Terry's post here points to one aspect of re-use, that we could call
planned re-use, depending on our ability to predict needs and choices
some way into the future. I'd agree that a lot of work has been done on
this and, in principle at least, the idea of managing the whole life of
a product and beyond has become mainstream.

However the original question was about re-appropriation rather than
planned further use. For a great deal of what we consume we still lack
knowledge of how to enable an efficient life once the product has moved
beyond the domain that the producer can predict or control, it's
difficult enough to predict and control how people buy new stuff. Since
the world currently buys huge amounts of stuff produced by people in
other countries that ability for producers to predict or control is even
more compromised than it might have been when companies such as Hoover
made their products for sale close to the factory.

Whether an understanding of the "informal" economy of re-appropriation
would be of substantive benefit to the environment is not clear, it
would certainly have to go hand in hand with a social outlook that
valued old things as much as new ones. I don't think we know much about
all that (but as I have said, I may have a contribution by one of my
colleagues to announce soon.)

ebay might be a good place to start some research into how people value
and use old stuff.

best
Chris

Terence wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> There has been a lot of work in this area already and the effects have been
> extensive - we-ve just either got used to them or we don't see them (e.g.
> the design implications of product take back policies, reuse by Xerox,
> improved dismantling by Hoover). Try googling recycle design and reuse
> "product design". The origins can be seen in the 60s design literature.
>
> Most of the research and design work has been done in engineering design
> research areas. Perhaps someone else can point to documentation of research
> done in Art and Design?
>
> An important issue to face is that many aspects of design, reuse, recycling,
> 'made to last' and 'eco-design' often have negative environmental
> consequences.
>
> For example, long lasting design of vehicles is problematic because
> environmentally, vehicles now are much better designed than they were a
> decade ago and very very much better than cars from the 70s. Rapid
> obsolescence in computer servers is good in energy terms. Current computer
> servers are energy hungry and it is clear that new directions in server
> farms will be much more energy efficient. Ditto lighting. Turbines and
> generators for electricity generation have a significant problem that they
> last decades. One of the best ways to reduce UK emissions is to update all
> turbines and generator technology to the current best practice - difficult
> as many of the existing setups have decades of life left in them.
>
> Some recycling processes use more energy and resources and create more
> pollution than creating virgin material. Often material separation is a
> problem for recycling (e.g. the labels on plastic parts can badly
> contaminate recycling).
>
> Reuse can be a problem with cross contamination - especially of biologically
> activr ingrediaents. In developing counbtries, re-use and recycle strategies
> can slow overall economic and knowledge development.with problematic social
> consequences.
>
> Another issue is that many of the 'environmentally better solutions'
> aren't. Two examples from the vehicle world are current hybrid cars (small
> turbo diesels do better) and bio-ethanol.
>
> One of the most amazing counter intuitive findings is is the indication that
> environmental design should avoid tree planting - soil-based CO2
> sequestration is apparently much better than trees (obvious - they are CO2
> neutral) and trees reduce the effectiveness of soil-based CO2 sequestration.
>
> On the re-use in design front, there are obvious efficiencies in reuseing
> design knowledge. Some recent research I did with Trudi Cooper indicates,
> however, that this often leads to unexpected shifts in paoer towards
> hegemonies.
>
> Its clear that successfully designing for re-use., re-design and eco-design
> is not as easy as it appears.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark
> Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 August 2007 12:46 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Redesign
>
> Thanks Terry,
>
> It would be interesting to know of some of the pitfalls of the re-design and
> re-use systems discovered in past research. It makes me wonder why it has
> not been successfully integrated into design methodology as a sophisticated,
> broad scale infrastructure. Is it because we, as designers, are too
> concerned with 'newness' and the exploration of virgin territory, or that
> our social environmental consciousness has not had enough momentum to drive
> the acceptance of used components. Or is it simply that technology has not
> been available to support an effective used-parts infrastructure? I suspect
> it's probable all of the above.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> Terence wrote:
>
>> Dear Mark,
>> There was a tremendous amount of work done in this area by members of the
>> ECO2-IRN group based at Cranfield during the 1990s (see
>> http://www.mcaloone.com/environment/eco2/intro.htm ) Some of the members
>>
> of
>
>> that group are members of this list. My guess is it is still available.
>>
> Tim
>
>> MacAloone and Tracy Bhamra were key contacts.
>> Best,
>> Terry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
>> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark
>> Richardson
>> Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:55 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Redesign
>>
>> Dear Francois,
>>
>> I think a comprehensive literature search and review in the area of
>> component and material reuse would be highly beneficial. I (along with a
>> number of other researchers I know) would be keen to develop such a list.
>> I'd also be keen to know how many other design researchers on the PhD
>>
> design
>
>> list are already looking into this area. It would be good to to take the
>> theory and begin to fashion it into a collaborative infrastructure of
>>
> design
>
>> practice.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mark Richardson
>>
>>
>>
>> Francois-Xavier Nsenga <[log in to unmask]> wrote:> Dear Mark,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing the information! It really feels good to see more
>>
> and
>
>> more likeminded people around!
>>
>> I have just sent off-list a note to Stella (one of the previous posts)
>> suggesting to form a team that would look into the possibility of a
>> compilation and annotation of available literature on information from
>>
> users
>
>> to designers...
>>
>> Would you also be interested to join in?
>>
>> I am very much interested to have a look into your 'redesign' project, and
>> please forward a copy to me after your paper is delivered at the IASDR 07
>> conference.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards!
>>
>>
>> Francois
>> --
>> Transport Design Coordinator / Ph.D. candidate Monash University Faculty
>>
> of
>
>> Art & Design Department of Design, Industrial Design 900 Dandenong Rd
>> Caulfield East 3145 Victoria, Australia
>>
>> Ph: +61 3 9903 1859
>> Mob: 0425 726 011
>>
>>
>
>