Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 482–489

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Holiday travel discourses and climate change

Janet E. Dickinson a,*, Derek Robbins a, Les Lumsdon b
a
School of Services Management, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Poole BH12 5BB, UK
b
Institute of Transport and Tourism, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Current analyses highlight the relatively high contribution of holiday travel to greenhouse gas emissions.
Tourism One response has been a growing ‘slow travel’ movement. Slow travel is an emerging concept which can
Slow travel be explained as an alternative to air and car travel where people travel to destinations more slowly over-
Climate change land and travel less distance. At first glance, slow travel might seem to preclude much international tour-
ism, however, as an adaptation strategy, slow travel has the potential to reduce tourism’s overall carbon
footprint. Data were collected using in-depth interviews with 15 UK participants before and after a holi-
day to another European country. The analysis explores the discourses used by both slow and non-slow
travellers to justify modal choice in relation to climate change. Then, using a social practices model, the
paper explores how holiday travel is constrained by both individual agency to act and the structures that
exist within the travel and tourism industry. The paper concludes with some recommendations for the
development of slow travel as a tourism adaptation strategy for a lower carbon future.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Current analysis of tourism points to the relatively high contri-
bution of holiday travel to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Over-
all, calculations suggest that the tourism industry contributes
between 5% and 14% of world GHG emissions (Simpson et al.,
2008), however the travel component of tourism is responsible
for a large share of these emissions and this share is set to grow
(Gössling, 2002). The problem is particularly exacerbated by the
forecast in the growth of tourism, as only one tenth of the world
population currently travels overseas (Liu, 2003). The second issue
is the strong growth in long haul tourism in recent decades (Dwyer
and Forsyth, 2008). Given that the international agenda is one of
reducing emissions, this poses a problem for the tourism industry.
The reliance on air and car transport presents a significant problem
in moving to a lower carbon future.
One response has been ‘slow travel’. Slow travel is an idea that
has emerged in web communities, the media and academic circles
where people are choosing to avoid air and car transport to travel
to destinations more slowly overland, stay longer and generally
travel less. It symbolises the ‘‘rediscovery of the pleasure of the
journey as an important dimension of slow travel in an era of com-
moditised air travel” (Mintel, 2009, p. 6). While reduced GHG emis-
sions is an optimal outcome of slow travel this is not necessarily
the main concern; many discussions focus on the quality of expe-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 1202 965853; fax: +44 (0) 1202 515707.
E-mail addresses: jdickinson@bournemouth.ac.uk (J.E. Dickinson), drobbins@
bournemouth.ac.uk (D. Robbins), lmlumsdon@uclan.ac.uk (L. Lumsdon).
rience. However, given the imperative for the tourism sector to ad-
dress climate change concerns it is the mitigation and adaptation
potential that is the focus here. While not applicable to every tour-
ism context, slow travel has considerable potential in Europe
where most holiday travel is domestic or short-haul (Office for Na-
tional Statistics, 2009; Eurostat, 2007). Euromonitor International
(2007) forecasts that slow travel will be a key growth area in the
European market. This is particularly significant as a high propor-
tion of global tourism trips take place in Europe (UNWTO, 2008).
Slow travel also has potential in the Americas where a multiplicity
of tourist trips are short to medium distance.
This paper draws on a recent study focused on slow travel
which analyses its potential as a tourism adaptation and mitigation
strategy for a lower carbon future. The paper addresses two main
questions: how do slow travellers and non-slow travellers justify
modal choice in relation to climate change; and how is holiday tra-
vel constrained by both individual agency to act and the structures
that exist within the travel and tourism industry? The paper draws
on a discourse perspective from social psychology and a social
practices perspective from sociology.
2. The study context
The characteristic features of slow travel relate to mode of
transport, gaining an authentic experience, staying local at the des-
tination, an association with food and beverage and travelling less
distance. The concept has developed alongside slow food and cittá-
slow (slow city) which have spread from Italy across Europe and
with increasing interest in North America (Hall, 2006). It is also

0966-6923/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.01.006
 J.E. Dickinson et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 482–489
clearly allied to market segments which are interested in conserva-
tion and the environment of any given destination (Dolnicar,
2004). However, the definition is, as yet, unclear and it has been
used in a variety of different ways; a low carbon footprint is not al-
ways implied. For example, Mintel (2009) describes slow travel as
being surface transport, including the private car, even in light of
the recognition that it is driven by a motivation to reduce impacts
on the environment. The Australian Macquarie Dictionary gives an
official definition and from this it is clear interpretations might be
diverse:
‘1. travel conducted at a slow pace to enjoy more fully the
places visited and the people met. 2. such travel seen as envi-
ronmentally friendly through its lack of reliance on air transport
[modelled on slow food]’ (Tourism Victoria, 2008).
Both Macquarie Dictionary explanations might embrace car tra-
vel and the first definition makes no specific reference to modal
choice, merely highlighting the slow pace and experiential ele-
ments. This study, on the other hand, was driven by a slow travel
perspective based on low carbon tourism travel. It is this potential
of slow travel, that is key to future tourism and climate change de-
bates, which is at issue here.
