Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Designerly Ways’ for Sustainable Livelihoods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Designing Social Innovation for Sustainable Livelihoods

Part of the book series: Design Science and Innovation ((DSI))

Abstract

Designing for the (economic) top of the pyramid and the bottom is different. In the latter case, designing products must be looked at in conjunction with poverty alleviation and business (livelihood) development. The sustainable livelihoods approach, centred around the development of people by building their strengths and bringing in relevant aspects of their lives and livelihoods into the development process, can be a potentially strong lens for designers to get inspired. In conjunction with design for sustainability approaches, the sustainable livelihoods approach can be used to develop design supports to aid designers in designing. In this paper, we discuss our experience of developing, evaluating, and validating design supports for three different problem typologies: (1) ‘design for sustainable livelihoods’ wherein the community’s economic activities are deeply rooted in their social and cultural ways of living, (2) ‘design for marginal contexts’ (sustainable agricultural mechanization of small farms of developing countries) and (3) ‘frugal design’ for the lower-income strata to improve their livelihoods’. The critical insights from the support building process is that: (1) the ‘designerly ways’ help us to navigate through real-world, ill-defined problems, approach them through a solution-focused lens, think constructively and translate abstract requirements into concrete solutions; (2) design thinking involves adopting systems approach wherein designing the interplay between abstract parameters and their relationships can result into social innovations; (3) a designer is trained in effectively bringing together a plethora of stakeholders and helping them in performing participatory design for social innovation, (4) designing for social innovations is the key to creating sustainable livelihoods; (5) the sustainable livelihoods framework helps to map the vulnerability context, livelihoods assets, policies–institutions–processes, livelihoods strategies and livelihoods outcomes; (6) it helps to map the system as a function of human, natural, financial, physical and social capital, and (7) a designer can bring together the two worlds creatively and facilitate the system stakeholders to collaboratively design for sustainable livelihoods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    DfS approaches can be classified to be targeting product level innovation, product-service system level innovation, social innovation and socio-technical innovation. The product level is more insular and hence its sustainability potential is lower. The other three levels are more systemic in nature and require social and technical innovation. Thus, their sustainability potential is higher, and they cater to all three dimensions of sustainability. 9. Ceschin, F. and I. Gaziulusoy, Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, 2016. 47: p. 118–163. In the context of this paper, we take into consideration these three levels.

  2. 2.

    PSS design is a design approach where a product and its associated services are designed together as a system offering to satisfy customers’ needs. As ownership and consumption are de-linked, the sustainability potential of a PSS is high, if designed appropriately. 42. Vezzoli, C.A., et al., Product-service system design for sustainability. 2014: Greenleaf Publishing, 43.Tukker, A. and U. Tischner, Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006. 14(17): p. 1552–1556, 44. Tukker, A., Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2004. 13(4): p. 246–260.

Abbreviations

SL:

Sustainable livelihoods

SLA:

Sustainable livelihoods approach

DfS:

Design for sustainability

S.PSS:

Sustainable product-service system

PSS:

Product-service system

DS:

Design support

SAM:

Sustainable agricultural mechanization

D-SAM:

Design for sustainable agricultural mechanization

G-SAM:

Guidelines for sustainable agricultural mechanization

FDC:

Frugal design conceptualization

FLOW:

Frugal Solutions Workbook

References

  • Aurich JC, Fuchs C, Wagenknecht C (2006) Life cycle oriented design of technical product-service systems. J Clean Prod 14(17):1480–1494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacchetti E, Vezzoli C, Landoni P (2016) Sustainable Product-Service System (S.PSS) applied to Distributed Renewable Energy (DRE) in low and middle-income contexts: a case studies analysis. In: Product-service systems across life cycle, 2016. Elsevier B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S, Review of sustainable product-service system design supports. Unpublished results

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S, Punekar RM, G-SAM— guidelines for sustainable agricultural mechanization design. Unpublished results

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S, Upadhyay P, Punekar RM (2019a) Teaching design for sustainability for socioeconomic ecosystems—three case studies. In: Research into design for a connected world, pp 935–946

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S, Upadhyay P, Punekar RM (2019b) Contextualising sustainable product-service design methods for distributed economies of India. In: Ambrosio M, Vezzoli C (eds) Designing sustainability for all—3rd LeNS world distributed conference. Edizioni POLI.design: Milano, Italy, pp 270–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S, Punekar RM (2020) A sustainability-oriented design approach for agricultural machinery and its associated service ecosystem development. J Clean Prod 264

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudron F et al (2015) Re-examining appropriate mechanization in Eastern and Southern Africa: two-wheel tractors, conservation agriculture, and private sector involvement. Food Secur 7(4):889–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezruk Y et al (2014) Sustainability in agricultural machinery production—an empirical study among farmers. Landtechnik 69(2):84–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder CR, Wiek A (2007) The role of transdisciplinary processes in sustainability assessment of agricultural systems. In: From common principles to common practice. Proceedings and outputs of the first symposium of the international forum on assessing sustainability in agriculture (INFASA). International Institute of Sustainable Development and Swiss College of Agriculture, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder CR, Schmid A, Steinberger JK (2012) Sustainability solution space of the Swiss milk value added chain. Ecol Econ 83:210–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund TA (2013) Initial mental representations of design problems: differences between experts and novices. Des Stud 34(2):135–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blessing LT, Chakrabarti A (2009) DRM: a design research methodology. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinks H, Kool SD (2006) Farming with future: implementation of sustainable agriculture through a network of stakeholders. Changing European farming systems for a better future: new visions for rural areas. Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp 299–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown P et al (2021) A tool for collaborative circular proposition design. J Clean Prod 297:126354

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohle H-G (2009) Sustainable livelihood security. Evolution and application. In: Facing global environmental change, pp 521–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso C, Clarkson PJ (2012) Simulation in user-centred design: helping designers to empathise with atypical users. J Eng Des 23(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers R, Conway G (1991) Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS discussion paper 296. IDS, Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceschin F, Gaziulusoy I (2016) Evolution of design for sustainability: from product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Des Stud 47:118–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke LJ (2000) Strategies for agricultural mechanization development: the roles of the private sector and the government. CIGR E-J 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Clatworthy S (2011a) Service innovation through touch-points: development of an innovation toolkit for the first stages of new service development

    Google Scholar 

  • Clatworthy S (2011b) Service innovation through touch-points: development of an innovation toolkit for the first stages of new service development. Int J Des 5(2):15–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Corti D et al (2015) Service-oriented business models for agricultural machinery manufacturers: looking forward to improving sustainability. In: 19th international conference on engineering, technology and innovation, ICE 2013 and IEEE international technology management conference, ITMC 2013. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • COSA (2013) The COSA measuring sustainability report: coffee and cocoa in 12 countries. The Committee on Sustainability Assessment Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Coteur I et al (2014) Development and evaluation of an on-demand sustainability tool in Flanders. In: 11th European IFSA symposium: farming systems facing global challenges: capacities and strategies. International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) Europe; Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF); Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW, Miller DL (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract 39(3):124–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (1982) Designerly ways of knowing. Des Stud 3(4):221–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (2001a) Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Des Issues 17(3):49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (2011b) Design thinking: understanding how designers think and work. Berg

    Google Scholar 

  • Culén AL et al (2016) When designers are non-designers: open endedness vs. structure of design tools; Gasparini A (2020) Design thinking for design capabilities in an academic library. Doctoral thesis, http://urn.nb.no/URN: NBN: no-75962, pp 3–11

  • Dantsis T et al (2010) A methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant production systems. Ecol Ind 10(2):256–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DFID (2001) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. The Department of International Development, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Diao X et al (2018) Agricultural mechanization in Ghana: insights from a recent field study. Intl Food Policy Res Inst 1729

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrmann M, Kleinhanß W (2008) Review of concepts for the evaluation of sustainable agriculture in Germany and comparison of measurement schemes for farm sustainability. Arbeitsberichte aus der vTI-Agrarökonomie

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsaesser M et al (2015) Quantifying sustainability of dairy farms with the DAIRYMAN-sustainability-index. Grassl Scie Eur 20:367–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Esdaile RJ et al (2009) Development of conservation farming implements for two-wheel tractors (power tillers) in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Bangladesh

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2013) SAFA Sustainability assessment of food and agriculture indicators. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, p 281

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2016a) Sustainable development goals—indicator 2.3.2—average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status. [Cited 2020 1st August]. http://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/indicators/232/en/

  • FAO (2016b) Sustainable agricultural mechanization. [Cited 2020 23 August]. http://www.fao.org/sustainable-agricultural-mechanization/overview/what-is-sustainable-mechanization/en/

  • Freach J (2021) Behold and beware, design toolkits. [Cited 2021 02/04]. https://designcreativetech.utexas.edu/behold-and-beware-design-toolkits

  • Gathorne-Hardy A (2016) The sustainability of changes in agricultural technology: the carbon, economic and labour implications of mechanisation and synthetic fertiliser use. Ambio 45(8):885–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrard CL et al (2012) Public goods and farming. Farming for food and water security. Springer, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovannucci D et al (2008) Seeking sustainability: COSA preliminary analysis of sustainability initiatives in the coffee sector. Committee on Sustainability Assessment

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenz J (2011) Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE) version 2.0. Swiss College of Agriculture

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenz J, Sereke F (2017) Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE) version 3.0. Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Grenz J et al (2009) RISE—a method for assessing the sustainability of agricultural production at farm level. Rural Dev News 2009(1):5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Goswami S (2018) Religious philosophy of śankaradeva: a glimpse—Bordowa Than. [Cited 2018 22 May]. http://www.bordowathan.com/mahapurusha-srimanta-sankaradeva/religious-philosophy-of-sankaradeva-a-glimpse/.

  • Gutierrez-Montes I, Emery M, Fernandez-Baca E (2009) The sustainable livelihoods approach and the community capitals framework: the importance of system-level approaches to community change efforts. Commun Dev 40(2):106–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson J et al (2008) Interactions in integrated US agricultural systems: the past, present and future. Renew Agric Food Syst 23(4):314–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoolohan C et al (2018) Change points: a toolkit for designing interventions that unlock unsustainable practices. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoolohan C, Browne AL (2020) Design thinking for practice-based intervention: co-producing the change points toolkit to unlock (un) sustainable practices. Des Stud 67:102–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain S (2005) Poverty, household strategies and coping with urban life: examining ‘livelihood framework’ in Dhaka City Bangladesh. Bangladesh e-J Sociol 2(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain M (2018) Frugal innovation: a review and research agenda. J Clean Prod 182:926–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagtap S, Larsson A (2013) Design of product service systems at the base of the pyramid. ICoRD’13. Springer, pp 581–592

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jagtap S et al (2014) How design process for the base of the pyramid differs from that for the top of the pyramid. Des Stud 35(5):527–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagtap S (2019) Key guidelines for designing integrated solutions to support development of marginalised societies. J Clean Prod 219:148–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James P (2014) Urban sustainability in theory and practice: circles of sustainability. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerneck A et al (2010) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(1):69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson A, Kisch P, Mirata M (2005) Distributed economies—a new engine for innovation. J Clean Prod 13(10–11):971–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongebreur AA, Speelman L (1997) Future trends in agricultural engineering. Neth J Agric Sci 45(1):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Khadilkar P (2017) Formulating the design scope for the base of the (Economic) pyramid. Des Issues 33(2):4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutsson P (2006) The sustainable livelihoods approach: a framework for knowledge integration assessment. Hum Ecol Rev 13(1):90–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockton D, Harrison D, Stanton NA (2010) The design with intent method: a design tool for influencing user behaviour. Appl Ergon 41(3):382–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logler N, Yoo D, Friedman B (2018) Metaphor cards: a how-to-guide for making and using a generative metaphorical design toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano R et al (2017) Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education: a literature review and framework proposal. Sustainability 9(10):15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahalaya S (2010) Impact evaluation of agricultural research in Papua, Indonesia using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. In: School of agriculture, food and wine, Faculty of Sciences. The University of Adelaide, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar P, Banerjee S (2017) Challenges to sustainable growth of the micro-scale Kuhila Craft Industry of India. Springer Singapore, Guwahati

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini E (2015) Design, when everybody designs: an introduction to design for social innovation. MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehmood A, Parra C (2013) Social Innovation in an unsustainable world

    Google Scholar 

  • Meul M et al (2008) MOTIFS: a monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agron Sustain Dev 28(2):321–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mrema G, Soni P, Rolle RS (2014) A regional strategy for sustainable agricultural mechanization: sustainable mechanization across agri-food chains in Asia and the Pacific region. RAP Publication (2014/24)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mottaleb KA, Krupnik TJ, Erenstein O (2016) Factors associated with small-scale agricultural machinery adoption in Bangladesh: census findings. J Rural Stud 46:155–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandey R et al (2017) Sustainable livelihood framework-based indicators for assessing climate change vulnerability and adaptation for Himalayan communities. Ecol Ind 79:338–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters D, Ahmadpour N, Calvo RA (2020a) Tools for wellbeing-supportive design: features, characteristics, and prototypes. Multimodal Technol Interact 4(3):40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters D, Loke L, Ahmadpour N (2020b) Toolkits, cards and games–a review of analogue tools for collaborative ideation. CoDesign, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Pottiez E, Lescoat P, Bouvare I (2012) AVIBIO: a method to assess the sustainability of the organic poultry industry. In: Proceedings of the 10th European International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) symposium

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao BC (2019) The science underlying frugal innovations should not be frugal. R Soc Open Sci 6(5):180421

    Google Scholar 

  • Reubens R (2016) To craft, by design, for sustainability: towards holistic sustainability design for developing-country enterprises

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby D et al (2001) Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol Econ 39(3):463–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli TL, Milan M (2012) Machinery management as an environmental tool—material embodiment in agriculture. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 14(1):63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Saikia JN (2011) A study of the Muga Silk Reelers in the world’s biggest Muga Weaving cluster-Sualkuchi. Asian J Res Bus Econ Manag 1(3):257–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoones I et al (2018) Transformations to sustainability

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoones I (2019) Realising the SDGs: why a sustainable livelihoods approach can help? Institute of Development Studies

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims BG, Kienzle J (2006) Farm power and mechanization for small farms in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Agricultural and food engineering technical report. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims BG, Kienzle J (2009) Farm equipment supply chains-guidelines for policy-makers and service providers: experiences from Kenya, Pakistan and Brazil. Tech Rep-Agric Food Eng 2009(7)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims BG et al (2012) Development of the conservation agriculture equipment industry in Sub-Saharan Africa. Appl Eng Agric 28(6):813–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims BG, Kienzle J (2015) Mechanization of conservation agriculture for smallholders: issues and options for sustainable intensification. Environments 2(4):139–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims BG, Kienzle J (2016) Making mechanization accessible to smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environments 3(4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims B, Hilmi M, Kienzle J (2016) Agricultural mechanization: a key input for sub-Saharan Africa smallholders. Integrated Crop Management (FAO) eng v. 23

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims BG, Kienzle J (2017) Sustainable agricultural mechanization for smallholders: what is it and how can we implement it? Agriculture 7(6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth AJ et al (1993) FESLM: an international framework for evaluating sustainable land management. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Soni P, Krishnan RT (2014) Frugal innovation: aligning theory, practice, and public policy. J Indian Bus Res

    Google Scholar 

  • Tao TCH, Wall G (2009) Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tour Manag 30(1):90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzilivakis J, Lewis KA (2004) The development and use of farm-level indicators in England. Sustain Dev 12(2):107–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich KT (2003) Product design and development. Tata McGraw-Hill Education

    Google Scholar 

  • Upadhyay P, Punekar RM (2019) A framework for understanding the context and evaluating solutions in design for base of the economic pyramid. Springer Singapore, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Upadhyay P (2021) FLOW: frugal design workflow toolkit. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1L_Jopwe3MlNogwhh_g2L-VJ3SCk04ldT

  • Van Calker KJ et al (2006) Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems. Ecol Econ 57(4):640–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Cauwenbergh N et al (2007) SAFE—a hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agr Ecosyst Environ 120(2–4):229–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Keulen H, van Ittersum MK, Leffelaar PA (2005) Multiscale methodological framework to derive criteria and indicators for sustainability evaluation of peasant natural resource management systems. Environ Dev Sustain 7(1):51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veisi H (2012) Exploring the determinants of adoption behaviour of clean technologies in agriculture: a case of integrated pest management. Asian J Technol Innov 20(1):67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vezzoli CA et al (2014) Product-service system design for sustainability. Greenleaf Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Vezzoli C et al (2017) Product-service system design for sustainability. In: Product-service system design for sustainability. Taylor and Francis, pp 1–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Vezzoli C et al (2021) Designing S.PSS and DE: new horizons for design. In: Vezzoli C, Garcia Parra B, Kohtala C (eds) Designing sustainability for all. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 85–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieri M, Sarri D (2010) Criteria for introducing mechanical harvesting of oil olives: results of a five-year project in central Italy. Adv Hortic Sci 24(1):78–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitali I, Arquilla (2018) Developing a design toolkit for the Internet of Things

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang YH (2020) Involving cultural sensitivity in the design process: a design toolkit for Chinese cultural products. Int J Art Des Educ 39(3):565–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyrauch T, Herstatt C (2016) What is frugal innovation? Three defining criteria. J Frugal Innov 2(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Binder CR (2005) Solution spaces for decision-making—a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25(6):589–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahm F et al (2008) Assessing farm sustainability with the IDEA method–from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms. Sustain Dev 16(4):271–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeschky M, Widenmayer B, Gassmann O (2015) Frugal innovation in emerging markets. Res Technol Manag 54(4):38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziout A, Azab A (2015) Industrial product service system: a case study from the agriculture sector. Procedia CIRP 33:64–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The bed planter case study project was part of the Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia-Mechanization and Irrigation project (CSISA-MI). CSISA-MI is a project partnered between iDE-B and CIMMYT, Bangladesh, and was funded by the USAID Mission in Bangladesh under President Obama’s Feed the Future Initiative. The project used the bed planter developed by the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute and its reverse-engineered version by Mr. of Janata Engineering as the starting base. We want to express our gratitude to the scientists and other experts from BARI and CIMMYT, the farmers, operators, service providers and JE for their valuable inputs and support. We thank Design Innovation Center, Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology, for supporting the development of the ginger turmeric washing machine. We thank the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India, for funding the project on the development of point-of-care medical devices. We thank Ankit Chowdhury and Dr. Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, who were part of the design team, for agreeing to let us discuss the research here. The project on the washermen community was funded by P&G research, Brussels. We would like to express our gratitude to the members of the Bordowa Satra, Mr. Deepak Bharali, Sualkuchi Tat Silpa Unnayan Samity, the LeNS team, and all the other stakeholders for the support and information that they shared with us. Finally, we are thankful to our students, without whom the projects would not have taken the current shape.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, 781039, India

    Sharmistha Banerjee, Pankaj Upadhyay & Ravi Mokashi Punekar

Authors
  1. Sharmistha Banerjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pankaj Upadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ravi Mokashi Punekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharmistha Banerjee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, School of Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorne, VIC, Australia

    Gavin Brett Melles

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Banerjee, S., Upadhyay, P., Punekar, R.M. (2022). ‘Designerly Ways’ for Sustainable Livelihoods. In: Melles, G.B. (eds) Designing Social Innovation for Sustainable Livelihoods. Design Science and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8452-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation