All Things in Common Design as a system

All Things in Common
Design as a system-based approach to sustainability
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graphic Design Department
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Master of Fine Arts
Savannah College of Art and Design
By
Jessie Joy McGrath
Savannah, Georgia
August 2010
Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,
and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
ACTS 2:44-45 NKJV
To Jon, my husband, friend, and most-trusted design critic.
Thank you for your tireless support, patience, help, and creative input.
I could not have done it without you.
Special thanks to:
Trudy Abadie, Scott Boylston, and Lisanne Kaufmann
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thesis Abstract
01
Body of Text
02
Bibliography
34
Visual Aids
38
Inventory of Visual Aids
61
McGrath 1
THESIS ABSTRACT
The basic premise of this thesis is to propose a path to truly sustainable design rooted in a systembased rather than object-based perception of the role of design. I explore the green movement’s
misguided belief that sustainability can primarily be achieved through the design and production
of more goods, and advocate a return to sharing as an alternative to such thinking. By researching
four key areas of cultural influence—the commons, the public domain, product service systems,
and reflective consumption—I show how traditional values related to design and sustainability
are being reinvented for new consumers. In short, I examine the detrimental effects of design’s
contribution to hyperconsumption since the industrial revolution, and illustrate how designers can
better facilitate sustainability through systems that advance the emerging values of a 21st
century audience.
For the visual component of this thesis I created a Web site called The Yellow Shed
(www.theyellowshed.org). The Yellow Shed utilizes the existing power of social media to help
people share resources, build community, and consume less. The purpose of The Yellow Shed is
to introduce people to the benefits and incentives for sharing and to provide access to a community of peers committed to sharing resources and physical goods with one another. The philosophy is based on an open source approach to consumerism, which concentrates on fulfilling needs
without necessitating ownership of physical goods.
McGrath 2
INTRODUCTION
Culture is in the middle of a seismic shift in response to the emergence of new values related to
reducing humankind’s ecological footprint and forging new paths towards sustainability. In the
midst of this changing cultural landscape, designers are often finding themselves caught responding to new mind-sets towards sustainability with old methods of propagating mass consumerism.
As a designer, I am becoming increasingly aware of the dichotomy that exists between the products I create and the convictions I embrace. I believe in the power of design to evoke change, yet
I wonder if change for the designer must equate with designing more materials about the need to
be sustainable. Books are being written on sustainability, products are being redesigned in a quest
for more efficiency, and materials are being revised to make better use of raw goods, but all the
while more and more stuff is being created in the process.
I believe the questions begging to be asked are: How can designers promote sustainability
without contributing to the clutter? How can design provide a framework to promote more sustainable patterns of consumption? How can design adapt to evolving consumer beliefs and changing cultural values in the 21st century? Does design always have to result in a product or can it be
used to fulfill the literal definition of design, which is “to devise for a specific function or end?”1 I
believe it can. The proposed context of this thesis seeks to examine those questions further and to
provide a recommendation for improving relationships between consumables and consumers, designers and the products they produce, and systems of commoditization and sustainability. In
short, my goal is to propose a path to truly sustainable design rooted in a system-based rather
than object-based perception of the role of design.
1
“Design,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design (accessed January 4, 2010).
McGrath 3
THE PROBLEM
Our Psychological and Social Dependence on Stuff
We are surrounded by things. From the clothes on our backs to the blankets on our beds, things
both influence and inform our existence. As a designer, I am indebted to the creation of things for
my livelihood. As a person, I recognize my dependence on them for survival, comfort, or some
combination thereof—and rightly so. As psychiatrist Salman Akhtar describes it, “things play an
important role in how we navigate the world, communicate with one another, connect with our
pasts, and express our desires.”2 Our dependence on objects for physical, social, and emotional
significance is undeniable.
Self-actualization and objects
Ever since Maslow introduced his famous hierarchy of needs in 1943, marketers and designers
have invoked his theories as a basis for understanding and appealing to the motives of consumers.
According to Maslow’s hierarchy, human needs can be divided into five basic levels with physiological needs at the bottom, safety, love, and esteem in the middle, and self-actualization at the
top.3 It is the highest need, self-actualization, which consumers often attempt to fulfill with objects. Renowned psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes the relationship between objects and self-actualization as follows: “Our addiction to materialism is in large part due to a
paradoxical need to transform the precariousness of consciousness into the solidity of things. The
body is not large, beautiful, and permanent enough to satisfy our sense of self. We need objects to
magnify our power, enhance our beauty, and extend our memory into the future.”4 In this sense,
perhaps there really is some truth behind Barbara Kruger’s well-known adage, “I shop therefore
2
Salman Akhtar, Objects of Our Desire: Exploring Our Intimate Connections to the Things Around Us (New York: Harmony Books, 2005), 18.
3
Janet A. Simons, Donald B. Irwin, and Beverly A. Drinnien, “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,” in Psychology: The Search for Understanding (New
York: West Publishing Company, 1987), http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/maslow.htm (accessed June 17,
2010).
4
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, “Why We Need Things,” in History from Things: Essays on Material Culture, ed. Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery
(Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993), 28.
McGrath 4
I am.”5 This dependence on objects to define the sense of self and solidify life experience would
not be problematic if it were not for the fact that objects compete for scarce resources. The raw
materials of this earth are being depleted as people convert plants, metals, and even animals into
objects. It is to this end that design has arisen and taken up the mantle of sustainability.
Is Sustainable Design an Oxymoron?
Sustainability is most commonly defined as “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”6 As such, sustainability has become the subject of increasing attention in design discourse over the last three
decades, and the notion of sustainable design as an agent of global change continues to gain
traction both inside and outside of design disciplines. Yet despite this growing attention, interpreting sustainability within the context of design still remains a complex and oftentimes selfcontradictory exercise. According to Nathan Shedroff, chair of the MBA in design strategy at
California College of the Arts, “A sad truth is that almost every solution designed today, even the
most ‘sustainable’ one, has more of a negative impact on the planet than a positive one. This
means that the world would be better off if most of what was designed was never produced.”7
Seemingly, the idea of sustainable design is an illusive goal because a product can never be truly
sustainable by virtue of the fact that it is a product. That is, however, if the definition of sustainable design remains locked in an object-based notion of design born of the industrial revolution.
Fortunately, design as a whole is in a rapid state of flux as it moves into the 21st century. Online
developments and real-time technologies are liberating design from expectations to function as a
product. Instead, new technology is encouraging a dematerialized notion of design as a service to
5
Barbara Kruger, “Feminist Art,” The Art History Archive, http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/feminist/Barbara-Kruger.html (accessed June 25,
2010).
6
Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development,” Center for a World in Balance,
http://www.worldinbalance.net/intagreements/1987-brundtland.php (accessed June 20, 2010).
7
Nathan Shedroff and Hunter Lovins, Design Is the Problem: The Future of Design Must Be Sustainable (Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media, 2009), xxiii.
McGrath 5
satisfy the needs of people. When design is interpreted within this evolving context, sustainable
design can be understood as a means of encouraging people to live well and consume less.
An Idea of Sustainability Based on Consumption
The reason sustainable design has become such a convoluted subject is that designers talk about
being more sustainable while simultaneously promoting an economy based on greed and consumption. Most of us have been conditioned by consumer culture since birth, and the effect of
this unchecked materialism is now being wreaked by the market and current economic crisis.
From Cabbage Patch dolls to Beanie Babies and Tickle Me Elmo, children are taught early on to
regard the acquisition of consumer goods with the kind of hysteria that accompanies each new toy
craze. Studies indicate that children as young as three ask for brand names, and even six-monthold babies can recognize corporate logos.8 As Americans, we have become accustomed to prescribing retail therapy as the cure for every problem. Case in point, President George W. Bush
encouraged Americans to respond to the tragedy of the September 11 terrorist attacks by shopping.9 But the siren song of retail therapy is not limited to the United States. A recent survey of
London women revealed that 75% of 1,000 people polled turn to shopping as a therapeutic antidote for a relational split.10 Now the green movement is being treated in much the same manner,
and people are being encouraged to save the earth by spending.
The canvas bag contradiction
The recent influx of reusable, canvas shopping bags into the marketplace is a prime example of
the paradox posed by using consumables to combat the effects of consumption. At the outset,
canvas bags promise to provide a sustainable alternative to paper and plastic bags, and their environmental benefits seem like a compelling reason for shoppers and stores to embrace them. How8
James McNeal and Chyon-Hwa Yeh, “Born to Shop,” American Demographics, (June 1993): 34-39.
9
Andrew J. Bacevich, “He Told Us to Go Shopping. Now the Bill Is Due,” Washington Post, October 5, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301977.html (accessed June 25, 2010).
10
“Out of love, into a shop,” The Daily Mirror, June 17, 2010, http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mirror-the-londonuk/mi_8006/is_20100617/love-shop/ai_n54096768/?tag=content;col1 (accessed June 25, 2010).
McGrath 6
ever, the environmental benefits of canvas bags are not fulfilled when people acquire more bags.
The benefits result when people reuse them—a discrepancy in messaging likely to be lost in a
society well versed in manufacturing the desire to acquire. Designers themselves contribute to the
problem when they release a dazzling proliferation of choice into the marketplace. The sheer
number of options encourages people to buy more bags with every change in season and style
instead of reusing the bags they already have as originally intended. Dmitri Siegel addresses this
inherent contradiction in a Design Observer article titled “Paper, Plastic, or Canvas?” by warning,
“The constant stream of newness discourages reuse. . . . Graphic design’s ability to generate options and choices may turn a sustainable idea into an environmental calamity.”11 As Siegel suggests, the best thing for the environment is not making more bags. The best thing for the environment is encouraging people to reuse the bags they already have—whether paper, plastic, canvas, synthetic, recycled, or other.
Greenwashing
The notion of using consumerism to save the environment is not limited to shopping bags.
Greenwashing has become a commonplace marketing tactic used to sell products by appealing to
eco-conscious consumers. The term “greenwash” is derived from the words “green,” a metaphor
for environmental association, and “whitewash,” a deliberate attempt to positively convey the
reputation of a person or institution by concealment.12 Unfortunately, greenwashing has taken
many forms in the marketplace ranging from Tyson Chicken’s promotion of its products as “all
natural” despite the fact that their chickens are treated with antibiotics to Clairol’s claim that its
Herbal Essences shampoos offer a “truly organic experience” even though their ingredient list
includes many harmful chemicals.13 By deliberately misrepresenting companies as environmen-
11
Dmitri Siegel, “Paper, Plastic, or Canvas?” Design Observer, February 4, 2009, http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=7917 (accessed April 24, 2010).
12
Ellen Shapiro, “Greenwashing!,” Communication Arts, December 2004,
http://www.visualanguage.net/vl/goodwriting1.php?show=greenwash_article_Shapiro.html (accessed June 25, 2010).
13
Shireen Deen, “Don’t Be Fooled: America’s Ten Worst Greenwashers,” Greenwashing, http://greenwashing.net (accessed June 25, 2010).
McGrath 7
tally responsible despite evidence to the contrary, greenwashing only serves to promote sales—
not sustainability.
Earth Day has become a commercial heyday
Earth Day itself has quickly become an excuse for retailers to promote consumption under the
guise of sustainability. The first Earth Day was instituted as a day of solidarity for individuals to
challenge corporations to reexamine the ethics of consumption at the expense of the environment.14 Ironically, 40 years later, Earth Day has turned into a commercial heyday for a variety of
corporations to encourage consumption through green products and promotions. Denis Hayes,
national coordinator of the first Earth Day, laments, “This ridiculous perverted marketing has
cheapened the concept of what is really green. It is tragic.”15 Consider some of the promotions
surrounding Earth Day in 2010. Macy’s “Turn Over a New Leaf” campaign offered customers a
coupon for 10% or 20% off merchandise the week of April 22 in exchange for a donation to the
National Park Foundation.16 Target gave away 1.5 million reusable bags to customers with every
purchase.17 While these promotions may have been reasonably well-intentioned, the reason they
fail as sustainable solutions is because they remain rooted in a business-as-usual approach assuming consumption and economic growth to be the cure for every ailment—whether financial, social, or environmental.
Design as Part of the Problem
Common sense tells us that consumerism is not a logical way to combat the environmental concerns of the green movement. Yet, how is consumerism and overconsumption design’s problem?
According to Alastair Fuad-Luke, a sustainable design consultant, design and designers have
14
“Earth Day,” New York Times, April 22, 2010, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/earth_day/index.html?inline=nytclassifier (accessed April 24, 2010).
15
Leslie Kaufman, “At 40, Earth Day Is Now Big Business,” New York Times, April 21, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/science/earth/22earth.html?hp=&pagewanted=print (accessed April 24, 2010).
16
17
“Turn Over a New Leaf,” Macy’s, http://www.macys.com/campaign/earthday/index.jsp (accessed April 24, 2010).
Jennifer King, “Target giving out 1.5 million reusable bags for Earth Day 2010,” Examiner, April 8, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x38784-San-Antonio-Budget-Grocery-Examiner~y2010m4d8-Target-giving-out-15-million-reusable-bags-for-Earth-Day-2010 (accessed April 24, 2010).
McGrath 8
played an integral role in converting natural, human, and social capital into man-made capital by
giving form to ideas and investing them with material value and meaning.18 In other words, designers are responsible for taking nonmaterial things (natural resources, ideas, and services),
imbedding them with significance, and turning them into fodder for consumption. Fuad-Luke further asserts that the past 250 years of design history reveal designers to be advocates of economic
progress through consumerism both actively and by default.19 In an active manner, designers have
introduced such deplorable concepts as “planned obsolescence” as a means of promoting consumption. In an inadvertent manner, designers have allowed themselves to be part of a system
that allows for the profit of the few over the many.
The social crime of planned obsolescence
Massimo Vignelli once said, “We have a responsibility to our clients, ourselves, and the society
in general to design things that will not become obsolete. Obsolescence, particularly planned obsolescence, is a social crime whose ultimate goal is only profit for the few over the masses. Designers should not be part of this despicable conspiracy.”20 Sadly, designers have been and continue to be participants in this so-called social crime. Brooks Stevens, an industrial designer, first
popularized the phrase “planned obsolescence” in the 1930s. By Stevens’s own definition this
term meant, “instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a
little sooner than is necessary.”21 The offspring of this mentality is evidenced today by billions of
products designed to stimulate replacement production. Ironically, this short-term way of thinking
is even applied to the design of products supposedly meant for reuse as previously examined in
the case of canvas bags. Fortunately, Western society in general is experiencing a value shift
18
Alastair Fuad-Luke, Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World (London: Earthscan, 2009), xix.
19
Ibid.
20
Jan Conradi, Massimo Vignelli, and Kevin Rau, Unimark International: The Design of Business and the Business of Design (Baden, Switzerland: Lars
Müller, 2010), back cover.
21
“Brooks Stevens,” Wisconsin Historical Society, http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/topics/stevens/index.asp (accessed April 24, 2010).
McGrath 9
away from obsolescence towards permanence, which is enabling designers to actually implement
Vignelli’s statement in new, tangible ways as will be discussed later.
The profit of the few over the many
While choice can be a positive and even necessary component of a free market economy, the reason concepts such as planned obsolescence are problematic is that they encourage unsustainable
rates of consumption. Most statistics predict detrimental effects on the environment due to the
stress being placed on natural resources and ecosystems by current levels of consumption. As Fuad-Luke poignantly observes, “If all humans were benefitting from this exploitation of natural
capital then the global human consciousness could sleep easier.”22 Sadly, however, over 80% of
the world’s population remains in absolute poverty as defined by an income of less than $10 a
day.23 This means that the remaining 20% of the world is responsible for the excessive depletion
of natural resources. It is tragic that current rates of consumption by the minority are unsustainable for the majority of people.
TIME FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT
As a whole, design has contributed to the adverse effects of consumerism on society both directly
and indirectly. Sometimes it is done under the guise of sustainability, sometimes not. Whatever
the motivation, one thing is clear: the least sustainable kind of design is design that convinces
people they need something they do not—whether it is “green,” black, brown, blue, red, or yellow. My intention is not to denounce designers for their part in the current crisis, but rather to
reveal the problems inherent to approaching sustainability with the routine approach of consumer
culture—by encouraging consumption. It is time for a paradigm shift. Designers have become
experts in specialization by inventing felt needs and creating new market niches to fill them. The
green movement itself has been the catalyst for dozens of new products and inventions designed
22
Fuad-Luke, 55.
23
“Poverty Facts and Stats,” Global Issues, http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats (accessed April 24, 2010).
