Content uploaded by Marie Nowak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marie Nowak on Jan 31, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pro-Sustainable Consumer Behaviour
in Tourism and Hospitality:
Drivers, Barriers, and Effective
Behavioural Intervention Design
Marie Nowak
Main supervisor: Maria Lexhagen
Co-supervisor: Tobias Heldt
Faculty of Human Sciences, Department of Economics, Geography, Law
and Tourism
Thesis for Doctoral degree in Tourism Studies
Mid Sweden University
Östersund, 2025-03-07
Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Mittuniversitetet i Östersund framläggs till
offentlig granskning för avläggande av filosofie doktors examen Fredag, den 7 Mars,
kl. 9:30, sal F234, Mittuniversitetet Östersund. Seminariet kommer att hållas på
engelska.
Pro-Sustainable Consumer Behaviour in Tourism and
Hospitality: Drivers, Barriers, and Effective Behavioural
Intervention Design
© Marie Nowak, 2025
Printed by Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall
ISSN: 1652-893X
ISBN: 978-91-89786-97-4
Faculty of Human Sciences
Mid Sweden University, Kunskapens väg 8, 831 25 Östersund, Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)10 142 80 00
Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis 418
To my family
Acknowledgements
Completing a PhD has been like a journey - filled with anticipation,
development, and moments of enlightenment. Yet, it has also brought
its share of frustration and anxiety, quite unlike the carefree
enjoyment you would want from a holiday. Completing this journey
would not have been possible without the unwavering support of
many people.
First, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors,
Professor Maria Lexhagen and Dr. Tobias Heldt. Your guidance was
both demanding and caring, and your support, in all its forms, has
been invaluable. You left me with great freedom of choice while
guiding me towards the achievement of this thesis, and for that, I am
incredibly grateful. I also want to thank all my colleagues at ETOUR
and especially CeTLer, for sharing your expertise, ideas,
encouragement, and, of course, plenty of Fika. A special thank you to
my fellow doctoral students, for sharing experiences, supporting each
other, and making conferences so much more fun. A huge thank you
to my opponents Tatiana Chekalina, Eugenio Conti, Erik Lundberg
and Beatrice Waleghwa for thoroughly reading my thesis and
providing feedback that truly improved my work. I’m also grateful to
the editors and reviewers of the journals I submitted to, as well as the
professors and peers involved in my PhD courses, for their time and
constructive comments. During my PhD, I had the incredible
opportunity to spend some time with the tourism research group at
the University of Queensland. I’m thankful to everyone there,
especially Professor Sara Dolnicar, who made the research exchange
possible and inspired much of this work. While the travel to Australia
did leave a significant carbon footprint that might not be justified by
my personal gain from it, the experience was incredibly valuable for
my thesis and my growth as a researcher. I also want to express my
sincere gratitude to the industry partners in Rörbäcksnäs, Sälen, and
Stockholm, as well as all the research participants. This dissertation
could not exist without your willingness to engage and share your
knowledge. Last, but certainly not least, to my family and friends, I
can’t thank you enough for your support. Mama, Papa, Vincent, Lissi,
Stella und Lennart – danke für eure unglaubliche Unterstützung,
auch wenn ihr meistens keine Ahnung hattet, was genau ich hier
mache. Ich werde nie in Worte fassen können, wie lieb ich euch habe
und dankbar ich bin, euch zu haben. And to my friends, thank you
for giving me the support and balance I needed to stay sane and get
through this.
Finally, it’s been an incredible honour to work on a topic so close to
my heart. While my interest began during my master’s studies, and
much of my learning came from academic sources, it has influenced,
been influenced by, and will hopefully continue to influence my daily
life. One moment that stands out was when I was listening to the
podcast 'Gemischtes Hack,' where the hosts talked about a small
family-owned hotel’s initiative to let guests opt out of daily room
cleaning in exchange for a chocolate bar. Having just read about the
‘novelty’ of similar hedonic-enhancement interventions in the
literature, this made me reflect on the successful interventions
already implemented and how we, as researchers, can learn from
them. It also made me realize the impact of sharing these kinds of
stories with others.
Thank you all for being part of this experience.
Table of contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................. xi
Summary in Swedish ...................................................................................... xiii
List of Papers .................................................................................................... xv
List of Tables ................................................................................................... xvi
List of Figures .................................................................................................. xvi
Important Terminology Used in This Research ............................................. 17
1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 19
1.1 Research Aim and Research Questions ...................................................... 26
1.1.1 Thesis Outline ............................................................................................ 31
2 Background .................................................................................................... 32
2.1 Sustainability in Tourism and Hospitality ...................................................... 32
2.1.1 Sustainability at the Macro, Meso, and Micro Levels ................................ 34
2.2 Consumer Behaviour in Tourism and Hospitality .......................................... 42
2.2.1 Tourist Behaviour ...................................................................................... 45
2.2.2 The Attitude–Behaviour Gap...................................................................... 50
2.2.2.1 The Attitude–Behaviour Gap in Tourism and Hospitality ................... 53
2.3 Approaches to Promote Pro-Sustainable Behaviour ..................................... 57
2.3.1 Behavioural Interventions .......................................................................... 60
2.4 Behavioural Interventions in Tourism and Hospitality ................................... 68
2.4.1 Social Norm Interventions ......................................................................... 78
2.4.2 Labels ........................................................................................................ 83
2.4.3 Critiques and Defences ............................................................................. 87
3 Theoretical Foundations for Pro-Sustainable Consumer Behaviour ....... 92
3.1 System 1 and System 2 ................................................................................ 93
3.2 Cognitive Behavioural Models ...................................................................... 97
3.3 Goal-Framing Theory .................................................................................. 101
3.4 Social Norms ............................................................................................... 104
3.5 Cognitive Dissonance and Rationalisation Strategies ................................ 106
3.6 Backfiring and Reactance ........................................................................... 109
8
3.7 Theoretical Framework Summary .............................................................. 112
4 Material and Methods .................................................................................. 117
4.1 Mixed Methods, Pragmatism, and Behavioural Economics ....................... 118
4.2 Field Experiments ....................................................................................... 123
4.3 Research Design ........................................................................................ 125
4.3.1 Qualitative Methods ................................................................................. 127
4.3.2 Quantitative Methods ............................................................................... 135
4.3.3 Mixed-methods Analysis .......................................................................... 138
4.3.4 Research Design Limitations ................................................................... 141
4.3.5 Ethics ....................................................................................................... 145
5 Paper Summaries ........................................................................................ 147
5.1 Paper 1: Financing recreational trails through donations: Testing behavioural
theory in mountain biking context ..................................................................... 147
5.2 Paper 2: Testing the Effectiveness of Increased Frequency of Norm-Nudges
in Encouraging Sustainable Tourist Behaviour: A Field Experiment Using Actual
and Self-Reported Behavioural Data ................................................................ 149
5.3 Paper 3: Co-designing carbon label interventions in restaurants: Insights
from a Field Experiment in a Tourism Destination ............................................ 151
5.4 Paper 4: Influencing Pro-Environmental Dining in Restaurants: A Field
Experiment on Endorsed Environmental Messages ......................................... 153
6 Discussion ................................................................................................... 154
6.1 Drivers and Barriers to Pro-sustainable Behaviour in Tourism and Hospitality
.......................................................................................................................... 155
6.1.1 Social Factors .......................................................................................... 156
6.1.2 Personal Factors ..................................................................................... 158
6.1.3 Situational Factors ................................................................................... 160
6.1.4 Insights and Implications Across Cases .................................................. 166
6.2 Drivers and Barriers for Tourism and Hospitality Providers ........................ 172
6.2.1 Economic Drivers and Competitiveness .................................................. 173
6.2.2 Values and Commitment to Sustainability ............................................... 175
6.2.3 Operational and Resource Constraints ................................................... 177
6.2.4 Visitor Experience and Knowledge Gaps ................................................ 179
6.3 Designing Effective Interventions ............................................................... 181
6.3.1 The Process ............................................................................................ 182
6.3.2 What Works Where? ............................................................................... 187
7 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 192
7.1 Theoretical Implications .............................................................................. 196
7.2 Practical Implications .................................................................................. 198
7.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ........................... 200
8 References ................................................................................................... 203
xi
Abstract
Amid escalating global sustainability challenges, tourism and
hospitality (T&H) has emerged as an important arena for
understanding and fostering pro-sustainable consumer behaviour.
The hedonic priorities and complexity of decision-making in T&H
often exacerbate the gap between stated attitudes and actual pro-
sustainable behaviour, which contributes to issues like climate
change. However, these contexts also offer opportunities to better
understand and influence pro-sustainable behaviour through tailored
interventions.
Behavioural interventions like nudges have shown promise in terms
of guiding behaviour towards desirable outcomes by modifying
decision-making environments based on behavioural economics.
However, gaps remain with regard to understanding pro-sustainable
behaviours across diverse T&H settings and developing effective
interventions that T&H providers can implement to enhance
informed consumer choices without compromising their experience.
This thesis addresses these gaps by using a mixed-method field
experimental approach to study pro-sustainable behaviour in two
distinct T&H contexts: donations for mountain-biking trails in
Rörbäcksnäs, Dalarna (Sweden), and climate-friendly food choices in
restaurants in the Swedish locations of Sälen, Dalarna, and
Stockholm. Each setting involved two field experiments – testing
social norms and carbon label interventions – which together
constitute four independent papers. This field experimental approach
not only provides insights into real-life behavioural processes but
also incorporates providers’ perspectives on promoting pro-
xii
sustainable options, informing the design of context-relevant
interventions.
The findings culminate in a framework that researchers, providers,
and policymakers can use to design and test behavioural
interventions that foster pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in T&H
and other out-of-home consumption domains. Methodologically, this
framework emphasises the importance of collaborative design and
iterative adaptation of interventions based on field experiments, to
effectively bridge theory and practice in T&H sustainability.
Theoretically, the research offers new insights into pro-sustainable
consumer behaviour, highlighting the significant influence of social
norms and contextual factors across diverse T&H settings. Practically,
the study stresses the need to align interventions with the context-
specific goals of consumer segments, showcasing the value of tailored
social norm interventions, carbon labels, and staff engagement in
promoting pro-sustainable choices while preserving the overall
consumer experience.
xiii
Summary in Swedish
Mi i eskalerande globala hållbarhetsutmaningar har turism- och
besöksnäring (T&H – tourism and hospitality) framstå som en viktig
arena för a förstå och främja hållbart konsumentbeteende.
Hedonistiska prioriteringar och komplexiteten i beslutsfaande inom
T&H förvärrar ofta klyftan mellan ualade aityder och faktiskt
miljövänligt beteende, vilket bidrar till klimatförändringar. Men
dessa sammanhang erbjuder också möjligheter att bättre förstå och
påverka miljövänligt beteende genom skräddarsydda insatser. Med
utgångspunkt i beteendeekonomi har interventioner som nudging
visat sig lovande när det gäller a styra beteendet mot önskvärda
resultat genom a modifiera de miljöer där beslut faas. Det kvarstår
dock luckor när det gäller a förstå miljövänligt beteenden i olika
T&H-miljöer och a utveckla effektiva interventioner som T&H-
aktörer kan implementera för a påverka konsumenterna a göra
informerade val utan att de behöver kompromissa med sin
upplevelse. Den här avhandlingen tar upp dessa luckor genom att
använda e mixed-method experimentellt tillvägagångssä för a
studera mijömässigt beteende i två distinkta T&H-sammanhang:
donationer till mountainbikeleder i Rörbäcksnäs, Dalarna (Sverige),
och klimatvänliga matval på restaurang vid två platser i Sverige;
Sälen och Stockholm. Fältexperiment inom två områden genomfördes
– testning av sociala normer och koldioxidmärkningsinterventioner –
vilka tillsammans resulterade i fyra oberoende artiklar. Dea
tillvägagångssä genom fältexperiment ger inte bara insikter i
verkliga beteendeprocesser utan inkluderar också leverantörers
perspektiv för a kunna främja hållbara alternativ, vilket var en
viktig faktor för utformningen av de kontextrelevanta
xiv
interventionerna. Resultaten sammanfattas i ett ramverk som kan
användas av forskare, leverantörer och beslutsfaare för a designa
och testa beteendeinterventioner för a främja hållbart
konsumentbeteende inom både T&H och andra konsumentval
utanför hemmet. Metodologiskt understryker ramverket vikten av
kollaborativ design och en iterativ anpassning av interventioner
baserade på fältexperiment, för a överbrygga teori och praktik för
hållbarhet inom T&H. Teoretiskt ger forskningen nya insikter i
miljövänligt konsumentbeteende, vilket belyser det avgörande
inflytandet sociala normer och kontextuella faktorer har i olika typer
av T&H-miljöer. För praktiska tillämpningar betonas behovet av a
anpassa interventioner till kontextspecifika mål för olika segment av
konsumenter. Dea visar på; värdet av skräddarsydda interventioner
baserade på sociala normer, koldioxidmärkningar samt vikten av
personalens engagemang vid design av interventioner för a främja
konsumenters miljömässigt hållbara val med bibehållen
konsumentupplevelse.
xv
List of Papers
Paper 1: Nowak, M., & Heldt, T. (2023). Financing recreational trails
through donations: Testing behavioural theory in mountain biking
context. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 42, 100603.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100603
Paper 2: Nowak, M., Alnyme, O., & Heldt, T. (2023). Testing the
effectiveness of increased frequency of norm-nudges in encouraging
sustainable tourist behaviour: A field experiment using actual and
self-reported behavioural data. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(7), 1-
25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2220979
Paper 3: Nowak, M., Heldt, T., Lexhagen, M., & Nordström, J. (2024).
Co-designing carbon label interventions in restaurants: Insights from
a Field Experiment in a Tourism Destination. Scandinavian Journal of
Tourism and Hospitality Management, 1-26.
10.1080/15022250.2024.2427776
Paper 4: Nowak, M. Influencing Pro-Environmental Dining in
Restaurants: A Field Experiment on Endorsed Environmental
Messages. (Manuscript)
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1: Intervention categories ............................................................... 70
Table 2: Key case characteristics ............................................................ 122
List of Figures
Figure 1: Thesis overview ......................................................................... 30
Figure 2: Overview of behavioural change interventions ................... 67
Figure 3: Factors influencing pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in
tourism and hospitality. ......................................................................... 113
Figure 4: Research design of this thesis ................................................ 126
Figure 5: Factors influencing donations for MTB trails (Papers 1 and
2) ................................................................................................................ 171
Figure 6: Factors influencing climate-friendly food choices in
restaurants (Papers 3 and 4) ................................................................... 172
Figure 7: Framework for designing and testing behavioural
interventions to foster pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in T&H
.................................................................................................................... 194
17
Important Terminology Used in
This Research
Term
Definition
Supporting
Literature
Extended
definition (p.)
Pro-sustainable
behaviour
Synonymous with pro-
sustainable consumer
behaviour.
Behaviour that facilitates
sustainable use of common
resources by contributing to
positive impacts or reducing
negative impacts on these
resources.
Juvan & Dolnicar,
2016; Li et al., 2023;
Olya et al., 2023;
Salinero et al., 2022
p.42
Pro-
environmental
behaviour
(PEB)
Behaviour aimed at
minimising the negative
impacts or maximising the
positive impacts of human
actions on the natural
environment.
Budovska et al.,
2020; Dolnicar et al.,
2019; Goldstein et al.,
2008; Knežević
Cvelbar et al., 2017
p.41
Tourism and
Hospitality
(T&H)
providers
Those making tourism and
hospitality services and
products available for
consumption in commercial
settings (hotels, restaurants,
etc.) and non-commercial
settings (such as managing
recreational trails in nature
areas).
p. 36
Behavioural
economics
Combines insights from
economics, psychology, and
cognitive science to study
how individuals make
Kao & Velupillai,
2015; Lehner et al.,
2016; Li et al., 2022;
p.61
18
decisions in diverse real-life
contexts, often deviating
from the predictions of
rational choice.
Nikolova, 2021;
Samson, 2014
Behavioural
insights
The application of
behavioural science to
design interventions for real-
world problems.
Organisation for
Economic Co-
operation and
Development
(OECD), 2023
p.61
Behavioural
interventions
Interventions that are
informed by behavioural
economics, conceptualised
in
this thesis as those that (a)
easily frame the best options,
(b) allow individuals to
freely choose what they
prefer, and (c) are grounded
in behavioural science to
either block heuristics,
trigger heuristics, or inform.
Souza-Neto et al.,
2022
p.66
Hard policy
interventions
Regulatory or financial
measures that restrict choice
or alter financial incentives
to enforce behaviour change,
such as laws, taxes, fees, and
subsidies.
Banerjee et al., 2021;
Testa et al., 2018
p.57-58
Traditional soft
policy
interventions
Voluntary initiatives,
guidelines, or campaigns to
encourage behaviour
change; e.g., educational
campaigns, social marketing.
Banerjee et al., 2021;
Testa et al., 2018
p.59-60
19
1 Introduction
The tourism and hospitality (T&H) sector presents a paradox. On one
hand, it stands as a beacon of growth, prosperity, and cultural
exchange, driving development and sustaining livelihoods
worldwide (International Finance Corporation, 2017; World Travel &
Tourism Council, 2022). On the other hand, T&H activities can
generate significant social and environmental costs (Nisa et al., 2017;
Souza-Neto et al., 2022). The diverse consumption activities
associated with T&H, ranging from commercial settings like hotels
and restaurants to non-commercial settings like recreational nature
areas, contribute to sustainability challenges on both local and global
scales, such as infrastructure strains, unequal socio-economic benefit
distribution, environmental degradation, and climate change
(Buckley, 2012; Gössling, et al., 2011; Lenzen et al., 2018). These
impacts also compromise the quality and quantity of T&H provision,
posing risks to its long-term viability (Hall, 2016).
Therefore, T&H consumption plays a critical role in some of society’s
most pressing sustainability challenges and in advancing the United
Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal
12, which advocates for sustainable consumption and production to
ensure robust economies while minimising environmental harm
(Dolnicar, 2023; Dolnicar & Demeter, 2023; United Nation World
Tourism Organisation [UNWTO], 2017). Although academia,
industry, and policy have directed increasing attention to T&H
sustainability, mitigation strategies have often been fragmented and
achieved insufficient success (Lenzen et al., 2018), partly due to the
broad and difficult-to-measure nature of sustainability goals
(Sharpley, 2000; Souza-Neto et al., 2022). There are various
approaches to addressing sustainability at different scales, including
20
government policy, management practices, technological innovation,
and educational programs; each approach reflects different belief
systems and research traditions and has its own advantages and
challenges (Hall, 2016; Saarinen, 2006).
Traditionally, academia and practitioners have focused on
government-led hard policies that mandate behavioural and industry
changes to tackle sustainability issues (Barr et al., 2011; Saarinen,
2006). International agreements, such as the Paris Agreement 2015
(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2016)
and the UN SDGs (UNWTO, 2017), have been instrumental in
shaping macro-scale regulatory changes; however, progress has been
limited, as indicated by the continuing environmental degradation
and socio-economic disparities (Alonso-Muñoz et al., 2023; Dolnicar,
2023; Hall, 2016; Lane, 2009).
At the meso-level, T&H providers are central to advancing
sustainability goals by offering products and services in commercial
settings (such as restaurants) and managing common resources in
non-commercialised settings (for example, managing trails in public
nature areas) (Testa et al., 2018). While operational measures, such as
innovations, technologies, and management practices to mitigate
environmental impacts have been in focus, providers also act as
important ‘gatekeepers’, shaping the choices and experiences
available to consumers and how these are communicated, thereby
enabling or hindering pro-sustainable behaviour (Dolnicar, 2020; Kim
et al., 2017; Ruhanen et al., 2015). Nevertheless, challenges such as a
lack of leadership and resources, competitiveness, and limited
consumer knowledge continue to hinder the implementation of
effective sustainability initiatives.
21
Recognising that the success of governmental and industry initiatives
is inherently linked to consumer behaviour, recent academic and
policy focus has shifted to behaviour change at the individual level
(Budeanu, 2007; Dolnicar, 2020; Greene et al., 2023; Souza-Neto et al.,
2022; Viglia & Dolnicar, 2020), including in Sweden (Mont et al., 2014;
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD],
2017). Most individuals can make consumption choices that are
comparatively better for the environment and society than less
sustainable alternatives (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2016; Osbaldiston &
Schott, 2011). These behaviours – often termed pro-environmental
behaviour (PEB), environmentally friendly behaviour, and green
behaviour (Budovska et al., 2020; Dolnicar et al., 2019; Knežević
Cvelbar et al., 2017; Line et al., 2018; López-Sánchez & Pulido-
Fernández, 2016), or, more broadly, pro-sustainable behaviour (Li et
al., 2023; Olya et al., 2023; Salinero et al., 2022) – facilitate the
sustainable use of common resources by contributing to positive
impacts or reducing negative ones.
In T&H, consumers can reduce their negative sustainability impacts
in various ways, such as travelling domestically, selecting socially
and environmentally responsible providers, or making pro-
sustainable choices during vacations, regarding aspects like food,
water, and energy consumption, and supporting the local economy
(Juvan & Dolnicar, 2017). However, despite widespread awareness of
sustainability issues, only a small percentage of individuals make
concerted efforts to consume less or differently, especially in T&H
settings (Barr et al., 2010; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b; MacInnes et al.,
2022; Mehmetoglu, 2010; Miao & Wei, 2013). Numerous studies have
shown that consumers tend to engage in more unsustainable
behaviour in T&H contexts than they do at home, including food
22
waste (Dolnicar et al., 2020; Juvan et al., 2018), not reusing towels at
hotels (Budovska et al., 2020; Gössling et al, 2019; MacInnes et al.,
2022), or having high water usage (Rodriguez–Sanchez et al., 2020).
The resulting gap between attitudes or intentions and actual
behaviour is commonly termed the ‘attitude–behaviour gap’ (Juvan &
Dolnicar, 2014b; Souza-Neto et al., 2022).
Traditional soft policy interventions, such as education and
awareness campaigns, have proven insufficient for driving significant
pro-sustainable behaviour change in T&H (Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002; Mont et al., 2014). This shortfall has led to the development of a
distinct field, intersecting with disciplines like economics, sociology,
psychology, marketing, and ethics, to better understand the factors
influencing consumption in T&H, along with alternative ways to
facilitate behaviour change (Hall, 2016; Li et al., 2022). One key area
that is gaining traction within this field is behavioural economics,
which integrates insights from economics, psychology, and cognitive
science to provide a more realistic understanding of decision-making
(Nikolova, 2021; Souza-Neto et al., 2022). Behavioural economics
recognises that human behaviour is boundedly rational, context-
dependent, and influenced by various cognitive biases, heuristics,
social norms, emotions, and other psychological factors (Mont et al.,
2014; Samson, 2014).
Behavioural economics can be applied by policymakers and
organisations to influence individuals towards more personally and
socially beneficial outcomes (Rachlin, 2015; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Soft policies informed by behavioural economics, which are often
termed behavioural interventions (Dolnicar & Demeter, 2023; Souza-
Neto et al., 2023), involve subtle changes in the decision-making
environment, using techniques like defaults, placement, or social
23
norms to frame desirable options without restricting freedom of
choice (Hansen & Jespersen, 2013; Noggle, 2018). Different types of
behavioural interventions exist based on various research traditions,
such as nudges, boosts, thinks, and nudge plus (Banerjee, 2021;
Frerichs, 2019; Hertwig, 2017; Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017; John,
2011), with nudges being the most commonly referred to (Thaler &
Sunstein, 2008). These interventions can be categorised based on the
main mechanism they use to influence behaviour, particularly
whether they focus on triggering automatic responses (for example,
via defaults) or more deliberate decision-making (such as via social
norms or carbon labels) (Abrahamse, 2020; Banerjee et al., 2022;
Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The latter are generally seen as more
‘choice-preserving’ interventions and valuable for promoting
informed decisions, thereby enhancing the potential for sustained
behaviour change (Bruns & Perino, 2021; Osman et al., 2021;
Winterstein, 2022).
While hard policies, innovation, and education are essential for
addressing urgent, large-scale sustainability challenges like climate
change, behavioural interventions are being increasingly adopted
alongside these measures to encourage pro-sustainable choices in
areas such as transportation, energy use, and recycling (Avineri et al.,
2009; Lehner et al., 2016; Mont et al., 2014). Behavioural interventions
are valuable tools in contexts where policymakers might avoid
controversial measures, such as carbon taxes, to protect their re-
election prospects (Willis, 2020). Additionally, they can foster broader
societal adaptation and support, especially in areas where other
policies are impractical or insufficient (Lehner et al., 2016; Nikolova,
2021).
24
In T&H, consumers face various decisions such as transport or food
choices, many of which are shaped in situ while impacting the
natural and social environment and their overall consumption
experience (Smallman & Ryan, 2020). This complexity poses
challenges to implementing effective policies that promote pro-
sustainable behaviour. For example, hard policies on resource
consumption may face legal and ideological challenges, as seen in the
context of public access rights and nature-based tourism in Nordic
Countries (Øian et al., 2018). Restrictive policies, such as bans on
certain ingredients or portion sizes in restaurants, might also detract
from the consumer experience and affect providers’ competitiveness
(Acuti et al., 2022; Testa et al., 2018). Moreover, behavioural
interventions can be flexibly applied in diverse contexts like
destination management, transportation, and restaurants (Benner,
2019; Cozzio et al., 2020; Dolan & Metcalfe, 2013; Souza-Neto et al.,
2022), while also generally being cost-effective (Loewenstein et al.,
2012; Tyers, 2018), with the potential for cost reductions (Kallbekken
& Sælen, 2013).
Designing behavioural interventions in T&H involves certain
considerations due to the hedonic and experiential nature of
consumption, which typically occurs outside individuals’ daily lives
and home environments (Barr et al., 2010; Dolnicar, 2020; Juvan &
Dolnicar, 2014b). On the one hand, unfamiliarity with new social and
physical environments, combined with uncertainties about
behavioural outcomes, makes interventions like carbon labels or
social norms – designed to help consumers make informed pro-
sustainable choices – especially relevant (Smallman & Moore, 2010;
Williams & Baláž, 2014). On the other hand, T&H consumers, unlike
those in many other contexts, primarily seek pleasurable experiences
25
from their investments of time and money (Cohen et al., 2014; Juvan
& Dolnicar, 2014b). Behavioural change studies have found that this
self-focus may diminish concern for the sustainability impacts of
choices, suggesting that the most effective interventions are those that
target subconscious decision-making or personal enjoyment through
material rewards and games (Demeter et al., 2023; Dolnicar et al.,
2019, 2020; Dolnicar, 2020).
However, evaluations of interventions in T&H often overlook their
potential to enable informed decision-making, generate sustained
change, and their impact on consumer experiences and provider
reputations (Dolnicar, 2020; Demeter et al., 2023; Greene et al., 2023).
Additionally, existing research has predominantly focused on PEBs
within commercial hospitality settings, such as towel reuse or food
waste, while only a few studies have examined other behaviours
(Demeter et al., 2023; Souza-Neto et al., 2022). Yet, the diverse
contexts of T&H consumption, ranging from hotels to recreational
outdoor areas, each present unique challenges and consumer motives
that may conflict with or support pro-sustainable behaviour
(Albrecht et al., 2024; Steg et al., 2014a). Therefore, a more nuanced
understanding of pro-sustainable behaviour across various T&H
settings, including non-commercial contexts and socio-economic-
oriented behaviours, is crucial to advance knowledge and design
effective, context-relevant interventions.
To achieve this, field experiments – which are notably scarce in T&H
research – are invaluable because they enable causal conclusions
about how specific drivers, such as awareness, personal norms, or
social norms, influence pro-sustainable behaviour in real-world
settings (Li et al., 2023; Viglia et al., 2024). Such knowledge is crucial
for advancing theory in T&H, providing practical recommendations
26
for designing interventions that resonate with different consumer
segments and operational environments, and ultimately fostering
pro-sustainable behaviour (Viglia & Dolnicar, 2020). In particular,
greater attention is needed on social norm and carbon label
interventions. Despite mixed results in prior research, significant
gaps remain in terms of understanding their effectiveness across
various contexts and designs (Demeter et al., 2023; Dolnicar, 2020).
These interventions are among the few that can be easily
implemented with the potential to enable informed choice and
generate sustained change (Allcott & Rogers, 2014; Schultz et al.,
2007; van der Linden, 2018). Moreover, while T&H providers are
important gatekeepers in implementing behavioural interventions,
the literature has largely neglected their perspectives in intervention
design (Coghlan et al., 2023). It is crucial to gain insights into the
drivers and barriers faced by providers in facilitating pro-sustainable
behaviour in order to develop mutually beneficial interventions that
are adopted long-term.
1.1 Research Aim and Research Questions
This thesis studies pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in tourism
and hospitality (T&H) settings, drawing insights from tourism and
consumer behaviour theory, as well as behavioural economics. The
aim is to enhance knowledge of the drivers and barriers to pro-
sustainable behaviour in these contexts and offer ways to encourage
such behaviour through behavioural interventions.
The main research question guiding this thesis is:
RQ1: What are the drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable consumer
behaviour in tourism and hospitality settings?
27
While existing research on behavioural interventions in T&H often
focuses on pro-environmental behaviour (Demeter et al., 2023;
Dolnicar, 2020; Greene et al., 2023; Souza-Neto et al., 2022), the
present thesis broadens the scope to include behaviours related to
both social-economic and environmental sustainability dimensions,
collectively termed pro-sustainable behaviour. Pro-sustainable
behaviour is defined here as behaviour that facilitates the sustainable
use of common resources, by enhancing positive impacts or
mitigating negative impacts on these resources (Li et al., 2023). The
focus is specifically on behaviours enacted during the consumption of
products and services at tourism destinations and hospitality
establishments, involving touchpoints with both commercial and
non-commercial providers.
While the primary focus is on consumer behaviour, it is also essential
to examine the drivers and barriers that local T&H providers face in
making pro-sustainable choices more accessible and attractive.
Gaining insights into their perspective is vital for understanding
specific sustainability challenges, identifying relevant interventions
for field experiments, and addressing the overarching research
question of the thesis. This understanding will also enhance practical
contributions to the field. Therefore, the sub-questions for this thesis
are:
RQ2: What are the drivers and barriers for tourism and hospitality providers
in making pro-sustainable options more available and attractive to
consumers?
RQ3: How can behavioural interventions be designed to encourage pro-
sustainable consumer behaviours in tourism and hospitality?
28
Given the complexities of sustainable tourism and consumer
behaviour in diverse settings, this research focuses on two cases in
Sweden, each of which presents distinct sustainability challenges and
target behaviours. The first case is donations for mountain biking
(MTB) trails in Rörbäcksnäs (Dalarna), and the second is climate-
friendly food choices in restaurants in Sälen (Dalarna) and
Stockholm. In both cases, it is impractical to achieve the desired
behaviour change solely through hard policies or educational
measures, which highlights the relevance of behavioural
interventions. Nevertheless, the cases differ notably in target
behaviour and contextual influences.
The first case examines visitor donations for recreational trails in
nature areas, which are necessary to bridge the gap between free
public access to nature and the economic needs of local non-
commercial tourism providers (Heldt, 2005, 2010). The focus is on
Rörbäcksnäs, a rural MTB destination in Dalarna, which illustrates
how insufficient donation funds can hinder the management of
increased trail usage and tourism development. As tourism
development is seen as a means of sustaining and revitalising the
community’s livelihoods – addressing socio-economic and
population declines similar to those faced by many rural areas
(Hedström & Littke, 2011) – the area seeks to leverage its unique
natural resources. By enhancing recreational infrastructure such as
MTB trails, Rörbäcksnäs aims to attract visitors, foster local
entrepreneurship, create jobs, and stimulate other sectors (Fleckhaus
& Heldt, 2022; Øian et al., 2018). Therefore, donation behaviour is a
pertinent pro-sustainable behaviour to study, particularly through
testing behavioural interventions, such as social norm nudges, to
encourage donations in this context.
29
The second case studies food consumption in T&H settings, which
contributes significantly to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
This impact arises primarily from the high volume of meals
consumed in establishments like restaurants and hotels (Gössling et
al., 2015; Landais et al., 2023). The issue is exacerbated by factors such
as the limited availability of climate-friendly meal options and
information, as well as the dominance of self-oriented and hedonic
motives over environmental concerns in out-of-home dining settings
(Claessens et al., 2023; Fechner et al., 2023; Gössling et al., 2011).
While hospitality providers play a crucial role in facilitating more
climate-friendly choices, consumer acceptance is essential (Gössling
et al., 2011; Poore & Nemecek, 2018). This necessitates interventions
that effectively guide consumers towards climate-friendly options
without compromising their experience and business profitability.
The burger and pizza restaurant Leffe’s at Sälen’s Högfjällshotell and
the healthy fast-food restaurant MAHA in Stockholm were suitable
for testing such interventions, specifically carbon labels. These
restaurants were selected due to practical reasons such as industry
collaboration, serving style, size, and location. Additionally, they
offer different food options, customer segments, and management
styles, allowing for meaningful comparisons.
In summary, the two cases highlight distinct sustainability challenges
within the T&H context in Sweden, each carrying broader
implications beyond their immediate scope. By focusing on specific
cases, this thesis aims to enhance the depth, relevance, and practical
applicability of its findings, thereby providing more comprehensive
answers to the research questions. Each case involves two field
experiments designed to test theory-informed interventions, with the
field experimental approach being a critical aspect of this research
30
and its contribution. This approach makes it possible to gain a deeper
understanding of behavioural processes in real-life settings, rather
than merely describing them, and provides relevant practical
recommendations to tackle sustainability problems (Viglia &
Dolnicar, 2020).
As illustrated in Figure 1, the four field experiments constitute four
independent papers. These papers align with the overall thesis aim
and research questions and are integrated with the cover essay (in
Swedish, and hereafter ‘kappa’) to form this thesis. The kappa
synthesises the papers to address the thesis aim, encompassing a
shared introduction, literature review and theoretical framework,
methodological approach, discussion, and conclusions, as detailed in
Section 1.1.1.
Figure 1: Thesis overview
31
This thesis makes three key contributions. Firstly, it contributes to
knowledge on pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H by (a) applying
behavioural theories and concepts that have not been extensively
tested in the selected T&H settings and (b) comparing studied
behaviours across two distinct cases. Secondly, it tests behavioural
interventions for pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H through field-
experiments, offering empirical evidence for their effectiveness.
Thirdly, it contributes to the understanding of collaborative
intervention design and testing by incorporating the perspective of
providers. Practically, these findings can help providers and
policymakers in T&H and other out-of-home consumption domains
develop interventions designed to encourage pro-sustainable
behaviour.
1.1.1 Thesis Outline
This thesis is organised into seven chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the
research problem, the thesis aim, and the overarching research
questions. Chapter 2 discusses the literature and theoretical
background, beginning with a review of sustainability and consumer
behaviour in T&H. The focus then shifts to behavioural change
approaches, particularly behavioural economics and behavioural
interventions. The chapter identifies specific knowledge gaps in pro-
sustainable behaviour and intervention research in T&H, and then
reviews experimental studies on social norm and carbon label
interventions, which present the main interventions explored in the
individual papers. Chapter 3 discusses key theoretical models and
concepts relevant to understanding and changing pro-sustainable
behaviour, establishing a framework for studying pro-sustainable
behaviour in this thesis. Chapter 4 details the materials and methods
used, including my methodological and epistemological positioning
32
in pragmatism and how this guided the choice of mixed methods and
field experiments. This chapter also presents the research design,
including qualitative and quantitative methods, and discusses
limitations and ethical considerations. Chapter 5 summarises the
individual papers that contribute to this thesis. In Chapter 6, the
findings are discussed collectively, drawing comparisons between the
papers and cases and linking them to the broader literature. This
discussion is organised into three sections, each addressing one of the
thesis research questions. Finally, Chapter 7 reconciles the
discussions and answers the research questions, concluding the thesis
with methodological, theoretical, and practical implications. Chapter
7 also highlights the limitations of the thesis and offers suggestions
for future research.
2 Background
This chapter presents the theoretical background for this thesis. It
begins with a review of sustainability in tourism and hospitality
(T&H), including macro-level (the broader tourism system) and
meso-level (the providers’ perspective) aspects, and their connection
to the micro-level, which encompasses consumer behaviour. The
focus then shifts to this consumer level, examining tourist behaviour
and decision-making, and the attitude–behaviour gap in T&H.
Following this, the chapter discusses behavioural change approaches
relevant to pro-sustainable consumption in T&H, emphasising
behavioural economics and behavioural interventions.
2.1 Sustainability in Tourism and Hospitality
The ideas behind sustainable tourism have a long history, but a
comprehensive discussion of the sustainability concept in academia
began in the 1960s (Du Pisani, 2006). This development parallels
33
growing awareness of environmental degradation, resource
depletion, and concerns about the long-term viability of economic
systems (Lane, 2009; Saarinen, 2018; Swarbrooke, 1999). Essentially,
sustainable tourism applies the principles of sustainable development
to the T&H sector, aiming to balance economic growth with social
and environmental responsibility to ensure the long-term viability of
destinations and the industry (Hall & Lew, 1998). The fundamental
goal of sustainable tourism is to ‘meet the needs of present tourists
and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for
the future’ (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987).
Sustainability is vital for T&H because it relies heavily on the well-
being of natural and socio-cultural resources, which are either
directly consumed during T&H activities or used by commercial and
non-commercial providers to create products and services that enable
positive consumer experiences (Fennel & Cooper, 2020). At the same
time, consuming resources, such as water and energy, can deplete
them and disrupt sociocultural dynamics, affecting local communities
and economies (Buckley, 2012; Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2018).
Thus, the relationship between T&H consumption and natural and
socio-cultural resources holds significant importance for their
sustained well-being and the long-term viability of the industry.
Despite its aim to reconcile often competing interests across
economic, socio-cultural, and ecological dimensions (Fennel &
Cooper, 2020), the concept of sustainability faces extensive scrutiny
due to its multidimensional nature, conceptual ambiguities, and
contradictions (Butler, 1991; Saarinen, 2006; Sharpley 2000). The
vagueness of sustainability definitions and the involvement of
diverse stakeholders contribute to uncertainty about the meaning and
34
practical implementation of sustainable tourism, sustainable
development, or sustainable tourism development (Duffy, 2002; Liu,
2003; Spangenberg, 2005). This uncertainty is reflected in the broad
diversity of sustainability literature within T&H, encompassing
various research agendas and methodological approaches.
At the same time, this diversity underscores how sustainability can
function as a ‘boundary object’ – a concept that has been recognised
across different fields but interpreted and applied in various ways
(Star & Griesemer, 1989). As a boundary object, sustainability
provides a common ground for policymakers, practitioners, and
academics from diverse fields, despite their differing perspectives.
Sustainability is flexible enough to be adapted to local needs while
remaining recognisable across different contexts (Favilli et al., 2015).
This adaptability highlights the value of the concept’s broad yet
varied applications, as progress towards sustainability requires
collaboration and innovation across multiple dimensions and
perspectives (Jones et al., 2016). With this understanding, the
following section briefly discusses approaches to advancing
sustainability at different levels, highlighting the drivers and
challenges associated with broader systemic and industry efforts, and
how individual actions are interconnected with larger sustainability
goals.
2.1.1 Sustainability at the Macro, Meso, and Micro
Levels
T&H sustainability is widely recognised as a systemic issue that
requires a comprehensive approach integrating interactions among
stakeholders across macro, meso, and micro scales. Researchers have
focused on responsibilities, drivers, and barriers at each scale to
advance sustainability, highlighting the interdependencies among
35
broad policy frameworks, industry practices, and consumer
behaviours (Dolnicar, 2020; Hall, 2013; Hardy et al., 2002; Hughes &
Morrison-Saunders, 2018; Saarinen, 2006; 2019; Sharpley, 2022).
At the macro scale, scholars have emphasised the importance of
understanding T&H within the broader context of environmental,
socio-cultural, political, and economic structures to develop
integrated solutions that transcend individual sectors or local issues
(e.g., Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010; McCool et al., 2013; Moscardo, 2021).
Such perspectives have conventionally called for structural solutions
implemented by governments (Barr, 2008; Barr et al., 2011).
Governmental and intergovernmental organisations have made
efforts to mitigate tourism’s negative effects while enhancing its
benefits (European Commission, 2003; World Tourism Organisation
[WTO] & United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2005).
Notable among these is the Tourism Agenda 2030, which aligns with
the United Nations’ broader Sustainability Agenda 2030 and
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This framework recognises
the role of tourism in contributing to the SDGs, particularly SDG12
‘Sustainable consumption and production’ (Alonso-Muñoz et al.,
2023).
Despite these global efforts, the sector continues to face escalating
environmental impacts due to the fragmented application of
sustainability goals across different T&H sectors, issues, and
geographic locales (Gössling et al., 2023; Moyle et al., 2020; Nunkoo et
al., 2021; UNWTO, 2022). The broad and often vague definitions of
the SDGs lead to subjective interpretation, which complicates the
adoption of clear national or industry-level actions (Jones et al., 2016;
Rajani & Boluk, 2022). For example, SDG12 lacks specific guidelines
regarding how sustainability can be integrated into consumption and
36
production while maintaining profitability, which poses a core
challenge within the current capitalist framework (Jones et al., 2016).
To address these challenges, there has been considerable research into
how meso-level actors, including commercial and non-commercial
T&H providers, can effectively implement sustainable practices (e.g.,
Hardy et al., 2002; Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2018; Ruhanen,
2013; Saarinen, 2019). The main sustainability imperative at this level
is to maintain natural and socio-cultural resources to continue
providing pleasurable consumer experiences for social and economic
benefits (Jones et al., 2016). Given that resources are not always
owned by commercial providers like hotels or restaurants, a
considerable amount of work has focused on community-based or
rural tourism development, where residents may be directly involved
in T&H provision (Jia et al., 2022; Lee & Jan, 2019; Okazaki, 2008;
Pasanchay & Schott, 2021).
From a resident’s perspective, tourism development can be a viable
path to socioeconomic revitalisation in rural areas by generating jobs,
encouraging infrastructure improvements, and preserving local
traditions and resources (Paraskevaidis & Andriotis, 2017; Saarinen,
2019; Øian et al., 2018). Nature-based activities have garnered
particular policy and research attention in countries like Sweden,
reflecting the potential for residents to promote local resources like
forests, trails, and the identity of a place, generating shared value for
themselves, visitors, and the community (Madanaguli et al., 2023;
Porter & Kramer, 2011).
However, using tourism for development in rural areas also presents
challenges, including revenue insufficiency, inequitable benefit
distribution, environmental impacts, and social costs on residents,
37
such as disruptions to traditional lifestyles and values (Chuang, 2010;
Kaltenborn et al., 2001; Marion et al., 2016). These challenges are
exacerbated when increasing visitor numbers and demands put
pressure on local resources, potentially necessitating new policy
measures to manage tourism. This can create conflicts between
stakeholders and the depletion of the very resources that attract
visitors (Sandell & Fredman, 2010).
Despite the diverse themes concerning the role of residents and
communities in sustainable T&H, most meso-level research has
adopted a managerial perspective to understand how sustainability,
particularly the environmental dimension, influences business and
destination development strategies (Cavalcante et al., 2021; Eckert &
Pechlaner, 2019; Pulido-Fernández et al., 2019) and competitiveness
(Cucculelli & Goffi, 2016; Iraldo et al., 2017; Sakshi et al., 2020;
Streimikiene et al., 2020). Research often focuses on major commercial
providers like hotels and airlines and their adoption of technologies
and management practices to enhance operational efficiencies (Hall et
al., 2016; Jones et al., 2016).
T&H providers are increasingly expected to align their operations
with sustainable practices as part of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) initiatives. This shift is driven by changing environmental and
social regulations, increased sustainability awareness among the
public and shareholders, and concerns about the cost and availability
of natural resources (Kotler & Lee, 2005; Mak & Chang, 2019).
Adopting less socially and environmentally harmful practices and
products is now considered not only a differentiation strategy but
often a prerequisite in the highly competitive T&H environment
(Font & McCabe, 2017; Futtrup & Grunert, 2023; Truong & Hall, 2017;
Visser, 2007). Literature and industry experience have highlighted the
38
various drivers and barriers for businesses and destinations in
implementing effective pro-sustainable practices (Iraldo et al., 2017;
Leonidou et al., 2013; Madanaguli et al., 2023; Namkung & Jang, 2013;
Rhou & Singal, 2020).
While T&H providers are increasingly incorporating sustainability
into their marketing strategies in response to public pressure and
consumers’ stated demand for more sustainable options, CSR and
sustainability management face varied interpretations (Falk &
Hagsten, 2024; Pollack, 2023). A significant challenge in this context is
‘greenwashing’ or ‘CSR-washing’, where businesses deceptively
promote themselves as environmentally and socially responsible to
attract customers and enhance their public image (Jones et al., 2016).
Although many T&H providers publicly commit to sustainability,
their efforts often focus on short-term initiatives that offer direct
economic benefits through increased efficiencies and reduced
operational costs, such as through energy savings (Baloglu et al.,
2020; Dolnicar et al., 2019; Hall et al., 2016; Molina-Azorín et al., 2015;
Namkung & Jang, 2013). Comprehensive, sustained sustainability
practices require committed management and employees, along with
adequate resource allocation, as marketing and financial benefits are
typically realised only in the medium to long term (George & Frey,
2010; Pender & Sharpley, 2004).
The inadequacy of sustainability initiatives in T&H is further
exacerbated by constraints such as a lack of knowledge and skills,
regulatory and cultural contexts, financial pressures, and limited
resources, especially among small-scale businesses (Bramwell &
Lane, 2011; Hall et al., 2016; Leonidou et al., 2013). Another
significant concern is the potential compromise of consumer
experience when integrating sustainability practices, due to reduced
39
comfort and convenience or inducing negative emotions like guilt
(Font et al., 2017; Sirieix et al., 2017). Promoting such practices can
also lead to increased scrutiny and negative customer reactions if
there is a perceived lack of credibility and trust. This has led some
providers to understate their sustainability efforts; a phenomenon
known as ‘greenhushing’ (Ettinger et al., 2021; Kahle & Gural-Atay,
2014; Kim & Kim, 2014). This reticence hampers the ability of
consumers to effectively assess the sustainability impacts of providers
and make informed pro-sustainable choices.
However, recent research on service-dominant logic (SDL) and value
co-creation suggests that sustainability communication can enhance
customer value (Bordian et al., 2024; Font et al., 2021; Trabandt et al.,
2024). SDL in the T&H industry defines value co-creation as an
interactive process that involves both the providers’ interest and the
consumer’s participation in shaping their experiences (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004, 2017). According to this perspective, the value of
sustainability in T&H depends not only on the inherent attributes of
products or their sustainability certification but also on the
behavioural and emotional benefits that the customer experiences,
making it individual and context-specific. By aligning sustainability
efforts with customer values and highlighting the benefits of
sustainable offerings, providers can enhance consumer perceptions,
add value to their experiences, and differentiate their products and
services in the marketplace (Font et al., 2021; Iraldo et al., 2017; Smith
& Colgate, 2007).
In addition to the economic benefits of effective sustainable practices,
including enhanced brand perception (Namkung & Jang, 2013),
customer loyalty (Kim & Hall, 2020), and financial performance
(Llach et al., 2013), adopting environmental initiatives can foster
40
awareness, knowledge, and sustainable values within T&H
operations (Knežević Cvelbar et al., 2022). A small body of literature
has explored the role of hospitality employees in environmental
business practices (Chou, 2014; Knežević Cvelbar et al., 2022; Pham et
al., 2019; Su & Swanson, 2019; Zhang et al., 2021), highlighting that
perceived organisational commitment to CSR can positively influence
employees’ pro-environmental engagement at work (Cantor et al.,
2012; Raineri & Paillé, 2016), potentially spilling over to PEB outside
of work (Jaich et al., 2022), and enhance their positive emotions, sense
of belonging, and involvement in decision-making (Liu et al., 2021).
Therefore, ensuring such commitment is crucial for fostering
employee engagement and credibly conveying value proposition
messages to consumers, thus co-creating sustainability value (Font et
al., 2021).
Following the above, T&H providers face unique challenges with
regard to adopting sustainable offerings, particularly in balancing the
need to maintain high-quality consumer experiences while remaining
economically viable (Jones et al., 2016; Moeller et al., 2022).
Recognising that governmental or industry initiatives may have
undesirable rebound effects unless consumption behaviour also
changes, recent emphasis has shifted towards the role of individual
consumers in mitigating sustainability problems (Barr et al., 2011;
Dolnicar et al., 2019; Leonidou et al., 2013; Mak & Chang, 2019).
At the micro-level, consumers harm the environment and society
through various T&H-related commercial and non-commercial
activities, such as excessive energy and water consumption in hotels
(Gössling et al. 2019; Warren & Becken, 2017), overindulgent and
wasteful food consumption (Dolnicar et al., 2020; Gössling et al.,
2011), carbon-intensive transportation (Becken, 2007; Tyers, 2018),
41
and degradation of natural areas through trampling or littering
(Buckley, 2008; Eriksson et al., 2023; Godtman Kling et al., 2017). The
cumulative impact of these individual choices contributes
significantly to local and global sustainability issues, including strain
on local infrastructure and climate change (Lenzen et al., 2018; Scott
et al., 2012). This underscores the point that individuals also possess
significant agency to reduce their impacts or benefit the environment
and society through their consumption choices (UNWTO, 2007).
Terms like ‘sustainable’, ‘responsible’, ‘ethical’, ‘pro-social’,
‘environmentally friendly’, ‘green’, and ‘pro-environmental’ describe
consumption behaviours that entail higher consideration for the
environment and society (Dolnicar & Long, 2009; George & Frey,
2010; Johnstone & Lindh, 2017; Juvan & Dolnicar, 206; Wang et al.,
2023; Weeden, 2013; for reviews, see Chandran et al., 2021; López-
Sánchez & Pulido-Fernández, 2019). While these terms often overlap
and are used interchangeably, many focus primarily on
environmental sustainability (e.g., Dolnicar, 2020; Han et al., 2015;
Wang et al., 2023). T&H research has largely concentrated on this
dimension through pro-environmental behaviour (PEB), which aims
to minimise the negative or maximise the positive impacts on the
natural environment (Budovska et al., 2020; Dolnicar et al., 2019;
Goldstein et al., 2008; Knežević Cvelbar et al., 2017). Less attention
has been given to consumer behaviour related to social sustainability
(Moscardo & Murphy, 2016), economic sustainability (Sakdiyakorn et
al., 2021), or cultural sustainability (Chandran et al., 2021; Iaquinto,
2015; Ji et al., 2023; Salinero et al., 2022).
Non-selfish behaviours oriented towards others or the environment
are sometimes collectively termed pro-social behaviour (De Groot &
Steg, 2009; Dunfield, 2014; Moscardo & Murphy, 2016). Given the
42
interconnected nature of environmental and social benefits, and
considering that this thesis is concerned with behaviours more
related to socio-economic sustainability (donations) and
environmental sustainability (food choices), pro-sustainable
behaviour is used herein as the overarching term. This encompasses
behaviour that facilitates sustainable use of common resources by
contributing to positive impacts or reducing negative impacts on
these resources. Considering the various influences driving such
behaviour and stakeholders involved, pro-sustainable behaviour is
locally and temporally defined (Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2018).
Although increasing research interest and awareness of sustainability
challenges may suggest that consumers seek out and support pro-
sustainable options, a growing body of research along with real-life
evidence shows that expressed demand often does not match actual
behaviour (e.g., Bollani et al., 2019; Dolnicar et al., 2008; Feucht &
Zander, 2018). Consumers continue to overuse or misuse resources in
T&H, even more so than in other contexts (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b;
Dolnicar, 2020; Miao & Wei, 2013). Addressing this challenge requires
an understanding of the underlying factors that encourage or inhibit
pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H (Han, 2021).
2.2 Consumer Behaviour in Tourism and
Hospitality
Consumer behaviour in T&H has been studied extensively from
various sociological, economic, and psychological perspectives
(Cohen et al., 2014; Gnoth, 1997; Juvan et al., 2017; Mannell & Iso-
Ahola, 1987; McCabe et al., 2016; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005).
A noteworthy research stream examines consumer behaviour in T&H
through a sociological lens, focusing on how social norms,
43
institutions, and cultural meanings shape tourists’ roles and
behaviours (Bargeman & Richards, 2020; Ryan, 2002; Swarbrooke,
1999). This perspective is also relevant for understanding pro-
sustainable behaviour, particularly through practice theory (e.g., Barr
et al., 2010; Cohen et al., 2013; Kantenbacher et al., 2017; Shove &
Spurling, 2013; Verbeek & Mommas, 2008). Practice theory views
consumption as being embedded within social practices that evolve
from and reproduce shared understandings of appropriate
behaviour, such as how a hotel guest should act. These practices are
further shaped by broader infrastructures, systems of provision, and
cultural factors (Coghlan et al., 2023; Gowdy, 2008; Heiskanen &
Laakso, 2019; Pedwell, 2017).
While practice-based approaches provide a valuable lens for
analysing the deeper roots of behaviour by examining the broader
societal context, most consumer behaviour research in T&H is rooted
in psychology. The psychological approach interprets behaviour as
both ‘observable activities and the mental processes resulting from
and guiding social life’ (Pearce, 2005, p.1) and uses psychological
theories to understand how consumers perceive, interpret, and
respond to various stimuli in T&H contexts (Han, 2021). This
perspective is valuable for identifying and empirically testing specific
drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable behaviour, such as attitudes,
beliefs, and norms, which is central to this thesis.
Early consumer behaviour models, both general (e.g., Engel et al.,
1995; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Lilien & Kotler, 1983) and tourist-
specific (Mathieson & Wall, 182; Moutinho, 1987; Sirakaya &
Woodside, 2005; Weeden, 2013), offer insights into various
psychological elements of behaviour and typically depict consumers
as rational decision-makers, whose decisions progress from attitude
44
to intention and, ultimately, behaviour (Fishbein, 1963). However, the
applicability of mainstream consumer theories to T&H, especially
regarding pro-sustainable behaviour, has been extensively
questioned (Cohen et al., 2014).
Tourism is distinct from other consumption settings such as retail
because the central phase of the consumption process is typically an
intangible experience with highly hedonic characteristics (Budeanu,
2007; Cohen et al., 2014; Juvan et al., 2017). While this also applies to
other experience contexts, like general restaurants (Edwards, 2013;
Fechner et al., 2023), or events (Alba & Williams, 2012; Moura &
Hattula, 2024), this distinction is exacerbated by the spatially distant
and unfamiliar nature of tourism, which inevitably influences
behaviour (Gnoth, 1997; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b; Mannell & Iso-
Ahola, 1987). Although consumer behaviour theories have developed
to account for the specifics of T&H, no single theory can fully explain
every consumer behaviour within the vast array of T&H contexts
(Weeden, 2013). Nevertheless, the extensive body of theories
significantly informs our current understanding of consumer
behaviour in T&H, providing a foundation for further exploration
(Crouch et al., 2004; Han, 2021).
The following sections draw on tourism and consumer literature to
provide insights into the characteristics of tourism consumption and
the psychological factors influencing decisions in this context,
particularly within the central phase of the consumption process.
Given that this topic is broad, I have focused on what are considered
the most pertinent concepts related to the research aim. These
insights will later form a basis for understanding the relevance of
some of the mainstream theories of human behaviour in T&H and for
studying the drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable behaviour.
45
2.2.1 Tourist Behaviour
Tourism decision-making processes, choice, and behaviour are
intricately connected phenomena that collectively shape individuals’
experiences. Extensive research on tourist choice and decision-
making has highlighted the inherent complexity of these processes
(McCabe et al., 2016; Sirakaya & Woodside 2005). Tourists’ decision-
making – the cognitive process of choosing between different courses
of action – involves many continuously occurring sub-decisions,
which culminate in choices ranging from tourism-specific choices,
such as selecting a destination, to everyday choices like meals while
on holiday (Smallman & Moore, 2010). Influenced by a range of
contextual factors such as social influences, information, and
infrastructure as well as psychological factors like attitudes,
motivations, and perceptions, tourists’ choices manifest in different
actions, reactions, and interactions; that is, behaviour (McCabe et al.,
2016).
The complexity of tourist behaviour (or consuming while being a
tourist) is further amplified by the hedonic and unfamiliar elements
involved in decision-making as individuals leave and return to their
homes, signifying notable psychological, social, and economic
distinctions from other consumption behaviours (Cohen et al., 2014;
Juvan et al., 2017). Scholars have made numerous attempts to
conceptualise the determinants, phases, and influencing factors
involved in tourist behaviour, often focusing on specific constructs
such as needs, motivations, or values (for reviews, see, e.g., Sirakaya
& Woodside, 2005; Smallman & Moore 2010).
Tourist behaviour is commonly considered a response to felt needs,
along with constraints, available information, personal preferences,
interests, and values (Gnoth, 1997; Middleton & Clarke, 2001; Pearce,
46
2014). According to Gnoth’s (1997) model of tourism motivation and
expectation formation, certain needs, such as the need to relax, can be
stimulated externally and internally, establishing themselves as urges
that organise an individual’s thoughts. These urges then stimulate
motives, representing the reason behind specific behaviour. Motives
also signify goals, such as relaxation, which refers to the desired
outcomes or benefits that tourists aim to achieve through their
holidays or activities. By way of situational parameters like time and
money, motives set the stage for the motivation process, which allows
motives to be expressed differently by individuals, such as through
different holiday or activity choices. The motivation process includes
cognitive elements such as mental representations, knowledge and
beliefs, as well as emotions, encompassing drives, feelings, and
instincts. Cognitive elements and emotions both play a role in
tourists’ motivation processes and objectives, influencing the
selection of different decision-making strategies in diverse contexts
(McCabe et al., 2016). However, there is a distinction in the level of
control that tourists exert over them. Like many other tourism
scholars (e.g., Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Goossens, 1998; Malone et al.,
2014; Pearce, 2009), Gnoth (1997) emphasised the importance of
emotions in holiday tourism, considering its focus on pleasure-
seeking.
Following the above, goals and motives are considered dispositions
that emerge when stimulated by felt needs or desires, motivating
behaviour when connected to the given situation and the individual’s
value system. These goals and motives act as the primary criteria for
expectations when individuals decide to engage in a behaviour,
playing a central role in assessing the value of, and satisfaction with,
the resulting experience (Holbrook, 1999; Pearce, 1982). Given the
47
multidimensional and dynamic nature of a tourist’s needs, motives,
goals, and expectations, the functional and psychological outcomes
derived from their experience are also diverse. Holbrook (2006)
conceptualised these outcomes as experiential or ‘second-order’ and
perceived values, specifically as ‘interactive, relativistic, preference
experiences’ (p. 715). In this framework, values are seen as subjective
and dynamic, dependent on the situation and a person’s goals, and
multidimensional since one can simultaneously experience various
hedonistic, social, aesthetic, or other factors, contributing to a
multidimensional experience (Gallarza & Gil, 2008).
While this experiential perspective focuses on perceived value as a
dynamic interplay between consumers and their consumption
contexts, the importance of these perceived values for individuals lies
in their connection to higher-order personal values (Gallarza & Gil,
2008; Rokeach, 1973). Higher-order personal values are understood as
positive or negative ideals that serve as guiding principles in people’s
lives and direct judgments about desirable behavioural outcomes
(Passafaro & Vecchione, 2022; Schwartz & Howard, 1981). From a
marketing perspective, personal values are commonly explored in
connection with product attributes and consumer benefits to
understand how consumers translate product features into
meaningful outcomes, shedding light on the cognitive processes that
underlie decision-making. For instance, the Means-End Hierarchy
(Gutman, 1982; Woodruff & Gardial, 1996) conceptualises how
consumers link product or service attributes (such as eco-friendly
materials) to expected outcomes or benefits, which are, in turn,
connected to higher-order values (such as environmental
responsibility) (Woodruff, 1997).
48
Similarly, Gnoth (1997) viewed tourists’ higher-order values as
chosen behavioural rules to fulfil needs, which are achieved either by
adjusting the environment to meet those needs or by adapting oneself
to the environment. In tourism, it can be inferred that consumers
typically select an environment that aligns with their values and
preferences (Gnoth, 1997). Moreover, Crick-Furman and Prentice
(2000) proposed a ‘contextual and situational nature of values’ in the
tourism context. According to this view, tourists are not solely
directed by their universally held values but also by context-specific
values while on holiday. Although this perspective reinforces the
contextual influence of tourism on behaviour, personal values, unlike
goals, motives, or expectations, are more commonly viewed as
relatively stable and transcending situations (Gallarza et al., 2021;
Holbrook, 1999).
Although tourism consumption can hold multiple goals at any given
time, it is widely accepted that the primary goal is personal
enjoyment (Cohen et al., 2014; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b; Prebensen et
al., 2014). The value derived from personal pleasure in the
consumption experiences itself is called ‘hedonic experiential value’
(Holbrook, 2006). Another common goal for tourists is escapism,
which reflects a desire to derive intrinsic value from escaping routine,
everyday responsibilities and problems (Krippendorf, 1987; Mannell
& Iso-Ahola, 1987). While escapism is often directly linked to
hedonism in tourism, there is less support for linkages between
hedonism and Holbrook’s (2006) other value: ethics (Gallarza et al.,
2021). In a consumer context, ethics is often associated with pro-
sustainable behaviour, guiding involvement in practices that entail
concern for how one’s consumption behaviour affects others.
However, this does not imply that pro-sustainable behaviour is
49
solely, or even primarily, driven by ethics. While pro-sustainable
behaviour suggests that the behaviour is not performed for personal
rewards per se, selfish motives can also drive such behaviour.
Intrinsic, potentially subconscious motives, such as the desire to
experience a ‘warm glow’, to avoid negative self-evaluation and guilt,
the desire for social approval, or even automatic responses may drive
such behaviours (del Río-Vázquez et al., 2019; Gallarza et al., 2021;
Malone et al., 2014; Saito, 2015).
Nevertheless, the alignment between escapism or hedonic self-
oriented motives and ethical ones in tourism has been widely
questioned (Dolnicar et al., 2019; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b; MacInnes
et al., 2022). Some literature, which has focused on transformative
tourism experiences, has viewed tourism as an opportunity for
‘positive change in attitudes and values’ (Christie & Mason, 2003, p.
9). This perspective arises from the notion that tourism involves new
encounters facilitating new behaviours, such as pro-environmental
behaviours (PEBs) (Wolf et al., 2017) or solidary behaviour
(Grabowski et al., 2017; Pung et al., 2020). Notably, such research has
predominantly focused on alternative types of tourism, like volunteer
tourism, which often involves more sustainability-oriented segments
(Coghlan & Gooch, 2011; Coghlan & Weiler, 2018; Malone et al.,
2014). Moreover, while transformative tourism experiences hold
potential for long-term behavioural changes, research in this field
highlights that the impact of transformative triggers varies among
individuals and may diminish once they return home (Pung et al.,
2020).
More commonly, T&H literature emphasises that selfish motives in
tourism tend to override or clash with consumers’ ethical concerns
for society and the planet, hindering engagement in pro-sustainable
50
behaviours (Dolnicar et al., 2019; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b; MacInnes
et al., 2022). Research has increasingly noted a gap between
consumers’ pro-sustainable behaviour at home as opposed to when
on holiday and has offered different reasons for this gap, providing a
foundation for a deeper understanding of pro-sustainable behaviour
in T&H and identifying potential levers to change.
2.2.2 The Attitude–Behaviour Gap
The ‘Attitude–Behaviour Gap’, also known as the ‘Ethical Purchasing
Gap’, the ‘Value–Action Gap’, or the ‘Intention–Behaviour Gap’ refers
to the disconnect between individual’s expressed awareness,
intention, or concern for the environment and society, and their
actual pro-sustainable behaviour. While this gap has been
documented across various fields of consumption (Bray et al., 2010;
Eckhardt et al., 2010; Nicholls & Lee, 2006; Nieto-Garcia et al., 2024;
Tasci et al., 2021) it is particularly pronounced in T&H, where,
despite growing awareness and concern for sustainable options,
actual consumer behaviours often lag behind stated intentions (Barr
et al., 2010; Holmes et al., 2021; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b).
Understanding this gap involves examining both the systematic
differences among individuals and how engagement in pro-
sustainable behaviour varies across contexts (Dolnicar & Grün, 2008).
Research on the attitude–behaviour gap has traditionally focused on
identifying socio-demographic and psychographic characteristics that
either facilitate or impede different pro-sustainable consumption
behaviours (e.g., Dolnicar & Grün, 2008; Dolnicar & Leisch, 2008; Jain
& Kaur, 2006; Larson et al., 2019; Mohr et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019;
Verain et al., 2012). A substantial body of research has found that
differences in variables, such as age, education, and income level, are
influencers of general and T&H-related pro-sustainable behaviours
51
like public transportation, food waste reduction, sustainable food
consumption, or eco-tourism activities (Dimitri & Dettmann, 2012;
Dolnicar, 2010; Jain & Kaur, 2006; Mota-Gutierrez et al., 2024; Patel et
al., 2017). However, findings related to socio-demographic factors
also show considerable ambiguity and conflict (Bray et al., 2010;
Dolnicar, 2010; Tasci et al., 2021).
For instance, while education level is often associated with greater
knowledge about sustainability issues, it may not significantly
predict destination-based pro-sustainable tourist behaviour
(Dolnicar, 2010; Moeller et al., 2011) and it influences different
behaviours in different ways (Whitmarsh & O’Neil, 2010).
Concerning age, while younger consumers may exhibit high
environmental awareness, practical barriers such as cost and
convenience often deter them from making pro-environmental
choices (Naderi & Steenburg, 2018). Conversely, older segments
might engage in more sustainable tourism activities (Dolnicar, 2004;
McKercher et al., 2010), even though this could be related to higher
discretionary spending and time associated with these activities
(Dolnicar, 2010).
Furthermore, inconsistent empirical findings regarding the influence
of income level on pro-sustainable consumption suggest that it is
often linked to the financial cost of the behaviour (Balderjahn et al.,
2018; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2017; Moeller et al., 2011; Pedrini & Ferri,
2014). While consumers tend to patronise pro-sustainable offerings
like environmentally friendly accommodation or food, they are often
unwilling to pay more for them (Bhaskaran et al., 2006; Bollani et al.,
2019; Manaktola & Jauhari, 2007; Pulido-Fernández & López-Sánchez,
2016). Thus, while socio-demographic variables provide some
insights into potential mediating or moderating factors, they are not,
52
by themselves, able to fully explain the attitude–behaviour gap in
T&H.
Given the variability in pro-sustainable behaviour among different
socio-demographic segments (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2017), researchers
have increasingly turned to psychographic variables for a more
comprehensive understanding. Survey studies have identified several
psychological constructs influencing general and tourism-related pro-
sustainable behaviours, particularly PEBs, such as problem
awareness, internal attribution, social norms, guilt, perceived
behavioural control, attitudes, moral norms, and intentions (Bamberg
& Möser, 2007; Hines et al., 1987; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2011; Song et
al., 2023). The importance of values (e.g., Gao et al., 2016; Hedlund et
al., 2012; Passafore & Vecchione, 2022; Schultz et al., 2005),
personality variables (Balderjahn, 1988; Harland et al., 2014;
Shackelford, 2006), and self-identity processes (Clayton & Opotow,
2003; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010), has also been emphasised,
although their relevance varies across PEBs.
Overall, segmentation studies indicate that different consumer
segments exhibit varied inclinations towards pro-sustainable choices,
despite widespread sustainability awareness (Dolnicar & Leisch,
2008; Dolnicar, 2010). However, the plethora of psychological
constructs and their often-varying influence also underscore the
complexity of understanding pro-sustainable behaviour and suggest
the influence of further, situational, factors. By concentrating mostly
on intentions at the pre-consumption stage using self-reported
behaviour through surveys (Tasci et al., 2021; Verain et al., 2012),
segmentation studies are prone to recall and social desirability bias
and lack the necessary context to provide a more comprehensive
53
understanding of the attitude–behaviour gap (Cerri et al., 2019; Webb
& Sheeran, 2006).
Recognising these limitations, there has been a pivotal shift in
research toward exploring contextual factors that may encourage or
hinder pro-sustainable behaviour (Barr et al., 2010; Mehmetoglu,
2010). Although research on cross-contextual spillover of pro-
sustainable behaviours is still emerging, existing studies demonstrate
that individuals’ behaviour can vary significantly depending on the
context, despite their general dispositions (Holmes et al., 2021; Juvan
& Dolnicar, 2014b; Xu et al., 2020). This variability underscores the
need for advocates of pro-sustainable consumption in T&H to not
only target different segments but also understand and integrate
contextual factors when aiming to change behaviour.
2.2.2.1 The Attitude–Behaviour Gap in Tourism and Hospitality
Although the distinct characteristics of tourism contexts were
recognised early (Crompton, 1979; Gnoth 1997; Mannell & Iso-Ahola,
1987), studies on the attitude–behaviour gap only emerged within
sustainable tourism literature in the 1990s (Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002; Watkins, 1994). One of the earliest studies to address this issue
was conducted by Watkins (1994), who examined US travellers’
attitudes towards accommodation providers implementing
environmental strategies. The study revealed that around three-
quarters of participants considered themselves sustainable
consumers, but only around half considered themselves sustainable
travellers, suggesting that ‘Environmental consciousness hasn’t taken
hold as strongly in travel as in other activities’ (Watkins, 1994, p.70).
Similarly, Wearing et al.’s (2002) study on international backpackers
in Australia concluded that the relationship between environmental
54
awareness, intention, and behaviour ‘becomes even more fragile once
the tourist leaves his or her home country’ (p.144).
Subsequent research has provided consistent evidence for the
attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable tourism, primarily concerning
PEBs (Barr et al., 2010; Holmes et al., 2021; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b;
Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Miao & Wei, 2013; Miller et al., 2015).
For example, Miao and Wei’s (2013) survey study of US citizens
found that participants displayed more PEB in private lifestyle and
household activities than in hotel settings. Barr et al. (2011) found
support for these findings in a UK study that showed that
participants seemingly committed to PEB at home struggled to
transfer these behaviours to tourism contexts. Similarly, Juvan and
Dolnicar’s (2014) interview study found that even tourists who
engaged in environmentalism at home and were aware of the
negative environmental impacts of tourism participated in
environmentally harmful tourism activities. Further studies, such as
those by Miller et al. (2015), confirmed that PEBs, including green
food consumption, tend to decline when people are on holiday
compared to when they are at home. Schrems and Upham (2020) also
highlighted this gap in the context of academic air travel among
sustainability scientists who, despite believing that scientists should
lead by example, still averaged several flights yearly.
The evidence strongly suggests that individuals exhibit significantly
more PEBs at home compared to a holiday context, underscoring the
gap between environmental awareness, attitude, or intention and
actual behaviour. In response to these findings, researchers have
delved deeper into understanding the various factors that drive or
hinder pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H, aiming to identify those
contributing to the attitude–behaviour gap (e.g., Barr et al., 2010;
55
Dodds & Holmes, 2023; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b; Holmes et al., 2021;
Ropret Homar & Knežević Cvelbar, 2023; Tölkes, 2020). Numerous
possible reasons for this gap have been identified, as detailed by
Juvan and Dolnicar (2021, p. 2). These reasons include: perceptions
that there are no behavioural alternatives and that other societal or
environmental issues are more important (Becken & Hay, 2007);
considering holidays as a time for relaxation and escape from
everyday responsibilities (Barr et al., 2010; Wearing et al., 2002); lack
of information required to make sustainable vacation choices (Juvan
& Dolnicar, 2014a); inconvenience or a lack of infrastructure while on
holiday (Baker et al., 2014; Wearing et al., 2002); carbon offsets or
trading off PEB at home with less environmentally friendly holiday
behaviour (Becken & Hay, 2007); trusting in technological solutions to
solve environmental problems (Gössling et al., 2009); emphasising the
positive socio-economic benefits of tourism (Becken & Hay, 2007);
externalising the impacts of behaviour and deflecting responsibility
(Barr et al., 2010; Dolnicar et al., 2019; Gössling et al., 2009; Jackson et
al., 1996); and arguing that individual behaviour is insignificant in
view of overall challenges (Gössling et al., 2009; Juvan & Dolnicar,
2021).
These stated reasons generally link to individual dispositions (such as
laziness), responsibility (for example, a lack of trust), and practicality
(such as a lack of money and information) (Blake, 1999; Dolnicar et
al., 2010; Grilli & Curtis, 2021), with a strong emphasis on the distinct
context of tourism consumption. Most reasons are associated with
self-oriented motives, such as enjoyment and escape, conflicting with
sustainability actions, as well as a perceived lack of personal
responsibility and control as a tourist. In line with the emphasis on
positive emotions over cognitive elements in tourists’ decision-
56
making processes (Gnoth, 1997), this finding suggests that the
hedonic and liminal nature of tourism contexts, being outside
people’s usual environments and social norms, makes them less
inclined to engage in conscious, compromising behavioural changes.
Similar attitude–behaviour gaps have been noted in out-of-home
dining settings, such as cafés and restaurants, where consumers tend
to indulge in less sustainable options (such as meat) than they do in a
home context (Biermann & Rau, 2020; Horgan et al., 2019). While
consumers may express a preference for products that benefit the
environment (Miller, 2018), they are often reluctant to compromise on
comfort and enjoyment in exceptional out-of-home contexts and may
be less familiar with the consequences of their behaviour, particularly
as tourists (Baker et al., 2014).
A noteworthy limitation in research on the attitude–behaviour gap in
T&H is the reliance on self-reported behaviour or intentions,
sometimes gathered through interviews or focus groups (Barr et al.,
2010; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014) and often through surveys (Holmes et
al., 2021; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2021; Mehmetoglu, 2010; Xu et al. 2020)
rather than measurements of actual behaviour. Although comparing
people’s attitudes and actual behaviour at home to holidays presents
methodological challenges, this reliance on self-reporting can
introduce social desirability and selection bias, with people who are
more interested in sustainability being more likely to participate
(Cerri et al., 2019; Viglia et al., 2024). Moreover, surveys on the
attitude–behaviour gap lack nuanced consideration of the specific
T&H context, especially with most research relating to PEBs in hotels,
which raises questions about the applicability of findings to different
T&H settings and behaviours (Nieto-García et al., 2024).
Nevertheless, the substantial evidence of the attitude–behaviour gap
57
indicates that pro-sustainable choices are generally not being made
salient, appealing, or relevant enough to consumers within T&H
contexts.
Before discussing the psychological theories and models that may
explain some of the stated reasons behind this gap, the following
sections examine behavioural change approaches to pro-sustainable
behaviour in general consumption contexts and their applicability in
T&H. After providing a broad overview of hard and soft policy
approaches, I focus on behavioural interventions, including the
different types therein and their relevance to pro-sustainable
behaviour in T&H, specifically in the context of this thesis.
2.3 Approaches to Promote Pro-Sustainable
Behaviour
Different behavioural change approaches can be employed to
promote pro-sustainable consumer behaviour. Each approach is
based on distinct assumptions about the factors that influence
behaviour, both in general and specifically within the context of T&H
(Grilli & Curtis, 2019; Hall, 2013). Broadly, these approaches can be
divided into hard policies, which aim to enforce behaviour change
through regulatory or financial interventions, and soft policies, which
encompass voluntary initiatives, guidelines, or campaigns to
encourage behaviour change (Lynn & Oldenquist, 1986; Testa et al.,
2018).
In the early stages of research on behavioural change in sustainable
T&H, there was a strong focus on hard policies (Hall, 2013). These
policies are based on the standard economic understanding of
rational choice, which posits that individuals make decisions based
on known and consistent preferences and with a full understanding
58
of available options to maximise their utility, considering factors like
pleasure and financial gain (Mertens et al., 2021; Neumann &
Morgenstern, 2007; Sinclair & Stabler, 1997). Accordingly, this
perspective assumes that individuals act primarily in their self-
interest, which can lead to overuse or misuse of resources because
individuals derive higher personal utility from ‘free-riding’, even
though cooperation could benefit everyone (Bimonte, 2008). To
incentivise individuals to opt for more sustainable alternatives, hard
policies make undesirable choices more expensive and less
convenient; for instance, through carbon taxes on products with high
greenhouse gas emissions or mandatory entrance fees to natural areas
(Hall, 2013).
While hard policies are powerful tools for inducing behaviour change
among consumers, and rational choice assumptions still influence
much of the research on pro-sustainable behaviour (Li et al., 2023),
these policies and assumptions have limitations in terms of fully
understanding pro-sustainable behaviour and addressing complex
sustainability challenges in T&H on their own (Acuti et al., 2022;
Bimonte, 2008, 2016). These limitations include practical, legal, and
ideological challenges. For example, in countries like Sweden, the
right of public access prevents the enforcement of entrance fees for
natural areas (Kaltenborn et al., 2001). Hard policies might also
unevenly burden specific groups like residents, fail to differentiate
between those already practising pro-sustainable behaviours and
those who are not, and risk resistance or backlash if long-term
benefits are not clearly communicated (Bimonte, 2008, 2013).
Furthermore, these interventions can reduce competitiveness for
destinations or T&H providers by increasing costs or limiting
consumer choices. Thus, while hard policies are essential in some
59
sustainability areas, particularly where voluntary actions alone are
insufficient to mitigate urgent challenges, it is critical to recognise
their limitations in order to develop comprehensive sets of strategies
that encourage pro-sustainable behavioural change in different
settings.
Soft policies are typically more flexible, targeting voluntary
behaviour change, and can encourage individuals to readily adopt
the behaviours prescribed by hard policies or even surpass their
objectives (Osman & Nelson, 2019; Testa et al., 2018). These policies
involve a variety of tools such as education, social, marketing and
nudging, as discussed further in the following section. However,
research in T&H has conventionally underscored the importance of
raising awareness and educating consumers and the industry about
the environmental impacts of their activities to promote pro-
sustainable behaviour (Hall, 2016; Moscardo, 1998; Packer &
Ballantyne, 2013; WTO & UNEP, 2005). This traditional soft policy
approach draws on cognitive behavioural models like the Theory of
Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985), which are essentially also rooted in
rational choice, suggesting that individuals engage in deliberate
decision-making processes, based on reflection of personal beliefs,
values, attitudes, and norms. Accordingly, traditional soft policy
interventions aim to make the long-term consequences of behaviour
more visible through educational efforts, intending to shift attitudes
and intentions towards pro-sustainable behaviour (Heiskanen &
Laakso, 2019; Mertens et al., 2021).
Social marketing (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971) also falls within the realm
of soft policy tools. By leveraging marketing techniques, this
approach utilises persuasion and education to appeal to values or
self-interest, encouraging behaviours that align with social and
60
environmental goals, such as recycling or opting for healthier
lifestyles. While targeting emotions plays a significant role in social
marketing, and T&H research on this topic has begun to integrate
interdisciplinary approaches (Hall, 2016; Rodriguez-Sanchez et al.,
2023), the research still frequently emphasises traditional tools
grounded in rational economic behaviour models (Barr et al., 2011;
Truong & Hall, 2015, 2017). Examples include campaigns that
promote carbon offsetting (Ritchie et al., 2021) and signs that inform
visitors about trail safety and environmental impact (Neumann &
Mason, 2019).
Hard policies play a critical role in addressing urgent sustainability
challenges, and conventional soft interventions are important in
enhancing consumer awareness and support for other policy tools.
However, with a growing understanding of the myriad reasons that
contribute to the attitude–behaviour gap in pro-sustainable
consumption, scholars and practitioners have recognised the need to
include more nuanced soft-policy approaches to increase voluntary
change among consumers (Bianchi et al., 2018; Cherry & Kallbekken,
2023; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 200; Lehner et al., 2016; Osman et al.,
2021; Stern, 2011).
2.3.1 Behavioural Interventions
Recognising the limitations of traditional soft policy interventions in
effectively altering pro-sustainable behaviour among a substantial
segment of consumers, researchers across various disciplines,
including T&H, have increasingly turned to behavioural economics
for insights (e.g., Ariely et al., 2009; Avineri, 2012; Cooper & Kovacic,
2012; Hertwig & Grüne-yanoff, 2017; Nikolova, 2021; Souza-Neto et
al., 2022; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Behavioural economics challenges
the assumptions of traditional economic theories by acknowledging
61
that individuals make decisions in diverse contexts and often deviate
from the predictions of rational choice (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979;
Kao & Velupillai, 2015; Lehner et al., 2016). To gain a more ‘realistic’
understanding of behaviour, this field has primarily integrated
knowledge from economics, psychology, and cognitive science,
situated within the individualist behaviour change paradigm,
although some approaches have also drawn on wider disciplines like
sociology and anthropology (Ball & Feitsma, 2020; Nikolova, 2021).
The application of behavioural economics to design interventions for
real-world problems is called behavioural insights (OECD, 2023).
Within this framework, encouraging pro-sustainable behaviour does
not mandate a shift in attitudes but can be initiated through changes
in the decision environment (Dolan et al., 2012).
While different streams within behavioural economics offer varying
interpretations of the rational choice paradigm and its deviations
(e.g., Edwards, 1954; Gigerenzer, 2008; Hertwig & Grüne-yanoff,
2017; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), a
prominent assumption within this discourse is bounded rationality
(Simon, 1992). Bounded rationality compasses two interconnected
elements: the structure of the decision-making environment and the
limitations of the mind, including constraints in knowledge, time, or
computational abilities (Gigerenzer, 2008). Under bounded
rationality, individuals often employ simple decision-making
processes to utilise available information, which means that decisions
largely rely on contextual factors and personal attributes rather than
rational cost–benefit calculations, especially in risky or uncertain
situations (Todd & Gigerenzer, 2000). This often leads to ‘satisficing’
behaviour, which satisfies most needs within a given context (Simon,
1959). The mental shortcuts or biases involved in this process, like a
62
sense of fairness, anchoring, defaults, or social norms, are sometimes
systematic and predictable (Hall, 2013; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
Bounded rationality is particularly relevant in tourism, where
individuals frequently encounter unfamiliar social and physical
environments, leading to uncertainty about factors like locally accepted
norms or the environmental impacts of their behaviour, thereby
adding complexity to decision-making (McCabe et al., 2016; Nikolova,
2021; Smallman & Moore, 2010).
Although bounded rationality and satisficing have long been
recognised in behavioural interventions, their susceptibility to
contextual factors has gained renewed importance as a tool for
changing behaviour in response to sustainability challenges (Mertens
et al., 2021). Policymakers and researchers are increasingly exploring
ways to foster or counteract simple decision rules and biases, using a
wide range of behavioural science concepts and theories (Ball &
Feitsma, 2020), to encourage personally or socially desirable
behaviour across diverse consumption domains, like meat
consumption (e.g., Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014; Garnett et al., 2020;
Gravert & Kurz, 2017), transportation (e.g., Avineri et al., 2009;
Bamberg et al., 2007; Ropret Homar & Knežević Cvelbar, 2023), and
energy use (e.g., Dolan & Metcalfe, 2013; Frederiks et al., 2015).
Although several governmental agencies, such as the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency, have applied behavioural insights
to inform policy interventions (Lehner et al., 2016), these insights are
equally applicable at the destination or organisational level to change
consumer behaviour for better environmental and social outcomes.
T&H providers are particularly well-positioned to implement such
interventions due to their direct interaction with consumers, which
63
allows them to influence experiences and choices toward more
sustainable options.
The application of behavioural economics to interventions is
associated with various typologies, the most common of which is the
‘nudge’, rooted in the heuristics and biases research programme
(Banerjee, 2021; Souza-Neto et al., 2022). Thaler and Sunstein (2008)
introduced the concept of nudges to translate behavioural
interventions into policy recommendations, and it began to appear in
sustainable tourism literature around five years later (Hall, 2013).
Though sometimes referred to as ‘nudge theory’, nudging primarily
recommends how to change behaviour rather than explaining or
predicting it (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2017, p.10; Pedwell, 2017).
Nudging aligns with the philosophy of libertarian paternalism, which
seeks to guide individuals toward choices that would enhance their
welfare if they had full information and could make fully ‘rational’
decisions. This approach does not restrict other options; instead, it
involves behaviourally informed changes in the ‘choice architecture’
– the physical, social, and psychological environment where decisions
are made (Cooper & Kovacic, 2012; Mertens et al., 2021; Pichert &
Katsikopoulos, 2008). Thus, nudges operate within the context of
decision-making, influencing behaviour by shaping the choices
available to individuals through environmental cues, strategic
positioning or framing of options, or manipulating defaults to either
facilitate or hinder cognitive biases and heuristics (Souza-Neto et al.,
2022; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). As a result, a particular choice
becomes more attractive or default, even if the underlying attributes
remain unchanged, which challenges the neoclassical economic
notion that individuals inherently know the values of outcomes
(Kahneman et al., 1993; Tversky & Thaler, 1990).
64
Following this, Lindenberg and Papies (2019) argued that the core
mechanism of nudging interventions is shifting salience. This can be
achieved through ‘behavioural nudging’, which directs attention to
concrete alternatives using insights from heuristics and biases
research (Kahneman, 2003, 2011), or ‘goal-nudging’, which shifts
salience to certain goals to activate them and influence behaviour.
Goal-nudging is grounded in Goal-Framing Theory, which posits that
the extent to which specific goals and preferences guide behaviour
depends on their mental accessibility, influenced by environmental
cues (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). While these two kinds of nudging
often work together, it is crucial to consider their separate and
combined effects to avoid ineffectiveness or counterproductive
outcomes (Lindenberg & Papies, 2019).
Moreover, a key distinction can be made between behavioural
interventions that target fast, automatic, and emotional decisions
(often referred to as System 1) and those targeting slow, deliberate
decision-making (so-called System 2) (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979;
see Section 3.1. for a more detailed discussion on Systems 1 and 2).
Sunstein (2017) defined interventions designed to counteract biases
and enhance deliberate thinking, such as those providing simplified
information, as educative nudges. Other behavioural intervention
toolkits aimed at promoting reflective changes include boosts
(Hertwig, 2017; Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017), thinks (John, 2011),
and nudge plus (Banerjee, 2021).
These interventions vary in their assumptions about bounded
rationality, mechanisms for effecting behavioural change, and the
cognitive demands they place on individuals (Banerjee, 2021). For
instance, boosts aim to enhance decision-making across situations by
targeting the choice environment, competencies, or both, such as
65
through easily understandable decision trees that outline simple rules
of thumb (Barton & Grüne-Yanoff, 2015). Thinks (John, 2011) focus
purely on deliberation, encouraging individuals to learn and reflect,
such as contemplating a commitment to a plant-based diet (Banerjee,
2021). While commitment strategies have been successfully applied in
T&H (Baca-motes et al., 2012), the deliberate implementation of think
or boost interventions remains limited. Nudge plus, which has been
recently applied in tourism (Yachin et al., 2022), merges a nudge with
a deliberative element to prompt reflection about the nudge, enabling
individuals to change their beliefs and adapt to a new choice
environment. While boosts, educative nudges, thinks, and nudge
plus have different goals and assumptions about decision-making,
they all aim to promote conscious information processing, fostering
long-term changes in preferences and behaviour (Banerjee, 2021;
Winterstein, 2022). Osman et al. (2021) broadly classified
interventions with minimal intrusiveness into the individual’s
intentional decision-making as ‘soft choice-preserving interventions’,
emphasising that individuals actively decide whether to engage in
the intervention and choose the desirable option.
The classification of different types of interventions, their relative
effectiveness, and acceptability is an ongoing and extensive debate
(see e.g., Grilli & Curtis, 2021). Due to the often-permeable
boundaries between intervention types and a lack of clarity about
their theoretical foundations, many behavioural interventions in
research and practice are used interchangeably with the nudge
concept or broadly referred to as context manipulation
(Antonschmidt & Lund-Durlacher, 2021) or choice-architecture
interventions (Mertens et al., 2021). Given this broad array of
intervention typologies, Souza-Neto et al.’s (2022) review of
66
behavioural interventions in tourism and sustainability studies
proposed a tripod model for conceptualising nudges. This model
includes interventions that are (a) paternalistic (that is, easily frame
the best options), (b) libertarian-preserving (meaning that people
should be free to choose what they prefer), and (c) grounded in
behavioural insights (Souza-Neto et al., 2022, p.3).
Following this recent conceptualisation in the sustainable T&H field
and the extensive discussion on intervention classification, the
present thesis adopts a broad conceptualisation of behavioural
interventions, sometimes synonymous with nudges (specifically in
Paper 2). This conceptualisation includes interventions that easily
frame the best options, allow individuals to choose freely what they
prefer, and are grounded in behavioural science to either block
heuristics, trigger heuristics or inform. By capturing different
behavioural interventions designed to predictably change behaviour
and highlighting the diverse mechanisms through which they
operate, this conceptualisation also offers a comprehensive yet
flexible framework for exploring how various interventions impact
pro-sustainable behaviour in different settings.
Based on the above discussion, Figure 2 provides an overview of
policy interventions to change individual behaviour, including their
broad mechanisms and objectives for effectuating change.
67
Figure 2: Overview of behavioural change interventions
68
The definition of behavioural interventions adopted in this thesis
includes those that target automatic ‘System 1’ responses and those
aimed at more deliberate ‘System 2’ information processing.
However, categorising interventions into distinct cognitive systems
can be challenging due to the dynamic nature of decision-making,
context dependence, individual differences, evolving perceptions,
and varying understandings of cognitive processes (McCabe et al.,
2016; see Section 3.1). Therefore, interventions are often classified
based on the psychological levers they target, rather than on assumed
cognitive processes (Abrahmse, 2020; Demeter et al., 2023; Dolnicar,
2020; Greene et al., 2023; Mertens et al., 2021; Osbaldiston & Schott,
2011).
The next section reviews behavioural interventions that have been
empirically tested in experimental research within T&H, according to
the psychological levers they target. This review identifies existing
gaps and highlights the applicability of social norm interventions and
carbon labels within this thesis.
2.4 Behavioural Interventions in Tourism
and Hospitality
In recent years, both academia and industry within T&H have shown
increasing interest in the potential for meso-level actors, such as
restaurants and hotels, to influence consumer decisions through
behavioural interventions (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Dolnicar, 2020;
Testa et al., 2018). This growing focus highlights the need for
experimental studies to provide empirical evidence on the
mechanisms and effectiveness of behavioural interventions in T&H
contexts. However, experimental research in this field remains
relatively undeveloped (Demeter et al., 2023; Dolnicar, 2020).
69
Most reviews of behavioural interventions in pro-sustainable
consumption literature have focused on behaviour at home, work, or
retail rather than in T&H settings. Experimental studies in these
domains have tested various behavioural interventions based on
diverse psychological mechanisms to encourage pro-sustainable
behaviour such as water use (Feizi & Khatabiroudi, 2023; Otaki et al.,
2022), recycling (Cialdini et al., 1990; Schultz, 1999), transportation
(Bamberg et al., 2007), energy consumption (Dolan & Metcalfe, 2013;
Frederiks et al., 2015), food choices (Panzone et al., 2023; Richter et al.,
2018), and food waste reduction (Barker et al., 2021; Linder et al.,
2018).
The explicit use of psychological theories in intervention studies
varies, with some researchers prioritising practical application over
theoretical grounding (Coghlan et al., 2023; Dolnicar, 2020).
Nevertheless, efforts to map and review existing research have
provided an overview of behavioural intervention types and their
effectiveness. For instance, Osbaldiston and Schott (2011) conducted a
meta-analysis of field experiments, evaluating 253 interventions
targeting various PEBs. They found that the most effective
interventions involved goal-setting, prompts, social modelling
(including social norms), and leveraging preexisting attitudes to
encourage behaviour consistent with these attitudes, thereby
reducing cognitive dissonance. Additionally, their categorisation of
interventions into low- and high-engagement types, aligning with
System 1 and System 2 thinking (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979),
suggests that low-engagement interventions work best for low-effort
behaviours, while high-engagement interventions are suited for more
effortful behaviours.
70
Despite identifying effective approaches, Osbaldiston and Schott
(2011) noted the absence of a universally effective intervention and
the frequent use of a combination of approaches. Abrahamse (2020)
reviewed interventions for promoting sustainable food choices in
various home and out-of-home settings, categorising them by their
engagement with System 1 and System 2 processes. Her review
found that nudging interventions (System 1) and labels such as
carbon labels (System 1 and/or 2) were effective for encouraging
sustainable food choices, whereas information provision (System 2)
worked best when addressing specific behavioural barriers,
motivational goals, or social norms. Abrahamse (2020) concluded that
more comparative studies are needed to test interventions across
different food environments.
Although evaluations covering diverse consumption domains and
intervention types provide an overview of work in this field, they
offer limited insight into the effectiveness of specific mechanisms due
to the inherent complexity of behaviour (Mertens et al., 2021; Maier et
al., 2022). Intervention effects vary depending on context and target
group, highlighting the need for a more focused approach
(Hallsworth, 2022). Recent studies have started to address this gap by
reviewing experimental research specifically within T&H. For
example, Dolnicar (2020) identified four broad categories of
interventions that T&H providers can implement to encourage more
environmentally friendly behaviour: leveraging beliefs, social norms,
increasing pleasure or instant utility, and altering choice architecture
(see Table 1 below for a summary of intervention categories).
Table 1: Intervention categories
Intervention
Intervention
Underlying
Example of
71
Category
Type
Mechanism
Intervention (in T&H)
Aimed at facilitating
access to decision-
relevant information
(System 2)
Changing
beliefs
Aim to influence
behaviour by providing
descriptive information.
This may involve
justification or
instructions concerning
the target behaviour.
Labels providing
information about CO2e
emissions; Traffic light
like CO2e scale (Casati
et al., 2023; Cozzio et
al., 2020; Filimonau et
al., 2017)
Social norm
interventions
Aim to leverage social
expectations about
acceptable behaviour.
Providing descriptive
or injunctive social
norm information
(Goldstein et al., 2008;
Heldt, 2005; Kallbekken
& Sælen, 2013)
Built around changes
in the decision
structure
(System 1)
Choice
architecture
Aim to influence
behaviour by altering
the physical
infrastructure.
Increasing the
availability, visibility,
or convenience of the
desirable choice;
Priming the desirable
choice (Kallbekken &
Sælen, 2013; Reinders et
al., 2020)
Provide Decision
Assistance
(System 1 and 2)
Prompts
Visual cues to remind
of/promote a certain
behaviour via quick
decision-making,
increasing convenience.
Posters, signs, and
flyers (Morgan &
Chompreeda, 2014)
Enjoyment or
pain/
Instant utility
focused
Aim to make the target
choice more or less
appealing through
hedonic enhancements.
Certain presentation or
description,
gamification,
incentives, or penalties
(e.g.,
in the form of gifts
or discounts) (Coghlan,
2021; Dolnicar et al.,
2020; Trabandt et al.,
2024)
Habit
Linked to changes in
the physical
Placing recycling bins
in hotel rooms to enable
72
infrastructure or
prompts to maintain or
break habits by
focusing on the
automaticity of
behaviour.
the automaticity of
separating waste
established at home
(MacInnes et al., 2022);
Inducing a deliberate
choice-making process
through information
(Garvill et al., 2003).
Commitment
Pledging/binding one
to behaviour to
leverage people’s aim
to align their
commitment, choices,
and behaviour.
Soliciting commitment
of hotel guests to reuse
their towels via door
hanger cards or label
pins (Baca-Motes et al.,
2012; Terrier &
Marfaing, 2015)
Categorisation of interventions tested in the field of T&H following the frameworks by
Abrahamse (2020), Dolnicar (2020), Demeter et al. (2023), Greene et al. (2023), and
Osman et al. (2021) with additions from Osbaldiston and Schott (2011) and Mertens et
al. (2021). See also Coghlan et al. (2023) for an overview of theories used in behavioural
intervention studies in T&H. Note: Many interventions leverage several behavioural
mechanisms and may fall into several categories. Interventions may also engage
different cognitive ‘systems’ among different individuals.
Having compared the effectiveness of interventions, Dolnicar (2020)
suggested that altering choice architecture is the most effective,
followed by increasing pleasure or instant utility, social norms, and
changing beliefs. Building on Dolnicar’s categorisation, Demeter et al.
(2023) conducted a systematic review of 146 field experiments across
53 studies targeting 21 environmentally sustainable tourist
behaviours. Their analysis corroborates Dolnicar’s (2020) findings on
the relative effectiveness of these intervention types. While
highlighting a substantial body of work in this field, Demeter et al.’s
(2023) review also underscored gaps regarding the range of studied
target behaviours, tourism contexts, and psychological mechanisms.
73
Consistent with those two categorisations, Greene et al.’s (2023) meta-
analysis examined interventions specifically targeting meal orders in
various restaurant settings, including simulated environments, work
or university cafeterias, and general restaurants. Their analysis of 83
interventions, including 25 field experiments, identified similar
patterns of effectiveness as Dolnicar et al. (2020) and Demeter et al.
(2023). Hedonic enhancements and altered choice architecture proved
to be more effective than increasing the visibility of target meals,
using descriptive labels, or social norms.
Despite consistent insights into the comparative effectiveness of
altered choice architecture and hedonic enhancements, Dolnicar
(2020) and Demeter et al. (2023) focused broadly on various T&H
related behaviours, including only a few pro-sustainable food
choices. In contrast, Greene et al. (2023) concentrated specifically on
food choices but also included canteens and cafeterias, which are less
pleasure-oriented and more habitual than tourist dining or other out-
of-home restaurant contexts (Demeter et al., 2023; Wang, 2023). Thus,
questions remain about the effectiveness of different interventions in
promoting pro-sustainable food choices in T&H environments, where
consumers might prioritise indulgence and encounter less routine
and familiarity with menu items (Khan et al., 2024). Moreover,
previous reviews (Demeter et al., 2023; Dolnicar, 2020; Greene et al.,
2023) primarily assessed the immediate behavioural effects of
interventions and, to some extent, their financial implications,
neglecting transparency and potential long-term effects. Therefore,
the evidenced effectiveness of choice architecture interventions,
which target subconscious decision-making without requiring
reflection on the available choices, is unsurprising and corresponds
74
with findings in other fields (Hummel & Maedche, 2019; Mertens et
al., 2021).
Belief-based interventions, aligning with theories like the Theory of
Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985) and the Norm Activation
Model (NAM) (Schwartz, 1977; see Section 3.2), involve active
information processing, provided individuals pay attention to the
intervention. Reviews by Demeter et al. (2023), Dolnicar (2020), and
Greene et al. (2023) have suggested that although belief-based
interventions are frequently tested, they are generally less effective at
changing actual behaviour than other types. Abrahamse (2020)
concluded that belief-based interventions, such as those using labels,
could encourage sustainable food choices in different dining settings
(Spaargren et al., 2013; Vanclay et al., 2011; Visschers & Siegrist,
2015). This discrepancy may arise from differences in intervention
classification, target behaviours, and contexts, pointing to knowledge
gaps in belief-based interventions aimed at pro-sustainable behaviour
in diverse T&H settings.
A key issue is the variation in what constitutes belief-based
interventions. For example, reviews by Demeter et al. (2023) and
Dolnicar (2020) referred broadly to ‘information provision’ as
interventions providing information on environmental impacts, such
as the effects of food waste. By contrast, Greene et al. (2023) and
Abrahamse (2020) differentiated between belief-based labels and
educative information. While educative information simply provides
details about the impacts of certain choices (via leaflets, for example),
food-related labels are specifically designed to combat limited
attention and knowledge during decision-making by simplifying
otherwise covert information about products (such as carbon
emissions) (Mertens et al., 2021).
75
Although the classification of labels as a nudge has been debated
(Carlsson et al., 2021), they differ from traditional information
provision by leveraging psychological mechanisms, such as using
certain symbols and colours, to facilitate decision-making
(Abrahamse, 2020). As such, labels are highly relevant in terms of
enabling consumers to compare options and make informed choices
in food contexts (Babkhani et al., 2019). For example, consumers often
find it complicated to assess the carbon footprint of menu items, so
carbon labelling is required to make the task easier (Thøgersen, 2021).
Some scholars argue that labels trigger fast, unconscious decision-
making by priming people to select targeted options (Guéguen et al.,
2012). However, many other scholars suggest that labels instead
involve more deliberate information processing, potentially raising
the salience of consumers’ sustainability values and beliefs, thereby
influencing their choices (Abrahamse, 2020; Grunert et al., 2014;
Thøgersen, 2000; Thøgersen & Nielsen, 2016).
While the effectiveness of belief-based interventions involving
conventional information provision to promote pro-sustainable
behaviours is generally considered limited, the impact of labels on
pro-sustainable food choices is less clear. Greene et al. (2023) found
labels to be largely ineffective in out-of-home dining settings,
whereas Abrahamse (2020) argued that labels could encourage
sustainable food choices, both independently and as part of wider
information campaigns. Neither review focused specifically on T&H
settings like restaurants at tourist destinations, where decision-
making is more hedonically driven, and both reviews only focused to
a limited extent on à la carte restaurants offering a range of labelled
food choices on menus. Thus, it remains uncertain how labels on
menu options might influence consumers’ food choices in such
76
contexts, also considering impacts on their dining experiences and
the restaurant’s image as a responsible establishment.
The second most common intervention type in T&H settings – social
norm interventions, or ‘norm-nudges’ – has been applied to various
pro-sustainable behaviours, above all PEBs (Demeter et al., 2023;
Souza-Neto et al., 2022). These interventions leverage aspects of social
influence by emphasising others’ behaviour or approval, based on the
assumption that individuals’ preferences for behaviour are
influenced by the actions and expectations of others (Bicchieri, 2023;
Bicchieri et al., 2019; Cialdini et al., 1990). As such, social norm
interventions also target changes in beliefs, and thus generally
conscious information processing, specifically the belief about
common or expected behaviour to subsequently influence individual
behaviour. Reviews indicate varying effectiveness, with recent
studies showing a success rate of around 50 per cent in T&H and
other out-of-home dining settings (Greene et al., 2023). However,
social norms are often used as part of short prompts, information, or
feedback provisions, and many studies have suggested that
effectiveness can be improved when multiple intervention types are
combined (Demeter et al., 2023). This underscores the need to further
test various combinations of interventions targeting pro-sustainable
behaviours in T&H to potentially enhance the effectiveness of belief-
based strategies.
Despite significant research, studies evaluating behavioural
interventions in T&H settings typically focus on a limited range of
PEBs in hospitality businesses, such as towel reuse, room cleaning,
water use, food waste, and, to a lesser extent, food choice. Most other
behaviours have been the focus of only one or two studies (Demeter
et al., 2023; Dolnicar, 2020; Souza-Neto et al., 2022; Viglia & Dolnicar,
77
2020). The interventions targeting food choices have predominantly
focused on vegetarian options, and only a few have measured actual
behaviour through field experiments, particularly in restaurants with
full à la carte menus (Garnett et al., 2020). Moreover, only a few
researchers have tested behavioural interventions aimed at behaviour
contributing to social or economic as opposed to environmental
sustainability, such as donations for the management of cross-country
trails (Heldt, 2005) and museums (Martin & Randal, 2008). Expanding
experimental studies to include a wider range of pro-sustainable
behaviours in T&H is essential, given that intervention effectiveness
depends significantly on the target behaviour and its contextual
factors.
In summary, this review of behavioural intervention studies in T&H
aligns with reviews from the broader field of pro-sustainable
consumption, emphasising that low-engagement interventions are
typically most effective for achieving immediate behaviour changes.
While more choice-preserving, belief-based interventions like carbon
labels and social norms show mixed results in promoting pro-
sustainable behaviour within T&H, notable research gaps remain
concerning different behaviours, application settings, and designs.
Specifically, more research is needed to explore how these
interventions impact behaviours contributing to social or economic
sustainability, as well as their influence on pro-sustainable food
choices in T&H dining contexts, where consumer decisions may
differ significantly from other settings. There is also a need for further
investigation into the effectiveness of combined interventions to
determine whether they can drive more substantial changes in pro-
sustainable behaviour.
78
These gaps need to be addressed because social norm and label
interventions have the potential to raise awareness and reinforce pro-
sustainable behaviour among consumers. Examining these
interventions in underexplored T&H settings can provide deeper
insights into the drivers and barriers of pro-sustainable behaviour.
Importantly, previous reviews (Demeter et al., 2023; Dolnicar; 2020;
Greene et al., 2023; Souza-Neto et al., 2022) have underscored that
interventions in T&H are more likely to succeed if they enhance
consumer pleasure or, at the very least, do not reduce it and do not
impose significant costs on businesses. To better understand the
practical implications and effectiveness of interventions, field
experiments are essential because they test interventions in real-life
settings in collaboration with T&H providers (Viglia & Dolnicar,
2020). Building on this foundation, the following sections review field
experimental research on social norm interventions and labels,
particularly carbon labels on food options, in the context of pro-
sustainable consumer behaviour in T&H.
2.4.1 Social Norm Interventions
Recognising that sustainability challenges like climate change require
significant changes in social norms, and that appeals to personal
norms have often been ineffective, researchers and policymakers
have increasingly focused on social norm interventions (short, norm-
nudges) (Burchell et al., 2013; Kinzig et al., 2013; Tankard & Paluck,
2016). These interventions leverage the influence of perceived common
behaviours or attitudes within a group to encourage individuals to
adopt desirable behaviours (Bicchieri, 2023). Targeting social norms
becomes particularly relevant when encouraging pro-sustainable
behaviour related to collective goals, where individuals typically
need to perceive that others are also contributing in order to believe
79
that their actions can effectively address sustainability issues
(Bicchieri & Xiao, 2007).1
Social norm interventions can either target public or private
behaviour. For instance, in private spaces like hotel rooms, where
social pressures are minimal and the primary focus is relaxation, it
becomes crucial to make social norms about desirable sustainable
behaviours salient. An example is Goldstein et al.’s (2008) seminal
field experiment, where informing hotel guests that most others in
the same room reused their towels increased towel reuse by
approximately 44 per cent. This effect was particularly pronounced
when using local norms, referring to guests who stayed in the same
room. Others have replicated this study with similar results, although
often with smaller effect sizes (Bohner & Schlüter, 2014; Gössling et
al., 2019; Terrier & Marfaing, 2015).
Taking this one step further by making private behaviour public to
engender normative influence, Baca-Motes et al. (2012) found that
having tourists commit to towel reuse and providing them with a pin
1 Scholars have also increasingly discussed the need for social norm interventions (‘norm
design’, ‘norm engineering’, or ‘norm management’) to engender more systemic sustainability
changes (Dolnicar, 2020; Kinzig et al., 2013; Reijula et al., 2018). A key argument in such
discussions is that individual-level nudges or similar interventions have limited value in
addressing inherently collective challenges. In the context of tourism, Bimonte (2016)
emphasised that residents at destinations should be the ones sharing a defined set of norms with
tourists, allowing them to ‘become part of the collective conscience’ (p.10) and making non-
conformance more visible and costly due to social sanctions or feelings of guilt. Ideally, this leads
to a reputation effect, influencing the types of tourists the destination attracts and their
behaviour, acknowledging the interdependencies of the social system in which tourist behaviour
is situated.
80
to communicate their behaviour significantly increased towel reuse.
Making social norms salient for donations to common goods like
national parks or recreational trails has also proven effective. Alpízar
et al. (2008) revealed that donations to a National Park made in the
presence of a solicitor were 25 per cent higher than those made in
private, while Heldt (2005) showed that informing cross-country
skiers about others’ contributions to track maintenance encouraged
similar donations. Similar results were observed in a study focused
on donations for a museum (Martin & Randal, 2008).
In public spaces like restaurants, where choices are more visible,
different forms of social influence can be leveraged. For instance,
Kallbekken and Saelen’s (2013) field experiment involved a table sign
to communicate that it was acceptable to return to the buffet multiple
times, which reduced guests’ shame and the likelihood of
overloading their plates. The intervention decreased food waste by 21
per cent compared to a condition without a sign, without negatively
affecting guest satisfaction. However, interventions targeting public
food choices risk inducing negative feelings like shame or guilt (Sirieix
et al., 2017). For instance, offering a doggy bag by default can increase
uptake and reduce plate waste but may negatively impact restaurant
and waitress evaluation (Van Herpen et al., 2021). As food choices are
often considered a cultural right, similar reactions may occur with
interventions aimed at publicly visible pro-sustainable food choices
(Osman et al., 2021).
Another approach to leveraging social influence involves
endorsement. When individuals see choices endorsed by respected
others or those within their social group, it can create social proof of
the ‘correct’ behaviour for a given situation (Abrahamse & Steg, 2013;
Tajfel, 1979). Moreover, endorsement can tap into the desire for
81
conformity by showcasing that a behaviour is supported by an
influential person or a social community that individuals identify
with or wish to identify with. This can create a sense of belonging
and new behavioural norms (Hanna et al., 2018; Lindenberg et al.,
2011). Although endorsement has been studied in various domains
(Halder et al., 2021), research in pro-sustainable consumption in T&H
is extremely limited. Two field experiments at hotel buffets tested
different persuasive messages with and without endorsement by
hotel managers to influence tourists’ healthy and ecological food
consumption. The results indicated that endorsement was effective
for some messages, particularly those related to taste and local
purchasing of buffet items, but not for nutritional and ecological
features (Cozzio et al., 2022; Volgger et al., 2021).
In addition to direct information about the behaviour and
expectations of others, commitment, and endorsement, interventions
have also targeted broader social norms such as social responsibility,
social identity, reciprocity, and fairness, (Alpízar et al., 2008; Dolnicar
et al., 2019; Ekelund & Bergquist, 2023) or the related concept of
conditional cooperation, where individuals cooperate with others
based on the expectation of reciprocation (Bicchieri, 2023; Cialdini &
Goldstein, 2004; Fehr & Schurtenberger, 2018). In line with findings
on traditional information provision and belief-based interventions,
experiments concerned with PEBs in T&H have shown mixed results
in terms of appealing to social responsibility.
Some studies have suggested that emphasising collective action and
its connection to sustainability challenges, such as climate change, can
positively impact behaviour, compared to focusing on the negative
effects of individual actions (Lavallee et al., 2019; Thøgersen, 2021).
This aligns with Lindenberg’s (2012) idea of goal-nudging, which
82
suggests that sustainability goals can be activated by framing
contexts as joint efforts toward a common goal. In turn, Dolnicar et
al.’s (2017, 2019) quasi-experimental studies found that targeting
social responsibility alone is insufficient to encourage guests to waive
room cleaning. However, offering a free drink as a reward for opting
out to enhance perceived equity effectively reduced daily room
cleaning. Perceived equity or reciprocity can also be seen as a driving
force behind conditional cooperation, as observed by Frey and Meier
(2004), Shang and Crosson (2005), and Heldt (2005). These field
experiments indicated that willingness to cooperate commonly
depends on the expectation of a similar response from others, made
salient through information about others’ behaviour, although
individual adherence to this conditional cooperation varies (Bicchieri,
2006; Fehr & Schurtenberg, 2018).
Overall, influencing actual behaviour of consumers often first
requires adjustments to perceived norms, especially where
behaviours are hidden and consumers may be uncertain how to
behave, as could be the case with donations for nature-based trails.
Targeting established perceived social norms like reciprocity can be a
relevant intervention to achieve this, particularly when combined
with clear information about expected and common donations
(Fennell, 2006; Heldt, 2005; Shang & Croson, 2009). Research outside
T&H has shown that social norm interventions are among the few
interventions to have shown long-term behavioural impact even after
the interventions have been removed (Allcott & Rogers, 2014; Schultz
et al., 2007; van der Linden, 2018). Studies on humanitarian donations
suggest that such interventions may also lead to positive spillovers to
other types of pro-social behaviour (Nook et al., 2016), which is
promising for addressing sustainability challenges in T&H, where
83
multiple behaviour changes are often required. However, given the
variability in individuals’ adherence to social norms and their
context-specific nature, a refined approach is necessary for applying
social norm interventions effectively. As discussed, field
experimental studies on various social norm interventions related to
T&H sustainability issues remain limited, particularly in contexts
beyond hotels.
2.4.2 Labels
For customers to be able to make informed pro-sustainable food
choices, they need to receive relevant information about the
environmental or social impacts of various options at the point of
decision (Potter et al., 2022). Food-related labels range from those
indicating food miles, certifying organic production, or
communicating carbon footprints to those summarising multiple
environmental indicators (Cassidy, 2022). Extensive research has been
conducted on the role of such labels in out-of-home consumption
contexts like restaurants, cafeterias, canteens, or hotels (Fernandes et
al., 2016; Filimonau et al., 2017; Winterstein, 2022).
The predominant research emphasis has been on labels addressing
healthy food selection, for instance by providing consumers with
nutritional value information at buffets (Cadario & Chandon, 2020;
Fernandes et al., 2016). Only recently have researchers started to
examine the impact of environmental labels, such as carbon labels,
vegetarian/vegan/plant-based labels, or local and organic labelling on
consumers’ food choices in out-of-home settings (Greene et al., 2023).
While several studies have demonstrated the influence of local or
organic food labels on consumer choices (Cozzio et al., 2022; Merle et
al., 2016; Miller, 2018; Sirieix et al., 2013), attempts to address
environmental challenges like climate change have found that local or
84
organic sourcing does not guarantee lower environmental impacts
(Futtrup & Grunert, 2023; Gössling et al., 2011). Carbon labels, which
provide clear information on a product’s carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO₂e) emissions, are designed to guide consumers towards more
climate-friendly choices (Panzone et al., 2023).
Field experiments on carbon labels have largely been conducted in
university or work canteens, demonstrating modest (Brunner et al.,
2018; Lohmann et al., 2022; Spaargaren et al., 2013) to medium effects
on behaviour and carbon emission (Slapø & Karevold, 2019).
Research extending beyond traditional restaurant settings is limited,
with few studies exploring how tourists respond to carbon labels in
destination and hotel restaurants (Demeter et al., 2023). For example,
Cozzio et al. (2020) tested the impact of different factual appeals,
finding that health or local origin labels had a substantial effect on
consumption, whereas carbon labels were less effective. While this
finding supports the notion that tourists are more easily influenced
by self-benefit appeals than other-oriented appeals, Cozzio et al.’s
(2020) experiment used carbon labels on only one buffet item, making
it harder for customers to interpret the information compared to
having multiple labelled dishes. Carbon labels including CO₂e
emissions are generally more abstract and difficult for consumers to
process than labels indicating local origin or nutrition information
(Merle et al., 2016). To increase their comprehensibility, carbon labels
have been used alongside other interventions. For example, Brunner
et al. (2018) used a traffic light system for carbon labels and provided
additional information about food and climate change online and on
posters in a cafeteria. This intervention significantly increased
climate-friendly dishes with green labels. However, similar to
findings in retail settings, carbon labels did not seem to deter the
85
consumption of high-emission products (Vanclay et al., 2011;
Vlaeminck et al., 2014).
Although survey studies provide additional insights into how
different carbon label designs may impact food choices (e.g., Grunert
et al., 2014; Kühne, et al., 2023; Lane et al., 2023; Meyerding et al.,
2019), recommendations cannot always be transferred to real-life
restaurant contexts. For example, surveys indicate that incorporating
traffic-light-like colour scales alongside absolute CO₂e numbers
provides clearer distinctions between high and low emissions (Feucht
& Zander, 2018; Lemken et al., 2021; Meyerding et al., 2019; Rondoni
& Grasso, 2021). Some studies have even suggested that red labels
may be particularly effective by capturing consumers’ attention
(Brunner et al., 2018; Carrero et al., 2021). However, red labels can
induce guilt and backlash, which may limit their acceptance in profit-
oriented businesses (Casati et al., 2023). Notably, while serving highly
unsustainable ‘red’ meals should be reconsidered altogether, they
could serve as a comparison for consumers and potentially removed
later as awareness of their negative implications increases and more
sustainable alternatives become available.
Another approach involves labelling climate-friendly dishes as
‘Chef’s Recommendation’ or ‘Dish of the Day’. However,
experimental results on this strategy are also mixed (Bacon & Krpan,
2018; dos Santos et al., 2018; Perez-Cueto, 2021; Saulais et al., 2019;
Zhou et al., 2018). Bacon and Krpan (2018) found that the effect of a
‘Dish of the Day’ intervention is moderated by past behaviour, with
frequent vegetarians being less likely to choose the targeted
vegetarian option compared to infrequent vegetarians, possibly due
to feeling justified in acting less sustainably after usually choosing
sustainable options. Saulais et al. (2019) noted that the effect of a
86
‘Dish of the Day’ intervention was greater for less popular dishes and
increased with the number of options, possibly because it helped
reduce decision overload. The only studies exploring similar
recommendation interventions in T&H contexts are field experiments
by Cozzio et al. (2022) and Volgger et al. (2021), which combined
persuasive messages with endorsement of certain items at hotel
buffets.
Overall, experimental studies in real out-of-home dining settings
highlight that existing labels and their effect on consumers’ food
choices are highly heterogeneous. Carbon labels tend to be more
effective among consumers who are already concerned about climate
issues and possibly those seeking decision assistance due to
numerous options (Carfora et al., 2019; Saulais et al., 2019), which
aligns with findings on nutrition labels, prompts, and general eco-
labels (e.g., Karlsson & Dolnicar, 2016; Shearer et al., 2017). The
impact of carbon labels also interacts with various other factors in
out-of-home dining contexts, such as atmosphere, serving style, social
influence, and price (Futtrup & Grunert, 2023). This complexity
contributes to differing conclusions in literature reviews regarding
label effectiveness in promoting pro-sustainable food choices in T&H
settings (Abrahamse, 2020; Bianchi et al., 2018; Greene et al., 2023).
However, it also highlights that significant gaps remain in label
designs, the combination of interventions like carbon labels and
endorsement, and their application in different real-life restaurants,
particularly à la carte restaurants. It is important to address these
gaps in order to develop carbon label interventions that support
informed choice while maintaining positive customer experiences
and profitability in the T&H industry (Futtrup & Grunert, 2023).
87
Before I discuss the behavioural theories that help to understand pro-
sustainable behaviour and guide intervention design in this thesis,
the next section addresses key critiques of behavioural interventions,
emphasising their practical and ethical implications in encouraging
pro-sustainable behaviour within T&H settings.
2.4.3 Critiques and Defences
As approaches to influence behaviour, behavioural interventions
have sparked substantial criticism on diverse theoretical, normative,
and ideological grounds. Numerous scholars have deliberated on the
ethics of behavioural interventions, particularly nudges, within the
context of policymaking (e.g., Clavien, 2018; Noggle, 2018; Schmidt &
Engelen, 2020; Schubert, 2015; Selinger & Whyte, 2011; van der
Heijden & Kosters, 2015; Viale, 2018). These concerns are also
pertinent to interventions at the organisational or destination level in
T&H, which reflects the complex and contested nature of pursuing
sustainability.
A major point of criticism is the fundamental premise of nudging,
which is characterised as a libertarian paternalistic approach that
guides individuals towards welfare-enhancing options without
restricting choices (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Sunstein (2013) defined
welfare broadly as ‘whatever choosers think would make their lives
go well’ (p. 1852). However, it is generally not possible to determine
what fits the individual chooser; instead, assessments typically reflect
the average preferences, especially assuming that individuals lack a
stable preference order (Barton & Grüne-Yanoff, 2015; Nagatsu,
2015). Consequently, while some so-called ‘green nudges’ aimed at
reducing negative externalities may not promise to enhance the
individual’s welfare directly (Carlsson et al., 2021), critics argue that
nudges are paternalistic because choice architects make decisions
88
about what constitutes the ideal decision for individuals (Burgess,
2012; Hagman, 2018). Much of this discussion stems from the United
States, reflecting an emphasis on liberal values and freedom of choice.
In countries like Sweden, which traditionally have a strong welfare
state with collective solutions, the perception of nudges as overly
paternalistic may be less pronounced (Hagman et al., 2015).
Another prominent concern is the longevity of behaviour change,
although evidence on this is currently inconclusive (Beshears &
Kosowsky, 2020; Congiu & Moscati, 2021). As further outlined in the
following section (Section 3.1.), nudges targeting subconscious
decision-making generally do not provide feedback about the
implications of choices, reveal inconsistencies, or aim to generate
awareness and changes in preferences (Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff,
2017), all of which are important for meaningful long-term changes in
pro-sustainable behaviour (Lehner et al., 2016; UNEP, 2020).
Another important consideration in the T&H context is that
interventions targeting subconscious decisions might miss
opportunities to enhance the provider’s image and the consumer’s
experience. For instance, whether engaging in pro-sustainable
behaviours (such as donating to preserve a natural area) contributes
to an individual’s positive experience, and not just the welfare of the
destination, depends on perceived costs and benefits, such as the
reuse of the area, and gratification from other-oriented behaviour
(Holbrook, 1999; Steg et al., 2014a). Interventions like defaults, which
might manipulate visitors into donating, could harm their experience.
Such interventions might also fail to address the intrinsic motivation
and positive feelings associated with doing something good for
others or the environment, which could benefit the provider’s image
and the consumer’s personal experience (Bruns & Perino, 2021; UK
89
Science and Technology Committee, 2011). Ultimately, while T&H
consumers primarily seek positive experiences, their specific
contributing goals are diverse, dynamic, and potentially conflicting,
which makes it challenging to determine their ideal choices (Gnoth,
1997; Lindenberg, 2008). Therefore, interventions that target
subconscious decisions might primarily be effective for immediate
behaviour change at a low cost but not enhance awareness or
consumer experience.
In response to these critiques, researchers and policymakers have
proposed various frameworks for assessing the ethics of behavioural
interventions (Clavien, 2018; Hagman, 2018; Lades, & Delaney, 2020;
Selinger & Whyte, 2011). For example, the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics introduced an ‘Intervention ladder’ that categorises
interventions from least to most coercive, including doing nothing,
providing information, enabling a choice, defaults, incentives,
disincentives, restricting choices, and eliminating choices. The ladder
emphasises that more obtrusive interventions require stronger
justification, which should be weighed against restrictions to free
choice (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2007; Osman et al., 2021).
Intervention transparency and engagement levels are also claimed to
be important for addressing ethical objections (Hagman, 2018;
Schmidt & Engelen, 2020). A common agreement is that interventions
targeting subconscious responses, like defaults, carry a greater risk of
being manipulative, whereas those involving conscious information
processing, such as carbon labels, contribute to informed choice and
individual accountability (Noggle, 2018; Winterstein, 2022).
Furthermore, as arguably no design is neutral (Thaler & Sunstein,
2008) and it is challenging to objectively differentiate between ‘good’
and ‘bad’ interventions (Pedwell, 2017), understanding the target
90
audience’s perceptions of behavioural interventions can help validate
the interventions (Sunstein et al., 2018). Studies generally show high
public acceptance of behavioural interventions, including those
targeting PEBs, with variations based on culture, purpose, and
intervention type (Banerjee et al., 2021). For example, research on
interventions for air travel behaviour across four Western Countries
found that most participants favour softer strategies like nudges over
more restrictive regulatory intervention, although there are
differences based on nationality (Higham et al., 2016). Public support
is generally higher for transparent interventions (Hagman et al., 2015;
Osman et al.,2021; Sunstein et al., 2018).
In T&H, it has become common practice among some researchers to
assess intervention acceptability before field testing, although the
focus is on satisfaction rather than normative and ideological
acceptance (Dolnicar, 2020; Zinn et al., 2023). Some studies have
found no reduction in satisfaction with subconscious mechanisms
(Dolnicar et al., 2018; Kneževič Cvelbar et al., 2018), while others have
observed that defaults might limit perceived freedom of choice or
induce guilt (van Herpen et al., 2021; Theotokis & Manganari, 2014),
which can negatively affect consumers’ experiences and evaluations
of providers. Such findings highlight the distinct challenge in T&H to
evaluate interventions not only for their effect on the intended
behaviour but also on the experience (measured as satisfaction).
In summary, the acceptance of behavioural interventions remains
inconclusive. Informative behavioural interventions are generally
viewed as more ethical (Schubert, 2017), but automatic nudges may
be justified in some areas by the urgency of solving problems like
climate change, particularly when consumers actually ‘do not care
much’, such as for towel reuse (Nikolova, 2021, p.198). Because there
91
is no one-size-fits-all approach to interventions, it is critical to assess
trade-offs between (long-term) gains, physical, emotional, and
cognitive costs, as well as potential errors on a case-by-case basis,
considering the specific target audience and intended outcomes
(Camerere et al., 2003; Schmidt & Engelen, 2020).
Given that the aim of my thesis is to study pro-sustainable behaviour
of T&H consumers and its drivers and barriers, I have concentrated
on more deliberate, choice-preserving behavioural interventions, as
conceptualised in the previous section (Osman et al., 2021; Souza-
Neto et al., 2022). Specifically, the preceding review highlights gaps
in the design and application settings of social norm and carbon label
intervention. Since these are often also perceived as more ethical and
applicable in raising awareness and reinforcing pro-sustainable
behaviours, they are central to my studies. I consider them to be one
tool within a broader toolkit for promoting pro-sustainable
behaviour, focusing on the immediate context but potentially serving
as catalysts prompting individuals to reconsider their behaviours and
contributing to broader awareness (Mont et al., 2014). With flexibility
for contextualisation, these interventions can be adapted based on
feedback and changing circumstances, making them applicable in
diverse T&H settings and offering providers accessible and
immediate results.
As social norm and carbon label interventions require a certain level
of consumer motivation to engage, and given that the primary goal of
consumption in T&H is positive experiences, promoting desired
behaviours should enhance – or, at least, not interfere with –
consumers’ experiences. Accordingly, such behavioural interventions
need to consider the specifics of T&H contexts, including their
92
experiential and hedonic nature, as well as the unfamiliarity with the
destination and consequences of behaviour.
3 Theoretical Foundations for Pro-
Sustainable Consumer Behaviour
In this chapter, I discuss the key theoretical models and concepts that
are relevant to understanding and changing pro-sustainable
behaviour in this thesis. Various psychological theories aim to explain
pro-environmental or pro-social behaviour, providing a base for
behavioural change interventions (e.g., Adams, 1963; Hines et al.,
1987; Lindenberg, 2000; Schwartz, 1977; Steg et al., 2014a; Stern, 2000).
Despite the variety of these theories, many have been applied only
sporadically in pro-sustainable interventions within T&H (Dolnicar,
2020; Tang, 2014). Additionally, many intervention studies lack clear
theoretical linkage, often due to inconsistent use of language and
constructs (Souza-Neto et al., 2022).
The diversity of behavioural theories also reflects the different belief
systems of those advocating for behaviour change through specific
intervention types (Hall, 2016). While this theoretical multiplicity can
create confusion about their application in T&H, it also illustrates the
significant variation in the behavioural drivers across different
behaviours, consumer groups, and contexts. No single theory fully
captures the complexity of pro-sustainable behaviour, which
encompasses a wide range of behaviours influenced by various
external, internal, and social factors (for reviews, see, e.g., Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002; Li et al., 2023; Testa et al., 2021). However, existing
theories offer valuable insights into these influencing factors, offering
possible explanations for the outcomes of interventions and insights
93
that can be replicated or built upon in different contexts (Ajzen, 1985;
Schwartz, 1977; Steg & Vlek, 2009; Stern, 2000).
The chapter begins by examining the System 1 and System 2
perspective, which offers a foundational understanding of human
decision-making processes underpinning many behavioural
interventions and sets a broad framework encompassing various
behavioural theories and constructs. Subsequent sections review
more specific behavioural theories that are used in the literature on
pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H and throughout my thesis. These
are summarised in Section 3.7, providing an overview of their
relevance and application in the context of this research.
3.1 System 1 and System 2
Drawing on dual-process theories and research within the heuristic
and biases research programme (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979),
Kahneman (2011) popularised the concepts of two systems of
thinking within judgement and decision-making (Gawronski &
Creighton, 2013). System 1 involves fast, automatic, emotional, and
intuitive decisions, guiding routine tasks, while System 2 entails
slower, more deliberate decision-making that requires more mental
effort. Although System 1 generates efficient first responses, these can
be susceptible to systematic biases that System 2 often fails to rectify
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Therefore, outcomes derived from
System 2, such as reported intentions, may significantly differ from
those of System 1 (Ropret Homar & Knežević Cvelbar, 2023). It is
important to note that these systems do not present distinct all-or-
nothing conditions, as has been suggested in the literature, but
operate and influence each other to varying degrees depending on
the choice and environment (Evans, 2007; Garcés, 2022). In a critique
94
of general tourist decision-making models, some tourism researchers
have adopted dual system theory, acknowledging that tourists face
various choices and may employ different decision-making strategies
in each context (McCabe et al., 2016).
Rooted in the heuristic and biases research program, nudging
embraces the dual-system perspective by either leveraging System 1’s
motivational and cognitive shortcomings or fostering System 2
decision-making to steer people towards better decisions. Proponents
of the dual-system view, along with scholars in T&H (Demeter et al.,
2023; Dolnicar, 2020; Greene et al., 2023), generally suggest that
System 1 nudges tend to be more effective at achieving desired
behavioural outcomes than attempts to de-bias by engaging System 2
(Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). This is unsurprising, given that
System 1 nudges demand less cognitive processing and are less
susceptible to individual differences like values and goals (Mertens et
al., 2021).
Studies have supported this in interventions involving small changes
in physical infrastructure or defaults (Lehner et al., 2016; Schubert,
2017; Souza-Neto et al., 2022). In T&H research, defaults have proven
powerful in experiments on daily room cleaning (Kneževič Cvelbar et
al., 2020), offering restaurant consumers doggy bags as the default
(van Herpen et al., 2021), or changing the default invitation to offset
carbon emissions in a conference package (Araña & León, 2013).
Another notable System 1 nudge in T&H is changing the physical
infrastructure by reducing plate sizes at buffets to mitigate food
waste, which has been effective in diverse buffet settings (Richardson
et al., 2021; Wansink & van Ittersum, 2013), including a hotel
breakfast buffet (Kallbekken & Sælen, 2013). Furthermore, Ropret
Homar and Kneževič Cvelbar (2023) showed that a System 1 nudge
95
involving framing increased participants’ engagement in voluntary
carbon offsetting, even among those with negative attitudes.
Other behavioural interventions, involving more cognitive effort,
vary in their assumptions about the duality and interaction of
cognitive processes. For example, nudge plus approaches are situated
close to the dual processes perspective but assume it is possible to
trigger both processes simultaneously, with their interplay being
context-dependent on the specific behavioural change problem
(Banerjee, 2021). Boosts, in turn, are based on a different
interpretation of bounded rationality, grounded in the Simple
Heuristics research programme and a singular cognitive process
theory (Banerjee, 2021; Grüne-Yanoff & Hertwig, 2016). Rather than
‘co-opting’ individuals’ heuristics, proponents of boosts posit that
decision-making can be improved by enhancing people’s heuristic
‘toolbox’ through changes in skills, knowledge, decision tools, or the
environment (Banerjee, 2021; Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). This
requires that boost interventions are transparent and cooperation
from the targeted individual.
A key aspect of automatic interventions and interventions that
incorporate deliberation is the longevity of effectiveness. However,
empirical evidence about the long-term effects of different
behavioural intervention types remains limited (Banerjee, 2019;
Congiu & Moscati, 2021). Some studies have indicated that certain
System 1 nudges work in the long run. For example, defaults had
long-term impacts on employees who chose to work standing instead
of sit (Venema et al., 2018), or on Swedish retirement savers to
participate in a premium pension plan (Cronqvist et al., 2018); these
results were probably due to the fact that people simply maintained
the default. Conversely, Van Rookhuijzen et al. (2021) found that after
96
removing a default nudge, its effect only remained for one target
behaviour – namely, participants’ decision to complete a longer
survey – and not for healthier food choices. While the heterogeneity
in effects may stem from the need for participants to make active
decisions during subsequent measures in Van Rookhuijzen et al.’s
(2021) experiment and the complexity and habitual nature of food
choices, further research is necessary (Banerjee & John, 2021; Greene
et al., 2023).
Studies assessing the long-term impact of System 2 nudges have
shown more sustained effectiveness. For example, providing social
norm information encouraged prolonged energy savings (Dolan &
Metcalfe, 2013) and increased use of stairs instead of elevators
(Burger & Shelton, 2011), and distributing behaviourally informed
leaflets promoted household food waste recycling in Sweden months
after the intervention (Linder et al., 2018; see also Bernedo et al., 2014;
Kuhfuss et al., 2016; Wakefield et al., 2015). However, some research
indicates the opposite (Congiu & Moscati, 2021; Foxcroft et al., 2015).
Moreover, while there is much discussion about the long-term
impacts of nudges compared to boost or nudge plus, empirical
evidence remains sparse. Paunov and Grüne-Yanoff (2023)
demonstrated that boost outperformed social norm nudges in terms
of encouraging sustainable energy use, while Banerjee (2019) showed
that nudge plus had more prolonged impacts on reducing meat
consumption among university students than simple nudges did.
Given the limited research on the long-term effectiveness of
interventions based on the System 1 and System 2 perspective,
further investigation is needed to gain a comprehensive
understanding, considering factors like individual dispositions, the
perceived credibility of interventions, and the specificity of the
97
targeted behaviour and its related impacts (for example, on similar
behaviours or the consumption experience) (Congiu & Moscati, 2021;
Osman & Nelson, 2019). Nevertheless, existing evidence does suggest
that interventions targeting more deliberate decision-making may
have longer-term impacts by persuading individuals more
consciously about the benefit of certain choices, especially for more
habitual or complex behaviours, such as food choices in T&H settings
(Congiu & Moscati, 2021).
3.2 Cognitive Behavioural Models
Cognitive behavioural models, such as Schwartz’s Norm-Activation
model (NAM), the Value–Belief–Norm (VBN) Theory of
Environmentalism by Stern (2000), and Ajzen’s (1985) Theory of
Planned Behaviour (TPB), emphasise the influence of attitudes,
perceived control, and norms on intentions and behaviour. Despite
the recognised limitation that intentions may not always translate
into behaviour, and changing attitudes may not suffice for driving
pro-sustainable behaviour among a significant portion of consumers
in T&H (Dolnicar & Demeter, 2023; Passafore, 2020; Wu et al., 2023),
these models remain widely applied in the field and provide valuable
insights into key determinants interacting with attitudes in shaping
behaviour (Li et al., 2023; Tang, 2014; Ulker-Demirel & Ciftci, 2020).
Attitudes are a multifaceted concept; they are often vaguely defined
as evaluations of certain objects, events, people, or behaviours but
used inconsistently in behavioural change literature, referring both to
general attitudes towards sustainability and specific attitudes
towards target behaviours (see Passafaro, 2019 for a review). While
this complexity contributes to the concepts’ limited applicability in
promoting pro-sustainable behaviour, it underscores that attitudes
98
play a significant role in behaviour, interacting with various
cognitive, affective, and behavioural elements (Ajzen 1985; Passafaro,
2019; Steg et al., 2014a).
Fishbein and Ajzen (1985) integrated attitudes into the Theory of
Planned Behaviour (TPB), suggesting that intentions mediate the
relationship between attitude and behaviour. Specifically,
behavioural intentions stem from an individual’s attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 2012), which are
influenced by behaviour-relevant beliefs based on various
background factors (Sommer, 2011). Perceived behavioural control, or
self-efficacy, reflects an individual’s perceived capability of
implementing a behaviour (Kaiser & Schultz, 2009; van Valkengoed
et al., 2022). This is relevant to T&H, where broad sustainability
attitudes may translate into different pro-sustainable behaviours,
ranging from easy actions like reusing towels to more challenging
ones like choosing train travel over air travel (Albrecht et al., 2024).
Researchers have applied the TPB to study various pro-sustainable
behaviours in T&H, such as intentions to patronise restaurants with
organic menu items (Shin et al., 2018), visit environmentally friendly
establishments (Jang et al., 2014), or pay for park conservation
(López-Mosquera et al., 2014; Ulker-Demirel & Ciftci, 2020). While
these studies mainly assess stated intentions, they also highlight the
potential significance of social norms and perceived behavioural
control in influencing pro-sustainable behaviours.
To increase the predictive power of the TPB, researchers often
integrate constructs from Schwartz’s (1977) Norm-Activation Model
(NAM) (e.g., Fauzi et al., 2022; Joo et al., 2022; Savari et al., 2023; Shin
et al., 2018). The NAM underscores the significance of internalised
norms in behaviour, positing that awareness of consequences,
99
attribution of responsibility and outcome efficacy (the extent to which
individuals perceive behaviour as effective in addressing
sustainability problems) can prompt a moral obligation to act
(personal norms), thereby influencing behaviour (van Valkengoed et
al., 2022).
The Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory (Stern, 2000) builds on the
NAM to explain PEBs, by embedding norm activation within a
framework of core altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic values that
shape environmental beliefs. While individuals possess all three
value orientations, their relative strength varies, which explains
differences in awareness of consequences and feelings of personal
responsibility (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Stern et al., 1999). Survey
studies in T&H have demonstrated the relationships between NAM
constructs and pro-sustainable behaviours, such as attending
environmentally responsible conventions (Han, 2014) and making
pro-sustainable food choices in restaurants (Shin et al., 2018). These
studies highlighted the significance of personal norms in pro-
sustainable behaviour and indicated that ascribing responsibility and
efficacy (linked to perceived behavioural control in the TPB) can
activate personal norms (Confente & Scarpi, 2021; Gregory et al.,
1994).
There are many other expansions and combinations of the theories;
some are context-dependent, and others are applicable across
different pro-sustainable behaviours. These include factors such as
habit (MacInnes et al., 2022; Rees et al., 2018), psychological and
physical distance (e.g., Grazzini et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2021; Song et
al., 2023; Trope & Liberman, 2003), knowledge (e.g., Kaiser & Fuhrer
2003), and anticipated emotions (Al Zaidi et al., 2023; Bamberg et al.,
2007; Onwezen et al., 2013). A notable recent development is the
100
integration of cognitive models with goal-centred theories, such as
Goal-Framing theory (Lindenberg, 2000), which account for
motivations to perform a behaviour and situational factors (Ajzen &
Kruglanski, 2019; Concari et al., 2023; Steg et al., 2014b).
In summary, cognitive behavioural models offer a valuable
framework for identifying general factors that facilitate or hinder pro-
sustainable behaviour. For example, a decision not to reduce meat
consumption may stem from a negative attitude towards vegetarian
foods, perceived barriers to accessing vegetarian meals, social
pressure to eat meat, and the lack of a moral obligation to reduce
meat intake. However, applying these models directly and as the sole
basis for interventions is likely to be insufficient to change pro-
sustainable behaviour significantly. Cognitive models assume that
individuals either already possess favourable attitudes and norms
that can be activated through information or use available
information to evaluate consequences and subsequently change their
attitudes or norms, thus neglecting contextual, spontaneous, and
emotional factors, as well as the role of habit, past behaviour, and the
dynamic nature of decision-making processes (Steg et al., 2014b).
Given the limitations of the TPB and the NAM, and the complexity
and contextual nature of pro-sustainable behaviour, it is beneficial to
use these theories in combination with other theories and adapt them
to the specific context in question, as is often done in behavioural
intervention studies measuring actual behaviour. This requires the
identification of the factors that are most likely to influence the
specific target behaviour through pre-studies, which might involve
interviews, surveys, observation, and insights from T&H providers
(Nimri, 2018).
101
3.3 Goal-Framing Theory
The goal-framing theory (GFT) is influenced by Lindenberg’s (2000)
alternative way of extending rationality and posits that individuals
respond to internal goals and external cues rather than always
optimising, as assumed in classical rational choice models. According
to Lindenberg (2000), all actions are framed, which influences the
selection of ‘good reasons’ to act in a certain way (p.171). While
incorporating cognitive components from theories like the TPB and
the NAM, the GFT emphasises how cues in the environment can
influence how people frame and process information in different
contexts, thereby influencing their behavioural goals and actions
(Lindenberg, 2000, 2006).
Lindenberg (2008) identified three main goal frames: normative, gain,
and hedonic. Normative goals focus on acting appropriately, making
situationally relevant personal and social norms cognitively more
accessible, while gain goals pertain to individual benefits, and
hedonic goals prioritise pleasurable experiences and short-term
consequences (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013; Miao & Wei, 2013). When
one of these three goals is focal for an individual, it captures many of
their cognitive and motivational processes. The goal can direct
several subgoals, change what preferences are salient, guide the
individual’s attention, shape considerations of alternatives, and
influence which knowledge is drawn on when making decisions
(Foss & Lindenberg, 2013), thereby affecting motivation and
behaviour by impeding other goals, directing expectations about
others’ behaviour, and influencing judgement of goal achievement
(Lindenberg, 2018). Unlike other mainstream behavioural theories,
the GFT suggests that while preferences may not change
situationally, the situational activation of preferences does, as does
102
the selective attention to benefits, opportunities, and constraints
(Lindenberg & Papies, 2019).
Some studies have indicated that the normative goal frame positively
influences pro-sustainable behaviour, but that this goal frame is also
lowest in salience, meaning that other frames, especially the hedonic
frame, easily threaten the normative goal frame’s strength
(Chakraborty et al., 2017; Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). To maintain
focus on normative goals, people must push their hedonistic and
gain-oriented goals to the background if they are not compatible with
normative ones (Lindenberg, 2000). As previous studies have shown,
pro-sustainable behaviours are often associated with everyday
responsibilities and personal sacrifices, which may conflict with the
short-term hedonic goals of consumers in T&H and, therefore,
negatively impact their motivation to engage in normative-oriented
pro-sustainable behaviour (Chakraborty et al., 2017; Juvan &
Dolnicar, 2014b; Schwartz, 1977; Winkler-Schor et al., 2020). A similar
notion is reflected in some value-related literature, suggesting that
context-specific goals and values tend to emerge when people are on
holiday, addressing the possible effects of multiple conflicting values
on tourists’ behaviour (Crick-Furman & Prentice, 2000; Passafaro &
Vecchione, 2022).
Despite these challenges, the GFT recognises that individuals
experience multiple goals simultaneously, which vary across tourism
activities and settings, and may either conflict or support one other.
For instance, the motivation to perform PEBs is often driven not just
by environmental concerns but also by other non-environmental
goals (Wang et al., 2021). Some studies have found that individuals’
anticipated emotion of ‘warm-glow’ – a sense of satisfaction from
doing something good for others – strongly influences decisions to
103
engage in pro-sustainable behaviour, even in T&H contexts (Alpízar
et al., 2008; Malone et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2003). This suggests that
hedonic goals, such as deriving pleasure from warm-glow, can
support the performance of normative-oriented behaviours (Steg et
al., 2014b). Furthermore, personal norms can moderate the
relationship between hedonic motives and pro-sustainable behaviour.
Individuals who hold personal sustainability norms may engage in
pro-sustainable behaviour, even in a hedonic goal frame, because
they feel morally obliged to do so, have a desire to act consistently
with their norms, and are more conscious of the societal or
environmental outcomes of their behaviour (Rodriguez–Sanchez et
al., 2020).
However, the GFT posits that moral obligations develop only if
normative goals become salient, which can be facilitated by goal-
nudging interventions providing information about expectations and
norms to emphasise collective effort (Kronrod et al., 2012;
Lindenberg, 2008). Although the GFT has been applied in only a few
studies on pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H, other studies suggest
that more pro-sustainable consumer choices can be encouraged
through cues that activate sustainability-related normative goals
(Onwezen, 2023; Thøgersen & Alfinito, 2020; Trabandt et al., 2024).
Taking this idea a step further, if the cues encountered during a T&H
experience are concerned with new challenges and unknown norms,
and if they are sufficiently strong and reinforced, individuals may
form new preferences and behaviours (Pung et al., 2020).
Following the above, engagement in norm-related pro-sustainable
behaviour may become compatible with hedonic goals due to
individuals’ desire to behave in line with their norms or newly
formed preferences, or to experience positive emotions like warm-
104
glow (Malone et al., 2014). To achieve this and also ensure sustained
engagement in pro-sustainable behaviour, Steg et al. (2014a)
proposed that interventions should focus on strengthening normative
goals, rather than circumventing them via behavioural-nudging or
targeting gain or hedonic goals exclusively, as this helps to reduce the
conflict between the goals. Similarly, Ballantyne et al. (2018)
emphasised the normative route for fostering pro-sustainable
behaviour, arguing that eliciting the appropriate value frame can
prompt PEB, even among self-centred individuals.
3.4 Social Norms
The social norm concept is crucial in sociology and psychology and
central to some of the most commonly used cognitive and
psychological theories, such as the focus theory of normative conduct
(Bicchieri & Xiao, 2007; Cialdini et al., 1990; Schwartz, 1977),
explaining why social norm interventions are often classified as a
distinct type of intervention (Bicchieri et al., 2019). Social norms,
which are broadly understood as expectations or rules within a group
of people that impact behaviour, emerge from collective activities and
shared knowledge and practices (Mackie et al., 2015). This
distinguishes them from personal norms (Schwartz & Howard, 1981).
While the ubiquity of the social norm concept has led to inconsistent
terminology and understanding of their influence on behaviour
(Bicchieri, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2015), scholars commonly
differentiate between social norms that dictate accepted behaviour
and those defining common behaviour (Bicchieri, 2006; Cialdini et al.,
1990; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). According to Cialdini (1990), these
injunctive norms represent ‘rules or beliefs as to what constitutes
morally approved and disapproved conduct’, and descriptive norms,
105
describing what behaviour is typical or normal providing evidence
for what will likely be effective action (p. 1015). Furthermore, Deutsch
and Gerard (1955) differentiated between normative and
informational social influence. Normative influence reflects the need
to conform to others’ expectations, driven by the desire for social
rewards like approval, and is concerned with public behaviour. On
the other hand, informational influence or ‘social proof’ suggests that
a person accepts others’ expectations individually to make more
informed choices, especially in situations of uncertainty (Deutsch &
Gerard, 1955).
The distinction between social influences, particularly the influence of
injunctive and descriptive norms, is not always clear, as providing
empirical information about common behaviour often leads people to
conclude that the behaviour is approved of, which influences its
prevalence (Bicchieri & Dimant, 2019; Burchell et al., 2013). Bacharach
(2006) combined these influences in his ‘I-reasoning’ and ‘We-
reasoning’ propositions, which are concerned with self- and group-
oriented behaviour, suggesting that people shift from selfish
behaviour to group-oriented behaviour if they believe others
contribute to and expect everyone else to contribute. Additionally,
group objectives need to relate to personal ones to achieve this shift in
individuals (Bacharach, 2006; Tajfel, 1979; White & Simpson, 2013).
Given that social norms are often perceived instructions about
common behaviour rather than actual behaviour, the term ‘subjective
norms’ is sometimes used (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Tankard & Paluck,
2016). This distinction is relevant in behavioural interventions, which
aim to activate or alter individuals’ subjective norms to induce
changes in actual norms. Apart from targeting specific descriptive
and injunctive norms, this may involve targeting social norms that
106
are widely shared, but that are to varying degrees internalised by
individuals and not necessarily acted upon, such as social
responsibility, reciprocity, and fairness (see also conditional
cooperation (Fehr & Schurtenberger, 2018), Equity Theory (Adams,
1963), and Social Exchange Theory (for a review, see, e.g.,
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) 2).
3.5 Cognitive Dissonance and
Rationalisation Strategies
Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory is highly relevant for
understanding the attitude–behaviour gap, but seldom explicitly
acknowledged in pro-sustainable tourism research (Juvan & Dolnicar,
2014b; Schrem & Upham, 2020). According to Festinger (1957), people
intrinsically strive for consistency between their behaviours and their
strongly held beliefs and values and experience psychological
discomfort when discrepancies arise between ‘cognitions (attitudes,
beliefs, values, opinions, knowledge) about themselves, about their
behaviour, and their surroundings’ (p. 9).
To resolve this discomfort, people may either adjust their behaviour
to fit their beliefs or modify their beliefs to rationalise the situation
2 Conditional Cooperation, Equity Theory, and Social Exchange Theory address how individuals’
perceptions of fairness and reciprocity influence their willingness to cooperate in social contexts.
Conditional cooperation refers to individuals’ willingness to contribute to a collective effort based on
others’ contributions, proposing that people are more likely to cooperate if they see others doing the same.
Equity Theory focuses on fairness in social exchange, suggesting that individuals seek to maintain balanced
ratios of input and output in their relationships. If this ratio is perceived as unfair, individuals adjust their
level of input or rationalise the situation to achieve equity. Social Exchange Theory posits that social
interactions are based on the exchange of resources, where individuals seek to maximise benefits and
minimise costs. Thus, the theories highlight the human desire for fair treatment and the motivation to act
based on the perceived or expected actions of others in a given context.
107
and fit their behaviour. Among other things, this depends on the
costs of the behaviour (Diekmann & Preisendörfer, 2003; Steg et al.,
2014b). For instance, a habitual meat-eating consumer might seek
information about the benefits of eating meat or other pro-sustainable
behaviours to justify their meat consumption. Alternatively, after
learning about the unsustainable nature of meat options, individuals
may refrain from eating meat when the costs – whether monetary,
temporal, or effort-related – are sufficiently low in the given setting
(Diekmann & Preisendörfer, 2003). This is more likely if the
behaviour aligns with efficacy beliefs, regarding both outcome- and
self-efficacy, leaving less room for rationalisation. For example, a
decision to abstain from eating meat for environmental reasons is
fostered by a strong belief in the link between meat consumption and
environmental harm (Lindenberg, 2023). Similarly, the premise that
individuals seek to resolve internal discomfort aligns with prominent
interpersonal theories like Equity Theory (Adams, 1963), where
discomfort arises from perceived inequities in relationships rather
than from conflicting beliefs or attitudes.
Recent studies on actual behaviour, as opposed to intentions, suggest
that environmentally aware tourists often prioritise consistency by
adjusting beliefs rather than changing their behaviour (Dolnicar et al.,
2017, 2019). This can involve the adoption of different rationalisation
strategies, expressed through the reasons tourists state for not
engaging in pro-sustainable behaviour while on holiday (Juvan &
Dolnicar, 2021). A prevalent rationalisation strategy in sustainable
consumption and tourism is moral licensing (Xu et al., 2020), which is
also known as self-licensing, negative spillovers (Wang et al., 2023),
single-action bias (Zhao & Luo, 2021), contribution ethic (Nayum &
Thøgersen, 2022), or compensatory beliefs (Capstick et al., 2019).
108
Moral licensing is a psychological phenomenon wherein individuals
feel entitled to engage in less virtuous behaviour because they believe
they have previously acted morally. They perceive that they deserve
a ‘break’ from their usual effortful behaviour, having already done
their fair share (Gifford, 2011; Truelove et al., 2016). While few
empirical studies have explored how moral licensing affects cross-
contextual spillover of pro-sustainable behaviour (Nayum &
Thøgersen, 2022; Wang et al., 2023), several studies on the attitude–
behaviour gap show that environmentally aware individuals tend to
view their holidays as a break from regular pro-sustainable
behaviour (Barr et al., 2011; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2021; Schrem &
Upham, 2020). Similarly, in the context of out-of-home food
consumption, consumers who reduce meat consumption at home
may be less inclined to choose explicitly labelled vegetarian options
in restaurants (Bacon & Krpan, 2018; Hielkema & Lund, 2022).
A related rationalisation strategy is to deny responsibility, as
postulated in Attribution Theory (Heider, 1958) and concepts of
behavioural control (Ajzen, 1985; Schwartz, 1977). Attribution Theory
suggests that people explain events either as being caused internally
(dispositional) or by external factors out of their control (situational).
For instance, Juvan et al. (2016) found that some environmentally
concerned tourist segments attribute responsibility and the ability to
make a difference to governments and T&H providers or feel they
lack control in reducing environmental harm during holidays due to
insufficient information. Schrems and Upham (2020) found that
sustainability academics use justifications such as denial of control,
denial of responsibility, and moral licensing to reconcile the
disjunction between their sustainability knowledge, pro-
environmental attitudes, and flight behaviour. To address cognitive
109
dissonance and promote behavioural change, interventions might
focus on relevant rationalisation strategies, such as shifting external
to internal attribution, highlighting that the behaviour has
sustainability impacts similar to those at home, and emphasising that
others are also making efforts (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2021).
Notably, while the literature often suggests that tourists rationalise
their unsustainable behaviour rather than changing it, some research
indicates that, under certain conditions, tourists do change their
behaviour in alignment with attitudes. In a conceptual study, Pung et
al. (2020) proposed that intense stimuli during tourism experiences –
including those not specifically aimed at sustainability, like eco-
tourism – can prompt changes in both cognition and behaviour. The
authors argued that when tourists recognise the intensity of their
reactions, the incongruence between self-concept and behaviour may
prompt reflection and a reinterpretation of values, which can drive
behavioural change. The intensity of these stimuli is subjective and
contextual, suggesting that responses to behavioural interventions
vary based on personal norms and the specific tourism context.
3.6 Backfiring and Reactance
In order to gain comprehensive insights into pro-sustainable
behaviour and mitigate counterproductive results, it is necessary to
understand why interventions may not always produce the desired
outcomes and may instead lead to unintended effects. Various
contextual and psychological factors can contribute to unintended
effects (Bicchieri & Dimant, 2019; Brough et al., 2020), which may
manifest as negative side effects offsetting the intervention effect
(Spillover/halo effects), later behaviour counteracting the intervention
110
effect (moral licensing), or even ‘backfiring’, where the intervention
causes the opposite of the intended behaviour (Osman et al., 2021).
Negative and positive spillover effects have been found between
PEBs in general (Meijers et al., 2015; Nash et al., 2017; Nilsson et al.,
2017; Truelove et al., 2014) and contextually between PEBs at home
and in a T&H setting (Xu et al., 2020). These findings suggest that
factors such as environmental identity and moral licensing beliefs
influence spillover. However, research on spillover effects from
behavioural interventions is limited (Banerjee, 2021; Colmsjö et al.,
2022). Although measuring spillover effects is beyond the scope of
this thesis, they can affect the net impact of interventions over time
and should thus be considered in intervention design (Taplin et al.,
2022; Xu et al., 2020).
Regarding backfiring, a psychological term commonly associated
with such effects in the broad context of persuasive messages is
reactance (Griesoph et al., 2021; Ji et al., 2023; Richter et al., 2018).
Reactance refers to an unpleasant motivational arousal to persuasion,
specifically to having one’s behaviour or beliefs manipulated (Brehm,
1966). In other words, reactance means that making normatively
desirable but unpopular recommendations can be counterproductive
(Fitzsimons & Lehmann, 2004, p.92). The reactance effect has been
observed in various behavioural interventions (Osman, 2020),
especially in health and PEB settings (e.g., Brough et al., 2020; Bruns
& Perino, 2021; Mols et al., 2015), highlighting several potential
psychological reasons. In line with reciprocity and social exchange
theories, one trigger in the context of sustainability appeals may be a
perceived imbalance in benefits and costs, such as effort, where the
credibility and sustainability commitment of the organisation
requesting engagement play a crucial role (Kim & Kim, 2014; Wang et
111
al., 2017; Warren et al., 2017). This point emphasises the importance
of perceived social norms regarding both the contributions of fellow
consumers in addressing sustainability problems and the actions of
providers.
Furthermore, aligned with cognitive dissonance theory, perceived
obtrusive messages can induce psychological costs like annoyance
and guilt, which may counteract intrinsic benefits like warm glow
(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Damgaard & Gravert, 2018; Festinger,
1957). Therefore, while the use of interventions like prompts can be
useful for reducing forgetfulness, it requires careful implementation
to avoid imposing moral costs if they draw excessive attention to
decisions that the decision-maker prefers to avoid (Damgaard &
Gravert, 2018; Edenbrandt et al., 2021). Similarly, assertive
environmental messages urging consumers to change their behaviour
may backfire by infringing on perceived freedom of choice (Font &
McCabe, 2017; Kronrod et al., 2012; Trabandt et al., 2024).
In T&H contexts, certain psychological levers might trigger backfiring
effects despite their effectiveness in other settings. For example, while
people often pay more attention to negative information due to
negativity bias, this effect is unlikely to work well in an industry
catering to consumers who are seeking relaxation and enjoyment (Ji
et al., 2023; Nieto-García et al., 2024; Souza-Neto et al., 2022). Thus,
backfiring needs to be considered not only in terms of adverse effects
on the targeted behaviour but also on consumers’ experiences, which
can impact the providers’ image and revenue (Trabandt et al., 2024).
Notably, Banerjee et al.’s (2022) online study on sustainable eating
found that backfiring effects may diminish over time when
accounting for individuals’ long-term motivations. This finding
112
suggests that initial reactance or cognitive dissonance should not
necessarily deter intervention implementers, as such reactions can
sometimes be necessary for transforming perspectives if reflection is
incorporated into the intervention (Bruns & Perino, 2021).
3.7 Theoretical Framework Summary
As highlighted in the review of the literature and behavioural
theories, various environmental, psychological, and social factors
influence pro-sustainable behaviour. The influence of these factors, in
terms of their strength and whether they drive or hinder pro-
sustainable behaviour, differs across contexts, as does their
relationship with each other. Despite increasing research, the review
shows that knowledge gaps remain regarding the behavioural drivers
and barriers of different pro-sustainable behaviours among T&H
consumers, such as social-oriented behaviours like donations for
public goods and climate-friendly food choices, across diverse T&H
settings, including recreational outdoor contexts and à la carte
restaurants (Abrahamse, 2021; Demeter et al., 2023; Greene et al.,
2023; Li et al., 2023). Addressing these gaps is central to RQ1 (What
are the drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in
T&H?) and important for advancing the understanding of pro-
sustainable consumer behaviour in T&H.
To tackle this issue, previous sections have identified some key
factors influencing pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H, providing a
basis for studying the drivers and barriers to the target behaviours in
this thesis. These factors are summarised in Figure 3 below. The
figure does not aim to present an exhaustive list of influencing factors
and their interactions, but it does serve as a starting point for
identifying those factors that may drive or impede pro-sustainable
113
behaviour in the contexts studied. These factors can then be targeted
in behavioural interventions, addressing RQ3: How can behavioural
interventions be designed to encourage pro-sustainable consumer behaviours
in tourism and hospitality? Accordingly, broader institutional factors,
socio-demographic factors, and internal factors like habit and
personality traits – while influential in pro-sustainable behaviour in
general – are excluded from Figure 3 because they are difficult to
measure and target within the temporally limited T&H contexts of
this thesis.
Figure 3: Factors influencing pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in tourism and
hospitality.
The division into situational, personal, and social factors is inspired
by the preceding review of behavioural theories, along with existing
reviews (Li et al., 2023; Testa et al., 2021) and frameworks on pro-
sustainable behaviour (Kollmuss &Agyeman, 2002; Steg et al., 2014a;
114
Testa et al., 2021). This division highlights that different aspects of an
individual’s environment and psychology influence behaviour while
providing a structure for understanding and analysing the drivers
and barriers to pro-sustainable behaviour in this thesis.
The goal-frames (Lindenberg, 2000, 2006; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007)
are displayed at the outer layer. This indicates how different
overarching goals, influenced by environmental cues such as those
listed under situational factors, impact the salience of personal and
social factors and how these are processed and prioritised. In T&H
settings, the hedonic goal frame is generally the most salient and may
discourage engagement in pro-sustainable behaviour if it conflicts
with the behaviour, indicated by the red arrow. The normative goal
frame typically influences pro-sustainable behaviour positively if it is
supported by hedonic and gain goals and can be triggered by
environmental cues such as behavioural interventions (Lindenberg &
Steg, 2007).
While Figure 3 does not illustrate all possible interaction effects, due
to their inherent complexity and variability, the interaction among
situational, personal, and social factors can either encourage or
impede pro-sustainable behaviour. With regard to situational factors,
information salience, visibility of target behaviour (private vs.
public), type of activity, and type of provider play a crucial role in
shaping behaviour within specific T&H contexts. These factors can
act as immediate cues that influence an individual’s goal frames and,
with personal and social factors amplifying or diminishing their
effects, influence behaviour (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). Thus,
understanding situational factors makes it possible to design
interventions tailored to the specific context, making them more
relevant and reducing the risks of backfiring. For instance, when pro-
115
sustainable behaviour is private, visible descriptive information
about the behaviour of others can leverage social norms to encourage
pro-sustainable behaviour (Bicchieri & Dimant, 2019).
Personal factors are directly related to individual decision-making
processes. Although personal attitudes play a significant role in pro-
sustainable behaviour, they are excluded from this framework due to
their complexity and broad range of associated constructs. Attitudes
often involve multiple, interrelated constructs, and the literature has
identified several general intervening factors that contribute to the
attitude–behaviour gap (Passafaro, 2019). For instance, personal
norms might include aspects of attitudes toward the behaviour,
reflecting one’s views on what is considered right or wrong. Thus, to
avoid the complexity and potential conflict inherent in general
attitudes, this framework focuses on more specific factors, which can
be targeted more concretely, such as awareness, personal norms, and
perceived behavioural control (linked in this framework to efficacy
beliefs, ascription of responsibility and attribution of consequences).
As emphasised in the literature (e.g., Steg et al., 2014a; Testa et al.,
2021) and in frameworks such as the TPB (Ajzen, 2012) and NAM
(Schwartz, 1977), these factors can drive pro-sustainable behaviour if
they are favourable to that behaviour.
Anticipated emotions are also included, as they motivate behaviour
by driving individuals to seek positive feelings and avoid negative
ones (Antonetti & Maklan, 2014; Steg et al., 2014b). On a personal
level, individuals may be motivated by the anticipated warm glow
when making pro-sustainable choices or by avoiding the guilt of
unsustainable choices, while social norms can evoke emotions like
pride or shame (Onwezen et al., 2013; Sirieix et al., 2017). In
experiential contexts like T&H, such consideration of emotions is
116
crucial for designing interventions that not only promote pro-
sustainable behaviour but also enhance the consumer experience.
The social factors reiterate the influence of social norms and
expectations prevalent in decision-making settings. Injunctive social
norms, descriptive social norms, social responsibility, reciprocity, and
fairness can all motivate pro-sustainable behaviour through social
influence and perceived social expectations of other consumers and
providers (Bicchieri, 2006; Burger et al., 2008; White & Simpson,
2013).
Reactance and moral licensing can present significant barriers to pro-
sustainable behaviour (Brehm, 1966; Osman, 2020; Xu et al., 2020),
with their impacts varying according to individual tendencies and
the influence of situational, personal, and social factors (Osman, 2020;
Wang et al., 2023). For example, perceived behavioural control can
influence reactance if people feel the targeted behaviour is too
inconvenient, while social norms can reduce moral licensing by
highlighting that collective engagement in the specific pro-
sustainable behaviour is expected and common. Identifying these
barriers within this framework highlights challenges that need to be
addressed to ensure targeted interventions and avoid backfiring
effects.
Given the complexity and context-specific nature of pro-sustainable
behaviour in T&H, we must examine the drivers and barriers to such
behaviour in real-life settings. I do this through field experiments that
test behavioural interventions in collaboration with T&H providers,
as outlined in Chapter 4.
117
4 Material and Methods
With the aim of studying pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in
T&H settings, enhancing knowledge in the field, and providing
practical recommendations on behavioural intervention design, this
research undertakes a mixed methods field experimental approach
with a pragmatic paradigmatic stance. To date, mixed methods have
been applied in a small number of sustainable T&H research articles
(Li et al., 2023; Molina-Azorín & Font, 2015) but the growing
advocacy for this approach among researchers emphasises its
potential to advance knowledge in this field (Dwyer et al., 2008;
Jennings, 2001; Molina-Azorín & Font, 2015; Nunkoo, 2018). The
central argument for employing mixed methods lies in the belief that
the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods within a
single study can overcome their individual limitations (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2017; Prayag, 2018), offering a more comprehensive
understanding of multifaceted research problems such as pro-
sustainable behaviour in T&H. This approach is especially pertinent
given the divergence in the existing literature between quantitative
surveys indicating a demand for sustainable offerings (e.g., Bollani et
al., 2019; Dolnicar et al., 2008; Feucht & Zander, 2018), and qualitative
studies suggesting that T&H consumers frequently act in their own
interest (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b; Miller et al., 2010).
Hence, a mixed methods approach is deemed necessary to strike a
balance in understanding the drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable
behaviour. Moreover, mixed methods can facilitate collaboration
between stakeholders and foster social change, which are essential
aspects in promoting more sustainable T&H consumption in practice
(Molina-Azorín & Font, 2015). Although field experiments are
generally considered quantitative in nature, they offer a means of
118
gathering both quantitative and qualitative data in real-world
settings (Paluck, 2010). This integration of methods within a single
study, along with the emphasis on practical research relevance and
utility, embodies a pragmatism approach.
The following sections outline my methodological and
epistemological positioning in pragmatism and how this informed
the use of mixed methods and field experiments. The pragmatic
mixed methods field experimental approach is consistent across the
individual papers contributing to this thesis and, to the best of my
knowledge, a novel approach within the field. The specific research
designs, including the use of qualitative and quantitative methods,
differ between the papers, as elaborated on in the subsequent
sections. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations
and ethical considerations associated with the research design.
4.1 Mixed Methods, Pragmatism, and
Behavioural Economics
There is an ongoing debate about whether mixed methods should be
considered a method of inquiry, or a methodology (Prayag, 2018;
Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). However, the perspective that different
methods are combined to enhance each other and facilitate theory
development positions mixed methods as a distinct methodological
movement, going beyond the methods themselves (Feilzer, 2010;
Molina-Azorín & Font, 2015). In this context, pragmatism is
commonly associated with mixed methods, offering different
assumptions than positivism, post-positivism, and constructivism, by
prioritising flexibility, practicality, and the generation of actionable
knowledge that can inform decision-making and practice (Feilzer,
2010; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This provides a valuable
119
foundation for understanding the use of behavioural economics,
which I view as a lens for studying pro-sustainable behaviour
(Hallsworth, 2022). Although the behavioural economics approach is
often individualistic and predictive, it benefits from the insights of
pragmatist philosophers, who offer a more holistic understanding of
behaviour by considering the dynamic interplay between individuals
and their environment (Dewey, 1939, 1983; Garcés, 2022; Hiller &
Woodall, 2018). Such a perspective enables the study of interventions
focussing on the decision-making environment to influence
individuals’ responses (Halpern, 2015).
While the pragmatism paradigm aligns with behavioural economics
approaches in many aspects, there are also noteworthy differences.
Proponents of behavioural interventions, particularly nudges, assume
that it is possible to pre-determine the difference between favourable
and unfavourable behavioural interventions and outcomes through
expertise in psychology and economic behaviour. In contrast,
pragmatists caution against assuming such predictability and
emphasise the importance of collaborative efforts for long-term
democratic social change (Garcés, 2022; Pedwell, 2017). I view these
approaches as complementary, acknowledging that while
behavioural economics offers useful insights into individual
behaviour and influencing factors, interventions need to be assessed
and adapted based on the dynamic interaction between individuals
and their natural and social surroundings. Consumers’ experiences
are not viewed as isolated events but as continuous interactions with
their environment, including other consumers and providers, thereby
carrying broader ethical implications and impacts on society and the
environment.
120
Ontologically, pragmatism accepts singular and multiple realities that
are inherently dynamic and context-dependent (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2017; Feilzer, 2010), emphasising the importance of exploring
phenomena within their practical contexts. This ontological
perspective aligns with the complexity of studying pro-sustainable
behaviour in T&H, recognising that behaviour is influenced by a
multitude of factors that may vary across different settings and
circumstances (Hiller & Woodall, 2018; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2004).
Regarding the epistemological nature of pragmatism, which is
concerned with assumptions about what can be known and how to
go about such knowing (Morgan, 2007), different layers of pro-
sustainable behaviour can be measured using both qualitative and
quantitative methods. The aim is not just to present an accurate
account of how phenomena occur and what influences them, but also
to understand how this knowledge is useful (Rorty, 1991). The notion
of utility – meaning why, what, and for whom the research is useful –
calls for reflexive research practice involving communication and
shared meaning-making with tourism stakeholders and other
researchers. As such, the sustainability problem, selection of theories,
concepts, target behaviour, interventions, and methods employed in
this thesis are considered within the spatial and temporal context of
the destination and provision setting of the cases.
The selection of cases stems from their applicability to my research
interest and thesis aim, as well as my involvement in two larger
research projects and the practicalities associated with them. Thus, I
followed a purposeful, instrumental case selection approach, aiming
to enhance previous findings by applying existing theories in
underexplored settings (Simons, 2009). The two cases – donations for
121
mountain biking (MTB) trails in Rörbäcksnäs, Dalarna, and climate-
friendly food choices in restaurants in Sälen, Dalarna, and Stockholm
– both address key sustainability issues in Sweden and the wider
T&H industry. They also have fundamental differences, which allows
for comparison and the use of different theories. Consequently, the
findings gathered in my research differ from current studies in T&H
or consumer behaviour literature, offering novel insights into pro-
sustainable behaviour in T&H while adding to behavioural
economics literature. Table 2 below outlines the key characteristics of
each case, highlighting the unique features that differentiate them
and contribute to addressing the research questions and overarching
aim of this thesis. The literature reviews conducted before data
collection in each case assisted in refining the research questions for
my papers, aligning with the overall research aim.
Despite the inherent limitations in the generalisability of small local
studies, such as those in my research, these constraints also yield
advantages, particularly with regard to navigating the complexity of
pro-sustainable behaviour. The selected cases offer insights into the
structures and processes governing the provision and consumption of
resources related to the target behaviour. This aids in the nuanced
interpretation through close collaboration with local stakeholders,
enhancing the practical utility and meaningfulness of the research,
which is challenging with generalised, context-free approaches
(Feilzer, 2010).
Based on the selected cases and the research aim, I selected an
approach that best suited overall data collection and analysis: mixed-
method field experimental research. The specific design is adapted to
the cases, as outlined in the following sections.
122
Table 2: Key case characteristics
Comparative
dimension
Case 1: Donations for MTB
trails
Papers 1 and 2
Case 2: Climate-friendly food
choices
Papers 3 and 4
Setting
Rural village
(Rörbäcksnäs, Dalarna,
Sweden)
Popular winter destination
(Sälen, Dalarna, Sweden),
Capital city (Stockholm,
Sweden)
Primary
sustainability
challenge
Funding for trail development
and management
Reducing climate impact
through food choices
Target behaviour
Donations for trail upkeep
Climate-friendly food choices
Sustainability
consequences
Positively contributes to the
destination’s sustainability
Reduces negative impacts on
the sustainability of the
destination and planet at large
Sustainability
dimension
Primarily concerned with
social/economic sustainability
Primarily concerned with
environmental sustainability
Impact on
common
resources
Direct consumption of
common resources (nature,
trails)
Indirect consumption of
common resources (resources
involved in the food production
and consumption process)
Type of provision
Uncommercial, open-access
setting
Commercial (restaurant) setting
Touchpoint with
providers
Indirect
Direct
Number of
choices
One choice (to donate or not)
Variety of choices (on the
menu)
Monetary costs
associated with
the behaviour
Freedom to choose the
monetary amount
No freedom to choose the
monetary amount
123
4.2 Field Experiments
Despite the increasing use of experimental methods in T&H,
experiments (and especially field experiments) still constitute a
minority of studies in the field (Fong et al., 2016, 2020; Sun et al., 2019).
Viglia and Dolnicar (2020) noted that fewer than 8 per cent of articles
in the Annals of Tourism Research in 2018 used experiments as the
main method, indicating a notable gap in the application of this
method compared to survey-based association studies. Furthermore,
a recent survey revealed that only 30.5 per cent of editorial board
members of leading T&H journals considered themselves very
knowledgeable about the experimental method, but 60 per cent
expressed a desire for increased experimental studies for knowledge
development and theory building (Leung et al., 2023).
Adopting an effect- and outcome-oriented pragmatic view, field
experiments lend themselves as methods for exploring and testing
the drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H through
interventions. In the natural field experiments applied in my research,
the naturally occurring behaviour of subjects is measured without the
Main
stakeholders
involved in T&H
provision
Local MTB enthusiasts, sports
association
Restaurant owners, managers,
and staff
Broader
Implications
Applicability to challenges in
funding public goods
(particularly open-access
nature-based tourism
infrastructure)
Relevance for hospitality
providers and consumer
behaviour change
124
subjects being aware that they are part of an experiment (Harrison &
List, 2009; Lynn & Lynn, 2003).
This pragmatic approach facilitates inquiry into causal effects beyond
correlations, which is a crucial distinction from traditional non-
experimental methods (Mattila et al., 2021). Specifically, field
experiments offer a unique advantage in terms of assessing
subliminal influences on behaviour, such as framing or social norms
(Ngan et al., 2022). This makes it possible to identify the conditions
that influence (un)sustainable behaviours, contributing to a nuanced
understanding (Thomlinson, 2018). While the level of causation is
greater the closer the experiment is to a true experiment, conducting
experiments in real-life contexts enhances ecological validity, which
aligns with my focus on solving real-life problems to create
practically applicable knowledge (Bausell, 2015; Sørensen et al., 2010).
Accordingly, while the core aim of my field experiments is to identify
regularities related to drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable
behaviour, a pragmatic view acknowledges their situational nature,
recognising the unpredictability of human behaviour (Feilzer, 2010;
Hiller & Woodall, 2018; Mounce, 1997). For example, in my first
paper, social norms emerged as key drivers for donation behaviour.
While this seems to follow a relatively stable pattern, it is subject to
unpredictable influences and the dynamic nature of social norms.
This point underscores the need for reflection, abductive reasoning,
and potential rethinking of research methods and theories
throughout the process.
Although my main method – collecting behavioural data in field
experiments – is quantitative in order to gain insights into the
behaviours of the majority of subjects, qualitative methods address
limitations associated with claims of causality and inform
125
quantitative approaches (Paluck, 2010). The following section outlines
the research design, including the qualitative methods employed,
followed by a description of the quantitative methods used in the
experiments.
4.3 Research Design
The predominant mixed methods design I applied in each
experimental study is a sequential exploratory design (qual→QUAN),
where the dominant quantitative method is implemented
sequentially after the qualitative method (Morse, 2003; Prayag, 2018).
Qualitative methods in the form of stakeholder interviews (Paper 1),
stakeholder workshops (Paper 3) and customer interviews (Paper 4)
were used in the exploratory pre-studies to understand the
sustainability problem at the destination, identify the target
behaviour and providers’ opportunities and challenges related to
this, develop context-relevant interventions, and inform appropriate
measuring instruments, contributing to answering RQ2 and RQ3.
Additionally, observation (Papers 1, 2, and 4) and interviews (Paper
4) were used throughout the field experiment to support the
quantitative findings. In turn, the main purpose of quantitative
methods was to systematically measure and analyse the behaviour of
consumers in response to interventions (RQ1 and RQ3). The methods
are detailed in the following sections. The research design for
individual papers and the overall thesis is shown in Figure 4.
126
Figure 4: Research design of this thesis
127
4.3.1 Qualitative Methods
Case 1 – Papers 1 and 2
The two papers in my first case were part of the ‘Innovative business
models for sustainable nature-based tourism via Gamification and
Nudge (INNature)’ research project, funded by Dalarna University
and Visit Dalarna. The project aimed to find funding models for the
management of recreational trails, such as mountain biking (MTB)
trails, that are subject to the right of public access (Allemansrätt in
Swedish)3. Some initial contact had been made with the Rörbäcksnäs
community in the Dalarna county, where MTB trails and facilities are
managed voluntarily by local MTB enthusiasts and the non-profit
sports association Rörbäcksnäs Idrottssällskap, which relies on
donations collected via Swish.4 Despite displaying a QR code for
Swish donations at the main trail entrance, along with basic
information, initial project meetings with community members
revealed insufficient funds to keep up with increased numbers of trail
users and develop tourism for socio-economic benefits for the
community. While I had a tentative idea of the sustainability
3 The Right of Public Access presents a distinct land use and access regime in
Sweden and other Scandinavian countries such as Finland and Norway. By
granting everyone the right to access public and private lands for recreation
(camping, foraging, boating, etc.) provided they respect certain guidelines
and principles, the Right of Public Access in Sweden is much more extensive
compared to many other countries. Considered a fundamental right that
allows people to connect with nature and enjoy outdoor activities
responsibly, the Right of Public Access is deeply ingrained in Scandinavian
culture (see, e.g., Kaltenborn et al., 2001; Sandell, 2006; Sandell & Fredman,
2010 for overviews and discussions in the context of sustainable tourism and
outdoor recreation).
4 Swish is a popular mobile payment service in Sweden that allows users to
transfer money between bank accounts in real time using their mobile
phones (see https://www.swish.nu/about-swish).
128
challenge and problematic behaviour (visitor donations) a qualitative
pre-study was necessary to align my interpretations with
stakeholders’ views and explore potential interventions.
Before the first experiment (Paper 1), I participated in meetings with
the local community group to gain an initial introduction to the
stakeholders, their aim in the project, and potential ideas for a study.
In terms of qualitative methods, I then conducted seven interviews
with key stakeholders of MTB trails in Rörbäcksnäs, including
members of the Rörbäcksnäs sports association, the bike rental, and
landowners. This allowed me to grasp the funding challenge,
understand Rörbäcksnas as a small community-based nature
destination, and establish trust with stakeholders.
The individual semi-structured Zoom or phone interviews lasted 20-
40 minutes. Interview questions concerned perceived barriers and
drivers of MTB trail development, the current funding system,
perceptions of Rörbäcksnäs as a tourism destination, and practical
aspects of trail management. I identified common themes and
reconciled them in a second meeting with the community group and
another researcher, revealing that donations remained the preferred
funding model but were insufficient for further development. I then
designed an intervention based on a focused literature review on
psychological theories and interventions in donation contexts and
further meetings with stakeholders. Rather than testing one specific
theory, I combined insights from different theories like the NAM
(Schwartz, 1977), TPB (Ajzen, 1985) and Attribution Theory (Heider,
1958) to test the influence of relevant, common aspects (particularly
social norms) on the pro-sustainable behaviour of tourists in this
setting.
129
The interviews and meetings not only delineated the sustainability
issue and informed the intervention but also influenced survey
design and practical implementation of the experiment (for example,
by identifying relevant questions), and the most suitable time and
place for survey collection and intervention implementation.
Continuous communication with stakeholders during the study
enabled me to address their wishes and concerns, ensuring their
commitment. In the second experiment (Paper 2) the following year,
the pre-study only involved stakeholder meetings and no formal
collection of qualitative data through interviews, due to my
familiarity with the context.
Papers 1 and 2 also incorporated concurrent qualitative data
collection alongside the quantitative phase, including an open-ended
question in the survey and conducting field observations. Blending in
with MTB visitors during the observation allowed me to gain first-
hand insights into the natural interactions and dynamics of the
visitors, providing a deeper understanding of their behaviour in their
actual environment. This approach helped to minimise observer
influence, which is critical for accurately interpreting the context of
the target behaviour (Williams, 2008). The aim of combining these
observations with the open-ended questions was to identify
unexpected events or variables that could influence visitors’
behaviour and the intervention’s effect.
Case 2 – Papers 3 and 4
The two papers in my second case are related to a research project
funded by the R&D Fund of the Swedish Tourism & Hospitality
Industry (BFUF), Dalarna University, and Destination Sälenfjällen.
The project, which I was directly involved in applying for, aimed to
130
address the T&H industry’s contribution to reducing climate impact,
focusing on food choices in the T&H sector in Sweden. Addressing
the broader sustainability challenge of climate change, a qualitative
pre-study was imperative to contextualise the issue within the
specific restaurants and identify suitable interventions.
Despite adopting a similar sequential exploratory design, the pre-
study in this case employed different methods and held more
significance in addressing the research questions than my initial two
papers. This decision was influenced by contextual disparities. Pro-
sustainable food consumption, being a multifaceted issue, involves
diverse stakeholders with varying perspectives and influences on the
problem (Post & Mikkola, 2012). As restaurants are commercial
businesses, concerns about profit and business image differ, as does
stakeholders’ flexibility in implementing the experiment alongside
their usual operation. Moreover, I realised that the initial exploratory
phase often goes unreported in journals (Mason et al., 2010), which
limits insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with
intervention design and field experiments in the industry.
Study 3 was conducted in Sälen’s Högfjällshotell (Dalarna, Sweden) –
specifically its burger and pizza restaurant, Leffe’s – due to the
project’s industry partners and its status as Sweden’s top winter
tourism destination (Heldt et al., 2021), making it a significant
contributor to the industry’s emissions. This specific restaurant was
chosen because our first meetings with stakeholders identified it as
suitable for practically carrying out a carbon label field experiment.
Workshops based on principles from Open Space and Design
Thinking were employed to delineate the issue of pro-sustainable
food consumption, devise suitable interventions, and underscore the
practical significance of the study.
131
Design Thinking is a human-centred, iterative approach to problem
solving that enables an empathic, pluralistic understanding of
problems by involving the views of different stakeholders and tools
like sketches, posters, and Post-it notes (Carlgren et al., 2016;
Hoolohan & Browne, 2020). Similarly, Open Space workshops
involve open discussions among groups of people, allowing them to
gain ownership of an issue and develop solutions (Owen, 1995).
Although this workshop format is underexplored in sustainability-
oriented intervention design in T&H, it is well-suited for change
work requiring joint effort (Hoolohan & Browne, 2020; Lub et al.,
2016) and offered valuable insights (reported in Paper 3), contributing
to a detailed exploration of RQ2 and RQ3.
Two workshops (W1, October 2021; W2, February 2022) were
conducted, involving three researchers, restaurant staff, and
managers in Sälen. The main contact person for the project, the
operations manager at Sälen’s largest hotel Högfjällshotell, served as
a gatekeeper to invite relevant participants for the workshops. W1
aimed to define the meaning of climate-friendly food for restaurant
staff, while W2 focused on practical interventions for field
experiments. The Open Space format allowed participants to express
thoughts freely, guided by curiosity and intrinsic motivation. As
facilitators and observers, we documented discussions and collected
data to understand challenges, possibilities, and practitioner
perspectives (Hoolohan & Browne, 2020; Owen, 1995).
Beyond enhancing our understanding of the challenges associated
with promoting climate-friendly food choices among tourists in Sälen
and exploring practical experiment implementations, the workshops
effectively communicated the experimental approach and its
requirements to practitioners. This facilitated an appreciation of the
132
study’s practical significance for participants, engendering interest
and commitment.
The resulting intervention was a carbon label, designed using
Klimato, a Stockholm-based carbon-calculator tool that has been
increasingly adopted by food service providers in Europe (Klimato,
2024). The insights and concerns of the restaurant stakeholders, as
identified in the workshops and by the founders of the carbon-
calculator tool, were influential in the final design.
While concurrent qualitative data collection was initially planned
during the experiment, unforeseen circumstances disrupted this plan.
Changes in staff, illnesses, and a surge in visitor numbers,
compounded by the logistical challenge of travel for me, made it
unfeasible to observe customer behaviour throughout the
experiment. This limitation significantly impeded the analysis of the
intervention effect, a challenge addressed in Paper 4.
The empirical study in Paper 4 was conducted at the ‘healthy fast-
food’ restaurant MAHA, which has two locations in central
Stockholm, Sweden. The menu includes seven signature bowls at a
medium price range according to Stockholm standards (US$12.9–
14.4) and is the same in both locations. While a second intervention
study was initially planned for Sälen, operational issues led to the
need to find an alternative location. The MAHA in Stockholm was
selected for several reasons, including good connections to the
restaurant owner (via my supervisor) and the practical aspect of
geographical proximity to where I lived. Although the change in
restaurants prevented the development of the first intervention and
direct comparison between findings, carrying out another
intervention study at MAHA offered advantages in the practical
133
research design and making comparisons between restaurants with
different food options, customer segments, and management. As
MAHA only involved one manager and four staff and I was able to
visit the restaurant daily, the pre-study included ongoing informal
discussions with the manager and staff, along with two longer
planning meetings, as opposed to structured qualitative interviews.
While I introduced the idea of testing an endorsed message, decisions
regarding the endorser, targeted dishes, and intervention setup were
determined collaboratively.
The endorsed environmental appeal message targeted a plant-based
dish and a fish-based dish, which were identified as having the
lowest carbon footprints on the menu. The message featured a picture
and the name of the endorser, along with a text written from her
perspective promoting the two dishes, and the carbon footprint of
these dishes compared to the average lunch in Northern Europe (Gay
et al., 2023; World Wildlife Fund, 2023). The endorser – a Swedish
influencer, fitness coach, and food enthusiast – was selected due to
her prior collaboration with the restaurant, alignment with the target
audience, credibility in matters related to food, and her substantial
reach and engagement on social media, making her well-known in
the local food and fitness scene. Like the social norm interventions in
Papers 1 and 2, the message drew from various theories, including
Attribution Theory (Heider, 1958) and normative goal-framing
(Lindenberg, 2008) while also appealing to self-benefits (health), and
social influence. The message was prominently displayed on flyers at
each table, on posters near the restaurant counter, on a poster stand
along the walkway outside the restaurant, and as an Instagram post.
Input from the restaurant manager, endorser, and staff played a
134
crucial role in finalising the design and determining the optimal
placement.
Concurrent qualitative data collection during the quantitative phase
included observations and interviews on customer behaviour and
formed a significant part of this study. Participant observation,
conducted over 18 days (2–4 hours per day) alternately between the
two restaurant locations, enabled the recording of customer and
restaurant activities from a neutral standpoint (Williams, 2008).
Recorded data encompassed orders and key details such as date,
time, group size, and other pertinent factors that were deemed
relevant to consumers’ food choice behaviour. I also conducted 14
short interviews (lasting approximately 10 mins) with some
customers to gain insights into the segment, their food choice
behaviour, and factors influencing the intervention effect.
Considering the small restaurant size, customers were approached
only when the venue was not busy to ensure privacy and avoid
drawing attention. Interviews were conducted immediately after they
had finished their meal, to minimise disruption, with customers
assured of confidentiality and the right to decline. Notes were taken
during the interview and expanded upon immediately after. The
interview questions did not directly address environmental
sustainability or the endorsed message, but aimed to understand
food choices, dining preferences, and demographics.
The qualitative data contributing to Paper 3 and 4 were manually
examined using an inductive thematic data-driven analysis to extract
meaning and draw conclusions related to the research questions
(Nowell et al. 2017; Burnard et al. 2008). Thematic analysis appeared
as the most suitable approach for this due to its adaptability to
different types of qualitative data, without being bound to predefined
135
categories (Burnard et al., 2008; Walters, 2016). Specifically, the
purpose was to derive insights about providers’ drivers and barriers
(Paper 3) and consumer food choice behaviour (Paper 4) directly
from the workshop, interview, and observation data without
imposing preconceived notions.
In the analysis, the raw data were first organised as a single body for
familiarity and initial feature extraction. Secondly, initial codes were
generated and allocated to the raw data in an Excel sheet, to simplify
and focus on specific characteristics. Following this, codes related to
similar ideas and concerns were condensed into basic themes and
subsequently consolidated into recurring topics, such as behavioural
drivers of health and price, in Paper 4 (Gay et al.,2023; Nowell et al.
2017). Notably, much of the data from the workshops in Paper 3 had
already been collaboratively organised into themes during the
sessions. This analysis provided insights into the perspectives of
manager and staff regarding behavioural interventions in Paper 3,
and the customer segment, their interaction with each other and staff,
and key factors influencing their food choices in Paper 4.
4.3.2 Quantitative Methods
Field experiments, specifically surveys and direct measurements of
the target behaviour, form the primary quantitative methods.
I used a before–after between-subject design consistently across all
experiments, assessing differences in target behaviour before and
after interventions, using different subject groups (Thomlinson, 2018).
The number of conditions differed slightly in the experiments.
Ideally, I would have included a second control condition after the
interventions in every experiment to verify their effect. However, this
was not feasible in Papers 1 and 2 due to field conditions. One
136
intervention was tested in each experiment, except in Paper 2 where
the number of donation signs was increased twice. Group assignment
occurred naturally, reflecting the natural visitor flows to Rörbäcksnäs
and the restaurants. The absence of random assignment necessitated
the identification of potential confounding variables based on the
literature and pre-studies, and including them in the data analysis, to
allow greater internal validity. Further, I chose the timing of my field
experiments to maximise the likelihood that the composition of
participants was the same across all conditions (Viglia & Dolnicar,
2020).
In Paper 1, surveys were employed before and after interventions to
measure the prevalence of the target behaviour and intervention
effect. While measuring actual behaviour could mitigate biases
inherent in self-reported data, method selection was based on
advantages in addressing research questions for this first study and
overall thesis, along with practical challenges in tracking visitor
numbers and matching them to donations. Moreover, surveys
provided insights into otherwise unobservable behavioural drivers,
such as personal and perceived social norms, and included questions
to control for potential confounding variables. To minimise bias, I
asked participants to complete the surveys shortly after biking,
ensuring proximity to the actual behaviour without them being
aware of the experiment. Systematic random sampling of survey
participants was used by approaching every third biker, where
possible (Lambrecht & Tucker, 2018). To avoid social desirability,
participants filled out the surveys individually and anonymously and
I maintained distance to avoid influencing participants (Cerri et al.,
2019). Additionally, an electrical counter at the main trail entrance
monitored visitor flow across conditions. Actual donation amounts
137
and number of donors were retrieved from the Swish (Swedish
mobile payments) account, but this information was only employed
as control measures and was not further analysed in Paper 1.
In Paper 2, the survey collection mirrored the approach in Paper 1.
However, in this case, actual donation data was also analysed at an
aggregate level to complement the survey data. Another researcher
conducted the statistical analysis of this data, as well as much of the
statistical work in Paper 1, while I focused mainly on interpreting the
results. Logistic regression analysis was employed to identify drivers
of the target behaviour. This enabled an assessment of whether the
drivers proposed in behavioural theories and literature had a
significant impact on donation behaviour, allowing for the validation
or rejection of their applicability.
For the experiments conducted in Sälen and Stockholm, a comparable
design was employed to assess consumers’ food choices before and
after the intervention. The data gathered during the experimental
conditions comprised daily sales of menu items and revenue, which
were automatically recorded in the kitchen systems. In Paper 3, only
descriptive statistical analysis was used to assess the intervention
effect on orders and carbon emissions of the menu items. Although
the overall number of observations was high, significant variation in
the frequency of observations for different menu items, combined
with the lack of supplementary data such as surveys, restricted the
potential for more in-depth analysis (see Limitations in Section 4.3.4.).
In Paper 4, SPSS was used for the statistical analysis, encompassing
descriptive statistics and chi-square to evaluate the effect of the
interventions on orders. Only data from one of the restaurant
locations was used for the final quantitative analysis due to the small
138
number of orders in the second location and consequent difficulties in
interpreting the result. However, analysing the combined data of
both restaurant locations showed similar results. Revenue across
conditions was also broadly assessed in Papers 3 and 4 to ensure that
the intervention did not have significant negative economic impacts
(note that these calculations did not include costs).
For Papers 3 and 4, I considered collecting survey data in order to
delve deeper into behavioural drivers and intervention effects.
However, I rejected this idea due to managers’ concerns about
disrupting guests’ dining experience and wishing to avoid drawing
attention to the experiment and the sustainability of the menus.
Additionally, implementing multiple interventions targeting various
psychological constructs would have been ideal to disentangle the
impact of different factors, especially in Paper 4. However, this idea
was ruled out due to potential confusion among returning customers,
the inability to match individual customers to their orders, and time
constraints. Hence, practical application took precedence, and
qualitative data, coupled with literature insights, were utilised to
support the analysis of quantitative findings.
4.3.3 Mixed-methods Analysis
Mixed-methods analysis involves integrating qualitative and
quantitative data to gain a comprehensive understanding of the
research questions (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). In the present
research, qualitative and quantitative data were collected through
distinct methods but combined in the individual analyses and the
overall discussion (Chapter 6) to provide a richer and more nuanced
perspective on pro-sustainable behaviour in T&H and behavioural
intervention design. The use of this methodology had four main
advantages.
139
Firstly, the mixed methods analysis was conducted to triangulate
findings from the qualitative and quantitative data sources, which
enhanced the overall validity and depth of answering RQ1. To merge
these datasets, qualitative themes from the observational data and
customer interviews, as well as from stakeholder workshops and
interviews, were cross-referenced with corresponding quantitative
findings on consumer behaviour. For example, provider perceptions
from the interviews (Paper 1) were compared with reported and
actual donation behaviour (Papers 1 and 2) and further supported by
my field observations. Similarly, during the food-choice experiment
in Paper 3, qualitative insights from workshops helped to
contextualise the quantitative data on menu item sales, which
enriched the interpretation of quantitative results on consumer food
choices. In Paper 4, customer interviews and observational data,
along with insights from staff and managers, were analysed to
support the interpretation of quantitative findings. Moreover, the
qualitative data analysis modified and strengthened quantitative data
interpretation by helping to explain unexpected patterns in the
results (Paluck, 2010). For instance, in Paper 4, qualitative insights
from interviews helped me interpret why certain consumer groups
responded more favourably to the endorsed message. This
explanatory power derived from the mixed methods approach added
depth to the analysis and strengthened the overall validity of the
studies.
Secondly, qualitative data shed light on the opportunities and
challenges for providers in promoting pro-sustainable behaviour,
which helped address RQ2. Through interviews, workshops, and
meetings, providers first unveiled the complexities of the
sustainability issues (funding system for trails and sustainable food
140
consumption) from an industry perspective, leading to a definition of
the problem within the specific study contexts. The qualitative data
also revealed the providers’ perspectives on the feasibility of different
interventions, highlighting not only potential barriers but also
existing knowledge and motivation.
Thirdly, qualitative data were pivotal in shaping the intervention
design. The qualitative findings gleaned from interviews and
workshops enriched the insights that could be gained from simple
stakeholder meetings. These findings directly informed the
interventions, ensuring they were not only theoretically grounded
but contextually relevant from a consumer and provider perspective,
thus facilitating greater acceptance.
Lastly, comparison between quantitative and qualitative findings
made it possible to identify inconsistencies between the provider and
consumer perspectives, pointing to new questions and unexpected
findings. For example, in Paper 2, stakeholders’ beliefs about tourists’
perception of their donation signs as captured in the interviews, and
tourists’ actual perceptions and behaviour as captured in the surveys
highlighted a gap between these perceptions.
The pre-studies, including the informal stakeholder meetings, were
typical elements of applied research projects, but were also crucial in
methodologically defining the experimental setup such as its timing,
design, and data collection. Although adaptions to initial plans were
frequently required during the experiments, which impacted the
analysis of quantitative findings, the information gathered during the
pre-studies was essential for the practical execution of the
experiments. This illuminated the challenges inherent in field
141
experimental methods, adding to my experience collaborating with
industry stakeholders in research.
Ultimately, the mixed methods analysis allowed for a holistic
interpretation of pro-sustainable consumer behaviour (RQ1),
providers’ drivers and barriers (RQ2), and intervention design and
testing (RQ3), leveraging the strengths of both qualitative and
quantitative data to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
research questions. The analysis showcased how qualitative insights
not only supported quantitative findings but also informed the
design of theoretically grounded and practically relevant
interventions.
4.3.4 Research Design Limitations
My methodological approach had several drawbacks that require
consideration. The main limitations, in addition to those outlined in
my papers, are discussed below.
Firstly, my observations were influenced by my background
knowledge, theories, and experiences. This also includes the
pragmatic lens I adopted, which affected the selection, omission, and
focus of my studies (Prayag, 2018), including the literature reviews,
and the qualitative and quantitative components. Moreover, not
being native to the country of my cases affected communication
during meetings and workshops, which were primarily conducted in
English. This might have changed how participants expressed
themselves and what I interpreted from their expressions. This was
mitigated by encouraging participants to speak Swedish, when they
were more comfortable doing so, while collaboration with other
researchers, transparent research processes, and acknowledging my
142
‘lens’ throughout the interpretation process further helped address
these limitations.
Secondly, while field experiments provide valuable insights into real-
world behaviours, the inability to control all extraneous variables can
impact the internal validity of the study. I had to balance the practical
feasibility (such as survey length) of capturing potential covariates in
my field experiments and including all relevant control variables. For
instance, explicitly measuring personal dispositions can be resource-
intensive and did not align with the practical constraints of all my
field experiments. To strike a balance, literature reviews on donation
and food choice behaviour, along with pre-studies and experiment
observations, helped me identify the most relevant factors that might
lead to errors in my studies. Although I had to omit other potentially
influential variables, I considered this an informed trade-off that was
necessary for the value of a field experimental approach.
Additionally, the lack of manipulation checks limited my ability to
gain a deeper understanding of the underlying psychological
mechanism and could raise concerns about whether the participants
perceived the intended manipulations as I expected they would,
which could potentially affect the reliability of the causal inferences
drawn from the study (Viglia & Dolnicar, 2020). The decision to not
test interventions in a controlled environment before conducting field
experiments may also affect the external validity, limiting the ability
to predict how interventions might perform in different settings.
However, considering time constraints and my objective to test
interventions in real-world settings in collaboration with
stakeholders, I prioritised conducting several field experiments and
incorporated measures to eliminate the risk that participants would
not pay attention to the intervention (for example, survey questions
143
asking whether they saw the donation sign, displaying the
intervention in several prominent places, observing participants).
Furthermore, potential pre-measurement or interaction effects
associated with repeat visitors could not be fully eliminated. To
minimise this risk, survey and interview questions in Papers 1, 2, and
4 asked participants if they had visited the destination/restaurant
before, and each experimental condition lasted approximately two
weeks, avoiding repeated intervention changes. In Paper 3, the
restaurant customers were tourists who were staying in Sälen for a
limited number of days, which reduced the risk of repeat visits being
subject to the same experiment condition.
Regarding generalisability, given the context-specific nature of field
experiments, the findings from this research may not be universally
applicable to other settings or populations. Notably, I conducted the
field experiments for Papers 1, 2, and 3 during the COVID-19
pandemic, which not only affected communication with providers
but also the samples in my studies. Due to travel restrictions, most
mountain bikers in Rörbäcksnäs were domestic visitors from Sweden.
While this resulted in a homogeneous sample, reducing complicating
factors such as international visitors not having Swish, it is relevant to
consider that different cultural groups hold distinct knowledge of
destinations and values, which can impact behaviour (Filimonau et
al., 2018; Minton et al., 2018). Therefore, restricting the study to
Swedish participants needs consideration in my findings and their
implications for interventions tailored to specific environmental or
cultural contexts.
Given the limitations related to generalisability and validity, I do not
consider the patterns identified in the experiments as the ultimate
144
truth but rather as patterns within the current research contexts,
which possibly points to more general similarities in pro-sustainable
behaviour. This reflects my pragmatic research approach,
emphasising practical applicability and contextual relevance over
absolute, universal assertions and broad generalisations.
Another aspect requiring acknowledgement in my research design is
the potential spillover effects and longevity of the behaviour change.
Despite focusing on interventions that offer potential for sustained
change, it is beyond the scope of my research to measure the actual
long-term impacts on consumers’ values, norms, and behaviour.
Furthermore, as in many studies on behavioural intervention (Hall et
al., 2016), negative rebound or spillover effects may have occurred
and gone unnoticed. While I did assess potential impacts on revenue
in my second case and consumer satisfaction where possible, there
are other ways in which spillover may materialise. Given the limited
understanding of the long-term effects and unintended consequences
of interventions, this requires attention from practitioners and
academics.
Lastly, while the mixed-method approach facilitated strong
collaborations with providers, the collaborative nature of
implementing studies with them presented challenges. In both cases,
intervention implementation faced delays due to uncertainties about
the message (Papers 1 and 2) or challenges in stakeholders’ business
operations (Papers 3 and 4). This necessitated changes in the
experimental design and, for Paper 4, even in the context, changing
from the restaurant in Sälen to the restaurant in Stockholm.
Additionally, support in survey collection, as initially agreed upon by
providers in my first case, was not feasible. These changes impacted
my ability to collect larger samples, to gather data on guests’
145
characteristics in Paper 3, and the time spent on data collection.
However, unexpected changes need to be anticipated when
collaborating with practitioners in field experiments and, overall, I
feel that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
4.3.5 Ethics
Ethical considerations were paramount at every stage of the research
process.
Survey, interview, meeting and workshop participants in all studies
were provided with comprehensive information about the research
before their involvement. They were assured that participation was
voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw at any stage.
Concerning the field experimental design in my studies, participants
were not informed about the true nature of the experiment. This
approach was deemed necessary to enhance validity and reduce
preconceptions (Thomlinson, 2018). As the experiments were
designed to measure behaviour in a natural setting, the potential
adverse effects of the interventions on participants were thoroughly
evaluated and aligned with the Swedish Ethical Review Act,5 in close
collaboration with stakeholders and fellow researchers. Factors such
as autonomy, deception, or any potential impact on the overall
tourism experience were carefully considered. In light of these
considerations, I do not perceive the decision to withhold information
from participants as a significant ethical concern.
To protect participant privacy, all personal information collected
during the studies was anonymised and stored securely following the
5 See https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se/en/what-the-act-says/ for details on the
Ethical Review Act in Sweden.
146
guidelines for research data management at Mid Sweden University.6
Participants were assured that their responses would remain
confidential. In the workshops, I asked participants for their consent
to take photos and notes.
Working closely with stakeholders involved transparent
communication about the research goals, methods, and potential
impacts. Collaborative efforts aimed to ensure that the research
aligned with the stakeholders’ goals while also upholding ethical
standards. Delays or modifications in the implementation of
interventions were communicated and agreed upon collaboratively.
Having recognised the potential impact of language differences,
particularly during interactions with stakeholders, I made efforts to
address potential misunderstandings. Stakeholders were encouraged
to communicate in their preferred language, and translations were
provided as needed. This consideration aimed to minimise any
potential biases introduced by language variations.
The research design and methods were communicated transparently
in all studies. This transparency extended to the reporting of
unexpected changes or challenges encountered during the research
process.
Throughout the research, steps were taken to minimise harm to
participants, stakeholders, and the broader community. While it is
not possible to assess every possible unintended consequence of
interventions, the unintended consequences or negative impacts of
interventions were carefully considered. Acceptability of
interventions was, to some extent, captured in the survey measure on
6 See Guidelines for research data management at Mid Sweden University
(miun.se, 2022) (accessed March 25, 2024).
147
visitors’ perception of the donation signs (Papers 1 and 2) and
observation and interviews in Paper 4. Freedom of choice was further
ensured by only testing interventions that required conscious
information processing (Mont et al., 2014). The primary goal was to
contribute valuable insights to the field of pro-sustainable behaviour
while minimising any adverse effects.
5 Paper Summaries
This chapter provides summaries of the four papers that constitute
this thesis. The purpose of the chapter is to communicate the key
findings most relevant to addressing the overarching research
questions, thereby establishing a foundation for subsequent
discussion and conclusion.
5.1 Paper 1: Financing recreational trails
through donations: Testing behavioural
theory in mountain biking context
Nowak, M., & Heldt, T. (2023). Financing recreational trails through
donations: Testing behavioural theory in mountain biking context.
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 42, 100603.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100603
Paper 1, connected to the first case, reports on my first field
experiment in Rörbäcksnäs, situated in Dalarna (Sweden), which
examined the effect of a social norm intervention on the share and
amount of donations for mountain biking trails using survey data.
The pre-study and baseline surveys revealed that although local
stakeholders and tourists both value the donation-based trail funding
approach, uncertainty exists about the proportion of donors.
148
Informed by these insights, as well as literature on interventions in
public good settings, I tested the social norm intervention, employing
a sign featuring a descriptive norm and framing to enhance
awareness of consequences, attribution of responsibility, equity, and
collective action.
The results demonstrated an increase in the share and amount of
donations post-intervention, supported by logistic regression analysis
indicating that social norms are a significant driver for donation
behaviour, alongside personal norms. This finding confirms the
influence of social norms, specifically beliefs about the donation
behaviour of others, in an underexplored context of tourism,
contributing to the understanding of pro-sustainable tourist
behaviour. Moreover, it offers practical recommendations for
providers in similar contexts, suggesting that messages incorporating
social norm information can serve as an easily implementable
intervention to encourage donation behaviour among tourists.
The study concluded that voluntary contribution schemes enriched
with normative messages can present effective funding strategies for
recreational nature-based trails, emphasising the importance of
tailoring these strategies to the local context. At the same time,
findings in Paper 1 revealed that although a significant portion of
tourists hold strong personal norms in favour of donating, they
remained unaware of the opportunity to contribute. This indicated
the need to employ additional channels and displays to enhance
awareness.
149
5.2 Paper 2: Testing the Effectiveness of
Increased Frequency of Norm-Nudges
in Encouraging Sustainable Tourist
Behaviour: A Field Experiment Using
Actual and Self-Reported Behavioural
Data
Nowak, M., Alnyme, O., & Heldt, T. (2023). Testing the effectiveness
of increased frequency of norm-nudges in encouraging sustainable
tourist behaviour: A field experiment using actual and self-reported
behavioural data. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2220979
Paper 2 presents the results of the second field experiment in
Rörbäcksnäs (Dalarna, Sweden). The experiment explored the impact
of an increased number of social norm interventions on the
propensity of tourists to donate and their experience using survey
and actual behavioural data. This investigation stems from Paper 1’s
findings that norm nudges appear effective in this setting, but that
potential barriers like lack of awareness or forgetfulness may hinder
donation behaviour. Additionally, local stakeholders expressed
concerns that a higher number of signs might interfere with tourists’
experience and backfire on the desired behaviour, which initially
prevented them from implementing more donation signs. Similar
concerns have been noted in the literature on environmental
messages in tourism and hospitality, which has posed barriers to
communicating sustainability information effectively to consumers.
However, no previous experiments have studied backfiring effects of
increased intervention numbers in a tourism and hospitality context,
especially beyond pro-environmental behaviour.
150
The intervention message content, along with its theoretical
grounding, remained the same as in Paper 1. However, the
hypothesis about potential backfiring and much of the discussion
drew additional insights from Goal-Framing Theory, which provided
a useful framework to discuss the conflict or convergence between
drivers of pro-sustainable behaviour and hedonic tourism
consumption. The study also built on Paper 2 by incorporating both
actual and self-reported data, allowing me to compare sources and
validate the results from Paper 1.
While the field experiment did not yield a significant intervention
effect, this finding contributes valuable insights by revealing that
adverse intervention effects on pro-sustainable tourist behaviour,
identified in some existing literature and perceived by providers, do
not appear to manifest in this setting. Mountain bikers did not
express any negative attitudes towards the information content and
number of signs and largely expressed favourable attitudes towards
donating, with some responses even indicating that the message
could be pushed further. The findings reinforce those from Paper 1,
emphasising the significance of personal and social norms in pro-
sustainable behaviour. The results of Paper 2 also underscore the
importance of identifying barriers for destination providers to
encourage more pro-sustainable consumer behaviour and the need to
provide empirical evidence about consumers’ actual behaviour to
address these challenges.
151
5.3 Paper 3: Co-designing carbon label
interventions in restaurants: Insights
from a Field Experiment in a Tourism
Destination
Nowak, M., Heldt, T., Lexhagen, M., & Nordström, J. (2024). Co-
designing carbon label interventions in restaurants: Insights from a
Field Experiment in a Tourism Destination. Scandinavian Journal of
Tourism and Hospitality Management, 1-26.
10.1080/15022250.2024.2427776
Paper 3 is linked to my second case, centred on the field experiment
conducted at a burger and pizza restaurant in Sälen situated in
Dalarna, Sweden. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of a
collaboratively designed carbon label intervention on tourists’ food
choices, focusing on the involvement of managers and staff in
developing behavioral interventions to reduce the carbon footprint of
meals.
This study contributes to the literature on carbon labels in the tourism
and hospitality context, a field that remains underexplored,
particularly in à la carte restaurants where consumers have more
opportunities to compare items and researchers can identify potential
substitution patterns. However, the central purpose was not just to
examine the impact on consumer choice; emphasis was also placed
on collaborative intervention design with industry partners.
Consequently, a significant portion of attention was directed toward
the pre-study, involving workshops with restaurant staff and
managers. This aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities
they faced in offering and promoting climate-friendly food options to
152
consumers, ultimately informing the intervention and experiment
design.
The results indicated that the intervention had a limited overall effect
on consumers’ food choices and CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent)
emissions, which aligns with existing studies on environmental food
labels in tourism and hospitality. Nevertheless, a subset of consumers
seemed to shift from high-emission to medium-emission dishes,
offering new evidence that carbon labels can influence a segment to
choose climate-friendlier options in tourism and hospitality settings.
Moreover, the paper underscored the value of collaborative
workshops in intervention and experimental design processes, where
staff exhibited high engagement and provided invaluable input. This
also highlighted the need for compromises when partnering with
commercial hospitality operators, such as regarding label design and
experiment timing.
Despite the modest immediate impact on food choices, Paper 3
concludes that carbon labels can be a viable tool for restaurants to
influence a subset of consumers toward lower-emission options,
potentially enhancing awareness and carbon literacy over time. It also
emphasises the significance of considering guest satisfaction in
interventions within commercial hospitality businesses, the
importance of engaging restaurant staff and managers to foster
commitment, and the need for ongoing adaptation in intervention
design.
Despite these valuable contributions, the research acknowledges
certain important limitations in the study design, restricting a more
detailed analysis of customers’ food choice behaviour.
153
5.4 Paper 4: Influencing Pro-Environmental
Dining in Restaurants: A Field
Experiment on Endorsed
Environmental Messages
Nowak, M.
Status: Manuscript
Paper 4 is also linked to my second case, focusing on climate-friendly
food choices, but was conducted in a casual à la carte restaurant in
Stockholm, Sweden. This field experiment aimed to study the impact
of an endorsed environmental message on restaurant consumers’
food choices and the factors influencing their decisions.
Building upon the groundwork laid in Paper 3, the field experiment
in Paper 4 combines environmental messages (carbon information)
with endorsement (social influence), thus addressing a research gap
regarding the impact that endorsed messages have in terms of
encouraging climate-friendlier food choices in restaurants. To
determine the specifics of the intervention and experimental design,
comprehensive meetings were conducted with the restaurant
manager and staff. These discussions yielded valuable insights into
the selection of the endorser, the most effective method for gathering
customer behaviour insights (interviews), and considerations for the
experimental setup.
The intervention targeted the most climate-friendly plant-based and
non-vegetarian (fish) options on the menu, determined by calculating
the CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions of all dishes on the
menu. It involved a message displaying the carbon footprint of the
two targeted dishes, accompanied by text encouraging consumers to
choose one of these options, supported by a photo of the endorser.
154
The effectiveness of the intervention was tested in a six-week-long
field experiment that involved collecting actual behavioural data in
the form of menu item sales. Non-participant observations and
customer interviews were conducted simultaneously to garner
further insights into customer behaviour and evaluate the
intervention’s effectiveness.
Quantitative analysis of the sales data indicated a 7 per cent
combined increase in the uptake of the targeted dishes due to the
intervention. However, qualitative findings underscored that
personal recommendations from staff and self-oriented benefits,
particularly health, remained pivotal factors influencing customers’
food choices. The results suggest that endorsed environmental
messages can present an easily implementable intervention for food
service providers to enhance the uptake of climate-friendlier dishes,
without having to label the entire menu. However, the study also
underscores that messages need to be tailored to the audiences’
specific preferences and that staff engagement could amplify the
intervention’s impact. The paper contributes valuable insights into
the behavioural factors that influence climate-friendly food choices in
restaurants, offering practical implications for designing market-
relevant interventions that reduce the environmental footprint of the
hospitality sector without compromising, or even enhancing,
customer experience.
6 Discussion
This thesis examined pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in tourism
and hospitality (T&H) by testing behavioural interventions through
field experiments. The aim was to enhance knowledge on pro-
155
sustainable consumer behaviour in T&H and ways to encourage such
behaviour through behavioural intervention. The thesis comprised
four field experiments, testing four different interventions, aimed at
two distinct target behaviours: donations for mountain-biking trails
and climate-friendly food choices. While presenting individual field
experiments and journal articles, all four studies are concerned with
the thesis’s research questions: What are the drivers and barriers to
sustainable consumer behaviour in T&H settings? What are the drivers and
barriers for T&H providers in making pro-sustainable options more available
and attractive to consumers? How can behavioural interventions be
designed to encourage pro-sustainable consumer behaviours in T&H?
This discussion section connects the findings from the individual
papers and examines the findings that emerged through a
comparison of the studies in connection to the thesis’ theoretical
foundation, providing answers to the research questions. The
structure of this chapter follows the focus of the research questions. It
starts with drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable consumer
behaviour, followed by a discussion of the providers’ perspective,
which demonstrates certain differences and tensions to the consumer
perspective. This then leads to a discussion of effective intervention
design, including aspects to consider in the process of developing
and testing these, and the applicability of different interventions in
T&H settings.
6.1 Drivers and Barriers to Pro-sustainable
Behaviour in Tourism and Hospitality
The findings from the individual papers highlight key drivers and
barriers to pro-sustainable consumer behaviour, revealing consistent
patterns across Papers 1 and 2, which examine donations for MTB
156
trails in Rörbäcksnäs, and Papers 3 and 4, which explore climate-
friendly food choices in restaurants in Sälen and Stockholm. This
section discusses the specific social, personal, and situational drivers
and barriers within these T&H settings, facilitating a comparative
analysis that contributes to the knowledge of pro-sustainable
consumer behaviour in T&H.
6.1.1 Social Factors
In the context of donations for mountain biking trails in Rörbäcksnäs,
survey results and the positive effect of social norm interventions on
donation behaviour highlight the significance of social norms as
drivers of pro-sustainable behaviour. Consistent with literature
suggesting that awareness of others’ expectations and behaviour
significantly influences pro-sustainable behaviour (Abrahamse &
Steg, 2013), including donations for public goods (Alpízar et al., 2008;
Heldt, 2005), stakeholder interviews and initial visitor surveys in
Paper 1 identified uncertainty about others’ donations as a barrier to
donating for MTB trails in Rörbäcksnäs and possibly across Sweden.
Since donating to MTB trails is a relatively new practice, is
challenging to track, and is often not directly observable by fellow
visitors, information about typical donation amounts and the
prevalence of donors is not widely known (Tillväxtverket, 2023). The
surveys also revealed that most mountain bikers were first-time
visitors to the destination and did not frequently participate in MTB,
which meant they were unfamiliar with local norms.
The field experiment demonstrated that the social norm intervention,
which communicated local social expectations (injunctive norms) and
the typical donation amount and share of donors (descriptive norm),
effectively addressed this barrier of uncertainty and encouraged
donation behaviour. This aligns with the concept of informational
157
social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), where individuals conform
to others’ behaviour in ambiguous situations. It also supports the
findings of other studies on social norm interventions in public good
contexts (Alpízar et al., 2008; Goldstein et al., 2008; Heldt, 2005, 2010),
where collective effort is required but the behaviour is not directly
observable. Consequently, Papers 1 and 2 provide empirical evidence
that social norms are influential drivers of donation behaviour for
MTP trails, a context that has been understudied to date.
Moreover, while Paper 1 focused on stated behaviour, the field
experiment in Paper 2, conducted one year later, further reinforced
the significance of social norms with survey and behavioural data.
Comparing the studies’ findings revealed an increase in the target
behaviour since the first social norm intervention, with about 14 per
cent more visitors reporting that they donated. This suggests that the
norm to donate became more established over time as the salience of
normative behaviour was enhanced through the interventions,
contributing insights into the long-term impacts of social norm
interventions.
In the context of climate-friendly food choices in restaurants (Papers 3
and 4), psychological constructs were not directly measured via
surveys. Nevertheless, the field experiments and qualitative
interviews and observation (Paper 4) revealed several drivers and
barriers for consumers making climate-friendly choices, particularly
comparing the findings between Papers 3 and 4 and considering
contextual differences to the first case. In terms of social factors,
Paper 4 revealed that these both motivated and hindered climate-
friendly choices in the restaurant setting in Stockholm. Firstly,
although a notable portion of consumers selected the meals that were
recommended in the intervention message, the endorsement effect
158
could not be isolated from other elements such as increased salience
of carbon information. More notably, observational findings revealed
the substantial influence of recommendations from staff and other
customers. More customers followed personal recommendations over
formal written endorsements when the two conflicted. As suggested
in the literature, this phenomenon may be attributed to normative
social influence, where customers seek to follow the norms of others in
a group to fit in, regardless of whether these norms align with their
private beliefs (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).
Additionally, consumers may perceive written information in
commercial settings as marketing material (Bhaskaran et al., 2006;
van Bussel et al., 2022), which could lead to a lack of trust regarding
whether the recommended option truly helps mitigate climate change
(Grilli & Curtis, 2021). Therefore, it can be assumed that customers
may seek validation from individuals in their close social proximity,
such as staff or dining companions, providing credible injunctive
information about an appropriate choice in terms of its sustainability
or other desirable attributes (Borchgrevink & Susskind, 2006; Sukhu
& Bilgihan, 2021).
The findings from Paper 4 confirm the pivotal role of social norms in
pro-sustainable food choices (León & Araña, 2020; Krpan & Houtsma,
2020), and further add to knowledge in this field by demonstrating
that, in a restaurant setting, personal social influence appears more
effective than written normative information.
6.1.2 Personal Factors
In Papers 1 and 2, the survey results demonstrated that personal norms
favouring donations were widespread among mountain bikers and
served as significant drivers for this pro-sustainable behaviour.
159
Despite mixed beliefs about others’ contributions, a notable
proportion of visitors donated even before the social norm
intervention (Paper 1, 56 per cent) when only one sign was installed
at the main trail entrance requesting donations. This indicates that
personal norms alone influence a considerable proportion of visitors
in this setting to contribute, supporting their crucial role in pro-
sustainable behaviour as proposed in models on general pro-social or
pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) (Ajzen, 1985; Rodriguez–Sanchez
et al., 2020; Schwartz, 1977). However, the findings contrast with
studies on the attitude–behaviour gap and interventions aimed at
PEBs in commercial T&H contexts, such as hotels, where awareness
and responsibility-raising appeals targeting personal norms are often
ineffective at facilitating pro-sustainable behaviour (Dolnicar et al.,
2017, 2019).
Although this research did not test for interaction effects, it is likely
that the prevalence of favourable personal norms strengthened the
influence of social norms. Prior research indicates that the alignment
between personal and social norms influences how individuals
navigate and respond to social information (Bicchieri et al., 2019; de
Groot et al., 2021; Doran & Larsen, 2015; Schwartz, 1977; Thøgersen,
2009). Individuals are more likely to comply with social expectations
when personal and social norms align, due to congruence between
group and individual objectives and greater perceived efficacy
(Bacharach, 2006; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). In this research
context – unlike in other T&H settings where social norm
interventions appear less effective (Dolnicar, 2020; Greene et al., 2023)
– the communicated social norms were directly tied to a specific
behaviour that benefits both the individual and the collective, such as
maintaining trail quality and giving back to the local providers. This
160
suggests that making the otherwise invisible target behaviour visible
through normative information provided visitors with an affirmation
of their personal norms and assurance that their contribution was
effectively supporting trail upkeep (Alpízar et al., 2008; Bicchieri,
2006; Heldt, 2005).
Personal norms related to climate-friendly food choices were not
directly measured in Papers 3 and 4. However, the limited impact of
carbon labels in Paper 3 suggests that pro-environmental concerns
and associated personal norms alone did not significantly influence
food choices in the burger and pizza restaurant in Sälen.
Furthermore, interviews in Paper 4 with consumers in the Stockholm
restaurant revealed that environment-related norms were scarcely
mentioned as factors driving food choices when eating out; instead,
personal health norms were more prominent. Aligned with the
literature (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) and supported by the positive
effect of the intervention focussing on both health and environmental
benefits, this suggests that motivation to engage in PEB increases
only when personal priorities align with the targeted behaviour.
6.1.3 Situational Factors
The individual papers, along with a comparative analysis of the cases
based on the theoretical framework, indicate the influence of
situational factors such as the visibility of the target behaviour, type
of activity, and type of provider, and linked to this the impact of
information salience in shaping pro-sustainable behaviour within
specific T&H contexts.
In the context of donations for MTB trails, which are characterised by
uncommercialised, voluntary tourism provision set in nature, personal
norms emerged as significant drivers of donation behaviour. This
161
contrasts with their less influential role in driving pro-sustainable
behaviour in commercial T&H settings (Dolnicar et al., 2017, 2019),
which indicates that the specific context affects how personal norms
are activated and influence such behaviour. While existing studies on
pro-sustainable consumption and behavioural change primarily focus
on commercial and urban settings (Khan et al., 2024), some studies
have indicated that experiencing nature can enhance environmental
connection and responsibility (Campbell et al., 2021; Choi & Kim,
2021; Line et al., 2018). Research also suggests that donating to
recreational trails that are developed and maintained by locals can
offer visitors a means to reciprocate and support the communities
they visit (Choi & Kim, 2021; Fleckhaus & Heldt, 2022).
Accordingly, tourists who utilise recreational trails, such as those in
Rörbäcksnäs, may be more inclined to support initiatives benefitting
the local community and natural area. Moreover, by presenting a
direct way to contribute to the maintenance of the trails and areas
they enjoy, donations are likely to be associated with a high sense of
personal responsibility and efficacy (Ajzen, 1985; Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002; Stern, 2000), thereby further activating personal
norms and fostering positive feelings like pride and warm-glow
(Campbell et al., 2021; Steg et al., 2014b).
Building on the above, the findings from Papers 1 and 2 underscore
that the physical salience of interventions is crucial for driving pro-
sustainable behaviour in the form of donations for MTB trails by
drawing attention to normative information. While many studies
have focused on the content of sustainability-oriented messages (e.g.,
Morgan & Chompreeda, 2014; Kim & Kim, 2014; Kronrod et al., 2012;
Ropret Homar & Knežević Cvelbar, 2023), it is only recent research
that has highlighted awareness and attention to information as
162
potential barriers to the effectiveness of belief-based interventions
(Dolnicar & Demeter, 2023). However, the number or frequency of
interventions needed to be effective in pro-sustainable T&H contexts
remains underexplored. Paper 2 contributes to this field by
emphasising the importance of the content but also the physical
salience of normative information. Ensuring sufficient visibility
without triggering reactance is essential for activating personal and
social norms or facilitating the formation of new norms specific to the
behaviour, which will ultimately enhance engagement in pro-
sustainable behaviour (Gregory et al., 1994; Lindenberg, 2006).
Collectively, the findings in Papers 1 and 2 on the influential role of
personal norms, social norms, and the salience of normative
information reveal that visitors exhibited more of an awareness-
behaviour gap than an attitude–behaviour gap. While awareness may
be an apparent driver of pro-sustainable behaviour, this finding
contrasts with the prevailing assumptions of stakeholders in this
setting, who believed that many visitors were aware but unwilling to
donate, fearing that increased salience of signs might induce negative
feelings like annoyance, potentially leading to backfiring effects. This
finding also contrasts with those on PEBs in commercial hospitality
contexts, where consumers generally appear unmotivated to engage
in pro-sustainable behaviours, regardless of their awareness
(Dolnicar et al., 2019; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b). Hence, pro-
sustainable motivations may already be more salient in a context like
Rörbäcksnäs, which involves nature-based activities and voluntary
tourism provision. However, raising this salience through normative
content and prompts is crucial to foster the desired pro-sustainable
behaviour among a significant portion of visitors.
163
Papers 3 and 4 shift the focus to climate-friendly food choices in
commercial hospitality settings, where consumers are faced with a
multitude of options and their goals and behaviours are framed
differently (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b; Gnoth, 1997; Lindenberg & Steg,
2007). Consistent with literature indicating that food consumption in
restaurants often prioritises personal gains or pleasure - especially
during special occasions like holidays – the providers in Papers 3 and
4 emphasised the importance of self-benefit factors like taste, and
indulgence for customers (Biermann & Rau, 2020; Claessens et al.,
2023; Fechner et al., 2023). As GFT suggests (Lindenberg & Papies,
2019), these gain- and hedonic-oriented factors may conflict with
normative environmental goals, making consumers less likely to
choose climate-friendly options if they perceive them to be less
flavourful or satisfying (Diekmann & Preisendörfer, 2003; Furst et al.,
1996; Steg et al., 2014a).
Aligned with this, Paper 3 demonstrates that carbon labels do not
substantially influence customers at a restaurant in a winter outdoor
destination where consumers are likely to seek convenience and
comfort food and the only climate-friendly dishes are notably
different (vegan) from the remaining menu options. The field
experiment revealed only a marginal shift towards climate-friendlier
choices. This suggests the presence of a small consumer segment,
who are inclined towards sustainable eating and might derive value
from aligning their choices with their environmental norms
(Festinger, 1957; Font et al., 2021; Steg et al., 2014a). However, this
segment was not large enough to significantly reduce the selection of
climate-unfriendly options and overall carbon emissions. Moreover,
the slight decrease in the selection of lowest-emission dishes and the
unchanged or slightly increased choices of highest-emission dishes
164
during the intervention suggest that some consumers might have
increased their carbon footprint when presented with carbon
information. This could be due to reactance or moral licensing effects,
as suggested in prior studies on sustainability-related food labels
(Bacon & Krpan, 2018; Hielkema & Lund, 2022). These findings
highlight the attitude–behaviour gap commonly observed in food
consumption and other PEBs in commercial T&H settings (Babakhani
et al., 2019; Cozzio et al., 2020, 2022; Gössling & Buckley, 2016).
Specifically, the evidence suggests that carbon labels are not enough
to substantially influence the behaviour of tourists in a burger and
pizza restaurant at a winter destination, even in a country where
most consumers are aware of the climate impacts of food and express
environmental concern (Boston Consulting Group, 2021; Matti, 2007).
While presenting a different restaurant setting, customer
characteristics, and intervention impact, Paper 4 underscores the
significance of self-benefits in food choice behaviour. In this
intervention, carbon information was combined with endorsements,
which, along with the restaurant menu overall, was both
environment-focused and health-focused. Consistent with this focus,
the majority of customers interviewed stated that health was the most
important factor influencing their meal choice when dining out. Thus,
the positive intervention effect might suggest that the endorsement,
presenting the targeted dishes as healthy and climate-friendly,
offered social proof to some customers and influenced their choices,
not merely due to environmental concerns but because of perceived
health benefits. According to GFT (Lindenberg & Papies, 2019), the
intervention likely made the gain and hedonic appeals of the
normatively desirable alternative more salient.
165
While the positive intervention effect supports prior research
indicating that self- and other-oriented appeals are more influential in
hedonic restaurant settings than solely environmental appeals
(Cozzio et al., 2020, 2022; Fechner et al., 2023), it contrasts with other
studies suggesting that consumers do not prioritise health when
dining out (Claessens et a., 2023; Horgan et al., 2019). The fact that
these latter studies were based on surveys without specifying
restaurant types underscores that food choice motives like health and
their relative importance can differ significantly depending on
consumer segments and situational factors in specific restaurant
contexts.
Adding to situational influences in commercial out-of-home food
consumption contexts are economic factors (Grilli & Curtis, 2021).
Even when price differences in menu options are only small, as in the
restaurants in Papers 3 and 4, consumers may perceive the transition
from the most preferred option to a less preferred but more
sustainable one as a financial sacrifice (Hartikainen et al., 2014;
Rondoni & Grasso, 2021). Prior research indicates that when such
financial sacrifice is involved, compared to efforts, time, or other
inconveniences, environmentally oriented nudges may be less
effective (Ropret Homar & Kneževič Cvelbar, 2023; Thøgersen &
Alfinito, 2020). This underscores the influential role of financial costs,
whether absolute or relative, in impeding the adoption of climate-
friendly food choices.
Both restaurant studies indicate the prevalence of self-benefit
considerations in food choice behaviour, which introduces the
likelihood of compromises where the final decision might deviate
from the ideal pro-sustainable choice (Osman & Nelson, 2019).
Specifically, these restaurants, in contrast to food consumption at
166
home or the workplace, present hedonic dining settings where
consumers tend to attribute greater importance to self-benefit factors
than to environmental concerns (Claessens et al., 2023; Horgan et al.,
2019). At the same time, the field experiments illustrate contrasting
restaurant contexts: a burger and pizza restaurant at a tourist
destination and an everyday lunch restaurant in an urban area. In the
former, it can be assumed that factors like indulgence are particularly
influential (Binkley, 2018; Cozzio et al., 2022; Gössling et al., 2011),
whereas, in the latter, empirical findings (Paper 4) show that
customers often prioritise health benefits. The intervention in Paper 4
partially addressed these personal priorities by integrating carbon
information with health-focused endorsement. Nevertheless, the
modest shift in behaviour, along with insights from customer
interviews, shows that further barriers such as financial costs, taste,
and specific dietary requirements need to be addressed to encourage
greater uptake of climate-friendly choices.
6.1.4 Insights and Implications Across Cases
While discernible differences exist in the barriers and drivers that
shape consumers’ pro-sustainable choices between the two cases
studied in this thesis, the influential driver of social norms resonates
across Papers 1, 2, and 4. Paper 4 shows that while endorsed
environmental messages can sway a segment of consumers towards
climate-friendlier options in a restaurant, personal social influence
proves to be even more impactful, likely due to greater trust in the
advice and behaviour of nearby individuals and higher susceptibility
to normative influence, including the desire for social approval
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Folwarczny et al., 2023; Gross, &
Vostroknutov, 2022; Steg et al., 2014a). By contrast, in private contexts
like donations for MTB trails in Rörbäcksnäs, visitors are more reliant
167
on written information to gain insights into the expected and
common behaviour and can decide whether to follow this or not
according to their internalised norms (Bicchieri & Dimant, 2019;
White & Simpson, 2013).
The differences in social influence between the settings may also be
linked to the tangibility of outcomes and actors involved and the
associated sense of efficacy in addressing the sustainability challenge.
Research indicates that while climate-friendly food choices contribute
to collective goals, the diffuse nature of efforts needed to mitigate
climate change and the indirect link between individual actions and
broader environmental impact generally reduce consumers’
perceived control, which leads to rationalisation (Ajzen & Fishbein,
2005; Eckhardt et al., 2010; Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002; Lindenberg,
2023). This lack of perceived efficacy can hinder consumers from
choosing pro-sustainable options (Hunter & Röös, 2016; Plechatá et
al., 2022). Conversely, in the case of donations for MTB trails, the
sustainability problem is more localised, with fewer stakeholders,
which is likely to lead to a higher sense of control among visitors,
who believe their contributions can make a difference, especially
when they are assured that others are also donating (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002; White & Simpson, 2013).
The comparison between the cases enriches the theoretical
understanding of how personal interactions and social dynamics
shape pro-sustainable behaviour in diverse T&H contexts. Papers 1
and 2 contribute to the limited literature on socially oriented (as
opposed to environmentally oriented) pro-sustainable behaviour in
T&H, providing new evidence on the influence of social and personal
norms in driving donations for MTB trails (Souza-Neto et al., 2022;
Demeter et al., 2023). The insights into perceived and actual social
168
norms around donating – drawn from studies conducted over two
consecutive years – further enhance our understanding of social norm
development in pro-sustainable behaviour within T&H. Paper 4 also
highlights the significant role of personal social influence as both a
driver and barrier to climate-friendly food choices in an à la carte
restaurant setting, an area that has been underexplored in existing
research.
Moreover, the comparison between the cases illuminates the
important influence of the specific T&H context on pro-sustainable
behaviour. While the literature on behavioural change distinguishes
between sustainability-oriented providers or destinations (such as
eco-tourism) and general commercial T&H settings (such as hotels),
behavioural intervention research often treats tourism broadly as a
hedonic context that conflicts with pro-sustainable behaviour
(Dolnicar, 2020; Dolnicar et al., 2017, 2019; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014b;
Kneževič Cvelbar et al., 2019). More recent survey findings have
emphasised that tourism settings are not universally more
enjoyment-focused, challenging the argument that tourists behave
less sustainably on holiday because of its hedonic focus (Albrecht et
al., 2024).
The studies in Rörbäcksnäs, a non-commercial nature destination
focused on social sustainability, but not overtly promoted as
sustainable, suggest that pro-sustainable behaviour can align with
visitors’ goals rather than conflict with them. While goal-frames were
not directly measured, the positive influence of personal norms,
visitors’ favourable attitude towards donation messages, and their
high satisfaction with the MTB experience in Rörbäcksnäs imply that
visitors may view donating as a means to support a cause they care
about. Following prior research on GFT and PEPs, this engagement in
169
pro-sustainable behaviours, aligned with personal norms, can
engender contentment, including positive feelings like warm-glow or
pride, which support hedonic goals (De Young, 2000; Lindenberg &
Papies, 2019; Steg et al., 2014b). Nevertheless, the field experiments
indicate that these normative goals require activation through social
norm information and increased awareness of donation opportunities
to effectively influence behaviour in this tourism context (Capraro et
al., 2019; Lindenberg & Papies, 2019).
In contrast, Papers 3 and 4 reveal that simply raising the salience of
pro-sustainable choices is less effective in an à la carte restaurant
setting unless these options align with consumers’ primary dining
motives, such as health (Claessens et al., 2023; Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002; Lo et al., 2017). Together, these two papers emphasise the need
to target specific drivers relevant to the T&H settings in normative
interventions, to enable consumers to derive additional value from
pro-sustainable choices, thereby strengthening normative goals (Steg
et al., 2014a).
This possibility of deriving additional value from pro-sustainable
behaviour has been underexplored in behavioural interventions
research across different T&H settings, beyond alternative tourism
types (e.g., Coghlan & Gooch, 2011; Demeter et al., 2023; Reisinger,
2013; Walter, 2013) or specific pleasure-oriented interventions like
games (Coghlan, 2021; Dolnicar et al., 2020). While some studies have
advocated pleasure-oriented interventions in T&H (Demeter et al.,
2023; Greene et al., 2023), they can be difficult to implement (Borden
et al., 2017; Coghlan et al., 2023) and may risk leading people to only
engage in pro-sustainable behaviour when it is enjoyable and
profitable, undermining normative goals and resulting in ‘cheap
morals’ rather than sustained change (Steg et al., 2014a, p. 106).
170
Additionally, empirical evidence from Paper 2 shows that not only
the content but also the physical salience of interventions is crucial
for capturing consumers’ attention and fostering normative
behaviour without disrupting their experience (Dolnicar & Demeter,
2023). Therefore, while more research is needed to specifically
measure GFT constructs, comparing different T&H settings illustrates
the importance of understanding the dynamic nature of drivers and
barriers and the alignment between pro-sustainable behaviours with
contextual motives to gain a comprehensive understanding of such
behaviour.
Figures 5 and 6 summarise the key factors that influence the pro-
sustainable behaviours examined in this research, based on this
discussion and the theoretical framework (Figure 4). The highlighted
factors (information salience and injunctive and descriptive norms in
Figure 5; information salience and endorsement in Figure 6) present
the primary targets of the behavioural interventions in the field
experiments presented in the individual papers. While the other
factors depicted in these figures have only been partially examined
empirically in this research, they have been included based on insight
from the literature as well as surveys, interviews, and observations.
The figures do not show an exhaustive list of factors; rather, they are
a visual summary of the findings in this research. The green colours
indicate a positive influence on the targeted pro-sustainable
behaviour (drivers), while the red colours denote a negative influence
on the behaviour (barriers) among most of the studied consumers.
Mixed colours indicate significant heterogeneity in influence –
whether driving or hindering pro-sustainable behaviour – in the field
experiments, specifically in Papers 3 and 4. For instance, while
increased salience of sustainability information (through donation
171
messages that included social norms) generally had a positive effect
on donation behaviour in Papers 1 and 2, enhancing the salience of
sustainability information (through different carbon labels) in
restaurants led to mixed outcomes: it encouraged some consumers to
choose climate-friendly options but appeared to deter others.
Figure 5: Factors influencing donations for MTB trails (Papers 1 and 2)
172
Figure 6: Factors influencing climate-friendly food choices in restaurants (Papers 3
and 4)
6.2 Drivers and Barriers for Tourism and
Hospitality Providers
This section addresses RQ2 by examining the drivers and barriers
that T&H providers face when fostering pro-sustainable behaviour
among consumers. Although the importance of understanding
providers’ perspectives has long been recognised in sustainable
tourism literature (Bimonte, 2013; Hughes & Morrison-Saunders,
2018; WTO & UNEP, 2005), it has largely been overlooked in
behavioural intervention studies aimed at encouraging pro-
sustainable behaviour, with a few recent exceptions (Coghlan et al.
2023; van Eeden et al., 2024). Addressing this gap across the diverse
settings explored in the papers provides valuable insights for
173
designing relevant interventions, thereby offering a more integrated
approach to addressing sustainability challenges.
6.2.1 Economic Drivers and Competitiveness
In Papers 1 and 2, the providers consisted of different community
members in Rörbäcknäs, Dalarna (Sweden), with a stake in the MTB
trails. The pre-studies identified that the primary motivations for
stakeholders to seek financial contributions from visitors were the
perceived benefits that tourism development would bring to the
wider community, including positive experiences for trail users and
socio-economic benefits for residents. Consistent with previous
research on community members with voluntary roles in tourism
development (Paraskevaidis & Andriotis, 2017), stakeholders’
motivations for encouraging more visitor contributions were
primarily selfless and focused on collective long-term benefits.
At the same time, maintaining a voluntary contribution approach and
employing unobtrusive interventions to encourage donations were
seen as crucial for competitiveness and attracting visitors who are
inclined to contribute. In Rörbäcksnäs, as in many other rural
destinations, natural resources and cultural identity form core values
that make the place attractive to visit, despite limited tourism
infrastructure (Madanaguli et al., 2023; Sharpley, 2007). Stakeholders
recognised that the destination’s uncommercialised image set it apart
from larger MTB destinations in the region and the opportunity to
voluntarily support the area’s sustainability enhances its identity and
potentially provides experiential value for consumers (Font et al.,
2021).
Papers 3 and 4, which focused on commercial T&H providers,
underscored market competitiveness as the primary driver for
174
restaurant managers to introduce pro-sustainable interventions,
specifically incorporating carbon labels on menus. This aligns with
literature highlighting the increasing pressure on T&H providers to
implement sustainability practices (Jones et al., 2016; Mak & Chang,
2019) and stated consumer preferences for environmentally friendly
food options (Grunert, 2020; Moser, 2016; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006).
Managers believed that consumers increasingly sought climate-
friendly food, suggesting that offering such options could add value
to the dining experience and, in Sälen, the touristic experience.
Additionally, the rising trend of competitors in Sweden
implementing carbon labels exerted pressure on providers to follow
suit.
Surprisingly, neither restaurant manager placed a lot of emphasis on
the direct economic effects post-implementation; this is probably due
to the minimal price differences between menu items and the shared
belief that labelling and sustainability messaging could indirectly
enhance business image and competitiveness in the long term.
Despite emphasising the need for economic gains to encourage the
uptake of sustainability interventions in the T&H industry, the
literature in this domain has only lightly explored the short- and
long-term impacts of behavioural interventions on businesses (Allcott
& Kessler, 2015; Dolnicar, 2020). Analysis of the restaurants’ revenue
in the field experiments indicated that the interventions did not
negatively impact direct revenue from menu sales.
Furthermore, comparing different restaurant providers and their
constraints illustrated that interventions like carbon labels need to be
adaptable to specific operational resources if they are to be cost-
effective. However, a more comprehensive analysis including costs
and long-term impacts would be necessary to confirm the financial
175
impacts on the businesses used as cases for the field experiments in
this thesis.
6.2.2 Values and Commitment to Sustainability
In both cases, stakeholders aimed to promote pro-sustainable
behaviour in line with their own values, highlighting a different focus
and commitment to sustainability between them.
For the MTB stakeholders, the commitment to preserving the
destination’s unique image and ‘feeling’ while encouraging visitor
contributions through behavioural interventions stemmed not only
from the desire to maintain competitive advantage but also from the
value that locals placed on free access to the trails and the tranquil
nature of Rörbäcksnäs. Outdoor recreation and free access to nature
are significant parts of Scandinavian culture that need to be
preserved for quality of life and sustainable development
(Kaltenborn et al., 2001). To retain these values and a certain lifestyle,
with the belief that visitors shared similar values, stakeholders
focused on improving visitors’ experiences and spending by
enhancing basic facilities and trail quality rather than increasing
tourist numbers. Thus, engendering a sense of joint responsibility for
mutual social and experiential benefits between stakeholders and
visitors emerged as a key driver in the design of interventions.
In the restaurants, sustainability concerns, specifically for the
environment, were acknowledged and discussed in the workshops
and meetings but played a secondary role to business considerations
in intervention design. Much of the discussion focused on the impact
of meal choices and interventions on customers’ experience and thus
business performance. Consistent with prior literature (Kornilaki et
al., 2019; Mak Chang, 2019), managers reported a greater focus on
176
operational sustainability practices (such as recycling and food waste
reduction rather than direct food options), as these changes generally
involve direct cost savings and do not impact customers. While such
operational interventions have a limited direct impact on consumers’
choices, they may create a sense of authenticity in sustainability
commitment. This can foster shared responsibility to encourage pro-
sustainable consumer behaviour if visible, as in the Stockholm
restaurant where several food waste reduction and recycling
practices were communicated to customers (Coghlan et al., 2023;
Wang et al., 2017; Warren et al., 2017).
As demonstrated by the findings of Papers 3 and 4 and suggested in
the literature (Bharwani & Mathews, 2023; Font et al., 2017),
interventions that directly target consumers’ choices often face
greater hurdles from managers than back-of-house changes.
Managers and staff emphasised the challenge of nudging climate-
friendly options while catering to diverse food preferences, including
animal protein and vegan options, and maintaining the restaurant’s
core values. In the Stockholm restaurant, where the manager
emphasised food freedom and healthy options for diverse dietary
needs, targeting a single dish or asking staff to recommend specific
climate-friendly options was perceived as conflicting with these
values, as it risked pushing consumers towards dishes that might not
align with their preferences. This underscores the idea that T&H staff
generally endorse products that resonate with their own values (Fu et
al., 2010). Therefore, it is necessary to understand these values and
how they align with sustainability aspects to empower them to
communicate sustainability as a value-adding proposition (Font et al.,
2021).
177
The emphasis on enabling consumers to freely choose dishes that
align with their individual preference – along with the limited
intervention impact in Paper 3 where only vegan options were
labelled green (that is, ‘carbon-friendly’) – demonstrated the
importance of offering and targeting diverse pro-sustainable food
options (Font & McCabe, 2017; Jones et al., 2016; Mak & Chang, 2019).
Such an approach is vital in order to meet nuanced customer
preferences, remain competitive, and avoid backfiring effects (Acuti
et al., 2011; Hielkema & Lund, 2022), but it may hinder consumers
from being guided to the most sustainable option, as indicated in the
substitution effect noted in Paper 3.
Despite differing values associated with sustainability and mixed
intervention effects, managers and staff at both restaurants remained
motivated to develop and implement interventions after the
experiments. For example, discussions on adjusting dish
compositions to reduce carbon footprints and offer a wider range of
climate-friendly options continued. While this suggests that
collaborative endeavours to design and test interventions may foster
continued sustainability engagement among providers, further
investigation is needed to evaluate sustained commitment amidst
daily operational pressures.
6.2.3 Operational and Resource Constraints
Apart from retaining the values of free access and the destination’s
unique image, human and financial resource constraints prevented
the stakeholders in Papers 1 and 2 from increasing their demand for
donations. Stakeholders believed that requests for higher
contributions would raise visitors’ expectations excessively, which
they could not meet with their available resources, particularly given
their resistance to over-commercialisation. Thus, their expectations
178
for visitors’ contributions and appropriate behavioural interventions
were largely shaped by their perceptions of what visitors expect from
their MTB experience in this context. This internal pressure to
maintain equitable relationships aligns with social exchange theories
like Equity Theory (Adams, 1963) and reciprocity (Burger et al., 2008;
Molm, 2010) and presented a foundation for developing effective
interventions that shared local norms with visitors to encourage pro-
sustainable behaviour. However, this pressure also posed a barrier to
increasing donation requests further through more or different
interventions, such as raising the salience of signs even more in Paper
2, thereby potentially raising higher funds according to visitors’
actual expectations and willingness.
In Papers 3 and 4, restaurant managers and staff in Sälen and
Stockholm, respectively, faced operational resource and capabilities
constraints when implementing sustainability initiatives like carbon
labels. Consistent with studies in diverse locations (Baloglu et al.,
2020; Kornilaki et al., 2019), financial limitations played a role in the
small individual-run restaurant in Stockholm. Carbon labelling
schemes incur direct certification costs and potential costs for
adapting dishes to be labelled as ‘low-emission’, which tend to
burden smaller businesses disproportionally, especially if there is
pressure to adopt widely recognisable labels like Klimato in Sweden
(Edenbrandt & Nordström, 2023).
While these findings highlight the resource challenges that small
T&H providers face in implementing environmental initiatives
(Vernon et al., 2003), Papers 3 and 4 also suggest that certain
organisational capabilities of such businesses facilitate the proactive
development of sustainability strategies (Aragon-Correa et al., 2015).
The small size and limited number of employees in the Stockholm
179
restaurant proved advantageous for developing and testing the
intervention, as they allowed for flexible adjustments and direct
observation of consumer reactions and staff feedback. By contrast, the
larger scale and operational challenges at the Sälen restaurant – such
as high visitor volume, staff turnover, sick leave, and the managers’
other responsibilities – presented barriers that affected the
intervention’s effectiveness and the analysis of the field experiment.
6.2.4 Visitor Experience and Knowledge Gaps
Appearing too ‘pushy’ with requests for contributions could
potentially have a negative impact on visitors’ experience. This was a
key concern for MTB stakeholders and shaped the interventions
considered and accepted in this context. Although this concern
informed the second field experiment, where sign frequency and
backfiring effects were tested following evidence of limited visitor
awareness from the first experiment, it still hindered the design of
more prominent interventions. Similar concerns about sustainability
communication interfering with visitors’ experience have been
documented in the context of greenhushing in hospitality businesses
(Ettinger et al., 2021; Font et al., 2017). My finding that providers of
MTB trails in Rörbäcksnäs tend to under-communicate sustainability
efforts and requests for contributions extends this discussion to other
tourism contexts.
Restaurant managers also faced challenges in terms of balancing
persuasive sustainability communication while avoiding
greenwashing and maintaining a positive consumer experience.
Despite the perception that many consumers seek climate-friendly
food, and emphasis on transparent and accurate communication,
concerns about customer satisfaction strongly influenced the
intervention design. Managers and staff in both restaurants were
180
wary of being too ‘pushy’ (for example, via direct personal
recommendations), restrictive (for example, by targeting only plant-
based dishes), or inducing negative emotions among customers (such
as through red carbon labels), potentially reducing the impact of
interventions on guiding consumers towards the most climate-
friendly option (Brunner et al., 2018; Carrero et al., 2021).
Ultimately, while providers’ perspectives highlighted relevant
concerns about consumer expectations in these T&H contexts, they
also demonstrated the need for an improved understanding of
consumers’ actual preferences and behaviours to design impactful
interventions. The pre-studies and field experiments in Papers 1 and
2 revealed that providers perceived tourists’ willingness to contribute
more negatively than it actually was, with most tourists donating and
reporting positive experiences even after donation appeals were
increased in Paper 2. Therefore, the commonly held belief that
sustainability appeals and behaviours interfere with tourists’
experiences (Ettinger et al., 2021; Font et al., 2017), was not confirmed
in this setting and appeared to stem from a lack of understanding of
current donation behaviour.
Conversely, providers in Paper 3 overestimated consumers’ demand
for climate-friendly options; this is in line with surveys and industry
examples suggesting that many consumers seek such options when
dining out (Daus & Clement, 2023; Feucht & Zander, 2018; Sarmiento
& Hanandeh, 2018). Thus, a nuanced understanding of both provider
and consumer perspectives is crucial in order to empower providers
to credibly promote pro-sustainable choices in a way that enhances
customer experiences (Font et al., 2021).
181
Overall, the findings revealed some inherent conflicts in providers’
motivation to foster pro-sustainable behaviour: The aim to develop
tourism and soliciting contributions without excessively increasing
communication and visitors’ expectations; the desire to promote pro-
sustainable options for competitive advantage without imposing
these choices on consumers; and the wish to design transparent
interventions without fully disclosing less sustainable options. As the
individual papers have shown, understanding these conflicts and the
gaps between provider perceptions and consumer behaviour is
crucial for addressing perceived barriers and aligning expectations.
This systematic approach to bridging the awareness-behaviours or
attitude–behaviours gap helps identify specific choices to target, such
as certain climate-friendly dishes, and guides the design of
interventions that encourage pro-sustainable behaviour while
potentially adding value to consumers’ experiences and fitting within
the providers’ goals and constraints.
6.3 Designing Effective Interventions
Collaboration between researchers and providers is a critical part of
attempts to foster pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in T&H. The
literature on sustainable T&H has firmly established that
collaboration among stakeholders – such as researchers, residents,
and industry experts – is essential for advancing sustainability (Getz
& Jamal, 1994; Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2018; Tribe & Liburd,
2016). However, a significant challenge is that researchers and
practitioners often operate in different social worlds, which
complicates mutual understanding (Adolfsson et al., 2016).
Overcoming these boundaries is crucial for integrating knowledge
and developing relevant solutions to sustainability issues (Caccamo
et al., 2023). In this context, behavioural interventions aimed at
182
encouraging pro-sustainable behaviour, similar to sustainability more
broadly, are viewed in this thesis as boundary objects (Star &
Griesemer 1989). These interventions provide common ground by
aiming to achieve specific behavioural outcomes through subtle
changes in the decision-making environment and the application of a
family of theories and mechanisms. However, effectively translating
these interventions into the local context – deciding what theories to
apply and how to foster specific behaviours – requires insights from
local stakeholders (Ball & Feitsma, 2020).
This section synthesises insights from the consumer perspective
(RQ1) and provider perspectives (RQ2), exploring the relevance of
behavioural theories, the role of the researcher, and the challenges
and opportunities within these collaborative efforts. This synthesis
provides valuable insights into the design of effective interventions
(RQ3). The subsequent section summarises the applicability of
behavioural interventions, specifically social norms and carbon
labels, within T&H settings, along with key considerations for their
design and implementation.
6.3.1 The Process
A key revelation from this research is the centrality of collaborative
intervention design and testing with industry partners, tailored to the
specific context. Specifically, while much of the behavioural
intervention literature in T&H emphasises the quantitative findings
of field experiments on behavioural outcomes (Demeter et al., 2023;
Fong et al., 2016; Greene et al., 2023; Viglia & Dolnicar, 2020), this
research also highlights the significance of the exploratory and design
stages. These stages are critical for establishing a shared intent,
determining the relevance and acceptability of specific interventions,
183
securing provider engagement, and ensuring the smooth execution of
experiments (Coghlan et al., 2023).
Firstly, this research demonstrates that effective methods for
collaboration in behavioural intervention design vary depending on
the context and stakeholders involved. In small destination settings
with diverse stakeholders, like Rörbäcksnäs, community meetings
and individual interviews proved effective for fostering mutual
understanding and collaboration. In contrast, workshops were
notably successful in engaging managers and staff in larger
hospitality operations in Paper 3, while informal meetings worked
well in a smaller restaurant setting in Paper 4. Paper 3 showed that
workshops inspired by Design Thinking and Open Space present
promising yet underutilised methods for challenging business-as-
usual thinking and fostering engagement in sustainability
interventions within commercial T&H providers.
The field experiment in Paper 3 also indicated that initial enthusiasm
for sustainability initiatives may diminish under daily operational
pressures, underscoring the need for sustained engagement through
ongoing workshops or meetings during and after field experiments.
Such collaborative commitment to sustainability initiatives not only
aids in developing effective interventions but, as the literature
suggests, can also enhance employee knowledge, sustainability
values, and involvement in decision-making, thereby fostering a
more responsible and positive organisational culture (Cantor et al.,
2012; Chou, 2014; Liu et al., 2021; Raineri & Paillé, 2016). While the
present research focused primarily on consumer impacts, it is
important to evaluate interventions holistically, including their long-
term effects on providers and their sustainability practices.
184
Although the integration of providers’ perspectives around the
boundary object of behavioural interventions improved our capacity
to design and assess these interventions, it also introduced challenges
related to divergent priorities and practical constraints. Compromises
in intervention design and effectiveness were often necessary to
adapt to specific business settings.
For instance, restaurant providers in Sälen decided to transparently
label all menu items, despite their high carbon footprints, which can
promote carbon literacy (Edenbrandt & Lagerkvist, 2021) but may
also affect consumers’ perception of the restaurant and the
intervention’s impact on food choices, potentially leading to
substitutions. Nevertheless, this was a feasible strategy for a
restaurant associated with a large hotel and few direct competitors.
Conversely, the restaurant manager in Stockholm also emphasised
accurate information but chose to label only two dishes due to the
higher carbon footprint of others compared to competitors’ menus,
which could potentially deter customers. Similar compromises
related to the inherent tension between business objectives and long-
term sustainability goals in T&H (Buckley, 2012; Font & McCabe,
2017; Moscardo & Murphy, 2016) also surfaced in managers’
preference for cost-saving operational sustainability practices, such as
food waste reduction, over potentially riskier and more expensive
customer-facing interventions, like changing dish ingredients.
Although this conflict impacts the practical adoption of effective
consumer-oriented behavioural interventions in the industry, longer-
term collaboration and evidence of intervention effectiveness can
facilitate reconciliation, as this research has shown. For example,
providers in Rörbäcksnäs initially resisted increasing donation signs.
185
However, through collaboration and insights gained from the first
experiment, they became more receptive to subsequent interventions
designed to enhance visibility and impact. This process highlights the
iterative nature of intervention design, where initial effects on
behaviour might be compromised by operational and economic
concerns. Over time, interventions evolve through negotiation and
adaptation between ideal theoretical models and their practical
implementation, alongside increasing provider awareness and
acceptance (Favilli et al., 2015).
The challenges encountered during intervention design and
experiments also present valuable opportunities for reciprocal
learning, where academic insights can inform industry perspectives
and vice versa. This thesis has shown how behavioural theories
provide a foundational framework for intervention design, offering a
common ground and ‘malleable backstage boundaries’ to understand
the psychological drivers of pro-sustainable behaviour (Ball &
Feitsma, 2020). Effectively communicating these theoretical
principles, along with methodological requirements to industry
partners, emerged as a crucial element for developing practically and
theoretically relevant interventions and experiments. For example,
discussions about the impact of different label designs, informed by
existing literature, were essential for achieving a shared
understanding during the workshops described in Paper 3. Similarly,
insights from social norm theory were instrumental in revising the
donation message in Rörbäcksnäs, which helped reconcile the
providers’ desire to maintain a fair voluntary approach with their
objective of increasing visitor contributions, while also addressing
relevant research gaps.
186
Involving providers directly in the field experimental design process
enabled the exchange of methodological insights, such as discussions
about control groups and measurement techniques. This facilitated
not only the design of robust experiments but also providers’
interpretation of results, as well as the adoption of specific tools such
as the carbon calculator Klimato in Paper 3. I initially suggested
Klimato for its growing prominence in the food sector and
transparent methodology (Klimato, 2024). Joint meetings with
Klimato representatives, the restaurant manager, and researchers
enabled a thorough exchange of knowledge about the tool’s benefits
and how it would be utilised in the research project, which
encouraged the manager to consider its long-term adoption. This
exchange of industry insights and academic research processes is
crucial for promoting the integration of relevant practical tools in
intervention design and encouraging their sustained use among
practitioners.
Furthermore, by emphasising the need for interventions to be both
theoretically sound and adapted to the nuanced complexities of real-
life settings, this research has highlighted the inevitable compromises
involved in balancing the deeper validation or rejection of specific
constructs or theories with practical considerations, particularly in
field experimental studies. This interplay between theory and praxis
also implies the need for flexible theoretical frameworks. Having
malleable boundaries in the theoretical background, but clearer
boundaries in the practical implementation within specific contexts,
allows space for knowledge integration and adaptation based on real-
world constraints and empirical findings (Ball & Feitsma, 2020). For
example, the dynamic interaction between theory and practice
observed in the changing norms in Papers 1 and 2 emphasised the
187
need for ongoing empirical validation and adaption of interventions
in this setting.
This also shows that the researcher’s involvement in designing
interventions needs to be dynamic, responsive, and continually
informed by evolving sustainability practices in T&H. Such an
approach ensures that interventions draw on established behavioural
principles while also adapting to emerging sustainability trends and
industry insights, such as new carbon labelling practices, resulting in
more nuanced and effective interventions.
6.3.2 What Works Where?
This section summarises the effectiveness of social norm and carbon
label interventions, as well as endorsement, based on the empirical
findings of the individual papers and informed by the literature. It
also suggests the contexts in which such interventions may generally
be applicable, along with key considerations.
Social norm interventions
• Social norm interventions, including descriptive and injunctive
norms, appear to be effective at encouraging donation
behaviour among mountain biking visitors.
• The physical salience of interventions, including the frequency
and placement, influences their outcomes.
Application:
• Social norm information can effectively encourage pro-
sustainable behaviours in situations where the behaviour is not
directly visible, particularly if visitors directly use and benefit
from positively contributing to public goods, such as
recreational trails (Heldt, 2005, 2010), museums (Martin &
Randal, 2008), or park conservation (Alpízar & Martinsson,
188
2010).
• Reminders, including social norm information, may be
particularly effective when the behaviour is to be carried out
later or throughout the experience. These reminders can shift
attention towards engagement and influence beliefs about the
importance and social desirability of the behaviour (Gravert,
2021). This is relevant in open-access contexts, such as nature-
based activities, where tourists engage in long, individual
activities.
Considerations:
• Papers 1 and 2 emphasise the dynamic nature of social norms,
requiring monitoring and adaptions of social norm
interventions.
• For normative reminders to be effective, receivers need
sufficient intrinsic or extrinsic motivation; otherwise, they may
create psychological costs such as guilt for not meeting social
norms or personal standards (Gravert, 2021). Thus, the
message content should first be tested for effectiveness to avoid
adverse effects on the targeted behaviour, consumer experience,
provider image, and possible income (Ettinger et al., 2021;
Richter et al., 2018).
Carbon labels
• Carbon labels show limited direct impact but have the potential
to influence a segment of consumers towards choosing lower
emission options, in an à la carte restaurant at a tourism
destination. This aligns with studies conducted in diverse out-
of-home dining settings (Brunner et al., 2018; Lohmann et al.,
2022; Slapø & Karevold, 2019; Spaargaren et al., 2013).
• Combining carbon information with endorsement demonstrates
a more pronounced effect on climate-friendly food choices in a
189
general à la carte lunch restaurant.
Application:
• Carbon label interventions appear to be effective in restaurants
when tailored to the specific context, such as by combining
carbon footprint information with endorsements from a fitness
influencer in a healthy fast-food restaurant.
Considerations:
• The potential long-term influence of carbon labels needs to be
considered. Scaling up could increase their success as
consumers’ familiarity with the label increases (Feucht &
Zander; 2018; Grunert et al., 2014; Li et al., 2017) and
competitiveness among providers to follow suits intensifies,
leading to greater adjustment of dishes to promote low-carbon
options and greater net effect on emissions. This is particularly
relevant in cases like Klimato and Sweden, where the tool’s
utilisation in hospitality businesses has increased significantly
in recent years (Allen, 2023; Klimato, 2024).
• Even if carbon labels may induce initial reactance among some
consumers, leading to minimal net effects in the beginning
(Edenbrandt et al., 2021; Festinger, 1957), these initial reactions
to the intervention may lead to reflection and transformation
(Banerjee et al., 2022; Bruns & Perino, 2021). Accordingly,
impacts on consumer behaviour, satisfaction, and profitability
need to be monitored.
Personal endorsement
• Personal recommendations from staff appear more effective than
written endorsements in terms of influencing climate-friendly
choices of restaurant customers, aligned with studies
leveraging this form of social influence in other pro-sustainable
food choice (Cai et al., 2021), food waste (van Herpen et al.,
190
2021), and resource-conservation in accommodation contexts
(Warren et al., 2017).
Application:
• This type of intervention appears to be particularly effective in
hospitality settings where frontline staff and customers interact
directly, such as restaurants and other service contexts like
travel agents (Font et al., 2021), as personal recommendations
may enhance the credibility of information and add value to
the customers’ experience (Barnes et al., 2016; Cai et al., 2021;
Cialdini, 2009).
Considerations:
• In the context of food choices, offering and targeting several
pro-sustainable options with carbon information or
endorsement may prevent the need for consumers to switch to
drastic alternatives that may not align with other priorities,
such as high-protein protein food (Lea & Worsley, 2001), and
risk triggering reactance or moral licensing effects (Osman et
al., 2021).
Considerations across cases
Context-Specificity
• The sense of efficacy related to the sustainability issue and target
behaviour needs consideration. The impact of pro-sustainable
behaviours like donations for the maintenance of local MTB
trails is more direct than behaviours related to broader
sustainability issues, such as climate change. As this study and
prior studies have indicated (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002;
Sawitri et al., 2015; van Valkengoed et al., 2022), the latter
requires more effort in assuring individuals that their choice
makes a difference and making the pro-sustainable choice
191
personally relevant to the specific audience.
• The alignment among the specific T&H context, target
behaviour, and intervention requires consideration. Normative
goals aligned with pro-sustainable behaviours are likely to be
more salient in uncommercialised nature settings (Lindenberg,
2006, 2008), which makes norm-based interventions to
reinforce these behaviours applicable. By contrast,
consumption in commercial hospitality establishments, such as
à la carte restaurants or hotels, generally prioritises gain goals
and hedonic goals (Fechner et al., 2023; Rodriguez–Sanchez et
al., 2020), meaning that relevant self-benefits of normatively
desirable pro-sustainable choices should be highlighted to
make these desirable options for consumers.
• Ultimately, providers need to position targeted pro-sustainable
choices to engage the specific target market, especially if they
are related to broad challenges like climate change, to increase
intervention effectiveness and add consumer values. For
example, pro-sustainable food options may be linked with
health benefits, as exemplified in Paper 3 (Carrigan & Attalla,
2001), or possibly with heartiness in establishments like a
burger and pizza restaurant at a tourist destination (Fechner et
al., 2023).
Transparency and Accuracy
• Transparent and accurate interventions are crucial for consumer
trust and provider credibility. While T&H literature emphasises
providers’ preference for easy-to-implement, cost-effective
interventions (Dolnicar; 2020; Greene et al., 2023; Souza-Neto
et al., 2022), and nudge literature highlights consumers’ desire
for transparent interventions (Mont et al., 2014; Sunstein et al.,
2018), the present research adds that providers also highly
192
value transparency and accurate information.
• Transparent choice-preserving interventions like social norm
information and carbon labels may be more ethically applicable
than low-engagement nudges like defaults for behaviours that
consumers care about, such as donations or food choices,
considering both consumer and provider ethics.
• Related to discussions about greenwashing (Caradonio, 2022;
Gay et al., 2023), ensuring accurate information through close
collaboration in intervention design is crucial in order to
preserve providers’ image and foster consumer behaviours
with meaningful sustainability impacts.
Monitoring and Adaption
• Having highly effective interventions is a dynamic process, not a
static outcome. Some interventions may need adaption if they
are initially ineffective, while others might be effective now but
require future adjustments due to changes in consumer
behaviour and provider demands and constraints.
• Collaborative intervention design and testing processes are crucial,
where behavioural theories and concepts serve as adaptable
guides and empirical realities of stakeholders’ motives and
constraints inform intervention mechanisms and experimental
methods. This approach makes it possible to design
interventions that are responsive to the unique challenges
posed by diverse T&H settings.
7 Conclusion
The aim of this thesis was to study pro-sustainable consumer
behaviour in tourism and hospitality (T&H) settings, drawing
insights from tourism and consumer behaviour theory and
behavioural economics. To achieve this, field experiments were
193
conducted in two distinct T&H contexts, examining consumers’
drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable behaviour, along with
investigating providers’ perspectives on making pro-sustainable
options more available and attractive. The collective findings offer
methodological insights into collaborative intervention design and
testing, provide practical recommendations for practitioners and
policymakers, and contribute to knowledge on pro-sustainable
consumer behaviour, both within T&H and more broadly.
Figure 5 presents a framework that outlines key steps and
considerations in designing and testing behavioural interventions to
foster pro-sustainable consumer behaviour, illustrating the
methodological contributions while presenting a base for the
theoretical and practical implications of this research. Although the
steps follow a general sequential order, the process is iterative, and it
may be necessary to revisit earlier stages depending on the specific
context and field conditions. The framework draws inspiration from
Dolnicar (2020) and Steg and Vlek (2009) but extends beyond
environmental concerns. It also emphasises the integration of
providers’ perspectives, ensuring that interventions are tailored to
specific real-life contexts. While based on studies in T&H settings,
this framework may also assist researchers, providers, and
policymakers in other out-of-home consumption domains, such as
retail, workplace canteens, or public transport, where meso-level
actors can influence consumers for societal, environmental, and
consumer benefits.
194
Figure 7: Framework for designing and testing behavioural interventions to foster pro-
sustainable consumer behaviour in T&H
195
The process begins with the exploratory and design stages of
behavioural interventions (Parts 1, 2, and 3), which are often
underreported in the T&H literature but are critical for ensuring
contextual relevance and feasibility. The stages emphasise the need
for stakeholder involvement and for addressing factors like practical
constraints, trade-offs between informed and quick behavioural
changes, and potential spillover effects, including impacts on
consumers’ experience. Qualitative methods like Design Thinking,
Open Space workshops, and interviews can facilitate the co-creation
of interventions that resonate with stakeholder needs and leverage
their customer insights. By integrating these practical considerations
with behavioural theories, field experiments are better positioned to
be both relevant and adaptable to shifting sustainability knowledge,
industry practices, and evolving contexts.
When testing interventions in the field (Part 4) and analysing the
findings (Part 5), combining quantitative data on actual behaviour
and revenue with qualitative methods like observation and consumer
interviews offers a comprehensive understanding of an intervention’s
effects. This approach goes beyond immediate consumer responses to
consider impacts on providers and potential spillover effects.
Although it can be challenging to sustain stakeholder engagement, it
is crucial to identify effective channels for ongoing collaboration
throughout the experimental process and beyond. While monitoring
intervention effects after the experimental phase (Part 7) is limited
within this thesis, it is essential for assessing long-term impacts,
advancing knowledge on pro-sustainable behaviour and guiding
future interventions.
Researchers play a crucial role in bridging the gap between theory
and practice, ensuring that interventions are theoretically grounded,
196
and that knowledge of behavioural theories is developed while
addressing real-world challenges. Methodological transparency and
rigour, alongside effective communication of findings, are essential
for ensuring validity, reliability, and knowledge exchange between
academia and industry. I hope that this framework will inspire
researchers to embrace interdisciplinary approaches and
collaborative methodologies, particularly field experiments, to
effectively address sustainability challenges and advance knowledge
in T&H, consumer behaviour and behavioural economics. The
following sections conclude this research process with key theoretical
and practical insights, addressing Part 6(a) of the framework.
7.1 Theoretical Implications
The main theoretical implications of this thesis are new insights into
the drivers and barriers to pro-sustainable consumer behaviour in
T&H. By identifying both context-specific factors and broader
behavioural patterns, these insights also contribute to a deeper
understanding of pro-sustainable behaviour across various other
unfamiliar and experiential out-of-home consumption settings.
One significant insight pertains to the dynamic nature of social norms
and their influence on pro-sustainable behaviour in diverse contexts.
Through empirically examining the relatively unexplored domain of
donations for publicly accessible mountain biking trails and
comparison with climate-friendly food choices in restaurants, this
thesis underscores the pivotal role of social norms in shaping pro-
sustainable behaviours in out-of-home settings. In such unfamiliar
consumption contexts, raising the salience of social norms can inform
consumers about socially expected behaviours, enhance perceptions
of social support, and bolster perceived efficacy.
197
Furthermore, the comparative analysis of social norm interventions
across distinct T&H contexts demonstrates the variability in social
influences on pro-sustainable behaviour. In less observable settings,
such as open-access nature areas, pro-sustainable behaviour may be
individually supported, but normative cues are essential to address
uncertainty about other’s behaviour. Conversely, in public settings
like restaurants, personal social interactions are influential in terms of
driving and hindering more sustainable choices. Therefore,
effectively leveraging social influence to foster pro-sustainable
behaviour requires alignment with the specific social dynamics and
evolving norms of each environment.
Moreover, this research broadens the traditional focus of behavioural
intervention research in T&H, which often emphasises the hedonic
nature of tourism and its negative impacts on pro-sustainable
behaviour. By including nature-based activities and general
restaurants, the study reveals the significance of nuanced contextual
factors. The findings underscore that, in certain settings, such as
nature-based recreation, visitors exhibit more of an awareness–
behaviour gap rather than the commonly observed attitude–
behaviour gap seen in commercial hospitality. This distinction
emphasises that pro-sustainable drivers in T&H are dynamic and
context-specific, suggesting that aligning sustainability information
with both overarching and context-specific goals in experiential
consumption contexts can support pro-sustainable behaviour and
enhance, rather than clash with, consumer experiences.
This research also sheds light on the drivers and barriers that T&H
providers face in fostering pro-sustainable consumer behaviour,
addressing a gap in the behavioural intervention literature. It reveals
differences between commercial providers, who are primarily driven
198
by competitive pressures and consumer preferences, and non-
commercial providers, who focus on the broader socioeconomic
benefits that pro-sustainable tourism can bring. This has significant
implications for the type of interventions that can be implemented
and sustained over time, which can ultimately influence how pro-
sustainable consumer behaviours are promoted. Additionally,
common challenges, such as resource constraints, preserving
providers’ values, and maintaining transparency while ensuring
consumer satisfaction – must be addressed in order to effectively
encourage pro-sustainable behaviour within T&H settings. This
underscores the need for an integrated approach that aligns provider
goals with consumer expectations to foster sustained pro-sustainable
behaviour in the sector.
7.2 Practical Implications
This research offers several practical recommendations for designing
behavioural interventions aimed at fostering informed pro-
sustainable behaviour in T&H settings, as well as other out-of-home
consumption contexts characterised by unfamiliar and experiential
elements.
To effectively promote pro-sustainable behaviour, it is crucial to
position sustainability issues in ways that resonate with the dominant
motives and preferences of target segments within specific contexts.
For example, in settings where pro-sustainable behaviour directly
benefits the individual and the collective, emphasising the
contributions of others through descriptive norms can reinforce the
efficacy of such behaviours and enhance the perceived value for the
participating consumers. Relevant examples include public parks,
recreational areas, museums, and events. In commercial T&H
199
settings, such as restaurants and hotels, sustainability information
must be tailored to the establishment’s style and target segment to
demonstrate how pro-sustainable options align with consumers’
personal benefits and promote informed choices. This approach can
be extended to other consumption settings with well-defined target
segments and a variety of options, such as specialised tour operators
and travel agencies. It is also important to offer several pro-
sustainable options in experiential settings where consumers
generally enjoy broad freedom of choice, to prevent them from
feeling restricted and ensure that providers do not have to
compromise their business style and values.
Furthermore, involving front-line staff in sustainability initiatives and
empowering them to endorse pro-sustainable options credibly during
interactions with consumers presents a significant yet underutilised
opportunity to influence consumer choices while enhancing the
overall experience.
This research has shown that framing sustainability as a relevant and
desirable aspect of the consumer experience requires an
understanding of the target audience’s preferences and priorities
within the specific context, which can be gained through staff
insights, observation, surveys, or interviews. Furthermore, practical
considerations in intervention design, such as transparency,
information accuracy, placement, frequency, and ongoing adaptation,
are critical for minimising negative consumer reactions and ensuring
sustained effectiveness and ethical application.
200
7.3 Limitations and Recommendations for
Future Research
This thesis, like any research endeavour, has certain limitations,
which are primarily outlined in the methodology chapter (Section
4.3.4) and the individual papers, inspiring areas for future research.
Firstly, consideration of longevity of behaviour change in the context
of sustainability is a key aspect, which I stressed in behavioural
intervention design. However, I was only able to address this
through my choice of behavioural interventions, targeting conscious
information processes and deliberate decision-making. Longer-term
studies assessing sustained behaviour change, including the effects
after intervention removal, are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of
different intervention types for pro-sustainable consumption in T&H
over time.
Secondly, the research was limited to two specific cases within
Sweden. Although pro-sustainable behaviours and behavioural
interventions necessitate a context-specific approach, replicating
these interventions and field experiments in diverse contexts with
similar sustainability challenges would enhance understanding and
validate intervention impacts on pro-sustainable behaviour. This
could, for example, reveal similarities and differences between
cultures. In particular, less explored interventions in pro-sustainable
consumption, such as endorsement, require further investigation to
assess their influence across different segments. Moreover, given that
this is one of the few studies in behavioural change literature within
T&H that extends beyond hotels and focuses on behaviours not solely
related to environmental sustainability (Khan et al., 2024; Liu et al.,
2023), it is vital to expand research to include diverse contexts such as
201
nature-based activities, airplanes, or cultural attractions. This broader
focus will enhance understanding of consumer engagement in
various pro-sustainable behaviours and how different settings can
either encourage or hinder these behaviours, facilitating more
comprehensive and impactful changes in T&H.
Thirdly, while this research applied Goal-Framing Theory to better
understand pro-sustainable behaviour in different T&H settings, it
did not directly measure consumers’ goals and salience of frames.
Recent studies suggest that Goal-Framing Theory could enhance
understanding of pro-sustainable consumption in T&H and the
impact of goal activation on behaviour (via nudges, for example)
(Onwezen, 2023; Thøgersen & Alfinito, 2020; Trabandt et al., 2024).
Further formal application of this theory could offer valuable insights
into encouraging pro-sustainable behaviour aligned with consumers’
dominant goals, thus enhancing their experiences and reinforcing
such behaviour.
Fourthly, the investigation of spillover effects – that is, the effects of
behavioural interventions on other, non-targeted behaviours – was
beyond the scope of this research and is underexplored in the pro-
sustainable consumption literature (Khan et al., 2024). Studying these
effects would enable a more comprehensive understanding of pro-
sustainable behaviour and maximise the impact and cost-
effectiveness of interventions while mitigating unintended
consequences.
Fifthly, practice-based approaches have recently gained attention in
pro-sustainable consumption research but are often contrasted
against behavioural interventions like nudges and remain
underutilised in policy and behavioural change studies, especially in
202
T&H. However, these approaches offer a valuable perspective for
examining the roots of patterned behaviours and fostering long-term
changes. Further research is needed to explore how integrating
practice-based approaches with behavioural interventions can
enhance pro-sustainable consumption and production in T&H and
related contexts.
Lastly, this research highlights the potential of collaborative
intervention design to engage providers with sustainability issues,
potentially leading to greater awareness and pro-sustainable
behaviour on their side (Cantor et al., 2012; Kneževič Cvelbar et al.,
2022; Liu et al., 2021). However, in most extant experiments, the
collaborative approach, particularly through Design Thinking
workshops, has either not been applied or has gone unreported
(Coghlan et al., 2023). More research is needed into the impacts of
collaborative sustainability initiatives on employee and manager
behaviour. In line with this, it would be valuable to explore how
employees can be trained to support or act as interventions in
influencing pro-sustainable consumer behaviour, such as by making
direct recommendations for more sustainable choices.
203
8 References
Abrahamse, W. (2020). How to Effectively Encourage Sustainable Food
Choices: A Mini-Review of Available Evidence. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.589674
Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage
resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change,
23(6), 1773-1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029
Acuti, D., Pizzetti, M., & Dolnicar, S. (2022). When sustainability backfires: A
review on the unintended negative side-effects of product and service
sustainability on consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 39(10),
1933-1945. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21709
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–
436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968
Adolfsson, P., Jutbring, H., & Lundberg, E. (2016). Objectives, objects, and
objectivity: On practitioner–academic collaboration in tourism and
leisure research. Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, 39(2), 303-320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07053436.2016.1198597
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour.
In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to
behaviour. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behaviour. In Handbook of Theories of
Social Psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 438– 459). SAGE Publications Inc.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2005) The Influence of Attitudes on Behaviour. In
Albaraccin, D., Johnson, B. T. & Zanna, M.P. (Eds.), The Handbook of
Attitudes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers.
Ajzen, I., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2019). Reasoned action in the service of goal
pursuit. Psychological review, 126(5), 774–786.
https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000155
204
Al Zaidi, S. M., Iyanna, S., Jabeen, F., & Mehmood, K. (2023). Understanding
employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior in public
organizations – an integrative theory approach. Social Responsibility
Journal, 19(8), 1466-1489. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-04-2022-0176
Alba, J. W., & Williams, E. F. (2012). Pleasure principles: A review of research
on hedonic consumption. Journal of consumer psychology, 23(1), 2-18.
https://doi-org.www.bibproxy.du.se/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.07.003
Albrecht, S., Zinn, A. K., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2024). Does enjoyment
focus prevent proenvironmental behaviour? Annals of Tourism
Research, 104, 103714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2023.103714
Allcott, H., & Kessler, J. (2015). The Welfare Effects of Behavioral
Interventions: Theory and Evidence from Energy Conservation. AEA
RCT Registry. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.713
Allcott, H., & Rogers, T. (2014). The short-run and long-run effects of
behavioural interventions: Experimental evidence from energy
conservation. The American Economic Review, 104(10).
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.10.3003
Allen, P. (2023). Stockholm-based Klimato cooks up €4.2 million to reduce the climate
impact of food. Retrieved March 24, 2023, from https://www.eu-
startups.com/2023/03/stockholm-based-klimato-cooks-up-e4-2-million-
to-reduce-the-climate-impact-of-food/
Alonso-Muñoz, S., Torrejón-Ramos, M., Medina-Salgado, M., & González-
Sánchez, R. (2023). Sustainability as a building block for tourism –
future research: Tourism agenda 2030. Tourism Review, 78(2), 461-474.
https://doi.org/10.1108/tr-12-2021-0568
Alpízar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity,
reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to
a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1047–
1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.11.004
Alpízar, F., & Martinsson, P. (2010). Don't tell me what to do, tell me who to follow!:
205
field experiment evidence on voluntary donations. Discussion paper series
(EfD).
https://repositorio.catie.ac.cr/bitstream/handle/11554/10771/BCO220683
37.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y
Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2014). Feelings that Make a Difference: How Guilt
and Pride Convince Consumers of the Effectiveness of Sustainable
Consumption Choices: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 117-134.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1841-9
Antonschmidt, H., & Lund-Durlacher, D. (2021). Stimulating food waste
reduction behaviour among hotel guests through context
manipulation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 329, 129709.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129709
Aragon-Correa, J. A., Martin-Tapia, I., & De la Torre-Ruiz, J. (2015).
Sustainability issues and hospitality and tourism firms’
strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 27(3), 498-522. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-11-2014-
0564
Araña, J. E., & León, C. J. (2013). Can defaults save the climate? Evidence from
a Field experiment on carbon offsetting programs. Environmental and
Resource Economics, 54(4), 613-626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-
9615-x
Ariely, D., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009). Doing Good or Doing Well? Image
Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially. The
American Economic Review, 99(1), 544–555.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29730196
Avineri, E. (2012). On the use and potential of behavioural economics from the
perspective of transport and climate change. Journal of Transport
Geography, 24, 512–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.003
Avineri, E., Chatterjee, K., Darnton, A., Goodwin, P., Lyons, G., Musselwhite,
C., Pilkington, P., Rayner, G., Tapp, A., Owen, E., Waygood, D.,
Wiltshire, P. (2009). Individual Behaviour Change: Evidence in transport
206
and public health. Retrieved May, 7, 2023 from https://uwe-
repository.worktribe.com/output/983014
Babakhani, N., Lee, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2019). Carbon labels on restaurant
menus: Do people pay attention to them? Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 28(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1670187
Baca-motes, K., Brown, A., Keenan, E. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2012).
Commitment and Behaviour Change: Evidence from the Field. Journal
of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1070-1084. https://doi.org/10.1086/667226
Bacharach, M. (2006). Beyond individual choice: Teams and Frames in Game
Theory. Princeton University Press.
Bacon, L. & Krpan, D. (2018). (Not) Eating for the environment: The impact
of restaurant menu design on vegetarian food choice. Appetite, 125,
190-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.006
Baker, M.A., Davis, E.A., & Weaver, P.A. (2014). Eco-friendly attitudes,
barriers to participation, and differences in behaviour at green hotels.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55, 88–9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513504483
Ball, S., & Feitsma, J. (2020). The boundaries of Behavioural Insights:
observations from two ethnographic studies. Evidence & Policy, 16(4),
559-577. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15643724702722
Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as
predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of
Business Research, 17, 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-
2963(88)90022-7
Balderjahn, I., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., Wiedmann, K., & Weber, A. (2018).
The many faces of sustainability-conscious consumers: A category-
independent typology. Journal of Business Research, 91, 83-93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.022
207
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., Lee, J., Packer, J., & Sneddon, J. (2018). Visitors’
values and environmental learning outcomes at wildlife attractions:
Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Management, 64, 190–
201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.07.015
Baloglu, S., Raab, C., & Malek, K. (2020). Organizational motivations for
green practices in casual restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Administration, 23(2), 269-288.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2020.1746216
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and
Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-
environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14-
25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Bamberg, S., Hunecke, M., & Blöbaum, A. (2007). Social context, personal
norms and the use of public transportation: Two field studies. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 190–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.001
Banerjee, S. (2019). Going Beyond Classic Nudges: Comparing the
Effectiveness of Information Nudges Combined with Commitment
Devices in Lowering Meat Consumption. SSRN Electronic Journal.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3493588
Banerjee, S. (2021). Rethinking the Origin of the Behavioural Policy Cube
With Nudge Plus. In V. Mihaila (Ed.), Behavioral-Based Interventions for
Improving Public Policies (pp.1-16). IGI Global.
Banerjee, S., Savani, M., & Shreedhar, G. (2021). Public support for ‘soft’
versus ‘hard’ public policies: Review of the evidence. Journal of
Behavioural Public Administration, 4(2), 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.42.220
Banerjee, S., Galizzi, M.M., John, P., & Mourato, S. (2022). Immediate
backfire? Nudging sustainable food choices and psychological
reactance. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4315350
208
Banerjee, S., & John, P. (2021). Nudge plus: Incorporating reflection into
behavioural public policy. Behavioural Public Policy, 8(1), 69-84.
https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.6
Bargeman, B., & Richards, G. (2020). A new approach to understanding
tourism practices. Annals of tourism research, 84, 102988.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102988
Barker, H., Shaw, P. J., Richards, B., Clegg, Z., & Smith, D. (2021). What
nudge techniques work for food waste behaviour change at the
consumer level? A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(19), 11099.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911099
Barnes, D. C., Meyer, T., & Kinard, B. R. (2016). Implementing a delight
strategy in a restaurant setting: the power of unsolicited
recommendations. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57(3), 329-342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965515626296
Barr, S. (2008). Environment and Society Sustainability, Policy and the Citizen.
Routledge.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.011
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.08.007
Barton, A., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2015). From Libertarian Paternalism to
Nudging—and Beyond. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 341–
359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0268-x
Bausell, R. B. (2015). The design and conduct of meaningful experiments involving
human participants: 25 scientific principles. Oxford University Press,
USA.
209
Boston Consulting Group. (2021). Swedish consumer sentiment 2021. Retrieved
August 28, 2023, from
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/swedish-consumer-
sentiment-report
Becken, S. (2007). Tourists' perception of international air travel's impact on
the global climate and potential climate change policies. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 351-368. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost710.0
Becken, S., & Hay, J. E. (2007). Tourism and Climate Change: Risks and
Opportunities. Channel View Publications.
Benner, M. (2019). Overcoming overtourism in Europe: Towards an
institutional-behavioural research agenda. Zeitschrift für
Wirtschaftsgeographie, 64(2), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2019-0016
Bernedo, M., Ferraro, P. J., & Price, M. (2014). The persistent impacts of norm-
based messaging and their implications for water conservation. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 37(3), 437-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-014-
9266-0
Beshears, J., & Kosowsky, H. (2020). Nudging: Progress to date and future
directions. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 161, 3–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.09.001
Bharwani, S., & Mathews, D. (2023). Sustainable luxury: from an oxymoron to a
tautology–the case of the Indian luxury hospitality industry. Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 15(3), 231-248.
https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-01-2023-0013
Bhaskaran, S., Polonsky, M., Cary, J., & Fernandez, S. (2006). Environmentally
sustainable food production and marketing. British Food Journal, 108(8),
677-690. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700610682355
Bianchi, F., Dorsel, C., Garnett, E., Aveyard, P., & Jebb, S. A. (2018).
Interventions targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour to
reduce the demand for meat: A systematic review with qualitative
comparative analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
210
Physical Activity, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0729-6
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The Grammar of Society: The nature and dynamics of social
norms. Cambridge University Press.
Bicchieri, C. (2023). Norm nudging and twisting preferences. Behavioural
Public Policy, 7(4), 914-923. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.5
Bicchieri, C., & Dimant, E. (2019). Nudging with care: the risks and benefits
of social information. Public Choice, 191, 443-464.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00684-6
Bicchieri, C., Dimant, E., Gachter, S., & Nosenzo, D. (2019). Social
Proximity and the Evolution of Norm Compliance. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3355028
Bicchieri, C., & Xiao, E. (2007). Do the right thing: But only if others do so.
SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1009851
Biermann, G., & Rau, H. (2020). The meaning of meat: (Un)sustainable eating
practices at home and out of home. Appetite, 153, 104730.
Bimonte, S. (2008). The “tragedy of tourism resources” as the outcome of a
strategic game: A new analytical framework. Ecological Economics, 7,
2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.020
Bimonte, S. (2013). Sustainable tourism: an interpretative and management
paradigm. In P. Diaz (Ed.), Tourism as a Tool for Development (pp.83-
99). WIT Press.
Binkley, J. K. (2018). Nutrition and food choice: Home vs. restaurants. Journal
of Consumer Affairs, 53(3), 1146-1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12221
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy:
Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local
Environment, 4(3), 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599
211
Bohner, G., & Schlüter, L.E. (2014). A room with a viewpoint revisited:
descriptive norms and hotel guests' towel reuse behavior. PLoS One,
9(8), e104086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104086
Bollani, L., Bonadonna, A., & Peira, G. (2019). The millennials’ concept of
sustainability in the food sector. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(10).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102984
Borchgrevink, C.P. & Susskind, A.M. (2006). Consumer Acceptance of Server
Recommendations, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration, 7(4), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J149v07n04_02
Borden, D. S., Coles, T., & Shaw, G. (2017). Social marketing, sustainable
tourism, and small/medium size tourism enterprises: challenges and
opportunities for changing guest behaviour. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 25, 903–920. 10.1080/09669582.2016.1270952
Bordian, M., Gil-Saura, I., Fuentes-Blasco, M., Ruíz-Molina, M. E., &
Berenguer-Contrí, G. (2024). Sustainability-oriented service innovation
and customer satisfaction in hospitality: Assessing the impact of value
co-creation, ecological knowledge and gender. Journal of Vacation
Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667241261395
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of
tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5),
411–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.580586
Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2010). An exploratory study into the factors
impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597-
608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0640-9
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Brough, A. R., Donnelly, G. E., Griskevicius, V., Markowitz, E. M., Raimi, K.
T., Reeck, C., Trudel, R., Waldman,K. B., Winterich, K. P., & Wolske, K.
S. (2020). Understanding How Sustainability Initiatives Fail: A
Framework to Aid Design of Effective Interventions. Social Marketing
Quarterly, 26(4), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500420970129
212
Brunner, F., Kurz, V., Bryngelsson, D., &Hedenus, F. (2018). Carbon label at a
university restaurant–label implementation and evaluation. Ecological
Economics,146, 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.012
Bruns, H., & Perino, G. (2021). Point at, nudge, or push private provision of a
public good? Economic Inquiry, 59(3), 996-
1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12981
Buckley, R. (2008). Environmental impacts of ecotourism. Ecotourism.
Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism
Research, 39(2), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003
Budeanu, A. (2007). Sustainable tourist behaviour – a discussion of
opportunities for change. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
31(5), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00606.x
Budovska, V., Torres Delgado, A., & Øgaard, T. (2020). Pro-environmental
behaviour of hotel guests: Application of the Theory of Planned
Behaviour and social norms to towel reuse. Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 20(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358419831431
Burchell, K., Rettie, R., & Patel, K. (2013). Marketing social norms: Social
marketing and the ‘social norm approach.’ Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1395
Burger, J.M., Sanchez, J., Imberi, J.E., & Grande, L.R. (2008). The norm of
reciprocity as an internalized social norm: Returning favors even when
no one finds out. Social Influence, 4, 11 - 17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802131004
Burger, J. M., & Shelton, M. (2011). Changing everyday health behaviours
through descriptive norm manipulations. Social Influence, 6(2), 69–
77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2010.542305
Burgess, A. (2012). “Nudging” Healthy Lifestyles: The UK Experiments with
the Behavioural Alternative to Regulation and the Market. European
Journal of Risk Regulation, 3(1), 3-16.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00001756
213
Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008).
Analysing and presenting qualitative. British Dental Journal, 204, 429-
432. https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2008.292
Butler, R. W. (1991). Tourism, Environment, and Sustainable Development.
Environmental Conservation, 18(3), 201–209.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44521393
Caccamo, M., Pittino, D., & Tell, F. (2023). Boundary objects, knowledge
integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the
literature. Technovation, 122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102645
Cadario, R., & Chandon, P. (2020). Which healthy eating nudges work best?
A meta- analysis of field experiments. Marketing Science, 39(3), 465–
486. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/mksc.2018.1128
Cai, C. H., Ding, A., & Legendre, T. S. (2021). Exploring persuasive sales
techniques to improve customer acceptance of sustainable but
unfamiliar menu in restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 33(10), 3093-3114.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2020-0924
Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M.
(2003). Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the
Case for “Asymmetric Paternalism.” University of Pennsylvania Law
Review, 151(3), 1211–1254. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312889
Campbell-Arvai, V., Arvai, J., & Kalof, L. (2014). Motivating Sustainable
Food Choices: The Role of Nudges, Value Orientation, and
Information Provision. Environment and Behavior, 46(4), 453-
475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512469099
Campbell, T., Kirkwood, L., McLean, G., Torsius, M., & Florida-James, G.
(2021). Trail use, motivations, and environmental attitudes of 3780
European mountain bikers: What is sustainable?. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), 12971.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412971
214
Cantor, D. E., Morrow, P. C., & Montabon, F. (2012). Engagement in
environmental behaviors among supply chain management
employees: An organizational support theoretical perspective. Journal
of Supply Chain Management, 48(3), 33–51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03257.x
Capraro, V., Jagfeld, G., Klein, R., Mul, M., & Pol, I. Van De. (2019). Increasing
altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges.
Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48094-4
Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Nash, N., Haggar, P., & Lord, J. (2019).
Compensatory and catalysing beliefs: Their relationship to pro-
environmental behaviour and behavioural spillover in seven
countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 963.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00963
Caradonio, J. (2022). The Hotel Industry’s Big Carbon Lie. Retrieved January 22,
2024, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-
19/embodied-carbon-is-dirty-secret-of-hotel-industry-greenwashing-
eco-ratings
Carfora, V., Catellani, P., Caso, D., & Conner, M. (2019). How to reduce red
and processed meat consumption by daily text messages targeting
environment or health benefits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65.
101319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101319
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The
concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management,
25(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153
Carlsson, F., Gravert, C., Johansson-Stenman, O., & Kurz, V. (2021). The use of
green nudges as an environmental policy instrument. Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy, 15(2), 216-
237. https://doi.org/10.1086/715524
Carrero, I., Valor, C., Díaz, E., & Labajo, V. (2021). Designed to be noticed: A
reconceptualization of carbon food labels as warning
labels. Sustainability, 13(3), 1581. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031581
215
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics
matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7),
560-578. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110410263
Casati, M., Soregaroli, C., Rommel, J., Luzzani, G., & Stranieri, S. (2023).
Please keep ordering! A natural field experiment assessing a carbon
label introduction. Food Policy, 120,
102523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102523
Cassidy, T. (2022). How green is your food? eco-labels can change the way we eat,
study shows. Retrieved August 18, 2023, from
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/22/green-food-
eco-labels-study-environmental-cost-consumers
Cavalcante, W.Q.d.F., Coelho, A., & Bairrada, C.M. (2021). Sustainability and
Tourism Marketing: A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications between
1997 and 2020 Using VOS viewer Software. Sustainability, 13, 4987.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094987
Cerri, J., Thøgersen, J., & Testa, F. (2019). Social desirability and sustainable
food research: A systematic literature review. Food Quality and
Preference, 71, 136-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.013
Chakraborty, A., Singh, M. P., & Roy, M. (2017). A study of goal frames
shaping pro-environmental behaviour in university
students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7),
1291-1310. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2016-0185
Chandran, A., Mandal, S., Shanmugeshwari, M., Nair, G., Das, P.,
Ramachandran, N., & John, E. (2021). Sustainable tourist behaviour:
Developing a second order scale based on three
destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(6), 984-
1005. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2458
Cherry, T. L., & Kallbekken, S. (2023). Use behavioural research to improve
the feasibility and effectiveness of system-level policy. Behavioural and
Brain Sciences, 46(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x23000985
216
Choi, S., & Kim, I. (2021). Sustainability of nature walking trails: Predicting
walking tourists’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 26(7), 748-767.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2021.1908385
Chou, C. (2014). Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal
environmental beliefs: interactions andoutcomes. Tourism
Management,40, 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.08.001
Christie, M., & Mason, P. (2003). Transformative Tour Guiding: Training Tour
Guides to be Critically Reflective Practitioners. Journal of Ecotourism, 2,
1 - 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724040308668130
Chuang, S. T. (2010). Rural Tourism: Perspectives from social exchange theory.
Social Behaviour and Personality, 38(10), 1313–1322.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.10.1313
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and
Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence. Prentice Hall.
Cialdini, R., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative
Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public
Places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Claessens, I. W., Gillebaart, M., & de Ridder, D. T. (2023). Personal values,
motives, and healthy and sustainable food choices: Examining
differences between home meals and restaurant meals. Appetite, 182,
106432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106432
Clavien, C. (2018). Ethics of nudges: A general framework with a focus on
shared preference justifications. Journal of Moral Education, 47(3), 366-
382. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1408577
Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Introduction: Identity and the natural
217
environment. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural
environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 1-24). MIT.
Coghlan, A., & Gooch, M. (2011). Applying a transformative learning
framework to volunteer tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6),
713–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.542246
Coghlan, A., & Weiler, B. (2018). Examining transformative processes in
volunteer tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 21, 567–582.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1102209
Coghlan, A. (2021). Can ecotourism interpretation influence reef protective
behaviours? Findings from a quasi-experimental field study involving
a virtual reality game. Journal of Ecotourism, 21(2), 187-
196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2021.1971240
Coghlan, A., Becken, S., & MacAskill, S. (2023). Designing sustainability
changes in a tourist accommodation context from a systems
perspective. Frontiers in Sustainable Tourism, 2, 1289009.
https://doi.org/10.3389/frsut.2023.1289009
Cohen, S. A., Higham, J. E. S., & Reis, A. C. (2013). Sociological barriers to
developing sustainable discretionary air travel behaviour. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 982–998.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.809092
Cohen, S. A., Prayag, G., & Moital, M. (2014). Consumer behaviour in
tourism: Concepts, influences and opportunities. Current Issues in
Tourism, 17(10), 872–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.850064
Colmsjö, J., Hedesström, M, & Johansson, L. (2022). Exploratory Study of
Moderators for Spillover Caused by Default Nudges. SSRN Electronic
Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4139072
Concari, A., Kok, G., Martens, P., & Brink, N. (2023). Investigating the Role of
Goals and Motivation on Waste Separation Behavior Through the
Lens of the Theory of Reasoned Goal Pursuit. Environmental
218
management, 72(5), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-
01820-1
Confente, I., & Scarpi, D. (2021). Achieving environmentally responsible
behavior for tourists and residents: A norm activation theory
perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1196–
1212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520938875
Congiu, L., & Moscati, I. (2020). A review of nudges: Definitions,
justifications, effectiveness. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3728512
Cooper, J. C., & Kovacic, W. E. (2012). Behavioural economics: Implications for
regulatory behaviour. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 41(1), 41–58.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-011-9180-1
Cozzio, C., Volgger, M., Taplin, R., & Woodside, A. G. (2020). Nurturing
tourists’ ethical food consumption: Testing the persuasive strengths of
alternative messages in a natural hotel setting. Journal of Business
Research, 117, 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.050
Cozzio, C., Volgger, M., & Taplin, R. (2022). Point-of-consumption
interventions to promote virtuous food choices of tourists with self-
benefit or other-benefit appeals: A randomised field
experiment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(6), 1301-
1319. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1932936
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. SAGE Publications.
Crick-Furman, D., & Prentice, R. (2000). Modeling tourists’ multiple
values. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 69-
92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00041-9
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism
219
Research, 6(4), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)90004-5
Cronqvist, H., Thaler, R. H., & Yu, F. (2018). When nudges are forever: Inertia
in the Swedish premium pension plan. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3099886
Crouch, G. I., Perdue, R. R., Timmermans, H. J. P., & Uysal, M. (2004). Building
foundations for understanding the consumer psychology of tourism,
hospitality and leisure. In R. R. Perdue, G. I. Crouch, M. Uysal & H. J.
P. Timmermans (Eds.), Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and
leisure (pp. 1-10). CABI Publishing.
Cucculelli, M., & Goffi, G. (2016). Does sustainability enhance tourism
destination competitiveness? Evidence from Italian Destinations of
Excellence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 370-382.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.069
Damgaard, M. T., & Gravert, C. (2018). The hidden costs of nudging:
Experimental evidence from reminders in fundraising. Journal of Public
Economics, 157, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.11.005
Daus, P. & Clement, D. (2023). Sustainability in restaurants and the rise of the eco-
conscious consumer. Retrieved July 15, 2024, from https://www.simon-
kucher.com/en/insights/sustainability-restaurants-and-rise-eco-
conscious-consumer
De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behaviour: The role of
awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model.
Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425–449.
https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.4.425-449
De Groot, J. I., Bondy, K., & Schuitema, G. (2021). Listen to others or yourself?
The role of personal norms on the effectiveness of social norm
interventions to change pro-environmental behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 78,
101688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101688
De Young, R. (2000). New ways to promote Proenvironmental behavior:
220
Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509-
526. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00181
del Río-Vázquez, M. E. S., Rodríguez-Rad, C. J., & Revilla-Camacho, M. Á.
(2019). Relevance of social, economic, and environmental impacts on
residents’ satisfaction with the public administration of tourism.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226380
Demeter, C., Fechner, D., & Dolnicar, S. (2023). Progress in field
experimentation for environmentally sustainable tourism – A
knowledge map and research agenda. Tourism Management, 94, 104633.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104633
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational
social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408
Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of valuation. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science,
2(4), 1–66.
Dewey, J. (1983). Human nature and conduct. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle
works of John Dewey, 1899–1924, (p. 1922). Southern Illinois University
Press.
Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: The
behavioural effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-
cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15(4), 441–472.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463103154002
Dimitri, C., & Dettmann, R. L. (2012). Organic food consumers: what do we
really know about them?. British Food Journal, 114(8), 1157-1183.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211252101
Dodds, R., & Holmes, M. R. (2023). At home and abroad: Comparing
sustainable behaviour and willingness to pay across contexts. Tourism
and Hospitality Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584231221967
221
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I.
(2012). Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 33(1), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.009
Dolan, P., & Metcalfe, R. D. (2013). Neighbors, Knowledge, and Nuggets: Two
Natural Field Experiments on the Role of Incentives on Energy
Conservation. In SCEP Discussion Paper (No. 1222).
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2589269
Dolnicar, S. (2010). Identifying tourists with smaller environmental
footprints. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 717-
734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669581003668516
Dolnicar, S. (2020). Designing for more environmentally friendly tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 84, 102933.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102933
Dolnicar, S. (2023). Tourist behaviour change for sustainable consumption (SDG
Goal12): Tourism agenda 2030 perspective
article. https://doi.org/10.54985/peeref.2306p6416319
Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G. I., & Long, P. (2008). Environment-friendly tourists:
What Do we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
16(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost738.0
Dolnicar, S., Cvelbar, L. K., & Grün, B. (2017). Do Pro-environmental Appeals
Trigger Pro-environmental Behaviour in Hotel Guests ? Journal of Travel
Research, 56(8), 988–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516678089
Dolnicar, S., & Demeter, C. (2023). Why targeting attitudes often fails to elicit
sustainable tourist behaviour. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 36(3), 730-742. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-
07-2022-0828
Dolnicar, S., & Grün, B. (2008). Environmentally friendly
behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 693-
714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319448
222
Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A., & Nghiem, L. D. (2010). The effect of
information on public acceptance--the case of water from alternative
sources. Journal of environmental management, 91(6), 1288–1293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.003
Dolnicar, S., Juvan, E., & Grün, B. (2020). Reducing the plate waste of families
at hotel buffets – A quasi-experimental field study. Tourism
Management, 80, 104103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104103
Dolnicar, S., Kneževič Cvelbar, L., & Grün, B. (2019). A Sharing-Based
Approach to Enticing Tourists to Behave More Environmentally
Friendly. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2), 241–252.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517746013
Dolnicar, S., Kneževič Cvelbar, L., & Grün, B. (2018). Changing service settings
for the environment: How to reduce negative environmental impacts
without sacrificing tourist satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 76,
301-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.08.003
Dolnicar, S., & Leisch, F. (2008). Selective marketing for environmentally
sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 29(4), 672–680.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.010
Dolnicar, S., & Long, P. (2009). Beyond Ecotourism: The Environmentally
Responsible Tourist in the General Travel Experience. Tourism
Analysis, 14(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/https://doi-
org.www.bibproxy.du.se/10.3727/108354209X12596287114291
Doran, R., & Larsen, S. (2015). The relative importance of social and personal
norms in explaining intentions to choose eco-friendly travel
options. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 159-
166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2042
dos Santos, Q., Nogueira, B. M., Rodrigues, V. M., Hartwell, H., Giboreau, A.,
Monteleone, E., Dinnella, C., & Perez-Cueto, F. J. (2018). Nudging
using the ‘dish of the day’ strategy does not work for plant-based
meals in a Danish sample of adolescent and older people. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 42(3), 327–334.
223
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12421
Duffy, R. (2002). A trip too far: Ecotourism, politics and exploitation. Routledge
Dunfield, K. A. (2014). A construct divided: Prosocial behaviour as helping,
sharing, and comforting subtypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 958.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958
Du Pisani, J. A. (2006). Sustainable development – historical roots of the
concept. Environmental Sciences, 3(2), 83-96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430600688831
Dwyer, L., Gill, A., & Seetaram, N. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research methods
in tourism: quantitative and qualitative approaches. Edward Elgar.
Eckert C, & Pechlaner H. (2019). Alternative Product Development as
Strategy Towards Sustainability in Tourism: The Case of
Lanzarote. Sustainability, 11(13), 3588.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133588
Eckhardt, G.M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T.M. (2010). Why don’t consumers
consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9, 426–436.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.332
Edenbrandt, A. K., Lagerkvist, C. J., & Nordström, J. (2021). Interested,
indifferent or active information avoiders of carbon labels: Cognitive
dissonance and ascription of responsibility as motivating factors. Food
Policy, 101, 102036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102036
Edenbrandt, A. K., & Lagerkvist, C. (2021). Is food labelling effective in
reducing climate impact by encouraging the substitution of protein
sources? Food Policy, 101, 102097.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102097
Edenbrandt, A. K. & Jonas Nordström. (2023). The Future of Carbon
Labeling – Factors to Consider. Agricultural and Resource Economics
Review, 52(1). 151–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2022.29
224
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision marking. Psychological Bulletin,
51, 380–417.
Edwards, J. S. (2013). The foodservice industry: Eating out is more than just a
meal. Food Quality and Preference, 27(2), 223-
229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.003
Ekelund, M., & Bergquist, M. (2023). Hotels re-explored: Experience and
influence of reciprocity and social normative appeals. PLOS ONE,
18(12), e0289602. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289602
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., & Miniard, P.W. (1995). Consumer Behaviour (8th
ed.). The Dryden Press Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Eriksson, A., Pettersson, R., & Wall-Reinius, S. (2023). Environmental
concerns in nature-based events: The permit process for organised
outdoor recreation and sport. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 23(2-3), 176-
194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2023.2231892
Ettinger, A., Grabner-Kräuter, S., Okazaki, S., & Terlutter, R. (2021). The
Desirability of CSR Communication versus Greenhushing in the
Hospitality Industry: The Customers’ Perspective. Journal of Travel
Research, 60(3), 618– 638. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520930087
European Commission. (2003). Basic Orientations for the Sustainability of
European Tourism (SEC(2003)1295). https://destinet.eu/resources/...-
various-target-groups/individual-puplications/sustainability.pdf
Evans, J. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of
reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(4), 321–339.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780601008825
Falk, T.M., & Hagsten, E. (2024). Commitment of travel and leisure firms to
sustainable development goals. Tourism Economics.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166241236000
Fauzi, M. A., Hanafiah, M. H., & Kunjuraman, V. (2022). Tourists' intention to
225
visit green hotels: Building on the theory of planned behaviour and the
value-belief-norm theory. Journal of Tourism Futures, 10(2), 255-276.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jtf-01-2022-0008
Favilli, E., Rossi, A. & Brunori, G. (2015). Food networks: collective action and
local development. The role of organic farming as boundary object.
Organic Agriculture, 5, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-015-
0118-2
Fechner, D., Karl, M., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2023). How can restaurants
entice patrons to order environmentally sustainable dishes? Testing
new approaches based on hedonic psychology and affective
forecasting theory. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2274283
Fehr, E., & Schurtenberger, I. (2018). Normative foundations of human
cooperation review-article. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(7), 458–468.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0385-5
Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically:
Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research
paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809349691
Feizi, M., & Khatabiroudi, N. (2023). Social and environmental nudges and
water usage: Evidence from a field experiment in Iran. Water Resources
and Economics, 42, 100223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2023.100223
Fennell, D. A. (2006). Evolution in tourism: The theory of reciprocal altruism
and tourist-host interactions. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(2), 105–124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500608668241
Fennell, D. A., & Cooper, C. (2020). Sustainable Tourism: Principles, Contexts
and Practices. Channel View Publications.
Fernandes, A. C., Oliveira, R. C., Proença, R. P., Curioni, C. C.,
Rodrigues, V. M., & Fiates, G. M. (2016). Influence of menu labeling
226
on food choices in real-life settings: A systematic review. Nutrition
Reviews, 74(8), 534-548. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuw013
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Feucht, Y., & Zander, K. (2018). Consumers’ preferences for carbon labels and
the underlying reasoning. A mixed methods approach in 6 European
countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 740–748.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.236
Filimonau, V., Lemmer, C., Marshall, D., & Bejjani, G. (2017). Nudging’ as an
architect of more responsible consumer choice in food service
provision: The role of restaurant menu design. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 144, 161–170.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.010
Filimonau, V., Matute, J., Mika, M., & Faracik, R. (2018). National culture as a
driver of pro-environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions in
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(10), 1804-
1825. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1511722
Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about
an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3),
233–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676301600302
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An
Introduction to Theory and research. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recommendations:
When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science,
23(1), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1030.0033
Fleckhaus, P., & Heldt, T. (2022). Sustainable recreational trails in Sweden: Is it
possible to talk about ROI for hiking trail investments? Retrieved July 7,
2024, from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:du-44886
Folwarczny, M., Otterbring, T., & Ares, G. (2023). Sustainable food choices as
an impression management strategy. Current Opinion in Food Science,
49, 100969. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2018.1522286
227
Fong, L. H. N., Law, R., Tang, C. M. F., & Yap, M. H. T. (2016). Experimental
research in hospitality and tourism: a critical review. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(2), 246–266.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2014-0506
Fong, L.H.N., Gursoy, D., & Sigala, M. (2020). Experimental Research in
Tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(7), 707-709.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1775277
Font, X., Elgammal, I., & Lamond, I. (2017). Greenhushing: the deliberate
under communicating of sustainability practices by tourism
businesses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 1007–1023.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1158829
Font, X., English, R., Gkritzali, A., & Tian, W. (2021). Value co-creation in
sustainable tourism: A service-dominant logic approach. Tourism
Management, 82, 104200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104200
Font, X., & McCabe, S. (2017). Sustainability and marketing in tourism: its
contexts, paradoxes, approaches, challenges and potential. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 869–883.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1301721
Foss, N. J., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2013). Micro-Foundations for Strategy: A Goal-
Framing Perspective on the Drivers of Value Creation. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2237857
Foxcroft, D. R., Moreira, M. T., Almeida Santimano, N. M., & Smith, L. A.
(2015). Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and
college students. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015(12),
CD006748. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006748.pub3
Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K., & Hobman, E. V. (2015). Household energy use:
Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-
making and behaviour. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
(Vol. 41, pp. 1385–1394). Elsevier Ltd.
Frerichs, S. (2019). Bounded sociality: behavioural economists’ truncated
228
understanding of the social and its implications for politics
understanding of the social and its implications for politics. Journal of
Economic Methodology, 26(3), 243–258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2019.1625217
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior:
Testing “Conditional cooperation” in a Field experiment. American
Economic Review, 94(5), 1717-
1722. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828043052187
Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., Hughes, D. E., & Jones, E. (2010). Motivating
salespeople to sell new products: The relative influence of attitudes,
subjective norms, and self-efficacy. Journal of marketing, 74(6), 61-76.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.6.61
Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., & Falk, L. W. (1996). Food
choice: A conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26(3), 247-266.
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0019
Futtrup, R., & Grunert, K. G. (2023). Does organic labelling affect restaurant
choice? A study on the Danish organic cuisine label. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 23(1), 29-50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2023.2174180
Gallarza, M. G., & Gil, I. (2008). The concept of value and its dimensions: A
tool for analysing tourism experiences. Tourism Review, 63(3), 4–20.
https://doi.org/10.1108/16605370810901553
Gallarza, M. G., Sánchez-Fernández, R., Arteaga-Moreno, F., & Del Chiappa,
G. (2021). Active and Reactive Value Dimensions: A Dynamic-Based
Perspective in the Hotel Sector. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 46(7), 1436-1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020988313
Gao, Y., Mattila, A.S. &, Lee, S. (2016). A Meta-analysis of Behavioural
Intentions for Environment-Friendly Initiatives in Hospitality
Research. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 54, 107–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.01.010
229
Garcés, P. (2022). Pragmatic behaviour: Pragmatism as a philosophy for
behavioural economics. Journal of Philosophical Economics, XV.
https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8741
Garnett, E. E., Marteau, T. M., Sandbrook, C., Pilling, M. A., & Balmford, A.
(2020). Order of meals at the counter and distance between options
affect student cafeteria vegetarian sales. Nature Food, 1(8), 485-488.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0132-8
Garvill, J., Marell, A. & Nordlund, A. Effects of increased awareness on choice
of travel mode. Transportation 30, 63–79 (2003).
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021286608889
Gawronsky, B., & Creighton, L.A. (2013). Dual Process Theories. In D.E.
Carlston (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 282-312).
Oxford University Press
Gay, A., Warden, J. M., & Lane, H. (2023). Climate labels and the restaurant
industry: A qualitative study. Environment Systems and Decisions.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-023-09919-w
George, R., & Frey, N. (2010). Creating change in responsible tourism
management through social marketing. South African Journal of Business
Management, 41(1), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v41i1.510
Getz, D., & Jamal, T. B. (1994). The environment-community symbiosis: A case
for collaborative tourism planning. Journal of Sustainable tourism, 2(3),
152-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589409510692
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit
climate change mitigation and adaptation. The American
Psychologist,66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why Heuristics Work. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 3(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2008.00058.x
Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism Motivation and Expectation Formation. Geography of
Tourism, 24(2), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.23912/9781911396437-3632
230
Godtman Kling, K., Wall-Reinius, S., & Fredman, P. (2017). The Multi-
functional Trail : An International Literature Review and the Case of
Trails in Southern Jämtland Mountains, Sweden. In Rapportserien /
European Tourism Research Institute (Issue 2017:1).
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-30362
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A Room with a
Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental
Conservation in Hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.
https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
Goossens, C. (1998). Tourism Information and Pleasure Motivation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25, 301–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
7383(99)00067-5
Gowdy, J. M. (2008). Behavioural economics and climate change policy. Journal
of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 68(3-4), 632–644.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.06.011
Grabowski, S., Wearing, S., Lyons, K., Tarrant, M., & Landon, A. (2017). A rite
of passage? Exploring youth transformation and global citizenry in the
study abroad experience. Tourism Recreation Research, 42(2), 139–149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2017.1292177
Gravert, C. (2021). Reminders as a Tool for Behavior Change.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3888238
Gravert, C., & Kurz, V. (2017). Nudging la Carte a Field experiment on food
choice. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2909700
Grazzini, L., Rodrigo, P., Aiello, G., & Viglia, G. (2018). Loss or gain? The role
of message framing in hotel guests’ recycling behaviour. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 26(11), 1944-1966.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1526294
Greene, D., Nguyen, M., & Dolnicar, S. (2023). How to entice restaurant
patrons to order low-emission meals? A meta-analysis and research
agenda. Appetite, 188,
231
106612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106612
Gregory, A., Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (1994). Willingness To Pay For Public
Goods: A Test of the Contribution Model. Psychological Science, 5(6),
411–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00295.x
Griesoph, A., Hoffmann, S., Merk, C., Rehdanz, K., & Schmidt, U. (2021).
Guess what …?—how guessed norms nudge climate-friendly food
choices in real-life settings. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(15), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158669
Grilli, G., & Curtis, J. (2021). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviours: A
review of methods and approaches. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 135, 110039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110039
Gross, J., & Vostroknutov, A. (2022). Why do people follow social norms? Current
Opinion in Psychology, 44, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.016
Grunert, K.G. (2020). Consumer Attitudes and Views on Sustainable Food Systems
with Results from a New Eurobarometer Survey [Conference
Presentation]. Farm to Fork 2020 Conference. Retrieved March 23,
2023, from https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-
11/f2f_conf_20201016_pres-01.pdf
Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food
products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food
Policy, 44, 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001
Guéguen, N., Jacob, C., & Ardiccioni, R. (2012). Effect of watermarks as
visual cues for guiding consumer choice: an experiment with
restaurant menus. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31,
617–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.04.008
Gutman, J. (1982). A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer
Categorization Processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60-72.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3203341
232
Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Nudge Versus Boost: How Coherent
are Policy and Theory? Minds and Machines, 26(1-2), 149–183.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9
Gössling, S., & Buckley, R. (2016). Carbon labels in tourism: Persuasive
communication? Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 358-369.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.067
Gössling, S., Haglund, L., Kallgren, H., Revahl, M., & Hultman, J. (2009).
Swedish air travellers and voluntary carbon offsets: Towards the co-
creation of environmental value? Current Issues in Tourism, 12(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802220687
Gössling, S., Garrod, B., Aall, C., Hille, J., & Peeters, P. (2011). Food
management in tourism: Reducing tourism’s carbon ‘foodprint’.
Tourism Management, 32(3), 534–543.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.04.006
Gössling, S., Araña, J. & Aguiar-Quintana, J. (2019). Towel reuse in hotels:
Importance of normative appeal designs. Tourism Management, 70, 273-
283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.027
Gössling, S., Peeters, P., & Stefan, G. (2015). Assessing tourism’s global
environmental impact 1900 – 2050. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(5),
639– 659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1008500
Gössling, S., Araña, J. & Aguiar-Quintana, J. (2019). Towel reuse in hotels:
Importance of normative appeal designs. Tourism Management, 70, 273-
283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.027
Gössling, S., Balas, M., Mayer, M., & Sun, Y. (2023). A review of tourism and
climate change mitigation: The scales, scopes, stakeholders and
strategies of carbon management. Tourism Management, 95, 104681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104681
Hagman, W. (2018). When are nudges acceptable?: Influences of beneficiaries,
techniques, alternatives and choice architects (PhD dissertation,
233
Linköping University Electronic Press).
https://doi.org/10.3384/diss.diva-152788
Hagman, W., Andersson, D., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2015). Public views
on policies involving nudges. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3),
439-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0263-2
Halder, D., Pradhan, D., & Roy Chaudhuri, H. (2021). Forty-five years of
celebrity credibility and endorsement literature: Review and
learnings. Journal of Business Research, 125, 397-415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.031
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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.815764
Hall, C.M. (2016) Intervening in academic interventions: framing social
marketing's potential for successful sustainable tourism behavioural
change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(3), 350-375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1088861
Hall, C. M., & Lew, A. L. (1998). Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical
Perspective. Longman Pub Group.
Hall, C.M., Dayal, N., Majstorovic, D., Mills, H., Paul-Andrews, L., Wallace,
C., & Truong, V.D. (2016). Accommodation Consumers and
Providers’ Attitudes, Behaviours and Practices for Sustainability: A
Systematic Review. Sustainability, 8(7), 1-30.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070625
Hallsworth, M. (2022). Making Sense of the “Do Nudges Work?” Debate.
Retrieved June 20, 2023, from
https://behaviouralscientist.org/making-sense-of-the-do-nudges-
work-debate/
234
Halpern, D. (2015). Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big
Difference. W.H. Allen
Han, H. (2014). The norm activation model and theory-broadening:
Individuals' decision-making on environmentally-responsible
convention attendance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 462-
471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.006
Han, H. (2021). Consumer behaviour and environmental sustainability in
tourism and hospitality: a review of theories, concepts, and latest
research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29, 1021-1042.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1903019
Han, H., Hwang, J., Kim, J., & Jung, H. (2015). Guests’ pro-environmental
decision-making process: Broadening the norm activation framework
in a lodging context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47,
96– 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.03.013
Hanna, P., Kantenbacher, J., Cohen, S., & Gössling, S. (2018). Role model
advocacy for sustainable transport. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 61, 373–382.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.028
Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013). Nudge and the Manipulation of
Choice. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3–28.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1867299x00002762
Hardy, A., Beeton, R. J., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable tourism: An
overview of the concept and its position in relation to
conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(6),
475-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667183
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2014). Situational and Personality
Factors as Direct or Personal Norm Mediated Predictors of Pro-
Environmental Behaviour. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4),
323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665058
235
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2009). Field Experiments. Journal of Economic
Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055. 10.1257/0022051043004577
Hartikainen, H., Roininen, T., Katajajuuri, J. M., & Pulkkinen, H. (2014).
Finnish consumer perceptions of carbon footprints and carbon
labelling of food products. Journal of cleaner production, 73, 285-293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.018
Hedlund, T., Marell, A., & Gärling, T. (2012). The mediating effect of value
orientation on the relationship between socio-demographic factors and
environmental concern in Swedish tourists’ vacation choices. Journal of
Ecotourism, 11(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2011.626859
Hedström, M., & Littke, H. (2011). Perspectives on rural development in the
Nordic countries : - Policies, governance, development initiatives. Retrieved
November 13, 2023, from
https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:norden:org:diva-139
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relation. John Wiley and Sons
Ltd.
Heiskanen, E., & Laakso, S. (2019). Editing out unsustainability from
consumption: From information provision to nudging and social
practice theory. In O. Mont (Ed.), A Research Agenda for Sustainable
Consumption Governance (pp. 156-171). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Heldt, T. (2005, September 15-18,). Conditional Cooperation in the Field: Cross-
Country Skiers’ Behaviour in Sweden [Conference Presentation].
Economic Science Association, European Meeting, Alessandria,
Italien. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:du-1943
Heldt, T. (2010). Financing recreational infrastructure with micropayments
and donations: A pilot study on cross-country ski track preparations
in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 386–
394. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2010.496569
Heldt, T., Waleghwa, B., & Brandt, D. (2021). Planning for mobility and
accessibility in rural touristic areas: A report on the Swedish case in
236
InterReg MARA project (Nr: 2021). https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1643338/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Hertwig, R. (2017). When to consider boosting: some rules for policy-makers.
Behavioural Public Policy, 1(2), 143–161.
https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.14
Hertwig, R., & Grüne-yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and Boosting: Steering
or Empowering Good Decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
12(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496
Hielkema, M.H., & Lund, T.B. (2022). A “vegetarian curry stew” or just a
“curry stew”? - The effect of neutral labeling of vegetarian dishes on
food choice among meat-reducers and non-reducers. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 84,
101877. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051043004577
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2010). The Elusiveness of Sustainability in Tourism:
The Culture-Ideology of Consumerism and its Implications. Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 10(2), 115–116.
https://doi.org/10.1057/thr.2009.31
Higham, J., Cohen, S. A., Cavaliere, C. T., Reis, A., & Finkler, W. (2016).
Climate change, tourist air travel and radical emissions
reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 336-
347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.100
Hiller, A., & Woodall, T. (2018). Everything flows: A pragmatist perspective
of trade-offs and value in ethical consumption. Journal of Business
Ethics, 157(4), 893-912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3956-5
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and
synthesis of research on responsible environmental behaviour: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer Value: A framework for analysis and research.
Routledge.
237
Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Consumption experience, customer value, and
subjective personal introspection: An illustrative photographic essay.
Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 714–725.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.008
Holmes, M. R., Dodds, R., & Frochot, I. (2021). At home or abroad, does our
behaviour change? Examining how every-day behaviour influences
sustainable travel behaviour and tourist clusters. Journal of Travel
Research, 60(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519894070
Hoolohan, C., & Browne, A. L. (2020). Design thinking for practice-based
intervention: Co-producing the change points toolkit to unlock
(un)sustainable practices. Design Studies, 67, 102–132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.12.002
Horgan, G., Scalco, A., Craig, T., Whybrow, S., & Macdiarmid, J. (2019). Social,
temporal and situational influences on meat consumption in the UK
population. Appetite, 138, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.007
Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring Tourist’s Emotional Experiences
toward Hedonic Holiday Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4),
513–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509349267
Howard, J.A., & Sheth, J.N. (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behaviour. John Wiley.
Hughes, M., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2018). Whose Needs and What is to be
Sustained? In J. Liburd & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collaboration for
Sustainable Tourism Development (pp. 112–129). Goodfellow Publishers
Limited.
Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative
review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 47-58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.005
Hunter, E., & Röös, E. (2016). Fear of climate change consequences and
predictors of intentions to alter meat consumption. Food Policy, 62, 151-
238
160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.004
Iaquinto, B. L. (2015). “I recycle. I turn out the lights”: Understanding the
everyday sustainability practices of backpackers. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 23(4), 577–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.97878
International Finance Corporation. (2017). Twenty Reasons Sustainable Tourism
Counts for Development. World
Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/28388
Iraldo, F., Testa, F., Lanzini, P., & Battaglia, M. (2017). Greening
competitiveness for hotels and restaurants. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 24(3), 607-628.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-12-2016-0211
Jackson, M. S., White, G. N., & Schmierer, C. L. (1996). Tourism experiences
within an attributional framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4),
798–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(96)00003-5
Jaich, H., Jastram, S. M., & Blind, K. (2022). Organizational practices as
drivers of societal change: Contextual spillover effects of
environmental management on employees’ public sphere pro-
environmental behavior. Sustainability Accounting, Management and
Policy Journal, 14(1), 130-153. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-11-2021-
0478.
Jain, S. K., & Kaur, G. (2006). Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and
profiling green consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
18(3), 107-146. https://doi.org/10.1300/j046v18n03_06
Jang, S. Y., Chung, J. Y., & Kim, Y. G. (2014). Effects of environmentally
friendly perceptions on customers' intentions to visit environmentally
friendly restaurants: An extended theory of planned behaviour. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(6), 599-618.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2014.923923
Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism Research. Wiley.
239
Jia, Y., Liu, R., Li, A., Sun, F., & Yeh, R. (2022). Rural tourism development
between community involvement and residents’ life satisfaction:
Tourism agenda 2030. Tourism Review, 78(2), 561-579.
https://doi.org/10.1108/tr-02-2022-0097
Ji, J. C., Li, Y. Q., Ruan, W. Q., Zhang, S. N., & Deng, F. (2023). The persuasive
effect of humorous prompts on tourists’ heritage responsible
behaviors. Tourism Review, 79(4), 903-922. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-
02-2023-0091
John, P. (2011). Making Policy Work. Routledge.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A
Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher,
33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Johnstone, L., & Lindh, C. (2017). The sustainability-age dilemma: A theory of
(un)planned behaviour via influencers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
17(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1693
Jones, P., Hillier, D., & Comfort, D. (2016). Sustainability in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
28(1), 36-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-11-2014-0572
Joo, K., Lee, J., & Hwang, J. (2022). NAM and TPB approach to consumers’
decision-making framework in the context of indoor smart farm
restaurants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 19(21), 14604. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114604
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014a). Can tourists easily choose a low carbon
footprint vacation? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(2), 175–194.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.826230
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014b). The attitude – behaviour gap in sustainable
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 76–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.012
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2016). Measuring environmentally sustainable
tourist behaviour. Annals of Tourism Research, 59, 30-
240
44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.03.006
Juvan, E. & Dolnicar, S. (2017). Drivers of pro-environmental tourist
behaviours are not universal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 879-
890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.087
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2021). The excuses tourists use to justify
environmentally unfriendly behaviours. Tourism Management, 83,
104253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104253
Juvan, E., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2018). Biting Off More Than They Can
Chew: Food Waste at Hotel Breakfast Buffets. Journal of Travel Research,
57(2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516688321
Juvan, E., Omerzel, D. G., & Maravić, M. U. (2017, May 24–27). Tourist
Behaviour: An Overview of Models to Date [Conference presentation].
Joint International Conference, Monastier di Treviso, Italy.
https://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/prpmicp17/23-33.htm
Juvan, E., Ring, A., Leisch, F., & Dolnicar, S. (2016). Tourist segments’
justifications for behaving in an environmentally unsustainable way.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(11), 1506–1522.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1136635
Kahle, L. & Gural-Atay, E. (2014). Communicating Sustainability for the Green
Economy. Routledge.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping
bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–
720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Jacowitz, K.E., & Grant, P. (1993). Stated willingness
to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological
Science, 4(5), 310-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1993.tb00570.x
241
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of
Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kaiser, F.G. & Fuhrer, U. (2003). Ecological Behavior's Dependency on
Different Forms of Knowledge. Applied Psychology, 52, 598-613.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00153
Kaiser, F. G., & Schultz, P. W. (2009). The attitude–behavior relationship: A
test of three models of the moderating role of behavioral Difficulty.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(1), 186-207.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00435.x
Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food
waste as a win – win environmental measure. Economic Letters, 119,
325–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019
Kaltenborn, B. P., Haaland, H., & Sandell, K. (2001). The public right of access
– some challenges to sustainable tourism development in scandinavia?
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), 417–433.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580108667412
Kantenbacher, J., Hanna, P., Miller, G., Scarles, C., & Yang, J. (2017). Consumer
priorities: what would people sacrifice in order to fly on holidays?
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(2), 207–222. https://doi-
org.www.bibproxy.du.se/10.1080/09669582.2017.1409230
Kao, Y., & Velupillai, K. (2015). Behavioural economics: Classical and modern.
European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22(2), 236–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2013.792366
Karlsson, L., & Dolnicar, S. (2016). Does eco certification sell tourism services?
Evidence from a quasi-experimental observation study in Iceland.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 694 - 714.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1085869
Khan, N., Acuti, D., Lemarie, L., & Viglia, G. (2024). The intention-behaviour
gap in sustainable hospitality: A critical literature review. International
242
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 36(5), 1627-1646.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-06-2023-0840
Kim, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Can sustainable restaurant practices enhance
customer loyalty? The roles of value theory and environmental
concerns. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, 127-138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.03.004
Kim, S. B., & Kim, D. Y. (2014). The Effects of Message Framing and Source
Credibility on Green Messages in Hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
55(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513503400
Kim, S., Lee, K., & Fairhurst, A. (2017). The review of “green” research in
hospitality, 2000-2014. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 29(1), 226-247. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-11-2014-0562
Kinzig, A. P., Ehrlich, P., Alston, L. J., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Buchman, T., Daily,
G., Levin, B., & Levin, S. (2013). Social Norms and Global
Environmental Challenges: The Complex Interaction of Behaviours,
Values, and Policy. Bioscience, 63(3), 164–175.
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5.Social
Klimato. (2024). Retrieved April 1, 2022, from https://www.klimato.co/
Knežević Cvelbar, L., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2017). Which hotel guest
segments reuse towels? Selling sustainable tourism services through
target marketing. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 921–934.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1206553
Knežević Cvelbar, L., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2019). “To Clean or Not to
Clean?” Reducing Daily Routine Hotel Room Cleaning by Letting
Tourists Answer This Question for Themselves. Journal of Travel
Research, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519879779
Kneževič Cvelbar, L., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2022). Do employees hold the
key to environmental sustainability in tourism businesses? Empirical
evidence from a field study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(2), 245-
258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2131796
243
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental
behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Kornilaki, M., Thomas, R., & Font, X. (2019). The sustainability behaviour of
small firms in tourism: The role of self-efficacy and contextual
constraints. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(1), 97-117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1561706
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for
your company and your cause. Wiley.
Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: An approach to planned
social change. Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 3-12.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1249783
Krippendorf, J. (1987). Ecological approach to tourism marketing. Tourism
Management, 8(2), 174-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(87)90029-
x
Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should
environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1),
95–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0416
Krpan, D., & Houtsma, N. (2020). To veg or not to veg? The impact of
framing on vegetarian food choice. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 67, 101391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101391
Kuhfuss, L., Préget, R., Thoyer, S., Hanley, N., Coent, P. L., & Désolé, M.
(2016). Nudges, social norms, and permanence in agri-environmental
schemes. Land Economics, 92(4), 641-655.
https://doi.org/10.3368/le.92.4.641
Kühne, S. J., Reijnen, E., Laasner Vogt, L., & Baumgartner, M. (2023). Can
carbon labels encourage green food choices? Frontiers in Psychology,
13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.902869
244
Lades, L.K., & Delaney, L. (2020). Nudge FORGOOD. Behavioural Public
Policy, 6(1), 75 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.53
Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. E. (2018). Field experiments. In Mizik, N., &
Hanssens, D.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing Analytics: Methods and
Applications in Marketing Management, Public Policy, and Litigation
Support (pp.32–51). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788110563.00013
Landais, E., Miotto-Plessis, M., Bene, C., Maitre d’Hotel, E., Truong, M.T.,
Somé, J.W., & Verger, E.O. (2023). Consumption of food away from
home in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping
review. Nutrition Reviews, 81(6), 727–754.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuac085
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. 19-33). Routledge
Lane, H., Pokutnia, O., Otto, P., Farias, A. R., & Wezepoel, R. (2023). Carbon
labeling of restaurant meals: A virtual experiment.
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2896677/v1
Larson, R. B., & Farac, J. M. (2019). Profiling Green Consumers. Social
Marketing Quarterly, 25(4), 275-
290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500419882391
Lavallee, J.P., DiGiusto, B., & Yu, T.Y. (2019). Collective responsibility framing
also leads to mitigation behaviour in East Asia: a replication study in
Taiwan. Climate Change, 153, 423-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-
019-02402-z.
Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2001). Influences on meat consumption in Australia.
Appetite, 36(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0386.
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. (2019). Can community-based tourism contribute to
sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the
sustainability. Tourism Management, 70, 368-380.
245
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.003
Lehner, M., Mont, O., & Heiskanen, E. (2016). Nudging: A promising tool for
sustainable consumption behaviour? Journal of Cleaner Production, 134,
166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.086
Lemken, D., Zühlsdorf, A., & Spiller, A. (2021). Improving consumers’
understanding and use of carbon footprint labels on food: Proposal for
a climate score label. EuroChoices, 20(2), 23-29.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12321
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y. Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y. P., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018).
The Carbon Footprint of Global Tourism. Nature Climate Change, 8(6),
522–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
León, C. J., & Araña, J. E. (2020). Tourist sustainable behaviour and personal
communication. Annals of Tourism Research, 85,
102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102897
Leonidou, L. C., Leonidou, C. N., Fotiadis, T. A., & Zeriti, A. (2013). Resources
and capabilities as drivers of hotel environmental marketing strategy:
Implications for competitive advantage and performance. Tourism
Management, 35, 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.06.003
Leung, X. Y., Fong, L. H., & Mattila, A. S. (2023). Editorial: Experimentation
for knowledge creation in hospitality & tourism. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 55, 380-382.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.05.004
Li, Q., Long, R., & Chen, H. (2017). Empirical study of the willingness of
consumers to purchase low-carbon products by considering carbon
labels: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 1237–1250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.154
Li, S., Liu, Y., Dai, S., & Chen, M. (2022). A review of tourism and hospitality
studies on behavioural economics. Tourism Economics, 28(3), 843-859.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166211060889
Li, J., Coca-Stefaniak, J. A., Nguyen, T. H., & Morrison, A. M. (2023). Sustainable
246
tourist behavior: A systematic literature review and research agenda.
Sustainable Development, 32(4), 3356-
3374. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2859
Lilien, G.L., & Kotler, P. (1983). Marketing decision making: a model-building
approach. Harper & Row.
Lindenberg, S. (2000). The extension of rationality: Framing versus cognitive
rationality. In J. B. E. Al. (Ed.), L’Acteur Et Ses Raisons.Mélanges En
L’honneur De Raymond Boudon (pp. 168–204). Presses Universitaires de
France (Puf).
Lindenberg, S. (2006). Prosocial Behaviour, Solidarity, and Framing Processes.
In D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, B. Buunk, & S. Lindenberg (Eds.),
Solidarity and Prosocial Behaviour (pp. 23-44). Springer.
Lindenberg, S. (2008). Social Rationality, Semi-Modularity and Goal-Framing:
What Is It All About? Analyse & Kritik, 30(2), 669–687.
https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2008-0217
Lindenberg, S. (2018). How cues in the environment affect normative
behaviour. In L. Steg, & J.I.M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental
Psychology: An Introduction (pp. 144–153). John Wiley & Sons.
Lindenberg, S. (2023). Goal framing theory. In D. Marchand, K. Weiss & E.
Pol (Eds.), 100 Key Concepts in Environmental Psychology (pp. 65-69).
Routledge
Lindenberg, S., Joly, J.F., & Stapel, D.A. (2011). The norm-activating power of
celebrity the dynamics of success and influence. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 74(1), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511398208
Lindenberg, S., & Papies, E. K. (2019). Two kinds of nudging and the power
of cues: Shifting salience of alternatives and shifting salience of goals.
International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 13(3–4),
229–263. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000110
247
Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames
guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117-
137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x
Linder, N., Lindahl, T., & Borgström, S. (2018). Using behavioural insights to
promote food waste recycling in urban households—Evidence from a
longitudinal Field experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 352-
352. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00352
Line, N. D., Hanks, L., & Miao, L. (2018). Image matters: Incentivizing green
tourism behaviour. Journal of Travel Research, 57(3), 296-309.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517697848
Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459–475.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667216
Liu, Y., Liu, S., Zhang, Q., & Hu, L. (2021). Does perceived corporate social
responsibility motivate hotel employees to voice? The role of felt
obligation and positive emotions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 48, 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.06.006
Llach, J., Perramon, J., Alonso-Almeida, M. D., & Bagur-Femenías, L. (2013).
Joint impact of quality and environmental practices on firm
performance in small service businesses: An empirical study of
restaurants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 44, 96-104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.046
Lo, A., King, B., & Mackenzie, M. (2017). Restaurant customers’ attitude
toward sustainability and nutritional menu labels. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(8), 846-867.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1326865
Loewenstein, G., Asch, D., Friedman, J., Melichar, L. & Volpp, K. (2012). Can
behavioural economics make us healthier? BMJ (Clinical research
ed.), 344, e3482. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e3482
Lohmann, P. M., Gsottbauer, E., Doherty, A., & Kontoleon, A. (2022). Do
248
carbon footprint labels promote climatarian diets? Evidence from a
large-scale field experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 114, 102693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102693
López-Mosquera, N., García, T., & Barrena, R. (2014). An extension of the
theory of planned behavior to predict willingness to pay for the
conservation of an urban park. Journal of Environmental
Management, 135, 91-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.019
López-Sánchez, Y., & Pulido-Fernández, J. I. (2016). In search of the pro-
sustainable tourist: A segmentation based on the tourist “sustainable
intelligence”. Tourism Management Perspectives, 17, 59-71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.12.003
Lub, X. D., Rijnders, R., Caceres, L. N., & Bosman, J. (2016). The future of
hotels: The Lifestyle Hub. A design- thinking approach for developing
future hospitality concepts. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 22(3), 249–
264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766715623829
Lynn, A., & Lynn, M. (2003). Experiments and quasi-experiments: methods for
evaluating marketing options. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 44(2), 75-84. http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/109/
Lynn, M., & Oldenquist, A. (1986). Egoistic and Nonegoistic Motives in Social
Dilemmas. American Psychologist, 41(5), 529–534.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.5.529
Mackie, G., Moneti, F., Shakya, H., & Denny, E. (2015). What are Social Norms?
How are They Measured? UNICEF. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from
https://www.alignplatform.org/resources/what-are-social-norms-
how-are-they-measured
MacInnes, S., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2022). Habit drives sustainable tourist
behaviour. Annals of Tourism Research, 92, 103329.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103329
Madanaguli, A., Dhir, A., Joseph, R.P., Albishri, N.A. & Srivastava, S. (2023).
Environmental sustainability practices and strategies in the rural
249
tourism and hospitality sector: a systematic literature review and
suggestions for future research. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 23(1), 1-28. 10.1080/15022250.2023.2174179
Maier, M., Bartoš, F., Stanley, T. D., Shanks, D. R., Harris, A. J., &
Wagenmakers, E. (2022). No evidence for nudging after adjusting for
publication bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 119(31). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200300119
Mak, A. H., & Chang, R. C. (2019). The driving and restraining forces for
environmental strategy adoption in the hotel industry: A force field
analysis approach. Tourism Management, 73, 48-60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.01.012
Malone, S., McCabe, S., & Smith, A. P. (2014). The role of hedonism in ethical
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 241-254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.10.005
Manaktola, K., & Jauhari, V. (2007). Exploring consumer attitude and
behaviour towards green practices in the lodging industry in India.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(5),
364-377. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110710757534
Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and
tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314–331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90105-8
Marion, J. L., Leung, Y. F., Eagleston, H., & Burroughs, K. (2016). A review and
synthesis of recreation ecology research findings on visitor impacts to
wilderness and protected natural areas. Journal of Forestry, 114(3), 352–
362. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-498
Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behaviour affected by the
donations of others? Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization,
67(1), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.08.001
Mason, P., Augustyn, M., & Seakhoa-King, A. (2010). Exploratory study in
tourism: Designing an initial, qualitative phase of sequenced, mixed
250
methods research. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(5), 432-
448. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.763
Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism Economic, Physical and Social Impacts.
Longman.
Matti, S. (2007, October 18-20). From sustainable consumers to ecological citizens:
elucidating attitudes towards individual environmental action in Sweden
[Conference Presentation]. Karlstad Seminar on Studying Political
Action: 18/10/2007 - 20/10/2007, Karlstad, Sweden. Retrieved July 20,
2023, from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-31645
Mattila, A. S., Luo, A., Xue, X., & Ye, T. (2021). How to avoid common
mistakes in experimental research? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(1), 367–374.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0696
McCabe, S., Li, C., & Chen, Z. (2015). Time for a radical reappraisal of tourist
decision making? Toward a new conceptual model. Journal of Travel
Research, 55(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515592973
McCool, S., Butler, R., Buckley, R., & Weaver, D., & Wheeller, B. (2013). Is
Concept of Sustainability Utopian: Ideally Perfect but Impracticable?
Tourism Recreation Research, 38(2), 213-242.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2013.11081746
McKercher, B., Prideaux, B., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2010). Achieving
voluntary reductions in the carbon footprint of tourism and climate
change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 297-317.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903395022
Mehmetoglu, M. (2010). Factors Influencing the Willingness to Behave
Environmentally Friendly at Home and Holiday Settings.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(4), 430–447.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2010.520861
Meijers, M. H., Verlegh, P. W., Noordewier, M. K., & Smit, E. G. (2015). The
dark side of donating: How donating may license environmentally
251
unfriendly behavior. Social Influence, 10(4), 250-263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2015.1092468
Merle, A., Herault-Fournier, C., & Werle, C. O. (2016). The effects of indication
of local geographical origin on food perceptions. Recherche et
Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 31(1), 26-42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570715626367
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J., & Brosch, T. (2021). The effectiveness
of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across
behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
119(1). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107346118
Meyerding, S., Schaffmann, A., & Lehberger, M. (2019). Consumer preferences
for different designs of carbon footprint labelling on Tomatoes in
Germany-Does Design Matter? Sustainability, 11(6), 1587.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061587
Miao, L., & Wei, W. (2013). Consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour and the
underlying motivations: A comparison between household and hotel
settings. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 102–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.008
Middleton, V. T. C., & Clarke, J. R. (2001). Marketing in travel and tourism (Third
ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann
Miller, C. D. (2018). Local Economies on Their Minds: Explaining European
Preferences for Geographic Origin Food Labels. International Social Science
Review, 94(1), 1–22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90020979
Miller, D., Merrilees, B., & Coghlan, A. (2015). Sustainable urban tourism:
understanding and developing visitor pro-environmental behaviours.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(1), 26–46. https://doi-
org.www.bibproxy.du.se/10.1080/09669582.2014.912219
Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2010). Public
understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
37(3), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.002
252
Minton, E. A., Spielmann, N., Kahle, L. R., & Kim, C. (2018). The subjective
norms of sustainable consumption: A cross-cultural exploration.
Journal of Business Research, 82, 400-408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.031
Moeller, T., Dolnicar, S., & Leisch, F. (2011). The sustainability–profitability
trade-off in tourism: Can it be overcome? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
19(2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.518762
Mohr, M., & Schlich, M. (2015). Socio-demographic basic factors of German
customers as predictors for sustainable consumerism regarding
foodstuffs and meat products. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
40(2), 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12239
Molina-Azorín, J.F., Tarí, J.J., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M.D., &
Pertusa-Ortega, E.M. (2015). The effects of quality and environmental
management on competitive advantage: A mixed methods study in the
hotel industry. Tourism Management, 50, 41-54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.008
Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Font, X. (2016). Mixed methods in sustainable tourism
research: an analysis of prevalence, designs and application in JOST
(2005–2014). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(4), 549–573.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1073739
Molm, L. D. (2010). The Structure of Reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly,
73(2), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510369079
Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2015). Why a nudge is not
enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth, 54(1), 81-98.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12073
Mont, O., Lehner, M., & Heiskanen, E. (2014). Nudging: a tool for sustainable
behaviour? Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
253
Morgan, M., & Chompreeda, K. (2014). The relative effect of message-based
appeals to promote water conservation at a tourist resort in the Gulf
of Thailand. Environmental Communication, 9(1), 20-36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.917689
Morse, J. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multi-method research
design. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioural research. SAGE Publications.
Moscardo, G. (1998). Interpretation and sustainable tourism: functions,
examples and principles. Journal of Tourism Studies, 9(1), 2–13.
https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.990807811
Moscardo, G. (2021). Using systems thinking to improve tourism and
hospitality research quality and relevance: A critical review and
conceptual analysis. Tourism and Hospitality, 2(1), 153-172.
https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp2010009
Moscardo, G., & Murphy, L. (2016). Using destination community wellbeing
to assess tourist markets: A case studyof Magnetic Island. Australia.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1), 55–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.01.003
Moser, A. K. (2016). Consumers' purchasing decisions regarding
environmentally friendly products: An empirical analysis of German
consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 389-397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.05.006
Mota-Gutierrez, J., Sparacino, A., Merlino, V. M., Blanc, S., Brun, F.,
Massimelli, F., Vassallo, E., Borra, D., & Massaglia, S. (2024). Socio-
demographic and cross-country differences in attention to sustainable
certifications and changes in food consumption. npj Science of Food,
8(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00274-x
Mounce, H. O. (1997). The two pragmatisms: From Peirce to Rorty. Routledge.
Moura, F. T., & Hattula, C. (2024). Sustainable consumption and hedonic event
experiences: A conceptual framework and future research agenda (No. 2 (Juni
254
2024)). IU Discussion Papers-Marketing & Kommunikation.
https://hdl.handle.net/10419/297982
Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of
Marketing, 21(10), 5–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004718
Moyle, B., Moyle, C., Ruhanen, L., Weaver, D., & Hadinejad, A. (2020). Are
we really progressing sustainable tourism research? A bibliometric
analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 106-122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1817048
Naderi, I., & Van Steenburg, E. (2018). Me first, then the environment: Young
millennials as green consumers. Young Consumers, 19(3), 280-295.
https://doi.org/10.1108/yc-08-2017-00722
Nagatsu, M. 2015. Social nudges: their mechanisms and justification. Review
of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 481-494,
102541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0245-4
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Effects of restaurant green practices on brand
equity formation: Do green practices really matter? International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 85-95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.06.006
Nash, N., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., Hargreaves, T., Poortinga, W.,
Thomas, G., Sautkina, E., & Xenias, D. (2017). Climate‐relevant
behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice
theory. WIREs Climate Change, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.481
Nayum, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2022). I did my bit! The impact of electric
vehicle adoption on compensatory beliefs and norms in Norway.
Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 102541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102541
Neumann, P., & Mason, C. W. (2019). Managing land use conflict among
recreational trail users: A sustainability study of cross-country skiers
and fat bikers. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 28, 100220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.04.002
255
Neumann, J. v., & Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of games and economic
behavior: 60th anniversary commemorative edition. Princeton University
Press.
Ngan, H. F. B., Bavik, A., Kuo, C. F., & Yu, C. E. (2022). Where you Look
Depends on What you are Willing to Afford: Eye Tracking in Menus.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 46(1), 100–124.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020951226
Nicholls, A. & N. Lee. (2006). Purchase Decision-Making in Fair Trade and the
Ethical Purchase ‘Gap’: Is there a Fair Trade ‘Twix’? Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 14(4), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09652540600956384
Nieto-García, M., Acuti, D., & Viglia, G. (2024). Consumer hypocrisy and
researcher myopia: A scrutiny of the intention-behaviour gap in
sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 104, 103678.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2023.103678
Nikolova, M.S. (2021). Behavioural Economics for Tourism Perspectives on Business
and Policy in the Travel Industry. Elsevier.
Nilsson, A., Bergquist, M., & Schultz, W. P. (2017). Spillover effects in
environmental behaviours, across time and context: A review and
research agenda. Environmental Education Research,23(4), 573–589.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09652540600956384
Nimri, R., Dharmesti, M., Arcodia, C., & Mahshi, R. (2021). UK consumers’
ethical beliefs towards dining at green restaurants: A qualitative
evaluation. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 572-
581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.08.017
Nisa, C., Varum, C. & Botelho, A. (2017). Promoting sustainable hotel guest
behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 58(4), 354-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965517704371
Noggle, R. (2018). Manipulation, salience, and nudges, 32(3), 164–170.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12421
Nook, E. C., Ong, D. C., Morelli, S. A., Mitchell, J. P., & Zaki, J. (2016).
256
Prosocial Conformity: Prosocial Norms Generalize Across Behaviour
and Empathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(8), 1045–
1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216649932
Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., & Moules, N.J. (2017). Thematic
Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2007). Policy process and practice - Nuffield
Bioethics. Retrieved January 10, 2023, from
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/public-health
Nunkoo, R. (2018). Handbook of Research Methods for Tourism and
Hospitality Management. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Nunkoo, R., Sharma, A., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., & Sunnassee, V.A. (2021)
Advancing sustainable development goals through interdisciplinarity
in sustainable tourism research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(3),
735-759. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.2004416
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017).
Behavioural Insights and Public Policy: Lessons from Around the World.
OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270480-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023).
Behavioural insights. Retrieved November 12, 2023, from
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/behavioural-
insights.htm
Okazaki, E. (2008). A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and
Use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 511-529.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802159594
Olya, H., Kim, N., & Kim, M. J. (2023). Climate change and pro-sustainable
behaviors: Application of nudge theory. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
32(6), 1077-1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2201409
257
Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., & Bartels, J. (2013). The Norm Activation
Model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt
in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39,
141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.005
Onwezen, M. (2023). Goal-framing theory for sustainable food behaviour: The
added value of a moral goal frame across different contexts. Food
Quality and Preference, 105, 104758.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104758
Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2011). Environmental sustainability and
behavioural science. Environment and Behaviour, 44(2), 257-299.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673
Osman, M. (2020). Backfiring, reactance, boomerang, spillovers and rebound
effects: Can we learn anything from examples where nudges do the opposite
of what they inteded?. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ae756
Osman, M., & Nelson, W. (2019). How can food futures insight promote
change in consumers’ choices, are behavioural interventions (e.g.
nudges) the answer? Futures, 111, 116-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.04.008
Osman, M., Schwartz, P., & Wodak, S. (2021). Sustainable Consumption:
What Works Best, Carbon Taxes, Subsidies and/or Nudges? Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, (43)3, 169-194.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2021.1889553
Otaki, Y., Iwatani, S., Honda, H., & Ueda, K. (2022). Using nudges for water
demand management: A field experiment for water conservation.
PLOS Water, 1(10), e0000057.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000057
Owen, H. (1995). Tales from Open Space. Abott Publishing.
Øian, H., Fredman, P., Sandell, K., Sæþórsdóttir, A. D., Tyrväinen, L., &
Søndergaard Jensen, F. (2018). Tourism, Nature and Sustainability: A
258
review of policy instruments in the Nordic Countries. Nordisk
Ministerråd. https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2018-534
Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2013). International handbook on ecotourism.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Paluck, E. (2010). The promising integration of qualitative methods and Field
experiments. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 628(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209351510
Panzone, L. A., Auch, N., & Zizzo, D. J. (2023). Nudging the food basket
green: The effects of commitment and badges on the carbon footprint
of food shopping. Environmental and Resource Economics, 87(1), 89-133.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-023-00814-1
Paraskevaidis, P., & Andriotis, K. (2017). Altruism in tourism: Social
Exchange Theory vs Altruistic Surplus Phenomenon in host
volunteering. Annals of Tourism Research, 62, 26–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.11.002
Pasanchay, K., & Schott, C. (2021). Community-based tourism homestays'
capacity to advance the Sustainable Development Goals: A holistic
sustainable livelihood perspective. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 37, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100784
Passafaro, P. (2019). Attitudes and tourists’ sustainable behavior: An
overview of the literature and discussion of some theoretical and
methodological issues. Journal of Travel Research, 59(4), 579-
601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519851171
Passafaro, P., & Vecchione, M. (2022). Values and tourists' sustainable
behaviours: An overview of studies and discussion of some
theoretical, methodological and management issues. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 44, 101038.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2022.101038
259
Patel, J., Modi, A., & Paul, J. (2017). Pro-environmental behavior and socio-
demographic factors in an emerging market. Asian Journal of Business
Ethics, 6, 189-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-016-0071-5
Paunov, Y., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2023). Boosting vs. nudging sustainable
energy consumption: a long-term comparative field test in a
residential context. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.30
Pearce, P. L. (1982). The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour. Pergamont
Press.
Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist behaviour: Themes and conceptual schemes (Vol. 27).
Channel View Publications.
Pearce, P. L. (2009). The Relationship between Positive Psychology and Tourist
Behaviour Studies. Tourism Analysis, 14(1), 37–48.
10.3727/108354209788970153
Pearce, P. L. (2014). Tourism motivations and decision making. In A.A. Lew,
C. M. Hall, & A.M. Williams (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to
Tourism (pp.80-91). John Wiley & Sons.
Pedrini, M., & Ferri, L.M. (2014). Socio-demographical antecedents of
responsible consumerism propensity. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 38, 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12074
Pedwell, C. (2017). Habit and the Politics of Social Change: A Comparison of
Nudge Theory and Pragmatist Philosophy. Body & Society, 23(4), 59-
94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X17734619
Pender, L., & Sharpley, R. (2004). The management of tourism. SAGE.
Perez-Cueto, F. J. (2021). Nudging plant-based meals through the
menu. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100346
260
Pham, N. T., Tuckova, Z., & Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J. (2019). Greening the
hospitality industry: How do green human resource management
practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A
mixed methods study. Tourism Management, 72, 386–399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.008
Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2011). Green defaults: Information
presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. In G. Gigerenzer
(Ed.), Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behaviour (pp.713-723).
Oxford University Press.
Plechatá, A., Morton, T., Perez-Cueto, F. J., & Makransky, G. (2022). Why just
experience the future when you can change it: Virtual reality can
increase pro-environmental food choices through self-efficacy.
Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(4).
https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000080
Pollack, N. (2023). The Hospitality Industry Makes Strides in Sustainability.
Retrieved March 25, 2024, from
https://hospitalitydesign.com/news/wellness-
sustainability/hospitality-industry-sustainability-initiatives/
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts
through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-
992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R.Creating shared value: How to reinvent
Capitalism—And unleash a wave of innovation and growth. In G. G.
Lenssen, & N. C. Smith (Eds.), Managing sustainable business (pp. 323-
346). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1144-
7_16
Post, A., & Mikkola, M. (2012). Nordic stakeholders in catering for
sustainability: Chasm between ideology and practice? British Food
Journal, 114(5), 743-761. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211230015
Potter, C., Pechey, R., Clark, M., Frie, K., Bateman, P.A., Cook, B., et al. (2022)
Effects of environmental impact labels on the sustainability of food
261
purchases: Two randomised controlled trials in an experimental
online supermarket. PLoS ONE, 17(11).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272800
Prayag, G. (2018). Mixed methods in tourism: Philosophical assumptions and
key research design issued. In R. Nunkoo (Ed.), Handbook of Research
Methods for Tourism and Hospitality Management. Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. S. (2014). Experience value: antecedents
and consequences. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 910–928.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.770451
Pulido-Fernández, J. I., Cárdenas-García, P. J., & Espinosa-Pulido, J. A. (2019).
Does environmental sustainability contribute to tourism growth? An
analysis at the country level. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 309-319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.151
Pulido-Fernández, J., & López-Sánchez, Y. (2016). Are Tourists Really Willing
to Pay More for Sustainable Destinations? Sustainability, 8(12),
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121240.
Pung, J. M., Gnoth, J., & Del Chiappa, G. (2020). Tourist transformation:
Towards a conceptual model. Annals of Tourism Research, 81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102885
Rachlin, H. (2015). Choice architecture: A review of why nudge: The politics
of libertarian paternalism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behaviour, 104(2), 198-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.163
Raineri, N., & Paillé, P. (2016). Linking corporate policy and supervisory
support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of
employee environmental beliefs and commitment. Journal of Business
Ethics, 137(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2548-
Rajani, F., & Boluk, K. A. (2022, October 10). A Critical Commentary on the
SDGs and the Role of Tourism. Tourism and Hospitality, 3(4), 855–860.
https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3040053
262
Rees, J. H., Bamberg, S., Jäger, A., Victor, L., Bergmeyer, M., & Friese, M.
(2018). Breaking the habit: On the highly Habitualized nature of meat
consumption and implementation intentions as one effective way of
reducing it. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 40(3), 136-147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2018.1449111
Reijula, S., Kuorikoski, J., Ehrig, T., & Katsikopoulos, K. (2018). Nudge , Boost ,
or Design ? Limitations of behaviourally informed policy under social
interaction, 2(1), 99–105.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/beh/jbepv1/v2y2018i1p99-105.html
Reinders, M. J., Van Lieshout, L., Pot, G. K., Neufingerl, N., Van den Broek,
E., Battjes-Fries, M., & Heijnen, J. (2020). Portioning meat and
vegetables in four different out of home settings: A win-win for
guests, chefs and the planet. Appetite, 147, 104539.
Reisinger, Y. (2013). Transformational tourism: Tourist perspectives. CABI.
Reynolds, K. J., Subašić, E., & Tindall, K. (2015). The problem of behaviour
change: From social norms to an ingroup focus. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 9(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12155
Rhou, Y., & Singal, M. (2020). A review of the business case for CSR in the
hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 84,
102330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102330
Richardson, R., Prescott, M. P., & Ellison, B. (2021). Impact of plate shape and
size on individual food waste in a university dining hall. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 168, 105293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105293
Richter, I., Thøgersen, J., & Klöckner, C. A. (2018). A social norms intervention
going wrong: Boomerang effects from descriptive norms information.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082848
Ritchie B. W., Kemperman A., & Dolnicar S. (2021). Which types of product
attributes lead to aviation voluntary carbon offsetting among air
passengers? Tourism Management, 85, 104276.
263
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104276
Rodriguez-Sanchez, C., Sancho-Esper, F., & Campayo-Sanchez, F. (2023). How
Can Social Marketing Help the Sustainability of Water Use in Tourism?
The Case of Tourist Accommodation. In M.M. Galan-Ladero, & H.M.,
Alves (Eds.), Social Marketing and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
(pp.321-337). Springer Business Cases. Springer, Cham.
Rodriguez–Sanchez, C., Sancho-Esper, F., Casado-Díaz, A. B., & Sellers-Rubio,
R. (2020). Understanding in-room water conservation behaviour: The
role of personal normative motives and hedonic motives in a mass
tourism destination. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management,
18, 100496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100496
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
Rondoni, A., & Grasso, S. (2021). Consumers behaviour towards carbon
footprint labels on food: A review of the literature and discussion of
industry implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 301, 127031.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127031
Ropret Homar, A., & Knežević Cvelbar, L. (2023). Combatting Climate Change
Through Message Framing? A Real Behaviour Experiment on
Voluntary Carbon Offsetting. Journal of Travel Research, 63(4), 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127031
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, Relativism, Truth. Cambridge University Press.
Ruhanen, L. (2013). Local government: facilitator or inhibitor of sustainable
tourism development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 80-98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.680463
Ruhanen, L., Weiler, B., Moyle, B. D., & McLennan, C. J. (2015). Trends and
patterns in sustainable tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric
analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 517-535.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.978790
264
Ryan, C. (2002). Motives, behaviours, body and mind. In C. Ryan (ed.), The
Tourist Experience (pp. 27– 57). Continuum.
Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(4), 1121-1140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.06.007
Saarinen, J. (2015). Conflicting limits to growth in sustainable
tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(10), 903-907.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.972344
Saarinen, J. (2018). Beyond growth thinking: the need to revisit sustainable
development in tourism. Tourism Geographies, 20(2), 337–340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2018.1434817
Saarinen, J. (2019). Communities and sustainable tourism development:
Community impacts and local benefit creation in tourism. In K. Bosak,
& S. F. McCool (Eds.), A research agenda for sustainable tourism (pp. 206-
222). Edward Elgar
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788117104.00020
Saito, K. (2015). Impure altruism and impure selfishness. Journal of Economic
Theory, 158, 336-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2015.05.003
Sakdiyakorn, M., Golubovskaya, M., & Solnet, D. (2021). Understanding
Generation Z through collective consciousness: Impacts for hospitality
work and employment. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
94, 102822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102822
Sakshi, S., Cerchione, R., & Bansal, H. (2020). Measuring the impact of
sustainability policy and practices in tourism and hospitality
industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1109-1126.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2420
Salinero, Y., Prayag, G., Gómez-Rico, M., & Molina-Collado, A. (2022).
Generation Z and pro-sustainable tourism behaviours: internal and
external drivers. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-
20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2134400
265
Samson, A. (2014). An Introduction to Behavioural Economics. Retrieved
January 31, 2023, from
https://www.behaviouraleconomics.com/resources/introduction-
behavioural-economics/
Sandell, K. (2006). Access under stress: The right of public access tradition in
Sweden. In N. McIntyre, D.R. Williams, K.E. McHugh (Eds.), Multiple
Dwelling and Tourism: Negotiating Place, Home and Identity (pp. 278-294).
CABI.
Sandell, K., & Fredman, P. (2010). The right of public access – Opportunity or
obstacle for nature tourism in Sweden? Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 291-309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2010.502366
Sarmiento, C. V., & El Hanandeh, A. (2018). Customers’ perceptions and
expectations of environmentally sustainable restaurant and the
development of green index: The case of the Gold Coast, Australia.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 15, 16-24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.04.001
Saulais, L., Massey, C., Perez-Cueto, F. J., Appleton, K. M., Dinnella, C.,
Monteleone, E., Depezay, L., Hartwell, H., & Giboreau, A. (2019).
When are “Dish of the day” nudges most effective to increase
vegetable selection?. Food Policy, 85, 15-27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.04.003
Savari, M., Damaneh, H. E., Damaneh, H. E., & Cotton, M. (2023). Integrating
the norm activation model and theory of planned behaviour to
investigate farmer pro-environmental behavioural intention. Scientific
Reports, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32831-x
Sawitri, D. R., Hadiyanto, H., & Hadi, S. P. (2015). Pro-environmental behavior
from a socialcognitive theory perspective. Procedia Environmental
Sciences, 23, 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.01.005
Schmidt, A. T., & Engelen, B. (2020). The ethics of nudging: An overview.
Philosophy Compass, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12658
266
Schmitt, T., & Lobrecht, F. (Hosts). (2023, December 12). HI DER KAI! (No.243)
[Audio Podcast Episode]. In Gemischtes Hack.
Schrems, I., & Upham, P. (2020). Cognitive dissonance in sustainability
scientists regarding air travel for academic purposes: A qualitative
study. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4), 1837.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051837
Schubert, C. (2015). On the Ethics of Public Nudging: Autonomy and Agency.
SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2672970
Schubert, C. (2017). Green nudges: Do they work? are they ethical? Ecological
Economics, 132, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.009
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behaviour with normative feedback
interventions: A Field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 25-36.
https://doi.org/10.1207/15324839951036533
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Schmuck, P., Franëk, M., &
Tankha, G. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental
concern and conservation behaviour. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 36, 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007).
The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social
Norms. Psycological Sciences, 18(5), 429–434.
https://www.jsmf.org/meetings/2008/july/social norms Cialdini.pdf
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. (1981). A Normative Decision-Making Model
of Altruism. In P. J. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and
Helping Behaviour: Social, Personality, and Developmental Perspectives
(pp. 189–211). Lawrence Erlbaum.
267
Scott, A., Christie, M., & Tench, H. (2003). Visitor payback: Panacea or
pandora’s box for conservation in the UK? Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 46(4), 583–604.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056032000133170
Scott, D., Gössling, S., & Hall, C. M. (2012). International tourism and climate
change. WIREs Climate Change, 3(3), 213-232.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.165
Selinger, E., & Whyte, K. (2011). Is there a right way to nudge? The practice
and ethics of choice architecture. Sociology Compass, 5(10), 923-935.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00413.x
Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Recycling, evolution and the structure of human
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(8), 1551-1556.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.020
Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A Field experiment in charitable contribution:
The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public
goods. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1422-1439.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.x
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the
theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable tourism, 8(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667346
Sharpley, R. (2007). Flagship attractions and sustainable rural tourism
development: The case of the Alnwick Garden. England. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost604.0
Sharpley, R. (2022). Sustainable tourism governance: Local or global? Tourism
Recreation Research, 48(5), 809-812.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2022.2040295
Shearer, L., Gatersleben, B., Morse, S., Smyth, M., & Hunt, S. (2017). A
problem unstuck? Evaluating the effectiveness of sticker prompts for
encouraging household food waste recycling behaviour. Waste
268
Management, 60, 164–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.036
Shin, Y.H., Im, J., Jung, S.E., Severt, K. (2018). The theory of planned
behaviour and the norm activation model approach to consumer
behaviour regarding organic menus. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 69, 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.011.
Shove, E., & Spurling, N. (Eds.) (2013). Sustainable practices: Social theory and
climate change. Routledge.
Simon, H.A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and
behavioural science. The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–83.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1809901
Simon, H. (1992). Economics, bounded rationality and the cognitive revolution.
Edward Elgar.
Simons, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. SAGE Publications.
Sinclair, M.T., & Stabler, M. (1997). The Economics of Tourism. Routledge
Sirakaya E., & Woodside A. G. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision
making by travellers. Tourism Management, 26(6), 815–832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.05.004
Sirieix, L., Delanchy, M., Remaud, H., Zepeda, L., & Gurviez, P. (2013).
Consumers' perceptions of individual and combined sustainable food
labels: A UK pilot investigation. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 37(2), 143-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01109.x
Sirieix, L., Lála, J., & Kocmanová, K. (2017). Understanding the antecedents
of consumers' attitudes towards doggy bags in restaurants: Concern
about food waste, culture, norms and emotions. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 34, 153-158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.004
269
Slapø, H. B., & Karevold, K. I. (2019). Simple eco-labels to nudge customers
toward the most environmentally friendly warm dishes: An empirical
study in a cafeteria setting. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00040
Smallman, C., & Moore, K. (2010). Process studies of tourists’ decision-
making. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 397-422.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.10.014
Smallman, C., & Ryan, M. (2020). Order out of chaos: Nudging tourists’
behaviours at a time of disruption?. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Management, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2169/2020.04.001
Smith, J. B., & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer value creation: a practical
framework. Journal of marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), 7-23.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679150101
Sommer, L. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past
behaviour. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER),
10(1), 91-110. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v10i1.930
Song, J., Lin, Z., & Zheng, C. (2023). Effective Pro-environmental
Communication: Message Framing and Context Congruency Effect.
Journal of Travel Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875231206989
Souza-Neto, V., Marques, O., Mayer, V. F., & Lohmann, G. (2022). Lowering
the harm of tourist activities: A systematic literature review on
nudges. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(9), 2173-2194.
https://doi.or/10.1080/09669582.2022.2036170
Spaargaren, G., Van Koppen, C, Janssen, A. M., Hendriksen, A., &
Kolfschoten, C. J. (2013). Consumer responses to the carbon labelling
of food: A real life experiment in a canteen practice. Sociologia Ruralis,
53(4), 432-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12009
Spangenberg, J. H. (2005). Economic sustainability of the economy: concepts
and indicators. International journal of sustainable development, 8(1-2),
47-64. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2005.007374
270
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and
boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum
of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An
integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental
psychology, 29(3), 309-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K., & Perlaviciute, G. (2014a). An integrated
framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of
values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 38, 104-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014b). The
Significance of Hedonic Values for Environmentally Relevant
Attitudes, Preferences, and Actions. Environment and Behavior, 46(2),
163-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-
belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of
environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant
Behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change.
American Psychologist, 66(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023235
Streimikiene, D., Svagzdiene, B., Jasinskas, E., & Simanavicius, A. (2020).
Sustainable tourism development and competitiveness: The systematic
literature review. Sustainable Development, 29(1), 259-271.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2133
Su, L., & Swanson, S. R. (2019). Perceived corporate social responsibility’s
impact on the well-being and supportive green behaviors of hotel
employees: The mediating role of the employee-corporate
271
relationship. Tourism Management, 72, 437–450.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.01.009
Sukhu, A., & Bilgihan, A. (2021). The impact of hedonic dining experiences on
word of mouth, switching intentions and willingness to pay. British
Food Journal, 123(12), 3954-3969. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-10-2020-
0901
Sun, S., Law, R., & Zhang, M. (2019). An updated review of tourism-related
experimental design articles. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
25(7), 710–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2019.1699128
Sunstein, C. R. (2013). The Storrs lectures: Behavioral economics and
paternalism. The Yale Law Journal, 122(7).
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2182619
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Misconceptions about nudges. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3033101
Sunstein, C. R., Reisch, L. A., & Kaiser, M. (2018). Trusting nudges? Lessons
from an international survey. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(10),
1417-1443. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1531912
Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Managment. CABI.
Sørensen, F., Mattsson, J., & Sundbo, J. (2010). Experimental methods in
innovation research. Research Policy, 39(3), 313–322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.006
Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(2), 183–190.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x
Tang, L. (2014). The application of social psychology theories and concepts in
hospitality and tourism studies: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 188-196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.003
Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2016). Norm Perception as a Vehicle for Social
272
Change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 181–211.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12022
Taplin, R., Volgger, M. & Cozzio, C. (2022) Quantifying spillover and halo
effects: an illustration on tourists’ consumption of sustainable and
healthy food in hotels. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(16), 2552-2556.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2042496
Tasci, A. D. A., Fyall, A., & Woosnam, K. M. (2021). Sustainable tourism
consumer: socio-demographic, psychographic and behavioural
characteristics. Tourism Review, 77(2), 341–
375. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2020-0435
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioural research. Sage.
Terrier, L., & Marfaing, B. (2015). Using social norms and commitment to
promote pro-environmental behaviour among hotel guests. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 44, 10–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.001
Testa, F., Russo, M. V, Cornwell, T. B., Mcdonald, A., & Reich, B. (2018). Social
Sustainability as Buying Local: Effects of Soft Policy, Meso-Level
Actors, and Social Influences on Purchase Intentions. Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, 37(1), 152–166.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.16.215
Testa, F., Pretner, G., Iovino, R., Bianchi, G., Tessitore, S., & Iraldo, F. (2021).
Drivers to green consumption: A systematic review. Environment,
development and sustainability, 23, 4826-4880.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00844-5
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health,
Wealth and Happiness. Yale University Press.
Theotokis, A., & Manganari, E. (2014). The impact of choice architecture on
sustainable consumer behavior: The role of guilt. Journal of Business
Ethics, 131(2), 423-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2287-4
273
Thomlinson, E. (2018). Experimental research in tourism: examining changes
to destination perception with film- induced tourism. In R. Nunkoo
(Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods for Tourism and Hospitality
Management (p. 27). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Thøgersen, J. (2000). Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-
labels in purchase decisions: Model development and multinational
validation. Journal of consumer policy, 23(3), 285-313.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007122319675
Thøgersen, J. (2009). The motivational roots of norms for environmentally
responsible behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 348-
362. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903317144
Thøgersen, J. (2021). Consumer behavior and climate change: Consumers
need considerable assistance. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences,
42, 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.008
Thøgersen, J., & Alfinito, S. (2020). Goal activation for sustainable consumer
choices: A comparative study of Denmark and Brazil. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 19(6), 556-569. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1824
Thøgersen, J., & Nielsen, K. S. (2016). A better carbon footprint label. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 125, 86-94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.098
Tillväxtverket. (2023). Att utveckla leder för mountainbike: En nationell
kartläggning.
https://tillvaxtverket.se/download/18.71a787af188519dcd93790/16850
03129354/2023-05-23%20Att-utveckla-leder-for-mountainbike.pdf
Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Précis of Simple heuristics that make us
smart. Behavioural And Brain Science, 23, 727–780.
http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/ToddGigerenzer2000BBS.pdf
Tölkes, C. (2020). The role of sustainability communication in the attitude –
behaviour gap of sustainable tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Research,
20(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358418820085
274
Trabandt, M., Lasarov, W., & Viglia, G. (2024). It's a pleasure to stay
sustainably: Leveraging hedonic appeals in tourism and hospitality.
Tourism Management, 103, 104907.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.104907
Tribe, J., & Liburd, J. J. (2016). The tourism knowledge system. Annals of
Tourism Research, 57, 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.011
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review,
110(3), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M.
P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental
behaviour: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global
Environmental Change, 29, 127–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
Truelove, H. B., Yeung, K. L., Carrico, A. R., Gillis, A. J., & Raimi, K. T. (2016).
From plastic bottle recycling to policy support: An experimental test of
pro-environmental spillover. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46,
55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.03.004
Truong, V.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). Routledge.
Truong, V. D., & Hall, C. M. (2017). Corporate social marketing in tourism: To
sleep or not to sleep with the enemy? Marketing for Sustainable Tourism,
25(7), 16-34. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203711668-2
Tversky, A., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Anomalies: Preference reversals. Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 4(2), 201-211.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.4.2.201
Tyers, R. (2018). Nudging the jetset to offset: Voluntary carbon offsetting and
the limits to nudging. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(10), 1668-1686.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1494737
275
UK Science Technology Committee. (2011). Behaviour Change (HL Paper 179).
House of Lords. Retrieved July 12, 2023, from
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/
179.pdf
Ulker-Demirel, E., & Ciftci, G. (2020). A systematic literature review of the
theory of planned behavior in tourism, leisure and hospitality
management research. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
43, 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.04.003
United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). Consumer Information Tools
and Climate Change. Retrieved June 27, 2023, from
https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/resource/consumer-information-
tools-and-climate-change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2016). Climate
Action Now: Summary for Policy Makers. United Nations Climate
Change Secretariat. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/unfccc_spm_2016.pdf
United Nation World Tourism Organization. (2007). Climate Change and
Tourism – Responding to Global Challenges.
https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284412341
United Nation World Tourism Organization. (2017). UNWTO Annual Report
2017. UNWTO. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284419807
United Nation World Tourism Organization. (2022). Transforming tourism for
climate action. Retrieved July 20, 2023, from
https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development/climate-action
Van Bussel, L., Kuijsten, A., Mars, M., & Van‘t Veer, P. (2022). Consumers’
perceptions on food-related sustainability: A systematic review.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 341,
130904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130904
Van der Heijden, J., & Kosters, M. (2015). From mechanism to virtue:
Evaluating nudge-theory, Evaluation, 21(3).
276
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389015590218
Van der Linden, S. (2018). The future of behavioural insights: on the
importance of socially situated nudges. Behavioural Public Policy, 2(2),
207–217. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.22
Van Eeden, L. M., Borg, K., Gregg, E. A., Hatty, M., Kaufman, S., Kneebone, S.,
Kusmanoff, A. M., Lauren, N., Lee, K., Lentini, P. E., Renowden, C.,
Selinske, M., Squires, Z. E., Bekessy, S., Smith, L., & Hames, F. (2024). A
researcher-practitioner driven framework and research agenda for
promoting conservation behaviours. Biological Conservation, 296,
110710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110710
Van Herpen, E., De Hooge, I. E., De Visser-Amundson, A., & Kleijnen, M.
(2021). Take it or leave it: How an opt-out strategy for doggy bags
affects consumer food waste behavior and restaurant evaluations.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 325, 129199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129199
Van Rookhuijzen, M., De Vet, E., & Adriaanse, M. A. (2021). The effects of
nudges: One-shot only? Exploring the temporal spillover effects of a
default nudge. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.683262
van Valkengoed, A. M., Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2022). To select effective
interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to
consider determinants of behaviour. Nature human behaviour, 6(11),
1482-1492. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01473-w
Vanclay, J. K., Shortiss, J., Aulsebrook, S., Gillespie, A. M., Howell, B. C.,
Johanni,R., et al. (2011). Customer response to carbon labelling of
groceries. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 153–160.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-010-9140-7
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for
Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. https://doi-
org.www.bibproxy.du.se/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
277
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International
journal of research in marketing, 34(1), 46-67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001
Venema, T. A. G., Kroese, F. M., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2018). I'm still
standing: A longitudinal study on the effect of a default
nudge. Psychology & health, 33(5), 669–681.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2017.1385786
Verain, M. C., Bartels, J., Dagevos, H., Sijtsema, S. J., Onwezen, M. C., &
Antonides, G. (2012). Segments of sustainable food consumers: A
literature review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 123-
132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01082.x
Verbeek, D., & Mommaas, H. (2008). Transitions to Sustainable Tourism
Mobility: The Social Practices Approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
16(6), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802159669
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring
the consumer “Attitude – Behavioral intention” gap. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169-194.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2003). The ‘Greening’ of tourism
micro-businesses: Outcomes of focus group investigations in south
east Cornwall. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(1), 49-
69. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.348
Viale, R. (2018). The normative and descriptive weaknesses of behavioral
economics-informed nudge: Depowered paternalism and unjustified
libertarianism. Mind & Society, 17(1-2), 53-69.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-019-00207-2
Viglia, G., & Dolnicar, S. (2020). A review of experiments in tourism and
hospitality. Annals of Tourism Research, 80, 102858.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102858
278
Viglia, G., Dolnicar, S., Acuti, D., & Nicolau, J. L. (2024). If you want to learn
about real behaviour, measure real behaviour. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 32(11), 2245–2257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2024.2392837
Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Does better for the environment mean
lesstasty? Offering more climate-friendly meals is good for the
environment and customer satisfaction. Appetite 95, 475–483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.013
Visser, W. (2007). Corporate Sustainability and the Individual. Cambridge
Programme for Sustainability Leadership Paper, Series No. 1. Retrieved
November 11, 2023, from
http://www.waynevisser.com/papers/corporate-sustainability-and-
the-individual
Vlaeminck, P., Jiang, T., & Vranken, L. (2014). Food labeling and eco-friendly
consumption: experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket.
Ecological Economics, 108, 180–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
Volgger, M., Cozzio, C., & Taplin, R. (2021). What drives persuasion to choose
healthy and ecological food at hotel buffets: Message, receiver or
sender?. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(5), 865-886.
https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-01-2021-0016
Walter, P. G. (2013). Catalysts for transformative learning in community-based
ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(13), 1356–1371.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.850063
Walters, T. (2016). Using thematic analysis in tourism research. Tourism
Analysis, 21(1), 107-116.
https://doi.org/10.3727/108354216x14537459509017
Wakefield, M., Coomber, K., Zacher, M., Durkin, S., Brennan, E., & Scollo, M.
(2015). Australian adult smokers’ responses to plain packaging with
larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: Results
from a national cross-sectional tracking survey. Tobacco Control,
279
24(Suppl 2), ii17-ii25. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-
052050
Wang, S. (2023). A conceptualization of tourists’ food behaviour from a habit
perspective. Sustainability, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032662
Wang, W., Krishna, A., & McFerran, B. (2017). Turning off the lights:
Consumers’ environmental efforts depend on visible efforts of firms.
Journal of Marketing Research, 54(3), 478–494.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0441
Wang, L., Wong, P. P., & Narayanan, E. A. (2019). The demographic impact of
consumer green purchase intention toward green hotel selection in
China. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(2), 210-222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358419848129
Wang, L., Wang, Z. X., Zhang, Q., Jebbouri, A., & Wong, P. P. W. (2021).
Consumers’ intention to visit green hotels– a goal-framing theory
perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(8), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1977937
Wang, J., Wang, S., Wang, Y., & Chen, J. (2023). Work and leisure: negative
cross-contextual spillover of individuals’ pro-environmental
behaviours from workplace to hotel. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
32(4), 737-752. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2166945
Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced
consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake
and waste. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(4), 320–
332. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035053
Warren, C., & Becken, S. (2017). Saving energy and water in tourist
accommodation: A systematic literature review (1987-2015).
International Journal of Tourism Research, 19(3), 289-303.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2112
Warren, C., Becken, S., & Coghlan, A. (2017). Using persuasive communication
to co-create behavioural change – engaging with guests to save
280
resources at tourist accommodation facilities. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 25, 935–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1247849
Watkins, E. (1994). Do guests want green hotels? Lodging Hospitality, 50(4), 70-
72. https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2023.14.94
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). The
Brundtland Report: “Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
Wearing, S., Cynn, S., Ponting, J., & McDonald, M. (2002). Converting
environmental concern into ecotourism purchases: A qualitative
evaluation of international backpackers in Australia. Journal of
Ecotourism, 1(2–3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724040208668120
Webb, T., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioural intentions
engender behaviour change? A meta-analysis of the experimental
evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249-268.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
Weeden, C. (2013). Responsible Tourist Behaviour. Routledge.
Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-
environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse
pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
30(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When Do (and Don’t) Normative Appeals
Influence Sustainable Consumer Behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 77(2),
78-95. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0278
Williams, P.J. (2008). Nonparticipant observation. In L.M. Given (Ed.), Sage
Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (p.562). Sage.
Williams, A. M., & Baláž, V. (2014). Tourism risk and uncertainty. Journal of
Travel Research, 54(3), 271-287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514523334
Willis, R. (2020). Too hot to handle?: The democratic challenge of climate change.
Bristol University Press.
281
Winkler-Schor, S., van Riper, C. J., Landon, A., & Keller, R. (2020). Determining
the role of eudaimonic values in conservation behaviour. Conservation
Biology, 34(6), 1404–1415. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13622
Winterstein, J. (2022). Nudging and Boosting towards Sustainable Food
Choices – A Systematic Literature Review of Cognitively Oriented
Measures. In K., Ogunyemi, & V. Burgal (Eds.), Products for Conscious
Consumers (pp.113-132). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Wolf, I. D., Ainsworth, G. B., & Crowley, J. (2017). Transformative travel as a
sustainable market niche for protected areas: a new development,
marketing and conservation model. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
25(11), 1650– 1673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1302454
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive
advantage. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 25, 139-153.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02894350
Woodruff, R.B., & Gardial, S. (1996). Know Your Customer: New Approaches to
Customer Value and Satisfaction. Blackwell
World Travel & Tourism Council. (2022). Travel & Tourism Economic impact
2022. Retrieved August 8, 2023, from
https://wttc.org/Portals/0/Documents/Reports/2022/EIR2022-
Global%20Trends.pdf
World Tourism Organisation, & United Nations Environment Programme.
(2005). Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers.
UNEP. Retrieved August 7, 2023, from www.unep.frwww.world-
tourism.org
Wu, T. M., Lee, D., & Lee, S. W. (2023). Does attitude or intention affect
behavior in sustainable tourism? A review and research agenda.
Sustainability, 15(19), 14076. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914076
World Wildlife Fund. (2023). The WWF Sweden One Planet Plate. The World
Wide Fund for Nature. Retrieved August 20, 2023, from:
282
https://www.wwf.se/mat-och-jordbruk/one-planet-plate/one-planet-
plate-english/#background.
Xu, F., Huang, L., & Whitmarsh, L. (2020). Home and away: Cross-contextual
consistency in tourists’ pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 28(10), 1443–1459.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1741596
Yachin, J. M., Margaryn, L., & Ioannides, D. (2022, June 8-10). Nudge+ in
tourist destinations-An opportunity to mitigate externalities and promote
change [Conference presentation]. 5th Advances in Destination
Management Forum, Kalmar. https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1715311&dswid=4636
Zhang, H., Zhang, X., & Bai, B. (2021). Tourism employee pro-environmental
behavior: An integrated multi-level model. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 47, 443–452.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.04.014
Zhao, J., & Luo, Y. (2021). A framework to address cognitive biases of climate
change. Neuron,109(22), 3548–3551.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.08.02
Zhou, X., Santos, Q. D., Bredie, W. L., Buch-Andersen, T., Hartwell, H.,
Appleton, K. M., Giboreau, A., Saulais, L., Monteleone, E., Dinnella,
C., Molla-Bauza, M. B., & Perez-Cueto, F. J. (2018). Promotion of
novel plant-based dishes among older person using the “dish of the
day” as a nudging strategy in 4 EU countries. Appetite, 130, 320.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.05.255
Zinn, A. K., Zhu, O. Y., & Dolnicar, S. (2023). Increasing meat-free meal
selections: The role of social identity salience and identity-related
meal names. Appetite, 191, 107067.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107067
