In Search of New Dimensions for Religious Tourism: The Case of the Ancient City of Nessebar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nowadays, religious tourism is an enormous field of scholarship, hugely grown during the last 3 decades. Just over the last 6-7 years, more than ten bibliometric analyses were conducted to describe this phenomenon in various scientific journals (social sciences, geography, environmental sciences, tourism studies, economies, politics etc.). Author(s) mentioned one, by the way.

I sometimes wonder if something new could be really added but after reviewing several articles in the field, I realize that the angles of analysis are quite never-ending.

Strengths

This article touches on several core problems of the relationship between the heritage of religious interest, its use/reuse, its conservation, the tourism motivated by culture and/or by faith, WH inscriptions, and the competition among different mainstream or niches of tourism.

Another important issue raised by the article is the interconnection between global and local governance: there is the entanglement of different kinds of institutions, such as destination management organizations, religious and secular institutions, cultural institutions, and global nongovernmental organizations.

Not to be skipped: a case study on Bulgarian historical and religious heritage is welcome for having published materials in English necessary for international comparison and a large coverage of European space.

Weakness

A general problem of the article concerns its confused theoretical frame that is not well defined and delimited from a disciplinary point of view. This is quite visible in the literature used: sources are not critically presented at the point of being in some cases also inaccurate (e.g. n. 15). Probably, it should be better addressed the differences between being a religious tourism destination and spiritual/spirituality centers, explaining which was the “glorious” period of pilgrimage… providing or explaining a timeline somewhere.

Spirituality in tourism and cultural heritage properties is a modern and post-modern approach to religious spaces and buildings, which is theoretically framed into the post-cultural environment. It is explained how the Author(s) apprehend this, but without theoretical references to the post-culturalism (?), it is difficult to grasp. Why this choice of post-cultural? Heritage is perhaps one of the biggest dispositive of globalization, but a culture of consumerism, filtered through neoliberalism of experience economy and tourism, is still a culture.

Finally, despite some references to communities’ stakeholders, they are not better defined or interviewed or asked for a community-based approach to WH list properties maintenance and tourism products development.

Suggestions

The article is quite far from publication characteristics and needs a large revision in the sense of clarifying and shrinking the purpose of choosing which angle to privilege. What are the reasons for the failure of previous projects? An old but useful for Authors SWAT analysis? Are there some good practices to be considered?

More systematization in presenting the projects involving the city of Nessebar: Faith in Nessebar, the trails, the itineraries could be a starting point. Clarifying to the Authors themselves which the niche of religious/spiritual/heritage tourism could be addressed with the properties the city owns.

In general, I would suggest to look at the Critical Heritage Studies (e.g. Harrison, Watson, …) because the case study needs to be framed not just in religious studies literature but above all in the CHS.

Here are some punctual (not exhaustive) issues:

ll. 32-33              “…  has created a unique and challenging landscape”: it is not clear what means landscape in this case: proper or metaphorical? If proper, better townscape. If landscape is used in a metaphorical, it is necessary to refer to some theoretical framework: history? Anthropology? Geography? This is the same problem as the line 59.

ll. 144-145         which was the great period of pilgrimages?

ll. 209-219,       when statistical data are presented, they have to be correctly referenced: even if the analysis comes from unpublished material, readers must have the possibility to check the source.

l. 276    pls, provide reference for UNESCO Reactive Monitoring Report (2018).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally, the English is correct. Some revision and editing will enhance the consistency, 

Author Response

Comments 1: Nowadays, religious tourism is an enormous field of scholarship, hugely grown during the last 3 decades. Just over the last 6-7 years, more than ten bibliometric analyses were conducted to describe this phenomenon in various scientific journals (social sciences, geography, environmental sciences, tourism studies, economies, politics etc.). Author(s) mentioned one, by the way.

I sometimes wonder if something new could be really added but after reviewing several articles in the field, I realize that the angles of analysis are quite never-ending.

 

Response 1: We totally agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the literature review with more bibliometric analysis on the topic updating the referencing list. 

