Smart technologies are often seen as a key solution for achieving climate change targets and sustainable development. New AI, simulation and modelling software, sensors, IOT, the blockchain, smart controls and meters, drones and robotics technologies offer powerful ways to change how we plan, design, construct and operate built environments.

However, can smart technologies enable us to become more sustainable? I tackled this issue in my keynote presentation for the WABERSUDBE conference. I explored this by going back to back to first principles and using examples. This suggested that there is a need for a cohesive guiding framework for the selection and application of technologies. It also indicates that, along with technologies that support sustainability, corresponding social and organizational change is required.

A Cohesive Guiding Framework
Technology can be understood as the ‘application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes or applications’. Here the idea of ‘practical purposes’ and ‘applications’ is important. If there is no cohesive framework that guides the development and application of technology, it is unlikely to create the scale of change required to address climate change and achieve sustainable development goals.

A sole focus on technology, without a guiding cohesive framework that ensures that the right types of technology are developed and used, will not be sufficient. This is because selecting the wrong technologies locks us into patterns that are difficult to overcome. Examples include coal-fired power stations and petrol and diesel vehicles, on which most of our cities are based.

This guiding framework must therefore ensure that technologies that directly contribute to achieving climate change targets and sustainable development goals are promoted. It must have, at its core, the care and regeneration of natural systems that form the foundation of sustainability.

Social and Organizational Change
The IPAT equation is used to demonstrate the factors that contribute to human impact. I stands for impact, P population, A affluence and T technology. Human impact is thus affected by the size of the population, levels of human affluence, and technology.

There is often the temptation to focus on technology and ignore affluence, and patterns of consumption and behavior, as the means to achieve change. However, strategies that rely solely on technology, without corresponding social and organisational transformation are unlikely to create sufficient change.

This is illustrated by the levels of consumption and waste currently found in highly affluent societies even when they employ highly efficient green technologies. For example, Germany, Norway, and Denmark still have ecological footprints that are 2-3 times a sustainable level, despite investing heavily in more efficient and renewable technologies.

Examples

To explore these ideas I looked at examples from the IPCC which increasingly include sustainable development in the frameworks they advocate for tackling climate change. A local example compares the development frameworks used by government with green building rating criteria. To demonstrate the application of frameworks, an example of a high-performance sustainable PPP project was used to show how targets could be integrated into design and operational performance. Finally, to explore new ways of living and working an example of how product-as-service models could be used to create more affordable and sustainable mixed-use housing was shared.