INOM EXAMENSARBETE TEKNIK,GRUNDNIVÅ, 15 HP

, STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2020

Engaging through designVisualizing climate impact of aviation at KTH

NIKE BACKMAN

MARIA JACOBSON

KTHSKOLAN FÖR ELEKTROTEKNIK OCH DATAVETENSKAP

ENGAGING THROUGH DESIGN - VISUALIZING CLIMATE IMPACT OF AVIATION AT KTH 

 ENGAGEMANG GENOM DESIGN - VISUALISERING AV KLIMATAVTRYCKET 

FRÅN FLYGRESOR PÅ KTH 

Nike Backman KTH Royal Institute of Technology 

EECS Skolan för elektroteknik och datavetenskap nikeer@kth.se 

Maria Jacobson KTH Royal Institute of Technology 

EECS Skolan för elektroteknik och datavetenskap majacobs@kth.se 

   

ABSTRACT English As the state of the climate becomes increasingly severe, a multitude of goals are being formed in order to tackle the problem. At KTH Royal Institute of Technology, goals to lower emissions from work related air travel have been set. The next step in order to realize these goals would be to implement measures and tools to promote behavioural changes within the university. In this paper, the questions of “How can an installation be used to visualize flight data?” and “How can such an installation be designed in order to provoke reflection and discussion?” are explored through the method of Research through Design. The design was based on earlier research on how design elements of HCI can be effective in evoking certain emotions in the user. The outcome was a prototype of a visual carbon emission budget tool that would display, if developed further, in real time the extent of the average emissions from air travel per employee in a certain department at KTH and how that figure corresponds with the emission goals of the university. Interviewees that saw the tool in its developing stages stated that it evoked reflection and discussion, and that it had potential in sparking discussion on the flight habits within KTH departments if it would be used in a real environment in the future.

Svenska Klimatkrisen blir stadigt allvarligare, och flera mål sätts upp för att tackla problemen. På Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan har man satt upp mål för att minska koldioxidutsläppen från flygresor i tjänsten. Nästa steg till att förverkliga dessa mål är att ta fram åtgärder och hjälpmedel som kan verka för förändring av beteendemönster inom universitets verksamhet. I denna rapport undersöks frågorna “Hur kan en installation användas för att visualisera flygdata?” och “Hur kan en sådan installation utformas för att provocera fram känslor och reflektion?” genom metoden Research through Design. Designen togs fram med tidigare forskning om hur vissa element inom HCI kan vara effektfulla för att provocera from särskilda känslor hos användaren i åtanke. Resultatet var en prototyp av en visuell koldioxidbudgetmätare som, om den utvecklas vidare, i realtid visar upp hur mycket koldioxid en medelperson på en avdelning släpper ut från tjänsteresor med flyg samt hur detta förhåller sig till KTHs utsläppsmål. Intervjuobjekt som fick se verktyget under utvecklingsprocessen konstaterade att det väckte känslor, inspirerade till eftertanke och hade potential att starta debatt kring

flygvanor på KTHs avdelningar om det skulle användas i en verklig miljö i framtiden.

1. INTRODUCTION In a time where we are on the brink of a global climate crisis, a good portion of faith is put in the researchers and scientists of the world. We hope for new technological advances and inventions that will not only save us, but also allow us to lead the same lifestyle as before. It might seem contradictory to learn that the world of academia itself is a large emitter of CO 2. An integral part of the research taking place at universities is travelling: to do fieldwork or to attend conferences, among other reasons, and it is considered a vital part in progressing a successful academic career [12].

In this project we will look into air travel habits in the world of academia. More specifically, we will focus our interest towards The Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, in Stockholm, Sweden. In 2018, 99% of work related travel emissions at KTH were due to aviation. By 2019 emissions from work related travel had increased with 18% compared to 2016, mainly due to increased air travel [20]. At the same time KTH has decided on ambitious climate goals. By 2020 emissions should have decreased by 20% compared to 2015, by 2040 decreased by 90%, and by 2045 KTH aims to be completely climate neutral [16].

In order to investigate if and how KTH can achieve their climate goals the research project FLIGHT has been launched by two departments at the university: the department of Media Technology and Interaction Design (MID) and the department of Strategic Sustainability Studies. The purpose of the project is to develop and test practical tools to reduce travel related CO 2-emissions, and by doing so take part in reducing the total CO 2-emissions at KTH.

This paper is part of the FLIGHT research and takes off specifically in the project's subgoal that aspires to find alternative ways to visualize travel data and CO 2-emissions and make them tangible in order to communicate and increase awareness between data, habits and behaviour.

In this paper, we strive to investigate this by creating an installation, or prototype of an installation, that visualizes or embodies generated flight data from a selected department at KTH. The idea behind the installation is that it, when fully

developed, should be placed at such a department, allowing the employees to see it in their everyday professional environment. Although no fully developed prototype will be created within the course of this paper, the thought of this context of where it would be placed in a potential final form will carry through as a core in the design process. The purpose of the installation is to be of a provocative nature, and to evoke reflection and discussion in regards to air travel among employees. In the long term, the installation aspires to promote reduced flying habits and challenge the existing norms of academic flying at an institution like KTH.

In our endeavor to develop a tangible product as a solution to the problem at hand, we will use the methods of Research through design (RtD). RtD intersects reflective design practices with scholarly research, and is used to acquire new knowledge through iterating over the design of an artifact as a proposed solution.

In this paper we seek to explore the following questions;

1.How can an installation be used to visualize flight data?

2. How can such an installation be designed in order to provoke reflection and discussion?

2. BACKGROUND The section that follows will present the background theory that lay the foundation for this project. The concepts of academic flying, research through design and emotional impact of HCI will be presented.

2.1 Academic flying Global aviation accounts for 2,4% of the total emissions of CO 2, and emissions from commercial flights have increased with 32% over the last five years [8]. However, the 2,4% figure does not include the radiative forcing or high-altitude effects from aviation, that when accounted for could make total aviation related emissions considerably higher [13]. The amount of passengers travelling by flight is expected to double from 2016 to 2035: from 3.8 billion to 7.2 billion [14]. Scientists and researchers are considered to be unusually large contributors to these statistics, and can be referred to as being hypermobile travellers : a few highly mobile individuals who account for a large share of overall distance travelled. This extensive travelling is often related to attendance at international or domestic conferences [9]. A 2012 informal survey at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research showed that the average number of trips by flight was 2.3 per employee, significantly higher than the overall UK average of 0.5 trips per person [17]. A more extensive survey on Australian academics in 2015 found that they had on average taken 3 domestic return flights and 1.72 international return flights for work related purposes during a 12-month period [6]. Respondents in both surveys meant that flying is of importance for maintaining work relationships, building networks and progressing their academic career [17, 6] . In a 2013 study it was estimated that emissions from science related travelling accounted for 0.003% of overall emissions or 0.228% of international aviation emissions in 2008. This might seem negligible, but the authors of the study argue that the share of conference related emissions per person is not, and that a single conference trip amounts to 7% of an average individuals total CO 2-emissions. CO 2-emissions from a published conference paper

was estimated to be 801 kg, taking into account the average travels related to such a publication [21]. A similar result was found in a carbon footprint analysis of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) in 2014, where the average CO 2-emissions per participant were calculated to be 0,5 tonne, amounting to 5% of annual per capita emissions in Europe [4].

Voices have been raised within the scientific community that scientists and researchers should lead by example and decrease their amount of work related flying, and that this could have a highly symbolic impact [11]. Suggestions to implement a Carbon code of conduct for science have been made, meaning that since scientists personal emissions are higher than those of the average persons there is a “... credibility gap in advocating for others to reduce their carbon footprint” which needs to be reduced [5].

2.2 Research through design Research through design (RtD) is at the intersection of scholarly research and design practice. It focuses on proposing an artifact as a solution or improvement of a current problem or situation and takes into account the reflective aspects of design practice in critiquing and iterations in the processes of producing said artifact. The distinction between design practice and design research lays in their objectives. RtD focuses on how the design process produces new and valuable knowledge, not just the resulting artifact as in the case of design practice [22]. An important aspect of RtD is the strive to contribute to transforming the world from its current state to an improved, more desirable state [23].

In the book Design Research Through Practice from the lab, field and showroom by Koskinen et al, three different practices within RtD are described. One of them, the Showroom approach, draws on practices within art and fashion. Its main objective is to challenge the status quo through provocative design. It relies on invoking debate rather than generating measurable statistics. A common way of showcasing the results of the Showroom approach is with an exhibition [15].

With the Showroom approach, it is critical to distance the design research from artistry, as art influences are so heavily intertwined in it. This can be done by focusing the research into a real-world context. It is also important to produce usable design, and not simply develop a provoking art piece [15].

In 2007, John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi and Shelley Evenson analyzed the current state of design research within Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) specifically and thus developed a concretized guide explaining valuable methods in RtD in relation to HCI. They explain four criteria for evaluating interaction design research within HCI; Process, Invention, Relevance, and Extensibility. The process must be explained in such detail that it could be reproduced, and methods must be thoroughly evaluated and selected. The Invention criterion emphasizes the need for the research result to advance the current state of the art. It requires the researcher to be familiar with the current state of the art and specify the specific need for the invention at hand. It cannot simply be a reproduction of what already exists, it must contribute with new knowledge. The Relevance criterion is rooted in Christopher Frayling’s concept of RtD, that design research should be conducted for the betterment of the world. The desired state that the invention contributes to must be defined. The final criterion of Extensibility touches on the

need for the conducted research to be buildable. Discoveries generated or the process used in the study must, therefore, be reusable for future research [23]. A subject similar to the one in this project was studied by Albrecht in 2018. With a RtD-approach, he designed an artifact named Publikvitto, that printed out receipts with CO 2-emissions and flight related governmental subsidizations for each flight departing from Arlanda airport. For each new flight departed, the receipt got longer and longer, creating a visual effect of the aggregated departures. The purpose of the project was to make government expenditure, more specifically the subsidizing of jet fuel, tangible and to discover how artifacts can be designed in order to engage the public in political discussions [1].

2.3 The notion of discomfort in HCI Emotions play an important role in our everyday lives. They influence how we behave, how we perceive the world and how we make decisions. Taking behavioral science and psychology into account when designing a HCI system lets the designer utilize the power of emotional influence in order to tweak the user experience of a product. Peter et al conducted user studies evaluating the emotional impact on interaction based on Norman’s three levels of emotion (visceral, behavioural and reflective) in relation to product qualities of interaction, visuality, tactility, content, function and performance. The study confirmed that the levels of emotion and product qualities affected each other and ultimately the experience of the user [19]. The work in this paper will focus on the use of discomfort and negative emotions in HCI design. The concept of transformative learning is of interest in this approach. Originally developed by Jack Mezirow [18], transformative learning is learning that usually takes place in adulthood and that allows a person to reassess how they understand the world. Mezirow calls this reassessing critical reflection: to challenge the validity of prior learnings, integrated norms, and habits. Critical reflection is a vital part in perspective transformation: “... the process of becoming critically aware of how we perceive, understand, and feel about our world; of reformulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating, permeable, and integrative perspective; and of making decisions or otherwise acting upon these new understandings”. Mezirow means that critical reflection, and further on, perspective transformation is triggered by disorienting dilemmas or disturbing anomalies in the world, which can be evoked by “... an eye-opening discussion, book, poem, or painting or by one’s efforts to understand a different culture that challenges one’s presuppositions.” Furthermore, Mezirow means that there are three common areas of distortion in meaning perspective: epistemic distortion, socio-cultural distortion, and psychic distortion. Being exposed to these distortions can allow for, and trigger, perspective transformations. Of particular interest in this paper is the sort of epistemic distortion that Mezirow refers to as reification : “... seeing a phenomenon produced by social interaction as immutable, beyond human control, like the law, the government, atomic warfare, environmental destruction, homelessness, famine, or the military-industrial complex”, as well as the kind of socio-cultural distortion that is based on the assumption that the “... particular interest of a subgroup is the general interest of the group as a whole.”.

In a study by Halbert and Nathan, inspired by Mezirow’s take on critical reflection and perspective transformation, university students were asked to respond to uncomfortable, problematic scenarios through interactive tools. Their learning experiences, interactions and reflections on the experiments potential to support critical reflection were analyzed. Based on the results, Halbert and Nathan gave several recommendations on how HCI systems should be designed in order to promote transformative learning. One such recommendation is to be aware of the experiences of those with, and those without, privilege in a given context. Systems should promote voices, perspectives and experiences of individuals with less privilege, while at the same time take care to not place unfair demands or expectations on them [10]. Evoking emotion through deliberately making the user feel discomfort can help create an entertaining, enlightening, and socially bonding cultural experience, argues Benford et al. This sort of uncomfortable interaction causes a certain degree of suffering to the user, by making them feel fearful, anxious or even experience physical pain. Uncomfortable design is argued to have three main benefits. The first benefit is that it creates entertainment , like the thrill of a roller coaster ride. The discomfort heightens the sense of deep focus in a user, thus creating more memorable and intense experiences. The second benefit is that it creates enlightenment, as it provokes users to reflect on feelings and responses when exposed to challenging themes. The third benefit is that discomfort promotes sociality, as the shared rite of passage in experiencing something difficult or challenging with others prompts social bonding. Benford et al. proceeds to describe four sets of design tactics, each based on a primary form of discomfort. Among these is the cultural form of discomfort, which is of particular interest in this paper. To create cultural discomfort, the design should invoke dark cultural associations. It can do so by including adult, difficult or vulgar material. You can also benefit from making the design culturally resonant, by drawing on themes that are contextually specific, like the history of warfare in a certain country [3]. In a 2014 essay Grace reflects on the use of taboo thematics and explicit material in video games. She concludes that the moments of discomfort in games “... offers designers a highly effective opportunity to remind players to think” but states that the results of these reflections might be both positive and negative revelations [7].

3. METHOD The core of the method was to conduct a design process where the final outcome is an installation, or prototype of installation, which visualizes flight data from a selected department at KTH. In order to give structure to this process, as well as applying a Research through Design approach, the five basic steps of RtD Recommended by Zimmerman and Forlizzi were used as a foundation [24]. They are as follows:

1. Select: to choose a research problem worthy of investigation and choosing which RtD practice (lab, field, showroom or a combination of these) to follow.

2. Design: to explore new ideas. Field studies, brainstorming sessions or workshops can be conducted in order to understand the state of the art and propose a new perspective.

3. Evaluate: to throughout the creative process continually evaluate and challenge the initial idea and design. Changes made to the design should be documented and reflected upon.

4. Reflect and disseminate: to break down the process that has been conducted up until that point, to summarize the main discoveries. This can also provide points to consider in further research on the matter.

5. Repeat: to achieve the best research results the same situation should be repeatedly investigated.

In the following sections we will present what actions were taken under each step, and how the design process looked overall. Details and outcomes of each step is presented in the section 4, Result.

3.1 Select The idea behind this project came from the FLIGHT-research group. They were interested, as part of their work in exploring creative tools to decrease academic flying, in an installation that could inspire reflection on flight habits among KTH employees. It was decided that we should design such an installation as part of our bachelor's thesis, and thus a research problem worthy of investigation had been selected.

With the aim of the project being to provoke reflection and discussion, we chose to apply the RtD showroom approach. The showroom approach has its foundation in challenging the status quo and creating provocative, artistically inspired artifacts which invoke debate. This seemed in line with what we wanted to achieve, and the approach was used as a backdrop for all design choices made in the process.

Before going into the design phase of the project, we also made a decision on what data to use. It was clear that we wanted to use flight data from KTH, but in order to decrease the amount of time needed to spend on processing and selecting data we retrieved our information from a visualisation project in the course DH232 called FlightWise. They had already processed the KTH flight data and made an accessible tool where we could easily see CO2-emissions per department and individual. Any calculations in this project will be made using data from FlightWise, which in turn uses information from KTH flight data.

3.2 Design The design process started with a brainstorming session, where the first step was to decide what kind of emotion the installation should invoke in the user. Once an emotional theme had been chosen, the brainstorming moved on to decide what themes related to climate change could potentially invoke the chosen emotion in a user. We also chose what medium should be used to display the design. We used mind mapping as a way to structure our thoughts and associations.

When the pillars of what we wanted to convey in our design had been decided upon, we started sketching out design ideas on paper. According to section 3.3, the sketched ideas were evaluated.

When a final sketch idea had been selected we moved on from the brainstorming stage to develop our ideas into a prototype. To do this we designed individual wireframes in Adobe Illustrator. The choice of using Illustrator was made due to the possibility of creating highly customised images, which was considered essential in the strive towards conveying controversy. We

connected the individual AI frames through clickable links in MS Powerpoint, so that a user interface shell was created.

3.3 Evaluate The initial brainstorming session resulted in three basic ideas, which we then evaluated. When we had spent 5-10 minutes on developing an idea, we then started to evaluate what aspects of it that should be kept and what did not work out. We always identified why something did or did not work as we wanted, so that we could take that knowledge with us into the next brainstorming sessions. Each idea then became increasingly refined, until we had an idea that we wanted to develop fully.

