We ran five “How do you take your tea?” workshops, across four
different locations in Southwark, with 60 participants from different cultural backgrounds and different languages spoken at home.

This research reveals firstly that creating space for intangible cultural heritage allows individuals to reflect on memories of “home”, generating feelings of solastalgia and coping strategies.

Secondly, introducing cultural and daily practices connects
people to their Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH)** and facilitates
reflection on identity to create a sense of belonging. Thirdly,
such collective sharing, embracing and appreciating diversity,
promotes a sense of unity and generates community cohesion.

This project synthesised knowledge of solastalgia with ICH, as a
benefit to climate-displaced and host communities, to develop
research on the emerging intersection of resilience and climate
change.

*the solace or loss people feel when their home is lost or subject to change.

**practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills tha communities, and individuals recognise as part of their cultura heritage.

Introduction

The IPCC has identified migration as one of the expected main consequences of climate change (2010). Indeed, climate data predict that we must prepare for a world in which we are all in state of a 'migrancy' (King, 2020). Yet terms such as ‘Climate migrant’ highlight the individual rather than movements at the scale of community, nation, or planet (Ahuja, 2021). As the number of climate-displaced populations grows, the generations-deep connection to their rituals, customs, and ancestral ties with the land, cultural practices and Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) become endangered (Aktürk & Lerski, 2021). Often overlooked in the context of climate displacement, the value of these cultural practices is reflected in the UNESCO definition of ICH. The 2003 Convention defines ICH in Article 2 as ‘...comprising the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage’ (UNESCO, 2003). Based on the idea of the loss of home and habitat, solastalgia has the potential to increase the understanding of the psychological impacts of migration (Albrecht et al., 2007). Albrecht (2003) defines solastalgia as the pain or distress caused by the loss of a comforting place; the sense of desolation people feel, consciously or unconsciously, when their home or land is subjected to change or is lost.

Climatable, as an emerging research platform, anticipates a future of mass migration, understands the mental health implications of solastalgia and develops tools for resilience strategies. We define resilience as a community’s or individual’s ability to overcome adversity and continue their normal development (Ungar, 2022). However, we identify with Michael Ungar’s (2022) shift in the understanding of resilience ‘from an individual concept,...to a more relational understanding of well-being embedded in a social-ecological framework’. The Borough of Sanctuary initiative presents an opportunity to engage with ICH within the locale of the South London Borough of Southwark, to create a social-ecological framework to help build resilience. The movement aims to create a network of towns and cities throughout the UK that are places of safety and inclusion for people seeking sanctuary (lewisham.cityofsanctuary.org, 2022).

This case study presents the findings from a series of ‘How do you take your tea?’ workshops with participants from different cultural backgrounds and different languages spoken at home. Participants shared their answers to “What do you do to feel at home?”, “What can others do to help you feel at home?”, and “What does sanctuary mean to you?”. Ultimately, our research aims to discover, “How can the Borough of Sanctuary initiative help create cultural belonging to nurture a sense of belonging and home, to cope with solastalgia?” within the locale of the Southwark.

This research reveals firstly that creating space for ICH allows individuals to reflect on memories of “home”, generating feelings of solastalgia and coping strategies. Secondly, introducing cultural and daily practices connects people to their ICH and facilitates reflection on identity to create a sense of belonging. Thirdly, such collective sharing, embracing and appreciating diversity, promotes a sense of unity and generates community cohesion.

How can the ‘Borough of Sanctuary’ initiative help create cultural belonging to nurture a sense of belonging and home, to cope with solastalgia?

Literature Review

Since 2008, over 318 million persons have been displaced because of climate disasters. This is equivalent to the entire Australian population being displaced every year (Apap, 2021). In 2020 alone, 30.7 million people were displaced because of environmental disasters, notably linked to climate change (Apap, 2021). With the IEP (2020) predicting that 1.2 billion people could be displaced globally by 2050.

Galway et al. (2019) argue that while the physical health implications of climatic and environmental change are increasingly documented, the emotional, mental, and spiritual health implications remain understudied. Moreover, the psychological impact of being displaced by climate change (including climate disaster, domicide or climate-fueled war) is one of the most important, yet most neglected, issues faced by displaced populations. (Al-De-laimy et al., 2020).

Albrecht (2006) coined the term “solastalgia” to describe the psychological distress of Australians seeing the effects of mining on their local landscape. The term is increasingly used alongside pyschoteratic syndromes as a lens for examining emotional and mental health dimensions of climatic and environmental change (Galway et al., 2019). Askland and Bunn (2018) discuss how solastalgia has been adopted as a diagnostic tool to identify environmentally-induced distress. Along with domicide, examples of experiences of solastalgia can be seen across climate disasters and during the Covid pandemic.

Solastalgia isn’t just about the physical place, it refers to ways of being and belonging. Anderson (2009) argues that the conditions of solastalgia go beyond the relationship to the environment or nature to the system of relations that produce a stable sense of place. ‘While solastalgia may help to explain elements of place-based distress, communities face complex emotional terrains that extend beyond the transformation or degradation of the local environment, ...with deceit and betrayal figuring heavily in these community experiences’ (p.20, Askland and Bunn, 2018). As ontological well-being degrades through a sense of alienation and disempowerment, we find the most vital significance of ontological security at home (Giddens, 1991). However, settled society is a relatively new way of living. We can still have a strong sense of ontological identity without ties to a locational place. Mobile habitation illustrates that home resides in a fundamental notion of humanity (Chambers, 1994). It offers a sense of belonging, a place of refuge, rest and satisfaction, a psychological space of familiarity, relatedness, and communion. Nomadic communities offer insights into how we can create a sense of home away from an attachment to a physical place, to build resilience to solastalgia.

Connor and Marshall (2016) explore Heidegger’s (1927) idea of “being-in-the-world” arguing that ‘ “Home” is understood beyond the notion of dwelling, it is a sense of “being-in-the-world”, it is a place of familiarity and predictability. However, it is equally about the future. The future is what shapes our habitual ways of feeling and thinking, and our expectations’ (p.7, 2016). Daily and cultural practices provide us with a sense of control. Therefore they have the potential as a tool to build resilience to solastalgia.

Whereas solastalgia-like “earth emotions” are common in indigenous societies, Covid-19 gave the whole world a taste of solastalgia. Pandemic restrictions transformed cultural and natural environments; when whole cities’ were locked down there was a lived experience of negative environmental change (Albrecht, 2020). No longer were we awoken by passing trains or the chatter of children outside. As Albrecht writes, ‘any context in which pervasive change to the existing order challenges place identity has potential to deliver solastalgia.’ (p.34, Albrecht,  2006).

A trend emerged during the first lockdown, people were slowing down, making mini occasions out of previously mundane daily practices (Abidin, 2020). Individual daily practices help create community cultural practices. Communities need space for cultural belonging and exchange of cultural practices as a way to create a sense of belonging and home, to build resilience to solastalgia.

Previously overlooked, the value of these cultural practices is reflected in the UN’s definition of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH). ICH plays a vital role in belonging as it fosters a sense of identity and continuity for individuals and communities. Ownership over the reframing of their own cultural history offers a way for individuals to start to address the past and present, to begin to imagine a shared future with and for the broader community/environment.

Various community organisations have addressed ICH in relation to migrant communities. Council and community practitioners engaged with this in the Southwark Heritage Centre display which included multi-media co-produced artworks from local citizens (2022). We see Southwark Council committing to embodying a “Borough of Sanctuary” as an opportunity to safeguard ICH to help migrant communities develop a sense of belonging and build resilience. Haig (2020) argues safeguarding ICH promotes cultural diversity, sustains creativity and empowers communities to preserve and recreate the expressions and practices that define their cultural existence. Instead, our research looks to begin to address the knowledge gap, exploring ICH as a tool to build resilience to the mental health impacts of solastalgia. Our project looks at our locale of Southwark and asks, “How can the Borough of Sanctuary initiative help create cultural belonging to generate a sense of belonging and home, to cope with grief and a sense of loss of home?”. Explicitly introducing the concept of solastalgia to provide participants with the vocabulary to identify and articulate their feelings.

Methodology and Methods

To engage with, and begin to design for, this anticipated future of migrancy, this action research (Swann, 2002) project took a transition design approach (Irwin, 201). Using reflective cycles, we iterated our process throughout the research.

Irwin (2015) writes that: ‘Transition Design can be positioned at the end of the continuum, where speculative, long-term visions […] serve to inspire and inform the design of short- and mid-term solutions’ (p231, Irwin, 2015). Transition Design places speculative research scenarios of mass migrancy into a framework that enables backcasting, exploring new design thinking in the present and co-developing interventions. Irwin (2015) continues, ‘Transformational societal change will depend upon our ability to change our ideas about change itself – how it manifests and how it can be initiated and directed. This reconception of entire lifestyles involves reimagining infrastructures’ (p.231, Irwin, 2015). Furthermore, Transition Design focuses on the indigenous ways of living, following the need for “cosmopolitan localism” (Irwin, 2015), a lifestyle that is place-based and regional, yet global in its awareness. This renewed the focus of our project to address wider thinking in our locale of Southwark (Irwin, 2015).

Working externally with Southwark Citizens UK on their listening campaign, asking ‘What is impacting your well-being and that of those in your community?’, we were inspired by the capacity of relational techniques (community organising, house-meeting rounds, and mutual sharing experiences) to create a symbiotic sharing environment that enables open space for discussion within the community.

Interviews enabled us to gain expert insights, and our interactive wall captured wide audience responses, identifying that many residents were unknowingly dealing with solastalgia. Seeing this overlap in research we conceptualised a workshop exploring daily practices and rituals to understand further how the Borough of Sanctuary initiative could use ICH, to help foster cultural belonging, to cope with solastalgia, and improve the well-being of the Southwark community.

Participatory Design ‘makes explicit the critical, and inevitable, presence of values in the system development process' (p.204, Blum, 1996). We wanted to ensure we worked with values within the design process. Using a value-led design framework the workshop explored cultural and daily practices, to delve into questions of values and ethics, providing a safe space for discourse on settlement and migration.

Inspired by Central Saint Martins MA Graphic Design course icebreaker “dumpling day”, we began reflecting on the similarities and differences across cultural customs. This led us to explore staple and culturally universal ingredients such as potatoes, before arriving at tea. As Pasqualini and Suet (2000) write, few [habits], in comparison with tea[-drinking], have retained an undeniable ritual all over the world’ (p.43 Pasqualini and Suet, 2000). Warm beverages have emerged as powerful tools for fostering comfort and building relationships, transcending cultural boundaries and gaining cross-cultural significance. They have become cherished symbols of hospitality, providing solace and can therefore serve as catalysts for meaningful connections among people from diverse backgrounds. The introduction of cultural and daily practices, through tea, creates a safe space for value-led discussions about settlement and migration.

Hackney (2012) explores the role of craft as a mediating object in the context of making, examining how craft practices and objects facilitate communication, negotiation and understanding among individuals and communities. Moreover, crafts provide powerful mediums to connect with the innate satisfaction of making, the sense of ‘being alive in the process and the profound engagement with ideas, learning and knowledge (p. 24, Gauntlett, 2018). It enables participants to see themselves as part of a larger culture, ‘a community of culture creators with a past and a future’ (p.120, Marybeth, 2007). Clay as a ubiquitous and humble earth material serves as an engaging introductory craft (Staubach, 2006).

Finally, utilising community networks already in place through our connections with Citizens UK we were able to expand our participatory network, allowing us to reach seldom-heard groups. For these groups, the chance to engage with a new craft like clay was an exciting opportunity. We included community leaders (from Citizens UK, English for Action and Parents and Communities Together) in the development of the workshop questions and ethics forms to ensure that they could be easily interpreted and were sensitive to any potential situations the participants may be facing. Additionally, our knowledge of relational listening and house meetings from our community-organising training allowed us to create a supportive space to facilitate sharing and storytelling.

We ran five “How do you take your tea?” workshops, across four different locations, with 60 participants from different cultural backgrounds and different languages spoken at home. Participants shared their answers to “What cultural practices have you inherited from your parents, grandparents or community?”, “What do you do to feel at home?”, “What can others do to help you feel at home?”, and “What does sanctuary mean to you?”. We closed the workshops with a reflective round of sharing how the workshop made them feel. Workshops were photographed and answers were voice-recorded and then transcribed to maintain anonymity.

What do you do to feel at home? What can others do to help make you feel at home? What does sanctuary mean to you?

“Sanctuary means somewhere where I feel safe, and wanted, just completely, completely at home, can let my hair down and not think about anything. So a big part of this actually is not the site, not the physical place. It’s like your mental place and how it makes you feel.”

Results and Analysis 
Figures 1-6 at the base of the page.

Multi-layered qualitative analysis allowed us to analyse the content of our data, thematically organise it and cross-compare to reveal connections. The mapping process allowed us to clearly visualise the connection between ideas of “sanctuary” and ICH, illuminating its value in enabling individuals to develop solastalgia-coping strategies and resilience.

The introductory question served as a warm-up exercise to introduce cultural and daily practices and thereby open discourses around settlement and migration in a safe space.

Thematic analysis of our workshop question “What do you do to feel at home?” (Figure 1) gave us insights into key themes of sensory, relational, and memory, which reflects the characteristics of ICH, and therefore emphasises the importance of safeguarding it through the Borough of Sanctuary initiative.

Additionally, the thematic analysis of our workshop responses to “What does sanctuary mean to you?” revealed three overlapping themes: political, psychological and physical (Figure 2). This is important for understanding the components that a Borough of Sanctuary must address.

Figure 3 shows the workshop responses to “What does sanctuary mean to you?” mapped onto Maslow’s (1943) “Hierarchy of Needs” scale. There is a clear connection between the themes of “sanctuary” as a psychological place and the need for “belonging”. This is significant for understanding how giving opportunities for citizens to reflect and connect to their ICH, and allowing reflection on identity to create a sense of belonging,  can help a Borough of Sanctuary be realised. The workshops did this through the introduction of cultural and daily practices.

Furthermore, Figure 4. shows the workshop responses to “What does sanctuary mean to you?” mapped onto Manfred Max-Neef’s (1986) Matrix of Needs and Satisfiers. The table shows how the participant’s ideas of sanctuary sit primarily within “interacting”. This outlines how individuals need opportunities to collectively share, embrace and appreciate diversity, and promote a sense of unity, to generate community cohesion. The workshops did this by employing community-organising house-meeting techniques (commonslibrary.org, 2021).

Figure 5. compares the responses between what sanctuary means to the citizens of Southwark and the participant’s reflections on the workshop. These show clear alignments between the psychological wants and needs of “belonging” to feel a sense of sanctuary and the psychological space and experience the workshop provides. This reinforces how the workshop can be a tool to help enable individuals to develop coping strategies to sit with Solastalgia and build resilience.

Figure 6. compares the alignment between Southwark Council’s strategic goals and participants' reflections on the psychological space and experience the workshop provides. This, emphasised the potential of “How do you take your tea?” as both a tool for building resilience while assisting Southwark Council in achieving its strategic goals.

We concluded the workshop series with a celebratory, multicultural, tea set display on Camberwell Green as part of Camberwell Arts Festival.

“As far as I know, you have to create your own sanctuary. You have to create your own little haven.”

Discussion

This case study has examined the knowledge space and presented how our research began to address the knowledge gap between theory and practice, furthering understanding of ICH as a tool to build resilience to the mental health impacts of solastalgia. The Borough of Sanctuary initiative holds the potential to further this research in their practice.

Using this workshop as a listening tool, we have seen its value in engaging communities. However, the participants’ experience and feedback demonstrate additional value: through reflective storytelling on traditions and memories of “home”, the experiential nature of the workshop acts as a tool enabling participants to identify feelings of solastalgia. The workshop further facilitates participants to begin to build resilience to solastalgia by encouraging participants to engage with ICH and create space for cultural connection. Themes of needing spaces for connection to ICH, reflection and identity to create a sense of belonging and home were echoed across all workshops. This sense of “being-in-the-world” (Heidegger, ….), was reinforced through the craft of clay-making. As Turney (2009) writes about knitting, clay-making similarly ‘offers a means of creativity, of confidence in one’s own ability to “do”, as well as occupying a space in which one can just “be”’ (p.217, Turney, 2009). Csikszentmihalyi (1990) explores similar sentiments through their concept of “flow”. Flow describes the experience where a person is genuinely satisfied while they are completely absorbed in a task, forgetting about external demands (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Finally, the workshops offered an opportunity for people to share, embrace and appreciate diversity, promoting a sense of unity and generating community cohesion. Giddens’ (1991) structuration theories outline that the disintegration of the structures that make up a sense of home and ontological security crumble through displacement. Exploring and sharing cultural practices collectively helps to rebuild these community structures.

Following Ungar’s argument, it is equally the responsibility of host communities, and initiatives such as UNESCO ICH safeguarding and the City of Sanctuary movement, to hold space for ICH to allow individuals to develop solastalgia-coping strategies and resilience.

Our research supports previous thinking that ICH can enhance the resilience of communities in times of climate crisis and that Intangible Heritage Policies should be included in climate-displacement action plans (Aktürk and Lerski, CITE), such as the Borough of Sanctuary initiative. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this resilience emanates from ICH's potential to address mental-health aspects of solastalgia.

Multi-layered qualitative analysis allowed us to analyse the content of our data, thematically organise it and cross-compare to reveal connections. The mapping process allowed us to clearly visualise the connection between ideas of “sanctuary” and ICH, illuminating its value in enabling individuals to develop solastalgia-coping strategies and resilience.

Limitations

Despite the previous discussion, we must acknowledge that some intangible heritage is less easily transferable. Traditional crafts that are dependent on local materials or environments may not be able to adapt and continue within the setting of new host communities (Aktürk and Lerski, 2021). For example, the displacement of Indigenous Peoples not only dislocates their practices and customs but breaks the spiritual connection with their land. Therefore Indigenous practices and customs often disappear when communities are forced to leave their traditional homes and lifestyles (Higgins, 2022). This suggests a limitation of place-making through ICH and building resilience to solastalgia; for some cases, place-protecting is the only option.

Conclusion

This project synthesised knowledge of solastalgia with Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), as a benefit to climate-displaced and host communities (Aktürk and Lerski, 2021), to develop research on the emerging intersection of resilience and climate change. This research revealed the value of holding space for ICH to allow individuals to develop coping strategies for Solastalgia. Our workshop, How do you take your tea? puts this research into practice. Climatable’s future plans aim to expand this study, to look for further methods connecting ICH as a tool to build resilience to solastalgia in the face of the growing climate crisis. 

Bibliography

Abidin, C. (2020) Slow living and the art of Home Maintenance: East Asian vloggers celebrate the domestic space, The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/slow-living-and-the-art-of-home-maintenance-east-asian-vloggers-celebrate-the-domestic-space-135555 (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

Ahuja, N. (2021) Planetary specters: Race, migration, and climate change in the twenty-first century. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press.

Aktürk, G. and Lerski, M. (2021) ‘Intangible cultural heritage: A benefit to climate-displaced and host communities’, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 11(3), pp. 305–315. doi:10.1007/s13412-021-00697-y.

Albrecht, G. (2006) “Solastalgia,” Alternatives Journal, Vol.32(4-5), pp.34-36, 32 (4-5), pp. 34–36.

Albrecht, G. (2020) Covid-19 and capit-22: Going viral., Psychoterratica. Available at: https://glennaalbrecht.wordpress.com/2020/05/08/covid-19-and-capit-20-going-viral/ (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

Albrecht, G. et al. (2007) ‘Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change’, Australasian Psychiatry, 15(1_suppl). doi:10.1080/10398560701701288.

Al-Delaimy, W.K., Ramanathan, V. and Sorondo, S.M. (2020) in Health of people, Health of Planet and our responsibility: Climate change, air pollution and health. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Anderson, B. (2009) Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Soc. 2 (2), pp. 77–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2009.08.005.

Apap, J. (2021) The concept of ‘climate refugee’ Towards a possible definition. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/698753/EPRS_BRI(2021)698753_EN.pdf (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

Askland, H.H. and Bunn, M. (2018) ‘Lived experiences of environmental change: Solastalgia, power and place’, Emotion, Space and Society, 27, pp. 16–22. doi:10.1016/j.emospa.2018.02.003.

Blum, B.I. (1996) ‘Participatory design’, Beyond Programming [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/oso/9780195091601.003.0014.

Chambers, I. (1994) Migrancy, Culture, Identity. Routledge, London, New York.

commonslibrary.org (2021) House meeting handbook: Harnessing the power of personal networks and storytelling to build leadership and support for your campaign, The Commons. Available at: https://commonslibrary.org/house-meeting-handbook-harnessing-the-power-of-personal-networks-and-storytelling-to-build-leadership-and-support-for-your-campaign/ (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

Connor, L.H., Marshall, J.P. (2016) Ecologies, ontologies and mythologies of possible futures. In: JP Marshall, Connor, L.H. (Eds.), Environmental Change and the World’s Futures. Ecologies, Ontologies and Mythologies. Routledge, Oxon and New York, pp. 1–14.

EPRS. (2019) The concept of ‘climate refugee’ Towards a possible definition. [online] Available at: <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621893/EPRS_BRI(2018)621893_EN.pdf> [Accessed 5 May 2022].

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.

Galway, L.P. et al. (2019) “Mapping the Solastalgia literature: A scoping review study,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), p. 2662. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152662.

Gauntlett, D. (2018) Making is connecting: The Social Power of creativity, from craft and knitting to Digital Everything. Medford, MA: Polity.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Hackney, F. (2012) ‘Craft and the Mediation of Making’, The Design Journal, 15(2), pp. 217–237.

Haig, D., 2010. Reclaiming intangible cultural heritage. Art Antiquity & Law, 15(4), pp.365-375.

Heidegger, M. (1927) Sein und Zeit (Being and Time)

Higgins, N. (2022) ‘Changing climate; changing life—climate change and Indigenous Intangible Cultural Heritage’, Laws, 11(3), p. 47. doi:10.3390/laws11030047.

IEP (2020) STRICTLY EMBARGOED – 05:00AM UK TIME (BST) WEDNESDAY 09TH SEPTEMBER, economicsandpeace.org. Available at: https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Ecological-Threat-Register-Press-Release-27.08-FINAL.pdf (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

IPCC (2010) Climate change: The IPCC 1990 and 1992 assessments, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments/ (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

Irwin, T. (2015) ‘Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research’, Design and Culture, 7(2), pp. 229–246. doi:10.1080/17547075.2015.1051829.

King, R. (2020) ‘On migration, geography, and epistemic communities’, Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1). doi:10.1186/s40878-020-00193-2.

Lewisham.cityofsanctuary.org. (2022) Lewisham Borough of Sanctuary. Available at: https://lewisham.cityofsanctuary.org/ (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

Marybeth, S. (2007) Quilting: The Fabrics of Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg pp.129-40

Maslow, A.H. (1943) “A theory of human motivation.,” Psychological Review, 50(4), pp. 370–396. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346.

Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A. and Hopenhayn, M. (1986) Desarrollo a escala humana: Una opción para el Futuro. Santiago de Chile: CEPAUR.

Southwark today at Southwark Heritage Centre and Walworth Library (2022) Southwark Council. Available at: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/events-culture-and-heritage/46225/52314/southwark-today-at-southwark-heritage-centre-and-walworth-library?c=192 (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

Staubach, S. (2006) Clay: The history and evolution of humankind’s relationship with Earth’s most primal element. New York: Berkley Books.

Suet, B. and Pasqualini, D. (2000) Time of Tea. Diane Pub Co.

Swann, C. (2002). Action Research and the Practice of Design. Design Issues, 18(1), 49–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1512029

Turney, J. (2009) The culture of Knitting. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

UNESCO (2003) UNESCO - text of the convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage, Intangible Cultural Heritage. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

Ungar, M. (2022) About resilience, Resilience Research Centre. Available at: https://resilienceresearch.org/about-resilience/ (Accessed: 26 June 2023).