Technology

There are many reasons to believe that this city should be a high-tech city to live up to its promise. There are an equal number or maybe even more reasons to believe that this should be a city with much less technology than our current cities. What is the right choice? Let's try to find out.

Key topics to investigate include:

• How exactly do we define "technology"? We have a separate section about telecommunication - which is of course linked to this topic. But similarly transport requires vehicles - and buildings are also full of technology. Let's start by describing what technology exists and the role it performs in existing cities.
• What is the current impact of technology? Can we quantify the good and the bad?
• Are there ways to identify "required" technologies - those technologies that would likely allow a city to be productive and efficient so that it can cater to the needs of the residents, but excluding those technologies that do not have a net positive value on the city's productivity or residents' wellbeing?
• Can we develop a set of parameters to decide on the relevance of a technology? Can we convert the Triple 95 rule in a way that it can be used as a scorecard to judge different technologies? E.g. if it doesn't help restore ecosystem services and it doesn't improve wellbeing, then it shouldn't be used.
• Technology is almost always made primarily of non-compostable materials. Can this change? Which parts have to be from non-biomass materials? Are there options to swap out certain materials for others if there is a strongly positive environmental trade-off?

Ideas and resources

We are looking for ideas and resources in the field of Technology that may enable a city to adhere to the Triple 95 rule. Please help out!

Upload item

Title	Author(s)	Relevance
Global Environment Outlook Small Island Developing States Outlook Book	Al-Jenaid et al.	None

Discussion

Questions or comments around Technology? Let's chat!