element level.
In May 2011, on the established basis of risk criteria, a risk-mapping workshop was undertaken
by a group of multidisciplinary conservation graduate students (architects, archaeologists, civil
engineers and art historians) from the University of Leuven in cooperation with PAP staf, over
a period of two weeks (hereinafter referred to as May workshop). The May workshop took
place in the four selected areas shown in Figure 30, which had been chosen as representative
of the core area of the PAP with regard to the OUV of the property. During this period around
100 site elements were mapped with GPS coordinates, georeferenced.
74
$"% &'

#
photographs and sketches. The reports compiled at the end of the ield work identiied and
illustrated agents, disturbances and threats. Finally, all information was uploaded into the
MEGAJ system following the guidelines provided for this system.
Figure 29 Field work areas

for May 2011 workshop
(based on satellite image by
Erdas Imagine Images)
UNESCO
The May workshop results, in combination with desk research, allowed the authors to put
together a methodology for risk assessment (as detailed in chapter 2). This was reviewed at
expert meetings and round-table discussions with diferent stakeholders and experts. The aim
was to deine a systematic approach to identifying and assessing risks in Petra. The assessment
of risks would also help PAP decision-makers to prioritize and implement mitigation strategies
in order to manage risks at the property and preserve the integrity of the site. In October 2011,
the deined risk methodology was presented ,validated and endorsed by the local authorities
and experts at a validation presentation to be applied and tested at the pilot area on the
property during a risk assessment ieldwork (hereinafter referred to as ieldwork).This validation presentation was followed by two days of background lectures and training for the
ieldwork team members (three master students in conservation, one architect and staf of
DoA and PAP) from University of Leuven and UNESCO Amman Oice experts as well as relevant
experts on Petra, which covered information on monuments and architectural structures at
the property, geological and hydrological issues as well as the
75
proposed risk methodology and its modality. Throughout the project and ieldwork, capacitybuilding for the staf responsible for the management of the property was considered an
important part of the implementation of the risk methodology.
The ieldwork team compiled comprehensive preliminary reports on the risk assessment of the
pilot area, including propositions and suggestions for mitigation and threat-reducing
strategies. These reports were illustrated with georeferenced photographs, completed
MEGAJ forms and maps, as well as tables of risk assessment and risk prioritization strategies.
These reports need to be analysed and studied closely, and then be submitted to the local
authorities to be further reviewed by diferent stakeholders and experts in a technical committee.
$ 8 99;9

It is important to note that because of time constraints, only the risk assessment part of the
methodology was applied in the pilot areas, along with identiication of mitigation strategies.
The analysis of the data gathered from the ield and evaluation of the proposed mitigation
strategies is a vital step in the process, and needs more time to be completed. For prioritization
of strategies and decision-making it is necessary to work closely with site managers and local
decision-makers. It is therefore recommended that a second ieldwork phase be carried out, to
consolidate the methodology and to complete the process of applying it.
In brief, the ieldwork approach for the risk assessment in the pilot area of Petras core involved
the following phases:
t Preparation:
t
t
t
t
t
t
Research on existing documentation.

Research on the period, topography and typology of the assessment area.
Research on the signiicance and values of the studied area, and preparation of a
signiicance assessment using an internationally accepted value assessment
approach such as the NARA grid (University of Leuven) or MEGAJ approach (based
on the Getty Conservation Institute, GCI).
Localization of the assessment area on MEGAJ.
Print the MEGAJ site element and monitoring forms.
Print satellite and/or aerial images covering the assessment area.
t Visual inspection:

t
t
t
76
Localization of the studied area.

Identification of the topography and period, and comparing this with existing
research sources .
Sketch of the site elements with GPS coordinates, to produce a plan and elevations.
$"% &'

#
t
t
Photography of the site elements, noting the context and camera position.
Identiication of threats and disturbances using MEGAJ groups and agents of deterioration (employing the MEGAJ ield cards and related agents of deterioration).
Detailed photography of threats and disturbances, and indication of the location of
disturbances on the plans and sketches, using for instance hatching or colouring.
t Assessment of threats and risk using qualitative or quantitative approaches, and
illing out a risk assessment table.
t A draft report, which includes a preliminary assessment of the severity of the
threat/disturbances.
t Evaluation of risk priority and proposing mitigation strategies.
t Consensus meetings with the follow-up team.
t Inputting information into MEGAJ: mapping, forms and photographs.
t Archiving.
25
t Draft preliminary reports to be submitted to the follow-up team .
t Distribute questionnaires to the ield assessment team members and experts on the
follow-up team to obtain feedback and to assess the use of the risk methodology. Two
types of questionnaires were distributed, for experts and ieldwork members.
t Advisory and consensus meetings with interdisciplinary experts and local authorities.
t Finalize the risk assessment report with feedback received from the follow-up team and
advisory meetings.
Submit the inal report to the technical committee (for Petra this is the PAP Technical
t
Committee) of interdisciplinary national and international experts and stakeholders, for
their review and validation.
FFigure 30 Risk
management
m
ieldwork wrap-up
i
UNESCO
25
Please refer to page 43 for the proposed teams and committees
77
$$ 6!"!" 9

Following the validation presentation and trainings organized with several Petra experts, the
ieldwork mission was launched. The goal was to evaluate and test the efectiveness and relevance
of the proposed risk methodology. It should be noted that despite the importance of continuous
monitoring in such risk assessment studies, because of the project time and resources constraints
the ieldwork was carried out once, in October 2011. The ieldwork was carried out in a
well-considered and carefully selected pilot area within the property boundaries.
Given that the PAP covers a vast area of land, the risk assessment ieldwork was designed for
two site elements and two areas, chosen from among the four areas selected for the May
workshop (see Figure 29 for the May workshop areas). The selection was based on the following criteria:
t
Representative of the Petra World Heritage property: areas where disturbances and
threats afecting relevant OUV aspects are clearly present, for example carved and
standing structures.
t
Representative of the imminent risks faced by the site, so it can provide
suicient information to develop a risk management strategy for other areas
within the park.
t Evidence of impact: areas where threats from anthropogenic actors are evident.
t Evidence of change: areas where possible development is foreseen within the
boundaries of the property.
t Landscape continuity: the area was chosen to include the main elements of the
Petra landscape such as the wadis. It is a meeting point of several wadis. In
addition, the selected area represents in microcosm the site-speciic topography,
since there is both low and high land within it.
t An area that would allow a extensive and detailed visual inspection within the
anticipated timeframe for the ieldwork.
The pilot area selected based on the above criteria contained these site elements and areas:
Site elements:
tThe Temple of Winged Lions, a representative standing structure in the historical
city centre of Petra. At present, the temple complex is afected by many disturbances relating to the impact of visitors, researchers and contractors.
The overall temple complex was deined as one site element. However, to maintain
clarity, it was subdivided into smaller elements within the temple complex such as
the north platform, the workshop/storage rooms and the gate/stairway.
78
$"% &'

#
Figure 31 The boundaries of the Temple of

Winged Lions
Source: map produced by Ishaqat, F. and
Kanellopoulos Chr. (2009). Joint project
Hashemite University and American Centre
for Oriental Research.
tThe Turkmaniyya tomb is representative of Petras carved structures, and is located on the west
bank of the Turjamaniyya wadi. It faces a speciic threat related to the contemporary development plans: the widened road proposed to be constructed in the Abu-Ollega wadi in order to
provide a supplementary exit from the PAP.
The Turkmaniyya tomb was treated as a single site element.
Figure 32 Plan of the Turkmaniyya tomb

Source: Tawiq Huneiti, Department of Antiquities.
79
Areas:
t The Basin encloses an area which provides facilities
for visitors such as restaurants and toilets, car parks
for authorized vehicles and an animal shelter. This
element has natural topography including wadis
and clifs, so it can contribute to the understanding
of the landscape and its relationship with adjacent
monuments. It also provides a good example of
tourism concession activities and other human
behavioral impacts on the landscape and
surrounding elements. Figure 33 shows its boundaries, deined by topography and visual connectivity.
Figure 33 The boundaries of the Basin

Source: Petra Preservation Project (2005) Hashemite
University and American Centre for Oriental Research.
t
The path to the Monastery: alongside the trail from the Basin to the Monastery, on both
sides, a variety of caves and tombs are carved in the bedrock. The path and the tombs in
this area face threats from uncontrolled tourism activities and use of animals to carry
tourists to the Monastry.
A selection of site elements was made along the trail from the Museum to the Monastery.
Tombs with sculpted facades, the Monastery, the Lions Triclinium, a quarry, a dam, and a
cistern were selected and studied. Further, few signiicant caves in the beginning of the
trail were mapped. Signiication of these caves was given by their present use such as
storages for generators and goods.
It should be apparent that the components of the pilot area are quite diverse, in both their
intrinsic properties and their historical and contemporary signiicance.
It should be noted that for all four components, the risk assessment considered an area larger
than the deined limits for the studied areas and elements, in which there could be an impact
on the component (as there also could be, of course, from threats within the boundary). For the
Basin the generators, which are located just beyond the area boundary, were regarded as a
threat. The Temple of Winged Lions has several dumps of archaeological spoil in close proximity to it. These have resulted in forced patterns of movement and new paths throughout the
area. For the Turkmaniyya tomb the area of possible road construction was considered.
80
$"% &'

#
$ ""

In order to start to identify threats and assess the site condition, after identifying the boundary
of the Basin area the ieldwork team decided to divide it into component groups and subcomponents. According to the preliminary value assessment and the deined boundaries, the Basin
is essentially a natural landscape within which many components have shaped its current state
and uses. The components can be seen as agents acting on the Basin. The team grouped them
into four main categories: mobile components, natural components, built components and
historical components, and deined subcomponents for each (see Table 4).
Table 4 Overview of the component groups and their sub-components
The preliminary report shows that the same threats tend to occur for diferent subcomponents
in the same component group. In other words, the threat is identical but the agent is diferent.
For example, inside the Basin area, vibration has been identiied as a threat, with its agents
being generators, cars and animals, each producing vibration at a diferent force and
frequency. The efect of the interactions between the sources is unknown for this preliminary
risk assessment. Consequently, the team chose to assess the threats and causes separately for
each component and subcomponent, since the nature of the agent afecting each subcomponent will have an impact on the mitigation priority and decisions. In the Basin area, it would be
all but impossible to take a single action to mitigate the risk of vibrations from all the diferent
sources because they are managed by diferent stakeholders. Arguably the best solution here
is control at the policy level, overarching the mitigation of this problem throughout the
property, as well as a mandate to all stakeholders.
For the Temple of Winged Lions and the Turkmaniyya tomb site elements, as well as the path
to the Monastery area it was apparent that interaction between the threats would be a major
issue. For example the threat of collapse of wall and dirt piles at the temple complex is higher
because of the existence of natural threats such as erosion, solar radiation and
81
running water. Another issue noted is that over time the mortar between the stones of the
temple structure has crumbled away, and been replaced by dirt. This dirt, and the dirt piles in
the area, provide ideal habitats for lizards and certain insects. The activity possibly increasing
over time of these creatures could make the structures less stable. At the same time, visitors
tend to walk on and climb the structures because there is no clear visitor route around the
temple. This results in physical forces on the surface of the temple, which also adds to the
instability. In this example the agents of deterioration can be seen as primary threats, and the
collapse of a wall as a secondary threat. The teams decision in this case was to approach the
related agents together, treating them as one threat in the overall risk assessment, rather than
assessing them separately.
A table of results was drawn up to show the magnitude of the threats to each component in
the Basin, and at a later stage it was assessed with the help of the GIS platform for the whole
area in order to provide a basis for prioritizing actions. At the Temple of Winged Lions and the
Turkmaniyya tomb, in contrast, the threats and risks were assessed based on the locality of
threats on the structure of the monuments.
$<

