Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
consistent. By way of explanation, they suggest that the awareness may not be
yet strong enough to bring about consistent attitudes, or that the behaviour
practice is so powerful that it is influencing attitudes as per cognitive disso-
nance theory (Festinger, 1957). The authors also refer to a related explanation
provided by self-perception theory (Bem, 1967). Self-perception theory sug-
gests people derive attitudes from observations of their own behaviour. Thus,
while people are aware of the climate change issues associated with flying, air
travel is so embedded in their lifestyle that they are unwilling to consider alter-
natives (Hares et al, 2010).
It has also been observed that while people seem more readily able to iden-
tify with ethical practice in their everyday life (e.g. recycling, walking more,
using public transport for work, buying organic), for their one holiday a year
they want freedom to do as they please (Barr et al, 2010). One explanation,
derived from the social practices literature discussed below, is that the struc-
tures to facilitate everyday, green behaviour are better established than those
related to tourism travel (Spaargaren, 2004). At the same time, people value
the freedom to travel, and do not want to see this freedom disappear (Barr et
al, 2010; Becken, 2007; Shaw and Thomas, 2006).
Exploratory research with slow travellers found that while they recog-
nized travel has an impact on climate change, and some were hence adjusting
their everyday behaviour, many continued to travel by air and were able to
justify this position. Participants used denial strategies and discourses of obli-
gation interlinked with structural travel barriers (predominantly distance).
Slow travellers also employed a variety of credibility-enhancing moves, such
as criticizing air and car travel, and were willing to discuss negatives of their
chosen mode of travel. The latter strategy is a form of stake inoculation, a
defence strategy where people acknowledge expected criticisms before they
can be made by others (Dickinson et al, 2010b). Such work firmly draws atten-
tion to the attitude-behaviour gap and highlights the need for alternative
research strategies.
Schwartz's norm-activation theory brings in both individual awareness of
the consequences of actions and moral obligation (Dickinson and Dickinson,
2006). Hares et al (2010) found a lack of personal responsibility to adjust hol-
iday travel behaviour in relation to climate change among their participants.
Most people are able to make the link between flying and climate change (Barr
et al, 2010; Dickinson et al, 2010a), yet it is clear that flying continues and is
increasing (Bows et al, 2009b). One potential explanation is that global issues
are too remote to activate an obligation to change behaviour, and the conse-
quences for individuals and others are not immediately apparent. Social
dilemma theory that focuses on how short-term personal gain tends to win
over long-term social gain might provide an explanation here (Cassidy, 1997).
Social dilemma theory is based around the 'tragedy of the commons' rea-
soning, as explained by Hardin (1968). An individual may gain from acting in
self-interest (defecting), and thus causing a small level of environmental dam-
age. However, if all individuals act in self-interest, the individual gain is lost
in the long term through considerable environmental damage experienced by
all. Car use is a typical social dilemma (Tertoolen et al, 1998). In the short
