One of the neat statistics we gather via community members on this website is the visitor rating of a WHS. After you have visited a site, you can give it a rating of 1 to 5 stars. The rating represents a mix of “WHS worthiness” and your experience on the day. If you have not rated anything so far, log in to your profile and go to Rate WHS to contribute.
While these ratings help to find the best WHS, they of course also provide insight into the worst!
The Worst 10
At the time of writing, we have 49 WHS with a weighted average score below 2 stars. You can find them at the WHS Index page, and sort by Score.
The list of 49 includes 39 cultural WHS, 9 natural WHS, and 1 mixed WHS. The average year of inscription is 2012. Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Malaysia, the Netherlands and South Africa are all countries represented with more than 1 site (all have 2, except for South Africa, which has 3).
Common Denominators
"Invisible" Heritage
The biggest cluster comprises the sites where there is little or nothing “to see”: WHS that are visually underwhelming. It seems that we expect monumentality and our brain simply cannot match the story (which you really have to bring with you by studying beforehand or hiring a guide) with scarce or no remains.
“To see the Tugay forests, one often has to navigate permits, border zones, and extreme heat (Tigrovaya Balka is one of the hottest places in Central Asia), only to find a landscape that—while ecologically unique—looks like dense, scrubby brush to the untrained eye.” (Google Gemini's explanation for Tugay's low rating)
Sites listed among the “worst” aren’t by definition poor WHS. Sometimes they just need more effort and/or more study (to train the eye!) before a visit:
Some ratings reflect the limited footprint the members have left at the site: they’ve looked at it from behind a fence, did not really get inside and for sure have not seen its OUV. Al Faw is a notorious case: it’s a site that to date cannot be visited. Places like Santiniketan and FRIM only get higher rates when a member has gained some sort of exclusive access – for a casual visitor, they’re frustrating sites.
WHS that have been visited before inscription and where the narrative isn't obvious, also tend to be rated lowly.
Members are also harsh in their judgments when they believe a site has no OUV. It may explain the low score of the Kazan Federal University Observatories, although without reviews to date, we can't say for sure. The sites that sneaked into the List for political reasons or excessive lobbying, like Battir, find few supporters. Or those that could just have been an extension of an existing WHS, such as the Mandela Legacy Sites. Or with an unsatisfactory scope, such as the Trans-Iranian Railway.
Sites in a poor condition
When all you encounter is neglect, it will be hard to appreciate a site. This has long been the case for Abu Mena and Srebarna, for example. However, both WHS have recently improved according to the latest reviews. It will probably be the explanation for the low score of Port Royal as well, although its Fort Charles accommodates visitors well.
Pilgrims' lodgings, Abu Mena Frédéric M
A few outliers
For some WHS, I was surprised to see them among the 49. Such as Chongoni Rock Art, one of only two rock art sites listed here among the many rock art WHS (the other is the Bangucheon Petroglyphs). Is it so much worse than the others? The simplicity of the design of the paintings may have worked against it.
The list of the worst WHS does not hold many natural WHS. Among those, a few West African parks (Comoé, W-Arli-Pendjari, Gola-Tiwai) stand out negatively.
All reviews for Valongo Wharf are pre-renovation, in which today the WHS seems to be much better presented. Though I suspect visits would still be short. The new museum next door will be open in 2026.
Inaccessible sites are an issue. I rated Stoclet house poorly because I don’t like the façade. But I’m sure if I could see the interior, this would change. From anyone rating Al Faw I want to see pictures of the actual ruins. Pretty sure no one in this community saw them and is able to rate them.
Fossil sites are usually just normal places, where we found something important, but then took it away from there. So you look at an empty hole or cave. Nice. Exception is e.g. Naracoorte, where the Fossils are still in the cave. Love that one.
Other sites that get poor rating from me are those, where nobody but specialists can see anything different from non-WHS. I don’t care about the controversy around Battir, but these hills look exactly like anywhere else in Palestine. As-Salt? No chance I would recognize this town as outstanding. Beemster Polder? Looks like most of the Netherlands.
Valongo Wharf is for me a case of not meeting expectations. This was used at least until 1831. But less of it is visible than a typical 2000 year old Roman site.
A WHS should be accessible unless preservation prohibits it. Stoclet is not open (-> should not be WHS). Al Faw meanwhile could be a case of being closed for preservation which is fine to me. It would still be a better visitor experience to have a visitor centre or replica. I dont mind representative examples being inscribed, though (Beemster). And for fossils I grade on a curve. Messel is just a hole. The Schöningen Speer site meanwhile felt better.
Though, do we really want "revenge evaluation" when we cannot even access the site? They do come up in the reviews. Probably no evaluation at allwould be fairer.
I also agree with nan about the Beemster polder: it might look similar to other parts of the Netherlands (but does it really), however it has been chosen as the ultimate representative of its kind, and in that I do not find it difficult in seeing its OUV.
I would add another criteria / factor that leads to low scores. Serial WHS in which the easiest, most accessible components are not the most representative or strongest components. For me some Korea WHS come to mind (Gaya Tumuli, Joseon Tombs), though my reviews and others within this community have started to rectify this (as seen by rising scores). Additionally, sometimes the actual act of seeking out multiple components leads to higher scores. Clear examples: Prehistoric Pile Dwellings (2.03), Struve Geodetic Arc (1.90). Phillip's point regarding Valongo Wharf is fair, though I expect an on-site museum will boost the WHS dismal scores. This goes back to El's category of "Invisible" Heritage (or nearly so). In these cases on-site interpretation, including on-site museums are essential.
Good points,Kyle! That's the problem with serial site...you can only rate what you ve seen with your proper eyes ....well,if you have only visited one location..an easily reachable one....an underwhelming one....it leads to low rating .
To be fair even my lowest rated whs gave me some "pleasure" in one way or another....even the Struve locations,but there is one who's which for me personally has been the worst so far...Sarazm in Tajikistan.Stray dogs,totally run-down and neglected arch.site,very poor museum.alWithout any doubt Sarazm is my personal negative " highlight".
I think As stated in my comment, I am not a fan of overtly large serial sites. The more is not the merrier when it comes to WHS. I think each WHS location should convey the OUV. Or not be a WHS location. We also need to keep in mind that WHS are supposed to be receive special preservation efforts. With long serial sites, I am afraid the preservation is dilluated. For Joseon and Gaya, while there may be better or worse, I find all convey the OUV.
I've looked at my worst-rated sites (at 0.5 or 1.0). For me, a 0.5 means the site is undeserving of WHS status, while a 1.0 indicates a very bad WHS with major issues.
For 0.5 ratings, I've rated several vineyards (Piedmont, Prosecco, Douro) at 0.5 because I don't feel yet another vineyard adds much to the list overall. The good vineyards (Champagne, St Emilion) have outstanding structures to go along with the vine, so I feel these should not have been added. There are also sites with very narrow focus (Synagogue Erfurt) or that didn't fill any gap I see (Prado, Mafra).
For 1.0 ratings, I have several serials (Limes, Dutch Water Line, and others). Serial sites often dilute the underlying OUV. I don't see creating a line running from Scotland to the Black Sea as a UNESCO goal. I would have preferred the best examples inscribed (Hadrian's Wall at Hexham), not the full chain (random spots in the German landsape). There are also sites where I find the OUV very limited or too focused (Battir, Lorsch, Hildesheim). Ironically, several of these limited sites would profit from becoming a serial site (Carolingian Sites of Germany, Medieval Monuments of Harz).
@Cugelvance:
Sarazm is desolate and simple, but the location and the scenery were just stunning. As was crossing the border on foot ... I try to not have visit experience impact my rating. But it happens, I know.
we are human beings....it happens....I also crossed the border with my very own feet and had to hire a mafioso-taxi driver....the price was ok ,but he told me some stories from his time in Moscow.....anyway
I for my part would rate that site with 0,0 ....no visible OUV,packs of stray dogs,the museum a joke,the archeological site an abandoned amateur construction hole,and so on.Very poor site.
I cannot believe it.....Sarazm has a higher rating by our community than the FRIM site in Malaysia..
unbelievable..
I can only guess that some of the members who rated Sarazm have never ever truly entered the Sarazm core zone....or the site must have totally changed since I was there a few years ago
Also took a look at my 1* ratings (I have 8). Like others above, it includes small sites where there is very little to see (Struve Geodetic Arc, Valongo Wharf), although those two still tell an interesting and valuable story. Some were small towns that I found boring and toured all the interesting monuments in very little time (Trogir, Colonia del Sacramento, As-Salt). These were often not very distinct to my eye from neighbouring towns. I gave a low rating to individual monuments part of serial sites where I could not find the OUV (The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier, Venetian Works of Defence). However, I don't think I have covered the best elements for those (respectively Buenos Aires and Tokyo for Le Corbusier and the two Croatia sites for Venetian). Finally, I also gave 1* to the Coffee Cultural Landscape. I think this site is a complete mess with a random core zone and the nicest village in Colombia outside of it.
I did,nan..........put my long nose in every corner of the Sarazm site....no security there.....that mafioso guy even joined me for my stroll.... flamboyant character with gold teeth....very interesting.....unlike the the Sarazm site......been to the Frim site recently....not the greatest WHS out there but still head and shoulders above the Sarazm site.
But...to be fair.....Sarazm is the only WHS which has totally disappointed me......I ve rated some site with 0,5.... nevertheless I enjoyed exploring them up to a certain and limited degree.In my personal rating system 0.5 stands for a very underwhelming WHS without questioning its OUV. And I also try to not have my visit experience impact my rating...but😁 it happens....the other way round too.Had a pleasant time in the Singapore Botanic Gardens but my rating is very low...very weak OUV and nothing from another world
OK, I also took the time to check my low ratings (and rated the ones I still hadn't). It turns out that I give rather high ratings overall, but am also not sure anymore of many in the low range. Under 2 I have five: the lower limes, the colonies of benevolence, Drottningholm, Nice and the Nord - Pas de Calais mining basin. It's interesting because I find the last one really funny to explore and it does transmit me some particular vibes. As for Drottningholm and Nice... maybe they were pissed-off votes due to royal palace fatigue and inability to see the OUV, and maybe because of older visits.
My sole one star is for Stoclet House, and I admit that the lack of accessibility is the major factor for that rating. Looking at my two stars, I'm not that keen on fossil sites (though I often love their environs), and I'm not a fan of overly-serialized sites (I'd love a smaller sample of belfries).
I am actually quite surprised that the natural sites are not more: I feel that they often have a not apparent, monumental OUV. At the same moment, I find the picture of Tugay forests in this post magnificent and wonder what could bring to a low rating. Anyway, I wondered: is the ratio of cultural/natural worst WHS to that among WHS in general? Meaning: since there are less natural sites in general, I would also not be surprised if there are not many in the bottom of the list.
Also, please allow me a little praise for Srebarna: I don't know what happened during the visits of y'all, but I found the place not neglected (possibly the museum, but not the site itself), and the place is charming and with a character of its own. Also, seeing it teeming with birds gave me a clear sense of the OUV. An extremely worthy, serene and serendipitous visit in my experience. This is still not a 5 stars for me, but also surely not a 0,5 stars. Is it maybe that some sites get a low rating because of a "too simple" OUV? Another example could be Tiya: as far as I have understood, it is the only site of its kind in Africa, still it is not appreciated that much. Is this too simple with resoect to the expectations it might create?
“as far as I have understood, it is the only site of its kind in Africa,”. Not really .. it is just one of hundreds in the region – see this https://africanrockart.britishmuseum.org/thematic/country-of-standing-stones/ . We saw one of the others during our 2008 visit but I can’t remember its name. The UNESCO 1996 State of Conservation Report recommended “However, for it to be truly enhanced, the site should be linked to its cultural environment, i.e., with all the Megalithic sites of the Soddo region. It would therefore be advisable to extend the site inscribed to a significant regional cultural ensemble”. I think an assistance project with France did look at it but Ethiopia doesn’t seem to have gone that way. The “nearby” (300kms south) “Gedeo Cultural Landscape” inscribed in 2023, also majors on megaliths and its Nomination dossier uses Tiya as a comparator – claiming that “The style of the megalithic monuments in Tiya is markedly different from those found in Gedeo. As noted earlier, the Gedeo megalithic monuments are significantly Phallic and anthropomorphic (different from the ones at Tiya) indicating a marked cultural and stylist ic difference between these megalithic traditions. Although the date of the megalithic sites in both areas shows contemporaneity, the styles applied and the socio-cultural manifestations are different”. The problem I guess with Tiya is that it was inscribed too early (1980) as a single monument when really it needed much wider coverage for the OUV of its type to be captured - and more archaeological evidence.
In any case a “low mark” doesn’t mean that a site is of no importance/interest, just that it doesn’t hit the heights which a WHS should be aiming for. They are at best “1st degree” levels of site whereas, IMO, WHS should aim at PhD and Genius levels!! I gave Srebarna 0.5 and Tiya 1.5. A better inscription might let me up the latter to 2.0 but I can’t see myself upping Srebarna. It is an important reserve among many across Europe but leave RAMSAR etc to help preserve them. Incidentally in 1992 “The Bureau recommended that the Committee, at its forthcoming session in December, consider deleting this property from the World Heritage List,”. Bulgaria fought it and I understand its ecological health is much improved.
