No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study aims to explore the factors that influence business travel decisions of university staff, in particular the extent and ways in which they are willing to reduce emission-intensive air travel, and the personal and structural barriers to such behavior change. Three strategies to reduce air travel were investigated: abstaining from particular events, substituting travel through virtual participation and mode shifting to ground-based public transport. We tested the effects of (1) specific decision factors for engaging in long-distance travel, choosing specific modes of travel and choosing virtual solutions; (2) former travel activities; (3) postponed trips due to COVID-19; and (4) sociodemographic factors, on the willingness of individuals to reduce air travel in a sample of university employees. We calculated regression models for the three strategies and added a qualitative analysis of open-ended comments. Former travel behavior as well as pro-environmental considerations play significant roles, influencing the willingness of employees to change their business travel behavior. Furthermore, we found that willingness to reduce air travel depends on the scope of behavior change. Although travel behavior is unevenly distributed across different subgroups, sociodemographic factors only play a minor role in the regression models. The present study adds to the limited body of quantitative research on the reduction potential of academic air travel, presenting an examination of university staff's willingness to change their long-distance travel behavior. Implications for university polices are discussed.

The most recent IPCC report considers Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) as an unavoidable climate change mitigation measure, although controversial discussions about CDR have taken place in the past. This study contributes to the ongoing debate by providing insights into academic expert opinions about Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS). An online survey was conducted to examine how academic experts (N = 172) perceive and to what extent they support BECCS and DACCS. Overall, the results show rather high expert support for research on and the deployment of BECCS and DACCS. Perceived feasibility of the technologies consistently predicted support for BECCS and DACCS, with means in the upper medium range. Further significant predictors were the extent to which experts perceived the technologies to be necessary, the experts’ amount of academic experience, the associated moral hazard, and the perceived tampering with nature.

Purpose This paper aims to explore the manoeuvring room of higher education institutions to take action to reduce emissions from academic flying. In particular, this study investigates how university staff and central actors in university management evaluate potential measures in this area. Design/methodology/approach The authors applied a single case study design encompassing an online survey directed at staff (N = 338) and 11 semi-structured interviews with key actors from management at an Austrian university. The authors used descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis to examine the data. Findings This study found considerable support among university staff in principle for implementing measures to reduce academic flying, but also serious concerns about the fairness and viability of some restrictive measures, especially disincentives and caps on flying. However, bans on short-haul flights were largely supported. Actors from university management saw their manoeuvring room limited by the potential resistance and non-compliance of staff, as well as by framework conditions external to the university. Practical implications Dedicated leadership is needed to facilitate broad commitment within the university and to avoid shifting the responsibility between different governance levels. Restrictive measures to reduce academic air travel will be more readily accepted if perceived as fair and viable. Originality/value Although several papers have addressed the behavioural and institutional factors that sustain extensive flying in academia, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first contributions to investigate the potentials and challenges of introducing measures to reduce air travel in higher education institutions.

Restrictive measures are indispensable to achieving sustainable and low-carbon mobility. At the same time, these are often not implemented due to concerns that public support will not materialize; therefore, they are relegated to the background in the debate on policy measures that can be applied to change mobility behavior. In this national study (N = 1,083), we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the drivers of and differences between regulatory and economic transport policies. We find that policy-specific beliefs and, in particular, perceived fairness are key drivers of public acceptance. Our results indicate that policies must be perceived as fair, effective, and minimally intrusive for them to be accepted by the public and thus implementable. No major differences were found between the two types of policies examined, namely, regulatory and economic policies. Overall, public acceptance of the proposed measures is low. We discuss these results in terms of the study content and methodology and conclude by describing their implications for transport policy design.