Abstract 2: A New Evaluation and Innovation Framework for Sustainable Design: ...(ACCEPTED)

This research will focus on the search for improved methods for innovation and evaluation based on an attitude of prudence in a context of sustainable design. Prudence encapsulates the dimensions of prevention, precaution and foresight. Foresight is based on individual responsibility. Prevention is based on expert knowledge which is fundamental to understand the associated risks of decisions taken. And, precaution is based on a collective decision process that results when the uncertainty based on a preventive approach is too great and too potentially damaging to ignore. Therefore these three dimensions of prudence comprise a system that offer a promising approach for decision making in a context of sustainable design.
The objectives of this research are threefold. The first objective is to understand the theory of the precautionary principle and how it relates to evaluation and conceptualization processes of sustainable design. Second, the objective will be to understand if and how the precautionary principle is used for evaluation within current sustainability assessment methods. The third objective is, if the precautionary principle is not yet identified within sustainability assessment methods, to understand what the advantages and disadvantages of an operationalization of a prudent framework for evaluation and innovation in a context of sustainable design and therefore contributing to new knowledge.
The framework of prevention alone is inadequate for assessing impacts and supporting decision making for innovation in a context of sustainable design because it provides only one perspective. According to Hertwich, (2005, p.90 ), “(...) energy efficiency can indeed substantially contribute to growth, and therefore increase the amount of goods and services consumed.” This is a mono-criteria approach, and according to Hertwich, presents limits when seeking sustainability. A multi-criteria approach such as Life Cycle Analysis has similar problems because it is also based on a strategy of efficiency, even it does consider a wider set of impacts. So, using a strategy of efficiency, net sustainable gain is often wiped out through the increase in consumption of goods and services – rebound effects. Therefore a larger scope of evaluation is necessary to help capture the additional effects that reduce the net sustainable gain based on energy efficient solutions. An analysis of such rebound effects (positive, negative, direct and indirect effects) can help decision makers understand how products and services can be conceptualized so that the sustainable gain remains.
Therefore this research states that in order to have a more complete perspective of the impacts and benefits so that decision making for innovation can be supported in a more comprehensive manner in a context of sustainable design, then a more encompassing framework is necessary. A framework that includes prevention, precaution and foresight, can be one such framework. The precautionary principle can contribute to sustainable development, through its broader temporal and spatial perspective, which can complement the current approach of evaluation and innovation. In this new perspective, the ideas of sustainable living systems and sustainable societies, in addition to sustainable products and services will be considered.
This research affirms that: (1) the precautionary principle is a fundamental principle of sustainable development; and (2) design can contribute to sustainable development through the exploration, creation and assessment of alternative solutions to current problematic living systems within an innovation framework of prudence; (3) current evaluation methods are based on preventive approaches and present limits for a global vision in a context of sustainable design; and (4) prudent framework for the evaluation and conceptualization of sustainable solutions can help overcome some of these limitations. So based on these, the research hypothesis is: The precautionary principle can complement current sustainability assessment methodologies based primarily on a preventive approach through the development of new forms of evaluation and innovation methods in a context of sustainable design.
So the pertinence of moving beyond a theory of sustainable development and into an operational mode of sustainable development reveals several challenges. In particular, the challenges of operating within a mode of sustainable design, opens up the very general question of: What innovation framework(s) can be used in a context of sustainable design? However, a more discerning question and that will be the primary focus of this study is: What are the advantages and disadvantages of an operationalization of a prudent framework for innovation and evaluation in a context of sustainable design, when compared to preventive approaches adopted by current sustainability assessment methods? The reason why prudence becomes the guiding mechanism, and not only foresight, prevention or precaution is because these elements work together as a system.