• Old clothes were broken down into fibres and were reused to make new garments

• Most clothes were made from blended fabrics which made it difficult to separate

• As recycling infrastructure is limited, very little clothing were actually turned into new clothing

2) Solution 2: Air circulation fan to clear the air in indoor spaces. This fails as we would need a lot of materials for it to be placed in every room ( also these things already exist ). This also needs maintenance and also wastes energy when someone forgets to close.

3) Solution 3: Remind everyone to not use so much water when showering or brushing out teeth. This fails as it might not be that impactful or people will not listen to us or forget. This is easy but a hassle for some people to do.

https://www.freshwatersystems.com/blogs/blog/5-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-rainwater-harvesting?srsltid=AfmBOopVKsFEE3iwAcv4ABaehw36IFp4v6FConIyLaQnN2n_uwyBlugH

Another idea was placing recycling bins in cafés for customers to return empty bottles. This did not work well because customers usually do not finish or handle the bottles themselves, so they feel no responsibility to recycle them. Even if bins are there, most people will just ignore them, so participation stays very low.

The third idea was relying on general waste collectors to handle the recycling. This failed because there is no guarantee the bottles are actually recycled properly once they leave the café. Without a clear system or tracking, it becomes invisible and untrustworthy, so there is no real impact or brand value created.

Why the ideas failed:

1. if we used the waste as compost, we would have to source for a vendor and we would need to acquire license and we would also need to seek approval from the National Environmental Agency(NEA)

2. This does not solve the problem of food wastage as the programme would have no use with these expiring food and would likely also throw them away.

3. We would need to use a lot of other ingredients and little amounts of overriped fruits and it would be very ineffcient as if we are dealing with large amounts of overriped fruits many of them would spoil by the time they are put to use.

Incorporating Waste Plastics into Pavement Materials: A Review of Opportunities, Risks, Environmental Implications, and Monitoring Strategies

Why it failed: This concept gained attention for reducing plastic waste, several trials revealed performance issues. Some roads showed cracking and deformation under heavy traffic loads and high temperatures, especially in regions with extreme climates. In addition, environmental concerns were raised about the potential release of microplastics as the material wears down over time. Although small-scale pilots showed promise, large-scale implementation has been inconsistent due to variations in plastic types and mix quality.

Idea 2: Compressing recycled newspaper into wood-like panels intended for construction and furniture use.

Revolutionizing Sustainability: The Rise of NewspaperWood

Why it failed: The material struggled to gain market acceptance. It lacked the structural strength of conventional wood products and was highly sensitive to moisture, leading to swelling and degradation over time. These limitations made it unsuitable for most practical applications, particularly in construction, where durability is essential

Idea 3:using coal combustion waste to produce bricks.

Utilization of Coal Wastes for the Production of Ceramic Materials: A Review | Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration | Springer Nature Link

Why it failed: This idea faced major setbacks due to inconsistent quality and lack of standardized production methods. Builders were hesitant to adopt the material because early batches often had lower strength and reliability compared to traditional clay bricks. There was also skepticism about using industrial waste in construction

This became a problem because instead of focusing on the stylish element of clothing, it often turns out to be sterile and hospital-grade which creates several problems such as drawing unwanted attention towards to person's disability and adding on to that perception of a labelled category as "others", creating a negative perception. At the same time this strips away the idea of personal style and autonomy and keeps creating a burden of managing chronic conditions which keeps acting as a constant reminder. As for non-functional aesthetics such as hidden seams that cause pressure sores may be impossible for caregiver to put on or straight up uncomfortable for the user. These ultimately are considered failures because it just heavily focuses on the medical or physical needs and neglect the aesthetic needs.

2. Poorly designed seated-wear

This became a problem because clothing designed for standing often causes excess fabric to bunch behind the knees and in the groin area when seated which can cause discomfort and lead to more pressure sores due to thick seams for individuals with reduced sensation, at the same time it does not offer space at the knees for leg braces or orthotics. In terms of inconvenience, normally pants have a lower back rises but when seated, it results in the waistband sliding down exposing the wearer's back and making the garments uncomfortable and difficult to manage. Ultimately, this causes discomfort and exposing skin, pressure points, limited movements and lack of independence.

3. Overly complex designs

Lastly, this became a problem as well because designs that require high dexterity like intricate fastening, small buttons, hard-to-reach fastening systems can take away the idea of independence with individuals with limited dexterity or mobility. At the same time, features designed to be "revolutionary" sometimes lead to discomfort such as bulky seams, poorly placed zips or velcro that irritates the skin if used in excess, which can be hard to manage if there are too many. In addition, when it comes to structural additions, using bulky, heavy-duty attachments for thick materials that create excessive heat or restricted movements. All in all, this creates more physical strains, comfort and safety risks.

2) Solution 2: Make an event which collects “ugly” food from shopping centres and given as donations to poorer people as shopping centres would not be able to sell bad looking foods, but most of the foods are still edible. We decided against it as it might take a lot of effort to make such an event and some shopping centres might not want to collaborate. This will also take a lot of time to make.

3) Solution 3: Redesigning stalls to put accurate pictures so people won’t buy too much and would result in food waste, example ,stalls selling something that is much more than a person can eat might not want to buy it or the amount of food is lesser, they might want to buy something more filing. This might not be feasible as the impact might be little as people might still just buy it worth out much thought or stalls might not comply as it might ruin their business when they find out the food quantity is actually lesser and not buy from them.

4) Solution 4: Encourage event organisers to use bento boxes instead of buffets and hence, saves waste. This does not work well as they might accidentally prepare too little and end up with hungry people and people who want second serving. It might also be more difficult to register the exact number of people to be able to provide that specific amount of food.

https://www.fairpricegroup.com.sg/fairprice-foundation/neighbourhood-food-share/

A flat rectangular packaging that can be reused as a poster later on featuring the Brand’s marketing and art direction for the clothing of that season. It would be made out of biodegradable materials.

Why it failed:

This solution depends on personal preference, as not all users would want to keep or display a poster. It also serves mainly as decoration rather than a functional reuse, so the packaging is still likely to be discarded, making the impact on waste reduction limited.

Idea 2:

Packaging includes collectible cut-outs of clothing items that users can pop out and rearrange for styling inspiration.

Why it failed:

The cut-outs have limited long term use and may only be used once before being discarded. It also requires the brand to continuously design new collectibles for each season, increasing production effort and making the solution difficult to scale. This reduces its effectiveness in minimising packaging waste.

Idea 3:

Packaging includes pop-out cardboard hangers that users can assemble and reuse.

Why it failed:

Cardboard hangers may not be durable enough for long-term use and can bend or break easily. They may also not support heavier clothing items, leading users to discard them. Additionally, this idea may not be scalable for smaller packaging.

-Clothes aren't made to be recycled due to the blended fabrics in modern clothes
(e.g. cotton + polyester + elastane), which are extremely hard to separate.
-Recycling systems need pure materials, but fashion does not have that requirement.

For a start, clothes made from more than two fibres are so far considered non-recyclable.

-Even though recycling exists, it’s still

requires sorting the garments by color, cleaning, disassembling the buttons zippers and other materials

-recycled garments often have such low quality that they have to be woven with other materials.(https://www.bgnes.com/no-filter/why-recycling-in-the-fashion-industry-is-failing-to-save-the-planet)

2. (https://www.vogue.com/article/the-ugly-side-of-fashions-take-back-programmes)

- A huge portion still becomes waste, especially in developing countries

- Many donated clothes are low quality and are unable to be sold

- Waste is often exported and not dealt with directly, shifting the problem instead of solving it.

-Garments still end up as waste… particularly in the Global South”

Also supported by reporting:

- Excess clothes are dumped because countries lack capacity to handle them

3. https://time.com/6285257/is-clothing-rental-resale-recycling-sustainable-nuuly/

Online rental and resale platforms often fail to extend garment lifecycles because fast fashion's low-quality, poorly constructed materials cannot withstand multiple uses. Furthermore, the high logistical costs of cleaning and shipping, combined with the low secondhand value, make the business model economically unsustainable while often producing a higher carbon footprint.

Idea:

This idea uses mycelium (the root structure of fungi) grown around a product using agricultural waste to form a custom-shaped protective packaging. The mycelium binds the material together over several days, and the final product is heat-treated to stop growth, creating a biodegradable and compostable alternative to plastic packaging.

Why it failed:

This concept faces major limitations in terms of scalability and production speed. The growth process takes several days, which is too slow for high-volume manufacturing. It is also difficult to maintain consistent quality, strength, and hygiene across different batches. Additionally, the need for controlled environmental conditions and specialised facilities increases cost, making it less practical for widespread commercial use.

2. Dynamic shelf (packaging-free system)

Idea:

This concept involves a smart supermarket shelf with individual sealed compartments for each product. Customers select items through a screen or button, and only the selected compartment opens, eliminating the need for traditional plastic packaging and reducing packaging waste at the retail level.

Why it failed:

The system is highly impractical due to its high cost and the need for a complete redesign of existing retail infrastructure. It would require advanced electronic systems, constant maintenance, and strict hygiene control. It may also be inconvenient for consumers and difficult to implement across different product types and store layouts. These factors make it unrealistic for large-scale adoption.

3. Biodegradable packaging that degrades with food

Idea:

This idea proposes packaging that biodegrades alongside fresh food, such as fruits, so that both the food and its packaging decompose together, reducing plastic waste.

Why it failed:

This concept is unreliable because the rate of degradation is difficult to control and can be affected by environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity. If the packaging degrades too early, it can compromise food safety, shelf life, and product quality. This makes it unsuitable for use in food storage and transport, where packaging must remain stable and protective until consumption.

Why we think it failed:
We think this solution failed because it depends heavily on accurate attendance confirmation which are often unreliable due to human behaviour. Food safety is also a major issue as food redistributed hours after preparation may no longer be safe for consumption. In addition, responsibility and liability are placed on charitable organisations creating legal and administrative challenges that reduce the feasibility of this solution.

Article:
https://easyeventhireuk.com/blog/from-food-waste-to-food-rescue-why-uk-event-caterers-need-better-redistribution-solutions/

2. Modular Wedge Buffet System

Why we think it failed:
We think this solution failed because rearranging food into smaller wedges does not reduce waste when guest demand remains unchanged. If attendees do not take the food, the same amount is still discarded. It also creates operational challenges such as increased cleaning effort and more components to manage. For large‑scale events, multiple smaller trays complicate logistics and setup reducing scalability.

Article:
https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/learn/how-does-the-culture-of-all-you-can-eat-buffets-relate-to-food-waste/

3. Dynamic Tray Sizing Using Weight Sensors

Why we think it failed:
We think this solution failed because it mainly addresses the visual perception of abundance rather than directly reducing food waste. While it may delay refilling, it does not significantly change consumption behaviour. The prototype also appeared passive, making it harder to clearly demonstrate strong innovation or measurable environmental impact.

Article:
https://www.traveldailynews.com/column/articles/smart-buffet-management-how-hotels-reduce-food-waste-without-bans/

Very common in the world, and also quite ineffective due to it only being able to filter out particles that are larger than water particles by using a mesh with pores that are larger than water particles but smaller than others. Additionally, our idea on a solution is to fully filter out waste and polluters from our waters.

Solution 2: Clean Water Transformer

Although this solution is quite rare in the world, it is quite costly for us to make and also too complicated for us as Sec 3 students to replicate something like this as it invovles processes like chemical treatment, etc. This solution is effective yet costly and too complicated, especially for our team.

Solution 3: Recycled Water Filter

This was a solution that closely resembles the first solution, however it uses recycled materials for its production. Although the thought of using recycled materials may inspire others to also reduce their waste, the solution is still highly ineffective, maybe even more than the first solution, and it is also very common in the world.

The idea is not very practical as a business model as there are high coordination and monitoring costs since businesses would need to constantly label, track expiry dates, and ensure food safety standards are met. This may create issues where if someone falls sick, it is unclear who is liable. Additionally some businesses may be reluctant to use ingredients from unknown sources due to hygiene concerns or brand reputation risks.

2. Implement composting systems to convert inedible surplus food into fertiliser for urban farming or landscaping.

This solution incurs high setup and maintenance costs as installing composting infrastructure requires a large amount of investment for which we have to find sponsors and also requires space, in land-scarce Singapore. As well as training for staff to maintain these systems, which many small food businesses or hawkers cannot afford. In the long term, while this idea may be environmentally beneficial, the profits we can make are limited and slow, making it unattractive as a standalone business model.

3.  A physical station in the hawker centres that allow food stall owners to give leftover food at the end of the day. centre. 

This solution faces practical limitations. On some days there may be excess food while on others there may be none, making this system unreliable. Furthermore it would be difficult to implement this system all across Singapore as a large amount of funding would be needed. As students this poses a big problem for us as we do not have much access to large funds and resources like this. And it would not be very helpful if only a few hawker stalls implemented this idea as there would still be a significant amount of food waste. We also realised that relying on leftover food does not address the root cause of food waste.

articles :

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925525003464

https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/3r-programmes-and-resources/food-waste-management/food-waste-management-strategies?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2.Food waste as plant pots — Even though using things like watermelon peels or other food waste as plant pots sounds like a pretty creative and eco friendly idea at first, the truth is that other companies and designers have already come up with very similar concepts and have been manufacturing and selling biodegradable plant pots made from organic and natural materials for quite some time now, so because the idea is not unique or different from what is already out there in the market, it unfortunately does not qualify as something new and original enough for this project.

3.Removing bad parts of spoiled food — This is something that almost every single person already does naturally in their own home without even really thinking about it, like when you cut off the moldy part of a piece of bread or remove the rotten section of a fruit and then eat the rest, and on top of that, because it is just a simple everyday habit or behavior rather than an actual product or service that can be properly developed, packaged, and offered to people, it does not fit what this project is trying to achieve.

All three of these ideas were ultimately rejected because the goal of this project was to come up with something that is truly fresh, creative, and original, something that has never been thought of or built before, and since all three of these ideas were already too familiar, too common, and too widely known, none of them were able to meet that standard.

https://www.eatingwell.com/article/7898940/5-food-scraps-you-can-use-for-your-plants/

https://gardeningsg.nparks.gov.sg/page-index/horticulture-techniques/composting/

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/molds-food-are-they-dangerous

The idea was to install one very large air purifier in the middle of an indoor space to clean all the air in the building. However, air does not circulate evenly throughout large indoor spaces. Pollutants can remain trapped in corners or different rooms, so a single purifier cannot effectively clean the entire environment. The solution also becomes expensive and inefficient.

Failed Solution 2: Mandatory daily desk cleaning for everyone

The idea was to require all employees and/or students to clean their desks every day to reduce dust. However, the solution depends heavily on human behaviour and consistency. People may forget, feel it is inconvenient, or not clean properly. Dust also comes from airborne particles and ventilation systems, so desk cleaning alone does not solve the root problem.

Failed Solution 3: Wearable air filters for workers

The idea was to provide workers with small wearable air filters or personal masks to protect them from polluted air indoors. However, while it may protect individuals, it does not improve the overall air quality of the space. It can also be uncomfortable to wear continuously and may reduce adoption. The solution treats the symptom rather than the environmental cause.

Solution 1: Chlorination of Drinking Water

Adding chlorine to drinking water to kill bacteria and pathogens, one of the most widely adopted water treatment methods globally since the early 1900s. Chlorination was genuinely revolutionary when it was introduced, and it still works for basic microbial disinfection. But I think it counts as a failed solution for the modern contamination problem because it was designed for a completely different era of water pollution. Chlorine kills bacteria, but it does essentially nothing against the contaminants that are actually threatening freshwater supplies today: heavy metals like lead and arsenic, pharmaceutical residues, microplastics, and agricultural chemicals. Worse, chlorine actually reacts with naturally occurring organic matter in water to form disinfection byproducts like trihalomethanes, which are themselves carcinogenic. So we have a solution that was designed for 1900s contamination being applied to a 2025 contamination profile, and the gap between what it can do and what we actually need it to do keeps widening every year.

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/02/nx-s1-5771155/epa-flags-microplastics-pharmaceuticals-drinking-water

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772416625001664

Solution 2: Boiling Water

Boiling water over fire or stove to kill pathogens is the oldest and most universally recommended household water treatment method, still promoted by WHO and governments globally. Boiling is the go-to recommendation given to water-insecure communities and yet I think it's one of the most frustratingly inadequate solutions we keep recycling. The core problem is that boiling only kills biological contaminants, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa. It does absolutely nothing to remove heavy metals, nitrates, pesticides, or chemical pollutants. In fact, boiling concentrates dissolved contaminants because water evaporates but the chemicals stay behind, meaning boiled contaminated water can actually be chemically worse after boiling than before.

https://www.bluewatergroup.com/en-us/blog/the-disadvantages-of-boiling-water-for-purification

https://www.quora.com/Does-boiling-water-remove-heavy-metals-from-water

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653519308616

Solution 3: Plastic Bottled Water Distribution

Distributing commercially bottled water to water-insecure communities as an emergency or long-term drinking water solution, used extensively in disaster relief and in regions with contaminated municipal supplies. This one feels like the most obvious band-aid solution masquerading as a fix. Bottled water doesn't treat the contamination problem, it just outsources it to a plastic factory and a supply chain. The communities most dependent on bottled water are often the least able to afford it consistently, creating a situation where clean water becomes something you pay for rather than something you have access to. Meanwhile the plastic waste from single-use bottles ends up back in the same waterways that were contaminated to begin with, creating a feedback loop where the solution literally contributes to the original problem. Studies have also found that bottled water is not always cleaner than tap water and can contain microplastics leached from the bottle itself. It's a commercial product sold as a human rights solution, and I think that's exactly why it keeps failing the people who need it most.

https://lamont.columbia.edu/news/bottled-water-can-contain-hundreds-thousands-previously-uncounted-tiny-plastic-bits-study

https://news.osu.edu/some-bottled-water-worse-than-tap-for-microplastics-study-shows

Solution 1: Chlorination of Drinking Water

Adding chlorine to drinking water to kill bacteria and pathogens, one of the most widely adopted water treatment methods globally since the early 1900s. Chlorination was genuinely revolutionary when it was introduced, and it still works for basic microbial disinfection. But I think it counts as a failed solution for the modern contamination problem because it was designed for a completely different era of water pollution. Chlorine kills bacteria, but it does essentially nothing against the contaminants that are actually threatening freshwater supplies today: heavy metals like lead and arsenic, pharmaceutical residues, microplastics, and agricultural chemicals. Worse, chlorine actually reacts with naturally occurring organic matter in water to form disinfection byproducts like trihalomethanes, which are themselves carcinogenic. So we have a solution that was designed for 1900s contamination being applied to a 2025 contamination profile, and the gap between what it can do and what we actually need it to do keeps widening every year.

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/02/nx-s1-5771155/epa-flags-microplastics-pharmaceuticals-drinking-water

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772416625001664

Solution 2: Boiling Water

Boiling water over fire or stove to kill pathogens, the oldest and most universally recommended household water treatment method, still promoted by WHO and governments globally. Boiling is the go-to recommendation given to water-insecure communities and yet I think it's one of the most frustratingly inadequate solutions we keep recycling. The core problem is that boiling only kills biological contaminants, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa. It does absolutely nothing to remove heavy metals, nitrates, pesticides, or chemical pollutants. In fact, boiling concentrates dissolved contaminants because water evaporates but the chemicals stay behind, meaning boiled contaminated water can actually be chemically worse after boiling than before.

https://www.bluewatergroup.com/en-us/blog/the-disadvantages-of-boiling-water-for-purification

https://www.quora.com/Does-boiling-water-remove-heavy-metals-from-water

Solution 3: Plastic Bottled Water Distribution

Distributing commercially bottled water to water-insecure communities as an emergency or long-term drinking water solution is used extensively in disaster relief and in regions with contaminated municipal supplies. This one feels like the most obvious band-aid solution masquerading as a fix. Bottled water doesn't treat the contamination problem, it just outsources it to a plastic factory and a supply chain. The communities most dependent on bottled water are often the least able to afford it consistently, creating a situation where clean water becomes something you pay for rather than something you have access to. Meanwhile the plastic waste from single-use bottles ends up back in the same waterways that were contaminated to begin with, creating a feedback loop where the solution literally contributes to the original problem. Studies have also found that bottled water is not always cleaner than tap water and can contain microplastics leached from the bottle itself. It's a commercial product sold as a human rights solution, and I think that's exactly why it keeps failing the people who need it most.

https://lamont.columbia.edu/news/bottled-water-can-contain-hundreds-thousands-previously-uncounted-tiny-plastic-bits-study

https://news.osu.edu/some-bottled-water-worse-than-tap-for-microplastics-study-shows

All these ideas are unable to solve the issues we want to fix when they are used independently as they can only solve one issue at a time. However, combining and redesigning all 3 ideas allows us to create a single idea that is able to solve all 3 issues simultaneously

Solution 2: Another idea we thought of was the use electric stoves but these are already quite common in many household which does not necessarily mean our idea is "innovative"

Solution 3: Using drones to capture dust. Similar reason to the first idea in the sense that it is too expensive and is just one of those robot floor cleaners but with propellers. This can also be a potential hazard for the user as the drones may hit certain obstacles and even the users themselves which can be inconvenient and possibly dangerous.

2) Solution 2: For buffets, people usually dispose of the paper cups once they are finished. We can encourage Organizers to tell people to bring their own reusable cups beforehand or have a stall to allow them to buy reusable cups for their own use. This way, people will have less waste from the paper cups and it functions the same. This does not work as people might forget to bring the cups and feel upset that they have to buy one instead of getting a drink. 

3) Solution 3: To design a system to empower communities, we have thought of passing broken items to people who can fix them like a group of people that can fix it and repair the items in their free time and pass it back to the people. This could save the waste of buying new things and throwing away repairable things. This might not work as we may not find the people who know how to repair the stuff and even there are these types of people, they might not want to do it for free and if they charge, people might feel it is easier to buy a new one. 

https://caartn.com/collections/kraft-paper-bags

Second idea is single material water bottle, a durable water bottle fully of one type of plastic including cap, body, interior using flexible thickness instead of multiple materials. This does not work because it lacks market attractiveness as there are many products in market with the similar selling point of “durable and sustainability”

Third idea is redesigning uniform to only be one kind of fabric, no plastic buttons, metal fasteners as most uniform are disposed after graduation. This may not work as it has low chance of adoption in market, especially with the concern of an affordable cost that a uniform has to have. Additionally, second hand clothes and uniforms are trending, hence demand for monomaterial uniform may be lower than expected.

2) Solution 2: We can utilize excess fabric to make book marks. This is low effort as any fabric can be used and you only need scissors and an iron, which every house has. This is not the chosen statement as it is low impact as not many people read physical books these days, and if they have, bookmarks are pretty common so they might not really want it. The impact is low as, the same thing, after making 5 of them, it starts to get too much and this means only very little fabric is being reused. People might be unwilling to use reused clothing as they might feel uncomfortable in using it when they feel it is dirty. 

3) Solution 3: Make a poster to remind people to avoid fast fashion by researching first before buying or upcycling solutions to reuse clothes to reduce fast fashion. This is low effort as making a poster is easy. However, this is not a good idea as people might just ignore the poster even if it is captivating, this might also not be enough to encourage people to avoid fast fashion.

https://scrappliquegalore.com/pages/textile-waste-upcycling-workshops-singapore?srsltid=AfmBOorOUPFBuQAdwF-4wjc_UcN3VrZlBeEscC9xherl95zg0AP8Qp0J

Our second idea was making a website that showcased videos on how to repair certain items, we found that this idea was good as it was convenient as it could be easily accessed and appealed to those who were interested in learning how to repair items. However, we thought that this idea resembled similar existing websites or apps already and would not really attract others as they could access it for free online and need not subscribe for these online tutorials on our website.

Our third idea was the repair workshop where residents would learn to repair broken items at the community centre. This was because of the complexity of hosting the workshop and the problem of making a profit off it. To repair broken items, resources would be needed to fix them which can be a lot of money. This would have to force us to increase the price of joining the workshop which can deter residents from joining. This would go against the point of having this workshop and if the price if joining the workshop was low, there would be little to no profit from the workshop which would deter people from investing in it as they would gain nothing from it. Additionally, there was the issue of not knowing what broken object residents would bring to the workshop. There are many types of appliances and items and the repairmen who would have to teach them how to repair it might not know how to do so.

Idea: Clothing with lots of detachable parts (zippers everywhere for sleeves, legs, sides, etc.)

Why it failed:

• Confusing / time-consuming to use independently

• Hard to align zippers while seated (limited mobility)

• Can feel bulky or uncomfortable when sitting for long periods

—> what was made for convenience, became inconvenient / complicated

2. Velcro on clothing

Idea: Replace buttons/zippers with Velcro for quick fastening

Why it failed:

• Velcro wears out quickly after washing

• Loud sound can be uncomfortable or draw unwanted attention

• Can irritate skin or catch on other fabrics

• Doesn’t look very stylish → users may feel self-conscious

—> Functional, but not durable/fashionable enough

3. One-size-fits-all adaptive clothing

Idea: Design a universal outfit that works for all wheelchair users

Why it failed:

• Wheelchair users have very different needs (posture, mobility, preferences)

• Poor fit = discomfort, pressure points, possible skin issues (e.g, sensory sensitivity/sensitive skin)

• Doesn’t account for personal style or body shape

—> Oversimplified the problem (ignored diversity of users)

Idea: Clothing with lots of detachable parts (zippers everywhere for sleeves, legs, sides, etc.)

Why it failed:

• Confusing / time-consuming to use independently

• Hard to align zippers while seated (limited mobility)

• Can feel bulky or uncomfortable when sitting for long periods

—> what was made for convenience, became inconvenient / complicated

2. Velcro on clothing

Idea: Replace buttons/zippers with Velcro for quick fastening

Why it failed:

• Velcro wears out quickly after washing

• Loud sound can be uncomfortable or draw unwanted attention

• Can irritate skin or catch on other fabrics

• Doesn’t look very stylish → users may feel self-conscious

—> Functional, but not durable/fashionable enough

3. One-size-fits-all adaptive clothing

Idea: Design a universal outfit that works for all wheelchair users

Why it failed:

• Wheelchair users have very different needs (posture, mobility, preferences)

• Poor fit = discomfort, pressure points, possible skin issues (e.g, sensory sensitivity/sensitive skin)

• Doesn’t account for personal style or body shape

—> Oversimplified the problem (ignored diversity of users)

The Yindii app is a platform designed to tackle food waste by allowing users to order surplus food from restaurants, bakeries, and shops at a discounted price for local pickup. At first glance, this concept directly addresses food waste from food chains that have perfectly good items left over at closing time. However, the solution struggles to fully solve the problem due to major logistical barriers. The platform relies entirely on a self pickup model, meaning that if the distance between the user and the shop is too far, the inconvenience and travel time often outweigh the discount. Because there is currently no integrated delivery system, user adoption drops in less dense areas. Consequently, the rate of surplus sales slows down significantly, and if the food is not claimed quickly enough by local foot traffic, it still ends up being thrown away, ultimately limiting the app's overall environmental impact.

You can read more about the operational hurdles of these platforms here:

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/2219767/fighting-food-waste

Solution 2: "Ugly Produce" Campaigns

Many supermarkets have introduced "ugly produce" campaigns to sell misshapen or cosmetically imperfect fruits and vegetables at a discount, aiming to reduce the massive amounts of food wasted at the farm level. At first glance, this concept directly addresses the unrealistic beauty standards that cause perfectly edible food to be discarded before it even reaches the shelves. However, my team and I think that this solution struggles to fully solve the problem because it frequently just shifts the waste further down the supply chain. We believe that while consumers might buy the discounted irregular produce, they often over-purchase due to the low price and let it rot in their own refrigerators. Furthermore, from our perspective, discounted ugly produce can cannibalize the sales of regular fruits and vegetables, meaning the "perfect" items end up going bad and being thrown away instead. Ultimately, we think this approach acts more as a marketing tactic that fails to address systemic agricultural overproduction or permanently change strict cosmetic regulations.

You can read more about why these marketing strategies struggle to make a real environmental impact here:

https://grist.org/food-and-agriculture/how-to-sell-an-ugly-vegetable-give-it-googly-eyes/

Solution 3: Supermarket Surplus Donations

Many corporate food chains and supermarkets pledge to donate their unsold, near-expire food to local charities and food banks to prevent it from going to the landfill. The concept seems like a perfect win-win: feed vulnerable populations while simultaneously eliminating corporate food waste. However, my team and I think this solution heavily struggles in execution because it often creates severe logistical bottlenecks for the receiving organizations. We noticed that charities are frequently underfunded, rely heavily on volunteers, and lack the massive, refrigerated transport or storage space required to handle sudden, unpredictable influxes of highly perishable goods. Consequently, a large portion of the donated food spoils before it can be safely distributed to those in need. From our team's perspective, this model simply turns food aid organizations into a dumping ground for poor-quality waste, acting as a band-aid that allows large retailers to avoid fixing their own over-ordering and inventory mismanagement issues at the source.

You can read more about how this system burdens charities here:

https://www.sustainweb.org/news/mar25-use-by-report-food-waste/

2. Smog Guns and Water Sprinklers: Used to settle dust, these methods are criticized as "temporary fixes" or "gimmicks" that do not treat the widespread, persistent pollution concentrations.

3. "Happy Seeder" Program: While intended to stop stubble burning, this program has seen mixed results, with some farmers finding it ineffective or too costly, leading to continued illegal burning

2. The second solution was to rent out clothing to people who need it, but it failed because it would require extensive logistics to prepare everything and emit tons of carbon emissions from transport.

3. The third solution was to have a Fast Fashion Recycling program. This was quite unreliable as clothing pieces are not truly recycled into new garments due to technological limits and most clothing actually become cleaning rags to clean spills or vomit.

Secondly, the Eco-Credit digital passport itself also faced challenges because it requires attendees to consciously engage with an app throughout the event. This adds friction, as users must remember to scan, track, or check their progress, which many are unlikely to do in a fast-paced event setting. Without strong or immediate incentives, the feature becomes easy to ignore, limiting its effectiveness in driving sustainable actions.

Our third idea of reusable and useful doorgifts failed because usefulness is highly subjective. Items that seem practical to organisers may not be valued by attendees, and can still end up as waste. Furthermore, event attendees typically do not attend for the purpose of receiving gifts, which lowers the perceived importance of such items. Even if the gifts are reusable, producing them in large quantities still consumes resources, making the overall environmental benefit questionable.

Our second idea, the Eco-Credit digital passport itself also faced challenges because it requires attendees to consciously engage with an app throughout the event. This adds friction, as users must remember to scan, track, or check their progress, which many are unlikely to do in a fast-paced event setting. Without strong or immediate incentives, the feature becomes easy to ignore, limiting its effectiveness in driving sustainable actions.

Our third idea of reusable and useful doorgifts failed because usefulness is highly subjective. Items that seem practical to organisers may not be valued by attendees, and can still end up as waste. Furthermore, event attendees typically do not attend for the purpose of receiving gifts, which lowers the perceived importance of such items. Even if the gifts are reusable, producing them in large quantities still consumes resources, making the overall environmental benefit questionable.

Solution 1:

We wanted to create an app that helps decrease food waste by tracking food's expiry date, reminding them when the food would expire. F&B businesses can also use the app and sell it to people who want it or give back to the community. At first, it seemed simple and easy to do, using less resources but none of us had the coding skills to do it and there are lots of app already, so what would make ours stand out? we needed to have a special feature and something that made consumers use our app over and over again.

Solution 2:

We wanted to implement a rewards system for households that have made an effort to reduce the food waste generated in their house. we had planned to measure the waste generated per household and household with a decrease in food waste would get vouchers to reward them and encourage them to keep up with their efforts. unfortunately this idea was not very realistic, as it would be incredibly time consuming and difficult to collate and measure the individual results of every household, and it wouldn't be feasible for us to hand out rewards as we do not have the resources or means to give them out.

Solution 3:

we wanted to create a game to introduce to primary schoolers teaching them about food waste and ways that we can combat it. it would be a simple 2D pixelated adventuring or platformer game. however, like stated in the first solution, none of us have much prior coding experience, and creating a game entirely from scratch would not be very favourable.

Our second idea of connecting the milk bottles to act as pipe drains for greenhouse irrigation, alongside an AI-automated watering timer, also faced challenges because of practicality and safety constraints. Creating secure, watertight seals between plastic milk bottles to act as pressurized irrigation pipes is highly prone to leaking and structural failure, which is a hazard in a school environment. Additionally, basic automated watering timers already exist cheaply; using AI merely to schedule watering is overkill. We learned that recycled materials must be used within their structural limits, and AI should be deployed to solve complex, dynamic problems rather than replacing simple, existing tools like a timer.

Our third idea of building a static garden wall with the milk bottles in schools failed because it was entirely passive and lacked the required technological edge. While a green wall might be visually appealing at first, it does not mandate active, continuous student engagement. Without a data-driven or AI component built into its daily maintenance, it becomes just another static school decoration that students build once and quickly ignore. We learned that visual impact is not enough on its own; a successful, modern sustainability product must require ongoing, interactive participation from the students to keep them invested in the closed-loop cycle.

App that decreases food waste by helping household track items with expiry dates and remind them when food is going to expire. F&B businesses can put up excess food on the app, and sell it to people or give to the community in need. At first, we thought it would be simple and easy to do, using less resources too. However, none of us knew how to code and trying to code an app would be too hard to do. In addition, in the world where there are so many apps, ours need a special feature(s) that would attract people to use it, as well as improving it and adding more features so that consumers would keep using it.

solution 2:

introducing rewards to households that have made an effort to reduce food waste. we can measure the amount of food waste individual households produce monthly, and for households with a decrease in food waste, we can reward them with vouchers to encourage them to carry on with their efforts. however, this plan is not very realistic. it would require a lot of resources and time and effort in order to measure and collate the results, and we also do not have the means to hand out vouchers.

solution 3:

creating a simple 2D adventure/platformer game to be introduced to primary schoolers to teach them about food waste and how to combat it. it would be quite simple like a pixelated, short game, but like we mentioned in solution 1, none of us have much prior experience with coding, and it would be quite difficult to create a game entirely for scratch.

• Use leftover plastics from external sources — Reason for failure: plastics are not biodegradable and also the logistics of obtaining the leftover plastics is

  complicated.

• Make the packaging thin as possible and stretchy — Reason for failure: The packaging would not be able to keep up the quality of the packaging and it is also not stable.

• Make the packaging out of biodegradable material and have many patterned holes so that minimal packaging is used and it is biodegradable and space efficient—Reason for failure: product could get damaged And packaging is not sturdy

This failed because fresh fruit skin and pulp are too wet and spoil quickly, so the material becomes moldy, unstable, and hard to transport or store. It also failed nutritionally because fruit waste varies a lot by source and season, so one batch may be sugary, another fibrous, and another too acidic for reliable bird feed formulation. For birds, that inconsistency is a bigger problem than people expect, because feed has to be stable and safe every time.

2) “Mix all fruit waste together and sell it as bird feed”

This sounds simple, but it failed because not all fruit waste is safe or useful without treatment. Some peels and seeds can contain anti-nutritional compounds, and peels may also carry pesticide residue, so a mixed product can create health risks if it is not tested and processed properly.

3) “Use it as feed for wild birds in parks or public spaces”

This failed because feeding wild birds can concentrate birds in one place, which raises disease-transmission risk and creates hygiene problems from droppings and leftover feed. It can also backfire if the feed is messy or gets wasted on the ground, which attracts pests and made the product look irresponsible rather than sustainable. In Singapore especially, this idea is risky because wild bird feeding is sensitive and can conflict with public-health concerns

The solution failed as countries were unwilling to enforce stringent measures. They prioritised economic sectors such as industrial and agricultural activities over compliance. The limits were achievable, but most countries delayed plans and ignored deadlines, opting to accept fines rather than charges.

Failed solution 2:

The Odd-Even Traffic Scheme implemented in Delhi sought to reduce vehicle emissions by restricting cars on the road based on license plate numbers. While short-term reductions in air pollution were observed during implementation periods, the policy ultimately failed to achieve sustained improvements in air quality. We believe this is largely because it addressed only one source of pollution, while major contributors such as industrial emissions, construction dust, and agricultural burning remained unregulated. Furthermore, many households adapted by purchasing second vehicles to circumvent the restriction, undermining its effectiveness. Studies by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago found that the scheme had minimal long-term impact on overall pollution levels, illustrating its limited scope and weak behavioural enforcement.

Failed solution 3:

The Beijing Air Pollution Action Plan implemented in Beijing between 2013 and 2017 aimed to reduce air pollution through coal reduction and stricter industrial regulations. Although pollution levels decreased within Beijing, the policy is considered only partially successful due to systemic weaknesses. We deduced that this was a result of a multitude of reasons, notably, pollution was displaced to surrounding regions as industries relocated, creating a regional spillover effect rather than a net reduction. In addition, inconsistent enforcement in neighbouring provinces, driven by economic priorities, weakened the overall policy impact. The plan also failed to address secondary pollutants such as ozone, which in some cases increased. Research from Nature Climate Change and Tsinghua University highlights these limitations, showing that the policy did not achieve comprehensive or sustained air quality improvements.

2. Static "Food Waste" Smart Bins. This failed as these bins focus on Post-Service Data. They tell you what you wasted, but they don't tell the chef when to stop cooking. As your cousin mentioned, the real problem is the "Information Gap" during the service. A smart bin doesn't prevent a chef from cooking a fresh 20% buffer batch at 10:20 PM; it just weighs it after it's thrown away.

3. Display Only" Trays but it ruins the Guest Experience. High-paying guests at a 5-star hotel feel "cheated" if the buffet looks empty or stingy. It leads to bad reviews and complaints.

2. We had a presentation to the school explaining how the students PLDs can harm the environment and they should recycle it, but after receiving feedback from the audience, we realised that most secondary school students truly believe they will still use their PLDS after secondary school. We realised we need more proof and/or incentive to encourage student participation in our programme (eg surveying previous year graduates (alr on it!) or having vouchers in exchange for every iPad collected)

3. One of our original ideas was to partner with the students (possibly Student Councillors or class leaders) in our school to collect the iPads instead of outside organisations, as it is way more convenient and also more feasible to collaborate with them compared to other organisations. Moreover, through this process, minimal funds are required as there's sufficient manpower. However, after thinking it through and weighing the pros and cons, we scraped the idea due to its flaws. Even though it may be easier to work with students from our school, in the end, we still need a sponsor to help with the economic side of our project. Our whole premise of the project is to give incentives to the students so they trade in their PLDs, and this can only happen if we partner with an existing organisation to provide us with the funds required for these incentives. In the end, bringing in an organisation not only helps for the collection, but also the added benefit for the students.

2. Another idea was to provide pre-packed reusable event kits to all attendess, eg. Cups, utensils and containers. Although sustainable in theory, it requires high upfront cost and logistics. Many attendees might even not use or return the items, leading to wastage instead of reduction. Besides that, it is also inconvenient to carry these items around.

3. One of our ideas is to get the attendees the opportunity to use their smartphones to scan a QR code while properly disposing of waste in order to accumulate points or rewards. Though this initiative will promote waste segregation, it will still fail to address the problem of waste production at its very source since all it does is manage waste once it has been produced.

Schools trialled smart scales at tray return points to automatically weigh and log food waste. It failed to scale because the hardware was expensive to install in every canteen, required constant maintenance, and staff found it disruptive to the existing tray return workflow. Vendors also didn’t receive the data in a usable format, so even when waste was tracked, behaviour didn’t change.

Failed Solution 2: Student Food Waste Awareness Campaigns

Many schools ran posters, pledges, and assemblies encouraging students to finish their food. These failed because, as our panel discussion highlighted, students are pro-environment in theory but choose the path of least resistance in practice. Without any incentive or system change, awareness alone didn’t translate into finishing meals.

Failed Solution 3: Canteen Pre-Order Apps (e.g., school lunch booking systems)

Some schools have tried apps where students pre-order meals, so vendors know exactly how much to cook. These failed because student participation was low, students didn’t want to commit to a meal in the morning, orders were frequently cancelled or ignored, and vendors couldn’t rely on the data. Without strong incentives or enforcement, adoption dropped off quickly.

A complete ban on single-use materials may seem effective, but it fails because it relies too heavily on users to always be prepared. Many attendees may forget to bring their own containers or find it inconvenient, leading to frustration and non-compliance. This can disrupt event operations, slow down food distribution, and create negative experiences. Ultimately, a solution that depends on perfect user behaviour is unrealistic and difficult to sustain in real-world settings.

Failed Solution 2: Replace all disposables with biodegradable packaging.

Switching to biodegradable or compostable packaging does not fully solve the problem, as many of these materials still require specific conditions to decompose and often end up in landfills. Additionally, they are more expensive, increasing costs for event organisers. Most importantly, this solution does not address user behaviour, as attendees will still treat these items as disposable, continuing the cycle of waste rather than reducing it.

Failed Solution 3: Require attendees to wash their own utensils.

Having attendees wash their own reusable utensils is impractical and inconvenient, as many people are unwilling to spend time cleaning during an event. This can result in long queues, inconsistent hygiene standards, and an overall unpleasant experience. Poorly cleaned utensils may also pose health risks. Since this solution increases effort for users without providing clear benefits, it is unlikely to be widely accepted or effective.

2) Blind box scrap bundle: A platform to curate scrap boxes filled with old fabric cuttings to be purchased by small designers for a low cost. While this takes a creative stance, it is again not as practical as not many people can sew, and many do not have the time or willingless to sew or learn how to sew. Hence this solution would be more targetting to designers, which is not in our area of focus. With the finance aspect as well, as these bundles may be costly when accounted with shipping, and designers would choose to opt for mass purchasing of new fabric, as it would be cheaper and exactly what they wanted.

3) Creating water soluble threads for designers to dissolve after creating designing prototypes so they can easily remove them and reuse the fabric for the next version. This solution suffered the same problems as the last two, with it being not practical for consumers in their daily life due to lack of time. Not only that, this is also aimed at designers which are not our target audience. Ordinary consumers generally do not sew or design their own prototypes so they would not have much use for it.

My group and I came up with an idea to incorporate plants to remove air pollutants in an indoor environment. (e.g. using plants to make filters to be used as part of an air filter). 

This idea failed because we found many studies showing that plants are not highly effective in removing pollutants from the air. Additionally, we also found that only some plants, such as Snake (Sansevieria trifasciata) and Money (Epipremnum aureum) plants, were effective. While plants do absorb pollutants in the air, their impact is minimal in real indoor environments.We have found a study to prove this which states that effectiveness of plants for passive removal of particulate matter is low in the indoor environment. This is a significant limitation as Particulate air pollution is a major health concern and is responsible for about one in nine premature deaths worldwide. Therefore, relying on plants as the main component of an air filtration system would not sufficiently reduce harmful pollutants. Overall, this idea failed because it overestimates the real-world effectiveness of plants and does not adequately address the scale and complexity of indoor air pollution. 

(source : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132322006175?utm_source=chatgpt.com ) 

Failed solution 2:

My group and I came up with an idea to make use of our organic filter sheets in the air conditioner as a replacement or an additional filtration system instead/with the existing mesh filter sheets used in air cons for filtration of many dust particles.

This idea failed because we realised that air conditioner dust filters have to be effective for a very long time especially when it comes to household uses and they have to be very durable. They also have really tiny and minute pores that try to trap even the smallest dust particles. However our organic air filter sheets that we plan on making do not have comparably that tiny pores and cannot trap as many dust particles. And when we thought of using it as an additional dust filtration mechanism, we realised that since they are made from food fibres, they would not last for a very long time inside the extreme heat energy produced by the air conditioners. No matter how many chemicals we use they would definitely rot and and even become sticky and etc. under the extreme conditions and temperatures in the air conditioner. So we decided to drop that idea. 

Failed solution 3:

A solution was using cheap ionizer purifiers, often sold online for under $50, and promised affordable clean air but delivered something far worse. These devices work by charging particles so they stick to surfaces such as walls, furniture or the floor, thus proving pollution is still present, just not existing in the air. Additionally, they also produce ozone as a toxic byproduct. Ozone is a known lung irritant that can trigger asthma attacks, worsen respiratory infections, and even cause long-term lung damage. Thus, the California Air Resources Board had officially banned ozone generators for air cleaning purposes, yet they remain widely available on platforms like Shopee and Amazon. In trying to solve the air pollution problem, these devices ended up creating a new one, making indoor air quality worse than before. 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12111674/? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S246858441730020X?

2. Having an open-air collection system. This would fail because if there wasn't a lot of rainfall or greywater that day and afterwards the weather was super sunny, the water in the collection system would just evaporate, and there would not be enough water in the system. It would also fail because the draining system could become air-polluted

https://www.worldplumbing.org/safe-drainage-systems/ 

3. Rainwater harvesting systems, especially large storage tanks, are commonly promoted as a way to conserve water. However, in many cases, these systems fail to deliver the expected benefits. One major reason is that increasing the size of the tank does not necessarily lead to a significant increase in usable water. In areas with irregular rainfall, tanks may remain empty for long periods or overflow during heavy rain, leading to wasted water. Additionally, poor design, such as improper placement of tanks or clogged gutters, can reduce the efficiency of water collection. In dense urban environments, limited roof space further restricts how much rainwater can be captured.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/8/6/264?https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ees.2020.0426?

Kickstarter-famous attempt to harvest energy from "wasted" road surface area. Failed because the kWh-per-day yield was a fraction of projections and cost-per-kWh was an order of magnitude worse than rooftop solar.

Lesson for us: "recovering wasted energy" is only meaningful if the kWh per installation per day is large enough to beat installation cost. This is exactly the challenge Yipin and one survey respondent raised about shower-water heat. We have to quantify ΔT × flow → kWh per stack per day before we finalize our solutions

2. Masdar City greywater recycling (UAE, 2008–present):

Net-zero city that promised total greywater recovery and quietly walked the goal back as the centralised system proved too complex, capex-heavy and energy-hungry.

Lesson for us: retrofit must be the primary path, not the afterthought (80%+ of Singaporeans live in existing buildings), and modular/decentralised beats grand-and-centralised. This is precisely why our two-pronged approach leads with the clamp-on retrofit.

3. Power-Pipe / GFX drain-water heat recovery (1990s–2010s):

The most directly relevant failure of all three. Technology worked (25–60% heat recovery, exactly our target band), but commercial adoption was effectively zero. Failed because (a) plumbers didn't sell it, it fell between trades, exactly Yipin's "not under our scope" line; (b) savings were invisible without monitoring; (c) sold as capex, not service; (d) targeted homeowners who don't feel the pain.

Lesson for us: DRAIN+ is essentially Power-Pipe-but-fixed: DaaS instead of capex, SmartPulse for visible savings, bundled value (greywater + Green Mark + carbon), and sold B2B to FMs who actually feel utility cost pressure. The +75 NPS among building owners in our survey is direct evidence the segment swap is the right call.

The cross-cutting insight at the end: all three failures share a single root cause. A real waste stream identified, but the business model and adoption pathway were wrong. None of them failed because the waste wasn't real. DRAIN+'s strategy (retrofit-first, DaaS-funded, IoT-monitored, sold to owners) is a direct response to each mistake.

Schools trialled smart scales at tray return points to automatically weigh and log food waste. It failed to scale because the hardware was expensive to install in every canteen, required constant maintenance, and staff found it disruptive to the existing tray return workflow. Vendors also didn’t receive the data in a usable format, so even when waste was tracked, behaviour didn’t change.

Failed Solution 2: Student Food Waste Awareness Campaigns

Many schools ran posters, pledges, and assemblies encouraging students to finish their food. These failed because, as our panel discussion highlighted, students are pro-environment in theory but choose the path of least resistance in practice. Without any incentive or system change, awareness alone didn’t translate into finishing meals.

Failed Solution 3: Canteen Pre-Order Apps (e.g., school lunch booking systems)

Some schools tried apps where students pre-ordered meals so vendors knew exactly how much to cook. These failed because student participation was low, students didn’t want to commit to a meal in the morning, orders were frequently cancelled or ignored, and vendors couldn’t rely on the data. Without strong incentives or enforcement, adoption dropped off quickly.

Use of greywater to flush toilets. Though this idea may have its merits such as the reusing of greywater produced from sinks integrated into the toilet bowls, it is rather difficult to scale and implement this to most HDB flats. Furthermore, the implementation may require high costs and inconvenience consumers during the installation. From the survey we conducted, it is apparent that most consumers favour convenience and are also unwilling to pay high installation costs despite it being more environmentally friendly in the long term.

Solution 2:

Use of a dual plumbing system in households to separate greywater and blackwater. This is not feasible due to high installation and maintenance costs, together with the need to change the drainage systems of existing HDB estates and the possible risk of cross contamination. Given that our target group favours convenience and low costs, this would not be widely accepted and used by a large majority of the target group despite them being able to reuse greywater and become more environmentally sustainable.

Solution 3:

Use of a reverse osmosis filtration system in households. This is not feasible as reverse osmosis requires high amounts of energy to be conducted, this would contribute significantly to the cost making it not favoured by our target group that being HDB residents. Furthermore, the reverse osmosis filtration system would require high maintenance which would also contribute to the high cost and inconvenience the target group. Since our target group favours low costs and convenience, the reverse osmosis filtration system would not be well received by them.

Secondly, edible utensils were not suitable as there are many administrative issues to deal with, especially with things that will be eaten. It will be a challenge to cater to many communities in Singapore due to different religions and practices. Furthermore, there is an issue of hygiene, whereby strict hygiene standards must be met and many of these will not be feasible alone as a youth. Furthermore, if somehow our products are edible, people may not want to consume them as there will be many rounds of processing to ensure a longer shelf life, which will hike up the costs of our product.

Lastly, we decided not to create an app as we lack the coding skills to do so and promoting a new app in the midsts of countless other apps will be challenging as there is a high competition and it is also difficult to relate it to youths. Furthermore, we'd have to fund money in to new updates continuously, which could even make the app blocked behind the paywall and eventually making youth loose interest.

NEA's "Love Your Food @ Schools" Project (2017–2019):
1.In an effort to turn leftovers into compost, the National Environment Agency placed food waste digesting equipment in ten trial schools. They also ran awareness campaigns to encourage staff and students to avoid wasting food.Although,it had limited long-term sucess.While it increased short-term awareness and helped recycle some waste,keeping staff and student loyalty turned out to be challenging. The effort mostly only really handled waste after it was produced rather than preventing over-portioning or hurried ordering in the canteen, and participation decreased after the initial excitement. Changing someone's behavior proved to still be pretty challenging.

2. The 800 Super Pilot: Intelligent Food Waste Bins and Lockers
In HDB estates including Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh, a "Smart Locker" system was tested in 2021. Residents were given special airtight containers to collect food waste in order to receive supermarket coupons. However, due to that it couldn't  match Singapore's current garbage chute system's convenience and easiness, this idea was not able to achieve long-term success. When they could just toss the foul-smelling food trash down the chute at their door, most homeowners deemed it too much trouble to bring it down to a locker. Additionally, people were more concerned about hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic and preferred the quick, contactless disposal of their house chutes over using reusable containers and community lockers. This sort of system was also implemented in a plethora of other ASEAN countries like Vietnam's "Deposit-Return" system or Bangkok's "organic waste bins" systems.

3.In a 2020 study, researchers wanted to reduce food waste in schools by leveraging computer models to design "optimized" menus that were healthier and more sustainable. They also implemented "tasting spoons" so students could sample a small portion of a new dish before opting for a full serving, hoping this would prevent them from throwing away food they found unpleasant.That being said, although the menus appeared "perfect" theoretically on paper , the results showed that they did not actually impact the quantity of food students left uneaten. Although "tasting spoons" aided students in the sense that it steered them away from clear disliked foods, they accidentally introduced a new issue known as "serving waste." Since numerous students sampled the food and chose not to eat it further, large amounts of prepared meals remained uneaten in the serving trays and ultimately needed to be thrown away. This experiment showed us that merely changing the menu or providing samples isn't going to be enough if the students don't find the food attractive or if the portions arent proportional to their hungar levels.

Citations:

https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/news/news/index/nea-launches-love-your-food-@-schools-project-to-encourage-youth-to-cherish-and-not-waste-food

https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/news/news/index/new-public-waste-collection-contract-for-the-ang-mo-kio-toa-payoh-sector-commences-1-october-2021

https://en.mae.gov.vn/first-depositreturn-model-launched-in-hue-9017.htm

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12937-020-00579-z

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/food-waste-lockers-hdb-ang-mo-kio-toa-payoh-2193986

https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/3r-programmes-and-resources/food-waste-management/food-waste-management-strategies

https://en.mae.gov.vn/first-depositreturn-model-launched-in-hue-9017.htm

How can we utilize excess fabric waste from production into purposeful innovations?

Our Team’s Framed Design Challenge Statement:

How might we integrate a scalable upcycling system within Singaporean production lines to transform industrial fabric offcuts into high-durability patchwork carpeting for public infrastructure and sustainable workspaces

3 failed solutions in fashion waste and why they might not have worked:

1. Charity Donation Dumping

• Solution: Placing bins in malls or public spaces for people to donate old clothes

• Why it failed: It was focusing on consumer waste rather than production waste. It targets the wrong end of the supply chain (post-consumer and not post-production stage). This does not solve fabric waste from production as it is dealing with used clothes that contain inconsistent fabric qualities, and often contaminated ones, making it almost impossible to use as the primary raw material for high-end innovations. Plus, in Singapore, much of the donated clothes ends up incinerated because there is no powerful industrial system that can handle large volumes of unwanted clothing/fabric.

• What we can takeaway: We should focus on pre-consumer fabric waste produced, that are brand-new, clean and has promised technical properties that can then be seen as a primary raw material for new innovations.

2. Workshops turning fabric scraps into small trinkets

• Solution: Hosting small workshops to turn fabric scraps into items like tote bags or keychains

• Why it failed: It was mainly fabric repurposing going on, hence the solution is not scalable and does not solve tons of fabric waste produced by factories.

• What we can takeaway: We should target lowering production waste (root of the problem), and propose an idea that is scalable and self-sustainable 

3. Pricing eco-friendly products at a higher rate

• Solution: making recycled / upcycled products priced at higher costs, in order to cover the costs of recycling + upcycling, as well as to change the perception of scrap materials being lower in value.

• Why it failed: consumers would rather pay for something cheaper, many people dont consider about the eco-friendliness when purchasing products. non-eco friendly companies dominate the markets and sell their products for cheaper prices which deters consumers from choosing the more expensive eco friendly products

• What we can takeaway: high prices cover the costs, but they greatly reduce the impact of our solutions. consider what is desirable to our target audience.

2. Odor Absorbents. Our second idea was to stuff coffee grounds into a fabric like a sock to absorb odor from places like the fridge or from shoes. However, not only was this idea too simplistic, it left lingering scents of coffee which may not be to everyone's liking.

3. Textiles. Our third idea was to mix coffee grounds into shirts to give them anti-odor and fast drying properties which would be useful for people who are sporty, go outside a lot or sweat a lot. However, when we tested this on old shirts, we realised the process of incorporating coffee grounds into shirts was too complicated and we ended up leaving patches of coffee stains on the shirt as well as a strong coffee odor.