3S researchers Nickhil Sharma, Tom Hargreaves and Helen Pallett have a new Open Access article published in the journal Buildings and Cities on ‘Social justice implications of smart urban technologies: an intersectional approach’. The article demonstrates how, despite claims that ‘smart urban technologies’ will solve multiple urban crises, narratives around ‘smart urbanism’ (SU) often end up reinforcing and deepening existing inequalities by prioritizing market interests and data monetization over the rights and interests of marginalised groups. The article calls for a comprehensive analysis of social justice concerns in SU and develops a novel intersectional approach for doing so. It uses this approach to map and analyse 70 cases of opposition, alternatives, and glitches with smart urban technologies from around the world.

Drawing on existing scholarship on intersectionality and from feminist science and technologies studies, the novel framework (summarised in Figure 1) identifies three key approaches for intersectional work on smart urbanism. These are:

• A user-focused approach which aims to challenge dominant approaches to  smart technology development and promote diversity. By engaging with diverse groups, SU practitioners can understand how intersecting factors such as gender, race, and class shape individual identities and practices.
• An institution-focused approach that examines the genealogies of institutions and their role in creating and sustaining social hierarchies. It emphasizes the institutionalization of discrimination, such as racism, sexism, and classism, and prompts reflections on how these injustices are embedded in institutions and perpetuate intergenerational trauma.
• A power systems-focused approach that seeks to develop a comprehensive ethics for SU transitions by focusing simultaneously on multiple power systems such as capitalism, heterosexism, racism, and ableism. It draws inspiration from both social movements and critical social science theories to challenge power structures and inequalities.

The paper argues that all three of these approaches can generate useful insights, but that their simultaneous application is more likely to generate transformative change.

The article then uses a systematic mapping approach to identify 70 cases of trouble that highlight diverse critiques of SU. The analysis reveals a limited consideration of intersectional justice concerns in existing discussions of SU. Where justice concerns are discussed, the majority of cases focused on user experiences, with far fewer studies examining the histories and institutionalization of inequalities and fewer still exploring interactions between multiple power systems. Whilst the user-focused approach is certainly valuable and welcome, the concern is that it is applied superficially, and currently only provides a fairly shallow and surface-level analysis of inequality and marginalization that major corporations could appropriate through forms of diversity-washing. Such an approach therefore seems unlikely to generate more transformative change as it tends to overlook embedded and institutionalized forms of inequality and do little to challenge existing power-systems. The paper therefore calls for a more thorough examination of social justice with respect to smart urban technologies, with a particular focus on the institution and power systems-focused approach.

The paper proposes four ways to advance research on intersectional social justice in smart urbanism (SU):

• Expanding the user-focused approach by engaging with more complex subjectivities,
• Critically reflecting on social hierarchies within institutions,
• Exploring interactions between and across multiple power systems, and
• Conducting more in-depth case studies to address on-the-ground troubles with smart urban technologies and explore how intersectional social justice can be embedded in smart technology design, development and implementation.

The paper concludes by identifying key practical implications for different groups.

• Firstly, citizen-led initiatives should firmly commit to intersectionality to dismantle power structures and prevent smart urban projects from reinforcing neoliberal agendas.
• Secondly, urban planners and governments should prioritize intersectional social justice, shifting focus from technology-centered visions to comprehensive urban interventions that involve policy changes, collaborative planning, and community development.
• Lastly, designers of smart urban technologies should challenge the dominant user archetype and promote diverse user perspectives, aiming for inclusive societies and transitioning from user-centered design to design justice.

---

Acknowledgement: This research received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement number 955422. More information on the research project can be accessed on the GECKO Project website at: https://gecko-project.eu/

The paper and files containing supplemental data can be freely accessed at: https://journal-buildingscities.org/articles/10.5334/bc.290