Exploring Visitor Experiences, Activities and Benefits at Three ReligiousTourism Sites

NIGEL BOND1*, JAN PACKER2 and ROY BALLANTYNE2

1New Museum Project, Western Australian Museum, Welshpool DC, Western Australia, Australia2School of Business (Tourism), The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT

This research examines and compares the experiences of visitors (N= 534) to three different Christian religious heritage sites: CanterburyCathedral, the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham and the Glastonbury Abbey Christian pilgrimage festival. Employing the activity, setting,experience and benefit framework, the findings indicate that the three religious sites attract visitors who seek different kinds of experiencesand report different kinds of benefits. Results indicate that restorative experiences and benefits often overshadow the spiritual or cognitivebenefits that many believe to be the primary outcomes of religious tourism. These results challenge traditional ideas about what it means tobe a visitor at historical religious sites. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 19 March 2014; Revised 03 June 2014; Accepted 18 June 2014

key words religious tourism; visitor experience; pilgrimage; cultural heritage; visitor benefits

INTRODUCTION

Religious site tourism is growing in popularity across Europeand within the UK. Cathedrals in particular make up a signif-icant component of England’s tourism attractions. For exam-ple, in 2003, Shackley noted that the 43 Anglican Diocesancathedrals in England were at that time attracting in excessof 30 million visitors per year. The symbiotic relationshipbetween religious sites, such as cathedrals, and the tourism in-dustry in England is nowwell recognized (Francis, Mansfield,Williams & Village, 2010). Indeed, the importance of thisrelationship was noted as early as 1994 by the Archbishop’sCommission on Cathedrals. The Commissioners stated asfollows:

Tourism is of great significance to cathedrals in terms oftheir mission of teaching, evangelism and welcome, andis an important source of income. Cathedrals also play amajor part in the nation’s tourism (Heritage & Renewal,1994: 135).

A common approach in religious tourism literature is tocompare and explore the experiences of different types ofvisitors (e.g. pilgrims and tourists) at a single site. Discus-sions concerning differences in pilgrim and tourist motiva-tions and needs have been well documented and will not bepresented here (refer to Cohen, 1992; Smith, 1992; Coleman& Eade, 2004; Gatrell & Collins-Kreiner, 2006; Andriotis,2009; Olsen, 2010; Di Giovine, 2011; Eade, 2011). How-ever, few studies have compared the experiences of visitorsacross different kinds of religious sites. This gap in thereligious tourism literature is significant, as it assumes thatreligious sites offer visitors similar kinds of experiencesirrespective of the different functions that individual sites

perform. This paper seeks to present an examination andcomparison of the experiences of visitors at three differenttypes of religious heritage sites.

Many scholars writing about religious heritage tourismhave found that different religious sites have differentfunctions and have attempted to categorize these (Nolan &Nolan, 1989, 1992; Rinschede, 1992; Vukonic, 1996, 2002;Shackley, 2003; Lanquar, 2011). Given the range of religiousheritage sites and locations, it is likely that visitors choosewhich to visit, in part, based on their specific motivationaland experiential needs for that particular visit. It is, forexample, likely that a visitor’s reasons for visiting a smallrural chapel associated with a particular Saint will bedifferent from their reasons for visiting a grand cathedral.Similarly, it is likely that the visitor experience at a smallchapel will be different to that offered at a grand cathedralor at a religious festival held in the grounds of an ancientruined abbey.

A comparison of the different kinds of visitor experiencesoffered at different types of religious site is timely, as suchcomparisons will provide religious heritage site managerswith a detailed insight into the different ways in which indi-viduals use religious sites and the different roles religioussites play in the lives of visitors. Such information shouldunderpin the development of site-specific interpretive experi-ences to meet different visitor needs. As the religious tourismmarket becomes increasingly competitive (Weidenfeld &Ron, 2008), the provision of a diverse range of experiencesdesigned to meet visitors’ site-specific needs is essential toimprove visitor satisfaction, drive repeat visitation and en-sure funding for the maintenance of heritage site resources.

Understanding the diversity of the religious touristexperienceReligious tourism is predominantly an experiential product;however, only a small proportion of the research in this area

*Correspondence to: Nigel Bond, New Museum Project, Western AustraliaMuseum, Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, WA, Australia.E-mail: nigel.bond@museum.wa.gov.au

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

International Journal of Tourism Research, Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.2014

has empirically examined what visitors actually experience atreligious sites or the subsequent benefits that visitors attributeto their experiences (Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008). Thosestudies exploring experiences and associated benefits ofreligious tourism focus primarily on spiritual experiences,to the neglect of others such as social, educational or restor-ative experiences. This is despite the acknowledgement thatmanagers of religious sites should offer a range of experi-ences for visitors (Tirca & Stanciulescu, 2011).

The need to better understand the spiritual and non-spiritual elements of religious tourism is highlighted byWeidenfeld and Ron (2008), who note that the spiritual andnon-spiritual offerings at religious sites need to complementeach other in order to provide an inclusive visitor experience.Weidenfeld and Ron further state that little has been writtenabout the interrelationships between different experiencesand that further studies addressing these relationships arerequired (2008:358). Although religious needs are oftenconsidered to be decreasing in importance in a dominantlypost-modern secular market, it is noteworthy that visitationof religious sites is increasing, both for those with a religiousaffiliation (Tirca & Stanciulescu, 2011) and those without(Davie, 2006).

The degree to which faith-based interests impact on thechoice of religious sites to visit has not yet been exploredin the literature, even though religious and non-religiousmotivations are a frequent (if not over-represented) point ofcomparison in pilgrimage and religious tourism research(Olsen, 2010). The degree to which faith or religion affectsthe decision to seek out a particular kind of religious site is,however, important as it sits at the heart of the kinds ofexperiences that religious sites may present to visitors. Forexample, research suggests that religion is not the primarymotivator for visiting a grand cathedral (Hughes, Bond, &Ballantyne, 2013) but has been shown to be the primary rea-son that visitors seek out specific pilgrimage shrines such asLourdes in France (Raj & Morpeth, 2007).

Accordingly, this paper reports on research undertakenacross three different religious heritage sites to examine andcompare the experiences as perceived by visitors at each. Inso doing, it will provide those responsible for visitor manage-ment at such sites a more detailed insight into the differentexperiences and benefits sought and reported by visitors atdifferent types of sites and thus inform the provision andenhancement of a wider range of visitor experiences.

The activity, setting, experience and benefit (ASEB)framework for evaluating the visitor experienceThe experiences that visitors have at any destination can beclassified as experiential products (Beeho & Prentice,1997; Gilmore & Pine, 2002; Chan, 2009). The need for her-itage sites to focus on visitor experiences is now becomingrecognized by both academics and those who work withinthe heritage industry (Beeho & Prentice, 1997; Cameronand Gatewood, 2003; Chan, 2009; Poria, Biran, & Reichel,2009). However, there are very few comprehensive theoreti-cal models developed to help researchers understand whatvisitors want from their experiences, what experiencesvisitors have (consume) at the site and what benefits visitors

derive from their experience when they leave (Williams,Francis, Robbins, & Annis, 2007; Smallman & Moore, 2010).

Theoretical models that focus on visitor demand are oftenhierarchical and propose that people purchase particularproducts or engage in specific activities to meet certain needsor achieve particular goals (Beeho & Prentice, 1997). Onesuch model of consumer behaviour that has been usedsuccessfully in the heritage tourism literature is the ASEBmodel originally proposed by Beeho and Prentice (1997).The ASEB framework explores the way in which visitorsto an attraction view a site’s physical characteristics or set-tings, the activities that visitors choose to engage in and theperceived consequences of their visit, i.e. their evaluationof the experiences and the benefits that they believe will re-sult from the experience (Beeho & Prentice, 1997:76).

In the current research, the ASEB framework provides abasis for understanding how visitor experiences are shapedby a person’s perceptions of a setting and their activitieswhile at a site and how those experiences, in turn, influencetheir overall satisfaction and subsequent impacts or benefitsof the visit (Figure 1). Within the context of a visit to areligious heritage site, this framework suggests that visitorsattend a particular site that provides them with a desiredexperience to achieve certain goals. These goals may be todevelop stronger relationships with friends or family, to learnsomething, to gain spiritual benefits or to fulfil a commitment(Gatewood & Cameron, 2004; Cohen, 2006; Packer, 2008;Andriotis, 2009). It is hypothesized that different kinds ofreligious sites offer visitors a different kind of experience.Furthermore, it is also suggested that visitors choose whichreligious heritage site they will visit based on the particularkind of experience that they are seeking.

Categorizing religious sitesDespite the existence of several typologies categorizingreligious heritage sites (e.g. Vukonic, 1996; Shackley,2001; Ron, 2009), the system described by Nolan and Nolan(1989, 1992) is perhaps the most widely referenced whendiscussing Western European Christian religious sites.According to Nolan and Nolan, different religious sites havediffering levels of drawing power. They argue that, overtime, particular sites lose their ability to attract certain groupsof travellers (e.g. pilgrims) as the perceptions of the sacred-ness or power of the site diminish. They thus created atypology of religious sites based on their ability to attractdifferent groups of visitors. From their extensive researchof such sites, the authors identified three categories ofreligious sites, as follows:

Sites of high value as tourist attractions: These are majorreligious sites that attract large numbers of tourists, forexample, historic cathedrals. Such sites are famous for theirart, architecture and historical associations, and tourists tend tooutnumber pilgrims/worshippers.

Pilgrimage shrines: These are places that serve as a destinationfor pilgrims. They have a relatively low value as major touristattractions and have little in the way of festivals involvingpageantry or folkloric display.

N. Bond, J. Packer and R. Ballantyne

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Religious festivals: These festivals are usually held as anannual or biannual event and are most often associated witha place or site of religious significance.

Nolan and Nolan’s typology is helpful in understandingthe relationship between religious sites that still have animportant place as major pilgrimage centres (pilgrimageshrines and sites noted for pilgrimage events) and sites that,over time, have ceased to be the primary focus of pilgrims(sites of high value as tourist attractions). The authorsthemselves note that the relationship between the threecategories is complicated and that there is occasionally someoverlapping of roles. For example, although CanterburyCathedral (England) is no longer considered a significantplace of Christian pilgrimage, it stills attracts a small numberof pilgrims wishing to experience the site where ArchbishopThomas Becket was murdered in 1170 AD.

Accordingly, this research aims to compare three differentreligious heritage sites in relation to the activities, settings,experiences and benefits reported by visitors to each. Specif-ically, it aims to

(1) compare the pre-visit interests and expectations ofvisitors to three different religious heritage sites;

(2) measure and compare the experiences and benefits reportedby visitors at three different religious heritage sites; and

(3) investigate the extent to which visitors’ activity partici-pation and evaluations of setting attributes contribute toand influence their experiences and benefits that they re-port having gained at each of the three different religiousheritage sites.

METHOD

Research sitesThe three sites chosen for this research each represented oneof the three categories identified by Nolan and Nolan (1989,1992). Specific locations were chosen because of their his-toric significance as major sites of pilgrimage and/or becausethey receive in excess of 200 000 visitors each year.

Site 1: Site of high value as a tourist attractionCanterbury Cathedral is located at the centre of the city ofCanterbury in the heart of Kent, England. The cathedralhas been the official home of the Anglican Communionfor approximately five hundred years. The cathedral itselfwas founded in 597 CE and is the site of the ArchbishopThomas Becket’s murder in 1170. The cathedral receivesapproximately 1 million visitors each year (CanterburyCathedral, 2010).

Site 2: Pilgrimage shrineThe pilgrimage destination chosen for this study was theAnglican Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham (Norfolk,England). Visitors have made the journey to Walsinghamfrom all over the world since the eleventh century (Marshal,2009). The major focus of the pilgrimage journey is the‘Holy House’ believed to have been modelled on the houseof the Virgin Mary in Nazareth. Today, the shrine complexwelcomes 300 000 visitors annually (The Shrine of Our Ladyof Walsingham, 2008; Bond, 2009).

Site 3: Religious festivalAn annual Anglican Christian pilgrimage festival is held atthe historic Glastonbury Abbey, located in the south-westof England. The abbey has a long history of both pilgrimageand tourism due to the site being recognized as the locationof the first Christian Church in England, the beautiful historicruins of the abbey and the site’s connection with the legendsof Joseph of Arimathea and King Arthur. Glastonbury Abbeyis highly significant for European Christians, and every year,during the last week in June, the abbey hosts one of thelargest Anglican Christian pilgrimage festivals in the UK(Bowman, 1993). The Anglican pilgrimage festival attractsapproximately 1000 to 1500 visitors each year.

Each site provides similar kinds of activities and environ-ments for visitors. These include pleasant grounds to explore,significant artworks to view and interpretive centres orexhibition spaces to enjoy. They also offer a range of spiri-tual activities and spaces including worship services, placesfor reflection, places to leave prayers and offerings andplaces to light candles or perform other forms of rituals.

Participants and procedureAdult visitors to the shrine, cathedral and festival wereapproached as they exited the site and invited to complete aquestionnaire. The research employed a non-probability,next to pass, sampling approach (Veal, 2006). The final com-position of the sample at each site was dictated by the visit-ing population on the days of sampling. At the shrine andthe cathedral, data were collected on both weekdays andthe weekend. The Glastonbury pilgrimage festival is a one-day event that restricted the opportunity for data collection.A total of 534 completed questionnaires were received acrossthe three sites. At the cathedral, 210 questionnaires weredistributed, with 201 questionnaires returned (responserate = 96%). At the shrine, 301 questionnaires were distrib-uted, with 201 questionnaires returned (response rate =67%), and at the festival, 244 questionnaires were

Figure 1. ASEB model of visitor Experience (adapted from Beeho and Prentice [1997]).

Religious Tourism Experiences

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

distributed, with 182 completed questionnaires returned(response rate = 75%). Descriptive data for the visitors sur-veyed at each site are presented in Table 1.

Survey instrumentVisitor interests and expectationsIn order to develop an understanding of the interests and ex-pectations of visitors to the three sites, nine items were ratedon a five-point scale (ranging from 1, not important, throughto 5, very important). For a list of the items, refer to Table 2.

ActivitiesIn addition to worship services and scheduled events such asmusic/choral recitals, religious heritage sites often provide arange of interpretive activities and visitor services to add tothe experience of the visit. Activities include guided tours,digital-audio guides, panel displays and small exhibition

spaces. Larger sites, including those chosen for this research,have their own small interpretive centres and/or treasuries.Participation in activities was documented through a seriesof yes/no-style questions.

SettingsIn order to investigate visitors’ perceptions of heritage sites,Cameron and Gatewood (2000) developed a setting attributerating scale based on a series of 17 adjectives. Visitors weregiven the list of adjectives and asked to rate how well theydescribed the setting on a five-point scale ranging fromstrongly disagree to strongly agree.

ExperiencesThe experiential measures were based on a 34-item satisfyingexperience scale, developed by Packer and Bond (2010) tomeasure visitor experiences at a range of restorative leisureenvironments (a botanic garden, an aquarium, an art galleryand a museum). This scale was modified slightly to take intoaccount the potential experiences offered at religious heritagesites. Additional items were sourced from the religious andheritage tourism and visitor studies literature.

BenefitsThe measures used to explore the benefits attributed to thevisit were developed by Packer and Bond (2010). Additionalbenefit items were included to account for any potential spir-itual/religious benefits reported and were sourced from arange of tourism (including religious and heritage tourism)and visitor studies literature.

Data analysisStatistical comparisons between the three sites were con-ducted using both parametric (ANOVA) and non-parametric(chi-square) techniques. Relationships between activities,settings, experiences and benefits were explored using step-wise regression.

RESULTS

Visitor interests and expectationsThe results of the analysis of visitors’ interests and expecta-tions are presented in Table 2. For ease of reading,

Table 1. Percentage of visitors at each site who fell into the variousdemographic categories

Cathedral(N= 201)

Shrine(N= 200)

Festival(N= 132)

All sites(N= 533)

GenderMale 48 49 49 49Female 52 51 50 51

Age group18–20 4 4 6 520–29 22 4 14 1330–39 13 13 16 1440–49 15 18 17 1750–59 20 27 25 2460 and above 26 34 22 28

ResidenceLocal 7 3 5 5Other, England 50 83 55 63Other, UK 9 11 20 13Overseas 33 3 21 19

Religious affiliationChristian 70 86 67 74Other mainstreamreligion

2 — 1 1

Pagan/Wiccan 1 — 1 2No religion 26 10 25 20Other 2 3 2 2

Table 2. Visitor interests and expectations (mean scores on a five-point scale)

Cathedral (C) Festival (F) Shrine (S) Post hoc Scheffe tests, (p< .05)

I am interested in visiting the important tourist attractionsin this area**

4.1 3.77 3.64 C> S and F

I am interested in buildings or architecture** 4.28 3.99 3.87 C> S and FI am interested in history or historic sites** 4.44 4.25 4.17 C> S and FI am interested in culture and cultural heritage sites** 4.3 4.14 4.09 C and F> SI am interested in visiting sites important to my own faith** 3.38 3.88 4.08 C< S and FThis visit is part of a pilgrimage journey for me** 2.11 3.52 3.7 C< S and FThis visit is part of a personal quest or search for meaning** 2.16 3.39 3.34 C< S and FThis visit will fulfil a religious obligation for me** 2.02 3.14 3.18 C< S and F

Note: Interests that were rated 4.0 or higher on the five-point scale represent a high level of interest. Interests that were rated between 3.5 and 4.0 (suggest amoderate–high degree of interest). Interests that were rated between 3.0 and 3.5 (suggest a mild degree of interest). Ratings of less than 3 represent little interest.**p< .001.

