The Management Plan for the UNESCO Heritage Sites:

some Critical Reflections from a Managerial Point of View

Francesco Badia, Fabio Donato
University of Ferrara

Authors:

Dr. Francesco Badia

Researcher and Assistant Professor
University of Ferrara, Italy
Department of Economics Institutions Territory
[email protected]
Francesco Badia is Lecturer in Management of Cultural Organisations at the Faculty of Humanities,
University of Ferrara. He has been coordinator of national projects about UNESCO Management
Plans and their role as management supports. He has written several articles, essays and books about
the management of public services and cultural organisations. He is also member of the staff of the
Master in Cultural Management (MCM) of the University of Ferrara.

Prof. Fabio Donato

Full Professor
University of Ferrara
Department of Economics Institutions Territory
[email protected]
Fabio Donato is author of many articles and publications in the field of cultural management. His
most recent book, “Il Museo oltre la crisi” (“Museum beyond the crisis”), co-authored with A.M.
Visser, was published in 2010. He has been teaching Economics and Management of Cultural
Organizations at the University of Ferrara since 2002. Since 2003 he has been director of the Master
in Cultural Management (MCM) of the University of Ferrara. He is also Board Member of ENCATC.

ABSTRACT

The development of the UNESCO World Heritage list (WHL) has highlighted since its creation in 1972
the necessity to manage the outstanding universal values of the cultural and natural heritage in every
country. Moreover, the “Operational Guidelines” issued by the UNESCO in 2005 have induced the
World Heritage sites to adopt and use the “management plan”, in order to “specify how the
outstanding universal value of a property should be preserved”. Management plans should require an
interdisciplinary methodology and approach, considered the complexity of the topics and the necessity
of integration among different subjects, like urban studies, architecture, heritage conservation and
restoration, archaeology, engineering, landscape studies, sociology, art history, beyond economics and
management. Notwithstanding, the debate has often concentrated only on the relationship between
management plan and traditional urban and landscape plans so far, with a poor consideration of the
linkages with the managerial studies, in particular the introduction of principles, processes and tools
able to support, monitor and demonstrate the performance linked to protection, preservation,
development and valorisation of cultural and natural sites. The main research question of this paper is
to analyse the concrete possibilities of application of an effective managerial perspective to the UNESCO
management plan. This research question has to be contextualised in the present scenario of strategies
adopted for the cultural (and natural) heritage management, with specific reference to the Italian
situation. This work is developed through an integrated deductive-inductive approach, with the
combination of one part of theoretical analysis and consequent literature review with another part of
empirical content, based on the observation of the concrete situation of some UNESCO heritage sites all
around the world, but with a specific and deep look to Italy.

Keywords: UNESCO World Heritage, management plan, performance measurement

1. Management principles for the World Heritage sites: opportunities and resistances
(Fabio Donato)

Today, the development of a World Heritage site management plan is usually realised through the
adoption of architecture and urban studies principles. In some cases other disciplines are considered:
mainly, art history, sociology, archaeology and engineering. As for the economic competences they
are sometimes considered, but especially as for the definition of an economic development plan.
Usually, the economic development plan focuses the topic of tourism, and not the overall economic
sector linked to an UNESCO site.
Much less attention is devoted to the management principles. Instead, the adoption of management
principles should be fully considered in the definition of a management plan. The principles of the
management studies could help a better definition of the structure of the management plan; a more
focused capability of setting objectives; the implementation of a performance measurement system,
useful both for the analysis of the outcomes, as well as for the accountability to the stakeholders.
This section aims at putting in light five main points:
1) what are the management principles for the definition of an UNESCO site management plan, and what
is the relationship between the management principles and the principles embedded in other
disciplines;
2) what is the relationship between a managerial approach and an economic approach for a local
development;
3) what are the differences between a management plan approach and a management system approach
for an UNESCO site;
4) what are the most relevant decisions to be assumed, in a managerial perspective;
5) what are the operational mechanisms for putting in place this approach.

