Journal of Cultural Heritage 28 (2017) 151–157

Available online at

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

Original article

Global overview of the geological hazard exposure and disaster risk

awareness at world heritage sites
Irina Pavlova a,∗ , Alexandros Makarigakis b , Thomas Depret c , Vincent Jomelli a
a
Laboratory of Physical Geography, CNRS, place Aristide-Briand, 92195 Meudon, France
b
Section on Earth Sciences and Geohazards Risk Reduction, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France
c
University of Lyon, UMR 5600 CNRS EVS, site ENS, 69342 Lyon, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many UNESCO world heritage (WH) properties are exposed to geological hazards, or geohazards, which
Received 25 February 2015 can turn into disasters if local authorities and site managers are unprepared. This paper analyzes for the
Accepted 4 November 2015 first time the estimated exposure to geological hazards at 981 world heritage properties worldwide and
Available online 9 December 2015
the risk awareness of their managers. Initially the physical exposure of world heritage properties to four
main geological hazards – tsunamis, landslides, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions – was estimated
Keywords: using open-access data from the global risk data platform and global volcanism program. Then, the
UNESCO world heritage sites
periodic reporting registered data, which is part of the world heritage monitoring system and includes
Geological hazards
Awareness
questions on the hazards that threaten each site, was examined to estimate world heritage site managers’
Reporting system risk awareness. Finally, estimated and registered datasets enabled to identify focus groups of WH sites
Spatial analysis exposed to geological hazards worldwide. Results showed that a range of 39% (according open-access
data) to 46% (according site managers) of world heritage properties are exposed to at least one of the
four aforementioned geological hazards. When considering results from both datasets, the number of
WH sites exposed to geohazards raise to 60%. The most frequent natural hazards affecting world heritage
properties are earthquakes and landslides, whereas volcanic eruptions and tsunamis are less frequent. The
most vulnerable regions are Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean, where more than
half of the sites are exposed to at least one of geohazard. Furthermore, the analysis of 41 selected sites,
based on real hazardous events, demonstrated that 38 out of 41 (92.7%) geohazard events were identified
by one or the other dataset. The quality of the geohazard detection is less significant when both datasets
are considered: only 22 out of 41 (53.7%) disaster cases were correctly estimated by both GRPD-GVP and
PR-II databases. This difference could be due to the actual vulnerability of the sites, associated to their
physical and social characteristics, and their environment, as well as coarse resolution of the open-access
data, or to a lack of awareness – on the part of site managers – of the actual disaster risks associated
with the hazard(s) affecting their properties. In order to obtain the global vision on the exposure to
geohazards, it would be beneficial to combine these two types of information and consider them as
complimentary. Moreover, analyzing real vulnerability and management systems at regional and local
levels is indispensable to assess the actual degree of disaster risk affecting world heritage properties and
define priorities for disaster management interventions.
© 2017 UNESCO and Elsevier Masson SAS. Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Research aims
This paper addresses a large public of cultural specialist in order
to raise the attention to the issue of natural hazards exposure at
significant symbolic cultural, natural and mixed (combination of
cultural and natural) sites.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 6 83 18 19 94.
E-mail address: i.pavlova@unesco.org (I. Pavlova).
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030
at the global scale calls to “promote the strengthening of inter-
national mechanisms for monitoring and assessment of disaster
risks”. These mechanisms of monitoring could be set up based
on already existing networks such as networks of world heritage
properties, representing cultural and natural heritage sites whose
significance “is so exceptional as to transcend national bound-
aries and to be of common importance for present and future
generations of all humanity” [1]. These sites, like all heritage prop-
erties, are exposed to geological hazards that may threaten their
integrity and compromise these values. In understanding risk, the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.11.001
1296-2074/© 2017 UNESCO and Elsevier Masson SAS. Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.
152 I. Pavlova et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 28 (2017) 151–157
framework calls for the systematic evaluation, recording, sharing
and publicly accounting for disaster losses and understanding of the
cultural heritage impacts at national and local level (priority 1). In
its third priority, investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience,
the framework requests from member states “to protect or support
the protection of cultural and collecting institutions and other sites
of historical, cultural heritage and religious interest;” at national
and local levels. Among the priority actions identified in the Strat-
egy for reducing disaster risks at world heritage properties, adopted in
2007, one specifically called for the development of “a world her-
itage risk map at global or regional level to assist States Parties and
the Committee to develop better responses”.
This study is the first attempt to qualify the exposure of cultural,
natural and mixed World Heritage properties worldwide to major
geological hazards, and to identify global risk awareness of the peo-
ple who are responsible for the day-to-day management of these
sites.
2. Introduction
To be on the world heritage list, sites must be of ‘outstanding
universal value’ and meet at least one out of 10 selection crite-
ria [1]. A list of WH properties is maintained and up-dated every
year by an inter-governmental Committee, also known as the WH
Committee. Within UNESCO, the WH Centre is the focal point and
coordinator for all matters related to WH. It coordinates both repor-
ting on the condition of sites and the emergency actions undertaken
when a site is threatened. From the initial 12 properties recognized
in 1978, the List grew to 981 properties from 161 states parties at
the beginning of 2014.
Harm to any of WH sites can also put the livelihoods of local
communities situated at their proximity at risk, as they are often
an important source of employment, income (via tourism based
activities) and environmental goods and services. In addition, the
loss or deterioration of these outstanding properties would nega-
tively impact local and national communities, both in terms of their
cultural importance as a source of information on the past and as a
symbol of identity, and for their socioeconomic value [2–4].
In recent years, geological hazards, also called geohazards, such
as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and tsunamis, have
already caused extensive damage to WH properties. Major earth-
quakes devastated world heritage sites in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal,
in 2015 [5], the Citadel of Bam, Iran in 2003 [6], disrupted Qiang
people’s watchtowers system in Sichuan, China, in 2008 [7], dam-
aged various monuments in the Assisi (1997), l’Aquila (2009) and
Emilia Romagna (2012) regions in Italy [8]. Different types of land-
slides frequently occur on the slopes surrounding such properties
as the Machu Picchu archeological site [9] and the Cinque Terre area
[10], damaging access roads and tourist paths to the sites.
Although such disasters have long been a concern within the
Convention concerning the protection of world cultural and natu-
ral heritage, adopted by the general conference of UNESCO on 16
November 1972 [11], it was only in 2007 that the WH Commit-
tee adopted the Strategy for reducing disaster risks at world heritage
properties [12]. Its objectives were structured around the five main
priorities for action defined by the Hyogo Framework for Action
[13], but adapted to reflect the specific concerns and characteristics
of WH. Key priority actions were also identified for each objective.
The strategy immediately started being implemented world-
wide. International workshops and training courses were held and a
resource manual on the risk of disaster for WH was published [14].
At the same time, international and national institutions, includ-
ing national governments, international NGOs, the World Bank
and UN organizations, together contribute a considerable wealth of
experience in reducing disaster risks for cultural and natural her-
itage [1,15–20].
Among the priority actions identified, one specific requirement
is to “identify, assess and monitor disaster risks at world heritage
properties.” Action 3.2 calls for the development of “a world her-
itage risk map at the global level or at regional levels to assist states
parties and the committee to develop better responses” [12].
Even though there is a clear understanding that WH sites are
potentially threatened by disaster risks, no dedicated studies have
been conducted to identify the global exposure of WH sites to
natural hazards. Such an assessment is indispensable for the imple-
mentation of the WH global strategy for the conservation of WH
properties and the mitigation of risk.
The main key to the successful prevention of severe conse-
quences is the people who work at local level. Local governments,
NGOs, and especially WH site managers need to be aware of the
risks affecting their sites and to undertake all possible mitigation
and prevention measures. But, to date, no global overview studies
show how well the objectives set up by bottom up processes are
applied by local governments, or even WH site managers’ aware-
ness of the risk of natural hazards.
The aim of the present study is thus to help filling this knowl-
edge gap and to provide qualitative information concerning the
global exposure of WH properties to, and the awareness of their
site managers of, geological hazards. First, hazard assessment was
performed for all WH properties inscribed in the list before the
beginning of 2014 using open-source data on physical exposure to
geological hazards. Second, the reporting database, which belongs
to the WH monitoring system and includes questions on the geo-
logical hazards threatening each site, was analyzed to estimate the
WH site managers’ awareness of risk. Finally, analyses of these two
global datasets created a baseline indicating WH properties that
should be further studied at a finer scale.
3. Materials
3.1. World heritage spatial and reporting databases
At the beginning of 2014, the WH list contained 981 properties1 ,
including 759 cultural, 193 natural, and 29 mixed sites (Fig. 1). The
majority (47.8%) is located in Europe and North America, 22.6% in
Asia and the Pacific, and 13.2% in Latin America and the Caribbean
region. The remaining WH sites are distributed between Africa (9%)
and Arab States (7.4%).
The general information about the geolocation, category,
type and criteria of selection for each WH site came from
two open-access georeferenced databases. Cultural sites
with the coordinates of their central point can be found at
(http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/); natural and mixed properties are
presented with their actual boundaries in http://www.unep-wcmc.
org/resources-and-data/kml-file-of-world-heritage-sites.
Further detailed information about WH properties is available
from two main WH Centre online reporting platforms.
One form of reporting and monitoring is the periodic repor-
ting (PR) process, which provides an assessment submitted by the
state parties themselves, which is examined on a regional basis
by the WH Committee according to a pre-established six-year
cycle. These reports are prepared by site managers of every sin-
gle WH site. The online database of periodic report cycle 2 (PR-II,
2008–2015) includes a series of questions concerning the man-
agement organization as well as “factors affecting the property”
1
According to the World Heritage List, all properties are grouped in five regions:
Africa (AFR), Asia and the Pacific (APA), Arab States (ARB), Europe and North America
(EUR) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).
 I. Pavlova et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 28 (2017) 151–157
Fig. 1. Location of cultural, natural and mixed world heritage (WH) properties relative to region. Circle radius represents the number of state of conservation (SoC) reports
at the particular WH site.
whereby WH site managers are asked to provide information on
the range of factors that affect the property. Subsection 3.11 of
the questionnaire, “Sudden ecological or geological events” con-
tains questions about six hazards (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes,
tsunamis, avalanches/landslides, erosion and wildfires) affecting or
not WH sites. According to the PR-II, 92% of sites have a manage-
ment system that is being implemented. However, the database
does not include more detailed questions on risk management, i.e.
risk assessment details, mitigation and prevention measures within
the established management plan, educational and awareness rais-
ing activities, etc.
In another monitoring process for properties inscribed on the
WH list, called ‘reactive monitoring’, the WH Centre prepares each
year reports for the consideration of the world heritage Commit-
tee on the state of conservation (SoC) of selected properties, which
require particular attention due to specific issues identified. These
reports allow the WH Committee, which is responsible for evaluat-
ing the state of conservation of the sites, to assess the conditions at
the site and decide on the need to undertake specific measures to
address any identified issues. Besides compiling background infor-
mation on the properties, and reviewing information from different
sources, these reports identify the factors that affect the outstand-
ing universal value, integrity and authenticity of the property and
propose actions to mitigate the corresponding threats. For proper-
ties included on the world heritage list in danger, in particular, a set
of corrective measures and a timeframe for their implementation is
defined by the committee. A comprehensive online database, sup-
ported by a keyword search engine, has been recently established
which enables the identification of SoC reports based on the spe-
cific threat associated, for example one of the above-mentioned
geological hazards.
3.2. Datasets on the exposure to geological hazards
Two open-source databases were used to estimate exposure
to geological hazards. The first one is the global risk data plat-
form (GRDP, http://preview.grid.unep.ch/), a multi-agency effort
to share spatial information on global risk from natural hazards.
This product was designed for the global assessment report on risk
153
reduction [21]. Users can view and extract data on past hazardous
events, human and economic hazard exposure and the risk of dif-
ferent natural hazards [22]. The three following datasets were used
in the present study:
• the estimate of the annual physical exposure to landslides trig-
gered by earthquakes and precipitation events;
• the annual physical exposure to earthquakes;
• the annual physical exposure to tsunamis.
The GRDP data on the annual physical exposure to landslides
was based on the combination of triggers and susceptibility defined
by six parameters: slope factor, lithological (or geological) condi-
tions, soil moisture content, vegetation cover, precipitation, and
seismic conditions [23]. The analysis of the tsunami hazard was
based on a comprehensive list of reports and scientific papers com-
piled and used to produce tsunami hazard maps as well as to
identify return periods of future events [24]. The earthquake hazard
was calculated starting from identification of the principal seis-
mic sources and enabled a set of stochastic earthquake scenarios
compatible with characteristics of location, depth, frequency and
magnitude [22]. All three datasets were modeled using global data
and aggregated to ∼ 5 km resolution for distribution. More detailed
information about the data construction and methods can be found
in the references cited in ISDR, ICCROM, ICORP, UNESCO 2013 [22].
The second source of information was a deliverable from the
global volcanism program (GVP, http://www.volcano.si.edu/). The
GVP initiative is unique in its documentation of current and past
activity of all volcanoes on the planet that have been active during
the last 10,000 years. The database contains the locations of 1560
volcanoes worldwide and provides information about the date of
last known eruption of each volcano [25].
4. Methodologies
The first step of this study was to estimate the exposure of each
WH site to the four geological hazards selected, namely tsunamis,
landslides, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. For this purpose,
first the spatial database of WH properties was associated with
154 I. Pavlova et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 28 (2017) 151–157

Fig. 2. World heritage (WH) properties exposed to geological hazards according to the global risk data platform (GRDP) and global volcanism program (GVP) datasets. The
colors correspond to the number of geological hazards at each WH site.

Table 1
Number (and percentage) of WH sites exposed to geohazards per region according to GRDP and GVP datasets.

Region Tsunami Landslide Eruption Earthquake All geohazards Mean number of

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) hazards at WH
sites per region

Africa 9.1 21.6 13.6 13.6 42.0 0.6

Arab states 2.7 8.1 5.4 27.0 35.1 0.4
Asia and Pacific 8.1 32.6 12.7 27.6 55.2 0.8
Europe and North America 4.7 17.3 6.6 29.0 36.7 0.6
Latin America and Caribbean 7.0 35.7 23.3 48.8 68.9 1.1
Total WH properties (%) 6.0 22.8 10.7 29.8 45.5 0.7

WH: world heritage; GRDP: global risk data platform; GVP: global volcanism program.

Fig. 3. World heritage (WH) properties vulnerable to geological hazards according to the periodic report cycle 2 (PR-II) reporting database. Colors correspond to the number
of geological hazards per WH site.
 I. Pavlova et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 28 (2017) 151–157
datasets containing information about risk exposure to one of three
hazards – tsunamis, landslides and earthquakes. If the WH loca-
tion intersected with a positive raster value of one of the hazards,
this WH site was assumed to be potentially exposed to the hazard
in question. Second, data on the fourth hazard (volcanic erup-
tions) was available only in the form of volcano coordinates with
last date of eruption. Consequently, an additional stage of hazard
data preparation was performed. The WH site was assumed to be
potentially exposed to a volcanic hazard if it was located within
a radius of 40 km from the volcano that have been active in the
last 10,000 years [25]. This distance, which is based on the liter-
ature [26,27], was considered to be the maximum extension of a
potential danger zone.
The second step was to evaluate the risk exposure through the
awareness of the local WH site managers. For each site, records
from the second cycle of periodic reporting questionnaires related
to selected geological hazards were extracted from the online WH
Centre database and analyzed using descriptive statistics. A key
parameter, representing the dissemination of information about
the geological hazards at each WH site, was the match in the iden-
tification of each hazard by open-access data and by site managers
when filling in the PR-II questionnaires.
The third step was an examination of SoC reports in order to
independently evaluate the reliability of estimated and registered
datasets. All SoC reports submitted in the last 35 years and men-
tioning one of the selected geological hazards were extracted from
the online WH Center database using a keyword search. For each
case it was examined if the type of hazard reported in SoC, was
identified as well by open-access data or by site managers in PR-II.
5. Results
5.1. Estimation of geological hazards at WH sites
Results based on the GRPD and GVP datasets showed that 46%
of WH sites could be potentially exposed to at least one out of the
four selected geohazards. Out of these, 27% of all WH properties are
potentially exposed to one geological hazard, 14% – to two and 5%
to three geohazards (Fig. 2). When looking at the type of WH site,
41% of all cultural, 60% of all natural and 72% all mixed sites are
exposed to geohazards (Fig. 4).
Earthquakes are the most frequent hazard, and could affect
292 WH properties (30%) (Table 1), while 23% of all WH sites are
exposed to landslides, 11% to volcanic eruptions and 6% to tsunamis.
The mean number of geological hazards worldwide is 0.7 hazard
per WH site, but this value varies among regions. WH sites in Arab
states have 0.4 potential hazards per site, properties in Africa and
Europe and North America regions have 0.6 hazards per WH site,
Asia and Pacific are exposed to 0.8 geological hazards, and Latin
America and Caribbean sites to 1.1.
5.2. Awareness of geohazards at WH properties
The aim of analyzing the PR-II reporting database was to identify
geological hazards that affect each WH site according to site man-
ager’s perspective. In the PR-II database, there are 589 mentions
of at least one of the geohazards at 381 (39%) WH sites, including
41% of all cultural, 60% of all natural and 72% of all mixed WH sites
(Figs. 3 and 4).
The mean number of geohazards per site is 0.6 (Table 2). WH
properties in Africa have the same mean number of geological
hazards per site estimated by GRPD or GVP, 0.6 WH sites in Europe
and North America region and Arab states would appear to be vul-
nerable to 0.5 geohazards on average. The greatest mean number
155
Fig. 4. Number of world heritage (WH) sites affected by geological hazards accord-
ing to estimated (plain) and registered by site managers (dashed) data.
of geological hazards is in the Asia and Pacific (0.7 hazards per site)
and Latin America and the Caribbean (0.9 hazards per site).
According to PR-II reports, the most frequent hazards are earth-
quakes (29.4% of all WH sites) and landslides (16.7%), followed by
tsunamis (8.0%) and volcanic eruptions (6.0%).
5.3. Comparison of estimated and registered datasets
The bar chart on Fig. 4 shows the total number of WH properties
affected by each geohazard according to estimated and registered
data. Globally, 60.0% of WH sites were identified being exposed to
one hazard by, at least, one of two datasets. By hazards this param-
eter has the following percentage: 44.9% for earthquakes, 32.5% for
landslides, 12.1% for volcanic eruptions and 11.0% for tsunamis.
The analysis shows that 21.1% of WH sites are identified as
exposed to at least one hazard by both data sources. In particu-
lar, 3% are exposed to tsunamis; 7% to landslides; 4.6% to volcanic
eruptions; 14.3% to earthquakes.
Another parameter of comparison is based on the total num-
ber of geohazards at all WH sites estimated by at least one of two
datasets. Globally, 28.7% of the 986 hazards are detected by both
data sources. In particular, the total number of tsunami cases iden-
tified by both data sources amount to 26.9%, for landslides, 21.6%,
for volcanic eruptions 37.8% and for earthquakes 31.8%.
5.4. Cross-analysis of geohazards at world heritage properties
The reports from the SoC monitoring system were used as a
third independent dataset to cross-analyze estimated and regis-
tered datasets on geohazards at WH sites. For the period 1979
to the beginning of 2014, geological hazards were key topics in
158 reports from 41 WH sites. In most cases, natural hazards are
mentioned more than once as factors that have an impact on WH
properties. On Fig. 1, the number of reports for each WH site is rep-
resented by a circle with a corresponding radius. Most of the 41 WH
sites identified were the subject of one to six SoC reports. Twenty-
seven WH sites were the subject of reports on earthquakes, nine
on landslides, two on tsunamis, and three on volcanic eruptions
(Table 3). The largest number of reports concerned four properties:
11 reports registering landslide activity are listed for the historic
sanctuary of Machu Picchu (number 1 on Fig. 1), nine reports on
earthquake hazard for the natural and cultural-historical region of
Kotor (number 2 on Fig. 1), seven reports on earthquakes for his-
torical center of the city of Arequipa (number 3 on Fig. 1) and five
156 I. Pavlova et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 28 (2017) 151–157

Table 2
Number (and percentage) of WH sites exposed to geohazards per region according to PR-II reports submitted by site managers.

Region Tsunami Landslide Eruption Earthquake All geohazards Mean number of

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) hazards at WH
sites per region

Africa 11.4 5.9 13.6 18.2 30.7 0.6

Arab states 1.8 9.5 1.4 39.4 33.7 0.5
Asia and Pacific 32.4 8.5 10.8 23.2 50.2 0.7
Europe and North America 5.3 56.6 3.6 23.2 32.4 0.5
Latin America and Caribbean 11.6 3.2 14.7 41.1 51.1 0.9
Total WH properties 8.0 16.7 6.0 29.4 38.8 0.6

WH: world heritage; PR-II: periodic report cycle 2.

Table 3
Summary of the number of hazardous types at WH sites mentioned in SoC reports and the corresponding number (and percentage) of WH sites where according geological
hazards were mentioned in the PR-II or estimated.

Data source/hazard Tsunami Landslide Eruption Earthquake Total

SoC 2 9 3 27 41
PR-II 1 7 3 18 29
(50%) (77.8%) (100%) (66.7%) (70.7%)
Estimations 1 4 3 22 30
(50%) (44.4%) (100%) (81.5%) (73.2%)

WH: world heritage; SoC: state of conservation; PR-II: periodic report cycle 2.

reports on earthquakes and two reports on volcanic eruptions for
the city of Quito (number 4 on Fig. 1).
Geohazards to which WH sites are exposed are very well iden-
tified when two datasets are combined: 38 out of 41 (92.7%)
geohazard cases mentioned in SoC reports were identified by one or
another dataset. The quality of the detection is less significant when
only one of the datasets is considered: only 30 out of 41 (73.2%)
and 29 out of 41 (70.7%) events mentioned in SoC reports were cor-
rectly estimated by GRPD-GVP datasets and recorded by the PR-II
database, respectively. Only two WH sites mentioned in SoC reports
– Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay for earthquake exposure (num-
ber 5 on Fig. 1) and Ksar of Ait-Ben-Haddou for landslide exposure
(number 6 on Fig. 1) were not detected by hazard estimations nor
recorded in the PR-II database.
Globally, the proportion of well identified tsunami and erup-
tion cases are equal for two datasets, however the number of SoC
reports on these hazards is very reduced. Landslide events are bet-
ter identified by site managers; while earthquake cases are better
determined by estimations.
6. Discussion
6.1. Reliability of the geohazard datasets
The comparison with SoC reports indicates that the combined
information coming from two datasets yields a robust identifica-
tion of hazard exposure at WH sites. Indeed, 92.7% of the hazards
reported in SoC reports are detected by at least one of the two
datasets.
However, when each data source is considered individually,
then a considerable gap is observed. These discrepancies can be
partly explained by the fact that the worldwide scale of this study
implies certain limitations concerning the accuracy of the exposure
assessment datasets.
Firstly, it is impossible to execute a physical model of four geo-
logical hazards for all 981 WH sites. Secondly, even using the most
sophisticated statistical approaches of risk probability, it would be a
tremendous task and beyond the scope of this investigation, whose
objective was to get an overview of the global disaster risk expo-
sure/balance at WH properties. This is the reason the decision was
made to use existing open-access data on risk exposure. A slightly
simplified method of spatial analysis was applied to the GRPD and
GVP datasets, which represent good, available series of data on
geological hazards covering the entire world. The GRPD data set
for three geological hazards, landslides, tsunamis and earthquakes,
has a reasonably precise resolution of 5 km, but it is too coarse for
the majority of WH sites, whose surface area is less than 1 km2 .
Although a 5 km2 zone may sound reasonable for assessing the risk
of exposure to earthquakes, this resolution is too small for landslide
and tsunami hazard exposure. This reasoning is confirmed when
analyzing SoC reports. Largely extended earthquake hazard is bet-
ter identified by estimations. On the contrary, the landslide hazard,
occurring on a limited area, is better detected by site managers.
In further studies, digital elevation models will be needed to
improve the quality of the estimations. The radius of the maximum
danger zone used here as a criterion for the risk of exposure to vol-
canic eruption, is another assumption. It only represents the danger
that exists in the case of an explosive eruption with a massive ash
cover.
Another source of uncertainties is the database of WH sites,
since the actual boundaries of only the natural and mixed sites are
presented while cultural sites are identified through the coordi-
nates of their approximate central points. For some consolidated
medium-sized sites, these uncertainties could be ignored. But, for
cross-boundary sites that cover hundreds of km, like the Silk Roads
or the Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the Alps, the absence of
real boundaries is a serious limitation for risk assessment.
On the other hand, the PR-II database cannot be described as de
facto information on the awareness of people working at local level.
The notion of a “site manager” was introduced by the WH Centre
to standardize the process of inscription and reporting. Site man-
agers are key people with a good knowledge of the site and who
are responsible for its day-to-day handling. Still, this administra-
tive position is filled by people with different, mostly managerial
experience, who often do not have environmental science knowl-
edge and thus the necessary skills to assess the risk associated with
the identified hazard(s) at the property they manage. When local
hazard assessment studies are not performed by specialists, site
managers might not be aware of surrounding risks.
It would be thus beneficial to combine the two types of informa-
tion, estimated by open-access data and registered by site managers
and consider them as complementary in future research.
 I. Pavlova et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 28 (2017) 151–157
6.2. Global exposure to geohazards at world heritage sites
In 2015, another 24 world heritage properties were inscribed in
the list and the number of sites will continue to rise annually. It is
crucial to have a global vision of the WH sites exposure to geological
hazards in order to identify sites where the outstanding universal
value could be at risk.
This study identified for a first time that a significant number of
WH sites (60% of all WH properties according estimations or site
managers) are exposed to one of the main four geological hazards
examined. Regardless of the dataset used, the most frequent types
of hazards at WH sites are earthquakes and landslides. Moreover,
both datasets were able to independently identify the most vul-
nerable regions – Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the
Caribbean, where at least a half of sites are exposed to one of the
hazards.
The current study has identified focus groups for each hazard
and the next step will be to perform in-depth risk assessments
at regional scale as well as evaluate the risk awareness through
thematic in-depth questionnaires. Series of regional workshops
with site managers should be organized on prevention, emergency
preparedness and recovery, maintenance and monitoring at each
concerned site. An understanding of the respective roles and capac-
ities of site managers, local authorities and communities, should be
acquired.
A methodology for risk-sensitive management plans for the
world heritage sites should be further developed. The elaborated
methodology and associated tools should reinforce the capacity of
world heritage sites to deal with risk from disasters, while other
institutions and local communities will be made aware of the risks
threatening their heritage assets and of ways in which they can
be involved in reducing the impact of the hazards. It is worth
mentioning, that other hazards, such as floods, droughts, wildfires,
avalanches, etc., should be treated separately and should be the
subject of an equally detailed study.
7. Conclusions
This study is the first to qualify the exposure to geological
hazards at world heritage sites at a global scale. Results showed that
60% of world heritage sites are potentially exposed to at least one
of four geological hazards examined, namely earthquakes, land-
slides, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. This study revealed that
geological hazards appear to be common at WH sites and should
be carefully analyzed to assess the disaster risk they are associated
with. Future investigations should include not only closer vulner-
ability analyses of the groups of WH sites shown to be exposed to
geological hazards but also the use of detailed questionnaires to
evaluate awareness, and to enable the design and implementation
of efficient mitigation strategies and management plans to reduce
such risks. At the same time, sites that appear to be most at risk
should conduct quickly an in-depth risk assessment.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the UNESCO world heritage
Centre for allowing them to access their reporting databases. The
authors would like to express their gratitude to Mr. Giovanni Boc-
cardi, of the emergency preparedness and response unit, UNESCO
culture sector, for his conceptual advice.
157
References
[1] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention, World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris,
