Back to Homepage Tom Sawyer's Town New York Top Quality Hotels Montana, Great Falls, Helena, Missoula Utah:Natural Setting, Recreation, Archeology and Indians, Agriculture Focus on San Francisco Visit Philadelphia / Hotels in Philadelphia Follow the Sun: Florida Rainbow Countries of Central America South Africa: Land and People African Wildlife: Rhino step back from extinction Antarctica: Ecotourism at the end of the earth The North American Midwest Tourism in New Zealand Ned Kelly's appeal to international visitors Island Travel: Exotic Island Tourism The Evolution of Hawaii The Center of the Pasific: Hawaii - Hotels in Hawaii Kapalua: where heaven meets earth Capri Hvar Island, Crotia Bali (Indonesia) Island Life on Barbados St Lucia: Legend and Leisure St. Vincent: modern outlook, antique style Bermuda: What to See and Do, Where to Eat, Drink Bermuda: What to See and Do What--Where--When of Bermuda Bermuda: How to Go and Where to Stay Sketch History of Bermuda Around-the-Calendar Clothes for Men and Women Bermuda: Sports and Spectator Sports The Rediscovery of Africa How the Greeks Built Cities Roman Cities in Italy and Dalmatia Norway: The Land an the Sea, Relief, Climate, Natural Regions Sweden and the Rest of Fennoscandia, Regional Description Belgium and Luxembourg Finland: Cultural Zones, Structure and Relief Iceland Paris: Famous Places as seen by Great Painters Paris, Franceis exciting and peaceful 48 Hours in Paris Venice: an inundated city Istanbul Turkey in Europe: Istanbul, Edirne, Gallipoli, Bosporus, Sea of Marmara The Pattern of Australian Culture Chinese-Speaking Local Tour Guides in Australia An Analysis of Urban Travel Demands Sport Tourism: A Critical Analysis of Research Where to Complain When Travel Goes Awry Some Characteristics of Tourism Cultural Tourists Travel Agents or Online Booking? Tourism and Cinema How You Can Get More Choice and Value by Booking Your Holiday Online Widespread Interest in Nature Maximizing your travel dollars Tour Operators: Who they are, how they work? Five Reasons To Buy A Tour Package A compilation of the travel advice How Far Cash Go Soon We'll Watch TV as We Travel on Tube Variety the Spice of Life on India Trip USTOA's Consumer Protection Plan You too can be a travel agent How to Be a Travel Agent How to Be Your Own Travel Agent; the Crafty Traveller

Sport Tourism / The Way Forward By Heather J. Gibson There can be no doubt that over the past five years, sport tourism has become increasingly salient to tourists, tourism providers, and academics alike. As much of the research cited in this paper shows, the sport tourism “movement” has been spearheaded by the western world – Europe, North America, and Australia. Nonetheless, evidence that sport tourism is becoming a distinctive element of tourism strategy in other countries is starting to appear. Aidid (1997) describes how Panang, Malaysia established itself as a major tourism destination through sport. Barbados uses sport to smooth seasonal fluctuations in tourism flows (“Sports Tourism,” 1997). Kosasi (1997) and Devados (1997) profile the sport tourism industry in India. Wang (1987) discusses how Singapore was marketing itself as a sport destination by the 1980s. However, despite the growth in sport tourism phenomena, a number of issues need to be addressed as we enter the next millennium. At the start of this paper, a quote from Pigeasson (1997) suggested that sport tourism as a field of study and practice is still evolving, and that progress in this development is hindered by a lack of integration at various levels. In reviewing the literature on sport tourism and looking at what is happening around the world, it appears that there is a lack of integration in three domains: (1) in policy development and implementation, between agencies responsible for sport and those in charge of tourism; (2) in academe, a lack of inter-disciplinary research, which is necessary in a domain which incorporates two distinct bodies of knowledge (sport and tourism); (3) in the education of the future sport tourism practitioners, as academic territoriality between tourism and sport studies departments persists. In terms of policy development and implementation, De Knop (1987, 1990), Glyptis, (1991) and Standevan (1998) point to the lack of integration between sport and tourism at government levels. There have been some regional attempts to establish links between sport and tourism, such as the Tourism and Sport Joint Policy Statement by the West Country Tourist Board in the United Kingdom (described by Glyptis, 1991). However, attempts such as this have been rather limited. Weed and Bull (1998) examined the situation in the United Kingdom and came to the conclusion that territoriality between the Tourist Boards and the Sports Council over resources and power were preventing joint policy statements and practices. This lack of an integrated sport tourism policy is common throughout the world (De Knop, 1990). Without adequate policy, De Knop warns that conflicts of interest among various departments, agencies, ministries, and bureaux will become more common. At the very least, a lack of integrated policy development for sport tourism risks accentuating the behind-the-scenes power of elites, and exacerbating inequities in the distribution of benefits (cf. Hall & Hodges, 1996; Sack & Johnson, 1996). There are also growing concerns about the effects of sport tourism on the environment. Ingold, Huber, and Neuhaus (1993) outline the effects of sport on wildlife in the Alps. Meyer (1993) investigated the impact of summer and winter sports on the alpine plant life in Austria. Hudson (1995) warns of the necessity of enforcing a sustainable development plan to protect the natural environment in Verbier Switzerland from overuse by skiers and hikers. Golf is also coming under scrutiny. Stoddart (1990) discusses the environmental impacts of golf as more and more courses are built on previously undeveloped tracts of land. He also looks at the socio-cultural impacts of the spread in popularity of the game which has reinforced the socioeconomic exclusivity of golf. Similarly, Pleumarom (1992) details the effects of the golf boom in Thailand. She also documents the negative environmental and social impacts of the spread of golf as a major tourism attraction in Thailand. Thus, although government policies do not always provide solutions to social problems, these examples show that there is a need at some level to coordinate the workings of this new industry and to develop an integrated policy structure that addresses emerging problems. Certainly, persons concerned with sport tourism would be well advised to learn from some of the mistakes made by the tourism developers of the 1960s and 1970s, where tourist facilities developed unchecked and, to borrow from Plog (1974), many resorts carried “with them the potential seeds of their own destruction” (p. 58) by destroying much of the natural beauty and ambiance, which tourists had come to enjoy. There is a growing need to resolve problematic environmental and sociocultural impacts of sport tourism before they become insoluble (see Dreyer & Krueger, 1995). Of course policy development, marketing, management and the training of individuals to work in this field also needs to be based on knowledge. This leads to the second need for the field of sport tourism, that of an integrated research program. De Knop (1990) points out that there is inadequate research examining the interrelationship between sport and tourism. Zauhar and Kurtzman (1997) suggest that in terms of professional practices and disciplinary knowledge, sport and tourism have many elements in common. While this is evident, there are still obstacles to overcome. It has already been demonstrated that government and commercial bodies responsible for sport or tourism respectively are intent on protecting their turf. In many instances the same can be said for academe. In universities where sport studies and tourism studies departments are separate, there have been disputes over “academic ownership” of the two constructs (sport and tourism). This separateness also affects research in the area. Some of the inconsistencies outlined at the beginning of this paper concerning definitions can be attributed to the infancy of the field. However, they can also be attributed to the fact that sport and tourism are too often delimited as separate spheres of study. Too few researchers have undertaken the task of becoming well versed in both bodies of knowledge and as a result two separate communities of discourse have developed. The conception of sport tourism as a synergy, which encompasses on the one hand the cultural experience of physical activity and, on the other, the cultural experience of place may provide a way of conceptualising what have been until now two separate domains. To move the field forward and to adequately meet the research needs of sport tourism an interdisciplinary approach needs to be adopted. Without this, the lack of integration and the inconsistencies in the work of various scholars around the world will continue to impede progress in this field. What is the research agenda arising out of this review that requires an interdisciplinary approach? De Knop (1990) points out the need to know more about the different types of sport tourist in terms of behaviours, motivations, and experiences. Several studies in this review indicated that sport tourists differ in levels of commitment to sport, both as participants and as spectators (Hall, 1992b; Getz, 1998; Irwin & Sandler, 1998; Rice, 1987). Sport tourists differ in skill levels (Richards, 1996) and they differ in their use of the host community (De Knop, 1990; Nogawa et al., 1996). Are active sport tourists also event sport tourists or nostalgia sport tourists? Nostalgia sport tourism is certainly a topic that requires both descriptive and explanatory research. Are nostalgia sport tourists likely to visit other heritage tourism sites or are they more likely to take part in other forms of sport tourism? Nogawa et al. (1996) discuss the possibility of encouraging sport tourists to stay longer at a destination and visit the local tourist attractions. Will such a tourism marketing strategy only work with particular types of sport tourist, perhaps the less committed sport tourist? It seems that for the “serious” sport tourist, the destination is not as important as the opportunity to enjoy their sport (Green & Chalip, 1998). What impact does sport tourism have on a community? Which methods provide the most comprehensive and accurate assessment of the impacts of sport tourism? What role does seasonality play in sport tourism? Do event sport tourists travel to watch different sports at different times in the year? Are active winter sport tourists also active summer sport tourists? What roles do