As for the first point, it is preliminary necessary to clarify that a management approach for the
definition of the UNESCO sites does not mean that the UNESCO sites should be considered as a business
company. And it does not mean that the market forces should prevail on the institutional needs. The
management of the UNESCO site should have as a primary objective the conservation of the site itself,
for the sake of the future generations. At the same time, the conservation approach cannot be the only
approach. It is necessary to create economic value for the local community through a management
approach that is consistent with the conservation needs. Furthermore, it is necessary to put in place a
control system able to verify the meeting of the objectives, as well as the efficient use of financial
resources. Finally, it is necessary to push on initiatives able to enhance the knowledge of the site and
the participation of the citizens. So, the management approach can help in this direction: to focus on
the validity of the management plan itself, to monitor the use of financial resources, to put in light its
contribution to the local economic development, and to support the enhancement of the knowledge
and the sense of identity of the local community.
But in order to avoid that this could damage the site itself, it is necessary that the management
principles are put in place together with the conservation and preservation principles. It is not
effective to divide the two approaches: the managerial and economic approach on the one hand and
the conservation and preservation approach on the other hand. It is neither effective nor realistic. The
conservation perspective and the managerial perspective should be melted in one only approach. For
sure, this is the most difficult path for the definition and concrete realization of the management plan.
But it is also the only way for avoiding problems later on. A management plan realised only through a
conservation approach is not able to emphasize the economic value for the local community. A
management plan realised only through an economic approach risks to be effective only in a short
term, putting in danger the identity of the site itself.
At the same time, there are no doubts that the difficulties in putting in place such an interdisciplinary
approach are quite relevant. There are several forms of difficulties and resistances. A first difficulty
regards the different mind-set of persons coming from different disciplines, studies and experiences.
This influences the capability of a mutual comprehension. In this respect, another difficulty regards
the different styles of the language adopted. A further problem regards the definition of the hierarchy
between opposite needs, and how to melt different visions. Finally, there are often resistances when an
interdisciplinary approach means to change the internal organizational power structure.
The second point regards what is the relationship between a managerial approach and an economic
approach for a local development. A managerial approach is strictly linked to an economic
development perspective. Nevertheless, there are some differences between a managerial approach
and an economic approach for a local development that is important to put in light.
The economic approach focuses on the policies to be crafted and the outcomes to be obtained. The
management approach combines this perspective with a focus on the actions to be realised and the
efficiency in the utilization of the financial resources. Also in this case, it is critical to put in place a
single approach, able to combine effectiveness with efficiency, as well as policies and long term goals
with actions and short term goals.
From the considerations that are emerging in these two points, it comes out that the main challenge in
the definition of an UNESCO site management plan is the interdisciplinarity: urban studies, architecture,
heritage conservation and restoration, archaeology, engineering, landscape studies, sociology, art
history, beyond economics and management. Assuming that it is unbelievable today to find together
the knowledge of so many disciplines in one single person, this means that the realization of the
UNESCO site management plan must be put in place through a multi-discipline group. And from this
arises the necessity of defining the structure and the working mechanisms of the group, as well.

The third point is related to the differences between a management plan approach and a management
system approach. As it will be put in light later on, in the Italian case the majority of the approaches
consider the management plan as a planning system. This means that it is considered as a tool for the
formal definition of objectives, related to different areas: knowledge, conservation and preservation,
communication, economic development, and so on.
In our opinion, it should be better investigated if this approach is consistent with the aims of the tool.
UNESCO guidelines use in some cases the term management plan, in other cases the term management
system. There is no coincidence between the two terms. A management plan is a tool for a formal
definition of objectives. Planning is its main role. A management system is a mechanism that
combines the planning approach with an operational perspective. Management systems emphasize the
need of defining actions for the realization of the objectives planned, through a process of
measurement and monitoring. And the process of monitoring could impact also on the objectives itself
through a review process.
Hence, a focus on a management plan approach has a risk in itself. The risk is to generate a complete
and adequate system of objectives, which are not able to influence the real actions. In these cases, the
management plan becomes just a list of good intentions, while the real decisions are taken elsewhere,
often with different perspectives and aims.
It is essential to consider the management plan as a management system, linked to a bunch of
consistent actions, and with processes of measurement and monitoring always in place. The feedback
report process has the same importance of the planning process, and it allows to take new paths and to
make flexible the actions.

In a managerial perspective some decisions are critical.

Typically, a management plan approach defined with only an architectural background is less capable
of focusing on: governance structures; performance measurement systems, accountability towards
accountability. An architectural approach will put emphasis on restoration, preservation, conservation.
And in this respect, specific projects will be put in place. But an holistic approach is embedded in a
managerial approach. So, decisions should be taken through an interdisciplinary approach that
combines different perspectives, languages and tools.
A holistic approach is essential for analysing the governance problems and to propose different kind
of solutions. Governance problems are higher in the case of UNESCO sites where different subjects are
involved in the decisions processes. For instance, it is the case of wide territorial areas, with different
municipalities and public bodies. But is it also the case of UNESCO sites regarding churches or religious
sites, where civil and religious authorities are involved together.
What the subjects are to be involved in the governance process is a starting point, and not the solution
of the governance problems. It is essential to define their role, the mechanisms of functioning, the
degree of involvement of other subjects, the different levels of power in the decision processes, the
specific roles and tasks, as well as contemplate "ad hoc" working groups. And finally, it is necessary
to link the policies and the decision processes to a previously shared timetable, in order to avoid
stalemates or late decisions.
Furthermore, a managerial approach is consistent with a strong focus on the measurement and
monitoring topics. The outcomes of this empirical research show that the management plan section
that usually needs further efforts of development is the section regarding the monitoring and control
system. That means the need for crafting and implementing a performance measurement system, as
well as an appropriate system of indicators.
Indicators should regard both financial and non financial perspectives. And they should be conceived
both in a short term and in a long term view. Indicators have a double role. They are both planning
tools and monitoring tools. For this reason it is essential a strong link between the system of indicators
and the performance measurement system. Sometimes, it happens that are chosen indicators apart
from an analysis of the performance measurement system actually implemented. If the measurement
system is not able to produce the information for controlling the objectives defined through an
indicator, the indicator itself is useless.
The performance measurement system should have both a quantitative and a qualitative orientation. In
this respect, it is necessary to measure internal and external information. As for the external
information, it is essential to gather the perceived quality of the actions put in place in the UNESCO site.
This is fundamental when there is a strong orientation towards the local community and, more in
general, all the stakeholders.
The orientation towards the local community and the stakeholders is the basis for accountability
processes. A managerial approach calls for strengthening the relationship with the most important
actors of the UNESCO site. Transparency is an important value. Hence, tools, techniques and
methodologies for improving transparency have to be implemented.

The last point above stated regards the operational mechanism for putting in place this approach. The
definition of an UNESCO site management plan in a managerial perspective aims at improving
effectiveness and efficiency in the implementation of the local strategies and policies. This has an
impact both at an internal level side and at an external level. At an external level, it is necessary to put
in place operational mechanisms able to support participatory processes. The involvement of the local
community is an essential factor for the success of the strategies and policies of the UNESCO site
management plan. In terms of operational mechanisms, the decisions regard: what subjects, what
actions and milestones; what timetables. The decision of what subjects to involve in the process of
definition of the UNESCO site management plan is the most delicate. In this respect, it is necessary an
appropriate mapping of the stakeholder. Each of them will be considered with a different degree of
priority. And each of them could be possibly involved in not all of the stages of the process of
definition of the management plan. Furthermore, it is necessary to highlight what stakeholder will be
involved in what actions, and what are the milestones to be reached and the timetables to be respected.
Instead, at an internal level it is necessary to link the management plan with other organizational tools.
Especially, with the urban planning tools and processes, as well as with the financial tools and
processes. In this respect, the UNESCO site management plan should have main links with the financial
budgets and with the urban plans. The link with the urban plans is necessary for linking the objectives
of the management plan with the decisions regarding the cultural landscape and the urban
development. The link with the financial budgets is essential for making the management plan a
concrete tool for the implementation of the local policies.

2. Contents and requirements of the management plans: a comparison with the management
theories
(Francesco Badia)

The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO,
1972) has given birth to the World Heritage List (WHL) whose aim is “to participate in the protection
of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value” (ibidem: p. 1). This list includes
the heritage properties, called “sites”, that are worth of particular forms of preservation and
development for their acknowledged and unquestionable value. So far, the WHL has registered 911
heritage sites (704 cultural, 180 natural and 27 “mixed” sites) belonging to 151 different countries.
Italy is the most represented country in the List, with 45 inscriptions. The constant increase of the list,
as well as the necessity to implement real systems of monitoring on the management of the World
Heritage sites, led UNESCO to adopt several new documents (UNESCO 1992, 1994, 2002), which make
clear the aims of the 1972’s Convention. A very important document is represented by the
Operational Guidelines of 2005 (UNESCO, 2005), where it is declared that “Each nominated property
should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should
specify how the outstanding universal value of a property should be preserved, preferably through
participatory means”, (UNESCO: p. 26, point 108). Thus, UNESCO makes statutory, for all the already
inscribed sites, an existing requirement that was initially requested only to the new candidates from
the early 2000’s onwards.
According to the 2005 document, the contents of the management plan, or, alternately, the key
element of the management system of every inscribed property could be (p. 26, point 111): “a) a
thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders; b) a cycle of planning,
implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback; c) the involvement of partners and
stakeholders; d) the allocation of necessary resources; e) capacity-building; and f) an accountable,
transparent description of how the management system functions”.
In these six points, we find the majority of the characteristic features of the managerial theories, as
they have been developed by the most important management scholars (Drucker, 1954), with
particular reference to the typical elements of planning and control systems (Anthnoy, 1965). The
debate on the role and the contents of management plan for World Heritage sites has deeply grown in
the last years both in Italy (Micoli and Palombi, 2006) and abroad, with reference to the theoretical
framework (Leask and Fyall, 2006) and to the proposal of practical guidelines for its implementation
(Davey 1998; Thomas & Middleton, 2003; Ringbeck, 2008).

