The Existing Challenges of Heritage Management in Gondar World Heritage Sites: A Case Study on Fasil Ghebbi and the Baths

Heritage management is an administrative means by which heritage resources are protected from natural and manmade cause of deterioration. The town of Gondar is located in Northwestern Ethiopia and it has outstanding and outstay world cultural heritage resources situated at its hub. However, these stunning properties are threatened with multidimensional heritage management problems. So, this paper tried to identify the main and existing challenges and show the severity of the problems in comparison with different case studies in the world. It compiled through qualitative research method with descriptive research design. And data were collected through survey, participant observation and photographic documentation and interpretation. The collected data also compiled by qualitative method of data analysis. The main and the existing challenges of Gondar’s world heritage sites, specifically of the Fasil Ghebbi and the baths are plant overgrowth, human activities on the immediate vicinity of the sites (that leads to vibration of the structures and noise disturbance), negligence, visitors pressure, improper conservation, nonexistence or inapplicability of heritage management plan, Lack of tourist follow-up system as a means for deliberate graffiti of heritages, lack of cooperation among the concerned bodies and unavailability of directions and instructions. Finally, it is highly recommended to made immediate intervention on each problems. Keywords: Challenges, Heritage Management, World Heritage, Gondar and Fasil Ghebbi DOI : 10.7176/JTHS/43-02 Publication date :September 30 th 2019

Since the beginning of the 21st century, we have been witnessing an increasing number of entries on the UNESCO list of intangible cultural heritage. With them, critical scientific trends describing its positive and negative effects began to emerge. In this article, I discuss the sense of such entries, showing their evaluative dimension as well as the difficulties of recognizing the areas of minority cultures as heritage - the areas which despite meeting all the entry criteria are in conflict with the modern ideas of European culture. I analyze these issues, using the Gypsy/Romani culture as an example - and more specifically the profession of bear handlers in Romania, which, due to its numerous similarities in history, training methods and folklore, I treat as representative of other European regions too. The text discusses the possible origins of this occupation, the place of the Ursari in the Romanian social structure together with their financial situation, and the attitude of the Church and State to bear handlers. It also presents the methods of animal training the Gypsies have used and passed on through the centuries, as well as the reasons why this profession has been disappearing in Romania. In the final (second) part of the article, I will discuss whether there is such a thing as the management of Ursari heritage (versus the management of inconvenient heritage), and if there is - what it entails. The article uses qualitative research methods, including the analysis of historical sources (documents from the offices of Moldovan, Wallachian and Transylvanian rulers and descriptions written by people travelling across former Romanian territories dated 14th-19th centuries) and ethnographic sources. In addition, the analysis also focuses on visual sources from Romanian territories associated with the Ursari as well as on the sources used during my own pilot ethnographic study on the cultural memory among the Roma from Romania.

This paper compares the research method of phenomenological psychology to other qualitative research methods such as ethnography, participant observation, grounded theory, dramaturgical interviewing and content analysis. An attempt is made to identify similarities and differences. As a prelude, the major metatheories with which they are associated (phenomenology and symbolic interactionism) and the related differences between natural science and human science are discussed.Interest in qualitative research methodology appears to have gathered momentum over the last decade (e.g., Rist, 1980). One of the recurrent themes in the discussion of qualitative methods has been the question of whether quantitative and qualitative methods are compatible. Opinion has been divided. Gibbs (1979) made a plea for complementarity of subjectivist and objectivist methods in psychology. Mahrer (1988) has advocated discovery oriented research in the field of psychotherapy, while Sperry (1988) has suggested an integration of positivistic and phenomenological thought to form a more naturalistic approach to the study of brain and consciousness.The split between those who support and those who do not support complementarity of quantitative and qualitative methodology has also occurred in the field of educational research. For example, Howe (1985, 1988) and Firestone (1987) have argued for compatibility, while Smith (1983) and Smith and Heshusius (1986) have argued for incompatibility.The early eighties marked the growth of an interest in qualitative methodology which has paralleled the growing disenchantment with traditional logical - empirical research methods. The hegemony of natural science type research methods has been increasingly challenged by descriptive and hermeneutically oriented methods (e.g., Giorgi, 1986; Packer, 1985; Palmer, 1969; Polkinghorne, 1983; Rommetveit, 1987). Contextualism (Rosnow & Georgoudi, 1986), social constructionism (Gergen, 1985) and deconstructionism (Derrida, 1977) have also challenged the objectivity of traditional natural science methodology by emphasizing the socially derived foundationalisms upon which methods are based.There seems little doubt that qualitative methodology has come out of the closet in the field of the human sciences. Although quantitative methodological hegemony continues, the degree of coexistence and complementaritybetween quantitative and qualitative research methods seems to be increasing. Nonetheless, there are those who, while seeing symptoms of the inadequacy of standard quantitative methodological practice, see possible cures and solutions in the same metatheoretical terms (e.g., Aiken, West, Sechrest & Reno, 1990). Sarbin (1976) has noted the difficulty that psychologists trained in logical - empirical traditions have in breaking their reliance on habitual methods.The Transition from Quantitative to Qualitative MethodologyThose researchers who are willing to explore qualitative methods face several difficulties. Usually they have been trained in the quantitative tradition and find the transition to qualitative research methods requires a major shift in world - view. The metatheories underlying such methods often differ from the logical - empirical base of natural science (Jacob, 1987). As will be seen later, some aspects of the qualitative methods associated with symbolic interactionism follow normative natural science practice (e.g., the Iowa school of ethnography) while other qualitative methods use a mixture of natural and human science approaches to research (e.g., the Chicago School of ethnography). Qualitative research methods such as phenomenology and the phenomenological aspects of ethnography, participant observation and grounded theory are based on metatheories that are associated with a human science approach to psychology (see Giorgi, 1970). The emphasis is upon discovery, description and meaning rather than the traditional natural science criteria of prediction, control and measurement. …

Simultaneous to the advent of ecosystem management in the United States, heritage management has occurred. Heritage resources are broadly defined as those resources that describe the past. Within the U.S. Forest Service, heritage management includes using knowledge and skills from diverse cultures in resource decision making. A case study from the Mount Hood National Forest in Oregon is presented. The case study illustrates an integration of ecosystem management and heritage management, especially in regard to American Indians. Four fundamental principles of ecosystem management to guide the heritage management process are using an ecological perspective, forming partnerships, promoting grass-roots participation, and using scientific knowledge.

ABSTRACTThis research examines three themes: heritage management and conservation activities, local communities and tourism development in Kii World Heritage Site (WHS) after WHS designation. Kii is a cultural WHS having links with Japanese religions and consisting of shrines, temples and pilgrimage routes. This study inductively and qualitatively examines these three themes. Overall, the current status of Kii WHS is satisfactory. Local people, tourists/visitors and experts are all actively involved in heritage management and conservation activities. WHS listing seems to have enhanced local identity, increased local people's pride in their culture and place of residence, and triggered a revitalisation of local culture. Moreover, tourism's negative impacts appear to be minimal, despite an increase in the number of visitors since UNESCO inscription. There are a few issues to be improved, which derive mainly from a lack of understanding of WHS status or conflicts between heritage management/tourism and religious practices. A more holistic approach, such as establishing a forum consisting of all key stakeholders, would be useful for the further success of Kii WHS as a religious and sacred site, place to live and tourist destination.

Understanding the spatiotemporal variation and drivers of ecosystem services is fundamental to optimal management and sustainable development of World Heritage (WH) sites. Although WH sites face multiple natural and anthropogenic threats, our understanding of their ecosystem services is still limited, especially for karst WH sites. In this study, we assessed habitat quality (HQ), carbon storage (CS), soil retention (SR), water conservation (WC), and the combined ecosystem service (CES) of karst and non-karst WH sites in Southwest China from 2000 to 2020 using the InVEST model. We also assessed trade-offs/synergies among ecosystem services using the spatial overlay method, and identified driving factors of variation in ecosystem services using geographical detector and structural equation models. The results showed that ecosystem services of the WH sites exhibited high spatiotemporal variation. In particular, there were higher values in the property zone than in the buffer zone, and an increasing trend in SR but a decreasing trend in HQ and CES over time. Compared to non-karst sites, karst WH sites had significantly lower values of HQ, CS, SR, and CES, but higher spatial heterogeneity in CS, WC, and CES. Weak trade-offs among ecosystem services dominated the WH sites, with the proportion of weak synergies increasing over time. Compared to non-karst sites, karst WH sites had a significantly lower proportion of strong synergies and a significantly higher proportion of weak synergies. The provision of ecosystem services was primarily influenced by natural factors (e.g., landscape division index and normalized difference vegetation index), followed by anthropogenic factors (e.g., distance from road and population density). Overall, these findings may have important implications for decision-making aimed at protecting the outstanding universal value, authenticity, and integrity of WH with different attributes.

This chapter indicates that 'postmodernism' and 'globalization' are essential phenomena when examining heritage management and conservation activities at World Heritage sites (WHSs). The reality of heritage management and conservation activities at WHSs is examined in relation to philosophy and approach, duties and responsibilities, tourism, and Eastern and Western perspectives. A brief case study is presented of the 'Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range', a cultural WHS in Japan.

PurposeThe sixth of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has access to improved sanitation as one of its targets. Sanitation is important not only for environmental quality and public health but also for the outstanding universal value (OUV) of heritage monument sites and tourism promotion. The study examined the causes of open defecation (OD) in the neighbourhood of a World Heritage (WH) site in Ghana and the implications of the practice for sustainable tourism and heritage management.Design/methodology/approachThe study used the qualitative approach. Data were gathered from purposively targeted respondents (an Environmental Health Officer, Heritage Managers, a Tourism Expert, Hoteliers, Zoomlion Staff, Open Defecators, Community Opinion Leaders and Ordinary Community Residents) and analysed using the thematic approach.FindingsIt became evident that the causes of OD were: the lack of toilet facilities in many houses in the community, filthy and foul-smelling public latrines, poor attitude and heritage culture, mental and income poverty, inadequate sensitisation and a poor law enforcement regime. OD threatened the sustainability of heritage tourism and its associated livelihoods, as well as public health. In addition, it impaired the authenticity and integrity of the heritage monument, culminating in a detraction from the OUV of the heritage property.Practical implicationsIn collaboration with the local, national and international stakeholders, the managers of the heritage monument should design and implement a comprehensive environmentally friendly plan. The plan should consider demarcating the boundaries of the heritage asset, monitoring the protected area, enforcing sanitation laws and mounting intensive sanitation education campaigns. It should also consider providing a decent toilet in the vicinity of the monument for the transit population, facilitate the provision of a toilet in every house through the community-led total sanitation approach, installing digital cameras at vantage points in the buffer zone of the castle to capture open defecators and punishing offenders severely to deter others from engaging in the ignoble practice of OD.Originality/valueThe authors argue that sanitation at heritage sites in developing countries merits further discussion within the WH network to promote sustainable heritage conservation management and tourism.

Tourism space reconstruction of a world heritage site based on actor network theory: A case study of the Shibing Karst of the South China Karst World Heritage Site

The purpose of this focused issue is to advance understanding of qualitative research methods in the international business context. Debates on qualitative research methods in the key international business (IB) journals have been rare. There has been no focused issue on this topic previously, either in mir or in other journals in the field, making this a 'special' issue. During the process of editing a recent handbook on qualitative research methods (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004), we realized that while this collection covered many topics, often for the first time in the IB field, there were many others still outstanding. There was thus scope for continuing a dialogue about qualitative methods in the IB research community. The challenge of making qualitative research count in the quantitative world of IB remains. Qualitative research is difficult to define, since the term encompasses many different research traditions, research strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Prasad 2005). A typical definition is that everything non-numerical is qualitative research (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004, p. 19). However, even this very simplistic definition soon breaks down, since research strategies which are typically considered to be qualitative, such as case studies, can combine numerical with non-numerical data (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki/Nummela 2004). There is also no clear divide between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of research traditions, with much qualitative research in management and IB sharing the positivist assumptions of quantitative research (Prasad/Prasad 2002). This focused issue is not about reporting the empirical findings of IB studies applying qualitative methods; rather it is about the process of undertaking qualitative research in the IB field. Of course, there is a large volume of literature on qualitative research methods already. However, we would argue that the IB context warrants special treatment. As the authors of this focused issue discuss, the distinctiveness of the field stems from its multiple linguistic and cultural settings; organizational complexity; and its intellectual roots in post-War academic institutions in the USA. These issues receive little treatment in general texts on qualitative methodology. There has been some methodological debate in previous issues of mir. Earlier articles in mircan be grouped into three categories: first, reviews of existing methodological practices in IB publications (e.g., Cavusgil/Das 1997, Nasif et al. 1991); second, proposals for new quantitative techniques (e.g., the use of key informants in cross-cultural studies, as proposed by Lenartowicz and Roth 2004 and a linguistic-based measure of cultural distance as developed by West and Graham 2004); and third, calls for new methodological approaches (Boddewyn/Iyer 1999). The absence of qualitative research methods in this debate perhaps reflects the limited amount of empirical qualitative research published in this journal. A recent analysis of mir issues between 1990 and 1999 revealed that only 5 percent of articles published in this period used qualitative methods (Welch/Welch 2004). This focused issue is therefore a response to those, such as Boddewyn and Iyer (1999) in this journal, who have called for alternatives to surveys and secondary data analysis. This focused issue attracted 39 submissions from more than 15 countries. Given that there have been limited outlets for methodological articles in IB, this is a considerable number. It perhaps suggests a level of interest to which IB journals have not responded to date. Of the total number of submissions, 11 were selected for review. On the basis of reviewers' comments, six of these papers were ultimately rejected. The final five papers underwent two and, in some cases, up to four rounds of revisions. In selecting the articles, we used the following criteria: appropriateness of the topic for the focused issue; demonstrated knowledge of IB and methodological literature; quality of argument; originality and innovativeness of the contribution to IB methodology; organization and clarity of the paper; and potential application to research practice in IB. …

Qualitative Versus Quantitative The literature on methodology distinguishes between qualitative and quantitative research methods. The term ‘qualitative’ does not refer to the quality of methods. Qualitative methods are those that are oriented towards the discovery of qualities of things – that is, the properties of objects, phenomena, situations, people, meanings and events. In contrast, quantitative methods are oriented towards the number or amount of these qualities. This chapter discusses a number of qualitative research methods that can be used in FPS projects. For quantitative research methods, we refer the reader to textbooks on social science methodology, such as those by Cooper and Schindler (2014) and Hair et al. (2005). Imagine marketing managers who would like to know the opinions of potential customers about a television commercial. They could ask some respondents to talk freely about their feelings with regard to the commercial, their associations, what they like about it and what they do not, and so on. Such a study would be qualitative in nature, since it aims to uncover the characteristics of people, in this case their attitude towards the commercial. The same marketing manager could also use a standardized questionnaire and ask respondents to express the degree to which they understand and like the commercial on a fivepoint scale. Such a study would be quantitative in nature, since it measures the value of a particular property in numbers. Qualitative research methods are particularly appropriate for studying people, groups, organizations and societies – for example, if you want to learn how people interpret their own situation, what their goals in life and work are and what strategies they employ to reach those goals. Such understanding is needed in most business problem-solving projects. Because there can be large and multifaceted differences between people and situations, it is often not effective to employ (only) a standardized measuring instrument. Qualitative research methods are relevant within more fields than just the social sciences. The natural and technical sciences use qualitative methods as well. Hendrik Casimir, a respected physicist and long-time director of Philips Laboratories, has stated: For although it is certainly true that quantitative measurements are of great importance, it is a grave error to suppose that the whole of experimental physics can be brought under this heading.

Abstract. Without a doubt 2020 will be remembered worldwide as the year of risk and emergency, in this case a health emergency, and of new communication technologies. When work began in 2018 on the organisation of “HERITAGE2020 (3DPast | RISK-Terra), International Conference on Vernacular Architecture in World Heritage Sites. Risks and New Technologies”, the new technologies applied to vernacular heritage and risk were on the rise, although nobody could have foreseen how central they would become to everyday life in 2020. “HERITAGE2020 (3DPast | RISK-Terra), International Conference on Vernacular Architecture in World Heritage Sites. Risks and New Technologies” is organised within the framework of two research projects. The first, “3D Past – Living and visiting European World Heritage” (2017–2020), was co-funded by the European Union as part of the Creative Europe Programme, led by Escola Superior Gallaecia (Portugal) in partnership with Universitat Politécnica de València (Spain) and Università degli Studi di Firenze (Italy). The main aim of this project has been to promote the inhabited vernacular heritage declared as World Heritage Sites in Europe by trying to promote its valorization through new technologies, both for local residents and potential visitors. Vernacular heritage, new communication technologies and heritage management for valorization and sustainable tourism are the central themes of this European project. In 2020, these issues have become even more important for the survival, understanding and valorization of heritage, particularly vernacular heritage, which today provides a solid opportunity for cultural and sustainable tourism, where these new technologies make it possible to reach a wider public in search of locations better suited to social distancing. The second project involved in this conference is “RISK-Terra. Earthen architecture in the Iberian Peninsula: study of natural, social and anthropic risks and strategies to improve resilience” (RTI2018-095302-B-I00) (2019–2021), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities. This project is geared towards the conservation of earthen architecture in the Iberian Peninsula, both monumental and vernacular, which continues to be undervalued and barely recognized. The RISK-Terra project aims to provide scientific coverage of the study of natural threats (floods, earthquakes, climate change), social threats (abandonment, social discredit, demographic pressure, tourist development), and anthropic threats (neglect, lack of protection and maintenance), as well as the mechanisms for deterioration and dynamics and transformation (replacement, use of incompatible techniques and materials, etc.) to which architecture is exposed. The objective of the project is to establish strategies for conservation, intervention and rehabilitation which make it possible to prevent and mitigate possible damage through compatible actions and/or actions to increase resilience.As these two projects have major points of contact with potential for common reflection, their main themes have been combined in this Heritage2020 conference. The topics established for the conference are: vernacular architecture (study and cataloguing of vernacular architecture; conservation and restoration of vernacular architecture; urban studies on vernacular architecture; sustainability in vernacular architecture); new technologies applied to architectural and archaeological heritage (digital documentation and state-of-the-art developments; digital analysis in heritage; digital heritage related to social context; digital heritage solutions and best practices for dissemination); architectural heritage management (management and protection of UNESCO World Heritage Sites; social participation in heritage management; regulations and policies in heritage management; intangible heritage: the management of know-how and local building culture); risks in architectural heritage (studies of natural risks in architectural heritage; studies of social and anthropic risks in architectural heritage, preventive actions in order to improve resilience in architectural heritage; actions and strategies in post-disaster situations); earthen architectural heritage (study and cataloguing of earthen architectures; construction techniques that employ earth; sustainability mechanisms in vernacular earthen architectures; restoration and conservation of earthen architecture).The scientific committee was made up of 98 outstanding researchers from 29 countries from the five continents, specialists in the subjects proposed. All the contributions to the conference, both the abstracts and the final texts, were subjected to a strict peer-review evaluation system by the members of the scientific committee.Out of the over 300 proposals submitted, over 150 papers by 325 authors from 27 countries from the five continents were chosen for publication.

<div class="WordSection1"><p>I am honored for being an alumnus of KEMC, and am delighted to write this editorial for the Annals. I have, ever since done my research and taught qualitative methods, felt that clinical methods are quite akin to qualitative research. Then, why only few clinical researchers use qualitative methods? A witness to this assumption is the research published in the Annals. In this treatise, I try to identify some parallels between the two types of methods and argue for the clinicians to invest in learning qualitative research methods to practice clinical methods well.</p><p> Qualitative research is to identify and interpret issues from the perspective of participants, their experience of: illness or disability, using health service, and to appreciate the meanings they give to the behaviour, events or objects in the context of their social and cultural norms. In this type of research, the emphasis is on exploring the associations and understanding the phenomenon in its holism; and not, like in quantitative research, from an outsider’s perspective and for certain specific aspects.<sup>1</sup> It requires participants with specific characteristics, selected purposely that can best inform the research topic. More participants, identified inductively during data collection, are added to develop full and multiple perspectives about the cases.<sup>2</sup></p><p> No preset data collection tool is used, instead qualitative researcher guided by a research question acts as an instrument, since the line of enquiry he changes during data collection as new understanding is gained and/or the situation changes.<sup>3</sup> The data for research is derived from the observation, interviews or verbal interactions, focus group discussions, document reviews, life histories etc. and the researcher asks why, how and under what circumstances things occur; and not just what, where and when. It is recorded in words or pictures and log book is used to record notes arising from interviews, observations, extracts from documents etc.</p><p> In health care settings patients are the subjects for clinical methods. The clinician, even prior to any verbal communication, observes the patient, e.g. for his gait and appearance. If in a bed or examination couch, his posture could give some clue to the illness. Inspection, a clinical method, is like systematic observation, which is qualitative method, should be holistic. In my third year during bedside teaching, Professor (late) Rashid Ahmed Qureshi said, <em>“patient has come to you as a whole and not his stomach in a tray”</em>, when a student straight went to examine abdomen of a patient with acute abdomen. History taking, another clinical method, is like conducting semi structured in depth interview – a qualitative research method. In both disciplines, we are told, <em>“not to ask leading, but follow up and probing questions”; </em>and Professor (late) Alamgir Khan, while teaching clinical methods, would add, <em>“if a good history is taken, you will establish diagnosis in over 65% of cases”. </em>Likewise, as part of history taking, documents related to patient’s illness history and treatment are reviewed similar to document review in qualitative research.</p><p> The two approaches however differ in how the data is analysed. In clinical practice, diagnosis is established based on the pathophysiological knowledge or patient’s clinical condition is discussed in clinicopathological conference.<sup>4</sup> On the other hand, qualitative research employs meaning based data analysis, whereby the qualitative data is transformed into some form of explanation, understanding or interpretation of people and situation that is investigated.<sup>5,6</sup></p><p> In conclusion, the history, the observation and the review of document related to patient are since obtainned using qualitative methods, the clinician trained in these methods could not only conduct these methods well but also interpret the data to identify and detect obstacles to the change in clinical condition and the reasons why improvement does or does not occur.<sup>7</sup> Finally, while it is heartening that research forums are organised in the institutions affiliated with KEMU, in order the research is richer, the researchers’ skills in qualitative research methods should be built.</p></div>

Purpose: The paper aims to explore the role and significance of qualitative methods in the research process, particularly focusing on their ability to interpret and understand complex social phenomena. It highlights the complementarity between qualitative and quantitative approaches and their joint use in comprehensive research. Design/methodology/approach: This paper utilizes a theoretical approach to describe and analyze qualitative research methods, including observation, interviews, and group discussions. The discussion is grounded in a comparison with quantitative methods, emphasizing the interpretive and subjective aspects of qualitative research, which allows for a deeper understanding of phenomena. Findings: The paper finds that qualitative methods play a crucial role in providing insights into phenomena that cannot be quantified. It highlights the importance of qualitative research in building theories from observed experiences, the value of respondents’ personal experiences, and the essential interaction between researchers and participants. The findings also support the argument that qualitative and quantitative research are complementary, and using both approaches can enhance research outcomes. Research limitations/implications: The paper acknowledges that purely qualitative research may lack generalizability due to its focus on individual or small group data. It suggests future research should continue to integrate both qualitative and quantitative methods to enhance the validity of the results. Practical implications: While not directly aimed at providing commercial or economic recommendations, the findings emphasize the importance of incorporating qualitative methods in research processes to gain richer, more contextually grounded insights that can inform policy- making, social programs, and educational practices. Social implications: The research can influence public attitudes by promoting a more nuanced understanding of social phenomena. It underscores the value of qualitative research in capturing human experiences and behaviors, which could be used to inform social policy and educational reforms. Originality/value: This paper contributes to the field by offering a comprehensive exploration of qualitative research methods, highlighting their relevance in capturing the complexities of social phenomena. It is of value to researchers in social sciences, education, and policy development who seek to integrate qualitative approaches into their research methodologies. Keywords: qualitative research, observation, interviews, social phenomena, research methodology. Category of the paper: Research Paper, Conceptual Paper.

Abstract. The management of heritage resources within the South African context is governed by the National Heritage Resources Act, act 25 of 1999 (NHRA). This legislation calls for an integrated system of heritage management that allows for the good governance of heritage across the three tiers of government. The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), as the national body responsible for heritage management, is mandated to compile and maintain an inventory of the national estate. The South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) was designed to facilitate this mandate as well as provide a management platform through which the three-tiers of governance can be integrated. This vision of integrated management is however predicated on the implementation of the three-tier system of heritage management, a system which to date has not been fully implemented, with financial and human resource constraints being present at all levels. In the absence of the full implementation of this system and the limited resources available to heritage authorities, we argue that a risk based approach to heritage management will allow under resourced heritage authorities in South Africa to prioritise management actions and ensure mitigations are in place for at risk heritage resources. The aim of this paper is to position the inventory of the national estate as the key driver in the production of risk analysis models for an informed approach to heritage management.