Design for Social Sustainability: Using Digital Fabrication in the Humanitarian and Development Sector

Abstract

The demand for humanitarian and development aid has risen to an unprecedented level in recent years. With a pressing need for new solutions, designers have started using digital fabrication (3D printing, CNC milling and laser cutting) to produce life-saving items. However, many organisations are failing to create the impacts they desire, and the social aspect of sustainability has been largely overlooked. This paper addresses this gap in knowledge by investigating guidelines for Design for Social Sustainability, specifically looking at digital fabrication for humanitarian and development projects. Building on existing literature and conducting three in-depth case studies of healthcare related products, the research develops a framework for Design for Social Sustainability. It provides useful guidelines to help plan and evaluate digital fabrication projects in the humanitarian and development sector. The findings show how design can trigger social sustainability at product, process and paradigm levels. Specifically, the case studies reveal the potential for digital fabrication to lead to more systems-focused, radical social sustainability. The paper concludes that an iterative and holistic approach to Design for Sustainability is needed, that begins by examining the social dimension first.

Qualifying the Sustainability of Novel Designs and Existing Solutions for Post-Disaster and Post-Conflict Sheltering

“…Defining social sustainability is challenging as the field is still emerging [79], while at the same time is vague and impossible to be limited in one definition [80]. However, in this paper, the adopted definition is the preservation of the existing social systems, where the social challenges and concerns are being addressed by considering the history, traditions, dialogue, equity, and participation [79]. The concept of social sustainability sometimes overlaps with the other two dimensions of sustainability, i.e., environmental and economic.…”

“…Among the studied cases, the most commonly identified social pros for shelters that belong to both types (novel designs and existing solutions) were: the short time needed to assemble the shelters by a minimum number of workers, the ease of deployment that allows unskilled beneficiaries to take part in the construction, the use of local and locally available materials, the flexibility and expansion possibilities, having various shelter sizes to meet the needs of different household compositions, and having an interior layout that is divided into needed functions. In addition, some of the 'existing solutions' were more respectful by adopting local building techniques, having outdoor private areas, or using shelter types that are acceptable to users (i.e., familiar and used within their culture), such as Haiti 2010 [20] and Philippines 2012 [81].…”

“…Other common cons were the total dependency on the availability of local materials in the location or total dependency on global materials, and proposing short-term solutions. Building collective shelters instead of private shelters was also apparent in the 'existing solutions' such as the Myanmar 2012 shelter that hosts eight families (Figure 1c) [81]. Providing a shelter design that is familiar to the host community but not to the users is another issue that was highlighted in the case of Ethiopia 2011.…”

“…There are also examples of using carbon-intensive materials amongst the 'existing solutions' case studies, such as the T-shelters provided for the Syrian refugees in Jordan. This shelter, which can be seen in Figure 2c [84], is made of an interlocking steel structure and covered with a double layer of Inverted Box Rib (IBR) cladding separated by an aluminium and foam insulation [81]. In some cases, the demand for natural materials exceeded their availability, and this happened in the 'Kenya-Dadaab 2009' project ( Figure 2d) where the insufficient availability of mud and shortage of water have limited the number of built shelters.…”

“…In the 'Ethiopia 2011' project, a similar challenge occurred when there were difficulties in sourcing the mud and grass used for thatching [76]. In the same way, in the 'Myanmar 2012' project, the bamboo was not in season and a lower quality alternative was used [81].…”