IMPLEMENTATION OF CONCEPTS AND ...

IMPLEMENTATION OF CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES AIMING AT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT L.C. Röling1, A. van Timmeren2, Abstract For sustainable concepts with respect to the built environment, urban planning and development, we can discern two future paths: the ones that comply with the principles of ‘the scale economy’ and concepts that follow ‘the economies of scale’. The role of sustainable technologies in this case mostly is presumed to be of major importance. The presented research distinguishes three models for the development and supposedly successful application of technologies: the ‘quasi-evolutionary model’, the ‘collective problem definition’ and the ‘network theory’. The present use and development of sustainable technologies can be described as processes in accordance with the quasi-evolutionary model in combination with the network theory. The historical development and the scaling-up of technologies based on prevailing paradigms determine its quasi-evolutionary nature. A characteristic is the small but strong networks with one or two dominant ‘actors’ for each of the different circuits or ‘flows’ (energy, waste, and water-related flows). In the end, the necessary threshold to a sustainable society is being hindered by these separated circuits: new sustainable technologies are continually being developed in all sectors, but the assimilation by society often falters, for there is a matter of the so called Collingridge dilemma. To resolve this it is necessary to reflect fundamentally the societal conditions of the needed approach to implement sustainable technology and concepts. Three options exist, refered at as technological-, economical- and social-constructivistic determinism. The first two perspectives can be named unshakeable, as far as the sustainable technologies and infrastructure concerning the energy, waste and water flows are concerned. Therefore the solutions towards real sustainable- and in the end possibly autarkic concepts should be found within social-constructivistic adaptations. If one handles the ‘dynamic interpretation’ of the Brundtland definition of sustainability this means that the process side should be emphasised in stead of the formulation and handling of rigid (static) limits. In this paper the need to focus on social aspects within urban planning and development of concepts and technologies is argued as a precondition for sustainability. So users, besides of other “relevant” parties (stakeholders), will have to be involved into the planning processes as early as possible. This should preferably be realized through a pluricentric method of interaction based on a transdisciplinarity, with emphasis on integrating social learning processes, or ‘place making’. Keywords: 1

Sustainable Technologies & Concepts, Participation strategies.

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture,, Climate Design, The Netherlands, [email protected] Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Climate Design, The Netherlands, [email protected]

2

1. Introduction If we want to give the third world as much prosperity as ourselves, alike the points of departure of the Brundtland committee or the 'equity principle', this will, according to the Ehrlich, Speth and Comoner formulae [1] imply the need for the changing society to reduce the use of 'environmental space' of its consumption goods to 5% of the actual. If one talks about sustainability, one can't escape from talking about paradigmshifts. Three knowledge-systems play a part: a system of natural scientific explanations, a system of societal explanations and a system of individual value judgments. They can be encapsulated as 'technology', 'culture' (behaviour, needs) and 'structure' (institutions, economics, etc.) [2]. The formulae of Ehrlich and Speth can be seen as one of two interpretations of the 'Brundtland definition' of Sustainable Development. Main characteristic of this interpretation is the assumption of a certain limitation the ecological system puts to our acting. This outlook is called 'the ecological position' [3]. It claims that "nature is orderly and self-organising, that ecological science gives directives what the self-organisation of nature looks like, and that society should fit up to these directives". The shortcoming is the absolutation of the sustainable ambition, assuming the need to put the available 'environmental space' as basis for all policies. As long as ethic issues like (non) existence are concerned, the extent in which a norm or goal can be fulfilled, dependently the extent in which it will function at the expense of other norms and goals, can not be 'absoluted' into the (final) definition of (non) sustainability of an operation. Even 'all-autarkic' concepts aren't 'allsustainable'. Apart from that it isn't clear at all time what sustainability implies for acting, because of the indistinctness and the changing character of the relationship of the different criteria concerning this sustainability. The second group of interpretations emphasises the word 'development' within the Brundtland definition, which according to this view indicates that it shouldn't involve pointed out environmental boundaries that can't be exceeded but a 'search direction'. Sustainable development in this case is seen as a dynamic process, a boundless perspective instead of a limited 'environmental space'. This outlook is called 'the process- or interaction approach'. The consequence of this approach is not the maximalisation of the environmental interest, but the optimalisation of these interests in relation with other interests. There is a so called 'prescript-problem': no norms are being indicated. It admits the different interpretations and goals of the involved actors and recommendations therefore can only be accomplished in case of a rather arbitrary "actuality-definition" [4]. Besides, this 'interaction approach' is based on network theories and arises out of the recognition of many uncertainties that adhere to the ambition of sustainable development. Both interpretations of sustainable development touch upon the same 'prescriptproblem', which due to the lack of clear parameters to quantify sustainability makes that certain vagueness exists concerning the needed measures. Even definitions, like the Brundtland definition of sustainable development are so open that it is relatively simple for people, institutes and governments to avoid measures [5]. The two different approached sometimes are being indicated as 'weak' and 'strong' sustainability. The difference specialises in the question to what extent sustainable development on a natural scientific basis can be established and operationalised. The 'strong' interpretation states that this is possible while the 'weak' interpretation says that too many technical and scientifical uncertainties exist.

Lately in several scientific publications and policy planning documents more attention is being paid to the malfunctioning of the different urban policies of today and the additional spatial investments at (Eu)regional scale. The Dutch Scientific Board for Governmental Policies (WRR) states that "the system only facilitates standard solutions". Apart from that, actual policies tend to lead to long procedures and delays which due to its relative slow launching, also tend to difficulties to follow the needs of society. In the Netherlands actual policies put more emphasis at so called 'urban networks' instead of cities or conglomerates. However, in practice the mutual administrative- and policy adaptation on this scale appears to be inflexible and rarely leading to fathomed planning, not to mention social participation. The WRR concludes also a need to come to better differentiation in planning together with a closer cooperation of local-, (Eu)regional- and national governments. A more (Eu)regional oriented planning in this case could be the answer to the vanishing division of city and countryside. However, in case of execution of more differentiated and decentralised planning processes, the WRR forgets the fact that these planning processes are stuck to the existing 'body' of physical infrastructure and accompanying administrative, mostly not very flexible institutions and standards, which reduce further possibilities of participation. If one wants to come to urban planning that gears to the ever faster changing society this barrier also has to be broken. An additional problem is the fundamentally different nature of environmental- and economical interests. The environment related problems are mostly rather vague. The problems are being derivated to a larger area or are being shifted to the future. Economical interests mostly are more concentrated. This is for instance in case of central facilities, like the energysupply, that are being considered as 'general (needed) goods'. Due to for instance stock-related privatization, (part of) the benefit deserves to parties that run a relatively small (investment) risks with regard to the costs of these projects. In this case the specific sectoral interest can differ quite strongly from the conventional general economical interest. Apart from that, one-sided representation of interests can slow up (sustainable) renewal. New ideas that don't cope with present interests will be considered less seriously. This process is improving in some sectors, due to the started privatization and therefore the need for 'redesign', to cope with the additional competition. Redesign in this case is (only) the re-examination of interests and plans (developments) towards a more sustainable direction. The actually needed phase of 'rethinking', the taking care of ongoing integration of coming economical and environmental interests, still is a long way away from these, mostly conventional parties. This (still) appears to be the assignment for governments and science.

2. Towards real-sustainable technologies Most authors make a distinction between two types of environmental technologies, the 'cleaning-' or 'end-of-pipe' technologies and the 'process-integrated technologies'. The cleaning technologies primarily aim to reduce the environmental pollution. End-ofpipe-systems in this case are being defined as at the closing of production chains applied solutions that aim to clean the caused waste streams before they are being dumped. The most important disadvantage of end-of-pipe solutions is the fact that these technologies can be characterised as 'following' while they can no longer be used to influence developments. In the process-integrated technologies the environment-

saving measures become part of the production- and realisation process. The process integrated technologies aim to convert raw materials into useful, durable goods. The environmental demands in this case are only pre-demands, comparable with other demands like costs, quality or efficiency. Whatever demands or standards at the end will be applied, at all time one should deliberate them about the true expected positive environmental effects and the aimed sustainability in the sustainable concern. One can distinguish three major models for the development and application of these former discerned types of environmental technologies: the ‘quasi-evolutionary model’, the ‘collective problem definition’ and the ‘network theory’ [6]. The first model can be seen as a process of 'modification (variation) and selection' [7][8] in which it is being designed by the 'selection environment'. This ‘selection-environment’ is being based on scientific-technological factors, economical factors and social cultural & political factors. Most of the sustainable technologies still belong to the so called 'new technologies'. The main reason for the development and application of new technologies, concerning the scientific and technological factors, is the lack of progress in the development of the existing paradigms. Apart from that, the introduction and development of new technologies can be achieved via pilot projects as a result to innovative scientific programs and –research. In these two cases, the technology itself, the existing (technical) infrastructure and the lack of knowledge and information can be obstacles for a successful implementation. As for the economical factors the high costs and 'seated' (less innovative) competitive technologies can form obstacles, while out of social-cultural and political side existing standards and customs concerning comfort, hygiene, convenience and resistance from within the existing networks and governmental policies can become obstacles. The process of 'modification (variation) and selection' and the use of (far-reaching) technologies will be inspired by the 'technological paradigm', which contains basic ideas consisting of insights, heuristics and a certain amount of already developed technology. Within the already developed technology most of the time one dominant design exists. This dominant design can be seen as 'exemplary technology' for the discipline and therefore mostly will function as a starting point for further developments and improvements. The normal developments of 'variation' will be influenced highly by the existing paradigms and the accompanying paths and apart from that will be influenced also by the expectancy that certain variation of the 'selection environment' will survive and others will not [7]. This (first) model is being called the 'quasi-evolutionary model' due to the fact that the separation between variation and selection in this case is not definite, like in the Darwinist evolution theory [6]. The second model, the collective problem definition, assumes a technology development within a 'problem-controlled process' [9]. Technology- and science developers in this case are confronted with scientific, technical and social problems that ask for (immediate) solutions. In this case, the development, implementation and improvements will be accomplished when the involved 'actors' come to an agreement about the actual (definition of the) problem. The third interpretation for the development and supposedly successful application of the two former discerned technologies came up as result of this second model. The essence of this so-called 'network theory' is the supposed starting-point of the development of technology in a network of mutual relations between intervening 'actors'. The development of technology comes together with the construction of a technological system, in which a reverse salient in the system is determinative for its development [10]. The existing practice can be described in terms of the creation of

one or two 'dominant actors' and strong, rigid actor-networks that become the supporters of the paradigm following technologies [9]. The present development of use of sustainable technologies in the built environment, including the (technical) infrastructure can be described as processes in accordance with the quasi-evolutionary model in combination with the network theory. The historical development and the scaling-up of technologies based on prevailing paradigms determine its quasievolutionary nature. There is a matter of a small but strong network with one or two dominant ‘actors’ for each of the different circuits or ‘flows’ (water, energy, and waste). In case of the (waste)water flows there is a matter of dominant actors that in general adopt a non-flexible attitude towards new technologies. To some extent this is also in force for the waste- and energy flow. Although this at first was changing due to the liberalization of the energy- and waste market. However, in the course of time due to takeovers and combinations again (new) dominant actors are originating. The main difference is that these new dominant actors are semi- or even totally independent of the authorities, with all the additional disadvantages. The historical development and the scaling-up of the solutions for the generation and treatment of the energy-, (waste)water- and waste(material) flows take place according to the quasi evolutionary model with some shifts inspired by social problems (like the first and second energy crisis). The appealing of this quasi-evolutionary character of the development of technology is its relative simple ness, which could mean a simple extraction of policy recommendations. The recent genesis of dominant actors who are no longer (directly) related to the (controlling) government(s), together with the globalisation, could complicate this simple ness of changing.

3. Social conditions for Sustainable Technologies Within the environmental research tradition the care for water- and energy saving through reduction of demand, efficiency improvements and use of renewable sources always has been obvious [11][12]. The field of (inter)national energy policies still can be characterised by a certain institutional fragmentation, that results in clear-cut contrasts between different sectors of the energy-supply, the energy supply side (orienting for expansion of capacities) versus the demand side (orienting for energy management and -reduction) and the policies of the different energy- and environment connected departments or ministries [13]. Most research projects concerning the environmental related flows don't attempt to extract themselves from their sectarian policy field. The scientific and strategic compartmentalization is being legitimised in calling it 'specialisations', maintaining the ‘sectarian way of thinking’. The interactions between different specialises, forms of technical infrastructure and their future manifestation in scientific perspective therefore still are uncultivated fields. The only sciences that come closer to a more integral way of thinking are planning and economy, although these too have some restrictions. Planning for instance aims at forms of mostly non-technical infrastructure that have clear physical components [14]. More to sustainability related themes like dematerialisation (i.e. not immaterialisation) don't come up. In economic sciences, different forms of infrastructure are drawn in analysis, but this is being realised in cost/income comparisons. Problem stays here the general difficulty to express 'merits' in terms of money. Only just after the introduction of the concept 'sustainable development', policy formulation cautiously started to relate

energy-saving and later water-saving on the one hand, and the improvement of environmental quality on the other hand [11][15]. The last decade(s) of the 20th century the saying "Think global, act local" was introduced. This saying also indicates the problem towards the consciousness-raising of today’s' society. The relation between personal acting and the (global) environmental effects in the short and the long term for many is difficult to visualise. Key factor therefore might be the visualisation of the effects of personal acting. A lot of times this is translated into the need for solutions nearer to the users, like in the eighties Schumacher did [16]. But this doesn't inevitably mean that the solutions should be decentral, or implemented at the smallest scale. The design and definition of the eco-systems and related levels of scale will become even more important if solutions are based on so called 'natural technologies' [17] to simulate natural (eco)systems. When people are asked how they see their dependency of nature, most of the people look at food, fibres, medicine and more recent genes. However, they aren't aware of the benefit(s) of good functioning ecosystems [18]. Our knowledge of natural systems increases but still is limited. Nevertheless there is progress in the understanding of natural processes which cause, in combination with improving technological possibilities to support natural processes, that (innovative) solutions more frequently are based on natural technology [19]. Obviously (environmental) innovations that are technically considered as successful can't necessarily count on extensive and fast social application [11]. This applies even more to most of the specific, vulnerable and to natural processes related solutions. Therefore most of the times the smallest scale of implementation is chosen for these new (natural) technologies [20]. This is not only the strength, but also the weakness of these concepts. The existing central paradigm (‘the by researchers and specialists for normative considered central scale of application for a majority of solutions for sustainable management of energy, waste water, water and waste(material)’) is the starting-point for the (mostly economical) comparison of these kind of alternatives [21]. An additional problem in case of solving to natural processes related environmental problems is the difficulty of extrapolation of it inside a society that is based on exponential (economical) growth. If one rationalises out of ecology, one of the basic principles states: if a population or community wants to survive, one should avoid within every arbitrarily ecosystem exponential growth. One could state that sustainability and exponential growth can not go together. New (decentral) technologies are being developed constantly in all fields, but the assimilation by society often is faltering. Besides the former stated ruling 'central paradigms' and 'dominant actors' another cause lies in the 'separate circuits' within the developing technology. The solution could be found in a broadening of the development-networks around technology. Another possibility might be the improvement of social involvement through information, documentation and successful examples. However, this isn't as simple as stated. If a technology is still young, the social implications are barely known and if the social implications are known, the technology is indebted in such a way that it is impossible to adapt it to the desires of the different actors. This is called the Collingridge-dilemma' [22]. To resolve this dilemma it is necessary to reflect fundamentally the societal conditions of the needed approach to implement this sustainable or even autarkic technology. The three main movements concerning the question if this is possible can be summarised as technological-, economical- and social-constructivist determinism. The first group of authors think that (sustainable) technologies develop autonomously out of themselves,

and therefore can’t be influenced by society. The second group state that technological innovations can only be successful if they are profitable, while the third group state that there needs to be harmony between all actors about the course of the development of (sustainable) technology. The first two perspectives can be named unshakeable, as far as the sustainable technologies and technical infrastructure concerning the energyand (waste)water flows are concerned. Therefore the solutions towards real sustainable- and in the end autarkic concepts should be found within socialconstructivist adaptations. A relevant question in this light is in what way sustainable or natural technologies can be stimulated and who will be responsible. Does it have to be governments or should it be left to industry and market. Apart from that, the concept of sustainability makes demands on the process of decision-making. In the Brundtland report the importance of democratic procedures is pointed out [23]. Sustainable development due to this report can not be enforced from above but should be realised via a bottom-up process. If one handles the dynamic interpretation of the Brundtland definition of ‘sustainability’ this means that the process side should be emphasised in stead of the formulation and handling of rigid (static) limits. In the process of sustainable planning concepts in balance with urban ecology, the first step towards autarky, Tjallingii [24] distinguishes three strategies which he describes as 'the responsible city', 'the living city' and 'the participating city'. Main focus in the 'participating city' is the reception of conscious care for the involvement of people, which can be achieved through the visualisation of the relation city-nature in the design, putting the human habitat in the basis conditions and creating space for selfactivation. Besides, this strategy reverts to the theme liveability as being a precondition for sustainability [25] and puts emphasis at the organisation of the process in time. This means that the creation of space for initiatives and change after realisation are equal or even more important than (only) participation during the process of planning.

4. Social aspects of Autarkic concepts Autarky originates from the Greek autos (self) and arkeoo (be sufficient). It coheres with the way in which people are culturally and historically to their environment [26]. The concept is being used in social, cultural, economical and ecological domains. There are two different connotations: self-determination and self-sufficiency. Autarky is not directly comparable with autonomy, which originates from the Greek autonomia (self-government/self-rule/self-will). Autonomous concepts in sustainable technologies and building mostly concern autarkic ambition for parts of the concept. In economy, literature and arts the ambition of autarky regularly comes to the fore in several mixes of spirituality, self-will (freedom, individuality, cooperation) and self sufficiency. 'Evergreens' are 'Walden' (Thoreau, 1854), 'Island' (Huxly, 1962) and 'The shape of things to come (Wells, 1933). Another example are the experiments of Paolo Soleri who works within the line of 'humane ecology' to 'Arcology' and who founded the selfsustaining community 'Arcosanti' and Michael Reynolds with the Earthship concept. The surplus value of these kinds of interpretations is the synergy of landscape, nature and culture. Autarky is these cases moves a step ahead of (only) energy- respectively water performance and use of materials. Behling [27] states in this light that agriculture is the basis for a sustainable community. He refers to projects like 'Arbella' and 'Babylon' in Mesopotamia (3500 B.C.) and concepts like 'the roundhouse' in China

for the ethnic group known as Hakka or 'outsiders' (1680). Another important interpretation which emphasises autonomy and autarky of systems is 'permaculture'. Permaculture is a joining of 'Permanent Agriculture' and 'Permanent Culture' [28]. It can be seen as an all-embracing ecological and social principle, a method to design environments that display the diversity, stability and resiliency of natural ecosystems. For autarkic concepts we can discern two future paths: the ones that comply with the principles of ‘the scale economy’ and concepts that follow ‘the economies of scale’. The role of sustainable (passive and active) technology within the formerly stated context is in this case mostly presumed to be of major importance. Another actual question in this light is to what extend people nowadays should retract themselves in their own 'autonomy', with the risk of sectarism and anarchism. The question however seems to be based on an important motive in urban planning and urbanism: 'fear', or the non-acceptance of (groups of) people that isolate themselves in (sustainable) 'gated communities' or 'condominiums'. This fear seems to be the result of the extrapolation of some negative examples and of (mostly) 'the unknown'. The paradox of public housing in this case is that on the one hand the inhabitants must take their responsibilities for their environment, with a necessary social cohesion as one of the most important conditions for liveability. On the other hand inhabitants are 'not allowed' to retract themselves from the endless public space [25]. The essence of today’s urban planning therefore can be characterised as the search for consensus via centralised solutions: everyone is just (not entirely) (dis)satisfied. For a sustainable society however one could look for two directions: the economy of scale: together with other people looking for the closing of cycles on the largest scales, or the scale economy: finding more (individual, or combined individual) freedom through small scale systems which, due to large amounts of implementation, can be cheaper and easier in use. More opportunities for possible individual choices, sometimes resulting in autonomy or separation of the (central) grid in that case is an important and possibly necessary prerequisite. This doesn't necessarily mean that such an autarkical cell or unity, independent its size, literally isolates itself from the rest (society). One could also turn this 'fear-theory' around: (some) people desire to be independent of 'the system' or parts of the system, e.g. physically translated into different facilities like the central energy grid or sewerage. Some forms of independence remove certain feelings of fear for these people. Only in that case one can really create commitment and consciousness, a prerequisite for a sustainable community. Main consideration for the look for smaller scales of autarky is the creation of (partial) freedom and ultimately optimum tuning in to personal demands, within a (sustainable) system. This network philosophy assumes the creation of autarkic 'cells' that nonhierarchic in relation to each other constitute a spatially-, socially- and ecologically strong network. An advantage is that if one 'cell' omits, the sustainable network still keeps standing (e.g. like in a honeycomb structure). If one would like to totalise several autonomous cells, the so called 'polycentric model' of Rogers [29] might offer a key. The model is based on a whole which consists of several compact nodes, which size are in his case based on walking and cycling distances. In the several examples the number of inhabitants of these nodes vary between 2000 (low density in compact setting) until 80.000 (high-density within compact setting and high-rise building). In the further design of this 'polycentric model' the allocation of 'values' (cultural-, landscape-, nature-, urban-, social-, etc.) can become a guideline. But it still will not solve the sustainability issue. In case of these kind of network philosophies the key

question therefore is: what binds together these autonomous or even autarkical cells? Physically this is the infrastructure (subterranean and aboveground). Besides there is a question of a social bond. These two aspects therefore can be called the 'critical elements' and can be seen as the key issues where change must be initiated. Or, if one puts it in general: the 'structure supporters', like the green structure, the culturalhistorical structure, the water structure, the 'flow-' structures (visible and non-visible) and the social connections through all these different structures. In fact these 'structure supporters' or 'structures' can be seen as values. The optimum for a sustainable spatial development can be found in a combination of several structures that form a sum which tries to find the optimum in between monotonous and satisfied [30]. This optimum is being formed by the social coherence of the different (autonomous) 'structures'. This implies immediately that the optimum scale for autarky or the most important flows for autarky (water, energy and waste(material)) most likely shouldn't be found on the largest of smallest scale. References [1] Ehrlich, P. (1990) ‘The population explosion’, Hutchinson, London, UK [2] Heel, P. van and Jansen, J.L.A. (1999) ‘Duurzaam: zo gezegd, zo gedaan’, Delft University of Technology, Faculty Design, Construction and Production, Delft, NL [3] Korthals, M. et al (1989) 'Wetenschapsleer; Filosofisch en maatschappelijk perspectief op de natuur- en sociaal-culturele wetenschappen', Boom, Amsterdam, NL [4] Ruis, M.J. (1996) 'Visies op Infrastructuur en duurzaamheid’; Erasmmus Studiecentrum voor milieukunde, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, NL [5] Lettinga, et al (2001) 'Environmental protection technologies for sustainable development' in: Lens, P. Zeeman, G. and Lettinga, G. (2001) 'Decentralised Sanitation and Reuse: concepts, systems and implementation', Integrated Environmental Technology Series, IWA-publishing, London, UK [6] Vergragt, Ph.J. (1992) 'Naar een ecologische technologie', intreerede, Technology Assesment and Sustainability, Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte en Techhnische Maatschappij wetenschappen, Delft University of Technology, Delft. NL [7] Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1977) 'In search for a useful theory of innovation', in: Research Policy nr. 6 [8] Dosi, G. (1982) 'Technological paradigms and technological trajectories’, in: Research Policy nr. 11 [9] Callon, M. (1980) 'Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not', in: Knorr, K.D. 'The social process of scientific investigation', Sociology of the sciences, Yearbook 4, Dordrecht, NL [10] Hughes, T.P. (1983) 'Networks of Power: electrification in western society 18801930', The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, USA [11] Brezet, H. (1994) 'Van prototype tot standaard: De diffusie van energiebesparende technologie', Uitgeverij Denhatex BV, Faculteit Industrieel Ontwerpen, Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL [12] Kristinsson, J. et al (1996) 'Tweede Waterworkshop', DOSIS MTO/BT, Faculteit der Bouwkunde, Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL [13] Man, R. de (1987) 'Energy forecasting and the organization of the policy process', Eburon, Leiden, NL

[14] Timmeren, A. van (1999a) 'Stad & Land als architectonische opgave; de arrogantie van de architectuur', in: 'Planologische diskussiedagen 1999, thema Stad/Land', Stichting Planologische Diskussiedagen, Delft, NL [15] Timmeren, A. van (1999b) 'High-tech, Low-tech, No-tech’, Faculteit der Bouwkunde, Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL [16] Schumacher, E.F. (1973) ‘Small is beautifull’, Blond and Briggs, Londen, UK [17] Todd, J. and Josephson, B. (1996) 'The design of living technologies for waste treatment', Ecological engineering, nr. 6 [18] Lubchenco, J. (2002) 'Planeet Aarde; 7 onderzoekers bekijken tien jaar na Rio de gezondheid van onze planeet', National Geographic, september 2002, p.91/100 [19] Harper, P. (2000) 'The lifestyle laboratory', Schumacher Lectures 2000, Schumacher Society, Bristol, UK [20] Siemensma, M. (2000) 'De ontwikkelinng van decentrale sanitatie en hergebruik in een woonwijk', doctoraalverslag, Wageningen Universiteit, mr. 00-033, Wageningen, NL [21] Collingridge, D. (1980) 'The social control of technology', Frances Pinter, London, UK [23] Tjallingii, S.P. (1990) 'De natuur en de leer. Over de omgang met planten en dieren in de stad', startnotitie t.b.v. het congres Stadsecologie, NIROV, Eindhoven, NL [22] World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) 'Our common future', Oxford University Press, pp4, New York [24] Dorst, M. van et al (1999) 'Leefbaarheid', in: 'Op weg naar de Ecologische stad', DIOC DGO, Delft University of Technology, Aenas, Best, NL [25] Park, Buro (2002) 'Autarkie.nl gereedschapskist energie / water', Haarlem, NL [26] Behling, S.; Behling, S. (1996) 'The evolution of solar architecture', Renewable Energies in Architecture and Design, READ Group, Prestel, München [27] Mollisonn, B. (1990) 'Permaculture. A designers manual', Island Press, Tagari, Tyalgum, Australia [28] Rogers, R. (1997) 'Cities for a small planet', Faber and faber, London, UK [29] Jong, T.M. de (1997) 'Populatie en habitat van mensen', Technische ecologie & milieu planning, Faculteit der Bouwkunde, Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL