Rethinking trash – a qualitative study on the
heritage futures of human-waste relationships
Master`s thesis
Futures studies
Author:
Janna Jokela
Supervisor:
Katriina Siivonen
1.6.2025
Turku
The originality of this thesis has been checked in accordance with the University of Turku
quality assurance system using the Turnitin Originality Check service.
Master's thesis
Subject: Futures studies
Author: Janna Jokela
Title: Rethinking trash – a qualitative study on the heritage futures of human-waste
relationships
Supervisor: Katriina Siivonen
Number of pages: 88 pages + appendices 7 pages
Date: 1.6.2025
Planet Earth is currently facing several ecological challenges, one of which is the problem of
waste. The term “Wasteocene” has even been suggested to characterize this era, further
emphasizing the significance of waste as a pivotal factor in the development of the Anthropocene.
Due to this, waste has emerged as a critically important area of academic research. However,
while there exists a range of research on waste from economic or environmental points of view,
there continues to be a lack of social and cultural perspectives on waste. This study approached
the topic from the point of view of futures studies and cultural sustainability transformation. A
key concept used was heritage futures as new intangible skills, practices, and values related to
human-waste relationships in the present, aiming for ecologically sustainable futures.
The purpose of this study was to understand waste as a relational phenomenon by focusing on the
futures of human-waste relationships. The objectives were to construct images of futures for
human-waste relationships in 2075 as well as facilitate the co-creation of heritage futures in the
present. The research methods were qualitative and exploratory. Two participatory heritage
futures workshops were conducted, followed by nine semi-structured interviews. The critical
futures method of Causal Layered Analysis was used in the analysis of the research data to deepen
the understanding of the phenomena discussed.
As a result, this study produced four images of preferred futures for 2075. First, in Smart waste,
technological solutions lead the way to more ecologically sustainable relationships with waste. In
Co-living with nature, a multi-species approach guides planetary citizenship and reciprocal
relationships with nature. In A step back, the emphasis is on thriving local communities and new
social norms regarding waste and consumption. Finally, in Rebuild, heavy environmental
problems have been tackled with strict policing and regulatory measures. Through their distinctive
elements, these images of futures emphasize both societal and personal change in relation to
waste.
This study also produced heritage futures co-created by the participants. The heritage futures
created included new practices and regenerative actions, social responsibility, and changes in
values and attitudes related to waste and consumption. Analysis of the data using the vertical
layers of CLA resulted in the conceptualisation of Action, Agency, and Affect as the three spheres
of transformative heritage futures for human-waste relationships.
The methodological contribution of this study is the incorporation of an archaeological
perspective into the heritage futures workshop. It presented a new, distinctively material element
to the workshop, drawing parallels between archaeological heritage and contemporary waste. As
a theoretical contribution, this study introduced the idea of `future-power` as the capacity of
physical objects, such as waste or heritage, to support and enhance transformative futures
thinking.
Key words: waste, human-waste relationships, images of futures, heritage futures,
cultural sustainability transformation
Pro gradu -tutkielma
Oppiaine: Tulevaisuudentutkimus
Tekijä: Janna Jokela
Otsikko: Jätteen jäljillä - laadullinen tutkimus ihmisen jätesuhteesta tulevaisuusperinnön
näkökulmasta
Ohjaaja: Katriina Siivonen
Sivumäärä: 88 sivua + liitteet 7 sivua
Päivämäärä: 1.6.2025
Jäte on yksi nykypäivän viheliäisistä ekologisista ongelmista. Useat tutkimukset painottavatkin
jätteen roolia yhtenä keskeisenä vaikutustekijänä antroposeenin takana. Tästä johtuen jäte on
noussut myös kriittisen tärkeäksi akateemisen tutkimuksen kohteeksi. Jätteeseen kohdistuvassa
tutkimuksessa korostuvat kuitenkin usein taloudelliset ja ympäristönäkökulmat, ja tutkimusta
jätteen sosiaalisesta ja kulttuurisesta merkityksestä on vähemmän. Tämä tutkimus tarkasteli
jätettä tulevaisuudentutkimuksen ja kulttuurisen kestävyysmurroksen näkökulmista. Keskeinen
käsite työssä on tulevaisuusperintö, joka tarkoittaa uusia aineettomia taitoja, tapoja ja arvoja, jotka
tähtäävät ekologisesti kestävämpiin tulevaisuuksiin.
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli ymmärtää jätettä suhteessa ihmiseen keskittymällä
tulevaisuuden jätesuhteisiin. Tavoitteina oli rakentaa tulevaisuuskuvia ihmisen jätesuhteelle
vuonna 2075 sekä fasilitoida tulevaisuusperintöjen yhteistä luomista. Tutkimus oli otteeltaan
laadullinen ja eksploratiivinen. Tutkimusaineisto kerättiin kahdessa osallistavassa
tulevaisuusperintöverstaassa sekä niitä seuranneissa yhdeksässä teemahaastattelussa. Verstaissa
osallistujat pohtivat ihmisen jätesuhteen toivottuja tulevaisuuksia sekä loivat yhdessä niihin
liittyviä tulevaisuusperintöjä. Tutkimusaineiston analyysissa hyödynnettiin kriittisen
kerrosanalyysin (CLA) menetelmää.
Tutkimuksen tuloksena syntyi neljä keskenään erilaista toivottua tulevaisuuskuvaa ihmisen
jätesuhteelle vuodelle 2075. Ne tarjoavat vaihtoehtoisia näkymiä tulevaisuuksiin, joissa ihmisen
jätesuhde on ekologisesti kestävällä pohjalla. Ensimmäisessä, nimeltään Smart waste, korostuu
uusien teknologisten ratkaisujen merkitys tulevaisuuden kestävämmän jätesuhteen
rakentumisessa. Toinen tulevaisuuskuva nimeltään Co-living with nature painottaa monilajista
lähestymistapaa osana planetaarista kansalaisuutta ja vastavuoroista luontosuhdetta.
Kolmannessa tulevaisuuskuvassa A step back, painotus on kukoistavissa paikallisyhteisöissä ja
jätettä ja kulutusta koskevissa uusissa sosiaalisissa normeissa. Neljännessä tulevaisuuskuvassa
Rebuild, vaikeat ympäristöongelmat on ratkaistu sanktioiden ja rajoitusten kautta.
Tulevaisuuskuvat painottavat sekä yhteiskunnallisia että yksilökohtaisia muutoksia jätesuhteissa.
Tutkimuksen tuloksena syntyi myös osallistujien yhdessä luomia tulevaisuusperintöjä, jotka
vaihtelivat arjen konkreettisista teoista tietoiseen vaikuttamiseen sekä syvemmälle arvoihin ja
asenteisiin liittyviin ajattelutapojen muutoksiin. Kriittisen kerrosanalyysin avulla tutkimus tuotti
kolme kestävyysmurrosta edistävien tulevaisuusperintöjen kehää, jotka rakentuvat toiminnan,
toimijuuden ja affektien ympärille.
Tämän tutkimuksen metodologinen arvo oli tulevaisuusperintöverstaan rakenteeseen tuodulla
arkeologisella näkökulmalla. Verstaskontekstissa jätteen materiaalisuus toimi
tulevaisuusajattelun tukena ja menneisyyden, nykyhetken ja tulevaisuuksien välisenä punaisena
lankana. Tutkimus tuotti myös ajatuksen fyysisten esineiden, kuten jätteen tai kulttuuriperinnön,
kyvystä tukea ja voimistaa uudistavaa tulevaisuusajattelua.
Avainsanat: jäte, jätesuhde, tulevaisuusperintö, tulevaisuuskuvat, kulttuurinen kestävyysmurros
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction 10
1.1 Motivation for the topic 10
1.2 Waste as a research object 11
1.3 The relationships between waste, heritage, and futures 12
1.4 The research problem and research questions 13
1.5 Structure of the study 14
2 Theoretical framework 15
2.1 Cultural sustainability transformation 15
2.2 The process of culture as anthroposemiosis 17
2.3 Waste in human interactions 18
2.4 Images of futures 21
2.5 Heritage futures 22
2.6 A few thoughts on care 24
3 Methodology and data 25
3.1 An archaeological approach to studying futures 25
3.2 Heritage futures workshops 26
3.2.1 Workshop setting and design 28
3.2.2 Inviting the participants 29
3.2.3 The progression of the workshop 30
3.3 Follow-up interviews 37
3.3.1 The role of the interviews 38
3.3.2 Interview design and implementation 39
3.4 Description of the research data 40
3.5 Data analysis 41
3.5.1 Qualitative data analysis 41
3.5.2 Causal layered analysis 42
3.5.3 First phase of analysis 44
3.5.4 Second phase of analysis 44
3.6 Ethical considerations 45
3.6.1 The use of artificial intelligence 46
4 Findings of the analysis 48
4.1 CLA analysis of the research material: elements of images of futures 48
4.1.1 Myth/metaphor layer for the images of futures for 2075 49
4.1.2 Worldview layer for the images of futures for 2075 51
4.1.3 Social causes layer for the images of futures for 2075 55
4.1.4 Litany layer for the images of futures for 2075 59
4.2 RQ1: What are the images of futures for human-waste relationships in
2075? 63
4.2.1 Image 1: Smart waste 65
4.2.2 Image 2: Co-living with nature 65
4.2.3 Image 3: A step back 66
4.2.4 Image 4: Rebuild 66
4.3 CLA analysis of the research material: heritage futures 67
4.3.1 Heritage futures on the worldview layer 67
4.3.2 Heritage futures on the social causes layer 69
4.3.3 Heritage futures on the litany layer 71
4.4 RQ2: What are the heritage futures for human-waste relationships? 72
5 DISCUSSION 75
5.1 Key insights on the findings of this study 75
5.2 Reflection on the workshop process 77
5.3 The temporality of waste 78
5.4 Limitations of the study 80
6 CONCLUSION 81
References 83
Appendices 89
APPENDIX 1 invitation letter to the workshop 89
APPENDIX 2 workshop script 90
APPENDIX 3 workshop feedback form 93
APPENDIX 4 interview script 94
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. CULTURE AS SUSTAINABILITY 16
FIGURE 2. THE PROGRESSION AND PHASES OF A HERITAGE FUTURES WORKSHOP 27
FIGURE 3. COLLAGE OF SOME OF THE TRASH COLLECTED DURING THE WORKSHOPS 35
FIGURE 4. A VISUALISATION OF THE CLA LAYERS AS AN ICEBERG 42
FIGURE 5. CIGARETTES AND SNUFF WERE FREQUENT FINDS ON THE TRASH WALK 62
FIGURE 6. THE THREE SPHERES OF HERITAGE FUTURES FOR HUMAN-WASTE RELATIONSHIPS 73
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. OBSTRUCTING MYTHS IN THE PRESENT AND REGENERATIVE MYTHS FOR THE FUTURE 49
TABLE 2. THEMES ON THE WORLDVIEW LAYER FOR THE IMAGES OF FUTURE FOR 2075 52
TABLE 3. THEMES ON THE SOCIAL CAUSES LAYER FOR THE IMAGES OF FUTURES FOR 2075 55
TABLE 4. THEMES ON THE LITANY LAYER FOR THE IMAGES OF FUTURES FOR 2075 60
TABLE 5. THEMES ON THE CLA LAYERS FOR THE FOUR IMAGES OF THE FUTURE FOR 2075 64
9
10
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation for the topic
Planet Earth is currently facing several ecological crises, one of which is the issue of
waste. Humanity is producing, consuming, and disposing of material things at an
unsustainable rate. “Anthropocene” is already a widely used concept for our era,
highlighting the impact of human activities on Earth`s systems, significant enough to
endure through geological time (Oppermann 2018, 1–2). Within the field of discard
studies, the term “Wasteocene” has even been suggested to characterize this era, further
emphasizing the significance of waste as a pivotal factor in the development of the
Anthropocene (Armiero 2021; Pyyhtinen et al. 2022; Massaro 2020).
The latest Global Waste Management Outlook published by the United Nations
Environmental Program indicates that over 2 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste are
generated annually, consisting solely of residential and commercial waste. Additionally,
industrial, agricultural, construction, and healthcare waste are perpetually generated by
human activities. From an ecological perspective, the negative effects of waste are
threefold: contributing to climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The disposal
and processing of waste contaminate waters and air, accumulate in land and aquatic
ecosystems, and produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (UNEP 2024, 9,
12.)
However, to frame waste solely as an ecological threat would be to overlook its
multifaceted qualities. Waste represents more than just a problem; it is also evidence, a
trace, acting as a physical testament to cultural activities. The topic of this thesis is
inspired by my personal background in the heritage sector. My studies in futures have
prompted me to reconsider heritage as inheritance – as the legacy left by our actions and
choices, encompassing both the tangible impacts on the planet`s ecosystems and the
knowledge, affects, and values we gather and pass on as shared meanings and culture. I
have been reflecting on how the archaeological heritage of the future is continually shaped
by our everyday material practices, particularly in how humans accumulate, utilize, and
dispose of materials. Traditionally, archaeology is understood as the study of the human
past through material remains, with archaeological heritage often referring to the physical,
tangible remains preserved from the past (Renfrew & Bahn 2020, 12). However, viewed
11
more broadly, archaeology is essentially the study of materiality and the interaction
between humans and the material world, including the relationship we humans share with
waste.
1.2 Waste as a research object
Waste is an inherently ambiguous linguistic signifier: anything and
everything can become waste, and things can simultaneously be and not be
waste, depending on the perceiver. (Hird 2012, 454)
But what do we actually mean by waste, trash, or rubbish? All are terms used to describe
discarded objects and materials after their use. The definitions depend on human
perspective; any material can become or cease to be waste. This shift can occur
unintentionally or through deliberate acts of degrading or forgetting – out of sight, out of
mind. Waste is where natural and cultural elements, tangibility and intangibility, different
materials and meanings become intertwined, playing with the borders of the human and
more-than-human worlds (Valkonen et al. 2019). After being actively made invisible for
a long time, in recent decades waste has emerged as an increasingly important
phenomenon in society, discussed in both negative and positive contexts, ranging from
plastic in our oceans to the circular economy as an innovative economic driver. This shift
highlights waste and discard as complex contemporary issues, but also as critically
important areas of academic research. (Valkonen et al. 2019; Pyyhtinen et al. 2022.)
As a multidisciplinary and interconnected topic, waste can be examined from various
approaches. Justin Chun-Him Lau (2023) has reviewed scientific research on waste and
identified three main categories for the traditionally used approaches: waste as a resource
and property, waste as a risk, and waste as a source of prosperity. The first encompasses
studies focusing on the extraction of value from waste, especially from the point of view
of the circular economy. Studies in the second category emphasize the role of waste as an
ecological threat and in warranting inequality. Into the third category fall studies focusing
on waste as an enactor of social change. However, an affective turn has also emerged in
discard studies that emphasizes the agency and vitality of waste. (Lau 2023, 1583, 1597.)
Inspired partially by the theoretical frameworks of new materialism, these novel
approaches highlight the ethics of care and living with waste, while also emphasizing
feminist, ecocritical, and more-than-human perspectives (see Hird 2012; Rogowska-
Stangret & Cielemęcka 2020; Tsing 2015).
12
A recent review article on circular economy has similarly noted that while there exists a
range of scientific research from economic or environmental points of view, there
continues to be a lack of social and cultural perspectives on waste, including those of
micro-level everyday practices and more-than-human relations (Zavos et al. 2024). In the
field of social sciences, the paradigm of circular economy as a solution to the problem of
waste is increasingly challenged. The “zero-waste” perspective as the possibility to
eliminate waste altogether is criticised, arguing that even when recycled, buried, or
incinerated, waste persists and refuses to simply “go away”. (Pyyhtinen et al. 2023, 2, 6;
Zavos & Pyyhtinen 2024.)
The continuous existence of waste is a constant reminder of the problems of the
Anthropocene. The material quality of waste makes it visible and tactile in people’s daily
lives, suggesting that perhaps the only way forward is to find new ways of knowing,
being, and living with waste. (Hawkins 2006; Hird 2012, 456; Kinnunen & Duque 2022.)
Marco Armiero, originator of the term Wasteocene, underlines that the concept does not
so much refer to waste as a material entity but rather to our relationships with it (Armiero
2021, 11). Here, in these human-waste relationships, also lies the interest of this study.
1.3 The relationships between waste, heritage, and futures
The deep time of the discarded material is folded into the material and our
relations with it from the very beginning, and it is important to take this
temporality into consideration. Waste is what will be left of us; it is the
material residue of our existence and civilisation. It is in and through waste
that our present persists past its term. (Zavos & Pyyhtinen 2024, 692.)
I continue to be enthralled by the entangled connection between waste and heritage. Both
are something left behind – either by previous generations or the current one – and both
share a temporal timeframe spanning beyond the present. Both are assigned value and
thus at least partially created in relation to us humans. Both are phenomena that need to
be managed or cared for. (Harrison 2020, 42, 44.) As already discussed, waste is
essentially created in relation to humans, and it is fluid in this regard. Heritage, as well,
is culturally and socially constructed, interpreted, and communicated. It is not the same
as history or the past; it is a contemporary product. (Auclair & Fairclough 2015, 3.)
The role of heritage in future-making is continually under discussion as museums and
other heritage organisations attempt to find ways to work with futures. The preservation
of the past “for future generations” is a repeated rhetoric in the museums and heritage
13
work, but the futures referred to are rarely questioned or problematized. There is potential
in museums, for example, advocating for fair and equitable futures or acting as platforms
for discussions about futures, but that potential is not yet fully addressed in the field.
(Högberg & Holtorf 2024.) Cultural heritage collected and cherished by museums is not
solely about the past – it can help us orient ourselves towards futures. However, it cannot,
as such, help achieve cultural sustainability transformation. (Siivonen 2022, 452.)
This study approaches the topic of human-waste relationships through the concept of
heritage futures. It refers to a new form of intangible cultural heritage, existing in the
present, and in people’s thoughts, practices, and relations with the material world.
Essentially, heritage futures is about individual people co-creating new, shared meanings
and skills to achieve cultural sustainability transformation. (Siivonen 2022, 452–453,
455.) The futures of human-waste relationships and how the concept of heritage futures
relates to them are key points of interest in this study.
1.4 The research problem and research questions
This thesis strives to understand waste as a relational phenomenon. Though waste can be
approached from a multitude of perspectives, this study is more interested in the
intangible, cultural perceptions of it: human relationships with waste. Through
understanding how waste is culturally defined and produced, new horizons of knowing
open up for studying how these relationships could shift and evolve in the future. By
taking a temporal perspective on the problem of waste, this research aims to create new
knowledge on the futures of human-waste relationships.
Two research questions have been formulated to approach this topic:
RQ1: What are the images of future for human-waste relationships in 2075?
RQ2: What are the heritage futures of human-waste relationships?
This research is qualitative and exploratory. The objective of the study is to find answers
to these questions collaboratively, through heritage futures workshops and following
semi-structured interviews. Heritage futures workshops are a particular form of futures
workshops that combine futures studies, sustainability studies, and critical heritage
studies. They enable a participatory, co-creative process where intangible and living
heritage – heritage futures – is the core around which new ways of understanding and
14
doing can be discovered. (Siivonen et al. 2022, 252–253.) Semi-structured interviews to
the workshops participants are used to deepen the themes that emerge from the workshop
material. The data analysis of this study utilizes a method called Causal Layered Analysis.
CLA is perceived as a critical futures studies method. It aims to problematize pre-existing
assumptions to find new insights and discover underlying themes and worldviews.
(Inayatullah 1998, 816–817.)
As a result of this study, images of futures for the year 2075 are constructed, highlighting
the preferred futures for human-waste relationships. The heritage futures created by the
participants give insights into how the futures discussed can be achieved with meaningful
actions, skills, and values in the present. By combining an archaeological perspective into
the study of futures, this study hopes to bring forward a fresh approach to the field of
futures studies. As a participatory process, this study also gives individual people the
opportunity to actively participate in the creation of the futures they wish to see.
1.5 Structure of the study
After this introductory chapter, the study proceeds as follows. In chapter 2, the theoretical
framework for the study is presented by introducing key concepts and approaches.
Chapter 3 explains the methodology chosen for the study and proceeds to go in detail
through the process of collecting and analysing the data. In chapter 4, the findings of the
data analysis are presented, and answers to the research questions are shared. Chapter 5
discusses the themes that emerged and presents ideas for further study. Chapter 6
concludes this study with a summary of key observations.
15
2 Theoretical framework
2.1 Cultural sustainability transformation
The beginnings of sustainable development are usually traced back to the report “Our
Common Future” from the Brundtland Commission in 1987. In this report, the term
sustainable development was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED
1987, 43). Since the report, sustainable development has been widely adopted into use
internationally, but almost 40 years since its launch, the balancing act of sufficiency both
in the present and future has not been achieved. Despite the growing amount of
sustainability research, the targets of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals are not
met, and the set goals for 2030 are far off track. (Independent Group of Scientists 2023,
XVIII-XIX; see also Sachs et al. 2024; Abson et al. 2017.) There seems to be a disconnect
between current sustainability science and the root causes of unsustainability. One reason
could be that sustainability science is done in silos of distinct disciplines, though the
problems are systemic. (Abson et al. 2017, 30.)
The traditional categorisation has been to divide the realm of sustainability into three:
ecological, social, and economic sustainability. This categorisation has since been proven
insufficient. One thing that has been seen to be missing is the sphere of culture, and there
has been much discussion on where and how culture fits into the processes of
sustainability. Three roles have been proposed for culture regarding sustainable
development. Culture in sustainable development means that culture is seen as the fourth
pillar, supporting itself mostly, and promoting ecological, economic, and social
sustainability. Culture for sustainable development gives culture a more substantial,
mediating, and balancing role in sustainable development. The third role, culture as
sustainable development, sees culture as the foundation for all the other aspects of
sustainability. (Dessein et al. 2015; Siivonen 2022.)
Theories of transformation discuss different leverage points through which
transformation could most strongly be enhanced. Donella Meadows identified 12 such
leverage points, with varying levels of intervention. The idea of these leverage points is
that even a minor intervention through them will most probably lead to significant change.
(Meadows 1999.) Current sustainability measures are mainly focusing on the shallower
16
points of leverage where the outcome often proves to be insufficient. The most profound
and influential leverage points are on the deepest level of mindsets and paradigms: in
people’s behaviour, values, worldviews, and beliefs. (Meadows 1999; Abson et al. 2017,
32.) These profound points of leverage are all embedded within culture, and that is where
the potential for transformation also lies (Siivonen 2022).
The paradigm of cultural sustainability transformation draws from the third definition
introduced above of culture as sustainable development. It acknowledges that for
transformation to happen, profound points of leverage such as values and worldviews
need to change. In cultural sustainability transformation, culture is not approached as a
structure to be preserved, but as a process under constant change. The process of culture
is often metaphorically referred to as a current, ever-flowing, and changing with every
interaction it makes along the way. This current of culture has no clear direction, but
because transformation is in its very essence, it can act as a driver for change and
sustainable development. (Siivonen 2022, 444–445; see also Hannertz 1992.)
Figure 1. Culture as sustainability (adapted from Dessein et al. 2015, 29)
17
2.2 The process of culture as anthroposemiosis
In the previous chapter, I established that this thesis embraces the perspective of cultural
sustainability transformation, where culture is a process under constant change. Katriina
Siivonen has used the concept of anthroposemiosis to further conceptualize the current
of culture as a framework of meanings through which humans relate to and interact with
each other and the environment. Anthroposemiosis exists within the process of semiosis,
comprising of signs that represent everything there is. These signs have three components:
1) the object of the sign; 2) the representant as the entity referred to; and 3) the sign itself,
the interpretant as the understanding of the relation between the first two. In interactions,
new interpretations always happen; the interpretant becomes the new representant in a
chain of interactions that form the process of semiosis. The term anthroposemiosis is used
when humans are involved in those interactions. It is through this web of meanings that
the material world becomes a part of human understanding, and also through which
human understanding shapes the material world. (Siivonen 2022, 448–449; see also
Siivonen 2008.)
Though signs always consist of all three components, the interpretant can be considered
the most important one when it comes to the concept of culture because it is through the
interpretant that the changing process of culture, or anthroposemiosis, takes place. The
interpretant is never the same twice, as in every interaction the interpretant becomes the
representant, again being interpreted through a new interpretant; on and on the process
goes. The material and immaterial worlds; nature and human meaning-making of it, meet
through anthroposemiosis. Humans affect and are affected by each other and the rest of
nature as we interact with our material and immaterial surroundings. (Siivonen 2022,
448–449.) Whenever interaction happens, change also happens, and there within the
anthroposemiosis lies its inherent quality: the possibility for transformation.
The change inherent in culture has no intentional direction, but can rather be
unpredictable, and happen in ways humans are not conscious of. However, when
perceived as a current under constant change, culture holds within it the inherent
possibility of intentional transformation through the deepest leverage points of values and
worldviews. (Siivonen et al. 2024; Siivonen 2022; see also Siivonen 2008 & Hannertz
1992.) The current of culture does not guarantee sustainability transformation in itself.
To achieve an intentional transformation requires the shared changing of human ways of
18
thinking and doing. The shared practice means that everyone needs to have the equal
opportunity to actively participate in making the change happen, through discussions and
reformations of values, worldviews, and ways of doing. (Siivonen et al. 2024.)
The topic of this study, human-waste relations, is an abstract concept perhaps best
understood using the framework of anthroposemiosis. A key factor in sustainability
sciences is the relationship between humans and nature, and in the present, humans have
become detached from nature, viewing it only as a provider of resources (Siivonen et al.
2024). Humans and waste exist in dynamic, open-ended social relations (Hawkins 2006,
3). In our current consumerist culture, both the origin and final destination of the objects
and materials that pass through our hands have become blurred (Hawkins 2006, 29).
However, our relationship with waste is continuously redefined in the anthroposemiosis,
and through it, our interaction with the material world can be intentionally transformed.
2.3 Waste in human interactions
There has been, for several decades now, a range of scientific literature that can be
referred to as waste theory. Mary Douglas` “Purity and Danger” (1966) is often
mentioned as a foundational text for the study of waste. Douglas connects the concepts
of waste, purity, and dirt with cultural structures. “Where there is dirt, there is system”
she (1966, 35) points out, giving the cultural management of waste an almost ritualistic
quality. In Michael Thompson`s “Rubbish theory” (1979), the emphasis is on the
valuation of certain materials as waste, and in the many ways humans attempt to distance
themselves from waste and deny its existence (Thompson 1979, 20).
In these earlier examples, waste has been framed as something no longer useful;
something dirty, unclean, unwanted, and uneasy. The values and emotions attached to
waste are often negative. However, the affective turn that has happened also in social
sciences has challenged this perspective. It can be argued that our relations to waste are
more complex than the previous discourse implies, and waste cannot be simply valued
dualistically to good or bad. (Hawkins & Muecke 2002.)
Waste makes us feel bad, it's presence disgusts and horrifies us, it wrecks
everything – in these familiar sentiments, badness is located in the object that
disrupts purity rather than in the relation between the person having the affect
and that object. (Hawkins 2006, 9–10.)
19
This quote from Hawkins also emphasizes how waste is defined and produced through
human interactions. In fact, only approaching waste as a problem can inhibit other ways
of being with it. Recent approaches have studied the affective aspects of human-waste
relationships, and brought forward the agency and vitality of waste, and the complex,
affective engagements between humans and waste as central themes in discard studies.
Thill (2015, 29) has pointed out that it “is our affective relationship to an object that makes
it 'waste' in the first place”.
In “The ethics of waste” (2006), Gay Hawkins is more interested in what kind of effects
waste has on us humans, our behaviour, and our relations to nature. She explores “the
minefield of emotions and moral anxieties that waste can provoke” and the ways in which
waste features in people`s everyday practices (Hawkins 2006, vii, ix). In her examination
of waste in landfills, Hird (2012) uses a feminist lens to discuss what happens after waste
has been managed and it enters the inhuman domain. Referring to Karen Barad`s (2003)
inhumanist philosophy Hird conceptualises waste as a problem of inhuman knowing,
beyond human determinacy and control (Hird 2012, 465).
Karen Barad`s (2003) conceptualisation of agential realism of matter relates to the wider
theoretical turn referred to as new materialism, bringing forth the materiality of objects
and the role of that materiality in human engagements and entanglements with material
entities. Following Barad, Jane Bennett (2010) has introduced the conceptualisation of
vibrant matter. She further introduces the concept of thing-power as the innate force
within all matter, both human and more-than-human.
Bennett makes a distinction between environmentalism and vital materialism. The first
still establishes a separation of culture and nature, subjecting the environment, or nature,
as something to be cared for and protected by humans. The latter extinguishes the
culture/nature barrier and emphasizes the heterogenous assemblage-like quality of
human-nature entanglements.
Humanity and nonhumanity have always performed an intricate dance with
each other. There was never a time when human agency was anything other
than an interfolding network of humanity and nonhumanity; today this
mingling has become harder to ignore. (Bennett 2010, 31.)
20
The introduction of vibrant matter makes these human-material relationships relevant in
a time of ecological turmoil, and understanding the vitality of materials, such as waste, is
central to any kind of sustainability transformation.
Why advocate the vitality of matter? Because my hunch is that the image of
dead or thoroughly instrumentalized matter feeds human hubris and our earth-
destroying fantasies of conquest and consumption. (Bennett 2010, ix.)
Building on Bennett`s concept of `thing-power`, Lepistö & Pyyhtinen (2025) introduce
the term `trash-power` to understand people`s affective encounters with waste. By this,
they refer to the capacity waste possesses to trigger affective reactions in humans; to
engage people with waste, and provoke action or an emotional response. They observe
this trash-power manifesting in the lives of trash activists, for whom encounters with
waste trigger both negative and positive emotions through bodily engagement with waste.
They emphasize that this trash-power is not inherent in the materiality of the waste itself,
but again in the interaction that happens when waste is encountered, both by humans and
other materials. This resonates with the concept of `intra-action` by Karen Barad (2003),
who used it to describe how matter comes to be in relation with other subjects.
The interactions between humans and the material world are not one-sided, nor are they
linear processes. Humans and the rest of nature exist in entangled relationships where
humans affect and are affected by their physical environments. These entanglements rely
on dependencies that can, and also have, become problematic when they form
entrapments. These entrapments are lock-ins that are not easy to break free from. (Hodder
2014, 20.) For example, the circular economy could be framed as such as entrapment, as
the system relies on the continuing production of waste.
It is important to be aware that many of the cultural theories of waste address the topic
from the point of view of Western societies or the Global North (Bell 2019, 101). People
across the Global South, and within the North as well, living beneath the poverty line do
not partake in the consumerist party of overconsumption, producing the waste problem
(Bell 2019, 102). The point of view of this study, as well, is from the Global North, which
is where the study takes place, and where I, as the researcher, examine the world from.
21
2.4 Images of futures
It can be said that thinking about the future and having hopes and desires towards certain
kinds of futures is a foundational part of being human (Rubin 2013, 540). This innate
understanding and visioning towards futures can be conceptualized as anticipation, and it
is in no way limited to humans. Rather, it is present in all realities, both living and non-
living, biological and non-biological entities alike. Anticipation can be further divided
into explicit and implicit. On the implicit level, anticipation works beyond our
consciousness and awareness, but explicit anticipation lets us humans look into the future
and let it have an impact on our current behaviour. (Poli 2010, 8, 12.)
Being aware that there is a future, wanting to know what that future entails, and projecting
ideals onto that future, are strong drivers behind images of the future, which Polak
describes as crystallized expectations (Polak 1973, 9–10.). In other words, images of
futures depict an ideal. Anita Rubin (2013, 540) says images of futures are “formed from
knowledge and flavoured with imagination”. Images of futures can be very personal and
private in nature or collectively and socially shared. They can also operate on both a
conscious and unconscious level. (Rubin 2013, 540.) They can also be contradictory;
there can often be an especially strong conflict between images socially accepted and
those held by individuals (Rubin 2013, 541).
In his theory on images of the future, Polak uses the distinctions of essence and influence
as well as optimism and pessimism to further conceptualize different kinds of images of
the future. Using these elements, he formulates four categories: essence-optimism,
essence-pessimism, influence-optimism, and influence-pessimism. In the first two, it is
perceived that humans have no agency in the unfolding of events, being merely a tool for
higher powers. In the latter two, it is assumed that humans do have influence on the course
of events and can therefore choose to modulate their behaviour towards the future they
want to achieve. (Polak 1973, 17.)
The study of images of futures is foundational to futures studies, especially regarding
their causes and consequences. It is a shared proposition among futurists that images of
future do shape the actions people take and that is where the true interest lies. (Bell 2003,
81–82.) Though images of futures are essentially only imaginings done in the present,
and the futures that finally emerge can be quite different from what was imagined, it has
been proven that images of futures can have true impact. They can affect attitudes and
22
can, on a conscious or unconscious level, motivate people to strive for certain pathways.
(Rubin 2013, 540.) In this way, images of futures hold great power. As I have discussed
earlier, the current of culture also entails implicit change. Transformation means
consciously steering that change in an intentional, preferred direction. In the framework
of this study, images of futures act as a desirable direction for the current of culture.
In this study, images of futures are approached as preferable futures imaginaries. They
are visionary and descriptive combinations of shared imaginings for human-waste
relationships in the future. The images of futures presented in this study are based on the
data collected and analysed by the researcher, and constructed into written form as
narratives that are explanatory but also affective, reflecting the meaning-making and
emotional input the participants shared in the workshops and interviews.
2.5 Heritage futures
Heritage futures is a central concept in this study, and needs to be discussed in detail
before moving on with the study itself. As brought forward earlier, heritage futures was
chosen as a perspective in this study because the researcher feels it combines perfectly
the dimensions of heritage and futures, both of which are central fields of interest
regarding human-waste relations.
It needs to be underlined that in the current scientific discussion, two distinct but differing
definitions of heritage futures exist. The first one, used mainly in the field of heritage
studies and brought forward by the UNESCO chair on heritage futures, focuses on the
use of heritage in the present in relation to future-making. In this approach, heritage
futures is about introducing the aspect of futures thinking into the practices of heritage
professionals working in the present. This can mean the critical evaluation of preservation
practices, preparing for future changes, or the use of heritage to build resilience towards
uncertain futures. The focus in this approach, however, remains on the preservation of
existing heritage. (Harrison 2020: Siivonen 2022, 453.)
The second definition of the concept of heritage futures is formulated by Katriina
Siivonen, co-chairholder of UNESCO Chair in Learning for Transformation and
Planetary Futures. Building on the notion of heritage futures by Ullrich Kockel (2002,
10), this conceptualisation combines heritage studies, futures studies, and cultural
sustainability transformation. Built on the notion of culture as an ever-shifting current,
23
this approach defines heritage futures as a new form of intangible cultural heritage,
existing only in our thoughts and actions, as well as in our relations with the material
world. It is created in the present and aims towards ecologically sustainable futures. In
this form, heritage futures can be new skills, practices and values an individual or a
community creates and adopts. It can also mean actively letting go and abandoning
practices and heritage that is perceived as harmful regarding desirable or preferred
futures. (Siivonen 2022, 453–455.)
The fundamental difference between these two conceptualisations of heritage futures is
in their purpose. While the first definition aims at the preservation of cultural heritage in
a turbulent world, the latter definition of heritage futures gives the concept active and
transformative agency in the present. Its fundamental purpose is to change, not preserve,
and to build sustainable futures by providing new understanding of the planet and our
place in nature. In this form, heritage futures invites people to develop aspects of their
culture towards a more ecologically sustainable future. It is by nature also destructive, as
it may mean abandoning old ways. Essentially heritage futures is about individual people
co-creating new, shared meanings to achieve cultural sustainability transformation
(Siivonen 2022, 452–453, 455.)
Heritage futures also constitutes the ethical orientation of this study. Sustainability
transformations refer to fundamental, even radical upheavals of current practices and
understandings. Therefore, questions of power need to be addressed (Moriggi et al. 2020,
285.) The preferred change cannot be commanded or forcefully induced from the outside;
it needs to come from within, brought forward by the very people it concerns (Siivonen
2022, 447). “Future belongs to everybody” say Jungk & Müllert (1987, 9), and continue:
But where are the opportunities for those wishing to articulate their feelings
and aspirations to express them so loudly and clearly that, although they
started out feeling alienated and off guard, they come to see themselves as
effective fellow-architects of a world in which they and their children would
wish to live?
The initial aim of futures workshops in general was to strengthen the possibilities of
individual people to participate in the creation of futures. In this particular study, heritage
futures is created in participatory heritage futures workshops. Participatory methods such
as futures workshops can empower and engage participants through discussions about
futures, as well as give the researcher insight about their ambitions, fears and hopes
24
regarding them (Armanto et al. 2022, 222, 227.). Role of the researcher, in this context,
is to help the participants visualise and articulate alternative futures and consequences of
their actions. This is the ethical foundation of any futurist. (Poli 2011, 409.)
2.6 A few thoughts on care
I have already touched upon the role of care in human-waste relationships. The language
of care traditionally found in spiritual or philosophical literature has increasingly found
its way into a wide range of disciplines, including sustainability research. Care for the
Earth and the entire biosphere are at the heart of sustainability research. Yet there is a
lack of understanding of how sustainability transformations and the ethics of care actually
relate to each other. Care relates to both individual and collective values and practices,
which makes it relevant regarding any sustainability transformation. (Moriggi et al. 2020,
281–282, 284.)
This caring relationship with Earth has been further conceptualised as planetary
citizenship. It refers to a meaningful life that transcends any barrier between humans and
nature. A planetary citizen understands the physical limitations of dwelling on a planet
with others. The concept entails a sense of responsibility for one`s own actions, but also
for everything else within this planet, human and more-than-human, including also future
generations. (Salonen et al. 2024, 4.)
In the context of human-waste relationships, the ethics of care and the concept of
planetary citizenship align. Waste, however negatively framed, exists on this one planet
of ours. It is not going anywhere; ignoring it will lead nowhere. The only way to care for
waste, and for the rest of the planet, is to actively notice it. This calls for a new kind of
relation to waste that shifts away from managing and terminating it to caring for it, in all
its embeddedness in our daily lives. (Kinnunen & Duque 2022, 150.) Understanding and
reflecting on our affective engagement with waste, the ethics of care, and the
interdependency of more-than-human relations opens up new, intriguing, and visceral
perspectives to waste (Lau 2023).
25
3 Methodology and data
This research aimed to understand waste as a relational phenomenon. The objectives were
to construct images of futures for human-waste relationships in 2075 as well as create
heritage futures in the present. Because the interest of this study lies specifically in
people`s personal relationships with waste, the methods chosen were qualitative in nature.
Qualitative research aims to understand rather than explain the phenomena it studies. This
research is also empirical in the sense that it builds on data collected using specific
methods. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2012, 21, 66.)
The methods in this study were chosen with the research questions clearly in mind. As
one of the main fields of inquiry in this thesis was to study the heritage futures of waste,
heritage futures workshops were chosen as the main method of data collection. In an effort
to further build on the results of the workshops, semi-structured interviews were included
in the methodology. For the thematic analysis of the data, Causal Layered Analysis was
chosen, with the aim of deepening the analysis and the construction of the images of
futures. In the following sections of this study, the methods and their design are
introduced in detail, and some ethical considerations are presented.
3.1 An archaeological approach to studying futures
While this study focuses on futures and employs futures methodology, the research design
also thematically links together archaeological collections and contemporary waste.
Archaeological material is what people have left behind in the past; waste is the physical
trace humans leave behind in the contemporary world. This juxtaposition is, of course,
not a new idea nor did I conceive it myself. Archaeological study of contemporary
material culture has been conducted for example on sites such as landfills (Harrison &
Schofield 2010; Rathje & Cullen 1995).
The field of archaeology studying the very recent and contemporary past has grown
significantly in the 21st century (Harrison & Schofield 2010, 4). Using the same methods
used to study the distant past, an archaeological approach or perspective to the present-
day material culture can provide new insights, even though the subject matter might seem
already well-known. Compared to other scientific disciplines, archaeology has three
strengths as a field: a focus on materiality, time depth, and knowledge of fast and slow
processes of change. (Harrison & Schofield 2010, 5–6.)
26
Though here named archaeological, the approach employed by this study could just as
well be named a material approach to studying futures. The tactile materials used in the
workshops act as tangible points of reference for the mental time travel through past,
present, and future. The archaeological perspective still felt important to be articulated
here, as it does strongly pertain to my own professional background and therefore
substantially informed also the design of this study and the methods chosen. In the
methodology, this archaeological approach is incorporated into the heritage futures
workshops, where archaeological survey methods are applied, and parallels are drawn
between archaeological finds material and contemporary waste.
This perspective also forms the methodological contribution of this study. While the
existing heritage futures workshop method was used in this study, I adapted it to suit my
own vision for the workshop. The pre-workshop exercise that will be introduced later was
my own addition to the workshop method, as well as the use of contemporary trash in
envisioning futures. The latter physically incorporated the present timeframe into the
workshop process, which was not in the workshop`s original design.
3.2 Heritage futures workshops
Heritage futures workshops are a particular form of futures workshops that combine
futures studies, sustainability studies, and critical heritage studies. They are a rather new
form of futures methods, developed in 2020–2022 as part of a collaborative DYNAMO –
Dynamic Museum and Heritage Futures Workshop as instruments for ecological
reconstruction project1. They enable a participatory, co-creative process where intangible
and living heritage are the core around which new ways of understanding and doing can
be discovered. (Siivonen et al. 2022, 252–253.) Though they were designed especially
with museums in mind, heritage futures workshops can be used in any context. What is
essential is the interplay between the past, present, and future to understand change and
create heritage futures (Paaskoski et al. 2022, 26). The heritage futures workshop method
is novel and still being developed further, with a limited amount of scientific literature
yet published on it. However, it is closely related to other types of futures workshops,
which are a traditional and well-researched method of futures research (see Jungk &
Müllert 1987; Armanto et al. 2022).
1 https://sites.utu.fi/dynamo/en/
27
This particular type of futures workshop was chosen for this study as the concept of
heritage futures is at the core of this research. The method also intrinsically allowed the
incorporation of an archaeological perspective into the workshop, something that I
personally was keen to explore. In favour of this method was also the fact that my
professional background is in the museum sector, and this particular method had been
developed especially in collaboration with museums. Therefore, there was a familiarity
to it, even though this was the first time I designed and facilitated a heritage futures
workshop.
The general process of a heritage futures workshop is described in the picture above. It
has five distinct phases, which guide the participants from the present into the past and
then into the future, finally coming back to the present at the end (Siivonen et al. 2022,
255; Paaskoski et al. 2022, 25–26). The workshop begins with an introduction (1), that is
meant to be thought-provoking. The second phase focuses on the past (2), emphasizing
how in the past choices were made that have led to the present. From the past, the
Figure 2. The progression and phases of a heritage futures workshop (adapted from Paaskoski et
al. 2022, 26)
28
workshop makes a time jump into the future (3). This phase introduces the planetary
boundaries into the workshop process, emphasizing the need for imagining futures within
the limits they set. The jump can be made easier with creative exercises. The fourth phase
of the workshop brings the timeframe back to the present (4). Here the focus is on heritage
futures, which can be the shared creation of new meanings or new ways of doing
regarding the phenomenon at hand. In the last phase (5), experiences are shared and
reflected upon. Emphasis is put on changes in the participants` own thinking and
behaviour, as well as any new insights produced during the workshop. (Siivonen et al.
2022, 256.)
Since the DYNAMO project, heritage futures workshops have been used by different
institutions, and they have even been adapted for use with children (Tiainen 2023).
Currently, they are used and further refined in the SISU – Sufficiency solutions for a
resilient, green, and just Finland2 project to co-create heritage futures related to
sufficiency.
3.2.1 Workshop setting and design
The two workshops in this study were organised in the autumn of 2024 at the Aboa Vetus
Ars Nova museum in Turku. This location was chosen because it is the only
archaeological museum in Finland, combined with a contemporary art museum. The
archaeological section of the museum is an in situ museum, comprising the remains of
several medieval stone houses dating from the 13th to the 15th centuries, discovered in
archaeological excavations. Alongside the ruins, tens of thousands of objects have been
recovered in the museum`s excavations. Many of them can be considered waste, disposed
of by the people of that time. (Jokela & Lehto-Vahtera 2012, 26, 48.) Therefore, the
museum and its collections were thematically related to the topic of waste, and allowed
the drawing of parallels between contemporary waste, which was central to this study.
The location also had practical advantages: it provided the possibility to use both
exhibition spaces and a workshop space needed for the workshop. The museum is situated
in the city centre, which also makes it easily accessible for the participants.
The design of the workshops in this study followed very closely the exemplary script
published in the DYNAMO projects handbook (Paaskoski et al. 2022). The provided
2 https://sisu-stn.fi/en/
29
script was modified to suit this study`s topic and aims, with special regard to the
archaeological approach implemented into the design. As I anticipated that the
participants might find the topic of human-waste relationships abstract and difficult to
approach, special attention was placed on physical elements in the workshop. I designed
a pre-workshop exercise in the form of a trash walk to act as an additional introductory
phase leading into the actual workshop phases. I also wanted to use contemporary,
physical trash in the workshop, instead of using, for example, only visual elements such
as pictures. The trash collected during the pre-workshop exercise enabled the gathering
of workshop material as a part of the process.
In the design of the workshop, special attention was paid to a few points. Firstly, it was
acknowledged that there was a need for space in the timetable for the participants to have
time to think and reflect on what was being discussed. A relaxed atmosphere contributes
to the participants` imaginations running freely (Jungk & Müllert 1987). Secondly,
thought was put into how the jump to the future was facilitated, because it can be a
difficult phase for the participants if they are not used to imagining and discussing futures.
Thirdly, the importance of bringing the discussion back to the present after the future
jump was stressed, as that phase is when the heritage futures is created, which is the key
essence of this form of futures workshop.
3.2.2 Inviting the participants
The participants for this study were invited through my personal connections both within
the field of archaeology and futures studies. Though a more varied composition of
participants could have been achieved by reaching out to a wider audience, given the
scope of this study, a more limited invitation was considered sufficient. The participants
were approached with an open invitation several weeks before the workshops took place
(see the invitation letter in Appendix 1). Invites were sent to people`s personal emails but
also to general email lists such as the “Indy” email list maintained by the department of
archaeology at the University of Turku and the futures studies students lists maintained
by the Finland Futures Research Center. Initially, 12 people signed up for the workshops,
but in the end, only 11 of them participated. The final participants represented a wide
range of ages from young adults to middle-aged. Out of the participants, three were men
and eight were women. Six participants were from Finland, and the rest represented
multiple nationalities.
30
As the invitees had an international background, it was decided already in the invitation
phase that one of the planned workshops would be carried out in Finnish and the other
one in English. The initial idea was that there would have been more mixing of the
participants coming from the fields of archaeology and futures studies. In the end, this
did not quite come through and could have perhaps been better approached with more
personal and detailed invitations.
3.2.3 The progression of the workshop
While there exists some published material on heritage futures workshops, it is at the
moment only in Finnish. Therefore, in the following sub-chapters, the distinct phases of
the workshop are introduced in detail, with some explanation of how the phases were
approached in this study. As mentioned before, the workshop was designed around the
exemplary script provided in the DYNAMO projects handbook (Paaskoski et al. 2022).
However, the pre-workshop exercise is not a part of the original design of the workshop.
This is my personal contribution to implementing the archaeological and material
approach to this study. The workshop script used in this study can be found in the
appendices (Appendix 2).
3.2.3.1 Pre-workshop exercise
The pre-workshop exercise in the form of a “trash walk” was designed to take place right
before the actual workshop. The exercise was a derivation of the archaeological research
method of site surface survey. It is used to examine a site without excavation by walking
along the surface of a site and studying visible features, documenting, and collecting
artifacts. This method can give archaeologists insight into the layout and possible dating
of a site and even help identify different areas of activity. (Renfrew & Bahn 2020, 97,
99.)
The exercise was carried out in the vicinity of the museum where the workshops took
place. The participants were given gloves and trash bags and instructed to walk an
assigned route and pick up everything they considered to be trash. They also had the right
to leave on the ground anything they did not wish to touch or pick up. The participants
all followed the same route but quite organically spread out to cover a wider area. At the
end of the exercise, all the trash collected was carried to the workshop.
31
This exercise had several planned aims. The first was to guide the participants into the
theme of the workshop through physical activity, allowing them to distance themselves
from whatever they were doing previously to the workshop. The second aim was to make
the participants observe the city space from a specific point of view and make decisions
about what in that landscape they considered to be trash. The third aim was to collect
trash, which was used at a later phase in the workshop. The fourth purpose was simply to
jointly do a small act of good for the environment, as a concrete example of the heritage
futures theme discussed later on.
Apart from my own observations, the trash walk was not documented with other methods.
An audio recording in a crowded outdoor environment would not have been possible, and
the participants were spread out during the exercise. The trash walk ended at the museum
entrance, where the groups were joined by the few workshop participants who had opted
not to attend the trash walk. The participants were then guided into the workshop location,
which was a meeting room inside the museum.
3.2.3.2 Workshop introduction
The actual workshop began with an introduction that consisted of both a short word
exercise and an introductory lecture given by the researcher who also facilitated the
workshop. The aim of this phase is to give the participants a general view of the topic in
question, but also to be thought-provoking (Paaskoski et al. 2022, 26). To not start the
workshop off with passive listening, I instead opened the workshop with an active
exercise, supporting the agency of the participants. This also allowed them to reflect on
the trash walk experience that most of them had just participated in.
First, in the introductory exercise, participants were asked to write down any words that
came to their minds when they thought about waste. This was a short task with only three
minutes to write down as many words as they could come up with. After writing,
participants were asked to read out loud the words they wanted to share with the rest of
the group. However, this was not mandatory. The main purpose of this word exercise was
to help the participants connect with the theme of the workshop. At the end of the exercise,
it was pointed out that the words written down by the participants were all descriptive of
their personal relationships with waste.
32
After the sharing and discussion, the facilitator gave a short introduction to the topic of
waste through a PowerPoint presentation. The aim was mainly to give the participants
background on why waste is a sustainability problem from an ecological perspective. In
the PowerPoint, images and information from the UNEP Global Waste Management
Outlook were used (UNEP 2024). At the end of the introduction, the facilitator gave an
overview of the workshop program and timetable and asked whether the participants had
any questions relating to the workshop process. At this stage, the participants also gave
their informed consent to participate in the research by reading a privacy notice and
signing a consent form.
The introduction phase produced data in the form of large sheets of paper with post-it
notes that the participants wrote during the introductory exercise.
3.2.3.3 Understanding the past
The purpose of this phase of the heritage futures workshop is to look at the topic in
question from the point of view of the past and discuss how, in the past, similar to the
present, choices were made that resulted in the present (Paaskoski et al. 2022, 27). This
phase of the workshop took place in the museum`s archaeological section, Aboa Vetus,
which is situated underground. This required the participants to physically move
downstairs, descending from the workshop space (or the present) under the ground (to the
past). Walking down the stairs into the museum space is also a corporeal experience. The
air in the basement is significantly cooler than normal room temperature, the space is
dimly lit, and there is a certain earthly smell in the air, as one is quite literally in a
basement. This kind of corporeal experientiality is one of museums` superpowers and can
help participants adjust to the situation, feed their imagination, and thus make mental time
travel easier (Paaskoski et al. 2022, 15). It has been studied that corporeal and
multisensory elements can also support futures thinking by making it easier to imagine
change and alternative possibilities, and by directing participants` thoughts towards
futures (Tuittila 2017, 54–55).
Once inside the museum, I gave a brief introduction to what the place was: a museum
built around an archaeological excavation, with the ruins and artefacts of the old city
presented close to where they had been found (Jokela & Lehto-Vahtera 2012). I then went
on to explain that archaeological heritage can also be perceived as the waste of past
generations. After the participants settled down on chairs that had been reserved for them,
33
they were asked to close their eyes and relax. The closing of eyes heightens other senses
and can make the participants more aware of smells, sounds, or the feeling of air on their
skin (Tuittila 2017, 54). I then read out loud a short text, which described the city space
some 500 years ago (see Appendix 2). The aim of the text was to help the participants
mentally travel back in time and imagine how the city would have looked back then, what
the soundscape would have been like, and what kinds of activities could have taken place
on this plot.
After the reading, the participants were introduced to a specific material that would be
used in the workshop: the contents of a waste pit dating to the turn of the 15th and 16th
centuries. The pit contained significant amounts of window glass, as well as fragments of
both glass and stoneware vessels, animal bones, and iron nails. (Aalto et al. 2025.) The
participants were first given time to look at the material and even take some objects in
their hands. Then they were asked to discuss and analyse the material from the point of
view of human-waste relationships. Why were these materials disposed of? What kind of
events might have occurred that led to their disposal? What could the past person`s
relationship with waste have been like?
The participants discussed these questions in pairs or small groups, making notes on A4
sheets of paper and Post-it notes. As the facilitator, I followed the discussions and
sometimes answered questions if the groups felt uncertain of what they were supposed to
do. However, after the discussions started to roll, there was not much need for me to
intervene, and my role was merely to observe and make written notes. At the end of this
phase, the participants were asked to share what they had discussed in pairs or in the
smaller groups, as I thought it was nice to share their insights already at this point. Once
the sharing was over, I thanked the participants for the discussions.
This phase produced data in the form of A4 sheets of paper with Post-It notes where the
participants wrote down their thoughts. The discussions in the first workshop were also
audio recorded. In the latter workshop, the discussions of this phase were only partially
recorded due to my mistake. I also wrote down my own observations as facilitator.
3.2.3.4 Jump to the future
This phase of the heritage futures workshop aims to provide the participants with
inspiration and creative support to make it possible for them to imagine alternative
34
futures. The longer the time jump is required from the participants, the more supportive
elements there should be to make it possible for them to imagine alternative futures.
(Paaskoski et al. 2022, 27; Siivonen et al. 2022, 255–256.) In the design of this particular
workshop, both a short narrative and tactile elements in the form of trash were used to
support the time jump into the future. Using the trash collected during the pre-workshop
exercise as the basis for discussions about the future was something not originally in the
design of the heritage futures workshop. This was part of my own design, with the aim of
juxtaposing the present with the future through the use of the material.
Physically moving from the underground museum to the workshop space on the 4th floor
of the museum functioned again as a good transition between the past and future. Once
back in the workshop space, I explained that they would once again time travel, this time
50 years into the future, to the year 2075. I asked the participants to take a comfortable
position, sitting or standing, and close their eyes if that felt like something they would
like to do. Then I read out loud a short text I had prepared. It envisioned a world 50 years
from now, where many of the ecological problems of the present had been solved and
people had found a way to live with nature, as nature. The text was not very descriptive,
but operated more with abstract visions and emotional elements, leaving enough room for
a variety of possible imaginaries (see the workshop script as Appendix 2).
Once the participants opened their eyes, I explained that they had been transported to
2075. They were now in a museum of the future, looking at objects that people in 2024
had thrown away. By this stage, I had quickly arranged the trash collected by participants
on the trash walk before the workshop into a small exhibition, arranged by material or
with similar artifacts next to each other. Participants had a moment to just look at the
collected material from the perspective of the people of 2075, before I guided them into
a joint discussion.
The purpose here was to draw clear parallels between the archaeological finds material
that was used in the previous phase to elicit discussions about the past, and this
contemporary trash that was now being looked at and discussed from the perspective of
the future. Similar to what was done in the time jump to the past, the participants were
asked to reflect on the trash, but this time from the point of view of people in the future.
What was familiar or unfamiliar to them? What kind of changes could they perceive had
taken place in their imagined future in comparison to the trash of 2024? What kind of
35
human-waste relationships existed in this imaginary world of 2075, and how did they
manifest in that world?
Figure 3. Collage of some of the trash collected during the workshops
The participants were not specifically asked to produce images of futures but rather to
discuss possible futures. The discussions and insights the participants had in this phase
produced the data that I would later use to construct the images of futures in this study.
Of course, when discussing preferred or desirable futures, a key ethical question is whose
futures are being discussed (Poli 2011, 405). The short narrative I read out loud at the
beginning of this phase naturally guided the participants' visioning of futures, even though
I aimed to make it as open as possible.
36
This phase produced data in the form of audio recordings and hand-written notes by the
participants on Post-It notes and large sheets of paper, as well as notes that I wrote down
as an observer.
3.2.3.5 Heritage futures
In this phase, the participants took their last mental time travel back into the present. The
aim of this phase is to take all the revelations and ideas that have formed during the
workshop and the time jumps, and to turn them into meaningful heritage futures in the
present (Paaskoski et al. 2022, 27). I briefly explained again the concept of heritage
futures, to remind participants what it referred to: intangible heritage that is deliberately
aimed at more ecologically sustainable futures. The participants were asked what that
could mean for the topic of human-waste relationships. They were asked to think about
the futures just visited, now from the point of view of the present. What kind of choices,
actions, or new habits could they create as heritage futures for human-waste relationships?
To create concrete and actionable heritage futures, the group was guided to think about
the concept from a very practical perspective. What could they do differently in the
present? What kind of new skills or practices could they adopt? The participants were
first given some time to think about the topic by themselves and, if they wanted, to write
down some notes. After that, the participants were guided into a group discussion. There
was no specific structure to this discussion, but the trash collected previously remained
before the workshop remained visible on the table during this phase as well, and some
participants clearly used it as inspiration and a tool for thinking.
This phase produced data in the form of Post-It notes written by the participants on large
sheets of paper, as well as audio recordings of the discussions held during this phase.
3.2.3.6 Conclusion of the workshop
In the concluding phase of the heritage futures workshop, the purpose is to reflect on the
process and share insights gained (Paaskoski et al. 2022, 35). In the workshops of this
study, sharing was in a smaller role as the participants had, for the most part, had all the
discussions in the different phases as one group. Emphasis was put on reflection; what
had been done during the workshop, and what were the key insights to be taken home.
The participants were also asked to anonymously fill out a short feedback form. They
were asked both about their experience of the workshop and their current mood, but also
37
asked to name heritage futures they would be taking with them from the workshop (see
Appendix 3 for the blank feedback form).
The main purpose of this feedback was to give the facilitator a general view of how the
workshop functioned from the viewpoint of the participants. As this was my first time
facilitating a heritage futures workshop, feedback on the practical aspects of the
workshop, such as pacing, was also considered useful. Most important was whether the
participants had felt they understood the purpose and aims of the workshop and whether
the instructions received were clear and understandable. The feedback received also
partially informed the questions for the follow-up interviews, which will be presented in
the next section.
This phase produced data in the form of the feedback forms filled by the participants, as
well as audio recordings of the discussions held.
3.3 Follow-up interviews
Interviews are a common method of inquiry in qualitative research. Simply put, they
allow the researcher to ask the interviewees what they know or think about the research
topic. Asking questions can be perceived as a rather fundamental approach to problem-
solving in everyday social occasions. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2012, 71; Tiittula & Ruusuvuori
2005, 9.) Research interviews are traditionally divided into two types, structured and
unstructured. The first one follows a tightly prepared script of questions, while an
unstructured interview resembles more a conversation. (Tiittula & Ruusuvuori 2005, 11–
12.) This study used semi-structured interviews that fall somewhere in the middle of the
two ends. They follow a pre-set script, but also allow flexibility as opposed to a strictly
structured query. An example of semi-structured interviews are thematic interviews,
where key points of interest in a thematic interview are the interpretations and meanings
given by the interviewee to the topic in question. (Tiittula & Ruusuvuori 2005, 11; Tuomi
& Sarajärvi 2012, 73.)
Though the main idea behind an interview is relatively simple – asking people what they
think or know of the topic – there are several elements that need to be taken into account
when preparing and conducting an interview. First of all, an interview needs to be
understood as a conversation, a dialogue. The interaction between interviewer and
interviewee is central. (Tiittula & Ruusuvuori 2005, 13.) In a dialog, the researcher is not
38
merely an interviewer posing questions, but an active participant in a discussion, and the
researcher`s own perceptions and understandings become a part of the process. (Tuomi
& Sarajärvi 2012, 78-79.) In an interactive situation, observation is an important element
in an interview. The interviewer gains knowledge not only by what is being said, but also
by how it is said, and through what is not mentioned. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2012, 73.)
3.3.1 The role of the interviews
When designing this study, I reflected on a phrase describing the outcome of a heritage
futures workshop. It stated that the most important result of a heritage futures workshop
is the heritage futures leaving the workshop in the thoughts of the participants (Paaskoski
et al. 2022, 26; see also Jungk & Müllert 1987, 72–73). In an attempt to understand what
it is that actually leaves the workshop in the participants' thoughts, this research was
designed to also include semi-structured interviews that follow up on the workshop
activity. The main purpose of the interviews was to find out what the results of a heritage
futures workshop are from the point of view of a participant; what do the participants
deem as important, and what can the participants recall overall of a workshop afterwards?
Riikka Armanto (2024) has studied how futures workshops affect the participants
thinking and acting on futures. Her results show that taking part in a participatory process
such as a futures workshop can affect futures consciousness and empower futures
thinking, but this effect is not evident, nor should it be taken for granted. She also
observed that the time elapsed between the workshop activity and follow-up surveys or
interviews is relevant; enough time gives participants the opportunity to process the
experience and integrate it into their daily lives. (Armanto 2024, 11.)
In this study, the workshop participants were interviewed approximately 1-1,5 months
after the workshop. This was shorter than the presented time gap in Armanto’s example
above, but was considered still long enough by this researcher to give the participants
time to reflect on the experience. As it later turned out, this was a long enough time for
the participants to have already forgotten some of the contents of the workshop.
Therefore, in afterthought, this can be considered a reasonable choice for a time gap.
It is also important to point out that the participants were informed of the follow-up
interviews already when they signed up for the workshop. At the beginning of the
workshop, they were reminded of the matter, and the same consent form was used for
39
both the workshop and interview materials. However, on every occasion, it was made
clear that participation in the interviews was voluntary, and taking part in the follow-up
interviews was not a prerequisite for taking part in the workshop. Eventually, 9 out of 11
workshop participants also participated in the interview.
3.3.2 Interview design and implementation
The interview script was designed as a thematic interview structured around the research
questions of this study: “What are the images of future for human-waste relationships in
2075?” and “What kind of heritage futures can be created in relation to these images?”
The interview script used can be found in the appendices (Appendix 4).
First, some background questions were included in the interview script with inquiries
about the participants' experience with futures processes and the role of futures thinking
in their everyday lives. They were also asked about their personal relationship with waste;
whether that was something they had actively thought about prior to the workshops, and
how their relationship to waste manifested in their everyday lives.
The actual content questions of the interview guide focused on the workshop. The
participants were first asked what they recalled from the workshop after the 1-1,5 months
hiatus, in the form of central ideas or key insights of the discussions. After this, the
researcher read a short summary of the themes collected from the workshop material, and
asked the interviewees for any details or observations they would like to add to the them.
The first segment of the interview focused on the alternative futures for 2075 imagined
during the workshop. The interviewees were asked to estimate which themes they
personally assessed as the most important developments regarding preferred futures of
human-waste relationships and were then asked to assess how they perceived their own
ability to influence these developments. The next segment focused on heritage futures.
The interviewees were asked about the shared heritage futures created in the workshop
and whether any new insights had emerged regarding this after the workshop. They were
also asked to assess if participating in the workshop had led to any changes in their
actions, behaviour, or thinking as a part of their everyday lives. Finally, they were asked
to assess whether participating in the workshop had in any way changed how they thought
about futures.
40
All together nine interviews were carried out in this study, four of which were carried out
in Finnish and five in English. Seven of the interviews were conducted in person, and two
online. In person, the interviews were arranged either at the university or at the Aboa
Vetus Ars Nova museum where also the workshops took place. One took place at a
downtown café on the request of the interviewee. The online interviews were conducted
via the Zoom platform.
3.4 Description of the research data
The data gathered during the study consisted of audio and video recordings, hand-written
notes by both the participants and the researcher, feedback forms filled by the participants,
and some photographs, as well as consent forms signed by the participants to give their
informed consent to participate in the study. All the data remains in the custody of the
researcher, as the university, for the time being, has not been able to provide an option
for archiving. As stated in the privacy notice to the participants, the data will be stored
for a maximum of five years after the completion of the study, after which it will be
destroyed.
Altogether, the workshops produced 15 large sheets of paper with hand-written notes both
on the paper itself and on Post-It notes, as well as 8 sheets of similar notes on A4 papers.
Most of the discussions in the workshops were recorded on audio. An exception were the
trash walks that preceded the workshops, as was already mentioned. In one of the
workshops, the phase taking place in the past was only recorded partially due to my own
mistake. Altogether, the audio recordings for the two workshops are 2 hours 50 minutes,
which amounts to 76 pages of transcriptions. The workshops also produced hand-written
notes made by the participants on large sheets of paper as well as on post-it notes. In
addition to my written notes of the workshops, I also took photographs to document the
trash collected during the trash walk exercise and used in the workshop.
The interviews were either done in person or via an online video service (Zoom). For the
in-person interviews, audio was recorded. For the interviews done via Zoom, both audio
and video were recorded. The duration of the interviews varied between 29–71 minutes.
Altogether, the interview recordings amount to 5 hours and 44 minutes, which came out
as 103 pages of transcriptions.
41
3.5 Data analysis
3.5.1 Qualitative data analysis
After data is collected, it remains silent until the researcher analyses it. Through analysis,
the data gathered from the participants turns into research output. Theory provides the
basis for a researcher's thinking, and theory-based abstraction is the means to take the
phrases and information gathered from the participants, and turn into scientific
knowledge. (Åström 2005, 31.)
There exists a variety of methods for qualitative data analysis. Content analysis is a basic
method in qualitative research that also functions as a basis for many more complex and
detailed analysis methods. The basic structure of data analysis proceeds as follows: 1)
deciding what is interesting in the material (what in the data relates to the research
questions), 2) distinguishing and collecting relevant information in the material
(everything else should be left outside of the study), 3) categorizing or thematizing the
material (commonly known as coding) and 4) writing an overview of the findings. (Tuomi
& Sarajärvi 2012, 91–92.)
Ruusuvuori, Nikander and Hyvärinen (2011, 11) divide the analysis of interview material
into three phases: categorisation (coding), analysis and interpretation. They emphasize
that in practice these phases often overlap but they are still distinct and all needed to have
a full-rounded analysis. They also add a fourth important phase: discussion with the
material. In this phase, the results of the study are connected to a wider theoretical frame,
and in a way, the discussion also invites the reader to ponder the themes. (Ruusuvuori,
Nikander & Hyvärinen 2011, 29.)
It is important to be firm about what to look for in the interview material, as there often
is much interesting information available that is, however, not relevant to the research.
The researcher needs to keep the research questions in mind when going through the
material and focus only on what is considered relevant information regarding the research
questions they are attempting to answer. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2012, 92.)
In the data analysis, this study employs a specific framework for called Causal Layered
Analysis, which will be introduced next. Therefore, the approach of this study can be
labelled deductive, as it uses existing theory as a framework for data analysis (Tuomi &
Sarajärvi 2012, 95).
42
3.5.2 Causal layered analysis
Causal layered analysis, often referred to as CLA, is a critical futures research method
developed by Sohail Inayatullah (Inayatullah 1998; Inayatullah 2009). It is a layered
analytical tool that, according to Inayatullah, aims at disturbing present power relations,
problematizing pre-existing categories and assumptions, and deconstructing the future
(Inayatullah 1998, 816). Inayatullah himself considers CLA a transformative approach,
as the purpose is to also reconstruct the futures after the deconstruction has taken place,
by discovering alternatives. (Inayatullah 1998, 817–818.)
In the CLA process, the aim is to move vertically between four layers of inquiry, which
are litany, social causes, worldview, and myth/metaphor. The first layer of litany includes
popularized and exaggerated trends and problems, media headlines and issue that are
often quantifiable. The second layer of social causes interprets the litany and includes the
economic, cultural, political, and historical factors as well as actors involved. The third
layer of worldview is meant to reveal the deeper social and cultural structures and
worldviews that affect the discourse and pre-existing assumptions behind the previous
layers. The fourth layer in the analysis are the deepest, often even unconscious myths and
metaphors, such as archetypes featured in stories or even movies. (Inayatullah 1998, 820;
Inayatullah 2009, 8.)
Figure 4. A visualisation of the CLA layers as an iceberg (from Kaboli & Tapio 2018)
43
The principal aim of the method is to move forth and back between the layers during the
analysis process. This can lead to the discovery of varying perceptions and points of view
that can eventually lead to alternative visions of the future (Inayatullah 1998, 817, 821).
Essentially, the CLA approach is meant to create vertical distance to the problem in the
present and in this way to open up the present and past for new and alternative ideas and
futures to emerge (Inayatullah 1998, 817). This study takes a slightly different approach
to the method. My aim is not to analyse the problem of waste in the present, but rather to
use the layered approach in the analysis of the research data in order to construct more
robust images of futures from the material.
The structural perception of the world that the CLA method embodies clashes with the
idea of culture as a process of anthroposemiosis. While temporary structures can be
detected even in the current of culture, they are not permanent and eventually dissolve.
Inayatullah himself states that the third and fourth layers of worldviews and myths also
bring forth a cultural, or as he calls it, civilizational point of view, because no two cultures
use or understand metaphors in a similar way (Inayatullah 1998, 819; Inayatullah 2009,
8–9). Through the lens of anthroposemiosis, I would further say that no two people have
the same worldviews or understand the same metaphors. Anthroposemiosis is a global
process of interaction that all humans share and that cannot be divided into separate or
distinct communities (Siivonen 2008, 53–54). However, each human is linked to the
global process of anthrosemiosis through their own experience. These experiential
similarities can occasionally create structure-like densities within the anthroposemiosis.
However, their borders are never clear, nor are they uniform. These densities can occur,
and then dissolve as the process of anthroposemiosis progresses through time. (Siivonen
2008, 60, 62.)
In this study, the CLA method offered a structured approach to data analysis, and the
layered themes provide clear elements to use in the construction of the images of futures.
This study utilized the `cookbook` approach to CLA formulated by Serafino De Simone
(2004). As the name suggests, De Simone provides a very practical step-by-step guide to
a CLA analysis, which felt helpful as I had very limited experience with applying the
method myself. De Simone (2004, 486–487) structures the approach around five phases
that start with the vertical gaze of detecting underlying causalities and then move through
discovering alternatives and re-envisioning the myth to reassessing the original problem
and defining possible solutions.
44
This research did not follow De Simone`s approach strictly but rather used it as a base
and modified it the same way one would modify a recipe to suit one's taste. The aim of
my analysis was not to problematize the issue in the present, but rather to employ a
layered gaze into the elements of futures created by the participants. Therefore, I
especially focused on the final step in De Simone`s approach, which was the selection
and documentation of solutions at each CLA level (De Simone 2004, 491).
3.5.3 First phase of analysis
The data analysis phase started straight after the workshops took place, before the
interviews in this study were conducted. This first stage included organizing the data from
the workshops. This meant uploading the audio recordings into proper folders and both
photographing and copying into a text file all the handwritten material produced by the
participants in the workshops. Audio recordings from the workshops were listened
through a few times but not yet fully transcribed at this phase.
At this stage, I did not yet start to meticulously analyse the data from the workshops, but
rather tried to form an overall picture of the material, because this would then inform the
interview questions which were being prepared at the same time. Some categorization of
the findings from the workshop was thus already made. When going through the material,
I picked up recurring themes and gathered them into thematic clusters. Through this
thematic categorization, I was able to write a short summary of what was discussed in
each workshop, which served as a reminder for the participants when they were being
interviewed. No further analysis of the workshop data was done at this first stage.
3.5.4 Second phase of analysis
The second phase of data analysis took place after the interview material had been
gathered. At this phase, all the material was carefully organized, and audio recordings
from both the workshops and interviews were transcribed using the transcription tool on
Microsoft Word. It was observed that in a group discussion, the automatic transcription
tool was not very efficient in separating different speakers, and the transcriptions needed
a lot of revision by the researcher. On a few occasions, I made the decision not to
transcribe some sections of the workshop audio material where the discussions revolved
around something other than the actual subject matter of the workshop. This included, for
example, sections where participants would discuss their personal affairs that did not have
45
anything to do with the topic at hand. These kinds of discussions occasionally occurred
because most of the participants knew each other beforehand.
The interview material was also transcribed using the automatic transcription tool on
Microsoft Word. For one-on-one discussions, the tool worked much better than for the
workshop material with multiple speakers, but the transcriptions were naturally still
revised and checked by the researcher.
After the material was organised and transcribed, the actual analysis began with me
reading the material and listening to the recordings repeatedly to familiarize myself
intimately with the content. The themes formulated during the first phase of analysis were
reassessed and modified into thematic codes. At the same time, codes referencing the
analytical layers of CLA were created and used on the data. In essence, there were two
dimensions of codes continually present in the data analysis: the vertical, layered codes
of CLA and the horizontal, thematic codes that emerged from the material. From the data,
both individual words and sentences, as well as longer chapters, were coded when
suitable.
In the analysis, the program NVivo was used for the initial coding of the data. Eventually,
the codes and related data were moved from NVivo to a Microsoft Excel file, where it
was further defined to formulate several tables referring to the CLA layers. Eventually, a
table including the elements for the constructed images of the future was also created.
3.6 Ethical considerations
In scientific research with human participants, ethical questions need to be considered,
and the focus is usually on the interaction between the researcher and participants.
Informed consent to participate is a fundamental scientific principle. This includes the
right to refuse participation or withdraw from participating at any time. A key pre-
requisite for giving consent is that the participant receives enough information on the
study, its aims, and the processing of their personal data. (TENK 2019, 8–10.)
In this study, the participants signed the consent form at the beginning of the workshop.
In the consent form, they received information about the aims and context of the study,
the responsible researcher, and the handling of the data. In addition, they were given a
privacy notice in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation articles 13 and 14.
Both the form and the accompanying privacy statement were formulated according to the
46
University of Turku templates. All the data collected in this study currently remains in
the custody of the researcher, but as it was stated in the consent form, it will be stored for
a maximum of five years after the completion of the study, after which the data will be
destroyed.
The data has been anonymised, and the participants are only referred to with the letter P
for participant and a running number (P1–P11). Because I knew all the participants, I was
able to recognise their voices from both the workshop and interview recordings, and the
same participant reference codes apply to both the workshop data and interview data.
In the name of transparency, it is important to point out that the Aboa Vetus Ars Nova
museum where the workshops of this study took place, was also my workplace at the
time. When the workshops were designed, the idea was to eventually further develop
them into a permanent practice for the museum to implement in its activities. It is also
important to point out that I knew all the participants beforehand. This naturally affected
the situation in both the workshops and the interviews. On one hand, it probably made
the interaction and atmosphere more casual and relaxed, which perhaps aided the
participants to feel more comfortable. On the other hand, the friendliness can make it
difficult for the researcher to stay objective. Not that full objectivity can ever be
considered possible. An interview is essentially a dialogue, a conversation, the same as
any happening between people (Ruusuvuori & Tiittula 2015, 22). However, where
research interviews differ from casual conversations is that they have a clearer purpose
and structure, and there is always some kind, however discrete, power imbalance between
the interviewer and the interviewee. The fact that the interviewer is often making notes
and the conversation is being recorded makes it more formal and “institutionalised”
compared to a casual situation. (Ruusuvuori & Tiittula 2015, 23.)
3.6.1 The use of artificial intelligence
This study adheres to the University of Turku guideline on the use of artificial intelligence
in research. It states the university encourages the use of AI in research but stresses the
importance of consideration when it comes to ethical or legal issues related to the matter.
The use of AI in research has to be reported and described openly. (University of Turku
19.12.2023.)
47
In this study, AI was used in three different ways. Especially in the beginning of the
process, AI was used to find relevant literature on the research topic. The programs
ChatGPT and Keenious were both used for this purpose. Secondly, AI was utilized in the
transcription of audio recordings from both the workshops and interviews. The built-in
transcription tool in Microsoft Word was used for this. Thirdly, the AI tool Grammarly
has been used in the writing of this thesis to improve the quality of the English language
and overall flow of the text. Throughout the process, any improvements or suggestions
from the AI sources have been checked and verified by the researcher.
48
4 Findings of the analysis
This chapter presents the results of the data analysis of this study. The purpose of the
analysis was to answer the research questions: What are the images of future for human-
waste relationships in 2075? and What are the heritage futures of human-waste
relationships? How human-waste relationships manifest in the futures imagined and in
the heritage futures created by the participants, and how those elements present when they
are analysed through the different layers of CLA, were key themes of inquiry.
In the following presentation of the findings of the analysis, the data from both the
workshops and the following semi-structured interviews have been combined. The results
of the analysis are presented according to the CLA layers. Inside each layer, central
themes that emerged from the material are introduced and discussed.
This chapter proceeds as follows. First, results from the CLA analysis concerning the
imagined futures of 2075 are presented, followed by the images of futures constructed by
the researcher, which are presented as short narratives. Next, the results of the CLA
analysis concerning the heritage futures for human-waste relationships are presented,
followed by an overview structured around three identified thematic spheres of heritage
futures labelled: Action, Agency, and Affect.
4.1 CLA analysis of the research material: elements of images of futures
The aim of this analysis was to construct robust images of futures from the elements of
preferred futures created by the participants. In my analysis, I especially focused on the
fifth and last step of De Simone`s cookbook approach to CLA analysis, which is the
selection of solutions for the problem on the different layers (De Simone 2004, 491).
During the analysis, I began with the Litany layer and then proceeded on to the underlying
layers of Social causes, Worldviews, and Myths/metaphors. A traditional manner of
presenting the results of a CLA analysis would be in the same order. However, because
the aim of this study is to construct images of futures, I decided to present these findings
in reverse order. With the visual image of the layers of CLA as a pyramid (see page 43)
in mind, I perceive the layer of myth/metaphor to act as a foundation for the construction
of those images of futures. So, in this presentation of the findings, I begin with that layer,
and then work my way up the ladder through the layers of worldview and social causes
to litany.
49
Coinciding with themes in this study, this approach reminds me of an archaeological
excavation where excavation first proceeds through the layers from the top down.
However, when presenting the results, archaeologists narrate their findings in a
chronological order, starting from the bottom. This is the approach I adopt here as well.
4.1.1 Myth/metaphor layer for the images of futures for 2075
Already in a preliminary phase of my data analysis, distinct myths or metaphors began to
emerge from the material. I soon realised that the myths that began to emerge belonged
in the present, not in the futures discussed. In their guide to CLA, De Simone (2004, 448)
suggests that in the myth layer, one should look for myths that may constrain thinking or
acting in relation to this issue. De Simone calls these “constraining myths”. I understand
them in the same way, but decided to call them obstructing myths. In my view, they are
perceived, structural elements that stand in the way of transformation. According to De
Simone (2004, 490), re-envisioning the myth or metaphor is the first step towards
recasting the issue at hand. So, what I needed to do to eventually construct the preferred
images of the future for this study was to examine these obstructing myths derived from
the data, take their essence, and transform them into externally derived myths that I call
regenerative myths.
The obstructing myths are here named as The Flood, Good Old Times, Toxic Waste, and
Trash to Treasure. I turned all four into corresponding regenerative myths called The
Phoenix, A Village, Gaia, and Sampo. While these myths came from my own imagination,
they were informed by the findings of the data analysis on the other CLA layers. I intend
these regenerative myths to highlight changes in values, ways of living, and human-nature
relations, and act as the transformative element in the created images of futures. In the
following, both the obstructing and regenerative myths are presented and discussed.
Table 1. Obstructing myths in the present derived from the data (OM) and externally derived
regenerative myths for the future (RM)
Obstructing myths (in the present) Regenerative myths (for the future)
OM1: The Flood RM1: The Phoenix
OM2: Good Old Times RM2: The Village
OM3: Toxic Waste RM3: Gaia
OM4: Trash to Treasure RM4: Sampo
50
The first obstructive myth (OM1) The Flood emerged from the data in the way waste,
mass production, and overconsumption were repeatedly described as if they were forces
beyond human control. Like a flood, the flow of material goods and resulting waste is
never-ending. The term “flood of stuff” (Fin. tavaratulva) was used by a participant, while
another noted how waste keeps coming, no matter how much they take it out to be
recycled. In this myth, people are passive victims of the capitalist flow of goods, as if
there were no stopping it without an outside force. This inability to influence the chain of
events relates to the concept of essence-pessimism by Polak (1973, 17). The Flood entails
feelings of overwhelm and frustration that can take an individual over when the problem
is complex and systemic. It can become a negative force if people give up, believing that
their actions have no influence.
As a transformative counterforce to The Flood, I created the externally derived myth of
The Phoenix (RM1). After the flood, the time comes to assess the damage, mourn the
losses, and then begin the process of rebuilding. For the regenerative myth, I decided
upon the metaphor of the phoenix, a mythical creature that rises from the ashes in an
endless cycle of rebirth. For me, it stands for hope and possibilities for renewal and new
beginnings.
The second obstructive myth that emerged from the material (OM2), Good Old Times, is
about a certain kind of reminiscing and nostalgia for a simpler time. The good old times
are like a physical place where one could somehow return to live a simpler, and minimally
materialistic life. In this myth, the past was a place where consumerist throwaway culture
did not exist. In his research about images of the future, Polak recognises that idealized
images of the past also exist, often romancing the past as an age of bliss (Polak 1973, 25).
In the research material of this study, going back to the old ways and people living like
before were mentioned often. However, placing too much value on the past can hinder
seeing possibilities in the present, and reminiscing about the past can become a form of
escapism.
As a transformative counterforce to Good Old Times, I created the externally derived
regenerative myth (RM2) The Village. The essence of this myth is not nostalgia about the
past, but rather including elements of the past into a preferred future. The Village stands
for community, self-sufficiency, and learning from elders. It encourages people to revisit
51
old ways of doing and relearn some of the ecologically sustainable practices that have
perhaps become lost.
The third obstructing myth (OM3) that emerged from the data was Toxic Waste. Toxic
waste is, of course, an existing concept, but here it entails a different meaning. It refers to
the current capitalist system of consumerism that the participants referred to as
“informational toxicity”, that is “contaminating our minds with wants and desires” (P7).
Especially the contemporary trash used in the workshop, with many examples of
marketing in product packagings, was referred to by this toxicity. It is a highly negative
metaphor.
As a transformative counterforce to Toxic Waste, I imagined the externally derived
regenerative myth (RM3) Gaia. Here the central idea is the possibility of change once
people realise that they are being poisoned by the toxic waste of consumerism. Once the
toxic poison has been eliminated, healing can begin, and new, ecologically sustainable
human-waste relationships may emerge. Gaia also refers to the concept of planetary
citizenship – a caring relationship to Earth (see Salonen et al. 2024).
The fourth and final obstructing myth that emerged from the data was Trash to Treasure
(OM4). The phrase trash to treasure was mentioned several times in the data. Though it
could also have been labeled as litany, I think it perfectly captures the myth underneath
the current circular economy discourse. Retrieving value from something considered
useless is almost like the mythical philosopher`s stone, turning ordinary materials into
precious metals. However, the circular economy still relies on and aims for economic
growth, and the continuous production of trash is needed for the treasure machine.
As a transformative counterforce to Trash to Treasure, I created the externally derived
regenerative myth Sampo (RM4). Sampo is the magical construction in the Finnish epic
of Kalevala, producing endless richness without needing ingredients. As a regenerative
myth, this Sampo produces well-being for all, without compromising the physical limits
of the planet.
4.1.2 Worldview layer for the images of futures for 2075
Referring to De Simone (2004, 490), on the CLA layer of worldviews, one should “ask
what values and social structures would need to be in place to support the preferred
approach”, as well as look for “solutions based on differences from the prevailing
52
mindset”. In my analysis, I examine the data for deeper notions of values and attitudes
related to human-waste relationships. For this layer, notions about society in 2075 having
evolved past current understandings of sustainability, society as a whole shifting towards
a slower lifestyle, the use of ancestral knowledge, and ideas of waste as a historical burden
were found in the material. In the following, the findings are again grouped according to
the themes that emerged. The four themes, Beyond circular economy, Back to our roots,
Trash debt, and Waste persists reflect visions of the future worldviews in 2075.
Table 2. Themes on the worldview layer for the images of future for 2075
W1: Beyond circular economy Moving beyond reduce-reuse-recycle
Sustainability embedded in culture
W2: Back to our roots Return to a time before consumer culture
Learning from indigenous knowledge
systems
W3: Trash debt The historical burden of waste debt
Mindset in the past deemed unrecognisable
W4: Waste persists Human activities always produce excess
Technology is society made durable
The first theme Beyond circular economy (W1) refers to a common thread in the
discussions concerning the worldviews of people in 2075. It was perceived that they
would have as a society moved beyond the current emphasis on sustainability issues. The
current practices in circular economy would already be a part of their infrastructure and
therefore no longer a topic of discussion; they would even be considered outdated, as the
values would have shifted beyond them. The people of 2075 would perceive our current
discussions on sustainability as old-fashioned. Sustainability would be so embedded into
their ways of life that there would no longer even be a need for a separate word for it.
Gay Hawkins (2016, 30–31) has emphasized that though there is much good to be said
about the current effort to normalize “reduce-reuse-recycle” into people`s everyday
practices, it still stems from an idea of control. Portraying waste as something to be
managed and controlled can inhibit other ways of being with waste. So, imagining that in
53
50 years humanity would have perhaps discovered those other ways is exciting. In the
workshops, it was imagined that in 50 years people would perceive the whole idea of
waste differently, even so much that there would no longer be a word describing it in the
same meaning as today, and in doing so, the problem of waste would also in a way
disappear.
The second theme, Back to our roots (W2), reflects notions of embracing a simpler way
of life and rekindling human relations to nature. In the discussions, it was suggested that
people in 2075 would have returned in their thinking to a time before consumer culture.
They would have understood the superfluity of much of the material ways of the present
and embraced a lifestyle devaluing material possessions. This would reflect a de-
capitalised society where the economy is no longer the primary driver.
A certain kind of hope for more connected human-nature relationships in the future also
emerged from the research material. The participants mentioned wishes of re-establishing
a reciprocal relationship with nature, learning from indigenous communities, and
returning to ancestral ways were all prominent themes in the data.
I would love to have a more immaterial society and not like consumerism, I'm
against that. Yeah, more, more spiritual-like and more communal feeling
would help the society and nature, and it's like going back to our roots, like
where we come from, and like our ancestors lived. (P10)
Many indigenous people in the present find the concept of waste altogether troublesome
because they do not understand it in the same way. The whole idea of waste assumes there
is a divide between human and non-human that many people do not recognise as such.
(Bell 2019, 117.) Re-imagining the place of humans in nature was seen as a prerequisite
for sustainable futures in the research material as well. This includes the idea that there
are no boundaries between living and dead material, or humans and more-than-humans.
“We are like a small piece in this puzzle, in this mosaic” (P9), as one participant
expressed.
The third theme of Trash debt (W3) emerged as a concept from several perspectives in
the research material. It was discussed how the trash in 2075 would most likely consist
of waste from our time, such as electric cars and other electronic waste. Trash debt
includes the idea of an intergenerational burden, where people would be responsible for
their ancestors' doings.
54
They will probably deal with ours [waste]. Not theirs but with ours. (P8)
I think they would look back and be unable to recognise the mindset that we
had at this time. They would wonder what madness, what madness possessed
them, and literally find it incomprehensible because they do things in such a
different way that this now feels alien, like we look back at some of the things
that were done in the past. (P7)
The idea of waste as a historical burden suggests an emotional baggage attached to it. In
this pattern of thought, waste presents as disinheritance, a negative legacy the current
generations leave behind for future generations to deal with. The people of 2075 might
have developed their own material practices in a more sustainable direction and adopted
the current ethos of circular economy into their infrastructure, but the waste problem they
would actually encounter would be the material they inherit from the present, such as
electric cars. This disinheritance would create an adverse reaction towards the people of
the past from those dealing with it in 2075. This opposition very strongly reflects what
people in the Global South are already dealing with in the present, as many communities
live with the waste often originating from the Global North (Bell 2019).
The fourth theme, Waste persists (W4), reflects the notion that human activity has always
produced excess in the form of waste, and in one form or another, waste will persist in
the future as well.
There is no human culture without also waste as a thought, or clean and
unclean categories. (P1)3
The same notion has been made by scholars. Pyyhtinen et al. (2023, 6) write how “The
troubling thing about waste is that it does not go away. It can never be fully disposed of,
only transformed into something else.” As the participants were analysing the
contemporary waste from the perspective of the future, they considered that the people in
2075 might not even recognise some of the materials. Their attribute of waste might be
different, and the problem waste poses in the present might disappear in that sense, but
the idea of waste persists.
A reference was also made to Bruno Latour`s notion of technology being “society made
durable” (Latour 1991). Latour discusses the interdependency of technology and society,
and how infrastructures impede and allow societal development. Latour`s thoughts link
3 Translation by the researcher, original quote: ”Ei ole sellaista ihmiskulttuuria, jolla ei ole myös jäte-
ajatusta tai puhdas ja epäpuhdas kategorioita”.
55
to the idea that waste itself has agency: it places constraints on society, it shapes and
initiates action in humans. The agential quality of waste is increasingly discussed in
literature as well, and it is exactly what Lepistö & Pyyhtinen (2025) refer to with their
concept of trash-power.
4.1.3 Social causes layer for the images of futures for 2075
On the CLA layer of social causes, De Simone (2004, 467) suggests looking for short-
term causalities for the preferred changes, as well as notions of the different actors and
relationships involved in the issue. Also referencing De Simone (2004, 491), on the social
causes layer, I was looking for solutions that are more policy-oriented. The themes
discovered still reflect the causalities of the elements introduced in the myth and
worldview layers, but the themes here are more detached and practice-oriented.
In my analysis, four main themes emerged from the material. They indicate wider societal
and economic shifts in global markets and local economies, as well as in social norms
and people`s attitudes to waste and consumption. The four themes, Shifts in production
markets, Responsible businesses, New social norms, and Decline in the material
standards of living, again discuss the imagined, preferred futures in 2075.
Table 3. Themes on the social causes layer for the images of futures for 2075
S1: Shifts in production markets Shift from global to local markets and supply chains
Decreasing economies in Finland and Europe
Less resource-intensive technology
S2: Responsible businesses Companies embracing sustainability
Repurposed brands in a post-consumerist future
S3: New social norms New social norms regarding waste and consumption
Community perspective instead of individualism
Shift from hectic to slow lifestyles
S4: Decline in the material
standards of living
Declining level of technology
New living standards
Waste processed locally
56
The first theme, Shifts in production markets (S1), emerged as the participants imagined
a set of shifts happening in the production markets that would, in turn, influence human-
waste relations. In the data, two alternative perspectives leading to such a shift emerged.
In the first one, a collapse of some kind was imagined occurring, enforcing the change.
The participants suggested that technology collapses, or that people regress mentally due
to digital media and are thus unable to develop new ideas, which could eventually lead to
an economic and technological collapse. In the second, alternative vision the shift
happens gradually as a part of a societal and economic re-emphasis. This could happen
due to the depopulation of Finland and Europe, as their populations age and economies
become smaller, or due to Finland becoming overpopulated because of climate-induced
migration. Both options would lead to a period of degrowth. As a result, problems of
overconsumption and overproduction would become less of an issue in the year 2075, as
they would have “simply disappeared”.
In the material, the current global material supply chains were considered to perhaps turn
out to be a unique point in time, and gradually, material sources would become more
localised. It was discussed that due to the traceability of smart waste, the people in 2075
would be able to analyse down to the percentage the material and chemical composition
of our waste, and perhaps find our collection of “world artifacts” peculiar. Their
technology would be less resource-intensive, and they might not even recognise some of
our contemporary items.
The second theme, Responsible businesses (S2), brings together discussions about a
society in 2075 that would have moved past consumerism and capitalism, and where
companies would have embraced sustainability into their everyday business models. A
very prominent theme in discussions both in the workshops and interviews was the
practice of planned obsolescence, meaning the contemporary production model where
products are designed to break down in the short term. Many remarks were made as to
how it contributes to the waste problem. The issue was paired with the problem of
repairability, either that products cannot be repaired or that the repair would cost more
than a new product.
57
What is somehow so annoying nowadays is that nothing can be repaired, you
always have to buy a new appliance. When the old `something` breaks down,
then you have to buy a new one. Somehow, this kind of culture of repair,
something that was self-evident in the past, is somehow all lost now. (P2)4
Extending the lifespan of products overall was considered important for materially
sustainable futures. In June 2024, EU adopted the new Directive on common rules
promoting the repair of goods. The directive obligates manufacturers of electronic
products to provide repairs, as well as encourages consumers to repair their appliances
through information platforms and national measures. (European Commission 2024.) The
directive specifically orders to manufacturers to provide repairs at a reasonable price. The
contradiction between the price of new products and repair of old ones comes repeatedly
up in the research material.
It should be turned upside down, as it currently it is cheaper to buy new than
repair old. It should be the other way around, so that it would be more cost-
effective to repair the old. (P5)5
Sustainability and responsibility of companies were also brought forward through the idea
of brands and their role in 2075. Inspired by the contemporary waste in the workshop,
participants observed how the bright colours of different consumer brands stood out from
the trash. As one participant observed, the colours essentially shout “Grab me! Buy me!”,
provoking individual consumers to consume more. The marketing essentially creates the
needs that people would not otherwise have. The idea that the participants withdrew from
this was that brands in the post-consumerist future of 2075 would be more responsible,
not provoking people to buy more through their marketing, as society would had shifted
beyond that.
The third theme, New social norms (S3), emerged from observations participants made
during the trash walk that preceded the workshop. They observed the concentration of
trash in the vicinity of trash containers. This was regarded as an indicator of a certain
level of carelessness or even disregard by the users. This led to discussions about how it
does not matter what kind of infrastructure is built to deal with a problem, if people do
4 Translation by the researcher, original quote: Koska sehän on nykyään jotenkin todella ärsyttävää, että
mitään ei voi korjata, että sun on pakko ostaa aina uusi laite, kun se vanha `joku` hajoaa niin sitten sun
pitää ostaa se uusi laite. Että jotenkin semmoinen niinku korjaamisen kulttuuri ja semmoinen mikä on
noin ennen ollut ihan niinku itsestäänselvää, niin nyt se on jotenkin aivan niinku hukassa.
5 Translation by the researcher, original quote: Eli se pitäisi kääntää ihan päälaelleen, että kun nykyään
on uuden ostaminen halvempaa kuin vanhan korjauttaminen, niin se pitäisi olla ihan toisin päin, että olisi
kannattavampaa korjauttaa sitä vanhaa.
58
not adapt their behaviour accordingly. While it was considered that “people will be
people” despite what policies are in place, peer pressure was considered a guiding factor
in people`s behaviour, and new kinds of social norms evolving could also affect the
futures of human-waste relationships. If there is no waste on the ground, people are less
inclined to throw it, as was pointed out by the participants. This notion relates to the trash-
power conceptualised by Lepistö & Pyyhtinen (2025). Seeing trash in a landscape or
environment can push us into action, but it also shapes our attitudes towards the people
who put it there.
Perhaps throwing trash in the street will be reacted to in the same way as we
do nowadays to throwing up in the street. (P1)6
Social peer pressure creates the framework of what is considered normal and what people
are accustomed to, and this framework constantly changes over time. As Hawkins (2006,
26–27) points out, the use of disposable objects was once considered a responsible act of
commitment to cleanliness and efficiency. The days of congratulating people on the use
of disposable products is long gone.
Building on this, an interesting idea emerged in relation to biodegradable waste in the
future. It was brought up that if, in 2075, all waste were biodegradable and turned into
fertilizer when fully composted, that could lead to profound behavioural changes and new
social norms. Throwing waste into nature could be considered a regenerative action, and
people would actually be encouraged to litter. The whole concept of littering would
therefore be turned upside down, and littering would turn into recommended behaviour.
The fourth theme, Decline in the material standards of living (S4), refers to a change in
attitudes and understandings of what constitutes a decent or good material standard of
living. The idea that, overall, by 2075, material standards of living would decline was
prominent in the material. This was not framed in a negative way but rather as a shift in
attitudes. The de-materialisation of lifestyles or the adoption of more minimalistic
lifestyles in the future was something some participants had already begun to
fundamentally think about in their daily lives in the present.
6 Translation by the researcher, original quote: Ehkä roskien heittämiseen kadulle suhtaudutaan samalla
tavalla kuin tänä päivänä kadulle oksentamiseen.
59
So, you just need some space. Of course, I need space for work. I need space
for sleep. I need space for, let's say, it's better to separate my eating process.
But that's it. You don't need more. (P9)
Related to living standards is the idea that in 2075, waste would be managed locally, in
people's homes. This included the idea of bioreactors in the form of worm factories or
bokashi composts existing in people`s kitchens. Further building on that, an idea was
brought forward that in 2075, water toilets would no longer be used, but also human waste
composted in people`s homes.
This latter idea has more social ramifications than at first would seem. The development
of the public sewer system essentially turned bodily waste into a private practice and
changed social perspectives on personal purity and cleanliness (Hawkins 2006, 57). It
turned a very private waste into a public affair, as the waste, after leaving the body, is no
longer the individual’s problem. Modern bathrooms are designed to eliminate any trace
of human waste efficiently and have turned this natural process almost invisible in society
(Hawkins 2006, 59). Therefore, the idea of reversing this development is quite radical,
and would again make also human waste very visible and almost tangible in people´s
lives.
4.1.4 Litany layer for the images of futures for 2075
On the litany layer, De Simone (2004, 487) guides to look for “soundbites”, meaning
short remarks resembling news headlines; short-term actions, as well as “official
discourse”. The solutions in the litany layer are “quick fixes” and instrumental solutions
(De Simone 2004, 491).
In my analysis of the futures discussed by the participants, I discovered notions of
technological developments in materials and the treatment of waste, policing of waste
production, changes in human behaviour, and examples of more-than-human
engagements emerged from the research material. The notions on the litany layer were
mostly surface-level mentions, such as “fossil fuels are no longer used” or “there is no
trash”, without answering the questions of how, why, and by whom these changes happen.
Futuristic coding was found in the material in the form of smart technology and robots.
The findings in the litany layer are grouped under four main themes formulated as
descriptive phrases. The four themes Technology will take care of it, Strict regulation is
60
needed, This is just an over-materialistic phase, and You have worms in your kitchen?
discuss the imagined futures of 2075, as they emerged from the data.
Table 4. Themes on the litany layer for the images of futures for 2075
L1: “Technology will take care of it” All materials becoming biodegradable
Developments in the management of
waste
Standardization of packing materials
Increased robotisation of daily purchases
A digital-material hybrid era
L2: “Strict regulation is needed” Sanctions and fines for producing waste
"People will always be people"
"Power endures"
Waste cap for companies
It is illegal to produce trash
Waste can be traced to producer
L3: “This is just an over-materialistic phase” "The new normal"
Waste gradually becoming less of an
issue
More sustainable behaviour
People are fully self-sufficient
People come back to their senses
L4: “You have worms in your kitchen?” Only bio-based materials
There is no trash, everything is recycled
Bioreactors compost waste in homes
Habitual changes in more-than-human
actors
The development of plastic-eating
bacteria
61
The first theme, “Technology will take care of it” (L1), emerged from trusting notions
about the role of technological innovations in the management and treatment of waste
that were prominently featured in the research material. Ideas about all materials
becoming biodegradable and fully recyclable by 2075 were common, and there was also
discussion about the innovation of new bio-based materials to replace plastic altogether.
The technological development of procuring materials from existing waste was discussed,
particularly in relation to reusing the technological waste generated by the current digital
era.
A central sub-theme was the development of smart waste, which was essentially the idea
that materials in the future carry a digital fingerprint. All materials and objects lifecycles
could be traced from their material sources through production and consumption down to
the single user. The material future of 2075 was described by the participants as a “digital-
material hybrid era”. Automation of consumption processes was another subtheme.
Standardization of reusable containers and the use of robots to deliver groceries were seen
as ways to eliminate food packaging in particular.
The second theme, “Strict regulation is needed” (L2) gathers notions related to the
policing of wasteful practices. In the material, strict policing and sanctioning of waste
production were perceived as one way to deal with the problem. Future societies
forbidding the use of plastic or even making it illegal to produce trash altogether were
brought up. Sanctions in the form of fines or increased taxation were suggested for both
companies and individual consumers. It was imagined that smart waste of the future
would include a digital fingerprint, allowing it to be identified and traced through its
lifecycle. This would enable certain practices, such as policing those who are responsible
for littering. Due to the traceability of smart waste, the police could even track down
people who litter or do not correctly recycle their waste. For companies, an idea of
tradable waste gaps in 2075 was introduced, in the same way carbon gaps are used in the
present.
Cigarette butts were very prominent in the contemporary waste material collected during
the workshop, and to a certain extent acted as prompt for the discussion on the role of law
and regulations in the reduction of waste. Efforts to reduce smoking have been made in
Finnish legislation since the 1970s. Smoking in workplaces was forbidden in 1995, but
in restaurants as late as 2007, and many of the participants had memories of a time when
62
smoking was more prominent in public spaces. (ASH Finland 2025.) It was, however,
evident from the collected waste material that regulation by law alone was not enough to
eliminate the problem. The same probably applies to waste. To deal with the problem,
policing, guilt, and moral imperatives can only do so much (Hawkins 2006, 41).
Figure 5. Cigarettes and snuff were frequent finds on the trash walk
The third theme on the litany layer, “This is just an over-materialistic phase” (L3), entails
ideas of alternative, more ecologically sustainable ways of living in 2075. This theme
emerged as the general idea of “a new normal” state of affairs, where “everything is
recycled” and “people will be fully self-sufficient”. Sketchy remarks such as people
having “embraced sustainable behaviour” were also introduced.
The term “over-materialistic phase” derives from the material. It holds within it the idea
that before was better. The current capitalist-consumerist society was seen as a temporary
phase of almost lunacy, after which people would “wake up”, “return to past ways” or
“come back to their senses”. The future “new normal” was in many ways seen as opposite
to current behavioural patterns and consumerist attitudes. There was, however, also an
idea entertained in which people in 2075 would be living a fully digital existence,
reducing waste eventually as people would not be as social or mobile anymore.
63
The fourth and final theme “You have worms in your kitchen?” (L4) combines thoughts
of different more-than-human actors and human-nature relations in the future visions.
Bacteria developing to eat and digest plastic was introduced as a possible evolutionary
response to plastic in nature. A few other ideas involved humans co-living with more-
than-human actors in their homes, as solutions to the management of waste were
discussed. Both worm factories and bokashi composts were proposed to be used in future
kitchens to take care of biowaste in people`s homes. Bokashi composting is based on
fermentation through microbes (Kinnunen 2023).
In addition to the more-than-human actors in people`s homes, thoughts on co-living in
cities also emerged, illustrated by the idea of crows developing the cultural habit of
picking up trash left by people and delivering it to waste bins.
4.2 RQ1: What are the images of futures for human-waste relationships
in 2075?
This chapter answers the first research question of this study: What are the images of the
future for human-waste relationships in 2075? Through the analysis of the research data
presented in the previous chapter, I constructed four images of futures for 2075. Each
image is composed of the elements that emerged from the data through the CLA analysis
and that have been introduced in the previous chapters. Only for the layer of myth, instead
of the obstructing myths that emerged from the research data, I created externally derived
regenerative myths. These newly invented myths act as a transformative element guiding
the perspective of each image. I then assigned the different themes that emerged from the
other layers of the CLA analysis to construct coherent narratives for each image.
In Smart waste, technological solutions have led the way to more sustainable lifestyles in
the future. In Co-living with nature, planetary citizenship and reciprocal relationships
with nature are at the heart of multi-species futures. In A step back, the emphasis is on
thriving local communities and new social norms regarding waste and consumption.
Finally, in Rebuild, heavy environmental problems have been tackled with strict policing
and regulatory measures.
The table on the next page presents the CLA elements of each layer that were used to
construct the images of futures for human-waste relationships in 2075.
64
Table 5. Themes on the CLA layers for the four images of the future for 2075
On the Myth layer, regenerative myths created by the researcher are used, and the obstructing myths derived from the material are in brackets.
Smart waste Co-living with nature A step back Rebuild
Litany “Technology will take care of it”
(L1)
“You have worms in your kitchen?”
(L4)
“This is just an over-
materialistic phase”
(L3)
“Strict regulation is needed”
(L2)
Social causes Responsible businesses
(S2)
Decline in the material standards of
living
(S4)
New social norms
(S3)
Shifts in production markets
(S1)
Worldview Waste persists
(W4)
Beyond circular economy
(W1)
Back to our roots
(W2)
Trash debt
(W3)
Myth Sampo (RM4)
(Trash to Treasure)
Gaia (RM3)
(Toxic Waste)
The Village (RM2)
(Good Old Times)
The Phoenix (RM1)
(The Flood)
65
Though these images of futures were constructed by the researcher and not the
participants themselves, I have made an effort to make sure that the images reflect the
perspectives that emerged from the research data as closely as possible. I emphasized the
diversity of the futures depicted, as well as the internal coherence of each image. Though
all of these images of futures present a preferred future, they have distinctive features due
to the diverse elements that emerged from the research material. All images depict a post-
sustainability transformation future where the everyday life of people fits within the
planetary boundaries. As the focus of this study was on the futures of human-waste
relationships, these images of futures do not aim to present an overall description of the
futures in 2075. The emphasis is on elements related to human-waste relationships and
the cultural sustainability transformation that has changed values and worldviews. In the
following subchapters, each image is presented as a short descriptive narrative.
4.2.1 Image 1: Smart waste
In this image of the future, by 2075, society has experienced rapid technological
development. Innovations have led to the adoption of new, alternative materials that have
replaced the use of plastic. All materials are engineered to be recyclable and
biodegradable, and the recovery and reuse of materials is extensive.
Businesses thrive on a sustainable premise. New fields of industry have been born around
repairing, the recovery of valuable materials from landfills, and the retrieval of plastic
waste from oceans and forests. Society is built around circular economy practices, which
enable economic growth without the extraction of new natural resources. Materials carry
a digital fingerprint, and object lifecycles can be fully controlled.
Efficient infrastructure makes it easy for people to manage their waste properly, and
individuals are an integral part of the circular economy machine. Doing one`s duty for
the environment is considered a part of responsible citizenship, and environmentally
friendly behaviour is highly valued. However, due to the efficient system, people`s
personal relationships with waste remain somewhat detached.
4.2.2 Image 2: Co-living with nature
In this image of the future, people in 2075 have turned their backs on consumerism and
embraced a minimalist lifestyle. De-materialized lifestyles produce less waste. Material
66
wealth is no longer highly regarded, and sustainability is perceived to be a slightly
outdated concept, as society`s values have shifted beyond it.
In this future, people have discovered new fulfilment in reciprocal relationships with
nature and consider themselves planetary citizens. Multispecies perspectives are taken
into account in decision-making towards just and fair futures. Due to efficient
regenerative action from humans, the environment has started to heal.
Waste is also accepted as a neutral part of daily activities. All household waste is
increasingly processed within homes, using bio-based solutions such bacteria that have
evolved to digest plastic. Some are still adapting to such intimate interaction with waste,
but overall, it has resulted in caring relationships with the discarded material.
4.2.3 Image 3: A step back
In this image of the future, people in 2075 live in a post-capitalist society. Local
communities thrive both in cities and in rural areas, promoting self-sufficiency and
communal well-being. Numerous circular economy start-ups have emerged, innovating
new ways to repurpose recycled and discarded goods.
Society has adopted a slower pace, generously allocating time not just for work, but also
for other areas of life. People seek well-being in spiritual and communal practices. Many
have relearned to harvest and use materials from nature, and traditional craftsmanship and
skills are highly valued.
People can hardly remember a time when litter would disturb them in the streets.
Nowadays, they can dispose of their biodegradable waste in designated composting areas
also found in urban spaces. Waste is no longer out of sight. Rather, its multisensory
presence is considered a natural part of the material environment.
4.2.4 Image 4: Rebuild
In this image of the future, by 2075, a period of degrowth has taken place. Decreasing
economies have shifted the focus from global markets to more localized supply chains.
Technology has become less resource-intensive, making it easier to tackle the dwindling
supplies of scarce raw materials.
67
There is some resentment towards previous generations, who left a heavy legacy of
environmental issues for the people in 2075 to deal with. “What madness possessed
them?” people mutter when they read about the exuberant consumption in the early 2000s.
They can no longer imagine taking part in such environmentally hostile practices.
To minimize additional deterioration of the environment, society has reorganised itself
through strict policing and regulatory measures. Waste production on both the societal
and individual levels is monitored and heavily taxed. Some still seek ways to bend the
rules, but the majority are happy as they feel society is finally on the right track.
4.3 CLA analysis of the research material: heritage futures
In this chapter, I present the findings of the CLA analysis on heritage futures from both
the workshops and interview data. Overall, the heritage futures created by the participants
were diverse and rich, embracing a holistic understanding of the concept of heritage
futures that resulted in concrete actions as well as shifts in values and worldviews.
As I was conducting the analysis on the heritage futures, I found rich data regarding the
CLA layers of litany, social causes, and worldview. However, I struggled to find content
that I would have considered belonging to the layer of underlying myths and metaphors.
In the end, I decided to forgo the layer of myth/metaphor for heritage futures and focused
on the three others.
I again present these findings in the reversed order, starting with the worldview layer and
then proceeding through social causes to the litany layer, discussing the thematic entities
that emerged from the data regarding each layer.
4.3.1 Heritage futures on the worldview layer
On the worldview layer, two themes emerged from the heritage futures created by the
participants. They are named here as Having enough and A caring relationship with
nature. On the worldview layer, heritage futures for human-waste relationships are about
changing one`s values and understanding related to consumption and material needs, but
also about adopting regenerative, healing practices regarding waste. Therefore, the
heritage futures on the worldview layer can also be framed as elements of care.
68
The first theme, Having enough, relates to the idea of sufficiency. Redefining
convenience and a comfortable lifestyle, and separating wants and needs were prominent
points of view in the material. The idea of redefining convenience emerged among the
participants, especially in relation to the contemporary waste used in the workshops. It
was noticed that many of the objects in the trash had to do with convenience: single-use
cups and wrappers from quick snacks along the way, plastic packaging keeping separate
cans of beverages together. The participants identified a connection between hectic
lifestyles and the production of waste, especially when it came to single-use and
disposable items. The idea of “taking just one more minute” to place the trash in the right
container was discussed. It was also mentioned that partaking in repairing clothing for
example, required the devaluing of one’s own time because mending takes time. Overall,
slowing down the pace of life was suggested as heritage futures.
But most of all, if we can be, like, we can have the bare minimum and if we
can satisfy with that, I think that would help most. (P10)
Another point of view within this theme was redefining comfort and a comfortable
lifestyle. This includes the idea of de-materialisation of lifestyles, but also the intentional
effort to live more modestly than one could perhaps afford. In relation to consumption,
this holds within it the knowledge to separate what one wants from what one actually
needs to live a comfortable life.
The second theme, A caring relationship with nature, gathers the heritage futures brought
forward by the participants related to human-nature connectedness. Understanding
oneself as a part of nature, and understanding where different materials originate from
were seen as key knowledge regarding also human-waste relationships.
The act of composting was introduced by several participants as heritage futures. Though
I initially thought it belonged more on the litany layer, I eventually decided to approach
it also from a worldview point of view. Though composting is an everyday activity, it can
actually reflect a new kind of worldview in relation to nature. Veera Kinnunen has studied
the practice of Bokashi composting and linked it to corporeal experiences and a caring,
even loving engagement with waste. She further links the practice with feelings of
excitement and curiosity, underlining the deep connection between humans and more-
than-human nature. (Kinnunen 2023.) In the literature, the act of composting has been
69
identified as an activity practiced especially by humans. When perceived as a practice of
care, it also becomes a feminist action. (Rogowska-Stangret & Cielemęcka 2020.)
One action mentioned by the participants as heritage futures was adopting the habit of
going on trash-picking walks. This idea was clearly inspired by the workshop exercise,
as some participants described:
It was really surprising for me. I didn't expect so that in centre of Turku there'll
be such a lot of such kind of waste. (P9)
Yeah. Because when you are in the city you don't like look specifically for
waste, so maybe you don't see that it’s there, but it's there. And then in like
half an hour we collected like a lot of it. Yeah, and that was interesting. (P8)
While trash-picking could also have been framed as a straightforward action on the litany
layer, I decided to place it as well on the worldview level. I think the act of practicing
trash-picking can be considered a regenerative practice. Collecting trash from the
environment and recycling it properly can be perceived as an act of caring, and therefore,
I perceive it to go beyond the conceptual litany layer.
4.3.2 Heritage futures on the social causes layer
On the social causes layer, two distinct themes emerged from the heritage futures the
participants created. They are introduced here under the themes of Social responsibility
and Legacy.
The theme Social responsibility refers to being aware of one`s externalised impact,
counteracting social norms, and influencing society as a concerning citizen. Being aware
of externalised consumption and waste resulting from one`s lifestyle and choices was
emphasized a lot by the participants. A huge portion of the waste created by our lifestyles
is externalised and thus invisible, and generated out of our sight. Digital services were
brought up as examples of reducing waste (digital tickets instead of paper tickets, digital
books instead of hard copies), but their environmental footprint often remains unclear to
the consumer.
The emotional difficulty in counteracting social norms was discussed in relation to
heritage futures as well. One example brought up was the idea of reusing and repairing
clothes, which many agreed was something they wanted to adopt in their everyday lives.
However, using the repaired clothes in a professional setting was considered almost a
70
separate level of commitment that some were hesitant to take. Therefore, changing one`s
attitude and wearing repaired clothing as almost a badge of pride was also considered an
element of heritage futures.
The participants also emphasized the need to be mindful of links between affluence and
sustainable lifestyles. Ideas such as using composted waste to grow one`s own food are
recommendable, but require a level of financial security, such as having a house and
garden to grow that food in. The participants felt it important to point out that even in
Finland, people live in very different financial and social realities, and when thoughts
revolve around one`s own survival and livelihood, the option to choose environmentally
friendly products at the store might not even exist.
Another aspect of social responsibility builds on the premise of living in a democratic
society. Influencing sustainable development in society through voting was brought up
by several participants as a form of heritage futures. Having decision-makers in power
who understand the necessity of transformation was seen as one path to more sustainable
human-waste relationships as well.
The second theme that emerged in the social causes layer considering heritage futures
was what I named Legacy. It has to do with educating others and raising awareness. These
themes were brought forward by several of the participants as distinct actions they could
take towards preferred futures. Promoting awareness and encouraging sustainable
behaviour among family, friends, neighbours, and other close relations were repeatedly
mentioned.
I can't influence other humans in terms of shaping their behaviour except by
sharing with them ideas that might influence their thoughts, which might
influence their worldviews, which might influence their actions. (P7)
In particular, the thought of legacy emerged in discussions related to the some of the
participants` children and the influence they hoped to bestow upon them. Children were
brought up on occasion in the workshop data, but were mentioned much more
prominently in the interview material. Perhaps the participants considered the interview
situation more comfortable and relaxed to also reflect on such personal aspects as one`s
family. In my opinion, this kind of heritage futures is quite intimate and entangled with
the expectations, hopes, and fears people may have regarding their children and their
futures.
71
I have two children so I think about my own choices from that perspective as
well that I can act as a model for those children because in many cases they
might adopt their behavioural patterns from me. (P5)
I have kids, and they should have such kind of attitudes. And this is maybe
my specific task…To grow up them as very concerning citizens, eco-citizens.
(P9)
If we can, like, inspire them, not like making them question our behaviour, as
we are doing wrong, but if we can like also inspire them by doing something
good and make them aware of the consequences. So, I think, at least in their
future, they will leave a better future for their kids someday. (P10)
Overall, I would describe the heritage futures that emerged on the social causes layer as
varying examples of agency. The ideas of social responsibility, influencing others and the
society, and bringing up children as concerning eco-citizens reflect the concept of
planetary citizenship brought forward by Salonen et al. (2024).
4.3.3 Heritage futures on the litany layer
Heritage futures on the litany level fit within the current 3 `R`s of circular economy, and
I grouped them all under the theme Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. The heritage futures the
participants brought forward approached sustainable consumer and citizen behaviour
from different perspectives, with examples of reducing consumption overall, reusing
objects and materials, and recycling waste responsibly. Some of these habits the
participants already practiced in their everyday life, but many concluded that more focus
and effort could still be placed on them.
Practices related to reducing consumption included the planning of meals and other
purchases beforehand to minimize waste and avoid unnecessary, impulsive purchases or
“the useless stuff we love to buy to have another dopamine portion” (P9). Especially
single-use or individually packaged items were seen as something to avoid, and using
own reusable containers for drinks and snacks was brought forward as an alternative.
Practices related to reuse focused on repairing, which included both acquiring the skills
to repair items but also using those skills to give items another life in some other use. This
applied to clothes in particular, but also furniture and smaller items such as glass jars.
Reusable shopping bags and buying clothes and furniture second-hand as well as sharing,
loaning, and swapping items with other people, were also mentioned.
72
Recycling practices were something most of the participants already practiced. Many also
used their compost to fertilize their own gardens and even grow food. A particular form
of composting brought forward was that of bokashi, which was also discussed in relation
to the future images. Experienced practitioners among the participants pointed out that
bokashi liquid also has alternate uses, such as keeping drains unblocked.
Overall, heritage futures on the litany layer featured concrete actions and practices, as
well as new skills to be acquired. Naturally, the actions on the litany layers are an
embodiment of the values and ways of thinking reflected on the social causes and
worldview layers. These layers remain conceptual, and there is a lot of overlay and
entangled relations between the heritage futures on different layers.
4.4 RQ2: What are the heritage futures for human-waste relationships?
My second research question was “What are the heritage futures of human-waste
relationships?” As has been presented earlier, heritage futures as a concept is about
change in the present, aimed towards ecologically sustainable futures. I have in the
previous sections presented the heritage futures created in the workshops and interviews
through the analytical layers of Causal Layered Analysis. As presented in this analysis,
heritage futures created in the workshops took a variety of forms, ranging from seemingly
small, practical activities to more abstract, but intentional changes in thinking and
attitudes. In the workshop material overall, but especially regarding heritage futures,
waste was perceived as inexplicably intertwined with consumption. Heritage futures
regarding waste are presented in many ways as actions towards reducing consumption,
which eventually leads to the reduction of waste produced.
As has been brought forward repeatedly in this thesis and also elsewhere, heritage futures
can manifest in several different forms: as new skills and knowledge, as action, as
attitudes and values, or as the abandonment of old ways of knowing and doing (Siivonen
2022). Based on the CLA analysis of the heritage futures created in this study, I have
further categorized them into three interrelated but still distinct spheres: Action, Agency,
and Affect. These three spheres align somewhat with the CLA layers of Litany, Social
causes, and Worldview, but the heritage futures framed here are more interconnected. I
have framed these connections between the three spheres using the concepts of intention,
reaction, and care. Next, I will further introduce these interconnected spheres.
73
In the Action sphere, the heritage futures of human-waste relationships present as
corporeal activities. The everyday actions of sorting and recycling waste become heritage
futures with intentionality. The skills of repairing as well as using the material of different
objects to create something new continue the corporeal attachment to the materiality of
waste and the processes of transformation. Processes of mending challenge the idea of
waste as something beyond use and in a way take that which could be considered the end
point of a lifecycle and turn it into a new beginning.
When one actively engages oneself in such activities, they become more than the action
itself – they also become an act of caring. In these interactions, one is in an intimate
relationship with the traces of their own consumption. Composting biowaste challenges
the boundaries between human and nature and involves the participants in the processes
of transformation between waste and nature, involving a caring relation to waste.
Figure 6. The three spheres of heritage futures for human-waste relationships
74
In the sphere of Agency, the heritage futures of human-waste relationships present as
social interactions. They consist of using one's own voice to have an impact on the world.
This can happen through everyday discussions with close relations or through actions
such as voting or investing. Intentionally acting as an example or educating children to
become conscious individuals can also be considered manifestations of agency.
The Agency sphere also contains the idea of the agency of waste, and the role waste itself
plays in the construction of new social norms for sustainable behaviour. As long as waste
stays “out of sight, out of mind”, it remains unknown and does not necessarily initiate
action. Hawkins (2006, 1) points out that the moment waste is detected in a familiar
landscape, something shifts. Waste initiates an affective reaction, which can result in
physical action (as in removing the trash and dispositing it elsewhere) or an emotional
response (such as resentment towards the litterer). This ability to initiate reaction in
humans is what Lepistö & Pyyhtinen (2025) have conceptualised as trash-power.
This third sphere of heritage futures for human-waste relationships is that of Affect, which
in a way forms the basis for the other spheres of heritage futures introduced above. A
seemingly small change mentioned by the participants, such as using a porcelain cup
instead of a disposable coffee cup, becomes meaningful when approached through the
lens of human-waste relationships. Because that small action, as indifferent as it may
seem, is also an act of intentional caring.
This reflects responsibility both on the individual and planetary scale, referencing to the
idea of planetary citizenship (Salonen et al. 2024). Changing one`s understanding of
convenience and comfort also reflects on something outside of oneself. These acts of
caring; caring about waste, caring about the environment, caring about the planet and all
that it contains, when executed with intentionality, become heritage futures.
75
5 DISCUSSION
As I have attempted to bring forth in the pages of this study, waste is an integral part of
the polycrisis of ecological problems in the present. Waste is both material and
immaterial, as it is a part of the material flows of contemporary society, but also
continuously reproduced in the meaning-making process of the anthroposemiosis. Waste
is something each individual deals with in their daily lives, and therefore each of us exist
in complex personal and sometimes very intimate relationships with waste.
In this study, I have studied these human-waste relationships through the lens of cultural
sustainability transformation. I have investigated what kind of images of futures emerge
for the future of these relationships in 2075, and what kind of heritage futures created in
the present can pave the path towards more ecologically sustainable futures. This chapter
discusses the key insights gained and offers some thoughts on further study, as well as on
the limitations of this study.
5.1 Key insights on the findings of this study
As a result, this study produced four distinct images of futures for human-waste
relationships in 2075. The first image, Smart waste, emphasized the role of technological
solutions in transforming societies to be more ecologically sustainable in the future. In
the second image, Co-living with nature, multispecies relationships and the ethics of care
steer societal transformation towards planetary citizenship. In the third image, A step
back, the emphasis is on local communities and the evolution of new social norms
regarding human relations to waste, and consumption. In the fourth image, Rebuild, the
transformation is perhaps still underway, ruled by strict policing and regulatory measures.
In this study, the images of futures were constructed based on the CLA analysis of the
research data created by the participants. In the construction of the images, I have done
my best to be mindful of the themes brought by the participants. The discussions in the
workshops were rich and there were some contradictions between the different futures
elements discussed. In the end, all four images depict preferred futures of 2075, but vary
with their distinct elements.
Polak (1973, 17) categorized images of futures under the categories of essence-optimism,
essence-pessimism, influence-optimism, and influence-pessimism. Using his framework,
76
I would categorise the images of futures constructed in this study under essence-optimism
(Smart waste and Rebuild) and influence-optimism (Co-living with nature and A step
back). Naturally, as the aim was to construct preferred images of futures, they embody
optimism towards future developments. However, in Smart waste and Rebuild, the
transformation happens at least partially due to an outside force. In the case of Smart
waste, technology is the prime motor accelerating change, and in the case of Rebuild,
change is achieved through policing and regulations. In my opinion, the images Co-living
with nature and A step back embody more the idea of cultural sustainability
transformation, as changes in values and worldviews are the key drivers in these images.
This study also produced a variety of skills, practices, and new ways of thinking as
heritage futures for human-waste relationships. Through my analysis, I further grouped
the heritage futures created by the participants under the thematic spheres of Action,
Agency, and Affect. While this abstraction helped me as a researcher to analyse the data
and find internal connections and layers within it, the greatest value of heritage futures is
not that which stays within this thesis, but what continues to live on in the daily lives of
the participants.
In the interviews, participants were asked whether participating in the workshop changed
their relationship to waste. While no one reported a significant change, several did report
being more mindful of their waste practices after the workshop, paying more attention to
waste in the landscape, or giving more thought to their consumption practices. One
participant reflected on the physical waste in the workshop, and how in everyday life
there is a disconnect from waste because it is thrown out of sight, and the relation of, for
example, plastic rafts in the oceans to one`s own consumption becomes blurry. One
participant noted that the workshop has left them pondering their own material trace:
Yeah, I always remember the trash from the past. And then I was thinking
about like small things like bones, and some metal items. Those were the
things that were left in the trash can in the past, and so I always get, when I
see these single-use plastics and polythene stuff, I always remember that, and
how much in the history we are going to leave for the next generation. So that,
that comparison also always comes to my mind since the workshop. (P10)
This quote perfectly encapsulates where this thesis began: as a personal pondering of
mine on the similarities and the relationship between waste and heritage. The trace our
activities leave on this planet is material, and I think there is transformative power in
simply reflecting on that thought.
77
5.2 Reflection on the workshop process
This study sought to understand human-waste relationships through the method of a
heritage futures workshop. As this was my first time designing and facilitating such a
workshop, how the process supported and enhanced futures thinking was of interest to
me. In this chapter, I share some reflections on this matter.
In the anonymous feedback collected immediately after the workshops, the participants
were asked to describe their feelings at that exact moment when the workshop was over.
Four out of the eleven responses included the word hope or hopeful. Other adjectives used
were excited, enlightened, inspired, content, and ambitious. One participant described
feeling “like a crow that received a treat for depositing trash in a bin”. One shared they
were left puzzled, glad, but not very optimistic about change, as they perceived the
problems related to waste being more systemic and therefore felt a disconnect with
approaching the topic on the individual level. One person said that the workshop
awakened new thoughts, while another one reported they felt better, as they had realised
that they were already doing what they could at this moment. Another participant said
participating in the workshop made them feel more responsible towards future
generations. Based on these comments, the workshops appear to have succeeded in being
a meaningful and thought-provoking experience for the participants.
While heritage futures was a concept new to many of the workshop participants, they
were able to grasp the term quickly, and created a rich variety of heritage futures. One
participant encapsulated the idea of heritage futures in their interview like this:
We have to start with those thoughts and skills now if we want to have change
in 50 years’ time. If we don`t have the ability or skill now, we won`t be able
to come up with it later either, if not now. There has to be some beginnings
now, from which the heritage futures can start becoming. And on the other
hand, I think that what you listed there, they can be thoughts that are self-
evident in 50 years. They begin from the present but are by then mainstream
in practice and thinking. (P2)7
7 Translation by the researcher, original quote: Nythän meidän pitää ne ajatukset ja taidot niinku aloittaa
jotta me saadaan sitä muutosta aikaiseksi sinne 50 vuoden päähän, että jos meillä ei nyt ole sitä mitään
kykyä eikä taitoa, niin eihän me sitten tietenkään pystytä sitä ehkä noin vaan keksimään myöhemminkään,
jos ei sitä nyttenkään pysty. Että täytyyhän niiden olla niinku nyt jotain sellaisia alkuja mistä voidaan
lähteä niinku sitä tulevaisuusperintöä sitten tekemään. Ja sitten se toisaalta niinku että mä ajattelin että
nääkin mitä tuossa nyt luettelit, niin nehän voi olla sellaisia ajatuksia mitkä sitten 50 vuoden päästä on
taas aivan itsestäänselvää, että se on niinku tästä hetkestä lähtenyt, mutta se on niinku sitten semmoinen
valtavirta käytäntö ja ajatusmaailma.
78
In a heritage futures workshop, essential is the interplay between the past, present, and
future (Paaskoski et al. 2022). Visiting the discussed phenomenon in the past provides
understanding of the changes that have happened leading up to the present, how past
choices have affected the issue at hand, and the unrealized futures that might have existed.
The discussions the participants had during this phase were not extensively analysed in
this study. The purpose of visiting the issue in the past was to give the participants insights
into long-term changes regarding human-waste relationships. This workshop phase was
something the participants referred to in the interview material:
It somehow concretized the topic, and particularly when we got to think about
what they, why these people`s things were somehow important, that was in a
way a nice perspective to this, also to futures. (P2)8
I thought it was good for drawing these lines, drawing these connections
between all of these, kind of like events or moments or objects, and this
workshop was just helping us to kind of make the connections between all of
those and to turn that into a narrative, which I thought was quite effective.
(P7)
This confirms the necessity of having these different temporal layers in the heritage
futures workshop process to deepen understanding of the topic and of long-term change.
It was a personal interest of mine to use this study as a way to experiment with
implementing an archaeological perspective to the study of futures, within the method of
a heritage futures workshop. The pre-workshop exercise in the form of a trash walk copied
an archaeological fieldwork method in a contemporary setting. Though perhaps not that
explicit to the participants, it did encourage them to look at the urban space from the
perspective of material traces of past activities. As long as we do not notice waste, our
relations to it cannot be reframed (Hawkins 2006, 80). To notice waste, we need to
actively look for it, seek it out, and interact with it. Go on a trash walk, maybe?
5.3 The temporality of waste
The methodological contribution of this study was the incorporation of contemporary
waste into the futures phase of the heritage futures workshop, and the parallels drawn
between archaeological finds and contemporary waste. Bringing the present into this
8 Translation by the researcher, original quote: ”Se oli, jotenkin se konkretisoi jotenkin sitä asiaa ja sitten
ehkä nimenomaan sitten se kun sai miettiä niitä että mitä ne, miksi näiden ihmisten tavarat on ollut
jotenkin tärkeitä, niin sitten oli jotenkin se kiva perspektiivi kuitenkin tähän, tähän niinku myös
tulevaisuuteen.”
79
phase by using the trash as a medium, created a contrast between the current state of
affairs and the preferred futures, inviting new insights and alternative solutions.
What I think this study has shown is that in a workshop setting, physical objects can help
facilitate the mental time travel needed for imagining possible futures. Museum objects,
such as the archaeological finds material used in this study, are physical evidence of past
activities, choices, and valuations. Through their own materiality, these objects provide a
physical link to the past; they have existed in the past, just as they now exist in the present.
In chapter 2, I introduced Jane Bennett`s (2010) conceptualisation of thing-power to
describe the vibrancy and vitality of matter, and its ability to provoke affects in humans.
In their study of trash activists, Pyyhtinen & Lepistö (2025) introduced a more detailed
conceptualisation of trash-power as the affective capacity of waste to provoke action or
an emotional response in humans. Building on both conceptualisations, I further propose
that objects can also possess a quality I name here future-power. By it, I mean the capacity
of things to not only transport us mentally to the past, as in the case of museum objects,
but also to the future. Museum objects are cared for to withstand time, with the explicit
purpose of preserving them for the future. Waste, as has been discussed, also persists over
time. I suggest that in their temporality, these objects could stand as a testament to the
future in the same way that they carry evidence of the past and present. Through their
materiality and affective quality, they can support and enhance the imagining of possible
futures, spanning beyond a human lifetime.
In my study, this future-power manifested in the workshop setting through the use of
contemporary waste in imagining preferable futures, and as the capacity of these things
to invoke heritage futures: Action, Agency, and Affect. In my opinion, it was in many
ways the waste material itself that inspired and provoked the participants to react,
imagine, and create elements of futures and heritage futures. As of now, this thought is
only supported by my own observations during the workshops. However, I am taking this
seedling of a concept with me continuing further in my studies, and further research into
the idea could support my argument of future-power as an anticipatory capacity in
material things.
80
5.4 Limitations of the study
As this study was done with the scope of a Master`s thesis, there are some limitations that
I, as the researcher, wish to acknowledge. First, the insights and findings of this one study
are not widely generalisable in society. As a qualitative study, this study aimed to rather
understand the topic at hand, than to thoroughly explain it. As qualitative research does
not aim at generalisations, it has been pointed out that a better measure is the depth of the
analysis rather than sample size. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2012, 85.) While the number of
participants in this study was limited, I estimate it was still a sufficient amount to receive
interesting data to the point of saturation. After saturation, the data starts to repeat itself,
and truly new insight is no longer added (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2012, 87.)
Another limitation I identify has to do with diversity of participants. While the
participants in this study do represent different age groups, genders, and nationalities, the
majority had a higher education degree and therefore represented a very well-educated
social class. Therefore, I acknowledge that the groups could have been more diverse in
background to invite different points of view into the discussions. This was something
also pointed out by one of the participants:
It has to do with difference in education. This came to my mind as I decided
to attend. That in many countries unfortunately inequality between different
groups of people has increased. In Finland also, income disparities are still
growing. Then those, who are left outside of society, their thinking revolves
around survival and livelihood, so they have less capacity to consider these
kinds of things, and less opportunities to choose environmentally friendly
products at the store. This kind of thing also affects, so it would be important
that sufficient justice and equality last in society, so that everyone would have
these opportunities for influence. (P5)9
In addition, though it has been already brough up, it feels important to further stress that
the perspective of this study is that of the western countries or Global North. Waste as a
topic would present as totally different from another part of the world.
9 Translation by the researcher, original quote: Se liittyy oikeastaan näihin koulutuseroihin, tuli mieleen
siitä kun minä päätin että minä tulen tänne. Niin se, että tuota monissa maissa valitettavasti on se
eriarvoistumiskehitys lisääntynyt ihmisryhmien välillä. Suomessakin nämä varallisuuserot, ne on edelleen
kasvussa. Niin sitten ne, jotka jää siitä yhteiskunnan kelkasta syrjään niin niillä se ajatusmaailma usein
pyörii sen oman selviytymisen ja toimeentulon ympärillä, elikkä niillä on vähemmän kapasiteettia miettiä
tällaisia asioita ja vähemmän mahdollisuutta valita siellä kaupassa se ympäristöystävällinen tuote. Eli
tällainen asia myös vaikuttaa eli olis tärkeetä, että yhteiskunnassa kuitenkin säilyisi kohtuullinen
oikeudenmukaisuus ja tasa-arvo, että kaikilla säilyisi niitä vaikuttamisen mahdollisuuksia.
81
6 CONCLUSION
This study aimed to understand waste as a relational phenomenon, and to study the futures
of human-waste relationships. The study posed two research questions: “What are the
images of the future for human-waste relationships in 2075?” and “What are the heritage
futures of human-waste relationships?” In order to find answers to these questions, two
heritage futures workshops as well as nine semi-structured interviews were conducted.
On the basis of the data analysis using CLA, four distinct images of preferred futures for
2075 were constructed. In Smart waste, technological solutions lead the way to more
ecologically sustainable relationships with waste. In Co-living with nature, multispecies
relationships and the ethics of care steer societal transformation towards planetary
citizenship. In A step back, the emphasis is on thriving local communities and new social
norms regarding waste and consumption. Finally, in Rebuild, heavy environmental
problems have been tackled with strict policing and regulatory measures. Through their
distinctive elements, these images of futures emphasized both societal and personal
change in relation to waste.
As a part of this study, participants co-created heritage futures as new intangible skills,
practices, and values related to human-waste relationships. The heritage futures created
included new practices and actions such as being more attentive with one`s consumption,
learning the skills of repairing and reusing items, and placing increased emphasis on
recycling. In addition, the heritage futures created related to social responsibility, and
influencing others through raising awareness and acting as an example. The heritage
futures created by the participants also reflected changes in values and attitudes related to
waste and consumption. This included rethinking convenience and comfort as a way to
de-materialize one`s lifestyle. Finally, heritage futures appeared in the data as
regenerative action through composting and trash-picking. Analysis of the heritage
futures created using the vertical layers of CLA resulted in the conceptualisation of
Action, Agency, and Affect as the three spheres of transformative heritage futures
connected by elements of intentionality, reaction, and care.
The heritage futures workshop proved to be a suitable method for the purposes of this
study. By connecting the temporal frames of the past, present, and future, the workshop
functions as a platform where the entangled nature of tangible and intangible cultural
82
heritage can be explored. The method allowed me to explore my personal endeavour to
attempt to connect archaeological finds material with the contemporary problem of waste.
The contributions of this study are twofold. As a methodological contribution, the
incorporation of the archaeological perspective into the heritage futures workshop
introduced a new, distinctively material element to the workshop, drawing parallels
between archaeological heritage and contemporary waste. As a theoretical contribution,
this study introduced the idea of `future-power` as the capacity of physical objects, such
as waste or heritage, to support and enhance futures thinking.
This study also revealed that material relationships can be a fruitful perspective for
discussing sustainability and transformative futures. The physical materiality of a
research subject, such as waste, can help imagine and visualise the intangible, immaterial,
and sometimes elusive images of futures. Continuing with my doctoral studies, my aim
is to further study how materiality, material relationships, and human-material
entanglements relate to and contribute to cultural sustainability transformation.
83
References
Aalto, I. – Veinio, J. – Sointula, A. – Haggrén, G. (2025) Turkulainen tunkio ja
särkyneen ikkunan arvoitus. SKAS 2/2024, 2–28.
Abson, D. J. – Fischer, J. – Leventon, J. – Newig, J. – Schomerus, T. – Vilsmaier, U. –
von Wehrden, H. – Abernethy, P. – Ives, C. D. – Jager, N. W. – Lang, D. J.
(2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39.
Armanto, A. R. A. (2024) Futures participation as anticipatory practice — what do
futures workshops do? European Journal of Futures Research, 12(1), 3–14.
Armanto, R. – Lauttamäki, V. – Siivonen, K. (2022) Monimuotoinen tulevaisuusverstas.
In Tulevaisuudentutkimus tutuksi – perusteita ja menetelmiä. TVA-julkaisuja
1/2022, ed. by Aalto, H. – Heikkilä, K. – Keski-Pukkila, P. – Mäki, M. –
Pöllänen, M. (ed.), 151–165. Turku: Tulevaisuudentutkimuksen
Verkostoakatemia.
Armiero, M. (2021) Wasteocene: Stories from the Global Dump. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
ASH Finland (2025) Tobacco Act, , retrieved 2.3.2025.
Auclair, E. – Fairclough, G. (2015) Living between past and future: An introduction to
heritage and cultural sustainability. In Theory and Practice in Heritage and
Sustainability: Between Past and Future, ed. by Auclair, E. – Fairclough, G, 1–
22. London: Routledge.
Barad, K. (2003) Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How
Matter Comes to Matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3),
801–831.
Bell, L. (2019) Place, people and processes in waste theory: a global South critique.
Cultural Studies 33(1), 98–121.
Bell, W. (2003) Foundations of futures studies. History, purposes, and knowledge.
Human science for a new era, Volume 1. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things. Durham: Duke
University Press.
De Simone, S. (2004) Causal Layered Analysis: A 'cookbook' approach. In The Causal
Layered Analysis (CLA) reader: Theory and case studies of an integrative and
84
transformative methodology, ed. by Inayatullah, S., 485-494. Tam-sui, Tamkang
University Press.
Dessein, J. – Soini, K. – Fairclough, G. – Horlings, I. (2015) Culture in, for and as
sustainable development: conclusions from the COST Action IS1007
investigating cultural sustainability. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo.
London: Routledge.
European Commission (2024) Directive on repair of goods. Promoting repair
contributes to sustainable consumption. , retrieved 28.4.2025.
Hannerz, Ulf (1992) Cultural Complexity. Studies in the Social Organization of
Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press.
Harrison, R. – Schofield, J. (2010) After modernity: archaeological approaches to the
contemporary past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, R. (2020) Heritage as future-making practices. In Heritage futures.
Comparative approaches to natural and cultural heritage practices, ed. by
Harrison, R. – DeSilvey, C. – Holtorf, C. – Macdonald, S. – Bartolini, N. –
Breithoff, E. – Fredheim, H. – Lyons, A. – May, S. – Morgan, J. – Penrose, S.,
20–50. London: UCL Press.
Hawkins, G. (2006) The ethics of waste: how we relate to rubbish. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Hawkins, G. – Muecke, S. (2002) Introduction: cultural economies of waste. In Culture
and waste: the creation and destruction of value, ed. by Hawkins, G. – Muecke,
S., ix-xvii. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Hird, M. J. (2012) Knowing waste: towards an inhuman epistemology. Social
Epistemology, 26, 453–469.
Hodder, I. (2014) The Entanglements of Humans and Things: A Long-Term View. New
Literary History, 45(1), 19–36.
Högberg, A. – Holtorf, C. (2024) Museum futures and other heritage futures. In
Handbook of futures studies, ed. by Poli, R., 145–156. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited.
Inayatullah, S. (1998) Causal layered analysis. Poststructuralism as method. Futures:
the journal of policy, planning and futures studies, 30(8), 815–829.
85
Inayatullah, S. (2009) Causal layered analysis: an integrative and transformative theory
and method. In Futures research methodology: version 3.0, ed. by Glenn, J. C.
& Gordon, T. J., 1–48. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.
Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General (2023) Global
Sustainable Development Report 2023: Times of crisis, times of change: Science
for accelerating transformations to sustainable development. New York: United
Nations.
Jokela, J. & Lehto-Vahtera, J. (2012) Aboa Vetus – Vanha Turku. Havaintoja,
tulkintoja, löytöjä. In Aboa Vetus & Ars Nova: Historian ja nykytaiteen museo,
ed. by Lehto-Vahtera, J. – Holkeri, E., 25–65. Turku: Aboa Vetus & Ars Nova,
Matti Koivurinnan säätiö.
Jungk, R. – Müllert, N. (1987) Future workshops: how to create desirable futures.
London: Institute for Social Inventions.
Kaboli, S. A. – Tapio, P. (2018) How late-modern nomads imagine tomorrow? A
Causal Layered Analysis practice to explore the images of the future of young
adults. Futures: the journal of policy, planning and futures studies, 96, 32–43.
Kinnunen, V. – Duque, M. (2022) From Waste Management to Waste Care. In
Infrastructural Being: Rethinking dwelling in a naturecultural world, ed. by
Valkonen, J., 147–170. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Kinnunen, V. (2023) Bokashi: vallankumous ämpärissä. Helsinki: Avain.
Kockel, U. (2002) Culture and economy: a brief introduction. In Culture and economy.
Contemporary perspectives, ed. by Kockel, U., 1–10. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Latour, B. (1991) Technology is society made durable. In A sociology of monsters:
essays on power, technology and domination, ed. by Law, J, 103–131. London:
Routledge.
Lau, J. C.-H. (2023) Towards a care perspective on waste: A new direction in discard
studies. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 41(8), 1592–1608.
Lepistö, E. – Pyyhtinen, O. (2025) Affective encounters with waste: The role of affects
in trash activism. Ethnography, 2025-01 (in press).
Massaro, S. (2020) Waste as a cultural heritage. A strategic approach to promote post-
use materials as cultural assets. In The Matter of Future Heritage, ed. by Corda,
M. – Lorenzo, V. – Maldina, S. – Marchi, L. – Massari, M. – Lama, P., 203–218.
Delft: TU Delft Open.
86
Meadows, D. (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT:
The Sustainability Institute.
Moriggi, A. – Soini, K. – Franklin, A. – Roep, D. (2020) A Care-Based Approach to
Transformative Change: Ethically-Informed Practices, Relational Response-
Ability & Emotional Awareness. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 23(3), 281–298.
Oppermann, S. (2018) The Scale of the Anthropocene: Material Ecocritical Reflections.
Mosaic (Winnipeg), 51(3), 1–17.
Paaskoski, L. – Siivonen, K. – Vähäkari, N. – Latvala-Harvilahti, P. – Pelli, P. –
Granlund, M. – Hujala, T. (2022) Dynaaminen museo ja
tulevaisuusperintöverstas. Käsikirja museoiden ekososiaaliseen sivistystyöhön.
Luston julkaisuja 6. Savonlinna: Suomen Metsämuseo Lusto.
Polak, F. (1973) The image of the future. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company.
Poli, R. (2010) The many aspects of anticipation. Foresight, 12(3), 7–17.
Poli, R. (2011) Ethics and futures studies. International Journal of Management
Concepts and Philosophy, 5(4), 403–410.
Pyyhtinen, O. – Zavos, S. – Onali, A. – Sutinen, U. M. – Uusitalo, N. (2022) The
decaying stuff of the Anthropocene: exploring contemporary trashscapes
through ruination. In Special section: Thinking through ruination: theoretical and
empirical approaches to the ruins of the Anthropocene, ed. by Clot Garrell, A.
Digithum (30).
Rathje, W. – Cullen, M. (1995) Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage. New York:
HarperPerennial.
Renfrew, C. – Bahn, P. (2020) Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London:
Thames & Hudson Limited.
Rogowska-Stangret, M. – Cielemęcka, O. (2020) Traces “We” Leave Behind: Toward
the Feminist Practice of Stig(e)merging. Ecozon@, 11(2), 178–186.
Rubin, A. (2013) Hidden, inconsistent, and influential: Images of the future in changing
times. Futures: the journal of policy, planning and futures studies, 45, 538–544.
Ruusuvuori, J. – Nikander, P. – Hyvärinen, M. (2011) Haastattelun analyysin vaiheet. In
Haastattelun analyysi, ed. by Ruusuvuori, J. – Nikander, P. – Hyvärinen, M., 9–
38. Tampere: Vastapaino.
87
Ruusuvuori, J. – Tiittula, L. (2005) Tutkimushaastattelu ja vuorovaikutus. In
Haastattelu. Tutkimus, tilanteet ja vuorovaikutus, ed. by Ruusuvuori, J. –
Tiittula, L., 22–56. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Sachs, J.D. – Lafortune, G. – Fuller, G. (2024) The SDGs and the UN Summit of the
Future. Sustainable Development Report 2024. Paris: SDSN, Dublin: Dublin
University Press.
Salonen, A. O. – Isola, A.-M. – Jakonen, J. – Foster, R. (2024) Who and what belongs
to us? Towards a comprehensive concept of inclusion and planetary citizenship.
International Journal of Social Pedagogy, 13(1), 1–13.
Siivonen, K. (2008) Saaristoidentiteetit merkkien virtoina. Varsinaissuomalainen arki
ja aluekehitystyö globalisaation murroksessa. Kansatieteellinen Arkisto 51.
Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys.
Siivonen, K. – Latvala-Harvilahti, P. – Vähäkari, N. – Paaskoski, L. – Pelli, P. (2022)
Tulevaisuusperintöverstas kestävän tulevaisuuden edistäjänä. In
Tulevaisuudentutkimus tutuksi – perusteita ja menetelmiä. TVA-julkaisuja
1/2022, ed. by Aalto, H. – Heikkilä, K. – Keski-Pukkila, P. – Mäki, M. –
Pöllänen, M., 250–259. Turku: Tulevaisuudentutkimuksen Verkostoakatemia.
Siivonen, K. (2022) Tulevaisuusperintö kulttuurisen kestävyysmurroksen välineenä. In
Tulevaisuudentutkimus tutuksi – perusteita ja menetelmiä. TVA-julkaisuja
1/2022, ed. by Aalto, H. – Heikkilä, K. – Keski-Pukkila, P. – Mäki, M. –
Pöllänen, M., 444–458. Turku: Tulevaisuudentutkimuksen Verkostoakatemia.
Siivonen, K. – Cantell, H. – Ihanainen-Rokio, O. – Kurenlahti, M. – Laakso, S. –
Latvala-Harvilahti, P. – Pietikäinen, J. – Salonen, A. O. (2024). The means of
achieving sustainability transformation. In The Avenues to Sustainability. Key
Lessons from Sustainability Science, ed. by Halonen, T. –Korhonen-Kurki, K. –
Niemelä, J. – Pietikäinen, J., 215–254. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Thompson, M. (1979/2017) Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value.
London: Pluto Press.
Tiainen, K. (ed.) (2023) Karkkipuuroa ja käveleviä taloja: ehdotuksia lasten
tulevaisuustyöpajatoimintaan museoissa. Kemiö: Sagalundin museo ja
lastenkulttuurikeskus.
Tuittila, S. (2017) Corporeality: A methodological study of supporting creativity in
futures workshops. Master`s thesis in futures studies. University of Turku.
88
TENK (2019) The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical
review in the human sciences in Finland. Finnish National Board on Research
Integrity TENK guidelines 2019. Publications of the Finnish National Board on
Research Integrity TENK 3/2019.
Thill, B. (2015). Waste. New York and London: Bloomsbury.
Tiittula, L. – Ruusuvuori, J. (2005) Johdanto. In Haastattelu. Tutkimus, tilanteet ja
vuorovaikutus, ed. by Ruusuvuori, J. – Tiittula, L., 9–21. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Tsing, A.L. (2015) The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in
Capitalist Ruins. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Tuomi, J. – Sarajärvi, A. (2012) Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Uudistettu
laitos. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2024) Global Waste Management
Outlook 2024: Beyond an age of waste – Turning rubbish into a resource.
Nairobi.
University of Turku (19.12.2023) Guideline. Artificial intelligence in research.
TY/999/2023.
Valkonen, J. – Pyyhtinen, O. – Lehtonen, T. – Kinnunen, V. – Huilaja, H. (2019)
Tervetuloa jäteyhteiskuntaan! Aineellisen ylijäämän kanssa eläminen. Tampere:
Vastapaino.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zavos, S. – Pyyhtinen, O. (2024) The limits of waste as a resource: a critique and a
proposition towards a new scalar imagination for the circular economy model.
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(3), 683–697.
Zavos, S. – Lehtokunnas, T. – Pyyhtinen, O. (2024) The (Missing) Social Aspect of the
Circular Economy: A Review of Social Scientific Articles. Sustainable Earth
Reviews, 7(11), 1–17.
Åström, A.–M. (2005) Den etnologiska forskningsprocessen – en djupdykning i mentala
och materiella sfärer. In Polkuja etnologian menetelmiin. Ethnos-toimite 11, ed.
by Korkiakangas, P. – Olsson, P. – Ruotsala, H., 25–42. Helsinki: Ethnos ry.
89
Appendices
APPENDIX 1 invitation letter to the workshop
Dear recipient,
you are warmly invited to take part in my thesis workshops. I am doing my Master`s thesis in
futures studies on the heritage futures of waste. Please find further information below and don`t
hesitate to contact me if you have any questions!
Exploring future relationships with waste
We humans use and consume materials at an unsustainable pace. These materials have a life
cycle that usually ends up with their discard as waste. Waste is, however, culturally defined and
can change its meaning. Understanding this, we can explore what an ecologically sustainable
relationship to waste could be like? What are the heritage futures of waste?
In a heritage futures workshop, the topic is approached through time jumps from the past to
futures and back into the present. Heritage futures is new kinds of intangible cultural heritage,
existing only in our thoughts and in our relations with the material world. Its purpose is to build
sustainable futures by providing new understanding of the planet and our place in nature. It
invites us to develop aspects of our culture towards more ecologically sustainable futures.
Take part in a heritage futures workshop!
I organise two heritage workshops related to my thesis. The workshops take place at the Aboa
Vetus Ars Nova museum (Itäinen rantakatu 4-6, Turku) and are free of charge.
heritage futures workshop in Finnish Thu 26.9. from 3 pm to 6 pm
heritage futures workshop in English Tue 1.10. from 3 pm to 6 pm
Before each workshop, at 2.30 pm, there is a possibility to take part in a Trash Walk in the
museum’s vicinity. The material collected will be used in the workshop.
Sign up to the workshops: janna.jokela@utu.fi. Tell which workshop you are attending and also
notify me of any special diets or allergies (there will be refreshments served). Additional
information on the workshop and the Trash Walk will be sent to those participating.
90
APPENDIX 2 workshop script
Workshop: heritage futures of waste 1.10.2024 15–18
1. Introduction – 20 min (workshop space)
10 min Warm-up exercise
• Write down on the post-it notes all the things that come to your mind
when you think about waste. They can be things, feelings, adjectives,
anything. Use single words or small sentences. You have 3 minutes
for this exercise.
• Thank you! Now look at the things you wrote down. Choose one that
you would like to share with the group. You don`t need to elaborate
on it but you can, if you want to.
10 min Introduction lecture:
Waste as a contemporary problem
Heritage futures and progression of the workshop
2. Understanding the past – 30 min (Aboa Vetus)
5 min Archaeological heritage – trash of the past
Human activities have always created waste. A large amount of archaeological
find material especially here in the city is trash from the past. Things people
have thrown away, scraps and leftovers from cooking or crafts, construction
material, human and animal feces. Turku is the oldest city in Finland,
established a little over 700 years ago. Under the city there is a “ghost city”,
layers from the past, which this museum is just a small portion of.
5 min I will now read you a short auditory tale to help us move in our thoughts
to the past. You can close your eyes if you feel like it.
Imagine you are travelling back in time to Turku 500 years ago. You are
standing on a paved street. On your both sides you see walls of building built
of either stone or wood. At first, you pay attention to the soundscape. The
constant hum of traffic is not there. You can hear the sounds of human
activity; someone is shouting further away, there is a loud clanging noise and
some talk. A dog barks elsewhere and further from the street you can hear the
rattle of horse-drawn carriages against the pavement. Next, your nose picks
up scents. The smell of burning wood is prominent all around the city. It is
mixed with the smell of dung or animals. You can sense the sea being near
from the whiff of salt in the wind. Somewhere nearby, someone is cooking
something that smells delicious.
You turn around the corner to a smaller alley and walk to the backyard of one
the buildings. There is a lot happening in the yard. Someone is in the garden
plot, picking up the last of the autumns crops. Another person is sitting on a
bench, carving some kind of an utensil out of wood. In the animal shelter you
see a cow and a few chickens walk around the yard. A third person comes
from inside the house with a bucket and empties it in the trash pit in the corner
of the yard.
91
20 min These objects were found in a trash pit on the yard of a house excavated a
few years back. They date to the turn of the 15th and 16th century.
• What kind of events and decisions led to these items being discarded
as waste?
• What was these people`s relationship to waste 500 years ago?
• What kind of similitaries and differences are there compared to the
present?
• What has changed and what could have gone differently?
30 min coffee break
3. Jump to the future – 35 min
5 min
How to discuss futures?
• There are multiple possible futures.
• The future is not pre-determined.
• We can all contribute to futures with our actions – or our inactions.
• Humans have the unique skill of imagination, which allows us to time
travel both to the past and to futures. It is not easy but possible as long
as you let your mind wander and your imagination run free.
• When discussing futures, all opinions are equal.
•
5 min I will now again read you a short text. Please sit as comfortably as you
can. You can close your eyes if you want to.
Next we travel in to the future. The more we can relax and open our minds, the
easier it is to imagine things that do not yet exist. Concentrate on your
breathing, try to make it relaxed and steady. As you breathe, you can explore
how different parts of your body feel. Is there a part of your body that feels
tense? Try to relax it as well. Let your thoughts wander through your body.
Start with your shoulders, and then move on to your arms and hands. Wiggle
your fingers a bit and then let them relax as well. Turn your attention to the
middle of your body: can you feel your chest moving as you breath? Pay
attention to how the chair feels against your body. Then continue with your
thoughts down to your legs and feet. Wiggle your toes and then let them relax
as well. Your body is very physically here, in this space, but your mind is free
to wander, both in place and in time.
We next move on to the year 2075. Because we are travelling mentally, we can
go anywhere we like. We do not know this world that we are travelling to,
because we have never yet been there. Therefore, we can imagine it to be
anything we like or wish it to be. We can imagine, that in 2075 many of the
challenges we are facing in the present have been solved, even though we do
not yet know exactly how. Perhaps people have come to realise how their
activities have been burdening nature. Perhaps they have found new ways to
live more sustainably as a part of nature. New challenges may have risen that
we do not yet know of, but in this imaginary year 2075, the planet is healing.
25 min These are finds discovered from the Turku of 2024. Looking at them from
the perspective of the people in 2075, what would they think of them?
What would surprise them, feel odd or familiar to them? What kinds of
92
questions might they ask?
What is this future of 2075 like? What is their relationship to waste like?
4. Heritage futures – 35 min
5 min What is heritage futures?
30 min What needs for change can you identify in your behaviour, habits or thoughts
related to waste?
What kind of new, small things could you do in the present to achieve
preferrable futures?
What would an ecologically and socially sustainable relationship to waste be
like?
5. Sharing – 30 min
30 min Sharing and discussion
Last words from the facilitator (about interviews)
Feedback on the workshop
93
APPENDIX 3 workshop feedback form
RETHINKING TRASH – HERITAGE FUTURES OF WASTE
Heritage futures workshop 1.10.2024
Questionnaire
you can continue your answers to the back of the paper if needed
What words would you use to describe your feelings just after the workshop ended?
What heritage futures will you take with you from this workshop?
In the workshop, what was…
… familiar?
… surprising?
Was the pace of the workshop good?
Was the aim of the workshop clear?
Were the assignments in the workshop clear?
Other feedback on the workshop:
94
APPENDIX 4 interview script
Introduction
- objectives of the interview
- recap on the use and storage of the data
- short summary of the workshop process
Background questions
1. Have you previously participated in futures-oriented processes such as workshops or
questionnaire/interview studies? (In how many / for how long?)
2. Thinking of your personal choices and decision-making in your everyday life – what is the
role of futures thinking? How often would you say you think about futures and in which ways?
(time frame, personal/global perspective)
3. Is your relationship with waste something you have thought about before this workshop?
(How, can you give examples?)
Reflection on the workshop
4. When you now reflect on the workshop discussions, what kind of topics and thoughts
foremost come to your mind? What do you remember?
5. Which of the themes or topics discussed in the workshop do you find most important?
(Why?)
Future relationships with waste in 2075
6. In the workshop, future relationships with waste were imagined for 2075.
- What kind of changes or aspects do you still recall from those discussions?
I have here a short recap of the themes that emerged in the workshop:
Technological innovations and developments (new biodegradable materials, digital fingerprints
and traceability that could also be used for sanctioning), practices have become extinct (singular
packagings, cigarettes, masks), a change in mindset (brands and consumer culture, feeling of
responsibility), people in 2075 dealing with our trash (trash debt as historical burden), more-
than-human actors (worms in bio factories in homes, plastic eating bacteria, cultural memory of
crows collecting trash), shifts in economy and values (degrowth, moving beyond
reduce/reuse/recycle mentality)
Is there anything you would like to add to these topics?
95
7. Out of these elements of the imagined future of 2075, what do you think are the most
significant aspects discussed?
8. How likely do you view those changes are to happen? (unlikely/possible/likely/very likely)
9. Which changes do you feel you can influence yourself? (If yes, how strong would you
estimate that influence to be? If not any, why do think that?)
Heritage futures
10. The workshop ended with a discussion about heritage futures related to the topic. Heritage
futures is intangible cultural heritage created in the present, purposefully aiming towards more
ecologically sustainable futures. What kind of heritage created can you remember from that
discussion?
I have written a short recap of the themes discussed:
Reducing/rethinking own consumption, recycling and eg. composting at home, educating
children and promoting awareness, planning meals and purchases, avoiding certain materials
and purchases altogether, trash picking as activity, learning new skills such as repairing, change
in attitudes: re-evaluating convenience and what is a comfortable lifestyle, living a more
modestly than one could afford, de-materializing, also preserving a sample of present waste for
posteriority
Is there anything you would like to add to this?
11. Do you feel that participating in the workshop affected your activities or thinking in the
present? (behaviour, values, emotions) (How, can you give examples?)
12. Did participating in the workshop affect the way you think about futures? (How, can you
give examples?)
13. Is there anything else you would like to add to the themes discussed?