gender, class, race, and life-stage play in sport tourism? While the answers to these questions have obvious applications for marketing and managing sport tourism, there is a need to gain a more in-depth understanding of the behaviours of the sport tourist and the dynamics underlying sport tourism. As the review in this paper shows, much of the work to date has been descriptive, without the import of theory. If a more in-depth understanding and a sound body of knowledge are to be developed, there is a need to explain and to theorise about the needs, expectations, and behaviours of sport tourists in future studies. Pigeasson (1997) advocates that we adopt a sociological perspective in order to achieve this task. Yet, theory from anthropology, social psychology, political science, management, and marketing may also help us to understand the sport tourist better. Moreover, in the quest for more integration in sport tourism research, future studies should not limit themselves to a single theoretical domain. One way to develop the necessary interdisciplinarity would be to generate more collaborative work among scholars from different disciplines. This may be more challenging to implement than it sounds. Obstacles such as the “parent disciplines” not recognising sport and tourism as legitimate avenues of study, academic territoriality across disciplines (and even between academic departments), as well as clarion calls for independent development of theory may each prove to be impediments. Scholars in leisure studies, tourism science, and sport management have begun to question the “borrowing of theory” from other disciplines. Jackson and Burton (1989) conducted an international survey of recreation and leisure studies scholars concerning their perceptions of the state of the field. Jackson and Burton found that “by far the greatest need for research in the coming decade … was for the development of a consistent and coherent body of theory”. Another recommendation resulting from Jackson and Burton’s survey is that we should explore and use a range of research methods. Getz (1998) similarly advocates the use of “alternative” methods for future research in event sport tourism. Survey research has been the method of choice in most of the studies reviewed in this paper. While there was evidence that some scholars had employed other methods, such as diaries (Faulkner & Raybould, 1995; Irwin et al., 1996) and interviews and observation (Green & Chalip, 1998), there is a need to expand the range of the methods used in the field. If some of the questions posed in this paper for future research are to be answered adequately, qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews and ethnographies need to be employed. There is also room for experimental research. In many studies, more sophisticated multivariate statistical analyses need to be employed. The lack of academic unity has implications for the education of future tourism practitioners. First, the territoriality over knowledge domains may prevent students from gaining exposure to a comprehensive curriculum which incorporates an adequate blend of sport and tourism studies. At present, students majoring in sport management are provided a curriculum with little reference to tourism, while tourism management students obtain curricula with little reference to sport. This discussion gives rise to another question: What should the curriculum for future sport tourism practitioners include? Is there a necessity for specialist sport tourism degrees? The Sports Tourism International Council has made a start at integrating research, information, and career development in the field. The University of Luton in the United Kingdom has developed a sport tourism degree. However, one can not help but feel that economics will play a big role in directing the future education practices of this field. On the one hand, some universities might view offering sport tourism degrees as a lucrative strategy, reminiscent of some of the explosive growth in the field of sport management when it became apparent that demand for physical education degrees had declined. Physical education departments found they could bolster enrolments by offering sport management degrees. Similarly, the competition for dollars from student enrolments may work against the collaboration necessary to provide students with an interdisciplinary education. The lack of an interdisciplinary education may be even more profoundly felt at the post graduate level. The future research needs and recommendations for sport tourism as a field certainly necessitate exposure to a variety of perspectives. This brings us the fullcircle to the lack of integration in policy development. If students are educated in an environment characterised by artificial boundaries between bodies of knowledge, their training will itself perpetuate the fragmentation of sport tourism practice. The root cause for many of the issues facing this field is that for too long sport and tourism have been viewed as separate domains – at the levels of policy, education, and practice. Obviously, not all tourism involves sport and not all sport involves tourism. This raises another question: Where should students and scholars of sport tourism be located in the academic structure? Until questions such as this are resolved, the field will continue to lack the necessary integration. Source: Sport Management Review Home