Attitude-based target groups to reduce the ecological impact of daily mobility behavior

Environment and Behavior

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 3-43

  Hunecke, Marcel ^a   Haustein, Sonja ^a   Böhler, Susanne ^b   Grischkat, Sylvie ^c  

^a RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^b and Energy   (Germany)

^c LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Conservation ecological behavior; Ecological assessment; Target groups; Transportation

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; MOBILITY; SEGMENTATION; TRANSPORTATION; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 70450253180     PISSN: 00139165     EISSN: 1552390X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013916508319587     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2. Anable, J. (2005). Complacent Car Addicts or Aspiring Environmentalists. Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy, 12, 65-78.
3. Anable, J., & Gatersleben, B. (2005). All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39, 163-181.
4. Aschpurwis + Behrens GmbH. (2001). BIK Regionen: Ballungsräume, Stadtregionen, Mittel-/Unterzentrengebiete - Methodenbeschreibung zur Aktualisierung 2000 [Spatial Differentiation Model - BIK: Metropolitan Area, City Regions, Centres and Sub Centres - Methologogical description, current version of 2000]. Retrieved May 9, 2005, from http://www.bik-gmbh.de/texte/BIK-Regionen2000.pdf.
5. Bamberg, S. (2001). Wertetypen und Umweltverhalten. Empirischer Test der Theorie integrierter Wertsysteme von Schwartz mit langen sowie zwei neuentwickelten kurzen Werte-Inventaren [Value types and environmental behavior]. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Gießen.
6. Bamberg, S., Hunecke, M., & Blöbaum, A. (2007). Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: Two field studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 190-203.
7. Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting student's car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35, 1-22.
8. Brög, W., Erl, W., & Mense, N. (2004). Individualised marketing: Changing travel behaviour for a better environment. In Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (Oecd; Ed.), Communicating environmentally sustainable transport - The role of soft measures (pp. 83-97). Paris: OECD Publications.
9. ClustanGraphics (2002). ClustanGraphics 5.26. Edinburgh, Scotland: Clustan Limited.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. De Jong, G., Gunn, H., & Ben-Akiva, B. (2004). A meta-model for passenger and freight transport in Europe. Transport Policy, 11, 329-344.
12. Dibb, S. (1999). Criteria guiding segmentation implementation: reviewing the evidence. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7, 107-129.
13. Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., & Guagnano, G.A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450-471.
14. Ecmt. (2004). Transport and spatial policies: the role of regulatory and fiscal incentives. Paris: OECD Publications.
15. Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S., Hiscock, R., & Kearns, A. (2003). In the driving seat: Psychosocial benefits from private motor vehicle transport compared to public transport. Transportation Research, Part F, 6, 217-231.
16. Geller, E.S. (1989). Applied behavior analysis and social marketing: An integration for environmental preservation. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 17-36.
17. Götz, K., Loose, W., Schmied, M., & Schubert, S. (2003). Mobilitätsstile in der Freizeit. Minderung der Umweltbelastungen des Freizeit- und Tourismusverkehrs. Berichte 2/03 des Umweltbundesamtes [Mobility styles for leisure time mobility. Reduction of the environmental impact of leisure time and tourism transportation]. Berlin, Germany: Erich Schmidt.
18. Grischkat, S., & Hunecke, M. (2006). Ecological assessment of mobility behaviour. In W. Möhlenbrink, M. Bargende, U. Hangleiter, & U. Martin (Eds.), Networks for Mobility 2006 [Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, Abstracts and CD-Rom]. Stuttgart, Germany: FOVUS.
19. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505-2528.
20. Haustein, S., & Hunecke, M. (2007). Reduced use of environmentally friendly modes of transportation caused by perceived mobility necessities: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1856-1883.
21. Haustein, S., Hunecke, M. & Manz, W. (2007). Verkehrsmittelnutzung unter Einfluss von Wetterlage und -empfindlichkeit [The impact of weather situations and weather resistance on means of transport usage]. Internationales Verkehrswesen, 59, 393-396.
22. Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behavior: prediction the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2154-2189.
23. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J.H.P. (2000). Regionalisierung von Umfragedaten. Eine kleine Handlungsanleitung [Realization of survey data. A little user guide; Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen (ZUMA), How-to-Do-Reihe, Nr. 4]. Mannheim, Germany: ZUMA.
24. Hunecke, M. (2000). Ökologische Verantwortung, Lebensstile und Umweltverhalten [Ecological responsibility, lifestyles, and ecological behavior]. Heidelberg, Germany: Asanger.
25. Hunecke, M., Blöbaum, A., Matthies, E., & Höger, R. (2001). Responsibility and environment: ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33, 845-867.
26. Hunecke, M., Haustein, S., Grischkat, S., & Böhler, S. (2007). Psychological, sociodemographic, and infrastructural factors as determinants of ecological impact caused by mobility behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 277-292.
27. Hunecke, M., Schubert, S., & Zinn, F. (2005). Mobilitätsbedürfnisse und Verkehrsmittelwahl im Nahverkehr: Ein einstellungsbasierter Zielgruppenansatz [Mobility needs and the choice of transport means in the public local transport system]. Internationales Verkehrswesen, 57, 26-33.
28. Hunecke, M., & Schweer, I. (2006). Einflussfaktoren der Alltagsmobilität - Das Zusammenwirken von Raum, Verkehrsinfrastruktur, Lebensstil und Mobilitätseinstellungen [Determinants of daily mobility - the interaction of space, traffic infrastructure, lifestyles and mobility-related attitudes]. In K. J. Beckmann, M. Hesse, C. Holz-Rau, & M. Hunecke (Eds.), StadtLeben - Wohnen, Mobilität und Lebensstil (pp. 148-166). Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
29. Ifeu-Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Heidelberg. (2005). Daten- und Rechenmodell: Schadstoffemissionen aus dem motorisierten Verkehr in Deutschland 1960-2030 [Software tool: emissions resulting from motorized modes in Germany 1960-2030]. Heidelberg, Germany: Author.
30. Infas & DIW. (2003). Mobilität in Deutschland. Tabellenband [Mobility in Germany. Table report]. Bonn, Germany: Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft.
31. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1996). Climate change 1995: The science of climate change. Contribution of working group I to the Second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33. Jäger, H. (1989). Zielgruppenmodell im Öffentlichen Personennahverkehr [A target group model for public transportation]. Die Bundesbahn, 65, 665-668.
34. Klein, H., (2001). Conclus 3.0. Osnabrück, Germany: Social Science Consulting.
35. Lovins, A.B., & Cramer, D.R. (2004). Hypercars, hydrogen, and the automotive transition. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 35, 50-85.
36. Mann, E., & Abraham, C. (2006). The role of affect in UK commuters' travel mode choices: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 155-176.
37. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues 56, 543-554.
38. Nordlund, A.M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 339-347.
39. Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462-483.
40. Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior - A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36, 70-93.
41. Redmond, L. (2000). Identifying and analyzing travel-related attitudinal, personality, and lifestyle clusters in the San Francisco Bay area (Paper UCD-ITS-RR-00-08) Davis, CA Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
42. Schwartz, S.H. (1977). Normative influence on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221-279). New York: Academic.
43. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structures of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic.
44. Schwartz, S.H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of universal content and structures of values. Extensions and cross cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.
45. Sinus Sociovision (2006). The Sinus-Milieus. Retrieved February, 12, 2006, from http://www.sociovision.com/sociovision/page?rep1=SM&rep2=Group&nom=princ-sm-uk.
46. SPSS, Inc. (2006). SPSS 14. München, Germany: Addison Wesley.
47. Stead, D., & Marshall, S. (2001). The relationships between urban form and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 1, 113-141.
48. Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research, Part A, 39, 147-162.
49. Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Slotergraf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F, 4, 151-169.
50. Stern, P.C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
51. Van Wee, B., Holwerda, H., & Van Baren, R. (2002). Preferences for modes, residential location and travel behaviour: The relevance for land-use impacts on mobility. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 2, 305-316.
52. Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W.A. (1998). Market segmentation: conceptual and methodological foundations. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
53. Zumkeller, D., Chlond, B.,. Kuhnimhof, T. (2002). Panelauswertung 2002 - Fortführung und erweiterte Auswertungen zum Haushaltspanel sowie zu Kraftstoffverbrauch und Fahrleistungen [Panel analyses 2002. Follow-up and Ugrading of the Analyses of Households, Fuel Consumption and Driving Performance]. Report for the Federal Transportation Ministry, Institute for Transportation. Karlsruhe, Germany: University of Karlsruhe.