Content uploaded by Stefan Partelow
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stefan Partelow on Feb 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Informational Nudges to Encourage
Pro-environmental Behavior:
Examining Differences in Message
Framing and Human Interaction
Katherine M. Nelson
1
*, Mirja Kristina Bauer
2
and Stefan Partelow
1
1
Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research, Bremen, Germany,
2
Department of Biology/Chemistry, University of Bremen,
Bremen, Germany
Two natural field experiments were implemented to examine the influence of framing
effects on environmental behavior. The first study examined plastic bag use at a
convenience store using low cost nudges: an informational message on a sign and
interpersonal communication at check-out. We employed a 3 ×2 treatment design
(positive message vs. negative message vs. no sign; each paired with both asking for
bag vs. not asking for bag) and report the observed plastic bag use behavior. A second
study was conducted using a pre-snorkel briefing with two message frames–positive,
negative, and no briefing (control). Environmentally damaging snorkel behavior was
anonymously observed and recorded. Both experiments show the same general
result: a significant and positive difference between subjects that were exposed to an
intervention compared to those in the control conditions. However, we do not find
significant differences in observed environmental behavior between the negative and
positive framing.
Keywords: environmental communication, behavioral experiment, natural field experiment, nudges, environment,
conservation
INTRODUCTION
Ecosystems and natural resources are humankind’s basis of life, but are generally facing pollution,
degradation and overexploitation (Dwyer et al., 1993;Osbaldiston and Schott, 2012). The decreasing
environmental quality mostly originates from anthropogenic influences, a consequence of human
behavior (Dwyer et al., 1993;Steg and Vlek, 2009). The social-ecological systems literature has
focused extensively on framing and analyzing these interdependent relationships between societies
and the environment (Colding and Barthel, 2019;Vos et al., 2020). In tourism, human-environment
relationships are co-shaped by the context (Scott et al., 2012). For example, willingness to use a
reusable bag can be influenced by who sends the message, which has impacts on local environmental
pollution (Spranz et al., 2018). Similarly, the problems a tourist recognizes as important are linked to
their cultural salience and local visibility. Beach trash is more noticeable then underground sewage
leakages or invisible contaminants from plastics and sunscreen on reefs, and thus beach clean ups
and macro-pollution mitigation measures are often put forth as solutions (Brouwer et al., 2017).
These features shape tourist, business owner and environmental governance actor perceptions about
how to prioritize environmental problems and what can be done to govern human behavior to solve
them (Scott et al., 2012).
Edited by:
Irena Knezevic,
Carleton University, Canada
Reviewed by:
Emma Frances Bloomfield,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
United States
Arren Mendezona Allegretti,
Santa Clara University, United States
*Correspondence:
Katherine Nelson
opelikakatie@gmail.com
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Science and Environmental
Communication,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Communication
Received: 25 September 2020
Accepted: 18 December 2020
Published: 08 February 2021
Citation:
Nelson KM, Bauer MK and Partelow S
(2021) Informational Nudges to
Encourage Pro-environmental
Behavior: Examining Differences in
Message Framing and
Human Interaction.
Front. Commun. 5:610186.
doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.610186
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101861
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 08 February 2021
doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.610186
Large-scale changes of human behavior are crucial to diminish
the underlying drivers of environmental problems and to better
structure institutions (i.e., rules and norms) that provide the
incentives for individuals to act in ways that do not undermine
pro-environmental goals of society as a whole (Dwyer et al., 1993;
Steg and Vlek, 2009). To achieve this goal, there are many possible
approaches such as international agreements, governmental
policies, technological innovations, educational programs or
market-driven changes. Individual behavior change is often
voluntary and is triggered by the social market based on
reflecting one’s image and reputation to peers.
Nudges are low-cost interventions that influence decision-
making without limiting freedom of choice and have been tested
in the environmental realm of electricity and water saving,
reduced meat consumption, recycling, and decreasing private
car transportation (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002;Cheng et al.,
2011;Osbaldiston and Schott, 2012). Sunstein (2014) notes that
nudging refers to “liberty-preserving approaches that steer people
in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own
way”(p. 583), and that nudges “are specifically designed to
preserve full freedom of choice”(p. 584). The benefits of
nudging approaches include their typical low costs,
preservation of individual choice, and ability to achieve
desired outcomes without large systemic changes. They are
often low cost because a lot of nudging is about how
information is presented and organized, often referred to as
altering the ‘choice architecture’available to individuals, which
is always there, but often not consciously designed. It preserves
individual freedom of choice because there is no coercion, but
rather information messaging or choice options are presented
transparently in different ways. Finally, nudging does not often
require systemic changes, for example changing the policy
structure of the entire health care system, but rather
influencing how individuals make choices within it to optimize
desired outcomes.
The purpose of this paper is to observe real behavior changes
using natural field experiments with different types of pro-
environmental communication framing interventions, and to
test the effectiveness of those framing intervention nudges.
Due to the disparate and largely inconclusive literature on the
topic in the environmental realm, this study aims to add clarity
with findings from two experiments on different environmental
problems 1) plastic pollution and 2) coral reef degradation on Gili
Trawangan, Indonesia. The findings of these two studies
contribute to the framing and environmental behavior
literature and can inform design of future research, but also
demonstrate practical intervention strategies for influencing
human behavior in relation to local environmental management.
According to the Theory of Planned Behavior, pro-
environmental behavior is thought to be influenced by one’s
environmental knowledge, attitudes, social pressures, values and
beliefs (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Environmental attitudes
are an often-studied component of behavioral intentions, and,
less so, of actual observed behavior (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008).
Correlations between attitudes and actual behavior have been
proven to be weak (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002;Masud et al.,
2015;Nelson et al., 2020). Additionally, the type of informational
framing is thought to influence decisions but the success of the
frame is dependent not only on what is said, but how it’s said at
specific points of a person’s decision stage (i.e., early stage of
determining whether an issue is problematic based on its personal
risk/costs or the later stage of establishing intention to act)
(Entman, 1993;Cheng et al., 2011). Therefore, targeting
interventions to different audiences is necessary and to do so,
a distinction between antecedent and consequence strategies has
been made: Antecedent strategies are aimed to change the factors
that precede the behavior, e.g., informing about choice options,
raising awareness or prompting. By comparison, consequence
strategies are aimed to change the consequences following a
behavior, e.g., penalties, rewards or feedback (Steg and Vlek,
2009).
Although a multitude of studies have used interpersonal
communication to examine environmental behaviors (for a
review see Osbaldiston and Schott 2012), few of these studies
compare observed behavior between printed media and face-to-
face interactions. One study showed that in antecedent behavioral
interventions, based on giving information in advance, personal
interaction is more effective compared to only presenting
information in a non-interactive way (e.g., print, digital).
Curbside recycling was increased by personal communication
rather than by printed persuasive communication alone (Burn,
1991) and lawn watering was decreased when students were
talking to residents compared to the ‘information only’
treatment (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). A reason for this may
result from the desire for social recognition and approval
which acts as a motivator for performing a specific behavior
(Cook and Berrenberg, 1981).
Nevertheless, a cross-cultural phenomenon called ‘knowledge-
action’gap occurs. Hundreds of studies have failed to explain the
gap between environmental knowledge held by individuals and
the resulting pro-environmental behavior they exhibit (Kollmuss
and Agyeman, 2002). Consequently, while the type and
availability of information should continue to be studied, how
this information is being communicated also needs to be further
examined (Kennedy et al., 2009;Cheng et al., 2011). This includes
the framing of how information is communicated both verbally
and visually (Nelson et al., 2019;Nelson et al., 2020).
Framing Effects
The framing effect, resulting from message or valence framing, is
described as a cognitive bias emerging from the way information
is communicated or presented (Entman, 1993;Plous, 1993;Levin
et al., 1998;Avineri and Waygood, 2013). Although the “Classic
Economic Theory of Rational Choice”concludes that individuals
base their choices only on the content of the information and not
in the way it is presented, “Prospect Theory”states that the kind
of framing can influence decision making and behavior
differently (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Prospect theory
posits that decision making can be altered by the potential
perceived losses (loss frame) or perceived gains (gain frame)
from a specific reference point with which information is
presented (e.g., 10% lives lost vs. 90% lives saved) (Kahneman
and Tversky, 1979;Tversky and Kahneman, 1992;Avineri and
Waygood, 2013).
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101862
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
Research has shown that communicating a descriptive norm that
gives people cues about expected behavior (or inappropriate
behavior) through written information can induce conformity
(Schultz, 1999;Nolan et al., 2008). Although much research has
been done in the fieldofframinginvariouscontextssuchaspolitics,
consumer behavior, health or environmental communication, many
contradictory results exist and the answer to which framing (e.g.,
positive or negative) leads to more behavior change in a specific
context is not consistent (Entman, 1993;Levin et al., 1998;Piñon and
Gambara, 2005;Entman et al., 2009;Spence and Pidgeon, 2010;
Cheng et al., 2011;Kim and Kim, 2014;Baxter and Gram-Hanssen,
2016). For instance, in a study where the benefits of performing
climate change mitigating behaviors were highlighted, subjects
reported higher average positive environmental attitudes in
comparison to the frame focusing on the risks and threats of
refraining from mitigation behaviors (Spence and Pidgeon, 2010;
Maibach et al., 2014). Nonetheless, as stated previously, there is weak
evidence, at best, that attitudes and intentions (e.g., knowledge)
translate into actual behavior, and more research is needed in
different contexts.
For example, in a virtual reality-based intervention, it was tested
whethergainorlossframingwasmoreinfluential in provoking
respondents to be willing to donate money and time for biodiversity
conservation organizations (Nelson et al., 2020). The authors found
that the negatively framed audio together with 360°virtual reality
video resulted in more money donated, but only in the context of
tourists that were immediately impacted by the health of the natural
resource–which in this case happened to be coral reefs. Respondents’
behavioral attitudes were not a significant indicator for their
behavior (Nelson et al., 2020). Ahn et al. (2015) conducted a
virtual experiment with a visual framing (instead of semantic
framing) in which subjects were exposed to either cutting
(negative) or planting (positive) a tree in an animation. Overall,
the virtual experience (regardless of negative or positive frame)
resulted in higher intentions of purchasing recycling paper
compared to the control (only text). This experiment only
measured reported behavior and intentions and was conducted in
a laboratory which may have resulted in a difference to real-world
behavior (Levitt and List, 2007).
Surprisingly, to the authors’knowledge, only one pro-
environmental framing experiment has been implemented as a
natural field experiment using observable behavior (White et al.,
2011). White et al. (2011) show that the mind-set of the message
played a role in a recycling study: negative frames led to more
recycling with a concrete mind-set (how should be recycled) and
positive frames led to more recycling with an abstract mind-set
(why should be recycled) (White et al., 2011). Although actual
recycling behavior was measured, the framing itself was not tested
on its own, but together with the induced mind-set message. They
conclude that framing effectiveness is highly context dependent
and they do not offer general recommendations favoring positive
or negative framing to enhance pro-environmental behavior
change interventions.
Study Location and Context
The Gili islands–Gili Trawangan, Gili Meno and Gili Air–are
small tropical islands off the northwest coast of Lombok, located
in the strait between Lombok and Bali, Indonesia. Gili Trawangan
is the largest of the three islands, at approximately six square
kilometers. The population consists of around 2000 people,
mainly Indonesians, but also western expatriates (Hampton
and Hampton, 2008;Willmott and Graci, 2012;Halim, 2017).
Gili Trawangan is the furthest developed and most frequently
visited of the Gili islands with an estimate of well over a million
visitors annually (Partelow and Nelson, 2018). Gili Trawangan
is highly dependent on tourism, particularly marine tourism as
it is the second most popular destination in South East Asia
for SCUBA certification (Partelow and Nelson, 2018).
Overcapacity and degradation of natural resources from
pollution (i.e., challenges with waste management) and
tourism are rapidly becoming a problem. This includes a lack
of freshwater, insufficient solid waste and sewage treatment,
plastic pollution, reef degradation, beach erosion due to
coastal construction, and illegal fishing and anchoring
(Bachtiar, 2000;Hampton and Hampton, 2008;Willmott and
Graci, 2012;Graci, 2013).
On Gili Trawangan, waste collection volumes range from
10–15 tons per day during high season and 3–5 tons per day
in low season of which 42% is non-organic waste (Cannucciari
and Martiana, 2016). All non-recyclable waste stays on the island
and is brought to the landfill. Burning of waste is typical and it is
common to see waste dumping sites scattered around the island
and eventually ending up in the ocean.
Regarding the marine environmental problems, coral reef
degradation is one of the most severe ones. As a result, the local
non-governmental organization Gili Eco Trust was established
in 2002 with the aim to conserve the coral reefs. Scuba diving
and snorkeling can immensely deteriorate the health of coral
reefs, mainly from physically touching the reef whether
accidently or purposefully (Barker and Roberts, 2004;
Hannak et al., 2011). Scuba divers as well as snorkelers
were reported to physically damage corals and harass
marine wildlife (Barker and Roberts, 2004). Although the
impact of touching corals might not be obvious, it can
adversely affect the coral’s physiological condition,
especially repeated occurrence by millions of snorkelers and
divers visiting the island annually (Barker and Roberts, 2004).
By disturbing the thin mucous layer the susceptibility for
diseases and algal overgrowth can increase (Morrow et al.,
2011). It is evident that even minimal impacts caused by divers
can result in irreversible damage, of which the extent of these
affectsiscumulativeinhightrafficareas,suchasonGili
Trawangan (Krieger and Chadwick, 2013).
As snorkeling and diving are the main tourist activities on Gili
Trawangan, exploring management interventions that could
minimize their impacts should be considered. Already in 1997,
Hampton and Hampton (2008) found signs of damage caused by
snorkelers on the reefs of Gili Trawangan. Most damage resulted
from snorkelers walking or standing on corals, or bumping into
them while snorkeling (Hampton and Hampton, 2008). With
increasing tourist volume, pressure on the coral reefs is also
increasing, threatening the health of coastal ecosystems and the
viability of tourism as form of sustainable development for the
island’s economy.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101863
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
EXPERIMENT 1: PLASTIC BAG
INTERVENTION
The amount of plastic pollution ending up in the world’s oceans is
increasing (Jambeck et al., 2015;PEMRG, 2018). Plastic pollution
harms marine wildlife, such as turtles, whales and sea birds
because they confuse it with nutritious food. Indonesia is the
second biggest contributor to marine plastic pollution with an
estimated input of 0.48–1.29 million metric tons each year
(Jambeck et al., 2015). Plastic bags in Indonesia are commonly
provided for free, often with every purchase, regardless of the size
or quantity of items. In this study, we introduce different verbal
and visual treatments as framing interventions to discourage the
use of plastic bags at a convenience store on Gili Trawangan.
Methods
The study location was a convenience store called Coco Express, a
retail chain. This was chosen because it is one of the two most
common and busiest shops on Gili Trawangan. The location was
at the south end of the main beachfront strip frequented heavily
by tourists. The sitting area in front of the shop (bottom-right in
Figure 1A) allowed for anonymous observation of consumer
purchases (Figure 1A) and facilitated the follow-up questionnaire
of each customer upon exit.
A3×2 full factorial between-subject’s experimental design
was implemented to observe differences in behavior. The first
factor is message framing with three levels: positive, negative and
a control with no sign. The second factor refers to whether the
shop assistant asks the customer if he/she needs a plastic bag
(asking) (“Do you need a plastic bag?”) or places the purchased
items in a plastic bag without asking unless the customer actively
refuses a plastic bag (not asking). A total of 721 observations were
included for analysis (see Table 1 for sample sizes by treatment).
The treatments were displayed as an informational sign on the
check-out counter of the shop (Figure 1B). The positively framed
message was: “Do you really need a plastic bag? Refuse it and you
FIGURE 1 | (A) (top): The seating area in front of the Coco Express store with window fronts. (B) (bottom): Positive message sign on the counter of the Coco
Express store.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101864
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
will save the ocean!”and the negatively framed message read: “Do
you really need a plastic bag? Refuse it or you will destroy the
ocean!”(see Figure 2). The message was in English as the target
audience was foreign tourists and it was also translated into
Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) and printed in smaller font below
the English text.
A structured survey was created to collect personal data and
supplement the interpretation of the observed behavioral
intervention experiments on each subject as they exited the
shop, including questions on socio-demographics, income,
activities on the island, perceptions on plastic pollution on Gili
Trawangan, pro-environmental behavior intentions and actions
already performed on the island (see Appendix I). The research
was approved by the institutional ethical review committee for
Leibniz ZMT, and was conducted in accordance with the ethical
standards of the German Data Protection Act, and the 1964
Helsinki Declaration and later amendments. Informed consent
was obtained from all individual participants that filled out the
survey. Given the large mix of nationalities and difficulty
standardizing income with purchasing power parity across so
many different contexts, participants were asked for the cost of
their hotel per night as a proxy to income, in addition to their self-
assessment of income status relative to others in their home
country.
From 2:00–8:00 pm was chosen for observations as this was
the busiest time. To randomize observation times and days, each
treatment was set to a period of 2 h with 5 min in between. The
random assignment of treatments to observation times was done
with R Studio (Package: Base) using the function sort() and
order(). The target minimum sample size per treatment was
100. Interventions and observations took place on 19 days
between November 14, 2018 and December 17, 2018.
Before a treatment was implemented, shop assistants were
briefed about their verbal cues (asking/not asking) using Google
Translate to ensure proper understanding and adherence to the
treatment. The customers were observed through the glass window
of the shop and the following information was recorded: gender
(male or female), single item purchased, number of small items
TABLE 1 | Sample size by treatment allocation.
Positive framing Negative framing Control (no poster) Total
Asking Treatment1 (T1) N 124 Treatment2 (T2) N 118 Treatment3 (T3) N 124 N 366
Not asking Treatment4 (T4) N 119 Treatment5 (T5) N 114 Treatment6 (T6) N 122 N 355
Total N 243 N 232 N 246 N 721
FIGURE 2 | Positively (left) and negatively (right) framed signs that were placed on the store’s counter.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101865
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
purchased (defined as items that fit in a trouser pocket/small hand
bag), number of large items purchased (items that do not fitintoa
trouser pocket/small hand bag), and whether the customer took a
plastic bag. Single items were items that are consumed right after the
purchase, for example ice cream, hot beverages, beverages that were
opened in the shop or right after leaving the shop. The customers
that bought a single item were recorded (N602), but later they
were excluded from the analysis because no bag was necessary since
these items were immediately consumed, and their inclusion may
bias the effect of the intervention (Total N 1,323–602
dropped 721).
After the customer’s behavior had been observed and upon
exiting the store they were approached and asked whether they
would have time for a three-minute survey about plastic pollution
on Gili Trawangan. When a couple or a group of persons bought
items together, the behavior of the one who paid was observed as
he/she was in the position to make a decision about taking a
plastic bag or refusing it. Consequently, only this person was
asked to fill in the survey.
Results of Experiment 1
Of the 721 people observed, 319 were women and 402 were men.
On average, 3.32 ±1.85 items were purchased per subject,
whereby the number of small purchased items is 0.43 ±0.73
and the number of large purchased items is 2.89 ±1.77. From the
total sample, an average of 46.60% of the subjects actively refused
to take a plastic bag.
The largest proportion of people who actively refused plastic
bags were found under T1 (positive and asking) with 58.06% and
the lowest proportion of people who refused plastic bags were
exposed to T6 (no sign and not asking) with 30.03%. The
percentage of actively refused plastic bags per treatment is
presented in Figure 3.
Although the proportion of people refusing plastic bags was
higher in the treatments with the positive framing, suggesting a
trend, the two-sided proportion test revealed no significant
differences between the positive and negative framing (see
Table 2).
The interaction factor (asking/not asking) only showed
significant differences between treatment 3 and 6 (p0.008),
which were the treatments without a sign. Compared to the
control for no sign/not asking (T6) and all treatments with a sign,
there are significantly higher proportions of refused plastic bags
in all sign treatment conditions (see Table 2).
The logistic stepwise regression (Table 3) revealed that the
numbers of small and large items are both highly positively related
to the acceptance of a plastic bag (both: p<0.001). Consequently,
the probability of accepting a plastic bag is increasing with the
number of purchased items (small or large). Similarly, subjects
exposed to the treatment 5 (p0.048) and treatment 6 (p<0.001)
are more likely to obtain a plastic bag.
Of the 201 subjects who filled in the survey, 53.7% stated their
gender as female, 44.8% as male and 1.5% as other. The age of the
survey participants ranged from 17 to 71, with a median of 27.
The observed behavior of survey respondents differs from the
overall observed behavior: only 40.80% of the survey respondents
FIGURE 3 | Percentage of actively refused plastic bags per treatment including the treatment description.
TABLE 2 | Proportion test results of refused plastic bags.
Comparison Treatments p-value (Effect size)
...Between positive and negative framings T1*T2 0.259 (0.16)
T4*T5 0.457 (0.11)
...Between asking/not asking T1*T4 0.231 (0.17)
T2*T5 0.421 (0.12)
T3*T6 0.008 ** (0.36)
...With control for sign T1*T3 0.127 (0.21)
T2*T3 0.804 (0.05)
...With control for sign and asking/not
asking
T1*T6 <0.001 *** (0.57)
T2*T6 0.003 ** (0.40)
T4*T6 0.003 ** (0.40)
T5*T6 0.044 * (0.28)
*, **, *** indicates significance levels at the p<0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels, respectively.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101866
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
actively refused plastic bags. Responses on statements about
observation of plastic pollution on Gili Trawangan, concern
about pollution, self-efficacy and contribution to it are
summarized in Table 4.
Survey results suggest strong agreement that a plastic pollution
problem exists and agree is negative, but also that subjects could
do something about it (93%) (Table 4). In contrast, the most
effective treatment (T1) shows less than 60% take an individual
action (i.e., refused bag). This indicates a knowledge-action gap.
More specifically, survey respondents that stated they paid a
higher price for their accommodation were significantly more
likely to accept a plastic bag (p0.039). Concern about the
environmental consequences of plastic pollution on Gili
Trawangan increased the probability of accepting a plastic bag
(p0.038) which appears contradictory but also demonstrates
the knowledge-action gap. Together, the sum of all pro-
environmental behaviors performed on Gili Trawangan was
significant (p0.003) and negatively correlated to the
probability of subjects accepting a plastic bag.
Overall, all treatments were significantly more effective in
discouraging the use of plastic bags compared to the control
treatment (T6–no sign and not asking). Although no framing
effect was detected, the treatment T1–positive and asking
resulted in the largest proportion of actively refused plastic
bags and the probability of people actively refusing a plastic
bag is significantly higher compared to the control treatment
(T6–no sign and not asking). The interaction (asking whether a
plastic bag is needed) is especially important when there is no
sign. However, a sign discouraging the use of plastic bags is
helpful as a low-cost and low-effort approach to reduce plastic
bag use, even if it serves only as a reminder to the clerk to ask
each customer if they need a bag.
Despite the significant difference between treatment 5
(negative framing and not asking) and treatment 6 (no sign
and not asking) resulting from the proportion test, the logistic
regression indicates that both treatments cause a higher
probability of people accepting a plastic bag. Consequently,
when no interaction with customers is possible (i.e., through
self-checkout lanes), a positively framed visual message is
advisable to reduce the consumption of plastic bags.
The stepwise logistic regression results are presented in
Table 5. The regional codes 3 (p0.014) and 5 (p0.014)
which refer to Latin America and Caribbean and North America,
respectively, resulted in a significant negative correlation to the
acceptance of a single-use plastic bag.
Discussion About Experiment 1
Overall, findings indicate any intervention (sign and/or asking) is
more effective than none. Any sign regardless of framing, coupled
with asking customers if they want a bag, can be an effective and
low-cost way to reduce plastic bag use. Interestingly, no
significant difference in plastic bag refusal was observed
between the positive and negative framing treatments. The
human interaction of asking whether a customer needs a
plastic bag is particularly important when there is no sign. A
sign may also serve as a reminder to the clerk to ask each
customer if they need a bag.
Regarding survey results, a large majority of respondents
agreed plastic pollution is observable, a problem, and they
could do something about it. Nevertheless, our findings
confirm that a knowledge-action and intention-action gap
exists (Hines et al., 1987). This reiterates the need for more
studies to report on observed behavior rather than to draw
conclusions about real behavior based on knowledge, attitudes,
and behavioral intentions (Nelson et al., 2020). Many reasons
may explain this. For example, tourists may have scarce
knowledge of the fate of plastic wastes on Gili Trawangan.
Also, in the short moment when the decision is made whether
to take a bag or not during the purchasing process, other social,
cultural or interpersonal factors associated with communication,
exchange or the normalization of transaction behavior may have
influenced the choice. The choice also had to be made quickly, as
the sign intervention was placed at the counter. Perhaps if the sign
was placed in the entrance, or at various locations around the
shop, the customer would have more time to be primed about the
issue and think about the decision during the purchasing process.
Other aspects can only be speculated, but could be considered in
future research such as how far the subjects need to carry the
TABLE 4 | Survey results about plastic pollution on Gili Trawangan.
Survey statement Agree (%) Disagree (%) No answer (%)
During my stay on Gili Trawangan I observed plastic pollution 88.56 9.95 1.49
Plastic pollution is a problem on Gili Trawangan 89.05 10.45 0.50
Plastic pollution on Gili Trawangan concerns me because of the environmental consequences 94.53 4.47 1.00
Marine plastic pollution is a danger for both marine wildlife and humans 98.01 1.49 1.00
My stay on Gili Trawangan contributes to plastic pollution 65.67 33.33 1.00
I can do something against plastic pollution on Gili Trawangan 93.53 4.47 1.00
TABLE 3 | Regression results for accepted plastic bags (observation data).
Time 2 (4:05–6:05 pm) 0.145 (0.269)
Time 3 (6:10–8:10 pm) 0.486 (0.259)
Treatment 2 0.190 (0.317)
Treatment 3 0.009 (0.327)
Treatment 4 0.272 (0.339)
Treatment 5 0.697 * (0.352)
Treatment 6 1.204 *** (0.327)
Number of small items 0.472 *** (0.138)
Number of large items 0.682 *** (0.079)
Pseudo R-squared (Mc Fadden) 0.164
No. observations 721
Standard errors are reported in parentheses.
*, **, *** indicates significance levels at the p<0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels, respectively.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101867
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
items or the state of intoxication of the subject (e.g., many tourists
on the island consume alcohol).
The high significance of the sum of pro-environmental
activities reveals an important factor. The more people already
behave environmentally-friendly (i.e., refuse straws, avoid reef
touching, use waste bins), the higher the likelihood is that they
will perform other environmentally-friendly actions, such as
refusing a plastic bag. Although the previous environmentally-
friendly actions were self-reported, this finding is in line with
other research revealing a positive spill-over effect from one
sustainable behavior to multiple others (Berger, 1997;Barnes
et al., 2014).
Interestingly, the more money people spent on their
accommodation, the more likely they were to accept a single-
use plastic bag. As the family’s income status did not reveal any
significant differences between observations, and was, thus,
eliminated from the regression model, this factor does not
correlate directly to the individual’s economic situation, but
rather to the importance of luxury and or convenience while
on holiday. This may also be reflected in the use of plastic bags as
they are an item of convenience.
Attributing relevance to the lower likelihood of refusing bags
based on the consumer’s region of origin being Latin America/
Caribbean and North America compared to those from East Asia/
Pacific Islands should be carefully interpreted given the uneven
distribution of the number of observations per world region (both
regions were only represented by a small sample size n 11 and
n16, respectively). Nevertheless, cultural differences in the
effectiveness of differently framed messages (Uskul et al.,
2009) as well as differences in concern about environmental
issues have been previously reported (Gifford and Nilsson,
2014). There may also be various vacation effects. When
tourists are away from their home countries and cultural
contexts influencing their day-to-day behavior, the norms
typically guiding their behavior may be altered or left
behind on vacation. Additionally, because tourists are only
there for a short time, they do not have to personally bear the
costs of mismanagement or environmental degradation from
their behavior in the long-term. Furthermore, vacation is
typically a time for relaxing, and the convenience of taking
a bag may not be viewed as a substantial negative action from
the perspective of an individual who, in their eyes, is only more
likely to do it on vacation.
EXPERIMENT 2: SNORKELING
INTERVENTION
Coral reefs provide important public goods and ecosystem
services worldwide, but are increasingly impacted by people
through climate change induced coral bleaching, pollution and
overuse from fishing and tourism (Hughes et al., 2003;Wilkinson,
2000). Declines in coral reef health and biodiversity have been
linked to the diving industry and snorkeling (Schleyer and
Tomalin, 2000;Uyarra et al., 2009). Pre-trip briefings are a
common behavioral intervention to minimize diver impacts by
reminding divers to be cautious shortly before entering the water.
A growing body of literature suggests that snorkelers and divers
who experience a pre-trip briefing, cause less impacts and damage
(Camp and Fraser, 2012;Krieger and Chadwick, 2013;
Hammerton and Bucher, 2015;Webler and Jakubowski, 2016).
However, different framings of the briefing message, and how
their effectiveness may differ, have not been previously tested. For
example, if whether highlighting “what to do”(e.g., always keep
2 m distance) vs. “what to avoid doing”(e.g., do not touch marine
life) leads to fewer impacts. The following experiment tests the
variation in effectiveness of different pre-trip briefing framings on
a random sample of snorkelers on Gili Trawangan.
Methods
The study location was the northeast beach of Gili Trawangan
commonly known as “Turtle Point.”Various signs indicate the
location of the area where turtles can be observed on a regular
basis and snorkeling gear can be rented on multiple stands along
the beach. This site was chosen because most interactions
between snorkelers and turtles occur here (informal interviews
with Gili Eco Trust staff and local dive businesses), it is the most
frequented snorkel area around Gili Trawangan accessible from
land, and, consequently, receives the most reef damage by
snorkelers (Hampton and Hampton 2008).
The experiment comprises two treatments and a control
setting. The medium for this experiment was a printed
briefing sheet informing snorkelers about either a positive
(careful) or negative (damaging) snorkeling behavior (see
Table 6). This information sheet was shown to the subjects on
a one-to-one basis (procedure explained below). After the
interaction, the subjects were anonymously observed (by
another researcher) while snorkeling for a period of 10 min.
Under the control setting, snorkelers were observed without
prior interaction or intervention. The sampling times were
fixed in the afternoon from 1:00 pm onwards, but slightly
adjusted depending on the weather conditions. To minimalize
confusion during the sampling only one of the treatments or
control were implemented on each single day. To randomize the
observation days, random assignment was done by using the
TABLE 5 | Regression results for accepted plastic bags (survey data).
Europe and Central Asia 0.404 (0.458)
Latin America and Caribbean ‒2.340* (0.949)
Middle East and North Africa ‒0.358 (1.413)
North America ‒2.174* (0.885)
South Asia 0.180 (1.250)
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.319 (2.030)
East Asia and Pacific Islands 0.000
Family income status 0.425 (0.280)
Accommodation cost class 0.477* (0.231)
Plastic pollution is a problem ‒1.126 (0.800)
Concern about plastic pollution 2.420* (1.165)
Marine plastic pollution is a danger ‒17.520 (858.518)
Tourists have a potential to mitigate plastic pollution 0.615 (0.430)
Sum of pro-environmental behavior on Gili Trawangan ‒0.225** (0.077)
Pseudo R-squared (Mc Fadden) 0.239
No. observations 176
Standard errors are reported in parentheses.
*, **, *** indicates significance levels at the p<0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels, respectively.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101868
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
function sort() and order() in R Studio. The sample size per
treatment and control was first set to 50. Each sampling day a
minimum of 10 snorkelers were supposed to be observed. After
the implementation of roughly 30 subjects per treatment and
control, the effect size was calculated (Cohen’sd0.71), and the
sample size was adjusted to 60 per treatment and control. In total,
interventions and observations took place on 18 days between
December 26, 2018 and January 20, 2018.
Snorkelers who were preparing to get into the water were
approached by one of the volunteers of the local NGO Gili Eco
Trust. The volunteers introduced themselves as volunteers, briefly
outlined the work of the NGO (being coral reef conservation and
waste treatment) and then provided information about
snorkeling behavior to reduce impacts on the reef.
Following this interaction, and allowing for time for the subjects
to adjust their gear and become comfortable in the water, the
underwater observer watched the snorkeler(s) for 10 min. Gender,
use of snorkel, fins, camera and other equipment as well as the
number of people surrounding the individual snorkeler (>2m
distance to subject) during the 10-minute observation were
noted. The position in the water was recorded every 60 s as the
average position over the 10-minute period can act as a proxy for
the snorkelers’level of experience. The snorkelers’proximity to the
reef was also assessed every 60 s given the obvious correlation
between reef proximity and contact. Several different kinds of
impacts on the reef and marine life were observed, including
type of contact (kick, touch, stand, etc.), type of coral
(branching, foliaceous, massive, soft, table) or sponge, body part/
equipment (foot, hand, leg, fin, camera), type of impact (sediment
suspension, single abrasion, multiple abrasion, breakage), voluntary
vs. involuntary impact (voluntary included standing on the reef and
grabbing the reef as opposed to accidental brushing against the reef
and accidental fin kicks), coming closer than 1.5 m distance to a
turtle, touching, obstructing and feeding (see Appendix II). When
the 10-min observation was finished, the observer signaled to the
volunteer on the beach that she was done and ready for the next
observation. Consequently, the volunteer either indicated who she
had informed already or approached a new snorkeler.
During data analysis, the number of impacts was included, as
well as, a calculated impact score which was created to account for
the different severity of impacts on marine wildlife. These were
calculated by the type of impact with the coral reef (sediment
suspension 1, single abrasion 2, multiple abrasion 3,
breakage 4), the type of impact with a turtle (chasing,
distance closer than 1.5 m, obstructing 2, touching/feeding
4) and the intention of the subject (impact was voluntary 1,
impact was involuntary 0). For subjects with multiple impacts,
the scores of each impact were summed up. With the ten
observations of the subject’s proximity to the reef, a median
was calculated. A position index was created to use as a proxy for
one’s level of experience and comfortability snorkeling. For this,
the observation every 60 s was assigned to a number (standing on
the reef 1, standing on sand 2, swimming vertically 3,
floating on the water surface 4, swimming horizontally 5,
diving down 6) and the ten observations were averaged.
Results of Experiment 2
In total, 184 snorkelers were observed. As one of the observed
snorkelers noticed that he was observed, this subject was removed
from analysis, leaving 183 observations for data analysis. Overall,
144 impacts on marine wildlife by 73 snorkelers were noted, of
which 28 impacts were involuntary. Impacts included standing
and walking on the reef, touching the reef, breaking/kicking
corals, suspension of sand close to corals, coming closer than
1.5 m to sea turtles, obstructing, chasing, and touching sea turtles.
Although the Gili Eco Trust staff had reported feeding of turtles
by snorkelers, this was not observed during the sampling days.
The mean number of impacts per snorkeler is highest with 1.34 ±
1.76 per 10-minute observation period in the control setting. In
the positive (0.39 ±0.78) as well as in the negative framing (0.62 ±
1.03), the mean number of impacts was lower. The mean position
index is 4.17 ±0.50. The number of impacts is not normally
distributed, and the variances are not homogeneous (all: p<
0.001), thus, the non-parametric Kruskal Wallis Rank Sum test
was run. There are highly significant differences between the
treatments and control (p<0.001) regarding the number of
impacts a snorkeler had on the marine environment. These
significant differences occur between the control and the
positive treatment (p<0.001) and between the control and
the negative treatment (p0.013). There is no significant
difference (p0.244) between the framed treatments (positive
and negative).
TABLE 6 | Briefing sheets with four key notes highlighting positive (careful) snorkeling behavior (left) and negative (damaging) snorkeling behavior (right).
Positive framing Negative framing
Save the reef Don’t harm the reef
How to be a good guest in the underwater world How to minimize your negative impact underwater
You can help life underwater stay colorful and beautiful by keeping your hands to
yourself and your feet off the ground as much as possible to avoid touching the reef,
turtles and other marine wildlife
Your presence on the reef can have disastrous outcomes for the reef in the long-run if
you touch or step on the reef, the turtles and other marine wildlife
As a good snorkeler you are always aware of where your fins and other equipment
(camera, etc.) are to avoid involuntary contacts
If you are not aware of the position of your fins and other equipment (camera, etc.) you
may contact the coral reef and injure it
Good snorkeler behavior means you keep at least 1.5 m distance to turtles at all times
to ensure they remain calm in their environment and can surface to breathe. Good
snorkelers enjoy watching the natural behavior of turtles and if it swims away, let it go!
Bad snorkeler behavior is when you get too close to turtles (less than 1.5 m) and they
become distressed and cannot surface to breathe. Don’t chase them when they swim
away!
Take your plastic trash with you and earn extra karma by picking up more. You
improve the marine animals’chances for survival and reproduction
Plastic trash is a hazard to marine wildlife. It decreases their chances of survival and
successful reproduction. Pick it up!
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6101869
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
Concerning the weighted impact score, similar results were
found. The mean impact score is highest in the control (3.69 ±
5.47), and lower in the positive (0.97 ±2.07) and the negative
treatment (1.42 ±2.44). Likewise, the impact scores are not
normally distributed, and the variances are not homogeneous
(all: p<0.001). Significant differences between the treatments
were detected (p<0.001) and the post-hoc test revealed that
these differences occur, again, between the control and the
positive treatment (p<0.001) and between the control and
the negative treatment (p0.005). In between the framed
treatments there is no significant difference (p0.280) (see
Figure 4).
Regarding the Zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression with the
number of impacts and the Zero-inflated negative-binomial
(ZINB) regression with the impact score, both indicate that
the treatments, as well as a higher position index, are
significantly negatively related with the number of impacts
and the impact score (see Table 7). In the model with the
number of impacts as the response variable, the factor “male”
is significant. Concerning the logistic part of both models, the
likelihood of obtaining a zero for the number of impacts, or for
the impact score, increases with an increasing distance from
the reef.
As the regression results reveal, neither the use of a camera, a
life vest, fins or the tide and current had significant effects on the
number of impacts or the impact score, as these variables were
eliminated from the model due to insignificance.
DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENT 2
The impact of snorkel related damages on the coral reef at “Turtle
Point”was already reported in 1997 (Hampton and Hampton,
2008). The impacts observed in this survey included standing and
walking on the reef, touching the reef, breaking/kicking corals,
suspension of sediment close to corals, coming closer than 1.5 m
to sea turtles, obstructing, chasing and touching sea turtles. Both,
the analysis on the number of impacts as well as the calculated
impact score produced similar results: The briefing sheet
highlighting positive (careful) snorkeling behavior resulted in
the least number of impacts and lowest impact scores. Both the
positive and the negative briefings had a significant effect on
mitigating damaging snorkeling behavior compared to the
control. This was also confirmed by the zero-inflated Poisson
(ZIP) regression of the number of impacts, as well as the zero-
inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression of the impact score.
TABLE 7 | Regression results for number of impacts (ZIP) and impact score (ZINB).
Count model with number of impacts Count model with impact score
Negative treatment ‒0.544 * (0.219) ‒0.527** (0.188)
Positive treatment ‒0.798 ** (0.251) ‒0.720*** (0.207)
Position index ‒0.927 *** (0.146) ‒0.783*** (0.129)
Sex: male 0.374 * (0.182) –
Logistic model with number of impacts Logistic model with impact score
Median proximity to reef 1.953 *** (0.461) 1.718*** (0.332)
Standard errors are reported in parentheses.
*, **, *** indicates significance levels at the p<0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels, respectively.
FIGURE 4 | The calculated impact score per treatment including the p-value resulting from the Kruskal-Wallis Rank Sum test and the p-values of Pair-wize
Comparison Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Boxes represent the interquartile range which contain 50% of the values. A line across the box indicates the median and filled
circles are the outliers.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 61018610
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
Nevertheless, a framing effect could not be discovered as the
differences between the positive and the negative treatment were
insignificant, although indicating a trend toward the positive
framing, similar to experiment 1 above.
A gender effect was revealed by the ZIP of the number of
impacts. Men were more likely to have a higher number of
impacts compared to women. This effect was also detected by
a study that had exposed snorkelers to a pre-trip media-based
intervention in Puerto Rico (Webler and Jakubowski, 2016). A
reason for this effect may originate from the finding that women
had a higher tendency to follow instructions from skill-briefings
prior to diving (Hannak et al., 2011). This is also consistent with
other studies that compare environmental attitudes and
behaviors between male and female recreationists. Men are
more likely to take risks and are less likely to follow pre-dive
instructions (Vredenburgh and Cohen, 1993). As a result,
compared to men, women are less damaging in general to the
marine environment while snorkeling.
The position index can be used as a proxy for the subject’s
snorkel experience. Individuals that stand on the reef or sand for
long time periods during their snorkel trip may feel
uncomfortable swimming with snorkel and mask which
indicates that they might be beginners. This highly correlates
with the number of impacts and the impact score. The lower a
subject’s position index, the higher the number of impacts on the
marine environment.
As expected, the median proximity to the coral reef correlates
with the probability of impact. This is rather unsurprizing given
that the closer the proximity, the higher the probability of impact.
Subsequently, the designation of snorkel areas that are easily
accessible without close contact to the reef, thus, sandy entry areas
and deeper reefs, would make direct damaging impacts of
snorkelers less likely. For this site, clear instructions on where
and how to enter and exit the water without contacting the reef
would likely decrease the probability of damaging impacts. The
effect of the personal interaction would have to be considered as
influential, as other studies have shown observed behavior change
differences between mediums where the same message was
conveyed. For example, having a real person convey the
message has been shown to be more effective than just a sign.
Nonetheless, a sign whether positive or negative, can very likely
be an effective low-cost management tool.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Overall, the findings of these two experiments are difficult to
directly compare. However, they provide important and
congruent insights on the effectiveness of informational
messaging as an effective way to nudge pro-environmental
behavior. They also both show that there are only small
differences between positively and negatively framed
informational messages. Both messages are effective as
interventions, with both experiments indicating a trend toward
a positive framing being slightly more effective but not
statistically different. Future research could examine similar
interventions, to confirm their effectiveness in other contexts.
From a policy perspective, the most important conclusions from
this study would be to have any nudging intervention rather than
none, regardless of the negative or positive framing. However, our
understanding of this may differ across contexts with further
studies in the future.
It is clear from this study that informational messaging
strategies can be implemented as effective management tools
to reduce harmful environmental behavior at the individual level.
A key reflection is that the interventions tested here are very low
cost and easy-to-implement. These results have broader practical
applications for encouraging pro-environmental behavior,
particularly in situations where there is already a human
interaction (i.e., entrance to a park, check-out counter,
transportation, rental equipment, etc.). Regarding the situation
in a grocery store, asking whether a customer needs a bag is
effective in reducing the number of plastic bags used and,
consequently, this should be implemented to decrease the
consumption of single-use plastic bags where necessary.
Concerning snorkel tourism, we show that pre-trip briefings
can be very effective. We suggest implementing a briefing upon
rental of snorkel gear, or before entering the water during regular
SCUBA dive briefings. Due to the finding that impacts are highest
from beginners, an introductory lesson would be helpful to
improve snorkeling skills of novices. In the case of Gili
Trawangan, information sheets could be offered to rental stall
owners and require mandatory reading of the briefing sheet
before renting the equipment. Likewise, snorkel and SCUBA
boat tour operators could present a briefing sheet before
snorkelers enter the ocean.
Reflecting broadly, understanding how and why human
behavior changes, or not, is essential for effective
environmental conservation and management (Cinner, 2018).
More generally, as noted by Reddy et al. (2017), behavioral
sciences are a “largely untapped resource for conservation,”(p.
248). This is now changing, spurred by a growing literature on
‘nudging’as a conceptual framing about how to use simple
interventions to guide behavior toward more desirable social
and environmental outcomes, popularized by the book Nudge
(Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). Nudging interventions, particularly
through framed informational messaging, are an undervalued
low-cost and non-invasive approach for helping achieve more
pro-environmental behavior. Tourism is a sector with a large
untapped potential to utilize these types of approaches to reduce
its local impacts. While it may be difficult to fundamentally
change human behavioral tendencies on vacation, nudging
approaches don’t require these large systemic changes.
Although larger systemic changes in the tourism sector such
as travel and consumptions practices are likely to solve issues in
the long term, non-invasive nudges provide workable and quick
solutions in the short term.
From a research perspective, and specifically in the
environmental context, more experiments with real observed
behavior are needed to test the effectiveness of the many
proposed interventions, mediums for implementation and
framings that have been suggested (Yoeli et al., 2017;Spranz
et al., 2018;Nelson et al., 2019;Rare, 2019). Finally, one of the
most well supported findings in the environmental and human
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 61018611
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
behavior literature is the existence of the knowledge-action and
intention-action gaps. While both studies in this paper confirm
this gap, they also provide robust data on low-cost and easily
implementable nudging interventions to help close those gaps in
practice.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved
by Ethics Review Board of Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine
Research: Marion Glaser and Agostino Merico. Written informed
consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance
with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization, KN; methodology, KN; validation, MB;
formal analysis, MB; investigation, MB and KN; resources, KN
and SP; data curation, MB; writing—original draft preparation,
MB and KN; writing—review and editing, KN, MB, and SP;
visualization, MB; supervision, KN and SP; funding acquisition,
KN, SP, and MB. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
FUNDING
This study was funded by a Rapid Ocean Conservation (ROC)
grant from the Waitt Foundation. Open access fees are paid by the
Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Delphine Robbe, Sian Williams
and interns at the Gili EcoTrust for assisting with this research.
We send extended thanks to local residents, staff and owners of
the many businesses on the Gili Islands for their generosity,
hospitality and willingness to participate in this study. We also
thank Achim Schlüter for discussions and comments on earlier
drafts of the manuscript. The development of this paper was
additionally supported by the European Cooperation in Science
and Technology (COST) action network on Ocean Governance,
and the Land-Sea interactions working group in particular.
REFERENCES
Ahn, S. J.-G., Fox, J., Dale, K. R., and Avant, J. A. (2015). Framing virtual
experiences: effects on environmental efficacy and behavior over time.
Commun. Res. 42 (6), 839–863. doi:10.1177/0093650214534973
Avineri, E., and Waygood, E. O. D. (2013). Applying valence framing to
enhance the effect of information on transport-related carbon dioxide
emissions. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 48, 31–38. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2012.
10.003
Bachtiar, I. (2000). Community based coral reef management of the marine
tourism park Gili Indah, Lombok Barat. Komunitas 3 (1), 67–77.
Barker, N. H. L., and Roberts, C. M. (2004). Scuba diver behaviour and the
management of diving impacts on coral reefs. Biol. Conserv. 120 (4), 481–489.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.021
Barnes, H., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Toner, K., and Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014).
Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative
review and theoretical framework. Global Environ. Change 29, 127–138. doi:10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
Baxter, J., and Gram-Hanssen, I. (2016). Environmental message framing:
enhancing consumer recycling of mobile phones. Resour. Conserv. Recycl
109, 96–101. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.02.012
Berger, I. E. (1997). The demographics of recycling and the structure of
environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 29 (4), 515–531. doi:10.1177/
001391659702900404
Brouwer, R., Hadzhiyska, D., Ioakeimidis, C., and Ouderdorp, H. (2017). The social
costs of marine litter along European coasts. Ocean Coast Manag. 138, 38–49.
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.01.011
Burn, S. (1991). Social psychology and the stimulation of recycling behaviors: the
block leader approach. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21 (8), 611–629. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1991.tb00539.x
Camp, E., and Fraser, D. (2012). Influence of conservation education dive briefings
as a management tool on the timing and nature of recreational SCUBA diving
impacts on coral reefs. Ocean Coast Manag. 61, 30–37. doi:10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2012.02.002
Cannucciari, P., and Martiana, N. (2016). Validation of critical issues in the waste
value chain and designing actions for implementation with focus on Gili
Trawangan, the western part of Lombok and Mataram. Report for GIZ
Sustainable Regional Economic Growth and Investment Programme
(SREGIP). Available at: https://panorama.solutions/sites/default/files/final_
report_30.06.16_gilit_only.pdf.
Cheng, B. Y. T., Woon, D. K., and Lynes, J. K. (2011). The use of message framing in
the promotion of environmental sustainability behaviors. Soc. Market. Q 17 (2),
48–62. doi:10.1080/15245004.2011.570859
Cinner, J. (2018). How behavioral science can help conservation. Science 362,
889–891. doi:10.1126/science.aau6028
Colding, J., and Barthel, S. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse
20 years later. Ecol. Soc. 24 (1). doi:10.5751/ES-10598-240102
Cook, S. W., and Berrenberg, J. L. (1981). Approaches to encouraging conservation
behavior: a review and conceptual framework. J. Soc. Issues 37 (2), 73–107.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb02627
Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E., and Jackson, J. M.
(1993). Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment:
research since 1980. Environ. Behav. 25 (5), 275–321. doi:10.1177/
0013916593255001
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.
J. Commun. 43 (4), 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Entman, R. M., Matthes, J., and Pellicano, L. (2009). “Nature, sources, and effects of
news framing,”in The handbook of journalism studies, (Abingdon, United
Kingdom: Routledge) 175–190.
Gifford, R., and Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-
environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int. J. Psychol. 49 (3), 141–157.
doi:10.1002/ijop.12034
Graci, S. R. (2013). Collaboration and partnership development for sustainable
tourism. Tourism Geogr 15 (1), 25–42. doi:10.1080/14616688.2012.675513
Halim, H. S. (2017). Scrutinizing coastal ecotourism in Gili Trawangan, Indonesia.
Int. J. Mar. Sci 7 (25), 247–259. doi:10.5376/ijms.2017.07.0025
Hammerton, Z., and Bucher, D. (2015). Levels of intervention-reducing SCUBA-
diver impact within subtropical marine protected areas. J. Ecotourism 14 (1),
3–20. doi:10.1080/14724049.2015.1073738
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 61018612
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
Hampton, M. P., and Hampton, J. (2008). “Is the beach party over? Tourism and the
environment in small islands: a case study of Gili Trawangan, Lombok,
Indonesia,”in Tourism in Southeast Asia: challenges and new directions,
(Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS Press) 286–308.
Hannak, J. S., Kompatscher, S., Stachowitsch, M., and Herler, J. (2011). Snorkeling
and trampling in shallow-water fringing reefs: risk assessment and proposed
management strategy. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (10), 2723–2733. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvman.2011.06.012
Heimlich, J. E., and Ardoin, N. M. (2008). Understanding behaviour to understand
behaviour change: a literature review. Environ. Educ. Res. 14 (3), 215–237.
doi:10.1080/13504620802148881
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis
of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Environ.
Educ. 18 (2), 1–8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Bellwood, D. R., Card, M., Connolly, S. R., Folke, C.,
et al. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs.
Science 301 (5635), 929–933. doi:10.1126/science.1085046
Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., et al.
(2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223),
768–771. doi:10.1126/science.1260352
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory. Econometrica 47 (2), 311.
doi:10.2307/3791683
Kennedy, E. H., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L., and Nadeau, S. (2009). Why we
don’t“walk the talk”: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in
Canada. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16 (2), 151–160.
Kim, S. B., and Kim, D. Y. (2014). The effects of message framing and source
credibility on green messages in hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55 (1),
64–75. doi:10.1177/1938965513503400
Kim, S. S., Nguyen, P. H., Yohannes, Y., Abebe, Y., Tharaney, M., Drummond, E.,
et al. (2019). Beh avior change inter ventions de livered through
interpersonal communication, agricultural activities, community
mobilization, and mass media increase complementary feeding
practices and reduce child stunting in Ethiopia. J. Nutr. 149 (8),
1470–1481. doi:10.1093/jn/nxz087
Kollmuss, A., and Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people behave
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour.
Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (3), 239–260. doi:10.1080/1350462022014540
Krieger, J. R., and Chadwick, N. E. (2013). Recreational diving impacts and the use
of pre-dive briefings as a management strategy on Florida coral reefs. J. Coast
Conserv. 17 (1), 179–189. doi:10.1007/s11852-012-0229-9
Levin, I., Schneider, S., and Gaeth, G. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a
typology of framing effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 76 (2), 149–188.
doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
Levitt, S. D., and List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring
social preferences reveal about the real world?. J. Econ. Perspect 21 (7), 153–174.
doi:10.1257/jep.21.2.153
Maibach, E. W., Nisbet, M., Baldwin, P., Akerlof, K., and Diao, G. (2014).
Reframing climate change as a public health issue in the United States. Int.
J. Clim. Chang. Strategies Manag. 10 (1), 299. doi:10.1108/ijccsm.2011.
41403bag.001
Masud, M. M., Akhtar, R., Afroz, R., Al-Amin, A. Q., and Kari, F. B. (2015). Pro-
environmental behavior and public understanding of climate change. Mitig.
Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 20 (4), 591–600. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9509-4
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to
community-based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 543–554. doi:10.1111/
0022-4537.00183
Morrow, K. M., Paul, V. J., Liles, M. R., and Chadwick, N. E. (2011).
Allelochemicals produced by caribbean macroalgae and cyanobacteria have
species-specific effects on reef coral microorganisms. Coral Reefs. 30 (2),
309–320. doi:10.1007/s00338-011-0747-1
Nelson, K. M., Anggraini, E., and Schlüter, A. (2020). Virtual reality as a tool for
environmental conservation and fundraising. PloS One 15 (4), e0223631. doi:10.
1371/journal.pone.0223631
Nelson, K. M., Partelow, S., and Schlüter, A. (2019). Nudging tourists to donate for
conservation: experimental evidence on soliciting voluntary contributions for
coastal management. J. Environ. Manag. 237, 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.
2019.02.003
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., and Griskevicius, V.
(2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 34
(7), 913–923. doi:10.1177/0146167208316691
Osbaldiston,R.,andSchott,J.P.(2012). Environmental sustainability and
behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior
experiments. Environ. Behav. 44 (2), 257–299. doi:10.1177/
0013916511402673
Partelow, S., and Nelson, K. (2018). Social networks, collective action and the
evolution of governance for sustainable tourism on the Gili Islands, Indonesia.
Mar. Pol. 112, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.004
PEMRG (2018). Global plastic production | Statista. Availabl e at: https://www-
statista-com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/statistics/282732/global-production-of-
plastics-since-1950/ (Accessed December 2020).
Piñon, A., and Gambara, H. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: risky, attribute
and goal framing. Psicothema 17 (2), 325–331. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000321
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgement and decision making. New York, NY:
Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Rare (2019). Behavior change for nature: a behavioral science toolkit for
practitioners. Arlington, VA, USA: Rare.
Reddy, S. M. W., Montambault, J., Masuda, Y. J., Keenan, E., Butler, W., Fisher, J. R.
B., et al. (2017). Advancing conservation by understanding and influencing
human behavior. Conserv. Lett. 10, 248–256. doi:10.1111/conl.12252
Schleyer, M. H., and Tomalin, B. J. (2000). Damage on South African coral reefs
and an assessment of their sustainable diving capacity using a fisheries
approach. Bull. Mar. Sci. 67 (3), 1025–1042.
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions : a
field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21, 25–36.
doi:10.1207/15324839951036533
Scott, D., Gössling, S., and Hall, C. M. (2012). International tourism and climate change.
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 3(3),213–232. doi:10.1002/wcc.165
Spence, A., and Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change:
the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environ.
Change 20 (4), 656–667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
Spranz, R., Schlüter, A., and Vollan, B. (2018). Morals, money or the master: the
adoption of eco-friendly reusable bags. Mar. Pol. 96, 270–277. doi:10.1016/j.
marpol.2018.01.029
Steg, L., and Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an
integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29 (3), 309–317.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudging: a very short guide. J. Consum. Pol. 37 (4), 583–588.
doi:10.1007/s10603-014-9273-1
Thaler, R. H., and Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: improving Decisions About Health,
Wealth, and Happiness. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Group.
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative
representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain 5 (4), 297–323. doi:10.1007/
BF00122574
Uskul, A. K., Sherman, D. K., and Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency
effect: culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain-vs. loss-framed
health messages. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45 (3), 535–541. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.
12.005
Uyarra,M.C.,Watkinson,A.R.,andC
ˆ
oté, I. M. (2009). Managing dive
tourism for the sustainable use of coral reefs: validating diver perceptions of
attractive site features. Environ. Manag. 43 (1), 1–16. doi:10.1007/s00267-
008-9198-z
Vigors, B. (2019). Citizens’and farmers’framing of ‘positive animal welfare’and the
implications for framing positive welfare in communication. Animals 9 (4), 147.
doi:10.3390/ani9040147
Vos, A. De., Biggs, R., and Preiser, R. (2020). Methods for understanding social-
ecological systems: a review of place-based studies. Ecol. Soc. 24. doi:10.5751/
ES-11236-240416
Vredenburgh, A. G., and Cohen, H. H. (1993). Compliance with warnings in high
risk recreational activities: skiing and scuba. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc.
Annu. Meet 37, 945–949. doi:10.1177/154193129303701403
Webler, T., and Jakubowski, K. (2016). Mitigating damaging behaviors of
snorkelers to coral reefs in Puerto Rico through a pre-trip media-based
intervention. Biol. Conserv. 197, 223–228. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.
03.012
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 61018613
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
White, K.,MacDonnell, R., andDahl, D. W. (2011). It’s the mind-set thatmatters: the
role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and
conservation behaviors. J. Market. Res.48 (3), 472–485. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.3.472
Wilkinson, C. (2000). Status of coral reefs of the world: 2000. Townsville, Australia:
Australian Institute of Marine Sciences.
Willmott, L., and Graci, S. R. (2012). Solid waste management in small island
destinations. Téoros Revue de Recherche En Tourisme 71, 71–76. doi:10.7202/
1036566ar
Yoeli, E., Budescu, D. V., Carrico, A. R., Magali, A., Deshazo, J. R., Ferraro, P. J.,
et al. (2017). Behavioral science tools to strengthen energy and environmental
policy. Behav. Sci. Pol. 3, 69–79. doi:10.1353/bsp.2017.0006
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2021 Nelson, Bauer and Partelow. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 61018614
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
Table 8 |
Observation Scheme for Experiment 2.
Date Sex (f/m) Camera (y/n)
Snorkel (y/n) Fins (y/n) Crowd
Tide (l/m/h) Current (l/m/h)
Minutely
observation
12345678910
Position in water*
Proximity to reef (in m)
* standing on the reef 1, standing on sand 2, swimming vertically 3, floating on the water surface 4, swimming horizontally 5, diving down 6.
Frontiers in Communication | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 61018615
Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior
