Each chapter contained its own set of contributions to academic knowledge. In Chapter 3, I noted how certain elements and characteristics of HCI academic practice contribute to the environmental footprint of digital technologies in ways that are currently unmeasured. Specifically, I noted that the:
• Global creation and sharing of hardware, software, educational materials, and academic publications carries an unknown environmental footprint; HCI academics do not appear to track this. (section: materials)
•Infrastructure to support HCI academics often carries an unknown environ- mental footprint; universities might have the data, but it is not necessarily clearly communicated to or known by academics. (section: materials)
•Academic knowledge-sharing and knowledge-preservation that relies on digital services carries an unknown environmental footprint. (section: competences)
•Academic and non-academic conferences carry an unknown environmental footprint, which professionals and organisers do not appear to calculate or share.
(section: careers)
•Global movement of HCI academics throughout their careers carries an un- known environmental footprint. (section: careers)
These issues all contribute to the embodied carbon of our digital technologies in unclear and non-linear ways. This makes them relevant to SHCI and HCI researchers broadly, and especially for those interested in evaluating sustainable interaction design [210]. By highlighting these admittedly complex gaps in our knowledge, my research has contributed a set of new directions for evaluation- and measurement-focused researchers to consider. By highlighting these issues, my research has also contributed a set of insights upon which reflexive, environmentally minded HCI and SHCI researchers could reflect. We, as members of the HCI community, could work on solutions to the issues my research has highlighted, or at the very least discuss what could be done about them.
In Chapter 4, I undertook a unique study of retrocomputing repair practices and also noted how certain elements and characteristics of those repair practices relate to the environmental footprint of digital technologies. Specifically, I noted that the:
•Global sharing of retro materials carries an unknown environmental footprint.
(section: materials)
•Creation of replacement parts (via 3D printing or other forms of hardware hacking) for retrocomputing devices carries an unknown environmental footprint.
6.2 Contributions to academic knowledge 105
(section: materials)
•Contemporary digital knowledge-sharing tools and services carry an unknown environmental footprint.(section: materials)
•Practice of retrocomputing repair is distinct from other repair practices.(sec- tion: discussion)
•Repair of hardware is temporally dynamic, due to social, economic, and mate- rial factors that are well outside of the control of designers. (section: discussion)
•Device-specific community support systems appear to influence the repairabil- ity of retrocomputing devices, and that there might be space for HCI researchers to help establish or support device-specific retrocomputing communities.(section: discussion)
•Attachment cannot be effectively scripted by designers.(section: discussion)
The first three issues contribute to the embodied carbon of our digital technologies in unclear and non-linear ways. This makes them relevant to SHCI and HCI researchers broadly, and especially for those interested in evaluating sustainable interaction design [210] or understanding the “sustainability” of heirloom devices (e.g. [21, 77, 182, 212]). The remaining issues that I noted were meant to highlight some of the unique dimensions of retrocomputing repair practices, which will hopefully be used to expand the focus of future SHCI and HCI research.
In Chapter 5, I described three environmental public policy domains that influence the environmental footprint of digital technologies, as well as how they might inform or be informed by HCI research. Specifically, I:
•Developed and used a potential "public policy analysis for HCI audiences" framework.(section: EPPs)
•Described climate change, WEEE, and GPP policies in terms relevant to an HCI audience.(section: EPPs)
•Analysed and summarised how HCI research might have been informed by, and might contribute to, climate change, WEEE, and GPP policies.(section: EPPs)
This chapter demonstrated how my fusion of Lazar et al.[152] with Nathan and Friedman [178] could be applied, which I hope will spark a conversation within HCI about how to usefully analyse public policy for HCI audiences. This chapter also offered HCI researchers a glimpse of the complexity and diversity of global climate change, WEEE, and GPP policies, with the intent of helping HCI researchers see how their work is or could be connected to climate change, WEEE, and GPP policies. I highlighted how and where these
106 Thesis Conclusion
environmentally focused public policies may have already indirectly influenced the work of the HCI community, and through this I hope to have demonstrated the value of engaging with those policies.
Overall, the chapter-specific findings from my thesis contribute to the existing research focused on the richly complex ways that social practices and public policies influence the environmental footprint of digital technologies. However, I believe that my research also offers another set of contributions, which stem from the linkages between and across my chapters.
6.2.1
Reflecting on the linkages between and across my chapters
As mentioned in the limitations sections of my chapters, my doctoral research largely failed to directly address the connections between and across the practices and policies that I studied. The sole exceptions being in the discussion section of Chapter 4, wherein I linked the practices of retrocomputing repairers to HCI practices and research. However, I believe that there are some contributions to academic knowledge that can be drawn from reflecting on the potential linkages between my chapters on social practices and the final chapter on public policy.
I mentioned in the limitations section of Chapter 3 that only one HCI academic mentioned public policy in our interview. Most of the researchers I spoke with did not seem to think environmental public policy played a major role in their day-to-day practices, despite a few Europe-based academics mentioning the influence of another set of policies: the UK’s REF system. Not a single interviewee seemed preoccupied with how their e-waste was managed, nor with how their travel schedule affected the environment; rather, the notable absence of these topics in conversation seemed to imply that many researchers—including those who considered themselves to be environmentally concerned—felt that these concerns were out of their scope of concern, and perhaps best left to institutional managerial or administrative staff. This suggests that, although environmental public policy will likely influence some dimensions of institutional management culture and how a small percent of academics manage their e-waste, the main drivers influencing the environmental footprint of HCI academic practices are likely not strongly connected with EPP. For example, as long as HCI academics feel the industry-wide, cultural pressure to publish-or-perish, environmental public policy will likely remain unable to influence the number of international flights taken by HCI academics, nor the configuration of the conferences HCI academics attend. This reflection is itself a novel contribution to academia; my research has highlighted an opportunity for HCI academics to examine how the environmental footprint of their practices are influenced by policy domains that are not explicitly "environmental public policy".
6.2 Contributions to academic knowledge 107
In terms of the linkages between my research on environmental public policy and retro- computing repair practices, my retrocomputing repairers also did not overtly mention how their practices were influenced by public policies—environmental or otherwise. However, at the outset of the chapter on retrocomputing (when describing what "counts" as a retrocomput- ing device), I summarised how various corporate policies related to device support and age influence the availability of replacement parts. That, in turn, influences retrocomputing repair practices because the supply of replacement parts becomes increasingly scarce, which then leads some people to hoard parts and occasionally sell and ship replacement components around the world. These practice-related decisions influence the environmental footprint of the retrocomputing technologies themselves, as well as the repair practices that maintain those technologies. That these influences appear to be largely absent from HCI research related to attachment and repair, as well as from EPPs related to green procurement, is likely a novel contribution to academic knowledge. My research has highlighted an opportunity for public policy makers and HCI academics to examine how a broad set of corporate policies affect the environmental footprint of digital technologies, if those corporate policies should be factored into green public procurement policies, and if they are influencing repair practices at a larger scale.
6.2.2
Reflecting on the concept of the ‘environmental footprint’ of dig-
ital technologies
Upon reflection, I believe my research might also offer insights to SHCI researchers who are interested in measuring the footprint of digital technologies (e.g. [14, 24, 204, 210]). LCA is one of the most common methods for tracking and measuring the ‘environmental footprint’ of digital technologies [14, 210], and it has a demonstrably narrow focus on what gets ‘counted’ towards that footprint [14]. As Bates et al. explain, “because of the complex and layered nature of materials extraction, processing, manufacturing and transport, it is widely acknowledged that there will be inaccuracies in the overall emissions estimates, particularly for sophisticated products such as media and IT devices” [14]. But as Bates et al. demonstrate, the practices related to how we use digital technologies in the home can affect the environmental footprint of those technologies in ways that are also complex and layered, much like the initial materials extraction, processing, manufacturing and transport of our technologies. My research indirectly complements the findings of Bates et al. [14] by highlighting numerous dimensions of workplace and community-space practices that are currently absent from LCA calculations about (listed above in the contributions from each chapter).
108 Thesis Conclusion
Taken together, my complementary findings suggest that current methods (e.g. LCA) for understanding the environmental footprint of digital technologies do not grapple well with the complex and layered practices that occur throughout the various stages of a device’s life cycle–beyond merely the issues already identified with measuring the materials extraction, processing, manufacturing and transportation costs. My research examined a small set of design and repair practices that influence various dimensions of the footprint of a digital technology. There are likely countless other domains (e.g. other academic disciplines, non- academic workplaces, and collaborative spaces) that we could study to highlight the lack of nuance in current ‘environmental footprinting’ methods. By doing so, we could perhaps propose new and more thorough mechanisms for understanding the environmental footprint of our digital technologies and services.