Sport tourism: a framework for researchdownload.clib.psu.ac.th/datawebclib/e_resource/trial_database/... · Sport Tourism: a Framework for Research ... limitation of their typology

Sport Tourism: a Framework for ResearchT. D. Hinch1* and J. E. S. Higham2

1Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada2Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Sport-based travel has grown dramaticallyover the past two decades but it has onlyrecently become the focus of concentratedacademic inquiry. This paper contributes tothe emerging body of literature byconceptualising sport in the context oftourism's activity, spatial and temporaldimensions. A de®nition of sport tourismbased on these dimensions and featuring asociological perspective of sporting activity ispresented. The distinguishing features ofsport as a tourist attraction are thenhighlighted through the use of Leiper'ssystems model of attractions. Finally, thepaper proposes a framework whichhighlights a series of research questions thatemerge as the relationships between thefundamental dimensions of sport tourism aresystematically explored. Copyright # 2001John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 26 June 1998; Revised 8 July 1999; Accepted 14 July1999

Keywords: sport; tourism; dimension;framework; attraction.

INTRODUCTION

One has only to look at the score board atmost team sporting competitions tosee reference to the fundamental

tourism concepts of the hosts and visitors.The prominent position of these concepts

within sport implies a travel dynamic thathas until recently been largely ignored byscholars in both tourism and sport. Yet theaf®nity between sport and tourism has notbeen ignored by the travelling public nor bythe vibrant industry that has emerged inresponse to this demand.Until the 1990s, sport tended to be treated as

a general or even accidental context fortourism research rather than as a central focus.For example, research associated with hall-mark events such as the Olympic Games hasadded signi®cantly to our understanding ofthe impacts of mega events but it has providedmuch less insight into the features thatdistinguish the nature of sport-based eventsfrom other types of events. A similar criticismcan be made related to other areas of relatedresearch, such as outdoor recreation andhealth-based tourism. The purpose of thispaper is therefore to conceptualize sporttourism by positioning sport as a centralattraction within the activity dimension oftourism and then considering its relationshipwith the spatial and temporal dimensions oftourism.Despite the bene®ts of an explicit focus on

sport tourism, it should be appreciated that theconceptual boundaries that are articulated orimplied in this article are in fact permeable anddynamic. The paper is not an attempt toposition sport tourism as an isolated ®eld ofresearch but rather to capture the synergiesassociated with the treatment of sport tourismwithin the broader realms of sport and tour-ism. It is meant to add to an emergingliterature and to provide a unique perspectivefor productive research in this area. The papertherefore has been organised into three sec-tions including: (i) clari®cation of the concep-tual domain of sport tourism, (ii) articulationof the distinguishing features of sport as a

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 3, 45±58 (2001)

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

* Correspondence to: T. D. Hinch, Faculty of PhysicalEducation and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmon-ton, Canada.E-mail: [email protected]

tourist attraction based on Leiper's (1990)systems model of attractions, and (iii) thepresentation of a research framework for thecontinued examination of sport-focused tour-ism.

THE DOMAIN OF SPORT TOURISM

As be®ts an emerging area of scholarly study,sport-tourism researchers have dedicated asubstantial amount of their energy towardclarifying the conceptual foundations of this®eld. This section of the paper will review thekey contributions of these individuals and willbuild on the foundation that they provided byconsidering the independent concepts of sportand tourism prior to focusing on their con-¯uence. Like most social science concepts,there are no universally excepted de®nitionsof sport or tourism that would make thisexercise easy. Each concept is rather amor-phous and a variety of de®nitions have beendeveloped to address a broad range of needs.Despite the lack of de®nitional consensus,there are commonalities associated with eachconcept that help to clarify their relationship.

Current lines of inquiry

Although this sub®eld is still in its infancy, anumber of important publications exist thatexplicitly focus on sport tourism. It is not theintent of the authors to duplicate these effortsbut rather to focus on those aspects of theliterature that are particularly relevant tounderstanding the conceptual base of sporttourism.Especially noteworthy advances in the study

of sport tourism have included the proceed-ings of a 1987 conference on Outdoor Educa-tion, Recreation and Sport (Garmise, 1987), theestablishment of an electronic journal titled theJournal of Sport Tourism in 1993, and seminalarticles in other tourism journals such asProgress in Tourism and Hospitality Research(Glyptis, 1991; Weed and Bull, 1997a, b). Themajor contribution of these publications was tohighlight the signi®cance of sport tourism andto legitimise it as an important focus foracademic study.A good example of this body of work was

provided by Glyptis (1991), who drew atten-

tion to the fact that sport and tourism are`treated by academics and practitioners alikeas separate spheres of activity' (Glyptis, 1991,p. 165). She went on to identify the closebehavioural relationship between sport andtourism participants but argued that thisrelationship was not re¯ected in journal pub-lications, academic departments, learned so-cieties or government agencies. Glyptis (1991)presented a compelling case for the integrationof the two in terms of government policy,strategic planning, the development of facil-ities and services, urban planning and promo-tion.This contribution stimulated further in-

depth studies of sport tourism, although suchstudies remained the exception rather than therule throughout the early 1990s. The mostnotable attempts to rectify this situation wereundertaken by Kurtzman and Zauhar (1995)and later by Gammon and Robinson (1997),who developed early models of sport tourism.Although these contributions provided va-

luable insights into the dynamic nature ofsport tourism, they failed to harness thepotential synergies of the ®eld in a compre-hensive manner. As a consequence, directionsfor future lines of inquiry are notably rare. Theclearest call for a systematic approach to thissub®eld came from Kurtzman and Zauhar(1995), who presented agency report on theSport Tourism International Council (STIC) inAnnals of Tourism Research identifying theemergence of sport as a `touristic endeavour'in the 1980s and 1990s. Since that point, specialissues of Tourism Recreation Research (Stevensand van den Broek, 1997) and Vacation Market-ing (Delpy, 1997) have been devoted to thetopic and have clearly attempted to be moresystematic and integrative in their approach.Gibson's (1998) comprehensive review of

publications in this area highlights the con-nections between what on the surface is a verydisparate literature. Not only does she providea critical analysis of existing literature in thisarea, she articulates the need for bettercoordination among agencies at a policy level,more multidisciplinary research approaches,and more cooperation between tourism andsport-centred units in academic settings.Further advances in this direction can be seenin the work of Standeven and De Knop (1999)

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 3, 45±58 (2001)

46 T. D. Hinch and J. E. S. Higham

and De Knop (1998). A series of frameworksare presented in their publications that high-light the interdependent relationship betweensports and tourism, beginning with the basicpremise that not only does sport in¯uencetourism but that tourism in¯uences sport.They then build on this starting point with aclassi®cation matrix based on key touristic andsport characteristics. The major contribution ofthis classi®cation system is that sport tourismis recognised as offering à two-dimensionalexperience of physical activity tied to aparticular setting' (Standeven and De Knop,1999, p. 63). Furthermore, each of thesedimensions is articulated in terms of its keycomponents, thereby allowing a more in-depthanalysis of the concept of sport tourism thanhas been generally been the case to date. Alimitation of their typology is that it tends totreat each sport as a homogeneous entity eventhough many internal variations may existwithin a sport. Faulkner et al. (1998) avoid thislimitation by classifying sports tourism interms of motivational, behavioural and com-petitive dimensions. Each of these dimensionsis presented as a continuum and individualsports are illustrated as ®tting into a rangerather than being represented as a single pointon each continuum.These attempts to articulate the relation-

ships between the unique characteristics oftourism and the unique characteristics of sportare the key to scholarly advances in this ®eld.By clarifying these relationships, more probingresearch questions can be asked and the®ndings of individual studies can be placedwithin the broader contexts of the ®eld as awhole. In doing so, the potential synergies ofthe ®eld are more likely to be captured.

The domain of tourism

Tourism de®nitions can be classi®ed into thoseassociated with the popular usage of the term(e.g. WH Smith/Collins, 1988), those used tofacilitate statistical measurement (e.g. WTO,1981), and those used to articulate its con-ceptual domain (e.g. Murphy, 1986). Althoughthe last of these has the most direct relevancefor this paper, all of the de®nitions tend toshare key dimensions. The most prevalent ofthese is a spatial dimension. Tourism involves

the `travel of non-residents' (Murphy, 1985, p.9). To be considered a tourist, individuals mustleave and then eventually return to their home.Although the travel of an individual does notconstitute tourism in and of itself, it is one ofthe necessary conditions. A variety of quali-®ers have been placed on this dimensionincluding a range of minimum travel dis-tances, but the fundamental concept of travel isuniversal.The second most common dimension in-

volves the temporal characteristics associatedwith tourism. Central to this dimension is therequirement that the trip be characterised by a`temporary stay away from home of at leastone night' (Leiper, 1981, p. 74). De®nitionsdeveloped for statistical purposes often distin-guish between excursionists who visit adestination for less than 24 h and touristswho visit a destination for 24 h or more(WTO, 1981). Often, however, the term visitoris used to refer to both groups.A third common dimension of tourism

de®nitions concerns the purpose or the activi-ties engaged in during travel and it is withinthis dimension that many sub®elds of tourism®nd their genesis (e.g. eco-tourism, urbantourism, and heritage tourism). Of the threedimensions, this is perhaps the one charac-terised by the broadest range of views. Forexample, dictionary interpretations of touriststend to focus on leisure pursuits as the primarytravel activity (WH Smith/Collins, 1988),whereas de®nitions developed for statisticaland academic purposes tend to include busi-ness activities as well (Murphy, 1985). Speci®creference is made to sport in the tourismde®nition of the World Tourism Organisation(1981), which lists it as a subset of leisureactivities.

The domain of sport

De®ning sport has proven equally as dif®cult,but as in the case of tourism, commondimensions have emerged. The popular per-ception of sport is best re¯ected by the adagethat sport is what is written about on the sportpages of daily newspapers (Bale, 1989). Atypical dictionary de®nition of sport describesit as àn individual or group activity pursuedfor exercise or pleasure, often taking a compe-


Sport tourism 47

titive form' (WH Smith/Collins, 1988).De®nitions arising from the realm of the

sociology of sport are particularly insightfulwhen combined with the concept of tourism.One of the most in¯uential de®nitions of sportto emerge within this area is that of Loy et al.(1978), i.e. the game occurrence approach.From this perspective, sport is conceptualisedas a subset of games, which in turn is a subsetof play. Sport is described in terms ofinstitutionalised games that require physicalprowess. In a similar fashion McPherson et al.(1989, p. 15) have de®ned sport as à struc-tured, goal-oriented, competitive, contest-based, ludic physical activity'.Sport is structured in the sense that sports

are governed by rules that relate to space andtime. These rules may be manifest in a varietyof ways, including the dimensions of theplaying area and the duration and pacing ofthe game or contest. They also tend to be morespeci®c in formal variations of a sport, espe-cially as the level of competition increases. Ininformal variations of a sport these rules areoften very general.Sport is also de®ned as being goal-oriented,

competitive and contest-based. All threecharacteristics are closely related. Sport isgoal-oriented in the sense that sporting situa-tions usually involve an objective for achieve-ment in relation to ability, competence, effort,degree of dif®culty, mastery or performance.In most instances this goal orientation isextended to some degree of competition. Atone extreme this competition is expressed interms of winning or losing combatants. Alter-natively, competition can be interpreted muchless rigidly in terms of competing againstindividual standards, inanimate objects, orthe natural forces of nature. In the context ofsport tourism, the latter interpretation ofcompetition offers a much more inclusiveconcept that covers recreational sports, suchas those commonly associated with outdoorpursuits. It is also inclusive of the `sport for all'concept of participation (e.g. Nogawa et al.,1996). Essentially, competition is probably bestconceptualised as a continuum that rangesfrom recreational to elite both between andwithin sports. Closely associated with compe-tition is the contest-based nature of sport inwhich outcomes are determined by a combina-

