Expanding the Concept of Sustainable Interaction Design: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This paper presents a systemic literature review of Sustainable Interaction Design. We use the PRISMA model to guide the review. In the analysis of the identified papers, we identify an emergent and significant shift in the discourse on Sustainable Interaction Design from its original introduction in 2007. The shift in discourse concerns extensions both in the methodology as well as the impact, which is oddly underexplored. Regarding the methodology, we found that the objectives of sustainability are pursued by the concrete features of designed artifacts or through the use impact of design and that the design contains a process of learning for all participating parties, captured in the notion of sustainability in designing. By complementing this with the pursued impact of social, environmental, and economic sustainability, we point to where the current research tends to cluster, which areas are underexplored, and, thus, where new research agendas are needed. Here, the limited interest in studying how Interaction Design fosters sustainability while including an economic perspective stands out. In the concluding parts of this paper, we propose future research trajectories of SID and speculate and discuss opportunities and challenges for future research.

1. Introduction

1.1. Aim and Research Motivations

In 2007, Eli Blevis introduced the concept of Sustainable Interaction Design (SID) within the field of Human–Computer Interaction (HCI), aiming to prioritize sustainability in Interaction Design (IxD) [1]. Since then, the body of literature on SID has expanded significantly, revealing its complex nature. Despite this evolution, Blevis’s framing of SID has not only endured but has also become a cornerstone in both HCI and IxD.

Originating in the 1970s with roots in computer science, HCI played a pivotal role in the emergence of Interaction Design in the 1990s [2]. This chronological lineage underscores HCI’s enduring influence on Interaction Design. The latter has built upon HCI’s foundational principles by placing greater emphasis on user experience, discretionary use, and the holistic design of interactions [3]. Blevis’s definition of SID remains significant not only within HCI but also in the broader context of designing interactive technologies [4]. Many contributions to Interaction Design, often citing Blevis’s original definition, come from scholars with a strong HCI background. This connection also extends to Interaction Design education, where Blevis’s SID framework serves as a foundational element.

Given the evolution of IxD, there is a critical need to reassess and expand the definition of SID to encompass the diverse aspects that define the discipline. This need is especially urgent because Interaction Design prioritizes problem framing to a greater extent than HCI, which has traditionally taken a more solution-oriented approach rooted in computer science [3].

The primary objective of this study is to systematically analyze and map the conceptualization and application of “Sustainable Interaction Design” within scholarly discourse, particularly in relation to the design process and the overarching paradigm of sustainability. This investigation seeks to clarify the nuanced dimensions and theoretical foundations that scholars use when addressing SID, with the ultimate goal of deepening our understanding of its complex relationships with both design methodology and the broader framework of sustainability.

1.2. Background Knowledge: The Definition of SID

Blevis [1] defined Sustainable Interaction Design as the act of making or informing choices about future ways of being, using sustainability as a lens to evaluate design values, methods, and artifacts. He specifically emphasized environmental sustainability, highlighting the impact of interactive technologies on resource usage, and provided a rubric for assessing material effects in terms of use, reuse, and disposal.

Blevis’s approach inspired a group of academics to organize a workshop during the 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), where they aimed to define the role HCI could play in addressing the challenges of sustainable development [5]. Their focus began to extend beyond the environmental impacts of complex issues like climate change, seeking to engage professionals from various fields, including design, politics, economics, social studies, and engineering. They also recognized that Sustainable Interaction Design might involve various trade-offs that require careful consideration.

Although Blevis chose to focus on environmental sustainability, in his seminal paper, he referenced Fry’s broader concept of sustainability as a vision of viable futures encompassing environmental concerns, public health, social equality and justice, and other factors affecting humanity and the biosphere [6]. This reference indirectly highlighted the multifaceted nature of sustainability, which spans multiple areas and dimensions.

Over time, the term “sustainability” has taken on an increasingly broad and ambiguous meaning. Despite efforts in subsequent years to introduce new perspectives and reconfigure the conceptual framework of SID [7] or to extend its applicability to emerging domains like digital services [8], a dominant trend persisted among scholars engaged in SID research. The community continued to prioritize environmental sustainability, particularly in relation to interactive technologies. This prevailing academic focus reflected an ongoing adherence to Blevis’s foundational definition of SID, emphasizing the “ecological” aspects of interactive technologies within the expanding discourse on Sustainable Interaction Design.

1.3. Existing Literature Reviews

In addition to the literature survey presented in this paper, we have also taken stock of existing reviews related to Sustainable Human–Computer Interaction (SHCI) and SID.

The first notable review of SHCI, titled “Three Environmental Discourses in Human-Computer Interaction” by Goodman [9], addresses environmental issues by identifying three key themes—Sustainable Interaction Design, Citizen Sensing, and Revisioning Consumption—that significantly influenced the design of novel interfaces and interactive systems. A year later, another survey, “Mapping the Landscape of Sustainable HCI” [10], analyzed sixty contributions, outlining the development of SHCI as a research field and its various branches. This survey categorized emerging clusters or “genres”, including SID, Formative User Studies, Pervasive and Participatory Sensing, Persuasive Technology, and Ambient Awareness. Building on the work of DiSalvo and colleagues, Knowles and colleagues [11] introduced an alternative framework to the seminal “triple bottom line” concept, proposing a “quadruple bottom line” (personal, social, environmental, and economic). In their paper “Exploring Sustainability Research in Computing: Where We Are and Where We Go Next”, they pose ten key questions to guide the research agenda for sustainability in computing.

However, “A Systematic Review of Sustainability and Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction” [12] represents the first systematic review in SID. It categorizes fifty contributions into five distinct areas of focus related to SHCI: persuasion, sustainability in design, design for sustainability, implications for design, and living with technology, along with other specific topics. The review notably highlights climate change and energy conservation as extensively researched areas.

These initial four reviews of sustainability in HCI were subjected to a meta study by Hansson and colleagues [13], titled “A Decade of Sustainable HCI: Connecting SHCI to the SDGs”. The study analyzed the four previous literature reviews and then evaluated contributions to SHCI based on their thematic areas, specifically using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an external framework to assess the field.

These perspectives are further refined by several studies that adopt a more qualitative approach to analyzing the landscape of SID. First, in 2017, Nunes and Mont’Alvão [14] presented a collection of perspectives and offered a general reflection on possible ways to view the relationship between design, technology, and sustainability, drawing on insights from various review papers. Next, the study “A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Domestic Resource Consumption” by Green and colleagues [15] is noteworthy as the first one to incorporate social sciences into the discussion of human resource consumption in relation to HCI. The paper examines the implications of digital technology design, particularly in urban contexts, on human resource consumption and its impact on environmental challenges. Additionally, the review “Have We Taken on Too Much? A Critical Review of the Sustainable HCI Landscape” by Bremer and colleagues [16] offers significant critiques of SID as a research field. The authors also propose “calls for action” within Sustainable HCI, introducing a potential solution termed “Green Policy Informatics”.

More recently, two systematic literature reviews were published: “Hitting the Triple Bottom Line: Widening the HCI Approach to Sustainability” [17] and “A survey of empirical studies on persuasive technologies to promote sustainable living” [18]. The first review classifies peer-reviewed papers on Sustainable HCI, rather than SID, according to the three sustainability “lines”—environmental, social, and economic—highlighting the need for a more holistic investigation of the often-overlooked economic and social aspects in Sustainable HCI research. The second review systematically analyzes papers related to SID, focusing specifically on those involving persuasive technologies aimed at promoting sustainable living. The authors maintain a narrow focus by defining strict inclusion criteria, ultimately examining a limited set of 15 papers to categorize different approaches to interactive technologies in this context.

These surveys are particularly interesting because they explore the values and concerns embedded in the design of interactive systems and how these systems promote sustainability in diverse ways. However, none of the surveys have addressed the specific ways—or, in Blevis’s terms, “senses of design”—in which sustainability is promoted. In this regard, our study seeks to utilize a larger and more recent set of publications to examine how the role of design has evolved in creating interactive solutions to address sustainability issues, considering how the concept of sustainability itself has been articulated by scholars.

1.4. Key Research Elements and Structure

In this paper, we present a systematic literature review of Sustainable Interaction Design (SID) research, including publications up to 2023. We analyze the identified papers through the lens of sustainability, focusing on the concerns originally proposed by Braungart and McDonoug [19]—environment, economy, and social equity—which were reiterated in Scuri and colleagues’ study [17]. We then examine how the act of designing promotes sustainability, extending the original two strands for Sustainable HCI (SHCI) proposed by Mankoff, Blevis, and colleagues [20], where sustainability is achieved “in and through design”.

Through our analysis, we suggest that sustainability relates to (1) the designed artifact (sustainability by design), (2) is influenced by the artifact (sustainability through design), or (3) is fostered within the design process itself (sustainability in designing)—the three definitions are presented at the end of Section 3.2. Our findings indicate that the field of research tends to favor certain approaches to exploring and promoting sustainability in the design of interactive technologies. Following this, we highlight prominent and emerging themes in SID.

This study concludes by identifying four recurring and five emerging research themes. The paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we present the methodology of the literature review. In Section 3, we argue in favor of extending Blevis’s original two strands regarding how Interaction Design contributes to sustainability. This is followed by an analysis that connects these perspectives and identifies current gaps in the SID literature. Finally, we conclude the paper by discussing the limitations of this study and the potential implications of these gaps for the field’s understanding of sustainability.

2. Methodology of the Literature Review

2.1. Scoping Literature Review

This study is based on an initial scoping review of the literature, employing an exploratory approach to review [21]. This review focused on the most relevant publications associated with the keywords “Sustainable Interaction Design” and “SID”, as identified in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The investigation served two main purposes.

First, it aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall nature of SID, highlighting the key definitions and manifestations that have shaped the research landscape.

Second, by analyzing key papers, we sought to refine and inform the subsequent systematic review, specifically defining the codes to be used during the analysis of full-text publications.

2.2. Systematic Literature Review

The current study employs a systematic literature review [22]. An initial search using Title, Abstract, and Keywords yielded 469 results, published between 2000 and December 2023, related to interaction, design, and sustainability. After excluding duplicates across repositories, the final set of studies included 352 publications. Following the guidelines of the PRISMA model [23] (see Supplementary Materials), we conducted a qualitative screening of abstracts and full papers to identify studies that consistently referenced the definition of SID [1] as outlined in the introduction and aligned with this study’s scope. The selected publications were then coded for a more precise mapping of the literature.

2.2.1. Search Keywords and Query Limits

The search strategy involved using various terms related to “Sustainable Interaction Design” to ensure that key definitions, including common alternatives such as “Sustainable Human–Computer Interaction” and their abbreviations, were covered. So, the following resulting initial query was used:

TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustainable interaction design” OR “sustainable HCI” OR “sustainable human computer interaction” OR “SHCI” OR “SID”)

It displayed an initial number of results equal to 352, combining both databases.

In the advanced query search, we deliberately chose not to apply additional filters such as subject area, language, or document type. This decision was based on three main considerations. First, the specificity of the chosen keywords, especially after confirming the correct use of “HCI” and “SID” acronyms, was considered comprehensive enough to capture the relevant literature. Second, the number of results obtained after keyword filtration was manageable, allowing for a thorough review of all 352 publications without compromising this study’s depth and timeliness. Third, our focus was on understanding the contextual usage of the “SID” term and definition across various documents. A broad-spectrum approach, rather than an approach limited by specific subjects, languages, or document types, was deemed necessary for a nuanced exploration of SID’s application across different contexts and research typologies.

2.2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Abstract Screening

The exclusion criteria were defined during the initial phase of screening titles and abstracts. We aimed to include only those publications that explicitly referred to “Sustainable Interaction Design” in their abstracts or demonstrated a clear focus on prioritizing and integrating sustainability within the context of Digital and Interaction Design. To achieve such a goal, five main criteria of exclusion (EC) targeted in the Title–Abstract–Keyword analysis were defined:

• EC 1. The acronyms “SHCI” or “SID” had different meanings from “Sustainable Human–Computer Interaction” and “Sustainable Interaction Design”.
• EC 2. Sustainability was not the main topic. Instead, it was used as an example of concern for discussing something else.
• EC 3. The title or abstract subject was not related to the field of HCI or IxD. Some examples were finance, medicine, and chemistry.
• EC 4. The search keyword was included in the authors’ keywords but was not present in the abstract or title as it was not the focus of the publication, or it had been misused for the starting definition considered.
• EC 5. The record was just the introductory paragraph to a conference proceeding.

Following the first screening of the abstract, 139 papers out of the 352 were excluded, leaving 213 results for the following review stages.

2.2.3. Guidelines for Paper Screening

The full-text screening involved selecting eligible papers and finalizing those to be included in the systematic literature review. During this phase, the primary objective was to include papers where “Sustainable Interaction Design” was clearly and extensively defined and where the relationship between sustainability and Interaction Design was explicitly articulated. To ensure consistency and relevance, three additional qualitative exclusion criteria were formulated, as follows:

• EC 6. Publications affirming the overall importance of focusing on sustainability—broadly speaking—in IxD or presenting all the different perspectives in general terms.
• EC 7. Summaries of conferences’ workshops stating that they will debate about SID
  in general terms without anticipating an initial position/an interpretation about it.
• EC 8. Studies mainly vertical on specific issues that are not strictly related to SID but imply it just as context (e.g., digital art on climate change, ICT for brand sustainability, food science as a lens for examining practices, the problem of engaging academic stakeholders, etc.)

Following this final screening, 28 papers were excluded from the initial set of 213, leaving 185 studies for inclusion in the research (see Appendix A). Among the excluded papers, two could not be analyzed due to restricted access and unavailability, even upon request. The remaining eligible publications were subjected to qualitative analysis through text coding, as detailed in the following section. This process was then visualized using the PRISMA model (Figure 1).

3. Sustainable Interaction Design

In this section, we explore the ongoing debate regarding the concept of sustainability in HCI and IxD. We also discuss how our analysis of the identified papers has led to a re-evaluation of Blevis’s original framework, which distinguished between sustainability in design and sustainability through design in Interaction Design.

3.1. Defining Sustainability (in Interaction Design): The Debate

In the following sections, we explore the evolving debate on sustainability in Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) since Blevis’s seminal work in 2007. Despite efforts to clarify the concept, sustainability remains a contested and multifaceted issue within SID.

In Sustainable Interaction Design, scholars often refer to the original tripartite classification of sustainability—encompassing environmental, social, and economic concerns—as outlined in the so-called Brundtland report by the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development [24]. However, even foundational works, including Blevis’s, predominantly focus on the “environmental” dimension of sustainability [25]. We speculate that this prevailing focus could, among other reasons, be attributed to the initial association of such works with the domains of computer science as initially, the first objective of Sustainable HCI, which was intended to be Sustainable Computing, was to decrease the ecological-footprint of computing itself [26]. This focus differs from the broader scope of Interaction Design, which tends to incorporate additional considerations, such as social aspects, going beyond technical and computational aspects [3].

A study by Kirchherr and colleagues [27] identified a growing consensus among scholars that “sustainable development” should aim to achieve environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity. This reflects a shift toward a holistic perspective that advocates for the simultaneous advancement of all three sustainability dimensions. Other researchers, aligning with the Brundtland Report, define sustainability as meeting current environmental, social, and economic needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own [11], particularly in the context of designing digital interactions and technological interventions.

Scuri and colleagues conducted a systematic review of the HCI literature and found a predominant focus on environmental sustainability in most studies [17]. They emphasized the potential benefits of considering all three dimensions of sustainability, advocating for a more comprehensive definition and deeper integration of these dimensions into the design process.

In light of the prevalent focus on environmental sustainability, some scholars argue for a redirection of SID to address climate change specifically, suggesting that a broader approach to all facets of sustainability might limit the field’s contribution [28]. Conversely, other studies acknowledge that while SID may sometimes overreach, establishing a shared, comprehensive understanding of sustainability—encompassing well-defined dimensions, objectives, and metrics—is crucial [16]. These studies also consider non-environmental concerns, such as social and economic growth.

Despite differing opinions on whether to redefine sustainability in Interaction Design or focus on a single dimension, there is a growing recognition of the need for an inclusive approach that addresses all aspects of sustainability [29], including communal and social aspects. Ignoring community reactions when designing environmentally sustainable interventions can lead to social issues, diminishing social cohesion and making such interventions socially unsustainable [30]. Additionally, there is increasing acknowledgment of the importance of incorporating the economic dimension, especially in the development of digital interactive products and services. Mann and Bates, for example, have criticized the lack of engagement in HCI for promoting socio-economic transformation [31]. Blevis and colleagues also noted the need for an in-depth exploration of economic challenges, particularly in guiding design solutions related to digital artifacts [25]. They highlighted the economic dimension as a critical area for research.

In summary, there is a growing consensus in SID that addressing all three dimensions—(i) environmental (quality), (ii) social (equity), and (iii) economic (prosperity)—is essential for developing effective Sustainable Interaction Design solutions [24,27].

Lastly, recent proposals include adopting a value-driven approach in SID [32] and integrating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the SID definition to place them at the core of the Interaction Design process [13,33]. These approaches aim to make SID more practical and effective, emphasizing the importance of a streamlined definition to help interaction designers center sustainability in their work.

3.2. Mankoff and Blevis’s Delineation of SID

Having reviewed the general understanding and promotion of sustainability, we now focus on Blevis’s contributions, which are pivotal in the field. Specifically, we draw from Blevis’s seminal work with Mankoff and colleagues [20], which provides foundational reference points in Sustainable Interaction Design (SID). In their influential paper, Blevis and his co-authors outline two primary approaches for integrating sustainability into Interaction Design: (i) using sustainability as a guiding principle for the design of interactive systems and (ii) leveraging interactive technologies to promote sustainable behaviors. These approaches are categorized as “sustainability in design” and “sustainability through design”:

• Sustainability in design: This approach involves using sustainability as a critical lens during the design process of interactive technologies. It encompasses four core dimensions that guide the development of sustainable interactive concepts and artifacts. These dimensions focus on improving energy efficiency, reusing energy, reducing energy consumption, and recycling energy resources. Essentially, this approach treats sustainability as an integrated aspect of the artifact’s design—a sustainability by-product.
• Sustainability through design: This approach uses interactive technologies to encourage sustainable behaviors. It emphasizes designing interactions that foster sustainable actions and raise awareness. The resulting technologies can operate at three levels: individual, group, and societal. Here, to our understanding, sustainability is primarily pursued through behavioral change, aiming to influence the mindset and decisions of users to support sustainable lifestyles and decision-making.

Even when critiquing Mankoff and colleagues’ 2007 framework, most scholars, including those in the Digital and Interaction Design field, continue to reference and rely on these initial conceptualizations as foundational guidance. This enduring influence has characterized the two critical dimensions proposed, intricately tied to defining the design process for “sustainable” interactive technologies. In our understanding, the two approaches to SID are related to the design process and its phases in two distinct ways:

• The first approach, “in design”, comes into play in the phases of a design process in which the essence of design artifacts is shaped. It refers to when designers conceptualize and define the character and features of an interactive artifact (e.g., “an artifact that self-regulates to save energy”).
• In contrast, the second approach, “through design”, guides designers’ concerns in the design processes about how people will interact with the artifact and how the interaction will affect other decisions. It refers mainly to the design considerations in which the objective and scope are developed (e.g., “an artifact persuading people to consume less energy at home”).

The separate presence of these two dimensions is proof that design can play different “roles” in putting sustainability at the center when it comes to interactive technologies. At the same time, it leads us to wonder how researchers—since these foundational SID guidelines were formulated—have subsequently approached investigations from distinct perspectives regarding the overall design process.

Redefining the Notion of “Designing” in SID

In this section, we examine how the role of design has evolved and argue that this evolution has led to a redefinition of Sustainable Interaction Design (SID).

Early contributions to the field closely followed Mankoff and colleagues’ bipartite framework, which distinguished between “sustainability in design” and “sustainability through design”. However, as the body of work has grown, it has become increasingly challenging to classify contributions solely within these two original dimensions. Our exploration reveals numerous studies that address sustainability in ways not confined to these two categories. Some research focuses on methodologies and approaches for achieving sustainability throughout the entire design process rather than just on the inherent sustainability of the artifact or the behavioral impacts of specific interactions. Several notable contributions exemplify this phenomenon.

One of the first examples is a contribution to “sustainable identity” and the creativity of the designer [34], in which the authors discuss incorporating Design-in-Use principles, which involve using sociotechnical and cooperative design methods to create ethically sustainable systems through participatory user involvement. The authors argue that designers should not only apply SID principles but also engage with end-users to understand the ongoing life and potential sustainability of the design artifacts. They suggest that user creativity contributes to a sustainable identity and view unpredictability as a positive trait rather than a challenge.

Another noteworthy example is the study by Heitlinger and colleagues, “Sustainable HCI for Grassroots Urban Food-Growing Communities” [35], which explored how participatory design can be employed to achieve socio-environmental impacts within the context of SID. The authors argue that this approach shifts the focus from viewing individuals merely as consumers to seeing sustainability as a communal concern requiring coordinated collective action. They advocate for participatory design that strengthens connections between collective action, participation, and citizenship. Additionally, Heitlinger and colleagues emphasize designing for inclusion, education, face-to-face communication, and collective engagement, rather than just for efficiency.

A third significant contribution is a study that uses design fiction to explore “green practices” within SID [36]. The authors argue that designers can use resources and tools in ways that address the challenges of making design interventions intelligible in practice. This research suggests that design fiction can reshape sustainable practices and influence the evolution of design itself. The study proposes that design fiction links design with eco-friendly DIY initiatives, routine repairs, and social/cultural theories of practice. By connecting future scenarios with practical and cultural theories, this approach reveals new roles for Interaction Design in promoting environmental sustainability.

Another relevant work is “Constructing and Constraining Participation in Participatory Arts and HCI” [37], which emphasizes the importance of user participation in digital arts and HCI, particularly in enhancing sustainability and understanding social practices. The authors argue that public involvement is crucial for balancing HCI research and suggest that strategies and tactics from social practice arts can be adapted to HCI. This involvement helps designers and users collaboratively shape alternative environmental futures through technology.

The last example of a discourse on methodologies and approaches for achieving sustainability throughout the design process is the contribution to participatory speculative design and experiments with communities in relation to SID [38]. The authors explore how participatory design practices can empower communities to engage more deeply in creating sustainable futures related to climate change. They argue that situated participatory speculation can effectively address potential conflicts that arise when collaboratively developing sociotechnical alternatives. This approach is based on several key beliefs: (i) challenging the normative nature of scenarios, (ii) questioning the traditional role of the researcher, (iii) balancing agency, politics, and deliberation in participatory speculative design, and (iv) embracing community-driven technology visions. The authors also propose practical methods for implementing these principles within communities, fostering a mindset that promotes long-term commitment and contemplation of alternative futures.

These examples highlight a shift in the research field, illustrating that some inquiries now extend beyond the traditional frameworks of “sustainability in and through design” in SID. They point to a broader scope of research that includes new methodologies and approaches, emphasizing sustainability throughout the entire design process. In our opinion, such contributions invite a third way or “sense”—as Blevis denotes it in his seminal paper—when articulating the role of design in SID. Furthermore, this helps us acknowledge publications that account for broader considerations of sustainable design practices emphasizing implications, guidelines, and approaches to SID beyond the inherent sustainability of the designed intervention itself. Finally, applying this approach to the role of designing invites discussions on Sustainable Interaction Design processes and methodologies.

To reflect these insights, we propose rephrasing “sustainability in design” as “sustainability by design” to emphasize sustainability as an inherent (by-product) feature integrated into interactive technologies. This modification gives space to the following three ways in which (interaction) design promotes sustainability:

• By design: Signifies that interactive technologies incorporate sustainability into the way they are finally designed, constituting an integral aspect of the artifact or system’s design.
• Through design: Denotes that designed interactive technologies function as instruments to propagate sustainable behaviors. Consequently, the positive effects on sustainability are realized through the interaction with technology.
• In designing: Refers to how interactive technologies are conceived, encompassing the design processes and methodologies. Here, sustainability may not be directly instigated by the artifacts or the interactions themselves but instead emanates from the design processes.

4. Mapping the Ways of Promoting SID

In this section, we present three analytical lenses that highlight patterns and similarities in this large corpus of 185 papers [39]. The coding was performed through the Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research program MaxQda. The lenses are as follows:

• Framing of sustainability: Originally described in the UN Brundtland report [24], echoed in the study by Braungart and McDonaugh [19] and adopted by Scuri et al. [17], it emphasizes that when working toward sustainability, we need to account for environmental, social, and economic concerns. However, as also identified in previous studies, these concerns are not evenly represented and catered for in contributions to Sustainable Interaction Design. The lens is in line with the work contributed by Scuri and associates, but here, we build from a larger and more updated pool of papers.
• The role of design: As presented in the previous section, Eli Blevis and colleagues [20] put forward that sustainability in Interaction Design could be fostered either “in design”—the artifact in itself conceived and operated in a sustainable fashion, e.g., a product that is fully recyclable, or “through design”—where the design promotes sustainable acts and behavior, e.g., it helps preserve nature. The analytical lens extends Blevis’s original approach, and we argue that sustainability is promoted in three ways: by, through, and in design.
• Recurrent and emerging topics: Finally, we unpack the specific topics and concepts that are repeated multiple times in 185 publications in the corpus (e.g., collapse informatics, persuasive technologies, and e-waste).

The raw numbers were used to yield the distribution of the categories shown in

Table 1. Codes for this paper’s full qualitative analysis.

A. Framing of Sustainability	B. The Role of Design	C. Recurrent and Emerging Topics
Environmental (179)	Sust. by Design (92)	Behavioral Change (24)
Social (40)	Sust. through Design (99)	Eco-feedback (27)
Economic (8)	Sust. in Designing (76)	Persuasive Technologies (22)
		HCI and Design for Attachment (7)
		HCI Activism and Feminism (5)
		E-Waste (4)
		Permaculture (4)
		Collapse Informatics (4)
		HCI and Bio-materials (3)

.

4.1. Framing Sustainability

The primary goal of applying the first typology of lenses was to systematically categorize all relevant publications according to the three key dimensions of sustainability: environmental (quality), social (equity), and economic (prosperity).

This methodological approach involved a detailed examination of each publication to assess how sustainability considerations aligned with these three dimensions. Through Lens B, a total of 227 distinct codes were identified, and their distribution and prevalence are illustrated in Figure 2, showing how sustainability concerns are addressed within the analyzed literature.

From the diagram—which positions each publication according to the sustainable dimensions it covers—it is evident that the distribution among the three categories was significantly imbalanced, and although the included literature is significantly larger than that in the study by Scuri and colleagues [17], the character of distribution of contributions across concerns is well aligned. A significant portion of the literature focuses on environmental sustainability, often overshadowing social equity. Social sustainability was frequently discussed in terms of the “sustainability of a community”, typically linked to environmental settings or practices that promote environmental sustainability.

Economic sustainability was the least addressed concern in the papers reviewed. Except for a few publications, discussions on economic sustainability—both political and economic—were notably absent. This highlights a significant gap in addressing prosperity within the context of Sustainable Interaction Design. The only paper that primarily focuses on economic sustainability is the work of Scuri and associates, which explores its role in designing and shaping sustainable economies within Interaction Design.

This analysis confirms the research field bias and the blind spots identified previously and underscores a significant deviation from Blevis’s initial conceptualizations of Sustainable Interaction Design, which primarily relate to environmental impact. It also reveals a disconnect between the field of Interaction Design and the broader and more holistic understanding of sustainability promoted by the Brundtland report and various global sustainability initiatives. This gap, previously referred to as “the elephant in the room for Sustainable HCI” [40], aligns with the broader observation that a comprehensive consideration of all three dimensions—environmental, social, and economic—is essential for fostering true sustainable development [27]. We will address this aspect again in Section 5.

4.2. Sustainability by Design and through Design in Designing: The Distribution

Transitioning from the exploration of SID (Sustainable Interaction Design) typologies, our inquiry advanced into understanding how sustainability is integrated within the design process, or “the role of design”. To achieve this, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the authors’ explicit intentions regarding sustainability within the SID field. This phase, labeled as Code B, involved systematically coding and categorizing all relevant publications according to the refined SID framework: sustainability by design, sustainability through design, and sustainability in designing, as discussed in the previous chapter.

To classify these publications, we meticulously examined each one, focusing on how sustainability was addressed in relation to the design process. This comprehensive analysis led to the identification of 224 distinct codes, with each publication being classified based on its alignment with the identified categories. The distribution of these codes is visually depicted in Figure 3, illustrating how the various conceptualizations of sustainability are represented within the body of literature under review.

It is important to note that many publications lacked clear and explicit articulation on this subject. As a result, our approach relied heavily on interpretation, adhering as closely as possible to the predefined definitions of the three categories. To avoid imposing forced categorization, we adopted a careful strategy when faced with ambiguities: instead of rigidly classifying such publications, we assigned them to multiple relevant codes, reflecting the nuanced nature of the interpretative process.

The graph underscores a certain balance across the three categories. Most publications fall within the realms of “sustainability by design” and “sustainability through design”, the categories initially identified by Blevis. This distribution suggests a prevalent academic focus on sustainability considerations both in the intrinsic design characteristics of artifacts and in the broader implications arising from user interaction.

An intriguing scenario surfaces within the intersection of these two predominant categories, where a substantial body of research converges. Scholars working within this intersection view SID’s interventions as both inherently sustainable in their design and in the consequences of their use—an example being the design of eco-feedback systems that aim to encourage sustainable behavior in users. This dual focus indicates a nuanced understanding of the need to address not only the immediate eco-efficiency of designs but also their long-term ecological impact and the nature of user interactions.

Conversely, only a small portion of the scholarly discourse fully integrates all three dimensions—design for sustainability, sustainability through design, and sustainability in design. The limited representation in this area suggests a potential research gap, indicating that a more holistic exploration of sustainability in interactive technology design might be needed.

However, it is evident that a significant subset of studies is now focusing on the sustainability of the design processes themselves—what we term “sustainability in designing”. These studies emphasize designing interactive technologies in ways that are “indirectly sustainable”. Here, researchers go beyond assessing the sustainability of the final product, extending their analysis to the methodologies and methods employed in the design process. This approach acknowledges the multifaceted nature of sustainability, recognizing that the entire trajectory from conception to realization plays a crucial role in determining the sustainable footprint of the resulting interactive technologies.

The investigation affirms the preliminary discovery of the scoping review, highlighting that the field of SID has expanded into more theoretical and overarching topics. The research objectives now extend beyond merely examining the sustainability of artifacts and how we interact with them. This broader focus suggests that SID is evolving into a comprehensive academic discipline that encompasses wider conceptual considerations.

From our perspective, it is increasingly clear that there is a growing need to refine the characterization of SID as a broader approach. This need arises from the observation that many published works do not limit their focus solely to the designed object or its ultimate purpose. Instead, these publications utilize SID as a methodological framework to inform Interaction Design more broadly. This includes applying SID as a lens through which design guidelines, methodologies, and methods—drawn from various design fields—are scrutinized and incorporated into the decision-making processes central to design efforts.

The multifaceted role of SID extends beyond its traditional association with sustainable artifacts and interactions. It plays a crucial role in shaping the broader landscape of Interaction Design, influencing decision-making processes through a detailed examination of diverse design principles. This nuanced perspective underscores the evolving nature of SID, positioning it as an indispensable element of contemporary design scholarship.

4.3. Recurring and Emerging Topics

The third dimension explored in our coded classification focused on the recurring appearance of topics across different publications. This phase took on a more exploratory literature review approach [21], with the aim of identifying recurring trends within the literature. The goal was to pinpoint concepts, theories, and approaches that have significantly shaped the debate around SID in the past, as well as those emerging within the field that extend beyond the typical focus on products or interactions commonly discussed. In our analysis, we identified four main categories of topics that have been recurrent and discussed by several authors since SID was first formulated in 2007. These topics have played a crucial role in shaping the debate around SID and have deep roots in both HCI and design. Our analysis went deeper into these contributions to highlight instances where scholars have offered new perspectives that transcend the traditional boundaries of SID:

• C1. Eco-feedback: Eco-feedback technologies, a well-established area within Interaction Design, are widely recognized as mechanisms that provide feedback on individual or group behaviors, with the goal of reducing environmental impact [41]. In the context of SID, most studies associate eco-feedback systems with energy consumption. However, some publications explore aspects like visualization and feedback design independently. Overall, scholars aim to connect energy data with corresponding actions to raise awareness and encourage pro-environmental behavior. This is often interpreted as individual energy conservation in domestic settings, with recent efforts expanding to community-level initiatives [42,43,44].
• C2. Behavioral change: Behavioral change, a prominent concept in HCI and IxD, is primarily defined in most publications as the process of altering attention and cognition to address habitual environmentally harmful behaviors. From this perspective, interactive technologies can motivate individuals toward environmentally friendly behaviors by changing beliefs, shaping attitudes, and influencing actions. The overarching goal is to foster ecological awareness and promote sustainable behaviors. Despite progress, the challenge remains in understanding which interventions, or combinations of interventions, are most effective for specific target users, with the aim of creating a positive and lasting sustainable impact [45,46].
• C3. Persuasive technologies: Information and persuasive technologies are often viewed as key tools for promoting behavioral change. In the surveyed literature, persuasive technologies for sustainability typically focus on encouraging self-reflection in response to shifts in attention and cognition regarding habitual behaviors related to sustainability. Persuasive HCI revolves around designing socially persuasive systems to inspire reflection and behavioral transformation, particularly in promoting sustainable lifestyles within communities. Several scholars argue that values play a significant role in either hindering or facilitating desired behavior change and suggest that integrating value research into persuasive sustainability efforts could lead to more effective interventions [47,48].
• C4. HCI and design for attachment: This approach is centered on designing digital artifacts that evoke a deep and lasting sense of attachment in users, with a focus on the emotional connection between the artifact and the user. The challenge is to design artifacts that foster personal meaning, alongside their functional roles. This type of user engagement has been a critical focus in SID research, aimed at reducing material and energy waste [49,50]. Among all these publications, one that is particularly important is the reflection by Pierce and colleagues on designing for “emotional attachment to energy” as a principle within SID [51]. It is important to note that this type of approach to design was already present in other “more traditional designs” when dealing with sustainable implications, for example, in industrial design [52].

Furthermore, some emerging topics have gained attention in recent years, particularly those that extend beyond the traditional definition of SID but are directly connected to it and have implications for the process of designing sustainable interactions:

• C5. HCI activism and feminism: The recent literature explores applying activist and feminist approaches in HCI and IxD. This shift moves the focus from individuals—crucial in sustainable HCI, especially regarding behavioral change—to the population as a whole, empowering a broader audience. Design activism requires designers to take greater responsibility, not only in acquiring knowledge but also in introspection and adopting strong stances on their role in fostering positive societal and environmental change. This approach sometimes leverages technology to facilitate collective engagement, such as enabling communication between the public and decision-makers to improve specific situations [53,54]. In contrast, feminist HCI focuses on adopting a feminist methodology of inquiry, with the idea of strengthening interaction designer awareness and a sense of responsibility for the socio-cultural consequences of their proposed interventions and practices [55].
• C6. E-waste: On a more practical level, several scholars have focused on e-waste, a concept closely related to designing for attachment. Encouraging personal attachment to electronic devices could prolong their lifespans, helping to prevent e-waste by emphasizing the continuity of digital artifacts’ material life after their “death” and narrowing the gap between their functional and perceived lifetimes. Scholars argue that approaching the design process with this perspective could help shift the current disposable technology paradigm. Designing interactive objects with sustainable values could extend their life or, at the very least, promote reflection on disposal, encouraging users to engage with the implications of the waste generated once the object ceases to function [56,57,58].
• C7. Permaculture approach: Recently, some scholars have begun integrating the philosophy of permaculture—an old method of designing sustainable human settlements—into the design process. This approach proposes a methodological shift that promotes harmonious collaboration with nature rather than controlling it, as traditional models often do. Even in crafting fully digital interactions, this perspective advocates for an ecologically conscious approach, drawing inspiration from the sustainable practices of permanent agriculture, even in applications that seem far removed from nature, like UX design for digital artifacts [59,60].
• C8. Collapse informatics: Another way of approaching the Interaction Design process that scholars have discussed in recent years is the use of “collapse informatics” as a scenario. It involves guiding design choices by considering the global scarcity of resources, particularly related to informatics and digital artifacts, and how to plan for a future marked by resource shortages. Scholars in the SID field using this lens argue that researchers should explore how the discipline can help prevent such scenarios or address the challenges that might arise [61,62].
• C9. Sustainable HCI and bio-materials: Focusing on the material dimension of SID, some scholars have increasingly emphasized the role of materiality in Interaction Design, specifically in relation to SID. Their studies investigate the sustainability of materials themselves (e.g., using bio-based materials or those that reduce resource consumption and pollution) or the indirect sustainability linked to interactions with the artifact’s materiality (e.g., working on sensory experiences, engaging with materiality, or addressing the waste implications). Their research highlights the importance of sustainable materials in extending the lifecycle of interactive objects and reducing environmental impact [63,64].

While these examples represent only a small portion of the concepts that scholars have frequently or recently explored within SID, they serve as indicative snapshots among many contributions coded similarly. These instances highlight the evolving nature of SID, showcasing a diverse array of thoroughly investigated concepts alongside emerging topics that have yet to be fully explored. This blend illustrates the dynamic and expansive landscape of SID, marked by a combination of well-established ideas and promising new avenues for scholarly inquiry.

5. Future Research Trajectories of SID

The presented analysis offers insight into how Interaction Design approaches sustainability and the role that design practices play in shaping a more sustainable future, particularly in the design of technologies and their interactions.

Moreover, by cross-referencing the two main mappings derived from the coding activity, we can identify which areas of SID’s proposed new framework are the most extensively explored and which ones hold potential for future research. This is visually represented in the beeswarm chart in Figure 4.

In line with Scuri and colleagues [17], our study confirms that economic considerations are significantly overlooked in Sustainable Interaction Design (SID) research. While some scholars do address these considerations within the broader design approach, we emphasize the scarcity of research that directly engages with the economic aspect of sustainability, particularly in the context of designing technologies. Specifically, we observed a lack of contributions that present case studies or interactive technology design processes focusing on the economic dimension of sustainability, resulting in a gap in practical and actionable knowledge.

We infer that this focus may stem from the strong emphasis on environmental issues, as highlighted in the seminal papers by Blevis et al., which are widely cited and referenced in subsequent research. Although later publications by Blevis and others have broadened the definition of sustainability to include a wider range of factors, extending beyond the environmental focus of the Brundtland report, the economic aspect remains underrepresented. This is evident even in the analysis of emerging topics, such as feminist HCI.

The visualizations in our study are intended to illustrate clusters of qualities found in the research papers and the overlaps between these qualities. However, when using a Venn diagram to consider the characteristics of sustainability, as promoted in the Brundtland report—which emphasizes environmental, economic, and social sustainability—there is a risk of fostering an idealized image of contributions, situations, tactics, or strategies. This risk is also present in Figure 2, where it might appear that completing the methodological circle is preferred. We want to clarify that this is not our intention. There may be several reasons for the limited inclusion of all sustainability aspects in publications, such as constraints on paper length, a focus on key findings rather than broader learning, specialized issues in conferences and journal series, and the expertise of reviewers in the field.

While there may be valid reasons for the limited number of publications that comprehensively address all aspects of sustainability, there is still a need for more holistic views on SID. As evident from the first line of Figure 4, there are no comprehensive studies of SID that fully integrate all sustainability dimensions. Furthermore, when the methodological approaches of “by design” and “through design” are combined, the majority of cases focus on environmental sustainability. In contrast, the “in designing” approach appears capable of addressing all aspects and hybrids of SID, although with a continued emphasis on environmental and social sustainability.

Overall, significant portions of Figure 4 are sparsely populated, revealing numerous blind spots and highlighting the many unexplored areas in the design of interactive technologies for sustainability. Finally, we infer that the basic ethos of human-centered design in the field is why contributions tend to cluster around the objectives of improving the environment and empowering those with the agency to act (social sustainability). If we had methods for “capital-centered design” for sustainability, the distribution of research focus in Figure 4 would likely be different.

Study Limitations (and Future Work)

This study is based solely on a systematic literature review, and accordingly, some limitations must be considered. First, the scope of the initial selection of papers may be constrained by the databases used. While we primarily relied on the Scopus and Web of Science databases and made efforts to supplement these with external libraries, some relevant contributions may have been overlooked. Additionally, despite carefully selecting keywords to broadly capture all papers related to the topic, certain publications may have been missed due to differences in how the topic is referenced or how the language is used. However, we believe that our analysis of 352 publications provides a broadly representative sample of the field as it aligns with other literature reviews discussed in Section 1.2.

Second, in terms of methodological considerations, a limitation may be subjectivity in interpretation during the qualitative analysis, which may have influenced the screening and coding of contributions. It is possible that some publications were categorized in a way that does not perfectly align with the selected analysis criteria. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, the primary objective was to provide a general mapping and overview of the literature and the field as a whole.

Lastly, this study does not address the ethical implications present in the various contributions, which could be a focus for future research. In our analysis, beyond the sustainability debate, ethical considerations were not a chosen lens. At the same time, during the full-text screening, we observed that most papers did not discuss or focus on the ethical implications of Sustainable Interaction Design interventions.

Additionally, we believe that this research can be deepened by integrating it into other fields of research that are both related and unrelated to the design discipline.

For instance, within the design domain, a deeper literature review could be valuable for examining how the three dimensions of sustainability and the three methods by which Interaction Design promotes sustainability are addressed in Service Design—a field that has long engaged in issues like social sustainability. This investigation could reveal how SID can benefit from insights into Service Design and identify if SID-related aspects could be scaled up to create more sustainable interactive services.

Alternatively, moving into other disciplines, one might explore the relationship between SID and the established field of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), particularly concerning the economic aspects of governance. This approach could eventually be valuable to those who wish to move beyond the primary focus of Interaction Design and seek to understand how the proposed frameworks can be integrated at a higher level of society to drive more systematic socio-economic change.

6. Conclusions

This study systematically examines which dimensions of sustainability and their roles within the design process are most emphasized in research related to Sustainable Interaction Design (SID). Through the critical analysis and qualitative interpretation of key contributions over the past two decades, particularly those building on Blevis’s foundational work from 2007, we explored this subject.

Our initial literature review identified the 2007 publication by Blevis and colleagues as a seminal guide for Human–Computer Interaction and Digital and Interaction designers in conceptualizing sustainable interactive interventions, specifically within the framework of sustainability “in and through design”. In line with this framework, we observed that much of the research in this field predominantly emphasizes the environmental dimension of sustainability, often at the expense of the social and economic aspects.

As a result, we outlined the ongoing debate over how scholars in the field define sustainability, using the past literature as a lens. We then explored new methodological approaches for prioritizing sustainability within SID. While most of the reviewed studies initially focused on the creation and development of design artifacts and framed interactions in terms of environmental sustainability, our analysis underscores an emerging need to explore alternative approaches and methodologies developed in recent years. These new approaches aim to guide designers through the entire process of researching and defining digitally interactive solutions that incorporate other dimensions of sustainability, such as social equity and economic prosperity.

By mapping how the three dimensions of sustainability and the three roles of Interaction Design intersect, we identified recurring trends and research gaps within the field. Specifically, our mapping reveals that much of the literature has concentrated on environmental sustainability across all three roles of Interaction Design, but there is still a pressing need to investigate how socio-economic sustainability can be integrated into design practices, both by design and within the design process itself.

In this context, this study aims to propose a potential shift toward a more holistic definition of Sustainable Interaction Design or, at the very least, contribute to the ongoing debate within the discipline. In conclusion, regardless of the proposed research trajectory, it may be crucial to find ways to support individuals entering the field in considering the diverse aspects of sustainability at the stages of the design process where a greater emphasis is needed.