Design in society, sustainability and technology
What the domain tests
Design in society, sustainability and technology tests whether you can judge a product beyond function. Expect user-centred and inclusive design, ergonomics and anthropometrics, ethical and cultural considerations, intellectual property, appropriate technology, life-cycle impacts, the waste hierarchy, and planned obsolescence.
Core rules and concepts
- Design for the actual user: consider age, ability, reach, strength, culture and cost. Inclusive design widens usability rather than adding a special version.
- A life-cycle assessment considers material extraction, manufacture, transport, use and disposal. It reveals trade-offs; a product can save energy in use but carry high embodied energy.
- Prefer the waste hierarchy: refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, remanufacture, recycle, recover, dispose. Recycling is not the first answer.
- Sustainable design considers durability, repairability, material separation, energy source and local manufacture. Appropriate technology fits local skills, materials and maintenance.
- Intellectual property protects designs, inventions, brands and creative work; copying without permission is an ethical and legal issue.
Worked example
A school asks for packaging for a reusable lunch container. Single-use expanded polystyrene is cheap and light but bulky, fossil-based and rarely recycled locally. A moulded pulp tray is recyclable and biodegradable but not water-resistant. A reusable polypropylene sleeve costs more initially but lasts many uses and can be recycled where facilities exist. The justified choice depends on use cycles: if the sleeve survives 100 uses, its impact per use is likely lower, but only if it is actually reused and not lost. The answer should state the assumption and end-of-life route.
Traps that cost marks
Calling a product “sustainable” without evidence, ignoring transport or disposal, or confusing recycling with reuse loses marks. Do not design only for the average adult when the brief names children or people with limited grip. Ethical claims need specific consequences, not slogans.