Throughout this research, the importance of the environment in decision-making for long distance travel, such as in making mode choices, has consistently been an issue of low perceived importance to the participants.
In the focus groups, the environment was an issue of low salience as it was only mentioned by four participants out of 17, on one occasion each. When the environment was raised, it was in relation to whether the environmental impact of high speed rail was better or worse compared with other modes of transport. Thornton et al. (2010) indicate the presence of widespread public knowledge about the environmental impacts of transport. However, the findings from the focus group suggest that this is not the case with high speed rail.
Two respondents indicated that they would not pay an additional levy to offset the environmental impacts of their travel. The justification given for this was that they perceived that they had already paid enough money (for a flight) and the fare was already too expensive. In the past, offsetting the carbon emissions of travel has been abandoned by Eurostar on the grounds that the concept was not well understood, and furthermore, that the environmental debate had shifted away from carbon neutrality and offsetting (Otley, 2011). Research by Carbon Clear, cited by the Environmental Audit Committee (2007) indicates that the number of individuals that choose to offset is very small, at only around 1-2% of individual consumers. The Cooperative group add that the personal sector of this market is tiny. The research also comments that if the voluntary offsetting market is going to reach its potential for reducing carbon emissions, then participants need to increase considerably (Environmental Audit Committee, 2007). Low participation in carbon offsetting schemes when a voluntary matter of choice, confirms that some will pass the opportunity to carbon offset while it is not compulsory. Those that choose to carbon offset tend to be those already concerned with environmental
173
issues, or the affluent according to the Energy Saving Trust (Environmental Audit Committee, 2007). This claim appears to be supported by the finding from the focus group that participants rarely mentioned the environment, and those that mentioned carbon offsetting said that they would not pay. The findings of the focus groups that the environment was an issue rarely mentioned and the unwillingness-to-pay for carbon offsetting appears to be indicative of a low importance given to the issue of the environment.
Responses to the questionnaire were consistent with those from the focus groups, in finding that the environmental impacts of travel are perceived to be of low importance as a determinant of travel behaviour when compared with the other mode choice determinants. The environment was considered to be the least important consideration in decision-making for long distance travel, while cost was the second most important issue. When compared with fare/cost of travel, the environment was secondary, and when compared with travel time, the environment was again the secondary consideration. This finding is consistent with previous research, which has suggested that the environment is not a priority compared to other issues in travel decision making (Thornton et al., 2010; Cafferkey and Caulfield, 2011). The importance of travel time relative to the environment is consistent with other studies that found travel time to be a major influence on mode choice (Mandel et al., 1997; Gonzalez-Savignat, 2004).
The lack of importance placed on environmental considerations when making transport decisions, has been paralleled by both declining concern about climate change and the contribution of transport to climate change (Department for Transport, 2011d). However, previous research has also demonstrated that even where environmental norms are present, they can be overcome by other issues or needs considered more important (Wall et al., 2008). Therefore, environmental concerns in travel decision-making do not appear to be as important or essential as other issues, and can be overridden. Ultimately, while some groups can consider the importance of the environment in travel mode choice similarly, their travel behaviour intentions can differ. Perceived importance of the environment does not necessarily act as a precursor of more sustainable travel behaviour (Anable, 2005).
The low perceived importance of environmental consequences of travel, may be explained by low salience rather than a conscious perception that the environment
174
is unimportant. In contrast to the finding of this thesis that the environmental impacts of travel are of low importance, other research found that more than three- quarters of adults sampled were concerned about climate change and believed it to be one of the top three most important issues facing Britain (Eleini, 2010). The environment issue was raised from a list of possible answers including climate change. In another study, respondents asked how they felt a high speed rail scheme would impact on them personally, did not mention the environment. However, given predefined options, nearly three-quarters indicated the issue of greatest importance to be the environment (Department for Transport, 2011a). The environment was not raised unprompted in the focus groups, and in the research by Eleini (2010) and Department for Transport (2011a), the importance of environmental issues were provided as an option in a list. This suggests that the environment may be an issue of low salience, and becomes an issue of greater importance when prompted. However, when given a defined list of options in the questionnaire, respondents perceived the environmental impact of a travel choice to be an issue of low importance in decision-making for long distance travel.
To summarise, the lack of mentions in the focus groups and low perceived importance of the environment unless prompted, does raise the possibility that it is an issue of low salience. However, when prompted for the research of this thesis, the environment was still perceived to be an issue of low importance in decision- making for long distance travel. It is possible that the low importance of the environment in the findings of this thesis, is a result of the issue being considered alongside other issues such as cost, travel time etc. The environmental norm may therefore be overcome by other issues in decision-making for long-distance travel, perhaps relating to perceived behavioural control aspects such as cost and time, which are therefore prioritised against perceived environmental impact.