IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2014 - 25

not available in many areas and do-it-yourself culture
is not as common in developing communities, especially for more expensive products. Another approach
is to implement consumable solutions, such as the disposable, point-of-use water filters being used in several developing countries [25]. pay-for-use business
models, where customers only pay for product usage
(e.g., paying for power rather than a solar panel) alleviate the challenge of access to capital and essentially
side-step the affordability/durability debate.
Should We Promote Economically-Beneficial
Technologies that Hurt the Environment?
Although eco-friendly technologies and manufacturing processes are preferred, they can be too expensive and hence unaffordable to people in developing
countries. For example, in Kenya, entrepreneurs use
car batteries to operate small businesses that recharge
cell phones, power street telephone businesses, or
entertainment centers offering TV viewing services.
Car batteries are environmentally toxic but are essential for these small businesses to survive. Without the
batteries, these individuals would likely be relegated
to subsistence farming or the unreliable ad hoc labor
market. Instead, they are using environmentally-toxic
technology to improve their livelihoods. Ideally, car
batteries could be replaced by solar or other renewable energy sources, but these technologies are often
too expensive to be viable. Also, improved livelihoods
engender a respect for the natural world and thoughtful use of resources.
Another option for environmentally-conscious
ventures is reusing detrimental materials in benign
ways. For instance, some entrepreneurs embrace the
inability of plastics to biodegrade by incorporating
them into longer-lasting structures. Entrepreneurs in
Lesotho are using plastic bottles to make mini-greenhouses for individuals that cannot afford traditional
greenhouses [26]. The bottles have already been used
and discarded from their original purpose, so reusing them in the greenhouses (which need some sort
of clear plastic-like material to function) is actually
a relatively benign approach for creating social good.
The key point in these situations is that technology
products may benefit from resources that are not
environmentally benign. While it is best if the toxic
materials are recycled for these applications, ventures
must decide for themselves if they can accept environmentally toxic resources as unfortunate byproducts to
the social value created. In any instance, developers
should comply with local policies and endeavor to
find cradle-to-cradle solutions for their products.

Appropriateness and Tradeoffs
As the pursuit of appropriate technology continues,
the theory and tenets for its appropriateness will no
IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SprING 2014

doubt continue to develop. However, innovators must
realize that all of these tenets are in fact tradeoffs -
questions that each technology venture and set of
stakeholders must answer for themselves. These engineering design and implementation questions span the
spectrum from cultural to financial to manufacturing
and capital issues. The answers must be tailored to
the context of the problem, the desired solution, the
appropriate business strategy, and the preferences of
the stakeholders. To ensure that a technology achieves
economic, social, environmental, and technological
sustainability, developers must engage in open discussions with local partners. Communities should have
a voice in these decisions to ensure that the designs
meet their needs and result in a self-determined
improvement of livelihoods and agency. However,
engaging the community in every single aspect of
the venture can lead to expectations and ownership,
which although desirable, have the potential to negatively impact the success of the venture and limit its
scalability [27].
Beyond all the systemic design and implementation tradeoffs is the fundamental question upon which
all the others rest - should outsiders create solutions
for the developing world? Why is the appropriate technology movement trying to develop these solutions?
What if it hurts the cultures and countries instead of
helping them? One answer is to consider Humanitarian Engineering a new wave of cultural imperialism:
the West is trying a new mechanism of imposing its
ideal worldview on poor countries. This is a valid
viewpoint and perhaps true for some. An alternate
perspective, and one that we prefer, is to think of
AT as an exercise in co-creation. If we espouse the
principles of empathy, equity, and ecosystems when
we engage with people across the world, the distance
between "us" and "them" vanishes. As illustrated in
this article, we live in an interconnected world with
complicated problems, dwindling resources, and
shared solutions. It is imperative to break down the
barriers between our disciplines, cultures, and epistemologies to find practical, innovative and sustainable
solutions. A few ventures will be successful while
many will fail. Cultures are robust enough to survive
our spectacular failures while the world is waiting
to celebrate and adopt the successful game-changers
that improve the human condition.

Author Information
The authors are with the Humanitarian Engineering and
Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) program at The pennsylvania State University, State College, pA 16801.

References

[1] p. Dunn, Appropriate Technology: Technology With a Human
Face. New York: Schocken, 1979.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2014