Sustainable passenger transport policies are most often directed towards everyday travel and ignore the large and expanding amount of leisure travel. The paper examines whether policies aimed at reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions for everyday travel may have the opposite effect on leisure travel by reviewing studies of three sustainable passenger transport policies: developing more compact cities, building pro-environment awareness and attitudes, and promoting the growth of information and communication technologies. We found that the policies may indeed have unintended effects and suggest several mechanisms that could explain why this opposite effect occurs. Consideration is also given to the implications for developing more comprehensive sustainable transport policies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (2005) Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.
2.
AnableJ. (2002) Picnics, pets, and pleasant places: the distinguishing characteristics of leisure travel demand, in: BlackW. R.NijkampP. (Eds) Social Change and Sustainable Transport, pp. 181–190. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
3.
AndreevP.SalomonI.PliskinN. (2010) Review: state of teleactivities, Transportation Research Part C, 18, pp. 2–20.
4.
BalepurP. N.VarmaK. V.MokhtarianP. L. (1998) Transportation impacts of center-based telecommuting: interim findings from the neighborhood telecenters project, Transportation, 25, pp. 287–306.
BanisterD.SteadD. (2004) Impact of ICT on transport, Transport Reviews, 24, pp. 611–632.
7.
BanisterD.SteadD.SteenP.. (2000) European Transport Policy and Sustainable Mobility. London: Spon Press.
8.
BlackW. R. (2003) Transportation: A Geographical Analysis. London: The Guilford Press.
9.
BlackW. R.NijkampP. (Eds) (2002) Social Change and Sustainable Transport. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
10.
BoarnetM. G.CraneR. (2000) Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
BoarnetM. G.SarmientoS. (1998) Can land use policy really affect travel behaviour?, Urban Studies, 35, pp. 1155–1169.
12.
CaoJ.MokhtarianP. L.HandyS. L. (2009) The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: a case study of northern California, Transportation Research Part A, 43, pp. 548–559.
13.
CervervoR.KockelmanK. (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design, Transportation Research Part D, 2, pp. 199–219.
14.
CraneR. (2000) The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review, Journal of Planning Literature, 15, pp. 3–23.
15.
CullingworthJ. B. (1964) Planning for leisure, Urban Studies, 1(1), pp. 1–25.
16.
DenstadliJ. M.EngebretsenØ.HjortholRVåganeL. (2006) 2005 Norwegian travel survey: key results. Report No. 844/2006, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo [in Norwegian].
17.
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2002) Energy and environment in the European Union. Environmental Issue Report No. 31, EEA, Copenhagen.
18.
EEA (2008) Beyond transport policy: exploring and managing the external drivers of transport demand. Technical Report No. 12, EEA, Copenhagen.
19.
ElkinT.McLarenD.HillmanM. (1991) Reviving the city: towards sustainable urban development. Friends of the Earth, London.
20.
GeenhuizenM.van NijkampP.BlackW. R. (2002) Social change and sustainable transport: a manifesto on transatlantic research opportunities, in: BlackW. R.NijkampP. (Eds) Social Change and Sustainable Transport, pp. 3–16. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
21.
GeursK. T.van WeeB. (2006) Ex-post evaluation of thirty years of compact urban development in the Netherlands, Urban Studies, 43, pp. 139–160.
22.
GösslingS. (2010) Carbon Management in Tourism: Mitigating the Impacts on Climate Change. London: Routledge.
23.
GösslingS.NilssonJ. H. (2010) Frequent flyer programmes and the reproduction of aeromobility, Environment and Planning A, 42, pp. 241–252.
24.
GouldJ.GolobT. (1997) Shopping without travel or travel without shopping? An investigationof electronic home shopping, Transport Reviews, 17, pp. 355–376.
25.
HandyS.YantisT. (1997) The impacts of telecommunications technologies on nonwork travel behavior. Research Report No. SWUTC/97/721927-1F, Southwest Region University Transportation Center, The University of Texas at Austin.
26.
HandyS.WestonL.MokhtarianP. L. (2005) Driving by choice or necessity?, Transportation Research A, 39, pp. 183–203.
27.
HendersonD. K.MokhtarianP. L. (1996) Impacts of center-based telecommuting on travel and emissions: analysis of the Puget Sound demonstration project, Transportation Research D, 1, pp. 25–49.
28.
HjortholR. J. (2002) The relation between daily travel and use of the home computer, Transportation Research Part A, 36, pp. 437–452.
29.
HoldenE. (2001) Housing as basis for sustainable consumption. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
30.
HoldenE. (2004) Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19, pp. 91–109.
31.
HoldenE. (2007) Achieving sustainable mobility: everyday and leisure-time travel in the EU. Aldershot: Ashgate.
32.
HoldenE. (2008) Green attitudes and sustainable household consumption of energy and transport: six conditions that improve attitude–behaviour consistency, in: BergmannS.HoffT.SagerT. (Eds) Spaces of Mobility, pp. 59–80. London: Equinox Publishing.
33.
HoldenE.NorlandI. T. (2005) Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oslo region, Urban Studies, 42, pp. 2145–2166.
34.
HoltzclawJ.ClearR.DittmarH.. (2002) Location efficiency: neighbourhood and socio-economic characteristics determine auto ownership and use: studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Transportation Planning and Technology, 25, pp. 1–27.
35.
KitamuraR.MokhtarianP. L.LaidetL. (1997) A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay area, Transportation, 24, pp. 125–128.
36.
KrizekK. J.LiY.HandyS. L. (2005) ICT as a substitute for non-work travel: a direct examiniation. Transport Research Board Annual Meeting (CD-ROM).
37.
MarchettiC. (1993) On mobility. Final status report, Contract No. 4672-92-03 ED ISP A, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
38.
MarchettiC. (1994) Anthropological invariants in travel behavior, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 47, pp. 75–88.
39.
McLarenD. (1992) Compact or dispersed? Dilution is no solution, Built Environment, 18, pp. 268–284.
40.
MetzD. (2008) The myth of travel time saving, Transport Reviews, 28, pp. 321–336.
41.
MoisanderJ.UusitaloL. (1994) Attitude–behaviour inconsistency: limitations of the reasoned action approach in predicting behavior from pro-environmental attitudes, in: AntonidesG.van RaaijW. F. (Eds) IAREP/SABE Conference Proceedings, pp. 560–579. Rotterdam.
42.
MokhtarianP. L. (2005) Travel as a desired end, not just a means, Transportation Research Part A, 39, pp. 93–96.
43.
MokhtarianP. L.ChenC. (2004) TTB or not TTB, that is the question: a review and analysis of the empirical literature on travel time (and money) budgets, Transportation Research Part A, 38, pp. 643–675.
44.
MokhtarianP. L.HandyS.SalomonI. (2006) The impacts of ICT on leisure activitites and travel: a conceptual exploration, Transportation, 33, pp. 263–289.
NewmanP.KenworthyJ. (1989) Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook. Aldershot: Gower Publications.
47.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2000) Environmentally sustainable transport: futures, strategies and best practices. Synthesis report of the OECD project on Environmentally Sustainable Transport, presented at the International EST Conference, Vienna, October.
48.
OECD (2002) Towards sustainable household consumption? Trends and policies in OECD countries. OECD, Paris.
49.
PietersR. (1988) Attitude–behavior relationships, in: van RaaijW. F.van VeldhovenG. M.WärnerydK.-E. (Eds) Handbook of Economic Psychology, pp. 144–204. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
50.
PigouA. (1920) The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.
51.
RickwoodP.GlazebrookG.SearleG. (2008) Urban structure and energy: a review, Urban Policy and Research, 26, pp. 57–81.
52.
RodriguezD. A.TargaF.AyturS. A. (2006) Transport implications of urban containment policies: a study of the largest twenty-five US metropolitan areas, Urban Studies, 43, pp. 1879–1897.
53.
RonisD. L.YatesJ. F.KirschtJ. P. (1989) Attitudes, decisions, and habits as determinants of repeated behavior, in: PratkanisA. R.BrecklerS. J.GreenwaldA. G.HillsdaleN. J. (Eds) Attitude Structure and Function, pp. 213–239. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
SalomonI. (1986) Telecommunications and travel relations: a review, Transportation Research Part A, 20, pp. 223–238.
55.
SalomonI.MokhtarianP. L. (2002) Driven to travel: the identification of mobility-inclined market segments, in: BlackW. R.NijkampP. (Eds) Social Change and Sustainable Transport, pp. 173–180. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
56.
SandmoA. (1976) Direct versus indirect Pigouvian taxation, European Economic Review, 7, pp. 337–349.
57.
SchaferA.VictorD. G. (2000) The future mobility of the world population, Transportation Research Part A, 34, pp. 171–205.
58.
SherlockH. (1991) Cities Are Good for Us. London: Paladin.
59.
SchlichR.AxhausenK. W. (2002) Wohnumfeld und Freizeitverkehr: eine Unthersuchung zur Fluchttheorie. Arbeitsberichte Verkher-und Raumplanung 155, EHT/IVT, Zürich.
60.
ScottD.PeetersP.GösslingS. (2010) Can tourism deliver its ‘aspirational’ emission reduction targets?, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, pp. 393–408.
61.
SenbilM.KitamuraR. (2003) Simultaneous relationships between telecommunications and activities. Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne, August.
62.
SternP. C. (1999) Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, pp. 461–478.
63.
SternP. C. (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior, Journal of Social Issues, 56, pp. 407–424.
64.
TengströmE. (1999) Towards Environmental Sustainability? A Comparative Study of Danish, Dutch and Swedish Transport Policies in a European Context. Aldershot: Ashgate.
65.
ThalerR. (1999) Mental accounting matters, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, pp. 183–206.
66.
ThøgersenJ. (1999Making ends meet: a synthesis of results and implications of a research programme. Working Paper No. 99-1, Marketing and Environment, Department of Marketing, The Aarhus School of Business.
67.
TillbergK. (2002) Residential location and daily mobility patterns: a Swedish case study of households with children, in: BlackW. R.NijkampP. (Eds) Social Change and Sustainable Transport, pp. 165–172. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
68.
TitheridgeH.HaalS.BanisterD. (2000) Assessing the sustainability of urban development policies, in: WilliamsK.BurtonE.JenksM. (Eds) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, pp. 149–159. London: E & F N Spon.
69.
WangD.LawF. (2007) Impacts of information and communication technologies (ICT) on time use and travel behavior: a structural equations analysis, Transportation, 34, pp. 513–527.
70.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
71.
ZahaviY. (1981) The UMOT-urban interactions. Report No. DOT-RSPA-DBP 10/7, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
