Reframing the Intersections of Pilgrimage, Religious Tourism, and Sustainability

#

Reviewer comment

Author’s response

1

The topic is pertinent to this journal and provides a critique of some tourism models and concepts when are applied to pilgrimage destinations.

Thank you for the appreciation and the encouraging comment. 

2

However, the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are not clearly stated in the article text, so this must be revised. 

Agreed.

It is made explicit that this is a conceptual paper, and some rewriting has been done to reflect that. All the responses to the comments are tracked in the manuscript.

For instance, the later part of the abstract is modified as follows:

Given these inherent contradictions, the purpose of this conceptual paper is to question the notion of sustainability in the context of pilgrimage and religious tourism and discuss whether modern day pilgrimage and religious tourism can be structured and managed in a more sustainable manner. First, the authors discuss the existing academic literature on the positive and negative economics, socio- cultural, and environmental impacts of pilgrimage and religious tourism. The authors then question the validity of certain tourism-environment models, including the ‘Tourism Area Life Cycle’ and ‘Carrying Capacity’, in the context of pilgrimage and religious tourism, particularly as they apply to pilgrimage and religious tourism destinations do not typically show a decline in their visitor numbers. The authors then expand upon a conceptual model (see Shinde & Olsen, 2020) that can help scholars analyze the impacts of pilgrimage and religious tourism on pilgrim-towns. The authors conclude by contending that future discussions regarding sustainability in the context of pilgrimage and religious tourism should include religious and cultural constructs of what constitutes the tangible and intangible forms of sacredness of a place.

Similarly, the final para in the introduction also sets out the paper clearer now:

In this conceptual paper, the authors examine several academic approaches that attempt to operationalize the concept of sustainability and critique their usefulness and limitations in understanding sustainability in “pilgrim-towns”—a generic term used in this paper to designate a pilgrimage and religious tourism destination. After discussing the positive and negative economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of pilgrimage and religious tourism and reviewing the academics approaches noted above, the authors argue that conceptions of sustainability in a pilgrimage and religious tourism context must include religious and cultural constructs of what constitutes the sacredness of a place. The authors then expand upon a previously published model (Shinde & Olsen, 2020) that offers a more comprehensive approach to understanding sustainability issues in pilgrim-towns before concluding.

Likewise, in many places throughout the text, the key ideas from the paper are signposted. Please note that this is not a quantitative or qualitative paper based on empirical data and therefore some of the comments related to hypothesis and methods are not applicable.

#

Reviewer comment

Author’s response

1

This text is very well structured, and the authors show a great expertise in the subject. Nevertheless, the paper is not convincing. Despite the quality of the vast knowledge of the literature and the subject, the argumentation clearly lacks one step, if not two. I wonder if the authors have run out of space in the paper, but there is a real qualitative and argumentative leap between the first half of the article and the second part with a last third that goes full steam ahead, leaving the reader wanting more. 

Thank you for the appreciation and the encouraging comment about the structure and knowledge.

We agree with the comments about the jump and the apparent disconnect between the sections.

We have mentioned explicitly that this is a conceptual paper, and some rewriting has been done to reflect that. All the responses to the comments are tracked in the manuscript.

For instance, the later part of the abstract is modified as follows:

Given these inherent contradictions, the purpose of this conceptual paper is to question the notion of sustainability in the context of pilgrimage and religious tourism and discuss whether modern day pilgrimage and religious tourism can be structured and managed in a more sustainable manner. First, the authors discuss the existing academic literature on the positive and negative economics, socio- cultural, and environmental impacts of pilgrimage and religious tourism. The authors then question the validity of certain tourism-environment models, including the ‘Tourism Area Life Cycle’ and ‘Carrying Capacity’, in the context of pilgrimage and religious tourism, particularly as they apply to pilgrimage and religious tourism destinations do not typically show a decline in their visitor numbers. The authors then expand upon a conceptual model (see Shinde & Olsen, 2020) that can help scholars analyze the impacts of pilgrimage and religious tourism on pilgrim-towns. The authors conclude by contending that future discussions regarding sustainability in the context of pilgrimage and religious tourism should include religious and cultural constructs of what constitutes the tangible and intangible forms of sacredness of a place.

Similarly, the final para in the introduction also sets out the paper clearer now:

In this conceptual paper, the authors examine several academic approaches that attempt to operationalize the concept of sustainability and critique their usefulness and limitations in understanding sustainability in “pilgrim-towns”—a generic term used in this paper to designate a pilgrimage and religious tourism destination. After discussing the positive and negative economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of pilgrimage and religious tourism and reviewing the academics approaches noted above, the authors argue that conceptions of sustainability in a pilgrimage and religious tourism context must include religious and cultural constructs of what constitutes the sacredness of a place. The authors then expand upon a previously published model (Shinde & Olsen, 2020) that offers a more comprehensive approach to understanding sustainability issues in pilgrim-towns before concluding.

2

The question that arises is simply how a "revised" model appears at the end of the article? What is it revised from? since the previous figure does not correspond in any way to the second model. Many concepts are noted in this revised model, but little or nothing is written about these concepts in the article. One has the impression that it appears like the rabbit out of the magician's hat. At least the first graph should be presented, explained and then the revised model should be shown, otherwise one does not understand. The different concepts that come into play should also be made explicit in the text of the paper in their functioning with concrete cases. This is the second weak point of the article. There is no new or original data presented. Yet the article starts out as a field article, but it quickly moves away from this and never returns to it again, except with small examples taken here and there.

Agree with the comments about the confusion and the problems arising because we did not include the earlier model. In fact, these comments helped us to revisit our proposed model and accordingly, we have revised the proposed model as well. We agree that there is no new data – we believe that is not required because what we are trying to do is present new conceptualisation in this conceptual paper and therefore use several examples to illustrate the key ideas.

In the revised manuscript, we provide more clarity by including the previous model and discussing that. Then we include more explanation about the need to revise that approach. Finally, we propose a new revised version of that model to understand sustainability in pilgrim-towns and sacred places. These changes are tracked in the manuscript.  

So, the revised section reads as follows:

The authors content that sustainability should be reframed as the ability of a place to sustain its sacredness or “sense of place” [30] and the ability of people—both visitors and residents—to observe and/or participate in rituals related to the sacred. However, the question arises as to how to best understand sustainability in the context of pilgrimage, religious tourism, and sacred places in a more holistic manner, incorporating the three pillars of travel as discussed above. In this vein, Shinde and Olsen [1] proposed a basic model for understanding the ecosystem of pilgrim-towns (see Figure 1). In this model, they argued that sacred places are “specific environments that connect elements of nature with sacred values using belief systems, mythology, cosmology, history, and culture involving religious faiths” and thus contain a “unique spirit of place” that attracts visitors who wish to partake in divine experiences [1]. Because of their importance as landscapes of hope and salvation, the act of travelling to “these sacred and religious places in and of itself becomes the cause of change in their physical and spiritual nature” [1]. They argue that the resulting transformation or change that comes from pilgrim and religious tourist visitation depends largely on the ways in which religious and governmental institutions—as arbiters of growth strategies and therefore the environmental state of a pilgrim-town— mediate visitor experiences with the sacred. This mediation process is dialectical and leads to a continuous dialogue and shift relationship between the people who visit pilgrim-towns, the people that live there, and the institutions that manage the sacred [1]. As such, the model highlights the importance of institutions that mediate the sacred and are responsible for policy-making and environmental sustainability because of their role in pilgrim-town governance. The model also implicitly suggests that active religious practices in a pilgrim-town will generate a different set of sustainability issues in a pilgrim-town versus a tourism destination.

Figure 1.A conceptual model of the relationships between religion, tourism, and the environment proposed by Shinde and Olsen. [1]

                While the focus on institutions in this model helps scholars and stakeholders better understand the ways in which sustainability is addressed in pilgrim-towns and by whom, based on the critical review presented in the previous sections, the authors propose to revise their model. The revision is also prompted by the need to include two additions, both of which account for major disruptive events such as the COVID-19 pandemic: “disruption” and “resilience”. (See Figure 2.) Events such as the COVID-19 pandemic or a similar disaster or event at various scales can severely affect the ability of different types of institutions to perform their normative roles, which can lead to the disruption of movement to and rituals performed in pilgrim-towns [81] as well as the pilgrimage economy at these destinations [82]. For instance, many media articles contained photographs of empty sacred sites due to government restrictions on movement [4]. In some cases, with special permission, symbolic pilgrimages, such as the one performed at the 2021 Hajj (limited to one thousand pilgrims), were staged to give spiritual and moral support to believers around the world [82,83]. However, most pilgrim-towns survived, at least economically, because many religious communities of them quickly adapted to the lack of visitors. For example, virtual prayers and pilgrimages and live streaming of rituals led to increased virtual visitation to religious sites, which at some level also increased donations to religious organizations [4]. In fact, as soon as travel restrictions were lifted, pilgrims and religious tourists flocked to pilgrim-towns. For example, despite efforts to curtail the number of pilgrims attending the famous Char-Dham Yatra in north India and the 2021 Kumbha Mela, hundreds of thousands of pilgrims showed up to participate in these mass religious events [84].

                The resilience potential that a pilgrim-town have in the face of disruptions such as pandemics and natural disasters, therefore, depends on the resilience of the institutions, which can be defined as their capacity to absorb the impacts and bounce back disruptions. While disruptions affects the ability of institutions to perform their normative roles and that causes widespread disruption [81], strong, resilient institutions can help pilgrim-towns rebound quickly to pre-disruption levels of development. For example, religious institutions exert significant religious authority within the socio-cultural milieu of a pilgrim-town. In addition, while the pandemic disrupted the material movement of pilgrimage and religious tourism, it did not change the views that people had regarding the sacrality of pilgrim-towns. Indeed, as “landscapes of hope”, pilgrim-towns were seen as beacons of light in a world drowning in despair and sorrow. The religious, cultural, and social interactions among the local community who is the custodian of the place and with the pilgrims and devotees reinforce the sacredness and divine image of the place. This constitutes the sacred core and the spirit of the place. As such, physical disruptions cannot change the cultural imagination of a sacred place, and this is truly where its resilience lies. Therefore, it is only a matter of time when resilient religious institutions, through beliefs and practices, will adapt to the new circumstances and reproduce, albeit, in some different forms, the very nature of sanctity of the place which will continue to attract pilgrims and tourists alike. In that sense, disruptions allow for new ways of producing the place while regenerating the old traditions and practices that are relevant to the image of the place.

Figure 2. Revised model for understanding sustainability in sacred places

3

Moreover a little interesting detail. In the introduction, the authors could have noted that the Covid-19 pandemic began in France with a religious "pilgrimage", since it was during a week of fasting and prayer organised annually by the "Porte Ouverte" (a mega-church in Mulhouse) in February 2020 that the pandemic spread throughout France and the French-speaking world, leading the hospital in the town of Mulhouse to be saturated for a year with helicopters, military planes and medical trains that came to collect the sick persons to transport them to other hospital (in France, Germany and Switzerland). These events had a strong impact in France.

Thank you for this helpful detail. This has been added to provide more of a European context as well.

#

Reviewer comment

Author’s response

1

My main reservation is that the generalisations do not work in the context of the European region. Because there is extensive competition between pilgrimage centres in this region visitors to particular shrines can fluctuate quite dramatically. For example, at Lourdes declining visitor numbers led to the local bishop appointing in 2016 a lay financial expert to improve the sanctuary's economic position. An official audit showed a decline of around 25% over the previous five years and between the highest point reached in 2008 of almost 1.2 million when the pope visited the numbers had almost halved by 2014. In contrast, those visiting Santiago and Fatima rose by almost 50% in the same period. 

In other words, pilgrimage flows within the European region are highly variable with visitor numbers rising in some "pilgrim-towns" while declining at others. 

Agreed. Some rewriting has been done to reflect this point at relevant places in the text. All the responses to the comments are tracked in the manuscript.

For instance, in section 3, we have revised the sentence as:

These critiques are the reason why this model is not the best model to use to understand sustainability issues in pilgrim-towns, as it cannot account for the fact that despite continuously increasing influx of visitors, pilgrim-towns generally do not see a decline of visitors due to negative economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts, particularly those pilgrim towns located outside of Europe and North America.

In conclusion section, the following para is added:

The conceptualization presented in this paper applies best to the pilgrim-towns that have a continuous and regular flow of visitors and thereby a robust pilgrimage economy and that causes severe impacts. It is likely that the generalizations in the model may only be partially relevant to many other contexts such as places where religious practice is in decline or being supplanted by more secular visitors, where ideologies and actions of religious institutions are formally incorporated governance systems, or where destinations are situated within a wider network of tourist destinations. Notwithstanding these limitations, the suggested model provides an alternative way of thinking about sustainability in places that are rich in religious and cultural heritage.

2

Generalisations about the informal economy, social status and commodification also need to be nuanced since they do not map neatly onto the European region

Agreed.

This point has also been incorporated as mentioned above.

3

The relationship between these destinations and the wider economy needs to be explored more since destinations like Santiago and Lourdes are part of a wider provincial economy. Lourdes, for example, attracts more than just pilgrims - people come for skiing outside the pilgrimage season, others visit the national park nearby and 'health tourists' are attracted by the various spas nearby helping to revive pilgrimage centres which had declined in face of Lourdes' emergence during the second half of the 19th century as an international shrine. 

Agreed. Revised the conclusion section to reflect these nuances:

The conceptualization presented in this paper applies best to the pilgrim-towns that have a continuous and regular flow of visitors and thereby a robust pilgrimage economy and that causes severe impacts. It is likely that the generalizations in the model may only be partially relevant to many other contexts such as places where religious practice is in decline or being supplanted by more secular visitors, where ideologies and actions of religious institutions are formally incorporated governance systems, or where destinations are situated within a wider network of tourist destinations. Notwithstanding these limitations, the suggested model provides an alternative way of thinking about sustainability in places that are rich in religious and cultural heritage.

4

Reference to the revival of visitors numbers  from line 437 needs to be nuanced since it appears that people in the European region have not "flocked to pilgrim-towns" in the same way as they have in India. 

Agreed. That sentence is qualified as:

As soon as travel restrictions were lifted, pilgrims and religious tourists flocked to pilgrim-towns, particularly in Asia

5

In sum, then, this is a strong paper but its generalisations need to be more nuanced given the significant differences between regions around the world. I have focused here on the region where I have considerable knowledge but there are other important regions which could also be considered such as Latin America and West Africa where pilgrimage plays a significant economic role. 

Agreed. Revised the conclusion section to reflect these nuances:

The conceptualization presented in this paper applies best to the pilgrim-towns that have a continuous and regular flow of visitors and thereby a robust pilgrimage economy and that causes severe impacts. It is likely that the generalizations in the model may only be partially relevant to many other contexts such as places where religious practice is in decline or being supplanted by more secular visitors, where ideologies and actions of religious institutions are formally incorporated governance systems, or where destinations are situated within a wider network of tourist destinations. Notwithstanding these limitations, the suggested model provides an alternative way of thinking about sustainability in places that are rich in religious and cultural heritage.