111Natural World Heritage Sites in Asia: A Review of IUCN’s Outlook
Assessment Reports 2014–2020
Thomas JONES1*, Kelvianto SHENYOPUTRO1 and Fumiko NAKAO2
1

Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
1-1, Jumonjibaru, Beppu, Oita 874-8577, Japan
2
Public Policy School, Hokkaido University
K9 N7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-0809, Japan*E-mail: 110054tj@apu.ac.jp

Abstract
The year 2022 marked the fiftieth anniversary of UNESCO’s World Heritage (WH) program, with 1,157
cultural and natural sites listed based on 10 criteria. The list has earned global conservation kudos, but
unfortunately the WH sites’ effectiveness in endorsing heritage has resulted in increased visitor numbers,
placing more pressure on already environmentally fragile sites. Enhanced monitoring is fundamental to tacklingsuch threats, so IUCN launched its WH Outlook in 2014, featuring a triennial inventory of all natural WH sites.
This paper focuses on the Asia region, unpacking the monitoring indicators used to assess the effectiveness ofnatural WHS management at those natural WH sites in 2014 and during two subsequent updates in 2017 and2020. The results add site-specific context by looking at green-flagged examples from Japan, including
Shiretoko, Ogasawara and Amami, along with the red-listed Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra inIndonesia. The results in this paper also suggest that the third monitoring outlook saw improvement in somesites compared to the 2014 and 2017 outlooks, which suggests that the reports could serve as a benchmark forassessing the effectiveness of the management of each respective natural site. There is still room for improving
the current IUCN Outlook protocol, such as providing much more comprehensive reports on each site, that
could point the way from red-listing to green. The findings of this paper may provide insights for future IUCN
Outlooks, specifically towards fulfilling area-based targets in the Global Biodiversity Framework adopted
during the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention of Biological Diversity(CBD-COP15) in 2022.
Key words: Asia, Global Biodiversity Framework, Invasive Alien Species IUCN, mountainous national park,
Natural World Heritage Sites

1. Introduction
Many of our planet’s most exceptional cultural andnatural properties are listed in UNESCO’s World Heritage
Convention as World Heritage (WH) sites. WH sites,
however, face various threats ranging from climatechange and Invasive Alien Species (IAS) to“over-tourism,” with visitor impacts tied to traffic, trash
and the maintenance of toilets and trails. These
cumulative impacts result in deterioration of congested
tourist honeypot attractions (Yang et al., 2010). In
response, various mitigation mechanisms have been
established such as an endangered list, and to date three
WH sites have been de-listed. Nonetheless, for the list to
fulfil its mandate as the most widely-recognized global
conservation pact, there is a need to replace the ad hoc
Global Environmental Research
26/2023 111-117
printed in Japanannual State of Conservation (SOC) reports withsystematic monitoring and evaluation. The International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which
conducts site inspection of natural WH sites on thetentative list, set up a conservation “outlook” mechanism
in 2014 to monitor the threats, value and management
condition of natural and mixed WHSs periodically. An
extra degree of urgency was recognized at CBD-COP15
in December 2022, when all the parties to the convention
agreed to adopt the new Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework (GBF), including related targets
and milestones. To achieve conservation outcomes,
however, this effort must be backed up by effective
management of over 270,000 national parks and nature
reserves worldwide. Our paper focuses on the Asia region,
investigating the monitoring at red- and green-flagged©2023 AIRIES

112

T. JONES et al.

WH sites in 2014 and during two subsequent updates in2017 and 2020. The results add site-specific context tocomplement the international indicators used in assessing
the effectiveness of natural WH site management.

2. The World Heritage (WH) Program after
50 Years
The year 2022 marked the fiftieth anniversary of theWH program, which was first adopted by the UNESCO
General Conference in 1972. One catalyst for the initialestablishment of WH sites was the Aswan Dam on the
Nile River in Egypt, which triggered a two-decadesalvage operation of the Abu Simbel temple complex (Hill,2021). The convention was duly ratified by 193 stateparties, with 1,157 WH sites listed by July 2022. The list
is thus one of the most widely-recognized conservationagreements and considered “the most effective
international legal instrument for the protection of culturaland natural heritage” (Strasser, 2002).
To be inscribed, WHSs must be deemed to satisfy
one or more of 10 criteria, of which six denote cultural
heritage, such as unique civilization or architecture, andfour refer to natural categories such as biodiversity andgeological heritage. In keeping with its historical roots,
the list still contains many more cultural sites (n=832)
than natural sites (n=206) (Buckley, 2018). For the former
categories, the preliminary site inspection andrecommendation is conferred by the International Council
on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), whereas natural
WHSs are under the jurisdiction of the IUCN. In 1993,
Tongariro, New Zealand was inscribed as the first mixed
WHS, with categories vi, vii, viii recognized in bothdimensions. The number of mixed WHSs subsequently
increased to 39 by 2021.
Table 1

Selection criteria for inscription as natural world
heritage (WHC, 2021a).

Cat.

Description of criteriavii.

“to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of
exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance”

viii.

“to be outstanding examples representing major stagesof earth’s history, including the record of life, significant
on-going geological processes in the development oflandforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic
features”ix.

“to be outstanding examples representing significant
on-going ecological and biological processes in theevolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water,
coastal and marine ecosystems and communities ofplants and animals”

x.

“to contain the most important and significant natural
habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity,
including those containing threatened species ofoutstanding universal value from the point of view ofscience or conservation”

However, the effectiveness of WHSs in endorsing
heritage attractions has inadvertently raised expectations
for increased visitor numbers and revenue (Buckley,
2004; Shackley, 2006). The de facto image of WH listing
has evolved into a “top brand” that confers a competitive
advantage over rival destinations (Buckley, 2004).
Sustainability has thus taken a back seat to tourism as
inscription is perceived as a “magnet for visitors” and ameans to inflate tourism (Fyall and Rakic, 2006). This
underlying assumption of a positive correlation between
inscription and visitation is fundamental to the WH list’s
success, but the influx of visitors and the presence of
tourist-oriented activities impacts residents’ everyday
lives through externalities, echoing the “over-tourism”
debate.
Various control mechanisms have been set up to
mitigate such threats and encourage effective managementof WH sites (Venkatachalam et al, 2022). Foremost
among these is the “in danger” list which, as of 2019,
included 53 WH sites. Threats are classified into thosewith general potential for negative impacts, or more
“specific and proven imminent threats” that can beascertained (UNESCO/WHC, 2022). This “red list” is a
wake-up call for urgent and major conservation action, as
occurred at Yellowstone after the national park was placedon the WH endangered list from 1995 to 2003 due toissues of over-tourism, wildlife management and invasive
species. Although Yellowstone’s status was subsequently
restored, two other sites that had been on the Endangered
List went on to be “de-listed” (Dresden Elbe Valley
revoked in 2009 and Liverpool Maritime Mercantile Cityin 2021). A third site (Arabian Oryx Sanctuary) was
directly removed from the WH list in 2007 due to therapid decline in the oryx population, followed by the
species’ extinction after an initially promising
reintroduction campaign.
Notwithstanding the removal of these three sites,
other WHSs remain on the list despite facing serious
threats, a laissez-faire approach described by Strasser(2002) as “once inscribed, forever inscribed.” There isthus an urgent need to enhance systematic monitoring,and in 2014, the IUCN established a “conservation
outlook” to be used the monitoring of natural and mixed
WHSs every three years. After that, the adoption of GBF,
whose Target 3 is “at least 30 per cent globally of land
areas and of sea areas protected areas and other effectivearea-based conservation measures places,” heightenedpressure on PAs such as WH sites to achieve conservation
via more effective management. Our paper reviews IUCN
data to examine WH site trends across the Asia region in2014 and during two subsequent updates in 2017 and2020 in the context of additional site-specific threats.

Natural World Heritage Sites in Asia

3. IUCN’s Outlook Assessment of Natural WH
Sites in Asia (2014–2020)
In 2020, the Asia region comprised 51 natural and six
mixed WH sites spread across 19 sovereign states
spanning over 1.1 million square kilometres. This total,
however, includes the listing of the Great Barrier Reef
(Australia) inscribed in 1981 (approx. 348,700 sq. km)
and the Phoenix Island Protected Areas (Kiribati) in 2010
(approx. 408,000 sq. km). These two vast territories alone
comprise more than two-thirds of Asia’s entire WH
territory and Fig. 1 shows a significant uptick in aggregate
area in the two respective years of 1981 and 2010.
The report by Osipova et al. (2020) coordinated thecondition of all 57 WHs according to reports submitted bysite managers. Over half of Asia’s WH sites were assessed
as effectively protected and managed. In 43% of sites,
however, “protection and management are of someconcern and in 4% of serious concern.” Only one site wasflagged red, symbolizing “in danger.” This was theTropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra, a serial listingthat comprises three mountainous national parks inIndonesia: Gunung Leuser National Park, Kerinci Seblat
National Park and Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park.
This composite site of three parks covering almost 26,000
square kilometres promises to protect Sumatra’s
biodiversity, but all three parks, running down the Bukit
Barisan mountain range, have been on the WH
endangered list since 2011 and remain in “critical”
condition due to threats from road construction,
agricultural encroachment, illegal logging, poaching andgovernance break-downs (Pamungkas and Jones, 2021).
The fragmented pockets of archetypal rainforest offer a
habitat for many endangered and endemic species such as
the iconic Sumatran orangutan and rhino, and thus havepotential for nature-based tourism (NBT). However, as inother emerging Southeast Asian economies, the growth inpopulation and increasing disposable income has been adriver of unplanned development, and better management
is needed to mitigate rampant development anddeforestation (Bui and Dolezal, 2020).

113

Although the Sumatran site was the only one in Asia
on the WH “in danger” list, there have been calls forothers such as the Great Barrier Reef in Australia to be
red-flagged due to frequent coral bleaching and poor
water quality. It is one of only nine marine and coastal
sites, and the maritime threats facing this site differ fromthose faced by mountainous WH sites, so further thematic
analysis is required by biome. Based on the frequency ofself-reported threats, the most prevalent pressure acrossAsia’s WH sites is derived from hunting, followed by
tourist visitation and climate change (Osipova et al.,2020). The 2020 results also showed some improvementcompared to 2017, both in terms of the increasing
percentage of sites assessed to have effective management,
and a decrease in the number of sites where protection
and management were assessed as of serious concern.
IUCN’s Outlook Assessment also identified three new
WH sites listed, including two in China (Fanjingshan(2018) and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries along the Coast of
the Yellow Sea-Bohai Gulf of China (Phase I; 2019)) and
one in Iran, Hyrcanian Forests (2019). The triennial report
also acknowledged certain data deficiencies. For example,
the database did not include the area of the Three Parallel
Rivers of Yunnan site in China, which UNESCO’s
website displayed as 1.7 million hectares (WHC, 2023).

4. Reading the Outlook Report at Site Level:
Case Studies from JapanThe aforementioned threats faced by Sumatra’s
tropical rainforest exemplify a WHS deemed to be in“critical” condition due to cumulative impacts from road
construction, farming, forestry and poaching. This red
flag also reflects the fragmented geographies andgovernance of the three separate mountainous nationalparks that comprise the conservation zone of thisIndonesian WHS. Conversely, the Shiretoko Peninsula
protects a contiguous area in Japan’s north-eastern corner
whose remote location has restricted anthropogenic
impacts. The northern tip of this peninsula in Hokkaido
has no paved roads and can only be accessed by boat orFig. 1 Aggregate area of UNESCO Natural World Heritage Sites in Asia.

114

T. JONES et al.

Fig. 2 Number of mountainous natural World Heritage Sites in Asia.

multi-day hike. It is this same combination of marine andmountainous ecosystems that underpins a holistic“sea-to-summit” conservation model which has enabled agreen flag from the IUCN monitoring teams who haveconsistently evaluated Shiretoko’s condition as “goodwith some concerns.” However, issues raised include aneed for heightened consideration of riverbed monitoring,fish passage and dam removal, and annual culls of Stellar
sea lions (Rand, 2020). Unlike the population pressure in
the Sumatran case, Shiretoko’s watershed was threatenedby “extensive anthropogenic engineering of theirwatercourses through damming, check weirs, andartificial embankments” that undermine the naturaldrainage systems’ capacity for “landscape diversity
through active erosion, material transport, and habitat
provision” (Chakraborty and Takenaka, 2019). Wildlife
countermeasures have also targeted the Yezo sika, an
endemic subspecies of deer whose population
overabundance has impacted local ecosystems, withsevere effects on forest vegetation (Uno et al., 2022).
A total of 278 WH sites were listed in Asia in 2020,
with 82 designated as natural WHSs (Fig. 2). This
represents a similar proportion of natural WHSs (23%)
compared to the global 20% ratio recognized by Buckley(2018). However, our analysis indicated that over half ofAsia’s natural WHS were categorized as mountainous
natural areas. This lists also includes Shiretoko, alongwith Shirakami and Yakushima that together comprise thefirst three natural WHSs to be listed in Japan. All strive
for a version of the “sea-to-summit” conservation modelthat aims to incorporate elements of both marine andmountainous ecosystems holistically (Shirane et al, 2021).
The IUCN outlook reports re-emphasize the challenges
faced by these mountainous WHSs that face climatechange and IAS issues. The latter is especially true ofisland groups, such as the Ogasawaras or Bonin islands,
listed as a natural WH site in 2011 under Criterion (ix).
This chain of over 30 volcanic islands located 1,000

kilometers south of Tokyo had been seriously affected bynegative impacts from IAS even before its WHS
nomination, and the listing dossier delineated specificcountermeasures (Hashimoto, 2010). Thanks to these
efforts, black rats (Rattus rattus) were subsequently
eradicated on Higashijima, and a nesting site for Bryan’s
shearwater (Puffinus bryani) was discovered on the sameisland in 2015, the species’ only confirmed nesting site on
the planet. Also, eradication of feral goats from all of the
Ogasawara islands except Chichijima has encouraged
renewed vegetation growth (Kawakami, 2019). In
addition, progress against feral cats has led to an increasein the population of red-headed wood pigeons (Columba
jenthina nitens) (Horikoshi et al., 2020). Yet the spread of
IAS such as the green anole (Anolis carolinensis)
continues to cause problems for Ogasawara’s fragile
ecosystem (Karibe, 2019).
Japan’s IAS Act was enacted in 2004. The law
distinguishes between IAS of domestic origin, such as rats,
goats, cats and Java cedar, introduced to Ogasawara from
elsewhere in the Japanese archipelago. Despite theirsignificant impacts, these translocated species cannot bedesignated as “Specified Alien Species.” Once designatedas Specified Alien Species, various types of handling
related to the breeding, cultivation, storage, transportationand introduction are legally prohibited, while eradicationis encouraged. However, culling domestic feral animals
such as cats could prove unpopular amongst local
residents and polarize opinions on other conservation
projects, so Ogasawara opted instead to pioneer anon-lethal management scheme to capture and rehouseferal cats (Mameno and Kubo, 2021). Together with thecollaboration of various stakeholders, such as the Tokyo
Veterinary Medical Association, feral cat countermeasures
including a local bylaw requiring residents to register
their cats was later extended to include other pets. In 2018,
Ogasawara’s WHS Management Plan was also revised toreinforce IAS countermeasures as part of its

