‘I am not a typical flyer’: narratives about the justified or excessive character of international flights in a highly mobile society

Abstract

Reversing the growth pattern in passenger aviation emissions is necessary for climate change mitigation. However, climate-related concerns and norms do not correlate strongly with practices. This study provides an example of a rapid process of social institutionalisation of long-distance travel, which has become a default tool for meeting social expectations and performing social rituals. It draws on 21 in-depth interviews conducted in the Reykjavik region of Iceland. We show that the prevalence of flying has become so high that people who do not fly are subject to normative pressure. On the other hand, as awareness of its climate impact increases, the norms for the justified use of flights are evolving. As a result, the purpose of flying has become more important. To reduce cognitive dissonance, study participants distinguish their individualised, carefully planned, and meaningful trips from standardised mass and status-oriented travel – a moral disengagement tactic that depends on differences in cultural capital. Distinguishing between necessary and excessive forms of consumption is an important aspect of demand reduction, but this form of selective sanctioning seems problematic from the perspectives of climate impact and social justice. We suggest policy implications and propose methodological improvements to measuring travel-related social norms.

Keywords:

• Social norms
• cognitive dissonance
• moral disengagement
• air travel
• tourism
• climate change
• qualitative research

1. Introduction

Aviation has contributed approximately 2% of global CO₂ emissions and about 4% of anthropogenic warming when non-CO₂ effects are included (Klöwer et al., 2021). Dominant policy approaches, such as incremental efficiency improvements and carbon offset schemes, are unlikely to be effective (Larsson et al., 2019; Peeters et al., 2016). Therefore, reversing the growth pattern in passenger aviation is necessary for successfully mitigating climate change (Gössling et al., 2020; Higham et al., 2019).

Despite continuous growth, air travel is a luxury (Oswald et al., 2020). Less than 4% of the worldwide population took an international flight in 2018 (Gössling & Humpe, 2020). In contrast, 84% of residents in Iceland travelled abroad in 2018, taking 2.8 round trips on average (Gretarsson et al., 2019), making it one of the most mobile countries worldwide. Aviation emissions may represent more than 50% of all transport- related emissions in Iceland (Czepkiewicz et al., 2019) and other affluent locations (Aamaas et al., 2013; Aamaas & Peters, 2017; Czepkiewicz et al., 2018). Studying the reasons behind these highly carbon-intensive practices and the prospect of their reduction is imperative.

Many studies have found weak negative or positive correlations between climate concerns, air travel practices, and emission levels (e.g. Alcock et al., 2017; Hares et al., 2010). Travellers deal with tensions between the benefits of flying and its environmental impact by applying various strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance instead of changing behaviour (e.g. Barr et al., 2010; Lorenzoni et al., 2007; McDonald et al., 2015). Higham et al. (2019) frame it as a problem of coordinated effort, which local, national and international institutions should lead. However, motivating such collective action could require changes in social norms and values, leading to ‘social tipping points’ (Creutzig et al., 2018; Otto et al., 2020). As people increasingly accept flying and knowing the world as integral parts of their lives and aspirations (Gössling and Nilsson, 2010; Hibbert et al., 2013), great social changes would be necessary to change travel behaviour (Becken, 2007).

This study discusses the normative character of flying and strategies for maintaining and legitimising air travel by providing evidence from the specific Icelandic context. The country is highly affluent. The insular nature makes travelling abroad almost synonymous with flying, reducing perceived behavioural control over air travel. We analyse 21 in-depth interviews conducted in the Reykjavik region. The sample consists of young, educated urbanites who are environmentally aware but see hardly any alternatives to flying, previously identified as the segment of flyers particularly prone to experiencing the cognitive dissonance associated with air travel and a priority for policy interventions (Davison et al., 2014).

We show that flying has become so ubiquitous in Iceland that the thought of anyone giving it up is surprising. However, the obviousness of frequent travel has begun to be challenged by pro-environmental norms. This leads to social negotiations about what is and what is not acceptable and the use of moral disengagement strategies (Bandura, 2007). Applying the theory of moral disengagement, we build on the findings of previous studies (e.g. Árnadóttir et al., 2021; Higham & Font, 2020; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014) to further specify the narratives used to justify frequent flying. We show how the acceptability of flying is socially constructed by distinguishing between justified and unjustified trips based on the motivations for a trip, the effort to prepare for it, and the experiences it provides. We relate these narratives to the basic need for social relatedness (Gough, 2017) and the concepts of meaningfulness, authenticity, self- development and self-actualisation (Filep & Laing, 2019). By emphasising the well-prepared, meaningful and transformative nature of their trips, some respondents avoid cognitive dissonance and turn guilt into social distinction. Unjustified travel, in turn, is associated with negative reference groups or past and abandoned versions of self. We highlight the social embeddedness of flying in Iceland in recent decades as an example of the rapid institutionalisation of long-distance travel (Mattioli, 2016, 2020). We also note how the normalcy of flying is deeply rooted in the institution of cyclical holidays and their planning. We then propose methodological improvements in the measurement of social norms related to flying, in order to better capture the different levels of internalisation of norms and the relationships between conflicting norms.

2. Worrying, but flying: obviousness of flying despite normative concerns

Social norms are important explanatory factors of travel and pro-environmental behaviour (Keizer & Schultz, 2018; Klöckner, 2013). However, the relationship between environmental attitudes, norms, and behaviour is far from obvious. If knowledge drove behaviour, it would be enough for people to realise the ecological outcomes of their behaviour to act pro-environmentally, but this is often not the case (Anable et al., 2006). This phenomenon has been known as the attitude-behaviour gap (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Many studies report a correlation between pro-environmental norms and environmentally friendly behaviour (e.g., Barr et al., 2006; Nordlund & Garvill, 2003). However, this relationship seems valid only for some types of behaviour (Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010). It is also mediated by several other variables (2.1), conflicts between norms (2.2), as well as by strategies of justifying behaviour which does not comply with such norms to reduce cognitive dissonance (2.3).

2.1. Mediated influence of attitudes on flying

A range of variables mediate the influence of values, attitudes, and norms on behaviour. The impact of social norms on the intention to act can be diminished if the behaviour is perceived as challenging or beyond control (Ajzen, 1991) or if one’s self-efficacy is low (Bandura, 2016). Behaviour is a product of interaction between attitudinal variables and contextual factors (Guagnano et al., 1995). The less a behaviour is favoured by context, the weaker its dependence on attitudinal factors (Stern, 2000).

Moreover, if the norms relevant to altruistic behaviour, including pro-environmental actions, are effective, they must be activated. This activation requires an awareness of the need to act, understanding consequences, ascribing oneself the responsibility, and feeling that the action one can take will effectively respond to the need (Schwartz, 1977; Stern, 2000).

2.2. Conflicted norms and expectations

There is a wide array of values competing with valuing environmental protection (e.g., freedom, self-identity, health, and family). Each of them is embedded in a normative context and social obligations. Conforming to social norms enhances a sense of social identity (Binder et al., 2020), giving one the feeling of being a member of a group (Tajfel, 1982), enabling recognition (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) but also differentiation from people belonging to other groups (Akerlof & Kranton, 2010). However, people belong to several reference groups (Shibutani, 1955; c.f., Chung & Rimal, 2016), and they must reconcile their conflicting expectations (Hibbert et al., 2013). Flying involves not only climate-related norms, but also those related to social status, symbolic consumption and class identity (Boucher, 2016; Casey, 2010; Cohen et al., 2013; Richards, 1999) and relationship development (Mattioli et al., 2021). As a result, the decision not to fly may require a strong adherence to the value of self-transcendence and building one’s identity on opposition to socially dominant norms (Büchs, 2017), as well as support or pressure from close social ties (Wormbs & Söderberg, 2021).

2.3. Reducing the cognitive dissonance of flyers

Realising an attitude-behaviour inconsistency results in a change in attitude or behaviour (Festinger, 2007), especially if the attitude or behaviour in question is involved in one’s self-concept (Aronson, 1969). It also applies to transport behavior (De Vos & Singleton, 2020) and tourism (see, e.g., Tanford & Montgomery, 2015), particularly flying (McDonald et al., 2015), creating the ‘flyers’ dilemma (Higham et al., 2014; Rosenthal, 2010).

However, behaviour is rarely changed to reduce this dissonance (Nash et al., 2017). Previous studies have identified several other strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance used instead of changing behaviour (e.g. Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014), including specific justifications for intensive flying (e.g. Árnadóttir et al., 2021; Lorenzoni et al., 2007; McDonald et al., 2015; Mkono, 2022; Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2001). Some pro-environmental actions may serve as an excuse for not performing others. This mechanism applies strongly to air travel, which is weakly correlated with pro-environmental everyday behaviour (Barr et al., 2010; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Study participants use local pro-environmental behaviour as a surrogate response to air travel reduction (e.g. Dickinson et al., 2010; Lassen, 2010), which is also an example of moral licensing leading to negative spillover effects (Nash et al., 2017). At the same time, confessing guilt can maintain a green identity by demonstrating concern (Kroesen, 2013; Lassen, 2010).

Continuing to travel by plane despite being confronted with its climate impact has also been analysed as the effect of moral disengagement strategies (Higham & Font, 2020), identified by Bandura (2007). These cognitive processes allow to deactivate moral self-regulation without deteriorating self-image and tend to inhibit pro-environmental behaviour (Wu et al. 2021).

Finally, people tend to categorise the world into different action spaces in which they apply very different actions rooted in symbols, habits, sensibilities and guides to action typical of a particular type of space or practice (Swidler, 1986). Holiday and tourism flying seems to constitute a separate, liminal space, where some everyday norms are often suspended, including climate concern (e.g. Barr et al., 2010; Randles & Mander, 2009).

2.4. Limitations of existing studies

While the main drivers and barriers for climate action and reducing air travel have been identified, most models and analyses are highly individualistic and capture only to a limited extent the cultural and material context of action and its normative and habitual aspects (Whitmarsh et al., 2021). Social scientists increasingly mention social norms among the conditions for a change towards low-carbon lifestyles (Creutzig et al., 2018). Among the possible impulses for such changes, recent studies point to the impact of the ‘flight shame’ phenomenon (Gössling et al., 2020) and the formation of networks of people who support each other in reducing flights (Jacobson et al., 2020). Becken et al. (2021) note that the reach of the ‘flight shame’ trend has remained small since its emergence in 2016 and that it has not led to social change beyond a small group of its advocates. How changes in social norms spread and influence air travel practices remains an under-researched topic. Furthermore, while we know that aviation emissions are highly unequally distributed (Gössling & Humpe, 2020), research is needed on how high emissions are maintained among global elites and how this can be overcome (Cass, 2022; Nielsen et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2020). Distinguishing between necessary and excessive forms of consumption is an important aspect of demand reduction (Cass, 2022; Gough, 2015). One way to approach this is to examine narratives and perceptions of the necessary, justified or excessive nature of flying. Despite a few notable exceptions (e.g., Cass et al., 2023; Gössling et al., 2019), the topic has rarely been studied empirically.

3. Study area, context, and design

3.1. Study area

In the previous decade, Iceland became a country of flying people (Gretarsson et al., 2019; Thorstensen, 2010). Back in 2009, half of the island’s population only travelled within Iceland’s borders. Less than ten years later, 7/8 travelled abroad (Figure 1). Moreover, the average yearly number of trips had increased to almost three by 2018, and 24% took more than one trip.

Figure 1. The rapid growth of flying (travelling abroad) in Iceland between 2009 and 2018. Distribution of answers in the surveys conducted for the Icelandic Tourist Board between 2009 and 2018, representative samples of Icelandic residents. Source: own elaboration based on data from Thorstensen (2010) and Gretarsson et al. (2019).

Figure 2. The proliferation of flying in Iceland across all social strata between 2009 and 2018. Distribution of answers by income level, surveys conducted for Icelandic Tourist Board in 2009 and 2018, representative sample of Iceland inhabitants. Source: own elaboration based on data from Thorstensen (2010) and Gretarsson et al. (2019).

Figure 3. The categorisation of justifications for flying identified in this study, and the corresponding types of justifications identified by Juvan and Dolnicar (2014) and Bandura (2007). the green area is the focus of this paper. Source: own elaboration.

Flying abroad has also lost its elite character in Iceland. In 2018, a higher proportion of low-income Icelanders travelled abroad than people in the upper-income strata in 2009 (Figure 2).

This makes Iceland an important example of how norms, habits and institutions that have hitherto favoured fulfilling domestic travel can give way to those associated with frequent flying abroad, despite a relatively high level of environmental awareness.

3.2. Study context

This paper is based on the qualitative data analysis, but it’s a part of a mixed-methods project on travel behaviour, motivations, and greenhouse gas emissions conducted in 2017-19 in the Reykjavik Capital Region (Czepkiewicz et al., 2020). The project used a sequential approach: its quantitative part has informed the qualitative part, shaping the recruitment of participants, the content of the research questions for the in-depth interviews and the interview script. This paper is based on the analysis of data from the qualitative part of the project (in-depth interviews).

The first and quantitative part of the project was a survey among 588 Reykjavik residents aged 25-40, based on a representative, geographically stratified random sample of 6000 Icelanders registered in the Icelandic Population Register (Czepkiewicz et al., 2019). This age group was chosen to reduce variation in the life-course status and generational differences between the respondents. It is dominated by people who have entered working life and are no longer dependent on their parents. They have grown up in a globalised world, and have typically travelled abroad since childhood, but at the same time have witnessed an increase in the intensity of flying, making them particularly interesting for studying the process of developing social norms for flying. The survey confirmed that attitudes (especially cosmopolitan attitudes) and resources (especially income level and language skills) influence international travel participation and frequency, but at the same time they are correlated with higher climate change awareness. In result, the latter is positively correlated with international travel frequency and emissions (Czepkiewicz et al., 2020).

How do young, highly climate-conscious Icelanders reconcile environmental norms with the norms and benefits associated with intensive flying? This was one of the questions that the second, qualitative part of the project sought to answer, and which is the subject of this paper. The participants of 21 in-depth interviews analysed here were people who, after completing the survey, accepted the invitation to take part in an in-depth interview. They were of local and foreign origin, had relatively high levels of education and income, and varied in gender, family situation, age (26-42) and place of residence. The average annual number of flights in the interview sample is 2.4. In the survey, 18 out of 21 interviewees scored 14 or 15 out of 15 points on the climate change awareness scale. Despite this, only two interviewees have recently decided to partially reduce flying.

3.3. Study design and data analysis

The interviews were held in 2018-2020 (before Covid-19), lasted one hour on average, and were recorded and transcribed. They took place in locations interviewees chose, usually in their homes or the researcher’s office. The first part inquired about the respondent’s local life. The second part was about the most recent and desirable trips, domestic and abroad. The questions referred to the frequency of the trips, motivations, reasons for choosing a destination, activities carried out during the trips, and their importance and benefits. The final part was devoted to the perceived environmental impact of travel and the willingness to change behaviour.

In the first stage of the analysis, two research team members analysed each interview following the process described by Næss (2020). The first researcher produced summaries of responses to 35 research questions grouped into six themes. The second one read the interviews and summaries, looking for potentially missed answers or misinterpretations. In the second stage, a sociologist analysed the material using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) supported by MAXQDA.

In relation to the topic of this paper, we first inductively identified and described the justifications for continuing to fly despite being aware of its climate impact (Árnadóttir et al., 2021). We then classified them into two general types and several subtypes (Figure 3). The first general type involves rejecting aviation’s effects on climate. It may result from denying scientific findings, cognitive overload, or insufficient knowledge. The second type involves justifying the harmful emissions generated by air travel. These justifications include claiming that harm is offset by other ecological behaviour (I’m doing what I can); the belief that one has no behavioural control, impact or responsibility over flying or emissions (There’s nothing I can do); and weighting the cost of violating different social norms, which can be lower in the case of environmental norms than in other social obligations (I have to live my life). Next, we have compared the results with Bandura’s (2007) theory of moral disengagement and its application to environmentally harmful behaviour, including flying (Higham & Font, 2020), as well as with the types of justifications for the unsustainable tourism behaviour identified by Juvan and Dolnicar (2014). The typology of justifications obtained in our analysis corresponds well with these frameworks, especially if both are applied (Figure 3).

This article focuses on the two types of justifications (highlighted in Figure 3) that relate directly to social expectations and important reference groups: exonerative comparison and moral justification. In Bandura’s terms, they operate at the behaviour locus and are the most effective disengagement strategies. However, as suggested in section 2, flying is not only challenged by environmental norms but is also subject to other types of normative evaluations, mainly related to lifestyle and status, and to developing and maintaining relationships with loved ones. How do people who fly a lot reconcile these potentially conflicting expectations and draw lines between excessive and insufficient flying? Is the number of flights that matters, or other criteria? What is the relationship between the strategies of exonerative comparison and moral justification? To answer these questions, we carefully coded all the passages related to the normative dimensions of flying, distinguishing travel characteristics, motivation, and justification. Finally, we grouped them into themes, named them and mapped their relationships (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The space of justified and unjustified uses of flying: summary of the narratives identified in the analysis. Source: own elaboration.

4. Results

In little more than a decade, flying has become rapidly accessible and obvious, becoming a part of everyday life. Not flying at all can lead to accusations of being inactive or detached from social relationships (4.1). At the same time, the growing awareness of climate change and the impact of aircraft on the climate is driving the need to define what constitutes excessive flying. We have identified two main negative reference practices of flying in the narratives of mobile Reykjavik urbanites and their positive counterparts (4.2). Flying is harder to justify when it’s categorised as standardised mass tourism focused on consumption or tourism motivated by a desire to demonstrate social status. On the other hand, conscious, carefully planned, and individualised travel that offers meaningful, authentic experiences and long-lasting educational or ethical impact outweighs its climate impact. Similarly, it’s easier to morally disengage from such impacts by framing flights in terms of needs and costs of maintaining the social relationships. Even in the face of climate change, flying is justified as an indispensable means of staying connected to others (4.3), but also as an irreplaceable means of disengaging from everyday roles and commitments (4.4). Finally, the entanglement of flying in the social institution of cyclical and ritualised holidays reinforces the belief that it is normal and difficult to replace (4.5). Figure 4 summarises the findings.

4.1. ‘It would be weird not to go.’ The obviousness of flying

Interviews show that air travel, including flying several times a year, has become a standard and often expected part of the annual agenda.

It is socially acceptable to go abroad many times a year. (I3)

(…) it would be weird (…) not to go abroad. (I14)

I think it is now a kind of norm because as soon as you say: ‘Oh, I’m on holiday’, people say: ‘Oh, where are you going?’ [meaning ‘to what country’] (I1)

However, the high frequency of flying is a relatively new phenomenon, associated with a significant rise in availability and fall in prices, as some of our interviewees still recall.

I remember when it was kind of a big deal. I remember when someone was just like: "yes, I’m going [abroad] three times [a year]! Wow!". Now you are just like: "okay?". I see it all around me. And also more frequent and shorter trips. (…) with WOW air everything got so cheap somehow. (I2)

(…) we essentially just turn on the computer and look for a cheap flight somewhere. (…) We just find the cheapest flight and we just plan a vacation there. (I4)

In little more than a decade, flying has become a routine way of getting away. Living on an island makes it easier to take flying for granted.

Of course, people in Iceland need to fly; I mean, how else can you get away? (I11) Living on an island far out in the ocean, we need a change in environment (I10)

The prevalence of flying is so strong that the interviewees feel that flying too little needs explanation. For example, I15 is an object of astonishment to his friends for not wanting to travel, while I17 feels embarrassed for not travelling and promises to fix it.

For her 40th birthday, my wife got a ticket, a credit with Icelandair (…). She wanted me to help her (…) figure out where we should go. And I just told her (…) I didn’t want to go abroad at all, haha. (…) And everyone just finds it odd (…) just because I don’t want to go somewhere insanely. (I15)

I am not necessarily looking for new things [travelling]. I’m trying to fix it. (I17)

However, parallel with the obviousness of flying, a discourse on the environmental impact of everyday activities has developed and infiltrated the social milieus of highly educated Icelandic urbanites. As I6 puts it:

The discourse [on environmental impact] really started… umm, 2005? (…) this way of thinking just has to be accepted; I found it very natural (…) just natural to have this included in the mentality.

When asked whether they considered the environmental impact of travel, all but two interviewees responded positively, sometimes showing detailed thoughts on the subject as one of the key elements of their self-identification.

We are very environmentally-conscious people. (I2)

I am active in many different communities for foreigners living in Iceland. (…) They moved to Iceland because they wanted to be more in touch with the environment, (…) like greener lifestyles. (I4)

We have dedicated ourselves to not doing a lot of things that could affect the environment. (I12)

When asked whether flying is a social norm, respondents repeatedly answered in the affirmative, but indicated that they were aware of the negative consequences of this fact. Is it a social norm to travel abroad several times a year?

Yes. Which is maybe not so good (I19)Yes, unfortunately. (I20)

Yes, and I think it is really weird that no-one has ever made a case against the airlines. (I6)

Some of our interviewees realise how short the history of the new normal is, recalling the significant rise in availability and fall in prices of flights.

…so I moved from Iceland in 2001, and then there was only Icelandair, so then it cost an arm and a leg just to come home for Christmas, so now it is completely different. (I14)

My mother went [abroad] every three years (…) Of course, when she took us, there were no low-cost flights in this country. (I17)

The growing acceptance of environmental norms seems not to reduce flying but to develop several justifications to reduce cognitive dissonance, as shown below.

4.2. ‘I’m not a typical icelander’. Legitimising flying through social distinction

The fact that almost everyone flies does not exclude the normative evaluation of this practice. On the contrary, the purpose and way of flying have become more important in justifying travel practices with growing environmental awareness. The interviewees refer to two unjustified goals or manners of flying: (1) mass travel focused on consumption and (2) travel focused on social status.

The former (1) includes limited activity, symbolised by taking beach vacations.

(…) There are different kinds of vacation. (…) many people (…) just go to Spain and want to get a tan and chill. I have not done that since I was a young kid. (I10)

A year ago, I went on a safari trip to Africa. (…) I’m (…) not the kind of person who is excited to go to a sunny beach. Technically, I have never done that [laughs]. (…) (I7)

Unjustified mass travel also includes excessive consumption, mainly shopping or consuming popular culture. ‘Overstuffed suitcases’, criticised by I7, ‘shopping trips’ and other ‘super-touristy things’, ridiculed by I10, or football and golf trips observed by I5, are used by respondents as examples of mass travel focused on consumption and are seen as flying for the wrong reasons.

I am not a typical Icelander who comes home with many overstuffed suitcases (…) [and] I do not choose destinations abroad based on being able to shop there. (I7)

people who go on these shopping trips. (…) have a long weekend all the time (…) do only super-touristy things rather than (…) respect the country. (I10)

At least I do not go abroad on golf trips to places that nobody has heard of or football trips to England or something like that; I try to go to a city somewhere or see something new. (I5)

The latter (2) includes travel to confirm or improve social status. What is particularly annoying about using air travel for such reasons is the mismatch between financial means and aspirations.

I know that many of [these trips] have been purchased with money that is not necessarily available (…) In my opinion, it is a wrong prioritisation. (I5)

How can you afford a new apartment (…) and go abroad? (I18)

People who use flying as a means of social distinction by bragging about it are criticised. Their aspirations are not perceived as justified reasons to fly.

(…) when I have been dating, there are so many men I have met who have travelled [a lot] and think it is such a badge of honour to carry, you know? (I10)

And going abroad to shop maybe many times a year, coming back and bragging about how much they bought… (…) Many people are always competing and comparing themselves with others [in the context of travelling]. (I3)

Paradoxically, by separating justified and unjustified flight practices, the interviewees seem to be playing a similar social game. They also find it important to juxtapose their flying patterns with others. However, as all the quotes above show, they are not comparing the frequency or distance of travel, but its character. As I1 puts it, his aim is not to fly less, but to fly in a way that most people do not.

I guess few people [travel abroad] like us. (…) Many Icelanders [choose] to go overseas just because it is cheaper. (…) stay in a nice hotel with lots of food (…) and drinks. Many of them do not do much more than that. (I1)

First, flying seems much more legitimate if it challenges the most popular (consumption and status-oriented) ways of travelling by being unique and individualised.

I find it more exciting to go to places that are out of the norm. I don’t lose myself in excitement about going to Copenhagen or (…) Glasgow or something like that. I find it much more exciting to go to Lithuania and Slovakia, and Hungary (…) to explore some places. (I7)

The avoidance of trivial pleasures symbolised by a flight to Tenerife and the creation of a personalised package allows a journey to be used as an element of positive distinction. Flying is more justified when the destination is not Tenerife or ‘just somewhere’ (I18), but rather ‘places that are out of the norm’ (I7), ‘exotic’ and ‘uncrowded’ (I15).

My [dream] trip would, of course, be (…) some new place that I have never been to before, some exotic location and some uncrowded place. (…) where people say: wait, yeah, what are you saying, you went there!? (…) something where people do not usually go. (I15)

but I would never choose to go to Tenerife. (…) I prefer to create my own trip. Even though something was pushing me there, I would still go on a trip I really wanted. Not just somewhere. (I18)

The idea of people who just want to go anywhere without further consideration serves to justify flying and reduce cognitive dissonances when the environmental impact is discussed by distinguishing oneself from people who fly without proper legitimacy, not caring enough where they go, as I18 puts it.

And they don’t care where they go, like going to Tenerife. I have a lot of prejudice towards Tenerife, Gran Canaria and all these places. (…) They just want to go anywhere. (I18)

Second, flying abroad seems more legitimate if based on a meaningful experience involving effort, education, and contact with the locals. Devoting time and energy to getting to know the place, its people, culture, and language makes flying much more legitimate.

I do not necessarily expect it to be a great relaxation and to escape things. I’m looking for an experience. (I7)

R: (…) I always learn something new by being in new places (…) I don’t care much for reading a book on the beach (…), getting to know the culture, and maybe starting to talk to local people. (I6)

Another version of this argument is that distant travel is a source of fundamental existential revelations and improves one’s quality of life or ethical attitude toward others. A trip to Madagascar is perceived as more legitimate by I3 than a trip to Tenerife, because it can make one re-evaluate the importance of material possessions. I4 might not evaluate a trip to South America in terms of its emissions, as its main impact was discovering the cultural richness of the region and being inspired to study archaeology.

I think when I went to Madagascar, it changed me. It is a beautiful country but so poor… so when I came back, I didn’t think I needed to own as much as before I went there… [I3]

I got to see a lot of South America. And I really appreciated that, while materially they were poor, culturally they were rich. It is probably what got me into (…) a BA in Archaeology. (I4)

Similarly to the narrative of individualised travel, the narrative of meaningful and educational experience and authentic contact with a local culture can be used as an element of positive distinction. Travelling meaningfully I20 can distance herself from the practices of ‘flying back and forth’. Similarly, I1 doesn’t see anything wrong with flying more if it means ‘getting on a plane and staying somewhere for a couple of months’ rather than taking the popular city breaks.

We shouldn’t be flying back and forth. (…) You should not go abroad just to go abroad. You’re supposed to (…) make an effort to get to know the place. (…) connect to the site (…) learn a little about how it works. (I20)

(…) when I say I would like to travel more (…) I wouldn’t go every weekend on a plane (…). It’s more like taking one plane and staying a few months somewhere, and I’d try to live like locals, do things like that. Not like this romantic weekend, two days in Venice, two days in Paris (…). (I1)

Although respondents often justify their own flying by criticising the way others fly, dissonance reduction may also involve contrasting one’s own past and present practices, and taking pride in developing more justified motivations for flying. For example, for I10 every flight is a deliberate process, as opposed to the automatic use of a plane to get to a party in the past, while when I19 criticises shopping trips he is actually drawing a line between how he uses planes now and how he used them in the old days.

I used to go on these party trips. And now I would (…) think more like: ‘Yes, why am I doing this?’ [Flying is now] rather a deliberate process than just meeting a friend in Berlin and partying. (I10)

I always went on shopping trips to buy some things I didn’t need when I was younger. I have started thinking differently (…) It has become more about the experience. (…) (I19)

From an environmental perspective, such differences between ‘justified’ and ‘unjustified’ types of travel may not be significant since many ‘justified’ trips involve travelling to distant locations or are done frequently. However, as part of managing internal coherence, such fine compromises are meaningful, as they offer a way to reduce cognitive dissonance by delimiting a legitimate space for air travel.

4.3. ‘You cannot just say goodbye’. Maintaining close relationships as a normative justification for flying

While being environmentally friendly may be an important social norm that collides with the practice of flying, flying serves to abide by another important norm—maintaining bonds with loved ones. Family and close friends are considered an important reference group for normative justifications of flying on two levels.

First, many interviewees considered flying necessary to visit family and friends (I1, I4, I5, I6, I9, I10, I11, I13, I14, I16, I17, I20).

Um, I mean, of course, for me, it’s being able to see my family (I4)

The moral character of these bonds gives them a solid normative justification. It can be an Italian family who cannot imagine Christmas without their daughter (I11); a grandmother who requests to spend some time in Berlin or Las Palmas pointing to her deteriorating health (I14); or a wedding in Berlin (I17). Strong social expectations are hard to challenge, even when the interviewee oriented herself towards pro-environmental norms.

I would like to keep [flying] down to twice a year (…), but it’s challenging. (…). I mean, you cannot just go to your parents and say, ‘I’m moving now to Iceland, thanks for giving birth to me. Goodbye’. I mean, that’s a tough thing to do, especially with Italian parents (…). (I11)

I have a grandmother who decided (…) that she wanted to travel as much as possible while she was healthy. She just called me and said: ‘I want to invite you abroad.’ So (…) we have done that a lot. (I14)

Germany to my cousin’s wedding, it was cool. This was in Berlin; (…) So we met people we had not met for ages. (I17).

Social networks can also be treated as a valuable resource, cared for by visits.

(…) introducing [children] to friends and family [in the US]. (…) Thanks to that, it is very likely that she could visit them by herself (…) And possibly go to high school or university. (I13)

Second, flying is often an important way to spend time with family or friends from Iceland.

That was a graduation trip. I went with my friend (…), took the tube everywhere, and hung out in museums all day and bars at night. (I10)

City trips, like anywhere else in Europe, usually with my husband or some of my friends (…). Maybe a bit more of a party in some ways, usually a concert or something. (I14)

Being together can even become more important than the trip, pushing other aspects of travel into the background, as in the example below.

(…) meeting friends and family. I am not interested in going to London just to visit London. (…) Visit the town together? Yes, if they also come to London. Or whatever town. (I11)

The conflict between fulfilling the environmental norms and other social obligations manifests itself in the case of children. Having children may easily make one feel obliged to educate or entertain them with trips abroad. If one does it ‘for the kids’ (I1), or for ‘a moment of quality time with the family’ (I12), it may even seem unnatural not to fly, as I17 puts it.

It is unnatural that you would not even go abroad if you have a family… (I17)

[I’m flying] for the kids. Of course, they experience everything. (…) [flying] helps them grow and learn about other cultures and open their minds. (I1)

There are aquatic parks and theme parks which we don’t have here. (…) Everyone is together, a moment of quality time with the family. (I12)

4.4. ‘Detaching from everything back home’: flying to escape mundane social obligations

Flying is a way of fulfilling the expectations of your loved ones and temporarily breaking free from the web of expectations that you feel in everyday life. Travelling abroad, however, can provide another special kind of detachment. It is an escape from one’s cultural environment or social roles. While for many of our respondents flying is a way of fulfilling social obligations, as discussed above (4.3), for some it is a way of fulfilling the need for anonymity and coping with the pressure of social obligations through temporary escapes.

People recognise me a lot on the street in Reykjavik, and just [to] get lost, it is… that is, it is a big factor. To be, to be invisible (…) this is a small community. (I14)

It’s also about detaching from everything back home. That’s also part of not being where Icelanders are around you. (I20)

The most striking example is an activist for whom regular flights to international events is a way to be around similar people and a break from the label of a freak.

Everyone knows who I am. It sucks. People at school look at me strangely because they recognise me from the news. We went to London for [a protest], and 20,000 people marched. Everyone for the same cause. It was a good reminder to feel a little less strange. (…) I do it for myself and my mental health.

