Cabin Report.pdf

DEVELOPING ECO-BEHAVIOUR OF CRUISE SHIP PASSENGERS

A CASE STUDY OF INFORMATIVE CABIN DESIGN

INNOVATION AND NETWORK PROJECT NODUS SUSTAINABLE DESIGN RESEARCH GROUPAALTO UNIVERSITYHELSINKI FINLAND

2013 - 2014

HESAM PAKBEEN

RESEARCH REPORT

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).

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.

Figure 1. LCA of environmental impacts of cruising tourism (Johnson, 2002)

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 eco-solutions 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

Male: 13

23-25: 6

26-30: 7

31-34: 7

Yes: 10

No: 10

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.

2-2- Informative cabin with ship instructive feedback (reminders and suggestions from the ship) versus Informative cabin with no feedback

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.

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

strongly towards informative cabin

towards informative cabin

undecided towards non-‐informative cabin

strongly towards non-‐informative

cabin

informative cabin versus non-‐informative cabin -‐ which cabin type would you like to experience on a cruise ship?

respondents with sustainability background

respondents with no sustainability background

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 company’s 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.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

strongly towards informative cabin with no eco-‐tips

towards informative cabin with no eco-‐tips

undecided towards informative cabin with eco-‐tips

strongly towards informative cabin with eco-‐tips

informative cabin with no eco-‐tips versus informative cabin with eco-‐tips -‐ which cabin type would you like to experience on a cruise ship?



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.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

strongly towards informative cabin with rewards

towards informative cabin with rewards



informative cabin with rewards versus informative cabin with eco-‐tips -‐ which cabin type would you like to experience on a cruise ship?



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

strongly towards reward concept

towards reward concept

undecided towards penalty strongly towards penalty

reward conscept versus penalty concept -‐ which cabin type would you like to experience on a cruise ship?



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 eco-behavior, 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.

3-2- Informative cabin with ship instructive feedback (reminders and suggestions from the ship) versus Informative cabin with no feedback

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 eco-behavior, (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:

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

strongly towards informative cabin

towards informative cabin

undecided towards non-‐informative cabin

strongly towards non-‐informative

cabin

informative cabin versus non-‐informative cabin -‐ which cabin type reduces the energy and water consumption more effectively?



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.

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 people’s 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

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

strongly towards informative cabin with no eco-‐tips

towards informative cabin with no eco-‐tips



informative cabin no eco-‐tips versus informative cabin with eco-‐tips -‐ which cabin type reduces the energy and water consumption more effectively?



influence in reward concept and commented that short-term influential factors such as reward are not as effective as conscious approaches.

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 well-mannered 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.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

strongly towards informative cabin with rewards

towards informative cabin with rewards



informative cabin with rewards versus informative cabin with eco-‐tips -‐ which cabin type reduces the energy and water consumption more effectively?



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 non-informative 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.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

strongly towards reward concept

towards reward concept

undecided towards penalty strongly towards penalty

reward concept versus penalty concept -‐ which cabin type reduces the energy and water consumption more effectively?



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.

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

chosen as the most favoured

cocnept

chosen as the second favoured

cocnept

chosen as the third favoured

cocnept

chosen as the fourth favoured

cocnept

chosen as the Difth favoured cocnept

interest towards informative concept



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


cocnept


cocnept


cocnept


cocnept


interest towards non-‐informative concept



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


cocnept


cocnept


cocnept


cocnept


interest towards informative cabin with eco-‐tips



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


cocnept


cocnept


cocnept


cocnept


interest towards informative cabin with rewards



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


cocnept


cocnept


cocnept


cocnept


interest towards informative concept with penalty



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 eco-effective 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 eco-effective 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 eco-guidelines 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.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

chosen as the most eco-‐effective cocnept

chosen as the secondeco-‐effective

cocnept

chosen as the third eco-‐effective cocnept

chosen as the fourth eco-‐effective cocnept

chosen as the Difth eco-‐effective cocnept

opinion towards informative cabin eco-‐effectiveness



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


chosen as the second eco-‐effective cocnept




opinion towards non-‐informative cabin eco-‐effectiveness



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%






opinion towards informative cabin with eco-‐tips eco-‐effectiveness



In order to assess the overall interest towards a given concept in each study groups, the following function was used:

(𝒎 − 𝒊)𝒙𝒊

𝒎!𝟏

𝒊!𝟏

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), 𝑥! 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

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






opinion towards informative cabin with rewards eco-‐effectiveness



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%






opinion towards informative cabin with penalty eco-‐effectiveness



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:

Similar function can be employed to calculate the overall opinion of respondents about cabin concepts in terms of eco-effectiveness:

(𝒎 − 𝒋)𝒙𝒋

𝒎!𝟏

𝒋!𝟏

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

2 2.3

3.2 3.4

1.1

2.6

2.1

3.2

2.1

1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Non-‐informative cabin

Informative cabin Informative cabin with instructive

feedback

Informative cabin with reward

Informative cabin with penalty

overall interest towards concepts

respondents with sustainability background respondents with no sustainability background

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 eco-effectiveness:

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

1

2.4

3.5

4.5

3.6

1.1

2.6

3.6

4

3.6

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Non-‐informative cabin

Informative cabin Informative cabin with instructive

feedback

Informative cabin with reward

Informative cabin with penalty

overall opinion towards cocncepts eco-‐effectiveness

respondents with sustainability background respondents with no sustainability background

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 eco-feedback

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 eco-guidelines 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 eco-guidelines 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 people’s 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 eco-behavior 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 Date: / /2013Study of cabin consumption and cruiser behaviour

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?

