The Smart City: perspective of the citizens of Amsterdam on the post-pandemic future of their city. An analysis of the highly connected, post-pandemic world.

(1)

Aleksandra Bonati

Amsterdam, NL

+31634765160

olabonati@gmail.com

Student #: 10762833

Date of completion: June 29, 2020

Supervised by:

dr. S. (Stefania) Milan

Second reader:

dr. P. (Maxigas) Dunajcsik

Master’s Thesis

New Media and Digital Culture

Department of Media Studies: Graduate School of Humanities

(2)

The Smart City: the perspective of the citizens of

Amsterdam on the post-pandemic future of their city.

An analysis of the highly connected post-pandemic world.

Abstract

As cities across the world face the pandemic, smart technologies become one of the agents in the fight with the spreading of the COVID-19 virus. Though the safety and health of citizens are undoubtedly at risk, there is another issue that should be brought to the attention of the public. Smart city rhetoric promises improvements in all spheres of urban life. Data fueled efficiency of smart cities paints a future of smooth-running public transports, less bureaucracy, and safer street. Yet, with the growing obscurity of modern technologies, are we able to be a part critical assessment of these technologies? This research project provides theoretical background examining intricate socio-technological structures present in smart cities, as well as empirical research involving input from the inhabitants of Amsterdam. The project aims to bring the citizen-perspective on the state of smart cities by asking citizens of Amsterdam to participate in design sessions.

Keywords

(3)

1. Introduction

The year 2020 has brought up many questions about the future and safety of the citizens of big agglomerations. Inefficiencies in the social, economic, and political sectors of many countries have created a need for swift solutions. It became clear that, in order to fight the pandemic, countries around the globe would have to collaborate in exchanging information and supplies on a broader scale than ever before. On a more local level, cities have embraced custom logistical and technological solutions recommended to them by experts from different fields. However, the speed in which the crisis has reached the global level has prompted some governments to rush in search of solutions, which might become problematic in the long run. Increased surveillance could be one of them. Since the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends keeping 1.5-meter distance as an essential prevention method, governments had to find solutions to ensure that their citizens abide by it. To enforce this new rule, city officials have used already installed smart city technologies or have implemented additional ones to monitor their citizens. Smart sensors and cameras systems are now used to identify and react to possible outbreaks around cities.

Though these technologies are said to improve crowd management and foresee critical moments in the spread of the pandemic, critics of ever-growing and unrestricted urban surveillance have raised concerns. Edwards Snowden, the well-known whistleblower in the NSA privacy abuse scandal, has spoken publicly to bring the public's attention to possible oppressive aspects of such technologies1. According to him, smart tech used to combat the crisis is not a temporary solution but rather a new way to further infringe on our privacy beyond the intentions of merely implementing precautions against the pandemic. Snowden suggests that the desperate situation of some governments will create an unprecedented pathway into our lives by those who benefit from data collection. In this scenario, cities equipped with smart technologies, otherwise called smart cities, might play a significant role in capturing, storing, and processing data. As such, the urban

1

(6)

2 environment is where people concentrate, making it the riskiest space when it comes to spreading of the virus. Therefore, we cannot argue that the effective management of the city is crucial. Yet if predictions of critics are right, we might be overlooking some of the consequences that come with technologies presumably solely designed to preserve our safety.

What is more, if pandemic inspired innovations are here to stay, we must ensure that they protect not only health but other interests of city inhabitants. The well-being of inhabitants is often discussed in the literature covering power relationships within the smart city construct. Smart city scholars frequently recall an ongoing discussion of the power relationship between citizens, tech companies, and city administration2. Though all three stakeholders are essential in the establishment and running of the smart city, the influence each one of them has on the outcome of this digitization is not necessarily equal. In the unparalleled times of the pandemic, the agenda of those advocating the techno-political changes might be more successful than of those raising socio-ethical concerns. Despite that, as Anttiroiko puts it, smart cities in their essences "revolve around the technologically enhanced ability to transform our environment and social practices in order to produce public value." (Anttiroiko, 2016, p.5) This transformation, notwithstanding the pandemic, should take place with the inclusion of citizens of the city as one of the stakeholders; therefore, it is interesting to see the perspective of inhabitants of one of those cities while these changes take place. Thus, this thesis will take the smart city of Amsterdam and its inhabitants as a case study. Amsterdam, considered as one of "the world's smartest cities" 3_{, serves as a good feeding ground}

to tackle the following research question:

• Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, what is the citizen's perspective on the "smart" future of the city of Amsterdam?

To answer this question, additional issues need to be addressed:

• What complexities can be identified in definitions of smart cities? • What are the underlying power structures found in smart cities?

2_{See Nam et al. 2011; Klauser et al. 2014 ;Sadowski et al. 2020, Jameson et al. 2019}

3

(7)

3 • What role do smart cities take in the fight with the pandemic?

This research will assume human/citizen perspectives on smart cities. Though there is a significant amount of research concerning smart cities and their role in society, it has come to my attention that few sources carry out an interactive approach to the topic and thus convey the notion of involving citizens' perspective on the smart city development. For that reason, this research project will invite citizens of Amsterdam to share their perspectives on their life in a smart city and provide insights on how they imagine its future. The unique approach of these sessions lies in the use of the participatory design session where participants will be free to make suggestions and express their needs and pain points on the subject. Additionally, these sessions will include the perspective of the pandemic and consider it as one of the factors defining factors in designing the future of the city.

With the citizen-centric perspective in mind, this thesis will be structured as follows:

The first chapter is devoted to clarifying the aspect of globalization as one of the stimulating elements in digitization and, consequently, the development of smart cities. Following that, I will review the technological components of smart cities, drawing on historical progress in the matter. In this chapter, I discuss the benefits of IoT (Internet of Things), their impact across the world as well as their position within the smart systems. The same chapter will include various definitions of smart the concept of smart cities. Building on that and leaning on the existing framework, the next chapter of this thesis will present the importance of understanding each stakeholder's position and their values in the process of building of a smart city. The following chapter examines the power structures present within the smart city and how they rely on the constant influx of data sourced from different spheres of our lives. This section goes on to explain the prominent role of privately-owned platforms in the smart city creation and the inherent power structures to be found in the way smart cities are governed. Moving on, the next chapter adds a few examples of cities already implementing practices that allow for better power distributions. The next section deal directly with pandemic and post-pandemic realities that city inhabitants could be facing. Finally, chapter discussing the research project will use Amsterdam and use innovative design sessions as a method.

(8)

4

2. Literature Review

2.1 Growing urbanization

In order to examine the concept of smart cities and their role in post-pandemic reality, this thesis will first discuss the key building blocks that propel the digitization of urban environments. The following chapter of the literature review will discuss the origins of the need for "smart"

solutions as well as what are the agents involved.

As of now, more than half of the Earth's population lives in an urban area (Ritchie and Roser, 2018). Though it is not a new phenomenon as people have been moving in and out of cities and the growth of urbanization fluctuated accordingly, in most recent years, the number of people moving into urban areas has grown bigger than ever before. The European Commission has estimated that over 85% of people in Europe live in urban areas (World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision). To bring things into perspective, cities take up about two percent of space on the planet yet are accommodating nearly 50% of the entire population. Though these numbers might seem rather abstract, they reflect impactful real-life changes that are happening in our society. With the growth of the urban population, societal patterns of food, water, energy, and land consumption grow proportionately. As a result, the living conditions in cities and connected areas progressively worsen. Despite that, there are significant benefits of moving to the city that continue to attract people. For some, making a decision to move closer to the cities can, for example, be a life-altering choice as urban areas usually allow for better job options, education, medical care and more (Eremia et al. 2016). However, the growing population presents a significant problem to city

(9)

5 administrators as they struggle to provide quality living conditions to their new inhabitants. Therefore, the same place of opportunities can be an inescapable vicious circle where one is continuously reliving struggles otherwise invisible to those born into a higher social class.

In consequence, an environment where adverse conditions prevent people from receiving equal opportunities causes further divide between citizens. Perhaps the most prominent examples of that can be found within the city infrastructure itself. Here the metaphor of a vicious circle can really reflect how the living standards perpetuate inequalities (Ooi and Phua, 2007). If urban planning cannot keep up with population growth, it might initiate the creation of slums-like neighborhoods. Lack of public transport and sufficient infrastructure contribute significantly to the rise of such areas. Without proper connection with other districts, citizens become enclosed and trapped within these underprivileged neighborhoods (Ham et al. 2018). With the city population expected to grow continuously, such areas might further draw a divide between social layers present in urban spaces. These issues tied to urbanization are so apparent that the United Nations has decided to assign one of their Sustainable Development Goals, number 11, to target inequalities found in big cities. SDGs encompass actions, statistics, and information that address the twelve most pressing issues in our society as of today. By choosing one of twelve goals to focus on developing urbanization UN recognizes the problem with the rapid growth of cities and puts emphasis on creating "inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries" 4_{. Though many solutions are discussed on}

the SDG website, they often feature projects that aim to reach these goals with the use of modern technology such as the Internet of Things, Information and Communications Technology, and a variety of artificial intelligence-based systems. The EU, as a partner in SDG, has allocated 365 million euros to increase digitization, ultimately aiming at accelerating the development of smart cities with the use of IoT (Meola, 2020). However, issues concerning cities can be different, and tech applications can vary per most pressing problems. For that reason, it is important to understand why and how IoT is considered a building block of future cities.

(10)

6

2.2 Components of smart cities

Though a lot of literature on the topic of smart cities uses ICT (Information and communication technology) and IoT (Internet of Things) interchangeably, I would like to narrow down the focus of the next chapter to IoT.

IoT is considered to be a part of ICT, however, the definition of ICT encompasses a much larger list of devices such as radio and television broadcast as well as nondigitized devices such as landline telephones. Within the realm of smart cities, IoT's definition presented below seems to be more directly connected to sensors, data and cloud computing, which are staples in smart city projects. Because the premise of this research focuses on the human-centered approach to the urban digitization, the following chapter will present the history of IoT from its "human" perspective.

2.3 Internet of Things and its "human" history

IoT is now an established part of the smart technology movement. Though its origins were rather humble and could not compete with internet-based inventions of today, the IoT's latest definitions place it as an essential technology. IoT should not be seen as single but a multitude of web-based smart devices allowing for connection between various computational objects and spaces through an exchange of data (Ellsmoor, 2019). However, if we were to look at the history of IoT we can notice that its definition has evolved over the years and it might carry a different meaning depending on which aspect we take into consideration or even who provides it for us.

The term Internet of Things did not exist up until 1999, yet some of the first examples of IoT- like inventions could already be found years before that. For instance, at the beginning of the 1980s, engineers at Carnegie Melon University wired the vending machine to be able to monitor the state of supplies to get a drink when available without the unnecessary trip to the machine. Some choose to point at the smart toaster as the first IoT, which was invented by the internet pioneer John Romkey5_{. The toaster's "smart" abilities were limited to recognizing when the bread is put in the}

toaster and start the heat. Though a trivial example the smart toaster was a way to showcase what

(11)

7 can be done with existing protocols at that time and excite potential investors. The toaster was then presented at the computer trade show, starting the craze for connected things (Elder, 2019). Not only did it materialized the real potential of IoT, it created a new frontier that needed to be explored as explained by the following quote:

"The Internet of Things represents a vision in which the Internet extends into the real world embracing everyday objects. Physical items are no longer disconnected from the virtual world, but can be controlled remotely and can act as physical access points to Internet services. An Internet of Things makes computing truly ubiquitous."

(Bonazzi et al. 2015 p.50)

The Internet of Things, as we know today, however, took longer to be formed. In 1999 Kevin Ashton, the Executive Director of Auto-ID Labs at MIT coined the term Internet of Things. He later described it as computers gathering data without any help from people allowing us to "to track and count everything and greatly reduce waste, loss and cost" (Foote, 2016). Since that statement, it took ten more years until IoT started gaining the recognition it carries now. Before that, IoT's interpretations were strongly tied to its technical abilities and assigned different features over the years. In its early stage, examples of IoT were small objects like smart botanical aquariums that could be controlled with the use of one device or smart alarm clocks, which adjusted alarm based on outside conditions (Chin et al., 2003). Since the development of IoT strongly depends on the progress of technical advancements across different fields, IoTs development truly exploded around 2010, allowing it to enter more commercial use, for example, in wireless communication or cloud computing (Rave, 2014). In 2011 IoT was called "an emergent tech," and it became a household name for all things connected by the trendsetters in the newest technology (Sharma et al. 2019). Nowadays, because of its many applications, there are as many interpretations of IoT, as Chin et al. propose depending on which aspect of IoT we would look at the definition of IoT will sound differently. When looking at its physical context, we could focus on the hardware (sensors, objects interconnected with the network). If we zoomed in on the function’s aspects, we could focus on its processing and decision-making capabilities. Finally, looking at its purpose, phrases like 'improving efficiency" and "enhancing human life" often come up (Chin et al. 2019). Though the authors also point out that if we decide to look at the position of humans in definitions

(12)

8 of IoT in recent years, they included less and less focus on human involvement in the processes of IoT. From phrases like "human", "interaction", "smart", "bringing people, process, data, and things together", "connected", and "improve quality" in years 2012-2014 to more commonly used words like "commercial", "products", "insights", "analyze", "big data", "smart", "safer", and "efficient" in years 2015-2017 (Chin et al. 2019).

