GeoJournal

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland

Article

Abstract

Reacting to critiques that the smart city is overly technocratic and instrumental, companies and cities have reframed their initiatives as ‘citizen-centric’. However, what ‘citizen-centric’ means in practice is rarely articulated. We draw on and extend Sherry Arnstein’s seminal work on participation in planning and renewal programmes to create the ‘Scaffold of Smart Citizen Participation’—a conceptual tool to unpack the diverse ways in which the smart city frames citizens. We use this scaffold to measure smart citizen inclusion, participation, and empowerment in smart city initiatives in Dublin, Ireland. Our analysis illustrates how most ‘citizen-centric’ smart city initiatives are rooted in stewardship, civic paternalism, and a neoliberal conception of citizenship that prioritizes consumption choice and individual autonomy within a framework of state and corporate defined constraints that prioritize market-led solutions to urban issues, rather than being grounded in civil, social and political rights and the common good. We conclude that significant normative work is required to rethink ‘smart citizens’ and ‘smart citizenship’ and to remake smart cities if they are to truly become ‘citizen-centric’.

Keywords

Smart city Citizens Participation Engagement Citizenship Rights 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research for this paper was provided by a European Research Council Advanced Investigator Award, ‘The Programmable City’ (ERC-2012-AdG-323636).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The research for this paper was passed for ethical approval by both the European Research Council and Maynooth University research ethics committees.

References

  1. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breathnach, P. (2010). From spatial Keynesianism to post-Fordist neoliberalism: Emerging contradictions in the spatiality of the Irish State. Antipode, 42(5), 1180–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Variegated neoliberalization: geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks, 10(2), 182–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardullo, P., Kitchin, R., & Di Feliciantonio, C. (2017). Living labs and vacancy in the neoliberal city. Cities.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.10.008.Google Scholar
  6. Carpentier, N. (2016). Beyond the ladder of participation: An analytical toolkit for the critical analysis of participatory media processes. Javnost—The Public, 23(1), 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, J., & Shelton, T. (2016). Technocratic values and uneven development in the “Smart City.” Metropolitics. Retrieved from http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Technocratic-Values-and-Uneven.html.
  8. Coletta, C., Heaphy, L., & Kitchin, R. (2017). From accidental to articulated smart city: The creation and work of Smart Dublin. Programmable City Working Paper 29. Retrieved from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/93ga5.
  9. Coletta, C., & Kitchin, R. (2017). Algorhythmic governance: Regulating the ‘heartbeat’ of a city using the Internet of Things. Big Data and Society, 4, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2009). Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(6), 358–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowley, R., Joss, S., & Dayot, Y. (2017). The smart city and its publics: insights from across six UK cities. Urban Research and Practice, 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2017.1293150.
  12. Crutcher, M., & Zook, M. (2009). Placemarks and waterlines: Racialized cyberscapes in post-Katrina Google Earth. Geoforum, 40(4), 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Datta, A. (2015). New urban utopias of postcolonial India: “Entrepreneurial urbanization” in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Lange, M., & de Waal, M. (2013). Owning the city: New media and citizen engagement in urban design. First Monday, 18(11). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4954.
  15. de Waal, M. (2014). The city as interface: how digital media are changing the city. nai010 Rotterdam: Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Dodge, M., & Kitchin, R. (2013). Crowdsourced cartography: Mapping experience and knowledge. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller, M. (2017). How to be a geek: Essays on the culture of software. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA, USA: PolityGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabrys, J. (2014). Programming environments: Environmentality and citizen sensing in the smart city. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1), 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenfield, A. (2013). Against the smart city (1.3 edition). Berlin: Do projects.Google Scholar
  20. Hart, R. A. (2008). Stepping back from ‘the ladder’: Reflections on a model of participatory work with children. In A. Reid, B. B. Jensen, J. Nikel, & V. Simovska (Eds.), Participation and Learning (pp. 19–31). Netherlands, Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heaphy, L., & Pétercsák, R. (2016). Building smart city partnerships in the ‘Silicon Docks’, paper presented at the Creating Smart Cities workshop. Maynooth University, Ireland. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2mjmyfd.
  22. Hill, D. (2013). Essay: On the smart city; Or, a “manifesto” for smart citizens instead. Retrieved October 26, 2017, from http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2013/02/on-the-smart-city-a-call-for-smart-citizens-instead.html.
  23. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isin, E. F. (Ed.). (2000). Democracy, citizenship, and the global city. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Kitchin, R. (2014a). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Kitchin, R. (2014b). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  27. Kitchin, R. (2015). Making sense of smart cities: Addressing present shortcomings. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitchin, R. (2016). The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374(2083), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kitchin, R., Coletta, C., Evans, L., Heaphy, L., & Mac Donncha, D. (2017a). Smart cities, urban technocrats, epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions and the ‘last mile’ problem. it—Information Technology., 59(6), 275–284.Google Scholar
  30. Kitchin, R., Coletta, C., & McArdle, G. (2017b). Urban informatics, governmentality and the logics of urban control. Programmable City Working Paper 25. Retrieved from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/27hz8/.
  31. Kitchin, R., O’Callaghan, C., Boyle, M., Gleeson, J., & Keaveney, K. (2012). Placing neoliberalism: The rise and fall of Ireland’s Celtic Tiger. Environment and Planning A, 44(6), 1302–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larner, W. (2003). Neoliberalism? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21, 509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ljungberg, J. (2000). Open source movements as a model for organising. European Journal of Information Systems, 9(4), 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacLaran, A., & Kelly, S. (2014). Neoliberal urban policy and the transformation of the city: Reshaping Dublin. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. March, H., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2016). Smart contradictions: The politics of making Barcelona a self-sufficient city. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 816–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. March, H., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2017). Against, for and beyond the smart city: Towards technological sovereignty in Barcelona. Boston: In Association of American Geographers conference.Google Scholar
  37. McCann, B. (2014). A review of SCATS operation and deployment in Dublin. In Presented at the 19th JCT traffic signal symposium and exhibition. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2pdLCs5.
  38. McLaren, D., & Agyeman, J. (2015). Sharing cities: A case for truly smart and sustainable cities. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, H. J. (2010). The data avalanche is here. Shouldn’t we be digging? Journal of Regional Science, 50(1), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ong, A. (2006). Mutations in citizenship. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2–3), 499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perng, S.-Y. (2016). Creating infrastructure with citizens: Traffic light box artworks in Dublin streets, paper presented at the Creating Smart Cities workshop. Maynooth University, Ireland. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2mjmyfd.
  42. Perng, S.-Y., & Kitchin, R. (2018). Solutions and frictions in civic hacking: collaboratively designing and building wait time predictions for an immigration office. Social and Cultural Geography, 19(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perng, S.-Y., Kitchin, R., & Mac Donncha, D. (2017). Hackathons, entrepreneurship and the passionate making of smart cities. The Programmable City Working Paper 28. Retrieved from osf.io/nu3ec.Google Scholar
  44. Sadowski, J., & Pasquale, F. A. (2015). The spectrum of control: A social theory of the smart city. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5903/4660?curator=TechREDEF.
  45. Sartori, L. (2015). Alla ricerca della “smart citizenship”. Istituzioni Del Federalismo: Rivista Di Studi Giuridici e Politici, 4, 927–948.Google Scholar
  46. Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shelton, T., Zook, M., & Wiig, A. (2015). The ‘actually existing smart city’. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swyngedouw, E. (2016). The mirage of the sustainable ‘smart’ city. Planetary urbanization and the spectre of combined and uneven apocalypse. In O. Nel-lo & R. Mele (Eds.), Cities in the 21st Century (pp. 134–143). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76(2), 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanolo, A. (2016). Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures, 82, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilcox, D. (1994). The Guide to Effective Participation. Retrieved from http://partnerships.org.uk/guide/AZpartic.html.
  53. Wilson, W. J., & Chaddha, A. (2009). The role of theory in ethnographic research. Ethnography, 10(4), 549–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Regional and Spatial AnalysisNational University of Ireland, MaynoothCounty KildareIreland

Personalised recommendations