In the context of low carbon tourism, modal choice is a key fac-
tor. As Table 1 indicates, there is a considerably smaller carbon
footprint associated with train, coach, cycle and foot modes com-
pared to air and car. It is, however, recognized that there is some
ambiguity surrounding car travel. With high loadings a car’s car-
bon footprint is reduced, although much depends on factors such
as vehicle type, fuel efficiency and age. For the purposes of this
study train, coach, cycle and foot travel were considered slow tra-
vel while air and car travel were not. However, it is recognised that
low carbon travel is not necessarily the primary motivation for
some slow travellers.
The study was especially interested in seeking explanations gi-
ven for modal choice and particularly whether slow travellers were
sensitive to discourses about the environment and climate change
in particular. Much of the research analysing travel behaviour and
environmental concern is rooted in spatial geography and psychol-
ogy traditions, which focus on modelling rational behaviour (Jack-
son, 2005). These studies have drawn attention to the gap between
environmental concern and appropriate behaviour and make an
important contribution to our understanding. At the same time,
work elsewhere in social psychology has questioned these cogni-
tive approaches that categorise practices and groups (Kasemir
et al., 2000; Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Willig, 2003) and pro-
posed alternatives that focus on the ‘‘socially constituted nature
of environmental problems” (Kurz et al., 2005, p. 604). This work
suggests decisions are far from rational, as behaviour is often jus-
tified post hoc to the specific context, and attitudes are far from
Table 1
Mode specific CO2 emission factors for transport.
kg/passenger kma
Air
<500 km 0.183
500–1000 km 0.134
1000–1500 km 0.130
1500–2000 km 0.121
>2000 km 0.111
Car 0.121 (0.180 v/km)
Rail 0.033
Coach 0.027
Cycle 0 conducted routinely in the context of socially differentiated
Walk 0 conventions of practice. Strategies for changing patterns of con-
a sumption depend ultimately on the transformation of
An average based on various sources (Peeters et al., 2007; National Express,
2008; Eurostar, 2008; Can Europe, 2008).
483
stable. Accordingly, there is a twofold need to analyse the adapta-
tion of holiday travel practices for a lower carbon future, and to ap-
ply more critical approaches to analyse assumptions about
environmental impacts and their relation to holiday travel
decisions.
A discourse analysis approach has rarely been used in the trans-
port field where, as stated above, the focus has been on rational
models. Recent studies have begun to explore the possibilities of
a discourse approach, for example, Becken (2007) on tourists and
air travel; Gössling and Peeters (2007) on airline and aviation
organisations; Guiver (2007) on bus and car users. However, there
is considerable scope to extend the analysis of how discourses are
used and how this enables or constrains what people do. A dis-
course perspective is in direct contrast to the mathematical model-
ling approaches, which have tended to dominate analysis of travel
behaviour, based in the cognitive psychology tradition. While mod-
elling approaches have brought useful insight to the relationships
between environmental values and transport decisions, these stud-
ies are overly reliant on quantitative measures and tend to assume
that people have consistent values and preferences (Guiver, 2007).
Potter and Wetherell (1987) suggest discourse analysis offers a
more powerful approach focusing on the organisation of spoken
and written language in relation to function and context.
This perspective recognises that individuals may adapt their
argumentation to suit a given context and thus there is much less
consistency across social contexts than once assumed (Willig,
2003). Here discourse analysis focuses on the language used to de-
scribe and evaluate travel choices in a holiday context and how the
way people talk directs their actions. It uses a form of discourse
analysis that focuses on interpretative repertoires (Potter and
Wetherell, 1987) which are the collected language used to charac-
terize and evaluate actions and events in a particular context. The
study is interested in the way people talk about holiday travel, how
this enables and constrains expressions of ideas and behaviour. In-
deed, particular discursive constructions may form as much a tra-
vel constraint as the typical time and cost barriers identified in
quantitative studies. A discourse analysis approach therefore has
the potential to offer new insight to climate change and travel
dilemmas.
The study was also interested in how pragmatic aspects of tra-
vel were constructed and in particular the extent to which partic-
ipants argue their holiday travel is constrained by both individual
agency to act and the structures that exist within the travel and
tourism industry. This emerged as an important theme during
the research. To this end social practice theory offers some insights.
This has recently received new attention in geography and sociol-
ogy, as a means of analysing consumption (Warde, 2005), and in
the tourism field (Verbeek and Mommaas, 2008). By linking the ac-
tor-orientated perspective with the structures (both physical travel
structures and social rules) available in society, social practice the-
ory is a sociological analysis that can offer insights into the fit or
mis-fit between lifestyles and socio technical devices (Spaargaren
and van Vliet, 2000). Social psychological models, as discussed
above, tend to stress the importance played by attitudes and values
in people’s environmental behaviour decisions but overlook the
structural conditions in society. Social practices theory considers
the interactions between individual agency, including attitudes
and values, and societal structures, the resulting focus being the
‘practice’ or particular ways of doing things (see Fig. 1). As South-
erton et al. (2004, p. 33) explain:
‘‘most consumption is collectively and normatively derived, and
practices.”
484 J.E. Dickinson et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 482–489
Fig. 1. A tourism social practice perspective (adapted from Spaargaren and van Vliet, 2000).
Within the context of the discourse perspective considered
here, the discourses relating to the structural conditions of tourism
present a barrier just as physical structures do.
