Policy mixes for resource efficiency – conceptual issues, design and assessment challenges

Since the 1950s the global consumption of natural resources has skyrocketed, both in magnitude and in the range of resources used. Closely coupled with emissions of greenhouse gases, land consumption, pollution of environmental media, and degradation of ecosystems, as well as with economic development, increasing resource use is a key issue to be addressed in order to keep the planet Earth in a safe and just operating space. This requires thinking about absolute reductions in resource use and associated environmental impacts, and, when put in the context of current re-focusing on economic growth at the European level, absolute decoupling, i.e., maintaining economic development while absolutely reducing resource use and associated environmental impacts. Changing behavioural, institutional and organisational structures that lock-in unsustainable resource use is, thus, a formidable challenge as existing world views, social practices, infrastructures, as well as power structures, make initiating change difficult. Hence, policy mixes are needed that will target different drivers in a systematic way. When designing policy mixes for decoupling, the effect of individual instruments on other drivers and on other instruments in a mix should be considered and potential negative effects be mitigated. This requires smart and time-dynamic policy packaging. This Special Issue investigates the following research questions: What is decoupling and how does it relate to resource efficiency and environmental policy? How can we develop and realize policy mixes for decoupling economic development from resource use and associated environmental impacts? And how can we do this in a systemic way, so that all relevant dimensions and linkages—including across economic and social issues, such as production, consumption, transport, growth and wellbeing­—are taken into account? In addressing these questions, the overarching goals of this Special Issue are to: address the challenges related to more sustainable resource-use; contribute to the development of successful policy tools and practices for sustainable development and resource efficiency (particularly through the exploration of socio-economic, scientific, and integrated aspects of sustainable development); and inform policy debates and policy-making. The Special Issue draws on findings from the EU and other countries to offer lessons of international relevance for policy mixes for more sustainable resource-use, with findings of interest to policy makers in central and local government and NGOs, decision makers in business, academics, researchers, and scientists.

Design as Symbolic Violence. Design for Social Justice.

Design embeds ideas in communication and artefacts in subtle and psychologically powerful ways. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu coined the term ‘symbolic violence’ to describe how powerful ideologies, priorities, values and even sensibilities are constructed and reproduced through cultural institutions, processes and practices. Through symbolic violence, individuals learn to consider unjust conditions as natural and even come to value customs and ideas that are oppressive. Symbolic violence normalises structural violence and enables real violence to take place, often preceding it and later justifying it. Feminist, class, race and indigenous scholars and activists describe how oppressions (how patriarchy, racism, colonialism, etc.) exist within institutions and structures, and also within cultural practices that embed ideologies into everyday life. The theory of symbolic violence sheds light on how design can function to naturalise oppressions and then obfuscate power relations around this process. Through symbolic violence, design can function as an enabler for the exploitation of certain groups of people and the environment they (and ultimately ‘we’) depend on to live. Design functions as symbolic violence when it is involved with the creation and reproduction of ideas, practices, tools and processes that result in structural and other types of violence (including ecocide). Breaking symbolic violence involves discovering how it works and building capacities to challenge and transform dysfunctional ideologies, structures and institutions. This conversation will give participants an opportunity to discuss, critique and/or develop the theory of design as symbolic violence as a basis for the development of design strategies for social justice.

Learning Environments in Design Studio Culture

The paper reports on a study of design studio culture from a student perspective. Learning in design studio culture has been theorised variously as a signature pedagogy emulating professional practice models, as a community of practice and as a form of problem-based learning, all largely based on the study of teaching events in studio. The focus of this research has extended beyond formally recognized activities to encompass the student’s experience of their social and community networks, working places and study set-ups, to examine how these have contributed to studio culture and how there have been supported by studio teaching. Semi-structured interviews with final year undergraduate students of architecture formed the basis of the study using an interpretivist approach informed by Actor-network theory, with studio culture featured as the focal actor, enrolling students and engaging with other actors, together constituting an actor-network of studio culture. The other actors included social community patterns and activities; the numerous working spaces (including but not limited to the studio space itself); the equipment, tools of trade and material pre-requisites for working; the portfolio enrolling the other actors to produce work for it; and the various formal and informal events associated with the course itself. Studio culture is a highly charged social arena: The question is how, and in particular, which aspects of it support learning? Theoretical models of situated learning and communities of practice models have informed the analysis, with Bourdieu’s theory of practice, and his interrelated concepts of habitus, field and capital providing a means of relating individually acquired habits and modes of working to social contexts. Bourdieu’s model of habitus involves the externalisation through the social realm of habits and knowledge previously internalised. It is therefore a useful model for considering whole individual learning activities; shared repertoires and practices located in the social realm. The social milieu of the studio provides a scene for the exercise and display of ‘practicing’ and the accumulation of a form of ‘practicing-capital’. This capital is a property of the social milieu rather than the space, so working or practicing in the company of others (in space and through social media) becomes a more valued aspect of studio than space or facilities alone. This practicing-capital involves the acquisition of a habitus of studio culture, with the transformation of physical practices or habits into social dispositions, acquiring social capital (driving the social milieu) and cultural capital (practicing-knowledge) in the process. The research drew on students’ experiences, and their practicing ‘getting a feel for the game’ by exploring the limits or boundaries of the field of studio culture. The research demonstrated that a notional studio community was in effect a social context for supporting learning; a range of settings to explore and test out newly internalised knowledge, demonstrate or display ideas, modes of thinking and practicing. The study presents a nuanced interpretation of how students relate to a studio culture that involves a notional community, and a developing habitus within a field of practicing that extends beyond teaching scenarios.