Content uploaded by Divya Yendapally
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Divya Yendapally on Jul 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Designing an Interactive Eco-Feedback
Environment
Divya Yendapally[0000−0003−3203−2640] and Delaram
Yazdansepas[0000−0001−7998−8792]
Department of Computer Science, University of Georgia, Athens GA 30602, USA
Abstract. The purpose of this research project is to study the current
designs of eco-feedback technologies, assess how effective they are, and
propose viable solutions to increase the performance of these technolo-
gies, and in turn reduce the cumulative environmental impact. While
there are currently many technologies in the works of being created,
with similar intent, they all seem to share one common problem; Eco-
Feedback technologies are costly to produce with a low net gain, when it
comes to user satisfaction and hence future investment. Design expands
further than visual appeal, and this project dives into all components of
proper design. From the depths of environmental psychology, all the way
to visualization design, this paper proposes a future for a more sustain-
able environment.
Keywords: Eco Feedback Technology ·Environmental HCI ·Design
Methods and Evaluation ·Visualization Design ·Human Centered Com-
puting ·Empirical Studies in Interaction Design.
1 Introduction
Eco-feedback technologies have recently been introduced; They are technologies
that provide users with feedback on the impact of their actions towards the
environment. An example of this includes a smart thermostat, that displays in-
formation to users on how their usage of the device is impacting the environment
around them. Many different feedback technologies have been created, but not
many of them are effective enough to make a difference. Persuasive technologies
were created with the same purpose of reducing environmental impact. However,
their focus is more on using a technique to encourage a certain human behavior
[3]. An example of this would be a digital trashcan, that makes a unique sound
every time it processes material. This sound was meant to incentivize users to
continue to use the device. Unfortunately, both feedback and persuasive tech-
nologies have not had high success rates in maintaining users. Learning what
works and does not is an essential part in creating a sustainable and efficient
design, that can help preserve the environment.
1.1 Motivation
As we continue to advance in societal growth, many industries have been thriv-
ing, thus leaving a negative impact on the environment. Over the years, the
2 D.Yendapally et al.
public has educated people broadly on many different ways to start making an
attempt to reduce environmental impact. Of these, recycling has been the most
frequently taught. While we can appreciate that today most public buildings and
many homes do have recycling bins, we have to understand that due to a lack
of proper education, that certain recycling is actually causing more harm than
good. We are at a point in our ecosystem, where so much damage has been done
to our planet, that only drastic actions can help save the environment [1]. In
other words, we cannot afford to recycle the wrong items, or on a broader spec-
trum, we need to be as educated as possible in taking the right steps to prevent
any further damage. Many Environmental Psychologists, along with Computer
Scientists have contributed to research on best practices in educating the pub-
lic on these issues, and both have revealed that eco-feedback technology has a
lot of potential in properly educating users, especially because of how ubiqui-
tous technology is becoming [2]. However, not all studies published on users and
their interactions with eco-feedback technologies have shown the results that are
wanted. People are still reverting back to their usual habits, when it comes to
preserving the environment, despite there being smart technologies such as a
thermostat, informing users of the environmental impact that they are having
[5].
2 Background and Related Work
Previous works on these topics have focused primarily on Environmental Psy-
chology; Research was conducted on the users of the Eco-Feedback technology
more than the technology itself [2], Something gained from these studies are that
incentive is a huge motivator for action. One study’s participants felt that the
feedback technologies did not motivate them to continue using their device, be-
cause there was no impact on the price of their monthly bills [5]. To summarize
takeaways from these studies, it is clear that dual-income families, though may
contribute the most to the negative impact on the environment, may not be the
best initial target to influence change. Secondly, feedback technologies alone are
ineffective because of their lack of actionability. Lastly, incentive drives users a
lot further than any other method of persuasion. These studies have introduced
many of the dynamics within households and users of eco-feedback technology,
and this has led to a desire in further explore the design of today’s technology
[3]. Other factors of persuasion include goal setting, incentives, along with dis-
incentives and penalties, feedback, and comparisons. A common theme amongst
these potential methods of inclusion are that they are interactive, allowing for
the users to be active participants in their own journey towards creating a more
sustainable lifestyle. Something controversial discussed are regarding “disincen-
tives and penalties,” as not all studies came to this same conclusion. It needs to
be determined if these are effective methods in imposing behavioral change, or
if in fact it may do the opposite, discouraging users entirely. Most of the studies
on these topics were neutral to the users, not offering a positive or a negative
impact on the users [2]. However, there is a lot less at stake with a positive
Designing an Interactive Eco-Feedback Environment 3
impact than a negative one; A positive one may not bring a change, but it will
not make users develop a disdain for the technology. A technology with potential
penalty to the users can be both discouraging as well as make the users not want
to ever use it in the future. That is why it is essential to make these technologies
have a dual purpose: helping the environment and helping the user with an issue
relevant to them.
3 Methodology
Many studies on Eco-Feedback technologies have stated that users were asked
to use a specific prototype for an observable period of time and were then inter-
viewed on their experiences [4]. In this study, users were asked to interact with
the newly created prototype as a part of their interview. That being said, this
study has a more accurate display of the user response and interaction, since the
interviewer actively observed the entirety. The interview, unlike other studies,
was not exclusively focused on their experience interacting with the prototype
and their motivations, but also allowed the user to analyze the design by do-
ing a think aloud evaluation. The final display of the study includes not just
a description of the elements of design, but also visuals of the prototype. This
paints a similar experience on paper, to that of what the users experienced, while
interacting with the prototype in the study. From previous studies, it has been
clear that users have not been very responsive to technologies that exclusively
provide feedback, because the feedback shows the impact without giving users a
proper plan of action to reduce the impact that they are having. This study is
unique in that it is a persuasive technology that also provides feedback, making
it extremely clear of what and what not to recycle; It also has a huge focus on
the design aspects and principles used in creating this product.
3.1 Datasets
Prior to implementing a design, most effective in reducing environmental im-
pact, we collected data from a random sample within Athens, Georgia. A survey
was administered through the University of Georgia (UGA)’s online Qualtrics
system. The survey is comprised of questions ranging from the participants’
demographics to their recycling habits. It also includes a section, testing partic-
ipants on their current recycling knowledge. The purpose of this methodology,
is to gauge how many users, on average, need to be further educated on proper
practices. After collecting this data, we were able to see similar demographic in-
fluenced recycling patterns as previous studies have noted. However, a few of the
huge takeaways are the users’ ideas of proper incentives as well as their current
knowledge on proper recycling. Many similar studies have long contemplated
incentives which would encourage users to increase their usage of eco-feedback
technologies. We took a direct approach, by asking individuals what they consid-
ered to be most compelling. Most said they were willing to invest in a technology
that offered a financial reward and showed the effects that the individual user
4 D.Yendapally et al.
is having on the community. The individuals surveyed also stated that they did
not want any sort of penalty; they said that even if it temporarily required them
to be more engaged, it would push them away from using the product in the
future. Many recent papers have discussed the potential of including negative
incentives in future designs, but these results indicate that may not be the most
effective course of action in the long run. It also became clear that many users
are not properly educated on what items can or cannot be recycled. In fact,
seventy-six percent of the surveyed sample, were not aware that recycling rules
differ between varying locations. Based on these results, we can conclude that
the design of these technologies need to be elucidate in instructing users on what
to recycle, as well as provide an interactive way for users to be engaged within
their respective recycling community, and in turn encouraging them to continue
to help preserve the planet.
3.2 Approach
After analyzing the collected data, we decided to create a prototype for a smart
recycling bin, which behaves as a persuasive and feedback technology. This urges
users to be more environmentally conscious, while simultaneously educating
users to recycle the proper items, based on their respective location. This re-
cycling bin will ultimately be able to use sensors to detect which items are being
recycled into the bin, while comparing them to the items that can be recycled,
according to their local recycling center. For instance, if a user were to recy-
cle a plastic bottle, and the user’s local center does not accept this, then the
UI (user interface), of the smart recycling bin, would display an error message
and sound, notifying the user that they are recycling the wrong item. Likewise,
if the user were to recycle the proper item, their behavior would be positively
reinforced with a message and sound indicating them of doing so. The local
recycling center rules are currently detected depending on the user’s location,
which can either be detected automatically, or by entering their residential zip
code. Another important feature that is included in the design is the users’ re-
cycling statistics, which is stored on a separate page and keeps record of the
total amount that the user is recycling. It promotes user activity by displaying
the cumulative positive environmental impact that each user is having on their
community. That being said, the smart recycling bin also includes a feature that
compares the user’s progress to the progress made by others within their local
community; It is a great way to stay keep motivated and encourage one another
to get involved within the community. The final feature included is the Rewards
page. Concluded from a number of Environmental Psychology papers[5], as well
as the surveys conducted within this particular study, we know that the majority
of users are primarily motivated by short term results that benefit them. They
are more likely to take immediate actions for results that they will see now, not
ten years from now. Therefore, it makes sense that a user may not be ready
to financially invest in a more expensive recycling bin, solely to reduce their
environmental impact. However, if recycling centers were to partner with local
businesses, and generate some sort of earnable discounts for users, depending
Designing an Interactive Eco-Feedback Environment 5
on their recycling habits, then users are likely to be significantly more active
in their willingness to participate. Similarly, local businesses may thrive by re-
ceiving more recognition, and most importantly, the recycling centers would be
saving a lot of time and money. Studies have shown the negative impacts that
result from wrong recycling habits, and the fact is that the majority of items
recycled end up going to waste or jamming machinery, which does a lot more
harm than good. These incentives can lead to an overall growth in environmental
sustainability.