For tourism to evolve, for a lower carbon future, the existing
rules and resources involved in tourism travel potentially present
a significant constraint. For instance, most tourism in rural areas
of Europe is currently car dependent (Schiefelbusch et al., 2007).
The holiday components (for example, accommodation and attrac-
tions) are in many instances almost wholly dependent on car based
access. People therefore come by car and this further undermines
alternative transport modes such as public transport, due to low
patronage levels, and cycling, due to busy roads. The car is cast
as an essential device to negotiate tourism in such contexts.
Another example is the institutionalised dependence of package
holidays on flights. For instance, while it is possible to book a pack-
age ski holiday from the UK using the ski train, the cost is far great-
er than flying or even booking the individual elements of the
holiday separately. The rational economic model therefore rein-
forces flying. It is this interaction between individual agency,
where people may have a desire to reduce their carbon footprint,
and the structures available, which are often high carbon depen-
dent, that is missing from much analysis of consumer behaviour
in the tourism travel literature (Fig. 1). As Randles and Mander
(2009) argue, consumption practices (in this context, tourism con-
sumption practices) co-evolve through people (actor/agents) inter-
acting with the structures available. Current studies show there is
considerable inertia within the actor/agent perspective (Becken,
2007; Bickerstaff et al., 2008; Randles and Mander, 2009). People
are not engaging with changing their behaviour in relation to cli-
mate change impacts in general and even less so in relation to hol-
idays. This suggests a need to look beyond the actor/agent
perspective, to examine these structures, their social construction
and reproduction in society.
A focus on tourism structures implies a much broader analysis
than that of the available transport infrastructure and could in-
clude, for example:
 Types of activities undertaken.
 Equipment/luggage carried.
 Time frame available for holidays.
 National vacation structures.
 Cost structures.
 Tour group characteristics.
 Tour operator options.
 Booking structures and the way people interact with them.
 Industry structures and linkages.
Whilst briefly considered here, a fuller analysis is beyond the
scope of this paper but implies the need for a stronger industry fo-
cus (Gössling and Hall, 2006). Assuming the actor/agency perspec-
tive has considerable inertia, can the tourism structures be
changed to ‘co-evolve’ more sustainable tourism practices that
are positively embraced and reproduced by tourists?
3. Methodology
Compared to cognitive approaches, a discourse perspective is
more inductive and, rather than testing hypotheses, explores a par-
ticularly discursive strategy (Potter, 1997). This implies a qualita-
tive approach. While survey based approaches, on the whole,
limit participants’ responses to pre-defined response categories,
open-ended discussion opens up the possibility of contrasting
views and the potential for inconsistency (Potter and Wetherell,
1987). This is particularly useful where attitudes are inconsistent
with behaviour. Thus, a discourse perspective offers a more power-
ful tool to examine discourse in relation to function and context
(Potter and Wetherell, 1987). Interviews can be viewed as ‘‘an are-
na for interaction” (Potter, 1997, p. 149) where the tourism and cli-
mate change relationship is constructed and made factual and the
coherence of participants’ decision making is justified despite con-
flicting evidence. Such an analytical approach is rarely employed in
the transport field and has the potential to offer new insights in the
contested arena of climate change. Focus groups would provide an
ideal arena to observe discursive interaction between participants,
however, due to the problems of identifying and bringing together
slow travellers this approach was rejected in favour of individual
interviews. There were also some concerns that the discussion of
climate change in a holiday context might be sensitive for some
participants and lead to some group bias.
Data were collected using two phases of in-depth interviews
conducted before and after an international holiday taken from
the Bournemouth area of the UK. Recruitment sought participants
for a study about the adaptation of tourism for a lower carbon fu-
ture. A mixture of slow travellers and non-slow travellers were re-
cruited through local advertising and a snowball approach. In total
15 participants (including some pairs of participants) were re-
cruited (Table 2). The interviews consisted of open ended ques-
tions. The pre-trip interview explored the following of relevance
to this paper:
 People’s stories of holiday travel.
 People’s decision making process.
 Understanding of climate change and its relationship to holiday
travel.
 Explanations of holiday travel behaviour in relation to climate
change.
Following the first interview, potential for alternative travel op-
tions was compiled and an estimate made of the relative carbon
footprint of options. The second interview focused on the actual
travel experience and adopted a more challenging approach in
relation to climate change based on the potential for use of alterna-
tive modes of transport. Interviews were recorded and then tran-
scribed. The transcripts were then coded into categories relevant
to the research questions, with categories derived inductively from
the data (Hayes, 2000). This initial descriptive stage organised and
reduced the volume of material for analysis (Potter, 1997). The
analysis then explored the participant’s discursive position when
explaining modal choice and climate change. Subsequent analysis
reflected on the role played in holiday travel choices by the partic-
ipants’ discursive positions (individual agency to act) and the
structures that exist within the travel and tourism industry. It is
important to note that this is a UK perspective and might not re-
flect the situation in other European countries where different tra-
vel structures and discursive strategies may be available.
 J.E. Dickinson et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 482–489 485

Table 2
Participant information.

Participant (names are pseudonyms) Destination(s) Transport modes kg of CO2 per persona
(mode in bold is mode used)
Cyclists
Paul Normandy, France Cycling and ferry 23
Other options: Car and ferry 39
Louise and Mark Brittany, France Cycle, train and ferry 37
Other options: Car and ferry 46
Flight 198
Alice Berlin, Germany Cycle and train 81
Other options: Flight 300
Car and ferry 243
Coach travellers
Adam Dolomites, Italy Coach 90
Other option: Car and ferry 287
Flight 325
Douglas Dolomites, Italy Coach 90
Other option: Car and ferry 568
Flight 399

Train travellers
Kate Nice, France Train 110
Other options: Car and ferry 173
Flight 290
Ellen and Alan Lake Garda, Italy Train 117
Other options: Car, ferry 185
Flight 294

Mixed slow and other modes

Nick and Chloe Dijon, France Car + cycle at destination 79
Other options: Flight 154
Train 62

Car travellers
Clive Paris, Bordeaux, Alps, France Car and ferry 130
Other options: Train 101
Toby Tour of 8 European countries Car/van 800
Other options: Train 308

Air travellers
Mike Amsterdam, Netherlands Flight 173
Other options Car and ferry 75
Train 74
David Heilbronn, Germany Flight 231
Other options: Car and ferry 182
Train 81
Ruth Genoa, Italy Flight 301
Other options: Train 128
Jane Sicily Flight 502
Other options: Train 188
Judy Neuchâtel, Switzerland Flight 213
Other options: Train 69
Car and ferry 116
a
Based on Table 1 and car loading.

4. Findings and discussion
4.1. Climate change and holiday travel
While a lower carbon footprint was an added bonus for slow
travellers this was not the main motivation for all. Louise, Mark,
Adam and Alice were strongly motivated by environmental bene-
fits while Paul, Nick, Chloe, Ellen and Alan had a strong attraction
for their chosen mode. All slow travellers considered the experien-
tial aspects important, these being key for Douglas and Kate. For
those using air and car travel, climate change considerations
played no role in their holiday travel decisions and, unlike the slow
travellers, they were not able to claim a retrospective benefit.
Two main themes emerged in the discussion of climate change
in general and in relation to holiday travel: the power to act; and
ambivalence. It is evident that people currently lack the agency
to act and there are powerful discourses that deny responsibility.
Three discourses are relevant to the power to act with one or other
of the following strategies being used in all but one interview. The
first was coded ‘politics preventing progress’ which was predomi-
nant in four of the slow travel interviews and used by one of the car
drivers. This is typified by Kate and Paul:
Kate: First thing comes to mind is the politics of it and that’s the
sort of debates as a family around how often it’s the politics
thwarting the progress in terms of addressing it.
Paul: I don’t think the air fare is making much difference. Gov-
ernment should do alternative transport strategy, transport is
crap, not cyclist friendly, no encouragement.
486 J.E. Dickinson et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 482–489
Here, it is apparent that Kate and Paul (both slow travellers)
place a level of responsibility on the government and see it as tak-
ing little action. In their work on responsibility for the risks pre-
sented by climate change, Bickerstaff et al. (2008) found that
participants felt government policy and management was the most
appropriate way to meet collective social interests. However, as
illustrated above, there is currently little faith in government ac-
tions. This relates to the second discourse of ‘scientific scepticism’.
The discourse of ‘scientific scepticism’ questions the knowledge
base and the competence of those in power. This discursive strat-
egy was used by both slow travellers and air travellers although
is different ways. Jane (an air traveller) directly questions the sci-
ence behind climate change:
Jane: Climate change is in the news all the time. People are tak-
ing it for gospel that climate change is happening but scientists
over there [refers to scientific community in which she is an
administrator] don’t believe that it is happening and they argue
the other way. . . I don’t know how it came about but we were
talking about polar bears and the ice cap melting and the Dean
of School said if you look at polar bears their numbers are
increasing, it’s just the media saying that polar bears are declin-
ing as they have no food and such like.
Jane draws on a discourse of doubt. There is unquestionably
much discussion in scientific circles about the speed and dynamics
of climate change but there is little doubt from mainstream scien-
tists that climate change is taking place (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 2007). However, Jane demonstrates how this
potential doubt provides a powerful argument that can be used
as a justification to maintain current behaviour. In the same con-
text, Mark (slow traveller) reflects on the widespread public scep-
ticism he perceives:
Mark: They did some study on it, a survey on it. Whether people
though that scientists were sceptical about climate change. The
general public thought that 50% of scientist thought this was
happening, there is a perception that scientists are divided on
it. In reality the vast majority think it’s happening. I don’t know
if it’s because there’s a lot of stuff in the papers that sow doubts
about it.
Here Mark differentiates himself from the climate sceptics and
claims superior knowledge backed by ‘the vast majority’ of scien-
tists. Mark draws on the same discourse as Jane but, given his slow
travel position, applies it in a different way to justify a different
position.
The third discursive strategy was claiming limited awareness of
climate change. This was prevalent among both slow travellers and
non-slow travellers and is probably a discursive device for dealing
with a question from an interviewer perceived as an expert, for
example:
Interviewer: What’s your understanding of climate change?
Toby: Not a great deal to be honest, I didn’t do geography or
anything at school but my idea is the world’s getting hotter
and because of that obviously a lot of things are changing in
the environment including the ice caps. I couldn’t really go into
much more detail than that.
Here Toby freely admits to a lack of knowledge and backs this
up by his lack of academic underpinning at school. However, he
can give examples of changes but is reluctant to do so. Clive shows
more detailed if slightly muddled knowledge and adds a bit of
scepticism.
Clive: I think we are all becoming aware that weather patterns
seem to be different than used to be – that’s when everything
kicks in, the fuel prices go up and everyone starts to panic. If
fossil fuels run out it might help us a little. Temperatures rising,
higher cases of skin cancer and various other things. The ice
cap’s melting, is it a natural phenomenon? The deforestation.
It doesn’t feel like the world is a stable environment at the
minute.
The limited awareness of climate change is consistent with
other recent studies (see for example, Randles and Mander,
2009), however, as a discursive strategy there is much power in
denying knowledge. In a related argumentation strategy, partici-
pants frequently asked the researcher questions about climate
change. Given the artificial context of an interview, this question-
ing can be seen as a rhetorical strategy by participants, a defence
mechanism to imply lack of knowledge. While there is some evi-
dence of a knowledge deficit, it is not clear to what extent this is
real or a discursive mechanism to maintain positive self-presenta-
tion (Oktar, 2001).
During the second interview all participants expressed an inter-
est in their holiday carbon footprint. The air travellers expressed
some surprised at the size of the footprint relative to alternative
modes, for example:
Jane: Seeing the figures it’s quite shocking really. I didn’t realise
it would be less than half to do it that way [a reference to the
carbon footprint by train].
From this followed ambivalence as air travellers made reference
to green credentials in other aspects of the participants’ lives for
example:
David: Umm it’s difficult to put it into a concept really because
it’s not a regular occurrence and so it’s a one off really. I’d be
more inclined to look more seriously at those things that I can
influence on an ongoing basis so there are clearly things that
can be done at home or in everyday travel.
Here pro-self arguments (Gärling et al., 2003) justify flying, a
holiday being seen as a relatively contained, in terms of time, yet
crucial annual event. The majority of slow travellers were also keen
to demonstrate a trade-off of good environmental behaviour at
home with holiday decisions. This was particularly for those who
flew on other holidays, for example:
Nick: On the carbon side of things we only motor 5000 miles a
year and just trying to reduce that. I’m not saying we’re inno-
cent or what because we fly off and do other things but it does
suit us.
Here Nick balances his green credentials of low car use with his
propensity to fly. Nick’s wife, Chloe, continues in this vein:
Chloe: we are careful, we don’t have the heating on in the win-
ter. . . we have two boilers and we turn one off and we don’t
have the heating on. We have the fire and we just wear another
jumper. Our houses are a lot colder than our friends. . . so we do
our bit but we are probably not going to stop flying and going
elsewhere.
Again, Chloe justifies her desire to fly by emphasising the atten-
tion to environmental details in other aspects of her life. Ruth, an
air traveller, more openly admits that climate change will not play
a role in future holiday plans, however, again she is careful to point
out that she is acting responsibly in other respects.
Ruth: Our holiday plans are based on what we fancy doing and
what we can afford. That doesn’t mean to say that when we are
on holiday we are neglectful of things like recycling and that
sort of thing that do have a slight effect somewhere. But no
we probably wouldn’t think too much about how our travel
plans would affect the globe as a whole.
 J.E. Dickinson et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 482–489
Participants do recognise that their holidays have a carbon foot-
print, however, action at home is felt to balance this out so there is
no need to change holiday arrangements. Stoll-Kleemann et al.
(2001) refer to this as the ‘metaphor of displaced commitment’.
The above examples also show how, within the interview context,
with the researcher seen as a climate change expert and a propo-
nent of slow travel, the propensity to fly posed problems for partic-
ipants’ self-presentation. Participants are therefore carefully
managing stake and interest (Willig, 2003) to negotiate a positive
position through their green actions elsewhere.
4.2. Travel and tourism structures
It is clear that there are structural barriers due to institutiona-
lised practice within the tourism industry which support flying
and form a barrier to slow travel. This was not an initial focus
of the interviews but emerged as a prevalent feature during anal-
ysis. Participants’ arguments suggest structures support flying
and car use much more than forms of slow travel. Firstly there
are societal rules and expectations for tourism travel and it was
evident that those flying had not looked at any alternatives ex-
cept, in some cases, a car option. Indeed, car and air travel is dee-
ply embedded in European tourism practice for UK travellers.
Jane, who flew to Sicily and hired a car, provides an interesting
example. Jane researched flights and car hire on the island and
indicates she considered local train travel. However, her initial
justification for car hire, in the first interview, was the desire to
visit Mount Etna and that this would not be possible without a
car. In practice, the second interview revealed that, despite having
a hire car, she and her partner actually took a coach tour to
Mount Etna. While Jane indicated a willingness to engage with
public transport, the trip to Mount Etna provided Jane with a
pre-trip justification for car use even though this was ultimately
not needed:
Jane: One day we went to Mount Etna we took a coach to Mount
Etna instead of the car as it was far easier.
Interviewer: Was the coach trip organised through the
accommodation?
Jane: Yes it was when we were staying in Taormina, there was
an office in the town centre that organised tours and it was very
expensive to go on it, it would have been cheaper to just take
the car, but in terms of ease of driving up the mountain paths
and stuff it was far easier to take the coach tour.
The post-trip discussion with Jane demonstrates a subtle nego-
tiation of stake and interest. While Jane indicates a willingness to
engage with public transport in reality she is strongly bound to
flying and car use. Having opted to use a coach she still criticises
this option (‘it would have been cheaper to just take the car’). Her
consideration of public transport, in the pre-trip interview, is, in
part, a discursive credibility enhancing strategy given the inter-
view focus on slow travel and climate change. Jane’s story high-
lights the difficulty for people to envisage alternative modes of
holiday travel and the problems of disentangling people from en-
ergy-intensive lifestyles. Bickerstaff et al. (2008) and Lorenzoni
and Pidgeon (2006) draw a similar conclusion in work outside a
tourism context.
While there was much criticism of flying, particularly by slow
travellers, it was often presented as a necessary evil as David (air
traveller) explains:
David: I don’t enjoy the discomfort both in the preparation
and during the flight. I’m not in a position to travel business
class. If you travel economy you’re pretty cramped, you can’t
enjoy the meal or any other aspect of the journey as far as
I’m concerned.
487
David focuses on comfort and appears quite unhappy about fly-
ing. This explanation arises following a question about climate
change and can be interpreted as a defence mechanism as he
shows awareness of the negative side to flying. Yet elsewhere Da-
vid is positive about flying, for example:
David: I actually enjoy flying. I like the take off particularly, it’s
just the speed really and usually if it’s a nice clear day, particu-
larly if it’s taking off and landing in an area I know.
He goes onto justify his continued flying as follows:
David: It will always be a bit of a dilemma for me the fact that it
might take two or three days one means of transport, as
opposed to seven or eight hours in another form and so I think
that will be for a practical point of view. From a philosophical
point of view I can see that’s a pretty selfish approach but I don’t
see how you can overcome it.
David is demonstrating that he has considered the issue (‘it
will always be a bit of a dilemma’) but being practical, a flight
is the best alternative. David feels a certain level of discomfort
when he reflects on the impact of his flights and uses a series
of credibility enhancing moves to justify his behaviour. David re-
fers to the structural barrier of time. Here it should be noted
that those flying tended to choose their destination and then
work out how to get there, in many cases flying being the only
realistic option given holiday time constraints and the distance
involved. On the other hand some slow travellers, most notably
cyclists, those using the coach and one of the train travellers,
choose the mode and worked out where they could go. The lat-
ter strategy deals with the physical barrier in a different way.
This suggests slow travellers conceptualise tourism differently.
There is not such an obvious pull of a single destination that
then drives travel decisions and further research is needed to ex-
plore this. For a lower carbon future this raises questions about
the way the tourism industry is currently structured and mar-
keted. For example, the work of Ceron and Dubois (2007), on fu-
ture scenarios for French tourism, indicates that much tourism is
clearly feasible in 2050 even if carbon emissions are reduced by
a factor of four. However, their scenario contradicts current
trends. The scenario set out by Ceron and Dubois involves longer
holidays and fewer flights, however, the trend is for shorter hol-
idays and more flights. Therefore a different tourism sector
structure is required and this could involve targeted marketing
strategies to attract visitors from source markets closer to the
destination with a focus on train and coach access (see for
example, Peeters and Schouten, 2006).
Both slow and non-slow travellers were critical of aspects of
slow travel and in common with other studies public transport
is described as problematic (Gardner and Abraham, 2007).
However, slow travellers showed much more knowledge of
the details, gleaned through experience, and presented a variety
of structural barriers in relation to both booking and the jour-
ney itself. There are currently a variety of constraints when
booking European train travel in the UK. For instance, it is only
possible to book up to three months in advance, yet other
components of holiday, such as accommodation, can be booked
over a year in advance. Kate also illustrates a specific slow tra-
vel problem:
Kate: I booked through the Internet although it was not very
straight forward. I can understand why people say I’ll fly. The
Rail Europe website did not work. In the end I looked at the
TGV site and the EuroStar site. I booked through the EuroStar
site, which I found very helpful. I phoned them back just to
check we were seated together as there were no seating
arrangements on the booking form.
488 J.E. Dickinson et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 482–489
Compared to booking flights I found it much less straight for-
ward. I wanted to separate the first leg from London to Paris,
wanted then to give myself more time in Paris, but the only
way to do it was to change the whole package rather than the
second leg.
Kate compares the train booking arrangements negatively to
her previous experience of flights. She wishes to spend more time
in Paris (taking time being an important slow travel consideration),
but finds she has to book separate legs of the journey both out and
back in order to facilitate this. Taking extra time on a slow travel
trip is not always easy. It is also complicated to book train travel
that crosses borders. For instance, to book a trip from Bourne-
mouth to Berlin it is necessary to make four separate bookings:
Bournemouth to London, London to Brussels, Brussels to Cologne
and Cologne to Berlin. Travelling with bikes, when negotiating rail,
is also fraught with problems:
Louise: in France, if you are on the TGV, you need to book and
bag your bicycle so we’re not taking them on the TGV we’re tak-
ing them on the main line so we won’t have that problem we
can just put the bikes on the train.
Add to this the generic difficulties of travelling on public trans-
port (such as lack of integration between modes) and it is easy to
see why there is a societal norm to demand improvements to pub-
lic transport (Dickinson et al., 2009).
