The project came out of York's unsuccessful application for the UK's Tentative List for WH inscription.
Just to clarify:
Is part of the research meant to critique the OUV element of world heritage and how to establish this vague requirement? And if so, is the origin for this project York's inability to make it on the UK Tentative list? Which in part was evaluated by UK experts and not locals?
Indeed, I believe if York was nominated, it probably would be inscribed. So I wonder, do the individuals involved in this project support York for future consideration, or alternatively, deeply question the value and logic of seeking world heritage inscription altogether?
Seemingly, it may be valuable for the researchers to look at some other "failed" UK nominations. Why was the OUV considered not met in these 3 nominations, and how does this compare or contrast to York?The Twin Monastery of Wearmouth Jarrow
(Failed in 2012) (Paul's review really explores the challenges of OUV and outside "experts") - As far as I remember this nomination had quite a bit of local support. Nevertheless, OUV was in question among other concerns.St David's Close & Bishops' Palace
(Failed in 1987) - I think like Wearmouth and Jarrow, OUV was in question.Navan Fort
(Failed in 1988, 1989) - Did not justify OUV, only considered nationally important.
Furthermore, what about sites considered for addition to the updated UK list (like York) but were not given a slot.Colchester - Camulodunum and Colonia Victricensis
- Why was this nomination denied? Actually, quite a few similarities to York. "The local community, and community groups, are also considered to be key stakeholders." Nomination document