travelers consume the sacred

8/3/2019 Travelers Consume the Sacred

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/travelers-consume-the-sacred 1/27

Lotus-Eaters, Pilgrims, Seekers, and Accidental Tourists: How Different Travelers Consume the

Sacred and the Profane

R. ZACHARY FINNEY University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama

ROBERT A. ORWIG North Georgia College and State University, Dahlonega, Georgia

DEBORAH F. SPAKEUniversity of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama

Travelers visit destinations that are associated with organized

religion for a variety of reasons. Building on Cohen’s (2003) work,we categorize visitors to ‘‘religious’’ travel destinations as: (1) see-

kers who intend to visit both religious and secular tourist sites, (2) lotus-eaters who intend to visit only secular tourist sites,(3) pilgrims who intend to visit only religious tourist sites, and (4) accidental tourists who intend to visit neither type of tourist

site. We use these four types of tourists to accomplish three aims:(1) explain each type of traveler, (2) explain the interactionbetween religious and secular elements at travel sites, and (3)

provide guidelines for attracting each type of traveler.

KEYWORDS Israel, religious experience tourism, religious pilgrimage, tourism, travel

INTRODUCTION

Travel represents an enormous portion of the world economy. In 2003spending on tourism accounted for approximately 6 percent of world exports

The authors thank Carol Megehee for her helpful comments on this manuscript and Alison Wojiecowski for transcribing the depth interviews.

Address correspondence to Robert A. Orwig, DBA, North Georgia College & StateUniversity, Mike Cottrell College of Business, 82 College Circle, Dahlonega, GA 30597. E-mail:

[email protected]

Services Marketing Quarterly , 30:148–173, 2009Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1533-2969 print=1533-2977 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15332960802619181

148



and about 30 percent of world service exports (World Tourism Organization,2007). The World Tourism Organization (WTO) estimates that worldwidespending on travel equals about $2 billion per day. Furthermore, travelcontinues to grow at a rapid pace. In 1950 there were a mere 25 million

worldwide international arrivals. By 2006, the number had grown to 840million international arrivals (UNWTO Secretary-General Opens FITUR, 2007).People travel for many different reasons. The WTO estimates that

approximately half of international tourism is for recreation. Business travelaccounts for about 16 percent. Meanwhile, a variety of motives account foranother 26 percent of travel; these motives include religion, visiting friendsor family, and travel for healthcare. (The WTO was unable to classify theremaining 8 percent of travelers).

And yet, researchers have often overlooked — or looked disapprovingly —

at tourism in general, and religious tourism in particular. For instance, Boorstin

(1964) dismisses the majority of tourists, the recreational travelers, as‘‘. . . shallow, superficial, trivial, and often frivolous . . .’’ (Cohen, 1979, 184).

While cultural critics are often dismissive of tourists, there has been alack of focus on the economic consequences of religious tourism. This is par-ticularly surprising, given that some of the first travel agencies focused onproviding services to travelers undertaking religious pilgrimages (Lunn,1963; Martyn, 1972). Furthermore, scholars estimate that religious experiencetourism (RET) accounts for $18 billion in annual spending (InternationalConference on Religious Tourism, 2006). Nevertheless, ‘‘the economic aspectsof religious travel have been the least studied topic in relation to the religion-

tourism crossover’’ (Timothy & Olsen, 2006, 10). Perhaps as a result of theseoversights, many potential tourist destinations have yet to reach more than asmall fraction of their potential (Alavi & Yasin, 2000).

Since religion-imbued destinations may attract visitors on an emotional,intellectual, and=or spiritual level (Haahti & Yavas, 2005), the marketing of these destinations may present unique challenges. Not only must themarketer decide on which level to approach these travelers, but also howto market effectively to them without causing offense for seeming overly commercial. It has only been in recent decades that certain religious orga-

nizations have begun to use marketing techniques to recruit and retainfollowers (Vokurka, McDaniel, & Cooper, 2002), thus some RET travelersmay still view the link between religion and marketing as tenuous. Somestudies suggest that young adults are more receptive to such messages(Rodrigue, 2002), but that the more traditional church member views suchpractices as trivializing the importance of the sacred (Belk, Wallendorf, &Sherry, 1989). Given the complexity and unique challenges of RET, religiousdestinations require more guidance from researchers.

This article helps improve our understanding of RET by explaining thedifferent motives that drive travelers to visit religious destinations. Cohen

(2003) developed a four-cell taxonomy to classify travelers based on

How Travelers Consume the Sacred and the Profane 149



their participation in religious and secular travel experiences to include(a) religion, (b) tourism, (c) religion and tourism, and (d) other types of travelexperiences. We further develop and expand this taxonomy to categorizetravelers as (1) seekers who intend to visit both religious and secular tourist

sites, (2) lotus-eaters who intend to visit only secular tourist sites, (3) pilgrims who intend to visit only religious tourist sites, and (4) accidental tourists whointend to visit neither type of tourist site.

Using the four cells, we help ‘‘fill in the blanks’’ in the RET literature inseveral ways:

1. We add depth to Cohen’s four-cell taxonomy. Depth interviews withtravelers allow us to provide readers with a deeper understanding of the thoughts and motivations of each type of traveler. While Cohen’s focus

was on devising the four-cell classification, our focus in on explaining the

travelers of each cell.2. In addition to describing each individual cell, we contrast the perspectives

held by travelers in the four groups. Through a combination of neglectand disdain for secular tourism, scholars have made few such compari-sons in the past. Restated, we are interested in examining the interaction

of the sacred and the profane for each type of traveler.3. We provide a set of recommendations for businesses that wish to serve

each type of customer. Many scholars have noted that the RET literatureprovides few guidelines for businesses.

To accomplish these goals, we conducted depth interviews with twenty-twotravelers who had visited RET destinations for a variety of reasons.

We proceed as follows: first, we review prior research on travel, tour-ism, and religion. Second, we describe the method that we used to examinethe taxonomies classifying travelers to religious destinations. Third, weexpand upon Cohen’s taxonomy and list managerial implications for dealing

with each type of traveler. We conclude with a summary and a discussion of possible extensions from our research.

SCHOLARS ON TRAVEL, TOURISTS, AND RELIGION

Religious Tourism: An Uneasy Alliance with Commerce

Scholars note that religious travel has been a large business for centuries(Thielmann, 1987; Turner & Turner, 1978). In medieval Europe, for instance,religious pilgrimage was often the only permissible rationale for the peasan-try to travel (Thielmann, 1987). Contemporary religious tourists have becomemore demanding, but are willing to pay more to have the religious travelexperiences that they desire (International Conference on Religious Tourism,

2006; Timothy, 2006a).

150 R. Z. Finney et al.



Today, religious tourism is so pervasive that we often fail to notice itsprevalence. Consider the following facts:

. Each year approximately 2.5 million Muslim pilgrims visit Mecca in Saudi

Arabia;. In 2001 approximately 75 million Hindu pilgrims made the Kumbha Mela

pilgrimage in India;. Lourdes, France, attracted 6 million visitors in 2005;. The Vatican estimates that between 220 million and 250 million pilgrims

visit Roman Catholic religious sites each year (Yunis, 2006).

Many religions draw a sharp distinction between ‘‘profane’’ or ‘‘every-day’’ objects and sacred objects that believers imbue with religious meaning(Belk, Wallendorf, & Sherry, 1989). Traditionally, tourism has been profane,

while religious pilgrimage has been sacred. To many religions:

. . . tourists are seen as sinful, lustful, promiscuous, and lacking in com-mon sense, and tourism is seen as a force that promotes idolatry, laziness,immorality and drunkenness. By the same token religious organizationshave eschewed tourism because it is seen to commodify religion, toput holy places into the spotlight for mass consumption, and to makeholy things unholy. (Timothy, 2006b, 1–2)

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that scholars have been slow to

recognize the need to examine the commercial aspects of religion(Hirschman, 1982a, 1982b). This oversight leaves us with few principlesfor effectively marketing religious experience tourism. Consider some of the management challenges confronting the tourism industry. Tourism isan inherently cyclical industry. Spending on tourism comes from discre-tionary income; therefore, tourism revenues vary dramatically across thebusiness cycle. Further, events in tourist destinations affect the willingnessof tourists to visit those destinations. Israel, a prime destination forreligious tourists, has seen dramatic fluctuations in its tourism industry

due to the continuing violence in the Middle East (Travel and Tourismin Israel, 2005). Another problem at RET destinations is providing a satisfying experi-

ence both to tourists who travel for religious reasons and to those who aretraveling for other purposes. Religious tourism has always been an uneasy marriage of the ‘‘sacred’’ and the ‘‘profane.’’ Since religious tourism ‘‘coin-cides in time and place’’ with secular tourism, both types of travelers may

visit the same religious — or secular — sites. It comes as no surprise, then, thatit is increasingly difficult to discern the differences in religious and seculartourists (Timothy, 2006a) and unfortunately scholars provide little help in

discerning those differences.




Fortunately, there is some indication that interest in this topic is inc-reasing. October 2006 saw the First International Conference on ReligiousTourism (Icoret) in Nicosia, Cyprus. Scholars have noted that many of theprinciples that help businesses build successful secular tourist sites are often

counterproductive if one attempts to attract visitors who are traveling inorder to visit religious tourist sites. Visitors interested in religion:

1. often like to visit sites that are crowded. Large groups of like-mindedpeople help enhance the religious aspects of the experience;

2. enjoy traveling in groups more than secular tourists. Again, experiencing areligious site with fellow believers adds to the religious experience formany religious tourists;

3. may prefer tourist sites that are relatively inaccessible. Making an effort toreach a site may enhance the site’s religious qualities for some visitors;

4. are particularly sensitive to the ‘‘commercial’’ aspects of religious sites andtheir immediate surroundings. Religious tourists take a dim view of sitesthat are overly commercialized (Martyn, 1972; see also Timothy, 2006b).

A number of religious sites and organizations have taken tentative stepstoward participation in the commercial side of tourism. Specifically, some of these sites are attempting to increase the revenues they generate from tour-ism. Religious sites commonly use the following means to obtain revenuesfrom tourism:

1. Sale of souvenirs,2. Sale of food,3. Admission fees (or suggested donations),4. Sale of media and services to help tourists understand the site (these

media include brochures, guides, rental of audio tours, etc.), and5. Accommodations for visitors (Timothy, 2006b).

The growing RET literature includes a number of insights into theevolving travel industry. One trend that influences the business of travel is

that people are taking more trips away from home, but are staying away fewer days on each trip. Potential tourist sites work on the principle of cumu-lative attraction; the more attractions they offer potential visitors, the largerthe number of visitors they will attract. Contemporary travelers are becomingincreasingly demanding as time passes (Fernandes, 2006).

Travel is a very competitive industry. Sites are always looking for waysto enhance their revenues. Five common objectives of tourist sites (that apply equally well to religious and secular destinations) include:

1. getting visitors to come during the ‘‘off season’’ when tourists typically do

not visit,




2. getting visitors to stay longer,3. finding ways to attract visitors with narrow or specialized interests,4. getting visitors to spend more money,5. obtaining visitors from countries (or regions) that have traditionally not

sent large numbers of visitors to the site (Fernandes, 2006).

Tourism sites also have to balance consumers’ desire for both comfortand adventure. Fernandes (2006) labels this ‘‘soft adventure.’’ Furthermore,travelers are attracted to tourist sites that are unique; a tourist site needs topromote those features that make it stand out from other tourist sites. In addi-tion to building cumulative attraction, then, each site also needs to find a‘‘unique selling proposition.’’

Current Theory: Scholars on Tourists as Consumers

You can sum up the process by which consumers make travel-relatedchoices in one word: complex.

Researchers have strong feelings about the ‘‘lens’’ through whichscholars should examine travel-related consumption. Specifically, scholarsadvocate examining consumers’ Tourism Consumption Systems (TCSs); theTCS includes the consumer’s ‘‘thoughts, decisions, and behaviors . . . priorto, during, and following a trip’’ (Woodside & Dubelaar, 2002, 120).Examining travel choices through a consumer’s TCS allows the scholar to

understand the tourist’s entire experience, rather than focusing on limitedaspects of that experience.

The TCS perspective helps explain the complexities inherent inunderstanding travel decisions. Using the TCS is consistent with the ideathat consumers’ preferences and perceptions should serve as the foundation of tourism policy. While this is a good start, scholars also emphasize that we mustdelve into tourists’ decision processes in order to understand why they makeparticular travel choices. After managers of a destination understand whatattracts consumers to their destination, they must then attempt to understand

consumers’ perceptions of competing destinations (Woodside & Lysonski,1989). A final complication arises for researchers studying travel and consump-tion: people may not be conscious of all of the factors that influence theirtravel choices (Woodside, Caldwell, & Spurr, 2006).

Though it is possible to draw many parallels between travel decisionsand other consumption decisions, travel consumption decisions are unique.For one thing, for many travel-related expenses, the traveler spends his orher money with no expectation of material return. The traveler pays for aservice — an intangible utility. Further, leisure travel often requires peopleto pay large sums of money that they have saved over many years (Moutinho,

1987). The traveler also must consider a number of factors (culture shock,




international relations, economic conditions, dietary concerns, etc.) that arenot present in other consumption situations.

In the branding literature, one finds a competing ‘‘lens’’ for viewingtourism that relates to RET. Some authors hold that certain types of tourism

help companies establish their brands. Firms often use Consumer ExperienceTourism (CET) (manufacturing plant tours, company museums and company visitor centers) as a strategic tool to cultivate brand loyalty (Mitchell & Orwig,2002). Such experience-based tourism is similar to RET in several ways. As theCET and RET names imply, both types of tourism are based on the customer’sdirect interaction with the firm (or destination). Furthermore, CET is a growingaspect of companies’ attempts to brand themselves. The growth of RET sug-gests that similar positive branding occurs for the religions involved. For many people, the experience of a religious tour solidifies their religious convictions;sometimes RET vastly increases the commitment of participating travelers.

Therefore, authors view RET as a logical extension of CET (Orwig, Mitchell,& Finney, 2003; Mitchell & Mitchell, 2001).

Many factors cause travelers to choose one destination over another.Raymore (2002) posits that three types of variables can encourage or inhibita person’s ability to travel: (a) intrapersonal – factors unique to the indivi-dual, (b) interpersonal – factors that relate to the individual’s relationships

with other people, and (c) structural – events in society as a whole. Only by understanding each, can we appreciate how the person made a particularchoice.

Above all, travel research confirms that destinations must abide by one

of marketing’s basic principles if they hope to attract visitors; destinationsmust select their target market(s) with care and craft appropriate messagesfor those segments. Destinations that tell tourists that they ‘‘have it all’’ areunlikely to succeed (Woodside & Dubelaar, 2002). Moreover, managersmust be very careful in allocating expenditures for customer segments;research reveals that some segments of travelers are more sensitive (i.e.,likely to respond) to travel promotions than are other segments (Woodside &Motes, 1981).

Current Theory: The Religious Tourist as ConsumerOne stream of literature on the religious travel experience focuses on thejourney itself. Specifically, scholars concentrate on the emotional connectionthat may develop between religious pilgrims as they travel to a religious site.One influential theory proposes that pilgrims develop strong positive feelingsfor each other while on religious journeys; Turner developed this theory andlabeled the feeling that develops between pilgrims ‘‘communitas’’ (1973).

Turner’s theory, however, has been highly controversial. Some scholarsargue that feelings of communitas are much rarer than Turner allows. In many

cases, Turner’s critics argue, while pilgrims espouse feelings of communitas,




they often hide negative emotions that they hold toward their fellow pilgrims(Bilu, 1988).

Along with examining feelings pilgrims hold toward other pilgrims, anumber of scholars have examined the interaction between the pilgrims

and the local population that they visit. Researchers have long acknowl-edged that travel often changes those who journey away from home(e.g., Wilson, 1993). However, studies now suggest that the visitors can alsoinfluence the local populations in the places that they visit (Belhassen &Santos, 2006). Scholars acknowledge that there are many variables thatinfluence travelers’ perceptions; this makes it very difficult to understandthe interaction between tourism and the local societies (Bilu, 1988;Sallnow, 1981).

As noted, religious authorities distinguish between profane and sacredobjects. Recently, many commentators have noted that the line between

the sacred and the profane has become less distinct (e.g., O’Guinn & Belk,1989; Timothy, 2006b). Particularly relevant to tourism is the fact that com-mercial activities are increasingly intertwined with religion. In one sense, thisunion is a sharp departure from traditional Christian teaching that empha-sized the ‘‘profane’’ nature of commercial culture. In another sense, the join-ing of the sacred and the profane merely acknowledges ties between religionand commerce that have always existed (O’Guinn & Belk, 1989; see also

Weber, 1958).Scholars also note that when a consumer ‘‘sacralizes’’ an object that

person (perhaps inadvertently) reveals a great deal about his or her beliefs.

So, our selection of sacred objects is value-expressive; consumption is notstrictly utilitarian. More specifically, scholars note that sacralization of material objects provides several benefits to believers: (a) an increasingly-meaningful existence, (b) social cohesion, and (c) social integration withfellow believers (Belk, Wallendorf, & Sherry, 1989).

Cohen’s (2003) Taxonomy

Erik H. Cohen’s (2003) work draws heavily on Erik Cohen (1979), who

proposes that travel is not merely (a) a completely superficial lark or (b) acompletely serious, existential quest for authenticity. Instead, Cohen (1979)proposes that travel can encompass elements of both. Erik H. Cohen(2003) finds that American students who study in Israel do so for disparatereasons. Specifically, he says that the students’ motives are: (a) religion,(b) tourism, (c) both, and (d) neither. The result is a two-cell by two-celltaxonomy.

As stated, Cohen’s (2003) focus is on deriving the four-cell matrix;our focus is on helping explain the feelings and motivations of themembers of each cell. Moreover, we are interested in extending Cohen’s

(2003) work in several ways. First, Cohen examines a very small subset of




travelers: American Jewish undergraduate students who chose to study for atleast a semester in Israel. We want to see what sort of insights we can gainfrom groups of older, less homogeneous travelers. Second, each of Cohen’srespondents stayed in Israel for a minimum of several months; we are inter-

ested in how the more typical, short-term traveler responds to RET. Finally,all of Cohen’s respondents were young Jews, who studied in Israel over aconsiderable period of time. We wonder whether he truly had a sufficientsample of respondents who were uninterested in religion. Will our seculartourists differ from Cohen’s in their perspectives?

METHOD: EMERGENT DESIGN AND DEPTH INTERVIEWS

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a paradigm that guides researchers; grounded theory is aform of qualitative research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). One of the most dis-tinctive aspects of grounded theory is that it is inductive; as opposed to tradi-tional researchers, who start with a theory (i.e., work deductively), groundedtheorists start by gathering data on a general subject and only then attempt togeneralize and (sometimes) create theories.

At its best, grounded theory allows the researcher to consider whathis or her data really mean; therefore, researchers using grounded theory must excel at critical thinking. At the same time, grounded theorists believethat traditional research often suffers from ‘‘over analysis’’ of data. That is,

sometimes meaning is lost when researchers attempt to quantify responsesfrom different people. Researchers using grounded theory often publishrespondents’ actual words, so as not to impose the researchers’ biases intothe study.

Several aspects of grounded theory made it appealing to us. The first isthat the in-depth responses necessary for a grounded theory provide anexcellent means for studying people’s ability to influence their world. Thesecond is that grounded theorists take the attitude that human society is con-tinually evolving; given that many religions stress that faith is a journey in

which people refine their beliefs as they come to ‘‘know’’ God, groundedtheory is a relevant tool to study religion. Finally, the primary objectiveof grounded theorists is to discover new theories and insights (Strauss &Corbin, 1990); certainly, this is consistent with our goals for this manus-cript. Specifically, we wanted to (a) understand how an individual’s religi-ous beliefs influence his or her behavior while traveling, (b) understandhow those beliefs evolve as the person experiences a new culture, and(c) hopefully, contribute to new theory on the interaction between traveland tourism.

The most important aspect of grounded theory, however, was that it

allowed us to dispense with crafting a theory at the beginning of the process.




We wanted to observe everything first. In doing so, we took our influenceout of the research findings and allowed the respondents to speak. Later,

we began to look for common themes in the transcripts.

Depth Interviews

We conducted a series of depth interviews with twenty-two travelers whohad a variety of views on religion. If one includes the trips discussed for thisstudy, all of the respondents had traveled outside the United States. A description of the interviewees follows:

. Twenty of the travelers had visited Israel. One had lived in Israel for four years.

. Nine of the respondents mentioned international trips that they had

taken prior to the trip they discussed for this manuscript. Of these nine,three respondents mentioned that their prior travels were for religiouspurposes.

. Two of the respondents mentioned that they had made an internationaltrip since completing the international trip mentioned in this study. Of these two, one mentioned that the trip was for religious purposes.

. In addition to Israel, respondents had also visited many other destinations:Belarus, Belgium, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Russia,Mexico, and Moldova. Two respondents mentioned that they had visiteda particular region — Europe and the Middle East — but did not specify

which countries. Several respondents mentioned that they had lived over-seas or taken extended trips of over one month to countries includingIsrael, Japan, and Vietnam. One woman had been a teacher in Africa,but did not specify in which country.

. The respondents traveled for a variety of reasons. The majority of thetravelers who were interested in seeing religious sites went to Israel on atrip sponsored by a Southern Baptist Church. One of the Baptists was apastor who had made five trips to Israel, often leading other Baptists.

Another traveler went to Israel strictly for professional reasons, and lived

there four years. One woman lived in Japan due to her husband’s job. Another was a businessman who had no intentions of visiting religiousor secular sites on his travels. (Not surprisingly, then, the tourists’ intentionto visit religious sites varied by traveler).

. Likewise, the tourists differed in their intention to visit secular sites on theirtrips. Many of the Baptists said that their trips were 100 percent for reli-gious purposes. Others traveled with the intent to visit only secular touristsites, or without the intent to visit any tourist sites at all.

. Most of the travelers discussed their experiences with ‘‘leisure travel.’’ Twodiscussed their attempts to combine leisure travel with business trips. One

woman described her experiences traveling overseas because of her




husband’s job. Two traveled as U.S. government employees; severalhad traveled as members of the military. (For more information on theinterviewees, please see Appendix 1).

Israel provided a particularly-relevant destination for our interviews; itserved as the backdrop for Cohen’s (2003) original study. Jews, Christians,and Muslims all believe that Israel is sacred land. As most of the interviewees

were Christians, a trip to Israel was potentially loaded with religious meaning tothem. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that travel, regardless of the pur-pose, can be a transforming experience. The fact that the Christian pilgrims

would also experience Jewish and Muslim culture meant that Israel could pro- voke an interesting range of emotions in the respondents. Further, Israel alsohas a traditional set of ‘‘profane’’ tourist attractions including hotels, souvenirs,and beaches (Martyn, 1972); therefore, Israel has an appeal to tourists inter-ested in travel for secular reasons, religious reasons, or both.

We interviewed fifteen of the respondents in person and seven over thephone. There was considerable variance in the length of the interviews.Some were less than fifteen minutes long; others lasted as long as forty-fiveminutes. We made audiotapes of each interview; a graduate student latertranscribed each of the tapes. When possible, we interviewed respondentsindividually. Individual interviews gave each respondent a chance to expresshis or her views and also prevented ‘‘groupthink’’ from developing amongrespondents. In four cases, however, we could not schedule separate inter-

views and we interviewed two spouses at the same time. We reviewed theinterview transcripts to better understand the different types of travelers. We selected a list of open-ended questions to ask each respondent. We

designed our list of questions both to cover the topic and to provide interviewees with an opportunity to respond with minimal influence from the inter- viewer. Each respondent answered a very similar set of questions. However,respondents had varying motivations for travel; further, the circumstancessurrounding their travels (destination, group or solo travel, etc.) also differed.Therefore, we did not ask every respondent the same questions. Rather, weomitted some questions when a) it become obvious that the question was

irrelevant to that respondent or b) after a respondent indicated that he orshe had no interest in a topic.

Our questions included:

1. What was the purpose of your trip?2. How much did your religious beliefs influence your desire to take this trip?3. What sort of religious tourism sites did you see on the trip? How did you

feel about the religious tourism sites on the trip?4. How much did your desire to ‘‘get away from it all’’ – to have some

enjoyable leisure time – influence your decision to take this trip? How

interested were you in ‘‘seeing the sites?’’




5. What sorts of ‘‘secular’’ tourism sites did you see on the trip? How did youfeel about visiting secular tourism sites on the trip?

6. What was the least enjoyable aspect of the trip? Were there any membersof your party who were just not interested in the trip? How could you tell?

How did they behave?7. How did your religious faith change as a result of this trip?8. What did you learn while on this trip? How did exposure to a different

way of life change you?9. From which of these activities did you learn the most about religion?

10. Which of the activities were the most fun=entertaining? What was themost enjoyable aspect of the trip?

11. How do you think that your family background=family history influences your beliefs?

12. How do you think living in the South influences your religious beliefs?

13. From your experience traveling outside the South, how do you thinkpeople’s faith in other places is different from the faith of Southerners?

14. How much traveling have you done?15. What sorts of things did you spend money on while on the trip? What

was your best purchase?16. What sort of things would you have liked to spend your money on that

weren’t available?17. How much did you interact with local people while on this trip? How

enjoyable was this experience?18. How much did you interact with fellow travelers while on this trip? How

enjoyable was this experience?

FOUR TYPES OF TRAVELERS: EXPLORING THE TAXONOMY

Grounded theory allowed us to conduct our interviews without the interfer-ence of preconceived notions. However, a relatively clear pattern emergedquite early during the research. Consistent with Cohen (2003), one may clas-sify visitors to religious sites based on: a) their intention to see religious sites

and b) their intention to see secular sites. An individual traveler, therefore,might be in one category for one trip (perhaps a visit to Israel) and in anothercategory for a different trip (perhaps a trip to Disney World). It follows thatrespondents discussed one particular trip that they had taken.

The two criteria result in a two-by-two matrix (see Figure 1) thatdescribes the four types of visitors to religious sites and is an extension of Cohen’s (2003) proposed matrix.

(A minority of interviewees, however, exhibited motivations consistent with more than one of the four types). We discuss the four types of visitorsbelow. The following section discusses the business implications of serving

each type of visitor.




Lotus-Eaters

Homer’s Odyssey recounts the tale of Ulysses, his crew, and their ocean

voyage home to Ithaca (Homer & Rouse, 1999). While on their voyage,Homer and his crew encounter a land where the natives offer three of Homer’s crew ‘‘lotus’’ fruits. After the three eat the lotus fruit, they soon loseall ambition and forget their duties to the rest of the crew. In the end, Homermust leave the three crew members behind.

Lotus-eater, therefore, is a synonym for pleasure seeker. In our taxon-omy, lotus-eaters may visit destinations containing religious sites; however,decisions to visit such sites are spur-of-the-moment decisions; the lotus-eaters intend to visit only the secular tourist sites during their travels.

Not surprisingly, lotus-eaters often expressed ambivalence when they

came into contact with religious sites; lotus-eaters reacted very differently to religious sites than did those tourists who intended to see religious sitesat the beginning of their trips. One woman who visited Japan and visited areligious shrine by chance, noted:

I felt a little conflicted, you know. I didn’t necessarily believe everything.. . . I didn’t want to be obtrusive or hypocritical; so, if I went to a shrine,I would partake in the purification rituals that everyone else took part inas to show respect. But not really because I believed in it. So I felt a littleconflicted by that because I felt a little like a hypocrite. Maybe I would

feel the same way at a lot of Christian sites.

FIGURE 1 Four types of visitors to religious sites.




The woman told us that, although she had no interest when sheembarked on her trip, she became interested in religion while in Japan:

Religion was not on my radar [at the beginning of the trip] . . . I haveto say, despite the fact that I wasn’t interested in religion, the spiritualaspect became one of the most enjoyable [aspects of her trip]. Ithink my first exposure was by accident. I had gone to the Iris festivalin the aquatic gardens. While I was there, by accident, they were havinga wedding, a traditional-style wedding. I’m not sure if it was Shinto orBuddhist, but it had some elements of both religions. . . . towards theend, I could begin to understand a sense of why they were doingthings the way they did them. So it was an evolutionary process, my interest in the spiritual side. But when I went I wasn’t particularly inter-ested at all.

In fact, this woman noted that her trip was very influential in shaping herreligious views, but that the trip helped push her away from the faith of her childhood:

I realized that I don’t know what I believe. . . . It’s almost like it [the trip]gave me freedom to break free from a religion of convenience. . . . WhenI came back, I could have been as much a Buddhist as I was a Catholic.I’d say it had a big impact. I became almost more detached from my religion.

The lotus-eater, therefore, may be very similar to Erik Cohen’s (1979)‘‘diversionary’’ traveler; diversionary travelers ‘‘. . . may not be seeking alter-native centres: their life, strictly speaking, is ‘meaningless,’ but they are notlooking for meaning, whether it is in their society or elsewhere’’ (185). How-ever, the comments above indicate that, potentially, the accidental exposureto foreign cultures and religions can transform the diversionary traveler intoanother of Cohen’s five types: the ‘‘experiential’’ traveler. People becomeexperiential travelers when ‘‘. . . the disenchanted or alienated individualsbecome growingly aware of their state of alienation, and the meaningless-ness and fatuity of their daily life’’ (Cohen, 1979, 186).

Pilgrims

Pilgrims are the classic religious travelers. They journey away from home forreligious purposes. However, any exposure to secular aspects of their desti-nation (i.e., hotels, restaurants, etc.) is incidental; pilgrims’ motivations fortheir trips are solely religious. While pilgrims will, out of necessity, encountersome secular aspects of the culture, they do not have any intention of visitingsecular tourist sites. For those operating religious tourist sites, pilgrims are the

ideal customers. The pilgrim is unlikely to miss the religious sites.




By definitions, pilgrims travel with the intention to visit religious, notsecular tourist sites. Nonetheless, we were surprised by how explicit many of the pilgrims were in making this point; many pilgrims explicitly stated thatreligion was the only motivation for their trips:

[The trip] was strictly religious. After all those years of studying the Bible,I wanted to see those things I had been reading about.

[The trip was] 100 percent about religion. I wanted to go and see what I’d read about in the Bible all my life and I wanted to experience what it was like to see where Jesus walked and where we went and tobetter understand the Bible.

. . . it wasn’t a vacation . . . it was just religion. . .’’

For those operating ‘‘secular’’ tourist sites, the pilgrim is a mixedblessing. Pilgrims will, of course, spend money on necessities while they tra-

vel. But convincing devoted religious tourists to visit secular tourist sites willbe a hard sell; this is especially true when one considers the fact that visitingthe religious sites is likely to deepen pilgrims’ appreciation of their faith.Indeed, many of the pilgrims said that their religious experiences were by far the most memorable and rewarding parts of their journeys; when one

woman was asked about the most fun or entertaining part of her journey,she said:

I wouldn’t say ‘fun’ fun, but enjoyable. For me . . . it was tied in to the faith walk and making my Bible come alive. . . . It was enjoyable and enligh-tening, that might be the better word for me.

It really wasn’t an entertaining trip as opposed to going to MyrtleBeach or Missouri, but this was [an] enlightening experience. I don’t lookat it as entertaining.

Pilgrims varied in their interpretations of their encounters with the localpopulace. Some pilgrims noted that they came to appreciate the local popu-lation better, but most indicated the foreign culture made little impression onthem. These interviewees often stated that prior travel experience or priorknowledge of their destination’s culture caused the destination’s culture tohave little impact. Perhaps their devotion to the religious aspects of the tripalso causes pilgrims to focus less on the ‘‘locals.’’

Well, I’ve traveled extensively, a lot. . . . So, I don’t think that that [the cul-ture] influenced me that much. . . . I was very familiar with Muslims andthe culture.

I don’t know that that changed me in any way other than to affirmthat you don’t make judgments based on a person’s culture at all.

I don’t remember much encounter with . . . Palestinians and Israelis. We saw different people. I don’t think we were really exposed. It wasn’t

like we spent a lot of time with them.




. . . that didn’t have much of an effect on me because I had read about it andI knew what to expect so that didn’t have too much of an effect on me.

Many of the pilgrims also mentioned that the good feeling (or ‘‘commu-nitas’’) between the members of their group was the best thing about the trip:

The fellowship with the people that you went with was probably mine[i.e., her favorite thing about the trip] . . . . Just the fellowship . . . because

you traveled with these people and you were with them all of thetime . . . just getting to know them . . . and having fun with them. By the end of your trip, they’re your buddies.

Another woman commented:

The trip was wonderful, I really enjoyed it. Now [we] really became like aclose family while we were on the trip. I got to know people I had nevereven seen in church because of the two services. So that was fun.

Seekers were also likely to comment on feelings of communitas. Travelers who had no intention of visiting religious sites did not comment on any feel-ings of communitas with fellow travelers. If they commented on warm feel-ings toward other people, they commented on warm feelings for the localpopulation. Perhaps the pilgrims’ strong feelings of in-group communitasand weak feelings of connection to the local population indicate that there

are tradeoffs between these two types of connections.

Seekers

Seekers are people who love travel and are open to the widest possible rangeof travel experiences. Seekers embark on their trips with the intention of visit-ing both secular tourist destinations and religious destinations. They are,therefore, potential visitors to any tourist attraction that a country offers; how-ever, given the fact that seekers are open to such a variety of experiences, itmay be difficult for those operating tourist sites to vie for their attention.

By definition, seekers have mixed motives for traveling. Many of theseekers were able to articulate explicitly their motives for traveling:

[The trip was] Not so much to get away from it all, but . . . to have anenjoyable time. And we did. [The motivation for the trip was] 75 percentChristian upbringing and 25 percent leisure.

. . . not only our religious beliefs [motivated us], but our interest inhistory and social studies and geography . . .

Due to their diffuse interests and motivations, it is perhaps more difficult

to generalize about seekers than it is about the other three types of travelers.




In this regard, it is interesting to note that seekers often interpret theirexperiences traveling in ways that reflect both their secular and their religiousreasons for traveling:

I still believe the same way I did, but it maybe gave me an appreciation of our faith because we encountered Muslims and the Jewish people . . . Thepeople over there are less materialistic. . . . They just live a simple life.Most of them do. . . . I think the people in Israel were very kindheartedand very concerned about us being there.

Similarly, one seeker recounted how a boat ride across the Sea of Galilee appealed to him both as a history buff and a devout Christian:

We first entered the Holy Land in Jordan and then crossed over into

Israel . . . . [this was relevant to] me especially, being interested in the his-tory. Then from there we spent our first night in Tiberius. To get there,

we took a boat across the Sea of Galilee. We were the only ones onthe boat. So we rode a small boat all the way across and the boat flewan Israeli flag. And my pastor turned to me while we were all togetheron the deck and asked if I would read [Scripture] . . . . And Jesus and hisdisciples were on the Sea of Galilee.

The principle of cumulative attraction was also a key for seekers. Onedevoutly-religious Baptist pastor noted that Israel is an entertaining desti-

nation because it offers visitors an entire range of secular and religious attrac-tions. His answer helps explain how the profane and sacred can intertwineand attract the seeker:

I like climbing mountains. I like going into caves. I like discoveringthings. So, all of that is fun to me. . . . Some of the best meals that I’ve everhad in restaurants . . . not for the food . . . not always crazy about the foodthere . . . But to be in the environment, to overlook the Mediterraneanin Jaffa, old Jaffa, where Simon Peter saw his visions . . . or to be in

Jerusalem eating a pizza near the western wall. Those are just fun times.

The seekers we interviewed were also much less likely to spend all of their time traveling with a tour group; if traveling on a tour, most seemedanxious to break away from the tour for a time and experience some of the destination on their own. Obviously, an organized tour may constraina seeker’s ability to see everything he or she wishes to see at a destination.

A seeker explained how an encounter with an Arab shopkeeper helpsshape her perspective on the ongoing religious tensions in the Middle East:

One of the best things we did on this trip was [we] left the tour one

day and roamed around Jerusalem on our own. We did two things in




particular that day that affected our perspective on a lot of things. We wandered. . . in Jerusalem and stopped and talked to a lot of the mer-chants and stopped and ate in one of the little eating places. Even when

we went inside and sat for an extended period of time with a candy merchant, who went down and ordered tea for us. From him, we gotthe Arab perspective to the whole situation in Israel . . . and I haveremembered that as realizing that there is more than one side to whatis going on.

Similarly, the Baptist pastor, who had a strong interest in both the secular andreligious destinations in Israel, helps explain the unique perspective onegains from traveling outside a tour group:

Two of [his five trips] . . . have been . . . with just one other guy in a rentalcar and we weren’t identified as tourists so easily. . . . we’d be eating in a

restaurant . . . it’s probably pretty easy to pick out the Americans. But,nevertheless, I wasn’t on a bus. I wasn’t in that kind of tourist mentality.People didn’t try to sell us so many T-shirts and that kind of thing. We

were able to engage in some real conversations.

On the whole, however, our dominant impression of the seekers is thattheir motives for travel are diffuse; as a result, their wide range of interestsmakes it difficult to generalize about these travelers.

Accidental Tourists Anne Tyler’s novel The Accidental Tourist (1985) recounts the tale of MaconLeary. Macon is a middle-aged man who writes travel guidebooks for busi-nesspeople who loathe traveling. The accidental tourist attempts to travel

without encountering anything that causes discomfort; therefore, theaccidental tourist attempts to cling to the familiar while on the road.

Accidental tourists are travelers who go on the road with no intention of visiting secular or religious tourist sites. Some accidental tourists simply do not like to travel; others are too busy with other commitments (business,

visiting friends, receiving medical care, etc). Serving accidental tourists,therefore, presents a steep challenge for those operating tourist venues. Accidental tourists generally want to escape the rigors of travel; to the

extent that things can be ‘‘just like home’’ the accidental tourist is happy.One of our interviewees, who had lived in Israel for four years, exhibitedmany of the characteristics of an accidental tourist; but he did not neatly fitinto one category. We asked him what sort of things he would have likedto purchase overseas that he could not access; he replied:

. . . I had a U.S. post office and I could get online and get anything I

wanted mailed to me as if it were being mailed to a post office in the




U.S. We could even get FedEx delivered to the [United States] Embassy. We just came by and picked it up. You know . . . I just can’t think of any-thing [that he wanted, that he could not get delivered].

Such attempts to bring all of the ‘‘comforts of home’’ overseas are typical of the accidental tourist.

Of a trip to Paris, the same man lamented:

Well, the people are not very polite. They will not speak English to you.They understand it and you get responses. You get what you want. Youget what you need. But in general, they won’t speak English. And I don’tknow why.

Not all accidental tourists want to bring home abroad. One accidentaltourist, a retired executive, lamented that he enjoyed travel, but that duringhis years of business travel he seldom got to do any sightseeing in the placesthat he visited. He mentioned one visit to Miami:

I think that I would have probably enjoyed more sightseeing. Going toperhaps other areas, more of that. Of course, I probably would haveenjoyed seeing more of the Miami area if I had had time. I was at themeetings the entire time I was in Miami.

Another reply by the same man underscores the extreme difficulties religioussites will have in attracting some non-religious guests. When asked abouthow he felt about not having an opportunity to see Miami Beach’s Holocaustmemorial or any of the other religious sites in the area, he replied:

It was fine that I didn’t see any [religious sites]. I wouldn’t have seen any if I’d had time. That wasn’t an issue.

SERVING FOUR MASTERS: MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

In this section we discuss the ways businesspeople can use our taxonomy to

market travel products to each type of traveler.

Lotus-Eaters

Promotions to lotus-eaters should focus on the ‘‘fun’’ side of the tourist site.Marketing to this group should appeal to their desire to seek entertainment atthe tourist destination. But promotions to lotus-eaters should downplay thereligious sites. Since ‘‘fun’’ is self-defined, advertising to this group shouldinclude appeals to a variety of interests such as sport, shopping, history,

entertainment, or culture.




Attractions for this group are only as appealing as the entertainment value provided. Marketing messages should stress emotional arousal suchas humor, excitement, fear, or surprise; promotions should also appeal tothe senses, such as tastes, smells, sounds, and sights. Another effective

promotion tactic might be to stress that the tourist site is fashionable and that‘‘trendy’’ people are visiting.This group may even find appeal in the profane or irreverent interpreta-

tion of religious sites. This presents an opportunity to the host community,but it also challenging. For visitors who have strong religious views, theirreverence may seem inappropriate. The difficulty in mixing profane andsacred tourists might be part of the reason that non-Muslims are not allowedto visit Mecca in Saudi Arabia (Information for the Traveler, 2007).

PilgrimsFor pilgrims, the attraction is to ‘‘feel closer to God.’’ Authenticity, therefore,is the key for the pilgrim (Martyn, 1972). Those with strong religious beliefsdo not want to feel that a religious site is overly commercial.

Marketing to this group should include its significance as a religious siteand use the language of the religion to connect with the pilgrim. In addition,targeting these individuals may be most effective by targeting the church,parish, synagogue, or temple to which they are affiliated. Group leaders

within the church, parish, synagogue, or temple can be key gatekeepers in

organizing trips to the religious site and encouraging pilgrims to incorporatesuch destinations into their ‘‘spiritual journey.’’

Timing of marketing messages should be linked to the religious calen-dar in order to encourage travel associated with holy days (e.g., Christmas,Easter, Passover, etc.) and special events of significance to the religion(e.g., travel to Rome when a new Pope is elected). Tourist sites should alsoremember, however, to increase their promotions during the ‘‘regular’’ tour-ist season in the summer and around major holidays; even Pilgrims may find it difficult to arrange time off from work or school at other pointsduring the year.

Seekers

Seekers are motivated to find destinations that have a range of tourist sites;seekers want to ‘‘see it all.’’ So, the principle of cumulative attraction willbe the key to attracting them. The appropriate promotional strategy, there-fore, would emphasize the range of activities (both secular and religious) thatare available to tourists in an area. For Israel, the seeker would want to knowabout the religious sites, but also the beaches, mountains, restaurants, etc.;

promoters should try to convince these visitors that the destination is




appealing in the broadest sense: spiritually, historically, architecturally, andscenically.

For seekers who enjoy guided, group travel, package tours will beattractive. Such tours should include multiple destinations. The main

focus of the tour operator should be on preventing boredom amongthe seekers; the seeker wants to experience as much as possible in thetime allotted for the trip. Promotions to tour groups, travel agencies,and special interest groups (e.g., alumni groups, senior citizen groups,and other special interest groups) should be effective. Since seekers have

very broad interests, advertising on travel websites and travel guides thatappeal to the ‘‘mass audience’’ should also be effective; the lack of spe-cific interests among the seekers makes it difficult to focus on specializedmedia.

Accidental Tourists

Accidental tourists either do not want to travel or they have no time to fortraditional tourism activities. We offer two basic principles for serving theaccidental tourists: one is convenience, the other is impulse.

Many accidental tourists crave the comforts of home. (Anne Tyler’sMacon Leary tells travelers where they can find familiar brands like Taco Bell,Sweet n’ Low, and Chef Boyardee overseas). Any tourist site, religious orotherwise, that wishes to attract accidentals, must focus on comfort. Touristsites can use a variety of ways to keep accidental tourists comfortable:

. offer programs in the tourists’ native languages,

. make it easy for accidentals to pay by accepting a wide of credit cards,

. offer familiar food, and

. try to associate the site with brands that are familiar to the accidental tour-ist. For instance, something as simple as selling Coca-Cola could help putaccidentals at ease.

For the accidental tourist, the attraction is ‘‘impulse.’’ This group had no

intention to visit a secular or religious site. Since the decision is often made atthe last minute, promotions that capture this group would need to includebillboards and other types of outdoor media and signage near the site. In-room literature at nearby hotels may also attract accidentals. Since this isin-the-moment decision-making, communication material that can be distrib-uted in conference registration packets, hotel check-in materials, rental carsites, and airport signage would be desirable ways to promote a tourist site.The key is to be repetitious and ubiquitous — to be where the accidental tour-ist might pass or stop.

Regardless of the type of promotion, one can only attract accidentals by

focusing on activities that are easy (i.e., comfortable), fun, and quick.




CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURERESEARCH

True to the principles of grounded theory, we completed the interviews

without having a model a priori; this allowed us to read the transcripts toform tentative conclusions regarding our taxonomy. When we consultedthe literature, we were pleasantly surprised to see that we made a uniquecontribution to scholarship. However, our taxonomy also corresponds nicely to previously-published work in the tourism literature.

Cohen (1972, 1979) wrote a pair of articles in which he classifies tourists.He classifies tourists based on the degree of their exposure to a foreign cul-ture (Cohen, 1979). Our framework differs in that, unlike Cohen, we do notbelieve that tourists must travel for recreation or cultural enlightenment; it ispossible to travel for both purposes. Further, our taxonomy makes a clear

differentiation between ‘‘profane’’ tourist activities and ‘‘sacred’’ tourist activ-ities; both activities can be cultural experiences. But by separating theseactivities, our taxonomy categorizes tourists into four distinct groups thatcover travelers’ varied motivations for visiting overseas. In short, we makea clearer distinction than Cohen does.

Limitations

As is true of all qualitative research, many factors limit the generalizabil-

ity of the findings. All of the interviewees were living in the southeasternUnited States at the time of the interviews. Most had grown up in theSouth. Though respondents were dispersed throughout the Southeast,the largest group lived in the Deep South (the Deep South is ‘‘Alabama,

Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina’’ [Beck& Tolnay, 1990, 528]). The majority of the respondents lived in twosmaller southern cities. Both of these cities have area populations inthe 400,000–600,000 range. Two of the respondents were from ruralareas. All of the respondents live in areas where there is a substantial

population of people from outside the South. Further, all of therespondents are in contact with people who do not share their religious values.

Southern respondents might respond differently to questions than would people from other parts of the U.S. or the world. Further, all of therespondents are Caucasians; again, readers should bear in mind that travelersfrom other ethnic groups might have different reactions to their travels. Theapproximate age range among the respondents was from the early 30s toover 65; in this range, older respondents were predominant. Additionalstudies with more diverse respondents could help develop generalizations

about each of the four types of travelers.




Future Directions

Since travel is an inherently cyclical industry, it would also be interesting toexplore how elasticity of demand varies across the four groups. Woodsideand Motes (1981) find that different segments in the tourist market have very different responses to promotions; we wonder if these four groups wouldhave different elasticities in regard to their demand for travel to certain loca-tions. One might hypothesize that the demand for visits to religious sites

would be more inelastic among the devout believers. But we can only spec-ulate at this time.

We are also intrigued by the complexities of the group dynamics in reli-gious travel. Since Turner (1973) stated that religious pilgrims develop astrong feeling of communitas, scholars have argued about how group travelinfluences those who travel for religious reasons. There is still ample room

for study of the group dynamics in religious pilgrimage.One fruitful area for future research would be to explore how tourists’desire for stimulating travel experiences differs among the four groups.Fernandes (2006) states that tourists crave the three E’s: excitement, educa-tion, and entertainment. Fontaine (1994) mentions that the role of sensationseeking in tourism is not well understood. The taxonomy we propose clearly shows that the three E’s and the role of sensation seeking in RET is likely tobe vastly different in the various categories proposed and of increasing inter-est to social scientists because of those differences.

Above all, we are fascinated by the interaction of the sacred and the

secular, the lotus-eater and the pilgrim, religion and commerce. Interestingquestions include: why do the religiously uncommitted visit religious sites?How do religious visitors influence the economies and the cultures of thehost communities they visit? Do travelers obtain measurable benefits (e.g.,deeper faith, renewed faith) from their journeys? Also, the economic sideof religious tourism is still remarkably under-researched. Are certain typesof tourists more profitable for some sites than for others? We encourageambitious scholars to accept the challenge of exploring these mysteries.Our article provides a starting point.

REFERENCES

Alavi, Jafar. & Mahmoud, M. Yasin. (2000). A systematic approach to tourism policy. Journal of Business Research, 48 (2), 147–58.

Beck, E. M. & Stewart, E. Tolnay. (1990). The killing fields of the Deep South: Themarket for cotton and the lynching of blacks: 1882–1930. American Sociological

Review , 55 (4), 526–9.Belhassen, Yaniva. & Carla, Almeida Santos. (2006). An American evangelical

pilgrimage to Israel: A case study on politics and triangulation. Journal of

Travel Research, 44 (4), 431–41.




Belk, Russell W., Melanie, Wallendorf., & John, F. Sherry Jr. (1989). The sacred andthe profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of

Consumer Research, 16 , 1–38.Bilu, Yoram. (1988). The inner limits of communitas: A covert dimension of pilgrim-

age experience. Ethos , 16 (3), 302–25.Boorstin, Daniel J. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America.

New York: Harper & Row.Cohen, Erik. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39

(1), 164–82.Cohen, Erik. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology , 13 (2),

179–201.Cohen, Erik H. (2003). Tourism and religion: A case study – visiting students in

Israeli universities. Journal of Travel Research, 42 (1), 36–47.Fernandes, Carlos. (2006). New Trends in Religious Tourism. Paper presented at 1st

International Conference on Religious Tourism, Nicosia, Cyprus. http://www.icoret.

org/docs/29%20Carlos%20Fernandes%20presentation. (accessed April 30, 2007).Fontaine, Gary. (1994). Presence seeking and sensation seeking as motives for inter-

national travel. Psychological Reports , 75 (2), 1583–6.Haahti, Antti. & Ugur, Yavas. (2005). The effect of customer satisfaction with leisure

services on behavioral intentions: A study of visitors to SantaPark in Lapland.Services Marketing Quarterly , 26 (3), 1–12.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1982a). Religious Affiliation and Consumption Processes. Jagdish Sheth (Eds.) In Research in marketing . Greenwich CT: JAJ Press; 131–170.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1982b). Religious differences in cognitions regardingnovelty seeking and information transfer. Advances in Consumer Research, 9

(1), 228–33.

Homer, & Rouse, W. H. D. (translator). (1999). The odyssey . New York: Signet Classics.Information for the Traveler. (2007). Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia London. http://

www.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InSectionID=51&InNewsItemID=1756 (accessed April 30, 2007).

International Conference on Religious Tourism. (2006). icoret.org (accessed April 30, 2007).

Lunn, Arnold. (1963). Personally conducted. New Statesman & Nation, June 28.Martyn, Howe. (1972). The pilgrim and the publican. Columbia Journal of World

Business , 7 (2), 73–8.Mitchell, Mark A. & Sheila, J. Mitchell. (2001). Consumer experience tourism in the

nonprofit & public sectors. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing , 9 (3), 21–34.Mitchell, Mark A. & Robert, A. Orwig. (2002). Consumer experience tourism: Brand

bonding. Journal of Product and Brand Management , 11 (1), 30–41.Moutinho, Luiz. (1987). Consumer Behavior in Tourism. European Journal of

Marketing , 21 (10), 5–44.O’Guinn, Thomas C. & Russell, W. Belk. (1989). Heaven on Earth: Consumption at

Heritage Village, USA. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 227–38.Orwig, Robert A., Mark, A. Mitchell. & Zachary, Finney. R. (2003). Brand bonding:

What about faith communities? Journal of Contemporary Business Issues , 11

(2), 129–36.




Raymore, Leslie. (2002). Facilitators to leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (1), 37–51.Rodrigue, Christina S. (2002). Marketing church services: Targeting young adults.

Services Marketing Quarterly , 24 (1), 33–43.Sallnow, M. J. (1981). Communitas reconsidered: The sociology of Andean pilgrim-

age. Man, 16 , 163–82.Strauss, Anselm. & Juliet, Corbin. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded

theory procedures and techniques . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Theilmann, John M. (1987). Medieval pilgrims and the origins of tourism. Journal of

Popular Culture , 20 (4), 93–102.Timothy, Dallen J. (2006a). The Economic Importance of Religious Tourism. Paper

presented at 1st International Conference on Religious Tourism, Nicosia,Cyprus. http://icoret.metacanvas.com/EN/conference/programme_papers.html(accessed April 30, 2007).

Timothy, Dallen J. (2006b). The Economics of Religious Tourism and Success Storiesfrom North America. Paper presented at 1st International Conference on

Religious Tourism, Nicosia, Cyprus. http://www.icoret.org/docs/27%20Dallen%20J%20Timothy%20notes2.pdf (accessed April 30, 2007).

Timothy, Dallen J., & Daniel, H. Olsen. (2006). Tourism, religion, and spiritual

journeys . New York: Routledge.Travel and Tourism in Israel. (2005). http://www.the-infoshop.com/study/

eo77446-il-tourism.html (accessed April 30, 2007).Turner, Victor. (1973). The center out there: Pilgrim’s goal. History of Religions , 12

(3), 191–230.Turner, Victor. & Edith, Turner. (1978). Image and pilgrimage in christian culture:

Anthropological perspectives . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Tyler, Anne. (1985). The accidental tourist . New York: Berkley Books.

UNWTO Secretary-General Opens FITUR: 2007. (2007). World Tourism Organization.http://www.en.btbtravel.com/s/Editorial-Associations.asp?ReportID=169042&_Type=Editorial-Associations&_Title=UNWTO-Secretary-General-Opens-FITUR-2007 (accessed April 30, 2007).

Vokurka, Robert J., Stephen, W. McDaniel, & Noelle, Cooper. (2002). Church mar-keting communication methods: The effect of location and impact on growth.Services Marketing Quarterly , 24 (1), 17–32.

Weber, Max. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Wilson, Angene Hopkins. (1993). The meaning of international experience for

Schools . Westport, CT: Praeger. Woodside, Arch G., & Chris, Dubelaar. (2002). A general theory of tourism consump-tion systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical exploration. Journal of

Travel Research, 41 (2), 120–32. Woodside, Arch G. & Steven, Lysonski. (1989). A general model of traveler destina-

tion choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27 (4), 8–14. Woodside, Arch G. & William, H. Motes. (1981). Sensitivities of market segments to

separate advertising strategies. Journal of Marketing , 45 (Winter), 63–73. Woodside, Arch G., Marylouise, Caldwell. & Ray, Spurr. (2006). Advancing

Ecological Systems Theory in Lifestyle, Leisure, and Travel Research. Journal

of Travel Research, 44 (3), 259–72.




World Tourism Organization. (2007). www.unwto.org (accessed April 30, 2007). Yunis, Eugenio. (2006). Religious Tourism: Sustainability Challenges and Manage-

ment Approaches. Paper presented at 1st International Conference on ReligiousTourism, Nicosia, Cyprus. http://icoret.metacanvas.com/_metacanvas/attach_handler.uhtml?attach_id=106&content_type=application/pdf (accessed April30, 2007).

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

Subject # Gender Age2007?

Age duringtrip?

Traveled withfamily?

Had Travelledoverseas prior

to this trip?

1 Female 67 66 No No2 Female 62 61 No No

3 Female 57 56 No No4 Male 72 66 Yes No5 Female 72 66 Yes Yes6 Female 75 74 Yes No7 Female 68 62 No No8 Female 54 48 No No9 Female 63 62 No Yes

10 Male 68 37 Yes No11 Female 65 34 Yes No12 Female 69 68 No Yes13 Female 71 65 No Yes14 Male 74 68 Yes Yes

15 Female 70 64 Yes No16 Male 68 62 No No17 Male 48 42 Yes Yes18 Female 47 41 Yes Yes19 Female 60 54 No Yes20 Male 64 49 Yes Yes21 Female 34 30 Yes Yes22 Male 58 53 Yes No


travelers consume the sacred

Documents