How can we design digital experiences that make sustainable behaviour easier, more meaningful and more desirable? Here are five guidelines drawn from Sustainable HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) research:

1. Make sustainability the default and easiest choice.

Make sustainable options easy to find, understand and select. Research on washing-machine interfaces shows that simple design interventions can significantly increase the selection of energy-saving programmes [1]. But account for real human needs: eco-options must also work for people who need quick or high-temperature cycles.

Ask yourself: How can sustainable behaviour become the path of least resistance?

2. Deliver value beyond sustainability.

Connect environmental benefits with things people already value. Second-hand platforms, for example, combine sustainability with affordability, uniqueness and the enjoyment of shopping. Move beyond superficial gamification (points, streaks and leaderboards) [2] towards meaningful experiences that support autonomy, competence and connection [3]. Explore Self-Determination Theory [3,4] and Value-Sensitive Design [5].

Ask yourself: What makes this experience worthwhile beyond its sustainability benefits?

3. Acknowledge, understand, and design around emotions.

Acknowledge and design for the emotional responses sustainability can evoke, from guilt and anxiety to feelings of sacrifice and restriction. Apply principles of Affective Design [7] to anticipate how these responses shape the user experience. Avoid repeatedly highlighting problems without offering solutions, as this can foster powerlessness [3] and disengagement [11]. Instead, pair challenges with achievable actions and messages of hope, optimism and success [12–15].

Ask yourself: What emotions does each interaction evoke, and what do they encourage people to do next?

4. Provide immediate and actionable pathways forward.

Awareness alone rarely translates into action [8]. Help people move from understanding a problem to feeling capable of addressing it [3] by pairing information with clear, achievable next steps. For example, rather than simply showing users the carbon footprint of their choices, suggest lower-impact alternatives, explain how to access them, or connect users with opportunities for collective action. Offer practical recommendations, opportunities to build skills and suitable alternatives that make taking action feel both possible and worthwhile.

Ask yourself: Does this interaction educate only or also provide an actionable way forward?

5. Design beyond the individual user.

Do not treat individual behaviour change as the solution to sustainability challenges. Consider the wider systems that shape people’s choices and how different stakeholders—individuals, communities, businesses, governments and academia—can contribute to and benefit from change. For example, embedding a tool-sharing app in local libraries creates shared value: developers save on infrastructure, residents immediately trust the app, libraries strengthen their community role, and municipalities reduce consumption and waste. A win-win for all.

Ask yourself: Who can contribute to and benefit from this solution?

Conclusion

These guidelines are a starting point, not a universal checklist. The next step is to look beyond human needs. More-than-Human Design [9,10] explores how technologies, products, services and sociotechnical systems can support the wellbeing, agency and flourishing of humans, other living beings and the ecosystems they are part of.

For innovators, this also means staying open to new perspectives, needs and opportunities. The next breakthrough might come from designing with nature rather than simply designing for people. I predict that more-than-human thinking will increasingly shape design practice and industry—not just as the next design hype, but as a necessary evolution beyond user-centred design.

More on More-than-Human Design in my next post! :-) References below.

#Sustainability #SustainableHCI #SustainableDesign #FuturesWorthBuilding #BehaviourChange

Acknowledgements

I drew inspiration for this piece from Tong Yu’s work [3].

References

[1] Laura Grönewald, Julian Weiblen, Matthias Laschke, Lara Christoforakos, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2023. Sustainability by Design. How to Encourage Users to Choose Energy-Saving Programs and Settings When Washing Laundry. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23), Article 524, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581150

[2] Daniel Fernández Galeote, Mikko Rajanen, Dorina Rajanen, Nikoletta-Zampeta Legaki, David J. Langley, and Juho Hamari. 2023. Gamification for Climate Change Engagement: A User-Centered Design Agenda. In Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Mindtrek ’23), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3616961.3616968

[3] Tong Yu, Gözel Shakeri, and Marion Koelle. 2024. “If you don’t feel guilty, you won’t take responsibility”—Co-speculating on digital technologies that encourage sustainable consumption. In Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI ’24), Article 39, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3679318.3685374

[4] Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer US, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

[5] Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry. 2019. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001

[6] Matthias Laschke, Sarah Diefenbach, Thies Schneider, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2014. Keymoment: initiating behavior change through friendly friction. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI ‘14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2670179

[7] Lottridge, D., Chignell, M., & Jovicic, A. (2011). Affective Interaction: Understanding, Evaluating, and Designing for Human Emotion: Understanding, Evaluating, and Designing for Human Emotion. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 7(1), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557234X11410385

[8] Samantha MacBride. 2012. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Contemporary Sociology 41, 2 (2012), 227–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306112438190jj

[9] Elisa Giaccardi, Johan Redström; Technology and More-Than-Human Design. Design Issues 2020; 36 (4): 33–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00612

[10] Wakkary, Ron. 2021. Things we could design: For more than human-centered worlds. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13649.001.0001. ISBN (electronic): 9780262366847.

[11] Baiyu Qi, Emily K Presseller, Gabrielle E Cooper, Avantika Kapadia, Alexis S Dumain, Shantal M Jayawickreme, Emily C Bulik-Sullivan, Eric F van Furth, Laura M Thornton, Cynthia M Bulik, et al . 2022. Development and Validation of an Eating-Related Eco-Concern Questionnaire. Nutrients, 14(21), 4517. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14214517

[12] Maria Ojala. 2023. Hope and climate-change engagement from a psychological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology 49 (2023), Article 101514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101514

[13] Femke Coops, Kristina Bogner, Dan Lockton, Timo von Wirth, Jonas Torrens, Barbara Kump, Julia Wittmayer, Caroline Hummels, and Flor Avelino. 2026. ‘Living-with’ transformative change: Exploring affective entanglements when working towards more just and sustainable futures. Futures Reframed 1, 1 (2026). https://doi.org/10.63934/ewp5w569

[14] Angela J. Dean and Kerrie A. Wilson. 2023. Relationships between hope, optimism, and conservation engagement. Conservation Biology 37, 2 (2023), Article e14009. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14020

[15] Hanna Bergeå, Therese Åhlvik, and Lars Hallgren. 2025. The flipside of hope discourse: Avoiding accountability and assigning responsibility in sustainability transitions. Frontiers in Communication 10 (2025), Article 1562492. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1562492