The Design Journal

An International Journal for All Aspects of Design

ISSN: 1460-6925 (Print) 1756-3062 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdj20

Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products

to Change Consumer Behaviour

Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley & Tang Tang

To cite this article: Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley & Tang Tang (2011) Design for Sustainable
Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour, The Design Journal, 14:4, 427-445,
DOI: 10.2752/175630611X13091688930453

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2752/175630611X13091688930453

Published online: 28 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2526

Citing articles: 37 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdj20
The Design Journal VOLUME 14, ISSUE 4 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © BERG 2011
PP 427–445 DIRECTLY FROM THE PERMITTED BY PRINTED IN THE UK
PUBLISHERS LICENSE ONLY

Design for
Sustainable
Behaviour: Using
Products to Change
Consumer Behaviour

The Design Journal  DOI: 10.2752/175630611X13091688930453

Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang
Loughborough University, UK

ABSTRACT  Sustainable design takes

into account environmental, economic and
social impacts enacted throughout the
product lifecycle. Design for Sustainable
Behaviour (DfSB) is an emerging
activity under the banner of sustainable
design which aims to reduce products’
environmental and social impact by
moderating how users interact with them.
  This paper presents the results of research
investigating the application of Design for
Sustainable Behaviour in two product case
studies, one examining social impacts of
mobile phones and the other environmental
impacts of household refrigerators. It
analyses selected behaviour models from
427

social-psychological theories and highlights

 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

the barriers to sustainable consumption. A model

is developed to illustrate the factors stimulating
changes in behaviour, and design intervention
strategies are highlighted and their application
within Design for Sustainable Behaviour discussed.
The two case studies are used to illustrate how
Design for Sustainable Behaviour could be applied
to enable users to adopt more sustainable patterns
of use. Conclusions are drawn as to the potential
for designers to change use behaviour; the
appropriateness and acceptability of the strategies
presented; and the ethical considerations related to
their selection.

KEYWORDS: Design for Sustainable Behaviour, sustainable design

Introduction

+ Sustainable design takes into account environmental,

economic and social impacts enacted throughout the
product lifecycle (Elkington, 1997). The broad and interre-
lated agenda of sustainable design is often dominated by environ-
mental and economic concerns which are generally well defined and
widely understood. The social sphere of sustainable design is less
so (Colantonio, 2007) and as such warrants further explanation. In
its broadest terms, social sustainability can encompass personal
responsibility, quality of life, health, well-being and happiness, demo-
cratic participation and cooperative behaviour (Baines and Morgan,
2004; Colantonio, 2007; Polese and Stren, 2000; Sinner et al.,
2004).
Designers shape the development of products and services which
directly impact upon society and the environment. The application of
sustainable design can greatly reduce the environmental and social
impacts of these products and services. However, many impacts
such as energy consumption during the use of electronic products
are mainly determined by the consumer’s behaviour. Government
and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) measures through a
range of information campaigns have been ineffective in creating the
long-term behavioural shift needed to reduce the impact of product
use (Peattie and Shaw, 2007). Users have to make the link between
The Design Journal

the information, their own behaviour and the environmental and

social impact, and this makes it difficult to motivate a change in the
majority of users’ behaviour.
By considering the use phase of products, designers have great
potential to decrease environmental and social impacts; however,
this stage of the life cycle is often not considered in detail. Designers
are in a position to plan and shape the way in which consumption
428

occurs as well as to bridge the considerable intention–­behaviour

 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

gap between values and everyday user actions (Sustainable

Consumption Roundtable, 2006). To date, few attempts have been
made to change consumption behaviour through product-led inter-
ventions to limit environmental and social impacts.
Agendas are beginning to shift from issues of production to those
of consumption in design (Richardson et al., 2005), however, sustain-
able consumption tends to focus largely on purchasing behaviours
and not on use. Consumption is not only purchasing, but developing
routines and rituals of use and modifying the product concretely or
symbolically. According to Koskijoki (1997), consumption involves
the selection, purchase, use, maintenance, repair, disposal and recy-
cling of any product or service, as opposed to their design, produc-
tion and marketing. Multi-sociological and psychological motivators
behind consumption behaviour impel people to consume insatiable
quantities of products and services (Jackson, 2005). Environmental
and social benefits of the wider global community compared with the
desires of the individual are not strong enough to motivate a different
lifestyle. On the other hand, the manner of consumer interaction with
the product has large impacts (Environmental Change Unit, 1997;
Lilley, 2009; Sherwin and Bhamra, 1998). Products, as the interface
between consumers and consumption activities, can give immediate
and direct responses to users’ operations: how they are perceived,
learned and used. Designing a product means designing a user
experience with the product, which also determines the compound
impacts of this experience. A better understanding of what users
do with, and how they interact with products, as well as the hidden
factors behind the daily decision-making process should be gained
in order to develop a valid critique of environmentally and socially
significant consumption.
This paper begins by analysing some selected behaviour models
in social-psychological theories. Then by highlighting strategies to
facilitate Design for Sustainable Behaviour, the breakthrough points
that potentially enable design to influence behaviour and habits are
identified. Two case studies are used to illustrate how Design for
Sustainable Behaviour could be applied to enable users to adopt
more sustainable patterns of use. The first examines the environ-
mental impacts of household refrigerators, illustrating the importance
of understanding user behaviour in order to influence it (Tang, 2010;
Tang and Bhamra, 2009). The second investigates designers’ per-
ceptions of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the strategies
The Design Journal

introduced and raises ethical considerations related to their selection

(Lilley, 2007, 2009). Finally the paper discusses the potential for
Design for Sustainable Behaviour to be applied within design.

