Arrangement features of the ecological settlement in the Baikal natural territory

The article reviews one of the types of ecological tourism – ecological settlement, its history, advantages and disadvantages. The domestic experience of ecological settlement engineering according to the criteria was analyzed, as well as the experience of existing settlements in the Baikal Natural Territory. The generally accepted scheme of ecological settlement arrangement cannot be implemented in its original form, since each site has its own features. Lake Baikal and its adjacent territories are UNESCO sites, have difficult climatic, geomorphological, landscape conditions, etc. The relevance of ecological settlement arrangement in this territory has been proved. As a result of the analyzes, a scheme of ecological settlement arrangement in the BNT was created. The results obtained allow us to conclude that it is possible to expand the field of research and search for new models. Cluster-based ecological settlements can serve as one of the directions for development. However, one of the most effective ways to check the results is the actual ecological settlement arrangement in the BNT with subsequent study during construction and operation.

Managing overtourism at UNESCO sites: the case of Angkor Wat, Cambodia.

Because each and every destination has unique challenges, managing overtourism is a complex task and is fraught with the opinions of stakeholders who do not agree on the contribution of tourism culturally, socially, or economically. The impact of overtourism varies and is rooted in effective planning and development of the site. There is typically a lack of agreement among the stakeholders about what is meant by 'effective planning and development'. There continues to be the controversy of 'quality over quantity' when it comes to the number of tourists, which is basically the battle between cultural heritage and tourism. The situation is even more complicated in areas where tourism is the primary revenue generator in the economy such as in developing countries. The bottom line is that 'one size does not fit all' and processes such as the one outlined here are necessary to customise the planning and management to attempt to arrive at more effective planning and development of the specific tourism destination.

Proprietary fragmentation and public-private management of UNESCO sites owned by the Italian state

This article is intended to develop the topic of the relationship between UNESCO sites owned by the Italian state and the profiles of their profitability and sustainability. If it is true that a common characteristic of Italian (and not only) UNESCO sites is the heterogeneity of the legal titles of ownership of such objects, then at the same time, for UNESCO sites belonging to the Italian state (25 out of 55: 45,55 %), the heterogeneity of management models is added to the multiplicity of legal regimes. In this case, the plurality of these properties affects both the valorization of the object and the quality of its management. The negative consequences of the fragmentation of the management of a UNESCO state site can be grouped as follows: 1) differences in recruitment approaches; 2) differences in management models; 3) qualitative differences in work experience; 4) differences in economic profitability; 5) differences in the accounting system. If such diversity is hardly understandable even when objects belong to different institutions, it is even less understandable when they belong to the state. The consequence of the absolute heterogeneity of the legal and organizational framework is the heterogeneity of economic results. The gap is huge and unacceptable: The Etruscan tombs of Tarquinia and Cerveteri bring in the following revenue: € 38 964,84 (2018) and € 57 127,00 (2019). At the same time, the income of the Archaeological Park Colosseum is: € 46 347 249,57 (2018) and € 48 465 096,71 (2019). If it is true that the award of UNESCO site status to a cultural monument is independent, as it should be, of its economic capabilities, then it is also true that increasing its economic profitability contributes to the achievement of the objectives of the UNESCO Convention: the protection and valorization of the cultural heritage object. Hence it is necessary to conduct autonomous financial reporting of UNESCO sites, which is currently absent in many state-owned UNESCO sites or they do not have their own accounting and financial autonomy. In conclusion, the topic of the fragmentation of ownership of the 55 Italian UNESCO sites and its impact on governance and financial returns allows us to explore the actual attention that the national legal system actually attaches to UNESCO sites, that is, the importance that, in addition to official declarations, UNESCO sites have in the domestic legal system.