PREFERENCE LABORATORY:

A DESIGN RESEARCH FOR

UNDERSTANDING THE LOCATIONAL
PREFERENCES OF POTENTIAL
CRUISERS
HESAM PAKBEEN

PEKKA MURTU

AALTO UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF ARTS, DESIGN

AND ARCHITECTURE

AALTO UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF ARTS, DESIGN

AND ARCHITECTURE

HESAM.PAKBEEN@AALTO.FI

PEKKA.MURTU@AALTO.FI

ABSTRACT
Engaging end-users in the early stages of a concept design
and product development is widely considered to be a
crucial factor in the design process. Similarly, in the
context of cruise ship design the importance of involving
passengers in the fuzzy front end of a concept generation
has received much attention. This paper presents a design
research approach to determine the locational preferences
of the potential cruisers and consequently to elicit the
influential values on their preferences. For this reason, we
conducted a design lab in which a 3D mock-up was used
to study the locational preferences of the participants. The
results of this study provide an understanding of endusers desires and values that encourages innovative
designs of the future cruise ships.
INTRODUCTION
The multiplicity of user roles in different stages of design
innovation and product development has been broadly
addressed over the recent decades (Kanilo, 1998; Sanders,
2002; Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003; Kujala, 2003).
Accordingly, the understanding of end-users is set to
become a crucial factor in the process of design. For this
reason, various approaches such as participatory design,
contextual design and co-design have been proposed to
involve end-users in all the stages of the innovation
process (Steen, Kuijt-Evers and Klok, 2007). One of the
most fundamental stages of the design process and
product development includes the fuzzy front end, which
has been described as the early stage of concept
generation (Cagan and Vogel, 2002). Therefore, involving
end-users in the fuzzy front end of a concept design is of
primary importance (Koen et al., 2002).

It is widely accepted that concept design plays a pivotal

role in the visionary developments and innovations of
different industries (Ulrich and Eppinger, 1995; Rosted
and et. al, 2007; Keinonen and Takala, 2006). Similarly in
the context of cruising, the role of concept design in
future developments has received much attention.
Particularly in cruising industry, defining and designing
the visionary future of cruise ships is considered as an
important challenge of cruise lines (Johansson, 2010). As
Levander (2004) demonstrates in his design spiral,
concept design is the core element of the cruise ship
design process. In other words, cruise and passenger ships
are sold on the basis of concepts and only after the sale
actual building begins (Keinonen and Takala, 2006).
Cruise shipping is an increasingly important area in travel
and tourism industry. Data from several sources have
reported a noticeable growth of cruise passengers
worldwide during the last four decades (Quartermaine and
Peter, 2006; Ward, 2012; Global Cruise Market report,
2012 ; European Cruise Council report, 2012). Yet, the
annual growth rate of cruisers is declining slightly (Cruise
Market Watch, 2012; Western Australian Cruise Shipping
Plan 2012-2020, November 2012). Nevertheless, the
cruise industry is extremely competitive and accordingly
cruise lines are endeavouring to attract more passengers
by developing their products (Dowling, 2006). Mortimer
(2010) stresses the importance of involving passengers
(potential cruisers) from the early phases of concept
design of a ship which has been overlooked before. This
supports Cagan and Vogels (2002) idea about product
development that emphasizes the understanding of users
needs, wants and desires from the early stages of design
process to identify opportunities for future. We believe
that the understanding of opportunities leads to a more
desirable design and consequently more people will be
motivated to use the product.

