DESIGN-ACTIVITY LACK OF HOLISTIC DESIGN THINKING UNDERSTANDING LACK OF USER The functionality of

many appliances does not allow people to acheive outcomes in preferable ways

Mismatches lead to the use of extra appliances and devices An appliance’s energy use is influenced by a multitude of design characteristics; commonly, some facilitate energy conservation while others impede less energy-intensive use Appliances with

functionality that does not fit people’s needs lead to undesirable and unneccessary energy use

The design of many appliances can make energy conservation difficult to prioritise in everyday life

Mismatches lead to the use of extra appliances and devices

Appliances often lack desirable functions that would facilitate

everyday use and make energy conservation easier

The type and design of many appliances

suggest that they are designed based on a limited understanding of people, their needs, and what is considered desirable in everyday life

Appliances designed to address user needs and provide user benefits often do so at the expense of increased energy use

Appliances often lack desirable functions Even though some

appliances can partly enable energy

conservation, other aspects of their design often make energy conservation difficult or undesirable

The participants felt that developers and producers lack a systems perspective

The design of the energy feedback system – its interface, functions, usability, terminology, and the type of information provided – was not helpful or interesting for all households, which reduced use

Even though the

interface was designed to facilitate use and interpretation, the available functions did not facilitate energy reductions nor were possible information channels desirable for everyone

The design of the energy feedback

system requires people to engage with the system as a seperate activity – that many are not willing to prioritise over other activities – which limits adoption

Functions designed to support energy

conservation but are irrelevant, useless, and undesirable for people, reduce the potential for energy conservation Different people perceive different mismatches Appliances designed to support energy conservation through suboptimisations, or through one or more key functions only, often fail to support less energy-intensive use as a whole or lead to rejection

The design of some appliances are not designed based on user insights nor user tested in situ

Appliances designed despite a lack of basic insight into user needs, goals and preferences limit acceptance and adoption

LACK OF ENABLING PRECONDITIONS DIFFICULTIES TO ATTAIN SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS STUDY A STUDY B

The design of appliances is often defective in enabling energy conservation

Appliances designed to enable energy

conservation are often difficult to use

The design of appliances sets the main preconditions for how energy-intensive everyday activities are, it is therefore difficult for people to

substantially reduce energy use without limiting or changing their use of the appliances

Preconditions such as building infrastructures, inefficient energy systems and heating technologies often lock-in energy intensive use patterns instead of enabling energy conservation Appliances and their

design often do not enable energy conservation

Low availability of artefacts that enable energy conservation Radical changes are impeded

by infrastructure preconditions related to buildings, inefficient energy systems and heating technologies

Limiting the use of energy- reliant appliances is often not desirable in everyday life if it conflicts with other everyday goals

A high number. of appliances and a high frequency of use make reductions hard

Energy feedback can enlighten people or provide incentives for reducing energy use but does not enable energy conservation or make reductions easier Only households that are

interested in, and have the preconditions to, reduce their energy use can be supported to attain substantial reductions by energy feedback

Even appliances designed to enable people to

reduce their energy use may not enable energy conservation for everyone when used in everyday life since people’s needs, preferences and capabilities differ An appliance’s energy use is to

a large extent determined and influenced by aspects outside the user’s (perceived) control Using an appliance in a less energy-intensive way will reduce energy use but only to the extent that is possible and desirable during everyday activities STUDY C STUDY D MISMATCH

DESIGN-ACTIVITY LACK OF HOLISTIC DESIGN THINKING UNDERSTANDINGLACK OF USER The functionality of

many appliances does not allow people to acheive outcomes in preferable ways

Mismatches lead to the use of extra appliances and devices An appliance’s energy use is influenced by a multitude of design characteristics; commonly, some facilitate energy conservation while others impede less energy-intensive use Appliances with

functionality that does not fit people’s needs lead to undesirable and unneccessary energy use

The design of many appliances can make energy conservation difficult to prioritise in everyday life

Mismatches lead to the use of extra appliances and devices

Appliances often lack desirable functions that would facilitate

everyday use and make energy conservation easier

The type and design of many appliances

suggest that they are designed based on a limited understanding of people, their needs, and what is considered desirable in everyday life

Appliances designed to address user needs and provide user benefits often do so at the expense of increased energy use

Appliances often lack desirable functions Even though some

appliances can partly enable energy

conservation, other aspects of their design often make energy conservation difficult or undesirable

The participants felt that developers and producers lack a systems perspective

The design of the energy feedback system – its interface, functions, usability, terminology, and the type of information provided – was not helpful or interesting for all households, which reduced use

Even though the

interface was designed to facilitate use and interpretation, the available functions did not facilitate energy reductions nor were possible information channels desirable for everyone

The design of the energy feedback

system requires people to engage with the system as a seperate activity – that many are not willing to prioritise over other activities – which limits adoption

Functions designed to support energy

conservation but are irrelevant, useless, and undesirable for people, reduce the potential for energy conservation Different people perceive different mismatches Appliances designed to support energy conservation through suboptimisations, or through one or more key functions only, often fail to support less energy-intensive use as a whole or lead to rejection

The design of some appliances are not designed based on user insights nor user tested in situ

Appliances designed despite a lack of basic insight into user needs, goals and preferences limit acceptance and adoption

people often experience mismatches between the design of available artefacts and activity- related aspects, which makes energy conservation difficult and undesirable to prioritise in everyday life. Even though some artefacts have functions that can support energy conservation, findings in all studies suggest that many artefacts are not designed to support energy conservation holistically nor are they designed based on a rich understanding of the intended users.

These topics not only present challenges for design but also point to opportunities for addressing energy conservation more holistically through design. The following sections will discuss these opportunities by presenting a categorisation of different layers of design and by introducing identified design principles and guidelines.

6.2 TENTATIVE FRAMEWORK EMPHASISING DIFFERENT LAYERS OF DESIGN

The four studies all highlighted the fact that the design of artefacts not only influenced people’s energy use directly but also set preconditions for use and interaction that influence the possibilities and potential for energy conservation. It was observed that different design-related aspects influenced energy use in distinctly different ways. Hence, distinct categories of artefact-related aspects were identified and hierarchically arranged into a tentative framework – Layers of Design – comprising five main layers of design, see figure 6.1. Each of the layers points to particular design decisions that can be considered to create preconditions that influence people’s energy use.

The overarching layer in the categorisation concerns what activity an artefact enables and what motives and needs it supports. Design decisions related to this layer concern why an artefact should be designed and which activities it should make possible. The decisions thus set preconditions for what activities people can engage in, and determine whether there are one or more alternatives that allow people to satisfy their needs and accomplish their goals.

Figure 6.1. Layers of design that can be addressed to create preconditions for energy conservation

ACTIVITY