An evidence-based approach to accelerate flight reduction in academia

The paper addresses the challenge of reducing aviation-related GHG emissions in academia to meet net-zero targets, amid entrenched norms of international mobility and academic culture. Despite strong scientific understanding of climate change and mitigation options, a knowledge–action gap persists. Air travel often dominates institutional emissions (up to ~60%) and is perceived as necessary for academic success, yet evidence on effective reduction pathways is scarce. The study aims to understand why researchers fly, identify barriers and enabling conditions, and provide an evidence-based, transdisciplinary approach—including a practical toolbox—to transform institutions from high- to low-flying cultures while maintaining scientific exchange and excellence.

The literature documents rapid growth of aviation and its climate impact, with academia contributing disproportionately due to internationalisation and low-cost travel. Flying has become normalized in academic culture and is associated with conferences, collaboration, and prestige. However, empirical studies find little to modest links between air travel and scientific success (e.g., h-index, citations, academic social capital), questioning the necessity of frequent flying. Flight emissions are highly unequal within academia, with small subsets of travelers accounting for large shares of emissions. Institutional targets for net zero are common, but voluntary measures and reliance on technology are insufficient. Barriers to action include social norms, evaluation criteria that reward travel, inequities in travel opportunities, and limited data infrastructure. Prior work suggests potential for virtual or hybrid conferences, revised funding and evaluation criteria, and institutional policies to curb emissions but lacks hands-on, implementation-oriented guidance.

The study adopts a transdisciplinary framework informed by stakeholder theory and transformation knowledge, combining qualitative interviews, quantitative surveys, and practice-based insights to design an implementation toolbox. Interviews: 20 semi-structured interviews (early 2022) at four German partner institutions (two non-university research institutions and two universities), each with representatives from leadership, senior scientists, administration, and students, plus sustainability leads. Topics included institutional embedding of flight reduction, existing measures and governance, business travel management and data, emissions calculation and reporting, communication and engagement, and challenges. Survey: Online survey (summer 2022) across eight German academic institutions (two non-university research institutions, five universities, one university of applied sciences). Respondents: 657 scientists (218 professors/group leaders; 439 scientists without professorship/group lead including PhD students) and 525 students (from six institutions with student bodies). Approximate response rates: ~17% (professors/group leaders), ~7% (scientists without professorship/group lead), ~1% (students). The survey assessed past long-distance academic travel behavior, reasons for travel, decision factors, attitudes toward potential reduction measures and internal framework conditions, and intentions to reduce future air travel. Toolbox design: Insights from interviews, surveys, and literature were synthesized through iterative co-production with stakeholders to create the FlyingLess toolbox. The toolbox comprises six modules: (1) introduction and flowchart; (2) implementation checklist (governance, operations, measures, communication, reporting, schedule/networks/evaluation); (3) background and supporting arguments (relevance, travel reasons, framework conditions, success factors/stumbling blocks, sufficiency); (4) methods/tools for project and stakeholder management and strategy development; (5) concrete reduction measures and guiding questions; (6) next steps for implementation. A prototype was tested in workshops with partner institutions and refined for usability. Data availability for interview/survey results is documented in a master’s thesis; the toolbox and explanatory videos are hosted on Zenodo.

- Institutional status quo: At partner institutions, business-related air travel contributed roughly 11% to nearly 50% of total institutional emissions. Embedding of flight reduction varied from informal discussions to integration within sustainability strategies or climate action concepts, and to university-wide projects. Three institutions had reduction targets; most measures were voluntary; some universities had mandatory carbon offset payments to the federal state. A major challenge was lack of standardised, digitised travel data, hindering consistent monitoring and reporting. - Flight behavior and drivers: Estimated pre-COVID per-capita annual flight rates were ~5.8 for professors/group leaders versus ~1.5 for scientists without professorship/group lead (about 4x difference). Primary reasons for business air travel among scientists: conferences with a presentation (87% very/rather important), strategic collaborations (52%), and field research (40%; 30% very important). Over 80% rated conference attendance and networking/collaboration as very/rather important for career development; 68% considered networking/collaboration a requirement to do their job properly. - Willingness to change: About 70% would reduce future air travel by using videoconferencing or alternative modes (e.g., rail for <1000 km); over half would forgo attending less relevant events. Approval of measures was high: 90% agreed with refunding more expensive train journeys (including first-class/sleepers); 72% supported expanding virtual infrastructure; 67% supported providing information to facilitate rail/bus booking. - Students: 77% reported never having flown as part of studies. Most recent flights: 15% continental, 8% intercontinental. Reported study-related air travel occurred mainly in bachelor programs (69% of continental trips; 60% of intercontinental trips) and to a lesser extent in master’s (26% continental; 30% intercontinental). Students strongly endorsed measures: 76% for more curriculum trips reachable by train; 77% for booking support for rail/bus; 78% for recommendations (e.g., substituting train/bus for destinations within certain travel times). Regarding future employment, 74% would prefer employers aiming to reduce GHGs by cutting business air travel. - Culture and inequality: Professors and group leaders have larger flight footprints than other scientists, reinforcing concerns about mobility culture and disparities in academic air travel. Discipline-specific needs (e.g., distant fieldwork, globally dispersed communities) also influence travel. - Toolbox: The FlyingLess toolbox, refined through workshops, offers practical, modular guidance for institutions to implement participatory flight reduction processes, covering governance, data and monitoring, measures, communication, and evaluation.

Findings illuminate the entrenched role of air travel in academic work and the gap between climate commitments and operational practices. Despite the cultural and career-related pressures to fly, there is substantial willingness among staff and students to adopt alternatives (virtual participation, rail), and strong support for institutional measures that enable such shifts (e.g., reimbursing train surcharges, enhancing virtual infrastructure). However, voluntary approaches and poor data systems limit progress; more robust governance, standardized monitoring, and clear responsibilities are needed. The results underscore that effective flight reduction requires coordinated changes in internal and external framework conditions: - Internal: leadership commitment, defined responsibilities, reduction targets and pathways, carbon budgets, equitable measures across status groups, and strong communication with role models and multipliers. - External: policy and funding reforms to incorporate sustainability into grant evaluations, support virtual infrastructure, set constraints or carbon budgets for project travel, and reevaluate the weight of conference attendance. Conference organizers and ranking agencies can also drive change by offering hybrid/multi-hub designs and crediting concrete institutional emissions reductions. The study also confronts the perception that frequent flying is essential for academic success, pointing to evidence of limited or ambiguous correlations with productivity/visibility. Addressing concerns about networking quality in virtual settings, emerging best practices and pandemic-era experience suggest that effective virtual networking is achievable. Overall, the findings advocate for a transdisciplinary, stakeholder-inclusive transformation that preserves scholarly exchange while significantly cutting emissions.

Reducing flight emissions in academia is both necessary and feasible but demands a systemic transformation of policies, norms, and infrastructure. This paper contributes evidence from interviews and multi-institution surveys, and introduces an open-access, modular toolbox to guide institutions through governance setup, data systems, measure selection, and implementation. The work argues for aligning internal rules and external incentives (funders, conference organizers, rankings) to normalize low-carbon academic mobility without compromising excellence. Beyond aviation, the structured, evidence-based approach can serve as a blueprint for broader sustainability transitions in academia. Future research should examine why mandatory measures face resistance, evaluate the effectiveness and networking outcomes of hybrid/virtual conferences, and assess the impacts of funding and ranking criteria changes on travel behavior and emissions.

- Survey composition and response: Disciplinary distributions reflect institutional foci, potentially biasing results. Survey dissemination may have depended on particularly engaged individuals, influencing response patterns. Student response rate was low (~1%), limiting inference for this group. The survey links lacked individual key restrictions, allowing the possibility of multiple responses. - Data infrastructure: Lack of digitized, standardized travel data across institutions constrains accurate, continuous monitoring and evaluation of intervention impacts. - Generalizability: The sample covers German institutions; cultural, policy, and infrastructural differences may limit generalization to other contexts. - Causality: Cross-sectional survey data limit causal claims regarding relationships between travel, career outcomes, and attitudes.