# 8: An ethical workshop

## Investigating an emerging technological paradigm

The Low-Tech approach can be considered as an emerging technological paradigm. On the one hand, it advocates technological sobriety, which can make use of pre-existing levels of technology. On the other hand, such a recourse is not usual in our contemporary society. It is, therefore, difficult to identify the values, principles or virtues that will be called upon today and in the future.

The learner's team carrying out this workshop should choose a technological concept to study and may consider itself as the design team for this concept. They can study either a technological paradigm (for example, the Low-Tech approach) or a specific product/service/system (for example, the Norwegian Pot). Then, they can carry out the "TimeLines" activity to first identify ethical issues related to the chosen concept, using a collective intelligence process. It can be interesting to run this activity with several different panels, to enrich the results. The ethical issues obtained in such a way will have greater credibility.

Finally, they use the "Ethical Product Design Canvas" to formalise the outputs of the workshop as well as to imagine ethical improvements of the technological concept.

### TimeLines

The "TimeLines"[5] activity aims to identify the potential ethical issues of emerging technology. It can be described in 7 steps:

1. Gather a diverse panel of participants and establish a climate for collaborative design. Here, the panel members must specifically perceive or represent the territory's resources (tangible or intangible).

2. Propose the technological concept to be studied. Let the panel name the concept.

3. Invite the panel members to list the various stakeholders who are or could be involved in the specific territory, in an inclusive mindset. The aim here is to draw up an initial list, which can obviously be expanded upon at subsequent stages if needed.

4. In a brainstorming phase, the participants write on sticky notes news headlines of articles that could be written in the future in relation to the chosen technological concept.

5. The participants then place their news headlines on timelines to the right of a central sticky note with the concept name. This stage makes it possible to co-construct different future scenarios, ranging from the most utopian to the most dystopian.

6. In a second brainstorming phase, the participants consider the previously identified stakeholders and compose messages they could post on social networks to express their feelings (positive or negative) about events of the various scenarios.

7. In a final collective analysis and discussion phase, the panel members highlight the (positive or negative) risks and the values, principles and virtues revealed in these posts. They can also state a hierarchy between those ethical issues.

### Ethical Product Design Canvas

Several canvases can now be used to support thinking and/or communicate ideation results in many fields. Instead of seeing them as frameworks that restrict creativity, we can see them as a set of good questions to help ideas evolve positively.

Here, we propose to use an extended version of the Normative Design Scheme[8], complementing it with the abovementioned contemporary ethical approaches. Therefore, this *Ethical Product Design Canvas* is a novel tool aimed at ethically improving the technological concept under study.

First, the design team is invited to complete its objective by describing its *intention*, its technological *concept* and the expected *outcomes*. The intention is a kind of vision of what the beneficiaries will be able to experience. The concept is the type of product or technology being considered. As for the outcomes, these need to be seen in the context of sustainable development.

These three elements are part of a well-defined context. The design does not necessarily aim to determine a universal solution that could be applied without any nuance everywhere on the planet. On the contrary, defining the design context as a framework for reflection is generally more appropriate. It is therefore necessary to identify, on the one hand, the stakeholders in a broadly inclusive mindset and, on the other hand, the territory's resources (tangible and intangible). Among the resources, one can also consider the existing ecosystems that can support the design.

In the second step, the design team *assesses ethically* its design project with respect to the 6 recommended ethical approaches: virtue ethics, deontologism, consequentialism, Core Ethics, Ubuntu ethics and Responsibility ethics. The "TimeLines" activity results can enrich the ethical reflection by drawing attention to values, risks or virtues that need to be specifically considered. The aim of this stage is to highlight areas for essential development.

Finally, based on this assessment, the design team can imagine *ways to improve* the concept. Whilst improvement is generally considered with respect to technical or economic issues, the focus is set on ethical improvements. The ethical frameworks inspire the questions driving the proposed brainstorming stage.

Depending on the circumstances, several iterations may be necessary.

### References and Further Reading:

[5] Richmond Y. Wong and Tonya Nguyen. 2021. Timelines: A World-Building Activity for Values Advocacy. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 616, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445447

[6] Ethics for Designers — Normative Design Scheme tool. (n.d.). Ethics for Designers. https://www.ethicsfordesigners.com/normative-design-scheme
<figure><img src="image_243.png" /><figcaption>Above: Masjid Pogung Dalangan. Young man reading book near river. December 2021. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/a-man-sitting-in-the-grass-reading-a-book-c56M5emNMKU</figcaption></figure>
# 9: References and Resources

## Books

+ Michel Métayer and Guy Ferland (2021), Philosophie éthique (5e ed), Pearson ERPI.

+ Sven Nyholm (2023), This is Technology Ethics, an introduction, Wiley Blackwell.

+ Ibo Van De Poel and Lambèr Royakkers (2011), Ethics, Technology and Engineering, an introduction, Wiley-Blackwell.

## Kialo

Practically, if you are considering organising such a course as *The Imperative of Responsibility* it may be worth considering the [www.kialo-edu.com](http://www.kialo-edu.com) website.

It enables ethical debates to be conducted by means of a written exchange of arguments for or against an ethical position, with a structured organisation of these arguments. The advantage of such a tool is that it gives equal space to extroverted and introverted students, and both to face-to-face and distance learning students.

Contributions can be made anonymous and the debate can be organised synchronously or asynchronously. After a debate, it is useful to review the arguments to identify which ethical families they can be associated with.

## SEP

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy consists of the [plato.stanford.edu](http://plato.stanford.edu) website. It offers up-to-date references on numerous items related to the subject of this chapter. For example, on Paul Ricoeur, Emmanuel Levinas, consequentialism, deontologism, virtue ethics, and so on.

## Promethee Challenge

A hackathon-type module on engineering ethics. See the video on [https://videos.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/video/24604-kaleidoscope-challenge-promethee/](https://videos.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/video/24604-kaleidoscope-challenge-promethee/) or consult the book [https://www.thebookedition.com/fr/challenge-promethee-p-393165.html](https://www.thebookedition.com/fr/challenge-promethee-p-393165.html).

## Ethical tools for designers

Provide efficient templates to ethically consider and conduct a design process. Templates are scheduled along the sequential steps: envisioning, framing, creating, realising, and validating. See [https://www.ethicsfordesigners.com/tools](https://www.ethicsfordesigners.com/tools)

## Enseigner l'éthique

A French-speaking website for the teachers interested in teaching ethics: [https://www.enseignerlethique.be/](https://www.enseignerlethique.be/) It proposes conceptual cards, case studies and various resources.

## OTL

The Open Textbook Library (https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks) proposes courses on various domains. We can mention Business Ethics, Ethics for A-Level, and Responsible Innovation.
<figure><img src="image_244.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_245.png" /></figure>

# Low-Tech Entrepreneurship

Loann Astorino, Sébastien Bette, Philippe Fortemps, Fabian Lecron, Gauthier Renard, Virginie Vandenbulcke

6 lessons
1 Training Workshop
<figure><img src="image_246.png" /><figcaption>Above: Enes Çimen. Man selling handmade wooden cutlery. July 2022. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-selling-handmade-wooden-cutlery-10204219/</figcaption></figure>
# Low-Tech Entrepreneurship

<figure><img src="image_247.png" /></figure>

## Learning Hours

To successfully complete this module the learner will engage in:

<table><thead><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Activity Description</td><td>Hours</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lecture</td><td>Online or in-person instruction in the module contents</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Self Directed</td><td>Individual Assignment (2 individual essays)<br/>Group Assignment & Final Presentation</td><td>18</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Module Objectives

In today's evolving business landscape, entrepreneurship now focuses on sustainable, accessible, and practical innovation. Low-Tech entrepreneurship emphasises simple yet effective solutions to complex challenges, highlighting efficiency, affordability, and environmental awareness as alternatives to resource-intensive methods.

This module explores Low-Tech entrepreneurship through key management pillars: organisation strategy, marketing, financial models, etc. By aligning entrepreneurial efforts with these principles, businesses can navigate uncertainties and promote resilience for long-term growth.

This course module utilises models for inspiration, process, and support.

The present module consists of six lessons providing successive insights into Low-Tech entrepreneurship. It is supplemented by a description of a workshop that gathers all these insights around a case study. Therefore, several approaches can be considered for delivering this module to learners. One approach is to first present the six content lessons and conclude with the case study. Another approach is to conduct the case study with learners and gradually introduce the contents as needed.

## Learning Outcomes

1. Learn the essential component of planning a new start-up

2. Recognizing viable market opportunities

3. Customer discovery via primary market research

4. Creating a business model

5. Developing financial strategy

6. Identify today's social challenges involving ethics, social responsibility and sustainability

7. Integrate creative business strategies with engineering and effectively work in multi-disciplinary teams

8. Make decisions in highly uncertain and unstructured environments, and take in feedback from a large variety of sources that use it to improve their business plans, or help them to 'pivot' and find alternative ideas or approaches.
<figure><img src="image_248.png" /><figcaption>Above: Pixabay. Person in Black Shirt Holding Glass Rod. October 2016. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-in-black-shirt-holding-glass-rod-220990/</figcaption></figure>
# 1: The paradox of Low-Tech entrepreneurship

Low-Tech, often seen as inherently virtuous, has the potential to disrupt the status quo and convey its societal vision more effectively on a larger scale. To champion its social and environmental virtues (sobriety, accessibility, sustainability), it must transition from a small-scale operation to a more robust, entrepreneurial endeavour. This concept of 'Low-Tech entrepreneurship' may initially seem contradictory, but it promises to reshape our understanding of business and sustainability.

## Current entrepreneurship is not compatible with the Low-Tech mindset

Current entrepreneurship, often associated with a relentless pursuit of financial gain, is deeply intertwined with a narrative of proletarianisation and casualisation (uberisation). Fueled by short-term profitability and the illusion of boundless growth, this narrative is perpetuated by mechanisms like patent systems that disproportionately benefit a select few. Globalisation further exacerbates this trend, enabling the seamless flow of products and commercial exchanges. In stark contrast, Low-Tech entrepreneurship emerges as a beacon of change, advocating for sustainability and resource conservation.

Today, businesses are often steered by financiers fixated solely on maximising profits, perpetuating a cycle of planned obsolescence—be it physical degradation or psychological manipulation—that artificially sustains a perpetual demand for new, often superfluous, products.

In contrast to this paradigm, Low-Tech emerges as a counterforce, advocating for sustainability and resource conservation. It seeks to mitigate the environmental impact of energy-intensive practices and rampant overconsumption. Moreover, Low-Tech champions the virtues of moderation, prompting a re-evaluation of needs at the individual consumer level and within broader societal frameworks. By prioritising accessibility, Low-Tech endeavours to empower individuals to craft, modify, and repair their possessions, thus fostering a culture of self-sufficiency and promoting a more equitable distribution of technological abilities. Embracing a localised approach, Low-Tech underscores the importance of addressing local needs with local resources, envisioning territories not merely as geographical entities but as vibrant ecosystems intertwined with the lives of their inhabitants.

## The Low-Tech mindset cannot spread without entrepreneurial support

Low-Tech relies on the reclamation, reuse, or recycling of waste materials. However, managing the quantity and quality of these waste streams proves challenging on a smaller scale. Operating on

a small scale does not achieve real and lasting effectiveness. Low-Tech strives for individual autonomy. Yet, the need to acquire effective tools or the necessity to master their usage may impede accessibility. Not everyone can become an expert in all facets of their life without compromising the quality of the devices produced. Additionally, physical, cognitive, or professional impairments may prevent individuals from achieving the same level of expertise. The underlying ableist assumption of empowerment can contradict the values of mutual aid and solidarity.

Low-Tech appears to endorse an artisanal model, requiring the reappropriation of numerous jobs through lengthy apprenticeships, often with uncertain levels of safety or performance. There's a necessity for devices to be sufficiently optimized to avoid generating more negative impacts than positive ones and to be devoid of hazards (such as cuts or burns) for both makers and users. Standardized Low-Tech solutions are needed to facilitate their dissemination. Indeed, it makes sense to ask Low-Tech tools and products to be reliable, durable, efficient, safe, ergonomic, and relatively consistent across variations.

## Reinventing entrepreneurship

A Low-Tech society is a societal project that demands a re-evaluation of the current capitalist model. The low-tech approach advocates systemic change, which entails reconsidering the predominantly economic model of contemporary entrepreneurship. It calls for new Business Model Canvasses (BMCs) that are viable without relying on patents. Indeed, the focus should no longer be on the profit of a few but instead on the well-being of all.

Instead of patents benefiting a select few, knowledge should be open, accessible, and shared. Even if not everyone can construct their equipment, they should at least be able to assemble, repair, and modify their equipment indefinitely using locally produced spare parts. This entails relocating industrial activities. Rather than considering a globalised and uniform market, it also entails a "relocation" of the needs since it addresses identified needs within specific contexts, reinvesting in the local economy through local businesses and factories.

Financing methods should diverge from seeking investors primarily focused on maximising dividends and company profits and instead explore avenues like microfinance and crowdfunding. The Social and Solidarity Economy dimension underscores principles of equity and justice. It may serve as a vehicle for education and empowerment, emphasising not just selling pre-packaged solutions but teaching how to construct locally adapted ones. Moreover, Low-Tech entrepreneurship should transcend individual ventures, fostering the growth of innovative Low-Tech ecosystems in a Circular Economy mindset.

Therefore, reinventing entrepreneurship is indispensable for a smooth and effective ecological, social, and societal transition.
<figure><img src="image_249.png" /><figcaption>Above: LowTech Lab. Organize a Low-Tech camp IMG 6058. December 2021. https://wiki.lowtechlab.org/w/index.php?curid=61045</figcaption></figure>
# 2: Strategy and Economic Models

Sustainable entrepreneurship goes beyond the simple pursuit of profit. It recognizes that the planet's resources are finite and that entrepreneurs must consider the social and environmental impact of their activities and act for the common good. This means designing products and services that have a positive impact on the environment and society. To achieve this, we need to adopt new strategies that integrate social and environmental responsibility into traditional business models. We need to move towards sustainable business.

Committing to a more ethical entrepreneurial activity must be seen as a global approach and a systematic action that needs to be operationalized. There is an essential framework for considering many elements in the context of business activity: the Sustainable Development Goals[1] To simplify these major themes, we propose several strategies for operationalizing a more responsible business model at various levels.

## Integrate sustainability into the company's purpose

The first step to creating a sustainable model is to integrate a concrete issue into the company's "reason for being" or purpose. The company's activity could, for example, be "committed to the preservation of ecosystems," "committed to social utility", or "committed to the emergence of new behaviours and values". Incorporating a superordinate focus into the objectives will help give meaning to the company's actions. This thematic focus should be helped by a well-documented manifesto setting out the means to achieve it. For example, to over-compensate our impact on biodiversity, to have a measurable positive impact on the common good, or to choose our suppliers in line with our purpose.

## Integrate a sustainable field of activity

Another lever for building sustainable entrepreneurship is generating activity in an already sustainable field. For example, areas of the circular economy such as recycling, reuse, or repair. Note that in this framework, less sustainable areas of activity can have subsectors that are sustainable. For example, peasantry is the subfield of "agriculture and agri-food." We, therefore, need to consider the sustainability and equity of the company's area of activity.

## Question the existence of the product itself

Is my product useful? Does it address an existing problem? Is the problem caused by factors that can be resolved? Is it caused by a sustainable activity? What impact will my product generate? By systematically questioning the principle of your product, you can create a solution that won't "continue to keep". This approach aims to address high-level questions in product design. To take all these factors into account, we can look at notions such as technological solutionism: the belief that machines can solve the problems created by other technological solutions (e.g. building a new machine to eliminate Nespresso coffee capsules), or rebound effects: the increase in consumption resulting from the

improvement of a technology (e.g. improving telephone batteries, creating applications that consume more energy). Of course, this step can be a real puzzle, but it must be part of the product design strategy.

## Integrate constraints into product design

It's essential to establish ethical guidelines during the design phase, including measures such as social integration, product inclusiveness for all populations, and a commitment to creating transparent, readable, and reassuring usage for all while keeping ethical values and social responsibility in mind. This also means considering the potential impact on individuals, privacy, communities, and society. To implement these concepts, users must be at the centre of the design process and work within their constraints. Co-designers must question the product's usefulness and usability and observe its use. Several actions can encourage this co-design, such as including users in the strategic management of the product, integrating a wide range of audiences, real-life testing, and user dissemination.

## Plan optimisations into your strategy

However resilient and entrepreneurial activity may be, by default, it has a negative impact on the environment. Once the business has been launched, it needs quantitative methods to measure and remedy its impact. This can be done by offsetting CO2 emissions, extending the lifespan of digital equipment, carrying out life cycle analyses on hardware, or by using any of the tools (e.g. the GR491 handbook[2]) at its disposal to implement a strategy for reducing its impact. This strategy must be supported by the operationalisation and monitoring of indicators within the company.

## Degrowth as a Global Driver

Finally, all these actions must be considered globally, whether intrinsic or extrinsic to the company model. They must be monitored by indicators and corporate strategies. They must also be considered in a global ideology whose objective is so-called "sustainable" degrowth—in other words, to succeed in building an economic model in a sober civilisation.

Achieving a sober and positive economic model does not necessarily mean no asset exchange is possible. Finding the right economic model can create many new opportunities. In recent years, green tech and its derivatives (cleantech, climate tech, etc.) have been very popular and are one of the fastest-growing sectors in terms of employment. These companies respond to market logic and are not ecological or sustainable. They do, however, show that a market exists.

Making resilience part of your strategy means limiting product risks by asking good questions related to concrete goals. It means optimising it by considering users as partners. It also means implementing actions that unify and differentiate by creating a positive brand image. Finally, it may be a way of finding a real meaning.

## References and Further Reading

[1] Note that there is also a tool that allows you to create your business model based on these objectives: The SDGs and the business model canvas: https://sdgs-entreprise.be/business-model-canvas-durable/.

[2] The GR491 Handbook https://gr491.isit-europe.org/en/
<figure><img src="image_250.png" /><figcaption>Model of Circular Economy, adapted from J.Potting et al (2017), Circular Economy: Measuring Innovaiton in the Product Chain, PBL - Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Recycling has been split into high grade and low grade.</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Emerging economic models

In a world of constant evolution, more and more voices are rising to question traditional economic models, often focused on infinite growth and profit maximisation. Instead, alternatives are emerging, offering fresh perspectives on organising our economy to better serve individuals and the planet.

## Circular Economy

The circular economy, a significant player among these emerging economic models, starkly contrasts the linear "take, make, dispose" model. It champions reuse, recycling, and regeneration of resources, aiming to eradicate waste and establish a system where products and materials are in a perpetual cycle of reuse, repair, and recycling.

The 10R model is a tool used to combat planned obsolescence. The model can be grouped into three domains:

* During design and production, the approach first involves questioning the relevance of the need with a mindset of reasonable consumption (consumers are encouraged to make conscious choices). Then, the eco-design should consider maintenance, repairability, and total or partial reuse of product components from the outset. This concerns product/ service configuration, production methods, material choices, and efficient use of resources.

* During usage, the circular economy emphasises efficiency, repairability, and reuse to extend the lifespan of objects while preserving or even improving their quality of use over time (for example, by hardware remanufacturing or software reconfiguration of the objects).

* After a use, efforts should focus on reusing products, components, or materials. This can lead to very different uses from the initial one. Energy recovery through combustion is the last resort to consider.

An interesting application lies in transforming waste into a source of materials for other contexts, for instance, converting plastic waste into bricks that are more durable than concrete (e.g. https://www.gjenge.co.ke/).

## 3.2. Collaborative Economy

Collaborative economy, also known as the commons economy, is based on resource sharing and cooperation among individuals. It fosters the creation of collaborative goods and services, where people share, exchange, and collaborate to meet their needs more effectively and sustainably.

While the consumption economy is a possession economy, where everyone must own the goods they want to use, even if only temporarily, the collaborative economy encourages the shared use of these goods.

For example, almost every household owns a drill, yet it's only used for a few hours a year. Sharing a drill within a neighbourhood would provide access to an arguably more efficient tool at a lower cost with a much reduced environmental impact.

In this context, individuals can become service providers by sharing their resources, skills, and time. Digital platforms can facilitate the connection between users and providers, but there are also more simple mechanisms. This can be seen as favouring a local economy, as it relies somewhat on bartering (products, services, knowledge) among neighbours.

The dynamics of Repair Cafés align with the dual perspective of a circular economy (through the repair dimension) and a collaborative economy (through social connections). These workshops are dedicated to repairing everyday objects and are organised locally, bringing together people who live or frequent the same area. They also operate on the basis of "commoning" the tools, spaces, knowledge, and skills.

In addition to the economic and environmental benefits, such as economy fosters social bonds by bringing together various stakeholders, encouraging them to meet, share, and trust each other.

## Functionality Economy

Functionality economy, or product-service system, emphasises the provision of services rather than simply selling products. Instead of owning goods, consumers pay for access to their functionalities, encouraging businesses to design durable products and maximise their lifespan.

The economy of functionality replaces the traditional model of selling goods with a focus on selling the usage of those goods. Instead of owning a product outright, customers pay for its use over time. This shift is exemplified by the transition from personal car ownership to on-demand services like car rentals and ride-sharing.

Manufacturing companies are adapting their offerings to align with this approach. By partnering with service providers, they create high-value usage experiences while minimising the reliance on physical resources. Importantly, the service provider retains ownership of the product and its equipment, incentivising better design, maintenance, and extended product lifecycles.

The territorial perspective plays a crucial role in the development of the economy of functionality. Understanding the local context allows businesses to customise their offerings to meet the specific needs and limitations of the area. For instance, a service-oriented approach might vary between urban and rural settings. Therefore, manufacturers must partner with local service providers to create integrated solutions that benefit both parties. Indeed, the knowledge of a specific territory (with its cultural preferences, language, and lifestyle factors...) can help to best design and market the service. It also prioritises long-term partnerships relying on trust.

An example of a large company is Michelin, which encountered
<figure><img src="image_251.png" /><figcaption>Above: Steve Knight. MMJ410 1954 AEC Mammoth Major 8 Mk111 - Michelin. August 2020. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/kitmasterbloke/50229854957/</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Emerging economic models

significant challenges in getting technical advancements with positive environmental impacts (such as on 11% reduction in fuel consumption for trucks) but with higher prices. Michelin no longer sells these tyres, but rather the miles travelled. Additionally, the company manages the entire lifecycle (including inflation, driving advice, retreading, etc.).

## Social and Solidarity Economy

Social and solidarity economies favour non-profit businesses and cooperatives, focusing on the values of solidarity, inclusion, and sustainability. They seek to promote local development and strengthen community ties by encouraging citizen participation in the economy.

Indeed, through a holistic approach, social and solidarity economy enterprises aim to place humans at the heart of their projects. Four principles characterise them:

* The purpose of providing services to the community

* Management autonomy to break away from dependence on public authorities

* A governance model by members based on democratic functioning independent of the capital each holds through the principle of "one member, one vote."

* Primacy of individuals (all stakeholders) and the social purpose.

Profits generated by social and solidarity enterprises are not primarily distributed to their members (unlike associations) but are reinvested to further their economic activity and underlying social purpose. In other words, their business models prioritise long-term sustainability rather than immediate financial profit.

These enterprises often focus on marginalised groups, providing employment opportunities for individuals who might otherwise face exclusion from the labour market. They can also market and sell to less privileged target audiences.

The participatory governance of these enterprises generally makes them more sensitive to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as eliminating poverty, promoting decent work and economic growth, reducing inequalities, and addressing climate change.

We can think here of Sheltered Workshops or Enterprises, which pursue the dual objective of satisfying their clients, both professionals and individuals and pursuing their social purpose: the employment of people with disabilities.

## Reduction Economy

Finally, the reduction economy, or frugal innovation, advocates for a minimalist and efficiency-focused approach to designing and producing goods and services. It encourages optimal use of available resources and the search for simple and low-cost solutions to meet human needs.

The scarcity of resources, whether on a local or global scale, can trigger a new wave of innovation. These will be called "frugal innovations" if they are rooted in simplicity, efficiency, and resource optimisation. Unlike the "do more with more" characterising the current consumption economy, it relies on the "more is less" or "innovating better with less" principle, seeking to address needs with minimal means but preserving the solution quality. It favours the use of local knowledge and simple technologies. Thus, we can highlight three principles:

* Fewer functionalities, leading to a smaller, lighter and less resource-consuming product

* Complexity reduction, leading to a more reliable and easier-to-repair product

* Design simplification will lead to a faster and easier product to manufacture, which a larger group of people will be able to achieve.

The reduction economy also focuses on social equity and inclusive growth: marginalised communities can be empowered by affordably addressing their basic needs. The reduction economy advocates for micro-factories capable of creating simple and locally tailored solutions rather than giant mass-production factories. This leads to a more resilient and agile model, bringing employment closer to the points of consumption.

Often, the reduction economy relies on co-creation processes involving all stakeholders in a social innovation process.

## Concluding Takeaway

These alternative models represent innovative ways to rethink our current economic system. They emphasise sustainability, collaboration, inclusion, and efficiency, offering promising perspectives for a more equitable and environmentally friendly economic future. Low-Tech entrepreneurship can draw inspiration from these proposals by intelligently hybridising them. For such an interesting combination, the model of circular planned perennity of Mob-Ion deserves to be considered[3]
<figure><img src="image_252.png" /></figure>

Above: Eamonn O'Sullivan. Riving wood with a froe. November 2011. Hewn.ie. https://www.hewn.ie/blog-content/2014/10/29/what-is-green-woodworking

<figure><img src="image_253.png" /></figure>

Above: Eamonn O'Sullivan. Shaving with a drawknife and a shaving horse (or coopers mare). November 2014. Hewn.ie. https://www.hewn.ie/blog-content/2014/10/29/what-is-green-woodworking/
# 4: Sustainable strategic marketing approach

## Low-Tech marketing

Undertaking sustainability in the manner of the Low-Tech approach requires following a process that questions the dominant model. In this regard, Sustainable Marketing proposes a framework that implicitly integrates various characteristics of the Low-Tech approach: usefulness, accessibility, autonomy, sustainability, and locality.

Marketing is often reduced to "communication," or even just "advertising," regarding the company's products or services. However, this aspect is merely the tip of the iceberg, etc. Indeed, "marketing approach," or simply "Marketing," corresponds to a much broader approach, defining the guiding principle of the company's overall strategy. In this sense, Marketing involves determining the major directions regarding the products and services to be developed or offered, identifying markets to cover and reach, setting prices, choosing means of product distribution, designing products considering the needs and expectations of users, developing the brand, positioning the offer in the market (especially by conveying a set of values representative of the products/services offered, or the underlying company), engaging with customers/users, and finally, gaining visibility through advertising. It is, therefore, a comprehensive approach enabling a company to offer value (through what is called "strategic marketing") and ensuring that they can benefit from it (through what is called "operational marketing"). Sustainable marketing aims to create and offer benefits for all stakeholders; value represents the difference between these benefits and the associated costs. However, value is not a single entity but a plural notion that varies depending on the analytical perspective.

Thus, marketing represents a significant lever to promote sustainable practices and behaviours by precisely offering "sustainable" products and services, products and services that provide real and fair value (in the face of various socio-ecological challenges). This is called "Sustainable Marketing" or "sustainable marketing approach." In this sense, this approach aligns with the Low-Tech approach: indeed, the characteristics of usefulness, accessibility, autonomy, sustainability, and locality advocated by the Low-Tech approach are subtly present in this sustainable marketing approach.

Classes 4 and 5 present (in summary) this comprehensive approach to sustainable marketing, approaching it from its two classic aspects: the "strategic" aspect and the "operational" aspect. Note that the content of these classes is primarily based on Sihem Dekhili-Aurelie and Merle-Adeline Ochs book[4].

## Global Framework of integrating socio-ecological issues

Strategic marketing involves defining the strategic framework for creating products/services by the company; in this sense, it corresponds to the fundamental structure upon which the company is built, etc. (with governance, finance, R&D, procurement, logistics, personnel management functions then being organised around this strategy).

The integration of sustainability is present in several interrelated dimensions. We review them successively.

In a sustainability approach, integrating environmental and social issues is at the heart of the strategic approach of the offer. This involves defining objectives and a purpose that goes beyond profit goals and is long-term oriented (concept of strong sustainability).

NB: Ultimately, these objectives will materialise through various dimensions of operational marketing (offer design, pricing, distribution, communication) and by accompanying consumers towards sustainable practices.

## Creating Triple Value - Meeting Needs

The approach's starting point is to simultaneously create/ provide value on three dimensions (Triple Value), i.e., value for the consumer, the company, and society at large (referred to as extended value). The latter consists of both value regarding social issues and value regarding environmental issues.

Thus, from a sustainability standpoint, the approach aims to promote sustainable consumption practices: developing ecological products is necessary but not sufficient; they must be accepted by consumers (creating value for them, helping them make choices easier, supporting them in their usage, building new imaginaries conducive to sustainable development).

### Providing Value to Society at Large.

In practice, the DONUT Economics model is a relevant framework for identifying various social and environmental needs and addressing them. The tool provides a holistic view of local and global issues that the company must consider to avoid negative impacts (negative externalities) and provide value (positive externalities - regeneration of the planet and human ecosystems), regardless of the value it may bring for itself or the consumer.

### Providing Value to the Consumer.

In practice, we can use Max-Neef's theory of needs to return to the fundamental needs of human beings and thus offer value filled with meaning and authenticity (rather than being a company that

## References and Further Reading:

[4] "SUSTAINABLE MARKETING", Sihem Dekhili-Aurelie Merle-Adeline Ochs, Pearson 2021.
<figure><img src="image_254.png" /><figcaption>Above: Felix Cohen. Coracle. July 2010. Flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/felix_cohen/4831115623/</figcaption></figure>
contributes to fuelling derived needs and/or creating the need). Moreover, it is important to integrate into this dimension the mechanisms through which the value of sustainability is perceived and thus constructed by consumers. To do this, since value results from a balance between benefits (biospheric and altruistic-social benefits, and egocentric ones) and perceived sacrifices (costs) by consumers, it is necessary to identify these benefits and costs; also, it is important to be aware of the existence of cognitive biases (positive and negative) associated with this sustainability value.

## Providing Value to the Company.

To do this, it is necessary to identify the various stakeholders in the company's ecosystem. Primary stakeholders include employees, suppliers, customers, and investors, while secondary stakeholders include competitors, governments, associations, NGOs, etc. Furthermore, environmental and social issues are also stakeholders with which the company must deal. Thus, providing value to the company means identifying how to meet the different needs of the various stakeholders in its ecosystem to ensure the sustainability (longevity) of the company, especially in a context where socio-ecological issues are becoming increasingly pressing (and creating an increasingly volatile world). Various questions arise (non-exhaustively):

* How to ensure employee motivation, fulfil their quest for meaning through work, ...

* How to maintain a lasting brand image towards customers, meet their ecological expectations (without creating distrust), and raise awareness among buyers and users...

* How to ensure lasting collaborations with suppliers, how to ensure alignment of social and ecological values throughout the value chain, how not to be dependent on upstream...

* How to ensure long-term investor commitment, how to reassure financiers/investors regarding potential changes in business models...

* How to anticipate laws and regulations, ...

* How to be responsive to new societal norms driven by lobbyists and influencers, how to respond to union demands...

* How to be resilient to resource reduction, their increasing costs, how to be robust and adapt to climate hazards...

* How to address social pressures related to poverty, employment, health (burnout), education...

A strong lever for integrating these issues is to develop a "cooperation ecosystem," incorporating all stakeholders, especially primary ones: employees, suppliers, funders, and customers. The

goal is then to address the question: "How can we co-create value together?" notably by involving customers in the co-creation of the offer (through a Design Thinking approach, for example), suppliers in co-developing privileged and authentic partnerships, funders/shareholders in co-defining the meaning and values associated with the company's activity, and employees in co-designing the company's purpose, its values, and the organisational model allowing them to flourish.

## Developing an Offer in Line with this Triple Value.

The goal here is to define the offer by conceptualising it, with the idea of clearly distinguishing the constituent elements of the offer. To do this, it is essential to identify:

* The basic functionality of the product/service.

* Its necessary functionalities.

* Its added functionalities.

* The associated mental association.

This step is crucial, linking the targeted triple value and the materialisation of the offer through the product. This phase will also identify the developed offering model (B2B, B2C, B2G, etc.). This step is also structured to aim for a "sustainable" materialisation during the product design, notably by identifying the essential functions of the accessory functions of the product/service and to start a reflection on product development based on the functionality economy (providing value through the realisation/execution of a function rather than by purchasing a product that will perform this function - see class 3).
<figure><img src="image_255.png" /><figcaption>Above: Phillip C Read. Human-powered loom. February 2009. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/master-phillip/3249782165/in/photolist-eeL1rz-5XαZ1Z-5XfesY-4woSii-5XαZ5c</figcaption></figure>
# 5: Sustainable operational marketing approach

## A fair pricing policy

A significant business challenge is establishing a fair pricing policy within the sustainability framework. Price not only reflects the value of a product but also influences consumer behaviour and affects the brand's market position. In sustainable products, pricing becomes a matter of "justice" aligning with the company's ethical values and responsibility. This perceived cost is to be juxtaposed with the perceived benefits by consumers, whether they are egocentric, altruistic-social, or biospheric.

Determining the right price involves navigating complexities. A low cost can be seen positively, making sustainable offerings more accessible and generating positive emotions among value-conscious consumers. It may help the product spread. However, it also risks undermining the perceived value and quality of the product, leading to consumer distrust and potentially encouraging overconsumption and waste.

Transparency and consistency are crucial in pricing policies. Hidden costs associated with production, consumption, and societal impact must be factored into the price to reflect the actual cost of the offering, following the "polluter pays" principle.

## How to implement a fair pricing strategy.

A fair price represents:

* A reasonable and justified amount in the eyes of consumers;

* A price that comprehensively takes into account all costs (economic, environmental, and social) incurred throughout the product's lifecycle;

* A price that ensures value for the consumer and transparency;

* A price that ensures an equitable distribution of costs and profits among all stakeholders in the value chain.

A fair price encompasses two dimensions:

* Justice related to upstream pricing: this dimension is associated with the equitable distribution of costs and profits across the entire chain, from design to distribution, as well as the consideration of hidden costs and the potential reduction of ecological costs through eco-innovation strategies.

* Justice related to downstream pricing: this corresponds to consumers' perception of justice, evaluating whether the price is reasonable, honest, and transparent.

## How to promote a fair perception of prices downstream?

To assess the fairness of a price, consumers rely on their past experiences, general beliefs about brand practices, personal conceptions of justice, and the information available at the time of purchase. To promote a fair perception of prices, four mechanisms can be implemented:

* Consider the process of price comparison by consumers and reinforce the product uniqueness;

* Justify prices through a transparent and honest approach to the price-setting process;

* Demonstrate fairness in cost and profit distribution (as in the fair trade principle);

* Remain consistent and transparent in the face of potential price increases to build trust in the brand (Brand Capital).

Furthermore, reactions to unfair pricing can range from mild reactions, such as disappointment or discomfort, to medium reactions, such as complaints or refund requests, to severe reactions, such as permanent brand detachment or call for boycotts.

A good example of a fair pricing strategy is the restaurant Cassonade (in Brussels), where the customer pays for the next diner's meal. You can influence the next person's meal by determining the amount you wish to donate. So, there is also room for innovation here.

## Distributing sustainably

Sustainable distribution is vital for providing consumers access to products and services across various channels, such as stores and e-commerce platforms. Distributors act as intermediaries between producers/industries and consumers. To achieve sustainable distribution, efforts are required both upstream, within the value chain, and downstream, at the distributor level.

### Acting upstream in the distribution strategy towards distributors.

Upstream in the distribution strategy towards distributors, sustainability is integrated into distribution circuits in three dimensions: distribution format, distribution channel length, and logistics chain.

There are **two types of distributors**: specialised and generalist. Specialised distributors focus entirely on sustainability and social commitments (including public awareness), while generalist distributors gradually incorporate sustainable offerings in response to their stakeholders' expectations.
<figure><img src="image_256.png" /><figcaption>Above: Kanahaya Alam. Espadrille making workshop. June 2018. Juta Shoes.
https://the-dots.com/projects/the-big-issue-how-you-can-get-involved-on-social-saturday-245553</figcaption></figure>
# 5: Sustainable operational marketing

**Short distribution circuits** with fewer intermediaries (no intermediary: farm sales, producer stores; 1 intermediary: local stores the source directly from producers) are often more sustainable due to reduced energy consumption, enhanced social ties, and promoted local economy.

**Sustainable logistics** aims to reduce the environmental and social impacts of transporting goods, focusing on long-distance routes. Actions are taken at three levels:

* Optimising transportation methods and delivery flows in the producer-to-distributor chain.

* Reducing home delivery failures.

* Minimising consumer travel distances.

Last-mile logistics is crucial, impacting both the environment and the retailer's image. Attention to consumer travel on the purchasing journey is necessary, and collaborative deliveries offer a potential solution. A circular economy approach valorises raw materials, products, and packaging in the return chain, including recycling, repurposing, and redirecting returns to appropriate destinations.

## Acting downstream on merchandising and the customer journey

The distributor, whether within physical or virtual retail spaces, can guide choices towards more sustainable consumption through its "merchandising": the selection of offers, the nature of the shopping experience, or waste reduction policies.

Promoting sustainable products involves expanding their availability and guiding consumer choices towards them. This includes broadening the range by offering sustainable options across various product families, increasing sustainable references within categories, and introducing circular economy-based products. Promoting quality items with longer lifespans is crucial, alongside providing services like rental or repair. "Choice editing" limits non-sustainable products, making sustainable options the default choice. This involves removing harmful products or exclusively offering labelled sustainable ones. These strategies aim to make sustainable options more accessible, encouraging environmentally friendly consumption habits.

Making sustainable products accessible throughout the consumer journey involves effective visual communication at the point of sale and interactions with salespersons who act as ambassadors for sustainable practices. Store layout plays a significant role, with sustainable products strategically placed along the customer's path to facilitate choice.

**Waste management** encompasses three crucial aspects: minimising product waste, cutting down packaging through bulk sales and collecting waste (e.g. through deposit systems). Addressing material/product waste is paramount due to its significant environmental, social, and economic implications. Factors contributing to this waste include visible defects and short shelf life. Strategies to tackle these issues involve:

* Selecting the appropriate materials and products to sell.

* Valorising imperfect products.

* Transforming them into usable goods.

* Implementing reduced pricing strategies.

Bulk sales, retailing non-prepackaged products in reusable containers, align with the zero-waste approach. This strategy fosters consumer relationships (creating proximity/loyalty bonds), reduces waste by allowing customers to purchase the correct quantity, and minimises environmental impact by slashing individual packaging. Implementing bulk sales necessitates adjustments in logistics (transport, stock...), hygiene management, store layout, communication, and staffing.

When either the product itself or its packaging is returned, it helps to reduce the waste effectively and to source new materials in a circular or Low-Tech mindset. Indeed, waste can become the essential raw material for creating new products, especially in a low-tech mindset. Various mechanisms can be implemented to establish this feedback loop from customers. One of them is a deposit system, where part of the product's price paid by the consumer is refunded when:

* Returning the product (e.g., 1083's Infinite Jean reimburses €20 when the jeans are returned to transform them into yarn for another pair of jeans);

* Returning the packaging (bottle deposits, etc.). However, this is associated with three key constraints: optimising return flows, developing more durable containers (eco-design), and the capacity and motivation of consumers to return consigned products.

## 5.3. Branding

Creating a brand for an offer aligned with Triple Value involves several key steps to ensure its success in the market. These elements work together to establish a strong brand presence and effectively communicate consumers' values associated with the sustainable offer.

Before materialising the offer with a product/service, it is necessary to **establish a brand identity**. The brand name, slogan, and logo will be defined in this phase. The objective is gradually building brand capital, notably by associating it with conveyed values.

However, defining **the company's or brand's purpose** is crucial before diving into branding. This purpose serves as a strategic compass, guiding all decisions related to providing triple value, developing a sustainable offer, and creating a sustainable brand. It ensures consistency and direction across all actions, both strategic and operational.

Simultaneously, efforts must be made to **anchor the sustainable offer in the market**. This involves understanding how consumers perceive value and segmenting the market accordingly to identify different behaviours and reactions towards sustainable offers. Targeting specific segments that align with the proposed offer is crucial, as is positioning the brand not solely on sustainability values but also offering additional benefits and reassurance to consumers about the performance of the sustainable offer. This step marks the starting point for developing a strong and consistent brand image around sustainable products.
<figure><img src="image_257.png" /></figure>

Above: Business Model Canvas. 2010. Strategyzer. https://www.strategizer.com/library/the-business-model-canvas

Below: FlourishingBusiness Canvas. 2014. Antony Upward. https://flourishingbusiness.org/download-flourishing-business-canvas/

## Flourishing Business Canvas v2.0

<figure><img src="image_258.png" /></figure>
# 6: Financial approach – Unveiling the layers of value in entrepreneurship

When it comes to entrepreneurship, value creation is always a central issue. It's commonly understood that this value can take various forms: financial, societal, human, and so on. However, the conventional tools used to characterise a project's business model often focus solely on its financial viability. In simple terms, a project is financially viable if, structurally, total revenues exceed total costs. This vision, especially for Low-Tech projects, needs revision. We need to explore tools that integrate the multiple layers of value in entrepreneurship, challenging us to adopt new approaches.

## 6.1. A focus on financial viability

Many tools are available to characterise a company's business model. Let's take a look at one of the most widely used: the Business Model Canvas (BMC).

The BMC is a tool developed by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur[5] that visualises a business's main components. It defines how a company creates and delivers value. The BMC takes the form of a matrix containing nine blocks: value propositions, customer segments, channels, customer relationships, revenue streams, key resources, key activities, key partnerships, and cost structure.

Graphically, the tool has a central block, "value propositions", to describe the different types of value provided to customer segments through a product or service.

The blocks related to customer value creation and revenue generation are to the right, focusing on understanding customer needs, choosing distribution channels, and managing customer relations. To the left are the blocks describing how the company's activities (with and without partners) and resources should be structured to support the value creation defined in the blocks on the right. This structuring implies costs that need to be measured. The business model of any entrepreneurial project can be analysed from a BMC perspective, and its financial viability is deduced by comparing the revenues generated by the project with the costs associated with the structure of the company running the project.

Low-tech entrepreneurial projects can take many forms, right down to teaching customers to create themselves the value defined in the BMC. This single view of value when questioning the viability of a project is insufficient in a Low-Tech state of mind.

## A growing imperative to evolve towards a holistic view of value

The Triple Bottom Line (TBL), introduced by John Elkington in the 1990s, is the idea that a company's (and, therefore, an entrepreneurial project's) performance is not limited to traditional financial indicators. The term "Triple Bottom Line" alludes to the last line of a profit and loss statement.

Three interconnected dimensions must be considered: economic, social, and environmental. Each dimension can be linked to the three Ps: profit, people, and planet.

* Economic dimension (profit): it focuses on classic indicators based on financial value, such as revenues and costs.

* Social dimension (people): it examines the company's impact on society, looking at the social value created or destroyed for all stakeholders (customers, employees, etc.) impacted by the company's decisions.

* Environmental dimension (planet): it examines the environmental value and assesses the ecological consequences of the company's activities.

While this holistic approach stimulates sustainability, it does have its limitations, such as the complexity of arriving at objective and shared measures of value. Nevertheless, it has led to the emergence of tools for assessing corporate business models that consider these three dimensions. Here, we illustrate a recent tool: the Flourishing Business Canvas.

The Flourishing Business Canvas [6] (FBC) is a new-generation collaborative visual tool for designing flourishing, aligned business models.

This design tool provides a common language in a practical visual framework to enable entrepreneurs to collaboratively sketch, prototype, design, improve, understand, share, measure, diagnose, and, most importantly, tell stories about their company's business model. There are similarities with the BMC presented above; the main difference is that FBC considers the context in which the value proposition occurs. The full context of any business on this planet is the environment. Then, society is nested in the environment and depends on a healthy environment. Similarly, society has created the economy to help members meet their needs better. Having established this nested set of contexts, we can now explore how financial value affects social and environmental spheres.

## References and Further Reading:

[5] Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation. John Wiley & Sons

[6] Upward, A. (2014). Flourishing Business Model Canvas https://flourishingbusiness.org/
<figure><img src="image_259.png" /></figure>

Above: Pete Edgeler. Sussex Trug Making. June 2016. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_edgeler/26744479015/
## 6: Financial Approach

The canvas presents four perspectives: People, Value, Process and Outcomes.

**People** represent the **WHO** of the company's business model. Humans/people are why any business or community initiative exists, so this perspective describes who is engaged and the company's relationships with them. It tells us who is influenced and impacted by the enterprise, the key co-creators, their needs, how the business connects with those within the company's ecosystem, and what relationships are required.

Next is the value perspective, also known as the **WHAT** in a business model. **Value** is defined as the relative worth, utility, or importance of something. Value is always experienced as a co-creation between two or more parties. There has to be something to value and someone to value it. When these two things come together, value is experienced or co-created.

The third perspective on the Flourishing Business Canvas is **Process**, also known as the **HOW** of your business model. This perspective is about how a company will develop and build the products/services that enable value to be co-created, allowing the company to exist.

The fourth and final perspective on the Flourishing Business Canvas is **Outcomes**, also known as the **WHY** of a business model. This perspective explores the outcomes or impact an enterprise or community initiative wants to create and generate in the world. Impact is described through the enterprise or community initiative goals, which are based on the purpose or vision of the enterprise.

Understanding the four perspectives (Who, What, How and Why) helps you visualize the core construct of any business model. All four perspectives are required for Low-Tech initiative to exist.

### Microcredit and Crowdfunding

Funding through microcredit and crowdfunding provides crucial opportunities to support sustainable entrepreneurship. By providing small loans to entrepreneurs often excluded from the traditional financial system, microcredit helps stimulate the creation of sustainable businesses in disadvantaged communities. These funds can be used to start ecological initiatives such as organic farming, access to clean water, or the development of renewable energy sources.

Similarly, crowdfunding, with its ability to mobilise a large number of people to finance projects through online platforms, offers a pathway to capital for sustainable entrepreneurs. This helps raise funds and creates a committed community around the business and its environmental and social goals. More precisely, we can distinguish between two forms of crowdfunding:

* **Crowdlending** constitutes a participatory loan in which the project owner must repay the investors according to predefined terms.

* **Crowdfunding** proper constitutes a participatory donation, with or without a counterpart. These counterparts can vary enormously, ranging from symbolic to material advantage for the donor. In this case, donors can become the product's first customers (and ambassadors).

By combining these innovative funding approaches, sustainable entrepreneurship can benefit from accessible and participatory financial support, thereby promoting the development of innovative and sustainable solutions to current environmental and social challenges.
<figure><img src="image_260.png" /></figure>

Above: Matthieu Leroux. Norwegian pot. February 2023. L'avant d'apres
https://lavantdapres.fr/product/marmite-norvegienne/
# 7: Norwegian Pot Workshop: A Sustainable Business

This section introduces a group educational workshop to reflect on the functionalities of the Norwegian pot and the business that could be created around it. The entire 4-hour workshop is described below.

## Introduction to the Workshop and Objectives (5-15 minutes)

Set the scene: "What if we imagined launching a business around the Norwegian pot? One that allows everyone to cook while reducing energy consumption? A way to cook food more sustainably, with reduced environmental impact. An easy-to-use pot that encourages awareness of energy usage from a sustainable perspective".

**Method:** The workshop's goal is to imagine how to create a business around the Norwegian pot with student teams. The Norwegian pot[7], Norwegian cooker, Norwegian stove, Insulated cooking pot, Heat retention cooker, Hay box cooker or fireless cooker operates on the principle of heat retention. Here's how it works:

* **Initial heating:** First, the food is brought to a boil in a pot on a heat source, such as a stove or fire.

* **Transfer to the Norwegian cooker:** Once the food has reached boiling point, the pot is removed from the heat source. The hot food and pot are then placed inside the Norwegian cooker, which is an insulated container.

* **Heat insulation:** The Norwegian cooker is designed with efficient thermal insulation, which traps the heat inside. This allows the food to continue cooking gently in its residual heat without requiring an external heat source. The device ideally should be isolated against three modes of heat transfer:

* **Conduction** occurs within solids (such as wood or metals) and involves the direct transfer of heat through a material by the propagation of thermal energy from one particle to another. Heat always flows from hotter regions to cooler regions. Poor conductors, also known as insulators, include materials like gases, wood, wool, and polystyrene.

* **Convection** is related to the movement of fluids, resulting in the transport of heat. Fluids, such as water or air, are set in motion by the temperature difference and carry heat with them from hotter regions to cooler ones. To reduce convection, it is important to minimise air movement (closed enclosure; bulk insulation such as wool, cellulose...).

* **Radiation:** In this mode, a hot body emits electromagnetic radiation (in the infrared wavelength spectrum). Radiation is transmitted without needing a particular medium and thus also occurs in a vacuum. When a system absorbs electromagnetic energy, it converts it into thermal energy (i.e. heat). To block radiation, reflective materials (such as aluminium foils) can be useful.

* **Slow-cooking:** The food continues to cook slowly inside the Norwegian cooker for several hours, harnessing the trapped heat. This slow-cooking method helps preserve nutrients and flavours while saving energy.

So, the Norwegian cooker is an eco-friendly and energy-efficient cooking method, ideal for dishes that require long, slow cooking, such as stews, soups, and braises.

**Energy Impact:** The environmental impact is linked to energy reduction. Note: Faced with this observation, it is understood that one of the levers to reduce environmental impact related to energy expenditure can be its utilisation.

**Idea:** The intention behind conducting this workshop is to collectively address an example of reflection on the business of the Norwegian pot and the "low-technicisation" of food cooking in an interactive way through critical and open discussion.

## Discussion about the obstacles and motivations of Low-Tech (20-30 minutes)

**Method** - Note ideas:

Learners are invited to consider the following fundamental question: What are the advantages, disadvantages, incentives, and obstacles to adopting a Low-Tech approach or product? Participants are asked to note ideas using 🧭 (for obstacles) or 👋 (for motivation) on a piece of paper, symbolising respectively:

* 🧭 the obstacle against the relevance in terms of entrepreneurial and sustainable ideas (related to socio-economic issues);

* 👋 the motivations and advantages in the broad sense (more autonomy, sustainability, economy, comfortability);

Concerning obstacles, some examples can be given:

* Technical incompetence in manufacturing;

* Technical inability;

* Scientific incompetence;

* Lack of tools, materials, plans;

* New uses;

* Usage discomfort;

* Fear;

* Additional equipment.

Each group chooses ideas to present.

## References and Further Reading:

[7] See: https://wiki.lowtechlab.org/wiki/Marmite_norv%C3%A9gienne/en

[8] Free Circularity Deck https://www.circularitydeck.com/

[9] 30 Principles of Resilience Coaching https://environnement.brussels/
<figure><img src="image_261.png" /></figure>

Above: L'avant d'apres. Tracer de loin. May 2021. L'avant d'apres
https://lavantdapres.fr/lentreprise/
# 7: Norwegian Pot Workshop

## Write the company's purpose and the value proposition (product) (20-30 minutes)

**Method:** Each group describes its value proposition to meet market needs. Students can emphasise sustainability, technical assistance (e.g., plan), or comfort.

Furthermore, they discuss the product (and the value proposition). They can write one sentence on a paper with both the company's purpose and value proposition.

* The company's purpose encapsulates the broader impact it aims to have on society, the environment, its stakeholders, and its customers.

* The value proposition summarises a business's advantages to consumers who purchase its products or services.

* The product is the tangible or intangible offering a company provides to its customers.

Then, each group presents it.

**Idea.** What are we going to sell? Plans? Some parts? Tool rental? Workshops to make boxes? Etc.

## Choose the company's model (20-30 minutes)

Now that the company's purpose is known, learners can investigate the kind of economic model they will adopt according to the value proposition. Another way to present this step is to ask to what extent their company will fall within a circular economy, collaborative economy, functionality economy, reduction economy, or social and solidarity economy...

Regarding the circular economy, the following card sets can be helpful to give new ideas or to animate the discussion:

* Free Circularity Deck [8]

* 30 Principles of Resilience Coaching [9]

## Fill the Flourishing Business Canvas (30-45 minutes)

While filling out the template, learners should focus on the interlocked contexts (environment, society, economy) on the one hand and the specific aspects related to the territory (material resources, human resources, skills, and knowledge) on the other. The ecosystem dimension sometimes involves considering existing businesses, either in the same type of activities or in related activities. In particular, it is interesting to consider businesses whose waste can serve as useful raw materials.

An emphasis is placed on resources, human resources, and nature (territory) (for example, local aspects).

## Sustainable Brand (15 minutes)

**Idea.** Before materializing the offer with a product/service, it is necessary to build a brand to identify this offer. The brand name, slogan, and logo will be defined in this phase. The brand name should satisfy the following seven criteria:

* **Evocative:** The brand name should clearly communicate what the company or product does.

* **Meaningful:** The brand name should express an element of positioning.

* **Original:** The brand name should allow differentiation from others.

* **Memorable:** The brand name should be memorable, pronounceable, and if possible, simple.

* **Attractive:** The brand name should appeal to the target audience or sector.

* **Transferable:** The brand name should be able to work for future products.

* **Adaptable:** The brand name should be adaptable to other languages or cultures.

We can keep attention to the three dimensions of the triple value model:

1. The needs of the stakeholders

2. The development of a sustainable offer

3. The creation of a sustainable brand

Then, each group presents it.

## Pricing (20-30 minutes)

**Idea.** Each group can consider the best price (the fairest price for the planet) to sell its product. It is important to keep in mind both economic (profitability) and environmental (sustainability) objectives. To set the price, one can also use the price of a new stove or even a fitted kitchen as a reference. One can also take into account the expected energy savings on an annual basis to determine an expected payback period.

Every member of the group can also individually give their minimum acceptable price and maximum acceptable price for the product, then take the average to get an idea of the average price. Try to be innovative in selecting or creating a fair pricing policy. Could this policy reinforce the Low-Tech mindset?

## Funding (20-30 minutes)

**Idea.** Each group must consider financing options such as microcredit or crowdfunding. If learners choose crowdfunding, it is pertinent to inform them how they will trigger this funding: what arguments will they propose to potential stakeholders? What involvement in the overall project? What are the eventual counterparts?

## Conclusion (20-30 minutes)

Finally, each group presents the different reflections and enterprise proposal stages. After a Q&A session, an exchange between the various groups can lead to common reflections on the answers to the different questions, thus leading to a new and improved enterprise proposal.
<figure><img src="image_262.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_263.png" /></figure>

Territoire

Santiago Perez

5 lessons
<figure><img src="image_264.png" /><figcaption>Above: SlimMars 13. Village in Valley in Mountains. July 2024. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/village-in-valley-in-mountains-27064734/</figcaption></figure>
# Territoire

<figure><img src="image_265.png" /></figure>

## Learning Hours

To successfully complete this module the learner will engage in:

<table><thead><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Activity Description</td><td>Hours</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lecture</td><td>Delivered content and discussions</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Directed</td><td>Research, reading, and project preparation</td><td>18</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Module Objectives

This module examines the concept of Territoire as a socio-ecological framework, exploring the dynamic relationships between society and its spatial and ecological contexts. Learners will engage with interdisciplinary perspectives to understand how human and environmental systems co-evolve, employing tools such as systems thinking and spatial analysis. The module highlights how the integration of "Territoire" and social-ecological system (SES) approaches can address complex challenges such as resilience, governance, and sustainability.

## Learning Outcomes

1. Define and critically analyse the concept of "Territoire" within socio-ecological and spatial contexts.

2. Compare and contrast the "Territoire" and SES frameworks.

3. Explore interdisciplinary approaches to understanding nature-society interactions.

4. Assess resilience within social-ecological systems using principles of systems thinking.

5. Apply spatial and historical analysis methods to study territorial dynamics.

6. Critique the role of power, agency, and sense of place in shaping socio-ecological systems.

7. Develop strategies to address "wicked" problems through integrated approaches.

8. Formulate solutions for sustainable resource management grounded in territorial and SES principles.
<figure><img src="image_266.png" /><figcaption>Above: Matheus Bertelli. Laughing Woman in a Garden. January 2023. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/laughing-woman-in-a-garden-15291235/</figcaption></figure>
# 1: What is a social-ecological system (SES)?

In their activities, people continuously adapt to their situation, with goals that shift in response to changes in their environment (Faysse et al. 2014). Through constant interaction with their environment, they adjust their techniques and practices to moderate the consequences of environmental change on their livelihood. In doing so, they shape the configuration and trajectory of their landscapes, for example, through investments in new irrigation devices or changes in cropping patterns to cope with the occurrence of droughts. However, suitable adaptation actions at one's own scale of reference are not always reachable. In these cases, people must change more radically, with actions, either intentional or unintentional, that push toward a regime shift or a change in what has been defined as the social-ecological system (SES) within which they are embedded.

## What is a social-ecological system (SES)?

A SES deals with the relationship between a society and its environment. SESs are linked or coupled human-environmental systems and represent a movement of two mirror images coming together. The first image is that of ecologists and other natural scientists increasingly focusing on the social dimensions of the environment and ramifications of the human world as integrated into and a part of the natural world rather than an external source of disturbances on ecosystems (Berkes and Folke 1998, Folke 2006). The second image is of social scientists noting how the bio-geo-physical context directly affects people, their institutional arrangements, overall culture, and society. SESs move towards a holistic view of the social and ecological system as a single system with effects and feedback from one subsystem to another or as a single complex system (Gallopín et al. 1989, Folke 2006).

In Figure 1 The large box represents an entire social-ecological system, including its components and social and ecological subsystems. The two large arrows in the middle represent interactions between them. For example, the arrow targeting the ecological sub-system represents human influences on nature. These are the outcome of processes influenced and/or driven by citizens, commercial interests, institutions (rules, regulations, customs), and the human-built infrastructure. They impact the ecological sub-system in numerous, often invisible ways mediated through ecosystem processes and functions because of myriad abiotic and biotic interactions. The arrow targeting the social sub-system represents the outcome of all these factors.

In SESs, the system is an integrated whole comprising multiple social agents and biophysical elements with some connectivity and interaction level (Meadows 2008). Ostrom (2007) proposes a characterisation of SESs that includes four important subcomponents: (1) users/actors, (2) governance systems, (3) resource units, and (4) resource settings. This organisation recognises that these subunits interact to produce outcomes embedded in social, economic, and political settings as well as biophysical ones. SESs are often referred to as complex adaptive systems with dynamic interactions at multiple scales (Folke 2006), leading to the generation of outputs in which the aggregate behaviour emerges from the interactions of multiple individual agents and is qualitatively different from the sum of the individual behaviours in that it cannot be inferred from the behaviour of any single individual entity (Miller and Page 2009). SESs are therefore considered to exhibit a degree of self-organisation in which the system organises without central control (Mitchell 2009).

<figure><img src="image_267.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Graphical representation of a social-ecological system. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00085</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_268.png" /><figcaption>Above: Pixabay. White Windmill. May 2017. Pexels.
https://www.pexels.com/photo/white-windmill-414807/</figcaption></figure>
# 1: What is a social-ecological system (SES)?

<figure><img src="image_269.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: The social-ecological system framework. Based on Ostrom (2009) and Epstein et al. (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07239-200155</figcaption></figure>

The social-ecological system framework consists of four core subsystems (RS, RU, GS, A) organized around a central action situation in which interactions occur and outcomes are produced. Additional subsystems (S, ECO, ER) impact all core subsystems.

Natural scientists were moving toward these coupled complex systems approaches (e.g., Levin 1999) and reaching out to social scientists (Gunderson et al. 1995). Simultaneously, social scientists were also drawing on complexity and systems. Throughout the 1990s, researchers began to combine the biophysical context and societal variables to understand institutional arrangements as they are affected by changes in the system (Ostrom et al. 1994). Berkes and Folke (1998) took the next step, bringing social and natural scientists together to analyse coupled SESs.

SES analysis requires an interdisciplinary effort (teams, approaches, and methods). More recent efforts to integrate this field of study and deepen our understanding include applied robustness frameworks (Anderies et al. 2004) and the continuing development of Ostrom's SES framework (Ostrom 2009, McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Consequently, the conceptual apparatus of the SES is expanding, including mental models of agents to incorporate knowledge dynamics (Gray et al. 2012) or infrastructures as mediators and affordances in system dynamics (Anderies 2015).

More recently, SESs have been explicitly used to reconcile “wicked” problems of natural resource management and its effects on humanity. For example, how do gradual changes such as accumulation of pollutants, habitat loss, or changes in societal values slowly erode the strength of the dominant feedback in a system until a threshold is reached and a different set of feedback suddenly becomes dominant, leading the system to reorganise rapidly into a new regime? What knowledge and social learning systems are required to navigate these regime shifts? From a practical point of view, SES studies attempt to resolve questions

of human and environmental conflict, frequently addressing how groups organise, formally or informally, to manage common-pool resources, paying attention to the contingency of specific landscapes (Walker et al. 2004, Kinzig et al. 2006).

## What's next?

In analysing relations between people and their environment, we can assume that people assess the status and state of their environment primarily through self-reflection on their life conditions. We have the capacity to maintain or improve our condition through our relations with others and our immediate physical environment. The core variables of life conditions are relative to each person, but some are shared, and many interact. Therefore, the coordination of adaptation patterns for society is required, which provides a systemic view of our realities.

Parallel to the SES approach, there is another academic tradition providing useful interdisciplinary conceptual frameworks to understand and explore nature-society systems: ecological and institutional analysis building on the concept of social-ecological systems (SESs; Berkes and Folke 1998, Gallopín 2006), and social geography using the francophone originated concept of territoire (Le Berre 1995, Debarbieux 2004). Those traditions have much in common, and we try to demonstrate their potential for mutual benefit. Considering them in parallel, we enhance the understanding of the contributions of these traditions to building more sustainable realities (Carpenter et al. 2001). The main idea behind those traditions is to provide a conceptual toolbox to identify the key interactions that could have a cascading influence on the system(s) we analyse.

Understanding the concept of territoire as a complex system whose characteristics and dynamics are based on the interactions between actors and their spatially explicit ecological context provides an operational approach to understanding social-ecological interactions.
<figure><img src="image_270.png" /><figcaption>**Above:** The territory as a complex system: an operational concept for planning and geography.
Based on Le territoire comme un système complexe : un concept opératoire pour l'aménagement et la géographie », L'Espace Géographique 2006-2, pp. 115-132.</figcaption></figure>
## 2: But, what is a territoire?

The notion of **territoire** gained popularity among French-speaking social scientists over the last three decades. It is mainly used by French-speaking social geographers but has received some use beyond the francophone community. We avoid translating it into "territory" because that word is commonly used in relation to administrative boundaries, and that is only a small part of what **territoire** actually implies. We propose to use the concept of **territoire** within a larger social geography perspective.

Developed initially from spatial appropriation and political control rooted in the making of the nation-state (Weber 1978, Sassen 2008), the concept of **territoire** was mainly used in ethology from the 1920s to the 1960s, after which it was brought back into the humanities by anthropologists, sociologists, and geographers, who suggested that one can better understand human behaviour by studying how a group takes ownership of a **territoire** through processes of identity and belonging. Defined in social geography as a spatial mediator of all social life (Di Méo 1999), **territoire** becomes both a social and a lived space, including political and ideological dimensions of space.

"Territoire is a reordering of space (...) it can be considered as the informed space of the biosphere."

- Raffestin (1986:177)

In the 1980s, francophone academics in human geography constructed and used **territoire** as an operative concept to understand relationships between societies and their environment (Di Méo 1998). The term gained popularity due to quantitative and spatial approaches dealing with the notion of space in "the absolute mode" (Agnew 2011:322). Disputes among geographers deal with the nature of space itself. Referring to Lefebvre (1974), social geographers understand **territoire** following the dialectics of space. **Territoire** is socially produced, conflictual, and a medium for social representations (Séchet and Veschambre 2006). This focus takes a holistic approach to account for the complexity of social phenomena in their spatial dimensions (Rougerie and Beroutchovili 1991). Social geography (i.e., the branch of human geography that focuses on social theories and their spatial components) considers **territoire** in its economic, ecological, ideological, and political dimensions (Di Méo and Buléon 2005). Complexity hinges on individuals and groups' importance of their connections and relationships with a physical space (Raffestin 1986).

Evolving from its ethological sense, **territoire** describes how individuals and groups act, think, behave, and deploy and implement strategies inside a given controlled space. In other terms, **territoire** emerges through the interactions that individuals and groups have with their environment within a specific geographical area (Debarbieux 2007). Thus, it can be seen as a socio-spatial system at different spatial scales (local, regional, national, and global). It is embedded in a physical space and socially produced, including both material and immaterial dimensions (Berque 2000). The material dimension refers to both

the physical and ecological nature of space. The immaterial dimension refers to social representations, ideas, images, and imageries produced within a specific space, which transform space into **territoire**, making it socially and culturally invested (Debarbieux 2003, Ferrier 2003).

In this complex socio-spatial system, society and actors act in a given space while space and its biophysical components act on societies and actors with their social and cultural representations, heritage, and other factors (Vant 1986). Di Méo (1987:561) introduces "the spatial dimension, proposed as an additional criteria in social distinction and classification." As such, there is a bidirectional feedback loop between the social systems and the biophysical system. These complex systems are theorized as socio-spatial combinations (Di Méo and Buléon 2005) composed of infrastructures (landscapes, communication networks, geology) and a superstructure (cultural and social schemes, policy, power).

Increasingly, environmental issues have come to the centre stage of this body of research while recognizing society's dependence on environmental components of the system: the experience and management of environmental risks (Duchêne et al. 2004), the development of biodiversity conservation policies, and the use of environmental symbols in cultures and strategies (Lepart and Marty 2006, Mathevet and Godet 2015). Many social scientists investigate the territorial construction of environmental resources (Bonnefoy et al. 2000, Gumuchian and Pecqueur 2007) whereas other research focuses on environmental risks and their consequences on **territoire** with a focus on its resilience (Coanus et al. 2010). This conception of **territoire** leads to environmental planning approaches that put emphasis on natural environmental systems (Selman 2000) and feed discussion on the management of landscape dynamics inherited from both cultural and natural processes.

With **territoire** growing ever more popular in the 1980s and 1990s, the word has become increasingly polysemous. Criticisms emerged on the imprecise use and inadequacy of the notion of **territoire** in a globalized context (Bodie 1995). Agnew (1994:57) coined the term "territorial trap," referring to the nonsense of an idealised notion of **territoire** contained within well-defined boundaries. Anglo-Saxon geography has long constrained **territoire** (i.e., territory) to political geography, regarding it as the spatial basis of power, inspired by Foucault and Lefebvre (Fall 2007), and paying attention to borders, controls, and state regulation (Sack 1986). The meaning reserved for the notion of place is close to **territoire**. Place is understood as a term mixing location on the Earth's surface, a locus of individual and group identity, and the scale of everyday life (Castree 2014). Places are seen as "glocal": local actions responding to but also influencing wider sets of rules and relationships at different scales (Cresswell 1996). There is a conceptual proximity between place and **territoire** because both terms carry not only spatial reference but also social and moral references (Tuan 1979). Since the 2000s, **territoire** has been assessed for its own specificity by Anglo-Saxon geographers. In this trend, Elden (2010) points out that one should consider a **territoire** in its historical perspective, building on the Foucauldian root of the concept. A number of techniques and laws contribute to drawing the picture of **territoire** as a political-technological-social construct. Today, the concept continues to evolve. For instance, following Vanier (2008), many social scientists associate networking and mobility analysis with **territoire** and introduce new concepts such as multiterritorialities, establishing connections between socio-spatial dynamics of **territoire** (as a local and contiguous geographical area) and reticular logics of networks (Cortes and Pesche 2013).
<figure><img src="image_271.png" /><figcaption>Above: Kelly Lacy, Kelly. Town by the Water in Cambodia. November 2023. Pexels https://www.pexels.com/photo/town-by-the-water-in-cambodia-19063383/</figcaption></figure>
# 3: System, Space, and Society: Common roots, with divergences

Both SES and **territoire** share interdisciplinary concepts to explore nature-society dynamics. Both concepts identify sets of interactions with components of different natures, including social and ecological ones. Both traditions converge toward analysing the coevolution of these components as they are framed by this network of interactions. Hence, both accept the notion of either SES or **territoire** as complex adaptive systems (Moine 2006), with social components pushing the interactions and physical space orienting them as their privileged medium. To understand the possible evolution of these complex systems, we need to be able to examine key components and interactions. Our purpose in pushing the comparison of both traditions is to enable a more thorough analysis of these nature-society systems and to establish the suitability of mixing elements of both, as well as identifying the potential benefits of such mixing. We first compare both traditions and their handling of interactions between nature and society. Second, we review how each tradition engages in system thinking, how they use the notion of space, and their approach in addressing societal change and decision-making.

## Nature-society interactions

Both SES and **territoire** are used to represent the interactions between ecological and social spheres as a knowable unit of study for the evolution of land and resource planning and management. They build on various trends dealing with this intersection for the sake of natural resources management, including sustainable development (WCED 1987), with acknowledgement of social, ecological, and economic components as joint drivers of development. SES features categories of users or systems of resources that enable accounting for these strong interactions. In contrast, **territoire** builds on representations based on landscapes, including the articulation of resources, and social and political schemes as SES components.

SES and **teritoire** differ in their way of understanding humans and the relative weight given to nature and society in these interactions. Where **teritoire** tradition considers actors as individuals that act on their environment (Di Méo and Buléon 2005) or inhabitants as individuals that think and build spaces (Hoyaux 2002), SES tradition often considers users and stakeholders (Ostrom 2007) with a strategic relation to their environment. Although both epistemologies handle relationships between nature and society, SES tradition starts with ecology or a scoping of the natural resource base, considered as an operating space for society, and brings in a continuous extension toward institutional analysis (Cote and Nightingale 2012). In contrast, **teritoire** tradition starts with social perspectives and, taking a nondeterministic approach to geography, considers that humans can modify nature and move away from its constraints (Ferrier 1984). These nature-society interactions, understood as **teritoire**, could only be defined through the relationship humans develop with space and time (Di Méo and Buléon 2005). Hence **teritoire** tradition uses a constructivist approach, with nature emerging through perceptions and interactions with society, whereas nature has its own existence in SES tradition. Consequently, SES tradition can more easily incorporate knowledge coming from physical and biological sciences.

## System approach

Both traditions build on the concept of system, as introduced by von Bertalanffy (1968). They adopt the same three-dimensional description and analysis of a system: functional, structural, and dynamic (Checkland 1981). They also share the view that a system, particularly its structure, should be studied through three lenses: physical, including components, phenomena, facts, and elements; logical, looking at the relationships between components that determine the functioning and evolution of the system; and holistic, defining the identity of the system. Both traditions consider that system identity emerges from the interactions between the components and gives meaning to these interactions (Wilson 1990, Deffontaines et al. 2000, Holling 2001).

Analyses of SES and **teritoire** adopt a similar stance concerning scales and levels of organisation: time, space, and social groups (Mathevet et al. 2003, Cote and Nightingale 2012). The system's evolution depends not only on present conditions but also on past disturbances. Long-term social-ecological research highlights the pathways, regimes, and transitions of both SES and **teritoire**. For instance, Singh et al. (2013) provide understanding of the SES characteristics that frame the management of resources and its evolution in time. Barles (2009) proposes an adaptation of long-term social-ecological methods to the localised scale of **teritoire**. The time dynamic is examined in **teritoire** tradition through the production of the narratives that explain the sequence of nature-society relations producing the **teritoire**. In the SES tradition, the temporal dynamics are acknowledged through studying interactions between slow and fast variables and understanding path dependencies and dynamic models of the system. Cross-scale interdependences from determinants set by large spatial entities or social groups and organisations are also demonstrated through both traditions (Gunderson and Holling 2002, Lévy 2003).

While sharing several points of view on system analysis, SES and **teritoire** traditions diverge in their view of systems in the relative weights given to various dimensions of system descriptions. SES focuses more on functions, whereas **teritoire** focuses more on structure. Consequently, analysis of these systems initially involves flows and feedback related to functions for SES, whereas connections of layers make up the whole of **teritoire**. Whereas the **teritoire** tradition defines interactions, relationships, and representations between humans and their environment, the SES tradition conceptualises the origin and regulation of flows and feedback (Walker et al. 2006) with an increasing focus on the agency behind these (Ostrom et al. 1994). Lastly, the SES tradition describes a hierarchy of systems and system components within a nested system (Gunderson and Holling 2002, Ostrom 2007). In contrast, **teritoire** tradition explains the representations and uses actors have of a biophysical and spatial organisation of a specific area and the contribution of these multiple representations to social phenomena such as a sense of place (Clark and Stein 2003). Consequently, dynamics in a **teritoire**-based analysis come from individual and political choices, whereas an ecosystem perspective frames matter more in SES tradition.
<figure><img src="image_272.png" /><figcaption>Above: Juan Felipe Ramírez. People Walking in Alley in Bogota. December 2023. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/people-walking-in-alley-in-bogota-19676359/</figcaption></figure>
# 3: System, Space, and Society: Common roots, with divergences

## Space

Territoire is naturally embedded in space, which provides the objective biogeochemical substrate within which human actors interact to represent and construct a territoire. The functions of SES depend on the location of natural biophysical elements and their stocks and flows in the function of human activities and interventions.

