Cabin Report PDF

DEVELOPING ECO-BEHAVIOUR OF
CRUISE SHIP PASSENGERS

A CASE STUDY OF INFORMATIVE
CABIN DESIGN
RESEARCH REPORT
INNOVATION AND NETWORK PROJECT

NODUS SUSTAINABLE DESIGN RESEARCH GROUP
AALTO UNIVERSITY
HELSINKI FINLAND
2013 - 2014
HESAM PAKBEEN
Cruising is generally recognized as being one of the notorious tourism industries in terms of
environmental footprints. Hence, cruise lines are attempting rapidly to decrease the environmental
impacts of the industry through new concepts. As shown in Fig.1, the environmental impacts of
cruising can be categorized into five types, using the life-cycle analysis (LCA) methodology (Johnson,
2002).
Figure 1. LCA of environmental impacts of cruising tourism

(Johnson, 2002)
In the present study, we focus on the use impacts of cruise ship, which comprises the consumption
of energy and water during the use phase of the product. In particular, this study focuses on energy and
water consumption in cruise cabins due to two main reasons. Firstly, privacy in cabins results in
relatively less consumption control from the cruise line. This emphasizes the engagement of
passengers in the process of consumption control. Secondly, considering the number of cabins (for
example: Allure of the Seas from Royal Caribbean consists of 2700 cabins) as well as passengers (the
same cruise ship has the capacity for 5400 to 6296 passengers). Accordingly, the impact of cabins on
the overall footprints of the ship is of profound importance.
METHOD
This study seeks to address how passengers cab be involved in the reduction of energy and water
consumption. For this reason, we proposed a model in which potential passengers respectively
compare four design concepts.
The study (still ongoing: October 2013) consisted of a survey in which 18 subjects were asked to
participate in the research. We chose the participants according to their backgrounds in sustainability
and divided them into two categories: (1) participants without sustainability initiatives, and (2)
participants with sustainability initiatives. The former included potential passengers who do not have
any academic, professional experience in sustainability, while the latter focused on those who
practically show interests towards sustainability (chosen from academic centers and NGOs for
sustainability). The purpose of separating samples according to their backgrounds in sustainability was
to compare their views and opinions about the design concepts and study the similarities as well as
differences.
The participants age ranged from 23 to 34 and random sampling in terms of nationality, marital status
and gender was used to maximize the generalizability of the research results. The survey included two
materials: (1) Illustrations of design concepts in different sheets with explanations, and (2)
questionnaire. We also created an electronic format of the survey for those who could not participate
the study in person.
The procedure of the survey consisted of 3 main stages. Firstly, the participant became familiar with
the study by explaining the aim of the survey. We described the purpose of the study as well as the
design concepts to prepare the participant for the questions. In the second stage, we asked the
participants to compare two design concepts and reply to the following questions: (1) which concept
would you like more to experience on a cruise, and (2) which cabin type reduces the energy and water
consumption more effectively. In other words, the first question aimed at examining the desirability of
the concept for the participant, and the second question focused on how the concept can influence the
general public consumption behavior. In addition, we asked the participants to explain the reasons
underlying their choices.
Finally, we asked the participants to compare all the concepts with one another and arrange them
respectively according to their own desires (most desirable and least desirable). Following that, we
asked them to compare all the concepts in terms of resulting in the most and the least reduction of
energy and water consumption.
We believe that our method has the capacity to examine varieties of design concepts by potential
customers, since it covers not only personal and emotional desires, but also logical criteria towards
enhancing eco-behavior.
The research comprises the comparison of four design concepts as follows:
(1) Informative cabin versus Non-Informative cabin
- Informative cabin consists of not only eco-design considerations but also providing information to
cruisers. Informative displays show the amount of water and energy consumed in the cabin by cruisers.
The initial concept of Informative comprises the engagement of cruisers in reducing the energy and
water consumption.
- Non-Informative cabin includes eco-design considerations such as smart facilities, eco-friendly
materials and efficient insulation resulting in the reduction of energy and water consumption. In other
words, non-informative cabin does not necessarily entail participation from cruisers since ecosolutions are embedded in the design of the cabins.
(2) Informative cabin with ship instructive feedback (reminders and suggestions from the ship) versus
Informative cabin with no feedback
- Instructive feedback from the ship provides the passengers with eco-guidelines and practical ways of
reducing the energy and water consumption in cabins.
As a result, cruisers will be more aware of the energy consumption.
(3) Informative cabin with ship instructive feedback versus Informative cabin with rewards
- In the reward concept, cruisers will be informed about their daily energy and water consumption
while the consumption level can be compared to a Target Level as well as the cruise average level. As
a result, cruiser will receive a reward if his consumption level is below the average and target level.
(4) Informative cabin with rewards versus Informative cabin with penalty
- Contrary to the reward concept, penalty concept provides negative consequences for over
consumption. Same as the reward concept, cruisers will be informed about their daily energy and water
consumption while the consumption level can be compared to a Target Level as well as the cruise
average level. Consequently, cruiser will receive a penalty if his consumption level is above the
average and target level.
Figure 2. Cabin concepts
RESULTS
1-Demography of the research
Data from the survey regarding gender, age and sustainability background of the participants are
shown in table 1.
Gender
Age
Sustainability Background
Female: 7
23-25: 6
Yes: 10
Male: 13
26-30: 7
No: 10
31-34: 7
Table 1. Participants gender, age and background in sustainability
2- Results from the study of interest: pair comparison of concepts

2-1- Informative cabin versus Non-Informative cabin
Results from the first comparison indicate that the majority of respondents showed considerable
interest towards informative cabin. While 80% of participants with sustainability background were
strongly towards informative cabin, nearly half of the respondents with no sustainability background
supported the informative concept. A minority of respondents was strongly towards non-informative
cabin.
Nearly all of those were towards informative cabin commented that receiving information in regard
with their actions is certainly appealing. Some reported that providing the passengers with information
regarding their own consumption potentially leads to long-term eco-behavior.
On the contrary, those who responded towards non-informative cabin reasoned that informing
customers about their consumption on a cruise ship does not seem to be fruitful due to the
characteristics of refreshing vacations. They underlined the importance of enjoyment for cruising
experience and argued that informing customers about consumption irritatingly results in stress and
concerns. Surprisingly, two of the respondents with sustainability background showed disinterest
towards informative cabin with different reasons. The first respondent argued that information
regarding the consumption has no influence on her eco-behavior since she is actively aware of her
energy and water consumption. The second participant contented that passengers engagement in the
process of reducing energy and water consumption entails equal effort from the cruise directors to
convince the customers that the cruise line willingly seeks solutions for sustainability. He stressed that
cruise lines should assure customers that the purpose of involving customers in reducing the
consumption is not for the cruise line benefits, but for their concerns about sustainability.
informative cabin versus non-informative cabin

- which cabin type would you like to experience on a cruise ship?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly towards
towards
informative cabin informative cabin
undecided
towards non-
strongly towards
informative cabin non-informative
cabin
respondents with sustainability background

respondents with no sustainability background
2-2- Informative cabin with ship instructive feedback (reminders and suggestions from the ship) versus
The overall response to the comparison of informative cabin with eco guidelines and informative cabin
without eco feedback was remarkably positive towards the former (response from participants with
sustainability background was slightly more positive towards informative cabin with eco feedback).
The majority of respondents commented that informing customers about cabin consumption is not
adequate and practical guidelines are needed. They stressed the fact that most of the customers do not
know how to actively participate in reducing the energy and water consumption. One of the
respondents with sustainability background illustrated the concept as a shift from WHAT (informative
cabin) to HOW (informative cabin with eco guidelines), and believed that the process is considerably
logical. Another respondent pointed out that eco feedback can be used in other contexts. In other
words, Instructive cabin fosters educational purposes towards eco-behavior.
By contrast, a minority of respondents were not interested in eco feedback concept (20% of
respondents without sustainability background, and 10% of participants with sustainability
background). Similar to the first comparison of concepts, they reasoned that concerns about ecosystem
distract the cruising experience. Moreover, the participant with sustainability background argued that
he prefers to rely on his own choices rather than instructions from the ship.
informative cabin with no eco-tips versus informative cabin with eco-tips


80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly towards
towards
with no eco-tips with no eco-tips
undecided
towards
strongly towards
with eco-tips
with eco-tips

2-3- Informative cabin with ship instructive feedback versus Informative cabin with rewards
While half of the participants with sustainability background showed strong interest towards
informative cabin with rewards, only 30% of those who did not have any background in sustainability
were fully towards the concept Moreover, 20% of the whole study population (10% with sustainability
background and 10% without any background in sustainability) chose the informative cabin with
reward as the preferred concept. Interestingly, participants had noticeable different reasons for
choosing reward concept. For example, one respondent likened the reward concept as an interactive
game between the customer and the ship, and claimed that the combination of fun and responsibility
can lead to long-term eco-behavior. Another participants commented that reward makes the eco-effort
more tangible, and the other respondent argued that reward concept works as a win-win game in which
both actors are able to gain.
In contrast to interests towards the reward concept, 50% of the participants without sustainability
background preferred the eco feedback concept to the reward concept (30% of them were strongly
towards the eco feedback concept). Similarly, 20% of respondents with sustainability background were
fully towards eco feedback concept and 20% moderately preferred eco guidelines to the reward
concept. The participants' rationales referred to the following reasons: (1) Immediate but not
sustainable effect: they argued that reward concept as a solution can only affect the eco-behavior
temporarily and consequently may not lead to long-term effects. (2) Discourteous approach: some
commented that reward concept might imply a disrespectful method to reach eco-behavior. (3)
Mistrust of the cruise companys intentions: one of the respondents with sustainability background
questioned the reward concept and argued that it can infer manipulation to achieve more benefits. (4)
Resulting in stress: some of the participants believed that interaction with cruise ship in order to
achieve a reward might lead to a slight stress. (5) Feedback offers sense of freedom: some of the study
population commented that feedback concept gives more freedom of choice to customers since no
other factors except free information is provided by the cruise ship. In conclusion, the majority of
respondents who were not interested in the reward concept reported that they found the eco feedback
concept more rewarding. Finally, only one participant could not incline towards none of the concepts
since both are in contrast with cruising experience.
informative cabin with rewards versus informative cabin with eco-tips


60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly towards
towards
with rewards
with rewards
undecided
towards
strongly towards
with eco-tips
with eco-tips

2-4- Informative cabin with rewards versus Informative cabin with penalty
The overall interest towards informative cabin with penalty was expectedly negative. Comparatively,
all of the participants were interested in the reward concept. As the chart shows, the majority of
respondents (90% with background in sustainability and 80% with no background in sustainability)
showed strong interest towards the reward concept. However, a minority of the participants was not
strongly interested in the reward concept, yet they chose the informative cabin with reward as their
favored choice in comparison with the penalty concept. Participants reasons for preferring the reward
concept were wholly similar in both study groups. They pointed out the negative effects of the penalty
concept on users experience in the context of a cruise ship and stressed the significant contrast of
leisure and enjoyment with forfeiting payments. Moreover, the participants mentioned that the penalty
concept would result in inevitable stress for customers, which potentially affects negatively on their
future decisions to use the same cruise line.
reward conscept versus penalty concept

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
strongly towards towards reward
reward concept
concept
undecided
towards penalty strongly towards

penalty

3- Results from the study of eco-effectiveness: pair comparison of concepts

3-1- Informative cabin versus Non-Informative cabin
Seventy percent of those who surveyed believed that Informative cabin results in the reduction of
energy and water consumption. The participants reasons for supporting the informative cabin concept
consisted of the following five cases: (1) Making sense of actions and behaviors through information,
(2) Involving passengers in reducing the consumption, (3) Providing customers with awareness of ecobehavior, and (4) Necessity of push or nudge factors to create eco-behavior. However, while 70% of
respondents with sustainability background were strongly towards Informative cabin, only 40% of
participants without any background in sustainability showed strong interest in Informative cabin
concept. Moreover, twenty percent of respondents without any background in sustainability decidedly
chose non-informative cabin. They argued that in spite of providing free information, the concept
might result in negative reactions from customers since they might feel the concept fully in contrast
with leisure and enjoyment. Additionally, they stressed the considerable contrast between the
informative cabin and other services on cruise ships and believed that while passengers can easily
observe the overall amount of consumption on a ship, he cannot be convinced to participate in
reducing the consumption in the cabin.
informative cabin versus non-informative cabin
- which cabin type reduces the energy and water consumption more effectively?

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly towards
towards
undecided
towards non-
strongly towards
informative cabin non-informative
cabin

3-2- Informative cabin with ship instructive feedback (reminders and suggestions from the ship) versus
The overall response to this question was surprisingly the same from participants with sustainability
background and those with no background in sustainability. Sixty percent of both groups strongly
believed that informative cabin with instructive feedback results in the reduction of energy and water
consumption. In addition, 30% of both respondent groups admitted that instructive eco-feedback can
lead to decreasing the consumption in cruise cabins. The positive responses on the question were based
on the following reasons: (1) Insufficiency of providing solely information: they argued that in order
the process to become efficient, practical guidelines should be delivered since the majority of
passengers are not completely aware of practical approaches for reducing the consumption. In other
words, the instructive guidelines can ease the process of conscious decision making towards ecobehavior, (2) Comparatively well-mannered approach to engage customers in sustainability: the
participants reasoned that solely information is not only insufficient but also not a completely
reverential approach to involve passengers in reducing the consumption. They concluded that
providing customers with practical guidelines seems to be more respectful and friendly. Consequently,
the concept can lead to more contribution from passengers, and (3) Comparatively more attractive:
they indicated that the concept of informative cabin can be considered as an interactive game between
the ship and the customers. For this reason, providing the passengers with guidelines can make the
game more attractive for customers.
A small minority of participants could not decide between informative cabin and informative cabin
with eco-guidelines. They reasoned that both concepts benefit from advantages and suffer from
disadvantages. For example, one of the respondents with no background in sustainability was uncertain
about the effectiveness of eco-guidelines, stressing the short-term influence of the instructive feedback.
Another participant believed that despite the positive effect of instructive feedback on passengers, the
concept might be in dramatic contrast with leisure.
informative cabin no eco-tips versus informative cabin with eco-tips
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly towards
towards
with no eco-tips with no eco-tips
undecided
towards
strongly towards
with eco-tips
with eco-tips

3-3- Informative cabin with ship instructive feedback versus Informative cabin with rewards
In response to this question, the majority of participants with sustainability background were
convinced that the reward concept is more effective in terms of reducing the energy and water
consumption. Those who were strongly towards the reward concept believed that reward is an
effective motivation for general public especially in the initial phase of an action. They also
commented that since financial factors run the world, rewards play an important role in changing
peoples behavior towards sustainability. They reasoned that rewarding people for eco-behavior is a
win-win game between customers and service providers.
Similarly, sixty percent of the respondents without background in sustainability admitted that the
reward concept results in reducing the energy and water consumption more effectively (30% of the
subjects were strongly towards the reward concept). Their reasons bore a close resemblance to the
participants with background in sustainability, stressing the process of creating motivations through
rewards.
Yet, fifty percent of the participants with no background in sustainability believed that informative
cabin with instructive feedback contributes the creation of eco-behavior more effectively (20% were
strongly towards the instructive concept). They argued that providing customers with rewards does not
lead to long-term effects, while instructions can be used in other contexts as well. Therefore,
instructive feedback concept can result in conscious eco-behavior. In addition, they claimed that
although the reward concept seems to be more incentive, it might be perceived as enforcement.
Finally, only one of the participants with background in sustainability believed that informative cabin
with instructive feedback reduces the consumption more effectively. He questioned the stability of the
influence in reward concept and commented that short-term influential factors such as reward are not
as effective as conscious approaches.
informative cabin with rewards versus informative cabin with eco-tips

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
strongly towards
towards
with rewards
with rewards
undecided
towards
strongly towards
with eco-tips
with eco-tips

3-4- Informative cabin with rewards versus Informative cabin with penalty
The overall response to this question did not reveal any significant interest towards any of the
concepts. As shown in Fig**** , thirty percent of respondents with sustainability background and the
same rate with no background in sustainability reported the reward concept as remarkably more
effective to decrease the consumption. On the contrary, the same amounts of subjects (30%) with no
background in sustainability were strongly towards the penalty concept. Furthermore, 40% of the
participants with sustainability background were towards the reward concept, while 30% of the study
population supported the penalty concept. On the other hand, only 10% of the respondents without
background in sustainability chose the penalty concept as more effective than the reward concept,
while 20% of the same group believed that reward concept results in the reduction of energy and water
consumption more effectively. Finally, One of the subjects could not decide between the two concepts.
The participants rationales for choosing the reward and penalty concept were considerably similar
from both groups. Their reasons to choose the reward concept included the following cases: (1)
Comparatively positive and consequently leads to long-term influence, (2) Comparatively more wellmannered approach to engage customers in the process. In addition, one of the respondents with no
background in sustainability emphasized the effectiveness of the reward concept and commented that
rewards seem to be an optional case, while penalty can be perceived as enforcement, which is in
contrast with leisure and enjoyment. In other words, the participant stressed the importance of the
context (cruise ship) and believed that despite the effectiveness of the penalty concept, it cannot be
used in the context of cruising.
In regard with the penalty concept, nearly all of those who supported the concept reasoned that penalty
is more effective because physiologically people do not want to loose anything. Therefore, they
contribute to the process in order to prevent loosing. They also emphasized the contrast between
penalty and leisure, yet believed that penalty results in more effective consequences in terms of
reducing the consumption.
reward concept versus penalty concept


45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
strongly towards towards reward
reward concept
concept
undecided
towards penalty strongly towards

penalty

In the second phase of the study, we asked the participants to compare all of the design concepts at the
same time and arrange them from the most favored concept to the last favored one.
4- Results from study of interest towards concepts

4-1- Participants with background in sustainability
Results from this question revealed that sixty percent of the respondents with background in
sustainability chose the informative cabin with reward as the most favored concept, and 30% of them
preferred the informative cabin with instructive feedback as the most desirable concept. Only one
person from this study group marked the informative cabin as the most favored choice, while none of
the respondents selected the non-informative cabin. The second most favored concept of the
respondent with background in sustainability included the informative cabin with eco-guidelines (60%
of the study population) and 30% of them chose the reward concept as the second most desirable
concept. Only one of the subjects chose the informative cabin as the second favored concept and no
one selected the non-informative cabin.
The third favored concept of this study group was informative cabin and only a minority of the
respondents selected non-informative cabin and informative cabin with eco-guidelines as the third
desired concept. Eighty percent of the participants with background in sustainability reported the noninformative cabin as the fourth favored concept, whereas ten percent of them reported the reward and
penalty concept as the fourth favored choices. Finally, nearly all of the respondents in this group
selected the penalty concept as the fifth favored cabin type.
4-2- Participants with no background in sustainability
Findings from this stage of the survey indicated that forty percent of the respondents without any
background in sustainability favored the non-informative cabin the most and thirty percent of them
chose the informative cabin with instructive feedback as the most desirable concept. The reward
concept came afterwards with 20% of the participants, while only 10% of the respondents selected the
informative cabin as the most favored concept. The second favored concept chosen by 60% of the
participants without background in sustainability was the informative cabin with eco-guidelines.
Following a dramatic decline, informative cabin was selected as the second favored concept (20% of
the study population). Only 10% of the subjects marked the reward concept as the second favored
choice.
The third favored concept of this group included the informative cabin, selected by 40% of the
respondents. Thirty percent of the subjects chose the reward concept as the third favored and 20%
pointed the non-informative cabin as the third desirable choice. The fourth favored concept of this
group was the informative cabin with reward (40% of the participants). Thirty percent of them valued
informative cabin and non-informative cabin as the fourth favored concept. Lastly, while none of the
subject in this group marked informative cabin with eco-guidelines as the fourth favored concept, all of
the respondents chose the penalty concept as the fifth favored cabin type.
interest towards informative concept
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
chosen as the
most favoured
cocnept
chosen as the
second favoured
cocnept
chosen as the
third favoured
cocnept
chosen as the chosen as the Difth

fourth favoured favoured cocnept
cocnept

interest towards non-informative concept

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
chosen as the
most favoured
cocnept
chosen as the
second favoured
cocnept
chosen as the
third favoured
cocnept

cocnept

interest towards informative cabin with eco-tips

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
chosen as the
most favoured
cocnept
chosen as the
second favoured
cocnept
chosen as the
third favoured
cocnept

cocnept

interest towards informative cabin with rewards

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
chosen as the
most favoured
cocnept
chosen as the
second favoured
cocnept
chosen as the
third favoured
cocnept

cocnept

interest towards informative concept with penalty
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
chosen as the
chosen as the
chosen as the
most favoured second favoured third favoured
cocnept
cocnept
cocnept

cocnept

5- Results from the study of eco-effectiveness of concepts

5-1- Participants with background in sustainability
The majority of respondents with background in sustainability (60%) reported the informative cabin
with reward as the most eco-effective concept. Slightly less subjects (40%) chose the penalty concept
as the most eco-effective cabin type. Surprisingly, none of the participants selected the informative
cabin with instructive feedback as the most eco-effective concept. Nevertheless, fifty percent of the
participants with background in sustainability selected the informative cabin with eco-feedback as the
second eco-effective concept, while thirty percent marked the reward concept as the second ecoeffective cabin type. While 20% of the subjects chose the penalty concept as the second eco-effective
case, the informative cabin and non-informative cabin were not selected by any of the respondents.
Fifty percent and forty percent of the respondents chose instructive cabin and informative cabin
respectively, as the third eco-effective concept. Only one participant marked the reward concept as the
third choice, and no one selected the non-informative cabin and the penalty concept.
Informative cabin was chosen by 60% of respondents as the fourth eco-effective concept, while 40%
of the subjects marked the penalty concept as the fourth eco-effective case. Finally, all of the
participants with background in sustainability commented that non-informative cabin is the least ecoeffective case in comparison with other concepts.
5-2- Participants with no background in sustainability
According to the results derived from the survey, fifty percent of the participants with no background
in sustainability chose the informative cabin with penalty as the most eco-effective concept.
Thereafter, informative cabin with eco-guidelines was selected, whereas only 10% of the subjects
selected informative cabin and the reward concept as the most eco-effective case. Expectedly, none of
those who participated marked non-informative cabin as the first in terms of eco-effectiveness. The
majority of respondents (%80) chose the reward concept as the second eco-effective cabin type,
whereas only 20% of them selected the instructive cabin as the second eco-effective case. Finally, the
other concepts were not selected as the second choice of the participants without background in
sustainability.
Thirty percent of the subjects picked the informative cabin as well as the instructive cabin as the third
eco-effective concepts, while only 10% of the study population reported non-informative cabin and the
reward concept as the third choice. As for the fourth eco-effective concept, over half of the subjects
(60%) singled out the informative cabin and 20% of them picked the informative cabin with ecoguidelines and the penalty concept. Consequently, the reward concept and the non-informative cabin
were not chosen by any of the study subjects.
Lastly, nearly all of the participants marked the non-informative cabin as the least eco-effective
concept, whereas only one respondent chose the penalty concept as the fifth selection.
opinion towards informative cabin eco-effectiveness

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
chosen as the most eco-

effective cocnept
chosen as the
secondeco-effective
cocnept
chosen as the third eco- chosen as the fourth chosen as the Difth eco-
effective cocnept
eco-effective cocnept
effective cocnept

opinion towards non-informative cabin eco-effectiveness

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
chosen as the most eco- chosen as the second chosen as the third eco- chosen as the fourth chosen as the Difth eco-
effective cocnept
effective cocnept
effective cocnept

opinion towards informative cabin with eco-tips eco-effectiveness

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
effective cocnept
effective cocnept
effective cocnept

opinion towards informative cabin with rewards eco-effectiveness

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
effective cocnept
effective cocnept
effective cocnept

opinion towards informative cabin with penalty eco-effectiveness

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
effective cocnept
effective cocnept
effective cocnept

