Tourism destination competitiveness with a particular focus on sport: the current state and a glance into the future – a systematic literature analysis

ABSTRACT

This literature review focuses on tourism destination competitiveness in the field of sport (TDC sport) or, more specifically, on mapping literature dealing with factors influencing and measuring TDC sport. Existing literature has mainly focused on factors influencing tourism destination competitiveness (TDC) and on measuring TDC in general, paying no attention to two factors: First, there is an emerging line of research and theory building that bridges the fields of leisure, sport, and tourism; and second, when tourism and sport are concerned, generic models in their original form may not be specific enough and some of their dimensions and elements may not be suitable. Thus, this systematic literature analysis (a) focused on TDC in the context of sport, taking into account that sport has unique characteristics, (b) reviewed the current state of empirical research by framing a conceptual model of factors influencing TDC in a sport context, and (c) revealed gaps for future research. Results showed that no single universal set of indicators is applicable to all destinations and issues at all times. Furthermore, approaches in the existing literature have suggested that sport contributes to the construction of a country's brand and provides a unique advantage. Moreover, the analysis highlighted sport-specific factors and addressed the debates about ‘soft’ factors and the notion of a destination as ‘the’ place to be.

KEYWORDS:

• Tourism destination competitiveness
• sport tourism
• factors of competitiveness
• literature analysis
• sport-specific factors

Introduction

This literature review focuses on tourism destination competitiveness in the field of sport (hereinafter referred to as TDC sport), i.e. in a sports management/sports tourism context. Thus, the question arises as to whether TDC sport differs from tourism destination competitiveness (hereinafter referred to as TDC) in a more general management/tourism context (Funk, 2017). Studying TDC in the very particular context of sport is justified for several reasons. First, it follows the call for more research on sports tourism, which is based on the fact that this is one of the fastest-growing segments of the travel and tourism industry (Hritz & Ross, 2010). Second, sport now ranks among the most sought-after leisure experiences in developed countries (Eurostat, 2019); and third, sport displays distinct and special features that turn it into a unique business institution (Hess, Nicholson, Stewart, & De Moore, 2008; Mangan & Nauright, 2000; Smith & Stewart, 2010).

One approach to defining TDC sport is to break it down into its constituent parts – competitiveness, tourism, destinations, and sport. The term ‘competitiveness’ refers to ‘how nations and enterprises manage the totality of their competencies to achieve prosperity or profit’ (Bris & Caballero, 2015). Tourism is an important generator of economic growth (WTTC, 2017); thus, the competitiveness between tourism destinations has substantially increased. Correspondingly, TDC has been assigned numerous definitions – e.g. as a place's ability to optimize its attractiveness for residents and non-residents, to deliver high-quality, innovative, and attractive (in terms of good value for money) tourism services to consumers, and to gain market shares in domestic and global marketplaces, while ensuring that the available resources supporting tourism are used efficiently and sustainably (Dupeyras & MacCallum, 2013). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, sport is not another generic business enterprise that is subject to the usual government regulations, market pressures, and customer demands (Gammelsæter, 2020). Therefore, the unique characteristics of sport form the basis for TDC sport. In its specific context, TDC sport is defined as a place's ability to optimize its attractiveness for residents and non-residents, to deliver high-quality, innovative, and attractive sports tourism services and to gain market shares in domestic and global marketplaces, while ensuring that the available resources supporting tourism are used efficiently and sustainably; furthermore, the peculiarities of sports tourism are taken into consideration (in accordance with Dupeyras & MacCallum, 2013; Flagestad & Hope, 2001; Gammelsæter, 2020).

All research efforts have faced the same problem: The disagreement over the most effective and rigorous way of measuring destination competitiveness and its factors, stemming from the absence of a widely accepted and clear definition of TDC (Novais, Ruhanen, & Arcodia, 2018). Multiple approaches have been employed and resulted in different and often conflicting answers to the three essential questions: What is measured? How is it measured? Who measures it? (Novais, Ruhanen, & Arcodia, 2015). Previous research has provided an overview of factors influencing TDC in general (e.g. Crouch, 2011; Romão & Nijkamp, 2019), but also considered defined perspectives more closely (e.g. Azzopardi & Nash, 2016; Chin, Thian, & Lo, 2017; Chin, Haddock-Fraser, & Hampton, 2017). However, it has not specifically explored the factors affecting TDC sport.

Hence, this literature review focuses on TDC sport. More specifically, it provides a systematic literature analysis, which takes a structured, replicable, and transparent approach (David & Han, 2004), while summarizing and categorizing existing knowledge (Fisch & Block, 2018). This review aims (a) to map the current state of empirical research on the factors influencing TDC sport and (b) to identify gaps in literature requiring future research.

Tourism destination competitiveness (TDC) in the context of sport

Competitiveness originates from the Latin word ‘competer’, which means ‘involvement in business rivalry for markets’ (Bhawsar & Chattopadhyay, 2015, p. 7). Academically, the roots of competitiveness studies lie in the international economic theories of Adam Smith and his followers (Bhawsar & Chattopadhyay, 2015). Competitiveness frameworks – such as those of Dunning (1993) or D’Cruz and Rugman (1993), to name just a few – have become a paradigm for competitiveness analysis and have been used for empirical research in many fields during the recent decades (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Rao, 2000; Enright & Newton, 2004; Guan, Yam, Mok, & Ma, 2006; Solleiro & Castañón, 2005; Zanakis & Becerra-Fernandez, 2005).

When we break competitiveness further down to TDC, it is defined as a destination's ability (a) to deliver products and services that perform better than those of other destinations and are superior in satisfying visitor needs (Dwyer & Kim, 2003), (b) to offer a high-quality tourism experience (Murphy, Pritchard, & Smith, 2000) with the destination product (Pavlović, Avlijaš, & Stanić, 2016), (c) to maintain the high productivity of tourism companies (Barros & Alves, 2004), and (d) to ensure that these companies arouse tourists’ interest and their demand for various types of destination products (Popesku & Pavlović, 2013). Being viewed as competitive by tourists is crucial for the success of a tourism destination (Dwyer & Kim, 2003; Mazanec, Wöber, & Zins, 2007).

Measuring the competitiveness of destinations has become a dominant theme in tourism research. Various sub-areas have emerged as studies have followed different purposes, such as improving TDC (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Dwyer & Kim, 2003), measuring TDC at a national and regional level (Dwyer, Dragićević, Armenski, Mihalič, & Knežević Cvelbar, 2016; Dwyer, Mellor, Livaic, Edwards, & Kim, 2004; Enright & Newton, 2004; Gomezelj & Mihalič, 2008), explaining the relative importance of the various attributes of TDC (Bornhorst, Ritchie, & Sheehan, 2010; Caber, Albayrak, & Matzler, 2012; Crouch, 2011; Dwyer, Cvelbar, Edwards, & Mihalic, 2012; Enright & Newton, 2005; Fallon & Schofield, 2006), and analyzing TDC in the context of sports tourism (Pechlaner, Herntrei, Pichler, & Volgger, 2012).

Peculiarities of sport and TDC

According to Funk (2017), there is a lack of studies replicated from other disciplines and extended to fit a sports context. Consequently, the question arises as to whether TDC in a specific sports management/sports tourism context differs from TDC in a general management/tourism context.

Sport has an ambiguous history when viewed from a management perspective. As Stewart and Smith (1999) as well as Smith and Stewart (2010) noted, there are traditionally two contrasting philosophical approaches to the management of sport: One stream sees sport as a unique cultural institution with a host of special features, wherein the reflexive application of standard business practices will not only produce poor management decision making, but also erode the rich history, emotional connections, and social relevance of sport. The other stream views sport as nothing more than just another generic business enterprise that is subject to the usual government regulations, market pressures, and customers’ demands and is therefore best managed by applying standard business tools that assist the planning, financing, human resource management, and marketing functions. Over time, these divisions have been blurred due to the corporatisation of sport and through the emergence of sports management as an academic discipline.

In fact, there are distinct and special features that make sport a unique business institution (Hess et al., 2008; Mangan & Nauright, 2000; Slack, 2003; Smith & Stewart, 2010): the intrinsic characteristics of sports products (linked to the uncertainty of outcomes); the fluctuations in supply and demand (resulting from changing sports trends); the intangibility and inconsistent nature of sport; the reliance on product and service extensions; sports customers’ increasing knowledge; and the manner in which sport is consumed in the presence of others (Shilbury, Westerbeek, Quick, Funk, & Karg, 2014). All these findings confirm that sport has unique characteristics, underlining that sports management and sports tourism are unique and differ from other business sectors (e.g. Gammelsæter, 2020; Szymanski, 2009).

TDC sport and factors influencing TDC sport

On the one hand, it should be noted that not all factors that influence the competitiveness of a destination in terms of sport are specific to sport. Literature has shown that general factors, such as financial burden and bureaucracy, transportation connection, and political framework (Happ, Schnitzer, & Peters, 2020) as well as the cost of starting up a business, the extent of taxation and administration costs, plus legal certainty at a destination (Ketokivi, Turkulainen, Seppälä, Rouvinen, & Ali-Yrkkö, 2017) are very important when making location decisions. That is in accordance with Dwyer et al. (2016), who stated that an important driver of destination competitiveness is the quality of the general infrastructure. In terms of the quality of general infrastructure, costs as well as burden and bureaucracy, sports businesses do not differ from other businesses in their choice of location (Happ, 2020).

On the other hand, scholarly literature has neglected various points in relation to TDC sport: identifying new competitiveness factors and indicators that are specific to particular countries and situations (Crouch, 2007, 2008; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Dwyer et al., 2004; Gooroochurn & Sugiyarto, 2005); examining competitiveness and foreign location choices that go beyond multiple disciplinary boundaries (Kim & Aguilera, 2016); and boosting the frequently underrepresented position of TDC sport and sport tourism (Higham & Hinch, 2009). It should be highlighted that there are indeed factors specific to sport (Happ, 2020; Happ et al., 2020). Happ et al. (2020), for example, found that there are sport-specific critical soft factors influencing location decisions of companies in the sports manufacturing industry, such as the image of the location in terms of sport, quality of life in terms of sport, and work attitude and population, also in terms of sport. In the context of this literature review, soft factors are defined as non-structural organizational characteristics, such as shared values and employees’ behaviour (Homburg, Fassnacht, & Güenther, 2003).

Researchers have attempted to find answers to the question of ‘What factors influence TDC and how can it be measure?’ (Goffi & Cucculelli, 2019), while underscoring the point that TDC cannot be understood or measured by a few determinants; in addition, several research approaches have proposed potential factors that can influence competitiveness. Reisinger, Michael, and Hayes (2019) grouped various determinants of destination competitiveness into three different categories: (a) inherited and capitalizable determinants (e.g. natural environment, culture and history, location and market ties, landscape, climate, fauna and flora, food, traditions, music and events, hospitality of locals, and human and capital resources); (b) created and manageable determinants (e.g. activities, special events, entertainment, shopping, hotels, restaurants, general infrastructure, security and safety as well as facilitating resources, such as visas and education, destination management, and marketing); and (c) external and adaptable determinants (e.g. macro or global environment including political, economic, demographic, technological, natural, and cultural factors).

The aim of this literature review is: to map the current state of empirical research on the factors influencing TDC sport.

The knowledge from literature has shown that there are general factors (e.g. general infrastructure factors) and specific factors (e.g. in the area of sport) that shape the competitiveness of a destination. This led us to addressing the research question of this literature review in a complex way, i.e. by including sport-specific TDC literature and general TDC literature in terms of influencing factors of competitiveness.

Methods

This paper provides a systematic literature analysis that follows a structured, replicable, and transparent approach (David & Han, 2004), summarizing and categorizing existing knowledge in terms of TDC sport (Fisch & Block, 2018). It includes articles working with various methodologies, i.e. quantitative, qualitative, mixed, and conceptual approaches (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). Using a systematic procedure, we applied transparent and rigorous search criteria. Thus, it was possible to provide an in-depth overview of the existing research and the concepts relating to TDC sport. Moreover, this literature review required a process-oriented procedure (David & Han, 2004; Fisch & Block, 2018) and hence was based on four phases, which are explained in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flowchart of systematic literature review and article selection. *TDC sport & factors: focus of this systematic literature review.

As shown in Figure 1, this literature research underwent four phases: The definition of a search frame (Phase 1) and the definition of search terms (Phase 2), which was followed by the selection of relevant articles (Phase 3) and their analysis (Phase 4). The procedures for Phases 1 and 2 are mapped in the flowchart, whereas Phases 3 and 4 demand a more detailed explanation.

Within Phase 3 – the selection of relevant articles – the derived sample of 269 articles was doublechecked for relevance by reading title, abstract, and keywords. Articles with a missing scope (Newbert, 2007) and articles that determined that TDC and TDC sport were not their key themes were neglected. In total, 151 articles were excluded. The remaining 118 articles were downloaded, fully screened, and reassessed for fit, resulting in the final sample of n = 112. Appendix 1 consists of an overview including author, title, year, and journal of the included articles.

For the further analysis, the articles were grouped into three main topics as suggested in the literature (Goffi & Cucculelli, 2019; Jin & Weber, 2016; Novais et al., 2015):

1. TDC sport & different perspectives (sports events, sports stakeholders) (n = 37);

2. TDC sport measurements & models (measurements & models, comparison & models) (n = 36);

3. TDC sport & factors (overall, sport/sports tourism perspective, athletes’/tourists’ choice of destination) (n = 42 reduced to n = 39 after detailed analysis).

Due to the extensive scope of the topics TDC and TDC sport, (1) TDC sport & different perspectives and (2) TDC sport measurements & models were not further investigated. Considering the aforementioned research gaps, the focus of this review was on (3) TDC sport & factors and hence on the question ‘What factors influence and measure TDC sport?’ to map the current state of empirical research (n = 42).

Within Phase 4 – the analysis of relevant articles – 42 articles were fully screened and reassessed for fit, resulting in the final sample of n = 41. The final 41 articles were analysed based on an open-coding approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) in MaxQDA. All articles were grouped into three large thematic approaches within the topic TDC sport & factors: overall; sport/sports tourism perspective; and athletes’/tourists’ choice of destination. Including literature reviews (see Appendix 2), a total of 13 codes were assigned; each article was screened completely, and individual text passages were assigned to the codes. Appendix 2 provides a table containing information about the author(s), year, method, subject, context, issue, overall outcome, outcome factors, title, and journal.

Key themes in the literature reviewed: TDC sport & factors

A sample of n = 41 studies in the field of TDC sport & factors were analysed: The majority (59%; n = 24) of them used a quantitative study design, 10% (n = 4) applied a mixed approach, 18% (n = 8) were based on a qualitative study design, and 13% (n = 5) applied a conceptual design.

The results showed that no single universal set of indicators is applicable to all destinations and issues at all times. However, approaches in the existing literature have suggested that sport contributes to the creation of a country's brand and provides a unique advantage. The literature's understanding that there are general factors (e.g. general infrastructure: Dwyer et al., 2016) and specific factors (e.g. in the area of sport: Happ et al., 2020) that determine the competitiveness of a destination led us to answer the research question of this literature review in a complex way. Firstly, general literature on factors influencing TDC was used for the first group (TDC sport & factors: overall) to provide a comprehensive overview of the factors affecting TDC in general and TDC sport in particular. Secondly, two specific categories were created (TDC sport & factors: sport/sports tourism perspective and TDC sport & factors: athletes’/tourists’ choice of destination), into which the sport-specific literature was placed.

In an attempt to map previous research results, Tables 1–3 were created to show the highlights of the factors influencing TDC sport. The exact references that provide the basis for these tables are shown in Appendices 3–5.

Table 1. Highlights of outcome factors of TDC sport: overall.

#		Source	Highlight outcome factors
1	FACTORS of TDC sport: OVERALL	According to Porter's Diamond (1990)	Increased health consciousness; aging society; new medical technology; changed leisure behaviour; income; changed travel behaviour; new non-medical technology; population growth; new tourism markets were most important.
2		According to Crouch and Ritchie (1999) → based on Porter's Diamond (1990)	Core resources and attractors; destination management; qualifying and amplifying determinants; destination policy, planning and development; supporting factors and resources.
3		According to Kim and Wicks (2010) → based on Porter's Diamond (1990) and Crouch and Ritchie (1999)	This revised model is based on Porter's diamond model (1990) and includes many of the variables identified by Crouch and Ritchie (1999), but there are three additions: the importance of transnational corporations; the emphasis on networks between all cluster actors; and the division between cluster actors and conditions of the business sector.
4		According to Dwyer and Kim (2003)	Sustainable tourism policy and destination management; general infrastructure; events and activities; responsible tourist behaviour; local empowerment in the tourism sector; destination marketing; quality of environmental and natural resources; gastronomy; historical and artistic features; visitor satisfaction management, tourist accommodation; emphasis on maximizing local economic development; coastal/hinterland municipalities.
5		According to the Tourism and Travel Competitiveness Index (TTCI)	General business environment; safety and security; health and hygiene; human resources and training; travel and tourism education; information and communication technology; infrastructure in travel and tourism; prioritization of travel and tourism; international openness to tourism; starting a travel and tourism business; labour market efficiency; price competitiveness; environmental sustainability; air transport infrastructure; ground and seaport infrastructure; tourist infrastructure and services; natural resources; cultural resources; sophistication of tourism and travel business; tourism research and innovation; affinity for travel; tourism business.
6		Others	Accommodation, environment, leisure, global evaluation, community knowledge; community support; economic impact; environmental impact; competitive advantage; socio-cultural impact; stakeholder involvement; climate change; risk management; innovation/product development; marketing; education in tourism/hospitality; sustainable development; easy access to the destination; high quality of services; overall favourable image; alliance with intermediates in the tourism sector, physical capital, human capital; contextual variables: productivity, innovation, specialization in tourism.

Table 2. Highlights of outcome factors of TDC sport: sports events/sports tourism perspective.

#		Source	Highlight outcome factors
1	FACTORS of TDC sport: PERSPECTIVE SPORTS EVENTS/SPORTS TOURISM PERSPECTIVE	Winter tourism	Standard; quality of accommodation; quality of staff; cleanliness; general info; flow info; internet; hotel staff; ski staff; booking of accommodation; tourist; crisis; safety; values; vision; destination management; cognitive image measures (quality of skiing, quality of community); affective image measures (fun and comfortable atmosphere in terms of sport, crowding, classy atmosphere, image domain in terms of sport, sufficient snow coverage). Additional factors according to Ritchie and Crouch (2003): core resources and attractors; destination management; qualifying and amplifying determinants; destination policy, planning and development; supporting factors and resources.
2		Summer tourism	See matrix in Sallent, Palau, and Guia (2011) or case study setting in Kennelly and Toohey (2014).
3		Others	Approaches used in sports markets; emergent trends; key considerations in pursuing sports markets. 16-item questionnaire investigating the three tourism areas of social, environmental, and economic impacts as well as support for tourism development (adapted from Liu, Sheldon, & Var, 1987 and Akis, Peristianis, & Warner, 1996).

Table 3. Highlights of outcome factors of TDC sport: athletes’/tourists’ choice of destination.

#		Source	Highlight outcome factors
1	FACTORS OF TDC SPORT: ATHLETES’/TOURISTS’ CHOICE OF DESTINATION	Athletes	Trip price; nightlife; typical group tours; unguided tours; destination location; shopping; entertainment; reasons for doing sport; clothing/equipment; dedication; health management; competitiveness; post-competition goals
2		Active sports tourists	Attractiveness of sports destination, new sport experience every time, beautiful scenery, perceived difficulty of activity; perceived effort; perceived importance; potential for self-realization; hedonic enjoyment; self-expressiveness; personal happiness; hiking; beer; eating and drinking; camping; sightseeing; kayaking; fishing; socializing; swimming; culture; climbing; running; rafting; boating; photography; the profile of participants, and their motivations for competing; the number and types of competitive events in which they participated; the involvement levels of participants measured on a purpose-built scale; the preferences of respondents for future events and event destination characteristics; route quality; natural tourism resources; route comprehensiveness; man-made tourism resources; provision of lodging service; provision of catering service; information services; safety and security systems. Furthermore, grounded theory settings can build the basis for factors (see Humphreys & Weed, 2014).

Results on factors of TDC sport: overall

Previous research has provided valuable insights into the overall factors influencing TDC and TDC sport. A total of 16 studies based on different TDC models were investigated to map the overall factors. Table 1 shows a summary of the results (for more details refer to Appendix 3).

Results on factors of TDC sport: perspective sports tourism & sports events

Research in this area allowed important insights into factors influencing TDC sport from a sports tourism and sports event point of view. In total, 13 studies were analysed; they can be assigned to winter tourism, summer tourism, and other studies, as depicted in Table 2 (for more details refer to Appendix 4).

Results on factors of TDC sport: athletes’/tourists’ choice of destination

Table 3 provides valuable insights into the factors influencing destination selection from a visitor's point of view. Here, one has to differentiate between athletes and active sports tourists: Their choice of destination and thus their perceived TDC sport is affected by factors they both have in common and by factors that are distinctive for certain groups. Five studies on runners, bikers, and golfers have found various factors influencing active sports tourists in their selection of a destination. Two studies have shown factors affecting athletes (endurance athletes and marathon runners) in choosing their desired surrounding field (for more details refer to Appendix 5).

Discussion

Unlike competitiveness in other industries, destination competitiveness and TDC do not refer to a single, well-defined product or service but to an overall experience (Murphy et al., 2000). This ‘total experience’ (Dwyer et al., 2004) is produced by a variety of destination stakeholders, who contribute to the visitor experience, including tourism enterprises, residents, other supporting industries, destination management organisations (DMOs), and the public sector (Crouch, 2011). This ‘fuzzy’ notion of the destination further complicates the unit of analysis and thus the measurement of destination competitiveness (Claver-Cortés, Molina-Azorín, Pereira-Moliner, & López-Gamero, 2007). Breaking down TDC to TDC sport does not necessarily unravel the complexity. The discussion is an ongoing topic in tourism and sports tourism research, and the call for more research in this area has been aiming for more and deeper insights.

This systematic research-based analysis shows the importance of what Morgan, Pritchard, and Pride (2011) described as ‘soft’, less tangible factors. With these ‘soft’ factors a destination can differentiate itself from others and solidify its brand image, whereas ‘hard’, more tangible factors – such as infrastructure, accessibility, quality of facility, price and cross price elasticity, sporting services, restaurants, social life, and financial incentives – are clearly important in attracting sports groups (Komppula & Laukkanen, 2016; Morgan et al., 2011). The findings of Pouder, Clark, and Fenich (2018) confirmed that also more nuanced factors play a key role to that end. Notable in this regard are destinations that are recognized as good host communities for offering exceptional services, which are provided by DMO staff or trained volunteers. These destinations enjoy a branded reputation of being ‘the’ place to go for a particular sport (Pouder et al., 2018; Happ, 2020; Happ et al., 2020). As Morgan et al. (2011) noted, place reputation has become the key to competitiveness. Hence, ‘soft’ factors are crucial and part of the framework for TDC and TDC sport, and they should be taken seriously – even if a destination cannot specify them well enough (Happ, 2020; Happ et al., 2020).

The findings have shown that TDC sport is affected by the overall factors influencing TDC – e.g. accessibility (Lee & Huang, 2014) and price (Komppula & Laukkanen, 2016) – but also by sport-specific factors, such as a fun, comfortable atmosphere and the image domain in terms of sport (skiing) as well as a classy atmosphere (Kim & Perdue, 2011), the attractiveness of a sport destination, sport route quality, and natural tourism resources (Lee & Huang, 2014), the possibility to have a new sport experience every time (Getz & McConnell, 2011), and the natural ecology and beautiful scenery (Lee & Huang, 2014). A topic that is currently very present in media and science is climate change. Accordingly, the factor of sufficient snow coverage as a key attribute when dealing with competitiveness in Alpine winter sports destinations has been discussed (Bausch & Unseld, 2018). In other words, there are specific factors influencing TDC sport, and these factors need to be considered when talking about TDC sport and the competitiveness of destinations.

Moreover, the findings highlighted that the models and measurements used to frame TDC sport (e.g. Hallmann, Müller, & Feiler, 2014; Zehrer, Smeral, & Hallmann, 2017) were mainly based on Ritchie and Crouch (2003) and Porter (1990). Regarding competitiveness of winter sports destinations, subjective performance measures have been added to previous research (Andrades-Caldito, Sánchez-Rivero, & Pulido-Fernández, 2014), mostly either from a demand or supply side (e.g. Crouch, 2011; Enright & Newton, 2004; Hallmann et al., 2014; Hudson, Ritchie, & Timur, 2004; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). Accordingly, Hallmann et al. (2014) amended special indicators to the model of Ritchie and Crouch (2003), capturing the characteristics of winter sports tourism (e.g. price for a lift ticket referring to value for money as in Gomezelj & Mihalič, 2008 or snow conditions as in Bausch & Unseld, 2018). All indicators fitted consequently into the categories of the model's five dimensions. Yet, not all factors proposed by Ritchie and Crouch’s (2003) dimension were investigated in the context of winter sports tourists (e.g. political will was excluded) (Hallmann et al., 2014). It has become obvious that diverse models build the base for TDC sport research, but they need to be extended and adapted to the specific case; moreover, there are still lacks in know-how.

In contrast to the aforementioned models based on the demand and supply point of view, studies from a tourists’ point of view have applied different models and approaches. Looking more deeply into the phenomenon of active sports tourists, Gibson (2002), Weed (2006), and Humphreys and Weed (2014) based their research on the development of grounded theory, both methodically and theoretically, and called for further research. One can summarize that there is not only one model measuring TDC sport and its neighbouring fields; for each situation and destination different approaches build the base for research, and that is what makes this field of research complex and exciting at the same time.

The findings emphasized the great potential of sports tourism and TDC sport. Sport and tourism have grown significantly to become important economic (Gaffney, 2010; Smith, 2014; Tichaawa & Swart, 2010) and social activities (Hall, O’Mahony, & Gayler, 2017). Sport and tourism are now among developed countries’ most sought-after leisure experiences. They are highly valued and prestigious due to the fact that tourism is a trillion-dollar industry and sport is a multi-billion-dollar industry with both having become a dominant force in the lives of millions of people globally (Kurtzman, 2005). Research on TDC sport has predominantly discussed winter tourism with a focus on different types of winter sports and snow-based activities in related resorts. However, there is a lack of research on winter tourism as a general phenomenon (Pouder et al., 2018). Winter tourists belong to a higher income group than summer guests (Alpine Convention, 2013). The typical winter tourist is sport- and fun-oriented and younger than other tourists, and mostly, the winter sport vacation is the second or third vacation of the year (Alpine Convention, 2013). Furthermore, winter tourists are less influenced by economic fluctuations than summer tourists (Zehrer et al., 2017). These facts inevitably led to a discussion about the factors affecting summer and winter tourists and the differences arising between the two target groups: Is it one and the same person who has different travel habits in summer, or is there a difference between summer sports tourists and winter sports tourists visiting the same region? Which factors influence the TDC sport of the respective target groups in winter and summer?

In addition, the findings highlighted that sports tourism consumers (active sports tourists or athletes) follow Maslow's hierarchy (Maslow, 1970): Their basic needs (in particular physiological needs) are fulfilled, and individuals are striving for self-actualization during their vacations (Hallmann et al., 2014). The consumer expects fun, a range of options, and unique experiences (e.g. Preglau, 2001). Nevertheless, we have to distinguish between two types of sports tourism consumers – athletes and active tourists – and consequently between their respective competitiveness factors for TDC sport (for athletes see Aicher & Newland, 2018; Newland & Aicher, 2018; for active tourists see Jun et al., 2017; Zehrer et al., 2017). For example, the quality of the sports experience and sports entertainment were important for active sports tourists (Aicher & Newland, 2018); by contrast, athletes minded the reputation and prestige of the event, having a new event experience every time, and playing to the limit (Getz & McConnell, 2011; Recours, Souville, & Griffet, 2004). After all, there are differences, and this know-how can help managers to provide specific offers for each target group.

Conclusion, limitations, and future research

The constructs TDC and TDC sport are very complex, experts have even discussed about the definition. Above all, the influence of sport-specific factors affecting TDC is an important topic – especially given the economic power of the sports and tourism industry. In addition, the differences within the various sub-sectors in sport (e.g. athletes or active sports tourists; winter tourists or summer tourists; different perspectives of sports stakeholders; new sports trends) have to be considered and will provide research with new challenges. The findings of this literature review will enable a better understanding of which factors influence TDC sport and the surrounding framework and how. Additionally, this literature analysis revealed the valuable, but compared to TDC overall frequently underrepresented position of TDC sport and sports tourism (Higham & Hinch, 2009).

As any study, also this systematic literature analysis has some limitations. First, the assessment of the studies (e.g. the categorization of approaches and definition of search terms) was carried out by only one person. Second, no quality assessment of the investigated studies was included in this review. Third, the review did not include edited books. Nevertheless, this analysis allows relevant implications for the future.

Main areas of future research could be derived from the following topics: (a) the increasing importance of sports tourism (e.g. Hallmann et al., 2014); (b) factors influencing TDC and the attractiveness of destinations (e.g. Zehrer et al., 2017); (c) models framing this research (e.g. Ritchie & Crouch, 2003); and (d) the notion that sport is unique (Smith & Stewart, 2010). It is important that destinations more strongly reflect on factors affecting their competitiveness while considering their given unique selling proposition. Although more research on specific factors influencing TDC and TDC sport can lead to significantly increased competitiveness, there is general acceptance within the literature that destinations can improve competitiveness by understanding the influence of tangible and intangible destination attributes (Hudson et al., 2004). All in all, there is ample scope for destinations to act and develop.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).