Sport tourism and sustainable destinations: foundations and pathways

Introduction

Destinations serve as the spatial context and reference point for this special issue. They are, in essence, the place where sport tourism is produced and consumed (Higham, 2005). Whether sport tourism development takes the form of sport events, active participation or sport heritage activities, it draws on local resources and forms part of the complex dynamic of community life (Preuss, 2015; Weed, 2008). Sport tourism therefore has implications for destination residents who may benefit from, or incur the costs of this development, with potential impacts ranging across the local–global spatial spectrum (Giampiccoli, Lee, & Nauright, 2015). As such, it is essential that the academic community critically question the sustainability of sport tourism destinations.

Sustainable development has been an ongoing concern for both tourism (McCool, 2015) and sport (Taks, 2013) scholars. However, despite mounting focus in these parent fields there has been limited effort to either clearly articulate or theoretically and empirically address critical questions associated with the ways in which sport and tourism interplay in relation to sustainability at the destination level. This special issue of the Journal of Sport & Tourism is intended to highlight and begin to address this gap. This issue is one of a series of four intended special issues that will be published to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Journal of Sport & Tourism. The other three address events, active sport tourism and theoretical perspectives of sport tourism. Clearly, there is a strong interrelationship between the four special issues.

This special issue is driven by three fundamental questions: (1) What do we know? (2) What do we not know? and (3) What do we need to know? We introduce the special issue by providing a summary of what we know about destination sustainability from the parent fields of tourism (e.g. Gössling, Hall, & Weaver, 2009; Ruhanen, Weiler, Moyle, & McLennan, 2015) and sport (Lindsey, 2008; Mallen, Adams, Stevens, & Thompson, 2010) followed by insights from the emerging sport tourism literature. We then consider gaps in the existing literature before introducing and contemplating the ways in which the papers in this double issue address these gaps. It concludes with the guest editors’ views on what we still need to know or the research directions that should be pursued to provide further insight into the sustainability of sport tourism destinations.

What we know

Although the sport literature does not focus on destinations it has increasingly explored issues of sustainability at a local level that can be categorized in terms of a triple bottom line approach (Andersson & Lundberg, 2013). Much of this work has been concentrated in the socio-cultural realm with Lindsey (2008, p. 2) suggesting that sustainability has ‘become ubiquitous in sports development policy and practice.’ For example, the role of participatory sport programmes in fostering community is a popular area of research (e.g. Schulenkorf, 2012; Spaaij, 2009) as are the social impacts of sport events (e.g. Taks, 2013). Similarly, the economic impacts of major sport events such as the Olympics and the development of large-scale sport facilities have been another area of research related to local dimensions of sustainability (Gratton, Shibli, & Coleman, 2005).

Here the outcomes of hosting mega sports events remain a bone of contention. The recent Rio 2016 Olympic Games were subject to negative media associated with the displacement of lower socio-economic residents to make way for the development of Olympic facilities including the athlete’s village; actions that triggered violent protests (Watts, 2016). Debate also swirled around the wisdom of hosting the Olympics Games at substantial cost, in a country in political and economic turmoil with a significant proportion of the population living in extreme poverty (Zimbalist, 2016). Economists generally question the logic of hosting the Olympic Games (Dale, 2016), particularly if Olympic profits are redirected away from the hosts by the granting of tax exemptions to Olympic sponsors such as Visa, McDonalds and Coca-Cola. Cultural and environmental programmes have emerged as a strong focus of events management, pointing to the world-making role of sports events; a term that describes the ‘creative/inventive role and function of tourism in the making of culture and place’ (Hollinshead, 2009, p. 139). A focus on legacies aimed to facilitate post-event sports participation has also become a more common feature of mega sports events.

While the findings have been mixed, highlighting both positive and negative impacts, these studies suggest that the predicted economic benefits of such developments are often overstated (Mills & Rosentraub, 2013). Sport event-related tourism interests are subject to an array of displacement effects that are described by Weed (2008) using terms such as ‘homestayers’, ‘runaways’, ‘changers’, ‘extensioners’, ‘time-switchers’ and ‘cancellers’. While it is recognized that the tourism possibilities associated with sports events need to be carefully planned and managed (Preuss, 2015), the manner in which these effects play out are almost impossible to predict in advance (Weed, 2008).

