skip to main content
10.1145/2971485.2971507acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Eco-feedback Visualization for Closing the Gap of Organic Food Consumption

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the results of EcoPanel, an eco-feedback visualization created in collaboration with a Swedish food retailer. The visualization uses automatic data gathering to provide consumers with detailed information and long-term trends about their organic food consumption. The results from a five months test with 65 users show an increase in organic purchases compared to the control group, especially for the users who overestimated their percentage of organic food before the test. From the results we point out the possibilities of using visualization as a way of creating insight on behaviors such as food consumption, that are difficult to grasp from individual actions. This insight can be a way of closing the gap between attitudes and actual behavior, helping users that are already aware and willing to change, to perform more sustainable.

References

  1. Bång, M., Torstensson, C. and Katzeff, C. 2006. The PowerHouse: A persuasive computer game designed to raise awareness of domestic energy consumption. In W. IJsselsteijn, Y. de Kort, C. Midden, B. Eggen, E. van den Hoven (Eds.): Persuasive Technology. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, Vol. 3962 / 2006, 123--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bång, M., Gustafsson, A. and Katzeff, C. 2007. Promoting Renewed Domestic Energy Consumption Patterns with Pervasive Learning Games. In W. IJsselsteijn, Y. de Kort, C. Midden, B. Eggen, B.J. Fogg (Eds.): Persuasive Technology. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Vol. 4744/2007, 55--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. and Weibull, A. 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2005, 42,2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Blevis, E., and Morse, S. C. 2009. SUSTAINABLY OURS Food, dude. Interactions, 16(2), 58--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bohné, U. 2016. Exploring the intersection of design, reflection and sustainable food shopping practices: The case of the EcoPanel. Licentiate Thesis. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohné, U., Zapico, J. L., and Katzeff, C. 2015. The EcoPanel: designing for reflection on greener grocery shopping practices. In Proc. ICT4S 2015, Copenhagen, (pp. 221--228). Atlantis Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonanni, L., Busse, D. K., Thomas, J. C., Blevis, E., Turpeinen, M., and Nunes, N. J. 2011. Visible-actionable-sustainable: sustainable interaction design in professional domains. In Proc. CHI 2011 EA, ACM Press (2011), 2413--2416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Broms, L., Katzeff, C., Bång, M., Nyblom, Å., Ilstedt-Hjelm, S. and Ernberger, K. 2010. Coffee maker patterns and the design of energy feedback artefacts. In Proc. DIS 2010, ACM Press (2010), 93--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Brynjarsdottir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E., DiSalvo, C., and Sengers, P. 2012. Sustainably unpersuaded: How persuasion narrows our vision of sustainability. In Proc. CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 947--956. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cahier, J. and Gullberg, E. 2008. Ubiquitous Computing: Using everyday object as ambient visualization tools for persuasive design. Thesis, Linköping University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Clear, A. and Friday, A. 2012. Designing a Food 'Qualculator'. DIS 2012 workshop on Food for Thought: Designing for Critical Reflection on Food Practices. Newcastle, UK. June, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. De Jong, A., Kuijer, L. and Rydell, T. 2013. Balancing food values: Making sustainable choices within cooking practices. Nordic Design Research Conference 2013, Copenhagen-Malmö, 127--135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., and Brynjarsdóttir, H. 2010. Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press (2010) 1975--1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Farr-Wharton, G. Foth, M. and Choi, J.Z. 2013. EatChaFood: challenging technology design to slice food waste production. In Proc. UbiComp 2013 (adjunct publication), ACM Press (2013), 559--562. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Festinger, L., 1962. A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fogg, B.J. 2002. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity 2002. December (2002): 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., ... and Balzer, C. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478 (7369), 337--342.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L. and Landay, J. 2010. The design of eco- feedback technology. In Proc. CHI 2010,. ACM Press (2010), 1999--2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Gustafsson, A. and Gyllenswärd, M. 2005. The power-aware cord: energy awareness through ambient information display. In Proc. CHI EA 2005 ACM Press (2005), 1423--1426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hargreaves, T. Nye, M. and Burgess, J. 2013. Keeping energy visible? Exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term. Energy Policy, 52, 126--134Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. He, H. A. Greenberg, S. and Huang, E. M. 2010. One size does not fit all: applying the transtheoretical model to energy feedback technology design. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press (2010) 927--936. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Hirsch, T. Sengers, P. Blevis, E. Beck, R and Parikh, T. 2010. Making food, producing sustainability. In Proc. CHI 2010 EA, ACM Press (2010), 3147--3150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Hoffman, R. and Wivstad, M. 2015. Why do (don't) we buy organic food and do we get what we bargain for?. Report from SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalnikaite, V. Rogers, Y. Bird, J. Villar, N. Bachour, K. Payne, S. Todd, P.M. Schöning, J. Krüger, A. and Kreitmayer, S. 2011. How to nudge in Situ: designing lambent devices to deliver salient information in supermarkets. In Proc. UbiComp 2011, ACM Press (2011), 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Katzeff, C. Broms, L. Jönsson, L. Westholm, U. and Räsänen, M. 2013. Exploring Sustainable Practices in Workplace Settings through Visualizing Electricity Consumption. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 20, 5, Article 31. ACM Press, November 2013 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Reitberger, W.H. Spreicer, W. and Fitzpatrick, G. 2014. Nutriflect: reflecting collective shopping behavior and nutrition. In Proc. CHI 2014, ACM Press (2014), 3309--3318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Scialabba, N. E-H and Müller-Lindenlauf, M. 2010. Organic agriculture and climate change." Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25.02: 158--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Strengers, Y. 2014. Smart energy in everyday life: Are you designing for resource man? Interactions, 21(4), 24--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/nyheter/5-viktigavaror-att-byta-till-eko {Accessed May 2016}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Thieme, A. Comber, R. Miebach, J. Weeden, J. Kraemer, N. Lawson, S. and Olivier, P. 2012. "We've bin watching you": Designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles. In Proc. CHI 2012. ACM Press (2012), 2337--2346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. 2006, Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer "attitude --behavioral intention" gap. J. Agricult. Environ. Ethics 19(2), 169--194Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Weiser, P., Bucher, D., Cellina, F., and De Luca, V. 2015. A taxonomy of motivational affordances for meaningful gamified and persuasive technologies. In Proc. ICT4S 2015, Univ. Copenhagen. Atlantis Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Zapico, J.L. 2014. Blinded by data: The risks of the implicit focus on data in ICT for Sustainability. In Proc. ICT4S 2014, Stockholm. Atlantis PressGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Eco-feedback Visualization for Closing the Gap of Organic Food Consumption

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      NordiCHI '16: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
      October 2016
      1045 pages
      ISBN:9781450347631
      DOI:10.1145/2971485

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 October 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      NordiCHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate58of231submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader