Factors influencing tourism decisions and their relevance for behavioural change

Within the theories and models mentioned previously, a wide range of demand-side, supply-side and situational factors are used to explain the different choices made by travellers. No theory or model can integrate a fully comprehensive account of all possibly relevant factors, for neither destination nor mode choice. Thus, different theories and methodologies are needed to make contributions to the knowledge of influential factors of travel behaviour. As such, quantitative empirical studies usually focus more on objective and quantifiable influence factors (Le-Klähn et al., 2015; see Gross & Grimm, 2018 for an overview), although some subjective factors (e.g.

attitudes, values, norms, travel and choice motives) are frequently integrated in model-based studies. Overall, they take a rather mechanical approach that integrates various factors as

Chapter 3 - Describing the conceptual foundations

21 independent, separable choice determinants. Qualitative approaches on the other hand seek for a more systemic, integrated understanding of behavioural motivations, therefore focussing on subjective influences, perceptions and meanings. These studies often present narrative accounts of their empirical material, investigating mobility as people’s representation of values, their personal lifestyle and identities (Gronau, 2014; Hannam et al., 2014; Cohen et al., 2015).

To avoid redundancies with Paper V, this framework paper lists the relevant factors for an array of influence spheres (see Table 3) without discussing them in detail. The categorisation combines Gross and Grimm (2018) division into objective and subjective influence factors with Le-Klähn and Hall’s (2015) illustration of different influence spheres; while adding additional elements.

The factors’ relevance for behavioural change in response to climate change influences Before discussing the relevance of different factors for bringing about behavioural change, it seems necessary to first define what kind of behavioural change ought to be aspired in the field of tourism mobility behaviour in relation to climate change. With regard to general summer tourism behaviour, we can already observe behaviour change, mainly all fostered by people’s desire to avoid certain discomforts created by the effects of climate change (e.g. heat waves, heavy weathers) (Moreno, 2010; Serquet & Rebetez, 2011). The behavioural responses to such events Table 3: Overview of relevant influential spheres of tourism mobility choices (adapted from Paper VI)

Influence sphere Examples of choice influences Relevant literature Objective influence factors

(1) Personal / household characteristics

Socio-demographics (age, gender, income) Mobility tools (PT cards, car)

(Marrocu & Paci, 2012; Gross & Grimm, 2018)

(Le-Klähn et al., 2015) (2) Situational

characteristics

Travel party, trip duration, spontaneity and complexity, destination familiarity, safety Weather at origin and overall climate and expected weather at destination

(Kelly et al., 2007; Le-Klähn et al., 2015;

Gross & Grimm, 2018)

(Scott et al., 2012; Pröbstl-Haider et al., 2015; McCreary et al., 2019)

(3) Attributes of car & PT trips

Accessibility by PT, travel time, distance, no.

of changes, frequency, type of PT, travel costs

Service quality and comfort

(Della Corte et al., 2010; Marrocu & Paci, 2012; Davies & Weston, 2015; Thrane, 2015; Ravazzoli et al., 2017)

(Le-Klähn et al., 2014) (4) Destination

features

Tourism amenities: accommodation, shops, attractions, natural features/remoteness Transport infrastructure (e.g. PT, rental bike, parking), fare structure, information

Costs of local transport and tourism services

(Boller et al., 2010; LaMondia et al., 2010;

Gutiérrez et al., 2019; Tomej & Liburd, 2020)

(Lumsdon et al., 2006; Dickinson &

Robbins, 2008; Gronau, 2017) (LaMondia et al., 2010) Subjective influence factors

(5) attitudes, norms, perceptions

Attitudes towards destinations and transport modes, leisure-related associations with transport modes and related risks/uncertainty Personal values and identity, lifestyle

(Gronau & Kagermeier, 2007; Davies &

Weston, 2015; Moons & De Pelsmacker, 2015; Karl, 2018; McCreary et al., 2019) (Hibbert et al., 2013; Gronau, 2014) (6) Travel

motivations &

related experiential expectations

Motivations, such as novelty seeking, escape/relaxation, visiting family/friends and related activities (and equipment needs) Expectations such as privacy, intimacy, the unexpected, sense of control, freedom

(Crandall, 1980; LaMondia et al., 2010;

Mutinda & Mayaka, 2012; Le-Klähn et al.,

2015) (Boller et al., 2010; Hannam et al., 2014;

Wilson & Hannam, 2017)

Chapter 3 - Describing the conceptual foundations

22

include site substitution to avoid affected areas, activity substitution to be less exposed, temporal substitution towards a different month, strategic substitution of equipment or used gear to increase resilience, or ‘informational coping' referring to the increased quest for climate-related information (Rutty & Scott, 2010; McCreary et al., 2019). In that respect, tourists hold a high intrinsic motivation and individual capacity to adapt their travel behaviour to the impacts of climate change (Rutty & Scott, 2010; Gössling et al., 2012).

Compared to abovementioned tourism choices, transport mode choices may be harder to influence. This is because the respective behavioural change is not necessarily the result of intrinsic motivation or a physical/psychological strain. More often, it is created by a feeling of responsibility or worry about the global impacts of climate change (Eriksson, 2008) or external policies restricting or pricing the demand for unsustainable transport modes (Gössling et al., 2012). The beneficiary of such behaviour change is society as a whole, while they may be perceived as a sacrifice by the individual (e.g. with regards to air travel, see Thaller et al., 2020).

In fact, climate change might even adversely affect the choice of sustainable modes since increasing heat waves might reduce the willingness to walk and increase the desire for air- conditioned personal vehicles. Furthermore, the attempted behaviour change may be constrained by factors out of people's responsibility, such as PT accessibility or safe biking infrastructure.

Tourists might also be constrained by travel-requiring commitments towards family, friends or employers (Gössling et al., 2012). Finally, the benefits are more indirect and long-term compared to destination changes that affect well-being directly and immediately.

Behavioural adaptation (as well as mitigation) processes of tourism choices can be driven by societal changes, including societal values (e.g. the concept of ‘flight shame’, see Gössling et al., 2020), changes of the political landscape and resulting changes in the available infrastructure and their attributes (e.g. price changes or new services). Personal factors (e.g. change of car ownership, changing interests) can also represent a starting point for transition processes, especially when targeting larger groups in similar situations (e.g. new housing projects). Unless PT constitutes the more convenient and overall attractive solution, such transitions require a personal problem awareness, as briefly touched upon before. However, results from international studies also show that emission-intense air travel has increased despite people’s awareness of their climate change impacts (see Cocolas et al., 2020), suggesting that awareness alone does not suffice, especially in the non-habitual, pleasure-oriented tourism context (Ram et al., 2013;

Hopkins, 2020). Cohen and Kantenmacher (2020) made a similar observation and concluded that it is crucial to frame the global benefits of less environmentally-harmful behaviour in different ways, focusing on the individual benefits of behavioural changes (e.g. on health, budget, experiences).

Behavioural change, especially in tourism, is not a linear or well-predictable process and as such previous literature highlights the role of psychological and lifestyle factors as pertinent constraints to people’s change capacities (Cohen, Higham, et al., 2014; Gronau, 2014). Other studies also emphasize the role of socio-technical and infrastructural aspects of mobility cultures as a reinforcing mechanism for the rural car culture areas (Klinger et al., 2013; Haustein et al., 2020).