In particular, we will make explicit the possible relations between the disciplines of the management
studies and the topics emerging from the requirements for the UNESCO management plans. We can
identify the following specific points:
- Development of a public governance system (Bekke et al., 1995), in order to support the
pursuit of public interest;
- Participation of the community, promotion of social cohesion and accountability (Gray et al.,
1996; De Varine, 2002);
- Development of the cultural tourism in a long-term perspective (Harrison and Hitchcock,
2005; Di Giovine, 2009).
However, the b) and f) requirements seem to emphasise the development of a monitoring system
within the management plans and the capacity to give a report on the obtained results to the
community. In managerial terms, these considerations are expressed by the implementation of a
system of measurement, evaluation and performance reporting. This implies introducing an
appropriate set of indicators that should be coherent with the strategic aims and measurable for the
subjects who are in charge of the management of the UNESCO heritage site.
The need for performance measurement has been one of the main topics of management sciences in
the last years. Generally speaking, performance measurement seems to be necessary when the
traditional economic-financial indicators (like earning, ROE, ROI …) give an incomplete set of
information about the state of the organisation. This is the traditional case of private corporations and
this is the situation which initially permeated the birth of performance measurement systems. But this
is not the only case of possible application of the performance management theories. Indeed, they are
useful in each case where the economic and financial results are not measurable (or not expressible in
a clear and irrefutable way). This is the typical case of not-for-profit organisations and, specifically, of
public sector organisations, which are the most common subjects appointed for the management of
cultural and natural heritage, in other words the greatest part of World Heritage sites.
Performance measurement can be also seen as a managerial process - additional to traditional strategic
and management control - which has the goal of supporting the decision-making process, with
reference to the pursuit of the prearranged results. According to the theory, the main points of a
performance measurement system are:
 - The use of a broad measurement system that considers quantitative and qualitative
dimensions, and with reference to the former one, financial and not-financial aspects; this
aspect allows us to consider not only economic and financial results, but also quality of
products and services, innovation rate, quality of organisation processes and care of the
relationships with the stakeholders;
- Coherently with the previous point, the “multi-dimensionality” of the system, i.e., the
consideration of more basic variables to be controlled;
- The balance between managerial (short-term perspective) and strategic (long-term
perspective) aspects;
- The balance with external and internal orientation of the measurement system, in order to
consider the relationship of the organisation with its social context.
The frequent use of the term “balance” is remarkable: the implementation of a performance
measurement system is indeed a challenging action of balancing apparently antithetical interests.
Coherently with this consideration, the most well-known system of performance measurement is the
“Balanced Scorecard” (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1993), initially introduced for corporations but
subsequently applied to not-for-profit organisations (id., 2001).

3. Some empirical evidences on the management plans in Italy

(Francesco Badia)

