Please refer to the published version when citing: Cohen, S.A., Higham, J., Gössling, S., Peeters, P. & Eijgelaar, E. (2016). Finding effective pathways to sustainable mobility: Bridging the science-policy gap. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(3: 317-­‐334.       http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669582.2015.1136637. Finding effective pathways to sustainable mobility: Bridging the science-policy gap Abstract This overview paper examines three areas crucial to understanding why, despite clear scientific evidence for the growing environmental impacts of tourism transport, there is large-scale inertia in structural transitions and a lack of political will to enact meaningful sustainable mobility policies. These include the importance of addressing socio-technical factors, barriers posed by ‘technology myths’ and the need to overcome ‘transport taboos’ in policymaking. The paper seeks pathways to sustainable mobility by bridging the science – policy gap between academic research and researchers, and policymakers and practitioners. It introduces key papers presented at the Freiburg 2014 workshop, covering the case for researcher engagement using advocacy and participatory approaches, the role of universities in creating their own social mobility policies, the power of social mechanisms encouraging long-haul travel, issues in consumer responsibility development, industry self regulation and the operation of realpolitik decision making and implementation inside formal and informal destination based mobility partnerships. Overall, the paper argues that governments and the tourism and transport industries must take a more cautious approach to the technological optimism that fosters policy inertia, and that policymakers must take a more open approach to implementing sustainable transport policies. A research agenda for desirable transport futures is suggested. Keywords: climate change, socio-technical factors, technology myths, transport taboos, desirable futures Introduction Demand is increasing for all transport modes. The transport sector, including tourism and all other transport motivations, is growing more rapidly than most other sectors and is currently responsible for approximately 23% of global energy-related CO2 emissions (Creutzig et al., 2015). Because of the sector’s rising contributions to climate change, considerable effort has recently been invested by researchers to try to understand if people are willing to voluntarily change their tourism and transport behaviour (e.g. Becken, 2007; Higham, Cohen, Cavaliere, Reis & Finkler, 2016; Kroesen, 2013; Miller, Rathouse, Scarles, Holmes & Tribe, 2010). The weight of evidence clearly shows that, while awareness of the impact of mobility on climate 1     change, and particularly that of air travel, is growing, there has been little if any actual behavioural change by tourists to travel less or to change travel modes (Higham, Cohen, Peeters & Gössling, 2013). This realisation has been captured in numerous publications evidencing or attempting to explain an awareness-attitude or attitude- behaviour gap (e.g. Antimova, Nawijn & Peeters, 2012; Cohen, Higham & Reis, 2013; Hares, Dickinson & Wilkes, 2010; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014). Meanwhile, calls were sounding that the very concept of voluntary behaviour change itself was trapped within the constraints of neoliberalism (Barr, Gilg & Shaw, 2011; Schwanen, Banister & Anable, 2011). These calls urged the academy to pay closer attention to the political, social and material systems in which consumption practices are structured, arguing that the ‘carbon capability’ (Whitmarsh, Seyfang & O’Neill, 2011) of the public is limited by the ‘systems of provision’ (Hall, 2013), which create what Schwanen et al. (2011) refer to as ‘path dependencies’. A turn towards path dependencies does not suggest that attempts to achieve public behavioural change should be abandoned. Rather it emphasises that devolving the problem of tourism and transport’s impacts on climate change to individuals is a limited framing. In addition to social marketing efforts aimed downstream at effecting behavioural change in publics (see Hall, 2016, this issue), and a continued drive by industry towards marginal efficiency gains available in aviation technologies (Cumpsty et al., 2010; Peeters & Middel, 2007), it is imperative that research focuses on how the radical socio-technical transitions that are necessary to put the tourism and transport sectors on a sustainable emissions path can be achieved. Technical solutions alone will be too little and too late (Chèze, Chevallier & Gastineau, 2013; Peeters, Higham, Kutzner, Cohen & Gössling, under review). This includes not only a recognition that the present socio-technical landscape is dominated by neoliberal, techno-centric and ecological modernisation values (Hopkins & Higham, 2012; Hall, 2013), but also the need for a concerted effort by tourism and transport researchers to become active advocates of pathways to structural change, influence policy learning and provide politicians with tools to simulate policymaking and its effects. The Freiburg 2014 workshop The Freiburg 2014 workshop, held in Freiburg im Breisgau in Germany (1–4 July 2014), sought to address the inability of policymakers and other stakeholders to change the tourism mobility system towards sustainable development. Its objectives stemmed directly from the Freiburg 2012 workshop, the results of which were disseminated in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (volume 21, issue 7; see Higham et al., 2013) and in an edited book (Cohen, Higham, Peeters & Gössling, 2014). A key outcome from Freiburg 2012 was the conclusion that the public are generally unwilling or unable to change tourism and transport behaviour based on an awareness of environmental impacts, and specifically climate change. It was concluded that “the autonomy of individual pro-environmental response, when set within the systems of provision in late-capitalist consumer society, is fraught with challenge” (Higham et al., 2013, p. 14) and that the “low sustainability of the current tourism system is embedded in structures that make it easy and often cheaper to travel 2     unsustainably…raising a wide range of questions regarding transport infrastructures, taxation, management and governance” (Cohen et al. 2014, p. 301). This conclusion illustrated the need to move beyond voluntary behavioural change in order to achieve sustainable mobility, and to explore the socio-technical landscapes in which individuals are embedded, through which public behaviour is conditioned and patterned. A further crucial conclusion from Freiburg 2012 was that policymakers had shown limited interest in adopting policy measures that would achieve significant changes in sustainable transport behaviour. This lack of political initiative, wherein it was clear that politicians have far more links to industry than to science, and particularly to the social sciences, suggested that the reasons behind the inaction in transport governance needed to be urgently and critically explored. Overall, it was evident that while a comprehensive understanding of the psychologies of tourism and transport consumption is necessary to inform policymakers, this alone would not be enough to bring the sectors onto a climatically sustainable pathway, and that radical transitions in the systems of provision and deeper understandings of political psychologies is needed (Cohen et al., 2014; Hall, 2013; Higham et al., 2013). These insights formed the basis for the Freiburg 2014 workshop, which expanded its discussions to focus on public behaviour change, but also on how to change the behaviour of policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers themselves, to help achieve changes in tourism and transport systems for environmental reasons. Central to this endeavour was the question of how to bridge the science-policy gap: it was abundantly clear that despite the substantial and expanding body of research on tourism and climate change (Hall et al., 2015), and on transport and climate change (Schwanen, et al., 2011), this corpus of knowledge was having little to no effect in practice on governance. The Freiburg 2014 workshop is the basis for this special issue presenting ten papers, including this overview paper, exploring the dimensions and details of the science- policy gap in sustainable mobility. Having established the context in which the workshop was set, and before introducing the papers in this special issue, we now discuss three essential themes that are vital to understanding why, despite clear scientific evidence as to the growing environmental impacts of tourism transport, and particularly air travel, there is large-scale inertia in structural transitions and a lack of political willpower to enact meaningful policy change: 1) the importance of addressing socio-technical factors, 2) the barriers posed by placing faith in ‘technology myths’ and 3) the need to overcome ‘transport taboos’ in policymaking. The paper concludes by setting a research agenda that forms the basis for the forthcoming Freiburg 2016 workshop (28th June-1st July, 2016). Socio-technical factors Current growth trajectories indicate that transport emissions will double by 2050: the global fleet of light-duty vehicles is expected to double during that time period, and “demand for freight transport (road, rail, shipping, and air) and passenger aviation is 3     projected to surge as well” (Creutzig, Jochem, Edelenbosch, Mattauch, van Vuuren, McCollum & Minx, 2015, p. 911). Air travel in particular offers an example of largely intractable public travel behaviours that are entrenched in Europe and North America and being rapidly adopted in the emerging regions of the world (Freire- Medeiros & Name, 2013; Higham, Cohen & Cavaliere, 2014). The development of low-cost, high-volume aviation, initially in Europe and North America, and latterly in Brazil, Russia, India and China, is now powering similar air travel growth trajectories in the emerging neoliberal economies of Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia and Turkey (Boeing, 2014). Growth in air travel over the last two decades has been rapid (Gössling & Upham, 2009), and the current growth trajectory is projected to continue at a rate of 3.3% per annum to 2030 (Hall, 2013). Calls for tourism to move onto a sustainable emissions path (Becken, 2007) have been especially challenged by growing demand for air travel. This growth has been driven by significant structural changes in the transportation sector (Ryley, Davison, Bristow & Pridmore, 2010). Neoliberalism has been embraced by the aviation industry through airline deregulation, the deployment of frequent flyer loyalty programmes and notably by the unrestrained growth of low cost carriers (LCCs) (Duval, 2013). Network airlines offering full service and traditional routes have been drawn into intense competition with LCCs, transforming the travel market through the uptake of technology to substantially reduce labour costs (Holloway et al., 2009). The LCCs have developed direct sales systems (i.e. internet booking systems), online check-in and product itemisation (e.g., priority boarding, seat allocation, baggage allowances, in-flight food and entertainment services) to de-personalise airport and air travel experiences, while increasing aircraft utilisation and flight loadings, while reducing fares (Casey, 2010; Boeing, 2014). The LCC business model includes operating with a single aircraft type, providing a single-class product, serving secondary airports and avoiding the costs of frequent flyer programmes (Boeing, 2014). The consequential growth in demand for low-cost air travel is recognised as “one of the biggest revolutions in tourism and travel since the package holiday’s arrival half a century earlier” (Casey, 2010, p. 176). The success of the LCCs is reflected in the increasingly ordinary nature of air travel in certain sections of some societies (Randles & Mander, 2009a; Urry, 2010). New structures of air travel provision have created flying as a highly accessible consumer product, shifting leisure travel into the domain of everyday consumer capitalism (Young, Higham & Reis, 2014). Indeed the extent to which these structures have shaped and influenced everyday consumer practices has, in some cases, reached absurd proportions. Ben Schlappig - ‘the man who flies around the world for free’ - is “…one of the biggest stars among an elite group of obsessive flyers whose mission is to outwit the airlines” (Wofford, 2015, p. 3). Perfecting the art of ‘travel hacking’ – known among its members as ‘The Hobby’ - Schlappig seeks perfection in the art of non-stop air travel and consumer luxury that is paid for by a “…gargantuan cache of frequent flier miles that grows only bigger by the day” (Wofford, 2015, p. 5). Schlappig’s claim is to be ‘beating the airlines at their own game’; through the gaming of frequent flyer programmes using techniques that he shares with a half million strong following through the ‘FlyerTalk’ website. 4     The gaming of frequent flyer programmes offers an, albeit extreme, insight into consumer air travel behaviour that is anchored in and enabled by the socio-technical system. It forms part of a wider pattern of increasing affordability and uptake of air travel across an expanding range of social classes and societies (Randles & Mander, 2009b). It is this growth in demand for air travel that contributes significantly to driving up tourism transport emissions (Gössling & Peeters, 2015). With current and projected growth in aviation emissions has come recognition that the freedom to engage in unrestrained air travel comes with significant environmental costs (IPCC, 2013). While the environmental costs of air travel are now widely understood and accepted by the travelling public, the necessary responses in terms of consumer demand have not followed (Gössling, 2009; Higham, Cohen, Peeters & Gössling, 2013). It is ironic that the increasingly aeromobile middle classes can be the same people who claim to be environmentally aware and moral consumers (Young, Higham & Reis, 2014; Dolnicar, Juvan, Ring & Leisch, 2016). Within the context of air travel the ‘flyers’ dilemma’ describes the tension between the self-identity of consumers who feel moral responsibility for their consumer decisions, and the high environmental costs of flying (Rosenthal, 2010; Higham, Cohen & Cavaliere, 2014). The anxieties arising from the ‘flyers’ dilemma’ have been empirically examined in various European societies (Higham, et al., 2016). Various studies have highlighted that air travel practices are largely unconstrained because flying is a cheap, convenient and socially-desirable form of leisure consumption (Cohen & Higham, 2011; Higham & Cohen, 2011). It emerges that a focus on the demand-side of travel, in an attempt to address issues of sustainability through behaviour change, should not ignore the fundamental socio- structural factors that underpin the tourism system (Cornelissen, 2005). Young et al. (2015) argue that the locus of responsibility is critical to debates around sustainable aviation and sustainable mobility more broadly. Hall (2013, p. 1101) observes that “mutual reinforcement between modes of governance and intervention… creates a path dependency in which solutions to sustainable tourism mobility are only identified within ‘green growth’ arguments for greater efficiency and market-based solutions”. Hall (2013) argues that as long as the focus of government tourism policies remain situated in a GDP growth paradigm, the structures of transport provision will remain unchanged and the environment required to empower a consumer-led shift to a sustainable transport emissions path will not exist. Young et al. (2015) suggest that appealing to individuals to reduce or otherwise moderate their tourist travel consumption practices is a flawed response. It lacks the necessary government policy response to an industry that is environmentally damaging. Appealing to consumer sacrifice ignores the fundamental socio-structural underpinnings of an unsustainable travel industry. Young et al. (2015) critically consider the social, institutional and economic forces that produce excessive and unsustainable travel consumption. They highlight, first and foremost, that within the existing structures of the aviation industry, currently no alternative options are available to avoid the high environmental costs of air travel (Young et al., 2014). No low-emission form of aviation exists to serve flyers who are concerned about climate 5     change and aviation emissions (Peeters & Middel, 2007), and neither is there any real prospect of major gains in aviation fuel efficiency in the short-medium term future (Peeters et al., under review). While the airline industry has made significant gains in efficiency since the advent of jet aviation (Peeters & Dubois, 2010), current technologies are locked in for periods of time that reach well beyond the urgent timeframe required to achieve radical emission reductions (Higham et al., 2016). Jet aviation is highly efficient in terms of time/distance/cost thresholds (Howitt, Revol, Smith & Rodger, 2010), but those energy efficiencies have been overwhelmed in real terms by growth in demand (Peeters & Dubois, 2010), such that the environmental costs of air travel have become unacceptably high (Gössling et al, 2010; Hall, 2013). The current structure of the aviation industry, and the absence of further substantial technical gains in aircraft efficiency (Scott, Peeters, & Gössling, 2010) are such that aviation emissions are expected to double within a 25-45 year timeframe (Gössling & Peeters, 2015). Despite growing sustainability concerns, aviation, like the automobile (Dennis & Urry, 2009), has become an integral part of contemporary mobility in many societies (Sheller & Urry, 2004; Urry, 2012). Flying now out-competes other transport modes not only on convenience and time efficiency but - most critically - in terms of cost (Casey, 2010). The time, cost and convenience advantages of air travel are structural factors that explain the deeply embedded nature of air travel practices (Higham, Cohen & Cavaliere, 2014). The aviation system allows the production of tourism (and other forms of mobility) to be accelerated in terms of fit within the capitalist working day, week and calendar year (Young et al., 2015). Given the fundamentally energy- intensive nature of the tourism system (Becken, 2016), mitigating tourism transport emissions has proved a very imposing challenge (Schwanen et al., 2011). Not least, neither car nor rail nor even high-speed rail can match the cost, convenience, and flexibility of response that air travel can, especially if sea crossings are involved. It is also apparent that travellers, even those who are concerned about their personal leisure travel emissions, are able to disregard their environmental concerns and take advantage of cheap and convenient air travel opportunities (Higham et al., 2016; Young et al., 2015). Even for those who are deeply concerned about climate change (see Cohen & Higham, 2011; Higham & Cohen, 2011), the time and costs advantages of air travel undermines the competitiveness of alternative, more sustainable transport modes (Higham et al., 2014). The time/distance/cost dimensions of air travel have also allowed the consumption of distant tourist destinations to fit within narrow windows of time (e.g., the EasyJet generation of weekend ‘escape artists’). The act of flying has become integral to significant parts of the contemporary tourism transport system (Young et al., 2015). As Young et al. (2014) observe, aviation has proven to be resistant to consumer-led change, in contrast to other aspects of consumer behaviour, such as food purchases, recycling, the use of public land transport and the conscious uptake of active transport modes, which are relatively open to modification by individuals (Larson, 2010: Barr, Shaw, Coles & Prillwitz, 2010). The intractability of air travel behaviour change occurs not only because air travel has become a desirable and affordable gateway to 6     tourism in many societies (Casey, 2010), but because “…the environmental risks associated with air travel are global and systemic, as opposed to specific and individual, and tend not to be prioritized within a flyers’ environmental consciousness” (Young et al., 2014, p. 60). As a result climate concerns may be temporarily suspended with impunity so that consumers can continue to consume leisure travel that involves flying (Watson, 2014). The current structures of aviation provision foster the willingness of the public to temporarily suspend their climate concerns when engaging in tourism practices (Barr et al., 2010; Cohen, Higham, & Reis, 2013). The aviation industry facilitates a range of spatio-temporal fixes (Young et al., 2014) that invite the consumer to offset their aviation carbon emissions through various schemes (Gössling et al., 2007; Barr et al., 2010). Offset schemes encourage concerned travellers to assume responsibility for a profligate industry, by incurring an additional cost to mitigate the externalities of aviation consumption (Young et al., 2014). In doing so offsetting “… actually plays into the hands of an environmentally destructive industry by allowing it to legitimate its practices while simultaneously absolving itself from responsibility for the environmental destruction from which it profits” (Young et al., 2014, p. 52). This absolution of individual responsibility is an important factor in the accelerating aviation emissions problem (Creutzig et al., 2015). It relates closely to what Hall (2013) refers to as ‘structures of provision’; the social and institutional structures that underpin unsustainable consumption practices. Expecting the consumer to accept responsibility and respond individually to unsustainable contemporary travel mobilities, in the absence of meaningful industry and policy responses, has proven to be futile (Higham et al., 2016). Technology myths A further vital reason why there is inertia in policy responses to growing aviation emissions is the ongoing industry-led myth, perpetuated by the media and transport policy-makers, that decarbonisation is in progress using radical technological innovation. Gotesky (1952, p. 530) describes the function of a myth as to “preserve institutions and institutional process.” A ‘myth’ is defined as an idea, story or narrative believed by many people, including decision-makers, even though unfounded or false. As Edelman (1998, p. 131) reminds us, “[p]olitical language can evoke a set of mythic beliefs in subtle and powerful ways”. Misleading information from the transport and tourism sectors is not new. Gössling and Peeters (2007, p. 402), found four major industry discourses: “air travel is energy efficient; air travel’s share of total emissions is negligible; fuel use is constantly minimized and new technology will solve the problem”. All four were deconstructed as being not representative of reality. This section explores the existence and role of ‘technology myths’ in the discourse of sustainable aviation. Myths also play a role in other transport modes. Within automobility, for instance, Volkswagen created a green myth around low emission diesel cars, even though this was largely based on cheating regulations (Franco, Sánchez, German, & Mock, 2014). So why concentrate on aviation within the domain of sustainable tourism? First 7     because the tourism sector is a central part of passenger aviation, although we cannot be sure exactly how central it is: leisure travel is interlinked with business travel, visiting friends and relatives and other visit motivations. The tourism sector consequently needs to be seen as integral to air transport; the tourism industry cannot be absolved of responsibility for aviation emissions more generally. The second reason is that air transport, though a relatively small part of tourism in terms of total trips (19% in 2010), represents a high share (52% in 2010) of tourism’s global emissions, a share that is growing (62% in 2015), which means that aviation’s emissions are increasing faster than those of accommodation, car and rail (Gössling & Peeters, 2015). There is a large body of literature showing that future emissions of aviation are growing fast and that this growth is inevitable given transport volume growth projections (Mayor & Tol, 2010; Owen, Lee, & Lim, 2010; Peeters & Dubois, 2010; Sgouridis, Bonnefoy, & Hansman, 2010; Vorster, Ungerer, & Volschenk, 2012). From a recent study (Peeters et al., under review) it was found that the aviation industry creates ‘technology myths’ that may hamper political initiatives that would enforce mitigation on the aviation sector. Industry commonly wields terms such as ‘efficiency’, ‘constantly minimized’ or ‘negligible shares’ as discursive devices to perpetuate the myth that technological innovation will neutralise the problem of aviation emissions. Technology myths were identified by Peeters et al. (under review) for airframe design (laminar flow, composite structures and blended wing body), engines/propulsion (solar flight, electric flight and propfan) and alternative fuels (Jatropha, animal fats, hydrogen and micro-algae). For these ten technologies media coverage in newspapers was measured over the past two decades and content analysed. Laminar flow and composite structures are widely applied already, with the newest types of planes, like the Boeing B787 and Airbus A350, using, for instance, composites in up to 50% of the construction by weight (Lee, 2010). But composite structures allow for weight savings of between 14 and 25% (Raymer et al., 2011) for the structure to which it is applied. So overall weight reduction of the Boeing B787 would be between 7 and 13%. The impact of this weight savings on fuel efficiency depends on how the designer uses the gains, but it may translate in the end to an approximate 5% fuel efficiency improvement (Peeters, 2000). This Boeing 787 example clearly shows the strength of myths: the impressive 50% share of new materials is hyped in the media to a lay audience and impressed upon politicians, even though composite structures only offer small and evolutionary efficiency improvements, although coupled with improved engine design and materials, the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 can offer fuel savings of up to 25% per seat mile over the 15-20 year old aircraft that they are replacing. The latter is an impressive figure, but it also means that fares can be reduced, encouraging more people to travel. Blended wing body aircraft have a long history of promises but have never emerged and are unlikely to in the near to mid-term future, or even later. Solar flight has recently attracted much attention. Basic physics tells us that it will never play a serious transport role (Noth, 2008), but the ICAO (2014, p. 12) propagates discourses 8     suggesting that it could solve environmental problems: “the Solar Impulse demonstrated that a solar-powered airplane can fly day and night without fuel”. Public interest in electric flight has followed the same strong rise since the mid-2000s. The main issue with electric flight is the requirement for high performance batteries. Current lithium batteries have a power density that falls short of the requirements for full electric flight by a factor of 100 (Kivits et al., 2010). This makes the anticipated 2035 realisation of electric flight (The Australian, 2/11/2012), extremely unlikely. Of the four alternative fuels, Jatropha, animal fats and hydrogen were hyped by the media between 2008 and 2011 but are now little mentioned, with significant interest only in micro-algae. Still the sector widely cites alternative fuels as promising future replacements for fossil fuels (Airbus, 2011; ATAG, 2011; Boeing, 2012; IATA, 2012; ICAO, 2014; WTTC, 2009). Jatropha faces issues of high water use (Rosillo-Calle, Thrän, Seiffert, & Teelucksingh, 2012) and adverse socio-economic impacts (Ariza- Montobbio & Lele, 2010); animal fats face technical problems preventing them from being mixed at higher than 20% shares with kerosene (Vera-Morales & Schäfer, 2009); hydrogen is an old but unresolved idea (Brewer, 1991); micro-algae suffer from land-use issues, at least in the European region (Skarka, 2012), and water use, low or negative lifecycle CO2 emission reductions (Quinn & Davis, 2014), cost and more profitable alternative land uses (Coplin, 2012). Policy-makers are required to make decisions that often have long-term effects and are clouded in uncertainties. The quality of such decision-making for the transport sector is significantly degraded by technology myths created by industry and perpetuated through the media (Peeters et al., under review). Such myths foster political inertia in the development of effective sustainable transport policy measures, discouraging potentially difficult but necessary decisions (Peeters, Gössling, and Lane, 2009). Transport taboos The final major theme we discuss in this section of paper is the notion of ‘taboo’ issues in tourism and transport policymaking. The question of why politicians have not acted in more significant ways on climate change mitigation in these sectors, as well as more generally, given that sound evidence of climate change was presented 25 years ago in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1st assessment report (IPCC, 1990), is itself a relatively underexplored area of research. The adverse consequences of climate change for ecosystems and humans have since been confirmed and well documented (IPCC, 2014), and climate change is no longer considered a future phenomenon but rather a current and on-going process, as, for instance, recognized by reinsurers (Munich Re, 2014). As an outcome of the IPCC reports, political consensus has been achieved to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at a level that will prevent global warming from exceeding 2°C compared to pre- industrial temperatures, an objective confirmed during various Conferences of Parties (COP; UNFCCC, 2014) and recently recognised at the landmark Paris Agreement (Scott, 2016). 9     For the transport sector, responsible for about 25% of global emissions, the European Commission has outlined emission reduction goals of -60% by 2050 compared to 1990, with an interim goal of -20% by 2030 compared to 2008 (EC, 2011). These emission reductions are considered in line with the 2°C guardrail. Yet, while climate policy objectives have been defined for the EU, and while these could also be defined for any country based on national greenhouse gas inventories, there is limited evidence of transport policies that would help to achieve such significant emission reductions, and, controversially, the EC has even outlined that curbing mobility is not considered a viable option (EC, 2011). In countries and regions outside Europe, and specifically for international aviation as a significant sub-sector of tourism, transport- related mitigation policies have thus remained insignificant (Gössling et al., 2013). Yet, if energy-intense forms of mobility do not decline, it is highly unlikely that absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved (Anable et al., 2012; Banister, 2008, 2011; Chapman, 2007; IEA, 2012; Schäfer et al., 2009; UNWTO- UNEP-WMO, 2008). This has resulted in a situation where there are clear policy goals, and a wide range of market-based, command-and-control and soft policy measures available to achieve these goals (e.g. Friman et al., 2012; OECD and UNEP, 2011; Sterner, 2007), but a dearth of implementation, with evidence that only soft policies focusing on voluntary behavioural change appear to be considered politically viable to reduce emissions from transportation. This paradox has been described as an ‘implementation gap’ (Banister and Hickman, 2013, p. 292), and led to growing academic interest in barriers to significant climate policy. Various explanations have been provided to explain why governments have been reluctant to implement policies. From a governance viewpoint, Rietveld et al. (2005) have suggested that institutions rule and structure public and private actions, and that these can be informal, formal, governance-, and resource allocation/employment related. Informal institutions would comprise values, norms, practices, habits and traditions, and are considered conditioners of behaviour (see Schwanen and Lucas 2011 in the context of automobility). Formal institutions include “codified statutes, constitutions, provisions, laws, regulations, and high level administrative orders” (Rietveld et al., 2005, p. 3). Governance institutions are a third type of institution focused on rules, including laws, regulations and policy directives, such as planning and zoning issues, or transactions involving actors and agents. Finally, resource allocation refers to government agencies, firms and non-profit associations allocating financial resources. These four categories can be used to identify and address barriers from various viewpoints, including, for instance, the notion that transport planning cannot be questioned, as transportation is important for society and economic growth. This has, for instance, been discussed by Miciukiewicz and Vigar (2012) in terms of technological fixation among transport researchers and subsequent technocentric policy-making. In a similar vein, Hutton (2013), describes how the turn from meeting predicted transport growth to managing transport demand has only recently been considered in UK transport policy. Ultimately, ‘barriers’ thus often resemble embedded beliefs of ecological modernisation, i.e. the assumption that transport growth can be balanced environmentally, based on technological progress, as also evident in UNEP’s (2011) Green Growth focus, which may be seen as another 10     ecological modernisation paradigm without real-world implications for emission growth (Hall 2009; 2013; 2015). New understandings of the reasons for inaction on climate change in transport contexts are thus required: ‘barriers’ were discussed with regard to their cognitive and affective dimensions during the Freiburg 2014 workshop, where they were framed as ‘taboos’ (Gössling & Cohen, 2014). Taboos are different from barriers of implementation, because they cannot be addressed politically without considerable (political) danger to the person taking up a given issue. To touch a taboo implies to violate an existing norm, that is, a situation that is usually in the interest of powerful individuals, (lobby) organisations, or the broader public or community. A ‘transport taboo’ thus describes an issue that cannot be raised without risks, possibly jeopardising the political future of any person raising the taboo. A wide range of transport taboos that politicians are unwilling to touch has been identified, such as the watering down of transport policy by lobbyism, the skewed share of transport emissions contributed by higher income classes and the broader societal glamorization of high-energy transport consumption (Cohen and Gössling 2015; for further details on transport taboos see Gössling & Cohen, 2014). Transport taboos are consequently issues that would appear obvious, as some solutions are ready at hand, demanding political action; yet, they are characterised by silence. A further example may be the 20 years of OECD reports recommending to remove fossil fuel subsidies, and to introduce carbon pricing (1991; 1999; 2005; 2015). However, the issue remains politically untouched, because this would lead to outrage by industry associations, who are powerful agents in public discourse. Yet, overcoming taboos is essential if more sustainable tourism and transport policies are to be implemented, specifically regarding climate change. At the very least, this would require political parties to stop using public sentiment to undermine sustainable transport policy initiatives by political opponents in order to gain votes on less popular measures related to climate change mitigation. The papers in this special issue This special issue presents nine further papers that explore avenues for behaviour change by various stakeholders in tourism and transport in order to bridge the science- policy gap in sustainable mobility. The contributions cover a wide spectrum of interests and stakeholders, and connect in various ways to the themes discussed above, notably socio-technical factors and transport taboos. The first three papers investigate the role of researchers in the sustainable mobility debate, and their capacities and shortcomings to contribute to behaviour change. Hall (2016) does this by employing social marketing themes. He questions both the theoretical knowledge base of sustainable tourism and the positioning of sustainability within the wider (tourism) literature, noting that, despite a growing body of research on sustainable tourism and mobilities, concern about these topics in tourism research is still minor, particularly in popular areas such as achieving growth in visitor numbers and expenditure. Substantive change is not evident in most destinations, or among organisations that have adopted sustainable tourism. As a way forward, Hall 11     discusses the need for more advocacy- and participatory-based approaches so that scientists can better communicate with policymakers and work collaboratively/co- productively with them and other upstream stakeholders.   Downstream and (more activist and interventionist) upstream social marketing to the public, taking in the lessons learned from other disciplines and debates (such as that on anti-smoking), may (re)glamorise /make fashionable forms of more sustainable tourism or encourage more conventional but low transport intensity local tourism. Melissen & Koens (2016) echo Hall, arguing that researchers should not only focus on understanding the structures behind tourist behaviour, but also on how to mobilise policy and business stakeholders to contribute to the sustainable development of tourism. They find several factors or tensions (Jones, Jones & Walsh, 2008) hindering researcher behaviour change towards bridging the science-policy gap in sustainable tourism mobility, and make a case for adding researchers’ behaviour to the corresponding research agenda. Researchers may need to position themselves closer to the policy arena, without politicising science or moving from engaged to activist research. Mounting sustainable tourism and transport advocacy will also lead to more attention to the environmental sustainability imperatives of researchers themselves, and the institutions for which they work. Thus the paper by Hopkins, Higham, Tapp and Duncan (2016) in this issue links to the transport taboo of questioning academic mobility and associated carbon emissions. Set in a New Zealand university context it investigates the perceived lock-in of academic performance being dependent on, or equal to, international mobility. This can be linked back to the pioneering work of the late Karl Georg Høyer (Høyer, 2000; Høyer & Næss, 2001). The authors find academic travel to be embedded in university policy, for example through international partnerships, the need to present research at international conferences and recruitment processes. Acknowledging New Zealand’s particular geographical location, they still recommend that academic institutions consider and address the carbon emissions related to academic mobility, and to integrate sustainability more systematically into university (travel) policy. Another highly mobile group possibly caught in a (socio-cultural) lock-in of flight- dependent practices is that of the younger generation in many Western countries taking a gap year. Luzecka (2016) explores ways in which conventions related to ‘appropriate’ gap year destinations are developed, sustained and reproduced. Numerous social mechanisms were found to facilitate overseas travel in the context of gap years, including a shared perception of difference and physical distance, which links personal development to the challenges of distant countries. This paper highlights the fact that some long-haul destinations are actually easier or cheaper to travel to than more nearby destinations. Luzecka warns that widening participation in gap year travel may further the normalization – and psychological lock-in - of long- haul travel. The length of gap years would make them suitable for slow, and potentially more sustainable, travel, but for such a sustainable mobility transition, the socio-cultural forces that shape current gap year practices need to be taken into account. 12     The two following papers acknowledge the reality of consumers not accepting responsibility and responding to unsustainable travel mobilities, and seek ways to influence consumer decision-making through the provision of carbon information with travel products. Araña and León (2016) experiment with the role of emotions and time pressure in decision-making, hypothesising that many traveller decisions are of an experiential nature. In a Spanish social tourism program setting, they carried out a field experiment in which they manipulate the choice context of travellers, when deciding where to travel. Travel plans involved different levels of CO2 emissions, contexts about the emotional state, and decision time. Araña & León find that emotional states and the decision context can indeed affect the sustainability of travel choices. These findings have several implications for pro-environmental behaviour policies and campaigns in tourism and the effectiveness of tax incentives. Subjects showing more empathy with future generations are more likely to accept low carbon travel options. Eijgelaar, Nawijn, Barten, Okuhn & Dijkstra (2016) investigate carbon labels, as a soft measure towards more sustainable travel choices that is more likely to receive industry acceptance than direct volume-reducing measures. Their case is linked to the desire of Dutch tour operators to offer such a label. Hence, they explore preferences for carbon label design in tourism. The authors tested label designs in a number of consecutive research phases under Dutch consumers. They find a number of preconditions for a tourism carbon label: it should be simple in design and connect to existing well-known EU labels for energy efficiency. But at the same time they note that sustainability is still of low priority during holiday decision-making. An interesting case in science-policy interaction is Antarctica, as the continent is not controlled by a state, but through a 29-party governance regime, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). As little progress was made on tourism issues through the Treaty’s meetings, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) filled this gap by self-regulating Antarctic tourism. However, their capability to self- regulate is increasingly questioned. Student, Lamers & Amelung (2016) apply agent- based modelling (ABM) to identify the challenges for the self-regulation of this carbon-intensive form of tourism. They find a number of potentially destabilising factors connected to likely future tourism development, whereby optimum group size and membership cost are crucial. More importantly, they stress the strength of ABM as a method to safely experiment with uncertainties in Antarctica, and help to provide insights for an environmentally optimised application in (sustainable Antarctic tourism) policy. The final two papers investigate sustainable transport policy making and practices at destinations. This local/regional level work reveals key aspects of the realpolitik of policymaking in ways not open to most researchers at national or international levels. Scuttari, Volgger & Pechlaner (2016) seek ways for governing the transition towards more sustainable tourism mobility by applying a system approach. Their research in a South Tyrolean context indicates that the transition towards more sustainable transport solutions is complex and requires both public and private sector unpredictability and risk aversion to be taken into account. Scuttari et al. identify three conditions relevant to performing the transition, each one linked to a different 13     subsystem (socio-ecological, socio-technical and governance). The transition to sustainable solutions is a complex task that can only be successful when all sub- systems - tourism, transport, governance and social-ecological – interact in informal or formal partnership. To be successful, three conditions were identified: (a) an improved understanding of what sustainable transport entails, (b) adoption of the best available technology and (c) courage and leadership to take risks with new solutions without knowing what they will bring with absolute certainty. The latter means that science should provide a better understanding of how to mitigate risk aversion or even better, how to shift the focus of risk aversion towards avoiding the risks of unsustainable development and climate change, as opposed to the risks associated with introducing, managing and using novel transport systems. Finally, Stanford & Guiver (2016) explore public-private partnership led projects providing alternatives to car travel in three UK National Parks as mechanisms of modal shift and pro-environmental change. They identify a number of success factors and provide practical advice on understanding and guiding future multi-partnership pro-environmental change processes in complex networks. As in the previous paper, strong local governance structures, awareness creating, trust and learning are important, and the effective communication of benefits to stakeholders appeared most significant. Conclusions and research agenda This paper has discussed three areas crucial for understanding why, despite clear scientific evidence about the growing environmental impacts of tourism transport, there is large-scale inertia in structural transitions and a lack of political willpower to enact meaningful policy change. These included the importance of addressing socio- technical factors, the barriers posed by placing faith in ‘technology myths’ and the need to overcome ‘transport taboos’ in policymaking. These areas shed significant light on why a science-policy gap in sustainable mobility exists, and on the issues that must be overcome if this gap is to be bridged. The societal challenge of transitioning the tourism and transport sectors to a sustainable emissions path must not be devolved entirely to the public and the marketplace, as suggested by neoliberal values. It is vital that both governments and the tourism and transport industries take a more cautious approach to the technological optimism that is fostering policy inertia: technological innovation alone will not save the day anytime soon. They must invest more in research, in operational procedures and in encouraging the development of and marketing alternatives to air travel. But most importantly, policymakers must take a more open approach to implementing sustainable transport policies that affect the structures of provision; they will need to be lobbied to touch issues that may be politically risky, but nonetheless have been shown in other contexts to be successful in fostering desirable sustainable transport outcomes. Building on these insights, the Freiburg 2016 workshop will consequently focus on desirable transport futures, that is, visions of desirable sustainable transport systems that have the potential to be actively taken up by wide cross-sections of society (c.f. Banister & Hickman, 2013). A starting point for this is the analysis of sustainable 14     transport transitions that are now underway, and the analysis of the structural, political, institutional and social/psychological factors underlying those transitions. The e-bike revolution is one example of societal change involving a low-carbon technological innovation, with uptake and adoption motivated by convenience, speed, health and cost. Many cities in Europe have re-discovered the bicycle as a transport mode with diverse benefits, and there now exists widespread and growing demand for infrastructures that facilitate cycling and other active forms of transport (Gössling & Choi, 2015; Pucher & Buehler, 2012). Cycling cities have become a desirable transport future but the health and cost benefits of cycling demand that issues of cyclist safety are addressed in infrastructural provision. The rise of car sharing systems, in place of car ownership, is another timely example of a mobility transition, but is not without rebound effects, as the media suggests that it has cannibalisation effects at the expense of public transport (Schwarz, 2015). In contrast to desirable futures, while flying is highly desirable for many, continued growth in air travel on a global scale is incompatible with a sustainable transport future, and it is here that the need for urgent transition is now widely accepted. However, before entertaining alternatives to the current unsustainable transport system, it is essential to know what desirable transport futures may look like. The critical analysis of mobility transitions, including barriers confronting the achievement of desirable transport futures, is needed. A concerted research effort in the following key areas is consequently required: Desired transport. Future visions must be built upon desired transport systems. Critical examination is needed of spontaneous market uptake of desired new transport systems and their rebound effects. How have e-bike, car sharing, high-speed rail and successful public transport systems emerged in certain societies? What factors have acted as facilitators of change and how were barriers overcome? How important are individuals, i.e. specific people, in initiating change? What were the key roles of stakeholders and were low carbon transitions an objective from the outset or a coincidental outcome? What lessons can be learned from these revolutions and what wider roles may such successes play in developing towards low carbon transport and tourism? The role of fashion. Many trends in tourism and travel are fashion driven. Certain destinations can rise and fall substantially in a very short time. In the Netherlands long-haul travel grew rapidly until 2008 when it stabilised and started to decline. What factors influence significant changes in established patterns of consumption? Why has ‘environmental consciousness’, with the exception of European car purchasing, proved largely ineffective in driving low carbon transport transitions? What potential do social marketing, celebrity endorsement and role model advocacy offer, and how can the effectiveness of these strategies be maximised? What other strategies may exist to influence and encourage the fashionability of more sustainable forms of tourism (e.g., caravanning, train journeys, ‘loca-tourism’, slow tourism and staycationing)? How can industry, government, the media and public organisations engage in such processes, and what in particular is the role of science and researchers? 15     Economic issues. The economic arguments for growth in aviation are well established, even though many assessments appear to remain partial. But what are the economic arguments that support the development of sustainable transport systems? What economic growth scenarios may be associated with low carbon transitions to rail and electric vehicle fleets, and the new infrastructures required to facilitate active transport modes? What do economic models predict for the redistribution of travel flows under low carbon transport scenarios? Contributions to a more complete understanding of the economics of low carbon transport scenarios are critically important to the shift toward desired transport futures. Public health and wellbeing. Critical issues arise when contemplating how the sustainable transportation agenda is coupled with questions of public health and wellbeing. Policy outcomes driven by a public health and wellbeing agenda may have the potential for achieving significant environmental benefits. What potential do desirable transport futures offer to overcome personal wellbeing and public health risks, such as the negative health dimensions of frequent flying (Cohen & Gössling, 2015), or the risk of pandemic associated with long-haul flights? And where mobility transitions are already in progress, can, for instance, the rising public health costs of serious injuries and deaths of cyclists be mitigated by dedicated cycle infrastructure? Issues of equity and ethics. There is a need to move beyond the Eurocentrism (c.f. Cohen & Cohen, 2015) that has framed debate around these issues. While the West has contributed disproportionately to the environmental crisis, emissions of unsustainable transportation are globally dispersed. Insights that are theoretically, methodologically and practically informed are required to understand sustainable transportation issues as they apply to emerging world regions (e.g. Dillimono & Dickinson, 2015 on Nigerian perspectives). Growth from the middle classes in parts of Asia, Latin America, South America and Africa is also driving up global transport emissions. What equity issues arise in association with the transition from old to new transport systems? What ethical issues arise with the growth of unsustainable transportation in less developed countries? How will the continuing but declining emission footprint be distributed between countries and sectors globally? What will be the impacts of emission trading, taxation regimes, subsidies and infrastructure planning, and how will they vary between regions in light of the recent Paris Agreement? Advocacy- and participatory-based approaches. The need exists for advocacy- and participatory-based approaches (see Bramwell, Higham, Lane & Miller, 2016; Hall, 2016) to enable more effective communication with policy communities, and to facilitate collaboration and co-production with policymakers and other upstream stakeholders. What opportunities exist to implement new or underutilised methods such as simulation, serious gaming and in-depth multi-stakeholder approaches? What potential do new approaches offer to communicate the science of climate change, and internalise the challenges inherent in responding to climate change? How can new approaches serve to highlight the contribution of travel in global GHG emissions, the inherent difficulties in responding to unsustainable transportation, and potential pathways to desirable transport futures? These key areas form the basis for a 16     continued research agenda aimed at transitioning the tourism and transport sectors to a sustainable emissions path. Acknowledgements The convenors of the Freiburg 2014 workshop (1-4 July 2014) gratefully acknowledge the members of its Scientific Advisory Board, all of whom contributed to the success of the workshop: Dr Stewart Barr (University of Exeter, UK), Dr Jo Guiver (University of Central Lancashire, UK), Professor Michael Hall (University of Canterbury, NZ), Dr Julia Hibbert (Bournemouth University, UK), Professor Daniel Scott (University of Waterloo, Canada) and Professor David Banister (TSI, University of Oxford, UK). Note 1. Announcement: Freiburg 2016 Third biennial workshop 28 June - 1 July 2016: The third biennial Freiburg workshop will take place on 28 June – 1 July 2016 in Kirchzarten, less than 10 kilometres from Freiburg im Breisgau, the gateway to the German Black Forest. Freiburg, a sustainable transportation showcase, is centrally located within Europe and readily accessed from across Europe by rail. Building upon the psychological and behavioural approaches to understanding sustainable mobility explored in Freiburg 2012, and the focus on bridging the science-policy gap in sustainable mobility in Freiburg 2014, the third biennial workshop will expand and address Desirable Transport Futures. For further information, please go to http://www.cstt.nl/freiburg2016 and/or contact [email protected]. References Airbus. (2011). Delivering the future. Global market forecast 2011-2030. Paris: Airbus. Anable, J., Brand, C., Tran, M., & Eyre, N. (2012). Modelling transport energy demand: A socio-technical approach. Energy Policy, 41, 125–138. Antimova, R., Nawijn, J., & Peeters, P. (2012). The awareness/attitude gap in sustainable tourism: A theoretical perspective. Tourism Review, 67(3), 7–16. Araña, J.E. & León, C.J. (2016) Are tourists animal spirits? Evidence from a field experiment exploring the use of non-market based interventions advocating sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1101128 17     Ariza-Montobbio, P., & Lele, S. (2010). Jatropha plantations for biodiesel in Tamil Nadu, India: Viability, livelihood trade-offs, and latent conflict. Ecological Economics, 70, 189-195. ATAG (Air Transport Action Group). (2010). The right flightpath to reduce aviation emissions. Geneva: ATAG. ATAG. (2011). Powering the future of flight. The six easy steps to growing a viable aviation biofuels industry. Geneva: ATAG. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transportation Policy, 15(1), 73–80. Banister, D. (2011). Cities, mobility and climate change. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1538–1546. Banister, D., & Hickman, R. (2013). Transport futures: Thinking the unthinkable. Transportation Policy, 29, 283–293. Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011). Citizens, consumers and sustainability: (Re)Framing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1224-1233. Barr, S., Shaw, G., Coles, T., & Prillwitz, J. (2010). ‘A holiday is a holiday’: Practicing sustainability, home and away. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 474–481. Becken, S. (2007). Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on the global climate and potential climate change policies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 351-368. Becken, S. (2016). Peak Oil: a hidden issue? Social representations of professional tourism perspectives. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(1): 31-51. Boeing. (2012). Current market outlook 2012-2031. Seattle. Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Boeing (2014). Current market outlook 2014-2033. Seattle: Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Bramwell, B., Higham, J., Lane, B. & Miller, G. (2016). Advocacy or neutrality? Disseminating research findings and driving change toward sustainable tourism in a fast changing world. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(1), 1-7. Brewer, G. D. (1991). Hydrogen aircraft technology. London: CRC Press. Casey, M.E. (2010). Low cost air travel: Welcome aboard? Tourist Studies, 10(2), 175-191. Chapman, L. (2007). Transport and climate change: A review. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(5), 354–367. 18     Chèze, B., Chevallier, J. & Gastineau, P. (2013). Will technological progress be sufficient to stabilize CO2 emissions from air transport in the mid-term? (No. Les cahiers de l'économie - n° 94). Rueil-Malmaison: Centre Économie et Gestion. Cohen, E., & Cohen, S.A. (2015). Beyond Eurocentrism in tourism: A paradigm shift to mobilities. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(2), 157-168. Cohen, S.A., & Gössling, S. (2015). A darker side of hypermobility. Environment and Planning A, DOI: 10.1177/0308518X15597124. Cohen, S.A., & Higham, J.E.S. (2011). Eyes wide shut? UK Consumer perceptions on aviation climate impacts and travel decisions to New Zealand. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(4), 323-335. Cohen, S.A., Higham, J.E.S., Peeters, P., & Gössling, S. (2014). Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches. London: Routledge. Cohen, S.A., Higham, J., & Reis, A. (2013). Sociological barriers to sustainable discretionary air travel behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 982-998. Coplin, L. G. (2012). Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels in the United States. The National Academies Press: Washington D.C. Cornelissen, S. (2005). The Global Tourism System. Aldershot: Ashgate. Creutzig, F., Jochem, P., Edelenbosch, O.Y., Mattauch, L., van Vuuren, D.P. McCollum, D. & Minx, J. (2015). Transport: A roadblock to climate change mitigation? Science 350 (6263): 911-912. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac8033 Cumpsty, N., Alonso, J., Eury, S., Maurice, L., Nas, B., Ralph, M., et al. (2010). Report of the independent experts on medium and long term goals for aviation fuel burn reduction from technology (No. Doc 9963). Montreal: ICAO. de Haan, A. (2007). Aircraft Technology's contribution to sustainable development. Delft: TU Delft. Dennis, K., & Urry, J. (2009). After the car. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons. Dillimono, H.D., & Dickinson, J.E. (2015). Travel, tourism, climate change, and behavioral change: Travelers’ perspectives from a developing country, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(3), 437-454. Dolnicar, S., Juvan, E., Ring, A. & Leisch, F. (2016) Tourist Segments’ Justifications for Behaving in an Environmentally Unsustainable Way. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.10248861 Duval, D.T (2013). Critical issues in air transport and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 15(3), 494–510. EC (2011). White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM(2011) 144 final. Brussels: European Commission. 19     Edelman, M. (1998). Language, myths and rhetoric. Society, 35(2), 131-139. Eijgelaar, E., Nawijn, J. , Barten,C., Okuhn, L. & Dijkstra, L. (2016) Consumer attitudes and preferences on holiday carbon footprint information in the Netherlands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1101129 Franco, V., Sánchez, F. P., German, J., & Mock, P. (2014). Real-World Exhaust Emissions From Modern Diesel Cars. Berlin: International Council on Clean Transportation Europe. Freire-Medeiros, B., & Name, L. (2013). Flying for the very first time: Mobilities, social class and environmental concerns in a Rio de Janeiro favela. Mobilities, 8(2), 167–184. Friman, M., Larhult, L., & Gärling, T. (2012). An analysis of soft transport policy measures implemented in Sweden to reduce private car use. Transportation, 40(1), 109–129. Gössling, S., Broderick, J., Upham, P., Peeters, P., Strasdas, W., Ceron, J.-P., & Dubois, G. (2007). Voluntary carbon offsetting schemes for aviation: efficiency and credibility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 223-248. Gössling, S. & Choi, A. S. (2015). Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars and bicycles. Ecological Economics, 113, 106-113. Gössling, S., & Cohen, S. (2014). Why sustainable transport policies will fail: European Union climate policy in the light of transport taboos. Journal of Transport Geography, 39, 197-207. 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., & C.M. Hall (2013). Challenges of tourism in a low-carbon economy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(6), 525-538. Gössling, S., & Upham, P. (Eds.). (2009). Climate change and aviation: Issues, challenges and solutions. London: Earthscan. Gotesky, R. (1952). The nature of myth and society. American Anthropologist, 54(4), 523-531. Hall, C.M. (2009). Degrowing tourism: Décroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 46-61. 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, C.M. (2015). Economic greenwash: On the absurdity of tourism and green growth. In M.V. Reddy and K. Wilkes (Eds.), Tourism in the Green Economy, London: Earthscan by Routledge. 20     Hall, C.M. (2016). Intervening in academic interventions: Using the lens of social marketing to examine the potential for successful sustainable tourism behavioural change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1088861. 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. Hares, A., Dickinson, J., & Wilkes, K. (2010). Climate change and the air travel decisions of UK tourists. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 466–473. Higham, J.E.S., & Cohen, S.A. (2011). Canary in the coalmine: Norwegian attitudes towards climate change and extreme long-haul air travel to Aotearoa/New Zealand. Tourism Management 32(1), 98-105. Higham, J., Cohen, S., & Cavaliere, C. (2014). Climate change, discretionary air travel and the ‘flyers’ dilemma’. Journal of Travel Research, 53(4), 462-475. Higham, J.E.S., Cohen, S.A., Cavaliere, C.T., Reis, A.C., & Finkler, W. (2016). Climate change, tourist air travel and radical emissions reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 336-347. Higham, J.E.S., Cohen, S.A., Peeters, P., & Gössling, S. (2013). Psychological and behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable mobility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 949-967. Holloway J.C., Humphreys, C., & Davidson, R. (2009). The business of tourism (8th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Hopkins, D. & Higham, J.E.S. (2012). Framework conventions for climate change: An analysis of global framework conventions with reference to resource governance and environmental management approaches in New Zealand. In A Handbook of Tourism and the Environment. A Holden & D. Fennell (Eds). London: Routledge. pp. 227-240. Hopkins, D., Higham, J., Tapp, S. & Duncan, T. (2016) Academic mobility in the Anthropocene era: a comparative study of university policy at three New Zealand institutions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1071383 Høyer, K.G. (2000). Sustainable tourism – or sustainable mobility? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(2), 147–161. Høyer, K.G., & Næss, P. (2001). Conference tourism: a problem for the environment as well as for research? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(6), 451–470. Howitt, O.J.A., Revol, V.G.N., Smith, I.J., & Rodger, C.J. (2010). Carbon emissions from international cruise ship passengers’ travel to and from New Zealand. Energy Policy, 38, 2552-2560. Hutton, B. (2013). Planning Sustainable Transport. London: Routledge. IATA (2012). A global approach to reducing aviation emissions. First stop: carbon- neutral growth from 2020. Montreal: IATA. 21     ICAO (2014). 2013 Environmental report. Destination Green. Montreal: ICAO. IEA (2012). World Energy Outlook 2011. IEA, Paris. IPCC (1990). IPCC First assessment report 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from IPCC web site: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Uu70df0p8ds IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups 1, 2, and 3 to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, N., Jones, H., & Walsh, C. (2008). Political science? Strengthening science- policy dialogue in developing countries. London: Overseas Development Institute. Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude-behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 76-95. Kivits, R., Charles, M. B., & Ryan, N. (2010). A post-carbon aviation future: Airports and the transition to a cleaner aviation sector. Futures, 42, 199-211. Kroesen, M. (2013). Exploring people’s viewpoints on air travel and climate change: Understanding inconsistencies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(2), 271–290. Lassen, C. (2010). Environmentalist in business class: An analysis of air travel and environmental attitude. Transport Reviews, 30(6), 733-751. Lawson, C. (2012). Aviation lock-in and emissions trading. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(5), 1221-1243. Lee, J.J. (2010). Can we accelerate the improvement of energy efficiency in aircraft systems? Energy Conversion and Management, 51(1), 189-196. Leviston, Z., Leitch, A., Greenhill, M., Leonard, R., & Walker, I. (2011). Australians' views on climate change. Canberra: CSIRO. Luzecka, P. (2016) “Take a gap year!” A social practice perspective on air travel and potential transitions towards sustainable tourism mobility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1115513 Mayor, K., & Tol, R. S. J. (2010). Scenarios of carbon dioxide emissions from aviation. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 65-73. Melissen, F. & Koens, K. (2016) (2016) Adding researchers' behaviour to the research agenda: bridging the science–policy gap in sustainable tourism mobility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1071384 Miciukiewicz, K., & Vigar, G. (2012). Mobility and social cohesion in the splintered city: challenging technocentric transport research and policy-making practices. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1941-1957. 22     Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2010). Public understanding ofsustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 627–645. Monbiot, G. (2007). Heat: How to stop the planet burning. London: Penguin Books. Munich Re (2014). “Overall picture of natural catastrophes in 2013 dominated by weather extremes in Europe and Supertyphoon Haiyan.” Available: http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2014/2014_01_07_press _release.aspx (Retrieved 8 January 2015). Noth, A. (2008). Design of solar powered airplanes for continuous flight. Unpublished PhD, ETH Zürich. OECD (1991). Energy Prices, Taxes and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. OECD Economic Studies 17, Autumn 1991. Paris: OECD. OECD (1999). Project on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST). Report NV/EPOC/PPC/T(99)3/FINAL/REV1. Paris: OECD OECD (2008). The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation. Policies and Options for the Future. Paris: OECD. OECD (2015). OECD Companion to the Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset- Management/oecd/energy/oecd-companion-to-the-inventory-of-support-measures-for- fossil-fuels-2015_9789264239616-en#page1 Retrieved 12 November 2015. OECD & UNEP (2011). Climate Change and Tourism Policy in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD and UNEP. Owen, B., Lee, D. S., & Lim, L. (2010). Flying into the Future: Aviation Emissions Scenarios to 2050. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(7), 2255-2260. Peeters, P., & Dubois, G. (2010). Tourism travel under climate change mitigation constraints. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 447-457. Peeters, P., Gössling, S., & Lane, B. (2009). Moving towards low-carbon tourism. New opportunities for destinations and tour operators. In S. Gössling, C. M. Hall & D. B. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable tourism futures. Perspectives on systems, restructuring and innovations (pp. 240-257). New York: Routledge. Peeters, P., Higham, J.E.S., Kutzner, D., Cohen, S., & Gössling, S. Are technology myths stalling aviation climate policy? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment (under review). Peeters, P. M. (2000). Annex I: Designing aircraft for low emissions. Technical basis for the ESCAPE project. In ESCAPE: Economic screening of aircraft preventing emissions - background report. Delft: Centrum voor Energiebesparing en Schone Technologie. Peeters, P. M., & Dubois, G. (2010). Tourism travel under climate change mitigation constraints. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 447–457. 23     Peeters, P. M., & Middel, J. (2007). Historical and future development of air transport fuel efficiency. In R. Sausen, A. Blum, D. S. Lee & C. Brüning (Eds.), Proceedings of an International Conference on Transport, Atmosphere and Climate (TAC); Oxford, United Kingdom, 26-29 June 2006 (pp. 42-47). Oberpfaffenhoven: DLR Institut für Physic der Atmosphäre. Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge: MIT Press Quinn, J. C., & Davis, R. (2014). The potentials and challenges of algae based biofuels: A review of the techno-economic, life cycle, and resource assessment modeling. Bioresource Technology, 184, 444-452. Randles, S., & Mander, S. (2009a). Practice(s) and ratchet(s): A sociological examination of frequent flying. In S. Gössling & P. Upham (Eds.), Climate change and aviation: issues, challenges and solutions (pp. 245-271). London: Earthscan. Raymer, D. P., Wilson, J., Perkins, H. D., Rizzi, A., Zhang, M., & Puentes, A. R. (2011). Advanced Technology Subsonic Transport Study N+3 Technologies and Design Concepts (No. NASA/TM—2011-217130). Cleveland, Ohio: Glenn Research Center. Randles, S., & Mander, S. (2009b). Aviation, consumption and the climate change debate: ‘Are you going to tell me off for flying?’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(1), 93-113. Rietveld, P., & Stough, R. (Eds.), 2005. Barriers to Sustainable Transport. Institutions, Regulation and Sustainability. Spon Press, Abingdon. Rosenthal, E. (2010, May 24). Can we kick our addiction to flying? Retrieved September 13, 2010, from The Guardian web site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/24/kick-addiction-flying/ Rosillo-Calle, F., Thrän, D., Seiffert, M., & Teelucksingh, S. (2012). The potential role of biofuels in commercial air transport – biojetfuel. London: I. B. T. S. I. B. Trade. Ryley, T., Davison, L., Bristow, A., & Pridmore, A. (2010). Public engagement on aviation taxes in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4(2), 112-128. Schäfer, A., Heywood, J.B., Jacoby, H.D., Waitz, I.A., (2009). Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Scott, D. (2016). The Paris Climate Change Conference and the Tourism Industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, under review Schwanen, T., Banister, D., & Anable, J. (2011). Scientific research about climate changemitigation in transport: a critical review. Transportation Research Part A, 45, 993–1006. 24     Schwanen, T., & Lucas, K. (2011). Understanding Auto Motives. In: Lucas, K., Blumenberg, E., Weinberger, R. (Eds.), Auto Motives. Understanding Car Use Behaviours. Emerald: Bingley. Schwarz, K. (2015). Carsharing: Wie umweltschädlich sind Car2go und Drivenow wirklich? (Carsharing: How environmentally harmful are Car2go and Drivenow actually?) The Huffington Post (German Edition), 11 December 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2015/02/13/carsharing-klima-umfrage- wirtschaftswoche_n_6675908.html. Scuttari, A., Volgger,M. & Pechlaner, H. (2016) Transition Management towards Sustainable Mobility in Alpine Destinations: Realities and Realpolitik in Italy’s South Tyrol region. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.XXXXXX Sgouridis, S., Bonnefoy, P. A., & Hansman, R. J. (2010). Air transportation in a carbon constrained world: Long-term dynamics of policies and strategies for mitigating the carbon footprint of commercial aviation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(10), 1077-1091. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (Eds.). (2004). Tourism mobilities: Places to play, places in play. London: Routledge. Skarka, J. (2012). Microalgae Biomass Potential in Europe Land Availability as a Key Issue. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 21, 72-79. Stanford, D., & Guiver, J. (2016). Driving pro-environmental change in tourist destinations: Encouraging sustainable travel in National Parks via partnership project creation and implementation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. DOI: 10.1080.09669582.2015.1122018 Sterner, T. (2007). Fuel taxes: An important instrument for climate policy. Energy Policy, 35, 3194–3202. Student, J., Lamers, M. & Amelung, B. (2016) Towards a tipping point? Exploring the capacity to self-regulate Antarctic tourism using agent-based modelling. Journal of Sustainable Tourism DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1107079 UNEP (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Available: www.unep.org/greeneconomy. Retrieved 29 September 2015. UNFCCC (2014). Various documents. Available: www.unfccc.int. Retrieved 17 July 2015. Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817-830. UNWTO (2012). UNWTO tourism highlights 2012 edition. Available: http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights12enhr.pdf. Retrieved 17 February 2013. 25     UNWTO, UNEP, & WMO (2008). Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges. Madrid, Paris & Geneva: UNWTO, UNEP & WMO. Urry, J. (2010). Sociology and climate change. The Sociological Review, 57(2), 84– 100. Vera-Morales, M., & Schäfer, A. (2009). Fuel-Cycle Assessment of Alternative Aviation Fuels. Cambridge: Omega. Vorster, S., Ungerer, M., & Volschenk, J. (2012). 2050 Scenarios for long-haul tourism in the evolving global climate change regime. Sustainability, 5(1), 1-51. Watson, C. (Ed) (2014). Beyond Flying: Rethinking air travel in a globally connected world. Cambridge: Green Books. Whitmarsh, L., Seyfang, G., & O’Neill, S. (2011). Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent is the public “carbon capable”? Global Environmental Change, 21, 56–65. Wofford, B. (2015). Up in the Air: Meet the man who flies around the world for free. RollingStone Magazine. 20 July 2014. WTTC (2009). Leading the Challenge on Climate Change. London: WTTC. Young, M., Higham, J.E.S. & Reis, A. (2014). Up in the Air: A conceptual critique of flying addiction. Annals of Tourism Research. 41:51-64. Young, M., Markham, F., Reis, A.C., & Higham, J.E.S. (2015). Flights of fantasy: A reformulation of the flyers’ dilemma. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 1-15.     26