Macquoij final report m1 1

Report Research Project Industrial Design / The new green now

Name: Marieke Acquoij Student number: 080302 Semester: M1.1 Coach: Sander Mulder January 2015

MRP

abstract

Introduction

In this report the research project of Marieke Acquoij, student at the Industrial Design faculty of the University of Technology Eindhoven, is discussed.

The project is called The New Green Now and moves in the field of sustainability. This project extends further upon the research of EUPHORIA which focuses on ECO-feedback to prevent food waste.

EUPHORIA is a PHD-project at the faculty of Industrial Design at the Technical University of Eindhoven.

Dear all,

To gain more knowledge about ECO-feedback the research project of The New Green Now was set up. For this a bin was used as a probe.

In this project a baseline measurement was done within a house hold of 8 students. This measurement showed how much food waste there was before introducing a new design. After this measurement 3 designs were introduced to search for different meanings in feedback.

First a moment of conciliation was introduced which was followed by a controlling function. This controlled function was created by sensors and feedback in the last two introduced prototypes.

This semester I have started my master at the faculty of Industrial Design after finishing the pre-master in Industrial Design and Bachelor in Building Engineering.

In this period I attended 3 modules; Constructive design research, dynamic form giving and exploring rituals. Next to these modules I have been working on my research project The New Green Now. The process of my research project will be described in the following chapters. The process is based on a research through design approach with a focus on field research. The goal of the project was to give new insights on eco-feedback in the field of food waste prevention.

Enjoy reading, Marieke Acquoij

The two elements gave major results in the awareness of the users about their food waste. Although change in awareness was noticeable, it is not sure if this was because of the whole period of facing new designs or about one specific bin. For this further research with single probes is needed.

2

3

general problem

Contents

10

Abstract Introduction facts research

general context

6 8 8

general problem

goal

Method

research trough design provotyping context

prototypes

Results & Discussion

qualitative data

quanitative data

11

12 12 15

15 16 20

22

general Conclusions

Acknoledgments

Reference list

Appendices

Appendix A

aPPENDIX b

aPPENDIX C

aPPENDIX d

40

discussion

4

10

34 38

42 43 ALL

MRP

A B

C D

5

Why

about the consumer 1

1.3

billion

tonnes

facts

Of the food produced in the world for human consumption is wasted every year

2

48 kg a year 4 kg a month 0,9 kg a week

solid food per person per year is wasted in the Netherlands This is equal to

â‚Ź 155 a year per person

2 80% of the Dutch households claim to waste a small amount of food.

While research shows that only 10% of this group actually waste less food than average.

Typical food waste products are; bread, potatos, rice and pasta the most.

Next to this also vegtables, fruit and dairy product are mentions spontaniously while associating with food waste.

Waste is underestimated in most households. Most of the people do not recognize food waste since waste portions are small .

6

They do take responsibility for their own waste, nevertheless they see themselves only having a small impact on a global scale.

They say that the largest contribution must come from the major providers like farmers, supermarkets, food processorsand restaurants.

7

research

General context In recent years, the impact of food losses and food waste on food security has become a global concern.

Every year, roughly one third of the world’s food production for human consumption gets wasted. This is approximately 1.3 billion tonnes per year. Consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).1 These amounts are based on the production of the total food chain. In The New Green Now project is focussed on the food chain of an individual. This chain exists of 4 different phases: Purchasing, Saving, Planning & Preparation and Awareness about food waste2.

A second project of EUPHORIA was focused on Ecofeedback.

Eco-feedback is a strategy to increase awareness of resource use and to encourage conservation.

In this project they applied eco-feedback on household food waste with the prospective to increase awareness and explore its impact on food related decision-making4. In order to investigate this a prototype has been developed in form of a bin to provide this feedback. Research using this prototype was done in student housing. In preliminary findings, participants indicated positive effects on dealing with leftovers, food preparation and reflection about food waste issues, when eco-feedback was deployed.

A research project that focusses on food waste of the individual in households is EUPHORIA. EUPHORIA is a PhDproject based at Eindhoven University of Technology.

According to EUPHORIA’s researchers food waste has received little attention in pervasive computing.

The eco-feedback in this prototype was based on visuals in form of LED-light that was able to change in a range from green to red. To build upon this research about ecofeedback, the findings are used to design a next iteration of this concept.

EUPHORIA stresses the need for understanding how intelligent technology could prevent food waste in households3. Therefore, a community based social system has been developed that can track users’ food waste and redirect behavior.

8

9

general problem Within the EUPHORIA project insights into the creation of awareness about food waste among households were found to be lacking. Lim V. (2014) indicated in an interview to have done too little research about social behavior and Eco-feedback. For this recent research is set up in the New Green Now Project. In this project Eco-feedback will be further investigated.

Goal The goal of this research project is to inspire EUPHORIA with new insights through designs and fresh hypotheses.

Concrete goal To come to this designs and hypotheses, a serie of prototypes are made. This serie is be based on the existing bin of EUPHORIA. From this starting point new iterations were designed. To see how the prototypes will be used in real life the best fitting method is to place them in the real context. Compared to Lab and Gallery research, Field research is chosen to be the most suitable. “Now the imaginary object is taken out to the world to see how people learn to use them to understand whether design ideas are valid or not.� Koskinen5 (2008).

10

11

method Research through design In design research prototypes can be used as a vehicle to gain feedback. By using the prototype as a vehicle, research is possible through using designs. The difference compared to a regular design project is the outcome. In design research this is a research program.

In design this is mostly a product only. This is Research through Design according to Wensveen6 et al (2014).

According to this theory the prototypes in the research toward Ecofeedback will be used as means of inquiry (Role 2, Prototypes and Prototyping in Design Research 2014). Since the purpose of these objects are open-ended and for exploration. They will be used as an instrument to collect, record and measure phenomena.

12

13

Provotyping To maximize the trigger of experience and reactions, a provocative approach was taken. In this approach certain prototypes are showing provocative attitude. “They are often used at a fuzzy frontend of an innovation project to understand how people experience phenomena they earlier took for granted. Providing them with tools to interact with the phenomenon gives them a new experience.

The difference with other methods that achieve user insight through artefacts is that in the provotype method people are made to reflect on a new experience they get with the provotype itself.� (Botermans, B, 2011)

Context The prototypes were exposed in a student house of 8 students. This context was chosen due to the high amount of food waste and the potentially high impact to change this.

The prototypes were closely monitored to ensure that problems could be fixed easily. Because of this the data was collected continuously and of better quality.

14

15

prototypes Below the series of prototypes are illustrated and discussed. The prototypes are built in a way that the user is gradually lead towards the last and most provocative design. This is done to prevent a big gap between what the user is used to and what is new.

Prototype 1 With this prototype a baseline measurement was created. The bin is only suitable for compostable waste. There is only one bag where the waste will be collected. The weight of this waste will be logged by a weight scale that is hidden underneath a double layer bottom.

This scale is connected to a computer to show the amount of weight on a display. A screenshot will be captured every hour to log the amount of weight. This data will be sorted in a excel sheet to be able to change it into a graphical illustration.

Prototype 2 This prototype is already showing a hint of provocation. The 4 compartments are designed to separate the compostable waste into; Fruits & Vegetables, Meat & Fish, Grain/Rice/Pasta and Others waste. In this prototype there are 4 different bags for the 4 different compartments. Also here the waste is logged by the weight scale and is captured into screen shots.

Prototype 3 In this prototype the first type of Eco-feedback is integrated. The 4 compartments will still be there. Next to the logging of weight and the separation of 4 bags the LED-color lights on the bin will color green from 0 till 4 kg, orange between 4 and 6 kg and red above the weight of 6 kg. The change of color will be done manually. Because the screen shots are captured the researcher can check the amount of waste.

Prototype 4

16

The last prototype will show the second type of Eco-feedback in a physical way. Here the 4 different compartment do have their own openings system in form of a fan. This fan will open up slower and close up faster when there has been thrown away more. When motion is detected all the fans will open up at the same time. WHile the fans open up at the same time different speeds can be notice.

The speed will be regulated be a micro controller. Every 5th time something has been thrown away, the speed will change with steps of 1/20th of the original speed.

17

Context

Detail 18

19

results & discussion

Different methods are used to collect data. In this chapter those methods are described and the collected results are discussed.

20

21

qualitative data Cultural Probes To see how the users interacted and reflected on the prototypes different ways of data collection was done. The use of cultural probes is one of those ways. In every test week the users were asked to take a picture of their compostable waste and their reason for wasting this.

WhatsApp was used as a cultural probe to share these reasons and pictures (see Appendix A). The pictures could be send in a private message or in a group message of the house. This setup was done to keep the users alert of their waste behavior.

Out of these cultural probes it became clear that in time that some of the users felt guilty while throwing away their compostable waste.

They often apologized while they texted their reason of wasting.

Prototype 1 In the first test week 5 cultural probes were send in. In 4 of those probes the reasons of wasting was because of the state of the food.

It was said there was something wrong with the food or that it was a left over.

The fifth cultural probe included a reason that the user actually had thought of keeping it, but that in the end he had thrown it away.

Prototype 2 For the second prototype 4 pictures were send in. The first reason that had been send in was: “Sorry, Carrot.� With a picture of a carrot, which looked a bit old.

One probe was about the cultural probe itself. Here an user indicated to use the cultural probe more often. The other 2 reasons where about the state of the food.

Prototype 3 Two pictures were send in this week. Both with reasons of guilt. 1 of good leftovers 1 of bad leftovers.

Prototype 4 No real probes about their food waste but more about the behavior of the prototype.

There was said that the prototype acted like it has its own life and that the fans will cut of his arm. This all was more of a joke but showed the user was provoked by the prototype.

22

23

selection of collected cultural probes

24

25

Questionnaires More qualitative data was gathered through questionnaires (see Appendix B). The users had to fill these in for every test week.

All of the questionnaires were set up with the same bullet points; Level of awareness, Comparing after and before situation, Impact of the bin, Amount of interaction and Level of awareness of interaction.

Impact of the bin

Level of awareness

Prototype 1 Average Presence: 5.4 (out of 7 users) Level of awareness: 2 of the 7 users stated they are very aware of their compostable waste behavior.

Compared to last situation: 3 users stated that this bin changed their level of awareness since they had to separate their compostable waste of the regular waste.

Impact of the bin: 5 of the users stated they throw away less because of this bin.

Amount of interaction: 3 of the users always used the bin for their compostable waste. The rest sometimes forget it since they were still used to the regular bin.

Prototype 2 Average Presence: 5.2 (out of 7 users) Level of awareness: 5 of the 7 users stated to be aware of their compostable waste behavior whereas 2 very aware.

Compared to last situation: 3 of the users stated that this bin did change their level of awareness. Mostly because of the waiting moment of categorizing. Also the controlling factor of sensors made them more aware of their waste behavior.

Very aware Aware Not aware 26

Impact of the bin: 2 of the users stated to throw away less because of this bin. The other users stated they throw away the same amount as the week before.

Amount of interaction: 4 of the users always used the bin for their compostable waste. The rest sometimes forget it since they did not know in which category the waste had to be thrown away.

Less amount of waste Same amount of waste No comment 27

Impact of the bin

Level of awareness

Prototype 3 Average Presence: 5.2 (out of 4 users) Level of awareness: all of the users stated to be aware of their compostable waste behavior. 2 of the 4 users stated to be very aware.

Compared to last situation: 3 of the users stated that this bin did not change their awareness level. 1 stated that it did.

Impact of the bin: 3 of the users stated to throw away less. One user stated to throw away the same.

Amount of interaction: All of the users did use the bin for all of their compostable waste Level of awareness of interaction: 3 of the users understood the feedback.

Prototype 4 Average Presence: 3.6 (out of 3 users) Level of awareness: all of the users stated to be aware of their compostable waste behavior. 1 of the 3 users stated to be very aware.

Compared to last situation: 2 users stated that this bin did not made the difference in change of awareness. 1 did not interact that much with that the bin that week.

Very aware Aware Not aware 28

Impact of the bin: 2 of the users stated to throw away less. 1 user was not present enough to conclude this.

Amount of interaction: All of the users always used the bin for their compostable waste Level of awareness of interaction: One of the users did understand the feedback of the bin. The other user did not.

Less amount of waste Same amount of waste No comment 29

30

31

32

33

quantitative data

wEIGHT MEASUREMENTS As verification of the qualitative data that has been collected, quantitative data was collected in form of logging the weight of the waste (see Appendix C). Every hour the waste weight was measured.

Here the results of every prototype is illustrated in total weight per day.

The qualitative data shows that the amount of awareness increased during the test weeks and the users stated they wasted less food.

Comparing this data to the quantitative date does not show the same results. Here the amount of weight is fluctuating.

In the first 2 weeks there is a positive change in decreasing weight. In the third week the weight dramatically increased. Together with the users these results were discussed, but no clear reason for this spike could be found.

Test weeks

Days

proto 1 0,6 kg

6,0 kg 1,7 kg

2,2 kg

-

5,0 kg

5.8 kg

proto 2 0,6 kg

4,0 kg 0,8 kg

1,3 kg

1,6 KG

2,9 kg

3,5 kg

proto 3 1,2 kg

7,2 kg 2,5 kg

4,3 kg

5,6 KG

6,2 kg

6,6 kg

proto 4 0,1 kg

34

4,7 kg 1,1 kg

1,8 kg

2,4 KG

2,4 kg

4,0 kg

35

36

Fruits & vegtables

Grain, Rice & pasta

meat & fish

other 37

discussion During the research process less qualitative and quantitative data was gathered than expected. The amount of qualitative input decreased in the latter part of the test period. A possible reason for this could be that the duration of the experiment was too long. Also the reliability of the scale decreased over time. In discussion with experts is became clear this is a known issue of this type of scale.

Nevertheless there are various valuable highlights in the results.

That can provide EUPHORIA with new insights for next iterations.

The track towards a more provocative design triggered the users to give feedback. The more provocative the bin was the more the users talked about it with each other. Some of the users even went for investigation to see what the bin was really about and how it captured certain data. From this it can be concluded that the series of designs attracted the users more when they were more provoking. The physical feedback gather the most interest of the users. Sometimes the users even collaborated to throw food away.

While they saw this as irritating, it was a big part of the conversation that week. It therefore can be said that the feedback triggered playful interaction between user and product.

A new insight came forth out of the qualitative data. One was found between the time tracks between the first two iterations.

The difference between those prototypes created an insight in the interruption of action. In the second design waste had to be separated into 4 compartments. Because of this the user his action was interrupted for a period and therefore they had to wait for a period. This period seemed to create a moment of reflection for the user. From the questionnaires and informal conversations it can be concluded that a pause moment in between an action can create reflection and therefore awareness of what is being wasted.

The last two insight can be new hypotheses to validate for the EUPHORIA research project.

Next to these main insights there is more to say about this research.

In the last iteration that has been done by EUPHORIA a moment of pause was already implemented. Here negative feedback was given about the unclear demonstration of categories. The bin allows for manual input from users to indicate the type of food group (grains, dairy, vegetables, fruits, and animal proteins) or whether the disposed items were leftovers from a meal4. This devious way of categorizing by pushing buttons was a big difference between what the user was used to and what was new.

A new way of categorizing in the second prototype of current research showed that a pause is still applied, but the way of action is slightly changed which does not hinder the user of using the bin.

A major drawback of this first EUPHORIA prototype, was that its software component needed to be restarted after once or several use cases which was slightly disturbing for users5. In this research an easier way of logging was applied to solve this issue. The same weight scale was now directly connected to a computer which captured a print screen every hour. This screen print showed the weight of the waste in real time. This data was manually organized and saved in excel sheets. Therefore the bin only had to be restarted once in a week, which made the bin more usable than the first prototype of EUPHORIA. What cannot be clearly concluded in this research is that the quantitative data did not show positive progress. Here for a longer term of use might be possible.

From the period between the second and third iteration another insight is found. The difference between those prototypes showed that a controlling factor of sensors can cause a Hawthorn effect.

Because of the sensors the user felt viewed by the researcher.

Therefore they often felt guilty when they were wasting. In this research the researcher was the one who “viewed� the users, but this could also be created with peer-pressure, where the surrounded people are the ones to watch.

38

39

general Conclusions From all of the data and discussion some conclusions can be drawn.

Looking at the amount of awareness of food waste among the users it is clear they became more aware about their waste behavior during the test weeks.

Several aspects triggered this awareness creation.

It can be said that the physical feedback triggered playful interaction between user and product.

The more provocative the product was the more conversations were created among the users.

Not only the conversations had pointed towards awareness. The moment of pause that was created by the 4 compartment showed effect on the awareness of the users. Because of this the user was able to reflect on its own behavior while wasting.

A trigger for awareness is the Hawthorn effect that the prototypes showed. Because the users were monitored and discussed by the research they felt more guilty when wasting.

In this research 4 prototypes have been tested for 4 weeks. Each of them were used in the same context to keep it as consequent as possible. However a week was the longest possible period to test each prototype. The results will become more reliable if this period is extended. Therefore further research is recommended.

Future plans for EUPHORA can be further experiments on the conclusions found in this research. Besides an extended test period with the last prototype in the series should be considered.

40

41

Acknowledgements

References

I express my warm thanks to Mr. S. Mulder for his support and guidance troughout the New Green Now project at the Technical University of Eindhoven.

1. Nellemann, Christian, ed. The Environmental Food Crisis: The Environment’s Role in Averting Future Food Crises: a UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. UNEP/Earthprint, 2009.

I also would like to thank my project external guide V. Lim from the PhD-Project EUPHORIA and ir. S. Wensveen for sharing their knowledge and expertice and the users & other people who helped me with the experience and research.

2. Milieu Centraal en het Voedingscentrum. “Feiten en cijfers over verspillen van voedsel door consumenten in 2010.” BPL, 2012.

Thank you, Marieke Acquoij

3. Lim, Veranika, et al. “Can we reduce waste and waist together through EUPHORIA?.” Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2014.

4. Lim, Veranika, et al. “Eco-feedback for non-consumtion.” Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2014.

5. Koskinen, Ilpo, Thomas Binder, and Johan Redström. “LAB, FIELD, GALLERY, AND BEYOND 1.” Artifact 2.1 (2008): 46-57.

6. Wensveen, Stephan, et al. “Prototypes and Prototyping in Design Research.” MCI/SPIRE, 2014.

7. Botermans, B. A. M. Provotyping in the wild: a research project about provocative prototypes in the fuzzy front end of an innovation project. Diss. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, 2011.

EUPHORIA 42

43

Appendices appendix a appendix B appendix c appendix d Please click on the link to go to the appendices if the external files are not included please contact: m.acquoij@student.tue.nl

44