Advertisement

Effects of Design and Sustainable Design of Technical Artefacts

  • Karina VissonovaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

The aim with this chapter is to explicate sustainable design of technical artefacts. Given the increasing design efforts to respond to the issues of sustainability, an explication is needed as to clarify what makes a design the ‘sustainable’ kind. I propose to form a consistent understanding of what should fall under the ‘sustainable design’ kind and what should not. Such an understanding may be formed by looking at how the design practice have adopted the notion of ‘sustainability’ in the many design solutions. I state that in seeking to design for sustainability, the design is aimed at reconciling industrial and natural processes, and the act of designing encompasses a broad scope of considerations towards undesirable side effects. As the design aims for such a reconciliation and for resolving side effects, the specific materials are selected for their dispositions to carry the value of sustainability; as well as their dispositions not to pose hazards. I come to argue that technical artefacts are designed as sustainable based on the extent to which side effects are addressed with the design. I conclude with presenting necessary and sufficient conditions in the presence of which the design falls under the concept of sustainable design of technical artefacts.

Keywords

Sustainable design Technical intervention Dispositions Side effects 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Maarten Franssen and Dr. Peter Kroes from Delft University of Technology, Philosophy, Values, Technology and Innovation Department, Ethics and Philosophy of Technology Section, and Dr. Per Galle from The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Design, for their expert advice and the invaluable discussions during the writing of this chapter.

References

  1. Brumsen, M. (2011). Sustainability, ethics and technology. In I. van de Poel & L. Royakkers (Eds.), Ethics, technology, and engineering (pp. 277–300). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. Chapman, J. (2009). Design for (Emotional) Durability. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Design Issues, 25(4), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crilly, N. (2013). Function propagation through nested systems. Design Studies, 34, 216–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dusch, B., Crilly, N., & Moultrie, J. (2010). Developing a framework for mapping sustainable design activities. Design Research Society international conference, Montreal, 7–9 July 2010, Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Ellis, B. (2002). Powers and dispositions. In R. Groff (Ed.), Revitalising causality: Realism about causality in philosophy and social science (2008) (pp. 76–92). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. EU’s REACH Regulations. (2007). Official Journal of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:136:0003:0280:en:PDF. Accessed September 2015.
  8. Franssen, M., Lokhorst, G.-J. & van de Poel, I. (2009). “Philosophy of Technology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/technology/. Originally published in 2009. Accessed June 2015.
  9. Hansson, S. O. (2009). Risk and safety in technology. In A. W. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 1069–1102). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansson, S. O. (2012). Safety is an inherently inconsistent concept. Safety Science, 50, 1522–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harre, R., & Madden, E. H. (1975). Conceptual and natural necessity. In R. Groff (Ed.), Revitalising causality: Realism about causality in philosophy and social science (2008) (pp. 56–76). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobsen, H. (2012). EurActive Network. http://www.euractiv.com/consumers/danish-minister-bans-endocrine-d-news-514424. Accessed September 2015.
  14. Kleinberg, S. (2013). Causality, probability and time. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kroes, P. (2009). Foundational issues of engineering design. In A. W. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 513–543). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lovins, A. B., Lovins, L. H., & Hawken, P. (1999). A road map for natural capitalism. Harvard Business Review, May-Jun(1999), 145–158.Google Scholar
  17. Manzini, E. (2006). Design, ethics and sustainability. Guidelines for a transition phase. Cumulus working papers. Nantes 16/06. Publication Series G. University of Art and Design Helsinki, 9–15.Google Scholar
  18. Manzini, E. (2008). Viewpoint new design knowledge conference paper, Changing the change, Turin, Italy, July 2008. Design Studies, 30(2009), 4–12.Google Scholar
  19. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. NewYork: North Point Press.Google Scholar
  20. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2013). The upcycle. Beyond sustainability – designing for abundance. NewYork: North Point Press.Google Scholar
  21. McIntyre, A., “Doctrine of Double Effect”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/double-effect/. Accessed February 2016.Google Scholar
  22. Mumford, S. (1998). Dispositions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. van de Poel, I. (2009). Values in engineering design. In A. W. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 973–1007). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van de Poel, I. (forthcoming). Design for sustainability. In P. K. Brey, D. M. Callicott, & J. Baird (Eds.), Technology and the environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Reller, A., and Diesenbacher, J. (2015). Are there enough resources for our lifestyle? How resource strategy leads from wasting materials to using them. In P. Stebbing & U. Tischner (Eds.), Changing paradigms: Designing for a sustainable future. Publication No. 1 of the Think Tank Series from the Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media. (pp. 154–166). Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Mumbai: Vedanta Arts.Google Scholar
  26. Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: systems analysis of the ‘First and Second Generations’. Bedriftsøkonomen, 8, 390–396.Google Scholar
  27. Rittel, H. W. J., & Weber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(1973), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rockström, J. (2015). Planetary boundaries. A safe operating space for humanity. Published online by the Stockholm Resilience Centre as SOS for Business. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.6d8f5d4d14b32b2493577/1422535795423/SOS+for+Business+2015.pdf. Accessed April 2015.
  29. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/. Accessed 18 November 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sellars, R. W. (2008). Critical realism and substance. In R. Groff (Ed.), Revitalising causality: Realism about causality in philosophy and social science (pp. 13–26). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Simon, A. H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Stebbing, P. (2015). 1. Raison d’etre. 3. Why we have to design for sustainability - the new paradigm, schesiological links and externalities. 10. Pollution, poisons and profits: Toxicity for designers. In P. Stebbing & U. Tischner (Eds.), Changing paradigms: Designing for a sustainable future. Publication No. 1 of the Think Tank Series from the Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media (pp. 6–21), (pp. 37–53), (pp. 167–199). Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Mumbai: Vedanta Arts.Google Scholar
  33. Thorpe, A. (2010). Design’s role in sustainable consumption. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Design Issues, 26(2), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tischner, U. (2015). Design for sustainability, strategies, methods and tools. In P. Stebbing & U. Tischner (Eds.), Changing paradigms: Designing for a sustainable future. Publication No. 1 of the Think Tank Series from the Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media (pp. 302–316). Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Mumbai: Vedanta Arts.Google Scholar
  35. Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Radical sustainable innovation. In P. Stebbing & U. Tischner (Eds.), Changing paradigms: Designing for a sustainable future. Publication No. 1 of the Think Tank Series from the Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media (pp. 284–295). Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Mumbai: Vedanta Arts.Google Scholar
  36. Tukker, A. (2015). Sustainable consumption and production, the SCP framework. In P. Stebbing & U. Tischner (Eds.), Changing paradigms: Designing for a sustainable future. Publication No. 1 of the Think Tank Series from the Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media (pp. 272–283). Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Mumbai: Vedanta Arts.Google Scholar
  37. Vissonova, K. (2015). Insidious side effects of design: and how to turn them into values of sustainability in design. Conference paper Cumulus Mumbai 2015. Mumbai: IDC IIT Bombay Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Witt, C. (2008). Aristotelian powers. In R. Groff (Ed.), Revitalising causality: Realism about causality in philosophy and social science (pp. 129–139). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and ConservationCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations