{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0237892948173322, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0237892948173322, 'mean_word_length': 5.367567567567567, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of the National Geographic Stewardship Scorecard Ratings by experts and stakeholders for selected World Heritage destinations

The National Geographic Society Center for Sustainable Destinations Stewardship Scorecards for 2003 and 2006 compared ratings by “experts” for 33 World Heritage Site destinations. Nine (27.3%) improved by four or more points and six (18.2%) decreased by four or more points in the three years. In 2006, local stakeholders rated these World Heritage destinations using the same criteria as the experts. Stakeholders rated six destinations (18.2%) lower and almost half of the 33 destinations (48.8%) increased by five or more points. A moderate positive correlation was determined between the ratings of the experts and stakeholders. Comments by experts and stakeholders related to each of the scorecard criterion measures were analyzed. ANOVA and t-test were performed to examine the six stakeholder categories ratings for each of the six criteria and the results are presented. The assumptions and limitations of the survey methodology are discussed along with recommendations for improving the Destination Stewardship Scorecard Survey.