Open Data For Social Good: The Case For Better Transport Services

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 at TechWeek Europe: “The growing focus on data protection, driven partly by stronger legislation and partly by consumer pressure, has put the debate on the benefits of open data somewhat on the back burner.

The continuing spate of high-profile data breaches and the abuse of public trust in the form of constant bombardment of automated calls, spam emails and clumsily ‘personalised’ advertising has done little to further the open data agenda. In fact it left many consumers feeling lukewarm about the prospects of organisations opening up their data feeds, even at a promise of a better service in return.

That’s a worrying trend. In many industries effective use of open data can lead to development of solutions that address some of the major challenges populations are faced with today, allowing for faster innovation and adaptability to change. There are significant ways in which individuals, and society as a whole could benefit from open data, if organisations and governments get data sharing right.

Open data for transport

A good example is city transportation. Many metropolises face a major challenge – growing populations are placing pressure on current infrastructure systems, leading to congestion and inefficiency.

An open data system, where commuters use a single travel account for all travel transactions and information – whether that’s public transport, walking, using the bike, using Uber, and so on, would give the city unprecedented insight into how people commute and what’s behind their travel choices.

The key to engaging the public with this is the condition that data is used responsibly and for the greater good. Currently, Transport for London (TfL) operates a meet-in-the-middle model. Consumers can travel anonymously on the TfL network, with only the point of entry and point of exit being recorded, and the company provides that anonymised data to third-party app developers who can then use it to release useful travel applications.

TfL doesn’t profit from sharing consumer data but it does enjoy the benefits that come with it. Third-party travel applications make it easier for commuters to use TfL’s network and make the service itself appear more efficient – in short, everyone benefits.

Mutual benefit

Let’s now imagine a scenario that takes this mutually beneficial relationship a step forward, with consumers willingly giving up some information about themselves to the responsible parties (in this case, the city) and receiving personalised service in return. In this scenario, the more information commuters can provide to the system, the more useful the system can be to them.

Apart from providing personalised travel information and recommendations, such a system would have one more important benefit – it would enable cities to encourage greater social responsibility, extending the benefits from the individual to the community as a whole….(More)”

Soon Your City Will Know Everything About You

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
Philip N. Howard at Yahoo Tech: “They call it “the Internet of Things” — the rapidly growing network of everyday objects equipped with sensors, tiny power supplies, and internet addresses. Within a few years, we will be immersed in a world of these connected devices. The best estimatessuggest that there will be about 60 billion of them by the year 2020. We’ve already seen internet-accessible sensors implanted in dolls, cars, and cows.

Currently, the biggest users of these sensor arrays are in cities, where city governments use them to collect large amounts of policy-relevant data. In Los Angeles, the crowdsourced traffic and navigation app Waze collects data that helps residents navigate the city’s choked highway networks. In Chicago, an ambitious program makes public data available to startups eager to build apps for residents. The city’s 49th ward has been experimenting with participatory budgeting and online votingto take the pulse of the community on policy issues. Chicago has also been developing the “Array of Things,” a network of sensors that track, among other things, the urban conditions that affect bronchitis.

Edmonton uses the cloud to track the condition of playground equipment. And a growing number of countries have purpose-built smart cities, like South Korea’s high tech utopia city of Songdo, where pervasive sensor networks and ubiquitous computing generate immense amounts of civic data for public services.

The drive for smart cities isn’t restricted to the developed world. Rio de Janeiro coordinates the information flows of 30 different city agencies. In Beijing and Da Nang (Vietnam), mobile phone data is actively tracked in the name of real-time traffic management. Urban sensor networks, in other words, are also developing in countries with few legal protections governing the usage of data.

These services are promising and useful. But you don’t have to look far to see why the Internet of Things has serious privacy implications. Public data is used for “predictive policing” in at least 75 cities across the U.S., including New York City, where critics maintain that using social media or traffic data to help officers evaluate probable cause is a form of digital stop-and-frisk. In Los Angeles, the security firm Palantir scoops up publicly generated data on car movements, merges it with license plate information collected by the city’s traffic cameras, and sells analytics back to the city so that police officers can decide whether or not to search a car. In Chicago, concern is growing about discriminatory profiling because so much information is collected and managed by the police department — an agency with a poor reputation for handling data in consistent and sensitive ways. In 2015, video surveillance of the police shooting Laquan McDonald outside a Burger King was erased by a police employee who ironically did not know his activities were being digitally recorded by cameras inside the restaurant.

Since most national governments have bungled privacy policy, cities — which have a reputation for being better with administrative innovations — will need to fill this gap. A few countries, such as Canada and the U.K., have independent “privacy commissioners” who are responsible for advocating for the public when bureaucracies must decide how to use or give out data. It is pretty clear that cities need such advocates too.

What would Urban Privacy Commissioners do? They would teach the public — and other government staff — about how policy algorithms work. They would evaluate the political context in which city agencies make big data investments. They would help a city negotiate contracts that protect residents’ privacy while providing effective analysis to policy makers and ensuring that open data is consistently serving the public good….(more)”.

While governments talk about smart cities, it’s citizens who create them

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Carlo Ratti at the Conversation: “The Australian government recently released an ambitious Smart Cities Plan, which suggests that cities should be first and foremost for people:

If our cities are to continue to meet their residents’ needs, it is essential for people to engage and participate in planning and policy decisions that have an impact on their lives.

Such statements are a good starting point – and should probably become central to Australia’s implementation efforts. A lot of knowledge has been collected over the past decade from successful and failed smart cities experiments all over the world; reflecting on them could provide useful information for the Australian government as it launches its national plan.

What is a smart city?

But, before embarking on such review, it would help to start from a definition of “smart city”.

The term has been used and abused in recent years, so much so that today it has lost meaning. It is often used to encompass disparate applications: we hear people talk and write about “smart city” when they refer to anything from citizen engagement to Zipcar, from open data to Airbnb, from smart biking to broadband.

Where to start with a definition? It is a truism to say the internet has transformed our lives over the past 20 years. Everything in the way we work, meet, mate and so on is very different today than it was just a few decades ago, thanks to a network of connectivity that now encompasses most people on the planet.

In a similar way, we are today at the beginning of a new technological revolution: the internet is entering physical space – the very space of our cities – and is becoming the Internet of Things; it is opening the door to a new world of applications that, as with the first wave of the internet, can incorporate many domains….

What should governments do?

In the above technological context, what should governments do? Over the past few years, the first wave of smart city applications followed technological excitement.

For instance, some of Korea’s early experiments such as Songdo City were engineered by the likes of Cisco, with technology deployment assisted by top-down policy directives.

In a similar way, in 2010, Rio de Janeiro launched the Integrated Centre of Command and Control, engineered by IBM. It’s a large control room for the city, which collects real-time information from cameras and myriad sensors suffused in the urban fabric.

Such approaches revealed many shortcomings, most notably the lack of civic engagement. It is as if they thought of the city simply as a “computer in open air”. These approaches led to several backlashes in the research and academic community.

A more interesting lesson can come from the US, where the focus is more on developing a rich Internet of Things innovation ecosystem. There are many initiatives fostering spaces – digital and physical – for people to come together and collaborate on urban and civic innovations….

That isn’t to say that governments should take a completely hands-off approach to urban development. Governments certainly have an important role to play. This includes supporting academic research and promoting applications in fields that might be less appealing to venture capital – unglamorous but nonetheless crucial domains such as municipal waste or water services.

The public sector can also promote the use of open platforms and standards in such projects, which would speed up adoption in cities worldwide.

Still, the overarching goal should always be to focus on citizens. They are in the best position to determine how to transform their cities and to make decisions that will have – as the Australian Smart Cities Plan puts it – “an impact on their lives”….(more)”

Private Data and the Public Good

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Gideon Mann‘s remarks on the occasion of the Robert Khan distinguished lecture at The City College of New York on 5/22/16: and opportunities about a specific aspect of this relationship, the broader need for computer science to engage with the real world. Right now, a key aspect of this relationship is being built around the risks and opportunities of the emerging role of data.

Ultimately, I believe that these relationships, between computer science andthe real world, between data science and real problems, hold the promise tovastly increase our public welfare. And today, we, the people in this room,have a unique opportunity to debate and define a more moral dataeconomy….

The hybrid research model proposes something different. The hybrid research model, embeds, as it were, researchers as practitioners.The thought was always that you would be going about your regular run of business,would face a need to innovate to solve a crucial problem, and would do something novel. At that point, you might choose to work some extra time and publish a paper explaining your innovation. In practice, this model rarely works as expected. Tight deadlines mean the innovation that people do in their normal progress of business is incremental..

This model separated research from scientific publication, and shortens thetime-window of research, to what can be realized in a few year time zone.For me, this always felt like a tremendous loss, with respect to the older so-called “ivory tower” research model. It didn’t seem at all clear how this kindof model would produce the sea change of thought engendered byShannon’s work, nor did it seem that Claude Shannon would ever want towork there. This kind of environment would never support the freestanding wonder, like the robot mouse that Shannon worked on. Moreover, I always believed that crucial to research is publication and participation in the scientific community. Without this engagement, it feels like something different — innovation perhaps.

It is clear that the monopolistic environment that enabled AT&T to support this ivory tower research doesn’t exist anymore. .

Now, the hybrid research model was one model of research at Google, butthere is another model as well, the moonshot model as exemplified byGoogle X. Google X brought together focused research teams to driveresearch and development around a particular project — Google Glass and the Self-driving car being two notable examples. Here the focus isn’t research, but building a new product, with research as potentially a crucial blocking issue. Since the goal of Google X is directly to develop a new product, by definition they don’t publish papers along the way, but they’re not as tied to short-term deliverables as the rest of Google is. However, they are again decidedly un-Bell-Labs like — a secretive, tightly focused, non-publishing group. DeepMind is a similarly constituted initiative — working, for example, on a best-in-the-world Go playing algorithm, with publications happening sparingly.

Unfortunately, both of these approaches, the hybrid research model and the moonshot model stack the deck towards a particular kind of research — research that leads to relatively short term products that generate corporate revenue. While this kind of research is good for society, it isn’t the only kind of research that we need. We urgently need research that is longterm, and that is undergone even without a clear financial local impact. Insome sense this is a “tragedy of the commons”, where a shared public good (the commons) is not supported because everyone can benefit from itwithout giving back. Academic research is thus a non-rival, non-excludible good, and thus reasonably will be underfunded. In certain cases, this takes on an ethical dimension — particularly in health care, where the choice ofwhat diseases to study and address has a tremendous potential to affect human life. Should we research heart disease or malaria? This decisionmakes a huge impact on global human health, but is vastly informed by the potential profit from each of these various medicines….

Private Data means research is out of reach

The larger point that I want to make, is that in the absence of places where long-term research can be done in industry, academia has a tremendous potential opportunity. Unfortunately, it is actually quite difficult to do the work that needs to be done in academia, since many of the resources needed to push the state of the art are only found in industry: in particular data.

Of course, academia also lacks machine resources, but this is a simpler problem to fix — it’s a matter of money, resources form the government could go to enabling research groups building their own data centers or acquiring the computational resources from the market, e.g. Amazon. This is aided by the compute philanthropy that Google and Microsoft practice that grant compute cycles to academic organizations.

But the data problem is much harder to address. The data being collected and generated at private companies could enable amazing discoveries and research, but is impossible for academics to access. The lack of access to private data from companies actually is much more significant effects than inhibiting research. In particular, the consumer level data, collected by social networks and internet companies could do much more than ad targeting.

Just for public health — suicide prevention, addiction counseling, mental health monitoring — there is enormous potential in the use of our online behavior to aid the most needy, and academia and non-profits are set-up to enable this work, while companies are not.

To give a one examples, anorexia and eating disorders are vicious killers. 20 million women and 10 million men suffer from a clinically significant eating disorder at some time in their life, and sufferers of eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any other mental health disorder — with a jaw-dropping estimated mortality rate of 10%, both directly from injuries sustained by the disorder and by suicide resulting from the disorder.

Eating disorders are particular in that sufferers often seek out confirmatory information, blogs, images and pictures that glorify and validate what sufferers see as “lifestyle” choices. Browsing behavior that seeks out images and guidance on how to starve yourself is a key indicator that someone is suffering. Tumblr, pinterest, instagram are places that people host and seek out this information. Tumblr has tried to help address this severe mental health issue by banning blogs that advocate for self-harm and by adding PSA announcements to query term searches for queries for or related to anorexia. But clearly — this is not the be all and end all of work that could be done to detect and assist people at risk of dying from eating disorders. Moreover, this data could also help understand the nature of those disorders themselves…..

There is probably a role for a data ombudsman within private organizations — someone to protect the interests of the public’s data inside of an organization. Like a ‘public editor’ in a newspaper according to how you’ve set it up. There to protect and articulate the interests of the public, which means probably both sides — making sure a company’s data is used for public good where appropriate, and making sure the ‘right’ to privacy of the public is appropriately safeguarded (and probably making sure the public is informed when their data is compromised).

Next, we need a platform to make collaboration around social good between companies and between companies and academics. This platform would enable trusted users to have access to a wide variety of data, and speed process of research.

Finally, I wonder if there is a way that government could support research sabbaticals inside of companies. Clearly, the opportunities for this research far outstrip what is currently being done…(more)”

Legal Aid With a Digital Twist

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Tina Rosenberg in the New York Times: “Matthew Stubenberg was a law student at the University of Maryland in 2010 when he spent part of a day doing expungements. It was a standard law school clinic where students learn by helping clients — in this case, he helped them to fill out and file petitions to erase parts of their criminal records. (Last week I wrote about the lifelong effects of these records, even if there is no conviction, and the expungement process that makes them go away.)

Although Maryland has a public database called Case Search, using that data to fill out the forms was tedious. “We spent all this time moving data from Case Search onto our forms,” Stubenberg said. “We spent maybe 30 seconds on the legal piece. Why could this not be easier? This was a problem that could be fixed by a computer.”

Stubenberg knew how to code. After law school, he set out to build software that automatically did that tedious work. By September 2014 he had a prototype for MDExpungement, which went live in January 2015. (The website is not pretty — Stubenberg is a programmer, not a designer.)

With MDExpungement, entering a case number brings it up on Case Search. The software then determines whether the case is expungeable. If so, the program automatically transfers the information from Case Search to the expungement form. All that’s left is to print, sign and file it with the court.

In October 2015 a change in Maryland law made more cases eligible for expungement. Between then and March 2016, people filed 7,600 petitions to have their criminal records removed in Baltimore City District Court. More than two-thirds of them came from MDExpungement.

“With the ever-increasing amount of expungements we’re all doing, the app has just made it a lot easier,” said Mary-Denise Davis, a public defender in Baltimore. “I put in a case number and it fills the form out for me. Like magic.”

The rise of online legal forms may not be a gripping subject, but it matters. Tens of millions of Americans need legal help for civil problems — they need a divorce, child support or visitation, protection from abuse or a stay of eviction. They must hold off debt collectors or foreclosure, or get government benefits….(more)“

These Online Platforms Make Direct Democracy Possible

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Tom Ladendorf in InTheseTimes: “….Around the world, organizations from political parties to cooperatives are experimenting with new modes of direct democracy made possible by the internet.

“The world has gone through extraordinary technological innovation,” says Agustín Frizzera of Argentina’s Net Party. “But governments and political institutions haven’t innovated enough.”

The founders of the four-year-old party have also built an online platform, DemocracyOS, that lets users discuss and vote on proposals being considered by their legislators.

Anyone can adopt the technology, but the Net Party uses it to let Buenos Aires residents debate City Council measures. A 2013 thread, for example, concerned a plan to require bars and restaurants to make bathrooms free and open to the public.

“I recognize the need for freely available facilities, but it is the state who should be offering this service,” reads the top comment, voted most helpful by users. Others argued that private bathrooms open the door to discrimination. Ultimately, 56.9 percent of participants supported the proposal, while 35.3 percent voted against and 7.8 percent abstained….

A U.S. company called PlaceAVote, launched in 2014, takes what it calls a more pragmatic approach. According to cofounder Job Melton, PlaceAVote’s goal is to “work within the system we have now and fix it from the inside out” instead of attempting the unlikely feat of building a third U.S. party.

Like the Net Party and its brethren, PlaceAVote offers an online tool that lets voters participate in decision making. Right now, the technology is in public beta at PlaceAVote.com, allowing users nationwide to weigh in on legislation before Congress….

But digital democracy has applications that extend beyond electoral politics. A wide range of groups are using web-based decision-making tools internally. The Mexican government, for example, has used DemocracyOS to gather citizen feedback on a data-protection law, and Brazilian civil society organizations are using it to encourage engagement with federal and municipal policy-making.

Another direct-democracy tool in wide use is Loomio, developed by a cooperative in New Zealand. Ben Knight, one of Loomio’s cofounders, sums up his experience with Occupy as one of “seeing massive potential of collective decision making, and then realizing how difficult it could be in person.” After failing to find an online tool to facilitate the process, the Loomio team created a platform that enables online discussion with a personal element: Votes are by name and voters can choose to “disagree” with or even “block” proposals. Provo, Utah, uses Loomio for public consultation, and a number of political parties use Loomio for local decision making, including the Brazilian Pirate Party, several regional U.K. Green Party chapters and Spain’s Podemos. Podemos has enthusiastically embraced digital-democracy tools for everything from its selection of European Parliament candidates to the creation of its party platform….(More)”

Real-Time Data Can Improve Traffic Management in Major Cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

World Bank: “Traffic management agencies and city planners will soon have access to real-time data to better manage traffic flows on the streets of Cebu City and Metro Manila.

Grab, The World Bank, and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) launched today the OpenTraffic initiative, which will help address traffic congestion and road safety challenges.

Grab is the leading ride-hailing platform in Southeast Asia and operates in 30 cities across six countries – Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Grab and the World Bank have been developing free, open-source tools that translate Grab’s voluminous driver GPS data into traffic statistics, including speeds, flows, and intersection delays. These statistics power big data open source tools such as OpenTraffic, for analysing traffic speeds and flows, and DRIVER, for identifying road incident blackspots and improving emergency response. Grab and the World Bank plan to make OpenTraffic available to other Southeast Asian city governments in the near future.

“Using big data is one of the potential solutions to the challenges faced by our transport systems. Through this we can provide accurate, real-time information for initiatives that can help alleviate traffic congestion and improve road safety,” said DOTC Secretary Joseph Emilio A. Abaya.

Last month, the World Bank and DOTC helped train more than 200 government staff from the agency, the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), and the Cebu City Transportation Office on the use of the OpenTraffic platform….In the near future, traffic statistics derived through OpenTraffic will be fed into another application called “DRIVER” or Data for Road Incident Visualization, Evaluation, and Reporting for road incident recording and analysis. This application, developed by the World Bank, will help engineering units to prioritize crash-prone areas for interventions and improve emergency response….(More)”

An App to Save Syria’s Lost Generation? What Technology Can and Can’t Do

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Mark Latonero in Foreign Affairs: ” In January this year, when the refugee and migrant crisis in Europe had hit its peak—more than a million had crossed into Europe over the course of 2015—the U.S. State Department and Google hosted a forum of over 100 technology experts. The goal was to “bridge the education gap for Syrian refugee children.” Speaking to the group assembled at Stanford University, Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced a $1.7 million prize “to develop a smartphone app that can help Syrian children learn how to read and improve their wellbeing.” The competition, known as EduApp4Syria, is being run by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) and is supported by the Australian government and the French mobile company Orange.

Less than a month later, a group called Techfugees brought together over 100 technologists for a daylong brainstorm in New York City focused exclusively on education solutions. “We are facing the largest refugee crisis since World War II,” said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power to open the conference. “It is a twenty-first-century crisis and we need a twenty-first-century solution.” Among the more promising, according to Power, were apps that enable “refugees to access critical services,” new “web platforms connecting refugees with one another,” and “education programs that teach refugees how to code.”

For example, the nonprofit PeaceGeeks created the Services Advisor app for the UN Refugee Agency, which maps the location of shelters, food distribution centers, and financial services in Jordan….(More)”

How to implement “open innovation” in city government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Victor Mulas at the Worldbank: “City officials are facing increasingly complex challenges. As urbanization rates grow, cities face higher demand for services from a larger and more densely distributed population. On the other hand, rapid changes in the global economy are affecting cities that struggle to adapt to these changes, often resulting in economic depression and population drain.

“Open innovation” is the latest buzz word circulating in forums on how to address the increased volume and complexity of challenges for cities and governments in general.

But, what is open innovation?

Traditionally, public services were designed and implemented by a group of public officials. Open innovation allows us to design these services with multiple actors, including those who stand to benefit from the services, resulting in more targeted and better tailored services, often implemented through partnership with these stakeholders. Open innovation allows cities to be more productive in providing services while addressing increased demand and higher complexity of services to be delivered.

New York, Barcelona, Amsterdam and many other cities have been experimenting with this concept, introducing challenges for entrepreneurs to address common problems or inviting stakeholders to co-create new services.   Open innovation has gone from being a “buzzword” to another tool in the city officials’ toolbox.

However, even cities that embrace open innovation are still struggling to implement it beyond a few specific areas.  This is understandable, as introducing open innovation practically requires a new way of doing things for city governments, which tend to be complex and bureaucratic organizations.

Counting with an engaged mayor is not enough to bring this kind of transformation. Changing the behavior of city officials requires their buy-in, it can’t be done top down

We have been introducing open innovation to cities and governments for the last three years in Chile, Colombia, Egypt and Mozambique. We have addressed specific challenges and iteratively designed and tested a systematic methodology to introduce open innovation in government through both a top-down and a bottom-up approaches. We have tested this methodology in Colombia (Cali, Barranquilla and Manizales) and Chile (metropolitan area of Gran Concepción).   We have identified “internal champions” (i.e., government officials who advocate the new methodology), and external stakeholders organized in an “innovation hub” that provides long-term sustainability and scalability of interventions. We believe that this methodology is easily applicable beyond cities to other government entities at the regional and national levels. …To understand how the methodology practically works, we describe in this report the process and its results in its application in the city area of Gran Concepción, in Chile. For this activity, the urban transport sector was selected and the target of intervention were the regional and municipal government departments in charge or urban transport in the area of Gran Concepción. The activity in Chile resulted in a threefold impact:

  1. It catalyzed the adoption of the bottom-up smart city model following this new methodology throughout Chile; and
  2. It expanded the implementation and mainstreaming of the methodologies developed and tested through this activity in other World Bank projects.

More information about this activity in Chile can be found in the Smart City Gran Concepcion webpage…(More)”

Smart crowds in smart cities: real life, city scale deployments of a smartphone based participatory crowd management platform

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Tobias Franke, Paul Lukowicz and Ulf Blanke at the Journal of Internet Services and Applications: “Pedestrian crowds are an integral part of cities. Planning for crowds, monitoring crowds and managing crowds, are fundamental tasks in city management. As a consequence, crowd management is a sprawling R&D area (see related work) that includes theoretical models, simulation tools, as well as various support systems. There has also been significant interest in using computer vision techniques to monitor crowds. However, overall, the topic of crowd management has been given only little attention within the smart city domain. In this paper we report on a platform for smart, city-wide crowd management based on a participatory mobile phone sensing platform. Originally, the apps based on this platform have been conceived as a technology validation tool for crowd based sensing within a basic research project. However, the initial deployments at the Notte Bianca Festival1 in Malta and at the Lord Mayor’s Show in London2 generated so much interest within the civil protection community that it has gradually evolved into a full-blown participatory crowd management system and is now in the process of being commercialized through a startup company. Until today it has been deployed at 14 events in three European countries (UK, Netherlands, Switzerland) and used by well over 100,000 people….

Obtaining knowledge about the current size and density of a crowd is one of the central aspects of crowd monitoring . For the last decades, automatic crowd monitoring in urban areas has mainly been performed by means of image processing . One use case for such video-based applications can be found in, where a CCTV camera-based system is presented that automatically alerts the staff of subway stations when the waiting platform is congested. However, one of the downsides of video-based crowd monitoring is the fact that video cameras tend to be considered as privacy invading. Therefore,  presents a privacy preserving approach to video-based crowd monitoring where crowd sizes are estimated without people models or object tracking.

With respect to the mitigation of catastrophes induced by panicking crowds (e.g. during an evacuation), city planners and architects increasingly rely on tools simulating crowd behaviors in order to optimize infrastructures. Murakami et al. presents an agent based simulation for evacuation scenarios. Shendarkar et al. presents a work that is also based on BSI (believe, desire, intent) agents – those agents however are trained in a virtual reality environment thereby giving greater flexibility to the modeling. Kluepfel et al. on the other hand uses a cellular automaton model for the simulation of crowd movement and egress behavior.

With smartphones becoming everyday items, the concept of crowd sourcing information from users of mobile application has significantly gained traction. Roitman et al. presents a smart city system where the crowd can send eye witness reports thereby creating deeper insights for city officials. Szabo et al. takes this approach one step further and employs the sensors built into smartphones for gathering data for city services such as live transit information. Ghose et al. utilizes the same principle for gathering information on road conditions. Pan et al. uses a combination of crowd sourcing and social media analysis for identifying traffic anomalies….(More)”.