2012.
[2] IFRC, World Disasters Report 2014: Focus on Culture and Risk, IFRC, Geneva,
2014.
[3] R. Jigyasu, M. Murthy, G. Boccardi, C. Marrion, D. Douglas, G. Joseph King, O.
Brien, G. Dolcemascolo, Y. Kim, P. Albrito, M. Osihn, Heritage and Resilience:
Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks, Design Flyover, Mumbai,
2013.
[4] M.-T. Albert, M. Richon, M.J. Viñals, A. Witcomb, Community Development
Through World Heritage, UNESCO, Paris, 2012.
[5] A. Fallahi, National Planning Commission, Nepal Earthquake 2015. Post Disas-
ter Needs Assessment, Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission,
Singha, 2015.
[6] A. Fallahi, An interdisciplinary analytical study on the risk preparedness of bam
and its cultural landscape, a world heritage property in danger in Iran, Austr. J.
Emerg. Manag. 23 (2008) 21–30.
[7] T. Chen, The rescue, conservation, and restoration of heritage sites in the eth-
nic minority areas ravaged by the Wenchuan earthquake, Front. Archit. Res. 1
(2012) 77–85.
[8] F. Parisi, N. Augenti, Earthquake damages to cultural heritage constructions and
simplified assessment of artworks, Eng. Failure Anal. 34 (2013) 735–760.
[9] J. Klimes, Landslide temporal analysis and susceptibility assessments bases
for landslide mitigation, Machu Picchu, Peru, Environ. Earth Sci. 70 (2013)
913–925.
[10] E. Raso, F. Faccini, M. Firpo, C. Malgarotto, Rockfall hazard analysis and preven-
tion in the middle-eastern sector of the Cinque Terre area (Italy), in: Abstract,
17th Joint Geomorphological Meeting in Liege, Belgium, 2014.
[11] UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Nat-
ural Heritage, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, 1972.
[12] UNESCO, WHC-07/31.COM/7.2, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, 2007.
[13] ISDR, Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of
Nations and Communities to Disasters, ISDR, Geneva, 2005.
[14] UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN, Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage,
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, 2010.
[15] H. Stovel, Risk Preparedness: A Management Manual for World Cultural Her-
itage, ICCROM, Rome, 1998.
[16] C. Menegazzi, Cultural heritage disaster preparedness and response, in: C.
Menegazzi (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Symposium Cultural Heritage
Disaster Preparedness and Response, ICOM, Hyderabad, 2003, p. 347 (Novem-
ber 23–27).
[17] R. Jigyasu, K. Masuda, Cultural heritage risk management, world conference
on disaster reduction, in: R. Jigyasu, K. Masuda (Eds.), Proceedings of World
Conference on Disaster Reduction, Rits-DMUCH, Kyoto, 2005, p. 234 (January
15–22).
[18] P.-S. Wu, C.-M. Hsieh, M.-F. Hsu, Using heritage risk maps as an approach to
estimating the threat to materials of traditional buildings in Tainan (Taiwan),
J. Cult. Herit. 15 (2014) 441–447.
[19] E. Iriarte, M.A. Sanchez, A. Foyo, C. Tomillo, Geological risk assessment
for cultural heritage conservation in karstic caves, J. Cult. Herit. 11 (2010)
250–258.
[20] E. Garcia-Ortiz, I. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, E. Fernández-Martínez, Concepts and ter-
minology for the risk of degradation of geological heritage sites: fragility
and natural vulnerability, a case study, Proc. Geol. Assoc. 125 (2014)
463–479.
[21] GAR, The Global Exposure Database for GAR 2013. Background Paper Prepared
for the 2013 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, United
Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
[22] G. Giuliani, P. Peduzzi, The PREVIEW Global Risk Data Platform: a geoportal to
serve and share global data on risk to natural hazards, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Sci. 11 (2011) 53–66.
[23] NGI, Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment in El Salvador, Background Paper
Prepared for the 2013 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction,
UNISDR, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
[24] NGI, Tsunami Methodology and Result Overview, Background Paper Prepared
for the 2013 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
[25] L. Siebert, T. Simkin, P. Kimberly, Volcanoes of the World, third ed., University
of California Press, Berkeley, 2010.
[26] J.-C. Thouret, F. Lavigne, K. Kelfoun, S. Bronto, Toward a revised hazard assess-
ment at Merapi Volcano, Central Java, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 100 (2000)
479–502.
[27] R.M. Iverson, S.P. Schilling, J.W. Vallance, Objective delineation of lahar-
inundation hazard zones, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 110 (1998) 972–984.