Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T18:01:25.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolving the "How Might We?" Tool to Include Planetary Boundaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

M. Vignoli ,
S. Roversi ,
C. Jatwani ,
M. Tiriduzzi  and
C. Finocckì
M. Vignoli*
Affiliation:
Università di Bologna, Italy Future Food Institute, Italy
S. Roversi
Affiliation:
Future Food Institute, Italy
C. Jatwani
Affiliation:
Future Food Institute, Italy
M. Tiriduzzi
Affiliation:
Future Food Institute, Italy
C. Finocckì
Affiliation:
Università di Bologna, Italy
*
m.vignoli@unibo.it

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This work aims to study the evolution of the “Human and planet balance tool” as part of Prosperity Thinking. Prosperity Thinking is a sustainable design methodology that takes into account human and planet means. Through a literature review on sustainable design, we noticed that there is a lack of methods that take into account the problem definition stage. We developed a “Human and planet balance tool” which helps framing sustainable design challenges. Results show that designers, innovators, and changemakers have an interest in a methodology to analyze and address systemic challenges.

Keywords

sustainabilitydesign toolscomplex systemsdesign process
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 1159 - 1168
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Battistoni, C., Nohra, C.G. and Barbero, S. (2019), “A systemic design method to approach future complex scenarios and research towards sustainability: A holistic diagnosis tool”, Sustainability, Vol. Volume 11 No. Issue 16, available at: 10.3390/su11164458.Google Scholar
Byggeth, S., Broman, G. and Robèrt, K.-H. (2007), “A method for sustainable product development based on a modular system of guiding questions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clune, S., Crossin, E. and Verghese, K. (2017), “Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 766–783.Google Scholar
Corsini, L. and Moultrie, J. (2019), “Design for Social Sustainability: Using Digital Fabrication in the Humanitarian and Development Sector”, Sustainability, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 11 No. 13, p. 3562.Google Scholar
Crul, M. and Diehl, J.C. (2009), “Design for Sustainability: A Step by Step Approach. UNEP”, United Nation Publications, available at: http://www.d4s-sbs.org/ (accessed 15 November 2021).Google Scholar
Elhacham, E., Ben-Uri, L., Grozovski, J., Bar-On, Y.M. and Milo, R. (2020), “Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass”, Nature, Nature Publishing Group, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Fargnoli, M., De Minicis, M. and Tronci, M. (2014), “Design Management for Sustainability: An integrated approach for the development of sustainable products”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 34, pp. 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaziulusoy, A.İ., Boyle, C. and McDowall, R. (2013), “System innovation for sustainability: a systemic double-flow scenario method for companies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 45, pp. 104–116.Google Scholar
Guertler, M.R., Kriz, A. and Sick, N. (2020), “Encouraging and enabling action research in innovation management”, R&D Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 380–395.Google Scholar
Joore, P. and Brezet, H. (2015), “A Multilevel Design Model: the mutual relationship between product-service system development and societal change processes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 97, pp. 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, D. and van der Vorst, R. (2003), “Developing sustainable products and services”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 883–895.Google Scholar
Morozov, E. (2014), To Save Everything Click Here, PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Ny, H., Hallstedt, S., Robèrt, K.-H. and Broman, G. (2008), “Introducing Templates for Sustainable Product Development”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00061.x.Google Scholar
Raworth, K. (2017), Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think like a 21st-Century Economist, Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
Rocha, C.S., Antunes, P. and Partidário, P. (2019), “Design for sustainability models: A multiperspective review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 234, pp. 1428–1445.Google Scholar
Siemon, D., Becker, F. and Robra-Bissantz, S. (2018), “How might we? From design challenges to business innovation”, Innovation, Vol. 4.Google Scholar
Vignoli, M., Roversi, S., Jatwani, C. and Tiriduzzi, M. (2021), “HUMAN AND PLANET CENTERED APPROACH: PROSPERITY THINKING IN ACTION”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 1, pp. 1797–1806.Google Scholar
Waage, S.A. (2007), “Re-considering product design: a practical ‘road-map’ for integration of sustainability issues, ”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. Volume 15 No. Issue 07, p. Pages 638–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar