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
Top Related