International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage

Volume 8 Issue 8 Article 2

2020

Analysing Religious Tourism’s Influence on ourismT Policy Makers

Aleksa Š. Vučetić University of Montenegro, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/ijrtp

Part of the Tourism and Travel Commons

Recommended Citation Vučetić, Aleksa Š. (2020) "Analysing Religious Tourism’s Influence on ourismT Policy Makers," International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage: Vol. 8: Iss. 8, Article 2. doi:https://doi.org/10.21427/szes-wg62 Available at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/ijrtp/vol8/iss8/2

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. © International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage ISSN : 2009-7379 Available at: http://arrow.tudublin.ie/ijrtp/ Volume 8(viii) 2020

Analysing Religious Tourism’s Influence on Tourism Policy Makers

Aleksa Š. Vučetić University of Montenegro [email protected] This article seeks to determine whether there are any differences in managers’ perceptions of the impact of religious tourism on tourism policy makers. The focus is on Montenegro as an old religious tourism destination, with a long tradition of religious tourism development. The initial survey sample had 2,104 cases, and the work sample had 2,076 cases. One-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used for testing the work hypotheses. The survey was conducted electronically and without any influence on managers as respondents. For data processing, IBM SPSS Statistics 26 was used. The highest number of statistically significant differences was shown between managers in organisations that have religious tourism as a primary offer and organisations that do not have an offer of religious tourism at all. The most significant differences were about the influence of religious tourism on the National Tourism Organisation of Montenegro; Montenegrin Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism; Government of Montenegro; Regional Tourism Organisations of Montenegro and; Local governments of Montenegro. The highest level of significant differences belongs to the level p = 0.000, and it concerns managers’ perception of the influence of religious tourism on the European Commission and National Tourism Organization of Montenegro. The results offer managers’ perception of differences in religious tourism influence on tourism policy makers through the innovative methodology approach. The identification of significant differences in managers’ perception of religious tourism impact on tourism policy makers can protect the specific social structure of employees within the religious tourism sector. Religious tourism can become an even more significant factor in tourism development in destinations, but communications between mangers from the religious tourism sector and tourism policy makers should be more frequent and intensive. This would improve the social status of employees in the religious tourism sectors. Theoretical implications are in the field of disseminating knowledge about the impact of religious tourism on tourism policy makers. Practical implications refer to the possible determinations of the impact of religious tourism on individual tourism policy makers from micro- to mega-level. The survey can serve as a good example for future theoretical and practical researches showing how to optimise religious tourism policy in the destination. Key Words: religious tourism, tourism policy makers, Montenegro Introduction ‘tourism before modern tourism.’ Religious tourist sites attract more than 300 million visitors and involve the Religious tourism (Zarb, 2020; Dowson, 2020) belongs spending of more than $20 billion US every year (Huang to the group of selective tourism types (Vučetić & & Pearce, 2019). Religious tourism is a respectful part Lagiewski, 2016), i.e., special interest tourism (Ma of the tourism industry, especially in developing tourism et al., 2020, Kruja & Gjyrezi, 2011) or niche tourism destinations, which do not have a high standard of living (Swanson & Cavender, 2019; Sharma & Nayak, 2019). but have great number of religious people. It is the particular selective tourism type, which includes religiously motivated visitors to travel to destinations Montenegro is a country of religious people. At the last (Liutikas, 2020; Rodrigues et al., 2019) and sites population census, of the total number of the census (Dowson, 2020; Huang & Pearce, 2019) of religious 96.1% people declared themselves as believers. Of tourism. It is one of the oldest tourism types, which the total number of believers 72.1% were believing originates from Ancient times, i.e., from the period of people who belong to the Christian Orthodox church,

1 Vučetić Analyzing Religious Tourism’s Influence on Tourism Policy Makers

19.1% were those who practice Islam, 3.4% those who Figure 1: Orthodox Ostrog Monastery belong to Christian Catholic church, and 1.5% practice other religions (MONSTAT, 2011). The most important sites of religious tourism in Montenegro are - Orthodox Ostrog Monastery (Danilovgrad), Orthodox Cetinje Monastery (Cetinje), Orthodox Morača Monastery (Kolašin), Orthodox Podlastva Grbaljska Monastery (Budva), Orthodox Savina Monastery (Herceg Novi), Orthodox Đurđevi Stupovi Monastery (Berane), Catholic Cathedral of St. Tryphon (Kotor), Catholic Lady of the Rocks (Kotor), Orthodox Cathedral of St. Nicholas (Kotor), Orthodox Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ (Podgorica), Orthodox Cathedral of St. Jovan Vladimir (Bar), and Husein-paša Mosque (Pljevlja).

Montenegro attracts more than a million religious excursionists and tourists every year (MONSTAT, 2019). Some of them are motivated fully and some partially by religious reasons. In the very beginning, religious tourism developed spontaneously. However, in the last two decades, it is developing in a planned way with the support of tourism policy makers. Specific tourism policy helps religious institutions and organisations to grow and develop faster by the specific tourism policy Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ measures and activities. On the other side, it is not commons/5/59/Ostrog1.jpg known how religious tourism influences tourism policy

Figure 2: Catholic Lady of the Rocks

Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Church_of_Our_Lady_of_the_ Rocks_%2831466786848%29.jpg

2 International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Volume 8(viii) 2020

Figure 3: Husein-paša’s Mosque

By Cornelius Bechtler - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1393538 makers. Because of that, the main aim of this research popular special interest tourism type (Raj & Griffin, is to determine the level of differences in managers’ 2015) or niche tourism type (Lee, 2016). Until the second perceptions of the impact of religious tourism on tourism half of the XX century, religious tourism developed due policy makers. to initiatives of believing peoples, inside and outside of religious institutions and organisations. Even today, There are two research hypotheses: nothing can stop believing people from travel motivated H – The impact of religious tourism on tourism policy 01 by religious reasons, but today it is necessary to have makers is not significant. support from tourism policy makers (Liasidou, 2017). H0A – The impact of religious tourism on tourism policy makers is significant. Religious tourism can be a part of mass tourism, but many tourism policy makers insist on small-scale Literature review religious tourism (Rodrigues et al., 2019). However, Religious tourism includes religious visitors (Verma & the majority of tourism policy makers try to develop Sarangi, 2019; Milman & Oren, 2018), religious tourism religious tourism faster, through commercialisation of destinations (Kim & Kim, 2019; Terzidou et al., 2018), religious tourism heritage (Koren-Lawrence & Collins- religious heritage sites (Rodrigues et al., 2019; Verma Kreiner, 2018; Heydari Chianeh et al., 2018) and and Sarangi, 2019), and religious activities, such as religious tourism sites (Huang & Pearce, 2019; Lochrie religious events (Lochrie et al., 2018; Albayrak et al., et al., 2018), neglecting the need for religious tourism to 2018), festivals (Dowson, 2020; Kim & Kim, 2019), be a sustainable and responsible activity (Zarb, 2020). celebrations (Terzidou et al., 2018), rituals (Rashid, But the question remains - who tries to make religious 2018), and other factors of religious tourism. Speaking tourism a bigger industry? and why is it necessary to in economic and social terms, it is a powerful selective make a more stimulating environment for religious tourism type. It is one of the oldest selective tourism tourism development? types. In contemporary times, religious tourism is a very

3 Vučetić Analyzing Religious Tourism’s Influence on Tourism Policy Makers

Table 1: Overview of Respondents Variables Number of Participants Percent Managers in tourism enterprises which do not have an offer of religious tourism 1,446 68.7 at all Managers in tourism enterprises which have an offer of religious tourism as an 507 21.4 additional offer Managers in tourism enterprises which have an offer of religious tourism as a 151 7.2 primary offer Total number of respondents 2,104 100.0

Today religious tourism is progressively becoming part with a view to increase destination competitiveness of mass tourism (Marine-Roig, 2016). There are a few (Andrades & Dimanche, 2017; Cucculelli & Goffi, 2016; main reasons for mass travel as part of religious tourism. Kim et al., 2015). Firstly, religious institutions and organisations have more and more expenses related to priests, religious Managers from different tourism enterprise types in objects, and activities, but the number of religious the religious tourism sector are the main partners of philanthropists who support them by donations does tourism policy makers in the process of formulating a not grow so fast. Because of this, religious institutions set of specific tourism policy measures and activities for and organisations need an increase of tourists, even if stimulating religious tourism development. The level they are not primarily motivated by religious motives. and quality of the communications between tourism Secondly, many governments try to legally regulate policy makers and managers will directly influence the religious tourism, because of the benefits generated by conditions of religious tourism development. Because it, such as tourism taxes (for example - tourists’ taxes of that, it is very important to explain the influence of and excursionists’ taxes) and other benefits (for example managers from the religious tourism sector, i.e., different - additional employment of the population and positive tourism enterprise types in the religious tourism sector impacts on the balance of payments). Thirdly, different on tourism policymakers. To do this, it is necessary to tourism enterprise types try to develop religious tourism create an effective and efficient research methodology. offerings, because of tourism’s economic effects. Today, Methodology they are a crucial factor in religious tourism development in the international market of religious tourism. Fourthly, The initial sample size in this research was N=2,104 all visitors (tourists and excursionists) are demanding cases, and the calculated necessary minimum sample additional offers and activities in destinations, and one of size was N = 168 cases (F test with medium influence on the most important of these, in many destinations, is the sample size). The research seeks to explain the influence religious tourism offering. of managers from the religious tourism sector on tourism policy makers. The respondents’ structure is shown in Tourism policy makers are managers in public, private, Table 1. and non-governmental organisations, who create tourism policy measures and activities to improve Respondents (Table 1) were mangers from seven tourism development in destinations. Tourism policy tourism enterprise types: hotels - 1,359 (64.6%); travel makers can operate at a local-, regional-, national- or agencies - 321 (15.3%), museums - 90 (4.3%), tourism international-level (Koufodontis & Gaki, 2019b). They organisations - 102 (4.8%), ports of nautical tourism - are professionals who create stimulative measures and 90 (4.3%), national parks - 95 (4.5%) and business units activities for the development of all selective tourism of airline companies - 47 (2.2%). This represents the types, i.e., agritourism (Karampela et al., 2017), structure of tourism enterprise types in the tourism sector ecotourism (Liu & Huang, 2016), shopping tourism in Montenegro. All tourism enterprises in this study are (Zaidan, 2015), and other selective tourism types such as situated in centres of religious tourism. There are more religious tourism (Hall et al., 2015). Their main goal is tourism enterprise types in Montenegro, but those are the to improve the efficiency in industries such as the hotels most important for religious tourism development. (Arbelo et al., 2018) and the tourism sector as a whole

4 International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Volume 8(viii) 2020

Three groups of managers are unequal for two basic European Commission (DV-1), reasons. The sample size is from a small tourism Government of Montenegro (DV-2), destination - Montenegro is a former socialist and Montenegrin Ministry of Sustainable Development and transitional tourism destination in which it was forbidden Tourism (DV-3), to be religious, i.e., one was not allowed to be a believing National Tourism Organisation of Montenegro (DV-4), person even two decades ago. These unequal-size groups will not significantly influence the results of statistical Regional Tourism Organisation of Montenegro (DV-5), procedures. Chamber of Commerce of Montenegro (DV-6), Professional association in the tourism sector of The research had one independent variable Religious Montenegro (DV-7), Tourism Offer (RTO) which was divided into three categories: Local governments of Montenegro (DV-8) and Tourism enterprise does not have religious tourism offer Management of organisations in the tourism sector of at all (DnHRTO); Montenegro (DV-9). Tourism enterprise has an offer of religious tourism as an There are more tourism policy makers types than in this additional offer (HRTOaAO), and research, such as Regional Governments, but they did not Tourism enterprise has an offer of religious tourism as a pass pilot study and had no place in the final questionnaire. primary offer (HRTOaPO). When asked ‘how important is this tourism policy maker for religious tourism development?’ they had the The study did not include other institutions and possibility to choose one of the following answers: 1.00 organisations within the religious tourism sector of = Highly unimportant (j = -2), 2.00 = Unimportant (j = Montenegro, such as religious organisations and -1), 3.00 = Neutral (j = 0), 4.00 Important (j = +1), and institutions, church communities, or non-governmental 5.00 = Highly important (j = +2). organisations in the field of religious tourism. This is because the aim was to determine the influence of A pilot study was conducted with 100 respondents mangers from tourism enterprise types in the religious (mangers) from all the above-cited tourism enterprise tourism sector on tourism policy makers. Respondents types. After that, the dependent variable with the highest themselves identified their classification according to the score was chosen for the final questionnaire. Data were independent variable, by answering the question - had collected electronically over a period of two years, the possibility to answer the question, ‘Does the tourism without any influence on respondents, and analysed using enterprise you work in have a religious tourism offer?’ IBM SPSS Statistics 26 (George & Mallery, 2020). The The dependent variable in the study was Tourism Policy primary statistical method was a one-way MANOVA Makers (TPM) which was divided into nine categories: (Clark & Creswell, 2015).

Table 2: Descriptive Trimmed Variables Mean Variance Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Mean DV-1 .6673 .7102 .884 .94023 -.641 .138 DV-2 .9406 1.0080 .759 .87104 -.913 1.108 DV-3 1.1350 1.2176 .700 .83654 -1.204 2.126 DV-4 1.0765 1.1554 .734 .85648 -1.024 1.340 DV-5 .9667 1.0339 .744 .86284 -.852 .930 DV-6 .8446 .8966 .738 .85911 -.638 .480 DV-7 .8151 .8670 .740 .86047 -.702 .680 DV-8 .9092 .9674 .759 .87107 -.744 .550 DV-9 1.0523 1.1252 .703 .83841 -.985 1.419

5 Vučetić Analyzing Religious Tourism’s Influence on Tourism Policy Makers

Table 3: Spearman’s Correlation DV-1 DV-2 DV-3 DV-4 DV-5 DV-6 DV-7 DV-8 DV-9 DV-1 1.000 .553 ** .485 ** .479 ** .468 ** .508 ** .500 ** .411 ** .402 ** DV-2 1.000 .669 ** .572 ** .490 ** .520 ** .491 ** .541 ** .482 ** DV-3 1.000 .730 ** .614 ** .539 ** .497 ** .512 ** .552 ** DV-4 1.000 .752 ** .567 ** .519 ** .512 ** .549 ** DV-5 1.000 .640 ** .609 ** .527 ** .569 ** DV-6 1.000 .716 ** .574 ** .565 ** DV-7 1.000 .621 ** .601 ** DV-8 1.000 .626 ** DV-9 1.000

Empirical results violation of normality of distribution results.

After minimum sample size was calculated (Effect The initial sample size has 28 univariate outliers, which size f2(V) = 0.1428571; α err prob = 0.05; Power (1-β is 1.3% of the total number of cases (cases: 2,050; 2,049; err prob) = 0.80; N = 168), descriptive statistics were 2,037; 2,030; 1,988; 1,795; 1,789; 1,765; 1,739; 1,696; undertaken (Table 2). 1,681; 1,657; 1,583; 1,439; 1,425; 1,411; 1,322; 1,316; 1,292; 1,254; 1,232; 1,086; 1,075; 19, 16, 13, 11, and None of the dependent variables has a normal distribution 6). After univariate outliers are deleted, no multivariate of results. The biggest difference between mean and outliers are found (MD = 6.96, Critical MD is 27.88, trimmed mean has dependent variable DV-3, and the and 0.007 ≤ CD ≤ 0.014). The new work sample size lowest has dependent variable DV-1. None of the means is N = 2,076 cases. Examining the dependent variables, are equal to the median, and variance and standard organisations that have an offer of religious tourism, as deviation values confirm that the majority of distribution the primary or additional offer, there exists medium- results are grouped in the wider interval on the positive strong negative linearity. On the other hand, organisations part of the Likert scale. In relation to skewness, 77.8% are that do not have an offer of religious tourism, there exists moderately skewed, and 22.2% are highly skewed. All strong negative linearity (Table 3). skewness is positioned left in one mode. The influence of Of the total number of correlations, 25% exhibit medium skewness on the sample size is 0.186. Regarding kurtosis, correlation and 75% exhibit high correlation. Box’s M 100% belong to leptokurtic peakedness. The influence of = 194.192, F = 2.126, df1 = 90, df2 = 522648.672 and kurtosis on the sample size is 0.232. All Kolmogorov- Sig. = 0.000. DV-1 (based on mean) = 0.000 and DV-1 Smirnov values from the Tests of Normality show a

Table 4: Multivariate Tests Hypothesis Partial Eta Effect Value F Error df Sig. df Squared Pillai's Trace 0.570 303.953b 9.000 2065.000 0.000 0.570 Wilks' Lambda 0.430 303.953b 9.000 2065.000 0.000 0.570 Intercept Hotelling's Trace 1.325 303.953b 9.000 2065.000 0.000 0.570 Roy's Largest Root 1.325 303.953b 9.000 2065.000 0.000 0.570 Pillai's Trace 0.023 2.729 18.000 4132.000 0.000 0.012 Wilks' Lambda 0.977 2.735b 18.000 4130.000 0.000 0.012 RTO Hotelling's Trace 0.024 2.742 18.000 4128.000 0.000 0.012 Roy's Largest Root 0.020 4.627c 9.000 2066.000 0.000 0.020

6 International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Volume 8(viii) 2020

Table 5: Tests of between-subjects effects Type III Sum of Mean Partial Eta Source df F Sig. Squares Square Squared DV-1 570.199 1 570.199 682.089 0.000 0.248 DV-2 1001.486 1 1001.486 1419.410 0.000 0.406 DV-3 1426.913 1 1426.913 2279.265 0.000 0.524 DV-4 1356.486 1 1356.486 2037.330 0.000 0.496 Intercept DV-5 1042.423 1 1042.423 1519.943 0.000 0.423 DV-6 801.835 1 801.835 1148.312 0.000 0.356 DV-7 749.602 1 749.602 1100.872 0.000 0.347 DV-8 933.379 1 933.379 1310.778 0.000 0.387 DV-9 1180.054 1 1180.054 1848.620 0.000 0.471 DV-1 22.413 2 11.207 13.406 0.000 0.013 DV-2 10.719 2 5.359 7.596 0.001 0.007 DV-3 9.710 2 4.855 7.755 0.000 0.007 DV-4 20.448 2 10.224 15.355 0.000 0.015 RTO DV-5 7.948 2 3.974 5.795 0.003 0.006 DV-6 7.562 2 3.781 5.415 0.005 0.005 DV-7 6.079 2 3.039 4.464 0.012 0.004 DV-8 8.434 2 4.217 5.922 0.003 0.006 DV-9 3.876 2 1.938 3.036 0.048 0.003

(based on trimmed mean) = 0.000. Welch (DV-1) = 0.000 Discussion and Brown-Forsythe (DV-1) = 0.000. Taking this into account, it is necessary to calculate the results of the Using Bonferroni’s adjustment method, the new alpha Multivariate tests (Table 4). value of 0.006 is calculated, therefore Type I error is avoided. Within the independent variable Religious Groups within RTO are significantly statistically differed Tourism Offer, significant differences in managers’ per linear combination of the dependent variable. There perception of the impact of religious tourism on are significant differences in managers’ perception of dependent variable Tourism Policy Makers are shown as the impact of RTO, between managers from DnHRTO, follows: HRTOaAO, and HRTOaPO. Still, it is not clear which managers exhibit the highest differences. Consequently, European Commission - comparing managers in it is necessary to finish the Tests of between-subjects organisations that have religious tourism as a primary effects (Table 5). offer and organisations that have religious tourism as an additional offer results in p = 0.000 and MD = ± Tests show significant differences between RTO on one 0.44273; organisations that have religious tourism as side and dependent variables: DV-1, DV-2, DV-3, DV- a primary offer compared with organisations that do 4, DV-5, DV-6, and DV-8; on the other side. However, not have an offer of religious tourism at all results in it is not clear which organisations present the highest p = 0.000 and MD = ± 0.36730. differences, and thus, usage of multiple comparisons is necessary. Government of Montenegro – organisations that have religious tourism as a primary offer compared with organisations that do not have an offer of religious

7 Vučetić Analyzing Religious Tourism’s Influence on Tourism Policy Makers

tourism at all results in p = 0.000 and MD = ± Significant differences are not shown between managers 0.27928); organisations that have religious tourism as in organisations that have an offer of religious tourism a primary offer and organisations that have religious as additional offer and organisations that do not have an tourism as an additional offer results in p = 0.001 and offer of religious tourism at all. MD = ± 0.28531. Managers from organisations that have religious tourism Montenegrin Ministry of Sustainable Development and as their primary offer have the opinion that religious Tourism – organisations with religious tourism as a tourism significantly influences tourism policy makers. primary offer and organisations that do not have an Those managers are employees in travel agencies offer of religious tourism at all result in p = 0.000 and primarily specialised in religious tourism, heritage hotels MD = ± 0.27064; organisations that have religious within religious sites, local tourism organisations within tourism as a primary offer and organisations that have religious sites, and ports of nautical tourism on the coast religious tourism as an additional offer result in p = of Montenegro. Usually, they have continuous and 0.002 and MD = ± 0.24890. intensive communication with tourism policy makers, which is the main reason why they grade the influence National Tourism Organisation of Montenegro – of religious tourism on tourism policy makers in a range organisations that religious tourism as a primary offer from 1.0342 to 1.4521. Managers from organisations that and organisations that do not have an offer of religious do not have an offer at all or have an additional offer of tourism at all result in p = 0.000 and MD = ± 0.39266; religious tourism do not have continuous and intensive organisations that have religious tourism as a primary communication with tourism policy makers about offer and organisations that have an offer of religious religious tourism development (Zarb, 2020). tourism as an additional offer result in p = 0.000 and MD = ± 0.363888. Managers give the highest grades for the influence of religious tourism on the National Tourism Organisation Regional Tourism Organisation of Montenegro – because of the promotion of Montenegro as a destination organisations that have religious tourism as a primary for religious tourism. Managers do not exhibit significant offer and organisations that do not have an offer of differences in opinion about the influence of religious religious tourism at all result in p = 0.002 and MD = ± tourism on Management of organisations in the tourism 0.24308); organisations that have religious tourism as sector of Montenegro, and Professional association in the a primary offer and organisations that have religious tourism sector of Montenegro, however, they grade them tourism as an additional offer result in p = 0.006 and with more than 1. MD = ± 0.23838). Of the total number of significant differences 50.0% Chamber of Commerce of Montenegro – organisations belong to the level p=0.000, 25.1% belong to the level that have religious tourism as a primary offer and p=0.002, 8.3% belong to the level p=0.001, p=0.003 and organisations that do not have an offer of religious p=0.006. Significant differences of managers’ perception tourism at all result in p = 0.003 and MD = ± 0.23886). of the influence of religious tourism on tourism policy makers were on a very high level (Koufodontis & Gaki, Local governments of Montenegro – organisations 2019a), especially between managers in organisations that have religious tourism as a primary offer and that have religious tourism as a primary offer and organisations that do not have an offer of religious organisations that do not have an offer of religious tourism at all result in p = 0.002 and MD = ± 0.25131). tourism at all. This level of significance is shown with regard to the European Commission and the National Of the total number of significant differences, 58.3% Tourism organisations of Montenegro. belong to managers in organisations that have religious tourism as a primary offer and organisations that do not Theoretical implications can be divided into few parts. have an offer of religious tourism at all. Furthermore, First, the study explains the concept of religious tourism. 41.7% belong to mangers in organisations that have Second, the research determines three organisation types religious tourism as their primary offer and organisations regarding the religious tourism offer. Third, the article that have religious tourism as an additional offer. explains the concept of tourism policy makers, which

8 International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Volume 8(viii) 2020 includes nine tourism policy maker types. Fourth, this Pillai’s Trace was 0.023, F (18, 4132) = 2.729, p = 0.000, research determines a methodology for examining the and Partial Eta Squared (η2) = 0.012. Tests of between- perceived impact level of religious tourism on tourism subject effects showed significant differences between policy makers. Fifth, the results expand the theoretical seven dependent variables and independent variable knowledge about religious tourism (Raj & Griffin, 2015) related to religious tourism offer. By usage of Bonferroni’s and tourism policy. adjustment, the new alpha was 0.006. The highest number of significant differences was between mangers in It is possible to divide the practical implications into organisations that have religious tourism as their primary a number of outputs. During the theoretical concept offer and organisations that have religious tourism as development, much practical knowledge is demonstrated. an additional offer. The highest significant differences The research focuses on practical communication managers showed were about the National Tourism activities between mangers in the religious tourism sector Organisation of Montenegro, Montenegrin Ministry of and tourism policy makers. In this regard, the study offers Sustainable Development and Tourism, Government practical usage of a methodology for influence estimation of Montenegro, Regional Tourism Organisation of of religious tourism on tourism policy makers. Thus, the Montenegro and Local governments of Montenegro. The article helps tourism policy makers to optimise the set of highest level of significant differences belonged to the religious tourism policy measures and activities (Raj and level p=0.000, and this relates to managers’ perception of Griffin, 2015). religious tourism influence on the European Commission and National Tourism Organisation of Montenegro. Research limitations can be seen in some aspects. The Having in mind all the above-cited facts, hypothesis study is about a small religious tourism destination. H01 is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis, H0A is Despite this, there are also more tourism policy makers accepted. than in this article, but those chosen are the most important ones for this research. There are also many more tourism Theoretical implications are in the field of disseminating enterprise types that can be included in this research, but knowledge about the influence of religious tourism on the most important for religious tourism development tourism policy makers. Practical implications refer to in Montenegro were chosen and used in this research. the possible determinations of the influence of religious Furthermore, there are more statistical procedures and tourism on individual tourism policy makers from micro- methods that can be applied in this study, but the chosen to mega-levels. In that way, religious tourism can become ones are seen as the most appropriate. This kind of an even more significant factor in tourism development research could include many other independent variables, in destinations, but communication between mangers such as gender, religiosity of the respondent, proximity from the religious tourism sector and tourism policy to particular sites etc. (Raj & Griffin, 2015; Hall et al., makers should be more frequent and intensive. This 2015). All of these limitations could be recommendations would improve the status of employees in the religious for future research about religious tourism and tourism tourism sectors. The recommendation for future research policy makers. is to provide a balance of cases within categories of the independent variable. Conclusion The survey focus was on determining the influence of religious tourism on tourism policy makers in Montenegro. The two research hypotheses were

H01 – The impact of religious tourism on tourism policy makers is not significant and

H0A – The impact of religious tourism on tourism policy makers is significant. The primary statistical method was a one-way MANOVA (Clark & Creswell, 2015). Spearman’s correlation and Pillai’s trace criteria were both used.

9 Vučetić Analyzing Religious Tourism’s Influence on Tourism Policy Makers References Koufodontis, N.I. and Gaki, E. (2019a) Local tourism policy makers and e-image of destinations, Current Issues in Albayrak, T., Herstein, R., Caber, M., Drori, N., Bideci, M. and Tourism, 23(8), pp. 1037-1048. Berger, R. (2018) Exploring religious tourist experiences Koufodontis, N.I. and Gaki, E. (2019b) Local tourism policy in Jerusalem: The intersection of Abrahamic religions, makers and e-image of destinations, Current Issues in Tourism Management, 69, pp. 285-296. Tourism, pp. 1-12. Andrades, L. and Dimanche, F. (2017) Destination Kruja, D. and Gjyrezi, A. (2011) The Special Interest Tourism competitiveness and tourism development in Russia: Development and the Small Regions, Turizam, 15(2), pp. Issues and challenges, Tourism Management, 62, pp. 360- 77-89. 376. Lee, K. (2016) Strategic Winery Tourism and Management: Arbelo, A., Arbelo-Pérez, M. and Pérez-Gómez, P. (2018) Building Competitive Winery Management Strategy. Estimation of Profit Efficiency in the Hotel Industry Using Advanced in Hospitality and Tourism Boca Raton: CRC a Bayesian Stochastic Frontier Model, Cornell Hospitality Press. Quarterly, 59(4), pp. 364-375. Liasidou, S. (2017) Drafting a realistic tourism policy: the Clark, V.L.P. and Creswell, J.W. (2015) Understanding airlines’ strategic influence, Tourism Review, 72(1), pp. Research: A Consumer`s Guide. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson 28-44. Education, Inc. Liu, C.-H. and Huang, Y.-C. (2016) A natural capital model Cucculelli, M. and Goffi, G. (2016) Does sustainability enhance of influences for ecotourism intentions and the buffering tourism destination competitiveness? Evidence from effects of emotional values, Journal of Travel & Tourism Italian Destinations of Excellence, Journal of Cleaner Marketing, 34(7), pp. 919-934. Production, 111, pp. 370-382. Liutikas, D. (2020) Management of pilgrimages in Lithuania: Dowson, R. (2020) Eventization of religious heritage: case resources, stakeholders and projects, International Journal studies and practical considerations, International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage, 8(2), pp. 45-61. of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage, 8(2), pp. 27-36. Lochrie, S., Baxter, I.W.F., Collinson, E., Curran, R., Gannon, George, D. and Mallery, P. (2020) IBM SPSS Statistics 26: Step M.J., Taheri, B., Thompson, J. and Yalinay, O. (2018) Self- by Step. 16 edn. New York: Routledge. expression and play: can religious tourism be hedonistic?, Hall, C.M., Gossling, S. and Scott, D. (2015) The Routledge Tourism Recreation Research, 44(1), pp. 2-16. Handbook of Tourism and Sustainability. New York: Ma, S., Kirilenko, A.P. and Stepchenkova, S. (2020) Special Routledge. interest tourism is not so special after all: Big data Heydari Chianeh, R., Del Chiappa, G. and Ghasemi, V. (2018) evidence from the 2017 Great American Solar Eclipse, Cultural and religious tourism development in Iran: Tourism Management, 77(1), pp. 1-13. prospects and challenges, Anatolia - An International Marine-Roig, E. (2016) The impact of the consecration of ‘La Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 29(2), pp. Sagrada Familia’ basilica in Barcelona by Pope Benedict 204-214. XVI, International Journal of Tourism Anthropology, Huang, K. and Pearce, P. (2019) Visitors’ perceptions of 5(1/2), pp. 95-115. religious tourism destinations, Journal of Destination Milman, A. and Oren, G. (2018) In praise of hospitality: the Marketing & Management, 14, pp. 100371. role extended by religious hosts as drivers of satisfaction Karampela, S., Kavroudakis, D. and Kizos, T. (2017) and loyalty, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Agritourism networks: empirical evidence from two case Hospitality Research, 12(3), pp. 348-365. studies in Greece, Current Issues in Tourism, 22(12), pp. MONSTAT (2011) Statistical Yearbook. Podgorica: Statistical 1460-1479. Office of Montenegro Kim, B. and Kim, S. S. (2019) The effect of religious tourism MONSTAT (2019) Statistical Yearbook. Podgorica: Statistical experiences on personal values, International Journal of Office of Montenegro. Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage, 7(2), pp. 85-93. Raj, R. and Griffin, K. (2015) Religious Tourism and Kim, H., Woo, E. and Uysal, M. (2015) Tourism experience Pilgrimage Management: An International Perspective. and quality of life among elderly tourists, Tourism 2nd ed. Wallingford: CAB International. Management, 46, pp. 465-476. Rashid, A.G. (2018) Religious tourism – a review of the Koren-Lawrence, N. and Collins-Kreiner, N. (2018) Visitors literature, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, with their ‘Backs to the archaeology’: religious tourism 1(2), pp. 150-167. and archaeology, Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(2), pp. 138-149.

10 International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Volume 8(viii) 2020

Rodrigues, A. P., Vieira, I., Ferreira, L. and Madeira, R. (2019) Verma, M. and Sarangi, P. (2019) Modeling attributes of Stakeholder Perceptions of Religious Tourism and Local religious tourism: A study of Kumbh Mela, India, Journal Development: Evidence from Lamego (Portugal) historic of Convention & Event Tourism, 20(4), pp. 296-324. town, International Journal of Religious Tourism and Vučetić, A. and Lagiewski, R. (2016) Montenegro. In: Jafari, Pilgrimage, 7(4), pp. 41-53. J. & Xiao, H. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Cham: Sharma, P. and Nayak, J.K. (2019) Examining experience Springer. quality as the determinant of tourist behavior in niche Zaidan, E.A. (2015) Tourism shopping and new urban tourism: an analytical approach, Journal of Heritage entertainment: A case study of Dubai, Journal of Vacation Tourism, 15(1), pp. 76-92. Marketing, 22(1), pp. 29-41. Swanson, J.R. and Cavender, R.C. (2019) Generational Zarb, J. C. (2020) How Religious Tourism and Pilgrimages perceptions of prosperity on the niche tourism island can be Beneficial to Communities, International Journal destination of Ikaria, Greece, International Journal of of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage, 8(2), pp. 13-19. Tourism Anthropology, 7(1), pp. 40-59. Terzidou, M., Scarles, C. and Saunders, M.N.K. (2018) The complexities of religious tourism motivations: Sacred places, vows and visions, Annals of Tourism Research, 70, pp. 54-65.

11