In this paragraph, we show the results of an empirical analysis applied to all the 44 Italian World
Heritage sites. That was the number of inscribed sites at the time of realisation of the research,
concluded in May 2010; now the Italian sites are 45. More specifically, we submitted a research
questionnaire to one person in charge, at least, for each Italian World Heritage site. The research got
the participation of 40 out of 44 sites, with an effective participation rate of 91%. This result
represents an excellent outcome and gives us the opportunity of drawing conclusions of great
significance about the Italian state of the art. At present, it seems to us that in this field there is not any
other research with comparable results: this circumstance lets us enhance the final conclusion on this
work on the analysis of the Italian scenario.
The research questionnaire was divided into ten questions, which aim at highlighting the following
five points: - governance system of the World Heritage site; - current step in the drafting process of
the management plan; - kind of competences, used for drafting of the plan; - presence of a
performance measurement system and, within it, of a set of indicators, existing for the already
approved management plans or pre-established for the not yet completed ones; - prevision of a
periodical review process for the plans, after their final approval.
Before proceeding with the analysis of the results of the empirical research, we should consider that
UNESCO has not implemented specific guidelines for the management plans’ drafting process: this is a
duty of every State party, coherently with the general principles of the World Heritage convention.
Moreover, at present the absence of the management plan (or of the equivalent management system)
does not imply any negative consequence, such as being taken off the list. In this scenario, so far only
few countries – not only those which are facing critical situations as war or underdevelopment – have
produced some document to implement management plan in their context. Italy represents a quite
positive exception, because since 2004 the Ministry of Culture, has set up the process of drafting
management plans and monitoring the management systems of Italian World Heritage sites, with the
approval of national guidelines (MIBAC, 2004). Moreover, the Italian lawyer approved in 2006 a
national law (law 77/2006), entitled “Special measures for preservation and fruition of the Italian sites
of cultural, natural and landscape importance, inscribed on the ‘World Heritage list’, under the
protection of the UNESCO”. This law expressly mentions the management plan as a typical element of
World Heritage sites and gives priority of funding to the UNESCO heritage sites, which aim at managing
their cultural services and tourism flows. This element is in accordance with the inspiring principles of
the management plans.
With reference to the empirical analysis, the first result to be reported is the overall number of Italian
sites which have completed the drafting process of the management plan before May 2010. This date
considers not only the 40 World Heritage sites, which participated directly in this research, but all 44
Italian sites. The achievement of this complete result was made possible by the cooperation with the
Italian Ministry of Culture and by the collection of some data from the internet. The final result of this
first survey is that 20 out of 44 Italian Heritage sites have completed the management plan before
May 2010. This 45% of the sample is not a good result, considered that 9 out of these 20 sites realized
the plan during the inscription process, because the management plan has become compulsory for the
candidature since 2002, and considered that the management plan has become compulsory for all the
inscribed sites since 2005. This means that 24 out of 35 (69%) of the Italian sites, which have been
inscribed before 2002, have not yet completed their plans.
We will now proceed with the analysis of the specific results of the empirical research carried out
through the questionnaire. At first, we find that governance system of the site is exerted by more than
one subject in 55% of the sample. That means that the cooperation among different institutions and
organisations is necessary in most cases. This circumstance represents a significant critical state, even
for the drafting process of the management plan. Another interesting result is that, in the 75% of the
sample, site management is carried out by subjects, which are pre-existing to the inscription. They are
normally local authorities or soprintendenze (Monuments and Fine Arts State Offices). Only in 3
cases (7,5%), an “ad hoc” new subject was created for the whole management of the site, after the
inscription. In 7 cases (17,5%), ad hoc subjects share the management with pre-existing ones: in some
of these cases, the situation is developing towards the possible complete assumption of the site
management profiles by the ad hoc created subjects.
With regard to the kind of competencies used for the drafting process of the management plans, we
find out that the architects are the most used figures, even though the management plan should
normally request the presence of more and diversified professional figures. More specifically,
architects participate or participated in the drafting process of 85% of the sample (34/40). Other
important professional figures are economists (21 cases), art historians (21), landscape experts (19),
archaeologists (18), engineers (18), curators (14) and jurists (11). This data becomes even more
relevant if we consider the statistics of the competences of the first person in charge for the drafting:
he is an architect in 23 out of 40 cases. The second most common elements are, very distanced,
archaeologists and art historians, each with 3 cases. Therefore, we should observe that in Italy the
management plans are considered a prevalent competence of the architects. This is probably a result
of the circumstances: architects are normally the subjects responsible for city, territory and landscape
planning. In this sense, it seems to us that so far the new and innovative role of the management plan,
with reference to the above mentioned requirements of it, has not been fully understood. In this way,
we see a possible risk, where the management plan for World Heritage sites becomes only a further
planning tool, losing its specific value.
As already mentioned, one of the qualifying points of the empirical survey was the analysis of the
presence of a performance measurement system, inside the management plan, with or without a set of
indicators. We want to remind the readers that according to the managerial theory, a set of indicators is
absolutely necessary for the implementation of a good performance measurement system. Starting
from the consideration of the inclusion (implemented for the already realized management plans,
foreseen for the other ones) of a set of indicators, only 20 out of 40 (50%) sites answer this request.
This result is quite low, considered the importance of this requirement. This element is even more
meaningful if we consider these two further conditions:
1) Only 11 out of the 20 sites, which use or want to use the indicators, are able to mention
concrete examples of them;
2) Even 12 out of the 20 sites, which do not use the indicators (or not want to use them), do not
foresee any other tool, neither simplified, of performance measurement.
These results lead us to a deep reflection about the future steps to implement in Italy, in order to
introduce the theoretical elements useful for making the management plan a real managerial tool.
Moreover, the mentioned results, with reference to the global scenario, are quite worrying, if we think
that Italy is one of the countries with the most advanced practice in the management plans for World
Heritage sites.
The last results of the empirical survey regard the prevision of a periodical review process for the
management plans after their final approval. The review process is another necessary element for a
managerial tool whose goals are to monitor and evaluate. The review is fundamental to adapt the plan
to its real capacity of performing the institutional objectives. Also in this case, the collected data does
not give encouraging feedback: only 24 out of 40 sites forecast the adoption of a periodical review
process; we have to point out that the prevision of the review is not automatically equivalent to its
implementation; so this result represents a very low score. Moreover, we have also to consider that 9
out of these 24 sites have not defined the deadline of the review yet, so it might be that they do not
ever implement the review process.
Finally, another requirement of a management plan seems to be its capacity to be up-to-date with the
evolution of the space-time context. This means not only that a periodical review process is necessary,
but also that a complete new drafting process is very important on a longer temporal horizon.
Unfortunately, also on this point, the final result of the survey is quite disappointing: only 11 sites
thought of future deadlines for a new drafting process, 10 sites have not decided about it yet and 19
sites do not intend to proceed with it.
The whole picture of this survey shows us that there are still many steps to do in this topic and
therefore the management research has the duty to give its support in going through a path that has not
been clearly defined so far.

4. General considerations about the management of World Heritage sites from some
international case studies
(Francesco Badia)

In this paragraph we extend the scope of our empirical analysis, and consider the emerging elements
of other case studies of UNESCO World Heritage sites both in Italy and abroad. Some case studies
address some not properly UNESCO sites, but consider institutions and organisations which manage
cultural heritage among which there are also some UNESCO sites. We consider the following Italian
sites: historic centre of Naples, historic centre of Modena, historic centre of Ferrara and its Po Delta,
Venetian Villas, Su Nuraxi of Barumini in Sardinia, Orcia Valley, Sacri Monti of Piedmont and
Lombardy, historic centre of Vicenza and Palladian Villas and Royal Palace of Caserta. At the
international level we studied the cases of the Loire Valley in France, the historic centre and Alhambra
of Granada in Spain, historical residences, gardens and lakes of Bavaria in Germany and the Statue of
Liberty National Monument, N.Y., in the USA.
However, the following analysis does not aim at illustrating every case in details, as it is done more
specifically in other writings that have already been published (Badia 2007, Donato and Badia 2008,
2010) or that are in course of publication. We try to explain some empirical evidence rising from these
case studies in a whole, highlighting the emerging profiles of managerial analysis. We know that they
are very different cases, for environmental, social and cultural contexts and also for the related topics
of preservation and development of heritage. So, we would not like to realise a simple comparison
among the cases, but a comprehensive analysis of the useful elements for a complete managerial
analysis.
So, the fundamental dimensions of analysis, coherently with the management theories, will be:
- Elements of general strategy;
- Elements of governance and organisation structure;
- Elements of management (in a strict sense), i.e., distinctive elements of provided services,
systems of pricing, promotion and communication, access to the services;
- Elements related to the information and accounting systems.
With reference to the first point of interest, the general strategy of the organisations that could be
considered as representative of the case studies, we were able to find out the following points:
- Development of systems, coherent with the public governance paradigm; this means that there
often is a public institution that is able to have a steering role on a network system composed
by private and public subjects, whose aim is to achieve common and shared goals; the most
representative case of this situation, is the management system of the Loire Valley, where the
public governance’s institution is the Mission Val de Lore. It is an agency founded by the
Regions Centre and Pays de la Loire for the management of their World Heritage inscription
(The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes); a similar case is present in Italy,
on a less vast territory, in the Orcia Valley in Tuscany;
 - Effective collaboration between public sector organisations and private subjects, i.e., capacity
to promote horizontal subsidiarity, in order to realise a matching between the public interest
and the need of the private subjects; we find good examples of this situation in Bavaria and in
the management system of the Statue of Liberty; a good path of development is present also
in the management system of the Sacri Monti of Piedmont and Lombardy, where a
collaboration with public sector and ecclesiastic institutions is necessary;
- A clear and shared definition of the “vocation” of the territory, particularly in link with the
promotion of destination management initiatives, with the participation of several actors; this
is the case of the Venetian territory (both the cases of the historic centre of Vicenza and the
Venetian Villas), where some difficulties emerge however, due to the high heritage
“dispersion” on the territory.
The elements linked to the organisation and the governance in the studied sites seem to be particularly
interesting in the following situations:
- Governance of the territory by “above-regulated” management (often called
“meta-management”), possibly through the development of smart structures of direction; this
element is concretely realised, coherently with the previous considerations, in the Loire
Valley;
- Study of juridical forms of management useful for reaching the pre-established aims: a
positive example is, in this sense, the creation of a foundation, as found out in the case of
Barumini, for the management of the Su Nuraxi UNESCO site;
- Development of networking and partnership initiatives, particularly when the development of
the sites requires the activation of fundraising policies; for example, this is the case of Naples,
which activated some fundraising initiatives to the European Union, in cooperation with other
partners; moreover, networking and partnerships are useful to create an integrated system of
knowledge with other subjects which share either the same management “challenges” (this is
the case of the networking realised by the Mission Val de Loire), or some specific goals (this
is the case of the destination management initiative “Transromanica”, which sees the
participation of the Modena municipality).
The elements of management, in a strict sense, regard not the general management systems, but
specific choices of management related to the provided services. In particular, we can consider:
- Individuation of the distinctive characters of the provided services, with definite attention to
the quality of the cultural proposal; this element is present in several situations, but we find a
well developed case in Granada for the management of the Alhambra palace; this element
comprises also the development of a brand or a label that is associated with the cultural
heritage (for the World Heritage sites, it is often associated with the symbol of UNESCO);
- Use of pricing policies, in order to attract more visitors and maximise the revenues, however
considering the limits coming from the consideration of heritage fruition as a public good; in
this sense an interesting case is the management system of Bavarian heritage;
- Consideration of the possibilities of accessing to services, with particular reference to
integrated packages or to the use of ICT, either for internal aims (integrated ticket systems) or
for the external promotion (web sites); in this field, there are several interesting cases and
situations; among them, we would like to mention the system of admission to Statue of
Liberty and Ellis Island and some promotional initiatives (such as the “Campania Card”,
recently promoted by the Campania region and involving the cases of Naples and Caserta), in
order to facilitate the realisation of tourism routes in its territory.
For the consideration of the elements related to the information and accounting systems, we have to
outline three levels of analysis:
- The first level regards the simple attention to the number of visitors; this profile is present in
all the analysed cases, with more or less accurate measurement systems; but in some cases,
e.g. the historic centres which may not emit tickets, the realisation of these systems is not
possible and alternative solutions are necessary; the visitors measurement system can consider
the visitors’ age profiles, their geographical origin and lastly their level of satisfaction, which
is not easy to measure;
- The second level considers the whole analysis of the economic balance; this is much less
present in the analysed cases; many organisations neither monitor nor control their economic
 balances and this is a great problem of the organisations in this field, not only in Italy;
however, we found some exceptions, e.g. the Bayerische Schloesserverwaltung (Bavaria),
which gives attention to this profile, observing the different kinds of revenues and expenses;
- The third level looks at the creation of an integrated system of economic and financial
information with the other data, linked to, e.g., quality of services, innovation rate, quality of
organisation processes and quality of the relationships with the stakeholders ; as explained in
the previous paragraphs, this should be the general aim of documents such as the management
plan; this element is not so frequent in the analysed cultural organisations; however, there are
some institutions that understood the importance of this aspect and that are now engaged in
the realisation of a complete performance measurement system; this is the case of the UNESCO
heritage sites of Ferrara and Modena.
The whole analysis of these four managerial aspects shows a poor presence of positive elements; more
specifically, the main problem of application of the management principles and tools seems to regard
the last point (information and accounting systems) and, particularly, its third element, i.e., the
necessity of a performance measurement system that could merge quantitative and qualitative
dimensions. Finally, we would like to highlight the most common critical points:
- Presence on the territory of different subjects which have power of decision but are not
connected; this element leads to the realisation of several initiatives for visitors, tourists and
community, but they often are reciprocally interfering; we find out this kind of difficulty in
Modena and Caserta;
- Difficulties of collaboration between different public sector organisations or between the
public and private sectors, especially in those cases of shared management of the territory;
these difficulties often create apparently insuperable impediments to the development of
shared preservation and enhancement policies; this element was found in the cases of
Granada, Ferrara and the Orcia Valley (for the relationships between public sector
organisations), of Naples and the Venetian Villas (for the private-public relations);
- The stiffness of some typical public sector administration models, which paralyse the
management and make it less capable of catching the environmental changes. These critical
points are present in the cases of the cultural heritage of Bavaria, that is managed by a big
organisation, and of Vicenza;
- The dispersal of the development initiatives, which especially emerges when the supply is not
really linked to the reference target or when the institutions in charge of the management of
territorial heritage are working in complicated contexts; this is quite common especially in
absence of partnership promotion initiatives; these critical aspects are present, for example, in
the case of Barumini, Sardinia;
- Last but not least, the difficulty of applying management tools to measure the economic and
financial balances and the levels of performance; as already said, this element is present in
almost all the analysed cases; moreover, there are some cases, where the incompleteness of
these tools is not perceived as a critical aspect (in particular, this is the case of the Loire
Valley, which is for many of the other aspects a best practice); finally, we should consider that
the use of these management tools should not be excessive or overwhelming in relation with
the actual needs of the organisations; an interesting case of a planning and control system
inappropriate for the organisation is the Statue of Liberty, where the requested fulfilments are
executed only to respect formal procedures and not to give a real support to the
decision-making processes.
5. Some conclusions
(Fabio Donato)

From the integration between the deductive (paragraphs one and two) and inductive (pragraphs three
and four) parts, it grows out that the path toward the application of right managerial principles for the
elaboration, realisation and implementation of management plans, is very tortuous and bristling with
difficulties. Notwithstanding, some first features for the development of a “managerial culture” in the
UNESCO management plans can be suggested:
- a balanced governance system for the regulation of the relationships among the subject
involved in the world heritage site management, in order to reconcile the different interests;
- an attention focused not only on the tool, but also to the creation process of it;
- the capacity to implement the management plan according to a monitoring and feed-back
perspective;
- the development of a planning and control system, related to the management plan, which
considers profiles of relational and participatory control.
The main difficulty is the necessity to put in place an interdisciplinary working group, able to put
together different perspectives and approaches. Today, during the definition of the management plan,
the main focus is on the tools and the techniques. Probably, it is necessary to devote a greater attention
to the persons, and especially to the relationships between the different subjects involved: then
subjects who are involved in the governance system; the subjects who are requested to collaborate in
the definition and implementation of the management plan; the local community and, more in general,
all the stakeholders.
References

Anthony, R.N. 1965. Planning and control systems: a framework for analysis. Boston: Harvard
University.
Badia, F. 2007. L’esigenza di elementi manageriali nei piani di gestione UNESCO. I risultati di uno
studio condotto su due siti patrimonio mondiale dell’umanità in Italia e Spagna, Ferrara: Quaderni
del Dipartimento di Economia Istituzioni Territorio, n. 29.
Badia F. and F. Donato. 2010. “Strategie, criteri e strumenti per la valorizzazione economica del
patrimonio culturale ferrarese”, in Competenze e strumenti per il patrimonio culturale. Il caso del
territorio ferrarese, VV.AA. Ferrara: Corbo, pp. 221-250.
Bekke, H.A., W.J. Kickert and J. Kooimsn. 1995, “Public Management and Governance”, in Public
Policy and Administration Sciences in The Netherlands, W.J. Kickert, F. Van Vught, London:
Prentice Hall, pp. 201-218.
Davey, A.G.. 1998, National system planning for protected areas, World Commission on Protected
Areas. Best practice protected areas series, n°1.
De Varine, H. 2002. Les racines du futur. Le patrimoine au service du developpement local. Chalon
sur Saone: ASDIC.
Di Giovine, M.A. 2009. The Heritage-Scape. UNESCO, World Heritage and Tourism. Plymouth:
Lexington Books.
Donato F. and F. Badia. 2008, La valorizzazione dei siti culturali e del paesaggio. Una prospettiva
economico aziendale. Firenze: Olschki.
Drucker, P. 1954. The practice of management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Eccles, R.G. 1991. “The Performance Measurement Manifesto”. Harvard Business Review, January -
February, pp. 131-137.
Gray, R., D. Owen and C. Adams. 1996. Accounting and Accountability. Changes and Challenges in
Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. London: Prentice Hall.
Harrison, D. and M. Hitchcock. 2005. The Politics of World Heritage. Negotiating Tourism and
Conservation. Clevedon: Channel View.
Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. 1992, “The Balanced Scorecard. Measures That Drive Performance”.
Harvard Business Review. January - February, pp. 71-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. 1993. “Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work”. Harvard Business
Review. September - October, pp.134-142.
Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. 2001. The Strategy Focused Organization. How Balanced Scorecard
Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Leask, A. and A. Fyall. 2006. Managing World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Elsevier.
MIBAC [Italian Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Cultural Activities]. 2004. Il modello del piano di
gestione dei beni culturali iscritti alla lista patrimonio dell’umanità. Linee guida. Paestum. May,
25th-26th.
Micoli, P. and M.R. Palombi, (edited by). 2006. I siti italiani iscritti nella Lista del Patrimonio
Mondiale dell'UNESCO: la strategia per la gestione. Atti della terza Conferenza nazionale. Villanova
Monferrato: Diffusioni Grafiche.
Ringbeck, B. 2008, Management Plans for World Heritage Sites. A practical guide. Bonn: German
Commission for UNESCO.
Thomas, L. and J. Middleton. 2003. Guidelines for management planning of protected areas. World
Commission on Protected Areas. Best practice protected areas series, n°10.
UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session. Paris, 16 November.
UNESCO. 1992. Strategic Orientations, Annex II. WHC –92/CONF.002/12.
UNESCO. 1994. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
WHC/2/Revised, Paris, World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. 2002. Budapest Declaration on World Heritage. World Heritage Committee.