Most recently, IoT is described as a net that allows computers to "talk to each other". Presently the main idea behind IoT is to allow machines to carry out the exchange of data, machine to machine communication (M2M) on the background, releasing people from micromanaging these processes (Memos et al. 2018). Though for a system that is supposed to minimize human intervention, a concept of "talking to each other" appears very human. What is more, though definitions seem to omit human input in IoT, Sharma et al. note, that a comprehensive IoT system is dependent on working infrastructure, which so far requires people to set it up. In this case, people should also be seen as stakeholders representing governments, various tech industries, commercial and public organizations (Sharma et al. 2019). Depending on which stakeholder is taken into account, the application and exact definition of IoT might shift according to stakeholder's plans for an IoT system. An interesting contrast appears within definitions of IoT between those who emphasize its features allowing for connectivity among humans and those who focus on the technical improvements first.

2.2.1 Multifaceted applications of IoT

Just like definitions of IoT can be interpreted in multiple ways it also carries multiple applications. Its importance in the society and diversity of functions should not go unnoticed. In its simplified model, IoT usually comprises of sensors that collect, send, and act on the information they receive from the environment they are placed in. Following that, the data collected by IoT is then sent to the cloud for further processing or is analyzed on the spot. While people can interact with these devices, they are usually autonomous, which means they do not require supervision at most times. IoT is often accompanied by Artificial Intelligence systems or Machine Learning software to aid in data collection or handling which further remove the need for processing done by humans (Rouse, 2018).

The interest in IoTs is high and predicted to grow exponentially starting from this year (2020). By the end of the year 2025, about 75 billion devices that enable IoT expansion will hit

(13)

9 the market (Alma, 2018). Such demand is a direct consequence of financial benefits that arise from implementing IoT devices. In the case of commercial use of IoT, for example, companies can use the data collected by the system to improve their products to fit customer's needs more accurately. The Apple Watch serves as an example of a product that allows the company to gather insight from the product itself. Because of its built-in analytics, Apple can monitor which features of the watch are being used the most. Besides being able to control other devices with their watch clients of Apple are now able to tailor the functions of their devices according to their specific needs. This measure taken by the company will help save them money on inventing new products and attract users who seek more personalization (Carter, 2018). The same IoT can allow companies to take a closer look at their internal operations and reassess or restructure their company for optimal results. For large enterprises, profits coming from the implementation of IoT are impressive, but even more tangible changes can be spotted in communities that benefit significantly from interconnectedness brought by new tech. Taking into consideration the social perspective, IoT is said to possibly improve the lives of people in vulnerable positions like those living in places where natural disasters occur often. According to Red Cross, interconnected tech can facilitate the exchange of knowledge, health resources and provide economic opportunities in communities where natural circumstances slow down the progress. IoT systems promise an improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of developments could accelerate changes much faster than when an exchange of information is obstructed (Bansal et al. 2016).Well-working monitoring systems supported by the use of sensors such as smart thermometers can allow farmers to care for their livestock better by distributing vaccines where they are needed. IoT devices like cameras and sensors found in smartphones and tablets can be used to diagnose patients remotely, improving healthcare in distant areas. Electricity brought by solar panels and controlled by IoT might reduce costs and increase accessibility to power for more people (Tempo, 2015). Thus, there are significant social benefits that come with IoT technologies that should be recognized.

(14)

10

2.2.2 Building blocks of a smart city

All the applications of IoT mentioned above have also found their place within the Smart City movement. IoT has become an intrinsic part of the smart tech movement and now serves as one of the main building blocks of the model of a smart city. The beginnings and original motivations, however, were much more simplistic. Smart City, as a concept, was first used in 1990, where modernization of infrastructure in big cities was the focal point of a lot of administrations (Albino, 2012). Since then, the idea of what "smart" means and how cities choose to identify the role of IoT in the smart city making process evolved. Just like technological progress has changed how we identify IoT, smart cities have taken different shapes and forms. This progress has also affected the ability of the general audience to keep up with what is to come. As technologies became more indiscernible for the wide public, various reports create an alternative, more approachable names for the implementation of the urban IoT, such as “Digital City”, “Knowledge City” or even “Virtual City” (Cocchia, 2014). To add to the confusion, the array of applications of IoT technologies in smart cities has also grown. IoT technologies in smart cities are used to combat issues in Energy, Environment, Transport, Urban Development and Planning, Public Services, Socio-Economic aspects of urban life (John et al. 2018). Thus to better operationalize IoT's position in a smart city I will use the basic model (Figure 1) used by Silva et al. in their work Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities.

The model proposed by Silva et al. narrows down to three components that identify IoT's role in the smart city: data generation, data management, and application handling.

(15)

11

Figure 1. Silva et al. Contribution of Internet of Things In the building of a Smart City

Data is first generated by smart sensors such as weather receptors, cameras, water sensors, then managed by city administrators and applied to analyze traffic, water flow, city surveillance, and environmental conditions (Sarvannan et al. 2019). Therefore, even though it is hard to agree on one specific definition of a smart city, we can acknowledge that one of its basic components is data. The issue becomes more complicated if we were to look deeper beyond the initial data collection. How the data is being used and processed depends on which "smart" aspects we decide to focus on. Building a smart city can mean different things to different agents (Albino et al. 2015). Consequently, before diving deeper into the analysis of data collection in urban spaces, it is important to first understand the layers of relationships between stakeholders of smart city projects. As Nam and Pardo point out the city administration is not a soul decider in the building of the smart city. There are at least three parties that should be included when discussing datafication of urban spaces; smart city administration, smart city citizens, and tech companies that enable smart wiring of the city. Their needs and pain points might differ and sometimes clash with each other. For that reason, when trying to understand the structure of a smart city, one must question the roles and impact of each stakeholder.

(16)

12

2.4 Stakeholders of smart cities

The following paragraph will attempt to address the above-mentioned issue while leaning on the framework proposed by Nam and Pardo. The authors who specialize in the research of opening governments, citizen participation and information science provide a helpful structure for the assessment of stakeholders' position in smart cities. Authors propose to interpret smart cities by the following dimensions: Technological, Human and Institutional. This section will use this model as a guideline to analyze differences between all stakeholders.

2.4.1 Technological dimension

The technological perspective is understood as stressing the importance of the physical infrastructure of integrated hardware. With the importance of "ubiquitous/pervasive computing infrastructure" as a key technological component that allows for "interoperable, Internet-based government services". These services are used for connectivity that then, in return, "transform key government processes, both internally across departments and employees and externally to citizens and businesses. "(Nam & Pardo, 2015, p. 287). In line with this goal is a definition provided by IBM or International Business Machines Corporation. IBM, as a well-known tech giant, is often mentioned across the literature as leading experts in all tech developments, even carrying out their own Smart Planet project. They propose to see smart cities as a journey and a long-term goal that cities "must be prepared for" (Dirks & Keeling, 2009 p.2).

IBM points to city administrators first, as those who are the ones to decide what should be further included in the city environment and digitized and what needs to be "shed". City governments must then understand interrelations between different parties present in the city and should "assemble the team" that would be able to maintain a smart city. From this point of view, the companies that enable big cities in their shift will place significant importance on the fast and efficient wiring of the city. Some authors criticize putting so much emphasis on the technological improvements as they fear private tech companies impose pressure on city administrations and

(17)

13 result in neglecting the true needs of citizens. Cities focusing on satisfying the needs of tech companies might reinforce a top-down structure (Greenfield 2013; Albino et al. 2015). Smart City skeptics use examples of tech companies like Uber and Lyft, who originally promised to decongest streets and lower down CO2 emissions thanks to their sharing rides option. As a result, they have been reported as contributing even further to city pollution and increasing the demand for car transportation (Bliss, 2018). Some of these failed urban experiments have created a general push back from the citizens and academics alike attempting to hold both the administration and tech companies accountable (Kitchin et al. 2017). Nevertheless, there is a general agreement on the usefulness of smart city solutions in the urban environment, and so the city cannot become smart without expanding technological infrastructure.

2.4.2 Institutional Dimension

The evolution of a city into a smart city is not only dependent on the implementation of the hardware component but also on the existence of laws and policies that would enable such transformation. From a political perspective, city administrators need to establish directions that would take into consideration existing laws. Here, the role of institutions is to face legal obstacles and provide pathways for smart system implementation in the interest of involved parties. This means that city governance must be able to navigate between stakeholders' needs ensuring that both businesses and citizens are included in the process (Nam & Pardo, 2015). However, cities are often lured by the perspective of big investments and rapid improvements with the introduction of attractive sounding names of projects like "city lab", "IT Valley," "Eco-City" (Kingston, 2014). To critically assess such proposals, cities would have to be previously educated on the benefits and drawbacks of such plans, yet it is seldom the case. Administrations rarely have such departments installed thus are forced to search for the outside expertise. Experts who bring sufficient knowledge on the topic of ICT might also express opinions closer to those of private tech companies. Regardless, it is up to the city administration to determine their source of expertise. This exact position of the city administrators makes them a target for criticism: their goal could be seen as tacking "perceived problems" rather than the long-term issues within the city or even favoring tech solutions "for the sake of tech" (Bass et al. 2018, p. 9). Yet, the more public

(18)

14 recognition of a city as a leader in ICT the more it attracts potential business 6. To some, the same perspective could be seen as aiming at optimizing control of the city and placing its citizens in the role of "sources of data" (Naphade et al. 2011). In the end, the administration of a city might find itself stuck between the need for innovation and pressure from tech investors and protecting its citizens against tech, which might carry unforeseen consequences.

2.4.3 Human dimension

As Nam and Pardo describe, "a smart city is a humane city". This approach points to the human potential or human infrastructure that must be found in a model of a smart city for it to succeed. Human-friendly infrastructure is the one that allows for inclusion, creative occupations, knowledge networks and volunteering initiatives but also a one that is safe from crime and allows after-dark activities (Nam & Pardo, 2015). However, for citizens to be a part of smart city developments, there needs to be a level of understanding as to what exactly these projects entail (Kitchin, 2016). After all, one cannot approve of something if one does not fully understand its inner workings. Therefore, multiple authors stress the importance of open and transparent actions from the side of the city administrators planning to turn the city more" smart". Furthermore, the citizen-centric smart city puts a strong emphasis on the importance of education and information sharing (Ahmed et al., 2020). The more the public is kept informed, the more active and engaged relationship they will have with smart city projects. If such conditions are present, they later foster possibilities of co-designing where citizens are included in the ideation of smart city projects and treated as one of the creators. Oliveira and Campolagro refer to a relationship like this as The Human Smart City pointing to trust and active relationship building as foundations for a citizen-centric approach (Oliveria & Campolagro, 2015). With information flowing freely more knowledge is being shared; therefore, projects that might be ushered into existence will be built in a collaborative and inclusive style.

6_{CISCO. (2011). European city connects citizens and businesses for economic growth.}

(19)

15

2.5 The power of data in smart cities

Understanding stakeholders' positions and agendas within smart city projects allows us to engage with theory critically. In doing so, we identify what seems to be the driving force behind all of it- the datafication of everything. Datafication, as introduced by Cukier and Mayer-Schöenberger, explains a process of transforming a variety of actions and processes into quantifiable output (Cukier & Mayer-Schöenberger, 2013). And the phrase "datafication of everything" is not an exaggeration. Not only did we grow used to moving our banking, schooling and many more administrative systems to the digital sphere, we have also transformed many of our social practices as well. With the rise of the online spaces where people can interact with each other at any time of day, the growth and flow of data are bigger than ever. Nowadays, our identity is very much tied to our life online (Lupton, 2016). Therefore, the importance with which we associate the access to these services makes it impossible to imagine being without them. This new reality has given birth to the industry that treats data sourced from our activity online and offline as the new gold and therefore seeks to find it in all ways possible.

2.5.1 Platform influence cities

Sadowski describes in his text When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction

the value attached to data and why it is at a center of "business models, political governance, and technological development" (Sadowski, 2019, p. 9). He explains that data is the new capital which drives "smart" projects of all kind. Data has become so sought after that there is an ongoing aggressive strive to extract it from as many sources as possible. Thus, actors who manage to create a data-based solution to some of the problems common in modern cities might benefit from it in more than one way. In the middle of this data rush, we can find the citizens whose interests, however, might not be as valued as the data itself. In the following section, I will discuss the implicit potential of "smart" solutions and their role in elaborate power structures imposed on citizens of smart cities. To do so fairly I have to take into account how ambiguous the concept of a smart city has become. Not all smart city projects are representative of the same agenda. In fact, it has become increasingly more difficult to discern which stakeholder, city government or tech

(20)

16 company, pulls the strings in smart city projects. Hence, I will make a separation between the concept of a smart city and a smart city mediated by platforms. This distinction is motivated by point made by Leszczynski in her work Glitchy vignettes of platform urbanism in which she states that there has been a significant amount of literature which critically analyzes smart city interventions as inherently technologically deterministic without emphasizing the influence of private entities. This oversight can lead to assumptions that digitization promoted by platforms and by city urbanists represent the same stakeholder. According to Leszczynski such lack of distinction makes it difficult to accurately assess "scale, scope, agency" coming from each direction (Leszczynski, 2019). First, in the next section, I will explain how platforms found their way into smart cities.

2.6 Platformed smart cities

Companies and private organizations race among each other to find new ways of datafying our lives. But how did these platforms evolve to become one of the agents of urban digitization? One of the reasons platforms have become an omnipresence in our lives is due to their unique business model. With little to no resistance, we have grown accustomed to sharing information in exchange for free services (Flyverbom, 2017). We do not have to look far for an example of such a trade-off. Millions of users of platforms such as Facebook or Instagram, knowingly or not, make such a trade on a daily basis. Posting content, liking and sharing are activities the users see as a social practice, whereas the owners of platforms see as potential data points read to be sold (Lupton, 2016). The information on our habits and behavior online can be datafied and then used to target and customize a lot of services, ultimately profiting a lot of companies involved in the data business. We therefore find ourselves in a situation where our social practices are turned into a source of income for many parties except for us. Simultaneously we are told that in order to keep these sites free of charge, we need to continue giving up our data (Nieborg & Poell, 2018) . Consequently, with the broad acceptance of such a state, we as the users, inhabitants, and people might be giving away not only our data but also our power.

(21)

17

2.6.1 Smart cities or platformed cities?

Knowing how much data is valued, it is no surprise that those who base their business on it have found ways to implement systematic data collection in other areas of society. Van Dijk et al. distinguish these shifts as a process of platformization. In that shift, platforms progressively implement structures in our society that are native to the platform environment, which allows them for systematic data collection. Authors call for recognition of an immense impact that platforms have made in our society (van Dijk et al. 2018; Thatcher et al. 2016; Nieborg & Poell, 2018) even going as far as to call it the platform society (van Dijk et al. 2018). There are several aspects of platforms that can be easily translated to the urban environment. Starting with the more obvious- they are often either built with an intention to be based on the urban space to begin with or their makers, tech companies, find their way in by investing with smart city projects. For example, Uber, aside from its taxi and delivery platform, is actively participating in smart city projects, even launching its own side endeavor called the Uber Movement. The Uber Movement is said to support large American cities like Washington in the optimization of their public transport (Attoh et al. 2019, p.13-14).

Similarly to Uber, Google has created a whole project called Sidewalk Lab that supposed to support the city of Toronto with innovations like raincoats" for buildings, autonomous vehicles and more (Cecco, 2020). With promising projects like these platforms, owners make their presence in cities, seamlessly implementing platform-based services that soon enough feel endemic to our lives. Furthermore, as established earlier, platforms are dependent on the input of information from their users; that is why expanding to citizens' urban activity can be another opportunity to collect more data. City inhabitants, who already are members of multiple online platforms and greatly accustomed to platform services, are an ideal audience to introduce to platformed city. Moreover, there are specific structures that can be used to identify platformization within a smart city. As Leszczynski states "platform-mediated" cities should not be perceived as radically separate from smart cities but more as "reconfiguration, diversification, and intensification of its constituent practices, processes, and technologies" (Leszczynski, 2019). These configurations can be seen for example in two aspects of the city: infrastructure and network.

(22)

18 Whereas in the traditional smart city model, tech companies have to attempt to convince city administration to co-create a legal and physical infrastructure for the smart solution to be possible in platformed cities, tech companies have found a way to skip that step.

In the process of gaining profits from datafication, platforms are dependent on the constant influx of users. In order to operationalize data extraction, platforms have to provide sufficient infrastructure. These days constructing a digital platform is only the initial investment from the side of the tech company. In contrast to smart city initiatives, platform owners now have immediate access to a digital infrastructure provided by our mobile devices. Platforms offering ridesharing, food delivery restaurant reviews are now free of responsibility to care about the hardware or otherwise physical urban infrastructure. All that tech companies require is the internet connection and, only in some cases, approval of the city administration.

2) Network

That brings us to another characteristic of platformed smart cities- the network. Smart city's value is largely dependent on its ability to collect data from a variety of sensors that operate on input from the outside. In other words, a smart city is a network of interdependent factors, and each of them is essential to ensure its smooth running. Srnicek identifies the same quality in platforms as the "network effect". Katz and Shapiro define the network effect as "the value of (a) membership to one user (which) is positively affected when another user joins and enlarges the network" (Katz et al. 1994, p. 94). Network effect examples in platformed mediated cities can be seen in citizens benefiting from more efficient transport. In the long run, the more people join the provided network (in this case - the transport service) the more data there will be to source from users' activity. The success of the network effect I dependent on the network growth. Therefore, just like online platforms need to constantly grow to stay profitable, platformed cities will need to expand to continue bringing profit.

2.6.2 Control and governance

Both infrastructure and network are set up by tech companies to allow for datafication of urban spaces. Private companies often position themselves as neutral and merely playing the role of facilitators for the flow of information (van Dijk, 2013, p. 205). Moreover, words like data'

(23)

19 collection', 'mining and' gathering are often used as if to convey an image of data being available around us ready to be picked up by anyone (Sadowski, 2019). Such rhetoric might be used to steer public concerns away from the ongoing datafication and, what follows, platformization of public domains. However, if we focus on the real value of data and its new role within our society, we are able to discern the power structures that come with it. There are several concerns that should be brought up when looking at the privatization of smart city projects. To illustrate that, I will once again, discuss the position of citizens of smart cities within the race for data acquisition.

2.6.3 Power of platforms capitalism

As we now established, smart city projects can be identified within the bigger trend of platformization of social spaces. Nick Srnicek goes even further proposing to see this platformization as fundamental to the shift towards a new type of economic system- platform capitalism.

Nick Srnicek, in his work Platform Capitalism, takes on the position of platform users as those who are exploited for profit. He sees our activity online as an "immaterial labor" that builds the economic system. Immateriality in this context can be attributed to data that we (knowingly or no) produce for tech giants running said platforms. Data should, therefore, be seen as a "product" of our "labour" that is performed during our active time spent online. In the case of online platforms, the owners build and hold power over the infrastructure that allows them to monetize that labour. What is more, in order to efficiently control the monetization of data, the type of activity performed by us online is standardized into specific formats (Srnicek, 2016). These formats are imposed with the use of official platform policies, codified in Terms of Service, Terms of Use, and developer guidelines. On the basis of such policies, platforms can ban users, moderate or remove the content and further impose or loosen restrictions according to their will. The ability to monetize on the content depends on how datafiable our activity online is. Form of interaction and the content we create is then judged and either promoted or discouraged by the platform. This ability to steer users’ actions puts platforms in a position to actively execute power rather than to merely facilitate interactions (Gillespie, 2017 p.3-5). As such, platforms can, therefore, influence and profit from the production of cultural content and even the way we, as we choose to express ourselves as a

(24)

20 society (Deuze & Prenger, 2019, p.92). Thus, not only owners of platforms benefit greatly from this relationship, they also dictate the nature of the content we as the users are able to create. Thatcher et al. call this form of power an "asymmetrical power relation" where our previously uncommodyfied practices are turned to serve as an abundant source of data while its ownership is taken away from us (Thatcher et al. 2019, p.4). Moreover, it is not only users who perform labour for a variety of platforms but also city inhabitants who are a part of the urban gig economy. Taxi (Uber), delivery (Deliveroo), or temporary housing (Airbnb) has become a popular form of income for city dwellers. For some city inhabitants, platform-based services have been a source of additional income, while others turned them into full time professions. There has been a significant amount of reports signaling how "asymmetrical" are the positions of workers vs. platform owners (Alderman 2019; Rosenblat &Stark, 2016; Holder, 2010; De Grieef 2019).

Here, Attoh et al. provide a case study of Uber drivers who are forced to labour under unfair conditions set by the platform. In this study, the authors describe the power relations in which the drivers are constantly struggling to make decent pay while the platform benefits not only front, he rides themselves but also from the by-product of these rides, the data. Information on locations, times of pick-ups, and drop-offs and behavior of their customers are used to optimize the platform and increase the profits. Meanwhile, the actual drivers' pay is very much dependent on the ever-changing fairs, ratings, time slots, and many more variables making their income hard to predict (Attoh et al. 2019, p.6-8).

2.6.4 Execution of soft power in smart cities

These underlying unjust practices continue to exist as the platforms' position within modern cities grows. The distinction between smart city projects initiated by city urbanists versus platform mediated services is a difficult task partially because the latter make sure to establish their position in the city's policymaking process. Projects like Uber Movements and Google Sidewalks allow platforms to enter inside city halls and influence changes in laws that previously could prevent them from expanding their services, further giving them an immense advantage. Van Doorn states that these collaborative projects position platforms as partners and "valued institutional actors in their own right" next to stakeholders of the smart city (van Doorn, 2019 p.5). However, as the inequalities between workers and platform owners become more apparent new regulatory laws are born. To combat regulations, platforms have to make sure that their user base is also on their side.

(25)

21 Here, van Doorn uses an example of the platform Airbnb which has established a strong position in the fight against legislative regulations that could restrict its operations. The business model of the platform allows apartment owners to sublet their places short-term and gain a percentage of the profit. The platform is often criticized for diminishing the number of actual living apartments for the locals, turning whole neighborhoods into hotel-like zones, and causing "tourist pollution"7. Despite these claims, the platform was able to maintain support and has done so by developing a strong narrative placing themselves as enablers of entrepreneurship amongst the inhabitants of cities. In this relationship, platform users (the subtleties) are named by the platform as partners in the fight for the right to continue to grow their own business (van Doorn, 2019). Thanks to that image, their user base is heartily supportive of platforms strive to oppose regulatory power. In their essence, these forms of influence can be identified as an execution of platform's agenda through soft power (Vanolo, 2014). Soft power in opposition to hard power allows the platform position itself within the concept of a smart city as the "heroes" without involving themselves to deep in the legal battles between citizens and city administration. Citizens who aim to make money using these platforms are left to their own devices if the legislation imposes more restrictions on platform-based businesses. In the broader picture, such an arrangement puts both stakeholders of the smart city, city administration and city inhabitants, in power disadvantage to platforms representing the third stakeholder - tech companies.

2.7 Power relations between citizens and city

administration

These disproportions are progressively more visible and cities who want to uphold the original assumptions of smart city projects must take the measures to tip the scale of power towards citizens. However, as discerned above and the Institutional Dimensions chapter, city governance is becoming increasingly more intertwined with the influence of private companies in the projects of smart cities. However, like Leszczynski states, platforms do not represent a united front of

(26)

22 oppressive technologies and are not entirely deaf to their co-stakeholders (Leszczynski, 2019). What is more, all the city does have the power and agency in most of the smart city projects. Datafication assigns a new role to the city administration to protect and control how data is collected and processed (Birbi, 2019). Thus, allowing a platform to transform urbans cape or outsource the management of smart city projects is both in the interest and under the watchful supervision of the city government. Realizing this interdependency allows us to hold administrators accountable. That requires keeping up to date with technological and legal aspects of smart cities. However, some authors point out that there might be another issue in need of monitoring by the citizens.

Digitization of the city not only reshapes the physical landscape of the city such as sensors, cameras, and server centers but also installs a new form of urban democracy (Willis, 2019). Technology installed by the city or their technological partners is not neutral and, what is more, should be seen as political. These aspects of the smart city can be observed if we choose to see through the omnipresent agenda of 'smart equals better for everyone'. Like Willis states that, at least in theory, smart cities would create "smart citizens" (Willis, 2019 p.31). For such development to be possible citizens, must approve and consent to taking part in a smart city. They can do so only by being adequately informed and actively included in the transformation. Here, Willis uncovers a significant obstacle pointing out that vulnerable social groups in cities are less likely to have access to information and thus are often excluded from decision making in the urban planning of the city. An interesting paradox appears:

"The smart city agendum, therefore, is not neutral, but has an effect on the way citizens are supposed to behave, and in fact contributes to a lack of participation for those who arguably should be the beneficiaries of smart city initiatives: the urban poor and marginalized groups."

(Willis, 2019 p. 31)

Despite these shortcomings identified by Willis, I would like to avoid repeating the popular rhetoric of urban-themed literature where smart cities are treated homogeneous structure. In the next chapter, I would like to focus on possible solutions to these disproportions of power. As shown before, there is great potential in smart city technologies. Yet if they enforce the top-down

(27)

23 relationship where citizens, instead of being helped, are pushed further into sidelines of the technological progress, we must look at alternative models.

2.8 Alternative models of smart cities

Though as already established, identifying smart cities with one set of characteristics is difficult, but it should not distract us from diagnosing power inequalities found in current urban planning projects. As "citizens participation enables power redistribution" (Lim et al. 2018, p. 143), the following chapter will discuss a few strategies for citizen engagement as well as some attempt of implementation of said strategies.

2.8.1 Knowledge-based smart city

To stop propagating inequalities and technocratic approach, a city must search for a model which steers away from assuming "enumeration and quantification" as its main objectives (Odendaal, 2019 p.169). Though quantification and datafication of different processes can be a great source of information, they must be carried out with attention to standards that ensure fair treatment of all stakeholders. What seems to be the answer to these conditions is a model proposed by a considerable number of sources. To successfully develop inclusive smart cities, scholars propose to place an exchange of knowledge as an integral initiative in smart cities. In this model, the city, as opposed to assigning an excessive value to data, should place major significance on the enhanced flow of information, experience, and expertise amongst stakeholders. As Chang et al. put it:

"Knowledge-based development (KBD) is a vision of development that considers knowledge as the central structuring element of a development strategy for cities and regions (Yigitcanlar 2010; Lönnqvist et al. 2014)."

(28)

24 Following this strategy in the strive for achieving a balanced smart city, administrations should aim to create spaces and platforms for people to discuss issues specific to their environments. One such example can be identified in the program run by the city of Amsterdam called Knowledge Mile. Located in two very busy streets (Wibautstraat and Weesperstraat), the program aims to include various stakeholders' ideas on solving common issues found in these areas such as high traffic volumes, flooding, and air pollution. The project is described on the Amsterdam Smart City website as:

"The Knowledge Mile is a place to establish crucial connections and to achieve productive partnerships, fruitful networks and creative interaction. With a community of 30.000 residents, 60.000 students and almost 200 organizations, hotels, museums, social and municipal institutions together, we aim to improve the quality of life in the area by improving and sharing knowledge

and facilitating new connections at our Meetup's. This is a space to interact and share ideas." 8

Knowledge Mile is a project that seems to provide a platform and create connections between inhabitants. Therefore, in its premise, the project seems to aim at bringing various stakeholders together and address problems of exclusion and lack of communication.

2.8.2 The "smart commons" approach

Similarly to KBD, the idea of “smart commons” leans on stakeholder input. Various critical sources propose this approach to increase citizens' involvement in the city and ensure their interests would be protected. In opposition to the data-based economy and increasing monopoly in sourcing and trading that data, researchers have proposed "smart commons' as a solution (Cardullo, 2019). Supporting the idea that "truly smart cities must also be sharing cities" (McLaren, 2015, p. 2), the idea of "smart commons" describes treating city resources as common property, including data. In this approach, data is shared and owned by all stakeholders (Cardullo, 2019). This model has already been tested in the city of Bristol, where City Council cooperated with non-governmental organizations and researchers in the creation of a "people-led" city initiative (d'Ignazio et al. 2019, p.119). Their first pilot project involved having researchers to gather community insight and

(29)

25 narrow down to the most pressing and feasible issues. From that point on, they determined that the focus of this project should be to measure the dampness in people's houses. As a result, many houses were equipped with sensors tackling citizen's true problems. Like d'ignazio et al. describe it, the project was placing citizens as "co-designers and partners in a targeted effort to pilot a single sensing effort from ideation to implementation" (d'Ignazio et al. 2019, p.119). This bottom-up approach has shown that it is possible to involve citizens as recipients of smart city projects and co-creators of it. By using the commons model, Bristol allowed its citizens to share the resources and access the creation phase of smart city projects.

Though it is a promising example, as authors point out, maintaining such engagement might be laborious and time-consuming. Nevertheless, maintaining fair city standards is essential for the upholding of democratic processes in a smart city.

2.9 Smart cities and the pandemic

Applying citizen-centric practices should be expected from the city administration. One should be able to look at proposed projects in their city and critically assess their underlying objectives. That is, of course, if a huge crisis is not currently claiming the priority.

While this thesis initially was not supposed to include a perspective of a crisis, it has become impossible not to take that angle into consideration. Issues previously discussed in this work, such as the datafication, platformization, and inherent power relations within smart cities, might now come back with a new set of consequences. Citizens of cities affected by the pandemic are now facing a difficult time where the immediate technological solutions might seem like the best option we have. Nevertheless, many points that some of the questionable technologies might permanently find its way into our reality taking advantage of desperate times. Our current reality (quarantine) will potentially affect our future (post-pandemic) in so many unforeseen ways that we might not be able to make informed decisions (Daskal, 2020).

(30)

26

2.9.1 Crisis management with the use of IoT

Following WHO's advises countries, and subsequently, cities have implemented a social distancing rule which requires citizens to keep a 1,5-meter distance from each other. Those measures are introduced in hopes of decreasing the numbers of sick individuals and in a result, relieve the pressure on the medical services. But how can city administration be sure that people are abiding the new prevention measures? The following section will discuss the latest technologies use in the fight against the pandemic, with a special focus on those connected to smart cities.

2.9.2 Examples of smart city applications in the pandemic across the world

United Kingdom

Though global pandemics are not a new occurrence, it is the first time the urban infrastructure to fight it is already in place (Sonn et al. 2020). Smart cities around the world mobilize their existing technological networks to manage the outbreak. Some cities began to use sensors for pedestrian monitoring. In the example from New Castle, UK sensors provide the city with the data on the number of pedestrians during the lockdown and showed 95% decrease compared to the data from the same time in 2019. This information shows that inhabitants seemed to listen to the advice of staying home as much as possible. Additionally, to this data, scientists from New Castle were able to use computer vision to analyze CCTV footage (Figure 2) and measure if people keep the required distance9. The algorithms they developed are said to measure the distance between pedestrians with the preservation of their anonymity. The algorithm detects people and labels them as those who "maintain safe distance" or those who are "violating safe distance measures".

9 https://theconversation.com/how-smart-city-technology-can-be-used-to-measure-social-distancing-135139

(31)

27

Figure 2. CCTV system used in COVID-19 control in New Catsle, UK, source: theconversation, 2020

South Korea

In South Korea, the government and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation alongside the Ministry of Science and ICT implemented a system called Smart City Data Hub. The system is used in order to analyze data coming from city cameras and sensors (city's IoT systems) to trace the movement of those who are known to be coronavirus patients. In this case, IoT is being used as a tracking device to postemptively find out who came into contact with a sick patient (Chandler, 2020). What is more, with the use of a mobile app, South Korean citizens are able to stay alert themselves. The Corona 100 is a mobile application which operates on the same government collected data notifying citizens when they find themselves within a hundred meters from a spot known to have been visited by a patient infected with corona (Wray, 2020)

India

In many Indian smart cities, a variety of tech solutions is being deployed to stop the spread of the virus. One of the tech companies, Tech Mahindra, who was already responsible for wiring the

(32)

28 city of Pimpri-Chinchwad, is now able to use traffic lights to monitor groups of people. In

addition to that, the company is now responsible for drone monitoring, which allows them to perform geo-fencing. The term geofencing is used to describe the creation of "virtual geographic boundary, setting off alarms anytime a mobile device leaves a particular area" (Sharma, 2020). This practice is now in place across India, where cities attempt at restricting the movement of quarantine citizens. According to officials, so far, these measures have successfully prevented a rapid growth of coronavirus cases (Staff, 2020).

2.10 Does privacy have to be sacrificed?

Some of the applications of the smart city mentioned above are causing concerns among critics of increasing surveillance in the urban environment. Quite a few authors argue that mishandling of data and citizen's personal information can be amplified in these extraordinary times.

Moreover, some point that loosening the privacy rules might be irreversible (Brough &Martin, 2020). Thus, in the following section, I would like to discuss several worries shared in media regarding possible abuse of citizen's privacy.

There is a substantial amount of literature discussing issues of privacy in smart cities, often proposing boundaries and alternative models of governance that should be considered by stakeholders. To ensure the preservation of citizen's privacy Martinez-Balleste et al. propose a series of assessments consisting of the following dimensions: identity privacy, query privacy, location privacy, footprint privacy, and owner privacy (Martinez-Blleste et al. 2013, p. 139). Dimensions can be explained respectively:

Identity privacy consists of protection of one's image, for example, in the CCTV footage. Query privacy ensures the anonymity of queries made by a user.

Location privacy protects citizens from being tracked at all times.

Footprint privacy is concerned with microdata left citizen's actions online/offline that could

lead to retracing of their activity.

Owner privacy deals with securing the privacy of queries and sharing them across different

(33)

29 If we were to look back at some of the pandemic prevention technologies (chapter) implemented in smart cities we could see possibilities of conflicts with privacy dimensions outlined by Martinez-Blleste et al. For example, Identity or Location privacy is already at risk of being ignored as the technological means to stop the pandemic rely strongly on the collection of data based on these two factors. How can we ensure the privacy of location, identity, and footprint if these are the information that is sought by the smart technologies aiming to protect us?

On that note, multiple sources discuss possibilities of maintaining citizen's privacy while simultaneously collecting necessary information. First, citizens must remain informed about the innovations as well as be given access to the data collected on them. Secondly, technologies implemented must only access required information and later on protect them from cyber leaks. Third, governments and companies installing these technologies should have a limited amount of time to access data and discard of those not helpful in the context of the pandemic (Daskal, 2020; Guarigilia & Shwartz 2020). Some of these rules, like transparency and open access, are perceived as general building blocks of trust between stakeholders and attributed to more of a bottom-up approach to the smart city (Ryan et al. 2019). Achieving that trust might be more complicated in the times of COVID-19 as the trust in the government's ability to accurately handle the situation seems to decrease (Hasija, 2020). Protests in multiple countries against wearing masks or demanding to reopen businesses show general misbelieve in the precautions enforced by governments. Recent polls have shown that in the United States, a sizeable number of people believe the pandemic is a hoax, often attributing it to plans to install mass surveillance technologies10. Though distrust in new technologies is not a new thing in this case, we can see the direct effects of the lack of communication between stakeholders. On top of that, the lack of transparency and obscurity has led to strong and, one could say, dangerous actions from citizens.

(34)

30

3. Research project

3.1 A closer look at a smart city- the case of Amsterdam

Taking into consideration these issues, we will zoom in closer at one of the popular examples of a smart city- the city of Amsterdam. Amsterdam was one of the first cities to take initiatives in the direction of smart city concepts (Dameri, 2014). Nowadays, Amsterdam is often used as an example of a leading smart city (Mcpherson 2017; Mora et al. 2017; Jameson et al. 2019).

Considering these rather positive media reports on the state of smart endeavors in the city of Amsterdam, it is interesting to investigate the publics' opinion on these projects. Amsterdam Smart City (ASC) is operated by the Amsterdam Economic Board (AEB). Jameson et al., in their study People's strategies for perceived surveillance in Amsterdam Smart City, bring reader’s attention to the fact that the smart projects initiated in Amsterdam are done by The Economic Board, therefore, one could assume their actions should be perceived through "an economic lens and with a logic of economic growth" (Jameson et al. , 2019, p. 1469). Jameson et al. suggest that, to the city administration, profitable deals and attracting new businesses could be more of a priority rather than let us say "understanding the social impacts of datafication" (Jameson et al., 2019, p. 1469). However, in opposition to that theory would be what Amsterdam Smart City states on its website. The site includes a list of values that seems to position citizens at the top of their priority (see Figure 3).

(35)

31

Figure 3. List of Amsterdma Smart City values, source: amsterdamsmartcity.nl, 2020

11

Previous reports test these values by asking citizens of Amsterdam Smart City about their perceived involvement in ASC projects. In the research report by Jameson et al., this exact perspective was already examined in the year 2016. Respondents were asked about several aspects of smart cities such as data privacy, their trust in data handling by the city and how involved they felt in smart city projects. Their understanding of datafication was quite substantial and they did