My City Forecast: Urban planning communication tool for citizen with national open data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Y. Hasegawa, Y. Sekimoto, T. Seto, Y. Fukushima et al in Computers, Environment and Urban Systems: “In urban management, the importance of citizen participation is being emphasized more than ever before. This is especially true in countries where depopulation has become a major concern for urban managers and many local authorities are working on revising city master plans, often incorporating the concept of the “compact city.” In Japan, for example, the implementation of compact city plans means that each local government decides on how to designate residential areas and promotes citizens moving to these areas in order to improve budget effectiveness and the vitality of the city. However, implementing a compact city is possible in various ways. Given that there can be some designated withdrawal areas for budget savings, compact city policies can include disadvantages for citizens. At this turning point for urban structures, citizen–government mutual understanding and cooperation is necessary for every step of urban management, including planning.

Concurrently, along with the recent rapid growth of big data utilization and computer technologies, a new conception of cooperation between citizens and government has emerged. With emerging technologies based on civic knowledge, citizens have started to obtain the power to engage directly in urban management by obtaining information, thinking about their city’s problems, and taking action to help shape the future of their city themselves (Knight Foundation, 2013). This development is also supported by the open government data movement, which promotes the availability of government information online (Kingston, Carver, Evans, & Turton, 2000). CityDashboard is one well-known example of real-time visualization and distribution of urban information. CityDashboard, a web tool launched in 2012 by University College London, aggregates spatial data for cities around the UK and displays the data on a dashboard and a map. These new technologies are expected to enable both citizens and government to see their urban situation in an interface presenting an overhead view based on statistical information.

However, usage of statistics and governmental data is as yet limited in the actual process of urban planning…

To help improve this situation and increase citizen participation in urban management, we have developed a web-based urban planning communication tool using open government data for enhanced citizen–government cooperation. The main aim of the present research is to evaluate the effect of our system on users’ awareness of and attitude toward the urban situation. We have designed and developed an urban simulation system, My City Forecast (http://mycityforecast.net,) that enables citizens to understand how their environment and region are likely to change by urban management in the future (up to 2040)….(More)”.

Ghost Cities: Built but Never Inhabited

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Civic Data Design Lab at UrbanNext: “Ghost Cities are vacant neighborhoods and sometimes whole cities that were built but were never inhabited. Their existence is a physical manifestation of Chinese overdevelopment in real estate and the dependence on housing as an investment strategy. Little data exists which establishes the location and extent of these Ghost Cities in China. MIT’s Civic Data Design Lab developed a model using data scraped from Chinese social media sites and Baidu (Chinese Google Maps) to create one of the first maps identifying the locations of Chinese Ghost Cities….

Quantifying the extent and location of Ghost Cities is complicated by the fact that the Chinese government keeps a tight hold on data about sales and occupancy of buildings. Even local planners may have a hard time acquiring it. The Civic Data Design Lab developed a model to identify Ghost Cities based on the idea that amenities (grocery stores, hair salons, restaurants, schools, retail, etc.) are the mark of a healthy community and the lack of amenities might indicate locations where no one lives. Given the lack of openly available data in China, data was scraped from Chinese social media and websites, including Dianping (Chinese Yelp), Amap (Chinese Map Quest), Fang (Chinese Zillow), and Baidu (Chinese Google Maps) using openly accessible Application Programming Interfaces(APIs). 

Using data scraped from social media sites in Chengdu and Shenyang, the model was tested using 300 m x 300 m grid cells marking residential locations. Each grid cell was given an amenity accessibility score based on the distance and clustering of amenities nearby. Residential areas that had a cluster of low scores were marked as Ghost Cities. The results were ground-truthed through site visits documenting the location using aerial photography from drones and interviews with local stakeholders.

The model worked well at documenting under-utilized residential locations in these Chinese cities, picking up everything from vacant housing and stalled construction to abandoned older residential locations, creating the first data set that marks risk in the Chinese real estate market. The research shows that data available through social media can help locate and estimate risk in the Chinese real estate market. Perhaps more importantly, however, identifying where these areas are concentrated can help city planners, developers and local citizens make better investment decisions and address the risk created by these under-utilized developments….(More)”.

The promise and peril of military applications of artificial intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Michael C. Horowitz at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “Artificial intelligence (AI) is having a moment in the national security space. While the public may still equate the notion of artificial intelligence in the military context with the humanoid robots of the Terminatorfranchise, there has been a significant growth in discussions about the national security consequences of artificial intelligence. These discussions span academia, business, and governments, from Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom’s concern about the existential risk to humanity posed by artificial intelligence to Tesla founder Elon Musk’s concern that artificial intelligence could trigger World War III to Vladimir Putin’s statement that leadership in AI will be essential to global power in the 21st century.

What does this really mean, especially when you move beyond the rhetoric of revolutionary change and think about the real world consequences of potential applications of artificial intelligence to militaries? Artificial intelligence is not a weapon. Instead, artificial intelligence, from a military perspective, is an enabler, much like electricity and the combustion engine. Thus, the effect of artificial intelligence on military power and international conflict will depend on particular applications of AI for militaries and policymakers. What follows are key issues for thinking about the military consequences of artificial intelligence, including principles for evaluating what artificial intelligence “is” and how it compares to technological changes in the past, what militaries might use artificial intelligence for, potential limitations to the use of artificial intelligence, and then the impact of AI military applications for international politics.

The potential promise of AI—including its ability to improve the speed and accuracy of everything from logistics to battlefield planning and to help improve human decision-making—is driving militaries around the world to accelerate their research into and development of AI applications. For the US military, AI offers a new avenue to sustain its military superiority while potentially reducing costs and risk to US soldiers. For others, especially Russia and China, AI offers something potentially even more valuable—the ability to disrupt US military superiority. National competition in AI leadership is as much or more an issue of economic competition and leadership than anything else, but the potential military impact is also clear. There is significant uncertainty about the pace and trajectory of artificial intelligence research, which means it is always possible that the promise of AI will turn into more hype than reality. Moreover, safety and reliability concerns could limit the ways that militaries choose to employ AI…(More)”,

How Do You Control 1.4 Billion People?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Robert Foyle Hunwick at The New Republic: China’s “social credit system”, which becomes mandatory in 2020, aims to funnel all behavior into a credit score….The quoted text is from a 2014 State Council resolution which promises that every involuntary participant will be rated according to their “commercial sincerity,” “social security,” “trust breaking” and “judicial credibility.”

Some residents welcome it. Decades of political upheaval and endemic corruption has bred widespread mistrust; most still rely on close familial networks (guanxi) to get ahead, rather than public institutions. An endemic lack of trust is corroding society; frequent incidents of “bystander effect”—people refusing to help injured strangers for fear of being held responsible—have become a national embarrassment. Even the most enthusiastic middle-class supporters of the ruling Communist Party (CCP) feel perpetually insecure. “Fraud has become ever more common,” Lian Weiliang, vice chairman of the CCP’s National Development and Reform Commission, recently admitted. “Swindlers must pay a price.”

The solution, apparently, lies in a data-driven system that automatically separates the good, the bad, and the ugly…

once compulsory state “social credit” goes national in 2020, these shadowy algorithms will become even more opaque. Social credit will align with Communist Party policy to become another form of law enforcement. Since Beijing relaxed its One Child Policy to cope with an aging population (400 million seniors by 2035), the government has increasingly indulged in a form of nationalist natalism to encourage more two-child families. Will women be penalized for staying single, and rewarded for swapping their careers for childbirth? In April, one of the country’s largest social-media companies banned homosexual content from its Weibo platform in order to “create a bright and harmonious community environment” (the decision was later rescinded in favor of cracking down on all sexual content). Will people once again be forced to hide non-normative sexual orientations in order to maintain their rights? An investigation by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab also warns that social credit policies would be used to discourage protest.

State media has defended social credit against Orwellian charges, arguing that China’s maturing economy requires a “well-functioning” apparatus like the U.S.’s FICO credit score system. But, counters Lubman, “the U.S. systems, maintained by three companies, collect only financially related information.” In the UK, citizens are entitled to an Equifax report itemizing their credit status. In China, only the security services have access to an individual’s dang’an, the personal file containing every scrap of information the state keeps on them, from exam results to their religious and political views….(More)”.

China asserts firm grip on research data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

ScienceMag: “In a move few scientists anticipated, the Chinese government has decreed that all scientific data generated in China must be submitted to government-sanctioned data centers before appearing in publications. At the same time, the regulations, posted last week, call for open access and data sharing.

The possibly conflicting directives puzzle researchers, who note that the yet-to-be-established data centers will have latitude in interpreting the rules. Scientists in China can still share results with overseas collaborators, says Xie Xuemei, who specializes in innovation economics at Shanghai University. Xie also believes that the new requirements to register data with authorities before submitting papers to journals will not affect most research areas. Gaining approval could mean publishing delays, Xie says, but “it will not have a serious impact on scientific research.”

The new rules, issued by the powerful State Council, apply to all groups and individuals generating research data in China. The creation of a national data center will apparently fall to the science ministry, though other ministries and local governments are expected to create their own centers as well. Exempted from the call for open access and sharing are data involving state and business secrets, national security, “public interest,” and individual privacy… (More)”

The digital economy is disrupting our old models

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Diane Coyle at The Financial Times: “One of the many episodes of culture shock I experienced as a British student in the US came when I first visited the university health centre. They gave me my medical notes to take away. Once I was over the surprise, I concluded this was entirely proper. After all, the true data was me, my body. I was reminded of this moment from the early 1980s when reflecting on the debate about Facebook and data, one of the collective conclusions of which seems to be that personal data are personal property so there need to be stronger rights of ownership. If I do not like what Facebook is doing with my data, I should be able to withdraw them. Yet this fix for the problem is not straightforward.

“My” data are inextricably linked with that of other people, who are in my photographs or in my network. Once the patterns and correlations have been extracted from it, withdrawing my underlying data is neither here nor there, for the value lies in the patterns. The social character of information can be seen from the recent example of Strava accidentally publishing maps of secret American military bases because the aggregated route data revealed all the service personnel were running around the edge of their camps. One or two withdrawals of personal data would have made no difference. To put it in economic jargon, we are in the territory of externalities and public goods. Information once shared cannot be unshared.
The digital economy is one of externalities and public goods to a far greater degree than in the past. We have not begun to get to grips with how to analyse it, still less to develop policies for the common good. There are two questions at the heart of the challenge: what norms and laws about property rights over intangibles such as data or ideas or algorithms are going to be needed? And what will the best balance between collective and individual actions be or, to put it another way, between government and market?
Tussles about rights over intangible or intellectual property have been going on for a while: patent trolls on the one hand, open source creators on the other. However, the issue is far from settled. Do we really want to accept, for example, that John Deere, in selling an expensive tractor to a farmer, is only in fact renting it out because it claims property rights over the installed software?

…

Free digital goods of the open source kind are being cross-subsidised by their creators’ other sources of income. Free digital goods of the social media kind are being funded by various advertising services — and that turns out to be an ugly solution. Yet the network effects are so strong, the benefits they provide so great, that if Facebook and Google were shut down by antitrust action tomorrow, replacement digital groups could well emerge before too long. China seems to be in effect nationalising its big digital platforms but many in the west will find that even less appealing than a private data market. In short, neither “market” nor “state” looks like the right model for ownership and governance in an information economy pervaded by externalities and public goods. Finding alternative models for the creation and sharing of value in the digital world, when these are inherently collective and non-rival activities, is an urgent challenge….(More).

Participatory Budgeting: Step to Building Active Citizenship or a Distraction from Democratic Backsliding?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

David Sasaki: “Is there any there there? That’s what we wanted to uncover beneath the hype and skepticism surrounding participatory budgeting, an innovation in democracy that began in Brazil in 1989 and has quickly spread to nearly every corner of the world like a viral hashtag….We ended up selecting two groups of consultants for two phases of work. The first phase was led by three academic researchers — Brian Wampler, Mike Touchton and Stephanie McNulty — to synthesize what we know broadly about PB’s impact and where there are gaps in the evidence. mySociety led the second phase, which originally intended to identify the opportunities and challenges faced by civil society organizations and public officials that implement participatory budgeting. However, a number of unforeseen circumstances, including contested elections in Kenya and a major earthquake in Mexico, shifted mySociety’s focus to take a global, field-wide perspective.

In the end, we were left with two reports that were similar in scope and differed in perspective. Together they make for compelling reading. And while they come from different perspectives, they settle on similar recommendations. I’ll focus on just three: 1) the need for better research, 2) the lack of global coordination, and 3) the emerging opportunity to link natural resource governance with participatory budgeting….

As we consider some preliminary opportunities to advance participatory budgeting, we are clear-eyed about the risks and challenges. In the face of democratic backsliding and the concern that liberal democracy may not survive the 21st century, are these efforts to deepen local democracy merely a distraction from a larger threat, or is this a way to build active citizenship? Also, implementing PB is expensive — both in terms of money and time; is it worth the investment? Is PB just the latest checkbox for governments that want a reputation for supporting citizen participation without investing in the values and process it entails? Just like the proliferation of fake “consultation meetings,” fake PB could merely exacerbate our disappointment with democracy. What should we make of the rise of participatory budgeting in quasi-authoritarian contexts like China and Russia? Is PB a tool for undemocratic central governments to keep local governments in check while giving citizens a simulacrum of democratic participation? Crucially, without intentional efforts to be inclusive like we’ve seen in Boston, PB could merely direct public resources to those neighborhoods with the most outspoken and powerful residents.

On the other hand, we don’t want to dismiss the significant opportunities that come with PB’s rapid global expansion. For example, what happens when social movements lose their momentum between election cycles? Participatory budgeting could create a civic space for social movements to pursue concrete outcomes while engaging with neighbors and public officials. (In China, it has even helped address the urban-rural divide on perspectives toward development policy.) Meanwhile, social media have exacerbated our human tendency to complain, but participatory budgeting requires us to shift our perspective from complaints to engaging with others on solutions. It could even serve as a gateway to deeper forms of democratic participation and increased trust between governments, civil society organizations, and citizens. Perhaps participatory budgeting is the first step we need to rebuild our civic infrastructure and make space for more diverse voices to steer our complex public institutions.

Until we have more research and evidence, however, these possibilities remain speculative….(More)”.

The Age of Perplexity: Rethinking the World we Knew

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

BVBA Open Access Book: “The impact of globalization, of technological progress and of the insecurity that they cause is reflected in people’s decisions, and by the path that our society is following. This path that will decide our future, in the sense that it will determine our capability of facing the challenges and taking advantage of the opportunities offered up by the advances in science and technology.

In this book, we look at generalized subjects, taking in the transformation that computing and the greater availability of information brings to our perceptions and understanding of things, and in the social imaginaries, that shape our attitudes and reactions to the events that we observe.
All this underpins the changes in politics we are witnessing, the appearance of populist movements or, more generally, the lack of commitment or disaffection with political institutions and the values that support the existing democracies. In these arenas, the new digital media, new types of digital political activism, and the rise of movements that question the dominant economic and political paradigm all play a key role.

In the supranational and geopolitical level we discuss the importance of incorporating a feminist perspective to international relations (as well, of course, as to all the spheres of human activity); new types of warfare, in which neither the contenders, strategies or media resemble anything we knew before; the huge geopolitical challenge represented by the complex and diverse Arab Islamic question; the end of the brief unipolar world era, with the emergence of powers that question the United States’ hegemony, among which we highlight China; or the future role of Latin America in the global map.

Regarding the economic questions that are at the root of the current perplexity, insecurity and discontent, we examine the impact of globalization and technological change on growth, the welfare state and, above all, employment.

From this base, we look at which are the most suitable economic policies and forms of organization for harnessing the potential of the digital revolution, and also for minimizing the risks of a society with increasing inequality, with a huge number of jobs taken over by machines, or even the loss of control of individual or collective decisions.

This technological revolution will undoubtedly require a complex transition process, but we also have before us a wonderful opportunity to better tend to the needs and demands of people: with more growth, jobs and a fairer distribution of wealth, and a richer and fuller life for the whole of humanity….(More)”.

How the government will operate in 2030

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Darrell West at the Hill: “Imagine it is 2030 and you are a U.S. government employee working from home. With the assistance of the latest technology, you participate in video calls with clients and colleagues, augment your job activities through artificial intelligence and a personal digital assistant, work through collaboration software, and regularly get rated on a one-to-five scale by clients regarding your helpfulness, follow-through, and task completion.

How did you — and the government — get here? The sharing economy that unfolded in 2018 has revolutionized the public-sector workforce. The days when federal employees were subject to a centrally directed Office of Personnel and Management that oversaw permanent, full-time workers sitting in downtown office buildings are long gone. In their place is a remote workforce staffed by a mix of short- and long-term employees. This has dramatically improved worker productivity and satisfaction.

In the new digital world that has emerged, the goal is to use technology to make employees accountable. Gone are 20- or 30-year careers in the federal bureaucracy. Political leaders have always preached the virtue of running government like a business, and the success of Uber, Airbnb, and WeWork has persuaded them to focus on accountability and performance.

Companies such as Facebook demonstrated they could run large and complex organizations with less than 20,000 employees, and the federal government followed suit in the late 2020s. Now, workers deploy the latest tools of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, data analytics, robots, driverless cars, and digital assistants to improve the government. Unlike the widespread mistrust and cynicism that had poisoned attitudes in the decades before, the general public now sees government as a force for achieving positive results.

Many parts of the federal government are decentralized and mid-level employees are given greater authority to make decisions — but are subject to digital ratings that keep them accountable for their performance. The U.S. government borrowed this technique from China, where airport authorities in 2018 installed digital devices that allowed visitors to rate the performance of individual passport officers after every encounter. The reams of data have enabled Chinese authorities to fire poor performers and make sure foreign visitors see a friendly and competent face at the Beijing International Airport.

Alexa-like devices are given to all federal employees. The devices are used to keep track of leave time, file reimbursement requests, request time off, and complete a range of routine tasks that used to take employees hours. Through voice-activated commands, they navigate these mundane tasks quickly and efficiently. No one can believe the mountains of paperwork required just a decade ago….(More)”.

Ethical Concerns of and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Crowdsourcing Contests and Innovation Challenges: Scoping Review

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Joseph D Tucker at the Journal of  Medical Internet Research: “Crowdsourcing contests (also called innovation challenges, innovation contests, and inducement prize contests) can be used to solicit multisectoral feedback on health programs and design public health campaigns. They consist of organizing a steering committee, soliciting contributions, engaging the community, judging contributions, recognizing a subset of contributors, and sharing with the community.

Objective: This scoping review describes crowdsourcing contests by stage, examines ethical problems at each stage, and proposes potential ways of mitigating risk.

Methods: Our analysis was anchored in the specific example of a crowdsourcing contest that our team organized to solicit videos promoting condom use in China. The purpose of this contest was to create compelling 1-min videos to promote condom use. We used a scoping review to examine the existing ethical literature on crowdsourcing to help identify and frame ethical concerns at each stage.

Results: Crowdsourcing has a group of individuals solve a problem and then share the solution with the public. Crowdsourcing contests provide an opportunity for community engagement at each stage: organizing, soliciting, promoting, judging, recognizing, and sharing. Crowdsourcing poses several ethical concerns: organizing—potential for excluding community voices; soliciting—potential for overly narrow participation; promoting—potential for divulging confidential information; judging—potential for biased evaluation; recognizing—potential for insufficient recognition of the finalist; and sharing—potential for the solution to not be implemented or widely disseminated.

Conclusions: Crowdsourcing contests can be effective and engaging public health tools but also introduce potential ethical problems. We present methods for the responsible conduct of crowdsourcing contests… (More)”.