Design for the Future by Shannon Vanderhill

DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE BY SHANNON VANDERHILL

Applied Theories in Sustainability Spring 2016 Professor Scott Boylston

CONTENTS WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE THE FINITE ENVIRONMENT

THE EXPANSION MODEL

THE SUSTAINABILITY MODEL

NATURAL CAPITALISM

SYSTEMS THINKING

SYSTEMS TRAPS

LEVERAGE POINTS

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY THE ROLE OF DESIGN

DESIGNER AS CREATOR

DESIGNER AS APPRENTICE

DESIGNER AS EVANGELIST

DESIGNER AS CONSUMER

REFERENCES

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

THE FINITE ENVIRONMENT The world is in overshoot. We are using the Earth’s resources faster than they can be replenished and logically, “no physical system can grow forever in a finite environment” (Meadows, 2008, p. 59) If resource use continues at this rate, we are headed towards worldwide economic an environmental collapse. We have been warned. In 1972, a book entitled Limits to Growth, written by a group of environmental scientists, futurists, and systems thinkers, showed us that we could not continue growing forever. Using a computer model called World3, the authors created 12 scenarios that showed the future of Earth, and “how population growth and natural resource use interacted to impose limits to industrial growth” (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004, p. 4). The World3 model is based on system dynamics, which is a method for examining how complex systems change over time. World3, as any other model, is a simplification of reality. And because it does not account for geography or socio-economic circumstances it

is probably highly optimistic. The model has no war, pollution, corruption, or natural disasters. The core question it asks is, “How may the expanding global population and materials economy interact with and adapt to the earth’s limited carrying capacity over the coming decade?” (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004, p. 8). Our population and economic growth in the previous two centuries has been exponential. Exponential growth must, at some point, reach its limit. According to the authors, “there are limits, however, to the rates at which sources can produce these materials and energy without harm to people, the economy, or the earth’s processes of regeneration and regulation” (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004, p. 10). Their results showed the most likely peak to be around the year 2030. Even the most optimistic scenario, one that accounts for a doubling of Earth’s resources, assumes the invention of greater pollution control technology, land enhancements, and protections against erosion, results in overshoot and collapse.

The world has 3 choices 1) it can deny or disguise the signals of collapse 2) it can alleviate pressure through quick fixes 3) It can address the underlying causes and seek a structural change in the system (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004, p. 17).

Conclusions: Waiting to introduce change reduces options for the longterm future The model worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goal for industrial goods per capita cannot be sustained for a population over 7 billion Sustainability is possible without a reduction in population or output This shift will require an active decision to reduce humanityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecological footprint Choices can be made about numbers of people, living standards, technological investment, and allocations of other material needs There are trade-offs between numbers of people and the material level at which each person is supported The longer we wait, the lower the population and material standard that will be supportable The higher the targets for population and material standard, the greater risk of overshoot and erosion

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

EXPANSION MODEL Most business and consumers conduct themselves according to a perspective that aligns with the Expansion model of the world. In this model, “the world consists of markets I which products function first and foremost as tokens of economic exchange” (Margolin, 2002, p. 82). And wellbeing is measured by GDP, or Gross Domestic Product (the throughput of an economy.) This idea of “product-based wellbeing” is inherently unsustainable, especially in light of exponential population growth (Manzini, 2006, p. 2). The Expansion model is linear: drawing from the planet, for profit, to benefit people. It is based on

PLANET

extraction. The Earth cannot sustain a human population that seeks “this type of wellbeing in the same way (as is their sacrosanct right, since this is what others do and what is daily promised to them), there would be a huge catastrophe: an ecological one, if they succeeded and a social one if they didn’t. Or most probably, an explosive mix of the two” (Manzini, 2006, p. 2). The Expansion model has also created a world in which political participation is determined by economic power. This is exemplified by the Three Worlds Model, in which Earth is divided by past political alliances and industrialized economies.

PEOPLE

PROFIT

The Expansion Model is linear: drawing from the planet, for people, to create profit.

Three Worlds Model The paradigm of the three worlds came to be after World War II. During the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact and NATO were formed, dividing leading nations into two groups: the Eastern Bloc and the Western Bloc respectively. The Eastern Bloc was comprised of the USSR, China, and their allies, while the Western Bloc was made up of the United States, the United Kingdom, and their allies. Winston Churchill famously described the division between these two “worlds” to be so absolute that it could be called an “Iron Curtain.” The capitalist bloc of nations came to be known as the First World, while the communist bloc came to be known as the Second World, and any unaligned nations became known as the Third World. The three-world system stood for many years after, though it has been adapted to the current state of affairs. Now it is more common to hear people refer to developed or industrialized nations as the First World, while developing nations are referred to as the Third World. In recent years, the idea of the Fourth World has also emerged. George Manuel, in his book The Fourth World: An Indian Reality, argued that there is a Fourth class of nations comprised of those cultural groups who are not states in the traditional sense and as such have been marginalized and silenced.

Blue: First World, Red: Second World, Yellow: Third World

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

SUSTAINABILITY MODEL In direct opposition to the Expansion model is the Sustainability model. The sustainability model is cyclical, in which people, planet, and profit are equally weighted and contribute to one another. This model is based on the idea that “the world is a system of ecological checks and balances that consists of finite resources. If the elements of this system are damaged or thrown out of balance or if essential resources are depleted, the system will suffer severe damage and will possibly collapse” (Margolin, 2002, p. 82). A shift to the Sustainability model would require a radical change in the way we view well-

being. The dominant idea of wellbeing is closely linked to consumption. The Sustainability model requires that we find a way to live better, while consuming less. A start to this style of living is an alternative way to measure quality of life. This alternative to the GDP is known as GPI, or the Genuine Progress Indicator. According to the World Commission on Environment and Development, a sustainable society is one that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (1987).

What would a sustainable society look like? A sustainable society does not mean zero growth; it asks “what kind of growth?” A sustainable society would provide for all, the transition would happen slowly enough for people and businesses to find their place A sustainable society would be flexible and adaptable A sustainable society would use nonrenewable resources more thoughtfully (Meadows, Rander, Meadows, 2004, p. 23)

PEOPLE

PLANET

PROFIT

The Sustainability Model is cyclical, in which people, planet, and profit are equal.

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

NATURAL CAPITALISM The Sustainability Model also rests on the ideas presented by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins in their seminal work on the subject of sustainability, Natural Capitalism. The authors argue that one definition of capital is inadequate. In reality there are four types of capital: human, financial, manufactured, and natural. The first three types are produced first by natural capital. Natural capital can be defined as “all the familiar resources used by humankind: water, minerals, oil, trees, fish, soil, air, etcetera. But it also encompasses living systems, which include grasslands, savannas, wetlands, estuaries, oceans, coral reefs, riparian corridors, tundras, and rainforests” (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999, p. 2). Our limits to growth are determined by

the amount of natural capital the Earth contains. The authors argue that progress will be limited by life itself and that while “living systems are the source of such desired materials as wood, fish, or food, of utmost importance are the services that they offer, services that are far more critical to human prosperity than are nonrenewable resources” (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999, p. 3). By their example, “a forest provides not only the resource of wood but also the services of water storage and flood management” (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999, p. 3). If humans deplete and destroy forests for just what they produce, we ignore the other services they render, and become vulnerable to forces they once buffered us against.

Genuine Progress Indicator The Genuine Progress Indicator allows governments to measure how well citizens are doing both economically, socially, and environmentally (rprogress.org). It seeks to measure what really matters to citizens like health care, income, education, environmental damage, leisure time, lifespan, and many more. By expanding the measurement of quality of life to include the many factors that actually contribute to it, policy-makers can make more informed decisions to support their communities. The Genuine Progress Indicator is the first alternative to the GDP that has been thoroughly vetted by scientists. It undergoes yearly updates to make sure that it accurately paints a picture of the current state of citizens.

The GPI expands the measurement of quality of life

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

SYSTEMS THINKING The practice of systems thinking is embedded in sustainability at every turn. The idea that “once we see the relationship between structure and behavior, we can begin to understand how systems work, what makes them produce poor results, and how to shift them into better behavior patterns” is the shift in mindset necessary to carry out the broad-reaching systemic changes required to alter our fate (Meadows, 2008, p. 1). Systems theory gives us a lens through which we can identify the underlying problems in our world, and the greatest opportunities to rectify them. Systems problems are those that no one creates, no one wants to persist, but persist nonetheless. They are “undesirable behaviors characteristic of the system structures that produce them” (Meadows, 2008, p. 4). These types of problems can only be fixed by fixing the system as a whole. Systems are made up of elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose. More accurately, systems are groups of elements working in connection with each other to achieve a function or purpose. In terms of making changes in a system, changing the elements would have the smallest effect, changing the interconnections would greatly alter the system, and changing the purpose

of the system would be the most drastic change. Though individual parts can be changed, all are essential to the system as a whole. It is important to remember that at their core, systems seek to perpetuate themselves. Systems keep working because of three qualities: resilience, self-organization, and hierarchy. Resilience means that a system is flexible. Resilience can appear in systems as a structure of feedback loops, as feedback loops that are able to rebuild themselves, or as feedback loops that can learn and design better structures in the system. Resilience is something that can only be seen if the system is tested or broken down. The second quality, self-organization, is the ability of a system to learn and evolve. It is a system’s reaction to new circumstances. Its how nature has transformed and diversified. Its how systems survive. Finally, hierarchy is the ability of systems to become parts of larger systems, sustaining more and more complex functions through resilience and self-organization at a lower level. Cells in the human body are an example. A cell is a system within the system of an organ, which is in turn a system within the larger system of the body. Subsystems take care of themselves and serve the needs of the larger system.

OXYGEN

LIFE

CO2 In this simplified system, the elements are humans and plants. The interconnections are the exchanges of gases. And the purpose of the system is to sustain life.

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Stocks and flows are important features of systems. A stock is a store that the system builds up. A flow is how the stock changes over time. As Meadows put it, â&#x20AC;&#x153;a stock is the memory of the history of changing flows within a systemâ&#x20AC;? (2008, p. 18). As an example we can look to the average bathtub. The inflow is the water from the faucet, the outflow is the water going down the drain, and the stock is the water standing in the tub. If the inflow is faster than the outflow, the stock of water increases. If the outflow is faster than the inflow, the stock of water decreases. If the inflow is equal to the

outflow, the stock in tub will reach a dynamic equilibrium, where the water is continuously flowing through, but the stock level does not change. Stocks are the source of stability in systems. They act as a buffer to changes. Feedback loops are the basic operating units of systems. They determine how a system behaves over time. There are two kinds of feedback loops: balancing, and reinforcing. Balancing feedback loops are self-correcting and have a stabilizing effect on the system. These loops oppose whatever changes are imposed on the system. An example of

INFLOW

STOCK

OUTFLOW

CHANGE

STABILITY

CHANGE

Stocks are a source of stability in systems, while flows are a source of change.

a balancing loop would be a thermostat. Its goal is to keep the room at a set temperature. When it detects that the room is too warm, it releases cooled air. When it detects that the room has reached the desired temperature, the cool air stops, until it warms again and the thermostat reacts. The presence of the feedback mechanism doesn’t always mean the mechanism works well, though. If the room is poorly insulated, or a window was left open, the thermostat might break trying to compensate. On the other hand, reinforcing feedback loops have a runaway effect on systems. These feedback loops

BALANCING

enhance whatever change is imposed on the system. They appear as exponential changes. An example would be a savings account with an interest rate. The more money in the account, the more interest is earned, added to the stock of money, which earns even more interest. Feedback loops are incredibly significant when looking at the behavior of a system and once taken into account “you’ll stop looking for who’s to blame; instead you’ll start asking, ‘What’s the system?’ The concept of feedback opens up the idea that a system can cause its own behavior” (Meadows, 2008, p. 34).

REINFORCING

• SELF-CORRECTING

• RUNAWAY

• STABILIZING

• EXPONENTIAL

• OPPOSES CHANGE

• ENHANCES CHANGE

Feedback loops determine how a system behaves over time.

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

RESOURCES Something to remember in sustainability is the systems thinking perspective on non-renewable and renewable resources. Non-renewable resources are stock-limited. The entire stock is available, but since the stock does not replenish, the lifetime of the resource is finite. Renewable resources are flow-limited, meaning that they can support extraction indefinitely. But their flow rate cannot exceed their regeneration rate. At that point, they essentially become non-renewable.

This map shows the percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources by country. The scale runs from dark red (very little) to dark blue (almost all).

