Introduction

The ongoing trend towards increasing urbanization is evident and already well-documented. According to recent studies, most of the world’s population is now living in urban areas [53]. Concomitantly, digitalization has found its way into our daily life [20,33] and other areas such as mental health [13], health [52], mobility [30] learning [10,16,60] and community-building [1,12,56]. A discussion about the meaning and definition of “smart” in the context of cities and urban areas remains often functional [2] but more and more scholars [33,44] criticize concepts which focus on ubiquitous digital automation of infrastructures and services instead of solving citizens’ problems. Understanding city dwellers only as consumers and cities only as markets disregards citizens’ needs, their actual use of technologies and other informal (social) practices, and it sometimes even violates their civil rights. These scholars and activists call for a more political, sociological and anthropological focus on cities, for discussions about ethics and values in the development of technologies, and about governance of urban spaces. Most of all, they call for a bottom-up, open, needs-centered, civil-society-driven approach to the design and development of smart cities.
With the further establishment of the “Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data Analytics, or High Speed Networks” [36], it is envisaged that everyone and everything will be connected. Humans, animals, and nature itself are all part of this ever-expanding network. Current developments show that it is likely that interactions between these stakeholders and technologies will only grow in frequency and complexity in the future [42]. Especially the needs and interests of marginalized groups, for instance refugees or children, are often not taken into account in city design, resulting in increasing discrimination [21]. Also often not considered are nature and its multiple species. Understanding the metropole as a holistic reciprocal system through the design of human- and animal-centered technological interventions and research methodologies, Human-Computer Interaction [22] and Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI) [25] address the increasing interconnection between humans and/or animals and technologies. Especially ACI researchers [26] have pointed out how their field could provide more inclusive models that broaden participation to animals and diverse humans in the development of sustainable, multispecies environments.
This Design Fiction [8,27] workshop aims to rethink the concept of smart cities and bring together researchers, practitioners and activists from a broad spectrum of disciplines to develop a new, extended and sustainable model for smart cities.

Background

Smart Citites

Trying to conceptualize smart cities still leads to a “cacophony of definitions”, maybe even more so nowadays than in 2011, when the “smarter cities” brand was first registered by IBM – without definition. Yet, cities, as the habitat of the majority of humans and of an increasing number of animals on this planet [42], where at least twice as many things as people are connected to the Internet [44:3], have more economic power and greater political influence than ever since the rise of nation states [41].
Kitchin argues that current discussions around and about smart cities are “based on the reading of corporate and government documents, rather than interviews, ethnographies or genealogies” [23:134] from citizens. Townsend argues for the need to develop “A New Civics for a Smart Century” [51:282], while Niaros suggests that a “truly smart city” [33:59] is built on social inclusion, democratic problem-solving procedures, participatory design of products and services, and open ICT infrastructures and platforms [33]. Söderström et al. [44] call for “alternative smart city stories […] to move beyond critique” [44:318] and to constructively engage in the planning of smart cities. Following this call, this workshop is meant to be a departure by means of using Design Fiction by interdisciplinary storytellers.

Urban Informatics, Animal-Computer Interaction, and Nature

Mancini [25] describes the aims of ACI as being “to understand the interaction between animals and computing technology within the context in which the animals habitually live, are active and socialize with members of the same or other species, including humans”. In this context, Smith et al. [42] examined two design cases with novel conceptions of animal-human cohabitation in urban space. They concluded that the entanglement of urban spaces and nature “challenges us to rethink our conceptions around the relationships between animals and humans and the different ways in which we perceive and act in the world “[42]. Indeed, current trends in urban informatics investigate the social and cultural aspects of cities and urban areas [59] and Smith et al. [42] emphasize that “designing for animals in cities is likely to benefit humans as well” [42:1715]. Nevertheless, there are few studies that deal with animals in urban areas. However, the rapid course of urbanization, which is leading to an increasing overlap of cities and natural spaces, demands that more attention be given to understanding multispecies urban environments and to the opportunities that such environments could offer for a multiplicity of diverse stakeholders. In this respect, Berg et al. (2016) underline, that the urban fusion with natural infrastructures or urban forests and their various creatures changes the perception of nature, esp. for children, and supports learning processes about it [7]. Green spaces in urban environments further play an important role in cooling down the temperature of the city [5], with positive consequences for multiple species (plants, animals, human beings), promoting personal well-being and vitality [5,7] and preventing physical and mental illness [7] and thereby promote “urban sustainability and resilience” [34], which benefits all, but especially vulnerable target groups.

Urban Informatics, HCI4Margins, and other Vulnerable Target Groups

Diverse people with various vulnerabilities and abilities up to marginalization in manifold sensitive contexts are realistically part of our metropolises today, but just like animals and nature they are still often not considered in the process of shaping our (digital) urban landscapes [4,36]. If we look at modern cities, we find diversity both in terms of space and place as well as the people who are part of them. The image is culture-, class-, and education-dependent [11] – visible alongside even more invisible barriers that lead to an (integrational) gap that is difficult to overcome for e.g. people with refugee background [14,36], migrants [4,36,37],  homeless people [50] or those who suffer from low income or poverty [4,37]. The offline situation of these people is mirrored in their online version [36]. This is also true for older adults [3,46], children [21] or people with different abilities [6]. Thus, the (digital) urban landscape only partially accommodates their cognitive and/or physical diversity [36], circumstances that also affect people who suffer from mental disorders [19]. These are more likely to occur, if social risk factors of “low socio-economic status (SES) (e.g. education levels, income), low social capital (e.g. social support, efficacy), or social segregation (e.g. perceived minority status, ethnic group membership)” [19] coincide and exceed a certain level, which is often reflected in the picture of depression, anxiety disorders or schizophrenia [19]. If we take a look at prisoners, the exclusionary conditions of lacking (digital) participation prevent the overarching, legally anchored goal of resocialization, which makes social participation more difficult in the long term [15,49].

Services (such as e.g. mental health services or housing services) are essential for building and sustaining a life in cities, but often do not meet the needs of marginalized communities (e.g., unaccompanied migrant youths [47,48]). Furthermore, the perspective of children and youth are often not considered, or determined by adults [21]. If smart city developments such as e.g. the integration of artificial intelligence into these services do not take into account the needs, abilities and interests of marginalized groups, such ones will experience even more discrimination in the future [58]. Therefore, the basis of truly smart cities builds the collection of data of such target groups and processing this data accordingly through algorithms. Currently these elements are blacked boxed though, stay invisible and furthermore hidden from citizens. Moreover, the analysis and decision-making process which causes the discrimination and inequality stays as well hidden and only a few people have the knowledge and power to change automated and intelligent systems. This development endangers democracy and equality in smart cities. Especially since these systems have such an impact on policies and citizens themselves, researchers argue that citizens should have the right and need to know what is happening withing the smart system [28] as well as the legal tools and education to control computer models [51]. A citizen-centric approach helps to transform the technical infrastructure of current smart cities through the future influence of smart citizens who are able to act more autonomously and engage in the design processes of cities, thus meeting the need to counteract the technology-centric, stigmatizing nature of the current smart cities approach. In addition, vulnerabilities could be further reduced by incorporating the approach of so-called “Caring Communities” [10,12,32] into further smart city design in terms of a collective cultivation of solidarity attention that represents and further cultivates an inclusive perspective as well as social practice among all citizens. In such an approach, the Caring Community as a social, holistically networked environment illuminates the everyday needs and challenges of citizens caring for each other, gives them visibility, brings people together in the real world – on and offline, locally and supra-locally – and creates contact through the direct caring character, which promotes destigmatization.

In summary, vulnerable groups, whether human, animal or nature itself as a living ecosystem, clearly lack spatial, social and digital inclusion within the current smart city approach, sometimes to the point of stigmatization. The digitally networked “smart city”: one person is excluded by walls while they enclose them, another is marginalized by the integration gap, some are overwhelmed by orientation in the ubiquity of digital infrastructures, and still others are dependent on supportive representatives of their own rights because they have no voice of their own. In order to overcome this design flaw, we would like to use this creative workshop to open discourse on vulnerable perspectives and possible solutions, some of which have been named, via Design Fiction in order to be able to derive improved design implications in the further process.

References

1. Konstantin Aal, George Yerousis, Kai Schubert, Dominik Hornung, Oliver Stickel, and Volker Wulf. 2014. Come_in@ palestine: adapting a german computer club concept to a Palestinian refugee camp. Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Collaboration across boundaries: culture, distance & technology, ACM, 111–120.
2. Vito Albino, Umberto Berardi, and Rosa Maria Dangelico. 2015. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology 22, 1: 3–21.
3. Elenia Carrasco Almao and Fatemeh Golpayegani. 2019. Are Mobile Apps Usable and Accessible for Senior Citizens in Smart Cities? In J. Zhou and G. Salvendy, eds., Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for the Elderly and Technology Acceptance. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 357–375.
4. Hans Thor Andersen. 2019. Governing European Cities: Social Fragmentation, Social Exclusion and Urban. Routledge.
5. Ramesh Anguluri and Priya Narayanan. 2017. Role of green space in urban planning: Outlook towards smart cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 25: 58–65.
6. Edgar Batista, Fran Casino, and Agusti Solanas. 2015. Wandering detection methods in smart cities: Current and new approaches. 2015 IEEE First International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), IEEE, 1–2.
7. Magdalena van den Berg, Mireille van Poppel, Irene van Kamp, et al. 2016. Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four european cities. Health & Place 38: 8–15.
8. Mark Blythe. 2014. Research through design fiction: narrative in real and imaginary abstracts. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems – CHI ’14, ACM Press, 703–712.
9. Mark Blythe, Jamie Steane, Jenny Roe, and Caroline Oliver. 2015. Solutionism, the Game: Design Fictions for Positive Aging. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’15, ACM Press, 3849–3858.
10. Cerna, Katerina, Dickel, Martin, Müller, Claudia, et al. 2020. Learning for life: Designing for sustainability of tech-learning networks of older adults. .
11. Eric Corbett and Yanni Loukissas. 2019. Engaging Gentrification as a Social Justice Issue in HCI. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1–16.
12. Martin Dickel, David Struzek, Jutta Jung-Henrich, Heidi Kaspar, Karin van Holten, and Katharina Pelzelmayer. Networks of Care in Rural Areas. 4.
13. Tanja Ertl and Konstantin Aal. 2020. Psychosocial ICT – Therapeutic Methods becoming Self-Help Tools. 22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, ACM, 1–4.
14. Tanja Ertl, Konstantin Aal, Hoda Diraoui, Peter Tolmie, and Volker Wulf. Psychosocial ICT: The Potential, Challenges and Benefits of Self-help Tools for Refugees with Negative Mental Stress. 31.
15. Tanja Ertl, Sebastian Taugerbeck, Margarita Esau, Konstantin Aal, Peter Tolmie, and Volker Wulf. 2019. The Social Mile – How (Psychosocial) ICT can Help to Promote Resocialization and to Overcome Prison. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, GROUP: 1–31.
16. Karen E Fisher, Joan C Durrance, and Marian Bouch Hinton. 2004. Information grounds and the use of need-based services by immigrants in Queens, New York: A context-based, outcome evaluation approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 55, 8: 754–766.
17. Geraldine Fitzpatrick and Gunnar Ellingsen. 2013. A Review of 25 Years of CSCW Research in Healthcare: Contributions, Challenges and Future Agendas. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 22, 4–6: 609–665.
