Els is taking a more constraining approach which I find suitable for the connection.
An important question in cases of 'living' environments is whether the fact a certain ethnicity lives there now connects it to the place. I think it should.
If we accept this postulation we can definitely add Jerusalem, Acre, Taos Pueblo, Lhasa, Strassburg, Ait ben Haddas and Derbent. In fact, in all these cases except the last one (perhaps) you can also witness a significant historic contribution to the site made by its current inhabitants.
Another issue is the Andalusian sites. Andalusians typically regard themselves as an ethnicity different from Spanish. They see their historical formation as the outcome of the strong Berber influence in their area. Could we separate that from the cultural evidence for this mixture (ie the WHS of Andalusia)?
And what about such sites as Gusuku? It's archaeological indeed but it is a piece of evidence of the history of the ethnos now still prevalent in the area where it belongs.
Bukhara and Samarkand are home to the Tajik minority in Uzbekistan as Solivagant pointed out, but what is their influence on the development of these cities, I don't know. Should they be considered admissable?
By the way, does anyone think he could tackle this problem applied on the minorities of China? They are confusingly numerous (but I guess European ethnic issues are as complex to them).
Once finished we would have to think stronger in order to deal with less Classical examples (African/Indian/Indonesian/Amerindian societies).