Developing the heritage information strategy for systematic identiication and documentation
of heritage places in Jordan is an ongoing process. Presently the most comprehensive system
for the inventory of archaeological sites in Jordan is MEGAJ. Initially, information on all the
sites was transferred to MEGAJ from the Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System
(JADIS), a program created by ACOR with a grant from USAID in the 1990s. Trained stafs from
the DOA have started process of reviewing and editing data transferred from JADIS to MEGAJ,
and entering new sites and site elements into the system. This work is ongoing, and since there
are not assigned staf from each governorate to work on updating the database, the progress
has been slow.
The need for an adequate heritage information policy, a general documentation system and
adequate cartography/reference map were among the major gaps identiied for Petra. This
lacuna also poses indirect threats to the park, as lack of information equals lack of protection
because no knowledge is shared on what has to be protected.
In order to guarantee concise and structured information during the ieldwork, it was decided
to use the MEGAJ system to retrieve satellite images, UTM coordinates and site element
information about the pilot area. MEGAJ is able to produce maps with hybrid geographic and
database capability that are linked to the full record of site elements and their overall threat
rating. In addition, a simple GIS platform was developed after the ieldwork to capture and
manage the risk assessment information collected. This platform presents the results of the risk
assessment using a visual multilayered representation. The GIS project can easily query for
patterns, identify concentrations and visualize congestion areas, where diferent risk indicators
overlap in a pilot area. Once the risks, their subsequent
82
$"% &'

#
information and their impact area are inserted in the GIS database, fast queries can be
conducted according to the deined attributes.
The assessment teams were equipped with a handheld Trimble GeoXH 2008 GPS device, using
DGPS with SBAS (EGNOS) corrections (on WGS84 coordinates). This permitted a recording
accuracy to within 1m, as well as enhancing portability, at a lower cost than using a diferential
GPS device.
Identiication of the pilot area and its boundaries was the irst step in the work, followed by a
thorough sketch of the site elements and an overall visual inspection, using the Trimble. In
addition with the help of the DoA staf a survey was conducted with a Total Station (Leica
TC407) to prepare cartography of the studied areas. Leica Mining Editor 1.1 and Global Mapper
Software enabled the projections of the acquired data to be aligned, resulting in georeferenced AutoCAD shapeiles.
Photographic records were produced as a core action in the mapping process. The team used
both digital photography to capture disturbances and threats, and spherical panoramic
photography which was georeferenced using the hand-held GPS.
$#

Although Petra has been extensively researched and is inscribed on the UNESCO World
Heritage List according to criteria I, III, and IV, which clearly outline its OUV, the site has not
received an exhaustive values-centred study that provides speciic information about what
needs to be preserved (covering the standing and carved structures, landscape and so on).
Such a study, using an internationally recognized value assessment systems, could provide an
indication of the required level of integrity to preserve this important heritage property.
Petras listing is as a cultural property and not a cultural landscape, so its diverse landscape and
natural features, as well as the intangible aspects of the culture of the Bedouin people who have
inhabited this area for centuries (which is still part of the current cultural dynamics of this
heritage place) are not included in the stated OUVs of the property. Therefore these values are
not adequately protected. It is important to note that the OUV of cultural landscapes arises from
the assessment of cultural and natural qualities and values together and not independently.
Without such a study, the impact on the values cannot be determined precisely in isolation from
the landscape context, as well as the social context of the living heritage.
83
Figure 34 Petras OUV and aspects related to the statement of signiicance and integrity
UNESCO
It is for this reason that a thorough values assessment in Petra should consider the context of
both the landscape and living heritage, in addition to its monuments. Such a values assessment should be based on collaborative work between experts with diferent backgrounds and
in-depth knowledge of Petra and issues concerning the site, during consensus meetings.
Groups of diferent stakeholders and members of the local communities with diferent
interests need to be part of these meetings. Managers of heritage sites need to know the
values of their site, and their main responsibility is to protect these values.
A detailed assessment study of the pilot area should determine diferent categories of the
values and signiicance of the area and monuments under study. Determining the level of
signiicance is necessary not only to be able to assess the magnitude of risk, but also for
prioritizing areas and elements which have a high level of signiicance and are under threat.
Since one main objective of this methodology is to provide a complete framework to further
develop monitoring tools that would allow the DoA and PDTRA to determine qualitative and
quantitative indicators of risks, and since a complete risk assessment study cannot be carried
out without knowing the value of the studied area, it was decided that a preliminary value
assessment for the pilot area should be carried out. This was done by a group of experts
working together, as part of a preparatory meeting.
For the preliminary value assessment of the Basin area, the Monastery path and the Turkmaniyya tomb, it was decided to use the GCI (and MEGAJ) method that had been used
84
$"% &'

#
for the Jerash value identiication and assessment case study. This deines the six categories of
natural, scientiic, historic, aesthetic, spiritual and economic values, for both short and long
periods (Myers, Smith and Shaer, 2010).
During the values assessment for the Temple of Winged Lions it became clear that for each GCI
category more substrata and additional information could be deined. The team moved to the
Nara grid since it has more subcategories for the value assessment of built heritage. In the Nara
grid each category of value (artistic, historic, social and scientiic), has subcategories of form
and design, use and function, material and substance, tradition and techniques, location and
setting, and spirits and feeling. The method is being developed by RLICC, and is based on the
Nara document on authenticity (1994).

The team also used the MEGAJ threats and disturbances categories (agricultural, development, human, natural, site management, and other impacts: see Appendix 1) for identifying
risks and recording conditions. Each ieldwork team had printed copies of MEGAJ ield cards.
After localizing site elements and recording their coordinates with a GPS device, they drew
sketch of the elements on a MEGA site element card and took pictures, indicating the position
of the camera on the sketch. Threats were identiied based on visual inspection, and recorded
on the monitoring cards. Photos of each threat and disturbance were taken and recorded with
their exact location, and the location of the disturbance was also indicated on the sketch.
Causes and agents of deterioration or possible future deterioration were identiied and
recorded for each threat. Of the ield, all this information was entered into the MEGAJ system
and archived. Appendix 4 shows an example of a completed MEGAJ monitoring card for the
Monastery.
85
Figure 35 is a pie-chart representation of identiied threats to the selected monuments of the

path to the Monastery area (see Figure 29).
Figure 35 Pie chart of identiied threats for the Monastery trail

UNESCO
In this example (Figure 35) the natural impacts of water and wind erosion are the main threats,
and disturbances can be found in most of the site elements. The deterioration of the decoration
on the sculpted facades is caused by environmental processes. Concerning the human aspect,
disturbances and threats are caused by the reuse of the caves and tombs as camps or animal
shelters, the absence of indicator signs and panels, and the lack of visitor flow and visitor management strategies. Tourists are left free to vandalize monuments, dump trash and climb
everywhere. They can both cause damage to the monuments and put themselves at risk.
It is important to note that for the results of the risk analysis to be considered seriously
efective, there would need to be more researched and scientiic data, and more time than was
available to this project, because of its very nature.
86
$"% &'

#
,

As noted in section 2.5.3 , two methods were used for assessing magnitude and level of risk, the
Waller matrix and the ABC system. The Waller matrix is based on qualitative data and analysis,
and uses words to describe severity and probability (likelihood). The ABC system is a quantitative analysis based on a scoring system (rating for A, probability of damage, B, degree of loss of
signiicance, and C, the area afected). The quality of any quantitative analysis depends on the
accuracy of the numerical values. The process of quantitatively deining the magnitude of risk
is quite complex and requires a thorough understanding, clear deinition of its diferent components and training in the calculations. However, when the process is understood, its application
is less diicult The use both qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess risks in the pilot
area was chosen to ensure the identiication of patterns and compatibilities during the process.
Figure 36 shows the efect and probability matrix for threats to the site elements selected from
the Monastery path (that is, the same example as used in Figure 35). (See pages 27and 28 for a
description of the levels and types of risk.) An example of Type 3 risk is erosion caused by the
combined action of wind and water: something that afects the Monastery in a mild way but
over a long period of time could lead to a decrease in aesthetic value and structural strength. As
noted on page 28, this kind of risk could also become more serious and have immediate
consequences should there be a rare but dangerous event such as an earthquake or flash flood
(Type 1 risks). The other two threats assessed in Figure 36 for the Monastery are from visitor
activities and visitor concession activities, which were both assessed as Type 3 risks.
Figure 36 An example of the use

of a probability and efect matrix
at the Monastery path
UNESCO
87
Table 5 is an extract from the risk magnitude table for the Temple of Winged Lions, using the
ABC method. The ABC criteria deined as:
A
B
C
probability or extent of damage happening

degree of loss of value and integrity as a result of the impact
fraction of the assessed area susceptible to the threat, and the extent
of its vulnerability
An existing dirt road running through the temple precinct could cause extensive damage to
buried archaeological material. As the road is used by animals and vehicles (which create
physical forces on the surface of the structure), the existence of this road was recorded as one
of the threats to the site element. In this example the probability of the damage from the use
of road to the archaeological remains was assessed as relatively high (A). The degree of loss of
signiicance is also high (B), but the area that could be afected is small in comparison with the
whole site element (C). The A+B+C calculation assesses the magnitude of the risk as 10 = high.
Another example of a threat is earthquake. Given the poor condition of the temple, including
many threats to its stability, a powerful earthquake would have major destructive consequences and could be fatal for visitors. The probability is low, but the degree of loss of value
and the afected area are high, leading to another overall ABC assessment of 10.5 = high. This
method of scoring using the same scale for the diferent criteria gives site managers and
decision-makers a way to compare the seriousness of diferent threats.
Table 5 Risk magnitude calculation and comparison table
A note should be added on the probability factor. For continuous risks (when it is known that
the risk itself is present) the probability assessed is that of damage occurring. For example, the
presence of vibrations is a daily event and a threat in each pilot area, but the point at which
signiicant damage will occur as a result is less evident. The actual impact of the physical forces
in this example was not clear at the time of inspection (as was also true for some other risks),
and the nature of the rapid risk assessment, and the lack of information and research available
to the team, meant that it was not possible to make an accurate assessment of probability. This
stresses the importance of experienced and interdisciplinary
88
$"% &'

#
experts forming a follow-up team and technical committee (see page 43), and verifying and
reviewing the assessment and reports as part of the risk assessment process.
Based on the outcome of the qualitative and quantitative evaluations proposed in this methodology, we judged that the efectiveness of their application is closely related to both the
supporting information available and the knowledge and experience of the ield team.
Undoubtedly, more extensive research into the cause and impact of disturbances and threats
would lead to a better risk magnitude assessment than a purely visual inspection. The application of the proposed risk methodology in Petra can therefore be considered as a platform for
rapid decision-making.
The success of the visual inspection can be measured over time by the periodic monitoring of
those indicators that have been identiied in the risk magnitudes. This in turn will help to
identify the extent of their impact on the site element(s) being assessed.
It should be mention that during the ieldwork, the MEGAJ monitoring form was used to
record the current condition of the site. The six categories, of good, fair, poor, very bad, and
inundated and destroyed, indicate to what degree a site element or a site is physically stable or
experiencing active deterioration.
$= !

The importance of adopting a risk management approach as part of the overall management
of a property is that if risks are identiied and monitored regularly, possible damage could be
avoided or reduced by means of less costly preventive measures. During the ieldwork, it
became clearer that the methods of control relating to site management should be applied in
preventive and active strategies at the level of procedures and policies. It should be noted that
the site management strategies of a single pilot area are and should be directly related to
the management of the site as a whole.
We recommend that the priority for methods of control should given to selecting and
implementing preventive actions, mostly at the policy and procedure level, as a signiicant
number of risks could be overcome by preventive conservation measures involving block and
avoid actions. These are the most cost-efective ways to reduce risk. Take the example of the
existing dirt road running through the precinct of the Temple of Winged Lions. The best
method of control would be to prevent traic from passing through the precinct (by diverting
or simply banning it). This is a simple no-cost measure. If it is not done, the impact of the
vibration could lead to damage that is irreparable, or costly to put right.
Based on identiied mitigation measures, an ad hoc strategy could be drafted on how the
proposed mitigation measures will be implemented. The strategy should include a timeline,
human resources needed and their responsibilities, and an estimated budget for each measure.
89
Finally, in order to enhance the method of controls, there needs to be veriication. This involves
a technical committee reviewing and verifying the mitigation measures and strategy plan.
Currently, the PAP has an appointed Technical Committee that could ill in this role.

