Content uploaded by Dan Lockton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dan Lockton on Mar 13, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
REPRINTS AVAILABLE
DIRECTLY FROM THE
PUBLISHERS
PHOTOCOPYING
PERMITTED BY
LICENSE ONLY
The Design Journal VOLUME 16, ISSUE 4
PP 431–459
431 The Design Journal DOI: 10.2752/175630613X13746645186124
© BLOOMSBURY
PUBLISHING PLC 2013
PRINTED IN THE UK
Exploring Design
Patterns for
Sustainable
Behaviour
Dan Lockton
Brunel University, UK and WMG,
University of Warwick, UK
David Harrison
Brunel University, UK
Neville A. Stanton
University of Southampton, UK
ABSTRACT Products and services explicitly
intended to influence users’ behaviour are
increasingly being proposed to reduce
environmental impact and for other areas of
social benefit. Designing such interventions
often involves adopting and adapting
principles from other contexts where behaviour
change has been studied. The ‘design pattern’
form, used in software engineering and HCI,
and originally developed in architecture, offers
benefits for this transposition process.
This is an author-archived draft of the paper.
The final, definitive version is available
behind a paywall, at:
doi:10.2752/175630613X13746645186124
The Design Journal432
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
+
This article introduces the Design with Intent
toolkit, an idea generation method using a design
pattern form to help designers address sustainable
behaviour problems. The article also reports on
exploratory workshops in which participants used
the toolkit to generate concepts for redesigning
everyday products – kettles, curtains, printers and
bathroom sinks/taps – to reduce the environmental
impact of use. The concepts are discussed, along
with observations of how the toolkit was used by
participants, suggesting usability improvements to
incorporate in future versions.
KEYWORDS: user behaviour, design tools, design methods,
ecodesign, idea generation
Introduction
Design for sustainable behaviour (Bhamra et al, 2011;
Lilley, 2009) and other areas of ‘design for behaviour
change’ and ‘persuasive technology’ (Fogg, 2003) rep-
resent a burgeoning field of current investigation and practice (e.g.
Davis, 2010; Froehlich et al, 2010; Tromp et al, 2011, Thorpe, 2010;
Lockton et al, 2008; Matsuhashi et al, 2009; Rodriguez and Boks
2005; van Dam et al, 2010; Wever et al, 2008; Zachrisson et al,
2011). Designers, politicians, economists, social marketers, com-
puter scientists and social scientists – and companies with an eye on
corporate social responsibility – are initiating a diverse array of new
and redesigned products and services aimed at influencing people’s
behaviours in many contexts, drawing on principles from human–
computer interaction, ergonomics, architecture, social and cognitive
psychology and behavioural economics (among other disciplines).
In the case of sustainability, the justification is compelling: for
many energy-using products (e.g. white goods), point-of-use be-
haviour (Elias et al, 2009) comprises a significant determinant of the
use phase of the life cycle. Dietz et al (2009) estimate that 20 per
cent of direct household CO2 emissions in the USA could be saved
through behaviour change, ‘with little or no reduction in household
well-being’, while Wood and Newborough (2003) and McCalley and
Midden (2002) cite studies in the UK, USA and the Netherlands
giving 26–36 per cent as the proportion of home energy usage
due to user behaviour decisions. As Chapman (2009: 29) puts it,
‘the sustainability crisis is a behavioural issue, and not one simply
of technology, production, and volume’. An approach emphasizing
the power of design to influence behaviour in this context is being
incorporated into design curricula (e.g. Lilley and Lofthouse, 2009)
and its ethical implications debated (e.g. Pettersen and Boks,
2008).
The Design Journal433
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
Understanding how designers’ decisions affect users’ behaviour,
and what to do about it, is central to much current discussion in
fields such as service design (e.g. Bisset and Lockton, 2010; Mager,
2010) and interaction design, e.g. from Blevis (2007: 508), who
notes that ‘it is easier to state the kinds of behaviours we would like
to achieve from the perspective of sustainability than it is to account
for how such behaviours may be adequately motivated’. Of course,
users will not always behave how designers intend or expect them
to (Kanis, 1998; Stanton and Baber, 2002; Redström, 2005), even
as designers attempt to ‘script’ behaviour (Akrich, 1992; Jelsma and
Knot, 2002).
The entry of designers into the ‘behaviour business’, as Frog
Design’s Robert Fabricant (2009) has called it, accords with Herbert
Simon’s assertion that ‘everyone designs who devises courses of
action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones’
(Simon, 1981: 129) – we should not be surprised by it. For example,
many of the higher-profile projects placing design in a position of so-
cial responsibility, such as the Design for Patient Safety and Design
against Crime initiatives in the UK (Cooper, 2005), inherently involve
seeking to influence human behaviour in certain contexts, even if this
is not explicitly stated as the focus of the projects.
Theory and practice on behaviour-influencing design have been
developed enough in particular domains to allow the production of
‘how-to’ guides (e.g. Grout, 2007 in medical design; Crowe, 2000 in
architectural design against crime; Chak, 2003 in persuasive website
design), but while elegant approaches such as Niedderer’s (2007)
performative objects hold interdisciplinary promise, there is little
available as a resource to assist designers working on ‘behaviour’
problems across a broader set of domains, transposing ideas from
one domain to another.
One approach, which the authors have taken, is to provide an
inspiration guide or toolkit for brainstorming, drawing on examples
and insights from different (mainly psychological) disciplines which
are relevant to influencing behaviour. As Eckert and Stacey (2000:
525) put it, ‘sources of inspiration play a number of important roles in
design thinking, as definitions of context, triggers for idea generation,
and as anchors for structuring designers’ mental representations of
designs’.
The question this work seeks to investigate is, essentially, ‘How
can behavioural insights be brought together as an idea generation
toolkit for designers working to influence more environmentally and
socially beneficial behaviour?’
A Design Pattern Approach
Both within and without design practice, a variety of ’creative think-
ing’ techniques are commonly used to generate novel ideas as
part of problem-framing and -solving processes, often in group
workshops, but also individually. Two contrasting approaches are
The Design Journal434
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Eno and Schmidt’s Oblique Strategies (1975), an intentionally un-
structured card deck of provocative statements and questions, and
TRIZ (e.g. Gadd, 2011), a highly structured innovation and technical
problem-solving method derived from the study of patent literature.
In between, perhaps, are tools which offer inspiration through ‘lateral
thinking’ processes (e.g. de Bono, 1972). Card-form tools such as
IDEO’s Method Cards (2003) often address this phase of the design
process, either through acting as ‘ideation decks’ (Golembewski,
2010) or by suggesting appropriate design research methods or
approaches to help frame the problem better.
A format widely used in human–computer interaction (HCI), pri-
marily in interface and web design, is that of the design pattern,
which describes a form of presenting a situation, and/or possible
solutions, in a structured way. The form, via adoption in software
engineering in the late 1980s, stems ultimately from architecture:
Alexander et al’s (1977) A Pattern Language, which covers the
design and layout of buildings, towns and communities. Patterns
are essentially recurring problem-solution instances, described in a
referenceable way which enables practitioners to recognize the situ-
ation. A typical design pattern in HCI, such as those used by Tidwell
(2005) and Crumlish and Malone (2009), comprises a short title for
the pattern (e.g. ‘Colour-coded sections’ for an interface), a photo-
graph, screenshot or diagram illustrating a very clear or prototypical
example of the pattern, and a description of the pattern in a ‘What/
When/Why/How?’ format, explaining the circumstances or situa-
tions when the pattern is useful, and details of its implementation.
They are presented either on paper or on-screen.
Patterns are not primarily about idea generation, at least not in
the forms generally presented, instead being more of a reference.
However, where there are multiple possible solutions to a problem
and the principles are abstract enough to require some adaptation or
translation to see how they might be applied to the problem in ques-
tion, sets of patterns could be part of an idea generation process.
Applying the pattern form to design for
sustainable behaviour
The pattern form can help a designer recognize that a ’new’ problem
situation is similar or analogous to one encountered (and solved)
previously elsewhere, even in a different context. This makes them
a useful format for cross-disciplinary transfer. Where there are not
yet widely accepted ’design solutions’ for different behavioural
problems, a toolkit based on the pattern form will necessarily be
something which suggests possible solutions rather than giving
direct ‘Use this when …’-style instructions; elements of the pattern
form can be usefully applied where they offer advantages, but can be
adapted to the idea generation context.
Using elements of the pattern form the authors have developed
the Design with Intent toolkit, which aims to make the ‘design for
The Design Journal435
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
sustainable behaviour’ idea generation process easier: helping de-
signers and other stakeholders generate behaviour-changing design
concepts, through presenting examples and insights from different
disciplines. It is effectively a ‘suggestion tool’ to help a form of di-
rected brainstorming.
Lawson (2004) uses the term ‘gambits’ to describe the repertoire
of strategies that designers acquire over time, emphasizing the
importance of the process of recognizing when each might be ap-
propriate, and this is the angle taken with the toolkit – it aims to be
a collection of design gambits for behaviour change. Fincher (1999:
331) notes that ‘the pattern form is singularly well adapted for the
sharing of good practice between practitioners’, and certainly in
HCI, patterns have been used as a pedagogical tool (e.g. Borchers,
2002; Kotzé et al, 2006) for students or novices learning about the
discipline. In this sense, the toolkit could also serve as a teaching
tool via its use in workshop-type sessions.
While described in more detail in Lockton et al (2010a), the toolkit
will be outlined here to provide background for the workshops de-
scribed later in this paper.
Design with Intent: A toolkit for behaviour change
The toolkit has been developed via an iterative, participatory pro-
cess, running workshops with students and designers throughout
its development to understand how it is being used and how to
improve its structure and content. The patterns were extracted –
and abstracted – from an ongoing literature review of treatments of
human behaviour in a range of disciplines, together with suggestions
from readers of the project’s blog and workshop participants. Two
versions, v.0.9 and v.1.0, have been publicly released (Lockton et al,
2009b; 2010b), in print and online (Figures 1 and 2), and these will
be briefly described here.
In each version, a range of design patterns for influencing behav-
iour are described and illustrated, grouped into ‘lenses’ – catego-
ries which provide different disciplinary ‘worldviews’ on behaviour
change, challenging designers to think outside the immediate frame
of reference suggested by the brief (or the client), and helping with
transposing ideas between domains. The lenses (described in Table
1) are not intended to be ontologically rigorous, but primarily a way
of triggering multiple viewpoints within an ideation session, some-
what analogous to the ‘Six Thinking Hats’ method (de Bono, 1987;
Hewitt-Gleeson, 2008), though different in structure. In v.0.9 there
are 47 patterns, grouped in six lenses; in v.1.0, this increased to
101, grouped in eight lenses. The increase in pattern numbers, and
regrouping of the lenses, came about primarily as the result of work-
shops where participants suggested new patterns or clearer clas-
sifications. The other main change between v.0.9 and v.1.0 was a
different physical format: the posters and information sheets of v.0.9
were replaced by cards, also as a result of workshop experience
The Design Journal436
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Table 1 The Design with Intent toolkit lenses and patterns, for v.0.9 and v.1.0
Lenses Patterns (v.0.9) Patterns (v.1.0)
Architectural (v.0.9 & v.1.0)
The Architectural Lens draws on techniques used to
influence user behaviour in architecture, urban planning
and related disciplines such as traffic management and
crime prevention through environmental design
Material properties;
Movement & oscillation;
Orientation; Positioning
& layout; Removal;
Segmentation & spacing
Angles; Converging & diverging; Conveyor belts; Feature deletion; Hiding
things; Material Properties; Mazes; Pave the cowpaths; Positioning;
Roadblock; Segmentation & spacing; Simplicity
Errorproofing (v.0.9 & v.1.0)
The Errorproofing Lens represents a worldview treating
deviations from the target behaviour as ‘errors’ which
design can help avoid, either by making it easier for
users to work without making errors, or by making
errors impossible in the first place.
Conditional warnings;
Defaults; Extra step;
Interlock; Lock-in & lock-
out; Partial self-correction;
Portions; Specialized
affordances
Are you sure?; Choice editing; Conditional warnings; Defaults; Did
you mean?; Interlock; matched affordances; Opt-outs; Portions; Task
lock-in/out
Persuasive (v.0.9)/Interaction (v.1.0)
All the patterns are really about interaction design in
one form or another, but the Persuasive/Interaction
Lens brings together some of the most common design
elements of interfaces where users’ interactions with
the system affect how their behaviour is influenced,
including from the growing field of Persuasive
Technology (Fogg, 2003)
Computers as social
actors; Feedback through
form; Kairos; Operant
conditioning; Reduction;
Respondent conditioning;
Self-monitoring;
Simulation & feedforward;
Tailoring; Tunnelling
Feedback through form; Kairos; Partial completion; Peer feedback;
Progress bar; Real-time feedback; Simulation & feedforward; Summary
feedback; Tailoring; Tunnelling & wizards
Visual (v.0.9)/Perceptual (v.1.0)
The Visual/Perception Lens combines ideas from
product semantics, ecological psychology and Gestalt
psychology about how users perceive patterns and
meanings as they interact with the systems around
them
Colour & contrast; Implied
sequences; Metaphors;
Perceived affordances;
Possibility trees;
Prominence & visibility;
Proximity & similarity;
Watermarking
(A)symmetry; Colour associations; Contrast; Fake affordances; Implied
sequences; Metaphors; Mimicry & mirroring; Mood; Nakedness;
Perceived affordances; Possibility trees; Prominence; Proximity
& grouping; Seductive atmospherics; Similarity; Transparency;
Watermarking
The Design Journal437
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
Lenses Patterns (v.0.9) Patterns (v.1.0)
Cognitive (v.0.9 & v.1.0)
The Cognitive Lens draws on research in behavioural
economics and cognitive psychology looking at how
people make decisions, and how this is affected by
‘heuristics’ and ‘biases’. If designers understand how
users make interaction decisions, that knowledge can
be used to influence interaction behaviour. Equally,
where users often make poor decisions, design can
help counter this.
Affective engagement;
Authority; Commitment
& consistency; Framing;
Reciprocation; Scarcity;
Social proof
Assuaging guilt; Commitment & consistency; Decoys; Desire for order;
Do as you’re told; Emotional engagement; Expert choice; Framing;
Habits; Personality; Provoke empathy; Reciprocation; Rephrasing &
renaming; Scarcity; Social proof
Security (v.0.9 & v.1.0)
The Security Lens represents a ‘security’ worldview i.e.
that undesired user behaviour is something to deter
and/or prevent though ‘countermeasures’ designed
into products, systems and environments, both
physically and online, with examples such as digital
rights management.
Atmospherics;
Surveillance; Threat of
damage; What you have;
What you know or can
do; What you’ve done;
Where you are; Who you
are
Coercive atmospherics; Peerveillance; Sousveillance; Surveillance;
Threat of injury; Threat to property; What you can do; What you have;
What you know; What you’ve done; Where you are; Who or what you
are
Ludic (v.1.0)
Games are great at engaging people for long periods
of time, influencing people’s behaviour through their
very design. The Ludic Lens includes a number of
techniques for influencing user behaviour that can be
derived from games and other ‘playful’ interactions,
ranging from basic social psychology mechanisms
such as goal-setting, to common game elements such
as scores and levels.
Challenges & targets; Collections; Leave gaps to fill; Levels; Make it
a meme; Playfulness; Rewards; Role-playing; Scores; Storytelling;
Unpredictable reinforcement
Machiavellian (v.1.0)
The Machiavellian Lens comprises design patterns
which, while diverse, all embody an ‘end justifies
the means’ approach. This may be unethical, but is
nevertheless commonly used to control and influence
consumers through advertising, pricing structures,
planned obsolescence, lock-ins and so on.
Anchoring; Antifeatures & crippleware; Bundling; Degrading
performance; First one free; Forced dichotomy; Format lock-in/
out, Functional obsolescence; I cut, you choose; Poison pill; Serving
suggestion; Slow/no response; Style obsolescence; worry resolution
The Design Journal438
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Figure 1
The print form of v.0.9 of the toolkit comprised an A2 poster illustrating two patterns from each of the six lenses,
together with additional sheets explaining the other 35 patterns. Figure 3 shows a close-up of the ‘Metaphors’
pattern from the Visual Lens.
Figure 2
The print form of v.1.0
of the toolkit comprised
a pack of 101 cards
divided into eight colour-
coded ‘lenses’. Each card
illustrated one pattern in
the form of a question and
example (see Figure 4).
The Design Journal439
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
(a prototype card version of v.0.9 had been tested in some work-
shops; Figure 5 shows these cards).
Figures 3 and 4 show the form of the pattern descriptions, with the
Metaphors pattern from the Visual Lens of v.0.9 and the Challenges
& targets pattern from the Ludic Lens of v.1.0 as examples. The
descriptions used in v.1.0 were simplified from those used in v.0.9,
again following feedback from workshop sessions: shortened and
rephrased as questions, drawing on the form used by Weinreich
(2010), who included a modified version of v.0.9 in her textbook
Hands-on Social Marketing, and ultimately from Pólya (1945).
The toolkit was intended to be usable in two different ‘modes’
– the main inspiration mode and an additional prescription mode,
using the same overall set of patterns but with a different way of
navigating them (Figure 5). Following a pilot study (Lockton et al,
2009a) with an earlier version, it emerged that the inspiration mode,
where designers simply explore the patterns informally, lens by lens,
was likely to be the main way the toolkit was used in a brainstorm-
ing context. Alternatively, in prescription mode, designers formulate
the brief in terms of target behaviours, from a list of 11 provided
(Table 2); for each, a subset of applicable design patterns, typically
Figure 3
The form of the pattern
descriptions in Design
with Intent v.0.9, with the
Metaphors pattern from the
Visual Lens as an example.
The Design Journal440
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
15–25 in total, is then presented. Still serving as an inspiration, this
mode effectively ‘prescribes’ patterns which have been applied
to more closely analogous problems, somewhat along the lines of
TRIZ (e.g. Gadd, 2011). A range of concepts can thus be generated
which have at least some precedent in application to a similar kind
of behaviour change. The suspicion was that this more structured
prescription form would lead to less prolific idea generation than the
inspiration mode, given the extra complexity involved with using it,
but it was considered worth including as an additional way of using
the patterns.
Generating Concepts Using the Toolkit
As part of the development process for the toolkit, workshops have
been run with design students at universities in the UK (Brunel),
Figure 4
The form of the pattern
descriptions in Design
with Intent v.1.0, with
the Challenges & targets
pattern from the Ludic Lens
as an example.
The Design Journal441
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
the Netherlands (U. Twente) and Norway (NTNU), practising de-
signers at IDEO, Philips Research and Jaguar Land Rover, a local
authority (West Sussex County Council), an NHS trust (Brighton &
Sussex University Hospitals) and at both academic and industry
conferences.
One set of workshops at Brunel with a group of 16 design
students and recent graduates focused on redesigning aspects
of four household products to influence more sustainable user
behaviour. These are described here to illustrate how the toolkit can
be used and the sort of results it can help produce. Each workshop
– with participants working in pairs and individually – used both
Table 2 Eleven target behaviours provided for the prescription mode, with examples
User–system interaction: Influencing interactions between a user and a system
Examples
S1 The user follows a process or path, doing
things in a sequence chosen by the designer
Customer places order via website without
missing out any steps
S2 The user follows a process or path that’s
optimized for those particular circumstances
User only spends as much time as really
needed in the shower
S3 Decision among alternatives: a user’s choice
is guided
Diners choose healthier meal in office canteen
S4 Only certain users/groups of users can use
something
Only users who know PIN can access bank
account via ATM
S5 Only users already behaving in a certain way
get to use something
If a driver is travelling below the speed limit, the
next set of traffic lights turn green, otherwise
they stay red
S6 No users can use something in a particular
way, regardless of who they are or what they
have done before
Park bench fitted with central armrest to
prevent anyone lying down
S7 Users only get functionality when
environmental criteria are satisfied
Office lighting cannot be switched on if ambient
daylight adequate
User–user interaction: Influencing interaction between users and other users, mediated by system
Examples
U1 Multiple users are kept separate so they do
not affect each other while using a system
Traffic follows one-way system into/out of car
park
U2 Users (and groups of users) do interact with,
and affect each other while using a system
Staff from different departments mix socially in
a building’s atrium
U3 Users cannot block or dominate a system to
the exclusion of others
Wide pedestrian concourses prevent groups
blocking passage for others
U4 Controlled rate of flow or passage of users Visitors to popular museum exhibit routed past
it slowly on moving walkway
The Design Journal442
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
‘conventional’ brainstorming and the toolkit. Michl (2002) contends
that most commercial design is really redesign of one form or
another, and this is the premise on which the briefs (Table 3) were
presented: redesigning everyday products to help users use them
more efficiently. Based on everyday products where user decisions
(or lack of decisions) are responsible for a significant proportion of
the products’ environmental impact, the focus on familiar interac-
tions meant that participants would be able to relate to them as
users as well as designers.
Time-constrained workshop situations do not give the partici-
pants the chance to research the real contexts in which the products
are used, beyond their own experience. Thus, while the process
focuses very much on user behaviour, it is abstracted from the ‘deep
understanding of the target users’ (Dong and Vanns, 2009: 95)
which is central to user-centred design.
Figure 5
An illustration of the lenses,
and a comparison of the
inspiration and prescription
mode processes.
The Design Journal443
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
Research questions
It is difficult to assess formally the ‘usefulness’ of any idea generation
method: in practice, they are often used in contexts where there can
be no comparable control group. The questions addressed by the
Brunel workshops were thus focused on exploring how participants
made use of the toolkit, empirically, to uncover insights useful for
improving it: How did they apply the patterns to the different briefs?
Which aspects were well-understood and which were not? How
were the modes used in practice, compared with ‘conventional’
brainstorming? The workshops also contributed to widening the
‘solution space’ for the particular briefs.
It is common practice in conventional brainstorming to focus on
generating as many ideas as possible, even if unrealistic. IDEO’s
‘Rules of Brainstorming’, prominently displayed in company meet-
ing rooms, are at least partly geared towards this (including ‘Go
for quantity (not quality): Set an outrageous goal and surpass it’) –
drawing directly from Osborn’s recommendations for brainstorming,
‘Quantity is wanted. The greater the number of ideas, the more the
likelihood of winners’ (Osborn, 1953: 301).
It was decided to follow this approach and ask participants to ‘go
for quantity’ and record every idea. While the quantity of ideas gener-
ated is not a direct proxy for effectiveness, focusing on quantity dur-
ing the session can help provide other benefits for the participants;
as Sutton and Hargadon (1996) suggested in a major ethnographic
study of IDEO’s brainstorms, the process exposes participants to a
diversity of approaches, and provides a non-judgemental forum ‘for
getting unstuck’ through collaborative endeavour. The emphasis on
quantity makes it likely that a large number of ‘unrealistic’ ideas will
be generated, and so the ‘quality’ of the concepts has not been
assessed formally, e.g. by an ‘expert panel’ – this would simply not
reflect what participants were asked to do. However, the nature
and possibilities of the concepts generated are discussed (see ‘The
concepts’ below).
Four workshop exercises
There were four workshop exercises, presented in an order simulat-
ing how the toolkit might be used in the real world as a designer be-
comes more familiar with it – conventional brainstorming, followed by
a free-form exploration of the toolkit patterns (the inspiration mode),
then a guided introduction to the more focused prescription mode,
and finally a self-guided use of the prescription mode. Each exercise
lasted 15 minutes, plus reading time and discussion time afterwards.
In the prescription mode exercises, the brief was explicitly matched
to a target behaviour (Table 2) and so to a subset of relevant pat-
terns, and participants were asked to bear this in mind while thinking
of ideas. So, for brief B2 (Curtains), the target behaviour S1 (‘The
user follows a process or path, doing things in a sequence chosen
by the designer’) was given, providing a prescribed starting point
The Design Journal444
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Table 3 The four ‘design for sustainable behaviour’ briefs given to participants. Photos: author
Name Text of brief Maximum impact (est.)
B1 Using the kettle
more efficiently
Many people boil more water than they
need when using an electric kettle.
There’s a tendency to fill it up with much more
water than is necessary for a mug or cup of
coffee/tea etc. Sometimes it is because it is
easier to re-boil it all each time than going to
fill the kettle up from the tap, but other times it
is because it is too difficult to judge how much
water is actually needed. And the more water,
the longer it takes to boil, too (wasting our time
as well as money).
Defra estimates that the amount of electricity
wasted every year by overfilling kettles in the
UK is enough to power our entire street lighting
(Product Creation, n.d.). So it is a big problem,
even though kettles themselves are quite
efficient at boiling water.
How could you, as a designer, improve
the design of electric kettles to influence
– or help – users fill or boil them more
efficiently?
1.27 TWh per year
reduction in UK electricity
demand (Product Creation,
n.d.)
B2 Closing curtains at
night
Lots of energy is wasted when people forget
or cannot be bothered to close curtains at
night.
The Energy Saving Trust (2003) estimates that
20 per cent of all household heat in the UK
is lost through windows – making sure the
curtains/blinds/shutters are closed at night can
be a big help here. It can save householders
money and does not (necessarily) require
special extra equipment. For some people,
such as the elderly or disabled, closing the
curtains may currently be difficult (e.g. if
furniture is in the way, or they are too awkward
to reach).
How could you, as a designer, improve the
design of curtains, or windows/frames etc.,
to remind – or help – users to close them
when it gets dark, or at some point in the
evening?
Up to 20 per cent reduction
in UK household heating
energy demand (Energy
Saving Trust, 2003)
for the patterns to look at, and a focus (getting people to close
the curtains as part of a sequence or routine every evening). In the
second prescription mode exercise, participants were given the full
list of target behaviours and asked to decide for themselves on the
target behaviour(s) most relevant to the brief given.
The Design Journal445
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
Name Text of brief Maximum impact (est.)
B3 Printing more
efficiently
Many people waste paper, ink/toner, energy
and time printing unwanted or unnecessary
pages.
A Lexmark report found that US government
employees each waste on average 2,520
printed pages per year – around 35 per cent of
what they print (Lexmark, 2009). Sometimes
prints do not come out how we expect; other
times we accidentally print multiple copies
instead of one, and so on. This is to a large
extent a design problem – users do not think
about the options presented by print dialogue
boxes, print previews etc., because of the way
the options are presented.
How could you, as a designer, improve the
design of printers or printer software to
influence or help users print more efficiently
(and effectively)?
2,500 pages per person per
year reduction in printing
waste (Lexmark, 2009)
B4 Turning off the tap
A lot of people leave the tap running while
brushing their teeth.
It might not seem like a major problem, but
as water becomes scarcer and the costs of
treating it get higher, this sort of mindless waste
will become more obvious. Rough calculations
based on empirical observations suggest that
2 gallons (9 litres) per person per day would
be saved by only running the tap briefly to wet
and rinse the brush at the start and end of the
process.
While the wasted water could be recycled as
part of a ‘grey water’ system, it would seem
better to try to influence people not to waste
the water in the first place.
How could you, as a designer, improve
the design of taps/sinks/bathrooms/
toothbrushes (etc.) to influence users to
turn off the tap while they are brushing their
teeth?
3,200 litres per person per
year reduction in water
usage (authors’ estimate)
The briefs (in different orders) were revealed in sequence as part
of a workbook, and participants were asked to note/sketch as many
concepts as possible using paper and Post-it notes; it was em-
phasized that it was the toolkit being investigated rather than the
participants’ ability, and that every idea should be recorded, even if
not favourable. Pairs used something close to a think-aloud discus-
sion method (Lewis and Rieman, 1994) with each other, explaining
their thoughts together as they proceeded.
The Design Journal446
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
The toolkit – v.0.9 was used – was not visible for the conventional
brainstorming exercise, but when revealed was presented via a
poster (Figure 1) and accompanying sheets. For the prescription
mode exercises, a diagram mapping target behaviours to relevant
patterns was revealed. Afterwards, the concepts were discussed
between the facilitator and participants, along with feedback on
usability aspects of the toolkit.
After the workshops, the concepts generated were reviewed and
any not specifically about influencing user behaviour via product
redesign (e.g. just improving the efficiency of a product, or advertis-
ing campaigns telling people to save energy) were set aside. These
are valuable contributions to design for sustainability, and it was
expected that some would arise as a ‘freewheeling’ corollary of
ideation, but they fall outside the intended scope of the toolkit.
The concepts
Table 4 summarizes some of the (subjectively) most interesting con-
cepts generated by participants using the toolkit, while Figure 6
shows a selection of images from the workshops. Some of the
ideas suggested already exist in a similar form, either on the market
or as concepts – such as the two-tank EcoKettle and transparent
Kenwood Energy Sense kettle, GreenPrint printing software which
offers the ability to choose parts of a document to print more easily
beforehand, and coloured lighting in the water stream and a meter
on the tap (both found in MIT’s WaterBot project (Arroyo et al, 2005).
However, there are some genuinely novel – and in some cases
dramatic (Gargiulo, 2008) – ideas in Table 4, and it is hoped that
some of the concepts generated are of interest to others working
in the field of design for sustainable behaviour. Figure 7 shows a
Figure 6
A selection of images from
the workshops.
The Design Journal447
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
selection of participants’ sketches for B4 (the tap brief) – these are
‘idea sketches’ to use Pei et al’s (2011) terminology.
Many of the concepts in Table 4 involve ‘idea creation by analogi-
cal transfer’ (Stacey et al, 2009: 362; Tseng et al, 2008), or meta-
phors (Casakin, 2006), from ‘time to destination’ displays on kettles
to curtains styled to look like a woollen jumper; drawing analogies
‘can bring forth valuable knowledge from a known situation … to the
ill-defined design situation at hand’ (Leclercq and Heylighen, 2002:
287).
One aspect apparent was how participants considered the roots
of the problems differently – a process of problem-framing (Dorst
and Cross, 2001; Schön, 1983) as part of problem-solving – which
led to different kinds of concepts being proposed. In particular,
certain concepts started to reveal participants’ mental models of
‘what users are like’ (and what kinds of measures would change their
behaviour), for example whether behaviour was better influenced by
educating users through the design of a product and the feedback
it gives, or by forcing people to operate it in a different way regard-
less of understanding ‘why?’. This issue was considered interesting
enough to investigate further in subsequent workshops (Lockton et
al, 2012) – the assumptions designers make about the nature of the
problems and the ‘users’ (a category which may well include them-
selves) in the first place when seeking to influence their behaviour.
Some variations in how the briefs were addressed might be due
to cultural differences, a challenge which Gill (2009) notes as impor-
tant when designers seek to address users’ needs. For example,
a number of participants who were international Master’s students
(primarily from Southeast Asia) saw the overfilling problem in brief
B1 as being related to limescale (‘disgusting’) in kettles – something
they had not encountered before coming to the UK. In their under-
standing, overfilling was often done deliberately in an attempt to
Figure 7
A selection of participants’
sketches for B4 (the tap
brief).
The Design Journal448
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Table 4 A selection of concepts generated by participants using the toolkit, with the patterns noted by
participants as inspiration
Patterns (v.0.9) Concept
B1:Kettle
Portions Make kettle fill chamber same diameter as a cup, so the fill level
matches it exactly
Self-monitoring; Framing Use cup markings, outlines of real-size cups and mugs, or water
needed for tasks, e.g. how much to boil for 1 portion of spaghetti, on
scale, as well as litres/fluid ounces
Self-monitoring; Framing Energy usage or ‘Cost per cup’ displayed on kettle or base unit
Defaults; Interlock; Extra
step
Kettle where default fill level is one cup, and valve closes when filling,
unless explicitly set to a greater volume; resets itself
Segmentation & spacing Two-tank kettle that stores water in one tank but only boils as much
as needed in the other, with rotating chambers and set of transfer
ports between
Self-monitoring; Colour &
contrast
Temperature indicator – lights or thermochromic finish – to reduce
unnecessary re-boiling
Self-monitoring Kettle beeps as it is filled, once for each cupful
Simulation & feedforward Electronic ‘Time to ‘destination’ scale display on side as kettle is
being filled & boiled
Extra step Fill valve ‘pauses’ while you’re filling for every cup/mugful reached, so
you have to think before filling further
Prominence & visibility Make kettle transparent or easier to see the ‘real’ volume of water
inside compared with the small bit typically visible on a narrow scale
B2:Curtains
Interlock; Defaults User cannot switch heater on unless the curtains are closed first, or
curtains automatically close by default when heating is switched on
Implied sequences Number the curtains (large figures on them) so it is obvious when they
are not all closed, and gives people a sequence to follow in going
round closing them
Conditional warnings;
Colour & contrast; Self-
monitoring
Illuminated red strip across the window at night to remind you that
curtains are still open; or temperature sensors inside and outside to
detect energy loss and suggest closing curtains
Feedback through form;
Operant conditioning
A pattern, picture, or congratulatory message on the curtains so they
are more attractive when closed; or use the curtains as a high-quality
projector screen for the television
Kairos A beep or loudspeaker suggesting ‘Close the curtains’ as it starts to
get dark, or Public Service Announcement on television at appropriate
time in the evening ‘Close your curtains now’
Positioning & layout;
Interlock
Position light switch for the room behind the curtain
Framing; Metaphors Curtains promoted as insulation rather than just for shielding light,
styled to look like a jumper – warm, woollen material – that actually zip
snugly together to close them
The Design Journal449
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
Patterns (v.0.9) Concept
B2:Curtains
Social proof Low-powered LEDs reflecting on the outside of curtains to indicate
to other people (neighbours) that the house’s curtains are closed (so
yours should be too)
Orientation Curtain rail angled in a V-shape so the curtains close more easily than
they open
Material properties; Affective
engagement
Windows with glow-in-the-dark spooky face on them, so it is scary/
unpleasant at night unless curtains closed
B3:Printing
Reduction; Tunnelling Simplify the usability of the print dialogue for different choices; use
wizards for common tasks
Segmentation & spacing;
Portions
Extra tray for used/scrap paper to be easily reused for draft prints; or
extra A5/small size paper tray for printing smaller items or drafts
Defaults Make duplex (double-sided) or two-up printing the default setting
Simulation & feedforward;
Interlock
Better Print Preview window showing exactly what it is going to look
like when printed, will not print unless it is confirmed
Metaphors; Self-monitoring Use a tree being cut down to a stump gradually as a metaphor for
paper usage
Segmentation & spacing;
Defaults
Make it easy to choose and scale the parts of a document you
actually want to print; default for email printing should be to leave off
signature and previous correspondence
Self-monitoring; Scarcity Speedometer or fuel gauge-style display on-screen, showing how
quickly you are using resources and how much paper/ink is left
Extra step Move the higher quality settings to ‘Advanced’ tab
Surveillance; Social proof;
Positioning & layout
In an office, position printers where everyone can see them, with a
display (e.g. a pie chart) indicating who is printing the most and what
settings they are using
Extra step; Kairos Require user to go through every step of process in order with
confirmation at each stage – a dialogue that actually asks the user
‘Do you want double-sided?’ etc. at right moment
B4:Tap
Defaults; Feedback through
form
Sink where the plug is, by default, closed, or a sink that is very flat/
shallow: users will see the amount of water being wasted quickly
Where you are Proximity sensor so tap only on when hands underneath
Defaults; Portions Gas tap-style taps that spring to the off position when not in use, or
‘Dual-flush’ tap that turns left for teeth, right for continuous flow
Self-monitoring; Framing;
Scarcity
Meter showing water use instantaneously when tap is on; or
cumulative meter for water usage over course of day or week; scale
could be framed in everyday measure, e.g. cups
Threat of damage; What
you’ve done
Tap that squirts user in the face through hole in top of spout if left on
for too long
Material properties; Colour &
contrast
Basin surface changes to bright red like a bloodstain when water has
been running on it for too long
The Design Journal450
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Patterns (v.0.9) Concept
B4:Tap
Self-monitoring A container or tray that catches the water being wasted ‘You can see
how much you are using, then you will stop!’
Self-monitoring Beeping or coloured light shining in water indicating flow rate
Metaphors; Portions Tap working like an ale pump or old-fashioned water pump, changing
the on/off mental model: a small ‘shot’ of water
Positioning & layout Position the knob at the front of the sink rather than on the tap itself,
so that it’s closer and easier to turn off while brushing
Table 4 A selection of concepts generated by participants using the toolkit, with the patterns noted by
participants as inspiration (continued)
make sure only boiled water from the ‘top’ of the kettle chamber (far
from the limescaled element) would end up in their drinks. Personal
factors also affected the interpretation of brief B2 in discussing
behaviour with curtains: in one pair, one participant said that she
routinely closed the curtains almost as soon as she got home, for
privacy (‘people can see me from the other building’) while the other
contrasted that he ‘leave[s] it all open, all night: I don’t want to live in
a scary atmosphere all the time; that’s why there is no social connec-
tion between people: all strict, closed off’.
Most concepts were technologically feasible, though without
knowledge of how effective they might be at influencing user behav-
iour in practice. The ideal result of implementing any of the concepts
generated would be that the unnecessary environmental impact
due to user behaviour is reduced to zero. However the contextual
nature of interaction behaviour makes it impossible in many cases
to quantify the exact energy savings expected: for example, decid-
ing whether or not someone has printed something as ‘optimally’
as possible for B3 (the printing brief) is not feasible – the optimal
solution would be different for different people and circumstances.
Even B1 (the kettle brief), which on the face of it seems clear-cut
(any energy put into boiling water which is not used is wasted – 1.27
TWh per year according to the Product Creation (n.d.) figures) would
be made more efficient by changing behaviour at a system level, for
example by altering people’s hot-drink consumption habits entirely. It
is unrealistic to assume that an energy use display on a kettle would
(even if every kettle in the UK were retrofitted or replaced) lead to a
saving of anywhere near 1.27 TWh per year (compare the literature
on the effectiveness of feedback, e.g. Darby 2006), but some con-
cepts involving changing the actual affordances and constraints of
the kettle design, so that only one portion at a time is transferred or
boiled, could have a large effect.
Was there a difference between the concepts arising from con-
ventional brainstorming and those generated using the toolkit? Many
The Design Journal451
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
ideas recurred for the same brief (from different participants), espe-
cially around some of the simpler feedback mechanisms (e.g. lights
warning people that the curtains were open, or that the kettle was
overfilled). But where concepts were directly related to particular pat-
terns from the toolkit, they only occurred after the toolkit had been
used – for example, the use of metaphors and the idea of simulation
and feedforward were not present in any of the conventional brain-
storming concepts from any participant, but inspired a number of
concepts directly once the toolkit was used.
B3, the brief on printing, resulted in the most concepts being
generated (113, compared with 83, 91 and 86 for B1, B2 and B4
respectively) – this might suggest that this issues with printing per-
sonally frustrates some of the participants in their everyday jobs and
studies in a way which, say, heat loss via un-curtained windows
does not. Different participants came up with very different amounts
of concepts. The most prolific pair produced nearly three times the
number of concepts of the least prolific; some individuals were more
productive than some pairs. The inspiration mode exercise resulted
in more concepts overall (112) than either conventional brainstorming
(84) or the prescription modes (88 and 89), but it was not uniformly
better for all participants individually. So a one-size-fits-all approach
may not be ideal: it seems worthwhile to provide different ways of
using the toolkit.
How the toolkit was used
Most individual participants did not have time to consider all the
relevant patterns for each brief. Some started with one lens and
worked through all the patterns before moving onto the next, while
others primarily picked patterns which stood out to them – perhaps
due to a visually interesting image. In almost all cases, the partici-
pants were still working when the end of the session was reached.
Pairs generally approached the patterns with each person taking
three of the six lenses, noting down some ideas, and then explaining
the lens and the patterns to his or her partner, and talking together
for the rest of the session, building on the initial ideas, mutating them
into further concepts (this could be seen as a combination of the
first stage of the nominal group technique (Delbecq and van de Ven,
1971) with conventional face-to-face brainstorming).
There was no explicit evidence that participants did not under-
stand the idea of transposing design patterns from one discipline
to another. However, only a few participants transposed concepts
from the Architectural Lens to non-physical, system architecture or
information architecture situations (e.g. for brief B3, Segmentation
& spacing might have suggested breaking up a document into
elements which could be chosen separately to print, with different
settings). This suggests that different phrasing for the Architectural
Lens, or the use of more non-physical examples, might be appropri-
ate for a future iteration of the toolkit.
The Design Journal452
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
In the prescription mode exercises, while some participants stuck
closely to the target behaviours, most only used these as a starting
point. Particularly with pairs, as discussion between the participants
threw up new concepts, the target behaviour often seemed to be
forgotten. When asked to choose target behaviours themselves,
a variety of choices were made, with some participants running
through a number of target behaviours and ‘testing’ how well each
seemed to apply to the brief, without actually committing to any –
indicating an interest in understanding the problem; there was no
consensus apparent, although for B1, B3 and B4 at least some
participants did choose the target behaviour that was expected.
It is clear that the target behaviours in the current form are not
well-understood and (based on the quantity of concepts gener-
ated) do not appear to be especially useful at the idea generation
stage of the design process. It has been suggested that designers
– used to being ‘creative’ on demand – simply do not appreciate a
highly structured idea generation method. This might be different for
brainstorming with participants for whom it is a less common activ-
ity. Particularly at the idea generation stage of a project, when the
point is to come up with a large quantity of concepts which can be
pruned later, an additional constraint such as the target behaviour is,
perhaps, unnecessary.
Discussion and Conclusions
What benefits does this toolkit offer? At this stage in the develop-
ment of design for sustainable behaviour as a specialism somewhere
between ecodesign and interaction design, there are few guides
available, thus to some extent the bar is quite low. Compared with
other idea generation tools and methods, Design with Intent is fo-
cused on a particular approach (behaviour) rather than generating
innovative concepts in general, thus it is difficult to compare it directly
to tools such as the IDEO Method Cards which have a much broader
set of use-cases. One aspect of the toolkit which some workshop
participants have considered effective (and commented so) was the
use of illustrated, relatively simple examples as part of the ‘pattern’
form – rather than only using descriptions of the principles them-
selves. This helped make otherwise abstract or unfamiliar psycho-
logical terminology such as ‘Social proof’ or ‘Operant conditioning’
relevant in a design context.
Exploratory transposition of methods and ideas from other do-
mains can allow an accessible route into engaging with behaviour
change ideas for stakeholders both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ design.
For example, Young (2010), discussing the Design & Behaviour
project run by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts,
Manufactures and Commerce in the UK – in which the Design with
Intent toolkit was used in workshops addressing public engagement
with the police – emphasizes the importance of drawing on other
The Design Journal453
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
fields to inspire idea generation in the context of behaviour change
for social benefit:
By looking at how others have used design to influence
behaviour it is easier to transpose those ideas to the behaviours
that you are trying to change. We need that idea-generating
process to help policy makers work with designers, behaviour
experts and people [i.e. the public] to make the leap into
practice.
The workshops showed, tentatively, that for many participants,
using the toolkit in a free-form inspiration mode – less like TRIZ but
more like Oblique Strategies – following conventional brainstorming,
helped them generate more concepts for addressing the briefs than
conventional brainstorming alone. Using the toolkit in prescription
mode was not particularly effective in terms of the quantity of ideas
generated – although for some, the idea of focusing on a target
behaviour provided a useful starting point for thinking about the
problem further. This suggests that future versions of the toolkit need
to be usable in a variety of different ways by designers and other
stakeholders, to suit different contexts.
The most important test of an idea generation method is prob-
ably whether it is found useful by its users – whether they choose
to use it, or continue to use it, and embed it in their organizational
decision-making processes. The workshops described in this article
were carried out in a university setting rather than an industrial or
public sector context, and the utility and usability of the toolkit in this
latter ‘real world’ situation is essential to its further development.
A survey is in progress of early adopters of the toolkit (people who
have downloaded it or bought a physical copy) to understand how
and why they have used it, and what insights can be extracted to
improve it in future iterations.
Designers will play a major part in influencing more sustainable
user behaviour as the recognition of its importance becomes increas-
ingly mainstream, both politically and commercially, complementing
the hitherto dominant focus on the technological aspects of ecode-
sign. It will be worthwhile exploring and supporting the processes by
which designers generate their ideas in this domain, the challenges
around ethical issues, and indeed the shifting boundaries of the role
of the designer in a world where user behaviour potentially becomes
part of product specifications.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their appreciation to the participants in the stud-
ies, and to the Ormsby Trust and Thomas Gerald Gray Charitable
Trust, who funded the research.
The Design Journal454
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
References
Akrich, M (1992). ‘The de-scription of technical objects’. In Bijker,
W. and Law, J. (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 205–224.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-
King, I. and Angel, S. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Arroyo, E., Bonanni, L. and Selker, T. (2005). ‘WaterBot: Exploring
feedback and persuasive techniques at the sink’. In Pro ceed ings
of the 2005 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. New York: ACM, pp. 631–639.
Bhamra, T., Lilley, D. and Tang, T. (2011). ‘Design for sustainable
behaviour: Using products to change consumer behaviour’. The
Design Journal, 14(4): 427–445
Bisset, F. and Lockton, D. (2010). ‘Designing motivation or motivating
design? Exploring service design, motivation and behavioural
change’. Touchpoint: The Journal of Service Design, 2(1): 14–21.
Blevis, E. (2007). ‘Sustainable interaction design: Invention &
disposal, renewal & reuse’. In Proceedings of the 2007 SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Design
Theory. New York: ACM, pp. 503–512.
Borchers, J. (2002). ‘Teaching HCI design patterns: Experience
from two university courses’. In Proceedings of the 2002 SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Workshop
Position Papers. New York: ACM.
Casakin, H. P. (2006). ‘Metaphors as an unconventional reflective
approach in architectural design’. The Design Journal, 9(1):
37–50.
Chak, A. (2003). Submit Now: Designing Persuasive Web Sites.
Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
Chapman, J. (2009). ‘Design for (emotional) durability’. Design
Issues, 25(4): 29–35.
Cooper, R. (2005). ‘Ethics and altruism: What constitutes socially
responsible design?’ Design Management Review, 16(3): 10–18.
Crowe, T. D. (2000). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design,
2nd edn. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann
Crumlish, C. and Malone, E. (2009). Designing Social Interfaces.
Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Darby, S. (2006). The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy
Consumption: A Review for Defra of the Literature on Metering,
Billing and Direct Displays. Oxford: Environmental Change
Institute.
Davis, J. (2010). ‘Generating directions for persuasive technology
design with the Inspiration Card Workshop’. In Ploug, T., Hasle,
P. and Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds), Proceedings of Persuasive
2010, 5th International Conference on Persuasive Technology,
Copenhagen. Berlin: Springer, pp. 262–273.
The Design Journal455
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
de Bono, E. (1972). Po: Beyond Yes and No. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
de Bono, E. (1987). Six Thinking Hats, 2nd edn. Harmondsworth:
Pelican.
Delbecq, A. L. and van de Ven, A. H. (1971). ‘A group process
model for problem identification and program planning’. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 7: 466–492.
Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. and Vandenberghe,
M. P. (2009). ‘Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge
to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions’. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106(44): 18452–18456.
Dong, H. and Vanns, N. (2009). ‘Designing an innovative pill disp-
enser: An undergraduate level case study of inclusive design’.
The Design Journal, 12(1), 95–116.
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001). ‘Creativity in the design process:
Co-evolution of problem–solution’. Design Studies, 22 (5):
425–437.
Eckert, C. and Stacey, M. (2000). ‘Sources of inspiration: A language
of design’. Design Studies, 21: 523–538.
Elias, E. W., Dekoninck, E. A. and Culley, S. J. (2009). ‘Designing for
“use phase” energy losses of domestic products’. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B – Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, 223(1): 115–120
Energy Saving Trust (2003). ‘Don’t let your home get away with
it – Media facts’. Energy Saving Trust. Available at: http://
www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/aboutest/
homegetawaywithit.pdf [accessed 17 September 2010].
Eno, B. and Schmidt, P. (1975). Oblique Strategies: Over 100
Worthwhile Dilemmas. London: Apollo.
Fabricant, R. (2009). ‘Behaving badly in Vancouver’. Design Mind,
11 February. San Francisco: Frog Design. Available at:
http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/behaving-badly-in-
vancouver.html [accessed 17 September 2010].
Fincher, S. (1999). ‘Analysis of design: An exploration of patterns
and pattern languages for pedagogy’. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(3): 331–348.
Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to
Change What We Think and Do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Froehlich, J., Findlater, L. and Landay, J. (2010). ‘The design of
eco-feedback technology’. In Proceedings of the 2010 SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New
York: ACM, pp. 1999–2008.
Gadd, K. (2011). TRIZ for Engineers: Enabling Inventive Problem
Solving. Chichester: John Wiley.
Gargiulo, D (2008). ‘Active objects, passive dramas’. MDes thesis,
Auckland: Unitec. Available at: http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/
handle/10652/1291 [accessed 17 September 2010].
The Design Journal456
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Gill, S. (2009). ‘Six challenges facing user-orientated industrial
design’. The Design Journal, 12(1): 41–67.
Golembewski, M. (2010). ‘Ideation decks: A card-based tool
designed to help creative practitioners develop project ideas’.
Horizon DTC report, University of Nottingham.
Grout, J. (2007). Mistake-Proofing the Design of Health Care
Processes. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality.
Hewitt-Gleeson, M. (2008). ‘Dispute with Edward de Bono’. School
of Thinking. Available at: http://www.schoolofthinking.org/about/
training/10-dfq/the-hats-the-origin-of-the-thinking-hats-idea
[accessed 17 September 2010].
IDEO (2003). IDEO Method Cards: 51 Ways to Inspire Design. Palo
Alto, CA: IDEO.
Jelsma, J. and Knot, M. (2002). ‘Designing environmentally efficient
services: A “script” approach’. Journal of Sustainable Product
Design, 2(3–4): 119–130.
Kanis, H (1998). ‘Usage centred research for everyday product
design’. Applied Ergonomics, 29(1): 75–82.
Kotzé, P., Renaud, K., Koukouletsos, K., Khazaei, B. and Dearden,
A. (2006). ‘Patterns, anti-patterns and guidelines – Effective
aids to teaching HCI principles?’ In Hvannberg, E. T., Read,
J. C., Bannon, L., Kotzé, P. and Wong, W. (eds), Proceedings of
HCIEd2006-1: First Joint BCS/IFIP WG 13.1/ICS/EU CONVIVIO
HCI Educators’ Workshop, Limerick, Ireland. Limerick: University
of Limerick, pp. 115–120.
Lawson, B. (2004). ‘Schemata, gambits and precedent: some
factors in design expertise’. Design Studies, 25: 443–457.
Leclercq, P. and Heylighen, A. (2002). ‘5,8 analogies per hour: A
designer’s view on analogical reasoning’. In Proceedings of AID
’02: Artificial Intelligence in Design 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp.
285–304.
Lewis, C. and Rieman, J. (1994). Task-Centered User Interface
Design: A Practical Introduction. Boulder, CO: University of
Colorado.
Lexmark (2009). 2009 Government Printing Report: A Closer Look
at Costs, Habits, Policies & Opportunities for Savings. Available
at: http://www.governmentprintingreport.com [accessed 17
September 2010].
