Slow-governance in smart cities: An empirical study of smart intersection implementation in four US college towns

Abstract

Cities cannot adopt supposedly smart technological systems and protect human rights without developing appropriate data governance, because technologies are not value-neutral. This paper proposes a deliberative, slow-governance approach to smart tech in cities. Inspired by the Governing Knowledge Commons (GKC) framework and past case studies, we empirically analyse the adoption of smart intersection technologies in four US college towns to evaluate and extend knowledge commons governance approaches to address human rights concerns. Our proposal consists of a set of questions that should guide community decision-making, extending the GKC framework via an incorporation of human-rights impact assessments and a consideration of capabilities approaches to human rights. We argue that such a deliberative, slow-governance approach enables adaptation to local norms and more appropriate community governance of smart tech in cities. By asking and answering key questions throughout smart city planning, procurement, implementation and management processes, cities can respect human rights, interests and expectations. Issue 1This paper is part of Future-proofing the city: A human rights-based approach to governing algorithmic, biometric and smart city technologies, a special issue of Internet Policy Review guest-edited by Alina Wernick and Anna Artyushina.

Impact Assessment as a Legal Design Pattern—A “Timeless Way” of Managing Future Risks?

“…29a AIA, 2024; Art. 16, CoE, 2024), whereas others prescribe the process of inductively discovering the relevant values alongside the impacts on the values identified (See Vanclay et al, 2015;Sanfilippo & Frischmann, 2023;Sen, 1993). Furthermore, PBIAs may also couple prescriptive and inductive normative approaches (See Clarke, 2009;Mantelero, 2018;Mantelero & Esposito, 2018;Raab, 2020).…”

“…Stakeholders to be consulted may be preliminarily identified during this phase (Mantelero, 2022;Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2020). This stage carries more weight in PBIAs, where the impacts are determined more inductively, as in the case of connection with environmental and social impact assessments or capabilitiesbased approaches to assess the technology impacts (Sanfilippo & Frischmann, 2023;Sen, 1993). In contrast, the DPIA is more explicit about the scope of risk assessment and values at stake.…”

Future-proofing the city: A human rights-based approach to governing algorithmic, biometric and smart city technologies

“…and Open North (Pembleton et al, 2022;Qarri & Gill, 2022) demonstrate that the concept of digital rights are fragmentary: different cities and communities have proposed different sets of digital rights. In this special issue, Sanfilippo and Frischmann (2023) draw attention to the problem of polycentricity in the governance of US smart city initiatives. In their case studies, American university cities that implemented smart city solutions, provide rich data on value-driven and community-based approaches to the governance of smart city infrastructure.…”

“…On this basis, she proposes an impact assessment model to review the projects' cumulative effects on citizens' rights. Both Sanfilippo and Frischmann's (2023), and Christofi's (2023) studies, call for the greater involve-ment of communities in the design, decision-making and governance of smart cities; Sanfilippo and Frischmann (2023) offer examples of the technologies that have been dismantled or redesigned as they did not address the needs of the residents.…”

“…In this special issue, Sanfilippo and Frischmann (2023) propose a "slow-governance" framework for smart cities informed by the governance of knowledge commons framework and the capabilities approach. The slow governance framework aims to counter techno-solutionism associated with smart cities and foster human flourishing -a positive value beyond protections awarded by human rights.…”