Original Scientific Article
Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19
Pandemic Times
Zuzana Kvítková
Ambis University, Czech Republic
zuzana.kvitkova@ambis.cz
Zdenka Petrů
Prague University of Economics and Business, Czech Republic
petru@vse.cz
Being on the unesco list is a privilege and a sign of exclusivity and uniqueness.
Destination Management Organizations (dmos) extensively use the international
popularity of the unesco list inscription. Many researchers have confirmed that
unesco list inscription is an advantage. However, there are also papers with op-
posite results. Several factors influence the visitor numbers at the unesco site –
the structure of the visitors (international and domestic), and location, including
accessibility, seasonality, and regional importance. covid-19 dramatically affected
world tourism. This research aims to answer whether unesco heritage list inscrip-
tion was an advantage in the covid-19 pandemic times and what role international
tourism plays in unesco sites. The authors used a method of comparative analysis
based on available statistical data, correlation analysis and t-test. The paper com-
pares the change in the number of visits to unesco attractions to similar tourist
attractions. The Czech Republic has 16 tangible attractions on the unesco list. The
analysis includes 12 cultural unesco attractions. The results show that unesco
list inscription was rather a disadvantage in the first year of the pandemic (2020)
but brought a faster recovery in 2021. The role of changes in international tourist
arrivals is important for collective accommodation establishments in both unesco
and non-unesco sites, but more for unesco sites. The correlation of changes in
international tourism with changes in visitor numbers in the unesco attraction is
also high; however, it is not statistically significant.
Keywords: tourist attractions, unesco sites, Czech Republic, covid-19 pandemic
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.23-34
Introduction
Cultural heritage plays a very important role in tour-
ism development in many countries. The Czech Re-
public is a country of cultural tourism. It is very rich
in the number of cultural monuments; almost forty
thousand are protected as immovable cultural monu-
ments, and 336 have the status of national cultural her-
itage (see https://www.npu.cz). The most important
cultural attractions for tourism are those which are on
the unesco list of cultural and natural heritage (un-
esco, 2021c). Their exclusivity and uniqueness are the
highlights of the destinations. The inclusion on the
unesco list impacts domestic and foreign tourism in
the destination. The World Heritage-listed sites typi-
cally receive more tourist visits than their non-listed
counterparts (Yang et al., 2010; Gao & Su, 2019, Han
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023 | 23
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
et al., 2020). In 2020 and later, tourism and World
Heritage Sites experienced dramatic changes due to
the covid-19 pandemic (unesco, 2021d; unwto,
2021). This paper examines if inscription on the un-
esco list was an advantage compared to non-unesco
attractions. Their competitiveness and resilience are
important for the restart of tourism (unwto, 2020).
The paper brings new findings and contributes to
the knowledge about cultural heritage. The situation
caused by the covid-19 pandemic is unprecedented
and the effect of restrictions and critical tourism col-
lapse brought new impacts and challenges.
Theoretical Background
The paper is based on the tourismdemand theory (Di-
visekera, 2013). Tourism demand is affected by many
factors such as income in the origin country, prices
in the tourist destination, the safety of the destination
and a set of other demand factors on the tourist site
(e.g. motivation). Tourism demand and its influenc-
ing factors are topics of many papers, e.g. Dogru et al.
(2017) and Agbola et al. (2020).
Significance of UNESCO List Inscription
A World Heritage Site is an area with an outstand-
ing universal value that requires long-term protection
and is non-renewable and irreplaceable, as was identi-
fied in 2021 by the United Nations Educational, Scien-
tific and Cultural Organisation (unesco) and World
Heritage Committee (whc). Inscription on theWorld
Heritage list and the resulting prestige helps raise
awareness among citizens and governments about her-
itage preservation. Greater awareness leads to a gen-
eral rise in the level of protection and conservation
given to heritage properties. Countries may also re-
ceive financial assistance and expert advice from the
World Heritage Committee to support activities for
the preservation of their sites (unesco, 2022). A lo-
calized monument, building, town, landscape, or cul-
tural tradition becomes globalized through its inclu-
sion into theworld heritage list and gets a new status as
being of ‘outstanding universal value’ (Scholze, 2008).
World heritage areas especially are used as a means
of economic regeneration through tourism develop-
ment (Su et al., 2015; Buckley et al., 2020; Agapiou,
2021). These sites also have a significant economic im-
pact on local communities (Jimura, 2011; Christensen
& Jones, 2020; Slabbert et al., 2021; Zhang, 2021). The
research reveals that residents and entrepreneurs per-
ceive inscription in the unesco heritage list as an
advantage (Kvitkova et al., 2022). The World Heritage
Sites contribute to national image creation (Silverman,
2011; Kim et al., 2019; Wang & Yuan, 2020) and due to
that, they play an important role, especially in interna-
tional tourism. They also promote destination brand-
ing (Poria et al., 2011; Xu & Ye, 2018; Kim et al., 2019).
These two aspects are why various national and re-
gional governments actively apply for the inscription
of sites on the unesco list (Poria et al., 2011). Some
authors (Ryan et al., 2011; Li et al., 2020; Panzera et
al., 2021) discuss a symbiosis tension between tourism
utilization and conservation. Panzera et al. (2021) in-
vestigate the impact of tangible cultural heritage on
the tourism attractiveness of European regions. They
show that the presence of unesco sites reduces the
distance decay effect. International tourists, when not
faced with barriers, are willing to travel longer dis-
tances if a destination is endowed with unesco cul-
tural World Heritage Site status. According to, e.g.,
Bloch (2016) and Allen and Lennon (2018), poor legis-
lation, management and some inappropriate tourism
operations are leading to conflicts between heritage
conservation and tourism development. On the other
hand, tourism development can create new values and
can be seen as a tool to combat poverty in less de-
veloped countries/destinations and promote sustain-
ability (Su et al., 2016; Vargas, 2018; Lin et al., 2020;
Maruyama &Woosnam, 2021).
Several authors (Shen et al., 2014; Park et al., 2019;
Fu, 2019; Katahenggam, 2020) pay attention to the
significance of authenticity, which is important for
heritage tourism. Authenticity and its perception in-
crease the heritage destination value (Kolar & Žabkar,
2010). On the other hand, the acceptance of authen-
ticity itself depends on tourists’ perceptions. Tourists’
satisfaction and their level of education are the main
factors influencing their perception of the outstand-
ing universal value of unesco sites (Verma & Ra-
jendran, 2017; Alazaizeh et al., 2020). This outstand-
ing universal value is beneficial for enhancing the in-
24 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
ternational and national image and tourism attrac-
tiveness of destinations where these sites are located
(Parga-Dans et al., 2020). It is generally believed that
the inscription of a site on the unesco list positively
impacts local tourism demand (Zhang et al., 2022).
The effects of the sites on the World Heritage List
on tourism, of course, vary from country to country
and region to region. They are monuments of global
significance. As mentioned, these monuments have a
special protection status and are of great importance,
especially in international tourism (Kučová, 2009).
All the above confirms that unesco list inscription
is an advantage. Several factors (Johnová, 2008) influ-
ence the visitor numbers at the unesco site. There
are some factors on the site itself (internal ones), such
as the type of attraction, whether indoor or open air,
opening hours, regulation of visits, etc. Other factors
(external ones) are the social and economic situa-
tion in the destination, the structure of the visitors
in the destination (domestic/international, one day
visitors/tourists), and location, including accessibility,
seasonality, and regional importance. Of course, there
are also the general factors influencing tourism devel-
opment (Holloway & Humphreys, 2020), which can
impact the number of visitors, e.g. terrorism, natural
disasters, diseases/pandemics.
Tourism Impacts on UNESCO Sites and COVID-19
Impact
According to Zhang et al. (2022), great attention is paid
to the impacts of tourism on World Heritage Sites,
such as environmental, economic, social, and cultural.
The highly intensive tourist demand and the number
of World Heritage Sites visitors is a great challenge for
sustainability (Li et al., 2008; Berg, 2018). Tourism de-
velopment has both positive and negative impacts on
World Heritage Sites, an obviously positive economic
impact in smaller sites, and negative impact on, for
example, the local population in bigger cities such as
Venice and Barcelona (Kumar, 2019). New standards
for sustainable tourism in unesco sites are being
adopted (Kumar, 2019; Pedersen, 2020). On the other
hand, World Heritage Sites impact tourism develop-
ment in destinations and places where they are located
(Yang et al., 2019).
According to unwto statistics (2021), with few
exceptions (e.g. 2003, 2009), international tourism
was constantly growing for decades until 2019. At a
certain development stage, the situation, especially
in cities, became unsustainable. Similarly to the gen-
eral development, tourism grew in the Czech Repub-
lic till 2019. In 2019, 22 million guests stayed in col-
lective accommodation establishments in the Czech
Republic (czso, 2020). Due to the covid-19 pan-
demic, tourism was almost paralysed in 2020. The
number of accommodated guests fell to 10.8 million
in 2020 (czso, 2021), which meant a decrease of 51.
The number of foreign guests fell from 10.9 million
in 2019 (czso, 2020) to 2.8 million in 2020 (czso,
2021), which is an even higher drop of 74. That
means domestic tourism dropped less than interna-
tional tourism in the Czech Republic. covid-19 has
affected all sectors and regions worldwide and has
deeply impacted the entire cultural ecosystem. The
world’s 1,000-plus unesco World Heritage proper-
ties were no exception. World Heritage Sites expe-
rienced a 66 drop in visitation and a 52 decline
in ticket sales in 2020 because of covid-19 (un-
esco, 2021a). The uncertain surroundings of this cri-
sis changed the policy of re-alignment of properties
towards domestic tourism in the short term. Accord-
ing to a study (Falk et al., 2022), in the summer season
of 2020 (July and August), official data of 65 regions
in four countries in Europe (Austria, the Czech Re-
public, Germany, and Switzerland) showed that the
domestic overnight stays evolved unevenly, with de-
creases from 10 in sparsely populated areas up to
27 in densely populated regions. The different im-
pacts on the different site types described by Caru-
ana et al. (2021) highlight the lower effect of the pan-
demic on open-air (archaeological) sites and the im-
portant role of such open-air sites within the local
community. Also, the official data fromCzechTourism
(see https://tourdata.cz) confirms that the most vis-
ited attractions during the covid-19 pandemic years
are the open-air attractions, in comparison with in-
door attractions. As covid-19 is widely recognized
as a challenge or even a game-changer for travel and
tourism, Higgins-Desbiolles (2021) explains how ad-
vocates of tourism industry rapid recovery stand op-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023 | 25
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
posed to wider efforts to reform tourism to be more
ethical, responsible, and sustainable. In response to the
pandemic, unesco (2021b) launched global moni-
toring to assess, among other things, the impact of
covid-19 on the cultural sector as whole. The down-
turn in tourism has had a deep financial impact on
heritage sites, thereby weakening their conservation
and preservation. Therefore, the reactivation of more
sustainable, resilient, and inclusive tourism in the long
term will be a priority. This will include working on-
site with local communities and site managers to re-
flect on and design new ways of preserving sites, pro-
mote sustainable tourism models, and emphasize the
importance of sustainable development approaches in
linewith theWorldHeritage SustainableDevelopment
Policy (unesco, 2015).
The synthesis of the current knowledge shows that
the effect of the World Heritage Site List enhances the
site’s attractiveness and positively influences tourism
demand. On the other hand, a synthesis confirmed
that other factors (like the covid-19 pandemic) are
influencing the tourism demand (number of visitors),
both domestic and international.
Methods and Aim
The paper aims to bring new insight into the unesco
sites situation during the covid-19 pandemic and an-
swerwhether unesco heritage list inscriptionwas an
advantage during the covid-19 pandemic and what
role the international importance of these sites played
in the results.
As the published research acknowledges both pos-
itive and negative effects on the destination and the
situation with the pandemic was completely unprece-
dented, the first stage of the research was brainstorm-
ing. During the brainstorming, the findings from liter-
ature were discussed and two additional ideas emerg-
ed: (1) Residents will expect that the usually over-
crowded sites will be pleasant for a visit now and will
tend to visit the unesco sites and their attractions,
and (2) the unesco sites are more dependent on in-
ternational tourists than the others, and the domestic
tourism will not be sufficient to cover the decrease in
international tourism. These ideas raised more ques-
tions, such as what was the real development in un-
esco sites and if it was different from the non-un-
esco sites?
The research questions are formulated as follows:
rq1 Is inscription into the unesco heritage list an
advantage during the covid-19 pandemic?
rq2 What role does international tourism play in the
unesco sites during the covid-19 pandemic?
The following hypotheses are developed in line
with the research questions:
h1a The decrease in visitor and tourist numbers will
be on average smaller in unesco sites than in
non-unesco sites.
Comparative analysis is used with these criteria: (1)
change in the number of visitors in unesco attrac-
tions compared to change in the non-unesco attrac-
tions. The change between 2019 and 2020 is consid-
ered. (2) change of the tourists in collective accommo-
dation establishments (cae). The decrease is analysed
and compared in the two groups. F-test is applied to
test the variance, and t-test is applied to test the sig-
nificance of the difference. The tests were done on the
95 significance level.
h1b The average decrease of visitors in unesco at-
tractions will be smaller than the average de-
crease in the region.
The change in visitor numbers to the unesco at-
tractions are taken and compared to the total numbers
of visitors to all attractions in the regions. The decrease
is compared individually, and average values are calcu-
lated. The year-to-year changes are compared.
h1c The recovery is faster in unesco sites than in
non-unesco sites.
The statistics from cae are analysed, explicitly
the change in tourist numbers/number of guests and
amount of nights/number of overnight stays of tourists
in the accommodation establishment. The change in
both indicators is compared. The numbers from 2020
and 2021 are compared. F-test is applied to test the
variance, and t-test is applied to test the significance
of the difference. The tests are done on the 95 signif-
icance level. Unfortunately, the number of visitors to
the attractions in 2021 have not been published at the
date of elaboration of this paper (June 2022).
26 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
h2a The unesco sites aremore dependent on inter-
national tourists than the non-unesco sites.
For this hypothesis the statistics from cae are
analysed, explicitly the share of international tourists
in the number of tourists and nights at the site. F-test is
applied to test the variance, and t-test is applied to test
the significance of the difference. The tests are done
on the 95 significance level.
h2b The decrease in visitors to unesco sites is ma-
inly influenced by the decrease in international
tourists, as they are the most frequent visitors.
The data on the decrease in visitor numbers in the
unesco attractions and international tourists in cae
are compared, and the correlation coefficient is calcu-
lated.
h2c For the results of non-unesco sites, domestic
tourists are more important than international
ones.
The data on the decrease in visitor numbers in
the non-unesco attractions and domestic tourists
in cae are compared, and the correlation coefficient
is calculated. The spss program is used to make the
calculations and test the significance.
Data sources are different for attractions and cae.
The attractions aremonitored, and the number of pay-
ing visitors is reported; one tourist can be reported
more times on different attractions. There is a platform
in the Czech Republic managed by CzechTourism (the
Czech nto – National Tourism Organization), tour-
data.cz, where all the information is available. The
data are reported directly from the attractions based
on their ticket sales or entrance monitoring. Unfortu-
nately, the visitors are not monitored according to the
country of origin, so there is no information about the
share of international tourists. Tourists in cae are re-
ported by hotels to the Czech Statistical Office (cszo)
and represent one person arriving at the destination.
Nights are reported by cae and represent how many
nights the tourists stayed in the destination. This is
taken from the Czech Statistical Office. The statistics
do not include tourists staying in private apartments.
The Czech Republic has 16 tangible attractions on
the unesco list. 14 of them are cultural ones. Anal-
ysis and comparison include 12 cultural unesco at-
tractions in 9 towns/sites. One of the excluded un-
esco sites is Prague, with the specifics of the capital
and big city, where the influence of unesco/non-un-
esco could be negligible. The second excluded site is
Villa Tugendhat in Brno for a similar reason. One villa
in the whole of Brno would probably have a negligi-
ble effect on the total numbers, and it would be im-
possible to detect the impact of unesco inscription
amongmany others. Considering the aim of the paper,
all relevant attractions are included in the analysis.
The second step was to choose the appropriate sites
for comparison. As authors apply the statistical meth-
ods, the bigger the sample, the better. Therefore, as
many relevant attractions as possible were selected.
Nonprobability sampling was performed. Based on
the number of visitors, attraction character, and loca-
tion, 19 similar attractions were chosen for compari-
son. However, during the analysis it was found that 4
relymostly on one-day visitors, and there is no data for
accommodation available in the towns/villages. These
were excluded. Therefore, 15 attractions in different
sites were selected as suitable for comparison. The sta-
tistical methods allow different size of samples and,
considering the low numbers, every additional data
point can increase the reliability. The character of the
attractions is cultural and sacral, mostly castles and
chateaux, as the unesco sites are also cultural ones.
The level of protection was not one of the selection
criteria, as authors approach the attractivity of the at-
traction from the visitors’ perspective. However, most
of the non-unesco attractions are protected on the
national level (national cultural monument).
The paper uses an empirical analysis based on dy-
namic panel data methodology for 2019–2020.
Research Results
As mentioned, there are 12 unesco sites and 15 non-
unesco sites in the sample. Table 1 presents the name,
unesco heritage list inscription, the number of vis-
itors in 2019 and 2020, and the percentage change.
The order is according to the percentage change in the
number of visitors.
Table 1 presents the attractions in the sample and
the basic information. The percentage decrease ranks
the attractions in visitor numbers, and 7 out of the 10
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023 | 27
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
Table 1 Attractions in the Sample
Name unesco?   Change*
Kostnice/Kutná Hora y   –.
St. Prokop Basilica y   –.
St. Barbora Church/
Kutná Hora
y   –.
Telč Castle y   –.
Italian Court/Kutná Hora y   –.
Konopiště Castle n   –.
Litomyšl Castle y   –.
Český Krumlov Castle y   –.
Vsetín Castle n   –.
Karlštejn Castle n   –.
Vranov nad Dyjí Castle n   –.
Valtice Castle y   –.
Hluboká Castle n   –.
Svojanov Castle n   –.
Lednice Castle y   –.
Velehrad Basilica n   –.
Buchlovice Chateau n   –.
Lipnice Castle n   –.
Želiv Monastery n   –.
Jindřichův Hradec Castle n   –.
J. Nepomuk Church
Zelena Hora
y   –.
Kroměříž y   –.
Hrad Lichnice n   –.
Třebíč Castle y   –.
Cimburk Castle n   –.
Bítov Castle n   .
Svatý kopeček Mikulov n   .
Notes * In percent. Based on data from the Czech Tourism
(www.tourdata.cz).
worst are on the unesco list. In comparison, only 3
out of the 10 best ones are inscribed on the unesco
list. Already this indicates that unesco inscription is
not necessarily an advantage.
The attractions are grouped into unesco andnon-
unesco attractions. First, the samples are tested with
the F-test if the variance is the same. First, the change
in the number of visitors is compared. A result of 0.68
(F-crit = 0.39) leads to the rejection of the null hy-
pothesis. The t-test with the t-stat 2.33 (t-crit(1) = 1.72)
leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The tests
are done on the 95 significance level. The analysis
of cae numbers reveals the opposite result. The vari-
ance in both samples is similar (F-test = 0.25, F-crit(1)
= 0.33), the correct t-test is applied, and the result (t-
stat = 0.55, t-crit(2) = 2.07) leads to support of the null
hypothesis. The means –41.67 and –38.65 are not
significantly different. This different result in visitors
to the attractions and the tourists’ numbers in cae
can be explained by higher dependence of unesco
sites on the one-day visitors.
Hypothesis h1a: ‘The decrease in visitor num-
bers will be on average smaller in unesco sites than
in non-unesco sites’ is rejected because the results
show a significant difference in the means (–27.28 and
–46.15). Indeed, the unesco inscription seems to be
rather a disadvantage for the sites. In terms of accom-
modation, neither advantage nor disadvantage has
been confirmed.
The comparison to the regional numbers (h1b)
also leads to the conclusion that being on the un-
esco list is rather a disadvantage in the covid-19
pandemic. In individual cases, 5 out of 12 unesco at-
tractions have a smaller decrease, and 7 have a more
significant decrease than the whole region. For statis-
tical comparison, the F-test is applied to analyse the
variance and then the t-test. As the hypothesis sup-
poses the mean in unesco sites will be smaller, the
one-side criterium is used (t-crit(1) = 1.76), and the
result, –2.14, leads to rejecting the null hypothesis and
acceptance of the significant difference between the
means –47.77 in unesco attractions and –33.49 in
regions as a whole.
The following hypothesis h1c assumes that the
unesco sites will start growing faster than the non-
unesco sites. The data from cae from the years
2020 and 2021 are compared.
The results show an opposite trend than in Table
1. Out of the 10 best-growing sites, 6 are inscribed
on the unesco heritage list. Out of the 10 worst, 8
are not unesco sites. To decide about the hypothesis
h1c: The recovery is faster in unesco sites than in
28 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
Table 2 Number of Tourists in cae in 2020 and 2021
in the unesco and Non-unesco Sites
Name unesco?   Change*
Velehrad Basilica n   .
Telč Castle y   .
St. Prokop Basilica y   .
Třebíč Castle y   .
Kroměříž y   .
Kostnice/Kutná Hora y   .
St. Barbora Church/
Kutná Hora
y   .
Italian Court/Kutná Hora y   .
Valtice Castle y   .
Vsetín Chateau n   .
Svatý kopeček Mikulov n   .
Želiv Monastery n   .
J. Nepomuk Church
Zelena Hora
y   .
Vranov nad Dyjí Castle n   .
Litomyšl Castle y   .
Lichnice Castle n   .
Konopiště Castle n   .
Lednice Castle y   .
Cimburk Castle n   .
Buchlovice Chateau n   .
Hluboká Castle n   .
Jindřichův Hradec Castle n   .
Bítov Castle n   .
Svojanov Castle n   –.
Karlštejn Castle n   –.
Český Krumlov Castle y   –.
Lipnice Castle n 
Notes * In percent. Based ondata from theCzech Statistical
Office (https://vdb.czso.cz/).
non-unesco sites, the relevant data are analysed and
tested. For the analysis of the data from cae, the sam-
ple slightly changes. There are no data for Lipnice for
the year 2021, so only 14 non-unesco sites are anal-
ysed. Three unesco attractions are in Kutná Hora,
so only 10 unesco sites are in the analysis.
Whereas the mean of the growth in non-unesco
sites is 12.14, the mean of the growth in unesco
sites is 16.71. First, again the F-test is applied to test
the variance. The result, 0.40, exceeds the F-crit 0.33,
and the variance in the samples is statistically differ-
ent (288.50 and 115.01). It can be assumed that the un-
esco sites grow as a group, and individual conditions
influence the non-unesco sites. The hypothesis sup-
poses that the growth in unesco sites is higher; we
can check the one-side criterium to evaluate the hy-
pothesis (t-stat = 0.81, T-crit(1) = 1.72). With this re-
sult, it is impossible to reject the null hypothesis, and
we must admit that the difference in growth is not sta-
tistically significant.
However, with deeper insight, there is one excep-
tional site among the non-unesco siteswith a growth
of 65.88 (the Velehrad Basilica), an outlier. As this
is an exception among the sites, the question arises of
how the situation changes if the site is excluded. The
mean of the growth of non-unesco sites decreases
to 8.01 (from 12.14). The variance, in this case, is
statistically not significantly different (F-stat = 2.16, F-
crit(1) = 2.80). The correct t-test is appliedwith the fol-
lowing result: t-stat = 2.31, t-crit(1) = 1.72; it leads to re-
jection of the null hypothesis, and the idea of the faster
recovery of unesco sites represented by the year-to-
year growth is supported in the adjusted sample.
Approaching the second research question: What
role does international tourism play in the unesco
sites during the covid-19 pandemic? The first hy-
pothesis h2a: The unesco sites are more dependent
on international tourists than the non-unesco sites,
will be tested.Data from the cae in 2019 are analysed.
The mean shares of international tourists in un-
esco and non-unesco sites are 27.24 and 19.42,
respectively. Firstly, the F-test supports the null hy-
pothesis, and samples have statistically the same vari-
ance. The difference in the share of international tour-
ists and nights in unesco and non-unesco sites is
compared. The t-test 1.25 and 1.50 are within the crite-
ria 1.71 and support the null hypothesis that the shares
are similar. We can reject hypothesis h2a that the
unesco sites depend more on international tourism
based on this sample. This correlates with the second
part of hypothesis h1a, that the decrease in tourist
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023 | 29
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
Table 3 Tourists in cae in 2019
Name unesco? Number () ()
Český Krumlov Castle y  . .
Hluboká Castle n  . .
Svatý kopeček Mikulov n  . .
Kostnice/Kutná Hora y  . .
St. Barbora Church/Kutná
Hora
y  . .
Italian Court/Kutná Hora y  . .
Konpiště Castle n  . .
Telč Castle y  . .
Vsetín Chateau n  . .
Velehrad Basilica n  . .
Litomyšl Castle y  . .
Kroměříž y  . .
Jindřichův Hradec Castle n  . .
St. Prokop Basilica y  . .
Třebíč Castle y  . .
Lednice Castle y  . .
Karlštejn Castle n  . .
Buchlovice Chateau n  . .
Valtice Castle y  . .
Vranv nad Dyjí Castle n  . .
J. Nepomuk Church Zelena
Hora
y  . .
Svojanv Castle n  . .
Želiv Monastery n  . .
Hrad Lichnice n  . .
Bítov Castle n  . .
Cimburk Castle n  . .
Lipnice Castle n  . .
Notes (1) share of international tourists, (2) share of inter-
national tourists in nights, in percent. Based on data from
the Czech Statistical Office (https://vdb.czso.cz/).
numbers in cae is not significantly different in un-
esco and non-unesco sites.
To decide about hypotheses h2b and h2c, the cor-
relations are calculated in spss for both groups, un-
esco and non-unesco. The following variables are
included: change in visitor numbers (attraction), chan-
Table 4 Correlation Matrix for unesco Sites
unvis untot undom unint
unvis ()  . –. .
() . . .
untot () .  –. .**
() . . .
undom () –. –.  –.
() . . .
unint () . .** –. 
() . . .
Notes unvis – visitors change in the unesco attraction,
untot – tourists change in cae in total in unesco sites,
undom – domestic tourists change in cae in unesco
sites, unint – international tourists change in cae in un-
esco sites, (1) correlation, (2) significance (2-tailed). ** Cor-
relation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Based on
data from the Czech Statistical Office (https://vdb.czso.cz)
and from the Czech Tourism (www.tourdata.cz).
ge in total tourist numbers (cae), change in domes-
tic tourist numbers (cae), change in international
tourist numbers (cae). Results are presented in Ta-
bles 4 and 5.
The table works with changes in the numbers, not
with the absolute numbers. The correlation indicates
how much a decrease in one variable correlates with a
decrease in another variable. First, the unesco sites
are analysed.
The tourist change in cae in total is strongly and
significantly correlated with the international tourists’
decrease in cae, demonstrating a significant role of
international tourism in these sites for cae and the
effect of losing this segment. The other correlations
are not significant. The correlation between change
in visitors in attractions and the decrease in interna-
tional tourists in cae is, however, high (0.467) and
is the second highest out of the analysed variables.
The correlation is not statistically significant. Even if
this is a correlation, from the logical perspective, we
can assume that the loss of international tourism had
the most significant impact on the visitor numbers at
unesco sites. In contrast, the decrease in domestic
tourists did not play a role.
30 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
Table 5 Correlation Matrix for non-unesco Sites
vis total dom int
vis ()  . . .
() . . .
total () .  .** .**
() . <. .
dom () . .**  .
() . <. .
int () . .** . 
() . . .
Notes vis – visitors change in the non-unesco attrac-
tion, total – tourists change in cae in total in non-
unesco sites, dom – domestic tourists change in cae
in non-unesco sites, int – international tourists change
in cae in non-unesco sites, (1) correlation, (2) signifi-
cance (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01
level (2-tailed). Based on data from the Czech Statistical
Office (https://vdb.czso.cz) and from the Czech Tourism
(www.tourdata.cz).
In the non-unesco sites, the total decrease in
tourist numbers strongly and significantly correlates
with the decrease in domestic tourist numbers (0.843).
However, in the sample, the decrease in international
tourists is also significantly correlated with the total
decrease (0.653). This confirms the dominant effect of
domestic tourism in non-unesco sites from the cae
perspective. Considering the change in visitor num-
bers in the attractions, both domestic and interna-
tional tourist numbers are correlated. The correlation
of domestic tourism development is stronger; none of
them is statistically significant.
Conclusion and Discussion
Based on the analysis, the authors can answer the ques-
tion: is inscription into the unesco heritage list an
advantage during the covid-19 pandemic? The re-
sults reveal that for the attractions, unesco inscrip-
tion was rather a disadvantage in the first year of the
pandemic. This answer is supported by comparing the
unesco and non-unesco attractions and the com-
parison of the regions as a whole. The second year
brought a faster recovery in unesco sites. The sec-
ond question, dealing with the role of international
tourism in the unesco sites during covid-19 pan-
demic, is also answered, even if the answer is ambigu-
ous.
Hypothesis h2a has been rejected. The t-test did
not support higher dependence in terms of tourist
numbers nor in terms of tourist nights for the un-
esco sites. The difference in share of 27.24vs. 19.42
was not statistically significant enough. Within the
discussion, it must be mentioned that the non-un-
esco sites in the sample were the most important
ones. Considering that the others will be rather of
regional and local importance and their share of in-
ternational visitors will be even smaller, the share of
international tourists in unesco vs. non-unesco
sites, in general, could be seen from a different per-
spective. The further hypotheses confirmed the effect
of decrease of international tourists in terms of cae in
unesco sites and revealed a high correlation with the
decrease in visitor numbers (not significant). The cae
in non-unesco sites performs higher dependence
on domestic tourism changes. Indeed, the analysis
also confirmed the significant role of changes in in-
ternational tourist numbers. The correlations with the
change in visitor numbers are stronger for changes in
domestic tourism; the change in international tourism
is also positively correlated.
Authors can conclude that the unesco sites are
less influenced by domestic tourism than the non-
unesco, but international tourism plays a role in
both types. It must be mentioned again that impor-
tant and highly visited attractions were selected for
the research.
The main limit of the research is the number of the
analysed sites in the sample. The size of the sample
is influenced by the objective conditions. The num-
ber of unesco sites is given in the Czech Republic.
To be able to compare data from cae for unesco
and non-unesco sites, only similar attractions lo-
cated in towns/villages with own accommodation fa-
cilities were needed. And, therefore, the number of
non-unesco sites is also limited.
Regarding the future research directions, an anal-
ysis of larger destinations (Prague, Budapest, etc.)
would be worth researching. The cities offer more
types of tourism, and cultural tourism is only one.
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023 | 31
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
More factors will influence the changes and results.
It is also interesting how the covid-19 pandemic af-
fected the perception of the unesco brand in domes-
tic tourism.
The covid-19 pandemic had a devastating effect
on tourism. The pandemic and the restrictions espe-
cially endangered entrepreneurs. However, some at-
tractions suffered in 2019 by overtourism, and this is
a good opportunity to restart the strategy and man-
age the attractions in more sustainable ways. The pan-
demic showed the vulnerability of tourism and espe-
cially of international tourism. From the managerial
perspective, it is important for unesco sites (Peder-
sen, 2020) to diversify the target groups and audience,
and to focus on quality instead of quantity. The pan-
demic was a shock and caused a crisis. But after the
crisis it is important to take the good from the devel-
opment. The pandemic showed the potential of virtual
reality, ict, reservation systems, and other technolo-
gies. The situation forced both unesco and non-un-
esco sites to communicate current issues and restric-
tions on time, mainly online, and to inform visitors
what to expect. This might be taken as an opportunity
to continue with communication and to educate fu-
ture visitors in terms of sustainability and responsibil-
ity. The second lesson learned is the diversification of
the products offered.Open-air attractionswere less af-
fected; this might be an impulse to develop additional
products which will offer a different kind of leisure ac-
tivity and can complement the indoor product. This
approach could increase resilience and help with spa-
tial distribution of the tourists and contribute to sus-
tainability.
Acknowledgments
This paper was written in the context of the project
Nr. 22120090 ‘unesco sites – balanced and sustain-
able development.’ The project is co-financed by the
Governments of Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia
through Visegrad Grants from the International Viseg-
rad Fund. The mission of the fund is to advance ideas
for sustainable regional cooperation in Central Europe.
References
Agapiou, A. (2021). unesco World Heritage properties in
changing and dynamic environments: Change detection
methods using optical and radar satellite data. Heritage
Science, 9(1), 1–14.
Agbola, W. F., Dogru, T., & Gunter, U. (2020). Tourism de-
mand. Tourism Economics, 26(8), 1307–1310.
Alazaizeh, M. M., Ababneh, A., & Jamaliah, M. M. (2020).
Preservation vs. use: Understanding tourism stakehold-
ers’ value perceptions toward Petra Archaeological Park.
Journal of Tourism & Cultural Change, 18(3), 252–266.
Allen, A., & Lennon, M. (2018). The values and vulnerabil-
ities of ‘Star Wars Island:’ Exploring tensions in the sus-
tainable management of the Skellig Michael World Her-
itage Site. International Journal of Sustainable Develop-
ment & World Ecology, 25(6), 483–490.
Berg, F. (2018). Wear and tear of world heritage preventive
conservation and tourism in Norway’s stave churches.
Studies in Conservation, 63(1), 320–322.
Bloch,N. (2016). Evicting heritage: Spatial cleansing and cul-
tural legacy at the Hampi unesco site in India. Critical
Asian Studies, 48(4), 556–578.
Buckley, R., Shekari, F. M., Zahre, A. F., & Ziaee, M. (2020).
World heritage tourism triggers urban-rural reverse mi-
gration and social image. Journal of Travel Research,
59(3), 559–572.
Caruana, J., Debono, E., Stroud, K., & Zammit M. E. (2021).
The impact of covid-19 closures on the Megalithic
Temples of Malta heritage site. Journal of Cultural Her-
itage Management and Sustainable Development, 13(1),
15–27.
Christensen, J., & Jones, R. (2020).World Heritage and local
change: Conflict, transformation and scale at Shark Bay,
Western Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 74, 235–243.
czso (Czech StatisticalOffice). (2020, 2 February).Cestovní
ruch – 4. čtvrtletí 2019. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/cri
/cestovni-ruch-4-ctvrtleti-2019
czso (Czech Statistical Office). (2021, 9 February). Cestovní
ruch – 4. čtvrtletí 2020. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/cri
/cestovni-ruch-4-ctvrtleti-2020
Divisekera, S. (2013). Tourism demandmodels: Concept and
theories. In C. A. Tisdell (Ed.), Handbook of Tourism
Economics (pp. 33–66). World Scientific.
Dogru, T., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Crouch, I. G. (2017). Re-
modelling international tourism demand: Old theory
and new evidence. Tourism Management, 60, 47–55.
Falk, M., Hagsten, E., & Lin, X. (2022). Uneven domestic
tourism demand in times of pandemic. Tourism Eco-
nomics. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166211059
Fu, X. (2019). Existential authenticity and destination loy-
alty: Evidence from heritage tourists. Journal of Destina-
tion Marketing & Management, 12, 84–94.
32 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
Gao, Y., & Su, W. (2019). Is theWorld Heritage just a title for
tourism? Annals of Tourism Research, 78, 102748.
Han, W., Cai, J., Wei, Y., Zhang, Y., & Han, Y. (2020). Im-
pact of the World Heritage List inscription: A case study
of Kaiping Diaoulu and villages in China. International
Journal of Strategic Property Management, 24(1), 51–69.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2021). The ‘war over tourism:’ Chal-
lenges to sustainable tourism in the tourism academy af-
ter covid-19. Journal of sustainable Tourism, 29(4), 551–
569.
Holloway, J. C., & Humphreys, C. (2020). The business of
tourism. Sage.
Jimura, T (2011). The impact of world heritage site designa-
tion on local communities: A case study of Ogimachi,
Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32(2),
288–296.
Johnová, R. (2008). Marketing kulturního dědictví a umění.
Grada.
Katahenggam, N. (2020). Tourist perceptions and prefer-
ences of authenticity in heritage tourism: Visual com-
parative study of George Town and Singapore. Journal of
Tourism and Cultural Change, 18(4), 371–385.
Kim, H., Stepchenkova, S., & Yilmaz, S. (2019). Destination
extension: A faster route to fame for the emerging des-
tination brands? Journal of Travel Research, 58(3), 440–
458.
Kolar, T., & Žabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of
authenticity: An oxymoron or foundation of cultural
heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652–
664.
Kučová, V. (2009). Světové kulturní a přírodní dědictví un-
esco. Národní památkový ústav, ústřední pracoviště.
Kumar, S. (2019). The economic effects of tourism on World
Heritage Sites. Borgen Project. https://borgenproject.org
/the-economic-effects-of-tourism-on-world-heritage
-sites/
Kvitkova, Z., Petru, Z., & Šauer, P. (2022, 2–3 March). Sus-
tainability in smaller unesco sites from the entreprene-
urs’ perspective [Conference presentation]. Aktuální
problémy cestovního ruchu, College of Polytechnics
Jihlava.
Li, M. M., Wu, B. H., & Cai, L. P. (2008). Tourism devel-
opment of World Heritage Sites in China: A geographic
perspective. Tourism Management, 29(2), 308–319.
Li, Y., Lau, Ch., & Su, P. (2020).Heritage tourism stakeholder
conflict: A case of aWorldHeritage Site inChina. Journal
of Tourism and Cultural Change, 18(3), 267–287.
Lin, Y. X., Chen, M. H., Lin, B. S., & Su, Ch. H. (2020).
Asymmetric effects of cultural and natural World Her-
itage Sites on tourism receipts.Current Issues in Tourism,
23(24), 3134–3147.
Maruyama, N. U., & Woosnam, K. M. (2021). Representa-
tion of ‘mill girls’ at a unesco World Heritage Site in
Gunma, Japan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(2–3),
277–294.
Panzera, E., De Graaff, T., & De Groot, H. L. F. (2020). Euro-
pean cultural heritage and tourism flows: The magnetic
role of superstarsWorld Heritage Sites. Regional Science,
100(1), 101–122.
Parga-Dans, E., González, P. A., & Enriquez, R. O. (2020).
The social value of heritage: Balancing the promotion-
preservation relationship in the Altamira World Her-
itage Site, Spain. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 18, 100499.
Park, E., Choi, B. K., & Lee, T. (2019). The role and dimen-
sions of authenticity in heritage tourism. Tourism Man-
agement, 74, 99–109.
Pedersen, A. (2020). Managing tourism at World Heritage
Sites: A practical manual for World Heritage Site man-
agers. unesco World Heritage Centre.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Cohen, R. (2011). World Heritage
Site: Is it an effective brand name? A case study of a reli-
gious heritage site. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 482–
495.
Ryan, Ch., Zhang, Ch., & Zeng, D. (2011) The impact of
tourism at a unesco heritage site in China: A need for
a meta-narrative? The case of the Kaiping Diaolou. Jour-
nal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 747–765.
Scholze, M. (2008). Arrested heritage: The politics of in-
scription into the unesco world heritage list; The case
of Agadez in Niger. Journal of Material Culture, 13(2),
215–231.
Shen, S. Y., Guo, J. Y., & Wu, Y. Y. (2014). Investigation the
structural relationship among authenticity, loyalty, in-
volvement, and attitude towards world cultural heritage
sites: An empirical study of Nanjing Xiaoling Tomb,
China. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(1),
103–121.
Silverman, H. (2011). Border wars: The ongoing temple dis-
pute between Thailand and Cambodia and unesco’s
World Heritage List. International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 17(1), 1–21
Slabbert, E., Du Plessis, E., & Oghenetejiri, D. A. (2021). Im-
pacts of tourism in predicting residents’ opinion and in-
terest in tourism activities. Journal of Tourism and Cul-
tural Change, 19(6), 819–837.
Su, M. M., Wall, G., & Xu, K. (2015). Heritage tourism and
livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural community:
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023 | 33
Zuzana Kvítková and Zdenka Petr Cultural UNESCO Heritage in COVID-19 Pandemic Times
Mount SanqingshanWorld Heritage Site, China. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 24(5), 735–757.
Su, M.M.,Wall, G., & Xu, K. (2016). Tourism-induced liveli-
hood changes at Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage
Site, China. Environmental Management, 57, 1024–1040.
unesco. (2015). Policy document for the integration of a sus-
tainable development perspective into the processes of the
World Heritage Convention.
unesco. (2021a). Impact of the covid-19 pandemic on
World Heritage and responses by the Secretariat.
unesco. (2021b).Operational guidelines for the implementa-
tion of the world heritage convention. https://whc.unesco
.org/en/guidelines/
unesco. (2021c).World Heritage list. https://whc.unesco
.org/en/list/
unesco. (2021d). World heritage in the face of covid-19.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377667
?posInSet=1&queryId=bd741d77-d5ef-4c62-b83b
-bfaf040b7b32
unesco. (2022).What does it mean for a site to be inscribed
on the World Heritage List? https://.whc.unesco.org/en
/faq/20
unwto. (2020). Global guidelines to restart tourism.
unwto. (2021). International TourismHighlights.https://doi
.org/10.18111/9789284422456
Vargas, A. (2018). The tourism and local development in
world heritage context: The case of the Mayan site of
Palenque,Mexico. International Journal ofHeritage Stud-
ies, 24(9), 984–997.
Verma, A., & Rajendran, G. (2017). The effect of historical
nostalgia on tourists’ destination loyalty intention: An
empirical study of the world cultural heritage site, Ma-
habalipuram, India. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Re-
search, 22(9), 977–990.
Wang, Z, & Yuan, B. (2020). Harmonizing the branding
strategy of World Natural Heritage in China: Visitors’
awareness of themultiple brands ofWulingyuan, Zhang-
jiajie. Geoheritage, 12(2), 41.
Xu, H., & Ye, T. (2018). Dynamic destination image forma-
tion and change under the effect of various agents: The
case of Lijiang, ‘The Capital of Yanyu.’ Journal of Desti-
nation Marketing & Management, 7, 131–139.
Yang, C., H., Lin, H. L., & Han, C. C. (2010). Analysis of in-
ternational tourist arrivals in China: The role of World
Heritage Sites. Tourism Management, 31(6), 827–837.
Yang, Y., Xue, L., & Jones, T. (2019). Tourism-enhancing ef-
fect ofWorldHeritage Sites: Panacea or placebo?Ameta-
analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 29–41.
Zhang, J., Xiong, K., Liu, Z., & He, Li. (2022). Research
progress and knowledge system of world heritage tour-
ism: A bibliometric analysis.Heritage Science.https://doi
.org/10.1186/s40494-022-00654-0
Zhang, X. (2021). Impact of rural tourism on residents’ well-
being in traditional ancient villages: A case of North
Guangxi.Heritage Science. https://doi.org/10.1186
/s40494-021-00616-y
34 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 1, April 2023