The limits of HCD:reimagining the anthropocentricity of ISO 9241-210

Human-centred design (HCD) is just that: human-centred. As we approach the limits of Earth's biophysical systems, it no longer feels appropriate to place humans at the centre of design decisions. Yet HCD and its ISO—ISO-9241-210:2010—continue to be powerful and popular tools within many computing and design departments, as well as in their affiliated industries. These design approaches are perpetuating the trend of incremental improvements to the living standards of the already privileged and digitally connected whilst ignoring the broader environmental and socio-political effects of digital technologies. In this paper, we attempt to reimagine HCD and its ISO by drawing on fields and concepts such as sustainable interaction design (SID), animal-computer interaction (ACI), and object oriented ontology (OOO). Through this, we contribute a preliminary set of proposals about what needs to change with HCD and its ISO. We close by discussing the ISO development process and suggesting routes for environmentally concerned researchers to influence the evolution of HCD's ISO

Platforms, scales and networks: meshing a local sustainable sharing economy

The “sharing economy” has promised more sustainable use of the world’s finite resources, exploiting latency and promoting renting rather than ownership through digital networks. But do the digital brokers that use networks at global scale offer the same care for the planet as more traditional forms of sharing? We contrast the sustainability of managing idle capacity with the merits of collective local agency bred by caring-based sharing in a locality. Drawing on two studies of neighbourhood sharing in London and analysis of the meshing of local sharing initiatives, we ask how ‘relational assets’ form and build up over time in a neighbourhood, and how a platform of platforms might act as local socio-technical infrastructure to sustain alternative economies and different models of trust to those found in the scaling sharing economy. We close by proposing digital networks of support for local solidarity and resourcefulness, showing how CSCW knowledge on coordination and collaboration has a role in achieving these ends

Hitting the triple bottom line: widening the HCI approach to sustainability

Sustainable Development (SD) in its dimensions – environment, economy, and society – is a growing area of concern within the HCI community. This paper advances a systematic literature review on sustainability across the Sustainable Human-Computer Interaction (SHCI) body of work. The papers were classified according to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework to understand how the pillars of SD play into the HCI discourse on sustainability. The economic angle was identified as a gap in SHCI literature. To meet the TBL of SD, however, a balance needs to be sought across all ‘lines’. In this paper, we propose that HCI can advance the discussion and the understanding of the economic concepts around sustainability through taking a sociology perspective on the economic angle of the TBL. We sustain this claim by discussing economic concepts and the role that digital can play in redefining the established foundations of our economic system

Miejsce zjawiska współdzielenia w koncepcji zrównoważonego rozwoju

Celem artykułu jest określenie miejsca zjawiska współdzielenia w koncepcji zrównoważonego rozwoju. Dotychczas podejmowane w literaturze przedmiotu próby bliższego przedstawienia zjawiska współdzielenia rzadko wiązane są ze zrównoważonym rozwojem. Zdaniem autora rozważania w tym obszarze powinny opierać się między innymi na ukształtowanej teorii ekonomii zrównoważonego rozwoju – stanowić punkt wyjścia zestawienia zjawiska współdzielenia z klasycznym ujęciem rynku i funkcjonującymi w nim pojęciami, takimi jak homo oeconomicus

Assessing Resources Management for Sharing Economy in Urban Logistics

Sharing economy requires cities to redefine their management strategies. As a consequence of the development of new ideas, the main aim of modern cities should focus on achieving the sustainable use of resources. In the existing literature, only a partial analysis of resources management in cities can be found. For this reason, the authors decided to prepare the framework for empirical research about resources management in sharing economy in cities, especially in the urban logistics system. The main aim of the study is systematizing criteria related to the assessment of the management of urban resources in the era of sharing economy. To achieve the goal of the research, a systematic literature review was made according to chosen approaches and procedures. This resulted in creating a set of criteria for the analysis and evaluation of resources management in urban areas. It contains five areas with 26 criteria and a map of assumed correlations between them. Those outcomes can be used by local authorities or even other urban logistics stakeholders to define or improve their actions aimed at developing a sharing economy services portfolio on the local market. Additionally, they constitute a set of initial information for further scientific research. Document type: Articl

Limits to the Sharing Economy

There has been much interest in the Sharing Economy in recent years, accompanied with the hope that it will change and specifically make better use of existing resources. It in- tuitively makes sense, from a sustainability point of view, that the sharing of resources is good. It could even be said that the Sharing Economy ought to align well with Comput- ing within Limits and its underlying premises. In this paper however, we take a critical stance and will elaborate on the intersection between the Sharing Economy and Limits (in- cluding pinpointing potential conflicts) so as to identify and discuss a ‘Limits-compliant Sharing Economy’. We argue that even though there are limits to the Sharing Economy today, it still has potential benefits for a future of scarcity— but only if the practice of sharing is approached with a dual focus on sharing and on limits at the same time. Finally we conclude that even though we have begun to explore the fu- ture of sharing, there is still a need to further develop ideas of how the underlying infrastructure for this movement will look. QC 20161208</p