Risk evaluation is based on the probability of damage, the reliability of the risk assessment and
the quantitative values assigned to both risk criteria and risk magnitude. The combination of
the level of risk (based on the ABC impact assessment process) and degree of uncertainty will
result in a priority table. This can then contribute to the decision-making process in prioritizing,
selecting and implementing mitigation strategies in order to manage identiied risks.
Looking at the site elements assessed during the ieldwork, the level of uncertainty mostly
remained moderate and high. This can be attributed not just to unavoidable uncertainties, but
to the rapid visual inspection nature of the risk assessment and the limitations of the supporting information. For example wind erosion is recognized to be an omnipresent and constant
threat in Petra, but this does not imply that it is constantly afecting the pilot areas.
During the ieldwork, once the two noted aspects of magnitude and uncertainty had been
determined and considered carefully, they were interrelated by means of a clear and understandable table in order to give priorities for decision-making. This table was revisited, edited
and its results were studied based on the experience of the ieldwork and advisory meetings
with the experts. It was decided to use the information given in Table 5, with three levels of
uncertainty (high, moderate and low), and ive levels of magnitude (extremely high priority,
very high priority, high priority, medium high priority and low priority). However this table
needs further study if it is to be used in practice at Petra.
90
$"% &'

#
Table 6 Matrix of priority based on level of risk magnitude and level of uncertainty
Source: based on ICCROMCCIICN (2007)
This table is presented as a guideline to prioritize decision-making strategies, when conducting the risk methodology. This interrelation of the components of risk magnitude and
uncertainty could also give similar priorities for diferent risks for the decision-makers.

The information available during the ieldwork was limited. This prevented the reliable forecasting of risks and their impact on the condition of the areas and site elements. For this reason a
number of assumptions were made. To minimize the efect of the gaps in information and
limits to knowledge, the approach applied in the ieldwork acknowledged that the level of
uncertainty is high. This leads to the suggestion that further research is required in order to
increase the scientiic credibility of the information obtained.
91
$>("!? "!#

for risk assessment
The assessment team prepared a simple heritage information platform for the risk assessment
pilot area, using an open source GIS application, which could assist in evaluating the feasibility
of designing a GIS system for risk assessment for the entire PAP.
The platform was appropriate to the results of the required multilayered assessment approach
for the Basin as well as the Temple of Winged Lions. A GIS provided the possibility of carrying
out simple queries for patterns, identifying concentrations and visualizing congestion areas,
and identifying where diferent risk indicators overlap in a part of the pilot area.
The preliminary Risk Assessment GIS project was created using Quantum GIS (QGIS) version
1.7.2. This software ofers a wide range of applications for basic querying, similar to the ones
provided by the commercial and licensed ArcMap ESRI product. The shapeiles created in QGis
can easily be used in licensed software.
For the cartography of the pilot area, a georeferenced computer aided-design (CAD) layer with
an outline of the archaeological features and topography was used as the base for the GIS
project. On top of the cartographic layer, each of the site elements risks was digitized using a
blend tool, which linked the attribute tables with disturbance and threat assessment to the
areas afected.
Figure 37 Attributes table and disturbances/threats layers for the Basin area
UNESCO
92
$"% &'

#
Additional symbology was used to categorize and thereafter to classify the column of threats
and risks.
This helped to obtain a suitable and clear presentation of the pilot areas risks. This preliminary
GIS was designed to both record diferent layers of information gathered during the ieldwork,
and study, analyse and visualize these data and conduct diferent queries. Now that the data is
stored, further time is needed to analyse all the data gathered during the project and obtain
relevant information from the system that can be used for making decisions on the mitigation
strategies to be implemented in the park, as well as the management process.
3.5.9 Lessons learned from the pilot area assessment

Given that the implementation of the methodology is at its initial stage, it is early to assess the
results. For better results, the entire methodology needs to be applied at the pilot area.
However, the authors ofer the following conclusions from involvement in the application of
the risk management methodology at the pilot area in Petra.
The assessment of the selected pilot area greatly contributed to the improvement of the risk
methodology presented in this publication. A number of issues required ine-tuning and
adaptation from the original approach developed. As has been noted, only the risk assessment
part of the methodology was applied, together with suggestions for mitigation strategies. The
complete risk management cycle could not be applied within the time frame. Decision-making
and setting priorities need to be done in very close collaboration with stakeholders and the
site manager, and the social, political, institutional and inancial context needs to be understood and assessed in order to conduct a costbeneit analysis and deine risk mitigation
strategies.
As has been noted, diferent approaches were used to assess the Basin and the two structurebased elements of the pilot area. The identiication of disturbances and threats was conducted
at the Basin using a layers and components approach, while the other assessments were based
on the geographical location of threats and disturbances on the structure.
The processing of such a diferentiated approach was facilitated by a GIS. However, for further
application more substantial efort should be applied to the design of a larger-scale system
that is capable of assisting in querying for patterns and concentration or congestion areas for
the risks in the park. Once the risks, their attributes and their impact area are inserted in the GIS
database, fast searches can be done according to the deined attributes. The project time
constraints prevented this from being done to a level that would yield relevant information.
For further development, the integration of periodic information into the designed GIS would
make it possible to integrate and deduce more detailed information for monitoring the impact
and rate of disturbances. This process would also make it possible to improve the assessment
of risks and probability of events.
93
The delineation and further application of a risk management methodology combined with a
documentation strategy enabled us to collect a considerable amount of well-organized
information. This same process could be developed as a ready-to-use tool for site managers
and applied to other areas of the property and other properties in general.
The accuracy of the results needs to be monitored and evaluated regularly. In order to make an
accurate assessment, the ieldwork team needs to be experienced, interdisciplinary, and
trained in the risk management methodology. It is also important to have an oice-based
follow-up team to review and verify the work and reports of ieldwork team.
The choice between qualitative and quantitative assessment needs to be taken in light of the
level of expertise involved in the application of the assessment, as well as the amount of
documentation and research available.
Monitoring and evaluation is essential for the implementation of the risk management
methodology. Consensus meetings shall take place during the ieldwork, with the follow-up
team consisting of more experienced and interdisciplinary experts to provide ongoing advice
in the development of the assessment. Especially if there is a shortage of technical and experienced experts involved in the ieldwork, consensus meetings with a follow-up team and
advisory meetings with interdisciplinary experts become crucial.
A technical committee (in the case of Petra, the PAP Technical Committee) is recommended to
review and validate the ield assessment reports to increase the reliability of results. This
committee should evaluate:
t the relevance of the threats and disturbances as well as the agents
t validation of the proposed risk magnitude for each threat
t validation of the suggested methods of control
tvalidation of the proposed priority table.
The role of such a committee is another essential requirement for success in implementation
of the risk management methodology.
The questionnaires distributed to the ieldwork team and experts on the follow-up committee
proved a useful way to get feedback on the methodology. The responses provided useful recommendations such as a short duration of ieldwork to monitor changes through time and develop
long-lasting monitoring strategies; the need to cover larger areas to allow a better understanding of the disturbances and threats at the PAP; the need for more research and collection of
existing data prior to ieldwork; and a need for more extensive training sessions.
However to increase the level of feedback and avoid any misinterpretations, it would have
been preferable to obtain feedback during a workshop session. Further development of the
methodology should take into account a concise visual glossary for the disturbances and
94
$"% &'

#
threats combined with the agents of deterioration, speciically designed for the existing
disturbances at Petra. (This could be based on the existing glossary for the threats and
disturbances for MEGAJ and researches such as the Petra Stone Preservation Project.) This
glossary could be applied not only in risk management, but also in other conservation projects
in Petra.
The importance of cooperation with local stakeholders in implementing the phases of the
project and in taking relevant decisions has to be identiied as an essential condition for the
projects success. The risk mapping project and the application of the risk management
methodology at the PAP showed how close collaboration between stakeholders, experts and
the local community can lead to positive results and a more accurate strategy to document
and manage a World Heritage property. All actors involved in the management of a World
Heritage property are required to identify the changes and understand the site in its various
layers of history, including the past, present and future. Eventually, this approach will lead to an
appropriate selection of management and preservation strategies showing the evolution of
the site throughout the time, and allow for further growth.
The capacity-building inherent in the risk management methodology and its use is also a
signiicant condition for the success of the project. The proposed methodology is not easy to
apply, and needs to be accompanied by structured and long-term training for the stakeholders
involved. Training of the staf and site managers at Petra in the application of the methodology
was an integrated part of this project.
95
4. Conclusion
The proposed methodology presented in this publication is aimed at providing guidelines for
mitigating and monitoring of risks at archaeological sites, which can contribute to the design
and implementation of appropriate management systems.
Each heritage site has its own challenges and added factors which could prove to be risks to
the integrity of the site. Some of these challenges might not be part of the normal process of
risk assessment, but they should be identiied and looked into as an integral part of the activity,
in order to reduce risk at sites. Identiication and mapping of boundaries and bufer zones, a
protection area and land use zone are examples that arose in our case study. When identiied,
these issues could become important tools for risk management.
Risk management methods have been studied and used in other disciplines for many years,
mainly as reactive measure to disasters. Based on these studies, risk management approaches
for museums have been developed, based on assessing and reducing the risk to collections
and artifacts as preventive measure. The present proposal for a risk management methodology
in Petra is based on this approach for museums, but has been enhanced and adapted for Petra
and other heritage sites. The risk assessment part of the methodology was applied and tested
in the pilot area based on visual inspection. Mitigation strategies were suggested for each
identiied risk. As this is a developing ield, this methodology has provided a preliminary understanding of its impact in identifying disturbances and threats. We feel it ofers an appropriate
platform for evaluating risks on archaeological sites. However it requires further development.
This should include testing and monitoring change at diferent times of the year, testing it in a
larger and more comprehensive area, as well as testing it as a whole, in order to identify its
practical strengths and limitations. This efort would beneit not only the site managers at the
PAP but also other national and international stakeholders concerned with the management of
cultural and cultural landscape sites.
The following remarks are based on outcomes from the ieldwork carried out to validate the
developed methodology applied to Petra. The recommendations provided here will assist in
designing a follow-up project:
4.1 Desired competences

t The competences of the risk assessment team need to be reviewed, and more crossdisciplines should be encouraged, for example to cover the ields of cultural
landscape and conservation of nature.
t Training of site managers and the team implementing this methodology needs to be
an integral part of the approach. Before implementing the risk management
process, training should be planned and organized for diferent target groups
96
Conclusion
%"

t It is recommended that the methodology be evaluated through its application at
diferent stages of the year and over a larger pilot area in order to get a better understanding of the impact of agents of deterioration. The prioritization approach based
on quantitative or qualitative evaluation should also be reviewed.
t It is also recommended that the timeframe to evaluate the efectiveness of the
methodology be conducted over a longer period and cover larger and more
representative typologies, which for the PAP should include archaeological,
landscape and other important features.

&
t It is strongly advised to establish a board of PAP experts to evaluate the project results,
speciically on the risk assessment methodology.
t This methodology was intended to give the DoA and PDTRA a base and guideline to
carry out condition and risk assessments and to conduct continuous monitoring of
the property and its elements. If a methodology were in place and institutionalized,
a signiicant number of threats and disturbances could be dealt with and their
efects could be reduced, by implementing preventive conservation strategies
instead of active conservation work.
' (

t It is encouraged to use hybrid and/or geographic information systems. Redesigning
an information strategy for the PAP including a correct and comprehensive site atlas
with adequate cartography is also a priority. This site atlas will be the base of the
information system and will serve not only the risk methodology, but also to
monitor research permits and other management issues of the site. An information
system makes it possible to prepare complex queries on the diferent actions
happening on the site and evaluate their impacts.
!

' " #

## # $
t Risk evaluation is based on the uncertainty of a threat occurring and the
accuracy of the risk assessment. This would help to prioritize the decisionmaking strategies.
tIt is also necessary to take into account the magnitude of risks. The interrelation of the
two components of risk magnitude and uncertainty will give priorities and assist in
decision-making.
97
tThis methodology puts the main emphasis on assessing the physical condition of the
heritage, however, people and landscape are two important components in risk
management in Petra which should be further incorporated into the risk management application by identifying appropriate expertise. In order to assess the overall
condition and threat ratings, MEGAJ was used in this project as a irst tool to record
site elements and map threats and disturbances related to each site element.
However, since MEGAJ has been designed for the DoA, whose is to protect,
conserve and manage archaeological sites in Jordan, the system does not include
threats to nature and visitors. For a site like Petra, the identiied risks should also
acknowledge threats to users and to landscape. It is recommended that for Petra a
new GIS platform be developed which once in place, could record all the existing
data and documentation. This would make it possible to look at the time span of the
events and to identify threats in order to stop them before they become actual
disturbances.
98
Appendix 1
Appendix 1 MEGA-J site and code cards
99
100
Appendix 1
Middle Eastern Geodatabase for AntiquitiesJordan
2a NEW SITE ELEMENT
FIELD CARD
Version 5.0 10/09
Site Identification

Investigator(s)
Investigation Date

#

Investigator(s) Institution

SITE Primary Name
SITE ELEMENT
Element Code ELEMENT Primary Name
-

(with Boundary)
Other Element Name(s)
MEGA Site Number (if not new site)
!!"

Period Code(s)

%&$

'(%#$!" !

Topography Code
)* #

Sketch of SITE ELEMENT
-& +,+
Approximate Sketch Scale:
Elevation (m)
./0(1
Site Element Coordinates2343252678966:;34<=>?)

DA@ABC

Lat/LongEFG?>==34H?-IEGJKLM>932<NM>H:>>? O/ LIEGJK-D/P

Coordinate#
Longitude
DAS#
Example:
36.xxxxx E
Q&
:QA
Latitude
Example:
31.xxxxx N
Comments:

Additional coordinates on attached sheet
R"&
:QA
& '()*
+1 (UB/T%&DA
101
2b NEW SITE ELEMENTS
FIELD CARD
Version 5.0 10/09
(POINTS only)
-

&#$%#"
!

Site Identification

Investigator(s)
Investigation Date

SITE Primary Name

1
MEGA Site Number (if not new site)
!!"

'

Site ELEMENT (1)

Element Code
ELEMENT Primary Name
#

1
Period Code(s)

%&$
'(%#$!" !
Topography Code
)* #
Site Element Coordinates:

Lat/Long EFG?>==34H?-IEGJKLM>932<NM>H:>>? O/ LIEGJK-D/P

Longitude
Q& Latitude
R"& Elevation (m)
./0(1

Site ELEMENT (2)

Element Code
#

1

%&$
Period Code(s)
'(%#$!" !
Topography Code
)* #


Longitude
Q& Latitude
R"& Elevation (m)
./0(1

Site ELEMENT (3)

Element Code
#

1

%&$
Period Code(s)
'(%#$!" !
Topography Code
)* #


Longitude
Q& Latitude
R"& Elevation (m)
./0(1

Site ELEMENT (4)

Element Code
#

1

%&$
Period Code(s)
'(%#$!" !
Topography Code
)* #


Longitude
Q& Latitude
R"& Elevation (m)
./0(1
([UC"]UC"V ):'()*
Comments (identify which element[s]):
Additional Site Elements on attached sheet
102
+1 (UB/T%&DA
Appendix 1
#3 MONITORING
FIELD CARD
Version 5.0 10/09Z WO)AX )YDC '/

Site/Site Element Identification

ENTIRE SITE or ONE SITE ELEMENT?SITE

Investigator(s)
Date of Monitoring Visit
If Element:
Element Code
SITE ELEMENT

(

(
*)


'#
:UC/ [P
UC"#
MEGA Number

1
Site Primary Name
:UC/ [P

1
If Element:
Element Primary Name
Site Governorate, District/Province, Municipality L$\

]$L ^)
Ownership choose as many as apply

DoA
DoA Acquisition in Progress

"A'_ `@SDZ+'_
Government (other)
%&
Ownership Description:
+*
B/W CQ &
Private
Unknown
a&`
b"*
: c (U

Important DISTURBANCES (new and ongoing)
Code # Disturbance Description
Code
#
Disturbance Description
Code
#
Disturbance Description
Overall Condition Rating choose one

Very Bad

b"\ _
Overall Condition Description:
&
!
",.,-(
Q@&1bU
Q@&1bU
Q@&1bU
&

-#
Inundated
Destroyed
$ Y
: " bU
Important THREATS /

-(
Code # Threat Description ,-

Code
#
Threat Description,-

Code
#
Threat DescriptionbU
Overall Threat Rating choose one

& /
-

2 $3!High
Urgent 45Unknown b"*
- "bU
Low./01! Medium
Overall Threat Description:
Possible VIOLATIONS of ANTIQUITIES LAW

Code
#
Violation Description
Code
#
Violation Description
10#

*/,
`C1bU
`C1bU
103
#3MONITORING, page 3
MONITORING ENTIRE SITE or ONE SITE ELEMENT?SITE

Investigator(s)
If Element:
Element Code

'#
:UC/ [P
UC"#
If Element:

Caption:
104
-b
-b
-b
- 'UbU

-b
-'UbU
Caption:
File Name:

-b
-'UbU
Caption:
File Name:
:UC/ [P
UC"
-'UbU
Caption:
File Name:

-'UbU
Caption:
File Name:
MEGA Number

Site Primary Name
Caption:
File Name:
SITE ELEMENT

(

(
*)

Site Photographs
File Name:
(U,

Version 5.0 10/09
-b
- 'UbU
Appendix 1

#3MONITORING, page 4
MONITORING ENTIRE SITE or ONE SITE ELEMENT?SITE

Investigator(s)
If Element:
Element Code

'#
:UC/ [P
UC"#
SITE ELEMENT

(

(
*)

If Element:

MEGA Number

Site Primary Name
Site Photographs (Continue)

File Name:
(U,

Version 5.0 10/09
:UC/ [P
UC"

-b
-C"
Caption:
File Name:
-b
-C"
Caption:
File Name:

-b
-C"
Caption:
File Name:
-b
-C"
Caption:
File Name:

-b
-C"
Caption:
File Name:
-b
-C"
Caption:

105
Version 5.0 10/09ZWO)AX )YDC '/
CODE CARD #1

-
'
SITE ELEMENTS & PERIODS
:6
/UC/
Elements Group 1: Tall / Tell
101 Tall/Tell 4*

ElementsGroup 2: Agricultural & Similar Site Elements
201 Agricultural Terrace
#29!
203 Hamlet/Farmstead/Farmhouse
(<)=$*"<*$=7! !
?@# 9)!
42-B
4'3H!?=GF
205 Press, Oil

207 Stables
209 Villa
Elements Group 3: Cultic/Religious & Similar Site Elements

301 Church/Chapel
6(9!GH1L
303
305
307
399
@
Mosque, Desert
O K9H!
@ : R
Stone Circle
Unspecified/Unknown Religious Structures
Monastery
Elements Group 4: Funerary & Similar Site Elements

401 Burial, Cairn/Tumulus
:P$L4QU6(
403 Burial, in Church
H1L4VW!
405 Burial, in Natural Cave
)>,<L4V '!
407 Burial, Sub-Floor
409 Colombarium
411 Grave
413 Mausoleum
X 1!E?K*W!
45 P8K$=Y<=!W!GP$@!$$L
W!G
C@ E
K
415 Tomb, Cist

417 Tomb, Rock-cut with Simple Entrance or Dromos
202
204
206
208
299
H=4V!
^ 09=$K1! G`H=4V!M^M : W
5 =
302 Menhir/Standing Stone/ Cromlish
412
N(!
LG9G% <1!"M :A9
H!
D'!Q!GP :
)!
Temple
K! JG
)! J1@ST1!
A ! #$ 7$8 -1: " /UC/
,<L4VW
Burial, Cave (Loculus/Arcosolium)
Burial, Jar
54VW!
/:4VW!
Burial, Pit
W!G '!
Cemetery
W8

Dolmen
Hypogaeum %W!GWQ "Z?K*(/ J / P$@5$@[
414
Sarcophagus/Stone Anthropode Coffin
416
W
/3:B4Q=
<5$$K1!M : G$K1!4V!M^M :
Tomb, Rock-cut with Shaft
09=$K1! S
304 Mosque
306 Sanctuary
308
402
404
406
408
410
!_Y[
^@$=
\]5

^M :$=*GM :$=*
420
Elements Group 5: Habitation/Military & Similar Site Elements

501 Camp/Nomadic Camp
M
=ab0! 502
503 Castle
)( 504
505
Cave/Shelter
507
Hearth
509
Hut Circle
511
513
Palace
Settlement, Fortified
515
Tower
T(!G,<L
$!
M Rc$L
9
W9K! '3H!
e =
Unspecified/Unknown Agricultural Structure
K! JG
)! J#I1!
A !" 7$8 -1: AA /UC/
418
419 Tomb, Tower

499 Unspecified/Unknown Funerary
A 7$8 -1 : CA /UC/

$: ;:
Mill
$:>
A1 9)!
Press, Wine
Threshing Floor
C8'DE
Animal Pen
506
508
510
512
514
Tomb, Rock-cut Monumental with Sculpted Facade
[U
K! JG b"*V#_CUC/
A %&(!%&'7$8 -1:H!0 /UC/
Caravanserai
V
!
M QHa0!
Castrum
Fortress
W9:
)!$Hermitage
Latrine
Z: !Gd!

a5
Rujm
Settlement, No Fortifications(Village)
(@ "19K*
= '3H!

Tombstone
599 Unspecified/ Unknown Habitation/Military
K! JGb"*1Q
@ QH
A) 7$8 -1: H /UC/
<9
603 Kiln
% 5,W>, e5#,0"
a1!
605 Quarry
K!
gV7$! , )! <-7$!
699 Unspecified/Unknown Industrial

)! JGK! J1-T1!
Elements Group 7: Inscription & Similar Site Elements
A * 7$8 -1: )=H /UC/
701 Inscription, Arabic
= )0=N' 702 Inscription, Aramaic
!+(=N'
703 Inscription, Greek
$(=N' 704 Inscription, Kufic
$Q0=N'
705 Inscription, Latin
1*F(=N' 706 Inscription, Nabataean
210=N'
707 Inscription, Turkish
L 3(=N' 708 Inscription, Safaitic
M$/90=N'
709 Inscription, Thamudic
M$8\0=N' 799 Unspecified/Unknown Inscription

)! JGK! J=3Lh$'
Elements Group 8: General Site Elements
"
UC/: CA /UC/
801 Baths
!8: 802 Bridge
H5
Elements Group 6: Industrial/Mining & Similar Site Elements
601 Flint Knapping Site
$-fKU7$!
106
803
Cairn
805
Cupmarks/Cupholes
807
Frescoes
:P$L
09 /:
@5:$i $QH@
602 Furnace
604 Mine
606 Smelting Site/Slag Heap
804 Courtyard
O1
806 Domestic Installation (Rock-Cut or in Natural Cave)

()>
S1-,<L) 1!I1!
808 Hijaz Railway Station
#K@:Q 2K!
Appendix 1
MEGA Middle Eastern Geodatabase for AntiquitiesJordan
CODE CARD #1, page 2
Version 5.0 10/09
ZWO)AX )YDC '/
SITE ELEMENTS & PERIODS + (U

-
'
809
811
Hippodrome
Jellyfish Structure (Manyatta)
40 8.!
823
$ W8EM R4Q=)8!@ Rc$L

Macellum
!
$ i P$(L!
Monumental Gateway/Arch
D$G@Lf*=$=
Nymphaeum
P$/G@$K4
!:
Plaza/Forum
j@ >
Road
M 0-Z$:
Rock-cut Basin
825
827
Statue/Sculpture/Bas-Relief
Stele/Obelisk
829
Storage Facility/Silo
831
Theater(Odeon)
833
835
Wall, unspecified
Water Structure, Cistern
837
Water Structure, Qanat
839
Water Structure, Well
899
Unspecified/Unknown General Site Element (Specify)
813
815
817
819
821
*$K1! /X\8*
MLf*A9G(H!
W@ V)!$($@
S"k H!
*
O! V
1
Y=
Isolated Structure/House
Kite
814
H![U
OH/H
Platform
91!
Public Building
P61!
Rock Art
M 0-WG!$
Rock-cut Triclinium
/(!
X 18P)2"P$1(L *
@ R1D$'2( 09=$/K! J
Souk/Market
$H
Stone Fences/Enclosures
M :e
Tabun
$=>
Wali/Dharih

GP'!GC@ E
$8K!O!1
Water Structure, Aqueduct
H5
S
Water Structure, Dam or Barrage
d! V/L =
Water Structure, Reservoir (Birket)
Water Structure, Unspecified
b"* d8(O1=

(:) K! JGl
)! J7$8(P 91
816
818
820
822
824
826
828
830
832
834
836
838
840
Milestone
Mosaic
!2-
0: " /UC/
Elements Group 9: Site Elements with No Structure(s) Found

901 Sherd/Flint Surface Scatter (Unexcavated)
?=GO1=
$:9!
810
812
902 Sherd/Flint or Other Material Culture (Excavated)
%A'1!"@8/(08W![ J
S0/(G$9(3
%A'1! J"C2H6(0/(G$9(3

),-
Period of Site Element

9001 Paleolithic, Lower
9003 Paleolithic, Upper
9005 Epi-Paleolithic
6Ga@'M K
6(a@'M K
'3ma@'M K
$>1
A M0/4!g@KM K
C M0/4!g@KM K
9007 Natufian
9009 Neolithic, Pre-pottery A
9011 Neolithic, Pre-pottery C
9013 Neolithic, Pottery A (Yarmoukian)
A L$! GM0/g@KM K
9015 Neolithic, Unspecified
K! J g@KM K
9002 Paleolithic, Middle

9004 Paleolithic, Unspecified
9006 Kebaran
9008 Neolithic, Pre-pottery
9010 Neolithic, Pre-pottery B
9012 Neolithic, Pottery
9014 Neolithic, Pottery B
Q8 K1M K

K! J K1M K
\ 3/i Q8M

\\ 3/i Q8M

Early Bronze, Unspecified
K! J Q8M

Middle Bronze IIb-c
b/c \ 3/i $38M

X
3/i VT38M

Late Bronze I
Late Bronze, Unspecified K! J VT38M

Iron Age IIa-b
a/b\
M@K 9)
% /"g\
M@K
Iron Age III (Persian)
Q83H1(<
Hellenistic, Early
Hellenistic, Late
VT383H1(<
Nabataean, Early
Q821
VT3821
Nabataean, Late
Q8!

Roman, Early
K! J!

Roman, Unspecified
VT382
Byzantine, Late
M$!
Islamic, Umayyad
8>/
Islamic, Fatimid
Islamic, Mamluk
L$(88
Crusader
(9
Ottoman, Late
VT388\)
g@K
Modern (1915-1950)
K! JG
)! J 3/
Unspecified/Unknown Period
9017 Chalcolithic, Late

9019 Early Bronze I
9021 Early Bronze II-III
9016 Chalcolithic, Early

9018 Chalcolithic, Unspecified
9020 Early Bronze II
9022 Early Bronze III
9023
9024
9025
9027
9029
9031
9033
9035
9037
9039
9041
9043
9045
9047
9049
9051
9053
9055
9057
9059
9061
VT38 K1M K

6
3/i Q8M

g\
\ Q8M

Early Bronze IV (EB-MB)
)= 3/i Q8M

Middle Bronze IIa
a \ 3/i $38M

K! J $38M

Middle Bronze, Unspecified
Late Bronze IIa-b
a/b \ 3/i VT38M

X
M@K 9)
Iron Age I
Iron Age IIc
c \ 3/GM@K 9)
Iron Age, UnspecifiedK! JM@K 9)
Hellenistic, Middle
$383H1(<
Hellenistic, Unspecified
K! J3H1(<
$3821
Nabataean, Middle
K! J21
Nabataean, Unspecified
VT38!

Roman, Late
Q82
Byzantine, Early
K! J2
Byzantine, Unspecified
)
Islamic, Abbasid
Islamic, Ayyubid
=$@
Islamic, Unspecified
K! J!F m
Ottoman, Early
Q88\)
K! J8\)
Ottoman, Unspecified
8U< 3/
Hashemite
9026
9028
9030
9032
9034
9036
9038
9040
9042
9044
9046
9048
9050
9052
9054
9056
9058
9060
9999
$38a@'M K
a@'M K
MQ
M0/4!g@KM K
M0/4!g@KM K
M0/g@KM K
BM0/g@KM K
107
CODE CARD #2
Version 5.0 10/09ZWO)AX )YDC '/

(-./0

TOPOGRAPHY & MONITORING

) -./
Site Element Topography

1001
Alluvial Fan
1003
Cutbank
1005
Hilltop
1007
Plain, Non- Alluvial
1009
Playa
1011
1013
Slope
Valley Bottom
1999
Unspecified/Unknown Topography
3GA9! 1002
<1l 5 1004
(38 1006
1@ J J4< 1008
5ZS 1010
K1!GC/ 1012
M$ ) 1998

l 5
(!\L
Plain, Alluvial
1@ J4<
Plateau
7
4< G.[
Ridge
:G/U
29!
Terrace
Other Topography (Specify)
%:" %& )*
K! JG
)! J )*
Cliff
Dune Field

1

Site Monitoring Codes
20(7$8Z )* G4'3H8(83K8@<3:"!"2
THREATS(s): future threats/risks to site
A3

DAd:6
$88i @<*
'8 :
2103 Fruit/Olive Grove
$3@#G]L$3H= 2104 Grazing

2105 Irrigation
6EkF93
V 2106 Land Reclamation
2107 Plowing
5 :#Gn@ K*
: 2108 Reforestation
2109 Terracing
A>9!G4 F 2110 Threshing Floor
C8'DE
2198 Other Agricultural Impacts (Specify)%& /#DAd

Threat Group 2: Development & Similar Impacts
A4
DAd: CA /i@<*
2201 Bulldozing
O1=3 O8=$8!
=,@ * 2202 Inundation (by Dam)
2203 Mining
a1! 2204 Quarrying
7('!G K!
2205 Road Work
1o1V
>O 2206 Trenching, Canal
2207 Trenching, Pipeline/Sewage/Aqueduct
2208 Urbanization
83
8RP;
Sd!QU
S%M!G $!"1V
2209 Vibrations, Automobile/Truck
COG'oD##e1 2210 Vibrations, Railroad &oD##e1
2298 Other Development Impacts (Specify)
%& \DAd
Threat Group 3: Human & Similar Impacts
A 2)
DAd: AA /i @<*
2301 Air
O$[p$(* 2302 Bedouin Camp
M
=a0!
2303 Dumping
/ A<
]f 2304 Looting/Theft
2305 Military Activities
@ QH> 2306 Modern Tombs/Cemetery
'!G\@:W!
2307 Reuse of Ancient Masonry
8@I1!X8)3 SB
8@!X8)3 SB 2308 Reuse of Ancient Structure
2309 Vandalism
A@ 0* 2398 Other Human Impacts (Specify) (:)%& O DAd
Threat Group 4: Natural & Similar Impacts & Deterioration A)
DAd- " /i@<*
2402 Collapse - Wall/Superstructure
2401 Animal (Non-Domestic) Impact
D
1#C]DC
( C*DCA
2403 Earthquake
d!G@ )*
X #GES [ 2404 Erosion, Water
2405 Erosion, Wind
k@G@ )* 2406 Fire
W
2407 Flooding (Not by Dam)
( , ) DC\( 2408 Land/Rock Slide
&U] \D
1#CP
2409 Rising Damp
g 0( 2410 Vegetation (Non-Agricultural) Impact
/#*) C$YAd
2498 Other Natural Impacts & Deterioration (Specify) (:) e%& " DAd
Threat Group 5: Site Management & Similar Impacts
A
!5/ CDAd: & /i @<*
Threat Group 1: Agriculture & Similar Impacts
2101 Animal Pen/Shelter
T(!G$: ;: 2102
2501
2503
2505
Inappropriate Archaeological Excavation

Inappropriate Maintenance
Tourist/Visitor Activities
M /:A 1! J

1! J -
2502
Inappropriate Conservation/Restoration
2504
2598
Tourism Concessioner Activities

A
Other Site Management Impacts (Specify)
(:)%& SD+A
2999
No Threats Observed
A 1! Ja! * /q/:
:H SG R G:H>1

Threat Group 6: Other
2998 Other Threats (Specify)
108
(:)
r VS@<*
Deep Plowing
r VS4!$ : /i @<*

D1
Appendix 1
MEGA (Middle Eastern Geodatabase for AntiquitiesJordan)h>:?364ijklk]km
CODE CARD #2, page 2

TOPOGRAPHY & MONITORING
Z WO)AX )YDC '/
+ (U ,
(-./ -

) _+Q@&1 : .,
DISTURBANCE(s) existing disturbances at site

Disturbance Group 1: Agriculture & Similar Impacts
3101 Animal Pen/Shelter
T(!G$: ;: 3102
3103
Fruit/Olive Grove
3105
3107
Irrigation
Plowing
3109
Terracing
$3@#G]L$3H=
V
:
A>9!G4 F
3104
3106
3108
3110
3198 Other Agricultural Impacts (Specify)

Disturbance Group 2: Development & Similar Impacts
3201 Bulldozing
=,@ * 3202
3203 Mining
a1! 3204
3205
3207
>X8
Road Work
Trenching, Pipeline/Sewage/Aqueduct
3206
3208
3209
8RP;
Sd!QU
S%M!G $!"1V
Vibrations, Automobile/Truck
COG'oD##e1
3298
Other Development Impacts (Specify)
3501
Inappropriate Archaeological Excavation
A3

DAd:B / i Q@&1
'8 :
Deep Plowing

Grazing
6EkF93
Land Reclamation
Reforestation
5 :#Gn@ K*
C8'DE
Threshing Floor
(:)%& /#DAd
A4
DAd: CA /i Q@&1
Inundation (by Dam)
O1=3O8=$8!
7('!G K!
Quarrying
Trenching, Canal
1o1V
83
Urbanization
3210 Vibrations, Railroad

&oD##e1
%& \DAd
Disturbance Group 3: Human & Similar Impacts
A 2)
DAd: AA /i Q@&1
3301 Air Pollution
M
=a0!
O$[p$(* 3302 Bedouin Camp
3303 Dumping
/ A<
]f 3304 Looting/Theft
3305 Military Activities
'!G\@:W!
@ QH> 3306 Modern Tombs/Cemetery
3307 Reuse of Ancient Masonry
8@I1!X8)3 SB
8@!X8)3 SB 3308 Reuse of Ancient Structure
3309 Vandalism
A@ 0* 3398 Other Human Impacts (specify) (:) %& O DAd
Disturbance Group 4: Natural & Similar Impacts & Deterioration A)
DAd- " /i Q@&1
3401 Animal (Non-Domestic)
( C*DCA 3402 Collapse - Wall/Superstructure
D
1#C]DC
3403 Earthquake
X #GES [ 3404 Erosion, Water
d!G@ )*
3406
3405 Erosion, Wind
k@G@ )*
Fire
W
3407 Flooding (Not by Dam)
3408
( , ) DC\(
Land/Rock Slide
&U] \D
1#CP
3409 Rising Damp
3410
Vegetation
(Non-Agricultural)
g 0(
/#*) C$YAd
3498 Other Natural Impacts & Deterioration (Specify)
(:) e%& " DAd
Disturbance Group 5: Site Management & Similar Impacts A
!5/ C DAd : & /iQ@&1
3503
3505
Inappropriate Maintenance
Tourist/Visitor Activities
A 1! JM /:

1! J CU
3502
Inappropriate Conservation/Restoration
3504
3598
Tourism Concessioner Activities

A
Other Site Management Impacts (Specify)
(:)%& SD+A
3999
No Disturbances Observed
4002
4004
Bulldoze Site
Encroachment by Devices
4006
Expose to Fire Risk
A 1! Ja! * /^(
:H SG R G:H>1

Disturbance Group 6: Other
3998 Other Disturbances (Specify)
(:)r VS D1@&
3454!$: /iQ@&1

D1@&1
1Q88$'L<3
POTENTIAL LEGAL VIOLATIONS observed

4001
Attach Notice to Antiquities
4003
Damage Antiquities
4005
Erect Construction
4007
Illegal Excavation
4009
Plant Vegetation or Plowing
4998
Other Legal Violation (Specify)
AnB/D+U\
An \S
T18O1=
/K=O3m
A] /#
(:) %& CC
D(&
4008
4010
4999
D" '# V" ADC+DAd

W&R"
Move or Dispose Antiquities
(AnQ+C
Trade in Antiquities
An 0O*S
No Legal Violations Observed
CC
D(&1

" 6

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS after monitoring event

5001
5003
DoA Acquire Property

Excavation
`@So "A'_

M SA'1*O 5B
Ka'*j8)3
5005
In-depth Condition Assessment
5007
Intervene with Owner/Occupant/Local Inhabitant(s)
5009
5011
5998
]Q]`%Q&]Q*O]+

Reburial
)'/P
Relocate Development Proposal
CO #P]Q+C
Other Action Recommended(Specify) (:"r VSO 5B

b
5002
Documentation
5004
5006
Fencing
Intervene with Other Government Authorities
5008
Mitigate Fire Threat
5010
Registration
5012
Conservation/Restoration
5999
No Action Recommended
WA
p
%& DWC

j@ K@<*)!
7$84H*
a! *oq/:oK?\*
<=6-$8O 5B$5
P
109
,4=$>,"? %

* *** *!"$%$'$*
&T <'T"=KQE37SK50ED9K3N304KA3G

" & &"!
&$ &#!
$, % & ',()("*)#/

%$$%
%$$>
%$$!
%$$`
%$$*
%$%%
%$%>
+*;*
=*3
XZ
^*_ {| +*
^*~*
Z
*~
%***
Z '3Z*Z~
\dA]w
pV<Hph
ad<a
WppXVr
a\hEB:
Boljr
RA<<p~
%$$<
%$$?
%$$\
%$$}
%$%$
%$%<
%**}
Hph
aXBL\`f
WpVr
|r<OVra`yS
a\k\t
a`zw
Z*Z~Z~ Aok(;T
50EC'4K
=AolpX aOp~pX50EC'4
=
@;
^*_+*
^**

*
$, ('$,(*$'"
( + *+$('!(*
-. '
""
&#!!
pzn|<Ep~c`ds<adl<><oWoVd<

+ *'3

*Z% "*$-%,-* * Z*
<%$% *^'
Zi>\<Xk=pX{k <%$<
)72*$",'/1$&2
<%$>
;'++

*/,/(*$","(&.32)
LdWCU<L\ds_ <%$? *

* <%$\
<%$!
*

!"3&1
<%$`
^
ae<pk <%$}
)72*$",'/1$&2
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
*
]F\wrr <%%$
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/. 3)&'"#1*$
<%$*
<%*}
*Z*Z~
<<$!
<<$`
<<$*
110
}B
*/,/(*$","(&.32)
)72*$",'/1$&2
* **
x<B< @wdr<
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
*
aXhpka}<BCgWplc
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
;
j<DBoaXxB<
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
: (;T50AK 0716K

0716K3.L73M03M'5A'M9MK oWoVc50N37K
*~@* or9\_aiXd
9\\_B
*Z< . %()& ', * Z*

<<$%
>\X\_Wpic <<$<
)72*$",'/1$&2
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
<<$>
3.L73M03M' 0716KO<a}i< oWoVc

@Z^
aX}ae<pk
)72*$",'/1$&2
*.%*1&$3 *-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T

i
)72*$",'/1$&2
,&$31/-"(.&3*$6"5&2".%1"%*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
* )3
IpF9\u<
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
_^Z'*'

!"3&1
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*_'3
5N:3= 30<6,V
<<$?
<<$\

!"3&1
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
*~
|pil
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
_=**
=\ Iom

!"3&1
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
<<$}
**
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
Lod<
<<%$
*_** 500:K5I<K;6,V
Appendix 2
* *** *

&T
<'T"=KQE37SK50ED9K3N304KA3G

_Z*< 5:F> _ " & |&"!
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
<<*} @+ZZ* Z~
*Z> -&' * Z*
<>$%
9<S?c <>$<
/.3"-*.".32
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
: (;T503?:K360716K
0716K3.L73M03M'5A'M9MK oWoVc57K37K
=*Z
ROo_Xn
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
'
apr' ]V
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
@Z
%MIM <>$?
/.3"-*.".32
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
<>$! *~+
aWps}>\F\u <>$\ '=~
=p`afWok<o
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
/.3)&'"#1*$
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
<>$` *~
aWo\`J\~dr:=A\}; <>$}
aWo>YuJ\~dr:=A\};
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
/.3)&'"#1*$
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
<>$* * *
]Wpnc <>*} X*Z*Z~ Aok(;T50=4K 0716K
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
/.3)&'"#1*$
*Z? ,-*% * Z* , *$(*,$('0716K5B4K5A'M9MK
'3.L73M03M'
oWoVc
<?$% *{|@Z*
<?$< =*Z | )*'Z
3GVN30.N
504K5N9K0C 3N'0:K7
)72*$",'/1$&2

!"3&1
*22/$*"3*/.
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3 *-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
<?$> **3
J<qCaXxB:><qS <?$? _)*
M\XaWp~c

!"3&1
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
<?$! _)
@\WBaWp~c <?$\ ;
"0:
,*-"3&*."001/01*"3&".% 8
*1&
)72*$",'/1$&2
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$) 42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
<?$` ; {~@*
<K 5<'40K' 3N3?0FK <?$} * '3
50;>50?163GVN

!"3&1

!"3&1
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
<?$* @*Z
-4'K 3F6 <?%$ *{|*Z*
<>$>
50AK0C Q634NK3DK0716
<?*}

!"3&1
$\
/.3"-*.".32
{**Z*@* Z~Aok',6K'(;T50B04K0716K
,&$31/-"(.&3*$6"5&2".%1"%*"3*/.
*Z! $, '" & ', * Z*

<!$% *ZZZ****+*
<!$<
Rpe<pk]r\pX
<!$>
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
*ZZZ***
a\Xva`r\pX <!$?
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
&A5963NK0716K3.L73M03M'5A'M9MK
*ZZZ*=+*'*
oWoVc5<M3;K
]r\pXXpc 'G\k
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&12 1&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
= +
Q:30<K@96K7
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
111
* *** *

&T

_Z*< 5:F> _ " & |&"!
<!$!
' +
<!*}
ak\Xs<pe:p[<q<aXk\Xs<>\F\u<
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
*Z\ ,# *
<**} *Z~
AokPpm:><oWoVc <***
112
**Z* Z~

Aok(;T50U HK 7
{*+
Ppm:<}5A'M9MK oWoVc5<3<K
0.69'6V
Appendix 2
* *** *

&T

_Z*< 5:F> _ " & |&"!
@G'MKQE5M23HK $W6;V!

+ **
@* Z%"*$-%,-* *Z*
>%$% *^'
Zi>\<Xk=pX{k >%$<
)72*$",'/1$&2
LdWCU<L\ds_ >%$?
>%$>
;'++

*/,/(*$","(&.32)
>%$!
*

!"3&1
>%$`
^
ae<pk >%$}
)72*$",'/1$&2
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
*
]F\wrr >%%$
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
>%$*
* >%$\
>%*} *Z*Z~

@* Z< . %()& ',* Z*
><$%
>\X\_Wpic ><$<
)72*$",'/1$&2
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
><$>
><$!
><$`

i ><$?
)72*$",'/1$&2
,&$31/-"(.&3*$6"5&2".%1"%*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
* )3
IpFJ\}< ><$\
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
_^Z'*'
><$}
[\K\{O:M\Xa`tO:RB\ipXr<Iom
3.L73M03M' 0716K5A'M9MK $W6;V3/K'T

@Z^
aX}ae<pk
)72*$",'/1$&2
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3 /.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
*
}B
*/,/(*$","(&.32)
)72*$",'/1$&2
* **
x<B<@wdr<
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
*
aXhpka}<BCgWplc
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
;
j<DBoaXxB<
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-". "$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$0)72*$",%&5&,/0-&.3"(1*$4,341&
$/.2314$3*/.T
Aok(;T50AK 0716K
0716K3.L73M03M'5A'M9MK $W6;V50N37K
*~@*or9\_aiXd
9\\_B

!"3&1
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
*~
|pil
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
_=**
=\ Iom

!"3&1
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
**
Lod<
*22/$*"3*/.

!"3&1
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
)72*$",'/1$&2
/.3)&'"#1*$
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
><$* *_'3
5N:3= 30<6,V ><%$ *_**
500:K5I<K;6,V
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/- )4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
/.3)&'"#1*$
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
><*} @+ZZ* Z~
: (;T503?:K360716K
@* Z> -&'*Z*
0716K3.L73M03M'5A'M9MK $W6;V57K37K
>>$% ^
>>$<
=*Z
9<S?c
ROo_Xn
/.3"-*.".32
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
>>$> @Z
apr' ]V
%MIM >>$? '
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3"-*.".32
/.3)&'"#1*$
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
>>$! *~+
aWps}>\F\u >>$\ '=~
=p`afWok<o
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
/.3)&'"#1*$
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
113
* *** *

&T

_Z*< 5:F> _ " & |&"!
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
>>$` *~
aWo\`J\~dr:=A\}; >>$}
aWo>YuJ\~dr:=A\};
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
/.3)&'"#1*$
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
>>$* * *
]Wpnc >>*} X*Z*Z~ Aok(;T50=4K 0716K
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-". "$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
/.3)&'"#1*$
@*Z? ,-*%*Z* , *$(*,$('0716K5B4K5A'M9MK $W6;V
'3.L73M03M'
>?$% *{|@
>?$<
504K5N9K0C 3N'0:K7
=*Z | )*'Z
3GVN30.N
)72*$",'/1$&2

!"3&1
*22/$*"3*/.
)72*$",'/1$&2
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
>?$> **3
J<qCaXxB:><qS >?$? _)*
M\XaWp~c

!"3&1
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
>?$! _)
@\WBaWp~c >?$\ ;
"0:
,*-"3&*."001/01*"3&".% 8
*1&
)72*$",'/1$&2
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
>?$` ; {~@*
<K 5<'40K' 3N3?0FK >?$} * '3
50;>50?163GVN

!"3&1

!"3&1
)72*$",'/1$&2
)72*$",'/1$&2
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
>?$* @*Z
-4'K 3F6 >?%$ *{|*
50AK0C Q634NK3DK0716

!"3&1
/.3"-*.".32
*/,/(*$","(&.32)
>?*}
{**Z*@* Z~

@*Z! $, '" & ',*Z*
>!$% *ZZZ****+*
Aok',6'(;T50B04K0716K
&A5963NK504L<K0716K3.L73M03M'5<M3;K
5A'M9MK $W6;V
>!$<
]r\pXRpe<pk
>!$>
>!$!
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
*ZZZ***
5N30> a`r\pX
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
' +
>!$?
>!*}
ak\Xs<pe:p[<q<aXk\Xs<>\F\u<
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".
%&5&,/0-&.3/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
@*Z\ ,# *
>**} @*Z~
AokPpm:VW6; >***
*ZZZ*=+*'*
]r\ pXXpc '3F:

*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
*2+'/13)&42&121&,"3&%3/3)&42&6)*$)42&/'3)&$4,341",
)&1*3"(&'"#1*$
= +
Q:30<K@96K7
*22/$*"3*/.
*.%*1&$3*-0"$3'1/-)4-"."$3*5*3*&2".%)4-".%&5&,/0-&.3
/.3)&'"#1*$
** Z*Z~
Aok(;T50U HK 7
<}5<3<K
{@*+
5A'M9MK $W6;V
VW6;9'6V
a<aX\<>\\Vd<
37ROLA3H>LM@?' ?$$<
@G'MK!096
37R34?U ?$$? *~@+
BMK34'.9T34*B6570:K30NH6K0716
=
>Zu<9\_ ?$$\ Z;3
"0:K;L?B6K
**+*
pl\_9<od}< ?$$} +@Z
3.F096'37R$HN
^**^
57:5A ?$%$ *
37R34 '=MK0C 396U
**Z~ Aok(;50N'N3G3FK3;M ?*** {**+
50N'N3G3FK3;M9'6V
(+ *.

?$$%
?$$>
?$$!
?$$`
?$$*
?**}
*{
@**

*+
!$$%
114
@^Z~
5M3BK37T2IWM6<U+ !$$< @*
54GMKB4
"07'6
Appendix 2
* *** *

&T

_Z*< 5:F> _ " & |&"!
!$$> *+*
Rpe:]Xc9<ph; !$$? ;
800<6
!$$! | Z=
a\l<XXc ~d< !$$\ ++
(;50M'I:3.9@M"0<N6K
!$$` +'Z*'***
!$$} *;*
Wpl<oWoVcai\~
QL:MK&I3<K$6:MK #K3M (K$;6K$C3=K%0HMK
!$$* *
|<Xisc
&E3A !$%$ *
!$%% *@+Z^Z*
XpcG\ka\l<bX`fc
50MN6K @03=M5:$HN !$%< =+*'*
!**} Z~ AokPpm:><9<ph; !*** {
\V_v< AhOKo}
><9<ph;
115
,4@! B C=DDF7

WHC Retrospective Inventory - Technical Evaluations
JO-326
Petra
Date(s) inscribed: 1985
Received: 10/05/1984
At its 9th session in 1985, at the time of inscription of Petra on the World Heritage List, the
World Heritage Committee "noted that the boundaries of the site corresponded to those of the
Petra National Park." Several maps, with different boundaries for the Park have been
submitted in the intervening years and it has not been clear to many observers which
boundaries were the applicable boundaries at the time of inscription in 1985. A proposal for
an extension of the site was received in 1995 from the Department of Antiquities but
withdrawn the same year after an ICOMOS evaluation mission. The mission reported at the
time that "the precise area inscribed on the List was somewhat uncertain."
The plans on file at the World Heritage Centre and in the UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation
Centre are the following:
x Plan A (below left) was submitted prior to inscription but was considered too imprecise
to adequately define the boundaries of the Park.
x Plan B (below right) was contained in the 1994 Management plan as a statement of the
current boundaries at the time. The limit of the Petra National Park shown coincides
with Plan C. This plan also shows a substantial buffer zone.
x Plan C is undated but may be the earliest representation of the official boundaries of
Petra National Park.
x Plan D is a blueline print showing both the limits shown in B and C above, as well as
the new, revised limits proposed by the 1994 Management Plan.
x Plan E (right), from the 1994 Management Plan by UNESCO and the Socit d'EcoAmnagement (SECA), presents a proposal for the park boundaries and a management
zoning scheme for the park.
116
A. Plan "Petra. Mission IGN 100. February 1974 (Annexe
B. "Fig. II-1. Official boundaries for the PNP and its Buffer zone
V)", handwritten annotation "Dlimitation de la zone de

protection du site de Petra (Dpartement des Antiquits)",
A4, no scale (item #20)
as demarcated by the MOA. (under the responsibility of the PNP

Authority)". A4 B&W map inserted in mgmt plan as p. 137. No
scale. shows "PNP Boundary" and "Buffer zone". (item #32a)
Appendix 3
C. Plan Petra Natural and Archaeological Park, A4, scale

1:50,000. (inventory item #74)
D. Plan Petra Natural and Archaeological Park, scale

1:50,000, blueline print, 85 x 100 cm (item #17)
From these maps it would appear that the

older map, possibly showing the 1985
boundaries, is Plan C.
Cartographic Information requested:
We ask that the authorities identify the
boundaries by which the site was
inscribed in 1985, confirming, if
appropriate, that "Map C" (above)
correctly presents these limits.
x Secondly, please submit the largest
scale topographic or cadastral map
available which clearly shows the
boundary of the inscribed property. We
are aware of the excellent set of maps
of the central Petra produced by the
Petra Preservation project at the
Hashemite
University
(HU)
in
cooperation with the American Center
of Oriental Research (ACOR) in 1999.
A similar map or maps of the entire
E. Map n 3: "Parks Boundary and Zoning" (proposal), 54x81
Petra National Park would be
cm, scale 1:50,000). From the 1994 Management Plan.
(inventory item #35
appreciated, if it exists.
x Please indicate the size in hectares of the property. If a buffer zone exists, please inform
the Centre and provide its size.
x
117
,43$4 $>,"?

118
Appendix 4
119
120
Glossary
>

This is based on the thesaurus developed by David Ball and John Watt (Ball and Watt, 2001), as
well as the glossary of relevant disaster management terms adopted by UNESCO in its Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage, World Heritage Resources Manual, 2010 and the Risk
Preparedness Strategy (RPS) project at the Baalbek UNESCO World Heritage property.
Area: this level relates to assessment areas, which will be deined by the project staf to carry
out the risk assessment. This level could cover the whole site, or selected site element(s),
landscape area(s) or both.
Condition assessment: the activity aimed at identifying to what degree an entire property or
site element is physically stable, is able to withstand natural or human forces, including the
ability to shed weather phenomena, and is or is not experiencing active deterioration (MEGAJ
guidelines). It provides important information to identify disturbances/threats and therefore
design management recommendations.
Disaster: a serious disruption to the functioning of a community or a society, causing
widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses, which exceed the ability of
the afected community or society to cope using its own resources. (www.unisdr.org)
Disturbance: a detectable, negative efect (new or ongoing) on the property (site) or site
element by natural forces or human activities (MegaJ guidelines).
Hazard: a natural or human-caused phenomenon that may occur in or near the property and
may threaten human life and well-being, or cause physical damage and economic loss. A
hazard is a situation that could cause damage or destruction (Ball and Watt, 2001), for instance
an earthquake or an excess number of visitors. In this research a hazard is considered as a form
of threat.
Mitigation: taking action in the time frame before a disaster to lessen post-event damage to
lives and property. In risk management, many hazards, such as earthquakes, cannot be diminished, but the risk from that hazard can be reduced or mitigated (UNESCO, 2010).
Preparedness: planning eforts to reduce the risk and consequences of a disaster; also includes
planning eforts to prepare for response and recovery.
Preventive conservation: an approach whose primary objective is to ensure the long-term
physical survival of a property, with minimal intervention on the fabric itself (Woolitt, 2007).
Risk: the probability of a certain agent of deterioration occurring within a certain time span,
and harming the aspects of the property that are valued by human beings (Kates and Kasperson, 1983). The actual damaging efect of the harmful event or process is related to its intensity
121
and to the vulnerability of the heritage place or component. Risk assessment: the activity of
identifying hazards and assessing the probability of harm (Ball and Watt, 2001) as part of risk
management process.
Risk management: a set of elements of an organizations management system concerned with
managing risk and the decision-making process following a risk assessment. (Ball and Watt,
2001). In terms of a process, relates to the systematic application of management policies,
procedures and practices to the tasks of communicating, establishing context, identifying,
analysing, evaluating, treating, monitoring and reviewing risk (Standards Australia/New
Zealand , 2004).
Site: a spatially deined area and location of signiicant event, that contains physical remains of
past occupation and human activity including human-built and human-used features (houses,
shelters, tombs, earthworks, mounds, quarries, canals, roads, workshops and so on), artifacts
and any other physical remains whether standing, ruined or vanished that contribute to the
historical and cultural identity of a group of people.
Site element: this level relates to a distinct component of an archaeological site which has any
evidence of human activity (MEGAJ guidelines) such as monuments, standing structures,
caves and natural features.
Site element feature: this level relates to features in each site element, such as walls, carvings,
entrance, floor and roof.
Threat: detectable phenomena, whether natural forces or human activities, that appear to
predict a future disturbance to a site or element. Threats can also be phenomena that are
causing ongoing disturbances to a site or element and that are predicted to continue to
negatively afect the site or element into the future (MegaJ guidelines).
Uncertainty: caused by the lack of knowledge about unpredictable actions by agents of
deterioration in the property and/or site element because of the type of in-depth assessment
being carried out.
Vulnerability: the susceptibility or exposure of cultural property to a disturbance/threat; it is
the inherent weakness of the heritage property (UNESCO, 2010).
World Heritage property: a property as deined in Article 1 and 2 of the World Heritage Convention and inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis of its outstanding universal value,
which is fulilled when criteria (i) to (x) are met. A World Heritage property can be cultural, and
in this case include sites, groups of buildings and monuments; natural; or mixed (UNESCO
WHC, 2010, p. 58).
122
References
References
Akrawi, A. 2012. Forty-Four Years of Management Plans in Petra. Comer, D. (ed.), Tourism and
Archaeological Heritage Management at Petra: Driver to Development or Destruction? New
York, Springer Verlag.
ATC Consultants. 2011. The Strategic Master Plan for the Petra Region.
Auge, C. and Dentzer, J.-M. 2000. Petra, the Rose-Red City. London, Thames & Hudson.
Ball, D. and Watt, J. 2001. Risk Management and Cultural Presentation. Proceedings of the
ARIADNE Workshop 4, Vulnerability of cultural heritage to hazards and prevention measures,
Prague, 1824 August 2001.
Bourbon, F. 1999. Petra: Art, History and Itineraries in the Nabatean capital. Vercelli, White Star.
Brown University. 2011. Petra Archaeological Park Mission 2010 and 2011.
http://proteus.brown.edu/bupap/Home (Accessed 21 May 2012.)
Browning, I. 1982. Petra. London, Chatto & Windus.
Cesaro, G. 2011. Boundaries and bufer zone as tools for protecting the integrity of World
Heritage properties: the case of Petra, Jordan. Masters thesis, Raymond Lemaire International
Centre for Conservation, KU Leuven (unpublished).
Cummins, D., Powell, J. and Westcott, C. 2007. Deining Boundaries: An Illustrated Guide.
Queensland, Australia, Queensland Heritage Council.
Dar Al Handasah. 1996. Petra Priority Action Plan Study, 3 vols.
De la Torre, M. 2005. Introduction. De la Torre, M. (ed.), Heritage Values in Site Management.
Los Angeles, Getty Conservation Institute, pp. 3-12.
Declaration of Saint Antonio. 1996. Declaration of San Antonio. InterAmerican Symposium on
Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage. 2730 March,
1996.
Demas, M. 2002. Planning for conservation and management of archaeological sites: a valuesbased approach. Teutonico, J. M. and Palumbo, G. (eds), Management Planning for Archaeological Sites. Los Angeles, EEUU, Getty Conservation Institute.
Farajat, S. (2012). The participation of local communities in the tourism industry at
Petra,tourism and archaeological heritage management at Petra. Comer, D. (ed.), Tourism and
Archaeological Heritage Management at Petra: Driver to Development or Destruction? New
York, Springer Verlag.
123
Fischhof, B. and Kadvany, J. (2011). Risk: A Very Short Introduction. New York, Oxford University Press.
Getty Conservation Institute and World Monuments Fund. 2010. Middle Eastern Geodatabase
for Antiquities (MEGA) Jordan: Guidelines for Completing Site Cards, unpublished.
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
(ICCROM), Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) and Institute for Cultural Heritage of the
Netherlands (ICN). 2007.
Unpublished material for course on preventive conservation: Reducing Risks to Collections,
Sibiu, Romania. 18 June6 July 2007.
International Council on Monument and Sites (ICOMOS), 1996. Management Analysis and
Recommendations for the Petra World Heritage Site. Paris
International Council on Monument and Sites (ICOMOS). 1999. The Australia ICOMOS Charter
for the Places of Cultural Signiicance.
http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/ (Accessed 22 May 2012.)
International Council of Museums (ICOM). 2004. Running a Museum: A Practical Handbook.
Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientiic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Kates, R. W. and Kasperson, J. X. 1983. Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards. a
review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, No. 80.
Klinke, A. and Renn, O. 2002. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based,
precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 107194.
Mason R. and Avrami E. 2000. Heritage values and challenges of conservation planning.
Management Planning for Archaeological Sites, an International Workshop organized by the
Getty Conservation Institute and the Loyola Marymount University, May 2000, Corinth, Greece,
pp. 1326.
McKenzie, J. 1990. The Architecture of Petra. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Myers, D., Nicole Smith, S. and Shaer, M. 2010. A Didactic Case Study of Jarash Archaeological
Site, Jordan: Stakeholders and Heritage Values in Site Management. Los Angeles, Getty Conservation Institute.
Nara. 1994. Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention.
Nara, Japan, 16 November 1994.
Palumbo, G. (ed.). 1994. JADIS, A Summary of the Data. Amman, Department of Antiquities of
Jordan and American Center of Oriental Research.
Seif, A. and Santana Quintero, M. 2011. Protecting Baalbeks Integrity: A Proposal for an
124
References
Integrated Risk Preparedness Strategy. Leuven, Netherlands, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Sullivan, S. 1997. A Planning Model for the Management of Archaeological Sites. M. de la Torre
(ed) The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region. An international
conference organised by the Getty Conservation Institute and J. Paul Getty Muesum, May
1995. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, pp. 15-26.
Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand. 2004. Risk Management: AS/NZ 4360:2004.
Wellington, New Zealand.
Stovel, H. 1998. Risk Preparedness: A Management Manual for World Heritage. Rome, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM).
Taylor, J. 2005. An integrated approach to risk assessment and condition surveys. Journal of
the American Institute for Conservation, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 12741.
UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 1994. Petra National Park Management Plan Main Report. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2008. World Heritage and bufer zones. International Experts Meeting on World
Heritage and Bufer Zones, Davos, Switzerland 1114 March, 2008. UNESCO World Heritage
Paper Series 25. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO World Heritage Committee (WHC). 1985. Inscription of Petra. Ninth World Heritage
Committee, X, 326. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO WHC. 2004. World Heritage Committee, Seventh Extraordinary Decision 7 EXT. COM
7.1 2004. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO WHC. 2006. 30th World Heritage Committee, Decision WHC06-30COM. 11A2. Paris,
UNESCO.
UNESCO WHC. 2007. 31st World Heritage Committee, Decision WHC07-31COM. 11A2. Paris,
UNESCO.
UNESCO WHC. 2010a. Petra (Jordan) C 326, Decision COM.7B.56. Report on the Decisions
adopted by the WHC at its 34th Session. WHC-10/34. Brasilia, UNESCO.
UNESCO WHC. 2010b. Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage: World Heritage Resource
Manual. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO WHC. 2010c. Preparing a World Heritage Nomination: World Heritage Resources
Manual. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO WHC. 2011a. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. Paris, UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (Accessed 22 May 2012.)
125
UNESCO WHC. 2011b. 35th World Heritage Committee, Decision 10.35. Paris, UNESCO.
United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Procedures for Performing Cultural
Resource Fieldwork on Public Lands in the Area of New Mexico BLM Responsibilities. BLM
Manual Supplement H-8100-1. New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, BLM.
United States National Park Service (USNPS). 2000. Petra Archaeological Park Operating Plan.
Washington DC, USNPS.
USAID. 1968. Master Plan for the Protection and Use of Petra National Park. Washington DC,
USAID.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 1999. Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resource
Survey in Virginia (rev. 2001 and 2003). Richmond, Va., Virginia Department of Historic
Resources.
Waller, R. R. 1995. Risk management applied to preventive conservation. Rose, C. L., Hawks, C.A.
and Genoways, H. H. (eds), Storage of Natural History Collections: A Preventive Conservation
Approach. New York, Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, pp 218.
Waller, R. R. 2003. Cultural Property Risk Analysis Model: Development and Application to
Preventive Conservation at the Canadian Museum of Nature. Ottawa, Canadian Conservation
Institute.
Wedekind W. 2005. Jordan, Petra. ICOMOS World Report 2004/2005, Heritage at Risk, Munich,
ICOMOS, pp. 15156.
Woolitt, C. 2007. Preventive conservation of ruins: reconstruction, reburial and enclosure.
Ashurst, J (ed.) Conservation of Ruins, Oxford, 147-193.
&
Jordan Law no. 79, 1966, Articles 13 and 19, Cities, Villages and Buildings Planning (published
in oicial gazette no. 1952 (25/9/1966).
Jordan Law of Antiquities. Law no. 21, 1988 (Provisional Law no. 12 for the year 10976-1989).
Jordan Law no. (15), 2009, Article 8, i for the year 2009: Petra Tourism Development Zone
Authority Law.
Petra Archeological Park Administration By-law, no. 31, 2007. Issued in Accordance with Item
(3) of Paragraph (A) of Article (3) and Article (34)of Antiquities Law No. (21) of 1988.
126
About the authors

Giorgia Cesaro
An Italian archaeologist with experience in heritage and conservation. She holds a Master of
Arts in Classics from the University of Padua (Italy), and has spent research periods in the
United States and in Greece. She has just completed the postgraduate Masters in conservation
of monuments and sites at RLICC, with a thesis on the boundaries and bufer zone for the Petra
World Heritage property Giorgia has been collaborating with the Department of Archaeology
at the University of Padua and has experience as Latin teacher. She joined the Culture Unit at
the UNESCO Amman Oice since 2010, working on projects related to the conservation and
management of the World Heritage site of Petra.
Leen Fakhoury
An architect/conservationist specializing in the conservation of the cultural heritage
(architecture, rural/urban heritage and the built environment) with twenty years of experience
in managing heritage projects, cultural tourism and as a senior heritage expert. She led the
Friends of Archaeology Society as the head of board of directors for four years. She is a senior
and urban heritage specialist for several projects in urban conservation and reuse projects.
Project manager and heritage specialist for Taibet Zaman project, awarded the 1996 Tourism
for Tomorrow Award, organized by British Airways. Instructor at the Department of
Architecture-Faculty of Engineering, at the University of Jordan since 1988. She has conducted
several researches and participated in several international conferences and seminars related
to documenting of the cultural heritage, listing of heritage buildings, cultural tourism, urban
conservation of historic centres, and interpretation of cultural resources, in addition to developing and implementing leading participatory approaches and city consultations in conservation projects
Anna Paolini
Head of the UNESCO Amman Oice and UNESCO Representative to Jordan since March 2009.
She holds Master degrees in architecture and in urban and regional planning for developing
countries, a postgraduate degree in development cooperation, and a Ph.D. in urban and territorial engineering. She has also carried out several postdoctoral studies and is the author of many
articles on architecture and heritage. She began her career in 1989 as an architect-restorer in
Italian engineering and architectural irms. She joined UNESCO at Regional Oice for Education
in the Arab Region in Amman in 1992, and in1997 was transferred to the Division of Cultural
Heritage at UNESCO Headquarters. Three years later she became head of the English-speaking
Arab Countries Unit of the Division. She worked later with the Section for Museum and Cultural
Objects where she closely worked in cooperation with ICOM and ICCROM on activities in the
Arab and African regions and the Balkans. During 2007 and 2008, she headed the UNESCO
Oice in Tashkent as representative to Uzbekistan. She is a member of ICOM and the Italian
Association of Professional Architects.
Mario Santana Quintero
127
Currently assistant professor at Carleton Universitys Architectural Conservation and Sustainability program at the Faculty of Engineering and Design and lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania. At the time of the Petra Risk project, he was an assistant professor at the Raymond Lemaire
International Centre for Conservation (University of Leuven) and professor at the University
College St Lieven. Along with his academic activities, he serves as president of the ICOMOS
Scientiic Committee on Heritage Documentation (CIPA) and executive oicer of the Virtual
Systems and Multimedia Society (VSMM Society). He has collaborated in several international
projects in the ield of heritage documentation for UNESCO, ICCROM, the World Monuments
Fund, the Getty Conservation Institute, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), Welfare
Association, and the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage.
Azadeh Vafadari
She studied archaeology at the Universit de Montral and holds an MA in managing archaeological sites from the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. She has particular
experience in international best practices for the inventory and monitoring of heritage sites.
From 2008 to 2011, she worked at the Getty Conservation Institute, Field Projects division,
working on the Middle Eastern Geodatabase for Antiquities-Jordan (MEGAJ) project and the
Iraq Cultural Heritage Conservation Initiative project. She is currently working as a project
oicer for the Culture Unit at the UNESCO Amman Oice, coordinating and monitoring
projects related to the conservation and management of the World Heritage site of Petra.
Koen Van Balen
He has degrees in engineering and architecture (1979) and in architectural conservation (1984)
and a Ph.D. in engineering (1991). He focuses his activities on the preservation of historical
structures and the understanding of the behaviour of ancient materials and building technologies. He is professor in building materials and their preservation. His research concerns technical
aspects in conservation, embedded in conservation methodologies for the architectural
heritage. He is strongly connected to heritage organizations in Flanders (Monumentenwacht
Vlaanderen) and to international NGOs in the ield. He holds the UNESCO chair on preventive
conservation, maintenance and monitoring of monuments and sites.
Ona Vileikis
An architect with international experience in heritage and conservation. She holds a M.A. in
world heritage studies from the BTU Cottbus, Germany. These studies were accompanied by
study and research in Australia as part of a Masters in tourism planning at the University of
Western Sydney, and an internship at ICCROM, in Rome. Ona is currently a doctoral researcher at
RLICC, working on the monitoring of serial transnational World Heritage properties, focused on
the Central Asia Silk Roads case study. Since 2010, she has been the project manager of the Silk
Roads Cultural Heritage Resource Information System (CHRIS), a three-year project set up in
consultation with the BELSPO and the UNESCO WHC, Paris. She is an expert member of the
ICOMOS International Scientiic Committee for Documentation of Cultural Heritage (CIPA).
128
Monastery UNESCO
Basin area UNESCO
UNESCO
UNESCO
UNESCO
Temple of the Winged Lions

UNESCO
Turkmaniyya tomb UNESCO
UNESCO
Monastery UNESCO
UNESCO
Monastery UNESCO
Basin area UNESCO
UNESCO
UNESCO
ISBN 978-92-3-001073-7
RISK MANAGEMENT AT HERITAGE SITES A CASE STUDY OF THE PETRA WORLD HERITAGE SITE

04 2012 Paolini Et Al Petra Risk Management-Libre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 2012 Paolini Et Al Petra Risk Management-Libre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 2012 Paolini Et Al Petra Risk Management-Libre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A CASE STUDY OF THE PETRA WORLD HERITAGE SITE

RISK MANAGEMENT AT HERITAGE SITES

RISK MANAGEMENT AT HERITAGE SITES:

Authors from UNESCO Amman Oice

Published in 2012 by the United Nations Educational,

Risk management at heritage sites

Risk management context assessment

Assessing the impact of the risk

Possible mitigation strategies

Implementation of the strategy

Risk management at the Petra World Heritage site - a case study

Historic and geographic context

Petra Archaeological Park: boundaries and bufer zone, the

Risk management methodology for heritage sites

Management and local governance in relation to boundaries

The Petra Archaeological Park boundaries: results of the study

Bufer zoning scenarios focusing on Um Sayhun/Beidha area

Application of the risk assessment at Petra

Risk assessment application phases

Selection of the pilot area for the ieldwork

Risk identiication approaches in the pilot area

Preliminary value assessment

Identiication of possible mitigation strategies

A heritage information platform and a geographic information

Overall ieldwork conclusion: lessons learned from the pilot

Appendix 1: MEGA-J site and code cards

Glossary of key terminology

Preface and acknowledgements

Figures and tables

Managing change at heritage sites

Risk management ieldwork wrap-up

Matrix of priority based on level of risk magnitude and level of uncertainty

Risk management methodology for heritage sites

A risk management methodology for Petra

The risk mapping project in Petra

Management Australian/New Zealand Standard (2004) and adopted by the International

More information on MEGAJ can be found at www.megajordan.org

2. Risk management at heritage sites

What is risk management?

Risk management at heritage sites

Figure 1 Managing change at heritage sites

Approach and methodology

Risk management at heritage sites

Figure 2 A risk management approach

Understanding and assessing values

Risk management at heritage sites

2.5.1 Risk management context assessment

t organizational policies and goals

Extent of the area

Risk management at heritage sites

Figure 3 Levels of detail for risk assessment

Figure 4 Risk assessment timeline example

Risk management at heritage sites

       

Risk management at heritage sites

More information can be found at: http://www.monumentenwacht.be/.

2.5.3 Assessing the impact of the risk

Risk management at heritage sites

t Type 1: catastrophic and rare

! "#

$"% &'

$"% &'

$"% &'

$"% &'

* () & +

$ (" )

$"% &'

$"% &'

. !

$"% &'

$$-

$"% &'

$4 %

4

$"% &'

$/"("

$"% &'

$"% &'

$"% &'

! 7 4 .

! 7() 8

$"% &'

! 7(") 8

$"% &'

/ ()