Unnatural Selection: An Analysis of the Ecological Representativeness of Natural World Heritage Sites*

*Special thanks to Connie Weil, Bill Cunningham, Heike Alberts, and five anonymous reviewers for their assistance in reviewing drafts of this paper. This work was done while the first author was at the University of Minnesota.

Abstract

In 1994, the World Heritage Committee adopted a strategy to make World Heritage Sites more “representative.” This article assesses the biogeographic representativeness of natural World Heritage Sites, identifying well-represented and underrepresented biomes and ecological realms. The analysis reveals that sites are not representative in biogeographic terms. However, the identification of an optimal definition of representation is a controversial challenge. Furthermore, the value of representativeness as a goal for a program geared toward protecting exceptional sites is questionable. Instead, representativeness is of greater importance across all protected areas, leaving the World Heritage Convention to fulfill its original mission of protecting the “outstanding.”

Key Words:

• biogeography
• conservation
• ecoregion
• representativeness
• World Heritage

Notes

Source: UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2005c).

Note: In 2005, with the adoption of the revised Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2005b), the original cultural and natural nomination criteria were combined into one list. The criteria listed above are those from that list that relate to natural heritage.

Notes: ▓Biome–realm combination does not exist.

▒No World Heritage protection.

Source: Data from Olson et al. (2001) and WDPA (2005).

Source: Data are from Olson et al. (2001) and WDPA (2005).

Source: Data are from Olson et al. (2001) and WDPA (2005).

Note: Where a World Heritage Sites includes two biomes, each biome is given a score of one-half for that site; if divided among three biomes, each biome receives a score of one-third, and so on.

Source: Data are from Olson et al. (2001) and WDPA (2005).

Source: Data are from Olson et al. (2001) and WDPA (2005).

Note: Where a World Heritage Sites includes two realms, each realm is given a score of one-half for that site; if divided among three realms, each realm receives a score of one-third, and so on.

¹In World Heritage documents the term “representivity” is used; in most other cases the term “representativeness” is preferred. The more widely used term is employed throughout this article.

²“Outstanding universal value” is defined by the World Heritage Program as “Cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity” (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2005b, 14).

³World Heritage Sites have traditionally been selected for either their cultural or natural heritage, with a small minority of sites referred to as “mixed,” which incorporate aspects of both cultural and natural heritage (e.g., an archaeological site in a rainforest). In 1992 an additional category, “cultural landscapes,” was added to recognize the value of human-influenced landscapes. This analysis considers only natural and mixed sites.

⁴The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) assesses cultural sites; the World Conservation Union (IUCN) assesses natural sites.

⁵van Hooff is a UNESCO adviser to the World Heritage Program.

⁶The IUCN (1994) defines a protected area as “An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.” This definition encompasses all IUCN protected area management categories (I to VI).

⁷ Olson et al. (2001, 933) define ecoregions as “Relatively large units of land containing a distinct assemblage of natural communities and species.”

⁸As a number of scholars have pointed out (e.g., Cronon 1996; Braun and Castree 2001), the concept of what is natural and what is human-influenced is a thorny issue. Indeed some have argued that every landscape must be considered human-influenced to differing degrees. However, for the purposes of this analysis it makes sense to consider the extent to which a particular landscape can be deemed to be “natural,” as conservation decisions are undoubtedly being made dependent on the perceived “naturalness” of an ecosystem.

⁹Along similar lines, Cronon (1996, 82) argues that tropical rainforest “has become the most powerful modern icon of unfallen, sacred land—a veritable Garden of Eden—for many Americans and Europeans.”

¹⁰ Cronon (1996) considers the case of parks in North America, suggesting that they favor “sublime” landscapes over other landscapes that may have comparable ecological importance.

¹¹The single site that falls within the Antarctic realm, the Heard and McDonald Islands, is administered by Australia.

¹²This is an interesting statement in light of World Heritage claims of “universal” applicability.

*Special thanks to Connie Weil, Bill Cunningham, Heike Alberts, and five anonymous reviewers for their assistance in reviewing drafts of this paper. This work was done while the first author was at the University of Minnesota.