Appropriate technology is defined by the U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment as “. . . small scale, energy efficient, environmentally sound, labor-intensive, and controlled by the local community” (Hazeltine & Bull, 1999, p. 3). It can be thought of as an intermediate technology that can offer its users and community a sort of stepping-stone to advance their technology and situation in a way that is less disruptive to the local social structure and is adaptable to the local situation (Hazeltine & Bull, 1999, p. 6). Appropriate technology must also “. . . match both the user and the need in complexity and scale” (Hazeltine & Bull, 1999, p. 3). Hazeltine and Bull, and Wicklein provide ten criteria for appropriate technology, which will be modified and added onto to create the criteria for green appropriate technology. Let’s start with the three criteria provided by Hazeltine and Bull.

“Does the technology provide the goods and services it must at a reasonable cost, including long-term costs” (Hazeltine & Bull, 1999, p. 12)? This criterion is meant to include not only the direct costs but also the indirect costs. If you implement a technology there are the costs of purchasing the materials and assembling it and even the maintenance of it. But the latent costs could include things like stress or injury to the body or the environment.

“Does it have a desirable influence on the local culture now and will it in the future” (Hazeltine & Bull, 1999, p. 12)? Also related in a way to costs- what happens if the technology erases a key social meeting point or event? The social implications of the new technology should be weighed heavily with an eye to the future. For example, a town in desperate need of income invites a company in to dump toxic waste in its empty fields. For the short term the town gets money but in the long term they get health problems and the town starts depopulating because it is no longer attractive to live there.

“Does it promote a healthy lifestyle for the individual” (Hazeltine & Bull, 1999, p. 12)? The technology should promote healthy behavior. A technology that induces stress or sickness due to repetitive use does not meet this criterion. More broadly, though, a technology that influences the lifestyle, not just the immediate activities surrounding the use of the technology does not fit this criterion. For example, if a technology (information technologies, video games, television, etc.) changes the psychology of its user to become sedentary, unsociable, or otherwise unhealthy, then that technology does not fit this criterion.

Now let’s take a look at the seven criteria set forth by Wicklein.

“systems-independence” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 2). This is the ability for the technology to act independently without other technologies or facilities assisting it. If a technology requires other resources in order to implement it then the overall cost of the technology goes up. The author agrees with the principle of this criterion, but will modify it to “systems-localization”. The idea that a technology should be completely isolated is too extreme. What we really need are technologies that can function within the localized context they operate. Why ignore completely what is available readily? This modified version of the criterion would be moderated by the cost criterion because as Wicklein states “. . . if this cost is compounded because of the need for supporting devices, then the technology, no matter how desirable may be unattainable for the people who need it the most.” (Wicklein p.2).

“Image of modernity” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 3). This criterion is valid, but is split and not cohesive as presented by Wicklein. It is first presented that people want to feel “. . . modern and progressive, at least within their context” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 3). Then it talks about the need “. . . to feel important and be perceived as worthwhile” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 3). It is this latter part of the definition that the author agrees with and will use. By conflating a human need to feel worthwhile with a desire to be perceived modern places a dangerous importance on materialism and consumerism. The author will modify this criterion to be “positive perception”.

“Individual technology vs. collective technology” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 3). This criterion acknowledges the social differences between different cultures in that some favor working as groups while others favor working individually. If you place a technology designed to be operated by a group in a culture that promotes individualism there will be problems in getting people to adopt and use this technology effectively.

“Cost of technology” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 4). Wicklein’s definition of cost is similar to Hazeltine and Bull’s but really only addresses the fixed or up front costs of technology production. An interesting distinction is made between customization and mass production, where Wicklein places customization on the expensive side of the cost spectrum and mass production on the cheaper side of the cost spectrum. The author agrees that individual craftsman based customization is expensive, but believes that Wicklein misses an opportunity to introduce mass customization as a new form of manufacturing that can bring the cost savings of mass production to customization (For more on mass customization see (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006) and (Pine, 1993)).

“Risk factor” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 5). Risk is a key component in designing and innovating technologies (Estrin, 2009). But the risk factor here refers more to the risk involved in adopting and implementing a technology. Here risk is divided into two types, internal and external. The internal risk is associated with the fit to the local usage of the technology and the external risk is associated with the systems or resources the implemented technology depends on.

“Evolutionary capacity of technology” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 5). This is the extensibility, flexibility, and adaptability of the technology. Can the functionality of the technology evolve with the user and their situational needs? How easy is it for the user to develop and expand the technology for purposes beyond the original design?

“Single-purpose and multi-purpose technology” (Wicklein, 2004, p. 6). While evolutionary capacity could be thought of as the temporally serial use of a technology to solve different problems, multi-purpose technology is the temporally parallel use of a technology to solve different problems. A technology that can be used in multiple applications at the same time is more efficient than using multiple technologies for each purpose.

The criteria for appropriate technology that Hazeltine and Bull, and Wicklein assembled are good starting points for the green appropriate technology criteria set. We’ll start with adopting the above-mentioned criteria with the following exceptions:

1. Cost – Hazeltine and Bull’s more inclusive definition of cost will be used.
2. Systems-independence will be modified to systems-localization and concerns over cost will be moderated by the cost criteria. Systems that are implemented should take into consideration the local technological ecosystem and take advantage of these resources wherever economically feasible.
3. Image of Modernity will be changed to positive perception. It is more important that the people impacted by the technology have a positive perception about themselves and the technology. Problems can be introduced by linking a sense of modernity to self-worth through technology. Such a line of thinking fosters shallow consumerism and materialism, which could conflict with the Hazeltine and Bull criteria dealing with local culture and promoting healthy lifestyles.

Next, criteria will be added that will reinforce the green aspects of appropriate technology.

Closed loop lifecycle design – Most technology lifecycles have a beginning and an ending. They are designed, created, used, then discarded. A closed loop lifecycle bends the linear lifecycle into a circular one. Once a product has reached the end of its usefulness it becomes the raw materials for another product. This concept is based on the cradle-to-cradle product lifecycle advocated by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their book “Cradle to Cradle” (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). The “closed-loop industrial system” is a very similar concept that Lovins and Lovins introduce in the context of modeling resource usage after nature, where everything is recyclable (Lovins & Lovins, 2005).

Distinction between natural and technical materials – In order for products to be able to become raw materials for other products a distinction between natural and technical materials must be made (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). Natural materials have the ability to break down and become soil, which can in turn become part of another natural material (plant or animal, for example) that starts the cycle all over again. A technical material is one that is usually man made and cannot break down within a reasonable amount of time. These technical materials can, however, be reused in a manufacturing process to create new products. While separated these two material types are very efficient at what they do, but when we combine them they start to lose their abilities to recycle. A piece of leather infused with metals and plastics can no longer break down into soil, and even if it could it would bring with it toxic materials that would harm or compromise the materials and users of those materials further down stream in cycle.

Localization – Localization is a broad criterion that has some overlapping qualities with a few of the other criteria. Local problems should be solved by locally designed technologies made by local materials and local labor. This has the affect of creating a better solution that solves a specific, local problem, while improving local skills and economics. Also, by using local materials shipping is reduced, which reduces the carbon dioxide footprint of the project.

Customization – Hazeltine and Bull cite a Providence Journal newspaper article where a team of engineers helped 2,500 handicapped people. The article states that “[t]he engineers routinely modify wheelchairs. . .” (Hazeltine & Bull, 1999). Modern industrialization is based off of standardization and mass production. Because of this there are unmet needs that fall between the gaps in standardized configurations of the mass-produced products. This is why handicapped people needed engineers to come and modify their wheelchairs. Their needs didn’t fit within the product offerings of the mass produced wheelchairs. Because appropriate technology is supposed to solve a very specific, localized, and usually unique problem customization is key. This is different from Wicklein’s evolutionary capacity criterion in that it addresses the need for customization before the technology is adopted.

To illustrate these principles in action we will look at two cases. Both contain technological solutions for dealing with rainwater runoff in urban settings. In a typical urban setting rainwater is diverted from impervious surfaces to drains that empty into a nearby river. What’s wrong with rainwater going directly to a river?  When you have a lot of impervious surface area then even a mild rain will dump so much water into a river all at once that it becomes unstable as an ecosystem.  Also, anything that was on the surfaces (dirt, chemicals, bacteria) is now concentrated into the river.  A common problem is when phosphorus from chemical fertilizers creates algae blooms that kill off fish (Alexander, 2008).  Diverting rainwater directly to the river also keeps it from entering the water table, which lowers it and can cause problems for people in other areas who depend on wells for water and irrigation. When a river gets its water from the water table then plants and the ground filter the water and the flow of water feeding the river is steady, making the river levels more stable.

How can green appropriate technology help in this situation? One solution is a rain barrel and another is a rain garden. Rain barrels collect rainwater from roofs by connecting downspouts to a barrel and save the water for later use. In figure 1 you will see a home made rain barrel created by the author from a recycled trashcan and some old copper plumbing fixtures.

Figure 1

The total cost of this rain barrel was under $25. The materials in this project are all technical materials that can easily be recycled. It fits the need for the immediate locality by providing water for gardens between rain events and was created by parts readily and inexpensively available in the area. It is customized to fit the specific situation – the low spigot provides water to the nearby garden through a soaker hose, or the top can be removed and water can be carried by bucket to other locations. The project is so easy that a five minute video from HGTV on YouTube can show you all you need to know about making one (HGTV, 2007).

If we divert the downspouts from our roofs to go into a garden instead of down the driveway and into the street then the water has a chance to go back down into the water table and then naturally take a trip to the local river.  However, just a normal garden won’t do- you have to have a special selection of plants, or else the occasional flooding might kill them.  Also, you have to engineer the garden just right or you could end up with water flooding where you don’t want it. A rain garden is the technology that fits the need here (Rain Gardens of West Michigan, 2009). It is a garden that uses native plants and has a shallow dip in it in order to provide a basin for holding the rainwater runoff from a roof until it has a chance to soak into the ground and into the water table. A properly designed rain garden will be empty into the water table within 24 hours of a rain event and installs at a cost of about $3 to $4 per square foot (Sierra Club, p. 2). A rain garden is designed with all local plants and all the materials are natural, so they will break down to become soil again when their useful life is over. Each rain garden must be customized to fit the local needs and situation.

Figure 2 (Washtenaw County, 2009)

Local environmental factors play a role in designing the garden – the light conditions, soil conditions, orientation of the house on the plot, how large the roof is, how many downspouts the roof has – all of these factor into the design of the rain garden. An example of a rain garden from Washtenaw County, Michigan is provided in figure 2.

Hazeltine and Bull stress the importance of technology policy and cite tax credits as a financial tactic that governments can use to influence technology (Hazeltine & Bull, 1999, p. 334). This is just what the city of Ann Arbor has done with their residential storm water credit program. A homeowner who builds a rain garden on their property can receive a $2.80 per quarter credit on their water bill, and a rain barrel will save $1.79 per quarter (City of Ann Arbor, 2009). This financial incentive is one among several reasons the author endeavored to build and install a rain garden and rain barrel.

With a few additions and modifications to the Hazeltine and Bull, and Wicklein criteria for appropriate technology we can make a sustainable, green appropriate technology criteria set that will help to improve the way appropriate technology is designed and implemented. Thinking systematically and designing with customization, localization, and recyclability in mind can go a long way toward reducing cost, increasing the need and solution match, and sustaining the local environment.

Bibliography
Alexander, J. (2008). Algae blooms cost billions in damages Retrieved Feb 28, 2009, from http://www.mlive.com/news/chronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1228302927318930.xml&coll=8

City of Ann Arbor (2009). Residential Storm Water Credits Retrieved Feb. 28, 2009, from http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/government/publicservices/systems_planning/waterresources/Pages/ResidentialRatesCredits.aspx

Estrin, J. (2009). Closing the Innovation Gap: Reigniting the Spark of Creativity in a Global Economy. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hazeltine, B., & Bull, C. (1999). Appropriate technology: Tools, choices, and implications. San Diego: Academic Press.

HGTV (2007). How to Build a Rain Barrel, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGFDlkJOdaM

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2006). Toward a Parsimonious Definition of Traditional and Electronic Mass Customization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(2), 168 – 182.

Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. (2005). A New Age of Resource Productivity. In R. Olson & D. Rejeski (Eds.), Environmentalism and the technologies of tomorrow (pp. 29-37). Washington: Island Press.

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (1st ed.). New York: North Point Press.

Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass Customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Publishing.

Rain Gardens of West Michigan (2009). Rain Gardens of West Michigan: Saving the Great Lakes One Rain Garden at a Time Retrieved Feb. 28, 2009, from http://www.raingardens.org

Sierra Club. Curbing Pollution from Stormwater Retrieved Mar. 1, 2009, from http://ohio.sierraclub.org/miami/images/files/stormwater_factsheet_reduced.pdf

Washtenaw County (2009). Rain Garden Virtual Tour, from http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/drain_commissioner/dc_webWaterQuality/rain_gardens/tour/raingardentour.html

Wicklein, R. C. (2004). Design criteria for sustainable development in appropriate technology: Technology as if people matter. Paper presented at the PATT-14 International technology Education Association Conference.

According to Ground Support Worldwide, airlines are pushing their fares in the vertical, upwards direction due to “oil’s latest surge.”

The article mentions that crude futures have crossed the “once unthinkable” $100/barrel mark (unthinkable by those who didn’t understand the term “non-renewable”), causing most airlines to raise fares by $10-$20 per ticket.

United Airlines, Delta Airlines, Air Canada, Air Tran, and Midwest Airlines were specifically mentioned in the article, which also stated that “carriers tried to raise fares 23 times last year.”

United Airlines’ spokeperson Robin Urbanski “acknowledged [that] fares in and out of some cities are higher than they used to be, but ‘are still relatively lower than a few years ago given that fuel is our highest expense.’”

</DejaNews>

<!– Begin Caleb’s Comments –>

As an environmentaslist, I’m always torn about the airlines… aviation is one of my favorite topics, and I’m a pilot as well.  My education is in aviation management and entrepreneurship, so I also understand costs and profit motive – in aviation and in other businesses.  I also know that some environmentalists will just say, “Good.  Higher ticket prices mean fewer people will fly, and flying is a large carbon-footprint-producer.” I don’t necessarily think it’s that simple (nor should it be).

Business-people in general claim to be (and try to act as if they are) future-focused.  More than anything else, that means that they are focused on the future of their company’s profits for the sake of their shareholders.  What I don’t understand is that these same business people generally aren’t thinking about where their company’s future supplies will come from when the current supplies are gone.

Business people “get” supply and demand – it’s basic economics.  If the demand exceeds the supply prices go up.  Guess what is happening with oil prices, folks?  Demand continues to exceed supply… and the market responds.  As prices increase, demand SHOULD decrease – but oil is an inelastic commodity.  In other words, if you have to get to work to survive, you’ll put gas in the tank of your car when the tank is empty no matter the price.  You don’t have a choice.

The airlines survive on jet fuel.  It is their largest expense and it is their life-blood.  Without it, they don’t have a business.  So where will it come from when the jet fuel is gone?  Or when its cost is too high for your customers/passengers to bear any more increase in ticket prices?

Why aren’t the leaders of the airline and transportation industries hot-under-the-collar for alternative fuel?  Or alternative propulsion technologies?  Why aren’t the airlines using some of their estimated 3.5-4.5 billion dollar profits to speed up the research of alternative and renewable fuels?

Frustrated in Fantasyland,
A. Caleb Hartley

Read his post here: http://upcomingtechs.com/2007/12/can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/

Namaste,
A. Caleb Hartley

The Czechoslovakian-built L-29 jet flew for 37 minutes on a test-flight at altitudes up to 17,000 feet on October 2nd of 2007 (the first 100% biodiesel fueled flight was a shorter one on October 1st).

The plane used recycled vegetable oil from restaurants (which had an additive treatment to remove the carbon-chains from the oil).  Another planned flight from Nevada to Florida was supposed to heppen in November, but has been delayed.

The pilots (Douglas Rodante and Carol Sugars) are planning to modify a learjet to use biodiesel fuel on an around-the-world flight in 2008.

Links to information about the flight:

• http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2007/071030biofuel.html
• http://www.gizmag.com/go/8204/
• http://www.biofuelreview.com/content/view/1270/
• http://www.projectsmonitor.com/detailnews.asp?newsid=14777
• http://www.doctordiesel.com/AviationHistory.pdf

Namaste,
A. Caleb Hartley

Today is a rare day where we have a not-so common combination of all three!  On the Logistics Today website the other day there was an article called “Air Group Pushes Environmental Programs.”  Giovanni Bisignani, director general of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), said, “The $132 billion fuel bill that airlines pay is the biggest green incentive of any industry to reduce its carbon footprint.”

Since fuel is any airlines biggest expense, it only makes sense for the IATA to try to help airlines reduce the amount of fuel they burn (or, to put a green spin on this solely profit-motivated opportunity, to increase their efficiency), IATA appointed former World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Chief Operating Officer (COO) Paul Steele to direct new environmental initiatives of the association.  IATA, under Steele, has built an environmental strategy based on the following four elements: new technology, improved infrastructure, efficient operations, and economic incentives.

The article states that IATA helped reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 15 million tons in 2006, though it does not say how it did so or how the reduction was calculated; however, I will stand by environmentastic!’s policy that any focus on the environment is good – even if just to increase awareness of what is possible!

Namaste,
A. Caleb Hartley