For Peer Review

Intervening in Academic Interventions: Framing Social marketing’s potential for successful sustainable tourism

behavioural change

Journal: Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Manuscript ID: JOST-2740.R2

Manuscript Type: Special Issue Paper

Keywords: behavioural intervention, political psychology, social marketing, socio-technical regime, socio-technical system, sustainable behavioural change

Abstract:

Given tourism’s growing emissions and contribution to environmental change, the positive potential of behavioural interventions, and especially

social marketing, has increasingly become a focus for sustainable tourism and mobility research. This paper uses the lens of social marketing to investigate the capacities of tourism researchers to contribute to sustainable tourist behavioural change. Several key and inter-related issues are identified: the nature of socio-technical systems and regimes, understanding what constitutes a successful behavioural intervention, the role of theory and belief systems in interventions, and the potential role of upstream social marketing in policy learning and system change. In the case of social marketing the essentially political nature of engaging in communications on sustainability is also highlighted. This has implications for the social marketing knowledge base on which sustainable tourism behaviour research draws, such as the value of political marketing and

psychology, as well as the challenge that this provides for notions of ‘value-free’ or ‘objective’ tourism research. The need for behavioural change by tourism researchers, as well as by governments, the industry and tourists is noted. These issues are critically evaluated and expanded upon to aid academic researchers in understanding and promoting behaviour change in tourism studies.

For Peer Review

JOST2740FR2

Intervening in Academic Interventions: Framing Social marketing’s potential for

successful sustainable tourism behavioural change

Given tourism’s growing emissions and contribution to environmental change, the positive

potential of behavioural interventions, and especially social marketing, has increasingly

become a focus for sustainable tourism and mobility research. This paper uses the lens of

social marketing to investigate the capacities of tourism researchers to contribute to

sustainable tourist behavioural change. Several key and inter-related issues are identified: the

nature of socio-technical systems and regimes, understanding what constitutes a successful

behavioural intervention, the role of theory and belief systems in interventions, and the

potential role of upstream social marketing in policy learning and system change. In the case

of social marketing the essentially political nature of engaging in communications on

sustainability is also highlighted. This has implications for the social marketing knowledge

base on which sustainable tourism behaviour research draws, such as the value of political

marketing and psychology, as well as the challenge that this provides for notions of ‘value-

free’ or ‘objective’ tourism research. The need for behavioural change by tourism

researchers, as well as by governments, the industry and tourists is noted. These issues are

critically evaluated and expanded upon to aid academic researchers in understanding and

promoting behaviour change in tourism studies.

Keywords: behavioural intervention, political psychology, social marketing, socio-technical

regime, socio-technical system, sustainable behavioural change

Introduction

A growing number of studies suggest that sustainable tourism, especially in relation to

climate change, presents a major challenge for the future of tourism. This is with respect to

the impacts on firms, attractions and destinations as well as the environmental and cultural

resources on which many destinations depend (see Hall, Gössling & Scott (2015) for an

overview). The entire tourism system is being impacted by environmental change, of which

climate change is only one, albeit highly significant, dimension (Rutty, Gössling, Scott &

Hall, 2015; Scott, Hall & Gössling, 2016). Regulatory change in the form of emissions

mitigation or other forms of government interventions to encourage more sustainable

consumer and business behaviours with respect to the environment are also expected to have

system-wide effects. The piecemeal measures enacted so far, especially at the national and

Page 1 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

international scale, appear, however, to have had little impact on the growth of tourism

emissions and the international tourism system (Dubois, Peeters, Ceron & Gössling, 2011;

Gössling & Peeters, 2015; Gössling, Scott & Hall, 2013; Hall, 2011a).

Can the socio-technical system of tourism be changed?

This situation therefore raises fundamental questions with respect to system change (Hall,

2011a). Significant research effort has been given to suggesting means by which behaviours

may be adjusted as well as the underlying psychologies behind mobility practices (Barr, Gilg

& Shaw, 2011; Barr, Shaw & Coles, 2011; Cohen et al., 2014; Gössling, Scott, Hall, Ceron &

Dubois, 2012; Le-Klähn & Hall, 2015; Prillwitz & Barr, 2011). Much government and

industry policy, including in tourism, is geared towards encouraging greater efficiencies in

transport and infrastructure (Dubois et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2009). Although tourism is often

described as a system (Hall, 2005), it can be framed as a socio-technical system, which is a

“seamless web” of interlocking artefacts (e.g. airports), institutions (e.g. standards,

regulations, labour markets), organisations (e.g. destination marketing organisations), human

and natural resources (e.g. labour, charismatic species), economic and social capital, cultural

meaning, knowledge, and technology, that combine to fulfil particular societal functions,

such as leisure travel, via production, regulation, distribution and consumption processes

(Geels, 2004, 2011; Markard, 2011; Markard, Raven & Truffer, 2012). Socio-technical

systems, which are tangible and measurable, are also characterised by socio-technical

regimes that are “the locus of established practices and associated rules that stabilize existing

systems” (Geels, 2011, p. 26) and that form the intangible ‘deep structure’ of systems. The

system and its regime move along certain trajectories with historical developments shaping

future change (Lovio, Mickwitz & Heiskanen, 2011). However, feedbacks within the system

can create a situation of path dependence and ‘lock in’, in which some technologies and/or

institutions come to dominate others. For example, note the dominance of carbon based

energy systems, predicated on large-scale centralised electricity generation, over the adoption

of alternative, low-carbon technologies and processes (Unruh, 2006). According to Geels

(2004) path dependence and lock-in occurs because socio-technical systems, rules and actors

and organisations provide stability through different mechanisms such as networks and

mutual dependence.

The co-evolutionary relationship between systems and regimes is important because it

highlights the impossibility of separating technical problems from social problems (Hall,

2013, 2015). As Howcroft, Mitev and Wilson (2004, p.330) observe, “There is no such thing

as a social problem that does not have technological components; nor can there be a

technological problem that does not have social components, and so any attempt to make

such a division is bound to fail” (see also Mitev & Howcroft, 2011). However, critiques of

socio-technical structures and regimes as part of a broader process of transition management

and avoidance of lock-in have received only limited attention (Gössling, Hall, Ekström,

Page 2 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Brudvik Engeset & Aall, 2012), and have not had any significant influence on tourism

policies.

Nevertheless, research on sustainable tourism continues to grow. Table 1 provides an

indication of the extent of such growth with reference to a number of key concepts in this

area via an analysis of the Scopus bibliometric data base. Although the growth in publications

is impressive it is arguably reactive to the wider policy environment in which tourism is

embedded and, given the continued expansion of tourism, does not appear to have reduced

the environmental implications of tourism in perhaps all but very specific local or business

contexts (Hall, 2015). Nearly all destination policy settings remain focussed on quantitative

growth in visitor numbers rather than on qualitative development, or optimization (Gössling,

Ring, Andersson, Dwyer & Hall, 2016)

<INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE>

If current trends continue and if no tipping points are met, i.e. thresholds beyond which there

is a high risk of abrupt, non-linear and irreversible environmental change (see Steffen et al.,

2015), the Global Ecological Footprint of humanity will have reached a factor of 2 by 2030,

meaning that we would need two planets to sustain our population and consumption levels

(Hoffmann, 2011). Tourism is a significant component of the growing footprint. Even

assuming the most optimistic energy efficiency levels proposed by the tourism sector, the

lack of consideration of rebound effects means that, even allowing for the estimated greater

use of low-carbon fuels, the potential increase in tourism related emissions would likely be

over 200% by 2030 (Hall et al., 2013). This suggests that by 2030 the impacts of forecast

energy-efficiencies on proposed tourism emissions reduction will potentially be more than

halved and that the reduction in potential gains in energy efficiencies over the period to 2035

are cut by more than 35% (Gössling et al., 2013). In a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario

2011-2050 as part of the so-called ‘green economy’, the UNEP (2011) propose that, tourism

growth will imply increases in energy consumption (111%), greenhouse gas emissions

(105%), water consumption (150%), and solid waste disposal (252%). Even in the optimistic

greener investment scenario the tourism related drawdown of natural capital still increases:

the tourism sector can grow steadily in the coming decades (exceeding the BAU

scenario by 7 per cent in terms of the sector GDP) while saving significant amounts of

resources and enhancing its sustainability. The green investment scenario is expected to

undercut the corresponding BAU scenario by 18% for water consumption, 44% for

energy supply and demand, 52% for CO2 emissions (UNEP, 2011, p. 438).

Page 3 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

While more is written about sustainable tourism in the academy the actual scenario for

tourism, if measured with respect to the drawdown of natural capital, is less sustainable than

ever. This situation therefore represents a major challenge for, as a 2014 workshop on ‘The

psychology of governing sustainable tourism mobility’ describes it, ‘bridging the science-

policy gap’ (Cohen et al., 2016).

Any socio-economic system in its process of evolution has to decide how to become a

different system, while maintaining its own individuality in this process (Funtowicz &

Ravetz, 1990). This also applies to the tourism system. Choices with respect to sustainability

are also a problem of reflexivity at both the individual and collective level. i.e. the

willingness to change yourself in order to be able to co-evolve with other humans and the

environment (Polimeni et al., 2008). Behavioural change has become a significant focus for

those wishing to promote more sustainable forms of tourism. However, in seeking to try and

understand why the perceived gap between the science of sustainability and tourism policy

exist, addressing behaviour change surely applies as much to the tourism academy that

develops knowledge as it does to the tourism industry and the wider community. In other

words, the tourism academy is an integral part of the tourism socio-technical system that,

from a sustainability perspective, requires considerable change.

Therefore, drawing on the social marketing literature, which has become increasingly of

interest in tourism studies (Truong & Hall, 2013, 2015; Musgrave & Henderson, 2015), this

paper investigates the capacity of the tourism academy to contribute to interventions that lead

to sustainable behavioural change. Several key dimensions are discussed: the nature of what

actually constitutes a successful behavioural intervention, the role of theory and belief

systems in interventions, and the implications of upstream social marketing. The notion of

‘upstream’ refers to broad contextual conditions influencing consumption and production

behaviours in tourism (e.g. consumerism, labour market, economy, nature of leisure and

work), and to the structure and functioning of the tourism system (organization, philosophy,

strategies, practices). The essentially political nature of engaging in social marketing for

sustainability is also highlighted with respect to implications for the knowledge base on

which sustainable tourism behaviour research draws, as well as the challenge that this

provides for notions of ‘value-free’ or ‘objective’ tourism research.

Social marketing and successful behavioural interventions

Social marketing is usually defined as the use of commercial marketing concepts and tools to

create behavioural change (Dann, 2010). The term ‘social marketing’ was first used by Kotler

and Zaltman (1971) at a time when the marketing concept was being expanded to include its

potential contribution to dealing with environmental and social problems. Although Lane

Page 4 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

(2009, p. 23) identifies social marketing as being a critical element in the development

towards more sustainable forms of tourism he also argues that the concept “is in its infancy—

and little understood by tourism marketing agencies, or the media”.

The concept of social marketing has expanded substantially since its introduction (Truong,

Hall, Dong & Pham, 2015). Three approaches can broadly be identified. Glenane-Antoniadis

et al. (2003) describes the first two approaches in terms of being either ‘traditionalists’ or

‘convergents’ (see also Lefebvre, 2011). ‘Traditionalists’, are those who advocate

“intentionally or unintentionally, the transfer of traditional marketing tools, the same ones

that have tended to be employed in commercial settings, to the social marketing arena...

employing a rational economic model of behaviour” (Glenane-Antoniadis et al., 2003, p.

326). The second, ‘convergents’, in contrast argue in favour of an “interdisciplinary approach

to the study of social marketing and use of other tools that go beyond traditional notions”

(Glenane-Antoniadis et al., 2003, p. 329). The third approach extends the interdisciplinary

focus of the convergent school with respect to the engagement of social marketing in social

and environmental change but also critique marketing’s embeddedness in consumer culture

and its reinforcement of neoliberal notions of individual capacities and responsibilities versus

concerns for equity and social and environmental justice (Crawshaw, 2014; Gordon &

Gurrieri, 2014). Perhaps slightly misleadingly described as ‘anti-consumption’, but better

described as a ‘systems’ focus, this approach seeks to frame consumption practices much

more within the socio-technical structures that simultaneously constrain and encourage

consumption in particular directions (Donovan & Healey, 2003; Hall, 2013). The approach

also suggests that the function of social marketing is not just to illicit change within a target

audience (downstream social marketing) but also with respect to the organisations and

institutions that frame behaviours (upstream marketing). Upstream social marketing practices

can potentially enable more information, policy focus and social pressure being placed on

government and policy and regulatory development (Andreasen, 2006). Upstream social

marketing may, therefore, be an essential part of paradigm change and policy learning, what

may otherwise be referred to as regime change, in the development of more sustainable forms

of tourism (Hall, 2011a).

Social marketing and behavioural change in tourism

In the tourism literature the great majority of the work that has discussed social marketing as

a tool for behavioural change has tended to focus on downstream approaches (Barr, Gilg &

Shaw, 2011; Truong & Hall, 2013, 2015; Hall, 2014), a situation that is arguably reflective of

the broader behavioural change literature in tourism (Cohen, Higham, Peeters & Gössling,

2014; Hall, 2013). Nevertheless, while noting the potential for social marketing as a means of

encouraging more positive sustainable tourism behaviours, the lack of acknowledgement of

the different approaches and traditions within social marketing means that the potential and

Page 5 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

limitations of the field are not as well recognised as they should be (Hall, 2014). Table 2

illustrates some of the similarities and differences between commercial and social marketing.

Although the categories should be seen as operating more on a continuum they do highlight

some of the different constraints faced by commercial and social marketing as well as

different foci.

<INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE>

Currently in tourism the marketing concept is dominated by commercial imperatives that

focus on growth in visitor numbers and increasing economic return rather than environmental

sustainability (Dolnicar & Ring, 2014; Gössling et al, 2016). If social marketing is to be

employed in seeking to encourage long-term sustainable behavioural change an important

question that tourism academics must face is what sort of marketing are they going to

advocate? This is by no means an abstract question as the answer will determine not so much

the tools that will be adopted but how problems will be defined, the goals of an intervention

and how behavioural change occurring as a result should then be defined and measured.

If a ‘traditional’ social marketing approach is adopted by organisations, including

government agencies, commercial criteria such as brand awareness and reach will likely be

used as primary indicators of a successful intervention (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Luca &

Suggs, 2010). However, awareness based targets are, by themselves, a poor indicator of

actual change. For example, a media-led, community-wide intervention to improve physical

activity, the ‘Push Play’ campaign, was initiated by the New Zealand government in 1999-

2002. Surveys found very high recognition (over 50%) of the campaign and its logo and

increases in the numbers of adults who intended to be more active (1.8% in 1999 to 9.4% in

2002). However, no sustained changes in physical activity levels were recorded in the Push

Play serial evaluation surveys. Similar high rates of awareness but little actual sustained

change in behaviour have been identified in other studies (Leavy, Bull, Rosenberg &

Bauman, 2011; Langford & Panter-Brick, 2013).

In contrast, the ‘convergent’ and ‘systems’ approach tends to put much more emphasis on

actual behaviour change, as well as on indicators of intentionality. This is especially the case

in the public health sector where actual behaviour change is crucial to health and medical

outcomes. For example, Leavy et al. (2011) recommended that an optimal evaluation design

should include: (1) formative research to inform theories/frameworks, campaign content and

evaluation design; (2) cohort study design with multiple data collection points; (3) sufficient

duration; (4) use of validated measures; and (5) sufficient evaluation resources.

Unfortunately, in tourism and with respect to sustainable mobility, such approaches have not

been adopted. Instead, studies of behavioural change interventions tend to be one-shot and

Page 6 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

limited in scope, use unvalidated measures, and do not formally test the theories of

behavioural change that may be cited with respect to the relationships between the

intervention, intentionality and sustained adoption of new behaviours by the target audience

(Truong & Hall, 2013, 2015; Hall, 2014). Visitor numbers, population level information on

travel practices, including use of modes of transport, are instead used as the indicators of

change even though it can be extremely difficult to isolate the causal relationships between

interventions and non-specific data. Furthermore, use of brand reach as an intervention

measure might be problematic, e.g. high levels of awareness of a campaign to encourage

people to offset and reduce their emissions from travel will not translate into actual emissions

reduction unless they actually do change their behaviours over an extended period.

Reasons for the limited number of studies and evaluations on behavioural change

interventions in tourism are undoubtedly complex, but may partly be explained because of

cost. Academic funding is limited while there are few incentives for tourism research

organisations to fund longitudinal research on the behavioural dimensions of sustainable

tourism given that tourism policy settings are framed primarily with respect to increasing

visitor growth and spend. Support may be more forthcoming for locally focused research,

especially on the sustainability of individual attractions and locations such as national parks,

where the issue is really one of getting more people in to a specific area in a ‘sustainable’

manner, rather than the overall effects of tourism mobility at a global system wide level. In

such a situation the current potential for advice by tourism academics is somewhat limited

with respect to sustainable behavioural change unless there is potential to move from short-

term research on brand reach or message awareness to long-term behavioural change.

However, research on behavioural interventions also suggests a number of other areas in

which issues exist that influence the likelihood of behavioural change.

Theory and behavioural change

In examining the potential for behavioural change in target audiences significant emphasis is

placed on the extent to which interventions are theoretically informed (e.g. Leeman,

Baernholdt & Sandelowski, 2007; Michie & Abraham, 2004; Shankland & Lamboy, 2011)

and the way in which individual and collective belief systems affects perceptions of

communications and desire to act on them (e.g. Das, Haigh & Chauhan, 2014; Haq,

Cambridge & Owen, 2013; Van Prooijen, 2013). One of the great values of theory in

behavioural change is that it provides an explanation for what occurs in an intervention which

may therefore be potentially replicated elsewhere. Yet many interventions are either

atheoretical or poorly connected to theory, often through a lack of formal testing or other

research design issues (Luca & Suggs 2013; Michie & West 2013). Interventions are often

characterised by a lack of a coherent language and sets of theoretical constructs to describe

behaviour as well as clarity over what constitutes evidence of change (Van den Broucke

Page 7 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

2012). Johnston and Dixon’s (2008, pp. 511-512) comments with respect to health behaviour

interventions arguably apply equally well to tourism “Failure to use [theoretically informed

behavioural terminology] results in apparently innovative theory, but more usually in

‘rediscovering the wheel’ or creating theoretical constructs which are only contextual variants

of those that have already been well developed”.

Perhaps just as significantly, while behavioural theories are invariably referred to in studies

of behavioural change in health and environmental areas, little formal testing of theories is

undertaken (Munro, Lewin, Swart, & Volmink, 2007, pp. 115-16): “Despite a variety of

studies in a variety of fields, or perhaps because of this variation, we would argue that there is

no clear evidence yet for the support of any of these [behavioural change] theories within the

field of adherence behaviours”. Likewise, Luca and Suggs (2013: 20) report, “evidence on

the use of theories and models in social marketing interventions is sparse. … [findings]

highlight an ongoing lack of use or underreporting of the use of theory in social marketing

campaigns and reinforce the call to action for applying and reporting theory to guide and

evaluate interventions”. Similarly, Sheppard et al. (2009: 2) observe, “Theory has seldom

been used explicitly to guide intervention development. There are a large number of theories

and the empirical basis for many of the behaviour theories remains limited.” Nevertheless,

they are used to justify certain interventions anyway (Shove, 2010).

Belief systems and change

The multiplicity of different behavioural change theories, and variations thereof, may also

reflect the different belief systems of those who seek to encourage behaviour change through

certain types of intervention and not others (Hall, 2013, 2014; Shove, 2010). In tourism the

relationship between what researchers believe and what they publish and advocate has not

been studied. Yet clearly this may have implications for what is written about tourism

development and sustainable tourism and mobility and, just as importantly with respect to the

transfer of knowledge to stakeholders, the clarity and consistency of message with respect to

the nature and ‘problem’ of sustainable tourism, let alone behavioural change.

The lack of consensus over what sustainable tourism means together with the dominance of

commercial considerations in tourism discourse potentially has significant implications for

the development of a coherent set of strategies and processes for sustainable behavioural

interventions. Hall (2011a) claimed that the substantial academic discourse on sustainable

tourism has had only marginal affect on tourism industry practice and effective tourism

policy with respect to actual results rather than awareness and use of the concept. This

represents the issue of converting understanding and attitudes to sustained actions, the focus

of much social marketing, writ large. Although ‘sustainability’ is widely adopted by

Page 8 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

supranational bodies, such as the UNWTO, and governments, the environmentally

undesirable effects of tourism have not declined from or even been maintained at the levels

that existed when the concept became popularised in the 1990s. Instead, they have continued

to grow in both relative and absolute terms (Rutty et al., 2015).

One of the reasons why tourism research has had little practical effect on sustainable tourism

policy and practice may be found in the concept of epistemic community, a term used in

international relations to explain how policy makers are influenced by the providers of

knowledge. An epistemic community refers to a network of knowledge-based experts or

professionals with an authoritative claim to knowledge and skill in a particular issue-area and

the domain of their expertise (Haas, 1989). Where successful such epistemic communities

can introduce new policy alternatives and encourage their implementation. Hall (2010, p.

232) claimed, “Tourism academics active in sustainable tourism research have not been able

to become a publicly recognised group with an unchallenged claim to understand the nature

of the sustainable tourism issue-area and therefore be able to interpret the area for decision-

makers thereby influencing decisions, actions and behaviour”. In environmental policy the

cases of concern over the protection of stratospheric ozone, control of European acid rain,

and Mediterranean pollution control are all examples of when scientific epistemic

communities were consulted because of uncertainties over environmental problems (Haas,

1989). Although the ability to disagree on the detail of particular concepts, such as

sustainable development, may be quite vital to the possibility of epistemic communities

(Gough & Shackley, 2001; Hadorn, Bradley, Pohl, Rist & Wiesmann, 2006), members of the

sustainable tourism epistemic community do not appear to hold a sufficiently common set of

causal beliefs and shared notions of validity for recommendations for actionable behavioural

interventions to be effective (Hall, 2010, 2011a).

In the case of sustainable tourism, Hall (2010) claimed that, as with climate change, the

influence of researchers may be vitiated by the countering interests of business and other

groups, thereby diminishing not only access to decision-makers but also claims as to

authoritative knowledge. Although there may be a scientific consensus over climate change,

even with respect to tourism’s relative contributions in emissions, substantial disagreement

may occur with respect to the best way to respond (Hall et al., 2014). This can have major

implications for the selection of solutions for sustainable tourism and mobility because

intervention selection is tied in to the degree of consensus between government and industry

parties and scientists (Shove, 2010), and the pressures placed on decision-makers by

commercial and political interests in competition with, and often separate from, scientific

advice. As Cohen (2012, p.460) highlighted with respect to the prospect of mobility

transitions, “sustainability is only one of numerous political objectives and public

commitment toward this particular set of goals is extremely equivocal… It would be a

strategic mistake to regard efforts to foster sustainable mobility as impervious to rival societal

aspirations”. Therefore, given the potential costs to some stakeholders it should, therefore, be

Page 9 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

no surprise that current responses on making tourism more sustainable at the global and

national scale have tended to focus more on technological efficiency and on the role of

education and information provision to change travel behaviour rather than questioning the

growth framework adopted by destinations and businesses or their political influence

(Gössling et al., 2013; Hall, 2011a).

From downstream to upstream social marketing

As noted above, the consumer focus on downstream social marketing and behavioural change

in tourism, represents only one strand of social marketing. In contrast, it has been argued that

a narrow view of social marketing underestimates its real potential and that target audiences

encompass more than just ‘problem people’ (e.g., Peattie & Peattie, 2003; Andreasen, 2006).

Such a systemic approach to social marketing and behavioural change suggests that

interventions are needed that address the socio-technical system and regime in which tourism

is embedded, not just individuals. Yet interventions are inherently political as they imply not

only choices between values and interests but must also potentially represent a challenge to

power structures and relations (Andreasen, 2006), especially if it proposes changes or

reductions in consumption practices (Peattie & Peattie, 2009). Therefore, sustained

behavioural change in tourism may require a deeper understanding of political marketing and

psychology. But to do this may be challenging because of the way in which such

interventions may be portrayed as ‘activist’, inherently political and ‘non-scientific’.

Nevertheless, as Kotler noted with respect to upstream social marketing: “We become

political marketers at that stage. We have to understand the political process and target the

legislators who might sponsor our bill, and attract their support. Am I correct that this is an

intersection where the social marketing and political marketing world gets closer?”

(interview, in Smith, 2012, p.5).

One of the best examples where downstream and upstream social marketing have been

combined to lead to regime change has been in the area of tobacco control. Successful

reductions in the number of people smoking in developed countries have arisen as a result of

public health campaigns, many of which have been specifically targeted to the most at-risk

audiences (downstream social marketing), such as children and young adults; combined with

changes in the policies and regulations surrounding cigarette sales, packaging, pricing and

prohibitions (upstream) (Goldberg, 1995; Hoek & Jones, 2011; Kennedy & Parsons, 2012).

In the United States smoking has declined from about 43% of adults in 1965, the year of the

first Surgeon-General’s report that smoking was a health risk, to 17.8% in 2013 (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2014). At the global scale it is estimated

that prevalence of daily tobacco smoking in the population older than 15 years decreased

from 41.2% in 1980 to 31.1% in 2012 for men and from 10.6% to 6.2% for women (Ng et al.,

2014). Tobacco control bears many lessons for sustainable tourism and especially the

Page 10 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

response to climate change (Hall, 2013), with respect to the difference between relative and

absolute consumption and the broader politics of change. In the case of the health effects of

tobacco there was clear scientific evidence, available in the authoritative reports of the US

Surgeon General for example, which was vehemently opposed by commercial tobacco

interests as being unscientific (Oreskes & Conway, 2010a). Attempts to control tobacco

consumption also met substantial opposition (DHHS, 2014). And while there was a decline in

developed countries, cigarette manufacturers shifted their focus to developing countries.

Despite the relative decline in global prevalence, the number of daily smokers is estimated to

have increased from 721 million in 1980 to 967 million in 2012 (Ng et al., 2014).

Nevertheless, while regime change takes time, the evidence suggests that in the jurisdictions

in which they are implemented upstream and downstream marketing combined can lead to a

clear change in behaviours.

Building on Whitmarsh et al’s (2009) ideas of the need to shift from carbon literacy, i.e. a

knowledge of how individual’s practices contribute to climate change, to carbon capability,

i.e. the capacity to actually change practices, Hall (2013) identified how these practices, and

the means by which they could be changed, were also related to different understandings of

governance and how government should intervene. The close inter-relationship between

different ideas of governance, understandings of the consumer, and different forms of

behavioural interventions, therefore, also provides an example of the socio-technical regime

that serves to constrain the potential ways in the tourism system develops. Within this

framework the potential for change depends on the interplay between three dimensions:

(1) Decision-making and cognition of actors (technical, material and social aspects of

knowledge, skills, motivations, understandings and judgments);

(2) Individual behaviours and social practices (e.g. sustainable travel, energy

conservation); and

(3) Broader engagement with systems of provision and governance (e.g. lobbying, voting,

activism, creating alternative infrastructures and socio-technical systems of provision).

Hall (2013) argued that education and downstream social marketing could be respectively

understood in terms of utilitarian and social/psychological individual behavioural change

approaches (Figure 1), and a systems of provisions approach (Figure 2) that identifies

institutions and stresses that intervention selection and problem framing relates to notions of

governance and assumptions of the roles of individuals and the state. However, this model

fails to fully identify the potential for downstream and upstream social marketing in the

behavioural change process. As Verplanken and Wood (2006, p. 61) observe, “Disrupting the

environmental cues that trigger and maintain habit performance renders habits open to

change… downstream approaches will be most successful when they are paired with

Page 11 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

environmental changes that disrupt existing habits”. Therefore, Figure 3 revises Hall’s model

to illustrate the relative focus of the different forms of social marketing. Table 3 also

illustrates the nature of some of the potential interventions and the extent to which social

practices have become unconscious and habitual.

<INSERT FIGURES 1, 2 AND 3, AND TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE>

Yet suggesting that upstream social marketing is integral to sustainable behavioural change

clearly raises significant issues for research and its promotion. Indeed, there is potentially a

significant irony in considering the weaknesses of the carbon literacy model that is based on a

utility maximisation model of decision-making and human behaviour. The use of self-

regulation and information and education schemes, such as the availability of voluntary

carbon offsetting or eco-labelling programmes, has clearly had major failings in encouraging

sustainable mobility on a mass scale (Ceron & Dubois, 2003; Gössling & Buckley, 2014).

This utilitarian decision-making approach is founded on cognitive information processing on

the basis of rational utility maximisation (Hall, 2013). It has had only a marginal effect on

actual behavioural change (Seyfang, 2011). Yet this approach also dominates academic

research in that there is an expectation that publications will be read and then influence what

governments and other stakeholders should do (see also Hargreaves, 2012). Arguably this is

an indictment on the extent to which the extension of the utilitarian model to research

institutional practices and the ‘separation’ of values, politics and research are regarded as

‘normal science’ (Ravetz, 2006). Yet there is no value–free science, in the same way that

there is no value-free economics (Egan-Krieger, 2014). Neither orthodox (e.g. utilitarian

approaches) nor heterodox schools of thought (upstream marketing and socio-economic

transition approaches) are value-free. Instead, the “normativity” of each school of thought

should be investigated and discussed openly in order to encourage greater transparency in the

selection of behavioural change mechanisms and the reasons for their use given stated desired

outcomes. However, the impacts of such postpositivist critiques on decision-making regimes,

although academically sound, appear limited (Owens, Rayner & Bina, 2004). It may therefore

be no longer sufficient to have theoretical ‘know why’ or ‘know how’, that are the hallmarks

of technical rationality but also to engage in raising questions of Mode 2 type knowledge

about: What is studied? How it is researched? How is knowledge transferred? (Coles et al., in

press). But these questions, which are increasingly asked in tourism, are not sufficient to

encourage sustainable tourism transitions as we also have to ask questions about to whom is

knowledge being transferred to? How will such knowledge be used? And, what values are

embedded in such knowledge? These are issues of value rationality and advocacy and are

inherently political questions.

The political psychology of system and regime change

Page 12 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

If regime change is inherently political, in that it is overtly trying to change policy settings

and is dealing with the activities of private interests that oppose behavioural change on

economic and philosophical grounds, then literature on political marketing and psychology

needs to be incorporated into the social marketing mix. “At its core, political psychology

concerns the behaviour of individuals within a specific political system…. Individuals do not

act within a vacuum. Their behaviour varies with, and responds to, differences in political

institutions, political cultures, leadership styles, and social norms” (Huddy, Sears & Levy

2013, p. 3). There is an extremely substantial literature base available on political psychology

(Huddy et al., 2013), including with respect to climate change and sustainability (Castro,

2012; Egan & Mullin, 2012; Feygina et al., 2010; Jones & Song, 2014), but it has received

only limited attention by tourism researchers (Jenkins et al., 2014).

Several areas of political psychology seem most germane to upstream marketing and

sustainable behavioural change. These include political communication, agenda setting, how

people deal with contradictory information, and political socialisation. First, political

communication: “who says what to whom with what effect” (Lasswell, 1948, p. 37).

Lasswell’s question reminds us that there are three component parts of an attempt to persuade

and reinforce or change behaviours: the recipient (whom), the message (what), and the source

(who) (Druckman & Lupia, 2000). For a message to persuade, it must be received, the

receiver must pay attention to it, comprehend it, encode it in memory, and yield to it (act on it

as a behavioural decision). From the perspective of political psychology persuasive

communication, which is the combination of attitude change and action, is a message that

changes attitudes in ways significant and lasting enough to alter later behaviour (see

McGuire, 1985). Factors that explain variation in the process of political communication

effects fall into four categories: social cues, features of media technology, message content,

and human information processing (Valentino & Nardis, 2013).

Agenda setting refers to how exogenously determined changes in the media environment

influence the public’s attention to specific issues, groups, problems and policy solutions,

including those with respect to tourism (Hall, 2002). Important here are issues of media

priming, in which there are changes to the salience of issues as a result of media attention

(Iyengar & Kinder 1987), and media framing (Druckman, 2001; Lodge & Taber 2013;

Valentino & Nardis, 2012). Media frames present “a central organizing idea or story line that

provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events, weaving a connection among them”

(Gamson & Modigliani, 1987: 143). Media framing helps to define the set of appropriate

policy solutions in much the same way that media priming helps to determine the salience of

issues (Iyengar, 1991). Multiple considerations about an issue exist, and a frame emphasizes

one or more of them. They suggest how a political issue should be thought about, allowing

Page 13 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

citizens to understand them by creating a sensible narrative that conforms to established

habits of mind (Berinsky & Kinder, 2006).

Given the extent of contestation over issues such as climate change (e.g. see Scott, 2011;

Hall, Amelung, et al., 2015), a third significant theme is the issue of how people deal with

contradictory information. Given that people are sometimes motivated to defend their

existing beliefs in the face of contradictory information, even objective facts can be rejected

by those with powerful directional motivations (Bartels, 2002). Grownendyk (2012) found

that when strong partisans receive information that contradicts their beliefs, they defend their

identity by denigrating the other party, leaving them in the same position in terms of their

relative preference before the information came in. Grownendyk’s (2012) research suggests

that those who care most about politics, and who are motivated to expose themselves to new

information, might also be resistant to substantive information that could potentially help

them ‘get it right’. Indeed, a wider finding in political psychology is that “the intrinsic

motivation to engage with politics significantly moderates the impact of media messages”

(Valentino & Nardis, 2013: 577). Finally, there is a broader theme of the significance of

political socialisation. Core political predispositions tend to be highly stable through the life

span (Sears & Funk, 1999), although new media forms may lend themselves to greater

influence via the peripheral, low-motivation route. Indeed, even completely non-political

content can have political effects although one-off exposure may only have limited

behavioural impacts and not lead to sustainable change (Howell, 2014)

Political psychology reinforces the incremental nature of change as well as the importance of

structure. Importantly, it stresses the role of media in influencing political attitudes and

behaviours, something that tourism academics interested in behaviour change should be

acutely aware of, given the direct and indirect role that media plays in shaping consumption.

It also means that Hall’s (2013) model of carbon capability and behaviour change was

missing the crucial element of media as well as the extent to which institutions and structures

may serve to mediate social practices in all aspects of personal and collective consumption as

well as in the production of research. Therefore, Figure 4 presents a revised account of the

dimensions of carbon capability that acknowledges the role of the media and competing

interests as well as the potential areas of intervention for both downstream and upstream

marketing. While carbon capability was the focus of the original model, the notion of

capability can be applied to the entire area of sustainable tourism.

<INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE>

How we can do upstream social marketing to achieve a sustainable transition of tourism?

Knowledge of political psychology and upstream social marketing by itself will not lead to

Page 14 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

sustainable transitions. They need to be enacted. Tactics, such as lobbying, advocacy, white

papers, media engagement, boycotts and political marketing, are significant, but such tactics

can be employed by any actor in the tourism system. Tactics are a necessary but not sufficient

element of regime change. Instead, what is required is a much more activist advocacy

position that reflexively seeks to influence regime change in clear recognition that

scientifically grounded arguments or engagement with external parties alone do not win

policy debates or sufficiently change practices. Table 4 outlines a series of positions with

respect to the use of upstream social marketing that arise from different contexts, objectives

and the perceived role of academic practice. It should be emphasized that the boundaries

between the positions are porous and that an individual may be located at multiple locations

both over time as well as when engaged in different projects. Tactics and positionalities do

differ as well as reflexive notions of value-rationality and accountability. In the same way

that in seeking sustainable transitions socio-technical systems are inseparable from regimes,

so the technical knowledge of behavioural change and social marketing is inseparable from

practice (Ward, 2007). Human agency within systems also includes researcher agency.

Importantly, this is not a radical observation. It is often forgotten that researcher agency and

activist engagement was essential in countering corporate and political interests in the case of

tobacco control and creating political space for the enactment of behavioural interventions

and upstream and downstream social marketing (e.g. Fielding, 1978; Chapman, 1980, 1992,

1996; Chapman & Wakefield, 2001; Oreskes & Conway, 2010a). Why should sustainable

tourism and issues such as climate change be any different?

<INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE>

Conclusions

This paper has critiqued and extended Hall’s (2013) observations of the potential for

behavioural interventions, including social marketing, to enable long-term behavioural

change with respect to sustainable tourism. It has employed key social marketing themes to

frame the capacities of the tourism academy to advise on the development of successful

interventions. Key issues raised include the theoretical base of sustainable tourism and,

importantly, the understanding of sustainability and what would constitute a successful

intervention within the wider tourism literature and community. A related issue that emerges

here is that tourism research generally appears committed to enabling growth in visitor

numbers and spending without consideration of the externalities. According to Hall (2015)

explicitly addressing “the moral and cultural issues raised by the predominant emphasis in

economic thinking on individual preferences, self-interest and competitive growth” (Ekins,

1993, p. 286) also means considering how tourism education and research promulgates

growthism, overconsumption and industry orthodoxies as part of ‘good [Business As Usual]

practice’ (Hall, 2015, p. 354). If Hall’s arguments hold then this perhaps means that as well

Page 15 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

as seeking behavioural change in the tourism industry and tourists then behavioural change

may also be required in the tourism academy, especially given its role in the socio-technical

system of tourism and its contribution to regime maintenance.

In seeking to encourage the development of behavioural interventions tourism researchers

also need to be mindful of the different ‘traditions’ within social marketing (Glenane-

Antoniadis et al., 2003). To adopt, without sufficient consideration, the more commercially

oriented forms of social marketing may lead to successful campaigns, as measured by brand

reach and awareness, but not success with respect to actual sustainable behavioural change.

Therefore, the paper suggests that in addition to downstream marketing that focuses on

consumers then upstream social marketing measures that seek to influence policy settings and

change systems and institutions also need to be considered. As Gel’s (2004, p. 914)

commented with respect to system change, “To get negative externalities on the technical

agenda of regime actors, there may be a need for consumer pressures and regulatory

measures”. This approach is also significant because it suggests that the best way to change

consumers’ deeply engrained social practices, i.e. strong habits of consumption, is by

changing the socio-technical system and regime within which such practices are embedded.

Those aspects of consumption that are weak habits can be approached via downstream

marketing (see Table 3), but the development of system and regime derived sustainable

consumption behaviours requires the creation of new habits and social practices, and

therefore new structures and systems over time as part of a sustainable transition process.

Yet, such an approach carries risks because of the likely portrayal of such a strategy as being

‘social engineering’ and ‘political’, although it should be emphasised that this approach is

well established in the public health social marketing literature (Andreasen, 2006). However,

the paper suggests that the normative dimensions of different theoretical bases to behavioural

change interventions (Hall, 2013) (see Table 4), need greater attention as it may provide

greater transparency with respect to decision-making as well as the range of commercial and

political interests that seek to influence policy selection (Shove, 2010; Hall, Amelung, et al.,

2015).

The paper has also argued for the development of better models by which tourism researchers

themselves frame the knowledge-policy gap with respect to sustainable behaviours. This

requires a more overt interrogation of the theoretical base for behavioural change including

more systematic ‘testing’ and repetition of intervention designs. Much tourism research notes

theoretical domains and is theoretically informed, but does not actually formally test theories.

In addition, there is a need for more longitudinal studies that investigate whether behaviours

are changed and maintained long-term. However, it is also suggested that the theoretical base

on which behaviour change research in tourism is grounded needs to be expanded. In the case

of upstream social marketing in particular this requires much greater attention being given to

Page 16 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

the political psychology and marketing literature and the issues of political communication,

message framing and socialisation. Although acknowledged as being a significant factor in

destination image (Hall, 2002; Hays, Page & Buhalis, 2013), the role of the media in

influencing tourism policy and individual behaviours via media priming, setting and framing

needs much more attention.

Finally, and perhaps most controversially, this paper has questioned whether the way in

which science is communicated and advocated remains one of the important issues that need

to be addressed if the science-policy gap is to be closed (Demerritt, 2006). Currently, the

received model of ‘normal science’ means that research results are usually presented in a

form that replicates utilitarian models of decision-making that have been shown to be

extremely limited in creating behaviour change. We cannot expect that just publishing a

research paper will mean that policy makers will act on it. Not only do they have to find it in

the first place but there is a competition between competing ideas all of which have political

and economic, let alone environmental, advantages and disadvantages. While current

knowledge production may be useful for journal rankings and research assessments, it is not

necessarily closing the knowledge-policy gap in the longer term, although growing attention

to the impact of research in research quality assessments may herald some change (Coles et

al., in press). Therefore, as well as changing the social practices of the consumer, effective

behavioural change is likely to also require changes in research practices. Science is not the

same as journalism but there is a lesson to be learnt with respect to communication and its

political nature. Peer reviewed research remains vital, however although potentially

unpalatable to many, perhaps the model that may best be followed if sustainable tourism and

mobility is to be achieved is not the path of so-called ‘objective science’ but a more value-

driven activist/advocacy based interventionist model of upstream social marketing that seeks

to change socio-technical regimes. Given the realities of dealing with substantive commercial

and political interests, and their deliberate obfuscation of scientific research, the lessons

learned from anti-smoking campaigns (Chapman & Wakefield, 2001), and climate change

‘debates’ (Oreskes & Conway, 2010a, 2010b), potentially provides a much better guide for

future action for sustainable tourism and mobility than only producing yet more and more

papers.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of the paper ‘Political psychology and tourism: points of intervention in

upstream (and downstream?) social and political marketing for sustainable tourism mobility’

was presented at the psychology of governing sustainable tourism mobility: Bridging the

science-policy gap, 2nd international workshop in the Black Forest, Freiburg, Germany, 1-4

July 2014. Comments received and discussion at the workshop have contributed greatly to the

present paper. The particular contributions and insights of the workshop organisers and

Page 17 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Nicole Aignier, Dorothee Bohn, and Yael Ram are gratefully acknowledged as are those of

the editors and anonymous referees. Usual caveats apply.

References

Andreasen, A. (2006) Social Marketing in the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Andreasen, A. (2012). Rethinking the relationship between social/nonprofit marketing and

commercial marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 36-41.

Andreasen, A., & Kotler, P. (2007) Strategic Marketing for Non-Profit Organizations, 7th

ed.

Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011). ‘Helping People Make Better Choices’: Exploring the

behaviour change agenda for environmental sustainability. Applied Geography, 31(2), 712-

720.

Barr, S., Shaw, G., & Coles, T. (2011). Times for (un)sustainability? Challenges and

opportunities for developing behaviour change policy. A case-study of consumers at home

and away. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1234-1244.

Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions.

Political Behavior, 24(2), 117-150.

Bauman, A., McLean, G., Hurdle, D., Walker, S., Boyd, J., van Aalst, I., & Carr, H. (2003).

Evaluation of the national ‘Push Play’ campaign in New Zealand: creating population

awareness of physical activity. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 116(1179), U535. URL:

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1179/535/

Berinsky, A., & Kinder, D. (2006). Making sense of issues through frames: Understanding

the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics, 68, 640-656.

Castro, P. (2012). Legal innovation for social change: Exploring change and resistance to

different types of sustainability laws. Political Psychology, 33(1), 105-121.

Ceron, J-P., & Dubois, G. (2003). Tourism and sustainable development indicators: the gap

between theoretical demands and practical achievements. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(1),

54-75.

Chapman, S. (1980). A David and Goliath story: Tobacco advertising in Australia. British

Medical Journal, 281, 1187-1190.

Chapman S. (1992). Upgrading the academic respectability of advocacy studies in tobacco

policy implementation. Tobacco Control, 2, 81-83.

Page 18 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Chapman, S. (1996). Civil disobedience and tobacco control: the case of BUGA UP.

Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions. Tobacco Control, 5(3), 179-

185.

Chapman, S., & Wakefield, M. (2001). Tobacco control advocacy in Australia: reflections on

30 years of progress. Health Education & Behavior, 28(3), 274-289.

Cohen, M. (2010). Destination unknown: Pursuing sustainable mobility in the face of rival

societal aspirations. Research Policy, 39, 459–470.

Cohen, S., Gössling, S., Higham, J., Peeters, P., & Eijgelaar, E. (2016). The psychology of

governing sustainable tourism mobility: Bridging the science-policy gap. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, in press.

Cohen, S., Higham, J., Peeters, P., & Gössling, S. (Eds.). (2014). Understanding and

Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches,

Abingdon: Routledge.

Coles, T.E., Hall, C.M., & Duval, D., Tourism and post-disciplinarity: back to the future?

Tourism Analysis, in press.

Crawshaw, P. (2014). Changing behaviours, improving outcomes? Governing healthy

lifestyles through social marketing. Sociology Compass, 8(9), 1127-1139.

Dann, S. (2010) ‘Redefining social marketing with contemporary commercial marketing

definitions’, Journal of Business Research, 63: 147–153.

Das, S., Haigh, M., & Chauhan, S. (2014). Communicating sustainability within Britain’s

Hindu community. Sustainability, 6(2), 718-740.

Demeritt, D. (2006). Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist

critique. Economy and Society, 35(3), 453-479.

Dolnicar, S., & Ring, A. (2014). Tourism marketing research: Past, present and future.

Annals of Tourism Research, 47, 31-47.

Druckman, J. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political

Behaviour, 23, 225-256.

Druckman, J., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science,

3(1), 1-24.

Dubois, G., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.-P., & Gössling, S. (2011). The future tourism mobility of

the world population: Emission growth versus climate policy. Transportation Research Part

A: Policy and Practice, 45(10), 1031-1042.

Egan, P., & Mullin, M. (2012). Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect

of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. The Journal of Politics,

74(3), 796-809.

Page 19 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Egan-Krieger, T. von (2014). Die illusion wertfreier ökonomie. Eine untersuchung der

normativität heterodoxer theorien [The illusion of value-free economics: An examination of

the normativity of heterodox theories]. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Ekins, P. (1993) “Limits to growth” and “sustainable development”: grappling with

ecological realities. Ecological Economics, 8, 269-288.

Feygina, I., Jost, J., & Goldsmith, R. (2010). System justification, the denial of global

warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326-338.

Fielding, J. (1978). Successes of prevention. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health

and Society, 56(3), 274-302.

Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1990). Post-normal science: A new science for new times.

Scientific European, 169, 20-22.

Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R.

Baumgart (Ed.), Research in political sociology (pp. 137-177). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Geels, F. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems - insights

about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33,

897-920.

Geels, F. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven

criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1, 24-40.

Glenane-Antoniadis, A., Whitwell. G., Bell, J., & Menguc, B. (2003). Extending the vision of

social marketing through social capital theory: marketing in the context of intricate exchange

and market failure. Marketing Theory, 3, 323-343.

Goldberg, M. (1995). Social marketing: are we fiddling while Rome burns?. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 347-370.

Gordon, R., & Gurrieri, L. (2014). Towards a reflexive turn: social marketing assemblages.

Journal of Social Marketing, 4(3), 261-278.

Gough, C., & Shackley, S. (2001). The respectable politics of climate change: the epistemic

communities and NGOs. International Affairs, 77(2), 329-346.

Grownendyk, E. (2012). Justifying party identification: A case of identifying with the lesser

of two evils. Political Behaviour, 34, 453-475.

Gössling,S., Ring, A., Andersson, A-C., Dwyer, L. & Hall, C.M. (2016). Optimizing or

maximizing growth ? A challenge for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

24, DOI:10.1080/09669582.2015.1085869

Gössling, S., & Buckley, R. (2014). Carbon labels in tourism: Persuasive communication?.

Journal of Cleaner Production, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.067

Page 20 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., Ekström, F., Brudvik Engeset, A. & Aall, C. (2012). Transition

management: a tool for implementing sustainable tourism scenarios? Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 20(6), 899-916.

Gössling, S., & Peeters, P. (2015). Assessing tourism's global environmental impact 1900–

2050. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(5), 639-659.

Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J-P. & Dubois, G. (2012). Consumer behaviour

and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 36-58.

Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C.M. (2013) ‘Challenges of tourism in a low-carbon

economy’, WIRES Climate Change, 4(6), 525-538.

Haas, P.M. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution

control. International Organization, 43(3), 377-403.

Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implications of

transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 119-128.

Hall, C.M. (2002). Travel safety, terrorism and the media: the significance of the issue-

attention cycle. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(5), 458-466.

Hall, C.M. (2005). Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility. Harlow: Pearson.

Hall, C.M. (2010). Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state

tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 131-145.

Hall C.M. (2011a). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance:

From first and second to third order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9, 649–671.

Hall, C.M. (2011b). Researching the political in tourism: Where knowledge meets power. In

C.M. Hall (Ed.), Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, issues and reflections (pp.39-54),

Abingdon: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (2013). Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing

sustainable tourism consumption: Beyond neoliberalism, ‘nudging’ and ‘green growth’?

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 1091-1109.

Hall (2014). Tourism and social marketing. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (2015). Economic greenwash: On the absurdity of tourism and green growth. In

V. Reddy & K. Wilkes (Eds.), Tourism in the green economy (pp.339-358), London:

Earthscan.

Hall, C.M., Amelung, B., Cohen, S., Eijgelaar, E., Gössling, S., Higham, J., Leemans, R.,

Peeters, P., Ram, Y., & Scott, D. (2015). On climate change skepticism and denial in tourism.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(1), 4-25.

Page 21 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Hall, C.M., Gössling, S., & Scott, D. (Eds.) (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and

Sustainability. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hall, C.M., Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2013) The primacy of climate change for sustainable

international tourism, Sustainable Development, 21(2), 112-121.

Haq, G., Cambridge, H., & Owen, A. (2013). A targeted social marketing approach for

community pro-environmental behavioural change. Local Environment, 18(10), 1134-1152.

Hargreaves, T. (2012). Questioning the virtues of pro-environmental behaviour research:

Towards a phronetic approach. Geoforum, 43, 315–324.

Hays, S., Page, S., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media as a destination marketing tool: its use

by national tourism organisations. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(3), 211-239.

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal

marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78-89.

Hoek, J., & Jones, S. (2011). Regulation, public health and social marketing: a behaviour

change trinity. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(1), 32-44.

Hoffmann U. (2011) Some reflections on climate change, green growth illusions and

development space, UNCTAD Discussion Paper 205. Geneva: UNCTAD.

Howcroft, D., Mitev, N., & Wilson, M. (2004). Social theory and philosophy for information

systems. In L. Willcocks & J. Mingers (Eds.), What may we learn from the social shaping of

technology approach (pp.329-371). Chichester: John Wiley.

Howell, R. (2014). Investigating the long-term impacts of climate change communications on

individuals’ attitudes and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 70-101.

Huddy, L., Sears, D., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of political

psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Jenkins, J., Hall, C.M., & Mkono, M. (2014). Tourism and public policy: Contemporary

debates and future directions. In A. Lew, C.M. Hall & A. Williams (Eds.), The Wiley

Blackwell Companion to Tourism (pp.542-555), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Johnston, M., & Dixon, D. (2008). ‘What happened to behaviour in the decade of behaviour?’

Psychology and Health, 23: 509-513.

Jones, M., & Song, G. (2014). Making sense of climate change: how story frames shape

cognition. Political Psychology, 35(4), 447-476.

Page 22 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Kennedy, A., & Parsons, A. (2012). Macro-social marketing and social engineering: a

systems approach. Journal of Social Marketing, 2(1), 37-51.

Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1971) ‘Social marketing: An approach to planned social change’,

Journal of Marketing, 35(3): 3-12.

Lane, B. (2009) ‘Thirty years of sustainable tourism: drivers, progress, problems—and the

future’, in S. Gössling, C.M. Hall & D. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable tourism futures:

Perspectives on systems, restructuring and innovations. (pp.19-32) London: Routledge.

Langford, R., & Panter-Brick, C. (2013). A health equity critique of social marketing: where

interventions have impact but insufficient reach. Social Science & Medicine, 83, 133-141.

Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson

(Ed.), The Communication of Ideas (pp. 37-51). New York: Harper & Row.

Leavy, J., Bull, F., Rosenberg, M., & Bauman, A. (2011). Physical activity mass media

campaigns and their evaluation: a systematic review of the literature 2003–2010. Health

Education Research, 26(6), 1060-1085.

Le-Klähn, D-T., & Hall, C.M. (2015). Tourist use of public transport at destinations – a

review. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(8), 785-803.

Lee, D., Fahey, D., Forster, P., Newton, P., Wit, R., Lim, L., Owen, B., & Sausen, R. (2009).

Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century. Atmospheric Environment, 43(22),

3520-3537.

Leeman J., Baernholdt, M., & Sandelowski M. (2007). Developing a theory-based taxonomy

of methods for implementing change in practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58, 191–200.

Lefebvre, R. (2012). Transformative social marketing: Co-creating the social marketing

discipline and brand. Journal of Social Marketing, 2(2): 118-129.

Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Lovio, R., Mickwitz, P., & Heiskanen, E. (2011). Path dependence, path creation and creative

destruction in the evolution of energy systems. In R. Wüstenhagen R. Vuebker (Eds.), The

handbook of research on energy entrepreneurship (pp.274-305). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Luca, N., & Suggs, L. (2010). Strategies for the social marketing mix: a systematic review.

Social Marketing Quarterly, 16(4), 122-149.

Luca, N., & Suggs, L. (2013). Theory and model use in social marketing health interventions.

Journal of Health Communication, 18(1), 20-40.

Markard, J. (2011). Transformation of infrastructures: sector characteristics and implications

for fundamental change. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 17, 107-117.

Page 23 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. 2012. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of

research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41, 955-967.

McGuire, W. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),

Handbook of social psychology, vol. 2, 3rd

ed. (pp. 233-246). New York: Random House.

Michie, S., & Abraham, C. (2004). Interventions to change health behaviours: evidence-

based or evidence-inspired?. Psychology & Health, 19(1), 29-49.

Michie, S., & West, R. (2013) ‘Behaviour change theory and evidence: a presentation to

government,’ Health Psychology Review, 7(1): 1-22.

Mitev, N., & Howcroft, D. (2011). Post-structuralism, social shaping of technology, and

actor-network theory: what can they bring to is research? In R. Galliers & Wendy Currie

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management information systems: Critical perspectives

(pp.292-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Munro, S., Lewin, S., Swart, T., & Volmink, J. (2007) ‘A review of health behaviour

theories: how useful are these for developing interventions to promote long-term medication

adherence for TB and HIV/AIDS?’ BMC Public Health, 7: 104.

Musgrave, J., & Henderson, S. (2015). Changing audience behaviour: a pathway to

sustainable event management. In C.M. Hall, S. Gössling & D. Scott (Eds.), The Routledge

handbook of tourism and sustainability (pp.384-396). Abingdon: Routledge.

Ng, M., Freeman, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Dwyer-Lindgren, L., Thomson, B.,

Wollum, A., Sanman, E., Wulf, S., Lopez, A., Murray, C., & Gakidou, E. (2014). Smoking

prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, 1980-2012. JAMA, 311(2):183-192.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010a). Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists

obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury

Press.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010b). Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature, 465(7299),

686-687.

Owens, S., Rayner, T., & Bina, O. (2004). New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory,

practice, and research. Environment and Planning A, 36(11), 1943-1960.

Peattie, S., & Peattie, K. (2003). Ready to fly solo? Reducing social marketing’s dependence

on commercial marketing theory. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 365-385.

Peattie, K., & Peattie, S. (2009). Social marketing: A pathway to consumption reduction?

Journal of Business Research, 62, 260-268.

Polimeni, J., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M., & Alcott, B. (2008). The Jevons Paradox and the

myth of resource efficiency improvements. London: Earthscan.

Page 24 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Prillwitz, J., & Barr, S. (2011). Moving towards sustainability? Mobility styles, attitudes and

individual travel behaviour. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1590-1600.

Ravetz, J. R. (2006). Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards

sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3(4), 275-284.

Rutty, M., Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C.M. (2015). The global effects and impacts of

tourism: An overview. In C.M. Hall, S. Gössling & D. Scott (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook

of Tourism and Sustainability (pp. 36-63), Abingdon: Routledge.

Rütten, A., Lüschen, G., Lengerke, T. von, Abel, T., Kannas, L., Rodrígue Diaz, J., Vinck, J.,

& van der Zee, J. (2003). Determinants of health policy impact: a theoretical framework for

policy analysis. Sozial- und Präventivmedizin, 48(5), 293-300.

Scott, D. (2011). Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 17-34.

Scott, D., Hall, C.M., & Gössling, S. (2016). A review of the IPCC 5th Assessment and

implications for tourism sector climate resilience and decarbonization, Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 24(1), DOI:10.1080/09669582.2015.1062021.

Scott, D., Peeters, P., & Gössling, S. (2010). Can tourism deliver its ‘aspirational’ emission

reduction targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 393–408.

Sears, D., & Funk, C. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political

predispositions. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1-28.

Seyfang, G. (2011). The new economics of sustainable consumption: Seeds of change.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shankland, R., & Lamboy, B. (2011). Utilité des modèles théoriques pour la conception et

l’évaluation de programmes en prévention et promotion de la santé. (The value of theoretical

models for the development and evaluation of programmes for illness prevention and health

promotion). Pratiques psychologiques, 17(2), 153-172.

Shepperd, S., Lewin, S., Straus, S., Clarke, M., Eccles, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Wong, G., &

Sheikh, A. (2009). Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions?

PLoS Med, 6(8): e1000086. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000086

Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change.

Environment and Planning A, 42, 1273-1285.

Smith, B. (2012). American politics and social marketing: A candid conversation with Philip

Kotler and Bill Novelli. Social Marketing Quarterly, 18(1): 3-8.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E., Biggs, R.,

Carpenter, S., De Vries, W., De Wit, C., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G., Persson,

L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sorlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding

Page 25 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223): 1259855.

DOI:10.1126/science.1259855

Truong, V.D, & Hall, C.M. (2013). Social marketing and tourism: What is the evidence?

Social Marketing Quarterly, 19(2), 110-135.

Truong, D., & Hall, C.M. (2015). Promoting voluntary behaviour change for sustainable

tourism: The potential role of social marketing. In C.M. Hall, S. Gössling & D. Scott (Eds.),

The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability (pp.246-260). Abingdon: Routledge.

Truong, V. D., Hall, C.M., Dong, X.D., & Pham, N.V.H. (2015). The internationalisation of

social marketing research. Journal of Social Marketing, 5(4), in press.

UNEP (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty

eradication. Nairobi: UNEP.

Unruh, G. (2006). Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 34, 1185-1197.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2014). The Health Consequences

of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: DHHS,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention

and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.

Valentino, N., & Nardis, Y. (2013). Political communication: Form and consequence of the

information environment. In L. Huddy, D. Sears & J. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of

political psychology, 2nd

ed. (pp. 559-590). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van den Broucke, S. (2012). Theory-informed health promotion: Seeing the bigger picture by

looking at the details. Health Promotion International, 27(2), 143-147.

Van Prooijen, A. (2013). The application of self-affirmation theory to the psychology of

climate change. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex.

Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits.

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 90-103.

Ward, K. (2007). Geography and public policy: activist, participatory, and policy

geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 31(5), 695–705.

Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., Seyfang, G., & Lorenzoni, I. (2009). Carbon capability: What

does it mean, how prevalent is it, and how can we promote it? Tyndall Working Paper 132.

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia.

Page 26 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 1: Sustainable tourism and related concepts search in title, abstract and keywords in Scopus database

year “sustainable

tourism”

“tourism” and

“sustainable

development”

“tourism”

and

“climate

change”

“tourism” and

“environmental

impact”

“tourism” and

“environmental

change”

“tourism”

and

“sustainable

mobility”

“tourism”

and

“sustainable

transport”

“sustainable

transport”

“sustainable

mobility”

2014 173 279 153 72 25 3 1 101 76

2013 199 296 163 122 21 3 3 120 90

2012 209 281 146 104 17 3 80 83

2011 163 321 137 100 24 2 2 105 78

2010 168 245 150 76 16 1 90 57

2009 113 180 98 56 12 1 65 56

2008 120 145 76 59 8 1 3 53 55

2007 90 123 54 81 9 3 50 35

2006 90 136 42 62 14 3 53 43

2005 63 89 30 58 15 1 44 25

2004 39 92 15 40 5 1 31 21

2003 49 87 18 59 10 1 30 21

2002 52 65 21 49 11 26 10

2001 40 38 8 46 3 14 14

2000 30 46 9 58 4 2 1 22 19

Search undertaken 31 January 2015

Page 27 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 2. Comparisons between commercial and social marketing

Element Commercial Marketing Social Marketing

Importance of

theory

Low Medium to high. Significant for replication.

Especially important for health related

interventions.

Primary target

audience

Customers Downstream consumers and upstream

institutions and organisations

Secondary target

audience • Supply chain

members

• Media

• Other identified

stakeholders

• Media

• Volunteers

• Donors and sponsors

• Partners

• Governments

• Public

Inputs • Organisational

budgets

• Staffing

• Internal support

• Organisational budgets

• Staffing

• Volunteers

• Donations and sponsorship

• Partnering

Budgets Often substantial Often minimal

Strategy creation

and execution

Few limits with little

public scrutiny

Substantial limits and close public scrutiny

Organisational

outputs • Sales campaigns (of

various kinds)

• Behaviour change

• Volunteer retention

• Donation, funding and sponsorship levels

and loyalty

• Collaboration with businesses,

government and other NGOs and non-

profit organisations

• Sales campaigns (for some non-profits)

Limits on offerings Few Often considerable

Key behaviour of

target markets • Often low

involvement

• Audience generally

indifferent or

positive

• Often high involvement

• Audience generally indifferent or opposed

(with the exception of some non-profit

niches such as arts, culture and heritage)

Target audience

benefits • Immediate or near

term

• From short-term to long-term with many

interventions not having results until

distant time horizons (e.g. sustainability)

Result indicators • Sales figures

• Brand reach

• Market share

• Shareholder

satisfaction

• Product loyalty

• Behaviour change

• Reduction in externalities

• Brand reach

• Volunteer retention

• Donation, funding and sponsorship

• Collaboration levels

• Stakeholder satisfaction and loyaty

• Sales figures

Outcomes • Profit levels

• Return on

Investment

• Behavioural change

• Reductions in externalities

• Return on investment

• Programme growth

Impacts • Consumption change

• Externalities

• Behavioural change

• Reduction in externalities

Page 28 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Source: After Peattie & Peattie, 2003; Andreasen & Kotler, 2007; Andreasen, 2012; Hall, 2014

Page 29 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 3. Downstream and upstream interventions to enable behavioural change

Continuum of Intervention

Continuum of

habitual

behaviour

Downstream interventions

Focus on individual behaviour

Upstream intervention

Focus on changing the system and regime in order

to change individual behaviour

Conscious

behaviour

Weak or non

habitual

behaviour

Strong focus on individual decision-making, e.g. knowledge,

judgement and skills

• Self regulation

• Education and provision of information

• Green/eco labelling

• Tax incentives

• Pricing

• Using campaigns and volunteering to promote new social norms

Changes to socio-technical system and regime to

create new context for behaviours and generate

new sustainable habits and practice

• Environmental design

• Legislation and regulation

• Technological change

• Changes in access (economic incentives, pricing,

location)

Moderate habitual

behaviour

Growing focus on social practices

• Nudging – making better choices through manipulation of a

consumer’s environment

• Using campaigns and volunteering to promote new social norms

that reinforce sustainable behaviours

Strong habits

Unconscious

behaviour

Strong focus on social practices

• Lifestyle change via focusing on satisfaction of psychological

needs; cultural differentiation; marking social meaning and identity

and utilising social norms to reinforce sustainable behaviours

Changes to socio-technical system and regime to

create new context for behaviours and change

existing unsustainable habits and practice

• Environmental design

• Legislation and regulation

• Technological change

• Changes in access (pricing, location)

Source: After Verplanken & Wood 2006; Hall 2013, 2014

Page 30 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 4. Activist, participatory, policy, and corporatist positions in upstream social marketing

Position Context Perceived role Knowledge base Objectives Tactics Primary

accountability

Activist / Advocacy

Post-positivist in approach and embraces alternative, radical and critical perspectives. Highly reflexive.

Use of knowledge and positionality to challenge existing power structures and the oppressive inequities that result from them. This will often mean challenging the activities of tourism bodies, destination organisations and individual businesses.

Academic and public knowledge valued. Highly reflexive.

For universities and students to be engaged in activities and issues as ‘professional public interest workers’ that utilise their knowledge

Advocacy and lobbying positions. Civil disobedience. Knowledge that is transferred usually presented as contingent but is shaped for different arguments in different policy arenas.

Designated publics

Participatory Grounded in a number of different approaches to ‘participatory research’ in both global north and south. Significant reflexivity.

Aim to involve, often in a non-hierachical way, those being researched in one or more different stages of the research process, from conception to evaluation. Destination organisations and tourism firms are recognised as rational agents that can be worked with.

Context-specific focusing on the production of detailed and situated accounts. Links to community based tourism traditions. Action research.

Widen ownership of research and capacity building among those involved, including commercial and non-commercial organisations and public agencies.

Publications presented from the perspective of providing for a voice for the participants. Some lobbying on behalf of affected.

Designated communities

Policy Grounded in ‘applied’ traditions. Little reflexivity. Strong consulting emphasis.

To feed into and shape the policy making process, especially at the destination level, in order to make the socio-technical regime more tourism friendly and assist destinations in generating higher returns.

Policy and practitioner-friendly

Influencing and shaping the formation and evaluation of policy

Consultancy reports. Publications and knowledge transfer usually presented from a ‘value-free’ position and as expert knowledge.

Clients and evaluators

Corporatist Grounded in ‘applied’ traditions in which the public interest is codeterminous with commercial economic interest. Little or no reflexivity. Strong consulting emphasis.

To feed into and shape business and system decision-making processes in order to make organisations more competitive and generate higher returns. Usually reinforces socio-technical regime

Industry and practitioner-friendly

Assist industry in doing their job better and increasing their profit margins while providing a narrow range of positive, usually economic, externalities.

Consultancy reports. Publications and knowledge transfer presented from a ‘value-free’ position and as expert knowledge

Clients and evaluators

Sources: Chapman & Wakefield (2001); Owens et al. (2004), Ward (2007), Hall (2011b)

Page 31 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Page 32 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer ReviewActor

Lifestyle

Consumption

Decision-making e.g. knowledge, judgements,

skills

Individual behaviours

& practices

Travel

Housing

Food

Other

consumptive

practices

Education

social

marketing

Page 33 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Stru

ctu

re

Actor Lifestyle

Consumption

Decision-making e.g. knowledge, judgements,

skills

Individual behaviours

& practices

Broader engagement with carbon governance

e.g. institutional change

Travel

Housing

Food

Other

consumptive

practices

Social Practices Syste

ms o

f pro

vis

ion

Education &

social

marketing

Page 34 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Stru

ctu

re/R

eg

ime

Actor Lifestyle

Consumption

Decision-making e.g. knowledge, judgements,

skills

Individual behaviours

& practices

Broader engagement with carbon governance

e.g. institutional change

Travel

Housing

Food

Other

consumptive

practices

Social Practices

Syste

ms o

f

pro

vis

ion

Downstream

“traditional” social

marketing

Upstream “convergent” social

marketing

Education

Page 35 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Stru

ctu

re/re

gim

e

Actor Lifestyle

Consumption

Decision-making e.g. knowledge, judgements,

skills

Individual behaviours

& practices

Broader engagement with carbon governance

e.g. institutional change

Travel

Housing

Food

Other

consumptive

practices

Social Practices

Syste

ms o

f

pro

vis

ion

Media &

other actors Media &

other actors

Downstream “traditional”

social marketing

Education

Upstream social marketing

Page 36 of 36

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960