Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
State of Conservation Search

State of Conservation

5
Reports
2
Properties concerned
1
States Parties with SOC reports
bar_chart Statistics view_list List table_chart Table pin_drop Map
Excel File .xls All SOC (Zip file) .zip
Date end:2002close
States Parties: Iran (Islamic Republic of)close
Meidan Emam, Esfahan (2002)
States Parties: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Year: 2002
Document Source: WHC-02/CONF.201/11Rev,WHC-02/CONF.202/17
Threats*: Commercial development Management systems/ management plan
Meidan Emam, Esfahan (1995)
States Parties: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Year: 1995
Document Source: WHC-95/CONF.201/4,WHC-95/CONF.203/5,WHC-95/CONF.203/5 Add.1
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure Management systems/ management plan
Tchogha Zanbil (2000)
States Parties: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Year: 2000
Document Source: WHC-2000/CONF.202/5
Threats*: Relative humidity Water (rain/water table)
Other Threats: structural problems
Tchogha Zanbil (1998)
States Parties: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Year: 1998
Document Source: WHC-98/CONF.201/3B
Threats*: Management activities Relative humidity Water (rain/water table)
Other Threats: absence of a viable method for sustainable conservation of the mud-brick structures; structural problems
Tchogha Zanbil (1995)
States Parties: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Year: 1995
Document Source: WHC-95/CONF.201/4
Threats*: Management activities Water (rain/water table)
Other Threats: absence of a viable method for sustainable conservation of the mud-brick structures; structural problems
Properties
file_download
Categories
file_download
Regions
file_download
States Parties
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Threats
Water (rain/water table) 3 Relative humidity 2 Management activities 2 Management systems/ management plan 2 Commercial development 1 Ground transport infrastructure 1

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top