Advertisement

The Management Plan for the World Heritage Sites as a Tool of Performance Measurement and Sustainability Reporting: Opportunities and Limits in the Italian Context

  • Francesco BadiaEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The attention to the management plan for the preservation and development of World Heritage Sites has grown in recent years, especially since the publication of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in 2005. The Operational Guidelines outlined in detail the contents and requirements of the management plan, which was first introduced in their 1994 version. In Italy, the national government recognized the importance of the management plan through the definition of specific guidelines and a road map for the implementation of these documents on the Italian World Heritage Sites. This process can be considered very relevant also from an international perspective, since Italy is the most represented country on the World Heritage List, with its 53 sites in 2017. Regarding Italian World Heritage Sites, the realization of the management plan has produced conflicting results so far. On the one hand, this process provided an opportunity to think strategically about the conditions of preservation and development for the World Heritage managers. On the other hand, in many cases, the adoption of management plans did not comply with the expected outcomes, due to a poor adhesion of implementation procedures to the requirements proposed by the guidelines (national and international) and a nearly absent participatory involvement of the community. However, the strategic thinking arising from management plans can lead to the development of concepts such as performance measurement and sustainability reporting for the World Heritage Sites. In this field, performance measurement consists of the implementation of indicators to assess and monitor the results of preservation and development systems, whereas sustainability reporting expresses the necessity to be accountable about these results in regard to external stakeholders, especially the community, and can be usefully connected to the performance measurement system. This chapter aims at developing the opportunities of a proper implementation process for a management plan, focusing on the dimensions of performance measurement and sustainability reporting. At the same time, it analyzes the empirical difficulties for the accomplishment of this process, which have been collected through the observation of different actual realizations of management plans, with reference to the Italian situation.

Keywords

Management plan Italian World Heritage Performance measurement Sustainability reporting 

References

  1. Ackerman, R. W. (1975). The social challenge to business. Cambridge: Havard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansoff, H. I. (1979). Strategic management. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis. Boston: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Badia, F. (2011). Contents and aims of management plans for world heritage sites: A managerial analysis with a special focus on the Italian scenario. Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, 1(1), 40–49.Google Scholar
  5. Badia, F., & Donato, F. (2013). Perfomance measurement at world heritage sites: Per aspera ad astra. International Journal of Arts Management, 16(1), 20–34.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, M. (2001). Participatory governance into the future: Roles of the government and community sectors. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(3), 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close forcomfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Non profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilhespy, I. (1999). Measuring the performance of cultural organizations: A model. International Journal of Arts Management, 2(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
  11. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability. Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Maunders, K. (1988). Corportate social reporting. emerging trends in accountability and the social contract. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1(1), 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grote, J. R., & Gbikpi, B. (Eds.). (2002). Participatory governance. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, P. M. (1991). Performance indicators: Promises and pitfalls. In S. Pearce (Ed.), Museum Economics and the Community (pp. 41–64). London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced Scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard. Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
  17. Lampel, J., Lant, T., & Shamsie, J. (2000). Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural industries. Organization Science, 11(3), 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MiBAC (Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali-Italian Ministry for Culture). (2004). Il modello del piano di gestione dei beni culturali iscritti alla lista patrimonio dell’umanità. Linee guida, Paestum: MiBAC.Google Scholar
  19. Paulus, O. (2003). Measuring museum performance: A study of museums in France and the United States. International Journal of Arts Management, 6(1), 50–63.Google Scholar
  20. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schuster, J. M. (1997). The performance of performance indicators in the arts. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7(3), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sheehan, R. (1996). Mission accomplishment as philanthropic organization effectiveness: Key findings from the excellence in philanthropy project. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(1), 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simons, R. (2000). Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Turbide, J., & Laurin, C. (2009). Performance measurement in the arts sector: The case of the performing arts. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(2), 56–70.Google Scholar
  25. UNESCO. (1994). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.Google Scholar
  26. UNESCO. (2005). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.Google Scholar
  27. UNESCO. (2011). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.Google Scholar
  28. UNESCO. (2016). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.Google Scholar
  29. UNWCD. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. New York: UN Documents.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Management and Business LawUniversity of Bari Aldo MoroBariItaly

Personalised recommendations