3rd PLATE Conference
September 18 – 20, 2019
Berlin, Germany
Nils F. Nissen
Melanie Jaeger-Erben (eds.)
Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin
Tyl, Benjamin; Allais, Romain: Living labs to develop reuse and repair
workshops in territories . In: Nissen, Nils F.; Jaeger-Erben, Melanie (Eds.):
PLATE – Product Lifetimes And The Environment : Proceedings, 3rd PLATE
CONFERENCE, BERLIN, GERMANY, 18 – 20 September 2019. Berlin: Uni-
versitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2021. pp. 785 – 789. ISBN 978-3-7983-3125-9
(online). https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-9253.
This article – except for quotes, fi gures and where otherwise noted – is
licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0).
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
785
3rd PLATE 2019 Conference
Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Living Labs to Develop Reuse and Repair Workshops in Territories
Tyl, Benjamin(a,b) ; Allais, Romain(a)
a) APESA, Tarnos, France
b) I2M, Université de Bordeaux, CNRS UMR 5295, Talence, France
Keywords: Living Lab; Repair; Reuse; Repair Workshop.
Abstract: Current industrial practices, supported by an unsustainable economic growth and
technological innovations, are leading to a "throwaway" era leading to inefficient use of natural
resources and social inequity. The reuse and repair of products are priority strategies for a radical
reduction of the environmental and social impact of our production and consumption. It consequently
questions the paradigm of traditional economic growth. The transition to repair and re-use activities
requires going beyond the technical aspect of waste management to embrace a citizen and territorial
logic. In this paper, we submit the hypothesis that through "living labs", that is to say, citizen,
collaborative and experimental workshops, it is possible to structure communities of practice and to
improve the recognition of repair and reuse activities both for citizens, political and economic actors.
On the one hand, the aim is to understand how to stimulate the collaboration of heterogeneous actors
through experiments in the context of reuse / repair and upcycling oriented living labs. On the other
hand, the objective is to collectively participate in the emergence of territorial repair networks, with the
objectives of reducing environmental impacts while creating social links and questioning development
models. For that, we expose the protocol developed to structure the living labs as well as the some
qualitative results.
Introduction
Current industrial practices, supported by an
unsustainable economic growth and
technological innovation, are leading to a
"throwaway" era leading to inefficient use of
natural resources and social inequity. Even if
European directive promotes a waste reduction
approach, recycling is still the most developed
solution. Such short-term and technical solution
are counterproductive and create path
dependencies, closing opportunities for real
sustainable alternatives waste management
and participating in a constant growth of waste
production.
More particularly, current design approaches
in terms of eco-design or circular economy are
based on disassembly, upgradability,
modularity, and are largely focused on large-
scale business models, and on the search for
technical solutions (Bridgens et al., 2018).
Therefore, these alternative development
models, supposedly less unsustainable, target
the same objective of an economic “green”
growth.
In parallel, new organizations from civil society
have emerged in territories. These grassroots
and social initiatives propose real alternatives
both in social and environmental issues.
Nevertheless, public actors and traditional
business stakeholders still poorly consider
them. Called, often indifferently, repair
workshop, “ressourcerie”, "repair café", they are
generally the result of collective movements,
often very locally situated, with a social or
environmental objective, and offer to develop
second-life markets with reused, repaired or
upcycled products. Therefore, these activities
challenge our patterns of consumption and
production, and consequently the current
regime1. They are seen as a transitional stage
towards a truly circular economy (Terzioglu,
2017). However, these niches are struggling to
overcome an embryonic and economic
unsustainable state.
This research is part of the RECYLUSE project
in which a multidisciplinary team analyzes the
technical, political, cultural, and societal
barriers from the regime to the emergence,
diffusion and viability of repair niches. The
research presented in this communication
1 (DeHaan, 2010) “If the regime embodies the powerful, yet
conservative mainstream, then a niche is its innovative,
avant-garde but not so powerful counterpart.”
786
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Tyl B., Allais R.
Living labs to develop reuse and repair workshops in territories
aims at removing some of these barriers
observed on the ground and literature.
In this paper, we submit the hypothesis that
through "living labs", that is to say, citizen,
collaborative and experimental workshops, it is
possible to structure communities of practice
and to improve the recognition of repair and
reuse activities both for citizens, political and
economic actors. This paper will expose how
such living labs can help to structure a repair
and reuse culture.
State of the art
The scientific literature largely mentions
techniques to favor disassembly, upgradability,
modularity (Pialot et al, 2012, Cooper, 2013).
Repair is often mentioned as a strategy of the
circular economy as a means of prolonging the
life of products and of working in a closed loop
(Terzioglu, 2017). These expert approaches
integrate constraints from other stakeholders
(for example the development of dismantling
technics for recycling operators) and are
focused in a closed design process, as they
generally do not involve other relevant
stakeholders (users, citizens and
communities). In contrast, a phenomenon
emerging in recent years, the living labs,
allows the exchange of know-how between
stakeholders and seem to be a modality to
change representations and unlock some
resistance and create space for discussion.
Living labs are experimental environments in
which end users are considered as co-
designers (Ballon, 2005). They benefits from a
European network (the ENoLL network), and
are a user-centered research methodology for
detecting, prototyping, validating and
perfecting complex solutions in multiple and
changing contexts of life real. A living lab is a
process of thinking centered on uses, with a
strong iterative design process. This type of
approach encourages a more global reflection,
extracting from the purely technological
framework of product design, to a system
level. It is a collaborative design space that
allows prototyping new systems where all
actors are considered experts. They allow the
co-construction of innovative and local specific
solutions and must encourage a better social
acceptability (Gobert and Brullot, 2016) and
economic territorial integration.
However, the cases of applications are rare on
the theme of end-of-life products. We can note
the works of Bridgens et al. (2018) but who are
more interested in exploring the establishment
of repair and upcycling space than in the co-
construction of solutions. A second research,
by Terzioglu (2017), focuses on developing
and observing repair workshops, without being
qualified by the author as living labs.
The main similar work comes from the recent
research of Hirscher and Mazé (2018). They
proposed to develop a framework to analyse
the results from a ‘co-sewing café”. They
adapted an analytic framework based on three
main component: the stuff (i.e. the material
used during the process), the skills used and
developed and the images (i.e. the meaning of
the workshop).They specifically underlined that
participatory design process, such as living
labs, questions the role of designer and users,
as users are directly involved in the design
process. Moreover, they underlined that
workshops (as co-sewing workshops) allows
participants (including professional designers
or dressmakers) to share clothes-making
techniques, to teach and learn these
techniques. Participants can both use classical
everyday tools (as a textile chisel) and more
specific ones (such as a sewing machine).
Development of a repair-oriented
living lab protocol
This paper aims to develop new understanding
on how to implement a living lab focused on
repair and reuse activities, towards both
citizens, public actors and companies. As
previously said, developing reuse and repair
activities in territories requires a systemic
thinking, covering not only product and
process innovations but also dealing with user
practices, markets, policies, regulations,
cultures, or infrastructures (Gaziulusoy and
Brezet, 2015).
Thus, this protocol has a threefold objective:
(1) To understand how the methodology of
living labs promotes the culture of repair
and reuse among the participants,
(2) To understand how the living lab fosters
communication between the various
actors involved in reuse and repair
(designers, citizens, companies, public
authorities, recyclerie user and
employees),
(3) To analyse the relevance of this
methodology to question the different
systemic levels: product/workshop/
territory.
787
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Tyl B., Allais R.
Living labs to develop reuse and repair workshops in territories
This section exposes the multi-level
perspective of the protocol developed for the
reuse and repair oriented living lab and then
focuses on the product level approach.
The multi-level approach for reuse and
repair living lab design
The protocol is based on a systemic approach
to develop a reflection on the three levels of a
territorial reuse and repair network.
(1) At the 'practical / product' level, the
objective is both to support participants
on learning on reuse/repair (i.e. basic
knowledge on reuse and repair) and on
practically experimenting how to
implement reuse and repair everyday
products;
(2) At the repair workshop level, the objective
of this protocol is to collectively design a
repair workshop regarding its missions
and objectives, organisation (internal and
external logistic, skills and knowledge
acquisition and transmission), business
models;
(3) At the 'territorial' level, the aim is to model
and discuss the tangible and intangible
metabolism of territorial repair networks,
to identify new synergies and to
strengthen or diversify collaborations.
At this state of the research, the protocol to
support the territorial level is under construction
and only one living lab at workshop level was
tested. This communication focuses on the
product level living labs protocol and the
observation of four workshops.
Product-level living lab
The different steps of the living labs, the
different objectives as well as the deliverables
are described in table 1. The protocol draws
two main parts: the individual diagnostic of
discarded/failed products and secondly, the
designing and prototyping of solutions to
extend these discarded products’ lifetime. Two
templates to support the participant’s work
were designed but are not detailed here.
Between these two parts, facilitators present
the stakes of the sector and some examples of
existing initiatives to counter negative effects
of these activities.
In addition to the deliverables completed by
the participants, facilitators captured specific
events (ideas generation, prototype
development, presentation of results, etc.) on
video and researchers in design and social
sciences made direct observations. Few days
First part : Individual diagnostic of the
products
Objectives
Identification of the product and of its
characteristic (nature, perceived quality,
risks, current state of the product)
Description of the problem: broken,
damaged or failed part of the product
Description of the domestic practice of the
participants facing this problem.
Deliverable : Discovery template
Description of the product
Description of the failed part of the product
Description of first solution ideas
Break : information – inspiration
Social, environmental and economic
challenges in the sector
Presentation of inspiring solutions from
invited professionals
Second part : Design and prototype
Objectives
Group must collectively find solutions:
Describe the problems identified during the
product analysis step
Describe / Draw the different solutions
Realize a prototype
Deliverable : Concept template
Description of the concept (words and
schemas)
Description of the process (steps, tools,
material)
Listing of difficulties and constraints (skills,
tools, )
Collective restitution and discussions
Table 1. Protocol for product level living labs.
after the living labs, participants received an
online survey to have feedbacks on the
workshop.
Implementation of product-level living labs
To remain accessible, living labs have been
adapted to all kind of participants (industrial,
repair and public actors, and citizens), whether
they are experts or not of the sector, sensitized
or not. Three ‘co-sewing café’ were organized
with the support of two members of a sewer
collective (Orratzetik Hari), in three cities of the
Agglomeration Pays Basque (Southwest of
France) and gathered 46 participants. A living
lab on furniture was realized with the designer
and carpenter of Api’R bois, a furniture
upcycling workshop. Table 2 summarizes
some characteristics of these living labs.
788
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Tyl B., Allais R.
Living labs to develop reuse and repair workshops in territories
Place Characteristics Nb.
Bayonne Main city of the Pays
Basque conurbation 14
Cambo Peripheral city of Bayonne 19
Mauléon
City located in the interior of
the Pays Basque
conurbation
13
Saint-
Pierre-
d’Albigny
Rural city in the Coeur de
Savoie conurbation 15
Table 2. Participants in the living lab.
The analysis of the deliverables is not yet
performed but some results of the surveys are
presented below.
Analysis of the post workshop surveys
Twenty-three persons (over forty-six) respond
for the textile living labs and five (over fifteen)
for the furniture.
First questions are a qualitative self-evaluation
of the participants’ level regarding sewing or
carpentering, product design and their general
knowledge about repair workshops. A Lickert
scale enables the self-evaluation: null, fair,
average, good, excellent. Only one participant
considers himself as a true beginner in sewing
or carpentering. Their knowledge on repair
workshops is disparate but there is not ‘expert’
level participants. An outstanding result is that
participant evaluates their selves with a fair or
null level in product design (56-60%). 60%
have never been in a repair workshop, 28%
have already experienced self-repair or repair
in a repair workshop for the sewing living labs,
no one for the furniture. Workshop participants
have basic or advanced knowledge or practical
skills on the topic of the workshop.
The first phase of the living lab is considered
quite useful (textile: 88%; furniture: 75%). The
objectives, instructions and the ‘discovery
sheet’ were clear and the products presented
were similar to what participants have at home.
During the second phase, and even if their
initial design level was quite poor, participants
did not face strong issues to design their
solutions. Regarding the prototyping of textile
solutions, participants consider that they did
not have great difficulties (82%). The initial
sewing level has an impact on the ease of
designing and prototyping products (same
repartition in self-evaluation of sewing level
and impact of this on the design/prototyping).
Advices and supports from facilitators and
inspiration boards were considered useful and
sufficient by the participants. However, we
observed that co-learning within teams during
the living labs and teamwork appears as a
strong strength for the success of these living
labs.
82% of the participants for the textile living lab
and 40% for the furniture living lab consider
that living labs provides new knowledge on
environmental and social issues in the sector
considered. 70% (textile) and 100% (furniture)
consider that they do not acquire new
knowledge on sewing or woodworking. Textile
living labs had positive influence on the
perception of repair workshops (77%), repair
and reuse activity (82%). The workshops also
encouraged participants to be engaged in
repair and reuse activities (88%). Furniture
living lab had mitigated impacts on the
perception of repair, reuse activities or in the
perception of repair workshops. Nevertheless,
it encourages participants engaging in these
activities (80%).
Every participant to the textile living labs
consider that they respond to their
expectations but this is equally distributed for
the furniture living lab. Twenty over twenty-one
respondents have a fun and good time and
would recommend these living labs.
Discussion and conclusion
In this paper, we have presented a multilevel
protocol for living labs with the objective to
promote repair and reuse culture and to foster
the communication between stakeholders of
the reuse and repair activities. First,
participants acquired new knowledge on the
sector and they highlighted importance of
group work and peer-to-peer knowledge
transmission from group members or
facilitators. They also largely want to be
engaged in repair-reuse community of practice.
However, we have also to consider the lack of
representativeness of the “concerned” actors
within the participants. For the industrial sector,
even if some professional actors (e.g. textile
designers, wood sellers) shows some interests
about the topic, no one participate to the living
labs. Public actors participate in Coeur de
Savoie as they are part of a repair workshop
project, but there was no representative of the
public actors in the Pays Basque. Participants
were mainly non-professional practitioners or
students in textile for the textile living labs. It
questions the representation of these actors
embedded in the regime and it was an
Loading more pages...