Sharma, N K; Hargreaves, T and Pallett, H (2023) Social justice implications of smart urban technologies: An intersectional approach. Buildings & Cities, 4(1), pp. 315-333. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Techno-optimistic visions around smart buildings, homes, cities, grids, healthcare, etc. have become ubiquitous over the past decade. Using variations of machine learning and artificial intelligence, smart urbanism (SU) envisions an efficient, digital society. However, research shows that smart technologies reinscribe inequalities by prioritising the interests of the free market, technology-centric governance and data monetisation. Although there has been a growing concern over the injustices SU perpetuates, there is a lack of systematic engagement with power systems such as capitalism or heterosexism that underpin SU visions. A novel framework is presented that situates intersectional justice at the heart of SU. A mapping of 70 cases of 'trouble' with the promises of SU is used to address three core research questions: What are the 'troubles' with SU? To what extent are they intersectional? What can intersectionality add to the development of a just SU? The analysis shows how SU politics play out in relation to how users are understood and engaged, how different actors institutionalise SU and how dominant power systems are challenged. The presented strategy contributes to understanding not just the data politics in urban spaces, but also how they can be renegotiated and re-evaluated to solve multiple and interconnected urban crises without compromising on social justice. PRACTICE RELEVANCE Citizen-led initiatives against SU should commit to intersectionality’s radical core to dismantle power structures to ensure local smart urban projects do not entrench global business-as-usual neoliberal agendas. Intersectional thinking can create spaces for deliberative dialogues between civil society groups and build alliances across groups that seek to challenge the hegemony of exclusionary urban policies. Urban planners and local governments, which are at the forefront of SU applications, should decentre technologies and rather focus efforts on working out how smart technologies can work in conjunction with other kinds of urban interventions, such as social, economic and environmental policy changes, collaborative planning, community development, etc. to herald more just urban futures. Designers of smart urban technologies should apply intersectional approaches to further challenge 'Homo economicus' (rational, White, technophilic, able-bodied) as the primary user type and to replace it with diverse user archetypes that express humanity, justice and generosity.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cities; data politics; internet of things; intersectionality; smart city; smart technology; smart urbanism; social justice |
| Index terms: | designer, machine learning, internet, governance, variation, urban space, environmental policy, strategy, urbanism, smart city, politics, planner, community development, smart building, heart, prioritizing, social justice, archetype, artificial intelligence, inequality, society, collaborative planning, justice, mapping, civil society, urban policy, local government |
| Subjects: | business, decision analysis, communities and social development, sociology, construction type, urban design and public space, administrative law, political science, profession, urban planning, cities and urban places, contractual condition, computing systems, medical science and clinical practice, public policy, modelling and simulation, management, spatial and geospatial analysis, legal systems, artificial intelligence, urban sustainability |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Ethics, Health and Safety, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Urban Studies, Contract Administration, Governance, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here