{"id":34328,"date":"2025-03-05T17:03:05","date_gmt":"2025-03-05T16:03:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/?p=34328"},"modified":"2025-03-05T17:03:31","modified_gmt":"2025-03-05T16:03:31","slug":"food-consumption-accounts-for-a-significant-share-of-global-co2-emissions-in-tourism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/2025\/03\/05\/food-consumption-accounts-for-a-significant-share-of-global-co2-emissions-in-tourism\/","title":{"rendered":"Food consumption accounts for a significant share of global tourism CO2 emissions"},"content":{"rendered":"

This document<\/span><\/a>, published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, addresses the issue of promoting pro-environmental behavior in the field of catering in hotel facilities, specifically examines the impact of cognitive and behavioral interventions on vegetarian food choices. The authors, Sofie Voss, Helena Andre, Florian Kock, Marion Karl, and Alexander Josiassen, point out that Food consumption accounts for a significant share of global CO2 emissions in tourism<\/strong>, with food systems contributing a third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock production alone is responsible for 14.5 % of these emissions. In contrast, plant-based diets have a much lower carbon footprint. This fact highlights the need to promote sustainable eating habits<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Although reducing the consumption of high-emission foods has not been at the forefront of tourism research, efforts to investigate environmentally sustainable tourism are growing. However, most studies on pro-environmental behavior in tourism and hospitality tend to focus on description of problems rather than empirical testing of solutions<\/strong>. Researchers emphasize that real-world tourist behavior should be monitored, for example through field studies. However, reviews to date show that only a small number of interventions have focused on reducing the consumption of high-emission foods or increasing the consumption of low-emission foods. Among the most effective interventions are "nudging" and changes in the selection architecture<\/strong>, which are subtle interventions that direct people towards certain behaviors without restricting their options or significantly changing economic incentives. However, few studies in the hospitality sector have used this approach.<\/p>\n

Given the higher carbon footprint of consuming meat-based foods, researchers are trying to take advantage of "nudging" interventions to promote vegetarian food choices<\/strong>. The literature distinguishes three main approaches to \u201cnudging\u201d: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Cognitive and affective approaches focus on changing people\u2019s thoughts and feelings about specific foods, while behavioral approaches seek to influence eating behavior by changing the choice architecture<\/strong>Behavioral approaches include, for example, expanding the menu of vegetarian dishes or making them the default. Current knowledge suggests that cognitive approaches are generally less successful than behavioral ones<\/strong>Despite a growing body of research, comparative studies testing cognitive and behavioral interventions in real-world hospitality settings are lacking.<\/p>\n

The aim of this study was compare the effectiveness of cognitive and behavioral interventions in promoting the consumption of lower-emission foods<\/strong>, i.e. vegetarian dishes. The authors conducted two hidden field experiments in two hotels with different characteristics<\/strong> (urban vs. rural, leisure vs. conference, family-oriented vs. business-oriented). Four menus were tested in each hotel: the hotel's default menu and three intervention menus. The intervention menus were designed to test cognitive intervention (exploiting the crowd effect) and behavioral interventions (exploiting framing and anchoring effects).<\/p>\n

Cognitive intervention<\/strong> in this study was based on bandwagon effect<\/strong>, which states that individual decisions are influenced by the observed decisions of others. A sentence was added to the menus in both hotels informing about the high popularity of vegetarian dishes among guests. For example, in Hotel 1 it was stated: \u201cAt [Hotel 1], more than half of our menu is vegetarian. 85% of our participants will choose to eat vegetarian dishes during their stay with us. Will you have vegetarian today?\u201d.<\/p>\n

Behavioral interventions<\/strong> were based on change in selection architecture<\/strong> and used framing bias<\/strong> a anchoring bias<\/strong>A two-sided menu was designed, with one side containing only vegetarian dishes and the other side containing only non-vegetarian dishes. As part of Vegetarian behavioral intervention<\/strong> Participants were first given a page with vegetarian dishes, which was intended to create an anchoring effect on vegetarian options. As part of Non-vegetarian behavioral intervention<\/strong> The participants were first given a side of non-vegetarian food.<\/p>\n

The experiments were conducted covertly, without informing the participants, to ensure that their true, uninfluenced behavior was observed. Data on food orders were collected automatically through the hotel ordering system (Hotel 1) or through questionnaires (Hotel 2). A total of 647 participants were analyzed.<\/p>\n

The results of the study showed that behavioral interventions were more effective in promoting vegetarian food choices than cognitive intervention<\/strong>. In Hotel 2, this difference was statistically significant. Participants who received the behavioral intervention were up to 654 % more likely to order a vegetarian meal compared to the cognitive intervention group. With the framing and anchoring intervention, this chance increased to up to 950 %.<\/p>\n

Specifically, Vegetarian behavioral intervention<\/strong> (where vegetarian dishes were presented first) showed the strongest effect in both hotels. Although this difference was not statistically significant in Hotel 1, in Hotel 2 it led to a statistically significant increase in vegetarian orders, with the odds of choosing a vegetarian dish being up to 950 % higher than with the cognitive intervention.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, even Non-vegetarian behavioral intervention<\/strong> (where non-vegetarian dishes were presented first) led to higher orders of vegetarian dishes compared to the cognitive intervention in both hotels, although this difference was not always statistically significant. The authors interpret this result as meaning that dividing the menu into vegetarian and non-vegetarian sides removed the implicit anchoring to non-vegetarian dishes that may have been present in the default menu and the cognitive intervention menu.<\/p>\n

The study confirmed the first hypothesis (H1) that behavioral intervention is more effective than cognitive intervention in increasing orders of vegetarian dishes<\/strong>She also confirmed hypothesis H2a that vegetarian intervention is more effective than cognitive intervention<\/strong>, and refuted hypothesis H2b that non-vegetarian intervention is less effective than cognitive intervention<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In the discussion, the authors emphasize that changes in the architecture of choice are more effective than trying to change thinking through information<\/strong>Although a cognitive intervention based on the crowd effect saw some increase in vegetarian meal orders, its effect was significantly less than that of behavioral interventions. Behavioral interventions using framing and anchoring effects have been shown to be a powerful tool for influencing meal choices.<\/p>\n

The authors also point out the potential impact of the different participant profiles in the two hotels (leisure guests in Hotel 1 and business travelers in Hotel 2), but emphasize that behavioral interventions were shown to be more effective in both contexts. They also state that despite the social norm of meat consumption, subtle behavioral interventions can influence decisions.<\/p>\n

At the end of the study, the authors state that Behavioral interventions based on framing and anchoring can effectively influence hotel guests' choices without the need for financial incentives or exclusion of meat dishes<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Theoretical implications<\/strong> studies consist of providing concrete evidence of the greater effectiveness of behavioral interventions compared to cognitive ones in promoting pro-environmental behavior in tourism and hospitality<\/strong>The study contributes to the limited research in this area and highlights the practical utility of behavioral economics insights in achieving significant behavioral changes.<\/p>\n

Managerial implications<\/strong> and the implications of the study are significant for hotel managers and policy makers. Implementing behavioral interventions such as strategic menu framing<\/strong>, represents a cost-effective and easy-to-implement way to reduce the environmental footprint of eating<\/strong>, increase profitability (thanks to lower costs for plant-based ingredients and potentially faster service), and reach a growing segment of customers who prefer sustainable options. The authors recommend Present vegetarian dishes more prominently on the menu and avoid labeling them as \u201calternatives\u201d to meat dishes<\/strong>. These findings could also be applied in other public institutions and within hospitality education. Calculations for Hotel 2 showed that by implementing the Vegetarian Behavioral Intervention, the hotel could reduce your annual CO2 emissions from dinners by up to 13 %<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Between study limitations<\/strong> belongs possible menu novelty effect<\/strong>, which may have influenced the selection of repeat participants. The study did not examine long-term sustainability of behavioral changes<\/strong>Future research should focus on longitudinal studies<\/strong> and more complex experimental designs. Another limitation is contextual specificity of the study<\/strong>, which was conducted in two environmentally conscious hotels, which may have influenced the crowd effect. Future research should verify these findings in other types of hotels and cultural contexts. The authors also point out potential implicit anchoring to non-vegetarian dishes in the default Hotel 1 menu<\/strong> and recommend including unbiased control group<\/strong> and specially designed neutral menus in future studies.<\/p>\n

The appendices of the document include a detailed comparison of the characteristics of the two hotels and the data collection process (Appendix A) and detailed calculations of CO2 emissions in Hotel 2 (Appendix B). These calculations illustrate the potential of behavioral interventions to reduce the environmental impact of catering in hotel establishments. Spring<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Glossary of Key Terms<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Pro-environmental behavior:<\/strong> Behavior that consciously minimizes the negative impact of human activities on the environment.<\/li>\n
  • Cognitive interventions:<\/strong> Interventions aimed at changing the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs or awareness of individuals in order to influence their behaviour.<\/li>\n
  • Behavioral interventions:<\/strong> Interventions aimed at changing the context or architecture of choice to influence behavior without restricting options or significantly changing economic incentives.<\/li>\n
  • Sustainable food choices:<\/strong> Food consumption decisions that have a lower environmental impact compared to traditional choices, such as vegetarian meals with a lower carbon footprint.<\/li>\n
  • The \u201cbandwagon\u201d effect (Social Proof):<\/strong> A cognitive bias in which people conform to the behavior and opinions of the majority, often out of a desire to fit in or a belief that the majority is right.<\/li>\n
  • \u201cFraming bias\u201d:<\/strong> A cognitive bias in which the way information is presented (framed) influences individuals' decisions, even when the objective content of the information is the same.<\/li>\n
  • \u201cAnchoring bias\u201d:<\/strong> A cognitive bias in which people rely too heavily on the first piece of information they receive (anchor) when making decisions or estimates.<\/li>\n
  • \u201cChoice architecture\u201d:<\/strong> The context in which people are presented with choices and the way in which that context is structured.<\/li>\n
  • \u201cNudging\u201d:<\/strong> Subtle interventions in the architecture of choice that guide people towards certain behaviors without prohibiting other options or significantly changing economic incentives.<\/li>\n
  • Carbon footprint:<\/strong> The total amount of greenhouse gas emissions directly or indirectly caused by an individual, organization, event, or product, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq).<\/li>\n
  • Field experiment:<\/strong> A research study conducted in a real-world setting (as opposed to a laboratory) in which researchers manipulate one or more variables to determine their effect on outcomes.<\/li>\n
  • Hidden field experiment:<\/strong> A field experiment in which participants are unaware that they are part of a research study, to minimize influencing their natural behavior.<\/li>\n
  • Logistic regression:<\/strong> A statistical method used to model the probability of a binary outcome (e.g., choosing a vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian meal) based on one or more predictor variables.<\/li>\n
  • Odds Ratio:<\/strong> The measure of association between exposure and outcome. In the context of a study, it expresses how many times more likely a participant is in one intervention group to choose a vegetarian meal compared to another group.<\/li>\n<\/ul>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This paper, published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, addresses the issue of promoting pro-environmental behavior in the catering sector in hotel establishments.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-znizovanie_co2_cdr_ccs_ccu_dac"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34328","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}