In order to assess the overall interest towards a given concept in each study groups, the following
function was used:
!
( )
!
Where m-1 represents the number of bars (which shows the number of ranks, ranging from the most
favored concept to the fourth favored concept), ! indicates the response rate towards a given concept
(ranging from 0% to 100%). In other words, we gave a numerical value (1 to m-1) to each of the
rankings. For example, to evaluate the overall interest towards cabin types we gave value 4 to the
concept if chosen as the most favored case. Likewise, value 3 was given to the second favored position
in the ranking scale and value 2 was given to the third favored position. Finally, we gave value 1 to the
fourth position in the ranking scale.
The overall interest towards each of the cabin types for respondents with background in sustainability
can be written as:
Informative cabin with penalty: (6-1) 0 +(6-2) 0 +(6-3) 0+(6-4) 0.1+(6-5) 0.9 =1.1
Non-informative cabin: (6-1) 0+(6-2) 0+(6-3) 0.1+(6-4) 0.8 +(6-5) 0.1 =2
Informative cabin: (6-1) 0.1+(6-2) 0.1+(6-3) 0.8+(6-4) 0 + (6-5) 0 =2.3

Informative cabin with instructive feedback: (6-1) 0.3+(6-2) 0.6+(6-3) 0.1+(6-4) 0 + (6-5) 0 =3.2
Informative cabin with rewards: (6-1) 0.6+(6-2) 0.3+(6-3) 0+(6-4) 0.1+(6-5) 0 =3.4
Similarly, the overall interest towards each of the concepts for respondents with no background in
sustainability can be written as:
Informative cabin with penalty: (6-1) 0 +(6-2) 0 +(6-3) 0+(6-4) 0 +(6-5) 1 =1
Informative cabin: (6-1) 0.1+(6-2) 0.2+(6-3) 0.4+(6-4) 0.3 + (6-5) 0 =2.1
Informative cabin with rewards: (6-1) 0.2+(6-2) 0.1+(6-3) 0.3+(6-4) 0.4 + (6-5) 0 =2.1
Non-informative cabin: (6-1) 0.4+(6-2) 0.1+(6-3) 0.2+(6-4) 0.3 + (6-5) 0 =2.6
Informative cabin with instructive feedback: (6-1) 0.3+(6-2) 0.6+(6-3) 0.1+(6-4) 0 + (6-5) 0 =3.2
Fig.*** and *** illustrate the overall interest of both study groups towards design concepts:
overall interest towards concepts
5
4.5
4
3.5
3.2
3
2.5
3.2
3.4
2.6
2.3
2
2.1
2.1
2
1.5
1.1
1
0.5
0
Non-informative
cabin
Informative cabin
Informative cabin
with instructive
feedback
Informative cabin
with reward
Informative cabin
with penalty
Similar function can be employed to calculate the overall opinion of respondents about cabin concepts
in terms of eco-effectiveness:
!
( )
!
Accordingly, the overall rating of each concept for participants with background in sustainability is:
Non-informative cabin: (6-1) 0+(6-2) 0+(6-3) 0+(6-4) 0+(6-5) 1 =1.0
Informative cabin: (6-1) 0+(6-2) 0+(6-3) 0.4+(6-4) 0.6+(6-5) 0 =2.4
Informative cabin with instructive feedback: (6-1) 0+(6-2) 0.5+(6-3) 0.5+(6-4) 0+(6-5) 0 =3.5
Informative cabin with penalty: (6-1) 0.4+(6-2) 0.2+(6-3) 0+(6-4) 0.4+(6-5) 0 =3.6
Informative cabin with rewards: (6-1) 0.6+(6-2) 0.3+(6-3) 0.1+(6-4) 0+(6-5) 0 =4.5
The overall rating of each cabin type for respondents with no background in sustainability can be
written as:
Non-informative cabin: (6-1) 0+(6-2) 0+(6-3) 0.1+(6-4) 0+(6-5) 0.9 =1.1
Informative cabin: (6-1) 0.1+(6-2) 0+(6-3) 0.3+(6-4) 0.6+(6-5) 0 =2.6
Informative cabin with instructive feedback: (6-1) 0.3+(6-2) 0.2+(6-3) 0.3+(6-4) 0.2+(6-5) 0 =3.6
Informative cabin with penalty: (6-1) 0.5+(6-2) 0+(6-3) 0.2+(6-4) 0.2+(6-5) 0.1 =3.6
Informative cabin with rewards: (6-1) 0.1+(6-2) 0.8+(6-3) 0.1+(6-4) 0+(6-5) 0 =4.0
Fig. *** and **** shows the overall opinion of both study groups on design concepts in terms of ecoeffectiveness:
overall opinion towards cocncepts eco-effectiveness
5
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2
1.5
1.1
1
0.5
0
Non-informative
cabin
Informative cabin
Informative cabin
with instructive
feedback
Informative cabin
with reward
Informative cabin
with penalty
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

In comparison of interest towards pair concepts as well as the eco-effectiveness of them, participants in
both study groups raised the following five issues, while indicating their rationales for choosing a
concept:
Trust/distrust
UX: user experience
Manner
Utility
Effectiveness
In this chapter, we first extract how they addressed the issues in comparison of pair concepts. Finally,
we investigate the common and divergence viewpoints and values between respondents with
background in sustainability and those without background in sustainability, in regard with the above
issues.
1- Attributes
1-1- Issues addressed in comparison of informative cabin and Non-informative cabin
Trust/distrust:
The majority of respondents with background in sustainability (80%) showed mistrust towards the
following elements: (1) mistrust towards the owners of the cruise line, (2) mistrust towards
effectiveness of the informative concept, and (3) mistrust towards users participation. For example,
over half of the respondents believed that passengers will not participate in reducing the consumption
and consequently push/nudge factors are needed. They also pointed out that asking people to cooperate
in eco-behavior by technology steering concepts might result in vandalism. This study group were
noticeably uncertain about the owners intentions to reduce the consumption in cabins, indicating that
cruise lines are likely to seek more profits.
On the other hand, the issue of trust/distrust raised by respondents with no background in sustainability
from a different aspect. Forty percent of this study group was not entirely certain about their role in the
sustainability by decreasing the cabin consumption. Additionally, a minority of them (20%) argued
that they need to know why they are being informed about cabin consumption and what the cruise line
is asking for.
Utility:
Fifty percent of the respondents with background in sustainability showed interest towards receiving
information while traveling, and emphasized the role of providing information in raising the awareness
about environmental issues for general public. In contrast, thirty percent of the participants stressed the
uselessness of eco-information for themselves, and argued that they do not need information about
their consumption because they are already aware of environmental issues and ways of tackling the
problem.
Participants with no background in sustainability (40%) supported the concept of providing
information about cabin consumption but interestingly emphasized the necessity of practical
information, which they believed can result in passengers cooperation. Unexpectedly, they also
stressed the need for educating passengers for eco-behavior before cruising by the cruise line. For
instance, three respondents believed that passengers should not be confronted abruptly by information,
yet the process needs to be started before the journey.
User experience:
While only one respondent with background in sustainability pointed out that importance of providing
information regarding cabin consumption on user experience, sixty percent of participants without
background in sustainability underlined the effect of informative cabin on leisure and enjoyment. They
were not completely convinced that informative cabin does not result in stress and concerns while
traveling. Therefore, they conditionally supported the informative concept as long as it does not affect
the experience of cruising.
1-2- Issues addressed in comparison of informative cabin and Informative cabin with instructive ecofeedback
Trust/distrust:
Similarly to the previous part, a remarkable number of respondents with background in sustainability
(60%) showed mistrust towards cruise lines in terms of their intention for engaging customers in
reducing the consumption. In contrast, respondents with no background in sustainability did not
address the issue of distrust in the study.
Manner:
A minority of participants (20%) with background in sustainability mentioned that the manner of
providing information and guidelines should be positive and encouraging to motivate passengers for
participation. On the other hand, half of the respondents with no background in sustainability
compared the above concepts and believed that providing the passengers with instructive ecoguidelines is a more friendly and respectful way to engage them in the process of reducing the
consumption.
Utility:
Forty percent of respondents with background in sustainability supported the informative cabin with
instructive eco-feedback, emphasizing the need for practical guidelines in the process of engaging
passengers in sustainability. Yet, thirty percent of this study group did not consider the concept of
instructive eco-guidelines as useful. These subjects reasoned that they are already aware of practical
ways to reduce the consumption, thus do not need any instructions from the ship owners. We believe
that, relying on personal knowledge may point to the likelihood of mistrust towards cruise lines.
Effectiveness:
Thirty percent of the respondents with background in sustainability believed that instructive ecoguidelines are effective on passengers behavior, whereas twenty percent of them was not certain about
the effectiveness of any the concepts. They reasoned that the eco-effectiveness of the concepts
remarkably depends on personal values and attitudes and cannot be anticipated.
Nearly all of the participants with no background in sustainability (90%) stressed the effectiveness of
the instructive eco-guidelines in cabin towards creating eco-behavior. For example, four participants
mentioned that eco-guidelines can also be used in other contexts, thus they have educational qualities.
In addition, three subjects believed that the concept of instructive eco-tips eases the process of
consciousness about sustainability and leads to more cooperation of passengers.
User experience:
While none of the subjects with background in sustainability referred to the effect of design concepts
on user experience, half of the respondents without any background in sustainability addressed the
issue. Fifty percent of the latter group stressed that despite the interest towards instructive eco-tips, it
should not affect on cruising experience. On the other hand, thirty percent of them believed that
receiving information about consumption and following instructions to reduce the consumption seems
to be a joyful game with positive results. Additionally, thirty percent of the subjects reported that the
providing instructive feedback is certainly a more friendly approach to motivate passengers for
cooperation.
1-3- Issues addressed in comparison of Informative cabin with instructive eco-feedback and
Informative cabin with rewards
Effectiveness:
In comparison of the above concepts, the whole study population with background in sustainability
addressed the factor of effectiveness, as 80% of them claimed that reward is more effective on general
public. On the contrary, one respondent believed that cruise ship customers are wealthy and do not
care about reward or eco-guidelines, therefore, none of these concepts are effective on cruise ship
passengers. It may be assumed that the participant opinion implied distrust towards cruise ship
customers. In contrast, another respondent questioned the effectiveness of the reward concept,
emphasizing the need for awareness and knowledge for general public in order to participate in the
process of reducing the consumption.
Those respondents who stressed the effectiveness of the reward concept underlined the desire of
people to be rewarded as well as saving. For example, one of the participants presumed that saving the
ecosystem is not the priority of people and the economic factors have more influence on them.
Similarly, Thirty percent of the subjects argued that the current system of the world and peoples life
styles are based on economy, therefore rewards can motivate people towards particular behaviors.
Albeit, Forty percent of the respondents with background in sustainability admitted that rewards do not
result in long-term eco-behavior.
Sixty percent of the respondents with no background in sustainability also raised the issue of
effectiveness. While two of them supported that effectiveness of the reward concept by reasoning that
people generally need to be rewarded to become motivated, four of them believed that rewards have
short-term effects on general public, thus not effective on creating eco-behavior. Interestingly, thirty
percent of the participants suggested that the combination of reward and instructive eco-guidelines can
have more long-term influence on people.
User experience:
Only two respondents with background in sustainability addressed the factor of user experience. One
believed that the process of rewarding can be enjoyable for customers and consequently leads to more
participation. The other subject reasoned that rewarding people makes the process of attempting to
reduce the consumption more tangible for customers.
In contrast, sixty percent of the respondents with no background in sustainability underlined the
importance of user experience. The majority of them did not consider the reward concept as a positive
approach towards achieving eco-behavior. For example, four of the participants argued that rewards
can be perceived as enforcement or manipulative, while eco-guidelines seem to be more rewarding.
Only one of the subjects emphasized the positive aspect of the reward concept, interpreting it as an
enjoyable game to follow which also results in reducing the consumption. Yet, he admitted that
rewards do not have permanent influence on people.
Manner:
While none of the respondents with background in sustainability raised the issue of manner, half of the
participants with no background in sustainability underscored it. The latter group argued that
rewarding passengers to cooperate in reducing the consumption is not a pleasant manner and can be
perceived as a disrespectful, manipulative and enforcing approach.
Trust/distrust:
Surprisingly, the two study groups had completely divergent point of view in addressing this issue.
Thirty percent of the respondents with background in sustainability reported that they prefer the reward
concept due to the lack of trust towards the intention of cruise owners. They reasoned that since the
cruising concept itself is based on over-consumption, we prefer to receive rewards from them rather
than providing the industry with more profit.
In contrast, three respondents with no background in sustainability believed that providing the
passengers with instructive eco-guidelines indicate the cruise owners sympathy for environmental
issues and result in more trust from passengers to cooperate.
Utility:
The study showed a similarity in terms of addressing the factor of utility in both groups. Twenty
percent of the subjects with background in sustainability questioned the use of rewards in creating ecobehavior and stressed that the reward concept does not give any useful information to customers.
Similarly, two participants with no background in sustainability supported the instructive eco-tips,
reasoning that they can also be used in other contexts.
1-4- Issues addressed in comparison of Informative cabin reward and Informative cabin with penalty
Effectiveness:
Sixty percent of respondents with background in sustainability believed that the penalty concept is
more effective to reduce the cabin consumption since people do not want to loose in general.
Similarly, half of the respondents with no background in sustainability stated that enforcement by
penalty is more effective, whereas others concluded that reward leads to more effective results.
User experience:
In comparison of reward and penalty, the majority of subjects with background in sustainability (60%)
underlined the importance of user experience, indicating that penalty results in negative reactions since
users do not enjoy the process. Half of the respondents with no background in sustainability shared the
same opinion.
User experience + Effectiveness:
Half of the participants with background in sustainability stated that passengers cooperation to reduce
the consumption entails an enjoyable process. In other words, they believed that effectiveness of the
concept (penalty vs reward) relies on the user experience. Twenty percent of the subjects with no
background in sustainability believed that the reward concept seems to be more optional and results in
relatively more pleasant experience. Consequently, people will be more motivated to cooperate in
reducing the consumption.
User experience + Manner:
Fifty percent of both study groups linked the factor of manner to user experience, stating that the
reward concept is comparatively more respectful and results in pleasurable experience for passengers.
2- Common and divergent areas

2-1- Trust / distrust:
Taken together, the results of the study indicate that participants with background in sustainability
were noticeably mistrustful of cruise line owners (in terms of their intentions to reduce the
consumption), design concepts (in terms of effectiveness), and users (in terms of willingly participate
in sustainability).
The study intimates that the issue of trust/distrust addressed by respondents with no background in
sustainability was linked to their ability to influence the system towards sustainability. Therefore, the
majority of them believed that educational approach is needed.
2-2- Utility:
The evidence from the survey implies that subjects with background in sustainability separate
themselves from general public in terms of the need for receiving instructions about reducing the
consumption. Moreover, their overall perception about the willingness of people to participate in
reducing the consumption of cruise cabin, was not positive.
On the contrary, the research proves that those with no background in sustainability felt the need for
practical and instructive information about sustainability that they can also use in other contexts. This
led us to conclude that there is a gap of understanding from the former study group towards the latter
in terms of perception of willingness in participating consciously in sustainability.
2-3- User experience:
The findings indicate that while respondents with background in sustainability emphasized on the
importance of user experience as a tool for nudging passengers to participate in reducing the
consumption, the other study group underlined the potential difference between sustainability and
leisure, stressing that education for sustainability should be in line with user experience, and not
necessarily using the user experience as a tool to nudge the passengers.
2-4- Manner:
The analysis of results point to the likelihood that the two study groups had different definitions in
addressing the issue of manner. Respondents with background in sustainability stressed the importance
of positive approaches in order to motivate people for participation, whereas subjects with no
background in sustainability linked the manner to user experience by emphasizing on respect. This
may suggest that while the former group considers the issue of manner as a tool to nudge people, the
latter group values the manner as a part of user experience while cruising.
2-5- Effectiveness:
Our findings did not show any significant divergence between the two study groups about the
effectiveness of concepts. However, the evidence from the study indicates a difference in their
approaches towards creating eco-behavior. The results led us to conclude that although respondents
with background in sustainability emphasized on the importance of awareness in sustainability, they
did not show absolute certainty about effectiveness of awareness on general public. For this reason,
this study group highlighted the need for motivations such as awards, in order to nudge people towards
eco-behavior. On the contrary, participants with no background in sustainability significantly linked
the effectiveness of eco-concepts to education for sustainability. This may mean that the former study
group was trying to indicate its motivation for eco-behavior, yet emphasizing the demands for
education. These findings are consistent with quantitative results obtained in previous chapter.
Finally, we compared our findings with the following behavior model (Fig.***) presented by
Moisander (2007). As shown, while respondents with background in sustainability remarkably focused
on Motivation towards eco-behavior (Marked as A1), participants with no background in sustainability
addressed the need for External Opportunities as well as Ability (Marked as A2). Taken together, our
finding would seem to point towards the hypothesis that respondents with background in sustainability
did not have a complete understanding of values and need of the other study group in terms of
cooperation for sustainability.
References
1- David, J. 2002, Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: A reality check, Journal of
Marine Policy, 26:4, PP:261-270.
2- Moisander, G. 2007, Motivational complexity of green consumerism, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31. PP: 404-409.
Cruise ship survey

Study of cabin consumption and cruiser behaviour
Date:
/2013
Sex:
Age:
Nationality:
Highest level of education received:
Current work:
1-1- Which cabin type do you like more to experience on a cruise ship?
informative cabin
non-informative cabin
1-2- Why?
1-3- Which cabin type reduces the energy and water consumption more effectively?
non-informative cabin
informative cabin
1-4- Why?
informative cabin
with no reminders
No suggestions from the cruise ship
informative cabin
with reminders
Suggestions from the cruise ship
2-2- Why?
informative cabin
with no reminders
No suggestions from the cruise ship
informative cabin
with reminders
2-4- Why?
informative cabin
with reminders
Informative with Reward
3-2- Why?
informative cabin
with reminders
Informative with Reward
3-4- Why?
Informative with reward
Informative with penalty
4-2- Why?
5-1- Please arrange the cabin types (A-D) according to your preference : I like the most/I dislike the most
A: non-informative
B: informative cabin
C: informative cabin with reminders
D: informative with Reward
I like the most
I dislike the most
5-2- Please arrange the cabin types (A-E) : Results in the most reduction of energy consumption / Results in
the least reduction of energy consumption
A: non-informative
B: informative cabin
C: informative cabin with reminders
D: informative cabin with Reward
E: informative cabin with Penalty
Results in the most reduction
of energy and water consumption
Results in the least reduction

of energy and waterconsumption
6-1- How concerned you are about the consumption of energy and water in your daily life?
very concerned
not concerned at all
6-2- Why?
6-3- Do you try to reduce energy and water consumption in your daily life?
considerably
not at all
6-4- Why?
6-5- Does your concern for electricity and water consumption change when you are staying in a hotel or on
cruise ship?
remarkably changes
does not change at all
6-6- Why?
Thank you!
we would be very happy to have your email
Non-Informative Cabin
Top View
Cabin Area
Bathroom
Non-Informative cabin consists of

eco-design considerations such as
smart facilities, eco-friendly materials and efficient insulation. The
non-informative cabin emphasizes
the eco-design considerations inserted in the cabin design, which
lead to less energy and water
consumption. In addition to eco
friendly materials and proper insulation, cabins can be facilitated
by smart sensors which result in
a more controlled design. In other
words, non-informative cabin does
not necessarily entail participation
from cruisers while eco-solutions
are embedded in the design of
cabins.
Display Placement
Water Usage Display
Ship Consumption Display
Electricity Display
INFO DISPLAY
CONSUMPTION
CABIN - WATER / ELECTRICITY
SHIP - WATER / ELECTRICITY
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR ELECTRICITY USAGE
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
Cabin Area
TARGET LEVEL
Top View
Bathroom
Informative Cabin
Informative cabin consists of not

only eco-design considerations but
also providing information to cruisers. Informative displays show the
amount of water and energy consumed in the cabin by cruisers.
The initial concept of Informative
includes not only eco-design consideration embedded in the cabin
design , but also the awareness/
participation of cruisers in energy
consumption.
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
MONEY BACK: 5
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
Reward concept
Cruisers will be informed about their daily energy and water consumption.
The consumption info can be compared to a Target Level as well as the
cruise average.
As a result, cruiser will receive a reward if his consumption level is below
the average and target level.
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
WHOLE TRIP
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
DAY 2
SHIP AVERAGE
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
YOURWATER
WATER
USAGE
YOUR
USAGE
DAY 1
WHOLE TRIP
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
DAY 2
SHIP AVERAGE
YOURWATER
WATERUSAGE
USAGE
YOUR
TARGET
TARGET LEVEL
LEVEL
DAY 1
EXTRA COST: 5
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
Penalty concept
Cruisers will be informed about their daily energy and water consumption.
The consumption info can be compared to a Target Level as well as the
cruise average.
As a result, the cruiser will receive penalty if his consumption level is above
the average and target level.
Suggestions:
Please, remember to turn the lights off
when leaving the cabin.
The switch is just next to the door!
Enjoy your trip!
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
Eco-Tips provide cruisers with

immediate and practical ways
of reducing the consumption
in cabins. It gives suggestions
as well as information about
energy consumption in the
cabin and in general.
As a result, cruisers will be
more aware of the energy
consumption.
Informative cabin / With eco-tips
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
INFO DISPLAY
CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
Informative cabin / No-eco tips
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
ECO - TIPS
ECO - TIPS
Please,Turn the tap off while brushing your

teeth.
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
Suggestions:
- Turning the tap off whilst brushing teeth
saves 12 litres of water per person a day.
SHIP AVERAGE
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
DAY 2
SHIP AVERAGE
YOURWATER
WATERUSAGE
USAGE
YOUR
TARGET
TARGET LEVEL
LEVEL
DAY 1
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
Reward concept
MONEY BACK: 5
CONSUMPTION DISPLAY
INFO DISPLAY
CONSUMPTION
Informative cabin / With eco-tips
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
SHIP AVERAGE
TARGET LEVEL
YOUR WATER USAGE
Suggestions:
Please, remember to turn the lights off
when leaving the cabin.
The switch is just next to the door!
Enjoy your trip!
TARGET LEVEL
Please,Turn the tap off while brushing

your teeth.
ECO - TIPS
ECO - TIPS
TARGET LEVEL
Suggestions:
- Turning the tap off whilst brushing
teeth saves 12 litres of water per
person a day.
SHIP AVERAGE
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
WHOLE TRIP
SHIP AVERAGE
YOUR WATER USAGE
TARGET LEVEL
TARGET LEVEL
SHIP AVERAGE
DAY 2
SHIP AVERAGE
YOURWATER
WATERUSAGE
USAGE
YOUR
TARGET
TARGET LEVEL
LEVEL
DAY 1

Cabin Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabin Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVELOPING ECO-BEHAVIOUR OF

CRUISE SHIP PASSENGERS

INNOVATION AND NETWORK PROJECT

Figure 1. LCA of environmental impacts of cruising tourism

Figure 2. Cabin concepts

2- Results from the study of interest: pair comparison of concepts

informative cabin versus non-informative cabin

respondents with sustainability background

informative cabin with no eco-tips versus informative cabin with eco-tips

respondents with sustainability background

informative cabin with rewards versus informative cabin with eco-tips

respondents with sustainability background

towards penalty strongly towards

respondents with sustainability background

3- Results from the study of eco-effectiveness: pair comparison of concepts

respondents with sustainability background

respondents with sustainability background

respondents with sustainability background

reward concept versus penalty concept

towards penalty strongly towards

respondents with sustainability background

4- Results from study of interest towards concepts

chosen as the chosen as the Difth

respondents with sustainability background

interest towards non-informative concept

chosen as the chosen as the Difth

respondents with sustainability background

interest towards informative cabin with eco-tips

chosen as the chosen as the Difth

respondents with sustainability background

interest towards informative cabin with rewards

chosen as the chosen as the Difth

respondents with sustainability background

interest towards informative concept with penalty

chosen as the chosen as the Difth

respondents with sustainability background

5- Results from the study of eco-effectiveness of concepts

opinion towards informative cabin eco-effectiveness

chosen as the most eco-

respondents with sustainability background

opinion towards non-informative cabin eco-effectiveness

respondents with sustainability background

opinion towards informative cabin with eco-tips eco-effectiveness

respondents with sustainability background

opinion towards informative cabin with rewards eco-effectiveness

respondents with sustainability background

opinion towards informative cabin with penalty eco-effectiveness

respondents with sustainability background

Informative cabin: (6-1) 0.1+(6-2) 0.1+(6-3) 0.8+(6-4) 0 + (6-5) 0 =2.3

respondents with sustainability background

respondents with no sustainability background

respondents with sustainability background

respondents with no sustainability background

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

2- Common and divergent areas

Cruise ship survey

Informative with Reward

Informative with Reward

Informative with penalty

I like the most

I dislike the most

Results in the least reduction