Description

A new way of thinking is emerging for developing strategic pathways for local to planetary economic and ecological viability. This way of thinking centres around the ideas of “peer to peer production”, “the commons”, and “cosmo-localism”. This course will give participants emerging strategies to address critical development challenges using new cosmo-local and commons-based production strategies and thinking. Cosmo-local development describes the process of bringing together our globally distributed knowledge and design commons with the high-to-low tech capacity for localized production and self-organization. It augurs in an era in which the legacy of human creativity is at the disposal and service of those with the most needs, and in which our systems of production can be sustained within planetary ecological boundaries.

Over 15 cases will be presented on a variety of topics and themes, including:

• Examples in agriculture, for examples Farm Hack, Le A’terlier Paysans and FarmBot
• Examples in manufacturing, including Open Motors, AbilityMade and OpenROV
• Examples in medicine and health, including Fold-it and the Open Insulin Project
• Examples in housing construction, including Hexayurt and Wikihouse
• Examples in the circular economy, including Precious Plastic
• Examples in urban development, including Fabcity and Ghent city as commons
• Examples in water management, including Hack the Water Crisis (Stop Reset Go)
• Examples in crypto-programming, including Holochain
• Examples in disaster response, including Field Ready

The course is run in the format of ‘action learning’. This means that participants will form into groups (5-8 people) based on topics that are meaningful to them, and will engage in a problem solving (anticipatory innovation) process through-out the course. Participant will be introduced to the key ideas and guided through the problem solving in a step by step format, so that the ideas are applied in the context of real development challenges. The course is a unique offering combining anticipatory innovation and systemic futures design thinking that will give participants renewed leverage in generating ideas for positive social change.

Objectives of Course:

• Learn from 15+ examples and cases
• Learn concepts in

1. Peer Production
2. The Commons
3. Cosmo-local production

• Understand cosmo-localism as both

1. A seed form that can be applied and scaled from social enterprise
2. A political economic vision which provides new policy pathways

• Develop networks and connections with others that carry forward momentum
• Develop process skills in applying these models in the context of specific development and organisational challenges

Expected Outcomes of Course:

• A new set of concepts and understanding for development
• An understanding of how these strategies are applied
• A set of examples and cases that clarify how they function
• Ideas developed in the workshop that can be carried forward into the world
• Inclusion in an extended network of people interested in these new development strategies
• A cosmo-local production design canvas that will provide a template for applying the ideas elsewhere (this will be a simple to use canvas that can be printed in an A2 or bigger paper that will be linked to the course content)

The course is being run by Dr. Jose Ramos (Action Foresight), in conjunction with Prof. Shishir Kumar Jha and Raji Ajwani (Indian Institute of Technology – Mumbai) and Michel Bauwens (P2P Foundation).

About the presenter

José Maria Ramos is interim research coordinator for the P2P Foundation, director of the boutique foresight consultancy Action Foresight, is Senior Consulting Editor for the Journal of Futures Studies, and is Senior Adjunct Professor at the University of the Sunshine Coast. He has taught and lectured on futures studies, public policy and social innovation at the National University of Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy), Swinburne University of Technology (Australia), Leuphana University (Germany), the University of the Sunshine Coast (Australia) and Victoria University (Australia). He has over 50 publications in journals, magazines and books spanning economic, cultural and political change, futures studies, public policy and social innovation. He has also co-founded numerous civil society organizations, a social forum, a maker lab, an advocacy group for commons governance, and a peer to peer leadership development group for mutant futurists. He holds a B.A. in Comparative Literature, a Masters degree in Strategic Foresight, and a Ph.D. in critical globalisation studies. He has a passion for the coupling of foresight and action, which has included both theoretical work through published articles, consulting work for federal, state and municipal governments, as well as citizen experiments in methodological innovation. He is originally from California of Mexican ancestry. Born in Oakland, he grew up in a very multi-cultural suburb of Los Angeles. After living in Japan and Taiwan, where he studied Japanese and Mandarin, he moved to Melbourne Australia to be with his wife, De Chantal. They have two children, son Ethan and daughter Rafaela. His other great passion is in considering who we are as planetary beings, which includes his ethnographic study of alternative globalizations, writings on planetary stigmergy, and research on cosmo-localization. This line of work connects him to the truth that we are all brothers and sisters inter-dependent with our planet and each other for our survival and wellbeing – our shared commons.

Workshop Schedule

Module Activities DAY 1

Day one (morning)

Deep dive into p2p / cosmo-local ideas and examples.

15+ case studies and examples from around the world

Content: Farm Hack, Le A’terlier Paysans and FarmBot, Open Motors, AbilityMade and OpenROV, Fold-it and the Open Insulin Project, Hexayurt and Wikihouse, Precious Plastic, Fabcity and Ghent city as commons, Hack the Water Crisis (Stop Reset Go), Holochain, Field Ready

LUNCH

Day one (afternoon)

Presentation of principles of cosmo-local production and commons based development.

Content

• The theory of the p2p economy.
• Foundational concepts.
• The theory of commons governance.
• Foundational concepts.

Lectures followed by discussion and Q&A.

Open discussion on participant reflections.

Dive into some of issues and challenges people are grappling with. Break into groups and begin to explore the nature of the problems and issues that they are facing.

DAY 2

Day two (morning) Re-articulation of the key ideas and then groups jump into practical and applied group work.

Content: The anticipatory experimentation method (AEM) steps 1-2

Identify the “used future” and develop a preferred future

LUNCH

Day two (afternoon)

Developing the proposal, articulating ideas to solve the local issues and problems, and developing ideas for real world experimentation.

Content:

• The anticipatory experimentation method (AEM)

steps 3-4

• Ideating solutions and real-world experiments

Presentations and discussing next steps as a network

What is cosmo-localism?

Cosmo-localization describes the process of bringing together our globally distributed knowledge and design commons with the high-to-low tech capacity for localized production. It augurs an era in which the legacy of human creativity is at the disposal and service of those in need within ecological planetary boundaries. It is based on the ethical premise, drawing from cosmopolitanism, that people and communities should be universally empowered with the heritage of human ingenuity that allow them to more effectively create livelihoods and solve problems in their local environments, and that, reciprocally, local production and innovation should support the wellbeing of our planetary commons.

“Cosmo-localization is a new paradigm for the production and distribution of value that combines the universal sharing of knowledge (cosmo), but the ‘subsidiarity’ of production as close as possible to the place of need (‘local’), essentially through distributed local manufacturing and voluntary mutualization. The general idea is not to impede technological progress though intellectual property, in an era of climate change where we cannot afford the 20-year lag in innovation due to patents; and to radically diminish the physical cost of transport through local production. Cosmo-localization is based on the belief that the mutualization of provisioning systems can radically diminish the human footprint on natural resources, which need to be preserved for future generations and all beings of the planet.” Michel Bauwens

“what is light (knowledge, design) becomes global, while what is heavy (machinery) is local, and ideally shared. Design global, manufacture local (DGML) demonstrates how a technology project can leverage the digital commons to engage the global community in its development, celebrating new forms of cooperation. Unlike large-scale industrial manufacturing, the DGML model emphasizes application that is small-scale, decentralized, resilient, and locally controlled.” –Vasilis Kostakis and Andreas Roos, Harvard Business Review

More information

Links to cosmo-localization:

• Peer Production and the Commons

• From redistributive urban commons to cosmo-local production commons

• Cosmo-Localization And Leadership For The Future

• Cosmo-localism and the Anthropocene

The post Futures of Production Through Cosmo-Local and Commons-Based Design appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Abstract

This paper discusses how emerging issues in housing construction could revolutionise the building industry. It focuses on commons-based networks of organisations, technologies and users that form a niche practice on the margins of the dominant paradigm. This practice can be understood as “Design Global, Manufacture Local” and is exemplified by the Hexayurt, the Open Source Ecology Microhouse and the WikiHouse. Using these descriptive case studies, light is shed on the challenges and opportunities of open construction systems with regard to technological, institutional and social perspectives. Notwithstanding the positive dynamics, certain issues need to be addressed, so that a sustainable built environment could flourish.

Excerpts

The DGML Approach

As a form of CBPP, the DGML approach introduces a shift from mass-produced solutions to customised ones. It describes the convergence of global digital commons with local manufacturing technologies (including 3D printers, CNC machines, laser cutters, etc.), as well as simple tools (like saws, drills, etc.). It emerged as a promising model of distributed production within the dominant capitalist system (Giotitsas & Ramos, 2017). Further, extensive discussions have triggered about the impact of DGML on culture through the idea of cosmo-localism (Ramos, 2017).

Echoing Kostakis, Latoufis Liarokapis, & Bauwens (2016a), three genuine components of the DGML paradigm include: the removal of planned obsolescence that describes the deliberate production of goods with a limited lifetime towards profit maximisation (BBC, 2017; Guiltinan, 2009); on-demand production, considering that the manufacturing process takes place in local makerspaces, hence transportation and environmental impacts are expected to be lower (Kohtala & Hyysalo, 2015; Kostakis, Fountouklis, & Drechsler, 2013); sharing practices and mutualisation of both digital (such as software and designs) and material infrastructures (such as makerspaces and shared machinery).

Considering recent concerns for sustainability (Taranic, Behrens, & Topi, 2016; Whicher, Harris, Beverley, & Swiatek, 2018), the DGML model could pave the way for sustainable practices in the built environment. This model entails the concept of modular design through the use of recyclable elements that could be deconstructed without damage and reused. Hence, repairability, recyclability, disassemblability, and upgradability of the manufactured components can be achieved (Bonvoisin, 2016).

The DGML approach is also characterised by flexibility in the design of objects via the use of parametric design tools. Digital 3D designs stimulate an ongoing interaction between the participants in the design process since they represent information easily grasped even from amateurs (Yap, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2003). More dimensions, such as financial data, material properties or energy characteristics, can be added to the building geometry through the concept of Building Information Modelling (BIM). The latter allows for advanced simulations— including structural tests, energy analyses, etc.—which enable a life-cycle management of buildings by increasing predictability levels.”

Technological, institutional and social aspects of Open Construction Systems

The prefigurative examples of change presented through the three case studies have significant implications for the future of the construction sector and societal development. The focus is placed on the identification of opportunities and problems faced by these communities to expand the use of open construction systems. Relevant issues are analysed with regard to three interrelated aspects: technological, institutional and social.

Technological aspect

Parametric design tools can support the propagation of open construction systems, given that one-size-fits-all solutions of housing supply cannot work (WikiHouse, 2018a). The complexity of buildings together with a variety of regional contexts (with regard to climate, soil, regulations, etc.) renders the existence of parameters indispensable. Investment in information management through the use of BIM technology can support long-term decision-making processes, while robust planning could address quality and risk-related issues identified by self-build communities (Open Source Ecology, 2018).

Furthermore, communication protocols are necessary so that different stakeholders can address responsibility issues and cooperate harmoniously during the construction process. To facilitate transnational cooperation through BIM, national classification systems should be combined in international scale through the commitment on open standards (such as the Industry Foundation Classes). This would enable the participation of engineering firms in the research and development of open construction systems by offering technical support to communities across the building supply chain.

As far as the design part is concerned, a crucial element for the creation of an international, collaborative puzzle of structures via the use of open construction systems is standardisation. This term refers to the existence of a global dimensional framework to ensure common design guidelines (Open Structures, 2018). In this way, dimensions of the parts that compose a structure could be chosen according to a common global grid. These parts could then be assembled into components, which, in turn, could be combined into flexible structures and superstructures. The construction of a building could, thus, be analogised to the formation of an organism (Open Structures, 2018).

Another integral part of the process is the existence of detailed open-source documentation, as well as its ongoing update. Architectural data (e.g. digital drawings and calculations), construction data (e.g. model tests and building methods), technical, chemical and biophysical details (e.g. weather conditions and subsoil), costs (e.g. materials and equipment) and environmental requirements (e.g. recycling, water and depletion) should be extensively documented, facilitating the widespread replicability of open hardware solutions through easy-to-follow manuals (Bonvoisin, 2016).

Experimentations with new materials could improve open construction systems. Instead of monolithic materials (such as plywood, cardboard, etc.) mainly used during the introduction of these buildings, advanced materials, such as nanotechnology, bioplastics, and composites, could also be tested. However, given the difficulty of distinction between organic and industrial materials included in biocomposites, special care should be taken to ensure the recyclability of the new materials. The goal is to attain energy savings, structural capacity, as well as higher resistance to heat and moisture in extreme weather conditions through the use of environmentally friendly materials towards future circularity.

Institutional aspect

Open construction systems are promising, but the regional variation of building regulations and zoning codes is challenging. Although the International Building Codes reflect the best practices based on construction experience and technology, local regulations vary from country to country and from context to context. For example, in parts of Missouri, USA, there are no building regulations (Open Building Institute, 2018), whereas in the UK building permissions can be evaded as specified by a set of laws (Knight & Williams, 2012).

The creation of simplified databases with regulation-related documents per country is believed to give prominence to the benefits of building open construction systems at local levels (Open Building Institute, 2018). Also, by taking advantage of the non-existence or ambiguity of regulations, loopholes in building codes allow communities to operate in a more restriction-free manner (Knight & Williams, 2012).

The embedded modularity of open construction systems allows for the mitigation of spatial barriers, which come from differences between strict building regulations. In that sense, modularity enables flexibility, which, in turn, facilitates compliance with the building codes: by replacing specific modules with others; by substituting materials; by adding or removing modules to meet geometric constraints. Moreover, modular design facilitates the disassembly of a structure into building modules, which can be modified, substituted and upgraded independently, as well as undergo physical tests in response to varying circumstances.

Despite their inability to address issues of inflated land prices and unequal access to resources, open construction systems seem to attract political support, like the case of the ongoing WikiHouse project in Almere. The reason for this could be the increasing demand for sustainable housing in the developing world and the mounting number of low-income groups in the developed countries.

Within oppressive austerity policies, it is possible that local authorities will start financing open construction systems as low-cost technological solutions. Otherwise, communities should keep struggling to raise funds, which come from donations or other sources (e.g., selling manuals and offering service-based support).

Finally, the institutionalisation of such dispersed informal teams or individuals is vital for the expansion of these initiatives. These groups strive to advance their initial ideas and engage professional groups in the actualisation of their projects. As more professionals and organisations get involved over time, institutional constraints will be eliminated (Molitor, 1977).

Social aspect

Enabled by information technologies, open construction systems attempt to provision housing in a creative, socialising and convivial way. People enjoy greater potential when working within collectives, leading to the renaissance of pre-industrial architecture through community-based building. In this context, citizen-driven initiatives try to provide affordable and sustainable housing.

Digital fabrication technologies may be helpful tools towards this goal, given that they translate digital data into physical objects. Consequently, the thresholds of skills, cost and time needed for the construction are lowered together with the relevant transportation and socio-environmental costs(Kostakis, Fountouklis, & Drechsler, 2013).

Moving beyond market economy systems, low-cost, adaptable and sustainable solutions can be produced in localised settings. The soil nourishing the shared infrastructure of the global digital commons can continuously be expanded by contributors around the world. Beyond that, the availability of various building types under open-source licences fosters experimentation and the ability to develop combinations of the best or most appropriate elements for each situation.

The implementation of the DGML model in the construction sector introduces a radically different approach from that of the dominant model. In cases like the building process, where stakeholders with various interests are involved, conflicts are unavoidable. For instance, open construction systems may seem as a long-term sustainable solution to global issues for the opensource communities. On the other hand, the sharing of infrastructures may threaten the short-term profit-oriented goals of the construction companies.

A redefinition of roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the construction process—including governments, self-build communities, engineers, and asset-owners—is required. Thus, we need to witness behavioural change towards resource efficiency and sustainability. For example, supporting services and consultancy could be purchased instead of tangible objects and systems could be developed and monitored in collaborative environments instead of competitive ones.

Considering the newly-published information around open construction, the scalability of such emerging initiatives and their future ability to outcompete the dominant construction model in terms of quality or safety may be questionable. However, the success of open-source initiatives in the past has given prominence to the importance of human participation. The latter may be increased by promoting global awareness of the sustainability features of the open-source movement, as well as of the circular economy features embedded in the use of open construction systems. By empowering proactive and knowledgeable citizens globally, more individuals, collectives, and firms would be contributing to the improvement of open construction systems and the related policy making. In this way, the development of flexible modular structures via a common dimensional framework could prompt the completion of the universal building puzzle. Yet no one could question the role of education to prepare the participants for new building practices and build resilience at a global scale.

Despite the efforts of these open-source communities to solve pressing future challenges, form new business strategies and become institutionalised, these projects remain marginal. However, their momentum to provide affordable and sustainable housing affects many. Their mounting social impacts increase the chances for these innovative initiatives to evolve into an important issue.

Especially by intensifying the testing of solutions with the aid of a global network of contributors, these communities could be integrated into the mainstream and challenge the status quo.

Given the current global credit crisis and sustainability concerns, the DGML model creates new ecosystems with the potential to grow more widely. The key systemic factors that enable this proliferation include: the broad diffusion of low-cost ICT and internet connectivity, the development of the relevant culture around openness and sharing intensified by the widespread means of information sharing, and the ecological crisis that creates higher demand for more sustainable and circular economy-based models.

Finally, the DGML model has the flexibility to adjust to different needs and contexts, as well as provide solutions to various issues, which may correlate to market failures in the global North or the inexistence of relevant infrastructure in the global South. Thus, it may fill the gaps of marketbased solutions for sustainable housing through the development of alternative systems of housing provision, while providing affordable housing to the people in need.”

Conclusion

“This article contributes to the understanding of how individuals, companies, and governments could come together to promote a sustainable built environment. It represents an attempt to shed light on the dynamics of the emerging open construction systems implemented through DGML approaches. The entire debate regarding open construction systems has gained momentum in light of the growing concern about global pressing issues.

In this context, three case studies were used to elucidate the ways and means by which the DGML model can further sustainability in the construction sector by sharing physical and digital infrastructures. These case studies see the construction process as a community-driven procedure that unfolds outside the market economy. The relevant challenges and opportunities were elaborated upon.

It is concluded that the implementation of the DGML approach in constructions calls for drastic changes in current practices, in the role of various stakeholders and the scale of the processes.

Especially new business strategies surface with the involvement of advisers, developers, business and organisational experts in citizen-driven projects, providing expertise on all stages of the building supply chain. The necessity for institutionalisation of the communities involved, as well as the existence of a standard design grid to enable large-scale constructions, could boost the potential of open construction systems, maximising their social impact.

A limitation of this paper is that the problems and opportunities that accompany the implementation of the DGML model in the construction sector were identified but not directly addressed. Technical evaluations of open construction systems could estimate the degree of sustainability of these structures. Hopefully, this article will prompt discussions among industry practitioners and trigger explorations worldwide.”

More information

Contact author via

• Christina Priavolou. Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Akadeemia street 3, 12618, Tallinn, Estonia.
• P2P Lab, Kougkiou 3A, 45221, Ioannina, Greece.

Photo by *m22

The post Emergence of Open Construction Systems appeared first on P2P Foundation.

By Dirk Holemans et a. Oikos, 2018: In order to find responses to current societal challenges, citizens increasingly take control, including in the form of citizen collectives that produce goods or services themselves, usually as a quest towards a more sustainable alternative. With the support of the King Baudouin Foundation and in the context of its Observatory of Associations and Foundations (Observatorium van Verenigingen en Stichtingen), Oikos think tank carried out the first research on these collectives throughout the country: who facilitates them, how important are they and how do they position themselves among other actors in society such as the classic civil society, governments and companies? With a desk study, a survey and in-depth interviews, Oikos mapped citizens’ collectives established in 2015 and 2016.

Increasing number of establishments

In 2015 and 2016, 249 citizen collectives in Belgium were launched spread over the entire country (map available). 127 among them answered the survey and 106 (48 from Flanders, 36 from Wallonia and 22 from Brussels) completed questionnaires were included in the analysis (21 respondents were found not to comply with the definition or were not established during the study period). Of those 106, most are active in areas such as food, agriculture, energy, social inclusion and the sharing economy; more than half classifies their activity under the label ‘environment and sustainability’ (graph available).

This is the first comprehensive investigation for the French-speaking citizen collectives. On the Dutch-speaking side, Oikos, on the other hand, has historical figures from 2004 onwards (graph available), indicating that 2009 was a turning point : the number of establishments has grown strongly ever since and nothing points to a stagnation of this growth.

What is a citizen collective?

Not all activities that citizens organize together are citizen collectives. A neighborhood barbecue or a temporary action group against logging is not. Then what is? Some elements are necessary to be able to speak of a citizen collective:

• to meet local needs, with the aim of long-term structural results;
• the members take control of the production / execution of the goods or services themselves (although sometimes it is possible to call on paid (service) suppliers);
• citizens are the promoters and determine who belongs to the group, and who can use or manage the resources, goods or services;
  the members have a say in the form, the organization and the action lines for the future;

A few examples: with a social grocery, cooperative library of things, or community supported agriculture where consumers are closely connected to a farmer and are committed to reducing production, or even participating in the harvest.

Pioneers: highly educated working M/F/X in their thirties and forties

Citizen collectives are largely the work of 25- to 45-year-olds, and the real pioneers are usually 36 to 45 years (graph available). Young people and seniors are hardly represented. There is a balance in the participation of women and men, and single people, cohabitants and married couples are fairly equal (graph available).

Among the pioneers in citizen collectives, highly educated people are strongly overrepresented: 86.3% have at least a Bachelor’s degree (graph available– compared to 45.6% of the population aged between 30 and 34 years according to Statbel’s figures). Most pioneers (84.8%) combine their engagement with a job (of whom four out of ten half-time).

53.7% of the respondents are politically engaged. Half of the respondents (48.6%) estimate that the political preference of the pioneers of their citizens’ collective is left on the political spectrum (graph available).

Relationship with government and industry: a healthy distance

Most citizen collectives (58%) are self-sufficient. 78% came about without public participation. But they think a good relationship with the government is important (80%). Approximately 1 in 3 consults with the municipal authorities about the activities and services they offer. The relationship with the (local) government does not always go smoothly: some are satisfied (“the city made our operations possible”), others less (“we mainly got headwinds”).

According to a minority (16.8%) of the citizen collectives, companies see them as competitors. They themselves see their own role in relation to the business sector as additional (in Wallonia), cooperative (in Brussels), or innovative (in the three regions). (graph available).

Little inclusive

The sectors in which they operate show that citizen collectives often strive for a more sustainable society. They inspire other actors from industry, government and civil society. Partly because of their urge for proximity and small scale in their approach, they still play a modest role as an alternative to production and / or consumption,  alongside those (more) dominant actors.

If citizen collectives really strive for a sustainable and inclusive society, then consideration must be given to ways of involving disadvantaged citizens in this citizens’ movement.

Photo by European Parliament

Photo by European Parliament

The post When citizens take matters into their own hands: a closer look at citizen collectives established in 2015 and 2016 appeared first on P2P Foundation.

What is the circular economy going to change in your field of activity? What are the priorities of your company/organisation to contribute to the transition towards a circular economy?

The specific priority of the P2P Foundation is to focus on the ‘open source’ circular economy. This is a open source circular economy that is based on participatory and open supply chains that allow both for the mutualization and knowledge, and thus for a much more rapid transition than under conditions of proprietary and secret knowledge, but also the increased capacity for mutual coordination in supply and demand. We also focus on ‘subsidiarity in material production’, i.e. the capacity of new model which combines globally shared productive knowledge, with distributed manufacturing closer to the place of use and demand, a process which is also called sometimes ‘DGML’ (Design Global, Manufacture Local’) or ‘cosmo-localization’ (what is light is global, what is heavy is local)

Are you going to cooperate differently with your partners in this cycle?

The P2P Foundation is an observatory and research network, hence our activities in this field are about observing ‘best practices’ in this field, and to catalyze their use.

What should be the role of public authorities and at which level of intervention should they be involved? Should they coordinate the circularity or rather be “organising authorities”? Does an organising authority (a public local or regional player) have to intervene in this process?

Public authorities should be active at all levels by providing legal and regulatory frameworks but also practical facilitation. We recommend the institutionalization of this practice through ‘Sustainability Empowerment Platforms’, which are public-civic (public-commons, public-social) multi-stakeholder arrangements. Public authorities can also help by providing ‘circular financing’, i.e. encouraging those actors that save public resources by sharing the gains that they help provide. For example, if a community land trust provides land to farmers, which allow them to practice ecological and non-toxic farming at low rents, thereby providing substantial better health outcomes for the population and dramatically less polluted water and thus water purifications costs, then sharing the savings as investments, can create positive loops for the circular economy that also allow for the redirection of public funds to other purposes. The public authorities, knowing that any growth that is above 1% annually in raw material extraction, renders circularity inoperable, should also set limits that encourage this transition, so that it can be effective.

Is the circular economy creating new Services of General Interest (SGIs) and Services of General Economic Interest (SGEIs) (e.g. waste collection and management)?

These should and will exist for every provisioning system needed by humanity for its social reproduction, and should use public-civic, polycentric, multi-stakeholders institutional forms.

How can we guarantee that the externalisation of waste management is not made at the expense of one actor rather than another, especially concerning citizens/users?

The use of open accounting and open supply chains involving all actors, should make the material processes transparent, so that a dialogue between the stakeholders, especially the citizens/users, can discuss and organize more just distribution mechanisms.

How is it possible to include ensuing benefits, such as social and vocational integration, and to move away from an “all-market” position?

We believe this can be achieved through a commons-centric model, which puts open contributions to the productive knowledge commons at its centers, strives for mutualization of physical infrastructures, creates more generative entrepreneurial forms, and can be managed by polycentric for-benefit associations for their governance. This new mix of commons, market and institutional forms is geared towards the integration of negative social and environmental costs in the economic models of these new ecosystems. The role of public authorities is to make sure that such integration leads to rewards compared to those who fail to make such adaptations.

How is it possible to budget and apportion transition costs in a fair manner? How is it possible to socialise transition benefits?

We propose to transition towards a biophysical economy using the appropriate metrics for matter and energy usage. Gains in such thermo-dynamic efficiencies should be rewarded; and circuits for generative funding should be used to create virtuous cycles. The use of common assets based organizations can be used to reward those that generate value as compared to those who maintain extractive practices. This means the introduction of commons trust that can generate incomes for all members.

Which political priorities are you identifying for the next months and years?

The goal in the material economy is to create meta-economic circuits that generate a mode of production and exchange that combines shared knowledge that increases innovation in this field, the mutualisation of physical assets and objects to diminish its material footprint, and a just distribution of income and rewards. We believe this takes the form of open and contributory communities, ethical and generative entrepreneurs, and democratic institutions that maintain the infrastructure of cooperation. This requires more social and political representation of the forces that are engaged in such process, and enabling public services. This means that pubic officials and political movements need to be made aware of the potential of this model, so that appropriate public processes can be developed to encourage this transition.

Which investment and accompanying measures need to be implemented?

We propose the creation of more commons trust for the ownership and governance of material infrastructures, the creation of circular finance as explained above, and the development of integrative Commons Transition Plans by public authorities.

Photo by thtstudios

The post The P2P Foundation on the (Open Source) Circular Economy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

A revived and mainstreamable left should offer large numbers of people productive roles in an economy that can actually build the alternative energy technologies, decentered electric grids, urban food-production systems and well-maintained housing and collective infrastructures that are needed to face the ravages of environmental decay and climate change.

We need a commons-centric, peer production based, ‘design global, manufacture local’ approach to create a massive programs of productive work for disintegrating communities, with jobs that are compatible with the need for a social-ecological transition.

I am very happy to see the same sentiments and idea expressed by Brian Holmes, in this following excerpt from the Networked Labour mailing list (with minor modifications):

“The US now has to cope with the cultural consequences of deindustrialization. Those consequences are alienation from the sense of self-worth that is generated by freely exercising one’s own productive capacities. Alienation gives rise to resentment: the keyword of today’s proto-fascist politics. Ignoring the problem of increasingly disenfranchised non-professional workers will not make it go away.

The last thing to do is to pander to a racist and chauvinist cultural complex. Instead the urgency is to create a political economy that does not foster proto-fascist resentment.

The key point is collective investment. This doesn’t have to mean laptop computers with word processors and graph functions, which are the hallmark of what the Ehrenreichs long ago called “the professional-managerial class.” Nor, however, does it mean taking contemporary Germany’s path, because despite all the solar power and local industry, Germany depends in reality on so-called free trade, which is predatory on other economies. But what this “new economy” could mean is the new tool-kit of numerically controlled production machines, or CNC tools, which are open to the peer production that Michel Bauwens talks about. I’m talking about digitally controlled routers, lathes, bandsaws and so on, not only additive 3-D printing. The advantage of these relatively inexpensive machine tools is that they allow small groups of workers to autonomously carry out sophisticated projects, fulfilling the cultural demand for dignity of labor without oppressive management by suits. If people learn to use them in a local capitalist factory producing quality goods for decent wages, then during periods of unemployment or early retirement they could also use them in a commons-based economy, to help rebuild a resilient community. In this way the value of one’s own labor would be reinforced along a pathway that leads outside of current managerial capitalism.

Such an approach could be applied in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods as well as white ones. In fact, I got the idea of “community production” from a Black social entrepreneur in Detroit named Blair Evans. It’s crucial to remember that Black communities were the first to be hit with deindustrialization in the Northern US cities, to absolutely devastating economic and social consequences that can never be repaired by welfare, nor even less by policing and imprisonment. In Chicago where I live, the gun violence in the impoverished neighborhoods is staggering, and what does society do? Half of us (myself included) protest against police atrocities, and the other half calls (successfully I’m afraid) for yet more police. Meanwhile the schools are dismantled, the health services are closed, the murder rate hits new records every year and absolutely nothing is done to promote employment, personal and familial autonomy, or any kind of community resilience whatsoever.

Managerial capitalism created financial governance, global supply chains and the China-centric economy of low-priced and badly made commodities. It promoted naked greed, hyperconsumption and mesmerizing spectacle for its university-educated cadres, while destroying much of the hands-on productive education offered by factory labor and the trades. It disenfranchised the former industrial working classes of all races, and among whites it fostered a politics of resentment that is now wide open to full-blown racist fascism. The situation cannot be changed by simply wishing that all these disenfranchised people will suddenly switch to a counter-cultural sharing-economy lifestyle, or by expecting them to endorse an eco-socialist program with no immediately tangible benefits. Nor even less can it be changed as the US Democratic party attempts, by symbolically exalting minority populations in order to get out the votes for the very same policies that impose precarity, unemployment and racialized exclusion. Instead a revived and mainstreamable left should offer large numbers of people productive roles in an economy that can actually build the alternative energy technologies, decentered electric grids, urban food-production systems and well-maintained housing and collective infrastructures that are needed to face the ravages of environmental decay and climate change. Rather than doing this according to an ideological prescription, the yet-to-be-created new mainstream left should create economic opportunities that will allow people to fulfill their desires for autonomy and a sense of self-worth. In my view, that’s the pathway of radically egalitarian social democracy in the twenty-first century.”

The post Answering the Attraction of Trump by a Massive Investment in Relocalized Community Production appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Our Mission & Vision

Fibershed develops regional and regenerative fiber systems on behalf of independent working producers, by expanding opportunities to implement carbon farming, forming catalytic foundations to rebuild regional manufacturing, and through connecting end-users to farms and ranches through public education.

We envision the emergence of an international system of regional textile communities that enliven connection and ownership of ‘soil-to-soil’ textile processes. These diverse textile cultures are designed to build soil carbon stocks on the working landscapes on which they depend, while directly enhancing the strength of regional economies. Both fiber and food systems now face a drastically changing climate, and must utilize the best of time-honored knowledge and available science for their long-term ability to thrive.

As each Fibershed community manages their resources to create permanent and lasting systems of production, these efforts to take full responsibility for a garment’s lifecycle will diminish pressure on highly polluted and ecologically undermined areas of the world. (China produces 52% of the world’s textiles. The industry is the third largest fresh water polluter in the country.) Future Fibershed communities will rely upon renewable energy powered mills that will exist in close proximity to where the fibers are grown. Through strategic grazing, conservation tillage, and a host of scientifically vetted soil carbon enhancing practices, our supply chains will create ‘climate beneficial’ clothing that will become the new standard in a world looking to rapidly mitigate the effects of climate change. We see a nourishing tradition emerging that connects the wearer to the local field where the clothes were grown, building a system that can last for countless generations into the future.

How did the Fibershed project start?

The project began in 2010 with a commitment by its founder, Rebecca Burgess, to develop and wear a prototype wardrobe whose dyes, fibers and labor were sourced from a region no larger than 150 miles from the project’s headquarters. Burgess had no expected outcomes from the personal challenge other than to reduce her own ecological footprint and maybe inspire a few others.

Burgess teamed up with a talented group of farmers and artisans to build the wardrobe by hand, as manufacturing equipment had all been lost from the landscape more than 20 years ago. The goal was to illuminate that regionally grown fibers, natural dyes, and local talent was still in great enough existence to provide this most basic human necessity—our clothes.  Within months, the project became a movement, and the word Fibershed and the working concept behind it spread to regions across the globe. Burgess founded Fibershed’s 501c3 to address and educate the public on the environmental, economic and social benefits of de-centralizing the textile supply chain.

The post Project of the Day: Fibershed appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Cindy Kohtala writes and concludes her investigations on the ecological impact of fabrication labs:

* From the introduction:

“Increasing numbers of citizens have access to digital fabrication equipment via devoted spaces known as Fab Labs, makerspaces and hackerspaces, which are mushrooming globally. Such access enables people to design and make their own products outside of conventional mass production and consumption channels, using technologies such as desktop additive manufacturing equipment (that is, ‘3D printers’), CNC (computer numeric control) milling machines, laser cutters, vinyl cutters and electronics stations for circuit prototyping. The technologies themselves, especially 3D printing, are widely espoused as disruptive technologies that will radically shift production and consumption patterns (Anderson, 2012; Marsh, 2012; Hamermesh, 2014).

The technologies are not new, as they have been used in industry, particularly in rapid prototyping, for decades; what is new is that costs of the equipment are rapidly decreasing, the machines are increasingly smaller and ‘desktop’, and the user base as well as use applications are expanding. Expiry of patents has especially fostered experiments in equipment design in open source development processes (de Bruijn, 2010; Jones et al., 2011), and users freely share and adapt designs and instructions for digital fabrication online (Kuznetsov and Paulos, 2010).

Fab Labs, makerspaces and hackerspaces provide teaching and workshops to learn digital fabrication, but they also largely expect their users to use the equipment independently; this encourages peer learning and knowledge sharing. For explicit reasons such as ‘empowerment’, education and learning, and ‘democratization’ of production and technologies, Fab Labs are also expected to allow the general public access to their Labs at least part of the time, a mandate differentiating them from other makerspaces (Gershenfeld, 2005; 2012; Walter-Herrmann and Büching, 2013a). For Fab Lab founder Neil Gershenfeld, professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ‘makers’ are “high-tech do-ityourselfers who are democratizing access to the modern means to make things” (Gershenfeld, 2012, 48).

Disruptive technologies combined with new practices and values aligned with empowerment and peer learning means the Fab Lab model could well be a stepping stone to something new and different: more widespread implementations of distributed production, as an alternative to mass production. Many actors in the Fab Lab network and the ‘maker movement’ espouse personal fabrication as a clearly better alternative to mass consumption and consumerism. In Fab Labs the capacity to answer one’s own needs locally, individually and as communities, is emphasized as a benefit (Gershenfeld, 2005), as opposed to being reliant on large corporate technology providers or ‘satisficing’ through passive consumption.1 Other espoused benefits are the enhanced skills people acquire to build, disassemble and repair (Mellis and Buechley, 2014). These propositions have clear environmental implications, from lessened environmental impact resulting from production only according to need, to more eco-efficient use of materials and products combatting planned obsolescence, to reduced negative impacts from transport emissions. However, little empirical research exists to confirm whether these benefits are coming to fruition or even on what actually happens in these forerunner makerspaces. Rifkin (2014), perhaps more than most commentators on Fab Labs or the maker movement, explicitly connects ‘making’ with environmental sustainability benefits: “The [Maker] Movement has been driven by four principles: the open-source sharing of new inventions, the promotion of a collaborative learning culture, a belief in community self-sufficiency, and a commitment to sustainable production practices” (Rifkin, 2014, n.p.).

Rifkin’s (2014) vision is of a more sustainable future world, where research and development (R&D) is distributed and democratized in Fab Labs and manufacturing is dispersed locally – powered by renewable energy, reducing transport emissions and eliminating the embodied energy in unneeded mass production intermediaries. Although stated as ‘fact’, Rifkin’s four principles (which would help precipitate such a vision) remain propositions and assumptions. The maker movement itself as a community of communities is fragmented and does not necessarily sing with the same voice on matters of self-sufficiency and sustainable production. Moreover, reporting on the environmental sustainability of 3D printing, personal manufacturing or the maker movement in non-academic media has tended to be taken on by enthusiasts and parties with vested interests. As research on makers, makerspaces and making is only now emerging, our understanding of everyday practices in makerspaces is also fragmented and largely reliant on groups’ and individuals’ own narratives. Rhetoric such as Rifkin’s (and numerous other authors’) may guide action as ideology and manifesto, but only direct observation of these activities and groups can reveal if makers’ actions truly reflect these “beliefs” and “commitments” – or otherwise.

Identifying when and how makers enact ideology, and when not, can help articulate opportunities for more responsible practices in makerspaces. As Fab Labs are experimental spaces for new digital manufacturing capabilities and activities, and makers the actors practicing a possible future already now, there is much that can be learned about the potential coming impacts of ever-increasing digitalization in society and more citizen involvement in production. Fab Labs and makerspaces are especially spaces where new practices around open design and open innovation meet new uses of materials (and new materials) and energy-intensive production methods: where the espoused equipotentiality (Bauwens, 2005) of citizens globally for creative making and invention may or may not meet equitable global access to and use of energy and natural resources. There is clear potential for participants in the maker movement, such as Fab Lab users and organizers, to bypass the negative ecological impacts of mass production and consumption in their collaborative endeavours, but it is not self-evident that the actors even acknowledge or actively pursue this potential in their quest to change the present: change production, education and even the economy (Walter-Herrmann and Büching, 2013b). It can therefore be put forward that the sustainability analysis of these practices is best done sooner than later.

Among the citizen communities experimenting with digital fabrication, Fab Labs are a distinct entity and provide a distinguishable identity with which actors readily and eagerly associate. As will be explained further in the next chapter, the Fab Lab network is the most organized of maker communities: having clear communication facilities and channels networking the Labs; an abstract but widely promoted protocol for action; platforms for individual mobility, training and support across Labs; and regularly scheduled meetings for face-to-face interaction. Fab Labs therefore provide an excellent opportunity for examining peers making things together: organic enough that Labs differ widely from each other, while structured enough to enable observations of what commitments appear to maintain over time and across distance. Most importantly, such observations lend themselves to a better understanding of these novel spaces than mere identification of environmental issues in digital fabrication alone.

The opportunities and hindrances to adoption of sustainability-oriented values and actions by these communities can be identified and understood as rooted in the community’s local and geographic conditions, chronology and history, and interaction among actors: a more profound understanding involving time and change than can be delivered by quantitative evaluations (such as Life Cycle Assessments). This methodological advantage has also recently been acknowledged by other researchers, such as Hielscher and Smith (2014).

Given this background and the challenges outlined above, and highlighting the potential of Fab Labs to contribute to new production and consumption patterns in future, the key question is how (or if ) these actors can co-create a more sustainable (i.e. environmentally, socially and economically sustainable) paradigm through collaborative, explorative activities based in Fab Labs today. In this doctoral research, this question is mainly examined through the lens of what actors actually do to both establish and use the Lab to fulfil their objectives: to articulate what current activities in Fab Labs tell us about the barriers and drivers to recognizing and prioritizing sustainability issues. The research questions for the dissertation are as follows.

How do actors in the social world of a Fab Lab address environmental sustainability, in their future-oriented vision and strategy work and in their everyday operations? What are the environmental (often socio-environmental) issues in the maker movement and distributed production, and how are they discussed and tackled in Fab Labs?
The research methodology draws from approaches in Science and Technology Studies (STS), particularly Symbolic Interactionism and the social shaping of technology perspectives, and is informed by Design Research and the field of Design-for-Sustainability. Ontologically the research therefore takes a constructivist, interpretivist position. The methodology, methods and the researcher’s standpoint are discussed in chapter 3.

In geographic scope, the research has focused mainly on the global North, particularly northern European Fab Labs.

In scale, the dissertation particularly examines the ‘middle range’ of material peer production that is currently little studied: the actions and interactions of active practitioners and Lab organizers and the relationship between what they espouse and what they do. At this scale, as individuals form communities and social worlds, structural concerns such as existing institutional conditions meet actor- and material-related aspects, such as developing and learning new practices with technologies. As a unit (or units) of observation, this research target falls between the micro-level focus of individual Lab users’ making actions (what they make, what motivates them, the role of ‘creativity’ and so on), a focus that receives more research attention, and higher-level observations of larger ecosystems (Fab Labs as innovation platforms, as alternative educational and socio-cultural spaces for neighbourhoods and municipalities, and so on). This larger body of research will be discussed further in chapter 2, and the scope of the research topic is discussed in more detail in section 2.2 and illustrated in Figure 4.

The audience that may benefit from the dissertation findings thus comprises researchers and practitioners from the fields of design and sustainable design, peer production, digital fabrication, user innovation, Sustainable Production and Consumption (SCP), futures studies and Science and Technology Studies. Also importantly, the findings and implications should help guide actors in Fab Labs to reflect on their future options and directions.

The next chapter will discuss the context and background of the dissertation topic and chapter 3 the theoretical positioning and methodology. Chapter 4 presents the summary of the research papers. Chapter 5 will synthesize and articulate the key findings and chapter 6 present their implications and final conclusions, followed by the original papers. “

* On ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, DISCOURSE AND FRAMINGS:

“As an entity encompassing a place, people and practices, Fab Labs court paradox and complexity regarding appropriate use of materials and energy.

The research focus in this dissertation is therefore first and foremost on environmental sustainability, which does not intend to disconnect it from the intertwined social and economic sustainability questions. Rather, as much attention is already directed to the socio-economic dimensions of distributed production (or “prosumption”: Toffler, 1980; Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010), foregrounding environmental sustainability serves to amplify if or where the gaps exist between what is espoused and what is practiced. (This is also a methodological question that will be discussed further in chapter 3.)

Beyond the literature review of paper 1, which examined research on distributed production and environmental impacts, several recent studies carry practical implications for current Fab Lab practices. Somewhat surprisingly, some researchers appear to be targeting the small-scale personal fabrication audience, in contrast to the industrial additive manufacturing arenas largely present in the empirical studies summarized in paper 1. A life cycle assessment exercise, for example, explicitly made fabrication spaces its target audience: it was carried out so “prototypers and job shop owners can make an informed decision about which technology to purchase or use, and so the makers of 3D printers can understand their priorities for improving environmental impacts” (Faludi et al., 2015, 15). Faludi et al. (2015) concluded that prototyping with desktop 3D printers (rather than CNC milling machines) may be less environmental impactful than first thought, but this is dependent on high utilization of the printer. This conclusion appears rarely exploited by Fab Labs: by being shared, open, peer-learning spaces, they boost the potential for eco-efficient use of shared equipment. They may also remove health, safety and emission problems away from the home or office, given appropriate health, safety and waste management measures are adopted in the Lab. Stephens et al. (2013) examined ultrafine particle emissions from desktop 3D printers and recommended caution in use in  inadequately ventilated spaces. (Ventilation, filters and careful procedures are more clearly observed with the use of laser cutters and milling machines in makerspaces than 3D printers.) This was also the conclusion in Short et al. (2015) (who examined more 3D printing technologies than Stephens et al., 2013, and not only in the context of personal, desktop machines); the authors expressed concern that environmental impacts (and health and safety issues) of many materials used in additive manufacturing remain unknown, including when they begin to degrade. These hazardous issues, connected to process waste, support materials, resins, finished products and so on, impact not only people in the fabrication space, but also people downstream in the waste cycle as well as natural ecosystems at final disposal. This issue will become even more prominent as other types of 3D printers are developed based on expiring patents. (Desktop 3D printers have up until recently been solely FDM, fused deposition modelling, printers; low-cost, desktop SLA, stereolithography, printers are now entering the market whose materials and processes are less certain to be benign.)  Hunt et al. (2015) identified the challenge of recycling the polymers used in personal 3D printers, and to that end developed a model for recycling codes that could be deployed in the United States as well as the design scripts that could print the codes into the products.

The same research group (Michigan Tech Open Sustainability Technology) also examined the life cycle benefits of distributed recycling: a scenario where home users and prosumers would perform their own recycling processes from postconsumer goods for their own future 3D printing processes (Krieger et al., 2014). These studies are rather unusual in that they project for a scenario where small-scale, distributed, open manufacturing exists and then conduct studies to pre-empt the barriers to the environmental sustainability of such a system. A similar strategy can be seen in Kostakis et al. (2013), who explored the viability of a new social production mode oriented to sustainability, desktop manufacturing and commons-based peer production, via a case study of an open source wind turbine design.

Fox (2014) also discusses these barriers by examining the opportunities and limits “mobile production” (as opposed to “fixed production”) and “Third Wave DIY” face in terms of production, innovation and entrepreneurship. Environmental benefits include less use of raw materials and energy when compared to fixed production, but Third Wave DIY requires access to industrial infrastructure: “reliable electricity supplies, plentiful water resources, and comprehensive transportation systems” as well as language and computer skills (Fox, 2014, 26). Moreover, Fox highlights the low revenues in this mode of production (and relatively high set-up and storage costs), which necessitate subsidies. These conditions help explain why – despite rhetoric – Fab Labs have less take-up in Africa, for instance, especially outside of universities, and how the circulation of Fab Labbers educated in Europe and North America have spurred the growth of Fab Labs and makerspaces in South America, as reported in Sperling et al.’s (2015) study. This is a fruitful area of future research: how these global influences and Labber migrations come together with how Fab Labs address local specificities and regional socio-environmental concerns (Sperling et al., 2015; see also Smith, 2014).

At the Factory 2.0 scale (Figure 4), Hermann et al. (2014) proposed a model of future factories that would better accord with all three dimensions of sustainability, environmental, social and economic. In their prescriptive model, Fab Labs have a role within the factory supporting prototyping and personal fabrication, employee learning and regional support. Basmer et al. (2015) presented a conception of Open Production involving distributed production via micro-factories, including peer production, that, for these authors, represents more opportunities for social sustainability than the present. These studies complement other lines of inquiry now emerging that discuss the role of Fab Lab in sustainable cities (Diez, 2012; 2014; Guallart, 2014; March and Ribera-Fumaz, 2014). This compelling arena of research will not be summarized here but will be pursued in future studies.

These recent studies therefore appear to be taking a new direction, acknowledging a future where manufacturing is distributed and small scale and peer production has a clear role. They may be placed in the constructs of ‘bespoke fabrication’ and ‘mass fabrication’, little addressed as yet, as depicted in Figure 5 below (which appeared as Figure 4 in paper 1). They may also represent small steps to a better understanding of the under-addressed areas of research in Figure 6 below (which appeared as Figure 1 in paper 2). Nevertheless, particularly when considering the opportunities and threats of a new distributed production paradigm, as represented on the right side of Figure 6, significant challenges remain in deciding how to best study them. Part of the challenge lies in dealing with complexity and large system boundaries if one is comparing mass production to distributed production.

A related challenge is the quantification of socio-environmental aspects that are less amenable to measurement, as Gebler et al. (2014) attempt to do. Hielscher and Smith (2014, 44) thus point out the limits to methods such as LCA (life cycle assessment) studies and argue that, “[g]enerating insights into the contending narratives influential in digital fabrication developments… might be a more fruitful line of inquiry. Studying the cultures of production and consumption cultivated in workshops and other sites of take up seem to be key, and therefore how technologies are valued and used”.

In recent literature (the small body of research that it is), there have been several ways adopted for the study of makers and maker communities and evaluation of their importance and implications. As introduced in section 2.2, the notion of the commons, as central to commons-based peer production (Benkler, 2006), is increasingly used (Troxler, 2013). In examining makerspaces in Mälmö, Sweden, Seravalli (2014a; 2014b) employed direct observations and active engagement in the communities to both articulate the dynamics of the communities and determine how design can best support such activities, analysis supported by employing a commons frame (Ostrom, 1990; Hess and Ostrom, 2007).

There are different understandings of the “commons” that need to be articulated in such analyses. According to Seravalli (2014a), the original conception was that of natural resources as common-pool resources, whose use and access must be managed collectively (Ostrom, 1990; Hess and Ostrom, 2007; as discussed in Seravalli, 2014a, 60-61).

Secondly arose concern with the “new commons”, “open commons” and perceived “public domain” where knowledge, information, culture and innovation should reside (Lessig, 2002; Hess, 2008; Benkler, 2013; as discussed in Seravalli, 2014a, 62-63). The third conception of the commons is that of a new social and economic system, a collective institution(s) that would manage both types of commons as an alternative to capitalism (Bollier and Helfrich, 2012; Seravalli, 2014a, 64-65). Given the recent popularity of commons framing in analysing maker communities, there appears some danger that, if attempted with any less of the sensitivity and sustained effort shown by Seravalli, it too adopts the characteristics of ideology: aggrandizing of strengths and oblivious to weaknesses, and/or dominated by concerns with the “new commons” and masking the seemingly more distal problems of the natural resource commons (as Flichy and Turner found, as discussed in the previous section).

The notion of “publics” has also been employed in the analysis of material peer production communities, such as Corbett (2012) examining Access Space in Sheffield according to Habermas’s (1989) concept of public sphere and Fraser’s (1992) counterpublics. Several researchers (and researcherpractitioners, particularly in the HCI arena), are turning to Dewey’s ([1927] 2012) notion of “a public”, a group of citizens who form specifically to address a problem previously seen as out of their control (DiSalvo, 2009; DiSalvo et al., 2014). The intent of this work is to focus attention on these problematic issues and how to enhance democratic processes in doing so; objects and materials (such as technologies) play a particular role in these studies. One line of enquiry particularly centres on critical discussion via making activities: generating critical understanding of technologies (for publics and scholars alike) by tangibly making them, either as designers alone (for, for example, exhibitions or provocative happenings) or with the publics in question (DiSalvo et al., 2014). Many have adopted Ratto’s (2011) term of Critical Making for these endeavours, as discussed in paper 4 (Ratto et al., 2014; Ratto and Boler, 2014). While environmental sustainability may or may not come to the forefront of the problems regarded significant in these publics-oriented explorations (or in studies framed as commons-based analyses), Marres (2012) has examined the role of materials specifically with regard to environmental sustainability: how publics coalesce around environmental topics in everyday practices and how the materials or devices in question mediate participation.