McGrath 10
to help people live more “green” lifestyles. Yet, creating something that did not need to be produced in the first place is unsustainable design. In order to make real strides towards sustainability, designers need to shift away from a product-based understanding of design that remains
locked in an outdated mentality born of the industrial revolution and move towards a new kind
of revolution.
Moving past the industrial revolution
In the book titled Natural Capitalism, Paul Hawken asserts that society is moving towards the
next industrial revolution. According to Hawken, the first industrial revolution resulted in a type
of “industrial capitalism,” which rewarded the sale of goods and services and naturally focused
on material consumption to meet human needs. In contrast, the new type of industrialism that
Hawken predicts will promote efficiency, ecological preservation, social equity, and conservation
to meet human needs.24 Whereas the first industrial revolution depended on developing the right
things to meet human needs, the new industrialism will focus on understanding the interlinked
pattern of those things in service of people. In short, Hawken anticipates a return to a more communityoriented understanding of material goods to meet human needs. Moreover, Hawken says, “Traditional cultures, having more limited means to satisfy human needs, tend to meet as many needs as
possible with as few resources as possible.”25 Technology is actually encouraging a return to this
type of traditional mind-set in today’s culture. According to author and strategist Rachel Botsman, social networks and real-time technologies are taking us back to traditional cultural values
of borrowing and lending and enabling us to meet material needs communally. Botsman says that
we are returning to bartering, trading, swapping, and sharing, but “we’re reinventing them in dynamic and appealing ways” through online technologies.26 I believe understanding how to reinvent
24
Paul Hawken, Amory B. Lovins, and Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Co.,
1999), 1-6.
25
26
Ibid., 287.
Rachel Botsman, “TEDxSydney - Rachel Botsman - Collaborative Consumption Author Presents Compelling Case for 21C,” Collaborative Consumption, YouTube video, 19:25, http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/events-and-speaking/past-event-archive.html (accessed June 14, 2010).
McGrath 11
traditional values for the 21st century audience is the key to developing the kind of sustainable
design truly capable of encouraging people to live well and consume less. By considering how to
adopt a design philosophy oriented around meeting the needs of people communally, designers
can help usher in this new industrialism.
Meeting Maslowʼs Needs Without the Stuff
As discussed previously, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people need objects to help
define their sense of selves. This naturally raises the questions: Does the definition of self necessitate physical ownership of an object? If designers are striving to meet the needs of people communally, will the individual sense of self be diminished? To understand the answers to these questions, Csikszentmihalyi’s writings once again provide insight on the topic. According to Csikszentmihalyi, “The addiction to objects is best cured by learning to discipline consciousness. . . .
Then objects can again be used primarily as instruments rather than as projections of ourselves.”27
Now more than ever, society is returning to this idea of objects as “instruments” in service of
their needs rather than “projections” of themselves as a result of changes spurred on by developing technologies. According to Rachel Botsman, the notion of satisfying needs with objects in the
current generation is “far less tangible than any other previous generation.”28 As Botsman puts it,
the message being projected by this generation is: “I don’t want the DVD, I want the movie it
carries. I don’t want a clunky answering machine; I want the message it saves. I don’t want a CD;
I want the music it plays. In other words, I don’t want stuff, I want the needs or the experiences it
fulfills.”29 This massive shift in thinking is being fueled by the growing capabilities of instant
universal access enabled by the Web. Thanks to social networking technologies, people can now
define themselves through objects without ever owning a thing. For example, I can post a link to
my favorite song or movie through my profile on Facebook and project my associations of self to
27
Csikszentmihalyi, 29.
28
Botsman, “TEDxSydney.”
29
Ibid.
McGrath 12
an ever-widening audience without ever owning the CD or DVD being referenced. In this new
world of growing peer-to-peer technologies, the emphasis in values is shifting away from ownership of objects towards usage—enabling Maslow’s needs to be met without the excess baggage
of stuff.
CHANGING THE CONVERSATION
For a long time, the mainstream of thinking has equated prosperity with consumption, but fortunately the tide is changing and design is at the helm. As previously examined, the role of design
since the industrial revolution has been limited by an object-based understanding of design rooted
in materialism and consumption. However, a very brief overview of design pursuits in the 21st
century reveals an ever-broadening perception of design in relation to other disciplinary studies
and systems. For example, Design Feast, a self-proclaimed “webliography” of design, catalogs
over 1,528 sites related to various areas of design practice including activism, sustainability, and
service.30 The conversations surrounding design are changing, and design is primed to take up a
new role as a system rather than an artifact to promote sustainability. By listening to conversations outside design, designers can better learn how to reinvent traditional values related to design
and sustainability for a 21st century audience. I believe the four key voices to be heard in the current cultural conversation surrounding sustainability are:
1. The commons
2. The public domain
3. Product service systems
4. Reflective consumption
The Commons
Another casualty of the American, consumer-driven mind-set is that the word “commons” has
come to be a colloquial English substitute for “shopping center.” Combine the name of any town
30
“Design Feast: Growing webliography of design,” Design Feast, http://www.designfeast.com/index.htm (accessed April 26, 2010).
McGrath 13
or city with the word “commons,” and you are likely to conjure up the name of a local shopping
complex such as “Geneva Commons” or “Algonquin Commons.” However, the word commons is
rooted in the idea of sharing—not consuming. Historically, the concept of the commons dates
back to ancient Rome and is associated with property or things common to all.31 Raj Patel, author
of The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy, provides the
following definition for the term commons in contemporary usage: “A commons is a resource,
most often land, and refers both to the territory and to the ways people allocate the goods that
come from that land.”32 To put it simply, the definition of commons is the shared allocation of
goods and resources. Patel further defines the verb “commoning” as “a web of social relations
designed to keep our baser urges in check, fostering different ways of valuing our world, and of
relating to others.”33 In Patel’s summation, the democratization of resources is the answer to the
problem of society’s skewed value system and consequential depletion of natural resources. He
sees developing new ways of commoning and figuring out how to better pool resources as the
hope for reshaping market society. I agree. Yet I believe this will not be accomplished by returning to the commons of the past but by reinventing it for a new audience.
The tragedy of the commons
The reason that a staunch return to the historical idea of the commons is not advisable is due to its
predictable demise, which has come to be known as the tragedy of the commons. Microbiologist
Garrett Hardin coined the term “tragedy of the commons” in a 1968 article for Science magazine.
In this article, Hardin used an analogy of a pasture “open to all” to illustrate the tragedy of the
commons. After some examination of motivations for herders to increase the number of sheep in
their herds, Hardin concludes: “Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that
compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination
31
“History of the Commons,” Environmental Commons, http://environmentalcommons.org/commons.html (accessed April 27, 2010).
32
Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy (New York: Picador, 2009), 92.
33
Ibid., 97.
McGrath 14
toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the
freedom of the commons.”34 In other words, Hardin’s tragedy suggests that when faced with a
shared resource, people will be selfishly motivated to consume it completely, even if they destroy
it in the process. By presuming that individuals cannot change, the tragedy of the commons becomes unavoidable. However, the understanding of the “commons” circulating today is much
more extensive and far-reaching than Hardin’s pasture. The idea of enclosure is becoming progressively broader, and the borders dividing “pastures” are becoming increasingly blurred. As the
idea of what constitutes the “commons” becomes more encompassing, people are becoming more
inclined to share “pastures” with each other rather than consume their own completely.
Characteristics of successful common-pool resource management
The idea of the commons is expanding today due largely in part to the influence of the Internet
and the digital world on what constitutes public domain in people’s way of thinking. Access to
information in the public domain is virtually unrestricted, and one person’s use does not subtract
from another’s.35 Consequently, people are becoming more accustomed to the idea of shared ownership, and the characteristics of successful common-pool resource management are extending
beyond traditional parameters into day-to-day activities and online interactions.
Elinor Ostrom, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics for her pioneering work on the
study of the commons, has conducted extensive research on the requirements for effective management of common-pool resources. As a result, Ostrom has identified several basic characteristics evidenced by successful systems of shared resources as follows:
1. Defined Boundaries The boundaries of the resource system in regard to individual ownership are clearly defined.
34
Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, December 13, 1968, The Garrett Hardin Society,
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html (accessed April 27, 2010).
35
Elinor Ostrom, “The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources,” Environment 50, no. 4 (July/August 2008): 8-20, OmniFile Full Text Mega, WilsonWeb,
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/login.jhtml (accessed April 2, 2010).
McGrath 15
2. Fixed Infrastructure Physical, technological, and institutional infrastructures are in
place to increase the effectiveness of internal user operations.
3. Accurate and Relevant Information Since information changes over time, details about
the conditions of the resource and its users are updated regularly.
4. Enhanced Rule Compliance External rules regarding use of the commons need to be established, but they are not sufficient in and of themselves. The users of the commons take
responsibility for monitoring the commons and ensuring adherence to the rules.
5. User Participation Users of the system are active participants. (Designing a system in a
top-down fashion is not as successful as working with the users of a common-pool resource over time to develop a system.) 36
Ostrom’s findings can be easily translated into design principles for developing a system to facilitate shared resources by adhering to the following guidelines:
1. Clearly Define Boundaries
2. Provide Infrastructure
3. Update Information Regularly
4. Sanction Individual Ownership
5. Encourage User Participation
Conclusion of the commons
After studying numerous social movements across the world, Raj Patel concluded that people
appreciate the importance of maintaining and sharing physical resources when they understand
“both the material and the cultural worlds as bodies on whose shoulders everyone stands, and
which everyone is free to use, share and build upon.” 37 Overcoming the tragedy of the commons
starts by recognizing the limitations of limited resources and working together to promote the
health of the commons for all. Cooperation is key to successful commoning in the 21st century,
and utilizing design to foster cooperation will be the beginning of truly sustainable solutions.
36
Ostrom, “The Challenge.”
37
Patel, 170.
McGrath 16
To sum it up, here is a short review of how the study of the commons can be applied to sustainable design practices.
Practical application of the commons for design
• Promote the commons in terms of sharing—not consuming
• Adhere to characteristics of successful common-pool resource management in the design
of systems to facilitate sharing
• Foster cooperation to avoid the tragedy of the commons
The Public Domain
As noted previously, the expanded understanding of the commons circulating today can be attributed largely to the influence of the Internet. The Internet is by definition a sharing platform and a
means of “connecting one computer to another anywhere in the world” with the purpose of exchanging all types of information from text and graphics to videos, programs, and ideas.38 The
Internet itself is built and operates on free and open source software and open standards.39 As
such, it has become both the model and the means for sharing in the 21st century. The Internet
has literally wired the world to share, and its influence is extending far beyond the online world.
In the words of Neal Gorenflo, publisher of Shareable.net, “The Internet is reprogramming culture to the degree that society will likely be remade in its image, so that we have a better chance
at thriving like it does.”40 In other words, he sees society adapting to the values and practices of
open source sharing exhibited and enabled by the Internet. Evidence of this shift is already visible
across a whole gamut of peer-to-peer Web sites for sharing intellectual and physical property
ranging from Creative Commons and Wikipedia to thredUP and Share Some Sugar. In an e-mail
conversation with Rachel Botsman on the topic, she remarked, “Digital sharing is often people’s
38
“Internet Definition,” Business Dictionary, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/internet.html (accessed July 2, 2010).
39
Neal Gorenflo, “10 Ways Our World is Becoming More Shareable,” Shareable, http://shareable.net/blog/10-ways-our-world-is-becoming-moreshareable (accessed July 2, 2010).
40
Ibid.
McGrath 17
way ‘in’ to a commons mind-set.”41 As a result, sharing and collaborative behaviors that mimic
characteristics of the commons are happening successfully and naturally through the Internet and
being accelerated by social media.
Social Media
As Neal Gorenflo says, “Sharing is the currency of social media.”42 From pictures and posts to text
and tweets, social networking has multiplied the inherent capabilities of the Internet for sharing exponentially. And, as Erik Qualman, author of Socialnomics, says, “social media is bigger than you
think.”43 Statistics indicate if Facebook were a country it would be the world’s fourth largest between the United States and Indonesia.44 That is a sizable population of people predisposed to the
concept of sharing! While social networking capabilities and platforms are still in their infant
stages, Rachel Botsman predicts, “These technologies will reinvent what we share in ways we
can’t even begin to imagine and on a scale that has never been possible before.”45
Along with such auspicious possibilities for the future of social media comes the potential for
it to be used as a platform for selling rather than sharing. Social media is capable of selling goods,
services, and even the perception of self as a commodity. Viral marketing tactics are already being deployed through social networks, and other forms of advertising are sure to follow suit. Yet
despite these inherent weaknesses, there is growing evidence to support the propensity of social
media for sharing. By harnessing its power, designers will be able to use social media to its best
possible advantage to promote sustainability through sharing and redistribution of physical goods.
41
Rachel Botsman, e-mail interview by author, June 29, 2010.
42
Gorenflo.
43
Erik Qualman, “Statistics Show Social Media Is Bigger Than You Think,” Socialnomics—Social Media Blog,
http://socialnomics.net/2009/08/11/statistics-show-social-media-is-bigger-than-you-think/ (accessed July 2, 2010).
44
“Facebook Statistics,” Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (accessed July 2, 2010).
45
Botsman, e-mail interview.
McGrath 18
Access is better than ownership
The increased participation in sharing born of the Internet and social media has given rise to a
newfound emphasis on access and decreased interest in ownership in regard to physical goods.
Kevin Kelly, cofounder of Wired magazine, attributes this emerging emphasis on access to the
conversion of objects such as music and books into digital form. As objects become digital, they
tend to become shared goods, and Kelly predicts, “Soon enough everything manufactured will
potentially become social property.”46 In fact, many people prefer the public accessibility of social goods to the responsibility and maintenance of individual ownership.47 To this end, design
can serve people by catering to people’s proclivity towards access while still providing for personalization. Rachel Botsman describes how this can be implemented: “Take a really basic example like a next generation bike sharing scheme such as B-Cycle. Each bike is outfitted with a GPS
‘smart computer’ that tracks your route, mileage, calories burned, and amount of carbon offset—a
great example of personalizing the bike sharing experience. This information is collected and
available on your personal B-Cycle Web page. This is the type of design thinking we need!”48
The kind of “design thinking” Botsman is referring to is thinking that goes beyond the object itself to consider its relationship to community and shared experiences as part of its approach
to sustainability.
Conclusion of the public domain
As Kevin Kelly puts it, “The trend is clear: access trumps possession.”49 The sharing economy
currently emerging in the public domain is facilitating a higher regard for collective usage over
individual ownership. This being the case, designers are in a position to help strike a healthier
balance between the needs of individuals and the greater good of society by tapping into the po46
Kevin Kelly, “Better Than Owning,” The Technium, http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/01/better_than_own.php (accessed July 2, 2010).
47
Ibid.
48
Botsman, e-mail interview.
49
Kelly.
McGrath 19
tential of the Internet and social media to facilitate sharing. In review, here are some points from
the study of the public domain to apply to sustainable design practices.
Practical application of the public domain for design
• Harness the power of social media to promote sustainability through sharing
• Cater to people’s proclivity towards access while still providing for personalization
• Think beyond the object to consider its relationship to community and shared experiences
Product Service Systems
A simple definition of service is “a solution to fulfill needs.”50 In the definition of design as a
product service system, the concentration is on fulfilling needs without necessitating ownership
of a physical product. Nathan Shedroff advocates “transmaterialization,” the process of turning a
product into a service, as one viable means of achieving sustainable design.51 Changing a product
into a service changes the impact it has on the environment and provides a more economical solution for most people. According to Shedroff, “A service orientation not only benefits environmental and social impacts by optimizing efficiency, but it often leads to innovative solutions that
competitors haven’t imagined simply because most organizations operate in a product mentality.”52 To be sure, the service design philosophy has already led to some innovative solutions in
the world of business as evidenced by many examples cropping up all over the Web ranging from
service systems that share physical goods to those sharing less tangible assets such as time, space,
and resources. In their upcoming book called What’s Mine Is Yours, Rachel Botsman and Roo
Rogers identify the following categories and examples of product service systems in the physical
goods class:
Car Sharing (Zipcar, Streetcar, GoGet, I-Go Car)
Bike Sharing (Velib, Bixi, Oybike, Smartbike)
50
Nathan Shedroff, Design Is the Problem: The Future of Design Must Be Sustainable (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Rosenfeld Media, 2009), 148.
51
Ibid., 142.
52
Ibid., 148.
McGrath 20
Solar Power (Solar City, Solar Century, PretaSol)
Toy Sharing (Dim Dom, BabyPlays, Rentatoy)
Fashion (Bag Borrow Or Steal, Fashionhire, Bagstoriches)
Movies (Netflix, Lend A Round)53
Botsman and Rogers also identify the following categories and examples of product service systems that share less tangible assets such as time, space, skills, money, and resources as follows:
Coworking (Citizen Space, Hub Culture, The Hub)
Social Lending (Zopa, Prosper, The Lending Club, Peermint)
Social Currencies (Venn, Quids, TimeBanks, LETS)
Travel (CouchSurfing, AirBnB, Roomorama, Crashpadder)
Bartering (Barterquest, Ourgoods, ITEX, Bartercard)
Gardens (UrbanGardenShare, Landshare, SharedEarth)
Skill Sharing (Tradegoods, Brooklyn Skill Share, TeachStreet)
Errands/Tasks (Dave Zillion)
Shared Studios/Workshops (Third Space Studios, TechShop)
Parking Spots (ParkAtMyHouse, Parkaroundme)
Neighborhood Support (WeCommune, Share Some Sugar, Bright Neighbor)
Cohousing (CoAbode).54
The above lists are just a small representation of the considerable momentum being generated
by the rise of product service systems. Although there are many examples, I will focus on two
specific companies that exemplify a service-oriented perspective of design: I-Go Car Sharing
and Avelle.
53
Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, “What’s Mine Is Yours: Snapshot of Examples,” Collaborative Consumption,
http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/the-movement/snapshot-of-examples.html (accessed June 28, 2010).
54
Ibid.
McGrath 21
I-go car sharing
Rental cars are a classic example of turning a product into a service. While traditional rental car
programs do provide for use of a product without requiring ownership, car-sharing programs take
the appeal of rental car companies one step further by eliminating the hassle of one-off rentals
and emphasizing convenience and short-term commitment. I-Go Car Sharing is one example of
the many car-sharing services gaining popularity in urban areas throughout the United States and
already popular throughout Europe. A few of the key benefits offered by I-Go Car Sharing are:
1. Efficiency When you sign up, you do all the paperwork once, rather than each time you
need a car.
2. Convenience You can book a car online or by Smartphone in as little as 60 seconds
beforehand.
3. Accessibility Members have 24-hour access to a fleet of cars in reserved parking spaces
throughout the city.
4. Economic Viability Studies show that participation in a car sharing program can free up
as much as 18% of household income typically devoted to transportation.55
In effect, I-Go Car sharing does not offer cars (a product) but rather mobility (a service), and its
appeal lies in its efficiency, convenience, accessibility, and economic viability. The appeal of
these attributes is not limited to car share programs but applicable to any service-oriented business. Designers would do well to consider ways to provide for these attributes when designing for
the implementation of service-oriented programs.
Avelle
While the motivation for users to participate in car-share programs is primarily based on environmental and economical reasons, the incentives for sharing do not always need to be so noble
or practical. In some cases, such as the Avelle “Bag, Borrow or Steal” Web site, the motivation is
primarily materialistic. Avelle is an online borrowing service dedicated to helping patrons rent
55
“Save Money,” I-Go Car Sharing, http://www.igocars.org/member-benefits/save-money/ (accessed May 1, 2010).
McGrath 22
“the most coveted designer handbags and accessories.”56 Even though Avelle is a far cry from the
granola-peddling, commerce-bashing stereotypes associated with the mention of “sustainable
shopping,” Avelle could still be considered a prime example of sustainability where design functions as a service. Why? Because it enables customers to use a product without requiring ownership. Avelle embodies what Shedroff describes as “transmaterialization” by allowing users to partake in all the luxuries of consumerism without necessitating more consumption. Here is a list of
benefits quoted directly from the Web site:
1. No more “handbag boredom”! Isn’t there always a new handbag that you want? Now
you can change your purse whenever the mood strikes.
2. It costs less than you think! You can carry stunning designer handbags, jewelry, sunglasses and even watches from only $25 a month!
3. Renting is easy! Browse our collection of purses, totes, satchels, clutches (and more) and
click. Enjoy them for a week, a month or as long as you wish. And when you’ve had your
fun, send them back and rent something new! 57
Note how the copy appeals to the typical consumerist viewpoint. Essentially, Avelle promises the
same things as consumer culture (status, style, and beauty), but it delivers them in the form of a
service rather than a product. Instead of demanding that consumers lower their standards of living
and consume less in the name of conservation, Avelle guarantees more. While Avelle seemingly
offers products (handbags and accessories), it really offers the following services:
1. Diversity The promise to keep up with the latest trends and fashions
2. Economic Viability The appearance of money and status for a much lower cost
3. Convenience The ability to quickly and easily find an accessory or handbag without the
hassle of shopping plus the flexibility to borrow it for as little or long as necessary
56
“How Borrowing and Renting Handbags Works,” Avelle, http://www.bagborroworsteal.com/howitworks?ref=n1_e8-9 (accessed May 1, 2010).
57
Ibid.
McGrath 23
Two of the three selling points of Avelle are fundamentally the same as those of I-Go Car Sharing
(economic viability and convenience), but they are delivered in a manner that emphasizes the
product over the service when, in effect, the result is the same—a more sustainable alternative to
individual ownership.
Conclusion of product service systems
While there are many examples of companies that turn products into services, there is no one perfect solution. There are, however, endless opportunities for designers to consider the things they
design within the context of a system. Most importantly, there is the choice to design a service
that honors the people it serves while balancing the results of environmental, social, and financial
responsibilities.
Practical application of product service systems for design
• Concentrate on fulfilling needs without necessitating ownership of a physical product
• Consider the cost of borrowing in relationship to the benefits received
• Design for efficiency, convenience, accessibility, economic viability, and diversity
Reflective Consumption
As discussed previously, the modus operandi of design since the industrial revolution has focused
primarily on material consumption to meet human needs. Yet, the prevailing attitude towards
consumerism is changing in the wake of the economic crisis of 2007-present. Since a combination of excessive spending and unchecked debt is what got us into this crisis, consumers are responding by moving towards what some experts are referring to as “reflective consumption.” The
aim of design for reflective consumption is to improve people’s sense of well-being, while recognizing economical, environmental, and sociocultural issues.58
58
Jonathan Chapman and Nick Gant, Designers, Visionaries and Other Stories: A Collection of Sustainable Design Essays (London: Earthscan, 2007),
25.
McGrath 24
The mind-set of new consumers
The mind-set of new consumers is generally being regarded as a move from mindless to mindful
consumption.59 In a recent Ted Talk titled “The Post-Crisis Consumer,” John Gerzema identifies
the following four cultural shifts driving new consumer behaviors and beliefs:
1. Liquid Life Consumers are defining their success based on having liquidity instead of
having things. This consumer mind-set says the less excess you have around you, the freer
you can be.
2. Ethics and Fair Play Consumers are projecting empathy and respect in their mind-set towards community and companies alike. This is evidenced by an increased emphasis on
neighbors as a support system and a rise in volunteerism.
3. Indestructible Spirit Consumers are looking for ways to extract value out of every purchase. This is demonstrated by a renewed emphasis on durable living and willingness to
borrow instead of own. For example, over 68% of Americans now have library cards,
which is the highest percentage ever.
4. Return to the Fold Consumers are working together to get what they want out of the market with a renewed emphasis on communities and social networks.60
Design is in a prime position to respond to the values and beliefs of new consumers by adapting
design principles to prevailing convictions regarding consumption. Here are four possible ways to
translate the aforementioned list into design principles:
1. Liquid Life Design principle = minimalism and transmaterialization
2. Ethics and Fair Play Design principle = value
3. Indestructible Spirit Design principle = durability and longevity
4. Return to the Fold Design principle = infrastructure for community
59
John Gerzema, “John Gerzema: The post-crisis consumer,” TED, Video file, 16:34,
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_gerzema_the_post_crisis_consumer.html (accessed May 1, 2010).
60
Ibid.
McGrath 25
In short, consumers are taking responsibility back on themselves to change the trajectory of consumer culture, and design can align itself with the new values of consumers by seeking to improve people’s sense of well-being.
Creating value rather than desire
Along with the focus of design for reflective consumption comes an increased emphasis on creating value rather than desire. In an essay titled “The Cultural Influence of Brands,” Chris Riley
talks about how the crisis of consumerism does not lie in the fact that it creates desire but rather
that it fails to satiate.61 Accordingly, the essence of new consumerism is about being able to actually deliver on the elusive promises of advertising. “It comes down to the products vs. the promise,” says organizational consultant Peter Walsh. “It’s not necessarily about the new pots and pans
but the idea of the cozy family meals that they will provide. People are finding that their homes
are full of stuff, but their lives are littered with unfulfilled promises.”62 The appropriate response
for design is to shift its focus from creating desire and creating more “stuff” to creating value.