Randles and Mander (2009) refer to the ‘stickiness of practice’ in
that consumption behaviour co-evolves with the infrastructures
available. Following a neo-Marxist perspective, it is argued that
consumers are not free to choose (Spaargaren and van Vliet,
2000). Tourists are, to a large extent, limited by the travel products
available. For example, if it is difficult to take a cycle by train, but
easy to book a cycle onto many low cost flights, a potentially low
carbon cycle tourist is therefore funnelled into high carbon air tra-
vel. This action, in turn, reinforces the travel structures available.
To fully grasp the ‘stickiness of practice’ analysis needs to address
focus on both individual agency and the tourism structures
available.
5. Conclusions
With respect to the first research question, slow and non-slow
travellers employed a variety of strategies to justify modal choice.
While all participants were aware of climate change, though some
with less nuanced understandings, it is evident that people cur-
rently lack the agency to act and there are powerful discourses that
deny responsibility in a tourism travel context. While slow travel-
lers are readily able to embrace the benefits of a lower carbon foot-
print this is not necessarily the main motivation. Non-slow
travellers and a large proportion of those engaging with slow travel
are keen to justify further tourist travel. Two discursive strategies,
‘politics preventing progress’ and ‘scientific scepticism’, provide a
good case for taking no action, or as Bickerstaff et al. (2008) sug-
gest, a means of delegating responsibility to institutional actors.
Similarly, expressing green credentials in other areas of life was a
common defence mechanism to justify flying. Stoll-Kleemann
et al. (2001) refer to this as the ‘‘metaphor of displaced commit-
ment”. This, together with declaring limited knowledge, was a use-
ful strategy for those taking no meaningful action to modify their
holiday travel.
With respect to the second research question, it is evident that
socially embedded rules for tourism travel have developed such
that most people automatically assume they will fly to certain des-
tinations. Destination choice was primary for non-slow travellers.
This is often reinforced by structures of provision which are de-
signed within a framework of encouragement of economic growth,
i.e. through increased consumption and without recourse to envi-
ronmental externalities (Sustainable Development Commission,
2009). At the same time, slow travel options are hard to book
and often not readily available through the institutional structures
of tour operators. Taken together, the socially embedded rules of
travel and inadequate slow travel structures prevent consideration
of slow options in many situations. In contrast, some slow travel-
lers negotiated this by considering the mode of transport first
and the destination second which suggests a possible strategy to
re-envision tourism.
There is a need for policy changes which enable structural
change and clear scientific messages to raise public awareness.
People are concerned, but uncertain, and there is currently much
scope for prevarication. Therefore a recommendation is the need
to develop a scientific understanding of the relative environmental
impacts of different holiday practices to inform policy, practice and
the public. Current work on life cycle assessment of tourism may
go someway to addressing this point (Filimonau et al., 2010).
Slow travel also has much potential as a tourism adaptation
strategy for a lower carbon future. Given the inertia in individual
action there is a need to review tourism structures and engage
industry with slow modes of tourism provision (Hickman, 2007).
There is, therefore, a pressing need to modify the way we organise
tourism structures in Europe and deliver source markets to desti-
nations. Therein lies the requirement for more insightful studies
of the transport element of the overall tourist experience (Speak-
man, 2005). This might involve an investigation of tourism that
is closer to home (Butler, 2008). In this way, it will be possible to
offer guidance to policy makers seeking to re-align tourism devel-
opment in line with reduced resource availability and changing cli-
matic conditions.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a Grant from the Royal Geograph-
ical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) and EPSRC.
References
Becken, S., 2007. Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on the
global climate and potential climate change policies. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 15 (4), 351–368.
Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P., Pidgeon, N., 2008. Constructing responsibilities for risk:
negotiating citizen–state relationships. Environment and Planning A 40, 1312–
1330.
Butler, R., 2008. Tourism in the future: cycles, waves or wheels. Futures 41, 346–
352.
Can Europe, 2008. Transport. <http://www.climnet.org/publicawareness/transport.
html#faq7> (accessed 19.06.08).
Ceron, J.P., Dubois, G., 2007. Limits to tourism? A backcasting scenario for
sustainable tourism mobility in 2050. Tourism and Hospitality, Planning &
Development 4 (3), 191–209.
Dickinson, J.E., Robbins, D., Fletcher, J., 2009. Representation of transport: a rural
destination analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 36, 103–123.
Dolnicar, S., 2004. Insights into sustainable tourists in Austria: a data-based a priori
segmentation approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12 (3), 209–218.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, 2008. Long haul tourism and climate change policies. In: The
Fourth World Conference for Graduate Research in Tourism, Hospitality and
Leisure, 22–27 April, Antalya, Turkey, pp. 290–305.
Euromonitor International, 2007. WTM Global Trends Report 2007. Euromonitor,
London.
Eurostar, 2008. Greener than flying. <http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/
about_eurostar/environment/greener_than_flying.jsp> (accessed 19.06.08).
Eurostat, 2007. Tourist Statistics. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/
ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DS-07-001/EN/KS-DS-07-001-EN.PDF> (accessed 22.05.09).
Filimonau, V., Dickinson, J., Robbins, D., Reddy, V., 2010. A critical review of
environmental impact assessment of tourism: Life cycle assessment as a new
approach. School of Services Management, Bournemouth University Working
Paper, Bournemouth.
Gardner, B., Abraham, C., 2007. What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of
commuters’ reasons for driving. Transportation Research Part F 10, 187–200.
 J.E. Dickinson et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 482–489
Gärling, T., Fujii, S., Gärling, A., Jacobsson, C., 2003. Moderating effects of social value
orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behaviour intention. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 23, 1–9.
Gössling, S., 2002. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global
Environmental Change 12, 283–302.
Gössling, S., Hall, M., 2006. Wake up, this is serious. In: Gössling, S., Hall, M. (Eds.),
Tourism and Global Environmental Change. Routledge, New York, pp. 305–320.
Gössling, S., Peeters, P., 2007. ‘It Does Not Harm the Environment!’ an analysis of
industry discourses on tourism, air travel and the environment. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 15 (4), 402–417.
Guiver, J.W., 2007. Modal talk: discourse analysis of how people talk about bus and
car travel. Transportation Research Part A 41, 233–248.
Hall, M., 2006. Introduction: culinary tourism and regional development: from slow
food to slow tourism. Tourism Review International (9), 1–4.
Hayes, N., 2000. Doing Psychological Research. Open University Press, Buckingham.
Hickman, L., 2007. The Final Call: In Search of the True Cost of Our Holidays. Bantam
Press, London.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report. <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm> (accessed 29.04.09).
Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption. Centre for Environmental
Strategy, Surrey.
Kasemir, B., Dahinden, U., Gerger Swartling, Å., Schüle, R., Tabara, D., Jaeger, C.C.,
2000. Citizens’ perspectives on climate change and energy use. Global
Environmental Change 10, 169–184.
Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., Rapley, M., Walker, I., 2005. The ways that people talk about
natural resources: discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally
sustainable practices. British Journal of Social Psychology 44, 603–620.
Liu, Z., 2003. Sustainable tourism development: a critique. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 11 (6), 459–475.
Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N.F., 2006. Public views on climate change: European and
USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77, 73–95.
Mintel, 2009. Slow Travel Special Report. Mintel, London.
National Express, 2008. National Express, Carbon Calculator. <http://www.
nationalexpress.com/coach/OurService/CarbonEmissionsCalculator.cfm> (accessed
19.06.08).
Office for National Statistics, 2009. Travel Trends 2007. <http://www.statistics.gov.
uk/downloads/theme_transport/Travel_Trends_2007.pdf> (accessed 22.06.09).
Oktar, L., 2001. The ideological organization of representational processes in the
presentation of us and them. Discourse and Society 12 (3), 313–346.
Peeters, P., Schouten, F., 2006. Reducing the ecological footprint of inbound
tourism and transport to Amsterdam. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14
(2), 157–171.
489
Peeters, P., Szimga, E., Duijnisveld, M., 2007. Major environmental impacts of
European tourist transport. Journal of Transport Geography 15, 83–93.
Potter, J., 1997. Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In:
Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. Sage,
London, pp. 144–160.
Potter, J., Wetherell, M., 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes
and Behaviour. Sage, London.
Randles, S., Mander, S., 2009. Aviation, consumption and the climate change debate:
‘Are you going to tell me off for flying?’. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management 21 (1), 93–113.
Schiefelbusch, M., Jain, A., Schäfer, T., Müller, D., 2007. Transport and tourism: the
roadmap to integrated planning developing and assessing integrated chains.
Journal of Transport Geography 15, 94–103.
Simpson, M.C., Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., Gladin, E., 2008. Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation in the Tourism Sector: Frameworks, Tools and
Practices. UNEP, University of Oxford, UNWTO, WMO, Paris.
Southerton, D., Warde, A., Hand, M., 2004. The limited autonomy of the consumer:
implications for sustainable consumption. In: Southerton, D., Chappells, H., van
Vliet, B. (Eds.), Sustainable Consumption: The Implications of Changing
Infrastructures of Provision. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 32–48.
Spaargaren, G., van Vliet, B.J.M., 2000. Lifestyles, consumption and the
environment: the ecological modernisation of domestic consumption.
Environmental Politics 9 (1), 50–77.
Speakman, C., 2005. Tourism and transport – future prospects. Tourism and
Hospitality, Planning & Development 2 (2), 129–135.
Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T., Jaeger, C.C., 2001. The psychology of denial
concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups.
Global Environmental Change 11, 107–117.
Sustainable Development Commission, 2009. Prosperity without Growth.
Sustainable Development Commission, London.
Tourism Victoria, 2008. Industry News. <http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/media-
centre/media-centre/edition-2/#7> (accessed 12.02.08).
UNWTO, 2008. Tourism Highlights: 2008 Edition. <http://www.unwto.org/facts/
eng/pdf/highlights/UNWTO_Highlights08_en_LR.pdf> (accessed 22.05.09).
Verbeek, D.H.P., Mommaas, H., 2008. Transitions to sustainable tourism mobility:
the social practices approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 (6), 629–
644.
Warde, A., 2005. Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture
5 (2), 131–153.
Willig, C., 2003. Discourse analysis. In: Smith, A.J. (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A
Practical Guide to Research Methods. Sage, London, pp. 159–183.