GENERAL HAPPINESS AND TOURISM BEHAVIOR Ecological Efficient Tourism Jeroen Nawijn Paul Peeters

Content of presentation Background of study Crash course happiness studies Previous studies on tourism Methodology Conclusion & discussion

Background of study

Crash course happiness studies

Previous studies on tourism

Methodology

Conclusion & discussion

Background Sustainability related to tourism focuses on: preservation of nature and cultures, poverty alleviation and reduced climate change. These issues are mostly economic and environmental ‘despite the early definitional focus of sustainable tourism on subjective well-being (SWB) and intergenerational equity’ (Hardy, Beeton and Pearson 2002)

Sustainability related to tourism focuses on: preservation of nature and cultures, poverty alleviation and reduced climate change. These issues are mostly economic and environmental ‘despite the early definitional focus of sustainable tourism on subjective well-being (SWB) and intergenerational equity’

(Hardy, Beeton and Pearson 2002)

Ecological-efficiency (I) The eco-efficiency of long haul travel is on average about ten times worse compared to the world economy average (Gössling, Peeters, Ceron, Dubois, Patterson and Richardson 2005)

The eco-efficiency of long haul travel is on average about ten times worse compared to the world economy average

(Gössling, Peeters, Ceron, Dubois, Patterson and Richardson 2005)

Ecological-efficiency (II) Long haul travel requires air transport, which does not only contribute to climate change through emissions of carbon dioxide but also by emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon-hydrates, water vapor and the forming of contrails. Half of the contribution to current aviation related climate change is caused by these non-carbon dioxide impacts (Sausen, Isaksen, Grewe, Hauglustaine, Lee, Myhre, Köhler, Pitari, Schumann, Stordal and Zerefos 2005).

Long haul travel requires air transport, which does not only contribute to climate change through emissions of carbon dioxide but also by emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon-hydrates, water vapor and the forming of contrails. Half of the contribution to current aviation related climate change is caused by these non-carbon dioxide impacts

(Sausen, Isaksen, Grewe, Hauglustaine, Lee, Myhre, Köhler, Pitari, Schumann, Stordal and Zerefos 2005).

Our question Would a future with less long haul travel lead to general unhappiness?

Would a future with less long haul travel lead to general unhappiness?

Crash course happiness (I) What is it? (SWB) Evaluation of one’s life (life satisfaction) combined with positive affect and negative affect Generally measured on a 1-7 or 1-10 scale, using either one question or a scale (SWLS, SHS, PANAS, etc).

What is it? (SWB)

Evaluation of one’s life (life satisfaction) combined with positive affect and negative affect

Generally measured on a 1-7 or 1-10 scale, using either one question or a scale (SWLS, SHS, PANAS, etc).

Crash course happiness (II) What determines one’s happiness? Goal striving Coping skills / life events Health Meaningful relationships Income/wealth Optimism Religion (meaning of life) Work

What determines one’s happiness?

Goal striving

Coping skills / life events

Health

Meaningful relationships

Income/wealth

Optimism

Religion (meaning of life)

Work

Previous studies on tourism Travel does not change the level of general happiness. However, other variables such as activity level on a trip, may intervene (Milman 1998) Length of stay (LOS) negatively (-0.09) influences satisfaction with life in general for those who stay six or fewer nights on a trip (Neal 2001) The anticipation of a holiday trip positively affects happiness (Gilbert and Abdullah 2002) LOS had a positive effect (0.12) for those who stay seven or more nights (Neal and Sirgy 2004)

Travel does not change the level of general happiness. However, other variables such as activity level on a trip, may intervene (Milman 1998)

Length of stay (LOS) negatively (-0.09) influences satisfaction with life in general for those who stay six or fewer nights on a trip (Neal 2001)

The anticipation of a holiday trip positively affects happiness (Gilbert and Abdullah 2002)

LOS had a positive effect (0.12) for those who stay seven or more nights (Neal and Sirgy 2004)

Methodology Sample of CVO n = 588 Travel data from late 2001- early 2006 Happiness measured once, early 2006 Scale: SHS (4 items), corrected for known effects

Sample of CVO

n = 588

Travel data from late 2001- early 2006

Happiness measured once, early 2006

Scale: SHS (4 items), corrected for known effects

Conclusion (I) First hypothesis: the general happiness of leisure tourists is positively correlated to the total distance the tourist travels to destinations SUPPORTED (very) low correlation of 0.087, significant at 0.05 level

First hypothesis: the general happiness of leisure tourists is positively correlated to the total distance the tourist travels to destinations

SUPPORTED

(very) low correlation of 0.087, significant at 0.05 level

Conclusion (II) Second hypothesis: the general happiness of people is positively correlated to the number of long haul leisure trips SUPPORTED low statistical correlation between corrected general happiness and the number of long haul leisure trips undertaken between 2001 and 2006 is low, 0.140, significant at the 0.01 level

Second hypothesis: the general happiness of people is positively correlated to the number of long haul leisure trips

SUPPORTED

low statistical correlation between corrected general happiness and the number of long haul leisure trips undertaken between 2001 and 2006 is low, 0.140, significant at the 0.01 level

Conclusion (III) Third hypothesis: general happiness is positively correlated to the amount of freedom of destination choice SUPPORTED The feeling of being limited in one’s destination choice correlates with corrected general happiness negatively with –0.244, significant at the 0.01 level

Third hypothesis: general happiness is positively correlated to the amount of freedom of destination choice

SUPPORTED

The feeling of being limited in one’s destination choice correlates with corrected general happiness negatively with –0.244, significant at the 0.01 level

Conclusion (IV) Fourth hypothesis: general happiness is positively correlated to the reported personal ‘importance of traveling’ PARTLY SUPPORTED The correlation between the statement “travel is important to me” and corrected general happiness is 0.078 but is not significant However: there is a correlation of 0.095 between corrected general happiness and importance of travel when controlling for limitation in destination choice (significant at the 0.01 level).

Fourth hypothesis: general happiness is positively correlated to the reported personal ‘importance of traveling’

PARTLY SUPPORTED

The correlation between the statement “travel is important to me” and corrected general happiness is 0.078 but is not significant

However: there is a correlation of 0.095 between corrected general happiness and importance of travel when controlling for limitation in destination choice (significant at the 0.01 level).

Would a future with less long haul travel lead to general unhappiness? (I) Travel to remote locations seems not necessary to achieve greater general happiness, thus reducing the environmental impact by reducing the total distance traveled may be reached without loss of general happiness.

Travel to remote locations seems not necessary to achieve greater general happiness, thus reducing the environmental impact by reducing the total distance traveled may be reached without loss of general happiness.

Would a future with less long haul travel lead to general unhappiness? (II) If aviation is actually reduced, then some impact on general happiness might occur. But this might be in two directions: people actually hindered by the limits become a bit less happy, while people that now already are limited in travel choice might change their goals with respect to travel and thus become more happy. Finally the causality is of importance; if happy people travel on average more than unhappy people, limits to air transport will not affect general happiness.

If aviation is actually reduced, then some impact on general happiness might occur. But this might be in two directions: people actually hindered by the limits become a bit less happy, while people that now already are limited in travel choice might change their goals with respect to travel and thus become more happy.

Finally the causality is of importance; if happy people travel on average more than unhappy people, limits to air transport will not affect general happiness.

Lead for follow-up study The happiest people (7.42) are those that consider travel important and who are not limited in their destination choice (n = 182, SD = 1.78). The least happy people (5.29) are those who state travel is not important to them and that they are limited in their destination choice (n = 30, SD = 2.23).

The happiest people (7.42) are those that consider travel important and who are not limited in their destination choice (n = 182, SD = 1.78).

The least happy people (5.29) are those who state travel is not important to them and that they are limited in their destination choice (n = 30, SD = 2.23).