Abstract
The transition to a circular economy (CE) produces a range of new challenges for designers and requires specific knowledge, strategies, and methods. To date, most studies regarding design for a CE have been theoretical and conceptual, hence, limited research has been conducted on the practical implications of designing for a CE. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a better understanding of how design practitioners interpret and implement the CE concept in practice. To capture the complexity of real-world cases, semi-structured interviews were carried out with design practitioners (N = 12) within the disciplines of architecture and industrial design who have actively worked with circularity in a design agency setting. The results show that the practitioners have diverse perspectives on designing for a CE, relating to (1) the circular design process, (2) the effects of the CE on design agencies, (3) the changing role of the designer, and (4) the external factors affecting circular design in practice. Some differences were identified between the architects and industrial designers, with the industrial designers more strongly focused on circular business models and the architects on the reuse of materials on a building level. In addition, circular strategies and associated (similar) terminologies were understood and applied in fundamentally different ways. As the CE blurs boundaries of scale and disciplines, there is a need for universal design frameworks and language. The CE concept is expanding the scope of the design process and driving the integration of new knowledge fields and skills in the design process. The successful implementation of the CE in practice is based on extensive collaboration with stakeholders and experts throughout all stages of the design process. Design agencies have addressed the CE by establishing dedicated CE research and design teams, facilitating knowledge exchange, developing their own circular strategies and methods, and striving for long-term client relationships that foster the engagement of designers with the lifecycles of designed artefacts rather than perceiving design projects as temporary endeavors. Ultimately, a holistic and integral approach towards design in a CE is needed to ensure that the underlying CE goals of contributing to sustainable development and establishing a systemic shift are ongoingly considered.
Highlights
Moving away from the current linear economy, which follows a take-make-use-dispose principle, towards a circular economy (CE) is considered to be a solution that will minimize pressure on the environment to an increasing extent
Some of the participants considered that the design process was not necessarily different from their established process or past projects that were not focused upon circularity, most of the participants agreed that the design process does become more complex and that the focus on circularity extends the length, costs, and overall scope of design projects
Designing a circular solution that strives for a closed loop of resources typically requires more stakeholders than usual to be involved in the design process, and their individual demands need to be managed
Summary
Moving away from the current linear economy, which follows a take-make-use-dispose principle, towards a circular economy (CE) is considered to be a solution that will minimize pressure on the environment to an increasing extent. In a CE, economic growth is decoupled from resource consumption and the notion of waste is eliminated by maintaining products, components, and materials at their highest utilities and values (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Rahe have explained the limited progress in the CE transition by pointing to technical barriers such as the incorrect design of products (Pheifer, 2017), while other scholars have suggested that the major barriers to a CE in the EU are not of a technical nature but are attributable to hesitant company cultures, a lack of consumer interest and awareness, and a limited willingness to collaborate within the value chain (Kirchherr et al, 2018). Many scholars agree that the CE necessitates a systemic view on resources and their lifecycles (Ghisellini et al, 2016; Iacovidou et al, 2017; Reike et al, 2018) and a fundamental systemic change rather than “a bit of twisting of the status quo” (Kirchherr et al, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
