Keywords

1 Introduction

In the face of climate change, the loss of biodiversity and a steadily growing world population, the world is facing major challenges. Only a fundamental transformation towards sustainability can overcome the resulting global problems. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an important guidepost for this transformation have found their way into political frameworks and policies at the local, national and global levels. However, the SDGs have turned out to be difficult to integrate into the everyday activities of businesses, administrations, NGOs and civil society at large as their complex interdependencies and inherent tensions make them hard to navigate. For many heritage actors, adopting the SDGs is accompanied by insecurity and a need for guidance and support.

The World Heritage Convention (WHC), as the premier charter for heritage protection and management, has long adopted sustainability as a core principle. With today’s understanding of heritage management as an important driver of economic growth, social and cultural capital and environmental protection, its reconciliation with sustainable development is inevitable. Consequently, the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention was, among others, dedicated to the four pillars of sustainable development, namely social, cultural, environmental and economic development (Albert et al., 2017, 18–45). Heritage management helps to “shape, delineate and drive the development of tomorrow’s societies” (ICOMOS, 2011, 9), which connects it to sustainability in two fundamental ways: First, heritage preservation is a sustainable practice because it represents resources that are protected and passed on to future generations with their material and cultural value. Heritage’s role in communities as an anchor of identity and cultural self-reflection strongly contributes to social cohesion and a more resilient society. Second, given that the heritage sector is a significant player in the broader social and economic eco-system in many regions, the sector has a responsibility to actively contribute to more sustainable ways of working, living and producing (Boccardi, 2007).

Fifty years on, the WHC faces new challenges concerning promoting and supporting sustainable development. With the broad adoption of the SDGs, heritage actors working under the WHC framework frequently encounter conflicting objectives. While, in theory, the social, ecological and economic dimensions of sustainable development can be reconciled, this often requires finding viable and balanced trade-offs in practice. The growing awareness of climate change (Council of Europe, 2018) in the last ten years means that different dimensions must be reprioritised, leading to hard choices that have been framed as dilemma situations.

This paper examines dilemma situations in heritage contexts and discusses how the WHC can help tackle these. The first section provides a short overview of sustainability and its inclusion in the WHC is provided. The second section discusses the role of dilemmas in the context of sustainable development. In the third section, typical dilemma situations are highlighted with examples from heritage sites around the world. The final section concludes with a summary of the role the WHC can play in supporting heritage actors to make the right decisions in the face of complex sustainability choices.

2 Sustainability and the World Heritage Convention

Sustainable development has long found its way into the “Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”, or World Heritage Convention (WHC), which the General Conference of UNESCO adopted in 1972. Since then, the WHC has contributed significantly to more sustainable development by improving conservation policies and capacity building at the national level. It also fostered the involvement and participation of stakeholders in discussion around heritage and created new opportunities through innovative financial mechanisms (Bandarin, 2015, 35).

According to its preamble, the WHC was intended to heighten awareness that “cultural and natural heritage is increasingly threatened with destruction not only by decay but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction” (UNESCO, 1972, 1). With the high ratification numbers and ensuing commitment among nations, the WHC is recognised as “one of the most effective international instruments and a milestone in the conservation world” (Bandarin, 2015, 35).

The WHC does not directly mention sustainable development. However, the concept of sustainability is reflected in articles 4 and 5 by calling on member states to ensure

“the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage”, as well as “to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes” (UNESCO, 1972, articles 4 and 5a, 3).

Contracting states must guarantee the preservation of their national cultural heritage and include development strategies in their policies. Important development goals of the WHC are tied to building strong communities and promoting sustainable tourism and other forms of economic activities.

Therefore, the WHC can be seen to have adopted sustainability as a core guiding principle for the conservation and preservation of heritage sites, recognising the role heritage plays for society and local and national economies. In line with this, the WHC Operational Guidelines were amended in 2011 to integrate the principles of sustainable development more firmly. In response to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, these amendments (in paragraphs 6, 112, 119, 132, and in Annex 5, points 4.b and 5.e) aimed to ensure sustainable practices in the use and management of World Heritage properties and in maintaining the Outstanding Universal Value (UNESCO et al., 2013, 19).

With the adoption of the so-called 2015 policy,Footnote 1 sustainable development perspectives were finally integrated into the practice of the convention – coupled with the recognition of the necessity for a “wider change” (UNESCO, 2015, para 5, 2) without undermining the Outstanding Universal Value of the listed heritage in pursuit of sustainable development (Boccardi & Scott, 2018; Labadi, 2017, 49–51). Although a new set of requirements for all relevant dimensions of sustainable development was introduced in addition to the original text from 1972, the Operational Guidelines did not provide sufficient practical recommendations in this regard (Cave & Negussie, 2017, 30–31). Possible conflicting objectives (e.g. heritage conservation vs. Sustainable Development Goals) should not be regulated by the convention but remain the responsibility of the individual states.

3 New Goals, New Problems

With the growing importance of sustainable development in the WHC, problems and conflicts of interests that have been discussed in the wider context of sustainability have also been imported (Labadi, 2017). While the overarching idea of sustainability is straightforward and can be seen as a welcome extension of the WHC guidelines, the devil is in the details. It is easy to call for sustainability in broad terms. Yet, it has not always been clear how measures can be practically implemented, given inherent conflicts that can hinder protection efforts.

A key problem of sustainability in practice is conflicting objectives and the resulting dilemmas. A dilemma is defined as a situation in which “a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable” (Knowles, 2021) or, after Kirchner, between two (action) alternatives, but neither stands out or both have negative consequences (Regenbogen et al., 2013).

In most cases, the available alternatives both lead to suboptimal outcomes and sometimes even outright undesirable results. Often, dilemmas require a trade-off between two objectives. Regardless of which option is chosen, the outcome is far from perfect: The chosen alternative contributes to achieving one objective at the cost of other objectives. There must be a clear distinction between conflicts and dilemmas. According to Müller, conflicts arise from incompatible interests of actors and can be resolved if the interests of the situation are made consistent (Müller-Christ et al., 2017, 14–15.).

This situation becomes clear when looking at the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set up in 2015 and building on the previous eight Millennium Development Goals. The 17 SDGs are each dedicated to a global challenge and set out 169 specific targets to achieve a range of objectives, e.g. ensuring human dignity, protecting the planet, securing peace, fostering prosperity and promoting global cooperation (UNHCR, 2017). However, the general approach to sustainability entails a fundamental difficulty. Considered one of the most significant global political agendas of this century and lauded for their commitment to overcoming sectorial and geographic siloes in favour of international collaboration, the SDGs are also criticised for setting competing objectives that impede broad adoption and swift implementation (Henkel et al., 2018, 147–149).

The competing goals are rooted in apparent difficulties simultaneously achieving economic growth, fostering social cohesion and stopping ecological degradation. SDG 8 calls for sustainable economic growth, and SDG 12 demands sustainable consumption and production, highlighting the inherent contradictions. Achieving ongoing economic expansion (with the desired minimum GDP growth rate of 7% for least-developed nations) is clearly at odds with avoiding further environmental degradation. Even with rapid advances in green/clean tech and more sustainable modes of production, a full reconciliation of these SDGs seems elusive, and the resulting tension between the objectives cannot be fully resolved. Conflicting situations also often emerge around sustainable development on a more practical level: While wind turbines can help accelerate the desired transition to renewable energy, at the local level, they can also negatively affect wildlife and thus lead to increased environmental damage.

As sustainability refers to heterogeneous objectives and different social groups claim sustainability for themselves, the concept loses contour. The concept of sustainability involves specific dilemmas resulting from incommensurable goals, criteria and interests, and the question arises, which criteria can be used to assess the sustainability of projects, topics or initiatives (Henkel et al., 2018, 147–149).

4 Dilemmas in Heritage Management

The SDGs play an important role in sustainable cultural and natural heritage management and result in conflicting objectives. Their adoption in the WHC creates a need to deal with dilemma situations constructively. Within cultural heritage, they come with unique characteristics and require awareness and appreciation to develop suitable solutions. Most of the conflicting situations within heritage protection and management result from the need to reconcile the desire to preserve unique sites and objects with the practical requirements dictated by the climate crisis and changes in usage resulting from the recognition as cultural heritage, e.g. with an official designation by UNESCO. Furthermore, the nomination of World Heritage sites is often driven by economic reasons and not by an understanding of sustainable development (Labadi, 2017, 47). In this context, the following three examples illustrate common dilemma situations usually found in practice, each with specific characteristics and challenges:

4.1 Dilemma 1: Protection vs. Authenticity

The core objective of any cultural heritage management is the preservation and protection of places and objects of significant cultural value, encapsulated in the concept of Outstanding Universal Value as a key criterion for designation by UNESCO (UNESCO, 1972). According to the World Heritage Operational Guidelines,

“a property should meet the test of authenticity in design, materials, workmanship, and setting; authenticity does not limit consideration to original form and structure but includes all subsequent modifications and additions, over the course of time, which in themselves possess artistic or historical values” (UNESCO, 1978, 4).

Maintaining the authenticity and integrity of cultural and natural heritage sites is often a challenging goal.

Global human-induced climate change is increasingly impacting World Heritage sites. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, climate change has become the biggest threat to natural World Heritage, a third of which is endangered (UNESCO, 2020). UNESCO has long recognised this negative impact (von Schorlemer, 2020, 17–30), but the World Heritage Committee only recently updated its “Policy Document on the Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage properties” to include broad consultation of all Word Heritage stakeholders (UNESCO, 2021).

Difficult trade-offs can result from the need to balance the preservation of a heritage site’s authentic character with community wellbeing. The desire to deal with increasing heat in urban areas due to climate change is one example of this conflict. While installing shades or additional roofing to protect against the sun or planting trees may be highly desirable from a health standpoint, such alterations change the appearance of historic buildings and town centres and thus reduce their authenticity. Other examples of dilemma situations arise when necessary climate adaptation strategies come at the expense of the original substance and authenticity of heritage. To protect heritage sites from further degradation, they might require adaptation; for example, flood gates installed in parts of Hamburg are necessary to protect against potential disasters and rising sea levels but alter the appearance of the historic substance.

4.2 Dilemma 2: Protection vs. Economic Potential

Heritage sites offer significant economic benefits for their regions and local communities, especially once officially designated as World Heritage. In the last 50 years, the WHC has created many opportunities through official designations and the resulting increasing interest and attention. A designated heritage site attracts visitors that often become a vital source of income for local communities in the form of tourism and the various revenue streams (European Court of Auditors, 2020, 26, 38, 46). Harvesting the economic potential of heritage is frequently detrimental to sustainable management on two levels. On the first level, the increased number of visitors produces more wear and tear on a heritage site and is thus directly detrimental to its preservation for future generations. On the second level, the increased number of visitors leads to increased travel and thus an increased indirect carbon footprint attributable to the heritage site, aggravating ecological degradation and accelerating climate change (Albert & Ringbeck, 2015, 174–182).

The pyramids of Giza in Egypt are formidable examples of this dilemma. Having received World Heritage status in 1979, increased tourism led to a troubling physical transformation of the site, which is also the last remaining wonder of the ancient world. It has also led to a host of adjacent environmental problems due to a large number of visitors. Consequently, the site and its surroundings suffer from severe environmental problems caused by unsustainable tourism and increased waste, air and traffic pollution (Hemeda & Sonbol, 2020, 8). Another well-known example of this dilemma is the city of Venice, which was designated as a World Heritage site in 1987. The boom in tourism and the increase in boat traffic intensified the preservation problems of the historic city and its canals. Heavy swells not only threaten the structures of the historic buildings, but ship propellers also cause a higher oxygen level in the water, favouring the growth of putrefactive bacteria and increasing problems for the conservation of the facades and pillars. To accommodate the growth of boat traffic and ever-larger vessels, the port entries were deepened, leading to easier access for flood tides that threaten the historic substance, which are now mitigated by a system of locks with controversial ecological impacts.

4.3 Dilemma 3: Protection vs. Traditional Use

The WHC has always fostered the empowerment of local communities as an important objective of heritage management. Heritage sites are important anchors of identity for the local populace and contribute to its overall wellbeing and resilience. From this standpoint, it is essential to foster cultural heritage’s role in the community and preserve traditional usage patterns and access to sites. The designation of heritage sites attracts many more visitors and often restricts local communities’ access. While local communities might benefit economically through tourism and adjacent business models, the site often becomes detached from their everyday use. This leads to a dilemma situation: The very protection that preserves the role of a heritage site in the community breaks the traditional usage patterns and often restricts usage or access.

Illustrative examples of this dilemma are the old towns of Prague and Dubrovnik. While these used to be the centre of gravity for both cities with locals living and working in these culturally important districts, they now resemble theme parks primarily frequented by tourists. The ensuing rise in real estate prices in these areas force out local businesses that do not cater to tourists and prevent the local community from residing there. They are no longer vibrant parts of the community but special economic zones solely devoted to tourism.

5 How to Deal with Heritage Dilemmas

Dilemmas and the resulting conflicts of interest can be observed at many World Heritage sites. Despite the importance of this topic, it has been little discussed, let alone researched, in cultural heritage science. The heritage community needs to find constructive ways to deal with these challenging situations and achieve the best possible outcome for all stakeholders and within different disciplines. Preservation activities are not merely technical approaches regulated by standards established in a single discipline; they always represent a broader negotiation where compromises among various interests and expectations must be found.

Effective heritage management is about making the right decisions, which is difficult if the choice reflects a dilemma. Research on sustainability and dilemmas and strategies to deal with dilemma situations emerges almost entirely from economics, where coordination of independent actors in the face of conflicts of interest or objectives has been discussed extensively.Footnote 2 One upshot of this wider context has been a discussion on dilemma situations specific to sustainability and sustainable development with proposals for decision frameworks (Müller-Christ, 2007, 2010; Hahn et al., 2010, 17; Vilanova et al., 2009, 64f). In essence, the various proposed strategies could be subsumed under three main approaches: ignorance, prioritisation and ongoing balancing.

With a strategy of ignorance, inherent conflicts between opposing targets that lead to dilemma situations are often simply ignored. While, in practice, a conflict between opposing targets exists, the actors pretend that it does not. The most overt form of dealing with a dilemma by ignoring it is outright denial. This strategy is rhetorically often concealed by talk of a “win–win” situation, which claims that both opposing targets can be achieved simultaneously (Müller-Christ, 2007, 146–147). This optimism about achieving everything at once is often justified by vague references to technological progress or other outside forces. A more subtle form of ignorance is abstraction, which refers to hiding the existing conflict by lifting the conversation to a level of abstraction on which the opposing targets are not visible at first glance (Müller-Christ, 2007, 144–146).

Prioritisation represents a more intellectually honest form of dealing with a dilemma situation. The opposing objectives are acknowledged and made visible. One or both objectives are altered based on case-specific criteria, e.g. by lowering the targets for one of the opposing objectives to allow a viable trade-off. This is the case when damage to a heritage site by a large number of visitors is accepted in return for the resulting economic benefits. Such a trade-off is often not stated explicitly but rather achieved by accepting that one objective is not fully reached. By making such choices and achieving a specific trade-off, conflicting objectives are prioritised. Ideally, such an alteration should be a sustainable compromise that does not lead to the complete abandonment of one of the objectives and all are still pursued, even if only to a lesser degree. Instead of lowering or reprioritising objectives, the balancing strategy is based on a reconciliation process in which the different options are continuously (re-)calibrated. This strategy entails moving from a one-time decision compromise to an ongoing series of decisions. Müller-Christ introduces the metaphor of the tightrope walker for actors that follow this strategy: Instead of permanently leaning to one side, there is a constant balancing act and understanding that the inherent conflict exists (Müller-Christ, 2007, 160–161). This marks a shift from a static to a dynamic perspective of handling dilemma situations. While arguably the most “mature” approach, this demands a great level of openness for debate and a high tolerance for ambiguity.

In real life, heritage management decisions are often a mixture of these archetypical approaches. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with the inherent sustainability dilemmas of heritage. The best solution for a specific heritage site depends on its specifics and context.

6 The Role of the WHC in Dealing with the Dilemmas of Sustainability

As the main document for worldwide heritage protection, the WHC has adopted sustainable development as a guiding principle. It demands that the three dimensions of sustainable development (social, economic and ecological) are considered, and heritage protection activities contribute to all three. As discussed, the inherent conflicts often observed between these dimensions and respective targets create dilemma situations for stakeholders who adhere to the WHC.

Action is needed on three levels to support heritage stakeholders in finding suitable solutions and trade-offs: discourse, decision and nudging. The first step in constructively dealing with inherent tensions between Sustainable Development Goals is an open debate about the sometimes challenging compromises and trade-offs necessary in practice. Instead of just setting out objectives in all three sustainability categories and pretending that a harmonious equilibrium can be achieved, a discussion is needed around finding trade-offs that work. Guidelines are also needed on how national, regional and local actors can best engage in and moderate fruitful discussions about overcoming inherent tensions and reconciling conflicting goals.

Finding a balance between opposing targets does require decisions. Here, the WHC should provide frameworks and guidelines for such decision processes. These should be based on best practices, past findings and outcomes of reconciliation processes around heritage sites. Guidelines that help to begin and moderate a process of balancing sustainability targets need to be practical and specific to the challenges in the context of cultural or natural heritage sites. Commonly agreed practices and benchmarks can support decisions in difficult situations. Consistent frameworks support overcoming procedural complications and make it easier to define a sound compromise. Many dilemma problems are not new, but threats to heritage sites from tourism, development or conflict are considered site-specific without a unified approach to these common and recurring phenomena. In providing a forum for discussion and guidelines for dealing with dilemma situations and overcoming the lack of sustainability reports for World Heritage sites, the WHC would strengthen its position as a forward-thinking platform ready for the future. Such measures would also be easy to implement and immediately make a difference for heritage stakeholders worldwide.

In the face of the current climate crisis, some voices demand further action. Anthropogenic climate change presents a threat of such magnitude that it permanently shifts the priority of the different dimensions of sustainable development in favour of ecological questions. While social and economic concerns remain important, they can only be considered after ecological concerns are addressed. This thinking opposes the longstanding primacy of the social aspect of sustainability, as promoted by the WHC. Accordingly, the importance of local communities and their empowerment was highlighted, for example, during the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention in 2012 (Albert & Ringbeck, 2015, 174–182). The Kyoto Vision document issued on this occasion focused on the role of the community in conservation management and stressed the need to strengthen the relationship between people and heritage. Ecological challenges were mostly addressed in the context of the relationship between World Heritage properties and community engagement. Reducing the risks of climate change has been linked to strengthening local communities and capacities among relevant actors who should be fully involved in management and conservation activities. The “Strategic Action Plan for the Implementation of the Convention, 2012–2022” also demanded to contribute to the sustainable development of the “world’s communities and cultures” (UNESCO, 2011, para 1, 2). In the face of the global climate crisis, it is justifiable to question whether the WHC is leveraged enough to compel actors on all levels towards prioritising ecological factors in their decision-making. A reinforced stance on climate change is justified by its negative global impacts on heritage sites, causing irreversible damage with varying degrees of severity and frequency and greater consequences over time. Proponents of a more robust approach to climate change propose that UNESCO not only nudges heritage stakeholders to prioritise ecological concerns but also uses its power to designate heritage sites as World Heritage to influence actors on different levels directly. By withholding or withdrawing designations or placing heritage sites on the list of endangered sites, UNESCO can directly influence economic and social benefits for local actors. This can be used as a bargaining tool for more ecologically sustainable development.

The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is a current example that illustrates this approach. There is pressure from environmental initiatives to place the reef on the List of World Heritage in Danger, using climate change as an argument for classification (Readfearn, 2021). The site has suffered significant degradation due to increased water temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2019). However, the Australian government is accused of not addressing UNESCO’s requests for adequate climate protection measures under the WHC and not supporting emission policies to keep global warming below 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Inclusion on the endangered list might increase pressure on the Australian government to finally take the required protective measures.

While some would welcome such a robust stance from UNESCO, this could arguably represent mission creep, with UNESCO crossing a boundary towards an increasingly activist approach. Given the complexity of successfully mitigating greenhouse gas emissions on a national level, which involves hard choices regarding economic and energy policy, it is questionable how much such an approach by UNESCO would achieve in practice. Some activists place inflated hope in the power of UNESCO to enforce the WHC against resistance. Nevertheless, even these more drastic views of the appropriate role and level of enforcement of the WHC encourage a productive discussion around the self-understanding of UNESCO and the definition of its global role. In an ideal scenario, it can get national actors to achieve better internal coordination for heritage management.

In any case, UNESCO needs to engage in the ongoing debate around sustainable development and define a clear way forward to preserve and protect our World Heritage in times of significant change and accelerating risk. Outlining ambitious and often conflicting targets without providing explicit guidance on reconciliation and agreeing on necessary trade-offs will not be enough. Formulating suitable answers that heritage actors and stakeholders agree on requires time, ongoing exchange and additional interdisciplinary research. Recommended long-term management practices for heritage sites will not be achieved without critical interpretation, nor will the sustainability strategy be adhered to, which the EU Member States have recently committed (European Court of Auditors, 2020, 35, 8). This will especially be the case if culture and cultural heritage continue to be insufficiently included in countries’ national sustainability strategies and political practice, and ongoing processes of negotiation and communication are still required (Merkel & Möller, 2017, 112–121).