tion of physical prowess, game strategy and, toa lesser degree, chance. Physical prowessconsists of physical speed, stamina, strength,accuracy and coordination and when viewedin these terms, across the whole competitioncontinuum, it is one of the most consistentcriterion used to de®ne sport.The ®nal aspect of sport that is highlighted

in the de®nition is its ludic nature, a termwhich is derived from the Latin word ludus,meaning play or game. Sport is, therefore,rooted in, although not exclusive to play andgames. This derivation carries with it the ideasof ùncertainty of outcome' and `sanctioneddisplay'. Uncertain outcomes create excite-ment and are consistent with the concept ofplay. Sanctioned display allows for the de-monstration of physical prowess and broadensthe realm of sport involvement to spectator-ship as well as direct athletic participation.

The con¯uence of sport and tourism

Clearly the concepts of tourism and sport arerelated and overlap. Sport is an importantactivity within tourism and tourism is afundamental characteristic of sport. The spe-ci®c con¯uence of the two concepts varies as tothe perspectives of those dealing with the topicand the de®nitions that they adopt. Attemptsto articulate the domain of sport tourism havealso resulted in a proliferation of de®nitions(Table 1). These de®nitions tend to be writtenalong the same lines as those presented fortourism in that they often include activity,spatial and temporal dimensions. Sport isgenerally positioned as the primary travelactivity, although Gammon and Robinson(1997) make a distinction between sporttourists and tourism sports. The latter recog-nises sport as a secondary activity whiletravelling. Most de®nitions include spectatorsas well as athletes and recreational as well aselite competition. They also tend to includeexplicit requirements for travel away from thehome environment along with an implicit, ifnot explicit, temporal dimension that suggeststhat the trip is temporary and that the travellerwill return homewithin a designated time. Thetemporal dimension is usually inclusive of dayvisitors as well as those that stay overnight.Somewhat surprisingly, the major limitation of



existing de®nitions is that the concept of sportis rather vague. In an attempt to capture thestrengths and address the stated limitations ofthese de®nitions in this paper, sport tourism isde®ned as: sport-based travel away from the homeenvironment for a limited time, where sport ischaracterised by unique rule sets, competitionrelated to physical prowess, and a playful nature.This de®nition parallels the underlying

structure of most tourism de®nitions in termsof their spatial, temporal and activity dimen-sions with the difference being that the activitydimension is speci®ed as sport. Sport isrecognised as a signi®cant travel activitywhether it is a primary or secondary featureof the trip. It is seen to be an important factor inmany decisions to travel, to often featureprominently in the travel experience, and tooften be an important consideration in thevisitor's assessment of the travel experience.Sport tourism is further clari®ed by drawing

on the previous discussion of the domain ofsport. First, each sport has its own set of rulesthat provide characteristic spatial and tempor-al structures. Second, competition related to

physical prowess is a consolidation of whatMcPherson et al. (1989) described as the goal-orientation, competition and contest-basedaspects of sport. It is used here in a broadsense to indicate a continuum of competitioninclusive of what is often thought of asrecreational sport or `sport for all'. Finally,sport is characterised by its playful nature.This element includes the notions of uncer-tainty of outcome and sanctioned display. Inmore competitive versions of sport, one of thebasic objectives is that the competitors shouldbe evenly matched, thereby making the out-come uncertain. If, on the other hand, theoutcome is predetermined as in àll-starwrestling', the game or contest is a form ofspectacle rather than sport and therefore fallsoutside of this de®nition. Sanctioned displayis, however, distinct from spectacle. It ischaracteristic of sport in as much as sport isnot limited to acts of physical prowess but isalso inclusive of the demonstration or displayof these acts. Many different types of sportsinvolvement are therefore possible for sportstourists.

Table 1. Selected de®nitions related to sport tourism

Dimension De®nition and source

Sport tourism Travel for non-commercial reasons to participate or observe sporting activities away fromthe home range (Hall, 1992a, p. 194)

An expression of a pattern of behaviour of people during certain periods of leisure timeÐsuch as vacation time, which is done partly in specially attractive natural settings andpartly in arti®cial sports and physical recreation facilities in the outdoors (Ruskin, 1987,p. 26)

Holidays involving sporting activity either as a spectator or participant (Weed and Bull,1997b; p. 5)

Leisure-based travel that takes individuals temporarily outside of their homecommunities to participate in physical activities, to watch physical activities, or tovenerate attractions associated with physical activity (Gibson, 1998, p. 49)

All forms of active and passive involvement in sporting activity, participated in casuallyor in an organized way for noncommercial or business/commercial reasons, thatnecessitate travel away from home and work locality (Standeven and DeKnop, 1999,p. 12)

Sport tourist A temporary visitor staying at least 24 h in the event area andwhose primary purpose is toparticipate in a sports event with the area being a secondary attraction (Nogawa et al.,1996, p. 46)

Individuals and/or groups of people who actively or passively participate in competitiveor recreational sport, while travelling to and/or staying in places outside their usualenvironment (sport as the primary motivation of travel) (Gammon and Robinson, 1997)

Tourism sport Persons travelling to and/or staying in places outside their usual environment andparticipating in, actively or passively, a competitive or recreational sport as a secondaryactivity (Gammon and Robinson, 1997)


Sport tourism 49

To a large extent, it is these three character-istics that make sport tourism such an inter-esting area for research. The systematicexploration of the relationship between thesecharacteristics of sport and the characteristicsof the spatial and temporal dimensions oftourism has the potential to provide signi®cantinsight into this phenomenon. Prior to thisdiscussion, however, it is necessary to considerthe merit of sport as a central attraction oftourism.

SPORT AS A TOURIST ATTRACTION

A review of the early academic literature thatspans the disciplines of both sport and tourismcon®rms a disparate approach to this topic.Before the 1990s, insights to sport tourismwere mainly provided through research inrelated domains. As the academic study ofsport tourism has progressed, sport began toreceive much more targeted attention asre¯ected in the assortment of sport tourismtypologies that have recently emerged. Despiteincreasing focus on the basic nature of sportwithin a tourism system, there has been verylittle explicit discussion of the ®t of sportwithin current theories on tourist attractions.

Related domains

Hall (1992a, b) not only identi®ed sport as a

major special interest of tourism, he alsoarticulated three related tourism domainsincluding hallmark events, outdoor recreation(adventure tourism) and tourism associatedwith health and ®tness (Figure 1). Of thesethree related domains, the area of hallmarkevents is probably the most direct link to sportas epitomised by national championship com-petitions, such as American football's Super-bowl and international sport mega-events suchas the Olympic Games. The pro®le and scale ofthese sport events attracts the attention of bothtourists and tourism researchers. This atten-tion is re¯ected in the prominence of sport-based articles published in the journal ofFestival Management and Event Tourism. How-ever, Ritchie's (1984) classi®cation of hallmarkevents identi®es sport as just one of sevenevent categories, although it is arguably one ofthe most signi®cant of these categories (Getz,1997; Ryan et al., 1997). Although providingsigni®cant insight into sport tourism, publica-tions in this area seldom highlight the distin-guishing features of sporting events relative toother types of events.Outdoor recreation represents a second re-

lated area that is inextricably linked to sporttourism. The essence of this contextual domainlies in recreational activities that occur withinnatural settings, many of which are commonlyclassi®ed as sports, such as canoeing, skiingand sur®ng. One of the most dynamic compo-nents of outdoor recreation is adventuretourism. Hall (1992a) identi®es adventuretourism as a rapidly growing segment of thespecial interest tourism market. As in the caseof hallmark events and sport tourism, there is aclear overlap between outdoor recreation andsport tourism both conceptually and in termsof research activity. However, these domainsare not synonymous. A substantial amount ofsport activity occurs outside the realm of thenatural environment, whereas conversely,many tourism activities that occur in naturalsettings are inconsistent with the de®nition ofsport used in this paper (e.g. camping andpicnicking).Health and ®tness activities provide a third

related domain of relevance to sport tourism.The essence of this domain is presented fromboth historical and contemporary perspec-tives. The former is illustrated most commonly

Figure 1. Related contextual domain



by the tourist activity associated with thetherapeutic spas of Eastern andMediterraneanEurope in Roman times (Hall, 1992a). In acontemporary context, travel to partake intherapeutic spas continues but it has broad-ened to resorts focusing on activities such astennis and golf (Redmond, 1991; Spivack,1998). Although the realm of health and ®tnesscan be de®ned in very ubiquitous terms, itgenerally has been treated much more nar-rowly in the literature. In particular, character-istics such as the nature of the rule structure ofsports have not been a dominant feature in theliterature on health and ®tness.Although research in all three of these areas

has contributed to the understanding of sporttourism, the essence of sport extends beyondthe collective parameters of these relateddomains. The de®ning characteristics of sportare not the central interest of research inhallmark events, outdoor recreation or healthtourism.

Emerging typologies

A noticeable shift in the source of insights intosport tourism has occurred over the pastdecade but especially in the past ®ve years.Manifestations of this new source include thedevelopment of a series of sport tourismtypologies. Redmond (1991) presented one ofthe ®rst typologies of sports tourism featuringcategories associated with resorts and vaca-tions, sports museums, multisport festivalsand sports facilities in national parks. Increas-ingly sophisticated versions of this typologyfollowed, including that of the Sport TourismInternational Council (STIC), which identi®ed®ve categories including: (i) attractions such asheritage sport facilities, (ii) resorts with asports focus, (iii) cruises that centre aroundsport celebrity themes, (iv) sport tours such asplaying several golf courses at a particulardestination, and (v) major sporting events(STIC Research Unit, 1995; Kurtzman andZauhar, 1997). An interesting variation of thispattern was presented by Gammon andRobinson (1996) with their distinction betweensport tourism and tourism sport on the basis ofcontrasting trip motivations. One of the mostrecent typologies was published by Standevenand De Knop (1999) in which the complexity of

sport tourism is recognised through additionaldistinctions, such as: holiday versus non-holi-day, passive (spectatorship) versus active(athletic participation), organised versus in-dependent, high versus low motivations, andsingle versus multiple sport holidays.

Leiper's attraction framework

A logical extension of the development ofthese typologies is the examination of sport asan attraction within the tourism destinationsystem. This examination is facilitated byusing Leiper's (1990) systems perspective,which builds on the earlier work of MacCan-nell (1976) and Gunn (1988). Under thisapproach, a tourist attraction is de®ned as àsystem comprising three elements: a tourist orhuman element, a nucleus or central element,and a marker or informative element. A touristattraction comes into existence when the threeelements are connected' (Leiper, 1990, p. 371).The ®rst component of Leiper's (1990)

attraction system is the human element. Likeother types of tourists, sport tourists seek tosatisfy a variety of needs and wants in theirsearch for leisure away from home. Twocharacteristics of these sport tourists areparticularly noteworthy in the context of thedestinations and typologies just reviewed. The®rst of these involves the inconsistency be-tween the understanding of visitors from asport and from a tourism perspective. Forexample, from a tourism perspective, specta-tors at an international sporting occasion whoreside outside of the host city would normallybe classi®ed as tourists in that city. From asport perspective, however, these spectatorsview their national team as their `home team'.At a psychological level, these spectators feelat `home' even though theymay have travelleda substantial distance to attend the game.A second distinguishing aspect of sport

tourists in terms of the human element ofattraction systems is that they can be categor-ized into several groups: e.g. spectators andplayers. One of the more interesting aspects ofthis division is the inverse relationship thatmay exist between the size of each group,ranging from elite through to recreationalsporting events. For example, at World CupFootball matches there are only a handful of


Sport tourism 51

players who may arguably be referred to astourists during their visits to foreign countries.In contrast, when de®ned from a tourismperspective, a high proportion of spectatorsattending one of these matches may beclassi®ed as tourists. The opposite situation islikely to occur at the recreational levels offootball competitions in that the number oftourists is much greater in terms of theparticipating athletes relative to spectators.By recognizing competition as a continuum,the differences between types of involvement(e.g. spectator versus athlete) can be exploredfor elite versus recreational versions of thesport. These are just two unique characteristicsof sports tourists that can be addressed underthe human element of attraction systems. Theyillustrate the types of research questions thatcan be articulated by using attraction frame-works to examine sport tourism.The second major element of Leiper's (1990)

tourist attraction system is the nucleus or anyfeature of a place that a traveller wishes toexperience. This is the site where the touristexperience is ultimately produced and con-sumed. It is the site where the tourism resourceis commodi®ed. Individual sports and moreparticularly, individual sporting events, be-come unique attractions based on their de®n-ing characteristics.Unique rules and institutional sporting

structures have evolved over time, oftenre¯ecting and sometimes in¯uencing thecountry's culture. Sport therefore can act asa powerful symbol of a destination's culture(e.g., ice hockey in Canada, Nordic skiing inNorway). In contrast, trends such as theglobalisation of sport may erode the distinc-tion between places in terms of the culture ofsport. Each sport is characterised by its owntypes of physical competition and playfulnature. One of the most signi®cant implica-tions of these characteristics is that sportcompetition outcomes are uncertain. Thisinherent uncertainty means that sportingattractions tend to be authentic and renew-able. Although value-added entertainmentsuch as pre-game concerts have been coupledwith sporting events at the elite levels ofcompetition, the core product remains theexcitement of the sport itself. The question ofwhat the optimum balance is between the

game and the added entertainments is likelyto become increasingly important in thefuture.Leiper (1990) also raised the idea of a nuclear

mix and hierarchy of attractions. A nuclearmixrefers to the combination of nuclei that atourist wishes to experience, and the hierarchysuggests that some of these nuclei are moreimportant in in¯uencing visitor decisions thanothers. This aspect of the attraction is verysimilar to the categories of sport tourismtypologies associated with multiple sport tripsand levels of motivations (Standeven and DeKnop, 1999; Gammon and Robinson, 1996). Formany sport tourists a speci®c sporting eventmay function as the primary attraction in adestination, but the cluster of other nucleifound in the surrounding area may be neededto ®nalise the decision to travel. Alternatively,sports can also serve as an important albeitsecondary nuclei. Appreciating the place ofsport within a destination's attraction mix andhierarchy is likely to have signi®cant manage-ment implications.Markers are items of information about any

phenomenon that is a potential nuclear ele-ment in a tourist attraction (Leiper, 1990). Theymay be divided into markers that are detachedfrom the nucleus or those that are contiguous.In each case the markers may either con-sciously or unconsciously function as part ofthe attraction system. Examples of consciousgenerating markers featuring sport are com-mon. Typically, they take the form of adver-tisements showing visitors involved indestination-speci®c sport activities and events.Perhaps even more pervasive are the uncon-scious detached markers. At the forefront ofthese are televised broadcasts of elite sportcompetitions and advertisements featuringsports products in recognisable destinations.Although sport broadcasts may result in somespectators choosing to watch the game fromthe comfort of their home rather than inperson, in a broader sense, television viewershave the location marked for them as a touristattraction, which may in¯uence future traveldecisions. Chalip et al.'s (1998) paper onsources of interest in travel to the OlympicGames lends itself well to this framework,although markers were not speci®cally men-tioned in the paper. However, reference to the



in¯uence of Olympic narratives, symbols andgenres essentially addresses issues that emergein the context of detached markers within thetourist attraction system. Contiguous markersinclude on-site signage that labels the attrac-tion. Other on-site markers include gameprogrammes, team mascots, and even theproducts of commercial sponsors of the subjectsports.Leiper's (1990) tourist attraction system does

provide insight into the relationship betweensport and tourism. Although space limitationshave not allowed an in-depth examination ofthe characteristics of individual sports, thetheory-based attraction system enables a moremethodical examination of this topic than hasoccurred to date. The insights gained by usingthis type of framework can be used to identifyimportant research questions that should bepursued. Yet even though the attractionsystem framework allows for a greater focuson sport within tourism, it does not directlyaddress the spatial and temporal dimensions.

FRAMEWORKS FOR RESEARCH

A new framework is required to not onlycapture the synergies of existing contributionsto the subject but to identify future directionsfor research. Attractions do not function inisolation of the tourism system as a whole. Byretaining a focus on sport as an attraction, it ispossible to return to the original de®nitions ofsport tourism and develop a guiding frame-work for research that can systematicallyexplore the relationships between sport, spaceand time.Figure 2 provides a graphic representation

of the sport tourism research frameworkproposed in this paper. Sport is positioned asthe central focus and attraction. In a sense,sport becomes the ®rst among equals inrelation to the other two dimensions. It there-fore will be addressed ®rst in this discussion.Three research themes are presented withineach dimension. These themes are meant to beillustrative rather than de®nitive. Researchers

Figure 2. Framework for sport tourism research


Sport tourism 53

with different backgrounds and interests areencouraged to identify additional themes aswell as to project their own perspectives withineach theme.

Sport dimension

The sport dimension gives this framework aunique focus on sport as an attraction. Eachsport theme re¯ects the elements that emergedfrom the earlier discussion of the domain ofsport. Under the ®rst theme, individual sportsare characterised by their own rule structure,which dictates their spatial and temporalcharacteristics at the attraction level. A varietyof research questions therefore can be pursuedthat have direct bearing on the managementand design of sport attractions. For example,what are the implications of rule changes onthe essence of the sport's attraction? Will thechanges have an impact on the propensity ofspectators to travel to the sporting event?Competition forms a second theme within

the sport dimension. A variety of issues exist inthis area that have received little attention todate. One example is whether the level or typeof competition associated with a particularsport, in¯uences the nature of the travelexperience. Using skiing as a case in point,how important is the nature of competition as adeterminant of the visitor's perception of thedestination? For example, do highly competi-tive skiers develop similar perceptions of a skidestination in comparison to less competitiveskiers? Alternatively, sport performance maybe a more signi®cant factor in terms of itsin¯uences on the sense of place that a compe-titive skier develops for a particular skidestination in that the athlete's view of thedestinationmaybemore positive the better thathe or she performed while at that destination.The playful nature of sport represents the

last major thematic area representedwithin thesport dimension of the research framework. Itencompasses a broad range of potential lines ofinquiry, including but not limited to theuncertainty of sport outcomes, sanctioneddisplay, and the utility and seriousness ofsport. One of the most intriguing character-istics of sport tourism in this regard is therelationship between the uncertainty of sportoutcomes and the concept of authenticity as it

has been discussed within the ®eld of tourism.Given trends toward the positioning of profes-sional sport as part of the entertainmentindustry and in extreme cases, as spectacle,the competitive advantages related to theauthenticity of sport needs to be studiedcarefully.The sanctioned display aspect of this theme

also suggests a number of research possibilitiesthat converge around the type of involvementthat sport tourists may have with sport. At avery basic level, the distinction betweenathletes and spectators as sport tourists needsfurther attention. However, this distinctionrepresents only two of many types of sportinvolvement (Kenyon, 1969), including that ofcoaches, management and of®cials. A broadrange of research questions can be raised aboutthe socio-demographic characteristics, travelbehaviours and impacts of each of thesegroups of sport tourists.An additional line of inquiry under this

theme is whether the nature of the travelexperience varies between amateur and pro-fessional sport tourists. Perhaps a prerequisitequestion is whether professional athletesshould even be considered tourists given thatthey are remunerated for their travel. Simi-larly, the whole issue of commodi®cation ofsport poses some interesting questions thathave been raised in the context of other typesof tourism.

Spatial dimension

For illustrative purposes, the spatial themesthat have been highlighted include location,region and landscape (Figure 2). There appearsto be considerable potential to build on thework of Bale (1989), with his focus on thegeography of sport, and the work of Pearce(1987), whose focus is the geography oftourism. These authors base their discussionson similar spatial theories but they holdcontrasting perspectives. In terms of locationthemes, basic geographical theories, such ascentral place theory and distance decay theory,offer much potential for gaining an under-standing of practical issues, such as where tolocate sport facilities and the determination ofthreshold levels of players and/or spectatorsneeded to sustain a given sport, team, or



facility. Such insights would be of directrelevance to both private and public sectorinvestors in sport facilities and programs.Regional studies represent a second major

thematic area within the spatial dimension.The myriad of signi®cant research questionsthat could be raised within this theme includethose relating to the in¯uence of a sport, team,or an individual athlete on the image of adestination. One aspect of region that needsfurther attention is scale. Although sporttourism has been examined in the context ofthe host sites of international and nationalsporting events, little published literatureexists on sport tourism associated with smallerscale events within the region. This lack ofattention may be due to the lower pro®le ofsport in these regions, even though it ispossible that the cumulative impact of thesesporting activities is of equal or more signi®-cance than that associated with internationaland national events.The third theme identi®ed within the spatial

dimension of the framework concerns land-scape, both in terms of the dependency ofparticular sports on the presence of certainphysical resources and, conversely, the impactof sport on tourism landscapes. In terms ofresource dependency, a basic distinction existsbetween sports that are highly dependent onthe presence of speci®c natural resource fea-tures and those that function independently ofthem. The spatial distribution of these twotypes of sports is therefore likely to be quitedistinct.At the same time, sports appear tohavesigni®cant impacts on a tourism landscape interms of its cultural and physical dimensions.In many cases the differences between interna-tional sportscapes are decreasing owing to theapplication of facility design standards byinternational sport governing bodies. Thistrend raises Bale's (1989) spectre of uniform`sportscapes',which are divorced from the veryplace in which they are situated. Alienationfrom place introduces fundamental issuesabout the propensity of sports fans to travel toa generic sportscape, especially if the game orcontest can be experienced through television.

Temporal dimension

Temporal themes make up the ®nal dimension

of the framework (Figure 2) and trip duration(day visitors as well as those who stay one ormore nights) is the ®rst theme to be high-lighted in this group. This trip characteristicnot only serves as a basic element of mostde®nitions of tourism but holds signi®cance interms of such diverse issues as the extent of theeconomic impact associated with a visit andthe nature of the relationship formed betweenhosts and guests. For example, in a Japanesestudy of participants in cross-country skiingand walking special events, it was found thatparticipants were likely to leave the hostingcommunity soon after their sporting activitywas ®nished rather than extending their tripfor post-competition tours (Nogawa et al.,1996). The authors of this study did, how-ever, speculate that this behaviour was dueto external factors rather than an inherentcharacteristics of these particular sport tour-ists.Tourism seasonality represents a second

temporal theme that merits further attention.The vast majority of tourism destinations arecharacterised by signi®cant ¯uctuations intourism activity throughout the year that havebeen attributed to a variety of natural andinstitutional factors (Allcock, 1989; Butler,1994; Snepenger et al., 1990). This ¯uctuationis typically viewed as a problem by tourismoperators who must address the challenge ofmeeting ongoing expenses in the face of¯uctuating ¯ows of revenue. Sports are alsocharacterised by seasonal patterns such asthose manifest in the placement of varioussports into the Summer or the Winter OlympicGames. Trends in professionalisation, global-isation and technology have all acted asmodifying factors for the seasonality of sportand much work is needed to assess the impactand management potential of these changesfor tourism.Finally, the third temporal theme in the

framework concerns the pattern of develop-ment or the evolution of tourism products anddestinations over time. This evolution hasparticular signi®cance in the context of thecurrent research trends in sustainable tourismand the need to consider process aswell as formin tourism studies. Butler's (1980) idea of a lifecycle associated with tourism destinationscomplements Bale's (1989) discussion of the


Sport tourism 55

evolution of various types of sport. Changes ineither sphere of activity will have implicationsin the other. By understanding the changeslikely to occur in one sphere, stakeholders willbe better able to understand the probableimpacts in the other sphere and perhaps be ina position to manage these impacts.

Synergistic bene®ts

Although there is utility in examining eachtheme in isolation, a higher level of insight canbe achieved if these themes are examined inconjunction with themes from each of the otherdimensions. The thematic dimensions of sportcan be used to anchor research in this area andmay even suggest testable hypotheses aboutthe relationship between sport characteristicsas independent variables relative to spatial andtemporal characteristics as dependent vari-ables. This potential is illustrated graphicallyin Figure 2, which can be viewed as a cubemade up of multiple component blocks. Eachof these component blocks represents a uniquecombination of themes from each dimensionand therefore, a unique set of relationshipsbetween variables.The highlighted block represents just one of

twenty-seven unique combinations of themesthat can be examined. It should, however, beappreciated that the value of exploring thespeci®c relationships found in each block ofthe cube is not uniform. Some of theserelationships will be of more interest andutility than others. In Figure 2, one possibleinvestigation would be to explore the impact ofperformance (competition) relative to thelength of stay and the willingness of sporttourists to travel. Speci®c measures of thesevariables would have to be identi®ed andhypotheses about the likely impact of perfor-mance on length of stay and distance travelledcould be tested. Alternatively, the impacts ofdifferent types of recreational versus elitecompetition could be studied. This type ofinformation would be useful in the develop-ment of management strategies for sport andtourism. The point is that a variety of possibleresearch questions could be asked dependingon which variables are chosen withinthese themes. Once these variables havebeen selected, the framework suggests the

key relationships that can be investigated.Interchanging themes creates new directionsfor sport tourism research. Rather than posingresearch questions in one dimension, thisframework enables researchers to systemati-cally consider the relationships betweenthemes across either two or three basic dimen-sions.

CONCLUSION

This article conceptualises sport tourism in thecontext of its activity, its spatial and itstemporal dimensions. Sport tourism is de®nedas sport-based travel away from the home environ-ment for a limited time, where sport is characterisedby unique rule sets, competition related to physicalprowess, and a playful nature. Sport was thenexamined as a tourist attraction using Leiper's(1990) systems model and the paper concludeswith a proposed framework for research in thisarea.In terms of the de®nition of sport tourism,

the major contribution of this paper is toanchor a sociological approach to sport withina generalised three-dimensional de®nition oftourism. Sport is positioned as the activitydimension thereby highlighting its relation-ship to tourism's spatial and temporal dimen-sions. One of the key differences of thisde®nition relative to most existing ones is thatthe distinguishing characteristics of sport areexplicitly stated in terms of sport's institu-tional rule structure, competitive continuum,and basis in play. Sport is seen as being morethan physical activity. Furthermore, competi-tion is seen as a de®ning characteristic of sportand is presented as a continuum ranging fromrecreational to elite. The inclusion of thiscontinuum is one of the strengths of thisde®nition, as it allows for comparisons be-tween different levels of competition in termsof speci®ed spatial and temporal variables. Forexample, under this de®nition it is possible toaddress questions such as `what are the spatialand temporal implications of a ski resort'sdecision to focus on elite versus recreationalskiers?'By considering sport within an attraction

system framework, this paper has presentedan alternative perspective to the typologiesthat have been presented to date. Although



these typologies have identi®ed speci®cgroupings of travel products and have madeexplicit and implicit reference to attractions,much of this has been done with no consciouslinkage to existing attraction theory. Anchor-ing this discussion within an attraction systemframework has allowed some of the moredistinct features of sport to be highlighted in asystematic fashion. One example of this is theadvantages that sport presents as an attractionin terms of ful®lling tourists search forauthenticity. Although this issue was notdiscussed in detail, the use of an attractionsystem framework enables the identi®cation ofthese types of important issues.The last section of the paper presents and

explains a research framework for sport tour-ism that addresses the criticisms of the existingliterature raised by Gibson (1998). More speci-®cally, it is developed as an attempt to help theauthors make sense of a broad-based literatureand to identify future research avenues in thisarea. It extends the two-dimensional frame-work offered by Standeven andDeKnop (1999)to three dimensions based on the underlyingstructure of many broadly accepted de®nitionsof tourism. Each dimension is then subdividedinto selected themes. The next logical step inthis process is to breakdown the themes intospeci®c variables. The relationship betweenthese variables can then be hypothesised andtested in a systematic fashion.The framework is intended to be ¯exible so

that other researchers can ®nd someutility in it,whether they are managers looking for prac-tical solutions to real problems, graduatestudents just initiating a research programmein this area, or established scholars in the ®eld.All of these researchers are encouraged tosubstitute their own themes into this frame-work or to make further modi®cations as theysee ®t. What is most important is that researchrecognises not only thebreadthof sport tourismbut that it is also characterised by an increasingdepth of analysis. Furthermore, depth andbreadth must be linked. The framework pre-sented in this paper represents an instrumentthat can be used to address this challenge.

REFERENCES

Allcock JB. 1989. Seasonality. In Tourism Marketing

and Management Handbook, Witt SF, Moutinho L(eds). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs; 387±392.

Bale J. 1989. Sports Geography. E. and F. N. Spon:London.

Butler RW. 1980. The concept of the tourist areacycle of evolution, implications for the manage-ment of resources. Canadian Geographer 24(1): 5±12.

Butler RW. 1994. Seasonality in tourism: issues andproblems. In Tourism: the State of the Art, SeatonAV (ed.). Wiley: Chichester; 332±339.

Chalip LB, Green BC, Vander Velden L. 1998.Sources of interest in travel to the OlympicGames. Journal of Vacation Marketing 4: 7±22.

De Knop P. 1998. Sport tourism: a state of the art.European Journal for Sport Management 5(2): 5±20.

Delpy L. 1998. An overview of sport tourism:building towards a dimensional framework.Journal of Vacation Marketing 4: 23±38.

Falkner B, Tideswell C, Weston AM. 1998. Lever-aging tourism bene®ts from the Sydney 2000Olympics. Paper presented at the Fourth AnnualConference of the Sport Management Associationof Australia and New Zealand, 26±28 November,Gold Coast International, Gold Coast, Australia.

Gammon S, Robinson T. 1997. Sport and tourism: aconceptual framework. Journal of Sport Tourism. 4,3, 8±24. http://www.free-press.com/journals/jst/vol14no3/jst.15.html

Garmise M (ed.). 1987. Proceedings of the InternationalSeminar and Workshop on Outdoor Education,Recreation and Sport Tourism. Emmanuel GillPublishing: Netanya, Israel.

Getz D. 1997. Trends and issues in sport eventtourism. Tourism Recreation Research 22(2): 61±62.

Gibson HJ. 1998. Sport tourism: a critical analysis ofresearch. Sport Management Review 1: 45±76.

Glyptis SA. 1991. Sport and tourism. In Progress inTourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management,Cooper, C. (ed.). Belhaven: London; 3: 165±183.

Gunn C. 1988. Vacationscape: Designing TouristRegions, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold: NewYork.

Hall CM. 1992a. Adventure, sport and healthtourism. In Special Interest Tourism, Weiler B, HallCM Belhaven Press: London; 141±158.

Hall CM. 1992b. Hallmark Tourist Events: Impacts,Management and Planning. Belhaven Press: Lon-don.

Kenyon G. 1969. Sport involvement: a conceptualgo and some consequences thereof. In Aspects ofContemporary Sport Sociology, Kenyon G (ed.).Athletic Institute: Chicago; 77±100.

Kurtzman J, Zauhar J. 1995. Tourism Sport Inter-national Council. Annals of Tourism Research 22(3):707±708.


Sport tourism 57

Kurtzman J, Zauhar J. 1997.Wave in time: the sportstourism phenomena. Journal of Sport Tourism4(2): 5±20. http://www.mcb.co.uk/journals/jst/archive/vol14no2/welcome.html (28 May 1998).

Leiper N. 1981. Towards a cohesive curriculum intourism: the case for a distinct discipline. Annalsof Tourism Research 8(1): 69±74.

Leiper N. 1990. Tourist attraction systems. Annals ofTourism Research 17(2): 367±384.

Loy JW, McPherson BD, Kenyon G. 1978. Sport andSocial Systems. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

MacCannell D. 1976. The Tourist: New Theory of theLeisure Class. Schoken: New York.

McPherson BD, Curtis JE, Loy JW. 1989. The SocialSigni®cance of Sport. Human Kinetics: Champaign,Illinois.

Murphy P. 1985. Tourism: a Community Approach.Methuen: New York and London.

Nogawa H, Yamaguchi Y, Hagi Y. 1996. Anempirical research study on Japanese sporttourism in sport-for-all events: case studies of asingle-night event and a multiple-night event.Journal of Travel Research 35(2):46±54.

Pearce DG. 1987. Tourism Today: a GeographicalAnalysis. Longman Scienti®c and Technical:Harlow.

Redmond G. 1991. Changing styles of sportstourism: industry/consumer interactions in Ca-nada, the USA and Europe. In The TourismIndustry: An International Analysis, Sinclair MT,Stabler MJ (eds). CAB International: Wallingford;107±120.

Ritchie JRB. 1984. Assessing the impact of hallmarkevents: conceptual and research issues. Journal ofTravel Research 13(1):2±11.

Ruskin H. 1987. Selected views on socio-economic

aspects of outdoor recreation, outdoor educationand sport tourism. In Proceedings of the Interna-tional Seminar and Workshop on Outdoor Education,Recreation and Sport Tourism Garmise M (ed.).Emmanuel Gill Publishing: Natanya, Israel.

Ryan C, Smee A, Murphy S. 1996. Creating a database of events in New Zealand: early results.Festival Management and Event Tourism 4(3/4):151±156.

Snepenger D, Houser B, Snepenger M. 1990.Seasonality of demand. Annals of Tourism Research17:628±630.

Spivack SE 1998. Health spa development in the US:a burgeoning component of sport tourism. Journalof Vacation Marketing 4:65±77.

Standeven J, De Knop P. 1999. Sport Tourism.Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL.

Stevens T, van den Broek M. 1997. Sport andtourism Ð natural partners in strategies fortourism development. Tourism Recreation Research22(2):1±3.

STIC Research Unit. 1995. Sports tourism categoriesrevisited. Journal of Sport Tourism 2(3): 9±11.

Weed ME, Bull CJ. 1997a. Integrating sport andtourism: a review of regional policies in England.Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3: 129±148.

Weed ME, Bull CJ. 1997b. In¯uences on sport-tourism relations in Britain: the effects of govern-ment policy. Tourism Recreation Research 22(2): 5±12.

WH Smith/Collins. 1988. English Dictionary. Wil-liam Collins Sons & Co: Glasgow.

WTO. 1981. Technical Handbook on the Collection andPresentation of Domestic and International TourismStatistics. World Tourism Organization: Madrid.



Documents

Sport tourism: a framework for researchdownload.clib.psu.ac.th/datawebclib/e_resource/trial_database/... · Sport Tourism: a Framework for Research ... limitation of their typology