Despite the remarkable amount of studies on travel

motivation ( Pizam and Mansfeld, 2000 ; Mill and
Morrison, 2006; Dann, 1977; Mannel and Iso-Ahola,
1987; Krippendrof, 1987; Gilbert, 1991; Cohen, 1972),
few researches have addressed the concept in the context
of cruising (Hung and Petrick, 2011 ; Xie, Kerstetter and
Mattila, 2012 ). A neglected area in the entire research
field is the influential factors on the cruise ship design in
terms of passengers preferences. As Lichtenstein and
Slovic (2006) demonstrate, the study of preferences is of
paramount importance in the construction of motivation.
Some studies show a direct relation between peoples
preferences and the context (Amir and Levav, 2008;
Warren, McGraw and Boven, 2010) while the topic has
never been studied in the context of a cruise ship. The aim
of our study is to understand potential cruisers preferred
locations on a cruise ship and discover opportunities for
product development. This paper presents a design
research approach to the relation between peoples
preferences and locations on a cruise ship in regard to
development of the future concepts. Our study illustrates
how a 3D mock-up was used to identify the locational
preferences of potential passengers.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Researchers have extensively studied peoples
preferences in various fields such as marketing and
product development. As for marketing, it is believed that
study of customers preferences directly influences the
future development of markets (Bettman, Luce and
Payne, 1998 ; Johnson, Steffel and Goldstein, 2005 ;
Kivetz, Netzer and Schrift, 2008 ; Dhar and Novemsky,
2008). On the other hand, study of peoples preferences is
considered as an important factor for the development of
products (TUDelft, 2012). Urban and Hauser (1993)
illustrate the product development process that starts with
identification of opportunities. Cagan and Vogel (2002)
explore the process in more details, describing the initial
phase as Concept generation. This phase in turn includes
Identifying opportunities phase, which focuses on the
identification of opportunity gap, and Understanding
opportunities phase that contributes value opportunities
and consequently attributes of the product. We hold the
view that the study of preferences has a key role in
concept generation phase of the product development
process.
Ulrich and Eppinger (1995) argue that the initial stage of
the product development consists of the identification of
customer needs. Other literatures indicate that this
explanation is insufficient. Cagan and Vogel (2002)
reason that in addition to the study of needs, peoples
wants and desires should be investigated as well. It
supports our research since the study of preferences not
only deals with peoples needs but also with emotional
factors. We compared the Cagan and Vogens concept of
needs, wants and desires in the process of product
development with the model of User value proposed by
Holbrook (1999) and found a significant relation. The

author identifies four different types of user value

including Utilitarian, Emotional, Social and Altruistic
(Boztepe, 2007). We noticed that Holbrook approach to
user value could comprehensively include users needs,
wants and desires. In other words, study of user value
based on Holbrook model, leads to identify the real needs,
wants and desires of users. Similarly, Schwartz (2005)
illustrates a theoretical model of human values, which
explains Holbrook model in more depth. In this research,
we combined the three mentioned models in the context
of a cruise ship to clarify the factors of users value.
According to Schwartz (2005), previous experiences have
a major role in the construction of user value. In the
content of design, the importance of user pre-experience
in creating a design value as well as the development of
products has been emphasized (Keller, 1993 cited by
Aspara, 2008). Our survey concentrated on three sample
types. The first and second samples consisted of noncruisers (people who have never experienced a cruise ship
and are not very motivated to do) and potential-cruisers
(people who have never experienced a cruise ship but
interested to do in future). The third sample group
included repeat-cruisers (who have previously
experienced a cruise ship) (Xie, Kerstetter and Mattila,
2012). The question then arises as firstly, how experience
and value could be related for the first and second sample
groups, while they had never experienced a real cruise
ship? Secondly, how values could be stated or revealed
from non-cruisers and potential cruisers? Press and
Kooper (2003) address the position of user experience in
a theoretical product model. They demonstrate that user
experience of a product has different levels, ranging from
the real experience of a product to the potential
experience. While the former is embedded in central core
of the model, the latter encompasses the whole model.
Accordingly, in regard with the first question it can be
concluded that values are not only emerged from previous
experiences, but also lead to potential experiences. The
second question concentrates on the methods of value
elicitation from people with no pre-experience. Wattage
(2002) provides evidence for eliciting people values by
immersing them in the situation of choosing and
preferring. We posit that the study of preference that leads
to the determination of user values must be defined in a
specific context. Kivetz, Netzer and Schrift (2008) concur
with this view, stating that preferences are context
dependent. Thus, we based our research on the methods
of elicitation of preferences in a specific context as
cruising. Passenger ships are divided into three types
according to the time, speed, services, size, purpose of the
trip and routes: 1-Fast ferries, which go on short routes
with high speed to decrease the transportation time. They
normally pass the route in less than 4 hours. 2-Ferries and
Cruise ferries, those are basically larger than the former
with lower speed, accommodation and entertainment
services. They typically operate on short routes that take
several hours to one night cruising. 3- Cruise ships, which
are larger in size and services compared to ferries. The
trip lasts at least several days, ranging from 2 to +18,

finally returning to the departure port (Levander, 2004).

This study focuses on cruise ships and their potential
passengers to identify the relation between peoples
desires and locations on a cruise ship layout.
Several studies have been thus far conducted on
motivating factors for cruising (Xie, Kerstetter and
Mattila, 2012 ; Green, 2012 ; Teye and Leclerc, 1998 ;
Duman and Mattila, 2005 ; Meng, Liang and Yang,
2011). However, we did not find any published literature
on peoples locational preferences on cruise ships.
According to the best of our knowledge, peoples values
and preferences in terms of locational and spatial
divisions have never been embedded in the design process
of cruise ships. This approach to design research, which
is, based on imagined users (Koskinen, Battarbee and
Mattelmki, 2003) neglects the real needs, wants and
desires of customers including cruisers, non-cruisers and
potential-cruisers. With this in mind, we initiated a design
research to involve users in the process of future
developments in the cruising industry.
METHODS
In order to study passengers locational preferences on a
cruise ship, we conducted a lab study in which 20 subjects
were surveyed. Participants age ranged from 22 to 34 and
the majority of them have never experienced a cruise ship,
considered as potential cruisers. Random sampling in
terms of nationality, marital status and educational
background was used to maximize the generalizability of
the research results. All the participants were informed
that the session would be video recorded and
photographed. We chose the lab approach for our survey
due to two main reasons. Firstly, lab study is accepted as
a controlled platform in design research (Koskinen,
Zimmerman, Binder, Redstrm and Wensveen, 2011;
Binder and Brandt, 2008). Therefore, both researchers and
participants can concentrate directly on the main
objectives of the study. In addition, the lab research
approach provides the study with the possibility of using
tools and instruments to create an imaginative platform
for participants (Brodersen, Dindler and Iversen, 2008).
Secondly, since a major target group of the study includes
potential cruisers, we tried to simulated cruise experiences
through the lab approach.

The data from the survey collected using three materials

and tools. The first material included a paper
questionnaire in which participants were asked to write
their personal information as well as their experiences
with cruise ships. The second material consisted of a
notebook to record participants personal opinion as well
as experiences about cruising. We used a photo album
including 100 pictures of different activities and services
that could be related to cruising experience. The final tool
was a basic 3D mock-up of a cruise ship by which the
participant could point his/her locational preferences on a
cruise ship. In addition to the main tools, a video
background as a visual simulation showed different
experiences and spaces on a cruise ship.
The lab study consisted of three main phases (Figure 1).
The initial phase was called preparation in which the
meaning of cruising as well as cruise ships was explained
for participant. Also, the objectives of the study were
described for them. Then, the participant was asked to
respond to a questionnaire including personal information
and their previous experience of cruising (Figure 2:A).
The questionnaires were printed in four different colors in
order to prepare the participant to prefer one among
several options. In the second phase, we provided the
participant with a photo album of different activities and
services, be they on a cruise ship or not. In the meantime,
the participant was asked to write his/her opinion,
impression or feeling about the picture (Figure 2:B,C).
The aim of this phase was to prepare the participant to
describe a cruise ship experience him/herself. As
expected, the majority of participants did not have a
cruising experience before. Thus, in the second phase,
called conception, we tried to direct participants to
construct personal opinion about cruise experience. They
were also asked whether they prefer to experience a cruise
ship as an option to travel. The last phase, namely
elicitation focused on extracting participants locational
preferences on a cruise ship. For this reason, we designed
a basic 3D mockup of a cruise ship including 15 decks by
which participants could point and mark their preferred
locations according to the questions they were asked
(Figure 2:D,E,F).

Figure 1: Three phases of the study lab.

Figure 2: Design research laboratory and tools.

