Front. Commun. Frontiers in Communication Front. Commun. 2297-900X Frontiers Media S.A. 610186 10.3389/fcomm.2020.610186 Communication Original Research Informational Nudges to Encourage Pro-environmental Behavior: Examining Differences in Message Framing and Human Interaction Nelson et al. Informational Nudges Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior Nelson Katherine M. 1 * Bauer Mirja Kristina 2 Partelow Stefan 1 Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research, Bremen, Germany Department of Biology/Chemistry, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

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

This article was submitted to Science and Environmental Communication, a section of the journal Frontiers in Communication

09 02 2021 2020 5 610186 25 09 2020 18 12 2020 Copyright © 2021 Nelson, Bauer and Partelow. 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.

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.

environmental communication behavioral experiment natural field experiment nudges environment conservation Waitt Foundation10.13039/100007850

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      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).

      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).

      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 field of framing in various contexts such as politics, 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 whether gain or loss framing was more influential 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 affects is cumulative in high traffic areas, such as on Gili 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.

      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.

      (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.

      A 3 × 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).

      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

      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 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.

      Positively (left) and negatively (right) framed signs that were placed on the store’s counter.

      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 purchased (defined as items that fit in a trouser pocket/small hand bag), number of large items purchased (items that do not fit into a 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 (N = 602), 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.

      Percentage of actively refused plastic bags per treatment including the treatment description.

      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).

      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.

      The interaction factor (asking/not asking) only showed significant differences between treatment 3 and 6 (p = 0.008), 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 (p = 0.048) and treatment 6 (p < 0.001) are more likely to obtain a plastic bag.

      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.

      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 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 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

      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 (p = 0.039). Concern about the environmental consequences of plastic pollution on Gili Trawangan increased the probability of accepting a plastic bag (p = 0.038) which appears contradictory but also demonstrates the knowledge-action gap. Together, the sum of all pro-environmental behaviors performed on Gili Trawangan was significant (p = 0.003) 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 (p = 0.014) and 5 (p = 0.014) 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.

      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.

      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 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 n = 16, 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 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’s d = 0.71), 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.

      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!

      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 (>2 m 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 (p = 0.013). There is no significant difference (p = 0.244) between the framed treatments (positive and negative).

      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 (p = 0.005). In between the framed treatments there is no significant difference (p = 0.280) (see 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.

      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.

      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.

      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. 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 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).

      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.

      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. Avant J. A. (2015). Framing virtual experiences: effects on environmental efficacy and behavior over time. Commun. Res. 42 (6), 839863. 10.1177/0093650214534973 Avineri E. 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, 3138. 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), 6777. Barker N. H. L. Roberts C. M. (2004). Scuba diver behaviour and the management of diving impacts on coral reefs. Biol. Conserv. 120 (4), 481489. 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.021 Barnes H. Carrico A. R. Weber E. U. Toner K. Vandenbergh M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environ. Change 29, 127138. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004 Baxter J. Gram-Hanssen I. (2016). Environmental message framing: enhancing consumer recycling of mobile phones. Resour. Conserv. Recycl 109, 96101. 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), 515531. 10.1177/001391659702900404 Brouwer R. Hadzhiyska D. Ioakeimidis C. Ouderdorp H. (2017). The social costs of marine litter along European coasts. Ocean Coast Manag. 138, 3849. 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), 611629. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00539.x Camp E. 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, 3037. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.02.002 Cannucciari P. 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. Lynes J. K. (2011). The use of message framing in the promotion of environmental sustainability behaviors. Soc. Market. Q 17 (2), 4862. 10.1080/15245004.2011.570859 Cinner J. (2018). How behavioral science can help conservation. Science 362, 889891. 10.1126/science.aau6028 Colding J. Barthel S. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol. Soc. 24 (1). 10.5751/ES-10598-240102 Cook S. W. Berrenberg J. L. (1981). Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior: a review and conceptual framework. J. Soc. Issues 37 (2), 73107. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb02627 Dwyer W. O. Leeming F. C. Cobern M. K. Porter B. E. Jackson J. M. (1993). Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: research since 1980. Environ. Behav. 25 (5), 275321. 10.1177/0013916593255001 Entman R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 43 (4), 5158. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x Entman R. M. Matthes J. Pellicano L. (2009). “Nature, sources, and effects of news framing,” in The handbook of journalism studies, (Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge) 175190. Gifford R. Nilsson A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int. J. Psychol. 49 (3), 141157. 10.1002/ijop.12034 Graci S. R. (2013). Collaboration and partnership development for sustainable tourism. Tourism Geogr 15 (1), 2542. 10.1080/14616688.2012.675513 Halim H. S. (2017). Scrutinizing coastal ecotourism in Gili Trawangan, Indonesia. Int. J. Mar. Sci 7 (25), 247259. 10.5376/ijms.2017.07.0025 Hammerton Z. Bucher D. (2015). Levels of intervention-reducing SCUBA-diver impact within subtropical marine protected areas. J. Ecotourism 14 (1), 320. 10.1080/14724049.2015.1073738 Hampton M. P. 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) 286308. Hannak J. S. Kompatscher S. Stachowitsch M. Herler J. (2011). Snorkeling and trampling in shallow-water fringing reefs: risk assessment and proposed management strategy. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (10), 27232733. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.012 Heimlich J. E. Ardoin N. M. (2008). Understanding behaviour to understand behaviour change: a literature review. Environ. Educ. Res. 14 (3), 215237. 10.1080/13504620802148881 Hines J. M. Hungerford H. R. Tomera A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 18 (2), 18. 10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482 Hughes T. P. Baird A. H. Bellwood D. R. Card M. Connolly S. R. Folke C. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301 (5635), 929933. 10.1126/science.1085046 Jambeck J. R. Geyer R. Wilcox C. Siegler T. R. Perryman M. Andrady A. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223), 768771. 10.1126/science.1260352 Kahneman D. Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory. Econometrica 47 (2), 311. 10.2307/3791683 Kennedy E. H. Beckley T. M. McFarlane B. L. Nadeau S. (2009). Why we don’t “walk the talk”: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16 (2), 151160. Kim S. B. Kim D. Y. (2014). The effects of message framing and source credibility on green messages in hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55 (1), 6475. 10.1177/1938965513503400 Kim S. S. Nguyen P. H. Yohannes Y. Abebe Y. Tharaney M. Drummond E. (2019). Behavior change interventions delivered through interpersonal communication, agricultural activities, community mobilization, and mass media increase complementary feeding practices and reduce child stunting in Ethiopia. J. Nutr. 149 (8), 14701481. 10.1093/jn/nxz087 Kollmuss A. 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), 239260. 10.1080/1350462022014540 Krieger J. R. 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), 179189. 10.1007/s11852-012-0229-9 Levin I. Schneider S. Gaeth G. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology of framing effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 76 (2), 149188. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 Levitt S. D. List J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. J. Econ. Perspect 21 (7), 153174. 