Added is text to show the evolving area of latest research studies and shifts on research topics. This is supported by additional considered publications in the field, covering the period 2018-2024.

In introduction is added (l. 50-55).

Introduction was reworked (ll. 20-23; 33-38; 39-42) and text referring to CHS (ll. 50-55)

Theoretical insights from Critical Heritage Studies (CHS) enable us to consider heritage not as static, preserved relics, but as dynamic processes shaped by socio-cultural, political, and economic factors [4]. This perspective emphasizes the processual nature of heritage, acknowledging that religious heritage sites evolve and acquire new meanings as they adapt to tourism, globalization, cultural shifts [5].

 

 

The additionally considered studies cover the period 2018-2024:

Durán-Sánchez A., Álvarez-García J., del Río-Rama M. D. L. C., Oliveira C., "Religious tourism and pilgrimage: Bibliometric overview," Religions, vol. 9, no. 9, 2018.

Heidari A., Yazdani H.R., Saghafi F., Jalilvand M.R, "The perspective of religious and spiritual tourism research: a systematic mapping study," Journal of Islamic Marketing, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 747-798, 2018.

Das A., Kondasani R.K.R.,Deb R., "Religious tourism: a bibliometric and network analysis," Tourism Review, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 622-634, 2024.

İ. Yala, "Bibliometric Analysis of Literature on Religious Tourism in Web of Science," Journal of Tourism & Gastronomy Studies, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1844-1856, 2023.

2018. G. Rashid, "Religious tourism–a review of the literature," Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 150-167, 2018.

Waterton E., Watson S., "Framing theory: towards a critical imagination in heritage studies," International Journal of Heritage Studies, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 546-561, 2013.

Harrison, "Heritage and Globalization," in The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research., London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, pp. 297-312.

Smith, Uses of Heritage, Routledge, 2006.

Harrison, "The politics of heritage.," in Understanding the politics of heritage, vol. 5, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2010, pp. 154-196.

Askew, "The magic list of global status: UNESCO, World Heritage and the agendas of states.," in Heritage and globalisation, Routledge., 2010, pp. 33-58.

Luleva, "The Ancient city of Nessebar between the Outstanding universal value and the Tourist Indsutry. An Ethographic study of a conflict," Anthropology , vol. 1, 2014.

McDowell, "Heritage, memory and identity," in The Routledge Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, Routledge, 2016, pp. 37-53.

 

Comments 2: A general problem of the article concerns its confused theoretical frame that is not well defined and delimited from a disciplinary point of view. This is quite visible in the literature used: sources are not critically presented at the point of being in some cases also inaccurate (e.g. n. 15). Probably, it should be better addressed the differences between being a religious tourism destination and spiritual/spirituality centers, explaining which was the “glorious” period of pilgrimage… providing or explaining a timeline somewhere.

 

Response 2: Agree. Please see Response 1. about updated literature.

The section with Literature Review is extended in order clearly to frame the article within Critical Heritage Studies, related to the Nessebar case study. (ll. 122-137; 140-146; 172-181;

The theoretical framework is enriched with advances from Critical Heritage Studies and suggested authors. In fact, this is most valuable input that helped to structure of the text. (ll. 227-232)

New texts are added in discussion section (ll. 462-494), referring to the theoretical framework.

 

The “glorious” period is explained with new texts giving insights about contextual historical development adding a timeline. See ll. 193-197

 

Comments 3 : Spirituality in tourism and cultural heritage properties is a modern and post-modern approach to religious spaces and buildings, which is theoretically framed into the post-cultural environment. It is explained how the Author(s) apprehend this, but without theoretical references to the post-culturalism (?), it is difficult to grasp. Why this choice of post-cultural? Heritage is perhaps one of the biggest dispositive of globalization, but a culture of consumerism, filtered through neoliberalism of experience economy and tourism, is still a culture.

 

Response 3: Agree. We have reconsidered the use of post-cultural environment.

The original intention was to highlight the evolving context in which traditional religious practices and sites are being adapted in response to modern tourism demands. The term post-cultural was applied to emphasize the blending of cultural heritage with contemporary tourism dynamics, where the sacred-secular boundary becomes more fluid.

However, in the specific context of Nessebar, this terminology may not be entirely appropriate, as the city has long since transitioned from a purely religious and pilgrimage site to a more multifaceted cultural environment. To better reflect the manuscript's focus on religious and cultural heritage tourism we have changed the title and made revisions in texts, mentioning post-cultural environment without theoretical references.

The title is also changed, omitting the term “post-cultural”

 

Comments 4: Finally, despite some references to communities’ stakeholders, they are not better defined or interviewed or asked for a community-based approach to WH list properties maintenance and tourism products development.

Response 4: This is clearly outlined as limitation of the study.

“The position and opinion of different stakeholders is not directly addressed, rather considered based on secondary available data and previous publications on the topic.”

Added is also text, based on previous studies on the topic. (ll.210-221)

“Local community involvement is crucial for the sustainable management of heritage sites, especially in the context of Nessebar, where the residents have a long-standing connection to their town’s cultural and spiritual legacy (Luleva, 2015). Activating local stakeholders through a community-based management approach could alleviate tensions between heritage preservation and economic interests, allowing for a more inclusive process that considers local needs alongside UNESCOs global conservation standards. This approach emphasizes the importance of community-based approach. “

 

Comments 5: The article is quite far from publication characteristics and needs a large revision in the sense of clarifying and shrinking the purpose of choosing which angle to privilege. What are the reasons for the failure of previous projects? An old but useful for Authors SWAT analysis? Are there some good practices to be considered?

The min angle is analysis of the adaptive reuse of religious sites, the impact of UNESCO recognition on local tourism, or the intersection of religious and mass tourism in Nessebar. Added is theoretical background explaining the complexity and challenges, inclusive those related to the previous projects. Critical heritage studies along with the specific historical context underline that despite the rich heritage, the religious and pilgrim tourism is difficult to be rejuvenated in the narrow understanding of the terms.

The failure of previous projects are addressed from CHS lens, see ll. 371-378

A SWOT analysis is included to evaluate how the religious and cultural heritage of Nessebar can be best utilized, considering the affective and performative dimensions of tourism, as well as the community’s role in preserving the site’s spiritual and historical significance. (ll. 386, Table 3)

Comments 6: More systematization in presenting the projects involving the city of Nessebar: Faith in Nessebar, the trails, the itineraries could be a starting point. Clarifying to the Authors themselves which the niche of religious/spiritual/heritage tourism could be addressed with the properties the city owns.

In general, I would suggest to look at the Critical Heritage Studies (e.g. Harrison, Watson, …) because the case study needs to be framed not just in religious studies literature but above all in the CHS.

 

Response 6. The historical and architectural significance of Nessebar's churches appeals to visitors interested in the cultural heritage of religious sites. However, the potential for religious (pilgrimage) tourism is quite limited due to the significant decline in religious practices after the early 19th century. Instead, there is an opportunity to develop spiritual tourism by attracting visitors seeking reflection and a deeper connection with historical spirituality. The analyzed project is just an example of unsuccessful attempt to develop religious tourism

From a governance perspective, the focus is on the adaptive reuse and conservation of these religious sites, highlighting them as integral elements of the broader cultural heritage narrative

 

Comments 7: ll. 32-33     “…  has created a unique and challenging landscape”: it is not clear what means landscape in this case: proper or metaphorical? If proper, better townscape. If landscape is used in a metaphorical, it is necessary to refer to some theoretical framework: history? Anthropology? Geography? This is the same problem as the line 59.

 

Response 7: Agree, the text is changed by taking the term landscape as not very precise and clear.

 

Comments 8. ll. 144-145                which was the great period of pilgrimages?

Response 8: Traditional pilgrimages to Nessebar, often referred to as a 'miniature Constantinople,' likely began in the Early Christian period and continued through the Middle Ages, but they ceased during the Ottoman rule

More text is added in ll. 406-408; 411-418; 421-425

 

Comments 9. ll. 209-219,               when statistical data are presented, they have to be correctly referenced: even if the analysis comes from unpublished material, readers must have the possibility to check the source.

Response 9: Completely agree. The text is taken away as not relevant to Nessebar case study, but at national level.

Comments 10. l. 276       pls, provide reference for UNESCO Reactive Monitoring Report (2018).

Response 10. Done

https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/175150/

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of research is interesting as much as the case study chosen. The references are well-chosen and actual. The data on frequency of visitation is interested as much as the other official documents concerning the development of tourism. However, I have serious doubts when it comes to the aim and findings. I do not find the aim and methods clearly stated. There is lack of precised information on the routes proposed within the town as well as the map-base information on the spatial aspects of the town in question. As there is a problem of overtourism I suppose already because of the mass tourism initiated fromthe nearby resort, and majorly heritage-based form of tourism, I can not see the potential to develop religious-based forms of tourism in the town. You did not mention the stakeholders who are responsible for the development of tourism in the town, neither you mentioned exactly how these religious forms of tourism could be developed.  Also the doscission part includes some of the results and none discussion with other authors while the results include some other authors' mentioned.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 35 - tourism with small letter; 

and what follows: along with the under-explored potential to enrich the cultural and heritage with religious tourism, in a new post-cultural environment. - you mean its potential (Nessebyr?)

The UNESCO recognition, requires special approach in balancing 37 its (the town...)...

Line 48: ten properties cultural and natural properties

Line 58: the World Heritage site of Ancient Nessebar in response to the evolving landscape of religious tourism - and I would prefer if you would say here who manages the site ventually not WH site (as it is only the recognition of the site)

line 79 - An overall analysis of the Bulgarian properties of religious interest inscribed on the WH list – regarding their current function and access. (What is it? It is not the full sentence)

line 87 - the same problem as above - Statistical analysis of visitor data for churches repurposed as museums to identify trends and patterns. - the sentence missing the verb

Line 127 - This niche this become highly explored by supply side in 127 search of new customer segments  (Has?)

Line 164 Religious tourism offers a multifaceted experience that goes beyond the purely devotional one, fostering cultural exploration enriching tourists understanding of the local heritage

Line 180 Product Analysis of Cultural Tourism - is it the title - then should be put in italics e.g.

Line 190 The the

Line 261 was overall complex, was not entirely understandable  (Grammar: double "was")

Line 278 While only thirteen remain, including runs, these structures, dating from the 5th to 19th centuries. (grammar here does not make sense out of the sentence)

Table 2: not assess but access

Line 313: are lapidary form in open public spaces (I do not think this is correct style

Line 400 not Dormition - rather Assumption

Line 404- tours

Author Response

Comments 1: The topic of research is interesting as much as the case study chosen. The references are well-chosen and actual. The data on frequency of visitation is interested as much as the other official documents concerning the development of tourism. However, I have serious doubts when it comes to the aim and findings. I do not find the aim and methods clearly stated

Response 1: The text is improved, see section 2 2. Materials and Methods ll. 70-122.

 

Comments 2: There is lack of precised information on the routes proposed within the town as well as the map-base information on the spatial aspects of the town in question.

Response 2: The project is considered a failure and the proposed routes are only in paper. This is explained and grounded with theoretical background. See ll.373-380

 

Comments 3: As there is a problem of overtourism I suppose already because of the mass tourism initiated from the nearby resort, and majorly heritage-based form of tourism, I can not see the potential to develop religious-based forms of tourism in the town

Response 3: Added text in conclusion, see ll. 597-605

Religious tourism has the potential to attract a different demographic, focusing on individuals and smaller groups who seek spiritual reflection, cultural education, and heritage appreciation. Religious tourism can be strategically developed as an off-peak or shoulder season attraction. This shift towards quality over quantity can alleviate the pressure of overtourism by attracting visitors interested in a more in-depth experience. The adaptive reuse of religious sites offers an opportunity to create unique experiences that blend religious heritage with cultural and event activities. This can add value and enrich visitors’ experience. Developing religious tourism with an emphasis on sustainability involves engaging local communities and stakeholders in the process.

 

Comments 4: You did not mention the stakeholders who are responsible for the development of tourism in the town, neither you mentioned exactly how these religious forms of tourism could be developed. 

 

Response 4: We do mention the tension between global, national and local governance. The stakeholders responsible for tourism development are not in focus, but we underline the importance of collaboration (see ll. 606-608)

The role of stakeholders is also added in ll, 214-226

Improved are the conclusion and discussion sections, text in red, ll.589-592, ll. 468-501

 

Comments 5: Also the discussion part includes some of the results and none discussion with other authors while the results include some other authors' mentioned.

Response 5: Entire discussion section is reworked. See ll. , ll. 468-501

 

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:  Line 35 - tourism with small letter; and what follows: along with the under-explored potential to enrich the cultural and heritage with religious tourism, in a new post-cultural environment. - you mean its potential (Nessebyr?)

Response 1:    (in red)

Thank you for pointing this out. We have improved the sentence. Yes, we mean “Nessebar” [ll 34-39 ]

 

Point 2: The UNESCO recognition, requires special approach in balancing 37 its (the town...)...

Response 2:    We agree. We have improved it. [ll 40-44]

 

Point 3: Line 48: ten properties cultural and natural properties

Response 3:    Thank you. Corrected. [ll 45]

 

Point 4: Line 58: the World Heritage site of Ancient Nessebar in response to the evolving landscape of religious tourism - and I would prefer if you would say here who manages the site ventually not WH site (as it is only the recognition of the site)

Response 4:     We agree. The text is improved [ll 62-63]

 

Point 5: line 79 - An overall analysis of the Bulgarian properties of religious interest inscribed on the WH list – regarding their current function and access. (What is it? It is not the full sentence)

Response 5:    Thank you. The sentence has been improved [ll 98-99]

 

Point 6: line 87 - the same problem as above - Statistical analysis of visitor data for churches repurposed as museums to identify trends and patterns. - the sentence missing the verb

Response 6:   Thank you. The sentence has been improved [ll 106-107]

 

Point 7: Line 127 - This niche this become highly explored by supply side in 127 search of new customer segments  (Has?)

Response 7:   Thank you. The sentence has been improved [ll 168-169]

 

Point 8: Line 164 Religious tourism offers a multifaceted experience that goes beyond the purely devotional one, fostering cultural exploration enriching tourists understanding of the local heritage

Response 8:    Thank you. The sentence has been improved [ll 226-227]

 

Point 9: Line 180 Product Analysis of Cultural Tourism - is it the title - then should be put in italics e.g.

Response 9:   Thank you. The sentence has been improved [l 249]

 

Point 10: Line 190 The the

Response 10:   Thank you. The sentence has been improved [l 258]

 

Point 11: Line 261 was overall complex, was not entirely understandable  (Grammar: double "was")

Response 11:   Thank you. The sentence has been improved [l 377-378]

 

Point 12: Line 278 While only thirteen remain, including runs, these structures, dating from the 5th to 19th centuries. (grammar here does not make sense out of the sentence)

Response 12: Thank you. The sentence has been improved [ll 403-404]

 

Point 13: Table 2: not assess but access

Response 13:   Thank you. Corrected [Table 4]

 

Point 14: Line 313: are lapidary form in open public spaces (I do not think this is correct style

Response 14:  Thank you. Improved [l 453]

 

Point 15: Line 400 not Dormition - rather Assumption

 

Response 15: Thank you. Improved [l 575]

 

Point 16: Line 404- tours

 

Response 16:  Thank you. Corrected [l 582]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is an interesting case study of the religious heritage of the ancient city of Nessebar in Bulgaria.

I have no negative comments on the text.

I suggest to pay attention to it and possibly improve a few things:

Line 35: why the capital 'tourism'?

Line 47: "the State Party" refers to BKL?

Lines 127-128: are you sure this sentence is correct?

Table 2 - I suggest numbering the objects - churches (1-13)

Table 3 - I suggest that the visitors data for 2022 be updated and that 2023 be added. This is justified as the 2023 data is mentioned below (line 377).

I propose to consider providing information on the actual and potential sources of (co-)funding for the protection of the religious places and sites analysed.

Author Response

Comments 1: I suggest to pay attention to it and possibly improve a few things:

Line 35: why the capital 'tourism'?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the whole sentence.

 

Comments 2: Line 47: "the State Party" refers to BKL?

Response 2: Agree. We have replaced “the State Party” with “the country” [ll 44]

 

Comments 3: Lines 127-128: are you sure this sentence is correct?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the sentence to: “This niche has become highly explored a new customer segment”  [ll 168-169]

 

Comments 4: Table 2 - I suggest numbering the objects - churches (1-13)

Response 4: Improved  [ll. 11-12]

 

Comments 5: Table 3 - I suggest that the visitors data for 2022 be updated and that 2023 be added. This is justified as the 2023 data is mentioned below (line 377).

Response 5: We totally agree. The visitor’s data for 2022 be updated and that 2023 will give added value. But unfortunately, we are not able to provide it.

 

Comments 6: I propose to consider providing information on the actual and potential sources of (co-)funding for the protection of the religious places and sites analysed.

Response 6: Thank you for your consideration. We will take it into our account in our future research work 

 

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 1:  the reworked text is in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

now the focus of your paper is clear and you have more deeply engaged with the materials you had. 

You engaged with all the remarks I gave and I feel satisfied with the answers and the work you did. I felt your materials were deeper than the first text you presented. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English seems to me fair, not being an English native-speaker. I had no problems of comprehension and did not detect rough mistakes. 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: now the focus of your paper is clear and you have more deeply engaged with the materials you had.  You engaged with all the remarks I gave and I feel satisfied with the answers and the work you did. I felt your materials were deeper than the first text you presented. 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback. We are pleased to hear that the focus of our paper is now clearer and that our engagement with the materials has improved. Your comments were invaluable in guiding our revisions, and we are glad that the changes we made have addressed your concerns.

Comment 2: The quality of English seems to me fair, not being an English native-speaker. I had no problems of comprehension and did not detect rough mistakes. 

Response 2: We have made minor revisions to further improve clarity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

226-229 lines - there is a repetition in two subsequent sentences;

RIla monastery - it i not clear its function - it seems to keep religious function acc.to table 2 but in table 1  th "no" is mentioned when it comes to its original function. Is it correct? 

in SWOT table nr 3 it should be STRENGHTS and WEAKNESSES 

Points 2 and 2 under Opportunities in Table 3 are rather proposals for strategies not real opportunities created by the trends in the environment;

485 line on the religious filed - did you mean "field"?

Author Response

Comment 1: 226-229 lines - there is a repetition in two subsequent sentences;

Response 1: the text was improved to avoid repetition incorporating the reference for better understanding and clarity (ll.226-229). The text now is:

"According to Waterton and Watson, the so-called “in heritage” theories [4] provide tools to evaluate tourism and management effectiveness, focusing on economic aspects such as visitor numbers and profits. In contrast, “of heritage” theories analyze heritage as a social and cultural phenomenon [4]."

 

Comment 2: RIla monastery - it i not clear its function - it seems to keep religious function acc.to table 2 but in table 1  th "no" is mentioned when it comes to its original function. Is it correct? 

Response 2:  corrected in Table 1 as active. The Rila Monastery is both active monastery and UNESCO heritage site.

 

Comment 3: in SWOT table nr 3 it should be STRENGHTS and WEAKNESSES 

Response 3: corrected

 

Comment  4: Points 2 and 2 under Opportunities in Table 3 are rather proposals for strategies not real opportunities created by the trends in the environment;

Response 4: You are right, the points are revised and changed to:

" - Growing demand for tourism based on spiritual experience in cultural context, driven by increased interest in authentic travel.  

Increasing recognition of community-based approaches as essential for achieving sustainable development and enriching cultural production of place, reflecting a broader shift toward more inclusive practices."

 

Comment 5: 485 line on the religious filed - did you mean "field"?

Response 5: yes, thank you is corrected. see ll. 485 now is "field".