N. Bond, J. Packer and R. Ballantyne

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Canterbury Cathedral will be referred to simply as Cathedral,the Glastonbury pilgrimage festival will be referred to asFestival, and The Shrine of Our Lady will referred to asShrine.

The results shown in Table 2 indicate several significantdifferences in the interests and expectations of visitors tothe three sites. Cathedral visitors were more likely to beinterested in visiting important tourist sites, buildings andarchitecture than visitors to the shrine or festival. Cathedralvisitors were only mildly interested in visiting sites relatedto their faith and were generally not interested in the morereligious aspects of the site. While both the shrine andfestival visitors were moderately interested in visiting animportant tourist site, they too were very interested in historyand historic sites and in culture and cultural heritage sites(although not to the same degree as cathedral visitors).Unlike cathedral visitors, both shrine and festival visitorswere moderately interested in the religious/spiritual elementsof the visits.

The degree to which the visitor interests at the three sitesoverlapped or diverged is highlighted more clearly whenindividual interest items are aggregated into three themes(interest in history/culture, interest in religious sites and interestin personal and spiritual benefits). As Figure 2 illustrates,visitors to all three sites reported a high level of interest inhistory and culture. The shrine and festival visitors shareda high level of interest in religious sites and a moderate levelof interest in personal and spiritual benefits. Cathedralvisitors showed little interest in personal spiritual benefits.

Activities visitors chose to participate in during their visitFor the purpose of analysis, the activities available at eachsite were aggregated into two primary themes: exploratoryactivities (visited interpretive centres, went on a guided tour,used visitor services, wandered around the site and relaxed inthe grounds) and worship activities (took part in services orceremonies, took part in personal prayer, left some kind ofoffering, made a request for spiritual help and lit candles).The activities ‘watching others take part in religious services’

(observing others worship) and ‘purchasing items in the giftshop’ (shopping activities) were considered neither explor-atory nor worship activities and were therefore treatedseparately.

As illustrated in Figure 3, the greatest proportions ofvisitors at each site took part in exploratory activities (suchas relaxing in the grounds, exploring the site and visitinginterpretive centres). Pairwise, 2 × 2 chi-square comparisonsrevealed that shrine visitors were more likely than cathedral(χ2 [1] = 29.56, p< .001) or festival visitors (χ2 [1] = 4.85,p = .03) to take part in worship activities, such as taking partin services, lighting candles, etc., and cathedral visitors werethe least likely to take part in such activities. Shrine visitorswere also more likely to purchase items in the gift shop thaneither cathedral visitors (χ2 [1] = 11.86, p = .001) or festivalvisitors (χ2 [1] = 9.60, p = .002). Lastly, shrine visitors(χ2 [1] = 19.08, p< .001) and festival visitors (χ2

[1] = 11.83, p = .001) were more likely than cathedral vis-itors to watch others engage in worship activities.

Perceptions of setting attributesVisitors to each site were asked to rate the site on 17 settingattributes using a five-point scale (�2 to +2). Although eachindividual setting rating is in itself interpretable, as noted byGatewood and Cameron (2004), the 17 adjectives are notindependent of each other. In order to identify latent themespresent within the scale, a principal axis factor analysis wasemployed using varimax rotation. Based on the factoranalysis, it was apparent that visitor impressions of thereligious heritage site settings could be represented by fivefactors (with a range of three to five items loading on eachfactor). These were named meaningfulness, commodifica-tion, historicity, peacefulness and fun. The factor solution,although similar to the solution provided by Gatewood andCameron (2004), did differ slightly. In the current analysis,individual items pertaining to the factors historicity andpeacefulness loaded on two separate factors, whereas inGatewood and Cameron’s (2004) study, they loaded on toone factor only. The five-factor solution explained 58.1%

4.27

3.84

2.10

3.89

4.09

3.41 4.00

4.01

3.35

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Interest in history/culture Interest in Religious sites Interest in personal spiritualbenefits

Cathedral

Shrine

Festival

Figure 2. Visitor interests and expectations by site.

Religious Tourism Experiences

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

of the common variance. Based on the results of the factoranalysis, five new composite variables were created. Theinternal consistency of each variable was also examined. Theresulting Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.84 to 0.56.

One-way ANOVAs (using the five composite settingratings as dependent variables) were used to determine theextent to which the perceptions of the setting attributesdiffered between the three sites. Examination of the compos-ite mean scores demonstrates similarities and differences inthe ways in which visitors to the three sites perceived thesettings. These results are displayed graphically in Figure 4.

Visitors at all three sites rated the location as meaningful(composite score >.5). One-way ANOVA with post hocScheffe tests (p< .05) showed that the shrine was ratedsignificantly higher than the festival site, which, in turn, wasrated higher than the cathedral (F [2, 473] = 12.21, p< .001).The cathedral and the festival sites were rated as the mosthistoric, while the shrine site was perceived to be the leasthistoric (F [2, 464] = 19.5, p< .001). The shrine and thefestival site returned the highest peacefulness ratings,

followed by the cathedral (F [2, 483] = 25.03, p< .001).While each site was considered moderately meaningful, his-toric and peaceful, visitors did not consider the sites particu-larly ‘fun’, with all three receiving low but positive ratingson this dimension – no significant differences were foundbetween the sites. Although none of the three sites was believedto be overly commodified, one-way ANOVA did indicate thatthe cathedral was deemed the most commodified, followed bythe festival and the shrine site (F [2, 464] =19.88, p< .001).

Experiences reported by visitors to religious heritage sitesExploratory principal axis factor analysis (with varimaxrotation) returned a five-factor structure for the reportedexperience scale that accounted for a total of 64.77% of theshared variance in the model. The five experience factorswere named connecting spiritually and emotionally, discov-ering new things, engaging mentally, interacting and belong-ing and relaxing and finding peace. These five experientialfactors were defined as follows:

0.88

-0.21

1.65

0.88

0.23

1.15

-0.74

1.341.37

0.33

0.99

-0.56

1.6

1.27

0.26

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Meaningful Commodification Historicity Peacefulness Fun

Cathedral

Shrine

Festival

Mean Settingratings

Figure 4. Mean (composite) setting ratings by site.

