Post on 14-Jan-2015
description
QUANTIFYING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF
ENERGY USE AND GHG EXTERNALITY IN
EVERYDAY LIFE
Adrian Friday, Mike Hazas,Adrian Clear, Janine Morley and
Oliver Bateshttp://wp.lancs.ac.uk/energychoices/
Thursday, 30 May 13
OUTLINE
• Report on our current work studying energy use in shared student accommodation (specifically energy, cooking)
• Quantified dual of empirical ‘sensing’ and qualitative methods
• Aim to convince you that
• eco-feedback interventions (e.g. in home displays/IHD) are not enough
• interventions must focus on reconfiguring energy intensive ‘services’ supporting everyday life, example of ‘cooking’
Thursday, 30 May 13
VERY BIG PICTURE(Anderson & Bows. 2008 Philosophical Transactions A of the
Royal Society. 366. pp. 3863-3882)Thursday, 30 May 13
VERY BIG PICTURE(Anderson & Bows. 2008 Philosophical Transactions A of the
Royal Society. 366. pp. 3863-3882)
Year
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Em
issi
ons
of g
reen
hous
e ga
ses
(GtC
O2e
)
0
20
40
60
80
2015 peak
Thursday, 30 May 13
VERY BIG PICTURE(Anderson & Bows. 2008 Philosophical Transactions A of the
Royal Society. 366. pp. 3863-3882)
Year
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Em
issi
ons
of g
reen
hous
e ga
ses
(GtC
O2e
)
0
20
40
60
80
2015 peak
Year
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Em
issi
ons
of g
reen
hous
e ga
ses
(GtC
O2e
)
0
20
40
60
80
2020 peak
Thursday, 30 May 13
VERY BIG PICTURE(Anderson & Bows. 2008 Philosophical Transactions A of the
Royal Society. 366. pp. 3863-3882)
Year
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Em
issi
ons
of g
reen
hous
e ga
ses
(GtC
O2e
)
0
20
40
60
80
2015 peak
Year
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Em
issi
ons
of g
reen
hous
e ga
ses
(GtC
O2e
)
0
20
40
60
80
2020 peak
Year
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Em
issi
ons
of g
reen
hous
e ga
ses
(GtC
O2e
)
0
20
40
60
80
2025 peak
Thursday, 30 May 13
SMART METERS & ECO-FEEDBACKCurrentCost, DIY Kyoto, Enistic, e.g. http://www.diykyoto.com/
Thursday, 30 May 13
REWARDING BEHAVIOUR“The Ambient Canvas”, Bartram, 2010
Thursday, 30 May 13
Weekly prizes were awarded for participation, and weekly emails announced winners, prizes and tips. Web sites run by the City and by Dubuque 2.0 also provided publicity.
The public nature of the pilot project had consequences. Its stakeholders, particularly elected officials, were aware that problems could reflect back on them. Thus, it was not acceptable to recruit volunteers for the pilot and then tell half that they could not use the Portal at all because they needed to serve as controls. Nor was it acceptable to make water consumption data from the pilot public (even though water usage data is, legally, public, and available to anyone who asks). Strict user ID and password requirements were enforced out of concern that users might expose their usage. In general, concerns of this sort sometimes drove the design of the system and the pilot in ways that were not ideal for research, particularly with respect to the more social features of the system.
The Water Portal User Interface Each household had a private portal, as shown in Figure 1. Just below the user ID (!), the timeline shows the daily water usage for the last year ("). Moving a ‘thumb’ along the timeline, shows a graph of the hour-by-hour usage for each day (#). The “Weekly Usage” tab displays a bar graph that shows usage for the week, each day broken into 4 periods. The “Compare” tab displays a bar graph that
contrasts usage per day of the week for the last 3 weeks.
The last tab, “This Week’s Game,” provides two means of socially shaping behavior. The first ($) shows the ongoing results of a weekly game. Each week teams of 4 to 6 households were automatically created by the system. Each team was matched against another team that was expected – based on previous consumption patterns – to use about the same amount of water during the upcoming week. The goal was, of course, to use less water than the opposing team. The results were updated throughout the week (with each household being able to see how it and each of its (anonymous) teammates were performing (via the segments in the bar in the graph). Finally, the farthest bar to the right (%) shows the amount of water used by “Neighbors Like You,” to which users can compare to their own usage. At the top right are statistics that provide various metrics of how the household is doing such as rank, and a menu bar that provides access to chat and news functionality (&).
THE STUDY The Portal was deployed to 303 households for 15 weeks. Multiple measures – logs, a survey and interviews – were used to evaluate its effects on its users’ behavior, beliefs and experience. The study examines the following areas: • Degree of usage. How many households made use of the
Water Portal, and what usage patterns did they exhibit?
Figure 1. The Water Portal.
Session: Sustainability & Behavior Change CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA
677
Dubuque energy portal
ENERGY USE AS IGNORANCE?e.g. Dubuque portal, (Erickson, 2013)
Thursday, 30 May 13
DOES ECO-FEEDBACK WORK?
Thursday, 30 May 13
5-15% SAVINGS POSSIBLE, BUT SHORTLIVED. WHY IS IT (IN)EFFECTIVE?
Hazas, Mike and Friday, Adrian and Scott, James (2011)doi:10.1109/MPRV.2010.89
Thursday, 30 May 13
WHY DOESN’T ECO-FEEDBACK WORK?
Thursday, 30 May 13
“grounded in a basic assumption that home dwellers lack information” (Pierce, 2010),
[...] required if they are understood as “micro-resource
managers” (Strengers, 2011)
disconnect between the types and methods of feedback, and “the realities of everyday life”
?Thursday, 30 May 13
OUR FOCUSHow energy connects to everyday life
Thursday, 30 May 13
LIFE RATHER THAN CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY
• Shift focus towards the broader functions energy supports (e.g. making hot drinks, having clean clothes, entertaining oneself)
• => qualitative + quantitative understanding (Firth, 2008)
• Goal: to help explain the significant variation in energy consumption across similar homes (Hackett & Lutzenhiser, 1991, Gram-Hanssen, 2010)
Thursday, 30 May 13
4 FLATS X 8 INDIVIDUAL STUDY BEDROOMS, 2 SHOWERS, 2 TOILETS, KITCHEN + CORRIDOR
Thursday, 30 May 13
RETROFIT SENSING4 x OWL Single-point sensing +
RFXCOM
129 x Socket-level sensing (Plugwise)
42 x Motion/light, 38 x temperature/humidity
“Hobcam” (motion triggered camera)
Experience sampling + interviews
Thursday, 30 May 13
20 DAYS
all common areas (kitchens, bathroom, corridor)22 participants opted in to in-bedroom monitoring
11 face to face follow up interviewsa few near-time ‘mini-accounts’ (questions posed by text/email)
3 8 5 6
Thursday, 30 May 13
00:00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Time of day
Pow
er (k
W)
YellowBlueRedGreen
AGGREGATE USE10 minutes median bins
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
Not discussed further here
Thursday, 30 May 13
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Timestamp
Elec
tric
powe
r (W
atts
)
LightingRefrigerationEntertainment & ITOther cooking appliancesOven
Thursday, 30 May 13
WHERE TO FOCUS?
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Timestamp
Elec
tric
powe
r (W
atts
)
LightingRefrigerationEntertainment & ITOther cooking appliancesOven
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
ALERTThursday, 30 May 13
ALERTIHDs focus on instantaneous load (Strengers, 2011), need ‘area
under the curve’, (c.f. Costanza, 2012)
Thursday, 30 May 13
LIGHTING
• 16-29% of the energy in each flat
• bedrooms are comparable (~10 kWh)
• but communal areas more varied (46-85 kWh)
• A mix of conventions, expectations, meanings and actions around the lighting in the flats
Thursday, 30 May 13
NOT SIMPLY UTILITARIAN
• Communal lights often left on (no surprise...)
• But, corridor switch-offs in “Green” (“otherwise they're just on for no reason”)
• Navigation (“well I really don't like the dark. When I come out of my room it's dark and I'm like arrrr”)
• Meanings around comfort and security
Thursday, 30 May 13
ENTERTAINMENT AND IT
• Big variation: 3.5% to 34% of the energy
• room inventories
• most had laptops; three PCs
• 9/12 male participants had extra audio, video, or gaming devices
• A room’s energy attribution corresponded roughly to its inventory
Thursday, 30 May 13
COMPUTING
• discrete periods of use, vs. consistently on
• laptops vs. other: order of magnitude less
• Blue: two server PCs; four with AV/gaming
• differing conventions for power management (Chetty, Brush et al. 2009)
Thursday, 30 May 13
IT: ONE SERVICE TO RULE THEM ALL?
• multi-purpose: looking up lecture notes, doing coursework, music, reading the news, keeping in touch with friends
• low energy way to ‘do entertainment’
• significant overlap of these activities
• challenges in attributing which practices a service supports beyond disaggregation by appliance, (c.f. Gupta, 2010)
Thursday, 30 May 13
‘CONSTELLATIONS’ OF DEVICES
• multiple devices clustered together
• e.g. “computer” a bunch of devices served by two sockets
• supporting a service like gaming or watching TV
• often makes sense to bundle the energy of these devices, and attribute to a single service, like entertainment (“I’ve got my hard drives, my router, my two monitors, my stereo and my desktop, that’s all hooked together.”)
Thursday, 30 May 13
ENTERTAINMENT
• socialising: casual and planned group activities (“We spend a lot of time in each others rooms just talking and watching telly”)
• access to digital media infrastructures
• boredom and filling time has resource implications (“first year I used to play lots of games”)
• ‘connoisseurs of entertainment’
Thursday, 30 May 13
SENSING + INTERVIEWS
Thursday, 30 May 13
SENSING + INTERVIEWS
1. exposes service-reliance across areas of practice (personal and group entertainment, paid work, education, staying in touch, pre-boiling water for pasta...)
Thursday, 30 May 13
SENSING + INTERVIEWS
1. exposes service-reliance across areas of practice (personal and group entertainment, paid work, education, staying in touch, pre-boiling water for pasta...)
2. identifies systems of devices and constellations of services (beyond appliance disaggregation), we might tackle together
Thursday, 30 May 13
SENSING + INTERVIEWS
1. exposes service-reliance across areas of practice (personal and group entertainment, paid work, education, staying in touch, pre-boiling water for pasta...)
2. identifies systems of devices and constellations of services (beyond appliance disaggregation), we might tackle together
3. resource measurements can be actioned more effectively, taken in context (not motion triggered lights, but nightlights...?)
Thursday, 30 May 13
SENSING + INTERVIEWS
1. exposes service-reliance across areas of practice (personal and group entertainment, paid work, education, staying in touch, pre-boiling water for pasta...)
2. identifies systems of devices and constellations of services (beyond appliance disaggregation), we might tackle together
3. resource measurements can be actioned more effectively, taken in context (not motion triggered lights, but nightlights...?)
4. facilitates higher-level reconsideration of how service might be reconfigured for sustainability
Thursday, 30 May 13
A STEP TOWARD REFOCUSED INTERVENTIONS
Centred on the impact of food & cooking practices
Thursday, 30 May 13
THE “HOBCAM”
BedroomBedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Kitchen Bedroom
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
READY?Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING SESSION ANNOTATION
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING SESSION ANNOTATION
One cook, single portion
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING SESSION ANNOTATION
Components used
Back-right
Back-left
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING SESSION ANNOTATION
Foods observed
Jarred sauce
Pasta
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING SESSION ANNOTATION
... and quantities
(160g)
(100g)
Foods observed
Jarred sauce
Pasta
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING SESSION ANNOTATION
Cooking method
Boiling
Heating
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING SESSION ANNOTATION
Cooking method
Heating
Boiling
(no lid)
(no lid)
Use of lid?
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING SESSION ANNOTATION
Changes in control position
Thursday, 30 May 13
COOKING: QUANTIFIED
Thursday, 30 May 13
RELATIVE IMPACTS
Cooking Energy Emissions (22%)
Indirect Emissions (78%)
Thursday, 30 May 13
Other food
RELATIVE IMPACTS
Cooking Energy Emissions (22%)
Waste
Otherdevices
Indirect Emissions (78%)
Thursday, 30 May 13
DESIGN AREAS
Diet Change
Technique & Method
Thursday, 30 May 13
TECHNIQUE AND METHOD
Photo: reutC (via Flickr)
Thursday, 30 May 13
FRYING VS. GRILLING
33m 30s170g
9m 50s
113g
0.118 kWh 0.965 kWh
Average 1.2 kWh/kg Average 6.7 kWh/kgThursday, 30 May 13
PASTA VS. PASTA
41 mins16 mins7 mins
Thursday, 30 May 13
PIZZA VS. PIZZA27 minutes
...53 minutes before cooking
Oven switched on
85 minutes
36 minutes later...
...oven switched off
Pizza ready
55 minutes
Thursday, 30 May 13
Thursday, 30 May 13
• Which calls into question technique, and cooking skills in play (Short, 2003)
Thursday, 30 May 13
• Which calls into question technique, and cooking skills in play (Short, 2003)
• But, also how food often takes a back seat to other activities
Thursday, 30 May 13
• Which calls into question technique, and cooking skills in play (Short, 2003)
• But, also how food often takes a back seat to other activities
• More efficient methods & techniques (reduce timing “errors” / “forgetfulness”), 10-20% cooking energy; 2-4% overall GHG
Thursday, 30 May 13
DIET
Pastasauce
Thursday, 30 May 13
DIET
High Impact
Low Impact
Pastasauce
Thursday, 30 May 13
A CONVENIENT DIET
“typical student food”
“all those kind of really easy things”
0
20
40
60
80
jarred sauce
chicken
pastavegetables
sausages
chipspizza
breadbaked beans
ricepotatoes
tortellini
baconfrozen veg.
tinned tomatoes
eggnoodles
mince beef
steakreadymeal
fishsoup
61
70
87
88
41
43
21
9217
33
8
1540
22
8 29
27
109
8 107
Embo
died
Ghg
em
issio
ns (k
g CO
2e)0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
jarred sauce
chicken
pastavegetables
sausages
chipspizza
breadbaked beans
ricepotatoes
tortellini
baconfrozen veg.
tinned tomatoes
eggnoodles
mince beef
steakreadymeal
fish
61
69
87
66
41
43
20
8817
32
8
1541
21
8 29
27
109
8 10
Embo
died
GhG
em
issio
ns (k
g CO
2e)
Thursday, 30 May 13
A CONVENIENT DIET
“typical student food”
“all those kind of really easy things”
0
20
40
60
80
jarred sauce
chicken
pastavegetables
sausages
chipspizza
breadbaked beans
ricepotatoes
tortellini
baconfrozen veg.
tinned tomatoes
eggnoodles
mince beef
steakreadymeal
fishsoup
61
70
87
88
41
43
21
9217
33
8
1540
22
8 29
27
109
8 107
Embo
died
Ghg
em
issio
ns (k
g CO
2e)0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
jarred sauce
chicken
pastavegetables
sausages
chipspizza
breadbaked beans
ricepotatoes
tortellini
baconfrozen veg.
tinned tomatoes
eggnoodles
mince beef
steakreadymeal
fish
61
69
87
66
41
43
20
8817
32
8
1541
21
8 29
27
109
8 10
Embo
died
GhG
em
issio
ns (k
g CO
2e)
• Repeated moderate- to high-impact foods
Thursday, 30 May 13
MEALS
Pastasauce
Thursday, 30 May 13
MEALS
Pastasauce
Thursday, 30 May 13
CHICKEN, PASTA, AND SAUCE
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Region 1
Total: 3.57 Kg CO2e
Thursday, 30 May 13
GRILLED POTATOES
0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.5
Potatoes Cooker
Total: 0.62 Kg CO2e
Thursday, 30 May 13
•Make indirect emissions more explicit to “cooks”, help keep infrequent high-impact foods “special” (Grimes, 2008), 20-30% indirect emissions; 17-24% overall GHG
Thursday, 30 May 13
ORGANIZATION
Cooking & Eating
Thursday, 30 May 13
ORGANIZATION
Cooking & Eating
Thursday, 30 May 13
ORGANIZATION
Cooking & Eating
Thursday, 30 May 13
ORGANIZATION
Cooking & Eating
Thursday, 30 May 13
ORGANIZATION
Cooking & Eating
Thursday, 30 May 13
“SIMPLE” & “EASY” =
Thursday, 30 May 13
“SIMPLE” & “EASY” =
• Short cooking time (< 20mins) (~70%)
Thursday, 30 May 13
“SIMPLE” & “EASY” =
• Short cooking time (< 20mins) (~70%)
• Single cooker component (69%)
Thursday, 30 May 13
“SIMPLE” & “EASY” =
• Short cooking time (< 20mins) (~70%)
• Single cooker component (69%)
• Few “ingredients”
Thursday, 30 May 13
“SIMPLE” & “EASY” =
• Short cooking time (< 20mins) (~70%)
• Single cooker component (69%)
• Few “ingredients”
• Repetitive
Thursday, 30 May 13
“SIMPLE” & “EASY” =
• Short cooking time (< 20mins) (~70%)
• Single cooker component (69%)
• Few “ingredients”
• Repetitive
• Single portion
Thursday, 30 May 13
“SIMPLE” & “EASY” =
• Short cooking time (< 20mins) (~70%)
• Single cooker component (69%)
• Few “ingredients”
• Repetitive
• Single portion
• Cooking for oneself (90%)
Thursday, 30 May 13
SOCIAL COOKING
“we keep saying we’re going to cook together but something always
gets in the way”
“one person would go out or one person
would not want what we wanted”
Thursday, 30 May 13
“WHATEVER’S IN THE CUPBOARD”
“I like vegetables and salads and stuff like that but when I buy it it just all
goes off...”
“um, risottos, stuff, pasta and sauce whatever, um
shepherds pie ...whatever ingredients we have”
Thursday, 30 May 13
•Encourage more shared cooking, help overcome barriers or discover opportunities for sharing (impact?)
LOWER IMPACT COOKING?
Thursday, 30 May 13
WE’VE LOOKED AT INDIRECT FOOD EMISSIONS AND COOKING ENERGY
EMISSIONS
both be addressed to some extent through cooking and the way it’s organised in everyday life, but...
Thursday, 30 May 13
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Cooking Energy
Diet Change
Technique
Indirect Emissions
Thursday, 30 May 13
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Cooking Energy
Diet Change
Technique
Indirect Emissions
Thursday, 30 May 13
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Cooking Energy
Diet Change
TechniqueSharing
Indirect Emissions
Thursday, 30 May 13
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Cooking Energy
Diet Change
TechniqueSharing
Indirect Emissions
Thursday, 30 May 13
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Cooking Energy
Diet Change
TechniqueSharing
Indirect Emissions
Thursday, 30 May 13
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Thursday, 30 May 13
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Thursday, 30 May 13
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Cooking Energy
A Different Diet
Technique & Method
Sharing
Indirect Emissions
Thursday, 30 May 13
DISCUSSION
Thursday, 30 May 13
RESOURCE MANAGERS?
Thursday, 30 May 13
RESOURCE MANAGERS?
• negotiable: feedback can expose things already seen as wasteful
• ...resulting changes tend to result in savings of about 10% (Darby, 2006)
Thursday, 30 May 13
RESOURCE MANAGERS?
• negotiable: feedback can expose things already seen as wasteful
• ...resulting changes tend to result in savings of about 10% (Darby, 2006)
• non-negotiable: external factors dictate the possible range of actions, and which of them are affordable/rewarding/valued (Strengers, 2011)
Thursday, 30 May 13
A BROADER VIEW
• sustainability research needs to take the broader view that it needs
• quantifying the impacts of everyday life
• and understanding how it connects and supports services and practices in the home
• due to the nature of variation, formative studies are always needed, and we advocate a qualitative/quantitative approach
Thursday, 30 May 13
BUSY LIVES AND SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS
• social expectations dictate things like how we need to look or smell, which has big implications for daily practice (Shove 2003)
• powerful institutions (like employment)
• contribute to these expectations,
• tend to organise time in certain ways,
• ... making other ways of doing things more difficult
Thursday, 30 May 13
BEYOND THE OBVIOUS
Thursday, 30 May 13
BEYOND THE OBVIOUS• Eco-feedback interventions need to respect barriers to change
in the context of everyday life
Thursday, 30 May 13
BEYOND THE OBVIOUS• Eco-feedback interventions need to respect barriers to change
in the context of everyday life
• We posit: there are non-trivial impact reductions through focused interventions
Thursday, 30 May 13
BEYOND THE OBVIOUS• Eco-feedback interventions need to respect barriers to change
in the context of everyday life
• We posit: there are non-trivial impact reductions through focused interventions
• but, there is no one size fits all, we must understand each service, and we argue for a quantitative + qualitative approach
Thursday, 30 May 13
BEYOND THE OBVIOUS• Eco-feedback interventions need to respect barriers to change
in the context of everyday life
• We posit: there are non-trivial impact reductions through focused interventions
• but, there is no one size fits all, we must understand each service, and we argue for a quantitative + qualitative approach
• Challenge: to design these focused interventions (in the widest sense), and reshape norms & expectations (Dourish, 2010) - can we go beyond 5-15%?
Thursday, 30 May 13
QUESTIONS?a.friday@lancaster.ac.uk
http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/energychoicesThis work was funded by the UK Research Councils (EPSRC grants EP/G008523/1 and EP/I00033X/1), and the Facilities Division and Faculty of
Science and Technology at Lancaster University. Thanks to: Darren Axe at Green Lancaster, and the student residences officer at Lancaster University for their cooperation.
Thursday, 30 May 13