Why and what did we throw out?

Ganglbauer, Eva; Fitzpatrick, Geraldine; Güldenpfennig, Florian

doi:10.1145/2702123.2702284

Cited by 42 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, other studies examined users' experiences of food waste, and its connection to other food practices and reasoning behind them [20,22]. For example, Ganglbaeur et al evaluated Foodsharing.de, a community platform that supports food waste reduction by enabling users to collect or offer food items to other users for free [21]. Our work is similar to these studies as we examined domestic food practices through various qualitative methods.…”

Section: Food Hcimentioning

confidence: 94%

Learning from the Veg Box

Verame

Costanza

Fischer

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Internet of Things (IoT) promises to enable applications that foster a more efficient, sustainable, and healthy way of life. If end-users are to take full advantage of these developments we foresee the need for future IoT systems and services to include an element of autonomy and support the delegation of agency to software processes and connected devices. To inform the design of such future technology, we report on a breaching experiment designed to investigate how people integrate an unpredictable service, through the veg box scheme, in everyday life. Findings from our semi-structured interviews and a twoweek diary study with 11 households reveal that agency delegation must be warranted, that it must be possible to incorporate delegated decisions into everyday activities, and that delegation is subject to constraint. We further discuss design implications on the need to support people's diverse values, and their coordinative and creative practices.

show abstract

Section: Food Hcimentioning

confidence: 94%

Learning from the Veg Box

Verame

Costanza

Fischer

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to considering how to define and categorise reflection, research on reflective experiences has spanned a variety of contexts (see [4] for an overview), including diabetes management [36], social emotional learning [44], monitoring food waste [22], and reflecting within romantic relationships [50]. A growing body of research also concerns itself with the potential of playful interactions (e.g., [23,32]) and games (e.g., [33]) to promote reflection.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

"A Game that Makes You Question..."

Mekler

Iacovides

Bopp

2018

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reflection is a core design outcome for HCI, and recent work has suggested that games are well suited for prompting and supporting reflection on a variety of matters. However, research about what sorts of reflection, if any, players experience, or what benefits they might derive from it, is scarce. We report on an interview study that explored when instances of reflection occurred, at what level players reflected on their gaming experience, as well as their reactions. Our findings revealed that many players considered reflection to be a worthwhile activity in itself, highlighting its significance for the player experience beyond moment-to-moment gameplay. However, while players engaged in reflective description and dialogic reflection, we observed little to no instances of higher-level transformative and critical reflection. We conclude with a discussion of the value and challenges inherent to evaluating reflection on games. CCS Concepts •Human-centered computing → HCI design and evaluation methods; HCI theory, concepts and models; Empirical studies in HCI;

show abstract

“…Notably, four studies did not explicitly describe the analysis made, but only reported on the results. Study duration ranged from onetime use (Pohl et al, 2017) to 18 months of deployment (Ganglbauer et al, 2015), with most studies spanning a period of three to five weeks. One exception is the study by Bandyopadhyay and Dalvi (2017), which states only that their intervention was deployed during "a limited period of time".…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight studies had 65 individuals or fewer and only 5 studies had 188 or more individuals. Two studies did not report on the sample size; Woolley et al (2016) did not report how many respondents took part in their study, but spoke only in general terms ("a small number of consumers"), and Ganglbauer et al (2015) reported on how many persons downloaded their app, but did not report on the number of persons who actually used it. Design and evaluate an intervention that modifies time perception as a strategy to promote sustainable behaviours Optimise energy use in different stages of cooking food.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Digital Behaviour Change Interventions for More Sustainable Food Consumption

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food production and consumption present major sustainability challenges, and finding ways to reduce the environmental impact of food, for example through behavioural changes by consumers, is becoming increasingly important. In recent years, digital interventions have become important tools to change behaviours in many areas. In this review, we evaluate the status of current scientific knowledge of digital behaviour change interventions for sustainable food consumption practices. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for how to conduct systematic reviews, we searched multiple databases for papers containing terms related to food, sustainability and digital behaviour change interventions. Only studies where the digital interventions were actually implemented and evaluated from a behaviour change perspective were included, resulting in 15 primary studies in the final review. The quality of the studies was evaluated from a behaviour change perspective, and the approaches used were categorised using two intervention frameworks, the Behaviour Change Wheel and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. The results show that all of the included studies had major quality issues when evaluated from a behaviour change perspective. This means that we could not find any evidence regarding whether the digital behaviour change interventions examined worked or not. Most studies further lacked theoretical grounding or a clear approach to how or why they should be effective for behaviour change for more sustainable food consumption practices. Our main recommendation for future research in the field is to expand from the current exploratory phase to conducting scientifically rigorous studies of higher quality, more thoroughly grounded in behaviour change theory and methods. Furthermore, based on our study, we suggest changes to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1.

show abstract

Why and what did we throw out?

Cited by 42 publications

References 22 publications

Learning from the Veg Box

Learning from the Veg Box

"A Game that Makes You Question..."

A Systematic Review of Digital Behaviour Change Interventions for More Sustainable Food Consumption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About