Engaging Visitors: Developing Presentation as a Tool for Site Preservation at Pompeii

Alia WALLACE

Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, England alia.wallace.10@ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

Often presentation and interpretation of archaeological sites are overlooked as important elements of site management planning despite their potential to aid in site preservation. This is particularly relevant at Pompeii, where mass tourism negatively impacts the site. Improved site presentation at Pompeii would help communicate the site's significance and raise awareness of conservation problems. However, for presentation to be effective it needs to be the result of collaboration between numerous stakeholders, and needs to use the site to its potential. I have assessed the current status of presentation at Pompeii through extensive visitor observations and interviews, movement mapping, and in-depth interviews with stakeholders. The results show that the current presentation of Pompeii, including visitor itineraries, signage, and guides, does not adequately orientate and engage visitors in the ways needed to make it a sustainable tool for site management. This is due to a number of reasons, including an unclear understanding of what visitors want when visiting Pompeii and a lack of collaboration among stakeholder groups. From this data the foundations for developing a presentation and interpretation strategy at Pompeii emerges; one that uses the site to its potential and creates a forum for open collaboration among the key stakeholders.

Keywords: Presentation, Interpretation, Conservation, Management, Pompeii

1 Introduction

The goal of modern site management is to ensure that archaeological sites and their associated values are preserved for future generations. The presentation and interpretation are often overlooked elements of management planning and regarded in a secondary capacity to other elements like conservation and on-going research [1,2,3]. Presentation is primarily linked to services related to the visitor experience and thus, presentation is associated with economic benefits or visitor numbers [4]. This can lead to problems in site management if the presentation is not understood alongside other elements like conservation and research. Archaeological excavations and conservation are complex and often debateable processes that play a major role in deciding what is valued [5]. Both archaeological research and excavation are interpretative choices that are ‘presented’ but are not often considered in presentation and interpretation theory. This gap between viewing presentation as ‘entertainment’ and understanding the deeper, multi-disciplinary relationships is a problem that needs to be addressed to ensure integrated and sustainable site management. This results in an antagonistic relationship between site presentation, conservation, and research as visitors can cause decay to the physical fabric. Recently presentation and interpretation have been recognized as instruments for preservation by helping to mitigate the negative impacts caused by visitors [6], communicating the values and significance of site to various audiences, and serving as a tool for increased collaboration among stakeholders. Silberman and Callebaut suggest that the

modern social function of presentation plays an integral role in the success or failure of the preservation of a site [4]. The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage sites addresses these social roles of presentation and interpretation through standardised terminology and professional principles [7]. However, it is still necessary to look at specific case studies to test the viability presentation and interpretation as tools for preservation in real world settings. This research is concerned with developing a deeper understanding of the visitor-conservation-research relationship at Pompeii in order to develop a foundation for using the presentation and interpretation as a tool for preservation at the Vesuvian sites (and across the globe). Pompeii is one of the most famous and visited archaeological sites in the world. Over the past few years the state of conservation at Pompeii, and the effectiveness of the current management have come into question. This has prompted an international discussion how best to manage the Vesuvian sites including, new management plans, privatization, and EU funded large-scale conservation projects. However, no amount of planning or external funding will be sustainable if the management framework in which it is implemented is fragmented and ineffective. As this discussion is on-going it is important to continue to look for alternatives. It is equally important to look at what smaller-scale changes can be made that work within the current management. It is only then that viable and sustainable changes to the management planning process can begin to be made. This paper presents the results of research I conducted into the current presentation of Pompeii. Data was collected during a number of field sessions from 2011-2013 though primarily qualitative methods, including observational studies, interviews, and analysis of documents and text. Observational studies were conducted using three primary methods: ethnographic observations, visitor movement tracking, and recording linger-time (how long visitors stayed or ‘lingered’ in a certain area or property). A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with visitors, tour guides, and academics at Pompeii. Professionals and academics were also interviewed at Herculaneum and Stabia. The literature review included studying various interpretation aids, guide books, audio guides and on-site signs. Further explanation of the full methods used can be found in Wallace 2013 [8]. From this data I have begun developing a presentation and interpretation strategy for Pompeii that would aid in the conservation of the site, as well as serve as an avenue for increased collaboration among the wide range of stakeholders at the Vesuvian sites. The results of this research show that only small, inexpensive changes need to be made to help address some of the conservation concerns at Pompeii.

2 Mindful Visitors at Pompeii

It is assumed that a good visitor experience will encourage visitors to be more aware and respectful of archaeological sites, and thus be more inclined to see it conserved for future generations. However the relationship between the visitor and archaeology is difficult. The closer the visitor gets to the archaeology (physically and intellectually) the deeper the visitor experience but this can have negative impacts on the sites conservation. Moscardo states that presentation should aim to create mindful visitor [9]. Rooted in the social cognation research of Ellen Langer mindfulness is a state where the mind actively process information and is more receptive gaining knowledge [10]. Mindlessness is the opposite and is often the result of boredom, repetition or a loss of control. There are a number of factors that can affect how receptive a visitor is including the visitors’ level of interest, fatigue, heat, and size of the site. Some of these cannot be easily controlled but other factors like visitor facilities, exhibitions, signage, and content of the interpretation can be.

Visitor studies at cultural sites in the past have focused on the demographic or geographic factors, over the psychographic factors to identify visitors [11]. While demographic and geographic factors are much easier to measure, they provide limited information. Psychographic factors, like visitor attitudes and values, are much more difficult to quantify but reveal deeper, more meaning results. In this research I conducted 66 in-depth interviews with visitors at Pompeii who were primarily international. At the start of each interview, visitors were asked why they decided to visit Pompeii, and if there was anything in specific that drew the visitor to the site. Based on their responses, they were divided into four levels of motivation based on Silberberg’s Levels of Cultural Tourist [12]. Of the respondents 34% were Greatly Motivated, 30% were Adjunct visitors, 21% In-Part, and 15% Accidental visitors. What these results indicate is that a majority (64%) of visitors to Pompeii visit due to cultural motivation, and an interest in Pompeii or cultural sites. However 46% of the visitors interviewed indicated that they simply visited the site due to its being in the region of their holiday or because someone recommended it but had no real interest in the site itself. This indicates that a large number of the visitors arrive to the site without a high level of interest or background knowledge.

When visiting the site, visitors have four main interpretation options available:

using only the information provided with the purchase of a ticket (map, Brief Guide, signs and panels)

using a guide book or travel book

purchasing an audio guide

joining a guided tour (either on-site or pre-booked before arrival). Each of these provides different ways of receiving information and engaging with the site. For this research I chose to focus on visitors who were not part of an organised excursions as they often have set itenaries that are organized by their excursion company and are informed of these before arriving to the site. Of the 66 visitors interviewed, 28 used a guide book or travel book to complement their visit, including the site specifc guides and general travel books like Lonley Planet. These respondents explained that they wanted the freedom to wander around site and enjoy the experience on their own. Eighteen visitors chose not to use any interpretation aids, and relied only on the information provided onsite and with the purchase of a ticket. This is limited to on-site panels, a map and the information in the brief guide which includes a small paragraph and small photos of 69 properties, although the map and brief guide were unavailable during the summer when these interviews were conducted. Most of these visitors indicated cost as a factor for not purchasing interpretation aids as well as an expectation that there would be more on-site interpretation, like signs or a visitor centre. Fifteen visitors purchased an audio guide indicating that they felt an audio guide provided more information than a guide book, and more freedom than a guided tour. The remaining five groups had been a part of a guided tour. While those who participated in guided tours tended to feel satisfied with the information they received and didn’t feel any barriers with accessibility, the other visitors I interviewed indicated a range of factors that impacted their experience. Some of these, like the heat or the size of the site, cannot be controlled—however, by addressing some of the others, changeable factors there is the potential to create mindful visitors at Pompeii and the Vesuvian sites. In this research I was interested in understanding what visitors wanted from their experience at Pompeii. The words know, learn and understand were present in a large number of interview responses, but they were often used with other words like experience, feel, visualize, see and touch. These sensory and emotive responses indicate that visitor motivations occur on multiple levels, both educational and a more personal, internal experience. Thus the presentation and interpretation of Pompeii should aim to engage visitors on both of these levels and provide visitors the tools to make decisions and be in control of their visit. Observations conducted revealed that, on average, visitors spend less than five minutes in a property. Many visitors were observed entering and leaving in less than a minute, particularly during peak times or when they were without interpretation aids. Levin-Richardson found similar behaviors at the brothel where visitors went through the property in an average of 30 seconds, and thus were reliant interpretation aids for information [13]. With non-guided visitors, the limited time spent in an area is a possible indicator that the current interpretation is failing effectively engage visitors. Visitors to Pompeii expect the experience to be personal and interviews and observations have revealed that the current presentation does not provide the elements and information that visitors want and expect, thus does not provide the factors needed to create mindful visitors. In the interviews there emerged four primary problems with the current presentation and interpretation: The availability of information and services: Visitors expressed how they “expected there to be more signs” and services available. As a World Heritage Site visitors arrive with a preconceived expectation of a certain level of services and information being available. The absence of information resources at Pompeii was frustrating to many visitors who were unable to get answers for some of the questions they had which resulted in an unsatisfactory visit. The ease of use if the interpretation: By far the most common comment by visitors interviewed was expressing frustration and difficulty with finding places on-site and navigation. The lack of onsite signage, orientation, and clarity was an issue expressed by a majority of the interview subjects. The inconsistent numbering of properties, as well as English/Italian translations were seen by visitors as a barrier as they were not always able to tell where they were. Visitors with the audio guide indicated difficulty following the tour when inside a property. The accessibility of information: Visitors also pointed out the information provided in the guide books and audio guide was too technical and that they often didn’t know what it was talking about. Additionally, signs on-site frequently use Latin terms without providing a translation. Visitors felt that there was an assumption of knowledge about the site, Roman history and archaeology.

