Development of usage models for the ecodesign of products: the concept of usage ecodrift

  • Alexandre Popoff
  • Dominique Millet
  • Olivier Pialot
Original Paper

Abstract

Usage ecodrifts, which refer to non-optimal use of a product by the users, create additional environmental impact generators: energy overconsumption (real-time impacts) and abnormal wear and tear of parts of the product (delayed impacts). The goal of this study is to demonstrate that these Usage EcoDrifts must be taken into account during the design stage to better the environmental performance of the use phase of the product. In this paper, we study the case of different usages of a vacuum cleaner and their environmental consequences. We first conducted a survey to gather information on how people use the product. Then, we conducted experimentations to measure the consequences of the usages. We also explored how the testers responded to feedback inviting them to adopt a more sustainable behaviour. Results show that most of the users do not use the product optimally and cause additional environmental impact. Several usage ecodrifts were identified, causing both abnormal energy overconsumption and wear and tear of the product. The calculations show that delayed environmental impacts, because their consequence is the early replacement of the whole product, are of much greater importance than real-time environmental impacts.

Keywords

Usage EcoDrift Use phase model Ecodesign Life cycle assessment Users segmentation Interactive design 

References

  1. 1.
    Ardente, F., Mathieux, F.: Environmental assessment of the durability of energy-using products: method and application. J. Clean. Prod. 74, 62–73 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tang, T., Bhamra, T.: Changing energy consumption behaviour through sustainable product design. In: DS 48:Proceedings DESIGN 2008, the 10th International Design Conference, pp. 1359–1366, Dubrovnik, Croatia (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lilley, D.: Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Design Stud. 30, 704–720 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tukker, A., Tischner, U.: Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 1552–1556 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barré, A., Deguilhem, B., Grolleau, S., Gérard, M., Suard, F., Riu, D.: A review on lithium-ion battery ageing mechanisms and estimations for automotive applications. J. Power Sources 241, 680–689 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Santin, O.G.: Behavioural patterns and user profiles related to energy consumption for heating. Energy Build. 43, 2662–2672 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gulbinas, R., Taylor, J.E.: Effects of real-time eco-feedback and organizational network dynamics on energy efficient behavior in commercial buildings. Energy Build. 84, 493–500 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jain, R.K., Taylor, J.E., Culligan, P.J.: Investigating the impact eco-feedback information representation has on building occupant energy consumption behavior and savings. Energy Build. 64, 408–414 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jain, R.K., Taylor, J.E., Peschiera, G.: Assessing eco-feedback interface usage and design to drive energy efficiency in buildings. Energy Build. 48, 8–17 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jamson, S.L., Hibberd, D.L., Merat, N.: Drivers’ ability to learn eco-driving skills; effects on fuel efficient and safe driving behaviour. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 50, 657–668 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pierce, J., Schiano, D.J., Paulos, E.: Home, habits, and energy: examining domestic interactions and energy consumption. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, pp. 1985–1994 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serna-Mansoux, L., Popoff, A., Millet, D.: A simplified model to include dynamic product-user interaction in the eco-design process the paper towel dispenser case study. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 529–544 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santin, O.G.: The effect of occupancy and building characteristics on energy use for space and water heating in Dutch residential stock. Energy Build. 41, 1223–1232 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sardianou, E.: Estimating space heating determinants: an analysis of Greek households. Energy Build 40, 1084–1093 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buchanan, K., Russo, R., Anderson, B.: Feeding back about eco-feedback: how do consumers use and respond to energy monitors? Energy Policy 73, 138–146 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cor, E., Zwolinski, P.: A procedure to define the best design intervention strategy on a product for a sustainable behavior of the user. Procedia CIRP 15, 425–430 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crawford, C.: Art of Interactive Design. No Starch Press, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartmann, J.: Assessing the attractiveness of interactive systems. In CHI’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 1755–1758 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cor, E., Domingo, L., Brissaud, D., Zwolinski, P.: A protocol to perform usage oriented eco-design. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 63, 169–172 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., Landay, J.: The design of eco-feedback technology. CHI, Atlanta. Georgia, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wever, R., Van Kuijk, J., Boks, C.: User-centred design for sustainable behaviour. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 1, 9–20 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burgers, C., Eden, A., van Engelenburg, M.D., Buningh, S.: How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game. Computers Hum. Behav. 48, 94–103 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, G., O’Callaghan, F., Knox, K.: Sustainable attitudes and behaviours amongst a sample of non-academic staff: a case study from an Information Services Department, Griffith University, Brisbane. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 10, 136–151 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Phipps, M., Ozanne, L.K., Luchs, M.G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., Catlin, J.R., Weaver, T.: Wavering between radical and realistic sustainable consumption policies: in search for the best feasible trajectories. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1203–1217 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, pp. 179–211. Elsevier (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lidman, K., Renström, S., Karlsson, M.: The Green User. Design for Sustainable Behaviour. In: Proceedings from the IASDR Conference 2011, Diversity and Unity, Oct 31-Nov 1, 2011, Delft, S, pp. 1–12 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Serna-Mansoux, L., Chapotot, E., Millet, D., Minel, S.: Study of user behaviour after eco-use feedback: the green-use learning cycle (GULC) as a new strategy for product eco-design. J. Interact. Design Manuf. 8, 43–54 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scott, K., Bakker, C., Quist, J.: Designing change by living change. Design Stud. 33, 279–297 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wu, X., Yan, J., Liu, N., Yan, S., Chen, Y., Chen, Z.: Probabilistic latent semantic user segmentation for behavioral targeted advertising. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Data Mining and Audience Intelligence for Advertising, Paris, pp. 10–17 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khobzi, H., Teimourpour, B.: LCP segmentation: A framework for evaluation of user engagement in online social networks. Computers Hum. Behav. 50, 101–107 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandre Popoff
    • 1
  • Dominique Millet
    • 1
  • Olivier Pialot
    • 1
  1. 1.COSMER, Université de ToulonLa GardeFrance

Personalised recommendations