HAVE:
An interactive kitchen garden
exploring the design of
plant-based interfaces
Victor Permild
August 2018
Examiner: Maria Engberg Supervisor: Simon Niedenthal
Examiner: Susan Kozel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
3
1. INTRODUCTION
4
1.1 Research Question 4
1.2 Research through design as a knowledge generation approach 5
1.3 Knowledge contributions in research-through-design 6
2. PROBLEM SPACE
7
2.1 The emergence and need for urban agriculture 7
2.2 The modern greenhouse 7
2.2.1 Hydroponic farming 8
2.3 Greener cities 9
2.3.1 Sustainable Architecture 10
2.4 Designing for Social Innovation 12
2.5 Taking matters into own hands 13
2.5.1 Transition towns 13
2.5.2 Do-it-yourself (DIY) and maker culture 14
3. DESIGN PRESENTATION
16
3.1 Motivation and aim 18
4. DESIGN INFLUENCES AND RELATED WORK
19
4.1 Tangible- and Material Computing 21
4.2 Plant-based Interaction 22
4.3 Interaction design in vertical gardens 24
4.4 Designing for engaging behavioral change 25
4.5 Involving the user 27
5. DESIGN PROCESS
29
5.1 Field Visits 30
5.2 Choice of plants: Microgreens 32
5.3 Choice of technology: Capacitive sensing 33
5.4 Design experiments 34
5.5 Build 35
5.5.1 Frame 36
5.5.2 Seed trays 36
7. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
41
7.1 Engagement 41 7.2 Plant-based Interfaces 42 7.2.1 Affordances of plants 43 7.3 Future work 448. CONCLUSION
45
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
46
BIBLIOGRAPHY
47
ABSTRACT
As the population of the world increases and cities grow in size, we are faced with remarkable societal problems regarding sustainable food security for the generations to come. In this paper, I present and
discuss HAVE (Hydroponic Agricultural Vertical Environment), a research-through-design project that
explores the design of an interactive open-source vertical kitchen garden. HAVE is designed as a
shareable platform, that aims to lower the barriers of entry of getting started with home gardening, to provide an option for people to play an active role in working towards a more sustainable, resilient
society. By simplifying the design of a computer-assisted garden, I present an engaging interactive
system that is cheap and easy to build and maintain. With HAVE as a case study, this project also
aims to expand upon how plant-based interfaces can be implemented in future design work, and
builds upon the topics of calm technology and material computing. As such, this paper discusses the
opportunities and challenges of designing plant-based interfaces, also in relation to how people care for and interact with plants. It is my hope, that HAVE may act as a conversation piece that addresses societal challenges regarding future agriculture practices, while contributing to the academic
discussion and debate on the topics of plant-based interfaces, design for social innovation, and
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the dawn of human existence, people have co-existed with plants. All animals on earth are
dependent on the livelihood that plants have provided for millions of years. For millennia, we have
made use of plants as a source of food, shelter, medicine just to name a few. But in a world where
computers are ever more pervasive, relatively little is known about the effects and uses of combining
plants with computers. More specifically, plant-based interfaces still lie within a widely unexplored
area within the greater field of interaction design.
HAVE (Hydroponic Agricultural Vertical Environment) is a project that concerns interaction with, and
computer-assisted care for, edible plants in a home setting. HAVE builds on the topics of calm
technology and tangible computing in the context of urban gardening, and aims to expand upon the
knowledge of plant-based interfaces. With HAVE I intend to give the average household an
opportunity to sustainably grow healthy food locally, in a world where problems regarding food
security looms in the near future.
1.1 Research Question
With HAVE as a case study, I have been interested in examining a potential functionality for
plant-based interaction. In this project, I seek to explore how to facilitate getting people to learn how to
start growing crops with the help of an interactive garden for the home setting. My motivation stems
from my concerns with the societal problems we are facing in terms of ensuring sustainable methods
for effective food production, in the light of challenges such as climate change, urbanization and
population growth. As such, I have also wanted to make a design that can be widely distributed and
used by as many people as possible. Therefore, an important side goal with this project has been to
come up with a design, which lowers the barriers of entry to get started with home gardening on a
individual level. My aim in this project is also to expand upon how plant-based interfaces can be
implemented in future design work, and to what effect. As such my research questions are: MAIN QUESTION:
How can interactive vertical gardens be designed to accommodate and engage users in growing crops at home, and how can such a system be simplified to lower the setup cost and learning curve?
SUB-QUESTION:
1.2 Research through design as a knowledge generation approach
To explore my research question I have made use of research-through-design (RtD), a research
approach that “employs methods and processes from design practice as a legitimate method of
inquiry” (Zimmerman, Stolterman & Forlizzi, 2010, p. 310). RtD allows designers to engage in the
designerly activities they normally rely on as means to generate and expand on knowledge in the
world of academia. Such activities include articulating potential ideas in tangible forms (i.e. sketching,
model making and prototyping), developing an understanding of the task and goal at hand, exploring
possible futures, and intending to change the situation for the better by introducing new design ideas for products or services. Practical, technical, aesthetic and ethical qualities should be considered all
the while (Löwgren, 2007). The holistic approach of RtD iteratively addresses and reframes its design
problems by merging knowledge and theory across many disciplines, as a way of approaching “messy situations with unclear or even conflicting agendas” (Zimmerman, Stolterman & Forlizzi, 2010, p. 310). This is also why there has been a heightened interest in RtD in the Human-Computer Interaction
(HCI) field, where research has increasingly been targeting ‘wicked problems’ which cannot be easily
reduced. Wicked problems describes issues that are difficult (or potentially impossible) to solve
because of incompatible, inconsistent, paradoxical and incomplete requirements, that are often complicated to identify. As a result, efforts to solve one facet of a wicked problems may unveil or even generate other problems (Gaver, 2012; Zimmerman, Stolterman & Forlizzi, 2010). I am facing a wicked problem in this project, that deals with sustainability and resilience in terms of food security for
future generations, and the potential trade-offs that may follow in designing solutions for the problems
at hand.
When designers develop and present new ideas as possible knowledge contributions, they make a
statement to a continuous scientific discussion (Löwgren, 2007). Then, RtD becomes a stepping stone
for knowledge generation, as “designers and other actors in a design field, together with their
communication and the artifacts of the field, can be seen as a community for collaborative knowledge construction” (Löwgren, 2007, p. 3). Designers make use of an “eclectic mix of design techniques and orienting concepts” (Gaver, 2012. p. 7) and “ often turn to existing examples of design to inform the
development of their own ideas” (ibid.). The designed artefact becomes a ‘nexus’ of theory,
argumentation, informed choices and beliefs (Gaver, 2012). It represents the designer’s best
judgment of the problems at hand, and acts as a vessel of information and topics for debate. It reveals the functional, aesthetic, and social issues deemed important by its designer, and the most appropriate way to attend to them.
In Zimmerman, Stolterman & Forlizzi’s understanding, the resulting artifacts “can be seen as a proposition for a preferred state or as a placeholder that opens a new space for design, allowing other designers to make artifacts that then better define the relevant phenomena in the new space” ( 2010,
p.311). My goal has been to uncover issues and ask questions in regards to plant-based interface
design, material computing and computer-assisted home gardening. In pursuing this goal, RtD has
been a fruitful approach.
1.3 Knowledge contributions in research-through-design
Jonas Löwgren (2007) describes four criteria required for a piece of academic work (his focus being
on research-through-design) to be considered a scientific knowledge contribution. Knowledge
contributions must be provide new ideas or concepts to their field. They must be relevant to the
scientific community, and lastly, they must be well-grounded and critiziable, so that their processes
and results can be reviewed and scrutinized by academic peers.
This paper aims to explore a new technological setup in involving plants, in which I am able to make plants interactive wirelessly. In doing so, I expand upon current knowledge in regards to the design ideals of calm technology and material computing. Inherently, this makes my work relevant to the field
of interaction design, and academia as whole, or what Löwgren would denote as internally relevant.
But as this project also deals with change in behaviour and attitude towards more sustainable futures,
and suggests a distributable open-source design, perhaps it will find a place outside academia as
well. This potentially makes my work externally relevant, in Löwgren's terms. The design is both
theoretically grounded (Section 4), empirically grounded through contextual studies and interviews
(Section 5.1 and 7), and analytically grounded during my design process (Section 4, 5 and 7). In
publishing this paper, I will disclose my design process, line of thought and rationale to the best of my ability in an effort to make my knowledge contribution transparent and critizable.
2. PROBLEM SPACE
The United Nations estimate that 9 billion people will be living on our planet by 2050, and that two
thirds of the population will be living in cities or urban areas by 2030 (Delor, 2011). As a result, cities
will expand in size to house more people, and in return, arable land per capita will noticeably
decrease. This forecast is especially troublesome in areas of the world where land available for
farming is already scarce. The expansion of cities bring crops and harvest further from its consumers.
Food miles, and the negative impacts associated hereby, e.g. loss in freshness and nutrients of
produce and transport-related greenhouse gas emissions, will increase as food travels greater
distances to reach its consumers. If we continue down this path, farming will likely become more
intensive and damaging to the soil and the ecosystem surrounding it, to meet the growth in demand.
Consequently, this has an impact on flora and fauna, e.g. due to the vast amount of fertilizers,
herbicides, pesticides etc. needed, whose run-offs lead to oxygen deficiency through eutrophication in
streams, ponds, lakes, and coastal areas (Delor, 2011).
2.1 The emergence and need for urban agriculture
Urban Agriculture (UA) and Building-Integrated Agriculture (BIA) and associated facilities have seen substantial rise in interest, popularity and growth in the last decade, to meet the needs associated
with the rapid expansion of urban life (Shamshiri et al., 2018). BIA describes the integration of
greenery and plant growth inside or on top of buildings. It may be part of the building’s initial design, but can also be implemented as an beneficial add-on on buildings with unexploited rooftops (Delor, 2011; Shamshiri et al., 2018). Likewise, vacant or abandoned structures and lots in the urban scene
can be reappropriated to house urban gardens and farms. Often controlled-environment hydroponic
greenhouses are used, in order to effectivize grow cycles and yield, with little land and no soil needed. Other benefits of BIA include heat insulation of buildings and noise reduction in the cityscape. Before
we move on to an in-depth analysis of what hydroponic growth methods are, and why they promise
themselves to be beneficial, I will provide an overview of recent trends and developments in the agricultural sector.
2.2 The modern greenhouse
Although not only restricted for urban use, controlled-environment agriculture (CEA) is one way of
integrating farming, gardening, horticulture etc. in the urban context. Growing food directly in cities
show promise for accommodating some of the the food security issues we have before us. Protected
Therefore, the development and advances in CEA have improved and encouraged solutions for
effective plant production methods in populated cities. Modern greenhouses have transitioned into
intricate and precise systems, where the use of resources (energy, water etc.) can be optimized and
reduced, which in turn lowers cost of production. For instance, CEAs may utilize either natural or
artificial light measured for best growth conditions, and closed-circuit hydration systems, which continually recirculates excess water (Delor, 2011; Shamshiri et al., 2018). Because of this, CEA even offers the possibility of growing produce inside buildings and in basements, without the need of a natural source of light or water. As scary and artificial one may think this sounds, this feature may very well prove itself necessary, especially due to climate change. It also brings about the possibility to grow crops in locations where agriculture is a challenging endeavor (e.g. in deserts and the arctic). A wide array of electronics are readily available to assist or govern the work of successful harvests. Amongst others pH-, light-, temperature-, air-, and moisture-sensors are worth mentioning. Moreover,
many systems are built to vertically stack shelves of grow trays upon one another. Compared with
conventional field agriculture, some of these systems can double the growth rate, using 10-20 times
less land and 5-10 times less water (Delor, 2011; Shamshiri et al., 2018). There is no doubt, that it will be an overwhelming challenge to secure the future supply chain of fresh greens and food. But if
properly designed, managed, and operated, CEAs can significantly contribute to this issue with an
opportunity for a year-round production of fresh vegetables. They show the promise of optimal growth conditions and thus return, all while minimizing the environmental impacts of conventional agriculture.
2.2.1 Hydroponic farming
Of the many shapes and forms UA and CEA comes in, I have chosen to work with hydroponic
gardening. This is a method of growing plants without soil, using mineral nutrient solutions in a water solvent. Hydroponics has gotten a lot of attention over recent years, and is mentioned in most of the literature on UA included in this paper (e.g. Sheikh, 2006; Delor, 2011; Gibson, 2017, Shamshiri et al., 2018). Moreover, it is a method of growing plants, that I have been increasingly acquainted with in the last couple of years. All of these factors play a role in my decision to focus on this growth method.
In hydroponic farming, regular terrestrial plants may be grown with only their roots exposed to a
mineral solution, or the roots may be supported by a growth medium. Hydroponics enable one to grow greens up to three times faster than in a field, using less water, without needing soil or sunlight, and requires much less space and waste-handling than traditional farming (e.g. Sheikh, 2006; Delor, 2011;
Gibson, 2017, Shamshiri et al., 2018). Because of the possible future solutions it promises,
hydroponic horticulture has seen a rise in interest and popularity in recent years, both in professional and hobbyist settings, as well as research labs, e.g. by NASA in the effort of sustaining agriculture on Mars.
2.3 Greener cities
The Science Barge (see Figure 1) was built by New York Sun Works in 2008, as a prototype to test
the viability of building integrated agriculture. Moreover, the aim for the project was to serve as
encouragement of a greener future living, and a public display of how urban agriculture could blend into one of the largest cities in the world. Built on top of a mobile steel deck barge, floating in the Hudson River, the Science Barge boasts approx. 121 square meter recirculating hydroponic
greenhouse. Its electrical consumption is covered from renewable energy sources, and the crops are
irrigated by captured rainwater and desalinated river water (Delor, 2011). In the greenhouse, vegetables, lettuces, berries and herbs are grown without any runoffs of pesticides or fertilizer. The Science Barge grows 40-70 kg produce per square meter a year, uses 3 to 5 times less water, and 5 to 10 times less land, compared to conventional farms with similar yields.
Figure 1: The Science Barge Greenhouse in New York City
New York Sun Work later built a 132 square meter greenhouse on top of the Manhattan School for
Children, following the success of the Science Barge. Using similar green, renewable technologies,
the greenhouses provides healthy and nutritious food for the school cafeteria, and houses a
classroom for the children to learn about modern horticulture, nature sciences and sustainability
(Delor, 2011).
In 2016 Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, launched Parisculteurs, a campaign that is working to create urban green spaces, with a goal to cover 247 acres of rooftops and walls in Paris with greenery by 2020 (Lutkin, 2018). One third of this space has been allocated specifically to UA, and both private and public actors have risen to the occasion, and shown interest in making the Parisculteurs initiative
2.3.1 Sustainable Architecture
The last couple of decades, green spaces in architecture has also seen a rise in hype and popularity (Delor, 2011; Shamshiri et al., 2018). A trend of sustainable architecture and ecological design has
emerged, which seeks to ensure that actions and decisions made in the present do not impede the
opportunities of future generations. In sustainable architecture, the design of buildings takes into consideration its use of energy, materials, development space, as well as ecosystems at large. It often
includes design elements that provides sources of renewable energy, recyclable waste management,
as well as building temperature efficiency, whether that regards cooling, heating or both.
Figure 2: Bosco Verticale (aka. Vertical Forest) in Milano
One example of such is the award-winning Bosco Verticale in Milano (see Figure 2). The two
residential towers were inaugurated in 2014, stands 111 and 76 meters tall and are packed with
greenery from top to bottom. Around 20,000 plants and trees inhabit its abundance of terraces.
Besides providing a green oasis in an otherwise industrial area, the plants function as a natural
solution to combat air- and noise pollution in the area, respectively through photosynthesis and
Green spaces and other elements of sustainable architecture are also frequently found in the work
and visions of the critically acclaimed Danish architectural studio Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG). Notable
works include Vilhelmsro Primary School, the 2 World Trade Center (aka. 2 WTC), and Amager
Bakke (see Figure 3). The latter of which is a waste-to-energy plant, designed with a sloped park on top of it, that will function as a skiing piste in the winter, and will accommodate other park- and hillside-related activities in the warmer months of the year, including hiking, running and climbing.
Figure 3: Amager Bakke (aka. Amager Hill) concept drawing
The plant will annually turn 400,000 tons of waste into energy providing hot water for 160,000 homes,
and electricity for 62,500 homes. Moreover it will produce 25% more energy than its predecessor,
while cutting 100,000 tons in CO2 emission a year (Chino, 2017). BIG also played part in designing
the new premises of Noma. The world famous restaurant reopened on a new location in 2018, its
menu with greater emphasis on vegetarian dishes, partly supplied by its own urban garden (Chan, 2018). For further reading on green cities initiatives, see Shamshiri et. al (2018).
2.4 Designing for Social Innovation
There is a multitude of major societal problems we are forced to be attentive to and confront in the twenty-first century, such as climate change, exhaustion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity etc.
The transition towards a sustainable society, will be a long, far-reaching, conflicting and
unforeseeable social learning process. What is clear, is that we will need to learn to live well (or
better), consuming less resources, which calls for a radical change in social expectations (Manzini,
2006). To address such wicked problems, changes at all levels of society, and new approaches to
problem solving are needed (Irwin, 2015). This has contributed to the rise of research and practice in the area of design for social innovation.
The projects in the previous section are different examples of social innovation design. Put shortly,
Manzini (2013) defines social innovation as “[...] a process of change emerging from the creative
re-combination of existing assets (from social capital to historical heritage, from traditional craftsmanship to accessible advanced technology), the aim of which is to achieve socially recognized
goals in a new way” (p. 57). Design for social innovation expands problem contexts and objectives by
addressing problems in social, cultural, and economic domains. Social innovation, and ideas that
support the very same, has always existed, but has increasingly gotten more attention over the past decades especially in the realm of design: “[...] social innovation initiatives are multiplying and will become even more common in the near future in answer to the multiple, growing challenges of the
ongoing economic crisis and the much-needed transition toward sustainability.” (Manzini, 2013, p. 57).
Furthermore, as societies and technologies continually develop, new and hitherto unthinkable opportunities for social innovation may arise.
Manzini (2013) states that social innovation can either be incremental or radical. Incremental innovation refers to changes that lie within the range of existing ways of thinking and doing.
Otherwise, the idea is considered radical innovation. Moreover, social innovation can either be
top-down or bottom-up. Top-down innovation refers to initiatives driven by experts, governments and
other decision makers. If driven mainly by the people and communities, the innovation is bottom-up.
Processes can also be hybrid starting from the bottom-up and later involving top-down drivers, or vice
versa.
The examples of social innovation given in this paper until now have been primarily top-down. With
HAVE I aim to examine a design for social innovation for people without the same political and
Manzini (2006) states that the foundation for societal macro-transformations and great systemic changes is laid by micro-transformations and local initiatives. This is somewhat similar to the notion of
‘cosmopolitan localism’ — small, diverse, local, and place-based communities, that are global in
spreading awareness and exchanging information and technologies for social innovation (Irwin, 2015). The design process of HAVE has been inspired by this perspective in mind. In the next section, I will dig a little more into this design space.
2.5 Taking matters into own hands
There are several examples of bottom-up drivers for social innovation initiatives that are worth discussing (e.g. in Manzini, 2013; Delor, 2011), but instead I will be focusing on two larger movements that are especially relevant to this project: transition towns ( Gui, X & Nardi, 2015) and the maker
movement (Ginsberg, 2012;Tanenbaum et. al., 2013). Both movements take matters into own hands,
aim for self-sufficiency, and value skill-sharing as a means to strengthen their communities and their practices.
2.5.1 Transition towns
The initiatives of Transition Towns began in 2006 and Totnes, a town in the UK of about 8500 residents, was amongst the first towns to announce itself to be in transition. Transition Town Totnes
(TTT) is a community-led and locally-run ambition to lead the way for sustainable, resilient living
through voluntary activities (Gui, X & Nardi, 2015). The more self-sufficient a community is, the better
off it is in case of national or global crises (e.g. natural or economic). This increases the resilience
(Gui, X & Nardi, 2015; Westley, 2013) of such communities, i.e. their capacity to better recover in
case of misfortunes. Among other things, members of TTT engage in shared maintenance of
communal gardens, the promotion of renewable energy sources, reducing energy costs and
emissions, greener means of transportation, affordable housing, and skill sharing, especially in terms
of repairs.A strong united community is near inseparable from the efforts to achieve sustainability in
such towns (Gui, X & Nardi, 2015).
From a microsociological view, the goal is to strengthen the local economy, reduce environmental
impact, and build its resilience for a future with greener, more affordable energy habits. The greater
goal of the transition movement is to address global problems at the community level. That is, if a town the size of Totnes reduces its inhabitants’ carbon footprint to zero, it will not affect global climate
change. But if the idea of transition towns spreads, and places like Totnes serve as an example for
other people, cities and future urban planning projects, the impact is potentially immense ( Gui, X &
2.5.2 Do-it-yourself (DIY) and maker culture
In their often-cited article on maker culture, Tanenbaum et. al. (2013) states that “The creation of
innovative software, new interactions, and physical prototypes is no longer restricted to well-funded
professional designers and researchers” (p. 2610). Indeed, the field of HCI has also been affected by
bottom-up driven social innovation, with the rise of the maker movement, sometimes dubbed the ‘third
industrial revolution’ (Tanenbaum et. al., 2013). Several decades of industrialization and technological
advancement has resulted in a plethora of new, small-scale fabrication technologies. 3D printing,
laser cutting, and garage-scale CNC mills have become more affordable, and therefore increasingly
available to the public. Meanwhile frameworks like Arduino and Raspberry Pi and other open-source
hardware platforms have eased the making of DIY computer projects.
What we have experienced is a democratization of technologies, that used to only be found in
high-tech laboratory equipment, which are now publicly available at makerspaces and libraries, or
even in the home. This has given hackers and hobbyists modes of hitherto expert-only, expensive
production methods previously only available to large organizations ( Tanenbaum et. al., 2013). These
democratized technological practices have caused an interesting cultural shift in how people engage
with technology, and paved way for the maker movement: “a growing demographic of users who are
not content to consume, but wish to customize, remix, and design for themselves” ( Tanenbaum et. al., 2013, p. 2610).
These are people dedicated to learning and sharing different kinds of crafting skills and production
methods. They value individual or small group creation over mass production, and creation over
consumption (Ginsberg, 2012; Tanenbaum et. al., 2013). The shift in the availability of raw materials and access to production facilities has caused a boom in technological and creative literacies, which is only further catalyzed by the knowledge- and skill sharing efforts that is generally deeply embedded in the maker mindset (Ginsberg, 2012;Tanenbaum et. al., 2013). Knowledge sharing is often done by personal initiative, either online or offline. Fab Labs, maker- and hackerspaces allow people to learn
from each other, work together, share ideas and projects. Resources are pooled to maintain and
provide access to a wide-ranging collection of industrial machines, materials, tools and knowledge
(Ginsberg, 2012;Tanenbaum et. al., 2013). The online pervasiveness of rich media instruction guides
(e.g. high resolution images, videos, and step-by-step descriptions) assists the distribution of craft
knowledge sharing through platforms like YouTube, Instructables and other online forums. The clear visuals of photos and video enables the audience to learn important details of the making process,
providing a productive foundation for practice-based learning by example (Ginsberg, 2012;
The same tendencies for knowledge sharing are found in the IKEA hacking community. IKEA hacking
is another DIY practice closely related to the maker scene, that engages in creative reuse and
customization of IKEA’s mass-produced products (Rosner & Bean, 2009; Tanenbaum et. al., 2013).
Because of IKEA’s worldwide presence, their stores can be seen as global distribution channels for
inexpensive, standardized furniture systems used as resources for creating new combinations of
items, or transforming products to better fit their local needs. The standardization of materials are an
important aspect here, as they create favorable conditions for knowledge sharing: “[...] instructions are
easier to follow if the learner has access to the same materials, tools, and measurements as the
instructor” (Tanenbaum et. al., 2013, p. 2608) . In short, maker and DIY practices give makers the
opportunity to make personal solutions, that be shared and reproduced within the community. This
feature has inspired the design of HAVE too.
3. DESIGN PRESENTATION
HAVE (Hydroponic Agricultural Vertical Environment) is a computer-assisted hydroponic vertical
kitchen garden, built into a ‘Vesken’ IKEA furniture system. Through embedded sensors, the presence
of water in the plants’ growth medium can be measured and revealed through ambient light feedback.
Unlike automated systems, users are still responsible for watering the plants, but through light feedback, they are assisted in the act of irrigation, as well as being reminded to do so.
HAVE is designed for the home setting. As the user inspects a plant tray and touches it for moisture,
the embedded sensors can measure a change in capacitance ‘wirelessly’, through the grow tray.
What is meant with the term 'wireless' here, is that no electrodes, wires or other electrical components go into the growth medium or plants. Instead, they are hidden in the shelves holding the plant trays. If
the plants have enough water, they will act as a switch for the grow lights right above them, and turn
them on for 8-10 hours. As the light enters the last hour of its cycle they will go red, and fade out
before finally turning off. This informs the user that it has been a while since the plants were checked
up on. The plants only work as switches if they have enough water. Otherwise, the light will not turn
on. To fix this, the user must use a spray bottle to water the plants in order to be able to activate the
switch again upon touch. Because the light is turned on by touching the plants, and because touch
requires a certain sense of proximity, the user is gently incited and reminded to, at least a couple times a day, briefly pay attention to the plants.
Figure 5: HAVE Use. Note: the grow lights are already turned on in these photos. Clockwise from top left: 1) plant trays with sensors hidden beneath 2) irrigation of plants and growth medium 3) inspection by touch — which depending on moisture levels turns on the lights corresponding to each tray, and 4) lighting turned on by touch. The plants pictured are ready for harvest.
Thus, the ambient light not only enables plant growth, but also peripherally provides a clue about the presence and well-being of the plants, also compared to one another. Information will transiently enter the centre of our attention when needed, and blend back into the periphery of attention when not. As a
contrast to the modern mainstream use of push notifications, pop-up warnings, email alerts etc. to
draw our attention, HAVE rather seeks to inform without overburdening. When the plants are fully
grown, the trays can be lifted out, and the plants are harvested with scissors. HAVE is meant as a
stepping stone to encourage beginners into growing a hydroponic garden at home, but can be used
by gardeners of all skills levels. Furthermore, HAVE is a modular setup, that can be expanded or
decreased in size as need be. Besides being an acronym, the name of HAVE also refers to the danish word for ‘garden’, which literally is ‘have’.
3.1 Motivation and aim
There is a multitude of impressions that have influenced the conception of HAVE. First off, I have been concerned with the wicked problems we are facing of potential food scarcity as a result of global
population growth, urbanization, climate change and unpredictable agriculture. Likewise I have found
design openings in the promising trends and traction of greener city initiatives, sustainable architecture, and design for social innovation in general. All of which, are evidence of important actors
acknowledging the seriousness of the threats we are facing. They display hope not only for survival,
but perhaps even increased livelihood, sustainability and resilience. Most importantly, I have been
inspired by people who take matters into own hands, which is the most important target audience for
my design. HAVE is built for makers, or people intending to become makers. This means that while I
can not say that HAVE is for everyone, its target audience should not be seen as a well-defined
exclusive circle either. HAVE is for everyone who thinks HAVE would be interesting to build and live
with, for whatever reason they may have — be it out of interest, pleasure, necessity or something
completely different.
In the effort of maximizing the distribution of the ideas embodied in HAVE, it is designed for
reproducibility and scalability, and is inspired by bottom-up incremental innovation (Manzini, 2013).
That is, I am designing for people-driven innovation at the individual level, with technologies and
materials that are widely available in present day society. I have been inspired by controlled
environment agriculture systems, and have tried to simplify a computer-assisted gardening setup,
which also makes HAVE cheaper and easier to assemble than many of its alternatives. This is evident in fact that it is an IKEA hack, which also means that its structural foundation is globally available, it is
modular, and requires little tool use to make — something I prioritized as much as possible
throughout the design process. Even if the maker feels stuck, it is made so that every local maker
HAVE embodies my personal fascination of seamless, tangible and material computing artifacts, which I cover in the next section. Therefore designing a strong plant-based interface has been a personal goal of mine, during my time at university.
Many considerations have gone into how to make HAVE engaging and fit into the home setting. After
all, the results of social innovation design are only seen if the proposals are indeed used. In
embedding electronics in something as serene as plants (especially in the home setting), I have
sought to design an artifact in which we can coexist with technology, without being dominated by it. In its current state, HAVE is intentionally not connected to the cloud or the realm of IoT. It does not support smartphone synchronization through an app, and does not require an account or any personal data to be stored. Perhaps there is room for such features in another iteration of the design, but for now, I have been interested in exploring a calmer, mindful approach. In the next section, I will
go through the theory and other designs that have inspired how HAVE was conceived to sustain
implementation and continued use.
4. DESIGN INFLUENCES AND RELATED WORK
As HAVE is intended for the domestic setting, and because I am experimenting with plant-based
interfaces, Mark Weiser’s notion of calm technology has served an important foundation for my work:
“The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of
everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.” (Weiser, 1991, p. 1). Since Weiser presented his vision of ubiquitous computing (UbiComp), considerable effort has been put into realizing his ideas in developing the infrastructure, frameworks, technologies to explore its possibilities in the future of computing (Rogers, 2006).
Weiser envisioned a world where computers would be so omnipresent that they would disappear into
the context it resided. As we become accustomed to elements in our natural environment, we stop
being aware of it (Weiser, 1991). To Weiser, the social impact of embedded computing could be seen
as comparable to other technologies that have become ubiquitous e.g. the written word or electricity.
Technologies that are all around us, but so ‘mundane’ that we only recognize them, when they are at
the center of our attention. Working towards this goal, Weiser & Brown (1996) introduced their idea of
calm technology, as a way to accommodate the pervasiveness of computers (i.e. UbiComp) without overwhelming our everyday: “Given the likelihood that computers will be everywhere, in our
environments and even embedded in our bodies, he argued that they better ‘stay out of the way’ and
not overburden us in our everyday lives” (Rogers, 2006, p. 404). In designing for calm technology
Weiser portrays a world of serenity, comfort and awareness in regards to our relations with technology
Figure 6: Dangling String at Xerox PARC
An example of calm technology is the artwork ‘Dangling String’ (see Figure 6), designed by Natalie
Jeremijenko, while in residence at Xerox PARC. It consisted of a long string of plastic spaghetti,
hanging from a ceiling-mounted electrical motor. The motor was connected to a nearby ethernet
cable, causing each bit of data flowing through to manipulate the string by generating small twitches in
the motor. Thus, a very busy network would cause a wild flailing of the string, sometimes even
audible. On the contrary, a quiet network would only induce haphazard twitches. The activity of the
wire is visible and audible even from a distance, without being intrusive, and takes advantage of
peripheral cues (Weiser & Brown, 1996).
Dangling String is a unique, yet simple setup. It may seem rather abstract, but it speaks to me in the way it conveys information. Instead of displaying cold hard data and numbers on network traffic, it gives physical form to the flow of bits that normally reside invisibly in the ethernet cables. I could
easily have chosen to integrate a screen into HAVE, that would tell current moisture levels and how
long time there would be until the lights turned off. However, this is not what I have been interested in, because I argue that this would collide with the design ideals of calm technology. Rather, what I have
been concerned with is that users check up on their plants about twice a day, making sure they are
irrigated. The rest of the time, the plants are fine on their own. Like the Dangling String, users gain
information on the plants through peripheral cues. In terms of attention, HAVE only moves from the
periphery to the center when needed, and only for a limited time until it turns off. I find this approach more in line with calm technology, as “Information [will] appear in the centre of our attention when
needed and effortlessly disappear into the periphery of our attention when not” (Rogers, 2006, p.
Furthermore, I think HAVE bears resemblance to Ullmer and Ishii’s (1997) notion of ambient displays as it is “[...] enabling users to be aware of background bits at the periphery using ambient media [...]”
(p. 2). Weiser’s vision and ideas have had an enormous impact on the developments in the field of
HCI, especially in terms of smart-homes and similar smart environments (Rogers, 2006). Naturally,
Ulmer and Ishii (1997) list both calm technology and the Dangling String as stimulation for their work on presenting their ideas of tangible user interfaces and ambient displays (1997).
4.1 Tangible- and Material Computing
Many concepts in HCI have built upon the seamless integration of computers in our everyday
environment. A notable example is tangible user interfaces (TUIs) as described by Ullmer and Ishii
(1997). The idea was conceived as a counter-reaction to the still dominant use of graphical user
interfaces (GUI) which according to the authors “[...] fall short of embracing the richness of human senses and skills people have developed through a lifetime of interaction with the physical world” (Ishii and Ullmer, 1997, p. 7). TUIs aim instead to take advantage of the “multiple senses and the multimodality of human interactions with the real world” (Ishii and Ullmer, 1997, p. 8). In their effort to achieve this, the authors speak of ‘tangible bits’: graspable objects with digital information and
computational power embedded in them. These physical objects are used to interact with TUIs, and
can for instance represent data or a sequence digital actions. An example of this is Durrell Bishop’s
‘Marble Answering Machine’, a conceptual design where incoming voice messages are physically
manifested as marbles. The tangible bits, in the shape of the marbles, can either be placed in an
indentation to play messages, or on an augmented telephone in which case the caller is dialed back (Ishii and Ullmer, 1997).
Inspired by tangible computing, and perhaps even closer related to this project is Vallgårda and
Sokoler’s proposition of material computing. Here, computational power is not only physically
instantiated in objects, but woven into the materials we as designers use to build with. In this practice, hitherto non-digital material can be integrated into electrical circuits and therefore algorithms. The
authors bring forth the idea of computational composites: materials with computer-like characteristics
such as accumulation, reversibility and computed causality. Embedded with computational power,
materials are augmented with new expressions and functionality, and “the computer can thereby be a
powerful tool in playing with our experience of the laws of nature” (Valgårda & Sokoler, 2010, p 8). I think HAVE’s interface fits this description superbly. As an example, ‘PLANKS’ (Figure 7) is a one-off parafunctional wall of audio-sensitive wooden planks that bend out in the room in the presence of sound.
Figure 7: PLANKS
As a former student of Vallgårda and Sokoler, their teachings and work on material computing has not
only inspired me to work with plant-based interfaces, but has also given me knowledge to build upon,
for a relatively unexplored design approach. With HAVE, I am not only engaging in computationally
augmenting a building material, but living organisms i.e. plants. Löwgren (2007) notes a wide-ranging
design repertoire (regarding techniques, tools, materials etc.) amongst the most important of a
designer’s abilities, and in exploring plant-based interaction I aim to expand upon exactly that.
4.2 Plant-based Interaction
‘Touchology’ (Seo, Sungkajun & Suh, 2015) is a series of both natural and artificial touch-sensitive
plants, that aims to stimulate serenity and emotional attachment by exploring the meditative qualities
of horticultural therapy. Here, calming tangible interaction gestalts with plants are investigated to
improve mindfulness, memory and cognitive abilities in a similar way to gardening related
experiences, which is stated to: “[...] be very therapeutic. In horticultural therapy, plants are utilized to
engage and improve cognitive, physical, social, emotional and spiritual well-being by caregivers or
In 2012, Botanicus Interacticus (see Figure 8) displayed an impressive working prototype projecting
how computational qualities could be embedded almost seamlessly in plants, with hitherto unseen
multi-touch rich interaction possibilities (Poupyrev, Schoessler, Loh, & Sato, 2012). Using different
plant species, and the ‘affordances’ given from Nature’s side, plants were observed to support
different kinds of distinct electrical and physical properties. This enabled unique interactive
characteristics for each plant, suggesting various corresponding interaction scenarios. For example, a
stick of live bamboo was used as a calendar, each cross-section corresponding to a point in day in the
week, and other plants were used as musical instruments. Botanicus Interacticus was built on the
foundation of the rather groundbreaking developments within research of capacitive sensing, put forth
by the Disney Research funded technology Touché (Sato, Poupyrev & Harrison, 2012).
Figure 8: A Botanicus Interacticus setup. Note the wire attached to the plant.
The interaction possibilities and sophisticated gesture recognition of Touché goes far beyond plants
alone. In their paper, Sato, Poupyrev & Harrison showcases how a plethora of otherwise ordinary
objects, household items and materials can be used as interfaces. This is achieved using a single
electrode, their so-called Swept Frequency Capacitive Sensing (SFCS) technology, and a machine
learning algorithm interpreting the data. Botanicus Interacticus and Touché is highly relevant to the
field of material computing, and especially HAVE ( in which I have also made use capacitive sensing).
I will argue my setup is advantageous when it comes to supporting the sentiment that the interactive
plants are still unaltered in the nature of their appearance. This is not to say that the same cannot be
achieved with Touché. I am only saying that this was not something the authors examined, and it is
where I can build upon their work. Another difference is that I have intentionally omitted the use of
machine learning to make HAVE easier to build, remix and repurpose.
4.3 Interaction design in vertical gardens
In 2017 SPACE10, IKEA’s Copenhagen-based future living lab, exhibited Lokal (see Figure 9) at
London Design Festival. Lokal is a automated, hydroponic vertical indoor microgreen farm, that
normally resides in the basement of their offices in Copenhagen’s old meatpacking district. During the
six days of the pop-up 2,000 fresh, nutritious salads were prepared from the produce from the farm
(Gibson, 2017). Much like the examples of UA initiatives covered earlier in this paper, the aim of Lokal is to showcase how vertical farming can provide a space-saving and sustainable way to grow food in cities.
Along with Lokal, SPACE10 have also developed Sprout, a Google Assistant-based chatbot, that monitors and informs the user of the garden’s condition in terms of moisture, light, pH levels etc. (Gibson, 2017). For a couple of weeks some of my co-students and I contributed and consulted on this project, but were not part of the production and realization phase. Lokal serves as inspiration for my process, but with HAVE I wanted to go in another direction with this project, ie. one that is more engaging and suitable for the home setting.
4.4 Designing for engaging behavioral change
There is a myriad of notable examples and approaches when it comes to persuasive and other
behavioural changing designs. If done right, these types of designs can be very effective in changing
people’s habits (Rogers, 2006; Laschke, Hassenzahl and Diefenbach, 2011), which is often needed
when engaging with designing for sustainable living, and social innovation in general.
Static! (Backlund et al., 2007) and AWARE (Broms et al, 2010) were both design-related research
programmes concerned with designing artifacts aimed to increase awareness about everyday energy
usage, primarily in the home setting. With research-through-design mindsets, both projects investigated how interaction design opportunities could potentially make households consume power
more sustainably. The type of results vary between the many different designs, but the aim for
knowledge contributions generally has to do with the design practice of developing interfaces for
sustainable energy habits. Tactics include nudging, friction, obstacles and elements of reflection
among others.
Take for example the ‘Erratic Radio’ (see Figure 10, top left), that gradually tunes out of channel as
the household’s energy consumption increases above a certain threshold, nudging the user to turn off
other appliances for a tolerable listening experience. Another example is the ‘Power-Aware Cord’ (see
Figure 10, top right), a re-designed electrical extension strip whose cord lights up, and becomes
brighter the more electricity flows through it. Described as an “ambient display” and a “tool” for
discovery, the Power-Aware Cord visualizes the power consumption of home appliances, making the
energy use between them comparable to one another, as well as revealing devices on stand-by, that
in secrecy steals power (Backlund et al., 2007).
The designs of ‘Static!’ employ recurring ideas. First, that we are able to work with energy consumption in designs not only from at technical point of view, but also an aesthetic one, that can be
integrated in the appearance and functionality of the design. Second, that such designs need not
always be solely about frictionless functionality and usability, but also about critical reflection of the objects we use in our everyday life (Backlund et al., 2007).
Figure 10: The Erratic Radio (top left), Power-Aware Cord (top right), The Never Hungry Caterpillar (bottom left) and Forget Me Not (bottom right).
Similar features also exist in the work of Laschke, Hassenzahl and Diefenbach (2011), and in their idea of transitional products, that in their own words: “address people‘s interest in personal growth, flourishing and self-improvement more explicitly than many other persuasive technologies” (p. 1). The philosophy behind transformational products is not to maximize change, as much as it is to support
people with realizing meaningful goals, that can be hard to motivate oneself to implement. They often
employ friction or fake obstacles in their designs, and presents the user with deliberate choices,
intended to stimulate the user’s decision-making rationale. Moreover, these designs usually breaks
larger goals that are often abstract (e.g. reducing energy usage, eating healthy), into smaller particulated tasks. Interestingly, the authors has also dealt with the design of a power strip that seeks to address the issues of behavioral change in relation to energy consumption. In their project ‘The
Never Hungry Caterpillar’ (see Figure 10, bottom left), we see an example of breaking the relatively
abstract objective of using less energy, into a more concrete goal of fully turning off unused electronic devices (Laschke, Hassenzahl & Diefenbach, 2011).
This is done by designing a powerstrip that ‘writhes in pain’ when standby mode of a device is detected. The user may choose to put The Never Hungry Caterpillar out of its ‘misery’ by cutting the power of the devices in play, or instead ‘coldly’ attempt to ignore its agonizing noises. As such, it bears resemblance to the Power-Aware Cord (Backlund et al., 2007) in the problem it addresses, but tackles the issue in a very different, less passive manner.
Another example is ‘Forget Me Not’ (see Figure 10, bottom right), a flower-like reading lamp that is
turned on by touching one of its petals. After being switched on, the lamp opens up and then slowly
closes, gradually dimming its light over time. This process is repeated for as long as the user needs
light. There is a notable similarity in how the user turns (and keeps) the lights on when interacting with HAVE. In the words of the authors: “This involves its user in a constant dialogue about whether she still needs the given light, thereby reflecting on the limitedness of resources and the responsibility of making appropriate use.” (Laschke, Hassenzahl and Diefenbach, 2011, p. 2).
4.5 Involving the user
Mainstream commercial technology is commonly seen as problem-solving, well-designed artifacts
supposed to follow a corresponding aesthetic of efficiency, usability and often even automation. In contrast, transformational products attempt to break up established routines, rather than to fit into them. The Never Hungry Caterpillar and Forget Me Not, are not problem-solvers, but troublemakers (Laschke, Hassenzahl and Diefenbach, 2011). They intentionally cause friction, and use this artificial conflict as a way to emotionally engage people in their activities. This feature is reminiscent of game design which “has been categorized as a type of emotional design in which the creation of artificial
obstacles enhances emotions through play” (Sicart, 2014, p. 89). While HAVE is not necessarily a
gamified design, I think it is worth including gamification in the discussion. Detering et al. states that
gamification is a “valuable approach for making non-game products, services, or applications, more
enjoyable, motivating, and/or engaging to use” (2011, p. 2). Arguably, the interaction dialogue with
HAVE could be described to display elements of the Tamagotchi Effect (Holzinger et. al, 2001).
This effect describes the tendency for emotional attachment with robots, machines, artificial
intelligence and other software agents, through care-taking. Like the Tamagotchi seemingly needs to
be fed or bathed at random times, HAVE will momentarily ask for attention as well, although in a much
calmer, less-demanding manner. Akin to the Tamagotchi, both under- and overstimulation is to be
avoided.
Transformational products also use ludic elements as a ‘tool’ for creating behavioral change in an
Users are often confronted to take deliberate action that serves their goals, but not without stopping to think why one course of action is valued over another. This is meant to provide a kind of a training mechanism, in which the users are able to ask themselves what they did right in order to achieve their goal, and apply that in a broader sense of decision-making.
These ideas have influenced how the interaction with HAVE was shaped as well. Expanding upon Weiser’s initial vision, Rogers (2006) argues that calm technologies should be designed to be
“exciting, stimulating and even provocative - causing us to reflect upon and think about our
interactions with them” (p. 412). It would have been way easier to design the garden so that the grow lights turned on with the press of a button. Easier to build, and arguably easier to use, but not unquestionably better in terms of designing for engagement. Instead, I have intentionally materialized the small obstacle that the lights turn on by touching the plants, and that this is only possible if the plants are sufficiently watered. Naturally, this achieves two things. First, that the user is bound to feel
and (sub)consciously evaluate the moisture levels with their own hands, developing a tacit knowledge
on irrigation that can be used to improve skills regarding plant care and growth — both using HAVE
and for plant keeping in general. Secondly, the user is restrained from thoughtlessly using power on
the grow lights, unless they also take a short moment to care for the plants.
The risk of automated systems is that users are not included in the steps taken to achieve desired
results. Manzini states that since society became industrialized, the predominant strategy in product
development has always been “the one which required the least physical effort, attention and time and consequently the least need for ability and skill” (Manzini, 2006, p. 11). He describes such systems as
disabling solutions, as the minimisation of personal involvement ends up “dramatically reducing the
skills, abilities and know-how that traditionally enabled individuals and communities to deal with the
most diverse aspects of daily life: to take care of the environment, of others and often themselves” (Manzini, 2006, p. 11). In other words, resilience is compromised where responsibility is handed over to other agents, ie. in the case of full automation. To combat this, he argues designers need to rethink
the user’s role from passive to active involvement, where the user becomes a co-producer of the
results she wants to achieve. Many of the examples, concepts and ideas covered in this section can thus be described asenabling solutions, which are systems that “enable people to fulfil their potential, using their own skills and abilities in the best possible way to achieve their desired results.” (Manzini, 2006, p. 12). HAVE is inspired to be the same.
5. DESIGN PROCESS
My process has been a long, intertwined and iterative one. In this section, I will cover the most
important parts, and primarily those that relate specifically to HAVE. That is, I will only briefly cover
other designs and possibilities that I have considered throughout my process. Before I decided upon
designing a vertical garden, I explored other broader ideas with plants as a medium of interaction. Throughout my process, I have continually engaged in designerly activities to materialize and explore my ideas and findings, as a way to reveal design openings and discover eventual shortcomings in my line of thought.
Figure 11: Early sketch explorations of ideas. Floral Frequencies (Left) and Personal Nutrition Facts Label machine (Right).
Floral Frequencies (see Figure 11, left) was an idea where a plant (type, medium, growth method still
open at this point) was junctioned before a home appliance e.g. a radio. The well-being of the plant would be represented through the functional performance of the appliance. In the case of a radio, this
could e.g. mean that artificial noise was added to the sound output gradually, as the plant’s need for
water became more dire. This idea was inspired by designs akin to the Erratic Radio (Backlund et. al, 2007), covered earlier in this paper. I found this idea interesting because of its openness in terms of implementation. In theory, the plant could intercept any device already present in a person’s home, or
it could be designed as a joint unit where the plant and appliance was one and the same. However,
the very same openness also became a source of uncertainty, and in the end the choice of output seemed a bit arbitrary to me.
I also played with the idea of a Personal Nutrition Facts Label machine (see Figure 11, right). This could be used either as a design object in itself, or as an add-on to ideas that involved harvesting edible plants. The core of this idea was to have a library of nutritional information on various greens stored in a food scale, that would add up to a accumulative, personalized label for each portion of harvested self-grown crops. However, at an early stage this idea also revealed a lot of shortcomings about itself, and similar ideas have already been designed and some of them even marketed.
To carry on my work, I wanted to find out what I had to work with in practice, both from a material and technical perspective. To get an overview of how a plant-based interface setup would actually work, I
conducted a series of physical prototyping exercises and started exploring primitive builds, that
iteratively developed into HAVE, as it is presented in this paper. I began researching on the subjects of hydroponics and vertical gardens, primarily in urban contexts, and acquired a good overview of the problem space in regards to modern agriculture and urban garden initiatives, as disseminated earlier in this paper. At this point in time, I was also interested in finding places I could visit and people I could talk to for inspiration.
5.1 Field Visits
At an early stage of my project, I joined the Copenhagen Food Tech community. This is an online
group of entrepreneurs, gardeners, growers, software developers and other people interested in the
future of food production methods. The community describes themselves as a place for knowledge-
and skill-sharing, openness and co-creation through open-source methods. They also serve as a
nexus for arranging events like talks, meetings and workshops.
Here, a key contributor is Growstack , an open-source non-profit community project that addresses the
issues food growth and distribution system via vertical farming. They reside at the premises of the
Danish Society of Engineers (aka. IDA) in central Copenhagen.
Growstack arranges weekly meetups named “Vertical Wednesdays”, which I have attended in order to
network with peers, acquire inspiration, knowledge and insights related to my project. For instance, I
attended a workshop where we built a semi-large automated vertical farm from scratch, with
open-source components and software. Talking to people at Growstack also led me to visit and
interview the people behind Reffen Greens, a hydroponic farm at Refshaleøen in Copenhagen. From
their vertical farm, built inside a shipping container, Reffen Greens provide fresh microgreens to the
popular Copenhagen Street Food venue, a food market placed just outside their premises. Growstack
and Reffen Greens both displays an notable examples of the communal and commercial interest in
Figure 12: Visiting Reffen Greens at Refshaleøen, Copenhagen.
Figure 13: Visiting a communal urban garden at Valby Culture House (left) and bar in Stockholm, that grows plants under their outside heat lamps (right).
These field studies, observations and interviews inspired the design of HAVE. It enabled me to
scratch the surface in terms of design necessities, nice-to-haves and where there was room for
improvement or alternative approaches. At this point, hydroponic farming methods had made such a
good impression on me, that I decided this was the growth method I wanted to use in my design.
I gathered from both field and desktop research, that one of the biggest obstacles in building an
automated vertical farm, in terms of money and know-how, was the watering system. First, this
particular part of the system is often much less “plug-and-play” compared to the other components. Secondly, it required an understanding of coding, mechanics and physics, in order to successfully pull and sprinkle water at timed intervals in a reliable manner. Furthermore, stoppages and leaks (with the
impending danger of short circuits) are known to cause problems, if systems are not assembled and
maintained with skill and care. This finding played a large role in my decision to make HAVE a
computer assisted vertical garden, instead of a computer automated one. As mentioned, the user is
instead guided in their role of watering and taking of the plants, through HAVE’s algorithmic mechanics and ambient lights.
5.2 Choice of plants: Microgreens
Having decided upon a kind of hydroponic setup, I had to choose what type of plants to work with. Here, I was able to weed out a lot of options, because the plants had to be able grow hydroponically and because I wanted the plants to be edible. Therefore I chose to focus on growing microgreens, as these are types of plants are easy to work with, both from a design perspective, and for the end user. Microgreens are young vegetable greens grown from ordinary vegetable seeds e.g. broccoli, radish
and mustard. They are smaller than baby greens, and usually have one pair of very small, partially
developed true leaves on a single central stem. They are cut just above the soil line during harvesting.
The average growth duration for most microgreens is 8–14 days from seeding to harvest (Treadwell,
2010). Microgreens come in a variety of tastes, usually resembling their full-grown vegetable
counterparts. Likewise, they are known for their vibrant variety of colours and delicate textures.
Microgreens are packed with nutrients and can be used as garnish for salads, shakes, smoothies,
sandwiches or as topping on as the user sees fit. Due to their size, growing microgreens alone might
not sustain a household’s recommended intake of greens and vegetables, but it could arguably be
considered a sort of green source of dietary supplements. To be clear, I am no way advocating for homeopathic use of plants in case of illness, but a way to supplement a healthy lifestyle and eating
habits. Furthermore, I should underline that the possibilities of hydroponic gardening extends beyond
the growth of microgreens. I am merely using this type of plant as a case example for this project. This means that it is also possible to grow plants and vegetables to their “adult” stage using a hydroponic setup, and that through the right modifications HAVE would probably work with larger
plants as well. I chose to work with microgreens because they are easy to grow, because they grow
