Overview

A table of UNESCO World Heritage Sites by country organizes entries from the World Heritage List to show how cultural and natural places are distributed among States Parties. The World Heritage Convention was adopted in 1972; sites are nominated by States Parties, evaluated by advisory bodies and inscribed by the World Heritage Committee. Sites are commonly classified as cultural, natural or mixed.

Typical structure and columns

A clear table helps comparison and analysis. Common columns include:

  • Country / State Party — the national entity that submitted the nomination.
  • Total inscribed sites — simple count of properties located in that country, with notes on shared or transboundary sites.
  • Breakdown by type — counts of cultural, natural and mixed sites.
  • Representative sites — prominent examples that illustrate the national holdings.
  • First and most recent inscription — years indicating the country's history on the List.
  • Tentative list status — whether the State Party has properties proposed for future nomination.

Counting rules and common issues

Careful rules are needed for consistency. Transboundary or serial properties may be shared by two or more States Parties and should be flagged and not double-counted unless the table explicitly reports shared counts. Overseas territories and dependent areas can be presented under the administering State Party or listed separately, but the chosen approach should be documented. Extensions, boundary changes and occasional removals mean counts change over time.

Background and classification

World Heritage criteria are numbered i–x, with criteria i–vi generally used for cultural values and vii–x for natural values. Some inscriptions combine criteria and are designated mixed. Many entries are serial (multiple component sites) or transnational; a single inscription can therefore represent several distinct locations.

Uses, limitations and best practices

Country-level tables are useful for researchers, heritage managers, policy makers and travellers: they enable comparative studies, highlight geographic and thematic gaps, and support tourism and conservation planning. However, site counts are not direct measures of importance or conservation effectiveness: one large, well-protected property can be more significant than several small entries. For reliability:

  1. Use official UNESCO data and national heritage authorities and record the date the dataset was checked.
  2. State and apply explicit rules for counting shared, serial and overseas-territory sites.
  3. Include a legend explaining columns, abbreviations and any exceptions used.
  4. View the table as a starting point for deeper inquiry, not as a definitive ranking of value or protection.