5.5 Social inequalities and spatial considerations

5.5 Social inequalities and spatial considerations

From research on digital inequality and digital divides more broadly, we know that access to digital technology, digital skills, and benefits from digital technology are unevenly distributed within and between societies (Lutz, 2019; Robinson et al.,2015, 2020a, 2020b; Van Dijk, 2020). Privileged individuals who possess disproportionate economic capital (e.g., income, wealth), cultural capital (e.g., education, family background), social capital (e.g., being part of elite networks), or who are otherwise advantaged (e.g., in terms of gender, ethnicity, disability, age, or caste) tend to fare better. They have higher quality access to digital technology. For example, they often have more modern and cutting edge software and hardware at hand. Underprivileged individuals, by contrast, rely disproportionately on mobile access, which comes with substantial downsides in terms of functionality, openness and productivity (Napoli & Obar, 2014). Privileged individuals also tend to have better digital skills than disadvantaged ones, with education and age playing a particular role (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011, 2015). Finally, capital-enhancing uses (i.e., digital technology uses that improve life chances) are more widespread among privileged citizens (Zillien & Hargittai, 2009). Thus, the benefits from digital technology accrue disproportionally to those who are already advantaged in society (Blank & Lutz, 2018; Lutz, 2019; Van Deursen & Helsper, 2015).

AAL technology comes with particular challenges in terms of digital inclusion as it is deployed on and with user groups that have been shown to be on the “wrong” side of the digital divide in terms of several social categories such as age, gender, and disability. Such low levels of access, skills and familiarity with digital technology more generally. Especially if the technology is employed in rural settings and or in regions of countries with low internet/digital technology penetration among the target group, meaning that there might be substantial barriers and resistance to adoption as well as misunderstandings about the technological capabilities and limitations. In addition, there are considerable divides not only between the target group and the general population but in particular between the target group and those developing and deploying AAL systems. In other words, the power asymmetries that exist between different stakeholders in the AAL ecosystem are potentially more severe and extreme than with other digital technology (e.g., smart speakers, social media). This could lead to governance challenges, ethical questions and potential misuse of the technology. Thus, sufficient safeguards need to be in place to make this a truly inclusive technology, ideally safeguards that reduce the aforementioned power asymmetries. Beyond design-related strategies (see next chapter) and legal protection (see chapter 4), strengthening digital literacy and user self-determination should thus be an important consideration. Literacy initiatives should be holistic and not only focus on technical/operational skills but also on contextual aspects that connect to the lifeworlds of the (end)users.

In relation to the urban and rural spatial contexts, its development should consider the differences in these settings, the latter with characteristics such as bigger houses and longer distances to physically reach the people in need of care (Jordan et al., 2004; Petersson, 2011). Human groups have also otherthan-human elements in life situations and ways of living, elderly or fragile people living at home may 35