Natural World Heritage Sites in Asia

comprehensive ecosystem management from theperspectives of species interactions, ecosystem functions
and widespread migratory species. IUCN’s outlook
evaluated Ogasawara’s condition to be “good with someconcerns,” but more flexible adaptive management isrequired. Hence greater cooperation among the relevant
ministries and agencies from the central and local
governments along with conservation experts and local
residents is crucial.
Amami is another group of sub-tropical Pacificislands that was listed as part of Japan’s fifth natural WHS
in 2021 together with Tokunoshima and Iriomote islands
and Yanbaru National Park on the northern part of
Okinawa’s main island (MOE, 2022). The archipelago
forms a biodiversity hotspot, home to many endemicorganisms, including rare birds such as the Amami jay(Garrulus lidthi) and woodpecker (Dendrocopos owstoni)
and other vertebrates such as the Amami rabbit(Pentalagus furnessi) (Ishida et al., 2015). The impact of
introduced predators such as mongooses (Herpestes
javanicus) on islands such as Amami and Okinawa has
severely threatened native populations or even driven
them to extinction, exacerbated by the historical absenceof mammalian carnivores (Yagihashi et al., 2021). In
particular, “five mammal species, three bird species, andthree amphibian species in the property have been
identified globally as Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally
Endangered species” (WHC, 2022). The Japanese
Ministry of the Environment started a mongoose
eradication program in 2000 before the IAS Act wasenacted. The Ministry designated the species as a“Specified Alien Species” as soon as the Act came into
force in 2005 and scaled-up a comprehensive“capture-and-kill” program aiming to remove all
mongooses from Amami. In the initial phase, the Ministryoffered incentives to hunters based on the number ofanimals captured. After the population density decreased,
the Ministry gradually shifted from this bounty system totraps set by “mongoose busters” together with speciallytrained sniffer dogs (Komine et al., 2016). In total 21,009
mongooses were captured from 2000 to 2019, but there
have been no subsequent captures, so the species isbelieved to have been removed from Amami. If provensuccessful, the eradication of the mongoose on such alarge island would be unprecedented in the context of an
IAS introduced across at least 64 islands and fourcontinents, mainly in the tropics (Barun et al., 2011). The
Amami example suggests that a comprehensive strategy
can succeed in eradicating such notorious IAS as themongoose even from larger island groups. However, theproject’s cost-effectiveness was questioned in 2012 by areview panel of external experts (lacking any naturalscience experts) in a verdict that was strongly criticizedby the Japanese Society of Mammalogists (Yamada et al.,2012). The program was ultimately continued but thisincident may indicate insufficient public awareness of the115

importance and difficulties of combating IAS.
Notwithstanding the mongoose’s likely eradication on
Amami, other IAS problems – such as feral cats – still
persist (Mameno et al., 2017).

5. Conservation Outlook for Natural WHSs:
from Red to Green?
The designation criteria of WHSs continue to echo
those of national parks, nature reserves and otherprotected area conventions in assuming static distributionof biodiversity. Yet climate change and the proliferation of
IAS-related issues are increasingly forcing a re-think inprioritization of adaptive management policies. According
to the Protected Planet Report 2020, current data
deficiencies include flagship PAs and even some WH sites,
so IUCN launched its outlook report in 2014 with aninventory of all natural WHSs on a triennial basis, mostrecently conducted in 2020 (Osipova et al., 2020). The
aim was to actively utilize the existing State ofConservation (SOC) reports as the basis for a systematic
assessment of the heritage conservation status and outlook
for natural WH properties. These contain summaries of all
natural and mixed properties based on a property-specificdata compilation and assessment.
Three cycles of IUCN’s Outlook assessments havebeen conducted since 2014. The desk-based systemenables periodic but comprehensive evaluations of threats,
conservation and management across natural and mixed
WH sites, while reflecting on the sites’ underlying value.
Cross-section results for 2020 combined with longitudinal
trends from three consecutive data sets can facilitate
trouble-shooting and aid knowledge transfer among sitemanagers. For example, Osipova et al. (2020) noted thatclimate change now represents the most frequent danger
to all natural WH sites worldwide, threatening 33% ofsites. IASs were reported to be the second most common
threat and IAS countermeasures such as the mongoose
eradication programme on Amami could provide pointers
for site managers. The third-ranked threat noted by
Osipova et al. (2020) was impacts linked to humanactivities such as “tourism visitation, hunting, fishing,fires and livestock grazing,” where the red-listed
Sumatran site can offer insights into pertinent issues thatare connected to such concerns as “limited manpower,
anthropogenic disturbance and public engagement
opportunities” (Nath et al., 2022). Beyond raisingawareness of such threats, the new outlook system also
provides a platform for positive feedback. The Green listof Protected Areas showcases best-practice management
via site-level improvements such as at Wadi Al-Hitan,
Egypt in 2018. The conservation narrative focuses on the
cetacean transition from terrestrial to marine life, and thesite is said to be “managed ‘with love’ by the staff
members, who are qualified, committed and excelling intheir work” (IUCN, 2023). Overall, the capacity to116

T. JONES et al.

conserve natural WH sites forms a litmus test for thebroader success of global conservation. Securing a
positive outlook for these sites is a priority, sending amessage to park managers facing familiar trade-offs
between conservation and development. More regularmonitoring and routine reporting by the IUCN could also
encourage red-flagged sites to mitigate management
issues as in the 1995–2003 Yellowstone “sin bin” period.

6. Conclusion and Future Research
Fifty years have passed since the initial establishmentof the WH program, aimed at creating a framework forthe global protection of both cultural and natural heritage
sites. The twin tracks, however, have diverged withconsiderable discrepancies, and since 2014 the IUCN has
published a monitoring outlook list to provide morein-depth monitoring of natural WH sites on a triennial
basis. The findings are especially pertinent considering
the relevant targets consisting of GBF. Also, the GBF
monitoring framework with its groups of indicators could
offer an extra impetus to the IUCN Outlook in guiding
future indicators and encourage more sustainable
management of natural WH sites and other types ofprotected areas.
The results from the latest monitoring outlook report
released in 2020 show an increased number of effectively
managed sites and fewer sites of concern compared to theequivalent reports in 2017 and 2014. Albeit it is too soonto say if this could be taken as vindication of the new
outlook system, it is hoped that these findings can serve asa “benchmark” for assessing the effectiveness of natural
WH site management. There are still some limitations,however, as the current outlook report by Osipova et al.
(2020) only provides a broadbrush review of natural WHS
threats that must be complemented by site-specificmonitoring. Although the findings from the outlook
system are broadly transferable, they are still unable toprovide many in-depth insights for park managers interms of specific threats such as IAS. As such, there is still
potential for utilizing the outlook results for tasks aside
from monitoring such as providing feedback andsuggesting holistic approaches for park managers at thesite level, encouraging red-listed sites to learn from thepractices of those on the green list. Furthermore, sitemanagers and researchers could conduct thematic
analyses to review the current and forecast the future
outlook assessment, providing a tool to help reassess the
positioning and current condition of their respective
natural WH sites.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to the IYM+20
organizing committee.

References
Barun, A., Hanson, C.C., Campell, K.J. and Simberloff, D. (2011) A
review of small Indian mongoose management and eradications
on islands. In: Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N. and Towns, D.R. (eds.),
Island Invasives: Eradication and Management, 17–25, IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.
Buckley, R. (2004) The effects of world heritage listing on tourism
to Australian national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
12(1): 70–84.
Buckley, R. (2018). Tourism and natural World Heritage: A
complicated relationship. Journal of Travel Research, 57(5):563–578.
Bui, H.T. and Dolezal, C. (2020) The tourism-development nexus inSoutheast Asia: History and current issues. In: Tourism andDevelopment in Southeast Asia, 23–40, Routledge.
Chakraborty, A. and Takenaka, T. (2019) A qualitative exploratory
analysis of ecological integrity for safeguarding World Natural
Heritage Sites: Case study of Shiretoko Peninsula, Japan.
Heritage, 2(1), 898–919.
Fyall, A. and Rakic, T. (2006) The future market for World Heritage
sites. In: Managing World Heritage Sites, 185–202, Routledge.
Hashimoto, T. (2010) Eradication and ecosystem impacts of rats in
the Ogasawara Islands. Restoring the Oceanic Island Ecosystem:
Impact and Management of Invasive Alien Species in the Bonin
Islands, 153–159.
Hill, A.C. (2021) ‘The battle for Abu Simbel’: Archaeology andpostcolonial diplomacy in the UNESCO campaign for Nubia.
Journal of Contemporary History, 56(3): 502–521.
Horikoshi, K., Suzuki, H., Sasaki, T. and Kawakami, K. (2020)
Population increase of the endemic subspecies of the Japanese
Wood Pigeon Columba janthina nitens on Chichijima in the
Ogasawara Islands, Japan, after feral cat population control.
Japanese Journal of Ornithology, 69: 3–18.
IUCN (2023) IUCN Green List. Retrieved from https://iucn
greenlist.org/sites/wadi-al-hitan/ (accessed 11 April 2023)
Ishida, K., Murata, K., Nishiumi, I., Takahashi, Y. and Takashi, M.
(2015) Endemic Amami Jay, invasive small Indian mongoose,and other alien organisms: a new century investigation of island
aliens towards improved ecosystem management. Journal ofOrnithology, 156(1): 209–216.
Jones, T. E. (2022) World heritage sites. The Palgrave Handbook ofGlobal Sustainability, 1–11.
Karibe, H. (2019) The endemic insect crisis in the Ogasawara
Islands: The urgent need for in-situ and ex-situ conservation,
Shinrin Kagaku, 87: 15–18.
Kawakami, K. (2019) The history of anthropogenic disturbance andinvasive alien species impact on the indigenous avifauna of the
Ogasawara Islands, southern Japan. Japanese Journal ofOrnithology, 68(2): 237–262.
Komine, H., Takeshita, K., Abe, S., Ishikawa, T., Kimura, M.,
Hashimoto, T., Kitaura, K., Morosawa, T., Seki, K. and Kaji, K.
(2016) Relationships between capture-site characteristics andcapture levels of the invasive mongoose on Amami-OshimaIsland, Japan. Biological Invasions, 18: 487–495.
Lubis, M. I., Lee, J. S., Rahmat, U. M., Tarmizi, T., Ramadiyanta,E., Melvern, D., Linkie, M. et al. (2023). Planning for megafauna
recovery in the tropical rainforests of Sumatra. Frontiers in
Ecology and Evolution, 11, 1174708.
Mameno, K., Kubo, T. and Suzuki, M. (2017). Social challenges ofspatial planning for outdoor cat management in Amami OshimaIsland, Japan. Global Ecology and Conservation, 10, 184–193.
Mameno, K. and Kubo, T. (2021) Tourist intentions to donate to
non-lethal feral cat management at a potential natural World
Heritage site in Japan. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 26(2): 99–114.

Natural World Heritage Sites in Asia
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (2022) Yambaru National Park
Characteristics. Retrieved from https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/
nps/park/yambaru/point/index.html (accessed 28 April 2023)
Nath, A., Chakraborty, P., Sarkar, V., Joshi, C., Bhadouria, B.S.,
Kakati, N., Ghosh, S. and Talukdar, G. (2022) Monitoring
outstanding universal value: An analysis of the status of natural
world heritage sites in India. Journal of Heritage Management,
24559296221091470.
Osipova, E., Emslie-Smith, M., Osti, M., Murai, M., Åberg, U. andShadie, P. (2020) IUCN World Heritage Outlook 3: A
conservation assessment of all natural World Heritage sites,
November 2020. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 90pp.
Pamungkas, W. and Jones, T.E. (2021) Indonesia’s mountainous
protected areas: National parks and nature-based tourism.
Nature-Based Tourism in Asia’s Mountainous Protected Areas: A
Trans-regional Review of Peaks and Parks, 111–131.
Rand, P. (2020) IUCN Advisory Mission Shiretoko (Japan).
Retrievedfromhttps://shiretokodata-center.env.go.jp/data/process/202003/report_e.pdf (accessed 23 February 2023)
Shackley, M. (2006) Visitor management at world heritage sites. In:
Managing World Heritage Sites, 109–120, Routledge.
Shirane, Y., Jimbo, M., Yamanaka, M., Nakanishi, M., Mori, F.,
Ishinazaka, T., Shimozuru, M. et al. (2021) Dining from the coastto the summit: Salmon and pine nuts determine the summer body
condition of female brown bears on the Shiretoko Peninsula.
Ecology and Evolution, 11(10), 5204–5219.
Strasser, P. (2002) “Putting Reform Into Action”—Thirty years of
the world heritage convention: How to reform a convention
without changing its regulations. International Journal of
Cultural Property, 11(2): 215–266.
UNESCO/World Heritage Centre (2022) The List. Retrieved fromhttps://whc.unesco.org/en/syndication (accessed 6 January 2023)
Uno, H., Inatomi, Y., Ueno, M. and Kaji, K. (2022) Adaptive
Management of Sika Deer Populations on Hokkaido Island,
Japan. In: Sika Deer: Life History Plasticity and Management,
553–568, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Venkatachalam, T., Day, J.C. and Heron, S.F. (2022) A systematic
approach for defining thematic groups of World Heritage
properties to support the strategic management of threats.
Environmental Challenges, 8: 100538.
World Heritage Convention (WHC) (2023). Three Parallel Rivers of
Yunnan Protected Areas. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.
org/en/list/1083/ (accessed 11 April 2023)
World Heritage Convention (WHC) (2022) Amami-Oshima Island,
Tokunoshima Island, Northern part of Okinawa Island, andIriomote Island. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/
en/list/1574/ (accessed 29 August 2022)
Yagihashi, T., Seki, S. I., Nakaya, T., Nakata, K. and Kotaka, N.
(2021) Eradication of the mongoose is crucial for theconservation of three endemic bird species in Yambaru, Okinawa
Island, Japan. Biological Invasions, 23(7): 2249–2260.
Yamada, F., Ishii, N., Ikeda, T., Tokida, K., Fukasawa, K.,
Hashimoto, T., Morosawa, T., Abe, S., Ishikawa, T., Abe, G. and
Murakami, O. (2012) Correspondence of the researchers to theadministration business review of the Ministry of theEnvironment in 2012—Turn to construction of theeffective/efficient measures against invasive mammals. Journalof the Mammalogical Society of Japan, 52(2): 265–287.
Yang, C.-H., Lin, H.-L. and Han, C.-C. (2010) Analysis ofinternational tourist arrivals in China: The role of World Heritage
sites. Tourism Management, 31(6): 827–837.

117

Thomas JONES
Thomas Jones is Professor of Environmental
Studies at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University(APU) in Kyushu, Southwest Japan. His researchinterests include nature-based tourism, protectedarea management and sustainability. He completed
his PhD at the University of Tokyo, and has conducted surveys on inboundvisitors to Mount Fuji and the Japanese Alps.

Kelvianto SHENYOPUTRO
Kelvianto Shenyoputro is currently pursuing his
PhD at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in
Beppu, Kyushu, SW Japan. His research interestsalign broadly with solid waste management,
particularly in rural regions and inside theprotected areas of Japan. Recently his researchtack has turned to Mount Fuji, focusing on visitor surveys to monitor theapplication of “leave no trace” principles.

Fumiko NAKAO
Fumiko Nakao is a professor at the Graduate
School of Public Policy, Hokkaido University innorthern Japan. She focuses on practice rather
than research, with more than 30 years ofexperience at the Ministry of the Environment,
Japan. Her research and administrative interests
include integrated achievement of climate change solutions andbiodiversity conservation.

(Received 3 May 2023, Accepted 22 December 2023)