Week 5 Discussion Sustainability Solutions

Topic: Based on the articles you have read for Week 5, please discuss the links/interrelationships between technology and sustainable tourism (elaborate on at least three points). Please refer to concepts from the readings (articles provided for Week 5 – under Modules) to support your points.

� Tel.: +1-662-325-6699; fax: +1-662-325-

E-mail address: gerryaw@hotmail.com (

0959-6526/$ – see front matter # 2004 Else

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.12.019

6699.

F. Yaw).

Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Cleaner technologies for sustainable tourism: Caribbean case studi

Fitzgerald Yaw Jr. �

International Development Program, College of Business and Economic Development, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA

Received 27 June 2003; accepted 4 December 2003

Abstract

Tourists are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their selection of tourism destination. A major factor that has been gaining
importance in their choice set is the environmental quality of their preferred destination. Tourism planners need to recognize that
the sustainability of their destination and its various offerings necessitates the consideration of environmental protection and con-
servation-related issues. This paper undertakes the case study methodology to explore the link between implementing cleaner
technologies, a major environmental issue, and sustainable tourism.

The analysis of the case studies indicates that cleaner technologies are playing a role in enhancing the sustainability of the
Caribbean tourism industry. It was also found that there is a Caribbean tourism cluster focused on developing an environmentally
sound tourism product.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Caribbean; Case studies; Cleaner technology; Cluster theory; Diffusion of innovations; Environmentally friendly; Sustainable

development; Tourism

1. Introduction

Tourists are becoming increasingly sophisticated in
their choice of tourism destination [42,53]. In this
regard, a major factor in the choice set of tourists is the
environmental quality of their preferred destination. As
Bhat puts it ‘‘[c]ustomers are demanding environmen-
tally benign products’’ [6]. Planners of tourism destina-
tions also understand that the sustainability of their
product necessitates consideration of issues of environ-
mental protection and conservation. This paper uses
case studies to explore the link between implementing
cleaner technologies (which improves environmental
quality), and sustainable tourism. It does this by seek-
ing to answer the following question: To what extent
have Caribbean hotels/resorts implemented the use of
cleaner technologies?

The hypothesis that the use of cleaner technologies
can contribute to the sustainability of the tourism sys-
tem is tested using the lodgings/facilities sector in the
Caribbean. The tourism system is a critical component

of the well being of many Caribbean nations, and thus
needs to be sustained to ensure that it continues to sup-
port the Caribbean economy for generations to come.
Table 1 illustrates some of the impacts of tourism, and
other important social data for selected Caribbean
countries.

In this paper, an overview of the concepts of tour-
ism, cleaner technology, cluster theory, and diffusion of
innovations is presented. The linkage among these con-
cepts is established. This sets the stage for discussion of
the results of case studies conducted using the
Caribbean islands of Antigua, Barbados, The Dominican
Republic, Jamaica and St. Lucia. Concluding thoughts
on the results and importance of this research are pre-
sented.

1.1. Delimitations

Sustainable tourism is here defined as a process that
allows ‘‘tourism growth while at the same time prevent-
ing degradation of the environment, as this may have
important consequences for future quality of life’’ [38:
p. 127]. It is appropriate to state that even though
this paper focuses on cleaner technology and the

T
ab

le
1

In
d

rs
fr

sa
m

o
u

n
tr

ie
s

P
A

n
n

a
l

p
o

p
.

g
ro

w
th

ra
te

1
9
7
5
–

2
0
0
0

(

)

A
re

(k
m

2
)

P
o

d
en

si
ty

(k
m

2
)

P
er

ca
p

it
a

G
D

P
U

2
0
0
0

(

P
P

P
)a

G
D

P
g
ro

w
th

a
n

n
u

a
l

(%
)b

In
t’

l
to

u
ri

a
rr

iv
a
ls

1
9
9
8

(�
1
0
0
0
)

T
o

u
ri

a
rr

iv
a
ls

g
ro

w
th

1
9
9
8
/

1
9
9
7

In
t’

l
to

u
ri

re
ce

ip
ts

1
9
9
8

U
S

(M
il
li
o

n
)

T
o

u
ri

re
ce

ip
ts

g
ro

w
th

1
9
9
8
/
1
9
9
7

R
ev

en
u

fr
o

to
u

o
f

G
D

T
o

u
ri

sh
a
re

o
f

G
D

P
(%

)

T
o

u
ri

st
in

te
n

si
ty

p
er

re
si

d
en

1
9
9
3
–
1
9
9
7

P
er

ce
n

ta
g
e

u
n

em
p

lo
y
m

en
t,

2
0
0
0

A
n

ti
g
u

7
,4

4
8

0
.4

4
4
0

1
5
3

1
0
,5

4
1

3
.5

2
2
6

�
2

2
5
6

�
4
.8

4
1
.0

7
5
5

3
.6

B
a
rb

a
d

o
s

2
7
6
,6

0
7

0
.3

4
3

6
4
0

1
5
,4

9
4

�
2

c
5
1
2

8
.5

7
0
3

7
3
0
.0

4
5

1
.8

9
.3

D
o

m
in

ic
a
n

R
ep

u
b

li
c

8
,7

2
1
,5

9
4

2
4

8
,4

4
3

1
8
0

6
0
3
3

1
.5

c
2
3
0
9

4
.4

2
1
4
2

2
1
3
.5

2
2
5

0
1
5
.2

Ja
m

a
ic

a
2
,6

8
0
,0

2
9

1
1
1
,4

2
4

2
3
5

3
6
3
9

1
.1

c
1
2
2
5

2
.8

1
1
9
7

5
.8

1
7
.4

2
3
6

0
.5

1
5
.5

S
t.

L
u

ci
a

1
6
0
,1

4
5

1
.4

6
1
6

2
6
0

5
7
0
3

�

2
.5

c
2
5
2

1
.6

2
9
1

2
.5

4
6
.3

1
6
9

1
.7

1
7
.5

S
o

u
rc

:
U

N
D

P
,

1
9
9
9
;

2
0
0
2

[5
4
];

U
N

E
P

[5
5
],

W
T

O
[5

9
];

A
ss

o
ci

at
io

n
o

f
C

a
ri

b
b

ea
n

S
ta

te
s

w
eb

si
te

[3
];

W
o

rl
d

B
an

k
w

eb
si

te
[5

7
];

C
IA

W
o

rl
d

F
a
ct

b
o

o
k

[1
3
];

P
A

C
o

n
su

lt
in

g
[3

9
].
0

a
P

P
P

:
a
n

in
d

ex
th

a
t

a
cc

o
u

n
ts

fo
r

p
ri

e
d

iff
er

en
ce

s
a
cr

o
ss

co
u

n
tr

ie
s,

a
ll
o

w
in

g
in

te
rn

at
io

n
a
l

o
m

p
a
ri

o
n

s
o

f
re

a
l

o
u

tp
u

t
a
n

d
in

co
m

es
.

A
s

u
se

d
h

er
e

P
P

P
U

S
$

1
h

a
s

th
e

sa
m

e
p

u
rc

h
a
si

n
g

p
o

w
er

in
th

e
d

o
m

es
ti

c
ec

o
n

o
m

y
a
s

U
S

$
1

h
a
s

in
th

e
U

n
it

ed
S

ta
te

s.
b

2
0
0
0,

es
ti

m
a
te

d
.

c
2
0
0
1,

es
ti

m
a
te

d
.

118 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134 119

environmental sustainability of tourism, it is understood
that there are other factors which impact on the sustain-
ability of the tourism product, such as effective market-
ing, air access at competitive prices, the security of
tourists, and public acceptance (see e.g. [31]). These
factors are not examined here. In addition, cruise tour-
ism is excluded from the analysis in this paper.

Furthermore, this paper focuses on the facilities/ser-
vices sector of the tourism industry. The tourism indus-
try has other sectors, such as attractions, information/
promotion, and transportation [28]. These sectors are
interrelated, and therefore, the sustainability of a desti-
nation’s tourism industry depends on sustainable prac-
tices in each sector.

2. Why study cleaner technologies and sustainable

tourism?

Sustainable tourism is an important issue given the
limits imposed on the human economy by the ecologi-
cal system. This paper attempts to show to what
extent, if any, has man’s ingenuity, resulting in the
development and diffusion of cleaner technologies,
increased the viability and sustainability of the
Caribbean model of the tourism industry (see Fig. 1).

In summary, this paper seeks to test this statement:
‘‘the use of cleaner technologies impacts positively on
maintaining a sustainable tourism industry’’. This
analysis of the use of clean technology in the tourism
sector is much needed. Caribbean tourism needs to be
sustained to ensure the economic survival of the region.
Here, it is proposed to show that the use of cleaner
technologies is contributing, or can contribute to the
sustainability of this industry. This will encourage
efforts to promote the use of these technologies.

3. Cleaner technology

Mankind’s capability to extract useful services from
the ecosystem can be extended through using what are
called ‘‘cleaner technologies’’. Cleaner technologies are
technologies that allow production with little or no
waste through total recycling of by-products. In other

words, these are technologies that contribute to the
closure of the production-process life cycle, see [2,56].
Examples of cleaner technology related to the tourism
sector include:

1. Tertiary treated sewage used for irrigation;
2. Metals, glass, and plastics recycled;
3. Compost from organic solid waste;
4. Use of renewable energy sources;
5. Smart building design to reduce energy demand for

lighting and cooling systems.

4. Implementing cleaner technology

The operationalization of sustainable development in
the Caribbean requires changing the parameters within
which economic activities are currently organized in the
region. In other words, operationalizing sustainable
development requires new technology as well as funda-
mental social, political, and economic transformation.
Brown et al. [10] have an interesting vision of how an
economy that is developing would sustainably evolve:

In a sustainable economy, the fish catch does not
exceed the sustainable yield of fisheries, the
amount of water pumped from underground aqui-
fers does not exceed aquifer recharge, soil erosion
does not exceed the natural rate of new soil forma-
tion, tree cutting does not exceed tree planting,
carbon emissions do not exceed the capacity of
nature to fix atmospheric CO2, and plant and ani-
mal species are not destroyed faster than new ones
evolve. [10: pp. 15–16]

Given the paragraph above, the sustainable economy
is one that shifts from the one-time depletion of natu-
ral resources to one that is based on renewable energy
and that continually reuses and recycles materials. It is
a solar-powered, bicycle/rail centered, reuse/recycle
economy, one that uses energy, water, land, and mate-
rials, much more efficiently and wisely than we gener-
ally do today.

The thesis is that cleaner technologies contribute to
the closure of the production-process life cycle. This is
part of what is involved in the operationalizing of the
concept of sustainable development. Following Rendan
et al. [47] and Clayton et al. [15], the author sees the
use of cleaner technology as a conceptual and pro-
cedural approach to the development, purchase, and
use of processes and products that prevents and redu-
ces internal and external environmental problems
throughout a product’s life cycle. The use of cleaner
technology would lead to results such as:

Fig. 1. Linkage between cleaner technology and the tourism sector.

Source: author.

120 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

. minimization of the volumes and hazards of gas-
eous, liquid and solid wastes;

. minimization of the risk of accidents involving che-
micals and processes;

. minimization of the consumption of raw materials,
water, and energy; and

. use of substitute chemicals and processes less haz-
ardous to human and ecological health [15: p. 14].

These results come about because the underlying
tenet of the use of cleaner technology is improved over-
all energy- and resource-use efficiency by minimizing or
eliminating wastes at source or by using them as inputs
into other processes [15: p. 12].

In addition, by reducing or eliminating waste
streams, another powerful effect of utilizing cleaner
technology is that it reduces costs. The adoption of
cleaner technology can also lead firms to generate rev-
enues from what were previously classified as waste
streams, by diverting these ‘‘waste’’ streams to other
firms/sectors, where the supplying sector’s ‘‘waste’’ is
the receiving firm/sector’s input. This scenario, which
reduces environmental impact of economic activities
system wide, can be regarded as win–win, and has been
concretely argued by Porter and van der Linde [44,45],
Boyle [9], Reinhardt [46], and El-Kholy [20].

5. Diffusion of cleaner technology

Technology as a concept is usefully defined as a
means of solving problems. Rogers [48] postulated that
‘‘[a] technology usually has two components: (1) a
hardware aspect, consisting of the tool that embodies
the technology as a material or physical object, and (2)
a software aspect, consisting of the information base
for the tool’’ [48: p. 12]. The use of solar panels for
heating water and energy is a good example of tech-
nology in the context of this discussion. Cleaner tech-
nology in tourism involves ‘‘sustainable resource use,
which includes increasing efficiency of resource use,
minimization of waste and reduction of over consump-
tion, the substitution of environmentally-benign inputs
and equipment wherever possible, and the safe disposal
of waste where the latter is unavoidable. . .’’ [23: p. 31].

The adoption of cleaner technology depends on the
factors influencing the rate of diffusion. Diffusion in
relation to cleaner technology involves ‘‘the process by
which an innovation is communicated through certain
channels over time among the members of a social sys-
tem. It is a special type of communication, in that the
messages are concerned with new ideas’’ [48: p. 5].

Government policies, which can affect the rate of dif-
fusion of technology, reflect the power structure that in
turn reflects who controls the information flow. Govern-
ment policies also speak to the social construction of

technology and links to the point that the pursuit of
sustainable development is not a process that will pro-
gress only because of its logic, but also by the socio-
political strength of the key decision-makers within any
given society.

Pubic policy is important and directly impacts on the
diffusion of technology because it is public policy that
establishes the climate in which businesses operate, sig-
nalling by executive orders, tax policies, research and
development policies, industrial policies, education
policies, policies on infrastructure, on accounting rules
and incentive regimes what is seen by the government
concerned as the desired direction. In this case, the
desired direction with regard to the use of cleaner tech-
nology. The foregoing implies that there is a dialectic
tension within government decision making here, as on
the one hand, the government desires to facilitate econ-
omic development. On the other hand, the government
has the role of guarding the environment from the
possible excesses of the economic development process.

Hjalager [29] and Stoneman and Diederen [52] dis-
cussed the necessity for detailed analysis of the role of
government in the diffusion of cleaner technology. The
latter authors aptly observed:

‘‘that diffusion policy merits as much emphasis as
R&D policy (if not more), but that diffusion policy
should not proceed upon a presumption that faster
is always better nor that only an information pro-
viding policy is required. The tapestry of the econ-
omic and social environment within which
technological change takes place is rich and varied
and it is necessary that any policy adequately
reflects the diversity and heterogeneity of markets,
environments, and objectives’’. [52: p. 929]

Gold [22] looked more closely at the diffusion of
technology from the perspective of business, viewing
rates of diffusion of technology as being determined
essentially by managerial decisions at the level of indi-
vidual firms. The framework for these decisions is
termed ‘‘the pre-decision environment’’ [22: p. 254].
Irwin and Hooper [33] also argued that the business
environment was critical to the diffusion of technology,
highlighting the importance of corporate culture and
availability of capital as determinants of innovation.

This ‘‘pre-decision environment’’ for firms in the
tourism sector, especially in relation to how the issues
of sustainable development are ranked, would impact
significantly on the diffusion of cleaner technology. Ele-
ments of this ‘‘pre-decision environment’’ within which
cleaner technology would be diffused ‘‘include: the spe-
cific nature and the relative urgency of the major needs
to be dealt with over the period covered by the firm’s
capital planning horizon; the availability and relative

F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134 121

advantages of non-technological as well as technologi-
cal means of meeting such needs; and the extent of
technical, managerial and financial resources available
for allocation to such efforts’’ [22: p. 255].

Managerial evaluation also includes some other
important elements that speak directly to a firm’s pos-
ition in its industry, the nature of its clients and so
forth. For example, Gold [22] observed that technical
decisions would also involve ‘‘the firm’s market pro-
spects, its effective capacity and the modernity of its
facilities, which would jointly determine whether the
adoption decision involved expanding capacity or rep-
lacing already depreciated equipment, or displacing
more recent and only partly depreciated capital goods’’
[22: p. 255].

5.1. Industrial clusters

Another factor that might have an influence on the
decision-making within firms in the Caribbean tourism
sector with regard to the adoption or non-adoption of
cleaner technology is the factor of industrial clusters.
These clusters consist of a geographically close group
of companies that ‘‘have a strong emphasis on
research, learning and development and high levels of
inter-company information exchange’’ [14: p. 16]. This
area of analysis was first used in Europe, but has been
applied to scenarios in developing countries with useful
results. Schmitz reported that with regard to small
and medium sized firms from developing countries
breaking into international markets ‘‘[e]xplanations of
the success stories have emphasized in particular the
importance of co-operation amongst the clustering
enterprises’’ [50].

Looking at the possible impact of cluster analysis on
the decision-making of firms in the Caribbean tourism
sector is appropriate, because clustering is seen by
those who champion this approach as a means for
firms to increase their individual competitiveness
through cooperation with each other. This cooperation
can lead to benefits, such as optimization of infrastruc-
ture investment, scale economies for training programs,
and a stronger platform for lobbying for incentives [37].

Currently, in the Caribbean tourism industry, there
is embedded cooperation among the operators, ranging
from joint marketing, to membership of trade groups
that provide technical support services to members.
This working together may well influence the decision-
making in hotels/resorts with regard to the use of clea-
ner technology. It has been suggested that a sustainable
Caribbean tourism product depends on a combined (or
clustered) regional force to create a competitive edge in
the tourism market [32].

Competitors working together in clusters might seem
counter-intuitive to the competition that spurs the

capitalist economy. However, the literature on the
theory of industrial clusters implies that competitors do
not have to cooperate with each other all the time. It is
only necessary for them to cooperate with each other
so as to respond successfully to significant opportu-
nities and crises [43,50]. In fact, in successful clusters,
‘‘there is usually both competition and cooperation’’
[14: p. 20]. With regard to sustainable tourism develop-
ment that implies a process of balance with nature:
‘‘Close cooperation between tourism enterprises at the
destination level is regarded as essential for harmonic
development’’ [11: p. 17].

Adoption of cleaner technology also depends on
financial and technical resources. Of special relevance
to the highly competitive tourism sector is firm level
‘‘assessment of the potential advantages and disadvant-
ages of adoption at this time as over against delaying
such action—considering the possibilities of further
improvements in the innovation and the costs of lag-
ging behind pioneering competitors, as well as expected
changes in the availability to the firm of needed resour-
ces’’ [22: pp. 255–256]. These factors influencing firm
level decisions about the use of cleaner technology are
‘‘consistent with the three categories of stimuli behind
corporate environmental responsiveness distilled from
the World Resources Institute’s major study. Their
categories are: public pressure, economic concerns, and
corporate values’’ [18: p. 95].

6. Technological innovation in the Caribbean

tourism sector

The economic factor of profitability shapes the tech-
nological innovations that are diffused to consumers, in
this case, managers of tourism enterprises. In the
Caribbean, these managers do innovate. As observed
by Poon ‘‘[t]he record of innovation in the Caribbean
hotel sector is excellent. However this record is by
no means consistent or inclusive’’ [41: p. 139]. One
example of innovation by Caribbean tourism enterprise
mangers is the all-inclusive concept. The development
of this concept illustrates that Caribbean tourism man-
agers can control their own destiny, if they are willing
to be innovative.

Innovation activity by managers of tourism enter-
prises is captured within the framework of endogenous
technological change. This factor in the diffusion of
technology was explored by Romer [49]. He developed
a model for technological change that saw new technol-
ogies being deployed because profit-maximizing firms
saw the possibilities of higher revenues through obtain-
ing quasi-rents, or prices above marginal cost for pro-
ducts using new technologies.

In the framework advanced by Romer, the goods
produced incorporating the new technologies only had

122 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

to be non-rival and partially excludable in consump-
tion for the quasi-rents to be earned which justified
their diffusion in the market. This follows because of
how non-rival and excludable goods are defined. A
non-rival good ‘‘has the property that its use by one
firm or person in no way limits its use by another.
Excludability is a function of both the technology and
the legal system. A good is excludable if the owner can
prevent others from using it’’ [49: p. S74]. This model
therefore allows for intentional private investment in
research and development in Caribbean tourism. Porter
and van der Linde [44,45] also discussed the ability to
earn rents for green products.

As referred to earlier, consumer demand for envir-
onmentally sound vacation experiences is one of the
drivers of the use of cleaner technology in the Car-
ibbean tourism sector. Hjalager [30] also sees the
dynamic innovation that use of cleaner technology
represents as being a response to environmental dis-
equilibrium and policy regulations. However, in look-
ing at technological innovation in the tourism industry,
one of the challenges is ‘‘that regular innovations may
be almost invisible, yet they have a dramatic cumulat-
ive effect on product costs and performance’’ [29:
p. 209].

Another set of drivers of the use of cleaner technolo-
gies in the tourism sector are tour operators. The
importance of these operators stems from the fact that
in some cases they are responsible for getting signifi-
cant numbers of tourists to visit specified vacation
locations. As tour operators respond to the needs of
their clients for environmentally sound vacations, they
will pressure hotels and resorts ‘‘to avoid production of
unnecessary waste, to stop using excessive energy and
water and to ensure cleaner waste-water disposal’’ [19:
p. 46].

The opportunities and innovations that are linked to
environmental awareness have an impact on the life
cycle of the tourism product itself. This can be illu-
strated by examining the normal life cycle of tourism
destinations. In this generalized scenario adapted from
Blommestein [7], there is firstly a steady rise in visitor
arrivals. This is followed by gradual decline in the rate
of growth of arrivals with the causes not being immedi-
ately clear. However, tourist arrivals continue to rise
and the existence of a problem is not discussed. How-
ever, decline of the tourism product reaches a point
where tourist arrivals start to go down, and at this
stage, there may be acknowledgement of a problem
that needs to be addressed (see Fig. 2).

In decline, the tourism product begins to look like
low value for money to tourists due to dilapidated
physical plant and deteriorating attractions. It is at this
point that remedial measures may be implemented. In
the competitive tourism industry, these measures may
be too little, too late.

In more and more Caribbean countries where tour-
ism is an important economic activity, people under-
stand that for the long-term survival of the tourism
industry maximum linear growth in terms of rooms
and attractions without any consideration of environ-
mental impacts will not hold. This is a reflection of the
dialectic tension between preserving the natural resour-
ces that make for a quality tourism product over the
long term and uncontrolled expansion which max-
imizes short-terms returns, with the result of a deterio-
rated product and declining returns in the medium to
long term. Blommestein [7] concludes that global com-
petition will force the region to become more envir-
onmentally conscious or find itself marginalized in the
global tourism market. Some already refer to the
region as a ‘‘tired destination’’ [40: p. 73].

7. Findings from the case studies

The case studies conducted were based on fieldwork
and responses to questionnaires distributed in Antigua,
Barbados, The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and St.
Lucia. In subsequent sections of this article, there is a
general discussion of all the issues raised from the
responses in the questionnaires returned from the
countries in the study, and from other material gath-
ered by this researcher.

7.1. Case study reports

7.1.1. St. Lucia
The responses from St. Lucia came from properties

where in terms of size, the number of rooms on the
properties ranged from 20 to 327, while the number of
employees on the properties ranged from 16 to 600.
With regard to the origin of guests, there was almost
an inverse distribution between the larger properties
(more than 75 rooms) and the smaller properties

Fig. 2. Number of tourists as a function of environmental quality.

Source: Blommestein [7: p. 200].

F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134 123

(15–75 rooms) in relation to the origin of their guests

(see Figs. 3 and 4).1

Based on the definition of cleaner technology used in

the questionnaire, the smaller properties reported that

they were not using cleaner technology in their opera-

tions. On the other hand, the larger properties reported

that they were using cleaner technology in their opera-

tions. Cleaner technology measures taken included: the

use of energy saving bulbs; the treatment and reuse of

wastewater for irrigation of lawns and golf courses;

composting of organic waste from the kitchen and gar-

dening operations; and recycling old bed sheets to

make laundry bags for the guest rooms and scarves

and aprons for the kitchen staff.
Cleaner or environmentally friendlier technologies

support a specific conceptualization and organization

of operations. For example, one of the hotels in St.

Lucia reported that as part of its environmentally

friendly operations, the hotel controlled access to con-

trol panels of large air-conditioning units. This meant

that there was less random up and down adjustment of

the thermostats; thus, leading to more efficient oper-

ation of the units. Also, all team members were edu-

cated as stakeholders in the environmentally friendly

operations of the property. Rooms were also designed

with the opening of windows as an option for guests.

In addition, relative to reducing waste, all the scrap

food from the hotel is sent to local pig farmers, while

excess food fit for human consumption is sent to two

local charities.
One of the St. Lucian properties that reported the

use of cleaner technology has an environmental man-

agement system manual that speaks to educating guests

on the environmentally friendly measures taken by the

property owners and about the roles guests play or can

play in making the operations of the hotel more envir-

onmentally friendly. This indicates that for the use of

cleaner technology in hotel operations to be really

effective the staff of the hotel must, of course, have a

major role, but the guests of the hotel are also essential

partners, as well.
In terms of motivation for using cleaner technology

in their operations, the hotels reported that all the fol-

lowing reasons applied:

. To attract ‘‘green consumers’’.

. To reduce costs.

. To comply with international protocols.

. To comply with national policies.

. To do our part in maintaining environmental integrity.

1 Classification of hotel as large or small based on number of

rooms follows Caribbean Hotel Environmental Management Initiat-

ive (CHEMI) standards.

It is noteworthy that ‘‘pressure from local non-
governmental organizations’’ was not noted as a factor
in the decision to use cleaner technology in hotel
operations. This indicates that there was not effective
public pressure placed on hotels to have environmen-
tally friendly operations. The following reasons were
reported as important in the non-use of cleaner tech-
nology in hotels:

. Too expensive;

. No requests from guests;

. No government sanctions;

. Lack of skilled, professional staff.

In terms of impact on costs, one hotel reported hav-
ing to hire one additional staff member to work on its
cleaner technology facilities as a result of implementing
the use of cleaner technologies in its operations, while
another reported no change in staff numbers as a result
of implementing the use of cleaner technologies in its
operations.

With regard to business networking, hotels using cleaner
technology reported that they share ideas/information on
the use of cleaner technology with other hotel/resort
operators. The means by which this was done included:

. By attending conferences/workshops;

. One-on-one contacts;

Fig. 3. Origin of guests, large properties, St. Lucia. Source: author.

Fig. 4. Origin of guests, small properties, St. Lucia. Source: author.

124 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

. Visiting other properties;

. The property being part of a hotel/resort chain.

One property also reported that it hosted visits by
schools to share with students what it was doing in the
area of cleaner technology.

Membership of organizations that encourage the use
of cleaner technology seems to play a role in encour-
aging the use of cleaner technology. Hotels reported
that membership of the Caribbean Alliance for Sus-
tainable Tourism (CAST); the Caribbean Hotel Associ-
ation (CHA); Green Globe 21; the St. Lucia National
Trust; and the St. Lucia Solid Waste Authority all had
roles in encouraging the use of cleaner technology in
hotels. These organizations carry out a cheerleading
role as well as provide tools and expertise for hotels.
Green Globe 21 also certifies hotels as meeting certain
environmental management standards that involve the
use of cleaner technology. By meeting the Green Globe
standards, hotels save money and get a marketing tool.
Hotels that have been certified as meeting Green Globe
standards are subject to annual audits to ensure that
they continue to meet the Green Globe standards
(www.greenglobe21.com [27]).

Government polices could potentially play a role in
encouraging the use of cleaner technology. However,
the lack of enforcement of existing statutes was noted
as an issue. In terms of compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations, the annual audits
by Green Globe 21 were seen as important.

For the larger properties, the use of cleaner tech-
nology by competitors was seen as a factor influencing
their use of cleaner technology. This is expected from
cluster theory. Funding and the availability of techni-
cal/managerial resources was not reported as a factor
in one case, while in another, it was suggested that
funding and the availability of human resources as a
factor influencing the use of cleaner technology varied
from case to case. For the smaller properties, funds
and the availability of human resources were noted as
factors affecting the use of cleaner technology.

During discussions with the Executive Vice President
of the St. Lucia Hotel and Tourism Association (SLHTA),
the point was made that, overall, participation by hotels
in ‘‘green’’ (environmentally friendly) activities in St. Lucia
was poor. In the view of this respondent, Sandals Resorts
International (SRI) was leading the way in terms of
‘‘green’’ activities, and this was stimulating more action
by the other hotels in St. Lucia (Soomer, personal com-
munication [51]). With regard to encouragement of the
use of cleaner technology by the government, he noted
that there were tax incentives in place to encourage the
use of solar water heaters.

Open suggestions and comments from respondents
indicated an understanding that the implementation of
cleaner technology was important for effective compe-

tition in the tourism industry. The use of cleaner tech-
nology also had a positive impact on utility bills. One
hotel reported that without water recycling, the monthly
water bill would increase by approximately 50%. It was
also reported by a hotel manager that more could
be done nationally in the use of cleaner technology,
for example, in harnessing wind power for electricity
generation.

The reference to wind power was interesting, as St.
Lucia has set itself the explicit target of becoming self-
sufficient in energy using renewable energy sources (see
Appendix A). Activities carried out in St. Lucia with
regard to implementing clean technology in the energy
sector include:

1. The removal by the government of all taxes on
renewable energy technologies;

2. Conduct of geothermal explorations on the island;
3. Implementation of a solar lighting demonstration

project;
4. Permitting the purchase of solar water heaters as an

allowance against taxable income [26,34].

7.1.2. Barbados
In Barbados, the number of rooms on the properties

from which responses were received ranged from 21 to
330, while the number of employees on the properties
ranged from 5 to 450. Most of the properties were
members of at least one organization that encouraged
the use of cleaner technology. In terms of the distri-
bution of guests by region, there was remarkable con-
sistency between the properties that were members of
some industry group as against properties that were not
members of any industry group. Size was not a factor in
the distribution of guests. The regional distribution of
guests staying at properties that are members of a busi-
ness grouping as against a property that was not a mem-
ber of an industry grouping is shown in Figs. 5 and 6.

Based on the definition of cleaner technology used in
the questionnaire, all the properties from which respon-

Fig. 5. Origin of guests at hotels, members of business groupings,

Barbados. Source: author.

F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134 125

ses were received in Barbados reported that they were

using cleaner technology in their operations. Cleaner

technology measures taken at the properties included:

. Use of fans as primary cooling method;

. Use of fluorescent lighting;

. Separation of solid waste for glass and plastics recy-
cling;

. Use of air-conditioning units with energy sensors or
keys;

. Use of environmentally friendly cleaning products;

. Composting of organic solid waste;

. Use of photocells on garden and corridor lights;

. Use of low sodium pressure lights on beach to
reduce energy use and protect nesting turtles;

. Use of solar water heaters;

. After use on both sides shredded paper sent to
chicken farmers;

. Elimination of Styrofoam containers;

. Elimination of plastic plates;

. Water collected from roofs to be used for on pro-
perty irrigation;

. Treated sewage used for irrigation.

As noted with regard to St. Lucia, the use of cleaner
or environmentally friendly technology relates to a

conceptualization and organization of operations that

understands the importance of environmentally friendly

business operations. The researcher was not able to

peruse any environmental management system manuals

for any of the properties reporting in Barbados. How-

ever, from the cleaner technology usage steps taken, as

was found in St. Lucia, both staff and guests have to be
involved.

The management philosophy that informs the use of

cleaner technology can be gleaned from the environ-

mental policy statements obtained from hotels in

Barbados (see Appendices B and C). These policy

documents show that apart from the philosophy of the

hotel management, a driver of a green environmental

policy was compliance with international environmen-
tal criteria set by organizations such as Green Globe 21.

The hotels in Barbados reported that the following
reasons motivated them to use cleaner technology in
their operations:

. To attract ‘‘green consumers’’;

. To reduce costs;

. To comply with International Protocols;

. To comply with national policies;

. To do our part in maintaining environmental inte-
grity.

As in St. Lucia, ‘‘pressure from local non-govern-
mental organizations’’ was not noted as a factor in the
decision to use cleaner technology in hotel operations
in Barbados.

In terms of the impact of the usage of cleaner tech-
nology, all the hotels reported at least a 10–20%
reduction in energy consumption with the use of clea-
ner technology. One property reported a reduction in
energy consumption of between 41% and 60%. Apart
from the positive impact on the environment, the use
of cleaner technology to reduce utility bills is important
for cost containment at Caribbean hotels/resorts
because of the relatively high price of utilities in the
region (see Table 2).

Investment in cleaner technology widely varied
across the properties reporting from Barbados. Invest-
ments ranged from a low of US$ 7000 over the period
1997–2001 to US$ 250,000. The biggest line item in
terms of investment in cleaner technology was for solar
heating. All the hotels reported that there were no
changes in staff numbers as a result of implementing
the use of cleaner technologies in their operations.

In terms of business networking, the hotels that were
members of industry organizations all reported that
they share ideas/information on the use of cleaner tech-
nology with other hotel/resort operators. The means by
which this was done included:

. By attending conferences/workshops;

. One-on-one contacts;

. Visiting other properties.

Fig. 6. Origin of guests at hotel, non-member of business groupings,

Barbados. Source: author.

Table 2

High cost of utilities in the Caribbean

Country W

ater prices

(US$/m3)

Electricity prices

(US$/kW h)

Barbados 2

0.15

Jamaica 2

0.13

St. Lucia 2

0.21

US average 0

.36

0.08

OECD average 0

.86

0.11

Source: Cresser [16].

126 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

Like in St. Lucia, one property owner also reported
that it hosted visits from schools and other hotels to
demonstrate the use of cleaner technology on the pro-
perty.

As was reported for St. Lucia, membership of orga-
nizations that encourage the use of clean technology
seems to play a role in encouraging the use of cleaner
technology in Barbados. However, profitability is also
a factor as one of the hotels that reported usage of
cleaner technology was not a member of any industry
organization. Organizations to which hotels reported
membership that encouraged the use of cleaner tech-
nology included:

. Barbados Marine Trust;

. Barbados Hotel and Tourist Organization (BHTA);

. CAST;

. CHEMI;

. Green Globe 21;

. Green Hotels Association;

. Tourism Development Corporation.

Respondents noted that government policies could
potentially play a role in encouraging the use of cleaner
technology. The Barbados Tourism Development Act
(2002) offers tax incentives for the use of environmen-
tally friendly technologies and the implementation of
certain environmental initiatives [25].

It was suggested that there should be direct subven-
tions by the government as is the case in some other
countries (Germany, Sweden), so that comparatively
cheaper pricing of cleaner technologies could influence
purchasing decisions by consumers.

Concern was also expressed about the lack of
enforcement of existing legislation by the government,
especially concerning illegal dumping and garbage dis-
posal. It was suggested that a recycling campaign should
be driven by the government and collection containers
should be made available and positioned in strategic
points on the island for recyclable items, such as glass,
metal, paper, etc. All the recycling initiatives in Bar-
bados are privately driven at present [5]. As an alter-
native, private recycling companies could be given
more help.

It was reported that the lack of government support
made it very difficult to recycle items, because each per-
son or business had to find persons or businesses who
will collect the items and who will dispose of them or
recycle them as promised. A company called ‘‘Duraplast’’
makes roofing shingles from recycled polyethylene
terephthalate plastic (PET); thus, there is a market in
Barbados for recycled PET containers.

The lack of a proactive stance by the Government of
Barbados thus far in relation to solid waste manage-
ment is balanced by its much more focussed and proac-
tive approach to the issue of renewable energy, an

important aspect of clean technology used in the tour-
ism sector. In fact, the policy of the Government of
Barbados is to have renewable energy comprise 40% of
the island’s primary energy supply by 2010 [24: p. 96].

A major use of renewable energy in Barbados is for
water heating. This is significant for the tourism sector
as guests expect to have the choice of hot water.
Government policy measures that encouraged and sup-
ported widespread diffusion of solar water heating in
Barbados include:

. Waiving of taxes on raw materials for solar water
heater manufacture;

. High taxes on non-solar water heaters (60% or
higher);

. A hundred percent rebate on the cost of solar water
heaters from their income taxes to householders who
purchase solar water heaters;

. Hotels that borrowed from the government run
development bank had to carry out energy audits.
These audits usually suggested the use of solar water
heaters [24: pp. 97–98].

The total penetration by solar water heaters in the
Barbados market is an illustration that ‘‘in an environ-
ment where technology and other barriers are removed,
government policy can play a significant role in the
viability of renewable energy technologies’’ [24: p. 110].

For most of the sample properties in Barbados, the
use of cleaner technology by competitors was not seen
as a factor influencing the use of cleaner technology,
nor was the availability of funding or technical/mana-
gerial resources a factor in the decision-making on the
use of cleaner technology.

In response to the open suggestions and comments
section of the questionnaire from the respondents in
Barbados one of the points made was that there was a
law that all buildings had to have a tank for collecting
rainwater. However, the government seems not to want
to act on changing the law so that properly collected
and treated rainwater could be used for toilets, laun-
dry, and even potable purposes.

The role of CHEMI in supporting the use of cleaner
technology in the Barbados hotel sector was noted by
one of the respondents. This project caters to the small
hotel sector, which is defined by CHEMI as hotels with
75 or less guest rooms. Tour operators were also noted
as influencing the use of cleaner technology in hotels as
representatives of tour operators who come to ensure
that the hotel meets their standards, including environ-
mental standards for hotel operations, continually visit
some hotels.

The hoteliers felt that the most important aspect
of implementing environmentally friendly (cleaner)
operations was in-house training of staff, and guests,
(as implementers). The processes, they believe should

F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134 127

start with reduction, then reuse, then recycling. Also
implementation should be phased in by first seeking to
save on use of resources with existing technologies
(efficient use of current technology). This involves, for
example, stopping water leaks. After doing this, hote-
liers could seek to add new technology.

An interesting comment from one of the respondents
was the concept of ‘‘Green and Blue’’, meaning that
hoteliers should try to link cleaner technology to the
need to protect the seas. The marketing value to hotels
of pursuing green initiatives was also noted.

7.1.3. Jamaica
The questionnaires that were returned from Jamaica

provided a perspective on the use of cleaner technology
in hotels in Jamaica from three different categories of
hotel as measured by guest rooms. The number of
employees on the properties ranged from 20 to 286.

With regard to the origin of guests, the largest and
smallest property sampled had a remarkably similar
distribution in relation to the origin of their guests
while the medium sized property had a very divergent
pattern (see Figs. 7 and 8). The large and small proper-
ties were located in the Negril area of Jamaica’s tour-
ism locations, while the medium sized property was
located in the Ocho Rios area (see Fig. 9).

Based on the definition of cleaner technology used in
the questionnaire, the small and medium sized proper-
ties reported that they were using cleaner technology in
their operations. Although the large property indicated
‘‘no’’ as the answer to the question as to whether clea-
ner technology was being used in the hotel, in answer-
ing the question about what areas the hotel has been
using cleaner technology in, some illustrations were
provided. Further review of the questionnaire based on
this inconsistency in response led the researcher to the
view that what the respondent really was trying to get
across was that the hotel could be doing more in terms
of using cleaner technology in its operations. Cleaner
technology measures taken at the hotels include:

. Use of fluorescent lights;

. Use of non-toxic, non-corrosive, non-flammable,
bio-degradable chemicals;

. Reusable plastic cups in bars;

. Use of Harp 22 refrigerant in air-conditioning units.

The hotels in Jamaica reported that all the following
reasons are motivating factors for the use of cleaner
technology:

. To attract ‘‘green consumers’’;

. To reduce costs;

. To comply with International Protocols;

. To comply with national policies;

. To do our part in maintaining environmental
integrity.

‘‘Pressure from local non-governmental organiza-
tions’’ was not noted as a factor in the decision to use
cleaner technology in hotel operations. This illustrates
the disconnect between private sector businesses and
local environmental NGOs. From the response of a
large property, it can be surmised that that property
was making minimal efforts with regard to the use of
cleaner technology because of the following reasons:

. Too expensive;

. No requests from guests;

. No government sanctions.

Fig. 7. Origin of guests, Negril, Jamaica. Source: author.

Fig. 8. Origin of guests, Ocho Rios, Jamaica. Source: author.

Fig. 9. Map of Jamaica showing Negril and Ocho Rios. Source:

World Map website [58].

128 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

In relation to the factor ‘‘no requests from guests’’,
the majority of the guests to this property were from
North America.

All the hotels reported a reduction in energy usage as
a result of the use of cleaner technology, at the higher
end, one property reporting a yearly reduction in energy
consumption of between 21% and 40%.

The majority of the hotels reported that they share
ideas/information on the use of cleaner technology
with other hotel/resort operators. The means by which
this was done included:

. By attending conferences/workshops;

. One-on-one contacts;

. Visiting other properties;

. Property is part of a hotel/resort chain.

The responses indicated membership of organiza-
tions that encouraged the use of cleaner technology at
hotels/resorts. These organizations include the Jamaica
Hotel and Tourism Association (JHTA) and the Negril
Chamber of Commerce. Non-members indicated an
interest in joining an organization that encouraged the
use of cleaner technology at hotels/resorts.

It is unclear what role government polices potentially
could play or are playing in encouraging the use of
cleaner technology in hotels/resorts in Jamaica. As was
the case for St Lucia, government action is mainly
related to inspections to monitor food handling and
other sanitary concerns. In other words, government
regulatory and monitoring action was mainly geared
towards addressing health concerns of staff and guests.

For some properties, the use of cleaner technology
by competitors was not a factor influencing their
decision to use cleaner technology. The response to the
question as to what impact funding and the availability
of technical/managerial resources had on the use of
cleaner technology drew a mixed response. A larger pro-
perty reported that funding and the availability of
technical/managerial resources was a constraint on
expansion of the use of cleaner technology. A smaller
property gave the opposite response.

Open comments from respondents indicated an
understanding that the implementation of cleaner tech-
nology was important for effective competition in the
tourism industry. Quoting one Jamaican hotel man-
ager: ‘‘Cleaner technology is way forward and if we are
to survive in this Industry, we must utilize environmen-
tally friendly products in our hotel.’’

7.1.4. Antigua
Four questionnaires were returned from Antigua.

The properties that responded all had fewer than 75
rooms. Two properties were part of regional hotel
groups. The number of rooms at the four hotels from
which responses were received ranged from a low of 26

to a high of 72 rooms. The number of employees on
the properties ranged from 20 to 175.

Only two of the four completed questionnaires had
numbers on the region of origin of their guests. These
two properties that reported on the origin of their
guests had a similar number of rooms: 64 and 72,
respectively. However, the distribution of the regional
composition of their guests was almost a polar opp-
osite from each other. For one property, 75% of the
guests were from North America, while 25% were
from Europe. For the other property, 10% of the
guests were from North America, while 90% were from
Europe.

Based on the definition of cleaner technology used in
the questionnaire, three of the sampled properties in
Antigua indicated that they were using cleaner tech-
nology in their operations. Cleaner technology mea-
sures that are implemented include:

. No air-conditioners in guest rooms

. Minimal use of chemicals

. Hand washing of laundry

. Collection of rainwater to augment the mains supply

. Composting of organic solid waste

The three hotels using cleaner technology indicated
that they were using cleaner technology because of the
following motivational factors:

. To reduce costs;

. To comply with international protocols;

. To do our part in maintaining environmental
integrity.

For Antigua, attracting green consumers and com-
plying with national policies were not given as a reason
by any of the hotels as reasons for using cleaner tech-
nology. ‘‘Pressure from local non-governmental organi-
zations’’ was also not a factor in the decision to use
cleaner technology in hotel operations.

The hotel that reported that it was not using cleaner
technology in its operations said that this was because
there were no government sanctions. However, the
respondent indicated that at the hotel air-conditioners
were not used in its guest rooms because the rooms
were large, and due to the geographical position of the
hotel on the island. The respondent also reported that
by September/October 2003, the two kitchens in the
hotel would be completely refurbished, and that cleaner
technologies will be incorporated into the design.

One of the four properties has a written environmen-
tal policy. With regard to the impact on costs, two of
the hotels reported that as result of the use of cleaner
technology, they were able to reduce energy consump-
tion at their resorts. None of the three hotels that
reported that they were using cleaner technologies in

F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134 129

their operations had any change in staff numbers as a
result of implementing the use of cleaner technologies
in their operations.

In terms of business networking, one hotel reported
that it shared ideas/information on the use of cleaner
technology because it was a part of a hotel/resort
chain. Another property reported that it did not share
ideas/information on the use of cleaner technology
because other hotels/resorts do not share ideas/infor-
mation on the use of cleaner technology.

Two hotels are members of organizations that
encourage the use of cleaner technology at hotels. The
organizations mentioned were the Antigua Hotel and
Tourism Association (AHTA) and the CHA. One hotel
reported that there were government polices/regula-
tions that demand/encourage firms in the hotel sector
to use cleaner technologies. It was also suggested that
the government should organize annual workshops on
good environmental policies.

The hotel that was not using cleaner technology indi-
cates that this was because of competitors implement-
ing cleaner technology. Although the hotel reported
that currently it is not using cleaner technology, there
were plans to implement some cleaner technology
methods in a major refurbishment scheduled for Octo-
ber 2003. All the hotels noted that funding and the
availability of technical/managerial resources was not
a factor in the decision to use or not use cleaner tech-
nology.

In open comments, respondents noted that use of
cleaner technology would make for a better tourism
destination. Lack of enforcement of current laws was
also seen as mitigating against wider use of cleaner
technologies in Caribbean resorts.

The Government of Antigua plans to introduce the
Tourism Development Corporation Amendment Act
granting duty free and income tax concessions to new
tourism projects [1] and to allow deductible interest on
loans before taxes for the construction of new hotels.
In July 2003, the act was being drafted. Hopefully,
when it is available for consultation and review by sta-
keholders provisions will be made to allow for explicit
benefits for hotels that invest in cleaner technology.

7.1.5. The Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic is the only Spanish speak-

ing country in the study. A response came from only
one property. The manager responsible for the com-
pletion of the questionnaire is a Vice Chairperson of
CAST. The property is a large one (418 rooms) with a
full time staff of 351 persons. It is one of the hotels/
resorts located on the eastern tip of Hispaniola.

It was reported that 40% of the guests at the pro-
perty were from North America. Fifty-five percent of
the hotel’s guests came from Europe, while 5% were
classified as coming from the Rest of the World.

Included in the ‘‘Rest of the World’’ figure were guests
from Latin America and locals.

The hotel reported that cleaner technology was being
used in its operations. Cleaner technology measures
taken include:

. Use of low energy consumption lights;

. Air-conditioning system with auto turn off thermo-
stats;

. Solar water heaters;

. Use of treated sewage for irrigation;

. Use of bio-degradable cleaning products;

. Reuse/recycling of glass;

. Composting of grass cuttings;

. Open air design.

Cleaner technologies are used at the resort for the
following reasons:

. To attract ‘‘green consumers’’;

. To reduce costs;

. To comply with national policies;

. To do our part in maintaining environmental integ-
rity.

‘‘Pressure from local non-governmental organiza-
tions’’ was not a factor in the decision to use cleaner
technology in the operations of the hotel. This was
consistent across all the hotels in the sample territories.

The philosophy of the hotel on environmental issues
is outlined in a written environmental policy. The pro-
perty gets useful by-products from the use of cleaner
technology. Treated wastewater is used for irrigation of
the hotel’s golf course and green areas of the hotel
grounds. Grass and tree cuttings are also transformed
into organic fertilizer by means of composting. This
fertilizer is used on the grounds of the hotel.

The hotel reports a reduction in energy consumption
as a result of the use of cleaner technologies. It was
also noted that there was no change in staff numbers as
a result of implementing the use of cleaner technology
in its operations.

In terms of business networking, the hotel reported
that ideas/information on cleaner technology were
shared with other hotel/resort operators by attending
conferences/workshops. The hotel was also a member
of Green Hotels, an organization that encourages the
use of cleaner technology.

This property is impacted by government polices
that demand/encourage firms in the hotel/resort sector
to use cleaner technologies. It was noted that for 2
years, the Dominican Republic has had a Secretary for
the Environment and a statute on the Environment
that regulates all the activities of the country. All com-
panies must operate according to the norms of the
Environmental Law. The hotel also has its own

130 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

measures in place to keep track of variables like energy
consumption.

The decision to use cleaner technology in the opera-
tions of the hotel was not based on decisions by com-
petitors. Funding and the availability of technical/
managerial resouces reportedly affect decisons on whe-
ther to use or not use cleaner technology. In terms of
its competitors, the respondent noted that at her resort,
the majority of their investments have been in macro
infrastructure for cleaner technology. Among these, for
example, are wastewater treatment systems and open
air design. It was however noted that other hotels in
the Dominican Republic have made significant invest-
ments in in-room devices to reduce their consumption
of resources. This includes technologies such as in-
room sensors, contact switches, fluorescent lighting,
and so forth.

8. Conclusions

This study of the adoption of cleaner technologies in
the tourism sector in the Caribbean seeks to answer the
question, ‘‘To what extent have Caribbean hotels/resorts
in five selected countries implemented cleaner technolo-
gies?’’ This is important because the use of cleaner
technology in the tourism sector can conserve resour-
ces, and is essential for sustainable tourism develop-
ment.

The findings indicate that the primary geographic
region of origin of a hotel’s guests did not play a sig-
nificant role in decisions about whether to use or not to
use cleaner technologies. Decisions to use these tech-
nologies were based primarily on good business strate-
gies. Nevertheless, the geographic origin of the guests
did create pressure on some properties to use more
environmentally friendly technologies. Best has found
for example that ‘‘there are indications that tourists are
increasingly making their holiday decisions based on a
hotel or destination’s proven environmental responsi-
bility’’ [5: p. 3].

Hotels that had significant numbers of guests coming
through tour operators faced regular visits by inspec-
tors from the tour companies who wanted to ensure
that the hotels maintained certain environmental stan-
dards that were more easily met if cleaner technologies
were used in their operations, see [5]2.

Attracting green consumers was indicated by the
majority of the respondents as a reason for using cleaner
technologies in their operations. This points to the busi-
ness logic that is driving the use of cleaner technologies
in hotel operations. This is apart from the rationality of

2 For more on the sustainable tourism policies of tour operators,

see http://www.toinitiative.org/good_practices/case%20studies/Fin-

nair [21].

the use of cleaner technologies in terms of protection of
the environment, upon which the tourism industry
depends.

The study found that the use of cleaner technologies
in the tourism sector could conserve energy and materi-
als resources. The most significant evidence of this was
the use of treated wastewater for irrigation of golf
courses and green areas on some hotel properties. In
islands like St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbados, that are
designated as being at risk from desertification by the
UN (Burke, personal communication [12]), this is an
important element in promoting the sustainability of
the Caribbean tourism industry.

Most of the hotels that reported that they were using
cleaner technologies (65%) shared ideas/information
on the use of cleaner technologies with other hotel/
resort operators in the region. This indicates a high
level of networking. This networking can positively
impact on the sustainability of the Caribbean tourism
sector by leading to a cluster of environmentally sound
properties. Most of the hotel managers also reported
that they were members of organizations that encour-
aged their members to utilize cleaner technologies in
their operations.

Group ownership led to a consistent policy over sev-
eral hotels with regard to the adoption of cleaner tech-
nologies. For the diffusion process, what this meant
was that if the use of cleaner technologies was accepted
as policy by the head office, then there was pressure
and support for the deployment of these technologies
on the properties within the group.

From the observations this researcher made with
regard to SRI, this was clearly demonstrated. SRI has
taken a position that it needs to care for the environ-
ment as summarized in its corporate environmental
policy. The adoption of this policy at headquarters has
moved beyond public relations to a program of
implementation. Part of the implementation process is
the employment of environmental managers at each
property with the aim of ensuring that the environmen-
tal program of the chain is implemented. The environ-
mental program includes elements of cleaner technologies.
This process means, for example that the SRI properties
in St. Lucia follow a methodological approach to imp-
lementation of this policy, which includes obtaining
Green Globe certification.

The diffusion of cleaner technologies in the
Caribbean tourism industry is also facilitated by res-
earch that is being carried out at regional educational
institutions, for example, the Knowledge Construction in
Latin American and the Caribbean Project [8,36].

Overall, government policies are not seen as being
very important currently, mainly because the govern-
ments are behind the curve in terms of their capacity to
implement and enforce environmental laws. This has
also been noted by d’Auvergne et. al. [4]. The private

F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134 131

sector is leading the use of cleaner technologies because
there are direct positive impacts on the bottom line.
This concurs with the findings of Cresser [17] who dis-
cussed the lack of supportive services and facilities,
noting:

It was felt that once we had hotels doing the cor-
rect things like recycling, garbage separation, com-
pliance with laws and regulations, water and
energy conservation etc. there was insufficient out-
side support for recycling plastics and glass and
disposing of the solid waste properly. In addition,
it was also felt that there was little or no effective
enforcement of laws pertaining to environmental
issues, and, the lack of incentives to encourage
properties, when upgrading to use environmentally
correct equipment.’’ [17: p. 18]

Monitoring by governments was also not a critical
factor in the adoption of cleaner technologies except
where this impacted on health issues, for example, the
quality of effluent from sewage treatment plants. Some
aspects of cleaner technology in hotel operations like
energy use, recycling, and composting were out of the
purview of government regulations. The lack of a
monitoring role by the government with regard to the
encouragement of the use of cleaner technologies partly
reflects a flawed understanding by some in government
of how the Caribbean tourism industry should develop
in the post-Agenda 21 era. Too much of the focus is
still on an absolute increase in visitor arrivals.

In short, from the case studies, the use of cleaner
technologies is impacting positively on the Caribbean
tourism sector. From their activities in recycling,
energy conservation, wastewater treatment, and so on
the hotels/resorts in the study are reducing their foot-
prints on the environment, contributing to the sustain-
ability of the industry and very importantly for
organizations that exist for profit, helping to enhance
the profitability of their operations.

The study found that investment by hotels in the use
of cleaner technologies could be relatively modest in
comparison to overall capital investments. It was found
that a hotel could make its operations more envir-
onmentally friendly by merely checking for and cor-
recting leaks in the plumbing. It can go on to the stage
of retrofitting the entire plumbing of a property to
facilitate the use of solar heaters for the hot water supply.

The case studies also indicate that a major area to be
exploited in the use of cleaner technologies in the
Caribbean hotel sector is the area of building design, even
among the large chain hotels. For some groups, that
was a challenge because group management has a busi-
ness model based on buying or leasing existing proper-
ties, then making them over to fit the marketing image

of the group. This limits what can be done with regard
to sustainable building design, as measures to use clea-
ner technologies have to be engineered into an exiting
structure. Further studies could examine the hotels that
are being developed as green field ventures to see how
elements of cleaner technologies are being or can be
incorporated into project design.

The study underscored the fact that governments
have a crucial role to play in the encouragement of the
use of cleaner technologies in the Caribbean tourism
sector. The example of how government policy in
Barbados led to the widespread adoption of solar water
heaters is one example. Lack of an environmentally
sound approach to solid waste management, water use,
and building design standards, illustrate lacuna that
need to be filled to ensure the survival of the region’s
tourism industry. Effective enforcement of current sta-
tutes can also have a positive impact on the utilization
of cleaner technologies in the hotel sector.

The study indicates that cleaner technologies are
helping to sustain the Caribbean tourism industry. The
use of these technologies by themselves will not
guarantee the survival of the industry, as it does not
exist in a vacuum. Nevertheless, given the right macro
environment, the use of cleaner technologies in the
Caribbean tourism industry can help to ensure that the
Caribbean remains a world-class vacation destination.
This is critical for the people who live in the region.

The majority of the ancestors of the Caribbean
people did not come to the region voluntarily to
develop the area, as was, for example, the case in the
USA. This is a poor basis for sustainable development.
However, given that their descendants are in the region
they have to work with the resources available to earn
a living. One of the resources is a very pleasant
environment that even contributed to the description of
the Garden of Eden found in the King James Version
of the Bible (The Economist, April 19–25 [35: p. 68]).
Keeping this environment an attractive destination for
tourists is essential. The use of cleaner technologies
clearly has a major role to play in that effort.

Appendix A.

Press release
St. Lucia takes the leadership in becoming a sustain-

able energy demonstration country—challenges world
community to make it possible by 2008–2012.

Bonn, November 2, 1999—In a historic statement,
just an hour before the beginning of the high-level seg-
ment of the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Par-
ties of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), St. Lucia, a small island
state in the Caribbean, announced its intention to
green its energy sector and become a sustainable energy

132 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

demonstration country for the small island states and
the rest of the world.

‘‘By taking leadership, we want to send a positive
message to the conference of the parties and urge the
world community to work toward laying the ground-
work for a sustainable energy future’’, said Mr. Bishnu
Tulsie, the Head of the St. Lucian Delegation.

He mentioned the steps the St. Lucian Government
is taking to diversity their energy sector and create a
conducive policy environment for the commercializa-
tion of renewable energy and energy efficiency, such as
elimination of duties and taxes on renewable energy
systems and related infrastructure.

‘‘We understand this is a very ambitious undertak-
ing. We call on the developed countries to assist St.
Lucia and other small island states in their energy
transformation plans and show similar initiatives in
their own countries’’, said Mr. Bishnu Tulsie.

‘‘St. Lucia is dependent on expensive fossil fuel
imports to meet its energy needs. In addition to reduc-
ing the greenhouse gas emissions, this initiative will
also help reduce our fuel import bills and insulate the
island from the impacts of the unpredictable increases
in oil prices’’, Mr. Tulsie added.

Climate Institute, a Washington, DC based organi-
zation is assisting the Government of St. Lucia in their
efforts to green their energy sector. ‘‘Our role is that of
a catalyst. To facilitate the development and implemen-
tation of a comprehensive sustainable energy plan for
St. Lucia. This in turn, we hope, will catalyze a global
green energy revolution’’, said Nasir Khattak of the
Climate Institute.

John Topping, President, Climate Institute said ‘‘We
believe this is a historic step that can help to jump start
badly stalled climate negotiations’’. He invited the
international community to take this as a challenge and
show maximum progress by 2008–2012.

333 1/2 Pennsylvania Ave, S.E., Washington, DC.
Tel.: +202-547-0104; fax: +202-527-0111, website:
www.climate.org email: info@climate.org.

Appendix B.

Casuarina beach club environmental mission state-
ment (revised as of May 2001 to comply with Green
Globe 21 certification criteria)

Everyone at the Casuarina, regardless of the position
they hold or the confines of their particular depart-
ments, is fully cognisant of the example we can set
throughout the tourism industry to bring about chan-
ges to preserve and enhance our environment Barbados,
whilst in full accordance with existing environmental
legislation.

We can be proud of many achievement in the realms
of environmental responsibility. These include:

. Sound environmental practices meeting inter-
nationally recognized Green Globe 21 criteria

. The forging of collaborative partnerships—Minis-
terial, Regional, NGO and Community—to ensure
the longevity of the tourism product

. Conservation of natural resources

. Environmental awareness training for staff, fellow
hoteliers, learning institutes, businesses and associa-
tions

. Massive reductions in waste by composting and
other re-use and recycling initiatives

. Limited chemical use in preference for natural alter-
natives

. Promotion of all that is local—food, art, history,
culture, music, and furniture

. Protection of turtle nesting habitat

. Mitigation of environmental impacts to precious
eco-systems

. Revegitation projects

We shall continue to maximise the opportunities to
minimise environmental risks for the betterment of
Barbados and for all those who live there-in

‘‘Love is the law of our being’’. Thomas Merton

Appendix C.

Coconut Court Beach Hotel Environmental Policy
We at Coconut Court Beach Hotel are proud to be

an environmentally caring hotel with particular empha-
sis on the marine enviroment. As leaders, we believe in
the protection, preservation and enhancement of our
total enviroment through sustainable management.

We are committed to continuously:

X C

onserving our natural resources by minimizing
our negative impacts through education, by
example and sustainable management

X P

rotecting and enhancing all ecosystems wher-
ever possible

X M

inimizing pollution by reducing the use of
harmful substances and practicing RRR. wher-
ever possible

X C
omplying with relevant environmental legis-
lation and regulations and through lobbying and
moral suasion, help ensure that current legis-
lation is enforced throughout Barbados and that
new, innovative laws are enacted

X E

mploying local people wherever possible

X P

urchasing local products and services where

possible and feasible in accordance with our
Environmental Purchasing Policy

F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134 133

We will always seek to achieve a clean, healthy, safe

and sustainable environment for our community, future

generations our tourism development and ourselves.

References

[1] Antigua Sun. Gov’t to introduce acts to help tourism [Accessed

online 3/31/2000]. Available from http://www.antiguasun.com/

paper/?as=view.

[2] Asolekar SR. Cleaner production: a new horizon. Chemical

Business 1999;13(9).

[3] Association of Caribbean States. 2000. Available from www.acs-

aec.org.

[4] d’Auvergne C, et al. St. Lucia country paper on national climate

change issues. Processed, January 2001.

[5] Best M. The greening of Barbados’ tourism industry: the private

sector role. Eleventh Annual Caribbean Water and Wastewater

Conference in Conjunction with the First Caribbean Environ-

mental Forum and Exhibition, Pigeon Island Causeway, St.

Lucia. 2002.

[6] Bhat VN. Does it pay to be green. International Journal of

Environmental Studies 1999;56(4) [Sections A and B].

[7] Blommestein E. Sustainable tourism in the Caribbean: an

enigma?. In: Griffith M, Persaud B, editors. Economic policy

and the environment. Mona, Jamaica: Centre for Environment

and Development, University of the West Indies;

1995.

[8] Boxill I, et al., editors. Tourism and change in the Caribbean

and Latin America. Kingston: Arawak Publications; 2002.

[9] Boyle C. Education, sustainability and cleaner production. Jour-

nal of Cleaner Production 1999;7:83–7.

[10] Brown LR, et al. State of the world. NY: W.W. Norton & Coy;

1999.

[11] Buhalis D, Fletcher J. Environmental impacts on tourist destina-

tions: an economic analysis. In: Coccossis H, Nijkamp P, editors

Sustainable tourism development. Brookfield, VT: Avebury;

1995.

[12] Burke R. Programme and Research Officer, CEHI. Conversa-

tions with author, June 2003.

[13] Central Intelligence Agency. World Factbook. 2000 Available

from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html.

[14] Clayton A. Developing a bioindustry cluster in Jamaica: a step

towards building a skill-based economy. Social and Economic

Studies 2001;50(2):1–37.

[15] Clayton A, Spinardi G, Williams R. Policies for cleaner tech-

nology: a new agenda for government and industry. London:

Earthscan Publications Ltd; 1999.

[16] Cresser H. Presentation on introducing cleaner production

through environmental management in the hospitality and

manufacturing industries: case studies in the Caribbean. Produc-

ción Más Limpia en el Caribe: Promocionado e Implementando

Proyectos de Producción Más Limpia en las Industrias Manufac-

turera y del Turismo. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; 2002.

[17] Cresser H. Upgrading hotels’ environmental quality: environ-

ment audits for sustainable tourism (EAST). Proceedings of the

Fourth Annual Caribbean Tourism Organization Sustainable

Tourism Development Conference, Georgetown, Guyana. 2000.

[18] Cummings LE. Waste minimisation supporting urban tourism

sustainability: a mega-resort case study. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism 1997;5(2):93–108.

[19] de Haan TZ. New trends in leisure and tourism affecting the

tourist industry and destination areas. In: Coccossis H, Nijkamp

P, editors. Sustainable tourism development. Brookfield, VT:

Avebury; 1995.

[20] El-Kholy OA. Cleaner production in encyclopaedia of global

environmental change. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.

[21] Finnair Travel Services. Good practice [Accessed online 10/14/

2003]. Available from http://www.toinitiative.org/good_practices/

case%20studies/Finnair .

[22] Gold B. Technological diffusion in industry: research needs and

shortcomings. Journal of Industrial Economics 1981;29(3):

247–69.

[23] Goodall B. Environmental auditing: a tool for assessing the

environmental performance of tourism firms. The Geophysical

Journal 1995;161(1):29–37.

[24] Government of Barbados. Barbados’ first national communica-

tions under the United Nations framework convention on cli-

mate change (UNFCCC). St. Michael, Barbados: Ministry of

Physical Development and Environment; 2001.

[25] Government of Barbados. Tourism development act, 2002–2007.

Supplement to Official Gazette June 17, 2002.

[26] Government of St. Lucia. Saint Lucia sustainable energy plan.

Processed, July 2001.

[27] Green Globe 21. 2003. Available from www.greenglobe21.com.

[28] Gunn CA. Tourism planning, 2nd ed. New York: Taylor &

Francis; 1988.

[29] Hjalager A. Dynamic innovation in the tourism industry. Pro-

gress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management

1994;6:197–224.

[30] Hjalager A. Tourism and the environment: the innovation con-

nection. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1996;4(4):201–18.

[31] Holder JS. Maintaining competitiveness in a new world order:

regional solutions to Caribbean tourism sustainability pro-

blems. In: Harrison LC, Husbands W, editors. Practicing

responsible tourism: international case studies in tourism plan-

ning, policy, and development. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc; 1996.

[32] Holder J. The Caribbean beyond 2000. World Travel and

Tourism Development; 1998.

[33] Irwin A, Hooper PD. Clean technology, successful innovation

and the greening of industry: a case-study analysis. Business

Strategy and the Environment 1992;1(2):1–11.

[34] Jensen T. Renewable energy on small islands [Accessed online

05/28/2003]. Available from http://www.eurocaribbean.org/

chania/folders/11_Jensen .

[35] The King James Bible: The language of light. The Economist

2003;367(8320):68.

[36] Maerk J, Boxill I, editors. Turismo en el Caribe. Mexico City:

Plaza y Valdés, SA de CV; 2000.

[37] Miller M. Presentation on economic development clustering.

Southeastern Louisiana Regional Economic Summit. New Orleans,

Louisiana, USA; 2000.

[38] Nijkamp P, Verdonkschot S. Sustainable tourism development: a

case study of Lesbos. In: Coccossis H, Nijkamp P, editors. Sus-

tainable tourism development. Brookfield, VT: Avebury; 1995.

[39] PA Consulting Group. Caribbean tourism environmental invest-

ment study—final report. Arlington, VA, 2001.

[40] Percival D. Country reports: St Lucia; St Vincent and the Gre-

nadines. The Courier 2002;192:71–100.

[41] Poon A. Innovation and the future of Caribbean tourism. In:

Gayle DJ, Goodrich JN, editors. Tourism marketing and man-

agement in the Caribbean. New York: Routledge; 1993.

[42] Poon A. Tourism, technology and competitive strategies.

Wallingford: CAB International; 1993.

[43] Porter M. The competitive advantage of nations. NY: The Free

Press; 1990.

[44] Porter ME, van der Linde C. Green and competitive: ending the

stalemate. Harvard Business Review 1995;73(5):120–34.

[45] Porter ME, van der Linde C. Toward a new conception of the

environment–competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic

Perspectives 1995;9(4).

[46] Reinhardt FL. Bringing the environment down to earth.

Harvard Business Review 1999;77(4).

134 F. Yaw / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 117–134

[47] Rendan A, et al. Waste management: clean technologies: up-date

on the situation in member states. Commission of the European

Union, Directorate General for Environment, Nuclear Safety,

and Civil Protection (DG XI); 1994.

[48] Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. NY: The Free

Press; 1995.

[49] Romer PM. Endogenous technological change. The Journal of

Political Economy 1990;98(5):S71–S102.

[50] Schmitz H. Does local co-operation matter? Evidence from

industrial clusters in South Asia and Latin America. Oxford

Development Studies 2000;28(3).

[51] Soomer R. Executive Vice President, SLHTA. Conversation

with author, April 2003.

[52] Stoneman P, Diederen P. Technology diffusion and public pol-

icy. The Economic Journal 1994;104(425):918–30.

[53] Swarbrooke J, Horner S. Consumer behaviour in tourism.

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999.

[54] UNDP. Human Development Report, various issues. New

York: Oxford University Press; 1999; 2002.

[55] UNEP. Caribbean environment outlook. London: Chapman

Bounford and Associates; 1999.

[56] UNEP Industry and Environment. Cleaner production: a guide

to sources of information. EarthPrint; 1998.

[57] World Bank website. Available from www.worldbank.org.

[58] World Map website [Accessed online 10/12/2003]. Available

from http://www.map.freegk.com/jamaica/jamaica.php.

[59] World Tourism Organization. Tourism highlights 2000 [Accessed

online 12/04/2000]. Available from http://www.world-

tourism.org/omt/wtich.htm.

Fitzgerald Yaw has completed a PhD in International Development

at the University of Southern Mississippi, focusing on the use of

environmentally friendly (cleaner) technologies in the tourism sector.

Fitzgerald has over fifteen (15) years of experience working on issues

related to sustainable development, covering project implementation,

institutional research, planning, and information systems develop-

ment. His experience spans: Planning Officer at the State Planning

Secretariat, Guyana, Research Fellow, Sir Arthur Lewis Institute for

Social and Economic Studies at the University of the West Indies,

Planning Officer, University of the West Indies, Superintendent,

Guyana Telecommunications Corporation and Research Associate,

University of the West Indies Center for Environment and Develop-

ment (UWICED). From 1997 to 1999 Fitzgerald was a Consultant

on development issues, providing services to among others,

UWICED, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the Caribbean

Agricultural Research and Development Institute. In August 1999

Fitzgerald started his Ph.D. program.

Cleaner technologies for sustainable tourism: Caribbean case studies

Introduction

Delimitations

Why study cleaner technologies and sustainable tourism?

Cleaner technology

Implementing cleaner technology

Diffusion of cleaner technology

Industrial clusters

Technological innovation in the Caribbean tourism sector

Findings from the case studies

Case study reports

St. Lucia

Barbados

Jamaica

Antigua

The Dominican Republic

Conclusions

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

References

How Technology Could
Contribute

to a Sustainable World

Philip J.

Vergragt

GTI Paper Series 1

Frontiers of a Great Transition

GTI Paper Series

Frontiers of a Great Transition

Tellus Institute
11 Arlington Street
Boston, MA 0211

Phone: 1 617 2665400
Email: info@tellus.org

Tellus Web: http://www.tellus.org
GTI Web: http://www.gtinitiative.org

Series Editors: Orion Kriegman and Paul Raskin
Manuscript Editors: Faye Camardo, Loie Hayes, Pamela Pezzati, Orion Stewart
Cover Image: Stephen Bernow and Devra Ehrenberg

Printed on recycled paper

GTI Paper Series

Frontiers of a Great Transition
The Global Moment and its Possibilities
1. Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead

(Raskin, Banuri, Gallopín, Gutman, Hammond, Kates, Swart)
Planetary civilization, global scenarios, and change strategies

2. The Great Transition Today: A Report From the Future (Raskin)
An optimistic vision of global society in the year 208

Institutional Transitions
3. Global Politics and Institutions (Rajan)

Principles and visions for a new globalism
4. Visions of Regional Economies in a Great Transition World (Rosen and Schweickart)

Reinventing economies for the twenty-first century
5. Transforming the Corporation (White)

Redesigning the corporation for social purpose
6. Trading into the Future: Rounding the Corner to Sustainable Development (Halle)

International trade in a sustainable and equitable world
7. Security in the Great Transition (Knight)

Imagining a transition to a world without war
8. How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World (Vergragt)

Technological innovation and human choice

Human and Environmental Dimensions
9. Great Transition Values: Present Attitudes, Future Changes (Kates, Leiserowitz, Parris)

Alignment and tension between contemporary values and a new global humanism
10. The Role of Well-being in a Great Transition (Stutz)

Improved quality-of-life as an attractor for dematerialized societies
11. Feminist Praxis: Women’s Transnational and Place Based Struggles for Change (Harcourt)

Lessons from women’s movements for a Great Transition
12. Sustainable Communities and the Great Transition (Goldstein)

New frontiers for transforming cities
13. Climate Change: Redemption through Crisis (Kartha)

The climate challenge and paths to an equitable solution
14. Resilience and Pluralism: Ecosystems and Society in a Great Transition (Lucas, Bennett)

Human impacts on the biosphere and socio-ecological management
Crystallizing a Systems Shift
15. Dawn of the Cosmopolitan: The Hope of a Global Citizens Movement (Kriegman)

Prospects for a global movement and what it might look like
16. World Lines: Pathways, Pivots and the Global Future (Raskin)

Dynamics of global change: crisis, choice, and action

The Great Transition Initiative
GTI is a global network of engaged thinkers and thoughtful activists who are committed to
rigorously assessing and creatively imagining a great transition to a future of enriched
lives, human solidarity, and a healthy planet. GTI’s message of hope aims to counter
resignation and pessimism, and help spark a citizens movement for carrying the transition
forward. This paper series elaborates the global challenge, future visions, and strategic
directions.

Author

Philip Vergragt is Senior Associate at the Tellus Institute, Visiting Scholar at MIT’s
Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, and a Visiting Professorial
Fellow at the University of Manchester Business School. His current research focus is on
sustainability transitions, with an emphasis on transport systems, energy, and
consumption patterns; visioning and back-casting; and social learning through bounded
socio-technical experiments. Previously, he taught Chemistry and Society at Groningen
University, was Deputy Director of the Dutch Government’s Program on Sustainable
Technology Development, and was Professor of Technology Assessment at Delft
University of Technology. He has published many scientific articles, book chapters,
conference papers, and co-authored two books. Vergragt holds a doctorate in Chemistry
from Leiden University in the Netherlands.

Acknowledgements

I thank my colleagues at Tellus Institute for stimulating and enlightening discussions and
feedback, and especially Orion Kriegman and Paul Raskin for close-reading, editing, and
raising lots of interesting discussion points. I especially thank many members of GTI
Technology working group (Emmanuel Asomba, Halina Brown, Ken Green, Nicholas
Ashford, John Grin, Giok Ling Ooi, Philip Sutton, Morton Winston, Johan Schot, Brian
Murphy, and Maurie Cohen) for helpful and stimulating comments in various stages of
writing, and for encouragement. I apologize for not incorporating all suggestions; it
would have taken an entire book to incorporate all remarks. I am also especially grateful
to Sarah Burch, Tom Berkhout, Chrisna du Plessis, Louis Serra, Paulo Partidario, and
Nicole Dusyk, who each commented on the second draft, suggesting ways to strengthen
the essay, especially the final sections (how to get there). I hope this final version meets
their expectations.

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
The paradoxes of technological development ……………………………………………………….. 1
Aim of this essay ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Meanings of “technology” …………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Societal consequences of technological developments ……………………………………………

Decision-making on new technologies ………………………………………………………………… 4
Lay-out of this paper ………………………………………………………………………………………….

Technological Developments and Future Studies ……………………………………………………… 7
Two approaches ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Technological forecasting and its pitfalls …………………………………………………………….. 7
Prospective and normative scenarios: a digression ………………………………………………… 8
Biotechnology and health technology …………………………………………………………………..

Nanotechnology ………………………………………………………………………………………………

Information and Communication technologies; Artificial Intelligence ……………………

Interactions and mutual reinforcements ………………………………………………………………

Appropriate technologies …………………………………………………………………………………. 12
Health care in Asian Societies …………………………………………………………………………..

Summing up ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Visions of Technology in a Sustainable Society ……………………………………………………… 14
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14
Energy, health, and agriculture …………………………………………………………………………. 1

Agoria ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Ecodemia ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Arcadia …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

To conclude …………………………………………………………………………………………………….

How Did We Get There? …………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Drivers of technological change ……………………………………………………………………….. 20
The “right” choices in technology development …………………………………………………..

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Linear Model of Technological Innovation………………………………..5
Figure 2: Social Construction of Technology……………………………………………..6

How Technology Could Contribute to a
Sustainable World

Introduction

The paradoxes of technological development
The effects of technology underlie early twenty-first century global challenges. On the

one hand, since the Enlightenment, technology, especially science-based technology, has
offered the promise of a better world through the elimination of disease and material
improvements to standards of living. On the other hand, resource extraction, emissions of
dangerous materials, and pollution of air, water, and soil have created conditions for
unprecedented environmental catastrophe and have already caused irreversible damage to
the biosphere. While the future might promise a vast acceleration of technological
innovation, the scale and impact of environmental degradation may reflect this vast
acceleration as well.

A related painful paradox is that, despite the ongoing technological revolution, the
majority of the world population still lives in abject poverty with inadequate food,
housing, and energy, plagued by illnesses that could be easily cured if clean water and
simple drugs were made available. Fortunately a significant number of former
“developing” countries are now on the threshold of development, helped by technology
transfer and technological innovations that have benefited large parts of their populations.
Some countries, such as China, India, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and, to a certain extent,
Brazil, have followed their own technological trajectories. However, for large
populations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America the benefits of technology remain a
dream, even if new technologies like photovoltaic cells, cellular phones, and the Internet
could help them “leap-frog” towards the twenty-first century.

The persisting contradictions between a better life created and supported by technology
for the wealthy few, and increasing environmental degradation and persistent poverty for
the vast majority call for a deeper exploration and understanding of the nature of
technology and its relationship to society, especially to a sustainable society. In the
context of the effort to catalyze a Great Transition to a sustainable global society, in
which deep changes in culture, values, consumption patterns, governance, business, and
institutions are envisaged (Raskin et al., 2002), questions about the role of technology
become even more pressing. For example, would a Great Transition society require an
intensive use of technology to abate the environmental degradation of the ecosphere, or
might technology play a much more modest role in such a society? Would that society
essentially return to the time before the first industrial revolution when technology
offered a limited, incremental extension of human capacity to transform nature? In either
of these visions, we must ask how to imagine the development of technologically and
economically underdeveloped countries.

Aim of this essay
The aim of this essay is to envision a sustainable and equitable global society through

reflection on the role of technology during the transition to such a society and in that

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

society’s future. In a Great Transition society, technology will support and enhance a
“good life” for all of its citizens, in both rich and presently poor countries, without
compromising the Earth’s ecosystem or the prospects of later generations. A good life
requires essentially that basic human needs are met and aspirations for freedom,
belonging, and self-realization are fulfilled as much as possible (see Stutz, 2006). It does
not necessarily mean the maximization of material production and consumption.

Thus, we consider technological innovation in the context of the good life and how it
can be supported or threatened, depending on the way technological innovations are
influenced and steered by human decisions and institutions.

Meanings of “technology”
The word “technology” encompasses essentially three meanings: tools and instruments

to enhance human ability to shape nature and solve problems (such as a hammer and
nail), knowledge of how to create things or how to solve problems (such as to brew beer
or to make an atomic bomb), and culture (our understanding of the world, our value-
systems). Historically, the emergence of human civilization has been closely connected to
the development of tools for hunting, agriculture, irrigation and water management, and
navigation. In the second meaning, knowledge, technology becomes reflexive in that
understanding of how to make and use tools and instruments becomes encoded and
transmissible as technological knowledge and know-how. Related to this second meaning
of technology is the development of modern scientific knowledge, based on empirical
observations, hypotheses, and generalizations on the natural laws concerning the behavior
of materials and the living environment.

In the third sense, culture, technology has permeated society to such an extent that
separation between technology and culture is no longer meaningful. All human activities,
like housing, nutrition, transportation, work, leisure, even art and imagination, become
heavily enmeshed with technology. We “own” products of technology by a process of
“cultural appropriation”, in which the use of technologies is learned, interpreted, and
given meaning in everyday life. (Hard and Jamison, 2005). We are living in a “culture
technique” in the sense that our deepest and most private knowledge and emotions are
permeated by technology.

The transition from technology as tool use to knowledge began around the emergence
of the first industrial revolution more than two centuries ago. The transition to technology
as culture accelerated after the Second World War and is closely related to the rise of
information and communication technologies, biotechnology, computers, and the
Internet.

In contrast to technology, science is seen as an organized search for “truth” and
“objective knowledge” about reality and the laws of nature. Science can be characterized
by a rigorous methodology exemplified by Popper’s claim that science is an unending
process of conjecture and falsification. In practice, the boundaries between modern
science and technology have become blurred; moreover, modern philosophy of science
treats scientific knowledge to a certain extent as “socially constructed” (see also the
section on decision-making and new technologies below). In this paper, we focus
primarily on technology, but science is relevant as one of the pillars of technological
knowledge.

Vergragt

In the literature, technological innovation is generally understood as bringing a new
product, process, or service successfully to the market, meaning that it can be sold for a
profit (Freeman, 1997). Technological innovation thus goes beyond invention, which
depicts the elaboration and prototyping of a new technological principle; it is related to
diffusion, which refers to the spread of new technology into the wider society. Of course,
innovation is by no means identical with creating the physical conditions for a “good life”
as defined above. Because of companies’ profit motives, as well as unintended and
unforeseen consequences, the contribution can be both positive and negative. In a Great
Transition society, the definition of technological innovation will be changed (See
Section 4, “How did we get there”).

Societal consequences of technological developments
Seventeenth-century thinkers such as Descartes and Bacon thought that science and

technology unlocked the keys to mankind’s mastery over nature, which they saw as
synonymous with human progress. Since the Enlightenment, the development of modern
science and technology has been associated with the triumph of reason and science over
superstition and religion. Knowledge based on empirical observations and rational
thinking has been the basis on which technological innovation has thrived. Modernization
and modernity have been synonymous with technological innovation.

The idea that science reflects reality or even absolute truth has been challenged in many
ways, from critics of its reductionism to critics who emphasize that scientific facts are as
much socially constructed as a reflection of natural laws (Latour and Woolgar, 1979). In
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he argued that theories and facts have
only meaning within a dominant “paradigm”, Kuhn (1962) laid the groundwork for
challenging logical positivism. Latour and Woolgar (1979) followed by showing in an
anthropological study of the modern scientific lab, how scientific facts are “socially
constructed” through interpretations by scientists of scientific measurements. Thus, the
myth of the “objective scientific fact” was challenged and demystified. This work was
followed by the demystification of technology by the SCOT (Social Construction of
Technology) theory (Pinch and Bijker, 1987; Bijker, 1995)

The idea that technology could have unwanted or unintended consequences is also
relatively new. Although the Luddities of the early nineteenth century smashed the
machines that were seen as a threat to their employment, and the Romantics decried the
dehumanizing march of industrialization, more widespread anxiety about and resistance
to technology did not emerge until the mid-1900s. The unprecedented destruction
unleashed by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki spurred many people to
question the nature of the individual scientist’s ethical responsibility. To what extent is
the scientist accountable and responsible for unwanted and often unforeseen
consequences of his/her work? From that moment, the assumption of a self-evident
linkage between societal progress and technological innovation has been questioned
(Carson, 1962).

Technology came under increasing scrutiny as a result of the use of Agent Orange
during the Vietnam War and the persistence of dioxin contamination and birth defects
among U.S. service members and the Vietnamese thereafter. Next came the protests
against nuclear energy and the possible health consequences of low doses of radiation
from nuclear testing, uranium mining, and nuclear waste. Other environmental and health

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

problems followed: the consequences of air pollution, soil pollution, and water pollution
on health, safety, and the environment; the accumulation of DDT, heavy metals, and
PCBs in the food chain and in the reproductive organs of animals and humans. With the
increase of biochemical knowledge—the possibilities of manipulation of the DNA of
microbes, plants, and animals—new hazards were created: man-made mutations and
pathogens that created new risks for health, safety, and the environment. The nuclear,
biological, and chemical arms race of course contributed to these anxieties.

Early questions addressed not only the individual social and ethical responsibility of
scientists, but also the structural and even cultural connections between modern science
and technology and the economic and political systems. President Eisenhower coined the
term “military-industrial complex” to describe the close relationship between the
Pentagon and the corporate defense industries and the Cold War ideology, which was
used to increase demand for new weapons systems and armaments—a perpetual wartime
economy. But the basic alliance between corporations and technology emerged much
earlier, in the late nineteenth century when the large chemical, electrical, and automobile
companies were created, mainly in the USA and Germany.

Technology and the military merged on a large scale in the Manhattan Project and in
the nuclear arms race after the Second World War. Since then, information,
communication, biotechnology, energy technology, and medical technology have all
developed in “complexes” consisting of universities, large industrial firms and their R&D
laboratories, small spin-off firms, and military research and development facilities.
Financing is provided by a combination of military and business funding. At least in the
“developed” world, citizens benefited from this unprecedented acceleration of
innovation, which produced a surge of new products such as radio and color TV,
microwave ovens and innovative cars, new medicines and medical technologies,
computers and the Internet, and airplanes to take affluent consumers to holiday resorts.

At the same time, social critics continued to voice concerns about the pace of change
and increasing fragmentation of modern life. For these critics, new products and services
came at a price. Not only did environmental and health effects become problematic, but
the increasing rationalization of all aspects of life through technology also led to a deeper
feeling of alienation and dislocation. Jobs were lost to automation and to outsourcing of
production to low-wage countries. The globalization of production itself was made
possible by new transportation, information, and communication technologies. People in
the USA found themselves working harder and longer hours, and families suffered as
often both parents worked full-time to pay the mortgages on their houses. Many people
felt that they were no longer masters of their own lives, locked into a lifestyle determined
by a demand to keep pace with new technologies. A present example of such “lock-in” is
that of suburban residents being trapped in traffic jams and congestions due to urban
sprawl. Decisions made on the individual level by consumers, in this case purchasing
readily available cars and suburban homes, often do not work out well when aggregated
to the societal level.

Decision-making on new technologies
Technologies co-evolve with societies (Saviotti, 2005); technological developments

influence society and vice versa. The questions about who makes decisions about the
development and direction of new technologies have seldom been asked and even less

Vergragt

often answered. In academic circles in the 1960s and 1970s, questions were increasingly
voiced about wanted and unwanted consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen, and the
direction and steering of new technologies in science, technology, and society studies,
technological forecasting, technology assessment (Smits and Leyten, 1988), technology
policy, and appropriate technology (Vergragt, 2003). Some of these studies were used by
the military and corporate planners to better forecast and assess the optimal directions of
future technologies; others were used to warn against possible catastrophes. A well
known example is the 1972 Club of Rome forecast about a looming energy crisis and the
possibility of the exhaustion of fossil fuels.

Apparently, the development of science and technology from tools to an encompassing
culture obscured questions about their helmsmanship, especially the possibility of
democratic decision-making directing them. Such questions were obscured as well by the
dominant philosophy and history of science and technology that emerged in the 1930s
(empiricism and logical positivism), which posited that scientific invention is driven by
innate human curiosity and that scientific discovery eventually leads “automatically” to
technological application and commercial deployment. This approach, generally called
the “linear model” of technological innovation, in which “science invents”, “technology
applies”, and the “markets select”, suggests that some inexorable laws of nature, rather
than human choices, are directing this endeavor (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: The linear model of technological innovation

science invents technology applies markets select

The linear model, also called “technological determinism”, is no longer supported by

many academics, but is still widely believed in general society. Research into the
processes of scientific and technological discovery has shown that the linear model is not
valid, disguising the role of human choice and values in shaping technology, as well as
the social and economic interests guiding scientific inventions and technological
innovations. It has been replaced by models like Social Construction of Technology
(SCOT) (Pinch and Bijker, 1987; Bijker 1995) and Actor Network Theory (Callon, 1986;
1987). These theories include social actors, problem definitions (Vergragt, 1988), and
social networks. For example, in the SCOT theory, technological innovation is steered by
the meaning that “relevant social groups” give to a technological artifact, generating
problem definitions that lead in turn to adjusted technological artifacts, a process highly
contingent on the particular context (Bijker, 1995; see Fig. 2).

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

Figure 2: Social Construction of Technology

Because of persistent broad acceptance in society of the myth of the linear model, the

question of democratically determined guidance of science and technology seems like an
oxymoron in the minds of most, even well-educated, citizens. Even when the linear
model is understood to be false, a second myth holds that market forces are so strong that
democratic decision-making about science and technology is unthinkable in a market
economy (and, of course, science and technology in a totalitarian society are hampered
by limits on the free flow of information). Research has demonstrated that defense
interests in most market economies dominate the research community to such a degree
that, in a “free society”, “market forces” do not determine the development of science and
technology. Even one of the most “democratic” developments of the late twentieth
century, the Internet, was originally designed and developed by DARPA, the Pentagon’s
military research establishment.

A third myth is “technological fix” thinking, which is the belief that technical means
alone can solve most problems, including the unanticipated consequences of
technological innovation itself. Examples are the belief that the problem of hunger can be
solved by biotechnology or that health problems can be solved by more drugs (instead of
improving water and sanitation). Other examples include the belief in hydrogen to solve
energy problems (Vergragt, 2006) or carbon capture and storage as a solution to the
climate problem. Related are the ideas that terrorism can be solved by a technological
“war” or by technical safety and vigilance measures.

Each of those myths obscures seeing the possibilities of democratic decision-making
regarding technology. Of course, to see the possibilities is not to claim that democratic

Technical
artifact

Relevant
social
group

Problem
definition

Revised
technical
artifact

A technical artifact creates problems for several “relevant social groups”, which results in one or more
problem definitions. These problem definitions lead to a revised technical artifact. The process is highly
contingent on contextual factors (after Bijker, 1995).

Vergragt

decision-making about technology would be easy. Indeed, there are many inherent
problems: science and technology are difficult to understand for most people (Loka
Institute, 2006), the consequences of decisions are hard to foresee, and scientific
communities have their own systems of quality control that should not be criticized or
superseded. On the other hand, it certainly makes a difference if society directs funding to
the development of renewable energy rather than nuclear energy, or to eradicating the
world’s most prominent diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis, rather than drugs for
prosperity diseases and high-technology medical equipment. It also would make a
difference if we could change the laws and the institutions regarding accessibility of
scientific information—the patenting laws—that regulate intellectual property and the
related profits.

Lay-out of this paper
So, how could technology (and what technologies could) contribute to a sustainable

society as envisioned in the Great Transition scenario? In order to explore this question,
we will develop a broad-brush picture of future technological developments and some of
their societal consequences (Section 2). We then will develop a vision of a Great
Transition world with a focus on technological aspects (Section 3). Finally, we look back
from the future and explore events, pathways, mechanisms, and choices that contributed
to the realization of that vision (Section 4).

Technological Developments and Future Studies

Two approaches
In this section, we follow two lines of thought. The first considers some of the

dominant developments in so-called high-tech: information and communication
technologies, biotechnology and health technology, and new materials and
nanotechnology. The second line explores the so-called “alternative” technological
developments, such as appropriate technology and traditional health and medicine.
Although these latter technologies have been developed from a different perspective than
modern industrial technology, they are relevant for developing a more holistic view of
science and the sustainability challenge.

Technological forecasting and its pitfalls
Forecasting the development of innovative, especially entirely new technologies is, of

course, very difficult. The history of past efforts is full of false predictions and
disappointments. Some of the most impressive technological developments, like the
personal computer and the Internet, were not anticipated by anyone. Most forecasts turn
out to be too optimistic about the short-term introduction and too conservative about the
societal consequences in the long term.

Technological forecasting has developed into a scientific discipline of its own, with
distinctive methodologies such as scenario building and Delphi studies (based on
questioning experts), trend extrapolation, and system dynamics. The motivations and
goals of technological forecasting are quite divergent: they range from fundraising for
present R&D projects by raising expectations about future benign applications (Van

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

Lente, 1993) to the stimulation of a broad societal debate about unwanted consequences
of new technologies. Technological forecasting is closely related to Technology
Assessment, namely the systematic evaluation of possible societal effects of new and
emerging technologies. Technology Assessment itself has become closely associated with
technology policy, through which government stimulates socially desirable technologies
by using policy instruments. These include R&D subsidies, public-private cooperative
projects, and regulation to avoid unwanted consequences such as environmental
degradation and health issues as well as to encourage desired technological innovations
(Smits and Leyten, 1988).

One of the problems with technological forecasting is that it necessarily focuses on
technologies rather than on the functions they may fulfill in society. In this essay, our
goal is to consider the possibilities for sustainable housing, transportation, water
management, and, in general, for the fulfillment of human needs rather than the specific
technologies that may enable these needs to be met (Weaver et al., 2000; Max-Neef,
1989). We will address the broader issues in Section 3, but here we shall focus first on
the forecasting of current technological trends.

Based on the limitations discussed above, the technological forecasts described below
need to be read with considerable care. On the one hand, they reflect the current scientific
literature and are thus credible to a certain extent. They cannot be dismissed as “hype” or
“spin” as many critics may be inclined to do. They could become true. They certainly
reflect what could happen if technological developments continue mostly unchecked as
they have done in the last fifty to one hundred years. On the other hand, the scope of this
essay is to lay out possibilities for alternative directions in technological innovation,
reflecting the SCOT (Social Construction of Technology) model of technological
innovation, where technologies are to a certain extent shaped and influenced by societal
forces.

Prospective and normative scenarios: a digression
The differences between technological forecasting and the future fulfillment of

sustainable function mirror the difference between prospective and normative scenarios.
In a prospective scenario, present trends and developments are projected into a story
about what the future might look like and how we might get there. Of course, a wide
range of possible futures can be projected, depending on how different drivers develop
and unforeseen incidents like calamities, war, unexpected discoveries, and the impact of
social movements.

In a normative scenario (Raskin et al., 2002; Vergragt, 2005), a vision is sketched of a
desirable future that is thought to be at least possible, if perhaps not probable. A
sustainability scenario is thus a normative scenario of a future sustainable society. Of
course, a normative, like a prospective, scenario contains a narrative about how to get
there, which by definition encompasses “deep change” processes in individuals,
institutions, society, values, and very likely also technological developments. We return
to normative sustainability scenarios in Section 3.

Vergragt

Biotechnology and health technology
Perhaps the most challenging developments in technology are taking place in the realm

of biotechnology. Genetic modification of crops has already made it possible to increase
their yield, protect them from insects and pests, and enable them to grow in brackish
water, among many other unprecedented alterations. We are at the beginning of a vast
trajectory of modifying plants and possibly animals and other living organisms. While
some writers endorse these developments in order to address the problems of feeding an
increasing world population, others, especially in Europe, find these developments highly
suspect (Krimsky, 2005). Some critiques highlight contamination of seeds, access to non-
modified food, reduction of biodiversity, and especially patenting of living organisms. A
more general issue is the control wielded by big multinational biotech corporations, such
as Monsanto, over farmers and the farming enterprise.

Developments in the field of health technology have also been spectacular. Since Nixon
in 1971 declared a “war on cancer”, the USA has spent between fifty and 200 billion
dollars for basic research related to understanding and treating cancer. The result was a
great advancement in the fields of molecular genetics, developmental and cell biology,
and immunology. Although the universal “cure” for cancer has not been found, the
advances in medical biotechnology have been impressive. Nonetheless, critics see an
imbalance between the promises of modern health technology and the lack of progress in
eradication of common third-world diseases like malaria and tuberculosis.

The mapping of the human genome opens up the possibility of targeting hereditary
diseases in a much more fundamental way than has been possible in the past and the
development of drugs that are more pinpointed on specific illnesses and even specific
persons. Genetic manipulation of human hereditary material—likely to become possible
in the future—initially will be pursued for the elimination of hereditary diseases, but not
so far beyond that phase, the possibilities of “improving” human beings will take shape in
ways we cannot foresee now. In a related vein, the cloning of human cells opens the door
to the creation of factories where human organs can be grown and harvested from brain-
dead organisms, to replace faulty organs without the problems of tissue rejection that we
experience now.

Kurzweil (2005) discusses the possibility of injecting human stem cells into the blood
stream to rejuvenate human organs and thereby far extend longevity. We can glimpse a
future in which humans could be tailor-made from specifications (Ishiguro, 2006), people
live much longer than they do now, and illnesses could be targeted by very specific drugs
designed according to the patient’s individual genetic make-up.

For the time being, such possible developments are highly speculative. As they do
arise, they will be as controversial as GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and the
patenting of living material are at present. Unfortunately, these debates often take place
after the discoveries are made, and the social consequences become clear (the famous
“Collingridge dilemma”*). These developments will again generate normative and ethical
questions about where the boundaries lie in human interference with nature. A special

* In an early stage of technology development, forecasting its consequences is very difficult. Once the
technology is further developed, steering away from undesirable consequences may have become
impossible (Collingridge, 1981).

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

area of concern is the possible development of next generation biological weapons which
may be much more targeted on specific human characteristics.

Nanotechnology
Another fast-emerging technology is nanotechnology, basically the design of

technology at the molecular level. A Greenpeace report (Arnall, 2003) identified two
broad classes of nanotechnology production technologies: top-down and bottom-up. Top-
down includes optical techniques, lithographics, and the “scanning probe microscope”,
which are used to create elaborate surface patterns on a nanometer scale. Bottom-up
processes are molecular engineering and may include self-organization and self-assembly
of molecules. Perhaps the most well known examples of nanomaterials are “buckyballs”,
or fullerenes, and “buckytubes”, or nanotubes, which are curved carbon-carbon surfaces
wrapped into a sphere or a tube, respectively, with remarkable properties, especially for
absorption and lubrication.

Some current and near-future applications of nanomaterials include catalysts, dry
lubrication, coatings, clothing, and materials. The most important current applications, as
measured by the number of patents, are in micro-electronics: massive storage devices, flat
panel displays, electronic paper, extended semiconductor approaches, and information
processing, transmission, and storage devices. Beyond this, there are more far-reaching
ideas about “DNA-computing” and computational self-assembly. The main drivers for
these developments are computing, telecommunications, consumer electronics, and
military applications.

In chemistry and pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology promises new forms of drug
development and delivery, medical diagnosis, and cancer treatment. Nanotechnology in
combination with biotechnology underpins rapid advances in genomics, combinatorial
chemistry, high throughput robotic screening, drug discovery, gene sequencing, and bio-
informatics and their applications. Targeted drug delivery (delivering a drug to a specific
place in a body) is a very promising area. The size of the market is the main driving
force.

For the energy sector, lighting technologies based on nanotechnology could reduce the
energy demand for lighting. In photovoltaics, nanotechnology could raise efficiency and
lower costs. In the military sector, nanotechnology may contribute to surveillance,
sensors and barrier systems, small anti-tank weapons, and smart munitions.
Nanotechnology may also contribute to virtual reality systems; automation and robotics;
chemical, biological, and nuclear sensing; and aerospace, food processing, and
construction industries. One of the most evocative possible applications could be
“nanobots”, or robots on a nanoscale, which could be introduced into the bloodstream to
clean unwanted substances from blood cells or veins.

As with many other new technologies, nanotechnology may have wide and pervasive
implications, especially in combination with other emerging technologies such as genetic
engineering and information and communication technologies (Fleisher et al., 2004;
Merkerk et al., 2005; Royal Society, 2004). There are obviously environmental and
health concerns about nanotechnologies (Glenn, 2006): the effects of infiltration in
humans (through tanning creams among other possibilities), the possible attachment of
high concentrations of toxic substances, the effects on living systems, the possibility of

Vergragt

slipping past the immune system, the potential damage to lungs by nanotubes. More
frightening potential dangers are runaway self-replication in nature and a nanotech arms
race. Many writers stress the need for more attention to ethical issues, even for a
moratorium on research in order to first create better regulation (ETC, 2003).

Information and communication technologies; Artificial
Intelligence

Information and communication technologies will continue to rapidly develop. It seems
certain that economically privileged people everywhere will be in more or less constant
communication and interaction with each other through mobile phone, Internet,
teleconferencing, and GPS technology. The Internet and its successors will enable
unprecedented exchange of information and knowledge across the globe. The Internet
already is bringing together like-minded people from different cultural and economic
environments. Computers will become smaller and more ubiquitous, growing from their
current deployment in housing and transportation to new applications like clothing and
food wrappings. In the realm of technological innovation, it is expected that the
miniaturization of memory chips and microprocessors will continue to proceed at the
same high speed (Moore’s law). The implications of these and other developments are
highly uncertain. Kurzweil (2005) speculates about the possibility within the next twenty
to thirty years of a human-machine “singularity”: the merger of human and machine
computational intelligence to create something that goes far beyond human intelligence.
Kurzweil bases his speculation upon the likelihood that computation will increase
exponentially. Similarly, our understanding of how the human brain works is growing
very fast. It is foreseeable that we will be able to implant computers in parts of the human
brain to improve its functioning. We might even be able to “upload” the human brain
function to macro computers. So we might be able to enhance biological intelligence with
non-biological and vice-versa. In 2030 we may have computer entities that seem to be
conscious and claim to have feelings.

Kurzweil’s projections exemplify the technological determinism approach and tech-fix
thinking. He even claims that hunger and poverty may be eliminated by these new
technologies. His overarching view sees technology itself as an exponential, evolutionary
process, the continuation of the biological evolution that created humanity.

These speculations (some say extrapolations) raise provocative questions about the
nature of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recent literature has documented a renewed interest
in AI. Anderson (2005) cites Thomas Georges’ “Digital Soul” (2003), in which he
investigates the implications of intelligent machines outside human control. He not only
asks the obvious questions, such as “What does it mean to be intelligent?” and “How
different will machine intelligence be from human intelligence?” but also less obvious
ones such as “Will it be morally allowable to make intelligent, autonomous machines
work for us?”

Of course AI raises questions about human intelligence, human identity, human
consciousness, and ultimately, what constitutes a human being. If we understand the
human brain well enough to replicate its functions and combine cells from separate
brains, we might ultimately be able to speed up human intelligence processes. This is
Kurzweil’s speculative prediction. Questions remain: Will this really be possible and

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

what would we achieve by doing it? Would we be able to control its development and
would it be desirable to do so? Might the value of such unbound intelligence be that
human beings do not control it?

Interactions and mutual reinforcements
It is compelling to speculate about the mutual interactions and combinations of AI,

information and communication technologies, nanotechnology, medical technology,
biotechnology, and energy technologies. Mutual reinforcements between and among
these technologies seem probable. Early examples include the interface of information
and biotechnology in the human genome project and the possibility of targeted drug
delivery by nanotechnology. Such interfaces and reinforcements are likely to lead to
greater acceleration of growth and development in these technologies.

The forces driving the technologies may also change in the future. In the past, military,
space, and health technologies have been driving forces, with spin-offs to the consumer
market. In the future, the scarcity and high prices of energy, the pressure of
environmental deterioration, and new threats of terrorism may create new drivers. In this
context, while the combinations of new technologies may have benign social
applications, they could combine to undermine sustainability, e.g., through use in a new
arms race or for terrorism. These uncertainties provide the new context for re-visiting old
questions about forecasting and assessments, decision-making and control of new
technologies (MIT, 2006).

Appropriate technologies
In contrast to the areas of so-called high-tech innovation and development we have

considered so far, there is a very different strand of technologies, often called
intermediate (Schumacher, 1973) or appropriate technologies. At present, these are found
primarily in the rural third world, but also in pockets of the “developed” countries
(Vergragt, 2003). Appropriate technology is small scale, energy efficient,
environmentally sound, labor-intensive, and controlled by the local community. The
breadth of the paradigm of appropriate technology is suggested by the many terms used
to describe it: intermediate, progressive, alternative, light-capital, labor-intensive,
indigenous, low-cost, community, soft, radical, liberatory, and convivial (Akubue, 2000).
Schumacher envisioned a technology for the third world that was midway between, for
example, a hand hoe and a tractor. As Schumacher described it, “such an intermediate
technology would be immensely more productive than the indigenous technology…but it
would be immensely cheaper than the sophisticated, highly capital-intensive technology
of modern industry” (Schumacher, 1973, p. 180).

Appropriate technology has been advocated as a solution for rural development
problems, but has also gained support as a direction for sustainable technologies.
However, it has often been identified as “cheap”, “second hand”, or second best by
adherents of massive Western technology transfer to developing countries and by
ideologues who believe in modernization by technological innovation.

Many features of intermediate or appropriate technologies could be used in the
development of technologies for a sustainable society, especially when used in synergy
with high-tech developments. These include their orientation toward human needs,

Vergragt

control by and empowerment of local communities, and small-scale distributed energy
that is high in efficiency and labor intensiveness and low in cost and environmental
impact. The renewable energy movement in the USA and Western Europe emphasizes
some of these elements. The challenge going forward is to learn from past mistakes and
to combine elements of appropriate technology with some aspects of high-technology
into a new paradigm of sustainable technology.

Health care in Asian societies*
There is a close relationship between appropriate technology and traditional or

“indigenous” knowledge. Health care in Asian societies is a good example. In Asian
societies, and perhaps increasingly even in societies in developed Western countries like
Australia and the United States, the organization of health care services has been
characterized by a pluralism that is not reflected in the official policy-making institutions.
Health care, where it is driven by official policy-making institutions, is dominated by
“modern” medicine developed largely in the West. This modern medical system was
transposed to the colonies during the earlier part of the last century. In many Asian
societies, the introduction of modern medicine through the hospitals and other institutions
established by colonial administrations meant the marginalization and even erasure of
indigenous medical traditions that had been in use for hundreds if not thousands of years.

The persistence of the practice of Chinese medicine and other medical traditions is not
surprising once the status of colonial health care and other social provision is understood.
While colonial forces disparaged Asian medical traditions, they did not succeed in
making their Western alternatives widely available. Traditional health care providers
continued to provide migrant groups with their only source of health care.

Chinese medicine is an example of a medical tradition that has seen fast changing
fortunes in the colonies of Southeast Asia and in China as well, particularly in the earlier
period of the twentieth century. Medical traditions like Chinese medicine have continued
to thrive and actively contribute to modern health care in Southeast Asian countries like
Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Certainly in China, traditional medicine has been
strongly endorsed as part of the communist ideology of “walking on two legs” —Eastern
and Western, or modern and traditional. In societies in Southeast Asia, Chinese medicine
is supported solely by the private sector, since it receives little endorsement from the
state. Patients who consult with the practitioners of Chinese medicine may pay more than
if they had gone to a doctor trained in modern medicine, yet Chinese medicine continues
to draw patients who trust this tradition and its practitioners. To a large extent, health care
beliefs are handed down through the generations.

The continued patronage of traditional medicine in spite of the existence of a well-
developed modern health care infrastructure strongly argues against a single perspective
of health and medicine dominated by modern medicine. Health care pluralism can prove
to be sustainable in the long term if the delivery of services is organized to be far more
inclusive than it has been of established medical traditions with which people are
familiar, particularly in developing countries.

* Contributed by Dr. Ling Giok Ooi.

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

Summing up
In this section, we described possible future developments of high technology and some

alternative models. We started with a note of caution about the value of technological
forecasting and trend extrapolation. Exploring the future is full of risks and uncertainties.
On the other hand, scientific and technological developments are occurring fast, while
human institutions to control and direct them are virtually undeveloped. We may well
experience some technological surprises before we know how to react to them. Although
contemporary theory depicts technological innovation as a highly socially embedded
phenomenon, in practice it is steered by the dominant societal interests and difficult to
influence through democratic institutions. Technology could help us to develop and take
steps towards the realization of a vision of a sustainable Great Transition world, but only
if the “right” decisions on technological innovations have been made in an early stage of
their development.

Visions of Technology in a Sustainable Society

Introduction
In this section, we develop three visions for a possible sustainable society in which

technology plays a significant role. These visions are not based on technological
forecasting, but rather take into account the possibilities that modern and future
technologies offer if they are steered in the “right” direction. The “right direction” is of
course not a priori. Its elements will be a “good life” and “well-being” for all now and in
the future, sustaining the Earth’s ecosystem, banning poverty and related health and
housing issues, a sustainable agricultural and food system, and employment and leisure
for all. Technologies could help achieve that, if actively directed by the right drivers,
institutions, and steering mechanisms. In the next and final part of this essay, we will
further explore questions about “how to get there” and what mechanisms might help
society develop the “right” technologies. Here we concentrate on three broad areas,
energy, health, and agriculture, all of which are crucial for sustainable development and
to which technology could contribute significantly.

Recently, Paul Raskin wrote a compelling vision in The Great Transition Today: A
Report from the Future (2006), in which he elaborated the sustainability scenario first
developed in the Great Transition (Raskin et al., 2002). He introduced a society
characterized by new values of sustainability: quality of life, human solidarity, and
ecological sensibility. Quality of life refers to a deep change in lifestyles for the rich and
a steep increase in need fulfillment for the poor. It means that needs are fulfilled by less
material and energy throughput—human fulfillment is improved by a lifestyle that
acknowledges non-material needs as being as important as material needs. Human
solidarity means that in a globalizing world the barriers between rich and poor, between
North and South, and between different religions and cultures have been diminished to a
level at which each human being truly understands him/herself as a “global citizen”, with
responsibility for “global neighbors” and future generations. Ecological sensibility of
course refers to a preservation of ecological capital by a combination of careful
environmental management and the deployment of cutting-edge technologies to fulfill
material functions.

Vergragt

In accordance with The Great Transition Today, we will explore energy, health, and
agriculture in three different “archetypal” societies in a Great Transition world: Agoria,
Ecodemia, and Arcadia. Each of these archetypal societies has created a different
approach to living and sustainably addressing human needs. These archetypes will help
us create a sense of the diversity of technological solutions available for present problems
of unsustainability and poverty.

Energy, health, and agriculture
Recently, a panel of scientists reported that the three most important global problems

were the provision of sustainable energy and avoiding serious climate change, the
provision of affordable medicines and health delivery systems, and water scarcity and the
improvement of water efficiency in agriculture (Glenn and Gordon, 2005).
Correspondingly, we underscore the dimensions of energy, health, and agriculture in
discussing the Great Transition vision.

Energy is a key aspect of sustainable development. The present energy system is
mainly based on fossil fuels. This trend is unsustainable for a number of reasons: threats
of man-made climate change by greenhouse gas emissions, the rapid depletion of fossil
fuels, rising energy prices due to increasing demand, geopolitical uncertainty, and threat
of instability in oil-rich countries. Solutions will be found in massive energy efficiency;
development of renewable energy based on sun, wind, biomass, and tides; and
improvements in energy storage technologies, such as batteries and flywheels. Carbon
capture and storage is not yet proven feasible but could help to mitigate increasing CO2
emissions (Stephens and Zwaan, 2005). Hydrogen is an option, but only if it can be
efficiently generated by use of renewable energy (Vergragt, 2006).

Health care is obviously of central importance for every person on the planet, and takes
quite different forms in so-called “developing” and “developed” countries. In the South,
health care will concentrate on the eradication of poverty-related diseases such as
malaria, TBC, diarrhea, typhus, and HIV. This can be accomplished through a
combination of poverty alleviation, sanitation, safe drinking water, prophylaxis,
vaccination, and Western and traditional medicines. In the North, health care will
concentrate on lifestyle issues, such as achieving balance between work and relaxation,
stress reduction by meditation and exercise, healthy nutrition, as well as new drug and
medical treatment development.

Agriculture in a sustainable society will provide plentiful food supplies at prices local
populations can afford, at a level of quality that promotes health, and without damage to
the environment or reduction of biodiversity. To achieve this goal will require a prudent
combination of new technologies and ecological sensitivity. Thus, after extensive
discussions and controls, some GMO crops would be admitted, but others would not be
allowed (Vergragt and Brown, 2006). Ecological agriculture would be accepted and
practiced as standard throughout the world, taking different forms in different places
depending on tradition, local circumstances, and specific opportunities.

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

Regions in a Great Transition World*

The fabric of planetary society is woven with hundreds of regions astonishingly diverse in character and
size. Some correspond to the national boundaries of a century ago and others are federations of earlier
states. Still others are parts of former states, forging a common identity around the boundaries of river
basins and other ecosystems (so-called “bio-regions”), urban centers, and cultural traditions. Nevertheless,
most regions can be clustered crudely into one of three major types, called Agoria, Ecodemia, and Arcadia,
although few regions are pure cases.
Agoria

These regions would be most recognizable to a visitor from the year 2000. Some critics call Agoria
“Sweden Supreme”, with its more conventional consumer patterns, lifestyles, and institutions. Its
economies are dominated by large shareholder corporations. However, when compared to even the most
outstanding examples of social democratic models of the last century, the commitment to social equality,
the environment, and democratic engagement from the level of the firm to the globe is of a different order.
The key is a vast array of policies and regulations, supported by popular values, that align corporate
behavior with social goals, stimulate sustainable technology, and moderate material consumption in order
to maintain highly equitable, responsible, and environmental societies.
Ecodemia

The distinguishing feature of Ecodemia is its fundamental departure from the capitalist economic system.
The new system, often referred to as “economic democracy”, banishes the capitalist from two key arenas of
economic life. First, the model of the firm as comprised of private owners and hired workers has been
replaced by worker ownership in large-scale enterprises, complemented by non-profits and highly regulated
small businesses. Second, private capitalist markets have given way to socialized investment processes.
Worker ownership and workplace democracy has reduced the expansionary tendency of the traditional
capitalist firm. Instead the focus is on profit per worker (rather than absolute profit) and the popular goal of
“time affluence”, which shortens work weeks. Publicly-controlled regional and community investment
banks, supported by participatory regulatory processes, re-cycle social savings and tax-generated capital
funds. Their mandate is to ensure that successful applications from capital-seeking entrepreneurs satisfy
social and environmental criteria, as well as traditional financial criteria.
Arcadia

Relative to other regions, the bias in Arcadia is toward self-reliant economies, small enterprises, face-to-
face democracy (at least in cyberspace), community engagement, and love of nature. Lifestyles tend to
emphasize material sufficiency, folk crafts, and reverence for tradition. While the local is emphasized, most
people are highly connected with cosmopolitan culture and world affairs through advanced communication
technology and transportation systems. Arcadia has centers of innovation in some technologies (organic
agriculture, modular solar devices, human-scale transport devices, etc.) and arts (new music, craft products,
etc.). Exports of these products and services, along with eco-tourism, supports the modest trade
requirements of these relatively time-rich and slow-moving societies.

This discussion of differences should be balanced by a reminder that the regions also have much in
common. Relative to the nations of a century ago, contemporary regions enjoy a high degree of political
participation, healthy environments, universal education and healthcare, high social cohesion, no absolute
poverty, and more fulfilling lives. Finally, people the world over share the historically novel attribute of
citizenship in a world community.
* Summarized from Raskin (2006).

Vergragt

Agoria
Agoria is a sustainable society that bears some remote resemblance to the present social

democracies in Scandinavia.
In the highly urbanized Agorian societies, possibilities for sustainable and ecological

agriculture are somewhat limited, but urban gardens, rooftop gardens, and agricultural
developments between suburbs (green lungs) create a steady supply of produce for the
urban market. Farmers markets are highly popular, with distributions of produce directly
from farmers to consumers. Conservation technology and some genetic modification
have created the possibilities for longer produce storage, thus reducing energy needs from
deep-freeze storage. Appropriate drying technologies by solar energy also enable longer
storage possibilities with less energy expense. Meat-like products are produced
predominantly without using animals; through improved and new technologies, it has
become possible to grow highly sophisticated meat-like products from proteins (Weaver
et al., 2000).

Energy is predominantly generated by highly sophisticated renewable sources,
including wind parks, solar panels on all roofs, and biomass. Transit-oriented
development reduces transportation energy demand. Car sharing, public transit, transit on
demand, and transportation services by employers further reduce individual car transport.
Vehicles are fueled by hydrogen fuel cells and solar cells integrated in vehicle bodies
(Partidario, 2002); they are small and made of ultra-light recyclable materials. Electric
bikes and scooters have replaced many private cars; in addition, self-powered cycling has
been made more attractive by many covered tunnels with backwind generated through
ventilators.

Houses are completely prefab and recyclable, with high isolation and natural
ventilation, solar systems, heat and cold storage, solar lighting aided by heliostats, and
highly isolating windows and shutters (Brown and Vergragt, 2006). Building densely
reduces heat losses and improves energy efficiency. Existing housing is refurbished,
insulated, and provided with cutting-edge energy technologies, generating a large number
of jobs. In land-use planning, housing development is integrated with transportation
planning.

Industrial sites are conceived according to the principles of industrial ecology, where
waste materials and energy are used to fuel other processes. The principles of green
chemistry (Woodhouse, 1998) are applied in the production of chemical materials.
Dematerialization, reuse, and recycling of products and services ensure a massive
reduction of materials throughput.

Health problems in Agoria have largely been solved by advanced biotechnologies and
health technologies. An advanced combination of traditional and alternative medical
knowledge with advanced biotechnology has resulted in healthier people. There is a
certain amount of highly regulated genetic screening in order to eliminate genetic
disorders as much as possible. In addition to and in combination with permitted
screening, advanced forms of in vitro-fertilization (IVF) enable parents to optimize the
selection of their offspring to certain extent; again, the state has set strict limits as to how
far this selection can go. For instance, parents are not allowed to choose the gender of the
new baby, in order to protect gender equilibrium.

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

For the most part, diarrhea, infectious diseases, and AIDS have been eradicated by
clean water supply and sanitation, poverty alleviation, wider access to medicines and
treatment, health education, general education (especially for women), better housing and
nutrition, and a highly increased standard of living. Through intensive education and
putting reins on unbridled capitalism, recently developed Agorian regions have been able
to avoid many of the “well-being” illnesses of the past, such as obesity and heart and
coronary diseases.

Ecodemia
In Ecodemia, economic democracy is established mainly through cooperative

production facilities and non-profit business. There is less emphasis on profit making,
and the standard work week is shorter, resulting in more free time for leisure and
voluntary work and activities. Advanced information and communication technology
(ICT) plays an important role in Ecodemian societies, enabling direct participation of
workers in decisions about production processes, technological innovations, and diffusion
of goods and services in the market. Similarly, ICT facilitates more complex sharing of
living arrangements such as co-housing and household tasks, community services, and
material goods such as vehicles, appliances, and tools.

Health care is based on the principles of cooperative ownership and direct democracy.
It means that patients, their families, and potential and future patients all have a stake in
the organization of health care services. Health care services are aimed first at fostering a
healthy lifestyle through exercise and nutritious diet. To this end, health care providers
and planners cooperate with schools and workplaces to ensure that such food is served
and that collective forms of exercise are encouraged. Second, they ensure that everyone
has access to first-line general practitioners. In formerly so-called developing countries,
this approach has vastly contributed to the eradication and prevention of formerly
endemic diseases like diarrhea, malaria, and TBC. It has also enormously helped contain
the HIV epidemic and the bird flu pandemic of the early twenty-first century.

Health technology innovation is tightly controlled by means of the democratic
cooperative institutions enabled by ICT. It means that all the relevant social groups such
as patients, doctors, nurses, scientists, technology developers, insurance companies, and
government agencies all participate in a facilitated discussion about how to allocate
research money, set goals, monitor progress, identify unintended consequences, control
costs, and distribute costs and benefits. This activity also encompasses neighboring fields
such as biotechnology and bio-informatics.

Advanced information and communication technologies (ICT) ensure a high level of
citizen participation in decisions about local, regional, and supra-regional issues.
Significant developments in Artificial Intelligence and robotics make work and
household tasks more interesting and fulfilling than previously imagined possible.
Collaboration among workers is stimulated and rewarded by advanced monitoring
systems, and human-machine interactions are optimized to the extent that they facilitate
human-group interactions. Thus job satisfaction markedly increases. Similar technologies
facilitate interactions at home between parents and children, among children, and among
parents, increasing the quality of life. Technology also facilitates interactions between
citizens, politicians, and bureaucracies, enabling a much more transparent form of
governance and administration.

Vergragt

Energy conservation and renewable energy are fostered through public participatory
processes ensuring that energy use is monitored and discussed, new technologies installed
and optimized, and obsolete technologies and programs curtailed. Transparency through
ICT ensures that, for example, driving gas-guzzlers is frowned upon as anti-social, and
refusal to refurbish a house is easily disclosed. While some deplore this as increased
social control, others argue it reflects a successful value change whereby social
responsibility is now valued as much as individual entrepreneurship. Under the intense
and general impacts of climate change and continued global precariousness, personal
energy budget and trading system for personal emission rights have not only become
socially accepted, but also a source of joy and excitement similar to sports games and
video games. Competitions in energy conservation and energy efficiency create a source
of pride.

Agriculture in Ecodemia is organized through cooperatives in production and
processing, transportation and storage, and retail distribution. In many cases, small
groups of users collectively own a farm or a production unit close to the city where they
live, thus ensuring fresh produce on a daily basis. In other organizational forms,
collectively owned farmers markets bring together buyers and sellers. Here, as
everywhere, information and communication technologies play a great role.

Arcadia
Arcadia is in essence the advanced future form of a rural society. Economies are mainly

self-reliant, enterprises are small and locally owned, direct democracy and community
engagement are the norm, and the love of nature is one of the dominant values. In such a
society, ecological agriculture and permaculture (Holmgren, 2002) are predominant, with
a close relationship between consumers and producers through local cooperative
organizations, as well as strong linkages with academic and business research institutes
that follow ecological agricultural principles and methods. ICT also enables bonds with
other communities, both local and at great distances, which share similar values. New
conservation methods vastly enhance trade in agricultural products. While Arcadia
accepts some Agorian innovations, GMOs are firmly rejected. Arcadians stick to more
traditional methods of breeding. Meat consumption is infrequent, and animals are raised
with humane practices—Arcadians prefer more “natural” meat to processed proteins.

Energy in Arcadia is generated by means of widespread applications of solar
photovoltaic, wind, water, and biomass gasification technology. Through interaction with
research institutes and other communities, the newest energy technologies are imported
and tried out on the small-scale level. Houses may be larger than in the other regions, but
highly insulated by the newest materials and technologies. Highly efficient hybrid and
fuel cell technologies power most forms of transportation and agricultural machinery; in
sparsely populated areas, the car as individual means of transportation is dominant,
contrary to the more densely populated areas.

Health care in Arcadia is mainly decentralized; small health posts are most important
for first-line care and prevention. Participation of patients and other stakeholders in
management of these centers is common. Research is predominantly aimed at identifying
local and traditional indigenous knowledge about herbs, indigenous plants, and local
ecosystems. Because of the more relaxed lifestyles, the rural environment, and the
proximity of nature, modern stress is less prevalent; moreover, the improvement of

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

sanitation, clean water availability, and hygiene has vastly reduced common illnesses. In
Arcadia, there is close communication with R&D centers in Agoria and Ecodemia;
Arcadian values, however, tend to be more traditional and holistic than high-tech
oriented.

Arcadia supports new forms of sustainable tourism, where tourists can partake of an
Arcadian country life, closer to nature but facilitated by high technology. By this means,
Arcadians contribute not only to a healthier lifestyle for people from Agoria and
Ecodemia, but also to an education in a different approach to life, more rooted in nature.

To conclude
In this section, we have developed some future visions of sustainable and more

equitable Great Transition societies in which technology plays an important, but not
dominant, role. We have assumed that technological developments have been fast, but
well-monitored and controlled, and that during their development, the “right” decisions
have been made as to the direction of their development. The three regional types, or
archetypal visions, allow some diversity in the future visions. Of course, these
descriptions are highly eclectic and only meant to stimulate imagination and debate; they
are by no means meant as blueprints. Such visioning exercises in multi-stakeholder
settings could contribute greatly to the richness and depth of these visions.

How Did We Get There?
In this final section, we discuss in broad brushstrokes how we made the transition from

early-twenty-first century society and technologies to the future late-twenty-first century
societies like Agoria, Ecodemia, and Arcadia. First, we discuss some of the drivers and
mechanisms that led to technological and societal change. Then, we discuss some of the
choices made in the development of technology itself.

Drivers of technological change
The present dominant drivers of technological change are business interests and state-

and military-driven innovations. In Section 2, we illustrated how some present
technological forecasts sketch technological futures that are not very sustainable and
probably not very desirable either. In Section 3, in contrast, we looked at three different
sustainability visions in which technology plays an important, but not dominant, role. The
chance that these visions will be realized depends on societal developments as well as
decision-making on technological innovations. The main actors that drive technological
change are delineated below.
Governments

Governments at all levels rank high among the most important drivers of technological
change. We assume a transition in the twenty-first century towards a truly democratic
governance system, which is not captured by business, military, or bureaucratic interests
(Rajan, 2006). Such a governance system will operate on all levels of society, from
global to local, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. Information and
communication technologies (ICT) will be instrumental to make governments more
transparent and less prone to corruption, truly balancing long- and short-term interests of
all sections of the population. Governments will play important roles by regulating

Vergragt

adverse technological consequences, investing in research and development (R&D) and
in new technological innovative forms, purchasing sustainable products and services in
order to pave the way for broad market introduction, setting criteria that foster sustainable
and appropriate technologies, curbing excessive private interests-driven research, setting
long-term goals, and communicating about science and technology issues with the public
at large.
Citizen-consumers

The second most important drivers of technological change are the citizen-consumers.
A strong Global Citizens Movement (GCM) and a progressive change in dominant
societal values (Kates et al., 2006) has raised awareness among consumers that their
lifestyles were not only unsustainable, but also unhealthy and stressful, which prevents
them from feeling happy and fulfilled. Shorter working weeks, more walking, biking, and
playing, that is to say, less stress and more exercise, have become broadly accepted as
desirable consumer products. Consumers became less interested in consuming as such to
fulfill their needs (Stutz, 2006) and more in participating in decision-making about issues
that are relevant for their own and their children’s lives. In this way, they have become
citizen-consumers. Citizen-consumers have been empowered to express their demands
for products and services in such a way that they reach a balance between personal
interests and the public good. For instance, a citizen-consumer expresses his/her need for
transportation in a form that is not immediately met by buying a new car, but instead by
supporting a sustainable transportation system. Again, ICT plays an important role in
realizing such forms of demand articulation.
Citizens’ Self-organizing Groups (SOGs) and NGOs

Citizen-consumers organize themselves in ways that foster the public good. These
organizations and institutions, formerly known as non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), have been aptly renamed citizens’ self-organizing groups (SOGs), or in some
places in the world, like India, as self-help groups (SHGs). SOGs are organized around
each and every issue for which a demand exists, from transportation and housing, to
sustainable food and shopping, to health and medical care, to environmental issues. The
Internet and ICTs are again very instrumental in forming and developing these groups.
Early forerunners could be seen in early twenty-first century as eBay and a host of chat
groups and email lists. Even earlier, in the 1970s, science shops had been formed to
translate societal wishes into scientific research. Other early expressions were science
courts as organized in Europe and the USA around controversial technological
developments such as nuclear energy and genetically modified foods. Governments and
existing NGOs also have been instrumental in helping form and organize such groups.
SOGs have a strong influence on R&D and technological innovation by expressing
desires and making demands in such a way that governments, existing business, and
emerging new business take notice and act accordingly. In addition, they have established
their own research organizations, funded by foundations and private investors, which
have become powerful centers of research and innovation for the public good.
Business

Business can be divided into big multinational corporations (MNCs), small and
medium-seized enterprises (SMEs), and emerging new firms (mainly science-based or
service-oriented). Large MNCs were curbed because a world government emerged that

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

enforces the rule of law. The World Trade Organization, in combination with the World
Court and some parts of the UN have jointly developed into a much more socially
oriented world government system that is committed to sustainable development, equity,
and justice. This global government system has developed enough strength to force
MNCs to adopt global standards of labor, environmental and social sustainability, and
reasonable rather than excessive profits. The world governance system has also curbed
the financial markets, applied a Tobin tax on worldwide financial transactions, and tamed
unbridled financial speculation to an extent that is within the bounds of what is
considered socially beneficial. Because of this, companies are able to look further ahead
and develop truly long-term sustainable strategies for their products, services, and labor
operations. Technological innovation is redefined as successfully bringing products and
processes on the market that fulfill sustainability needs by citizen-consumers, as well as
generate a modest profit for the business. Business decisions on R&D and technological
innovations are heavily influenced by citizens’ self-organizing groups (SOGs),
governments on all levels ranging from local to world government, trade unions,
environmental groups, and human right groups.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) and the patent law system are reformed so that
companies can no longer be prevented from reaping the fruits of others’ innovations
elsewhere. A commitment to reward innovative research into new products and
production processes remains, but again within bounds and with due regard to societal
benefits. Through this reform alone, global technological innovation is enhanced
dramatically and new technological firms have sprung up to reap the fruit. Less money is
spent on patent litigation, which makes it easier to enter the market with a new product or
process. Patenting of living materials has been forbidden, and GMO research has been
confined to those areas which have clear benefits to the population at large (such as
health).
Education and Communication

Deep changes are needed in high school and college education on science, technology,
and sustainability. The history of technology, the differences among technologies in
various cultures, the social shaping of technological artifacts, the societal processes and
decision structures that shape technological innovations, and the consequences of
technology for society should be taught in ways that engage students in a deeper
understanding of technological change processes. Similarly, sustainability needs to be
taught in a holistic way, connecting technology with institutions and values, ecology with
economy and society, consumers with producers and governments, short term with long
term, well-being with equity, and differences between cultures with global values.

Nowadays, communication media are dominated by commercial advertisements
promoting the fruits of technological innovation in the form of desirable consumer
products that are absolutely necessary for a good life and for “well-being”. The media
could become another driver for a transition to sustainability, if it could address issues of
sustainability in an integrated and holistic way, understanding the mass culture, but trying
to strengthen its sustainability. Communication about really sustainable forms of need
fulfillments would be the way to do it. Although how mass communication could be
disentangled from the grip of powerful corporations is unclear, the key is probably to
reform business itself (White, 2006) to create a better balance between business and other
actors in society.

Vergragt

The “right” choices in technology development
Technology development has been the result of interplay of many factors:

• scientific discoveries,

• changing business self-image and interests,

• changing consumer demand,

• government regulation,

• the global citizens movement,

• emerging institutions and paradigms, and

• ultimately changing dominant values.

Developing the “right” technology depends both on far-sighted and entrepreneurial
individuals and on a deep insight in technological opportunities and societal
consequences. None of this is easy or self-evident.

Appropriate technologies and traditional and indigenous technologies have proved to be
of enormous value for the development of a new technological paradigm. The
combination of early twenty-first century high-tech developments with the principles
embodied in appropriate technology and the knowledge and wisdom of traditional
technologies and medicine has inspired many developments which we now (in the late
twenty-first century) take for granted. Examples can be found in sustainable laundry
services, where high-tech washing machines are combined with the traditional laundry
service, or in sustainable health services, where high-tech medical technologies are
combined with traditional Indian, Chinese, and African holistic practices.

Energy conservation is practiced everywhere from production technologies to
transportation, housing, agriculture, and consumption. Driving forces are government
policies, rising prices, experiments with alternative energies and energy conservation,
innovation by large MNCs and SMEs, NGO and SOG research, experiments, and
development. Unforeseen and sometimes sudden events also helped: after the sudden
spike in energy prices during the Arab and Venezuelan oil boycott in 2007 and the
intense heat waves between 2006 and 2015, a strong public awareness pushed for
technological innovation and strong government regulation. New, lighter, and stronger
materials, improved land-use planning, Internet conferencing, and e-shopping all
contributed to a reduction in energy use materials. Bio-feedback, the immediate feedback
on one’s energy use, first deployed in cars, is now everywhere, raising awareness and
stimulus for energy saving. Energy is now mostly generated by solar panels on roofs and
on road surfaces, biomass, and wind turbines big and small, all integrated in buildings.
Buildings themselves are naturally ventilated; air conditioning units have become
museum pieces.

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

Health care has become more holistic, focusing on well-being of the body and soul as
an integrated system. Drivers have been spiking health costs, dissatisfaction with the
dominance of modern technologies in medicine, dissatisfaction with the dominance and
behavior of large drug companies, the emerging awareness of traditional medicine by
citizen-consumers, small-scale experimentation with new combinations of traditional and
modern medicine, and, last but not least, growing awareness of the risks of genetic
recombination and screening. Especially after the shock of the discovery of a human
cloning factory in North Korea in 2010, where human organs were produced to fulfill the
worlds’ needs for transplant organs, and to fulfill North Korea’s need for foreign
currency, tight international regulations and ethical guidelines were drafted by 2015.
Genetic manipulation of humans, animals, and plants came under the control of
international standards and multi-stakeholder citizens’ committees, with R&D closely
monitored by bio-information technologies and satellites. Biotechnology now works
closely with indigenous medicine experts to produce smart combinations of new drugs
and prevention, aimed at early monitoring and treatment of diseases without
compromising fragile ecologies as well as citizens’ privacy concerns and their freedom to
procreate as they wish. Many of the common illnesses of the early twenty-first century
have now disappeared, and humans around the globe live generally healthily into their
nineties or longer; costs of health care are tightly under control, and there is a limit to the
number of treatments humans can claim.

Information and communication technologies are now oriented mainly to fostering
transparency and democratization in governance and business, to citizen participation in
decision-making in all aspects of life, to communicating widely the results of modern
science and technology among the population, and to diffuse widely sustainable
practices, services, and technologies. These transformations were mainly gradual but
sometimes unexpected shocks helped accelerate transitions in the “right” directions and
transition processes to a more sustainable use. For instance, the shocking history of a
highly intelligent robot that escaped from the lab in 2023 boosted awareness of the
dangers of the information society and the imminent danger of the “singularity”. The
robot was able to manipulate information and communication around the globe for days,
and managed to create enough havoc in energy, water, nutrition supply, and waste
collection to create a huge economic pandemic. Eventually brought under control, the
robot’s rampage sparked a global discussion about Artificial Intelligence. As a result, the
developments of ICT are now tightly controlled, both by ethical and technical committees
on all levels of society. As the Global Citizens Movement surged in the first decades of
the twenty-first century, it forced a more gradual and reflective agenda for high-tech
developments. The new consensus was that technological prowess was already sufficient
for the transition to a sustainable society that could provide the necessary services to
mankind for the foreseeable future, and that any additional development should proceed
with great caution in view of the potential dangers.

In agriculture, the transformation towards ecological agriculture that started in the
1990s is now nearly complete. In combination with home and rural gardens, agriculture
now produces more than enough to feed the world population, especially because meat
has become a scarce, luxury product, mainly available in Arcadia but hardly in Ecodemia
or Agoria. Multi-functional land use makes it possible to combine food and energy
production, water management, and recreation in such a way that farmers make a good

Vergragt

living even if the part resulting from agriculture is relatively low. Pesticides and
herbicides have disappeared in their present chemical forms; intelligent breeding vastly
helped by ICT and nanotechnology, but hardly by genetic recombination technologies,
have proved to be quite successful.

Conclusion
We have tried to show that social helmsmanship of technological innovation in the

direction of sustainability is a very challenging task and to suggest what is required to
take it on. It calls for changes in attitude in the scientific community, increased awareness
in the general population, the development of better methods of monitoring and
forecasting in academia and government, and, most importantly, more value placed on
ethics and social responsibility. It calls, above all, for changes in the forces that drive
scientific and technological innovations—the funding systems, the military and business
interests, and consumers. It calls for greater transparency of scientific and technological
enterprises, enabling societal actors to better monitor, assess, forecast, and influence
developments at an early stage. It calls for new and comprehensive visions of the
scientific and technological foundations of a society of the future, one which is
sustainable and attractive and which fulfills human needs and aspirations. It calls for
backcasting and social experimentation and for new forms of governance.

In this essay, we have sketched some credible forecasts of how technologies may
develop in directions that might be neither sustainable nor socially acceptable. These
forecasts are the results of strong current drivers of science and technology, mainly
dominant economic forces and military interests. Our intention has been to create eye-
openers for some unpleasant surprises ahead if we are not careful and vigilant about
technological innovations. Of course we have also cautioned against too much confidence
in technological forecasting. The main aim here has been to create awareness that
technology will not automatically lead us into a sustainable future and that it is very hard
to influence dominant technological trajectories.

At the same time, we have sketched some archetypal sustainable societies in which
technologies play an important, if not decisive, role. Specifically, ICT, new materials,
energy technologies, and biotechnologies are all key players. Thus we must emphasize
that these technologies will not be developed or become wide-spread and dominant
without socio-political, economic, and cultural mechanisms to steer innovation in the
“right” or most desirable direction. We have argued that information and communication
technologies themselves could be instrumental to create more transparency and openness
in decision-making processes and create the conditions for more direct participation of
stakeholders in these processes. However, the transition to a stronger participation by
citizen-consumers, the formation of new institutions (Self-Organizing Groups, SOGs),
and ultimately a change in dominant values are some of the conditions necessary for
change.

Cultivating these conditions could be a starting point for developing strategies and
actions, on the local, regional, and global scale, directed at specific audiences from
science, business, governments, and NGOs. The next logical step could be a call for an
agenda for research and action, endorsed by a committed group of academics,
researchers, and activists.

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

References

Akubue, A. “Appropriate Technology for Socioeconomic Development in Third World
Countries.” The Journal of Technology Studies 26 (Winter/Spring 2000): 33-43.

Anderson, M.L. “Why is AI so scary?” Artificial Intelligence 169 (2005): 201-208.

Arnall, A.A. Future Technologies, Today’s Choices: Nanotechnology, Artificial

Intelligence and Robotics: A Technical, Political and Institutional Map of
Emerging Technologies.” London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust, 2003.

Bijker, W.E. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Socio-technical

Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

Brown, H.S. and P. J. Vergragt. “Bounded Socio-Technical Experiments as Agents of

Systemic Change: The Case of a Zero-Energy Residential Building.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 75 (2008): 101-130.

Callon, M. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops

and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” In Power, Action and Belief: A New
Sociology of Knowledge, edited by J. Law, 196-233. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1986.

———. “Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological

Analysis.” In The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the
Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T.
Pinch, 83-103. London: MIT Press, 1987.

Carson, R. Silent Spring. 1962; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.

Collinridge, D. The Social Control of Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1981.

ETC (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration). The Big Down:

Technologies Converging at the Nano Scale. Ottawa: ETC Group, 2003.

Fleisher T., M. Decker, and U. Fiedeler. “Assessing emerging technologies-

Methodological challenges and the case of nanotechnologies.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 72 (2005): 1112-1121.

Freeman, C. The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1997.

Georges, T. M. Digital Soul, Intelligent Machines and Human Values. New York:

Westview Press, 2003.

Glenn, J. C. “Nanotechnology: Future Military environmental health considerations”

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73 (2006): 128-137.

Vergragt

Glenn, J. C. and T. J. Gordon. 2005 State of the Future. Washington, DC: ACUNU

Millennium Project, 2005.

Holmgren, D. Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Hepburn,

Australia: Holmgren Design Services, 2002.

Ishiguro, K. Never Let Me Go. New York: Knopf, 2006.

Irwin, A. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development.

London: Routledge, 1995.

Hard, M. and A. Jamison. 2005. Hubris and Hybrids; a cultural history of technology

and science. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group.

Kates, R., A. Leiserowitz, and T. Parris. Great Transition Values: Present Attitudes,

Future Changes. Boston: Tellus Institute, 2006.

Krimsky, S. and P. Shorett, eds. Rights and Liberties in the Biotech Age: Why We Need a

Genetic Bill of Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005.

Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1962.

Kurzweil, R. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York:

Viking, 2005.

Latour, B. and S. Woolgar. Laboratory Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

1979.

Loka Institute. “Loka Institute.” Accessed 2006. www.loka.org.

Van Lente, H. “Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technical

Developments.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, 1993.

Merkerk, R. O., H. Van Lente. “Tracing Emerging Irreversibilities in Emerging

Technologies: The Case of Nanotubes” Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 72 (2005): 1094-1111.

Max-Neef, M. A. Human Scale Development. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: Apex Press, 1989.

MIT. “POET Project.” Accessed 2006. http://www.poet.mit.edu.

Partidario, P. J. “‘What-if’; From Path Dependency to Path Creation in a Coatings Chain;

A Methodology for Strategies towards Sustainable Innovation.” Ph.D. thesis, Delft
University of Technology, 2002.

How Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World

Pinch, T. F. and W. E. Bijker. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How

the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each
Other.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems, edited by W. Bijker,
T. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 11-44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.

Rajan, S. C. Global Politics and Institutions. Boston: Tellus Institute, 2006.

Raskin P., T. Banuri, G. Gallopin, P. Gutman, A. Hammond, R. Kates, and R. Swart.

Great Transition: The promise and lure of the time ahead. Boston: Tellus Institute,
2002.

Raskin, Paul. The Great Transition Today: A Report from the Future. Boston: Tellus

Institute, 2006.

Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. “Nanoscience and

Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties.” London: Royal Society, 2004.

Saviotti, P. P. “On the co-evolution of technologies and institutions,” in Towards

Environmental Innovation Systems, edited by K. Weber and J. Hemmelskamp, 9-
32. Berlin: Springer, 2005.

Schumacher, E. F. 1973. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. London:

Blond & Briggs, Ltd, 1973.

Smits, R. and J. Leyten. “Key Issues in the Institutionalization of Technology

Assessment.” Futures 20 (1988): 19-36

Stephens, J. C. and B. V. D. Zwaan. “The Case for Carbon Capture and Storage” Issues

in Science and Technology (Fall 2005): 69-76.

Stutz, J. The Role of Well-being in a Great Transition. Boston: Tellus Institute, 2006.

Vergragt, P. J. “The Social Shaping of Industrial Innovations.” Social Studies of Science

18 (1988): 483-513.

———. “Rural Development and Appropriate, Sustainable Technology in a Globalizing

World.” Unpublished paper, 2003.

———. “Back-casting for Environmental Sustainability: From STD and SusHouse

towards Implementation.” In Towards Environmental Innovation Systems, edited
by K. Weber and J. Hemmelskamp, 301-318 Heidelberg: Springer 2005.

———. “Towards a National Policy Dialogue on Hydrogen in the USA.” Paper for 9th

International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation: “Science, Society

Vergragt

and Sustainability,” Santorini, Greece, June 2006.

Vergragt P.J. and H.S. Brown. “Small Scale Experimentation and Civil Regulation for

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture.” Paper for 24th International Workshop “New
Technologies and Work”—NeTWork, 2006.

Weaver, P., L. Jansen, G. V. Grootveld, E. V. Spiegel, and P. Vergragt. Sustainable

Technology Development. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing, 2000.

White, A. L. Transforming the Corporation. Boston: Tellus Institute, 2006.

Woodhouse, E. J. “Social Reconstruction of a Technoscience? The Greening of

Chemistry.” Paper for 4S Conference, Halifax, 1998.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Week 5 Discussion Sustainability Solutions ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now