An explicitly environmentally oriented framing of personal fabrication is that of Appropriate Technologies (Schumacher, 1973; UNEP, 1978, 44), as employed by, for instance, Turner (2010) and Pearce et al. (2010). As befitting the common definition of Appropriate Technology, both studies are centred on “development” and digital fabrication tools as empowering communities in the global South. There appears to be an opportunity to begin to define what and how digital fabrication tools are “appropriate” technologies in specific contexts in the global North, especially given the positioning of personal fabrication tools as low overhead and resource efficient (Carson, 2010) and that the phrase is employed in the Fab Lab community (Mandavilli, 2006; “Principal Voices: Neil Gershenfeld”, 2008).

Smith and colleagues’ choice of term “grassroots innovation” (Smith et al., 2013; 2014; Hielscher et al., 2015) serves as a catch-all that can also include the material peer production communities in the global North. Recent focus on Fab Labs and makerspaces regards them as “community-based digital fabrication workshops” and “grassroots digital fabrication”: as the (potential) setting for environmentally and socially conscious, appropriate technology development (Hielscher and Smith, 2014; Smith et al., 2015; Charter and Keiller, 2014).

Recent developments in Europe have seen other researchers and nonprofit organizations attempting to explore and articulate Fab Labs’ and makerspaces’ potential role in a more socio-environmentally benign economic system, to exploit the immense pool of valued, specific knowledge and competence in Fab Labs on fabrication processes, electronics, components and materials. Current topics include remanufacturing and distributed manufacturing (the Future Makespaces project16) and closing material loops in a circular economy framework (The Ellen MacArthur Foundation;17 the RSA’s [The Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts] Great Recovery;18 and the independent, self-organized Open Source Circular Economy Days). These organizations’ events in very recent years have seen enthusiastic Fab Lab participation and contribution.

This chapter has described Fab Labs and the current understanding of the maker movement. It has summarized relevant studies and trends in research on making and demonstrated how the environmental discourse has travelled both through the maker community and the research community studying material peer production.20 Much research focuses on education and the social benefits of Fab Labs, and in parallel much discourse in Fab Labs touches on environmental issues only obliquely. This may be because environmental concerns appear too distant to be of concern in a small, “thirdspace” world of its own and/or Labs may feel underequipped to discuss environmental issues (as might researchers feel underequipped to study this fast-moving phenomenon). The current doctoral research puts forward that a better understanding of the activities and interactions in these forerunner fabrication spaces will help better identify both the socio-environmental issues of prominent concern and how to best tackle them.”

* ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND ACTION

“This chapter will sum up the most important findings and highlight the main cross-cutting contributions of this dissertation. Practical implications will also be discussed as they arise, while the final chapter will sum up the implications and final conclusions.

The first contribution of this dissertation has been to highlight that there clearly are environmental issues in digital fabrication and distributed production, as well as opportunities to diverge from the harms of mass production. Fab Labs appear to need help in identifying and implementing actions. The second key contribution, related to the first, highlights and confirms that in these material peer production communities, current concerns predominate – no matter the espoused ideology and expressed commitment. Actions taken by different communities appear contradictory to ideological rhetoric, issues easily remain invisible, and digital fabrication tools and their community-space ensembles thereby engender controversy over their meanings and intent.

Building on these two contributions, the third key finding thereby illustrates how the materials in Fab Labs represent discourse and how they mediate access and participation. Most crucially, the research shows how socio-environmental sustainability issues are interwoven among the other ideologies espoused via material objects. This interweaving is situated and ‘context-dependent’, but its explication helps identify opportunities for and barriers to more sustainable practices. This contribution to knowledge on peer production serves the Fab Lab community, but also the wider material peer production research arena, research on Sustainable Consumption and Production and research on sustainable innovation. Building on the third key finding, the fourth contribution focuses on the design-relevant opportunities identified in the maker communities researched. This articulation contributes to a better understanding of how design, designing and designers can participate in the sustainability discussion and implementations amidst potentially radically shifting production and consumption patterns. This sets the stage for further experiments and research foci that can continue to document this rapidly changing phenomenon.

As stated, there are clear practical environmental issues in Fab Labs and the maker movement that should be addressed, first, for the health and safety of the people working in these environments and secondly, to be able to mitigate the negative ecological impacts on an ongoing basis. Two key areas to address (the ‘low-hanging fruit’) appear to be toxicity and energy (Drizo and Pegna, 2006; Huang et al., 2013; Olson, 2013; Stephens et al., 2013; De Decker, 2014; Short et al., 2015). More information is needed in Labs on material and process toxicity. Material safety and data sheets, MSDS, could be posted in Labs, for instance, and discussed in training and induction sessions, along with clearer information on emissions and impacts of other materials, electronic components and the processes of working with them. Given the increasing critical attention paid to energy-hungry digital fabrication tools, Fab Labs could promote the energy-efficient aspect of shared use, but also pay closer attention to daily electricity consumption: encouraging better troubleshooting and problem prevention, combining jobs, powering down, explicitly choosing green energy sources and so on. In-house solutions for production waste also appear to be spreading, as more Labs use RecycleBots, FilaBots and other devices for converting 3D printer waste into new filaments. Such solutions could be shared in the network to encourage their widespread use, and other in-house inventions may be applicable in other contexts outside of personal fabrication. These practical issues and potential solutions relate to the tangible material flows as presented in Figure 9 (which appeared as Figure 5 in paper 4): conscious attention to the materials, equipment and components coming into the Lab and the waste and other tangible outputs.

Other tangible Lab outputs involve what artefacts are produced and what projects Fab Labs decide to promote. Fab Labs and makerspaces may prove to be the ideal testing ground for solutions that are best distributed and localized rather than under centralized control. Low-tech energy technologies are the most obvious example (Hielscher and Smith, 2014, 44), wherein Fab Labs can be seen as an innovation intermediary (Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008) facilitating both experiments with renewable energy solutions as well as discourse on the issue (see Rohracher, 2003; Hyysalo et al., 2013). Other topics could be explored (such as building materials and sustainable food production, as seen in Valldaura Self-Sufficiency Lab and FabLab Amersfoort) and – in so doing – better documented for the benefit of both practitioner-makers and policymakers. Such shared information, in the form of manuals and guidelines, could include best practices in reuse, recycling and energy conservation; the environmental implications of material choices; and even the environmental and social consequences of the equipment and components, their manufacture and distribution (for example, the reality of the labour conditions under which electronics components are produced as well as disassembled, as indicated by Turner, 2006).

Such solutions, however, face clear implementation barriers that have also been articulated in the course of this dissertation: Labs may wish to share eco-relevant information and solutions for themselves and others, but this does not guarantee the sharing nor the take-up of these solutions Figure 9: Understanding the situatedness and consequences of Fab Lab activity.

Research on environmental, health and safety issues is difficult to access and even more difficult to translate into daily actions and manuals and guidelines. Lab managers lack the time to find environmental information and may lack the competence to act on it (papers 2 and 4). They may also lack motivation if environmental values are not prioritized: environmental awareness and responsibility does not appear to be an explicit or inherent aspect of Fab Lab ideology, when compared to some other sociotechnical movements (paper 4; section 5.4 below). When even principles that are clearly espoused in Fab Labs, such as open access, are compromised in everyday routines, it is clear that individuals aiming to prioritize environmental concerns will also encounter challenges in enacting their values, due to funding, people migrations, time constraints and other similar structural barriers (paper 4; section 5.2 below).  Sustainability is itself a going concern and a moving target, necessitating a continuous, generative dialogue and reflection on what it means to Fab Labs in all its dimensions (environmental, social and economic) – especially given the rapid development of technologies and materials. To benefit from the high expertise and competence in the Fab Lab network, this understanding is likely best constructed in ongoing dialogue between the most expert (in technological terms) makers and eco-committed makers (paper 2).

The challenge to bring these groups together, to engage a diverse range of participants will remain, as will the lack of time, but regional events and regional Fab Lab networks offer potential for such meetings of minds. Those Labs whose vision is most clearly socio-ecological already offer an inspiring role model to Fab Lab individuals and groups (paper 4). This may mean they are also best placed to spur on practical activities: co-created manuals and guidelines, as mentioned, but also promoting more communications inside and outside the network. To counteract the negative criticism that Fab Labs in the global North are mere hobbyist spaces for a homogenous elite, there could be more stories and narratives on how Fab Labs are contributing to a sustainable distributed economy paradigm: engaging in research and with researchers, building on our current understanding as illustrated in Figure 10, and articulating how environmental concerns intertwine with the existing concerns of education and entrepreneurship.

As mentioned, these are recommendations that are simple to suggest and problematic to implement. Further discussion on the kind of scaffolding needed in these novel peer-to-peer communities will be discussed in chapter 6 after discussing the other research findings and contributions.

* FINAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

The previous chapter has shown how discourse on democratizing production is enacted in Fab Labs, especially via material artefacts. If Fab Labs are to offer a meaningful step away from the negative environmental impacts embedded in mass production, there are practical obstacles that they, and any organization, face with regard to time constraints and entropic routines. Nevertheless, given the strength of the Fab Lab ideology, the Fab Academy and the network itself, Fab Labs are (arguably) the best actor in the maker movement to communicate its impacts; generate new knowledge, practices and solutions; and ensure making has meaning.

Achieving this requires reflection and critical discussion: do everyday actions reflect vision, values and ideology? Environmental sustainability is but one thread in the sociotechnical fabric of Fab Labs, but it is an integral thread. The dissertation has demonstrated, through examples from everyday events observed and heard in Labs, that environmental issues embed themselves within other issues in the Lab and ideology is not so easily enacted.

The contingencies, the very situatedness of Fab Labs, mean that every Lab must be built anew. Even experienced Fab Lab founders and managers, the “gurus”, as they are known in the network and the Fab Academy, must take time to understand the local conditions when setting up a new Lab to stimulate and sustain engagement with the local user and stakeholder communities – to understand the local needs. There are therefore relatively few default modes of operation or established routines, no Lab-in-a-kit, that can be implemented quickly, allowing more time and focus on identifying strategy and target users nor the most appropriate action plans or partners. The mundane, setting up the Lab and its procedures, maintaining it, maintaining inventory, serving users and organizing short-term activities, easily takes precedence; the what of what needs to be done can dominate the how things could or should be done, and especially why.

The Lab’s situatedness is therefore its strength, the source of its identity and mission, which can help sustain it over time and nurture commitment. It is also its weakness, as this identity and mission must be co-constructed among a variety of actors, and usually repeatedly. If not, the why of the Fab Lab dissolves, Labs discover after a certain period of time that they have become just another printing service (or even a place of no digital fabrication whatsoever), and they need to firmly establish a new strategic direction and a clearer identity of what they are for (as seen in paper 4 and as reported by several Labs in interviews and in the FABx meetings).

There are several messages in this dissertation that Fab Labs can take away. The aim is not to predict the future trajectory of Labs or the network, but to highlight critical points of divergence and tension. Both the literature review in paper 1 and the discussion of the universe of discourses in paper 4 questioned if distributed production and the maker movement will contribute to consumerism and overconsumption, rather than to serve to abate it. In paper 4, commodification and commercialization were alternatively seen as economic benefits for micro-entrepreneurs or as threats to the original ideology of making as a counter to consumerism. For Fab Labs this translates into a question of not mere empowerment, but how it should be effected (and, of course, who should be empowered, but that is an ongoing and salient question). Making things easier for new makers (via kits, for instance, or easier user interfaces for software) also tends to remove functions and control from the hands of the very users intended to be empowered. In fact, given there is much talk on the need for manuals and guidelines for people who want to set up Fab Labs, this threat also exists here. Such a manual can pre-empt and make invisible the very questions a Fab Lab founder should ask him- or herself: what is this Fab Lab for? Fab Labs and the network will develop and mature, consolidate and become infrastructure in some ways beyond the existing state of “ad hoc ashrams” (Hunting, 2009; see pp. 33–34), but the direction of decentralizing and distributing control to regional bodies and keeping the remit of Fab Labs open to ensure diversity still appears preferable to an easily implementable, standardized Lab-in-a-kit. This would also ensure the new, young Lab understands its role and responsibility (and the sustainability implications entwined) in its situated local community. In addition, such open structures need not prevent the development of environmental and safety guidelines that could be developed for Fab Labs, as recommended in paper 2.

As de Laet and Mol (2000, 250) highlighted, “Sometimes abandoning control may contribute to spreading what one has been making.”

For Fab Labs there is also a need to engender a balance between becoming normalized and institutionalized (thereby better ensuring acceptance in the local community and – most importantly – funding) and maintaining an open and fluid identity committed to espoused ideology: the democratization of technologies and offering an alternative to passive consumerism. Open access is crucial, it appears central to the relative diversity of users that does exist (according to interviewees and my observations), and it forms the core of the learning and discovery processes that unfold in Fab Labs. Fab Labs’ rich diversity is their asset, just as the heterogeneity and ambiguity of the internet, the vast diversity of interests, is its core strength (Flichy, 2007, 204-205).

With regard to potential Fab Lab ‘projects’, emerging evidence suggests that citizen engagement in, for instance, environmental technologies can help in their diffusion and adaptability (Rohracher, 2003; Hyysalo et al., 2013).

Despite this potential, thus far it appears Fab Labs, hackerspaces and makerspaces have been largely overlooked by policymakers as potential “innovation intermediaries” (Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008), particularly for sustainability-directed solutions, inventions and related practices. Based on the findings in this dissertation, the configuring, facilitating and brokering of new technologies (Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008) in Fab Labs is not always as “democratic” as espoused, nor oriented to future visions characterized by sustainability. Only few Fab Labs are consciously choosing projects led by sustainability issues or discussing their values in relation to undesired ‘consumerism’. Fab Labs may need outside help, in environmental assessment, in selecting projects and to enliven the critical debate. As Russell and Williams (2002, 49, my emphasis) have stressed, “The emergent and unpredictable nature of sociotechnical transformations points again to the value of flexibility and constant monitoring, maintaining channels of communication and arenas of debate, and avoiding disincentives to open appraisal.”

When actors in these sociotechnical dramas fail to pay attention to politics, or keep their activities out of the realm of public debate, there is the danger that discourse and vision become “an empty, hollow signifier” (March and Ribera-Fumaz, 2014), that communities fail to form or fail to sustain, or that they inflict damage on the very citizens they intended to benefit, by avoiding discussion on the wider consequences of their actions (Flichy, 2007; Turner, 2006). Should they succeed, on the other hand, they may prove to be the gateway to greater citizen participation in material production and society-making: encouraging self-discovery and collaborative peer learning, and making ‘making’ – of all kinds – socially acceptable at the very grassroots (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). Indeed, Morelli (2003) has suggested that designers may have the ethical responsibility to assist people to design their own conditions of wellbeing, and material peer production is one route to this goal.

Alongside providing deep and detailed knowledge on particular Fab Labs, representative and emblematic, and presenting implications for the network and the maker movement, the dissertation has richly illustrated how ideology unfolds and imaginaires shape and are shaped, remaining open and incomplete, in everyday practices in peer-to-peer counter-communities. These processes are especially evident in material assemblages, which embody both rhetoric and routine. This research contribution complements other research on “material participation” (Marres, 2012), but does so by examining how socio-environmental sustainability is represented in deliberate counterspaces, physically and ideologically set apart from the mainstream – rather than how the public currently engages materially with environmental issues in the realms of politics and everyday practices. In future research, there is value in both foci and a need for still more empirical research, to better understand how the present and the mainstream meets the emergent and the niche in future production patterns.

The focus on countercontexts in this dissertation has thereby demonstrated how peer-to-peer material production is orchestrated and improvised in practice, as projects, as communities and as the intermediating spaces of Fab Labs.

Such processes have been presented in this work as successes or failures, due to the dynamics and conflicts among factors, the experimental and the designed, the local and virtual or global, and the immediate and the ideal.

Further research on longitudinal peer production projects is recommended, to contribute valuable knowledge on how the assemblages of materials, people, spaces and interactions mediate access and participation. Particularly when the sites of research involve emerging technologies and have clear sustainability and environmental implications, as in this dissertation, such studies can tell us more about citizens’ changing roles in production and the effects and potentials of a rapidly digitalizing society.

From this standpoint, my intent with this dissertation sympathizes with Benkler and Nissenbaum (2006, 417)’s position: “Unlike many political analyses of technologies, however, ours does not warn of a direct threat of harm. Rather, it warns of a threat of omission. We might miss the chance to benefit from a distinctive socio-technical system that promotes not only cultural and intellectual production but constitutes a venue for human character development.” If the clear environmental issues are also taken into explicit consideration, in ways alluded to in this dissertation, Fab Labs offer a promising platform for new prosumption patterns.”

The post How green is peer-to-peer material production in the fablabs? appeared first on P2P Foundation.