18. Christopher Frauenberger, Katta Spiel, Laura Scheepmaker, and Irene Posch. 2019. Nurturing Constructive Disagreement – Agonistic Design with Neurodiverse Children. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1–11.
19. Oliver Gruebner, Michael A. Rapp, Mazda Adli, Ulrike Kluge, Sandro Galea, and Andreas Heinz. 2017. Cities and Mental Health. Deutsches Aerzteblatt Online.
20. Yves J Gschwind, Sabine Eichberg, Andreas Ejupi, et al. 2015. ICT-based system to predict and prevent falls (iStoppFalls): study protocol for an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity 2015 (in press).
21. Sabine Hennig. 2014. Smart Cities Need Smart Citizens, but What About Smart Children? REAL CORP 2014–PLAN IT SMART! Clever Solutions for Smart Cities. Proceedings of 19th International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society, CORP–Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning, 553–561.
22. Melissa R. Ho, Thomas N. Smyth, Matthew Kam, and Andy Dearden. 2009. Human-Computer Interaction for Development : The Past , Present , and Future. Information Technologies & International development 5, 4: 1–18.
23. Rob Kitchin. 2015. Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 8, 1: 131–136.
24. Conor Linehan, Ben J. Kirman, Stuart Reeves, et al. 2014. Alternate endings: using fiction to explore design futures. Proceedings of the extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems – CHI EA ’14, ACM Press, 45–48.
25. Clara Mancini. 2011. Animal-computer interaction: a manifesto. interactions 18, 4: 69–73.
26. Clara Mancini. 2013. Animal-computer interaction (ACI): changing perspective on HCI, participation and sustainability. ACM Press, 2227.
27. Thomas Markussen and Eva Knutz. 2013. The poetics of design fiction. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces – DPPI ’13, ACM Press, 231.
28. Shannon Mattern. 2016. Interfacing urban intelligence. Code and the City. London: Routledge: 49–60.
29. Johanna Meurer, Claudia Müller, Carla Simone, Ina Wagner, and Volker Wulf. 2018. Designing for Sustainability: Key Issues of ICT Projects for Ageing at Home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27, 3–6: 495–537.
30. Johanna Meurer, Martin Stein, David Randall, Markus Rohde, and Volker Wulf. 2014. Social dependency and mobile autonomy: supporting older adults’ mobility with ridesharing ict. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 1923–1932.
31. Claudia Müller, Dominik Hornung, Theodor Hamm, and Volker Wulf. 2015. Practice-based design of a neighborhood portal: Focusing on elderly tenants in a city quarter living lab. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seoul, 2295–2304.
32. Claudia Müller, Heidi Kasper, Katharina Pelzelmayer, Karin van Holten, David Struzek, and Martin Dickel. 2019. Designing for Sustainable Caring Communities – the CareComLabs Framework. .
33. Vasilis Niaros. 2016. Introducing a taxonomy of the “smart city”: Towards a commons-oriented approach? tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 14, 1: 51–61.
34. Sophie A. Nitoslawski, Nadine J. Galle, Cecil Konijnendijk Van Den Bosch, and James W.N. Steenberg. 2019. Smarter ecosystems for smarter cities? A review of trends, technologies, and turning points for smart urban forestry. Sustainable Cities and Society 51: 101770.
35. Francisco Nunes, Nervo Verdezoto, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Morten Kyng, Erik Grönvall, and Cristiano Storni. 2015. Self-Care Technologies in HCI: Trends, Tensions, and Opportunities. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 22, 6: 1–45.
36. Víctor Manuel Padr. Social Inclusion in Smart Cities. 46.
37. Michael A. Rapp, Ulrike Kluge, Simone Penka, et al. 2015. When local poverty is more important than your income: Mental health in minorities in inner cities. World Psychiatry 14, 2: 249–250.
38. Markus Rohde, Konstantin Aal, Kaoru Misaki, Dave Randall, Anne Weibert, and Volker Wulf. 2016. Out of Syria: Mobile Media in Use at the Time of Civil War. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.
39. Laura Scheepmaker, Christopher Frauenberger, and Katta Spiel. 2018. The Things We Play with Roles of Technology in Social Play. Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, ACM, 451–462.
40. Doug Schuler. 2000. New communities and new community networks. In Community informatics: Enabling communities with information and communications technologies. IGI Global, 174–189.
41. John Rennie Short. 2017. Introduction to the urban moment. In A Research Agenda for Cities. Elgar, 1–20.
42. Nancy Smith, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2017. Designing for Cohabitation: Naturecultures, Hybrids, and Decentering the Human in Design. ACM Press, 1714–1725.
43. Nancy Smith and Danial Qaurooni. 2020. The Inclusion Zone: Grounded Speculations in Chernobyl. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, ACM, 1929–1942.
44. Ola Söderström, Till Paasche, and Francisco Klauser. 2014. Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City 18, 3: 307–320.
45. Katta Spiel, Christopher Frauenberger, Eva Hornecker, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2017. When Empathy Is Not Enough: Assessing the Experiences of Autistic Children with Technologies. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2853–2864.
46. Martin Stein, Johanna Meurer, Alexander Boden, and Volker Wulf. 2017. Mobility in Later Life: Appropriation of an Integrated Transportation Platform. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 5716–5729.
47. Franziska Tachtler, Toni Michel, Petr Slovak, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2020. Supporting the Supporters of Unaccompanied Migrant Youth: Designing for Social-ecological Resilience. 14.
48. Franziska Tachtler, Reem Talhouk, Toni Michel, Petr Slovák, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2021. Unaccompanied Migrant Youth and Mental Health Technologies: A Social-Ecological Approach to Understanding and Designing. 19.
49. Sebastian Taugerbeck, Michael Ahmadi, Marén Schorch, David Unbehaun, Konstantin Aal, and Volker Wulf. 2019. Digital Participation in Prison – A Public Discourse Analysis of the Use of ICT by Inmates. .
50. Doug A Timmer, D Stanley Eitzen, Kathryn D Talley, and D Stanley Eitzen. 2019. Paths to homelessness: Extreme poverty and the urban housing crisis. Routledge.
51. Anthony M Townsend. 2013. Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. WW Norton & Company.
52. David Unbehaun, Daryoush Vaziri, Konstantin Aal, Qinyu Li, Rainer Wieching, and Volker Wulf. 2018. MobiAssist-ICT-based Training System for People with Dementia and Their Caregivers: Results from a Field Study. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork, ACM, 122–126.
53. United Nations. 2016. World Urbanization Prospects 2016 – Population Division – United Nations. Retrieved October 5, 2017 from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/.
54. Anne Weibert, Max Krüger, Konstantin Aal, et al. 2019. Finding Language Classes: Designing a Digital Language Wizard with Refugees and Migrants. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW: 1–23.
55. Anne Weibert, Andrea Marshall, Konstantin Aal, Kai Schubert, and Jennifer Rode. 2014. Sewing interest in E-textiles: analyzing making from a gendered perspective. ACM Press, 15–24.
56. Anne Weibert, Dave Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2017. Extending Value Sensitive Design to Off-the-Shelf Technology: Lessons Learned from a Local Intercultural Computer Club. Interacting with Computers: 1–22.
57. Florian J. Weise, Helmut Hauptmeier, Ken J. Stratford, et al. 2019. Lions at the Gates: Trans-disciplinary Design of an Early Warning System to Improve Human-Lion Coexistence. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6.
58. Jan C Weyerer and Paul F Langer. Garbage In, Garbage Out: The Vicious Cycle of AI-Based Discrimination in the Public Sector. 3.
59. Amanda Williams, Erica Robles, and Paul Dourish. 2009. Urbane-ing the city: Examining and refining the assumptions behind urban informatics. In Handbook of research on urban informatics: The practice and promise of the real-time city. IGI Global, 1–20.
60. Cara Wilson, Margot Brereton, and Bernd Ploderer. 2017. MyWord: Supporting the Interest-based Learning of Words through a Personal Visual Dictionary. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, ACM, 132–137.
61. Volker Wulf, Konstantin Aal, Ibrahim Abu Kteish, et al. 2013. Fighting against the wall: social media use by political activists in a Palestinian village. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’13, ACM Press, 1979.