Second Order

A practical research-based design-strategy framework, created to inform design decisions that can reduce the gap between intent and impact in sustainability decisions

✻ Behaviourl research

✻ Strategy design

Scroll down for expanded case study

OVERVIEW

✻Scroll down for expanded case study✻

Challenge Context
‍Sustainability interventions often fail when they rely on stated attitudes rather than real decision logic. The challenge was to explore behavioural patterns and translate them into decision guidance that supports more reliable sustainability impact.

Design Response
‍A research-based framework developed from behavioural mapping and environmental modelling including LCA, substitution logic, and EVR. The framework and archetypes are used as a decision tool to identify where interventions are effective and where trade-offs become consequential.

Design Impact
‍The framework links behavioural patterns to environmental consequences in a way that supports clearer decisions about interventions, metrics, and incentives. It makes trade-offs visible early enough for teams to adjust strategy before they optimise for the wrong kind of growth.

Contribution
‍Solo researcher and designer in a master-level academic project. My contributions included behavioural research, modelling, and strategy and design implications.

Key takeaways
Research becomes valuable when it can be used to make decisions. Making trade-offs visible early helps teams build interventions that match the impact they want.

Expanded

Where sustainable intentions stop translating into real impact

‍Sustainability interventions are fragile when they are built on stated attitudes rather than how people actually decide. In clothing, that gap shows up as good intentions that do not always translate into real impact, and can sometimes trigger rebound effects.

Second Order aimed to explore behavioural patterns and decision logic, then translate the findings into decision guidance a team can use to set strategy and make trade-offs more consciously.

What common success metrics leave out of the picture

The core gap is participation versus impact. A "sustainable" choice only reduces impact when it displaces a higher-impact alternative. Without displacement, activity can increase without meaningful benefit.

Price and value add another layer. If an option feels cheaper, money is freed up and spent elsewhere. That matters for impact, and it is one reason sustainability work can look good on paper and disappoint in practice.

For product and business teams, this becomes a strategy problem. Metrics often reward growth and engagement. Few teams measure displacement or second-order effects, which is where sustainability strategies can quietly fail.

Why behaviour had to be modelled instead of taken at face value

The modelling let me test how different behaviours change environmental outcomes, instead of treating behaviour and impact as separate domains.

The approach combined:‍

- Environmental modelling as a baseline with eco-cost LCA so options can be compared on impact

- Substitution Rate logic so the model reflects displacement rather than assuming it‍

- EVR to connect eco-cost to value and spending effects, since consumer price is part of the behavioural system‍
‍

EVR mattered because price changes behaviour, and behaviour changes impact. Lower price can support displacement, yet it can also increase additive consumption if it becomes permission to buy more.

A framework that turns behavioural insight into strategic decisions

The framework turns the modelling into something a product team can use.

To make it practical, the archetype decision layer reflects different decision logics and the risks they create. This layer is my synthesis step to make the thesis modelling easier to apply in product decisions.

- The Displacer: high substitution, lower rebound risk

- The Optimizer: value-driven, variable substitution, rebound risk rises when savings are salient

- The Justifier: low substitution, higher additive risk‍

The reason EVR matters in the framework is simple: "better value" can be good or risky depending on which behaviour it supports. The archetype layer helps teams anticipate when value increases substitution and when value increases rebound risk, before building incentives around it.

How the framework helps teams choose better metrics, incentives, and interventions

The framework is intended as decision guidance for product and strategy work:
‍

- When choosing interventions, it helps teams ask: does this increase displacement or only activity?

- When defining success metrics, it pushes beyond transactions toward displacement proxies and behaviour patterns.

- When designing incentives, it highlights where rewards may increase usage and also increase rebound risk.

- When communicating impact, it supports a more honest story, grounded in behavioural logic tied to environmental consequences.

What the research clarified about designing for sustainable impact

The key takeaway is the importance of actionable insight. Behavioural and environmental research matter, but the value comes when they support real design and business decisions. EVR and modelling are not the end goal. They provide the consequence layer that makes the framework clearer and harder to misread as a simple "second-hand is best" story.