as noted above, possess a ‘spirit of place’ that defines environment and identity. As such, while environmental change in these destinations may well be recognized and acknowledged, the followers of the faith for whom that sacred place is central and a manifestation of metaphysical views and beliefs may perceive this change differently. Both pilgrims and religious tourists therefore tend to overlook their role in the degradation of the environment (see Qurashi, Chapter 10, this volume), believing that their religious performances and positive economic contributions outweigh their impact (Terzidou et al., 2008; Shinde, 2011). This is also the case at times with local residents, who may place the blame for environmental impacts on sources other than pilgrims. Shinde (2011, p. 456) highlights this perspective in an interview he had with a young guru in Vrindavan, who stated: ‘Pilgrimage is a way to partake the spiritual energy of the place ... Visitors come with a religious belief and an emotional feeling ... How can they cause problems for the environment[?] ... What is a pilgrimage site without its visitors?’. Moreover, in pragmatic terms, visitors are critically important for maintaining the economy of the pilgrimage centre, and therefore residents may tolerate the negative impacts of tourism if it produces substantial economic benefits (Baedcharoen, 2000; Terzidou et al., 2008). Thus, environmental problems cannot be solely placed on pilgrims’ movement and actions, but is also based on perceptions about environmental degradation, especially when viewed through the lens of religion (Alley, 2002; Haberman, 2006).
Such perceptions, however, are not just theological or philosophical in nature, but are also generated through people’s experiences with sacred places and how they view those who visit and engage with these same sites (Joseph, 1994; Lochtefeld, 2010). For example, Shoval (2000) argued that the staging of religious rituals for tourist consumption effectively devalued and commodified the sanctity of the city. Shackley (1999) also noted that the manipulation of religious rituals in Nepal to cater to tourist itineraries not only devalued the religious rituals, but also made it difficult for locals to participate in their own religious heritage. Hobbs (1992) noted that at Mount Sinai, Egypt, the development of tourist accommodation and activities had altered the sacred nature of the mountain, both in and around the monastery. Hobbs argued that the pressure to cater to tourists has resulted in many of the religious rituals at the monastery being replaced by staged performances, diminishing the role of the monks who previously interacted with and provided religious guidance to pilgrims. These impacts led Hobbs to lament that ‘The physical, social and spatial requirements of caring for too many of the wrong kind of people—tourists—are weakening the fabric of monastic society at Mt. Sinai’ (p. 99, emphasis added).
Indeed, at many sacred sites, tourists are seen as the ‘wrong’ type of people who, by their mere presence, undermine the religious significance and sanctity of the site (Joseph, 1994; Joseph and Kavoori, 2001; Shackley, 2004; Aggarwal et al., 2008). In the Hindu pilgrim-town of Pushkar, Joseph (1994) notes that many traditional and orthodox religious communities consider both tourists and the religious intermediaries who have transformed puja (i.e. worship) rituals reserved for Hindus into commercial acts and touristic performances as actors that defile and pollute the sacred space. These communities also perceive the construction of hotels and tourist infrastructure as fundamentally altering the sacred landscape and the destinations’ sense of place. This view of tourists and by extension the tourism industry has led to the view that tourism is solely responsible for the high pollution levels of the nearby Pushkar Lake.
In this same vein, while tourist behaviour reflects a certain disregard for religious protocol and a more hedonistic attitude towards sacred places, pilgrim behaviour is seen as being determined by religious protocol and therefore reflective of a sensitive relationship and sacred tie to the pilgrimage site (Cohen, 1992; Olsen and Timothy, 2006). Vukonić (1996), in describing some commonly-held perceptions regarding pilgrims and tourists, notes that ‘The pilgrim steps gently on to holy soil; the tourist overruns holy places and photographs their remains. The pilgrim travels with humility and patience; the tourist travels arrogantly and in a hurry.’
Discourse, Materiality, and Management
The importance of understanding religious values as they shape perceptions about environmental problems in sacred places cannot be emphasized enough, particularly because they affect how sacred destinations are managed. The management of religious tourism sites has increasingly become an area of academic inquiry, highlighting the importance of quality visitor infrastructure and interpretational services as ways to minimize negative impacts on the natural and human-built environment (e.g. Olsen, 2006a; Raj and Morpeth, 2007; Zamani-Farahani and Henderson, 2010; Henderson, 2011; Shinde, 2012a; Bond et al., 2015). However, even the implementation of best practices in crowd management can be overwhelmed in instances where the scale and frequency of visitation is such that no amount of management and control can stop negative impacts from occurring.
Some scholars argue from a public administration perspective that the real problem is the absence of a strong formal governance structure focusing specifically on pilgrimage and religious tourism and its environmental impacts (van Der Veer, 1988; Alley, 2002; FoV, 2006; Shinde, 2011; Raj and Griffin, 2015). As Tanner and Mitchell (2002, p. 204) note, environmental management is ‘a political activity with little stress on religious considerations [,] even in states which are officially [claimed as religious] such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’. Also, religious views of pilgrimage and its (non)impact on the natural and human-built environment can lead to inconsistencies and disagreements over defining environmental issues, often leading to inaction by both government and religious authorities towards minimizing environmental impacts at pilgrimage and religious tourism destinations. Discussions regarding environmental change at pilgrimage destinations are often debated by contrasting the material reality of the environment with the abstract notion of sacred space. For instance, several scholars have noted the tendency of Hindu pilgrims and religious functionaries to compare the contemporary state of the environment of pilgrimage sites with a glorious past rooted in mythology or in the concept of transcendence (Haberman, 1994; Lochtefeld, 2010). This comparison relies on a fixed notion of the other worldly divine quality of sacred space that reinforces the sanctity of a pilgrimage site while outright ignoring the negative impacts of pilgrims and pilgrimage practices on the physical environment. This discourse of transcendence therefore produces conflicting views regarding who is responsible for managing the natural and human-built environment of a sacred place (Freitag, 1989; Alley, 2002). Religious actors often invoke tradition to justify their use of environmental resources for religious practices while claiming no responsibility for and management of its impacts. Such dissonance produces an environment of neglect and apathy, shifting the responsibilities of environmental management to government entities that may not have the financial or technical resources to do so (Shinde, 2011).
Following the ethical–moral perspectives and inherent teachings of many religious traditions regarding respect for nature, a few studies have found that religious institutions that place a strong ethic and concern on environmental stewardship are more effective at addressing environmental degradation at their sacred sites (Grim and Tucker, 1994; Sullivan, 1998; Apffel-Marglin and Parajuli, 2000). One illustrative example is the Vrindavan Conservation Project in India. Vrindavan is a pilgrim-town dedicated to the Hindu god Krishna and is believed to be Krishna’s recreational playground. As a part of this project, religious gurus have taken the lead to restore the forests in the name of Krishna and encourage other stakeholders to be more environmentally responsible (for more details see Prime, 2008; Nash, 2012; Chapter 4, this volume).
The Ecosystem of Religious Tourism: A Conceptual Model
The creation of a general theory regarding the intersections between religion, tourism, and the environment needs to move beyond the documentation of the environmental impacts of religious tourism which, although necessary, remains incomplete. In Fig. 1.2, the authors propose a simplistic conceptual model that can help understand the ecosystem
