Religious Tourism and the Environment. Группа авторов

to finding God was never easier!

      As a part of this kind of new real estate development, there has been an increase in the purchasing of ‘second homes’ at sacred destinations (Shinde, 2008). The motivation to have a ‘second-home’ or a ‘spiritual retreat’ in ‘god’s abode’ is compelling for devotees who are able and willing to pay a lot of money to own a piece of a sacred landscape (Shinde, 2017). This strong driver of sacred ownership creates a major incentive for the establishment of speculative real estate development.

      The second process relates to the inmigration of people looking for work within the pilgrimage/tourism industry. Many of those who come to sacred destinations looking for work are poor migrants from neighbouring rural areas and small towns. Most of these migrants end up living in informal squatter settlements in urban peripheries that have no infrastructure services, which contributes to degradation of these peripheral areas of pilgrimage centres (Dube, 1994; Nagabhushanam, 1997). In addition, the lack of a pilgrimage/tourism off-season also fuels the demand for additional pilgrimage/tourism services and infrastructure, and attractions, leading to the creation of new urban landscapes that affect the resistance and resilience of the natural and human-built environment as well as the necessary physical infrastructure (Shinde, 2017).

      These parallel processes lead to ‘rapid population and labour force growth, a “flexible”’ labour market, a [change in traditional] class structure, [and] a different household and residential organization’ (Mullins, 1991, p. 340). As noted above, these processes also lead in many cases to the irreversible transformation of the sociospatial landscape of sacred destinations (Mullins, 1994; Gladstone, 1998), such as placing a higher than normal stress on the existing water supply system, sewage system, roads, and air quality (Varady, 1989; Srikrishna, 1994; Nagabhushanam, 1997; Trivedi and Agrawal, 2003). Thus, within growing sacred destinations, religious and leisure-oriented tourists seem to almost parasitically feed off the sacred core (Shinde, 2017).

       Religious Perceptions of Pilgrimage and Religious Tourism Impacts

      Many studies have found that visitors are often not concerned about their impacts on the natural or human-built environment in the sacred places they frequent despite being presented with evidence that they contribute to environmental degradation and unhygienic conditions (e.g. Alley, 1994; Sullivan, 1998; Haberman, 2000). Moreover, many of the physical environments within religious tourism destinations often present a stark contrast between the idealized sacral nature of the place and the reality of everyday living (Haberman, 2006). Turnbull (1981, p. 76) notes that in the case of Varanasi, while Hindu pilgrims perceive the city as the most beautiful and hallowed place in India, in reality the city ‘may forever remain merely one of the dirtiest’ for foreign visitors. Although more than three decades old, Turnbull’s observation is still valid, as Varanasi continues to be one of India’s most polluted yet sacred Hindu pilgrim-towns. In this vein, Tanner and Mitchell (2002, p. 125) point out that there is more to understanding the natural and human-built environments of sacred and religious places than through just scientific assessments and the quantification of environmental problems. They note that the power of these sacred places derives from their religious importance, and hence devotees are less inclined to focus on their degraded physical conditions or environment:

      Religious experiences which come from arriving in the sacred space are not related to the glories of nature or cultural aesthetics ... Whether at Lourdes or at the Buddhist pilgrimage centre at Katagarama in Sri Lanka, there is little visible at the site to inspire the pilgrim ... The reason must be sought in the mind and heart of individuals rather than in the objective value of places themselves.

      People’s perceptions of the environment are often shaped by cultural subjectivity. As Tuan (1974, p. 246) notes, ‘culture can influence perception to a degree that people will see things that do not exist’. To better understand place-based meanings, McDowell (1994, p. 154) suggests that it is necessary to analyse both ‘material practices and symbolic representations’. In this case, the issues and concerns around changes in the ‘religious environment’ can be raised regarding changes in religious and cultural traditions rather than problems related to the physical environment. Such articulation falls in line with McDowell’s (1994, p. 146) observation that ‘symbols, rituals, behaviour and everyday social practices result in a shared set or sets of meanings that are, to great or lesser degrees, place specific’.

      For example, many pilgrimage sites are associated with natural features, including rivers, mountaintops, water bodies, and trees (Bhardwaj, 1997). Because these features are a part of a sacred geography defined by religious values and beliefs, in many cases they tend to be viewed from a religious perspective rather than in terms of their ecological functions (Eck, 1982; Gesler and Pierce, 2000, p. 222). Indeed, sacred places, even if they also function as a tourism destination, are not ordinary or secular environments, as they have undergone a process of sanctification and, 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