Behavioral planning: Improving behavioral design with “roughly right” foresight

Many challenges emerging from the current COVID-19 pandemic are behavioral in nature, which has prompted the field of behavioral design to propose solutions for issues as wide-ranging as hand-washing, wearing masks, and the adoption of new norms for staying and working from home. On the whole, however, these behavioral interventions have been somewhat underwhelming, exposing an inherent brittleness that comes from three common “errors of projection” in current behavioral design methodology: projected stability, which insufficiently plans for the fact that interventions often function within inherently unstable systems; projected persistence, which neglects to account for changes in those system conditions over time; and projected value, which assumes that definitions of success are universally shared across contexts. Borrowing from strategic design and futures thinking, a new proposed strategic foresight model—behavioral planning—can help practitioners better address these system-level, anticipatory, and contextual weaknesses by more systematically identifying potential forces that may impact behavioral interventions before they have been implemented. Behavioral planning will help designers more effectively elicit signals indicating the emergence of forces that may deform behavioral interventions in emergent COVID-19 contexts, and promote “roughly right” directional solutions at earlier stages in solution development to better address system shifts

Comparison of the talk test and percent heart rate reserve for exercise prescription

Exercise intensity is traditionally prescribed using %HRmax, %HRR, %VO2max, or %VO2R. Recently, the Talk Test (TT) has been proposed as an alternative method to guide exercise intensity. However, it is unknown if prescribing exercise intensity solely using the TT can provoke training responses that are comparable to traditional guidelines. This study compared the responses to training using either the TT or %HRR. Forty-four subjects (17 males and 27 females: age=20.4±3.02 years; body height=170.5±9.79 cm; body weight=71.9±13.63 kg) completed an incremental maximal cycle ergometer test, were stratified by VO2max and gender, and randomly assigned to training groups guided by either %HRR (n=20) or the TT (n=24). Both groups completed 40-minute training sessions three days per week for 10 weeks. In the HRR group, exercise intensity was targeted (per ACSM guidelines) at 40-59% HRR for weeks 1-4, 50-59% HRR for weeks 5-8, and 60-79% HRR for weeks 9-10. In the TT group, exercise intensity was targeted at the highest power output (PO) that still allowed for comfortable speech. Changes in VO2max, peak power output (PPO), VO2 at ventilatory threshold (VT), and PO at VT were compared between the groups using two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. There were significant (p0.05) interaction effect. Guiding exercise prescription using the TT is a simple and effective method for prescribing exercise intensity and elicits improvements in exercise performance that are comparable to the traditional %HRR guidelines

Twenty questions about design behavior for sustainability, report of the International Expert Panel on behavioral science for design

How behavioral scientists, engineers, and architects can work together to advance how we all understand and practice design—in order to enhance sustainability in the built environment, and beyond.https://www.nature.com/documents/design_behavior_for_sustainability.pdfPublished versio

Behavioral Pattern Language

A synthesis of applied behavioral science practice. Patterns are generated to describe common solutions to common problems. The behavioral pattern language serve as an example of the many ways behavioral science can be applied to environmental issues

Critical Conversations and A Call to Action!: A collective report from the June 2020 virtual gathering

Paul Kadetz - ORCID: 0000-0002-2824-1856 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2824-1856Critical Conversations are held by members of the greater Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace network in the activist tradition of reflecting on our public engagement and collectively discovering ways of deepening our action. The particpants are selected based on their submissions (Expressions of Interest) in response to the Call for Participation in the Critcial Conversations disseminated through the ESJP website (esjp.org). For years, we have gathered in locations immersed in nature. In 2018 and 2019, the gathering took place in Cala Munda, organized by Caroline Baillie and Eric Feinblatt, in the beautiful Catskills mountains in upstate New York in the U.S.A. We want to feel our connection with the land while we engage in critical conversations on the intersection of the engineering field with social justice and peace. Caroline Baillie facilitates these conversations employing forest pedagogy. Through this pedagogy, we open our hearts to the forest for seeking guidance on how our profession can help restore, heal, and serve people, planet, and life instead of its current practice of destroying, pillaging, and harming nature. In the throes of the coronavirus pandemic, the urgency of action was evident in 2020 like never before. On June 26 and 27, 2020, a group of up to 40 educators, researchers, activists, and field practitioners, from 4 continents, met virtually for the 4th Annual Critical Conversations – almost thrice as large as the 2018 and 2019 groups that met in-person. The virtual format allowed for broader participation – both in numbers as well as geographical locations. Though we were physically separated in the online gathering, situated in our respective modern, often disconnected-from-nature enclaves, our hearts and minds were engaged in envisioning transition to a just and egalitarian society. In keeping with the need of the moment, our focus was on brainstorming action projects that we can implement in the near future. The retreat facilitated the formation of action teams, which spent the summer discussing possible action items moving forward. These teams are now looking for a more permanent structure with team leaders, team members, an infrastructure, and social media presence. This is a call to action! We carried out these deliberations in an open-space format, wherein the agenda for the two days was set by the participants. In the two sessions on day one, using this participatory approach, we were able to sift six main themes that participants were interested in exploring in-depth. On day two, we divided ourselves into six teams and each team took a deeper dive into their theme of choice. Five of these teams have written summaries of their deliberations and proposed their Calls to Action for the engineering community, which we report below.https://doi.org/10.24908/ijesjp.v8i2.151578pubpub