Consumption Behaviour and Habits

Focusing on individual behaviour, a number of existing theories
try to answer the question: what factors contribute to behavioural
429

change? The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 2006) illustrates

 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

attitudes, the subjective norm together with perceived behavioural

control as explanatory factors of human behaviour. Triandis (1977)
proposed an integrated model of interpersonal behaviour which
not only includes social factors and emotions in forming intentions
but also highlights the importance of habits as a mediated factor
of behavioural change. When behaviour is ‘highly automated’, per-
formed with a minimum of deliberation or little cognitive effort and
only limited awareness (Jackson, 2005), it becomes habitual. Habits,
as defined by Verplanken and Aarts (1999, as cited by Verplanken
and Wood, 2006) ‘are learned sequences of acts that have become
automatic responses to specific cues, and are functional in obtain-
ing certain goals or end-states’. To encourage consumers to break
old habits, two factors are suggested: repetition and reinforcement
(Jager, 2003, as cited by Jackson, 2005). Anderson (1982) identifies
three stages in the formation of a new habit: the declarative stage,
the knowledge compilation stage and final procedural stage. To
avoid behavioural changes being short-lived, the cognitive script for
a habit to develop should be easy to follow, repeatable and regularly
reinforced (Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, 2006).

Habits
It has been recognized that although consumers express strong con-
cern about the environmental and social impacts of their activities,
their actions do not reflect their concerns (Darby, 2000; Holdsworth,
2003). In reality, the practices ingrained in our life patterns are carried
out without conscious deliberation (Jackson, 2005). As the studies
of Verplanken and Wood (2006) showed, ‘approximately 45% of re-
spondents’ everyday actions were habits in the sense that they were
performed almost daily and usually in the same location’. Much of
the literature (Jackson, 2005) argues that inconspicuous consump-
tion has a significant environmental impact in terms of energy and
resource consumption. It is argued that what users do with, and how
they use products is important (Jackson, 2005). Habitual and routine
behaviour contributes to the awareness–intention–behaviour gap
between environmental and social values and everyday interaction
with products.

Design for Sustainable Behaviour (DfSB) Strategies

‘Design for Sustainable Behaviour’ is a new field of enquiry exploring
how design can influence user behaviour to reduce negative social
The Design Journal

or environmental use impacts. The authors’ previous investigations

identified seven strategies which can be applied within design. This
work examined literature which provided an understanding of the
psychological and behavioural factors of behavioural change, and
identified ways in which they could be applied within a design con-
text (Tang, 2010; Tang and Bhamra, 2008). Table 1 illustrates these
with examples of where they have been applied.
430
 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

Table 1  Design intervention strategies and examples.

Eco-Information – design oriented education

Aim: to make consumables visible, understandable and accessible to inspire consumers to reflect upon their
use of resources.
How it works: Examples:
1. Product expresses the presence and Power Aware Cord – Seeing Personal Energy
consumption of resources e.g. water, energy etc. Consumption (Interactive Institute, 2004).
2. Product encourages the user to interact with Tyranny of the Plug Kitchen Machines – Being involved
resource use. in powering the product (Van Hoff, 2003).
Eco-Choice – design oriented empowerment
Aim: to encourage consumers to think about their use behaviour and to take responsibility of theirs actions
through providing consumers with options.
How it works: Example:
Users have a choice and the product enables Domestic Energy Display – household system level
sustainable use to take place. concept (Design Council, 2005).
Eco-feedback – design oriented links to environmentally or socially responsible action
Aim: to inform users clearly about what they are doing and to facilitate consumers to make environmentally
and socially responsible decisions through offering real-time feedback.
How it works: Example:
The product provides tangible aural, visual, or tactile Wattson – wireless energy monitor which raises
signs as reminders to inform users of resource use. awareness of energy used in the home (DIY Kyoto,
2005).
Eco-spur – design oriented rewarding incentive and penalty
Aim: to inspire users to explore more sustainable usage through providing rewordings to ‘prompt’ good
behaviour or penalties to ‘punish’ unsustainable usage.
How it works: Example:
The product shows the user the consequences of Flower Lamp – Rewarding Energy Behaviours
their actions through ‘rewarding incentives’ and (Interactive Institute, 2004).
‘penalties’.
Eco-steer – design oriented affordances and constraints
Aim: to facilitate users to adopt more environmentally or socially desirable use habits through the
prescriptions and/or constraints of use embedded in the product design.
How it works: Example:
The product contains affordances and constraints Unilever Powder Tablet – Counteracting excessive
which encourage users to adopt more sustainable amounts of washing powder consumption by
use habits or reform existing unsustainable habits. prescribing correct dose (Unilever, 2000).
Eco-technical intervention – design oriented technical intervention
Aim: to restrain existing use habits and to persuade or control user behaviour automatically by design
combined with advanced technology.
How it works: Example:
The Design Journal

The product utilises advanced technology to Energy Curtain – Interacting with Daily Light Cycles
persuade or control user behaviour automatically. (Interactive Institute, 2004).
Clever design
Aim: to automatically act environmentally or socially without raising awareness or changing user behaviour
purely through innovative product design.
How it works: Example:
The design solution decreases environmental impacts Integrated toilet and washbasin – decreases water use
without changing the user’s behaviour. by re-using water for hand-washing to flush toilet.
431
 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

These design intervention strategies, while providing interesting

considerations for designers, have not yet been widely applied and
there is a lack of real data on the effectiveness in both theoretical
and practical dimensions. This stems from the fact that this is a
new research field and approach to design which is not yet widely
integrated into mainstream design education or training (Lilley and
Lofthouse, 2010). It was for this reason that empirical research was
conducted in order to investigate the effectiveness of the strategies.

Linking the Behaviour/Habit Model and Design

Intervention Strategies
As highlighted above, intention, habits and controls are considered
important to immediate and mediate antecedents of behavioural
change. Due to the complexity of motivations for shifting behaviour,
different levels of interventions need to be designed accordingly
to ensure behavioural and habitual change. From reviewing the
literature highlighted in the preceding sections, the understanding of
the behaviour disintegration and formation and relationship between
antecedents of change in behaviour/habit and different levels of de-
sign intervention was established (also known as Design Behaviour
Intervention Model (DBIM) in Tang, 2010) and is presented in Figure 1.
As illustrated above, the design interventions are classified by the
degree of power for decision-making between the user and product.
It is important to develop a balanced and ethical approach: weigh-
ing up the determinants of behavioural and habitual change, and
designing sustainable products to bridge this gap. The seven design
approaches fall into three levels of interventions starting from where
the power in decision-making lies completely with the user, and
therefore the intervention aims to provide a conversation with which
to guide the change through to the other extreme where the power in
decision-making is just with the product (or system) and it is trying to
force the change. Between these two extremes is the middle ground
where decision-making is shared between the user and the product

Figure 1
Linking antecedents of
behavioural and habitual
change with varying levels
of design intervention
strategies.
The Design Journal
432
 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

providing a conversation, but also with an element of force to ensure

the change happens.

Case Study 1: Household Refrigerator and Freezer

The first case study explores the feasibility for Design for Sustainable
Behaviour application to limit the environmental impact of use be-
haviour (Tang, 2010; Tang and Bhamra, 2008). There are very few
pieces of equipment in the home that use energy twenty-four hours
a day, 365 days a year. Refrigerators and freezers are two such prod-
ucts and account for around one-fifth of domestic energy consump-
tion (Energy Saving Trust, 2006). User-centred research techniques
were used to capture opportunities for design to solve environmental
problems of use behaviour and activities around the refrigerator and
freezer relevant to energy and food consumption. Product-in-Use
observations were carried out with the aid of audio-visual equipment.
A series of user studies were developed to identify the most
suitable design intervention strategies to be applied in the design of
refrigerators and freezers. The studies aimed to collect information
about ‘actual’ and ‘assumed’ needs, diversity in use context, unsus-
tainable and sustainable use patterns and the hidden factors behind
the usage. A questionnaire and semi-structured interview were used
to investigate what consumers thought about their refrigerator and
freezer and the environmental impacts of their use. The use activities
around the refrigerator and freezer were arranged into three related
groups including condition and environment of product in use, food-
shopping unpacking, and food preparation. Correspondingly, three
Product-in-Use observations were conducted.

Observation Studies
In the first study, subjects were asked to fill out a kitchen user profile
questionnaire and told that the study aimed to understand the rela-
tionship between the user and his/her kitchen. This cover story was
used to avoid unnatural desirable response tendencies (Verplanken
and Faes, 1999). Two observations were then carried out to record
food-shopping unpacking and food preparation. Finally, a semi-
structured interview and post-intervention questionnaire provided a
chance for participants to explain their behaviour in the observation
sections. Three refrigerator and freezer users were involved in the
first study and were aged between 21 and 40, and had owned their
refrigerator or freezer for between six months and six years.
The Design Journal

The second study added twenty-four-hour recording to the obser-

vation section and a range of questions about the factors influencing
decision-making and behavioural change to the post-intervention
questionnaire. Three families took part in the second study which
recorded their refrigerator and freezer use in a ‘normal’ week day
over twenty-four hours. The adult participants were in the age group
of 35–50 and had owned their refrigerator or freezer for between one
433

year and nine years.

 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

The two studies were designed to test the effectiveness of the

approaches which aimed to gain an insight into their actual use
behaviours and habits, their problems and difficulties in operating
the product, their ‘actual’ needs and those assumed by the designer
of the existing refrigerator; as well as to look for opportunities for
product design solutions to bridge the gap between the intended
use of the refrigerator and actual use patterns in order to reduce the
environmental consequences.

Changing User Behaviour through Design

The data collected from the observation studies provided interesting
evidence to support the theory that an understanding of real use
behaviour is an essential starting point for improving product Design
for Sustainable Behaviour to reduce environment impacts.
In the observation of unpacking grocery shopping, it was seen
that most of the time spent putting food into the refrigerator and
freezer was used for making room for new items and transferring
items between shelves. In the twenty-four-hour recording, it took
more time to take desired items out of the fridge due to looking
for the desired item, for instance, at the back or bottom. However,
previous experience and knowledge saved time when returning to
the refrigerator. Understanding what the operational principles of the
consumer are could help to reduce door opening times. The results
of observations showed that consumers located items according
to a range of principles (some of which were affordances from the
design of the product) including:

• Expired date of food: all subjects put newly purchased items at

the back of the refrigerator and old or used food in an obvious
place in the refrigerator such as in the front of shelf at eye-height
level or in the top door bin;
• Food packaging: sealed and packed foods and drinks such as
strawberries, ready meals, beers, are stuffed on the shelves and
often overlap one another; meat often went to the bottom glass
shelf because the packaging may be broken and ‘it will not drip
on everything’;
• Weight of the items: ‘heavy’ things, such as potatoes and carrots
often were kept in the bottom of the drawer underneath the soft
vegetables and fruit such as tomatoes and grapes;
• Perceived temperature distribution in the refrigerator: consumers
The Design Journal

used the different temperatures inside the refrigerator to decide

where to locate raw meat, cooked meat and cheese, this
was usually at the back of the refrigerator, however this lower
temperature often froze vegetables;
• Door bins: the bottom door bin always kept wine and milk and
mid-door bin often small jars and bottles, and juice; items in the
top door bin varied and included cut onion, garlic, cheese.
434
 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

These points in routine refrigerator and freezer use patterns can be

used to develop more acceptable product-led solutions to improving
the loading efficiency through applying the seven design intervention
strategies. A more adaptable interior, for example, would enable
consumers to create the optimum arrangement of their food and
drinks in the refrigerator and freezer. Additionally, according to the
type and shape of the food or food packaging, more behaviour con-
straints and affordances (Tang and Bhamra, 2008) can be designed
to lock the location of the food so that the user always knows where
to find it. What is more, designing to display the contents better
would reduce the opening time for seeking items inside the refrigera-
tor, or even seeing the foods without opening the door.
Providing consumers with options through product and system or
service design could encourage them to think about their use behav-
iour and take responsibility for their actions. This may be achieved by
designing a flexible modular system with separate temperature set-
tings, and supplying a modular service with customers to meet their
needs during their different life stages. This could avoid unnecessary
replacement and usage of a second cold appliance.
The findings also pointed to some potential opportunities for
improving product design from an environmental perspective. To
reduce door opening times, designers could create internal struc-
tures for organizing food preparation and special milk and butter/
margarine storage solutions for making quick meals and drinks, as
in the case of the through-the-door ice dispenser. What is more, in
the user study, food hidden at the back of the shelf was one of the
contributors to needless food purchase and food wastage. Using
shallow drawers or software to keep a food-shopping record can
provide consumers with a clear view of the food inside the refrigera-
tor and freezer, decreasing food waste and the amount of time spent
with the door open.

Guiding and Maintaining Changes in Intention and Habits

By analysing the interviews, the barriers that may prevent energy-
conscious practices taking place are summarized here:

• Invisible energy: consumers were not aware of the amount of

individual electronic equipment use;
• Unawareness of the link: in ordinary people’s opinions, the way of
using the refrigerator had little effect on overall energy use in the
The Design Journal

home;
• Lack of information: consumers felt that refrigerators and freezers
are an essential part of modern life and it was more important to
set lower temperatures to ensure the quality and taste of the food
and drinks than to be concerned with the energy use;
• Lack of concern: Product-in-Use observation showed that all
young family members left the door open while transferring items;
435
 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

• Lock in lifestyle: participants assume that the product is efficient

enough by itself and there is no need for a conscious behaviour
to improve the overall energy performance.

To address these, design-led interventions would need to build on

the energy conversation to guide a behavioural change. Designing
an effective way of communicating ensures consumers know how
to use the product efficiently through a range of design interventions
such as providing information, choice, feedback or behaviour spur
(Table 1 illustrates these further) (Tang and Bhamra, 2008).
Modern kitchens were identified by participants to be the main
restriction to sustainable behaviour with regard to the use of refrig-
erators and freezers. Some not only required a second, often empty,
counter refrigerator and freezer but also half of the cold appliances
in the study were built-in refrigerators and freezers and one-third
were located next to the oven. What is more, limited storage space
in the kitchen is an additional reason for refrigerating some items that
do not need to be refrigerated. Therefore, designing a food storage
system in the kitchen could provide design-led solutions to facilitate
sustainable energy- and food-consumption behaviour.

Reflections
To successfully integrate behavioural concerns into design practice,
and to make this process repeatable, appropriate information and
tools must be developed and incorporated into the design process.
The findings of this design study have provided an insight into the
type of information required by designers in order to consider these
issues and appropriate formats for conveying this information. The
range of design intervention strategies (illustrated in the previous
section) will be applied in the next stage of the work which will
involve developing concepts which map onto the requirements and
needs of the users outlined above with the aim of reducing energy
consumption during use.

Case Study 2: Mobile Phones

The second case study investigates the potential for Design for
Sustainable Behaviour to be applied to reduce the social impact of
a product (Lilley, 2007, 2009). Mobile phones are, by design, free of
spatial restrictions, allowing the user unlimited interaction in a range
of situations and spaces. The rapid assimilation of mobile phones
The Design Journal

into everyday life has modified cultural norms and practices, alter-
ing society’s definition of socially acceptable behaviour within the
public domain (Lasen, 2004). Despite an abundance of etiquette
guides and voluntary codes of conduct, society has yet to develop
any effective methods by which to deal with emergent impacts
incurred from the presence of mobile phones. For the most part, the
obligation is placed on the user to use his/her phone appropriately.
436

To investigate the application of Design for Sustainable Behaviour

 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

Figure 2
Case study methodology.

s­ trategies, a series of qualitative research studies were carried out

within the framework of an overarching case study methodology
(Figure 2).
As seen in Figure 2, to draw out the perceived social impacts
of mobile phone use in public, two pilot user research studies and
a main user study were carried out in conjunction with a literature
review. Two design explorations followed.

User-centred Research Studies

A two-pronged approach to capturing behaviour in both action and
intent – that is, through direct and covert investigation – can help to
overcome the action-awareness gap often considered as a limitation
of behavioural studies (Lilley et al., 2006). The aim of this study was
to use user diaries to capture what people actually do as opposed to
what they say they do. However, this activity did not garner the qual-
ity of data anticipated. In terms of analysis, it was difficult to avoid
assuming participants’ logic for taking a certain course of action; this
left many unanswered questions regarding some of the behaviours
described. Additionally, there was some post-rationalization of ac-
counts of behaviour in some cases due to the gap between the user
taking the action and recording the action taken. The failings of the
diary method pointed to the renewed relevance of ethnographic-
based observational fieldwork in capturing actual user behaviour.
Direct observation ‘in the field’ would, undoubtedly, have resulted in
greater insight. Yet due to cost, time, the multiple contexts in which
the mobile phone is used and ethical implications of covert observa-
tion, this was not possible.
Despite these limitations, the combined findings of both the pilot
The Design Journal

and main user research studies, of questionnaires and interviews,

illustrated that the use of mobile phones in public can contribute to
positive and negative societal impacts. Some of the key findings are
explained below.

Changing Expectations of ‘Availability’

Mobile phones have enabled instant contact in a range of contexts
437

and locations. This has changed cultural expectations of availability.

 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

The physical affordance to switch off or screen calls is present, yet

users feel compelled, sometimes duty-bound, to answer calls. There
is an unspoken assumption users should be available at all times
and, as a result, ‘working hours’ are increasingly shifting outside the
traditional ‘nine to five’ boundary. This has contributed to a marked
reduction in privacy and quiet time due to a self-imposed obligation
to respond to calls regardless of personal circumstance, sentiment
and context.

Changing Communication Practices

Mobile phones have effected a marked change in communication
practices; virtual rather than physical contact has become the norm
and less pre-planning, more spontaneous and informal modes of
communication such as ‘texting’ have emerged to the detriment of
slower forms of communication such as letter writing. The increase
in text messaging was considered by some respondents to be
directly responsible for the continued erosion of spelling, grammar
and punctuation and the abbreviation of words. Text language is
often not readily understood by parents or those of an older genera-
tion who may feel excluded and outdated as a result. Furthermore,
a marked increase in mobile phone use in public has, according
to some participants, sparked a noticeable decline in interaction
between strangers. Whereas in the past people may have engaged
in conversations with others at the bus stop, on the train or in a wait-
ing room, nowadays people are more than likely to be found texting,
playing games or listening to music. This, they felt, has reduced
overall societal cohesion and increased an individualistic rather than
community-led mindset.

Prioritization of Individual Freedom over Social Well-being

Whereas the architecture of the phone box once acted as a physical
signifier to others that the caller had moved out of public territory into
private space, the proliferation of mobile phones has rendered these
physical and architectural signifiers largely obsolete. As a result,
there is a perception that conversations in public space are pri-
vate, whereas often the caller is audible. The prioritization of ‘virtual’
over ‘real’ conversations was raised by respondents in terms of the
physical and psychological effect on both users and their ‘audience’.
Mobile phone users often fail to recognize the effects of their inter-
action on others. This, when coupled with their ability to converse
The Design Journal

whenever and wherever, contributes to a lack of regard for the quality

of life of others and well-being in communal spaces.
It is clear that inappropriate, anti-social or inconsiderate mobile
phone use can affect the perceived quality of life, health, well-being
and happiness of others in the vicinity of use (Lilley, 2007). Reducing
societal impacts, therefore, is a worthy challenge for the sustainable
designer, who, by definition, seeks to addresses social, as well as
438

economic and environmental concerns (Elkington, 1997). There

 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

are, of course, limitations to the data; the perceptions gathered

are not representative of an entire nation and personal and societal
norms are both wide-ranging and constantly shifting, therefore what
is inappropriate behaviour to one may be acceptable to another.
Notwithstanding the methodological limitations noted, the insights
gathered served as inspiration to inform the design explorations
which followed.

Pilot Design study: MA/MSc Industrial Design Project

A design study was devised for Industrial Design Masters students
at Loughborough University whereby the students were set the chal-
lenge of identifying and addressing a social issue resulting from the
use of mobile phones in public spaces using a Design for Sustainable
Behaviour strategy. The objectives of this study were to observe the
design students’ response to social issues identified; to record their
research and design processes; and to explore their perceptions of
the strategies introduced.
The first task was to conduct user-centred research to identify
social issues resulting from the use of mobile phones in public; the
second, to select one design intervention strategy and apply it within
the design process.
Analysis of the students’ logbooks and presentations revealed
that most combined primary research (product analysis, interviews
with users and observational studies) with secondary literature re-
views. The secondary literature focused predominantly on the social
impacts of mobile-phone use; few students actively sought out ad-
ditional product design case studies as inspiration for their own con-
cepts. Points of analysis included body language, type of function
carried out (for example texting, listening to voicemail), the location
of the user in relation to others, the characteristics of the user (such
as proficiency, age and so forth) and other people’s response to
behaviour displayed. Some students captured user behaviour using
sequential photographs which were particularly useful in illustrating
the series of actions taken by the subjects observed.
Analysis of all ideas generated in sketch form and those detailed
as final solutions revealed a range of approaches to solving the vari-
ous social issues identified (Lilley et al., 2006). The majority did not
use one strategy in isolation but combined two or more strategies,
commonly Eco-feedback and Eco-technical approaches to increase
the effectiveness and resilience of the device.
The Design Journal

Designers’ Perceptions of Design for Sustainable

Behaviour Strategies
When considering the strategies, most of the design students found
Eco-feedback easy to understand and apply but questioned its
effectiveness in changing ingrained user behaviours due to the po-
tential for the user to ignore the feedback provided. Behaviour steer
439

was generally understood, but some students found it difficult to

 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

distinguish from Eco-technology. Eco-feedback would, some felt,

not be as effective in changing ingrained antisocial behaviours.
Eco-technology products were seen as having greater potential for
effecting change. However, some students felt that if the product
continuously regulated behaviour it would not encourage people
to learn from their ‘mistakes’ and could result in the user feeling
controlled or restricted by the product. It was felt that the consumers
should be given the choice to behave in the ‘right’ way: only if they
failed to do so should the product take action to prevent their be-
haviour. Concerns were also raised regarding the level of control or
influence which designers should ethically integrate into the product
design. The students concluded that preventing choices straight
away would annoy the customer and possibly cause a reduction in
sales.
Interviews with design professionals revealed an interesting per-
ception of the trade-off between effectiveness and acceptability.
There was greater support for interventions which steer user behav-
iour toward more socially-conscious actions without diminishing the
user’s ability to choose how to interact, such as Eco-feedback. The
level of acceptance of Eco-feedback, however, was not matched by
its perceived effectiveness in prompting and sustaining changes in
user behaviour. The majority of the design professionals interviewed
held different views on what an acceptable level of intervention is
and what types of intervention they deemed too intrusive. Most felt
‘uncomfortable’ with the level of control exerted by devices employ-
ing Eco-technology, specifically in relation to potential infringement
of choice and privacy. Their concerns, which were particularly acute
regarding mobile devices, centred on the security, distribution and
storage of data. Concerns were also raised regarding individual lib-
erty and the distribution of power between the user and the device.
Elevating the product’s level of influence to exceed that of the user
and enabling autonomous actions to curb or limit user actions would
almost, many felt, be unacceptable to consumers unless the target
behaviours were widely deemed as socially unacceptable, behav-
iours which diminish or challenge personal or public safety or were
already legislated against. In these circumstances, Eco-technical
interventions would, arguably, be more readily accepted by users as
addressing legitimate concerns, and therefore meet less resistance.
What was clear was that further investigation is needed to determine
where automation of actions is acceptable and where choice is
The Design Journal

preferred. As the seven intervention types fit into three distinct levels
(see Figure 1) only three were applied in this case study as a repre-
sentative subset of intervention types.

Conclusions
The findings of these studies have indicated that designers need
to be made aware of potential problems caused by user behaviour.
440

Understanding consumer behaviour can be the preliminary step for

 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

seeking solutions to minimizing environmental and social impacts

of consumption through improving product design. Through use
behaviour observation, both studies not only uncovered the way in
which the product is used and its unnecessary energy and food con-
sumption or social impact, but also the gap between environmental
or social awareness and real action, and the reasons for such a gap.
First, the results show there is a lack of consumer awareness of the
link between their personal behaviour and the direct impact on the
environment or society. In addition, the routine practice and habitual
activities ingrained in our use patterns of products are performed
automatically with little deliberation. What is more, the interaction of
the consumer with the products exposes cultural and social values
that shape consumption behaviour. This reaffirms that the combina-
tion of techniques which solicit opinions, perceptions and beliefs
with those that record actual behaviour in the context in which it
occurs is advisable.
A number of strategies have been proposed in this paper which
when tested more extensively may prove effective in prompting
more sustainable behaviour. The method and criteria for selecting
an appropriate strategy, however, is yet to be defined and is fraught
with ethical dilemma. There is not, as yet, a clear consensus of
what is an acceptable level of intervention, nor how to rate the
severity of consequences enacted by different behaviours which, as
illustrated in this paper, differ from one product to another. Coercive
approaches, such as Eco Steer or Eco Technical interventions may
prove more successful in altering behaviour, but consumer accep-
tance of devices employing these strategies may be low and there-
fore manufacturers’ willingness to adopt these approaches limited.
Additionally, classifying what is, and what is not, socially acceptable
behaviour may prove challenging as social norms are constantly
evolving. To holistically critique design for sustainable behaviour
from an ethical perspective, designers need to envision potential
use contexts and the ethical scenarios they produce (Albrechtslund,
2007). However, exploration of the ethical dimensions of influencing
behaviour through industrial/product design is limited (Pettersen and
Boks, 2008); therefore few tools for Industrial Designers exist to fa-
cilitate ethical analysis. Recent research (Lilley and Lofthouse, 2010)
has sought to address this gap by drawing on research exploring
technology and ethics in other disciplinary fields (Berdichevsky and
Neuenschwander, 1999; Brey, 2006; DeVries, 2006; Verbeek, 2006)
The Design Journal

to inform the development of guidance and tools to enable designers

to evaluate the social, environmental and ethical impacts of design
for sustainable behaviour interventions.
Overall this paper has shown that design intervention strategies
are potentially useful and inspirational tools enabling designers to
begin to address issues of use behaviour. Design for Sustainable
Behaviour is, however, still a relatively underdeveloped research
441

area and further work needs to be carried out with a wide range of
 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

different product types. ‘Behaviour-changing’ devices need to be

prototyped and user-tested to evaluate their effectiveness and the
ethical considerations related to the selection and use of Design for
Sustainable Behaviour strategies explored in greater depth.

References
Ajzen, I. (2006). Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) [Online]. Available
at: http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html [accessed
June 2007].
Albrechtslund, A. (2007). ‘Ethics and technology design’. Ethics and
Information Technology, 9, 63–72.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). ‘Acquisition of cognitive skill’. Psychological
Review, 89, 369–403.
Baines, J. and Morgan, B. (2004). ‘Sustainability appraisal: A social
perspective’. In Datal-Clayton, B. and Sadler, B. (eds). Sustain­
ability Appraisal: A Review of International Experience and
Practice. First Draft of Work in Progress, London: International
Institute for Environment and Development.
Berdichevsky, D. and Neuenschwander, E. (1999). ‘Towards an
ethics of persuasive technology’. Communications of the ACM,
42(5), 51–58.
Brey, P. (2006). ‘Ethical aspects of behavior-steering technology’.
In Verbeek, P.-P. and Slob, A. (eds). User Behavior and Tech­
nology Development: Shaping Sustainable Relations Between
Consumers and Technologies. The Netherlands: Springer,
357–364.
Colantonio, A. (2007). Social Sustainability: An Exploratory Analysis
of its Definition, Assessment Methods, Metrics and Tools. EIBURS
Working Paper Series, 2007/01. Oxford, UK: Oxford Institute for
Sustainable Development, Oxford Brookes University.
Darby, S. (2000). ‘Making it obvious: Designing feedback into energy
consumption’. 2nd International Conference on Energy Efficiency
in Household Appliances and Lighting. Italian Association of
Energy Economists/ EC-SAVE programme. Naples, Italy, 26–28
September 2000.
DeVries, M. J. (2006). ‘Ethics and the complexity of technology:
A design approach’. Philosophia Reformata, the international
scientific journal of the Association for Reformational Philosophy,
71(2), 118–131.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of
The Design Journal

21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone.

Energy Saving Trust (2006). The Rise of the Machines: A Review of
Energy Using Products in the Home from the 1970s to Today
[Online]. Available at: www.est.org.uk/uploads/documents/
aboutest/Riseofthemachines.pdf [accessed December 2007].
Environmental Change Unit (1997). 2MtC – DECADE: Domestic
Equipment and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Oxford, UK: Oxford
442

University.
 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

Holdsworth, M. (2003). Green Choice: What Choice? London:

National Consumer Council.
Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review
of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change
[A Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network
as part of the ESRC Sustainable Technologies Programme].
Guildford: Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey.
Koskijoki, M. (1997). ‘My favourite things’. In Van Hinte, E. Eternally
Yours: Visions on Product Endurance. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers,
132–143.
Lasen, A. (2004). ‘Affective technologies: Emotion and mobile
phones’. Receiver Magazine, 11, Vodaphone.
Lilley, D. (2007). Designing for Behavioural Change: Reducing the
Social Impacts of Product Use through Design. PhD Thesis,
Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and Technology,
Loughborough University.
Lilley. D. (2009). ‘Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and
perceptions’. Design Studies, 30(6), 704–720.
Lilley, D., Bhamra, T. A. and Lofthouse, V. A. (2006). ‘Towards
sustainable use: An exploration of designing for behavioural
change’. DeSForm 2006: European Workshop on Design and
Semantics of Form and Movement. Eindhover, The Netherlands,
October 2006.
Lilley, D. and Lofthouse, V. A. (2010). ‘Teaching Ethics for Design for
Sustainable Behaviour: A Pilot Study’. Design and Technology
Education: an International Journal, 15(2), June 2010, 55–68.
Peattie, K. and Shaw, B. (2007). Consumption: Reducing, Reusing
and Recycling [ESRC Seminar Series] [Online]. Available at:
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/RES-568–28–5001/
outputs/Download/c5352960–d286–492c-8bea-98a68fbc8a90
[accessed September 2008].
Pettersen, I. N. and Boks, C. (2008). ‘The ethics in balancing
control and freedom when engineering solutions for sustainable
behaviour’. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(4),
287–297.
Polese, M. and Stren, R. (2000). The Social Sustainability of Cities:
Diversity and the Management of Change. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Richardson, J., Irwin, T. and Sherwin, C. (2005). Design and Sustain­
ability: A Scoping Report for the Sustainable Design Forum.
The Design Journal

London, UK: Design Council.

Sherwin, C. and Bhamra, T. (1998). ‘Ecodesign innovation: Present
concepts, current practice and future directions for design and
the environment’. Design History Society Conference 1998.
Huddersfield, UK, University of Huddersfield, September 1998.
Sinner, J., Baines, J., Crengle, H., Salmon, G., Fenemor, A. and
Tipa, G. (2004). ‘Sustainable development: A summary of key
443

concepts’. Ecologic Research, Report No. 2.

 Tracy Bhamra, Debra Lilley and Tang Tang

Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (2006). I Will If You Will:

Towards Sustainable Consumption [Online]. Available at: http://
www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/I_Will_If_
You_Will.pdf [accessed January 2008].
Tang, T. (2010). Towards Sustainable Use: Design Behaviour
Impact to Reduce Household Environmental Impact. PhD
Thesis, Loughborough, UK: Loughborough Design School,
Loughborough University.
Tang, T. and Bhamra, T. (2008). ‘Changing energy consumption
behaviour through sustainable product design’. International
Design Conference: Design2008. Dubrovnik, Croatia, 19–22 May,
2008.
Tang, T. and Bhamra, T. A. (2009). ‘Improving Energy Efficiency
of Product Use: An Exploration of Environmental Impacts of
Household Cold Appliance Usage Patterns’, The 5th International
Conference on Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and
Lighting EEDAL’09, Berlin, Germany, 16–18 June, 2009.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal Behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/
Cole.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). ‘Persuasive technology and moral respon­
sibility’. PERSUASIVE 2006 First International Conference on
Persuasive Technology for Human Well-Being. Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, 18–19 May 2006.
Verplanken, B. and Faes, S. (1999). ‘Good intentions, bad habits and
effects of forming implementation intentions on healthy eating’.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 591–604.
Verplanken, B., and Wood, W. (2006). ‘Interventions to break and
create consumer habits’. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
25, 90–103.

Biographies
Tracy Bhamra is Professor of Sustainable Design at Loughborough
University. She completed her PhD in Design for Disassembly and
Recycling in 1995 and has been shaping the area of sustainable
design through her teaching and research ever since. In 2001 she
received funding to establish the Sustainable Design Network; this
is now self-funded and has over 250 members within the UK. Her
research work has been funded a range of government bodies and
industrial companies.
The Design Journal

Dr Debra Lilley is a Lecturer in Design at Loughborough University.

Debra has been actively involved in the field of Sustainable Design
since 2002. She holds a Masters of Research in Manufacturing,
Sustainability and Design and a PhD in Design for Sustainable
Behaviour. She is the author of Design-Behaviour, a web-based
resource supporting academics and practitioners in exploring how
design could facilitate a reduction in the environmental and social
444

impact of goods through moderating the way in which users interact

 Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour

with them. Her core research interests lie in identifying behavioural

and psychological drivers for consumption; design for sustainable
behaviour, ethics, e-learning and sustainable design education.

Dr Tang Tang is a Research Associate at Loughborough University

working on research and consultancy projects particularly relating
to user centred design, sustainable design and education. She has
a BEng and an MSc in Industrial Design. Her PhD investigated how
design could contribute to influencing more responsible behaviour
and creating more desired use experiences to reduce household
environmental impact and proposed a Design Behaviour Intervention
Model (DBIM) for Design for Sustainable Behaviour. Her research
interests include design for sustainable behaviour, cognitive psychol-
ogy, user experience design, methods and tools for cross-cultural
design and user research including contextual, co-creation and
participatory design methodologies.

Addresses for Correspondence

Professor Tracy Bhamra, Loughborough Design School,
Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU
Tel: +44 (0)1509 228316
Email: T.Bhamra@lboro.ac.uk

Dr Debra Lilley, Loughborough Design School, Loughborough

University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU
Tel: +44 (0)1509 222660
Email:d.lilley@lboro.ac.uk

Dr Tang Tang, Loughborough Design School, Loughborough

University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU
Tel: +44 (0)1509 226900
Email: t.tang@lboro.ac.uk

The Design Journal

445