WHAT KEEPS US FROM
TRAVELLING SUSTAINABLE?
THE INFLUENCE OF INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES ON
TOURISM BEHAVIOR
Hannah Rautenberg
Master’s Thesis for the
Environment and Society Studies programme
Nijmegen School of Management
Radboud University
i COLOPHON
This document presents my Master thesis for the completion of the Environment and Society Studies (ESS) programme at the Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Title: What keeps us from travelling sustainable? The influence of institutional structures on tourism behavior.
Version: Final version
Date of Submission: 15th October 2019
Author: Hannah Rautenberg
Student Number: s1008784
University: Radboud University
Nijmegen School of Management Postbus 9108
6500 HK Nijmegen, Netherlands
Supervisor: Dr. Maria Kaufmann
Second reader: Dr. ir. Jan Duncan Liefferink Internship Host Company: tipping points GmbH
Weiherstraße 38
53111 Bonn, Deutschland
Supervisor: Regine Gwinner – managing editor Marcella Müller and Mareike Schiffels
Key terms: structure-agency, sustainable tourism, lock-ins, individual decision-making processes, change
Word count: 24738
ii
Sources: Deutschlandfunk, 2019; Pixabay, 2019b
“We want all people to change their behaviour - to behave more environmentally friendly.
But we want them to do so voluntarily!”
Helge Braun, Head of the German Federal Chancellery, defending the Federal Government’s
iii
PREFACE
In the Western World, tourism is a fixed component of our lives. It gives us the opportunity to recreate and to experience something new, unique landscapes and cultures. It is the time of the year we are looking forward to, eager to leave our daily concerns and troubles at home, escaping into one care-free week, or two. What we, however, often leave behind as well is our urge for sustainability. Practices we might have incorporated in our daily lives are left on the ground while the plane takes us to the sky.
The last semester I had the chance to work for the project Katzensprung, a collaborative, publicly funded project which was co-founded by my internship company. This experience changed my view on tourism entirely – while I enjoyed going around the world and taking short trip over weekends from time to time, I honestly never deeply thought about the consequences of my tourism behavior, of the environmental damages I was causing. And I got the feeling that I was not the only one. Moreover, I learnt that scientific research in this field is still limited which, eventually, inspired me to carry out this research. Keen to transform other people’s perspectives on tourism, I started to study the underlying institutional structures that influence our endeavor to travel sustainable. Besides the interesting topic, writing this thesis would have not been possible without the support of the following persons: A big thank you goes to my supervisor Dr. Maria Kaufmann who has been helpful on both an academic and personal level, guiding me reliably through the entire process. Having enjoyed our discussions, I regard your comments as true enrichment to this thesis. Next, I thank my colleagues Regine Gwinner, Marcella Müller and Mareike Schiffels. Being part of your team inspired me to re-think my own behavioral patterns. Moreover, I am grateful for the participation of my interview partners and survey respondents who added great value to this research by providing personal experiences, and thus unique perspectives.
On a personal level, I thank you, Josephine, for your true friendship. Since day one, you have been the person I could share anything with, the ups and the downs. Our nearly daily calls encouraged me to keep going, finishing this thesis. Studying would have not been the same without you! Lastly, I am thankful for the support from my family – my dad, mum and sisters – and above all from you, Markus. You pushed me to give my best while constantly showing loving confidence in my abilities.
Finally, I wish good luck to the further endeavors of the Katzensprung project and the reader a pleasant journey through this research!
iv
ABSTRACT
With the urgent call for sustainability and an overall sustainable development, the tourism industry has not been left untouched. Yet, the way we comprehend and do tourism today appears far away from what could be labeled sustainable tourism. While academic literature has so far extensively studied the tension field between tourism’s positive and negative implications for economy, environment as well as society, little research has been undertaken to understand the role of institutions and individual tourists in this social construct. The here presented work aims at addressing this scientific gap with its principal objective to detect how institutional structures influence tourists’ individual decision-making processes in regards to their endeavor to travel sustainable. It, thereby, builds upon the existing literature concerning tourism development, sustainability and consumer behavior, making use of the theories of path dependence and individual decision-making processes. Further, as this research followed a case study strategy which provided the necessary frame, primary data was obtained through five qualitative interviews with project partners and a quantitative online survey distributed among the project’s subscribers.
The findings revealed three different lock-ins – namely communication, infrastructure and competition which derived from the historical developments following the economic miracle and the occurrence of sustainability – that influence tourists’ individual decision-making processes at the stages of information searching and the evaluation of findings in Germany. The communicational lock-in has been shown to affect tourists’ need for a, inter alia, convenient and simple information searching process negatively. Infrastructure and prices fueled by intense global competition, although being recognized by tourists as barriers, do not prevent this particular target group from travelling sustainable. Rather, they are mirrored in their overall dissatisfaction with the German railway system which, ultimately, leads one half of the tourists to still take the train whereas the other half relies on own cars –in contrast to an airplane, at least, the more sustainable option. Adding to the existing academic research, this work found that more people might be convinced as soon as the railway network improves accordingly, by breaking the lock-ins.
The here conducted research contributes to a new understanding of how a particular societal group comprehends tourism and how institutional structures impact their individual decision-making processes. This can be especially useful for political actors who strive for facilitating more sustainable tourism by lowering the barriers. Finally, this study can present a starting point for other scholars’ research regarding the impact of social as well as institutional structures, focusing more extensively on the eradication of difficulties concerning sustainable tourism.
v
TABLE OF CONTENT
PREFACE ... iii
ABSTRACT ... iv
TABLE OF CONTENT...v
LIST OF FIGURES ... vii
LIST OF TABLES ... viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... ix
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Research objective ... 2
1.2 Research steps ... 3
1.3 Research questions ... 4
1.4 Scientific and societal relevance ... 5
1.4.1 Scientific relevance ... 5
1.4.2 Societal relevance ... 6
2 Literature review ... 7
2.1 Tourism ... 7
2.1.1 Significance and effects of tourism ... 8
2.2 Sustainable tourism ... 9
2.3 Tourism behavior ...11
2.3.1 Changing behavior ...11
2.3.2 Challenges of consumer behavior in tourism ...12
2.4 Individual decision-making processes ...13
2.5 The question of responsibility ...15
3 Theoretical framework and conceptual model ...16
3.1 Path dependence ...16
3.2 Individual decision-making processes ...20
3.3 Conceptual model ...23 4 Methodology ...26 4.1 Research philosophy ...27 4.2 Methodological choice ...28 4.3 Research strategy ...28 4.3.1 Case selection ...30
4.4 Research methods and data collection ...31
4.4.1 Document analysis ...31
vi
4.4.3 Online survey ...33
4.5 Ethics ...35
4.6 Validity and reliability of the research ...36
5 Findings and discussion ...37
5.1 Comprehending the current tourism environment in Germany...38
5.1.1 Political structure ...38
5.1.2 The role of sustainability...39
5.2 Tracing back the development of tourism ...41
5.3 Identifying the relevant lock-ins ...43
5.3.1 Communication ...44
5.3.2 Infrastructure ...47
5.3.3 Competition ...50
5.4 Assessing the influence of lock-ins on individual decision-making processes 53 5.4.1 Information searching ...53
5.4.2 Evaluation of alternatives ...60
5.5 Digression: Fridays For Future as exogenous shock ...72
6 Conclusion ...75
6.1 Recommendations for policy ...76
6.2 Recommendations for further research ...77
6.3 Reflections on theoretical framework and final remarks...78
7 References ...80
APPENDIX ...89
Appendix [A] – Interview-guide ...90
Appendix [B] – Questionnaire ...92
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Research steps 3
2 Why tourism? 8
3 The stages of path dependence 17
4 Four reinforcing mechanisms 18
5 5 steps of individual decision-making processes 20
6 Conceptual model 23
7 Research onion 26
8 Overview interviewees 32
9 Germany: Organizational chart of tourism bodies 38
10 Discursive elements of two contingent events 42
11 "I like to share my own tourism experiences on social media." 54 12 "My individual decision to travel sustainable is dependent on”
(multiple answers possible)
55
13 Factors determining a tourist's individual decision-making process in terms of the information searching
56
14 Tourists' strategy to minimize risks in the information searching process
57
15 "I get inspired by social media posts." 58
16 Factors determining a tourist's individual decision-making process in terms of the evaluation of alternatives
61
17 "In Germany, I mostly travel by..." 62
18 Decisive factors for choosing the transport mode 63
19 "Factors that convince me to go by plane:" 64
20 "Factors that convince me to go by car:" 64
21 "Factors that convince me to go by public transport:" 65 22 "Area I wish the railway service would improve in:" 66 23 “Due to the lower prices, I take the car more often than public
transport.”
67
24 Level of income per age group 68
25 “If the price is the same, I would decide to take the train even though it takes me four hours longer than going by car or plane.”
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Comparison CO2 emissions of long-distance trains and flights
within Germany
47
2 Air passengers from German airports 63
3 Choice of transport mode within Germany per income – dispersed among wishes for railway service improvement
69
4 If the price is the same, I would decide to take the train even though it takes me four hours longer than going by car or plane – dispersed among the favored transport mode and the decisive factors
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BMU Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Natur und Nukleare Sicherheit (engl. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety)
BMWi Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie
(engl. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy)
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CSU Christian Social Union
DB Deutsche Bahn AG
DTV Deutscher Tourismusverband e.V. (engl. German Tourism Association) DZT/ GNTB Deutsche Zentrale für Tourismus e.V.
(engl. German National Tourist Board) FFF Fridays for Future
FUR Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen e.V. GSTC Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change NKI Nationale Klimaschutzinitiative
(engl. National Climate Initiative)
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
UN DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs UNWTO The United Nations’ World Tourism Organization
1
1 Introduction
Tourism is one of the most fundamental components of our lives. In 2018, two thirds of the German population went on vacation (Reinhardt, 2019). Globally, the international tourist arrivals amounted to a total of 1,323 million in 2017 which indicates a growth rate of about 7%, compared to the previous year (The United Nations’ World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), 2018a) – a continuous growth is forecasted (UNWTO, 2018b). Thus, over the decades tourism has developed into a global phenomenon which presents one of the largest and most significant industries today (Butler, 1999; Scott, Gössling & Hall, 2012; Zolfani, Sedaghat, Maknoon & Zavadskas, 2015).
Nonetheless, despite tourism’s reputation as economic driver (Balas & Strasdas, 2018; UNWTO, 2018a) one cannot continue to ignore the phenomenon’s negative impacts “on both the natural environment and host communities” (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2018, p.8). Inter alia, examples are the loss of biodiversity, environmental degradation, exploitation of workers or the loss of traditional cultures, to name a few (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Butler, 1999; Hunter, 1997; Pforr, 2001). Letting tourism develop as before is, thus, no option anymore as it contradicts with the overall idea of sustainable development (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Butler, 1999; Pforr, 2001). Thus, it can be argued that shifting towards more sustainable tourism is inevitable, not only because the phenomenon itself depends on the purity of the environment (OECD, 2018; UNWTO, 2018a), but also due to its ability to improve the quality of peoples’ lives (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Zolfani et al., 2015), thus contributing to an all-embracing sustainable development (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Butler, 1999).
Fighting to implement more sustainable tourism, several global initiatives emerged as to integrate sustainability as a constituent. Here, one particular project is worth highlighting for the German tourism sector: the Katzensprung project. It is a one-of-a-kind communicative project which presents various sustainable tourism offers throughout Germany jointly on its website. Thus, more than 50 tourism services are introduced – hoping to encourage young generations to primarily travel domestically. Thereby, the website’s principal aim is to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, arguing that with
every tourist that travels within Germany, airplanes are renounced which, ultimately, saves CO2. Subsequently, Katzensprung contributes to promoting exciting and
sustainable destinations in Germany while, simultaneously, educating tourists about the consequences of conventional tourism (Katzensprung, n.d.).
2
The project is publicly funded by the National Climate Initiative (NKI) and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Natural Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and presents, therefore, both institutional and individual interests (Katzensprung, n.d.). Nonetheless, the transformation towards sustainable tourism, however, still appears rather sluggish.
1.1 Research objective
Theories have, so far, examined institutional structures and individual decision-making processes separately, thereby neglecting a potential relationship between those in the context of tourism. By combining both approaches, the general research aim is to
elaborate on the influence of institutional structures on tourists’ individual decision-making processes in order to comprehend why transforming the tourism sector towards
more sustainability has been difficult to date.
The discussion is embedded in the larger context of Giddens’ theory of structuration (1984). It refers to a close relationship between ‘structure’ and ‘agency’, the former being imposed on societies by institutions and political control, implementing rules. While structure, subsequently, orders life through regulations or laws, agency is concerned with the role of individual actors in the construct of social systems (Giddens, 1984; Whittington, 2015). Thus, one speaks of agency when an individual who has obligations in different systems such as family, work or community, among others, chooses “to follow one system of practices and to refuse another” (Whittington, 2015, p. 147). According to Giddens (1984), structure and agency are mutually dependent on one another, claiming that structure has a great impact on actions – determining what is possible and what is not – while, simultaneously, “being produced or reproduced by this action” (Whittington, 2015, p. 149). Giddens (1984) calls this the ‘duality of structure’. Hereby, he clarifies that this reciprocity can be both enabling and constraining. Regarding this thesis, one can draw from the theory of structuration that in order to comprehend behavior the “institutional embeddedness” must be studied (Whittington, 2015, p. 145) as structure influences action and are influenced by actions at the same time.
For this thesis, the initial expectation is that, according to Giddens’ theory of structuration (1984), structures imposed by institutions keeping the status quo (Mahoney, 2000; Pierson, 2000; Seto et al., 2016) affect the agency of tourists “to do otherwise” (Whittington, 2015, p. 147). Here, this would mean that tourists who would like to create their holidays sustainable are more or less constrained in their endeavor by institutional structures.
3
1.2 Research steps
The just-mentioned objective of this thesis will be realized by executing the following six research steps:
Figure 1: Research steps (own presentation)
These steps consist of [A] an extensive review of the already existent academic literature, an introduction to the most relevant theories as well as the presentation of the conceptual model which will support this thesis analytically. Based on the gained insights, [B] semi-structured expert interviews were conducted among the Katzensprung project partners. By analyzing the data [C], several lock-ins derived which might have an influence on individuals’ decision-making processes. In order to [D] check this hypothesis, an online survey was created which aimed at [E] clarifying in how far institutional lock-ins affect tourists in their endeavor to travel sustainable. Having, finally, taken both the institutional as well as individual perspective into consideration as well as having brought them together, one can [F] provide an answer to the research question which follows in the next section.
4
1.3 Research questions
Summarizing the aim of this thesis, the following research question can be stated: In how far do institutional lock-ins influence the individual decision-making processes of Katzensprung tourists towards sustainable tourism in Germany? In order to adequately answer the main question, sub-questions are developed. Their purpose is to not only break down the research into more detailed and understandable parts, but also to guide through this thesis:
a) How can the institutional development of tourism in Germany be described and which lock-ins derived historically?
With this question, it will be elaborated on the institutional development of tourism, comprehending how it turned into the phenomenon it is today. Furthermore, the lock-ins that formed will be highlighted.
b) Which factors influence tourists’ individual decision-making processes prior to the actual journey?
Here, the focus is on identifying what processes underlie the decisions made by individuals – before the vacation – and which factors, finally, determine a tourist’s decision.
c) In how far do the prior identified lock-ins influence the decisive factors developed under question b)?
This question addresses the potential structure-agency relationship that might exist between the institutional structures and individuals’ decision-making processes by examining how the lock-ins influence the identified factors. The aim is to evaluate if their impact is either constraining or facilitating for the shift towards sustainable tourism.
d) What recommendations for fostering sustainable tourism through policy adaptations derive from the research’s findings?
With this question, one elaborates on the findings in order to give recommendations for political actors, the studied project as well as for individuals themselves.
5
1.4 Scientific and societal relevance
In the following the scientific as well as societal relevance of this thesis will be evaluated. The aim is to demonstrate in how far the work presented here contributes to further developing conceptual theories and to comprehending current societal debates from new perspectives.
1.4.1 Scientific relevance
The concept of consumer behavior has often been transferred to the tourism sector by now, mostly focusing on how tourists decide for a destination (Smallman & Moore, 2010) in order to enable the latter to better understand their customers as well as to adapt their marketing strategies (Heitmann, 2011; Smallman & Moore, 2010; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). Thus, many concepts have emerged (see for instance Dann, 1977; Dolnicar et al., 2008; Iso-Ahola, 1982; as cited by Heitmann, 2011; Woodside, Caldwell & Spurr, 2006) which aim at identifying what factors could influence the individual decision-making processes. Decrop and Snelders (2004), for instance, studied the factors determining people’s summer vacation planning, expanding the variables introduced by Moutinho (1987; as cited by Decrop & Snelders, 2004). Sirakaya and Woodside (2005, p. 823) developed four different categories from “internal variables” to the final “trip experience”. Although sustainability as potential influence has been included, for instance by Prillwitz and Barr (2011) who investigated in how far the usage of alternative travel modes differs between daily life and holiday or by Miller, Rahouse, Scarles, Holmes and Tribe (2010) who studied the general public knowledge about sustainable tourism, the amount of studies dealing with this topic appears unsatisfactory. Especially given the rising importance of sustainability in the tourism sector. Thus, skimming through the academic literature written so far, it can be argued that even though these studies contribute extensively to understanding the individual decision-making processes, the latter has not yet been regarded in relation to (1) institutional structures influencing (2) people’s endeavor to travel sustainable in Germany.
Besides this thesis’ contribution to the literature on individual decision-making processes, its approach to detect the potential influence of institutional structures is, arguably, quite unique: The model of path dependence, having originally emerged within organizational environments (David, 1985, 1994; Trouvé, Couturier, Etheridge, Saint-Jean & Somme, 2010), has, so far, been applied very little to the tourism sector and, if so, solely with a focus on the destinations’ perspective – neglecting the interplay between individual tourists and institutions. Bramwell and Cox (2009) elaborated on the development of tourism partnerships. While Gill and Williams (2011) studied underlying governance strategies in a tourism resort, Ma and Hassink (2013, 2014) consulted the model to comprehend a tourism area’s development.
6
It can, consequently, be argued that path dependence in the tourism sector has, so far, not been used to identify emerging lock-ins which – exclusively focusing on the tourists’ instead of destinations’ perspective – might influence individual decision-making processes towards sustainable tourism.
In summary, it can be argued that this thesis closes two knowledge gaps in academic literature by progressively combining two approaches. Thus, it serves as well-needed starting point for studying a structure-agency relationship in the field of sustainable tourism. Moreover, it contributes to expanding the, for now, scarce amount of literature and might inspire further research while encouraging future research to create possibilities to break the potential lock-ins found in the course of this paper.
1.4.2 Societal relevance
In terms of its societal relevance, this thesis has multiple dimensions as well. On the one hand, the findings of this research address political actors who could realize how their decisions on an institutional level might influence individual behavior. Being aware of this power might enable them to evaluate their actions and deriving consequences more thoroughly and to consider the potential of including sustainability in the tourism sector more intensely. Thus, they could work on opening up the here identified institutional structures.
This effect applies to the general tourism industry as well, so that players will not only see that sustainable tourism can work, but also that, arguably, more and more people get attracted to the idea which, by introducing sustainability to the tourism business, can lead to a competitive advantage. As such, this thesis aims at starting a discussion which could be mutually fueled by political and economic actors, creating a still missing lobby (see interviews), as both could expect positive benefits for themselves.
Individuals, on the other hand, might become more aware of the significance of sustainable tourism as such. Moreover, by comprehending the influence of institutional structures on their individual decision-making processes, tourists might be sensitized for potential constraints. Thus, they might, eventually, be able to make better informed choices, to check for more alternatives and to deliberately integrate more sustainability in their own tourism behavior.
7
2 Literature review
In order to conduct the here intended research properly a theoretical fundament is built. In general this means that the different topics which are essential to the field of study are introduced and analyzed.
Based on the research question and the objectives, this section will, firstly, provide deep insight into the phenomenon of tourism and the emergence of sustainable tourism. Secondly, it aims at discussing the behavior of tourists. It will do so by comparing and contrasting academic literature, establishing the theoretical foundation that guides through this thesis. Thirdly and lastly, it briefly addresses the question of responsibility.
2.1 Tourism
The UNWTO (n.d.a) vaguely formulates that the phenomenon of tourism describes visitors or tourists performing activities. This means: people are going to destinations outside their daily-life environment for a distinct period of time while engaging in various activities, both before and during the stay.
Tourism occurs in many various forms and types. The most basic but essential distinction is made between domestic, inbound and outbound tourism (UNWTO, n.d.a). While outbound tourism relates to residents leaving their home-country, domestic and inbound tourism both imply a country receiving tourists. Inbound tourism, on the one hand, involves foreign people visiting. Domestic tourism, on the other hand, refers to residents taking trips within their own countries (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), 2010). This thesis will focus on the latter as it uses Germany as a frame.
8 2.1.1 Significance and effects of tourism
Being a global phenomenon (Butler, 1999; Scott, Gössling & Hall, 2012; UNWTO, 2018a; Zolfani et al., 2015), tourism touches upon many areas as shown in figure 2, provided by the UNWTO (2017):
Figure 2: Why tourism? (UNWTO, 2017)
Hereby, tourism contributes significantly to the global economy as the industry generates US$ 1.6 trillion in export earnings (UNWTO, 2017), thus being a driver for economic growth and development (Balas & Strasdas, 2018; UNWTO, 2018a). Simultaneously, however, as tourists inevitably engage with their destinations (Butler, 1999; Hunter, 1997) tremendously negative implications derive (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Butler, 1999; Hunter, 1997; Liu, 2003; Zolfani et al., 2015). These can be either direct or indirect and, furthermore, interrelated with one another: While the economy, for instance, could benefit from increasing tourism, societies might suffer under the same development. In the following, this field of tension will be depicted. Tourism offers a diverse range of employment opportunities. According to Balas and Strasdas (2018), every tenth person works in the tourism sector. Although the economic benefits – such as increased incomes – pre-dominate the discussion, Bâc (2012, p. 131) identifies the strong seasonality of jobs, “financial leakages and inflation” as major downsides for both society and economy. Moreover, Balas and Strasdas (2018) mention the prevalence of bad working conditions, for example on construction sites of new hotels. Nevertheless, more infrastructure is needed to cope with the rising amount of tourists (Bâc, 2012) It improves the accessibility of locations and the connectivity of local people to the outside world. The increased density of buildings and streets, however, affects the environment negatively. The loss of biodiversity, for instance, can be linked directly to infrastructural tourism projects (Balas & Strasdas, 2018). Moreover, the effects of more tourists on the destinations’ environments are severe: more waste, more energy and water consumption and increased pollution as well as noise, to name a few (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; OECD, 2018).
9
Yet, the UNWTO (2018a) as well as the OECD (2018) are convinced that tourism plays a crucial role in protecting the environment, arguing that destinations invest more in the environment in order to stay attractive.
Lastly, tourism is, ultimately, believed to foster cultural exchange by diminishing peoples’ physical or mental distances (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; UNWTO, 2018a). In one of their first documents in 1980 – the Manila Declaration on World Tourism – the UNWTO highlights tourism’s role in ensuring peace. This idea prevails throughout time and is continuously mentioned in other documents. Then again, globalization potentially evokes the standardization of societies, endangering cultural heritages and traditions (Bâc, 2012). Still, tourism is believed to be more beneficial than harmful (Hunter 1997; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Zolfani et al., 2015). It can be argued that this results from the general acceptance that “economic benefits come hand in hand with negative environmental and social impacts” (Bâc, 2012, p. 131).
2.2 Sustainable tourism
Nevertheless, critical voices appeared, asking the industry to react to the increasingly negative effects of tourism (Bâc, 2012; Zolfani et al., 2015) and to ensure an overall sustainable development (see Brundtland Report, 1987). Thus, besides various issues, also the idea of sustainable tourism was born. But as with sustainability itself, there is no universal understanding about how sustainable tourism should finally look like. That is, in particular, due to many competing interests and motivations in this sector – as stated above (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Butler, 1999; Hunter, 1997; Pforr, 2001). However, it will be tried to generate a working definition.
According to the UNWTO (2005), incorporating sustainability into tourism is supposed to equally target three dimensions – economy, society and environment – as to establish a balance, being thereby aware of its global entanglements (Butler, 1999). Sustainable tourism should improve the experiences of the tourists (Sharpley, 2000; Vellas & Becherel, 1999; Zolfani et al., 2015), while, considering the well-being of the host population as well, allowing a better quality of life (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Zolfani et al., 2015).
10
Furthermore, it is supposed to contribute to “protecting the environment, maintaining cultural integrity, establishing social justice and promoting economic benefits” (Zolfani et al., 2015, p. 2; see also Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Butler, 1999; Hunter, 1997; Pforr, 2001).
Other scholars (see Buckley, 2012; Swarbrooke & Horner, 2007) add even more components which enrich the potential of sustainable tourism, on the one hand, but might also overstrain the concept. Trying to capture all elements, the UNWTO (2005), therefore, developed a definition:
Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities.
This definition aligns with the overall definition of sustainability (see Brundtland Report, 1987) and has been transformed slightly to fit the tourism frame, appearing all-embracing.
It should, however, be noted that the formulation is quite ambiguous as it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Consequently, the term sustainable tourism is often rephrased depending on the actors’ “perspectives, interests and values […] [which results in] conflicting perceptions” (Pforr, 2001, p. 69). Bâc (2012, p. 135) argues that there is a “lack of global consensus”. Furthermore, the strategies that come with this definition might contradict one another (Bâc, 2012; Hunter 1997; Zolfani et al., 2015) so that with the introduction of sustainability to the tourism sector, the industry’s first reaction had been dissatisfaction and rejection (Lane, 2009; as cited by Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018). Nowadays, there appears to be more acceptance as it has shown that societal as well as environmental indicators such as an intact nature and biodiversity, mild climate, traditional cultures and communities present strong push and pull factors of destinations (Balas & Strasdas, 2018). Yet, the phenomenon of mass tourism has been left untouched (Bâc, 2012; Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Butler, 1999).
11
2.3 Tourism behavior
With its growing importance on economic, social and environmental level, tourism has not only transformed itself into a global phenomenon, but also in a self-evident consumption good people can purchase anytime, anywhere (Balas & Strasdas, 2018; Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014; Miller et al., 2010; Reinhardt, 2019). Trying to understand the mechanisms behind “certain decisions, activities, ideas or experiences that satisfy consumer needs and wants” (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014, p. 872), scholars have started to adapt theories of consumer behavior to the tourism sector. Initially, the insights gained supported the creation of more adequate marketing strategies (Butcher, 2009; Heitmann, 2011; Simpson & Radford, 2014; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005; Smallman & Moore, 2010), in order to attract as many tourists as possible. Nowadays, however, with the growing importance of sustainability and its implications for the tourism sector, studying tourism behavior has moved from understanding to steering. Aiming at comprehending “why certain types of holidays can be more successful than others” (Heitmann, 2011, p. 31), scholars are more and more intrigued by the idea of change, believing that the latter can come from individuals re-thinking and re-shaping their behavior (Shove, 2009; Stern, 2000).
2.3.1 Changing behavior
This, however, is more than difficult as – although people might be aware of how their behavior affects the environment – awareness does not automatically imply behavioral change (Antimova, Nawijn & Peeters, 2010; FUR, 2014; Miller et al., 2010; Prillwitz & Barr, 2011; Reinhardt, 2019). It can be argued that such discrepancy derives from people’s unique relation to tourism, having a “sense of entitlement to enjoy their holidays” which, ultimately, means not to care (Miller et al., 2010, p. 641; see also Prillwitz & Barr, 2011; Bramwell & Lane, 2013). Such underlying phenomenon has been described as ‘attitude-behavior gap’ in the general context of ethical consumption. Here, Bray, Johns and Kilburn (2011, p. 597) found that factors such as “price sensitivity“, “personal experience”, “ethical obligation”, “guilt” and “cynicism”, among others, interact, and thus influence a purchase-decision. The attitude-behavior gap has, however, not been sufficiently considered for the tourism industry yet (Antimova, Nawijn & Peeters, 2012; Miller et al., 2010), so that the identified factors might differ. Moreover, changing behavior can be complicated by habits which form as soon as people are repeating actions (Prillwitz & Barr, 2011; Seto et al., 2016; Shove, 2009). For the tourism industry, Bramwell and Lane (2013, p. 2) elaborated on tourists’ habits concerning their travel behavior, arguing that “people have become habituated to social practices, including holidays and long distance travel, which are resource-intensive and involve high greenhouse gas emissions”.
12
Habits are a fascinating component of behavior, yet not researched enough. Partly, this could be due to their immense complexity and the difficulty to break those (Stern, 2000). Other techniques that have already been applied to the tourism sector are summarized in the review written by Cohen, Prayag and Moital (2014) who identified nine different categories which help to cluster the different models. These are: “values”, “motivations”, “self-concept and personality”, “expectations”, “attitudes”, “perceptions”, “satisfaction”, “trust and loyalty” and “decision-making”. While each of these has a remarkable value for the discussion of behavior in general, one needs to carefully evaluate which category addresses one’s research problem most adequately.
2.3.2 Challenges of consumer behavior in tourism
Which theory suits the most depends on how well it deals with the unique challenges that come with transferring consumer behavior to the context of tourism. On the one hand, it should be noted that tourism behavior is believed to be a continuous flow, consisting of interrelated steps which “cannot always be analyzed separately” (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014, p. 873). As tourists have not only to decide where they want to go and to stay, but also at what time, which duration and, maybe, who to bring along, each sub-decision might influence the other (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014; Decrop & Snelders, 2004). On the other hand, a holiday can be split timely between “pre-visit, on-site” or “post-visit” (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014, p. 873), each stage evoking a different behavior (Gössling & Peeters, 2007; Miller et al., 2010; Prillwitz & Barr, 2011). Furthermore, it needs to be considered that “travel-related decisions involve high risks due to the very nature of tourism services” (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005, p. 823). That means that, usually, people who seek to explore new countries and cultures cannot know if they have made the right decision prior to their arrival at the destination. The component of sustainability could, moreover, add to the perceived risks as, arguably, many people have not been travelling sustainably before. Thus, tourists have to use techniques to minimize the risks of false decisions (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005).
13
2.4 Individual decision-making processes
A way to address this risk is by carefully observing one’s individual decision-making process. This concept addresses the above mentioned challenges by, firstly, acknowledging that tourists go through various stages when making decisions (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014; Heitmann, 2011; Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005; Smallman & Moore, 2010), thus supporting the idea of process theory which has, arguably, not received the attention it deserves in tourism behavior (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005; Smallman & Moore, 2010). Secondly, studying individual decision-making processes allows the researcher to separate clearly between pre-visit, on-site and post-visit behavior and to zoom into one particular time event, without comprising the whole process. Thus, one can look closely at the decisions involved before the actual journey as this phase, arguably, presents the most crucial moment to introduce and consider sustainability. Thirdly, individual decision-making processes rely heavily on information theories (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005) as people create a range of alternatives from which they, eventually, decide on the most suitable option (Bramwell & Lane, 2013; Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014; Decrop & Snelders, 2004; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). Subsequently, this technique helps to diminish the potential risks.
Individual decision-making processes have already been studied extensively, yet there is “no universally accepted theory, but several frameworks” (Heitmann, 2011, p. 31). In these models, individuals are classified as rational (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014). This means people are able to make conscious decisions, being initiated by some sort of attitude which is followed by an intention, resulting in actual behavior (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014; Decrop & Snelders, 2004). So far, tourism related decisions have been regarded as carefully planned by the tourists, mainly due to the potential risks attached, meaning that concepts mostly rely on consumer behavior theories such as “Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior” as well as Fishbein’s “expectancy-value model of attitudes” (1963; as cited by Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014, p. 875). Recently, however, it appears that scholars define people as more and more irrational while their actions are believed to be steered from both “inside and outside factors” (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005, p. 824). Many scholars have identified a huge collection of such factors, each of them having their own legitimacy. They vary from socio-demographic factors such as level of income, employment, age or lifestyle (Heitmann, 2011; Stern, 2000) to values, beliefs, social norms and motivations (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005; Shove, 2009; Stern, 2000). Moreover, cultural aspects can be decisive as well, for instance in terms of family visits or spiritual/ religious trips (Heitmann, 2011).
14
According to Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) decisions are, additionally, influenced by ‘non-psychological’ factors which are called differently throughout literature: “contextual” by Smallman and Moore (2010) as well as Stern (2000) or “situational” by Decrop and Snelders (2004). Reaching from technologies, to infrastructure and pricing to policies such contextual factors describe outer barriers which tourists have to combat during their individual decision-making processes. Connecting a decision to any of these variables helps determining on which bases decisions are formed, generally, and what components might induce change (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014; Smallman & Moore, 2010).
Besides the above mentioned difficulties of studying consumer behavior in the tourism context (see section 2.3.2), using individual decision-making processes adds another set of challenges. On the one hand, tourism decisions might not only evolve over a long period of time, which impairs tracking the exact decision-making process, but also occur spontaneously without any process at all (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014), thus, appearing rather irrational (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). On the other hand, it should be highlighted that individual decision-making processes can vary from tourist to tourist. Therefore, assuming that there will be one model that can do justice to all the various kinds may be too far-reaching (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). That is why Hanlan, Fuller and Wilde (2005), for instance, combined their study about destination marketing with market segmentation theories which allowed them to cluster the different interest groups. This will, arguably, be not necessary for this thesis as it concentrates specifically on one target group. However, it will be crucial to embrace the diversity of individuals while, simultaneously, dealing with tourism behavior on a more abstract level.
15
2.5 The question of responsibility
Moreover, another challenge is, comparable to other debates in which institutions, market players and individuals are involved equally, presented by the question of responsibility. Studies conducted by FUR (2014) or Reinhardt (2019) as well as theories such as the above mentioned attitude-behavior gap (Bray, Johns & Kilburn, 2011) suggest that it should, finally, be the individual tourist who should consider sustainability in their individual decision-making process. Arguably, this belief is grounded on the assumption that behavior is primarily controlled by people’s own cognitive characteristics (Heitmann, 2011; Seto et al., 2016; Shove, 2009; Stern, 2000) rather than by external factors. Moreover, some scholar ascribe individuals the power to initiate a chain reaction, believing that the more people would embrace sustainable offers, the more pressure the industry would feel (Butcher, 2009; Simpson & Radford, 2014). At first sight, this line of argumentation appears logical and, naturally, people themselves should bring along a basic interest in sustainability – integrating the latter in both their daily lives and their holidays. However, until now, the tourism industry has not yet seen a shift towards more sustainability so that the market does not feel enough pressure from tourists and, thus, sees no need for change. Much more, companies remain to have a bigger interest in sustaining the status quo as building the latter, for instance in terms of airports or cruise ship harbors, has cost immense investments (Bramwell & Lane, 2013). It could be argued that, subsequently, the state should intervene (Giddens, 2009; as cited by Bramwell & Lane, 2013), implementing regulations and setting proper incentives for the tourism industry. In their study, Miller et al. (2010) detected that people even demand governments to step in.
One should be aware that, as Bramwell and Lane (2013, p. 3) claim quite correctly, individual behavior is most “certainly not [changed] by states seeking simply to instruct people to change their behavior”. Moreover, Shove (2009, p. 1283) reckons putting the responsibility solely on governments “perhaps to challenging [for them] to be useful”. Nevertheless, it can be reasoned that societal issues are best dealt with on every level which requires individuals to be aware of the problem while institutions should impose the guidelines needed.
16
3 Theoretical framework and conceptual model
Having elaborated on the on-going debate about sustainable tourism as well as tourism behavior, the following section is going to deal with the theoretical framework. Thus, relevant theories and concepts will be explained which support this thesis’ analytical standpoint: First, the theory of path dependence is applied which allows tracking the development of tourism over time. Second, the concept of individual decision-making processes will be introduced and clarified. In a third step, both theories will be combined, connecting to a conceptual model which, subsequently, visualizes the theoretical fundament of the thesis.
3.1 Path dependence
The concept of path dependence implies that to understand societal issues it is highly important to identify in retrospective how they have developed (Pierson, 2000) and which forces led to the movement. Hereby, especially the institutional component is crucial (Howlett, 2009; Mahoney, 2000; Pierson, 2000; Seto et al., 2016). What conditions initiated a development? Which institutional circumstances led to its prevalence? And why can changing well-established patterns be more than difficult? The here chosen theory addresses these questions and acknowledges that “causes and effects […] [of an issue] are often separated in time” (Pierson, 2000, p. 253). This means that actions performed in the past will continuously influence both present and future decisions as they have been initially rewarding (Bramwell & Cox, 2009; David, 1985, 1994, 2001; Garud, Kumaraswamy & Karnoe, 2010; Gill & Williams, 2011; Ma & Hassink, 2013, 2014; Mahoney, 2000; Page, 2006; Pierson, 2000; Vergne & Durand, 2010). Thus, actors are encouraged to further follow a specific path leading processes to be constantly reinforced until they, eventually, become locked-in (Howlett, 2009; Mahoney, 2000; Page, 2006; Pierson, 2000; Seto et al., 2016; Shove, 2010; Trouvé et al., 2010; Vergne & Durand, 2010), leading people to believe to be on the right track as changing the path could require more effort or financial expenditures, for instance, than staying on the historically pre-defined one – even though alternative options could be more promising in the long run (see figure 4; Mahoney, 2000; Page, 2006; Pierson, 2000; Seto et al., 2016; Trouvé et al., 2010).
17
Analytically, path dependence describes a process which unfolds itself through particular phases (David, 1994; Howlett, 2009; Mahoney, 2000; Page, 2006; Vergne & Durand, 2010). As applying the theory of path dependence to the tourism sector is relatively pioneering, this approach follows the examples of Bramwell and Cox (2009) as well as Ma and Hassink (2013, 2014). Thus, this research will concentrate on the three main stages – being ‘contingent events’, ‘self-reinforcement’ and, finally, ‘lock-ins’, as visualized in figure 3:.
Figure 3: The stages of path dependence (own presentation)
How the three stages can be defined as well as what they imply for the on-going thesis will be explained in the following.