1-2- Why?

1-3- Which cabin type reduces the energy and water consumption more effectively?

1-4- Why?

2-1- Which cabin type do you like more to experience on a cruise ship?

2-2- Why?

informative cabin non-informative cabin

informative cabin non-informative cabin

informative cabin with remindersSuggestions from the cruise ship

informative cabin with no reminders

No suggestions from the cruise ship

1


2-4- Why?

3-1- Which cabin type do you like more to experience on a cruise ship?

3-2- Why?


3-4- Why?


Informative with Reward

informative cabin with no reminders

No suggestions from the cruise ship


Informative with Rewardinformative cabin with remindersSuggestions from the cruise ship

2

D: informative with Reward

C: informative cabin with remindersSuggestions from the cruise ship

B: informative cabin

A: non-informative


4-2- Why?

5-1- Please arrange the cabin types (A-D) according to your preference : I like the most/I dislike the most

Informative with reward Informative with penalty

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

D: informative cabin with Reward

C: informative cabin with remindersSuggestions from the cruise ship

B: informative cabin

A: non-informative

E: informative cabin with Penalty

Results in the most reduction of energy and water consumption

Results in the least reduction of energy and waterconsumption

3

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?

6-4- Why?

considerably not at all

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

4

hpakbeen

Typewritten Text

hpakbeen

Typewritten Text

hpakbeen

Typewritten Text

hpakbeen

Typewritten Text

Top View Cabin Area

Non-Informative Cabin

Non-Informative cabin consists of eco-design considerations such as smart facilities, eco-friendly mate-rials and efficient insulation. The non-informative cabin emphasizes the eco-design considerations in-serted in the cabin design, which lead to less energy and water consumption. In addition to eco friendly materials and proper in-sulation, 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.

Bathroom

Ship Consumption Display

Top View

Water Usage Display

Display Placement

Electricity Display

Cabin Area

CONSUMPTIONCABIN - WATER / ELECTRICITYSHIP - WATER / ELECTRICITY

INFO DISPLAY

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

TARG

ET L

EVEL

Informative Cabin

Informative cabin consists of not only eco-design considerations but also providing information to cruis-ers. Informative displays show the amount of water and energy con-sumed in the cabin by cruisers. The initial concept of Informative includes not only eco-design con-sideration embedded in the cabin design , but also the awareness/participation of cruisers in energy consumption. Bathroom

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

CONSUMPTION DISPLAYCABIN - WATER / ELECTRICITYSHIP - WATER / ELECTRICITY



TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

MONEY BACK: 5€YO

UR W

ATER

USA

GE

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

DAY 1 DAY 2 WHOLE TRIPTA

RGET

LEV

EL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE




TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

DAY 1 DAY 2 WHOLE TRIP

EXTRA COST: 5€

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

TARG

ET L

EVEL

Penalty concept Reward concept

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

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.

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.


INFO DISPLAY

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

TARG

ET L

EVEL

ECO

- TIP

S

ECO

- TIP

S

Suggestions: - Turning the tap off whilst brushing teeth saves 12 litres of water per person a day.

Please,Turn the tap off while brushing your teeth.

Suggestions: Please, remember to turn the lights off when leaving the cabin. The switch is just next to the door! Enjoy your trip!

Informative cabin / No-eco tips Informative cabin / With eco-tips

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.

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE



TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

DAY 1 DAY 2TA

RGET

LEV

EL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE




TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

MONEY BACK: 5€

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

DAY 1 DAY 2 WHOLE TRIP

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE


INFO DISPLAY

TARG

ET L

EVEL

TARG

ET L

EVEL

YOUR

WAT

ER U

SAGE

YOUR

ELE

CTRI

CITY

USA

GE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

SHIP

AVE

RAGE

TARG

ET L

EVEL

ECO

- TIP

S

ECO

- TIP

S

Suggestions: - Turning the tap off whilst brushing teeth saves 12 litres of water per person a day.

Please,Turn the tap off while brushing your teeth.

Suggestions: Please, remember to turn the lights off when leaving the cabin. The switch is just next to the door! Enjoy your trip!

Reward concept Informative cabin / With eco-tips

Cabin Report.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Cabin Report.pdf