Review

Seven cognitive concepts for successful eco-design

Erin F. MacDonald a, *, Jinjuan She b

a Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USAb INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 19 November 2012Received in revised form27 October 2014Accepted 29 December 2014Available online 19 January 2015

Keywords:Eco-designSustainable designConceptual designDesign methodBehavioral changePro-environmental behavior

a b s t r a c t

This article is a review of research on encouraging pro-environmental behavior in a variety of fields andapplies the results to create recommendations for eco-design. Environmental psychology, behavioralpsychology, consumerism, business, environmental political science, and additional social scienceresearch were used to define cognitive concepts that led to the purchase and use of eco-products. Theconcepts and basic explanations are: (1) responsibility, a sense of personal control over actions andoutcomes; (2) complex decision-making skills, mental tools that structure complex decisions; (3) deci-sion heuristics, mental shortcuts that simplify judgments and decisions; (4) the altruism-sacrifice link, anassumption that doing good requires personal sacrifice; (5) trust, the degree to which a person believesthe information they are given; (6) cognitive dissonance/guilt, the mental processes that may occur whena mismatch between intention and action is identified; and (7) motivation, intrinsic and extrinsicsatisfaction that drives behavior. Eco-product examples are provided to highlight the role of the cognitiveconcepts design. Design recommendations and relevant design methods are discussed. The recom-mendations require coordination between designers, manufacturers, marketers, and government policy-makers to achieve positive changes in individuals' behavior.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

For the past forty years, researchers, mainly in the social sci-ences, have studied how to encourage the adoption of recyclingprograms, water conservation strategies, and other individual pro-environmental efforts. This article presents a literature review as itrelates to the design of eco-products and technologies and firstdefines the approach and method of the review. Then it gives anoverview of relevant terms such as “attitude” and “pro-environ-mental behavior” (PEB). The rest of the article is devoted toexploring the seven cognitive concepts, interspersed with recom-mendations for designers and relevant emerging design methods.

Consider a continuum of eco-product success, shown in Fig. 1, asdefined by customer attitude: some individuals actively seek outeco-products to buy and use (strong purchase criteria); some do notseek them out, but a product's reduced environmental impact willcreate a preference for the product over an otherwise identical

alternative (weak purchase criteria); some individuals are neutralto eco-products (neutral); and, unfortunately, some individuals findconsideration of the environment in a product's design to be adrawback (negative purchase criteria)dfor reasons to be exploredlater. Metaphorically speaking, this article aims to create “positivemovement” along this continuum by inspiring engineers and de-signers to design eco-products that encourage such movement.Moving customers along this continuum towards the active pursuitof eco-products is advantageous to the environment and thecompany producing the product, and to policy-makers, as it mayreduce the expense of time and money required to institute a newproduct-related policy. Increased demand, reduced environmentalimpacts, and easier policy implementation will spur developmentof eco-products.

There are many resources on the technological side of eco-design: For integrated sustainable life cycle design see (Ramaniet al., 2010); for taxonomy of sustainable design tools and guid-ance on selecting the tools see (Bovea and P!erez-Belis, 2012); forinitiatives and efforts taken by different stakeholders to promotesustainable production and consumption see (Barber, 2007); for aspecial issue on how to achieve eco-design see (Huisingh, 2006;Karlsson and Luttropp, 2006).* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: erinmacd@stanford.edu (E.F. MacDonald), shejinjuan@gmail.com (J. She).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.0960959-6526/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e36

1.1. Approach and method

The discussion here is centered on the design of mass-marketeco-products. The working definition of eco-product usedthroughout this article is: a product that is intentionally andmethodically designed to decrease environmental impact versus thestatus quo, be that a competing product or an otherwise-definedbaseline, using a scientifically-based environmental impact assess-ment tool of the designer's choosing.

To narrow the discussion, this article assumes that individualsare concerned about the negative impact they have on the envi-ronment, rather than addressing the equally-important issues ofpublic awareness and environmental education. Guber provides anexcellent analysis of public opinion concerning the environmentand documents that the level of public concern for the environmentvaries widely by date and by survey framing (Guber, 2003).

This article represents a synthesis of findings from literature inthe fields of environmental and behavioral psychology, consum-erism, business and marketing, environmental political science,and design for sustainable behavior. It focuses on research con-ducted in the United States and Europe. Summary and review ar-ticles are referenced wherever possible to aid the reader infurthering their education. A brief introduction and relevant liter-ature reviews for these fields are presented below.

Environmental psychology provides insight into a person'srelationship with their physical environment, and it increasinglyexpands into public policy, concern with technology, and connec-tion with other disciplines in recent years, as indicated by Gifford(2007). For a review of environmental psychology as a discipline,see (Gifford, 2007) and the corresponding special issue of theJournal of Social Science, and a special issue of American Psychol-ogist (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Winter, 2000). Gifford (2007) out-lines emerging themes, growth, and challenges in environmentalpsychology regarding contributing to sustainable development.McKenzie-Mohr (2000) proposes a four-step framework to supportfostering sustainable behavior in a community, and identifies sevencognitive concepts/“tools” as possible solutions to fulfill thisobjective: commitment, social norms, social diffusion, prompts,communication, incentives, and convenience. Winter (2000) dis-cusses neoanalytical, behavioral, social, and cognitive approachesand outlines how to address the psychology of sustainability fromthese perspectives. For a review of the psychology of formingpreferences, see (Slovic, 1995), which also demonstrates thatdifferent elicitation procedures produce different preferences.

Behavioral psychologists offer insight into the psychologicalprecursors to performing PEB. For a review of studies, see (Stern,2000) whose Value-Belief-Norm theory provides a sympatheticconclusion to the discussion below: the causes for PEB are not al-ways clear and a combination of corrective approaches works bestwhen attempting to change behavior. Some researchers have foundthat environmental attitude alone is not a good predictor of PEB(McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Roberts, 1996; Vining et al., 2002).McKenzie-Mohr (2000) discusses factors that affect behavior:

commitment, social norms, social diffusion, prompts, communica-tion, incentives, and convenience. Researchers have reported avarying degree of connection between intentions formed directlybefore performing a PEB and the behavior that follows (Koehn,2006). As tested in the Comprehensive Action DeterminationModel (Kl€ockner and Bl€obaum, 2010), PEB is affected not only byintention, but also by habits, social and personal norms, and sub-jective and objective situational constraints.

Business research requires a balance between profit growth andpro-environmental implementations and thus poses new chal-lenges for sustainability. Green marketing, as a sub-discipline ofbusiness research, is the study of positioning eco-products in themarket for profitability. For a review of green marketing, see(Peattie and Charteris, 2008), and note the special issue on sus-tainability in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science(JAMS) (Hult, 2011). Peattie and Charteris (2008) discuss the in-fluence of “green challenge” on current marketing practice, and themarketing strategies to promote pro-environmental behavior, aswell as practical challenges. The special issue in JAMS consists of aset of 10 articles providing information for researchers and relatedstakeholders on sustainability andmarketing (Hult, 2011). Connellyet al. (2011) developed a “theoretical toolbox” using nine organi-zational theories (transaction cost economics, agency theory,institutional theory, organizational ecology, resource dependencetheory, the resource-based view of the firm, upper echelons theory,social network theory, and signaling theory) and discussed theirimplications on sustainability. Peloza and Shang (2011) addressedsustainability from the perspective of corporate social re-sponsibility (CSR) and stakeholders. They suggested that differenttypes of CSR activities have different effects on stakeholder per-ceptions of value and even stakeholder behavior. Their review ofprevious research identifies three broad categories of CSR: phi-lanthropy, business practices, and product-related.

Consumerism studies people as the purchasers and consumersof goods as a large-scale phenomenon, accounting for a largeportion of environmental issues. Environmental political sciencestudies how to affect or influence large-scale environmentalchanges through governmental (or other organizational) efforts, forexample discouraging some behavior (e.g., littering) and encour-aging others (e.g., purchase of alternate fuel vehicles). For a reviewof motivating consumer behavioral change and environmentalpolicy implications (focused on the United Kingdom) see (Jackson,2005). It reviews models of consumer behavior, motivatingbehavioral change, and environmental policy implications. Dolanet al. (2012) identify nine factors influencing human behavior andits change: messenger, incentives, norms, defaults, salience, prim-ing, affect, commitment, and ego (MINDSPACE). They discuss howto apply these factors to policy making.

Design for Sustainable Behavior uses a multidisciplinaryperspective to proactively improve sustainability through design.Boks (2006) identifies socio-psychological factors that play a role inthe successful implementation of eco-design, such as the devel-opment of company-specific eco-design tools and the creation ofguidelines and roadmaps. Pettersen and Boks (2008) mention fourmain strategies to promote behavior change: political measures,education, community-based social marketing, and technology.They emphasize user-centered strategies for eco-design, such aseco-feedback, and emotional attachment. Lockton et al. (2010a)present the Design with Intent Method for influencing behaviorthrough six approaches: architectural, error-proofing, persuasive,visual, cognitive, and security.

Literature Review and Synthesis Method. In order to identifyrelevant literature from seven-plus fields of rich academic researchour approach focuses on literature relevant to facilitating successfuleco-design to use social science research to help engineers design

Fig. 1. A continuum of customer preference for eco-products.

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e3624

eco-products with increased market success. The literature reviewoccurred in three stages: collection, presentation for feedback, andrefinement (Fig. 2). The collection stage was initiated by aninternet-based search for keywords, such as “product design” and“eco-design” in combination with keywords related to the aca-demic fields, such as “behavioral psychology” and “environmentalpsychology.” A list of over 100 relevant references was composed asa starting point. From this list, citations were searched bothforward-looking and backward-looking using citation trees withinthe ISI Web of Knowledge. Simultaneous to the online referencesearch, experts in the related fields were contacted to confirm theapproach and collect additional references. The quickly-growinglist of articles was then organized in two categories: type of infor-mation (e.g., related observation of interest to designers, designrecommendation, design example, “what not to do,” etc.) andcognitive concepts presented in the following. The second stage(review process from peers) relied on the feedback from designersin academia and industry, as well as the experience of the authors.The beta-version of the material featured in this article was pre-sented in large-format talks to research and development groups atthe Ford Motor Company, 3M, John Deere (Deere & Company), andWhirlpool Corporation, followed by small group feedback anddiscussion meetings. It was also presented to academic productdesign research audiences at the 2012 American Society of Me-chanical Engineers Design Theory and Methodology conferenceand the 2011 INFORMS Annual Meeting on Operations Research inthe Green Innovation and Product Development section. Recom-mended improvements from these interactions are incorporated inthe manuscript in the refinement stage.

1.2. Types of pro-environmental behavior (PEB)

Lofthouse et al. (1999) saw eco-design not only as a technicalissue regarding how to engineer a product, but also a focus onproduct design interaction: how consumers use a product. Threegeneral categories of PEB are useful when conceptualizing the userinteraction with an eco-product: curtailing, efficiency, and politicalbehavior. Diminishing use of electricity by turning off lights whennot in use is a curtailing behavior (using less through behaviormodification); reducing the need for electricity by installingcompact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) is an efficiency behavior(using less through product modification); changing the source ofelectricity by voting and campaigning for clean energy is a politicalbehavior. Curtailing, efficiency, and political behavior are influ-encing and overlapping each other in Fig. 3. Stern (2000) uses fourcategories: committed environmental activism (dedicated to PEBfrom all aspects actively), public-sphere environmentalism (acceptor support public environmental policies), private-sphere envi-ronmentalism (practice PEB personally), and others. We divideprivate-sphere environmentalism into curtailing and efficiencybehavior, those that are most commonly affected by productdesign. Committed environmental activism represents a synergy ofpolitical, curtailing, and efficiency behavior. For a different classi-fication system, see (Renstr€om et al., 2013), where PEB are

categorized into five pathways: changed use, mediated use, regu-lated artifact, maintenance and repair, and choice of artifact. Peopleacting on their environmental concerns often display preferencesin one kind of PEB to another, which correlate with demographicinformation as reported in Barr et al. (2005). The discussion here-after is tailored to encourage efficiency behavior through the designof eco-products. However, some of the concepts are applicable to allthree categories of PEB.

2. The seven cognitive concepts

Seven cognitive concepts that influence PEB are particularlyrelevant to improving the design of eco-products. These conceptsare: responsibility, complex decision-making skills, decision heu-ristics, the altruism-sacrifice link, trust, cognitive dissonance/guilt,and motivation, as presented in Fig. 4. This section provides ex-planations and examples of these cognitive concepts, with rec-ommendations for designers. We chose examples that are familiarto engineers, particularly U.S. engineers, in any field. Because of thesignificant influence of public policy on engineering design de-cisions (Whitefoot, 2011), some recommendations also involvecoordination with policy makers. The concepts are presented in anorder that allows the logical flow of conclusions and recommen-dations in the discussion; this order is not meant to suggest atemporal or hierarchical relationship between the concepts. Ex-amples and recommendation source are summarized in Table 1.The recommendation source is classified by its field of research:Design Research (DR), Technology Research (TR), Business Research(BR), Social Science Research (SR), and Research from Other Fields(OR).

2.1. Responsibility

The sense of responsibility for current environmental problemscan be separated into two parts: a sense of responsibility forcausing the problems, and a sense of responsibility for solving theproblems. The former, when felt as blame and/or guilt, can poten-tially decrease PEB, as will be discussed in Section 2.6. The latter,when properly guided, may increase PEB.

The environmental “tragedy of the commons” is famouslyaddressed in a parable by Hardin in Science (Hardin, 1968). There isa common pasture that will deteriorate to uselessness if sheepherders only act in their own short-term best interest. Both in thisparable and in the real world of communal resource sharing, it istypically a community action that maintains communal resources,rather than individual ones (De Young, 1999). The environmentaltragedy of the commons has been remarkably individualized. Theindividualization began in the 1960s, when naturalists popularizedthe environmental movement in books such as Silent Spring (CarsonFig. 2. Literature review and synthesis approach.

Fig. 3. Categories of pro-environmental behavior (PEB).

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e36 25

et al., 1962). These books used generalizations and shock value, a“shame and blame” strategy, to make readers feel an individualsense of responsibility for environmental problems. The environ-mental movement was later commoditized (e.g., buy a “save theplanet” T-shirt) during the individualistic 1980s (Maniates et al.,2002). The 1990s brought the publishing of best-selling bookssuch as Green Consumer Guide (Elkington et al., 1990; Madge, 1997).In Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth book (Gore, 2006), out of thirty-four recommendations for “what you personally can do to solve theclimate crisis,” only four were community or politically-focused,and they were listed last.

This duality allows individuals to push the responsibility to the“commons” and avoid difficult personal pro-environmental de-cisions. The intersection of public policy and personal responsibilitycauses confusion in resolve: people are concerned enough aboutthe environment to desire government to do something about it,but they themselves would prefer to make only voluntary changesas a result of this public policy (Guber, 2003). Individuals canconveniently listen to the messages of hard-core environmentalistswho undermine a sense of individual responsibility for the prob-lem, viewing individual PEB as ineffective (Maniates et al., 2002).The majority of U.S. citizens assume that industry and governmentare already taking responsibility for environmental problems(Guber, 2003). This avoidance is unfortunate, because individualresponsibility and PEB are necessary to initiate wide-scale policychanges efficiently and effectively. It is also unfortunate because anindividual's judgment of the extent to which they can personallyprevent environmental destruction is a significant indication of

their likelihood to purchase eco-goods (Roberts, 1996). People feelthey do not have individual control over solving environmentalproblems (Allen and Ferrand, 1999; Van Birgelen et al., 2009).Recommendation 1 details how design strategies help enhanceindividual responsibility.

Recommendation 1: Instill a sense of personal control overthe solution, not responsibility for causing the problem, bydesigning products with interactive curtailing features. Wheneco-products offer features that not only increase efficiencybehavior, but also offer opportunities to perform curtailingbehavior on an elective and repetitive basis, customers will havemultiple options to expressing individual PEB. This approach isincluded in current Design for Environment methods, summarizedby Telenko et al. as a single principle: “Incorporate features thatprevent waste of materials by the user” (Telenko et al., 2008). Toreinforce a sense of responsibility in the user, the findings fromsocial sciences suggest that an emphasis on features that are activeand require participation in waste reduction rather than passivewaste prevention will go further to promote PEB. The ideal designwould includewaste-reduction features that the user interacts withon a regular basis and feels a small reward for performing; therebyfeeling empowered to become part of the environmental problemsolution.

A simple example of a curtailing design modification is select-a-size paper towels (Fig. 5); more perforations on paper towels atsmaller intervals offer a choice to tear off a smaller piece of towelfor smaller-sized jobs. An energy saving mode on a printer (Fig. 6)lets customers lower their environmental impact by curtailing their

Fig. 4. Eco-design recommendations derived from the seven cognitive concepts.

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e3626

energy use. The towel/printer can be sustainably designed,providing an efficiency behavior, and also offer the customer theopportunity to perform a curtailing behavior.

A more complex example is the Eco-Flow spray shower nozzlefrom Waterpik, shown in Fig. 7. Not only does this shower headinclude an internal valve that increases water force and reduceswater usage (a preventative waste measure), it also includes aswitch to reducewater to a tricklewhenwater is not needed duringthe shower, for example while shampooing (Waterpik).

A recent marketing study (Sheth et al., 2011) implies thatcareful design might trigger a mindset of caring for self, com-munity, and nature, and thus have potential influence onadvancing PEB. Specifically, a product can be designed with at-tributes that help reduce repetitive consumption, such as beingmade easier to upgrade and repair, affording use by multipleusers, or with attributes that foster responsible consumption,such as providing an option to save energy, and enable built-ineducational feedback.

Table 1A summary of cognitive principles, recommendations, related examples and supporting evidence.

Cognitive concepts Recommendations Examples Recommendation sourcea

Responsibility 1. Instill a sense of personal control of thesolution by designing products withinteractive curtailing features

Good example: Energy saving mode ona printerBetter example: Select-a-size papertowelsBest example: Shower head fingertipshut-off for shampooing

(Roberts, 1996)SR, (Telenko et al., 2008)DR

Complex Decision-makingSkills

2. Constrain customers' product decisionswith industry standards

Energy Star program (Levin, 1993)SR, (Maniates et al., 2002)SR

3. Encourage tackling of complex decisionsthrough interaction incentives anddesigned-in educational feedback

Chevrolet Volt panel encourages driversto achieve higher MPGsReal-time feedback on home electronicsincreases energy savings

(Ehrhardt-Martinez et al., 2010)TR/SR,(Midden et al., 2007)SR,

Decision Heuristics 4. Address the customers' environmentalconcerns as well as the crucialenvironmental issues

Green Mountain biodegradable orreusable K-CupsExample of what not to do: Mercury inCFLs

(Slimak and Dietz, 2006)SR, (Guber,2003)SR

5. Identify useful heuristics and usethem to educate about the product'senvironmental impact

1 CFL ¼ 10 incandescent light bulbsHeuristics are needed to help usersquantify the dosage of laundrydetergent to use

(Winter, 2000)SR, (Sandahl et al., 2006)TR, (J€arvi and Paloviita, 2007)SR

6. Identify perceptual product cues thatcommunicate environmental impact

Vitra Vegetal chair looks like treebranches

(Reid et al., 2009)DR, (She andMacDonald, 2014)DR

Altruism-Sacrifice Link 7. Offer only “triumphs” and downplayaltruism in the product's design

Bamboo resin flooring is marketed asmodernCold-water detergent emphasizesmoney savings

(Van Birgelen et al., 2009)SR, (Sandahlet al., 2006)TR

8. Apply design for upgradability oradaptability to work-horse productsthat are known for reliability and arenot status symbols

Office Equipment/Copy machines canbe upgraded with additional features

Trust 9. Design trust into the product's formusing semantics and heuristics

Vitra Panton chair uses lines oftraditional chair to communicatesturdiness

(Wang and Emurian, 2005)TR

10. Design trust into the product'sinteractions using similarity

Bank web site resembles the visitors'cognitive styles leading to increasedtrust

(Hauser et al., 2009)SR, (Urban et al.,2009)SR

Cog. Dissonance and Guilt 11. Avoid making customers feel guilty Example of what not to do: Homeelectricity monitor showing penguin onmelting iceberg

(Lilley, 2009)DR (Flora, 2000)SR

Motivation 12. Change PEB motivation from extrinsicto intrinsic with small, well-timedincentives designed into productinteractions

Honda Insight gas tank is smaller toemphasize money savedBaby bird litterbin delights people asthey throw their trash away

(Guber, 2003)SR, (Geller et al., 2002)SR

13. Work with policy makers/marketersto design eco-product purchase incentives

“Clean Air” cars drive toll-free incarpool lanesCFL incentive programs

(Guber, 2003)SR, (Geller et al., 2002)SR,(Sloan, 2011) SR/TR

14. Design eco-products for ease of use Highlight simple steps to save energy ina Home Energy ReportReusable coffee mugs designed not tospillSophisticated transmission system ofhybrid car

(Tanner, 1999)SR, (van Nes and Cramer,2006) SR

15. Design product with social norms in mind Compare electricity usage amongstneighborsHygienic automated faucets alsoconserve water

(Nolan et al., 2008)SR, (Braverman,2010)SR

a Recommendation Source: Social Science Research (SR), Design Research (DR), Technology Research (TR).

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e36 27

2.2. Complex decision-making skills

The average American citizen has limited understanding ofenvironmental problems and risks (Koehn, 2006; Sterman, 2008)and of the tools engineers use to convey relevant information,including eco-labels and life cycle analyses (D'Souza, 2004; Erskineand Collins, 1997). The “Reasonable Person Model” suggested byKaplan (2000) asserts that the sensation of being overwhelmed bycomplexity is a central problem in environmental decisions. It as-serts that, because of the way humans evolved, we gravitate to-wards situations where we are capable of processing information,and avoid situations which challenge this capability. Levin (1993)found that too much environmental information led to anxietyand confusion. The research agrees with other findings on cognitive

complexity, such as the rule of seven (Miller, 1956) and discussionsof simplicity (Maeda, 2006). Simplifying environmental-relateddecisions and equipping people with the tools required toaddress them, such as education, are beneficial for promoting PEB,as will be addressed in Recommendations 2 and 3.

Recommendation 2: Constrain customers' product decisionswith industry standards or regulations. Product-category-wideenvironmental impact constraints remove some complexity ofthe individual customer's product decision. The Energy Star pro-gram is a good example of such a standard that has helped cus-tomers to simplify product decisions (Energy Star Program, 2013).This follows the commons/individual duality, in that people arewilling to make choices that are environmentally beneficial, butthat they prefer if these choices be constrained through politicalaction (Maniates et al., 2002). However, an industry-wide standard,such as Energy Star, will not help differentiate products if allavailable products comply, unless the standard is of a graduatedtype such as the-less-the-better.

Recommendation 3: Encourage tackling of complex de-cisions through interaction incentives and educational feed-back. Incentives can be provided to motivate an individual to tacklea complex decision. Designing small incentives into a product toincrease motivation to perform PEB is discussed in Section 2.7. Inaddition, monetary incentives may encourage potential customersto increase the complexity of their usual product purchase decisionto include environmental considerations.

Real-time feedback on resources consumed by a product duringuse is such a type of interaction, and it can be designed as acustomer reward. A comprehensive review of residential sectorfeedback studies on household electricity use suggests that real-time feedback generates at least 9% energy savings per householdin the past decades (Ehrhardt-Martinez et al., 2010). This feedbackcan help the customer to understand the impact of small behaviorchanges and implications of specific end uses and thus promotePEB. The feedback also can improve the user's trust of the productclaims, increase their motivation to continue performing PEBs, andstrengthen their sense of responsibility and resolve for performingPEBs (Fogg, 2003; Midden et al., 2007). Wilson et al. (2013)designed an electronic sensor device that uses light and soundfeedback to discourage the waste of household radiator heat, usinginput from user focus groups. The work offers a useful and detailedset of evaluation questions associated with the design process. Agood example of rewarding incentives combined with feedback isfound in the Chevrolet Volt dashboard display, which makes fuelsavings a game via a balancing-ball interface, shown in Fig. 8. Theball communicates the complexities of driving efficiently in a funand non-intrusive manner. During driving, the Volt encouragesdrivers to beat their previous efficiencies and provides a smallincentive in the form of a feeling of reward, indicating decreases inmiles-per-gallon-equivalent.

2.3. Decision heuristics

Decision heuristics are “shortcuts” that exist in one's mind inorder to simplify judgments and decisions (Tversky and Kahneman,1974). They are simple, general, efficient rules that develop throughexperiences, and are hard-coded via evolution. Heuristics helppeople make “fast and frugal” decisions (Gigerenzer et al., 2004)and usually lead to good decision outcomes, but they can also leadto irrational and/or erroneous judgments and decisions.

For environmental impact, heuristics are not well-calibrated.Several established heuristics have negative implications for eco-product purchase decisions. For example, consider the popularityof bottled water because it is “healthier” rather than addressing thelarger problem related to the waste created by the bottles. The

Fig. 5. Select-a-size paper towel.

Fig. 6. Energy saving mode on a printer.

Fig. 7. Waterpik low-flow shower head (Waterpik, 2013).

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e3628

public's concern for specific environmental threats is not alignedwith their actual risk (Slimak and Dietz, 2006). One explanation isthe availability bias and heuristic: people assess the likelihood ofthe occurrence of a given event based on the ease of recollection ofsimilar events. Oil spills, nuclear plant accidents, and poisoneddrinking water have received much media attention over the pasttwo decades. This attention makes these environmental disasterseasier to recall. Thus, people assess the resultant threat to theenvironment as more likely and possibly more severe than less-exposed environmental problems. Guber reports that poll re-spondents are much more likely to be worried about air and waterpollutiondperceptible forms of pollutiondthan about globalwarming, ozone depletion, and deforestation (Guber, 2003). Log-ging companies specifically keep strips of trees intact next tohighways (Winter, 2000), in order to prevent travelers from usingthe availability heuristic to judge the level and impact ofdeforestation.

The affect heuristic causes a person to judge the likelihood of aspecific decision outcome based on the explanation of the out-comeda positively-described outcome is assigned a higher likeli-hood of occurring than a negative one (Slovic et al., 2004). Muchinformation on eco-products is framed negatively, in terms of theproduct's degrading effects on the environment (e.g., carbon foot-print of a product), and therefore people may think that purchasingthe product is unlikely to make a difference. “Fast and frugal”heuristics help to quickly assess the environmental impact ofproducts. For small purchases, customers may rely on thementirely. For expensive eco-product purchases, customers will useheuristics to confirm their decisions. For example, if a hybrid car isshaped like a Hummer, claims of low environmental impact willcome under suspicion. Some eco-products take advantage ofnascent eco-product heuristics, such as rough unprocessed-lookingfabrics, brown paper, the “recycled” symbol on packaging, mattefinishes, and neutral colors. Eco-labels can serve as a heuristic tosome extent, but they are not well recognized, trusted, or under-stood (Thøgersen, 2005).

Recommendation 4: Address the customers' environmentalconcerns as well as the crucial environmental issues. Althoughcustomers' environmental concerns do not always align with themost urgent environmental problems, it is important that engi-neers and designers not ignore them. If a design solution addressesa fundamental environmental problem but worsens or ignores aless-pressing environmental problem that has media presence orperceptual availability, the low environmental impact of theproduct will be questioned.

An excellent example of this problem is carbon fluorescent lightbulbs (CFL). All CFLs contain a small amount of mercury. When aCFL breaks, the mercury is released. Triggered by the availabilityheuristic, people consider the environmental and health concerns

associated with mercury and conclude that CFLs cannot be as goodfor the environment as they claim. The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has a website devoted to debunking this myth(Environmental Protection Agency, 2011), explaining that the realconcern with mercury is when it is released by the burning of coalin power plants. However, educational discussion is not enough tocounteract the strong availability effect. Wider spread imple-mentation of CFLs could be achieved by addressing customers' fearof mercury by either excluding it altogether or including acontainment mechanism if the bulb happens to break. Consider-ations of both environmental concerns and customer perceptionsare critical to successful eco-product design. Designers should co-ordinate complex trade-offs by design, rather than assume thateducation can retrain previously formed heuristics.

Another example is the single-serve coffee market, made pop-ular by the K-Cups offered by GreenMountain coffee and the Keurigline of related coffee-makers. There are environmental advantagesto this approach to coffee brewing, such as the reduced use ofelectricity (do not need to keep a pot of coffee warm all day, brewonly what will be consumed), but the waste created is noticeable.Realizing that their customers care about the waste created byusing single-serving coffee cartridges, Green Mountain is workingto use more biodegradable packaging, recycle the cartridges, ormake them reusable (Carpenter, 2010).

Recommendation 5: Identify useful heuristics and use themto educate about the product's environmental impact. The

Fig. 8. The Chevrolet Volt guides driving habits via a game: balancing a green/yellow ball. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred tothe web version of this article.)

Fig. 9. Vitra Vegetal chair (AllModern, 2013a,b Vitra Veretal Chair).

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e36 29

energy-saving aspects of CFLs were most effectively communicatedin American marketing campaigns when the energy usage wascompared directly to the status quo, incandescent bulbs (1 CLF ¼ 10incandescent, CFL bulbs last about 10 times longer than incandes-cent bulbs) (Sandahl et al., 2006). The EPA website mentionedabove uses a similar approach to put the mercury threat intoperspective (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011): “On average,CFLs contain about four milligrams of mercury sealed within theglass tubing. By comparison, older thermometers contain about500 mg of mercury e an amount equal to the mercury in over 100CFLs.” Similarly, an effective home energy audit describes the en-ergy lost through poor insulation as “the equivalent of a hole thesize of a football in your living room” (Winter, 2000).

For some products, use phase is an important component ofoverall life-cycle impact, and proper use requires educating theconsumer. A study of laundry detergent impact (J€arvi and Paloviita,2007) showed that customers have difficulty calculating andmeasuring the correct amount of detergent for their laundry basedon criteria such as water hardness, and liquid volume metrics (suchas 42 mL). The results of this study indicated that providing effec-tive education heuristics is helpful for changing use phase impact.

Recommendation 6: Identify and use perceptual productcues that communicate environmental impact. Environmentalimpact can be expressed through the way the product is perceived.For example, the form of the Vegetal chair by Vitra emphasizesVitra's commitment to eco-friendliness with a branch-like design,as shown in Fig. 9. Its plant-like structure evokes nature andenvironmental concern (Vitra, 2011). Once a person has made adecision to purchase an eco-product, theywill bemore observant ofperceptual information that confirms their decision, and lessobservant of information that goes against their decision, an artifactof confirmation bias (Mynatt et al., 1977). This bias serves to rein-force pro-environmental cues in products and is one explanationfor the fact that the Prius' silhouette is now identified with “envi-ronmental friendliness” (Reid et al., 2009).

Creating designs that communicate lower environmental im-pacts requires the development of new research methods. Relatedfields of study include emotional design (MacDonald et al., 2009b;Norman, 1998), product semantics (Krippendorff, 2006), and arecovered in books such as Norman's The Design of Everyday Things(Norman, 1998). MacDonald has previously identified the crux/sentinel (i.e., hidden/perceivable) product attribute relationship(MacDonald et al., 2009a). The related design method presentedcan be used to identify other product attribute relationships, suchas eco-product cues.

One design approach creates features that trigger consumers tothink about the environment in their product decisions (She andMacDonald, 2014). These “superficial” visible features encouragedcustomers to seek more information on a product's environmentalimpact (She and MacDonald, 2013). Forthcoming results furtherindicate that these features cause customers to change their pur-chases in favor of products with lower environmental impacts (She,2013). Engineering design methods that identify preferences andsentiments associated with a product's form (Kelly andPapalambros, 2007; Orsborn et al., 2009; Reid et al., 2009) can bemodified to identify product forms that communicate lower envi-ronmental impact. Also, shape-search design methods (i.e., Iyeret al., 2005) can be modified to search existing design forms toidentify forms associated with lower environmental impact.

2.4. Altruism-sacrifice link

Researchers have found a relationship between willingness-to-pay for sustainability and altruism (Stern et al., 1993). Altruism isassociated with an implicit message of self-sacrifice for the sake of

others. Kaplan (2000) postulates that “[t]he focus on altruism [inPEB] brings with it the implicit message that living with less willresult in an impoverished and joyless future,” and wonders how aneco-product purchase can be seen to serve both a self-interestedand an altruistic purpose. Some people perceive a link, a heuris-tic, between higher levels of consumption and greater happiness(Geller et al., 2002). An eco-product reduces consumption: peoplemay believe this implies a reduction in product performance. It hasbeen shown that customers are unwilling to make sacrifices withregard to crucial performance metrics of the product in order toimprove sustainability (Van Birgelen et al., 2009). Early productsadvertised as eco-friendly or green did offer inferior performance atincreased prices, only strengthening this unfortunate heuristic. Forexample early CFL light bulbs were only a niche residential productuntil their design specifications regarding light color and qualityapproached or exceeded those of incandescent light bulbs(Martinot and Borg, 1998; Menanteau and Lefebvre, 2000). One ofthe lessons learned from the American CFL programs was to delaylaunching products rather than ask customers to sacrifice on coredesign requirements, as first impressions become strong heuristicsand are difficult to overcome (Sandahl et al., 2006). Additionalbenefits of the bulbs, such as reduced heat and fire hazard, are nowhighlighted in educational and marketing campaigns. Modern eco-products must overcome the stigma created by their predecessorsby consistently offering as-good or better performance than thecompetition. Another example, Norwood and Lusk (2011) foundthat, on average, people are willing to pay $0.55 extra for cage-freeeggs in US. But in reality, cage-free eggs are typically sold at apremium of $1.50 or more, requiring a budget sacrifice that out-weighs concerns for the hens' welfare, thus leading to poor sales. Itindicates that even though customers care about the impact of theirbehavior, large sacrifices in personal benefit hinder good intentions.

Recommendation 7: Offer only “triumphs” and downplayaltruism in the product's design. Use extreme caution whenincluding a message of altruism in the product's design or mar-keting campaign, as the customer could infer that the product isinferior to the competition. Including luxurious finishes or indul-gent design features (while minding product perception) maynegate feelings of altruism and sacrifice associated with buying aneco-product. An example of an eco-product that has transcendedthe altruism-sacrifice heuristic is bamboo resin flooring. Theflooring has been positioned in the market as modern, durable, andaffordable. One brand, Eco-timber, was rated the best in the cate-gory of prefinished floors, against standards such as oak and maple(Anonymous, 2009). The pro-environmental features (VOC-freenon-toxic adhesive and renewable bamboo resources) are posi-tioned as bonuses, second to the price, durability, and modernappearance. When customers have the feeling of performance

Fig. 10. Coldwater detergent bottles.

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e3630

sacrifice for “green” products, it is necessary to downplay thisattribute in the product's packaging. Coldwater laundry detergents,which can reduce energy use by three-quarters (Martin andRosenthal, 2011), was a hard sell for several years. Manufacturersincreases its sell by downplaying altruism-sacrifice link, e.g., rele-gate energy saving as attendant benefits, and emphasize other at-tributes (Martin and Rosenthal, 2011). This effort is also evident inTide's detergent bottle. Fig. 10 shows an old Tide Coldwater deter-gent bottle (on the left) and a current bottle (on the right).

An eco-product should create demand through design benefitsto the customerdit should be a triumph, offering performanceequal to or better than competing products and extra features.Some eco-design tools try to consider environmental as well astraditional quality requirements, such as House of Ecology (Halog,2001), Quality Function Deployment for Environment (Masuiet al., 2003) and Function Impact Matrix (Bernstein et al., 2010;Devanathan et al., 2010). They confirm that environmental im-provements can bemadewithout affecting functional performance.Fitzgerald et al. (2010) offer a conceptual design tool that helpsdesigners to resolve functionality-environmental contradictions inthe product design, and provide products that are desired by cus-tomers and also excel from an environmental standpoint.

Recommendation 8: Apply design for upgradability oradaptability to work-horse products that are known for reli-ability and are not status symbols. Adopting End of Life strategies,such as remanufacturing and upgradability, to recover the value of aused product is an effective and promising eco-design method. It issuggested that constraints imposed by these strategies should beintegrated into the early phases of design (Gehin et al., 2008). Thereare a number of eco-design methods that allow products to beupgraded or adapted to include new features, such as design forupgradability (Xing and Belusko, 2008) and design for adaptability(Kasarda et al., 2007). Xerox makes upgradable office equipment,such as allowing lower version digital copiers to upgrade to a fullynetworked system. Copiers are an excellent example of a winningupgradeability approach e it is a product category where cus-tomers are looking to save money and maximize the useful lifetimeof a single product purchase. However, products that are associatedwith status, such as cell phones or automobiles, and brands withnegative reliability stereotypes, such as some printer and auto-mobile brands, must proceed with caution in refurbishment orreuse design strategies.

2.5. Trust

To navigate the above cognitive concepts while activelysearching for an eco-product, the consumer has to overcome anumber of trust issues. For example, a person must trust (a) thescience that identifies the environmental problems, (b) his or herability to personally affect the problems with PEB; (c) the pro-environmental claims made by the product; and (d) the up-to-parperformance of the product. It may seem reasonable for a personto seek expert advice to aid their search; however, experts from theenvironmental movement are not fully trusted by the public. In heranalysis of the results of a number of polls, Guber (2003) came tothe conclusion that “[b]y downplaying environmental progress andusing exaggerated doomsday warnings to motivate public aware-ness and concern, the environmental movement has sacrificed itsown credibility by giving into the politics of Chicken Little.”

Eco-labels and environmental marketing messages are alsooften not trusted by customers (D'Souza, 2004; Lampe and Gazda,1995; Shrum et al., 1995). Eco-labels on products or product pack-aging are a form of “direct persuasion” advertising, with informa-tion provided by the products' manufacturer. Direct persuasionadvertising may also shift responsibility for the behavior, leading

customers to think that ultimate blame for consequences of theirenvironmental decisions rests on another party, namely thepersuader (Geller et al., 2002). This is not to say that all eco-labelsare useless and do more harm than good, but it is important fordesigners to note that eco-labels may have drawbacks and areineffective as the sole conveyers of a product's environmentalimpact.

It is often difficult for customers, and other stakeholders, toascertain the extent to which a firm's products and processes aresustainable. The firm may have an incentive to deceive in market-ing messages, otherwise known as “greenwashing”, if they wish toappear more committed to sustainable practices than they actuallyare. Therefore, costly mechanisms such as ISO 14000 certification(International Organization for Standardization, 2013) and invest-ment in eco-technologies are all examples of signals that cancommunicate a commitment to sustainability to various stake-holders (Connelly et al., 2011). For example, considerable invest-ment in a grass roof for a manufacturing plant may make moresense than an eco-labeling program as it is highly observable andcostly to imitate (Connelly et al., 2011). Green Mountain Coffeeinstalled a “huge solar array on the roof of its distribution center” in2009 (Carpenter, 2010).

Recommendation 9: Design trust into the product's formusing semantics and heuristics. Industrial designers have beentaught to evoke trust in an object's form. They utilize the theory andanalysis of design semantics (Krippendorff, 2006) to create aperceptible sense of trust in the visual lines of the product. Estab-lishing “trustworthy” heuristics, for example using the above-mentioned crux/sentinel attribute identification method(MacDonald et al., 2009a), will help customers identify eco-products and reinforce their decision-making approach such thatspecific forms will become heuristics in future product purchases.The Vitra Panton chair (Fig. 11) distributes load and stress throughone single cohesive form. Although the form is unusual, the robustcantilever base reassures customers that they will not tip over. Thestrong silhouette of the side of a chair also evokes trust through therecognizable chair-shape. Wang and Emurian (Wang and Emurian,2005) discuss fourteen trust-inducing interface design features thatmay influence a user's perception of the trustworthiness of anonline merchant's web site. These features are highly correlatedwith the heuristics people often use to judge credibility, such aswell-chosen, professional photographs and relevant domainnames; however, extending this approach to product design willrequire more research.

Recommendation 10: Design trust into the product's in-teractions using similarity. If a product has a computer interface, a

Fig. 11. Vitra Panton Chair (AllModern, 2013a,b Vitra Panton Chair).

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e36 31

number of studies suggest that the product is considered moretrustworthy and persuasive if the interface resembles the user(Fogg, 2003). “Resembles” can refer to the cognitive style in whichthe information is presented, i.e., visual or verbal (Hauser et al.,2009), or other personality traits, physical traits, or affiliationsthat resemble the customer (Fogg, 2003). Urban et al. (2009)studied websites selling credit card loans and showed that peopleare more likely to trust a website when it resembles the visitors'cognitive style (analytical vs. impulsive, for example). With furtherresearch it may be possible to use these findings for product design.Cognitive-style dimensions related to design could include, forexample, flexible vs. inflexible, innovator vs. traditionalist.

2.6. Cognitive dissonance and guilt

When an individual performs a behavior with the intent ofreducing environmental impact, but later realizes that the behavioris detrimental to the environment, they will experience cognitivedissonance, a mismatch between cognition and action, or value andbehavior. They will have a strong need to resolve the mismatch(Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959). Changing behavior to match theirvalues resolves the dissonance, so triggering cognitive dissonancecan motivate the performance of PEB.

However, people can also resolve cognitive dissonance bychanging cognition to match behavior (Immerwahr, 1999; Vininget al., 2002). People can change their values, attitudes, or beliefsabout the environment to a position of less concern. Note thatresolving cognitive dissonance in this manner for one behavior willaffect all other behaviordthe person may fundamentally decreasethe importance they place on environmental problems, or theirbelief that environmental problems exist. A customer may changetheir decisions about the eco-products they currently buy. There-fore, attempting to motivate PEB by intentionally triggeringcognitive dissonance is not advised.

People can experience feelings of guilt about negative envi-ronmental impacts if they have formed an individualized sense ofresponsibility, listened to the “shame and blame” tactics of the earlyenvironmental movement, or experienced unresolved cognitivedissonance regarding the products they buy. In motivating PEB,researchers stressed that inducing feelings of guilt should beavoided, as guilt can cause a change in behavior, but it can alsocause a disguise or denial of the target behavior (Levin, 1993).

Recommendation 11: Avoid making customers feel guilty. Becautious of product interactions that trigger guilt or cognitivedissonance. Work with marketers to remove these concepts frommarketing campaigns. Before introducing a new eco-product, it isimportant to study the customers' impressions of the environ-mental impact of current product offerings. If customers believethat the available products are conscientious of environmentalconcerns, introducing a new eco-product by the same companymay cause cognitive dissonance regarding the product theycurrently purchase. The designer/business can avoid this situationby positioning the two products so they are not directly compared,using features, pricing, and branding.

At a recent eco-design workshop, an electronics company dis-played a prototype interface for monitoring home electricity usagethat showed a penguin on an iceberg. The iceberg melted andeventually disappeared if the homeowner used too much elec-tricity. This type of interface should be avoided because it willtrigger guilt and may result in customers changing their level ofconcern for the environment. Monitoring interfaces should high-light accomplishments, not shortcomings. This is consistent withLilley's (2009) recommendation for the design of eco-devices. Lilleyexplored the design strategies for changing mobile phone users'behavior in public spaces and investigated the acceptability and

effectiveness of potential strategies with design professionals. Theinterviewed design professionals agreed that “in order to beaccepted, the product would need to support, not contradict, user'svalues”. This led to her recommendation to “Use predominatelypositive, rather than negative reinforcements” when trying tochange user behavior (Lilley, 2009). Flora discusses behaviorchange in general, not just related to environmental concerns, andconcludes that positive reinforcement is more effective than criti-cism overall (Flora, 2000). Praising PEB will better facilitatelearning and positive motivation than criticism of behavior that hasdamaging environmental impacts (Geller et al., 2002). A mobilephone application developed by Froehlich (2011)motivates users tomake greener transportation choices (e.g., walk, bicycle, carpool) byusing a tree design. The tree is almost bare at the start of each week,then leaves, blossoms, and apples are progressively added to thetree after each use of green transportation. But the tree does notlose growth when a car is driven, instead it only resets each week.The tree growth rewards greener behavior, and the positive-onlygrowth sequence avoids making users feel guilty.

2.7. Motivation

Applied behavior analysis is a sub-field of psychology that re-searches how to motivate change in behavior. Vining et al. (2002)review the three types of behavior motivation: (1) intrinsic moti-vation, in which a person derives satisfaction from performing thebehavior; (2) extrinsic motivation, in which person derives satis-faction from a reward given when the behavior is performed; and(3) amotivation, inwhich a person receives no satisfaction from thebehavior, and is unsure why they are performing the behavior. Onewould expect that a personal norm or feeling of moral obligationprovides a strong intrinsic motivation for PEB, but this is not alwaysthe case (Tanner and W€olfing Kast, 2003). People are most likely toparticipate in PEB through extrinsic motivation: when there is atangible incentive and personal sacrifice is minimal (Guber, 2003).Financial incentives as well as guilt and/or cognitive dissonance areexamples of extrinsic motivatorsdcorrecting behavior gives thereward of the removal of an unpleasant cognitive state, but asdiscussed, they can lead to unwanted consequences.

Applied behavior analysis shows that PEB can be promoted byspecific extrinsic motivators that must be tailored to the desiredbehavior change. Eco-product purchase decisions are best moti-vated by incentives that are short-term, repetitive, and small insize: “[r]eward schedules that are just sufficient to initiate behaviorchange are more likely to produce longer-term behavior changethan more powerful rewards” (Geller et al., 2002). This can beexplained by the fact that people attribute the reason for behavioralchange to the relevant circumstances and the size of the reward. Alarge, one-time incentive to motivate PEB causes a person toattribute the change to the efforts of the one providing the incen-tive. Small, repetitive incentives cause a person to eventuallyattribute the change to their own volition, thus shifting fromextrinsic to intrinsically-motivated PEB (Geller et al., 2002). Thistransition is important to achieving repeat eco-product purchasesand effective use.

Recommendation 12: Change PEB motivation from extrinsicto intrinsic with small, well-timed incentives designed intoproduct interactions. Eco-products that aim at long-term reduc-tion of environmental impacts can be designed to include featuresthat provide near-term benefits, such as including fair trade orlocally-produced materials (Tanner and W€olfing Kast, 2003).Delight in product features can also be considered a short-termincentive. Features that can provide such incentives can be inves-tigated by design methods that discover delighting product attri-butes (Kano et al., 1984; MacDonald et al., 2006). The proper

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e3632

spacing of incentives to achieve the transition from extrinsic tointrinsic motivation requires design creativity. Next paragraphshows some examples.

Smaller and more fuel-efficient hybrid cars, such as the HondaInsight, are fitted with smaller gas tanks. Because of the car's highmile per gallon (MPG) capacity, the driver may fill the tank asoften as with a conventional car, but he will buy less gasoline.Needing to pay less for gas and driving the same distance willconvey a feeling of delight, an incentive that is received every timethe tank is filled. If Honda had designed the Insight with a tanksimilar in size to non-hybrid cars, would have allowed customersto drive further between fill-ups instead of cheaper fill-ups. In thiscase, the driver would not receive the same repeated feeling ofdelight. It is likely the customer would not notice the change infill-up frequency as vividly as the change in the cost per tank ofgas, and would not feel the same sense of reward. A nightclub inNetherlands uses a new type of dance floor that harvests the en-ergy generated by jumps and gyrations and transforms it intoelectricity to supply the energy required for the whole club. Thedance floor, which functions through piezoelectricity technology,motivates customers' PEB by providing enjoyment (Rosenthal,2010). The open beak of a “baby bird” litterbin encourages chil-dren to feed the hungry bird by putting the garbage into its beak,rewarding them with a feeling of delight with each use (Locktonet al., 2010b).

Recommendation 13: Work with policy makers and mar-keters to design thoughtfully-structured eco-product purchaseincentives. An example of a good incentive for transitioning fromextrinsically to intrinsically motivated PEB is California's “Clean AirSticker” program (California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2013).California issued 85,000 clean air stickers to hybrid and low-emission vehicles that allowed the driver to use carpool laneswith only one passenger in the vehicle. Every time the owner drivesthe vehicle, they receive a small incentive in the form of a fastercommute time and savings of $2.00 to $4.00 when using a toll road.The vehicles with stickers also retained a higher resale value. Alarge, one-time financial incentive in the form of a rebate on a newcar purchase (i.e., the U.S. “Cash for Clunkers” program) is unlikelyto spur future PEB (Wald, 2009). Sloan (2011) examined a variety ofpotential policies for influencing firms to adopt cleanermanufacturing technologies, drawing examples from the automo-bile and refrigerator industries.

Public policy has played a crucial role in developing CFLs from aniche lighting product into amass product in the residential market(Menanteau and Lefebvre, 2000; Sandahl et al., 2006). A variety ofincentive and educational programs have been used in differentcountries to encourage their adoption (Martinot and Borg, 1998).However, no country made the transition to CFLs by passing a lawthat mandated CFLs for all residential applications. On the otherhand, no country made the transition to CFLs by putting the bulbson the shelves in retail stores and waiting for customers to pur-chase them based on economic merits alone. Governments andmanufacturers introduced CFLs through policies that encouragedtheir use on an elective basis by individuals. When CFLs are widelyadopted, stricter use laws can be instated, such as California's Title24 Residential Lighting Building Code that imposes strict efficiencyrequirements on built-in lighting fixtures (The California EnergyCommission, 2008).

Policy-makers benefit from motivating individuals to performPEB (Jackson, 2005). Eco-technologies are more cost-effective andimplemented faster when individuals are willing to accept thetechnologies or even demand them. The coordination of per-spectives is recognized as importantdthere is now a bill underconsideration in the U.S. Senate to add a social and behavioralscience office to the Department of Energy (Baird, 2009). The

impact of policy on design decisions has been explored in theliterature, see (Shiau et al., 2009; Struben and Sterman, 2008).

Recommendation 14: Design eco-products for ease of use.The rationale most frequently provided for not performing PEB isthat requires effort (Koehn, 2006). One study demonstrated thatperceived behavior barriers to transportation (e.g., low frequency ofpublic transport, transfers necessary with public transport) areclosely associated with increased automobile driving frequency(Tanner, 1999). At a recent webcast offered by the Department ofEnergy, Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) reported their successof a Home Energy Reporting Program, where simple steps to saveenergy are always highlighted (Crawford and Fischer, 2011), e.g.,weatherization and sealing and using CFL bulbs. These tips are easyto follow and thus prompt people to be more likely engaged inenergy-saving activities. Eco-products should be easy to use andunderstand. Product heuristics, or emotional design, that read as“easy” or “simple” can be built into design features to providefurther encouragement. Some examples include: perforations onselect-a-size paper towels (Fig. 3), and sophisticated hybrid trans-mission systems that simplify the process of shifting and sharingpower among the engine, electric motors and wheels withoutrequiring special driving techniques. Designing a product to besimple to repair or upgrade is a related goal, especially in productsfor which early replacement is environmentally desirable (van Nesand Cramer, 2006).

Recommendation 15: Design product with social norms inmind.Normative social influence has a powerful effect on behavior,especially in defining what constitutes correct behaviord“We viewa behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we seeothers performing it” (Cialdini, 1993). That explains why in-fomercials always demonstrate people from various walks of lifehappily buying and using the advertised products. Nolan et al.(2008) studied what motivated people to save energy by placingdoor-hangers containing different persuasive appeals around amid-size Californian community. The appeals emphasized to resi-dents that turning off an air conditioner and turning on fan: (1)saves money, (2) helps the environment, (3) benefits society, or (4)is a common practice in their neighborhood (appealing to socialnorms). Actual energy usage indicated that the social-norms appealhad significantly higher impact on reducing energy consumption(Nolan et al., 2008). Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) alsoemployed social norms when comparing residential utility cus-tomers' electricity use to that of their neighbors in their innovativehome energy reports (Allcott, 2011). One of the 101 strategies forinfluencing user behavior developed by Lockton et al. (2010b)suggests influencing behavior by showing people what theirpeers are doing in a similar situation and which choices are mostpopular, such as Amazon's recommending system. In eco-productdesign, designers are challenged to take social norms into consid-eration and encouraged to go out and watch people in their normalenvironment to determine what they believe and do (Norman,1999). Automated faucets provide the convenience of hands-freeon/off activation and help conserving water. The normative valueembedded into the automation, as an automated faucet is alsomorehygienic, motivates customers to use the product, and repeated useshapes their behavior (Braverman, 2010).

3. Discussion of implementing recommendations withindesign methods

The concepts have implications when used in conjunction withconcept-generation design methods that focus on understandingcustomers. For example, an application of these concepts duringconceptual design would work well in conjunction with anempathic design approach (Leonard and Rayport, 1997), as it is

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e36 33

important to feel and experience as the target customer does withrespect to the application of the seven concepts. Eco-design pairedwith a lead user approach (Vonhippel, 1986) may yield dissatis-factory results. Lead users are at the forefront of the market de-mand, and, for eco-products, lead users are likely to be well-versedin environmental impact evaluation and willing to sacrifice func-tionality for the benefit of the environment. A better approachmight be to target “lag users,” for example, someone particularlyfrustrated with understanding information about eco-products, orsomeone who has had negative experiences with eco-products inthe past and stopped using them.

Jelsma (2006) provides an eight-step design method to solvediscrepancies between designers' and users' understanding of aproduct's interaction by involving users in the design process. Therecommendations provided here can help to identify mis-understandings. Tang (2010) highlights that including detailed userstudies, such as ethnographical observations, in the design processcan help designers generate innovative design concepts, providebetter and more efficient user experience via design, and improvethe user acceptance of behavior-changing concepts. The cognitiveconcept categories presented in this article may offer specificguidelines for what to be sure to address during observation.

Designers need to be careful when implementing design-ledapproaches to influence user behavior e maintaining a balancebetween influencing and coercing will allow users to accept thedesign implementation (Lilley, 2007). As many of the recommen-dations are geared at influencing behavior, using them in combi-nation may be either more effective, or theymay negate each other.A user-oriented design process should be able to identify particularimplementations that work well.

Consumption behavior is driven by a complex set of forcesoriginating from different psychological, social, economic, and po-litical settings (Mont and Plepys, 2008); therefore, design for PEBrequires a multidisciplinary approach with input from differentstakeholders: government, businesses, customers, and non-governmental organizations. Design decision literature offersmany methods to address this multi-pronged, multi-perspectivedesign problem (Frischknetch et al., 2009; Lewis et al., 2006;Linton, 2002). The literature recommends a system and interdis-ciplinary perspective for both addressing and teaching eco-friendliness, and the findings in Anastas and Zimmerman (2003);Harper and Thurston, 2008; McAloone, 2007) further emphasizethe importance of this approach.

4. Conclusion

Compiling diverse research findings from a broad disciplinaryscope, we converge on seven cognitive concepts that are importantto consider in consumer-driven design. They are useful in bringingdifferent perspectives together in the eco-design process, particu-larly during early stage design, such as during problem definitionand concept generation.

Note that existing research in other fields, such as policy making(Dolan et al., 2012) and social community (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011),indicated that users' behavior play a key role in sustainability, andidentified relevant cognitive variables and guidelines to promotesustainable behavior. Although there is some overlap between theexisting work and our work on the high-level cognitive concepts,the extended recommendations presented here are tailored toproduct design. They are presented in a format widely-accepted inengineering design field, providing general design principles anddemonstrating their application with related design methods ordesign examples.

Lack of direct validation of the recommendations is a limitationfor this research. The specific design examples and relevant design

methods given should be treated as illustrations of how a designercan approach these concepts, rather than as a test of their efficacy.They bridge the gap between the abstract cognitive concepts andtheir applications in eco-design, and highlight the need for newdesign methods that treat customers as dynamic and interactivemembers of a larger social system rather than as a static source ofdesign criteria. Future eco-design studies must focus on achievingpositive change in individuals' behavior using a combination ofapproaches. Synthesizing the above recommendations and per-spectives requires coordination between designers, manufacturers,marketers, and government policy-makers. The success of eco-products depends on the success of this coordination.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by a National Science Foun-dation Graduate Research Fellowship, the Donald C. Graham ChairEndowment at the University of Michigan, the University ofMichigan Rackham Graduate School, and the 2050 Mack ChallengeScholar program at Iowa State University. A previously version ofthis work appeared in the proceedings of the 2012 ASME Interna-tional Design Technical Conference, under the title “Seven Cogni-tive Concepts for Successful Sustainable Design.”

References

Anonymous, 2009. Flooring, Consumer Reports (August), pp. 42e44.Allcott, H., 2011. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95 (9e10),

1082e1095.Allen, J.B., Ferrand, J.L., 1999. Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and pro-

environmental behavior: a test of Geller's actively caring hypothesis. Environ.Behav. 31, 338e357.

AllModern, 2013a. Vitra Panton Chair. http://www.allmodern.com/Vitra-440-030-Panton-Chair-VTA1145.html, (accessed 14.11.13.).