GAIA THEORY Gaia Theory, developed by scientist Dr. James Lovelock and microbiologist Lynn Margulis, is a scientific hypothesis that the Earth and all of its parts have evolved together as a single, self-sustaining system. They posit that on Earth, life has created the conditions to sustain life. The Earth has self-organized and developed feedback loops to regulate temperature, salinity, and atmospheric content. Lovelock and Margulis demonstrated their hypothesis in a model entitled Daisy World. Daisy World was a planet, much like our Earth, that orbits a sun. On this planet there are two species of daisies: black and white. The species work together to absorb or reflect light, thereby warming or cooling the planet, to create the conditions needed to sustain the system. In a nutshell, the theory asserts that Earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s living system keeps conditions on our planet just right for life to persist.

Daisy World illustrates Gaia Theory. White daisies grow to reflect the sunâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s light and cool the planet, while black daisies grow to absorb light and warm the planet.

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

SYSTEMS TRAPS Badly structured systems can create terrible problems. These are the tough problems we grapple with in our world. They are referred to as “systemic issues” and include the war on drugs, poverty, and climate change. The reason these problems persist is because the systems that create them are riddled with traps. Recognizing these traps is the first step to creating a better system. Policy Resistance Trap: When various actors try to pull a system towards their goals, achieving an undesirable result for all, that all must exert great energy to preserve Solution: Negotiations – bring all actors in to use their energy productively to discover a way for all goals to be satisfied satisfactorily Example: The War of Drugs dealers, addicts, the public all seek different goals The Tragedy of the Commons Trap: When there is a common resource in which everyone shares the benefits and costs, creating a weak feedback loop where responsibility is unclear Solution: Educate all the users and strengthen the feedback loop so that each user feels the consequences of abuse Example: Oceans, overfishing due to competition Drift to Low Performance Trap: A reinforcing feedback loop in which performance standards are influenced by past performance standards, expecting less and eroding goals Solution: Keep performance standards absolute or let them be enhanced by the best actual performances instead of being dragged down by the worst Example: Politicians, we expect the worst and treat the best as anomalies Escalation Trap: A reinforcing feedback loop in which competitors try to get ahead of each other Solution: Refusing to compete or negotiating a new system Example: Arms race, countries arm themselves to deter the other from attacking through mutually assured destruction

Success to the Successful Trap: A reinforcing feedback loop in which the winners in a system are rewarded with the means to win again, and again Solution: Diversification, allowing the losers to get out of the game and start another or strict limitation through which the playing field is leveled Example: Wealthy people’s ability to invest and exponentially increase their assets Shifting the Burden to the intervener Trap: Also known as addiction, when an intervention to correct a problem erodes the ability of a system to solve the problem itself, treating the symptoms rather than the problem Solution: Solve underlying problems, and help those experiencing the problem to correct it themselves Example: Fixing oil prices when they go up instead of curbing our addiction to oil Rule Beating Trap: When actors in a system subvert the rules that govern it, distorting the system Solution: Redesign the system to unleash creativity in the direction of achieving the purpose of the system Example: Government departments spend their entire budgets because if they don’t, they will be allocated less next year Seeking the Wrong Goal Trap: When the feedback loops in a system don’t reflect the true goal, and the system works to achieve a goal that is unintended Solution: Specify goals that reflect the real welfare of the system Example: Quality of life measured by GDP, the industrial throughput of a nation

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

LEVERAGE POINTS Leverage points are the places at which we can have the greatest effect on systems. They descend in order of least to greatest impact. But the higher impact the leverage point has, the more the system will resist changing it.

SYSTEM

The leverage points with the highest impact are also the hardest aspects of a system to change.

12. Numbers Changing the quantities moving through a system does little to change the system itself 11. Buffers Changing the size of buffers can increase or decrease stability, but also flexibility 10. Stocks and Flows Physically rebuilding a system is a great way to change a system, but it is often the most expensive change, and some are unchangeable 9. Delays Changing the delays in a system can have a great impact as they are critical to system behavior, but they are usually very hard to change, things take as long as they take 8. Balancing Feedback Loops Changing the ability of a system to self-correct 7. Reinforcing Feedback Loops Unchecked reinforcing feedback loops eventually end in collapse, curbing the growth of the loop is preferable to creating a balancing loop 6. Information Flows Delivering feedback where it has not gone before in a compelling form 5. Rules Changing the rules of a system is essential restructuring, it changes behavior 4. Self-Organization Giving a system the power to adapt through one of the lower leverage points 3. Goals Redefining the purpose or function of the system will change its behavior 2. Paradigms Altering the shared idea from which all of the behavior originates 1. Transcending Paradigms Remembering that no paradigm is the truth

