IN
DEGREE PROJECT MEDIA TECHNOLOGY, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019,
Budgets for a sustainable future
Monthly budgets as a tool for reflection and goal- setting of carbon emissions
LUCAS GRÖNBORG
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ABSTRACT
Climate persuasive services, a type of persuasive technology, could benefit significantly from having a well designed goal-setting feature to actually get users to reduce their carbon emissions. This study explored monthly carbon budgets as a tool for goal-setting to motivate carbon emission reductions. The study focused on how self-efficacy and reflections from budgeting carbon affected motivation.
A prototype for a carbon budget planner was developed for the study and was designed to only motivate users intrinsically so external rewards or prompts were avoided in the design. Participants in the study got to use the prototype and were interviewed around the themes of reflection, self-efficacy and motivation.
The results proved it difficult for the participants to plan the monthly carbon budget as there were
different ways to think about it. Though most of the participants were aware of their climate impact, the
carbon budget planner gave them new perspectives on their carbon emissions and lifestyle. Different
calculation methods between the climate calculator and the prototype made it uncertain if participants
actually felt they could keep a budget which reduced their emissions. In the end almost all participants
felt more motivated to reduce their carbon emissions after the study.
SAMMANFATTNING
Climate persuasive services, en typ av persuasive technology, skulle kunna dra nytta av att ha en väl utformad målsättningsfunktion för att få användarna att faktiskt minska sina koldioxidutsläpp. Den här studien utforskade månatliga koldioxidbudgetar som ett verktyg för målsättning för att motivera koldioxidutsläppsminskningar. Studien fokuserade på hur upplevd självförmåga och reflektioner från budgetering av koldioxid påverkade motivation.
En prototyp för en koldioxidbudgetplanerare utvecklades för studien och utformades för att endast ge inre motivation till användarna så externa belöningar eller prompter undveks i designen. Deltagarna i studien fick använda prototypen och intervjuades kring teman av reflektion, upplevd självförmåga och motivation.
Resultaten visade att det var svårt för deltagarna att planera den månatliga koldioxidbudgeten, eftersom det fanns olika sätt att tänka på det. Även om de flesta deltagarna var medvetna om deras klimatpåverkan gav koldioxidbudgetplaneraren deltagarna nya perspektiv på sina koldioxidutsläpp och sin livsstil. Olika beräkningsmetoder mellan klimatkalkylatorn och prototypen gjorde det osäkert om deltagarna faktiskt kände att de kunde hålla en budget som minskade utsläppen. I slutändan kände nästan alla deltagare sig mer motiverade för att minska sina koldioxidutsläpp efter studien.
Budgets for a sustainable future
Monthly budgets as a tool for reflection and goal-setting of carbon emissions
Lucas Grönborg
Media Technology and Interaction Design School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden
gronborg@kth.se
ABSTRACT
Climate persuasive services, a type of persuasive technology, could benefit significantly from having a well designed goal-setting feature to actually get users to reduce their carbon emissions. This study explored monthly carbon budgets as a tool for goal-setting to motivate carbon emission reductions. The study focused on how self-efficacy and reflections from budgeting carbon affected motivation.
A prototype for a carbon budget planner was developed for the study and was designed to only motivate users intrinsically so external rewards or prompts were avoided in the design. Participants in the study got to use the prototype and were interviewed around the themes of reflection, self-efficacy and motivation.
The results proved it difficult for the participants to plan the monthly carbon budget as there were different ways to think about it. Though most of the participants were aware of their climate impact, the carbon budget planner gave them new perspectives on their carbon emissions and lifestyle. Different calculation methods between the climate calculator and the prototype made it uncertain if participants actually felt they could keep a budget which reduced their emissions. In the end almost all participants felt more motivated to reduce their carbon emissions after the study.
Author Keywords
Goal-setting, motivation, sustainability, carbon budget, persuasive technology
INTRODUCTION
Climate change is perhaps the most difficult and pressing global problem we have faced and requires all aspects of a society working together to mitigate our carbon emissions. 1 In addition to governments and companies, individuals also need to do their part if we are going to accomplish this.
Information and communication technologies (ICT) could be part of the solution if used correctly [8]. Climate persuasive services, which are defined as “ICT applications that change personal attitudes regarding climate change and/or that change behavior towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions", [19] could be great tools for changing behaviors and norms.
Climate persuasive services are a subcategory of B.J.
Fogg’s persuasive technologies. Though much of the sustainable HCI research is comprised of Fogg’s theories [4], the implementations have been criticized for not seeing the whole picture of sustainability or relying too much on rational decision making based on information [2].
Knowles [10] takes another approach to persuasion for sustainability and emphasizes the importance of values and especially those that coincide with pro-environmental behavior. She argues that for long-term sustainable behavior the reason has to come from within.
Lately new climate persuasive services have emerged which have taken a new approach to carbon calculation.
Services like Svalna and Doconomy calculate your2 3
1 Carbon will correspond to carbon equivalents or greenhouse gases in this paper.
2https://svalna.se/
emissions based on bank transaction data instead of letting the user estimate their consumption. Machine learning algorithms categorize these transactions and make consumption-based carbon accounting easy and automatic.
To encourage users of these services to reduce their carbon emissions, goal-setting could be a key feature for such a service. If done right, goal-setting increases task performance [12], in this case the task of reducing carbon emissions from consumption.
THEORY
This section will briefly describe how behavior is linked with motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, and describe the relevant parts of the goal-setting theory.
Motivation
To lower our personal carbon emissions we need to change our behavior. The COM-B (Capability Opportunity Motivation Behavior) framework says that opportunity (factors outside of the individual which makes a behavior possible) and capability influences motivation which itself then affects behavior [14]. Capability can be divided into physical capability and psychological capability (the capacity to engage in the necessary thought processes) [14].
Motivation is defined as “an energizing force that induces action” [15] and it can be divided into two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation involves engaging in an activity because of internal reasons, while extrinsic motivation is the opposite and instead external prompts or rewards are the motivators [3].
Intrinsic motivation is shown to create more engagement and greater persistence of behavior compared to extrinsic [3].
When it comes to motivating less carbon-intensive consumption choices, intrinsic motivators should be prioritized in order to foster long-term behavior [10].
Goal-setting
The goal-setting theory is a robust theory that has been applied to different types of tasks and time scales [11]. The theory was formulated by Locke and Latham and states that by setting goals we can increase our performance [12].
A goal has two properties, specificity and difficulty level, and the effect of a goal is then moderated by commitment
(regulated by importance and self-efficacy), feedback and task complexity. The level of motivation to reach a certain goal is predicated on how important that goal is to the individual and their self-belief in accomplishing a particular task (self-efficacy) [12].
One finding using this theory was that setting your own goals with the help of a supervisor leads to higher set goals and better performance than just being assigned them [11].
By letting you set your own goals, self-efficacy increases and by having a supervisor help set them, higher goals will be set [11]. This supervisor could be designed and implemented into a digital application. This could guide the user to set goals that are in the “sweet spot”.
Research question
The purpose of the study was to explore the concept of a monthly carbon budget as a tool for goal-setting to motivate users to reduce carbon emissions. Like a financial budget, it is a plan to see how much you have and are able to spend.
Setting a budget could be a way to set a reachable goal and planning the budget may encourage the user to reflect more on their consumption and how it affects their carbon emissions compared to a carbon calculator. A carbon calculator just gives you a result of your current emissions while planning forces you to become active, think and reason with yourself. Reflecting on the reasons for consumption choices has a better chance of intrinsically motivating behavior change [13].
This study will attempt to answer the following question:
Does the use of a carbon budget planner tool increase motivation to reduce your climate impact? How does self-efficacy and the reflections from using the tool affect the motivation?
THE PROTOTYPE
A prototype for a carbon budget planner was developed for the study and this section will describe how it was designed and functioned. The prototype resulted in a web app. The design process applied a value sensitive design philosophy [6] where intrinsic (self-transcendence) values were more salient in the design and extrinsic values intentionally avoided. Intrinsic values have been shown to correlate well
with pro-environmental behavior while extrinsic values have a negative impact [16].
First page
When the user opens the web app for the first time it prompts them to enter their current carbon emissions in tonnes per year, see Figure 1. If the user doesn’t know their emissions there is a link which the user can click, directing them to a climate calculator they fill out and receive their current carbon emissions. They can then go back and use that value in the carbon budget planner.
Figure 1: First page.
Setting a budget limit
The next page is about setting a limit for a goal budget. As carbon emissions per year is a common unit it was chosen for this page. The user is presented with a visualization in the form of three circles, one red, one dotted black and one green. The circle sizes represent carbon emissions in tonnes per year.
The red circle shows their current level of emissions and acts as the upper limit on what the user can choose as a budget limit. The overall aim is to reduce carbon emissions from consumption. However, the prototype was designed to allow the user to choose the upper limit in order to let the user have a choice in the matter and to counter the known
“boomerang effect”. By comparing to something worse than yourself, in this case someone emitting more, you will feel content with your emissions and perhaps even increasing them [9][17][18].
Figure 2a: Setting the budget limit page.
The dotted black circle indicates how much an average citizen emits in a country with lower carbon emissions compared to the user’s current (the red circle). There is a list of country averages and one is chosen by the web app so the country average is around half of the user’s current level. This is to give the user some reference for their budget limit choice, to show the difference in carbon emissions between the user and a citizen in another country with much lower emissions and also priming self-transcending values such as social justice.
The green circle is the budget limit for the user’s goal budget which they could adjust with a slider, see Figure 2a and Figure 2b.
Figure 2b: Setting the budget limit page.
Planning a monthly budget
The last page is where the user plans a monthly budget. The budget limit set earlier is in tonnes per year and is then divided by 12 and that number is then used as a limit for a monthly budget on this page. A monthly budget was chosen because it is neither too distant as years or too short as weeks. Here users are presented with an empty circle (the carbon budget) and four different main consumption categories: Transport (blue), Housing (yellow), Food &
Drinks (green) and Other (purple).
When clicking on a category the user is presented with sub-categories and accompanying sliders to each. By adjusting the slider the user can set how much money they want to budget for on that particular sub-category. The money budgeted for is also shown on each sub-category.
Adjusting the sliders doesn’t only change the money
budgeted for on each sub-category but also the user’s total carbon budget, see Figure 3. It will be filled by how much the user "spends" on the different categories. If the user sets a slider on its max the total carbon budget is full. The sliders adjust accordingly to all other slider values.
Depending on the category, more or less money is required to fill the carbon budget space. The web app uses Svalna’s calculations of averages in carbon emission per SEK for different consumption categories in Sweden . For example, 4 spending money on flight significantly reduces the budget left for other things compared to the train. There are more carbon emissions for every SEK for flight than train.
For a step-by-step walkthrough for this page of the prototype see Appendices 1.1-1.11.
METHODS
For the study, university students at KTH were recruited as participants because of the proximity to the study (held at the campus) which would make them more eager to participate. University students are also well educated and perhaps more worried about climate change than the average person. According to NOVUS, people in Sweden with university education are more worried about climate change than people with lower education [20].
The recruiting was done by publishing an invitation to the study in five different student class groups on Facebook.
There were no selection criteria but a limit on around 12 participants because of the time limitation for the study. In total there were around 400 students in all groups together and 14 of them answered the invitation and participated in the study. They did this by booking a time slot through the time schedule application which was attached to the invitation. Of all the 14 participants nine (64 %) were men and five (36 %) were women.
The study was carried out by having a study session with each of the participants. The session could be described as three different parts. First it began with a short introductory interview where the participant was asked questions about using carbon calculators, next about their consideration about their climate impact and lastly on what they do to lower it. This was done to get a sense of what level of
4https://www.svalna.se/content/faq
knowledge, awareness and motivation the participants had as it could affect the results. The interviews were semi-structured, which meant they had predefined questions, but follow-up questions could be asked to dive deeper on interesting remarks from the participants.
The second part of the study was to fill out a carbon calculator to get a number on how much carbon the participant emits currently. After completion of the carbon calculator their assignment was to use the carbon budget planner to set and plan their budget of carbon emissions for this coming month. The result from the carbon calculator was then used in the prototype. The study was not a usability test so if needed the participant received guidance through the use of the prototype and could ask questions about it during the whole session.
When the participant was content or felt done with planning their budget the main interview started. This interview was based on three main themes: reflection, self-efficacy and motivation. Reflection was about how they reasoned and thought about different choices when using the prototype but also what they had learned afterward. Self-efficacy was investigated by asking if the participant thought he/she would be able to keep the budget they set. Lastly, questions about their motivation to lower their carbon emissions were asked and if it had changed after using the prototype.
The results from the study were divided into the different topics of the interview. Observations and comments during the prototype use sometimes enhanced the responses from the interview and were therefore analyzed in combination.
A thematic analysis was done which meant similar responses were grouped together based on common themes.
RESULTS
In this section the relevant results from the three parts of the study will be described. The participants were anonymized with a letter A to N to not reveal their identity.
For individual short answers from the introductory and main interview, see Appendix 2 and 4. For individual results from the prototype use, see Appendix 3.
Introductory interview
Of all the participants two had never used or heard about a carbon calculator before. The rest of the participants ranged from having used a carbon calculator from a couple of weeks ago to three years ago.
Almost all participants thought about their climate impact in some way or another. Mostly it was food or flying that made them think about their impact.
“I prefer to avoid flying. Feels bad when I do something that unnecessary.”
- Participant A Though many thought about their climate impact, they didn’t necessarily do anything about it. Especially if it meant a big change in their lifestyle.
“It pops up in my head when I travel and go on vacation. Then you become actively aware that this is not good for the environment really. I think about it but then I’m not the best in the world to do something about it and change my lifestyle.”
- Participant J When asked about what they actually did to minimize their climate impact, almost everyone mentioned food. Either being vegan, eating more vegetarian/vegan food, eating less meat, buying locally produced food etc.
The two participants who didn’t think that much or not at all about their climate impact didn’t do anything actively to minimize their climate impact.
Setting the budget limit
When the participants got to set their budget limit (tonnes per year), almost all of them said they wanted their budget limit level to be realistic. They wanted it to be lower than
their current carbon emission level but not too low. The level of “too low” did however differ from participant to participant. The average reduction was 25 % lower than their current carbon emission level but the reductions could vary from 0 % to 52 % reduction.
The reasons for why they wanted to set realistic goals weren’t unanimous either. Some didn’t want to change too much of their current lifestyle and some thought more of how difficult it is to change behavior. Those of the latter reason argued that behavior change is something that is made stepwise and not in an instant.
“You should come down to two [tonne]. You can't go straight to two [tonnes] in a year. You should take it step by step. But maybe it [the set budget limit] was too much anyway. You have to change your habits you know.”
- Participant M
“I thought that you should lower a little. But if you lower it as much as they have in Vietnam you would hardly have anything to live with. Because I guess they don't live so excessively extravagantly there. I wanted something to live with and still be able to maintain my lifestyle somewhat.”
- Participant L Though some had similar reasons for their chosen budget limit, the reduction varied quite a lot between them.
Something that came up during the interview was that many didn’t know what a particular level of carbon emissions meant for them in specific lifestyle changes.
Some said it was difficult to set a budget limit without having any reference to what it meant practically.
“I don’t know how much difference it means for me to decrease so much a year. I don’t know exactly what change it means in lifestyle. I felt that I didn't want to lower it too much but still wanted an improvement.”
- Participant J Two participants chose their budget limit based on the reference level of carbon emissions from an average citizen in a country with lower emissions than themselves.
“Oh, how can they [Egypt] be so damn good? If they can do it then I can.”
- Participant A
“A citizen of Thailand was around that level. Then I felt that I should contribute as much.”
- Participant I Lastly, there were participants who didn’t choose the same level of another country but used it as a reference to set their budget limit.
“I checked on a citizen in Romania and then I checked on my own. Then I put it between the two.”
- Participant H In the end, everyone except one participant set their budget limit below their current level of carbon emissions. That outlying participant was surprised by his result from the climate calculator and thought he had got a result on his current emissions that were lower than his actual emissions.
So by setting the budget limit on the current level he would in theory reduce his emissions.
Planning the monthly budget
All the participants planned their monthly goal budget by beginning with how they were living at the moment.
Setting their current expenses in the different consumption categories. For most participants their set budget limit was enough for their current lifestyle while some had to adjust their budget to fit into the set budget limit. No one ever went back to adjust their budget limit after they had set it.
For many of the participants it was hard to plan the budget with consumption categories which fluctuate a lot between months or even years.
“I started with the categories I know the best and which I am not as irregular in as transport which I finished with. Because it’s a little harder for me to pinpoint on how much I spend every year on transport because it goes very much up and down.”
- Participant J To solve this, some participants split the cost of infrequent expenses over months like they were saving up monthly to a bigger purchase.
This was though not the only difficulty among the participants as most didn’t know how you were supposed to think when planning the budget. They didn’t know if they would plan for themselves as an individual or for the whole household. Another question raised was who gets the
carbon emissions for an action if they did the action but didn’t pay for it.
“I drive quite a lot but I pay nothing for it. So then it was difficult to estimate how much I put on it. So it [the transport budget] is probably much larger than this.”
- Participant L The uncertainty over who is responsible for certain carbon emissions was especially evident for those who mentioned that they still lived with their parents.
Learnings
By using the prototype and planning their carbon budget the participants learned different things. Firstly to make a budget for their carbon emissions which changed their view on money by how it is linked with carbon emissions.
“It becomes clear in another way. The money should suffice, but it should also suffice for the emission budget. So it is that link between those that one learns in such a system.”
- Participant F In addition to this link between money and emissions they also learned about the carbon emissions for different consumption categories. This helped them understand the relations and differences in climate impact between them.
For participants who already knew or had a clue before on the relations between the categories this just confirmed it.
Though knowing this they did learn about the specific impact of individual sub-categories.
The specific climate impact of some consumption categories did surprise many participants, especially sub-categories of the transport category. Public transport, train, taxi and ferry were the ones that surprised them the most and had a higher impact than what the participants had thought.
“I thought ferry was pretty nice but then it took so much space.”
- Participant K
“Train took quite a bit. When I pulled down on my train cost then a lot of space opened up. And taxi too.”
- Participant E All participants knew that flying was bad but were still surprised by how big climate impact flying really had.
Some had a hard time planning their budget because of flying taking such a big portion of it.
“You are reminded once again how much flight affects. You think that it’s not so much to travel once every two years. It’s not so much when you think of those who fly to Arlanda every week to have conferences. Then when you get to this and I don't come up to one flight every two years.
Then you realize how bad it is and that flying every two years is not an excuse.”
- Participant A Some participants said they learned more about themselves, their habits and their expenditures by having to plan their carbon emission budget. One participant said they didn’t think they could continue to fly as they did if they only cut down on other things. The participant who hadn’t used a climate calculator before and didn’t think much of his climate impact said he had learned that everything he does [spends money on] has an impact on climate.
Keeping the budget
Most of the participants thought they could keep the budget they set because it was planned with their current lifestyle in mind. They hadn’t compromised so much on their expenses. Some even had a buffer left in their budget.
Some participants weren’t sure if they could keep their budget. Mostly it was because of fluctuating expenses.
Some things weren’t bought every month and could even vary between years such as flights and electronics. Another reason for not being sure was having a tight budget with no room for unexpected expenses.
Those who didn’t think they would be able to keep their budget said it was because of the flying. They had also reduced their budget limit, compared to their current carbon emission level, the most of all participants.
“Now that I think about it, it’s not that much for flying. It is only [number] SEK per year. There it becomes difficult, but everything else is cool. It is mainly the flights, it is absolutely the worst.”
- Participant I
“The only thing I’ve compromised on is flight.
Everything else I’ve even set on a worst-case scenario.”
- Participant A
A comment from some participants who still lived with their parents was that they probably would have to make a new budget for when they move out. A lot of expenditures were paid by their parents and weren’t accounted for in their planned budget.
“Yeah, I think I would be able to keep this budget.
But then it’s problematic that I have no extra space for the day I move out from home. No room to pay rent and stuff.
Then I would have to make a new one.”
- Participant B The participants were not asked about their household but some mentioned it when they were asked if they would be able to keep the budget they had planned.
Motivation
Almost all participants said they were more motivated to lower their climate impact after the study and there were three main themes on why. Firstly it was by being reminded about your climate impact by filling out the climate calculator and using the carbon budget planner that acted as a motivator.
Another theme was self-efficacy. Some said that they felt more motivated because they got to set their goal themselves. They thought they planned their budget for something they realistically would be able to keep.
“After having used the budget thing, it feels doable. Feels like a realistic goal now when you put everything in numbers. It makes it more realistic to set the boundaries and the goal yourself.”
- Participant C The third main theme was the actual carbon budget planner tool. By using a familiar unit of spending money it made it easier for them to relate to carbon emissions, according to some participants. Others said they got a better understanding of their own emissions by using the tool.
Everything mentioned made these participants more motivated to lower their climate impact.
“I would say that what makes me want to change something is transport as it occupies so much of my emissions. If you look, you see that it takes more than half of all my emissions. So that particular part I get more motivated to change.”
- Participant K
“It is still nice to see it in concrete numbers. Also interesting to see it in how much money you spend and how much it represents in emissions. It makes it easy for me to relate because I know how much money I spend. That is something that most people know I think .”
- Participant H No participant said they felt less motivated after the study.
Three participants didn’t feel more motivated and said they were indifferent compared to before the study. Neither less nor more motivated after the study. The reasons for it differed and are quoted below.
“I now know how I should think but I don’t know if it really will affect my life henceforth.”
- Participant D
“There is probably no big difference considering that I have already made many choices because of this [their climate impact].”
- Participant G
“What affects me most is the everyday discussion that takes place everywhere on TV, social media and other channels. That's what inspires me to eat more vegetarian.”
- Participant J One participant thought it wouldn’t really affect him, another said she already did a lot and it made no difference and lastly one participant that it is mostly social norms which affects him the most.
DISCUSSION
The results from the previous section will be discussed in this section.
Reflection
Reflecting on the reasons for consumption choices and their emissions increase motivation to change behavior to reduce carbon emissions [13]. The results showed that the carbon budget planner prototype made the participants reflect and think about their current lifestyle.
By having to go through all expenditures they had from their consumption the participants got to reflect on their current life as a consumer and the climate impact of that. In the case of participants who didn’t manage to plan a budget they could keep, they realized how big climate impact they really had. One interesting comment from a participant, that
made him realize that everything he spends money on has some kind of impact.
Though most of the participants seemed quite aware of their own climate impact, they still reacted to how much or little categories would fill their total budget. Most knew that transport would have a high impact on the budget but were still surprised by how much it really took out of it.
Especially flight, but less obvious sub-categories such as train, public transport and ferry also took a larger portion of their budget than they thought.
In the carbon budget planner the participants didn’t get a chance to compare themselves to someone who had higher emissions. There was only a lower example for reference.
One of them thought she wasn’t so bad because she had always compared herself to others who are worse (in this case flying more). She realized that flying once every two years was not as “good” as she had thought. The prototype made the participants able to, in a neutral way, compare different emission categories to each other for what they are and not to how other people fare. Whether something was good or bad was up to the participant, but the prototype allowed them to make that decision based on what needed to be done, keep within the budget.
Like in a climate calculator they got to learn, or just confirmed for them, the size (climate impact) differences between the broader consumption categories in their life (transport, housing, food and other). The difference from a climate calculator is that the carbon budget planner made it easy for them to see the link between money spent and carbon emissions. It made the participants think of carbon emissions like money, which can’t be spent however they like without breaching their budget.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy increases by setting your own goals and in turn also motivation to reach it [11]. The participants got to set and plan their own carbon budget on their own terms except for one demand from the prototype. They could only keep the same level of carbon emissions as they had or lower them.
All participants wanted to set a realistic goal which they could keep and everyone set budgets lower than their current level. Because they didn’t really know what some reduction in carbon emissions meant in lifestyle change some said they couldn’t keep the budget they set. These
participants had also set the most ambitious budgets. Most had luckily chosen a limit that was enough to continue living as they already did. This was possible because the climate calculator, which the participants filled out, and the carbon budget planner probably calculated carbon emissions differently. Because of this, participants said they would be able to keep the “lower” budget they had set but had mostly just planned it with their current lifestyle in mind.
Something interesting was that no one went back to adjust the budget limit after they had set it. Nor those who said they would not be able to keep the budget or those who just had their current lifestyle budgeted for. Both of these groups could have adjusted the limit to a different level which would have been reasonable to keep or to actually lower their emissions. Perhaps the design of the prototype didn’t convey it clearly enough that you could do that.
Motivation
Intrinsic motivation leads to more engagement and prolongs motivation compared to extrinsic [3]. The prototype was designed without any external rewards for minimizing your emissions. So any choice to lower their emissions was solely based on what the participant thought was fair or good. You could argue that the motivation for their choices was intrinsically motivated.
After the study nearly all participants said they felt more motivated to lower their climate impact. It seemed that the carbon budget planner motivated them slightly because they got to set their own goal which they felt they could reach. This was in line with the goal-setting theory [12].
There were only a few who were indifferent compared to before. The reasons for it going from already doing much to reduce their climate impact to feeling that the ongoing discussions and social norms affect their motivation more than just using a web application.
The carbon budget planner also made it easier for them to relate to and understand their own carbon emissions better by linking it to their expenses. According to the COM-B model for behavior change, increased psychological capability increases motivation [14]. In this case knowing how and what is necessary to reduce carbon emissions.
Most motivation seemed however to come from the latter, the things they learned and were able to reflect on from using the carbon budget planner.
Many participants already seemed aware of climate change, their own climate impact or the impact of some consumption categories. Even knowing about all this they still had a hard time knowing what was good or bad when deciding on their carbon budget limit. They didn’t know what some reduction meant in reality or how much you were supposed to reduce. This may have affected their motivation as there was not anything to strive for. There was no reason for them to reduce their emission some particular amount than just what they thought was enough and most often somewhat randomly chosen. The carbon law[5] or the “fairly divided” carbon budget [1] could for example have given the participants a basis to reflect on how much they needed to reduce to meet the Paris agreement and perhaps would have motivated them more.
This could have also hopefully guided them better into knowing what was too bad or too good.
Budget complications
A budget guides economic decisions or, in this case, decisions that lead to carbon emissions. Planning the monthly carbon budget however proved difficult for most participants. Many questions were raised when planning it.
If they lived with others some expenses were shared between all of them. Should they plan for only themselves as individuals or for the whole household? Sometimes you also do something that emits carbon but you're not the one paying for it. Who is then responsible for those emissions?
A static budget was also difficult to plan for as expenses fluctuate between months and years. Some participants tried to consider it by having a buffer for different categories.
For participants who lived with their parents, another problem arose. The planned budget wouldn’t be enough for them when they move out. A lot of expenses were paid by their parents and therefore weren’t considered in their current carbon budget.
Limitations of the study
All the participants were students which meant that some probably didn’t have too much money to spend. This could have affected how much the participants were ready to
reduce their emissions and change their lifestyle. Some could already be living a constraint life and if they saw emission reductions as something constraining it even more it may not have been seen as something appealing.
At the same time they were very aware of the climate change problem, did things to lower their impact and some even mentioned that we are supposed to emit somewhere between 1-2 tonnes of carbon per year per person.
In the interview the participants could have answered the questions so as not to disappoint on the prototype. It was developed for the study and they were interviewed right after using it which could have affected the answers such as how motivated they felt afterward.
Finally the prototype could have been designed differently to better guide the participants without “forcing” them into a decision. An example would have been showing them when and what we are supposed to emit to limit climate change. This would have given them the reason to lower their emissions with some particular amount.
Broader perspective
It could be argued that it doesn’t matter what the individual does or that we shouldn’t focus on the individual to solve climate change. Instead the solutions lie in system change or technological progress. That may be true but it all begins with individuals.
Climate persuasive services could help individuals reduce their carbon emissions, but what their lifestyle choices for these savings tell their surroundings could have an even greater effect than those individual savings. It can affect social norms which then can affect politics, the market and mass behavior to more sustainable practices if enough people join. In Sweden for example “flygskam” (flying shame), a new word to describe the shame of flying because of its big individual climate impact, has come to change the norm around flying [7].
Monthly carbon budgets help people better understand their carbon emissions and teach them what exactly is necessary to do, regarding consumption, for certain emission levels.
This can then guide them towards a sustainable level and more sustainable lifestyle choices.
Climate persuasive services implementing this for goal-setting would need to complement it with a feedback system to increase the chances for achieving goals set [12].
The feedback system would require some kind of automated carbon calculation to keep a high motivation from the users. One method as previously described is by using data on purchases to automate the carbon calculation of our consumption. Though automating the process and perhaps being more accurate than estimating yourself, at least if users don’t want to continuously go through everything in detail, this method still has some flaws.
By only looking at purchases it could skew the carbon emission results. Some purchases, such as subscriptions or bundled expenses such as public transport cards doesn’t necessary mean that you're actually doing the action leading to carbon emissions. In the examples presented those actions are using the subscription service or using the public transport. The results will perhaps not be 100 % accurate but should be accurate enough to base lifestyle changes on.
Though money spent does not always lead directly to carbon emissions or even indirectly through a life cycle analysis it can be argued that the money spent still has a climate impact through the company spent on. Still if you don’t use a company’s subscription service the company will still invest that money on something that will have an impact on emissions even though you are not using the service.
Future research
Setting a carbon budget has the potential to help people lower their carbon emissions in climate persuasive services.
This study was in its nature too short to measure behavior change, if the participants actually would reduce their emissions, but it showed that a carbon budget planner has the potential to encourage behavior change for these reductions. A future study could look at a longer period of time to see if users actually do lower their emissions if they get to set their budget and with an added feedback mechanism in the prototype which increases the chance of reaching the goal [12]. A longitudinal study could investigate whether users would continue to lower their emissions and not just a single time.
Another interesting study would be to look at how to design goal-setting when setting a budget limit so that users self-willingly choose realistic but ambitious goals.
CONCLUSION
The carbon budget planner developed for this study, like a climate calculator, taught the participants about the emission intensity for different consumption categories.
The difference was though that the carbon budget instigated reflection on emissions for the different consumption categories in a constraining perspective. How to keep carbon emissions within a budget.
By planning this carbon budget the participants had to reason with themselves on how to prioritize different expenses. They learned more about themselves, their lifestyle and how big of a climate impact it has. Planning the budget was difficult because of insecurity about what to consider and how to think about the carbon budget.
It is hard to say if the participants felt a higher self-efficacy to lower their emissions when most didn’t in reality lower them in their budget. This was possible because of different carbon calculations in the climate calculator used and the prototype which must have led to a higher starting level of emissions.
In the end most participants felt more motivated to lower their carbon emissions. But it seemed to be mostly because of the information about their climate impact rather than anything else.
REFERENCES
1. Kevin Anderson, Isak Stoddard, and Jesse Schrage. 2017.
Carbon budget and pathways to a fossil-free future in Järfälla Municipality. Järfälla Municipality.
2. Hronn Brynjarsdottir, Maria Håkansson, James Pierce, Eric Baumer, Carl Disalvo, and Phoebe Sengers. 2012. Sustainably unpersuaded: How persuasion narrows our vision of
sustainability. In CHI ’12 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 947–956. Retrieved from
http://delivery.acm.org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1145/2210000/22085 39/p947-brynjarsdottir.pdf?ip=130.237.29.138&id=2208539&ac c=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=74F7687761D7AE37%2EE53E 9A92DC589BF3%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E 38B35&__acm__=1551882142_2855c8771baf520d834f6b712 a955e9c
3. Edward L. Deci. 2004. Intrinsic Motivation and
Self-Determination. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology: 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/00689-9 4. Carl DiSalvo, Phoebe Sengers, and Hrönn Brynjarsdóttir. 2010.
Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753625 5. Johan Falk and Owen Gaffney. 2018. EXPONENTIAL
CLIMATE ACTION ROADMAP. Future earth, SITRA.
6. Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn Jr., and Alan Borning. 2002.
Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods. University of Washington.
7. Hanna Hoikkala and Niklas Magnusson. 2019. As “Flying Shame” Grips Sweden, SAS Ups Stakes in Climate Battle.
Bloomberg. Retrieved May 14, 2019 from
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-14/as-flying -shame-grips-sweden-sas-ups-stakes-in-climate-battle 8. Mattias Höjer, Åsa Moberg, and Greger Henriksson. 2015.
Digitalisering och hållbar konsumtion. Naturvårdsverket.
9. Yunhui Huang. 2016. Downward Social Comparison Increases Life-Satisfaction in the Giving and Volunteering Context. Social indicators research 125, 2: 665–676.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0849-6
10. Bran Knowles, Lynne Blair, Stuart Walker, Paul Coulton, Lisa Thomas, and Louise Mullagh. 2014. Patterns of persuasion for sustainability. In DIS ’14 Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, 1035–1044.
11. Edwin A. Locke. 1996. Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied & preventive psychology: journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology 5, 2: 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(96)80005-9 12. Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham. 2002. Building a
Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation.
The American psychologist 57, 9: 705–717.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
13. Gregory R. Maio, James M. Olson, Lindsay Allen, and Mark M.
Bernard. 2001. Addressing Discrepancies between Values and Behavior: The Motivating Effect of Reasons. Journal of experimental social psychology 37, 2: 104–117.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1436
14. Susan Michie, Maartje M. van Stralen, and Robert West. 2011.
The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation science: IS 6: 42. https://doi.org/1748-5908
15. Laura Parks and Russell P. Guay. 2009. Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and individual differences 47, 7:
675–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002 16. P. Wesley Schultz, Valdiney V. Gouveia, Linda D. Cameron,
Geetika Tankha, Peter Schmuck, and Marek Franěk. 2005.
Values and their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. Journal of cross-cultural psychology 36, 4: 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962 17. P. Wesley Schultz, Jessica M. Nolan, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah
J. Goldstein, and Vladas Griskevicius. 2007. The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms.
Psychological science 18, 5: 429–434.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
18. Tara L. Stewart, Judith G. Chipperfield, Joelle C. Ruthig, and Jutta Heckhausen. 2013. Downward social comparison and subjective well-being in late life: The moderating role of perceived control. Aging & mental health 17, 3: 375–385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2012.743963
19. Jorge Zapico, Marko Turpeinen, and Nils Brandt. 2009. Climate persuasive services: changing behavior towards low-carbon lifestyles. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on persuasive technology, 1–8.
20. 2019. Novus rapport: Klimatoro. Novus. Retrieved from https://novus.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/156a5ed08e7d01 2d29dd36e7c50b4be4.pdf
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Planning the monthly budget - Empty budget
Appendix 1.2: Planning the monthly budget - Dragging the “Flight” slider up
Appendix 1.3: Planning the monthly budget - Switching to the “Housing” category
Appendix 1.4: Planning the monthly budget - Dragging the “Garden & Flowers” slider up
Appendix 1.5: Planning the monthly budget - Switching to the “Food & Drinks” category
Appendix 1.6: Planning the monthly budget - Dragging the “Alcohol” slider up
Appendix 1.7: Planning the monthly budget - Scrolling down on “Food & Drinks”
Appendix 1.8: Planning the monthly budget - Dragging the “Grocery” slider up
Appendix 1.9: Planning the monthly budget - Choosing “Vegetarian” as a diet
Appendix 1.10: Planning the monthly budget - Switching to the “Other” category
Appendix 1.11: Planning the monthly budget - Dragging the “Hair & Beauty” slider up
Appendix 2: Short answers - Introductory interview
Participant
Have you used a climate
calculator before?
When was the last time?
Do you usually think of your climate impact?
When do you usually think of your climate
impact?
Are you actively doing anything to lower your climate impact? If yes, what?
A yes last year yes - flight
- plastic bags
- don't buy plastic bags - I am vegan
- reuse a lot
- buy big packages (food)
- lunch boxes are old ice cream packages - not buying unnecessary stuff
- buy second-hand
- donate clothes instead of throwing
B yes last autumn sometimes - car no
C yes 3 years ago sometimes - recycling
- flight
- recycle
- go by public transport
D no - not much - recycling - recycle
- pick up trash and throw it sometimes
E no - yes - flight
- food
- buy locally produced - less meat
- train instead of car/flight
F yes last autumn yes - car
- food - what we eat (less meat, mostly vegan)
G yes half a year ago yes
"Doesn't affect my everyday life but I've made choices because of it."
- try not to fly (not flown in 7 years) - eat mostly vegetarian
- buy clothes second-hand
H yes few years ago yes - food
- travel - think about what food I buy
I yes 3 years ago yes
- mat - flyg
- shopping clothes
- don't eat meat - second-hand clothes
- don't have a car, so bike or public transport
J yes 2-3 years ago yes - travel
- now and then
- eat more vegetarian - always done (bike, recycle)
K yes 2-3 weeks ago yes
- food - things - transport
- less meat
- second-hand things
L yes 1 or more years
ago not much - recycling - recycle
- turn off lights
M yes 3 weeks ago yes - food
- not going to fly anymore, train instead - think about what food I buy
- turn off lights
N yes more than half
a year ago yes "On the whole when I do some particular things."
- buy locally produced food - eat vegetarian
- trying to convince my family not to fly
Appendix 3: Prototype use
Participant Current CO2 Budget limit (goal) Reduction
A 5,2 2,5 −52%
B 5 4 −20%
C 5,4 3,7 −31%
D 8,8 5,8 −34%
E 7,3 6,8 −7%
F 5,5 3 −45%
G 2,9 2,5 −14%
H 7,4 6,1 −18%
I 9,5 5,6 −41%
J 3,9 3,2 −18%
K 2,7 2,7 0%
L 4,6 3,5 −24%
M 3,9 3 −23%
N 2,9 2,3 −21%
Appendix 4: Short answers - Main interview
Participant
Do you feel that you would be able to keep the budget you planned?
Have your motivation to reduce your carbon emissions changed since you used the prototype? How?
A no More motivation
B maybe More motivation
C yes More motivation
D yes Indifferent
E yes More motivation
F maybe More motivation
G yes Indifferent
H yes More motivation
I no More motivation
J maybe Indifferent
K maybe More motivation
L yes More motivation
M maybe More motivation
N yes More motivation
TRITA-EECS-EX-2019:301