AllModern, 2013b. Vitra Veretal Chair. http://www.allmodern.com/Vitra-440-015-00-VTA1231.html, (accessed 14.11.13.).

Anastas, P.T., Zimmerman, J.B., 2003. Design through the 12 principles of Greenengineering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (5), 94Ae101A.

Baird, B., 2009. H.R. 3247: to Establish a Social and Behavioral Sciences ResearchProgram at the Department of Energy, and for Other Purposes. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill¼h111-3247 (accessed 14.11.13.).

Barber, J., 2007. Mapping the movement to achieve sustainable production andconsumption in North America. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (6), 499e512.

Barr, S., Gilg, A.W., Ford, N., 2005. The household energy Gap: examining the dividebetween habitual- and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy Pol-icy 33 (11), 1425e1444.

Bernstein, W.Z., Ramanujan, D., Devamathan, S., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J., Ramani, K.,2010. Function impact matrix for sustainable concept generation: a designer'sperspective. In: ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Con-ferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Montreal,Quebec, Canada, Aug. 15e18.

Boks, C., 2006. The soft side of ecodesign. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (15e16), 1346e1356.Bovea, M.D., P!erez-Belis, V., 2012. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating

environmental requirements into the product design process. J. Clean. Prod. 20(1), 61e71.

Braverman, I., 2010. Governing with clean hands: automated public toilets andsanitary Surveillance. Surveillance Soc. 8 (1), 1e27.

California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2013. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/decal.htm, (accessed 14.11.13.).

Carpenter, M., 2010. A Coffee Conundrum. The New York Times. August 3.Carson, R., Darling, L., Darling, L., 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Cialdini, R.B., 1993. Influence: Science and Practice. New York. Harper Collins Col-

lege Publishers, New York.Connelly, B.L., Ketchen, D.J., Slater, S.F., 2011. Toward a “theoretical toolbox” for

sustainability research in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1), 86e100.Crawford, M., Fischer, B., 2011. Gainsville Regional Utilities with Opower: Home

Energy Reporting Program. http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_activities/pdfs/tap_webinar_20110728_opower.pdf (accessed 14.11.13.).

D'Souza, C., 2004. Ecolabel programmes: a stakeholder (consumer) perspective.Corporate communications. An Int. J. 9 (3), 179e188.

De Young, R., 1999. Tragedy of the Commons. In: Alexander, D., Fairbridge, R. (Eds.),Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham,MA, pp. 601e603.

Devanathan, S., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W.Z., Zhao, F., Ramani, K., 2010. Inte-gration of sustainability into early design through the function impact matrix.J. Mech. Des. 132 (8), 081004.

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e3634

Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., Vlaev, I., 2012. Influ-encing behaviour: the mindspace way. J. Econ. Psychol. 33 (1), 264e277.

Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., D., K., “Skip” Laitner, J., 2010. Advanced Metering Initiativesand Residential Feedback Programs: a MetaReview for Household ElectricitySaving Opportunities. ACEEE, Washington, DC.

Elkington, J., Hailes, J., Makower, J., 1990. The Green Consumer. Penguin, New York.Energy Star Program, 2013. http://www.energystar.gov, (accessed 14.11.13.).Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. What Are the Connections between Mer-

cury and CFLs?. http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/what-are-connections-between-mercury-and-cfls (accessed 14.11.13.).

Erskine, C.C., Collins, L., 1997. Eco-labeling: success of failure? Environ. 17, 125e133.Festinger, L., Carlsmith, J., 1959. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.

J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 58, 203e210.Fitzgerald, D.P., Herrmann, J.W., Schmidt, L.C., 2010. A conceptual design tool for

resolving conflicts between product functionality and environmental impact.J. Mech. Des. 132 (9), 091006.

Flora, S.R., 2000. Praise's magic reinforcement ratio: five to one gets the job done.Behav. Anal. Today 1 (4), 64e69.

Fogg, B., 2003. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change what We Thinkand Do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco: CA.

Frischknetch, B., Gonzalez, R., Papalambros, P., Reid, T., 2009. A design scienceapproach to analytical product design. In: International Conference on Engi-neering Design, Stanford, August 24e27.

Froehlich, J.E., 2011. Sensing and Feedback of Everyday Activities to PromoteEnvironmental Behaviors. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. PhD.

Gehin, A., Zwolinski, P., Brissaud, D., 2008. A tool to implement sustainable end-of-life strategies in the product development phase. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (5), 566e576.

Geller, E.S., Bechtel, R.B., Churchman, A., 2002. The Challenge of increasing pro-environmental behavior. In: Anonymous (Ed.), Handbook of EnvironmentalPsychology. J. Wiley, New York, pp. 525e540.

Gifford, R., 2007. Environmental psychology and sustainable development: expan-sion, maturation, and challenges. J. Soc. Issues 63 (1), 199e212.

Gigerenzer, G., Koehler, D.J., Harvey, N., 2004. Fast and frugal heuristics: the tools ofbounded rationality. In: Anonymous (Ed.), Handbook of Judgment and DecisionMaking. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 423e435.

Gore, A., 2006. An Inconvenient Truth: the Planetary Emergency of Global Warmingand what We Can Do about it. Rodale, New York.

Guber, D.L., 2003. The Grassroots of a Green Revolution: Polling America on theEnvironment. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Halog, A., 2001. Using quality function deployment for technique selection for op-timum environmental performance improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 387e394.

Hardin, G., 1968. Tragedy of commons. Science 162 (3859), 1243e1248.Harper, S.R., Thurston, D.L., 2008. Incorporating environmental impacts in strategic

redesign of an engineered system. J. Mech. Des. 130 (3), 031101.Hauser, J.R., Urban, G.L., Liberali, G., Braun, M., 2009. Website morphing. Mark. Sci.

28 (2), 202e223.Huisingh, D., 2006. Special issue on ecodesign. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 15e16.Hult, M., 2011. Special issue on sustainability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1).Immerwahr, J., 1999. Waiting for a Signal: Public Attitudes toward Global Warming,

the Environment and Geophysical Research. American Geophysical Union.International Organization for Standardization, 2013. ISO14000-Environmental

Management. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_and_leadership_standards/environmental_management.htm, (accessed 14.11.13.).

Iyer, G., Soberman, D., Villas-Boas, J.M., 2005. The targeting of advertising. Mark. Sci.24 (3), 461e476.

J€arvi, P., Paloviita, A., 2007. Product-related information for sustainable use oflaundry detergents in finnish households. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (7), 681e689.

Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption, Center for EnvironmentalStrategy. University of Surrey. http://www.sd-research.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/motivatingscfinal_000.pdf (accessed 14.11.13.).

Jelsma, J., 2006. Designing ‘moralized’ products. In: Verbeek, P.-P., Slob, A. (Eds.),User Behavior and Technology Development. Springer, Netherlands,pp. 221e231.

Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, T., Tsuji, S., 1984. Attractive quality and must-bequality. J. Jpn. Soc. Qual. Control. 39e48.

Kaplan, S., 2000. Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Soc.Issues 56 (3), 491e508.

Karlsson, R., Luttropp, C., 2006. EcoDesign: what's happening? an overview of thesubject area of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue. J. Clean. Prod.14 (15e16), 1291e1298.

Kasarda, M.E., Terpenny, J.P., Inman, D., Precoda, K.R., Jelesko, J., Sahin, A., Park, J.,2007. Design for adaptability (DFAD)dA new concept for achieving sustainabledesign. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 23 (6), 727e734.

Kelly, J., Papalambros, P., 2007. Use of shape preference information in productdesign. In: International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France,August 28-31, 2007.

Kl€ockner, C.A., Bl€obaum, A., 2010. A comprehensive action determination model:toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example oftravel mode choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (4), 574e586.

Koehn, P.H., 2006. Fitting a vital linkage piece into the multidimensional emissions-reduction puzzle: nongovernmental pathways to consumption changes in thePRC and the USA. Clim. Change 77 (3e4), 377e413.

Krippendorff, K., 2006. The Semantic Turn: a New Foundation for Design. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL.

Lampe, M., Gazda, G.M., 1995. Green marketing in europe and the United States: anevolving business and society interface. Int. Bus. Rev. 4 (3), 295e312.

Leonard, D., Rayport, J.F., 1997. Spark innovation through empathic design. Harv.Bus. Rev. 75 (6), 102e113.

Levin, G., 1993. Too Green for Their Own Good. Advertising Age, p. 29.Lewis, K.E., Chen, W., Schmidt, L.C., 2006. Decision Making in Engineering Design.

ASME Press, New York.Lilley, D., 2007. Designing for Behavioural Change: Reducing the Social Impacts of

Product Use through Design. PhD. Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK.Lilley, D., 2009. Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Des.

Stud. 30 (6), 704e720.Linton, J.D., 2002. DEA: a method for ranking the greeness of design decisions.

J. Mech. Des. 124 (2), 145e150.Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Stanton, N.A., 2010a. The design with intent Method: a

design tool for influencing user behaviour. Appl. Ergon. 41 (3), 382e392.Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Stanton, N.A., 2010b. Design with Intent Toolkit. http://

requisitevariety.co.uk/design-with-intent-toolkit/ (accessed 11.12.13.).Lofthouse, V.A., Bhamra, T.A., Evans, S., 1999. Effective ecodesign: finding a way

forward for industry. In: Proc. Proceedings of 6th International ProductDevelopment Management Conferece.

MacDonald, E., Backsell, M., Gonzalez, R., Papalambros, P., 2006. The Kano Method'sImperfections, and Implications in Product Decision Theory. In: InternationalDesign Research Symposium, Seoul, Korea, November 10e11.

MacDonald, E.F., Gonzalez, R., Papalambros, P., 2009a. The construction of prefer-ences for crux and Sentinel product attributes. J. Eng. Des. 20 (6), 609e626.

MacDonald, E.F., Lubensky, A., Sohns, B., Papalambros, P., 2009b. Product semanticsin wine portfolio optimization. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 7, 73e98.

Madge, P., 1997. Ecological design: a new critique. Des. Issues 13 (2), 44e54.Maeda, J., 2006. The Laws of Simplicity. MIT Press, Cambridge.Maniates, M., Princen, T., Conca, K., 2002. Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike,

save the world? In: Anonymous (Ed.), Confronting Consumption. MIT Press,Cambridge, Mass, pp. 43e66.

Martin, A., Rosenthal, E., 2011. Cold-water Detergents Get a Cold Shoulder.September 16. The New York Times.

Martinot, E., Borg, N., 1998. Energy-efficient lighting programs: experience andlessons from eight countries. Energy Policy 26 (14), 1071e1081.

Masui, K., Sakao, T., Kobayashi, M., Inaba, A., 2003. Applying quality functiondeployment to environmentally conscious design. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 20(1), 90e106.

McAloone, T.C., 2007. A competence-based approach to sustainable innovationteaching: experiences within a new engineering program. J. Mech. Des. 129 (7),769e778.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000. Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. Am. Psychol. 55 (5), 531e537.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2011. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: an Introduction toCommunity-based Social Marketing. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island,Canada.

Menanteau, P., Lefebvre, H., 2000. Competing technologies and the diffusion ofinnovations: the emergence of energy-efficient lamps in the residential sector.Res. Policy 29 (3), 375e389.

Midden, C.J.H., Kaiser, F.G., Teddy McCalley, L., 2007. Technology's four roles inunderstanding individuals' conservation of natural resources. J. Soc. Issues 63(1), 155e174.

Miller, G.A., 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on ourcapacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63 (2), 81e97.

Mont, O., Plepys, A., 2008. Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proudor alarmed? J. Clean. Prod. 16 (4), 531e537.

Mynatt, C.R., Doherty, M.E., Tweney, R.D., 1977. Confirmation bias in a Simulatedresearch environment: an experimental study of Scientific inference. Q. J. Exp.Psychol. 29 (1), 85e95.

Nolan, J.M., Schultz, P.W., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., Griskevicius, V., 2008.Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 (7),913e923.

Norman, D., 1998. The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday, New York.Norman, D.A., 1999. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6 (3), 38e43.Norwood, F.B., Lusk, J.L., 2011. Consumer Expressions: the Willingness of Consumers

to Pay Higher Food Prices in Return for Improved Animal Care, Compassion, bythe Pound: the Economics of Farm Animal Welfare. Oxford University Press,pp. 258e305.

Orsborn, S., Cagan, J., Boatwright, P., 2009. Quantifying aesthetic form preference ina utility function. J. Mech. Des. 131 (6), 061001.

Peattie, K., Charteris, W., 2008. Green marketing. In: Baker, M., Hart, S. (Eds.), TheMarketing Book. Oxford.

Peloza, J., Shang, J., 2011. How can corporate social responsibility activities createvalue for stakeholders? a Systematic review. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1), 117e135.

Pettersen, I., Boks, C., 2008. User-centred design strategies for sustainable patternsof consumption. In: Ken, T.G., Tukker, A., Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F. (Eds.), Sus-tainable Consumption and Production: Framework for Action, pp. 107e127.

Ramani, K., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W.Z., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J., Handwerker, C.,Choi, J.K., Kim, H., Thurston, D., 2010. Integrated sustainable life cycle design: areview. J. Mech. Des. 132 (9), 091004.

Reid, T., Gonzalez, R., Papalambros, P., 2009. A methodology for quantifying theperceived environmental friendliness of vehicle silhouettes in engineeringdesign. In: ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e36 35

& Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, San Diego, CA, Aug.30-Sep. 2.

Renstr€om, S., Str€omberg, H., Selvefors, A., 2013. Pathways of sustainable behaviours.In: 16th Conference of the European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumptionand Production (ERSCP) & 7th Conference of the Environmental Managementfor Sustainable Universities (EMSU) (ERSCP-emsu 2013), Istanbul, Turkey, Jun.4e7.

Roberts, J.A., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications foradvertising. J. Bus. Res. 36 (3), 217e231.

Rosenthal, E., 2010. Partying helps power a dutch nightclub. The New York Times.October 23.

Sandahl, L., Gilbride, T., Ledbetter, M., Steward, H., Calwell, C., 2006. CompactFluorescent Lighting in America: Lessons Learned on the Way to Market. PacificNorthwest National Laboratory.

She, J., 2013. Designing Features that Influence Decisions about Sustainable Prod-ucts. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. PhD.

She, J., MacDonald, E., 2014. Priming designers to communicate sustainability.J. Mech. Des. 136 (1), 011001.

She, J., MacDonald, E., 2013. Trigger features on prototypes increase preference forsustainability. In: International Design Engineering Technical Conferences andComputers and Information in Engineering Conference, Portland, OR, Aug. 4e7.

Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K., Srinivas, S., 2011. Mindful consumption: a customer-centricapproach to sustainability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 (1), 21e39.

Shiau, C.-S.N., Michalek, J.J., Hendrickson, C.T., 2009. A Structural analysis of vehicleSesign responses to corporate average fuel economy policy. Transportationresearch Part A. Policy Pract. 43 (9e10), 814e828.

Shrum, L.J., McCarty, J.A., Lowrey, T.M., 1995. Buyer characteristics of the Greenconsumer and their implications for advert. J. Advert. 24 (2), 71e82.

Slimak, M.W., Dietz, T., 2006. Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception.Risk Anal. 26 (6), 1689e1705.

Sloan, T.W., 2011. Green renewal: incorporating environmental factors in equipmentreplacement decisions under technological change. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (2e3),173e186.

Slovic, P., 1995. The construction of preference. Am. Psychol. 50 (5), 364e371.Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2004. Risk as analysis and risk

as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal.24 (2), 311e322.

Sterman, J.D., 2008. Economics e risk communication on climate: mental modelsand mass balance. Science 322 (5901), 532e533.

Stern, P.C., 2000. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of envi-ronmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 407e424.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., 1993. Value orientations, gender, and environmentalconcern. Environ. Behav. 25 (3), 322e348.

Struben, J., Sterman, J.D., 2008. Transition challenges for alternative fuel vehicle andtransportation systems. Environ. Plan. B-Planning Des. 35 (6), 1070e1097.

Tang, T., 2010. Towards Sustainable Use: Design Behaviour Intervention to ReduceHousehold Environment Impact. Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK.PhD.

Tanner, C., 1999. Constraints on environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 19 (2),145e157.

Tanner, C., W€olfing Kast, S., 2003. Promoting sustainable consumption: de-terminants of Green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 20 (10),883e902.

Telenko, C., Seepersad, C.C., Webber, M.E., 2008. A compilation of design for envi-ronment principles and guidelines. In: ASME 2008 International Design Engi-neering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in EngineeringConference, New York, NY, August 3e6.

Thøgersen, J., 2005. How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainablelifestyles? J. Consumer Policy 28 (2), 143e177.

The California Energy Commission, 2008. 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Stan-dards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: hueristics andbiases. Science 185, 1124e1131.

Urban, G.L., Hauser, J.R., Liberali, G., Braun, M., Sultan, M., 2009. Morph the web tobuild empathy, trust, and sales. Sloan Manag. Rev. 50 (4), 53e61.

Van Birgelen, M., Semeijn, J., Keicher, M., 2009. Packaging and pro-environmentalconsumption behavior: investigating purchase and disposal decisions for bev-erages. Environ. Behav. 41, 125e146.

van Nes, N., Cramer, J., 2006. Product lifetime optimization: a challenging strategytowards more sustainable consumption patterns. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (15e16),1307e1318.

Vining, J., Ebreo, A., Bechtel, R.B., Churchman, A., 2002. Emerging theoretical andmethodological perspectives on conservation behavior. In: Anonymous (Ed.),Handbook of Environmental Psychology. J. Wiley, New York, pp. 541e558.

Vitra, 2011. Sustainability Report (accessed 14.11.13.). http://www.vitra.com/en-us/about/.

Vonhippel, E., 1986. Lead users- a source of novel product concepts. Manag. Sci. 32(7), 791e805.

Wald, M., 2009. ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Car-rebate Plan Sells Out in Days. The New YorkTimes. July 30.

Wang, Y.D., Emurian, H.H., 2005. An overview of online trust: concepts, elements,and implications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21 (1), 105e125.

Waterpik, 2013. EcoFlow Hand Held Shower Heads 5 Spray Settings. http://www.waterpik.com/shower-head/products/hand-held/ecoflow/ECO-563, (accessed14.11.13.).

Whitefoot, K., 2011. Quantifying the Impact of Environmental Policy on EngineeringDesign Decisions. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ph.D.

Wilson, G.T., Lilley, D., Bhamra, T., 2013. Design Feedback Interventions forHousehold Energy Consumption Reduction. In: 16th Conference of the Euro-pean Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production (ERSCP) & 7thConference of the Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities(EMSU) (ERSCP-EMSU 2013), Istanbul, Turkey, Jun. 4e7.

Winter, D.D.N., 2000. Some big ideas for some big problems. Am. Psychol. 55 (5),516e522.

Xing, K., Belusko, M., 2008. Design for upgradability algorithm: configuring durableproducts for competitive reutilization. J. Mech. Des. 130 (11), 111102.

E.F. MacDonald, J. She / Journal of Cleaner Production 92 (2015) 23e3636