4.6 Article

I Believe I Can Fly-Conceptual Foundations for Behavioral Rebound Effects Related to Voluntary Carbon Offsetting of Air Travel

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13094774

关键词

behavior change; behavioral rebound effect; carbon offsets; flight emissions; flight shame; moral licensing; travel behavior; VCO

资金

  1. University of Graz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Voluntary carbon offsets (VCO) have been introduced as a means of compensating personal carbon emissions related to traveling. Despite low purchases in the past, increasing awareness of climate change may lead to future growth. VCO may not only offset emissions but also help eco-minded individuals alleviate flight shame.
Voluntary carbon offsets (VCO) have been introduced as a means of compensating personal carbon emissions related to travelling. Purchases of VCO have remained low in the past, but might increase in the future due to rising awareness about climate change. VCO have been assumed to increase the acceptability of flying among eco-minded people. Therefore, VCO might not only be a tool to offset emissions but also to compensate for flight shame. Much research has been carried out to detect VCO purchasers' motives, but none has explored the potential behavioral rebound effects of VCO with regard to flying. This article contributes to the debate by presenting a conceptual framework that was developed to investigate these rebound effects. First, we present the motives that travelers have for offsetting their flight emissions. These motives already indicate the possibility of a rebound effect. Second, we discuss several conceptual ideas which should be considered for the design of empirical studies. Overall, we argue that the use of VCO might lead to unintended carbon emissions; however, isolating the specific role of VCO remains a difficult task. Nevertheless, research on behavioral rebound effects is needed to clarify whether VCO counteract sustainability in the transport sector.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据