Towards Sustainable Consumption: Designing Interventions to Support Everyday Consumption

(1)

Towards Sustainable Consumption

Designing Interventions to Support Everyday Consumption

Anne Sofie Gjøby and Jakob Kongsrud

Spring 2021

Master in Informatics: Design, use, interaction 120 credits

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Department of Informatics

The Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences

(2)

(3)

Towards Sustainable Consumption

Designing Interventions to Support Everyday Consumption

Anne Sofie Gjøby and Jakob Kongsrud

(4)

Expanding the limits of HCI to support sustainable consumption http://www.duo.uio.no/

Printed: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo

(5)

Abstract

In this thesis, we have studied how to support sustainable consumption through design

interventions and have through our design process created a practice-oriented methodology to investigate and intervein in a collection of related practices, as well as identified some central elements of such a design intervention. The methodology consists of a procedure of six steps and a toolkit to overcome the limitations of HCI by combining methods from HCI with concepts from Practice Theory, principles from Participatory Design and techniques from Research through Design. The central elements identified of a design intervention to support sustainable consumption are thus gathered through a diverse combination of activities and approaches.

(6)

Acknowledgements

First, we want to thank the participants that have taken part of our project, you have

contributed to valuable insight and perspectives in this thesis. Your engagement in activities and the problem area have inspired us as designers to approach the challenges of living a sustainable lifestyle with great courage. Thank you for giving us your time and being engaged in our project.

Further we want to thank our supervisor Maja, who have always believed in us and

encouraged us to take on the challenges in this thesis. We are so grateful for all the time and support you have given us through the whole process. Thank you for contributing with different viewpoints and good discussions. We have had great benefit of your knowledge and expertise on the subject. We would also like to thank Joshi and Andrea for supporting us with inspiration, feedback and discussions.

This thesis is written as part of a collaboration between the Sustainability & Design Lab, the Library of Medicine and Science, and Statsbygg. We would like to thank these collaboratives for inviting us in and have the opportunity to use the Life Science Building as an inspiration for our work.

Thank you to our fellow students on the study program who have contributed to a supporting and positive study space. Finally, we would like to thank our friends and family for all the support, and a special thanks to Monica, Hanna and Anna for taking care and supporting us through this time.

Anne Sofie Gjøby and Jakob Kongsrud University of Oslo, May 2021

(7)

(8)

1. Introduction

Living a sustainable lifestyle involves great care for numerous choices in everyday life, greatly affected by established habits, social normal and society’s arrangement for sustainable behavior. Having the role of a consumer as part of a consumer society thus implies a difficult challenge to avoid exceeding resource limits, without having the tools to be able to do so. In this thesis we want to address what role design can have in supporting individuals in the difficult challenge of being a deliberate consumer, rather than contributing to the problem.

Working with the complex societal issue of sustainability from a field grounded in studying isolated users and interactions is thus a challenge of both generating answers to questions and generating strategies to acquire the answers. Through this thesis we searched for answers to both questions, through experimenting with the combination of tools and techniques in the field of sustainable HCI.

1.1. Motivation

As designers we are motivated to use our knowledge and skills to solve rather than contribute to problems of unsustainable patterns of technology. As consumers we are motivated to be deliberate users of resources. As citizens of society, we are motivated to secure future generations the same opportunities we take for granted.

In this way we are motivated to work with applying design to proceed towards more sustainable patterns of consumption.

1.2. Research questions

After starting the design process with exploring our initial research interest of supporting sustainable lifestyles, we discovered that we needed to expand the toolkit provided by HCI to understand the complexity of related sustainability issues. By including a more conceptual theoretical framework and shifting our focus to study sustainable consumption as a form of sustainable lifestyles, we defined our main research question:

How to support sustainable consumption through design interventions?

Through working with concepts from practice theory to both understand the current way of living and design for transformation, we have worked in parallel with developing a practice- oriented design methodology applicable to a collection of related practices, at the same time

(13)

as we have gathered empirical data to inform how such a design intervention should look like.

The methodological and empirical part together contributes to answering the main research question through our two sub research questions:

1. How to investigate a collection of related practices?

2. What are central elements of a design intervention to support sustainable consumption?

To further explain what we mean with our research question, we present some clarifying statements:

- By an intervention we refer to the act of introducing a design with the purpose of challenging the current way of living.

- By consumption we refer to the act of spending a finite resource, directly or indirectly.

- By sustainable we refer to actions that is able to last over time. Related to use of resources, this regards not transcending the amount that is renewable.

- By young adults we refer to the target group of young adults between 20 and 35 years old.

- By Practices we refer to activities carried out by individuals.

This study can contribute to the field of sustainable HCI, by proposing a methodology for practice-oriented design that rethinks the methods of HCI to capture the complexity of

sustainability issues more fully and identifying central design elements to support sustainable consumption.

1.3. Chapter outline

Here we will describe what to expect when reading the different chapters of our thesis.

Chapter 2 describes the background for our research in form of the societal issues of climate change and sustainable resource use. We will review goals of an improved future, and how current research describes the roles of individuals and technology as part of the solution.

Chapter 3 presents our initial research exploration as an early start of our design process, where we searched for a case to investigate further.

Chapter 4 reviews how the design community is working with sustainability. Here we will present major approaches that addresses sustainability and design, and how they have developed over time.

(14)

Chapter 5 presents our theoretical framework to understand society as a collection of practices. We will describe the concepts we have adopted and how they can be used to understand and intervein.

Chapter 6 presents our methodological framework to guide our design process. We will describe the research approach we have adopted, together with the different methods used to gather empirical data.

Chapter 7 through 12 presents our design process through five phases, where each phase guides the following phase. The different activities in the chapters informs each other to build up to the findings later in the thesis.

Chapter 13 summarizes the findings from the design process to answer our two sub research questions.

Chapter 14 discusses our findings together with related literature from the design field.

Chapter 15 concludes with recommendations for further research.

(15)

2. Background

In this chapter we will review the background to this thesis of how today’s ways of life in the western world are not sustainable, with a pattern of spending non-renewable resources leading to climate change, threatening future generations way of life. We will discuss how we define the term sustainable, and how applying problem solving on complex societal issues can be hard. Further, we will present Norway’s climate goals in according to the Paris agreement as an objective of our research. Lastly, we will review how recent environmental literature suggest that society and individuals can contribute to make a change.

2.1. Sustainability

Discussing that today’s societies are unsustainable leads to a need to define what sustainable means. A dictionary definition from Cambridge states that sustainability can be seen as “the quality of being able to last over a period of time” (‘Sustainability’, 2020). With the

perspective of resource use and the consequential climate changes the world faces, the report

“Our Common Future” by the World Commission on Environment and Development introduced the term sustainable development. Their famous quote states that:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Combining these perspectives, we look at ‘sustainable’ lives as ways of living that are able to last over time without compromising the opportunities of future generations.

2.2. Wicked problems

Sustainability as a societal problem can be described as “wicked” or “ill-defined”. Rittel and Webber (1973) coined the term wicked problem for problems that are inherently indefinite, they are difficult to both describe and solve. As sustainability is a complex and incoherent problem, it is nearly impossible to find one definite formulation to the problem and where the boundary of the problem is situated. One can say that sustainability is a symptom of an endless array of other complex problems. Factors that influence different sustainability issues are, for instance, economy, market, politics, law, culture and architecture. That is why it is important to look at the problem with a systems perspective and untangle how a problem can be a product of another problem or a set of problems.

(16)

Rittel and Webber (1973) argues that you cannot describe or understand a wicked problem before you have solved it or have an idea of how it can be solved. That is if you have found the problem, then you already have the solution. But it is not as simple as trying out a set of solutions and see how it goes, because once you first have implemented a solution it cannot be undone. Any solution will generate waves of consequences over an extended period of time; therefore, you need to take this into consideration. Some of the consequences may take years to notice, and it will be hard to link the consequence to the solution implemented.

For every wicked problem, just as for sustainability, there will never be a one-time solution; it will be re-solved over and over again. We as designers can always try to do better because for every solution provided, we will get a better understanding of the problem. In most cases, the one working on a wicked problem does not terminate the work based on a final solution, but runs out of time or money and says, “this is good enough”. Every solution or understanding gained will bring us one step closer to a more sustainable world, and all contributions, big or small, matter.

Sustainability issues are not only hard for us as designers to understand and grasp, they are also hard for the average person, trying to understand how their choices in everyday life influence these issues and how to take more sustainable choices. By creating a more transparent understanding of energy consumption, for example, may lead to a more

sustainable behavior. Taking more informed and active choices about your behavior could be a motivation to live a more sustainable life. It is hard to see the connection between boiling more water than you need and global warming. This is just a tiny part of a bigger complex issue, but it is in its own nature complex and hard to understand.

2.3. Towards sustainable futures

To progress towards more sustainable futures, United Nations have proposed 17 goals of sustainable development. In our thesis, we are using two of them as higher-level objectives that we hope the design community can advance towards contributing to. Sustainable Development Goal 12 regards sustainable consumption and production patterns, while Sustainable Development Goal 13 regards combating climate change. Next, we will include the two goals together with their relevant subgoals:

SDG 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns 12.2. By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources

(17)

12.8. By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature SDG 13. Take urgent actions to combat climate change and its impacts

13.3. Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning

Having the higher-level goals as a vision, still requires more concrete defined goals to direct our research. Norway has through the Paris agreement committed to reduce climate related emissions with 50 % by 2030, compared to 2005 (Klimaloven, 2018). The agreement requires the nations to incrementally approach the goal, and thus cannot postpone the effort until the final years. The period of the last agreement started during this project, on January 1^st, 2020.

2.3.1. Klimakur 2030

To work towards reaching this goal, the report Klimakur 2030 (Miljødirektoratet, 2020) proposes 60 measures that in combination are able to meet the target. Reviewing the

opportunity for individuals to make a difference through the way they live their lives, reveals that measures within food and transportation are the most impactful, in addition to energy and waste management.

Within the food category, changing from eating read meat to a diet of plants and fish is the suggestion with the highest impact, together with reducing food waste. Within transportation, changing to electric cars and non-growth of personal car transportation are the most

influential propositions for individuals. Within the category of energy and resources, individual influence lies in heating and recycling.

2.3.2. Project Drawdown

Another recent report on measures to reduce global climate emissions is Project Drawdown (Foley et al., 2020). They present measures society can take to reduce climate emissions for to combat climate change. Of their top propositions to solutions for reducing climate emissions, there are several themes where individuals can make a different. Related to agriculture, the top two measures are to reduce food waste, and to shift to plant-rich diets. Related to transportation, the top two measures are public transportation and carpooling. Further

measures here include biking, virtual meetings and electric cars. Although carrying out these measures for many will require infrastructure and systemic change, like if the stores and restaurants don’t provide a variety of plant-rich diets, and if they lack public transportation

(18)

networks and bicycle infrastructures where they live. Still, it shows the opportunity of individuals to affect climate emissions if they want to, within their opportunities.

2.4. Bottom-up approach

Following the propositions in the Norwegian report Klimakur 2030 (Miljødirektoratet, 2020) and Project Drawdown (Foley et al., 2020), individuals are both in position to and an

important part of society’s common challenge of shifting towards more sustainable ways of life. The Klimakur 2030 report (Miljødirektoratet, 2020, p. iii) states that:

“Many of the measures requires both technological development and altered behavior.

That means that necessary technology that meets the users’ needs becomes available at a lower cost, and that consumers and producers are willing to demand and offer other solutions than today.”

And further, that

“Carrying out the measures requires significantly efforts not only from the government, but also from municipalities, individuals and the industry”.

This informs our opportunity as designers to play a role in supporting individuals into contributing to meeting Norway’s climate goals of 2030, and thus further meeting the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations about sustainable consumption and climate change.

(19)

3. Initial research exploration

In this chapter we are going to present our initial research exploration and our initial

cooperation with the Life Science Building at the University of Oslo. The initial plan for this project was to work together with the Life Science Building and explore how the building could be a sustainability hub as a part of Oslo Science City. We will present the early exploration and how these explorations set us on a path to research how we can support individuals in having a sustainable lifestyle. Even though we don’t end up working together with the Life Science Building, this phase was a central part of inspiring our research.

3.1. Exploring design, technology and sustainability

As a part of a subject on prototyping in our second semester of the master program we searched for inspiration on how to approach sustainability as a wicked problem trough making mood boards. Taking the words sustainability and design as a starting point we wanted to explore how technology fits into a sustainable world (see Figure 1). We have used mood board as a method to explore the available design space for this project. The insight from creating the mood board have been used to frame our understanding of how design, technology, and sustainability interplay. We worked with sustainability as an abstract concept where we explored how it manifests as a wicked problem. Trough an iterative process of making mood boards we have explored our own understanding of sustainability.

Design mood boards is a design method described by Lucero (2012b) as an idea development tool that can be used by designers in HCI and interaction design communities to

communicate, think and share different views of a design brief. He suggests that mood boards can play five roles: framing, aligning, paradoxing, abstracting and directing. He describes the different roles as:

“First, mood boards play a framing role by defining the limits of the design task, which includes both problem setting and problem solving. Second, mood boards assist in the

transmission of a mindset or vision by aligning the different stakeholders and getting them on the same wavelength. Third, mood boards support designers in visually researching

apparently conflicting or contradict ideas or paradoxing. Fourth, mood boards play an abstracting role by allowing designers to juxtapose both concrete and abstract imagery depending on the project and client. Finally, mood boards play a directing role by setting a trajectory for future design efforts.” (Lucero, 2012a, p. 438)

(20)

We started the process of making the mood board by taking the word balance as a point of reference. Balance can be defined as “a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions” (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.). The word balance in this context is referring to the balance between design, technology, and sustainability. Figure 1 shows the different entry words related to design, technology, sustainability, and balance that were used to find pictures for the mood board, grouped together by similarity with different colors.

Figure 1. Entry words for finding pictures for our mood boards.

In our fist mood board, we have explored how the mood board can play a framing role (Figure 2). Through making the mood board we explored the available design space and set the

frames of the project, as well as our understanding of sustainability as a wicked problem. The mood board explores what it means that design, technology and nature is in balance. From left, we have a photo that represents the word limits; a person is balancing on a line and is representing the idea that people and nature needs to find a balance, so we don’t push each other’s limits too far. This needs to happen on both people’s premises and the natures premises. The next photo represents the word balance itself; we see stones that are in perfect balance. The picture on the top right represents the word harmony; humans and nature need to exist together in harmony. In bottom right we see a photo representing the word transparency;

there is often more to the story, and it is important that we understand the consequences of technology so that we can take more informed choices. Premises: Humans need to adapt to the nature and work with what the nature gives us; we have to build bridges so we can make our way through the nature and don’t blow up the mountain to make a tunnel. Cooperation: It is important that we cooperate and make each other stronger. Interplay: there needs to be an interplay for both of us to thrive.

(21)

In the second mood board, we explored how the mood board can have a paradoxical role (Figure 3). Lucero argues that you have to look at the bigger picture when exploring the paradox. This mood board represent contrasting ideas, and how humans and nature are not in balance. The paradox is the contrast between the life of humans and the life of nature. This mood board is based on the framing from the first mood board, and how the understanding gained can be used to explore a paradox. We want the mood board to facilitate for self- reflection, a reflection on what future we want to design. Then use this reflection in our work as designers and in this project. Going from bottom left we can see how nature and humans are not in balance, and as the glance move to the top right corner, we can see how the future should be. We as designers have the opportunity to fill the gap and challenge technology as it is today.

(22)

#balance

#transparancy

#cooperation

#interplay

#premises

#limits

#harmony

Figure 2. This mood board explores the available design space and the frames of the project.

(23)

Figure 3. Paradoxical mood board.

(24)

3.2. Exploring digital spaces

Our first meeting with the Life Science Building as part of the cooperation was a visit to the project’s office space in February 2020. Here we met the project group and were guided through the office space where they had a look and feel display of the materials they were exploring for the building (Figure 4). Here we saw all sorts of materials like concrete,

aluminum, wood, bricks, and different kind of metals. We were intrigued by the materials that were made to create a good acoustic in the building and kind of ‘catch’ the sound. Among these were some fiberglass and aluminum. At the wall we could see screenshots from the 3D- model of the building and how the different materials play together. One of the architects talked about the thoughts behind their work and choice of materials. How the building should be integrated with the rest of the buildings at the University, both new and old. As the ‘old’

part of the University consist of a lot of red bricks, and the ‘new’ part of black metals, the Life Science Building are going to incorporate both styles in its design. The two-color themes were also visible in the materials they had chosen out.

Figure 4. Pictures from the project office space.

The project is called ‘vev’ and one of their main focuses is convergence, both between the different research fields that are going to be in the building but also the inside and outside of the building. They want the materials from the inside to move outside and blend together with the park, and some elements from the park to move inside like threes and the colors. The first floor has an open design and facilitate for collaboration between peers. They were also working on a concept for the graphic profile of the building where they had taken each of the letters in a DNA code developed for the building and worked out different patterns and colors based on that (see right in Figure 4). This is something they may use for signage etc. in the building.

(25)

After the look and feel, we were invited to try out the VR-model of the building. They had their own VR-room at the office that were only used for that purpose. It consisted of a VR- mask, two handheld controllers and a TV-screen with a live view from inside of the mask.

This made it possible for everyone in the room to see the same as the person that were using the mask. Inside a three-dimensional digital representation, the different engineers had arranged furniture and technical elements within walls, floors and ceilings reflecting the coming building. By gearing up with the mask equipped with motion sensors and a screen covering our whole range of vision, we gained a point of view of being inside the building.

With a wireless controller in each hand, we were able to virtually walk around in the Life Science building, while experiencing how the absent building will be.

In the same way the architects use virtual visits to envision their plans, we can visit the Life Science building looking for where and how our research can fit in. If we are to add a new element to the building, we can look for opportunities on where to place an artifact. If we are to alter some of the building’s interior, we can picture the outcome of the change in advance.

If we at are going to design an artefact, installation or another tangible item, we can examine it in position before anything is built.

In previous research we have learned to make iterative prototypes of suggestions before concluding a design. With access to a virtual representation of the coming building, we can evaluate prototypes of design within context before the context exists physically. Visiting the virtual model can also make us able to study the context of our project. If we are to design or evaluate a service or an artefact for a non-existing building, it is valuable to be able to investigate the context before the building is finished.

At the visit we became aware that the building is going to be a zero-emission building, and that they are choosing materials that are going to last for a long time. We were intrigued to know more about what this means for the design of the building and if they will implement specific design that are going to steer the users in using it more efficiently.

3.3. Zero emission building

The Life Science Building have a goal to be a zero-emission building. We were interested to explore what it means for a building to be a zero-emission building, and how a building can have zero emissions in use. To get a better insight into the project and how the project group have worked to achieve the zero-emission certification, we arranged a meeting with one of the key persons that works with making sure the emissions goals are implemented.

(26)

In the meeting we got insight into the background of the project and how they have worked with the emissions goals for the building. The goals have very much influenced the planning and construction of the building, from the choice of materials to specific design choices and the whole infrastructure of the building. As a part of the emissions goals the project group have made an environmental program that consist of multiple environmental themes. As we were interested in gaining more insight into how the building can be sustainable in use, not only under the construction, we talked about the themes that were most related to the

emissions during use. The most important themes related to the use of the building consisted of energy, greenhouse gas emissions and the choice of materials.

Regarding the first theme, energy, the building is designed to be an almost zero energy building, which means that it is almost not going to use any energy and is going to produce most of the energy itself. There will be solar cells on the roof and the building will utilize excess energy from server parks in buildings nearby. They are trying to predict how the building is going to be used, but there will always be a difference between what they think and the actual use.

The second theme is about reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of the building, where the energy use, choice of materials and transport related to the building is central. Early in the planning of the building they had included a parking garage in the building, which is removed now as they want to lower the emissions related to transport. They have planned to build lots of parking for bicycles which will make it more appealing to take the bike to the building.

The last theme is about the choice of materials in the building, and how they can be

sustainable through the whole lifecycle of the building. By choosing materials that are durable and resistant they can make sure that the materials don’t have to be replaced and in that way are more sustainable over time. They are also designing the building to be flexible so that they can adapt the floor plan and interior based on specific needs in the future. When doing this they have to predict the future and how the technology will look like so that the building isn’t outdated when the building is ready to use.

Most of these themes are related to the construction and planning of the building, and the project is still in the planning of the fundamental measures. In terms of the use of the building by single people they haven’t started planning how it can be used sustainable at an individual level, and we got the impression that this is an aspect they don’t have so much influence in.

They can design the building to be efficient in terms of lighting and ventilation, but they can’t steer how individuals are using the technology and how they recycle etc. When we asked

(27)

about which measures single people can take to influence the emissions of the building, we were told that how people get to the building is the most crucial. In achieving most

sustainable transport they have removed the parking spots to facilitate for bicycling and public transport. As for other measures that can influence people, they haven’t started looking at the specific details of the interior and recycling bins and so on, as that comes later in a later phase of the planning. The interviewee emphasized that induvial usages is just as important as the overall strategi, “It is all connected” she said. This notion inspired us to research how design can support individuals in living a more sustainable lifestyle, which is the starting point of our design process presented in this thesis, as the building was not in the planning phase of concrete designs for the ones that are going to use the building.

(28)

4. Mapping the landscape of sustainability and design

In this chapter we will explore literature on sustainability and design to ground the choice of our approach to address sustainability in this thesis. We will present literature from three major approaches that address sustainability and design where we discuss their associated strengths and limitations. Design research have mostly focused on how to design sustainable products or how to design for more sustainable behavior. In this thesis want to focus on how to support people in making their existing practices more sustainable, and how design can be a central part of accomplishing that. Doing so, we want to start off by gaining a better

understanding of how sustainability and design have been addressed by the literature so far, and to explore how we might approach sustainability and design in this thesis.

4.1. Sustainable Interaction Design

Sustainability have gotten an increased focus in design research over the last decade (Blevis, 2007; DiSalvo et al., 2010; Mankoff et al., 2007). Blevis (2007) introduced the term

Sustainable Interaction Design (SID), and claimed that sustainability can and should be a central focus of interaction design. Central to the notion of sustainability in the context of SID is the idea of viable futures, whereas design is the act of choosing among or informing

choices of future ways of being (Blevis, 2007). As a designer you sit on a great power that is crucial for our collective futures in terms of what we design and how it is going to be used.

The focus in SID is mainly on environmental sustainability and what role interactive

technologies play in terms of resource use (Blevis, 2007). Blevis (2007) proposes further that designers need to consider the whole lifecycle of products and what negative effects it can have on the environment after its disposal as a part of the initial design. This way of focusing on use, reuse and disposal create a greater understanding of the material effect of the products we design – and can expand the lifespan of products. But he also raises the concern that it is not enough to hope that people will adopt the preferred behavior as human nature needs to be taken into account. There are other aspects as style, status, and self-image which affect the rapid obsolescence we see in today’s society.

Blevis (2007) also elaborates on the misfit of placing SID within Human-Computer

Interaction, as HCI in its very nature place the human in the center of the approach which can be problematic from the perspective of sustainability. By focusing on users’ needs and

requirements it lacks complexity of not placing the user in a wider context and not raise the concern for human conditions, particular or global (Blevis, 2007). Put another way, working

(29)

with sustainability you should lift your focus towards a societal level and not only focusing on the single interaction. Regardless, the literature still places SID within the field of

Sustainable HCI (DiSalvo et al., 2010; Mankoff et al., 2007), and are known for rethinking the methods of HCI in order to address sustainability (DiSalvo et al., 2010).

Mankoff et al. (2007) offer a much used categorization of SHCI and divides it into two orientations; sustainability in design and sustainability through design. Sustainability in design focus on the material effects of the design, where products or systems are designed to save electricity or minimize the amount of waste in production. Sustainability through design want to support sustainable lifestyles and diction-making through the design of technology.

While Blevis (2007) draws on product design and critical design in his way of approaching the issues of sustainability, we believe that this product-oriented approach becomes too limiting when working with sustainability and the wicked problem that it is (see chapter 2.2 Wicked problems). There will be a challenge of addressing the complexity of sustainability if the main form for evaluation is focusing on the single interaction between humans and the technology. As he puts it himself: “the challenge is to learn how to set sustainability as a focus of interaction design in a manner that can succeed by widely motivating the will for sustainable behaviors as part of an economically-viable viable future, rather than by expecting such effects to be solely the dominion of legislation and public policy” (Blevis, 2007).

The challenge of evaluating sustainability in SHCI research have been highlighted by authors like Remy et al. (2017), who analyze the difficulties of measuring if the solutions provided are indeed sustainable. Drawing the line from a single solution, and if it really addresses the identified problem at hand, to if the same solution contribute to environmentally sustainability at a societal level can be hard - if not even impossible. Again, showing us the complexity of sustainability and how it is a wicked problem. There is not yet one common understanding of how to address sustainability in a way that is measurable and do seem like a challenge that the design community have not yet succeeded answering.

Trying to navigate in the landscape of fields and approaches addressing different issues of sustainability we want to draw on a third approach, Design for Sustainability (DfS), to gain a better understanding on how to address sustainability both on a product and human level as well looking at it at a more societal level. Design for Sustainability is a coined term which includes other design disciplines than only the ones dealing with HCI. We want to try to place

(30)

SHCI and SID within DfS with the goal of better understanding how they correlate with work done in DfS, so that we may be able to navigate the best way to approach sustainability.

4.2. Design for Sustainability

The design discipline has over the last decades engaged in sustainability issues in various ways and form the broad field Design for Sustainability (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016). DfS differ from SHCI as it tries to solve the complex issue of sustainability by looking at it as a socio-technical challenge. Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) have mapped out an overview of how the field has expanded over the last decades, and propose an evolutionary framework of different approaches within design for sustainability. They divide the evolution of the field in four innovation levels: Product innovation level, Product-Service System innovation level, Spatio-Social innovation level and Socio-Technical System innovation level (Figure 5). The different innovation levels have moved from a product-centric focus towards large scale systems and consist of multiple approaches that take different sustainability aspects into consideration. We will now review the different levels and discuss how we they can be used as a way to explore the different approaches dealing with sustainability.

4.2.1. Product innovation level

At the product innovation level, we find two of the first approaches that tried to tackle sustainability issues; green design and eco-design. They were mainly a response to the fact that the design profession has a key role in encouraging consumption and in that way contribute to an unsustainable way of living. Green design is an early example of how designers tried to lower the environmental impact of individual products. This was often accomplished through focusing on the process of making the product, like using renewable energy and environmentally friendly materials. While green design had a limiting focus on single products, eco-design focused on the whole lifecycle of the products from the extraction of raw materials to how it was disposed. The main goal of eco-design is to minimize the consumption of natural resources and energy. This approach had significant strengths over green design, but it was still lacking the complexity which was needed to solve the ever- increasing consumption of products. Although eco-design has a lifecycle focus it is limited to the technical perspective and forgets to take the human related aspects into consideration as how it is going to be used in the use phase.

(31)

Figure 5. The Design for Sustainability Evolutionary Framework. Figure from Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016).

Figure 2 The DfS Evolutionary Framework with the existing DfS approaches mapped onto it. The timeline shows the year when the first key publication of each DfS approach was published

(32)

Eco-design has different design strategies that will help designers and companies to extend the lifespan of single products, but as it does not include the complexity of human related aspects it does not come that far. Most products are not discarded by users because of the product not working properly but because of what Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) call psychological obsolescence. They propose that almost 78% of all products are replaced even though they are still fully functioning. The users would preferer a new product over the one they already have, which in most cases is the result of social status or new trends in the marked. This show us that it is crucial to include both the human aspects as well as the technical aspects when you want to make a change to the ever-increasing consumption we have today.

Both approaches are very much in line with how Blevis (2007) tries to address sustainability, and as we have discussed earlier also fails to address the complexity of sustainability. Due to the rapid product obsolescence cycles much of the work done in SID have a focus on the material effects of the product. Software and hardware are connected to a cycle of mutual obsolescence and by focusing on the products you will minimize the environmental effects of the specific product but are not able to change the rapid obsolescence. Blevis (2007) argues that there is a need for the HCI community to address what role they play in the rapid product obsolescence cycle that we see today and that the research should focus around more on how to reduce the materials effects. SHCI is in fact trying to tackle the same problem as it

contributes to. This can be done in two ways, through the technology directly, by making products that can be replaced modularly rather than wholesale, or indirectly, by making products that have better quality so they will not be discarded too quickly. Both will achieve what Mankoff et al. (2007) categorize as sustainability in design.

As a response to the issue of rapid obsolescence and a too narrow focus on single products, Design for Sustainable Behavior became a popular approach. Here the designers look at how users interact with products and how the user’s behavior influences the overall environmental impact. When evaluating the environmental impact of a product the resources used in the use phase are often left out. Targeting this aspect DfSB want to achieve a more environmentally sustainable pattern of use. Niedderer et al. (2014, as cited in Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016) argues that most designs that deal with behavior change efforts include four basic principles:

- Making it easier for people to adopt a desired behavior, - Making it harder for people to perform an undesired behavior, - Making people want a desired behavior,

(33)

- Making people not want an undesired behavior.

We can see this approach in much work done in the field of SID where the designer uses methods to persuade or guide users to operate products in a more sustainable manner (Lockton et al., 2008). The motivation for focusing on this is the fact that many consumer products have the most environmental impact, primarily energy use, during its use phase (Lockton et al., 2008). Trying to convince users to behave in a more sustainable way both DfSB and SHCI often draw on Fogg’s theory of persuasive technology, which consist of a set of principles to drive user behavior (Fogg, 2003). DiSalvo et al. (2010) identified persuasion to be a main theme of the time’s sustainable HCI literature with 45 % of their identified papers relating to persuasive technology. They further cite Tscheligi, Reitberger, de Ruyter, and Markopoulos’ (2007, 2008, cited in DiSalvo et al., 2010) arguing how persuasive technology can increase the desirability of pro-environmental behavior by giving users information about their environmental impact. Going back to the categorization done by Mankoff et al. (2007), this is one way of achieving sustainability through design. Remy et al.

(2017) discuss the difficulty of measuring the impact of sustainability through design, and point out the complexity of such an evaluation which SHCI designer often don’t have the knowledge or skills to do. This is why most SHCI research don’t set the goal of changing user behavior but rather raise awareness (Remy et al., 2017).

Knowles et al. (2014) criticizes the comprehensive, current use of persuasive techniques in sustainable HCI, claiming low impact and short-lived effects. Rather, they argue for addressing the motivation fostering the unsustainable behaviors. Current ways of applying persuasion are presented with antipatterns of current and undesirable solutions, together with propositions that they claim are more likely to succeed. Among these, mixing conflicting motivations like environmental care and financial concerns are discouraged on the behalf of the effect of communicating one clear message. Further, assuming that greater awareness will inspire users to change behavior is criticized for overemphasizing the value of information.

Knowles et al. (2014) argue that if the information is perceived as threatening, it will work against the goal and increase guilt and resistance of changing behavior. To overcome this, they propose to develop on the user’s motives for caring for the environment. Another critique presented against persuasive technology applied for sustainability is to measure and focus on narrow one aspect of sustainable behavior and thus losing unintended side effects.

Propositions for others is to focus on the participants’ values or overall performance to measure impact.

(34)

Concerns have been raised regarding the ethical considerations of DfSB and in what context it is ok for designers and companies to drive user behavior (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016).

DiSalvo et al. (2010) also ask the question of who should decide what change should happen and how. There may be a common understanding that change is needed but what happens if that is not something the users want. As with many other approaches, DfSB can lead to unintended side effects like more use of materials and resources. One other concern in the marked is that it can also challenge financial interests, as companies would not implement a feature in their design or change their business strategy in a way that would lead to less gain for the company. Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) suggest that future work within DfSB should focus more on particular situations. If you want to use a design for sustainable behavior strategy, you need to expand the scope and look beyond behavior, user groups and social context.

4.2.2. Product-Service System innovation level

Improvements at the product level is crucial to reduce the environmentally impact of product and product processes, and it is important to not look away from this aspect when moving to the next innovation level. They are in fact fundamental and necessary but is not by itself enough to create the radical improvements that is necessary to achieve sustainability (Ceschin

& Gaziulusoy, 2016). On the one hand, these innovations can achieve improvements in products environmental performance, but on the downside, they contribute to an increase in consumption levels. Making it relevant for researchers to move towards a wider approach which focus on producing structural changes in the way production and consumption systems are organized (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016).

Work done in the product-service system innovation level have changed its focus towards delivery of functions instead for products, and is moving from a consumption on ownership to a consumption based on sharing (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016). Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) defines PSS as “a mix of tangible products and intangible services designed and combined so that they are jointly capable of fulfilling final customer needs”. Examples of PSS innovations in Norway is businesses providing carsharing (e.g., Hyre), rental of tools from hardware stores (e.g., Clas Ohlson, Elkjøp) and rental of clothes (e.g., Fjong). In order to succeed in this innovation level, one need a different approach to designing individual

products, as they consist of complex artifacts composed of products, services and a network of actors (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016). They carry a great sustainability potential, but is

(35)

hard to design, test, implement and bring to the mainstream. In most cases they will challenge existing customers habits and carry a higher risk for succeeding.

4.2.3. Spatio-Social innovation level

Moving towards a bigger scope, the Spatio-Social innovation level tries to solve sustainability issues dealing with social challenges and looks beyond the technical aspect. This systematic understanding of sustainability is mostly driven by governmental politics and has moved away from the individual consumption or individual product strategic we have seen before.

This resulted in an approach that is not able to address the issues with individual consumption and is not able to affect the consumer demand of products and services (Ceschin &

Gaziulusoy, 2016). Trends in this approach is to combine existing assets in a new way and stere away from focusing on technology as being the solution.

Design for Social innovation tries to solve social problems such as poverty and access to safe drinking water, or target behavioral change and social well-being (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016). Targeting these social problems can be done top-down and bottom-up, or a hybrid of both. Even if most of the work are mostly driven by non-professional designers but could benefit from a designer’s work. Their way of combining systemic thinking and design skills (e.g., visualization and prototyping) is indeed a promising way to achieve social innovation.

But many solutions made by professional designers are criticized for being superficial and have a high cost. The community working with social problems criticize designer for being naïve and for not addressing the social and environmental crisis with a non-industrial focus (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016). Regardless, single innovations targeting social problems would in most cases not result in the level of change that is needed in the large socio-technical systems that deals with today’s society’s needs in terms of energy, mobility and infrastructure (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016).

Systemic design wants to achieve a new way of looking at the flow of resources within

complex industrial systems. Here they look at how materials and energy from one process can be used in other process to reduce the waste flow (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016). Some peoples waste can be someone else’s gold. Achieving this needs a complex combination and cooperation between different actors, assets and resources. Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) propose that systemic design should be combined with other design approaches to be able to address the individual consumption behavior and habits to be able to solve the sustainability issues of today.

(36)

A good example of how systemic design and product-service system design are combined is Too Good To Go. Trying to tackle the problem of food waste, this service connects local businesses with potential customers to reduce the amount of food left-overs. This is a good example of how systemic design and product-service system design is combined.

4.2.4. Socio-Technical System innovation level

At the top level we find mostly work done in terms of research projects and is not an approach that are much used by designers in the industry. Design researchers have started to explore how one can create transition from one socio-technical system to another (Ceschin &

Gaziulusoy, 2016). Design for system innovations and transitions deals with visions for the future and are creating experiments that test and explore different design concepts. Many of these design concepts are not yet possible to implement, but work as a future scenario and explore how to get there. Much used approaches to create these visions are backcasting and transition studies (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016; Irwin, 2015; Lockton & Candy, 2018).

Through explorative design, the researchers want to generate changes in large and complex systems. Taking these complex systems as a basis for future visions requires an understanding of the interrelationships between technologies, ecosystems, social and cultural practice and governance into the design decisions (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016). Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) proposes that future work in this level should draw on supportive design approaches like speculative design, design futures and participatory design.

Trying to find a good example of how design for system innovations and transitions have been used in the industry, we came across a project called “Historien om Tim: En nasjonal fremtidsvisjon” by Oslo Kommune (Oslo Kommune, 2020). This project deals much with social problems and are a part of a national digitalization strategy.

4.2.5. Key takeaways

Summing up, Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) show that DfS have progressively expanded its focus from single products to complex systems. Alongside, the sustainability issues that have been in focus, the field have shifted towards more attention to human-centered aspects. The design scope has also changed from looking at sustainability issues in isolation; like

improving recycling and making products more energy efficient, towards a more complex design space where the solution includes multiple stakeholders and a variety of

socioeconomic actors - making it all more complex. Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) states that this evolution from a narrow technical, product and process-centric focus toward a large-

(37)

scale system level change have lost the important focus on the user while locking at larger, systemic challenges of sustainability.

Many of the approaches complement one another and have much more impact on the

environmental issues if combined together, as some focus on the single products while other focus on the social complexity these products will be implemented into. Some approaches also expand over different innovations levels, like design for sustainable behavior which can be implemented on either Product-, Product-Service System-, Spatio-Social level or a

combination of these.

It is important to acknowledge that the less systemic approaches could not solve sustainability issues alone but are not less important than the more systemic approaches (Ceschin &

Gaziulusoy, 2016). Sustainability is very much a systemic challenge and a wicked problem that need to be solved in a Socio-Technical System level. But as stated by Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016), we agree that the trends in design approaches today lacks the complexity of looking at both the human aspect and system aspect which is needed to be able to solve the sustainability issues of today. Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) propose knowledge about the associated strengths and shortcomings of the different approaches should be used in

conjunction with complementary approaches. You need to combine a variety of different DfS approaches that span over different innovation levels to address the complexity of

sustainability issues.

Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) also highlight that the evolution of DfS have gained an increased need for human-centered design knowledge and know-how. Moving further away from the technical focus in the higher levels with approaches such as design for sustainable behavior it is crucial with human-centered design skills. To be able to understand

consumption dynamics and behavior dynamics you need a toolkit with different techniques to gather insights from users and how to involve them in co-design. With an enlarged design space, the designers need to be able to move from product thinking to system thinking in a strategic way.

As we see it, the challenge for the DfS field is to design with a systemic approach while you still have a user-centered focus. DiSalvo et al. (2010) raises the importance to let needs and opportunities raised by users drive the design process and not looking at the users as the problem that causes environmental problems. Within SID there is a common understanding that unsustainable behavior is seen as a problem caused not by bad users but by bad design

(38)

(DiSalvo et al., 2010). In line with the first innovation level, you can implement better design options at a product level to enable more positive behavior.

DiSalvo et al. (2010) argues that the relationship between HCI research and industry needs to be reconsidered as HCI supports a wasteful rapid obsolescence cycle of IT products. Solving the sustainability issues of today should not be solved by introducing more and more products as this only contributes to the problem. As discussed previously, popular methods used in Sustainable HCI fail to take the complexity of the problem into account. Which we have seen argued by Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) is one of the most important factors to be able to succeed.

4.3. How to approach design for sustainability

So far, we have discussed different approaches in design for sustainability (Blevis, 2007;

Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016; DiSalvo et al., 2010). DiSalvo et al. (2010) and Dourish (2010) argues that because of the systemic nature of sustainability issues and the limiting change that individual action can create there is a need to intervene at different levels. Pierce et al. (2013) argues that sustainability is providing serious challenges to the way HCI is currently

approaching problems, and suggest that there is a need for a practice-oriented approach.

Building on the framework proposed by Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) with a practice- oriented approach we believe can open up for an enlarged design pace that can move between different levels and create the intervention needed.

Traditionally, HCI take individuals as the unit of analysis for design and evaluation and is, according to Pierce et al. (2013), the key methodological limitation of HCI research. By shifting the primary unit of analysis from individual action to everyday practice can be a good way of intervening at multiple levels (Pierce et al., 2013). Literature from anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, philosophy and geography locate practice as a part of “…the routine and seemingly mundane activities of everyday life, while incorporation strong consideration of the social, cultural, and material contexts in which those activities are situated” (Pierce et al., 2013). Designing technology that are environmentally sustainable becomes too limiting if you don’t look at the context of where that technology is going to be used and how the context may change over time. Pierce et al. (2013) argues that applying a practice “lens” creates new opportunities and new ways of analyze to understand and potentially design an everyday practice to support sustainability.

(39)

By taking a practice-oriented approach you need to look beyond isolated interactions between humans and the designed technology as they are only one of the necessary ingredients of a practice and not only something humans interact with. Pierce et al. (2013) proposes that if you are able to succeed in doing a practice-oriented approach to sustainable HCI, you can create an understanding of the interaction between humans and technologies that more fully capture the complexity of everyday practices as they are enacted and change over time.

Many of the design approaches we have discussed in this chapter are oriented around products or behavior and are limited, in contrast with a practice-oriented approach which seeks to understand how technology and human activities are situated within a social practice (Pierce et al., 2013). We believe that a practice-oriented approach will address the complexity of sustainability issues in the right way and make it possible to create sustainable design

interventions that can potentially lead to socio-technical change. In the following chapter, we will present our theoretical framework, followed by a presentation of our study design.

(40)

5. Theoretical framework

In this chapter we will present the theory and related concepts that we build upon in this thesis. Walsham (2006) argues that theory can be used in three ways, as an initial guide to design and data collection, as part of an iterative process of data collection and analysis, or as a final result of the research. We will use practice theory to both guide our design and data collection and as a part of our iterative design process where we gather empirical data and conduct analysis.

5.1. Practice theory

Practice theory is a social theory that offers a conceptual framework that is helpful for understanding and tackling complex societal issues such as sustainability (Kuijer, 2017). In practice theory, society is viewed as a collection of practices where everything we do (e.g., cooking, playing games, driving, or working) is viewed as the performance of one or more practices. These practices that we perform in our everyday life adds up to the majority of resource consumption in today’s society. By shifting the focus from individual consumption to practices, we have an opportunity to create a systematic change. On the contrary, there is still a need for a focus on the individuals as they are the carriers of practices (Reckwitz, 2002) and the ones performing the activities and tasks that a practice consist of. The opportunity to transform practices lies with the individuals and how they take part in a practice. But, changes in a practice is not about educating or persuading individuals to take different decisions but rather in the development of practices themselves (Hargreaves, 2011). Practice theory takes practices as the primary unit of analysis and offer a novel way to approach complex societal issues, compared to approaches that take interactions or products as the primary unit of analysis (Kuijer, 2017).

Reckwitz (2002) offer a widely known definition of a practice: “a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge”. To give a practical illustration, cooking consists of a complex combination of different cooking

equipment and kitchen appliances along with the competences to chop vegetables and how to cook after a recipe; the rules and norms that define the practice of cooking; its meanings to practitioners and to outsiders; and so on.

(41)

Kuijer (2017) argues that practice theory offers a conceptual framework to better understand human actions and how they interrelate. She also argues that this is one of the main reasons that it has been repeatedly applied it design research. A conceptual tool many researchers draw on, is the idea that practices is a configuration of different elements. Shove et al. (2012) offer a framework for conceptualizing practices as a configuration of elements which includes materials, competence and meanings (Figure 6). What these elements provide is an analytical tool to understand different practices and how people and artifacts relate (Kuijer, 2017).

Whereas, materials include things, technology, tangible physical entities, and the stuff of which things are made; competence include skills, know-how and technique; meanings include symbolic meanings, ideas and aspirations (Shove et al., 2012). Shove et al. (2012) propose that a practice is defined by interdependent relations between these elements, and emerge, persist and disappear as links are made and broken. These elements can evolve differently and a change in one of them can create change in the other two.

Figure 6. The three elements of a practices. Figure from Shove et al. (2012)

Kuijer (2017) argues that behavior change can be seen as a form of practice change. As we have seen earlier, a lot of design for sustainability approaches want to achieve behavior change but have thus not looked at the context of which that behavior exists. Shove et al.

(2012, p. 120) further elaborates that “practices change when new elements are introduced or when existing elements are combined in new ways”. In order to create change in a practice you need to understand the different elements of which it consists of and how they are interdependent.

Shove et al.’s (2012) framework is drawn on by designers and researchers in HCI as it explicitly conceptualize materiality as a dimension of practice and the role it has in social

Towards Sustainable Consumption: Designing Interventions to Support Everyday Consumption

Towards Sustainable Consumption

Designing Interventions to Support Everyday Consumption

Towards Sustainable Consumption

Designing Interventions to Support Everyday Consumption

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Initial research exploration

4. Mapping the landscape of sustainability and design

5. Theoretical framework