Defining space, however, highlights the challenges of boundaries, i.e., the spatial limits of the system. In both epistemologies, the clarity of boundaries has faded because of the relativism of definitions, being in both cases acknowledged as depending on analyst and stakeholder viewpoints. Integration of individual perspectives makes it challenging to delineate boundaries that make sense for all components of the system.

The importance given to space differs between the traditions. Territoire tradition aims at building representations of spatial realities via discourses, photography, and cartography (Di Méo and Buléon 2005), working as stories of space (de Certeau 1990). Enhancing geographical knowledge proceeds by adopting and transforming these representations of space (Debarbieux 2004). In SES, results are not necessarily spatially projected (Cumming et al. 2006), and system components can be determined or described without specified geographic boundaries or spatial references. However, spatial mismatches between social and ecological systems concern SES scientists (Carpenter et al. 2001, Walker et al. 2004). Space is but one possible dimension of interactions between nature and society.

## Relation to society

Both SES and territoire consider society as essential to their existence and the dynamics of change. They integrate an analysis of agency triggering changes or sequences of decision and negotiation, producing narratives of evolution. They also aim to bring the knowledge produced by research into policy arenas to generate science-policy interactions. This relation to society is ambiguous in many cases because several practitioners of both traditions have the simultaneous goal of describing society as a part of the system and its dynamics but also being part of the change itself, guiding collective action, be it for more sustainability, economic efficiency, or social justice.

SES and territoire face this tension around decision-making, issues of power, and consideration of humans in diverging ways. SES analysis primarily focuses on understanding system functions. When decision-making is considered, including feedback toward system governance, the SES tradition appears to be more subject to an action research stance, with a focus on learning and adaptive capacity (Fozey et al. 2007; Fobricius and Cundill 2010, Béné et al. 2011). In contrast, social geographers take a more critical stance, including stepping back and raising potential issues of inequities held by conceptual choices (Foster and Clark 2008, Hornborg 2009, Cote and Nightingale 2012). Although this reflexivity is not specific to any of these traditions, we observe a difference in its practice. This affects how power issues are considered: social geographers are more concerned about the consequences of their work on power balance and social justice, whereas SES analysts focus more on power relations as controls on flows or feedback among components. This divergence in dealing with this tension regarding intervention is the root of one of the main dimensions of debate among both traditions.

## Synthesis of comparison

Territoire has a strong foundation in social components, i.e., the behaviour of social groups and organisations or individuals, households, or families. These agents are conscious of their environment and their place within that environment. The effectiveness of their control on the territoire they feel they are part of depends on the coordination of multiple agent actions and reflects the capacity to formulate an intention and implement a collective action. This issue of collective action is also well-developed within the SES conceptual framework (Ostrom 2005). However, hereafter, we discuss two concepts that are more developed in the territoire tradition and are central to understanding processes of collective action. The first one is "sense of place," which contributes to defining identity and reflects the agent's consciousness of the environment and of his or her place within it. The second one is power, which contributes to defining governance and agents' abilities to coordinate to control the system.

Sense of place refers to the meanings of and attachment to a setting held by an individual or group (Tuan 1977) and can include an individual and group identity related to a place. Sense of place is related to a set of concepts that have long been part of studies in cultural geography under different forms, particularly through phenomenology (e.g., Tuan 1977), but also in social psychology and related fields (Lewicka 2011). As such, it has been included in social geography and hence in the territoire conceptual framework, where it has been used to develop a critical approach to conservation or development projects. Human geographers now consider the sense of place a keystone in their conceptual framework (Massey 1993, Agnew 1994). Much of the early SES work operated in the vicinity of sense of place research. Initially focusing on Indigenous societies' historical intimacy with land, this trend of SES analysis showed that these groups build their cultural identity as well as adaptive institutions and knowledge through experiences in their ecosystems (e.g., Berkes and Folke 1998, Berkes et al. 2003, Tengö and Belfrage 2004). This perspective has been used to question the greater disconnection between human and natural systems, for example, because of urbanization and changes in agriculture (Leopold 1966, Jackson 1994, Folke et al. 2011). More recently, interest in sense of place has been renewed in SES literature for its potential to motivate and foster stewardship of ecosystems and places (e.g., Andersson et al. 2007, Barthel et al. 2010, Tidball and Stedman 2013, Chapin and Knapp 2015). In this system view a sense of place is both an outcome of an actor's experience with a place and an attitude that influences the behaviour of actors and mediates feedback between people and their environment (Cumming et al. 2015). Additionally, the influence of sense of place has been used to investigate how actors adapt to changes such as industry closure or climate change (Fresque-Baxter and Armitage 2012, Marshall et al. 2012). For example, a strong attachment to a place can positively influence social-ecological resilience in the face of small incremental changes through adaptive capacity. Still, it may hinder transformational change (Marshall et al. 2012). Sense of place has also been shown to serve as a powerful driver for individual and collective action to repair or enhance the traits of a place, e.g., after a disaster has occurred, resulting in virtuous cycles of ecosystem stewardship (Tidball and Stedman 2013, Stedman and Ingalls 2014). The use of sense of place as a construct in SES is still in its infancy, and the SES conceptual framework could be further enhanced by integrating some features of the relatively more nuanced understanding of place, as recently developed and mobilized in social and cultural geography studies, to characterize better the relation between users and systems of resources (Mathevet et al. 2016).
<figure><img src="image_273.png" /><figcaption>Above: Carlo Verso. aerial photography of field during day time. September 2017. Unsplash.
https://unsplash.com/photos/aerial-photography-of-field-during-day-time-flpUxVFfkl0</figcaption></figure>
# 4: Bridgeing the two traditions

Beyond similarities and differences, bridging requires a thorough verification of the consistency of one concept against the conceptual framework with which we try to incorporate it. We first consider some of the concepts originating from SES followed by those from territoire.

## Flows, feedback, and evolution

Several analyses of SESs describe and measure flows of materials and energy occurring within a given space (Chertow et al. 2013). These flows are analysed because of interactions within the SES. SES approaches to studying flows can enhance territorial knowledge. For example, Barles (2009) computes the material balance for Paris, France, pointing at the link between urban metabolism and activity density, highlighting interactions between territorial planning and economic development. This analysis complements those based on territoire. This addition of flows within territoire analysis entails completing the portfolio of interactions considered in trade-offs and negotiations. Economics has pointed out the existence of externalities due to material flows that are not managed (e.g., nonpoint source pollution due to heavy use of pesticides and fertilisers in agriculture). Current governance systems are challenged in accounting for these externalities because they lack valuation systems and institutions to handle them (Sarker et al. 2008, Martin and Stahn 2013). An extensive flow analysis, including the agency involved in these flows, should better inform these governance processes.

Beyond material and energy flows, SES analyses study dynamic interactions through feedback loops acting directly or indirectly across the SES and involving changes in behaviour, decision, and adaptation (Cumming et al. 2006, Folke 2006). Interacting agents use perceived feedback in their decision processes. Feedback loops manifest within and across multiple temporal and spatial scales in nested SESs and act as helpful lenses for understanding change in complex human-nature systems (Liu et al. 2007). SES experience in considering various temporal and spatial scales within a unified but modular framework is potentially useful for territorial analysis. Feedback loops are essential to understand the complexity of territoires and to avoid the territorial trap raised by Agnew (1994): reciprocal feedback at a larger spatial scale interacts with the local spatial scale in the long term. For example, the production of nutrients in agriculture may improve farmer livelihoods in one region. Still, it may drive the eutrophication of downstream fisheries or be considered a source of greenhouse gas emissions with severe consequences for communities most vulnerable to climate change elsewhere. At the interface between SES and territoire, territorial

ecology emerges as a new field, extending industrial ecology to a more extensive set of entities. Territorial ecology proposes to analyse social-ecological interactions within a territoire. It analyses and accounts for social-ecological flows with multiple lenses: biogeochemical processes, land use and land cover, and socioeconomic interactions (Buclet 2015).

Information flows are central to feedback loops. Primary information is obtained from ecosystems collected through measurements designed by scientists, experts, and public authorities. It then enters the social process of understanding and the public debate, underpinning decision-making by economic agents, public organisations, or associations. These decisions feed back to the ecosystem, affecting harvest or pollution rates. This loop permits engaging with system complexity while providing an operational setting for observing system outcomes and movement toward preferred SES goals (Plummer 2009), possibly with stakeholders as monitoring agents (Stringer et al. 2006). SES studies consider other information flows acting solely within the social subsystem that may indirectly affect ecosystems. These flows include social learning and the strategic revelation of private information (Laffont and Martimort 2002). SES approaches to information can be articulated within a knowledge network and a shared territorial vision (Junqua and Moine 2007, Ormaux 2007). Analysis of system evolution and its underlying mechanisms is central to SES tradition and influences its thinking regarding agent adaptation. Modelling the resulting dynamics and interactions across system elements heralds from a tradition of evolutionary analysis in biology and population studies in which agent behaviour responds to stimuli from current events according to rules influenced by past experience. Evolutionary approaches have been adapted to institutional analysis from formalised dynamic analysis underpinning some of the SES literature. For instance, institutional change is understood as an evolutionary phenomenon related to social institutions and norms, including evolving social learning capacity (North 2005). There is scope for further fertilising ideas and methods from this tradition into a more dynamic territorial analysis.
<figure><img src="image_274.png" /><figcaption>Above: Anton Malanin. people walking in forest trail. October 2018. Pexels. https://unsplash.com/photos/people-walking-in-forest-trail-DqDqHYFPvC0</figcaption></figure>
# 4: Bridgeing the two traditions

## Sense of place and power

Territoire has a strong foundation in social components, i.e., the behaviour of social groups and organisations or individuals, households, or families. These agents are conscious of their environment and their place within that environment. The effectiveness of their control on the territoire they feel they are part of depends on the coordination of multiple agent actions and reflects the capacity to formulate an intention and implement a collective action. This issue of collective action is also well-developed within the SES conceptual framework (Ostrom 2005). However, hereafter, we discuss two concepts that are more developed in the territoire tradition and are central to understanding processes of collective action processes. The first one is "sense of place," which contributes to defining identity and reflects the agent's consciousness of the environment and his or her place within it. The second one is power, which contributes to defining governance and agents' abilities to coordinate and control the system.

Sense of place refers to the meanings of and attachment to a setting held by an individual or group (Tuan 1977). It can include an individual and group identity related to a place. Sense of place is associated with concepts that have long been part of studies in cultural geography under different forms, mainly through phenomenology (e.g., Tuan 1977), but also in social psychology and related fields (Lewicka 2011). As such, it has been included in social geography and hence in the territoire conceptual framework, where it has been used to develop a critical approach to conservation or development projects. Human geographers now consider the sense of place a keystone in their conceptual framework (Massey 1993, Agnew 1994). Much of the early SES work operated in the vicinity of sense of place research. Initially focusing on Indigenous societies' historical intimacy with land, this trend of SES analysis showed that these groups build their cultural identity as well as adaptive institutions and knowledge through experiences in their ecosystems (e.g., Berkes and Folke 1998, Berkes et al. 2003, Tengö and Belfrage 2004). This perspective has been used to question the greater disconnection between human and natural systems, for example, because of urbanisation and changes in agriculture (Leopold 1966, Jackson 1994, Folke et al. 2011).

More recently, interest in sense of place has been renewed in SES literature for its potential to motivate and foster stewardship of ecosystems and places (e.g., Andersson et al. 2007, Barthel et al. 2010, Tidball and Stedman 2013, Chapin and Knapp 2015). In this system view a sense of place is both an outcome of an actor's experience with a place and an attitude that influences the behaviour of actors and mediates feedback between people and their environment (Cumming et al. 2015). Additionally, the influence of sense of place has been used to investigate how actors adapt to changes such as industry closure or climate change (Fresque-Baxter and Armitage 2012, Marshall et al. 2012). For example, a strong attachment to a place can positively influence social-ecological resilience in the face of small incremental changes

through adaptive capacity. Still, it may hinder transformational change (Marshall et al. 2012). Sense of place has also been shown to serve as a powerful driver for individual and collective action to repair or enhance the traits of a place, e.g., after a disaster has occurred, resulting in virtuous cycles of ecosystem stewardship (Tidball and Stedman 2013, Stedman and Ingalls 2014). The use of sense of place as a construct in SES is still in its infancy, and the SES conceptual framework could be further enhanced by integrating some features of the relatively more nuanced understanding of place, as recently developed and mobilised in social and cultural geography studies, to characterise better the relation between users and systems of resources (Mathevet et al. 2016).

The notion of power is also intrinsic to the territoire conceptual framework. Indeed, derived from ethology, the idea that a territoire results in the actual and symbolic domination of a portion of space implies the exercise of power. Power explains the ability of a group to appropriate and control a specific portion of space. It is then necessary to study power relationships and potential conflicts among all the agents acting within a territoire. By combining historical and geographical context in the analysis of a given territoire evolution, this tradition integrates the Foucauldian perspective of genealogy, power, and governmentality. It may adopt a political ecology lens (Robbins 2012). SES research has been criticised for insufficient treatment of agency and power imbalances as it has been used with a resilience perspective (Cote and Nightingale 2012). However, the SES, as defined by Ostrom et al. (1994) addresses explicitly power relationships in terms of resource units (either single or multiple) and the claims by multiple groups on a single resource unit or the effects of one stakeholder group on another as mediated either directly or indirectly through resource units. There have also been some innovative responses to this criticism in terms of addressing and theorising agency in transformative changes (Westley et al. 2013), and several SES researchers have explicitly addressed power imbalances and the capacity of individuals and groups to influence social-ecological changes (Peterson 2000, Crona and Bodin 2010).

## DEBATES: POTENTIAL FOR ENHANCED UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE-SOCIETY RELATION?

The SES and territoire concepts are powerful in their capacity to explain nature-society relations. Both share several features: the differences highlighted here and in the literature have more to do with academic historical traditions rather than fundamental conceptual differences. We next explore how the two traditions function regarding three core issues of the nature-society interface: resilience, norms, and evolution.
<figure><img src="image_275.png" /><figcaption>Above: Quang Nguyen Vinh. Small sprouts growing on burnt ground. January 2021. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/small-sprouts-growing-on-burnt-ground-6415962/</figcaption></figure>
# 4: Bridgeing the two traditions

## Relevance of these traditions to address specific or general resilience

A precise definition of nature-society systems is needed to provide suitable context for resilience assessments. Here, we consider how each concept performs when used for resilience assessment. General resilience is related to the essence of the system: What is essential in a system to consider that it is still the same system despite its transformations? The structural emphasis of the *territoire* tradition tends toward a more conservative view considering system components, particularly the social components: people are part of the system, and their social relations are assumed to be the essence of the *territoire* concept. This view hinders much potential evolution if resilience is an aim. With its more functional emphasis, the SES approach requires the identification of essential system functions, e.g., food security, and assumes that actors and social structures will adapt and change to preserve functions. These adaptations and changes may be violent for some groups of people. The capacity of the SES tradition to assess these possible negative consequences is then at stake. Conceptual tools related to identifying and clarifying power relations or sense of place may help, as well as historical perspectives on sequences of prior transformations. The specific set of values behind the choice of essential functions should be addressed explicitly, as well as the question of who is defining these values.

The specific resilience of a system to a given source of perturbation (Anderies et al. 2006) does not match the *territoire* approach, which necessarily includes the whole system level with all its connections. The *territoire* tradition is associated with endorsing viewpoints of people within the system at stake. These people cope with all perturbations and cannot elaborate on a specific source of perturbation abstractly or in isolation. Changes in flows and possible feedback induced by the system's evolution can be explored through their effects on system functions. The resilience of a state, e.g., clear water state of a lake, as in Carpenter et al. (2001), can be assessed through the SES approach, with the possibility for the system to flip into another system, e.g., the eutrophic state. A *territoire* approach will start with the system's current state and assess the threats to its remaining state under expected perturbations. In this case, "resilience of what" is essentially the resilience of a current situation analysed through the filter of the multiple perspectives and interests within the population.

Joining the two traditions is promising because it enables (1) clarity in identifying important system components to enable system dynamics and change and (2) identification of system components that could be weakened through this change. Building on the differences between the traditions, considering their regard for and handling of societal issues, including power relationships and decision-making, can also enrich the analysis and definition of essential functions to be maintained. These, in turn, promote greater awareness of the social implications of a decision being considered, negotiated, or taken.

Consequently, the concepts emphasise the notion of transitions and their integration across time and space. This emphasis brings the notion of change in the domain of existence itself into the planning process. Beyond panarchy's view of transitions between regimes (Gunderson and Holling 2002), these transitions can be considered as shifting from one dominant domain of resilience to another or changing the proxy used to account for general resilience. The transitions between dominant proxies are eventually the place of power issues, with all the underlying norms, as far as these shifts can be influenced.

## Normative issues

In SES, the values that sustain any particular function, including the social structures and conventions that conservation actions rely on for norms, are more or less explicit. The SES tradition starts with a more positivist stance, seeking to specify predefined categories to describe and explain the system's dynamics under scrutiny. In this case, creating an objective description is possible because the SES scholar typically sits outside of the system in question. The aim is then to explain the SES trajectory and to provide indicators of its performance and resilience. It is always possible, however, that outcomes of these analyses are used by stakeholders or policymakers out of the scope or domain of the assessment process, thus misconstruing the intended outcomes. This has been criticised as a risk of "instrumentalisation" (Voß and Bornemann 2011). SES scholars have become aware of this and seek to be more reflexive on this potential bias (Tábara and Chaboy 2013). With an action-research stance, SES analysts bring in implicit norms when involved in the decision process. Power relations appear more in explaining the system's dynamics and emerged as one dimension in a grammar suitable to describe the evolution of the SES (Bousquet et al. 2015). SES analysts are hence internalised in the system, and their intervention is analysed as such with power lenses. A normative input of the SES approach is to recognise that the multiplicity of relationships and feedback loops makes the SES particularly complex, adaptive, and unpredictable.

Territoire is used more critically, in the same line as political ecology (Botterbury et al. 1997). This includes the analysis of decision processes according to their consequences in terms of power balance and the evaluation of public policies, with explicit positions of groups of stakeholders (Chaponnière et al. 2012). This emerging trend in evaluation, accepting pluralism, is still in its infancy, developing within the *territoire* tradition. The space where human activities occur is transformed by culture, reflecting a feeling of belonging to a place or a network. Sense of place is the central defining feature of the *territoire*. The geographical space becomes a milieu or a nature as soon as people become aware of their environment, build representations, and act upon them. Artificialised, endowed of meaning, possessed, and assimilated, this nature becomes a *territoire* (Le Berre 1995), enabling and legitimising the emergence of regulation of its use (Coron 2015). This perspective on nature-society interactions is more loaded with subjectivity, contrary to a more functionalist perspective on nature-society interactions that assumes a factual existence of nature, independent of society. This characterises the tension between those who argue that the environment should be seen principally as a social construct and those who believe that our environment is a factual reality independent of our constructions or representations (Goldman et al. 2011, Robbins 2012). The same debate is ployed out at the global scale in relation to sustainable development and the definition of "safe and just" operating spaces for humanity (Leach et al. 2013).
<figure><img src="image_276.png" /><figcaption>Above: James Wheeler. Building With Tree. October 2010. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/building-with-tree-1534057/</figcaption></figure>
# 4: Bridgeing the two traditions

## Historical viewpoint

Relation to the past and using historical knowledge to explain nature-society relations in their time dependency is a further dimension of debate between both traditions. For social geographers, it is helpful to anchor further analysis of social-ecological relationships in historical and social dimensions to understand better how power and social structures drive the trajectory of the territoire (Reclus 1876-1894, Robbins 2012). They take a constructivist stance based on the assumption that the very definition of the components of the system the researcher is studying is a social construct that results from the evolution of social representations and uses of physical space. On this basis, some authors criticise using reference states for system analysis, particularly for its ecological components (Crumley 1994, Bestelmeyer 2015). They argue that it is an arbitrary choice and crystalises a normative stance of the researcher, resulting from a social representation of nature and influenced by power relations and ethical position (Mathevet et al. 2015).

By contrast, reference states are typically used by SES analysts to answer the “Resilience of what?” question. From their understanding, SES analysts develop a more future-oriented stance, elaborating knowledge on drivers of change and generating capacity to handle them to anticipate potential system thresholds. Rather than referring to some idealized notion of the past, they remain open to multiple future objectives of the system state. This is sometimes formalized as “viability constraints,” entailing exploration of whether they are reachable given initial states, known dynamics, and possible interventions (Aubin 1991, Deffuant and Gilbert 2011). Historical knowledge is still used to build this knowledge on drivers of change by analysing past trajectories and their explanations based on sets of key variables with independent rates of change. These variables are characterised as fast or slow, the latter of which are growing concerns for environmental policies that may lock in unfair situations because of institutional rigidities explained by slow variables (Brock and Carpenter 2007).
<figure><img src="image_277.png" /><figcaption>Above: Kevin Malik. Woman Sitting on a Wall in Park and Writing in a Notebook. August 2021. Unsplash. https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-sitting-on-a-wall-in-park-and-writing-in-a-notebook-9032644/</figcaption></figure>
# 5: Conclusion

SES and territoire have now converged, dealing essentially with the same objects and providing suitable ways to specify and discuss what is at stake with an evolution meaningful for some groups of people. This convergence has been enabled via opportunities such as the whole process around the Resilience 2014 conference and the conference itself (http://www.resilience2014.org/), as well as bridging scholars who started to import and tailor concepts from one tradition to the other or developed methods of analysis embedded in communities. However, the differences in their epistemologies and their weighting of social and natural components in driving nature-society evolution can lead to different perspectives. These differences are problematic when using the concepts primarily for policy-oriented objectives of sustainable management of the nature-society interface. This is problematic because it can lead to inappropriate or unfair policies if some key variables are missed and not brought to light in reflective processes (e.g., adaptive management, monitoring, evaluation, etc.). We have pointed out several possible bridges to strengthen the association of both traditions to improve resilience assessment and management.

SES and territoire have various ways of dealing with system dynamics, space, and society. For example, SES scholars are now working on the specificity of spatial analysis (Cumming et al. 2015). Territoire increasingly engages the analysis of flows and possible feedback, importing from ecology the metaphor of metabolism. Emerging fields of "circular economy" and "territorial ecology" (Allais et al. 2015) are consistent with this perspective (although still with a specific view on production rather than resilience), and the inclusion of actor-network theory in social geography (Koch 2005) goes in this direction as well. Therefore, territoire is increasingly seen as a matrix for multiple autonomous entities of diverse natures in interaction, including humans, each of them involved in the dynamics of the whole, and hence very close to the perception and evolution of SES.

The common aim of managing the resilience of territoire or SESs requires reflexivity. Social geographers have developed an experience of this that could fit the current needs of several SES scholars, enhancing their capacity to handle controlled interventions in policy processes related to system function and resilience. Explanation of the framing induced by dominant worldviews through narratives could reinforce social network analysis for power relation identification in the recent evolution of the SES toolbox. Including the nature-society analyst within these networks or sets of worldviews is a crucial step towards reflexivity, on which both traditions are working.

The temporal dimension, central to the issue of change, can be holistically and fully addressed through the union of both traditions, with analysis more rooted in social history to understand the slow variables involved and methods turned toward scenario analysis and future more detached from existing components (Peterson et al. 2003). Hence, the union of SES and territoire traditions facilitates a deeper collective thinking of the broader community toward its own development, and we expect this chapter will be part of that job.

## References

* Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of international political economy, 1(1), 53-80.

* Agnew, J. (2011). Space and place. Handbook of geographical knowledge, 2011, 316-331.

* Allais, R., Reyes, T., & Roucoules, L. (2015). Inclusion of territorial resources in the product development process. Journal of cleaner production, 94, 187-197.

* Anderies, J. M. (2015). Understanding the dynamics of sustainable social-ecological systems: human behavior, institutions, and regulatory feedback networks. Bulletin of mathematical biology, 77, 259-280.

* Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and society, 9(1).

* Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., & Gren, Å. (2014). Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio, 43, 445-453.

* Badie, B. (1995). Réseaux transnationaux et instabilité mondiale. Relations internationales et stratégiques, 35-43.

* Barles, S. (2009). Urban metabolism of Paris and its region. Journal of industrial ecology, 13(6), 898-913.

* Barthel, S., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (2010). Social-ecological memory in urban gardens—Retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global environmental change, 20(2), 255-265.

* Batterbury, S. (2007). Rural populations and agrarian transformations in the global South. Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography (CICRED).

* Béné, C., Evans, L., Mills, D., Ovie, S., Raji, A., Tafida, A., ... & Andrew, N. (2011). Testing resilience thinking in a poverty context: Experience from the Niger River basin. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1173-1184.

* Berkes, F., Kislalioglu, M., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1998). Minireviews: exploring the basic ecological unit: ecosystem-like concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems, 1, 409-415.

* Beroutchachvili, N., & Rougerie, G. (1991). Géosystèmes et paysages: Bilan et méthodes. FeniXX.

* Berque, A. (2016). Écoumène: introduction à l'étude des milieux humains.

* Bertolanffy, A. R., Boulding, K. E., Ashby, W. R., Mead, M., & Bateson, G. (1968). L. von Bertalanffy, general system theory. George Braziller. Chicago.

* Bestelmeyer, B. T. (2015). National assessment and critiques of state-and-transition models: the baby with the bathwater. Rangelands, 37(3), 125-129.

* Bonnefoy, N., Brissaud, O., Schmitt, B., Douté, S., Fily, M., Grundy, W., & Rabou, P. (2000). Experimental system for the study of planetary surface materials' BRDF Remote Sensing Reviews, 19(1-4), 59-74.

* Bousquet, F., Marty, E., & Smyrnaios, N. (2015). Les nouveaux acteurs en ligne de l'information locale vers une relation aux publics renouvelée?. Sur le journalisme, About journalism, Sobre jornalismo, 4(2), 48-61.

* Brock, W. A., & Carpenter, S. R. (2007). Panaceas and diversification of environmental policy. Proceedings of the national Academy of sciences, 104(39), 15206-15211.
Buclet, N. (2015). Ecologie industrielle et économie circulaire. Economie circulaire et écosystèmes portuaires, 27-41.

Carpenter, S. R., & Gunderson, L. H. (2001). Coping with Collapse: Ecological and Social Dynamics in Ecosystem Management: Like flight simulators that train would-be aviators, simple models can be used to evoke people's adaptive, forward-thinking behavior, aimed in this instance at sustainability of human-natural systems. *BioScience*, 51(6), 451-457.

Castree, N. (2014). The Anthropocene and the environmental humanities: Extending the conversation. *Environmental Humanities*, 5(1), 233-260.

Certeau, M. D. (1994). L'invention du quotidien.

Chapin III, F. S., & Knapp, C. N. (2015). Sense of place: A process for identifying and negotiating potentially contested visions of sustainability. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 53, 38-46.

Chaponnière, M., & Ricci Lempen, S. (2012). Tu vois le genre?. Débats féministes contemporains. D'en bas (Éditions).

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice.

Chertow, M., Fugate, E., & Ashton, W. (2013). The intimacy of human-nature interactions on islands. Long term socio-ecological research: Studies in society-nature interactions across spatial and temporal scales, 315-337.

Clark, J. K., & Stein, T. V. (2003). Incorporating the natural landscape within an assessment of community attachment. *Forest Science*, 49(6), 867-876.

Coanus, T., Comby, J., Duchêne, F., & Martinais, E. (2010). Risques et territoires. Interroger et comprendre la dimension locale de quelques risques contemporains. Lavoisier.

Cortes, G., & Pesche, D. (2013). Multi-sited territory. *LEspace geographique*, 42(4), 289-292.

Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. *Progress in human geography*, 36(4), 475-489.

Cresswell, T. (1996). Geography, Ideology, and Transgression: A Relational Ontology. *Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and Transgression*, 11-27.

Crumley, C. L. (2016). Historical ecology: integrated thinking at multiple temporal and spatial scales. In *The World System and the Earth System* (pp. 15-28). Routledge.

Cumming, G. S., Allen, C. R., Ban, N. C., Biggs, D., Biggs, H. C., Cumming, D. H., ... & Schoon, M. (2015). Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, social-ecological approach. *Ecological Applications*, 25(2), 299-319.

Debarbieux, B. (2004). Présentation générale. De l'objet spatial à l'effet géographique. L'effet géographique. Construction sociale, appréhension cognitive et configuration matérielle des objets géographiques. Grenoble: Publications de la MSH-Alpes, 11-33.

Debarbieux, B. (2007). Actualité politique du paysage. *Journal of Alpine Research* | Revue de géographie alpine, (95-4), 101-114.

Debarbieux, E. (2003). School violence and globalisation. *Journal of educational administration*, 41(6), 582-602.

Deffontaines, J. P., & Brossier, J. (2000). Système agroaire et qualité de l'eau. Efficacité d'un concept et construction négociée d'une recherche. *Nature Sciences Sociétés*, 8(1), 14-25.

Deffuant, G., & Gilbert, N. (Eds.). (2011). Viability and resilience of complex systems: concepts, methods and case studies from ecology and society. Springer.

Di Méo, G. (1998). De l'espace aux territoires: éléments pour une archéologie des concepts fondamentaux de la géographie. *L'information géographique*, 62(3), 99-110.

Di Méo, G. (1999). Géographies tranquilles du quotidien. Une analyse de la contribution des sciences sociales et de la géographie à l'étude des pratiques spatiales. Cahiers de géographie du Québec, 43(118), 75-93.

Di Méo, G. (2005). L'espace social: Lecture géographique des sociétés. Armand Colin.

Di Méo, J., & DI MÉO, G. (1987, September). Objectivation et représentation des formations socio-spatiales: de l'acteur au territoire. In *Annales de géographie* (pp. 564-594). Armand Colin.

Duchêne, F., & Journel, C. M. (2004). De la culture du risque. Paroles riveraines à propos de deux cours d'eau périurbains.

Elden, S. (2010). Land, terrain, territory. Progress in human geography, 34(6), 799-817.

Fabricius, C., & Cundill, G. (2010). Building adaptive capacity in systems beyond the threshold: The story of Macubeni, South Africa. Adaptive capacity and environmental governance, 43-68.

Fall, J. J. (2007). Lost geographers: power games and the circulation of ideas within Francophone political geographies. *Progress in Human Geography*, 31(2), 195-216.

Faysse, N., Rinaudo, J. D., Bento, S., Richard-Ferrouoji, A., Errahj, M., Varanda, M., ... & Montginoul, M. (2014). Participatory analysis for adaptation to climate change in Mediterranean agricultural systems: possible choices in process design. *Regional Environmental Change*, 14, 57-70.

Fazey, I., Fazey, J. A., Fischer, J., Sherren, K., Warren, J., Noss, R. F., & Dovers, S. R. (2007). Adaptive capacity and learning to learn as leverage for social-ecological resilience. *Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment*, 5(7), 375-380.

Ferrier, J. P. (2003). Territoire. Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l'espace des sociétés. Paris, Belin, 912-917.

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. *Global environmental change*, 16(3), 253-267.

Fresque-Baxter, J. A., & Armitage, D. (2012). Place identity and climate change adaptation: a synthesis and framework for understanding. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change*, 3(3), 251-266.

Gallopín, G. C., Gutman, P., & Maletta, H. (1989). Appauvrissement à l'échelle du globe, développement durable et environnement: une perspective théorique.

Gray, S., Chan, A., Clark, D., & Jordan, R. (2012). Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social-ecological decision-making: Benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity. *Ecological Modelling*, 229, 88-96.

Gunderson, L. H., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2012). *Foundations of ecological resilience*. Island Press.

Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S., & Light, S. S. (Eds.). (1995). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions (pp. xiv+-593).

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. *Ecosystems*, 4, 390-405.

Holling, C. S., & Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Resilience and adaptive cycles.

Hornborg, A. (2009). Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system. *International journal of comparative sociology*, 50(3-4), 237-262.

Hoyaux, A. F. (2002). Entre construction territoriale et constitution ontologique de l'habitant: Introduction épistémologique aux apports de la phénoménologie au concept d'habiter. *Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography*.

Junqua, G., & Moine, H. (2007). Utilisation de l'écologie industrielle et de l'intelligence économique territoriale pour le développement durable d'une zone industrialso-portuaire. *Environnement, Ingénierie & Développement*.

Kinzig, A. P., Ryan, P., Etienne, M., Allison, H., Elmqvist, T., & Walker, B. H. (2006). Resilience and regime shifts: assessing cascading effects. *Ecology and society*, 11(1).

Koch, A. (2005). Autopoietic spatial systems: the significance of actor network theory and system theory for the development of a system theoretical approach of space. *Social Geography*, 1(1), 5-14.
Laffont, J. J., & Martimort, D. (2002). Moral Hazard: The Basic Trade Offs. The theory of incentives: The principal-agent model, 145-186.

LE BERRE M., 1995, « Territoire » in BAILLY A., FERRAS R., PUMAIN D. (eds), Encyclopédie de Géographie, Economica, Paris, pp. 601-622.

Leach, M., Raworth, K., & Rockström, J. (2013). Between social and planetary boundaries: Navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity.

Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l'espace. L'Homme et la société, 31(1), 15-32.

Lepart, J., & Marty, P. (2006). Des réserves de nature aux territoires de la biodiversité L'exemple de la France. In *Annales de géographie* (No. 5, pp. 485-507). Cairn/Isako.

Levine, J. M., & D'Antonio, C. M. (1999). Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. *Oikos*, 15-26.

Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? *Journal of environmental psychology*, 31(3), 207-230.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., ... & Taylor, W. W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. *science*, 317(5844), 1513-1516.

Marshall, N. A., Park, S. E., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Howden, S. M. (2012). Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. *Environmental Research Letters*, 7(3), 034022.

Mathevet, R., & Godet, L. (2015). Pour une géographie de la conservation.

Mathevet, R., Mauchamp, A., Lifran, R., Poulin, B., & Lefebvre, G. (2003). Territorial interactions, uses and biodiversity dynamics within the wetlands of the Rhone river delta: a multi agent modelling approach.

Mathevet, R., Peluso, N. L., Couespel, A., & Robbins, P. (2015). Using historical political ecology to understand the present: water, reeds, and biodiversity in the Camargue Biosphere Reserve, southern France. *Ecology and Society*, 20(4).

Mathevet, R., Thompson, J. D., Folke, C., & Chapin III, F. S. (2016). Protected areas and their surrounding territory: socioecological systems in the context of ecological solidarity. *Ecological Applications*, 26(1), 5-16.

McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. *Ecology and society*, 19(2).

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. *Sustainability Institute*.

Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2009). Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life: an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton university press.

Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford University Press.

North, D. C. (2005). Institutions and the performance of economies over time. In *Handbook of new institutional economics* (pp. 21-30). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Ormaux, S. (2007, May). Le paysage, entre information et médiation. In *International Conference of Territorial Intelligence* Territorial intelligence, regional identity and sustainable development*, mai 2007.

Ostrom, E. (1994). 6. Constituting social capital and collective action. *Journal of Theoretical politics*, 6(4), 527-562.

Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. *Proceedings of the national Academy of sciences*, 104(39), 15181-15187.

Ostrom, E. (2007). Collective action and local development processes. *Sociologica*, 1(3), 0-0.

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. *Science*, 325(5939), 419-422.

Pecqueur, B., & Gumuchian, H. (2007). La ressource territoriale. Paris.

Peterson, G., Kibert, C. J., Sendzimir, J., & Guy, G. B. (2003). Construction Ecology.

Plummer, R. (2009). The adaptive co-management process: an initial synthesis of representative models and influential variables. *Ecology and Society*, 14(2).

Raffestin, C. (1986). Territorialité: concept ou paradigme de la géographie sociale? *Geographica helvetica*, 41(2), 91-96.

Robbins, P. (2012). Qu'est-ce que la political ecology. *Environnement, discours et pouvoir. L'approche political ecology*. Paris: Éditions Quae, 21-36.

Sack, R. D. (1986). Human territoriality: its theory and history (Vol. 7). CUP Archive.

Sassen, S. (2008). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton university press.

Séchet, R., & Veschambre, V. (Eds.). (2006). Penser et faire la géographie sociale: Contribution à une épistémologie de la géographie sociale. PU Rennes.

Selman, P. (2001). Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning. *Planning theory & practice*, 2(1), 13-30.

Singh, S. J., Habert, H., Chertow, M., Mirtl, M., & Schmid, M. (Eds.). (2013). Long term socio-ecological research: studies in society-nature interactions across spatial and temporal scales (pp. 1-26). Dordrecht: Springer.

Stedman, R. C., & Ingalls, M. (2014). Topophilia, biophilia and greening in the red zone. *Greening in the red zone: disaster, resilience and community greening*, 129-144.

Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., & Reed, M. S. (2006). Unpacking "participation" in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. *Ecology and society*, 11(2).

Tengö, M., & Belfrage, K. (2004). Local management practices for dealing with change and uncertainty: a cross-scale comparison of cases in Sweden and Tanzania. *Ecology and Society*, 9(3).

Tidball, K., & Stedman, R. (2013). Positive dependency and virtuous cycles: from resource dependence to resilience in urban social-ecological systems. *Ecological economics*, 86, 292-299.

Tuan, Y. F. (1979). Space and place: humanistic perspective. In *Philosophy in geography* (pp. 387-427). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Vanier, M., & Debarbieux, B. (2009). Territoires, territorialité, territorialisation. *Controverses et perspectives*. Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes.

Vogt, J. M., Epstein, G. B., Mincey, S. K., Fischer, B. C., & McCord, P. (2015). Putting the "E" in SES: Unpacking the ecology in the Ostrom sociale-cological system framework. *Ecology and Society*, 20(1).

Voß, J. P., & Bornemann, B. (2011). The politics of reflexive governance: challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. *Ecology and Society*, 16(2).

Walker, R., Drzyzga, S. A., Li, Y., Qi, J., Caldas, M., Arima, E., & Vergara, D. (2004). A behavioral model of landscape change in the Amazon basin: the colonist case. *Ecological Applications*, 14(sp4), 299-312.

WCED, S. W. S. (1987). World commission on environment and development. Our common future, 17(1), 1-91.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). University of California press.

Wilcox, B. A., Aguirre, A. A., De Paula, N., Siriaroonrat, B., & Echaubard, P. (2019). Operationalizing one health employing social-ecological systems theory: lessons from the greater Mekong sub-region. *Frontiers in public health*, 7, 85.

Wilson, S. R., & Putnam, L. L. (1990). Interaction Goals in Negotiation. *Annals of the International Communication Association*, 13(1), 374-406.
<figure><img src="image_278.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_279.png" /></figure>

# How to Run a Low-Tech Hackathon
<figure><img src="image_280.png" /><figcaption>Above: John Walsh. LT4Sustain Hackathon Conclusion. June 2024. Châlons-en-Champagne.</figcaption></figure>
# 1: The Low-Tech Hackathon: Main Objectives

The goal of a Low-Tech Hackathon is to co-create Low-Tech solutions, both technical and non-technical, in order to address current issues within a specific local area.

This event brings together students from diverse disciplines, institutions, and experience levels for an intensive and collaborative process. Each team is guided by two coaches: a teacher and a local actor, to help them achieve their objectives effectively. The expected outcomes of a Low-Tech Hackathon are:

## For Students:

* Apply their knowledge to real case studies, with roles distributed based on the diversity of their expertise.

* Discuss varied approaches informed by their cultural and academic backgrounds.

* Co-design solutions in collaboration with the local population

* Engage with professionals and stakeholders.

* Develop a clearer vision of potential career paths post-graduation

## For Teachers and Trainers:

* Gather feedback on the implementation of Low-Tech methodologies.

* Exchange best practices and observe students' learning behaviours.

* Propose sustainable solutions tailored to local populations' needs

## For Socio-Economic Actors:

* Gain a better understanding of the relevance and functionality of the Low-Tech approach.

* Network with teachers, trainers, and students.

* Interact with students potentially seeking internships or employment opportunities.
<figure><img src="image_281.png" /><figcaption>Above: Paul Hendrick. LT4Sustain Pitch Event. June 2024. Châlons-en-Champagne.</figcaption></figure>
# 2: Organisational Methodology

Organising a Low-Tech Hackathon begins with clearly defining its objectives, which serve as the foundation for creating a robust methodology. The following four key stages provide a framework for planning and implementing your event:

## Prior Training in Low-Tech Educational Modules

Before the event, it is highly recommended that participants undergo training in Low-Tech principles and processes. This training equips them with the foundational knowledge needed to design effective, innovative, and context-specific solutions during the Hackathon. Educators can develop training sessions tailored to their curriculum or adopt existing Low-Tech learning resources.

### Pre-Hackathon

This phase focuses on organisational, logistical, and resource management tasks essential for a successful event:

* Identify the needs and opportunities within the chosen local area

* Establish collaboration links with socio-economic and community actors.

* Prepare documentation for evaluation, communication plans, and inclusivity strategies.

* Confirm participation of students, mentors, coaches, and external stakeholders.

### During the Hackathon

The Hackathon itself consists of intensive, collaborative activities designed to produce tangible outcomes. The event agenda should include:

* Team ideation sessions to develop Low-Tech solutions.

* Facilitated workshops and prototyping activities.

* Opportunities for participants to engage with local actors.

* Interim feedback sessions to keep teams on track.

Organisers are responsible for ensuring that all activities run smoothly, with a focus on collaboration, creativity, and community engagement.

## Post-Hackathon

Once the event concludes, the focus shifts to evaluating outcomes and capitalising on results. Post-event activities include:

* Assessing participants' learning outcomes and the solutions developed.

* Collecting feedback to improve future events.

* Documenting key data, including lessons learned, participant experiences, and measurable impacts.

* Maintaining relationships with local actors and fostering an ongoing collaborative community.

Each of these stages encompasses activities grouped into four categories:

+ **Logistics and Management:** Resource allocation, task management, scheduling, and workspace preparation.

+ **Low-Tech Design Approach:** Facilitating creativity, prototyping, and solution development.

+ **Dissemination:** Communication and inclusivity efforts throughout the process.

+ **Evaluation and Assessment:** Structured assessment of solutions, as well as participant and stakeholder feedback.

## Low-Tech Design Approach

The Hackathon structure should integrate principles of Low-Tech design with collaborative methodologies like Design Thinking. The process includes:

1. Understanding local needs and identifying problems.

2. Ideating solutions that are accessible, resource-efficient, and sustainable.

3. Prototyping solutions using available local resources.

4. Testing and refining the designs through feedback and iteration

This design approach ensures that solutions are grounded in the realities of the chosen context while fostering innovation and critical thinking among participants.
<figure><img src="image_282.png" /><figcaption>Above: Ceri Almrott. LT4Sustain Hackathon. June 2024. Châlons-en-Champagne.</figcaption></figure>
## 2: Organisational Methodology

### Organisational Tools

The success of a Hackathon depends on effective organisational tools that simplify and optimise planning, communication, and collaboration. The following categories of tools are recommended:

* Open Source Tools: Free and accessible options that align with the Low-Tech philosophy.

* Collaborative Platforms: Tools that promote teamwork and knowledge sharing.

* Data Collection Tools: Platforms for feedback, assessment, and documentation.

* Sustainability-Oriented Tools: Resources designed to facilitate environmentally responsible event management.

When selecting tools, prioritise simplicity, inclusivity, and sustainability to align with the Low-Tech ethos.

<figure><img src="image_283.png" /></figure>

### Territorial Context and Resources

The Low-Tech approach emphasises using local and territorial resources to develop solutions influenced by geographical, historical, and cultural factors. These resources are mobilised within a framework of internal territorial development, requiring attention to local specifics and projects. Identifying these resources early is crucial for the smooth running of a Low-Tech hackathon, as it provides valuable information on needs, participants, potential partners, and available resources (tangible, intangible, human). The hackathon activities should prioritise local resources, and careful consideration should be given to the factors outlined in the figure below.

<figure><img src="image_284.png" /></figure>

### Logistics and Organisation

The Low-Tech approach promotes the philosophy of reducing and efficiently using resources. The event aims to generate a positive social impact while minimising all directly generated environmental impacts. In this context, a Low-Tech hackathon must be built on a philosophy of socio-ecological responsibility.

### Planning Responsible Events

From a Low-Tech perspective, a responsible event can be defined as one that integrates the principles of this approach, along with behaviours and measures focused on ecological and social responsibility. ADEME (the French ecological transition agency) particularly recommends ensuring:

* An easily accessible and responsibly managed venue

* Eco-designed stands and equipment

* Proper management of dismantling

* More sustainable catering options

* Promotion, evaluation, and communication aligned with the approach

### Participants

For a hackathon to be successfully carried out, the profiles and roles of the participants are essential elements. It is recommended that participants engage with the Low-Tech modules. However, it is important to consider the different categories of participants and their specific roles in a hackathon:

+ **Students:** Those who have completed low-tech training

+ **External speakers:** Local citizens

+ **Jury:** Evaluators of the proposed solutions

+ **Speakers:** Presenters on low-tech-related topics

+ **Coaches and mentors:** Advisors and supervisors for students

+ **Organising team:** Responsible for the event's logistics

+ **Support staff:** Operators, technicians, and others

### Legal permissions

Legal permits are essential to ensure compliance with the agreements of all participants and the relevant authorities. Obtaining these permits is context-specific and must be done carefully to secure the necessary authorisations. We recommend consulting permits for public spaces, local infrastructure, multimedia recording and/or broadcasting, and confidentiality agreements.
<figure><img src="image_285.png" /><figcaption>Above: Ceri Almrott. LT4Sustain Hackathon. June 2024. Châlons-en-Champagne.</figcaption></figure>
## 2: Organisational Methodology

### Transportation

Although each event depends on the objective of its organisers and the infrastructure available to carry out the necessary travel, strategies must be taken into account to reduce the environmental impact of transport.

### Catering

It is important to emphasise that the local aspect of the events and the Low-Tech approach should prioritise a short food chain. This means involving local professionals and associations to ensure a balanced and varied menu for all diets with low emissions and using local and seasonal products (preferably organic). It is recommended to use only reusable and, when appropriate, recyclable utensils.

### Accommodation

Strategies can vary from traditional bookings with hotel professionals to sharing infrastructure with local stakeholders involved in the event. It is important to ensure safety, accessibility, and a minimum level of comfort. It is advisable to obtain legal permits from local authorities to use open spaces if necessary.

### Key Locations during the event

A hackathon can be held in various locations. To ensure a smooth experience, organisers should provide access to the following spaces: a main workspace for meetings, a makerspace for workshops, dissemination areas, catering facilities, and accommodation.

### Contingency plans

Like any event, organising and implementing a hackathon may encounter unforeseen situations. Creating a contingency plan is crucial to address these challenges and preserve the initial objectives and plans. We recommend conducting a risk analysis of the essential elements for the success of a hackathon: participants, infrastructure, transportation, food, and health and safety.

### Special Guests and Partners

A more significant impact can be achieved by complementing the event with opportunities for exchange, debate, and dissemination on topics related to Low-Tech practices. Organisers can include conferences featuring speakers, researchers, and recognised experts from various fields to broaden perspectives on the Low-Tech approach and address topics relevant to the territoire

### Inclusivity strategy

The Low-Tech approach can play a key role in addressing issues related to social inclusion. The activities carried out during the hackathon create spaces that foster inclusion and the development of solutions tailored to the local problems identified. Since the Low-Tech approach is based on integrating local realities, it is essential to ensure broad and diverse inclusion of all social groups.

### Documentation and data collection

The objective is to collect all the key evidence and data needed for a post-event assessment of the quality of the content developed, with the aim of improving it. Furthermore, this collection of information will make it possible to identify areas for improvement for future editions and create new projects based on the Low-Tech approach. More broadly, it aims to collect information to analyse the comments made by participants: students, coaches, juries, external participants, etc

### Dissemination strategies of the hackathon

Dissemination activities should follow a series of strategies and recommendations to reach the largest possible audience. The communication plan should outline the target groups, activities, and channels. It is important to note that communication involves three key stages

**Before the Hackathon**

Invite all directly involved individuals, as well as the general public, to participate in the hackathon events

<figure><img src="image_286.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_287.png" /></figure>

**During the Hackathon**

Share brief updates on ongoing activities and provide details about the daily agenda.

<figure><img src="image_288.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_289.png" /></figure>

**After the Hackathon**

Highlight the impacts of the solutions developed, outline follow-up opportunities and showcase new projects inspired by the collaborations formed during the vent
To run a Low-Tech hackathon, begin by preparing participants with foundational teaching (found in this guide) and fostering a convivial yet competitive work atmosphere. Establish teams around shared challenges, engaging relevant stakeholders from the outset.

## Step 1: Context and Challenge Formation

Immerse participants in the context by exploring the territory, identifying opportunities, and understanding user needs. Employ methods such as ethnographic research, cartography, and stakeholder engagement to define challenges collaboratively.

## Step 2: Ideation and Prototyping

Facilitate ideation workshops to generate innovative Low-Tech solutions. Encourage participants to develop concepts iteratively through model-making and prototyping, utilising simple tools and materials. Offer topical advice and guidance throughout.

<figure><img src="image_290.png" /></figure>
# 3: Running the Low-Tech Hackathon

## Step 3: Testing and Feedback

Incorporate user feedback regularly to refine solutions. Testing should emphasise functionality, usability, and alignment with the contextual needs.

## Step 4: Pitching and Dissemination

Conclude the event with a public showcase, where teams pitch their solutions to a jury and present them at a solutions fair. Document outcomes with video stories and open-source plans for broader dissemination.

Celebrate the hackathon's outcomes with a shared meal or festive activities, reinforcing its collaborative and community-focused ethos.

<figure><img src="image_291.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_292.png" /></figure>
• LOW TECH + SUSTAINABILITY •
LEARNING IN LOW-TECH TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY
“Low-Tech is a way of thinking and designing that focuses on creating simple, practical, and accessible solutions. These solutions are not just theoretical, but are designed to meet local needs, using fewer resources, promoting sustainability, and encouraging more inclusive approaches. At its core, it challenges conventional methods and inspires new ways of doing things appropriate for their context.”
# What's next?

This book is an invitation to action - a guide for teaching, learning, and applying Low-Tech principles to build a sustainable, resilient, and equitable future. Here's how you can engage:

## For Educators

1. Incorporate Low-Tech into Your Curriculum

Design courses or modules that explore Low-Tech principles, focusing on simplicity, repairability, and sufficiency. Use the case studies, frameworks, and exercises in this book as tools to inspire critical thinking and practical innovation.

2. Facilitate Hands-On Learning

Create opportunities for students to experiment with Low-Tech solutions in real-world contexts. Encourage prototyping, collaborative projects, and community engagement to deepen understanding.

3. Promote Systems Thinking

Help your students see the interconnectedness of design, sustainability, and human well-being. Use exercises from this book to challenge them to think holistically and address complex challenges.

4. Be an Advocate for Change in Education

Share the principles of Low-Tech design with your institution, fostering a culture of sustainability and resilience. Collaborate with other educators to integrate these ideas across disciplines.

## For Students

1. Explore the Possibilities of Low-Tech Design

Use this book to challenge the assumption that "newer" or "more advanced" is always better. Experiment with designs that prioritise human needs, repairability, and environmental sustainability.

2. Engage with Community Challenges

Apply your knowledge to local issues. Collaborate with peers and community members to develop practical solutions that reflect the values of Low-Tech design.

3. Think Beyond Products

Embrace systems thinking by considering how your designs interact with larger ecosystems, communities, and cultures. Use the frameworks in this book to address the complexity of real-world problems.

4. Shape the Future

Your generation has the power to redefine how technology serves society. Let this book inspire you to be a change-maker in design, engineering, and beyond.

## For the General Public

1. Adopt Low-Tech Solutions in Daily Life

Repair instead of replacing, choose durable products, and embrace simplicity in your everyday decisions. Small, intentional choices can make a significant impact.

2. Support Low-Tech Initiatives

Get involved with community projects that promote repair, upcycling, and local sustainability. Look for repair cafés, makerspaces, and similar initiatives in your area.

3. Advocate for Sustainable Practices

Use your voice to support policies and businesses that prioritise sustainability, repairability, and ethical design. Share what you've learned with others to spread awareness.

Together, we can redefine the role of technology in society by focusing on solutions that respect ecological limits, empower communities, and foster a deeper connection between people and the planet. Let this book serve as a catalyst for transformative change in education, design, and daily life.
# Reading List

## Sustainability and Planetary Health

Raworth, K. *Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist*. London: Random House Business, 2017.

* Discussed in Design for Sustainability (pp. 35–37).

Steffen, W., et al. "Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet." *Science*, vol. 347, no. 6223, 2015.

* Explored in Introduction to Sustainability (pp. 29–37).

Rockström, J., et al. "A Safe Operating Space for Humanity." *Nature*, vol. 461, no. 7263, 2009.

* Referenced in Introduction to Sustainability (pp. 31–35).

Meadows, D. H., et al. *Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update*. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004.

* Examined in Planetary Boundaries (pp. 37–39).

## Low-Tech, Simplicity, and Circular Design

Bihoux, P. *The Age of Low Tech: Towards a Technologically Sustainable Civilization*. Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2020.

* Cited in The Art of Simplicity (pp. 55–65).

Stahel, W. R. *The Circular Economy: A User's Guide*. London: Routledge, 2019.

* Discussed in Low-Tech Entrepreneurship (pp. 215–227).

Manzini, E. *Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.

* Referenced in Open Design (pp. 89–97).

## Resilience and Adaptability

Folke, C., et al. "Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability, and Transformability." *Ecology and Society*, vol. 15, no. 4, 2010.

* Explored in Social-Ecological Resilience (pp. 247–257).

Ostrom, E. *Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

* Cited in Territoire (pp. 255–267).

Walker, B., et al. *Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World*. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

* Discussed in Territoire (pp. 259–267).

## Ethics and Responsibility

Jonas, H. *The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

* Explored in The Imperative of Responsibility (pp. 169–201).

Rawls, J. *A Theory of Justice*. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

* Referenced in Ethics and Responsibility (pp. 179–183).

Papanek, V. *Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change*. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.

* Discussed in Design for Sustainability (pp. 43–47).

## Open Source and Participatory Design

Arduino. "Open Source Microcontroller Platform." Accessed at: arduino.cc

* Discussed in Open Design (pp. 89–93).

von Hippel, E. *Democratising Innovation*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.

* Cited in Open Design (pp. 93–97).

Open Source Ecology. "Collaborative Development of Sustainable Tools." Accessed at: opensourceecology.org

* Explored in Open Design (pp. 91–97).

## Traditional and Cultural Approaches

Illich, I. *Tools for Conviviality*. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

* Referenced in The Art of Simplicity (pp. 65–75).

Reclus, É. "L'Homme et la Terre." Paris: Librairie Universelle, 1905.

* Cited in Territoire (pp. 259–267).

Schumacher, E. F. *Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered*. London: Blond & Briggs, 1973.

* Discussed throughout the book, particularly in Introduction to Low-Tech (pp. 29–37).
# Resources

This section provides a collection of valuable resources to deepen your understanding of Low-Tech principles and enhance your learning experience. These materials include project websites, reports, webinars, and tools developed as part of the LT4Sustain initiative.

## Project Website

LT4Sustain.eu

Explore the LT4Sustain project, its objectives, and its deliverables. The website includes updates on project activities and access to key resources.

## Deliverable Reports

**PR1 - End-Users Requirements Analysis (10.5281/zenodo.14622190)**

Developed by ENSE3, this report analyses the needs of educators and learners to guide the development of Low-Tech teaching resources.

**PR2 - Replicable Pedagogical Methodology for Low-Tech Education (10.5281/zenodo.14623522)**

A comprehensive framework for integrating Low-Tech education into higher education syllabuses.

**PR3 - Tailored Higher Education Pedagogical Material on Low-Tech (10.5281/zenodo.14622354)**

Customised teaching materials and strategies for effectively introducing Low-Tech concepts in universities.

**PR4 - First Implementation in Partner Universities & Feedback (10.5281/zenodo.14623787)**

Insights and feedback from the initial implementation of Low-Tech education strategies across partner institutions.

## Workshops & Teaching Resources

**Low-Tech Ideation Workshop (10.5281/zenodo.14604781)**

A practical tool to facilitate creativity and problem-solving during Low-Tech hackathons.

**Low-Tech Hackathon Card Deck (10.5281/zenodo.14621654)**

A hands-on collaborative tool that explores Low-Tech solutions to complex challenges. Low-

**Low-Tech Teaching Resources (10.5281/zenodo.14621500)**

A curated collection of materials designed to assist educators in teaching Low-Tech principles effectively.

**Visual Pocket Knowledge: Key Principles of the Low-Tech mindset (10.5281/zenodo.14622454)**

A creative and accessible publication featuring stories, illustrations, and tips on Low-Tech practices and applications. Perfect for introducing the principles of Low-Tech to a wider audience in an engaging format.

## How to Use These Resources

Educators can integrate the syllabuses, hackathon tools, and pedagogical reports into their courses to inspire students. Students can use these materials to deepen their understanding of Low-Tech principles and apply them to projects. General Learners can explore the reports, card deck, and other tools to build their knowledge and engage with the Low-Tech movement.
# Glossary of Terms

## Adaptive Capacity

The ability of a system, community, or individual to adjust to environmental changes, moderate potential damage, and take advantage of opportunities.

**References:**

+ Bridgeging the two traditions (p. 247-255)

+ System, Space, and Society: Common roots, with divergences (p. 251-255),

## Anthropocene

A proposed geological epoch that marks significant human impact on Earth's systems, including biodiversity loss and climate change.

**References:**

+ Introduction to Sustainability (p. 43)

## Appropriate Technology

Technology designed for specific contexts, emphasising simplicity, affordability, and local adaptability. It contrasts with high-tech solutions by addressing practical needs.

**References:**

+ The Educational Model (p. 19)

+ Low-Tech as a D4S Approach (p. 51)

+ What do we mean by low-tech? (p. 69)

## Circular Economy

An economic model that replaces "take-make-dispose" with "reuse-repair-recycle," aiming to create closed loops of material use and reduce waste.

**References:**

+ The Educational Model (p. 19)

+ Low-Tech examples of D4S (p. 59).

+ The paradox of Low-Tech entrepreneurship (p. 215)

+ Emerging economic models (p. 219)

## Degrowth

An economic paradigm advocating for reduced consumption and production to achieve sustainability and equitable resource distribution.

**References:**

+ Low-Tech examples of D4S (p. 57)

+ Methods for implementing the low-tech approach (p. 61-63)

+ Low-tech and similar spirits (p. 203)

+ Degrowth as a Global Driver (p.217)

## Doughnut Economics

A visual framework that balances human needs with ecological limits. It guides progress by ensuring every person's basic needs are met without overusing Earth's resources.

**References:**

+ Limits of our planet (p. 47)

## Emotionally Durable Design

An approach to designing products that form long-lasting emotional connections with users, promoting sustainability through reduced consumption and waste.

**References:**

+ Emotionally Durable Design (pp. 139-141)

## Inclusivity

A design approach ensuring accessibility and usability for all individuals, addressing barriers such as economic inequality and energy poverty.

**References:**

+ What is our view of the Low-Tech approach? (p. 9)

+ Inclusivity and Low-Tech (p. 29-37)

## Low-Tech

A design philosophy focusing on accessible, resource-efficient technologies that are simple, sustainable, and adaptable to local contexts.

**References:**

+ What is our view of the Low-Tech approach? (p. 9-15)

+ Why these topics? (p. 24.25)

+ The Low-Tech philosophy (p.51-53)

+ What do we mean by low-tech? (p. 69)

+ Can high tech ever be low-tech? (p. 83)

+ Low-tech and similar spirits (p.203)

## Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

A framework for evaluating multiple competing criteria, supporting balanced decision-making in sustainability and design contexts.

**References:**

+ Design as a complex activity (p. 165)

+ Multiple-Criteria Decision-Aiding(MCDA) methods (p. 167-171)

## Planetary Boundaries

Nine ecological thresholds regulating Earth's stability and resilience. These boundaries include climate change, biodiversity integrity, and freshwater use, among others.

**References:**

+ What are Planetary boundaries? (p. 47)

## Repairability Frameworks

Guidelines for creating products that are easy to repair, enhancing their lifecycle and sustainability.

**References:**

+ What makes for a repairable design? (p. 127)

+ Circular Economy (p. 219)

## Resilience

The capacity of systems, communities, or individuals to adapt to and recover from challenges or disruptions while maintaining functionality.

**References:**

+ Introduction to the Three R's (p. 113)

+ What makes for a resilient design? (p. 133)

## Right to Repair

The concept advocating for the legal right to access tools, parts, and knowledge to repair one's own products, promoting sustainability and consumer empowerment.

**References:**

+ Designing to empower autonomy and longevity (p.127)
## Simplicity in Design

A principle that prioritises clarity and functionality, focusing on essential features while minimising complexity and resource use.

### References:

+ Finding beauty in simplicity (p. 73)

+ Simple Design (p. 121)

+ Craft and Material (p.139)

+ Low-Tech and similar spirits (p. 205)

## Sobriété

A French concept emphasising moderation and sufficiency, promoting the use of fewer resources to meet needs while fostering simplicity and sustainability.

### References:

+ Principles of low-tech (p. 71)

## Social-Ecological Systems (SES)

Integrated systems of humans and nature, focusing on sustainable interactions and co-evolution.

### References:

+ What is a social-ecological system (SES) (p. 243-245)

## Stewardship

The responsible management of resources, emphasising long-term sustainability, ethical accountability, and community engagement.

### References:

+ Roots of Environmental Issues (p. 43)

+ Synthesis of comparison (p. 251)

## Sufficiency

A principle advocating for meeting needs without excess, encouraging balanced resource use within ecological limits.

### References:

+ Sufficiency definition (pp. 153).

## Systems Thinking

A holistic approach that examines the interactions between components within a system, helping designers address complex challenges.

### References:

+ How to understand the system to develop a resilient approach (p. 133-135)

+ Introduction to a systemic approach (p. 155)

## Territoire

A French concept that integrates spatial, social, and ecological dimensions to define the character and identity of a place. Unlike "territory," it reflects dynamic interactions between human and environmental systems, emphasising cultural and ecological specificity.

### References:

+ But, what is a territoire? (p. 247)

## Trade-Offs in Design

The balancing of competing design objectives, such as sustainability versus cost, or functionality versus accessibility.

### References:

+ Introduction to Causal Thinking (p. 157)
# Cross-Chapter Thematic Index

## Sustainability

### Definition and Frameworks

* Definition of Sustainability:
  + Design for Sustainability (p. 43-45)

* Planetary Boundaries and Doughnut Economics:
  + Introduction to Sustainability (p. 43)

### Design for Sustainability

* The Low-Tech Philosophy
  + Low-Tech as a D4S Approach (p. 51-53)

* Low-Tech Examples (p. 55-57)

### Tools and Methods

* Low-Tech Tools for Sustainable Design:
  + Methods for Implementing Low-Tech (p. 60-63)

## Inclusivity

### Defining Inclusivity and Accessibility

* Concepts of Inclusivity:
  + Defining Inclusivity (p. 31)

* Accessibility in Design:
  + Open Design Basics (p. 101)

### Social Equity and Low-Tech

* Addressing Digital Poverty and Energy Insecurity:
  + Inclusivity and Low-Tech (p. 31)

* Inclusive Governance and Collaboration:
  + The role of Low-Tech (p. 33)

* Community Governance:
  + Community management & governance (p.103)

## Resilience

### Core Principles of Resilience

* Emotionally Durable Design:
  + Design for Resilience, Repairability, Reliability (p. 139)

* Systems Thinking for Resilience:
  + Taking a Systems Approach (p. 133-135)
  + Design as a complex Activity (p. 155-165)
  + What is a Social-ecological System (p. 243-245)

### Examples and Case Studies

* Resilient Product Design:
  + The Three R's (p. 113)
  + Norwegian Pot Workshop (p. 235 - 237)

* Spatio-Social Case Studies:
  + Cargonomia and L'Atelier Paysan (p. 57)

## Low-Tech Philosophy

### Foundations of Low-Tech

* Historical and Philosophical Context:
  + What is our view of the Low-Tech Approach? (p. 9)

* Principles and Criteria for Low-Tech:
  + Art of Simplicity (p. 69)

### Key Concepts and Thinkers

* Influence of Schumacher, Illich, and Gorz:
  + Introduction to Sustainability (p. 51)

* Principles of Low-Tech:
  + Low-Tech Examples of D4S (p. 52)

* Low-Tech and Similar spirits (p. 203)

## Ethics and Responsibility

### Ethics in Design

* Classical and Contemporary Ethical Approaches:
  + Imperative of Responsibility (p. 183-189)

* Trade-offs between design objectives:
  + Design as a complex activity (p. 155)

* A fair pricing policy:
  + Sustainable Operational Marketing (p. 227)

### Educational Tools for Ethics

* The Art of Simplicity:
  + Products that Deserve to Exist (p. 81)

* The Three R's:
  + The Right to Repair (p. 131)

* The Imperative of Responsibility:
  + An Ethical Workshop (p. 207)

## Innovation and Collaboration

### Open Design and Community Participation

* Open Documentation and Licensing:
  + Open Basics (p. 97-99)

* Collaborative Knowledge Sharing:
  + Community Governance (p. 103)

### Hackathons and Interdisciplinary Approaches

* Frameworks for Collaborative Design:
  + Design for Sustainability (p. 27)

* Low-Tech Hackathons:
  + Running the Low-Tech Hackathon (p. 273)

## Education and Application

### Competency Frameworks

* Defining Competencies:
  + The Educational Model (p. 19-21)

* Interdisciplinary Competencies:
  + Why these Topics (p. 25)

### Student Projects

+ The Art of Simplicity (p. 67-91)

+ Open Design (p. 107)

+ The Three R's (p. 113-145)

+ The Imperative of Responsibility (p. 179-207)

+ Low-Tech Entrepreneurship (p. 235-237)
# Case Studies and Examples

## Low-Tech in Practice

* Introduction to Sustainability:
  + Low-Tech Examples of D4S (p. 55-57)

* The Art of Simplicity:
  + Case Studies (p. 87-91)

* The Three R's:
  + Introduction to the Three R's (p. 113-115)

## Product and System Innovation

* Framework Laptop and Clockwork Radio:
  + Art of Simplicity (p. 87)

# Tools and Frameworks

## Practical Tools for Low-Tech Design

* Introduction to Sustainability:
  + Methods for Implementing Low-Tech (p. 61)

* FAIR Documentation Principles:
  + Open Design Basics (p. 97)

## Evaluation and Assessment

* Low-Tech Rating Systems:
  + Art of Simplicity (p. 83)

* Commons Governance Models:
  + Community Governance (p. 103)

# Historical and Cultural Perspectives

## Origins of Low-Tech Thinking

* Techno-Critical Authors:
  + Low-Tech as a D4S Approach (p. 51)
  + Low-Tech and Similar Spirits (p. 202)

* Historical Role of the Commons:
  + Community Governance (p. 103)

## Cultural Influences on Low-Tech

* Role of Craft and Tradition:
  + Democratic Design & DIY (p. 79)
  + Emotionally Durable Design (p. 139)

* Minimalism and Low-Tech Aesthetics:
  + Finding Beauty in Simplicity (p. 73)

# Material Intelligence and Circularity

## Material Selection and Innovation

* Criteria for Durable and Sustainable Materials:
  + The Three R's (p. 117)

* Discussion on Resource Use:
  + Effectiveness, efficiency, and sufficiency (p.151)

## Circular Economy Connections

* Repairability and Modularity in Design:
  + The Right to Repair (p. 129)

* Circular Economy:
  + Emerging Economic Models (p. 218)

# Policy and Societal Impact

## Regulatory Implications

* Open Design and Governance Policies:
  + Community Governance (p. 103)

* The Right to Repair and Legislation:
  + The Three R's (p. 129)

* Providing Value to the Company:
  + Sustainable Strategic Marketing (p.225)

## Societal Shifts

* The Limits of Low-Tech:
  + Inclusivity and Low-Tech (p. 35)

* Ethical Analysis:
  + The Imperative of Responsibility (p. 191)

* System, Space, and Society:
  + Territoire (p. 249)

# Aesthetic and Philosophical Dimensions

## Simplicity as Philosophy

* Dieter Rams: Less, but Better:
  + Art of Simplicity (p. 74)

* Simple Design:
  + Designing Reliable Low-Tech (p. 121)

* Simplicity:
  + Low-Tech and Similar Spirits (p. 205)

## Ethics of Beauty and Functionality

* Finding beauty in simplicity:
  + The Art of Simplicity (p.73)

* Attention to Detail:
  + Emotionally Durable Design (p.139)

# Future Directions and Challenges

## Emerging Opportunities

* Foundations of Openness:
  + Open Design (p. 97)

* Can high tech ever be low-tech?
  + High-Tech Low-Tech (p. 83)

* What's Next? (p. 277)

## Barriers and Threats

* Responsibility Ethics:
  + More Contemporary Ethical Approaches (p. 187)

* Sobriety / sufficiency:
  + Be an ethical actor (p. 195)
Acknowledgements
and Thanks

LT4Sustain would like to acknowledge and thank all who have contributed to this project.

We are grateful to the staff and students of the various institutions that have hosted and participated in the project sessions and whose collaboration, creativity, and dedication have been instrumental in shaping the materials and outcomes presented here.

We would also like to acknowledge the valuable input of our external peer reviewers, whose expertise and feedback have helped strengthen the outcomes of this work:

* Maud Rio

* Robert Mies

* Elaine Butler

* Guillaume Mandil

* Emmanuel Poisson

* Katy Fox

* William Bernaud

* Cécile Le Sausse

* Emmanuel Poisson-Quinton

Your contributions have been greatly appreciated.

Our special thanks to the École nationale supérieure d'arts et métiers (ENSAM) in Châlons-en-Champagne for hosting our International Hackathon with such generosity and enthusiasm, as well as the Communauté d'agglomération de Châlons-en-Champagne Châlons Agglo) and the city office of Châlons-en-Champagne for joining the adventure of the hackathon and providing us with the essential local engagement, support, and championing of this project. Their commitment has enriched the project and strengthened its impact.

We would also like to thank all of the contributors to the Hackathon week and in particular:

* Anna Goychman,

* Ibrahim Demirci,

* Arnaud Cretot,

* Arnaud Van Sante,

* Victor Gautier,

* Céline Driget,

* Celine Bank,

* Raimond Philippe,

* Jérôme Isselin,

* Florence Lesage,

* Ludovic Malotet,

* Emmanuel Poisson

* Quinton, Pierre

* Alain Lévêque,

* Jacques Tiberi,

* Véra Nikolski,

* William Bernaud,

* Emma Bousquet-
Posturel,

* Thomas Barbey,

* Quentin Mateus,

* Nadège Troussier,

* Philippe Bihouix,

who personally invested some of their time and energy in the project, as well as all members of the Recyclerie ISCIAE, Le Hangar Matériauthèque and the Champagne Joseph Perrier.

Thank you to all who supported, engaged with, and contributed to LT4Sustain.

<figure><img src="image_293.png" /></figure>

utt

UNIVERSITÉ DE TECHNOLOGIES
DUBLIN

TROYES

<figure><img src="image_294.png" /></figure>

LOW-TECH

GRENOBLE

GRENOBLE
INP

UGA

Ense³

UMONS

Université de Mons

DUBLIN
TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY DUBLIN

DILLSCOL TEICNEOLÁIOCHTA
BHAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

<figure><img src="image_295.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_296.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_297.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_298.png" /></figure>
low tech +
sustainability

LEARNING IN LOW-TECH TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY

LT4SUSTAIN, an Erasmus+ funded transnational project, is at the forefront of responding to the increasing awareness of environmental and climate challenges. This awareness, particularly among youth, has led to a demand for social justice. With the coordinated work among six institutions, ranging from higher education institutions to private companies and associations, LT4SUSTAIN aims to raise awareness of Low-tech across society.

LT4SUSTAIN is pioneering a unique approach to technology design. By developing "hackathons" and other "hands-on" events, we are engaging students and industry in a way that improves inclusiveness. Our objective is to equip individuals with the skills to embark on entrepreneurial ventures that focus on sustainable and valuable solutions using a Low-tech paradigm.

Low-tech, based on the principles of usefulness, sustainability and accessibility, empowers practitioners to implement simple (as needed) technologies that are accessible and easily repairable, using common and locally available means. These solutions lean toward inexpensive technological solutions for fundamental and unsatisfied needs while positively contributing to generating a sustainable environment. This concept favours human know-how and practicality, making it an empowering solution for today's and tomorrow's social, cultural, ecological and economic challenges.

This guide presents a series of lessons and frameworks designed to teach Low-tech principles, offering step-by-step instructions for fostering practical and creative skills. From hands-on workshop activities to insights into sustainable design thinking, it equips educators and practitioners with tools to empower individuals and communities. Whether you're crafting new materials, prototyping resilient solutions, or rethinking design for an era of degrowth, this book provides the knowledge and inspiration to drive meaningful change.

ISBN: 978-1-90-045494-0

<figure><img src="image_299.png" /></figure>

9 781900 454940