Rethinking the marketing of World Heritage Sites: Giving the past a sustainable future

• Author: Jean Paul Berthon,Pierre Berthon,Ariel Fauconberg
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1655
• Published date: 01 May 2018
• Date: 01 May 2018

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Rethinking the marketing of World Heritage Sites: Giving the

past a sustainable future

Ariel de Fauconberg |Pierre Berthon |Jean Paul Berthon

McCallum School of Business, Bentley

University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02452,

USA

Correspondence

Pierre Berthon, McCallum School of Business,

Bentley University, Waltham, Massachusetts

02452, USA.

Email: pberthon@bentley.edu

Despite significant global prestige and a strong brand presence, UNESCO World Heritage Sites

remain underfunded with many unable to self‐sustain. Increasing government budget constraints

have further restricted funds and UNESCO's “World Heritage Fund”—UNESCO's sole source of

financial assistance available to sites—has fallen to approximately $3M USD per annum. Few sites

are able to fully offset these budget constraints through tourist revenue alone, and those able to

do so often require additional repairs due to damage from visitors exceeding the site's capacity.

Although this situation is widely acknowledged within the heritage literature, few papers have

proposed long‐term strategic solutions beyond marketing and management plans for individual

sites. The authors address this pressing issue by questioning whether World Heritage Sites in

general are currently being marketed in an optimized manner and proposing a new framework

for creating stronger and more appropriate relationships between visitors and sites using Berthon

et al.'s the Aesthetics and Ontology model. The authors argue that clarifying and optimizing the

marketing of World Heritage through this lens with its focus on the consumption experience of

visitors and other stakeholders will yield positive results for both the management of the sites

and for their impact on surrounding communities. Furthermore, the authors recommend that pol-

icies surrounding the management of these valuable resources and sources of tourist revenue be

modified to reflect these findings.

1|INTRODUCTION

Since 1978, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization's (UNESCO) World Heritage program has maintained an

official list of cultural and natural sites designated in the Convention

Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

as of “outstanding value”that “need to be preserved as part of the

world heritage of mankind as a whole”(UNESCO, 2016b). As of

2016, this list comprises 1,052 properties spread across 165 state

parties (UNESCO, 2016b). In terms of the US, there are currently 23

UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The best known of these include the

Statue of Liberty, San Antonio Missions, the Everglades National Park,

and the Grand Canyon. These sites are acknowledged to be widely

respected and well‐known brands at a global level, with state parties

competing for nominations due to the prestige and tourist revenue

the designation is believed to bring (Buckley, 2004; Hall, 2006; Ryan

& Silvanto, 2009; Shackley, 1998). Despite this significant global pres-

tige and strong brand recognition, many UNESCO World Heritage

Sites are currently underfunded; indeed, the USA ceased contributions

to UNESCO in October 2013 following the UN's recognition of

Palestine as a state. This has exacerbated damage to many World

Heritage Sites due to poorly managed and maintained tourist facilities

(Cochrane & Tapper, 2006) in addition to general entropy.

For a site to be accepted into the World Heritage List, the nomi-

nating party must submit a dossier with plans outlining how the nom-

inating state will meet the financial and management needs of the

location (ICOMOS, 2011). Although the World Heritage designation

has been shown to increase the chances of gaining government aid

or donations (Hall, 2006; Kim, Wong, & Cho, 2007), tightening govern-

ment budget constraints have placed a greater emphasis on tourist‐

generated income as crucial to sites' management plans (Garrod &

Fyall, 2000; Prideaux, 2002). UNESCO, in Article 17 of the Convention,

also encourages “the establishment of national public and private foun-

dations or associations whose purpose is to invite donations for the

protection of the cultural and natural heritage.”UNESCO itself is able

to offer resources to state parties with lesser means in the form of (a)

expert support to prevent deterioration of the site and (b) limited

funding through the “World Heritage Fund,”though strict priority is

given to those sites on the “World Heritage in danger”list (Poria,

Reichel, & Cohen, 2011; UNESCO, 2016a). The World Heritage Fund

also has suffered more extensive budget cuts because the United

States ceased contributing to UNESCO in 2013; as of 2016, the total

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1655

J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1655.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1655

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of7