Lilley, D. (2009). ‘Design for sustainable behaviour: Strategies and
perceptions’. Design Studies, 30: 704–720.
Lilley, D. and Lofthouse, V. (2009). ‘Sustainable design education:
Considering design for behavioural change’. Engineering
Education: Journal of the Higher Education Academy Engineering
Subject Centre, 4(1): 29–41.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Stanton, N. A. (2008). ‘Making the user
more efficient: Design for sustainable behaviour’. International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(1): 3–8.
The Design Journal457
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Holley, T. and Stanton N. A. (2009a).
‘Influencing interaction: Development of the Design with Intent
method’. In Proceedings of Persuasive 2009, 4th International
Conference on Persuasive Technology, Claremont, CA. New
York: ACM.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Stanton, N. A. (2009b). Design for
Behaviour Change: The Design with Intent Toolkit v.0.9. Uxbridge:
Brunel University.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Stanton, N. A. (2010a). ‘The Design
with Intent method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour’.
Applied Ergonomics, 41(3): 382–392.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Stanton and N. A. (2010b). Design with
Intent: 101 Patterns for Influencing Behaviour through Design
v.1.0. Windsor: Equifine.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Stanton and N. A. (2012). ‘Models of
the user: Designers’ perspectives on influencing sustainable
behaviour’. Journal of Design Research, 10(1/2): 7–27.
Mager, B. (2010). ‘Editorial: Isn’t life always centred around influ-
encing the behaviour of other people?’ Touchpoint: The Journal
of Service Design, 2(1): 6–7.
Matsuhashi, N., Kuijer, L. and de Jong, A. (2009). ‘A culture-inspired
approach to gaining insights for designing sustainable practices’.
In Proceedings of EcoDesign 2009: Sixth International Symposium
on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing.
Tokyo: Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers.
McCalley, L. T. and Midden, C. J. H. (2002). ‘Energy conservation
through product-integrated feedback: The roles of goal-setting
and social orientation’. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5):
589–603.
Michl, J. (2002). ‘On seeing design as redesign: An exploration of a
neglected problem in design education’. Scandinavian Journal of
Design History, 12: 7–23.
Niedderer, K. (2007). ‘Designing mindful interaction: The category of
performative object’. Design Issues, 23(1): 3–17.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination. Oxford: Scribner’s.
Pei, E., Campbell, I. and Evans, M. (2011). ‘A taxonomic classification
of visual design representations used by industrial designers and
engineering designers’. The Design Journal, 14(1): 64–91.
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.
Pólya, G. (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Product Creation (n.d.). ‘Eco kettle’. Product Creation. Available
at: http://www.ecokettle.com/aftersales.htm [accessed 17
September 2010].
The Design Journal458
Dan Lockton, David Harrison and Neville A. Stanton
Redström, J. (2005). ‘Towards user design? On the shift from object
to user as the subject of design’. Design Studies, 27: 123–139.
Rodriguez, E. and Boks, C. (2005). ‘How design of products affects
user behaviour and vice versa: The environmental implications’. In
Proceedings of EcoDesign 2005: Fourth International Symposium
on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing.
Tokyo: Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.
Simon, H. A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd edn.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stacey, M., Eckert, C. and Earl, C. (2009). ‘From Ronchamp by
sledge: On the pragmatics of object references’. In McDonnell, J.
and Lloyd, P. (eds), About: Designing: Analysing Design Meetings.
Leiden: CRC Press, pp. 361–379.
Stanton, N. A. and Baber, C. (2002). ‘Error by design: methods for
predicting device usability’. Design Studies, 23: 363–384.
Sutton, R. I. and Hargadon, A. (1996). ‘Brainstorming groups in
context: Effectiveness in a product design firm’. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(4): 685–718.
Thorpe, A. (2010). ‘Design’s role in sustainable consumption’. Design
Issues, 26(2): 3–16.
Tidwell, J. (2005). Designing Interfaces. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Tromp, N., Hekkert, P. and Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). ‘Design for socially
responsible behavior: A classification of influence based on
intended user experience’. Design Issues, 27(3): 3–19.
Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J. and Kotovsky, K. (2008). ‘The role of
timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation
in design’. Design Studies, 29: 203–221.
van Dam, S. S., Bakker, C. A. and van Hal, J. D. M. (2010). ‘Home
energy monitors: impact over the medium-term’. Building
Research & Information, 38(5): 458–469.
Weinreich, N. K. (2010). Hands-on Social Marketing, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wever, R., van Kuijk, J. and Boks, C. (2008). ‘User-centred Design
for Sustainable Behaviour’. International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering, 1(1): 9–20.
Wood, G. and Newborough, M. (2003). ‘Dynamic energy-
consumption indicators for domestic appliances: Environment,
behaviour and design’. Energy & Buildings, 35: 821–841.
Young, J. (2010). ‘RSA design & behaviour – Missing links’, 11
January. Available at: http://designandbehaviour.rsablogs.org.
uk/2010/01/11/missing-links [accessed 17 September 2010].
Zachrisson, J., Storrø, G. and Boks, C. (2011). ‘Using a guide to select
design strategies for behaviour change: Theory vs. practice’. In
Proceedings of EcoDesign 2011 – 7th International Symposium
on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing,
Kyoto, Japan. Tokyo: Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers.
The Design Journal459
Exploring Design Patterns for Sustainable Behaviour
Biographies
Dan Lockton, PhD, is a Senior Associate at the Helen Hamlyn Centre
for Design, Royal College of Art, London. He specializes in design
for behaviour change, for social and environmental benefit, and his
PhD at Brunel University focused on developing Design with Intent, a
design pattern toolkit for this emerging field. From 2010–12 he was a
researcher at WMG, University of Warwick, and at Brunel University,
working with startup CarbonCulture on a digital platform for reduc-
ing workplace CO2 emissions, through connecting staff with data in
more engaging ways. Dan is interested in ‘public understanding of
everyday systems’ – how we understand and interact with the tech-
nology (and institutions) around us, and how this could be improved
for social benefit. He does consultancy as Requisite Variety.
David J. Harrison, PhD, is Professor of Design Research at Brunel
University, lecturing in Environmentally Sensitive Design and leading
the Cleaner Electronics Research Group. He has research interests in
sustainable design methods, low-impact electronics manufacturing
and innovative energy generation and storage. Professor Harrison
has a PhD in Robotics, and worked for six years at the BBC, mainly
on the BBC Computer Literacy Project. He held a Royal Society
Fellowship in the Parliamentary Office and Science and Technology,
before joining Brunel in 1994.
Neville A. Stanton, PhD, holds the Chair of Human Factors in
Transport at the University of Southampton, and is a widely cited
expert on human factors and cognitive ergonomics in technological
domains. His research interests include intelligent transport systems
in vehicles and flight deck design. Professor Stanton is an edi-
tor of Ergonomics and on the editorial board of Theoretical Issues
in Ergonomics Science and the International Journal of Human
Computer Interaction. He has published over 150 peer-reviewed
journal papers and 14 books on human factors and ergonomics.
Addresses for Correspondence
Dr Dan Lockton, Senior Associate, Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design,
Royal College of Art, Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU, UK.
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7590 4242
Email: dan@danlockton.co.uk
Professor David Harrison, School of Engineering & Design, Brunel
University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)1895 266321
Email: david.harrison@brunel.ac.uk
Professor Neville A. Stanton, School of Civil Engineering & the
Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hants
SO17 1BJ, UK.
Tel: +44 (0) 23 8059 9065
Email: n.stanton@soton.ac.uk
