Advertisement

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 19, Issue 5–6, pp 929–940 | Cite as

When an eco-feedback system joins the family

  • Stephen SnowEmail author
  • Dhaval Vyas
  • Margot Brereton
Original Article

Abstract

The dynamic, chaotic, intimate and social nature of family life presents many challenges when designing interactive systems in the household space. This paper presents findings from a whole-of-family approach to studying the use of an energy awareness and management system called “Ecosphere”. Using a novel methodology of inviting 12 families to create their own self-authored videos documenting their energy use, we report on the family dynamics and nuances of family life that shape and affect this use. Our findings suggest that the momentum of existing family dynamics in many cases obstructs behaviour change and renders some family members unaware of energy consumption despite the presence of an energy monitor display in the house. The implication for eco-feedback design is that it needs to recognise and respond to the kinds of family relations into which the system is embedded. In response, we suggest alternative ways of sharing energy-related information among families and incentivising engagement among teenagers.

Keywords

Family Eco-feedback Energy saving Reassurance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all the families involved in the study for their participation. We also thank Stockland for their invitation for us to collaborate on this project and Auztech for organising the initial interview times and for their willingness for us to research and critique the design of their Ecosphere product.

References

  1. 1.
    Baretto M, Karapanos E, Nunes J (2013) Why don’t families get along with eco-feedback technologies? A longitudinal inquiry. In: Proceeding of the CHItaly, 2013. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brush AJB, Inkpen KM (2007) Yours, mine, and ours? Sharing and use of technology in domestic environments. In: UbiComp 2007, lecture notes in computer science, vol 4717, pp 109–126Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brush AJB, Inkpen KM, Tee K (2008) SPARCS: exploring sharing suggestions to enhance family connectedness. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2008. ACM Press, pp 629–638Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourgeois J, van der Linden J, Price B, Kortuem G (2013) Technology probes: experiences with home energy feedback. In: Methods for studying technology in the home: workshop held at CHI 2013, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brereton M (2013) Habituated objects everyday tangibles that foster the independent living of an elderly woman. ACM Interactions 20(4):20–24Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown B, Taylor A, Izadi S, Sellen A, Kaye J, Eardley R (2007) Locating family values: a field trial of the whereabouts clock. In: Ubicomp 2007: lecture notes in computer science, vol 4717, pp 354–371Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brynjarsdottir H, Hakansson M, Pierce J, Baumer E, DiSalvo C, Sengers P (2012) Sustainably unpersuaded: how persuasion narrows our vision of sustainability. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2012. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buur J, Soendergaard A (2000) Video card game: an augmented environment for user centred design discussions. In: Proceedings of the designing augmented reality environments. ACM Press, pp 63–69Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carter S, Mancoff J (2005) When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2005. ACM Press, pp 899–908Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chetty M, Brush AJ, Meyers BR, Johns P (2010) It’s not easy being green: understanding home computer power management. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2010. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darby S (2006) The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption: a review for DEFRA of the literature on metering, billing and direct displays. Environmental Change Institute, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erickson T, Li M, Kim Y, Deshpande A, Sahu S, Chao T, Sukaviriya P, Naphade M (2013) The dubuque electricity portal: evaluation of a city-scale residential electricity consumption feedback system. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2013. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer C (2008) Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energy Effic 1(1):79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Froehlich J, Findlater L, Landay J (2010) The design of eco-feedback technology. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2010. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Froehlich J, Findlater L, Ostergren M, Ramanathan S, Peterson J, Wragg I, Larson Fu F, Bai M, Patel SH, Landay J (2012) The design and evaluation of prototype eco-feedback displays for fixture-level water use data. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2012. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galvin KL, Brommel BJ (2000) Family communication: cohesion and change. Addison Wesley Longman Inc, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grønhøj A, Thøgersen J (2011) Feedback on household electricity consumption: learning and social influence processes. Int J Consum Stud 35(2):138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hargreaves T, Nye M, Burgess J (2010) Making energy visible: a qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy 38(10):6111–6119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hargreaves T, Nye M, Burgess J (2013) Keeping energy visible: exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term. Energy Policy 52:126–134CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Langdale G, Kay J, Kummerfield B (2006) Using an intergenerational communications system as a ‘light-weight’ technology probe. In: Ext Abstracts CHI 2006. ACM Press, pp 1001–1006Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neustaedter C, Bartram L, Mah A (2013) Everyday activities and energy consumption: how families understand the relationship. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2013. ACM Press, pp 1183–1192Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neustaedter C, Harrison S, Sellen A (2012) Connecting families: the impact of new communication technologies on domestic life. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petkov P, Köbler F, Foth M, Krcmar H (2011) Motivating domestic energy conservation through comparative, community based feedback in mobile and social media. In: Proceedings of the communities & technologies conference (C&T 2011), Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sacks H (1972) Lecture 3, Spring 1972. In: Schegloff EA (ed) Lectures on conversation, Volume II. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 542–553; 1992Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwartz T, Denef S, Stevens G, Ramirez L, Wulf V (2013) Cultivating energy literacy-results from a longitudinal living lab study of a home energy management system. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2013. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shove E, Chappells H (2001) Ordinary consumption and extraordinary relationships: utilities and their users. In: J. Warde GA (ed) Ordinary consumption. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shove E (2003) Users, technologies and expectations of comfort, cleanliness and convenience’. Innovation 16(2):193–206Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Snow S, Buys L, Roe P, Brereton M (2013) Curiosity to cupboard: self reported disengagement with energy use feedback over time. In: Proceedings of the OzCHI 2013. ACM Press, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Strengers Y (2011) Beyond demand management: co-managing energy and water practices with Australian households. Policy Stud 32(1):35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strengers Y (2013) Smart technologies in everyday life: smart utopia? Palgrave McMillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Suchman L (2002) Located accountabilities in technology production. Scand J Inf Syst 14(2):91–105Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ylirisku S, Buur J (2007) Designing with video. Focusing the user-centred design process. Springer Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations