Drivers and inhibitors of gen Z’s proenvironmental travel engagement: exploring MOA factors and goal frames

Tourists often engage in behaviors that significantly harm the environment, such as excessive water and energy consumption, waste generation and carbon emissions (Dolnicar, 2020). Adding to this challenge is the tendency for individuals who prioritize eco-friendly actions in daily life to neglect such behaviors while on vacation (Juvan and Dolnicar, 2014; Liu et al., 2022). In this context, young consumers constitute a key target group, because early intervention is essential in disrupting the development of unsustainable consumption habits (Fischer et al., 2017). Furthermore, it is important to reach young travelers as they often set trends, attract others to new destinations and influence societal attitudes toward tourism (Cavagnaro et al., 2018; Šaparnienė et al., 2022). The current generation of teenagers and young adults, Gen Z, is comprised of people born between approximately 1996 and 2010, whose identity has been shaped by the digital age, climate anxiety, a shifting financial landscape and the pandemic (McKinsey and Company, 2024). It is an important target group for researchers and practitioners alike, as the generation constitutes about 32% of the world’s population (Djafarova and Foots, 2022; Ling et al., 2024) and will play a major role in shaping a sustainable future and achieving the global goals for sustainable development (Pinho and Gomes, 2023).

Although Generation Z is frequently portrayed as more environmentally conscious than other generations (Sharpley, 2021) research shows mixed results. Some studies indicate that Gen Z is more engaged in proenvironmental behaviors (PEB) and sustainable travel (Ribeiro et al., 2023; Wee, 2019), while others find them indifferent or neglectful toward sustainability in tourism and other consumption contexts (D’Arco et al., 2023; Haddouche and Salomone, 2018; Williams and Hodges, 2022). Sharpley (2021) concludes that “despite evidence of greater environmental awareness and activity amongst the post-millennial generation more generally, this does not apply to their consumption of tourism in particular” (p. 103), and Pinho and Gomes (2023) note that “their theoretical concerns are not consonant with their attitudes in practice” (p. 10). Hence, an apparent gap exists between attitude and behavior (Gurova, 2024; Prayag et al., 2022; Williams and Hodges, 2022). Given these inconsistencies, researchers have pointed to the need for further studies of Gen Z’s motivations, attitudes, decisions and behaviors related to more environmentally friendly consumption (Djafarova and Foots, 2022; Ling et al., 2024; Williams and Hodges, 2022). Most studies on PEBs in tourism investigate intended, not actual, behaviors, and they focus on specific tourism products or consumer choices rather than general travel-related behaviors (Prayag et al., 2022). There is also a lack of research on external drivers of proenvironmental tourism behaviors (Salinero et al., 2022). It is important to understand what drives and hinders PEBs, as this makes it possible to design intervention strategies to promote positive change and remove barriers (Steg and Vlek, 2009).

Therefore, this paper aims to contribute to the body of knowledge by exploring drivers, inhibitors and potential interventions of PEBs among Gen Z tourists. The empirical study is conducted through the lens of two major theories, the goal-framing theory (GFT) and the motivation–opportunity–ability (MOA) framework, which together provide a rich understanding of individuals’ motives as well as external and internal factors that may act as barriers or enablers of PEBs. GFT is considered a superior framework for understanding PEBs (Steg and Vlek, 2009; Wang et al., 2022). This theory posits that goals are essential in shaping how individuals process information and behave. It outlines three distinct “frames” that elucidate the underlying motives for consumers’ choices (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007); thus, these goal frames can be understood as motivations for decisions and behavior. Motivation acts as a key determinant together with opportunity and ability in studies of consumer behavior with environmental implications (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995); hence, the MOA framework is effective for understanding sustainable behaviors (de Jonge et al., 2013).

The following research questions will guide the study:

PEB can be defined as behavior “that harms the environment as little as possible, or even benefits the environment” (Steg and Vlek, 2009, p. 309). This concept overlaps with terms like environmentally responsible behavior, green purchase behavior and sustainable consumption. PEB is the chosen term in this study as it is used in much of the referenced literature. Scholars have examined the drivers and barriers to PEB, both in general (Li et al., 2019) and in tourism (Han, 2021), concluding that both internal and external factors shape individuals’ PEB. Generational comparisons have been conducted among Millennials and older groups (Casalegno et al., 2022). While some research has explored tourists’ PEB within Generation Z, none have done this through the lens of MOA and GFT, which should offer a more nuanced view of Gen Z’s motivations and constraints than what has been achieved before.

Several studies in tourism suggest that Gen Z care about or are likely to engage in PEB (Prayag et al., 2022; Ribeiro et al., 2023; Salinero et al., 2022; Wee, 2019). Other studies signal the opposite; that Gen Z is not particularly aware of or interested in proenvironmental travel behaviors (Cini and Passafaro, 2019; D’Arco et al., 2023; Haddouche and Salomone, 2018; Pinho and Gomes, 2023).

Considering the latter group of research, Haddouche and Salomone (2018) found that sustainable tourism seems to be an absent concept in the narratives of their Gen Z sample who never mentioned sustainable tourism directly or consciously. While not exclusively focusing on Gen Z, Cini and Passafaro (2019) reported that young individuals exhibited a lack of knowledge about the aims and characteristics of ecotourism and lacked awareness of the benefits of such travel. Recently, Pinho and Gomes (2023) observed that Portuguese Gen Z respondents showed limited commitment to environmental protection, both in their daily lives and travel contexts. In addition, D’Arco et al. (2023) revealed that Gen Z does not prioritize sustainability when planning a holiday. However, they found that Gen Zers were more likely to opt for sustainable transportation over environmentally friendly hotels, potentially due to media coverage of the negative impact of transport-related emissions.

These findings point to a need for a deeper understanding of the factors that drive and inhibit PEB among Gen Z in tourism. Our qualitative approach based on the combination of MOA and GFT, explained in the next sections, provides a comprehensive framework that allows for more detailed explorations of why and how PEB in tourism is carried out or neglected, thereby responding to calls for more research and a better understanding of Gen Z’s motivations, attitudes, decisions and behaviors related to more environmentally friendly tourism consumption (e.g. Pinho and Gomes, 2023; Prayag et al., 2022). This approach will also help develop strategies to promote more sustainable choices within this cohort. Strategies for intervention can include different forms of informational and/or structural strategies, where the first category is aimed at changing prevalent motivations, perceptions, cognitions and norms, while the second aims to change the circumstances under which behavioral choices are made (Steg and Vlek, 2009).

The MOA framework was initially introduced by MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) in their investigation of information processing in advertising. Ölander and Thøgersen (1995) later applied the framework to consumer behavior research, specifically to deepen insights into behaviors related to environmental protection. Their work highlighted MOA as essential elements in shaping responsible consumer actions. Motivation involves beliefs, attitudes, intentions and social norms (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995); ability comprises awareness, knowledge and self-efficacy (Hung and Petrick, 2012; Jiao and Wang, 2024; Tong et al., 2023); and opportunity reflects availability and accessibility of alternatives, destination support and intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural travel constraints (Hung and Petrick, 2012; de Jonge et al., 2013; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2022).

As MOA all influence individuals’ behavior, effective intervention strategies depend on people’s readiness to change a particular behavior (Rothschild, 1999). Individuals can be classified as prone (meeting all three MOA criteria), unable (lacking opportunity or ability) or resistant (lacking motivation). Legal measures are most appropriate for those with the ability to change but lacking motivation, while educational strategies are necessary for those who lack the knowledge or skills to make changes. When behavior change requires highlighting personal benefits, marketing interventions are most appropriate. In cases where both motivation and ability are lacking, combinations of the three strategies are required (Rothschild, 1999). Hence, compared to the two categories proposed by Steg and Vlek (2009), legal interventions are a form of structural strategies, while educational and marketing interventions are informational.

Since its inception, the MOA model has found application in various fields, for example, human resource management (Akhtar et al., 2022), consumer behavior (de Koning et al., 2015) and tourism (Hung and Petrick, 2012; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2022). Within tourism research, the framework has been used to explore various behavioral aspects. For instance, Hung and Petrick (2012) focused on travel intentions in cruise tourism, while Rasoolimanesh et al. (2017) examined community participation. These studies concluded that the factors of MOA are useful for understanding decisions in tourism.

Few studies have specifically explored tourism and PEB through the lens of MOA. Tang et al. (2022) found that motivation and opportunity positively influence tourists’ PEB, although the effect of ability was not significant. Jiao and Wang (2024) investigated the PEB of museum tourists and sought to expand and refine MOA by exploring subcategories within each dimension. They concluded that variables within motivation – eco-guilt, sense of awe and willingness to sacrifice for the environment – were the most critical elements influencing PEB. Based on interviews with “green” and “non-green” tourists, Zong and Fukushige (2024) found that ability seemed most important for the green guests’ decision to stay at green hotels, while opportunity was more important for non-green guests. Notably, these three studies were conducted in China and two of them were quantitative, which points to a gap for qualitative research in other cultural contexts to further enrich understanding in this area.

Lindenberg and Steg (2007) developed the GFT which posits that goals play a pivotal role in shaping how individuals process information and behave. This theory outlines three distinct “frames” that elucidate the underlying motives for consumers’ choices: hedonic, gain and normative goal frames.

The hedonic frame revolves around factors influencing mood, energy levels and the social environment and is closely tied to an individual’s emotional state. This implies that people are more likely to engage in environmentally friendly actions when they associate these behaviors with pleasure and satisfaction. In the gain frame, the primary goal is to safeguard and enhance resources, leading individuals to be sensitive to incentives and to consider trade-offs between costs and benefits. Those driven by this motive prioritize self-interest in terms of time, money and social approval. Finally, the normative frame involves striving to act appropriately, even if it may adversely affect one’s emotions and personal resources (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007). This frame is particularly associated with PEB as individuals are guided by what they believe is the right course of action (Lindenberg and Steg, 2013). However, the normative goal frame is typically the weakest and requires the most support to prevent it from being overshadowed by the stronger hedonic or gain goals, which are driven by self-interest (Lindenberg and Steg, 2013).

All three goal frames exert simultaneous influence, but one will be most active, significantly shaping thoughts, evaluations and choices, while the other two operate in the background (Lindenberg and Steg, 2013). The characteristics of the three frames are summarized in Table 1.

In comparing home and hotel environments, Miao and Wei (2013) found that normative motives are the strongest determinants of PEB at home, while hedonic motives, such as personal comfort and enjoyment, are strongest at hotels. Although gain motives were significant in both contexts, they were not the dominant driver. Similarly, Rodriguez–Sanchez et al. (2020) discovered that hedonic motives are more important than normative motives in driving in-room water conservation at hotels. In addition, transportation research indicates that travelers can be grouped into stable segments based on hedonic, gain and normative goal frames, highlighting the need for affordable, convenient and efficient proenvironmental options to appeal to a broad range of travelers (Bösehans and Walker, 2020).

In a study of peer-to-peer accommodations, hedonic and normative motives were positively related to favorable green traveling attitudes, while gain motives were not (Shin and Kang, 2021). Moreover, Wang et al. (2022) found that all goal frames positively correlated with intentions to visit green hotels, with hedonic motives playing a crucial role. A cross-cultural study on food waste revealed that Slovene tourists’ behavior is more consistent between home and hotel settings, while Chinese tourists often abandon normative habits in favor of hedonic and gain-related behaviors when they travel (Liu et al., 2022). The authors declare that normative PEB is often overshadowed by hedonic and gain motives on vacation, and they stress the strong connection between food waste and hedonic factors.

The original MOA model explores the impact of MOA on different behaviors or behavioral intentions. GFT adds depth by detailing how hedonic, gain and normative goal frames shape behavior, providing more insights into specific forms of motivation than the MOA model alone. Figure 1 displays how these theories are combined to form the conceptual model of this study, which is further explained below.

Based on Ölander and Thøgersen’s (1995) discussion, Tong et al. (2023) define motivation as “goal-oriented performance, both affective and cognitive, that drives the direction and intensity of a particular behavior” (p. 2). In this study, the behavioral component is engagement in PEB. The concept is adapted from research on climate change engagement by Lorenzoni et al., 2007), who define it as “a personal state of connection with the issue of climate change” (p. 446, italics in original). For this paper, engagement in PEB is conceptualized as expressions of a personal connection with, and a desire to participate in, more environmentally friendly travel and tourism.

The conceptual model suggests that opportunity and ability influence motivation, and all three components – motivation, opportunity and ability – influence engagement in PEB. As Ölander and Thøgersen (1995) point out, motivation can lead to behavior only if the individual has the necessary ability and opportunity. Here, motivation is conceptualized as the overall drive to travel, encompassing hedonic, gain and normative goal frames. Thus, the GFT is integrated into the motivation part of the MOA framework. Once the MOA factors and their role in shaping PEB are understood, informational or structural strategies for intervention can be designed to target the relevant factors (Steg and Vlek, 2009).

