Discovering smart: Early encounters and negotiations with smart street furniture in London and Glasgow

Chris Chesher , Matthew Hanchard , Justine Humphry , Peter Merrington , Justine Gangneux , Simon Joss , Sophia Maalsen , Bridgette Wessels
{"title":"Discovering smart: Early encounters and negotiations with smart street furniture in London and Glasgow","authors":"Chris Chesher ,&nbsp;Matthew Hanchard ,&nbsp;Justine Humphry ,&nbsp;Peter Merrington ,&nbsp;Justine Gangneux ,&nbsp;Simon Joss ,&nbsp;Sophia Maalsen ,&nbsp;Bridgette Wessels","doi":"10.1016/j.diggeo.2023.100055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the late 2010s, publics in the UK encountered new kinds of street furniture: Strawberry Energy Smart benches in London and InLinkUK kiosks in Glasgow, with smart features such as phone charging, free Wi-Fi, free phone calls, information screens and environmental data. This article analyses how smart street furniture is socially constructed by relevant social groups, each with different interests, forms of power and meanings. Smartness became associated not only with advanced technologies, but with a neoliberal agenda of private-public partnerships promising urban transformations, such as free devices for councils and citizens in exchange for access to advertising or sponsorship space in public places. The research examined the design, use and governance of new types of smart street furniture using mixed methods, including document analysis of promotional and regulatory texts, site observations of these devices, and interviews. We found that the uses and meanings of these devices were discovered at different moments by technology companies, local councils, and the public. Few members of the public knew about the devices, and showed little interest in them, even if they were the assumed users. An exception was gig workers and people experiencing homelessness who found uses for the smart features and a community activist who campaigned against these as surveillant and intrusive. Businesses and councils embraced smart city visions but took multiple approaches to agreements for the implementation and governance of smart street furniture. Notably, these more powerful groups discovered and negotiated the meanings of smart street furniture well before these were publicly encountered. This article reveals how a social construction of technology (SCOT) approach is strongest when it accounts for the relative power of social groups in struggles over meanings and resources. It provides empirical information on everyday sociotechnical encounters that provide nuanced evidence for wider critiques of smart city agendas.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100377,"journal":{"name":"Digital Geography and Society","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100055"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digital Geography and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666378323000077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In the late 2010s, publics in the UK encountered new kinds of street furniture: Strawberry Energy Smart benches in London and InLinkUK kiosks in Glasgow, with smart features such as phone charging, free Wi-Fi, free phone calls, information screens and environmental data. This article analyses how smart street furniture is socially constructed by relevant social groups, each with different interests, forms of power and meanings. Smartness became associated not only with advanced technologies, but with a neoliberal agenda of private-public partnerships promising urban transformations, such as free devices for councils and citizens in exchange for access to advertising or sponsorship space in public places. The research examined the design, use and governance of new types of smart street furniture using mixed methods, including document analysis of promotional and regulatory texts, site observations of these devices, and interviews. We found that the uses and meanings of these devices were discovered at different moments by technology companies, local councils, and the public. Few members of the public knew about the devices, and showed little interest in them, even if they were the assumed users. An exception was gig workers and people experiencing homelessness who found uses for the smart features and a community activist who campaigned against these as surveillant and intrusive. Businesses and councils embraced smart city visions but took multiple approaches to agreements for the implementation and governance of smart street furniture. Notably, these more powerful groups discovered and negotiated the meanings of smart street furniture well before these were publicly encountered. This article reveals how a social construction of technology (SCOT) approach is strongest when it accounts for the relative power of social groups in struggles over meanings and resources. It provides empirical information on everyday sociotechnical encounters that provide nuanced evidence for wider critiques of smart city agendas.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
发现智能:在伦敦和格拉斯哥与智能街道家具的早期接触和谈判
2010年代末,英国公众遇到了新型的街头家具:伦敦的Strawberry Energy智能长椅和格拉斯哥的InLinkUK售货亭,它们具有智能功能,如手机充电、免费Wi-Fi、免费电话、信息屏幕和环境数据。本文分析了智能街道家具是如何由相关的社会群体进行社会建构的,每个社会群体都有不同的兴趣、权力形式和意义。智能不仅与先进技术联系在一起,还与公私伙伴关系的新自由主义议程联系在一起。公私伙伴关系承诺城市转型,例如为议会和公民提供免费设备,以换取在公共场所获得广告或赞助空间。该研究采用混合方法研究了新型智能街道家具的设计、使用和管理,包括宣传和监管文本的文件分析、这些设备的现场观察和采访。我们发现,科技公司、地方议会和公众在不同的时刻发现了这些设备的用途和意义。很少有公众知道这些设备,对它们也没有什么兴趣,即使它们是假定的用户。一个例外是零工工人和无家可归的人,他们发现了智能功能的用途,还有一位社区活动家,他们反对这些功能是监视性和侵入性的。企业和议会接受了智能城市的愿景,但对智能街道家具的实施和治理协议采取了多种方法。值得注意的是,这些更强大的团体早在智能街头家具公开亮相之前就发现并协商了这些家具的含义。本文揭示了当考虑到社会群体在意义和资源斗争中的相对权力时,技术的社会建构(SCOT)方法是如何最强的。它提供了关于日常社会技术遭遇的经验信息,为更广泛地批评智能城市议程提供了细致入微的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Broker bureaucracies: The subsidiary offices of the digitalizing state (Retail) platform legitimation through municipal partnerships? Characterizing climate change sentiments in Alaska on social media Counter-mapping platformization. Rethinking the spatial differentiation of platform control, labor relations and restaurant virtualization in proprietary markets for food-delivery Synthetic geospatial data and fake geography: A case study on the implications of AI-derived data in a data-intensive society
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1