Finally, much less attention has been directed towards the ecological sustainability of sport although there are increasing calls for more research and debate in this area (Mallen & Chard, 2011). More generally, there has been a trend for this scholarship to incorporate the dynamic of tourism, including destination impacts, into studies on the sustainability of sport tourism (e.g. Gibson, Kaplanidou, & Kang, 2012; Taks, Chalip, & Green, 2015). Du Preez and Heath (2016) found that the social setting of sport tourism events outweighs place attachment and subjective norms as a predictor of environmental behavioural intention for cycling spectators in South Africa. It has also been found that local environmental impacts of sports vary between nature-based sports, and those that take place in centrally located built facilities. The former can be long-term and irreversible while the latter tend to be more fleeting, causing temporary inconvenience to residents (e.g. Bale, 2003). Both categories of impact must be closely managed, however, far less attention has been paid to the national or global impacts of sports events. The 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany was an exception with its attempt to stage a carbon neutral event (Higham & Hinch, 2009).

The sustainable tourism development literature is also well established and dynamic. Much of this literature considers the tourism system within its wider socio-cultural, political and economic contexts (Ruhanen, 2013). These efforts have not been without criticism, given the reality that interests in and understandings of sustainability differ with perspective (Hallstedt, Thompson, & Lindahl, 2013). Much focus has centred on environmental dimensions of sustainability, but there is a growing recognition of the fact that tourism systems are set within the wider socio-cultural, political and economic dimensions of sustainable development (Bramwell, Higham, Lane, & Miller, 2017). Research in this field was also initially characterized by a focus on small-scale local tourism development, which has been more aligned with interests in sustainability (Cater, 1993). There is now greater recognition that all forms of tourism development, from specific niches to mass tourism phenomena, challenge and are challenged by notions of sustainability.

The framing of the field of sustainable tourism has also evolved over time (Bramwell et al., 2017). It has been noted that initially sustainable tourism was addressed in terms of the management of environmental impacts at the local scale of analysis. This framing has been challenged in various important ways. The focus on environment has, by necessity, expanded to accommodate society (politics, economy, community) (Moyle, McLennan, Ruhanen, & Weiler, 2014). Tourism destinations have come to be conceived by some to function within wider socio-ecological systems (SES), which has given rise to interests in system resilience and the conceptual development of sustainability in relation to resilience theory (Bec, McLennan, & Moyle, 2016; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; McCool, 2015).

The framing of sustainable tourism has also moved beyond the local scale of analysis which Becken and Schellhorn (2007) described as the ‘reading glass’ (local) approach, to an ‘open system’ (global) perspective of sustainability. Accommodating the global scale of analysis has raised a raft of new questions and challenges. The relevance for sustainable tourism development is significant, not only in terms of the movement of tourists from generating to destination regions to engage in sports, but also in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with movement of spectators (Heath & Kruger, 2015). Indeed it is not only the movements of tourists that cause impacts that are dispersed and global. The emissions associated with the movement of elite athletes, which are considerable, need to be accounted for under the provisions of the Paris (2015) global climate agreement. These emissions may ultimately become part of the energy inventory and emissions profile of the destinations that host sports events and benefit from the flows of tourists, both spectators and elite athletes, associated with those sports.

Super Rugby provides an eye-opening illustration. Originally involving teams from New Zealand, Australia and South Africa (Super 12), the competition – which now runs over the course of a season from February–July (Super 18) – has been extended in the interests of sponsors and television broadcasters to include teams from Japan and Argentina. The CO₂ consequences of this commercial decision are profound. As an example, in the last six rounds of the 2016 Super 18 competition, the Highlanders (Dunedin, New Zealand) contested matches in Wellington (New Zealand), Port Elizabeth (South Africa), Buenos Aires (Argentina), Dunedin (New Zealand), Canberra (Australia) and Johannesburg (South Africa). The aggregate distance between these host destinations is 53,495 km.¹ The Super 18 involves 18 teams travelling and playing each week in squads of around 25 personnel. The aggregate carbon emissions associated with the movement of teams in this competition are too significant to ignore under the urgent emission reduction targets set out in the Paris Climate Agreement.