The content of the interpretation: Visitors interviewed expressed a strong interest in daily life and social aspects of the city, particularly in the people who lived there and what they did. Multiple visitors commented in interviews that they wished for more in-depth interpretation in the audio guide, and in guide books. Visitors also expressed interest in the development of the city and broader topics, such as social and civic life which is absent from the current presentation. Visitor interest in the daily life of Pompeii's citizens can be explained by the similarities many visitors found to modern cultures and themselves. For some, this was one of the most impressive and memorable elements of their experience; many expressed awe and surprise at how similar the Pompeians were to us. One visitor, who expressed that he was not particularly interested in the site, stated that this link to modern society is essential for a visitor like himself. However, he felt that the current presentation did not provide this.

Here, they don’t think about that not everyone is interested in archaeology. But they might be interested in the courthouse, or something, because it relates to their work. It works real well if it’s two-way traffic, if it reflects a bit about your life and reflects about their life. And this [current interpretation] is one-way traffic. And I think that’s okay for people who are interested in it but for [indicating himself], it doesn’t work.

In summary, the current presentation of Pompeii does not address the expectations of visitors. Visitors find that it does not provide the information that they desire and it is neither physically or intellectually accessible to them. While this is not the case for every visitor, with around 3 million a year, it can be assumed that many feel the same way. When combined with things like visitor fatigue and heat, visitors can become “mindless.” In the next section, it will be shown that many of the negative visitor impacts result from this feeling of mindlessness and could easily be addressed though enhanced presentation.

3 Visitors and conservation: a shaky relationship

In the 2011 mission report, UNESCO and ICOMOS highlighted six major conservation problems that are present at Pompeii: ordinary decay, inadequate water management, damage from ultraviolet radiation, overgrown vegetation, incompatible conservation and restoration work from earlier generations, and visitor impacts [14]. While sustainable managment of the sites needs to address all of these problems this research is concerned with the visitor impacts as visitation to the Vesuvian sites increase and available resources decrease. Currently the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia (SANP) has no effective condition assessment system in place so it is difficult to identify visitors impact but these have been better documented at Herculaneum by the Herculanuem Conservation Project. They found that visitor impacts primarily enhance decay that is already present, either through direct physical damage or by limiting the resources available for conservation work. This results in more and more areas of the sites closed each year, thereby concentrating the growing number of visitors in smaller areas and thus accelerating the rate of decay. Over the past half century, the number of properties, roads, and areas accessible to the public at Vesuvian sites has decreased by 1/3 (see Fig.1 for a map of the current distribution of open and closed areas in Pompeii). Furthermore, areas not open to the public tend to be neglected as the limited resources are diverted towards those areas accessible to visitors [15]. This is reflected in the more recent collapses on site which have been in areas that are not open to the public and recieve little visitor traffic as they are not on the main itenaries. It is this circular cycle that this research is concerned with addressing. In order to identify areas of Pompeii that were impacted by visitors, as well as how and why, I carried out a number of observational studies. These revealed is that there are two major areas of concen that need to be adressed; 1) visitor movement and itenaries, 2) visitor behaviour and management. All of these can have negative impacts on the conservation of the site but enhanced presentation and interpretation can be used as tool for addressing them. 3.1 Visitor movement and itineraries In Fig. 1 the propreties included in the SANP imperpretation are identified. This includs on-site panels and singae, and the propreties included in the audio guide and guide books. In theory the current interpretative infrastructure should eneourage visitors to spread throughout the site, if they were to follow reccomonded itenaries provided in the interpretation (Fig.2). Visitor tracking and observation identified common visitor movement patterns which show that visitors are, in fact, isolated to a small

section of the site (Fig. 3). From this, I was able to identify areas of the site that recieved high-

medium-low visitor traffic and some of the causes for this movement (Fig. 4). The visitor tracking and observations suggest a few possible causes for overcrowding at Pompeii. The first is that many of

these properties are considered ‘must-see locations’ and are included in all types of visitor information and interpretation materials. Some of these properties, such as the Forum and the Theatre complex, are unique to Pompeii as similar buildings at Herculaneum remain buried. Propreties like domestic houses, the Follonicas (laundries) and the baths are types of buildings that are common throughout the city. There are 515 houses in Pompeii, 93 of which contain substantial decorative elements, but only about seven are regularly open to visitors. Most guided tours consist of the highlights of Pompeii; for this reason most tours lead visitors along the same path through the site. When asked why they visit these specific places, the guides interviewed for this study replied with three main responses: 1) the popular locations are what visitors are interested in and expect to see; 2) the buildings represent the best examples or best-preserved of each type of property; 3) those buildings are open and available to visit. Guided indicated they would diversify their tours if there were alternative but often the decision on where to go varies day to day, and not always by choice. Guide 3 said, “I never know what will be open. One day I visit a house and the next [day] I take a group there and it is closed. It’s always a mystery.” Similar responses behaviours were recorded in other research on tour guide itenaries at Pompeii [16]. Visitors who did not elect to take tours were just as unaware of closures and as a result there was increased traffic around closed houses as visitors were not aware of closures. For example, visitors looking for the closed House of the Vettii and House of the Meander spent a significant amount of time creating higher traffic and crowding in those areas (areas 6 and 9 on Fig. 4 ). These houses had been closed for a number of years (though House of the Meander has since re-opened), and this could easily be addressed through active communication like signage at the ticket office. The relationship between overcrowding and site presentation is easily seen. Visitors tended to go to propreties that were open thus putting more pressure on these areas. Overcrowding could be lessened at the most popular buildings if the site offered alternatives, and through clearer communication of which propreties are open. The current interpretation for Pompeii is outdated and a number of the propreties included in it have been closed for years. Others are open or closed depending on factors like on-going conservation work and personnel. As a result, certain houses are open irregularlly, often only a few hours one day and none the next depending on the availability of on-site personnel although it is not within the scope of this paper to address the human resouce side of site presentation and accessibility. Instead, there needs to be an multi-disciplinary and collaborative development of new visitor itenaries that take visitors through other parts of the site and to alternative propreties. While at a site like Pompeii, there will always be times of overcrowding andvisitor impacts it is possible to lessen the severity and spread the impacts tohroughout the site

Fig. 1 Schematic map of the distrubution of on-site interpretation (provided by the SANP). Green indicates open propreties, yellow indicates those open occasionally, and red indicates closed propreties (as of Summer 2011)

Fig. 2 GPS mapping of all on-site interpretation at Pompeii. Includes audio guide, guide book and recommended itineraries provided on map. Also includes the PompeiViva itineraries which include signs and interpretation panels

Fig. 3 Distrubution of GPS tracking of the movement of 100 visitors during summer 2011.

Fig. 4 Map of Visitor Tracking. Numbers 1-5 represent high visitor traffic, 6-10 is medium visitor traffic and 11-15 is low/no visitor traffic.

3.2 Visitor behaviour and mangement It is human nature to investigate using our senses and the tactile link to the past provided by Pompeii is important to visitors. One visitor I interviewed stated that she enjoyed being able to touch the walls and the frescoes, despite knowing that she shouldn’t;

There were some you could just touch, and I know you’re not supposed to but I did it. I’m a very touch-oriented person so it really brings it home [to] reach out and think about the life that painted this.

If not actively managed visitor behaviours like this can negatively impact on the conservation of the site. Ethnographic observations revealed that the most common bevahiours that can have a negative impct on the sites conservation are touching frescos and walls, sitting, standing or leaning on walls, and entering closed off areas. Visitors were also observed splashing water on mosaics to “freshen them up,” as recommended by the Fodor’s guide book and numerous tour guides. While most of these behaviours did not tend to be malicious, there is also evidence across the site of modern grafitti, although this was not observed in action during this research. At Pompeii, this freedom for visitors to interact tactilely with the sites is more a result of inadequate visitor management than of providing an intentionally engaging experience. Upon entry to the site, there is a small sign at each ticket window that lists the rules and regulations (n213 dated 22.01.01) for the site; the rules are also printed in the official Brief Guide when it is available. Few, if any, visitors take the time to read these regulations and the enforcement of the rules and regulations is minimal. There are a maximum of twenty-three custodi on duty at any given time. During the field observations, custodi were observed entering properties less than fifteen times, and their enforcement of regulations varied. For example, in the Follonica di Stephanus the custodi will tell visitors to watch their bags but will not advise visitors not to use a flash when photographing the frescoes. Similar variation of enforcement was also observed on guided tours, where some guides would actively enforce rules and other would not.

Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 Examples of visitor behviours that can impact negativly on the site. Fig.5 is modern graffitti on a fresco in the Fullonica di Stephanus and Fig. 6 is a visitor standing on a wall to take a photo. Note that the area is meant to be closed off but due to a broken gate, the visitor entered.

The active visitor management is minimal at Pompeii. Visitors are kept out of certain buildings and areas by fences, barricades, and locked doors; these vary from the newer metal fences and gates to

old wooden fences what are often falling apart. Inside the buildings, visitor movement is restricted by

rope barriers, plastic tape or barricades. This mish-mash of barriers is often confusing to the visitor, as

a broken gate can be interpreted as open or closed. Observations and interviews revealed that many

visitors moved temporary barricades or stepped over ropes. When this happened other visitors would

often follow. As one visitor said:

There were broken barriers and you could go into it. And to be honest we did go into them. But

there were footprints before, and you know that someone else had been in there. Not to mean

that this makes it any better but if they were fixed you wouldn’t go, you’d obviously know that

was a no-go zone.

For the most part, visitors obeyed the barriers and accepted that certain parts of the site are closed.

Some visitors interpreted the locked doors as a sign that excavation or conservation work was occurring. However some visitors, the closed and broken gates also represented neglect and a lack of

adequate maintenance and this left them with unsatisfactory visits.

Some of the sections were really well-preserved and well-presented and some were much more dilapidated than I expected. I think it’s a fine balance between having this site as an ongoing archaeological dig and a tourist attraction and I don’t think they have found that balance quite right. It didn’t feel as though it was there. It did seem like it wasn’t really cared for that much…I think I was expecting to be in awe more than I was. I mean it was fascinating and really, really interesting, but I don’t think I was as blown away as I was probably expecting.

The negative impact from visitor behaviour and management are due to visitors being unclear as to

what is or is not acceptable. Much of this damage could be lessened through active communication of

appropriate behaviours, providing clearer and more up-to-date information before they begin their visit, and regulating the enforcement of rules and regulations. While an initial investment would be

necessary to replace broken barriers and provide informational signs and panels, the long term

benefits would outweigh the costs. It must be kept in mind that barriers, fences, and a lack of

regulations are all communicating interpretive messages to visitors, even if not intentionally. Visitors

take this to mean that certain behaviours are acceptable, and feel that a distinct message of neglect

towards the site that is present which impacts how the visitors experience the site.

4 Presentation as a result of ‘meaningful collaboration’

In emerged in this research that visitors feel that the most valuable aspects and elements of Pompeii are the ability to get close with the site, its openness, the ability to ‘visualize’ the city as a whole, and the intact nature of the ruins. The potential to “bring the past to life” is central to the value visitors hold in their experiences while at Pompeii. However, the current visitor experience at Pompeii does not provide the necessary elements; thus visitors are left feeling frustrated and some are even disappointed. On-site interpretation should aim to orientate, engage and inform the visitor of a range of themes while diversifying the visitor experience thematically and physically. Directional signs and more detailed maps can be used to orientate and direct the visitor, while on-site panels can provide information on a variety of different topics. However, decisions regarding signs and other interpretation materials need to consider the varying backgrounds and expectations of visitors, as well as how any changes will affect the visitor experience. While this research has provided a starting point, it is essential that further visitor studies be conducted prior to any decisions being made otherwise the results can be catastrophic to the site. The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Archaeological Sites says that presentation and interpretation should be the result of ‘meaningful collaboration.’ This research shows just how important that is. While there is a need for a more complex interpretation strategy that utilizes the site more effectively and communicates to the diverse audiences to the site, this cannot be achieved without collaboration between various stakeholders. Pompeii is an active archaeological site, not a “city frozen in time.” Conservation work, condition assessments, and new research should be integrated into the current on-site interpretation but the decentralized approach to site management does not encourage collaboration between stakeholders and thus hinders the development and availability of interpretive information. While visitors have shown interest in these topics, there is currently no formal requirement for researchers to make their work available to non-academic audiences. Thus those who are producing the interpretation (tour guides, outsources companies) do not have the ability to stay up to date with current information, whether new research or house closures. Most importantly, for any interpretation and presentation strategy to be sustainable it must be continually assessed and reassessed, otherwise it risks becoming ineffective and outdated like the current presentation. This strategy would require active involvement from all aspects of site management and thus has the potential to create a forum for increased collaboration, which can only benefit Pompeii and its stakeholders.

Bibliographical Refrences 1 CASTELLANOS, C. & DESCAMPS, F. Conservation Management Planning: Putting Theory into Practice. The Case of Joya de Cerén, El Salvador. Los Angeles, The Getty Conservation Institute. 2009. 2 CUNLIFFE, S.. Tourism and Cultural Risk Management. In: BRIDGLAND, N. A. a. J. (ed.) Of the Past, For the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation. Los Angles: Getty Conservation Institute. 2006. 3 DEMAS, M. Planning for Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites: A Values Based Approach. In: PLAUMBO, J. T. a. G. (ed.) Management Planning for Archaeological Sites. Los Angles: Getty Conservation Institute. 2002. 4 SILBERMAN, N. & CALLEBAUT, D. Interpretation as Preservation: Rationale, Tools, and Challenges. In: BRIDGLAND, N. A. a. J. (ed.) Of the Past, For the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation. Los Angles: Getty Conservation Institute. 2006.

5 MASON, R. & AVRAMI, E. Heritage Values and Challenges of Conservation Planning. In: TEUTONICO, J. M. & PALUMBO, G. (eds.) Management Planning for Archaeological Sites. Los Angles: The Getty Conservation Institute. 2000. 6 Jones, K. & Maurer Longstreath, J. Pursuing the ZiNj strategy like there’s no tomorrow. In: LITTLE, B. (ed.) Public Benefits of Archaeology. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2002. 7 ICOMOS The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites 2007. 8 WALLACE, Alia. Presenting Pompeii: Steps towards Reconciling Conservation and Tourism at an Ancient Site.Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, v. 22, p. 115-136, feb. 2013 9 MOSCARDO, G Mindful Visitors: Heritage and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 23(2):376-397, 1996 10 LANGER, E. The Power of Mindful Learning. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. 1997. 11 TIMOTHY, D and BOYD, S Heritage Tourism. Harlow: Prentice Hall. 2003. 12 SILBERBERG, T. Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for Museums and Heritage Sites, Tourism Management v16 n5: 361–365. 1995. 13 LEVIN-RICHARDSON, S. Modern Tourists, Ancient Sexualities: Looking at Looking in Pompeii's Brothel and the Secret Cabinet. In: HALES, S. & PAUL, J. (eds.) Pompeii in the Public Imagination from its Rediscovery to Today. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011. 14 UNESCO Report on the Mission to the Archaeological areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata. Paris. Available online http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/829/documents/. 2011. 15 THOMPSON, J. Conservation and management challenges in a public/private partnership for a large archaeological site (Herculaneum, Italy). Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 8: 191-204. 2007 16 CEVOLI, T. I Flussi Turisici Come Fatore di Degrado del Bene Archeologico. Il casodi Pompei: Dati, Problematiche e Prospettive. Diagnosis for the Conservation and Valorization of Cultural Heritage. 2011