Journey's End II

While I summerised my posts last time out, one can perhaps be forgiven for breezing over it somewhat (it was quite long). If anything is to be gleaned from the last 16 weeks of blogging let it be these 5 ideas:

1.) The impact of travel on our environment has a long history!

Ever since we started to move around the globe humans have been altering the environment through their movements. It is important therefore that we do not simply accept that only been since the industrial revolution and the invention of the steam engine that we have been instigating change through travel (Tickell, 2011), as if we are to find solutions I would argue it is necessary to fully understand the history of our travel impacts.

2.) Travel harms the environment in many ways.

While throughout this blog I have referred to land use change, greenhouse gas emissions and species extinctions as measures, I hope it has not escaped anyone that measures can be read as impacts. At no point either are the impacts of travel and transport limited to these three, as although not covered in this blog the spread of disease could be examined along with environmental (and socioeconomic) strains associated with mass migration as a result of both internal travel into urban areas and international travel. 

3.) We are to blame.

The first step is admitting it. If we are to solve the problems we are encountering we need to accept that we (humans) are the cause. Once this has been communicated to the global population there is chance that people may begin to change their behaviour and forward steps can be taken. If, however, people remain ignorant to the ways in which their travel habits impact upon global environmental change, we will never make progress. To punctuate this point I've added a nice video in which the chair of the IPCC and the Chairman of the California Air Resource Board discuss who is to blame for climate change.

4.) Hope is not lost.

Despite a cynical outlook at certain points, I want to make it clear that the increased emissions, land use change and species extinctions that have been caused through our travel habits, can be mitigated. Whether it be through changing the behaviour of consumers or by supplying more sustainable transport options, there is hope that our society can buck these alarming trends and get back on track.   

Journey's End I

Planes, trains and automobiles, we've covered them all and before we move any further forward in our journey, I want to look back at where we have come from and the places visited. 

3 and a half months ago I embarked on a project to learn and blog about the effects travel and transport (T&T) have had, and are having, on global environmental change. Given the broad nature of the topic it is unsurprising I don't feel it has all been covered. In saying that, however, by investigating the ways in which the effects of T&T can be monitored and explored, the role of migrations to America and the Crusades in the location of the Anthropocene, the impact of cars, ships and planes in environmental change, and the ways in which the issues that have surfaced could be mitigated, we have certainly given it a good go.

While based primarily around tourism, a comprehensive 2002 article by Gossling provided the backbone for many of the early blogs, by listing three ways in which the effects of T&T could be measured; land cover and use changes, energy use and the extinction of wild species. 

Given that a number of studies that I reviewed have based their work solely or almost entirely around energy use, it was this measure I found most to write about. While this focus could have been seen as a limitation of the studies, it allowed authors to concentrate their efforts and produce some quite staggering statistics. For example, since the 1960s air travel has been growing at a rate of 9% per annum, with each passenger now using on average 2.75 mega joules per passenger per kilometre while flying, relative to the 1.44 MJ/PKM on a train or 0.75 MJ/PKM on a bus (Becken et. al, 2003). As was shown in 2 blogs about sea transport, these numbers are not confined to air travel either as in 2003 ocean going ships use 200 million tonnes of fuel each year, a figure up 53 million tonnes from 4 years previous (Endresen et. al, 2003; Corbett et. al, 1999).

While land use change as a result of T&T was more difficult to show, in saying that, however, two good maps highlighting land dedicated to roads and airports are presented, my investigation of species extinction led to the surfacing of some of the blogs most interesting ideas. Looking specifically at the ways in which habitat fragmentation and the translocation of species as a result of T&T could lead to extinctions it became clear the impact was much greater than I expected. Focussing on the latter, through the growth of trade and increases in transport efficiency the number of invasive species has been growing rapidly since 1850, and in the last 150 years the number of invasive invertebrates taxa per annum has increased from under 2 million to almost 14 (Hulme, 2009). This prompted Hulme, in his 2009 study to suggest we have entered the "3rd age of biological invasions: the era of globalisation" (Pg. 11) a claim he backs up persuasively with a wide range of evidence ranging from trends in global shipping cargo, to the relationship between gross domestic product and alien plant richness, fig. 1.

Figure 1. Here the relationship between GDP and the number of alien plant species is graphed.  It is interesting to note that the relationship is stronger between the variables for island states than for continental ones. This is most probably owing to the greater proportion of merchandise imports for island states, and the greater chance therefore of alien species.

The revelation of statistics such as these prompted me to curtail my work on the impact of travel, and instead focussed my attention over the last few weeks on the ways in which these alarming trends could be halted especially with regards to car and plane usage. While arguments that promote research into more sustainable and environmentally friendly vehicles are widespread (Mildenberger and Khare, 2000), there seems also to be a belief that such changes alone will not be enough to halt the rise in emissions. Instead many argue it is necessary to change the behaviour of car and plane users (Beirao and Cabral, 2007). Although, as illustrated, there are different ways of doing this, in my opinion the idea as a whole seems to be the one that warrants pursuing and further research. While people may not want to change their habits and make compromises at first (Hares et. al, 2010), it is the long-term option and once behaviours are changed they will be passed down through generations. It is important to recognise, however, that these changes alone, will not be enough and if there is not continued support given to research into, and the development of, more sustainable forms of transport, I would argue that emissions might plateau, but not decrease.

To finish off next time, I will be putting forward the 4 ideas I think that are vital to take from this blog. 

Decisions Decisions

Behaviour change isn't just necessary when it comes to cars, and in 2010 Hares et. al looked at the decisions of UK tourists with regards to air travel.

Tourism contributes 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and 90% of this is because of travel, and often specifically air travel. With tourist arrivals growing (903bn in 2007 which is expected to rise to 1.6bn in 2020), the growth rates of air travel are growing too (5-6%/annum since 1970 and will continue at this rate until 2020). Tourism has been identified by many as the most important area for reducing these emissions. These can come through technological changes, but the emission reductions will be low and the impacts limited. Behavioural changes similar to the ones discussed in the previous post are necessary therefore, and they have the most important role to play in leading the GHG emissions of air travel (Gossling et. al, 2007).

Very little previous research into the extent to which tourists are aware of their holidaying can have on the environment. of the studies that are around, there seems to be a consensus that there is very little awareness (Becken, 2007; Shaw and Thomas, 2006). Staggeringly 34% of people didn’t believe air travel harmed the environment, but 62% of people would be willing to take fewer flights to reduce their carbon foot print. 

To explore their research ideas, Hares et. al conducted 4 focus groups in Bournemouth with 34 people taking part in total. While the number of participants and the rage of ages, from 18- 65 was appropriate, there were no follow up interviews or questionnaires. This could hinder the accuracy of the results, and must be remembered when thinking about the conclusions. 

While participants were able to identify how their holidaying contributed to climate change and the mitigation measures that could be taken, for example they recognised that renting a car on holiday could be damaging, and it would be better to walk and drive, they could not establish an alternative to air travel, and admitted the environment was not one of their 5 most important factors when planning their last holiday.

A more interesting element of the focus groups findings is regarding questions to do with barriers to behavioural change. Each of the barriers are support with appropriate respondent quotes, that promote the validity of the conclusions. Appropriately this comprises the largest section of the paper, as it highlights the ideas that will need to be changed if emissions are to be lowered. 

Firstly strong preferences for air travel over alternative travel methods were expressed in all 4 groups, with flying considered by many the only viable option. Many saw other public transport as too slow, poor and in need for improvement. Hares et. al are not the first people to point this out, and in fact many studies (Dickinson et. al, 2009) have found similar opinions.  

The second barrier comes in the importance placed on holidays. While emissions could be lowered if people were willing to limit their holidaying, not one participant though that enforced restrictions on flights for climate change was acceptable. This is unsurprising given the onus places on personal freedoms, but is distinctly individualistic and does not look at the global problem. 

The third barrier is similarly individualistic, and relates to the the belief amongst participants that responsibility for climate change lies with others. Many blambed governments and bussiness for emissions and did not necessary think they could do much about the problem. 

Rather than an attitude-behaviour gap highlighted by other studies, Hares et. al, seems to show there is awareness-attitude gap. Many people do not necessarily think that it is possible to change their behaviour, and even if they were to the impact would be limited. It needs to be remebered, however, that even if awareness if increased that this will not always lead to positive environmental behaviour, with many people exhibiting a preference for individual rather than global gain. 

It is difficult therefore to suggest how this research can impact policy. It is necessary though for the government to send out clear messages about its own activities relating to climate change to help people understand that they are not solely to blame green house gas emissions. As price is often seen as a critical factor when going on holiday, if people are not willing to cut down their air traveling, it could be beneficial to increase the cost, and reduce the money needed for other public transport.