Transition Design centres itself around the societal need to transition to more sustainable futures (Irwin et al., 2015). It re-imagines lifestyles in balance with their corresponding environments while being aware of global information and technology. The framework considers these factors when creating a solution to improve current qualities of life: social, economic, political, and natural systems. The illustration below, again by Mejia, depicts Transition Design as one of the “Future-oriented design practices.” It is important to note that the framework distinguishes itself by “[provoking] real world action” to seize its vision (Smith, 2019).

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Currently, I have known and uncovered Affirmative Design, Speculative Design, and Pluriversal Design. None of the frameworks focus on bridging current societal problems to their speculative forecasts (Affirmative Design does neither). Iwabuchi (2019a) provides an engaging illustration in the context of Earth and outer space to further express the differences between Transition Design, Design Thinking, and Speculative Design. From this, I believe Transition Design has the most pragmatic speculative approach to problem-solving.

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

Designers commonly develop visions through experience in future-casting and Speculative Design (Irwin, 2015). Transition Design finds its strengths in this area through back-casting. This practice determines a strategy based on a speculated future and the present to bridge the gap between the two. Essentially, Transition Design expands on the strengths of Speculative Design by encouraging progress and guiding creativity. For example, Iwabuchi (2019b) successfully used this practice to create a history program in Tokyo, with the mission to prevent a future of unmotivated workers. Transition Design also brings problem-solving frameworks to the next level by potentially advancing current solutions. This means that the designs used by this framework can be viewed as solutions in the very near future. However, Transition Design does not come without limitations. Because it has to connect the future to the present and vice versa, speculation can not be too far forward. This hinders creativity and critical thinking. Additionally, Transition Designs are limited to current-day technology, further inhibiting speculation. Lastly, although the solutions derived from this framework are beneficial, they will not solve our current societies' immediate issues.

​

 

 

 

As described in my previous blogs, Speculative Design centers around speculating scenarios that range from Dystopian to Utopian futures. Compared to Transition Design, the speculative framework needs to bridge the future to the present. This results in Speculative Designs that are very creative and critically thought out that dwell on the spectrum of possible and less probable scenarios. Thus, it would be best to opt for Speculative Design when designing without needing solutions.

​

Indigenous Futurism, on the other hand, “confronts past and present colonial ramifications” to “build better futures for Indigenous communities and for 21st-century culture” (Center for Architecture, n.d.). When compared to Transition Design, Indigenous Futurism has more emphasis on expressing native perspectives in future scenarios. Whereas Transition Design has a broader lens when it comes to improving upon society. Indigenous Futurism is a practical social framework because it incorporates the ideology of the Pluriverse. However, for speculations and solutions that do not require an indigenous lens, I believe that Transitional Design would be a more versatile framework to choose.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​‘The Transition Design Project’ by Masaki Iwabuchi was coined by himself to be “the first practice of Transition Design in Japan” (Iwabuchi, 2019a). Initially, the project had the mission of answering the following How Might We (HMW) statement:

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iwabuchi (2019b) went through extensive design processes such as:

• “Mapping Wicked Problem” with multiple experts

• “Mapping Multi-Level Perspective” via 3D modelling (Iwabuchi created this research method to visualize the complexities of a social system on a table)

• Envisioning future lifestyles in 2050 with storyboards and Spatio-Temporal Matrix

• Backcasting between logical thinking and creative thinking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These documented processes led Iwabuchi to hypothesize that Heian nobles (Between A.D. 794-1185) were living future utopian lifestyles. He falls upon this idea because Heian nobles did not value money and materialistic items above self-fulfillment and mental richness. This lifestyle contrasts with today’s Japanese youths’. Finally, Iwabuchi achieves his HMW statement by creating a history program from the 22nd Century. The program expresses how robots will replace Japanese workers with their lives now, consisting of preserving Japanese history (life before robots) through traditional Japanese dances.

​

​

​

‘Zero Waste Wellington’ by Waste Free Welly was a project that consisted of an open-minded collective that wanted to progress Wellington into reaching the status of zero waste. Their goal was to develop a “region-wide resource recovery network” that expanded on work that Wellington locals had already developed. Zero Waste Wellington researched its stakeholders, created speculated illustrations, and hosted educational workshops that taught attendees how to treat e-waste and mend garments.

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

When comparing the two case studies together, I find that each has its own strengths and successes. Zero Waste Wellington gathered locals together to improve current recycling methods. Whereas the Transition Design Project speculated more on Japan’s social desires and created a program that represented a probable future scenario. I believe that Zero Waste Wellington was a great project; however, its solutions seemed immediate (almost very possible today). Iwabuchi definitely took a more theoretical approach, with evidence of backcasting and extensive processes, for envisioning Japan’s future society and how to provoke a more self-fulfilling mindset in its citizens. Both projects were able to fulfill their goals. Still, because the Transition Design Project had a greater scope and focus on societal impacts, in my opinion, it was able to better achieve its goal.