Our World

Best and Worst World Landmarks Rated

Recently Jonathan Tourtellot, geotourism editor of National Geographic Traveler magazine, created a survey that had over 400 experts rate close to 100 places that have been named United Nations World Heritage sites. The UN began to declare sites like these as 'World Heritage Sites' in 1973 in order to preserve them, and today there are 830 officially named.

The sites were judged based on unique character and appeal to tourists. Yet some of the worst sites recieved a poor rating because they have been run over by tourists, and no longer contain the original charisma or meaning that caused them to be added to the list. Some of the higher ranked places do have heavy tourism, but because the local community is focused on conservation of the area, they have been albe to maintain their uniquness.

One of the reasons this article caught my eye was because I noticed that three of the top five places are in Europe, and Mrs. Hartmann mentioned today about wanting to go to Europe because of the many sites to see, and also how this destination is very popular for tourists. Vézelay (France), The Alhambra and Medieval Granada (Spain), and the West Fjords (Norway) ranked 2nd place(tie) and 5th place, respectively. The reasons places would be ranked lower were if there was overpopulation of the area, which would also lead to pollution, mass tourism that is not controlled, and loss of the area's character or uniquness because of lack of preservation. I suggest looking at this site - click on the link on the page that says "Photos: See the top and bottom five." Has anyone been to any of these areas and seen them for yourself? Personally, I am looking forward to a trip I am taking this summer to Spain, France, and Italy in which I will see many great sites, some that are UN World Heritage sites that didn't make the top or bottom five, and possibly even Granada, Spain (tied for 2nd).

posted by Anonymous @ 11/21/2006 08:42:00 PM