The rise of collaborative consumption
This cultural gravitation towards value rather than desire has given rise to a socioeconomic
movement Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers describe as “collaborative consumption,” which they
define as “traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting, and swapping redefined
through technology and peer communities.”63 In other words, they see the philosophy of sharing
sites and established peer-to-peer marketplaces such as eBay and Craigslist as having given rise
to a cultural move towards sharing as never before. According to Botsman, “technology is enabling trust between strangers,” and a ubiquitous result of this newfound trust is that sharing is
61
Chris Riley, “The Cultural Influence of Brands,” in Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility, ed. Steven Heller and Véronique Vienne
(New York: Allworth Press, 2003), 78.
62
Lisa McLaughlin, “How to Live With Just 100 Things,” Time, June 5, 2008, http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1812048,00.html (accessed
May 2, 2010).
63
Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, What’s Mine Is Yours: Infographics, Collaborative Consumption, http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/thebook/infographics.html (accessed June 28, 2010).
McGrath 26
happening at phenomenal rates.64 Botsman further explains, “Online exchanges mimic the onceclose ties formed through face-to-face exchanges in villages, but on a much larger and unconfined
scale. In other words, technology is reinventing old forms of trust. Trust between strangers is a
critical principle of collaborative consumption. It is enabling whole new sectors to emerge because people can replicate the trust they would form face-to-face online.”65 The growth of such
online peer-to-peer sharing and trading is a clear indicator of the cultural shift moving away from
the hyperconsumption of the 20th century where consumers were defined by credit, advertising,
and what they owned towards “collaborative consumption” in the 21st century where consumers
will be defined by reputation, community, and shared access.66 As a result, design for 21st century consumers needs to cater to factors such as reputation, community, and access.
Living with less—example of the 100 things challenge
The shifting values of new consumers are becoming more and more apparent by the rise of counterconsumer trends popping up around the country. As opposed to the “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality fueling the hyperconsumption of previous generations of consumers, new consumers are seeing the accumulation of things as oppressive. For example, in 2008, Dave Bruno, an
online entrepreneur, began a movement he called the “100 Thing Challenge.” The 100 Thing
Challenge encourages people to commit to living with only 100 personal possessions for an extended period of time (usually between 100 days to 1 year). The goal is to conform to a lifestyle
Bruno calls a “little goods life—living a life with little consumer goods, in order to focus on doing little charitable goods.”67 Bruno’s sentiment exemplifies the growing concerns of new consumers with charity and community. Even as I write this paper on my laptop in Caribou Coffee, I
glance down at a napkin emblazoned with the following mantras: “Life is too short for: fake any64
Botsman, “TEDxSydney.”
65
Botsman, e-mail interview.
66
Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, “What’s Mine is Yours: The Book,” Collaborative Consumption, http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/thebook/ (accessed June 28, 2010).
67
David Bruno, “100 Thing Challenge FAQs,” Guynameddave, http://www.guynameddave.com/100-thing-challenge-faqs.html (accessed May 2, 2010).
McGrath 27
thing, putting profits before people, WiFi you have to pay for. . . .”68 Consumers are projecting a
shift in values, and companies are responding through like-minded design and advertising capitalizing on such values as authenticity, community, and frugality. This is where design can respond
by helping consumers recognize their values in the marketplace and act on them without necessitating consumption.
Conclusion of design for reflective consumption
New consumers are leading the way in a return to values that really matter. Design for reflective
consumption focuses on satisfying authentic needs related to the well-being of consumers rather
than creating felt needs driven by profits. This kind of design puts people first and profits second.
Practical application of reflective consumption for design
• Focus on improving people’s sense of well-being, while recognizing economical, environmental, and sociocultural issues
• Design for new consumer beliefs including: “liquid life” (minimalism and transmaterialization), “ethics and fair play” (value), “indestructible spirit” (durability and longevity),
and “return to the fold” (infrastructure for community)69
• Create value rather than desire
• Accommodate 21st century values such as reputation, community, and access
• Help consumers recognize and act on their values in the marketplace without necessitating
consumption
A SOLUTION: THE YELLOW SHED
Good-Bye Green
The dictionary defines “green” as having positive environmental attributes or objectives.70 As a
philosophy, green is good, but it has become a paradox for design when applied to consumer society. The fact is that designers cannot combat the effects of consumption by producing more
68
Caribou Coffee Company, Coffeehouse napkin, Caribou Coffee Company, 2009.
69
Gerzema.
70
“Green Definition,” Business Dictionary, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/green.html (accessed June 29, 2010).
McGrath 28
products—no matter how green they promise to be. People have become jaded by the hypocrisy
of greenwashing. According to Adam Werbach, author and environmental activist, “There’s a
sense of green fatigue facing many consumers, largely because it’s being promoted as a panacea
in ways on which it doesn’t deliver.”71 Organic cigarettes, for example, still cause cancer. Green
grocery bags still wind up in landfills. And despite BP’s award-winning green initiatives, its oil
still spilled into the Gulf.72 For all of these reasons, I believe it is time to say good-bye to green
and its excess baggage and say hello to a new color.
Hello Yellow
To many people, green has come to be interpreted as demanding less of everything. Yet in a society accustomed to living with excess, I believe that lasting change will not result from any efforts
aimed at trying to convince people to stop shopping or consuming. Rather, in a world of abundance, I believe it is possible to encourage prosperity, community, financial savings, and better
distribution of resources rather than trying to limit them in the name of sustainability. It is to this
end that the principles of The Yellow Shed, my visual component of this thesis, are directed. I
chose “yellow,” as part of the name because it is one part of the color combination required to
make green. Essentially, I am taking what works out of green and discarding the rest. Yellow
works because it blends with and complements nature, but it emphasizes positive attributes more
closely connected with people than plants. Yellow is associated with sunshine, light, warmth,
imagination, enlightenment, and optimism.73 Whereas green puts the planet at the center of focus,
yellow focuses primarily on people and community. Whereas green focuses on reduction, yellow
focuses on redistribution. Whereas green is based on the three r’s—reduce, reuse, and recycle, my
vision for yellow is based on three c’s—community, collaboration, and creativity.
71
Adam Werbach, “The Birth of Blue,” Saatchi & Saatchi S, http://www.saatchis.com/birthofblue/ (accessed June 29, 2010).
72
Blake Bromley, “Greenwashing of BP Partly to Blame for Oil Laundering the Gulf,” The Huffington Post, June 15, 2010,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-bromley/greenwashing-of-bp-partly_b_613482.html (accessed June 29, 2010).
73
Leatrice Eiseman, Pantone Guide to Communicating with Color (Sarasota, FL: Grafix Press, 2000), 31.
McGrath 29
Community as a commitment to developing deeper, richer forms of connection in the
21st century
Collaboration as a means of working together to share resources and redistribute consumables
Creativity because there is not one particular solution to sustainable living, but rather a
myriad of possibilities that can be approached creatively
My Recommendation for The Yellow Shed
Designers use colors creatively. They blend and mix to create pleasing palettes. This is exactly
what I am advocating designers do with green and/or yellow—blend, mix, and reinvent to create
new applications designed to help people live well and consume less. One such reinvention is a
Web site I am calling The Yellow Shed (www.theyellowshed.org). The Yellow Shed is my solution for reconciling design and sustainability through a system-based rather than object-based
application of design. It is a green solution built on the aforementioned principles of yellow. The
purpose of The Yellow Shed is to introduce people to the benefits and incentives for sharing and
to provide an online hub for them to declare their intentions to share, commit to a basic set of
guidelines, and join The Yellow Shed community. Membership to The Yellow Shed provides
access to a network of peers committed to sharing resources and physical goods with one another.
By joining, adopters will be provided with the tools they need to engage in borrowing and lending
with peers in their existing social networks as well as connect with new people committed to the
same cause.
The Yellow Shed exists to provide people with a framework for borrowing things from one
another without creating more waste. The philosophy is based on an open source approach to
consumerism, which concentrates on fulfilling needs without necessitating ownership of physical
goods. In short, The Yellow Shed utilizes the existing power of social media to help people share
resources, build community, and consume less. In order to accomplish this, I have taken cues
from the aforementioned principles regarding the commons, the public domain, product service
McGrath 30
systems, and reflective consumption to inform the conceptual basis and design of The Yellow
Shed Web site.
The commons
The Yellow Shed is based on the guiding principle of sharing—not consuming. In order to facilitate sharing among peers, The Yellow Shed employs several principles of successful commonpool resource management:
• The forum provides the infrastructure necessary to promote user participation and collaboration.
• Real-time feeds and online networks ensure that information is up-to-date and relevant.
• Individual ownership is sanctioned by allowing all adopters to become active participants
in the development of the system itself.
At heart, The Yellow Shed adheres to traditional values of the commons by fostering different
ways of pooling resources and relating to others.
The public domain
Rachel Botsman advised, “Sometimes users don’t even know they are engaging with a sharing
solution, so it might be worth giving them lots of visual cues to show the range of ways people
are cooperating and collaborating in all parts of their lives. . . . Digital sharing is often people’s
way ‘in’ to a commons mind-set.”74 With this advice in mind, I included a gallery of examples of
digital sharing to connect people to other Web sites where commoning is already happening—
from Flickr to Zipcar and everything in between. Additionally, I implemented several principles
from the public domain into the architecture of The Yellow Shed:
• The platform for The Yellow Shed harnesses the power of social media to promote
sharing through established peer-to-peer relationships and networks.
• By allowing users to determine how they participate, the system caters to access over
ownership while still providing for personalization.
• The relationship between community and shared experiences is a primary focus of
The Yellow Shed.
74
Botsman, e-mail interview.
McGrath 31
Product service systems
The Yellow Shed is a Web site dedicated to facilitating sharing among peers in order to liberate
people from buying new products all the time. As such, The Yellow Shed demonstrates the heart
of a product service mentality in the following ways:
• It concentrates on fulfilling needs without necessitating ownership of physical products.
• The guidelines for joining The Yellow Shed stipulate that users determine the conditions
of their own exchanges, which maintains equality between the costs of borrowing in relationship to the benefits received for each individual user.
• The content and copy of the Web site emphasize the benefits of product service systems
such as efficiency, convenience, accessibility, economic viability, and diversity.
Reflective Consumption
To be sure, material goods are a useful and even indispensable part of life, but only so long as
they serve people, not vice versa. The Yellow Shed seeks to remove the barriers between the values of people and the necessity of consumption by:
• Accommodating new consumer values such as reputation, community, and access
• Emphasizing value rather than marketing desire
• Providing a place to help consumers recognize and act on their values without
necessitating consumption
Economy and Cost
Yes, The Yellow Shed strikes a healthier balance between the needs of individuals and the greater
good of society, but does it pose a risk for the economy as a whole? Rachel Botsman does not
think so. In fact, her research has already yielded numerous examples of companies turning sizable profits from the borrowing and lending model. According to Botsman:
The more established companies are making hundreds of millions in revenue (Netflix made
$359.6 million, Zipcar $130 million in 2009). It’s even more incredible when you consider
that in the same year Blockbuster went bust and the big three car companies were being
bailed out. Even new entrants such as Solar City, and SwapTree are just starting to turn a
profit. Specific sectors of Collaborative Consumption are predicted to experience phenomenal
growth over the next five years. The peer-to-peer social lending market led by the likes of
Zopa and Prosper is estimated to soar by 66 percent to reach $5 billion by the end of 2013.
The consumer peer-to-peer rental market for everything from drills to cameras is estimated to
McGrath 32
be a $26 billion market sector. The swap market just for used children’s clothing (0 to 13
years) is estimated to be between $1 and $3 billion in the United States alone. Car sharing or
per hour rental is predicted to become a $12.5 billion industry. And so I could go on. . . . The
mistake will be for traditional companies based on hyperconsumption and ownership to pretend this is not happening. It is just like how the music industry or publishing ignored what
was happening peer to peer and kept beating the same business model.75
The key, then, is for companies to recognize the shift that is taking place and capitalize on new
models for economic return. I believe society is moving towards a new economy based on service
rather than the individual number of items sold, and there are solid and viable economic models
to be implemented as designers continue to explore system-based approaches to sustainability.
CONCLUSION
For a long time, design has helped maintain the 20th century mentality equating prosperity with
consumption. The problem being that excessive consumption has led to unsustainable patterns of
stress on the environment and near economic collapse. Designers have contributed to the problem
by actively giving form to such reprehensible concepts as greenwashing and planned obsolescence and passively participating in an inherently flawed system. Sadly, the offspring of design’s
current response to the problem has resulted in millions of products destined for landfills in the
name of sustainability. While consumerism has long been regarded as culture’s cure for every
ailment, sustainability is one thing that can and should not be combated with the design and production of more goods.
Fortunately, there are many ways in which design is well equipped to promote sustainability
by encouraging people to live well and consume less. The solutions need only be limited by creativity and conceptions about the capabilities of design. By considering design in terms of four key
areas of cultural influence—the commons, the public domain, product service systems, and reflective consumption—designers will be better equipped to respond to the problems of consumption with truly sustainable solutions. As Nathan Shedroff says, “Design has always been in the
75
Ibid.
McGrath 33
hands of designers, every one of us, and we have the power to, collectively, change the course of
design.”76 Whether we are designers creating products, consumers buying them, neighbors sharing them, or any combination thereof, not only can we change the course of design, but we can
also change the trajectory of culture’s skewed value system. The Yellow Shed is just one example
of the type of design that can result from trading traditional consumerism for community and collective good. Design has been limited by an object-based perception of its role for too long. By
moving to a system-based understanding of design, we can change its course. We can create
deeper, richer forms of connection in the 21st century. We can help people collaborate to share
resources and redistribute consumables. We can solve problems creatively, and we can consider
all things in common.
76
Shedroff, 286.
McGrath 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, James Sloan. The Romance of Commerce and Culture: Capitalism, Modernism, and the
Chicago-Aspen Crusade for Cultural Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Akhtar, Salman. Objects of Our Desire: Exploring Our Intimate Connections to the Things
Around Us. New York: Harmony Books, 2005.
Bacevich, Andrew J. “He Told Us to Go Shopping. Now the Bill Is Due.” Washington Post,
October 5, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301977.html
(accessed June 25, 2010).
Bierut, Michael, William Drenttel, and Steven Heller. Looking Closer 4: Critical Writings on
Graphic Design. New York: Allworth, 2002.
Botsman, Rachel. “TEDxSydney - Rachel Botsman - Collaborative Consumption Author Presents
Compelling Case for 21C.” Collaborative Consumption. YouTube video.
http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/events-and-speaking/past-event-archive.html (accessed June 14, 2010).
Botsman, Rachel. E-mail interview by author, June 29, 2010.
Botsman, Rachel, and Roo Rogers. What’s Mine Is Yours. Collaborative Consumption.
http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/ (accessed June 28, 2010).
Bromley, Blake. “Greenwashing of BP Partly to Blame for Oil Laundering the Gulf.” The Huffington Post, June 15, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-bromley/greenwashing-ofbp-partly_b_613482.html (accessed June 29, 2010).
“Brooks Stevens.” Wisconsin Historical Society.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/topics/stevens/index.asp (accessed April 24, 2010).
Brundtland Report. “Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development.” Center for a World in Balance.
http://www.worldinbalance.net/intagreements/1987-brundtland.php (accessed June 20, 2010).
Bruno, David. “100 Thing Challenge FAQs.” Guynameddave.
http://www.guynameddave.com/100-thing-challenge-faqs.html (accessed May 2, 2010).
Caribou Coffee Company. Coffeehouse napkin. Caribou Coffee Company, 2009.
Chapman, Jonathan, and Nick Gant. Designers, Visionaries and Other Stories: A Collection of
Sustainable Design Essays. London: Earthscan, 2007.
Christakis, Nicholas A., and James H. Fowler. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social
Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2009.
McGrath 35
Conradi, Jan, Massimo Vignelli, and Kevin Rau. Unimark International: The Design of Business
and the Business of Design. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller, 2010.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. “Why We Need Things.” In History from Things: Essays on Material
Culture, edited by Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery, 21-29. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993.
Deen, Shireen. “Don’t Be Fooled: America’s Ten Worst Greenwashers.” Greenwashing.
http://greenwashing.net (accessed June 25, 2010).
“Design Feast: Growing webliography of design.” Design Feast.
http://www.designfeast.com/index.htm (accessed April 26, 2010).
“Design.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/design (accessed January 4, 2010).
“Earth Day.” New York Times, April 22, 2010.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/earth_day/index.html?inline=n
yt-classifier (accessed April 24, 2010).
Eiseman, Leatrice. Pantone Guide to Communicating with Color. Sarasota, FL: Grafix Press,
2000.
“Facebook Statistics.” Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (accessed
July 2, 2010).
Fuad-Luke, Alastair. Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World. London:
Earthscan, 2009.
Gerzema, John. “John Gerzema: The post-crisis consumer.” TED. Video file.
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_gerzema_the_post_crisis_consumer.html (accessed May 1,
2010).
Gorenflo, Neal. “10 Ways Our World is Becoming More Shareable.” Shareable,
http://shareable.net/blog/10-ways-our-world-is-becoming-more-shareable (accessed July 2,
2010).
“Green Definition.” Business Dictionary.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/green.html (accessed June 29, 2010).
Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, December 13, 1968. The Garrett Hardin Society. http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html
(accessed April 27, 2010).
Hawken, Paul, Amory B. Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next
Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1999.
“History of the Commons.” Environmental Commons.
http://environmentalcommons.org/commons.html (accessed April 27, 2010).
McGrath 36
“How Borrowing and Renting Handbags Works.” Avelle.
http://www.bagborroworsteal.com/howitworks?ref=n1_e8-9 (accessed May 1, 2010).
“Internet Definition.” Business Dictionary.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/internet.html (accessed July 2, 2010).
Kaufman, Leslie. “At 40, Earth Day Is Now Big Business.” New York Times, April 21, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/science/earth/22earth.html?hp=&pagewanted=print (accessed April 24, 2010).
Kelly, Kevin. “Better Than Owning.” The Technium.
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/01/better_than_own.php (accessed July 2,
2010).
King, Jennifer. “Target giving out 1.5 million reusable bags for Earth Day 2010.” Examiner,
April 8, 2010. http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-38784-San-Antonio-Budget-GroceryExaminer~y2010m4d8-Target-giving-out-15-million-reusable-bags-for-Earth-Day-2010 (accessed April 24, 2010).
Klein, Naomi. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. New York: Picador, 1999.
Kruger, Barbara. “Feminist Art.” The Art History Archive.
http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/feminist/Barbara-Kruger.html (accessed June 25,
2010).
McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make
Things. New York: North Point Press, 2002.
McLaughlin, Lisa. “How to Live With Just 100 Things.” Time, June 5, 2008.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1812048,00.html (accessed May 2, 2010).
McNeal, James, and Chyon-Hwa Yeh. “Born to Shop.” American Demographics (June 1993): 34-39.
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Ostrom, Elinor. “The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources.” Environment 50, no. 4 (July/August 2008): 8-20. OmniFile Full Text Mega, WilsonWeb.
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/login.jhtml (accessed April 2, 2010).
Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner, and James Walker. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1994.
“Out of love, into a shop.” The Daily Mirror, June 17, 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/newsarticles/daily-mirror-the-london-uk/mi_8006/is_20100617/loveshop/ai_n54096768/?tag=content;col1 (accessed June 25, 2010).
Patel, Raj. The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy. New
York: Picador, 2009.
McGrath 37
“Poverty Facts and Stats.” Global Issues. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-factsand-stats (accessed April 24, 2010).
Qualman, Erik. “Statistics Show Social Media Is Bigger Than You Think.” Socialnomics—Social
Media Blog. http://socialnomics.net/2009/08/11/statistics-show-social-media-is-bigger-thanyou-think/ (accessed July 2, 2010).
Riley, Chris. “The Cultural Influence of Brands.” In Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design
Responsibility, edited by Steven Heller and Véronique Vienne, 70-81. New York: Allworth
Press, 2003.
“Save Money.” I-Go Car Sharing. http://www.igocars.org/member-benefits/save-money/ (accessed May 1, 2010).
Shapiro, Ellen. “Greenwashing!,” Communication Arts, December 2004.
http://www.visualanguage.net/vl/goodwriting1.php?show=greenwash_article_Shapiro.html
(accessed June 25, 2010).
Shedroff, Nathan, and Hunter Lovins. Design Is the Problem: The Future of Design Must Be Sustainable. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Rosenfeld Media, 2009.
Siegel, Dmitri. “Paper, Plastic, or Canvas?,” Design Observer, February 4, 2009.
http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=7917 (accessed April 24, 2010).
Simons, Janet A., Donald B. Irwin, and Beverly A. Drinnien. “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.” In
Psychology: The Search for Understanding. New York: West Publishing Company, 1987.
http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/maslow.htm
(accessed June 17, 2010).
“Turn Over a New Leaf.” Macy’s. http://www.macys.com/campaign/earthday/index.jsp (accessed
April 24, 2010).
Werbach, Adam. “The Birth of Blue.” Saatchi & Saatchi S. http://www.saatchis.com/birthofblue/
(accessed June 29, 2010).
McGrath 38
VISUAL AIDS
Fig. 1. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Home page.
McGrath 39
Fig. 2. The Yellow Shed Web Site. About page.
McGrath 40
Fig. 3. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Sign up page.
McGrath 41
Fig. 4. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Resources / share page.
McGrath 42
Fig. 5. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Resources / swap page.
McGrath 43
Fig. 6. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Resources / service page.
McGrath 44
Fig. 7. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / profile page.
McGrath 45
Fig. 8. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / friends page.
McGrath 46
Fig. 9. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / group page.
McGrath 47
Fig. 10. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / member profile page.
McGrath 48
Fig. 11. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / member friends page.
McGrath 49
Fig. 12. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / member groups page.
McGrath 50
Fig. 13. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads page.
McGrath 51
Fig. 14. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / loan agreement form.
McGrath 52
Fig. 15. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / identifying labels.
McGrath 53
Fig. 16. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “My closet is a yellow shed” wallpaper.
McGrath 54
Fig. 17. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “Go green in any color” wallpaper.
McGrath 55
Fig. 18. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “I share with The Yellow Shed” wallpaper.
McGrath 56
Fig. 19. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “My closet is a yellow shed” Twitter background.
McGrath 57
Fig. 20. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “Go green in any color” Twitter background.
McGrath 58
Fig. 21. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “I share with The Yellow Shed” Twitter background.
McGrath 59
Fig. 22. The Yellow Shed Web Good Advertisement. “Go green in any color.”
McGrath 60
Fig. 23. The Yellow Shed Web Pandora Advertisement. “The world is your closet.”
McGrath 61
INVENTORY OF VISUAL AIDS
Fig. 1.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. Home page.
Fig. 2.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. About page.
Fig. 3.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. Sign up page.
Fig. 4.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. Resources / share page.
Fig. 5.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. Resources / swap page.
Fig. 6.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. Resources / service page.
Fig. 7.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / profile page.
Fig. 8.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / friends page.
Fig. 9.
The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / group page.
Fig. 10. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / member profile page.
Fig. 11. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / member friends page.
Fig. 12. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Connect / member groups page.
Fig. 13. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads page.
Fig. 14. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / loan agreement form.
Fig. 15. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / identifying labels.
Fig. 16. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “My closet is a yellow shed” wallpaper.
Fig. 17. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “Go green in any color” wallpaper.
Fig. 18. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “I share with The Yellow Shed” wallpaper.
Fig. 19. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “My closet is a yellow shed” Twitter background.
Fig. 20. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “Go green in any color” Twitter background.
Fig. 21. The Yellow Shed Web Site. Downloads / “I share with The Yellow Shed” Twitter background.
Fig. 22. The Yellow Shed Web Good Advertisement. “Go green in any color.”
Fig. 23. The Yellow Shed Web Pandora Advertisement. “The world is your closet.”
All logos and images in resources pages copyright © the following:
CoAbode, Collaborative Consumption, CouchSurfing, Creative Commons, Dave Zillion, Flickr, Landshare, Rideshare Directory,
Shareable, Wikipedia, Bartercard, BarterQuest, BookMooch, Dig N’Swap, Freecycle, ITEX, Makeup Alley, OurGoods, Swapstyle,
Swaptree, SwapSimple, ThredUp, Toy Swap, Avelle, Fashion Hire, From Bags to Riches, Grooveshark, Lend Around, Netflix,
Pandora Media, Inc., Relay Rides, Rent a Toy, Zilok, Zimride, and Zipcar.
Twitter Web site images copyright © Twitter 2010.
GOOD Web site image copyright © GOOD Worldwide LLC.
Pandora Web site image copyright © 2005-2010 Pandora Media, Inc.
The Yellow Shed Web site and logo copyright © Jessie McGrath 2010. All rights reserved.