Umut Tasa, Hill Hiroki Kobayashi, Nuran Akarsu, İdil Şenel, Barış Öçal, Arda Eden, Haoran Hong, Yukun Jiang
pp. 31-61, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-069-002)
Abstract
Creativity support tools (CSTs) play a fundamental role in supporting creativity in human-computer interaction (HCI). The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has significantly transformed human-computer interactions and, consequently, CSTs. However, little attention has been paid to how LLM-based CSTs reconfigure convergent thinking, decision-making, and agency dynamics throughout the design process, especially in sustainability-oriented contexts. We present a theory-driven conceptual synthesis to analyze how LLM-based CSTs transform AI-assisted convergent thinking. Based on existing research on these dynamics, we propose a conceptual reconfiguration of individual evaluation towards mediated decision-agency. This conceptual framework culminates in five theoretical implications for the design of LLM-based CSTs, proposing principles to support mediated decision-agency, promote situated transparency, and reinforce human autonomy in sustainability-oriented convergence processes.
keywords: Participatory design, Ideation, Environmental attitude, Latent needs, Human-computer-biosphere interaction.
References
1. Bødker S., Dindler C., Iversen O. S., Smith R. C.: Participatory Design, Reprint of original edition, (2022), https://doi.org/10.2200/S01136ED1V01Y202110HCI052
2. Sanders E. B. N., Stappers, P. J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), pp. 5–18 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
3. Spinuzzi C.: The Methodology of Participatory Design, Technical Communication, 52, pp. 163–174 (2005)
4. Qi, X., Yu, J.: Participatory Design in Human-Computer Interaction: Cases, Characteristics, and Lessons. In: CHI, pp. 1–26 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713436
5. Tomitsch M., Fredericks J., Vo D., Frawley J., Foth M.: Non-human Personas: Including Nature in the Participatory Design of Smart Cities, Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, 50, pp. 102 — 130 (2021), https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-050-006
6. Aspling, F.: Animals, Plants, People and Digital Technology. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, pp. 1–4 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837010
7. Biggs, H.R., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S.: Watching Myself Watching Birds. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–16 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445329
8. Clarke, R., Heitlinger, S., Foth, M., DiSalvo, C., Light, A., Forlano, L.: More-than-Human Urban Futures. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial, vol. 2, pp. 1–4 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1145/3210604.3210641
9. Gatto, G., McCardle, J.R.: Multispecies Design and Ethnographic Practice: Following Other-Than-Humans as a Mode of Exploring Environmental Issues. Sustainability, 11(18), 5032 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185032
10. Rosén, A.P., Normark, M., Wiberg, M.: Towards More-than-Human-Centred Design: Learning from Gardening. International Journal of Design, 16(3), pp. 21–36 (2022), https://doi.org/10.57698/v16i3.02
11. Forlano, L.: Decentering the Human in the Design of Collaborative Cities. Design Issues, 32(3), pp. 42–54 (2016) , https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00398
12. Forlano, L.: Posthumanism and Design. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(1), pp. 16–29 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.08.001
13. Coulton, P., Lindley, J.G.: More-Than Human Centred Design: Considering Other Things. The Design Journal, 22(4), pp. 463–481 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1614320
14. Giaccardi, E., Redström, J., Nicenboim, I.: The making(s) of more-than-human design: Introduction to the Special Issue on More-than-Human Design and HCI. Human–Computer Interaction, 40(1–4), pp. 1–16 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2024.2353357
15. Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F., MacLachlan, D.L.: Responsive and proactive market orientation and new product success, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), pp. 334–347 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00086.x
16. Goffin, K., Lemke, F., Koners, U.: Identifying latent needs: Creating breakthrough products. Palgrave, Basingstoke, (2010), https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294486
17. Steg L., Lidenberg S., Keizer K.: Intrinsic Motivation, Norms and Environmental Behaviour: The Dynamics of Overarching Goals, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 9(1-2), pp. 179–207 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000077
18. Olson C., Colston N.: Evaluating Citizen Science: Moving beyond Output Measures to Learner Behaviors, Interests, and Motivations, Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 9(1): 15, pp. 1–14 (2024), https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.683
19. Alender B.: Understanding volunteer motivations to participate in citizen science projects: A deeper look at water quality monitoring, Journal of Science Communication, 15(03), A04 (2016), https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15030204
20. Hsu C. H., Kang J., Yeh L.Y., Chai L., Kao W. C., Chen C. P., Hsieh H. L., & Lin H. J.: Evaluating a community-based citizen science project: Attitude as a key mediator of behavior intention toward biodiversity conservation, Conservation, 5(2), 17 (2025), https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5020017
21. Sakurai R., Kobori H., Nakamura M., & Kikuchi T.: Factors influencing participation in conservation activities in urban areas: A case study in Yokohama, Japan, Biological Conservation, 184(4), pp. 424–430 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.012
22. Sanoff, H.: Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50(4) (2000), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00063-3
23. Li, W., Feng, T., Harry, J.P., Timmermans, Zhigang, L., Ming, Z., Bowen, L.: Analysis of Citizens’ Motivation and Participation Intention in Urban Planning. Cities, 106 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102921
24. Iversen, O., Dindler, C., Hansen Krogh, E.I.: Understanding Teenagers’ Motivation in Participatory Design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1, pp. 3–4 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.02.002
25. Steen, M.: Co-Design as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination. Design Issues, 29, pp. 16–28 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00207
26. Deniz D.: Sustainable Thinking and Environmental Awareness through Design Education, Procedia Environmental Sciences, 34, pp. 70–79 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.04.008
27. Fan H.: Integrating Ecological Consciousness into Environmental Art Design Education: Impacts on Student Engagement, Sustainability Practices, and Critical Thinking, Sustainable Development 33 (5), pp. 6549–6572 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3474
28. Milfont T. L.: The psychology of environmental attitudes: Conceptual and empirical insights from New Zealand, Ecopsychology, 4(4), pp. 269–276 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0058
29. Baierl T.-M., Kaiser F. G., & Bogner F. X.: The supportive role of environmental attitude for learning about environmental issues. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, pp. 1–11 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101799
30. Bogner F. X.: Environmental values (2-MEV) and appreciation of nature, Sustainability, 10(2), 350 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020350
31. Kleespies M. W., Doderer L., Dierkes P. W., Wenzel V.: Nature Interest Scale – Development and evaluation of a measurement instrument for individual interest in nature, Frontiers in Psychology, 12 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.774333
32. Bonney R., Cooper C. B., Dickinson J., Kelling S., Phillips T., Rosenberg K. V., Shirk J. Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy, BioScience, 59(11), pp. 977–984 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
33. Dickinson J. L., Shirk J., Bonter D., Bonney R., Crain R. L., Martin J., Phillips T., Purcell K.: The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), pp. 291–297 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1890/110236
34. Sullivan B. L., Aycrigg J. L., Barry J. H., Bonney R. E., Bruns N., Cooper C. B., Damoulas, T., Dhondt A. A., Dietterich T., Farnsworth A., Fink D., Fitzpatrick J. W., Fredericks T., Gerbracht J., Gomes C., Hochachka W. M., Iliff M. J., Lagoze C., La Sorte F. A., Kelling S.: The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science, Biological Conservation, 169, pp. 31–40 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003
35. Kahl S., Wood C. M., Eibl M., Klinck H.: BirdNET: A deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring, Ecological Informatics, 61 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101236
36. Utari A. W., Asteria D., Martono D. N.: The effect of motivation for public participation in environmental management, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 716(1) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/716/1/012052
37. Johnson B., Činčera J.: Examining the relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviour in education programmes, Sociální studia / Social Studies, 12(3), pp. 97–111 (2015), https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2015-3-97
38. Schneiderhan-Opel J., Bogner F. X.: The relation between knowledge acquisition and environmental values within the scope of a biodiversity learning module, Sustainability, 12(5), 2036 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052036
39. Araújo J. L., Morais C., Paiva, J. C.: Students’ attitudes towards the environment and marine litter in the context of a coastal water quality educational citizen science project, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4), pp. 1–14 (2023), https://doi.org/ 10.1017/aee.2023.14
40. Kobayashi H.H., Ueoka R., Hirose M.: Human computer biosphere interaction: towards a sustainable society, Association for Computing Machinery, 10, pp. 2509–2518 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520355
41. Kobayashi H.H., Matsushima J.: Basic Research in Human–Computer–Biosphere Interaction, Buildings, 4, pp. 635–660 (2014), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings4040635
42. Berndt J., Nitz S.: Learning in citizen science: The effects of different participation opportunities on students’ knowledge and attitudes, Sustainability, 15(16), 12264 (2023), https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612264
43. Spencer D.: Card Sorting: Designing Usable Categories, Second Illinois (2009)
44. Golembewski M., Selby M.: Ideation decks: a card-based design ideation tool, In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 89–92. DIS’10 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858189
45. Darzentas D., Velt R., Wetzel R., Craigon P. J., Wagner H. G., Urquhart L. D., Benford S.: Card Mapper: Enabling Data-Driven Reflections on Ideation Cards, In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM (2019), https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300801
46. Rogerson M. J., Sparrow L. A., Freeman S. O.: The SMeFT Decks: A Card-Based Ideation Tool for Designing Hybrid Digital Boardgames for Distanced Play. In Proceedings of the 34th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp 298–309. ACM (2022), https://doi.org/10.1145/3572921.3572933
47. Braun V., Clarke V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
48. Buchanan, R.: Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), pp. 5–21 (1992), https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637