Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Tourism Accessibility and Its Impact on the
Spiritual Sustainability of Sacred Sites
Silvia Aulet 1, * and Tomasz Duda 2
1Faculty of Tourism, University of Girona, Plaça Josep Ferrater i Móra, 1, 17004 Girona, Spain
2Institute of Spatial Management and Socio-Economic Geography, University of Szczecin,
Mickiewicza 18, 70-383 Szczecin, Poland; tomasz.duda@usz.edu.pl
*Correspondence: silvia.aulet@udg.edu; Tel.: +34-676-721-529
Received: 28 September 2020; Accepted: 18 November 2020; Published: 20 November 2020
Abstract:
Religious heritage sites are defined by their nature, both religious and non-religious
(historical, social, cultural, etc.), as being pilgrimage destinations, as well as tourist attractions.
The main aim of this paper is to determine whether there is a relationship between tourism
accessibility and the concept of spiritual sustainability. Spiritual sustainability is presented in the
paper by analyzing the concept of a sacred place and the connection it may have with tourism
development. The authors have attempted to distinguish the elements determining the tourist and
religious (spiritual) attractiveness of several pilgrimage sites as destinations for religious tourism,
proposing a model for analyzing the connection between the two concepts studied. Two European
regions have been compared—Pomerania (Poland) and Catalonia (Spain)—by analyzing 30 sacred
sites (15 per region) using a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods. The results
show that a lack of accessibility positively affects the spiritual sustainability of the sites. In other
cases, the impact that accessibility can have depends on the management system.
Keywords: religious tourism; sacred sites; spiritual sustainability; accessibility
1. Introduction
Religious tourism, and, to a certain extent, pilgrimages, take place in a specific and defined
geographical space, which is part of the broadly comprehended cultural landscape. The range and
shape of that space are determined by its dynamic nature and are the result of changes in the motivation,
behavior, and needs of the tourist (users of the space). Sacred places (in the context of religious tourism)
may be of a universal nature, where the tourist comes into contact with the broadly comprehended
phenomenon of religiosity [
1
]. However, they can also be approached from a wide perspective
(a tourist’s interest in religion, both in terms of faith and the history, art, or symbolism), a narrow one
(the religious motive is dominant, but assumes the existence of other secondary motifs), and a specialist
one (the closest to the notion of “pilgrimage”, where the most important and often sole motive of travel
is the desire to commune with the sacrum). A sacred place, often referred to as a holy site or sacred
site, is defined as the result of the individualization of landscape perception and its nature, both the
religious and historical, social, geographical, and cultural [
1
,
2
]. Therefore, it can be both a strictly
motivated destination of wandering (pilgrimage), as well as a place with dominant features of regional
or local culture and historical or religious heritage elements [3].
Sacred places represent one of the most important elements of the religious tourism space and
religious landscape, constituting a subject of interest for tourists and pilgrims. Their functioning,
shape, and boundaries are a result of the influence of both the elements of the sacrum and the broadly
understood profanum. Despite the complexity and great diversity in the understanding of sacrum in the
tourist space, one can point to the functioning of certain bridges connecting the elements and affecting
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695; doi:10.3390/su12229695 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 2 of 19
its attractiveness (tourism and religion) [
4
]. One of these bridges is the proper interpretation of the
place, referring, on the one hand, to its character and religious and spiritual values, and, on the other
hand, to its importance as an element of the religious and cultural heritage of the region. The concept
of spiritual sustainability is closely related to the perception of the identity and meaning of religious
sites [5,6].
Accessibility is another important issue for both religion and tourism. As it will be developed
in the following section, accessibility refers not only to physical access to the sites [
7
], but also to
emotional and intellectual accessibility, regarding the perception that visitors have in terms of the
narratives and the values of the sites [
8
,
9
]. Depending on these elements, the perception and even
the significance of the site determine the character of the space [
6
]. A skillful combination of these
elements should not disturb the character of the place and its unique genius loci [
10
]. The functioning of
a holy place in the geographical and tourist space largely depends on its significance in the religious or
social consciousness of the pilgrims. Extremely important elements, and in many cases, decisive ones,
for the attractiveness of the object could be its location, communication accessibility, and pilgrimage
and tourist activity management [
11
–
13
]. Large and significant religious tourism places, such as
Fatima [
14
], Lourdes [
15
,
16
], Cz˛estochowa [
17
,
18
], and Santiago de Compostela [
19
,
20
], have developed
as global pilgrimage centers, thanks to efficiently functioning infrastructure and good communication
accessibility. Smaller religious centers and places situated in marginal areas, located slightly offthe
beaten track in comparison to mainstream pilgrimage activity, have developed similarly.
The main aim of this paper is to determine to what extent tourism accessibility can help to preserve
the spiritual sustainability of sacred places. For this purpose, the concept of spiritual sustainability
will be proposed and explored. Furthermore, the authors have attempted to distinguish the elements
determining the tourist and religious (spiritual) attractiveness of several pilgrimage sites as destinations
for religious tourism, proposing a model for the classification of sacred buildings related to their
importance in tourism and the perception of the spiritual values of the site. The paper is structured in
different sections. The first section includes a literature review on the state of the art regarding religious
tourism sites and the concept of spiritual sustainability. The literature review sustains the methodology
proposed, which is highlighted in the second section. Following the methodology, the results are
presented, and conclusions and discussions are proposed in the last section of the paper.
2. Religious Tourism, Accessibility, and Spiritual Sustainability
After reviewing the different approaches that have been adopted in religious tourism studies,
two realities can be stated. On one hand, there has been a growing interest in the topic, especially since
the 1990s, and on the other hand, it has been approached from the perspective of different disciplines.
After exploring the main databases in the field of social sciences and humanities, it was found
that the number of publications in international journals dealing with religious tourism has grown
exponentially. Figure 1shows the evolution of published papers based on the Web of Science and
Scopus if the term religious tourism is searched. A very significant increase occurred after 2014,
except for 2008 in the case of Scopus, which exhibited a significative increase, but decreased immediately
afterwards. The search can be refined by looking for specific topics, such as pilgrimage, a pilgrim’s or
religious tourist’s motivations, and impacts, among others. Figure 1demonstrates the importance this
field has acquired in the last year as a topic of academic interest.
In line with this importance, at the beginning of 2000, a specific worktable for religious tourism
was created by the ATLAS institution dedicated to research on tourism. Since then, the number
of publications has multiplied, as well as the number of congresses and international conferences.
For instance, the publication of the acts of the First Congress is remarkable [
21
] and has led to the
appearance of articles in international academic journals, such as the Journal of Cultural Geography
and Annals of Tourism Research in the United States, Geographia Religionum in Germany, and Cahiers du
Tourisme and Cahiers Espace in France, ending with the development of specialized journals, such as the
International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 3 of 19
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21
Figure 1. Evolution of the publications on religious tourism. Source: The authors based on data from
Scopus and Web of Science.
In line with this importance, at the beginning of 2000, a specific worktable for religious tourism
was created by the ATLAS institution dedicated to research on tourism. Since then, the number of
publications has multiplied, as well as the number of congresses and international conferences. For
instance, the publication of the acts of the First Congress is remarkable [21] and has led to the
appearance of articles in international academic journals, such as the Journal of Cultural Geography and
Annals of Tourism Research in the United States, Geographia Religionum in Germany, and Cahiers du
Tourisme and Cahiers Espace in France, ending with the development of specialized journals, such as
the International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage.
There is a group of studies focused on pilgrimage as a central theme. Inspired by the work of
Durkheim and Eliade on the separation of sacred and profane, the first theories explored pilgrimage
from a sociological approach [22], giving rise to the publication of other relevant works, where the
links between pilgrimage and tourism were explored [23–25]. It must be said that works on specific
sanctuaries and pilgrimages have also been published in certain regions and countries [15,20,26,27].
Furthermore, increasing numbers of experiences and cases of study of pilgrimages have been
recognized in the international field, such as the Camino de Santiago [28–32] or the Hajj [33–36]. It
goes without saying that, in this area, there is an extensive bibliography at the local level and in non-
English languages, which would be a reason for conducting a more in-depth study.
However, regarding religious tourism, most of the documents (especially those published in the
1990s) seek to study the concept of religious tourism, and there are currently a large number of
studies. Beyond conceptualization, we can talk about studies that have researched the phenomenon
from different perspectives. For example, from defining what is religious tourism, the relationship
that it can have with spiritual tourism [4,37–40], different management systems [13,41,42], the impacts
that it generates in certain areas [43–46], and the relationship between religion and political instability
[47–50] have been discussed. Several studies have even focused on motivations and conflicts of use
between tourists and residents and on impacts, whilst very few studies have examined the complex
management issues related to important pilgrimage sites where tourism and religion meet [51] or
focused on the concept of preserving the meaning of the sites, except for the works of Schakley [52].
The main contribution of this paper is the proposal of the concept of spiritual sustainability and
an analysis of to what extent this concept can be influenced by the accessibility of sites, especially
regarding visitors’ (both pilgrims and tourists) perception. The authors propose a methodological
model that allows different data to be collected from sacred places and the interrelation between
different aspects to be analyzed, taking into account the motivation of the visitor and the spiritual
sustainability of the site.
0
50
100
150
200
250
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Web of Science Scopus
Figure 1. Evolution of the publications on religious tourism. Source: The authors based on data from
Scopus and Web of Science.
There is a group of studies focused on pilgrimage as a central theme. Inspired by the work of
Durkheim and Eliade on the separation of sacred and profane, the first theories explored pilgrimage
from a sociological approach [
22
], giving rise to the publication of other relevant works, where the
links between pilgrimage and tourism were explored [
23
–
25
]. It must be said that works on specific
sanctuaries and pilgrimages have also been published in certain regions and countries [
15
,
20
,
26
,
27
].
Furthermore, increasing numbers of experiences and cases of study of pilgrimages have been recognized
in the international field, such as the Camino de Santiago [
28
–
32
] or the Hajj [
33
–
36
]. It goes without
saying that, in this area, there is an extensive bibliography at the local level and in non-English
languages, which would be a reason for conducting a more in-depth study.
However, regarding religious tourism, most of the documents (especially those published in
the 1990s) seek to study the concept of religious tourism, and there are currently a large number of
studies. Beyond conceptualization, we can talk about studies that have researched the phenomenon
from different perspectives. For example, from defining what is religious tourism, the relationship that
it can have with spiritual tourism [
4
,
37
–
40
], different management systems [
13
,
41
,
42
], the impacts that it
generates in certain areas [
43
–
46
], and the relationship between religion and political instability [
47
–
50
]
have been discussed. Several studies have even focused on motivations and conflicts of use between
tourists and residents and on impacts, whilst very few studies have examined the complex management
issues related to important pilgrimage sites where tourism and religion meet [
51
] or focused on the
concept of preserving the meaning of the sites, except for the works of Schakley [52].
The main contribution of this paper is the proposal of the concept of spiritual sustainability and
an analysis of to what extent this concept can be influenced by the accessibility of sites, especially
regarding visitors’ (both pilgrims and tourists) perception. The authors propose a methodological
model that allows different data to be collected from sacred places and the interrelation between
different aspects to be analyzed, taking into account the motivation of the visitor and the spiritual
sustainability of the site.
To define the concept of spiritual sustainability, first, the idea of sacred sites and their connection
with spiritual values has to be presented. The term sacred has been studied from different perspectives
(ethnology, sociology, philosophy, and theology, to name a few). It is a complex concept that
can be defined and studied from different perspectives, including sociological, phenomenological,
and hermeneutic perspectives, but ultimately, it can be defined as the opposite of profane [
53
,
54
].
The first theories about the sacred appeared in the field of ethnology and sociology. They were born in
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 4 of 19
the heart of the French School of Sociology represented by Durkheim, Mauss, and Hubert, who define
the sacred as a set of forces that are born of collective consciousness and play a decisive role in the
structuring of society [
55
–
58
]. However, one of the main contributions comes from the field of the
phenomenology of religion, where the sacred is studied by emphasizing human beings as individuals
and not as members of a society and highlighting the experience of the sacred. The sacred is a completely
different universal element (ganz andere), representing an a priori category in humans [59,60].
Mircea Eliade applies an integral method that combines history, phenomenology, and hermeneutics
and proposes a notion of the sacred as an absolute reality. His work supports the existence of a
spiritual unity of humanity and proposes the term hierophany, meaning that the sacred, in the act
of manifesting itself, brings us closer to the divine. The sacred can manifest itself in various ways,
but always through symbols, and this is evident in the sacred places themselves [61,62].
The concept of place can be defined as a meaningful space to which people are linked; places,
apart from having a location (they must be located in some physical space) and a visual material form,
must also have some relation to humans, being intimate spaces where the experience is particularly
intense [
63
]. This is especially applicable to sacred places. The essence of a place is its definition as the
deep center of human existence [
64
]. The concept of the center is also important in defining the sacred;
the symbolism of the center is one of the main representatives of the sacred that can be found in the
location of sacred sites (for example, sacred mountains or religious buildings placed in the symbolic
center of the community) or in the symbolic representation of the sacred (such as in buildings, sacred
objects, or sacred art) [
62
,
65
]. A pilgrimage is also defined as a journey to the center, while tourism
represents a journey in the opposite direction, meaning that it is a superficial activity [25].
A place has two fundamental characteristics: It has a temporal dimension and it is a social
construction [
66
]. Regarding the first characteristic, sacred places have a meaning and also a materiality
(a specific natural environment, religious constructions, etc.). All religions construct space and time
through their specific ontological commitments, and from this, it follows that, to understand the
nature of religious landscapes, representations, and practices, it is necessary to contextualize it in their
temporal and spatial framework [
67
]. Symbols in sacred places are manifested through space (site)
and time (rituals) [
62
]. Religion includes not only the beliefs, customs, traditions, and rituals that
belong to a particular society, but also the collective and personal experiences of people in the search
for realization or meaning [
53
,
68
]. In sacred space and time, the believer lives a special atmosphere,
where there is a feeling of being with a superior force—the mysterium tremendum et fascinosum [60].
The second characteristic refers to socially constructed spaces [
69
] and to understand the
construction and meaning of sites, it is vital to recognize that religious practices, both in terms
of institutional organization and personal experience, are fundamental not only for the spiritual life of
society, but also for its constitution [
67
]. The experiences derived from rituals are not only individual,
but can also be collective, and are influenced by the site where they take place [
62
]. Ceremonial activity
has been maintained for millennia in many holy places; at some sites, worship was already celebrated in
the Neolithic era, and this has been maintained, despite the passage of several civilizations, until today,
for example, Christian sanctuaries [
70
]. Therefore, religion can be perceived as a transient form,
while the essence of the place can be seen to transcend space and time [71].
The experiences that visitors have in sacred sites may include different elements, such as
spirituality and faith, among others, such as accommodation, food supply, transport, and cultural
activities [
13
,
52
,
72
,
73
]. An important concept to consider is that of the atmosphere of the place [
52
],
meaning that there are places where there is an intersection between the physical and the spiritual
that commutes the human being in the deepest sense, regardless of their beliefs, religious or not [
70
].
This sense of the place is related to the emotional and subjective link that people have to a specific
site [
63
], but also to the meaning that a sacred place has for a specific community [
52
,
74
,
75
]. A sacred
place links the spiritual and the material and can be defined as an area of special spiritual significance
to people and communities [
76
]. For this reason, managing visitors’ experience in a sacred place is
difficult because it includes tangible and intangible elements. To maintain the spirit of the place and
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 5 of 19
positively influence the visitors’ experience, it is necessary to reflect on aspects such as authenticity,
visitor management, the impact that visitors have on the site, the quality of the visit, and access to
sacred spaces (including other spaces and services that can be offered) [13,51,52,72].
According to the authors, progressive globalization (also in the context of religious and cultural
tourism), as well as the intensive development of transport and communication, has significantly
facilitated and intensified global tourist activity, regardless of the leisure form, as well as the destination
and motivation of the journey undertaken [
77
–
79
]. Easy and quick access to sacral heritage objects may
change their specific genius loci, sense of sacrum, and spiritual significance, as a place of pilgrimage
destination, representing important factors in the context of the sustainable development of sacral
heritage tourism [48,80,81].
The interests that different groups can have in one place can be economic, political, religious,
or moral, among others, so when the interests of different groups are contradictory in the same space,
the places can become foci of intense conflicts [
82
]. This point is well-demonstrated concerning sacred
places [
83
,
84
]. Narrative is an important tool for adding meaning to a place; naming a place is a
way of making the invisible visible [
63
], and some narratives organize sites [
85
]. It is important
to compare spiritual/religious narratives and tourist narratives in order to observe to what extent
the sense of the place can be modified [
66
]. Religious understanding of a place creates a set of
spaces, while tourist interpretations produce different types of spaces. This simultaneity of places
offers abundant opportunities for overlap and convergence in terms of what is sacred to devotees,
and what is aesthetic to and commodified by tourists [
81
,
86
]. This phenomenon is particularly evident
in regions with significant tourism development, where the marketing, promotion, and creation of
tourism products are primarily focused on leisure, active tourism, and urban and cultural tourism [
80
].
Religious tourism, despite its important function in the space, is marginal here. Existing large
pilgrimage centers become more attractive because of their history and architecture, rather than for
their spiritual and religious values [6,23,48].
Today, sacred places in Europe represent an important part of European heritage, and part of it is
related to religious buildings [
23
]. In Europe, there are some half a million religious buildings, including
churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues, and most Europeans consider them an essential element
of European identity [
87
]. In most cases, the original function of these sacred places is linked to religion
and spiritual values, but there are other functions, such as education or tourism [
88
]. Spiritual values
include those values related to religion, traditional faith, or belief systems [
70
]. Although the concept
of spirituality has evolved to include elements such as the search for a harmonious relationship with
oneself and with “others”, such as people, animals, or nature, it may also include one’s relationship
with God/a higher power [
89
]. Sacred places are bridges that help people to connect with the spiritual
dimension [90,91].
The concept of spiritual sustainability refers to the preservation of the original meaning and function
of sacred places. When it comes to sustainability, since the publication of the Bruntland Report [
92
],
emphasis has been placed on three dimensions: Economic, environmental, and socio-cultural
dimensions. In the case of sacred places, the authors propose a fourth dimension: The spiritual one.
Several authors have pointed out that the environmental crisis we are facing today is the result of a
spiritual crisis in human beings [
93
,
94
] and that a change of values is needed in order to follow the path
to sustainability [
95
]. Sustainability is a holistic concept that cannot be treated as a single specialization,
as its essence is that everything is related to everything [
40
,
95
–
97
]. In this paper, sacred places will only
be analyzed from a spiritual perspective, but the authors are aware of the importance of considering
the other dimensions of sustainability. Spiritual sustainability refers to the preservation of the spirit of
a place, the original use, and the sacredness of the site. Spiritual sustainability can be at risk when
spaces are desecrated. There are two ways in which a sacred place can be desecrated: Defilement
and dispossession [
84
]. In the first case, it can happen when the sacredness or the purity of the space
cannot be preserved anymore, for example, because of visitors behaving disrespectfully [
51
,
72
,
84
]
or because sites become excessively commodified and the sacredness can no longer be perceived [
52
,
81
].
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 6 of 19
The second case happens when locals are not able to perform rituals in sacred places [
84
] or even
when sacred objects are decontextualized, for example, sacred images that have been removed from
churches and are kept in museums [
88
]. These are unsustainable examples related to spirituality.
The concept of spiritual sustainability refers to the preservation of spiritual values of sacred places by
offering services to pilgrims and devotees, avoiding excessive transformation of the site to adapt to
tourism needs, and making visitors aware of the spiritual values of the places. In Table 1the connection
between accessibility and the use of religious heritage is shown, considering that sacred use is related
to religious values while profane use is related to other functions that heritage may have, like tourism.
Table 1. Relationship between accessibility and use of religious heritage. Source: The authors.
Use
Sacred Profane
Accessibility
Physical
Access conditions to sacred space
(transport facilities, opening hours for
religious activities) [11,48,52]
Religious services (mass, space for
praying . . . ) [11,12,48,51,52]
Access conditions to the destination
[7,80,98–100]
Other services (accommodation, shop,
restaurants . . . ) [51,80,81]
Emotional/Intellectual
Religious celebrations and events
[23,51,81]
Information on religious values
(interpretation tools) [9,10,12,81]
Cultural activities and events (music
concerts, conferences . . . ) [23,99]
Guided tours and information
emphasizing the historic and cultural
values [10,51,81]
While accessibility is a key issue for both sacred and profane uses, easy access to religious sites for
non-religious purposes may affect the global perception of the site affecting the spiritual sustainability.
As shown in Table 1, those issues related to the sacred use are positive for the spiritual sustainability of
the sites; while those promoting other uses may affect negatively the spiritual sustainability. Numerous
research works and scientific publications point to several indicators determining the nature of tourism
spaces (including religious tourism spaces) and its significance in terms of the development of various
forms of tourism. Most of them include the motivation for travelling, tourist and transport accessibility
of the place, and development and adaptation of the infrastructure to the needs of developing forms
of tourism [
98
–
100
]. Accessibility is one facet of the person-environment relationship [
101
]. It is
a highly relative concept; a comprehension of environmental elements is only possible by relating
environmental factors to the person component, as individual interpretations influence the perceptions
on what counts as accessible. The differences between the terms accessibility, usability and universal
design may help better understanding these concepts [
102
]. While accessibility and usability are
usually used to determine the observed performance, with usability being more centered on individual
interpretations; universal perception is highlighted as a more process-oriented approach instead of a
focus on results. At its core, universal perception incorporates aspects of accessibility and usability
from the beginning and represents a less stigmatizing concept [
103
]. Thus, it may affect the satisfaction
of visitors in the context of perceiving a place as attractive for a suitable form of travel, including the
spiritual or religious motivated journeys [
104
]. In recent years, there have also been many publications
on sacred objects and religious tourism places, indicating, at the same time, separate factors shaping
the significance of these objects in the region’s tourism space [
12
,
13
,
23
,
48
,
66
,
105
–
108
]. In addition
to motivation, which is a universal factor that determines the development of all forms of tourism,
these factors include the religious identity of the place; the availability of sacral services; the possibility
of attending various religious practices; and a location in a place suitable for tranquility, praying,
and other aesthetic and spiritual experiences [
10
,
13
]. In the following section, the authors propose how
these concepts can be studied to determine whether there is a relation between tourism accessibility
and spiritual sustainability.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 7 of 19
3. Methodology
As mentioned in the section above, the concept of spiritual sustainability refers to the preservation
of spiritual values of sacred places by offering services to pilgrims and devotees, by avoiding excessive
transformation of the site to adapt to tourism needs, and by making visitors aware of the spiritual
values of the places. To explore the relationship between religious sites, tourism accessibility, and the
visitor’s perception, the authors conducted a research study using comparative methods related to the
scoring of several issues at each of the analyzed sites. The research process involved several stages,
which the authors carried out comparably in two different tourist spaces: The regions of Catalonia
(NE Spain) and Pomerania (NW Poland). The choice of two apparently completely different European
regions was the result of them having similar conditions for space development in terms of religion,
culture, history, and geography.
The first stage of research included the appropriate selection of objects representative of the
analyzed region in terms of both geography (diverse location) and semantic significance (places of
varying importance—local, regional, national, or global). According to the authors’ idea, there is a
need to distinguish and indicate sacred places, which are important objects in the spiritual experience
of believers, and an attraction of a historical, architectural, or cultural nature. It is also important to
indicate places where the spiritual significance is the only factor that attracts the pilgrimage activity.
For other reasons (poor accessibility or a lack of infrastructure), this place is overlooked by tourists,
often contributing to economic stagnation and a lack of development prospects. The problem concerns
particular regions affected by a strong seasonality phenomenon (like coastal regions of central and
northern Europe), as well as places exposed to conflicts of overtourism–undertourism, such as Barcelona
and the Costa Brava coast vs. central parts of Catalonia [
109
]. As a result of these considerations,
15 religious and pilgrimage tourist destinations from each of the studied regions were selected for
comparative analysis (Figures 2and 3).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
Figure 2. Location of the sacred places in Catalonia (NE Spain) analyzed and described in the paper.
Source: The authors.
Figure 3. Location of the sacred places in Pomerania (NW Poland) analyzed and described in the
paper. Source: The authors.
Figure 2.
Location of the sacred places in Catalonia (NE Spain) analyzed and described in the paper.
Source: The authors.
The second stage included an analysis of the structure of tourism, motivations of visitors, and the
accessibility (e.g., concerning transport, opening hours, individual perceptions, etc.) of the place,
as well as the variety of activities offered on-site. For this purpose, the authors used the optimal
and comparative content analysis method frequently employed in geographical studies by scoring
points gradation. The advantage of this method, besides its high comparability, is the independent
selection of appropriate evaluation criteria [
110
–
112
]. As mentioned above, the concept of spiritual
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 8 of 19
sustainability refers to the preservation of the original meaning and function of sacred places. To define
it and its functions for the development of religious and spiritual tourism, the factors that determine
the perception of a place using appropriate scoring of valuation were recognized and identified.
These factors were grouped into two groups: One involving the factors that determine the religious
importance of the site and the second including the factors that determine the relevance of the site in
terms of the tourist activity, as shown in Table 2. Every single factor was scored in relation to specific
criteria and strictly defined values to make the results comparable and objective. Score calculation
of the value points was conducted to differentiate the religious and tourist significance of the site.
The data employed for the analysis and scoring were collected using different research methods,
including field research conducted by visiting the sites, interviews with both religious visitors and
tourists responsible for each site, an analysis of secondary sources of information (including official
websites), and surveys among visitors of the sites regarding the main motivations of their visits.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
Figure 2. Location of the sacred places in Catalonia (NE Spain) analyzed and described in the paper.
Source: The authors.
Figure 3. Location of the sacred places in Pomerania (NW Poland) analyzed and described in the
paper. Source: The authors.
Figure 3.
Location of the sacred places in Pomerania (NW Poland) analyzed and described in the paper.
Source: The authors.
The factors have been grouped in two areas, the religious and the tourist significance of the sites.
As seen in the literature review, the religious significance of the site concerns to those aspects that
are related to the original use of sacred sites, to their spiritual values and functions, while the tourist
significance refers to other profane uses. The factors determining the religious significance are the
pilgrim accessibility, the availability of the sacral services, the official statement of the site, the presence
of significant blessing or reliquary and the religious motivation. Pilgrim accessibility refers to the
opening hours of the site for religious purposes (like praying) and to the availability of specific
information on religious uses or services. Sacral services availability refers to the celebration of different
liturgical acts, like masses, but also other religious events like pilgrimages or religious celebrations.
For determining the factors conditioning the tourist significance of the place it was analyzed the tourist
and transport accessibility, the tourist services available in the site, the fact of being part of a heritage
declaration and the motivation. Tourist services influence the perception of the site and the visitors’
experience. As mentioned in the literature review several authors have reflected on how to balance
the need for tourist services and the preservation of the spirit of the place. Tourist services include
information services, guided tours, parking places, souvenir shops, gastronomic assets, museums,
and interpretation centers. If for the religious significance the official statement was taken into account,
for the tourist significance the fact of being part of the regional, national or world heritage is also
important because sometimes the fact of having a type of heritage label or state influence in the
perception of the place.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 9 of 19
Table 2. Factors analyzed in the research process and valuation scoring criteria. Source: The authors.
Factors Analyzed Scoring
A. Factors determining the religious significance of the place
A1. Pilgrim accessibility
0—no accessibility, object (place) permanently close for any visitors, no information provided on the
religious values of the site;
1—space open occasionally, limited only during services a few times a month, and very few
information on the religious values;
2—space open regularly a few times a month, not only during services, with limited opening times,
and few information on the religious values;
3—place open regularly, available for pilgrims (tourists) on specified dates and on request, with
some information on the religious values;
4—objects (place, space) open for public visits during weekdays and weekends on-demand, with
limited opening hours, with information on the religious values;
5—place accessible, without any limits and providing full information on the religious values.
0–5 points
A2. Sacral service availability
0—sites with only punctual masses (once per month, once per year) or with no liturgical functions;
1—regular masses only on Sundays;
2—regular masses only on weekends (Saturdays and Sundays);
3—places with regular masses every day and (on request) services for pilgrims (special blessings,
communion, etc.);
4—sites having regular and special masses (on request) and/or additional services for pilgrims;
5—sites where masses, special liturgical acts, blessings for pilgrims, confessions, or similar
celebrations are available on the site every day or almost every day.
0–5 points
A3. Sanctuary official (bishopric) statement (yes/no) 0 or 1 point
A4. Significant blessing or reliquary
0—no special blessings for pilgrims or reliquary presence;
1—sites with random special blessings and/or no reliquary;
2—sites with special blessings or reliquary presence only available during times of celebration;
3—places with special pilgrim blessings on request, regardless of time, and with a saint’s(s’)
reliquary presence.
0–3 points
A5. Religious motivation
0—responders declared non-religious motivation as the main one;
1—responders declared their religious motive as equal to their non-religious one;
2—responders declared their religious motive of travel as the main one.
0–2 points
B. Factors determining tourist significance of the place
B1. Tourist accessibility
0—no accessibility, object (place) permanently closed for any visitors;
1—space open occasionally, limited to only during services a few times a month;
2—space open regularly a few times a month, not only during services, with limited opening times;
3—place open regularly, available for tourists (pilgrims) on specified dates and on request;
4—objects (place, space) open for tourist visits during weekdays and weekends on-demand, with
limited opening hours;
5—place accessible, without any limits.
0–5 points
B2. Transport accessibility
0—no public transport or private car access;
1—very random public transport or access, mainly with a private car;
2—only one means of public transport available several days a week;
3—various public transport available during the whole week.
0–3 points
B3. Tourist services
0—no tourist services;
1—basic services like information or signs;
2—two or three types of services available on-site, including parking, toilets, and/or information;
3—well-developed basic services like parking places, information, signs, and/or guides;
4—different types of services available on a seasonable basis;
5—different types of services like information services, guides, guided tours, parking places,
souvenir shops, gastronomic assets, museums, interpretation centers, and so on, available all year
round.
0–5 points
B4. Part of the regional/national/world heritage (yes/no) 0 or 1 point
B5. Non-religious motivation
0—responders declared religious motivation as the main one;
1—responders declared their religious motive as equal to their non-religious one;
2—responders declared their non-religious motive of travel as the main one.
0–2 points
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 10 of 19
The third and final stage of research included a comparative analysis of the attractiveness and
tourist and religious significance of individual objects. The authors believe that a comparison of
the attractiveness and significance of the analyzed places, together with the motivation of pilgrims
(tourists) travelling there, allows for the distinction of specific groups of destinations differentiated
by their perception—spiritual tourism, religious tourism, and heritage tourism. According to the
concept of the spiritual sustainability of destinations presented in this publication, the visitor’s
motivation and the authentic, intangible religious influence of the place are the most significant factors
impacting its perception as an important and symbolic sacred space. However, in order to assess
its attractiveness for religious tourism, these factors must be balanced by those related to tourist
development (accessibility, service and information, interpretation offered, etc.). The presentation of
this balance and its interpretation to highlight places with a great potential for spiritual experience,
as well as to indicate places with high values related to their cultural or touristic features, has become
the main aim of this stage of research. This stage is therefore the final result of the two previous ones
and forms the basis for building a model defining the character and perception of sacred spaces in
tourism lining spiritual sustainability and tourism accessibility.
4. Results and Findings
The final scoring of analyzed sites is presented in Table 3. To compare the results obtained, a graph
was developed for obtaining a better understanding of the results obtained (Figure 4).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
27 Brzesko—
Sanctuary 3 4 1 2 2 12 3 1 2 1 0 7
28 Mysliborz—Shrine
of God’s Mercy 4 5 1 3 2 15 4 2 3 0 0 9
29 Siekierki—
Sanctuary 3 4 1 1 2 11 3 1 2 0 0 6
30 Stargard—Virgin
Mary Church 4 4 0 0 0 8 4 3 4 1 2 14
Figure 4. Perception of analyzed sacred places as objects of spiritual, religious, or heritage tourism,
according to the relationship between their religious and tourist significance. Source: The authors.
It is well-established that sacred places are endowed with distinctive dimensions. They are
places where a hierophany has taken place [62], or so is perceived by the community of believers [6].
Rituals and cult practices also mean to perpetuate the connection between what is transcendent and
the human dimension, and contribute to the maintenance of the spirit of the place or the spiritual
sustainability [3,4,52,66]. According to the results, sacred places in both regions have relatively high
scores in terms of the religious significance, as most of the places obtained a score of 10 or more out
of 16, with a few exceptions in the case of Catalonia. This allows the authors to say that all of the
sacred sites analyzed maintain a religious significance. On the contrary, in the scoring of the tourist
importance of the sites, the sacred places studied obtained more diverse scores ranging from 2 to 16,
meaning that there are different situations regarding tourist accessibility and importance.
As can be inferred from the literature review, tourism accessibility does not only refer to
providing access to sacred spaces to people suffering from any type of handicap (physical, sensorial,
or mental). It also refers to the ability of any visitor to physically enter the space and to understand it
Figure 4.
Perception of analyzed sacred places as objects of spiritual, religious, or heritage tourism,
according to the relationship between their religious and tourist significance. Source: The authors.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 11 of 19
Table 3.
Scoring conducted by grading points of the analyzed sacred places due to selected criteria
presented in Table 1. Source: The authors.
Sacral Place
(Analyzed in the Publication)
Factors Determining the Religious
Significance of the Place
Factors Determining the Tourist
Significance of the Place
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 Sum B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Sum
1 SantCrist de Balaguer 5 4 1 1 2 13 5 2 4 1 0 12
2 Mare de Déu del Mont 3 1 1 3 2 10 3 1 0 0 0 4
3 Mare de Déu de la Fontcalda 3 0 1 1 0 5 3 1 0 0 2 6
4 Mare de Déu de Núria 5 4 1 3 0 13 5 3 4 0 2 14
5 Mare de Déu de Queralt 5 1 1 1 2 10 5 2 2 1 0 10
6 Mare de Déu del Vinyet 5 3 1 1 0 10 5 3 4 0 2 14
7 Mare de Déu de Montserrat 5 5 1 3 1 15 5 3 5 1 1 15
8 La Misericordia 5 4 1 2 1 13 5 3 2 0 1 11
9 Montgrony 5 1 1 2 1 10 5 1 2 0 1 9
10
Sant Climent de Taül—WHS 5 0 1 3 0 9 5 1 4 1 2 13
11
Sant Ramon Nonat 5 3 1 1 2 12 5 2 2 1 0 10
12
El Miracle 5 4 1 2 2 14 5 1 2 1 0 9
13
El Tallat 1 0 1 1 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 2
14
El Far 5 1 1 2 1 10 5 1 0 0 1 7
15
Els Àngels 511209510028
16
Sianowo—Sanktuarium 5 4 1 2 2 14 5 2 4 1 0 12
17
Lebork—Saint James 5 5 1 1 2 14 5 3 5 0 0 13
18
Bialy Bor—Greek Catholic
Church 230027223108
19
Polanow—Holy Mount 5 2 0 1 2 10 5 2 4 0 0 11
20
Koszalin—Chelmska Holy
Mount 5 4 1 2 1 13 5 3 4 0 1 13
21
Domacyno—Virgin Mary 5 1 0 0 2 8 5 1 1 0 0 7
22
Kolobrzeg—Cathedral 4 5 0 0 0 9 4 3 4 1 2 14
23
Trzebiatow—Sanctuary 5 4 1 1 1 12 5 3 3 1 1 13
24
Cerkwica—Well of St. Otto 3 3 0 0 1 7 3 2 2 0 1 8
25
Kamien Pomorski—Cathedral 5 5 1 1 0 12 5 3 5 1 2 16
26
Szczecin—Saint James’
Cathedral 5 5 0 0 0 10 5 3 5 1 2 16
27
Brzesko—Sanctuary 3 4 1 2 2 12 3 1 2 1 0 7
28
Mysliborz—Shrine of God’s
Mercy 4513215423009
29
Siekierki—Sanctuary 3 4 1 1 2 11 3 1 2 0 0 6
30
Stargard—Virgin Mary Church 4 4 0 0 0 8 4 3 4 1 2 14
It is well-established that sacred places are endowed with distinctive dimensions. They are
places where a hierophany has taken place [
62
], or so is perceived by the community of believers [
6
].
Rituals and cult practices also mean to perpetuate the connection between what is transcendent and
the human dimension, and contribute to the maintenance of the spirit of the place or the spiritual
sustainability [
3
,
4
,
52
,
66
]. According to the results, sacred places in both regions have relatively high
scores in terms of the religious significance, as most of the places obtained a score of 10 or more out
of 16, with a few exceptions in the case of Catalonia. This allows the authors to say that all of the
sacred sites analyzed maintain a religious significance. On the contrary, in the scoring of the tourist
importance of the sites, the sacred places studied obtained more diverse scores ranging from 2 to 16,
meaning that there are different situations regarding tourist accessibility and importance.
As can be inferred from the literature review, tourism accessibility does not only refer to providing
access to sacred spaces to people suffering from any type of handicap (physical, sensorial, or mental).
It also refers to the ability of any visitor to physically enter the space and to understand it intellectually
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 12 of 19
and emotionally [
6
,
7
,
10
]. Therefore, in the case of sacred spaces, accessibility is connected to allowing
all visitors, both believers and non-believers, to perceive the sacredness of the place [
4
] and reinforce
the idea of spiritual sustainability. Although this paper does not specifically focus on interpretation
tools, it is important to note that individuals will do this through different processes and types of
perception (emotional, intellectual, etc.) and narratives play an important role [
63
,
66
]. Since this
perception of the sacred is at the core of a true experience of a religious space (and is linked to spiritual
sustainability), it is important to keep monitoring how these places open up to the public: Services,
interpretation, etc. The methodology proposed here aims to achieve this.
Taking a closer look at the examples presented here, the data show that three groups or typologies
of visitors exist: The spiritual tourist or pilgrim; the religious tourist; and the heritage tourist (Figure 4).
This reinforces theories that establish a distinction between pilgrimage and religious tourism, as they
consider that pilgrimage implies a deeper experience that is usually more superficial in the case of
religious tourism [
25
]. Despite this, pilgrimage is accepted as a form of tourism because it has the
same characteristics in terms of the use of transport, services, and infrastructure and the basis for
differentiating them is the intensity of the religious motivation [19,36,40].
Those sites placed in the group of spiritual tourism and pilgrimage are the ones that have high
scores for the religious significance, meaning that they are sites where, even when there are some
difficulties in accessing them, have a significant number of visitors (or pilgrims) going there for religious
purposes, and that they offer different sacral services to them. In both regions, the places included in
this group are small shrines, some of which are really difficult to access as they do not have public
transport services and they are far from the main cities or tourist areas. These sites are recognized as
very popular pilgrimage destinations, related to their spirituality and religious services offered. For
example, number 12 is managed by a Benedictine community that offers accommodation and spiritual
exercises to the host. Numbers 2, 6, and 29 became very popular destinations of walking pilgrimages,
organized by church organizations with an intense participation of local communities. It is worth
mentioning the local community’s involvement not only in promotion of the site, but also in its religious
and pilgrim character. In the interviews conducted with the managers of the sites, it was mentioned
that most of the people attending these places are looking for a transformative experience and are aware
of the religious and sacred values of the site. All of the touristic features (accommodation, information,
or transport availability) remain in the background and do not affect the religious significance of the
place much. The sites’ locations far from main roads and popular tourist centers determine some
additional activities and initiatives. Accessibility is not a necessary condition for the development
of the site, as pilgrims and visitors go there for the spiritual and religious values and even though
they have to make an effort, this is well-perceived. The quest for spirituality also includes overcoming
challenges and difficulties in access can be considered a positive element [
20
,
40
,
113
,
114
]. They are
maintained to attract visitors and give them a unique experience, based on the spiritual features and
religious traditions of the place.
In both regions, most of the analyzed sites fall into the group named religious tourism. This group
includes sites with different realities, but, in general terms, which have an important religious
significance that is combined with tourist accessibility and services. The development of the tourist
functionality of these places is mainly based on good transport accessibility and well-prepared
infrastructural features. Sites included in this group are located close to main roads and access points
(airports, railway stations, or so). In relation to tourism development, all of these places have developed
an additional base, formed of components such as parking places, souvenir shops, gastronomic points,
or information centers. Visitors’ experiences at these sites are very diverse. Some of them have
strong and transformative experiences, and others just enjoy the visit as part of their leisure time,
but with no transcendent meaning (personal communication from managers of the sites). For example,
number 7 is a monastery that receives 2.5 M visitors per year, combining religious and non-religious
visitors, being one of the analyzed sites with a greater presence of international visitors. Apart from
religious services at the site, there is a museum, several accommodation places, gift shops, and parking,
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 13 of 19
and everything is in the middle of a natural park. In Pomerania, there are a few places with significant
meaning in terms of both religion and culture (numbers 23 and 25) and some of these places (numbers 17,
19, and 20) have also been recognized as important religious and historic sites on Pomeranian Saint
James’ Way. We can conclude that accessibility is important for tourism purposes and may negatively
affect the perception of sites, as some of them may become excessively commodified and a large
number of tourists can make perception of the sacred difficult [
6
,
53
,
81
]. On one hand, the sites are very
well-prepared to receive pilgrims and offer them proper experiences and services; on the other hand,
they are attractive sites for tourists as they have different tourist services, good transport accessibility,
and cultural and historic values that attract visitors.
The smallest group in terms of numbers is the one named heritage tourism. This label does not
mean that the only motivation for visiting these sites is cultural, but sacred places in this group are
considered to be more important for their artistic or architectural features than for their religious values.
In Catalonia, only number 10, which was declared a World Heritage Site in 2000, is in this group.
In this church, there were fresco paintings from the 12th century that, for security reasons, were moved
to the National Museum of Art in Barcelona and today, visitors can see a digital reproduction of
the paintings in the form of mapping on the apse of the church. Site numbers 18, 22, 24, and 30
correspond to heritage tourism places in Pomerania, being perceived as typical attractive heritage
and historical sites. For example, number 30 represents a National Heritage Site very popular among
visitors from all over Poland, as well as Germany and Scandinavia, and number 22 is a monumental
brick gothic cathedral with precious masterpieces of medieval art included in the European Route of
Brick Gothic and Pomeranian Way of Saint James. Sacred places in this group have a lower religious
significance compared to the other groups, and the sites have become more of a cultural attraction
than a place of worship. The majority of these sites have interpretation tools that promote artistic and
cultural values, but do not focus on religious or spiritual values [
10
,
53
,
67
,
115
]. The highest barrier
is intellectual accessibility and there is a threat regarding spiritual sustainability, because part of the
original meaning and significance of the building is lost as many efforts to interpret history and art
are made, but do not transmit the sacredness of the place.
After comparing the results, no significant differences between Pomerania and Catalonia were
identified, but some issues were recognized that can probably be applied to other religious sites.
After reflecting on the reality of sacred sites, their tourist and sacral accessibility, and visitors’ experience,
it became clear that management tools should take into account the different perspectives to preserve
the idea of the sacred. From the study, we can conclude that religious significance or meaning is present
at almost all religious sites, but, according to the literature review and the results, in some cases, it may
be decreased, risking losing the identity of the place. In these cases, we may say that there is a threat to
the spiritual sustainability. Managers of religious sites should know whether visitors perceive the site
more for its religious and spiritual values, or its cultural or touristic ones, and implement actions to
preserve the sacred nature of the place and minimize conflicts between devotees and visitors to make
the site more sustainable, regarding the authenticity of the site (spiritual sustainability).
In places where worship remains alive, it is important to apply measures to guarantee the
worship of visitors. If the sacred site is located in a tourist setting, a priori, it probably receives more
non-religious visitors than religious ones. Therefore, it is necessary to intensify the actions to guarantee
that the tourists do not interfere with the sacred experience of the site and the celebration of the cult.
However, as noted above, the non-religious visitor should be provided for in a well-balanced manner
and should not impose on the pilgrims who traveled to the place to pray. The construal of the sacrum
belongs to the individual predisposition of the visitor and constitutes a space to which the profanum is
not admitted. The experience of visitors is closely related to their behavior and the behavior of other
visitors. Although visitors should behave respectfully, this is not always the case. Visitors must behave
appropriately, both to preserve the nature of the spirit of the place (remain silent, dress appropriately,
not interfere with religious activities, etc.) and to preserve the place itself. Collaboration between
different organizations, whether religious or secular or public or private, is fundamental.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 14 of 19
5. Conclusions and Discussion
The comparison of the data obtained allowed the authors to explore the connection between
accessibility and spiritual sustainability. The concept of spiritual sustainability was explored through
analyzing the concept of sacred places and was defined as the preservation of the spirit of the place,
the enhancement of religious and spiritual values, and the maintenance of the original meaning of
the site. According to this, tourist behavior may positively or negatively affect the atmosphere of
a place, depending on the level of awareness and the perception of the site, as well as on how managers
present or adapt the site to visitors. Accessibility refers to both physical and intellectual or emotional
access and was analyzed by taking into account (and comparing) religious and tourist services, such as
transport or interpretation tools. The model proposed for the analyses allowed the authors to identify
three groups of sites based on the relationship between tourism accessibility and spiritual sustainability.
The first statement that can be made is that a lack of accessibility may positively affect the
spiritual sustainability of sacred places. This is related to sites in the group named “spiritual tourism”
that obtained a high score for the religious significance of the site and lower score for the tourism
significance and accessibility. According to the research results, accessibility generally does not affect
the perception of the destinations’ sacredness, which is determined by the genius loci of the place
dependent on the individual features. Spiritual and religious values were determined to understand
the meaning of the place and the genius loci. The sustainable development of the sacred destination,
based on its relation to local communities and their heritage identity, seems to be more important in
site development than its widely understood accessibility. Most visitors at those sites are attracted by
religious and spiritual values and accessibility is not perceived as a barrier for visiting the sites. Instead,
it sometimes plays the opposite role, as the effort to reach the sacred place is seen as a test or sacrifice.
A connection between spiritual sustainability and the difficulty of access can thus be established.
The second statement that can be made is that tourist accessibility, especially regarding physical
issues, can positively or negatively affect the perception of the atmosphere of the place, depending on
the management. Sacred places in the group of “religious tourism” exhibit a high score for both religious
and tourism significance. Sites are recognized by their religious values, and offer cult services and
other services to pilgrims and devotees. At the same time, the sites are easily accessible; they combine a
good location with public transport and tourism services and infrastructure such as accommodation or
restaurants. This results in a combination of factors that make sites attractive for visitors with different
motivations and the number of non-religious visitors increases when it is easier to reach the place or
visit it. This affects the spiritual sustainability of the site, because if there are no measures to preserve
the sacred identity, it may be damaged by tourists approaching the site disrespectfully. Some of the
sites analyzed had applied measures to keep the cult services separate from the tourist activities and
use interpretation tools and other means to promote religious values of the site. In these cases, tourism
development can be seen as positive and may help the development of the site, while not risking the
spiritual sustainability. In other cases, access has promoted the development of tourist activates not
related to religious values, such as sport activities and tourist infrastructure like hotels or gift shops.
In these cases, visitors with religious motivations perceive the site as massifed or commodified and
they complain of a loss of meaning. In this case, accessibility is considered a threat for maintaining
sustainable spirituality.
Lastly, intellectual or emotional accessibility (narratives) is extremely important for guaranteeing
the spiritual sustainability of sacred places. Sites with a high score for tourism significance and
low score for religious significance represent sites that are very well-recognized for their historical,
architectural, or artistic values. The accessibility of the space, as well as the service availability,
can widely influence the importance of the place not only from a tourist point of view, but also as a
religious heritage site. This can be strengthened by additional features, such as heritage certifications
(for example, a UNESCO declaration, inclusion in a cultural route, or other national and regional
heritage declarations). The sites in the group “heritage tourism” are mainly related to this. Places in
this group normally offer cultural-related services and activities (apart from the tourist ones), such as
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 15 of 19
interpretation tools and/or guided tours. An important element to consider here is the narrative of
the site, because, in most of the cases, narratives focus on historic or artistic values, but not on the
religious significance. At these sites, it is extremely important to maintain the religious function and to
preserve the spiritual values; otherwise, they will become more like a museum or a theme park and the
spiritual sustainability will be threatened.
The application of management measures should guarantee the sustainability of sites, preserving
their sacredness. Sacred sites should offer an experience of having contact with God and an approach
to the sacred. Furthermore, they should help visitors to have satisfactory experiences, not only from a
religious point of view, but also as places of silence, shelter, hospitality, and culture understood in its
broad sense and also places of ecology. Religious tourism, as a way of accessing these sacred spaces
to learn about their essence, is a highly contemporary phenomenon. Today’s visitors have all sorts
of questions, and the sacred spaces offer spaces for welcoming, reflecting, and meditating that help
people keep up with their day to day life. The sacred spaces, even in the framework of contemporary
society, are points of light that can guide humans towards a better existence. In future studies, it would
be interesting to consider, for example, the relationship that religion establishes with spiritualty and
ecology for a more holistic approach that allows us to understand sacred sites as places that can also
help to promote sustainability.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, S.A. and T.D.; methodology, S.A. and T.D.; software, T.D.; validation,
S.A. and T.D.; formal analysis, S.A. and T.D.; investigation, S.A. and T.D.; data curation, S.A. and T.D.;
writing—original draft preparation, S.A.; writing—review and editing, S.A. and T.D.; All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Duda, T. Kształtowanie si˛e przestrzeni wsp
ó
łczesnej turystyki religijnej na obszarach marginalnych
(w oddaleniu od znacz ˛acych centr
ó
w religijnych i wielkich szlak
ó
w pielgrzymkowych), na przykładzie
Pomorza Zachodniego. In Kultura i Turystyka. Sacrum i Profanum; Latosi´nska, J., Mokras-Grabowska, J., Eds.;
Rowtl: Lodz, Poland, 2016; pp. 119–136.
2. Łysiak, W. ´
Swi˛eta Przestrze´n (Sacred Space); ECO Editors: Poznan, Poland, 2010.
3.
Aulet, S.; Vidal-Casellas, D. Tourism and religion: Sacred spaces as transmitters of heritage values.
Church Commun. Cult. 2018,3, 237–259. [CrossRef]
4.
Duda, T.; Doburzy´nski, D. Religious Tourism vs. Sacred Space Experience: Conflict or complementary interaction?
Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr. 2019,7, 1–10. [CrossRef]
5.
Olsen, D.H. Negotiating identity at religious sites: A management perspective. J. Herit. Tour.
2012
,
7, 359–366. [CrossRef]
6.
Levi, D.; Kocher, S. Perception of sacredness at heritage religious sites. Environ. Behav.
2013
,
45, 912–930. [CrossRef]
7.
Kahtani, S.J.H.A.L.; Xia, J.; Veenendaal, B. Measuring Accessibility to Tourist Attractions. In The Geospatial
Science Research Symposium; RMIT University: Melbourne, Australia, 2011.
8.
Poria, Y.; Biran, A.; Reichel, A. Visitors’ preferences for interpretation at heritage sites. J. Travel Res.
2009
,
48, 92–105. [CrossRef]
9. Ballantyne, R.; Hughes, K.; Bond, N. Using a Delphi approach to identify managers’ preferences for visitor
interpretation at Canterbury Cathedral World Heritage Site. Tour. Manag. 2016,54, 72–80. [CrossRef]
10.
Duda, T. Does a religious tourist need a guide? Interpretation and storytelling in sacred places.
In Tourism, Pilgrimage and Intercultural Dialogue. Interpreting Sacred Stories; Vidal-Casellas, D., Aulet, S.,
Crous-Costa, N., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2019; pp. 105–115.
11.
Olsen, D.H. Pilgrimage and tourism to holy cities: Ideological and management perspectives. J. Herit. Tour.
2019,14, 581–582. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 16 of 19
12.
Raj, R.; Griffin, K.A. Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Management: An International Perspective;
CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2015.
13.
Aulet, S.; Altay
ó
, J.; Vidal-Casellas, D. Managing visitors at sacred sites: The case of Montserrat.
In Managing Religious Tourism; Wiltshier, P., Griffin, M., Eds.; CAB International: Oxforshire, UK,
2019; pp. 47–64. [CrossRef]
14.
Prazeres, J.; Carvalho, A. Religious tourism: Fatima in the context of European Marian shrines. PASOS Rev.
Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2015,13, 1145–1170. [CrossRef]
15. Eade, J. Pilgrimage and tourism at Lourdes, France. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992,19, 18–32. [CrossRef]
16. Tavares, G.; Thomas, C. Un plan pour le tourisme et le pèlerinage àLourdes. Cah. Espaces 2007,96, 89–95.
17. Jackowski, A.; Smith, V.L. Polish pilgrim-tourists. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992,19, 92–106. [CrossRef]
18.
Bylok, F.; Cichobłazi ´nnski, L. Pilgrimage Tourism in Consumer Society: Foot Pilgrimages to the
Jasna G
ó
ra Sanctuary in Cz˛estochowa. In Touring Consumption; Sonnenburg, S., Wee, D., Eds.;
Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2015; pp. 57–76.
19.
Amaro, S.; Antunes, A.; Henriques, C. A closer look at Santiago de Compostela’s pilgrims through the lens
of motivations. Tour. Manag. 2018,64, 271–280. [CrossRef]
20. Santos, X.M. Pilgrimage and tourism at Santiago de Compostela. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2002,27, 41–50. [CrossRef]
21.
Fernandes, C.; McGettigan, F.; Edwards, J. Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage: Atlas Special Interest Group 1st Expert
Meeting: Held at Fátima, Portugal, 23–27 April 2003; Tourism Board of Leiria: Leiria-Fátima, Portugal, 2003.
22.
Turner, V.W.; Turner, E.L.B. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives;
Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
23.
Nolan, M.L.; Nolan, S. Religious sites as tourism attractions in Europe. Ann. Tour. Res.
1992
,19, 68–78. [CrossRef]
24.
Graburn, N. Turismo, el viaje sagrado. In Amfitriones e Invitados. Antropolog
í
a del Turismo; Smith, V.L., Ed.;
Endimyon: Madrid, Spain, 1992.
25. Cohen, E. Pilgrimage centers: Concentric and excentric. Ann. Tour. Res. 1992,19, 33–50. [CrossRef]
26. Rinschede, G. The pilgrimage center of Fatima, Portugal. Geogr. Relig. 1988,4, 65–98.
27.
Ambr
ó
sio, V. F
á
tima: Territ
ó
rio Especializado na Recepç
â
o de Turismo Religioso; Instituto Nacional de
Formaçâo Turística: Lisboa, Portugal, 2000.
28.
Greenia, G. Being a Pilgrim: Art and Ritual on the Medieval Routes to Santiago. La Cor
ó
nica J. Mediev. Hisp.
Lang. Lit. Cult. 2011,39, 250–253. [CrossRef]
29.
Slavin, S. Walking as spiritual practice: The pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. Body Soc.
2003
,
9, 1–18. [CrossRef]
30.
Rudolph, C. Pilgrimage to the End of the World: The Road to Santiago de Compostela; University of Chicago Press:
Chicago, IL, USA, 2004.
31.
Herrero, N. Reaching Land’s End: New social practices in the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. Int. J.
Iber. Stud. 2008,21, 131–149. [CrossRef]
32.
Nilsson, M.; Tesfahuney, M. Performing the “post-secular” in Santiago de Compostela. Ann. Tour. Res.
2016
,
57, 18–30. [CrossRef]
33.
Peters, F.E. The Hajj: The Muslim Pilgrimage to Mecca and the Holy Places; Princeton University Press:
Princeton, NJ, USA, 1996.
34.
Long, D.E. The Hajj Today: A Survey of the Contemporary Pilgrimage to Makkah; SUNY Press:
New York, NY, USA, 1979.
35.
Henderson, J.C. Religious tourism and its management: The hajj in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Tour. Res.
2011
,
13, 541–552. [CrossRef]
36.
Raj, R. Religious tourist’s motivation for visiting religious sites. Int. J. Tour. Policy
2012
,4, 95–105. [CrossRef]
37. Puscasu, V. Religious Tourism or Pilgrimage? Eur. J. Sci. Theol. 2015,11, 131–142.
38. Goodnow, J.; Bloom, K.S. When is a journey sacred? Exploring twelve properties of the sacred. Int. J. Relig.
Tour. Pilgr. 2017,5, 10–16.
39.
Olsen, D.H. Religion, spirituality, and pilgrimage in a globalising world. In Handbook of Globalisation and Tour;
Timothy, D., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northhampton, MA, USA, 2019.
40.
Aulet, S. Pilgrim’s Motivations: A Theoretical Approach to Pilgrimage as a Peacebuilding Tool. Int. J. Relig.
Tour. Pilgr. 2020,8, 59–74.
41.
Raj, R.; Morpeth, N.D. Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Festivals Management: An International Perspective;
CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2007.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 17 of 19
42.
Paschinger, E. Pilgrimage Tourism and Social Media: A Way Forward in the 21st Century?
In Tourism, Pilgrimage and Intercultural Dialogue. Interpreting Sacred Stories; Vidal-Casellas, D., Aulet, S.,
Crous-Costa, N., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2019; pp. 115–120.
43.
Ambr
ó
sio, V. Modelos de desarrollo en ciudades santuario y en rutas de peregrinaci
ó
n. In II Congreso Mundial
de Pastoral de Peregrinaciones y Santuarios; Vegli
ò
, A.M., Bentoglio, G., Eds.; Pastoral de Peregrinaciones
y Santuarios: Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 2010; pp. 61–65.
44.
Eppig, P.L. Ecology of pilgrimage: Building socio-ecological community on the way. Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr.
2018,6, 50–58.
45.
Qurashi, J.; Sharpley, R. The impact of Smart Media Technologies on the spiritual experience of Hajj pilgrims.
Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr. 2018,6, 37–48.
46.
Kim, B.; Kim, S.; King, B. Religious tourism studies: Evolution, progress, and future prospects.
Tour. Recreat. Res. 2019,45, 185–203. [CrossRef]
47. Sönmez, S.F. Tourism, terrorism, and political instability. Ann. Tour. Res. 1998,25, 416–456. [CrossRef]
48. Timothy, D.J.; Olsen, D.H. Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys; Routledge: London, UK, 2006.
49.
McIntosh, I.S. Political Pilgrimage during China’s Cultural Revolution: The Case of Dazhai. Int. J. Relig.
Tour. Pilgr. 2018,6, 38–49.
50.
Jonas, A.; Cahaner, L.; Mansfeld, Y. Risk Perceptions among Religiously Practicing Tourists: Are they
Group Differentiated? Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr. 2019,7, 58–74.
51.
Olsen, D.H. Management issues for religious heritage attractions. In Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys;
Timothy, D.J., Olsen, D.H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 104–118.
52.
Shackley, M. Managing Sacred Sites: Service Provision and Visitor Experience; Continuum: London, UK;
New York, NY, USA, 2001.
53.
Aulet, S. Competitivitat del Turisme Religi
ó
s en el Marc Contemporani. Els Espais Sagrats i el Turisme.
Ph.D. Thesis
, Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain, 2012. Available online: http://dugi-doc.udg.edu/handle/
10256/7338 (accessed on 13 October 2020).
54.
Aulet, S.; Sureda, M. The Semantics of the Sacred: A Tool for Interreligious Dialogue. In Tourism, Pilgrimage
and Intercultural Dialogue. Interpreting Sacred Stories; Vidal-Casellas, D., Aulet, S., Crous-Costa, N., Eds.;
CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2019; pp. 14–28.
55. Malinowski, B. Magia, Ciencia y Religión; Planeta-Agostini: Barcelona, Spain, 1948.
56. Graburn, N. The anthropology of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1983,10, 9–33. [CrossRef]
57. Durkheim, É.Las Formas Elementales de la Vida Religiosa; Alianza: Madrid, Spain, 1993.
58. Lévi-Strauss, C. Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2013.
59. Sharpe, E.J. Nathan Söderblom and the Study of Religion. Relig. Stud. 1969,4, 259–274. [CrossRef]
60. Otto, R. Lo santo: Lo Racional y lo Irracional en la Idea de Dios; Revista de Occidente: Madrid, Spain, 1965.
61. Eliade, M. Historia de las Creencias y de las Ideas Religiosas; Cristiandad: Madrid, Spain, 1978.
62. Eliade, M. Lo Sagrado y lo Profane; Guadarrama: Madrid, Spain, 1981.
63. Cresswell, T. Place: A Short Introduction; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2005.
64. Seamon, D.; Gullen, I.G.; Mainz, D.R. Place and placelessnes. Environ. Plan. A 1977,9, 961–962. [CrossRef]
65.
Eliade, M. Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism; Princeton University Press:
Princeton, NJ, USA, 1991.
66.
Bremer, T.S. Sacred spaces and tourist places. In Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys; Timothy, D.J.,
Olsen, D.H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 25–35.
67.
Brace, C.; Bailey, A.; Harvey, D. Religion, place and space: A framework for investigating historical
geographies of religious identities and communities. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2006,30, 28–43. [CrossRef]
68. Velasco, J.M. Experiencia Religiosa; Universidad Pontificia Comillas: Madrid, Spain, 1989.
69. Lefebvre, H.; Nicholson-Smith, D. The Production of Space; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1991.
70.
Mallarach i Carrera, J.M. Protected Landscapes and Cultural and Spiritual Values; GTZ, IUCN i Obra Social de
Caixa Catalunya: Barcelona, Spain, 2008.
71.
Gray, M. Sacred Sites, Places of Peace and Power. Available online: http://www.sacredsites.com/
(accessed on 16 November 2019).
72.
Shackley, M. Empty bottles at sacred sites: Religious retailing at Ireland’s national shrine. In Tourism, Religion
and Spiritual Journeys; Timothy, D.J., Olsen, D.H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA,
2006; pp. 94–103.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 18 of 19
73.
Andriotis, K. Sacred site experience: A phenomenological study. Ann. Tour. Res.
2009
,36, 64–84. [CrossRef]
74.
Ormsby, A.A.; Bhagwat, S.A. Sacred forests of India: A strong tradition of community-based natural
resource management. Environ. Conserv. 2010,37, 320–326. [CrossRef]
75.
Robson, J.P.; Berkes, F. Sacred nature and community conserved areas. Nature and culture: Rebuilding
lost connections. In Nature and Culture. Rebuilding Lost Connection; Pilgrim, S., Pretty, J., Eds.; Earthscan:
London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 197–216.
76.
Wild, R.; McLeod, C. Sacred Natural Sites. Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. Best Practice Protected Area
Guidelines. Series Num. 16; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2008.
77.
Smeral, E. The impact of globalization on small and medium enterprises: New challenges for tourism policies
in European countries. Tour. Manag. 1998,19, 371–380. [CrossRef]
78. McGrew, A. Globalization and global politics. Glob. World Politics 2005,3, 19–40.
79.
Benur, A.M.; Bramwell, B. Tourism product development and product diversification in destinations.
Tour. Manag. 2015,50, 213–224. [CrossRef]
80.
Shoval, N. Commodification and theming of the sacred: Changing patterns of tourist consumption in the
‘Holy Land’. In New Forms of Consumption: Consumers, Culture, and Commodification; Gottdiener, M., Ed.;
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 251–263.
81.
Olsen, D.H. Heritage, tourism, and the commodification of religion. Tour. Recreat. Res.
2003
,28, 99–104. [CrossRef]
82.
Harvey, D. From space to place and back again: Reflections on the condition of postmodernity. In Mapping the
Futures. Local Culutres, Global Change; Bird, J., Curtis, B., Putnam, T., Robertson, G., Tickner, L., Eds.; Routledge:
London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 3–29.
83.
Carmichael, D.L.; Hubert, J.; Reeves, B.; Schanche, A. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places; Routledge: London, UK;
New York, NY, USA, 2013.
84. Chidester, D.; Linenthal, E.T. American Sacred Space; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 1995.
85.
Aug
é
, M. Los no Lugares: Espacios del Anonimat: Una Antropolog
í
a de la Sobremodernidad; Gedisa:
Barcelona, Spain, 1993.
86. Kolås, Å. Tourism and the making of place in shangri-la. Tour. Geogr. 2004,6, 262–278. [CrossRef]
87.
Future for Religious Heritage. Secular Europe Backs Religious Heritage. Survey Report with Key Results;
Future for Religious Heritage: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
88.
Crous-Costa, N.; Aulet, S.; Kanaan-Amat, M. Lo Sagrado en el museo: M
á
s all
á
del objeto literal. RITUR Rev.
Iberoam. Tur. 2017,7, 281–296. [CrossRef]
89.
Willson, G.B.; McIntosh, A.J.; Zahra, A.L. Tourism and spirituality: A phenomenological analysis.
Ann. Tour. Res. 2013,42, 150–168. [CrossRef]
90.
Vidal-Casellas, D.; Aulet, S.; Crous-Costa, N. Tourism, Pilgrimage and Intercultural Dialogue. Interpreting
Sacred Stories; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2019.
91.
Mallarach i Carrera, J.M. De la geografia sagrada a la cartografia del patrimoni espiritual i natural: Experi
è
ncies
i reptes. In Reptes en la Cartografia del Paisatge. Din
à
miques Territorials i Valors Intangibles; Nogu
é
, J., Ed.;
Observatori del Paisatge: Barcelona, Spain, 2011; pp. 125–147.
92.
United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environ. and Development: Our Common Future. 1987.
Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
(accessed on 21 June 2020).
93.
Taylor, B. Earth and nature-based spirituality (part I): From deep ecology to radical environmentalism.
Religion 2001,31, 175–193. [CrossRef]
94. Coates, J. From ecology to spirituality and social justice. Curr. New Scholarsh. Hum. Serv. 2004,3, 1–11.
95. Pigem, J. Qüestióde Valors. Del Consumisme a la Sostenibilitat; Institut del Territori: Barcelona, Spain, 2010.
96. Rodwell, D. Sustainability and the holistic approach to the conservation of historic cities. J. Archit. Conserv.
2003,9, 58–73. [CrossRef]
97.
Aulet, S.; Tarr
é
s, E. Tourism and Peacebuilding from a Holistic Approach: The Case of Trails for Peace.
In Role and Impact of Tourism in Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation; Tavares da Silva, J., Breda, Z.,
Carbone, F., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 46–65. [CrossRef]
98.
Sarra, A.; Di Zio, S.; Cappucci, M. A quantitative valuation of tourist experience in Lisbon. Ann. Tour. Res.
2015,53, 1–16. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 9695 19 of 19
99.
Durydiwka, M. Sacred spaces and ways of using them in contemporary tourism. In Geografia na
Przestrzeni Wiek
ó
w. Tradycja I Wsp
ó
łczesno´s´c; Bilska-Wodecka, E., Sołjan, I., Eds.; Instytut Geografii UJ:
Kraków, Poland, 2015. (In Polish)
100.
Włodarczyk, B. Przestrze´n turystyczna—Kilka sł
ó
w o istocie poj˛ecia. In Przestrze´n Turystyczna. Czynniki,
R
ó
˙znorodno´s´c, Zmiany; Durydiwka, M., Duda-Gromada, K., Eds.; Uniwersytet Warszawski: Warsaw, Poland, 2011.
101.
Jensen, G.; Iwarsson, S.; Ståhl, A. Theoretical Understanding and Methodological Challenges in Accessibility
Assessments, Focusing the Environmental Component: An Example from Travel Chains in Urban Public
Bus Transport. Disabil. Rehabil. 2002,24, 231–242. [CrossRef]
102.
Iwarsson, S.; Ståhl, A. Accessibility, Usability and Universal Design—Positioning and Definition Describing
Person-Environment Relationship. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003,25, 57–66. [CrossRef]
103.
Eichhorn, V.; Buhalis, D. Accessibility—A Key Objective for the Tourism Industry. In. Accessible Tourism: Concepts
and Issues; Buhalis, D., Darcy, S., Eds.; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2011.
104. Chin, C.; Law, F.; Lo, M.; Ramayah, T. The Impact of Accessibility Quality and Accommodation Quality on
Tourists’ Satisfaction and Revisit Intention to Rural Tourism Destination in Sarawak: The Moderating Role
of Local Communities’ Attitude. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res. 2018,10, 115–127.
105.
Collins-Kreiner, N. Researching pilgrimage: Continuity and Transformations. Ann. Tour. Res.
2010
,
37, 440–456. [CrossRef]
106.
Duda, T. Sacral landscape and its influence on the tourism space development in the region (based on the
example of Western Pomerania region NW Poland). Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr. 2014,2, 35–49.
107. Olsen, D.; Trono, A. Religious Pilgrimage Routes and Trails; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2018.
108.
Vidal-Casellas, D.; Aulet, S.; Crous, N. Structuration and Branding of a religious tourism product:
Catalonia Sacra. Pasos Rev. Turismo Patrim. Cult. 2013,11, 135–145. [CrossRef]
109.
Hern
á
ndez, J.M.; Su
á
rez-Vega, R.; Santana-Jim
é
nez, Y. The inter-relationship between rural and mass tourism:
The case of Catalonia, Spain. Tour. Manag. 2016,54, 43–57. [CrossRef]
110.
Spasojevic, B.; Beric, D.; Stamenkovic, I. The valorization of tourism potential of Ovcar-Kablar’ orthodox
monasteries based on the use of two methods: The qualitative and quantitative research method and the
Hilary du Cross research method. Geogr. Timisiensis 2016,22, 33–45.
111.
Torres-Delgado, A.; Saarinen, J. Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development: A review.
Tour. Geogr. 2014,16, 31–47. [CrossRef]
112.
Milenkovski, A.; Gjorgievski, M.; Nokovski, D. Tourist valorization by applying the scoring method.
UTMS J. Econ. 2016,7, 165–173.
113.
Eichberg, H.; Kosiewicz, J.; Contiero, D. Pilgrimage: Intrinsic Motivation and Active Behavior in the Elderly.
Phys. Cult. Sport. Stud. Res. 2017,75, 35–42. [CrossRef]
114.
Jir
á
sek, I. Pilgrimage as a Form of Physical Movement Spirituality. In Theology, Ethics and Transcendence
in Sports; Parry, P., Nesti, M., Watson, N., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 223–232.
115.
Kanaan-Amat, M.; Crous-Costa, N.; Aulet, S. Interpretation tools for religious heritage. In Tourism, Pilgrimage
and Intercultural Dialogue: Interpreting Sacred Stories; Vidal-Casellas, D., Aulet, S., Crous-Costa, N., Eds.;
CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2019; pp. 85–95. [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note:
MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Content uploaded by Tomasz Duda
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tomasz Duda on Nov 20, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
