Triple bottom line analysis of potential sport tourism impacts on local

communities a review
Stanislav Ivanov a and Maya Ivanova b
a

International University College, 3 Bulgaria str., 9300 Dobrich, Bulgaria, tel: +359

58 655612 email: stanislav.ivanov@vumk.eu

b

University of Economics Varna, 77 Kniaz Boris I str., 9002 Varna, Bulgaria,

email: maya.g.ivanova@gmail.com

Abstract
Sport tourism appears as a specialized type of tourism with growing popularity for
both participants and local residents. After examining several sides of existing
definitions, authors analyse sport tourism impacts on local community in the context
of the three bottom line perspective economic, social and environmental. The
benefits and costs for each of the dimensions are discussed and recommendations for
coping with problems are proposed. As a final issue in the paper are identified
determinants of sport tourism impacts and its importance for local society from
different aspects.

Key words: sport tourism, local development, sport events, economic impacts, social
impacts, environmental impacts

1. Introduction
Sport tourism has received a lot of attention recently by both academics and
practicians (Gibson, 1998; Hinch & Higham, 2011), due predominantly to its
perceived economic promises. Destinations use it as an additional value proposition in
destination marketing (Baumann, Matheson & Muroi, 2009; Devine & Devine, 2005;
Koc, 2005) in order to attract more tourists and prolong the main tourist season.

Sport tourism is usually defined as all forms of active and passive involvement in
sporting activity, participated in casually or in an organized way for non-commercial
or business/commercial reasons that necessitate travel away from home and work
locality (Standevan & Deknop, 1999: 12). Active involvement relates to the
participation in a sport event as a contestant. Passive involvement is observed when
the tourist visits the destination in order to participate in the event as a spectator. Both
participants and spectators generate revenues for local businesses, but the latter are
much more lucrative market because they normally highly outnumber the contestants.

Robinson & Gammon (2004) distinguish between hard and soft sport tourists. Authors
define a hard sport tourist as someone who specifically travels to and/or stays in
places outside their usual environment for either active or passive involvement in
competitive sport. In this case sport is their prime motivation for travel and would
encompass participation at sporting events e.g. the Olympic Games, Football World
Cup (p. 226). In this case the contest is the dominant determinant of the sport tourist.
A soft sport tourist is someone who specifically travels to and/or stays in places
outside their usual environment for primarily active recreational participation in a
chosen sport; for example skiing and cycling holidays (p. 226). Therefore, the
performed activity is the determinant of the soft sport tourist. The soft and hard
definitions of sport tourists show that sport tourism should not be associated only with
sport events (Olympic games, world / continental / international / national / regional
sport events) but a broader perspective should be employed to include the sport
activities of recreational tourists golf, cycling, tennis, football, volleyball, etc. (see
also Deery, Jago & Fredline, 2004).

Similar to all other types of niche tourism sport tourism has economic, social and
environmental impacts on local communities (Fedline, 2005; Horn & Zemann, 2006;
2

Hritz & Ross, 2010; Mules & Dwyer, 2005; Turco, Swart, Bob & Moodley, 2003).
Current paper focuses on the potential impacts sport tourism could have on local
communities from a triple bottom line perspective. The triple bottom line analysis
(Fairley, Tyler, Kellett, & DElia, 2011; Monterrubio, Ramrez & Ortiz, 2011)
includes separate evaluation of the economic, social and environmental impacts of
sport tourism. If the impacts increase the welfare of local population they are defined
as benefits; in the other case they are considered costs. From a triple bottom line
perspective, in order to be considered sustainable, the benefits of sport tourism should
outweigh the costs in each particular dimension (economic, social or environmental).
If the positive net economic impacts are at the expense of negative net social and/or
environmental impacts, then sport tourism development cannot be considered
sustainable.

2. Sport tourism impacts

Table 1 summarised some of the directions of sport tourism impacts.

Table 1. Sport tourism impacts on local communities

Type of impact
Economic

Social

Environmental

Benefits
Creation of jobs and incomes
Revenues for local
enterprises
Additional tax revenues
Increased investments in
infrastructure and sport
facilities
Counter-seasonality effects
Business networking
Promoting sport activities
among the local communitys
youth population
Improved image of the
destination
Greater community
involvement in local
development and stronger
sense of community of local
residents
Greater political visibility of
the local community
Improved cleanliness of
areas where sport facilities are
located

Costs
Leakages of revenues and
incomes
Licensing fees
Increased prices
Secondary costs and missed
benefits
Underutilisation of
infrastructure
Clashes between the
supporters of different sport
clubs
Crime vandalism,
prostitution, drugs
Potential spread of diseases
or terrorist attacks
Political tensions
Traffic jams

Littering the stadiums, sport

halls and the surrounding areas

Promotion of environmental
initiatives
2.1. Economic impacts
2.1.1. Economic benefits
Economic benefits of sport tourism are quite well researched (Hautbois, Ravenel &
Durand, 2003; Kurtzman, 2005; Lee & Taylor, 2005; Pema & Custodio, 2008).
Usually local/national authorities and private institutions justify the city/countrys bid
for hosting a major sport event (like continental/world championship, Formula 1 race
or Olympic games) with the enormous economic benefits to be gained from it (Fairley
et al., 2011). In particular, the economic benefits relate to the creation of jobs and
incomes for local population (Daniels, 2004; Daniels & Norman, 2003; Daniels,
Norman & Herry, 2004), generating revenues for local businesses through the sale of
tourism-related and other services to visitors and tax revenues (Lee & Taylor, 2005),
business networking (OBrien, 2006). The infrastructure constructed to host the sport
event (roads, stadiums, halls and other sport facilities) remain after the event and can
be used for future events and by the local population. However, if excessive
infrastructure facilities have been constructed in order to host a mega event, it might
turn out that same facilities are underutilised by local residents once the event is over.
Sport events also usually take place outside the main tourist season, thus helping the
destination attract additional visitors in periods of low demand.

Although the employment increases prior to and during the event and decreases
sharply after it, the hopes of stakeholders are that the sport tourism generated jobs
after the event will be higher than before the event, i.e. the net effect on jobs will be
positive. Fairley et al. (2011), however, state that ex ante economic impact studies on
sport mega events (before the event) tend to be too rosy and emphasise the economic
benefits. They might even be manipulated in order to serve the interests of specific
stakeholders. On the other hand, ex post studies (after the event), when performed,
depict in most cases a different picture Lee & Taylor (2005), for example, show that
the number of international visitors in South Korea during the football World Cup
2002, co-hosted by Korea and Japan, was more than one third lower than predicted by
the organisers. Furthermore, developing and transition economies might also find it
difficult to harvest all the economic benefits of tourism generated by sport mega

events due to the lower level of economic development. Humphreys & Prokopowicz
(2007), for example, show that the economic costs of EURO 2012 in Poland and
Ukraine could be larger than the respective economic benefits of the event.

2.1.2. Economic costs

Economic costs of sport tourism and mega sport events are often ignored in favour of
the benefits (Kim, Gursoy & Lee, 2006: 88). They can be analysed in several
directions. Firstly, servicing sport tourists inevitably leads to leakages of revenues and
incomes some of the services are provided by non-resident companies and people
and, therefore, money leaves the local economy to pay for the imports. Secondly,
licensing fees have to be paid for hosting a major sport event (e.g. a Formula 1 race),
sometimes amounting to as high as tens of millions of euros. These fees are usually
paid from the local/national budget with the argument that future tax revenues and
incomes generated by the sport tourists will off-set the licensing fee, which does not
always happen to be a reality. Furthermore, sport tourism causes increase in the
municipality/governments expenses for safety and security, healthcare, fire
protection for the period of the sport events and might lead to slowing of the local
economy during the sport event due to traffic jams caused by the concentration of
many people in the city/municipality. These secondary costs and missed benefits have
to be accounted in the triple bottom line analysis of sport tourism, despite the
methodological challenges in their measurement (Ivanov, 2005). Finally, sport
tourism might cause local prices to soar to match the increased demand of goods and
services by non-resident sport spectators, or speculations with the prices of land where
sport facilities are planned to be constructed.

2.2. Social impacts

2.2.1. Social benefits
Social benefits of sport tourism development are numerous. Probably the most
important one is the increased market visibility and improved image of the
destination, especially in the case of mega events, that in the long run can lead to
greater tourist arrivals and economic benefits. Secondly, sport tourism helps
promoting sport activities among the local communitys youth population and can
also serve as a promotional tool for a specific type of sport (e.g. the matches of the
Bulgarian national volleyball team in Varna). Thirdly, a side effect of mega events in
5

sport is the greater community involvement in local development. The smooth

organisation of Olympic games, world and continental championships requires a lot of
local volunteers that provide information to tourists, distribute leaflets with timetables
of the matches and cultural events, collect litter, help with the safety and security, etc.
Volunteering strengthens local patriotism, instills pride and creates stronger sense of
community among local residents (Ntloko & Swart, 2008). Finally, sport tourism,
especially in the form of mega events, puts the city/municipality on the political map
of the country and increases its political importance. This can help local authorities
raise in front of the national government questions that need political decision and/or
financial support from the central budget, e.g. for infrastructure development,
payment of sport event licensing fees, public land concessions for construction of
sport facilities, etc.

