Abstract
Scholars, policymakers, and issue advocates have long pointed to the digital divide and systemic injustices that pervade designs for the smart city. For many, this debate centers around the “haves” and “have nots” and the differences between those social groups. This research problematizes that binary classification and articulates a more nuanced set of social groups. Evidence from surveys and participant observations suggest that the smart city is further segregating urban residents along socio-economic lines. While some users will reap financial and social rewards from digital commerce, recreation and social life, others will be preyed upon, victimized or excluded. This will privilege a small group of elites and allow them to perpetuate digital segregation in the smart city. We close we a discussion on how to create pathways for greater inclusion and community-based governance.
Highlights
In the past 20 years the devices and systems that enabled Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology, hereby termed smart, have gained popularity as a way to improve urban life
While Serrano-Cinca et al (2018) sought to differentiate users by recreational, educational and professional uses, this approach seeks to highlight the emergent hierarchy among the social groups
The goal is not to establish a new classification system, but to synthesize prior work in this area and bring survey evidence to bear on the theory that the digital segregation is occurring and detail some of the harms imposed
Summary
In the past 20 years the devices and systems that enabled Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology, hereby termed smart, have gained popularity as a way to improve urban life. High levels of responsibility, yet lack accountability Innovators Technological utopians Highest levels of control, autonomy and social capital Highest levels of operational knowledge, formal training, information literacy, communication skills and strategic uses Moderate level of access, skills, use and net positive outcomes are “normalized users” Willing to adopt and live in smart cities and are adopters of advanced services, service users Professional and educational users Early adopters and early majority Low level of access, skills, use and net negative outcomes are “general citizens” that are portrayed by a “smart-phone centric vision of civic engagement” or “citizens-as-sensors” Online systems inflict harms on working poor through data exploitation, coercion, and algorithmic bias Late adopters Recreational and social users No or very low access, skills, use and net negative outcomes or “problematic other” or “deviant individuals” that leads to the “stigmatization of non-users” and lack choice or digital enforcement Informal and marginal populations and in needs of digital inclusion interventions Laggards Offline citizens Absent citizens Excluded users.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
