I visited Møns Klint on a beautiful summer day in 2016, followed by Stevns Klint (WHS) later that same day. While both are impressive, I remember talking to my fiancée about how Møns Klint should be a WHS (it wasn't even a TWHS at the time). It brings me again to a question I often wonder: some sites really have it all, but what makes a great WHS otherwise? Is it more about being spectacular even to a visitor who lacks background knowledge about the site's significance? Or does real value lie in historic/scientific/religious importance? 

I must admit it's often the former for me. To take this example, I understand and appreciate that Stevns Klint is more significant in terms of geology but the maximum height of its cliffs is about 40 meters, while some cliffs at Møns Klint rise to about 120 meters. Plus with the great hiking trails through the woods, the viewpoints, the rocky beach and the pristine waters, it's simply stunning, probably the most beautiful place I've seen in Denmark. I'm not challenging the status of Stevns Klint as a WHS, but if it's on the list, Møns Klint should be there too.