This study seeks to understand these aspects among Gen Z tourists without testing them as causal links. Hence, the arrows in Figure 1 indicate theoretical relationships, not hypotheses. The model guides the analysis while allowing new insights to emerge from the data.

The study context is Sweden, a country situated in northern Europe with a population of around 10.5 million. Sweden is ranked number 2 of 166 countries in the Sustainable Development Report (2024), which measures the total progress toward achieving all 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) (UN’s global goals for sustainable development). At the same time, major challenges remain in some of the SDGs, with scores stagnating for goals such as Responsible consumption and production. It is also a country with a high level of outbound tourism – on average, Swedes did 2.1 international trips per capita in 2023, and almost 60% of these trips were made by airplane (Europeiska ERV, 2024).

An exploratory, qualitative approach was adopted to capture in-depth insights from a specific group within Gen Z in Sweden: teenagers in their formative years, nearing independence. We used a purposive sampling strategy, i.e. participants were selected according to predetermined criteria relevant to the research questions (Guest et al., 2006). Hence, Swedish consumers aged 15–19, who had recent experiences with leisure travel, were targeted to achieve a demographically homogeneous sample (cf. Robinson, 2014). The researchers reached out through their social networks and via teachers at high schools to recruit participants. Snowball sampling was also used to a smaller extent. A priori, an approximate sample size for the study was between 12 (Guest et al., 2006) and 30 (Boddy, 2016). We continued data collection until saturation was reached; that is, when no new themes emerged from additional interviews (Guest et al., 2006), and when a relatively even balance between male and female participants was achieved. This resulted in a total of 20 interviews conducted during 2022 and 2023 with young Swedish consumers, of which 9 were men and 11 women (see Table 2 for details).

A semistructured interview guide was used to capture the main topics while allowing for flexibility. Following general recommendations, we began with broad, easy questions and moved to more sensitive topics later (Rubin and Rubin, 2012). Initial questions focused on general views about holidays, travel and tourism, with sustainability and eco-friendly behavior addressed later to create a relaxed atmosphere before approaching these potentially more sensitive topics (Liu et al., 2022). Participants were assured there were no right or wrong answers, and that we were interested in their honest perceptions, opinions and experiences.

Interviews were conducted via Teams or Zoom based on the respondents’ preferences. The duration of the interviews varied between 30 and 75 min (median = 46, mean = 47). All interviews were held in Swedish, the native language of interviewees and researchers. With participants’ permission, interviews were recorded and transcribed, alongside extensive notetaking.

The interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six-phase process:

1. familiarization and note-taking;

2. systematic coding;

3. generating initial themes;

4. developing and reviewing themes;

5. refining, defining and naming themes; and

6. writing the report (Braun and Clarke, 2021, p. 331).

We used ATLAS.ti for Phases 2–5, analyzing the original Swedish transcriptions to stay “close” to the data. The results and citations were translated during the final stage of writing. Two researchers conducted the interviews and analysis, developing codes and themes collaboratively to ensure inter-rater reliability. All recordings, notes and documentation were saved to maintain an audit trail of the data and analysis.

As Braun and Clarke (2021) note, a thematic analysis can be used on a continuum between deductive and inductive approaches (rather than a dichotomous “either/or”). The deductive use of TA involves using existing theory as a lens to analyze and interpret the data, while the more inductive analysis is grounded in the data but cannot be conducted without theoretical assumptions (Braun and Clarke, 2021). In this study, we developed an initial understanding of key concepts based on previous research, which informed our coding process while allowing for the exploration of new themes and subthemes. As such, the analysis leans toward the deductive side of the continuum.

This section presents the findings structured around the research questions, addressing the components of the conceptual framework. Each theme is summarized and illustrated with selected quotes, marked with a number assigned to the cited respondent. Table 3 gives an overview of the main themes.

Out of the three types of motivation, hedonic goal frames are by far the most salient when teenagers talk about reasons to travel, such as pleasure, relaxation, getting an opportunity to get away from the home environment and exploring new countries and cultures. This is in line with previous research suggesting that hedonic motives are the dominant driver in various travel choices (Liu et al., 2022; Miao and Wei, 2013; Shin and Kang, 2021):

Hedonic motives are predominant also when it comes to the most important criteria when selecting a destination and accommodation. Responses primarily center around climate, location and comfort, while some participants mention that they want to explore different destinations or places with few tourists. Gain frames, in terms of price and value for money, are also mentioned several times:

For one respondent, the most important criteria are normative and gain-related: climate impact and price:

Criteria tied to the gain frame, such as price and travel time to the destination, are key when deciding on transportation, although hedonic motives like comfort also play an important role. Hence, in line with Gurova (2024), this study finds that price sensitivity plays a key role in Gen Z’s consumption choices. Among the few respondents who explicitly express environmental concerns, there is a tendency to deprioritize normative motives due to the lack of attractive proenvironmental alternatives:

When focusing the interviews on sustainability, many of the participants say that they talk about sustainability in general whether at school, among friends or with family. However, the intersection of travel and sustainability is rarely discussed. Some mean that the price, and thus, the gain frame, is the determining factor and the focus of travel-related conversations. Another view is that people might deliberately refrain from talking about the consequences of travel. One interviewee (16) says that she might think about sustainability after the trip is over:

A few participants say that sustainability concerning travel and tourism is sometimes discussed, and their answers exhibit a blend of normative and gain goal frames:

Overall, normative gain frames do not appear to be very active in a way that results in an actual strive to travel in more proenvironmental ways. While some interviewees try to consider the environmental impact of their travel and tourism choices, primarily in terms of transport, others indicate that there are more important factors at the point of decision:

Thus, normative motives are primarily visible in transportation choices but are overshadowed by the stronger hedonic and gain goals (Lindenberg and Steg, 2013; Liu et al., 2022). In line with the insights offered by Steg et al. (2014) conflicts among goal frames are evident in the tension between choosing proenvironmental transport and desiring affordable, time-efficient and comfortable travel experiences. Proenvironmental alternatives do not live up to these expectations which becomes a barrier to behavioral change. Although the interviews show that conflicting goal frames primarily manifest in transportation decisions, respondents also know that one can reduce consumption and travel frequency to be more environmentally friendly. Sacrificing enjoyment of these activities for the sake of the environment is an example of balancing hedonic and normative factors. When conflicts among the frames arise, the normative goal frame tends to be pushed to the background of the mind as hedonic or gain frames take precedence over behavior.

Limited discussion about travel and sustainability points to low motivation to engage in PEB. Some respondents avoid talking about the environmental impact of travel to ignore its negative consequences; others discuss it but are unwilling to change their choices. Low motivation stems from competing and noncompatible hedonic and gain motives, alongside a lack of incentives for proenvironmental travel, and results in the teenagers being what Rothschild (1999) refers to as “resistant to behave.”

Opportunity could be seen positively as availability, or negatively as barriers to performing a behavior (Zong and Fukushige, 2024). Lack of opportunity involves situations in which the individual wants to act but is unable to do so (Rothschild, 1999). Factors within opportunity include availability and accessibility of alternatives, destination support and intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural travel constraints (Hung and Petrick, 2012; de Jonge et al., 2013; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2022).

In this study, respondents’ perceived opportunity to engage in proenvironmental travel behavior was impacted negatively by their low involvement in travel decisions. As most of the participants’ tourism experiences are with their family, travel decisions are largely made by the parent(s), who pay for the trip. Moreover, when they do get involved in travel decision-making, it seems difficult to persuade friends and family to opt for environmentally friendly modes of transport. Hence, interpersonal constraints act as a barrier to PEB (Hung and Petrick, 2012):

Although several participants say they behave the same way at home as they do on vacation, some may deviate from proenvironmental practices influenced by what seems to be the norm at the destination:

Another aspect related to the opportunity to behave in more environmentally friendly ways is the opinion that companies need to provide more proenvironmental alternatives than what currently is available, which was suggested by a few of the respondents:

Overall, the findings suggest that lack of opportunity plays a role in limiting engagement in PEB, but the other MOA dimensions constitute stronger barriers to such engagement. This contrasts with Zong and Fukushige (2024), who found that opportunity factors were the most important for “non-green” guests choosing to stay at a green hotel.

While opportunity is situational, ability involves the individual’s capability to behave in a certain way (Tong et al., 2023). This generally includes awareness, knowledge and self-efficacy (Hung and Petrick, 2012; Jiao and Wang, 2024; Tong et al., 2023). In terms of awareness and knowledge, the teenagers described their thoughts on travel and sustainability, the environmental impact of travel, what a sustainable vacation would entail and activities that are typical for sustainable tourism. The first theme displays a primary focus on transportation and emissions:

Although there is a focus on transportation, it is not the only theme among the answers. Other recurring aspects are avoiding unnecessary consumption, reducing travel frequency, food choices, littering and recycling:

Upon asking the teenagers to reflect on their knowledge of the sustainability implications of travel, the responses generally indicate limited knowledge. A few interviewees evaluate their level of knowledge as average or good. As such, respondents seem to primarily possess a general awareness rather than in-depth knowledge of how travel and tourism impact sustainability:

Some respondents describe that they know that travel implies negative consequences for the environment, and this awareness clashes with the desire to travel. Remedies for this clash can be adapting the frequency of travel or ignoring the environment to have fun, pushing normative motives aside. Not having enough knowledge on how to better consider the environment as a tourist is another theme that surfaced. Yet, some of the participants mean that too much information aiming to increase awareness and knowledge about environmental degradation can backfire as it leads to frustration about insufficient actions:

Self-efficacy “refers to a person’s self-confidence related to their ability to perform an action which could lead to desired outcomes” (Hung and Petrick, 2012, p. 858); in this case, the ability to make a meaningful difference for sustainability through one’s travel choices. The results indicate that many of the participants believe that they can make a difference. However, this does not mean that the teenagers will act accordingly, which again highlights the gap between values and action or attitudes and behavior (e.g. Williams and Hodges, 2022):

Other respondents doubt the impact that individual consumers can make:

Taken together, the results indicate that lack of ability is a barrier to proenvironmental travel behavior, primarily through limited knowledge and low self-efficacy.

Toward the end of the interview, the teenagers were asked how proenvironmental travel can be promoted among young people. The suggestions can be divided into informational and structural strategies (Steg and Vlek, 2009) and many of the respondents have ideas for both categories. The informational strategies center around increasing awareness and knowledge about sustainability through communication, often through social media influencers:

The suggested structural strategies focus on making sustainable choices more accessible and attractive through competitive pricing, increased comfort and convenience and by changes in regulation:

Rothschild (1999) argues that effective intervention strategies depend on an individual’s readiness to change behavior, categorized by their alignment with the MOA framework. Our findings indicate that the primary barrier is a lack of motivation, along with limited ability, which would classify these Gen Zers as resistant according to Rothschild’s framework. Therefore, structural change that results in more attractive proenvironmental alternatives and informational marketing strategies that highlight personal benefits along with legal measures is likely most effective for like-minded teenagers. To increase knowledge about environmental sustainability in tourism, education remains important as a secondary priority.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present study is one of the first to combine MOA and GFT, using a qualitative approach for an in-depth investigation of these theoretical constructs. The findings reveal how motivational goal frames, alongside opportunity and ability, shape Gen Z’s engagement in PEBs. In addition, the study identifies interventions that may increase proenvironmental tourist behaviors within this generation.

The study suggests that Gen Z does not prioritize PEB in their vacation plans. Proenvironmental travel is mostly absent from the conversation around important travel criteria, and PEB is rarely mentioned spontaneously, except in questions about transportation. Other studies have shown comparable results (D’Arco et al., 2023; Haddouche and Salomone, 2018). Respondents are aware of the environmental impact of flying, and discussions about PEB in tourism focus predominantly on transport choices.

Notably, one participant considers the climate impact of travel as one of the most important decision criteria. However, he struggles to align choices with values due to the high costs and time-consuming nature of eco-friendly options. When probed about sustainable travel, most respondents cited similar practical constraints. Despite these constraints, the interviews underscore that Gen Z tourists are more inclined to prioritize sustainable transportation over other aspects of proenvironmental travel behavior (D’Arco et al., 2023). Furthermore, this study supports previous findings that general knowledge and values about sustainability do not translate into proenvironmental travel decisions (Pinho and Gomes, 2023; Sharpley, 2021; Williams and Hodges, 2022). In line with Jiao and Wang (2024) motivation is identified as the most critical factor, as low motivation seems to inflict the largest negative influence on PEB among the three MOA factors, while low opportunity has a more marginal role.

Integrating MOA and GFT is a novel approach to understanding proenvironmental tourist behavior. Thus, this study extends previous studies focusing on MOA, which predominantly have been quantitative (Hung and Petrick, 2012; Jiao and Wang, 2024; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2022; Zong and Fukushige, 2024), and those focusing on GFT in tourism literature (Bösehans and Walker, 2020; Liu et al., 2022; Miao and Wei, 2013; Rodriguez–Sanchez et al., 2020; Shin and Kang, 2021). Combining the theories has advantages as it allows an investigation of both internal and external factors that drive or inhibit engagement in PEBs, thereby advancing what we know about young consumers.

In addition, the Swedish context adds a new dimension to this research. Despite Sweden’s high ranking in sustainability (Sustainable Development Report, 2024) and the prevalence of regular travel among Swedes (Europeiska ERV, 2024), our findings indicate that Swedish Gen Z is not a leading force for proenvironmental tourism change. This is largely due to a lack of motivation, stemming from a perception that attractive eco-friendly travel options are limited, as well as barriers related to opportunity and ability. Consequently, demand for eco-friendly travel remains low. Echoing previous research, our findings show that personal satisfaction and cost often outweigh ethical considerations (Djafarova and Foots, 2022), meaning that hedonic and gain-related motives take precedence over environmental concerns.

In exploring interventions, this study incorporates Gen Z’s own suggestions and situates these within existing research on strategies for effective behavioral change. Rothschild (1999) explains how education, law and marketing can be used for behavioral change specifically linked to the MOA factors. Acknowledging this together with the recommendations of Steg and Vlek (2009) who emphasize the need for both informational and structural strategies, this framework allows for a strategic alignment of the most pressing need – whether in motivation, ability or opportunity – with the appropriate intervention type (informational or structural) and best method (education, law or marketing).

This study provides practical insights for tourism marketers and decision-makers who can increase engagement in PEBs by ensuring that eco-friendly alternatives better align with hedonic and gain factors or by strengthening normative motives (Steg et al., 2014). To promote greener transport, such options must correspond with gain motives; teenagers are unlikely to choose proenvironmental transport unless it is more affordable than current options in Sweden, as they are price-sensitive (Djafarova and Foots, 2022; Gurova, 2024). Furthermore, for proenvironmental tourism services and activities to appeal to teenagers, they must cater to hedonic desires, emphasizing personal benefits such as comfort and enjoyment. In other words, there must be incentives – hedonic or gain-related – to increase motivation (Tang et al., 2022).

Enhancing normative motives can be achieved by increasing the visibility of proenvironmental options and providing actionable information through social media influencers (Djafarova and Foots, 2022). This information should cover transportation and other areas where tourists can make a positive impact, and it needs to be timely and easy to understand (Williams and Hodges, 2022). This type of information tailored to specific destinations can potentially enhance teenagers’ sense of both ability and opportunity to engage in PEB. It is also important for destinations and travel organizations to support PEBs through ecological infrastructure and access to eco-friendly alternatives to increase the sense of opportunity (Tang et al., 2022).

In line with the recommendations of Bösehans and Walker (2020), we suggest that for greater adoption within Gen Z, proenvironmental options must become more affordable, efficient, enjoyable and desirable. Effective interventions should, therefore, combine structural and informational strategies (Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Steg and Vlek, 2009), supported by regulation when increased motivation alone is insufficient (Sharpley, 2021).

This study draws insights from interviews with teenagers from middle-class families in a Western European country where regular vacations are common. Due to their socioeconomic privilege, this group is likely better positioned to select proenvironmental travel alternatives that come at a higher cost compared to individuals from less affluent backgrounds. Despite this, they are generally not inclined to choose the more sustainable options. Future research should explore proenvironmental travel across diverse communities and cultures to provide a broader understanding of this topic from varied perspectives, including traveling less, slower or closer to home. Quantitative studies combining the GFT and MOA frameworks are also needed to statistically test the relative importance of the various factors on proenvironmental travel behavior.

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the feedback that helped improve the paper.

Funding: This work was supported by the R&D Fund of the Swedish Tourism and Hospitality Industry under Grant number 2019–233.

Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.