time, tourism consumption and sustainable development

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. (2012)Published online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1893

Time, Tourism Consumption andSustainable DevelopmentJanet E. Dickinson1,* and Paul Peeters21School of Tourism, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, UK2NHTV Centre for Sustainable Transport and Tourism, NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences,Breda, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

The availability of time has played a pivotalrole in the analysis of tourism. An examinationof social theory and time suggests that touristsexperience time in multiple ways, which hasimplications for the traditional temporal andspatial reference frame. This article calls for abetter understanding of ‘time’ in tourism andsets the agenda for further research into timeand the sustainable development of tourism.It analyses the role of time in shaping tourismconsumption and illustrates the challengesposed by new temporal understandings anddistance concepts to create less greenhouse-gas-dependent tourism in our society.Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 20 June 2011; Revised 16 May 2012; Accepted 18May 2012

Keywords: time; consumption; travel; distance;climate change; sustainability.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism is an example of consumptiveorientated leisurewhere demand, provision,improved technology and infrastructure is

driving tourists further away, faster, more often,for fewer days per trip. Analysis of tourism’scontribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsshows that travel to a destination is a key contribu-tor. Estimates for the overall contribution of travelto tourism’s GHG emissions are about 75% (Scott

*Correspondence to: Janet E. Dickinson, School of Tourism,Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Poole, DorsetBH12 5BB, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

et al., 2010). Air travel contributes around 40% ofthe carbon dioxide emissions from tourism travel(Scott et al., 2010), despite accounting for only17% of global tourist trips (Bows et al., 2009). Cartravel is also a significant contributor, with therather broad category of leisure-related travelaccounting for 40–50% of travel in developedcountries (Becken and Hay, 2007). This representsa significant share of the 13% contribution toGHG emissions by the transport sector (Gösslingand Upham, 2009). However, air travel is by farthe fastest mode for medium to long haul travel,and the trend is for both the number and lengthof flights to increase (Peeters, 2007; Peeters andDubois, 2010a, 2010b), whereas car travel has thelargest share of tourism overland travel due, inpart, to its perceived speed and ability to fluidlynegotiate scheduling constraints.Growth in tourism consumption raises

important questions about the production ofGHG emissions. As travel technology hasdeveloped and speeds increased, this enabledpeople to travel faster and therefore further atlower cost within the time a tourist has avail-able. This opened up new destinations to massmarkets. Fundamental to this development isthe interaction between time, travel speed andtravel distance. These issues are rarely takeninto account in discussions to develop sustain-able tourism policies. Researchers examiningtime have both questioned the quantity of timeavailable for leisure use and reconsidered thenature of time itself, recognizing multiple tem-poralities, paces and rhythms. This calls forresearch to consider the relationship betweentime and sustainable mobility. In exploring theseelements, this article unpacks assumptionsand highlights emerging research problems forthe theoretical reappraisal of the relationshipbetween tourism and time. In doing so, we

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. E. Dickinson and P. Peeters

consider how emerging temporal conditionsmight provide opportunities for more sustain-able tourism consumption practice to reduceGHG emissions.In developed countries, industrial, or clock

time, has dominated social life since industrial-isation. Recreation and tourism emerged fromthe social institution of clock time as it wasincreasingly recognized that time-out fromwork was essential for human well-being andincreased productivity of the workforce. Sincethe emergence of statutory work hours regula-tions in Europe and other industrialized nations,the hours worked per week has graduallydecreased, whereas annual holiday entitlementhas increased. Together with rising disposableincome, this has led to rapid growth of thetourism sector. In the last two decades of the20th century, however, the decrease in hoursworked has been less marked in Europe, a trendnoted earlier in the USA. Since the 1990s, it hasbeen widely discussed that for some groups ofworkers, working hours maybe on the increase(Castells, 2000). Overall, this increase in workinghours has been masked by the widespread entryof women to the labour market who work, onaverage, fewer hours than do men (Echteltet al., 2006).Concurrently, changing working practices,

particularly linked to post-Fordist organizations,together with the rise of the Network Society(Castells, 2000), have led some sectors of societyto experience time in a different way; referred toas timeless time (Castells, 2000), fragmentedtime (Klein, 2004) or instantaneous time (Urry,1994). For many educated professionals, timehas become more relative and contextual ratherthan a linear, measurable concept as work andleisure spaces become blurred. At the same time,across Western society as a whole, a growingproportion of the population have experiencedgreater temporal fluidity, facilitated by informa-tion technologies, which has altered the trad-itional frame of temporal and spatial referenceand the need for copresence to perform key tasks(Castells, 2000). As a result, society has entered aperiod where two phases of time coexist andmix, which has implications for tourism becausetime, as measured by clock time, has playeda pivotal role in the emergence and most of thedevelopment of tourism. In 1996, Deemsuggested that the study of leisure had a long


way to go to engage more fully with debatesabout social theory and time, yet relatively littlehas been written in recent years specificallyrelating to tourism and time. Although theavailability of time has traditionally framed ourunderstanding of the opportunity for tourism,the emergence of new theoretical perspectiveson time, both within tourism and other disci-plines, may revise this position.

Three core topics are explored. First, drawingon a growing body of theory analysing newconcepts of temporality, this article begins byconsidering how relative and variable under-standings of time structure the tourism experi-ence and the demand for mobility. This setsthe scene for subsequent analysis.

Second, because a cost, distance, time modelhas dominated the analysis of travel, the time-bound structures in late modernity pose asignificant constraint when choosing modes oftransport (Dickinson et al., 2010). However, aswe demonstrate, contemporary analysis ques-tions this perspective, and emerging conceptssuch as slow travel reveal alternative directions.In the typicalmodel, travel time is constructed asa disutility, and time spent travelling is viewedas wasted time. It is not clear, given the widerange of tourism choices, why society hasembraced the desire to travel ever greater dis-tances for a given amount of travel time spent,which has changed little during the past fourdecades (see, e.g. Hupkes, 1982; Metz, 2008;Peters, 2006; Schäfer and Victor, 2000). Peoplehave used the higher speed of new transporttechnology to increase the distance travelled asopposed to visiting places nearer to home, morequickly, while saving time for leisure activities.This reflects a Western, and to some extentAsian, tendency to value the special, the biggestand the furthest higher than other goods, withmobility and speed at the heart of modernity(Germann Molz, 2009). Additional time, incomeand improved travel infrastructure has enabledan increasing, although still small, proportionof the world’s population to travel furtherand more often. This has led to various globalinequalities. For instance, whereas about85–90%of theworld population does not engagein international travel due to lack of time andwealth (an estimate based on UNWTO (2011)and United Nations (2011)), it is the poor whoare differentially impacted by climate change.

Int. J. Tourism Res. (2012)DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Time, Tourism Consumption and Sustainable Development

Füssel (2010) showed the existence of a ‘doubleinequity’ at the nation level, meaning that thosenations benefiting least from GHG emissionsare most vulnerable to the impacts of climatechange. Faster travel can not only bring greaterdirect environmental impacts, but it also enablesproductivity gains and further consumption.With the longer distance travel now undertakenby tourists, air travel is the only realistic alterna-tive for many destinations and source marketcombinations. Given the apparent significanceof time, it is important to consider how contem-porary perspectives on temporality might alterour core understandings of tourism travel.Third, drawing on wider debates from the

literature on time and sustainable consumption,this article explores and questions the linkbetween work, time and tourism consumption.Hayden and Shandra (2009) have linked shorterworking hours to positive environmental bene-fits; however, there is a need for more carefulanalysis of work hours in relation to tourismconsumption. If work hours are decreasing, thismay reduce the need for fast transport, but at thesame time, it may simply increase the numberof trips. Increasing work time would almostcertainly cause more time pressure and thusthe choice of fast transport but may also reducethe travel frequency. However, new temporalframes associated with the Network Society areenabling a more fluid interpretation of time,new forms of mobility may free up time fortravel, thus negating the direct time constraintassumed above.

TIME AND TOURISM

In society today, it is hard to conceptualize timein any other way than a measure of the 24-hday, yet in earlier times, this classification wouldhave been alien, because a task-orientatedperspective characterized pre-industrial life(Breedveld, 1996), and the concept of time wasvague (Schor, 1991). However, this is not to saythat time did not matter as people would stillfeel the passing of time and consider how longto spend on a task and how many tasks to do.Time always exists as a physical entity inde-pendent of humans. Travel, for example, obeysNewton’s laws of physics, but the way peopleconceptualize this physical idea of time as ‘clocktime’ is, ‘really only a particular form of time at a


particular stage of societal development andself-regulation, even though we may sometimesbe convinced that no other conceptions of time(such as those based on seasons or “natural”rhythms) are valid’ (Deem, 1996, p. 16). Thisemerged around the 13th to 14th centurythrough the more widespread use of clocks,which provided a means to commoditize timeto manage labour (Schor, 1991). Although thistime system pervades most parts of the world,its authority varies depending on the culturalcontext. The emergence of clock time was notabrupt as different time phases necessarily over-lap (Klein, 2004). Although clock time is inevit-ably embedded into a high-tech society, today,society is again witnessing the emergence of anew time phase, and, as this is assimilated intosociety, two time conditions overlap.New technology has, to some extent, released

people from the constraints of space and time:Transport has become ever faster, whereas ICTand communication technologymake it possibleto be in one place physically, but to directlycommunicate with everyone everywhere in theworld (Klein, 2004; Frändberg, 2008). Theongoing sociological debate about time deliv-ered several new conceptions of time, forexample, ‘timeless time’ (Castells, 1997), frag-mented time (Klein, 2004) and ‘space of flows’(Castells, 1997). The extent to which a new phaseof time has permeated society is, as yet, unclear.Although post-Fordist work practices are pre-dominantly amiddle class, professional phenom-ena, elements of a new temporality, such as 24-honline shopping, banking and social networking,have permeated most sectors of society. Also,within the EU, most employees have achievedsome capacity to negotiate more flexible workingpractices even if these are still structured by clocktime. Given the central role played by time insociety, this calls for a theoretical reappraisal ofits role in the structuring of tourism.

Tourism, temporality, pace and mobility

In many explanations of tourism, time is anintegral element. Tourism, as a category ofleisure, can be positioned in binary oppositionto work (see, e.g. Breedveld, 1996; Gershuny,2000), although only if tourism is defined asleisure as opposed to business travel. Althoughthis is a narrow explanation of tourism, the



number of hours at work, the amount of holi-day entitlement and the blocks of time avail-able out of work have traditionally structuredthe opportunity for tourism. Tourism as timeout of work even pervades forms of tourismsuch as ‘lifestyle travellers’ (Cohen, 2011)where tourists often work intermittently to fa-cilitate extended trips. Our experience of this‘bought’ time plays a role in the tourist experi-ence. In broad and simplistic terms, holidaysare the ‘times for our lives’ (Richards, 1998,p. 146), are a ‘time out’ (Elsrud, 1998) and ‘offerrelief from time and place, two of the keyconstraints of everyday life’ (Richards, 1998,p. 146). Here, tourism is seen as an escape fromthe temporal constraints imposed by everydaylife and provides the chance to have ‘owntime’, which is variable depending on theindividual context. A tourist reading on thebeach slows down but some holidays areoverloaded with things to do and demandingtour operator schedules. The latter belong inthe time paradigm of ‘more is better’.Whether tourists are ever really able to

escape from temporal constraints is contested.Most holidays have a time limitation afterwhich people must return home and touristsare surrounded by workers bound by thetemporal constraints of tourism institutionalworking practices (Minca, 2009). Tourism isalso structured by the schedules of trains,airplanes, meal times and attraction openinghours. Tourists need to determine not onlyhow much time is needed for travel to reach adestination or attraction but also howmuch timeshould be allocated to experience the placevisited (Haldrup, 2004). Germann Molz’s (2010)analysis of round-the-world travellers illustratesthe perceived significance of visiting places atthe right time. This might be the appropriateseason to avoid high tourist numbers or to visitemerging destinations before they are overrunby mass tourism. Her analysis demonstrates asignificant level of tourist anxiety in time alloca-tion and correct pacing of trips. Meeting theseschedules can be a significant logistical under-taking for some tourists which Larsen et al.(2007) suggested is in part a work activity. Backin 1970, Linder noted that leisure was becomingless leisurely as leisure participation has intensi-fied with more practices condensed together(Jäckel and Wollscheid, 2007).


As an extension to this dualistic pictureof work and tourism, in which time is seensimply as a constraint, a growing body of theoryis seeking to understand the multiple temporal-ities of tourism. For example, tourists experiencethe unfolding of a place over time during thecourse of travel, encountering different placesat different paces (Haldrup, 2004). The pace ofthe encounter is part of the constituent of place(Bærenholdt et al., 2004; Germann Molz, 2010),and destinations are fluidly encountered andcreated. Different styles of movement (such astravel mode) and different paces (speeds andrhythms) are encoded to some degree in thedestination visited. Thus, mode and style oftravel influence rhythms that create a sense ofplace (Edensor, 2010). In addition, tourism expli-citly seeks out different times (Germann Molz,2010). The experience of time is variable (Adam,1995), and temporal differences are apparent indestinations due to different cultural expressionsof time and the daily rhythms of life. Forexample, tourists might seek the past by visitinga place seemingly rooted in a more traditionalway of life, and one often revealing gross globalinequality, or one structured through memoriesof past visitation (Bærenholdt et al., 2004).

Related to the above points are also moral,ethical and political dimensions to the temporal-ity of tourism. Institutionally imposed rhythmsbecome habitual (Edensor and Holloway,2008). These can become routinized to such anextent that we are often unaware that particu-lar rhythms exist (Adam, 1995). These influ-ence mobility and travel choices as they areembedded in the norms of tourist behaviour.Combined with other structural forces, suchas the transport infrastructure available(Dickinson et al., 2010), temporal rhythmspotentially limit the choices available to tour-ists. Linked with the importance of spending‘enough’ time in particular places, temporalitybecomes morally charged, and the availabilityof time budgets is imbued with power(Germann Molz, 2010). Aligned with this isthe unevenness of access to speed (Edensor,2010). At a global scale, few have access to fastforms of transportation, and even withinWestern society, there is considerable travelinequality (Holden, 2007). To explore theseissues further, the next section examines widerdebates on time and sustainable consumption.



Sustainable consumption, work, time andtourism

Several studies have examined the role of timein sustainable consumption more broadly. Onthe one hand, Victor (2010) suggested that wewill need a steady-state economy, or evendegrowth, to deal with environmental problemsand improved productivity, with increasedleisure time as an important factor. Providingsome optimism here, analysis suggests thatworking shorter hours might bring about envir-onmental benefits (Sanne, 2002; Hayden andShandra, 2009). Reducing work hours atconstant productivity would limit GDP, whichis a major driver of eco-footprints. Workingfewer hoursmay also facilitatemore sustainable,time-consuming, lifestyle practices such ascycling or using public transport. On the otherhand, given the energy intensity of some formsof tourism (Gössling et al., 2005), if more leisuretime increases tourism consumption at the costof ‘average consumption’, this adds to unsus-tainable development. Conversely, workinglong hours results in time scarcity, which mightdrive people to less sustainable consumerchoices such as convenience goods.A review of the average annual hours worked

(Table 1) indicates that most countries saw adrop in work hours from 1970 to 2000; however,a relatively stable picture emerges over the last10 years. As data for part-time workers maymask increasing hours for full-time workers, adetailed analysis of the last 10years of data forUK full-time workers (Table 2) suggests a fairlystable pattern of weekly hours for most categor-ies of employment, with a small drop in hours

Table 1. Average annual hours worked per worker for se

Country 1970 1980 1990 2000 2001 20

Canada — 1787 1756 1756 1751 17Denmark 1855 1630 1515 1549 1554 15France 1873 1699 1581 1491 1481 14Greece — — 1736 1818 1826 18Hungary — 1930 1710 1795 1766 17Japan — — 2064 1853 1836 18The Netherlands 1830 1581 1433 1331 1330 13UK 1877 1713 1711 1690 1693 16USA 1895 1815 1833 1835 1814 18

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developm


for some. However, figures can mask overem-ployment, the phenomenon of working morehours than desired, and there is a well-knowngap between actual and preferred work hours(Echtelt et al., 2006). One explanation for over-employment is the ‘social rationality approach’(Echtelt et al., 2006) or ‘social contagion’(Brett and Stroh, 2003), where workers makesocial comparisons and feel that they need tobe seen to be working more hours and feelobliged to finish tasks by a deadline so as notto let down colleagues or be perceived badly.Linked to this concern for status is also thedesire to workmore hours to enhance promotionopportunities (Golden, 2009). These elements areparticularly a feature of post-Fordist workstructures where responsibility for completingtasks and working hours is shifted to the workerfrom the employer (Echtelt et al., 2006). Evenamong less skilled tourism employees, there isevidence that the workforce is controlled by thegaze of other employees (Minca, 2009). For manyprofessional workers, the ability to tap into anetwork of information outside of work has ledto an acceleration of this process (Castells, 2000),with evidence that a larger proportion of paidwork is undertaken at home (Holliday, 1996).A further explanation for overemployment

arises from leisure studies, where it is suggestedthat leisure is no longer the opposite of work,as once portrayed by Parker (1983); as workstructures have changed, many jobs are morefulfilling, and work can even be seen as an emo-tional respite from home (Brett and Stroh, 2003).Veijola (2009, p. 101) suggested that ‘contempor-ary working life in theWesternizedworld seemsto have become more and more tourist-like:

lected countries (full-time and part-time workers)

02 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

38 1727 1744 1734 1734 1731 1725 169942 1540 1544 1548 1556 1547 1549 154745 1441 1469 1466 1447 1468 1475 146918 1812 1803 1811 1796 1782 1803 177766 1777 1807 1803 1799 1778 1786 174925 1828 1816 1802 1811 1808 1792 173317 1309 1309 1301 1300 1297 1301 128878 1658 1652 1658 1652 1660 1638 —10 1800 1803 1801 1802 1799 1797 1776

ent, 2010.


Table 2. Actual hours worked per week by employment category for UK full-time workers

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Armed forces 45.88 46.50 47.60 47.55 46.33 45.18 46.50 46.43 45.20 45.95Legislators, senior officialsand managers

44.98 45.35 44.90 44.73 44.53 44.33 44.23 44.40 43.88 43.95

Professionals 42.20 42.75 42.50 42.50 42.28 42.10 42.00 41.85 41.73 41.75Technicians and associateprofessionals

40.48 40.13 39.83 39.58 39.63 39.58 39.48 39.65 39.43 39.50

Clerks 37.60 37.35 36.83 36.75 36.68 36.88 36.98 36.90 36.73 37.03Service workers and shopand market sales workers

40.43 39.93 39.40 39.28 39.13 39.18 39.05 39.03 38.78 38.83

Skilled agricultural andfishery workers

48.10 49.73 48.45 48.13 48.80 47.70 47.63 48.75 48.08 48.40

Craft and related trades workers 43.10 43.23 42.75 42.60 42.68 42.35 42.43 42.13 41.90 41.45Plant and machine operatorsand assemblers

44.00 43.68 43.48 43.50 43.40 43.03 43.23 43.25 42.55 42.45

Elementary occupations 41.00 41.58 41.33 41.20 41.10 41.00 40.80 41.08 40.53 40.35Total 42.71 42.93 42.61 42.49 42.36 42.06 42.14 42.25 41.80 41.88

Source: Eurostat, 2010.

Table 3. Variability in weekly hours (Labour ForceSurvey 1991 and 2010)

1991 2010

n % n %

Weekly hours vary 26 666 42.8 16 245 40.7Weekly hours same 35 600 57.2 23 712 59.3Total 62 266 39 957

Source: Office for National Statistics, 2010: Office ofPopulation Censuses and Surveys, 1992.

Table 4. Hours of paid/unpaid overtime (LabourForce Survey 1991 and 2010)

MeanStandarddeviation

Actual paid overtime hours1991 3.24 6.5612010 3.06 10.920

Actual unpaid overtime hours1991 2.85 6.5272010 4.53 12.349

Source: Office for National Statistics, 2010; Office ofPopulation Censuses and Surveys, 1992.


being largely based on information, communica-tion, hospitality and experiences’. Within tour-ism settings, where work and leisure spaces areblurred, there has been an intensification of tour-ist workers’ lives as their work becomes their life(Veijola, 2009). For some, this can provide anidealized lifestyle (Minca, 2009).Although it is difficult to find clear empirical

evidence of change in work time flexibility,with the Labour Force Survey suggesting littlechange in the variability of hours worked perweek (Table 3), unpaid overtime has gone upfrom 1991 to 2010, with standard deviationsindicating a wide spread of overtime hours in2010, indicating that some workers take onconsiderable overtime (Table 4). However, inother respects, work time has fallen. Forinstance, there has been a shortening of thenumber of years people work as they enterthe workforce later due to higher education.There has also been a decline in employmentof over 50s (Castells, 2000), although recenteconomic forces are pushing the state retire-ment age higher in the EU.Although the picture on overemployment is

mixed, several analyses suggest that workinglong hours drives people to spend money tocompensate (Reisch, 2001), leading to overcon-sumption of ‘products that generate feelings ofcomfort rather than pleasure’ (Gratton, 1996,p. 102) and Schor (1996, p. 16) suggested that


the increasing working hours push people tomuch shorter and frequent holidays as ‘they feelthey need it because they are highly stressed out,



burned out, and fatigued, and feel they justhave to get away’. Data support this shift (see,e.g. Alegre and Pou, 2006) as the averagelength of holidays has fallen. However, recentempirical evidence suggests that length of stayis not necessarily related to available time andmay be better explained by destination attributes(GermannMolz, 2010) and tourist characteristics(Barros and Machado, 2010). Time, therefore, isnot only a constraint in terms of its overall avail-ability; the experience of time also governs emer-ging practice. Tourists also become habituated toparticular temporal rhythms both within theirmobility and when planning mobility. Inaddition, other social institutions, such as schoolholidays, both fix periods for holiday and limitthe time available, as does the tendency to takeholidays in 1- or 2-week blocks (Alegre andPou, 2006).

The experience of travel time

There is some consistency in the time peopleare willing to allocate to travel. Over a certaindistance, there is a rapid decay in touristnumbers to an attraction (Prideaux, 2002), andthe development of transport infrastructure hasplayed a significant role in destination develop-ment (Prideaux, 2000). Within this model, whichis increasingly contested (Holley et al., 2008),travel time is seen as wasted time, althoughgreater distance and time commitment can beovercome by the strength of destination attrac-tion and society’s desire and excitement for theexotic, with recent studies suggesting this maybe addictive (Cohen et al., 2011). However, giventhe strength of society’s institutionally embed-ded time structures, travel distances havepredominantly increased through technologicaldevelopments resulting in greater speed oftravel (Peeters and Landré, 2012), one outcomebeing increased GHG emissions.Time limitations have become a pervasive

feature of arguments in the industry, mediaand academia that favour car and air travel.The argument stands in some contexts but isalso a perceptual barrier. An obvious exampleis the increasing speed of international traintravel. Evidence suggests that tourists areoverly pessimistic about travel times by modesother than air travel (Dickinson et al., 2010).The perception of travel time is therefore a


limitation in its own right and is influencedby geographic distance, travel costs, familiaritywith travel route, attractiveness of route, modeof transport, rational for trip (business or leisure)(Wittmer and Laesser, 2010), habituation andsocial norms (Hares et al., 2010).The level of ‘time sovereignty’ (Cass et al., 2004),

that is, the control over temporal flexibility,is also socially differentiated. Some sectors ofsociety have much greater freedom to dictatetheir temporal arrangements of travel thanothers. The transport poor, who are more relianton public transport, find their lives and leisureopportunities determined by the temporal avail-ability of transport, and the ways in which timeand space patterns govern people’s lives canlead to exclusion from certain activities (Casset al., 2005). In this respect, time is one of severaldimensions controlling access and creatingtravel inequality, the others being financial,physical and organizational (Cass et al., 2005).The access to ‘time shifting’ devices, such as thecar, is desirable because they offer superior timesovereignty (Southerton et al., 2001) despite thenegative environmental externalities.People’s social circumstances also frame

tourism decisions, and there are identity issuesfor those who opt to utilize time differently.There is much cultural significance attached tothe consumption of positional goods such as holi-days (Reisch, 2001), and Jackson (2005) suggestedthat it is foolish to appeal to people to consumeless given the symbolic nature of these goods.Status is attached to travelling further and fasterand visiting the right places (Germann Molz,2010); hence, less travel might be seen as inferior.There is also desire for, and thrill of, speed(Germann Molz, 2009). Coupled with the wayconsumer decisions are locked into day-to-daypractice (Jackson, 2005), this is a negative forcefor sustainable tourism.Elsrud (1998, p. 309) suggested that the journey

may be a time when the ‘traveller regains controlof her own time and movement’. Slow travelrepresents a movement challenging the idea ofthe faster being better syndrome. It has emergedfrom the wider slow movement (Dickinsonand Lumsdon, 2010) and is associated with areconceptualization of time and a ‘subversion ofthe dominance of speed’ (Parkins, 2004, p. 363).Slow travel is also a less consumptive formof tourism associated with environmental



stewardship (Germann Molz, 2009), where airand car travel is avoided in favour of sloweroverland modes of transport and presents ascenario where tourists might reduce GHGemissions. This makes it an interesting case toconsider in terms of new conceptualizations oftime. Parkins (2004) suggested that differenttemporalities make up everyday life, and slowliving points to an alternative understanding oftime itself. ‘In a non-stop society, leisurelinessand unhurriedness are becoming attractive’(Reisch, 2001, p. 376).Dickinson et al. (2010) found some evidence

that slow travellers rationalize travel distancedecisions differently with other tourists, withless focus on getting to a specific destinationand a stronger focus on the travel mode andwhere it is feasible to go. Taking more time todo somethingwell is an aspect widely embracedby the slow movement, and there is some moralsuperiority attached to this position (GermannMolz, 2009). Slow travel options generally,although not always, take longer, but this mightnot be negative as a slow traveller reflects:

Louise: It took a long time to get there, Isuppose. It seemed to take two days. Wehad to cycle from here [Bournemouth] toPoole get on the ferry to St Malo and staythe night in a hotel there. The next day taketwo trains to further along the Brittanycoast and then at the end of that we cycledabout 15 miles to where we were going tostay. All of that was quite nice it took fromSaturday morning to late Sunday after-noon to get to where we were going. I’mnot complaining. . . it was really enjoyable(Dickinson et al., 2011, p. 291).

In the case of slow travel, travel itself is acore element of the tourist experience rather thanan ancillary service using up valuable time(Dickinson and Lumsdon, 2010). A 24-h trainjourney is not an arduous trip but an integralelement of the slow travel experience duringwhich a tourist will enjoy a restaurant meal,overnight accommodation, a changing land-scape as it morphs before them and time withfamily or friends. ‘To live slowly. . .meansengaging in “mindful” rather than “mindless”practices which makes us consider the pleasureor at least the purpose of each task to which wegive our time’ (Parkins, 2004, p. 364). However,


access to some forms of transport is onlypossible for those with ‘time to spare’. ‘In optingfor these modes rather than faster alternatives,there is a conscious trade-off between timeand the quality of the experience’ (Cass et al.,2004, p.120).

Klein (2004) has observed that SNCF’s (theFrench national railway company) originalTGVadvertising focused on the ‘speed and lesstime’ message, that is, the view that travel timeis wasted time. However, after several years,the company realized it was

neglecting the time spent by its clients in itstrains. The more comfortable furnishingsof the latest generations of wagons, theeffort to develop on-board services andthe latest advertising campaign (‘Take thetime to spend less time’) all indicate areversal of the initial attitude, and currentefforts to make the most of the travel time(Klein, 2004, p. 260).

Other studies of utility travel on trains and incars indicate that this time can be productive(Laurier, 2004; Holley et al., 2008) and SalomonandMokhtarian (1998) identified ‘excess travel’where people choose to travel further than theyneed to in their everyday lives. These studieshave questioned the use of time saving in policyappraisal of infrastructure such as new roads.Holley et al. (2008) concluded that if travel timeis not a cost to the employer, then the benefit ofreducing that time is less.

The experience of travel time is thereforemultiple and varied. Although increasing speedof travel has been important in opening up newmarket–destination combinations, the variedexperience and use of time during travel presentsome opportunities for the future sustainableconsumption of tourism as it may challenge theidea of wasted time during travel and thusreduce the pressure on fast transport modes.

The sustainable consumption of tourism andtime

From the previous discussion, three time forcescan be identified. First, there is a growingmiddle-class, affluent population working inpost-Fordist organizations. Statistics reveal noclear trends towards more or less working timeor leisure time.However, the distinction between



working hours and leisure hours is reducing.Second, increased productivity could enablesociety to work (slightly) less, but history showsmuch increased productivity is used to increaseincome. Third, new conceptualizations of timeplay a greater role in society, and there is erosionof traditional place- and time-bound structures.Each of these is now subject to further analysisof their implications for tourism consumption.

Increasingly affluent but time-pressured population.Under this position, it can be assumed that mostof the gains in leisure time have been achieved,and people will make choices about how tospend their leisure time from a growing rangeof options. This will increase free time pressureas people seek to pack in more opportunitiesand lead to choices that are most time efficient(see Figure 1 for hypothetical scenarios). Froma tourism perspective, this implies a greaterreliance on air and car travel, with a potentialshift to high-speed rail where infrastructure isavailable. Tourists would be prepared to payfor luxury goods, as time is at a premium, withmore intense use of resources in touristconsumption at destinations and during travel.This implies growing GHG emissions. This isthe current tourism path where time is seen asa constraint.On the other hand, as technology reaches a

peak, greater speeds will be hard to achieve,and time will limit distance, becoming a grow-ing constraint and an indirect limit on GHGemissions. A society with seemingly infiniteleisure choice may find it has less time to travel,

Tim

e pr

essu

re

Time constant

Income increasing

Higher trip frequency

Figure 1. Hypothetical tourism consumption scenarios abut time-pressured population.


although people may choose to spend timeon an alternative carbon intensive activity.However, this point has not been reachedbecause the average travel speed is still increas-ing because only a small share of the globalpopulation, some 2–5% (Gössling and Peeters,2007), has access to air transport and thus speedmay increase for the remaining population.Furthermore, although the average speed of airtransport is not increasing for a given distance,there is still a shift towards larger averagedistances. A longer flight has relatively moretime spent cruising and therefore a distinctlyhigher average speed than short flights (Peetersand Landré, 2012), most likely causing a furtherincrease of average travel speed and distances.Currently, moves to limit travel are viewednegatively. Time might be an indirect mecha-nism that limits travel in the future. There aresignificant industry implications of this perspec-tive. Tourists are most able to adapt their behav-iour to places near to home that can be accessedquickly. Some destinations might be betterable to capture the time-squeezed tourist due toproximate markets and availability of high-speed surface infrastructure. Tour operatorshave already developed packages aimed at thismarket. Other destinations may decline. Thisonly holds as long as subsonic flight is the endof technological development. With develop-ments in commercial space flight, the most afflu-ent in society will be able to fly through space tothe other side of the world in a matter of 3 to 5 h,increasing speed by some 80–85%. The impactsof commercial space flight might be very large

Time savouring travel choices

Increase in other forms of consumption

CO2 +or -

Shorter distance/ less trips

CO2 -

Time saving travel choices

Mode:AirCarHigh-speed rail

CO2 +

Luxury tourism goods

CO2 +

nd CO2 outcomes assuming an increasingly affluent



as a recent study revealed that it would onlytake 1000 commercial space flights to cause thesame amount of radiative forcing as all historicaviation since 1945 (Ross et al., 2010).

Increased productivity is taken as greater leisuretime. Increased productivity could enablesociety as a whole to work less, and giventhe relative affluence of Western society, it isodd that more people do not already workless. To some extent, the EU has gone furtherdown this path than elsewhere, with statutoryemployment law embedding holidays withpay; thus, time is already less of a constraint.Although it is difficult to stop people voluntarilyoverworking and working during holidays,even where there are statutory restrictions inplace, a government policy to reduce overem-ployment is a possible option. This is a particu-larly attractive equity measure in countrieswhere there is a widening poverty gap and highunemployment. This would result in more timeavailability but with static or lower incomes forthe richer part of the population.A greater availability of leisure time in itself

may facilitate a reduction of time constraintsand provide the opportunity for longer holidays,but social and other temporal constraints mayremain. This could have varying impacts onGHG emissions (see Figure 2). On the one hand,tourists could opt for longer stays, which wouldimprove the eco-efficiency of tourism as thesubstantial travel emissions are averaged out

More time available

Longer tourism stays

Decline in speed and more use of slow travel modes

More distant travel

Shorter holidays, more often, increasingly distant

Figure 2. Hypothetical tourism consumption scenarios antaken as more leisure time.


over a longer period (see, e.g. Gössling et al.,2005; Peeters et al., 2006; Peeters and Schouten,2006). However, this will only work if thenumber of trips decreased. More time could alsofacilitate more of the current model, which isshorter holidays,more frequently and of increas-ing distance. Other forces are also at work, witha study of tourist happiness indicating that, dueto pre-trip pleasure, a high frequency of shorttrips generatesmore happiness than do few longtrips (Nawijn, 2011). Therefore, tourism emis-sions as a whole would continue to increasedue to more tourism. Another impact might bethat the number of trips stays the same but thattourists opt for more sustainable modes of trans-port that take longer but have lower GHG emis-sions: the slow travel model. However, giventhat air and car travel are structurally embeddedin tourism, leisure time is not the only factor toconsider here, although Schor (2005) suggesteda general decline in demand for speed whenpeople have a time surplus.

Alternatively, more leisure time could leadtourism tomoreGHG emissions asmore distant,exotic and time-consuming travel becomesviable. The trend for young, educated, middle-class people to travel the globe on a round-the-world air ticket and the extended holidaysof retired people are obvious examples. This, ofcourse, presupposes that tourists have thewealth to fund such travel. What is perhapsmore likely is relatively inexpensive tourism,such as camping for several weeks, an option

Impa

ct m

oder

ated

by

stat

ic o

r de

clin

ing

inco

me

and

incr

easi

ng s

ocia

l equ

ity e

nabl

ing

mor

e pe

ople

to

take

par

t in

tour

ism

.

CO2 -

CO2 -

CO2 +

CO2 +

d CO2 outcomes assuming increased productivity is



popular among Dutch tourists who have highlevels of statutory paid holiday. Unlike thewiderwork on consumption (see, e.g. Hayden andShandra, 2009), lower environmental impactis not an obvious outcome of more time avail-ability for tourism, but it is a possible outcome.More has to change to reduce the environmentalimpacts of tourism. There are also concernsthat although, in theory, policy could enablepeople to negotiate shorter working hours, thereare established social norms about length ofholidays and the 40-h week that might be abarrier (Sanne, 2002).

Society enters a new time phase. The increasingrelease of society from traditional place- andtime-bound structures may have significantimplications for utility travel, and recent datasuggest a break of the link between GDP andtravel (Department for Transport, 2009). Theimplications for tourist travel are of a differentnature given that tourism, at least undercurrent conceptualizations, is place related. Itis not yet clear how this new phase of time willmanifest itself in society except that time willbe available in different packages with anincreasing temporal and spatial fluidity. Currentevidence points to new time structures as astrong force for unsustainable consumption.There are evidently opportunities for new formsof tourism that integrate work and leisure,because people are released from traditionalspatial and temporal constraints that requiredcopresence for work. Because time is no longerfixed to the clock it ceases to be a constraintin the way it is currently understood. The ques-tion is whether this simply leads to more

Different packages of time

AND

Freedom from place and time bound structures

More leisure choices and consumption opportunities

Greater time for travel as work and leisure are combined

Figure 3. Hypothetical tourism consumption scenarios anphase.


distant, fast travel, more often or slower, moreGHG-efficient travel.Klein (2004) pointed out that in a fragmented

time phase, speed is a necessity as it breaksdown the barrier of distance, just as clock timesees speed as opportunity. Klein therefore viewedthe move to a fragmented time phase as a furtherintensification of time use. This suggests lesssustainable consumption. At the same time,Southerton (2003) highlighted the impact ofincreasing geographical mobility due to migra-tion. This, together with a more globalizedNetwork Society, can be a significant stimulusfor visiting friends and relatives (Larsen et al.,2007). These forces, although potentially positivefor the tourism sector, do not bodewell for GHGemission reductions (see Figure 3). Conversely,the emergence of a new time phase might openup the opportunities for a modal shift to lesscarbon-intensive travel by train, coach, cycleor foot. A greater integration of tourism withtasks such as work could be facilitated duringtrain use with its access to mobile technologies.In this way, origin to destination travel is viewedmore productively.The above analysis has focused on time;

however, clearly, this does not act alone on tour-ism practice, and the three scenarios aboveassume stable or growing prosperity andignores other economic forces such as increasingfuel cost. Tourism practice also emerges fromhistorical patterns that are culturally determinedand can vary significantly depending on destin-ation and origin of visitors. Norms emerge thatgovern the travel mode through tourist habitu-ation and are reinforced by infrastructureprovision. Therefore, time is one of many forces

Time pressure

See outcomes in figure 1

More distant,fast travel more often

CO2 +

Use of time for slow travel

CO2 -

d CO2 outcomes assuming society enters a new time



that might drive environmental impacts. Thisanalysis has also largely ignored the poor whotravel less. Holden (2007) suggested that toachieve sustainable mobility, some sectors ofsociety need to increase their travel to achieve aminimum level of mobility. The poor are notonly excluded by travel costs but are alsoconstrained by both availability of time and theirdegree of ‘time sovereignty’, which restrictswhen and how they access travel resources in atourism context.

CONCLUSION

This article set out to explore the relationshipbetween time and sustainable tourism mobility.It has examined current and emerging temporal-ities and considered whether this might provideopportunities to enable lower GHG emissionfrom tourism. The analysis makes a theoreticalcontribution in a number of respects. First, theavailability of time is typically seen as a tourismconstraint; however, an appraisal of social theoryand time, tourism temporalities, current worktime structures and the experience of travel timeindicate time is less of a constraint in contempor-ary society. However, there is a paradox hereas many people feel more stressed, use theiradditional time to do more and increase theintensity of their travel schedules. All this willincrease tourism GHG emissions, althoughanalysis of consumption more broadly (Haydenand Shandra, 2009) has found that societiesthat work fewer hours lead to lower environ-mental impact.The analysis also illustrates how time adds to

the structuration of society. There are degreesof time inequality in tourism mobility, and itis evident that globally the majority are timepoor. Much of the developing world lacks thetime for tourism, whereas in the developedworld, although some are time constrained,others inhabit fluid time in post-modern societywith a high degree of temporal flexibility andcontrol. Much long-haul and long-stay tourismis only made possible by economic but also timeinequality. Temporal issues are political, and timeis symbolic of power, with some groups havingmuch greater ‘time sovereignty’. Overall, veryfew have the time to fly to exotic locations,yet these tourists are responsible for the largershare of GHG emissions. At the same time, the


appearance of slow travel in developed countriesis predominantly a middle class phenomenon.This ignores the underclass and the populationin developing countries who depend on slowmodes of transport (public transport or evenfoot). The essential question here is whetherslowness is a choice or not (Parkins, 2004).If slowness can be a choice, this is determinedby how distance and time are valued.

Our thesis is that a new cognition of time andistance is required to facilitate sustainable tour-ism. A GHG-constrained world implies a (air)travel-constrained world (Peeters and Dubois,2010a, 2010b) where the choice is between thecurrent volume of aviation in combination witha strong increase of public transport andreduced car use or maintenance of car use atthe expense of 80% of the current air transport.This article explored three time scenarios andtheir implications for tourism. On the whole,the analysis is not optimistic for low-carbontourism. Analysis suggests that new societalconceptualizations of time might facilitatemore sustainable consumption patterns in tour-ism based around something like the ‘slowtravel’ concept, where there is less air and cartravel and more use of lower carbon forms oftransport, shorter distances covered, longerstays at destinations and less frequent trips.This is due to a new phase of more fluid timereleasing tourists from day-to-day temporaland spatial constraints. However, this is yet tomaterialize, and policies restricting travel seeminevitable, as otherwise tourism is likely tocontinue on its growth trajectory of faster, moredistant consumption, undertaken more often.To avoid significant danger from climatechange, the first route is needed. This routemaintains tourism, because it does not neces-sarily reduce the number of trips, but a greateravailability of time for travel enables tourists toengage more with the journey and utilize lowcarbon travel. More time would appear to bea condition to reach sustainable tourism withlower GHG emissions; however, availabilityof time is, on its own, not enough to achievethis end as alternative pathways are available.Reduced GHG emissions also require lessvalue to be placed on distant destinations andthe tourist desire for ‘new possibilities offurther, faster, everywhere and always’ (Reisch,2001, p. 376).



At this stage, the evidence and understand-ing of the role played by time are incomplete.Although other areas of social science havebeen exploring new theoretical perspectivesof time, further research is needed on theevolving role of time in tourism, especiallytourism transport, and the opportunities avail-able to establish a path to more sustainabletravel. The following are recommended topicsfor further study.The analysis here supports the calls of others

(see, e.g. Gershuny, 2000) for more research tobetter understand public policy making on timeregulation of elements such as holidayentitlement and work hours. Research needs toexplore the relationship between working timeand travel behaviour to establish whether theseare related, to what extent, in what way andwhat this might mean for current tourism trans-port trends. Statistical time-series analysis of therelations between tourism and travel behaviourand time use could helpfully unravel the impactsof increased (and reduced) holiday time andother time use elements. Given the significanttime inequity in tourism, there is a need for stud-ies on lower socio-economic groups in society,that is, more studies on the working class andlow-income tourism in relation to use of time.There is an overarching need for more

analysis of how time is used and perceived bythe tourist and especially the use of time duringtravel both to the destination and around thedestination using a variety of modes. A specificfocus would be in-depth research into themotivation and psychological values of ‘slowtravellers’; are their motivations and valuesdifferent to the general tourist, in what respectand what would this mean for the develop-ment of slow travel and sustainable tourismdevelopment? Studies also need to explore thepsychological value of physical, cultural andeconomic distance for tourists and the relativeperception of time based in the past, presentand future. Given that tourism usually requiresfuture planning, more research is needed tounderstand how people conceptualize theirtime allocation when booking travel for afuture trip.Research also needs to explore the role played

by time stress during tourism, particularly, theimplications for travel behaviour, mode choice,destination choice and length of stay. To what


extent are new time perspectives and multi-tasking influencing the ‘natural’ drive of peopleto seek the fastest transport mode available?How wide have new time perceptions spreadover the global population and to what extenthave work time and personal schedules becomemore fluid? Above all, as society’s understand-ing of time evolves, new conceptual models oftourism travel are required. This is essential tounderstand and manage tourism’s climatechange impacts to evolve a sustainable pathwayfor tourism development.

REFERENCES

Adam B. 1995. Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time.Polity Press: Cambridge.

Alegre J, Pou L. 2006. The length of stay in thedemand for tourism. Tourism Management 27:1343–1355.

Bærenholdt JO, Haldrup M, Larsen J, Urry J. 2004.Performing Tourist Places. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Barros CP, Machado LP. 2010. The length of stay intourism. Annals of Tourism Research 37(3): 692–706.

Becken S, Hay JE. 2007. Tourism and climate change:risks and opportunities. Channel View Publications:Clevedon.

Bows A, Anderson K, Peeters P. 2009. Air Transport,Climate Change and Tourism. Tourism andHospitality Planning & Development 6(1): 7–20.

Breedveld K. 1996. Post-Fordist leisure and work.Loisir et Société/ Society and Leisure 19(1): 67–90.

Brett JM, Stroh LK. 2003. Working 61 Plus Hours aWeek: Why Do Managers Do It? Journal of AppliedPsychology 88(1): 67–78.

Cass N, Shove E, Urry J. 2004. Transport infrastruc-tures: a social-spatial-temporal model. In Sustain-able Consumption: The implications of changinginfrastructures of provision, Southerton D, ChappellsH, Van Vliet B (eds). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham;113–129.

Cass N, Shove E, Urry J. 2005. Social exclusion,mobility and access. The Sociological Review 53(3):539–555.

Castells M. 1997. The power of identity. Blackwell:Oxford.

Castells M. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society 2ndedn. Blackwell: Oxford.

Cohen S. 2011. Lifestyle travellers: Backpacking asa way of life. Annals of Tourism Research 38(4):1535–1555.

Cohen SA, Higham JES, Cavaliere CT. 2011. Bingeflying: Behavioural addition and climate change.



Annals of Tourism Research DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.013.

Deem R. 1996. No time for a rest? An exploration ofwomen’s work, engendered leisure and holidays.Time and Society 5(1): 5–25.

Department for Transport. 2009. Transport Trends2009 Edn. Departnment for Transport: London.

Dickinson JE, Lumsdon L. 2010. Slow Travel andTourism. Earthscan: London.

Dickinson JE, Robbins D, Lumsdon L. 2010. Holidaytravel discourses and climate change. Journal ofTransport Geography 18: 482–489.

Dickinson JE, Lumsdon L, Robbins D. 2011. Slowtravel: issues for tourism and climate change.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(3): 281–300.

Echtelt PE, Glebbeek AC, Lindenberg SM. 2006. Thenew lumpiness of work: explaining the mismatchbetween actual and preferred working hours.Work, Employment and Society 20(3): 493–512.

Edensor T. 2010. Introduction: Thinking aboutRhythm and Space. In Geographies of Rhythm:Nature, Place, Mobilities and Bodies, Edensor E(ed.). Ashgate Publishing Group: Farnham; 1–18.

Edensor T, Holloway J. 2008. Rhythmanalysing thecoach tour: the Ring of Kerry, Ireland. Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers 33: 483–501.

Elsrud T. 1998. Time creation in traveling: Thetaking and making of time among women back-packers. Time and Society 7(2): 309–334.

Eurostat. 2010. The European Union LabourForce Survey. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/introduction (accessed 13thJuly 2010).

Frändberg L. 2008. Paths in transnational time-space: Representing mobility biographies ofyoung Swedes. Geografiska Annaler Series B-Human Geography 90(1): 17–28.

Füssel H-M. 2010. How inequitable is the globaldistribution of responsibility, capability, andvulnerability to climate change: A comprehensiveindicator-based assessment. Global EnvironmentalChange 20(4): 597–611.

Germann Molz JG. 2009. Representing pace in tour-ism mobilities: Staycations, Slow Travel and TheAmazing Race. Journal of Tourism and CulturalChange 7(4): 270–286.

Germann Molz J. 2010. Performing Global Geog-raphies: Time, Space, Place and Pace in Narrativesof Round-the-World Travel. Tourism Geographies12(3): 329–348.

Gershuny J. 2000. Changing Times: Work and Leisurein Postindustrial Society. Oxford University Press:Oxford.


Golden L. 2009. A Brief History of Long Work Timeand the Contemporary Sources of Overwork.Journal of Business Ethics 84: 217–227.

Gössling S, Peeters PM. 2007. “It does not harm theenvironment!” An analysis of industry discourseson tourism, air travel and the environment.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(4): 402–417.

Gössling S, Upham P. 2009. Introduction: Aviationand Climate Change in Context. In Climate Changeand Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions,Gössling S, Upham P (eds). Earthscan: London;1–23.