3.4 Reflect and disseminate In order to fulfill the purpose of this project and gain insight as to whether the design concept enabled the sort of reflection and discussion it was set out to do, interviews were held. Invitations were sent out via email to potential respondents, where the target group was employees at KTH who had shown previous interest in the FLIGHT research project. Respondents who showed interest in participating were given individual time slots, and interviews were conducted via video call. In total, 5 interviews were held. Most interviews were approximately 25-30 minutes long.

The interviews followed the five basic phases of interviews as described by Baxter [2]. Firstly, there was an introduction where the participant was welcomed and the purpose of the interview was described. In order for the participants to fully understand the purpose the context of the design concept was described: participants were informed that ideally this design concept would be placed at an office or department, somewhere where the employees would pass it by everyday. They were asked to reflect on and answer the given questions with this context in mind. The introduction was followed by a short warm up, where non-threatening questions were asked to eliminate any discomfort, such as why the participant had been interested in taking part of an interview.

The main part of the interview consisted of detailed questions. The participant was shown the design concept through screen-sharing, where they were guided through the different components. They were asked questions mainly on how the installation made them feel, what kind of discussion such an installation would lead to among employees, and what kind of consequences in regards to flying habits it could have. The questions were phrased so to be as unbiased as possible. Then followed a short summary where the interviewee was asked more generally what they felt about the concept and if there was any room for improvement. Finally, there was a wrap up where the participant was informed that the interview was concluded, and they were thanked for their time.

3.5 Repeat During the design process, the design and evaluation steps were repeated multiple times, and often intertwined with each other. After the interview that took place as part of section 3.4 Reflect and disseminate, the design choices made were once again evaluated and appropriate changes made where needed.

4. RESULTS In the following section, all results that were the outcomes of the practices described in the Method section will be presented and analysed.

4.1 Results of brainstorming sessions When doing research we settled on the fact that we wanted to develop a design concept that enhanced facts and data through discomforting elements. We argued that being made aware of, and forced to reflect upon, one's habits and the negative impacts they have on the climate is closely intertwined with feeling uncomfortable or even shameful. The idea was to design something that could inform users about their habits and allow for reflection, in an easy-to-understand and tangible manner, as well as provoking a sense of discomfort. The use of discomfort was supported by Mezirow’s [18] theories of transformative learning and the idea that critical reflection can be triggered by uncomfortable dilemmas.

We wanted to incorporate uncomfortable elements that felt close to the user and that they could have a personal connection to, and did so by choosing themes that triggered associations to global warming and its consequences. We considered such themes to have great potential to be culturally resonant, and thus allowing for discomfort according to the theories of Benford et al. [3] as well as having support in Mezirow's idea of epistemic distortion in the form of reification [18]. In order to decide on design elements we mapped out themes and ideas we considered could evoke a sense of discomfort in regards to global warming.

After mapping out themes and discussing their potential, we decided that we wanted to use fire as a main design element. We deemed that fire was of high cultural relevance, with regards to the forest fires that have plagued different parts of the world in the last few years, in particular the fires in Sweden in the summer of 2018, and the fires of Australia in late 2019 and early 2020.

After deciding on a theme we went on to map out what medium to use. Multiple mediums were of interest in the early stages of the process, but when restrictions of the Coronavirus were implemented we knew that any workshops or interviews with users were to be held through video calls. We therefore decided upon a digital program that could be displayed on a screen.

Inspired by the concept of Publikkvitto [1] and its visual effect of the increasingly longer receipt printed as departures aggregated, we additionally decided that we wanted to have individual data components aggregate and accumulate to show their combined impact. We considered this to be the most impactful aspect of Publikkvitto and thus wanted to incorporate that aspect into a different medium. It was also important for us to clearly visualize the KTH emission goals, in order to give the data displayed a clear context. These values were the skeleton that we based our first brainstorming sessions on.

Our first brainstormed sketch idea was to display emission impacts on a world map. The idea was to focus on the aspect of home, to place the user in a context where they could visualize how their emissions affected the world around them. The idea would be that fires of different intensities would be placed on different places on the map, depending on how many journeys that had been made to that destination. However, we quickly realized that it would be hard to display emissions on the map in a way that made sense, since we did not have access to information regarding flight destinations. Furthermore, since emissions spread evenly throughout the planet, it would not make sense to focus certain emissions to the destination of the travel that caused them. It would also be hard to compare the emissions made to the KTH emission goals, as they could not be displayed in a similar way. We however wanted to keep the idea of a personal context in our next ideas.

Our next idea had its main focus in the fire aspect from our mind map. We sketched out a concept of a big fire that could be split into smaller fires, that represented the emissions of each department at KTH. The smaller fires could be split into even smaller components, which would display each individual trip and the emissions that it generated. We liked that this idea clearly displayed how each individual trip was accumulated into something bigger. We also liked the clear visual use of the fire, but we did not feel like it was relatable enough, and that like our previous idea, did not make a comparison emissions to the KTH goals. The idea was lacking a clear, personal context and narrative.

In order to achieve the kind of personal context we were looking for, as well as a clear connection to the KTH climate goals, our next idea was based on the idea of a carbon dioxide budget. In order to calculate this budget, we used data from the 2019 CERO report at KTH [20]. The report showed that in 2015, emissions from business related air travel at KTH was 2338 kg CO 2 per capita. Climate goals set out by the school states that emissions from air travel should be reduced by 40% in 2040 compared to emissions in 2015. Taking this goal into account, as well as the emissions per capita in 2015, we calculated that emissions from work related air travel should be lowered by 93,5 kg CO 2 per capita per year. In 2019, allowed emissions would therefore be 1964 kg CO 2 per capita.

We now had a carbon dioxide budget, which had a clear connection to the KTH emission goals. We wanted to display a budget bar that would have a positive side and a negative side, separated by a middle line. The bar would initially be filled up on the positive side and tick down until the budget for the year was used up. It would then spill over on the negative bottom side, to visualize the extent of how much the budget had been surpassed that year. The using-up of the budget would be calculated through summing up the total emissions of the department thus far in the year divided by the total number of employees in that department, in order to be compared to the per capita goal.

We were now interested in figuring out how we could display flight emissions. We wanted to combine the budget idea with fires, which would represent each trip made, accumulating into the combined impact as in our previous iteration. We came up with two different ways of splitting up the total impact into smaller components. The first idea was to separate all of the trips based on employee, which would make sense in regards to the per capita-mindset. This would mean that you could fill in what employees you wanted to display, from one to all, to clearly see the contribution of each individual employee and how it all added up.

The other idea was to make a timeline that displayed how the emission average built up throughout the year. This would mean that you could not trace back a particular contribution of emissions to a single employee, instead the entirety of the department would be calculated into an average that could then be compared to the budget goal. We decided to continue developing the latter idea, as it joined together the entire department and put

less pressure on each individual. We liked the fact that this idea so clearly visualized the impact that a certain department contributes with, and how that measures up to the goals of KTH.

4.2 First prototype As stated, we continued to develop the idea of a budget bar with a timeline displaying emissions growing throughout a chosen year. In addition to this we added a third element, a forest that continuously deteriorates throughout the year. As emissions accumulate the health of the forest decreases: it starts off as a healthy green forest, full of life, but at its final stages all life is gone and a fire rages through it. These were the three elements we chose to incorporate in our final prototype: a deteriorating forest, a timeline which shows accumulated emissions, and a budget bar which compares the emissions of the selected departments with the KTH climate goals.

The three elements were illustrated and wireframes were created, creating a prototype in the shape of a slideshow. The prototype we built starts off with some background information about the KTH emission goals. After this, each month of the year is displayed in individual slides. Each slide contains the deteriorating forest, the timeline which shows the accumulated emissions at that point of the year, and how these correspond to the carbon dioxide budget shown through the budget bar.

The forest is displayed at the top of each slide, and as the year passes by, it’s health is continuously decreasing, which is made clear to the user by dying trees and fire. The timeline with accumulated emissions is displayed in the middle of each slide, and takes up the largest part of the screen. For each month, the average emissions per person in the department is displayed in the shape of a fire, which is accumulated into a larger fire as emissions add up throughout the year. In a real world-context, where this prototype would actually be place at a department, our envisioning was that a fire would be added for each trip made, in real time. The size of this fire would correspond to the amount of CO 2 that the particular journey would have emitted. Due to restrictions in the available data set, we had to make a simplification and spread the emissions evenly throughout all 12 months in the year. Therefore, the visualization in the prototype was made as if the department would have made one trip each

month, and that they all emitted exactly the same amount of CO 2. The budget is displayed in a vertical bar, that sinks down as emissions increase to a mid-line that represents the limit of the carbon budget. Once the department has surpassed the allowed amount, it starts to sink down until it reaches the bottom of the negative end of the bar. After that, it gradually takes on a deeper shade of red until the capacity of the bar is reached, and it cracks open and spills out. The prototype ends with a year summary, that summarizes the emissions of the department that year. See fig 6. for examples of the illustrations mentioned above.

Below follows selected frames from the first prototype, displayed as a slideshow. At first there is a short presentation informing about the KTH climate goals in regards to work related air travel, and the user is prompted to find out whether or not their department is doing it’s part to reach the goal. Then the progress throughout the year is shown through several slides. Following the months of the year, the user can see how emissions accumulate and how the budget is exceeded. The final slide is a wrap up showing the total emissions per person at the department, and to what extent the budget was exceeded.

Fig 6. Selected wireframes from budget tool prototype; start frame with information, a few monthly views and a

year summary

4.3 Results of interviews Once the first prototype had been finalized and could be demonstrated to users as a slideshow, five interviews were held. The participants were asked to evaluate the three components of the installation: the forest, the timeline and the budget bar. A majority of the participants responded with interest to the forest. One participant said that it made them think of the forest fires that raged in Sweden in the summer of 2018, and that it illustrated the changes actually taking place in the world. On a similar note, another participant said that it generated a narrative, that everyone can relate to nature. Another participant meant that it triggered a response in them personally, since they have a positive relationship with the forest, but was unsure if everyone would have a response to it, since not everyone has the same connection with the forest. One participant said that the illustration might be too “nice” to generate response and interest from all users, and that it might have a larger impact if the fire was animated, while another one pointed out that it was a good thing that the illustrations were not too aggressive.

The timeline with the accumulating fires was considered to be the most excessive part of the installation by the participants. It was the part that overall generated the least amount of attention during the demonstration, and it seemed to generate less interest compared to the other components. Participants said that it was a bit distracting, that it felt out of context, and that it did not illustrate the data well enough. One participant pointed out that while the other components actually interpreted values and gave them meaning, this part did not.

The component that on the other hand generated the most amount of attention was the budget bar. This was partly due to the response from participants when the bar progressively changed, and partly due to that participants found the bar to be unintuitive. They said that they expected the bar to increase as emissions did so, and that they were confused when it instead decreased. The particular changes that occured in the bar - when it cracked, broke and finally ran over - generated response from most participants. Most of them mentioned these changes when asked what generated attention in the demonstration, and some pointed out the “creepy” associations of the blood like color and shattered glass. Some participants pointed out that some of the changes might not be dramatic enough, though, and that it should be made more clear when the budget had been surpassed.

Most participants agreed that this installation could spark discussion about flying habits, and that it could contribute to keeping this discussion continuously alive. Some participants pointed out that there is an unawareness among many employees regarding how much flying that occurs in their workspace and to which extent emission goals are surpassed, and that this tool could help raise such awareness. Participants also agreed that the tool could be a potential source of conflict. They thought that it could be provoking to some, and that it could create a bad atmosphere. Some participants said that there usually are two types of employees: those who are aware of the large amount of academic flying taking place and that as of today are actively working to decrease their own flying, and those who are unaware or simply believe that the research they do is of high importance and great benefit to society, thus making academic flying a necessity that can not be avoided. Participants thought that conflict and polarization between these two groups might arise, and that the tool might lead to frustration, disappointment and shaming instead

of fruitful, constructive discussion. Participants also pointed out that the tool might appeal more to those already engaged, and that it would not be as impactful for those that do not view their flying as problematic. The latter group might just find it provoking, and the illustrations to be silly, speculated participants.

Some participants also thought that the tool seemed unfair, since it evenly distributes the flying among each person in a department, regardless if they had actually been flying. They also pointed out that the tool used solely negative reporting, and did not include possible solutions or comparisons with e.g. travels by train. It was also said that adding a competitive aspect might be useful, such as enabling a department to check how they are doing compared to others.

Conclusively, most participants agreed that they thought there is a point in using a tool like this, and that it had great potential. They thought that it could increase awareness and evoke discussion, but that it might be too affective and stir up conflict.

4.4 Analysis and final iteration Based on the feedback that was acquired during the interviews, some alterations were made in order to produce the final prototype. A recurring theme in all interviews was that the budget bar was unintuitive, and that it should increase as emissions accumulated. We therefore changed the budget bar accordingly. In the final prototype, the budget bar fills up from the bottom and upwards as emissions increase. Furthermore, to reduce uncertainties as to when the budget had actually been surpassed, it was more clearly marked out in the bar with a line and a description box with the text “This years KTH Budget 1964 kg CO2/person”. We also made the description box that pops up informing that the budget has been exceeded more aggressive, by adding a “Warning”, an exclamation point and changing the color scheme from blue to red and orange. These alterations should, in accordance with the received feedback, make the budget bar more intuitive and easier to understand, as well as make it more clear when the budget has been surpassed.

Another point made in the interviews was that the changes in the budget bar as the budget was surpassed were not dramatic enough. When the more dramatic changes actually occurred, such as the budget bar cracking open, this generated interested from participants. Based on this feedback, we decided to implement dramatic changes in the budget bar in an earlier stage, letting the bar crack open when the budget had been overstepped for the third time (in July). From July and onwards the budget bar is now broken, spilling out red smoke that through the remaining months of the year takes up a larger part of the screen as emissions increase. This should open up potential for greater response and reaction from viewers, and the added dramatic components are intended to highlight the severity of surpassing the budget.

As part of the feedback regarding uncertainty about the budget, the final prototype allows for an informational page describing the KTH climate goals to be reached whenever, through a sidebar. The description of the informational page was also rephrased so to more clearly promote a goal of working together as a department to do better than other departments. As competitiveness among departments was thought to increase engagement according to feedback from interviews, this new phrasing was chosen in order to trigger such competitiveness.

The part of the prototype that was concluded the most excessive throughout the interviews was the timeline with the accumulating fires. It was therefore decided that this part should be removed in its entirety. The accumulation of the emissions throughout the year is instead shown graphically in the budget bar. This allows for the viewer to focus more on the remaining components, and as a result we also resized the forest, allowing it to take up a larger space. We also displayed the current year more visibly, and added the potential of scrolling through previous years.

Below follows some selected slides from the final prototype, showing the progress throughout the year. Each slide now contains the deteriorating forest, sized up compared to the before and the budget bar. The third element from the previous iteration, the accumulating fires, has been removed.

Fig 10. Selected frames from final iteration of prototype, showing the progress throughout the year

5. DISCUSSION Here the results presented in the previous section will be discussed in relation to theory and discoveries made throughout the working process.

5.1 Conflict, polarization and discomfort As we based our project on the RtD method of the Showroom approach, we strived towards developing a design concept that would evoke discussion and reflection. To create something with the potential to provoke was of essence in our design process. Analyzing the answers of the interview participants, it is apparent that we succeeded in this regard. Participants pointed out that the prototype might potentially act in a polarizing way and that it could promote conflict among employees. They also thought that it could be provoking to some. On the other hand, participants agreed that the prototype could inspire discussion, as well as be beneficial to keeping this discussion alive for a longer period of time. With this in mind, we can see that we answered our question regarding how an installation can be designed in order to provoke reflection and discussion, which was one of the main objectives in this project. The prototype we designed was considered provoking by users, it was regarded as a source of potential conflict, and it was thought to be beneficial for discussion and reflection.

However, it’s open for further discussion whether or not this is the optimal way of displaying flight data in a department. The purpose of this project was not to document any actual behavioural changes taking place due to the use of this sort of installation, nor was it to evaluate the potential of our installation compared to others. Therefore, no conclusions can be made regarding if our prototype would lead to actual behavioural changes in terms of academic flying, and we have no evidence suggesting that this is the best way to visualise flight data in order to engage employees. We set out to be provoking, which was successful, but would we want employees to become engaged, if this meant that their work environment would be ridden by conflict?

An interesting point of discussion is what in our prototype that seemed to cause discomfort or conflict. When designing the prototype, the components and themes were chosen according to what we thought might invoke discomfort. We chose to use fire, and a forest dying when flames raged through it, since we thought that this would trigger connotations of increasing temperature on earth and the actual forest fires taking place in the world caused by global warming. Forest fires seemed a current theme due to the fires in Australia in late 2019 and early 2020, as well as the fires in Sweden in summer of 2018. Drawing themes to our design from a real-world context would make it culturally resonant, thus increasing its potential to create discomfort in a user [3] and its potential to inspire critical reflection through reification [18]. The budget bar was also designed to invoke dark and creepy associations, with shattered glass and a deep, red color that reminded of blood. In interviews, it was clear that both the dying forest and the budget bar generated interest from participants. One participant spontaneously commented that the forest fire reminded them of the fires in Sweden 2018, without being asked, and others said that they have a positive personal relationship with the forest, and that it therefore was upsetting to see it deteriorate. Our attempt to create a real-world context thus seemed to be accomplished. Participants also reacted to the changes in the budget bar, particularly when it cracked and broke. However, participants also said that they thought that the illustrations might not be meaningful for all, that they were too silly or “nice”, and

not dramatic enough. It’s possible that we could have generated even more engagement by making the illustrations darker or more life-like. Using actual footage of a burning forest could have had potential, as this would increase the real-world context. On the other hand, one participant said that it was good that the illustrations were not too aggressive, and that it might make them less provoking. Since our purpose was to provoke, it’s not certain this would be to our advantage.

However, despite that the themes and illustrations seemed to create a certain sense of discomfort in users, the greatest potential in engagement was the conflict among employees the installation was thought to create. Being made aware of the abundance of flying taking place in the department, and to what extent agreed climate goals are surpassed, was overall by participants thought to be a source of polarization and conflict. The installation was deemed to be provoking, unfair and to only include negative reporting. It’s possible that we would have generated these responses without the use of illustrations and discomfortable themes, as they were mainly linked to the actual displaying of data and goals, or that we could have generated an even greater response by the use of more realistic and violent themes.

On the subject of conflict, many participants talked about the complexity of the question of academic flying. They pointed out that flying to partake in conferences is considered obligatory by many, as their research is of high importance. Although the interviews held in this paper were not of a quantitative nature, and only five interviews took place, these results are in line with other studies showing that flying is considered a necessity to progress an academic career [17, 6] . Respondents did however point out that not all employees felt this way: some were on the contrary already engaged in the issue of decreasing their academic flying, and some simply did not fly as much as others to begin with. One respondent in particular pointed out that the reporting in the installation was unfair, as it displays that all employees in a department contribute equally to surpassing the flight budget when this is not actually the case. In the real world, just a few employees at a given department might be considered highly mobile travellers [9], while a majority rarely, or never, travels. This can be discussed from a privilege point of view. Being a well respected researcher that regularly travels to attend conferences can be considered being privileged in terms of academic flying. When talking about these kinds of individuals, it was clear that participants considered them to have a high sense of entitlement: they might not be affected by being made aware that they travel “too much” in regards to emission goals because they simply do not care, as they believe that the importance of their work trumps its potential environmental consequences. On the other hand, individuals with less privilege would be those who are aware of their flying habits and are trying to fly less, or those who have not advanced enough in their academic career yet to be allowed to eg. partake in conferences. Halbert and Nathan recommend that HCI systems should be designed with individuals of less privilege and their needs taken into particular account, in order to promote critical reflection in situations of a sensitive nature [10]. Based on the feedback from interviews, some participants seemed to think that the installation was not designed with this in mind: that it might punish those who are already well behaved, and not have a very large impact on those who might be in actual need of punishment. However, looking at it from Mezirow’s point of view, this could be considered a sort of socio-cultural distortion [18], being a case where a subgroup assumes that an issue engages the entire group on an equal level, although this is not true. The

subgroup could be the non-flyers, who assume that all other employees are equally invested in the question of decreasing the amount of flying, or the subgroup could be the frequent travellers, who assume that all other employees consider their research equally important and their flying a necessity. Whichever is considered to be the subgroup, the situation allows for a socio-cultural distortion, and therefore an opportunity to challenge paradigms and promote critical reflection, according to Mezirow.

For future work in this area, it would be interesting to further study the use of discomfort in relation to flying habits, and it’s potential to inspire reflection. Although the prototype created in this paper is not yet refined, to implement something of a similar nature in an actual department and study its effect on employees during a longer period of time would be an appropriate next step. This paper does not give any insight on whether or not the potential for conflict and provocation that the designed prototype exhibits would lead to fruitful discussion, critical reflection or actual, long term behavioural change, and future work within the field should aspire to do so. An idea is to develop a tool that could be used in combination with the one presented in this paper, that would allow for a user to see their own, individual emissions. While our prototype allows for discussion among colleagues, it does not let a user see their own impact, they are simply a part of an average, a calculation, that might seem distant from themself and their actions. Confronting a user with their individual emissions might make an installation more personal and we feel as though it could offer a complement with great potential.

5.2 Restrictions in the data set Currently, data regarding work related air travel is not centrally coordinated at KTH. This affected our project in two different ways.

Firstly, we were restricted in what data we had available to us. The raw, unsorted data was stored on a hard drive that could only be accessed if we physically came and retrieved it. Due to the time limitations of our project, we decided it was not optimal to sort out the raw data by ourselves. We therefore decided to fetch our data from the project group of FlightWise, who had made calculations and sorted through the data themselves. This of course resulted in the fact that the data used in this project were affected by their calculations. It also meant that we only had access to some of the data, which affected what we were able to display in our design. When ideas of incorporating a timeline in our design arose, the social distancing measures due to the outbreak of the Coronavirus had taken place and we were no longer able to retrieve any additional data. We therefore had to make simplifications that affected our design. The timeline with the fires could potentially have made more sense if we were able to display individual trips. Instead, we made a design based on data that we did not have available to us. However, there is a possibility that the accumulated fires would still have been seen as redundant even if we had the correct data available. Without it, the prototype became more clean and cohesive.

Secondly, we collected flight data from different sources that potentially were calculated differently. The budget bar was designed based on the figures retrieved in the CERO report, while the emission data of an individual department was retrieved from FlightWise. This did not have any impact on the concept and overall design of our project, but could of course have affected the display of how the department was doing in terms of the goal. If CERO and FlightWise calculated the data differently, the goal

data and the department emission data could possibly be incompatible. The data in itself was not essential for the purpose of the project, as the main goal was to develop a design that inspired reflection and discussion. This could possibly even have been done with made up data, but we wanted to base the design in a real world context and therefore chose the flight data of a random KTH department.

5.3 Method discussion As previously mentioned, the outbreak of the coronavirus and measures that took place because of it restricted us in our design process. We were limited to creating something in a digital medium, so that it could be shown and tested over the internet without requiring a physical presence. This meant that we were not able to explore the effects of for example physical or tactile mediums. Another medium could potentially have been even more successful in evoking reflection.

The fact that we were forced to conduct interviews online also meant that we could not organize physical workshops, as we had planned at first. The idea was to test out our design concept in a department, to observe how it worked out in the environment it was meant to be placed in. Now we had to conduct individual interviews, and people could only speculate on how their colleagues would react. A workshop would therefore potentially have given us more realistic indications of how the design concept would work in its designated environment, and allowed us to reach a broader spectrum of individuals with different views on academic flying. The participants that showed interest in our study were all individuals that had shown previous interest in the FLIGHT research project. This does not necessarily imply that the answers given by them were biased in any way, but that we might have collected a more nuanced view if we would have had access to a more mixed group of respondents.

6. CONCLUSION The main objective of the project was to develop a design that made the user reflect upon the flight data of their department at KTH, and that could inspire to discussion. Based on the answers from the interview participants that saw the design, we can draw the conclusion that this was achieved. Most interviewees expressed some kind of emotional response, ranging from slight discomfort to rage and hopelessness. The main outcome of the project was a design that can be further developed into a product with the potential of inspiring discussions on flight behaviours within a department. Now, additional questions arise. In order to determine the actual impact of the concept, it would have to be tested out in an actual department, with data being updated in real time over a longer period of time. We now know that the concept could potentially be provoking, but testing it out in real life would help us determine the actual impact on behaviours within a department. The interviewees also expressed concerns regarding the fact that the design might be too provoking. This could potentially mean that it would not result in fruitful discussions that can lead to action, but simply a polarized working environment. The next port of call would therefore be to evaluate the actual impact of engagement in changing behaviours within a department.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank our supervisor, Daniel Pargman, and the research team behind FLIGHT. We are also grateful for those who participated in our interviews, and our fellow peer reviewing group members who kept our spirits up throughout this project.

8. REFERENCES [1] Albrecht, T. (2018). Designing the Publikvitto, a system to make government expenditure tangible. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1228962/FULLTEXT02

[2] Baxter, K., Courage, C. & Caine, K. (2005). Understanding your users: A practical guide to user research methods (Second edition.). Gulf Professional Publishing.

[3] Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Giannachi, G., Walker, B., Marshall, J., & Rodden, T. (2013). Uncomfortable user experience . Communications of the ACM, 56(9), 66-73. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2500468.2500889

[4] Desiere, S. (2016). The Carbon Footprint of Academic Conferences: Evidence from the 14th EAAE Congress in Slovenia . EuroChoices, 15(2), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12106

[5] Favaro, B. (2014). A carbon code of conduct for science . Science, 344(6191), 1461. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.344.6191.1461

[6] Glover, A., Lewis, T., & Strengers, Y. (2019). Overcoming remoteness: The necessity of air travel in Australian universities . Australian Geographer, 50(4), 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2019.1682319

[7] Grace, L. (2014). Discomfort Design: Critical Reflection through Uncomfortable Play. https://sc.lib.miamioh.edu/handle/2374.MIA/5019

[8] Graver, B., Zhang, K. & Rutherford, D. (2019). ICCT. CO2 emissions from commercial aviation, 2018 . https://theicct.org/publications/co2-emissions-commercial-aviation-2018 .

[9] Gössling, S. & Upham, P. (2009). Climate Change and Aviation: "Issues, Challenges and Solutions" . 131-135.

[10] Halbert, H., & Nathan, L. P. (2015). Designing for discomfort: Supporting critical reflection through interactive tools . In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 349-360). https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675162

[11] Hervé, P. (2008). Less is more: decreasing the number of scientific conferences to promote economic degrowth . Trends in Genetics, 24(6), 265-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2008.03.006

[12] Hopkins, D., Higham, J., Orchiston, C., and Duncan, T. (2019). Practising academic mobilities: Bodies, networks and institutional rhythms . The Geographical Journal 185, 4 (2019), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12301

[13] Jungbluth, N., and Meili, C. (2019). Recommendations for calculation of the global warming potential of aviation including the radiative forcing index. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24, 3 (2019), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1556-3

[14] IATA. (2016). IATA Forecasts Passenger Demand to Double Over 20 Years . https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2016-10-18-02

[15] Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom . Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-65896-2

[16] KTH Sustainability Office. (2019). Övergripande mål och åtgärder för KTH:s genomförande av Klimatramverket för universitet och högskolor. https://www.kth.se/om/miljo-hallbar-utveckling/klimatramverk/kth-s-klimatmal-1.926003

[17] Le Quéré, C., Capstick, S., Corner, A., Cutting, D., Johnson, M., Minns, A., ... Wood, R. (2015). Towards a culture of low-carbon research for the 21st Century. Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/twp161.pdf

[18] Mezirow, J. (1990) Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. [19] Peter, C., & Beale, R. (2008). Affect and Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction: From Theory to Applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[20] Robért, M., Jonsson, O. (2019). Uppföljningsanalys av resor vid KTH . CERO.

[21] Spinellis, Diomidis & Louridas, Panos. (2013). The Carbon Footprint of Conference Papers . PloS one. 8. e66508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066508.

[22] Storni, C. (2015). A personal perspective on research through design . Interactions, 22(4), 74–76. https://doi.org/10.1145/2786974

[23] Zimmerman, John, Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through Design as a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI . Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704

[24] Zimmerman, J, & Forlizzi, J. (2014). Research through design in HCI . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_8

www.kth.se

TRITA-EECS-EX-2020:294