To support exploration and understanding of the diverse forms of World Heritage Sites worldwide, World Heritage Explorer has developed a typology that groups sites according to their predominant physical and cultural form. This typology does not replace UNESCO’s official classifications of Cultural, Natural, and Mixed heritage, which are based on inscription criteria. Instead, it offers a complementary, descriptive layer that reflects how a site is physically expressed, experienced, and organized within the landscape or built environment.
The typology is based on a systematic, text-driven analysis of site names, official descriptions, criteria, and other structured metadata. Sites are classified according to the dominant physical characteristics and heritage expressions that most clearly define their identity. In cases where automated classification could not fully capture expert judgment—such as complex historic urban ensembles, serial properties, industrial landscapes, or sites combining cultural and natural attributes—case-by-case expert review and correction was applied.
Each site is assigned a single primary type, labelled as WHE Type. For serial, mixed, or multi-component properties, classification reflects the element or theme most closely associated with the site’s dominant features. The resulting typology is designed to be intuitive, consistent, and useful for both specialist and general audiences. The typology functions as an interpretive layer that complements UNESCO’s criteria-based framework and is grounded in both automated semantic analysis and curated expert judgment.
Typology Categories and Definitions
Agriculture Landscapes, Parks & Gardens
Sites whose primary heritage value derives from designed, cultivated, or managed landscapes shaped by agricultural practices, horticulture, or landscape design. This category includes agricultural production landscapes (such as vineyards, terraces, and irrigation systems) as well as formally designed parks and gardens where human intervention and land management are central to the site’s identity.
Examples:
Alto Douro Wine Region; Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz; Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Archaeological Sites
Sites whose exceptional value rests on the material remains of past human activity. These include ancient cities, burial grounds, rock art and cave art ensembles, prehistoric settlements, and other archaeological complexes. Such sites are primarily understood through archaeological investigation and typically lack a continuous modern urban fabric.
Examples: Göbekli Tepe; Chaco Culture; Petroglyphs of the Archaeological Landscape of Tanbaly.
Buildings & Architectural Ensembles
Sites whose significance lies primarily in architectural form, design, and artistic expression, either as individual monuments or as coordinated ensembles. This category includes palaces, villas, fortifications, civic complexes, modern architectural works, and other built groups valued chiefly for their architectural qualities.
Examples: Hospicio Cabañas, Guadalajara; Works of Antoni Gaudí; Villa d’Este, Tivoli.
Cultural Landscapes
Sites where the interaction between people and the natural environment has produced a landscape of outstanding cultural value, but where no single land use or designed system dominates. These landscapes often reflect layered histories, living traditions, symbolic meanings, or complex relationships between settlement, belief, movement, and environment.
Examples: Cultural Landscape of Sintra; Upper Middle Rhine Valley; Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape; Budj Bim Cultural Landscape.
Historic Cities & Urban Areas
Sites where the city or town itself constitutes the primary heritage object. These places are characterized by a coherent historic urban fabric—streets, plots, public spaces, and buildings—often reflecting long-term continuity of human occupation. Heritage value arises from the integrated urban environment rather than from individual monuments alone.
Examples: Historic Centre of Vienna; Stone Town of Zanzibar; Historic Centres of Stralsund and Wismar.
Infrastructure & Industry
Sites that represent large-scale engineered systems or industrial heritage, including transportation networks, mining landscapes, canals, railways, water-management systems, and industrial complexes. These places embody technical innovation, production processes, or infrastructural organization as central elements of their heritage value.
Examples: Rhaetian Railway in the Albula / Bernina Landscapes; Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex; Rjukan-Notodden Industrial Heritage Site.
Memorial Sites
Sites whose primary significance arises from collective memory, commemoration, and remembrance, often associated with conflict, forced displacement, systemic violence, or human rights violations. These places are recognized for their role in bearing witness to historical trauma and processes of reconciliation.
Examples: Auschwitz Birkenau; Memorial Sites of the Genocide: Nyamata, Murambi, Gisozi and Bisesero; Human Rights, Liberation and Reconciliation: Nelson Mandela Legacy Sites.
Natural Landscapes & Geographic Features
Sites whose Outstanding Universal Value is primarily expressed through natural forms, processes, and geological or geomorphological features. These include mountains, deserts, coastlines, islands, karst systems, fossil-bearing formations, and other major landforms, even where cultural associations are present.
Examples: Galápagos Islands; Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast; Wadi Al-Hitan (Whale Valley).
Protected Areas & National Parks
Legally designated areas managed for the conservation of biodiversity, ecological integrity, or natural processes, where formal protection status is central to the site’s identity. These include national parks, wildlife reserves, biosphere reserves, and other protected natural areas recognized for their ecological value.
Examples: Yellowstone National Park; Kinabalu Park; Serengeti National Park.
Religious Sites & Sacred Architecture
Sites where religious, spiritual, or ritual meaning is central to both heritage value and physical expression. These include temples, churches, mosques, monasteries, pilgrimage routes, and sacred landscapes in which belief systems, worship practices, or spiritual symbolism are defining characteristics.
Examples: Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya; Maulbronn Monastery Complex; Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range.
How to Use This Typology
This typology is applied consistently across all World Heritage Sites and can be used to:
- Filter and explore sites by physical form and function.
- Compare heritage expressions across regions, cultures, and historical periods.
- Understand how heritage is embodied in landscape, built form, and human activity.
By focusing on form, function, and spatial character, the typology enables intuitive browsing, comparison across regions and periods, and thematic discovery beyond inscription criteria alone.
Edge Cases and Classification Judgement
A significant number of World Heritage Sites exhibit characteristics of more than one typology category, reflecting the inherently complex and layered nature of heritage. In such edge cases — for example, historic cities embedded in productive landscapes, sacred sites within natural settings, or infrastructure systems that also function as cultural landscapes — classification was guided by the dominant physical form and primary heritage expression through which the site is most commonly perceived and interpreted.
When multiple interpretations were plausible, priority was given to the aspect that most strongly structures the visitor experience and spatial organization of the site at the scale of inscription. This approach ensures internal consistency across the dataset while acknowledging that alternative readings remain valid and, in some cases, equally compelling.
Limitations
This typology simplifies complex heritage realities by assigning each site a single primary category, and therefore cannot fully capture the multi-dimensional character of mixed or serial properties. As an interpretive framework, it reflects informed analytical judgment rather than an authoritative reclassification and should be read as a complementary lens alongside UNESCO’s official categories and criteria.