PEB | Course Paper

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Graham Miller

University of Surrey, UK

Kathryn Rathouse

Independent Social Researcher, UK

Caroline Scarles

University of Surrey, UK

Kirsten Holmes

Curtin University of Technology, Australia

John Tribe

University of Surrey, UK

Abstract: If tourism is to become part of a more sustainable lifestyle, changes are needed to

the patterns of behaviour adopted by the public. This paper presents the results of research

conducted amongst members of the public in England on their understanding of sustainable

tourism; their response to four desired tourism behaviour goals, and expectations about the

role of government and the tourism industry in encouraging sustainable tourism.

The research shows a lack of awareness of tourism’s impact relative to day-to-day behaviour,

feelings of disempowerment and an unwillingness to make significant changes to

current tourism behaviour. Keywords: behaviour change, public, understanding, sustainable,

INTRODUCTION

Urry (2008) argues that social sciences have no choice but to engage

with various futures, principal amongst which is the challenge of cli-

mate change. While technological innovations in alternative fuels

and energy saving devices may provide some comfort (or distraction)

the scale of advance needed means they are unlikely to produce the

efficiencies necessary to avoid the dangerous climate change territory

described by the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(2007) and Stern (2006). Hence, this original work is situated within

the literature of behaviour change and considers whether members

of the public are willing to consume differently, and/or consume less

Dr Graham Miller is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Management and Law at the

University of Surrey (Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK. Email <G.Miller@surrey.ac.uk>).

Graham’s research is in the transition towards sustainable tourism. Kathryn Rathouse is an

independent social researcher; Dr Caroline Scarles is a lecturer in tourism and Prof. John

Tribe is a professor of tourism, both at the University of Surrey. Dr Kirsten Holmes is a

research fellow at Curtin University, Australia.

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 627–645, 2010

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.002

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

627

through changes to their tourism behaviour in order to progress the

transition towards a more sustainable lifestyle.

The UK Government’s Sustainable Development Strategy and re-

port by the Sustainable Development Commission and National Con-

sumer Council through the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable

(2006) recognised the need to explore public responses towards ac-

tions for sustainable lifestyles and their interactions with broader

lifestyle aspirations. Addressing this strategy, this paper presents re-

sults of empirical research conducted for the UK government

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),

on public understanding of sustainable tourism, as part of Defra’s

programme of work on sustainable consumption and production.

The remit of the research undertaken for this project was to inves-

tigate people’s understanding of sustainability as it applied to tour-

ism and leisure, although this paper presents the results of the

findings related only to tourism. The findings from the research

are designed to feed into a Behaviour Change Strategy and the Cit-

izens and Mass Engagement Programme. Parallel projects examined

public understanding and willingness to change behaviour related to

energy use in the home, transport, finance and investment and

food, and some of the synthesis findings of these projects are incor-

porated within this paper.

Recognising the alternative futures possible, Defra felt that to make

the transition towards a more sustainable lifestyle, a fuller under-

standing of residents’ response to sustainable tourism was needed.

The three research objectives set by Defra and addressed in this pa-

per are: firstly, to explore public understanding of sustainable tour-

ism; secondly, to establish responses by members of the public to

Defra’s four tourism behaviour goals, and finally to establish expecta-

tions about the role of government and the tourism industry in the

supply of sustainable tourism opportunities. The four behaviour goals

were: first, to encourage the UK as a holiday destination; second, to

travel less or combine travel; third, to choose more sustainable travel

methods; and fourth to choose more sustainable activities whilst on

holiday.

PRO-ENVIRONMENT BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

A common premise of work promoting sustainability has been that

an increase in awareness and education amongst the public will

encourage more pro-environmental behaviour (Devine-Wright,

2004). Within the literature on sustainable tourism, raising awareness

amongst consumers has also featured heavily as an approach to mak-

ing tourism more sustainable (Dolnicar, Crouch, & Long, 2008). For

authors such as Johnson (2006) the need to raise the awareness of

visitors is incumbent on business operators, but the link between this

rise in awareness and any change in behaviour is not questioned.

Amendah and Park (2008) believe raising knowledge can change

consumption patterns while Lee and Moscardo (2005) find that

628 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

environmentally aware consumers may be more likely to exhibit pro-

environmental behavioural intentions than other consumers. Boon,

Fluker, and Wilson (2008) test the effect of a 10 year programme

of awareness raising to promote ecological sustainable tourism in

south east Australia and conclude that the programme had almost

no effect over the period. In response, different education pro-

grammes are proposed.

Such studies are based on the rational ‘deficit model’ of behaviour

change whereby information creates awareness of the problem, which

leads to the individual changing their behaviour appropriately. As an

example, Harriott (2002) reports tourists to the Great Barrier Reef

reflecting that if they had more information about their impacts they

would have made different consumption decisions. Yet research by

Association of British Travel Agents (2002), Becken (2007), Bohler,

Grischkat, Haustein, and Hunecke (2006), First Choice (2005) and

Gossling, Bredburg, Randow, Sandstrom, and Svensson (2006) all dem-

onstrate various populations of tourists and leisure tourists to be largely

ignorant of the impacts of their behaviour. Coupled with this low level

of awareness, findings suggest pro-environmental behaviour for tour-

ism is low. Aguilo, Alegre, and Sard (2005) argue that despite the

claims by Poon (1994) of the rise of ‘new tourists’ armed with greater

environmental concern, tourists visiting the Balearic islands have lar-

gely not changed their behaviour and still demand an ‘old tourist’

product. More broadly, evidence in the UK shows that less than 1%

of all outgoing holidays booked in the UK give any real priority to

the environment (Mintel, 2005).

Yet, despite the intuitive and optimistic appeal of the deficit ap-

proach, Hounsham (2006) in his meta-review of behaviour change ini-

tiatives concludes that information programs offer very little on their

own, as they assume the receiver makes rational decisions based on

all the information available. This does not mean the provision of

information has no value, instead, information alone does not neces-

sarily lead to increased awareness and increased awareness does not

necessarily lead to action (Defra, 2005; Jackson, 2004). Continuing this

critique, Kurani and Turrentine (2002) and Owens (2000) question

whether the level of awareness can make any significant difference to

pro-environmental behaviour as it relates specifically to travel. Situa-

tional constraints and the complexity of assessing practical alternatives

may mean that action inspired by high levels of awareness are frus-

trated, with little consequent change in behaviour. Responding, Barr

(2007) separates our general environmental knowledge from more

specific ‘behavioural knowledge’ about how we translate our general

interests into specific actions. Barr’s (2007) study of waste management

shows that it is the specific knowledge of how to act with regards to an

issue that is a greater predictor of action and behaviour rather than the

more general interest and awareness that is frequently obtained by

quantitative ‘superficial’ studies (Rose, Dade, Gallie, & Scott, 2005).

The evident gap between general environmental intention and spe-

cific behaviour within tourism would suggest that tourism will be a dif-

ficult behaviour to change. ‘Foot-in-the-door’ strategy describes the

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 629

experience of small environmental actions that lead to bigger environ-

mental actions, through creating awareness as a kind of snowball effect

develops. Yet, the snowballing effect of ever larger pro-environmental

actions does not appear to have reached tourism to any significant de-

gree (Miller, 2003). The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, 2008)

agree that for smaller pro-environmental actions it is possible to

change behaviour without changing values through techniques such

as celebrity endorsement, demonstrating financial savings or invoking

guilt. However, for flying and holidays, such appeals to extrinsic goals

will be less effective, and there is a need to target values and intrinsic

motivations. This suggests tourism sits a long way along the continuum

of possible pro-environmental actions and pro-environmental tourism

actions will be difficult for the public to take. Yet, Macey and Brown

(1983) argue in criticism of the classic Theory of Reasoned Action

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) that behavioural experience is the better pre-

dictor of action, not intention. Hence, without experience, it is difficult

to elicit a change in attitude, so there is less social proof of people

operationalising their interests, and so consumer demand for sustain-

able tourism products is limited.

One of the key facets of the most prominent theories of behaviour

change, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) is the sense

of perceived behaviour control, or the extent to which people feel they

can achieve the result they want. Marshall (2005) believes action on cli-

mate change suffers because of the way the debate has been projected,

describing the enormous potential impacts in a global and future-ori-

ented manner. Given this, a sense of disempowerment to effect change

can occur, a malaise of absent agency. Anable, Lane, and Kelay (2006)

describe climate change as an issue which sits within the public’s

‘sphere of concern’, but not within their ‘sphere of influence’. Indeed,

the framing of the problem as a global problem identifies it as a prob-

lem for which we all need to take responsibility, and so no one does.

Lowe et al. (2005) describe this as the ‘bystander effect’ whereby mass

paralysis of action is caused when people as a group are confronted

with something that demands intervention. For climate change, the

remoteness, contested and complex discourses and intangibility of

the problem add to the difficulty of understanding how our individual

actions can make a difference (Des Jardins, 1997). Worse, it is possible

that where we are unable to change our behaviour, then additional

information can result in a state of denial about the message. Cohen

(2000) believes that climate change challenges our sense of moral

responsibility to such an extent that we have to deny the problem exists

given the fundamental changes to our behaviour necessary to make an

appropriate adjustment. Individual, deficit theorists would see the inac-

tion as a result of a lack of information rather than too much.

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) believe the lack of agency can be over-

come in part by modifying behaviour through the power of social

norms. Recycling is a recent example where behaviour has been signif-

icantly changed, and values modified subsequently to avoid cognitive

dissonance, through regular public demonstration of a household’s

commitment to recycle. Barr (2007) showed that for reduction and

630 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

reuse of waste, social norms were less important as these were activities

which took place away from the view of neighbours, friends and

peers—those who reinforce social norms. Hence, where the behaviour

is less tangible, or publicly exposed, so social norms may be less power-

ful. For tourism, although the act of holidaying takes place in public,

any guilt at the decision to fly is diluted immediately upon arrival at

a busy airport, and any decision to stay at a hotel without any

environmental management systems, accreditations etc is dispelled

by the fact that the hotel is full of other people who have made the

same decisions. The Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (2006)

deliberative forum heard one respondent suggest anyone who had

not chosen to offset the carbon emissions from their flight be com-

pelled to sit at the back of the plane. While the idea was made in jest,

the suggestion shows the challenge of creating situations in tourism

where social norms can influence those with undesirable behaviours

to follow the lead of those with more pro-environmental behaviours.

With a lack of social proof as to what sustainability in tourism is, we

are locked in to a system of feedback that confirms our decisions to

ignore sustainability in our tourism consumption.

To escape from this impasse, Halpern et al. (2004) posit sociological

theories revealing the importance of social networks and community

role models and stressing the interpersonal nature of behaviour

change may represent a way forward. Devine-Wright (2004) suggests

there is something about the topic of environmental challenge, and

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 631