Religious Tourism and the Environment. Группа авторов

of stay; their activities and facilities at their disposal); the resiliency of the ecosystem (i.e. the capability of the place to absorb the impacts); the pace of development (i.e. of tourist infrastructure); and the transformational character of touristic developments (i.e. attractions and further development). Cohen argued further that a combination of these factors would result in ‘the accumulated environmental effects of growth, urbanization, commercialization, and functional diversification on the original tourist core areas’. Several studies have since illustrated the impacts on the natural and human-built sociocultural and physical environments of host destinations (e.g. Singh, 2002; Ambrósio, 2003; Alipour et al., 2017).

      While being debated, criticised, and modified over the past few decades (see Butler, 2006), another significant model is Butler’s (1980) Tourist Area Life Cycle, which continues to provide a fundamental understanding of how increases in tourism flows alter the physical environment in a tourist destination. Based on carrying capacity concerns, this model outlines the different stages through which tourism development occurs. While this model has been widely used in leisure-oriented tourism to help develop appropriate tourism developmental and marketing polices, its application to religious sites has been fairly limited, with the exception of a comparative study of four religious destinations in Europe (Ambrósio, 2003) and a recent study of religious tourism in Mashdad, Iran (Alipour et al., 2017).

      Scholars have also used a systems approach to understand the relationships between tourism and environment and their growing complexities (Leiper, 1990; Holden, 2007; Buckley, 2011). While host destination environments attract tourists, the needs of these tourists and the tourism infrastructure developed to meet those needs alter these same environments. One model, proposed by Holden (2007, p. 9), notes that the tourism system has a range of different inputs, including nature and human resources, which resources are made available to consumers through a market system and regulated by government policies to attract investment. These inputs are combined with three distinct but interrelated subsystems – tourism retailing (e.g. corporate and independent travel agents and agencies), destinations (e.g. natural and cultural attractions, local transportation and accommodation infrastructure), and transportation (e.g. global airlines, car rental, and bus companies). These inputs and subsystems, when combined with different societal influence (e.g. changing consumer tastes, demographics, environmental and media, and technology), create a series of positive and negative outputs or outcomes that have the potential to either bring positive or negative cultural and environmental change to a destination. Holden’s model also places a focus on broader contemporary environmental issues such as carbon emissions from flights, and tourist satisfaction.

      Another stream of research regarding tourism—environment relationships is how tourists interact with and experience the environment. Several studies have shown that different types of tourists desire different environmental interactions as a part of their tourism experience (e.g. Young, 1999; Shoval, 2000; Andriotis, 2009). Iso-Ahola (1980), for example, identifies four major types of experiences tourists have with the environment in a leisure—recreational setting:

      • environment as a setting for action (i.e. where interaction between tourists and the environment takes place)

      • environment as a social system (i.e. where environment is the setting where social interaction and bonding takes place)

      • environment as emotional territory (i.e. the emotional attachment people have to an environment)

      • environment as self (i.e. where the environment and oneself become inseparable).

      Research has also focused on the perceptions of residents regarding environmental tourism impacts (Liu et al., 1987; Mesch and Manor, 1998; Jutla, 2000; Terzidou et al., 2008). These studies reinforce the idea that while residents acknowledge the economic benefits of tourism, they are not always aware of the negative sociocultural and environmental impacts of tourism and their role in exacerbating these impacts (Dasgupta et al., 2006; Gursoy et al., 2004; Kamarudin and Nizam, 2013; Pohoaţă et al., 2013).

      Within this thematic literature, however, very little has been written regarding how religion intersects with tourism and the environment (see Holden, 2003; Olsen, Chapter 2, this volume; Timothy, 2012), although some research has focused on spiritual experiences in leisure outdoor settings (e.g.,Heintzman, 2009, 2014).

       Religion and the Environment

      In their edited book entitled Religion and Environment, Tanner and Mitchell (2002, p. 53) provide a working definition of religion ‘as belief in a supernatural power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped and its expression in conduct and ritual’. They also define the environment as including ‘all the natural features of land, water, flora and fauna which supports human life and influence its development and character’. Tanner and Mitchell note that ‘the intensity of one’s experience of their own environment depends to a large extent on its relevance to their livelihood and [the] religious beliefs with which they approach it’. These religious beliefs, along with their associated religious activities, have both direct/indirect and spatial/temporal effects on the natural environment.

      For example, at the level of belief, religion and religious teachings shape the views adherents have of nature. Tanner and Mitchell (2002, p. 209) note that ‘most religions view the natural environment as a harmonious unity, conceived by an external and transcendent mind’. From this perspective, Gardner (2002, p. 35), emphasises the traditional and important role of rituals, traditions, and religious institutions ‘in governing sustainable use of the natural environment’, as they act as ‘a sophisticated social and spiritual technology’ that helps mould the moral and ethical bearings of people, including ‘people [living] in harmony with the natural world’. Building on the intricate connections between nature and religion, several conceptual approaches regarding these connections have been developed, including bioethics, sacred environmentalism, and deep-ecology (Chandran and Hughes, 1997; Nelson, 1998; Saraswati, 1998; Sullivan, 1998; Apffel-Marglin and Parajuli, 2000; Chapple and Tucker, 2000; Dwivedi, 2000).

      At a more physical level, the heightened intersection between religious values and the environment can be witnessed in places that are deemed important for the practice of religion. These are in many cases centres of religious faith that are considered sacred or deeply rooted in the human need for understanding their place in the cosmos (Jackson, 1995; Shackley, 2001; Tanner and Mitchell, 2002). The notion of the ‘sacred’ in relation to place can be conceptualized in two ways (see Olsen, 2019a). The first conceptualization, often referred to as the Eliadean (Eliade, 1959) or ‘ontological’ view of sacred space, posits that hierophanies or divine irruptions take place in a particular location, which makes this location the axis mundi for religious groups. At many sacred sites, religious leaders incorporate various elements of nature into a system of religious values, symbols, and religious rituals (Marshall, 1994; Chandran and Hughes, 1997; Narayanan, 1997; Prorok, 1997; Shinde, 2008). Places such as Mt Meru, Mt Kailash, and Mt Manasarovar, which are believed to be the abode of Hindu God Shiva, belong to this category of sacred places. In the other conceptualization, referred to as the ‘situationalist’ perspective, sacred sites are not an ‘ontological given’ (della Dora, 2015) but rather are defined as sacred through political, sociocultural, economic, and psychological processes. Sacred sites, therefore, are not sacred until someone or some group deems the site as sacred through a deliberate process of sanctification (Gottlieb, 2004; Bremer, 2006). As Tanner and Mitchell (2002, p. 122) note, ‘A sacred space is not normally extraordinary in its characteristics, it is made so by religious choice’.

      Regardless of which view of how sacred space is created, the imbuing of mythological legends, miracle stories, and testimonies of the reality of divine forces within the physical elements in a sacred place contributes to the creation and maintenance of sacred geography. Often, these sacred places include a network of sacred sites linked to natural features, such as rivers, trees, and lakes marked by human-built shrines dedicated to certain deities and containing sanctified artefacts and objects. These sacred places, demarcated by religious groups by a sacred boundary to separate the sacred from the secular (Kong, 2001), become places where pilgrimage and other religious rituals are performed.