4.5. ‘Just as happy to wait for the trip as to be there’: flying as part of ritualised practices

The final type of justification for flying is not based on the discursive distinction between justified and unjustified flights, but rather draws its power from long-standing habits and rhythms and their obviousness. The normalcy of flying is constructed by being deeply embedded in the social institution of holidays. The regular practice of holidays is strongly rooted in one’s biography and the yearly rhythm. It structures the individual or familial perception of time, providing memories and points of orientation.

It creates anticipation and excitement. (…) the preparation phase, where you have to plan (…). I once read a study that showed that people are just as happy to wait for the trip as to be on the trip. (I2)

(…) a trip to Poland to walk in the Tatra Mountains for ten days with my friends, (…) and I was very excited about that, and it was very well planned. (I10)

Many construct their household budgets concerning the next trip, which sometimes motivates them to save money.

(…) travel is budget number three after health and food (…). So, I try to reduce everything else (…) to be able to travel more. (I1)

Everything revolves around travelling. It is just so. It is simply the only thing I save for. (I2)

Past summers are remembered as related to a specific place visited during a vacation.

(…) because [the trips abroad] create memories that you can look back on and… and yes, give experiences that you can use. (I15)

Make memories. (…) look back, what have you remembered? (I17)

Being a part of these rituals of cyclical preparations and remembrances, essential to maintaining one’s self-identity, makes it difficult to reduce flying.

5. Discussion and implications

As shown in section 4 and summarised in Figure 4, flying is entangled in several social norms, so that both flying to little and excessively are under scrutiny. Interestingly, it is not so much the number of flights as the purpose and nature of the trip that determines whether some flights are considered excessive or not. By distinguishing their own flights from mass consumption and status-oriented travel respondents reinterpret their own flights as a different, justified way of using environmental resources. This kind of exonerative comparison is reinforced either by moral justifications related to maintaining close relationships or, conversely, by using flights as a tool for the right to temporary anonymity and privacy. Both moral justifications are embedded in the obviousness of travel delivered by the social institution of holidays and the rituals of cyclical preparation and remembrance, that are essential for maintaining one’s self-identity.

These findings allow the formulation of two main insights (sections 5.1 and 5.2) and policy implications based on them (sections 5.3). First (5.1), the study provides an example of a rapid process of social institutionalisation of long-distance travel, in which it has become a default tool for fulfilling social expectations and performing social rituals. In this process people apply a qualitative way of distinguishing necessity from excess based on a hierarchy of needs (e.g., Cass, 2022; Gough, 2017), and use it to morally justify their own flying. Second (5.2), moral justification and favourable comparisons are combined in the form of an elitist narrative based on social distinction. Again, this implies a certain hierarchy of needs, in which eudaimonic motivations and experiences are worth flying, while pleasure or social status are not. Such selective sanctioning, linked to differences in the cultural capital, seems problematic from the perspectives of climate impact and social justice.

5.1. Rapidly progressing social embeddedness of flying

The first strongly normative dimension of flying and its moral justification identified in the study results from the rapidly advancing embedding of flying in the everyday life, making it a standard means of meeting social expectations and performing social rituals.

As shown in section 4.3 and similarly to previous studies (e.g. McDonald et al., 2015), these expectations are mainly related taking care of the loved ones one lives with and visiting relatives and friends abroad. Social connection and belonging is one of the core human needs (Gough, 2017). Using it to justify flying is akin to distinguishing between necessary and excessive consumption based on its relationship to human needs, as suggested by Gough (2017) and Cass (2022). Respondents see maintaining relationships with friends and family as a basic need, rather than a consumption-related want. In this way, intensive flying gains moral justification, a particularly powerful mechanism of moral disengagement, as it eliminates self-censure and engages self-approval and social recognition (Bandura, 2007).

As shown in sections 3.1 and 4.1, the obviousness of using air travel for such purposes is a recent phenomenon that has become widespread in less than a generation. The study provides an example of the process of institutionalisation of long-distance travel described by Frandberg (2006) and Mattioli (2016, 2020). By becoming increasingly embedded in people’s lives, long-distance travel creates the conditions for its further intensification. The study documents that the availability of air travel does not just mean that people travel faster or see each other more often. It also rapidly expands their social networks and creates new forms of encounters that would previously have been impossible or regarded as desires, but which now acquire the status of ordinary and legitimate needs (e.g. visiting an unusual theme park with your child; responding to your grandmother’s request to let her see Las Palmas; meeting a group of activist friends who become a more important daily interaction than any people living nearby). This leads to an escalation of the resources required to satisfy basic needs (Brand-Correa et al., 2020), as flying for social reasons is usually considered necessary. In addition, the social obligations fulfilled by flying lead our interviewees to believe that they have no choice or control over how much they fly, and this belief is used to reduce cognitive dissonance.

Furthermore, we’ve also identified another type of social benefit from long-distance travel, based on the belief that one is entitled to temporarily detach oneself from local networks and their expectations and either meet with similar people in distant parts of the world, or engage in fleeting interactions with random people, as described in section 4.4. While this motivation for air travel does not appear to be as strong as caring for loved ones and does not provide as easy a moral disengagement, it may be a reason for some highly mobile urbanites to travel despite environmental concerns.

Similar to previous studies (e.g. Barr et al., 2010; Dickinson et al., 2010; Lassen, 2010), we also find that the impact of flying on climate change is not part of everyday experience, while the social pressures and benefits related to flying are. Although our interviewees are aware of the climate impacts of flying, they are not supported by examples of alternative behaviour in peer groups, which seems crucial for a successful transition to reduced flying (Jacobson et al., 2020; Wormbs & Söderberg, 2021). Close social ties can also promote behaviour change, for example pressure from environmentally conscious children to reduce flying (Gössling et al., 2020; Jacobson et al., 2020; Wormbs & Söderberg, 2021). In our study the latter effect was observed for car use (Árnadóttir et al., 2019) but not for flying. In contrast, children seem to serve as a reference group whose expectations and needs help to justify trips abroad.

Finally, the study provides another example of the prominent role of flying to a vacation destination ‘as a (…) crucial annual event’ (McDonald et al., 2015, p. 486). Barr et al. (2010) argued that, while environmental practices at home can be analysed as routines embedded in everyday lifestyles, this is not the case for flying. However, this study suggests that flying is also based on repetitive social rituals and expectations, that are difficult to replace, as shown in section 4.5. The obviousness of flying is expressed in the fact that, although nuanced norms have developed about which uses of flying are justified and which are not, it seems equally suspicious not to fly at all. People who are not interested in flying reported being somewhat embarrassed by this fact and feeling the need to explain themselves, as shown in section 4.1.

5.2. Moral justification based on social distinction

While close relationships and social rituals provide flying with obviousness and legitimacy, socially distant people and past selves are used to justify one’s own plane trips as morally superior, as shown in section 4.2. Thus, the second way of solving the ‘flyers dilemma’ we encountered is also based on the distinction distinguishing between necessary and excessive forms of consumption, but mixed with social distinction. As a result, it lies between the two main most powerful types of Bandura’s (2007, 2016) disengagement tactics: moral justification and exonerative comparison. The meaningful experiences and educational impacts derived from individualised travelling not only serve to justify one’s emissions, but are also used to critique how others use flights and create social distinction.

Previous studies (Koresen, 2013; Lassen, 2010; Mkono, 2020) suggest that the confession of guilt itself can turn into a virtue when contrasted with others who perform similar behaviour without reflection or need to justify themselves (I am aware of the harm of flying and that one should fly less, unlike many others). This tactic was also been observed in this study. However, the participants not only credited themselves with above-average awareness, but also with making flights that were unusual and valuable, and therefore more justifiable. In Büchs’s (2017) study, flight reducers built their identity on opposition to socially dominant norms that favoured flying. In this study, it is people who continue to fly despite environmental concerns who build their identity on opposition to social norms. However, the norms they oppose are not about flying per se, but about mass or status-oriented flying. This helps them not only to justify their flying, but even to present it as something challenging, effortful, right and above average. When a specific practice becomes widespread, normative evaluation and distinctive power no longer refer to the practice itself but the new and often subtle differences of its performance (Elias, 2012). Here, the difference lies in the motivations for travelling, the effort put into preparing the trips, and the quality of the experience. By referring to meaningful and authentic experiences and the benefits of self-development or self-realisation, interviewees echo the main themes of the recent literature on positive tourism (Filep & Laing, 2019). Interviewees appear to value eudaimonic motivations and experiences, such as personal growth and meaning (Huta & Waterman, 2014), over motivations of pleasure and social status.

Such justifications for flying are entangled in class identities and differences in the cultural capital. They resemble the methods adopted by the middle class to simultaneously distinguish themself from the vulgarity of popular classes and excess of the elite (Bourdieu, 2005; Casey, 2010). Our interviewees distinguish themselves from standardised mass tourism and from tourism motivated by an overstretched demonstration of social status. The recognition of valuable and legitimate ways of flying encountered in the study thus resemble the differentiation between old and new types of tourism (Richards, 1999). In the case of flying, such differences become an object of class identity and a tool to maintain practices that have become questionable from the perspective of environmental norms (cf. Hibbert et al., 2013). The potential social sanctions, such as flight shaming, that might follow may then refer not to flying per se but to unjustified forms of and motivations for flying.

Such selective sanctioning is problematic from the perspectives of climate impact and social justice. The sophisticated journeys it is supposed to justify may emit just as much, or even more, as those criticised since their destinations are often more distant (e.g., a culture-related trip to Japan vs beach holidays in Tenerife). In addition, such justifications do not take into account differences in the frequency of flying of different social categories. Although access to air travel has democratised over the last decades, inequalities in the intensity of flying have remained very high, so that the flights and emission share of the disadvantaged groups is much smaller compared to that of well-situated groups in absolute terms (Büchs & Mattioli, 2021).

6. Policy implications

It could be argued that the Covid-related decline in air travel outbreak could change the rules of the game. However, the airline industry has experienced many crises in its history and has always quickly returned to a path of steady growth . Aviation stakeholders expect air travel to recover by 2024-25 at the latest (IATA., 2022; Michelmann et al., 2023). Leisure and personal travel are expected to recover particularly fast (Suau-Sanchez et al., 2020). The recovery has been remarkably quick in Iceland, where the number of passengers served by Keflavik in the summer of 2022 was roughly the same as in the summer of 2019 (Statistics Iceland, 2022), and the aviation industry expects 2023 to be the ‘third biggest year’ on record (Isavia, 2022). In addition, recent analysis for the UK shows that economic recession reduces air travel by affluent, younger and better educated passengers to a much lesser extent than others, especially disadvantaged groups (Büchs & Mattioli, 2021).

The conclusions of points 5.1 and 5.2 indicate that urgent action is needed to prevent further social institutionalisation and normalisation of frequent and long-distance flying.

It has been argued that social norms are powerful agents of behavioural change in general (e.g. Bicchieri, 2017; Tankard & Paluck, 2016) and specifically when it comes to climate change mitigation (e.g. Creutzig et al., 2018). However, the social embeddedness of flying makes it difficult to change through individually motivating behaviour changes based mainly on providing abstract knowledge about climate change without relating to everyday experiences and emotions (Jacobson et al., 2020; Wormbs & Söderberg, 2021). A lack of social support and positive reference groups may also inhibit flying reduction so that, without reaching the tipping point (Otto et al., 2020) and gathering a critical mass of key actors (Brechin, 2016), flying can be sustained through a social trapping mechanism (Platt, 1973). Uncoordinated individual action to reduce emissions exposes one to the loss of personal benefits of air travel with almost no certainty that this will translate into a global reduction in emissions due to everyone else’s unchecked emissions (Higham et al., 2019). Therefore, change is more likely when there is a perception that others have similar feelings and concerns. On the other hand, comparisons to others can also maintain a positive image of oneself. As a result, it seems important to spread awareness of the global social inequalities in flights and the share of emissions linked to those that seem to be justified by social distinction.

The example of Iceland shows the importance of the broader socio-political regime (Geels, 2012), especially the political and market regulations. The deregulation of international aviation and the consequent appearance of competition within the industry (Christidis, 2016), subsidies and tax exemptions (Gössling et al., 2017), and the growth of low-cost airlines combined with an increase in wages in an already affluent society have increased the affordability of flights and positively influenced its obviousness (Young et al., 2014). The apparent influence of prices on the formation of social norms illustrates how norms are embedded in and structured by organisational and regulatory frameworks. Large-scale changes in demand for travel and social norms around flying could therefore require collective commitment embedded in global, national and local regulatory frameworks (Higham & Font, 2020) that would increase the cost of flights (Higham et al., 2019) and packages of policy interventions, which would spark positive feedback loops (Jacobson et al., 2020). Examples of such policies include VAT on plane tickets and taxation on kerosene, from which international flights are now exempt, ticket taxes, and environmental taxes in place in multiple countries (Faber et al., 2019). It could also include a more progressive frequent flyer levy (Devlin & Bernick, 2015) or air miles levy (Carmichael, 2019).

Finally, the positive normative evaluation of travel characterised by meaningful and authentic experience can be harnessed to seek out and promote less carbon-intensive forms of travel that would provide similar experiences. Literature on tourism and well-being is currently mostly concerned with turning the idea of meaningful and authentic experiences into new tourism products and strengthening destination loyalty (e.g., Garcês et al., 2018). From a sustainability perspective, it would be more helpful to study the well-being consequences of reduced air travel and look for alternative ways of living and spending holidays that would be less carbon-intensive but equally fulfilling.

7. Conclusions, study limitations and future directions

This study adds to the body of knowledge on the social institutionalisation of flying, strategies for legitimising air travel, and perspectives for its reduction.

First, it provides a framework for integrating different types of justifications for intensive flying identified in the previous studies, which corresponds well with Bandura’s (2007, 2016) theory of moral disengagement and Juvan and Dolnicar (2014) typology of justifications for unsustainable tourism behaviour.

Second, it provides an example of a rapid process of social institutionalisation of long-distance travel, based on the incorporation of this practice into social obligations and cyclical rituals, giving it a strong moral justification and obviousness. The specific manifestations of this institutionalisation captured in the study are also, on the one hand, the pressures faced by those who do not feel the need to fly; on the other hand, flights that serve to temporarily disengage from local relationships in favour of interactions with people with whom one has mainly similarity-based ties. From a climate perspective, it is necessary to interrupt such processes as soon as possible, and a good opportunity for this is the period of the post-pandemic, economic crisis, which has temporarily undermined the possibility and obviousness of intensive flying.

Third, it suggests that the mechanisms of moral justification and exonerative comparison can be combined in the form of an elitist narrative based on social distinction. Flights used for the purposes of individualised travel aimed at delivering educational and meaningful experiences are contrasted with unjustified forms of travel associated both with mass tourism and status-oriented tourism. This seems problematic in terms of climate impact and social justice.

Naturally, the study has several limitations that need to be overcome in further research.

First, Reykjavik has a specific geographical location and a very small and affluent population compared to other cities. Iceland’s harsh climatic and seasonal conditions create additional incentives to get away. The lack of a viable alternative could also be why the cost and time effectiveness arguments were not as significant as in other studies (e.g., Higham et al., 2014; McDonald et al., 2015).

Second, the study focuses on a specific group of people with high cultural capital and fairly high financial capital and is qualitative in nature. Quantitative and mixed-methods research is needed to verify the prevalence and correlates of the narratives identified and to take into account the narratives of others, especially those used by our interviewees to critically position themselves.

Third, the study shows a need for methodological developments in measuring pro-environmental norms and behaviour and their relationship. Social norms are not easy to capture by asking direct questions about them. People often believe that while norms direct others, they act independently and without external pressures (Kaufmann, 1998). In this study, we asked people about social norms and expectations around flying without clearly defining the phenomenon, which yielded diverse associations. It was compensated by coding the transcripts and extracting the motivations and norms concerning flying from excerpts that did not explicitly refer to norms. Future interviews may include additional techniques to understand the reasons behind the decision-making, like using journey stories and photo-elicitation. In addition, they should be conducted among all household members, preferably members of the household’s social network.

Fourth, while almost all participants scored very high on the climate change awareness scale, qualitative interviews revealed significant differences in attitudes. First, only half of the participants raised the environmental impact of travelling before being asked about it. However, they had to describe and justify practising short- and long-distance mobility in the previous interview passages. The differences in the level of accessibility of the norm seem important for the likelihood of its activation (Schwartz, 1977). Second, when talking about flying, the interviewees seem to experience different types and intensities of emotions related to climate change, such as worry or fear. As in most other studies, this was not part of our analysis and was not captured by measures of climate change concern used in the survey questionnaire. However, such emotional differences may also cause a reduction in flying (Jacobson et al., 2020; Wormbs & Söderberg, 2021) and require more detailed research, including measures that capture a broad spectrum of concern and worry over climate.

Furthermore, this is a cross-sectional study. It would be beneficial to conduct longitudinal studies to study actual and potential behavioural changes. Our interviews show that the intensity and meanings of flying are changing, and research based on the concept of mobility biographies (Lanzendorf, 2003; Rau & Manton, 2016) could help to capture the turning points of such changes or the effects of socialisation on flying habits (Mattioli, 2020). It could also help analyse flying obviousness and intensity changes as a multistage transformation (Jacobson et al., 2020). Studying mobility biographies with parallel changes in discourse and other socio-technical aspects of aviation and tourism (e.g., Ullström et al., 2023) would be a particularly fruitful way to study the institutionalisation of flying,

Finally, there is a need for studies which would capture not only the perspective of the households but also other stakeholders, such as businesses and policymakers, including their cognitive biases and justifications (Higham & Font, 2020).

Additional information

Funding

The Eimskip University Fund; The Icelandic Road Administration; The Icelandic National Planning Agency; The University of Iceland Research Fund.

Notes on contributors

Filip Schmidt

Filip Schmidt, Ph.D in Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan. He works as Adjunct Professor at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Faculty of Sociology. His research is focused on the everyday social practices, firstly those constituting home and family, and secondly practices of mobility. Currently his main fields of research are accessibility, sociotechnical embedding of new technologies, and analysing mobility from the social justice perspective.

Agustina Sidders

Agustina Sidders, lawyer, M.Sc degree in Environment and Natural Resources, University of Iceland. She works on a reef restoration education project in Mexico.

Michał Czepkiewicz

Michał Czepkiewicz, Ph.D. in Earth Sciences sp. Geography, Adam Mickiewicz University. He works as postdoctoral researcher at the University of Iceland, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and researcher at the Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan, Faculty of Sociology. His research is focused on relationships between urban planning, mobility, wellbeing, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Áróra Árnadóttir

Áróra Árnadóttir, B.A. in Architecture, Iceland University of Arts and M.Sc in Environment and Natural Resources, University of Iceland. She works as postdoctoral researcher at the University of Iceland, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Her research is focused on the impact of urban form and environmental attitudes on environmentally significant behaviours.

Jukka Heinonen

Jukka Heinonen, D.Sc. in Technology, Aalto University, M. Sc. in Economics, University of Helsinki, He works as professor at the University of Iceland, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering and as an Adjunct Professor at the Aalto University in the field of built environment life cycle economics. He focuses on relation between sustainability and the built environment. His main fields of research are consumption-based carbon footprints, urban carbon mitigation and low-carbon human settlements.