An Assessment of Technology for Local Development (January 1981)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Assessment of Technology for Local Development January 1981 NTIS order #PB81-189979 -. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 81-600026 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Foreword The late Dr. Pearly F. Ayre, a sociologist who spent several decades working with peo- ple in Appalachia, finally became disenchanted with the long-term effectiveness of many of the Federal development programs aimed at that region. He is remembered for his memo- rable observation in praise of local initiative: “We must do for ourselves, or be done for.” This OTA study addresses the question of local development and the opportunities for–and appropriateness of–various technologies that can help local people to take ad- vantage of local resources in meeting the needs of their own communities. In many in- stances there are also close connections between local and national needs; as a result, these local solutions can sometimes add up to national solutions. OTA has made extensive use of case studies to assess a variety of community projects. One clear conclusion that emerges from these cases is that individuality, ingenuity, and in- itiative are far from lacking in the United States. It is also evident that many communities are strongly attracted to the principles of local reliance and self-sufficiency. When a com- munity evaluates and chooses a technology for local development, it should take into ac- count nonmarket goals and priorities, as well as purely market factors. In many cases this broader perspective–the attempt to find and develop an “appropriate technology” (AT)– can greatly influence the overall utility of the project. OTA found that neither “big” nor “small” technologies are consistently more attrac- tive or effective. The historic progression toward larger scale is not universally optimal; in- deed, some large-scale projects can result in a diseconomy of scale. Recent developments in science and technology have created an increasing number of opportunities for economic activities on a smaller scale, as well as on a decentralized basis. Because AT by definition reflects local goals and values, as well as local resources and conditions, the broader adoption of AT may well lead not only to a more diverse and re- silient economic system, but also to one that better serves the social and human needs of communities throughout the Nation. /yd#. ~ JOHN H. GIBBONS Director iii Technology for Local Development Assessment Advisors Roger Blobaum Lola Redford President President Roger Blobaum and Associates Consumer Action Now George Burrill Co-Director Constantine Safilios-Rothschild Center for Studies in Food Self-Sufficiency Professor of Human Development Pennsylvania State University Patricia Cloherty President Tessler & Cloherty, Inc. Steve Serfling President John Hammock Solar AquaSystems, Inc. Executive Director ACCION International Martha Stuart Mary Houghton President Executive Vice President Martha Stuart Communications, Inc. South Shore National Bank Byron Kennard Richard P. Taub Community Organizer Associate Professor & Chairman of Public Affairs University of Chicago David Lawrence Executive Committee Chairman of the Dan Tessler Boettcher & Co. Chairman William Nicoson Tessler & Cloherty, Inc. Counsel Lynn Preston Sean Wellesley-Miller Acting Head, Problem Analysis Group Assistant Professor National Science Foundation Massachusetts Institute of Technology Assessment of Technology for Local Development Project Staff John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division William Mills,* Acting Program Manager, National R&D Priorities & Policies Michaela Walsh,** Project Director Paul B. Phelps,† Editor and Writer Marsha Mistretta, Administrative Assistant Leslie Sederlund, Research Assistant Jeffrey Magnin, Research Assistant Babette Racca,† Analyst Michael Fischer,† Analyst Other Staff Contributors Christopher Ansell† Junior Bridge Geraldine Duskie Robert Friedman Robert Olson† Contractors and Consultants Caroline Edwards James Sullivan Peter Harnik Richard Taub Paul Hoover Sean Wellesley-Miller Claudia Lorge ACCION International William Nicoson Roger Blobaum & Associates Bruce Porter Center for Community Change Constantine Safilios-Rothschild Counsel for Community Development Marsha Steinberg OTA Publishing Staff John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer John Bergling† Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Patricia A. Dyson† Mary Harvey† Joe Henson *Acting Project Director after June 1980. **Project Director through May 1980; continuing as contractor through December 1980. †OTA contract personnel. Contents chapter Page 1. Executive Summary . 3 2. Introduction . 17 3. Resource-Efficient Residential Architect ure . 29 4. Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses. 67 5. Small Farm Systems . 91 6. Farmers’ Markets. .................123 7. Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste . 147 8. Community Wastewater Treatment . 173 9. Community Energy Generation . 197 10. Health CareSystems . ...................217 11. Overview. ...........233 Appendix.–Members of the Appropriate Technology Workshop, Study Teams, and Task Force. 249 Chapter 1 Executive Summary Contents Page Page Findings . 4 Public Perception and Participation . 10 Technical Information and Expertise. 10 The Case Studies . 5 Essential Resources. 10 Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture . 5 Financing. 10 Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses . 6 Institutional Factors . 10 Small Farm Systems . 6 Farmers’ Markets . 7 Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste. 7 Options for Federal Policy . 11 Community Wastewater Treatment. 8 Data Gathering . 11 Community Energy Generation . 9 Information Dissemination . 11 Community Health Care Systems . 9 Technical Assistance . 12 Critical Factors . 10 Financial Assistance . 12 CHAPTER 1 Executive Summary Appropriate technology (AT) involves an at- designed for changing resource conditions. In re- tempt to tailor the scale and complexity of a tech- sponse to the current economic environment, for nology to the job it needs to do. AT has been pro- instance, a number of relatively sophisticated posed by some of its advocates as an answer to technologies have been de~’eloped that are effi- many of the social and economic problems created cient users of energy and material resources. In by large-scale, centralized technology in both the this view’, the main challenge is to integrate industrialized countries and the Third World. numerous applications of AT in efficient, sus- Through greater diversity and decentralization, tainable systems in the local community. they argue, it is possible to achieve a “technology mix” that makes more effective use of limited OTA’s exploratory study is not intended to be capital and is better adapted to, and less disruptive comprehensive. Nevertheless, the AT projects ex- of, the social and natural environment. Large- amined in this study exhibit a great diversity in scale approaches may be necessary for some tasks, size, complexity, and location. They range from but for others it is possible to scale down existing attached solar heating greenhouses built by indi- technology or, in some cases, to replace it with vidual homeowners in New Mexico to a plant that more traditional methods that have been im- converts municipal waste to steam heat for down- proved on through the application of advanced town Akron, Ohio; from a heat-retentive house materials, designs, or techniques. Ideally, AT em- designed for low-income families in Alaska to a phasizes resource efficiency, environmental sound- cooperative market for small-scale farmers in Loui- ness, community control, and labor rather than siana; and from an innovative sewage treatment capital intensiveness. plant in California to a pair of recommissioned hydroelectric projects in New England. AT proponents cannot always agree on exactly what the concept entails, however, and its empha- Congress has frequently taken the lead in pro- sis has changed and broadened over the last 10 moting the development of AT. This interest was years, depending on where and when it was ap- demonstrated by the creation of the National plied. In one of its earliest forms, AT was proposed Center for Appropriate Technology by the 94th as an alternative approach to economic develop- Congress and the Office of Small Scale Technol- ment in the Third World. Observers like British ogy within the Department of Energy (DOE) by economist E. F. Schumacher noted that when an the 95th Congress. In June 1978, OTA was asked advanced, capital-intensive technology is intro- to conduct an exploratory study to: duced into a developing nation, it sometimes cr- assess the conceptual base for AT; ates as many social and economic problems as it assess technologies which are appropriate for solves. What is needed, Schumacher suggested, is local community development; and an “intermediate technology” that is far more pro- collect information on promising— new tech- ductive than traditional methods but is still more nologies now being innovated in energy, labor intensive (and less capital intensive) than the waste disposal, housing, agriculture, and sophisticated, large-scale technologies of the indus- health that may provide an alternative and trialized nations. possibly more effective approach to communi- In the past few years, on the other hand, a grow- ty and regional development. ing number of appropriate technologists have The request for the OTA study came from Sena- come to view themselves as pioneers, operating “at tors