Fig. 1. This UML Diagram shows the step by step process of the interaction with the
Smart Recycle device
4 Design
The visual aspects of the UI are a huge part of the design of eco-feedback tech-
nology but are not the only factors that should be considered. Design is inclusive
of not just the aesthetic of the product, but how simply the users are able to
interact with it; We proposed the idea of displaying a screen on the surface of
the recycle bin, and it will serve as a familiar platform for users to be able to
track their progress. This product has a minimalistic design and keeps the users’
jobs as simple as possible. The goal to require little effort is met, especially since
the primary task required of the user does not require them to physically inter-
act with the screen at all; They just have to go about recycling items as they
normally would. The screen displays a message according to their action, and
the only reason that the user would have to physically interact with the device
is if they are interested in tracking their progress or claiming their rewards. This
makes the experience nearly effortless for users. All of the screens have limited
words accompanied with clear visuals, in order reduce the probability of user er-
ror. Voice UI is another feature that has been included in the design. Firstly, it
6 D.Yendapally et al.
makes the product more accessible to someone who may struggle with their sight.
Secondly, the sounds can emphasize and reinforce the importance of a certain
recycling behavior. All of these features are optional, to give the user customized
control over their experience. The final part of the design is about making sure
that the product itself is cost effective. It would be financially draining to invest
in a separate screen for four different recycling bins, all for one user. The reason
so many bins are considered the proper way to recycle, are because recyclable
items do need to be separated. That being said, the recycling bin can have four
different sections all contained in one bin, with one screen keep track of what
goes into each section.
Fig. 2. This is the design of the Eco-Feedback Technology prototype for ”Smart Re-
cycle”.
5 Evaluation
The evaluation portion of the study has two separate components. The first
part of the evaluation revolved specifically around the design of the prototype,
whereas the second evaluation focused on the users’ combined interactions with
it. To produce as little error as possible, these two separate evaluations took
place for each interview that was conducted. The first evaluation conducted
was a Heuristic Evaluation, such as a cognitive walk through. The purpose of
this type of evaluation is to study the usability of the design. Some factors
that were considered when doing this evaluation include: visibility of system
status, match between the system and real world, simplicity in design, error
Prevention, recognition rather than recall, and flexibility and efficiency of use.
Designing an Interactive Eco-Feedback Environment 7
The second type of evaluation that we performed was on a more theoretical
level. We used the GOMS (Goal, Operators, Method, Section Rules). Here the
structure in which the user interacted with the device mattered, along with their
methodology. For instance, the time it took for a user to navigate from one part
to the next part was a vital key in this evaluating method. As we followed through
with this evaluation, we made sure that half of the users were experienced in
Human Computer Interaction Style interviews, in order to receive an accurate
understanding on the usability of our product.
Fig. 3. Graph represents the results seen by users interacting with the prototype.
6 Conclusion and Future work
The potential impact of this product is to be able to expand awareness on envi-
ronmental issues and decrease the impact that we have on it. Although this study
primarily focuses on a design for a Smart Recycling Bin, the larger objective was
to create a formula that can be reused for other technologies in the near future.
Once this design is implemented, it is a matter of time before other technologies
begin to reproduce similar designs. The study was conducted to create a revolu-
tion in design for eco feedback and persuasive technologies, in combining them.
The reality is, each of these technologies individually are not strong enough to
cause change, but together they have shown a positive impact. When evaluating
our prototype, we found that users were significantly more precise with their
recycling while using this prototype, as opposed to using a regular recycling bin
as it can be seen in Figure 3. The long-term goal of this study is creating an
Interactive Eco-Feedback environment. One recycling bin, will make a huge dif-
ference in eliminating waste, but to apply this principle into every technology we
use, will change the meaning of what we know as sustainability today. When so
much of a user’s daily interaction today is dependent upon technology, it could
be so beneficial to the environment to incorporate eco-feedback and persuasion
into all of these technologies, eventually resulting in every decision that a user
makes to be dependent upon that. It may seem a long-term goal that will not
be implemented anytime soon, but it is an essential step to take, in order to
8 D.Yendapally et al.
maintain the current state of the planet. It may be too late to reverse the envi-
ronmental damage that has already been done, but if immediate action is taken,
we can help to sustain this planet for generations to come.
References
1. Environmental psychology. International Journal of Psychol-
ogy 51(S1), 559–568 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12315,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijop.12315
2. Barreto, M., Karapanos, E., Nunes, N.: Why don’t families get along with eco-
feedback technologies? a longitudinal inquiry. In: Proceedings of the Biannual Con-
ference of the Italian Chapter of SIGCHI. CHItaly ’13, Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2499149.2499164,
https://doi.org/10.1145/2499149.2499164
3. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., Landay, J.: The design of eco-feedback tech-
nology. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. p. 1999–2008. CHI ’10, Association for Computing Ma-
chinery, New York, NY, USA (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753629,
https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753629
4. Lavery, D., Cockton, G., Atkinson, M.P.: Comparison of evaluation meth-
ods using structured usability problem reports. Behaviour & Information
Technology 16(4-5), 246–266 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1080/014492997119824,
https://doi.org/10.1080/014492997119824
5. Nisi, V., Nicoletti, D., Nisi, R., Nunes, N.J.: Beyond eco-feedback: Us-
ing art and emotional attachment to express energy consumption. In:
Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cogni-
tion. p. 381–382. Camp;C ’11, Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2069618.2069706,
https://doi.org/10.1145/2069618.2069706
