What is a Low-Tech City?

Imagine a city where the city does our thinking for us. Networks of sensors, artificial intelligence and the ‘internet of things’ manage energy, water and waste. Roads hum with self-driving vehicles. Smart traffic systems with AI-based adaptive traffic lights, predictive algorithms, smart intersections, cameras and sensors optimize traffic flow. Congestion and crashes are distant memories. Buildings, streetlights and other infrastructure adapt dynamically to our needs. Networks of cameras, sensors, and facial recognition technologies surveil and monitor public spaces, providing real-time data for security and policing….

In the rush to make our cities “smart”, certain very obvious questions too often seem to get glossed over, or at the very least not answered in any satisfactory way - including the fundamental question of whether these visions will ever be able to deliver on their grand promises of sustainability.

It is difficult, for example, to see how a city reliant on AI and the ‘internet of things’ could ever be an energy-efficient or climate-friendly one. According to the Global Carbon Project, the internet itself, if it were a country, would be the third largest consumer of electricity and the fourth largest emitter of CO2 in the world. Data centers alone already consume around 2% of electricity produced worldwide and emit roughly the same amount of CO2 as the airline industry. The PJM electric grid is projecting a 40% increase in annual electricity use across its coverage area by 2039, and the expansion of the data center industry is a key driver of this increase.

Even if the massive amounts of energy required to power the smart city of the future could come from renewable sources, the correspondingly massive growth in energy demand from the ubiquity of advanced computing will drastically slow our progress toward this renewable energy system and almost certainly require an increase in fossil fuel use to make up the shortfall in the meantime – and again, this is already happening. Duke Energy, for example, points to data centers as a key reason to add 8.9 GW of new gas-fired power plant capacity — more than the entire U.S. added in 2023. 

These kinds of considerations should give us pause. And they should also perhaps encourage us to take a look at an alternative school of thought that is emerging in counterpoint to the movement toward high tech urbanism. The “low-tech city” is not so much a single, unified manifesto for the city of the future as a general way of thinking that brings together a range of concepts, some of which have been around for years, that prioritize decentralized, non-complex systems over high-tech, resource-intensive ones. Broadly speaking, it can be boiled down to a number of key, interlinked principles: 

Decentralization: Moving away from large-scale, centralized systems to smaller, decentralized, local solutions, such as local-level renewable energy generation (rooftop solar, community-based microgrids etc.) and water management systems. These solutions tend to be relatively easy and cheap to maintain and are adaptable to local conditions, in the case of energy generation increasing resilience to power disruptions and decreasing reliance on fossil fuels. 

Resource efficiency: Low-tech cities focus on reducing resource consumption through conservation, recycling and reuse, as well as building designs that minimize energy use through natural ventilation, insulation and locally sourced, sustainable building materials. Decentralized water management systems, similarly, such as rainwater harvesting, enable water to be used more efficiently and can improve water security. 

Human-centered design: Urban infrastructure should be designed at a human scale, for example to promote non-motorized modes of transportation (walking and biking infrastructure etc.) and public spaces that encourage social interaction and reduce dependency on cars. Expanding bike-sharing programs, pedestrianizing streets and creating green corridors are all cost-effective, low-tech solutions that can reduce reliance on private vehicles and reduce the environmental and public health impacts of a car-based transportation system.

Local innovation and materials: Materials, knowledge and labor that go into constructing and maintaining the buildings and infrastructure of a given area should, to the greatest extent possible, come from that area – a way of supporting local economies and reducing transportation emissions.

Urban agriculture: Similarly, low-tech advocates place a big emphasis on the idea that as much of our food as possible should be grown locally, for example by integrating urban farms, community gardens and green roofs into city planning. This reduces the environmental impact of transporting food the kinds of distances entailed in our current food systems, as well as fostering community engagement in sustainable practices.

No-/low waste circular economies: Policies regarding waste management, low-tech advocates argue, should be rooted in the idea of a circular economy, supporting waste reduction, recycling programs and composting initiatives. 

Part of the problem with many visions of the smart city of the future is that they often tend to accept the logic of the systems of the past. For instance, there seems to be a general assumption that cars (self-driving, flying or otherwise) will remain a dominant mode of transport, and that the problems of current transport systems can be solved by maintaining existing auto-centric infrastructure but simply making it “smarter”: smart traffic systems, with AI-based traffic lights, smart intersections, cameras, sensors and so on to optimize traffic flow (not to mention the bizarre insistence that self-driving cars will make the roads safer). 

The low-tech alternative to this expensive and otherwise highly questionable vision of transportation rejects the notion that we should remain stuck in the autocentric mindset of the mid-20th century, and instead promotes public transport, cycling, walking and other active modes of transport and argues that transportation policy and urban planning should be directed toward these commonsense, cost-effective and actually sustainable solutions. 

Another example: instead of pouring billions of dollars into development of expensive carbon capture technologies, why not start making proper use of the carbon capture technologies we already have? They’re called “trees”, and integrating them into our cities can absorb huge amounts of carbon and bring numerous other benefits, including cleaner air, flood mitigation and wildlife habitat. Nature-based systems employed for dealing with stormwater runoff, similarly, have proven that they can do the job just as well as, and often better than, artificial infrastructure, and in much more cost-effective ways. 

These types of solutions typically require much less energy and fewer resources and create fewer emissions than their high-tech counterparts. Their simplicity and local adaptability make them more resilient to external shocks than high-tech systems, which are vulnerable to cyberattacks, supply chain disruptions, energy shortages and so on. And by prioritizing human-scale infrastructure they create healthier, more livable environments.

Thus, the low-tech paradigm offers an outline of a more sustainable, more cost effective, and arguably simply more desirable alternative to many so-called thought leaders’ knee-jerk deification of technological novelty. It’s not about rejecting technology, but rather about finding the right balance in its use and using it only to the extent that it is the best possible solution to a given problem. Often, it isn’t – and recognizing that fact is vital if we are to create resilient, sustainable and livable cities.

Green infrastructure for pollinators

Pollinators – bees, butterflies, moths, wasps, flies, beetles, ants, bats, hummingbirds and others – are a vital component of the planet’s ecosystems. Almost 90% of all flowering plants and more than a third of the world’s crop species depend on them. Countless species of birds and mammals feed on fruits and seeds that couldn’t exist without them. With pollinator populations in steep decline, it is becoming ever more crucial to ensure that these imperiled creatures have safe havens in which to thrive.

Through the smart use of so-called “green infrastructure,” the same urban landscapes that are eating up wildlife habitats also present opportunities to create those havens. From street trees to green stormwater infrastructure like the bioswales and rain gardens now used in many cities to manage stormwater runoff and mitigate flooding, much of this infrastructure can double as wildlife habitat, and some can be particularly beneficial to pollinators.

Living roofs

While each species has its own specific habitat needs, there are two that are common to all pollinators: an abundance of diverse, flowering native or naturalized plants, and safe places to nest and breed. Among the most effective (and cost-effective) forms of nature-based urban infrastructure in meeting these needs are “living roofs” or “rooftop meadows” planted with wildflowers and native grasses and/or other native or naturalized pollinator-friendly plant species. 

Even in the densest urban settings, living roofs can support all kinds of pollinators, from bees and butterflies to birds, bats, flies and ants. Studies have found that they can be particularly valuable to bees, especially when planted with diverse native forbs (flowering, non-grassy herbaceous plants) to provide foraging resources and designed to take into account the differing nesting habits of different bee species. (Interestingly, research has also suggested that living roofs can also enhance the performance of rooftop solar panels.)

Where living roofs have been planted to restore lost pollinator habitat, the results have often been quite extraordinary. The six-acre roof meadow of the Vancouver Convention Center, for example – “the only and largest coastal meadow” in downtown Vancouver – is planted with more than 400,000 indigenous plants and grasses, providing habitat for birds, insects and other creatures. Since it was built in 2009, 250 types of insects have been seen on the roof, including two species of pollinator previously thought to be extinct in the Vancouver metro area.

Green walls

Natural elements can be incorporated into building design in numerous other ways. “Living walls,” for example, can host a wide range of different plants, from grasses, shrubs, ferns, succulents and herbaceous plants to all manner of vegetables and herbs, and when designed with the needs of specific species in mind, can potentially be a promising pollinator habitat.

Living walls - also known as “green walls”, vertical greening systems, vertical gardens, or biowalls – are among the least tried and tested forms of green infrastructure, but research suggests they have potential to provide pollinators with important sources of forage and shelter – and to do so without conflicting with human demands for space in cities.

The space on a building that could be used for green walls could be as much as double that of the ground space that that building occupies, meaning existing urban architecture could be a huge untapped resource for creating pollinator habitat. There are two basic kinds of green walls: “green facades,” which use hanging plants or climbing plants rooted in planters or in the ground, and “living walls,” where plants are rooted in the wall itself, kind of like the vertical equivalent of living roofs. This means they can host a much greater range of plants and flowers, making them especially promising for pollinator conservation.

Living walls are still very much an emerging technology, but there's already a growing list of examples to draw from. Three thousand square feet of living wall on Los Angeles’ Santa Monica Boulevard, known as the “Living Billboard,” has proved attractive to pollinators like hummingbirds. UK retail giant Marks & Spencer has been installing living walls on its stores for years. Almost 3,000 square feet of wall at London’s famous Wimbledon tennis courts are home to more than 14,000 plants, and the spectacular facades of the Athenaeum Hotel and Residences and The Rubens at the Palace in London provide habitat to butterflies, bees, birds and other wildlife, as do similar structures at Liberty Park at the World Trade Center in New York, the Musée du Quai Branly in Paris and numerous others all over the world.

Native landscaping

Roadsides present a huge opportunity to transform municipal infrastructure to support pollinators. The U.S. has more than 4 million miles of roadway, and much of the land alongside those roads can easily be planted with native vegetation and flowers and provide a valuable refuge in which pollinator species can nest and breed. Strategies like roadside wildflower planting, planting pollinator host plants in public parks and other municipal land, and providing resources for homeowners to convert yards and street-facing margins from turf to native landscapes, are easy wins for pollinator-friendly green infrastructure. 

The strips of ground between the road and the sidewalk – known in California as parkways, and elsewhere as curb strips, tree lawns, “devil strips” and various other names – are pollinator habitat waiting to happen. Often these areas are technically city property but the responsibility of individual homeowners to maintain, and this provides an opportunity for residents and city authorities to work together to create native habitats that can provide crucial sources of nourishment and shelter for pollinator species.

Some cities already offer programs to provide native plants and other resources for homeowners looking to convert their parkways to native habitat. The expansion of these kinds of schemes nationwide could give a major boost to citizen involvement in creating safe spaces for the bees, butterflies and other creatures that exist as an essential, yet often neglected component of natural ecosystems.

Encouraging pollinator-friendly development

City and state authorities are going to need to up their green infrastructure game over the coming years for a whole range of reasons besides helping pollinators. But to the greatest extent possible, and where appropriate, that infrastructure should be conceived so as to incorporate pollinator-friendly habitat.

Local agencies can lead by example, from installing green roofs and walls on municipal buildings to transforming roadsides into pollinator habitat and implementing other citywide initiatives to weave pollinator-friendly living elements into the urban fabric across other publicly managed green spaces.

Policymakers can also use various legislative carrots and sticks to ensure that provisions for native pollinators are incorporated into future development. Some cities, for example, like Austin and Portland, have revised their zoning laws to give “density bonuses” or other zoning incentives to developers who incorporate living roofs into new construction projects. Other cities offer discounts on stormwater fees or provide tax incentives to developers installing green roofs, as is the case in Washington, D.C. A growing number of cities – Toronto, San Francisco and Copenhagen, among others – have gone further, passing legislation mandating the installation of green roofs on all new buildings and renovations.

Increased attention to the importance of pollinators has led to an increase in new sources of government funding being made available to expand their habitat, including funding specifically for the kinds of programs discussed above. In the U.S., the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provides a total of $10 million to be distributed via the DOT to states, tribes and federal agencies to implement measures to restore pollinator habitat along roadways, for example, such as planting native wildflowers and grasses, removing non-native vegetation, and adopting pollinator-friendly land management practices designed to promote pollinator host plants and limit disturbance during periods of highest use by specific species.

Just as the urban world must strive to provide a livable habitat for its human populations, it can, and must, provide an environment in which its non-human residents can thrive. With targeted investment and proper attention to the growing body of science on the integration of nature into urban design, the cities of the 21st century can play their part in helping our beleaguered pollinators bounce back.

Rewilding the ocean

As the global push to create Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) gathers pace, driven by the 30x30 campaign to protect 30% of the planet’s wild lands and waters by 2030, so too have the misgivings being voiced in various parts of the conservation community about just how effective MPAs really are. Vox senior environmental reporter Benji Jones recently summarized some of these concerns in a dispiritingly titled article “America’s best idea to protect its oceans has one big problem: It’s not working.” 

Jones’s article shines a light on some important issues surrounding the current state of MPAs – the main one being that a lot of them aren’t actually protected at all. While on paper, almost half of America’s ocean is covered by some form of protection, in reality, only around 3% of the total U.S. MPA area is completely off limits to human interference, leaving the vast majority vulnerable to exploitation – including hugely destructive fishing practices that have in some cases led to immense damage to ecosystems within their borders.

The specific criticisms Jones raises in his article are not wrong. But the headline is, at best, misleading. As real-world experience of MPAs grows, it’s becoming abundantly clear that fully protected “no-take” MPAs – those in which all extractive and destructive activities are banned – are actually highly effective in preserving biodiversity, strengthening the resilience of marine ecosystems and helping to restore wildlife habitats and populations.

Take, for example, California’s MPAs. Within a decade of the establishment of a network of fully protected zones in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, studies were indicating that the density of targeted (i.e., fished) fish species had increased inside the protected zones by 50% and their biomass by 80% in the first five years of the reserves’ existence. The biomass of predators inside the reserves was “significantly greater” than in unprotected areas, with 1.8 times more piscivores and 1.3 times more carnivores in these zones. Subsequent research has found that the average size and abundance of certain species was “significantly larger” in the protected areas, and noted increases in the biomass of certain species occurring much faster inside the reserves than in surrounding areas.

Or take Cabo Pulmo in Mexico – a 27-square-mile no-take MPA between Pulmo Point and Los Frailes Cape, created in the late 1990s. A 2011 study revealed that within just 10 years of the implementation of protections, overall biomass in the MPA had increased by 463%, bringing the area’s coral reef, previously stripped almost completely barren due to overfishing, to a level comparable to unfished reefs. Fish size had also increased, and the biomass of top predators like sharks and grouper had grown by 1,070%. The combination of higher densities and larger fish created an average biomass more than five times that of nearby unprotected areas.

These aren’t anomalies. The more we get to know about MPAs, the clearer it becomes that fully-protected areas consistently help to support larger, healthier and more diverse populations of ocean species and help protect the balance and integrity of marine ecosystems, both within their boundaries and in the surrounding area.

A 2009 analysis synthesizing a range of studies of fully protected MPAs around the world showed that these protections result in significant increases in biomass, the size and density of organisms and the number of species present – all key metrics used to assess the health of the ocean. In half of the MPAs studied, total biomass of studied species was more than triple that of unprotected areas, and density more than 60% higher. A study of the Governor Island reserve in Australia found that the biomass of rock lobsters was a whopping 2,300% higher in the protected area than outside it, and in the Las Cruces Reserve in Chile, the population of the species being monitored were on average 2,210% higher inside the MPA than outside it.

Other research presents similarly eye-catching figures. One 2017 study, for example, found that average biomass of fish in fully protected MPAs was 670% greater than in nearby unprotected areas and 343% greater than in partially protected MPAs. Interestingly, that study also found that fish biomass was restored in fully protected marine reserves over time after the implementation of protections, whereas in partially protected MPAs it was not.

MPAs have also been found to protect and enhance biodiversity within their borders. A 2006 meta-analysis of data from 44 fully protected MPAs showed that levels of biodiversity in these areas increased by an average of 23%, and fish numbers in surrounding areas also significantly increased as a result of spillover from the protected zones.

Increased biodiversity in turn increases degraded ecosystems’ ability to recover from degradation. For example, within two decades of its designation, a fully protected area in New Zealand’s Leigh Marine Reserve recovered from destruction of kelp forests triggered by the unchecked growth of its sea urchin population, which thrived in the absence of heavily-fished predator species. Restrictions on fishing allowed for a rise in predator populations, including sea urchin-eating fish, resulting in the revival of the area’s kelp forest and a return of the local ecosystem to a complex, healthy condition.

The list of studies is long and growing, but the point is this:

The patchy record of MPAs in U.S. waters doesn’t point to inherent problems with the MPA concept. It just shows we’re doing it wrong.

The 30x30 target is a decent enough target to aim for, but randomly cordoning off 30% of the ocean and claiming you’ve met your conservation goals isn’t going to have any real impact. For that to happen, a number of other conditions have to be met.

Firstly, ‘protection’ has to mean ‘full protection.’ Not fisheries management areas. Not flimsy regulations that include exceptions for certain kinds of fishing or mere prohibitions on certain types of fishing gear or shipping. Full protections, with all extractive activities off limits.

Second, the protected area must include 30% (at least) of every geographic and ecological region – not just one massive chunk of ocean in the western Pacific. Given the lack of fully protected MPAs in U.S. waters outside of the remote Pacific, the immediate priority should be ensuring that full protections are put in place across all key regions to preserve the diverse habitats and ecosystems in the country’s waters. Right now, special attention should be given to near-shore areas, currently significantly underrepresented in the U.S. MPA inventory.

By the same token, creating small, isolated MPAs is not, in itself, enough to have a major impact. MPAs should be as large as possible (when it comes to marine protections, science shows that size does matter), and should be ecologically linked in regional networks to ensure connectivity between habitats. Research shows that well-connected, ecologically coherent MPA networks can help highly mobile marine animals like whales and sea turtles by protecting important sites along their migratory routes, such as feeding and breeding grounds. (In the western Pacific, for example, protection of the nesting beaches and foraging habitats of green turtles, and portions of their routes to foraging grounds outside the protected zone, has played a role in rescuing these animals from the brink of extinction.)

Lastly, planning, designing and implementing MPAs and MPA networks needs to be based in a comprehensive, strategic, science-based process that integrates regional scientific knowledge and engages local communities and other stakeholders, coupled with a robust strategy for how these protections are going to be monitored and enforced once they’ve been implemented – as happened in California, whose progress toward successful marine protected areas is now widely considered a valuable case study in how to plan, implement and manage a statewide network of MPAs.)

With the health of the world’s ocean hanging in the balance, the need for action to boost the ocean’s resilience against the myriad threats it currently faces has never been greater. Combating those threats will require action on a range of different fronts simultaneously – one of which is the establishment of marine protected areas. Get it right, and they work.