# Lessons in Low-Tech: A Handbook for Sustainable Education

Ceri Almrott, Loann Astorino, Sebastien Bette, Benoit Delinchant, Philippe Fortemps, Ulysse Girard, Paul Hendrick, Sacha Hodencq, Fabien Lecron, Julie Lhuissier, et al.

► To cite this version:

Ceri Almrott, Loann Astorino, Sebastien Bette, Benoit Delinchant, Philippe Fortemps, et al. Lessons in Low-Tech: A Handbook for Sustainable Education. Almrott, C. Technological University Dublin, 2025, 978-1-90-045494-0. 10.21427/3yhz-9j83. hal-05000891

HAL Id: hal-05000891

https://utt.hal.science/hal-05000891v1

Submitted on 21 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Other resources

School of Mechanical Engineering

2025

# Lessons in Low-Tech: A Handbook for Sustainable Education

Ceri Almrott

Technological University Dublin, ceri.almrott@tudublin.ie

Loann Astorino

Université de Mons

Sébastien Bette

Université de Mons

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/engschmecoth

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the Mechanical Engineering Commons

## Recommended Citation

Almrott, Ceri; Astorino, Loann; Bette, Sébastien; Delinchant, Benoit; Fortemps, Philippe; Girard, Ulysse; Hendrick, Paul; Hodencq, Sacha; Lecron, Fabian; Lhuissier, Julie; Loesle, Kévin; Lopez Santiago, Luis Miguel; Perez Rodriguez, Santiago; Renard, Gauthier; Reyes, Tatiana; Vandenbulcke, Virginie; and Walsh, John, "Lessons in Low-Tech: A Handbook for Sustainable Education" (2025). Other resources. 22. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/engschmecoth/22

This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Mechanical Engineering at ARROW@TU Dublin. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other resources by an authorized administrator of ARROW@TU Dublin. For more information, please contact arrow.admin@tudublin.ie, aisling.coyne@tudublin.ie, vera.kilshaw@tudublin.ie.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Funder: European Union
Authors

Ceri Almrott, Loann Astorino, Sébastien Bette, Benoit Delinchant, Philippe Fortemps, Ulysse Girard, Paul Hendrick, Sacha Hodencq, Fabian Lecron, Julie Lhuissier, Kévin Loesle, Luis Miguel Lopez Santiago, Santiago Perez Rodriguez, Gauthier Renard, Tatiana Reyes, Virginie Vandenbulcke, and John Walsh
LT4Sustain

Lessons in
Low-Tech

A Handbook for
Sustainable Education

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
# Lessons in Low-Tech

A Handbook for Sustainable Education

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Under the following terms:

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**Attribution** — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**ShareAlike** — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

**No additional restrictions** — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

This project has received funding from the European Union - Erasmus + Strategic Partnership (KA203) 2021-1 agreement FR01-KA220-HED-000027600

Our partners and contributors are:

**Université de Technologie de Troyes:**

Tatiana Reyes, Santiago Pérez Rodriguez
Luis Miguel López Santiago,
Ulysse Girard, Job Charlet

**Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble - ENSE3:**

Benoit Delinchant, Sacha Hodencq,
Julie Lhuissier, Nicolas Manteaux,
Laurent Jossic, Jean-François Béteau,
Tarik Larja, Céline Bourgeois,
Sarah Manciot, Seun Osonuga

**Low-tech Lab Grenoble:**

Kévin Loesle, Grégoire Pourcelot,
Félicie Beth, Robin Plagnes

**Technological University Dublin:**

John Walsh, Ceri Almrott, Paul Hendrick
Mark Ennis, Aija Freimane

**Université de Mons:**

Philippe Fortemps, Sébastien Bette,
Loann Astorino, Fabian Lecron,
Gauthier Renard, Virginie Vandenbulcke

ISBN: 978-1-90-045494-0

Layout Design by Paul Hendrick
Edited by Ceri Almrott

Typeset in Comfortaa by Johan Aakerlund

**Recommended Citation:**

Almrott, C. (Ed.). (2025) Lessons in Low-Tech: A Handbook for Sustainable Education. LT4Sustain. ISBN 978-1-90-045494-0

Published in Dublin by
TU Dublin and LT4Sustain. 2025

TU Dublin
Park House Grangegorman
191 North Circular Road
D07 EWV4
Ireland

TU Dublin
Park House Grangegorman
191 North Circular Road
D07 EWV4
Ireland

Printed in Darmstadt by
Hochschule Darmstadt

h_da

darmstadt university
of applied sciences

Hochschule Darmstadt
University of Applied Sciences
Schöfferstraße 3
64295 Darmstadt
Deutschland
low tech +
sustainability

LEARNING IN LOW-TECH TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY

LT4SUSTAIN is an Erasmus+ funded transnational project. Our objective is to raise awareness of Low-Tech across society.
# Contents

<table><tr><td>Prologue</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Our View of the Low-Tech Approach</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>The Educational Model</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusivity and Low-Tech</td><td>29</td></tr></table>

## Design for Sustainability

<table><tr><td>Module Objectives</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Introduction to Sustainability</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Limits of our planet</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>Design for sustainability (DFS)</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Low-tech as a D4S Approach</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Low-tech examples of D4S</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Methods for implementing the Low-Tech approach</td><td>61</td></tr></table>

Students will examine the local and global (and glocal) interrelationships between the natural, social, economic, technological, political and cultural systems that allow and hinder the development of sustainable practices. This module places a heavy emphasis on peer discussion and practical work (workshops, case study analysis, etc.).

## Art of Simplicity

<table><tr><td>Module Objectives</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>What do we mean by Low-Tech?</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Principles of Low-Tech</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Finding beauty in simplicity</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Dieter Rams: Less, but Better</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>The Art of Resourcefulness</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Democratic Design & DIY</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>Products that Deserve to Exist?</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>High-tech low-tech</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering Elegance</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>Case Studies</td><td>87</td></tr></table>

This module provides learners with a broad understanding of the concept of Low-Tech and its application in the context of sustainability. It aims to equip students with the knowledge and understanding required to assess Low-Tech solutions and evaluate their appropriateness in each context. Further developing the learner's appreciation of Low-Tech solutions from an aesthetic and philosophical context.

## Open Design

<table><tr><td>Module Objectives</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Open Basics</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Community Governance</td><td>103</td></tr></table>

The aim of the module is to introduce an open design approach as a design open for studying, modifying and replicating, as well as using and repairing. Such design is also intended to be accessible and inclusive regarding skills and finances. It can be applied to an item, a system, or an organisation to be shared and improved through various community uses and contributions.

## Design for Resilience, Repairability, Reliability

<table><tr><td>Module Objectives</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>Introduction to the Three R's</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td>What is Reliability?</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>Designing reliable Low-Tech</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>The Right to Repair</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>Taking a systems approach</td><td>133</td></tr><tr><td>Emotionally Durable Design</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>Material Choices</td><td>143</td></tr></table>

This module aims to provide learners with a broad understanding of the sustainability concepts of Reliability, Repairability and Resilience within the context of Low-Tech development. It will equip students with the knowledge required to understand, analyse and assess Low-Tech projects and engage with theoretical models of the Three R's.
This module equips engineering students with knowledge for Low-Tech design, focusing on effective, efficient, and sufficient decision support. It covers systemic approaches, addressing complexity and uncertainties, and emphasizes multi-criteria decision making. Students will explore multi-criteria preference modelling to understand decision-making factors in Low-Tech system design.

Designers, engineers, and managers have a significant impact on people's well-being and the achievement of sustainable development goals. This is because their work shapes social, cultural, and environmental contexts and relations. Ethical principles and tools are essential to address dilemmas that professionals may encounter. Due to their specific competencies, it is their responsibility to adopt an appropriate ethical reflection.

Low-Tech entrepreneurship represents a paradigm shift, focusing on leveraging simple yet effective solutions to address complex challenges. At its core, Low-Tech entrepreneurship embodies efficiency, affordability, and environmental consciousness, offering a compelling alternative to resource-intensive methods.

This module examines the concept of "Territoire," focusing on the interaction between social and ecological systems within different contexts. Learners will explore interdisciplinary frameworks, including the Low-Tech approach, to understand societal adaptation to environments and emphasize community-based solutions for sustainable development.

## Trade-offs between Design Objectives

<table><tr><td>Module Objectives</td><td>149</td></tr><tr><td>Effectiveness, efficiency, and sufficiency</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>Design as a Complex Activity</td><td>155</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple-Criteria Decision-Aiding (MCDA) methods</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>References & Resources</td><td>173</td></tr></table>

## The Imperative of Responsibility

<table><tr><td>Module Objectives</td><td>177</td></tr><tr><td>What is Ethics? What is a human being?</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>Classical ethical approaches</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>More contemporary ethical approaches</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>Ethical Analysis</td><td>191</td></tr><tr><td>Be an ethical actor</td><td>195</td></tr><tr><td>Technology and Ethics</td><td>199</td></tr><tr><td>Low-Tech and similar spirits</td><td>203</td></tr><tr><td>An ethical workshop</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>References and Resources</td><td>209</td></tr></table>

## Low-Tech Entrepreneurship

<table><tr><td>Module Objectives</td><td>213</td></tr><tr><td>The paradox of Low-Tech entrepreneurship</td><td>215</td></tr><tr><td>Strategy and Economic Models</td><td>217</td></tr><tr><td>Emerging economic models</td><td>219</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable strategic marketing approach</td><td>223</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable operational marketing approach</td><td>227</td></tr><tr><td>Financial approach - Unveiling the layers of value</td><td>231</td></tr><tr><td>Norwegian Pot Workshop: A Sustainable Business</td><td>235</td></tr></table>

## Territoire

<table><tr><td>Module Objectives</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>What is a social-ecological system (SES)?</td><td>243</td></tr><tr><td>But, what is a territoire?</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>System, Space, and Society: Common roots, with divergences</td><td>249</td></tr><tr><td>Bridgeing the two traditions</td><td>253</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>261</td></tr></table>

## How to run a low-tech Hackathon

<table><tr><td>The Low-Tech Hackathon: Main Objectives</td><td>267</td></tr><tr><td>Organisational Methodology</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>Running the Low-Tech Hackathon</td><td>275</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>What's Next</td><td>279</td></tr><tr><td>Reading List</td><td>280</td></tr><tr><td>Resources</td><td>281</td></tr><tr><td>Glossary of Terms</td><td>282</td></tr></table>
1. Educators can use it as a reference guide when supporting students in their educational journey / project development.

2. Students can use the guide as a reference manual for their assignments/ projects, aiding their development in becoming sustainable professionals with a Low-Tech mindset.

3. Professionals can use the guide as a reference when undertaking projects to inspire more Low-Tech and sustainable practices.
# Prologue

We live in a society that increasingly defaults to technology to solve our everyday problems. The world that surrounds us and the products we create and use have become increasingly complex, embedded with electronics and dependent on energy in order to be useful. They are often manufactured using finite resources and materials that are becoming increasingly scarce and the conditions under which they are produced is often made invisible.

This project aims to promote a Low-Tech mindset to future generations and raise awareness of the potential of Low-Tech solutions to everyday problems or activities. It extends beyond the typical understanding of Low-Tech (some of the examples of Low-Tech used in this course may provoke debate) and looks at how Low-Tech thinking can contribute to a more sustainable future for all, and be applied in both developed and developing countries and communities.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Above: The LyteFire Solar Cooker. Julien Lemoistre, Low-tech Lab. June 2021. https://photo.lowtechlab.org/picture.php?/730/category/47

The LyteFire - Arnaud's solar oven is a model made up of a sensor of 11 m2 of mirrors, which follows the path of the Sun, returns its rays towards the window of a well-insulated steel box, and which can rise quickly at food processing temperatures (up to 250°C in 1 hour of direct sunlight). With this equipment he produces on average 110 to 120 kg of bread per bakery day, and roasts local seeds which serve as a basis for making emblematic products such as savory seeds for aperitifs, coffees without coffee, Norman spices or sweet plates similar to a chocolate bar.
# 1: What is our view of the Low-Tech approach?

The term “Low-Tech” was coined in opposition to high-tech solutionism and is rooted in a historical techno-critical trend. Here, we restrict ourselves to introducing significant techno-critical authors’ literature in the context of the energy and social crises of the 1960s and 70s.

These authors question the nature and place of technology in our societies with the definition of appropriate or intermediate technologies by Ernst Friedrich Schumacher [2], convivial technologies by Ivan Illich [3], autonomous technologies by André Gorz [4], liberating technologies by Murray Bookchin [5], and democratic technologies by Lewis Mumford [6]. These approaches emphasise small-scale production, sufficiency, respect for the environment, the role of labour-work, and above all, the non-neutrality of technology. Low-Tech is now emerging as the heir to these ideas. Still, it must meet the challenges of democratisation (compared to appropriate technologies) without falling into the pitfall of the mass market (compared to frugal innovation) [8]. Today, the Low-Tech movement has to face the challenge of democratisation, particularly compared to appropriate technologies, without falling into the pitfall of the mass market as opposed to frugal innovation.

Many authors agree on the difficulty of defining the Low-Tech approach, particularly between the material and political approaches, and given the systemic aspect in the consideration of techniques [14], the variety of definitions of the terms’ technique’ and ‘technology’ depending on the discipline [12] or simply the heterogeneity of points of view within this movement [13].

It isn't easy to know where the term Low-Tech was first used. In France, the expression became visible around ten years ago with the creation of the Low-Tech Lab Association in 2013 and the publication of the book L'Âge des Low-Tech by engineer Philippe Bihoux in 2014. Low-Tech was seen as a technical object with attributes similar to those developed in the 1970s: the starting point was a questioning of needs [11], and Low-Tech was a technical response that was [9]:

* Sustainable: systems that are repairable, robust, and modular and limit their ecological, social, or societal impact throughout their life cycle (e.g., use of reusable materials).

* Accessible in terms of cost, resources, and know-how.

* Useful: meeting basic needs, as well as access to energy, food, water, housing, and hygiene. The systems designed encourage the development of a robust technical culture shared by social groups.

Examples of the Low-Tech approach include solar ovens for artisan bakeries and dry toilet collection services to close the nutrient cycle between agriculture and food, as illustrated in two of the Low-Tech Lab surveys. These devices are not just technical solutions, but they also encourage the development of a strong technical culture shared across social groups. In 2022, the French Agency of Transition (ADEME) summarised Low-Tech as an approach rather than a final technical solution [10]. Being relevant and effective in a given context and for given users, this approach must be local and promote autonomy. The Low-Tech approach, therefore, is not just a guarantee of strong sustainability, collective resilience, and cultural transformation but also a beacon of hope and inspiration for a more equitable and sustainable future [15].

The book Perspectives Low-Tech [12] takes a step back from these definitions. Starting with the questions “why-what-how to produce?”, the authors point to a significant omission: who is asking these questions, and who is answering them? They invite us to think about “how we can get involved, collectively and democratically, in the technical direction of our societies?”. Regarding the useful-sustainable-accessible triptych, they stress that the notion of usefulness and associated needs is challenging to define because it is relative and probably irrelevant when reducing our consumption. They reformulate utility to the idea of sufficiency, which can only be embodied collectively and within planetary limits. They ask the question: “What is sufficient for us to flourish collectively in a constrained world?” and conclude once again by stressing the importance of democracy in our technical choices.
Low-Tech

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Reflect/Critique

on the reality

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Appropriate

to local needs

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

Accessible

to as many as possible

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

Fewer
Resources

in production and use

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

Sustainable
& inclusive

reality

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>
# 1: What is our view of the Low-Tech approach?

So, the Low-Tech approach is a long way from technophobia or low cost, which is sometimes confused: it combines considerations of sustainability and equity with a critical look at our technical systems and the social, cultural, and political conditions that gave rise to them.

Based on these various materials and in order to instantiate the Low-Tech definition in our project focused on Higher Education and favouring inclusivity, we defined Low-Tech in LT4Sustain as: We created the infographic in figure 1 [left] to aid the explanation of the fundamental Low-Tech concept.

> "A value system to develop a paradigm focused on creating appropriate and accessible solutions that reflect, critique, and generate new approaches to use fewer resources while responding to local needs (simply) to create a more sustainable and inclusive reality."

## Suggested additional Reading

[1]H. N. Socialter, L'avenir sera Low-Tech. 2019. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.socialter.fr/produit/hors-serie-n-6

[2]E. F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful - Economics as if people mattered, HarperCollins. 1973. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/small_is_beautifl.pdf

[3]I. Illich, Tools for conviviality. 1973.

[4]E. Dessendier and A. Rozenholc, 'Un premier pas vers un change-ment radical du mode de production', EcoRev, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 17-27, 2013, doi: 10.3917/ecorev.041.0017.

[5]M. Bookchin, 'Vers une technologie libératrice'. 1965. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://fr.theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-vers-une-technologie-liberatrice

[6]L. Mumford, Technique autoritaire et technique démocratique. Editions La Lenteur, 1963.

[8]P. Trompette, 'Les innovations low techs en circulation et en usage', Grenoble, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://pad.lescommuns.org/annuaire_pad_LowTRE_06_10#32--Les-innovations-Low-Tech-en-circulation-et-en-usage

[9]'Low-tech Lab - Les Low-tech : l'innovation utile, accessible et durable.' Accessed: Jun. 30, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://lowtechlab.org/fr/la-low-tech

[10]A.-C. Bonjean et al., 'État des lieux et perspectives des démarches « low-tech ».', ADEME, 2022. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://librairie.ademe.fr/dechets-economie-circulaire/5421-demarches-low-tech.html

[11]P. Bihouix, L'Âge des low tech. Vers une civilisation technique-soutenable: Vers une civilisation techniquement soutenable. Le Seuil, 2014.

[12]Q. Mateus and G. Roussilhe, Perspectives low-tech, Editions Divergences. 2023. Accessed: Nov. 22, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/perspectives-low-tech

[13]Tanguy, Audrey, Lisa Carrière, and Valérie Laforest. 2023. « Low-tech approaches for sustainability: key principles from the literature and practice ». Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 19 (1): 2170143. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2170143

[14]Carrey, Julian, Sébastien Lachaize, et Guillaume Carbou. 2020. « Les low-techs comme objet de recherche scientifique. Vers une société pérenne, équitable et conviviale ». La Pensee ecologique N° 5 (1): 7-7.

[15]Infographic « Low-techs: Sustainably securing the essentials for all » gathering the criteria for any low-tech innovation approach. Arthur Keller and Emilien Bournigal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_technology#/media/File:Low-tech_innovation.jpg
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Above: Hendrick, P. Almrott, C. 2024. What are the Systemic Implications of a Low-Tech Model? Technological University Dublin, Dublin. https://doi.org/10.21427/rpex-tx14</figcaption></figure>
1: What is our view of the
Low-Tech approach?

What are the Systemic
Implications of a Low-Tech Model?

Low-Tech solutions are often undervalued
but can be highly innovative and
contribute significantly to economic
development. Instead of focusing
solely on high-tech, research-intensive
industries, policymakers should recognise
the importance of "Low-Tech" sectors and
provide appropriate support.[1]

Low-Tech approaches prioritise simplicity, durability, repairability, and local production, offering a promising alternative to the current focus on efficiency, automation, and globalised supply chains. By embracing these principles, we can establish more sustainable and resilient economic models, decreasing our dependence on resource extraction and global trade.[2]

Shifting from a narrow focus on high-tech solutions to embracing Low-Tech principles like frugality, modularity, and reconnection to local environments could significantly reduce resource consumption and environmental impact, aligning with the need for more sustainable development.[3]

To fully embrace this transition, we need to reevaluate our current policies and indicators that prioritise high-tech industries over Low-Tech ones. We should also introduce legislation and incentives that promote more sustainable Low-Tech approaches to mitigate the effects of planned obsolescence and excessive consumption.[4]

Suggested additional Reading

[1.] Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Jacobson, D., & Robertson, P. L. (2006). 'Low-tech' Industries: Innovativeness and Development Perspectives—A summary of a European research project. Prometheus, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/08109020600563762

[2] Tanguy, A., Carrière, L., & Laforest, V. (2023). Low-tech approaches for sustainability: key principles from the literature and practice. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2170143

[3] Staff, F. (2022, May 26). Low-Tech is the new High-Tech. Foresight. https://www.climate-foresight.eu/articles/low-tech-is-the-new-high-tech/

[4] McMahon, C. (n.d.). Low-technology: why sustainability doesn't have to depend on high-tech solutions. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/low-technology-why-sustainability-doesnt-have-to-depend-on-high-tech-solutions-176611
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

Above: Almrott, C. 2024. What do we mean by Territoire?
Technological University Dublin, Dublin. https://doi.org/10.21427/0ag2-a080
## 1: What is our view of the Low-Tech approach?

# What do we mean by territoire?

The concept of “territoire” can be understood as a way to describe the dynamic, interconnected relationship between people and their environment. Unlike “territory,” which often implies defined borders and control over land, territoire emphasises the fluid and lived connection between humans and the spaces they inhabit, interact with, and transform. It is about understanding a place not just as a physical location but as a social space shaped by the activities, memories, and identities of those who live within it.

In many ways, territoire serves as both a framework and a lens through which to observe how people adapt and respond to environmental changes. Low-Tech approaches, such as rainwater harvesting, traditional farming methods, or natural building materials, encourage people to adapt to their environment in a way that respects and preserves natural systems rather than attempting to control or dominate them. When applied to territoire, this means that people work with the resources and limitations of their landscape. For example, in times of drought, a Low-Tech response might focus on traditional water conservation techniques, natural irrigation systems, or resilient crop varieties in dry conditions rather than energy-intensive infrastructure. This approach encourages communities to adjust their practices and foster a balanced, respectful interaction with their surroundings.

Territoire also emphasises the social aspect of Low-Tech by recognising that local knowledge, traditions, and social structures are vital components of sustainable adaptation. When communities make decisions about resource use or environmental management, they rely on a shared understanding of their environment that has developed over generations. This local perspective forms the core of Low-Tech thinking: it values small-scale, incremental adjustments based on collective experience and wisdom, making each member of the community feel included and valued rather than large-scale technological interventions.

Ultimately, within a Low-Tech approach, territoire represents not just a space to be managed but a living system that communities actively shape and sustain through careful, context-sensitive practices. It highlights the importance of knowing a place intimately, understanding the unique interactions that make it thrive, and adapting in ways that prioritise harmony with the environment. Through this lens, territoire becomes a blueprint for building resilient, sustainable communities grounded in ecological sensitivity and social cohesion, making us feel connected and responsible for our environment.
“It’s a question
of collectively
reappropriating needs,
asking ourselves
together what is really
useful and what isn’t”

Quentin Mateus Director of research at the Low-Tech Lab
# 1: What is our view of the Low-Tech approach?

## How to use this book

### As an educator...

Most often, when teachers have to design and implement a new course, they can draw on the teachings they have received themselves. Indeed, they will enrich this initial content with more recent knowledge, research, and personal experiences. They will also adapt the overall content to their audience based on an estimated level of initial skills and a desired level of final skills to achieve, as well as considering the socio-cultural developments of their time. However, all of this can start from an analysis and structuring of the study field carried out by their predecessors. Very few of us have received teachings on the Low-Tech paradigm. As this is an emerging subject, it is expected that those wishing to engage may have little formal education in the discipline. It aligns well with contemporary issues. While the principles highlighted may not be necessarily new - interest in resilience, concern for frugality, etc., have already been advocated by previous generations - combining all these aspects into a single paradigm is relatively new, especially when contrasted with a definition of progress focused on technological advancements.

Teachers who want to create a learning framework for the Low-Tech paradigm need help besides teaching content. Traditional (i.e., ex-cathedra) lectures on the content will not suffice, neither for individual content nor for the paradigm as a whole. The framework must involve practical activities since it involves instilling an approach based on a value system.

The fundamental objective of the LT4SUSTAIN project is to provide a learning framework comprising different content modules centred around an implementation event: a hackathon. Thus, teachers can find a toolbox that can be customised here. They can integrate part or all of the proposed content modules into their framework. For each module, they can find prepared content that can be adapted to their specific context.

The hackathon is also presented in the form of a scheme that can be configured based on the context.

While the general principle of a hackathon is relatively well-known, its implementation must carefully activate the principles of the Low-Tech paradigm. Experience shows that learners can function in isolation, separating the hackathon from the principles covered in the content modules. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the teachers to re-emphasise these principles so that they gradually become design and implementation reflexes for the learners. Given the magnitude of the task, the LT4SUSTAIN project has been led by a team of teachers from different backgrounds. This indicates how this project should be implemented in an educational institution. Specifically, it is unrealistic to imagine that a single teacher can handle the entire learning framework. Operating with a team of teachers with various sensitivities or skills will be more effective and relevant.

One last piece of advice? In addition to the content and pedagogical approach, essential questions arise and should be addressed. How do we integrate this into a training curriculum, an institution's functioning, or the overall activities of teaching teams? All these questions (and probably others) can only be

answered locally, depending on the context (including the territory), the institution, and available resources. However, one element that must be emphasised is the need to sufficiently involve the institution's authorities in these considerations, as the impacts on learners, teachers, and the institution are significant. And means must be made available to achieve success...

### What this framework can offer a student:

This framework is designed to offer accessible and self-explanatory content to undergraduate students, without requiring any specific pre-requisites. The framework offers a comprehensive introduction to the main topics of the Low-Tech paradigm, such as utility, accessibility, and sustainability to help students understand how Low-Tech contributes to sustainable development and societal progress. Additionally, the course helps students understand the teacher's perspective when creating a new Low-Tech curriculum.

By exploring the principles and practices taught, students gain a deeper perspective on the pedagogical objectives and teaching methods associated with the Low-Tech paradigm. Moreover, students have access to various complementary resources, such as articles and case studies, which enable them to deepen their understanding of Low-Tech.

### Increasing student autonomy in understanding Low-Tech

A number of strategies can be employed to increase student autonomy in understanding Low-Tech. One effective approach is to create interactive learning modules, which allow students to explore Low-Tech concepts at their own pace. These e-learning modules could feature quizzes, practical exercises, and simulations to make the content more engaging and understandable without requiring the presence of a teacher.

Another useful strategy is to produce explanatory videos that explain the fundamental principles of Low-Tech. Through short, informative videos, students can benefit from practical demonstrations, concrete examples, and animations to help them visualise the concepts.

To encourage peer-to-peer interaction and foster collaborative learning, online forums could be set up where students can ask questions, share ideas, and discuss Low-Tech topics. This can help students better understand the subject matter and learn from each other's experiences.

Finally, providing students access to a diverse range of supplementary resources, such as articles, books, case studies, and recorded lectures, can deepen their understanding of Low-Tech and allow them to explore different perspectives. By offering a wide variety of resources, students can develop a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of Low-Tech, which can help them to apply these concepts in real-world contexts.
<table><thead><tr><th>Low-Tech competences</th><th>Thinker</th><th>Conceiver</th><th>Maker</th><th>Facilitator</th><th>Communicator</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Systems thinking</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Futures and anticipatory thinking</td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Values thinking and ethics</td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Strategic thinking</td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interpersonal management</td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-disciplinary problem-solving</td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Implementation (Design, Action & Assessment)</td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intra-personal competence/Self efficacy</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>People-centeredness and behavioural change</td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Commons management and solution scaling</td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 2: The Educational Model

## A competency framework for learning in Low-Tech

The concept of "Low-Tech," as articulated by Philip Bihouix and others in France, shares parallels with the appropriate technology movement of the 1970s. While the latter focused on developing innovative technologies that were useful, accessible, and durable for developing countries, Low-Tech emphasises applications in developed contexts. Both movements, however, prioritise simplicity, resilience, and sustainability over complexity and excess.

To create a competency framework for Low-Tech, we examined numerous frameworks across sustainability, human-centred design, social innovation, appropriate technology, and open innovation. The EU Joint Research Centre's sustainability competency framework was foundational to our work, offering a comprehensive synthesis of prior research. However, its focus did not fully encompass the accessibility and human-centred ethos integral to Low-Tech practices.

Bridging these gaps required integrating additional frameworks addressing skills and knowledge in social and open innovation. This synthesis merged unique elements, such as; systems thinking, behavioural change, and interdisciplinary problem-solving, into a cohesive Low-Tech competency model.

The result is a unified framework highlighting key roles and their competencies for implementing Low-Tech projects. These roles, while distinct, are fluid, allowing individuals to adopt multiple perspectives throughout a project lifecycle.

The roles within our Low-Tech competency framework represent groupings of complementary competencies, designed to guide the development of Low-Tech projects. These roles: Thinker, Conceiver, Maker, Facilitator, and Communicator, encapsulate distinct yet interconnected skill sets and mindsets that are crucial for addressing complex challenges.

While each role reflects a unique focus, individuals may adopt multiple roles throughout a project, depending on the needs of the task or team dynamics. This flexibility allows for a holistic approach to Low-Tech innovation, fostering collaboration and adaptability.
<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

## Thinker

Has a deep understanding of the challenges and can develop alternative visions of the future.

## Skills

* Ethics and Value Thinking

* Futures Thinking

* Systems Thinking

* Strategic Thinking

* People centredness and behavioural challenge

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

## Conceiever

Works in close collaboration with the thinker to specify the problem. Develops requirements akin to specifications

* Creativity and Innovation

* User Needs Analysis

* Design thinking and process

* Knowledge of the state of the art

* Systems Thinking

* Cost/Benefits estimation

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

## Maker

Develops solutions that respect the Low-Tech requirements of usefulness, accessibility and sustainability.

* Design Methods

* Rapid Prototyping

* Material Intelligence

* Collaboration

* Assessment/Feedback

* Spheres of Influence

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

## Facilitator

Revises the solution and innovates in ways the solution can be scaled to other appropriate locations

* Interdisciplinary skills

* Interpersonal skills

* Opportunity recognition

* Entrepeneurship skills

* Understanding of the drivers and formats of social change

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

## Communicator

Explains the low-tech solution to the general public and shares the experiences from the process to inspire others

* Socio-ecological effects

* Understanding the value of low-tech

* Story telling

* New media literacy

* Emotional Intelligence
# Defining Competencies

This competency framework outlines the key skills required for working within a Low-Tech design approach, emphasising systems thinking, ethical values, and sustainable problem-solving.

Each competency is defined with clear progression levels, guiding learners from foundational understanding to advanced application across multidisciplinary, human-centred, and context-sensitive domains.

### Systems Thinking

Work effectively in their field within a complex system interconnected with society, economy, and environment, while considering various scales from local to global.

+ Level 1: Identify the contours of the system under study (impacts on planetary limits, impacts on the local economy, on user behaviour, etc.)

+ Level 2: Understanding and analysing a prospective scenario and its context

+ Level 3: Have a systemic vision and the ability to analyse critically.

### Futures and Anticipatory Thinking

Be able to create and evaluate future scenarios of their field in the view of "low-tech" (sustainability, sober needs, and accessibility) taking into consideration uncertainties and proposed actions

+ Level 1: Understanding the main scenarios and identifying the levers for change (e.g. green technologies, circular economy, neo-industrialisation)

+ Level 2: Understanding and analysing a prospective scenario and its context.

+ Level 3: Create your own prospective scenarios with a strong sustainability approach

### Values Thinking and Ethics

Be able to understand the values that cause the actions of various individuals; and be able to negotiate these values and targets in a context of conflicts of interests, uncertain knowledge, and ethics.

+ Level 1: Identify the ethical dimensions of the designer's work.

+ Level 2: Understand the importance of ethics in design and take a critical look at the current situation

+ Level 3: Integrating ethical considerations into the solution and design process.

### Strategic Thinking

Recognise the historical roots and barriers to unsustainability and societal challenges, and creatively plan innovative experiments to test strategies in their field to address these issues.

+ Level 1: Understand the ecosystem (institutional, legislative, political, economic/commercial, cultural)

+ Level 2: Identify the obstacles and levers in the ecosystem (administrative, legal, cultural constraints, etc.)

+ Level 3: Exploit the levers of the ecosystem to ensure the long-term deployment of a Low-Tech project

### Interpersonal Management

Be able to apply their competences in ways that engage and motivate other very different people; and to be able to work with others who have different ways of knowing and communication

+ Level 1: Awareness of the personal characteristics of individuals in a group, positioning your profile in the team

+ Level 2: Ability to interact with others in the group, help other members to develop personally

+ Level 3: Ability to take a leading role in the collective development of a group

### Multidisciplinary Problem-Solving

Be able to creatively solve problems in their field not only using information from their field, but also information from other fields, and even new ways of thinking and knowing.

+ Level 1: Framing the problem in their specialist field

+ Level 2: Framing the problem with a multidisciplinary approach. Application of knowledge from other fields.

+ Level 3: Framing complex problems with an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach. Generation, application, synthesis and communication of new knowledge.

### Implementation (Design, Action & Evaluation)

Use design thinking in an iterative approach to create impactful solutions and evaluate their effects across economic, social, and environmental domains.

+ Level 1: Understanding the design thinking approach, its stages and the link between design and sustainability

+ Level 2: Understand the benefits of the design thinking approach to managing a Low-Tech project

+ Level 3: Use the design thinking approach for a low-tech approach, while maintaining a critical eye.

### Intra-personal Competence / Self-efficacy

Be aware of their emotions, desires, thoughts, and behaviours, and continuously improve themselves using skills from emotional intelligence and social-emotional learning.

+ Level 1: Awareness of the notion of intra-personal skills (Social skills, empathy, motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic), self-control, self-awareness, values)

+ Level 2: Understanding the link between their values and their practice as a designer

+ Level 3: Asserting their role as a designer through their intra-personal skills

### People Centredness & Behavioural Change

Be able to create and evaluate systems from the perspective of the user, including using appropriate behaviour change techniques.

+ Level 1: Understanding the concept of sustainable behaviour (voluntary or induced/provoked user behaviour and its importance in the design of a sustainable solution)

+ Level 2: Study user behaviours to find patterns that can help change those behaviours.

+ Level 3: Set up a behavioural change model consistent with a low-tech approach and a sustainable goal.

### Commons Management and Solutions Scaling

Organise and scale resources for "low-tech" innovations that are accessible, economically viable, and suited to the local context.

+ Level 1: Knowing and understanding the concepts of scalability, resources and the Commons

+ Level 2: Adapting to the social, economic and environmental context in which the project is to be located

+ Level 3: Making the most of the local context to put in place an appropriate low-tech solution under collective management
# Defining Roles

Previously in this chapter, we introduced the roles a Low-Tech practitioner. These roles are shaped by a practitioner's ability to navigate complex systems, engage with ethical and sustainable design practices, and create solutions that are accessible, context-sensitive, and human-centred.

These roles highlight the importance of collaboration, critical reflection, and the practical application of Low-Tech principles to address societal, environmental, and economic challenges.

Here, these roles are defined in greater detail to clarify their scope and significance.

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

## The Thinker:

The Thinker is a strategist with expertise in social innovation and systems thinking. They focus on analysing user needs to inspire behavioural change, using a deep understanding of cultural dynamics and fostering self-efficacy. The Thinker envisions desirable futures and develops solutions that align with ethical, cultural, and technological considerations.

## Core Attributes:

* **Ethics, Territoriality, and Future Thinking:** Expertise in social innovation, needs analysis, and envisioning desirable futures.

* **Systems Thinking:** Proficient in applying systems approaches and understanding complexity science.

* **User Needs Analysis:** Skilled in identifying and analysing user needs to inform design decisions.

* **Technological Awareness:** Understanding the relationship between technology and human progress.

* **Cultural Awareness:** Sensitivity to cultural nuances and their impact on design and behaviour.

* **Intrapersonal Competencies:** Strong critical thinking and self-knowledge, enabling personal and professional growth.

* **People-Centeredness and Behavioural Change:** Focused on fostering behavioural change through human-centred strategies.

## The Conceiver:

The Conceiver thrives in problem-solving and innovation, leveraging design methods and critical thinking to address user needs ethically. They navigate socio-technical complexities with a deep understanding of technology, systems, and interpersonal dynamics.

## Core Attributes:

* **Problem Solving:** Identifies core problems, assesses user needs, and applies multi-criteria evaluations with ethical consideration.

* **Innovation & Creativity:** Excels in idea generation, specification development, and critical thinking.

* **Design Methods:** Proficient in co-design, design thinking, and DFX approaches (e.g., repair, inclusivity, and justice).

* **Technological Insight:** Understands technological progress, socio-technical systems, and the decision-making processes shaping development.

* **System Awareness:** Integrates cultural and territorial awareness, systems thinking, and tolerance specification.

* **Risk & Benefit Assessment:** Evaluates risks and balances costs and benefits beyond financial metrics.

* **Interpersonal Dynamics:** Manages relationships with emotional intelligence and strong interpersonal skills.

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>
## 2: The Educational Model

### The Maker:

The Maker is a hands-on problem solver who uses design methods and rapid prototyping to create innovative, context-aware solutions. They prioritise appropriate technology, ecological ethics, and interdisciplinary collaboration, fostering partnerships through co-design and collective decision-making.

### Core Attributes:

* **Design & Prototyping:** Rapid iteration, testing, and problem-solving through hands-on methods.

* **Appropriate Technology:** Thoughtful selection of materials and technologies aligned with ecological and social values.

* **Evaluation & Ethics:** Balances risk awareness and multi-criteria assessment with a focus on ecological ethics.

* **Traditional & Emerging Tools:** Incorporates DIY techniques, traditional tools, and digital tools such as 3D printing.

* **Cultural & Context Awareness:** Designs with sensitivity to cultural and situational contexts

* **Collaboration:** Utilises co-design methods and thrives in interdisciplinary, cross-functional teams.

* **Collective Management:** Encourages shared responsibility in technological decision-making.

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

Illustrations, Open Peeps by Pablo Stanley, Part of the Open Doodles project. CC0 1.0 DEED.

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

### The Facilitator:

The Facilitator excels in recognising opportunities and future trends, fostering collaboration, and guiding collective decision-making. With strong interpersonal skills and cultural sensitivity, they navigate technological choices and support the replication and scaling of innovative ideas.

### Core Attributes:

* **Opportunity Recognition:** Identifies trends, contextualises insights, and envisions future possibilities.

* **Interpersonal & Collaborative:** Facilitates idea-sharing, manages collaborative processes, and supports collective decision-making.

* **Cultural & Technological Awareness:** Balances cultural sensitivities with technological understanding in decision-making.

* **Scaling & Replication:** Develops strategies for expanding and replicating successful ideas

* **Problem Solving:** Understands and addresses challenges faced by others.

* **Social Innovation:** Utilises participative methods, entrepreneurial skills, and social innovation drivers.

* **Interdisciplinary Collaboration:** Builds cross-domain partnerships and thrives in collaborative environments.

### The Communicator:

The Communicator is a skilled storyteller who effectively shares ideas while considering socio-ecological impacts. Drawing inspiration from arts and culture, they encourage open dialogue, critically analyse narratives, and use emotional intelligence to foster understanding.

### Core Attributes:

* **Storytelling & Inspiration:** Communicates ideas through compelling narratives inspired by arts and culture.

* **Socio-Ecological Awareness:** Highlights the value of Low-Tech solutions and their long-term impacts.

* **Communication Skills:** Proficient in non-violent communication, new media literacy, and multi-directional communication.

* **Critical Thinking:** Analyses dominant and alternative narratives to challenge perspectives

* **Collaboration:** Works well in teams, demonstrating cultural awareness and openness

* **Knowledge Sharing:** Creates open knowledge content to encourage dialogue and understanding.

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>Art of Simplicity</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>Open Design</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>The Three R's</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sobriety</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>Imperative of Responsibility</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>Low-Tech Entrepeneurship</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>Territoire</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>
# Why these topics?

The LT4Sustain project is aimed at educating students from a broad range of disciplines, including business, engineering, and design, in adopting a Low-Tech mindset. To achieve this goal, the project is structured around eight chapters, each focusing on a distinct aspect of Low-Tech design:

1. Design for Sustainability,

2. The Art of Simplicity,

3. Open Design,

4. Design for Resilience, Repairability, Reliability (The Three Rs),

5. Trade-offs between Design Objectives (Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sobriety),

6. The Imperative of Responsibility,

7. Low-Tech Entrepreneurship,

8. Territoire.

These chapters were selected to represent a balanced and interconnected approach to learning the principles of Low-Tech. The radar diagrams on this page, and throughout the

book, illustrate the alignment of each chapter with seven core competencies—Systems Thinking, Behaviour Change, Commons Management, Implementation, Problem Solving, Values and Ethics, and Futures Thinking. The visualisations highlight the overlaps and contrasts between chapters, emphasising their interdisciplinary nature. For instance, the strong alignment of “Sustainable Design” with Behaviour Change and Values and Ethics contrasts with the more technical focus of “Implementation” in chapters such as The Three Rs. Similarly, the chapters “Open Design” and “Commons Management” demonstrate their shared emphasis on collaborative practices.

These relationships encourage students to view Low-Tech design as a holistic framework, integrating diverse competencies to address complex global challenges. By visualising these interconnections, the diagrams provide a clear rationale for the chosen chapters, preparing students to apply Low-Tech principles in varied contexts and promote sustainable, inclusive futures.

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>Above: Brent Cheffings, Hackfort. How High Tech and Low Tech are changing the face of politics. March 2019. https://flic.kr/p/2eb3ebb</figcaption></figure>
# Why teach Low-Tech?

The inclusion of Low-Tech in education responds directly to the growing demand for transformative and socially relevant teaching. Students are increasingly vocal in their desire for curricula that address socio-environmental challenges, integrate ethical considerations, and offer practical, impactful learning opportunities. Low-Tech education meets these needs by bridging theory and practice, fostering interdisciplinarity, and promoting innovative thinking for sustainable futures.

Low-Tech reveals the material dependencies of our world; resources, energy, and production systems, encouraging critical reflection on how societies interact with technology. This focus makes it a powerful tool for cultivating informed, ethical decision-making, enabling students to question and contribute to the development of resilient and sufficient systems.

By integrating history and ethics of technology, Low-Tech education highlights the social dimensions of innovation. It provides a framework for students to explore the intersection of technical solutions with human needs and planetary limits. Projects in Low-Tech are particularly accessible due to their simplicity and practicality, enabling learners to experiment and create within a supportive environment.

The pedagogical advantages of Low-Tech extend beyond accessibility. By offering "high-knowledge for Low-Tech," students gain advanced insights into fields like permaculture, eco-design, and citizen science while contributing to practical, locally adapted solutions. This emphasis aligns with the open science ethos, allowing students to document and share their findings with broader communities under open licences. Furthermore, the approach fosters creativity within constraints, encouraging learners to tackle challenges using minimal resources while maximising ingenuity.

Examples such as the PISTE semester in Grenoble demonstrate the potential of Low-Tech education to empower students through real-world projects that address societal needs. These projects also expose learners to the complexities of scaling innovations, fostering an understanding of the local and global interdependencies that shape sustainable practices.

Low-Tech approaches nurture a bidirectional relationship between academia and citizens. By addressing the needs of communities rather than purely technological imperatives, Low-Tech promotes a rebalanced approach to innovation, one that values sustainability, inclusivity, and resource efficiency. This paradigm not only equips students with practical skills but also instils a sense of responsibility, preparing them to contribute meaningfully to the creation of equitable and resilient systems.
<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>Above: Anna Shvets. Photo of Beautiful Women in White Outfit. June 2020. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-beautif</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Inclusivity and Low-Tech

Julie Lhuissier

Inclusivity and accessibility are essential pillars for building a sustainable and equitable future. These principles must be integrated across all aspects of learning, making them a constant consideration throughout the academic journey.

In this section we delve into the complex interplay between inclusivity, accessibility, and the role of Low-Tech solutions in addressing societal challenges. It begins by defining inclusivity as the action of integrating individuals or groups and ending social exclusion[1], emphasising its fundamental importance in fostering social justice and human rights.

The Low-Tech method aims to offer simple and environmentally adapted solutions to meet the needs of populations. Promoting the use of local resources and simple manufacturing processes makes these solutions affordable and accessible to more people, thus contributing to inclusivity and accessibility. Additionally, by encouraging the autonomy of individuals and communities, Low-Tech strengthens their ability to meet their needs sustainably and resiliently.

In fact, the Low-Tech approach embraces the diversity of the population by offering solutions accessible to all, regardless of their level of technical expertise, available resources, or specific needs. Unlike technosolutionism, which tends to impose uniform solutions, Low-Tech distinguishes itself by its adaptability to individual needs and preferences. Whether by choice or necessity, Low-Tech proposes an adaptable way of life that can be customised according to the circumstances and values of each person. With an emphasis on simplicity, sustainability, and autonomy, Low-Tech provides a flexible framework that encourages the inclusion and engagement of everyone in the pursuit of practical and viable solutions for a more resilient future.

In this module, we have chosen to address the role of Low-Tech in that matter. Indeed, Low-Tech solutions appear as the answer to prevalent disparities that are at the core of systemic inequalities hindering individuals to fully participate in society. Tackling such issues using a low tech approach, generates a possibility to provide simple and accessible solutions to meet the individual and collective needs, thus contributing to greater inclusivity and social equity and equality.

However, an issue arises: Low-Tech solutions are predominantly developed by individuals from the engineering field, mainly by men from higher social classes, who are often white and straight. This situation creates disparities and significantly hinders progress in terms of inclusivity and accessibility.

Ultimately, the text aims to provoke reflection on the complex dynamics between inclusivity, precarity, and Low-Tech methods, advocating for policies and practices that promote social justice, environmental sustainability, and economic resilience. Through analysis and examples, it underscores the immense potential for Low-Tech solutions to not just address various forms of precarity but also to significantly contribute to promoting inclusivity and accessibility, thereby fostering a more equitable and sustainable society.

## References and Further Reading:

[1] inclusivity. (2024). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/inclusivity#

[2] Marosi, N. K., Avraamidou, L., & López, M. L. (2024). Queer individuals' experiences in STEM learning and working environments. Studies in Science Education, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2024.2313903
<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>Above: Cliff Booth. Women Sitting on the Couch Chatting. March 2020. Pixels. https://www.pixels.com/photo/women-sitting-on-the-couch-chatting-4057863/</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Inclusivity and Low-Tech

## Defining Inclusivity

It is crucial to define the term' inclusivity.' Inclusivity, according to a study made by the Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Pedagogy and Applied Psychology at the University of Padua,

> "is [...] about focusing on the context and the capabilities our living environments have to allow everyone to actively participate and have a satisfying level of life. Inclusion explicitly considers, with equal emphasis, the right everyone has to receive the attention, flexibility, and adaptations they need"[3].

The concept embodies a fundamental principle of social justice, environmental justice, and human rights. It aims to create environments where everyone is accepted, valued, and fully engaged in social, economic, and political life. Recognising the value of diversity in a community's perspectives, ideas, and experiences underscores its pivotal role in fostering a fair and equitable society. In summary, inclusivity is a cornerstone for achieving equity and equality by promoting access, representation, empowerment, fairness, and social cohesion. By embracing inclusivity as a guiding principle, societies can create more just, equitable, and inclusive environments where all individuals have the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

Promoting inclusivity proves crucial in addressing the multifaceted challenges of precarity. Precarity, characterised by instability and uncertainty, manifests in various forms, including digital poverty, economic instability, and energy precarity, among others[4].

* In France, around 13 million people (-25% of the population), lack internet access, underscoring the issue of digital poverty, especially in rural and disadvantaged areas. This lack of access affects daily lives and worsens inequalities. Implementing inclusive policies can help bridge the digital divide and promote social equity[5].

* An estimated 5 to 8 million people in France face food insecurity, which significantly impacts physical and mental health. Around 14% of the population experiences economic precarity, resulting in social marginalisation. Addressing food security requires inclusive approaches that tackle systemic inequalities and advocate for food justice and equitable distribution.

* Economic precarity affects about 14% of the French population, leading to social marginalisation and economic exclusion. Inclusive economic policies aim to ensure everyone can participate in the economy, promoting equity and reducing disparities.

* Energy poverty occurs when households struggle to meet essential energy needs like heating and lighting. In France, three indicators assess this issue: the energy effort rate affects 2.8 million households,

the low-income, high-expenditure indicator impacts 4.3 million, and the discomfort indicator, measuring feelings of cold, affects 1.6 million households.[6].

Defining "inclusivity" within the context of queer individuals adds a crucial dimension to the discussion, particularly within STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) fields. Inclusivity, as explained by the Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Pedagogy, and Applied Psychology at the University of Padua, extends to actively embracing and valuing the diverse perspectives, identities, and experiences of queer individuals. It involves creating environments where queer individuals feel accepted but also empowered to participate and contribute fully.

By acknowledging the value of diversity in gender and sexual identities within a community, inclusivity serves as a cornerstone for achieving equity and equality for queer individuals. It promotes access to educational and professional opportunities, representation in decision-making processes, and dismantling of discriminatory practices and biases.

Addressing precarity while promoting inclusivity necessitates recognising the specific needs of individuals and communities experiencing various forms of vulnerability. By fostering environments where everyone is included and valued, we can work towards creating fairer and more supportive societies for all.

## Accessibility

Inclusivity and accessibility, while often related, are distinct concepts. In contrast to inclusivity, accessibility, according to the French government[7], means enabling the autonomy and participation of people with disabilities by reducing environmental obstacles. This traditional definition focuses primarily on disability and does not consider other groups who may also face barriers in accessing essential resources. For a broader view, the Cambridge Dictionary defines accessibility as the ability to be reached or obtained easily, encompassing a wider range of challenges.[8]

In France, the Law for Equal Rights and Opportunities[9] imposes accessibility requirements on public establishments, transportation, housing, and services. This law also encourages the employment of people with disabilities and their access to education. However, accessibility goes beyond physical infrastructure. Low-tech solutions, designed to be simple, robust, and adaptable to local conditions, offer a promising response to these accessibility challenges. They help overcome physical, organizational, and cultural barriers, making technology accessible to everyone, regardless of their technical skills or resources. By integrating these solutions, we can hope to create more inclusive and accessible environments for all, addressing the diverse needs of our society.

## References and Further Reading:

[3] Nota L, Santilli S, Zucchini D. Inclusion, Sustainability, and Equity at the Heart of a 5.0 Society. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2023 Jun 22;303:59-67. doi: 10.3233/SHTI230400. PMID: 37347605

[4] Maurin, L. (2024, March 27). Huit millions de personnes en situation d'illectronisme en France. Observatoire Des Inégalités. https://inegalites.fr/illectronisme-2909#; text=15

[5] Précarité alimentaire en France. (n.d). Sénat. https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2023/qSEQ230607270.html

[6] La précarité énergétique : avoir froid ou dépenser trop pour se chauffer - Insee Première - 1351. (n.d.). https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1280942#; text

[7] Accessibilité universelle. (n.d.-b). handicap.gouv.fr. https://handicap.gouv.fr/accessibilite-universelle

[8] accessibility. (2024). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/accessibility

[9] French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2006). Equal opportunities action in France. https://franceintheus.org/IMG/pdf/EqualOpportunities_action.pdf
<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

**Above:** Inovallée. Juliette Lesne called on the public to help change the way people look at disability. November 2023.
**Le Dauphine.** https://www.ledauphine.com/economie/2023/11/09/pour-recruter-inovallee-propose-la-diversite
# 3: Inclusivity and Low-Tech

## The Role of Low-Tech

So, what is the role of Low-Tech in all of this? This analysis underlines that this approach is comprehensive, aiming to question the prevailing economic, organisational, social, and cultural models. Consequently, it encourages the conception of new consumption, production, and governance patterns. Quentin Mateus states:

> "It is misguided to merely seek to replace hightech with Low-Tech out of environmental concern. It is about questioning high-tech and its world."[9]

In this context, Low-Tech represents not only a technological approach but a way of life that challenges contemporary consumption patterns. It promotes simple, sustainable solutions tailored to local needs, challenging modern societies' prevailing logic of overconsumption and waste. Furthermore, the underlying philosophy of Low-Tech questions traditional top-down governance by advocating for a more participatory and inclusive approach. Instead of relying on large, centralised structures, Low-Tech encourages the decentralisation of power and local empowerment to meet essential needs, fostering greater community autonomy and resilience. This challenge to top-down governance aligns with principles of participatory democracy and subsidiarity, where decisions are made at the closest level to citizens, allowing for greater involvement and accountability in managing their own lives and environment. This approach also sheds light on gender biases, as it addresses the disproportionate impact of traditional governance structures on marginalised groups, including women, who often face barriers to participation and decision-making in such systems.

We can further illustrate this through the experience of Félicie Beth, an employee at the Low-Tech Lab in Grenoble. In an interview, she explained the commitment of her male colleagues to establish horizontal governance and to include as many women as possible in the Lab. Despite feeling like an impostor because she was a non-engineer woman, she gradually began to feel more at home thanks to the supportive environment fostered at the Low-Tech Lab in Grenoble.

This demonstrates how Low-Tech challenges traditional consumption patterns and fosters inclusive organisational structures that empower individuals regardless of their background or expertise. However, we can delve deeper by mentioning that she has also expressed interest in activities that focus more on animation than manual work. This raises the question of whether this is related to gender stereotypes or her deep personal preferences.

This reflection highlights that challenges related to inclusivity extend beyond specific domains like engineering or Low-Tech. They can also have subjective impacts on individuals, influencing their career choices and sense of belonging.

Another example is the collaboration between Juliette Lesne, the founder of the "Sous l'capot d'un manchot" association[10], and the Low-Tech Lab in Grenoble. Juliette approached the Low-Tech Lab to create stage design elements for her theatre company. This partnership showcases how Low-Tech solutions can be inclusive and accessible for individuals with disabilities.

By teaming up with Juliette Lesne, the Low-Tech Lab in Grenoble has demonstrated its dedication to designing environments that meet the needs of people with reduced mobility. In this collaboration, the Low-Tech Lab utilised its expertise in creating simple, adaptable solutions to develop stage design elements that prioritise accessibility. By incorporating Low-Tech principles, such as using locally available materials and considering the target audience's specific needs, the project promotes inclusivity and accessibility. These solutions not only improve the physical accessibility of the environment but also cultivate a sense of belonging and involvement for individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, this partnership underscores the significance of co-creation and community involvement in developing inclusive solutions. By engaging stakeholders with lived experiences of disability, like Juliette Lesne, the Low-Tech Lab ensures that diverse perspectives and priorities shape the design process.

Engineering is a crucial field that uses sciences and mathematics to tackle practical challenges. Although it has historically been viewed as elitist due to rigorous academic requirements, this perception is changing as diversity is recognised as vital. In Europe, access to engineering is significantly affected by socio-economic conditions, leading to notable educational disparities, according to Eurostat.[12],[13].

Despite efforts to increase accessibility in engineering through scholarships and mentorship, inequalities persist, limiting diversity in the field. The Low-Tech movement offers an alternative, but most of its influential figures come from privileged backgrounds with advanced training, raising concerns about inclusivity. In contrast, organisations like the EKO association [14] actively work to democratise access to technology.

EKO collaborates with marginalised communities, including refugees, to create sustainable housing, food security, and energy access solutions. Their open-source approach ensures adaptability to local needs while promoting skills development and community ownership of technological solutions. This holistic strategy addresses immediate issues and fosters long-term resilience in socio-economic challenges. By prioritising inclusivity and empowerment, EKO demonstrates how low-tech innovations can reshape perceptions of technology, paving the way for a more equitable future for all.

## References and Further Reading:

[10] Mateus, Q. (2023, September 18). Quelle place pour le low-tech dans la société de demain ? Polytechnique Insights. https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/tribunes/societe/quelle-place-pour-le-low-tech-dans-la-societe-de-demain/

[11] Under the penguin hood. (n.d.). Association Under the Penguin Hood - Art at the Service of Difference. https://www.helloasso.com/associations/sous-l-capot-du-manchot

[12] Tertiary education statistics. (2024, September). Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.

php?title=Tertiary_education_statistics#Participation_in_tertiary_education_by

[13] Education and Training monitor. (n.d.). https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2022/en/comparative-report/chapter-1.html

[14] Low-tech & réfugiés - Association EKO! (n.d.). https://asso-eko.org/low-tech-refugies/
<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

Adapted from James R Vanderwoerd ("Web of Oppression"), and Sylvia Duckworth ("Wheel of Power/Privilege")

**Above:** Wheel of Power, Privilege, and Marginalization, by Sylvia Duckworth. Used by permission. To our knowledge, the original version comes from the Canadian Council of Refugees (CCR): https://ccrweb.ca/en/anti-oppression. Several versions of the wheel have been developed for various contexts.
# 3: Inclusivity and Low-Tech

## The Limits of Low-Tech

Low-Tech can play a significant role in addressing inclusivity issues related to precarity in France. Low-Tech solutions, designed to be simple, robust, and adaptable to local conditions, offer practical and affordable responses to various forms of precarity, such as energy, food, and housing insecurity. By promoting local employment and encouraging the production, repair, and reuse of goods, Low-Tech approaches contribute to the resilience of communities facing precarity.

However, despite their potential benefits, Low-Tech solutions may have limitations when promoting inclusivity, particularly regarding gender diversity. The engineering field, from which many Low-Tech solutions originate, has historically been male-dominated, presenting barriers to women's participation and representation. Women often encounter discouragement and exclusion from STEM disciplines, perpetuating gender disparities in technology-related sectors.

Throughout history, rigid gender roles and stereotypes have dictated that technical skills are inherently male, leading to an underestimation of women's abilities in STEM fields. Media representations of engineers and scientists as masculine reinforce these stereotypes, further marginalizing women in technology-related industries.

Moreover, institutional biases and inequalities in access to educational and professional opportunities continue to hinder women's participation in Low-Tech sectors. Despite an increase in the percentage of female graduates in core STEM fields, women still represent only a fraction of the engineering workforce in France.

These challenges highlight the urgent need for concerted efforts to encourage and support women in pursuing STEM studies and careers. Initiatives such as mentorship programs, inclusive policies, and transparent recruitment practices are essential in mitigating gender disparities and fostering a more diverse and equitable workforce in technology-related fields.

The stereotypes mentioned can lead to underestimating women's technical abilities and overestimating men's abilities. Media representations of engineers, computer programmers, scientists, and other STEM professionals often portray them as masculine, reinforcing the idea that technical skills are primarily male. Gender stereotypes associating men with technical skills and STEM fields are deeply ingrained in societal norms. These biases, along with institutional barriers such as prejudice, discrimination, and unequal access to educational and professional opportunities, significantly contribute to the underrepresentation of women in Low-Tech sectors.

The article, written by the Knowhow Editorial Team, examines the representation of women in STEM professions within the European Union. Currently, only 17% of individuals working in these fields are women. However, these figures vary significantly from one country to another. For instance, in Bulgaria, nearly 30% of STEM professionals are women; in Hungary, this number drops to just 14%. Despite an upward trend, women remain underrepresented in specific areas such as engineering and computer science. Statistics also reveal a persistent gender gap in STEM enrollment rates. For example, in 2019, only 16% of new engineering students were women; this figure was even lower in computer science, at just 10%. To bridge this gap, initiatives are needed to encourage more girls and women to pursue studies and careers in STEM fields[11].

The Observatory of Women[12] in France conducted a survey that highlighted the ongoing gender disparities in the field of engineering. In 2016, only 22% of engineers under 65 were women; for those under 30, the figure was even lower, with only 1 in 4 being female. Furthermore, 1 in 3 young engineers began their careers at the same company where they had completed their final internship. Despite a gradual increase in the number of female engineers, significant challenges still exist[13].

An article from Stanford Business School explores the lack of inclusivity for women in engineering by examining the enduring gender pay gap and systemic biases within STEM industries. It reveals that women in these fields typically earn 89 cents for every dollar earned by men in similar positions in the United States. The analysis explores various factors contributing to this disparity, including gender stereotypes influencing hiring practices and career advancement opportunities and discrepancies in negotiation tactics resulting in unequal compensation packages. Additionally, the article underscores the significant impact of career interruptions, such as caregiving responsibilities, on women's long-term earning potential within STEM fields. Despite progress towards gender equality, these findings highlight ongoing challenges hindering women's financial parity in STEM professions. The article advocates for inclusive policies, mentorship programs, and transparent salary structures to address these systemic issues and foster a more equitable workforce in STEM domains.

## References and Further Reading:

[15.] Matuszak, J. (2023, March 9). Women in STEM in EU. KnowHow. https://knowhow.distrelec.com/stem/women-in-stem-in-eu/

[16.] Association Femmes Ingénieures. (n.d.). Accueil - Association Femmes Ingénieures. https://www.femmes-ingenieurs.org/

[17] McGee, P. (2023, August 30). Women in STEM Statistics - STEM Women. Stem Women. https://www.stemwomen.com/women-in-stem-percentages-of-women-in-stem-statistics
<figure><img src="image_69.png" /><figcaption>**Above:** Low-tech with Refugees — Briançon's first workshop©2020_EKO!
All images from: https://association-eko.medium.com/low-tech-with-refugees-in-the-french-alps-7b9d841d4f2a</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /><figcaption>**Left:** Participants caught by Sylvain's explanations about the world of bees©2020_EKO!</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /><figcaption>**Right:** Lamine, developing a vocation for the craft of welding, and Guillaume, professional welder©2020_EKO!</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Inclusivity and Low-Tech

## Ableism

Furthermore, validism, or ableism, is a form of social discrimination against people with disabilities based on the belief in the superiority of non-disabled persons and the deviance or inferiority of disabled individuals. This discrimination manifests in barriers across various aspects of daily life, such as education, employment, healthcare, and public services. In Europe, approximately 100 million people live with a disability, often facing significant barriers that limit their full participation in society. To combat validism, it is crucial to challenge discriminatory norms and promote inclusive policies that recognise the specific needs of people with disabilities.

In the field of STEM, ableism is evident in inadequate recruitment and engagement of disabled individuals, as well as insufficient data and representation in advisory and leadership roles. To promote inclusion, it is necessary to adopt approaches like Universal Design for Learning (UDL)[18], which advocates for flexible and accessible learning environments for all students.

On the other hand, the Low-Tech movement, while offering ecological and economic benefits, can inadvertently perpetuate validism by not considering the specific needs of people with disabilities. For instance, Low-Tech solutions like cargo bicycles may not be accessible to people with mobility impairments, highlighting the importance of integrating accessibility principles into the design of such technologies from the outset.

Juliette Lesne, through her project with the Low-Tech Lab, sheds light on the specific challenges faced by people with disabilities in adopting Low-Tech solutions. She emphasises the importance of designing these technologies collaboratively and inclusively, considering users' diverse needs, to overcome the barriers of validism and create a more equitable technological environment for all.

In conclusion, addressing validism in technical and technological practices requires a systemic and inclusive approach that recognises the diversity of abilities and values the expertise of people with disabilities in co-designing innovative and accessible solutions.

## Conclusion

We have thoroughly explored the potential of Low-Tech solutions in addressing societal challenges while promoting inclusivity, equity, and equality.

We began by defining inclusivity as integrating individuals or groups and ending social exclusion, emphasising the importance of fostering social justice and human rights. Through the lens of precarity, we have examined various forms of vulnerability, particularly in France, including digital poverty, economic instability, and energy precarity, highlighting the urgent need to address systemic inequalities.

Despite the potential of Low-Tech solutions to mitigate these challenges, we acknowledge the persistent gender disparities within STEM fields and Low-Tech sectors, pointing to institutional biases and barriers that hinder women's participation and representation.

However, inclusive practices also exist within Low-Tech initiatives, such as horizontal governance structures and partnerships that prioritise accessibility for individuals with disabilities. In the future, it is essential to continue efforts to overcome gender disparities and promote inclusivity in technology-related sectors.

## References and Further Reading:

[18.] LibGuides UFV: Ableism: Universal Design of Learning. (n.d.). https://libguides.ufv.ca/ableism/universal design of learning
<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

# Design for Sustainability

## our socio-ecological challenges

Tatiana Reyes & Luis Miguel López Santiago

6 lessons

3 Workshops
<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>Above: Tara Winstead. A Child Looking at His Toys on the Table. January 2021. Pixels. https://www.pixels.com/photo/a-child-looking-at-his-toys-on-the-table-6692925/</figcaption></figure>
# Design for Sustainability
our socio-ecological challenges

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

## Learning Hours

To successfully complete this module the learner will engage in:

<table><thead><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Activity Description</td><td>Hours</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lecture</td><td>Introduction to the principles of sustainability, tools for social and environmental assessment, historical and theoretical perspectives on technology, and practical strategies for applying low-tech solutions in collaborative design contexts</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop</td><td>Focussing on: practical skills in applying environmental and social sustainability assessment tools, understanding the impacts of climate change, exploring frameworks like Planetary Boundaries and Doughnut Economics, and preparing for collaborative low-tech design challenges.</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Directed</td><td>Sustainability practices and case study analysis. Preparation for a hackathon on low-tech</td><td>30</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Module Objectives

This module provides the theoretical background for the discussion and analysis of sustainability issues focusing on the relationships between socio-technical and ecological systems.

The module focuses on the following main aspects:

1. The definition of sustainability and the most relevant social and environmental sustainability assessment methods/tools.

2. system thinking approach applied to current socio-ecological issues.

3. Reflection on the history and evolution of "Technology" and "Technique" and their role in developing low-tech(s).

4. the role of today's geo-political aspects (stakeholders, economic interests, institutional agendas...) affecting the development of sustainable practices.

5. ethical aspects and societal values in the context of sustainability.

6. Present the scales of implementation of the Low-Tech philosophy (from product to socio-political projects)

Students will examine the local and global (and glocal) interrelationships between the natural, social, economic, technological, political and cultural systems that allow and hinder the development of sustainable practices. This module places a

heavy emphasis on peer discussion and practical work (workshops, case study analysis, etc.). Students would choose a topic of interest so they can develop a comprehensive understanding focused on the challenges of sustainability and their relationship with Low-Tech development.

## Learning Outcomes

1. Using a multi-criteria and systemic perspective, the participant should be able to understand and explain the causes and consequences of the current socio-ecological crisis.

2. Understand the fundamentals of the Design for Sustainability (DfS) framework.

3. Using the DfS framework, the participants should be able to generate scenarios for Low-Tech development.

4. Identify and use the most relevant ethical and responsible engineering practices to develop sustainability strategies for the development of Low-Tech.

5. Identify the most relevant ethical discourses and practices according to chosen sustainability challenges.

6. Take a reflective look at the history and evolution of "technology" and "techniques".

7. Understand the Planetary boundaries and the Doughnut Economics approaches and reflect on their relationship with the development of low-tech.

8. Understand and use the most relevant social and environmental sustainability assessment methods/tools
## Socio-economic trends

OECD

BRICS

Others

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1:** Trends from 1750 to 2010 in globally aggregated indicators for socio-economic development</figcaption></figure>

## Earth system trends

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2:** Trends from 1750 to 2010 in indicators for the structure and functioning of the Earth System.</figcaption></figure>
# 1: Introduction to Sustainability

## Sustainability: A wicked issue

### Roots of Environmental Issues

Europe's current environmental and sustainability challenges stem from decades of global developments (European Environment Agency, 2023). Western society's progress is measured by indicators like GDP, which correlates with increased material and energy consumption and growing environmental issues (Parrique, 2019). Simon Kuznets, in his 1934 report to Congress, noted that "the welfare of a nation can... scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income (GDP)."

Only beyond the mid-20th century is there clear evidence for fundamental shifts in the state and functioning of the Earth System that are driven by human activities (Steffen et al., 2015). The term "Great Acceleration" denotes the rapid pace of human-induced changes during the latter half of the 20th century, an era unparalleled in human history. Numerous human endeavours experienced significant acceleration, reaching critical junctures and sharply increasing momentum as the century drew to a close (Figure 1). The Great Acceleration graphs have since become an iconic symbol of the Anthropocene, a term that signifies a new geological epoch driven by the impact of human activities on the Earth System, marking a significant shift in our relationship with the planet (Crutzen, 2002; Steffen et al., 2015).

The Great Acceleration trends provide a dynamic view of the emergent, planetary-scale coupling, via globalisation, between the socio-economic system and the biophysical Earth System (Steffen et al., 2015). We have reached a point where many biophysical indicators have clearly moved beyond the bounds of the Holocene (the only stable state of the Earth System that we know for sure can support contemporary society). The need for effective planetary stewardship is urgent as humanity consumes more resources than Earth's ecosystems can replenish sustainably. This reliance on Earth's natural capital and its productivity can temporarily enhance human well-being but is ultimately unsustainable. Without intervention, we risk pushing the Earth System onto an unsustainable trajectory towards irreversibly hostile conditions (Steffen et al., 2011, 2015).

How do we diminish material and energy flows to a sustainable state?

Our activities lead to a quadruple deadlock, all of them destroying biodiversity (Bihouix, 2021).

1. An increase in the use of nonrenewable resources and on overuse of renewable resources

2. Increasing levels of pollution (air, soil, water)

3. A saturation of sites

4. An increase in social inequalities

### Definition of Sustainability

"Sustainability is about meeting the world's needs of today and tomorrow by creating systems that allow us to live well and within the limits of our planet." (European Environment Agency, 2023)

## Fulfilling our needs today & tomorrow

### Roots of our activities: What is a need?

### How answering it impacts the world?

At the core of sustainability lies a crucial understanding of what human needs are considered fundamental and how they are satisfied. This understanding is pivotal as it shapes the way we respond to these needs, distinguishing them from the conventional notion of 'desires' (which can be unlimited and never satisfied). According to Max-Neef, fundamental human needs should be understood as a system, not a hierarchy (as is often presented from Maslow's perspective).

Max-Neef's approach underscores that all fundamental human needs are not isolated entities but rather interrelated and interactive. He identifies nine fundamental needs: Subsistence, Protection, Affection, Understanding, Participation, Idleness, Creation, Identity and Freedom. These needs are distinct from the strategies used to satisfy them, which are largely influenced by contextual elements and conscious or unconscious factors such as culture, historical period, environment, and individual or collective preferences.

Max-Neef suggests a matrix that links fundamental needs and satisfaction modes without any hierarchy or order of satisfaction (cf. figure fundamental needs & satisfaction matrix).

Max-Neef further classified "satisfiers" (means of satisfying needs) as follows:

1. Violators: Claim to meet needs but make fulfilling them harder.

2. Pseudo Satisfiers: Claim to meet needs but have little to no real impact on fulfilling them.

3. Inhibiting Satisfiers: Over-fulfill a specific need, thereby significantly hindering the fulfilment of other needs.

4. Singular Satisfiers: Fulfill only one specific need.

5. Synergistic Satisfiers: Fulfill a specific need while helping fulfil other needs simultaneously.
Needs according to existential categories
Needs according to axiological categories

<table><caption>Figure 3: Fundamental Needs and Satisfaction Matrix.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Being</th><th>Having</th><th>Doing</th><th>Interacting</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Subsistance</th><td>1. Physical health, Mental health, Equilibrium, Sense of humour, Adaptability</td><td>3. Food, Shelter, Work</td><td>3. Feed, Procreate, Rest, Work</td><td>4. Living environment, Social setting</td></tr><tr><th>Protection</th><td>5. Care. Adaptability, Autonomy, Equilibrium, Solidarity</td><td>6. Insurance systems, Savings, Social security, Health systems, Rights, Family, Work</td><td>7. Cooperate, Prevent, Plan, Take care of, Cure, Help</td><td>8. Living space, Social environment. Dwelling</td></tr><tr><th>Affection</th><td>9. Self-esteem, Solidarity, Respect, Tolerance, Generosity, Receptiveness, Passion, Determination, Sensuality, Sense of Humour</td><td>10. Friendships, Family, Partnerships, Relationships with nature</td><td>11. Make love, Caress, Express emotions, Share, Take care of, Cultivate, Appreciate</td><td>12. Privacy, Intimacy, Home, Spaces of togetherness</td></tr><tr><th>Understanding</th><td>13. Critical consice, receptiveness, curiosity, astonishment, discipline, intuition, rationality</td><td>14. Literature, teachers, method, educational policies, communication policies.</td><td>15. Investigate, study, experiment, educate, analyse, mediate.</td><td>16. Settings of formative interaction, schools, universities, academies, groups, communities, family.</td></tr><tr><th>Participation</th><td>17. Adaptability, receptiveness, solidarity, willingness, determination, dedication, respect, passion, sense of humour</td><td>18. Rights, responsibilities, duties, priviliges, work</td><td>19. Become affiliated, cooperate, propose, share, dissent, obey, interact, egree on, express opinions</td><td>20. Settings of participative interaction, parties, associations, churches, communities, neighbourhoods, family</td></tr><tr><th>Leisure</th><td>21. Curiosity, receptiveness, imagination, recklessness, sense of humour, tranquility, sensuality</td><td>22. Games, spectacles, clubs, parties, peace of mind</td><td>23. Day-dream, brood, dream, recall old times, give way to fantasies, remember, relax, have fun, play</td><td>24. Privacy, intimacy, spaces of closeness, free time, surroundings, landscapes.</td></tr><tr><th>Creation</th><td>25. Passion, determination, intuition, imagination, boldness, rationality, autonomy, inventiveness, curiosity</td><td>26. Abilities, skills, method, work</td><td>27. Work, invent, build, design, compose, interpret</td><td>28. Productive and feedback settings, workshops, cultural groups, audiences, spaces for expression, temporal freedom</td></tr><tr><th>Identity</th><td>29. Sense of belinging, consistency, differentiation, self-esteem, assertiveness</td><td>30. Symbols, language, religion, habits, customs, reference groups, sexuality, values, norms, historical memory, work.</td><td>32. Commit oneself, integrate oneself, confront, decide on, get to know oneself, recognise oneself, actualise oneself, grow</td><td>32. Social rythms, everyday settings, settings which one belongs to, maturation stages</td></tr><tr><th>Freedom</th><td>33. Autonomy, self-esteem, determination, passion, assertiveness, open-mindedness, boldness, rebelliousness, tolerance</td><td>34. Equal rights</td><td>35. Dissent, choose, be differen from, run risks, develop awareness, commit oneself, disobey</td><td>36. Temporal/spatial plasticity</td></tr></tbody></table>

Max-Neef, M.A., Elizalde, A. and Hopenhayn, M. (1991) Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. Apex Press.
This classification of satisfiers allows us to reflect on how needs should be addressed, as they are not satisfied with a simple "yes" or "no" but can vary depending on how the needs are expressed.

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5:</figcaption></figure>

Here needs have, by design, not the same value for people, following their culture and means of satisfaction. "The brand of a society resides both on the needs it privileges & on which answers are privileged in it".

* Which needs are privileged today?

* Which answers are privileged in our society?

The privileged needs are those that are available in the free market of products and services
→ a maximum of needs to make the economy function correctly

The answers often come as a product or services added to those which already exist.

Technological progress and Globalisation have added two things to the set of alternatives that address our needs:

1. New channels for answering our needs

2. Complexity and opacity in how it impacts the world

Favouring a free global market and technological innovation is the current choice of occidental society. This paradigm is called neoliberalism. Neoliberal policies and the market pre-make our choices of answers to our needs. Changing the prioritisation of our needs and their answers is a wicked issue because of the lack of power we have over our societal choices.

## Interpretations of Sustainability

### 1st vision (neoclassical economy)

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Weak sustainability</figcaption></figure>

"To pass on to next generations the capacity to produce the goods and services they need". The stock of capital available to society must remain intact from one generation to the next, and its transformation should follow the rules (Vivien, 2009)

1. The revenue generated from exploiting non-renewable natural resources must be reinvested into technical capital through an investment fund or taxation system.

2. States should regulate the allocation of resources by the price system inherent in the competitive market to prevent suboptimal consumer choices.

This means that technical progress allows for substituting different forms of capital when natural resources are depleted, thanks to "backup techniques."

### 2nd vision (ecological economy)

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Strong sustainability</figcaption></figure>

"To maintain, over time, a stock of critical natural capital that future generations cannot do without" (Vivien, 2009)

1. The rate at which renewable natural resources are exploited should be, at most, the rate at which they can regenerate to preserve their sustainability.

2. Waste emissions should not exceed the recycling and assimilation capacity of the environment where they are disposed of.

3. Non-renewable natural resources should be exploited at a rate equal to their substitution by renewable resources.
<figure><img src="image_81.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7:** The evolution of the planetary boundaries framework. Licenced under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 (Credit: Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University. Based on Richardson et al. 2023, Steffen et al. 2015, and Rockström et al. 2009)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8:** Recapitulation of Interactions between boundaries</figcaption></figure>
2: Limits of our planet

What are Planetary
boundaries?

In September 2023, a team of scientists quantified nine processes responsible for regulating the stability and resilience of the Earth system. These are known as planetary boundaries and suggest a set of nine limits within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for many generations to come. These boundaries are:

1. Freshwater change

2. Stratospheric ozone depletion

3. Atmospheric aerosol loading

4. Ocean acidification

5. P and N biochemical flows

6. Novel entities

7. Land-system change

8. Biosphere integrity

9. Climate change.

According to the latest update, six planetary boundaries have been transgressed. Crossing these boundaries increases the risk of generating large-scale, abrupt, or irreversible environmental changes. While drastic changes may not happen overnight, these boundaries represent a critical threshold for growing risks to people and the ecosystems we are part of. This is described in Figure 7 on the opposite page

Boundaries refer to the interconnected processes that occur within the Earth's complex biophysical system. It is important to note that achieving sustainability requires more than just a global focus on climate change. To effectively achieve sustainability, it is crucial to comprehend the interplay of various boundaries, particularly those that involve climate change and biodiversity loss, see figure 8, opposite. This understanding is essential in both scientific research and practical applications. Can we live correctly, under certain circumstances, without some actual needs?

What are the human minimums for a safe and just life?

Doughnut Economics

Humanity faces a significant challenge in the 21st century: to meet every person's basic needs without overusing Earth's resources. This includes providing essential requirements like food, shelter, healthcare and political representation while ensuring that we do not harm the planet's life-supporting systems, such as a stable climate, fertile soils, and a protective ozone layer. To address this challenge, the Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries is a playful yet serious approach that guides human progress this century. (Raworth, 2012, 2017).

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /><figcaption>Image: Kate Raworth and Christian Guthier/The Lancet Planetary Health</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Shortfalls and overshoot in the Doughnut (Raworth, 2017)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_85.png" /><figcaption>Above: Sang Tran, woman in white tank top and pink floral skirt sitting on chair. January 2021. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/woman-in-white-tank-top-and-pink-floral-skirt-sitting-on-chair-41Tc-C2aX0M</figcaption></figure>
3: Design for sustainability (DFS)

What is Design for
Sustainability?

Sustainability requires a process-based, multiscale and systemic approach, guided by vision rather than goals (fig 10)

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: The contexts of change in relation to levels of design innovation for sustainability (Gaziulusoy & Brezet, 2015).)</figcaption></figure>

The focus of DfS has also progressively expanded from single products to complex systems (fig 11). An increased attention to the 'people-centred' aspects of sustainability has allowed for this change. The first approaches have been focusing predominantly on the technical aspects of sustainability. The following have recognised the crucial importance of users' roles, the communities' resilience, and, more generally, the various actors and dynamics in socio-technical (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016).4

Sustainability-oriented innovations have evolved from a
narrow technical and product-centric focus towards a focus on
system-level changes (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2019)Two important
dimensions characterise this evolution:

* The technology/people dimension: the evolution from a technically focused and incremental view of innovation to innovations in which sustainability is seen as a socio-technical challenge where user practices and behaviour play a fundamental role.

- The insular/systemic dimension: the evolution from innovations that address an organisation's internal issues towards focusing on changing the more expansive socio-economic systems beyond the company's immediate stakeholders and boundaries.

Low-tech as one approach of the DFS

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: The DfS innovation framework (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2019)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_88.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: Scales of generalization of LT in the DfS framework at different levels.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13: Articulation of low-tech with other concepts close to the philosophy of technology (ADEME 2022. État des lieux et perspectives des démarches « low-tech »)</figcaption></figure>
4: Low-Tech as a D4S Approach

The Low-Tech philosophy

Low-Tech is a philosophy that aims to improve our relationship with the materiality of our needs, drawing on diverse technical movements and ecological principles. It maintains three clear objectives that solutions should be:

1. Useful → answering a need (does not create one). This relates to the content of what we produce.

2. Durable → it lasts in time (the need, its material or immaterial response). This relates to how we produce.

3. Accessible → People can choose, improve, and share them, and the improvements can be collectively chosen. This relates to how we organise, as a society, our activity of defining our needs and producing their answers, aka "Autonomy."

The low-tech approach has been proposed as a set of key application criteria and principles. These criteria and principles are found in the social, organisational, technological, collective, cultural transformation, and strong sustainability dimensions (Figure 13 & Figure 14).

The low-tech approach can be implemented and generalised at different levels of the DfS framework.

History of the low-tech concept

Academics and practitioners have defined the Low-Tech concept in various ways. (Low-tech lab, (Bihoux, 2021), (Tanguy et al., 2023), (Bonjean et al., 2022), ADEME 2022, (Keller & Bournigal, 2022), (Béranger, 2022), etc.). The approach is based on critical thinking related to the use of appropriate technologies.

Lewis Mumford
(1964)
Democratic Technics

(being human centered,
relatively weak, but
resourceful and durable).
Small-scale production

André Gorz (1967,
1970)

Technologies that
promote autonomy
Alternatives to
capitalism that
reduce environmental
destructions and give
people more autonomy

R. Buckminster
Fuller (1967)

Operating Manual For
Spaceship Earth
Doing more with less

Murray Bookchin
(1965)

Towards a Liberatory
Technology

To bring about a
different world, we need
liberating technology.

Allessandro
Mendini (1976)
«dé-projet»

Radical minimalism,
subtracting rather
than accumulating,
undoing rather than
constructing.

E.F. Schumacher
(1973)
Small Is Beautiful

Appropriate technology
Nature as capital to be
preserved. Sustainable
economy (reasoned
exploitation). Integrate
the well-being of workers
and the preservation of
humanity

Dieter Rams
(1970)
Ten Principles for
Good Design

Less, but better

Victor Papanek
(1971)
Design for the Real
World

Human-scale design
Do better with less

Ivan Illich
(1973)
Tools for Conviviality

Give people tools that
guarantee their right to
work with independent
efficiency

Philippe Bihoux
(2014)
The Age of Low-Tech

Technology cannot solve
all the problems related
to planetary boundaries.
The threat of increasing
use of scarce resources
<figure><img src="image_90.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14:** Infographic « Low-techs: Sustainably securing the essentials for all » gathering the criteria for any low-tech innovation approach (Arthur Keller and Emilien Bournigal)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15:** Seven key principles of low-tech systems (Tanguy et al., 2023)</figcaption></figure>
## 4: Low-Tech as a D4S Approach

### Low-Tech definition and other concepts:

For LT4SUSTAIN, Low-Tech is defined as: A value system to develop a paradigm focused on creating appropriate and accessible solutions that reflect, critique and generate new approaches to use less resources while responding to local needs (in a simple way) to create a more sustainable and inclusive reality.

Low-Tech is related to other concepts and approaches, which have common elements and some differences. (Fig 13)

### Low-tech movements and actors

The Low-Tech movement has grown in recent years with more than 600 actors spread around the world who invent, apply, transmit, promote or support Low-Tech. (Fig 12)

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /><figcaption>Figure 16: Examples of structures of the Low-Tech Ecosystem (ADEME, 2022) (Bloquel et al., 2022)</figcaption></figure>

### Low-tech: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

#### Strengths

* Synergy with issues of greater importance on a national scale: environmental impact, social justice, relocation.

* A dense network of actors to mobilize: artisans, environmental defense associations, and consumer groups.

#### Weaknesses

* Little offer.

* Lack of unifying cultural imagination on a large scale.

* Reluctance of institutional, financial, and regulatory actors.

* Poorly adapted regulations.

* Few large actors.

* Political charge of the potentially repulsive concept: link with de-growth, the notion of renunciation, etc.

* Question of desirability and social acceptability.

#### Opportunities

##### Economical

* Relocation of economic activities in the territory (reuse, repair, manufacturing, local raw materials sectors).

##### Job creation.

* Innovation, research, and development.

* Reassert the value of artisanal and manual sectors.

* Gain in purchasing power (more durable tools over time, repairable).

* Reduction of international sourcing risks and reduction of external vulnerability.

##### Social

* Creation of social links.

* Increased community resilience.

* Acquisition and sharing of new knowledge, understandings, and skills.

##### Environmental

* Limitation of resource consumption (materials and energy).

* Reduce waste production.

* Reduce risk of rebound effect.

#### Threats

* For low-tech actors.

* Misguided reappropriation of the concept by external actors.

* Increase in demand greater than supply capacity.

* For consumers and citizens.

* Loss of comfort for certain uses.

* Habit changes.

* For economic actors.

* Increase in intermediate costs (intensification of the use of labor input rather than capital).

* Increased competition in certain markets.

* Reconfiguration of supply and logistics chains.

* Contraction of certain types of markets.

* Dependence on environmental conditions.
<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

Above: Quentin Bassetti. Photo report about Atelier Paysan. April 2022. Socialter. https://www.socialter.fr/article/l-atelier-paysan-le-refus-de-rester-impuissants

Right: Agro Mauto. Bicimaquinas en mixuca. August 2010. Flickr. https://flic.kr/p/8vcpCq
5: Low-tech examples of D4S

In this chapter, we will discuss Design for Sustainability and showcase Low-Tech designs through different case studies. These examples will demonstrate how uncomplicated yet efficient solutions can contribute to environmental stewardship and efficient use of resources.

Moreover, we will discuss strategies to enhance the dissemination
and accessibility of Low-Tech innovations, with the aim of reaching
a broader audience and increasing their impact.

At this level, the low-tech approach can focus primarily on improving existing products or developing entirely new solutions. The relevance of low-tech at the product level involves questioning needs and evaluating the technical choices to be implemented,

such as materials, performance level, availability, and cost.
The strategies and criteria of the low-tech approach suggest
designing with considerations for efficiency, repairability,
robustness, resistance, recyclability, and quality. However, these
solutions' environmental and social impacts must be prioritised
to avoid potential rebound effects on both the product and user
behaviour. Below are two Low-Tech examples at the product
level.

Material, components and product level

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

Norwegian Cooker

Genesis and/or triggers of the idea

The Norwegian pot, created in 1870, is back and represent a solution to *preserve the flavor and nutritional values of foods*. Throughout history, *efficient heat management and energy conservation* have been crucial, particularly during times of scarcity or conflict. This flameless cooking method is increasingly popular, as it responds to the *desire of some people to reduce consumption and save energy*. In light of the ecological crisis, it is imperative to adopt *eco-friendly cooking practices*. Traditional cooking methods, are energy-intensive and contribute significantly to energy waste.

Features and improvements.

- 50% to 95% energy savings

- Extension of cooking without adding energy, simply by inserting the pot into an insulator.

- possibility of building one or buying one.

- Build with recycled elements

The taste and nutritional values of foods are perfectly preserved.

Product-Service-Systems, Spatio-social level

Bicimáquinas – pedal powered machines

Genesis and/or triggers of the idea

Started in 1997 with support from the Canadian organisation PEDAL. As a legacy to Guatemalan development, the Maya Pedal Association was established in 2001. They use parts from used bicycles to build Bicimáquinas. Maya Pedal supports small self-sustainable projects in order to preserve or improve the environment, health, productivity and economy of families in rural areas.

Multiple applications: water pumps, mixers, washing machines, saws or coffee pulpers.
Promotes staying in shape through physical activity, pedagogical tools.
Reduction of energy consumption and environmental impact.
Second-hand bicycle repair and sale services in the surrounding area.

Features and improvements.

- Tailor-made with a local team and numerous volunteers in their training center (association).

- Built with recycled bicycles or from new materials.

- Affordable, in the sense that they are inexpensive to build and allow users to avoid fuel costs

- Very simply reparation, without the help of a specialized technician.

- Bicycle parts available everywhere.

Usable in any location, without the need to be connected to an electrical network.

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>
## Product-Service-Systems Level

The low-tech approach can be implemented in developing systems that are organised to deliver value propositions to users, focusing on functions rather than isolated products. At this level, the Low-Tech philosophy promotes use and consumption based on access and sharing. These systems can be complex and composed of products and services, requiring collaboration and sharing

networks (resources, knowledge, infrastructure, etc.). This approach seeks to reduce the environmental impacts of individual products and, in turn, strengthen collaboration networks by sharing common values such as ethics, respect for the environment, resilience, and empowerment.

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

Above: Charlotte Krebs. NeoLoco. 2022 from https://www connexionfrance com/

## Neoloco, Solar Bakery

### Genesis and/or triggers of the idea

Energy sobriety is above all, a social and cultural problem, much more than a technical issue. In his travels and professional experiences, he realizes that if the energy and material issue of the century is sobriety, economy and reduction of consumption, it is actually changing behaviors, references, models or energetic representations. Neoloco embodies the emergence of a new generation of conscious companies, combining solar craftsmanship, a cooperative model, and a commitment to sustainability. Production of quality products, preserving quality of life, being profitable and moving towards increasing sobriety and autonomy.

* Rigorous, progressive and empirical reappropriation of knowledge and practices (scientific, technical, artisanal, organizational, etc.)

* An innovative business model around intermittent energy and long conservation products.

* Alliances with other local actors (manufacturing, seed producers).

* Access to Lytefire Hub with a dedicated builders forum where you can share and get tips with other users in English and in French.

* Lytefire team continues to explore various methods of disseminating this appropriate and emancipatory technology (quotation to order, bundle of plans for self-construction, daily rental, educational programs, etc.).

* Spreading widely ideas through training, events, educational days for schools, and info days.

### Features and improvements.

* 100kg-210kg of fresh bread every day.

* Roasting 100 kg - 300 kg per month

* Uses only direct concentrated sun ray, no fuel costs

* Reaches up to 900°C, 240°C inside the oven after 1 hour

* Easy to clean: only water and soap to clean the mirrors

* When used and maintained properly, life expectation of 19 years

## Cultural manifestations

### Low-Tech Exhibition

The "Low-Tech" exhibition showcases a unique collection of innovative creations that have been reproduced using tools from the past. The exhibition includes a diverse range of interactive wooden installations and do-it-yourself inventions that highlight the importance of dialogue and constant evolution. By juxtaposing "low" and "high" technologies, the exhibition aims to emphasise the significance of innovation and the need for continuous progress.

### Solar Sound System

The SolarSoundSystem network provides a service that enables renewable energy-powered events to offer a distinctive and engaging energy experience to their attendees. SolarSoundSystems operate on two renewable energy sources: the sun, in most cases, and generator bikes that are powered by the public through pedalling.

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

Left: NeoLocal. Solar roasting of Éveil Résistant.e. https://neoloco.fr/torrefaction/
## 5: Low-Tech examples of D4S
### Spatio-social level

A broader and more systemic perspective on Low-Tech innovation underscores the diverse range of contributors. Key roles are played not only by individuals and communities but also by grassroots technicians, local institutions, and civil society organisations. These entities often collaborate to develop innovations, bringing their unique expertise and perspective to the table. The low-

tech philosophy supports a territorial approach that examines local socioeconomic actors, assets, and resources to establish synergistic and resilient connections between production processes, natural processes, and the surrounding area. This can lead to new organisational methods and locally-based value chains, to drive macro-level changes (systemic, political, etc.).

### L'Atelier Paysan

#### Genesis and/or triggers of the idea

The intensive and industrial agricultural model shows its environmental, economic, and health limits. In response to this, L'Atelier Paysan was created in 2009, fostering a collaborative approach to implement local, resilient, and ecological agriculture on small surfaces. The cooperative strives to promote the inventiveness of peasant knowledge and the recovery of work tools designed for the field. Based on the principle that farmers are themselves innovators, they have been collaboratively developing methods and practices to reclaim farming skills and achieve self-sufficiency using organic farming tools and machinery.

#### Philosophy of the project

Principle farmers are themselves innovators. Reclaim farming skills and achieve self-sufficiency in relation to the tools and machinery used in organic farming. From the design of appropriate machines to the sovereignty over food.

#### Actions and Solutions

* Collectively develop new technological solutions adapted to small-scale farming.

* Collaborative development of methods, tools and practices.

* Collectively develop new technological

* Solutions adapted to small-scale farming.

* Promote farm-based inventions.

* Make skills and ideas widely available through courses and educational materials.

#### Relevance at the Spatio-Social level.

L'Atelier Paysan supports small-scale farmers by providing tailored advice and guidance on agricultural tools that suit their unique needs. It accompanies them through the challenges of their farming journey, whether individually or collectively, and regardless of their production area. The project recognises the crucial role of social and technical farmer networks in enhancing production and facilitating knowledge-sharing. It focuses on collecting and promoting farmer-driven innovations as open-source resources, fostering a collaborative and innovative farming community.

L'Atelier Paysan also advocates for the critical and responsible use of farm machinery, encouraging sustainable practices. To this end, the project develops partnerships on technical and political issues with local, national, and international organisations, creating a robust support system for small-scale farmers.

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /><figcaption>Above: Photo (c) Cargonomia.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>Above: Visites de fermes lors des Rencontres 2017. L'Atelier Paysan Flickr. June 6, 2017.</figcaption></figure>

### Cargonomia

#### Genesis and/or triggers of the idea

Cargonomia is the formalisation of pre-existing cooperation between three socially and environmentally conscious small enterprises operating in or near Budapest: Cyclonomia (DIY Bicycle Social Cooperative), Zsamboki Biokert, an organic vegetable farm and sustainable agriculture community education centre, and Kantaa, a self-organised bike messenger and delivery company.

#### Philosophy of the project

Cargonomia and its partner's activities aim to display how environmentally friendly and equity-based partnerships can create sustainable and meaningful community empowerment opportunities which offer concrete alternatives to standard profit-driven social and economic systems.

#### Actions and Solutions

* Increase access to locally produced products by promoting direct trade from local producers to consumer communities.

* Food products are distributed to customers/partners throughout the city using locally manufactured cargo bikes.

* The cargo bike system operates on a non-profit basis to make it available around the city for citizens and organisations. It is based on donation and self-organisation.

#### Relevance at the Spatio-Social level.

Cargonomia acts as a logistics centre dedicated to sustainable urban transport solutions, offering community members the opportunity to borrow, rent, or purchase locally manufactured cargo bikes.

It serves as an open space for community activities that promote sustainable transitions, conviviality, and the principles of Degrowth.

Cargonomia also hosts DIY and self-sufficiency workshops, discussions, and cultural events aimed at fostering collaboration between new and existing social and environmental outreach projects, creating synergies that support a more sustainable and resilient community.
<figure><img src="image_100.png" /><figcaption>Above: Eyoel Kahssay. A mother teaching her child how to plant a tree. August 2020. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/people-in-yellow-jacket-and-black-backpack-FyCjvyPG9Pg</figcaption></figure>
## Equipping practitioners with tools and methods to implement Low-Tech

Low-tech systems are crucial in the ecological transition, offering distinct economic (job creation, relocations, etc.), social, and environmental benefits. They are not just compatible with other sustainability concepts but also enhance them. Low-tech systems are not just useful and accessible, but they also foster local autonomy and sustainability, with low environmental impacts, resource consumption, and high durability (Bloquel et al., 2022).

The development of low-tech systems must consider their use or the intention behind their design. This development must promote sustainability through profound changes in behaviours, interactions, and the community environment. Therefore, a low-tech system must be implemented through a process that considers its context.

For this, a set of low-tech tools and methods (for support, assessment, and evaluation) is necessary to allow actors (academics, companies, associations, designers, citizens, etc.) to implement and disseminate low-tech systems.

Currently, numerous methods and tools are focused on sustainable design and innovation approaches (ecodesign, circular economy, PSS, etc.). However, some may not be compatible with the low-tech approach. In this sense, it is essential to consider some factors when choosing the tools and methods. Here are some considerations:

### Support tools and methods (encouraging)

There is a need for tools and methods adapted to each of the different actors in the low-tech ecosystem: collectives, communities, companies, and stakeholders. These tools must correspond to the level of maturity of the low-tech approach. Even in the makers movement, they are necessary to ensure a sustainable positive impact of the solutions developed.

The tools and methods could be developed and categorised in different levels (and used synergistically), for example:

* **Strategic Level:** to build the vision of the low-tech philosophy (indicators, roadmaps, deployment approaches, etc.). Characterisation of scenarios according to the context.

* **Organisational Level:** for adequate governance of networks that share the low-tech philosophy. Identification of social, organisational and territorial capabilities to be mobilised (cooperation, knowledge sharing, etc.).

* **Operational Level:** to be applied directly before and during the design process (technical choices, user integration, cocreation and codesign). capabilities to be mobilised

### Assessment and evaluation tools

* Methods and metrics combining quantitative and qualitative approaches

* Evaluation of material and intangible value at different scales

* Assessment of risks and uncertainties

It is essential to consider that tools are needed at different levels, from micro (local) to macro (global). This will ensure that projects are situated within planetary boundaries or a regenerative approach.

### New approaches, methods and tools for Low-Tech

The development of specific Low-Tech tools and methods is ongoing. An essential consideration is integrating prospective, holistic, and multifaceted thinking. These methods and tools could be inspired by new and good design practices that regularly emerge through local initiatives (grassroots).

Local low-tech initiatives and community-led movements have the potential to generate changes at macro levels. In this sense, low-tech tools and methods can be developed to create macro-level changes (socio-technical, spatio-social, political, etc.).

In this way, they would go beyond experimental stages and closer to the reality of the field. Below is a list of general considerations for developing new Low-Tech tools and methods.
New approaches and frameworks of reflection allow a radical questioning of modes of consumption and production.

* Tools must be territorialised relative to their environment/context (milieu). (La Fabrique Ecologique, 2019).

* Tools must be territorialised relative to their environment/context (milieu) (Institut Paris région, 2021).

* The tool must not create inequality but strengthen autonomy (Institut Paris région, 2021).

* It must generate efficiency without degrading autonomy (Martin & Colin, 2021).

* It must not raise either slave or master. Grimaud et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2022).

* It must broaden the scope of personal action (Bonjean et al., 2022)

* Convivial = by open definition (commons) (Bonjean et al., 2022)

### References and Further Reading:

[1.] Bonjean, A., Fongeat, E., Forget, A., Fustec, A., Habe, C., Joeger, R., Moiroud, L., Eloïse, M., & Clément, C. (2022). État des lieux et perspectives des démarches « low tech». https://librairie.ademe.fr/consommer-autrement/5421-demarches-low-tech.html

[2.] Grimaud, E., Tastevin, Y. P., & Vidal, D. (2017). Low tech, high tech, wild tech. Réinventer la technologie ? Techniques & Culture, 67, 12-29. https://doi.org/10.4000/tc.8464

[3.] Institut Paris région. (2021). La Ville Low Tech. ADEME. https://librairie.ademe.fr/

[4.] La Fabrique Ecologique. (2019). Vers des technologies sobres et résilientes - Pourquoi et comment développer l' innovation

« low-tech » ? 1-30. https://www.lafabriqueecologique.fr/vers-des-technologies-sobres-et-resilientes-pourquoi-et-comment-developper-linnovation-low-tech/

[5.] Martin, A., & Colin, C. (2021). Ergonomie et low-tech : représentations et attitudes vis-à-vis du low-tech, intention d'utilisation et problèmes perçus pour 10 low-techs. https://hal.science/hal-03206053

[6.] Martin, A., Gaultier, A., & Colin, C. (2022). Cartographie du concept low-tech : guider la conception vers des techniques soutenables. 56ème Congrès de La SELF, Vulnérabilités et Risques Émergents : Penser et Agir Ensemble Pour Transformer Durablement, 144-150. https://hal.science/hal-03598525
The table below presents some examples of tools and methods suitable for implementing the Low-Tech approach.

Product level

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>

Article:

Bloquel, M., Bonjean, A.-C., Fangeat, E., Et Al. (2022).

Démarches « low-tech ».
https://librairie.ademe.fr/
consommer-autrement/5421-
demarches-low-tech.html

File and figure:

Démarches « low-tech » - Bloquel et al. - 2022

Figure 6. Pag. 40

Product/Service Level

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

Article:

Tukker, A. (2004).

Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from suspronet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 246-260.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.414

File and figure:

Eight types of product-service system Eight ways to sustainability Experiences from suspronet - Tukker - 2004

Figure 1. Pag. 248

User-Centred

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /><figcaption>THE MATRIX OF CONVIVIAL TECHNOLOGY - Application: Sewing Technology</figcaption></figure>

Article:

Vetter, A. (2018).

The Matrix of Convivial Technology - Assessing technologies for degrowth. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1778-1786.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.195

File and figure:

The Matrix of Convivial Technology - Assessing technologies for degrowth - Vetter - 2018

Table 1. Pag. 1780
# 6: Methods for implementing the low-tech approach

**Article:**
Tukker, A. (2004).
Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from suspronet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 246-260.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.414

**File and figure:**
The triple layered business model canvas A tool to design more sustainable business models - Joyce, Paquin - 2016
Anexe 1. Pag. 1483

**Article:**
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014).
A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039

**File and figure:**
A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes - Bocken et al. - 2014
Fig. 3 Pag. 48

**Article:**
ADEME. (n.d.).
Etude exploratoire : Déployer les low-tech dans les organisations d'Ile-de-France.
https://goodwill-management.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Livre-blanc-LT_210830LD.pdf

**File and figure:**
Etude exploratoire Déployer les low-tech dans les organisations d'Ile-de-France - ADEME - Unknown
Figure (cover of the file)

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: The sustainable business model archetypes (Bocken et al., 2014, p. 48)</figcaption></figure>

Livre blanc

Etude exploratoire :
Déployer les low-tech
dans les organisations
d'Ile-de-France

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>

Above: Alizée Perrin and Yohann Vandendriessche. Materia exhibition, the essence of artistic crafts, presentation of the workshop. ND. Chemins de Faire. https://cheminsdefaire.fr/ https://www.socialter.fr/article/l-atelier-paysan-le-refus-de-rester-impuissants
# 6: Methods for implementing the Low-Tech Approach

**Article:**
Gaziulusoy, A. I., Boyle, C., & McDowall, R. (2013).

System innovation for sustainability: A systemic double-flow scenario method for companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 104-116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.013

**File and figure:**
System innovation for sustainability

A systemic double-flow scenario method for companies - Gaziulusoy, Boyle, McDowall - 2013(2)
Fig. 3 Pag. 108

**Article:**
Institut Paris région. (2021).

La Ville Low-Tech. ADEME.
https://librairie.ademe.fr/

**Figure:**
(cover of the file, first page)

**File Link:**

https://www.institutparisregion.fr/fileadmin/NewEtudes/000pack2/Etude_2734/urbalotek-011641.pdf

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>

Nov
2021

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>

La Ville Low Tech

Vers un urbanisme
de discernement

RAPPORT FINAL

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

AREP

## In Summary

Low-Tech aims to:

* Question our real needs and develop solutions that are as low-technological as possible.

* Minimise resources required for production and use.

* Don't inflict hidden costs on the community.

* Question models (systemic approach).

* Low-Tech is less technology (materiality) and more technology (know-how and good manners savoir-vivre).

* Reinsert the techniques into their environment (context milieu).

## References

Bloquel, M., Bonjean, A.-C., Fangeot, E., Marry, S., ADEME, Forget, A., Fustec, A., Habe, C., Jaeger, R., Moiroud, L., Morales, E., Management, G., Chabot, C., & Lab., L. (2022). Démarches « low-tech ». https://librairie.ademe.fr/consommer-autrement/5421-demarches-low-tech.html

Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039

Gaziulusoy, A. I., Boyle, C., & McDowall, R. (2013). System innovation for sustainability: A systemic double-flow scenario method for companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 104-116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.013

Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1474-1486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067

Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from suspronet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 246-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.414

Vetter, A. (2018). The Matrix of Convivial Technology – Assessing technologies for degrowth. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1778-1786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.195
<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>

# The Art of Simplicity

John Walsh & Paul Hendrick

7 lessons
3 Self-directed Student Assignments
<figure><img src="image_117.png" /><figcaption>Above: Lampe Improvisée, Improvised Lamp by Joschua Brunn (www.joschuabrunn.com), an example of Resourceful Design. See page 77</figcaption></figure>
# The Art of Simplicity

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

## Learning Hours

To successfully complete this module the learner will engage in:

<table><thead><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Activity Description</td><td>Hours</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lecture</td><td>Introduction to the principles of sustainability, tools for social and environmental assessment, historical and theoretical perspectives on technology, and practical strategies for applying low-tech solutions in collaborative design contexts</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop</td><td>Focussing on: practical skills in applying environmental and social sustainability assessment tools, understanding the impacts of consumption and preparing for collaborative low-tech design challenges.</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Directed</td><td>Sustainability practices and case study analysis. Preparation for a hackathon on low-tech</td><td>30</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Module Objectives

This module provides learners with a broad understanding of the concept of Low-tech and its application in the context of sustainability. It aims to equip students with the knowledge and understanding required in order to assess low-tech solutions and evaluate their appropriateness in a given context. The module further aims to develop the learner's appreciation of low-tech solutions from an aesthetic and philosophical context.

The module content consists of teaching material and resources that can be used by educators in a blended format as described above and can be modified to suit the needs of the particular student group. In particular, it suggests class-based activities that are designed to provoke thought, discourse and promote a low-tech mindset within the student cohort.

## Learning Outcomes

1. Understand the value that Low-tech solutions can offer to ecological problems

2. Understand the value of Low-tech solutions from an aesthetic and usability perspective

3. Understand the spectrum of what can be considered as "Low-tech"

4. Critically evaluate the appropriateness of Low-tech solutions to a particular problem

5. Engage in critical discourse around the topic of Low-tech

6. Use the knowledge acquired to conceptualise low-tech solutions to a given problem
<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>
# 1: What do we mean by low-tech?

We typically understand the meaning of low-tech as the opposite of high tech, but in the context of this course and thinking about creating a more sustainable future, what does low-tech mean?

In many respects as a society, we have come to place increased value on high-tech, where low-tech is often looked on as inferior, less sophisticated, or the way things were done in the past.

Some of this may be true. Low-tech is often the way things were done in the past. Low-tech may in some instances be inferior, more difficult or more time consuming. Low-tech is often less sophisticated/ complex or less refined. But low-tech solutions often offer advantages over high-tech ones.

For the purpose of this course, rather than simply considering low-tech to be the opposite of high-tech, we will take a more wholistic view of the value of technological solutions and their appropriate use.

While there is no single official or agreed definition of low-tech, the primary aim of low-tech sustainability could be considered as the reduction in complexity of products/ services/ solutions in order to minimise the use of valuable materials or resources in both their production and use.

## Low-tech solutions typically:

* Are accessible to the widest possible amount of people

* Are highly useful or necessary

* Use minimum possible non-renewable energy in production

* Use minimum possible non-renewable energy in use

* Use minimum possible materials in production and use

* Use locally and sustainably sourced materials

* Are durable and simple to repair and maintain if needed

* Produce minimal harmful emissions in production and use

* Are simple to recycle or dispose of sustainably at end of life

## Appropriate Technology / Simplest Means Practicable

Often when we think of low-tech we think of things like solar ovens. Solar ovens use the energy from the sun alone to heat and cook food by focusing sunlight on the food to be cooked. They can be a great low-tech solution- they use minimal energy in production and use, they are relatively simple and accessible to make and they don't produce any harmful emissions while being used for example. But while solar ovens area a great solution to certain situations such as camping or perhaps in some developing communities, they might not be practical for others like for day-to-day living in developed countries.

So, when thinking of low-tech, we also might want to think about how appropriate a low-tech solution is to a given problem. It can be useful to think of low-tech in terms of the Simplest Means Practicable to solve a problem or complete a task. We could say the simplest means possible, but possible solutions may not always be practical. For example if we take travelling a distance of 10 kms per day to work or university, while walking may be the lowest tech solution, it might not be practical. Driving by contrast is a high-tech solution. An appropriate solution might be going by bicycle, or even by E-Bike in some situations.

## Activity

Discussion/ post-it-notes
Students will use post-it-notes to capture their thoughts on low-tech.

What do you think of when you think of low-tech? What do you think of when you think of high tech? Think quick and go with your gut instinct- there are no right or wrong answers.

Students will then present and discuss their thoughts with their peers
<figure><img src="image_120.png" /><figcaption>**Above:** Running Blades, an example of simple, elegant design that relies on material properties and geometry to replace or improve upon human running motion for amputees, without the need for complex mechanical components. See page 85</figcaption></figure>
# 2: Principles of low-tech

There are 3 fundamental principles that we should think about when considering if a solution could be defined as low-tech. These are **Strong Sustainability**, **Collective Resilience** and **Collective Cultural Transformation**

## Strong Sustainability

### Sobriety

Refocuses on the essentials and tends towards the technological optimum: lowest technological intensity and greatest simplicity ensuring needs be met with a high level of reliability.

### Efficiency

Minimises the consumption of energy and resources from extraction or raw materials through distribution and use to end of life.

### Durability

Presents maximum technical, functional, ecological as well as human viability in the short, medium and long term.

## Collective Cultural Transformation

### Empowerment

Facilitates appropriation by the greatest number, gives power to citizens and communities.

### Connectedness

Promotes the sharing of knowledge and knowhow, cooperation, solidarity, social cohesion, and links between communities.

### Simplification

Decomplexifies society at the socio-economic levels based on reflection about needs and vulnerabilities.

## Collective Resilience

### Maintainability

Can be maintained and repaired by users themselves so far as possible, using standard parts and materials.

### Accessibility

Offers maximum ease of use.

### Autonomisation

Is made from local resources that are exploited and transformed as locally as possible.
<figure><img src="image_121.png" /><figcaption>Above: Finding beauty in simplicity: Vases (top) and Fruit Bowl (bottom), designed by Enzo Mari</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Finding beauty in simplicity

## We have all heard the phrase “Less is More”, but what does that mean? How can we find beauty in simplicity and can Less mean More Sustainable?

The phrase "less is more" is commonly associated with the Modernist movements in art, architecture, and design. Although the origin of the phrase is unclear it is often used in reference to the architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a leading figure in Modernist design and a director of pioneering Bauhaus school.

Less is more is also associated with the Minimalism movement which emerged in the middle of the 20th century and promotes simplicity over ornamentation. In Architecture for example, minimalism favours the use of clean lines, limited decoration and open spaces.

Another well-known phrase, "form follows function", is also closely associated with both minimalism and modernism. It espouses a form of rationality where the materials and structure of a building or product are exposed rather than covered up.

The principles of less is more, minimalism and form following function promote "honesty" in materiality and finding beauty in simplicity of form and structure by stripping objects or spaces of unnecessary embellishments. While these movements and ideas are not directly connected to the low tech movement, the concept of reducing a product or space to only its essential components could be considered to be useful in a low tech context. We can also look to these ideas to understand the concept of finding beauty in simplicity.

In the philosophy of aesthetics, simplicity is often considered to have an emotional appeal; for example, by simplifying products to only what is necessary we may offer a counterbalance to the complexity of the world in which we live. For some people, this simple rationalism can provide a sense of peace or order, prompting feelings such as tranquillity, calm, focus and mindfulness.

The principles of less is more and form following function can also have benefits beyond aesthetics. The reduction of a product to its core functional requirements can also prioritise usability- by removing excess or unnecessary functionality and leaving only what truly serves an essential purpose can make a product easier to understand, more intuitive and therefore, useful.

### How can less be more sustainable?

Unfortunately less is not always more sustainable; there are many products today that adhere to the visual principles of minimalism or less is more, but a simple external appearance often masks highly complex and high tech internal components and systems. However if we take some of these concepts we can develop guiding principles that support more sustainable solutions.

**Prioritise Utility:** By designing products that are less complex we can support easier repair and therefore a longer life with less need for replacement. This can also support more easy disassembly and recycling at the end of the product's useful life.

**Elimination of Excess:** By rationalising and reducing a product to its essential functions and components we can reduce the amount of energy and materials required to produce it. We can also create products that are easier to use and understand.

**Timelessness:** By focusing on simplicity of aesthetics or form following function as opposed to responding to a trend or fad, we can find beauty in simplicity and create products and transcend fashion and are valued by users for a lifetime.

### Activity

**Homework:** Finding beauty in simplicity
Over the course of a week, students are encouraged to find examples of beauty in simplicity in every day life. They should focus on low-tech human made solutions/ artefacts. They will photograph and present their findings to the class
<figure><img src="image_122.png" /><figcaption>Above: Braun TP 1 transistor radio with phonograph designed by Dieter Rams
Image: PeterAjtony, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons</figcaption></figure>
# 4: Dieter Rams: Less, but Better

While there are many designers whose work is synonymous with principles such as less is more, one of the most influential of these is the German Industrial Designer Dieter Rams.

Rams was born in 1932 in Wiesbaden, Germany. He initially undertook a carpentry apprenticeship before going on to study Architecture and Interior Decoration at the Wiesbaden School of Art, graduating in 1953.

In 1955 Rams joined German consumer products company, Braun, where over the following 40 years he is credited with designing over 100 products, many of which are featured in the collections of Art & Design Museums worldwide. Rams was heavily influenced by functionalism in architecture and his work epitomises simplicity, functionality, clarity and unobtrusiveness. According to Rams, his designs "do not boast about themselves, take centre stage or restrict but withdraw into the background. Their reduction and unobtrusiveness generate space." Rams philosophy of simplicity extends to his personal life - he has lived in the same, relatively modest and unchanged bungalow since 1971.

Braun's products were generally in the category of consumer electric/electronics and include devices such as radios, record players, coffee machines, food mixers and calculators. In most respects Ram's designs would at the time have been described as high tech, however underpinning his work is a philosophy of sustainable design that resonates today and has some relevance in the context of low tech thinking. These principles promote less but better products, products that are long lasting, products that are environmentally friendly. In essence, Rams products were driven by necessity, informed by usability, built to be durable and were visually designed not to suit a current a trend but to last a lifetime.

In the late 1970s, Rams came up with his 10 Principles of Good Design. These principles have become iconic and are still referenced by designers and taught in design schools.

## 10 Principles of Good Design

1. Good design is innovative.

2. Good design makes a product useful.

3. Good design is aesthetic.

4. Good design makes a product understandable.

5. Good design is unobtrusive.

6. Good design is honest.

7. Good design is long-lasting.

8. Good design is thorough down to the last detail.

9. Good design is environmentally friendly.

10. Good design is as little design as possible.

### Activity

**Talking points**

Discuss, which of Rams' principles do you think could apply to low-tech? For example, if we make products more understandable, we may be able to make them easier to repair. What do you think about Ram's 10 principles - do you think they are still relevant today? Do you think they are relevant in the context of low tech?
<figure><img src="image_123.png" /><figcaption>Above: Toio Floor Lamp designed by Achille and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni</figcaption></figure>
# 5: The Art of Resourcefulness

## How can we find
functional and
aesthetic solutions
from the resources
around us?

In 1962 Italian Designers Achille and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni designed Toio, a floor lamp constructed from a selection of ready-made objects and components that were available to them. Toio's light source consisted of a standard uncovered halogen bulb, typically used as car headlights at the time. A fishing rod provided both adjustable height and a route for the power cable, while the transformer doubled up as a ballast to keep the lamp stable. The lamp also consisted of a simple frame made from off-the-shelf standard steel sections. Although Toio ultimately went into production, it can be viewed as an example of resourceful design - creating a useful and desirable object from ready-made or found resources. The lamp is also an example of functional design which exposes its engineering/functional components rather than hiding or covering them, making repair, if required, straightforward.

Typically, one of the key requirements for a solution to be considered as low-tech is for it to be made from locally available resources. This resourcefulness requires multiple skills such as creativity, problem-solving and the ability to be able to adapt and adjust to different circumstances.

Being resourceful also requires the embracing of constraints- rather than looking at constraints as limitations to our ability to solve a problem, resourceful designers see them as opportunities to find creative or innovative solutions.

Another useful tool for resourcefulness is analogical thinking. Analogical thinking can be defined as the ability to use information or solutions from one domain to help solve a problem in another. In the case of Toio for example the Castiglioni's recognised that the features of a fishing pole could provide solutions to some of the functional requirements of a floor lamp.

The ability to be resourceful, even when resources are plentiful, has multiple benefits. While there is an obvious benefit to the environment there can also be a commercial benefit such as a reduction in material or production costs. Resourcefulness also supports resilience in communities by providing the ability to adapt to unexpected challenges.

In 2006, Furniture and Product Designer Chris Jackson challenged 10 London based designers to design products that would provoke discussion about sustainability. With a budget of £10 and working within a 10km radius of their studios, the 10 designers had to scavenge materials and utilise resources available to them to design and make a product in a batch of 10. The project, called Ten, produced designs that were thought-provoking, humorous, functional and desirable and were examples of how we can find beauty and function in simple and often discarded resources.

## Activity

### 10 x 10 Project

In this project, students are required to follow the brief set our as part of the Ten project above. They are challenged with designing a low-tech product and making a batch of 10 using only resources that are available to them locally, and with a total budget of €10. The products should be useful, functional and beautiful/desireable.
<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /></figure>

<table><caption>TAVOLETTE D'CORRENTI</caption><thead><tr><th>MODEL</th><th>DIAMETER</th><th>LENGTH</th><th>QUARTER</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td>20x2,5</td><td>55</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>20</td><td>50</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>20</td><td>47</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td>5x2,5</td><td>61</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>E</td><td>17</td><td>49</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tr><td>4123</td><td>x</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">SCALA 1:5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">3/73</td></tr><tr><td>SPREA</td><td colspan="2">PIAZZALE BARRACCA 10 20123 MILANO</td></tr><tr><td>GRUPPO MANE</td><td colspan="2">TELEFONO 02030</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /><figcaption>Top, Bottom Left: Autoprogettazione chair design by Enzo Mari</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Bottom Right: Tiptoe table legs</caption>
# 6: Democratic Design & DIY

## Can design be a political activity? Can design be a means to transform society and promote resilience?

Enzo Mari (1932-2020) was an Italian modernist designer renowned for his commitment to the concepts of democratic and socially responsible design. In his design work and writing, Mari challenged consumer culture and his philosophy espoused functional, accessible and sustainable design.

Mari was a proponent of a type of self-reliance, where users take a participatory approach in the design and creation of everyday necessities. In 1974, Mari launched his "Autoprogettazione" project. Autoprogettazione, which can be translated as "self-design", provided users with easy to make designs and instructions to construct their own furniture using basic and readily available materials like such as standard timber sections and nails.

Mari's believed that by involving users directly in the creation process they would gain a deeper understanding of design and production. He felt that this would empower and liberate people, making them more resilient and less dependent on consumerism, fashion and mass-produced products.

Politically, Mari was deeply influenced by Marxist theory; he viewed design as a political activity capable of driving social change. He stated, "The first problem facing a designer is to define his own model of an ideal world, and not to create an aesthetic." He advocated for the creation of durable, low-cost, and multifunctional objects that could serve society equitably, stationg "I regard the word egalité as my faith... I want to believe in the possibility of equality through design".

Throughout his career, Mari maintained a critical stance toward the commercialisation of design. He sought to produce objects that were not only aesthetically pleasing but also ethically and environmentally responsible. In 2015 he granted Berlin-based CUCULA, a Refugees Company for Crafts and Design, the rights to redesign and sell his Autoprogettazione furniture to raise funds for its refugee support programme.

Revered as a thought leader, teacher and theorist, Mari is widely acknowledged as one of the most influential designers of the 20th century.

A contemporary product that could be considered as an example of democratic design is Tiptoe table legs. Tiptoe is a French company that produces modular table legs that can be easily attached to a surface, allowing the user to create individual furniture in a few minutes without power tools.

Tiptoe legs can be purchased individually and can be clamped on to existing surfaces, such as an old table top or some sheet material, in a variety of sizes/ thicknesses facilitating the use and reuse of materials and components.

Tiptoe base their design on 5 sustainable principles of:

* Making things simple

* Making more with less

* Using the right materials

* Building to last

* Design for disassembly
<figure><img src="image_128.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_138.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /></figure>
# 7: Products that Deserve to Exist?

## In a world where resources are becoming increasingly scarce, are there some products that do not deserve to exist?

In 2016, Silicon Valley Based start-up Juicero launched their cold press juicer system. The company had attracted $120m in funding since being founded in 2013. The Juicero system consisted of plastic pouches containing diced fruits and vegetables which could be ordered through a subscription system. The pouches would be inserted into a $400 Juicero press which mechanically squeezed the contents of pocket into a juice. Despite the fact that the juice pouches had expiration dates printed on them, the Juicero required an internet connection in order to read a QR code on each pouch to check if the product was in date. If not, the machine would not operate.

The company only sold about 3,000 units before folding in 2017 after users realised that the content of the pouches could just as easily be squeezed by hand, without any real requirement for a complex machine.

The Juicero story is an interesting and almost funny anecdote, but it points to a bigger problem; how could such an unnecessary and overly complex system get so far and attract so much funding?

Another product that has become increasingly prevalent in recent years is the disposable vape. Disposable vapes work by using electricity to power a heating element which in turn heats a liquid containing nicotine, turning it into vapour which is then inhaled by the user. These products are very difficult and expensive to recycle because they are made from a mixture of materials and components including a lithium battery and electronice parts such as the heating element and a pressure sensor. They are typically designed as one unit, which means the batteries can't be easily separated from the plastic shell and other materials.

In the UK nearly 5 million vapes are disposed of each week- that's about 8 vapes every second. Some of these enter the environment as litter and while some go for recycling the majority end up in landfills. And even if disposable vapes were easier to recycle, our waste management systems can't handle the huge quantities of disposable vapes being thrown away every day.

These products also use a huge amount of valuable natural resources- for every vape sold, there are carbon emissions generated through the production of plastic, mining for materials, shipping and packaging. And the batteries within disposable vapes are precious lithium batteries that are being disposed of after a short period of use.

Disposable vapes were invented in order to reduce the amount of people smoking and associated health issues, which of course is a good thing. However as a society, we often resort to technology and products to solve problems but these solutions to one problem can, as we have seen, cause other problems.

So, in a resource poor world, what products do and don't deserve to exist?

## Activity

### Products that Deserve to Exist
In this activity, students will consider and discuss whether certain products deserve to exist or not.

1. Working in teams of 3-4, students are dealt a number of product cards from the opposing page each. Working/ thinking individually first, students place their cards on the worksheet in the box that they think they should go.

2. Team members are then given two minutes to move any cards that they think are incorrectly positioned.

3. Teams discuss their decisions to try to come to agreement where possible on each product.
<figure><img src="image_140.png" /></figure>
# 8: High-tech low-tech

## Can high tech ever be low-tech?

If we think about low-tech, probably one of the last products that would come to mind would be a 3D printer; most people would probably consider 3D printers to be at the cutting edge of high tech. While it would be difficult to argue that a 3D printer in itself is low tech, could 3D Printing in some circumstances be considered an appropriate part of a low-tech system?

3D printing was originally developed in the 1980s as a process called Stereolithography (SLA). Stereolithography involves using a UV laser to polymerise and solidify a photosensitive resin, layer by layer. This process was highly complex, extremely delicate and required very expensive machines, at the time costing about €300k. By the mid-2000s, the price of 3D printers had reduced substantially, with Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) printers becoming commercially available for less than €10k. FDM is a much simpler process whereby a plastic filament is melted and extruded layer by layer to make a part.

In 2005, Adrian Bowyer, a Lecturer from the University of Both developed RepRap, a project that aimed to make low-cost FDM 3D printing available to everyone. RepRap printers were available open-source and could be built for a couple of hundred euros using reasonably easy to access components and parts built by the printer itself. Today 3D Printing has become increasingly democratised - both commercial and open-source 3D printers are available within this price range and the technology has become more accessible, more reliable, easier to use and in many respect increasingly low tech.

In terms of sustainability and low tech, 3D printing can have many advantages over traditional manufacturing processes:

1. 3D printing can be used to repair and extend the life of products

2. It can support localised manufacturing - complex parts can be designed and made locally

3. It can reduce overproduction - parts can be printed as needed instead of mass production of stock that may never be required

4. It can support resilience by providing individuals or local communities with the ability to respond to local needs, reducing dependence external sources

5. There are many open-source communities that share knowledge and 3D printing files for a greater good

6. While 3D printed parts typically cannot be recycled commercially, they can be locally recycled back into 3D printing filament using a shredder and filament extruder

7. 3D Printing has parallels with some traditional making processes- unlike mass manufacturing processes such as injection moulding where all parts are identical, 3D printed parts are not made from a mould and can therefore be individualised to a particular need

## Is it Low-Tech?

As we have seen from the example of 3D printing, it can sometimes be unclear as to whether a product fits within the context of low-tech.

Some products may have attributes of low tech or some products might be useful in supporting a more resilient low-tech society. It is important for us to be able to critically evaluate the appropriateness of a solution to a low-tech framework.

The European Union Energy Label aims to inform consumers on the energy efficiency of a product. How might we assess the effectiveness of products in the context of low-tech? The activity below aims to develop students critical and analytical thinking competencies with regard to low-tech.

### Activity

#### Low Tech Rating System

Use the European Union Energy Label as inspiration, students will design a low-tech rating system that can be used to assess how well a product or solution conforms to low-tech thinking. The system should assess and rate a product, taking into account multiple low-tech factors and applying an alpha numerical rating across several categories and to the product as a whole.

Teams will test their rating system using at least 3 products.

Teams will iterate and improve their rating system as necessary following testing.
<figure><img src="image_141.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_142.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_143.png" /></figure>

Top: Lari Kitchen Scale by Theodore Simon
Bottom Right: Herman Miller Setu chair designed by Studio 7.5
# 9: Engineering Elegance & Monomaterials

## How can we use materials technology to create more simple solutions?

In designing solutions to mechanical problems, such as the transmission of force, it is easy to default to complex solutions involving multiple parts, materials and connections.

If we take the example of a standard ergonomic office chair, these typically include multiple complex mechanisms that allow for adjustments such as seat height, seat tilting and back tilting and tension. These mechanisms often comprise of multiple complex manufactured assemblies and sub-assemblies, consisting of components such as actuators, pistons, springs, dampers, hinges, fixings etc.

In 2009, Berlin based Studio 7.5 designed the Setu chair for office furniture manufacturer Herman Miller. The chair was a departure from typical office chairs of the time in that the designers used inherent material properties and specifically designed geometry to replace several complex mechanical assemblies. Using the natural behavior and deformation of the material, the geometry of the beam and side profiles of the chair were specifically designed to provide flexibility where needed for users to lean back whilst also being supported, without the use of components such as gas pistons.

Although these chairs are highly complex in design and form, the result is a solution that contains fewer parts, less materials, is easier to disassemble and recycle and is much more lightweight than similar products.

Another example of elegant use of material geometry is the running blade (see image, page 70). These prosthetics are designed to allow amputees to exercise and compete in athletic events. Rather than trying to directly replicate a human leg with mechanical and electrical components, running blades use material properties and specifically designed geometry to replace or improve upon human running motion.

Today we are seeing increasing research into and use of these so called "compliant mechanisms". The area has been advanced by technologies such as 3D printing, CNC machining and laser cutting which enable us to create more complex geometries whilst making the design and testing of these mechanisms much more accessible.

Lari is a kitchen scale concept designed by Theodore Simon which stems from research into compliant mechanisms. The scale is made entirely from one material and consists of only two parts. The item to be weighed is placed on the tray which is linked to the base by two flexible parallel beams, allowing the tray to remain level. A flexible indicator is actuated by the movement of the tray which allows calibration to zero by sliding in the base. The scale combines the clever use of form with the natural elasticity of the material to transfer the force from the weighed item to the indicator.

By contrast to most kitchen scales today, Lari has no electronic components, requires no batteries or electricity, is made in only 1 material, simplifying production and facilitating recycling.

Compliant mechanisms have many advantages over traditional mechanisms in terms of sustainability:

* Many compliant mechanisms can be made from a single material, greatly enhancing recyclability

* Compliant mechanisms typically contain less materials, using less resources

* They are often lighter and sometimes more compact than traditional mechanisms which may have advantages for transport

* Compliant mechanisms are typically less complex and therefore more energy efficient to manufacture than traditional mechanisms

* They have fewer moving parts which means less friction and less wear which may increase the lifespan of the mechanism.

Compliant mechanisms can have several other advantages too such as:

* Less assembly time

* Less material cost

* Less manufacturing cost

* High precision and suitability to miniaturisation

Of course there may be disadvantages to Compliant mechanisms too. In some cases, Compliant Mechanisms might be less robust or less durable and may not always be the appropriate solution.
<figure><img src="image_144.png" /><figcaption>Above: Clockwork Radio, Designed by Trevor Baylis</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_145.png" /><figcaption>Above: Framework Laptop
Image: The Design Museum and the photographer Felix Speller,
CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons</figcaption></figure>
# 10: Case Studies

## Clockwork Radio

In the early 1990s, Trevor Baylis, a movie stuntman turned inventor, was watching a television documentary about the spread the HIV virus in Africa. While watching the programme Baylis realised that communication of health information and education of the population in remote areas could help reduce the spreading of the disease. In many parts of rural Africa access to radios was limited, with access to electricity or batteries being a key part of the problem.

Following the programme, Baylis immediately started to prototype a clockwork radio using components he could find around his home including a small transistor radio, an electric motor from a toy car, and the clockwork mechanism from a music box.

The Clockwork Radio eventually went in to production in 1996 and is credited with providing life-saving information to millions of people in the developing world.

On many levels Baylis's radio might not be considered a low-tech device- it is mass manufactured using injection moulded plastic and electronics, but in use it is powered entirely by human effort and can provide vital and lifesaving information.

## Activity

Using the Clockwork Radio for inspiration, what other products could be designed so that they could be powered by humans without the need for batteries or electricity?

## Framework Laptop

Framework is a US laptop manufacturer founded in 2020. The company positions itself as a sustainable alternative to more prominent laptop manufacturers; Framework laptops are designed to be modular, upgradable, customisable and repairable in order to extend their lifespan and reduce electronic waste. Unlike many technology manufacturers, Framework is a proponent of the right to repair movement.

The Framework laptop is designed so that key parts such as screen, keyboard, battery, and motherboard can be easily replaced should they become damaged or out of date. Replacement parts can be purchased on a marketplace enabling users to keep their devices functional for a much longer period than traditional laptops. The laptop is specifically designed to make replacing parts easy using standard tools. Easy to follow instructions are also provided via QR codes on internal components.

## Activity

Using the Framework Laptop as inspiration, what other devices could be better designed so that they can be easier to upgrade and have a longer functional life?
<figure><img src="image_146.png" /><figcaption>Above: Off-Cut Creatures by Studiomama: Wooden characters created from off-cuts and waste materials</figcaption></figure>
# 10: Case Studies

## Childrens toys

The shift from traditional children's toys, such as durable wooden toys, to mass-produced branded toys tied to popular TV shows has brought about significant changes from both a sustainability and child development perspective.

From a sustainability impact point of view. The shift in material quality has had a massive impact on children's toys sustainability. Traditional toys were often made from materials like wood and metal, those materials have intrinsic materials properties of durability and tend to have longer lifespans especially when compared to the many mass-produced toys today predominantly made of plastic. These plastic toys often lead to pollution problems due to their lack of reparability leading to them often being discarded to landfill.

These plastic children's toys are often branded with tv show/movie characters or trends, these shows and characters can often have short-lived popularity as children's interests change rapidly, there's a risk of these toys becoming disposable once the trend fades, contributing to a culture of overconsumption and waste.

In terms of production and transport the majority of children's toys are produced in eastern countries where large scale injection moulding facilities are widespread. Leading to the an increase life cycle carbon emissions of these toys when the materials and raw material acquisition/transport along with the increased product transport distances are taken into account.

Branded toys tied to specific TV shows might limit creative play by dictating certain storylines or scenarios, potentially hindering a child's ability to invent and explore on their own. Traditional toys often have a focus on simplicity and encourage developmental skills such as fine motor control, problem-solving, and spatial awareness. In contrast, some branded toys may prioritize entertainment value over educational benefits, potentially limiting the cognitive and developmental advantages children can gain from play.

In short, while mass-produced branded toys offer a child the opportunity to play with popular media and characters, they come with environmental concerns and potential drawbacks for child development when compared to the enduring appeal and educational benefits of traditional, sustainable toys. Striking a balance between entertainment, sustainability, and developmental value is essential for fostering a healthy play environment for children.

## Activity

Project: low-tech toys

In teams for 2-4 students are challenged to create a set of children's toys for a 3-5 year old children. Teams should incorporate the low-tech mindset to create open play toys that children can use to create their own stories/games.

The toys should offer opportunity for the child(ren) to develop in mental or physical ways through open play / motor development
# 10: Case Studies

## Footwear Design

The prevalence of the shoe cobbler in history and its decline in the last 20 to 30 years is an example of when society was in fact more low-tech and sustainable before being sustainable and eco-friendly was at the forefront of consumers minds and now, we have created footwear for the masses that neglects the qualities instilled over thousands of years.

In terms of construction and repairability even the cheaper shoes worn during the mid to late 20th century would be considered high end by today's standards. In order to get shoes that can be resoled and repaired the initial entry price and the types of shoes on offer just aren't suitable or practical for most people.

The historical significance of the shoe cobbler and the evolution of footwear construction provide a lens through which we can see the shifts in societal values, technology, and consumer tastes. The shoe cobbler held a crucial role in communities, emblematic of an era when craftsmanship and sustainability were intrinsic to daily life.

In the early to mid-20th century, shoes were often constructed with durability and repairability in mind. Cobbler shops were commonplace, offering a range of services from resoling to stitching, ensuring that people could extend the lifespan of their footwear. This approach aligned with a more resource-conscious and sustainable mindset, reflective of a society that valued longevity and quality over disposable convenience.

Over the last two decades, the landscape of the footwear industry has undergone a profound transformation. Mass production, globalization, and the rise of fast fashion have led to the rise of inexpensive, readily available shoes. Unfortunately, this shift has often come at the expense of craftsmanship and repairability within the local community.

Footwear manufacturing is driven by consumer demand for affordability and variety, with emphasis on materials and construction methods that prioritize cost efficiency over longevity. Many shoes are now designed with glued soles and synthetic materials, making repair challenging or impractical. As a result, the traditional cobbler's craft has declined and died out in many communities, signalling a broader societal shift towards disposable consumerism.

While there are still high-quality, repairable shoes available, they often come with a higher initial price tag. This poses a challenge for the average consumer, as the affordability and accessibility of durable, repairable footwear has diminished. The types of shoes on offer in mainstream markets often prioritize style and trends over practicality and longevity, contributing to a culture of disposability.

In short, the evolution of the footwear industry reflects a larger societal trend where convenience and short-term cost savings have taken precedence over long-term sustainability. As we navigate the path between modern consumer demands and the values of craftsmanship and durability, it becomes crucial to reconsider the true cost of our choices and explore avenues for a more balanced approach to fashion and consumption for a more sustainable long-term future.

## Activity

### Talking points

Taking the example of the shoe industry taking backwards step in the last 20 years, in groups discuss what other products or business models have taken a backwards step away from sustainability and prioritised a cheaper supply chain at the cost of the environment.
<figure><img src="image_147.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_148.png" /></figure>

Open Design

Embracing openness and collaboration in designs

Sacha Hodencq & Kévin Loesle

2 lessons
1 Lecture, 1 Debate, 1 Project, 1 Workshop
<figure><img src="image_149.png" /><figcaption>Above: Retha Ferguson. Photo of Women at the Meeting. 2020. RF studio. https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-women-at-the-meeting-3811082/</figcaption></figure>
# Open Design
## Embracing openness and collaboration in designs

<figure><img src="image_150.png" /></figure>

### Learning Hours

To successfully complete this module the learner will engage in:

<table><thead><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Activity Description</td><td>Hours</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Debate</td><td>A structured debate exploring the benefits, challenges, and limitations of openness in design.</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Lecture</td><td>Lectures introducing the context, stakes, and domain-specific knowledge related to Open Design.</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Project</td><td>Hands-on project work involving documentation, governance, and dissemination, with significant self-directed learning.</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop</td><td>A debriefing session using popular education methods to help students adopt diverse perspectives on openness.</td><td>10</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Module Objectives

The aim of the module is to introduce an open design approach as a design open for studying, modifying and replicating, as well as using and repairing. Such design is also intended to be accessible and inclusive regarding skills and finances. It can be applied to an item, a system, or an organisation to be shared and improved through various community uses and contributions. The learner will engage with the course contents through theoretical inputs and by putting in practice documentation, dissemination, and community governance.

### Before starting...

Find some local examples that you can share with students

+ of open designs

+ of Commons

Make sure the students have a project to document

## Learning Outcomes

### Open Basics

Choose a relevant open licence and a relevant dissemination process

Understand accessibility in terms of knowledge, skills, tools, finance, and the concepts of universal and inclusive design for a project/system.

Understand the interests and practices of open documentation

### Documentation & Dissemination

Select relevant open practices and justify this choice

Criticise existing practices of openness and governance

Write relevant and complete documentation for studying, using, modifying, replicating and repairing a solution

Provide accessible dissemination contents

### Community Governance

Understand community-held knowledge systems and how to share and promote knowledge for collaboration.

Understand the concept and practices of the "Commons"
<figure><img src="image_151.png" /><figcaption>Above: Tima Miroshnichenko. A Girl Sitting in Front of a Table Between Database Wooden Drawer. 2021. https://www.pixels.com/photo/a-girl-sitting-in-front-of-a-table-between-database-wooden-drawer-6549629/</figcaption></figure>
# 1: Open Basics

## Foundations of Openness: Documentation, Hardware, and Inclusive Design

### Open Documentation

One of the core features of Low-Tech is its accessibility. Accessible can be understood in terms of:

* Skills: The design is doable, and it requires limited skills.

* Finance: Low-tech outputs can be developed for free or with a limited budget.

* Knowledge: making knowledge open, accessible and understandable for anyone.

Documentation is an obvious practice in developing this *knowledge accessibility*. Documentation is destined to be useful both for the one documenting and for others. It enables the maker to keep track of their work and allows others to reproduce and contribute to what is documented. Yet knowledge accessibility necessary condition is not just documentation but *open documentation*, that is to say:

Making the design available for anyone to study, modify, make, distribute, use and repair your work for any purpose with no restriction.

This definition is based on the open hardware freedoms (Powell, 2012).

In practice, opening up documentation means making it freely accessible, in an open format (i.e., not needing proprietary software to be accessed), and in an understandable and legible way. FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles can be applied (FORCE11, 2014), for instance, by offering a common vocabulary to describe data, software, or design through metadata (i.e., data describing other resources). Figures 1 and 2 present examples of metadata related to open hardware freedoms, that can be used as checklists according to the documentation aim.

<figure><img src="image_152.png" /><figcaption>Above:
Figure 1: Process-related metadata related to the open hardware freedoms</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_153.png" /><figcaption>Above:
Figure 2: Product-related metadata related to the open hardware freedoms</figcaption></figure>
"Open Science is a concept promoting transparency, reproducibility, equity, and fairness in knowledge acquisition and dissemination for ecologically sustainable livelihood of a global society in accordance with Good Scientific Practice (GSP) by utilizing digital tools and services."

Dr Jo Havemann
Perspectives Charter School, Chicago, United States
# 1: Open Basics

Documentation also depends on the target audience (e.g. developers, users, makers, educators) and the purpose of engaging, and so it can have many forms: manual, report, experiment notebook, user guide, article, or even story or interview. Examples can be found in the appendix.

Documentation also needs to be open legally, that is to say associated with an open licence. Licences enables authors to establish the conditions under which its work may be consulted, re-used and modified. A licence may apply to any type of content (e.g. design files, document, multimedia, software), and can vary from very open to very restrictive. The more restrictions there are, the more difficult it becomes to combine content published under different licences, which can hinder interoperability. Creative Commons are the best known, but tools can help in deciding which licence to choose[2][3].

## Open hardware and open science

Open hardware principles go beyond the sharing of open documentation:

- Accessible and modifiable format,

- Easily sourced components and materials, standard manufacturing processes, open infrastructures, royalty-free content and open-source design tools,

- Control over the technology,

- Co-construction, co-creation.

Open hardware is actually part of a wider movement called Open science.

Open science can be seen both as a movement to make science open for collaborations and contributions, where contents are freely available, under terms that enable:

- Reuse

- Redistribution

- Reproduction

and knowledge that is transparent and accessible and shared and developed through collaborative networks. Tackling the issues of opaqueness, parallel effort, trust crisis or barrier to adoption, it has many interests as presented in Figure 3. Open science is a new paradigm compared to mainstream practices, shifting from competition to collaboration and favouring reflexivity. It still faces lack of awareness and political incentives.

Open science fosters better quality science through transparency, reproducibility and verifiability, as well as independence and durability of knowledge. It also improves collaboration and ressources pooling. Making knowledge transparent and accessible also increase the confidence the general public can have in it, and appears as a mission of accountability for public research. Finally, open science works can easily be used and adapted in education.

<figure><img src="image_154.png" /><figcaption>Above:
Figure 3: interests of open science</figcaption></figure>

## References and Further Reading:

[1] Homepage - Creative Commons. (2023, November 16). Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/

[2] Choose an open source license. (n.d.). Choose a License. https://choosealicense.com/

## Links to other content in the Book:

Design for Resilience, Repairability, Reliability: the design methods can be linked to the open documentation of their items. The thinking about the audience of the design (in terms of inclusivity for instance) can also be directly related to the audience of the documentation.
<figure><img src="image_155.png" /><figcaption>Above: Ense³. PISTE students cooking food on an open source stove. 2022. Grenoble.</figcaption></figure>
# Universal & inclusive design – Citizen science

Various methods are engaged for designs that are truly open to everyone.

## Universal design:

The design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. "Universal design" shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed (Duncan, 2006; United Nations, 2006).

It includes 7 principles that may be applied to evaluate existing designs, guide the design process and educate both designers and consumers about the characteristics of more usable products and environments. Universal design goes against the approaches too often used today to improve accessibility, which are based on obligations of means rather than results, and involve the implementation of prosthetic, functional and technical standards, applied without consideration of aesthetic quality.

Despite their initial aim of integration, these elements can stigmatise and contribute to the exclusion of people with disabilities (for example, disabled toilets, which create a "third gender"). Universal design is more widely used in tangible and environmental contexts.

## Inclusive design (Joyce, 2022):

Methodologies to create products/services that understand and enable people of all backgrounds and abilities. It may address accessibility, age, economic situation, geographic location, language, race, and more. Inclusive design is applied more frequently to digital-product design.

In order to be truly effective with regards to universal and inclusive design, a designer must understand the specific needs of individuals. The earliest possible participation of the various groups concerned is necessary in the design process, so that they can share their experiences (Aslaksen et al., 1997). As a result, the design, or the research process itself can also be opened up. Participation process as the ones experienced in citizen science can play a significant role here.

Citizen science consists in opening up the processes of creating, evaluating and disseminating scientific knowledge to stakeholders in society beyond the traditional scientific community (UNESCO, 2021). It involves the creation of common goods and shared resources; knowledge transfer and Science-Society ties, and can improve the equal access to and dissemination of knowledge, as well as epistemic justice (i.e. ability to position as a producer of knowledge in discourse).

Both academic and experiential knowledge are valued for the definition of the problem and the different phases of research. The European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) provides 10 principles to carry out citizen science properly (ECSA, 2015).
<figure><img src="image_156.png" /><figcaption>Above: Ense³, PISTE students developing open documentation .2022. Grenoble.</figcaption></figure>
# 2: Community governance

## Community management and governance

Creating a community around a project means bringing together a group of people who share a common vision, culture, and history and who interact to achieve the common goals they have set themselves. Digitalisation can facilitate this. The community's raison d'être needs to be clearly and concisely explained (general presentation, who it is for, what can be found here, where more information can be found). A governance model must also be defined.

Governance is making and enforcing decisions within an organisation or society. It encompasses decision-making, rule-setting, and enforcement mechanisms to guide an organisation or society's functioning.

For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities, the structure must be explicit, not implicit. Decision-making rules must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalised.

Jo Freeman, The Tyranny of Structurelessness

The lack of a governance model can entail several issues: cohesion, disorganised contributions, unwanted behaviours or community conflicts. Especially as communities grow, coordination work becomes time-consuming. On the other hand, stringent rules deter newcomers. As a result, communities tend to develop governance models "ad hoc" once it is too late (Schneider et al., 2021). Governance elements are presented in Table 1, and several examples of governance models such as democratic, autocratic, and consensus-based models, and guides in their creation can be found on the CommunityRule website (Media Economies Design Lab, n.d.)

Choosing a governance model enables roles to be clearly defined and recognised. Procedures such as a code of conduct, ways to contribute, guidelines, and roadmap are also made explicit and shared, and communication tools are used accordingly.

Governance is a core element of the concept of "commons."

Commons can be defined as a resource managed by a community abiding by a governance model. These resources can be physical, such as land or water, or non-physical, such as knowledge or information. The governance model ensures that the resource is used and maintained in a sustainable and equitable manner, as illustrated in Figure 5.

<figure><img src="image_157.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Commons core elements from https://chambre.lescommuns.org/les-communs/</figcaption></figure>

The Commons is an idea with considerable historical significance. In the Middle Ages, common lands were pastures and fields managed collectively without individual ownership, a testament to the power of community. These fields were privatised in England with the Enclosure Acts in the late 19th Century, marking a significant shift in the idea of community ownership. ecologist Garett Hardin theorised "The Tragedy of the commons" in an essay, stating that

> "A resource left free for use will be exhausted very quickly"
> 
> (Hardin, 1968).

If this statement can be valid in the current paradigm, it is not a fatality. It actually calls for governance models for resources that should be collectively chosen.

<table><caption>Figure 4: Elements to be considered in governance models (Media Economies Design Lab, n.d.)</caption><thead><tr><td>Element</td><td>Description</td><td>Some Examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Culture</td><td>What are the core missions, values, and norms?</td><td>Autonomy, Diversity, Solidarity, Origins, Purpose, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Decision</td><td>Who can make decisions and how?</td><td>Consensus, Lazy Consensus, Approval voting, "Do-ocracy", Referendum, Proof of work, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Process</td><td>How are policies implemented, and how do they evolve?</td><td>Accountability, Code of conduct, Debate, Meritocracy, Polling, Initiation, Petition, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Structure</td><td>What kinds of roles and internal entities are there?</td><td>Board, Bureaucracy, Committee, Council, Roles, Executive, Ownership, etc.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_158.png" /><figcaption>Above: Sean Church. Lifetrac II_12 | Lifetrac II_12 Album, August 22, 2010. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/sean_church/4918893875/in/album-72157624665572279</figcaption></figure>