World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Top 50 Missing www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Top 50 Missing /  
 

Top 50 Missing - Voting 2014

 
 
Page  Page 7 of 8:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next »

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#91 | Posted: 2 Mar 2014 06:47 | Edited by: Solivagant 
It might be of interest to see a break down of the "Countries" from which those voting came (where 2 countries were identified I have taken the first) -

Africa - 2 (Egypt - 1, S Africa - 1)
Asia - 15 (China - 3, India - 2, Indones -1, Israel - 1, Jap -1, Pak - 1, Philip - 3, Thai - 1, Turk - 2)
Austral - 4 (Oz - 3, NZ - 1)
Eur - 53 (Austr - 2, Bel - 4, Cyp - 1, Fin - 3, Fr - 2, Ger - 4, Hung - 3, Italy - 6, Malta -1, NL - 7, Norw - 1, Pol - 4, Rom - 1, Russ - 1, Slovak - 4, Sloven - 1, Swed - 1, Switz - 4, UK - 3)
Lat Am - 3 (Urug - 1, C Rica - 1, Brazil - 1)
N Am - 6 (USA - 5, Can - 1)
Unident - 17

So we got quite a wide coverage of the World but still had an overwhelming European majority (Many of the "Unidentified" are likely to be "European" also) which may explain some of the result? And it could be said that the Australasian, N American and Israel votes are also culturally "European" . The 2 from Turkey might say the same too!!

Author kkanekahn
Partaker
#92 | Posted: 2 Mar 2014 12:01 | Edited by: kkanekahn 
When I saw the list at first, I got surprised. I suggested some sites which contained many Indian sites and only 5 non-national sites(At that time the rules were not clear).

Band-E-Amir , Speicherstadt and Chilehaus, Neuschwanstein Castle, Ephsus, Crete (Knossos palace)

At first I suggested to include medina but later removed it. winterkjm accidently missed Ephsus.

Okavango , Silk Road were included in Assif's list (but nobody suggested these sites before.
I think it is a remarkable achievement when your 5 out of 7 sites included in top 10 and when you suggest the sites after 12/13 members.
The only new site suggested by other member to be included in top 15 is Oxford, Cambridge university( Evilweevil)


http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=1784&p age=2#msg8029

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#93 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 06:44 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Anybody surprised by this?

Only 25 nominations had more than 25% consensus. Only 1 site from Africa (not including Arab States) made it in the Top 50 missing. The only 2 sites with zero votes were from Africa (Quiçama National Park & Peaks of Sindou).

NOT in Top 50 Missing
Colombia - Ciudad Perdida, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta
Guyana - Kaieteur National Park, Iwokrama Forest and the Kanuku Mountains
India - Dilwara Temples at Mt Abu
Pakistan - Concordia
United States - Chicago School of Architecture

SELECTED for Top 50 Missing
Egypt - Suez Canal
Germany - Neuschwanstein Castle
United States - Mount Rushmore

I wonder, if any of us had nominated the DMZ in Korea, the Empire State Building in NYC, or the D-Day Beaches, if they would have been voted Top 50? It is fascinating that the Top 50 includes extremely famous sites, but also the obscure. There seemed to be limited consideration of missing countries and gap fillers, no?

One wonders about the amount of time users spent researching nominations? If the 100 voters had viewed this picture URL of Suncheon Bay (part of the Southwestern Coast Tidal Flats (Korea) nomination) would it have received only 1 vote? Just a general observation, and as I said before, I could not in good conscience vote for the Korean site with only 20 votes with several other more worthy nominations.

Only 13/20 of my votes made it in the Top 50. Overall, I think our voted list is quite good, but there were a couple head-scratchers.

Author Euloroo
Partaker
#94 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 07:39 
Kind of inevitable I think. Despite the fact that I only selected 9 of the top 50 it was a fun exercise and I'm generally happy with the outcome. It shows that OUV can be really difficult to communicate, even to an informed audience. That said, we all have our preferences. I mulled over Bagan and Amritsar but am not massively interested in those cultures and assumed others would vote for them. I was a little disappointed that Ebla only got one other vote than me considering it fulfils several major gaps and represents some of the earliest civilisation, but there you go. Here's hoping there will be something left of it when the war is over :(

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#95 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 10:44 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Euloroo:
It shows that OUV can be really difficult to communicate, even to an informed audience.

Not so much "difficult to communicate" as "difficult to define"! It is the weakest aspect of the entire WHS scheme IMO. Of course "officially" there is no such thing as having more (or less) OUV - a site either possesses "it" or doesn't. Which of the 119 sites do you think couldn't make a reasonable case that they possess it? Of course that wouldn't mean that ICOMOS/IUCN would accept it - but as we know OUV is a very "elastic" concept to be stretched and bent within very large boundaries according to .....??
I would have thought that a greater problem for many of the 119 would be in the areas of Authenticity, Integrity and Management.
Comment has already been made that Neuschwanstein lacks OUV - it will be interesting to see if this proves the case if/when it comes up in a few years time!
The 2 Canals wouldn't stand a chance but it was fun to have them in - The Suez isn't the canal which was built and Panama is rapidly ceasing to be so -though some of the old lock and other buildings might be appropriate.

Euloroo:
I was a little disappointed that Ebla only got one other vote

I think a problem for Ebla was the fact that there were a fair number of "early civilisation" sites from the Middle East (Gobeklitepe, Jericho, Ur, Babylon, Ebla, Triple Arch Gate) so, with only 20 votes, one just had to choose 1 or 2 unless one wanted to use up too many votes on this single category of site! I didn't choose it on the basis that its most important remains (the tablets) had been removed). If I had had 50 votes it would have received one of them!

Author Khuft
Partaker
#96 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 12:45 
winterkjm:
I wonder, if any of us had nominated the DMZ in Korea, the Empire State Building in NYC, or the D-Day Beaches, if they would have been voted Top 50? It is fascinating that the Top 50 includes extremely famous sites, but also the obscure. There seemed to be limited consideration of missing countries and gap fillers, no?


I think it's quite natural - if we're searching for the "Top" 50, everyone will have a different and subjective definition of what that means. This subjective view will be shaped by the preceding knowledge that reviewers had. Neuschwanstein and Mount Rushmore are iconic sites; it does not surprise me that they've made the Top 50 (indeed I voted for Mt Rushmore too). It's not even necessarily an issue of OUV - presumably all the sites we had pre-selected have some kind of OUV. It's a matter of individual definition of what "Top" means.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#97 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 13:41 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Euloroo:
it was a fun exercise and I'm generally happy with the outcome

Khuft:
if we're searching for the "Top" 50, everyone will have a different and subjective definition of what that means

The process and the result are excellent. Half (32) of the ORIG list have been pushed out of the Top 50, while 65% of the Top 20 are from that ORIG list. Therefore, we can conclude there was greater input and narrowing of world class nominations. While I believe Europe was vastly over-represented in our voting, the (16) sites chosen were certainly interesting and unique. I personally only chose (1) European site in my 20 votes, and I had only 6 European sites in the Top 50 missing. The US snuck in a site or two which may be worthy of inscription, but probably not Top 50.

EUROPE - 16
ASIA - 11
ARAB STATES - 8
NORTH AMERICA - 7
LATIN AMERICA - 7
PACIFIC - 2
AFRICA - 1

Nations with most Top 50
United States (7)
China (4)
Egypt (4)
Chile (3)

Europe Top 50 (16)
2. UNITED KINGDOM - Historic University Towns of Oxford and Cambridge - 49 - NEW
3. TURKEY - Ephesus - 45 - NEW
5. GREECE - Minoan palaces of Crete - 41 - ORIG
6. GERMANY - Neuschwanstein Castle - 40 - NEW
8. GREECE - Cultural Landscape of Santorini - 38 - ORIG
17. RUSSIA - Transiberian Railway - 30 - ORIG
23. ITALY - Scrovegni's Chapel - 26 - NEW
26. RUSSIA - The Soviet Architecture of Moscow - 25 - ORIG
27. NORWAY - Svalbard - 24 - ORIG
30. FRANCE - Vers une architecture: Major Buildings of Le Corbusier - 22 - ORIG
31. FRANCE - Sites Mégalithiques de Carnac - 21 - NEW
34. UKRAINE - Chernobyl - 20 - ORIG
39. SPAIN - Museum Bilbao, Frank Gehry - 17 - NEW
45. ICELAND - Vatnajökull National Park - 15 - NEW
50. TURKEY - The Archaeological Site of Göbeklitepe - 13 - NEW
51. BELGIUM - Westhoek: places of memory and monuments of the Great War - 13 - ORIG

Author Khuft
Partaker
#98 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 16:20 
If you count the Turkish sites as Asian sites (both in Anatolia) and the Transsiberian Railway too (most of it is definitely in Asia), you end up with 13 sites in Europe and 14 in Asia...not bad given the vast majority of European voters :-)

An additional comment on Africa: it may have suffered from the fact that we did not preselect so many iconic (or iconic-sounding) sites. If we had included "Source of the Nile" in Burundi, "Slave Routes of Western Africa" (combination of various sites on the TL) and "Sanctuary of the lemurs of Madagascar", there might have been more votes for Africa. (Ok, I made up the last one, but there are bound to be additional natural parks in Madagascar that contain lemurs...).

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#99 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 17:29 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Khuft:
not bad given the vast majority of European voters :-)

Certainly, and I thought generally for the high number of European voters, there seemed to be some effort to limit National votes.

One thing I just realized, you can view every users vote for Top 50 missing. One surprise, there are several users that voted for less than 20 sites. It is also interesting to see the country of the user and matching how much sites from their home country they voted for. I've seen a mix of restraint and the all in approach! For the 16 people who took part in the nomination period of the 119 sites, we almost universally voted for Bagan, Bhutan Dzongs, and Nan Madol.

Author kkanekahn
Partaker
#100 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 23:16 | Edited by: kkanekahn 
Solivagant:
The 2 Canals wouldn't stand a chance but it was fun to have them in - The Suez isn't the canal which was built and Panama is rapidly ceasing to be so -though some of the old lock and other buildings might be appropriate.


Many users vote for popular/iconic sites without considering the authenticity.
The main reason for my 5 out of 7 sites included in top 10 is that they are hugely popular.
Band-E-Amir is in the gap analysis for desert, krast, mountain but got less vote.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#101 | Posted: 3 Mar 2014 23:54 
What happens when the 5 nominations included in this last are inscribed in 2014?

Grand Canal
Silk Roads
Qhapac Nan
Okavango Delta
La Grotte ornée Chauvet


I think all 5 will be inscribed, the first 4 are Top 50. Do we just roll-over the sites from our list. With the other sites inscribed, these sites would move up, no?

53. Huaca de la Luna and Huaca del Sol - 12 - NEW
54. Chicago School of Architecture - 12 - NEW
55. Tempelhof Airport, Berlin - 12 - NEW
56. Fortified City of Famagusta - 12 - ORIG
57. Rainforests of Polynesia - 12 - NEW

Author kkanekahn
Partaker
#102 | Posted: 4 Mar 2014 00:02 
winterkjm:
I think all 5 will be inscribed, the first 4 are Top 50. Do we just roll-over the sites from our list. With the other sites inscribed, these sites would move up, no?


Here the list includes all the nominations not just top 50 (even it include sites with zero vote).
We will move the remaining sites upwards.

Author hubert
Partaker
#103 | Posted: 4 Mar 2014 04:13 | Edited by: hubert 
winterkjm:
There seemed to be limited consideration of missing countries and gap fillers, no?

kkanekahn:
Many users vote for popular/iconic sites without considering the authenticity.

I'm a bit surprised that some forum members seem to be unhappy with the result of the voting, because it did not met their expectations. And Neuschwanstein seems to be one disputable case. I have not voted for Neuschwanstein (for several reasons that have already been discussed elsewhere in this forum). But to take the opposite opinion:
If Neuschwanstein is the best representative of a category, why should it not be included? Just because there are already other European castles on the list? Would we have the same objections if Neuschwanstein had been inscribed 25 years ago?
And did you vote for Bagan mainly because it fills a gap?
And if authenticity, integrity and filling-a-gap are such important criteria, why do we appreciate Angkor and the Pyramids more than Pile Dwellings and Struve Arc? Because the latter are not "World Class"? The term "World class" is often used here in the forum, but what is the definition? Is it a better term than OUV?

There is a certain discrepancy between those who made the suggestions and the final result (not too much in my opinion). I would draw the following conclusion: if we repeat this voting (someday in the future) we should try to encourage more people to make suggestions. I guess there might be some interesting proposals, which we (the active forum members) do not consider.

Author kkanekahn
Partaker
#104 | Posted: 4 Mar 2014 04:47 
hubert:
I'm a bit surprised that some forum members seem to be unhappy with the result of the voting


I respect the results. Many of us are not so called experts who see integrity,authenticity, justification of serial approach. We are just visitors vote according to our experience and other sources. We have to respect the result.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#105 | Posted: 4 Mar 2014 07:09 | Edited by: Solivagant 
hubert:
I'm a bit surprised that some forum members seem to be unhappy with the result of the voting


I can't speak for anyone else but I don't see that there is "unhappiness with" or "lack of respect for" the result - just "discussion" about what can be learned/gathered from it. It would indeed be interesting to have the views of some of those who voted but didn't contribute to the "Forum" discussions which created the list - but it doesn't look as if we are going to.

We can just say "well the result was what it was" and move onto something else or else we can use it as a jumping off point for some further discussion and the extraction of further "value" from the exercise! Among the issues which seem to arise are
a. Whether the top 50 as voted for do actually have "OUV" as would be likely to be determined by the ABs. If not, then why not and what does that say about the entire concept of "OUV".
b. What the reason might be as to why they have not been pursued to date by their respective States Parties. No, I wouldn't have expected all (or even many of) those who voted, to consider authenticity, integrity and management etc - but we can on this Forum. (In fact I only really considered "Authenticity" because the others could, in theory, have something done about them) Between us we will have visited many of the sites and also have some further background knowledge about their T List (or non-T List) status.
c. Why might those 50 have emerged above the other 69 in our vote? To what extent does it reflect the relative merits of those sites as potential WHS as the scheme operates, to the cultural/national "bias" of the voters or just to the possible "limited knowledge" of the voters about them, for many of whom this was no doubt just an interesting way of spending 10 minutes doing a quick "survey". To question the reasons for the voting isn't to "disrespect" it - but after every election in a democratic country it is perfectly normal to try to identify why the result was what it was - even if it is "IMO - many voters didn't understand the issues"!

Page  Page 7 of 8:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next » 
Top 50 Missing www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Top 50 Missing /
 Top 50 Missing - Voting 2014

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