At the intersection of this topic lies the sport tourism literature. Fyall and Jago's (2009) special issue on sport tourism sustainability in the Journal of Sport & Tourism highlighted the active role of sport tourism researchers in exploring this topic. Key contributions in their issue included the recognition of the need to move from rhetoric to substance, the merit of a triple bottom line approach within a sport tourism context and the fact that sport tourism was not only responsible for impacting sustainability but also was impacted by events in the social, environmental and economic realms that lie outside of its direct influence. More recently, based on their study of cycling spectators, du Preez and Heath (2016) found that sport tourism destinations have an opportunity to leverage the social setting of events to influence pro-environmental behaviour. The present issue seeks to build on this base by examining the sustainability of sport tourism from a destination perspective.

More generally, there is a well-established body of knowledge that sport tourism destinations are part of complex, adaptive and multifaceted systems (Hinch & Higham, 2011; Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008). Seminal work on the tourism system identified that an attraction, or a destination, consists of an empirical connection between a tourist, a nucleus and a marker (Leiper, 1990). Academic discourse has advanced this understanding, with scholars exploring various components of the tourism system (Espiner & Becken, 2014). For example, studies have sought to understand what motivates people to travel, with sport identified as a critical factor for destination selection (Kozak, 2002; Kurtzman & Zauhar, 2005). Similarly, sport tourism has been identified as critical factor in many destination development strategies (Klenosky, 2002). In particular, sport tourism has been identified as an important strategy in rejuvenating tourism destinations (Agarwal, 2002).

Despite the importance of sport in contemporary society, sport tourism has only relatively recently emerged as an area of scholarly enquiry (Hinch & Higham, 2003). This is especially true for the area of sport tourism destinations (Getz, 2008). Previous literature on sport tourism destinations has covered a range of core areas (Higham, 2005). One such area was dedicated to understanding sport tourism experiences in destinations with studies predominantly focused on visitor satisfaction (Shonk & Chelladurai, 2008). Within this particular stream of research, studies on market segmentation suggested that the active sport tourism market is growing in prominence (Gibson, Attle, & Yiannakis, 1998; Tassiopoulos & Haydam, 2008). This body of work includes, though is not limited to, the understanding of the sport tourism experience at the destination level, with contemporary studies covering issues such as sport tourism authentication (Lamont, 2014).

Sport tourism destination planning and policy has received substantial attention in scholarly discourse (Flagestad & Hope, 2001). For instance, sport tourism planning was discussed by Hall (2004), who argued that it is critical for destinations to engage in appropriate policy and governance, if sport tourism is to serve as a mechanism for urban regeneration. Strategic destination partnerships are seen as critical for operationalizing sport tourism at different scales (Weed & Bull, 2012). Public and private sector partnerships are also considered essential to ensure the delivery of a high-quality visitor experience (Andersson & Getz, 2009; Dolničar, 2004). The bundling (Chalip & Mcguirty, 2004) and leveraging (Chalip, 2006; Chalip & Leyns, 2002) of sports events (and sports more broadly) to maximize tourism industry benefits has become an important aspect of destination planning.

Image making and marketing have also been identified as essential for sport tourism destinations (Funk & Bruun, 2007). Specifically, research has considered the role of marketing, media and place promotion in the formation of destination image (Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007). There is a need, however, to link destination image more strongly to the concept of place in terms of sport’s role in infusing destinations with meaning (Gammon, 2015; Higham & Hinch, 2009). Of course, different sport tourism contexts have been the subject of scholarly discourse, with examples of sports in winter and summer destinations prevalent in extant literature (Hallmann, Zehrer, & Müller, 2013). Urban areas have also been the focus of much research on sport tourism destinations with host community perceptions towards events receiving substantial attention (Hritz & Ross, 2010). Given the different spatial scales of sport tourism destinations, the resources required at this level to support sport tourism in different spatial locations and at geographic scales have also come under considerable debate (Weed & Bull, 2012). Scholars have recognized that a different set of material, social and physical resources and infrastructure is required in different scales of sport tourism destinations.

Although an appropriate context to validate existing theories from multiple disciplinary contexts, questions have been raised about the propensity of the sport tourism field to generate new theory (Gibson, 1998). In addition, sport tourism has been criticized for being quite descriptive, at times atheoretical and lacking a core disciplinary grounding (Chalip & Costa, 2005). However, Weed (2005) argues that sport tourism research, especially at the destination level is underpinned by various epistemological standpoints, consisting of a range of theories and methodologies that are constantly evolving. As such, this special issue positions sport tourism as a field of research, within which multiple disciplines can address issues critical for the sustainability of the planet (Weed, 2006).

Consequently, it is somewhat surprising that one area of research on sport tourism destinations that has received scant attention in academic literature is the area of sustainability, especially across different geographic scales. Sustainability is critical for the success of sport tourism destinations (Higham, 2005) although there is considerable debate as to whether sustainability is achievable or rhetoric (Moyle et al., 2014). As such, sustainability has been recently redefined from the traditional triple bottom line approach to consider a broader range of issues, such as politics and technology (Cohen, Higham, Gössling, & Peeters, 2014). Notwithstanding this increasing interest towards broad-based sustainability, economic studies continue to dominate the literature (Gratton et al., 2005; Ponting & O'Brien, 2014; Weed et al., 2014).

What we don’t know

Many questions relating to the sustainability of sport tourism destinations remain to be addressed by the academic community. For sport tourism destinations, research has tended to focus on the impact of major events, particularly those relating to economic impacts, social impacts and destination image. Research into the wider role of sports tourism in destination development strategies has been more limited (Gibson, Willming, & Holdnak, 2002). It remains unclear, for example, whether a portfolio of smaller sport tourism events in a range of seasonal contexts may serve the interests of destinations more so than a mega sports event hosting strategy (Gratton et al., 2005). Similarly, the harnessing of active sport tourism products may provide a greater return for destinations than investment in one-off major events. The extent to which destinations of different sizes might benefit from developing single or multi-product sports has not been thoroughly addressed by researchers nor has its implications for sustainability. How such strategies may interface with the development of public sports resources, and tourism destination products has not been critically addressed. The development of Mediterranean golf resorts, which can irreversibly transform the environmental and cultural character of distinctive and historic coastal landscapes, is a case in point. In fact, it is not entirely clear how destinations should decide how or why they should develop a sport tourism strategy at all.

Those destinations that do implement sport tourism development strategies have further pause for thought relating to the various framings and dimensions of sustainability touched upon above. In terms of infrastructure and investment, critical consideration of civic investments in facilities to host sports will continue to be important (Scherer & Sam, 2008). Such considerations should extend to sport and destination lifecycles. All sports are subject to evolving lifecycles (Hinch & Higham, 2011), which need to be understood and accommodated in the development of tourism strategies for destinations. Indeed these lifecycles, which have in the past been driven largely by social forces, are now subject to the factors of global environmental change (Higham & Hinch, 2009). The links between climate change, sport and tourism destinations merits further attention from the research community. Local and regional manifestations of global environmental change include changing abundance and availability of natural resources for sports, shifting seasonal weather patterns and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (Gössling, 2002; Gössling & Hall, 2005). The implications of the availability of snow for the sustainability of winter destinations are already being felt (Hopkins, Higham, & Becken, 2012). Challenging questions arise relating to climate, sport and sustainability strategies at tourism destinations. These will include manifestations of, and responses to, changing climatic regimes. More fundamentally, while some progress has been made in response to Gibson’s (2006) lament about the lack of theoretical underpinnings in sport tourism research, there remains considerable room for advances in this area.

What we need to know

Clearly, there is much work that needs to done in order to meet the gaps in the literature on sustainable sport tourism destinations. A partial list of research needs includes studies that address: (1) differing scales both in terms of activity and destination, (2) single versus multi-sport destinations, (3) sport destination resources and civic investment, (4) the interplay of sport and destination lifecycles, (5) sport tourism’s contribution to and impacts of climate change and (6) more explicit theorizing.

The papers presented in this special issue reflect significant progress in these areas of need. Table 1 summarizes key characteristics of each paper with an emphasis on the contributions they make to our understandings of sustainability in sport tourism destinations. At an aggregate level, these contributions are found in the division of this double issue of the Journal of Sport & Tourism into papers that focus on local destinations versus those that have a wider macro-regional focus. National and global scales of destination require further attention.

Table 1. Contributions and implications for sustainable sport tourism destinations.

Title	Authors	Context	Theory/concepts	Contribution	Implications for destination sustainability
Local scale
The role of travel conditions in active sport tourism: the case of the event cyclist	Buning, Gibson	Cycle tourism	Active Sport Event Travel Career	Travel conditions surrounding a trip were found to be more important than the comparative advantage and characteristics of an event	Sport tourism destinations need to target participants most likely to engage in sustainable behaviour while in the destination. This includes developing event portfolios geared towards sustainable event practices
Surf localism in Costa Rica: exploring territoriality among Costa Rican and foreign resident surfers	Usher, Gomez	Surf tourism	Territoriality and localism	The social sustainability of sport tourism destinations is impacted by the participant groups’ sense of territoriality. While crowding is a major source of conflict it is also clear that different versions of localism exist amongst indigenous local surfers, long-term migrant surfers and short-term visitor surfers	Sport tourism destinations need to manage potential sources of conflict to ensure surf tourism is socially sustainable
Local identities in a global game: the social production of football space in Liverpool	Evans, Norcliffe	Football/Soccer	Production of space, local identity and globalization. Lefebrvian theory	The contestation of football space by locals is an attempt to control the production of space and assert that the global game can have a Liverpool-specific inflection	Sport tourism destinations should consider leveraging the contests embedded within the local context to harness global potential
Factors effecting destination and event loyalty: examining the sustainability of a recurrent small-scale running event at Banff National Park	Halpenny, Kulczycki, Moghimehfar	Running in National Parks	Destination and event loyalty, Place attachment	Event attachment was shown to be an antecedent to place attachment at the local level	Sports tourism destinations should harness small-scale sport events to build attachment to places and to encourage future visits
Regional scale
Leveraging sport heritage to promote tourism destinations: the case of the Tour of Flanders Cyclo event	Derom, Ramshaw	Cycling tourism	Event leverage, heritage sport tourism	The study contributes to the conceptual framing of event leverage by identifying active sport heritage as an important resource	Sports tourism destinations should leverage heritage as a mechanism to reduce the seasonality and enhance sustainability, particularly across the triple bottom line
Serious about leisure, serious about destinations: mountain bikers and destination attractiveness	Moularde, Weaver	Mountain biking	Serious Leisure	Destination characteristics facilitate the pursuit of serious leisure and, in turn, destination image is shaped by the capacity of destinations to strengthen the commitment of serious leisure participants	Sports tourism destinations need to consider the role of image in shaping sustainability, specifically by demonstrating a commitment towards serious leisure participants
Sports tourism development and destination sustainability: the case of the coastal area of the Aveiro region, Portugal	Breda, Catarina, Cordeiro	Managers of small- to medium-sized operations in Aveuri region of Portugal	Triple bottom line approach with the addition of technological and political dimensions	Confirmation of the complex and multifaceted character of sustainability through the identification of additional dimensions in a sport tourism context	Sport tourism destinations should harness collaborative partnerships to build strong potential to foster social cohesion and build capacity to increase sustainable practices
Motivations of active sport tourists in a German highland destination – a cross-seasonal comparison	Hodeck, Hovmann	Active sport tourists	Destination choice, segmentation, seasonality, climate change	Identified seasonal differences in active sport tourists to different regions in the German highlands using a market segmentation approach	Sport tourism destinations should market with sustainability in mind in order to promote to desired market segments

As reported, much of the existing literature in this area examines the sustainability of major sporting events so this issue intentionally focuses on smaller scale events (e.g. Buning & Gibson) and activities (Derom & Ramshaw). Two of the eight papers (Breda, Catarina, & Cordeiro; Hodeck & Hovermann) address multi-sport destinations while the balance examine destinations from a single sport perspective. Several papers focus on sport tourism destinations that draw on public resources such as national parks (Halpenny, Kulczycki, & Moghimehfar), marine environments (Usher & Gomez), heritage landscapes (Derom & Ramshaw) and an assortment of other natural and cultural resources found in the public domain.

While none of the papers explicitly examines the nature of destination and sport lifecycles, several emerging sports such as surfing (Usher & Gomez) and mountain biking (Moularde & Weaver) are highlighted, as are traditional sports such as football/soccer (Evans & Norcliffe). Seasonality is addressed directly in Hodeck and Hovermann’s paper although climate change only receives passing reference. Finally, the majority of the papers draw on strong theoretical foundations with examples including theories related to active sport event careers (Buning & Gibson), territoriality and localism (Usher & Gomez) and Lefebvre’s ideas on the production of space and identity (Evans & Norcliff). Finally, while this issue provides important new insights into sport tourism destinations, the authors consistently ended their papers with detailed calls for further research.

Acknowledgements

The guest editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the anonymous reviewers who contributed their expertise to the peer review processes underpinning this special issue.

Notes

1. By comparison, the circumference of the earth is 40,075 km.