Encouraging environmentally sustainable holiday travel

Transportation Research Part A 40 (2006) 652–670

www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Encouraging environmentally sustainable holiday travel

Susanne Bohler a,*, Sylvie Grischkat b, Sonja Haustein c, Marcel Hunecke c

a Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy Ltd., P.O. Box 10 04 80, 42004 Wuppertal, Germanyb University of Luneburg, Institute for Environmental Strategies, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

c Ruhr-University Bochum, Faculty of Psychology, Workgroup for Cognition and Environmental Psychology, 44780 Bochum, Germany

Received 12 December 2005; accepted 13 December 2005

Abstract

Holiday travel behavior, individual characteristics of holiday travelers and strategies to change holiday travel behaviorare the subjects of this article. From the environmental perspective, the journey to the destinations is the most criticalaspect of traveling. Based on a 2003 survey of 1991 German inhabitants, the kilometers traveled and the choice of trans-portation mode for holiday purposes have been quantified. According to the number of trips and kilometers traveled, fourtravel groups have been identified. The groups vary according to socio-demographics, psychological factors, number ofholiday trips, and travel mode choice. Persons who traveled to more distant destinations also traveled more often and usedair travel for more than 60% of their trips. For the other groups, car travel was more important. Correlating the four travelgroups with greenhouse gas emissions reveals that the smallest group—the long-haul travelers—was responsible for 80% ofthe emissions of the whole sample. Income, education, and openness to change were main indicators of individual green-house gas emissions. Target group oriented strategies to reduce the environmental impact of holiday mobility are discussedagainst the background of 84 in-depth interviews conducted with selected representatives of the first survey.� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tourism; Holiday mobility; Environmental awareness; Greenhouse gas emission; Transportation; Conservation-ecological-behavior

1. Introduction

In addition to every-day mobility for working, shopping, and leisure purposes, holiday mobility has becomeincreasingly relevant. Holidays and short stay trips have become a part of modern societies. Whereas in thepast traveling used to be a privilege, nowadays tourism is a mass phenomenon of the western world. Tourismis a market of high economic importance for industrialized countries as well as for less developed countrieswhich have become tourist destinations. From the environmental point of view, the overall number of trips,the choice of destinations and distances traveled, as well as transport mode choice are all crucial. In order to

0965-8564/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tra.2005.12.006

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 202 2492 259; fax: +49 202 2492 263.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Bohler), [email protected] (S. Grischkat), sonja.haustein@

rub.de (S. Haustein), [email protected] (M. Hunecke).

mailto:[email protected]


mailto:sonja.haustein@


S. Bohler et al. / Transportation Research Part A 40 (2006) 652–670 653

make holiday mobility more sustainable, the journey to and from the holiday destination and transport modeswith a high environmental impact, like the private car or plane, have to be focused on.

Most studies examining the environmental impact of tourism mainly consider the effects of tourism at theholiday destination. Their main objective is the development of a sustainable, green or gentle tourism and theprotection of ecologically sensitive regions (e.g. Harris and Griffin, 2003). Often, the effects of traveling tothese places are neglected. Recent studies also explore holiday journeys with a focus on politics and travelorganizations and special target groups (Oko-Institut, 2001; Schmied et al., 2001).

After a discussion of the promoting and constraining factors for holiday travel behavior, the environmentaleffects and strategies to reduce the environmental impact of holiday travel are introduced.

1.1. Major trends in tourism

Global tourism has increased tremendously and as a result also the number of holiday trips and kilometersconducted by plane. Approximately 80% of European air travel relates to tourism, while 20% is a mix of busi-ness travel and freight (EU, 2005b, p. 6). On the global level, an increase of 720 million tourists worldwide in2004 to 1600 million in 2020 has been predicted (World Tourism Organisation, 2005). In 2003 in Germanynearly 80% of the population older than 14 years of age went at least on one holiday trip, 5.1% of which werelong-haul journeys (F.U.R, 2004). In comparison to all transport modes, aviation has shown the highestgrowth rates in the past (Schallabock and Petersen, 1999). In 2003, 32.5–37.5 million flights (both directions)have been conducted by the German population, which means 0.5 flights per inhabitant and year. Because thenumber of flights is allocated unevenly among the population, arguments that everybody flies today are inap-propriate. But because of the low average flight frequency per person there might also be a large potential forincrease in flight demand (Schallabock, 2005, p. 291).

In comparison to 1999, for 2010 a growth rate of 86% of long-haul traveling is anticipated in Germany; forjourneys to the Mediterranean Sea 32%, and for traveling within Germany 10.5% (F.U.R, 2000). As a conse-quence of more flexible working hours, more short stay trips are expected as well (Kirstges and Luck, 2001,p. 20f.; Schmied et al., 2001, p. 62).

The structure and level of holiday traveling vary according to multiple factors and motives since holidaydestination choices are quite complex. A combination of the personal and social situation of the traveler, suchas the economic situation of the household or partner and family preferences, but also external circumstancessuch as weather conditions, terrorist crises or epidemic plagues (Kosterke and von Laßberg, 2005, p. 38;Mansfeld, 1992; Wiedemann and Schutz, 2005) determine holiday behavior and holiday travel behavior.Socio-economic and demographic trends in combination with pluralist and complex lifestyles are driving fac-tors for world wide tourism and long-haul travel. General developments on the macrolevel like the globaliza-tion of the economy and the media and the decline of travel barriers influence worldwide traveling (Griffin,2003; Schmied et al., 2001, p. 58). A growing economy and its impact on national socio-economic factors(employment, working hours) increases the average household income and the available holiday budget(Schmied et al., 2001, p. 57). During the last decades, the individual share of labor and leisure time has chan-ged as well. Also, structural changes of households with a trend toward smaller households and householdswithout children implicate more frequent and more intense holiday travel (Petermann and Wennrich,1999). The growing group of seniors—so-called Best Agers—has a high potential for long-haul travel. Thisgroup is indicated by purchase power and travel experiences—unlike their parents’ generation (Etrillard,2004; Hedorfer and Todter, 2004; Petermann and Wennrich, 1999).

Socio-economic factors also influence transport mode choices for holiday travel. The size of the household,for example, determines the frequency of private car use for holiday travels. Younger families with childrenprefer to use of the private car, whereas singles and younger couples without children are typical users ofair travel. Couples and singles above 60 years of age are the major user groups for traveling by train or coach(BMU, 2004, p. 54).

A number of studies have investigated the relation between environmental values and environmentalbehavior (e.g. Meinhold and Malkus, 2005; Schultz et al., 2005; Stern et al., 1999). In several studies a positiveeffect of personal ecological norms on environment-friendly travel mode choice could be demonstrated(Harland et al., 1999; Hunecke et al., 2001; Nordlund and Garvill, 2003). A low consistency between attitude

654 S. Bohler et al. / Transportation Research Part A 40 (2006) 652–670

and behavior can be explained by the different levels of specificity used to measure both constructs. If bothconstructs are measured on the same level, the relationship becomes closer. However, concerning more globalenvironmental attitudes and values, a lack between environmental consciousness and environmental behavioris observable—especially for holiday mobility. A person who favors environmental protection need not be allpro-environment in every situation (BMU, 2004). Constraints concerning holiday travel are obviously lessacceptable than constraints in everyday life (Kosterke and von Laßberg, 2005, p. 90 ff.). A German panelstudy about environmental awareness shows that especially people with an ecological orientation travel morefrequently for holiday purposes (BMU, 2004). In addition to the contradictory relationship between behaviorand environmental concerns, the modern traveler is described as a hybrid, multi-optional and multi-mobilehuman being whose behavior oscillates between rational aspects such as cost-awareness and emotional aspectslike pleasure (Oko-Institut, 2001, p. 18; Pikkemaat, 2004, p. 104).

1.2. Environmental effects of holiday mobility

Besides the local environmental impacts of tourism, particularly in ecologically sensitive regions, mostgreenhouse gases are emitted during the journey to and from a holiday destination. Holiday travel is still dom-inated by car travel, but due to an increasingly global tourism, there has been a significant growth of holidayair travel. Although the share of aviation in greenhouse gases in the EU is at 3% and still modest, its rapidgrowth undermines the environmental progress made in other sectors. Assuming the continuous increase ofemissions from international flights departing from EU airports, by 2012 they will have increased by 150%since 1990 (EU, 2005a, p. 2). Unlike other transportation modes, aviation emits pollutants and greenhousegases in the upper troposphere, where, besides carbon dioxide, other pollutants (e.g. oxides of nitrogen)and effects (e.g. condensation) have a heavy impact on the climate (IPCC, 1999). The IPCC-report on aviation(IPCC, 1999) assumes that the radiative forcing by aviation exceeds the effect stemming from carbon dioxideemissions at least by a factor of 2–4. Technical improvements at the source of the emission may reduce thegreenhouse gas emissions per person, but the increasing number of long-haul travels can possibly over-com-pensate these developments even if the prospected growth will be lower than expected (Kosterke and von Laß-berg, 2005, p. 9).

1.3. External factors and political strategies

Various factors have a diminishing effect on holiday travel. Economic crises or political conflicts as well assingular incidents like 9/11 or SARS have shown that the frequency and structure of holiday air travel can beaffected deeply but will have normalized after a short period of time (Kreilkamp, 2005, p. 32; Pompl, 2002;Sivak and Flannagan, 2004). Also the fear of flying restricts the individual demand of traveling by plane. Sur-veys show that about 16% of the German population suffers from fear of flying and 22% feel uneasy whenflying (Institut fur Demoskopie Allensbach, 2003). The number of affected people can increase during a shortperiod following incidents like plane crashes or terrorist attacks (Pompl, 2002, p. 202f). The demand for travelcould also be reduced by an increase in fuel costs, either as a result of developments in the global oil market ordue to political strategies. Both airlines and air passengers still benefit from financial privileges in contrast toother transportation modes, e.g. as a result of current tax laws. Since 2003, EU countries are at least allowedto raise a tax on kerosene which is likely to increase air fare prices (Pache, 2005, p. 5f).

Another strategy for the reduction of air travel is a mode shift from medium-distance flights to long-dis-tance trains. Because 47% of flights within Europe are below 500 km, there seems to be a substantial potentialfor a mode shift (Pompl, 2002, p. 81). Studies indicate that the area of competition between the plane and thelong-distance-train is within a range of 200 and 500 km. Normally, air travel has advantages when the traveldistance is above 140 km, but train service is more frequent. Within Germany, the potential for a modal shiftfrom plane to train is estimated at a maximum of 15% implying additional train infrastructure (Pompl, 2002,p. 208f).

Besides technical and infrastructural options, another strategy to make holiday trips more sustainablecould be to address consumer holiday mobility behavior directly. Strategies are to prolong the duration oflong haul traveling with an effect on the total number of trips conducted per year or to influence the holiday


destination choice. The latter is often combined with the promotion of destinations that are already reachableby train or coach (e.g. Oko-Institut, 2001). In Germany, holiday travel to destinations in Germany has beenpromoted during the last years. The German train company offers connections to special sites like nationalparks (Deutsche Bahn AG, 2005). Awareness campaigns informing the traveler about the impacts of air travelare another example of how to address holiday mobility behavior. If a change of transport mode is not pos-sible and the flight cannot be avoided, the traveler has the opportunity to use awareness programs in order tocompensate for the environmental damages by a voluntary fee that is invested in development projects, e.g.myclimate (MyClimate, 2005) or Atmosfair (Atmosfair GmbH, 2005). The compensation is calculated bythe distance to the destination and the greenhouse gases emitted during the flight.

1.4. Aim of the article and research questions

The aim of this study is the discussion of political intervention strategies on the personal level. The complexenvironmental impacts of mobility behavior and the individual and social motivation complex of holidaybehavior will be considered. In a first step, the sample’s holiday mobility will be quantified. Based on holidaymobility patterns, different travel groups are then identified and described by their socio-economic and psy-chological characteristics. Furthermore, the environmental impact of the greenhouse gas emissions causedby the travel groups and the main driving factors are analyzed.

The long-distance trips responsible for a significant percentage of the total environmental impact caused byholiday mobility in general are made by relatively few people. The individual choice of holiday destination iscrucial. The chosen mode of transportation is mostly a logical consequence of the selected holiday destination.Because of the high individual and social importance of holidays, the potential to alter behavior under currentconditions might be small. Strategies should comprise specially designed measures for selected target groupslike communication or information campaigns for pro-environmental individuals. The guiding research ques-tions are as following:

• To what extent do individual socio-economical characteristics, values, and attitudes explain holiday mobil-ity and its environmental impact?

• What are the strategies and obstacles to reduce the environmental impact of holiday mobility with regard toindividual socio-economical characteristics, values and attitudes?

The results are based on a survey of 1991 people and in-depth-interviews conducted with 84 representatives.The information about daily mobility behavior and holiday mobility behavior in 2003 has been the basis uponwhich individual environmental balances of mobility behavior have been calculated. The following will showanalyses of individual holiday mobility behavior and the respective environmental consequences and influ-ences for traveling. Furthermore, the results will show whether individual environmental awareness is impor-tant for holiday mobility.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and procedure

The first survey was realized in the three big German cities of Augsburg, Bielefeld and Magdeburg(229,800–329,400 residents) from June to December 2003. In each city, about 220 residents of one district sit-uated close to the city centre, one district located at the border of the city, and a third district in the suburbanarea of the city were interviewed. Among these were 937 men and 1057 women with a mean age of 46.7 years.The face-to-face interviews lasted about 60 min and were carried out by trained interviewers. Beforehand,11,028 German citizens aged 18–80 years had received a letter announcing the survey. The entire survey pop-ulation was randomly produced by the registration offices of the cities. Finally, 1991 interviews were valid foranalyses. The realization quote was 25% after correction of the number of address faults and people that werenot contacted because the number of intended interviews had already been achieved.

Table 1Description of psychological variables

Variable Dimension Number of items n M SD Cronbach’s alpha

Public transport—control Perceived behavioral control 2 1989 3.13 1.06 .80Public transport—autonomy 2Car—autonomy 1

Public transport—excitement Public transport—excitement 2 1897 2.68 1.09 .58

Car attitude Car—autonomy 1 1871 3.00 0.91 .80Car—privacy 2Car—experience 2Car—driving competence 2

Openness to change Openness to change 3 1986 3.11 1.62 .76Conservation Conservation 3 1989 4.16 0.88 .60Self-enhancement Self-enhancement 3 1988 4.44 1.46 .76Self-transcendence Self-transcendence 3 1988 5.24 1.32 .80


One year after study 1, we conducted 84 in-depth interviews with selected participants of the first study.Among these were 42 men and 40 women between 20 and 76 years of age and a mean age of 45.8 years. Apre-condition for participation was that no major changes of living circumstances had happened since the firstsurvey. Persons of all district types were regarded in equal measure. A further selection criterion was a vari-ation in attitudes between participants.

2.2. Measurements

The questionnaire of the first study comprises seven parts, which are the availability of vehicles, the accessto different transportation modes, psychological variables, mobility behavior, availability and usage of tech-nical devices, the usage of mobility services, and socio-demographics. The survey focused on individual atti-tudes and values concerning mobility and vehicles and the realized mobility behavior. The latter is thecalculation basis for the individual ecological balances. The quantification of holiday trips and the environ-mental assessment of 1991 individuals are based on this survey.

2.2.1. Attitudes and valuesTo assess attitudes towards different transport modes, the symbolic motives of private car use and public

transport use were measured as well as the perceived behavioral control, a construct derived from the theory ofplanned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The symbolic dimensions autonomy, excitement, status, and privacy, as wellas perceived behavioral control, were measured with two items each. Responses were provided on 5-pointscales ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

Via item and principal component analysis, five latent dimensions were identified out of 20 single items. Inthe case of public transport, the postulated symbolic motives could be differentiated as separate dimensions. Inthis study we only regard public transport-control1 and excitement.2 In the case of the private car, severaldimensions were reduced to one factor, a general car attitude3 (see Table 1).

Values were assessed by a short version of the Schwartz Value Inventory (Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990) devel-oped by Bamberg (2001). It measures four bipolar value clusters: the pole ‘‘self-transcendence’’ emphasizes theacceptance of others as equals, and the worry about other’s well-being. In our study all items refer to savingnature and environment (‘‘to respect the earth’’). Thus, self-transcendence can be characterized as an environ-mental value orientation. In contrast, the pole ‘‘self-enhancement’’ stresses the individual strife for success anddominance (‘‘being ambitious’’). The pole ‘‘openness for change’’ subsumes values that emphasize the

1 Item example of public transport-control: ‘‘Using public transportation instead of the private car is easy for me if I want to’’.2 Item example of public transport-excitement: ‘‘I like public transport because there are a lot of interesting things to see’’.3 Item example of car attitude: ‘‘Driving a car means freedom to me.’’ (autonomy).


preference for changes (‘‘having an exciting life’’) and the opposed pole ‘‘conservation’’ stresses the preferenceof traditional practices and stability (‘‘safety of the family’’). Each of the four values was measured by threeitems on a 9-point scale ranging from �1 (‘‘not consistent with my values’’) to 7 (‘‘extremely important’’).

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies of the psychological variablesand value orientations. In Section 3.3 the holiday groups are described according to these attitudes and values.

2.2.2. Ecological assessment

In order to identify the environmental impact of holiday trips by individuals, detailed information aboutmobility behavior and mode of transportation are necessary. Holiday trips are defined as traveling for privatepurposes involving at least four overnight stays. A holiday with not more than three accommodations isdefined as short stay trip. The basis of our calculations are all holiday trips of the last 12 months and shortstay trips of the last six months extrapolated for the year 2003. The individuals gave information about thedestination of each trip, their transportation mode and the number of passengers on the trip. Due to the dif-ficulty of estimating the real distance to holiday and short stay trip destinations and to avoid a high error rate,the destination was queried. Using a geo-coordination program (Heret Informatik Service, 2003) the real dis-tances were calculated. While the capacity rate of private cars could be assessed individually, for public trans-port (trains, buses, and aircraft) an average capacity rate was calculated: buses, trams and subways having25.0%, regional trains 23.9%, long distance trains 41.3% and aircraft 60.0%.

Besides distances, the characteristics of used vehicles for holiday trips must be taken into account (seeFig. 1). These are data concerning fuel, year of construction, cylinder capacity and air conditioning system.

Annual emissions, differentiated by individual, vehicle and activity [g/Pkm]

Direct emissions Pollutant and fuel consumption [g] Electric current consumption [kilowatt hour]

Indirect emissions Fuel consumption [g emission per kg fuel consumption]Electric current consumption [g emission per kilowatt hour electric current consumption]

Annual distances travelled per person for each vehicle and activity1)

Specific emission factor2) Motorbike [g/vehicle-km]

Specific emission factor2) Private car [g/vehicle-km]

Specific emission factor2)

aircraft [g/Pkm]

Degree of capacity use [g/vehicle-km / number of persons into the car per activity]1)

motorbike1)

Type Year of constr. Cylinder capacity Intra-/extra-urban

Taxi, CarSharing, Rental car assumption of year of constr., cylinder cap., fuel, In-/ex-urb

Buses2) public service vehicle coach Intra-/extra-urban

trains2) Fuel Public Electricity Electricity of DB AG

Aircraft2) Fuel

1) Data Source MOBILANZ 2) Data Source IFEU

linkage

acting on

Specific emission factor2)

Public transport [g/Pkm]

Private car1)

Year of constr. Cylinder capacity fuel Air condition Intra-/extra-urban

Fig. 1. Calculation of the individual ecological assessment.

Table 2Environmental impact

Environmental impact Effect Impact parameter Assessment parameters

Consumption of primary energy Global Cumulated energy outlay Primary energyGreenhouse effect Global CO2-equivalent CO2, CH4, N2OSummer smog Regional NCPOCP NOx, NMHCEutrophication Regional NOx-emission NOx

Acidity Regional SO2-equivalent NOx, SO2, NH3

Human toxicity Local Tumourigenic risk Particle emissions, benzene

Note. CO2: carbon dioxide, CH4: methane, N2O: nitrous oxide, NOx: nitrogen oxide, NMHC: non-methane hydrocarbon, SO2: sulphurdioxide, NH3: ammonia, NCPOCP: nitrogen corrected photochemical ozone creation potential.


Private car information was furnished by the individuals whereas for the ‘‘paratransit’’ like car-sharing cars,rental cars and taxis the following assumptions were made: for car-sharing cars a small car, for rental car amiddle class car and for taxi an upper class car were assumed. The public transport data were made availableby the transportation companies and are included in the database for motorized traffic in Germany TRE-MOD, which was created by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Heidelberg (Ifeu-Institute,2002). TREMOD was also the basis for the calculation of specific emission factors of several pollutants, green-house gases and the consumption of primary energy (see Table 2).

Based on the surveys’ information and the emission factors of TREMOD, analyses about several environ-mental impacts could be realized. The individual contribution to global, regional and local environmentaleffects for the year 2003 was taken into consideration (see Table 2).

As an example for the environmental impact of holiday travel, the anthropogenic Greenhouse effect will befocused on in this study as the most important global environmental impact. For the Greenhouse effect ofindividual holiday travel, the greenhouse gases were calculated as CO2-equivalent based on the Global Warm-ing Potential of the IPCC-report of 1996 (IPCC, 1996). The Global Warming Potential is defined as the ratioof the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative tothat of 1 kg of a reference gas (IPCC, 2001, p. 385). The considered time horizon is 100 years. CO2 is the ref-erence gas. The relations of the considered gases are for methane (CH4): 1 kg CO2/21 kg CH4; nitrous oxide(N2O): 1 kg CO2/310 kg N2O (IPCC, 1996).

3. Results

3.1. Holiday mobility of the sample

As Table 3 indicates, leisure, working, and shopping trips are dominant in people’s daily mobility. Mosttrips are conducted for these purposes. Concerning distances, which is crucial for ecological assessment, otheractivities are more dominant, first of all holiday trips.

Due to the distances traveled during holiday trips, the selected transportation mode is mostly motorized(see Table 4). The modal split of holiday trips shows the dominance of the car both for holiday and short staytrips. Concerning holiday trips, nearly a quarter is conducted by airplane yet, which shows the increasingimportance of air travel.

Table 3Mobility patterns for different mobility purposes

Trips/year and person(Journey there and back) (N = 1991)

Km traveled per personand year [km] (N = 1991)

Average km traveled per tripand person [km] (N = 1991)

Working 286.4 4482.0 15.6Shopping 241.6 486.6 2.0Private errands 137.2 576.6 4.2Leisure time 390.2 4052.6 10.4Short stay trip 4.0 1054.8 263.7Holiday 3.2 3838.8 1199.6

Table 4Modal split of holiday and short stay trips

Holiday [%] Short stay trip [%]

Non-motorized travel 0.3 0.4Car travel 60.7 77.1Public transport travel (local)a 9.1 9.2Public transport travel (long distance)b 7.4 11.6Air travel 22.5 1.7

a Local bus, tram, regional train.b Long-distance-train.


3.2. Definition of travel groups

For the creation of holiday travel groups based on travel behavior, two parameters are relevant: travel fre-quency and distance traveled. First, three frequency categories (no trips, 1–2 trips, 3 and more trips) and threedestination categories based on the distance of the farthest trip to a holiday destination (6600 km, 600–3000 km, >3000 km) were defined. The result of the combination of both criteria was seven travel groups.The comparison of these groups with regard to their socio-demographic data shows several similaritiesbetween groups of the same distance class. For analysis, these similar groups have been integrated again inorder to reduce the number of categories. As a consequence, the distance of the farthest trip is the definingcriteria for the travel groups, which has two main advantages: first, complexity is reduced and secondly,the destination choice allows more differentiated intervention strategies than holiday frequency.

According to this approach, four holiday groups were identified while short stay trips were excluded. Thefirst group is the ‘‘non-traveler’’ who had no holiday traveling in 2003. The second group traveled at least onetime with a maximum distance of 600 km, which means that this ‘‘local traveler’’ has chosen his holiday des-tination within or close to Germany. The third group traveled at least once to a destination at a distance of600–3000 km. In this radius the Mediterranean area might be one of the most popular destinations of the‘‘mid-distance traveler’’. The forth group, the ‘‘long-haul traveler’’, is the smallest group and went at leaston one holiday trip to a destination located at a distance of more than 3000 km in 2003 (see Table 5).

Table 6 shows the mean number of holiday and short stay trips of the four groups. All holiday groups differsignificantly from another according to the frequency of holiday trips (Scheffe post-hoc test, p < .01): long-haultravelers do not only travel to the most distant destinations but also travel most often. With reference to shortstay trips, non-travelers differ significantly from all other groups by the lowest number of trips (p < .01).

Table 6Average number of holiday and short stay trips of travel groups

Non-traveler Local traveler Mid-distance traveler Long-haul traveler

Number of holiday trips Means 0.0 1.8 2.3 2.7Number of short stay trips Means 1.2 2.1 2.3 2.7

Table 5Travel groups of the sample according to kilometers traveled (without short stay trips)

Travel groups Kilometer categories n %

Non-traveler 0 491 24.7Local traveler 1–600 523 26.4Mid-distance traveler 601–3000 757 38.2Long-haul traveler >3000 213 10.7

1984 100.0

Table 7Modal split of holiday trips of travel groups

Transport modes (in %) Local traveler Mid-distance traveler Long-haul traveler

Non-motorized travel 0.5 0.3 0.0Car travel 80.7 56.6 27.6Public transport travel (local) 9.7 10.1 3.9Public transport travel (long distance) 8.7 7.1 4.6Air travel 0.4 25.9 63.9

100.0 100.0 100.0


Besides, there are significant differences between the groups regarding travel mode choice (see Table 7). Thepercentage of non-motorized modes is generally low. Local travelers have the highest percentage of car useand long-haul travelers have the lowest. The pattern regarding air transport is the reverse: increasing distancesmean an increase in air transport. Regarding public transport, we distinguished between local and long-dis-tance travel. Both travel modes are more important for local and mid-distance travelers than for long-haultravelers. Public transport in general is more than twice as frequently used by local and mid-distance travelersthan by long-haul travelers.

3.3. Description of travel groups

A comparison of the holiday groups according to socio-demographic variables, values, and attitudes showssignificant differences between the groups. Table 8 presents the relative frequencies of socio-demographic andhousehold variables as well as the means of values and attitudes.

On the basis of the results presented in Table 8, the groups can be characterized as follows. Regarding non-travelers we find a comparably high percentage of unemployed and elderly people, as well as persons withouthigher education. In addition, more than a quarter of the non-travelers are persons having no relationship. Incomparison with the other groups, non-travelers seem to be socially disadvantaged. However, their low open-ness to change indicates that it is not only their socio-economic situation that makes them stay at home, butalso their low interest in excitement and variety. Compared to the other groups, non-travelers show the highestratings for the symbolic dimensions of public transport and the private car.

In most aspects, local-travelers are quite similar to non-travelers, however their socio-economic situation isa bit better. In addition, we find the highest percentage of married couples—especially with children—amonglocal-travelers.

Mid-distance travelers are mainly middle-aged persons with a higher income. This group consists of a highpercentage of double income households and shows high self-enhancement, both aspects indicating a highcareer-orientation.

With respect to values, long-haul travelers can be characterized by the highest openness to change and ahigh self-enhancement. Moreover, they have the highest level of education. The group mainly consists ofadults before setting up a family (26–35 years) or after the children have left home (51–65 years). Accordingly,the percentage of persons with children in the household is quite low. Furthermore, we find a higher percent-age of alternative living arrangements based on partnership, especially cohabitants and living apart togetherrelationships. Compared to the other three groups, long-haul travelers seem to prefer an alternative, moreindividualistic way of living (and traveling). They assess symbolic dimensions of public transport and the pri-vate car comparably low.

From group 1 to group 4 we find an increasing openness to change and self-enhancement. Concerning theother two values, conservation and self-transcendence, we find no significant differences. Thus, a higher eco-logical awareness does not seem to be connected with an abdication of overseas travel. However, compared tothe other values, self-transcendence is very pronounced in all travel groups. For 38.7% of long-haul travelers itis very important or extremely important to save the environment and to respect the earth. In this regard thereseems to be no link between ecological value and behavior.

Table 8Description of travel groups by socio-demographic variables, values, and attitudes

Non-traveler Localtraveler

Mid-distancetraveler

Long-haultraveler

Significance

n 491 523 757 213Age v2(12,1984) = 65.73***

18–25 years 13.4% 13.8% 14.1% 7.0%26–35 years 14.9% 15.9% 16.6% 24.4%36–50 years 21.8% 27.2% 32.8% 27.2%51–65 years 27.1% 26.8% 25.2% 32.9%> 65 years 22.8% 16.4% 11.2% 8.5%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Living arrangements based on partnership v2(9,1888) = 37.20***

Singles (no partnership) 26.5% 15.8% 15.1% 16.6%LATs (living apart together relationship) 10.5% 13.0% 14.9% 17.1%Cohabitants 9.8% 7.8% 9.6% 12.2%Married couples 53.2% 63.3% 60.4% 54.1%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Household type v2(24,1984) = 168.33***

Solitary person—employed 6.3% 5.9% 11.2% 18.3%Solitary person—unemployed 17.1% 8.6% 5.3% 7.0%Single father/mother 3.3% 1.9% 1.6% 0.9%Couple without children—both employed 5.9% 8.8% 12.5% 16.4%Couple without children—one employed 6.7% 7.8% 8.9% 15.0%Couple—unemployed 17.3% 14.7% 11.2% 11.3%Couple with children—both employed 6.9% 11.3% 15.5% 9.4%Couple with children—one employed 10.2% 10.3% 9.0% 2.8%Others (incl. missings) 26.3% 30.6% 24.8% 18.8%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Level of education v2(3,1984) = 94.43***

No higher education 73.9% 56.8% 49.3% 42.3%Higher education 26.1% 43.2% 50.7% 57.7%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Income v2(3,1627) = 62.42***

62500 EUR 78.4% 63.9 54.7 56.6>2500 EUR 21.6% 36.1 45.3 43.4

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Values

Openness to change 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 F(3,1978) = 18.45***

Conservation 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.2 F(3,1980) = 2.27Self-enhancement 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 F(3,1980) = 2.73*

Self-transcendence 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 F(3,1980) = 0.97

Attitudes

Public transport—excitement [1;5] 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 F(3,1889) = 5.48**

Public transport—control [1;5] 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.0 F(3,1981) = 4.98**

Car orientation [1;5] 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 F(3,1863) = 4.29**

* p < .05.** p < .01.

*** p < .001.


3.4. Ecological assessment of travel groups

Concerning holiday mobility the long-haul traveler travels most often and uses the most energy intensetransportation modes car and air travel (see Tables 6 and 7). This is reflected by the environmental impact, moreprecisely by the emissions of greenhouse gases. Fig. 2 shows the emissions of greenhouse gases for holidaytraveling for the local, the mid-distance and the long-haul travelers according to the share of transportation

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Local-traveler Mid-distance traveler Long-haul traveler all (average)

Air travel

Public transport travel (long-distance)

Public transport travel (local)

Car travel

CO

2-eq

uiva

lent

in k

g pe

r ye

ar a

nd p

erso

n

Fig. 2. CO2-equivalent of holiday mobility for travel groups.


mode. As expected, the long-haul traveler by far emits most greenhouse gases. Most emissions result fromtraveling by plane. Because of the distance intensity of plane trips only few trips by this transportation modecause a disproportionately large share of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the emissions resulting from car-travel are comparable within the travel groups. The mid-distance traveler emits even more greenhouse gases bycar travel than the long-haul traveler. The group of local travelers emits the least greenhouse gases. Fig. 2 alsoillustrates the low importance of public transport concerning the greenhouse effect by holiday trips. Reasonsmight be the rareness of using train or coach for holiday trips in general and the higher capacity rate of thesevehicles which reduces the emissions per person. The third reason might be the shorter travel distances by trainor coach in comparison with traveling by plane.

These results identify long-haul travelers as the group with the greatest potential for the reduction of envi-ronmental impacts concerning holiday trips. This group—the smallest travel group (10.7% of the sample)—isresponsible for more than 80% of the climatic effects. Reducing only a few flights would contribute signifi-cantly to the decrease of greenhouse gases emissions. Because of the high share of car travel (see Table 7) thereis also a potential reduction of greenhouse gas within all respective travel groups, but especially in the groupsof long-haul and mid-distance travelers. Despite the high number of holiday trips by car the emission rate isrelatively small because of the lower distances of the journeys and the higher capacity rate. Typically, the carcapacity rate is quite low for every day mobility purposes than for holiday and leisure mobility purposes.

Considering not only holiday journeys but also daily mobility purposes, the long-haul traveler also emitsthe most greenhouse gases, whereas the non-traveler emits the fewest (see Fig. 3). Obviously, the group oflong-haul travelers represents a group of people which is characterized by a high mobility rate and impactintensity. For example, this group emits the most greenhouse gases for working trips as well as for leisure timetrips. The long distances of these trips with a low transportation mode capacity rate are the reason for thiseffect. In contrast to the long-haul traveler, the groups of non-travelers and local travelers have the lowest rateof greenhouse gas emissions for holidays as well as for everyday mobility purposes.

Looking at the transportation mode of all trips (everyday and holiday mobility), the dominance of car tra-vel concerning the greenhouse gas emissions is remarkable (see Fig. 4). Only for the long-haul traveler thegreenhouse gas emissions of air travel are higher than the emissions of car travel. The contribution of publictransport to the greenhouse effect is negligible for all holiday groups.

3.5. Prediction of greenhouse gas emissions

We have shown that holiday types differ significantly regarding their personal attributes like income or val-ues and that their holiday behavior results in a different level of greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is not

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Non-traveler Local-traveler Mid-distancetraveler

Long-haultraveler

all (average)

holiday

short-stay

leisure time

private errands

shopping

working

CO

2-eq

uiva

lent

in k

g pe

r ye

ar a

nd p

erso

n

Fig. 3. CO2-equivalent for travel groups and different mobility purposes.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Non-traveler Local-traveler Mid-distancetraveler

Long-haul traveler all (average)

air travel

public transport (long distance)

public transport (local)

car travel

CO

2-eq

uiva

lent

in k

g pe

r ye

ar a

nd p

erso

n

Fig. 4. CO2-equivalent for travel groups and transport mode.


already clear which attributes of the various travel groups are responsible for the different holiday mobilitybehavior that causes a different level of greenhouse gas emissions. To answer this question, we conducted ahierarchical regression analysis predicting the global warming potential caused by holiday mobility. Theresults are summarized in Table 9. Of the 18 considered indicators (11 socio-demographic variables, 3 atti-tudes, 4 values) nine are significant. Altogether, the regression model explains 17% of the variance of globalwarming caused by holiday mobility. Regarding socio-demographic variables, greenhouse gas emissionsincrease with growing income and higher education. Persons living in smaller households, especially with apartner in a different household, cause more greenhouse gas emissions by holiday mobility. Single-personhouseholds as well as living-apart-together relationships have already been described as highly mobile livingarrangements (Haustein, in press; Kunert, 1994). Concerning attitudes and values, people who are open tochange cause more greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, people who like to travel by public transport—and thus probably choose destinations reachable by public transport—cause less greenhouse gases than people

Table 9Stepwise regression to predict greenhouse gas emissions

Variables B SE b

Income 0.45 0.04 0.32 ***Household size �0.45 0.05 �0.21 ***Higher education 0.80 0.13 0.14 ***Living-apart-together relationship 0.58 0.20 0.07 **Openness to change 0.25 0.04 0.14 ***Public transport excitement �0.18 0.06 �0.07 **

Note: R2 = .17; adjusted R2 = .17.**p < .01.***p < .001.


who find traveling by public transport less relaxing or exciting. To simplify, educated individualists who canafford expensive trips cause the most greenhouse gas emissions. This characterization matches with our pre-vious description of the long-haul traveler.

3.6. Options for change in holiday behavior

The aim of the in-depth-interviews was to enhance knowledge about the individual holiday behavior con-text and to receive information about the motivations, interests and obstacles to change holiday mobility. Themost environmentally friendly transportation mode for holiday mobility is, besides the coach, the long dis-tance train, therefore people have been asked about the suitability of this product for their mobility needs.Beyond that, the persons were asked if they would voluntarily reduce the number of holiday trips performedby private car or plane under current conditions.

The data has been evaluated per interviewee with regard to the main arguments for holidays and the obsta-cles to the use of long-distance trains according to psychological, social and/or product reasons. The assess-ment of obstacles to use long-distance trains and the acceptance of supporting services to use long distancetrains have been asked for. Supporting services are: luggage transport, mobility options at the holiday desti-nation, and full-service-traveling-packages for holiday trips.

The in-depth-interviews confirm most of the results of the standardized survey carried out in 2003. All fourtravel groups are presented in the panel but the local and the mid-distance travelers are slightly overrepre-sented. The interviews show the different level of holiday activity. Surprisingly, less people than expectedreport not to travel at all; if people say they travel less they argue they generally dislike traveling or prefernear holiday destinations.

