How to make Smart Cities work for Communities:
Engaging Communities with Data Sovereignty
PEOPLE SMART CITY TECHNOLOGIES MICHELLE PONCE JAKOB WINKLER ISABEL SAFFON
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
1
Introduction
2
Values, Principles & Data Sovereignty
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
3
4
5
Prototyping: Testing the methodology in Brownsville
Conclusion: Using the methodology in the future
Designing: Engagement piece / Methodology
Smart City Technologies Case Studies
4
6
5
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
1. INTRODUCTION
Engaging Communities with Data Sovereignty This project is a recommendation for New York City’s Chief Technology Office that consists of a community engagement methodology. The goal is to bridge the gap between what the community identifies as needs and how the city can respond with smart technologies by introducing the concept of data sovereignty.
What is a smart city? The definition varies and so do its implications. It is expected that more than 26 global cities will be “smart cities” by 2025, more than 50% will be in Europe and North America.1 With a focus on efficiency rather than social equity, technologies with the " Smart City" label currently fail to respond to real neighborhood issues and needs. The failure of current smart city technologies to address community issues and needs is the result of a “top down” model. Cities that do not engage its communities and members in the design, development and implementation of smart city technologies produce unequal benefits. However, New York City’s Neighborhood Innovation Labs is an initiative to bridge this gap. The drive to make cities “smarter” is reflected 1
in New York City’s Neighborhood Innovation Labs. Launched in March 2017, the Neighborhood Innovation Labs consists of community members, government, educators, and tech companies. The goal of this public-private partnership is to help address neighborhood concerns with cutting-edge technologies. The first Neighborhood Innovation Lab was rolled out in Brownsville, Brooklyn.
to engage community members in the decision-making processes regarding the design, governance, and implementation of smart city technologies. Using a data sovereignty framework, this project aims to bridge the gap between what the community identifies as needs and how the city can respond with smart technologies.
The Neighborhood Innovation Labs reflects how New York City aims to include local communities in the development of smart city technologies and works with community advisors to define how such technologies can help improve quality of life and support local economic development. To contribute to this and similar future endeavors, this project proposes a concrete methodology
Strategic Opportunity Analysis of the Global
Smart City Market. Frost and Sullivan. http://www.egr.msu.edu/~aesc310-web/resources/SmartCities/Smart%20City%20Market%20Report%202.pdf
6
7
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
2. VALUES, PRINCIPLES & DATA SOVEREIGNTY Values, Themes, and Principles
VALUES 1
Locally Co-owned and Designed
THEMES 1
• •
Community collectively designs the use and collection of data.
2
Open Decision Making Process
•
2
Digital Literacy
3
Processes of participation include access to information and strengthen community capacity.
4
Power to Shape One’s Environment Community participation is reflected in how smart city technologies respond to neighborhood issues.
Must be scalable, replicable and adaptable to various neighborhoods.
2
Serves as a platform to raise and link community issues and needs with smart city technologies.
What ensures that the project resonates with community issues and needs? How can active community participation be achieved? What are the current gaps between community and local government? How can community priorities be linked with smart city technologies?
3
Communicates a good use of data in an effective and accessible way.
4
Increases the capacities of residents to participate in the design, development and implementation of smart city technologies.
Access through Digital Literacy • • •
4
How can sustainability and feasibility be ensured? What are the existing community networks in place and how can they be engaged in the process? Building on existing community networks, how can local knowledge be amplified?
1
Community Engagement • • • •
The design of smart city technologies is a result of a transparent and democratic process.
3
Strengthen Existing Social Infrastructure:
PRINCIPLES
How can smart city technologies address relevant community issues? How can the community be empowered to control the output of data uses? What tools and capacities are necessary for meaningful community engagement?
6
Digital + Analog • • •
5
Works collectively with the existing community members that are involved with the topic.
Must advocate for data sovereignty.
How does data transcend into everyday life? How does the lack of data sovereignty affect social and physical environments? How can data affect the neighborhood in both positive and negative ways?
8
9
DATA SOVEREIGNTY Definition:
Community ownership over the collection and use of data. What does data sovereignty mean in an age of cloud technology and computing, and what does an actionable definition look like? Current forms of data ownership are commodified and dispersed. Therefore, a new definition of data sovereignty is necessary. Hence, this project redefines data sovereignty as the community ownership over the collection and use of data.
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
2.1. PROJECT GOALS To bridge the gap between community needs and Smart City technologies by introducing the concept of Data Sovereignty.
10
11
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
2.2. DATA SOVEREIGNTY DEFINITION:
1
Community ownership over the collection and use of data 4
1 [0] 11 1 00 [1] 1 [0] 11 1 00 [1] 1 [0] 11 1 00 [1] 1 [0] 11 1 00 [1] 1 [0] 11 1 00 [1]
12
DATA
BENEFITS
2
3
USE & COLLECTION
OUTPUTS & TECHNOLOGIES
13
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
3. CASE STUDIES Smart City technologies Cities around the world have already started the development of smart cities. Their processes, trials and errors can serve as a foundation for the development o f more community-driven equitable and smart city technologies. The methodology introduced in the next section is based on an analysis of four smart city cases. The selection is based on different governance models, ranging from entirely communityrun grassroots initiatives (Detroit) to exclusively state-led programs (Singapore), and two “in-betweens” in which cities try to activate the public as a decision-maker in the process (Barcelona) and follow a public-private partnership model (Boston). The analysis was carried out with a data sovereignty lens along the following seven features: • participation • access & literacy • neighborhood improvements (digital analog relationship) • data collection and technology
• •
trade-offs funding.
The following table summarizes the main takeaways from our case study analysis, showing the relationship between the design of different systems and outcomes for communities.
“The 'Smart City' isn’t a technology concept; it’s the political challenge of adapting one of the most powerful economic and social forces of our time to the needs of the places where most of us live and work.”2 DAN LOHRMANN
14
15
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
3. CASE STUDIES GOVERNANCE
PARTICIPATION
ACCESS AND LITERACY
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
DETROIT BOSTON
Grassroots initiative / Community driven
Education by and for the community
Learned about what data ** Participatory model to is, how to collect and envision how data can analyze. The topics include shape neighborhood a) harms and benefits of open data. b) What kind of culture do we want to grow around our use of data and technology?
Public Model / Private partnership
Enlarging participation though open calls
Creation of pedagogic tools
through events
BARCELONA SINGAPORE
Public model / Owned by the City
Foresees participation in the implementation. Offers solid feedback and accountability measures to make it responsive to local communities and assure a transparent city
Public Model/ Owned by the Nation
Uses a top down approach Not applicable with no participation from residents
**Smart Nation Bureau (under Minister of Foreign Affairs)
16
Physical access and literacy programs that specifically target vulnerable and underserved groups. Increases capacities of citizens to participatein the local economy
DATA COLLECTION AND TECHNOLOGY Projects are envisioned with community at the center rather than validating public projects
TRADE-OFFS Lack of administrative power since it is a grassroots initiative
Utility services, delivery, Partnering with Local Coalitions with big affordability & affordability Sense Lab to develop plan data corps that could potentially harm citizens through unregulated data sovereignty
Efficient public expenditures and maintenance of the public realm
City decides issues and kind of data that can contribute to it. Usually automated data is collected
focus is to improve efficiencies
Much of the data will be Very closed decisionfed into an online platform, making process dubbed Virtual Singapore. The government also plans to share data, in some cases with the private sector
No formal mechanism for citizens to define the issues that should be addressed through technological innovation. There is no data sovereignty
FUNDING Digital Trust Foundation
The City is open to publicprivate partnerships, and the RFI asks for new funding strategies that outline possible tradeoffs of alternative revenue streams and ideas to mitigate them Public money
Public money
17
SMART CITIES TECHNOLOGIES
Currently several models of data use are being applied all over the world. What can we learn from these data sovereignty models?
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
4 ENGAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
Participation tool The development of smart city technologies is expected to increase.3 As local governments plan to implement these technologies in communities, it is important to take this opportunity to redefine the community engagement process. The development and implementation of smart city technologies is an opportunity to recommit to communities by giving them more ownership and agency over the process through data sovereignty. The proposed methodology consists of three "steps" of actions: a) Introduction to data sovereignty b) Engagement tool c) Collective Analysis and Next Steps a) Introduction to Data Sovereignty: Taking into account that data sovereignty is not a familiar topic for most people, it is important that the engagement tool is used in a focus group or workshop since
it implies greater facilitation. The activity should be preempted with the challenges that smart cities face today and the importance of bridging the gap between community needs and effective public services. b) Engagement Tool: Based on the concept of a responsible data ecosystem, the engagement tool raises questions on how aspects of the collection, maintenance, governance, and use of data in the smart city context relate to each other, and how they can be envisioned differently. To enable the broader public to participate in the design of a responsible data ecosystem, the methodology visualizes two smart city models. These models function as tools to start and engage a conversation. In order to engage the community in a conversation on data sovereignty the methodology proposes to highlight the differences between 18
two scenarios of smart city approaches in diagrams: CURRENT STATE MODEL The first model is based on the case study analysis. The Current State model outlines who makes decisions within the process and who the stakeholders are. There are three actors: the community, city and Information Technology (IT) company. The main takeaway from this visualization is that the community is not part of the process. The resulting smart city technology, therefore, might be efficient for the city, but has no direct benefit for the community. WHAT IF MODEL The second model builds off the first model but dramatically shifts the paradigm. Based on the feedback mechanisms within the Barcelona case study, in this model the community is more heavily involved in the process from the beginning.
The second model’s core are the built-in questions that guide the process. Unlike the first model, there is nothing definitive or concrete about the results other than that the result will have a direct impact on the community. The What If model is open ended and intended to generate input, concerns, ideas and suggestions from the community. It is not a design proposition but a framework to engage communities in the discussion of data sovereignty. The two model visualizations break down how the outcomes vary depending on the design of the system. This enables participants to understand and critically analyze complex data governance models, increasing their capacities to participate in the design, governance, and implementation of smart city technologies.
1. Identify issue: • What do you think are the biggest issues that the neighborhood is facing? • Which issues do you care about the most? 2. Data type • What kind of information should and should not be gathered? • What information can solve this issue? 3. Collection of data & technology • Can technology respond to this issue? How? 4. Data output • What can be done with the data? 5. Benefits • Who benefits from this?
The guiding questions correlate with the smart city process visualized in the model and are framed as follows: 19
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
NO INPUT
1
NO DIRECT BENEFIT
5
IDENTIFY ISSUE
BENEFITS
$$$
CITY SAVES MONEY
CITY
EXPENSIVE & INEFFICIENT PARK MAINTENANCE
CURRENT MODEL
DATA TYPE CITY
2
4
DATA OUTPUT EFFICIENT PARKS IRRIGATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
3
IT COMPANY
CURRENT MODEL
COMMUNITY
CURRENT STATE
4. ENGAGEMENT PIECE
COLLECT DATA + TECHNOLOGY AUTOMATED SENSOR
20
21
The current model highlights the systemic shortcomings of current smart city models.
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
4. ENGAGEMENT PIECE
WHAT IF...
DIRECT BENEFIT
1
2
IDENTIFY ISSUE
DATA TYPE
?
?
WHAT INFORMATION CAN SOLVE THIS ISSUE?
5
BENEFITS
?
WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE BIGGEST ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS FACING?
WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT BE GATHERED?
WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS?
WHAT IF MODEL
4
WHICH ISSUES DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE MOST?
The What If model shows how this model can be rethought and the questions that might guide us to more equitable smart cities.
DATA OUTPUT WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THE DATA?
CITY
?
3
IT COMPANY
WHAT IF MODEL
COMMUNITY
IT STARTS WITH THE COMMUNITY
COLLECT DATA + TECHNOLOGY
? 22
CAN TECHNOLOGY RESPOND TO THIS ISSSUE? HOW?
23
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
c) Collective Analysis and Next Steps: To finalize the activity it is crucial to facilitate a conversation at the end of that allows for a collective analysis in which participants reflect over the insights and questions, and strategize about next steps. The proposed methodology is framed as a conversation starter that should be embedded in a broader framework of engagement. Rather than a one time event, it should be viewed as a first introduction to the topic. The tool serves as a trigger to think about specific issues that smart city technology might address, the ways in which this might be done, by whom, and for which purposes, as well as the systematic relationship between these system components
2
However, unless the issues and further questions that arise during this engagement are put into action in subsequent engagement and planning sessions, the outcomes will be limited. The What If model can be seen as a general framework or roadmap of questions to consider in designing a sustainable data ecosystem. The results of the activity can function as a guide to subsequent planning sessions that can be broken down into the individual system components outlined in the What If model (i.e. identifying the issues, data types, collecting data & technology, data outputs, and benefits). The components must not be seen as definitive steps, however, but should be adapted and added to by participants.
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
strongest if they are analyzed by the participants. Therefore, at the end of the engagement session, there should be a facilitated discussion to synthesize and collectivize the individual contributions, identified issues and questions. In order to integrate communities in the decision-making process of smart city technology development, participants should be given the opportunity to plan for future steps. This includes negotiating the terms and conditions of how exactly their involvement will feed into the local government’s endeavour, and ensuring for reoccuring feedback loops and accountability mechanisms.
In the tradition of participatory action research2, outcomes are the
Bergold, Jard / Thomas, Stefan (2012): Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion, in: FQS, Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1201302.
24
25
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
5. TESTING THE METHOD IN BROWNSVILLE
Definition Before shaping the final version of our community engagement tool, we tested it in two different occasions in Brownsville: a first test run with the Brownsville Heritage House, and a second try out at the Brownsville Urban Tech Summit.
The final version of the community engagement tool is based off the case studies and two “test runs” in Brownsville. The importance of testing the community engagement tool is to enhance its accessibility and potential impact. The tool was prototyped with the Brownsville Heritage House and at the Brownsville Urban Tech Summit. The final version was developed based on feedback and observations from these two prototypes. 1) Brownsville Heritage House3 (April 24)
The methodology was tested according to a) how effectively the models communicate both the problem and opportunity at hand, and b) the effectiveness of starting a founded conversation about data sovereignty. The first test run resulted in simplified visuals to make the models more accessible. It was important to edit the models to make them visually similar so that differences in outcomes are more apparent.
The first test r un w as d one with Miriam Robertson, Executive Director of the Brownsville Heritage House. The Brownsville Heritage House is a Multi-Cultural Center that focuses on culture, the arts, education and history.3 It is deeply embedded in the local context, works with community members, and has a
A conversation that started with community needs instead of technology led to a more fruitful discussion of Brownsville’s needs. Miriam was more critical about current smart city technologies and their inability to resonate with the community in Brownsville. According to Miriam, people in Brownsville are
3 26
strong understanding of local needs and issues.
http://www.brownsvilleheritagehouse.org/
27
more concerned about the following issues: access to fresh and affordable food, homeless, and the rising costs and inefficiencies of NYCHA. Brownsville is in much more need of youth and cultural programming, and entertainment. The What If model was very effective in spurring the following questions:
•
• •
• •
how can we ensure input from residents and make smart city technologies responsive to local needs while avoiding additional burdens? who is monitoring the IT companies that generate data? what assets exist in the neighborhood already and how can smart city technologies build on them? how can we connect existing systems in place instead of starting from scratch? how do we ensure that it is beneficial for residents?
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
• •
how can we protect residents; be considerate of vulnerabilities? where are savings from more effective services going to/what are they used for?
2) Brownsville Urban Tech Summit (May 6) The Brownsville Urban Tech Summit was well attended by the community advisors of the Neighborhood Innovation Labs, public and private partners, and Brownsville community members. The models were posted along a dedicated station named “Data Sovereignty: How to make Smart Cities work for Communities” Based on the second test run, the value and impact of the community engagement tool are maximized when it is presented in a workshop or focus group style. The tool does not stand on its own and requires facilitation. A station presentation cannot capitalize on the input of the several community members present. The background, purpose and flow of each model was repeatedly discussed; important aspects of the models were “lost
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
in translation” as each model was explained more than once. The presentation of the tool was strongest with facilitation that immediately acknowledges that current smart city technologies fall short of addressing real community issues and needs in the Current State model. Community members quickly identified with the familiar process: communities are often denied input in the design and implementation of public programs and services. And if there is engagement, it is often used as a legitimization of previously made decisions without real power for communities to shape outcomes. Similarly, the What If model resonated best as an opportunity to empower communities, but it was equally important to acknowledge that no such model currently exists. Framing the model as a conversation starter instead of a comprehensive guide, and inviting participants to edit the questions was very effective.
28
29
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
5.1 BROWNSVILLE HERITAGE CENTER
TESTING THE METHODOLOGY
Brownsville Heritage House (April 24)
30
31
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
5.2 BROWNSVILLE INNOVATION URBAN TECH SUMMIT
TESTING THE METHODOLOGY
Brownsville Urban Tech Summit (May 6)
32
33
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
6. USING THE TOOL IN FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD INNOVATION LABS
As the development of smart city technology gains more momentum, it is important for city government and policy makers to keep in mind and address underlying questions. What makes a smart city smart? Why are we using technology and for which ends? Employments of technology in the city context must not be seen as separate from, but building on top of and improving existing systems. Instead of thinking about what can be done with technology, local governments should first consider what needs to be done to make their cities more equitable; only then they should consider how technology can help. In other words, technology must not be employed for technology’s sake, but to make the city a more equitable place. The strongest value of the proposed methodology is the acknowledgement of the challenges posed by smart city technologies, and the commitment of “decision makers” to start with community issues before designing
irrelevant technologies. Moreover, by introducing the topic of data sovereignty, this methodology advocates for the empowerment of communities and demands their participation in the design and implementation process of smart cities. Smart cities are not only an opportunity to make cities more efficient but to reinvent the way cities identify and address communitiy issues. Without adherence to the value of community involvement, Smart Cities will not only reproduce existing inequalities, they will exacerbate them too. The proposed methodology was designed and tested within the Brownsville pilot project of the City’s Neighborhood Innovation Labs Initiative. It is an adaptable and replicable approach that can be used throughout New York in future iterations of the Neighborhood Labs Initiative and similar endeavors by the City. A core principle of the project is its accessibility, ensuring that the 34
participating communities are not required to have any prior knowledge about the issue. Instead, the tool makes the issue understandable and relevant to specific contexts by enabling a systematic view on data sovereignty. Its adaptability lies in its focus on identifying local issues that will steer the smart city conversations around specific local needs and wants. As outlined above, the methodology is not a one time engagement piece. Instead, if it is to bring meaningful results, it must be embedded in a robust framework of community engagement. The design of such a framework goes beyond the scope of this report. Developing this project, the following questions arose which might be worthwhile to consider in such endeavors:
•
•
•
• • •
address them? How do current data ecosystems function and what are the forms of misuse that we need to eliminate and rethink? In which ways are information and communication systems (ICTs) currently being used to benefit communities and how can we leverage such uses in the smart city context? How are residents currently owning and using their own data? How can we reduce digital vulnerabilities of historically marginalized populations? How can we bridge the gap between reducing fear and raising awareness about current data misuses?
What are individual and collective barriers to engagement (such as time and economic and social pressures) and how can start to 35
DIGITAL EQUITY LAB
LINKING DATA SOVEREIGNTY WITH SMART CITIES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SMART CITY TECHNOLOGIES “Strategic Opportunity Analysis of the Global Smart City:Market Smart City Market is Likely to be Worth a Cumulative $1.565 Trillion by 2020.” Michigan State University: College of Engineering. Accessed May 01, 2017. http://www.egr.msu.edu/~aesc310-web/resources/SmartCities/Smart%20City%20Market%20Report%202.pdf. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Bergold, Jard / Thomas, Stefan (2012): Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion, in: FQS, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs1201302. CASE STUDIES
• • • •
https://www.boston.gov/innovation-and-technology/smart-streets https://gcn.com/articles/2016/12/23/boston-smart-city-rfi.aspx http://www.govtech.com/fs/Boston-Invites-Smart-City-Providers-to-the-Table.html http://localsense.org/
Detroit Digital Justice Coallition Sources: • http://detroitdjc.org/ • https://www.alliedmedia.org/ddjc/principles • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/detroit-digital-justice-coalition-impact_n_1174171.html Barcelona Sources: • http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/estrategiadigital/uploads/Pla_Ciutat_Digital_MdGovern.pdf • http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/estrategiadigital/en
Singapore Sources: • https://www.smartnation.sg/ • http://www.computerworld.com/article/3148186/emerging-technology/singapore-s-city-brain-project-isgroundbreaking-but-what-about-privacy.html • http://www.computerworld.com/article/3141452/internet-of-things/cisco-names-10-cities-using-its-cloud-basedsmart-service.html Boston Sources:
• • • • •
https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/smart-city-projects-boston/ https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/imce-uploads/2017-01/smartcityrfiupdated1.30.17.pdf https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/smart-city-projects-boston/ http://www.lightreading.com/gigabit/gigabit-cities/verizons-boston-smart-cities-pilot-begins/d/d-id/728893 https://monum.github.io/playbook/#introduction 36
37