Sport Tourism: a Framework for Research

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH Int. J. Tourism Res. 3, 45±58 (2001) Sport Tourism: a Framework for Research T. D. Hinch1* and J. E. S. Higham2 1Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada 2Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand ABSTRACT within sport implies a travel dynamic that has until recently been largely ignored by Sport-based travel has grown dramatically scholars in both tourism and sport. Yet the over the past two decades but it has only af®nity between sport and tourism has not recently become the focus of concentrated been ignored by the travelling public nor by academic inquiry. This paper contributes to the vibrant industry that has emerged in the emerging body of literature by response to this demand. conceptualising sport in the context of Until the 1990s, sport tended to be treated as tourism's activity, spatial and temporal a general or even accidental context for dimensions. A de®nition of sport tourism tourism research rather than as a central focus. based on these dimensions and featuring a For example, research associated with hall- sociological perspective of sporting activity is mark events such as the Olympic Games has presented. The distinguishing features of added signi®cantly to our understanding of sport as a tourist attraction are then the impacts of mega events but it has provided highlighted through the use of Leiper's much less insight into the features that systems model of attractions. Finally, the distinguish the nature of sport-based events paper proposes a framework which from other types of events. A similar criticism highlights a series of research questions that can be made related to other areas of related emerge as the relationships between the research, such as outdoor recreation and fundamental dimensions of sport tourism are health-based tourism. The purpose of this systematically explored. Copyright # 2001 paper is therefore to conceptualize sport John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. tourism by positioning sport as a central attraction within the activity dimension of tourism and then considering its relationship Received 26 June 1998; Revised 8 July 1999; Accepted 14 July with the spatial and temporal dimensions of 1999 tourism. Despite the bene®ts of an explicit focus on Keywords: sport; tourism; dimension; sport tourism, it should be appreciated that the framework; attraction. conceptual boundaries that are articulated or implied in this article are in fact permeable and INTRODUCTION dynamic. The paper is not an attempt to position sport tourism as an isolated ®eld of ne has only to look at the score board at research but rather to capture the synergies most team sporting competitions to associated with the treatment of sport tourism O within the broader realms of sport and tour- see reference to the fundamental tourism concepts of the hosts and visitors. ism. It is meant to add to an emerging The prominent position of these concepts literature and to provide a unique perspective for productive research in this area. The paper therefore has been organised into three sec- * Correspondence to: T. D. Hinch, Faculty of Physical tions including: (i) clari®cation of the concep- Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmon- ton, Canada. tual domain of sport tourism, (ii) articulation E-mail: [email protected] of the distinguishing features of sport as a Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 46 T. D. Hinch and J. E. S. Higham tourist attraction based on Leiper's (1990) tion to the fact that sport and tourism are systems model of attractions, and (iii) the `treated by academics and practitioners alike presentation of a research framework for the as separate spheres of activity' (Glyptis, 1991, continued examination of sport-focused tour- p. 165). She went on to identify the close ism. behavioural relationship between sport and tourism participants but argued that this THE DOMAIN OF SPORT TOURISM relationship was not re¯ected in journal publications, academic departments, learned so- As be®ts an emerging area of scholarly study, cieties or government agencies. Glyptis (1991) sport-tourism researchers have dedicated a presented a compelling case for the integration substantial amount of their energy toward of the two in terms of government policy, clarifying the conceptual foundations of this strategic planning, the development of facil- ®eld. This section of the paper will review the ities and services, urban planning and promo- key contributions of these individuals and will tion. build on the foundation that they provided by This contribution stimulated further in- considering the independent concepts of sport depth studies of sport tourism, although such and tourism prior to focusing on their con- studies remained the exception rather than the ¯uence. Like most social science concepts, rule throughout the early 1990s. The most there are no universally excepted de®nitions notable attempts to rectify this situation were of sport or tourism that would make this undertaken by Kurtzman and Zauhar (1995) exercise easy. Each concept is rather amor- and later by Gammon and Robinson (1997), phous and a variety of de®nitions have been who developed early models of sport tourism. developed to address a broad range of needs. Although these contributions provided va- Despite the lack of de®nitional consensus, luable insights into the dynamic nature of there are commonalities associated with each sport tourism, they failed to harness the concept that help to clarify their relationship. potential synergies of the ®eld in a comprehensive manner. As a consequence, directions for future lines of inquiry are notably rare. The Current lines of inquiry clearest call for a systematic approach to this Although this sub®eld is still in its infancy, a sub®eld came from Kurtzman and Zauhar number of important publications exist that (1995), who presented agency report on the explicitly focus on sport tourism. It is not the Sport Tourism International Council (STIC) in intent of the authors to duplicate these efforts Annals of Tourism Research identifying the but rather to focus on those aspects of the emergence of sport as a `touristic endeavour' literature that are particularly relevant to in the 1980s and 1990s. Since that point, special understanding the conceptual base of sport issues of Tourism Recreation Research (Stevens tourism. and van den Broek, 1997) and Vacation Market- Especially noteworthy advances in the study ing (Delpy, 1997) have been devoted to the of sport tourism have included the proceed- topic and have clearly attempted to be more ings of a 1987 conference on Outdoor Educa- systematic and integrative in their approach. tion, Recreation and Sport (Garmise, 1987), the Gibson's (1998) comprehensive review of establishment of an electronic journal titled the publications in this area highlights the con- Journal of Sport Tourism in 1993, and seminal nections between what on the surface is a very articles in other tourism journals such as disparate literature. Not only does she provide Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research a critical analysis of existing literature in this (Glyptis, 1991; Weed and Bull, 1997a, b). The area, she articulates the need for better major contribution of these publications was to coordination among agencies at a policy level, highlight the signi®cance of sport tourism and more multidisciplinary research approaches, to legitimise it as an important focus for and more cooperation between tourism and academic study. sport-centred units in academic settings. A good example of this body of work was Further advances in this direction can be seen provided by Glyptis (1991), who drew atten- in the work of Standeven and De Knop (1999) Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 3, 45±58 (2001) Sport tourism 47 and De Knop (1998). A series of frameworks the `travel of non-residents' (Murphy, 1985, p. are presented in their publications that high- 9). To be considered a tourist, individuals must light the interdependent relationship between leave and then eventually return to their home. sports and tourism, beginning with the basic Although the travel of an individual does not premise that not only does sport in¯uence constitute tourism in and of itself, it is one of tourism but that tourism in¯uences sport. the necessary conditions. A variety of quali- They then build on this starting point with a ®ers have been placed on this dimension classi®cation matrix based on key touristic and including a range of minimum travel dis- sport characteristics. The major contribution of tances, but the fundamental concept of travel is this classi®cation system is that sport tourism universal. is recognised as offering `a two-dimensional The second most common dimension in- experience of physical activity tied to a volves the temporal characteristics associated particular setting' (Standeven and De Knop, with tourism. Central to this dimension is the 1999, p. 63). Furthermore, each of these requirement that the trip be characterised by a dimensions is articulated in terms of its key `temporary stay away from home of at least components, thereby allowing a more in-depth one night' (Leiper, 1981, p. 74). De®nitions analysis of the concept of sport tourism than developed for statistical purposes often distin- has been generally been the case to date. A guish between excursionists who visit a limitation of their typology is that it tends to destination for less than 24 h and tourists treat each sport as a homogeneous entity even who visit a destination for 24 h or more though many internal variations may exist (WTO, 1981). Often, however, the term visitor within a sport. Faulkner et al. (1998) avoid this is used to refer to both groups. limitation by classifying sports tourism in A third common dimension of tourism terms of motivational, behavioural and com- de®nitions concerns the purpose or the activi- petitive dimensions.

Load more