Main findings and theoretical interpretation
| Finding | Main empirical evidence | Theoretical interpretation (institutional logics) | Governance implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sustainability awareness does not translate into lower-carbon mobility choices | Air travel dominates mobility choices (69.7%), followed by rail (20.1%); high awareness of environmental issues but low willingness to change travel behaviour | Sustainability logic remains weaker than mobility norms associated with academic participation; behaviour reflects a tension between environmental awareness and institutionalised expectations of physical presence | Move beyond awareness-based approaches by redesigning incentive systems, travel funding criteria, and evaluation standards to legitimise lower-carbon participation modes |
| 2. Conference participation remains structured by prestige and mobility norms | Travel decisions prioritise networking, visibility, and career advancement; digital alternatives perceived as inadequate for professional interaction | Prestige and career advancement logics dominate over sustainability considerations, reinforcing hypermobility as a norm of legitimate academic engagement | Recalibrate academic evaluation and recognition systems (e.g. promotion, funding, visibility metrics) to reduce structural dependence on physical mobility |
| 3. Soft sustainability nudges have limited behavioural effects | Low choice of sustainable accommodation (16%); official sustainability recommendations (e.g. hotel lists) largely disregarded in favour of convenience and autonomy | Weak institutionalisation of sustainability logic: soft nudges fail when not aligned with dominant logics of convenience, autonomy, and efficiency | Complement soft measures with stronger governance mechanisms (standards, incentives, default options, accountability tools) embedded in conference design |
| 4. Participation asymmetries reveal structural inequalities in access | High geographical concentration (top 10 countries = 73.88%); participation patterns imply reliance on long-haul air travel (e.g. UK, USA, Canada) | Inequality-reproducing institutional logics: access to conferences reflects uneven distributions of funding, prestige, and global academic centrality | Promote more equitable and decentralised conference models (e.g. multi-hub formats), alongside governance mechanisms addressing resource and access asymmetries |
| Finding | Main empirical evidence | Theoretical interpretation (institutional logics) | Governance implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sustainability awareness does not translate into lower-carbon mobility choices | Air travel dominates mobility choices (69.7%), followed by rail (20.1%); high awareness of environmental issues but low willingness to change travel behaviour | Sustainability logic remains weaker than mobility norms associated with academic participation; behaviour reflects a tension between environmental awareness and institutionalised expectations of physical presence | Move beyond awareness-based approaches by redesigning incentive systems, travel funding criteria, and evaluation standards to legitimise lower-carbon participation modes |
| 2. Conference participation remains structured by prestige and mobility norms | Travel decisions prioritise networking, visibility, and career advancement; digital alternatives perceived as inadequate for professional interaction | Prestige and career advancement logics dominate over sustainability considerations, reinforcing hypermobility as a norm of legitimate academic engagement | Recalibrate academic evaluation and recognition systems (e.g. promotion, funding, visibility metrics) to reduce structural dependence on physical mobility |
| 3. Soft sustainability nudges have limited behavioural effects | Low choice of sustainable accommodation (16%); official sustainability recommendations (e.g. hotel lists) largely disregarded in favour of convenience and autonomy | Weak institutionalisation of sustainability logic: soft nudges fail when not aligned with dominant logics of convenience, autonomy, and efficiency | Complement soft measures with stronger governance mechanisms (standards, incentives, default options, accountability tools) embedded in conference design |
| 4. Participation asymmetries reveal structural inequalities in access | High geographical concentration (top 10 countries = 73.88%); participation patterns imply reliance on long-haul air travel (e.g. UK, USA, Canada) | Inequality-reproducing institutional logics: access to conferences reflects uneven distributions of funding, prestige, and global academic centrality | Promote more equitable and decentralised conference models (e.g. multi-hub formats), alongside governance mechanisms addressing resource and access asymmetries |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.