10.1257/jep.21.2.153 Maibach E. W. Nisbet M. Baldwin P. Akerlof K. Diao G. (2014). Reframing climate change as a public health issue in the United States. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strategies Manag. 10 (1), 299. 10.1108/ijccsm.2011.41403bag.001 Masud M. M. Akhtar R. Afroz R. Al-Amin A. Q. Kari F. B. (2015). Pro-environmental behavior and public understanding of climate change. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 20 (4), 591600. 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), 543554. 10.1111/0022-4537.00183 Morrow K. M. Paul V. J. Liles M. R. Chadwick N. E. (2011). Allelochemicals produced by caribbean macroalgae and cyanobacteria have species-specific effects on reef coral microorganisms. Coral Reefs. 30 (2), 309320. 10.1007/s00338-011-0747-1 Nelson K. M. Anggraini E. Schlüter A. (2020). Virtual reality as a tool for environmental conservation and fundraising. PloS One 15 (4), e0223631. 10.1371/journal.pone.0223631 Nelson K. M. Partelow S. Schlüter A. (2019). Nudging tourists to donate for conservation: experimental evidence on soliciting voluntary contributions for coastal management. J. Environ. Manag. 237, 3043. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.003 Nolan J. M. Schultz P. W. Cialdini R. B. Goldstein N. J. Griskevicius V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 34 (7), 913923. 10.1177/0146167208316691 Osbaldiston R. Schott J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ. Behav. 44 (2), 257299. 10.1177/0013916511402673 Partelow S. Nelson K. (2018). Social networks, collective action and the evolution of governance for sustainable tourism on the Gili Islands, Indonesia. Mar. Pol. 112, 2020. 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.004 PEMRG (2018). Global plastic production | Statista. Available at: https://www-statista-com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/statistics/282732/global-production-of-plastics-since-1950/ (Accessed December 2020). Piñon A. Gambara H. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema 17 (2), 325331. 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. (2017). Advancing conservation by understanding and influencing human behavior. Conserv. Lett. 10, 248256. 10.1111/conl.12252 Schleyer M. H. 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), 10251042. Schultz P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21, 2536. 10.1207/15324839951036533 Scott D. Gössling S. Hall C. M. (2012). International tourism and climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 3 (3), 213232. 10.1002/wcc.165 Spence A. Pidgeon N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environ. Change 20 (4), 656667. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002 Spranz R. Schlüter A. Vollan B. (2018). Morals, money or the master: the adoption of eco-friendly reusable bags. Mar. Pol. 96, 270277. 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.029 Steg L. Vlek C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29 (3), 309317. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 Sunstein C. R. (2014). Nudging: a very short guide. J. Consum. Pol. 37 (4), 583588. 10.1007/s10603-014-9273-1 Thaler R. H. Sunstein C. (2008). Nudge: improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Group. Tversky A. Kahneman D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain 5 (4), 297323. 10.1007/BF00122574 Uskul A. K. Sherman D. K. 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), 535541. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.005 Uyarra M. C. Watkinson A. R. Côté I. M. (2009). Managing dive tourism for the sustainable use of coral reefs: validating diver perceptions of attractive site features. Environ. Manag. 43 (1), 116. 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. 10.3390/ani9040147 Vos A. De. Biggs R. Preiser R. (2020). Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: a review of place-based studies. Ecol. Soc. 24. 10.5751/ES-11236-240416 Vredenburgh A. G. Cohen H. H. (1993). Compliance with warnings in high risk recreational activities: skiing and scuba. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet 37, 945949. 10.1177/154193129303701403 Webler T. Jakubowski K. (2016). Mitigating damaging behaviors of snorkelers to coral reefs in Puerto Rico through a pre-trip media-based intervention. Biol. Conserv. 197, 223228. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.012 White K. MacDonnell R. Dahl D. W. (2011). It’s the mind-set that matters: the role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. J. Market. Res. 48 (3), 472485. 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. Graci S. R. (2012). Solid waste management in small island destinations. Téoros Revue de Recherche En Tourisme 71, 7176. 10.7202/1036566ar Yoeli E. Budescu D. V. Carrico A. R. Magali A. Deshazo J. R. Ferraro P. J. (2017). Behavioral science tools to strengthen energy and environmental policy. Behav. Sci. Pol. 3, 6979. 10.1353/bsp.2017.0006 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
      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.

      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016huhu1.com.cn
      lfstem.com.cn
      jptech.net.cn
      gettop.net.cn
      hrmsh.com.cn
      wbit.org.cn
      www.qdfzmall.com.cn
      ohrbmr.com.cn
      nychain.com.cn
      qsbk.org.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p