2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120164
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Citizen repertoires of smart urban safety: Perspectives from Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Examples include visual and verbal vignettes based on different kinds of surveillance technologies (Mariën and Poels 2020) or scenarios of smart city futures (Butot et al 2020;Jameson, Richter, and Taylor 2019), gamified surveys challenging players to identify surveillant objects in a virtual smart city (Rijshouwer, Leclercq, and van Zoonen 2022), and escape rooms with surveillance storylines (Kihara, Lomas, and Bendor 2019). Although these studies have slightly different epistemological approaches to the phenomenon of "subjective experience," all highlight feelings of exposure to smart city surveillance, which is experienced as opaque in its functioning (Butot et al 2020;Jameson, Richter, and Taylor 2019;Rijshouwer, Leclercq, and van Zoonen 2022;Mariën and Poels 2020). To make sense of their uncertainties about surveillance, people differentiate between "personal" and "impersonal" data, public and private actors, and the purposes behind data collection ( Van Zoonen 2016;Mariën and Poels 2020).…”
Section: Studying Subjective Experiences Of Smart City Surveillancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Examples include visual and verbal vignettes based on different kinds of surveillance technologies (Mariën and Poels 2020) or scenarios of smart city futures (Butot et al 2020;Jameson, Richter, and Taylor 2019), gamified surveys challenging players to identify surveillant objects in a virtual smart city (Rijshouwer, Leclercq, and van Zoonen 2022), and escape rooms with surveillance storylines (Kihara, Lomas, and Bendor 2019). Although these studies have slightly different epistemological approaches to the phenomenon of "subjective experience," all highlight feelings of exposure to smart city surveillance, which is experienced as opaque in its functioning (Butot et al 2020;Jameson, Richter, and Taylor 2019;Rijshouwer, Leclercq, and van Zoonen 2022;Mariën and Poels 2020). To make sense of their uncertainties about surveillance, people differentiate between "personal" and "impersonal" data, public and private actors, and the purposes behind data collection ( Van Zoonen 2016;Mariën and Poels 2020).…”
Section: Studying Subjective Experiences Of Smart City Surveillancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, results across the studies also suggest that such cognitive assessments of smart city technologies are not made in everyday life, and that most people seem to reluctantly accept surveillance because it is too pervasive to consciously reflect on all the time. With an eye on future developments, people see invasive smart city surveillance scenarios as inevitabilities regardless of their values, preferences, and priorities (Butot et al 2020;Rijshouwer, Leclercq, and van Zoonen 2022). These results can be compared against research highlighting a "privacy paradox," where people's statements about valuing privacy are incongruous with their disclosure of personal information (Acquisti and Grossklags 2003).…”
Section: Studying Subjective Experiences Of Smart City Surveillancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As an example of the first step in this direction, he describes linking a semantic 3D city model with real-time IoT sensors. Detailed semantic 3D city models enriched with thematic and real-time information are the backbone of Urban Digital Twins, which have already been implemented in cities like Helsinki (Ruohomäki et al, 2018), Rotterdam (Butot et al, 2020), Zurich (Schrotter & Hürzeler, 2020), Singapore (Niculescu & Wadhwa, 2015) and Atlanta with a special focus on human-infrastructure-technology interactions (Mohammadi & Taylor, 2017).…”
Section: Digital Twins In the Context Of Smart Cities -Urbanmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The notion of digital society proposes that network infrastructures, as well as information and communication technologies (ICTs), are capable of generating a large amount of data (Butot et al, 2020) and facilitating development processes. Therefore, they can be used to provide solutions to social, economic, urban and territorial challenges (Townsend, 2013) , which guide the progress and growth of cities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the impact of the digital society on the structure of cities has been an area of interest in academia in recent years, (Batty et al, 2012;Butot et al, 2020;Elias B., 2020;Reddy & Reinartz, 2017;Ricaurte-Quijano et al, 2017;Townsend, 2013) it has not been widely explored from perspectives of urban characterization through multivariate statistical methods. In previous researches on urban issues and mobility, characterization methodologies have been developed using multivariate analysis that have ignored issues related to the digital society.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%