ABSTRACT
Much of the existing literature covering sport tourist participation examines such behaviour though the development of various classificatory systems, for example Standeven and DeKnop's [2] and Gammon and Robinson's [3] typologies of sport tourism, or Hall's [4] and Gibson's [5] classification of sport tourism activity into active and passive forms. Thus, for example, the individual may be classified as undertaking sport tourism in either a competitive (hard definition) or recreational (soft definition) context. Such approaches do have their strengths, and are useful tools with which to describe and measure sport tourism behaviour. Such classifications or typologies do, however, tend to have a number of weaknesses. Firstly, it is rare for participants to fall into such ideal-types that are proposed by such typologies. The arguments has been made that 'the trouble with typologies is that people rarely fit them', [6] and that such typologies over-simplify human behaviour. Secondly, such approaches tend not to acknowledge the dynamic nature of such participation, instead presenting a static picture of involvement at a particular time. An example of this may be the sport tourist who experiences an activity for the first time as an incidental part of his or her trip, and enjoys the activity to the extent that it then becomes the primary focus of the visit. Finally, they demonstrate a tendency to examine the activity itself, rather than the meanings, norms and values of the individual undertaking the activity. Thus, as an example, there is little to differentiate the sport tourist who travels to watch an event for the very first time because they have been given a ticket, to the sport tourist who has devoted a considerable personal effort and commitment to the sport itself on a long-term basis. Jackson and Weed's [7] 'Sport Tourism Demand Continuum' goes some way to address some of the limitations of existing typologies, and to some extent reflects some of the points that will be made within this essay. There are also, however, inherent weaknesses within the continuum. One key weakness identified by Weed and Bull [8] is that the variety of behaviour patterns and motivations exhibited by different sport tourists undertaking the same activity renders such models at best over simplistic, especially given their argument that the sheer variety of sport tourist activity makes it a heterogeneous, rather than a homogenous phenomenon. Weed and Bull's Sport Tourism Participation Model [9] begins to address this issue, and focuses upon the meanings and values of the sport tourist experience for the participant, yet the need to categorize diverse behaviour seems to be still apparent within the sport tourism community. Gibson [10] acknowledges such over-emphasis on classifications of sport tourists, stating that 'I would urge that researchers need to move beyond profiling the active sport tourist into explanations of participation or non-participation. In doing this, we need to integrate concepts from the wider fields of leisure, tourism and sport studies.'