96

59.7

32.6

48.5

94

84.1

49.8 51.2

91.7

74.2

32.8

29.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Exploratory Worship Shopping Observing othersworship

Cathedral

Shrine

Festival

% undertaking activity

Figure 3. Percentage of visitors at each site who took part in specific activities (by site).

N. Bond, J. Packer and R. Ballantyne

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

(1) Connecting spiritually and emotionally: This factor com-prised 10 items that reflected deep emotional and per-sonal meaning, combined with a deep level of spiritualand emotional connection. This experiential factor re-flects a deep spiritual experience of connecting withsomething outside of one’s self.

(2) Discovering new things: This factor comprised sevenitems that reflected experiencing something new and ex-citing – something out of the ordinary.

(3) Engaging mentally: This factor comprised six items thatindicated that the respondent was fully absorbed and fas-cinated by what they were doing. This factor also reflectscognitive/learning experiences.

(4) Interacting and belonging: This factor comprised sixitems focussing on experiences of social interaction andrelationship building.

(5) Relaxing and finding peace: This final factor comprisedfour items that related to aspects of rest, rejuvenationand relaxation.

The results of the factor analysis were used to create fivenew experience variables. Mean scores for each compositevariable are provided in Figure 5. The resulting Cronbach’salpha for each composite variable was within the acceptablelimits and ranged from 0.88 to 0.94.

As indicated in Figure 5, there were significant differencesbetween the three sites on four of the five experience variables:

Connecting spiritually and emotionally: Results of the one-wayANOVA indicate a significant difference between sites in levelsof spiritual and emotional experience (F [2, 508] =22.90,p< .001). Post hoc Scheffe comparisons showed that whilethere was no significant difference between the shrine and thepilgrimage festival ratings, both these sites received significantlyhigher ratings (p< .01) than the cathedral.

Discovering new things: Results of the one-way ANOVAindicate a significant difference between sites in levels of dis-covery experiences (F [2, 509] =3.612, p=028). Post hoc

Scheffe comparisons (p< .05) showed that the cathedral re-ceived significantly greater ratings than both the shrine and thefestival sites. There were no significant differences betweenthe ratings of these two sites.

Interacting and belonging: Results of the one-way ANOVAindicate a significant difference between sites in levels ofinteracting and belonging experiences (F [2, 503] = 25.83,p< .001). Post hoc Scheffe tests showed that visitors tothe shrine and the pilgrimage festival reported significantlyhigher levels of this experience than did visitors to thecathedral.

Relaxing and finding peace: Results of the one-way ANOVAindicate a significant difference between sites in levels ofrelaxing and finding peace experiences (F [2, 513] = 33.06,p< .00). Post hoc Scheffe comparisons showed that shrinevisitors reported significantly higher levels of this experiencethan visitors to either the pilgrimage festival or the cathedral.Festival visitors reported significantly greater levels of thisexperience than cathedral visitors. Relaxing and finding peaceexperiences were some of the highest rated experiences over-all. For shrine and festival visitors in particular, feeling a senseof rest and relaxation was the experience rated most highly,even more than the spiritual aspects of the experience.

Engaging mentally: There were no significant differencesbetween the three sites on this experience item. Visitors ateach of the three sites reported moderately high levels of thisexperience.

Beneficial aspects of the visitThe individual benefit items were subjected to principal axisfactor analysis with varimax rotation. The factor analysisreturned a five-factor solution that accounted for a total of79.3% of the shared variance. These factors were namedpersonal fulfilment, spiritual growth, cognitive insight, socialbonding and restoration.

3.6

2.9

3.52

3.02 3.27

3.77 3.7

2.24

3.74 3.81 3.62

3.5 3.3

3.54

4.12

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Engagingmentally

Connectingspiritually andemotionally

Discovering newthings

Intercting andbelonging

Relaxing andfinding peace

Mean Experience ratings Cathedral

Shrine

Festival

Figure 5. Mean (composite) experience ratings by site.

Religious Tourism Experiences

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

The personal fulfilment factor comprised seven itemsrelating to an individual’s improved ability to understandhis or her place in the world and to achieving a greater senseof purpose. This factor also incorporated the idea of self-reflection and developing the strength or will to deal withthe challenges of life.

Spiritual growth benefits consisted of three items thatrelate specifically to a strengthening of one’s spiritual identity.

Cognitive insight consisted of six items that relate to cog-nitive or learning benefits. Individual items in this factorspeak to benefits such as ‘gaining a greater insight into theworld around me’ and ‘understanding things more deeply’.

Social bonding consisted of four items relating to im-proved or strengthened social connections with associatesand/or companions.

Restoration comprised four items relating to a sense ofpeace, rejuvenation and relaxation. The term restoration is usedin the environmental psychology literature to refer to theprocess of recovering from fatigue, restoring one’s physicaland emotional energy and finding respite from the stresses oflife (Herzog, Ouellette, Rolens, & Koenigs, 2010) and hasbeen previously described as a benefit of visiting religious sites(e.g. Ouellette, Kaplan, & Kaplan, 2005).

The reliability of each composite variable was examined.The resulting Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.91 to 0.97, in-dicating a high level of internal reliability within each variable.

As illustrated in Figure 6, there were significant differencesbetween the three sites in the levels of benefits reported.

Cognitive insight: Results from the one-way ANOVA andpost hoc Scheffe tests (p< .05) show that visitors to the shrineand the festival reported greater levels of cognitive insight thanvisitors to the cathedral (F [2, 498] = 9.6, p< .001). However,for both shrine and festival visitors, cognitive insight was thebenefit rated the lowest. For cathedral visitors, cognitive in-sight was the second highest rated benefit.

Social bonding: Shrine and festival visitors reported moderateto high levels of social bonding benefits, while cathedral

visitors reported only mild levels of social benefits (F [2,485] = 19.22, p< .001).

Restoration: Restoration benefits were the highest rated bene-fits for visitors at each of the three sites. One-way ANOVA re-sults (F [2, 493] = 28.46, p< .001) and Scheffe tests (p< .05)showed that shrine visitors reported significantly greater levelsof restoration benefits than either festival or cathedral visitors.

Personal fulfilment: Both shrine and festival visitors reportedmoderate levels of personal fulfilment. Cathedral visitorsreported the lowest levels of personal fulfilment; indeed, forthese visitors, personal fulfilment was the lowest rated benefit(F [2, 494] = 23.96, p< .001).

Spiritual growth: For shrine and festival visitors, spiritualgrowth was the second highest rated benefit (behind restora-tion). Once again, results show that cathedral visitors reportedthe lowest levels of spiritual growth (F [2, 496] = 29.27,p< .001). As demonstrated in Figure 6, spiritual growthreturned the greatest difference between the highest-rating site(the shrine) and the lowest rating (the cathedral). This isevidence that spiritual growth was the greatest area of dis-crepancy between the three sites in terms of benefits received.

Inter-relationships between the activities, settings,experience and benefit elementsThe final objective of this research was to explore the interre-lationships between the four ASEB elements at each site.This analysis was conducted using a series of stepwise linearregressions, using the activity, setting and experiencevariables as independent variables and each of the benefits,in turn, as a dependent variable.

Stepwise regression analysis revealed that for cathedralvisitors, the experience variable connecting spiritually andemotionally was strongly predictive of all five benefits(p< .01, beta> .5). The experience relaxing and findingpeace was also a significant predictor of restoration benefits,while interacting and belonging was a significant predictor

3.51

3.19

3.59

3.16

4.27 4.32

4.88 4.77

4 3.98

4.41 4.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cognitive insight Social bonding Restoration Personal fulfilment

Mean Benefit ratings Cathedral

Shrine

Festival

Figure 6. Mean (composite) benefit ratings by site.

N. Bond, J. Packer and R. Ballantyne

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

of social bonding benefits. No activities or setting variableswere significant predictors of any of the reported benefits.

Stepwise regression analysis revealed that for shrinevisitors, the experience variable connecting spiritually andemotionally was again predictive of all five benefit variablesbut strongly predictive of personal fulfilment and spiritualgrowth. Relaxing and finding peace was strongly predictive(p< .001, beta< .5) of restoration benefits. The experiencevariable interacting and belonging was strongly predictiveof social bonding benefits (p< .001, beta> .5), while theexperience discovering new things was mildly predictive ofcognitive insight benefits (p< .001, beta< .5). For shrinevisitors, activities and settings were not significant predictorsof subsequent benefits.

Stepwise regression analysis revealed that for festivalvisitors, the experience variable connecting spiritually andemotionally was strongly predictive (p< .001, beta> .5) offour out of five benefits. The experience variable interactingand belonging was strongly predictive of social bonding(p< .001, beta> .5), while discovering new things wasmildly predictive of cognitive insight (p< .001, beta< .5).Worship activities were predictive of spiritual growth andpersonal fulfilment benefits. Visitor perceptions of the settingdid not predict any subsequent benefits.

Thus, the results of regression analyses were mostly con-sistent across the three sites. Relaxing and finding peace ledto restoration benefits, interacting and belonging led to so-cial bonding benefits, and discovering new things led to cog-nitive insight benefits. Of particular interest, however, is thestrong association between connecting spiritually and emo-tionally and all five of the benefit variables, including per-sonal fulfilment and spiritual growth.

DISCUSSION

The ability of a religious site to attract visitors is, in part,connected to people’s beliefs about the authenticity of thesite and what this authenticity represents to them personally(Andriotis, 2011). As this study has shown, different reli-gious sites have different kinds of attracting power. Grandcathedrals such as Canterbury primarily attract those seekinga cultural and historical experience, while shrines and reli-gious festival sites attract visitors who wish to engage inmore worship-focussed experiences. According to Nolanand Nolan (1992), particular sites seem to lose their abilityto attract certain groups of visitors (or offer certain kinds ofexperiences), as perceptions of the site change. The resultsof this study support this argument.

Ron (2009) suggests that visitors seek out some religioussites in search of historical and cultural meaning, not only asplaces of worship – the results of this study support thissuggestion. Compared with shrine or festival visitors, cathe-dral visitors were less likely to take part in the more spiritu-ally focussed activities and were more interested in thearchitectural and aesthetic qualities that the site had to offer.This was also evidenced in the finding that cathedral visitorswere more likely to rate learning experiences (discoveringnew things) higher than most other experiences. This echoes

the findings of other cathedral-based research (for example,Francis, Williams, Annis, & Robbins, 2008, 2010; Hugheset al., 2013) and suggests that cathedrals should develop theirinterpretive resources to enhance the educational and culturalexperience of visitors, in addition to maintaining their spiri-tual offerings. Despite the experience being a more cognitiveone, cathedral visitors also reported being emotionally in-volved with their experience. It is evident that for cathedralvisitors, forming a strong emotional connection to the sitehad a significant positive impact on the benefits received asa result of the visit. This finding supports the argument putforward by Davie (2006) that many English people still havea strong affinity for their Christian heritage, even if they nolonger practise their beliefs in any overt or explicit way. Itis this identification with Christian heritage that still drawsmany visitors to sites such as the grand cathedrals.

Like visitors to the cathedral, shrine and festival visitors wereinterested in the historic aspects of the site. However, shrine andfestival visitors were also interested in the more spiritualelements available. Shrine and festival visits were perceived asspiritually rewarding, a finding consistent with many studiesexploring the experiences of visitors at similar historic religioussites (Andriotis, 2009; Petreas, 2011). Surprisingly, however,spiritual experiences and spiritual benefits were not the primaryvisitor experience or outcome reported at either the shrine orthe festival. Visitors to both these sites also reported theirvisits as being highly restorative in nature.

The importance of the restorative function of religioussites has generally been overlooked in the religious tourismliterature (Ouellette et al., 2005; Herzog, Grey, Dunville,Hicks, & Gilson, 2011), which tends to highlight the spiritualbenefits of such places while ignoring other elements of theexperience (Collins-Kreiner, 2010). Both Herzog et al.(2011) and Manning, Watkins and Anthony (2009) also notethat much of the religious tourism literature fails to explorevisitor perceptions of the physical environment of places ofworship. Herzog and his colleagues (2010, 2011) have sug-gested that in addition to spiritual benefits, visiting placesof worship can serve to conserve and restore attention, aswell as promote meditation and reflection. Herzog et al.(2011) and Manning et al. (2009) argue that religious sitesoften provide visitors with environmental conditions (suchas peacefulness and tranquillity) that are the ideal conditionsfor restorative experiences to occur. Packer (2014) notes thattourist attractions that enable visitors to ‘slow down’ for awhile, and offer an environment where visitors can beabsorbed in interesting activities while not feelingoverwhelmed or rushed, may also lead to restorative benefits.

The results of the ASEB regression analyses suggested thatthe activities undertaken by visitors played only a small role ininfluencing the overall experience or benefits gained. At all threesites, the experience of ‘connecting spiritually and emotionally’was the strongest predictor of a range of beneficial outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This research has focussed on comparing the experiencesand reported benefits of visitors to three different religious

Religious Tourism Experiences

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

heritage sites: a shrine, a pilgrimage festival and a cathe-dral. The findings support Nolan and Nolan’s (1992) sug-gestion that different categories of religious sites attractdifferent kinds of visitors, each in search of different kindsof experiences. These findings are particularly importantfor those responsible for the management of visitor experi-ences at religious sites. Visitors select the kind of religioussite that they wish to visit based on their levels of interestin religion and faith, cultural heritage and art and architec-ture, as well as the degree to which a particular site (be ita shrine, festival or tourist attraction) meets their particularcombinations of interest. Shrines and religious festivalsattract those with more spiritually focused interests andmotivations, while those visitors with greater interest inreligious history and cultural heritage seek out the grandcathedrals. This means that interpretation content and activ-ities provided for each kind of site should be different –the focus of the messages and activities designed forvisitors needs to be designed to meet the different visitorexpectations and motives for visiting the different sitesas identified in this research.

The results presented here support the argument thatspiritual outcomes are not the primary benefits that visitorsreport as a result of their experiences. For visitors to eachof the three sites, restoration benefits were deemed themost important. These findings support previous researchhighlighting the restorative potential of places of worship– spiritual benefits are not the only benefits that visitorsto religious sites seek. Although there have been numerousstudies exploring the outcomes of religious site tourism, todate, this has been the only study that has clearly shownnot only that restoration is a significant benefit but alsothat this benefit is reported consistently across differentcategories of religious heritage sites. The current researchbuilds on the suggestions of Herzog et al. (2010, 2011)and Ouellette et al. (2005) and shows that places ofworship can be considered as restorative environmentsand that, frequently, this is the primary experience andsubsequent benefit that visitors are seeking.

Religious heritage sites, perhaps more than the otherheritage sites, signify cultural ideals and values. Whetherin grand cathedrals such as Canterbury or small shrinessuch as Walsingham, these values, both spiritual and secu-lar, are portrayed in the architecture of the buildings, inpaintings and sculpture and in the numerous ceremoniesand performances that take place within their grounds.These sites are important representations of cultural andreligious history and instil in visitors a sense of emotionalconnection and place. As individual lives become morehectic, and families become more dispersed, the perfor-mance of rituals, and seeking out culturally familiar placesand practices, helps to ground people in something that isfamiliar (Davie, 2006). The results of this study demon-strate that visiting a religious heritage site can be emotion-ally, cognitively and spiritually rewarding. Religioustourism provides an important opportunity to escape fromthe everyday life within an environment that allows peopleto reconnect with themselves, with their families and withtheir cultural and/or religious heritage.

REFERENCES

Andriotis K. 2009. Sacred site experience: A phenomenologicalstudy. Annals of Tourism Research 36(1): 64–84.

Andriotis K. 2011. Genres of heritage authenticity: denotationsfrom a pilgrimage landscape. Annals of Tourism Research 38(4): 1613–1633.

Beeho AJ, Prentice RC. 1997. Conceptualizing the experiences ofheritage tourists: A case study of New Lanark World HeritageVillage. Tourism Management 18(2): 75–87.

Bond N. 2009. The experiences and benefits of visitors to the Shrineof Our Lady of Walsingham. A report provided to the Shrine ofOur Lady. University of Queensland: Brisbane.

Bowman M. 1993. Drawn to Glastonbury. In Pilgrimage in popularculture, Reader I, Walter T (eds). MacMillan: Basingstoke;pp. 29–62.

Cameron CM,Gatewood JB. 2000. Excursions into the un-rememberedpast: What people want from visits to historical sites. The PublicHistorian 22(3): 107–127.

Cameron CM, Gatewood JB. 2003. Seeking numinous experiencesin the unremembered past. Ethnology 42(1): 55–71.

Canterbury Cathedral. 2010. Welcome to Canterbury Cathedral.Retrieved 01.04.2011, 2011, from http://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/

Chan JL. 2009. The consumption of museum service experiences:benefits and value of museum experiences. Journal of Hos-pitality Marketing & Management 18(2–3): 173–196.

Cohen E. 1992. Pilgrimage Centres: Concentric and Excentric.Annals of Tourism Research 19(1): 33–50.

Cohen E. 2006. Religious tourism as an educational experience. InTourism, religion and spiritual journeys, Timothy DJ, OlsenDH (eds). Roulledge: London; pp. 78–93.

Coleman S, Eade J. 2004. Reframing Pilgrimage: Cultures inMotion. Routledge: London and New York.

