Domestic Food and Sustainable Design: A Study of University Student Cooking and its ImpactsAdrian Clear, Mike Hazas, Janine Morley, Adrian

Friday, and Oliver BatesLancaster University

Outline

• Home cooking & sustainable HCI

• What design goals?

• Method

• Findings and design implications

• Scope of impacts

• Key role of cookingPhoto: gundamwing4132 (via Flickr )

Why cooking?Literature Wider Sustainability HCI

Food Systems &

Choice

Diet change & food production

(27% GHG in UK)e.g. Berners-Lee et al (2012)

Carlsson-Kanyama et al (2005)

Nudging in supermarkets Sustainable urban food

culturese.g. Choi et al (2010) Kalnikaite et al (2011)

Cooking

Direct energy use

Oberascher et al (2011)Oliveira et al (2012)

Wood & Newborough (2003)

Augmented meal planning & cooking:

nutrition, sociality

e.g. Grimes & Harper (2008)Bonanni et al (2005)

sustainability?

Kirman et al (2010)

Study design

• 31 students, 4 flats, 21 days

• Interviews

• Sensing

BedroomBedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Kitchen Bedroom

Physical SensingSocket-level power

“Hobcam:” motion-triggered camera

Whole-house, aggregate power

30-second stop-motion video of sample of Hobcam images [omitted]

Cooking session annotation

Cooking session annotation

One cook, single portion

Cooking session annotation

Components used

Back-right

Back-left

Cooking session annotation

Foods observed

Jarred sauce

Pasta

Cooking session annotation

... and quantities

(160g)

(100g)

Foods observed

Jarred sauce

Pasta

Cooking session annotation

Cooking method

Boiling

Heating

Cooking session annotation

Cooking method

Heating

Boiling

(no lid)

(no lid)

Use of lid?

Cooking session annotation

Changes in control position

Findings

Other food

Relative Impacts

Cooking Energy Emissions (22%)

Waste

Otherdevices

Indirect Emissions (78%)

Design Areas

Diet Change

Technique & Method

Technique and method

Photo: reutC (via Flickr)

Frying vs. grilling

33m 30s170g

9m 50s

113g

0.118 kWh 0.965 kWh

Average 1.2 kWh/kg Average 6.7 kWh/kg

Pasta vs. Pasta

41 mins16 mins7 mins

Pizza vs. Pizza27 minutes

...53 minutes before cooking

Oven switched on

85 minutes

36 minutes later...

...oven switched off

Pizza ready

55 minutes

Design Board: ApplianceGoal Possible Applications

Encourage more efficient methods &

techniques

Cooking-specific energy feedbackSpecialised appliances

Mitigate timing “errors” and

“forgetfulness”

Better interaction design Smarter cookers

Scope: 10-20% cooking energy; 2-4% overall GHG

Diet

High Impact

Low Impact

Jarred sauceChicken

Chicken nuggets

Bacon

Sausages

Cheese

Chips Onions

BreadPasta

A convenient diet“typical student

food”

“all those kind of really easy things”

0

20

40

60

80

jarred sauce

chicken

pastavegetables

sausages

chipspizza

breadbaked beans

ricepotatoes

tortellini

baconfrozen veg.

tinned tomatoes

eggnoodles

mince beef

steakreadymeal

fishsoup

61

70

87

88

41

43

21

9217

33

8

1540

22

8 29

27

109

8 107

Embo

died

Ghg

em

issio

ns (k

g CO

2e)0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

jarred sauce

chicken

pastavegetables

sausages

chipspizza

breadbaked beans

ricepotatoes

tortellini

baconfrozen veg.

tinned tomatoes

eggnoodles

mince beef

steakreadymeal

fish

61

69

87

66

41

43

20

8817

32

8

1541

21

8 29

27

109

8 10

Embo

died

GhG

em

issio

ns (k

g CO

2e)

• Repeated moderate- to high-impact foods

Meals

Jarred sauce

Chicken

Chicken nuggets

Bacon

Sausages

Cheese

Chips OnionsBread Pasta

Chicken, pasta, and sauce

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Chicken Pasta Sauce Cooker

Total: 3.57 Kg CO2e

Grilled potatoes

0

0.125

0.25

0.375

0.5

Potatoes Cooker

Total: 0.62 Kg CO2e

Design Board: Sustainable DietsGoal Possible Applications

Make indirect emissions more explicit to “cooks”

Help keep infrequent high-impact foods “special”

Meal tracking and feedback

Make alternative meals easier

Interactive meal planners Recipe generation On-the-spot advice

Scope: 20-30% indirect emissions; 17-24% overall GHG

Organization

Cooking & Eating

Teaching

Sport

Employment

Socialising

“Simple” & “Easy” =• Short cooking time (< 20mins) (~70%)

• Single cooker component (69%)

• Few “ingredients”

• Repetitive

• Single portion

• Cooking for oneself (90%)

Social cooking

“we keep saying we’re going to cook together but something always

gets in the way”

“one person would go out or one person

would not want what we wanted”

“Whateverʼs in the cupboard”

“I like vegetables and salads and stuff like that but when I buy it it just

all goes off...”

“um, risottos, stuff, pasta and sauce whatever, um shepherds pie ...whatever

ingredients we have”

Design Board: OrganizationGoal Possible Applications

Encourage more shared cooking

Social media appsCollective inventory assistantsFlatmate allocation

Help manage (and change) whats in the cupboard & freezer

Meal and shopping support

Scope: less clear, some direct & indirect emissions

Interdependencies

Cooking Energy

Diet Change

TechniqueSharing

Indirect Emissions

Interdependencies

Cooking Energy

A Different Diet

Technique & Method

Sharing

Indirect Emissions

Summary• An innovative method

• Account of relative impacts of real-life student cooking

• Frames design goals for sustainable cooking

• Highlights key role of cooking in sustainable food transitions

Workshop on Green food technology at Ubicomp 2013 Submissions due: 31st May

http://www.scc.lancs.ac.uk/greenfoodtechworkshop/