In comparison to the standardized survey that focused holiday mobility in 2003, the interviewees alsodescribe their holiday behavior for the previous years and the social context it generally took place in. Some-one who did not take a plane in 2003 has most probably used it in the previous years and vice versa (‘‘In 2003 Iwas in South-Africa but I will not go there every year.’’ No. 707). People either have clear preferences orrestrictions for a specific holiday behavior (‘‘I love tourism by car.’’ No. 1918; ‘‘We generally take the carfor holiday, because my wife has thrombosis and should not fly.’’ No. 1617) or their holiday behavior is ratherflexible; destination changes as well as transport mode choice (‘‘This (choice of transport mode) depend on thedestination. This can not be answered globally.’’ No. 1763). Interviewees also describe repeating holiday rou-tines for every year (‘‘Once a year we go on holiday by plane.’’ No. 822; ‘‘We always travel three times eachyear. Additionally, in fall we travel to the north of Italy for shopping.’’ No. 833).4

The results show that for a comprehensive description of holiday mobility behavior, several years must beconsidered.

Despite the variety of destinations the most important transportation mode for holiday mobility is by farthe private car; for holidays within Europe and overseas, air travel is relevant (‘‘If you want to go to the south

4 All quotations in this chapter have been translated from German into English.


you definitely take the plane.’’ No. 1470). Concerning air travel there are people with a general high preferencefor this kind of mode (‘‘. . .within the last three years I traveled only by plane (for holiday).’’ No. 1003), peoplefor whom air travel is part of a variety of different transport modes (‘‘Certainly I have already traveled a lot byplane. It could be a choice anytime.’’ No. 1096) but there are also people without any flying experiences (‘‘No Ihave never flown because I don’t trust the technology.’’ No. 839).

Correspondingly, the interviewees describe their decision for a transport mode mainly as a process depend-ing on their choice of destination (‘‘This (renunciation of air travel) would mean my holiday destinationdepends on the available transport mode. That is not acceptable, I want to go there where I think I wantto go.’’ No. 405). The relevance of low-cost carriers for the decision to fly is also mentioned by several inter-viewees (‘‘It is crazy how expensive this (train traveling) sometimes is. I take HLX or any other low-cost car-rier and I am in Rome or Florence.’’ No. 1488).

Especially families report the specifics of traveling with children and its special requirements. Childrendetermine to no small degree the general type of holiday, choice of destination and transportation mode.(‘‘I go camping with my kids and without a car I would not dare to do this with all the stuff. When I wenton a holiday without my kids once we took the plane. That was a holiday destination I would not choosefor my kids.’’ No. 1559).

Because of the individual variety of holiday destinations and therefore alternating transportation modes, aswell as the relative infrequency of individual long-haul journeys, the environmental impacts of holiday behav-ior are hardly mentioned. On the other hand, the variety of behaviors could be interpreted as an indicator forthe general readiness to change behavior if necessary.

Most of the interviewees have never traveled by train for holiday. Most of the people mention at least onerestriction for traveling by train for holiday mobility. This is interesting since a lot of the interviewees have nopersonal experience with train traveling. The reasons for rejecting train traveling are quite similar: the mainobstacles to train travel are price, luggage carriage, and generally expected complications of traveling. Abovethis, the choice of destination is sometimes not suitable for train travel. A significant number of people are alsonot interested in using the train in future. (‘‘My car is in front of my house—why should I use the train?’’ No.1351).

Prices seem to be a relevant factor for the refusal of train traveling. This argument is especially mentionedin the context of traveling with a group or family, for which car traveling seems to be less expensive. Somepeople are interested in train traveling for special purposes like city visits, especially as an alternative for pri-vate car use.

Most of the people do not disapprove of additional train services in general but the applicability and suit-ability for mobility purposes under current conditions seems to be small. (‘‘It is nice that services exist, but it isalso nice that I do not really need them when I am traveling by car’’ No. 1488). In contrast it is noticeable thatpeople who normally travel by car are also interested in mobility services at their holiday destinations as alter-natives to their car (e.g. car rental, local bus and tram etc.). It seems that, once at their holiday destination,people are prepared and willing to not use their own car.

For some people luggage transport service is a general precondition for train travel, but they also don’ttrust the reliability of this kind of services. (‘‘I do not know if I’m confident that my luggage would reallyarrive. I prefer having my stuff with me. If you use the service you have to trust it—I do not know if I could’’No. 467). The alternative to train travel is traveling by coach where most services are already integrated.

Under existing conditions, 80% of the interviewees would increase traveling by train if additional serviceslike luggage carriage and door-to-door-organization were available for free. However, this interview result hasto be handled with care. Reasons for the refusal of train travel are manifold, they relate not only to personalaspects but also to the specifics of the service. Additionally, the private car is a strong competitor as well as airtravel, the availability of which has increased visibly during the last years.

The correlation of the interviewees with the travel groups provides some additional information regardingthe possibilities for a change of travel behavior, however less than expected. A pattern analysis of travelgroups, interest in train traveling and additional train services show that in each travel group there is a shareof people rejecting train travel and services as well as people expressing openness. The level of opennesstoward train traveling is similar among non-travelers, local travelers and the mid-distance-travelers, but lowerconcerning the long-haul-traveler. The relatively comparable acceptance respectively refusal of a change of


travel behavior between the travel groups could be a general indicator for the individual variety of holidaytraveling but could also mean that travel groups cannot be addressed using one, single strategy.

4. Conclusions

4.1. Driving factors of holiday mobility and environmental impact

Based on the longest holiday trip the interviewees conducted within one year, four travel groups have beenconstructed. The ‘‘non-traveler’’ with no travel activities, the ‘‘local-traveler’’ who stayed in or close to Ger-many, the ‘‘mid-distance traveler’’ and the ‘‘long-haul traveler’’ with at least one holiday trip to a destinationwith a distance of more than 3000 km. The four groups show significant differences in both the number of tripsand their travel mode choice: persons who travel to more distant destinations also travel more often and useair travel for more than 60% of their trips. For the other groups, car travel is more important, local travelersconduct about 80% of their trips by car, the mid-distant travelers almost 60%. Public transport is of minorimportance. The four groups are also significantly different according to socio-demographics and values.

Our results confirm most of the studies already indicating the importance of socio-demographic variablesfor holiday patterns. Financial power is the precondition for holiday activities and thus expensive journeys.The specific household situation is also important: families with children prefer mid-distant journeys, whereaslong-haul journeys are more interesting for persons without children, especially persons in alternative livingarrangements. Additionally, our analyses show that values also have an effect on the number of trips and dis-tances traveled for holiday purposes and consequently on the environment. Especially values like openness tochange seem to be a driving force for the choice of overseas travel.

Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the share and impact of air travel in comparison to other transpor-tation modes have been shown. The consideration of the personal level illustrates that, at present, only a smallgroup of people is responsible for the environmental effects of air travel. As several studies have predicted,there seems to be a high development potential for more air travel under current conditions. If one assumesgeneral economic improvement for the majority of people worldwide, holiday trips and therefore air travelseem to have a significant market share potential. Among the consequences are an increase in greenhousegas emissions and further environmental damage.

A comparison of the four value clusters revealed that all travel groups had strong environmental values.However, the results of the stepwise regression showed that environmental values have no influence on travelbehavior. This gap between value orientation and behavior was not surprising. The in-depth interviewsshowed that the connection between environmental impact and holiday behavior is not made by the individ-uals. Reasons for this could include lack of information as well as non-consideration of alternative options dueto the high importance individuals attribute to holidays.

Even if the non-traveler and local-traveler show the most positive ecological balance from the environmen-tal perspective, they cannot serve as role models for an environmentally friendly holiday behavior. As a matterof fact, their behavior is rather a result of economic constraints and a lack of interest in traveling than of eco-logical awareness. Transforming travelers into local or regional travelers should not become a general objec-tive. The interest to explore foreign countries and the economic capacity or non-capacity to do so will continueto exist. Strategies aiming at the reduction of the individual’s negative environmental impact have to considerdifferent personal preconditions for traveling as well as the different extent to which people travel. Our resultsmay help to assess the applicability of different strategies by taking diverse individual living conditions andrequirements into account. In fact, should strategies focus on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,the long-haul travelers respectively long-haul journeys and their specific characteristics must be addressed.

4.2. Strategies and obstacles to the reduction of holiday mobility’s environmental impact

If we assume that holidays and consequently holiday mobility will remain a characteristic of modern andeconomically prosperous societies, strategies aiming at more ecologically sustainable tourism must include achange of destinations and thus a reduction of kilometers, as well as a shift towards environmentally friendlytransportation modes which emit less greenhouse gases. In a global perspective, reducing the environmental


impact of air travel is of high importance. This implies developing substitute destinations e.g. in Europe asalternatives to overseas travel, additional infrastructure like long-distance train connections, and improvingso-called soft policies such as the communication and information about travel options and their respectiveenvironmental impact. Nevertheless, the dominant role of car travel should not be underestimated. Besidesthe global consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, further impacts like the discharge of particles, morenoise, and the risk of accidents are highly relevant on the local level. One result of traveling to a holiday des-tination by car is that the car is also used at the destination itself, a place which is likely to be ecologicallysensitive.

Following reduction and compensation strategies and their suitability for the four travel groups, we willalso deal with the effects of political action. The discussion will be completed by the implications and require-ments for further holiday mobility research activities.

4.2.1. Change of holiday destinations and transport mode shift

Long-haul travelers generally show high mobility rates, and this pertains not only to their holiday mobility.As a result, they emit by far more greenhouse gases than the other groups. From the environmental point ofview, the group of long-haul travelers seems to be the group with the highest reduction potential of greenhousegases. However, especially for worldwide-traveling, there is no real choice of transport mode. Transportationmode choice is a result of the choice of destination; if the holiday destination is overseas, no realistic alterna-tives for air traveling are conceivable.

The motivation for the long-haul traveler to get into contact with foreign cultures, to explore foreign land-scapes or to exhibit a lifestyle different from the mainstream population might be stronger than the realizationthat air travel causes environmental damage. Nevertheless, it might be possible to promote weakly developedregions within Europe to the subgroup of long-haul travelers who are mainly looking for cultural and naturalexcitement. These regions should then be accessible via public transport since many of them are ecologicallysensitive.

In contrast, successfully changing the destination choices of the long-haul traveler subgroup mainly trav-eling to enjoy the beach and the sun is not very likely. The analyses of long-haul travelers have also shownthat this kind of traveling is relevant for a special phase in life. Job or family responsibilities might changethe individual choice of destination much faster than communication strategies or the promotion of interestingEuropean destinations.

The reduction of distances and shifts in transportation mode are also strategies applicable to mid-distancetravelers. Changing their choices of destination is also less likely. Obstacles to a shift from air travel to trainare often time, money and anticipated complications. Traveling by train could be more time consuming andmore expensive than air or car travel. If the rate of occupancy in a private car is high, it is also an environ-mentally positive option, especially for families who are often mid-distance travelers. On the other hand, cartravel increases the risk of accidents. Another option is traveling by coach. Traveling by coach or train, how-ever, requires easy accessibility of mobility services at the holiday destination such as car rentals or publictransport.

Although the reduction potential is lower, local travelers are the most appropriate target group for the pro-motion of traveling by train and accompanying services. First, their holiday distances are shorter and they usecar travel for 80% of their trips. Secondly, their attitudes towards public transport are quite positive. Market-ing appropriate destinations and easy access by trains or coaches are preconditions for this strategy. In orderto address this group properly, it might be necessary to form subgroups distinguished by household, age,income etc.

The in-depth interviews have shown that most of people are not familiar with train travel. A special mar-keting for the group of non-users but also product improvements are necessary to reach this group. Additionalservices like luggage transport could help reduce existing obstacles but are no guarantee for train use.

4.2.2. Compensation opportunities for air travel

In view of the aim of reducing the greenhouse gases caused by consumer holiday mobility, the findings areno ground for optimism. In particular, the potential of reducing the greenhouse gases caused by long-haultravelers seems to be limited. Current conditions like low air fares, the increasing flexibility of working hours


which triggers short-stay travel on long weekends, and the symbolic dimension of holiday destinations stim-ulate further holiday mobility by air transport.

Since the private car is used extensively for leisure and holiday mobility, it contributes, like air transport, togreenhouse gas emissions. People especially appreciate the flexibility and the transportation function of theprivate car. Environmentally friendly transportation modes like the train are mostly associated with longertravel times, more costs and complications, which are the main obstacles to their use.

The opportunity to compensate for the environmental damage caused by holiday mobility could be a strat-egy for cases when a journey cannot be avoided or a transport mode shift is impossible. Compensation pro-grams for air travel like atmosfair or myclimate (Atmosfair GmbH, 2005; MyClimate, 2005) already exist butprobably need more public attention as well as a greater variety of compensation targets. The participation ina compensation program could be an approach especially for pro-environmental travelers who are aware ofthe environmental impact of their holiday mobility behavior. Even if compensation is the last solution resortedto, it remains critical if it only soothes the guilty conscience of the traveler. Compensation programs should beaccompanied by measures aiming at a change of travel behavior.

4.2.3. Political and marketing strategies

Instruments to reduce the greenhouse gases caused by air transport are being intensively discussed. Accord-ing to a current proposal of the EU, air travel should be included in any post-2012 climate change regime (EU,2005a). Furthermore, legal barriers should be abolished in order to introduce a kerosene tax. Models consid-ering these measures show that air fares would increase only slightly. The demand for air travel would increasea little less than predicted. Considering the different travel groups, the long-haul traveler, mid-distance travelerhave the financial power to compensate increasing prices. Due to their economic situation, the non-travelerand the local traveler would be affected much more by price increases both for air or car travel.

Additionally, the improvement of air travel management, the technical equipment of planes and the reduc-tion of air speed are options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pollutants and noise.

There is also a visible trend towards more sustainable holiday (mobility). For example, within the last years,several tourist destinations developed special marketing strategies for car-free holiday travel. In Germany, anaffiliated company of the Deutsche Bahn especially sells holiday by train and a glance at tourism businessshows the growing relevance of cycling tourism. If there is an increasing interest and market for sustainabletourism it will be necessary to develop special mobility services as well as an appropriate infrastructure to meetthis demand.

4.2.4. Further research of holiday mobility

For a comprehensive understanding of holiday behavior and motives, further inquiry on the individuallevel will be necessary. Stepwise regression has shown that more specific items are needed. Since socio-demo-graphic data have been measured in a rather differentiated way, other psychological factors like individual tra-vel motives and constraints such as fear of flying are possible further indicators. Also, external factors such asthe influence of mass media should be considered. To make an assessment of how holiday behavior changesduring a larger time span, long-term observation is necessary. This would help understand whether holidaybehavior follows a specific routine.

In order to develop individual strategies, more specific questions about suitable options should be focussedon. With the in-depth interviews we already received information about the general willingness to change holi-day behavior and the openness towards alternative transportation modes. However, more precise informationabout the existing level of knowledge concerning the environmental consequences of holiday mobility and theindividual requirements for a behavioral change is needed. This would facilitate the development of an infra-structure, services and information for travelers.

Acknowledgement

The research is embedded in the research program ‘‘Social-Ecological Research’’ supported by the GermanFederal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).


References

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Some unresolved issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50,179–211.

Atmosfair GmbH, 2005. Nachdenken. Klimabewusst reisen. Atmosfair. Retrieved October 21, 2005. Available from: <http://www.atmosfair.de>.

Bamberg, S., 2001. Wertetypen und Umweltverhalten. Empirischer Test der Theorie integrierter Wertsysteme von Schwartz mit langensowie zwei neuentwickelten kurzen Werte-Inventaren. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Gießen.

BMU—Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Eds.), 2004. Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2004.BMU, Berlin, Bonn.

Deutsche Bahn AG, 2005. Fahrziel Natur. Retrieved October 21, 2005. Available from: <http://www.fahrtziel-natur.de>.Etrillard, S., 2004. Erfolgreich verkaufen an anspruchsvolle Kunden: Premiumkunden und Best Ager begeistern. Business Village,

Gottingen.EU—Commission of the European Communities, 2005a. Reducing the Climate Change Impact of Aviation. Communication from the

Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of theRegions, Brussels.

EU—Commission of the European Communities, 2005b. Annex to the Communication from the Commission ‘‘Reducing the ClimateChange Impact of Aviation’’. Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels.

F.U.R—Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen, 2000. In: Kosterke, A., von Laßberg, D. (Eds.), Die Reiseanalyse RA 2000,Hamburg.

F.U.R (Eds.), 2004. Die 34. Reiseanalyse RA 2004, Kiel.Griffin, T., 2003. An optimistic perspective on tourism‘s sustainability. In: Harris, R., Griffin, T., Williams, P. (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism:

A Global Perspective. Elsevier–Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 24–34.Harland, P., Staats, H., Wilke, H.A.M., 1999. Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of

planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29, 2505–2528.Harris, T., Griffin, T., Williams, P. (Eds.), 2003. Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective. Elsevier–Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford.Haustein, S., in press. Mobilitatsverhalten in Abhangigkeit von der partnerschaftlichen Lebensform. Umweltpsychologie.Hedorfer, P., Todter, N., 2004. Weltweites altersinduziertes Wachstum—Chancen fur den Deutschland-Tourismus. In: Best-Ager im

Tourismus—Tourismus mit Best-Agern. Messe Munchen/Projektleitung C-B-R, Profil Verlag, Munich, Vienna, pp. 36–44.Heret Informatik Service, 2003. Koordinaten Online. Programm zur Entfernungsberechnung auf der Erde. <http://www.koordinaten.de>

(accessed 25.04.05).Hunecke, M., Blobaum, A., Matthies, E., Hoger, R., 2001. Responsibility and environment—ecological norm orientation and external

factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment and Behavior 33, 845–867.Institut fur Demoskopie Allensbach, 2003. Wieder mehr Flugreisen—Aber jede funfte Frau leidet unter Flugangst. Allensbacher Berichte

2003/16, Allensbach.Ifeu-Institute for Energy and Environmental Research GmbH, 2002. Aktualisierung des ‘‘Daten- und Rechenmodells’’: Energieverbrauch

und Schadstoffemissionen des motorisierten Verkehrs in Deutschland 1980–2020. Endbericht im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes.Ifeu-Institute, Heidelberg.

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge and New York.

IPCC, 1999. Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. A Special Report of IPCC Working Groups I and III in collaboration with theScientific Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Kirstges, T., Luck, M., 2001. Umweltvertraglicher Tourismus: Fallstudien zur Entwicklung und Umsetzung Sanfter Tourismuskonzepte.

Gmeiner, Meßkrich.Kosterke, A., von Laßberg, D., 2005. Urlaubsreisen und Umwelt: Eine Untersuchung uber die Ansprechbarkeit der Bundesburger auf

Natur- und Umweltaspekte in Zusammenhang mit Urlaubsreisen. Studienkreis fur Tourismus und Entwicklung e.V., Ammerland.Kreilkamp, E., 2005. Strategische fruhaufklarung im Rahmen des krisenmanagements im tourismusmarkt. In: Pechlaner, H., Glaeßer,

D. (Eds.), Risiko und Gefahr im Tourismus: Erfolgreicher Umgang mit Krisen und Strukturbruchen. Erich Schmidt, Berlin, pp.29–60.

Kunert, U., 1994. Singles: Zahlreich und mobil. Zum Mobilitatsverhalten alleinlebender Personen. In: Grabe, S. (Ed.), LebensformEinpersonenhaushalt: Herausforderungen an Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft und Politik. Campus, Frankfurt a. M, pp. 133–158.

Mansfeld, Y., 1992. From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research 19, 339–419.Meinhold, J.L., Malkus, A.J., 2005. Adolescent environmental behaviors: can knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference?

Environment and Behavior 37, 511–532.MyClimate, 2005. Climate Protection—Invest in the Future: Act Now. Retrieved October 21, 2005. Available from: <http://

www.myclimate.org/EN>.Nordlund, A., Garvill, J., 2003. Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car us. Journal

of Environmental Psychology 23, 339–347.Oko-Institut e.V. (Eds.), 2001. Last Minute fur den Umweltschutz. Perspektiven fur die Zukunft des Reisens. Oko-Institut e.V., Freiburg.

http://www.atmosfair.de

http://www.atmosfair.de

http://www.fahrtziel-natur.de

http://www.koordinaten.de

http://www.myclimate.org/EN

http://www.myclimate.org/EN


Pache, E., 2005. Moglichkeiten der Einfuhrung einer Kerosinsteuer auf innerdeutschen Flugen. Im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes.UBA-Texte 12/05, Berlin.

Petermann, T., Wennrich, C., 1999. Entwicklung und Folgen des Tourismus. Endbericht, Bericht zum Abschluss der Phase II, TABArbeitsbericht, Nr. 59, Buro fur Technikfolgenabschatzung, Berlin.

Pikkemaat, B., 2004. Einflussfaktoren der qualitatswahrnehmung. In: Weiermeier, K., Pikkemaat, B. (Eds.), Qualitatszeichen imTourismus. Vermarktung und Wahrnehmung von Leistungen. Erich Schmidt, Berlin, pp. 95–112.

Pompl, W., 2002. Luftverkehr: eine okonomische und politische Einfuhrung. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Schallabock, K.-O., 2005. Der Flugverkehr zwischen Verkehrsbedarf und Klimaschutzerfordernissen. In: Loske, R., Schaeffer, R. (Eds.),

Die Zukunft der Infrastrukturen. Metropolis, Marburg, pp. 289–319.Schallabock, K.-O., Petersen, R., 1999. In: Countdown fur den Klimaschutz—Wohin steuert der Verkehr? Wuppertal Institut fur Klima,

Umwelt, Energie GmbH, Hamburg.Schmied, M., Buchert, M., Hochfeld, C., Schmitt, B., 2001. Umwelt und Tourismus—Daten, Fakten, Perspektiven. UBA-Berichte 4/02.

Oko-Institut, Berlin.Schultz, P.W., Gouveia, V.V., Cameron, L.D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., Franek, M., 2005. Values and their relationship to

environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36, 457–475.Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W., 1990. Toward a theory of universal content and structures of values. Extensions and cross cultural replications.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 878–891.Sivak, M., Flannagan, M.J., 2004. Consequences for road traffic fatalities of the reduction in flying following September 11, 2001.

Transportation Research Part F 7, 301–305.Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case

ofenvironmentalism. Research in Human Ecology 6, 81–97.Wiedemann, P.M., Schutz, H., 2005. Was sollte ein Risikomanager uber die Risikowahrnehmung wissen? In: Pechlaner, H., Glaeßer, D.

(Eds.), Risiko und Gefahr im Tourismus: Erfolgreicher Umgang mit Krisen und Strukturbruchen. Erich Schmidt, Berlin, pp. 75–87.World Tourism Organisation: Tourism 2020 Visions. Retrieved October 17, 2005. Available from: <http://world-tourism.org/facts/

menu.html>.

http://world-tourism.org/facts/menu.html

http://world-tourism.org/facts/menu.html

Documents

Encouraging environmentally sustainable holiday travel