Skip to main content

Design with Intent and the Field of Design for Sustainable Behaviour

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Living Labs

Abstract

Design for sustainable behaviour necessarily involves a multidisciplinary perspective, drawing on insights around human action from multiple fields, and making them relevant to designers. This chapter explores some considerations which build on these multidisciplinary concepts, around questioning assumptions and understanding people’s lives better, and introduces the Design with Intent toolkit, a design pattern collection which aims to facilitate reflective exploration of problem-solution spaces in ‘behaviour change’ contexts, with a brief exploratory example of its application to provoke discussion with householders as part of SusLabNWE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society: studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. (1966). Problem-solving and problem-worrying. talk delivered at architectural association. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernays, E. L. (1928). Propaganda. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, J., & Rogers, Y. (2010). The pulse of tidy street: Measuring and publicly displaying domestic electricity consumption. In Workshop on Energy Awareness and Conservation through Pervasive Applications, Pervasive 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. London: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broady, M. (1966). Social theory in architectural design. In R. Gutman (Ed.), People and buildings. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynjarsdóttir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E. P. S., DiSalvo, C., & Sengers, P. (2012). Sustainably unpersuaded: How persuasion narrows our vision of sustainability. In Proceedings of CHI 2012, Austin, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daae, J. Z., & Boks, C. (2014). Dimensions of behaviour change. Journal of Design Research, 12(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilnot, C. (2015). History, design, futures: Contending with what we have made. In: T. Fry, C. Dilnot, & S.C. Stewart (Eds.), Design and the question of history. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubberly, H., & Pangaro, P. (2007). Cybernetics and service-craft: Language for behavior-focused design. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1301–1317.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2008). Sustainability by design. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eikhaug, O., & Gheerawo, R. (Eds.). (2010). Innovating with people: The business of inclusive design. Oslo: Norwegian Design Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fantini van Ditmar, D., & Lockton, D. (2016). Taking the code for a walk. Interactions, 23(1), 68–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. In Persuasive 2009: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, T. (2015). Whither design/whether history. In: T. Fry, C. Dilnot, & S.C. Stewart (Eds), Design and the question of history. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacomin, J., & Bertola, D. (2012). Human emotional response to energy visualisations. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(6), 542–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H. (2007). A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, T., Kossoff, G., Tonkinwise, C., & Scupelli, P. (2015). Transition design 2015: A new area of design research, practice and study that proposes design-led societal transition toward more sustainable futures. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelsma, J., & Knot, M. (2002). Designing environmentally efficient services; a ‘script’ approach. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 2(3), 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanis, H. (1998). Usage centred research for everyday product design. Applied Ergonomics, 29(1), 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyson, D. V., Al Mahmud, A., & Herrera, R. N. (2013). Living lab and research on sustainability: Practical approaches on sustainable interaction design. In Augusto J.C. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of AmI 2013 (Vol. 8309, pp. 229–234). Springer LNCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijer, L., de Jong, A., & van Eijk, D. (2013). Practices as a unit of design: An exploration of theoretical guidelines in a study on bathing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(4), article 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langdon, P., & Thimbleby, H. (2010). Editorial: Inclusion and interaction: Designing interaction for inclusive populations. Interacting with Computers, 22(6), 439–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laschke, M., Hassenzahl, M., & Diefenbach, S. (2011). Things with attitude: Transformational products. In Proceedings of Create 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. R. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liedtke, C., Ameli, N., Buhl, J., Oettershagen, P., Pears, T., & Abbis, P. (2013). Wuppertal institute designguide. Wuppertal Spezial, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilley, D. (2009). Design for sustainable behaviour: Strategies and perceptions. Design Studies, 30(6), 704–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockton, D. (2012). POSIWID and determinism in design for behaviour change. Working paper, Social Science Research Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockton, D. (2017). Design with intent: Insights, methods and patterns for designing with people, behaviour and understanding. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2008). Making the user more efficient: Design for sustainable behaviour. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(1), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2010). The design with intent method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 382–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2012). Models of the user: Designers’ perspectives on influencing sustainable behaviour. Journal of Design Research, 10(1/2), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2013a). Exploring design patterns for sustainable behaviour. The Design Journal, 16(4), 431–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockton, D., Bowden, F., Greene, C., Brass, C., & Gheerawo, R. (2013b). People and energy: A design-led approach to understanding everyday energy use behaviour. In Proceedings of EPIC 2013: Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher, L., Poon, J., & Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalizing design exploration as co-evolution: A combined gene approach. In J. Gero & F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Advances in formal design methods for CAD. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedderer, K., Cain, R., Clune, S., Lockton, D., Ludden, G., Mackrill, J., Morris, A., Evans, M., Gardiner, E., Gutteridge, R., & Hekkert, P. (2014.) Creating sustainable innovation through design for behaviour change: Full report. University of Wolverhampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packard, V. (1957). The hidden persuaders. New York: D. McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, O. (2012). Inspiring sustainable behaviour: 19 ways to ask for change. Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettersen, I. N. (2015). Towards practice-oriented design for sustainability: The compatibility with selected design fields. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 8(3), 206–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. European Journal of Sociology, 5(2), 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Bleek, F., & Tischner, U. (1993). Designing goods with MIPS. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 2, 479–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, E. (1966). Breakthrough advertising. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. C. (1999). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, K., Bakker, C., & Quist, J. (2011). Designing change by living change. Design Studies, 30, 279–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvefors, A., Renström, S., & Strömberg, H. (2014). Design for sustainable behaviour: A toolbox for targeting the use phase. In Ecodesign Tool Conference, Gothenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, N. A., & Baber, C. (2002). Error by design: Methods for predicting device usability. Design Studies, 23(4), 363–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, B. (2005). Shaping things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strengers, Y. (2011). Designing eco-feedback systems for everyday life. In Proceedings of CHI 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömberg, H., Selvefors, A., & Renström, S. (2015). International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 8(3), 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonkinwise, C. (2004). Ethics by design, or the ethos of things. Design Philosophy Papers 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tromp, N., Hekkert, P., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Design for socially responsible behavior: A classification of influence based on intended user experience. Design Issues, 27(3), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J., Clegg, C., Cowell, C., Davies, F., Hughes, C., McCarthy, N., & Westbury, P. (Eds.) (2015). Built for living: Understanding behaviour and the built environment through engineering and design. London: Royal Academy of EngineeringLondon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wever, R. (2012). Editorial: Design research for sustainable behaviour. Journal of Design Research, 10(1/2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wever, R., van Kuijk, J., & Boks, C. (2008). User-centred design for sustainable behaviour. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(1), 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitson, J. (2014). Foucault’s fitbit: Governance and gamification. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiek, A., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M., & Robinson, J. (2014). Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhite, H. (2013). Energy consumption as cultural practice: implications for the theory and policy of sustainable energy use. In S. Strauss, S. Rupp, & T. Love (Eds.), Cultures of energy: Power, practices, technologies. CA: Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Lockton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lockton, D. (2017). Design with Intent and the Field of Design for Sustainable Behaviour. In: Keyson, D., Guerra-Santin, O., Lockton, D. (eds) Living Labs. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33527-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33527-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33526-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33527-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics