Attachment, Durability and the Environmental Impact of Digital DIY

References

• Anderson, C. (2010). ‘The new industrial revolution’, Wired magazine, 18(2), 58–67, 105-106.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, P. (ed) (2006). ‘Special issue ‘do it yourself, democracy and design’, Journal of Design History, 19(1).
   Google Scholar
• Attfield, J. (2000). Wild Things: The Material Culture of Everyday Life. Oxford/New York: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Avital, M. (2011). ‘The generative bedrock of open design’. In van Abel, B., et al (eds), Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive. Amsterdam: Bis Publishers, pp. 48–58.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, A. D. and Tasaki, L. H. (1992). ‘The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behavior’. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 155–172.10.1207/jcp.1992.1.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Belk, R. W. (1988). ‘Possessions and the extended self’. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.10.1086/jcr.1988.15.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birtchnell, T. and Urry, J. (2013). ‘Fabricating futures and the movement of objects’. Mobilities, 8(3), 388–405.10.1080/17450101.2012.745697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. NY: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167611
   Google Scholar
• Easton, T. (2009). ‘The design economy’, The Futurist, January-February, 42–47.
   Google Scholar
• Franke, N. and Piller, F. (2004). ‘Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design: the case of the watch market’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(6), 401–415.10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00094.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleine, S. S. and Baker, S. M. (2004). ‘An integrative review of material possession attachment’, Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-35.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznetsov, S. and Paulos, E. (2010). ‘Rise of the expert amateur, diy projects, communities and cultures’, Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 295–304.
   Google Scholar
• Laitio, T. (2011). ‘From best design to just design’. In van Abel, B., et al (eds), Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive. Amsterdam: Bis Publishers, pp. 195–198.
   Google Scholar
• Mota, C. (2011). ‘The rise of personal fabrication’, Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition, pp. 279–287.
   Google Scholar
• Mugge, R. (2008). Emotional Bonding with Products: Investigating Product Attachment from a Design Perspective. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
   Google Scholar
• Muren, D. (2010). ‘Education for an open world: a new toolbox for design students’, Proceedings of the Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) International Conference, Portland, Oregon, August 4-7, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, M. I., Mochon, D. and Ariely, D. (2012). ‘The “ikea effect”: when labor leads to love’. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 453–460.10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odom, W., Pierce, J., Stolterman, P. and Blevis, E. (2009). ‘Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in the context of interaction design’, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, April 7, 2009, pp. 1053–1062.
   Google Scholar
• Richins, M. L. and Bloch, P. H. (1986). ‘After the new wears off: the temporal context of product involvement’. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 280–285.10.1086/jcr.1986.13.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E. P. H. (2008). ‘Consumer-product attachment: measurement and design implications’. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press.
   Google Scholar