Gössling S, Peeters P, Ceron JP, Dubois G, PattersonT, Richardson RB. 2005. The eco-efficiency of tour-ism. Ecological Economics 54: 417–434.

Gratton C. 1996. Work, Time and Leisure in Europe:National Differences and European Convergence.In Work Leisure and the Quality of Life, Gratton C(ed.). Leisure Industries Research Centre:Sheffield; 53–67.

Haldrup M. 2004. Laid-Back Mobilities: Second-Home Holidays in Time and Space. TourismGeographies 6(4): 434–454.

Hares E, Dickinson J, Wilkes K. 2010. Climatechange and the air travel decisions of UK tourists.Journal of Transport Geography 18: 466–473.

Hayden A, Shandra JM. 2009. Hours of work andthe ecological footprint of nations: an exploratoryanalysis. Local Environment 14(6): 575–600.

Holden E. 2007. Achieving Sustainable Mobility:Everyday and Leisure-time Travel in the EU.Ashgate: Aldershot.

Holley D, Jain J, Lyons G. 2008. UnderstandingBusiness Travel Time and Its Place in the WorkingDay. Time Society 17(1): 27–46.

Holliday S. 1996. Trends in British Work andLeisure. In Work Leisure and the Quality of Life,Gratton C (ed.). Leisure Industries ResearchCentre: Sheffield; 68–83.

Hupkes G. 1982. The law of constant travel time andtrip-rates. Futures 14(1): 38–46.

Jäckel M, Wollscheid S. 2007. Time is Money andMoney Needs Time? A Secondary Analysis ofTime-Budget Data in Germany. Journal of LeisureResearch 39(1): 86–108.

Jackson T. 2005. Live better by consuming less?:is there a “double dividend” in sustainableconsumption? Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(1–2):19–36.

Klein O. 2004. Social Perception of Time, Distanceand High-Speed Transportation. Time & Society13(2/3): 245–263.

Larsen J, Urry J, Axhausen KW. 2007. Networks andtourism: mobile social life. Annals of TourismResearch 34(1): 244–262


http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/introduction




Laurier E. 2004. Doing office work on the motorway.Theory, Culture and Society 21: 261–277.

Metz D. 2008. The limits to travel. How far will we go?Earthscan: London.

Minca C. 2009. The Island: Work, Tourism and theBiopolitical. Tourist Studies 9(2): 88–108.

Nawijn J. 2011. Determinants of Daily Happiness onVacation. Journal of Travel Research 50(5): 559–566.

Office for National Statistics. 2010. QuarterlyLabour Force Survey, January - March, 2010.Available at https://www.esds.ac.uk/ (accessedAug 2010).

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. 1992.Labour Force Survey, 1991. Available at https://www.esds.ac.uk/ (accessed Aug 2010).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment. 2010. OECD Statistics Extracts:Average hours actually worked per worker.Available at http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS (accessed Aug 2010)

Parker S. 1983. Leisure and Work. George AllenUnwin: London.

Parkins W. 2004. Out of Time: Fast Subjects andSlow Living. Time and Society 13(2–3): 363–382.

Peeters P. 2007. Mitigating tourism’s contribution toclimate change - an introduction. In Tourism andClimate Change Mitigation: Methods, greenhouse gasreductions and policies, Peeters P (ed.). StichtingNHTV Breda: Breda; 11–26.

Peeters PM, Dubois G. 2010a. Tourism travel underclimate change mitigation constraints. Journal ofTransport Geography 18: 447–457.

Peeters PM, Dubois G. 2010b. Exploring tourismtravel under climate change mitigation constraints.Journal of Transport Geography 18: 447–457.

Peeters P, Landré M. 2012. The emerging globaltourism geography – an environmental sustain-ability perspective. Sustainability 4(1): 42–71.

Peeters P, Schouten F. 2006. Reducing the EcologicalFootprint of Inbound Tourism and Transport toAmsterdam. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(2):157–171.

Peeters P, Gössling S, Becken S. 2006. Innovationtowards tourism sustainability: Climate changeand aviation. International Journal of Innovationand Sustainable Development 1(3): 184–200.

Peters P. 2006. Time, innovation and mobilities:travel in technological cultures. Taylor & Francis:London.

Prideaux B. 2000. The resort development spectrum– a new approach to modeling resort develop-ment. Tourism Management 21: 225–240.

Prideaux B. 2002. Building Visitor Attractions inPeripheral Areas – Can Uniqueness OvercomeIsolation to Produce Viability? International Journalof Tourism Research 4: 379–389.


Reisch LA. 2001. Time and Wealth: The role oftime and temporalities for sustainable patternsof consumption. Time and Society 10(2/3):367–385.

Richards G. 1998. Time for a holiday? Social rightsand international tourism consumption. Time andSociety 7(1): 145–160.

Ross MT, Mills M, Toohey D. 2010. PotentialClimate Impact of Black Carbon Emitted byRockets. Geophysical Research Letters 37: L24810.DOI: 10.1029/2010GL044548.

Salomon I, Mokhtarian PL. 1998. What happenswhen mobility-inclined market segments faceaccessibility enhancing policies? TransportationResearch D 3(3): 129–140.

Sanne C. 2002.Willing consumers – or locked in?Policies for sustainable consumption. EcologicalEconomics 42(1–2): 273–287.

Schäfer A, Victor DG. 2000. The future mobility ofthe world population. Transportation Research - A34: 171–205.

Schor J. 1991. The Overworked American: The unexpectedDecline of Leisure. Basic Books: New York.

Schor J. 1996. Work, Time and Leisure in the USA. InWork Leisure and the Quality of Life, Gratton C (ed.).Leisure Industries Research Centre: Sheffield;6–21.

Schor JB. 2005. Sustainable consumption andworktimereduction. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(1–2): 37–50.

Scott D, Peeters P, Gössling S. 2010. Can tourismdeliver its ’aspirational’ greenhouse gas emissionreduction targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism18(3): 393–408.

Southerton D. 2003. ‘Squeezing Time’ Allocatingpractices, coordinating networks and schedulingsociety. Time & Society 12(1): 5–25.

Southerton D, Shove E, Warde A. 2001. ‘Harried andHurried’: time shortage and the co-ordination ofeveryday life. Centre for Research on Innovationand Computing, University of Manchester:Manchester.

United Nations. 2011. World Population Prospects:The 2010 Revision. Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, Population Division: New York, UN.

UNWTO. 2011. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer(English version) 09(01): 1–57.

Urry J. 1994. Time, Leisure and Social Identity. Timeand Society 3(2): 131–149.

Veijola S. 2009. Gender as Work in the TourismIndustry. Tourism Studies 9(2): 109–126.

Victor P. 2010. Questioning economic growth.Nature 468(7322): 370–371.

Wittmer A, Laesser C. 2010. The Perception ofTime in Air transport – What a Delay is acceptedby Air Travellers? Journal of Air Transport Studies1(1): 48–61.


https://www.esds.ac.uk/

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

time, tourism consumption and sustainable development

Documents