Blog WHS website
Best Recent WHS
In last week’s blog post I referred to Padua’s Fresco Cycles and wondered why it took so long to get them inscribed. During the preparatory research, I also found out that it is the highest-rated WHS that was inscribed in the past 5 years. It got me curious to look for other recent WHS with very high ratings, and if there are any remarkable trends to discover.
Highest scores of the past 5 years
The following sites, which were inscribed in the last 5 years (2020-2024), have received the highest approval scores by the community members of this website. Remember that 2020 and 2022 had no WHC sessions. The ranking is sorted by the last column, based on the toned-down Wilson score we use on this website to deal with outliers and few votes.
Findings:
- Two WHS in this bracket still suffer from too few votes to make the score representative.
- The no.1 of this group only ranks #166 overall, and the no. 10 is #494!
- No less than 8 out of 10 WHS are cultural.
- None have reached a score of 4 or higher (equalling 'very good').
Highest scores of the past 10 years
When we repeat this for the last 10 years (2015-2024), we get the following Top 10:
Findings:
- The no.1 of this group ranks as high as #10 overall, directly followed by no.2 which is at #11 overall. and the no. 10 is on #182.
- The group of 10 has 4 natural WHS, 1 mixed and 5 cultural.
- 8 out of the 10 date from the first 5 years in this decade.
- Now we already have 5 WHS with a score above 4, and the other 5 are very close to that level (3.90+).
Highest scores of the 2000s
And finally, the best-rated of this century, inscribed in 2000 or later. This covers ca. the second half of the existence of the WH List.
Findings:
- The no.1 of this group still is Bagan, ranking #10 overall. The no. 10 is still as high as #45 overall.
- The group of 10 has 6 natural WHS, 1 mixed and 3 cultural.
- All 10 WHS are now comfortably above the threshold of 4.00.
Conclusions
Considering the findings from the 3 periods presented above, the following can be concluded:
- We knew it already, but the inscriptions during the first half of the 47 years of the List's existence were ‘better’ than those of the second half: from the Top 45, 10 date from the 2000s and the other 35 from the 1900s.
- But, could it also be true that sites that are 'older' are rated higher? More time has passed to let a broad group of visitors rate them, we know more about them, and all fruitful ways of approach are known to us. For example, the scores from the past 5 years don't seem stabilized yet.
- The natural WHS clearly had some catching up to do, especially in the earlier 2000s, with classics such as the Norwegian Fjords, the Okavango Delta and the Namib Sand Sea only inscribed this late.
- Could the latecomers also come from countries that just aren't too active on the WH front? Thinking of Namibia, Chad, Sudan, Myanmar, Botswana, and Iceland (all have 3 WHS or less and its WHS are in the Top 10 of the 2000s).
- A fair number from our Missing List pop up here as well: Bagan, Ephesus, Okavango Delta, Padua, Vatnajökull, Göbeklitepe. Were these just overlooked in the decades before?
What's your take on these findings?
Els - 27 October 2024
Comments
Meltwaterfalls 30 October 2024
Flipping it a little, and grouping the sites by score rather than year, then looking for the “average” year in those ranking bounds gives a pretty clear result.
The higher scoring sites are older, and every half point score difference increases the median year of inscription for sites in that category.
On average sites become 5 years younger for each 0.5 decrease in score, this holds true for both Mean and Median Averages
Score Band Median Year of inscription
4.5+ 1985
4 - 4.5 1988
3.5 - 4 1996
3 - 3.5 1998
2.5 - 3 2004
2 - 2.5 2010
under 2 2015
3 or fewer votes 2009
Total 1999
* for ease of comprehension I have shortened the bound title, the upper limit is actually .x999... so there is no double counting
Also there is a pretty clear normal distribution in scores just that the mid point is skewed slightly higher to 3-3.5
Score Band Count of sites
4.5+ 28
4 - 4.5 128
3.5 - 4 262
3 - 3.5 349
2.5 - 3 273
2 - 2.5 101
under 2 31
3 or fewer votes 51
Total 1223
Nan 27 October 2024
I dont think it makes sense to assume a normal distribution for ratings as everyone uses a different scale. Mine is 2.5 = deserving of WHS status.
The downward trend, at least for countries with long existing lists, seems rather natural. The obvious WHS that offer a good visiting experience have been inscribed in the past. I would assume the hidden gems would be countries that have not been active in the past.
Els Slots 27 October 2024
Maybe I can calculate a "positivity score" for each community member, Solivagant. LOL.
Solivagant 27 October 2024
actually I have just had a look at the Rankings list sorted by year and am "shocked" by just how high the ratings are - very very few below 3. Not a "normal" distribution at all!!
Solivagant 27 October 2024
and how are the "low" markings distributed across the 4 periods?
Els Slots 27 October 2024
I do recognize the overall trend you described, Solivagant.
But only looking at the "best" sites, the best ones really got in early:
The first 10 years resulted in 55 of the Top 100 best-rated.
The 2nd 10 years had 21, the 3rd 10 years had 9, the 4th 10 years had 12.
Solivagant 27 October 2024
Re "Early Inscriptions"...Els's statistics regarding the number of exceptional sites in the first 20 odd years of the scheme compared with the second can hide the fact that a fair number of the early ones were (IMO) ALSO of rather "poor quality". Particularly in the very early years. Rather than dividing the c75 years into 2 periods it might be better to look at it in total across 4 periods.
In short I would expect the most recent one to demonstrate a fair bit of "scraping the barrel" with duplications and novel (if doubtful) OUVs. That also reflects the growing politicisation of the schem and a move away from "objective" assessment by an independent body as the WHS overreuls its advisors! Whilst the first would be similar but would also contain a few of the really "high quality" sites which one would have expected to be brought forward early. The middle 2 would show the most "top sites" as, by then, most developed countries had got involved and got their act together in terms of protection, preparing nominations etc. Of course we all "mark" sites differently
As a recent post I made on Bulgaria showed, remarkably few countries were involved in the first 10 years of the scheme and they used their position to get in "mediocre" sites way ahead of real "outstanding" ones.
As for Malke Kunture - it was one of a number of early failures from Ethiopia among a number of successes (though ones like Awash and Omo would not have got in later as presented - not because they were "unworthy" but because they were not prorperly documented or managed!). Several of those are now in Eritrea (Matara and Adulis) and are not on its T List. We visted Melka Kunture in 2008 and I would not place it that highly either as an "early man visit" or in terms of its significance in those terms --- I gave it 1.5 ("just about creeps in"!!)
Els Slots 27 October 2024
I don't think you can really say that, Svein Elias. I have added the ID's and the years to https://www.worldheritagesite.org/ranking/community -> maybe Babylon is an example, but there are also plenty of poor ones with low numbers that got in in the end (As-Salt, and Melka Kunture indeed)
Zoë Sheng 27 October 2024
Mbanza Kongo only has 1 vote (!) so not sure you can add this to the findings. From the look of it (without having been) just in general it will be a low score. Perhaps a review would enlighten me with the high score.
Svein Elias 27 October 2024
Some new sites have old unesco-id, like “Melka Kunture and Balchit”. They tried to get it inscribed in the early years but were refused until now. Do you see them any different than other sites lately inscribed?