Survey focus: what technology actually costs
Ākonga study life-cycle analysis and the e-waste stream as a real system, working from published data rather than a design of their own.
- Applied Survey move: Analysis of a documented waste stream
- Evidence it produces: A conclusion drawn from cited data, with its source named
Lesson at a Glance | He Tirohanga Whakamua
Ngā Whāinga Ako | Learning Intentions
Students will know
- The five stages of a product Life Cycle Analysis: raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use phase, end-of-life.
- That e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream globally, and that NZ generates approximately 80,000 tonnes per year with less than 11% formally recycled.
- The difference between a linear economy (take–make–waste) and a circular economy (design for recovery, reuse, regeneration).
- That kaitiakitanga places a specific obligation on designers to consider who bears the cost of end-of-life, not just who benefits from the product.
Students will demonstrate
- By completing a full five-stage LCA map for one technology product, identifying at least two environmental or social harms at different stages.
- By proposing one circular redesign change per LCA stage that would reduce that harm.
- By writing Design Journal Entry 11: a 3–4 sentence statement on the designer's obligation at end-of-life.
Do Now | Tīmatanga Whakaaro (8 min)
Write on the board — 3 minutes silent, 5 minutes pair discussion:
"When you throw away a phone, where does it go? What happens to it?"
Most students will say "rubbish bin" or "recycling" without thinking further. Push them: "Where does rubbish go? What does recycling actually mean for electronics?" Harvest answers on the board without correcting. This sets up the discomfort the lesson resolves.
Teacher note: The answer most students don't know: most "recycled" NZ e-waste is exported to developing countries, where informal recyclers — often children — strip circuit boards by hand, burning the plastic to recover metals. This releases lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins. The lesson makes this visible without sensationalising it. The goal is responsibility, not guilt.
Life Cycle Analysis Stages | Ngā Tūāhu o te Oranga Hua (15 min)
A Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) maps a product from before it exists to after it stops being used. Introduce each stage with a NZ or global example, not definitions.
① Raw Materials
Mining the elements — coltan from the DRC for capacitors, lithium from Chilean salt flats for batteries, gold from West African artisanal mines for circuit contacts. Each extraction site has a community bearing the cost.
NZ link: Rare earth elements in NZ offshore minerals — currently unmined but under active exploration.
② Manufacturing
Fabricating components and assembling the device. A smartphone requires 60+ different elements. Assembly occurs in conditions that vary enormously — from highly automated factories to labour-intensive assembly lines with serious ergonomic and chemical exposure risks.
Key question: Manufacturing creates CO₂ — often more than the entire use phase. Who bears this burden geographically?
③ Distribution
Shipping from factory to retailer to consumer. For a device made in China and sold in NZ, this is a 10,000 km journey — typically by container ship (high CO₂ per unit) or air freight (much higher CO₂). Packaging waste is also generated here.
NZ context: NZ's geographic isolation means almost everything we consume has a high distribution carbon cost.
④ Use Phase
Electricity consumption over the product's life. A smartphone used for 3 years draws roughly 3–4 kWh/year — small per device, enormous at scale. Planned obsolescence shortens use phases deliberately: a phone designed to last 2 years rather than 6 triples lifetime environmental cost.
Design insight: Repairability extends the use phase — the most sustainable thing a designer can build is something that can be fixed.
⑤ End of Life
What happens when the product stops being used: landfill (toxic leaching), informal recycling (health hazard), formal recycling (partial recovery), refurbishment (best outcome). In NZ only about 2% of e-waste is properly recycled (UN Global E-waste Monitor 2024), so the great majority of it ends up in landfill or stockpiled, where heavy metals can leach into groundwater.
Kaitiakitanga obligation: The designer made this product. The designer chose how recoverable its materials would be. End-of-life is not someone else's problem.
Key teaching point: The five stages are not equally harmful — for many tech products, raw material extraction and end-of-life are the most damaging, while the use phase creates the least harm per year. Students will be surprised by this. Most sustainability conversation focuses on energy use (stage 4) rather than the beginning and end.
Video: The Story of Electronics (15 min)
The Story of Electronics — The Story of Stuff Project (8 min 9 sec)
Write one question you have about what happens to electronics after they're thrown away.
Identify the three groups whose health is most harmed in the video. Write their names or roles.
The video says products are designed to "be thrown away as fast as possible." Who decides that? Who could change it?
Teacher note: The video uses the term "planned obsolescence" without naming it. Introduce the term after viewing. Some students will push back on the video's framing — that's good. The question is not "is this video right about everything?" but "is the pattern it describes real, and if so, what follows?"
Activity: Full LCA Mapping | Āta Tirohia (15 min)
LCA Pair Audit
Pairs choose ONE technology from this list: smartphone, laptop, wireless earbuds, electric toothbrush, gaming controller, LED light bulb. Work through each LCA stage together.
Which elements? Mined where? By whom?
Where assembled? What emissions? What labour conditions?
Origin country → NZ. Transport mode? Packaging?
Typical lifespan? Energy use? Repairability?
Where does it likely go in NZ? What materials are recoverable?
Synthesis question (discuss as a pair): Which stage does the most harm? Why? Is the harm environmental, social, or economic — or all three?
Activity: Circular Redesign | Hanga Hōu (10 min)
One Change Per Stage
For the product you audited, propose ONE design or system change at each LCA stage that would reduce harm. These do not need to be technically possible today — but they should be honest about the trade-offs they create.
Example — Smartphone:
- Raw materials: Source cobalt only from mines with independent labour audits. Cost: higher phone price and slower supply chain.
- Manufacturing: Shift final assembly to NZ or Australia — shorter shipping, better labour standards, but significantly higher cost.
- Distribution: Ship only by sea, never air freight — 50x lower carbon per kg but 3+ weeks slower delivery.
- Use phase: Design for repairability — user-replaceable battery, standard screws, spare parts available for 10 years. Trade-off: thicker, heavier device.
- End of life: Manufacturer-funded take-back programme that recycles in-country. Cost: ~$30 per device, passed to consumer at purchase.
Teacher note: The goal is not to find the "right answer" but to make trade-offs visible. Every circular redesign costs something — money, convenience, speed. Students should be able to name the trade-off, not just the improvement. This is what real sustainable design involves.
📓 Design Journal — Entry 11: The Designer's Obligation at End-of-Life
Write 3–4 sentences responding to this prompt:
"A product designer chooses how recoverable a product's materials will be. Does that mean they are responsible for what happens when it is thrown away — even if that happens years after they built it?"
Your entry should name at least one specific material or LCA stage from today's lesson. It should state your position clearly — yes, no, or somewhere in between — and give one reason for that position.
Exit Claim | Whakamutunga (4 min)
On a slip of paper (anonymous, collected at the door):
"The LCA stage where my product does the most harm is ______, because ______."
Teacher use: Sort the slips by stage. If most students named the same stage, the lesson landed. If responses are spread evenly, the next lesson's introduction should return to the LCA framework and check understanding before moving to kaitiakitanga design principles.
Kaiako Planning | Ngā Tūāhu Whakaaro
📋 Curriculum Alignment
This lesson addresses the NZ Curriculum Technology strand: Technological Practice — Brief Development. Students are developing their understanding that technological outcomes are shaped by decisions made at every stage of their creation and disposal — not just at the point of use. The kaitiakitanga framing adds a Te Mātaiaho dimension around long-term environmental obligation.
The LCA framework also connects to Social Sciences Sustainability strand (Years 9–10): understanding that technological decisions have consequences for communities and environments beyond the immediate context of use.
📦 Materials & Resources
- Whiteboard for Do Now harvest
- LCA Mapping worksheet (A3 or digital equivalent) — one per pair
- Internet access for pairs researching their chosen product's supply chain (optional — lesson works without this)
- Sticky notes for exit claims (or paper slips)
If internet is available: iFixit Repairability Scores gives a real data source for use-phase repairability (no sign-in required). Apple iPhone typically scores 4–6/10; Fairphone scores 10/10. Useful for the circular redesign activity.
🔄 Differentiation
For students who need more support: Provide a partially-completed LCA map with the smartphone already filled in for stages 1–2. Students complete stages 3–5 with guidance. The key conceptual shift (end-of-life is a design decision) is the non-negotiable.
For students who move faster: Research the Fairphone 4 as a case study in intentional circular design — what does it do differently at each LCA stage, and what are the trade-offs in cost and availability?
For students connecting to tikanga Māori: The concept of mauri (the life force of a place) is one way to name what is lost when toxic leaching from e-waste contaminate a waterway. This is not a metaphor — it is a specific claim that the relationship between the land and the people who depend on it is damaged. Invite students to name this in their own terms.
⏭️ Next Lesson Connection
Lesson 12 (Kaitiakitanga & Indigenous Sustainable Design Principles) builds directly on today: students have now seen how a Western framework (LCA) maps technological harm. Next lesson introduces how kaitiakitanga provides a complementary — not identical — framework for the same obligation. Students should bring their Design Journal entry to Lesson 12.