Regional Heritage Dimensions vs. Management Boundaries: A comparative framework of European and Asian countries

Nowadays, two main biases dominate the World Heritage Site (WHS) management debate. While new tendencies within the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) suggest a dynamic multilayer approach, it remains compulsory for registration in the World Heritage (WH) list to define the “core” and “buffer” preservation zones of a listed site and to have a Management Plan applied to them. Inherited from European planning systems, management boundaries do usually collide with heritage dimensions and eco-cosmological systems, especially in Asia. In view of the lack of effective heritage management models, international experts have blamed, among others, Eurocentric views, the imposition of universal tools and, consequently, the generalised application of “buffer” zones. This research analyses the roots of these three problems through a review of: 1) the dimensions of heritage in each world region (East and West) and within UNESCO, 2) the effects of physical boundaries on the perception of heritage and the related application of WH “buffers”, 3) the integration of 1) and 2) through legal instruments. By comparing both East and West world regions, it is possible to conclude that even though the dichotomy of East-West has been overcome at theoretical levels, there are big gaps in the application of practical management tools. The limited practical use of WHS at the regional level appears as the main management incongruence. In addition, the conflicting definitions of “buffer zones” given by UNESCO suggest the need to both redefine this concept as a top-down defining instrument, and allow for more flexible site definition.