We used the categories of user value described by

Holbrook (1999) and Boztepe (2007) to design the outline
of the questions concerning locational preferences. By
comparing user values with the attributes of cruise ship
(Xie, Kerstetter and Mattila, 2012; Ward, 2012) we
divided the locational questions into six major categories
each represents a specific factor of value and preference:
1. Privacy (where on a cruise ship they prefer to have a
cabin)
2. Comfort (where on a cruise ship they feel more and
less comfortable)
3. Safety (where on a cruise ship they feel safer and
unsafe)
4. Energy/Excitement (where on a cruise ship they feel
more energetic, exciting and interesting)
5. Recovery/Relaxation (where on a cruise ship they
prefer to relax)
6. Interest (where on a cruise ship they like and dislike
the most)
In addition, following the marking of locational
preference, the participant was asked about the reason of
choosing a specific location on the cruise ship model
Why here? -. The purpose of why question included
discovering the influential factors in participants
preferences to evaluate and use in future studies.
RESULTS
A total of 20 subjects, aged 22 to 34, took part in the
survey. Of the study population, 11 were male, 9 were
female and none of the respondents knew the difference
between Ferries and Cruise ships. Eighteen participants
had been on a ferry while only 2 had experienced a cruise
ship. After explaining the definition of cruising and cruise
ship in the first phase, and doing the conception part in
4

second phase of study, the majority of the participants (16

out of 20) indicated that they have no interest or
motivation to experience cruising in future.
The results obtained from the third phase of the lab
regarding potential customers locational preferences are
presented in Figure 3 to 8. Figure 3 illustrates the
participants preferences in terms of the location of the
cabins. It shows that Deck12, 15 and 5 were the most
preferred decks on the cruise ship, respectively. More
specifically, there was a significant preference for the
front part of Deck12. While the uppermost deck (Deck15)
was chosen by 18% of the study population, there was no
interest in lower parts of the ship.
Figure 4 compares the potential cruisers perception of
comfort in different locations of the cruise ship. As
shown, the majority of the participants felt that the lowest
decks of the ship were the least comfortable locations,
emphasizing the back part of Deck1. On the contrary, the
greater number of the participants indicated Deck12 as the
most comfortable location. Following that, the front and
back parts of Deck5 as well as Deck15 were chosen by
the most of the subjects.
Figure 5 compares the safest and most unreliable
locations according to the participants perceptions. The
majority of the study population preferred the uppermost
deck as well as the front parts of Deck12 and 5. In
contrast, over 40% of the respondents indicated that the
lowest deck is the most unreliable location of the ship.
Figure 6 presents the results of the participants
preferences regarding energetic and exciting locations of
the cruise ship. Evidently, Deck12 was the most preferred
location, whereas the lower decks were not chosen by any
of the subjects as energetic and exciting. The front part of

Figure 3: preferred locations of the cabin.

Figure 4: preferred locations according to the perception of comfort.

Figure 5: preferred locations according to the perception of safety.

Figure 6: preferred locations according to the excitement and energy flow.

Figure 7: locational preferences for recovery and relaxation.

Figure 8: The most liked and disliked locations.

Deck5 as well as Deck15 and 14 were also reported as

preferred locations in terms of excitement and energy.
Figure 7 shows the most preferred locations of the cruise
ship regarding relaxation and recovery. The results
consisted of Deck15, the front part of Deck12 as well as
the front and back part of Deck5, respectively. Almost
one-tenth of the respondents preferred Deck14 and the
front part of Deck6 for relaxation.
Finally, as shown in Figure 8, which illustrates the most
liked and disliked locations on the ship, the front parts of
Deck12 and 5 attracted more people, meaning that the
majority of the participants loved the mentioned locations.
In contrast, the middle part of Deck1 was the least liked
location of the cruise ship.
DISCUSSION
The results of the firs phase of the study indicate that the
majority of the subjects have never experienced cruising
only after we explained the difference between a
passenger ferry and a cruise ship since they were
assuming their ferry experience as passenger cruising.
Contrary to our expectations, only 20% of the study
participants were interested and motivated to experience

cruise ship in future. This is in consistent with cruising

market statistics that report a decrease in annual growth
rate of cruisers according to the Cruise Market Watch
(2012) and Western Australian Cruise Shipping Plan
2012-2020 (November 2012). Therefore, this finding
supports the main aim of our research that focuses on the
necessity of product development and innovations for the
future of the cruising industry.
As mentioned in the theoretical background, we could not
find any the study of locational preferences on a cruise
ship in previous researches. Thus, the results of the
elicitation phase could not be compared with any earlier
study findings.
Turning now to our study, in response to the first question
regarding the location of the cabin, most of those
surveyed chose the higher decks as well as the front part
of the deck. Interestingly, the majority of the subjects
stated three influential factors for their choices: height,
view and direction (the feeling of going forward). Only a
minority of the participants mentioned other factors such
as less noise, feeling of safety and closer to the sea as the
influential factor on their preferences.

The findings on the question of comfort show that almost

two-thirds of the respondents preferred the highest decks,
surprisingly with the same level of preference for the
front and back parts. Similarly to the first locational
question, they stated the main influential factor as a better
view. Other influential factors included feeling of
stability, feeling of safety, quietness and openness. In
contrast, the whole study population pointed out the
lowest decks as the least comfortable locations. They
commented that the lowest decks, and the back part of
them in particular, seemed to be very isolated, closed,
unsafe, scary and noisy due to the engines.
Contrary to our expectations about safety due to the
remarkable effort of cruise industry to assure the
customers concerning the safety of their cruising, our
findings underlined the importance of this factor, which
has a noticeable influence on the customers preferences.
The overall response to the question of safety indicated
that the participants preferred either the easiest location to
escape or the farthest locations that sink the last. The
results of this part highlight the possibilities for further
research about the relation of locations and the perception
of safety on a cruise ship.
As expected, the majority of the respondents pointed out
the higher decks as well as the open parts of the decks as
the most energetic and exciting locations. Interestingly,
the front and back parts of the most preferred deck
(Deck12) were of the same importance for the
participants. Over half of the participants stated the view
as the influential factor on their preference. The most
striking result to emerge from this part was that onefourths of the subjects did not have any specific locational
preference. They believed that the energetic locations in
the context of a cruise ship completely depend on the
people in a space. These findings suggest the study of
opportunities on service design with emphasis on the role
of the customers in the creation of innovative and
sustainable services.
The locational preferences of the respondents for recovery
and relaxation were based on the same influential factors
including view to the sea and sky, openness, high and
apart from the crowd. Therefore, the majority of the
subjects chose the highest decks as the most relaxing
locations. Since one of the main purposes of cruising
includes recovery and relaxation (Pizam and Mansfeld,
2000), designing a cruise ship according to the desired
locations for relaxing can remarkably attract more
customers for cruising.
The overall response to the question of the most liked and
disliked locations was surprisingly very similar, since the
majority of the participants preferred the same locations
such as Deck 15, the front part of Deck12 and the front
part of Deck5 and disliked the lower decks. It was
interesting that also the influential factor on their
preferences were almost the same. According to the
responses, the most liked location was chosen due to the
view, openness and feeling of safety, while the subjects

felt that the most disliked locations were isolated, closed,

under pressure, unsafe and noisy.
CONCLUSION
This study set out to determine the locational preferences
of the potential cruisers and elicit the customers values.
We strongly believe that the identification of the potential
cruisers values influences the future concepts and
innovations for the development of the cruising industry.
For this reason, we conducted a design research lab to
partly simulate the cruising experience for potential
cruisers and consequently understand the locational
preferences based on their values and perception of
cruising. This research has shown that the most preferred
decks of a cruise ship include the highest ones and the
most preferred locations consist of the front parts.
As mentioned in the theoretical background, the final
purpose of the study lab was to elicit values from
potential customers by asking about the locational
preferences. We have managed to find customers
locational values of the participants in our design
laboratory. One of the more significant findings to emerge
from the study is that the majority of the respondents
valued the same factors, which influenced their
preferences. This study has shown that potential
customers preferences are mainly based on three criteria
respectively: view, safety and height. The evidence from
this research suggests that designers consider these three
factors for future concepts.
The method used for our design research as well as the
3D mock-up may be used for further studies on potential
cruisers.
These findings enhance our understanding of potential
customers in terms of values and desires. Due to the
similarities of the results, we believe that designers and
product developers can rely on these findings to generate
new concepts of cruising.
It is possible that a number of limitations could have
influenced our method and the results obtained. Firstly,
our lab study could not provide a complete cruising
experience. Thus, the participants could only respond
according to their imaginative experience. Secondly,
despite the fact that we tried to include the most crucial
criteria to understand the locational preferences, other
questions such as the preferred location of specific
services were overlooked. It is recommended that further
research be undertaken in finding the locational
preferences of different services offered on a cruise ship.
Taken together, we believe that our research will serve as
a base for future development of cruising. However, this
study is only a first step towards understating the values
of potential cruisers. Future studies are therefore required
in order to design a complex product such as a cruise ship.
REFRENCES

Amir, O., Levav, J., 2008. Choice construction versus

preference construction: The instability of
preferences learned in context. Journal of Marketing
Research, XLV (April 2008), pp.145-158.
Aspara, J., 2008. Creating and capturing design value. In:
Keinonen, T. ed., Design connections: Knowledge,
value and involvement through design. Working
papers, pp.28-37. Helsinki: University of Art and
Design Helsinki.
Bettman J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne,J.W., 1998.
Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of
Consumer Research, 25, pp.187-217.
Boztepe, S., 2007. User value: Competing theories and
models. International Journal of Design, 1(2.2007),
p.55-63.
Brodersen, C., Dindler, C., and Iversen O.S., 2008.
Staging Imaginative Places for Participatory
Prototyping. International Journal of CoCreation in
Design and the Arts, Taylor & Francis, 4(1), pp. 1930.
Cagan, J., Vogel, C.M., 2002. Creating breakthrough
products: Innovation from product planning to
program approval. New Jersey: Prentice Hall PTR.
Cohen, E., 1972. Towards a sociology of international
tourism. Social research, 39(1), pp.164-182.
Cruise market watch, Growth: growth of the cruise line
industry. [online] Available at:
<http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/growth/>
[Accessed 8 July 2012].
Dann, G. 1977. Anomie, Ego-enhancement and tourism.
Annuals of Tourism Research, 4, pp.184-194.
Dhar, R., Novemsky,N., 2008. Beyond rationality: the
content of preferences. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 18(2008), pp.175-178.
Dowling, R.K. ed., 2006. Cruise Ship Tourism. Oxford:
Cabi.
European Cruise Council, June 2012. The cruise industry
report: Contribution of cruise tourism to the
economies of Europe. 2012 edition. [pdf] Available
at:
<http://www.europeancruisecouncil.com/content/eco
nomic%20report.pdf> [Accessed 10 August 2012].

Available at:
<http://www.worldcruiseindustryreview.com/20102.html> [Accessed 25 June 2012].
Johnson, E.J., Steffel, M., and Goldstein, D.G., 2005.
Making better decisions: from measuring to
constructive preferences. Health Psychology, 24(4),
pp.17-22.
Kaulio, M.A., 1998. Customer, consumer and user
involvement in product development: A framework
and a review of selected methods. Total Quality
Management, 9(1), pp.141-50.
Keinonen, T., Takala, R. ed., 2006. Product concept
design: A review of the conceptual design of product
in industry. London: Springer.
Kivetz, R., Netzer, O. and Schrift, R., 2008. The synthesis
of preference: bridging behavioral decision research
and making science. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 18(2008), pp.179-186.
Koen, P., Greg, A., Scott, B., Allen, C., Eden, F., Stavros,
F., Albert, J., Pushpinder P., and Rebecca, S., 2002.
Fuzzy front end: Effective methods, tools, and
techniques. In: Belliveau, P., Griffin, A. and
Somermeyer, S. M., 2004. The PDMA ToolBook 1
for New Product Development. New jersey: John
Wiley and Sons, pp.5-35.
Koncept Analytics, 2012. Global Cruise Market Report.
2012 edition.
Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K. and Mattelmki, T., ed., 2003.
Empathic design: User experience in product design.
Finland: IT Press.
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrm, J. and
Wensveen, S., 2011.Design research through
practice: From the lab, field and showroom.
Massachusetts: Morgan Kaufmann, Elsevier.
Krippendorf, J., 1987. The Holidaymakers. London:
Heinemann.
Kujala, S., 2003. User involvement: a review of the
benefits and challenges. Behavior and Information
Technology, 22(1), pp.1-17
Levander, K. 2004. Passenger ships. In: Lamb, T. ed. Ship
Design and Construction. New York: Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Ch.37.

