Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxxwww.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Negotiated space: Tourists, pilgrims, andthe Bahá’í terraced gardens in Haifa �

Jay D. Gatrell a,¤, Noga Collins-Kreiner b

a Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809, United Statesb Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa 42860, Israel

Received 21 April 2005; received in revised form 4 January 2006

Abstract

This paper explores the inherent contradiction and conceptual conXict that arises when sacred sites are marketed as secular for thepurpose of promoting tourism. The question of conXict is further frustrated within the context of Israel’s contested religious landscapeand Israeli policy. Using a Lefebvrian framework, the historical development of the Bahai Gardens in Haifa, Israel, the tourism board’spromotion of the site as Haifa’s primary tourist designation, and the distinct spatial practices that have been used by both constituenciesare investigated. Further, the authors posit that the Bahai Gardens are multi-dimensional spaces characterized by two diVerent socio-spa-tial processes and practices that co-exist—the tourist’s and the pilgrim’s. These practices transform the holy site into a secular sharedcommunity asset. The paper concludes with a discussion of the socio-spatial implications of the case and its broader implications concern-ing the globalization of tourism and the eYcacy of developing “layered” Lefebvrian triad to try and avoid conXict.© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pilgrimage; Tourism; Lefebvre; Bahá’í

1. Introduction

The visitor feels they are walking through a spiritualgarden, not a beautiful garden”, Sahba said. You canbuy the beauty. You cannot buy the spirit. (Bahá’íNews, 2001).

Religious tourism is a growing sector of the tourismindustry. In this paper, we investigate the case of Haifa’sBahá’í Gardens and World Center to understand place-spe-ciWc practices that enable the tourist and pilgrim to negoti-ate a shared space, preserve the religious integrity of thesite, avoid religious conXict, and promote local tourism.The analysis will use a Lefebvrian framework to under-

� The manuscript was written with equal contribution from both au-thors.

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: gejdg@isugw.indstate.edu (J.D. Gatrell), nogack@geo.

haifa.ac.il (N. Collins-Kreiner).

0016-7185/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.01.002

stand the speciWc and “layered” dynamics of the Bahá’ícase. To accomplish this task, the unique nature of pilgrim-age tourism, the historical development of the gardens, thetourism board’s promotion of the site as Haifa’s primarytourist attraction, and the distinct place-speciWc spatialpractices that have been engineered to negotiate the verydiVerent expectations of the industry and the Bahá’í faithare examined. Based on our reading of Lefebvre’s Trialec-tic, we posit that as a result of the garden’s dual secular andsacred purposes two very diVerent socio-spatial processesand practices co-exist—the tourist’s and the pilgrim’s. Thearticle concludes with a discussion of the socio-spatialimplications of the case and its broader implications con-cerning the globalization of religious tourism.

2. Pilgrimage in Israel

Israel is both an ideal and a problematic location for anemerging religion to establish a contemporary pilgrimage

2 J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

complex. As the home of the “Holy Land”, Israel is a majorpilgrimage site for the world’s major monotheistic reli-gions—Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Indeed, the Israelieconomy has an extensive tourism industry that is closelyallied with religion and pilgrimage (Krakover, 1998; Krak-over and Cohen, 2001). Yet, the geographies of religion inIsrael (as elsewhere in the world, but particularly the Mid-dle East) are inherently conXict laden and the conXictextends well beyond the well-publicized Arab–IsraeliconXict and has emerged time and time again within thecontext of prominent Christian sects and other emergingreligions.

Yet, not all of the politics of religion are embeddedwithin the context of the Arab–Israeli conXict per se. Inconcrete terms, the politics of religion in Israel are so com-plex and crosscutting that it has resulted in the curtailingof religious speech and practice across multiple beliefsystems and denominations (US State Department, 2003).For example, the state of Israel enacted an anti-proselytiz-ing law in 1977 and as recently as 2000–2001 consideredmore strident restrictions on non-Jewish religious activity(US State Department, 2003).1 For example, the construc-tion of the Mormon-aYliated Brigham Young Universitycomplex in Jerusalem was a major controversy throughoutthe 1970s and 1980s (Olsen and Guelke, 2004). Likewise,construction of a mosque near the Church of the Annunci-ation in the Arab city of Nazareth has been a major politi-cal issue and the conXict continues even today. Similarly,the Israeli politics of religion have been contested in a vari-ety of ways and sometimes in unexpected places. Forexample, conXicts over access and control over cemeteryspace in Israel has been well documented by Newman(1987). In each of the Israeli cases, the development of newreligious infrastructures or control over space proves to bean ideological and political threat to local residents andfurther serves to complicate the contested geography ofreligion in Israel.

Yet, conXict over the religious politics of space is notonly observed in Israel—but in many locations around theworld. In terms of high visibility conXict, the “troubles” inNorthern Ireland and the complex conXict between Hindu,Sikh, and Muslims are well known around the globe. How-ever, religion—does from time to time—emerge at the localscale and these conXicts are often quite diYcult to resolve.For example, religion and the expansion of religious sitesacross the built environment have a long established his-tory of conXict around the world including major metro-politan areas like London (expansion of a mosque); smallurban areas such as Lexington, KY (proposed mega-

1 The politics of religion in Israel are unique from other regions insofaras the state has articulated speciWc policies relative to the activities of “oth-er” (non-Jewish) groups. While we recognize that religious diVerence doesnot “equal” religious conXict, the Israeli experience and the practices ob-served at the Bahai World Center demonstrate that institutional responseshave evolved to reduce the potential for religious conXict per se. Finally,we recognize that conXict does arise within and between Jewish communi-ties and is thus not only restricted to non-Jewish communities.

church) and even rural Nauvoo, Illinois (Mormon owner-ship of land) (Naylor and Ryan, 2002; McCann, 2002;Kinzer, 2004). These religion-based conXicts are highlyemotional as local residents struggle to deWne the meaningof place and negotiate challenges to their own personal andspiritual identities (Naylor and Ryan, 2002). And it iswithin the context of these examples concerning speech,practice, and land that the politics of Bahá’í tourism andpilgrimage in Haifa have been forged.

3. Pilgrimage versus tourism

The pilgrim and tourist are distinct actors in an increas-ingly recognized tourist industry niche known as religioustravel (Collins-Kreiner, 2002). Pilgrimage is one of the well-known phenomena in religion and culture and it exists inall the main religions of the world. Historically, pilgrimagehas been deWned as “a journey resulting from religiouscauses, externally to a holy site, and internally for spiritualpurposes and internal understanding” (Barber, 1993, p. 1).Given this deWnition, it is evident that pilgrimage is a dis-tinct mode of tourism. To better understand the percep-tions and expectations associated with tourism, Cohen(1979) posits that no “general type” of tourist exists andthat Wve modes of tourism co-exist (see Table 1). Within thecontext of pilgrimage, the existential mode corresponds tothe experience of the pilgrim as the mode emphasizes thespiritual connection to a site. In contrast, visitors to reli-gious sites can be classiWed as engaging in the remainingfour modes of tourism.

While the pilgrim and tourist have been constructed aseither a “religious traveler” or “vacationer”, respectively(Smith, 1992; Cohen, 1992), they are often linked to oneanother in a shared space—in this case the Bahai Garden.Despite diVerences in the perception and experiences of thetourist and pilgrim, religious tourism emphasizes the inter-dependent nature of the two actors and the social construc-tion of a site as simultaneously sacred and secular (Poriaet al., 2004). However, the exact manner in which placesand space are constructed as secular or sacred in both spaceand time varies from site to site.

In the Haifa case, the spatial practices and embeddedmeanings are separated in both space and time. Indeed,the sacred and secular practices of the pilgrim and touristare arguably more distinct than at established Christian,

Table 1Cohen’s (1979) modes of tourism

Experiential A quest for authenticity beyond the spatialityand temporality of everyday life

Existential A journey to an external and elective spiritual sitebeyond the mainstream of a travelers native experience

Diversionary An escape from the ordinaryRecreational Entertainment centered travel that emphasizes

the restorative capacity of travel—secularExperimental Travel intended to be out of the ordinary,

unique, and “alternative”

J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Islamic sites as visitors oftenco-mingle with one another and the practices occur in placesimultaneously. Moreover, the contemporary nature of thegarden—opposed to the more distant historicism of sacredsites in nearby Jerusalem associated with other worldfaiths—makes the case of the Bahá’í Gardens and theircontemporary cultural and economic context both moredistinct.

DiVerentiating between pilgrims and tourists is animportant conceptual feat when trying to unlock thesocio-spatial dynamics of tourism and pilgrimage land-scapes. That is, attempting to diVerentiate between the twoexperiences and perceptions of the landscape in the samelocation is essential as each group’s place experience isunique and determines their performances and practices.In terms of the “landscape”, pilgrimage landscapes are theresult of the interrelationships between people and placeas no place is intrinsically sacred (Alderman, 2002). Conse-quently, pilgrimages and their attendant landscapes aresocially constructed spaces that undergo what Seaton(1999, 2002) calls sacralization—a sequential process bywhich tourism attractions are marked as meaningful,quasi-religious shrines. For this reason, a conceptual andpractical tension between the pilgrim and tourists existswithin all “visitor”-centered landscapes as boundariesbetween tourism and pilgrimage have blurred (see Gra-burn, 1989). The tension subtly alters the lens—or Urry’s(2001) notion of the “gaze”—though which each constitu-ency views and experiences a shared material and symboliclandscape. In this sense, the tourist’s gaze and pilgrim’sgaze are uniWed at a single location—yet how each viewsthe site (or sight) varies greatly (Urry, 2001). In this study,we consider how these two disparate constituencies oftravelers negotiate a shared space and have developed dis-tinct spatial practices to preserve the integrity of each setof activities.

4. The tourism triad: an application of Lefebvre to pilgrimage sites

To understand the distinct and conXict-free nature (todate) of the Bahai Gardens, we propose using a geo-graphic approach for understanding and explaining socio-spatial conXict as well as the lack of it. This geographicapproach—which extends from (or more accurately com-plements) a large body of literature on the space-place dia-lectic—explores the conXict that emerges as a result of thebasic spatial contradiction between the planned (absolutespace) and the lived (relative space) experiences (Merri-Weld, 1993a,b; Soja, 1980). The socio-spatial dialecticasserts the materiality of everyday life on the ground andin place seldom meets the idealized expectations of plan-ners, public oYcials, or global capital. The result is someform of conXict to one degree or another between the var-ious actors seeking to realize their own individual orgroup objective. For the purposes of this study, the pri-mary actors (or constituencies) investigated are pilgrims

and tourists. In addition to the visitors, the spatial prac-tices of visitors have been informed and structured by thelocal tourism board and Bahai World Center administra-tion.

To understand the spatial dynamics of religious tour-ism in Haifa and how conXict is avoided or mitigated, wepropose using Lefebvre’s trialectic or triad (Lefebvre,1991) (see Fig. 1). The triad is composed of three socio-spatial parameters—representations of space (space orconceived geographies), representational spaces (place orlived geographies), and spatial practice (policies, activi-ties, rules, and structures) (Lefebvre, 1991). Lefebvre’swork is especially useful as we believe it recognizes theequality of space, place, and practice. Whereas manyresearchers have marginalized spatial practice by reducingthe socio-spatial trialectic to the abstract and the con-crete, general and speciWc, or the global and the local (seeMerriWeld, 1993a,b; Gatrell and Worsham, 2002), Lefe-bvre’s (1991) analytical frame avoids a strictly structuralunderstanding of space by asserting that the everydayspatial practices, activities, and observed relationshipsbetween actors in space serve to deWne, mediate, and/orpromote a conceptual and practical disconnect betweenspace and place. As such, it is essential that geographersand other social scientists investigate and understand howplace-based practices are situated at the nexus of local andglobal processes and can be used to inform our collectiveunderstanding of resulting conXict.

To fully understand the socio-spatial dynamics of localand global processes, Lefebvre’s asserts that the spatialpractices of local and global actors produce the material-ity and symbolism of everyday life (i.e., representationalspace). In essence, the decisions, policies, and perfor-mances of individuals in space transform imagined or con-ceived geographies (i.e., representations of space) into livedexperiences in place. In short, Lefebvre’s triad of spatialpractice (policies/rules/structures), representational space(place/lived), and representations of space (space/con-ceived) conceptualizes the tripartite of socio-spatialimperatives as equal and thus avoids the functionalist lensof a structuralist interpretation of the space-place dialec-tic. For this reason, the Lefebvrian framework is unique asit enables geographers to escape the simple binaries ofspace-place by asserting that spatial practices and dis-courses have the capacity to create compartmentalizedexperiences that transcend the lived and planned and fromwhich new meanings and places are derived (McCann,2002). Within the context of this case study, the evidencedemonstrates that bifurcated spatial practices (in terms of

Fig. 1. The Lefebvre triad.

4 J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

space, time, and directionality) enables the Bahai Gardensto be experienced very diVerently (within and betweengroups); thereby avoiding the simple “space/place” binaryand potential conXict.

To illustrate how spatial practices can transform themeaning of a space, Lefebvre (1991) notes how an agricul-tural market (an economic space) was appropriated andtransformed (albeit temporarily) by Parisian youth into acultural gathering place. The practice of “hanging out” inthe Paris market or the more recent example of the shop-ping mall in North America transforms or alters its intentand creates a tension between the planned and lived. As aresult, conXict may arise as actors seek to rearticulate themeaning of a space. In the United States, conXict betweenyouth and shopping mall tenants was a constant theme inthe early 1990s and these conXicts became immortalizedand satirized in the movie Mall Rats. While the example ofappropriating economic space for hanging out is an exam-ple most individuals can relate to, the conXict that arises isreal and signiWcant. In this case, the co-appropriation of areligious site as a tourist designation is considerably morecomplex and requires an implicit agreement on the behalfof all actors—the tourists, pilgrims, Bahai administrators,and tourism board—to consent to highly structured prac-tices.

While Lefebvre is useful for understanding and explai-ning socio-spatial conXict, the trialectic can, we believe, beused to investigate a variety of social, economic, orcultural processes and has the potential to be used morecreatively to avoid conXict.2 In spite of the heuristicdevice’s potential malleability, the majority of the applica-tions have tended to focus on the historical or contempo-rary politics of urban economic development and theoppositional (often reactionary) politics of local–globalcapitalist conXict (Gatrell and Worsham, 2002). Forexample, McCann’s (1999) investigation of racial conXictin Lexington or MerriWeld’s (1993) analysis of gentriWca-tion and the conXict-laden urban politics of economicdevelopment in Baltimore demonstrate the overalleYcacy of using Lefebvre’s triad to understand socio-spa-tial conXict in place. In this research, we will adapt thetriad to Wt the case of the Haifa Gardens and recast it as amulti-dimensional framework united through a “par-tially” shared deWnition of planned space (representationsof space). The shared garden space is unique as the spatialpractices of pilgrims and tourists diVer and represent astrategic deployment of pilgrim and tourist performancesin both space and time in fashion that promotes coexis-tence and avoids conXict.

2 We recognize that the assertion that a LeFebvrian framework can beused to avoid conXict may be a controversial reading of Lefebvre. Yet,Lefebvre’s insights into the spatiality of everyday life and the explanatorypower of the triad can be used to inform public policy and shape spatialpractices. As such, we believe the principles of Lefebvre and the triad canbe used to avoid conXict—or at least devise strategies for avoiding (or mit-igating) conXict.

5. Methods

The study employs a mixed methodological approach.The researchers engaged in participant observation andhad short-informal and unstructured discussions withBahai volunteers and guides. As participant observers, theauthors have—at diVerent and numerous times since2001—participated in the tours as tourists and researchers,visited the viewing areas, and experienced the gardens sur-rounding the Shrine of the Bab. As we were participantobservers, the paper includes empirical observations con-cerning the material landscape and the observed practicesof pilgrims and tourists. Additionally, we accessed archivalmaterials from a variety of resources including the Bahai,the municipality of Haifa, printed news outlets, the internet,and other Bahai resources. With respect to internetresources, access to pilgrim diaries has provided key datanot readily available to non-Bahá’í. To supplement archivalmaterials, the authors report data obtained from discus-sions or e-mail communications with Bahá’í volunteers,tour guides, tourists, pilgrims, and scholars. In October2005, semi-structured interviews were performed to provideadditional data on the spatial practices and strategies of theBahai staV and local leaders.3

Finally, and for the purposes of establishing positional-ity, the authors are able to provide both an “insiders” and“outsiders” perspective of Haifa and the Bahai Gardens.For this reason, the authors are familiar with the historicaldevelopment of the World Center complex. While neitherof the authors have experienced the landscape as apilgrim, one of the authors is a life-long resident of Haifawith a research specialization in tourism geography. Theother author—the outsider—has expertise in the local pol-itics of economic development and cultural dynamicsassociated with these politics. As both insider and out-sider, we are able to draw on our collective understandingsof the local dynamics associated with the speciWc Bahaicase and have experienced the landscape from a variety ofdisparate perspectives—resident, tourist, researcher, andpasserby.

6. Study background: Haifa, Mt. Carmel and the Bahai

The study area is located in Israel’s third largest city—Haifa—with a population of roughly 250,000. Haifa is situ-ated in northern Israel on a wide natural bay betweenMount Carmel and the Mediterranean. Historically, thecity has been regarded as a ‘more secular’ city compared toother Israeli cities. Indeed, Haifa is often understood by itsresidents to be a multi-cultural city seldom associated withcontemporary political, religious, or military conXict.

3 To conform with institutional research board guidelines, the discus-sions were limited to information pertaining to the oYcial and publicactivities of the informants. Other informant statements were based on“public comments” and not the result of an interview process per se. Toprotect the privacy of individuals, names and titles are not used.

J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 5

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Beyond the general characteristics of Haifa, the city ishome to the Bahai World Center—which includes theadministrative center for the international Bahai commu-nity, the Shrine of the Bab, the Terrace Gardens, and otherkey sites. Haifa’s connection with the Bahai began inthe late 1800s and is centered on Mt. Carmel. The Bahaiconnection to Mt. Carmel is based—in part—on the histor-ical narrative surrounding Mt. Carmel and the belief ofJews and Christians that Mount Carmel is “Mountain ofthe Lord.” To Bahá’ís around the world, it is singularlysigniWcant as the site of the World Center of their Faith.For the Bahai, Mt. Carmel became of singular importancewhen the Bahá’u’lláh—the Bahai prophet and leader—stood on its slopes in 1891 and sketched his plans for thedevelopment of the spiritual and administrative core of thenew religion. At the center of the Mt. Carmel complex, theBahá’u’lláh selected the site for a mausoleum to be con-structed to hold the remains of the Bab—the founder of thefaith. The original mausoleum was constructed in 1909 andsince then the Bahá’í have had a permanent presence on themountain.

Since the late 1980s, the Bahá’í have undertaken a majordevelopment initiative that includes general beautiWcationof Mt. Carmel and the expansion of the World Centeradministrative complex. Construction of the gardens—aswell as the Center for the Study of texts, InternationalTeaching Center, and expansion of the archives—occurredthroughout the 1990s and culminated with the grand open-ing of the terraced gardens in May of 2001 (see Figs. 2 and3). The creation of the garden and world center complex arethe latest phases of territorial expansion on Mount Carmelthat began in 1909 with the construction of a modest mau-soleum for the Bab. In 1953, the mausoleum was expandedinto a shrine that included a garden and golden dome.In 1957 and 1983, the Archives and Universal House ofJustice, respectively, were completed. Today, the complexoccupies a major portion of the mountainside—stretching

Fig. 2. Bahá’í gardens.

approximately 1 kilometer in “length” from the base of thegardens to the top. The width of the complex—includingthe gardens—varies from under 100 meters to as wide as400 meters between Hatzionut and Yefe Nof Avenues(www.bahai.org, 2004).

As of January 2004 there have been between two andtwo-and-half million visitors to the terraces, according toWorld Center staV, which were Wrst opened to the public on4 June 2001 (see also Hayoun, 2004). While this numbermay seem to be an exaggeration of sorts, as it would trans-late into over 2000 visitors per day, the Wgure most likelyincludes tour participants, public viewing areas, and pil-grims. In future years, visitation at the site will no doubtexpand as the World Center has been nominated by thelocal municipality (with the support of the Bahai) to be aUNESCO World Heritage site (Hayoun, 2004).

Fig. 3. Map of World center area (modiWed version of Haifa tourismboard map).

6 J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Given the municipality’s recent UNESCO nomination,the World Center and the gardens are important communityassets as Haifa derives both direct and indirect economicbeneWts from the Baha’i and the World Center. In recentyears, Mt. Carmel construction projects are estimated tohave infused over $250 million into built environment(www.bahai.org, 2004). To ensure the construction of aseamless formal garden from the base of the mountain to itupper limits, a series of bridges and road improvements wererequired and the Bahai provided the funds to improve theroadway. Other improvements included the addition andupdating of sewer, water lines, and the addition of parkingatop Yefe Nof Avenue adjacent to the neighborhood ofShdarot Hanasi. In addition to construction, the local econ-omy beneWts from the presence of visitors who come toHaifa on pilgrimage and as tourists to visit the center.

Despite the development of a vast infrastructure onMount Carmel, the Bahá’í have no formal community offollowers in Israel. Instead, the Bahá’í World Center isstaVed and maintained primarily by local residents andapproximately 800 volunteers (www.bahai.org, 2004).According to the garden tour narrative, it is the oYcialposition of the Bahá’í that no permanent community existin Israel because the Bahá’í have no interest in deepeningthe current religious conXict occurring throughout theregion. This doctrine has been in eVect since the 1800s andthe imprisonment of the Bahá’í leader. Ironically, though,the ability of the Bahá’í to virtually colonize MountCarmel through the purchasing of real properties andconstruction of major structures demonstrates that theseoYcial statements are an eVective discursive techniqueintended to minimize potential conXict associated with thebuilding of the gardens and expansion of the world center.In many respects, there is no formal interaction betweenHaifa and the Bahai. Indeed, the Bahai (as a community)are as an informant disclosed “not seen and not heard”with exception of the Bahai guards stationed at theentrance. Given their formal policies, there are no Bahai toapproach as the tour staV are non-Bahai Israelis—a factthat was conWrmed by an informant. While the Bahai areall but silent, Bahai volunteers encourage “everyone tovisit”.

While little is known about the Bahai within the com-munity and the Bahai maintain a purposefully low proWle,the gardens serve as the city’s primary community assetand icon. “The gardens”, as residents colloquially refer tothem, are a point of pride for most local residents and asymbol of the city. In an attempt to attract new visitors,images of the gardens are prominently displayed on all ofthe Haifa Tourism Board’s promotional materials includ-ing posters, maps, and pamphlets. In the case of posters forsale at the tourism information oYce, depictions of thegardens are the only city images available. Additionally,the cover materials of all of the tourism board materialsinclude the gardens. Whether depicted on posters, maps, orpamphlets, the gardens are presented as a magniWcentstructure readily available to view, visit, and tour (see

Fig. 4). The Bahá’í Gardens and the German Colony forma two kilometer-stretch referred to by the local touristboard as Millennium Boulevard (Haifa Tourism Board,2004b).

While the images of the gardens and the gardens them-selves are a key asset for the local tourism board, the abilityto fully leverage their potential economic beneWt is ham-pered by the site’s pilgrimage status that severely limits thescale and scope of tourist visitation. These limitations arecompounded by the Tourism Board’s emphasis on the sec-ular and aesthetic aspects of the complex opposed to thesacred nature of the structure as a non-Jewish pilgrimagesite. Moreover, the many iconic representations of the gar-dens as “HAIFA”—not a Bahá’í holy site—further secular-ize the garden discourse (Fig. 5). In a similar fashion, nearlyall of the oYcial depictions of the gardens in either Bahá’íor Tourism Board literature exclude the elaborate systemof gates, security check points, and other features that limitaccess further frustrating the tourism industry’s ability tocontextualize the site’s sacred status.

The image of the gardens portrayed by the tourism boardis one of an accessible, shared public resource, and secularsite. Of course, the reality—as would be tourists Wnd out—ismore complex. In concrete terms, the divergent experiencesof the pilgrim and the tourist—in terms of activity space andthe narrative construction—at the gardens appears to stand

Fig. 4. Haifa tourism board poster.

J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 7

ARTICLE IN PRESS

in contrast to the spartan historicism of many pilgrimagesites. This strategic use of two separate spatial practices isunique to the Bahá’í Gardens and serves to both secularizethe garden for tourists, the city, and the state of Israel as wellas to reinforce the World Center’s religious importance.

7. Spatial practice & perceptions

While there is no doubt that the experience—emotion-ally, spiritually, and, even, physically—of the pilgrim andtourist diVer greatly, the case of the Bahá’í Gardens inHaifa is unique in that the activity space and movement(performance in place) of these two groups are vastly diVer-ent. In Lefebvrian terms, the pilgrim and tourist engage indistinct spatial practices that produce the meaning of land-scape to each constituency. In Table 2, the performance,activity space, and directionality of the tourist and pilgrimare presented. The table has been constructed based on ourWeld observations, participation in the tours, interviews,and archival data. Data on pilgrim practices was obtainedvia email communications with Bahai scholars and inter-views with Bahai staV. The tour data was collected during

our many visits and derived from empirical observation—as well as discussions with the Haifa Tourism boardapproved guides and staV (Fig. 6).

As Table 2 demonstrates, the experiences of the pilgrimand tourist are unique. Moreover, the timing of the upperand lower garden visitor access points, scheduled tours, andpilgrim events are structured to avoid interaction betweenthe groups. According to a knowledgeable Haifa resident,tours are not given Wednesdays until after noon in orderallow all of the internal gates to be opened so that pilgrimsmay ascend and descend the stairs. With respect to touristactivities, tourist activities have been parsed into three sep-arate activities—the Upper and Lower tours and publicviewing areas. As a result of the diVerent activities, move-ments, and scripts, it is evident that the garden space is anegotiated one that is deWned by and through the practicesand performances of two speciWc groups—pilgrim andtourist. For each, the meaning—as holy site or secular gar-den—diVers. The separation of the tourist and pilgrimexperience at the Bahá’í Gardens is unique as it has beenaccompanied by a strategic deployment of a secular andreligious discourse depending on the audience. In the case

Fig. 5. “Baha’i Holy Place” sign at entrance.

Table 2Outline of spatial practices

Pilgrim Tourist on garden tour Tourist at viewing locations

Activity space All 19 Terraces, Shrine, Pilgrim Houseand the World Center Complex

Upper or lower garden only Top or bottom public viewing area

Movement Ascending & descending Descending NonePerformance Prayer & Meditation—self-scripted with

agenda shaped by the World Center StaVScripted by the Bahai Self scripted viewing at a prescribed

location or viewing scripted by tour-bus leaders

8 J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

of the pilgrim, the experience is a scripted one that includesa standard agenda generated by the Bahai World Center(Buck, 2004) and a series of general practices as outlined inthe Tablet of Pilgrimage. For the secular visitor, the tournarrative marketed through Haifa Tourism Board materi-als (2004a) emphasize the garden’s aesthetics. As a result,the gardens are simultaneously produced as both secularand religious and occupy an interesting discursive spacebetween the fully religious and wholly secular. The result isthe creation of a strategic restructuring of spatial practicesthat creatively reconstructs the “planned” and “lived”spaces to transcend the politics of religion and conXictvis-à-vis a layered place-based strategy that preserves thesacred nature of the Bahá’í complex and enables thecommunity to yield a variety of secular beneWts includingeconomic beneWts.

Fundamentally, the divergent spatial practices of the pil-grim and tourist are a function of their perceptions andhow these perceptions have been shaped—or socially con-structed—by the city tourism board and the Bahá’í them-selves to produce speciWc meanings. For the pilgrim, themeaning of the place is a personal, spiritual, and religiousone. Yet, the experiences and perceptions of both groupsare very similar insofar as the experience of the outsider atvisitation sites—in essences the‘tourist experience’ is similar(Turner and Turner, 1969, 1978; MacCannell, 1973; Cohen,1979, 1992, 1998). Hence, modern ‘tourism’ echoes manythemes of pilgrimage including the search for an “authen-tic” experience (MacCannell, 1973). In this sense, the touristis as a secular pilgrim on a quest for a “meaningful experi-ence” out of the ordinary and beyond the everyday experi-ence. Hence, the tourist and pilgrim share similarperceptions concerning the “spaces of representation”—thegardens as a planned development. Yet, these sharedperceptions rapidly diverge as each group engages in veryspeciWc, scripted, and bounded activities and negotiates the

Fig. 6. The multi-dimensional tourist triad.

shared garden space. The result is a multi-layer experiencewhereby the spatial practice, sense of place, and activityspace (i.e., scale & scope of spaces of representation) of thetourist and pilgrim are very diVerent.

8. The tourist

the nice people with the beautiful gardensa phrase used by a local resident to describe theBahai and the gardens

The tourist experience is an explicitly secular experience.Non-religious visitors are aVorded limited access to the gar-dens and World Center. In this respect, the Bahá’í Gardensare readily distinguished from the public gardens and parksof the world’s great cities by their restricted access. Mostvisitors access the gardens at either a public viewing area orthrough a scheduled tour.

9. Public viewing areas

Public viewing areas are available at the top and bottomterraces—one level only. These viewing areas are accessible9am–5pm except on recognized Holy Days. Additionally,the gardens on level 10—surrounding the Shrine of theBab—are open 9–12 daily. While the availability of threepublic viewing sites appear to make the gardens reasonablyaccessible, the entry to each of the locations—while physi-cally near one another—require a 5–7 minute transit by cargiven Mount Carmel’s unique topography and the Haifaroad network. As many tourists and residents travel bypublic transportation, the relative travel time often exceeds15 minutes. For this reason, most tourists tend to access thegardens from a single location—usually the top or the bot-tom. In the case of “bus-bound” visitors, tour buses use thetop viewing location as it provides a perspective on theentire city of Haifa, Haifa bay and the Northern part ofIsrael—the Galilee and parking at the lower level is insuY-cient. Indeed, access to parking is severely limited at alllocations relative to the abundant parking observed at mosttourist sites and major issues (stairs versus ramps) associ-ated with handicap accessibility have not been addressed.Based on our Weld observations, the general length of stayof tour buses is approximately 5–10 minutes. According toa Bahai volunteer, the average stay of other tourists (non-tour bus visitors) at public viewing areas is brief.

To access the public viewing areas, the visitors must passthrough a large iron gate and are subject to basic securitymeasures (i.e., a handheld magnetometer and search ofbags). In addition to security personnel, two to three Baha’ivolunteers staV the locations. The public observation area isa single terrace at the terminus of David Ben Gurion Ave-nue atop the German Colony heritage area. The bottomlocation’s centerpiece of the terrace is a large water featurein the shape of the Bahá’í star (Fig. 7) surrounded by grasswith limestone stairs Xanked by purple annuals. The pres-ence of the star is important as it a recognized symbol of

J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS

the religion and one of the few explicit material referencesto the Bahá’í faith. At the top, visitor access is somewhatmore limited. The top viewing area is located oV Yefe NofStreet and is little more than an “observation” area. Likethe bottom viewing area, visitors must pass through secu-rity and the entry is staVed by two or three Bahá’í volun-teers, as well as a security guard. Yet, the view andexperience of the tour bus visitor is often considerably moreconstrained by time. For this reason, visitors on the tourbus most often view the terraces from the sidewalk of YefeNof Street atop Mt. Carmel and do not proceed throughthe security checks or actually enter the gardens per se(Fig. 8).

10. Tourist: terrace tour

The only way to access the terraces is to schedule a tourby phone for a later date. The reservation process requiresthe visitor to provide the full names of the group members.Tours normally are available in English, Hebrew, Russianand Arabic. Individuals or groups are unable to schedule atour of both the upper and lower terraces on the same day.The tours are “A” to “B” tours and require visitors arrangefor their own transportation to the tour point of originlocated above the tour end point.4 Garden tours includelimited access to the 10th terrace gardens surrounding theShrine of the Bab—but do not include access to the shrine.Additionally, the normally scheduled tour times preventviewing of the shrine as they occur outside of the 9–12AMpublic visitation of the Shrine. Likewise, access to the sur-

4 “A to B” tours refer to tours that begin and end in diVerent locations.

rounding World Center Complex including the monumentgarden and administrative buildings is not permitted. TheBahá’í can only access these spaces.

The tour begins with a required security check at loca-tions on the periphery of the garden at either Yefe Nof orHatzionut Avenues for the upper or lower tour, respec-tively. Check-in is required 10–15 minutes prior to thescheduled tour—and identiWcation may be required. Thevisitors are directed to a staging area nearer the footpathentrance to the gardens. Normally, the tour consists ofbetween 15 and 25 visitors. Most the visitors are adults—however, small children often complete the tour, too.At the appointed hour of the tour, the lead tour guide is

Fig. 8. Bahá’í star.

Fig. 7. The Lefebvrian perspective on the tourist.

10 J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

introduced and the rules and regulations are announced.Yet, the tour guide (and the brochure) also notes that themonuments, water features, and materiality of the land-scape—“have no religious signiWcance”. At the same time,the tour guide emphasizes that the location is a religiousplace and that appropriate behavior and dress are required.With respect to behavior, the guides clearly indicate thatchildren are to be “maintained” by their parents.

The guide’s comments concerning the non-religiousnature of the garden monuments and ornaments is animportant component of the tour’s secularized narrative.The tour guides also reinforce the secularized tour dis-course during their introduction. In the case of one tour inJuly of 2004, the guide stated, “We [the tour guides] are notBahá’í, I am a Jew and she is a Muslim”.5,6 The explicitattempt to distance the tour and the tour guides from thereligion and any personal linkage to the gardens is animportant one and mirrors the broader Bahá’í policy toavoid potential conXict.

Before entering the formal gardens, the tour begins with awalk down a parallel path to an adjacent viewing areaapproximately 1 terrace below the 18th terrace. At the view-ing area, the guide provides a brief narrative on the Bahá’í,their presence in Israel, the importance of Mount Carmel,and their basic worldview including the signiWcance of thenumber 19 as representative of the Bahaullah and his Wrst 18followers. The tour then proceeds through the descent. Thetour brieXy stops mid-tour and the tour guide details themaintenance requirements of the terraced gardens in termsof labor and water inputs. Also, she notes the “wave” designfeature that focuses the attention of the pilgrim and visitoron the golden dome of the Shrine of the Bab.

Overall, the tour narrative is one of secular aestheticswith only passing religious references. While a polishedgolden plaque at the entrance explicitly declare the gardensare a “Holy Site”, the tour itself avoids this language andemphasizes the engineering and architectural features thatmade the gardens and the maintenance of the gardens pos-sible. This discursive “avoidance” of the site’s sacred natureis an eVective technique—but often leaves the tourists par-ticipating in the upper or lower terrace tour asking the tourguide very pointed questions about the faith, its nine holydays, and other components of the Bahá’í world view.When visitors raise these questions, the guide, volunteers orguards very politely and kindly refer tourists to the leaXetsand pamphlets for more information. In the case of “tourbus” visitors and others who view the gardens from theobservation areas, these questions are seldom an issue asthe visits are little more than “drive-bys” and focus on theaesthetics of the gardens and the upper viewing area’s sce-nic view of Haifa Bay. In either the case of the visitor as

5 Two guides are responsible for the entire experience. However, only thetour leader at the front of the tour group speaks. The rear “guide” movesthe group and observes their activities.

6 According to a local resident, the tour guides are all non-Bahai Israelis.This strategy serves to further secularize the tours.

“public viewer” or the “tour participant”, the meaningassociated with the gardens is one of aesthetics (architec-ture, vistas, and plantings) not religious.

In terms of the “Tourist triad” (Fig. 7), the lived experi-ence of the gardens is more limited than the planned land-scape suggests. In terms of the spatial practices of thevisitor, the limited access of the tour, its directionality, thetour narrative and the strict spatial limits of the tour (upperor lower only) and public viewing areas dramatically nar-rows the scale and scope of the entire terraced gardens.Instead of leisurely experiencing the landscape as a “publicgarden”, visitors carefully negotiate a planned landscapeusing the script and pace provided by the Bahá’í hosts. Inthis sense, the tour or public viewing areas serve as a spatialpractice that mitigates between the secular expectations ofthe visitor and sacred nature of the site. The result is anexperience that enables the visitors and community to sharethe garden space.

11. The pilgrim

At each terrace there are fountains on each side of thesteps and trees and benches behind the trees so youcan go aside and pray ƒ All around the steps is land-scaped. (Holt-Fortin, 1998).

Whereas the tourist experience is characterized by aes-thetics, pilgrimage for the Bahá’í is a very personal andspiritual experience. Moreover, Bahá’í pilgrimage is bothan obligation and privilege. Like followers of Islam, Bahá’íare obligated to go on pilgrimage if the Wnancial meansexist to do so. It is within the context of the Wnancial oppor-tunity that pilgrimage is seen as a privilege. Like othermonotheistic religions, pilgrimage plays an important rolein community building and is simultaneously a verypersonal experience. In the case of the Bahá’í faith, thecommunity-building function of pilgrimage and its empha-sis on the global community is especially important and theWorld Center—including the gardens—is a focal point ofpilgrimage.

Despite the rather extensive web-literature on the Bahá’íand self-reported notes of pilgrims (see Healy, 2002; Holt-Fortin, 1998; Manville, 1996; Allen and Allen, 1954),7

Bahá’í pilgrimage and knowledge of the pilgrim practicesare limited—particularly outside of the faith. With respectto the diaries themselves, the narratives focus primarily onspiritual and emotional themes and over only a partialglimpse into the activities of the pilgrim. In terms of formalacademic research, the paucity of literature is extreme con-sidering the faith’s growing presence around the globe (seeMacEoin, 1994; Buck, 1996). What is known of Bahá’í pil-grim practices comes primarily from the published diaries

7 Pilgrimage Weld notes and diaries are often used as primary sourcesand have come to be a research staple in the pilgrimage studies community(see Collins-Kreiner, 2002). Indeed, these Wrst hand accounts enableresearchers to understand the nexus between practice and spirituality inplace.

J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(mostly web-published) of pilgrims. Indeed, the separationof pilgrim and tourism practice in the sacred space of thegardens and broader world center severely limits outsideraccess. Further, the explicit policy of non-recruitment hasled to a strategic silence on the part of volunteers andoYcials with respect to pilgrimage activities. Duringattempts to obtain data on pilgrimage in previous years aswell as the October 2005 visits, volunteers (who have beenpilgrims) were unwilling (or perhaps unable) to discuss thesubject. In fact, potential informants oVered less informa-tion than previously published diaries. This silence and sep-aration of pilgrim activities from tourism (or even religioustravel) serves as an impediment to research on Bahá’ípilgrimage and distinguishes it from other major and minorpilgrimage sites in Israel where pilgrim and tourist practicesshare both time and space.

What is known of the Bahá’í pilgrim’s experience is thatit is broader in scale, scope, and performance. The Pilgrimexperience is diVerentiated from tourism, Wrst and fore-most, by the meaning ascribed to the place—its sacredness.For Bahai pilgrims, the place connects them with the“prayer hearing, prayer-answering God” (Allen and Allen,1954). For this reason prayer is at the center of the spatialpractice of pilgrims. Insofar as the intent of the pilgrim isdiVerent from the tourist, so too is the activity space of theBahá’í. That is, Bahá’í have access to the entire complex—including the administrative center, shrine, and monumentgardens. Additionally, the pilgrim experience includes avariety of formal pilgrimage events, including registrationat the Bahá’í Pilgrim House and usually extends over a9-day period (Manville, 1996). However, some pilgrimsmay make a pilgrimage for a shorter time—usually 3-days.In both the case of the 9-day or 3-day experience, pilgrim-age is an oYcially sanctioned and organized event and isscripted by the World Center staV and based on the princi-ples outlined in the Tablet of Pilgrimage. In the Tablet, pil-grim activities are outlined—in broad terms—and activitiesinclude individual prayer and meditation (Fernando, 2004;Healy, 2002; Holt-Fortin, 1998).8 Beyond prayer, pilgrimsmay also ritually circle the shrines on foot in a fashion sim-ilar to practices of Moslems during the Hajj (Viswanathan,1996).9 In addition to formal activities the pilgrim experi-ence includes a range of formal and informal pilgrim com-munity activities such as teas organized by the WorldCenter staV (Holt-Fortin, 1998; Healy, 2002). For this rea-son, the gardens are only one facet of the pilgrimage experi-ence and only one facet of the world center complex.However, it is the speciWc activities associated with the

8 The Tablet of Pilgrimage includes descriptions of appropriate prayerand activities associated with the House of the Bab and House of theBahá’u’lláh. Overtime, though the Akko and Haifa locations have re-placed the original sites that either no longer exist or are inaccessible forpolitical reasons (see Ayman, nd; MacEoin, 1994).

9 While many pilgrim practices have emerged over time, such as circum-ambulation, Viswanathan (1996) notes “there is no ritual associated withBahá’í pilgrimages”. The position that no ritual exists per se is generallysupported by MacEoin (1994).

shared garden space (including Shrine of the Bab) wherethe diVerences between tourist and pilgrim practices areobserved (Fig. 9).

In the gardens, the pilgrim’s movement, his or her direc-tionality, and purpose also serve to diVerentiate the pilgrimfrom the tourist. On the faith’s holy days and during otherpilgrimage events, the internal gates between the levels andterraces are open and members of the Bahá’í pilgrim com-munity are able to ascend and descend all 19 of the terraceswith a focus on the 10th terrace and the prayer and medita-tion activities within the Shrine of the Bab. The notes ofHealy (2002) demonstrate these key diVerences as he states“We [pilgrims] walk up the Terraces to the Shrine, pausingat each Terrace to admire the beauty, the variety of colorsand plants, to look up, to look down”.

In sum, the pilgrim’s activity space and performances arereadily diVerentiated from those of the tourist. Beyond theissue of pilgrimage as obligation, the pilgrim’s experience isa spiritual—even ritualistic—one based in large part onBahá’í writings. Beyond the Tablet of Pilgrimage it isevident that the experience is—in socio-spatial terms—ahighly scripted series of performances that occur through-out and across the entire World Center space—well beyondthe activity space of tourists. Unlike tourists, pilgrimsascend and descend the Terraces and engage in a variety ofspiritual activities. At terrace 10, pilgrims regularly engagein ritualized circumambulation of the shrine.10 Overall, theseparation of the spatial practices of the pilgrim and touristhave served to eVectively limit knowledge and the potentialfor local conXict through the social construction of theTerraced Gardens as simultaneously secular and sacredthrough bifurcated spatial practices.

12. Discussion

In recent years, the “image” of a tourism site has becamea major focus of tourism geography—particularly heritagetourism (Ooi et al., 2004; Petric and Mrnjavac, 2003). Thatis to say, the image of heritage sites (including religioussites) as tourism destinations require as Ooi et al. note(2004) “re-imagining” places as dual use sites—in this casesacred and secular. Consequently, the shaping of siteimages—such as the Bahai Gardens, the speciWc audiencesto which these images are directed, and the spatial practicesthat have developed in place should be of great concern tosocial and cultural geographers alike. In the case of reli-gious sites, image creation and maintenance are especiallyimportant given the great potential for conXict which hasbeen demonstrated time and time again at numerous sitesaround the world.

This case study demonstrates that Lefebvre’s triad canbe strategically used to avoid conXict and enable all Wve

10 Interestingly, tourists who visit the Shrine also circle the shrine—butthis activity (or its meaning) are not disclosed. For example, signage andguides prompt visitors to circle the Shrine in a clockwise fashion (asobserved by the author).

12 J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

modes of tourists to share the garden landscape. The resultof this strategy is the construction of two unique socio-spatial experiences in the same shared space that are unitedin the planned space of landscape architects (see Figs. 5, 7and 9). For this reason, the Bahá’í case represents a depar-ture from the majority of “applied” Lefebvrian researchthat focuses on the spatial conXict and struggle that resultsfrom the disjuncture that exists between the lived andplanned experiences (see McCann, 1999; MerriWeld, 1993).To avoid conXict and promote dual use of the space, theBahá’í have engineered a complex of practices and perfor-mances in space and time that allow visitors to eVectivelyexperience and negotiate the sacred site. Likewise, the strat-egy preserves the sacred nature of the site for pilgrims andenables the municipality to leverage the economic beneWtsvis-à-vis tourism. In the end though, Bahai Garden prac-tices are an interesting response to the politics of religion inIsrael and the inherent de jure and de facto limitationsplaced on “outside” religions by the state and the national-ist ethos of its residents. Moreover, the practices observedat the terraced gardens demonstrate the ability of emerging(or established) minority communities to co-exist anddevelop mutually beneWcial socio-spatial relationshipswithin the context of the majority culture group.

13. Broader implications

This research has practical implications for the reductionof conXict associated with sacred sites throughout the

Middle East and around the world. Religious conXict andthe resulting social conXict may be reduced or mitigatedthrough bifurcated spatial practices. While no doubt the caseof the Bahá’í in Haifa is unique, the basic stratagems devel-oped by the World Center and its staV can be applied to avariety of socio-spatial contexts. Beyond religious sites, thesocio-spatial dynamics of potentially controversial secular orethnic sites may be altered using similar techniques. Insofaras the strategy developed in Haifa is successful (particularlyin the conXict laden Israel), a strategic deployment ofLefebvrian principles holds real promise. In the end, theHaifa case demonstrates the importance of developing place-based strategies to reduce (or prevent conXict) as well as pro-mote the development and expansion of infrastructures.

14. Conclusion

The Jewish Nation seems to be quite happy at havingso many tourists coming which brings business totheir land ƒ from the diary of Allen and Allen (1954).

Allen and Allen were correct when they noted over 50years ago that Israelis ‘seem quite happy’ with Bahai pil-grimage. However, the relative “happiness” of residents iswholly dependent upon the Bahai socio-spatial engineeringof what would become the World Center as well as theirformal silence on issues of religion. The experience of Haifastands in stark contracts to other religion-based projectsand initiatives, such as the Mormon complex in Jerusalem

Fig. 9. The Lefebvrian perspective on the pilgrim.

J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(Olsen and Guelke, 2004), as the Bahá’í have successfullynavigated the contentious politics of religion through thestrategic social construction of the gardens as a pseudo-sec-ular site. This secularization of this sacred site has beenaccomplished in part by the city of Haifa’s adoption of thegardens as a city icon and primary vehicle for the regionaltourism industry. Additionally, the oYcial Bahá’í narrativeconcerning the aesthetic—not sacred—nature of the gar-dens supports the city’s tourism narrative.

In practice conXict is avoided by separating the touristand pilgrim experience. These events do not occur in thesame time–space and the outsider knowledge of the Bahá’ípilgrim experience is strictly limited. As the multi-dimen-sional Lefebvrian triad suggests, the experiences andperceptions of both the pilgrim and tourist constituenciesare united—but their divergent practices, movement, anddirectionality shape their sense of the place, its meaning,and personal (even spiritual) signiWcance. This researchdemonstrates how one locality—Haifa—in cooperationwith the Bahá’í—has negotiated the spatial politics of reli-gion in Israel to produce a space and place that is simulta-neously secular and sacred all the while preserving themeaning and signiWcance of the Bahá’í Gardens using a col-laborative and multi-layer approach. Finally, we demon-strate that Lefebvre’s triad can be used to understand andexplain the unique cultural and local practices associatedwith religious travel and tourism.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported—in part—by funds pro-vided by the Indiana State University College of Arts &Sciences and the OYce of International AVairs. Addition-ally, Jay greatly appreciated the local assistance providedby Igal Charney (Haifa). Likewise, the authors acknowl-edge the comments and input of Maoz Azaryahu (Haifa),David J. Nemeth (Toledo), Robert Q. Hanham (West Vir-ginia), and Barney Warf (Florida State) into earlier draftsof this article. Finally, the authors especially appreciatedthe insights of Christopher Buck (Michigan State) into theBahá’í faith. Finally, the authors appreciate the commentsof the editors and reviewers.

References

Alderman, D.H., 2002. Writing on the Graceland Wall: on the importanceof authorship in Pilgrimage Landscapes. Tourism Recreation Research27 (2), 27–33.

Allen V., Allen, J., 1954. Haifa Impressions posted on PILGRIMSNOTE.Bahai Library on-line http://bahai-library.com/ (accessed October 23).

Ayman, I. nd. Súrihs of Hajj: Faculty Notes. Available from: <http://www.bahai-library.com/resources/tablets-notes/> (accessed multipledates through 23 October 2005).

Bahá’í News, 2001. Garden is symbol of love in a land of anger, Bahá’íNews Library from the Augusta Chronicle.

Barber, R., 1993. Pilgrimages. The Boydell Press, London.Buck, C., 1996. Review of Denis MacEoin, Rituals in Babism and

Baha’ism. International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (3), 418–422.

Buck, C., 2004. Personal communication, August (various dates).Cohen, E., 1979. A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13

(2), 179–201.Cohen, E., 1992. Pilgrimage Centers: Concentric and Excentric. Annals of

Tourism Research 19 (1), 33–50.Cohen, E., 1998. Tourism and religion: a comparative perspective. PaciWc

Tourism Review 2, 1–10.Collins-Kreiner, N., 2002. Is there a Connection between Pilgrimage and

Tourism? The Jewish Religion. International Journal of Tourism Sci-ences 2 (2), 1–18.

Fernando, L., 2004. Bahai Pilgrimage. Available from: http://www.rid-van.org/Appendix/Bahaipiligrimage/bahaipiligrimage.html> (accessedmultiple dates through 23 October 23 2005).

Gatrell, J., Worsham, J., 2002. Policy spaces: applying Lefebvrian politicsin neo-institutional spaces. Space & Polity 6, 327–342.

Graburn, N., 1989. In: Smith, V.L. (Ed.), Hosts and Guests: The Anthro-pology of Tourism. University Of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Haifa Tourism Board, 2004a. Available from: <http://www.tour-haifa.co.il> (accessed multiple dates through 23 October 2005).

Haifa Tourism Board, 2004b. personal communication with staV, 4–20July.

Hayoun, D., 2004. Haifa municipality nominate Bahai world center asworld heritage site. Globes. October 24.

Healy, K., 2002. A spiritual travelogue. Planet Bahai, June 28. Availablefrom: <http://www.planetbahai.org/> (accessed multiple dates through23 October 2005).

Holt-Fortin, C., 1998. A Bahá’í Pilgrimage. Available from: <http://www.bahai-library.com/pilgrims/cher> (accessed multiple datesthrough 21 October 2005).

Kinzer, S., 2004. Mormon renewal creates stir in Illinois town. New YorkTimes On-Line. July 29.

Krakover, S., 1998. Employment Adjustment Trends in Tourism Hotels inIsrael. Tourism Recreation Research 23, 23–32.

Krakover, S., Cohen, R., 2001. Visitors and non-visitors to ArchaeologicalHeritage attractions: the case of Massada versus Avedat, Israel. Tour-ism Recreation Research 26, 25–33.

Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford.MacCannell, D., 1973. Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in

tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology 79 (3), 589–603.MacEoin, D., 1994. Rituals in Babism and Baha’ism. British Academic

Press, London.Manville, C., 1996. A Bahá’í pilgrimage. Available from: <http://

www.manvell.org.uk/pilgrim/index.htm> (accessed multiple datesthrough 23 October 2005).

McCann, E., 1999. Race, protest, and public space: contextualizing Lefeb-vre in the US city. Antipode 31, 163–184.

McCann, E., 2002. The cultural politics of local economic development:meaning making, place-making, and the urban policy process. Geo-forum 33, 385–398.

MerriWeld, A., 1993a. The struggle over place: redeveloping American Canin Baltimore. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18,102–121.

MerriWeld, A., 1993b. Place and space: a Lefebvrian reconciliation. Trans-actions of the Institute of British Geographers 18, 516–531.

Naylor, S., Ryan, M., 2002. The mosque in the suburbs: negotiating reli-gion and ethnicity in South London. Social & Cultural Geography 3,39–59.

Newman, D., 1987. Culture, conXict and cemeteries, Lebensraum for thedead. Journal of Cultural Geography 7, 99–115.

Olsen, D., Guelke, J., 2004. Spatial transgression and the BYU JerusalemCenter Controversy. Professional Geographer 56, 503.

Ooi, C., Kristensen, T., Pedersen, Z., 2004. Re-imag(in)ing place: fromCzechoslovakia to the Czech Republic and the Slovakia. Tourism 52,151–163.

Petric, L., Mrnjavac, Z., 2003. Tourism destinations as a locally embeddedsystem. Tourism 51, 403–415.

Poria, Y., Butler, R., Airey, D., 2004. The meanings of heritage sites fortourists: the case of Massada. Tourism Analysis 9, 15–22.

14 J.D. Gatrell, N. Collins-Kreiner / Geoforum xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Seaton, A.V., 1999. War and Than-tourism: Waterloo 1815–1914. Annalsof Tourism Research 26 (1), 130–158.

Seaton, A.V., 2002. Tourism’s Final Frontiers? Visits to cemeteries,churchyards and funerary Sites as Sacred and Secular Pilgrimage.Tourism Recreation Research 27 (2), 27–33.

Smith, V.L., 1992. Introduction: the quest in guest. Annals of TourismResearch 19 (1), 1–17.

Soja, E., 1980. Socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of Ameri-can Geographers 70, 207–225.

State Department, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2003.International Religious Freedom Report 2003: Israel and the occupiedterritories. Washington, DC, State Department, 18 December.

Turner, V.W., Turner, E., 1969. The Ritual Process. Routledge, London.Turner, V., Turner, E., 1978. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture.

Columbia University Press, New York.Urry, J., 2001. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary

Society, second ed. Sage, London.Viswanathan, G., 1996. Bahá’í Pilgrimage to Israel. In: Le Beau, B., Mor,

M. (Eds.), Pilgrims and Travelers to the Holy Land. Creighton Univer-sity Press, Omaha, pp. 269–284. M irrored at [http://www.bahai-

library.com/pilgrims/pilgrimage.viswanathan]. (accessed multiple datesthrough October 23, 2005).

Further reading

Bahá’í International Community, 2002. Article: Projects on Mt. Carmel.Available from: <http://www.Bahai.org/article-1-6-5-3.html> (accessedmultiple dates through 23 October 2005).

Bahá’í International Community, 2004a. Article: More than 54,000 havetoured Baha’i Terraces on Mount Carmel since June opening. Avail-able from: <http://www.Bahaiworldnews.org/story.cfm?storyid D 134>(accessed multiple dates through 23 October 2005).

Bahá’í International Community, 2004b. Travel writers salute Xoral jewel.Available from: <http://www.uga.edu/Bahai/2004/040201.html>(accessed 21 May 2005).

Graham, B., Ashworth, G.H., Tunbridge, J.E., 2000. A Geography of Heri-tage: Power, Culture, and Economy. Arnold, London.

Haifa Tourism Board, 2005. personal communication with staV, 5–21October.