Collins-Kreiner N. 2010. Researching pilgrimage: Continuity andTransformations. Annals of Tourism Research 37(2): 440–456.

Davie G. 2006. Religion in Europe in the 21st Century: The Factors toTake into Account. European Journal of Sociology 47: 271–296.

Di Giovine MA. 2011. Pilgrimage: Communitas and contestation,unity and difference – an introduction. Tourism: An Interna-tional, Interdisciplinary Journal 59(3): 247–269.

Eade J. 2011. The expanding field of pilgrimage studies: beyondbinaries. Tourism 59(3): 387–389.

Francis LJ, Mansfield S, Williams E, Village A. 2010. ApplyingPsychological Type Theory to Cathedral Visitors: A Case Studyof Two Cathedrals in England and Wales. Visitor Studies 13(2):175–186.

Francis LJ, Williams E, Annis J, Robbins M. 2008. Under-standing cathedral visitors: Psychological type and individualdifferences in experience and appreciation. Tourism Analysis13(1): 71–80.

Gatewood JB, Cameron CM. 2004. Battlefield pilgrims at Gettys-burg National Military Park. Ethnology 43(3): 193–216.

Gatrell JD, Collins-Kreiner N. 2006. Negotiated Space: Tourists,Pilgrims and the Baha’i Terraced Gardens in Haifa. Geoforum37(5): 765–778.

Gilmore JH, Pine BJ. 2002. Differentiating hospitality operationsvia experiences: Why selling services is not enough. CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 43(3): 87–97.

Heritage and Renewal. 1994. The Report of the Archbishops’Commission on Cathedrals. General Synod. 29 November.

Herzog TR, Grey LE, Dunville AM, Hicks AM, Gilson EA. 2011.Preference and Tranquillity for Houses of Worship. Environ-ment and Behaviour 45(4): 504–525.

Herzog TR, Ouellette P, Rolens JR, Koenigs AM. 2010. Houses ofworship as restorative environments. Environment and Behav-iour 42: 395–419.

Hughes K, Bond N, Ballantyne R. 2013. Designing religious tourismexperiences: An exploration of visitors’ reactions to interpretationat Canterbury Cathedral. Tourism Management 36: 210–220.

N. Bond, J. Packer and R. Ballantyne

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Lanquar LG. 2011. Pilgrims between East and West. In ReligiousTourism in Asia and the Pacific. World Tourism Organisation,Madrid, Spain, p. 13–14.

Manning KC, Watkins NJ, Anthony KH. 2009. The people or thesteeple? An examination of sacramental architecture amongparishioners. Journal of the Institute for Sacred Architecture16(Fall): 17–19.

Marshal J. 2009. The Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. Retrieved01.04.2011, 2009, from http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/welcome/index.htm

Nolan ML, Nolan S. 1989. Christian pilgrimage in modern WesternEurope. University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill and London.

Nolan M, Nolan S. 1992. Religious sites as tourism attractions inEurope. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 68–78.

Olsen DH. 2010. Pilgrims, tourists and Max Weber’s "ideal types".Annals of Tourism Research 37(3): 848–851.

Ouellette P, Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 2005. The monastery as a restorativeenvironment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25: 175–188.

Packer J. 2008. Beyond learning: Exploring visitors’ perceptions ofthe value and benefits of museum experiences. Curator: TheMuseum Journal: 51(1): 33–54.

Packer J. 2014. Visitors’ restorative experiences in museum andbotanic garden environments. In Tourist Experience and Fulfil-ment: Insights from Positive Psychology, Filep S, Pearce P(eds). Routledge: London.

Packer J, Bond N. 2010. Museums as restorative environments.Curator: The Museum Journal 53(4): 21–37.

Petreas C. 2011. The conflicting interactions among stakeholders inreligious and pilgrimage sites. Paper presented at the Interna-tional Conference on Tourism, Rhodes, Greece.

Poria Y, Biran A, Reichel A. 2009. Visitors’ preferences for inter-pretation at heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research 48(1):92–109.

Raj R, Morpeth ND (eds). 2007. Religious tourism and pilgrimagemanagement: an international perspective. Wallingford,Oxfordshire; Cambridge, Mass: CABI International

Rinschede G. 1992. Forms of Religious Tourism. Annals of Tour-ism Research 19: 51–67.

Ron A. 2009. Towards a typological model of contemporaryChristian travel. Journal of Heritage Tourism 4(4): 287–297.

Shackley M. 2001. Managing sacred sites: service provision andvisitor experience. Continuum: London.

Shackley M. 2003. Management challenges for religion-basedattractions. In Managing visitor attractions - new directions,Fyall A, Garrod B, Leask A (eds). Butterworth-Heinemann:Oxford, UK.

Smallman C, Moore K. 2010. Process studies of tourist decisionmaking. Annals of Tourism Research 37(2): 397–422.

Smith VL. 1992. Introduction: The Quest in Guest. Annals ofTourism Research 19: 1–17.

The Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. 2008. Visitor’s WelcomeGuide. Walsingham.

Tirca A, Stanciulescu GC. 2011. Managing the religious tourismexperience in Romanian Christian Orthodoxy. InternationalJournal of Business and Globalisation 7(1): 40–63.

Veal A. 2006. Research Methods for Leisure Tourism – A PracticalGuide, (3rd edn). Pearson Education: Harlow.

Vukonic V. 1996. Tourism and religion (S. Matesic, Trans.).Pergamon: Oxford.

Vukonic B. 2002. Religion, tourism and economics: A convenientsymbiosis. Tourism Recreation Research 27(2): 59–64.

Weidenfeld ADI, Ron AS. 2008. Religious Needs in the TourismIndustry. Anatolia 19(2): 357–361.

Williams E, Francis LJ, Robbins M, Annis J. 2007. Visitorexperiences of St David’s Cathedral: The two worlds of pilgrimsand secular tourists. Rural Theology 5: 111–123.

Religious Tourism Experiences

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr