Mini Challenge 1 — Literature Review
In this article, we discuss the literature on the topic we read and how it informed the direction of our work
Social Capital and HCI
Normally, when we think about assets, or things that can be used to make other things, we think of machinery, workers etc. However, the theory of social capital tells us that the social relationships among people are also important. A “network” of people — who communicate with each other and can trust each other, can accomplish much more than a similarly sized group of strangers, i.e the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Aldrich and Meyer look at the various ways in which Social Capital can be defined — from the resources we can access through networks of people we know, to the norms, practices and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit at a neighbourhood and community level. [1]
Further, there are three kinds of social capital, each of which manifest in different ways. [2]
Bonding Social Capital deals with the formation of connections between people, which directly influences their willingness and ability to support and assist each other.
Bridging Social Capital deals with “loose” connections in groups — such as clubs, sports teams etc which may reach across social barriers of class, ethnicity etc.
Finally, Linking Social Capital connects people at different levels of power ( such as a voter and an elected representative).
Paul Resnick argues that social capital is a necessary precondition for the successful deployment and use of socio-technical systems — i.e technological systems which involve both social/cultural values in addition to user behavior. This is because only after users have developed trust in each other, a shared identity, or some for of social capital that they can use the system without being worried or suspicious. [3]
He further argues that HCI research can contribute to increasing social capital in two ways:
- Organisations and groups that are large sources of social capital, such as religious organisations, sports bodies etc can use digital technology to coordinate and publicise events
- Conceptualise and develop new kinds of activities that can help increase social capital among participants
Community Resilience
Community Resilience is defined as the collective ability of a neighbourhood/geographical defined area to deal with stressors such as natural disasters, political unrest, etc in order to efficiently resume their daily activities [1]. This ability to bounce back quickly arises from co-operation. The foundation for community resilience lies in the community’s participation, cohesion, engagement and belonging.
Social Capital in a disaster setting
Through Social Networks, people have access to resources both tangible (loans and gifts for repair) and intangible (performing search and rescue for neighbours, removing debris, caring for children, passing on information). Aldrich and Meyer also show examples of how people with fewer social ties are less likely to be rescued or get the assistance or medical help that they need.
Finally, there are feelings of mutual trust, that emerge from high social capital, also led to an increase in awareness of the need for disaster management and the willingness to volunteer, which in turn supports preparedness, a collective response from the neighbourhood, and better rates of adaptation and recovery. [1]
What is truly a smart city?
Show how the technology you envision intertwines with other things.
-Philip Agre
Smart Cities are intended to incorporate digital technology to sense activities and respond more quickly to emergencies. Through the evolution from intelligent cities to responsive cities the focus has been mostly on the technological and technical systems rather than the urban ecologies and community cohesion that needs to evolve in parallel with the cities.
Yigitcanlar et al quote Cugurullo’s argument that that current practice in smart cities is generating a kind of Frankenstein urbanism where different incompatible units in cities has been forced, fueled by technocratic approach that tends to favour the more economically profitable outcome. This discounts other factors that establish a city’s core well being. So, when it comes to planning cities, for a more sustainable approach, planners need to work on building social and human capital on foundations of symbiosis between humans and contextually embedded technologies. [4]
State of the art review
Community engagement is a well-known method to engage stakeholders in various urban planning projects. It has been seen in smart cities as well, such as the case of Nottingham in the UK [5]. The issue is that it focuses on the relationship of the state with the citizens (i.e linking social capital) and not the relationships of citizens with each other (bonding and bridging capital). Mainka et al also study various citizen-led innovation initiatives for public libraries in Denmark and Finland, and the 311 phone system in the USA (where citizens can request data on the city from the government) [6]
One of the most exciting things we came across was PREPHUB — an architectural installation for disaster preparation [7] . PREPHUBs are permanently installed units at regular intervals throughout the city which can be configured differently for different spaces and needs which modular blocks which offer basic amenities like electricity, water and facilities like information display screens, visual communication (photo/video), neighborhood resource map, and pedal-powered DC generators,etc. They act as benign structures which are recognised points which transform into resource centers in times of disaster where the neighbourhood gets together and helps each other by connecting and collaborating humanely.
(Source: https://prephub.org/)
Synthesis and Design Principles
In times of disaster, infrastructures we take for granted such as electricity, internet and so on are usually knocked offline for extended periods of time.
Any artefact that we design to help community resilience through social capital has to keep that in mind. Relying on digital technology alone risks an over-reliance on a single point of failure, and we need to design keeping in mind broader system and societal dynamics.
Smart Cities, and the rise of city — as — platform prompts for better decision making tapping into collective Intelligence by businesses, residents and government of the city. However once again these systems are vulnerable to disruption but their core principles can be kept in mind — how might we design decentralised and citizen-focused artefacts which can operate independently but still use collective intelligence and local knowledge to create a bottom-up network? Is “smartness” a necessary and sufficient condition for such an artefact? Can we interrogate and question pre-defined notions of “smartness”?
Finally, the design of the artefact needs to incorporate affordances for collective and collaborative operation. It should act as a “third space” where citizens can congregate and meet with each other. They should be able to share information and request or volunteer help outside of their immediate social circles (i.e bridging social capital) as Adrich and Mayer point out in the case of Hurricane Katrina that this was what allowed some neighbourhoods to recover faster than others. [1] We really like PREPHub for this reason.
Preliminary Evaluation Criteria
- Does it help create a greater number of “bridging” social relationships across class/race lines? Is it accessible to all kinds of users (low literacy, physical disability etc)
- Does it help create more “linking” relationships across power differentials (citizen-government
- Can it operate in adverse weather conditions?
- Can it operate in the absence of internet or electricity supply?
- Can multiple people use it at the same time with different goals and still be able to accomplish what they intend to do?
References
- Daniel P. Aldrich and Michelle A. Meyer. 2015. Social Capital and Community Resilience. American Behavioral Scientist 59, 2: 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299
- Brian Keeley and OECD. 2007. Human capital how what you know shapes your life. Retrieved August 17, 2019 from https://doi.org/10.1787/9264029087
- Paul Resnick, Tora Bikson, Elizabeth Mynatt, Robert Puttnam, Lee Sproull, and Barry Wellman. 2000. Beyond bowling together. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work — CSCW ’00, 363. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.362079
- Tan Yigitcanlar, Marcus Foth, and Md. Kamruzzaman. 2019. Towards Post-Anthropocentric Cities: Reconceptualizing Smart Cities to Evade Urban Ecocide. Journal of Urban Technology 26, 2: 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2018.1524249
- Mazhar, M., Bahareh Kaveh, Marjan Sarshar, Richard Bull, and R. Fayez. “Community Engagement as a Tool to help deliver Smart City Innovation: A Case Study of Nottingham, United Kingdom.” 2017.
- Agnes Mainka, Walter Castelnovo, Virve Miettinen, Sidsel Bech-Petersen, Sarah Hartmann, and Wolfgang G. Stock. 2016. Open innovation in smart cities: Civic participation and co-creation of public services: Open Innovation in Smart Cities: Civic Participation and Co-Creation of Public Services. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 53, 1: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301006
- Miho Mazereeuw and Elizabeth Yarina. 2017. Emergency Preparedness Hub: Designing Decentralized Systems for Disaster Resilience. Journal of Architectural Education 71, 1: 65–72.