Stage 1: contingent events
This phase can be seen as the kick-off for an entire development. It describes the occurrence of an event which initiates a sequence of happenings and which, in retrospective (!), turns out to having been influential for the further developing (Bramwell & Cox, 2009; David, 2001; Garud, Kumaraswamy & Karnoe, 2010; Mahoney, 2000; Page, 2006; Vergne & Durand, 2010). Hereby, the presence of contingency plays the major role, referring “to the inability of theory to predict or explain […] the occurrence of a specific outcome” (Mahoney, 2000, p. 513). This means the event appears random and non-purposive (Vergne & Durand, 2010), examples reaching from “the assassination of a political leader” to “natural disasters or sudden market fluctuation” (Mahoney, 2000, p. 514). It can be argued that, from a constructivist point of view (see section 4.1), the actual event might not be the decisive factor, but how people instrumentalize its consequences. Exploiting the latter, new discourses might be evoked which shape the trajectory as well, determining how society should understand a phenomenon. Moreover, it should be highlighted that, for the case researched here, such event is regarded as influencing the way of thinking and way of doing sustainably, even after the event has passed. Therefore, one will not exclude the possibility that contingent events initiated discursive elements which entail the characteristics of ‘critical junctures’, functioning as a turning point for a development’s trajectory (Cappocia, 2003).
18 Stage 2: self-reinforcement
Coming from organizational studies, the theory of path dependence implies that reactions to contingent events are evaluated according to the equation: “the more a choice is made or an action taken, the greater the benefits” (Page, 2006, p. 88). This results in the second stage: self-reinforcement. It involves decisions and actions being repeated constantly (Bramwell & Cox, 2009; Ma & Hassink, 2013, 2014; Mahoney, 2000; Page, 2006) as the rewards for continuing down a specific track grow simultaneously. At some point, this becomes a reinforcing process whereby one step induces development in one particular direction until going back appears either difficult or even impossible (Mahoney, 2000; Page, 2006; Pierson, 2000). According to North (1990, p. 94; referring to Arthur, 1982), this is driven by four mechanisms as derives from figure 4:
Figure 4: Four reinforcing mechanisms (North, 1990, p. 94; adapted from Arthur, 1982)
What can be certainly drawn from literature is that every step taken sets forces in motion which increase the likelihood of people making the same choice again. As such, even recent policy decisions seem to reinforce specific trajectories (Gill & Williams, 2011) which, in turn, constrain actors in their endeavor for change (Bramwell & Cox, 2009; Howlett, 2009; Trouvé et al., 2010).
Stage 3: lock-ins
As soon as actions are reinforced and decisions made repeatedly, the theory of path dependence assumes that it is better to ‘just go with the flow’ as the benefits of continuously following a distinct path outweigh the efforts required for changing it. According to Page (2006, p. 88) that is “because a sufficient number of people have already made that choice” so that the latter does not have to be questioned anymore. It could be argued that, consequently, the underlying belief is that institutions orientate along previous decisions as these have turned out to be working. In this way, mechanisms become locked-in, as keeping the established status quo is preferred. This does not automatically imply something positive or negative (Seto et al., 2016).
19
However, it should be considered that, thus, the potential for change is constrained (Garud, Kumaraswamy & Karnoe, 2010; Howlett, 2009; Page, 2006; Vergne & Durand, 2010), as “not following the rules and standards established by previous choices” requires effort which could be both time-consuming and financially intense (Trouvé et al., 2010, p. 4).
Concerning the debate about sustainability in the tourism sector, such lock-ins have, to my best knowledge, not been developed yet. As, however, this research will concentrate on the influence of institutional structures on individual decision-making processes, the paper of Seto et al. (2016) offers a valuable guidance in terms of institutional lock-ins. The authors assess institutional lock-ins as intentional due to political actors’ endeavor to maintain a particular status quo if the “trajectory […] favors their interest” or that of the lobbyists (Seto et al., 2016, p. 433). Thus, whether a lock-in has positive or negative implications is most likely a matter of perspective. Breaking well-established institutional patterns is, hereby, regarded as highly complicated due to the multi-layered structure within institutions (Mahoney, 2000; Pierson, 2000; Seto et al., 2016). Nevertheless, scholars such as Garud, Kumaraswamy and Karnoe (2010), Ma and Hassink (2014) and Seto et al. (2016) point out that institutions themselves can opt for change, by, for instance, investing proactively in new innovations and Research & Development overall. Moreover, exogenous shocks – describing interruptions from outside movements (Garud, Kumaraswamy & Karnoe, 2010; Ma & Hassink, 2014, Seto et al., 2016; Vergne & Durand, 2010) – can initiate a so called “window of opportunity” which allows institutions to react differently (Seto et al., 2016, p. 434; see section 5.5).
Next, it will be described how this research will analytically handle the individual decision-making processes of tourists.
20
3.2 Individual decision-making processes
As stated above, research about the tourism industry orientates along the theories of consumer behavior. Therefore, many concepts are mainly concerned with comprehending a purchase decision as such while ignoring tourism specific factors or the impact of ethical consumption. The model by Kotler and Keller (2009) is no exception. Nevertheless, as it is a highly regarded concept in consumer behavior that is, furthermore, comprehensive and clearly structured, it presents a suitable concept for this thesis’ purpose. Moreover, it allows introducing own factors that define every decision stage so that it can be adjusted to the here researched case (Dudovskiy, 2012; Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005; Heitmann, 2011). Although Hanlan, Fuller and Wilde (2005) depict tourism-related decision-making models, the latters’ strong focus is on behavior at a particular destination while this research concentrates on the stages prior to the actual journey. This is the most supported by Kotler and Keller’s model (2009). It consists of five steps which define the stages consumers go through in their individual decision-making processes. Visualized in figure 5, these steps present a sequence which repeats itself for every decision there is:
Figure 5: 5 steps of individual decision-making processes (own presentation; adapted from Kotler and Keller, 2009)
21 Step 1: recognition of need
Coming from a marketing perspective, this model suggests that the decision-making process is initiated by consumers discovering a gap between the “actual […] and […] desired state” (Heitmann, 2011, p. 32). Longing for the desired state develops into a need to own the product (Dudovskiy, 2012; Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005; Heitmann, 2011).
Transferring this part of individual decision-making to the case of sustainable tourism, it could be argued that tourists – who have developed a recognizable interest in ethical consumption and sustainability overall – have, furthermore, created the need to travel sustainable as well. This will be treated as underlying assumption for this research here. Step 2: information searching
The second step involves tourists starting to think about their vacation more seriously (Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005). Therefore, it is necessary to engage in the search for more information, presenting one of the most central components in the existent decision-making theories (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). It should be noted that this stage is especially important in the tourism context. That is, on the one hand, “due to the very nature of tourism services [that] involve high risks” (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005, p. 823). In order to minimize the latter, scholars suggest to engage in an extensive search of information (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005; Smallman & Moore, 2010). On the other hand, it has been studied that at some point when tourists’ behavioral patterns have turned into habits (see above) people tend to rely on the information they have gathered in the past, thereby limiting the chances of discovering newly available offers that might suit them even more (Seto et al., 2016).
Thus, they should actively search (Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005) for “available ways to satisfy” their prior identified needs (Dudovskiy, 2012). In terms of general consumer behavior, potential sources to obtain information from are diverse, reaching from “personal” to “commercial” and “public sources” (Heitmann, 2011, p. 32). It could be argued that these information channels are essential for tourists as well, perhaps with the addition of travel agencies and digital platforms from Federal Foreign Offices, for instance.
22 Step 3: evaluation of alternatives
Following the information searching process, the third stage involves consumers evaluating the gathered data and comparing the found alternatives from which they, eventually, select the one fitting their needs most. Looking at the environment of the tourism industry, it can be claimed that many offers exist which serve similar needs (Heitmann, 2011). Thus, forming a decision might be challenging if there is no particular need which ties tourists to a specific destination, agency or type of tourism – for instance, winter sports, beach holiday, or adventure tourism. In order to handle the amount and complexity of the different alternatives, consumers assign different attributes to each alternative (Dudovskiy, 2012; Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005; Heitmann, 2011). Thereby, the attributes are given either high or low importance, eventually leading to a cluster that divides the alternatives according to consumers’ preferences (Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005; Heitmann, 2011).
Step 4: purchase decision
After having evaluated all possible options available, the consumer has formulated the intention to buy one specific product (Dudovskiy, 2012; Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005; Heitmann, 2011). Related to tourism, this step would most certainly correspond to the tourist being at the destination, having made all necessary decisions involved in the pre-vacation stadium. Thus, this stage does not apply in this study as the latter particularly examines the individual decision-making processes before the actual journey.
Step 5: post-purchase behavior
This step occurs after the purchase was made. It indicates in how far the customer is either satisfied or dissatisfied. According to Hanlan, Fuller and Wilde (2005, p. 4) the fifth and final step in Kotler and Keller’s model (2009) describes “the relationship between consumer expectations and their perception of product performance” whereby the outcome influences the probability of consumers making the same choice again (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014; Dudovskiy, 2012; Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005; Heitmann, 2011; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005) – as visualized in the conceptual model by the arrow leading from step 5 to step 1 again).
Regarding individual decision-making processes in the tourism segment, this step would deal with the evaluation of the vacation and memorizing the experiences made (Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005, p. 4). However, similar to step 4 of Kotler and Keller’s model (2009), the last part of the here chosen theory can – for the purpose of this thesis – be neglected.
23
3.3 Conceptual model
24
Both of the above explained models will – on their own – be useful for the process of data collection and data analysis in the further course of the study. The scientific contribution of this thesis, however, comes through connecting the two approaches, as can be seen from the conceptual model presented in figure 6.
It shows, on the one hand, how each model is integrated in the here presented research process:
[A]
At first, the institutional lock-ins need to be identified. Therefore, one looks at the historical development of tourism in order to identify happenings which might have triggered the phenomenon’s trajectory. These are followed by self-reinforcing processes, leading to the formation of lock-ins. The analysis aims at tracing back these stages.
[B]
For the model of individual decision-making processes, the individual steps are equipped with those factors along which the data will be analyzed. These derive from the contributions made by Bray, Johns and Kilburn (2011), Decrop and Snelders (2004) as well as Prillwitz and Barr (2011) who studied purchases behavior in terms of ethical behavior, the planning of summer vacations and mobility and tourism, respectively. Their papers contain a total of 35 factors. Some overlap while others are not applicable to the case researched here, due to two reasons: On the one hand, only those factors apply which impact decisions prior to the actual vacation so that variables which target behavior at a destination can be neglected. On the other hand, one should concentrate on those factors institutional structures can touch upon, given the purpose of this thesis. Thus, factors such as ‘meal’ detected by Decrop and Snelders (2004), for instance, will not be considered as institutional structures could, if at all, influence such variables indirectly. Subsequently, one chose a final amount of eight suitable factors which are distributed equally in the model as follows:
Information searching: The process should be both convenient and simple for the tourists, allowing it to be time efficient. (Prillwitz & Barr, 2011). As source for information, tourists can trust recommendations (Prillwitz & Barr, 2011) by family and friends or extent their research to other sources (Heitmann, 2011).
25
Evaluation of alternatives: Naturally, the price of going on a holiday can be decisive (Bray, Johns & Kilburn, 2011; Decrop & Snelders, 2004; Prillwitz & Barr, 2011), causing tourists to prefer one destination, accommodation or activity over another. Further, this stage involves transportation, including the possibilities to reach a destination and to move around at the destination itself (Decrop & Snelders, 2004). Moreover, people are more likely to choose a vacation that promises safety (Prillwitz & Barr, 2011), for instance through political stability, and a high standard in accommodation (Decrop & Snelders, 2004).
[C]
On the other hand, the conceptual model, moreover, establishes a potential connection between the two concepts, linking the lock-ins – as outcome of the theory of path dependence – to the model of individual decision-making process. The idea is based on the structure-agency debate, initiated by Giddens (1984).
For this research, this implies that the lock-ins evoked by institutional structures might influence tourists’ individual decision-making processes towards sustainable tourism as well as tourists’ decisions can, in turn, shape structures. As this connection has not been researched sufficiently so far, the arrows are marked as dotted lines. It should be noted that, possibly, the lock-ins might only affect a certain part of the behavior model or that for each lock-in the case varies. These considerations will be examined in section 5.
[D]
It should be noted that the conceptual model contains the potential for a digression which would deal with the influence of exogenous shocks on lock-ins and their ability to break the latter (as mentioned above). This will, however, depend on the research findings. Generally, this model will remain open to the idea that the methodological approach chosen in this thesis will enrich the model further as the findings obtained from primary data might provide more insights. Thus, the conceptual model could, in the end, be topped up.
26
4 Methodology
While the previous sections established the theoretical framework, this one will highlight the methodological approach taken. Thereby, this section will follow the logic of Saunders and Tosey’s (2012) so-called “research onion” which describes the multiple layers that need to be considered (going from outer to the inner layers):
Figure 7: Research Onion (Saunders & Tosey, 2012)
Consequently, the following section will, firstly, explain the research philosophy and will, secondly, provide inside into its methodical choice. Thirdly, the strategy is presented. The time horizon will only be mentioned briefly, while more attention is given to the process of data collection and data analysis, differentiating between qualitative and quantitative data. Lastly, this section elaborates on the ethics considered during the research process as well as on how validity and reliability are ensured.