Gilbert, D.C., 1991, An examination of the customer

behavior process related to tourism. In: Cooper, C.
ed., Progress in tourism, 3, pp.78-105.

Lichetenstein, S. and Slovic, P. ed., 2006. The

construction of preference. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Holbrook, M.B. ed., 1999. Consumer value: A framework

for analysis and research. New York: Routledge.

Mannel, R.C. and Iso-Ahola, S.E. 1987. Psychological

nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annuals of
Tourism Research, 14(3), pp.314-331.

Holthof, P., 2010. Talking to the P&Ople who created the

ships "Designed by you, Built for you". ShipPax
Designs. 11(July1,2010-June30,2011), pp.106-112.
Johansson, F., 2010. The next generation. World cruise
industry review,2010(2), pp.81-82. [online]

Mill, R.C., Morrison, A.M., 2009. The tourism system.

6th ed. Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. J., 2003. How users matter:

The co-construction of users and technology.
Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: MIT Press.
Pizam, A., Mansfeld, Y. ed., 2000. Consumer behavior in
travel and tourism. New York: The Haworth
Hospitality Press.
Press, M. and Cooper, R., 2003. The design experience:
The role of designers in the twenty-first century.
Hampshire: Ashgate.
Quartermaine, P., Peter, B., 2006. Cruise: Identity, Design
and Culture. New York: Rizzoli.

Warren, C., McGraw, P. and Boven, L.V., 2012. Values

and preferences: defining preference construction.
WIREs Cogn Sci 2011(2), pp.193-205. doi:
10.1002/wcs.98.
Wattage, P., 2000-2002. Preference elicitation methods
of Wetland conservation. Final report: Appendix lll,
University of Portsmouth.
Xie, H., Kerstetter, D.L. and Mattila, A.S., 2012. The
attributes of a cruise ship that influence the decision
making of cruisers and potential cruisers.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,
31(2012), pp.152.159.

Rosted, J., Lau, T., Hogenhaven, C. and Johansen, P.,

2007. Concept design, How to slove complex
challenges of our time. Denmark: Narayana Press
and FORA, The Danish Authority for Enterprise and
Constructions Division for Research and Analysis.
Sanders, E. B. N., 2002. From user centered to
participatory design approaches. In: Frascara, J., ed.
2002. Design and the social sciences, Making
connections. London and New York: Taylor and
Francis. Ch.1.
Schwartz, S.H., 2005a. Basic human values: Their content
and structure across countries. In: Tamayo, A. and
Porto, J.B. ed., Valores e comportamento nas
organizaes [Values and behavior in
organizations], pp.21-55. Petrpolis, Brazil: Vozes.
Steen, M.,Kuijt-Evers, L. and Klok, J., 2007. Eraly user
involvement in research and design projects: A
review of methods and practices. In: European
Group for Organizational Studies, 23rd EGOS
Colloquium. Vienna, Austria July 5-7 2007.
Tourism Western Australia, November 2012. Western
Australian cruise shipping plan: 2012-2020. [pdf]
Available at:
<http://www.tourism.wa.gov.au/Publications%20Lib
rary/Infrastructure%20and%20Investment/Cruise%2
0shipping/Tourism%20WA%20Cruise%20Shipping
%20Strategic%20Plan%2020122020%20WEB%20pdf%20(2).pdf> [Accessed 21
August 2012].
TUDelft, 2012. Product functionality and experience:
Consumer preference. [online] Available at:
<http://www.io.tudelft.nl/en/research/
projecten/design-theory-and-support/productfunctionality-experience-pfe/consumer-preference/>
[Accessed 4 September 2012].
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D., 1995. Product design
and development. Singapore: McGraw-Hill
International Editions.
Urban, G.L. and Hauser, J.R., 1993. Design and
marketing of new products. 2nd ed. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Ward, D., 2012. Complete guide to cruising and cruise
ships. 20th ed. London: Berlitz.