Beegin: Redoing Beekeeping in Southern Africa by Designing for Outcomes

Abstract

The importance of socially responsible design and participatory methods for solving problems in developing nations is unquestionable, however there is debate about the level of follow through and impact achieved by such design research projects. Too often social design seems to end at the solution, with the implementation falling short. Designers have therefore begun to focus on strategies like design for outcomes that lead to verifiable impact. In this paper, we elaborate on this with literature and a case study of a project, which aims to support emergent farmers and the sustainability of beekeeping in South Africa, through the participatory development and implementation of an appropriate technology system. Demonstrating that a design research project that defines success in terms of outcomes requires scaled implementation to verify impact on peoples' capabilities. We present this paper as it relates to the Cumulus Conference's Theme 1-What do we wish to REDO?

Full text

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!
!
!
!
Copyright © 2017. The copyright of each paper in this conference proceedings is the property of the author(s).
Permission is granted to reproduce copies of these works for purposes relevant to the above conference,
provided that the author(s), source and copyright notice are included on each copy. For other uses please
contact the author(s).
Beegin: Redoing Beekeeping in
Southern Africa by Designing for
Outcomes
!
Ivan Leroy Browna & Angus Donald Campbellb
a Masters Student: Department of Industrial Design, The University of Johannesburg
b Head: Department of Industrial Design, The University of Johannesburg
Abstract:
The importance of socially responsible design and
participatory methods for solving problems in developing nations is
unquestionable, however there is debate about the level of follow
through and impact achieved by such design research projects. Too
often social design seems to end at the solution, with the
implementation falling short. Designers have therefore begun to
focus on strategies like
design for outcomes
that lead to verifiable
impact. In this paper, we elaborate on this with literature and a case
study of a project, which aims to support emergent farmers and the
sustainability of beekeeping in South Africa, through the
participatory development and implementation of an appropriate
technology system. Demonstrating that a design research project
that defines success in terms of outcomes requires scaled
implementation to verify impact on peoples’ capabilities. We
present this paper as it relates to the Cumulus Conference’s
Theme 1
- What do we wish to REDO?
Keywords:
Appropriate technology, capabilities, beekeeping,
participatory design, design for outcomes
1. Introduction
It is widely accepted that designers have a role to play in developing interventions
for marginalised people, yet the ability to effect measurable impact through their
philanthropic endeavours or to make a career in responsible design is seldom
achieved (Margolin, 2007:1). Glossy images of hand-pumps, latrines, stoves and
water filters paint a rosy picture of socially responsible design (Pilloton 2009).
However, the success of many of these projects lies more in the quantifiable
impact of their implementation1 than in their design development (Smillie
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Implementation refers to the commercial roll-out, or commercialisation, of the solution, requiring a
system that can be scaled to provide different markets with access to the technology through a
sustainable business or businesses.
169

Ivan Leroy Brown & Angus Donald Campbell
!
2000:249-250). Although an outcome2 may be theoretically successful the
realistic impact of a design is often limited due to constraints of implementation.
Lisseden, Maley & Mehta (2015:32) highlight that, “definitions of ‘success’ have
transitioned from laboratory practice into practical application and long-term
usefulness”. This focus on impact has led researchers to move away from the term
‘socially responsible design’ since “Socially responsible suggests certain
subjectivity around some undefined principals - whereas social impact implies
impact must be demonstrated” (Cooper Hewitt, 2013:24). Accurately assessing
success or impact through implementation is therefore a critical phase of the
design process, generally resulting in unexpected issues that require further
iterations of the solution (IDEO 2011:149).
Timothy Prestero, CEO of Design that Matters, explains that, “compared to the
whole process that leads to implementation - which includes financing,
manufacture and distribution, training, and adoption - design is the least hard
part” (Cooper Hewitt, 2013: 24). Prestero has developed a new approach to social
impact design called
“designing for outcomes”
, focusing on designing for
manufacturability, distribution, actual use and visual appearance simultaneously to
guarantee the products’ delivery and uptake (Prestero, 2012). In this approach, the
designer is continually assessing and refining the system of delivery during the
development of the product and, importantly, continually integrating the various
role-players into the system (Prestero, 2012). Additionally, Louis Boorstin (2013),
who worked as deputy director of the
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Program,
at
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, defined three goals for successful social
innovation projects:
• Impact: Does it demonstrably improve the health and socioeconomic
well-being of the poor?
• Sustainability: Does it have enough resources to keep running for
many years?
• Scale: Does it have the potential to reach millions of people?
Boorstin (2013) believed there is a need for a research and development stage in-
between the “pilot-stage” and “widespread adoption”, where the intervention is
“tested at scale”.
In academia, there are many socially oriented research projects that are never
implemented and, while the researcher may be rewarded for the theoretical
results, the project participants may be taken advantage of if they receive not
tangible benefit in the process (Smith, 2012). The Department of Industrial Design,
at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), South Africa, encourages designers to
start making good on their promises, and to do so they need to be more
concerned with the implementation of their systems (Campbell & Harrison 2015;
Brand & Campbell 2014). The key to achieving outcomes during design research
projects, as we have found in the following project, is for designers to adopt a
process that is participatory both in developing and implementing interventions.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 Outcomes refer to the original problem being addressed in the design research project such as
food-insecurity, clean water, sanitation, etc. (CSIP 2007).
170

Beegin: Redoing Beekeeping in Southern Africa by Designing for Outcomes
!
!
2. Case Study - Beegin
!
Figure 1. Entry level cardboard and permanent lightweight concrete beehives developed and used in
the Beegin project.
Beegin is an ongoing participatory design research project, that aims to contribute
towards food security in two ways: indirectly by bringing additional income to
marginalised, small-scale farming communities and directly by helping to protect
the pollination source of 70% of food-crops (UNEP, 2010: 1). The project has been
running for two-years, extending from a final fourth-year industrial design project
into a Masters’ research project. It has followed a revised, iterative, human-centred
design (HCD) approach that focused on participatory implementation and scaling.
!
Beegin began with a search for new income opportunities for urban farmers
through either bettering existing crop yields or the benefit of honey as a high
value crop to sell (see UNEP, 2010: 4). Research showed that South African
beekeepers can earn up to €2800 per hive annually; with several successful rural
development beekeeping programs having taken place locally (TTA, 2008: 74;
Johannsmeier, 2001: 5). In interviews with local urban farmers they expressed an
understanding of the benefits of beekeeping and a desire to keep bees, but were
unable to do so due to a lack of access to skills and equipment.
It became clear from research into beekeeping that the South African beekeeping
industry was facing serious problems from theft, vandalism, fires, diseases,
pesticides, monoculture and pests. This resulted in 30% asset (equipment, hives
and colonies) losses annually, in line with the decline of the global beekeeping
industry and bee species over the past two decades (UNEP, 2010: 1). A recent
Harvard study indicated that up to 56% of people in developing nations are at risk
171

Ivan Leroy Brown & Angus Donald Campbell
!
of becoming “food insecure” because of this “pollinator crisis” (Ellis, Myers &
Ricketts, 2015: 1). Numerous beekeeping for development projects have battled
these issues and it is clear that a sustainable solution requires both beekeepers
and farmers to be part of the process (Hilmi, Bradbear & Mejia, 2011; see also
Illgner, Nel, & Robertson, 1998).
In the Beegin project, three groups of role-players were identified: the beekeeping
industry (expert beekeepers), farming end-users (emerging urban farmers) and
design academia (the design researcher and industrial design department) (Fig.
2). The intention of such a collaborative research effort was to create an
accessible and sustainable system. This system needed to be appropriate for all
these role-players: meet existing beekeeping industry needs; be accessible and
operable by urban farmers; and ultimately be implementable by the design
researcher. Based on a combination of Appropriate Technology3 development
principles and the Capabilities Approach4, a conceptual framework and
methodology was developed to encourage an alignment between the technology
and various role-players’ values.
Figure 2. Diagram of the participatory design research role-player contributions.
2.1 Appropriate Beekeeping Technology System
Development
Through participatory research (interviews, site visits and discussions) with the
role-players, beehive design criteria were identified that benefitted both the
human users5 and the bees themselves - this was important to realise viable
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 Appropriate Technology: “meets the needs of the majority”, “employs natural resources, capital and
labour”, “is ownable, controllable, operable and maintainable within the community it serves”,
“enhances the skills and dignity of those employed by it”, “is non-violent both to the environment
and to the people”, and “is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable” (Smillie 2008: 91).
4 The Capabilities Approach describes the freedom that people have to do and be what they value
(Sen, 1999; Nussbaum, 2011).
5 Beekeeping relies on beehives, gear, knowhow and extraction equipment. The top-bar (€42) and
the Hoffman frame beehives (€62) dominate the practice. The former is suited to marginalised
172

Beegin: Redoing Beekeeping in Southern Africa by Designing for Outcomes
!
!
outcomes for both humans and animals. These criteria were then used to develop
new beehive designs and low-tech6, community-driven production mechanisms
for the new hives. The HCD process resulted in low-cost, durable, easy-to-make,
highly insulated and easy-to-use beehives. The product outcomes were: an entry-
level cardboard beehive (retail €19), a permanent concrete beehive (retail €55), the
mould and die production equipment for each of the hives (retail €300) (Brown,
2015).
These components catered to a conceptual, staggered initiation process,
conceived to help low-income novices learn to keep bees and set up sustainable
apiaries. The entry-level beehive, through its low-cost, could be incorporated
easily by low-income farmers and used to house a swarm of bees for up to two
years. The farmers would become acquainted with beekeeping and begin
harvesting honey to be sold to raise money to invest in permanent beehives, gear
and equipment.
Figure 3.: Business model for the Beegin appropriate technology beekeeping system.
The implementation system and business model (Fig. 3) was developed, in
conjunction with the participants to achieve maximum impact, scalability and
sustainability. Central to the accessibility and implementation of the Beegin
system was the localised, community-based production of the beehives. Instead of
the design researcher setting up a business to retail the products directly to the
community, the low-tech production tools could be sponsored or subsidised
(through sales to existing beekeepers) or sold to individuals who could become an
access point for others in their community, creating additional community-driven
businesses. This way at least the tools and skills would be owned by the urban
farmers, immediately benefiting their participation in the project. This would allow
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
communities through its low-cost and simplicity, the latter to commercial apiculture through its
efficiency and standardisation.
6 ‘Low tech’, short for ‘low technology’, is a term used to describe technologies that can be produced
and delivered with minimal capital investment, specialization or compartmentalisation
(Encyclopaedia Britannica 2015: sp).
173

Ivan Leroy Brown & Angus Donald Campbell
!
the design researcher the flexibility to undertake further design refinements, if
necessary, or to move on and scale the system rapidly in other locations.
2.2 Implementation and Refinement
The graph below (Fig. 4) illustrates the revised, cyclical human-centred Beegin
design process with continual refinement and scaling. Each new phase would
begin with implementing the system on a larger scale, hence increasing the
potential for a successful outcome.
Figure 4. Cyclical testing, refinement and scaling process for citizen design projects (based on IDEO
HDC, 2011).
The design researcher was particularly focused on refining the production and
initiation process of the Beegin system. In order to do this, ten sets of hives were
manufactured and delivered to ten different sites. They were then intensively field-
tested over a beekeeping season to gather data for further refinement. Five expert
beekeepers and five urban farmers were chosen as participants for the field-
testing. In the spring of 2016 the expert beekeepers were tasked with integrating
the Beegin beehives into their existing operations and comparatively measuring
their function against their standard hives. The urban farmers were provided with
an entry-level beehive, complete with a swarm of bees, to test the initiation
process (Fig. 6). The expert beekeepers operated autonomously, whilst the urban
farmers were assisted by the design researcher to inspect, document and keep
their hives through monthly site-visits. The initial batch production of the beehives
was useful in developing insights into more efficient community production, with
one farmer and one beekeeper volunteering testing the hive production tools
themselves (Fig. 5).
174

Beegin: Redoing Beekeeping in Southern Africa by Designing for Outcomes
!
!
Figure 5 (left). Participants producing concrete beehives and testing production tools.
!
Figure 6 (right). Urban farmer testing the cardboard beehive
2.3 Outcomes
Within five months of testing the participants had already begun harvesting honey
(Fig. 7) and were requesting to buy additional hives and the hive production tools.
Two of the expert beekeepers simultaneously placed new swarms in a standard
wooden hive and the Beegin concrete hive at the start of the testing. One
beekeeper witnessed a 40% increase in productivity in the concrete hive. The
second beekeeper recorded that whilst the concrete hive yielded 10kgs of honey
the wooden hive had produced none. We consider this significant increase in bee
productivity due to the insulating properties of the concrete hive, requiring the
bees to spend less time and energy regulating hive temperatures.
175

Ivan Leroy Brown & Angus Donald Campbell
!
Figure 7. Beekeeper participant harvesting honey from their permanent concrete hive.
Although the testing is still underway, the participants have identified some early
issues. Many did not see the benefit of buying a temporary hive indicating they
would prefer to purchase permanent concrete hives outright. As testing has
progressed, some evidence of the bees ‘eating’ the cardboard hives may
exacerbate concerns for its longevity. Role-player feedback from testing the
production tools contributed towards simplifying the demoulding and reassembly
times of the moulds. The participants requested the price of the moulds to be
reduced so that they can purchase more tools and produce beehives more rapidly.
It is clear in the initial field-testing that good theoretical design intentions do not
supersede the capabilities of those being designed with, whether human or animal.
It is also clear that the participants see value in the concrete hive. Further testing
and buying by the participants will be required to form a sustainable decentralised
business for the Beegin project, but the progress thus far is significant in terms of
returning the benefit of the design research back to the participants. No promises
have been made that could not be met, and even if the project does not roll out
into a fully-fledged business, all stakeholders have benefited to some extent from
their involvement.
3. Conclusion
The business model for the Beegin system has been reliant on limited funding and
resources necessary to undertake the implementation. The time span of the
project has allowed for meaningful relationships to be built between role-players,
176

Beegin: Redoing Beekeeping in Southern Africa by Designing for Outcomes
!
!
which brings with it more authentic trust and honesty in feedback. This is
particularly important in iterative projects where people’s capabilities are
amplified through continuous participation. Without the field-testing of both the
beehive and the implementation system many of the issues identified above would
have gone unresolved and led to failed implementation. By working with the role-
players to develop and implement the beekeeping system we have designed for
manufacturability, distribution, actual use and visual appearance simultaneously,
hence ensuring the meeting of intended outcomes. The design researcher must
accept that the design process extends beyond design development into
implementation. In this way, we re-do the design process and re-develop the
implementation system as the project grows and begins to create valued impact.
References
Brand, K.G. & Campbell, A.D. 2014. In-context and Ecology Immersion for Resilience: An
Exploration of the Design of a Household Farming Kit. International Union of Architects
World Congress: UIA 2014 Durban: Architecture Otherwhere: Resilience, Ecology,
Values. Durban, South Africa: UIA 2014 Durban, 1332-1343.
Boorstin, L., 2013. The Quest for Scale. Available at:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_quest_for_scale
[Accessed 10 14 2017].
Brown, I. 2015. An Improved Beehive Design to Support Local Urban Agriculture. BTech
mini-dissertation. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.
Campbell, A.D. & Harrison, P.H. 2015. A Framework for Socio-Technical Innovation: The
Case of a Human-Powered Shredder. In Collina, L., Galluzzo, L. & Meroni, A (Eds).
Proceedings of the Cumulus Conference, Milano 2015: The Virtuous Circle: Design
Culture and Experimentation. Milan: McGraw Hill, 211-230.
Cooper Hewitt. 2013. Design and Social Impact: A Cross-Sectoral Agenda for Design
Education, Research and Practice. New York: Smithsonian Institution’s Cooper Hewitt,
National Design Museum.
CSIP (Care Services Improvement Partnership). 2007. Designing for Outcomes. London:
Department of Health.
Ellis, A, Myers, S & Ricketts, T. 2015. Do Pollinators Contribute to Nutritional Health? PLoS
ONE, 10(1): 1-17.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2006. Honeybees. Available at
http://www.britannica.com/topic/queen-insect-caste/images-videos/honeybees-queen-
worker-drone/141787 [Accessed 10 August 2016]
Hilmi, M., Bradbear, N. & Mejia, D., 2011. Beekeeping and Sustainable Livelihoods. Rome:
FAO.
IDEO. 2011. Human-Centered Design Toolkit: Edition 2. IDEO.org.
Illgner, P. M., Nel, E. L. & Robertson, M. P., 1998. Beekeeping and Local Self-Reliance in
Southern Africa. The Geographical Review 88(3) July, pp. 349-362.
Johannsmeier, M F (ed). 2001. Beekeeping in South Africa: Plant Protection Research
Institute Handbook No 14. Pretoria: Agricultural Research Council.
Lisseden, J., Maley, S. & Mehta, K., 2015. An Era of Appropriate Technology: Evolutions,
oversights and opportunities. Journal of Humanitarian Engineering, 3(1).
Margolin, V. 2007. Design, the Future and the Human Spirit. Design Issues, 23(3), 4-14.
177

Ivan Leroy Brown & Angus Donald Campbell
!
Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating capabilities: The Human Development Approach. London:
Harvard University Press.
Pilloton, E. 2009. Design Revolution: 100 Products that are Changing People’s Lives.
London: Thames & Hudson.
Prestero, T. 2012. Design for People, Not Awards. Boston: TEDxBoston. Available at:
https://www.ted.com/talks/timothy_prestero_design_for_people_not_awards
[Accessed 10 January 2017].
Sen, A.K. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London:
Zed Books.
Smillie, I. 2008. Mastering the Machine Revisited: Poverty, Aid and Technology. Rugby:
Practical Action Publishing.
TTA (Total Transformation Agribusiness). 2008. Situation Analysis of Beekeeping Industry:
Situation Analysis of the
Beekeeping Industry in Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa,
Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Johannesburg: TTA.
UNEP. 2010. Annual Report 2010. Nairobi: UNEP.
About the Authors:
Ivan Leroy Brown
is an MTech Industrial Design student at the University
of Johannesburg. His research is focused on creating sustainable, socio-
economic opportunities in urban agriculture through the development of
an appropriate and accessible beekeeping technology system.
Angus Donald Campbell
is Head of the Department of Industrial Design at
the University of Johannesburg. His design research focuses on the
nexus of social, ecological and technological systems within the South
African context. He is co-founder of the Design Society Development
DESIS Lab and the interdisciplinary research project Izindaba Zokudla:
Innovation in the Soweto Food System.
Acknowledgements:
This work is based on the research supported in part
by NRF for Thuthuka grant no. 88030 held by Angus D. Campbell, titled
Designing development: An exploration of technology innovation by
small-scale urban farmers in Johannesburg. Any opinion, finding and
conclusion or recommendation expressed in this material are those of the
authors and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard.
!
178