skip to main content
research-article

A Biocentric Perspective on HCI Design Research Involving Plants

Published:20 October 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

HCI researchers increasingly involve plants in their interaction design research, such as using plants as novel interfaces or sensors. While research involving other living entities, namely humans and animals is regulated, there exists no guidance for plants involved in HCI research. Motivated by biocentric philosophy, the present article makes a first attempt at addressing this gap. Commencing with a review of the development of research ethics, we show that as ethical concern has expanded from humans to animals, there is an argument for its expansion to plants. Through the lens of Respect for Nature, we then review the state-of-the-art in HCI design research involving plants. Our focus lies with ethics in the process of conducting research and its implications for the plants involved. We derive a set of actionable ethical design considerations for researchers involving plants in their interaction design work. Finally, our work aims to stimulate discussion on the involvement of plants in interaction design research.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Adhitya Sara, Davis Beck, Frankjaer Raune, Flanagan Patricia, and Mahony Zoe. 2016. The BIOdress: A body-worn interface for environmental embodiment. In Proceedings of the TEI’16: 10th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 627634. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Alakärppä Ismo, Jaakkola Elisa, Väyrynen Jani, and Häkkilä Jonna. 2017. Using nature elements in mobile AR for education with children. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. Association for Computing Machinery, Article 41. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Angelini Leonardo, Caparrotta Stefania, Khaled Omar Abou, and Mugellini Elena. 2016. EmotiPlant: Human–plant interaction for older adults. In Proceedings of the TEI’16: 10th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 373379. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Angermeier Paul L.. 2000. The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology 14, 2 (2000), 373381. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Antle Alissa N.. 2017. The ethics of doing research with vulnerable populations. Interactions 24, 6 (2017), 7477. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Aspling Fredrik. 2015. Animals, plants, people and digital technology: exploring and understanding multispecies-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM, 14. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Aspling Fredrik, Wang Jinyi, and Juhlin Oskar. 2016. Plant–computer interaction, beauty and dissemination. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Animal–Computer Interaction. ACM, 110. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Association for Computing Machinery. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2019 from https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Bahuguna Daksh, Nagpal Bhavna, Kalita Bitopan, Agarwal Isha, and Sankar Choudhary Mani. 2017. Sproutshout: participatory platform for shared foster care of plants. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction. ACM, 640645. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Bardzell Jeffrey, Bardzell Shaowen, and Light Ann. 2021. Wanting to live here: Design after anthropocentric functionalism. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 124. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Barlow Peter W.. 2008. Reflections on ‘plant neurobiology’. Biosystems 92, 2 (2008), 132147. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Bettelli Alice, Orso Valeria, Pluchino Patrik, and Gamberini Luciano. 2019. An enriched visit to the botanical garden: Co-designing tools and contents. In Proceedings of the 13th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter: Designing the next interaction. ACM, 15. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Bhardwaj Purav and Joseph Cletus V.. 2020. Plantimate: Personality augmentation for fostering empathy towards plants. In Companion Publication of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, 563567. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Bhole L. M.. 2015. Ethics in research with special reference to social sciences. In Essays on Research Methodology. D. S. Hegde (Ed.). Springer, New Delhi, 213225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Bittner Björn, Aslan Ilhan, Dang Chi Tai and André. Elisabeth 2019. Of smarthomes, IoT plants, and implicit interaction design. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, 145154. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Bonnett Michael. 2002. Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education Research 8, 1 (2002), 920. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Botros Fadi, Perin Charles, Aseniero Bon Adriel, and Carpendale Sheelagh. 2016. Go and grow: Mapping personal data to a living plant. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. Association for Computing Machinery, 112119. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Brown Barry, Weilenmann Alexandra, McMillan Donald and Lampinen Airi. 2016. Five provocations for ethical HCI research. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 852863. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Bruckman Amy. 2014. Research ethics and HCI. In Ways of Knowing in HCI. J. S. Olson and W. A. Kellogg (Eds.). Springer, New York, NY, 449468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Bull Lawrence. 2005. The Future of Environmental Criticism: Environmental Crisis and Literary Imagination. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Bylebyl Jerome J.. 1985. Disputation and description in the renaissance pulse controversy. In The Medical Renaissance of the 16th Century. A. Wear, R. K. French, and I. M. Lonie (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 223245.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Carroll John M.. 2003. Introduction: Toward a multidisciplinary science of human-computer interaction. In HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks. Carroll J. M. (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Carrozzo Federica, Faccini Ruben, Falci Angelo, Redaelli Beatrice, Gelsomini Mirko, Zannoni Giacomo, and Garzotto Franca. 2018. IDROPO, A hydroponic planting system to teach gardening through play. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 14. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Chen Dominique, ah Seong Young, Ogura Hiraku, Mitani Yuto, Sekiya Naoto, and Moriya Kiichi. 2021. Nukabot: Design of care for human–microbe relationships. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, Article 291. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. [25] Cho Jaewon, Park Sanghoo, Jeon Been, Bae Byung-Chull, and Cho Jun-Dong. 2015. People's emotional responses to a plant's emotional expression. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 545550. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Colley Ashley, Raudanjoki Özge, Mikkonen Kirsi, and Häkkilä Jonna. 2019. Plant shadow morphing as a peripheral display. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. Association for Computing Machinery, Article 41. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Cottingham John. 1978. ‘A Brute to the Brutes?’: descartes' treatment of animals. Philosophy 53, 206 (1978), 551559. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Leal Débora de Castro, Duarte Ana Maria Bustamante, Krüger Max, and Strohmayer Angelika. 2021. Into the mine: Wicked reflections on decolonial thinking and technologies. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies—Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech (C&T’21). Association for Computing Machinery, 269280. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Deane-Drummond Celia. 2004. The Ethics of Nature. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Degraen Donald, Kosmalla Felix, and Krüger Antonio. 2019. Overgrown: Supporting plant growth with an endoskeleton for ambient notifications. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery. Paper LBW2116. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] Degraen Donald, Schubhan Marc, Mushkina Kamila, Makhsadov Akhmajon, Kosmalla Felix, Zenner André, and Krüger Antonio. 2020. AmbiPlant—Ambient feedback for digital media through actuated plants. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 19. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Diener Edward and Crandall Rick. 1978. Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Dürnberger Christian. 2018. Utopia in the garden: New utopian and dystopian thinking in current debates on nature, agriculture, and food. In Plant Ethics: Concepts and Ethics. A. Kallhoff, M. Di Paola, and M. Schörgenhumer (Eds.). Routledge, Oxon, 164176.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Durrant Abigail C., Kirk David S., and Reeves Stuart. 2014. Human values in curating a human rights media archive. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 26852694. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Easterly Douglas. 2004. Bio-Fi: Inverse biotelemetry projects. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia. ACM, New York, NY, 182183. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Ereshefsky Marc. 2007. Where the wild things are: Environmental preservationand human nature. Biology & Philosophy, 22, 1 (2007), 5772. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Farrell Martin. 2014. Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Fastnacht Till, Ornelas Aispuro Abraham, Marschall Johannes, Fischer Patrick Tobias, Zierold Sabine, and Hornecker Eva. 2016. Sonnengarten: Urban light installation with human–plant interaction. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct. ACM, 5356. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation. 1999. Art. 120 paragraph 2. https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/20210101/en/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-cc-1999-404-20210101-en-pdf-a.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology. 2008. The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants: Moral Consideration of Plants for their Own Sake. Federal Office for the Envrionment, Berne.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Fell Jan, Greene Travis, Wang Jyun-Cheng, and Kuo Pei-Yi. 2020. Beyond human-centered design: Proposing a biocentric view on design research involving vegetal subjects. In Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, 209214. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Fiesler Casey, Hancock Jeff, Bruckman Amy, Muller Michael, Munteanu Cosmin, and Densmore Melissa. 2018. Research ethics for HCI: A roundtable discussion. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 15. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Fiesler Casey, Wisniewski Pamela, Pater Jessica, and Andalibi Nazanin. 2016. Exploring Ethics and Obligations for Studying Digital Communities. Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [44] Fitz-Walter Zachary, Phillips Cody, Raftopoulos Marigo, and Thiel Sarah-Kristin. 2016. Designing gameful and ethical experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 7780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [45] Forsberg Ellen-Marie. 2006. A stakeholder based method for business ethics. In Philosophy and Ethics: New Research. L. V. Siegal (Ed.). Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [46] Frankjær Raune and Kitel Maggie. 2016. Flora luma: A research-oriented artistic exploration of human-vegetal participatory space. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops—Volume 2. ACM, 6162. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Friedman Batya. 1996. Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3, 6 (1996), 1623. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. [48] Friedman Batya. 1997. Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. [49] Friedman Batya, Hendry David G., and Borning Alan. 2017. A survey of value sensitive design methods. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 11, 2 (2017), 63125. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. [50] Friedman Batya, Kahn Peter H., Borning Alan, and Huldtgren Alina. 2013. Value sensitive design and information systems. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory. Doorn N., Schuurbiers D., van de Poel I., and Gorman M. E. (Eds.). Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, 5595.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [51] Friedman Batya and Nissenbaum Helen. 1993. Discerning bias in computer systems. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 141142. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Gao Jie, Zhou Leijing, Dong Miaomiao, and Zhang Fan. 2018. Expressive plant: A multisensory interactive system for sensory training of children with autism. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers. ACM, 4649. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. [53] Garrett Jeremy R.. 2012. The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Gentile Vito, Sorce Salvatore, Elhart Ivan, and Milazzo Fabrizio. 2018. Plantxel: Towards a plant-based controllable display. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays. ACM, 18. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. [55] Gillespie Richard. 1989. Research on human subjects: An historical overview. Bioethics News, 8, 2 (1989), s4s15. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. [56] Greene Travis, Shmueli Galit, Ray Soumya, and Fell Jan. 2019. Adjusting to the GDPR: The impact on data scientists and behavioral researchers. Big Data 7, 3 (2019), 140162. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. [57] Guo Qiyong and Cui Tao. 2015. A study on pre-qin confucian scholars’ environmental ethics. In Contemporary Confucianism in Thought and Action. Alitto G. (Ed.). Springer, Heidelberg, 4162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. [58] Guo Qiyong and Cui Tao. 2017. The value of reconstructing confucianism for the contemporary world. In Reconceptualizing Confucian Philosophy in the 21st Century. Yao X. (Ed.). Springer, Singapore, 367390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. [59] Hall Matthew. 2011. Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Hamidi Foad and Baljko Melanie. 2017. Engaging children using a digital living media system. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 711723. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. [61] Hammond J.. 2000. Overview: The many uses and applications of transgenic plants. In Plant Biotechnology: New Products and Applications. Hammond J., McGarvey P., and Yusibov V. (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. [62] Haqq-Misra Jacob. 2012. An ecological compass for planetary engineering. Astrobiology 12, 10 (2012), 985997. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. [63] Harré Rom. 2002. Great Scientific Experiments: Twenty Experiments that Changed our View of the World. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. [64] Hashimi Muhammad Ali, Kim Heamin, Dementyev Artem, Lazarovich Amir, and Yang Hye Soo. 2013. Animafluid: A Dynamic Liquid Interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. [65] Hill Clara E., Knox Sarah, Thompson Barbara J., Williams Elizabeth Nutt, Hess Shirley A., and Ladany Nicholas. 2005. Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52, 2 (2005), 196205. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. [66] Hill Clara E., Thompson Barbara J., and Williams Elizabeth Nutt. 1997. A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist 25, 4 (1997), 517572. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. [67] Holstius David, Kembel John, Hurst Amy, Wan Peng-Hui, and Forlizzi Jodi. 2004. Infotropism: living and robotic plants as interactive displays. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques. ACM, 215221. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. [68] Hourdequin Marion. 2015. Environmental Ethics: From Theory to Practice. Bloomsbury Academic, London.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. [69] Hubrecht Robert C.. 2014. The Welfare of Animals Used in Research: Practice and Ethics. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. [70] Hwang Sungjae, Lee Kibeom and Yeo Woonseung. 2010. My Green Pet: A current-based interactive plant for children. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. Association for Computing Machinery, 210213. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. [71] Isai Bashkim and Viller Stephen. 2010. Meet eater: Affectionate computing, social networks and human–plant interaction. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction. ACM, 414415. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. [72] Israel Mark. 2015. Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists: Beyond Regulatory Compliance. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. [73] Israel Mark and Hay Iain. 2006. Research Ethics for Social Scientists. Sage Publications, London.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. [74] Ivy A. C.. 1948. The history and ethics of the use of human subjects in medical experiments. Science 108, 2792 (1948), 15. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. [75] Jonsen Albert R.. 1998. The ethics of research with human subjects: A short history. In Source Book in Bioethics: A Documentary History. Jonsen A. R., Veatch R. M., and Walters L. (Eds.). Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, 310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. [76] Jonsen Albert R.. 2005. On the origins and future of the belmont report. In Belmont Revisited: Ethical Principles for Research with Human Subjects. J. F. Childress , E. M. Meslin , and H. T. Shapiro (Eds.). Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, 311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. [77] Kahn Peter H.. 1997. Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children's affiliation with nature. Developmental Review 17, 1 (1997), 161. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. [78] Kallhoff Angela, Di Paola Marcello, and Schörgenhumer Maria. 2018. Introduction. In Plant Ethics: Concepts and Ethics. A. Kallhoff, M. Di Paola, and M. Schörgenhumer (Eds.). Routledge, Oxon, 110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. [79] Kawakami Ayumi, Tsukada Koji, Kambara Keisuke, and Siio Itiro. 2011. PotPet: Pet-like flowerpot robot. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 263264. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. [80] Kawamura Takahiro and Ohsuga Akihiko. 2013. Flower voice: Virtual assistant using LOD. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Knowledge Capture. ACM, 125128. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. [81] Kerr Gaven. 2019. Aquinas and the Metaphysics of Creation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. [82] Wall Kimmerer Robin. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, MN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. [83] King John Leslie. 2015. Humans in computing: Growing responsibilities for researchers. Communications of the ACM 58, 3 (2015), 3133. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. [84] Klitzman Robert L.. 2015. The Ethics Police? The Struggle to Make Human Research Safe. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. [85] Kobayashi Hiroki. 2014. Human–Computer–Biosphere Interaction: Beyond Human—Centric Interaction. Springer International Publishing, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. [86] Kobayashi Hiroki, Ueoka Ryoko, and Hirose Michitaka. 2008. Wearable forest-feeling of belonging to nature. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. Association for Computing Machinery, 11331134. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. [87] Kobayashi Hiroki, Ueoka Ryoko, and Hirose Michitaka. 2009. Human computer biosphere interaction: Towards a sustainable society. In Proceedings of the CHI’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 25092518. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. [88] Kocher Deanna, Crandall Cuyler, Yuan Christine, and Green Keith. 2020. GROWBOT: A robotic system to help children grow plants. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference: Extended Abstracts. Association for Computing Machinery, 284287. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. [89] Koechlin Florianne. 2009. The dignity of plants. Plant Signaling & Behavior 4, 1 (2009), 7879. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. [90] Koepsell David. 2017. Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics: An Approach from the Ethos of Science. Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. [91] Kuribayashi Satoshi, Sakamoto Yusuke, Morihara Maya and Tanaka Hiroya. 2007. Plantio: An interactive pot to augment plants’ expressions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM, 139142. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. [92] Kuribayashi Satoshi, Sakamoto Yusuke, and Tanaka Hiroya. 2007. I/O plant: A tool kit for designing augmented human–plant interactions. In Proceedings of the 2007 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 25372542. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. [93] Kuribayashi Satoshi and Wakita Akira. 2006. PlantDisplay: turning houseplants into ambient display. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. 40. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. [94] Kurihara Wataru, Nakano Akito, Kushiyama Kumiko, and Hada Hisakazu. 2019. Prototyping of ambient media using shameplants. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays. ACM, 12. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. [95] Kwok Sze Yin, Skatova Anya, Shipp Victoria, and Crabtree Andy. 2015. The ethical challenges of experience sampling using wearable cameras. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct. Association for Computing Machinery, 10541057. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. [96] Langheinrich Marc, Schmidt Albrecht, Davies Nigel, and José Rui. 2013. A practical framework for ethics: The PD-net approach to supporting ethics compliance in public display studies. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays. Association for Computing Machinery, 139143. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. [97] Lederer Susan E.. 1995. Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America Before the Second World War. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. [98] Lightman Bernard. 2010. The many lives of Charles Darwin: Early biographies and the definitive evolutionist. Notes and Records of the Royal Society 64, 4 (2010), 339358. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. [99] Loh Susan and Santo Yasu. 2010. Please touch the plant on your way up the stairs.... In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction. ACM, 412413. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. [100] Mackay Wendy E.. 1995. Ethics, lies and videotape. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 138145. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  101. [101] Mancini Clara. 2011. Animal–computer interaction: a manifesto. Interactions 18, 4 (2011), 6973. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. [102] Manzella V., Gaz C., Vitaletti A., Masi E., Santopolo L., Mancuso S., Salazar D., and de las Heras J. J.. 2013. Plants as sensing devices: The PLEASED experience. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. ACM, 12. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  103. [103] Marder Michael. 2013. Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. [104] McMillan Donald, Morrison Alistair, and Chalmers Matthew. 2013. Categorised Ethical Guidelines for Large Scale Mobile HCI. Association for Computing Machinery, Paris, France.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  105. [105] Merritt Timothy, Hamidi Foad, Alistar Mirela, and DeMenezes Marta. 2020. Living media interfaces: A multi-perspective analysis of biological materials for interaction. Digital Creativity 31, 1 (2020), 121. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  106. [106] Millstein Roberta L.. 2013. Environmental ethics. In The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. K. Kampourakis (Ed.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 723743.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. [107] Mitchell Les. 2018. Chain of Fools: The language of power. In The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. A. Linzey and C. Linzey (Eds.). Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, 7193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  108. [108] Munteanu Cosmin, Molyneaux Heather, Moncur Wendy, Romero Mario, O'Donnell Susan, and Vines John. 2015. Situational ethics: Re-thinking approaches to formal ethics requirements for human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 105114. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  109. [109] Murphy Timothy F.. 2004. Case Studies in Biomedical Research Ethics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. [110] Murrie Greg. 2013. ‘Death-in-life’: Curare, restrictionism and abolitionism in Victorian and Edwardian anti-vivisectionist thought. In Animal Death. J. Johnston and F. Probyn-Rapsey (Eds.). Sydney University Press, Sydney, 253-276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. [111] Nathan Lisa P., Thieme Anja, Tatar Deborah, and Branham Stacy. 2016. Disruptions, dilemmas and paradoxes: Ethical matter(s) in design research. Interacting with Computers, 29, 1 (2016) 19. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  112. [112] National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. [113] Nissenbaum Helen. 1998. The cutting edge. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 28, 1 (1998), 3839. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. [114] North Steve. 2016. Do androids dream of electric steeds? the allure of horse-computer interaction. Interactions 23, 2 (2016), 5053. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  115. [115] Norton Juliet, Nayebaziz Sahand, Burke Sean, Pan B. Jack, and Tomlinson Bill. 2014. Plant guild composer: An interactive online system to support back yard food production. In Proceedings of the CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 523526. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  116. [116] Owen Michael. 2006. Ethical review of social and behavioral science research. In Research Administration and Management. E. C. Kulakowski and L. U. Chronister (Eds.). Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA, 543556.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. [117] Ozsvald Eszter. 2012. Embedded soft material displays. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, 405406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  118. [118] Park Taiwoo, Hu Tianyu, and Huh Jina. 2016. Plant-based games for anxiety reduction. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, 199204. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. [119] Patterson-Kane Emily and Golab Gail C.. 2014. History, philosophies, and concepts of animal welfare. In Laboratory Animal Welfare. K. Bayne and P. V. Turner (Eds.). Academic Press, London, 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  120. [120] Phillips Robert A. and Reichart Joel. 2000. The Environment as a Stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 2 (2000), 185197. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  121. [121] Pillai Ajit G., Kocaballi A. Baki, Leong Tuck Wah, Calvo Rafael A., Parvin Nassim, Shilton Katie, Waycott Jenny, Fiesler Casey, Havens John C., and Ahmadpour Naseem. 2021. Co-Designing resources for ethics education in HCI. 2021. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20201217225757/https://sites.google.com/view/codesignethics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  122. [122] Plumwood Val. 1991. Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia 6, 1 (1991), 327. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  123. [123] Pollo Simone and Vitale Augusto. 2019. Invertebrates and humans: Science, ethics, and policy. In The Welfare of Invertebrate Animal. Carere C. and Mather J. (Eds.). Springer, Cham, 722.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  124. [124] Poole Erika S. and Peyton Tamara. 2013. Interaction design research with adolescents: Methodological challenges and best practices. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. Association for Computing Machinery, 211217. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  125. [125] Portocarrero Edwina, Dublon Gershon, Paradiso Joseph, and Michael Bove V.. 2015. Listentree: Audio-haptic display in the natural environment. In Proceedings of the CHI 2015 33rd Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 395398. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  126. [126] Poupyrev Ivan, Schoessler Philipp, Loh Jonas, and Sato Munehiko. 2012. Botanicus Interacticus: Interactive plants technology. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2012 Emerging Technologies Conference. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  127. [127] Pouteau Sylvie. 2014. Beyond “second animals”: making sense of plant ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 1 (2014), 125. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  128. [128] Preece Jenny, Rogers Yvonne, Sharp Helen, Benyon David, Holland Simon, and Carey Tom. 1994. Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, Harlow.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  129. [129] Preece Rod. 2007. Thoughts out of season on the history of animal ethics. Society & Animals 15, 4 (2007), 365378. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  130. [130] Bellacasa María Puig de la. 2017. Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  131. [131] Raber Karen. 2013. Animal Bodies, Renaissance Culture. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia, PA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  132. [132] Randolph Richard O. and McKay Christopher P.. 2014. Protecting and expanding the richness and diversity of life, an ethic for astrobiology research and space exploration. International Journal of Astrobiology 13, 1 (2014), 2834. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  133. [133] Read Janet C., Horton Matthew, Sim Gavin, Gregory Peggy, Fitton Daniel, and Cassidy Brendan. 2013. CHECk: A tool to inform and encourage ethical practice in participatory design with children. In Proceedings of the CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 187192. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  134. [134] Resnik David. 1998. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  135. [135] Resnik David B.. 2018. The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects: Protecting People, Advancing Science, Promoting Trust. Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  136. [136] Röcklinsberg Helena, Gjerris Mickey, and Anna S. Olsson I.. 2017. Animal Ethics in Animal Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  137. [137] Rollin Bernard E.. 2012. Ethics and Animal Research. In The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy. J. R. Garrett (Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  138. [138] Rothman David J.. 1987. Ethics and human experimentation. New England Journal of Medicine 317, 19 (1987), 11951199. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  139. [139] Rowan Andrew N.. 1984. Of Mice, Models, and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  140. [140] Charles Ryan John. 2012. Passive Flora? Reconsidering nature's agency through human–plant studies (HPS). Societies 2, 3 (2012), 101121. doi:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  141. [141] Samonte Mary Jane C., Signo Eugene Paolo E., Gayomali Raphael Julian M., Rey William P., and Serrano Elcid A.. 2019. PHYTO: An IoT urban gardening mobile app. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Systems. ACM, 135139. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  142. [142] Sareen Harpreet and Maes Pattie. 2019. Cyborg botany: Exploring in-planta cybernetic systems for interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 16. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  143. [143] Sareen Harpreet, Zheng Jiefu, and Maes Pattie. 2019. Cyborg botany: Augmented plants as sensors, displays and actuators. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 12. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  144. [144] Schmidt Markus, Dando Malcolm, and Deplazes Anna. 2011. Dealing with the outer reaches of synthetic biology biosafety, biosecurity, IPR, and ethical challenges of chemical synthetic biology. In Chemical Synthetic Biology. P. L. Luisi and C. Chiarabelli (Eds.). John WIley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 321342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  145. [145] Seo Jinsil Hwaryoung, Sungkajun Annie, and Suh Jinkyo. 2015. Touchology: Towards interactive plant design for children with autism and older adults in senior housing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 893898. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  146. [146] Shamoo Adil E. and Resnik David B.. 2009. Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  147. [147] Shmueli Galit. 2017. Analyzing behavioral big data: Methodological, practical, ethical, and moral issues. Quality Engineering 29, 1 (2017), 5774. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  148. [148] Shmueli Galit. 2017. Research dilemmas with behavioral big data. Big Data 5, 2 (2017), 98119. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  149. [149] Shuster Evelyne. 1997. Fifty years later: The significance of the nuremberg code. New England Journal of Medicine 337, 20 (1997), 14361440. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  150. [150] Silver Kenneth. 2019. Can a corporation be worthy of moral consideration? Journal of Business Ethics 159, 1 (2019), 253265. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  151. [151] Skatova Anya, Shipp Victoria E., Spacagna Lee, Bedwell Benjamin, Beltagui Ahmad, and Rodden Tom. 2015. Datawear: Self-reflection on the Go or How to Ethically Use Wearable Cameras for Research. Association for Computing Machinery, Seoul, Republic of Korea.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  152. [152] Smith Graham. 2003. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  153. [153] Smith Nancy, Bardzell Shaowen, and Bardzell Jeffrey. 2017. Designing for cohabitation: Naturecultures, hybrids, and decentering the human in design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 17141725. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  154. [154] Sommerer Christa, Mignonneau Laurent, and Weil Florian. 2016. The art of human to plant interaction. In The Green Thread: Dialogues with the Vegetal World. P. Vieira, M. Gagliano, and J. C. Ryan (Eds.). Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, 233254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  155. [155] Steer Cameron, Robinson Simon, and Jones Matt. 2015. Growth, change and decay: Plants and interaction possibilities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 20372042. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  156. [156] Steiner Helene, Johns Paul, Roseway Asta, Quirk Chris, Gupta Sidhant, and Lester Jonathan. 2017. Project florence: A plant to human experience. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 14151420. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  157. [157] Steneck Nicholas H.. 2006. Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics 12, 1 (2006), 5374. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  158. [158] Stenmark Michael. 2002. Environmental Ethics and Policy-Making. Routledge, Oxon.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  159. [159] Sterba James P.. 1998. Biocentrism and ecological integrity. In Ecological Sustainability and Integrity: Concepts and Approaches. J. Lemons, L. Westra, and R. Goodland (Eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, 6374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  160. [160] Sterba James P.. 1998. A biocentrist strikes back. Environmental Ethics 20, 4 (1998), 361376. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  161. [161] Tannenbaum Jerrold. 2001. The paradigm shift toward animal happiness: What It Is, Why It Is Happening, and What It portends for medical research. In Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. E. F. Paul and J. Paul (Eds.). Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 93130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  162. [162] Tao Sijia, Huang Yiyuan, and Lioret Alain. 2016. Plant interaction. In Proceedings of the 2016 Virtual Reality International Conference. ACM, 14. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  163. [163] Tao Sijia and Lioret Alain. 2016. Plant feedback on environmental changes and human interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH ASIA 2016 Posters. ACM, 12. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  164. [164] Taylor Paul W.. 1981. The ethics of respect for nature. Environmental Ethics 3, 3 (1981), 197218. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  165. [165] Taylor Paul W.. 1986. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  166. [166] Hoonaard Willy Carl Van Den. 2011. Seduction of Ethics: Transforming the Social Sciences. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  167. [167] Vincent Andrew. 2010. Modern Political Ideologies. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  168. [168] Vitak Jessica, Shilton Katie, and Ashktorab Zahra. 2016. Beyond the belmont principles: Ethical challenges, practices, and beliefs in the online data research community. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. Association for Computing Machinery, 941953. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  169. [169] Vogel Steven. 1996. Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory. State University of New York Press, Albanay, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  170. [170] Waycott Jenny, Munteanu Cosmin, Davis Hilary, Thieme Anja, Branham Stacy, Moncur Wendy, McNaney Roisin, and Vines John. 2017. Ethical encounters in HCI: Implications for research in sensitive settings. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 518525. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  171. [171] Wilkins John S.. 2018. Species: The Evolution of the Idea. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  172. [172] Wilks Anna Frammartino. 2016. Kantian foundations for a cosmocentric ethiccosmocentrism. In The Ethics of Space Exploration. Schwartz J. S. J. and Milligan T. (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 181194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  173. [173] Wippel John F.. 2000. The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas: From Finite Being to Uncreated Being. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  174. [174] Wise Steven M.. 2000. Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals. Basic Books, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  175. [175] Wohlin Claes. 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, Article 38. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  176. [176] Wu Kuan-Ju and McGregor Andrew. 2019. Natura machina: Teenage meadow. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition. Association for Computing Machinery, 432435. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  177. [177] Yamada Hiroki. 2010. Floral melody: Flower arrangement as music interface. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2010 Posters. ACM. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  178. [178] Zarraonandia Telmo, Montero Alvaro, Diaz Paloma, and Aedo Ignacio. 2019. “Magic Flowerpot”: An AR game for learning about plants. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. Association for Computing Machinery, 813819. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  179. [179] Zhang Xuezhi. 2017. Ecological consciousness and the conscience in the writings of wang yangming. In Reconceptualizing Confucian Philosophy in the 21st Century. Yao X. (Ed.). Springer, Singapore, 339354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  180. [180] Zuzworsky Rose. 2001. From the marketplace to the dinner plate: The economy, theology, and factory farming. Journal of Business Ethics 29, 1 (2001), 177188. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A Biocentric Perspective on HCI Design Research Involving Plants

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 29, Issue 5
      October 2022
      453 pages
      ISSN:1073-0516
      EISSN:1557-7325
      DOI:10.1145/3561950
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      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 ACM 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: 20 October 2022
      • Online AM: 13 April 2022
      • Accepted: 19 January 2022
      • Revised: 12 November 2021
      • Received: 11 June 2021
      Published in tochi Volume 29, Issue 5

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format