Dissertation Defense Dec. 11, Participatory Infrastructure Monitoring


Published on

My three-essay dissertation investigates recent practices of participatory infrastructure monitoring and their implications for the governance of urban infrastructure services. By introducing the concept of infrastructure legibility, the three essays of this dissertation explore ways to make waste systems and their governance more legible: its formal structure, its informal practices, interactions between the user and the provider, the individual and the system.

Part 1: Putting matter in place – monitoring waste transportation

Part 2: Tacit arrangements – data reporting challenges for recycling cooperatives in Brazil

Part 3: Infrastructure Legibility – a comparative analysis of open311-based citizen feedback systems

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thanks for comingThanks to the committee
  • My dissertation is structured into three essaysMy dissertation is about ways to improve the bottom-up legibility of the city through location-based monitoring of infrastructure services.Waste systems perfect object to study, still archaic, lack of data is a challenge for the whole sector
  • Starting w. historical reference - probably first film about a smart city Alphaville 1965Featuring a city managed by a computer based on principles of reason and efficiencyTarzan vs. IBM
  • IBM is of course one of the main companies driving the smart cities agendaIdea is to instrument urban infrastructure with a sensor network to improve urban management
  • These sensors are usually invisible. This nostalgic streetlamp sold by a Michigan company
  • is an elaborate surveillance device – needless to say, raises questions about governance, not only city, but also data collected by these systemsIt makes the city legible from the top down, but the system itself is not necessarily legible. This is a central concern of my dissertation
  • infrastructure monitoring can also happen from the bottom upp. f. an example of what E Paulos called the expert amateur
  • Safecast happen in a context of a range of emerging practices and fields related to particip. Infrastructure monitoringWhere I situate my work in…
  • These practices again have to be seen in a wider context of changes in infrast. And role of ind.The role of the individual in the operation of urban infrastructure services is changing (as a result of political, economic, and technological developments)For better or worse, the individual is more consciously involved in infrastructure systems, infrastructure has become less “invisible” Infrastructural inversion (Geoffrey Bowker, 1994)
  • Since these interfaces mediate the interaction btw. Individual and system, design becomes an important factor that is often overlooked.
  • Step back - Theories of infrastructure can be divided into two areasDefinitions from the perspective of system builder / provider, And as a reaction user-centered conceptualizations
  • Situating my work in theuser centered perspective, HCI can bring a lot to the table - literature on socio-technical systems and their user interfacesDiagram about conceptual models by d. norman addressing a possible disconnect btw. How designers and users see the system.The best way to communicate with user is through the affordances of the system that the user interact with – design of interactionSTS science technology society studiesGraham, S. D.N. “Software-Sorted Geographies.” Progress in Human Geography 29, no. 5 (2005): 562.Winner, Langdon. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109, no. 1 (1980): 121–136.Norman, Donald A., and Stephen W. Draper. User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., 1986.
  • A Bridge between HCI and urban Planning – I develop the concept of infrastructure legibilityBuiding from two contrary conceptualizations of legibility, by james c. scott and kevin lynch.For scott, leg. Is a tool for statecraft. Only benefits the ruler of a society. (leg. From above)Lynch – legibility from the perspective of the individual - later, broader concept, beyond wayfinding – including ethical and justice issues (legibility from below)I argue that even in scotts definition of the term there are situations, where legibility from below is necessary. Local knowledge is not enough to mk. sense
  • safecast is also example of an accountability technology – tool for social acct. initiatives.I built upon this def., Technological tools for social accountability data collection, analysis or campaigning.
  • My 3 essays focus on the concept of infrastructure legibility – I.L. involves 3 aspects…My 3 essays its formal structure, its informal practices, and the interactions between the user and the provider,
  • Trash track – team project –
  • Lack of observed data about waste transportation; most data is estimated Question of transportation is crucialElectronic waste: transportation most costly aspect of recycling: 80% of total costs (Kang and Schoenung 2005)Collection is difficult, low quantities and wide distributionAmount of waste and recyclable materials exported from the US has grown Calculating the environmental impact of transportation is difficult; LCA models such as the EPA’s WARM model do not account for transportation over long distances.But this information is necessary for cities to evaluate different collection models
  • Contracts -
  • Diagram plotting the distances (log scale) by material category and type of receiving facility – we see three clusters
  • Distance – more fine grained plot on the linear scale (regression tables)
  • The Akaike information criterion (AIC) is a measure of the relative quality of a statistical model, for a given set of data. As such, AIC provides a means for model selection.AIC deals with the trade-off between the goodness of fit of the model and the complexity of the model. It is founded on information entropy: it offers a relative estimate of the information lost when a given model is used to represent the process that generates the data.
  • The results of the analysis highlight the shortcomings of existing data sources for the evaluation of waste systems, and shows that previously unavailable information about waste transports leads to a systematic underestimation of the environmental impact of waste transport. By identifying individual cases, where transportation likely neutralizes the estimated benefits of recycling, the paper also highlights a problematic aspect of mail-back and take-back systems: the outsourcing of waste transport to the postal system, an infrastructure that is not optimized for transporting waste. The decentralized nature and overheads in packaging, handling lead to a larger environmental footprint compared to centralized waste hauling systems. Based on the identified advantages and limitations of the methodology, the essay locates the largest benefit of the methodology for social accountability campaigns, where the collection of evidence for individual cases is more important than quantifying the performance of the whole system.
  • Watchdog org, law enforcement, waste haulers, industry advocatesTracking as a social accountability tool“Recycling is the password for shipping things to other countries” (Respondent from watchdog org.)Tracking in law enforcementProving violation and damage under RCRA Tracking in voluntary monitoring programsAudits of sub-contractors as a way to cope with strict liability under RCRAIncentive for recyclers to join certification / stewardship programs with mandatory trackingTracking as an evaluation and education tool for municipal servicesFor clients as well as residents
  • Team project w. david lee and others …
  • Legibility of practices and organizationFocus on informal waste management in BrazilWhile the first case study addresses a lack of available data in formal waste infrastructures, the second case study investigates the role of data in a waste system, that is largely self-organized – the recycling cooperatives of waste pickers in São Paulo and Recife. In the past twenty years, Brazil has developed a number of innovative policies for integrating the informal sector into the formal economy on the national and regional level. Most recently, the national government promulgated a comprehensive National Policy for Solid Waste (PolíticaNacional de ResíduosSólidos – PNRS), recognizing the work of waste pickers and granting them a central role in the country’s recycling system. The policy requires national institutions to work with recycling cooperatives and incentivizes companies and business associations to create partnerships with them. Furthermore, the law introduces Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy, which requires the comprehensive monitoring and tracking of material streams in the system. While the national policy creates new opportunities for recycling cooperatives, it forces the originally informal organizations to professionalize, plan, and document their operations. Despite a successful history of formalization, most cooperatives still operate at the boundary between the formal and informal economy, from which they emerged.
  • Literature on informality diverging – four schools diverge quite substantially.Also on practical – different formalization models evaluatedgap in informality literature: spatial dimension is neglected. Theory of informality: four schools – dualist school (two distinct sectors), structuralist school (Castells and Portes, deeply interwoven, formal drives informal), legalist school (DeSoto, bad laws and policies are a driver of informality), and voluntarist school (Maloney, voluntary decisions of informal workforce). Formalization, four models (Anne Scheinberg)
  • Acknowledgements & interview partners
  • Wide variation within the investigated cooperatives and association with regards to size (4-80 members), collection models, revenue models and external partnerships.Every group reported data the local government on a regular basis.Yet, formalization often stopped half-way, grey area in both law and practice, accepted by both cooperatives and the city.Tension with regard to role of cooperatives – material as donation vs. collection as a service.A number of cooperatives stated that they would get better contracts with the recycling industry if they were able to provide digital data about their material.EPR regulations
  • workshops
  • Mapped collection routes
  • The third essay focuses on legibility of governance. investigates how digital feedback systems re-shape the interaction between citizens and the city, using data from open311-based citizen feedback systems as a case study.
  • Most US cities have implementedincident reporting systems using smartphones (trial and error) – serve same purpose, but important differences in design, based on different assumptions on who the users are and what are their motivations. Now, since we have data from these systems, it is time to examine these assumptions, and how they work out.
  • Complaints, tensions – Dilemma for the city.City has no resources to moderate comments – regulate through the design. hypothesis
  • The findings show that that different interfaces are associated with different styles of user interactions. The design factors and mechanisms used to shape the interaction include the level of public visibility of the submitted reports, the degree to which users can customize their requests, the incident categories used to format the user’s response, and finally the degree to which otherparticipants are represented in the interaction between user and the city. Based on these differences, the essay distinguishes systems that are designed for service delivery (such as Citizens Connect) from systems that have a social accountability focus (such as SeeClickFix).
  • Ccn – small annoyances (graffiti or the neighbor’s parking) – scf bigger topics Tone – scf more critical, but civilized (visibility)Arguments invoking safety, suggestions, civic issues
  • No capacity to moderate
  • Dissertation Defense Dec. 11, Participatory Infrastructure Monitoring

    1. 1. Participatory Infrastructure Monitoring: Design Factors and Limitations of Accountability Technologies Dietmar Offenhuber Dissertation Defense MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning Dec. 11, 2013 Dissertation Committee: Professor Carlo Ratti (chair) Professor Eran Ben-Joseph Professor Brent D. Ryan Professor Lawrence Vale
    2. 2. Overview  Introduction  Theories & previous research  Overview of the three essays Modern Material Recovery Facility (MRF)  Essay 1 – Putting matter in place  Essay 2 – Tacit arrangements  Essay 3 – Infrastructure legibility  Conclusion Hand-sorting the refuse of New York City, 1903. From: Melosi, Martin V. 2004. Garbage In The Cities: Refuse Reform and the Environment. University of Pittsburgh Press
    3. 3. Tarzan vs. IBM Alternative title of Alphaville (1965) Jean-Luc Godard
    4. 4. Introduction Infrastructure monitoring from the top-down IBM Smarter Planet Initiative www.ibm.com/smarterplanet 4
    5. 5. Introduction http://intellistreets.com
    6. 6. Introduction Intellistreet fixture http://intellistreets.com
    7. 7. Introduction Infrastructure monitoring from the bottom-up Pieter Franken, Safecast - radiation monitoring, Japan 2011 www.safecast.org The Rise of the „Expert Amateur‟ (Kuznetsov and Paulos, 2010) 7
    8. 8. Related work Citizen participation in infrastructure operation Citizen Co-Management of Infrastructure Schubeler 1996; Ibem 2009 Participatory Monitoring Estrella and Gaventa 1998 Self-organized infrastructure Egyedi and Mehos 2012 Volunteer-driven data collection Introduction Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) Goodchild 2007; Coleman, Sabone, and Nkhwanana 2010 Participatory Sensing Estrin 2006 Crisis Mapping Social Accountability Initiatives Okolloh 2009; Starbird and Palen 2011; Meier and Leaning 2009 Joshi 2010; Verplanke 2010 8
    9. 9. Participatory Infrastructure Monitoring Historical changes l in the operation of urban infrastructure services – – loss of “integrated ideal” of public provision (Graham & Marvin 2001) blurring the line between provider and user Introduction For better or worse, the individual is more consciously involved in infrastructure systems, infrastructure has become less “invisible” Infrastructural inversion (Bowker 1994)
    10. 10. Motivation & overarching questions Digital augmentation of urban infrastructures and services opens new interaction channels, facilitates self-organization and new forms of participation Introduction What are the implications for the future of urban services and their governance? How do technological interfaces and their design shape these interactions?
    11. 11. Conceptualizations of infrastructure System perspective • Large Technological System (LTS), (Hughes 1987) • Infrastructure as a financial asset (Torrance 2009; Prud‟homme 2005) Theory User Perspective • Anthropology of infrastructure (Star & Ruhleder 1996) • Inverse infrastructures (Egyedi & Mehos 2012)
    12. 12. HCI design theory & STS Theory • Conceptual models & affordances (Norman 1986) • Seamless vs. seamful design (Chalmers & Galani 2004) • Social presence (Short, Williams, & Christie 1976; Erickson & Kellogg 2000) Artifacts and governance (STS) • Software-sorted geographies (Graham 2005) • Politics of Artifacts (Winner 1980) Conceptual Models: Design Model, User‟s Model and System Image (Norman 1986)
    13. 13. Infrastructure legibility and governance Legibility from below “I began to see legibility as a central problem in statecraft [...] the legibility of a society provides the capacity for large-scale social engineering” ---- James C. Scott, 1999 Theory Legibility from above “the degree to which the inhabitants of a settlement are able to communicate accurately to each other via its symbolic physical features” ---- Kevin Lynch 1984
    14. 14. Accountability technologies Social Accountability: community-driven approaches for keeping power-holders accountable (Joshi and Houtzager 2012; Malena, Forster, and Singh 2004). Accountability Technologies: the use of social media tools to monitor governance (L. Diamond 2012) Theory – Coordinating data collection – Collaborative analysis – Activation, insertion into political process
    15. 15. Overview of the three essays 1. Legibility of structure and activity 2. Legibility of practices and organization 3. Legibility of governance and social presence
    16. 16. Essay 1 – Putting matter in Place Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility Legibility of system structure and activity of practices and organization of governance and social presence Locus of the observer outside the system inside the system at the system boundary Geography Seattle / US São Paulo, Recife / Brazil Boston / US Unit of analysis Waste Item Worker Reported Issue Investigated nexus user – provider provider – provider provider – city provider – provider user – city Focus of participation monitoring management governance Research Questions 1. To what extent can waste 1. how do waste picker 1. Which assumptions about the transportation diminish the cooperatives and associations users are embedded the benefits of recycling? respond to data reporting design of online 311 platforms, 2. To what extent is the final fate requirements from local and how are these of a discarded item predictable governments and companies? assumptions translated into through its material and the 2. How can available locationdesign features? location where it was based technologies improve 2. Why do users submit reports, discarded? the data management and and how do the system’s 3. What are the implications and coordination of these recycling design features correspond limits of active location cooperatives and associations? with these motivations? sensing for the governance of 3. By what mechanisms and waste infrastructure? design principles do existing systems facilitate and constrain the interaction between citizen and city? Methods Participatory sensing / quant. Analysis / semi-structured interviews matrix Participatory Design / semistructured interviews Content analysis w. open coding / spatial analysis 16
    17. 17. Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place Essay 1: Putting matter in place – monitoring waste transportation
    18. 18. Research Problem Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place Formal Waste Systems in the US • • • • Lack of data about waste transportation Question of transportation is crucial Calculating the environmental impact of transportation is difficult Need for evaluating different collection models 18
    19. 19. Research questions Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place 1. Environmental performance: to what extent can waste transportation diminish the benefits of recycling? 2. Predictability: to what extent is the final fate of a discarded item predictable through its material and the location where it was discarded? 3. Policy implications: what are the implications and limits of active location sensing for the governance of waste systems? 19
    20. 20. Methods Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place • Participatory Sensing (Burke et al., 2006), self-reporting location sensors; 96 Households in Seattle Metro 1. OLS Regression with categorical predictors 2. Multinomial Logistic Regression with categorical predictors 3. Semi-structured interviews with waste professionals • Seattle was chosen because of its aggressive recycling policy and its geographic location (variety of different possible pathways) 20
    21. 21. Used Public and Private Data Sources Collected Traces of household waste & recyclable items + metadata Federal EPA Facility Registry System data State Disposal data and tipping fees Facility I/O tonnages Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place Municipal Solid Waste Collection Contracts Processing Contracts Long Haul Disposal Contracts Solid Waste & Recycling Reports Private RecycleNet Spotmarket Scrap prices 2010. Source: http://recycle.net/spotmarket Trash | Track volunteer with donated objects and sensors (Photo: C. Chung 2009)
    22. 22. 10000 endfactype 1000 Distance (km) recycling landfill special 100 transfer Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place transit unknown 10 1 plastic_bottle metalsplastic_coated_paper glass paper plastic_other Trash Category textiles mixed e_waste hhw cell_phone
    23. 23. Findings RQ1 & RQ2 Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place Significantly longer transportation distances for e-waste and HHW compared to curbside collected recyclables (Plastic). In some cases, transportation neutralized energy savings of recycling (WARM model) As expected, recyclable materials are less likely to end up in a landfill Significantly higher likelihood for a landfill outcome in suburban / rural municipalities Problematic aspects of mail-back / take-back programs: longest transportation distances, involving air-freight. Outsourcing of waste transportation to courier services, which are not optimized for the purpose. 26
    24. 24. Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place Google maps Screenshot with location reports from waste items at a gravel facility, which is not permitted to accept any kind of waste except construction waste (p.75)
    25. 25. Implications for planning (R3) Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place “Recycling is the password for shipping things to other countries” Obstacle for law enforcement is proving violation and damage under RCRA Tracking in voluntary certification programs • Audits of sub-contractors – strict liability under RCRA • Incentive for recyclers to join stewardship programs with mandatory tracking
    26. 26. Acknowledgements Essay 1– Putting Matter in Place Conducting the Trash Track experiment involved a large team, whose contributions were essential for the project: David Lee, Malima Wolf, Jen Dunnam, Angela Wang, Rex Britter, Assaf Biderman, Carlo Ratti and others. The essay is based on my my first year paper, my own analysis and research design, revised and extended for the dissertation. My first year paper was also the basis for a co-authored paper published in JAPA 2012 Offenhuber, Dietmar, David Lee, Malima I. Wolf, Santi Phithakkitnukoon, Assaf Biderman, and Carlo Ratti. “Putting Matter in Place.” Journal of the American Planning Association 78, no. 2 (2012): 173–196.
    27. 27. Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements Essay 2: tacit arrangements – data reporting practices of recycling cooperatives in Brazil COOPAMARE Recycling Cooperative, São Paulo 31
    28. 28. Context and research problem • August 2010 comprehensive National Policy for Solid Waste (Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos – PNRS) Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements 1. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) 2. Inclusion of recycling cooperatives in the valorization • Tension for cooperatives between new data collection requirements and new opportunities 32
    29. 29. Research questions Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements 1. How do waste picker cooperatives and associations respond to data reporting requirements from local governments and companies? 2. How can available location-based technologies improve the data management and coordination of these recycling cooperatives and associations? 33
    30. 30. Methods Comparative analysis of cooperatives involving site visits and semi-structured interviews 2. Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements 1. Participatory Design (Kensing and Blomberg 1998) – Mapping workshops with functional prototypes • São Paulo (Nov. 2011) • Recife (Jun. 2013) – Semi-structured Interviews 34
    31. 31. Theory & prior research Theories of informality Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements – – – – Dualist (ILO 1972) Structuralist (Portes and Castells 1989) Legalist (De Soto 1989) Voluntarist (Maloney 2004) Formalization Models (Scheinberg 2012) – – – – Service model Commodity model Hybrid model Community-based enterprise (CBE) Most studies on informality investigates the micro- (individual) or macro-(economic) scale. The meso-scale (i.e. spatial organization) is under-researched.
    32. 32. Interview Partners Cooperatives Local Experts Rede CataSampa São Paulo, SP CRUMA Poa, SP Coop-Reciclavel Guarulhos, SP COOPAMARE São Paulo, SP cia Helena Xavier (FASPE, Recife) Prof. Dr. Maria Cecilia Loschiavo dos Santos (USP) Prof. Dr. Flavia Scabin (FGV) Prof. Dr. Tereza Cristina Carvalho (CEMPRE) Mateus Mendoza (Giral) Diogo Vallim (Giral) João Ruschel (CataSampa) Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements COOCARES Abreu e Lima, PE COOREPLAST Abreu e Lima, PE Pro-Recife Recife, PE Nossa Vida Recife, PE City of Olinda Olinda, PE Environmental Ministry of the State of Pernambuco Recife, PE João Ruschel Roberto Golfhino Cristiano Maria Dulcinea Laerte Paz Manuel Soares Walison da Silva Francisco da Silva Elisonete Ferreira Da Conçeicão Lindaci Gonçalves Roberto Antonio Gonçalves Vânia Maria da Silva Roberta da Santana Pessoa Maria dos Prazeres Santana José Cardoso Pedro Lima Alcantara Adeilda de Lima André Carlos da Silva Cardoso José de Iterlao Nefo Tereza Cristina Angelo da Silva Ana Gama Laura Fostinone Ana Bonomi Rafael Galvão Team MIT Dietmar Offenhuber David Lee Libby McDonald
    33. 33. Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements Comparison of cooperatives
    34. 34. Results RQ1 Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements • Wide variation with regards to size (4-80 members), collection models, revenue models and external partnerships. • Every group reported data the local government on a regular basis. Yet, formalization often stopped half-way, grey area in both law and practice, accepted by both cooperatives and the city. • Quantifying value of the service – material as donation vs. collection as a service – Understanding true cost of collection – Data considered more valuable for business partnerships than for the city 38
    35. 35. Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements Recife – Verde é Nossa Vida, Jun 2013 Android application, Jun 2013 São Paulo- Coopamare, Nov 2011 Recife – Pro-recife, Jun 2013
    36. 36. Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements Recorded collection routes, Coopamare / SP , Nov. 2011
    37. 37. Results RQ2 Demonstrated value for (1) coordinating truck collection (Coopamare & Pro-Recife); (2) sourcing e-waste (Pro-Recife) Essay 2 – Tacit Arrangements Issues discovered: – Raising unrealistic expectations from clients (COOPAMARE) – Diminishing face-to-face contact with residents, therefore opportunities for building trust (COOPAMARE) – Security (Verde é Nossa Vida) – Operation of the device in the work environment (COOREPLAST) – Illiteracy less hurdle than expected
    38. 38. Essay 3: Infrastructure legibility – a comparative analysis of open311-based citizen feedback systems Map of two years of „311 calls‟ in New York City – relative comparison of noise, litter and graffiti complaints aggregated by block 42
    39. 39. Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility Context 43
    40. 40. Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility Submitted text: Second time opening this issue. On utility box. Was closed last week without being fixed. Category: Graffiti Submitted: 11/1/10 8:05 Status: Closed Updated: 11/4/10 11:17 Location: 42.32189175 -71.10108364 Service Reply: CAN'T REMOVE THIS IS A PRIVATE ELECTRICAL GENERATOR TRANSFER BOX...I BELIEVE I ALSO PUT THIS IN BEFORE. tone: critical, motivation: aesthetic concern, incident type: graffiti, properties: follow-up, accountability, custom reply
    41. 41. Research questions Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility 1. 2. 3. Which assumptions about the users are embedded in the design of open311 platforms, and how do these assumptions translate into the design? Why do users submit reports, and how do the system‟s design features correspond with these motivations? By what mechanisms and design principles do existing systems facilitate and constrain the interaction between citizen and city? 45
    42. 42. Methods Location 1. Comparative analysis of design factors of 8 different system designs Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility Methods Boston officially supports two very different systems – CitizensConnect and SeeClickFix, allowing for a comparison of design factors. Both systems have +3 years of data 2. Content analysis with open coding of 2200 submitted reports from a total of 26k submitted reports via smartphone 3. Spatial Analysis of 240k submitted reports via various reporting mechanisms 46
    43. 43. System # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Open311 SeeClickFix FixMyStreet Cambridge iReport Spot Reporters NYC 311 online City Sourced Ushahidi Main platform NA Web / mobile Web Mobile Mobile Web Web Web Paradigm NA Social Social minimalist minimalist minimalist Social Social Via API Dedicated site Dedicated site No Dedicated site Yes Yes Dedicated site Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Open311 Free API / Open311 Commerci al API No Open311 Open311 (v1.0) Free API / Open311 Free API / Open311 No No No No Via data portal Via data portal No Yes Anonymous use possible? NA Yes (guest) Yes (guest) Yes Yes Yes No Yes Other users visible? No Yes (optin) Yes (optin) No No No Yes (optin) No Can users respond to other reports? No Yes - vote, comment Yes comment No No No Yes - vote, comment Yes verify, vote Reward system No Top users, points No No No No Yes / voting No System legibility Reports publicly visible? Public response from provider? Seamful vs. seamless Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility Raw Data Access Tools for data analytics Social presence
    44. 44. Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility
    45. 45. Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility Findings 1. Two distinct design paradigms - minimal (one-to-one) and social (many-to-many). 2. City initiated systems – emphasis on actionability and service delivery, independent systems – emphasis on discourse and accountability. 3. Reflected in the design features (categories, visibility) 4. This has an effect on the discourse: on the tone, on the kind of arguments reporters make 5. Regulatory effect of design decisions - opacity through transparency
    46. 46. CitizensConnect vs. SeeClickFix CCN Incident type SCF N % N Animals 16 1% Graffiti 210 18% 37 3% Ice Infrastructure improvement 493 difference Motivations expressed % N % difference Aesthetic concerns 174 15% 33 5% 16 2% Bad personal experience 15 1% 32 5% 3 0% Concerns with disrepair 305 26% 249 36% 13% Dissatisfied with the city service 38 3% 12 2% 67% Ideas / discussion civic issues 39 3% 76 11% 9% 47 7% 29% 118 17% 40 Plants 42 7 4% 2% Other people's behavior 108 11 2% None specified 345 7 1% 10 1% Public health / sanitation Test / unknown 13 1% 8 1% Safety concerns Traffic 64 5% 39 6% Trash / litter Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility N 1% Other violation Social issues % SCF 3% 92 42% 466 3% 13 39 Infrastructure repair CCN Total 211 18% 29 4% 1172 100% 694 100% CCN Tone of report Very critical N Critical 205 Friendly 54 Neutral No text Plea Total SCF % 38 Total N 3% % difference 3% 17% 204 29% Properties (non exclusive) 1172 100% 694 100% N SCF % N % difference 5% 30 4% Complaint in strong language 37 3% 21 3% Reporting other people 118 10% 26 4% 143 12% 140 20% 577 49% 317 46% Concern for safety 234 20% 104 15% Suggesting Improvements 20 2% 17% 60 4% 5% 11 9% 116 Demanding Accoutability 30 64 3% CCN 19 5% 37 111 53 5% 81 12% 3% 1172 100% 675 100% 50
    47. 47. Essay 3 – Infrastructure Legibility Opacity through transparency
    48. 48. Conclusion • Different places for Participatory Monitoring in governance of waste systems. – Driven by citizens (Essay 1 & 3) – Driven by service providers (Essay 1 & 2) – Driven by cities (Essay 3) • Design plays a decisive role for shaping interaction (Essay 2 & 3) • Infrastructure legibility - linking design theories to Urban Planning literature
    49. 49. Future Directions • Informal governance through mediated interfaces – formalization of informal practices – informalization of formal processes • “Pattern language” for urban interaction design