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

THE ROLE OF DESIGN Historically, design field have been siloed as codified practices. There was graphic design, industrial design, urban planning, architecture, and more. These fields did not easily cross and designers within them were specialized. Designer Richard Buchanan argued for a more comprehensive view of design practice, articulating the 4 orders of design: symbolic and visual communications, material objects, activities and organized services, and complex systems. These orders can also be interpreted to correspond with the expanding role of design over time. We have been moving from solving cosmetic problems, to

SIGNS & SYMBOLS

functional problems, to experiential problems, and finally to systemic problems. This comprehensive view of design also led to the belief that design should be taught as a liberal art. A liberal art being a subject in which every free person should be versed. The old divisions within design are now inadequate to address the problems we are facing. Rather than understanding our role based on the field in which we work, it can be more useful to understand the more general roles that designers play in the world. We are creators, apprentices, evangelists, and finally, consumers.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

ACTIVITIES & SERVICES

COMPLEX SYSTEMS

TIME Buchananâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s four orders of design show the changing role of design over time.

CREATOR

EVANGELIST

APPRENTICE

CONSUMER The four roles of the designer: creator, apprentice, evangelist, consumer.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

DESIGNER AS CREATOR Designers as creators have the power to solve problems at their root by approaching their work through a systems thinking lens. Understanding all challenges as parts of a system allows us to understand the underlying problems and correct the system itself, or design it well in the first place. Through this perspective, designers will know longer

be creating â&#x20AC;&#x153;Band-Aids,â&#x20AC;? we will be creating sustainable solutions. Understanding traps and leverage points can give us insight into systems and equip us to exert energy where it will have the most impact. We have a variety of toolkits to look to when we design including biomimicry, cradle-to-cradle, and lean thinking.

CRADLE TO CRADLE Cradle-to-Cradle is a biomimetic approach to design. It is in direct opposition to the traditional manufacturing approach of cradle to grave. It is a methodology that seeks to support Earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biological metabolism by creating things that can return to the Earth without harm at the end of their lifetime. It also seeks to create a metabolism for necessary synthetic materials to circulate without loss of quality. This is based on the idea of biological and technical nutrients. Biological nutrients are those materials that can decompose without harm, and become food for the ecosystem. Technical nutrients are inorganic materials like minerals and plastics that can be used in a continuous cycle. Cradle-to-Cradle is about redesigning the systems in which our products move. As creators, we can design for Cradle to Cradle Certification in which the materials and manufacturing practices of each product are assessed in five categories: Material Health, Material Reutilization, Renewable Energy, Water Stewardship, and Social Fairness.

BIOLOGICAL METABOLISM

TAKE

MAKE

USE

ABSORB

Biological nutrients move through the metabolism and return safely to nature.

TECHNICAL METABOLISM

TAKE

MAKE

USE

WASTE

Technical nutrients would be extracted and recycled indefinitely.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

BIOMIMICRY Biomimicry can be thought of as innovation inspired by nature. It is the practice of drawing ideas from the time-tested practices of the natural world around us, using nature as a model, mentor, and measure in design. Why reinvent the wheel? If we want to do something, we can look to natureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s successes to develop effective and sustainable solutions. By emulating nature, design can create the conditions to sustain life and solve complex problems. The biomimicry approach has three fundamental elements: ethos, reconnect, and emulate. Ethos is about building a set of ethics to guide design. Reconnect is about recognizing how interconnected humanity is with nature. And emulate is about informing design with the genius found in nature. Biomimicry seeks to incorporate lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s principles into design as lessons.

Lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s principles can be used as a guide and measure for designers.

• ORGANIC MATERIALS • UNOBTRUSIVE • NEEDS LESS BLOOD

A NICER NEEDLE When developing a better hypodermic needle, a designer could look to a mosquito for inspiration. This could result in a biodegradable, and unobtrusive needle.

Biomimicry offers designers a process centered around nature.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

LEAN THINKING Lean thinking is a method for thinking about systems in terms of the waste they create. We can define waste as any “human activity that absorbs resources but creates no value” (Hawkens, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999, p. 125). Taiichi Ohno, the father of the Toyota Production System, called it muda. Muda is the Japanese word for “waste,” “futility,” or “purposelessness.” Lean thinking is about removing inefficiencies like time lags, waste streams, and reworking through the reengineering of systems. This kind of thinking has four connected elements: the continuous flow of value, as defined by the customer, at the pull of the customer, in search of perfection. This means that nothing should be created until it is desired by the customer, it should be delivered when the customer wants it, and it should offer only what is valuable to the customer. The goal is to have “no stops, no delays, no backflows, no inventories, no expediting, no bottlenecks, no buffer stocks, and no muda” (Hawkens, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999, p. 130). This can be done through simplification and scale. The scale of a manufacturing process should match the rate of pull by the customer. The process should be simplified through localization or open sourcing. Another solution is creating services instead of products. Asking not “What can we make?” but “What can we offer?” As an alternative to “selling the customer a product that you hope she’ll be able to use to derive the service she really wants, provide her the service directly at the rate and in the manner in which she desires it, deliver it as efficiently as possible...” (Hawkens, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999, p. 134). Thinking in this way can help us to satisfy customer needs, without creating muda.

CONTINUOUS FLOW OF VALUE

IN SEARCH OF PERFECTION

DEFINED BY THE CUSTOMER

AT THE PULL OF THE CUSTOMER

The four connected elements of lean thinking.

LIVING PRINCIPLES DESIGN FRAMEWORK The Living Principles Design Framework was created by the AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts) to drive sustainable design. They sought to create a framework that was understandable, integrated, and actionable. It is based on what they have defined as the four streams of sustainability: environment, people, economy, and culture. Each of the four streams presents a series of considerations for design. They become a roadmap to guide your design process. Environment Behaviors: Can this project promote good behavior? Creation: What materials and energy are you using? Durability: What is the lifetime of the product and can it be extended? Disassembly: Is the product easy to disassemble? Supply Chain: Are your suppliers sustainable? Waste: Can you close the loop on your products lifespan? People Impacts: How does the product affect individuals and communities? Conflicts: Does your product conflict with your customerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s values? Desirability: Is this product even desirable to people? Need/Use: What needs does the product fulfill? Long view: How can this product enhance lives? Economy Systemic view: What value does this product provide and to whom? Metrics: How is the value of the product measured? Benefits: What are the economic benefits of incorporating sustainable solutions? Transparency & Truth: Can you communicate transparently? Waste = Food: Can your materials come from waste? Can your waste be used? From Product to Service: Is there an opportunity to create a service model? Culture Visions: How can this product compel people to make more sustainable choices? Meanings & Reactions: What meanings does your product communicate? Systemic view: What attitudes and values does your product promote? Diversity: How can this product promote cultural diversity?

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

DESIGNER AS APPRENTICE A good designer is an apprentice to her users. The designer looks to the user as an expert and conducts herself with humility. Understanding our role as apprentices helps us to avoid the system’s trap of shifting the burden to the intervener. Best demonstrated by the proverb “give a man a fish and you’ll feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you’ll feed him for a lifetime,” treating problems at the surface level is a quick fix, but addressing the underlying problem has a high and long-lasting impact. It is important to remain humble and learn from our users so that solutions will address their real needs. We can use tools like co-creation, design ethnography, and simulations to create solutions that are sustainable and human-centered.

USER AS EXPERT CO-CREATION DESIGN WITH, RATHER THAN FOR

FIGHT YOUR BIAS NO PARADIGM IS THE “TRUTH”

WATCH THE RULE-BEATERS LOOK FOR PEOPLE HACKING THE SYSTEM AND LEARN

GIVE A MAN A FISH... SOLVE THE PROBLEM AT THE ROOT

ATTEND & CREATE SIMULATIONS DON’T TRY TO WIN, TRY TO EXPERIENCE

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

CO-CREATION Designer Enzio Manzini argued, “what has to be imagined is a user who is also co-producer of the results he/she wants to achieve, able to do so because h/she has (some of) the necessary intellectual and practical resources and, above all, because he/she is best acquainted with the specific problems to be solved” (Manzini, 2006, p. 4). Co-creation is a way for designers to facilitate and enable users to create solutions for themselves. This technique not only assures that the result addresses the needs of the users, but that the users will be invested in the solution and more inclined to implement it. This investment means that the solution created is much more likely to be sustainable. Co-creation signifies a shift from “designing to solve problems” to “designing to enable people to live as they like” (Manzini, 2006, p. 5).

DESIGN ETHNOGRAPHY The adaptation of ethnography into design practice is integral to a user-centered and sustainable approach. Much like co-creation, it gives designers an opportunity to deeply understand the users they are trying to serve and recognize the underlying problems that need to be addressed. Ethnography was first utilized in the field of anthropology to systematically study cultures. Methods such as observation, interviews, and cultural probes have been adapted by designers to create an inclusive design process.

BRIDGE THE GAP

UNDERSTANDING

IMPLEMENTATION

Designers can bridge the gap between knowledge and action.

SIMULATIONS A powerful way for designers to practice apprenticeship is through engagement in simulations. All people benefit when they open their minds to the experiences of others and seek to empathize with their fellow humans. Designers especially need to take advantage of these opportunities because they have a need to be as close to their users as possible, to feel what they feel, in order to design solutions. I attended a poverty simulation at Armstrong University hosted by Step Up Savannah. It changed the way I view poverty, and the way I interact with simulations. I have not had first hand experience of living below the poverty line. This simulation made me realize how little I know about the lives of my fellow Americans. That was my greatest insight, that I have no idea and still do not. What struck me was that we started the simulation with less than we needed. For example, we had very few transportation passes. The transportation passes represented any travel cost and you needed them to go to any service in the simulation. We started with six, five of which went to my wife who needed them to go to work, and one that I used to get cash out of the bank. We were in a Catch-22 from the start. I needed cash to buy transportation passes, and couldn’t get cash without using the last transportation pass. Confused, I approached the simulation director and asked her what I was supposed to do. My brain said, “This is unfair. We can’t even play.” This was the moment of change for me in two ways: 1) Simulations are not games to be won. There intention is not to be fair or to be “beaten” 2) Families living in poverty start with less than they need. This is reality. And the opposite is called privilege. By the end of the simulation, we had been evicted and my wife had lost her job because she was late trying to get transportation to go to work. We were down and out. By the final week in the simulation it was victory for us to qualify for social services and we were put on a list for housing. I never thought I would feel happy about getting social services. I thought happiness would come from beating our lot in the simulation, by coming out “on top” of the situation we were put in. Another lesson, we did our best, and it still didn’t turn out well by any measure. This is a great example of a reinforcing feedback loop and it made me empathize more for those living below the poverty line. Sometimes even trying your hardest won’t improve your situation. Life gives you circumstances you can’t overcome.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

DESIGNER AS EVANGELIST Designers can embrace their role as communicators through evangelism of design thinking, systems thinking, and sustainability. We have a responsibility to communicate to our clients and organizations the importance of sustainability to our common future. As Einstein said, the mindset that created the problem cannot lead to its solution. The voices of designers can make the difference when it comes to leading organizations, clients, and consumers to sustainable choices.

EARTH DAY Earth Day is celebrated annually on April 22nd. Communities around the world hold events to demonstrate support for environmental protection. I attended the Earth Day celebration at Forsyth Park in Savannah, Georgia. It was a beautiful day to appreciate the world we live in, not a cloud in the sky. There was a large stage decorated with painted flowers on which local acts performed, and booths in which local organizations talked about their connection to the environment. Earth Day celebrations are always unique and local. There were local vendors selling sustainably made goods, and local companies handing out sustainable promotional materials. It was great to see the whole city come together for a common cause.

Earth Day in Forsyth Park, Savannah, Georgia on April 22nd.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

DEEP ECOLOGY Deep Ecology is a philosophy and a social movement started in the 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s by Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess. Gaia Theory supports its central ideas. Supporters of the movement believe that the Earth is a single living system in which every life form has a right to exist. It encourages an intellectual, spiritual, and physical connection to the natural world. Deep Ecology Platform 1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth, intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes. 2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves. 3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. 4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. 5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease. 6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present. 7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great. 8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

DEEP EXPERIENCE

DEEP COMMITMENT

• • •

SPONTANEOUS EXPERIENCE CONNECTING SPIRITUALLY BEING “DEEP” IN NATURE

• • •

WHY AM I HERE? WHY DO I DO WHAT I DO? WHY DO I LIVE THIS WAY?

•

SUPPORTING THE MOVEMENT

• •

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY TREADING LIGHTLY

DEEP QUESTIONING

“Through deep experience, deep questioning, and deep commitment emerges deep ecology” - Arne Naess

Deep Ecology is about moving away from an anthropocentric view of ecology to a deeper view in which humans are an equal part of the ecological system.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

DESIGNER AS CONSUMER The last role that designers occupy is that of the consumer. Designers, like everyone else, have consumption habits and have the ability to make sustainable lifestyle changes. But beyond this, they also serve as the primary consumer of materials before it reaches the user. Designers make the decisions about which materials to use in a product, how its taken apart, whether it becomes waste, among many other pivotal decisions. Users can only become responsible consumers when responsible designers give them the choice.

CONSUME WISELY PRIMARY CONSUMER AS A DESIGNER WE MAKE DECISIONS FOR OTHERS

PURCHASING POWER REWARD COMPANIES THAT ARE DOING GOOD

LIFESTYLE SHIFT YOUR ROUTINE AND BE MORE SUSTAINABLE

QUALITY DETECTOR DONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;T JUST COUNT, ASSESS!

Some of the ways that we can make a difference by changing our habits as designers and consumers.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

FOOTPRINT CALCULATORS The last role that designers occupy is that of the consumer. Designers, like everyone else, have consumption habits and have the ability to make sustainable lifestyle changes. But beyond this, they also serve as the primary consumer of materials before it reaches the user. Designers make the decisions about which materials to use in a product, how its taken apart, whether it becomes waste, among many other pivotal decisions. Users can only become responsible consumers when responsible designers give them the choice.

The footprint calculator at EarthDay.org shows that it would take 4.3 Earths of resources to sustain the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population at this level of resource use.

The footprint calculator at MyFootprint.org gave a different reading of the data, indicating the need for 5.11 Earths of resources. 48

CERTIFIED PRODUCTS As consumers, we have purchasing power. It is important to remember to choose companies that align with our values when we shop. One way to ensure that companies are using sustainable practices is to check if they have a certification. Some examples of sustainable certifications are Blue Sign, and Cradle to Cradle.

BLUESIGN • RESOURCE PRODUCTIVITY • CONSUMER SAFETY • WATER EMISSION • AIR EMISSION • OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY BlueSign’s goal is to open up the lines of communication between chemical companies, suppliers, and brands.

C2C • MATERIAL HEALTH • MATERIAL REUTILIZATION • RENEWABLE ENERGY • WATER STEWARDSHIP • SOCIAL FAIRNESS Cradle to Cradle offers certification to companies that meet sustainable standards throughout their product’s lifecycle.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR US: DESIGNERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

YOUR MOVE This booklet has covered the basics of sustainability, what you need to know to start your journey. It has also covered how designers can begin to apply this knowledge, and what tools have already been created for our use. From here, we can further our knowledge and develop our own tools. We can share what we know with our friends, family, communities, and organizations. This new understanding will affect our work, and we have a responsibility to let it affect our lives.

REFERENCES Bluesign Systems. (2000). BluesignÂŽ. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from http://www. bluesign.com/ AIGA. (2012, October 4). The living principles for design. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from http://www.aiga.org/the-living-principles-for-design/ Earth day network. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from http://www.earthday.org/ Hawken, P., Lovins, H., & Lovins, A. (1999). Natural capitalism: The next industrial revolution. London: Earthscan. Home - cradle to cradle products innovation institute. (2014). Retrieved April 27, 2016, from http://www.c2ccertified.org/ Manuel, G., & Posluns, M. (1974). The fourth world: An Indian realityCollier-Macmillan Canada. Manzini, E. (2006). Design, ethics and sustainability. Margolin, V. (2002). The Politics of the Artificial. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

McDonough, W., Braungart, M., & Mcdonough, W. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. United States: Turtleback Books. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. United States: Chelsea Green Publishing Co. Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). A Synopsis: Limits to Growth the 30-Year Update. United States: Signet Book. Network, G. F. (2003). Footprint calculator. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from http:// www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/ Redefining progress - genuine progress indicator. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from http://rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm The Fermi paradox: Research suggests aliens havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t contacted us because theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re dead. (2016, January 29). Retrieved May 30, 2016, from Off World, http://futurism.com/new-research-suggests-aliens-have-not-communicated-with-us-becausetheyre-dead-2/

REFERENCES