2.2.2. Social costs

Sport tourism is not without its social shortcomings. Often sport (especially football)
matches are accompanied by clashes between the supporters of different sport clubs,
that lead to destroyed shops, burned cars, violent behaviour towards local people and
tourists. Such scenes are unwanted by residents and local authorities and might tarnish
the image of the destination. In this regard, special laws against sport hooliganism
have been enforced in many countries, including Bulgaria, to fight with this deviant
behaviour. Additionally, the large crowds of spectators sport tourism are lucrative
target for crimes such as prostitution, sale of drugs, illegal gambling, vandalism (Kim,
Gursoy & Lee, 2006). Another social cost are the traffic jams due to closed roads and
increased number of vehicles of spectators attending the sport events, leading to
slowing of the local economy. A possible solution to avoiding them from an urban
planning perspective can be constructing the sport facilities in the city
neighbourhoods that are accessible by different modes of transport (e.g. road and
underground/trams), by both public and private transport, and by using different
possible routes and access points.

Sport tourism can be a politically sensitive issue (Devine & Devine, 2004). Hosting a
sport mega event can cause political tension between different municipalities within
the country that compete for hosting it. If they are neighbouring municipalities, a
political decision for joining their efforts is fairly easily achievable, and, as Swart
6

(2005) shows, a coordinated bid for the hosting of major international sport events
would be more benecial to the development of sustainable sport tourism than individual bids. However, if the municipalities are quite distant it might not be possible and
practically efficient to join efforts in the event bid. Therefore, which municipality/city
will participate in the sport event bid becomes a zero sum game (the win for one
municipality is a loss for the other) which requires a political decision. Political
tensions might further arise in regard to the direction and magnitude of sport tourism
development, e.g. if some political parties lobby for construction of specific sport
facilities like golf courses while others oppose massive sport tourism and support
other trajectory for its development. Finally, the concentration of many people on one
place bears the risk of potential spread of diseases or terrorist attacks, which, however
unlikely, cannot be ignored as a social cost.

2.3. Environmental impacts

Environmental impacts of sport tourism development (Collins & Flynn, 2008) are
usually neglected, hidden in the shadow of the extorted economic benefits.

2.3.1. Environmental benefits

As an environmental benefit one could mention the improved cleanliness of areas
where sport facilities are located. The increased public attention to the city /
municipality due to the sport event forces local authorities and residents to put greater
emphasis on the cleanliness of the destination. Additionally, the sport events can be
used to promote environment protection initiatives both among local residents and
tourists (e.g. separate collection of garbage, utilisation of solar / wind energy to light
the sport facilities). If these initiatives are embraced by the local residents as a norm
and multiplied, then the destination will experience long term environmental benefits.

2.3.2. Environmental costs

While the environmental benefits are not so tangible and immediate, the
environmental costs are easy to feel. Littering the stadiums, sport halls and the
surrounding areas is an inevitable natural consequence of the concentration of many
people on same place. If not avoided, it could be at least diminished by proper waste
management systems in the municipality enough waste baskets, regular and timely

collection of garbage, forecasting the spatial and temporal concentration of people and
litter.

2.4. Determinants of sport tourism impacts

In practice, each impact of sport tourism will have different magnitude. The impacts
will depend on the size of the sport tourism development, number of sport tourists,
size of municipality, size and level of development of other tourism activities, local
communitys acceptance of sport tourism, etc. If local economy if too small or
underdeveloped, more goods and services will have to be imported from other
municipalities or abroad in order to serve the sport tourists, thus leading to decreased
economic benefits. If sport tourists to local residents ratio is very small, sport tourism
will have negligible social impacts. However, if sport tourists compete with other
tourists for same facilities (e.g. in beach volleyball) the experience of the recreational
tourists might be negatively hurt.

3. Conclusion
Regardless how well managed, sport tourism will always have both benefits and costs.
If the benefits off-set the costs then local residents will be inclined to support sport
tourism development. Nevertheless, as previous research shows, there are always
groups within the local society that win and others that lose from tourism
development, including sport tourism, causing differences in their support for sport
tourism development (Deccio & Baloglu, 2002). Often, positive economic advantages
may outweigh the negative environmental or social impacts and local residents
consider the event beneficial as a whole. In such cases a long-term political and
regional planning would be necessary to evaluate current and future priorities of the
local community. As previously mentioned, triple bottom line perspective suggests
positive balance in each of the three dimensions economic, social and
environmental, in order to regard sport tourism as sustainable. In any case, public
policy makers should understand that sport tourism will always have both positive and
negative impacts on local communities.

References:

Baumann, R. W., Matheson, V. A., & Muroi, C. (2009). Bowling in Hawaii.

Examining the effectiveness of sport-based tourism strategies. Journal of
Sports Economics, 10(1), 107-123.
Collins, A., & Flynn, A. (2008). Measuring the environmental sustainability of a
major sporting event: a case study of the FA Cup Final. Tourism Economics,
14(4), 751-768.
Daniels, M. J. (2004). Beyond Input-Output analysis: using occupation-based
modeling to estimate wages generated by a sport tourism event. Journal of
Travel Research, 43(1), 75-82.
Daniels, M. J., & Norman, W. C. (2003). Estimating the economic impacts of seven
regular sport events. Journal of Sport Tourism, 8(4), 214222.
Daniels, M. J., Norman, W. C., & Herry, M .S. (2004). Estimating income effects of a
sport tourism event. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 180-199.
Deccio, C., & Baloglu, S. (2002). Nonhost community resident reactions to the 2002
Winter Olympics: the spillover impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1),
46-56.
Deery, M., Jago, L, & Fredline, L. (2004). Sport tourism or event tourism: are they
one and the same? Journal of Sport Tourism, 9(3), 235-245.
Devine, A., & Devine, F. (2004). The politics of sport tourism in Northern Ireland.
Journal of Sport Tourism, 9(2), 171-182.
Devine, A., & Devine, F. (2005). Sports tourism: marketing Irelands best kept secret
the Gaelic Athletic Association. Irish Journal of Management, 26(2), 732.
Fairley, S., Tyler, B. D., Kellett, P., & DElia, K. (2011). The Formula One Australian
Grand Prix: Exploring the triple bottom line. Sport Management Review,
14(2), 141152.
Fedline, E. (2005). Host and guest relations and sport tourism. Sport in Society, 8(2),
263-279.
Gibson, H. J. (1998). Sport tourism: a critical analysis of research. Sport Management
Review, 1(1), 4576.
Hautbois, C., Ravenel, L, & Durand, C. (2003). Sport tourism and local economic
development: the importance of an initial diagnosis of suppliers geographical
concentration: A case study of France. Journal of Sport Tourism, 8(4), 240
259.

Hinch, T., & Higham, J. (2011). Sport tourism development. Cleverdon: Channelview
Publications (2nd ed.).
Horn, M., & Zemann, C. (2006). Economic, ecological and social effects of football
World cup 2006 for the host cities in Germany. Geographische Rundschau,
58(6), 4-12.
Hritz, N., & Ross, C. (2010). The perceived impacts of sport tourism: an urban host
community perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 119-138.
Humphreys, B. R., & Prokopowicz, S. (2007). Assessing the impact of sports megaevents in transition economies: EURO 2012 in Poland and Ukraine.
International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 2(5-6), 496-509.
Ivanov, S. (2005). Measurement of the macroeconomic impacts of tourism.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Economics Varna, Bulgaria (in
Bulgarian). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1539443
Kim, H. J., Gursoy, D., & Lee, S.-B. (2006). The impact of the 2002 World Cup on
South Korea: comparisons of pre- and post-games. Tourism Management,
27(1), 8696.
Koc, E. (2005). New product development in the Turkish tourism market: the case of
football tourism. Journal of Sport Tourism, 10(3), 165173.
Kurtzman, J. (2005). Economic impact: sport tourism and the city. Journal of Sport
Tourism, 10(1), 4771.
Lee, C.-K., & Taylor, T. (2005). Critical reections on the economic impact
assessment of a mega-event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism
Management, 26, 595603.
Monterrubio, J. C., Ramrez, O., & Ortiz, J. C. (2011). Host community attitudes
towards sport tourism events: Social impacts of the 2011 Pan American
Games. e-Review of Tourism Research, 9(2), 33-46.
Mules, T. & Dwyer, L. (2005). Public sector support for sport tourism events: the role
of cost-benefit analysis. Sport in Society, 8(2), 338-335.
Ntloko, N, J., & Swart, K. (2008). Sport tourism event impacts on the host
community: a case study of Red Bull Big Wave Africa. South African Journal
for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 30(2), 79-93.
OBrien, D. (2006). Event business leveraging. The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 240261.

10

Pema, F., & Custodio, M. J. (2008). Importance of events in tourism: Impacts of the
UEFA-EURO 2004 on the accommodation industry in Algarve, Portugal.
Anatolia, 19(1), 5-22.
Robinson, T., & Gammon, S. (2004). A question of primary and secondary motives:
revisiting and applying the sport tourism framework. Journal of Sport
Tourism, 9(3), 221-233.
Standevan, J., & Deknop, P. (1999). Sport tourism. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Swart, K. (2005). Strategic planning implications for the bidding of sport events in
South Africa. Journal of Sport Tourism, 10(1), 3746.
Turco, D. M., Swart, K., Bob, U., & Moodley, V. (2003). Socio-economic impacts of
sport tourism in the Durban Unicity, South Africa. Journal of Sport Tourism,
8(4), 223239.

11